This Page Is Intentionally Left Blank 

 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs 

and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, 

political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases 

apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for 

communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should 

contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a 

complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 

(voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

ii
 

Acknowledgements 

The authors would like to thank local outreach project staff and their local evaluators for 

their superb cooperation and assistance throughout the project. Staff at the Food and 

Nutrition Service provided guidance throughout the project and insightful, careful edits to 

earlier drafts of this report. Also, other staff at the Urban Institute including Simone 

Schaner, Fiona Blackshaw, and Theresa Plummer helped with the final production of the 

report. Nonetheless, the authors take full responsibility for any errors in the report. It 

must also be noted that the findings expressed in the report do not necessarily reflect 

those of the Urban Institute, its board, or its sponsors. 

Authors (The Urban Institute): 

Urban Institute Project Director: Sheila Zedlewski 

Sheila Zedlewski, David Wittenburg, Carolyn O’Brien, 

Robin Koralek, Sandra Nelson, and Gretchen Rowe 

Urban Institute Project Number 07120-002-00

FNS Project Officer: Rosemarie Downer 

FNS Contract Number: K3-3K06-0-100 

September 2005 

iii
This Page Is Intentionally Left Blank 
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ ix

I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................1

II. Background ............................................................................................................................5

PREVIOUS FINDINGS AND OUTREACH EFFORTS .................................................................5 

POLICY AND CASELOAD TRENDS, 2001–04 .......................................................................6 

III. Overview of the National Evaluation .....................................................................................9

QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION...................................................................................9 

QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION .....................................................................................9 

SYNTHESIS OF LOCAL EVALUATIONS...............................................................................10 

IV. Details of Grantee Activities ................................................................................................11

ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ..............................11 

RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE FSP OFFICES..........................................................................16 

OUTREACH ACTIVITIES....................................................................................................18 

Information Dissemination.........................................................................................20 

Prescreening...............................................................................................................21 

Application Assistance ...............................................................................................22

V. Program Accomplishments and Lessons Learned 25

GENERAL FINDINGS .........................................................................................................25 

SUMMARY OF DATA COLLECTION ACTIVITIES.................................................................26 

Outcome Data.............................................................................................................27

Approval Rates...........................................................................................................27

DETAILED IMPLEMENTATION LESSONS............................................................................32 

Organizational Characteristics and Project Development........................................32

Partnerships with Food Stamp Offices.......................................................................37

Outreach Strategies....................................................................................................40

LESSONS LEARNED ABOUT TARGET POPULATIONS’ PARTICIPATION BARRIERS ..............44 

Non-English Speakers ................................................................................................44

Elderly ........................................................................................................................45

Low-Wage Workers....................................................................................................46

FUTURE PLANS ................................................................................................................47 

VI. Summary and Implications...................................................................................................49

MATERIALS FOR OPERATING A FSP OUTREACH PROJECT ...............................................49 

References .............................................................................................................................51

v 
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

APPENDIX A: SUMMARY LIST OF ACRONYMS ...........................................................57 

APPENDIX B: SITE PROFILES FOR ALL 18 PROJECTS ..............................................61 

The ACORN Institute (ACORN) ......................................................................................61 

City of Atlantic City, Atlantic City Senior Citizens (Atlantic City)..................................64 

Food Bank Of Central New York (Central NY)................................................................68 

Connecticut Association for Human Services (Connecticut) ............................................73 

Food Bank of Delaware (Delaware)..................................................................................76 

Greater Philadelphia Coalition Against Hunger (GPCAH)...............................................79 

Illinois Hunger Coalition (Illinois)....................................................................................84 

Community Harvest Food Bank Of Northeast Indiana (Indiana)......................................88 

Community Action Program For Madison County (Madison)..........................................92 

Maternity Care Coalition (MCC).......................................................................................97 

Human Services Coalition of Dade County (Miami-Dade).............................................101 

Muskegon Community Health Project (Muskegon)........................................................105 

North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Aging (North 

Carolina) ..........................................................................................................................108 

Project Bread....................................................................................................................112 

Salem-Keizer School District (Salem-Keizer).................................................................116 

Second Harvest Food Bank of Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties (SHFB) ................121 

Community Action Project Of Tulsa County (Tulsa)......................................................126 

Vermont Campaign to End Childhood Hunger (Vermont) .............................................132 

APPENDIX C: BACKGROUND ON PREVIOUS LITERATURE AND 

RECENT FSP POLICY CHANGES ....................................................................................139 

Previous Findings on Factors Affecting Participation.....................................................139 

Detailed Review of Policy Changes................................................................................142 

APPENDIX D: NATIONAL EVALUATOR ACTIVITIES AND METHODOLOGY ...147 

Quantitative Data Description .........................................................................................147 

Qualitative Data Collection .............................................................................................152 

Local Evaluation Synthesis..............................................................................................156

vi 
 

LIST OF EXHIBITS 

Executive Summary Exhibits 

Exhibit E.1: Organizational Characteristics of the 18 Grantee Projects ............................... xii 

Exhibit E.2: Outreach Activities of the 18 Grantee Projects ................................................ xiv 

Exhibit E.3: Quantitative Outcome Data .............................................................................. xvi

Text Exhibits 

Exhibit I.1: Description of the 18 Grantee Project Activities and Target Populations............3 

Exhibit I.2: Grantee States and National FSP Program Caseloads: Change from 2001..........8 

Exhibit IV.1: Organizational Characteristics of the 18 Grantees Projects ...............................12 

Exhibit IV.2: Venues for Outreach Activities among the 18 Grantee Projects .......................17 

Exhibit IV.3: Characteristics of the Relationship between the 18 Grantee 

Projects and the FSP Offices ..............................................................................18 

Exhibit IV.4: Outreach Activities of the 18 Grantees Projects ................................................19 

Exhibit V.1: Project Outcomes based on Administrative Data Reported 

 to National Evaluators ........................................................................................28 

Exhibit V.2: Reasons for Denial among Applications Submitted at 

Grantee Sites (minimum of 30 cases) ................................................................31 

Appendix B Exhibits 

Exhibit B.1: Summary of Data Elements from The ACORN Institute ...................................63 

Exhibit B.2: Summary of Data Elements from Atlantic City..................................................67 

Exhibit B.3: Summary of Data Elements from the Food Bank of Central New York’s 

Community Partnerships.....................................................................................71 

Exhibit B.4: Summary of Data Elements from the Connecticut Association for 

 Human Services..................................................................................................75 

Exhibit B.5: Summary of Data Elements from the Food Bank of Delaware ..........................78 

Exhibit B.6: Summary of Data Elements from the Greater Philadelphia Coalition 

 Against Hunger...................................................................................................82 

Exhibit B.7: Summary of Data Elements from the Illinois Hunger Coalition ........................87 

Exhibit B.8: Summary of Data Elements from the Community Harvest 

Food Bank of Northeast Indiana .........................................................................91 

Exhibit B.9: Summary of Data Elements from the Community Action Program 

for Madison County ............................................................................................96 

Exhibit B.10: Summary of Data Elements from the Maternity Care Coalition ......................100 

Exhibit B.11: Summary of Data Elements from the Human Services Coalition 

of Dade County.................................................................................................104 

vii 
 

LIST OF EXHIBITS (Continued) 

Exhibit B.12: Summary of Data Elements from Muskegon Community 

 Health Project....................................................................................................107 

Exhibit B.13: Summary of Data Elements from the North Carolina Department 

of Health and Human Services, Division of Aging ..........................................111 

Exhibit B.14: Summary of Data Elements from Project Bread...............................................115 

Exhibit B.15: Summary of Data Elements from the Salem-Keizer 

 School District ..................................................................................................120 

Exhibit B.16: Summary of Data Elements from the Second Harvest 

Food Bank of Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties.........................................124 

Exhibit B.17: Summary of Data Elements from the Community Action Project 

of Tulsa County.................................................................................................130 

Exhibit B.18: Summary of Data Elements from the Vermont Campaign to 

End Childhood Hunger .....................................................................................135 

Appendix C Exhibits 

Exhibit C.1: Summary of Relevant FSP Policy Changes 1999-2002 ...................................143 

Appendix D Exhibits 

Exhibit D.1: Monthly Grantee Report Data Guide................................................................149 

Exhibit D.2: Monthly/Quarterly Administrative Report Data Guide ....................................150 

Exhibit D3: Description of Data Elements from Administrative and 

 Grantee Reports ................................................................................................151 

Exhibit D.4: Summary of Research Questions for Qualitative Analysis...............................153 

Exhibit D.5: Grantee Project Characteristics of the Six Grantees 

Included in the Site Visits.................................................................................155 

Exhibit D6: Summary of Citations for Local Evaluation Reports........................................158 

viii 
 

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

In 2002, the Food and Nutrition Service of the United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) awarded grants to 19 local outreach projects to investigate how to increase 

participation in the Food Stamp Program, or FSP. The projects, which were implemented in 

different locations across 15 states, included a technological component and/or partnerships 

with other organizations to expand the scope of outreach. This report summarizes the findings 

of these projects. 

These grants represent one of several recent initiatives the Food and Nutrition Service 

(FNS) has undertaken to increase FSP participation. The Agency launched a national public 

education campaign in 1999 to increase awareness of the program. FNS also funded two 

previous sets of grants for community organizations to experiment with FSP outreach (USDA 

2004; LTG Associates 1999). In 2004, FNS completed an Internet-based prescreening tool that 

individuals or local groups can use to estimate eligibility. 

Low participation rates among people eligible for food stamp benefits have prompted 

these outreach efforts. Many low-income individuals fail to receive a monthly benefit that 

could substantially increase their total family resources. (The maximum monthly food stamp 

benefit, $393 for a family of three in 2005, increases household resources by about 30 percent 

of the poverty threshold.) Official estimates indicate that about 56 percent of eligible 

individuals participated in the program in 2003 (Cunnyngham 2005). According to recent 

research, a lack of knowledge, expectations of small benefits, stigma associated with using 

government assistance, a desire for independence, and complicated application procedures all 

reduce participation (Ponza et al. 1999; McConnell and Ponza 1999; Bartlett, Burstein, and 

Hamilton 2004). 

The 2002 outreach projects addressed factors that limit participation. All grantees 

attempted to educate their target populations about food stamp benefits through various media 

outlets, flyers, and presentations. Grantees also experimented with various mechanisms to 

induce more food stamp applications by providing 

• prescreening assistance to show clients whether they were eligible for benefits and, if 

so, how large a benefit; and 

• application assistance that ranged from giving clients the food stamp application form 

to more intensive hands-on services to helping clients complete the application process. 

This report synthesizes quantitative and qualitative data collected from the outreach 

projects. Data quantifying the grantees’ activities and client outcomes were collected through 

a web-based reporting system. Data describing the grantees’ progress and processes were 

collected through three rounds of phone interviews and six site visits to projects that 

represented a range of partnerships and strategies. A synthesis of project evaluation reports 

supplements the quantitative and qualitative findings. 

ix
 

The findings provide important lessons about outreach strategies and FSP participation. 

None of the projects used an experimental approach that can conclusively identify outreach 

activity impacts. Also, concurrent changes in some FSP policies and a softening economy

make it especially difficult to assess whether the interventions were the primary factor 

affecting food stamp participation at the project sites. But the projects offer insight into 

establishing effective partnerships with other community groups and local food offices, using 

technology to reach low-income people, and the effectiveness of different types of outreach 

strategies. 

General Findings 

In total, the USDA spent about $5.0 million on the 19 outreach projects – although one of these 

discontinued outreach services due to staffing problems. Grantees provided some form of 

application assistance—from a simple referral to actual help in filling out and filing the form at 

the local food stamp office—to at least 14,000 people. Outreach project staff estimate there 

were more than 11,500 applications filed and more than 7,000 FSP certifications. These 

estimates likely represent lower bounds of the outreach efforts because of data losses. Further, 

such results do not account for longer-term effects from the outreach projects that continued 

beyond this evaluation’s time frame. 

The grantees’ projects lead to five major findings:

1. Partnerships with community groups serving low-income families contribute to 

successful outreach. 

Partnerships with other established community groups, including service delivery 

agencies, schools, faith-based organizations, and employers, were critical to the success 

of these projects. Partners that were trusted organizations within the community 

provided access to potential clients, opened doors to other groups in the community 

serving low-income populations, and helped implement outreach strategies. 

2. Cooperation and buy-in from the local food stamp offices are critical to successful

outreach. 

Successful grantees used staff from local food stamp offices to help plan and monitor 

their projects. Food stamp office staff not only provided outcome data, but also often 

participated in training and information sessions. Some local offices designated a point 

person to work with the grantee to facilitate the outreach project. Other local offices 

sent their staff to outreach venues. In the few sites where grantees were unable to 

establish productive relationships with the local food stamp offices, the project’s ability 

to track outcomes was stymied. 

3. Technology that facilitates FSP eligibility prescreening and applications, while 

challenging, can pay off. 

New Internet tools require trained personnel to develop the software, maintain it, and 

adjust it to changing requirements. Partners and outreach project staff must be trained 

to use the software. Some clients, especially the elderly, may find the new technology 

harder to use. However, multiple projects showed that web-based systems that included 

x
 

in-person and software-driven application assistance could facilitate the process, 

especially for broader target populations. Web-based prescreening and application 

assistance can also simplify the application process for rural populations that live long 

distances from a food stamp office. Four projects eventually were able to submit webbased application forms electronically to local food stamp offices. Grantees expect 

these tools will be used to facilitate applications beyond the project time frames. 

4. Successful outreach requires more than basic education and information dissemination. 

All grantees reported that general mass marketing activities alone had little effect on 

getting a person to apply for benefits. Most potential applicants required more intensive 

activities that helped them understand their benefit eligibility and the requirements for 

benefit approval. Nine grantees suggested that effective outreach (leading to an 

application submission) often requires going beyond prescreening. Many also reported 

that requirements for more intensive assistance depended on the target population. 

While prescreening and benefits counseling were sufficient to induce some people to 

apply at the food stamp office, others found the application too difficult to complete on 

their own. Some grantees provided more intensive help by submitting clients’

application forms, accompanying them to the food stamp office, and/or making 

frequent follow-up calls to monitor and to facilitate the process.

5. The groups with the lowest food stamp participation rates—immigrants, the elderly, 

and the working poor—proved the most difficult to reach. 

Grantees found that seniors and immigrants tend to distrust the application process. 

Many value their privacy and independence more than a food stamp benefit. Good 

translators and outreach workers with backgrounds similar to the target group were 

important for reaching these groups. Grantees also found that connecting with lowincome working families was challenging because these families often did not frequent 

places where outreach was occurring (e.g., food banks, local health clinics, even local 

school events). 

Overview of Outreach Projects 

The 18 grantees represented a wide range of organizations (Exhibit E.1). Most grantees were 

nonprofit organizations, but three were governmental organizations. Eight grantees were food 

banks or established anti-hunger organizations. Some organizations had worked on FSP 

outreach previously while others had conducted outreach for other services, often Medicaid or 

the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. A few sites had no previous experience with 

outreach. Some projects focused on rural areas, while others focused on larger metropolitan 

areas or broader state populations. Target populations also varied across grantees. Half the 

projects targeted broad populations (usually including families with children, the elderly, 

immigrants, and working poor and/or disabled adults) and the other half focused more 

intensely on one or two of these subpopulations. 

xi
 

Exhibit E.1: Organizational Characteristics of the 18 Grantee Projects 

Organization: location Target populations

a Major partners 

ACORN: Jersey City, NJ Broad Grocery stores, schools 

City of Atlantic City: Atlantic City, NJ Hispanics and elderly Hispanic center, housing authority 

Food Bank of Central New York:

Cayuga, Cortland, and Oswego counties, 

NY 

Broad Department of Aging, service providers, 

food banks, university 

Connecticut Association for Human

Services: Bridgeport, CT 

Broad Child advocates, workforce training centers, 

businesses, supermarkets, day care centers, 

senior centers 

Food Bank of Delaware: DE Broad “One-stop” employment centers, food

member agencies, WIC offices 

Greater Philadelphia Coalition Against 

Hunger (GPCAH): Philadelphia, PA 

Broad Interfaith hunger groups, one-stop

employment centers, grocery stores, 

universities 

Illinois Hunger Coalition: Chicago, IL Families with children Chicago public schools and related

agencies 

Community Harvest Food Bank of 

Northeast Indiana: nine counties in

northeast IN

Broad Grocery stores, aging councils, hunger 

relief programs

Community Action Program (CAP):

Madison County, NY

Working poor and

elderly 

Office for Aging, Department of Health, 

WIC offices, libraries, food banks 

Maternity Care Coalition (MCC): 

Philadelphia, PA 

Young families Interfaith groups, hospitals, Head Start 

centers 

Human Service Coalition of Dade

County: Miami-Dade, FL 

Low-wage workers Employers, workforce development

centers 

Muskegon Community Health Project: 

Muskegon, Newaygo, and Oceana 

counties, MI

Broad WIC, workforce development centers,

Head Start agencies, service providers. 

NC Division of Aging: south central NC Elderly, minorities, 

rural residents

Council on Aging, senior centers, 

Goodwill, churches 

Project Bread: Athol, Orleans, Boston, 

and Worcester, MA 

Broad Public schools, health centers, social 

service agencies

Salem-Keizer School District: Salem,

OR 

Families with children Elementary schools, WIC centers 

Second Harvest Food Bank (SHFB): 

Santa Cruz, CA

Immigrants. Latino service agencies (food, 

employment, and health) 

Community Action Project (CAP):

Tulsa, OK 

Working poor One-stop employment centers, Head Start

centers, homeless shelters 

Vermont Campaign to End Childhood 

Hunger: VT

Broad Service providers, Head Start centers, 

employment offices, senior centers, libraries,

university

a Grantees targeting “Broad” populations generally included low-income immigrants, the elderly, low-income

families with children and the working poor. 

xii
 

Project Organization 

Grantees used different strategies for partnering with other community groups, staffing, 

training, selecting venues for outreach services, and working with their local food stamp 

offices. 

Partnerships. Some grantees partnered with several organizations, while others limited 

their partnerships to reach select populations (Exhibit E.1). Atlantic City targeted Hispanics 

and seniors and partnered with the Spanish Community Center and the Atlantic City Housing 

Authority. Two projects, Illinois and Salem-Keizer, focused on low-income parents and 

partnered with local elementary schools. Miami-Dade focused on low-wage workers and 

partnered with local businesses. In contrast, Delaware and Vermont partnered with more than 

90 organizations to reach a broad target population of potential applicants. Two grantees 

(GPCAH and North Carolina) had specific partnerships with faith-based organizations, and 

others (such as MCC) made periodic presentations to similar groups.

Staffing. On average, sites employed five to six workers, usually a combination of fulland part-time workers. Ten sites also used volunteers to help with outreach. Some grantees 

used volunteers to conduct the full range of outreach services, while others limited volunteers’ 

participation to information dissemination. 

Training. Grantees used different strategies for training outreach workers and 

volunteers. Some relied on local food stamp office personnel to provide all the training, but in 

most cases local office personnel trained the primary outreach workers, who in turn trained 

other project staff. Because of volunteer turnover, projects that used many volunteers generally 

faced a continual training process. This led one grantee (GPCAH) to focus on smaller teams of 

more dedicated volunteers (students in work-study programs) who had strong incentives to 

remain attached to the project. 

Venues. Outreach venues varied considerably across the sites. These venues often 

coincided with locations used by local partners and/or target populations. Grantees conducted 

outreach at food distribution sites, local community service offices, community events, 

schools, grocery stores, Head Start centers, WIC centers, senior centers, one-stop employment 

centers, health centers, public housing complexes, and tax preparation sites. Some grantees 

incorporated numerous venues into their projects, while others focused on one type of venue. 

Relationships with the food stamp office. The degree of interaction and partnership with 

the local food stamp offices varied across the sites. Partnerships ranged from agreements to 

track basic outcomes (e.g., applications submitted and approvals) to more in-depth activities, 

including training, establishment of key contacts or liaisons to process the project’s 

applications, and, sometimes, participation in outreach services. Half the grantees had worked 

with the food stamp office in the past and the others established new relationships. Local FSP 

office staff provided and/or participated in training project staff in 15 of the projects. 

xiii
 

Outreach Services 

Projects also differed in their emphasis on different kinds of outreach activities (Exhibit E.2). 

While all projects disseminated information, conducted some prescreenings, and assisted with 

applications, they varied in the types and intensity of services offered. 

Information dissemination. Every grantee implemented some type of FSP informationsharing strategy and publicity campaign that included distribution of printed outreach material, 

such as brochures, flyers, posters, magnets and postcards. Most grantees produced their own 

materials containing explanations of monthly income levels and maximum benefit amounts, as 

well as contact information. Others distributed the USDA flyers and posters, while adding their 

agency’s logo and contact information. Eight projects also presented basic information about 

the FSP through their websites. Six grantees advertised and maintained hotlines that provided 

information about the FSP and the application process. 

Exhibit E.2: Outreach Activities of the 18 Grantee Projects 

Information Dissemination 

Prescreening and 

Application Assistance 

Tools Application Assistance 

Targeted dissemination of information (e.g., presentations, flyers) Multimedia (e.g., television,radio, newspaper) Web site Hotlines Paper forms Computer/Software Password-protected webbased tool Public access web-based tool Information/help with verification documents In-person help completing application forms Delivering and/or sub-mitting applications to FSP office Transportation Eliminated initial food stamp office visit Follow-up 

ACORN 9 P 9 9

Atlantic City 9 A 9 9 9 9 9 9

Central NY 9 9 9 9 B P B 9 9 9 9 9

Connecticut 9 B 9 9 9 9 9

Delaware 9 9 9 P P 9 9

GPCAH 9 9 9 B B 9 9 9 9 9

Illinois 9 9 B 9 9 9 9

Indiana 9 9 9 B B 9 9 9 9 9

Madison 9 9 9 B B 9 9 9 9 9

MCC 9 B B 9 9 9 9

Miami 9 9 B B 9 9 9 9

Muskegon 9 9 9 B B 9 9 9 9 9

North Carolina 9 P 9 9 9

Project Bread 9 9 9 9 A B 9 9 9 9

Salem-Keizer 9 B 9 9 9

SHFB 9 9 9 B P 9 9 9 9

Tulsa 9 B 9 9 9

Vermont 9 9 9 B 9

P = grantee used a tool for prescreening only; A=grantee used a tool for application assistance only; 

B=grantee used a tool for both prescreening and application assistance.

xiv
 

Prescreening. All grantees offered formal or informal prescreening to determine the 

potential eligibility of their clients. The prescreening questions ranged from basic information 

about income to in-depth questions about the client’s income, assets, and household 

information. Seventeen grantees used a formal prescreening tool that included one or more 

calculators (varying from paper and pencil to Excel spreadsheets and sophisticated web-based 

software programs) to estimate clients’ eligibility for the FSP. Nine grantees offered a 

combination of screening mechanisms that adapted to the skills and expertise of service 

providers, the technology available at the service sites, and the desires of their clients. For 

example, some partner sites did not have Internet access, and some clients distrusted the 

computerized prescreenings. In these cases grantees used paper prescreening forms. 

Application assistance. All sites provided some form of application assistance that 

ranged from the minimal service of providing information about the application process to the 

maximum service of going with a client to the local food stamp office to complete the 

application process. Fourteen sites provided at least some in-person help with completing the 

food stamp application form, and all these sites delivered some applications to the local food 

stamp offices. Staff often delivered or faxed application forms for clients, and four sites 

eventually were able to send the form electronically to the food stamp office. Seven grantees 

worked with the FSP to simplify the application process by eliminating initial food stamp 

office visits. Two sites provided assistance with transportation to the food stamp office. Fifteen 

grantees reported following up with at least some clients by phone to find out whether clients 

were proceeding with the application process and how it was going. 

Findings from the Outcome Data 

Half of the grantees successfully recorded the number of applications, approvals, and denials 

for their projects (Exhibit E.3). Another six captured some, but not all of these data and three 

grantees were unable to set up a process to track either most or all of their clients’ applications 

at their local food stamp office. 

The large range of outcomes across grantees underscores the differences in project 

scope, the experience of the grantee, and the nature of the project activities and target 

populations. Grant amounts and months of outreach shown in Exhibit E.3 provide some context 

for variation in project scope. 

Applications submitted. The number of applications (forms submitted to local food 

stamp offices) ranged from 133 to 3,300 across the 15 projects reporting outcomes. No single 

characteristic distinguishes the projects with large or small numbers of applications. For 

example, three of the four grantees with over 1,000 applications (GPCAH, Indiana, and SHFB) 

conducted outreach for 21 months or longer, but Vermont was active for only 13 months. Also, 

three of these four grantees (GPCAH, SHFB, and Vermont) had prior experience with their 

local food stamp offices (in various capacities), 

xv
 

but Indiana’s partnership with the local food stamp office was new. On the other hand, these 

grantees have several common characteristics: they all worked with several partner agencies 

and/or had extensive networks of volunteers, none reported difficulty tracking outcomes for 

their clients, and all had relatively high grant amounts.

Exhibit E.3: Quantitative Outcome Data 

Location Grant 

amount

Total months 

of outreach 

Number of 

applications 

Number of 

approvals 

% 

approved

% 

denied 

% 

pending/ 

unknown 

ACORNa $262,000 22 341 230 67% 11% 22%

Atlantic City $179,911 12 174 129 74% 26% 0 

Central NYa $217,827 16 403 315 78% 22% 0

Connecticutb $195,000 17 NA NA NA NA NA

Delaware $349,592 22 935 780 83% 17% 0

GPCAH $310,822 21 3,300 2,470 75% 20% 5%

Illinoisa $300,000 17 765 504 66% 33% 1%

Indiana $285,766 23 1,307 603 46% 49% 5%

Madison $171,300 12 264 90 34% 10% 56%

MCC $325,352 20 133 70 53% 22% 25%

Miami-Dadea $350,000 13 595 116 19% 10% 71%

Muskegonb $209,934 24 NA NA NA NA NA

North Carolinaa $217,218 19 354 280 79% 21% 0

Project Bread $344,500 10 460 85 18% 29% 53% 

Salem-Keizerb $121,638 21 NA NA NA NA NA

SHFB $287,680 21 1,398 457 33% 34% 33%

Tulsa

a $336,093 12 136 108 79% 17% 4%

Vermont $294,297 13 1,008 814 81% 19% 0

NA= site had difficulty tracking outcomes. a

 An unknown number of applications and/or approvals are not included in figures for this grantee. 

b Grantee data are not shown because of significant problems tracking applications and outcomes. 

Application outcomes. The share of applications approved (certified for benefits) 

ranged from 18 to 83 percent. In nine projects, two-thirds or more of the applications submitted 

were approved within the projects’ time horizons. This group includes a diverse set of projects. 

Several (Delaware, GPCAH, Tulsa, and Vermont) trained relatively large networks of 

volunteers, but two others (Atlantic City and Illinois) did not use volunteers in their projects. 

The projects differed in their emphasis on technology. ACORN (67 percent approved), for 

example, used only paper prescreening and application forms, but Vermont (81 percent 

approved) relied on a public-access web tool for prescreening and application assistance. 

Some projects provided information about reasons for application denials. At four sites, 

the income and asset limits were the primary reasons for denial. High denial rates can reflect 

client characteristics or the prescreening activity. Two of these sites (Atlantic City and North 

Carolina) targeted the elderly, and these grantees reported that elderly clients were more likely 

to be denied food stamps because of assets. In other sites, applicants’ failure to complete the 

interview process or provide all the required verification information caused the high denial 

rates. For several sites, outcomes for over half the applications were pending or unknown at the 

end of the outreach period. 

xvi
 

Costs. A common theme across all grantees was that conducting outreach proved costly 

because it was very labor intensive. While cost information on specific activities is not 

available, the cost per benefit certification can be calculated. Based on these calculations, the 

cost per certification varied significantly, from approximately $126 in GPCAH to over $1,000 

in multiple locations. 

It is important not to draw definitive conclusions about the “success” of projects based 

on these outcomes, for three reasons. First, several sites had missing data on applications filed, 

resulting in undercounts. Second, some grantees targeted harder-to-reach populations with 

historically lower FSP participation rates, such as the elderly and immigrants. Third, many 

projects will reap rewards from their outreach activities beyond the timeline of these projects. 

Grantees and their partners will continue to use prescreening and application assistance tools 

and their greater knowledge of the FSP should help assist their clients in the future. 

Lessons about Outreach Project Implementation 

Grantees’ strategies for implementing their projects and delivering services provide further 

context for the findings and offer insights into future outreach activities. The summary below 

provides lessons related to staffing, use of volunteers, partnerships, new technology, training, 

and venues. 

Staffing. Several grantees noted that the skills, expertise, and background of key staff 

were critical to a project’s success. The project director in one site attributed much of their 

success to the lead outreach worker’s strong leadership skills and marketing abilities. Another 

site benefited from the experience of a project coordinator who had worked on a prior FSP 

outreach project and had also been employed by the local FSP office. Some grantees that 

worked with populations with limited English language skills pointed to the need for culturally 

appropriate outreach workers who understood the concerns of their community and “spoke 

their language.” 

Volunteers. Grantees found that committed volunteers could provide outreach services 

effectively when they established rapport and trust through in-person contact (particularly with 

members of similar demographic or ethnic groups). Volunteers varied in their comfort level 

with outreach assignments. Some preferred providing general information about the FSP and 

referring applicants to hotlines or outreach staff because they were reluctant to ask individuals 

for personal information or were afraid of making benefit computation errors. In one site, 

student volunteers participating through university work-study programs proved particularly 

committed and effective. While most grantees were generally positive about using volunteers, 

one grantee (Muskegon) argued that paid staff provided the most effective outreach workers 

because they were trained to fully understand FSP rules.

Partnerships. Grantees reported that partnerships with well-established, trusted 

community organizations substantially enhanced their outreach activities. These partnerships 

provided direct links to target populations and venues for presentations and/or prescreening 

and application assistance. Grantees also faced challenges with partners, such as difficulties 

keeping them trained and committed, especially when they reported to different managers. 

xvii
 

Some grantees found that their partners’ staff was overcommitted and could not devote 

sufficient time to FSP outreach activities. 

Training. Training for grantee and partner staff and volunteers required a significant 

time and labor commitment, particularly for grantees with extensive partnering or volunteer 

arrangements. Some grantees modified and adjusted training sessions based on early program

experiences. Others needed to repeat training sessions to address frequent staff turnover. Some

sites found it important to include FSP staff in the training because they could answer 

questions about program rules and regulations. FSP staff participation also validated the food 

stamp office’s commitment to the outreach efforts. 

New technology. Ten grantees implemented new technology or adapted existing 

technologies to assist with prescreening for eligibility and, in some cases, with application 

assistance. Overall, grantees found these activities proved challenging and labor intensive, in 

many cases more than anticipated. Grantees often experienced implementation delays from

technical challenges, contractor scheduling, and, in many cases, necessary modifications to 

original designs. New technology often required the availability of computers and Internet 

access not always available at partner sites. Technology also placed extra demands on partner 

and volunteer training. Factors that seemed to contribute to successful web development 

included clear up-front specifications; minimally designed sites that are easily navigated; and 

project staff who know the FSP and could communicate with the web developer. One site 

(Vermont) attributed part of its success to a minimal web site design that was easy for clients to 

use. Another site (Madison) noted the importance of having staff with knowledge of the FSP 

who could also speak the language of the web site developer.

Venues. Grantees reported two primary lessons about venues. First, clients need privacy 

when learning about the FSP. Clients did not want to learn about the FSP in locations, such as 

grocery stores in small towns, where a neighbor or friend would see them. Second, venues with 

changing audiences were more effective for reaching larger numbers of potential eligibles. One 

site that used school events to identify eligible parents found the same parents tended to go to 

all the events during the school year. In contrast, projects conducting outreach at health centers 

and career centers reported they frequently saw new faces. 

Lessons about Collaborating with the Food Stamp Office 

Grantees learned the importance of ongoing communication with the local FSP agencies and 

the value of having FSP staff participate in project training. Two grantees found having 

specific liaisons to their projects helped ensure communication. Other sites found 

communications were enhanced when food stamp office staff were integrated into outreach 

activities. FSP offices also benefited from the outreach projects because clients came to their 

eligibility interviews better prepared. 

In a few cases, grantees failed to set up a partnership or the local food stamp office staff 

faced work overloads or budget cuts that made it difficult to serve the outreach grantee’s needs. 

These problems made it difficult to assess the number of application approvals achieved by the 

xviii
 

outreach project. Failures related to difficulties establishing smooth systems to track outcomes 

for clients referred by the grantee. 

Lessons about Outreach Approaches 

According to the grantees, some outreach activities work better than others. While these results 

represent the impressions of project coordinators, local evaluators, partners, and volunteers 

rather than hard evidence that connects specific food stamp application approval rates to 

particular outreach inputs, a large number of grantees can identify strategies that seem more 

fruitful than others. 

Information dissemination. Some grantees found that information flyers were more 

effective when they included eligibility information, including potential benefit amounts and 

required verification documents. Some emphasized the importance of using local contact 

information over toll-free numbers in media campaigns because clients preferred talking with a 

person knowledgeable about their local community. Several sites traced clients’ interest to 

public service announcements on TV and radio, but did not find that billboards encouraged the 

same interest. Several grantees found that personal interactions with clients were more 

effective than impersonal information distribution. 

Prescreening. Many grantees reported that prescreening encouraged applications for 

some clients. Prescreening showed reluctant clients whether they were eligible and their 

potential benefit amount. 

Projects varied in whether they used paper, computer-assisted, or web-based 

prescreening forms. According to the grantees, some forms of prescreening worked better than 

others with particular client populations. For example, seniors in Madison and North Carolina 

preferred paper-based prescreening forms because they distrusted the new technologies. 

Grantees with technology-based prescreeners also used paper forms when PCs or the Internet 

was not accessible. 

Some projects provided valuable insights into the effectiveness of prescreening for 

increasing food stamp applications. Five projects (ACORN, Delaware, GPCAH, Indiana, and 

Vermont) stopped their initial outreach process at prescreening and left it up to eligible clients 

to apply for benefits. (Most of these projects did, however, later follow up with clients who did 

not apply.) Two of these projects reported that about half of those prescreened as eligible 

submitted applications. (The other three sites did not report the share of those prescreened as 

eligible that applied.) Three additional sites (Connecticut, MCC, and North Carolina) 

specifically tested the effectiveness of prescreening and concluded that more intensive “case 

management” services were required for achieving applications and approvals. The remaining 

10 projects moved directly from prescreening to application assistance. 

Application assistance. Nine grantees (ACORN, Connecticut, Delaware, GPCAH, 

Indiana, Madison, MCC, Project Bread, and SHFB) reported that successful completion of the 

FSP application process often required intensive assistance, including help submitting the 

applications to the food stamp office and multiple follow-up calls to encourage clients to 

complete their interviews and submit all required documents. MCC reported that 70 percent of 

xix
 

submitted applications received extensive application assistance and support. Some clients 

required as many as three or four calls. Delaware reported that an initial round of follow-up 

calls induced only 30 percent of their prescreened clients to apply for the FSP. Some clients 

(especially seniors and individuals living in rural areas) needed transportation to the food 

stamp office (although transportation was not an integral part of most projects). 

Despite the general assessment that clients often require intensive assistance to 

complete the food stamp benefit application process, some types of application assistance did 

facilitate the process. For example, four grantees (Madison, Project Bread, and the two 

Pennsylvania sites, GPCAH and MCC) successfully submitted clients’ applications to the food 

stamp office electronically. Eligibility workers visited another site’s (North Carolina) outreach 

location to complete the first application stage with clients. These forms of assistance saved 

clients one visit to the food stamp office. 

Lessons about Special Populations 

Grantees also learned more about barriers to food stamp participation among non-English 

speakers, the elderly, and the working poor. These lessons corroborate and strengthen previous 

research findings about food stamp participation. 

Non-English speakers. Like previous outreach projects, these grantees documented that 

immigrants feared risking their status in the United States if they received food stamp benefits. 

They resisted giving personal information to outreach workers and food stamp offices. Others 

believed that their sponsors would be required to repay the food stamp benefits. Also, nonEnglish speaking populations often misunderstood FSP rules and were not aware of their 

eligibility. Immigrant parents that were ineligible for benefits did not understand their children 

born in this country could receive food stamp benefits. Grantees also reported that some

immigrants were discouraged because translation services were not always available at local 

food stamp offices. Several grantees reported that their information dissemination helped 

dispel myths about the food stamp program, and prescreenings showed families whether they 

were eligible for benefits. One site (Muskegon) conducted outreach activities in families’ 

homes, thereby eliminating barriers related to a lack of child care and transportation. 

Elderly. Senior citizens, in particular, expressed concerns about the stigma of receiving

food stamp benefits. Sometimes their younger family members shared this feeling and refused 

to help their elderly parents apply for the benefits. California and New York’s applications 

required photo identification and fingerprinting, and New York noted that seniors feared the 

intrusiveness of these requirements. Grantees focusing on outreach to elderly persons fostered 

trust by partnering with community groups that routinely serve seniors and using older people 

as outreach workers. Some extended their information activities to seniors’ families by

developing specialized packets for adult children of eligible senior citizens. 

Low-wage workers. Similar to earlier outreach studies, these grantees found it difficult 

to locate low-wage workers because they often were not connected to other community service 

programs. Projects focused on schools for outreach noted that the lowest-income parents, 

especially single parents, came to school events less often than more affluent, ineligible 

xx
 

parents. One site (Miami) successfully conducted outreach at employers of low-wage workers 

(one employer helped with application assistance), but employer interest was difficult to 

sustain. Sites that packaged food stamp benefits with other public benefits, such as health 

insurance, reported some success. Several projects found that low-wage workers could also be 

identified at tax preparation sites. Also, getting working families with children to the local FSP 

office could be difficult because parents had many other obligations. One site arranged early 

morning interviews for eligible working individuals. Finally, the working poor often expressed 

feelings of stigma about getting food stamp benefits and many did not want to visit a welfare 

office. 

Conclusions and Implications for Food Stamp Participation 

These 18 food stamp outreach projects represent an important USDA initiative to improve 

participation in the Food Stamp Program. Projects occurred in local areas across the country 

and varied in their approaches and their target populations. Some projects aimed to reach broad 

low-income populations in their communities, while others targeted specific groups such as 

immigrants, seniors, and the working poor. 

Grantees’ projects demonstrate some important strategies for increasing FSP 

participation. Grass-roots efforts that educate service providers, community leaders, 

businesses, and low-income populations about the FSP help demystify what is perceived as a 

complex application process. Using outreach workers with similar cultural and demographic 

characteristics to approach potential clients increases the likelihood of engaging them in the 

process. New technologies that automate the application process also can facilitate 

participation, but they require time and technical resources. With the new technologies, clients 

can see whether they are eligible in a private, familiar setting. Eligible clients can be 

encouraged to move forward with an application. 

Clients often fail to follow through with the process at the food stamp office, suggesting 

that increasing program participation requires more than education and initial help filling out 

the application. The labor-intensive application assistance that some grantees provided is not 

feasible nationwide. Reducing the verification documents required for eligibility and waiving 

more in-person interviews would help, although the effects of such changes on payment

accuracy have not been assessed. Recent changes in food stamp regulations and legislation that 

allow states to simplify the application process should move the program toward a more userfriendly benefit system for those that need and want food assistance. States should be 

encouraged to implement simplified systems, train “pro-participation” eligibility workers, and 

provide basic follow-up services for eligible applicants who drop out of the process. 

Improving state and local food stamp office procedures likely will require additional 

staff and increase administrative costs. These investments should pay off, however, by 

enhancing the image of the program and improving food security among America’s poorest 

citizens. 

xxi
This Page Is Intentionally Left Blank 
 

I. Introduction

The Food Stamp Program (FSP) is the Nation’s largest nutrition assistance program. The 

program served about 24 million low-income people in an average month and its benefits 

totaled over $24.6 billion in fiscal year 2004. Food stamps are a significant source of food 

assistance for families with incomes below 130 percent of the poverty level. The average 

participating household received roughly $200 a month in benefits during fiscal year 2004 

(Food and Nutrition Service 2005). Despite the value of the benefit, many eligible persons do 

not enroll in the FSP. According to official estimates, only about 56 percent of eligible 

individuals participated in the program in 2003 (Cunnyngham 2005). 

The relatively low rates of participation reflect, at least partly, a lack of knowledge of 

the program (see, for example, Ponza et al. 1999). In response, the federal government made 

several attempts to improve awareness and understanding of the FSP. The Food and Nutrition 

Service of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) launched national public 

education campaigns to inform potentially eligible people about the program, developed a webbased prescreening tool to help determine potential eligibility, and funded numerous grants for 

community organizations to conduct outreach experiments . 

This report summarizes the findings from 18 local outreach projects the USDA funded 

in 2002 to test outreach strategies.1

 The projects, which were implemented at different 

locations across 15 states, included a technological component and/or partnerships with other 

organizations to expand the scope of outreach. All projects aimed to increase awareness of the 

FSP and increase the number of food stamp participants. 

Despite these common goals, the organizations involved, resources available, target 

populations, and outreach strategies varied significantly across the 18 projects (Exhibit I.1). 

The grant amounts ranged from about $122,000 to $350,000. Some projects focused on rural 

areas, while others focused on larger metropolitan areas or broader state populations. Some

sites relied primarily on web-based applications, such as prescreening tools. Some sites 

included numerous venues and target populations, while others focused on a primary set of 

venues to reach a certain population. Projects varied in duration, providing outreach from 10 to 

24 months. 

This report documents the activities implemented by all 18 grantees, including their 

objectives, target populations, methods, key partners, relationships with the local food stamp 

offices, and implementation challenges. It summarizes the general outcomes across the sites, 

and provides detailed lessons about outreach implementation and strategies that take account of 

the different organizational structures and project activities across grantees. Appendix A lists 

the acronyms used in this report. Appendix B provides detailed descriptions of the major 

activities and accomplishments on a site-by-site basis. Appendix C provides more background 

on previous literature and recent FSP policy changes relevant during the period of the outreach 

grants. Appendix D describes the national evaluator activities and methods in detail. 

 

1

 There were 19 grantees originally, but one (Kentucky) stopped providing outreach services because of 

insurmountable staffing problems. 

1
 

While none of the projects used an experimental approach to identify “true impacts” 

from the outreach activities, the summary of these outreach projects should nonetheless 

provide policymakers important information to guide future outreach activities. Some general 

themes about conducting outreach include these five points: 

1. Local partners with strong ties to low-income populations can enhance the 

effectiveness of outreach services. 

2. Partnering with the local food stamp office to obtain their support with outreach 

services is an important ingredient for success. 

3. Computer-assisted and web-based technologies require substantial lead time and 

resources. 

4. Many eligible individuals need more than information and prescreening before they 

apply for food stamps; some need help throughout the application process. 

5. Certain target populations (especially the elderly, immigrants, and the working 

poor) require specialized services and partners to establish their interest and trust. 

These broad conclusions represent a general summary of the weight of evidence from

the 18 projects. Individual project findings reflect each grantee’s specific goals and project 

activities, as well as other factors outside the grantee’s control (such as the local economy or 

changes at the local food stamp office). 

2
Exhibit I.1: Description of the 18 Grantee Project Activities and Target Populations 

Organization: location (grant

amount) Project activities Prim

ACORN: Jersey City, NJ ($262,000) Information dissemination, paper prescreening and application assistance (limited) at

supermarkets, schools, housing projects, door-to-door in high-poverty areas, and othercommunity sites. 

Low-incAmerica

Atlantic City: Atlantic City, NJ ($179,911)

Information dissemination, prescreening (limited) and computer-assisted application assistance (completes applications for food stamp office) at senior housing sites and the Spanish Community Center. 

Low-incspeaking 

Central New York Food Bank:Cayuga, Cortland, and Oswegocounties, NY ($217,827)

Information dissemination, multimedia campaigns, prescreening and application assistance using paper forms, software, and web site at community-based programs in each county. 

Low-incimmigra

Connecticut Association for HumanServices: Bridgeport, CT ($195,000)

Information dissemination, outreach presentations, paper prescreening and application assistance at community-based locations, such as hospitals, schools, workforce trainingprograms, local businesses that employ low-income workers, supermarkets, and seniorcenters. 

Low-inc

Delaware Food Bank: DE($349,592)

Information dissemination through food bank member agencies and communitypartners, multimedia campaign (buses, movie theaters), computer-assisted prescreeningand application assistance (limited). 

Low-incimmigra

Greater Philadelphia Coalitionagainst Hunger (GPCAH): Philadelphia, PA ($310,822) 

Information dissemination, mostly paper prescreening and application assistance atlibraries, schools, soup kitchens, food banks, community school centers, and supermarkets by student and faith-based/community volunteers. (Project eventuallymoved to a web-based tool for prescreening and application assistance.) 

Unemplfamilies elderly 

Illinois Hunger Coalition: Chicago, IL ($300,000)

Information dissemination, a web-based tool accessible at Chicago Public Schools and related activities (such as after-school care) that prescreens and generates completedapplications, primarily targeted to families of children who qualify for free or reducedprice lunches.

Low-inc

Indiana Community Harvest FoodBank: nine counties in northeast IN($285,766)

Information dissemination through nonprofit member organizations, multimedia campaign, computer-assisted prescreening and application assistance at direct service programs, nonprofit member agencies, food pantries, and supermarkets. 

Low-incpoor, neHispanic

Madison Community Action Program (CAP): Madison County, NY ($171,300) 

Information dissemination, multimedia campaign, prescreening and application assistance through public access web site that allows electronic submission of

applications to food stamp office. 

Working 
Exhibit I.1: Description of the 18 Grantee Project Activities and Target Populations 

Organization: location (grant

amount) Project activities Prim

Maternity Care Coalition (MCC): Philadelphia, PA, targeting sites inMontgomery and Delaware counties ($325,352)

Information dissemination and presentations at food banks, senior centers and healthclinics, mostly paper prescreening and application assistance at community sites. (Movedto a web-based tool for prescreening and application assistance late in the project.) 

Low-incfamilies low-inco

Human Service Coalition of DadeCounty: Miami-Dade County, FL ($350,000)

Information dissemination, presentations, prescreening and application assistance using web-based tool that generates completed application forms at welfare-to-work agencies, job retraining agencies, and employers of low-wage workers. 

Working 

Muskegon Community HealthProject: Muskegon, Newaygo, andOceana counties, MI ($209,934) 

Information dissemination, multimedia campaign (billboards, radio ads), web-based prescreening and application assistance. 

Low-incpoor fammigrant 

North Carolina Division of Aging:

south central NC ($217,218)

Information dissemination, presentations, paper prescreening and application assistance(limited) at churches, nutrition sites, and senior centers. 

Low-incresidents 

Project Bread: Athol, Orleans, Boston, and Worcester, MA($344,500)

Information dissemination, multimedia campaign, prescreening and application assistance using password-protected online tool that allows electronic submission of applications tolocal food stamp office. 

Unemplo

Salem-Keizer School District: Salem,OR ($121,638)

Information dissemination, presentations, paper prescreening and application assistanceprovided at targeted elementary schools and a WIC store. 

Working income f

Second Harvest Food Bank (SHFB) of Santa Cruz & San Benito counties:Santa Cruz, CA ($287,680) 

Information dissemination, multimedia campaign, presentations, computer-assistedprescreening and application assistance conducted at various agencies and fooddistribution sites. 

Working immigra

Tulsa Community Action Project: Tulsa, OK ($336,093)

Information dissemination, prescreening and application assistance using a web-based tool by a variety of partners providing Earned Income Tax Credit and tax preparation assistance; later expanded to Head Start programs. 

Working 

Vermont Campaign to End Childhood Hunger: VT ($294,297)

Information dissemination, multimedia campaign, prescreening and application assistance through new informational web site with downloadable applications. 

Low-incunemplo
 

II. Background 

This section provides background information to contextualize the findings from the national 

evaluation. It first reviews lessons learned from previous FSP outreach projects. It then outlines 

how the Food Stamp Program changed over the four years of the evaluation period, noting 

factors that might have influenced grantee outreach efforts. Appendix C provides additional 

information by summarizing findings from the recent literature on factors that influence FSP 

participation decisions, as well as recent FSP changes. 

Previous Findings and Outreach Efforts 

Literature review. A review of relevant literature identified several factors that might 

affect FSP participation across the general population of eligibles, as well as certain 

subpopulations, including the elderly, Hispanics, and welfare recipients (McConnell and Ponza 

1999; Wilde and Dagata 2002; Cunnyngham 2005; Gabor et al. 2001; Government 

Accountability Office [GAO] 2004; Zedlewski and Nelson 2003; Zedlewski and Rader 2005). 

The precise effects of specific factors are unknown, though several studies have suggested that 

individual characteristics, lack of knowledge about the program, negative attitudes about the 

program, and the complexity of the application process likely influence participation decisions. 

(See appendix C for more details.) 

Outreach grants, 1993–96. An evaluation of 23 local outreach projects conducted 

between 1993 and 1996 offered early lessons on outreach (LTG Associates 1999). The 23 

projects tested outreach ranging from basic information dissemination to intensive client 

assistance. The evaluation found that grantees who worked closely with food stamp office staff 

served the clients’ needs most successfully. Also, interventions that contacted potentially 

eligible clients where they were already seeking food or other aid (i.e., supermarkets or food 

banks) were more successful than other interventions. The evaluation also reported that the 

most effective media campaigns delivered messages in local, community-focused electronic or 

print media. 

LTG’s evaluation also found that the interventions were not uniformly successful. 

Providing assistance to the most vulnerable or the more difficult-to-reach members of the 

grantees’ targeted populations (the elderly, immigrants) was challenging, even with the 

combined efforts of public/private partnerships. Interventions were most successful with 

individuals who needed minimal assistance and those who needed significant, ongoing 

assistance but did not have complex needs (i.e., severe problems in negotiating daily life) or 

strong beliefs that were inconsistent with food stamp participation (i.e., beliefs about social 

stigma or need to retain sense of self-sufficiency). 

Outreach grants, 2001. In 2001, the FNS awarded 14 two-year research grants in 11 

states to improve food stamp access (USDA 2004). The grants included traditional outreach 

projects (public education about rules and direct application assistance) and new technologies 

(targeted advertising, Internet web sites, and computer-based eligibility prescreening programs) 

to make the application process faster and more efficient. They also included diverse target 

locations (urban and rural) and different hard-to-reach groups (e.g., the elderly, immigrants, 

5
 

and the working poor). Grants were awarded to an array of organizations, similar to the 18 

grantees in this project. 

According to the USDA, the success of the projects awarded in 2001 was mixed. While 

all projects generated new applications, the number of approvals that could be attributed to the 

interventions was relatively small. Nonetheless, the projects provided some lessons for 

successful outreach. They demonstrated that strong collaborative partnerships with state and 

local food stamp offices were critical to success because they provide training and links to 

outcome data. The projects also showed that lack of knowledge about the FSP remains a major 

reason for nonparticipation. Some subgroups, especially the elderly, immigrants, and the 

working poor, either resisted offers of assistance or were difficult to reach. The elderly 

generally were reluctant to pursue what they viewed as a small benefit; noncitizens were 

concerned about the implications of participation for their immigration status; and the working 

poor were hard to identify and locate. Customer service problems in local offices, such as 

delays in application processing and overly intrusive paperwork requirements, also contributed 

to participation resistance. 

National public education campaign. In response to low participation rates, the USDA 

also has implemented several national initiatives to improve awareness and knowledge about 

the FSP. In 1999, the USDA launched a public education campaign to inform low-income

people about the availability of food stamp benefits. The campaign included a toll-free 

telephone hotline that now provides information in English and Spanish (USDA 2004). The 

Department subsequently launched a national public education campaign with the theme “Food 

Stamps Make America Stronger,” reinforcing the message that food stamp benefits provide 

important nutrition assistance and work support. The USDA also electronically posted 

documents about food stamp benefits in 35 languages that individuals and organizations can 

downloaded. In 2003, the USDA launched a web-based prescreening tool for partner 

organizations to help their clients determine potential eligibility and estimate monthly benefits. 

USDA matching grants. These national activities have been supplemented by 

numerous state and local activities. Many states now use the federal match for administrative 

costs to support outreach, and some local projects have received FNS grants to test new 

outreach approaches. Twenty-one states were using the federal match for outreach in 2002 

(USDA 2002b). Bartlett, Burstein, andHamilton (2004) reported that three-quarters of the local 

food stamp offices surveyed in 2000 were engaged in some type of outreach. 

Policy and Caseload Trends, 2001–04 

Rule changes. Food stamp legislation, regulations, and practices have changed 

significantly in recent years, facilitating participation in different ways. Changes to 

participation requirements have made more people in certain groups, like immigrants, eligible 

for benefits. Changes have also simplified paperwork requirements for applications and made 

reporting requirements less burdensome (see appendix C for more details). 

Caseload trends. While grantees were conducting their outreach activities in 2002–04, 

the food stamp caseload increased by 38 percent, from 17.3 million people in an average month 

6
 

in 2001 to 23.9 million people in 2004 (Exhibit I.2). This increase represents a major reversal 

of previous participation trends. Between 1994 and 2000 the number of people receiving food 

stamp benefits declined 37 percent, from about 27.5 million in an average month in 1994 to 

about 17.2 million in 2000. General caseload growth was especially large in 2003 and 2004 

when most outreach projects were in full swing. While the recession, which started in March 

2001, was shallow and only lasted eight months, job growth was minimal at best through 2003 

(Council of Economic Advisers 2004). Additionally, as noted above, FSP policy and regulation 

changes encouraged participation. 

Participation rates. Research suggests that the policy changes affected the caseload 

growth and participation rates. For example, Cunnyngham (2005) estimated that the 

participation rate increased by about 2 percentage points between 2002 and 2003. She also 

estimated that the number of eligible noncitizens increased by 0.7 million in 2003 as a result of 

the restoration of eligibility to legal noncitizens in the United States for five years or more, and 

participation among noncitizens increased by around 170,000. Cunnyngham also describes 

increased eligibility as a result of states’ increases in vehicle limits over the 2001 to 2003 

period and generally indicates some associated increase in program participation. Recent 

changes in policy may continue to affect future participation when more families fully

understand the new program rules (and, caseloads in fact grew substantially through 2004, as 

noted in Exhibit I.2). 

Caseload growth. The rate of growth in state FSP caseloads from 2001 to 2004 varied 

considerably, including among the states with outreach projects. Some outreach states 

(California, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont) had lower-than-average caseload growth, 

and several (Delaware, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, and Oklahoma) had 

higher-than-average growth. While these caseload changes are an imperfect measure of 

conditions at each site (many grantees operated within very specific communities that might 

have differed from the state caseload), the caseload growth does suggest that the climate for 

conducting outreach varied significantly across many areas of the country. States with rapid 

caseload growth could experience serious competing demands on caseworkers’ time, for 

example, that could interfere with their ability to facilitate local outreach project activities. 

Also, areas with rapidly growing caseloads due to expanding eligibility may appear to have 

greater effects from their outreach strategies than areas not experiencing the same level of 

caseload growth. It is also possible that participation rates increased during the period because 

of new FSP program rules and changes in states’ procedures. State-specific participation rates, 

however, are not available for the relevant period. 

7
 

Exhibit I.2: Grantee States and National FSP Program Caseloads: Change from 2001 

-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

US

VT

PA

OR

OK

NY

NJ

NC

MI

MA

IN

IL

FL

DE

CT

CA

Percent Change Since 2001

2001-2004

2001-2003

2001-2002

Source: Authors’ calculations based on data from FNS (2005). 

8
 

III. Overview of the National Evaluation 

The national evaluation incorporates quantitative and qualitative data collected during the 

course of the outreach projects from the 18 grantee projects. The quantitative analysis 

summarizes project processes and outcomes to highlight promising outreach strategies and 

innovative practices. The qualitative analysis looks in-depth at implementation experiences and 

lessons. It also offers context to help explain the project outcomes. In addition, each project 

was evaluated locally. The local evaluation reports are synthesized to provide further insight on 

outreach implementation and outcomes. Appendix D provides a detailed description of the 

methodological approach for the evaluation.

Quantitative Data Collection 

The national evaluator collected quantitative data on grantee processes and outcomes 

throughout the project using a web-based data collection system. The web-based system

tracked outreach activities reported by the grantee and outreach client outcomes from FSP 

administrative data. The grantee data summarized the general scope and characteristics of the 

outreach activities at each site, including information on the number of total contacts and 

follow-up contacts, the frequency of application prescreening, and the number of persons 

assisted with the application process (including counts of specific application assistance 

activities). The administrative data report the number of food stamp applications filed, 

approved, and denied, along with the reasons for denials.2

 

The national evaluator provided technical assistance to improve the web-based data 

collection. Phone calls with all grantees at the start of the project identified technical 

difficulties and addressed questions relating to specific data elements. Throughout the project, 

experts provided assistance, monitored the data entries, and verified all entries against the local 

evaluation reports. 

Qualitative Data Collection 

The national evaluator also conducted three rounds of phone discussions to assess the status of 

each grantee’s progress at the start, midpoint, and end of their project. During the first round, 

the evaluator verified basic project activities, procedures for tracking outreach activities, and 

the grantees’ systems for tracking applications submitted to the food stamp office. The second 

round of phone calls reviewed the implementation activities with project coordinators, 

augmenting the description from the grantees’ proposals and progress reports. Discussions 

focused on grantees’ operations, any start-up problems and early challenges, and efforts to 

resolve these early issues. Separate calls to each of the local evaluators reviewed their plans for 

submitting a final evaluation report and provided technical feedback on proposed evaluation 

approaches. The final round of phone calls obtained general impressions of the project 

 

2

 Demographic information was also collected to describe the characteristics of persons receiving and affected by 

outreach. 

9
 

implementation experiences and outcomes. Discussions focused on the perceived successes 

and challenges of the project, important outcomes, and lessons for future outreach activities. 

The findings from the telephone discussions were augmented with six site visits (to 

GPCAH, Illinois, Madison, Miami, SHFB, and Tulsa) that provided further detail on the 

implementation activities and outcomes. The national evaluator consulted with FNS to select 

six sites with approaches that promised wide applicability, as well as likely experience with 

specific outreach methods or target populations.3

 The site visits provided a more complete 

picture of the processes required for implementing various types of outreach initiatives and the 

factors that influence their effectiveness. These visits also offered insight into the complexities 

of coordinating with different organizations or partners and reaching out to various 

populations. 

Synthesis of Local Evaluations 

A synthesis of local evaluations submitted by each grantee also provided data central to the 

national evaluation. The scope and focus of the evaluation reports varied, though all included a 

general description of the major processes and a summary of key outcomes related to 

applications submitted, awarded, and denied. Several evaluators supplemented this information 

with a review of implementation lessons during the project (e.g., experiences in creating 

partnerships, hiring volunteers), suggestions for future outreach projects, and formal surveys 

and/or small group interviews of clients to assess participation barriers. Central NY even 

provided a manual for setting up an outreach activity. 

The local evaluation reports were used to verify the national summary of the projects’ 

quantitative and qualitative findings and to identify information not obtained during the data 

collection efforts. If verification led to questions, the national evaluator followed up with the 

local evaluator or project director. This report incorporates all the local evaluators’ summaries 

of the major outcomes, challenges, and lessons learned. 

 

3

 See appendix D for a more complete descriptions of specific characteristics of the six selected sites. 

10
 

IV. Details of Grantee Activities 

The grantees were a mix of organizations that provided assorted services to different target 

populations and that relied on partner organizations and volunteer networks to varying extents. 

Some grantees centered their efforts on the general population of people eligible for food 

stamp benefits, while others focused on specific subpopulations, such as the elderly, Hispanics, 

or low-income parents. Some grantees spent more time investing in an infrastructure to 

develop new technology for conducting long-term FSP outreach, whereas others focused more 

on training a large network of partners and volunteers for more intensive “one-on-one” 

outreach. 

The organizational characteristics and outreach activities are expected to have 

important implications for outcomes across sites. For example, grantees that invested more in 

developing large partner and volunteer networks could obtain FSP applications more quickly 

than grantees that invested more up-front time in developing a specific technological 

innovation. Or, grantees that target broader populations of food stamp eligibles would likely 

have more applications submitted in their locality than grantees that focused on smaller or 

harder-to-reach populations. 

The remainder of this section describes the grantees’ organizational characteristics, 

their relationships with local food stamp offices, and their outreach activities to frame the 

discussion of project accomplishments and lessons learned. 

Organizational Characteristics and Project Development 

The organizational characteristics of the 18 projects (Exhibit IV.1) describe the delivery 

structures used to provide outreach services. The discussion below examines the initial project 

start-up activities, key partners, staffing plans, training, planned use of technology, and venues 

for delivering services. 

Outreach experience. The majority (15) of grantees had some experience conducting 

outreach activities before receiving this grant, often focused on other services for low-income

populations. They used this experience to establish partnerships with other organizations and 

the local food stamp offices, recruit volunteers, and disseminate information. Nine of these 

grantees indicated that their organizations had conducted FSP outreach activities before this 

grant, including three that received previous food stamp outreach grants from FNS (Illinois, 

Miami, and Project Bread). 

Type of agency. Most (15) grantees were nonprofit organizations that offered various 

community-focused services, generally targeted to low-income families and individuals, 

including direct service provision, education, service referral, outreach, research, and 

advocacy. Four grantees were traditional food banks that collected and distributed food to 

11
 

Exhibit IV.1: Organizational Characteristics of the 18 Grantees Projects 

Grantee name Type of agency Volunteersa Major partners 

ACORN Community action program Yes (40) Grocery stores, schools

Atlantic City City No Hispanic center, housing authority 

Central NY Food bank Yes (60) 

Department of Aging, service groups, food banks, 

University 

Connecticut Human services association No

Child advocates, workforce training agencies,

businesses, grocery stores, day care centers, senior 

centers 

Delaware Food bank Yes 

Food distribution agencies, WIC offices, Department 

of Labor offices 

GPCAH Hunger coalition Yes (119)

Universities, interfaith hunger groups, food

distribution agencies, grocery stores, one-stop

employment centers 

Illinois Hunger coalition No Chicago public schools and related agencies 

Indiana Food bank No Grocery stores, aging councils, hunger relief programs

Madison Community action program Yes

Office for Aging, Department of Health, WIC offices, 

libraries, food cupboards 

MCC Maternity care coalition Yes

Interfaith groups, hospitals, senior centers, Head Start 

centers 

Miami Human service coalition No

Employers, workforce development centers, human 

service groups 

Muskegon Community health project No 

WIC, workforce development centers, human service 

groups 

North Carolina Division of Aging Yes (5) Council on Aging, senior centers, Goodwill, churches 

Project Bread Anti-hunger group No Public schools, health access groups, Red Cross 

Salem-Keizer School district No Elementary schools, WIC offices 

SHFB Food bank Yes (12) 

Latino service agencies (food, employment, and 

health) 

Tulsa Community action project Yes (50) 

One-stop employment centers, Head Start centers, 

homeless shelters 

Vermont Hunger campaign Yes 

Head Start centers, employment offices, senior 

centers, libraries, universities 

a Indicates whether grantee used volunteers to help with outreach. The numbers indicate the number of volunteers for 

sites that provided this information.

partner agencies such as soup kitchens, food pantries, shelters, and the like, and, in some cases, 

delivered food directly to those in need. Four grantees were hunger coalitions that bring 

together policymakers, emergency food providers, service professionals, and other concerned 

individuals to address hunger and food insecurity in the community. At least one of these 

hunger coalitions (GPCAH) distributed food at local shelters, in addition to other outreach and 

nutrition education activities. Three grantees were anti-poverty community action agencies that 

provided services similar to the hunger coalitions but also addressed other needs, such as 

housing and health care. The other four nonprofit organizations focused on community health 

services or community awareness and development for various target populations. 

12
 

The remaining three grantees were public agencies that provided services compatible 

with FSP outreach efforts. These grantees included a local city government agency (Atlantic 

City), a state agency (North Carolina), and a local school district (Salem-Keizer). 

Project start-up.Grantees generally identified target populations and developed 

activities based on previous experiences providing outreach services and/or familiarity with the 

needs of underserved local populations. For example, MCC targeted low-income families with 

young children because it had experience providing a comprehensive health promotion 

program for this population. SHFB targeted Latinos because their numbers had increased in 

California and the organization recognized their unmet needs. Project Bread selected their 

target populations (the unemployed, the working poor, and veterans) because staff concluded 

from prior food assistance work that these groups experienced the greatest barriers to food 

stamp participation. 

Key partners. All grantees developed partnerships to help reach their target populations 

and leverage their resources. Partner agencies provided access to target populations, either by 

identifying effective locations for presentations and other activities or by “introducing” 

outreach workers as people to be trusted. The partners included local schools, universities, 

community service organizations, neighborhood grocery stores, Goodwill offices, churches, 

Head Start agencies, health access organizations, employers, and one-stop employment centers. 

As noted above, most (15) grantees built on existing relationships established through previous 

partnerships on other community efforts. 

Two grantees (GPCAH and North Carolina) had partnerships with faith-based 

organizations, and others (e.g., MCC) made periodic presentations to similar groups. GPCAH 

had the most extensive partnership, which included working with an interfaith hunger group to 

recruit faith-based volunteers from long-standing agency partners.4

 North Carolina attempted 

to work through local churches, though they reported considerable resistance from clergy who 

often felt their congregants did not need food stamp benefits. 

The number of partnerships varied across projects, and several grantees added partners 

as their projects evolved. Delaware reported one of the most extensive lists of partners. 

Partners included 90 nonprofit member agencies, WIC offices and one-stop employment

centers, and the University of Delaware. However, only 20 to 25 of these agencies became

active partners in their project. In contrast, Salem-Keizer focused on a specific set of 

elementary school partners and later WIC clinics to conduct outreach to families with children. 

Partner organizations provided activities from information dissemination about the FSP 

and referral services to intensive prescreening and application assistance. In large part, a 

partner’s ability to provide more intensive outreach services depended on its available time, 

skills, and training resources. For example, Central NY recruited partner agencies and 

conducted extensive training sessions for staff and volunteers on project goals, prescreening, 

 

4

 GPCAH hired a faith-based volunteer coordinator to oversee recruitment, data collection, and other activities 

related to the faith-based volunteers. 

13
 

and application procedures. Some of their partners provided a limited menu of services, while 

others provided a full range of outreach activities. 

In most cases, partner organizations were not paid for their participation in food stamp 

outreach activities, except partners that were under contract to develop and/or enhance 

software or to provide expertise in a specialized area, such as media strategies. For example, 

Madison and Tulsa paid organizations to develop web-based prescreening and application 

tools, and Vermont hired university staff to develop their web-based prescreening tool. In 

general, most “non-technology” partners integrated FSP outreach activities into the bundle of 

services they were already delivering. However, one grantee (SHFB) used grant funds to pay 

for a portion of the salaries of partner agency outreach workers for their food stamp outreach 

activities. Another grantee (Madison) paid the salary of an outreach worker employed by the 

Department of Social Services. 

Staffing. A small staff, usually a combination of full- and part-time workers, 

implemented most initiatives. On average, sites employed five to six workers, though staffing 

ranged anywhere from two (Central NY) to 12 (Illinois). 

Ten grantees included volunteers in their outreach projects. The number of volunteers 

ranged from only a few in some sites to 119 for GPCAH.5

 Volunteers provided activities 

ranging from basic information dissemination (e.g., handing out flyers) to more intensive 

prescreening and application assistance. ACORN, for example, relied heavily on the services 

of neighborhood volunteers, many of whom had worked on previous ACORN efforts, to 

disseminate food stamp information at local supermarkets. Similarly, in Vermont, local United 

Way volunteers assisted with bulk mailings of food stamp information to partner agencies 

throughout the state. In contrast, Central NY and GPCAH provided extensive training to 

student and community volunteers to conduct more intensive prescreening and application 

assistance. 

Training. Training was a major development activity for several grantees, especially 

those with extensive partner or volunteer arrangements and those implementing technology 

applications. Strategies for conducting training varied among sites. As discussed in more detail 

below, some sites used food stamp office staff to train project staff, and used their training 

materials to educate volunteers and partners (e.g., ACORN and SHFB). 

All grantees that had partners or volunteers conduct prescreening or application 

assistance provided training. The length of training sessions for partners and volunteers varied 

among grantees, from 20 to 45 minutes in Madison to three or four hours in other sites (Illinois, 

Central NY, and GPCAH).6

 Content of the training sessions also varied among sites. Central 

NY’s training sessions covered three components: information about the FSP and the outreach 

 

5

 GPCAH had 150 students and 191 community faith-based volunteers complete a training session, which

typically lasted up to four hours. Of this total, 70 students and 49 community faith based volunteers screened at

least two clients each.

6

 Full information about training activities at all sites was not included in the qualitative data protocols. 

Nonetheless, the topic of training came up in some phone calls and some local evaluation reports discussed it. 

14
 

project; instruction on the use of the software technology for prescreening; and instruction on 

customer service skills, including mock interviews and role playing. Staff also developed 

county-specific training manuals that presented simplified FSP information in a user-friendly 

format. GPCAH’s training included instruction on prescreening for food stamp eligibility, 

benefit estimation, application completion assistance, as well as the logging and tracking 

procedures required for both follow-up and evaluation requirements. A guide was also 

developed with instructions for organizing a grocery store food stamp prescreening “fair.” 

Grantees that relied on partner organizations and volunteers to provide prescreening 

and application assistance through technology conducted more in-depth training sessions. For 

example, Central NY conducted three-hour training sessions on the FSP and prescreening and 

application procedures for staff and volunteers from more than a dozen diverse community 

partner agencies. Tulsa trained about 50 volunteer screeners to work with individuals seeking 

assistance at their tax centers, while GPCAH launched an extensive effort to recruit and train 

both student and faith-based/community volunteers to provide prescreening services 

throughout the city. 

Use of technology. Twelve grantees (Atlantic City, Central NY, GPCAH, Illinois, 

Madison, MCC, Miami, Muskegon, Project Bread, SHFB, Tulsa, and Vermont) implemented 

some type of technology to deliver prescreening and application assistance to potential 

applicants.7

 Seven of these grantees developed publicly accessible web sites that included 

capabilities for prescreening and application assistance. Four sites developed passwordprotected web-based prescreening and application tools, while one grantee had both a publicly 

accessible and password-protected web site. Finally, another site purchased new laptops and 

loaded a program containing the application software used by the local food stamp office, 

signature pads and a mini-scanner for required documentation. The specific use of these 

technologies in the outreach activities is described below. 

Most of these 12 grantees used or extended existing technology applications, although 

five grantees developed their technologies fully under this project. Among the latter group, 

four grantees developed entirely new systems. The fifth built on a previously developed web 

site to create a password-protected, web-based tool that allowed trained partner staff to help 

applicants submit applications directly to the local food stamp office. Two grantees from

Pennsylvania originally intended to use their state’s food stamp application system, but 

operational system difficulties, a lack of technological capabilities in partner sites, and a lack 

of expertise and comfort with technology among some staff forced both sites to rely on paper 

forms for most of the intervention period. 

By the end of the grant period, four grantees had access to technology that allowed 

individuals to electronically submit applications directly to the food stamp office: Madison, 

Project Bread, and the two Pennsylvania sites (GPCAH and MCC).

 

7

 Delaware had an automated Excel form for prescreening but because of the lack of technological capabilities 

and, in some cases, laptops, most prescreening was done on paper forms. Indiana outreach workers used laptops in

the field. Although these two sites did use computers or software, they are not collected in this category. 

15
 

Venue: Grantees conducted outreach at their own program sites, at partner locations, 

and other sites frequented by potential target populations, including the Internet (Exhibit IV.2). 

The most frequently used venues across grantees included food distribution sites (12 grantees), 

schools (10 grantees), community-based service organizations (9 grantees), community events 

(9 grantees), and senior centers (8 grantees). Other common venues included grocery stores (6 

grantees), one-stop employment centers (7 grantees), and Head Start and child care centers (7 

grantees). While specific data that link venues to the number of application approvals are not 

available, one site (GPCAH) did find that venues with high client turnover (such as career links 

and health centers) generated more applications than venues that tended to serve the same

clients over time.

All grantees used multiple venues to conduct outreach, though some grantees focused 

more specifically on a select number of venues to reach a target population. For example, some

grantees focused their outreach activities at senior centers to reach the elderly, schools to reach 

families with children, and businesses to reach the working poor. One grantee, targeting a very 

broad population of eligibles, used over 13 different types of venues. 

Relationships with the FSP Offices

All grantees worked with the food stamp office but the history of their relationship varied. 

Nine sites had worked with FSP program staff on previous projects. For example, Vermont had 

worked with the state food stamp agency as part of a work group designed to bring together 

community service providers and advocates to discuss issues of mutual interest. Madison had 

worked with the county food stamp office on a prior study of welfare leavers. For other sites, 

including ACORN, Delaware, and MCC, the collaboration with the food stamp office was 

new. 

Most grantees worked with one or more local food stamp offices but in some cases, 

these relationships initiated at the regional (e.g., Salem-Keizer) and state levels (e.g., Delaware 

and Vermont). At a minimum, grantees relied on the local food stamp office to provide 

outcome data for applicants referred through their projects. 

The local food stamp offices also participated in assorted other activities across sites. 

Their involvement included training, serving as a project liaison (see discussion below), or 

providing outreach services (Exhibit IV.3). Fifteen grantees reported that staff from state, 

regional, or local offices trained or participated in training sessions with grantees and/or 

partner agencies on FSP policy and/or application procedures. Training sessions ranged from

four hours to four days. In addition to training on application procedures, some local food 

stamp office staff provided grantees technical assistance in the development of prescreening 

tools. 

16
Exhibit IV.2: Venues for Outreach Activities among the 18 Grantee Projects 

Organization 

Grantee offices

Food distribution sites

a

Soup kitchens

Com unity-based organizations/loc providers m

al service 

o

Community events

b

Schools

Grocery stores

Community centers

Churches

Head Start/child care centers

Senior centers

Individual homes/door-too r dPublic housing

Health centers

One-stop/employment centers

WIC clinics

Employers

ACORN 9 9 9 9 9 9 Atlantic City 9 9 9 9 Central NY 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Connecticut 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Delaware 9 9 9 9 9 9 GPCAH 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Illinois 9 9 Indiana 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Madison 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 MCC 9 9 9 9 9 Miami 9 9 9 9 9 9 Muskegon 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 North Carolina 9 9 9 Project Bread 9 9 9 9 Salem-Keizer 9 9 9 9 SHFB 9 9 9 9 9 9 Tulsae 9 9 Vermont 9 9 9 9 9 9 

a Includes food pantries/cupboards, and food commodities distribution sites. b Includes health fairs. c Includes Internet, newspaper, television, and radio. d Includes homeless drop-in centers and shelters, laundromats, check-cashing stores, libraries, post offices, Goodwill stores, and pube Tulsa conducted outreach at eight different sites offering tax preparation services, including two banks, a credit union, four commu

churches, all of which are indicated under “EITC sites.” They expanded outreach to Head Start centers later in the project. 
 

Exhibit IV.3: Characteristics of the Relationship between the 18 Grantee Projects and the 

FSP Offices 

Organization 

Worked with

FSP office staff 

previously

FSP office staff 

provided and/or 

participated in

training

Liaison/key 

contact in 

FSP office 

FSP staff part 

of the

outreach team

ACORN 9 9

Atlantic City 9

Central NY 9 9 9

Connecticut 9

Delaware 9

GPCAH 9 9 9

Illinois 9 9

Indiana 9

Madison 9 9 9 9

MCC 9 9

Miami 9 9 9

Muskegon

North Carolina 9 9

Project Bread 9 9

Salem-Keizer 9 9 9

SHFB 9 9

Tulsa

Vermont 9 9

Seven grantees had specific individuals at the local food stamp offices designated as 

key contacts or liaisons for this outreach intervention. The general responsibilities of these 

liaisons were to ensure the proper processing and tracking of applications from grantees. For 

example, ACORN’s local food stamp office identified one staff person responsible for dealing 

with all prescreened referrals that came through ACORN’s initiative. Alternatively, Illinois had 

more extensive relationships with “liaisons” in each local FSP office who acted as the 

designated contact person for all issues related to applications forwarded by the grantee. The 

Illinois liaisons tracked grantee applications and met regularly with project staff to resolve 

issues related to the outreach activities. 

In three sites, food stamp office workers were project team members for certain 

outreach tasks. Madison had a dedicated food stamp office outreach worker, while SalemKeizer assigned FSP workers to monthly school and community events. Finally, North 

Carolina reported that local food stamp office staff attended various outreach sessions and 

traveled to a senior housing unit to conduct eligibility interviews and enroll residents for whom

transportation was a problem.

Outreach Activities 

Exhibit IV.4 summarizes three broad categories of grantees’ outreach activities: information 

dissemination, prescreening, and application assistance. Information dissemination included 

activities to publicize the project and inform the target population about the FSP. Prescreening 

18
 

Exhibit IV.4: Outreach Activities of the 18 Grantees Projects 

Information 

Dissemination 

Pre-screening and 

Application 

Assistance Tools Application Assistance 

Targeted dissemination ofinformation (e.g., presentations, fliers) M

ultimedia (e.g., television, radio,

newspaper)Web site Hotlines Paper forms Computer/soft

ware 

Passwor

d-protected we

b-based 

toolPublic access web-based tool Information/help with verification docume

nts

In-person help completing ap

plication form 

Deliveri

ng and/or sub

mitting 

applications to FSP office Transportation Simplified applicatio

n processing

Other followu

p

ACORN 9 P 9 9

Atlantic City 9 A 9 9 9 9 9 9

Central NY 9 9 9 9 B P B 9 9 9 9 9

Connecticut 9 B 9 9 9 9 9

Delaware 9 9 9 P P 9 9

GPCAHa 9 9 9 B B 9 9 9 9 9

Illinois 9 9 B 9 9 9 9

Indiana 9 9 9 B B 9 9 9 9 9

Madison 9 9 9 B B 9 9 9 9 9

MCCa 9 B B 9 9 9 9

Miami 9 9 B B 9 9 9 9

Muskegonb 9 9 9 B B 9 9 9 9 9

North Carolina 9 P 9 9 9

Project Bread 9 9 9 9 A B 9 9 9 9

Salem-Keizer 9 B 9 9 9

SHFB 9 9 9 B P 9 9 9 9

Tulsa 9 B 9 9 9

Vermont 9 9 9 B 9

P = grantee used a tool for prescreening purposes only. 

A = grantee used a tool for application assistance purposes only.

B = grantee used a tool for both prescreening and application assistance. a GPCAH and MCC both had access to Pennsylvania’s online application system, COMPASS, but neither 

used it regularly until very late in the project. b Muskegon used two prescreening tools available on the Internet over the course of the project: the Michigan

Food Stamp Network’s tool developed under a previous grant and the USDA prescreening tool. 

19
 

included providing preliminary information on food stamp eligibility and/or amounts of 

potential FSP benefits. Application assistance included a broad range of activities from helping 

an individual or family fill out an application form to accompanying clients to the food stamp 

office to make sure required appointments and verification documents were completed. Almost 

all grantees offered some form of outreach service in each of the three categories, but the 

emphasis on specific activities and the intensity of services varied. 

Information Dissemination 

Every grantee implemented some FSP information-sharing strategy and publicity campaign 

around project start-up and throughout the project to advertise the outreach projects. 

Media campaigns. Eight grantees implemented comprehensive multimedia campaigns 

that included billboards, newspaper, radio and television advertisements and public service 

announcements, press releases, and broadcast interviews. For example, Indiana displayed eight 

billboards at different locations and the executive director was interviewed for three radio 

shows about the outreach project. Delaware displayed FSP posters and banners on city transit 

buses and ran a public service announcement about food stamp benefits in a local movie 

theater. Muskegon produced spots for cable TV by combining USDA-produced radio segments 

with USDA print advertisements. 

Presentations. Grantees conducted outreach presentations at community events, such as 

health fairs. These presentations helped build credibility among specific target populations. For 

example, Miami presented information on “economic benefit packages” to employees at local 

businesses that included outreach for the EITC and Florida’s KidCare as well as the FSP. 

North Carolina and Madison made several presentations in senior centers, and SHFB made 

presentations in Hispanic community centers. 

Printed material. Most grantees produced their own FSP materials containing 

explanations of monthly income levels and maximum benefit amounts, as well as contact 

information. Others distributed the USDA flyers and posters, marked with their agency’s logo 

and contact information.8

 These included distribution of printed outreach material such as 

brochures, flyers, posters, magnets, and postcards. In many cases, grantees produced materials 

in Spanish and English. 

Grantees used different approaches to distribute these written materials. For example, 

Muskegon sent informational brochures to families in the Head Start program, while Illinois 

worked with the Chicago public schools to distribute information to families with children 

enrolled in the free and reduced-price lunch program. North Carolina placed ads in church 

bulletins and community agency newsletters. Central NY integrated their materials with food 

purchasing by including FSP information with “ValPak” coupon mailings and printing FSP 

information on the back of grocery store receipts. Similarly, Indiana included material about 

 

8

 Several sites noted that they found it useful to add information about income levels and benefit amounts to the 

USDA informational materials. 

20
 

the FSP in SeniorPAK grocery bags delivered to low-income, homebound older adults. Finally, 

ACORN community outreach workers distributed FSP information door to door in targeted 

neighborhoods. 

Telecommunications. Some information dissemination occurred over the Internet and 

telephone hotlines. Eight grantees used web sites to provide information about their outreach 

activities, FSP policies, eligibility guidelines, benefit amounts, and/or application procedures. 

Five sites posted information on existing web sites. The other three developed new web sites as 

part of their grant activities. 

Six grantees operated and advertised FSP information hotlines as part of their overall 

menu of services. Hotlines provided answers to specific FSP questions and in some projects 

offered prescreening and application assistance.

Prescreening 

All grantees offered formal or informal prescreening to assess their clients’ eligibility to 

receive food stamp benefits. The prescreening questions ranged from basic income items to indepth questions about the client’s income, assets, and other household information. Indiana 

developed a comprehensive prescreening form that some county food stamp offices accepted 

as an application. Seventeen of the grantees asked these questions using a formal prescreening 

tool before providing any application assistance, while one grantee offered to review general 

income guidelines. However, some sites did not formally prescreen potential applicants when 

they had sufficient evidence supporting eligibility and/or they did not have enough time to 

prescreen. 

Grantees provided prescreening assistance in four formats: paper forms, software 

loaded on laptops, password-protected web-based tools, and publicly accessible web sites. 

Grantees used a combination of formats to provide prescreening assistance depending on the 

situation. Grantees limited some of their prescreening to a simple review of the FSP income

guidelines with clients to assess their potential benefit eligibility. 

Paper forms. Six grantees relied primarily on paper forms for prescreening. The major 

advantage of the paper forms was that they provided flexibility to conduct prescreening in a 

variety of locations. 

Software packages. Four grantees supplemented paper forms with software packages 

loaded on laptops, providing a choice for the person conducting the prescreening. For example, 

Central NY developed and implemented non-web-based software loaded on a CD for staff and 

volunteers in partner agencies who were comfortable with and had access to computers. 

Similarly, Delaware staff used both paper forms and Excel spreadsheets on laptops to tabulate 

prescreening information. SHFB used a software prescreening package (developed by the Los 

Angeles Regional Food Bank under a previous grant from USDA) as a tool to illustrate 

potential benefit amounts. Specifically, if the outreach worker sensed the potential benefit 

might impress the applicant and encourage an application, he or she would conduct a 

prescreening. 

21
 

Web-based tools. Four grantees used web-based, password-protected tools to prescreen 

at numerous locations. Illinois and Miami used the RealBenefits web-based tool, which 

prescreened applicants and calculated probable benefits for food stamps and other assistance 

programs.9

 Project Bread’s web-based prescreening and application program allowed 

applicants to submit an application directly to the food stamp office. Tulsa’s web-based system

enabled staff to screen individuals for FSP eligibility, as well as eligibility for several other 

programs, including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF); Medicaid; the Special 

Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC); and the Earned 

Income Tax Credit (EITC) program.

10

Public web sites. Three grantees developed publicly accessible web sites for use by 

partners, volunteers, or potential applicants. These web sites included prescreening tools and 

benefit calculators, as well as detailed program information, eligibility requirements, 

comprehensive instructions for applying for food stamp benefits, contact information for local 

food stamp offices, lists of required verification documents, downloadable application forms, 

and, on Madison’s web site, the ability to apply online directly to the local food stamp office. 

Central NY’s web site also included a toll-free number for individuals who required in-person 

assistance. 

Adaptable prescreening. Ten grantees offered a variety of prescreening mechanisms to 

adapt to the skills and expertise of service providers and the technology available at the service 

sites. Central NY had one of the most flexible prescreening services, which varied depending 

on the user’s comfort level with either a paper prescreening form, non-web-based software on a 

CD, or a public access web site. 

Application Assistance 

Application assistance activities ranged from minimal, such as listing information about 

verification documents required for application, to helping clients through the entire 

application process. The intensive assistance included help filling out the application, help 

filing the application (in-person or via e-mail, mail, or fax), establishing processes so local 

grantee sites could make initial eligibility determinations, operating hotlines for technical 

support, providing transportation to the food stamp office, and calling clients sometimes 

multiple times after prescreening or application submission to help them follow through with 

paperwork requirements and appointments. 

Information or help with verification documents. All grantees provided some type of 

information about and/or help with providing the required verification documents. Grantees 

viewed this information as the minimum level of knowledge required to begin a FSP 

 

9

 Miami used the RealBenefits tool to screen for FSP benefits only. Illinois launched RealBenefits for the first 

time as part of this project; Miami developed it with a previous outreach grant. 

10 Outreach grant funds were earmarked for FSP eligibility assessment only. Sites that provided assessment for 

multiple programs had other resources supporting this part of the tool development.

22
 

application. Fifteen grantees used the information from the prescreening forms to provide this 

assistance, and to identify other avenues of application assistance. 

In-person assistance. Fourteen grantees offered some in-person, one-on-one help in 

completing food stamp applications for some of or all their clients who wished to continue 

after prescreening. Five sites varied the assistance depending on the preference of the applicant 

and/or the decisions made by the staff member. MCC staff let applicants choose between 

filling out and submitting applications on their own or having the staff help complete the 

paperwork and submit applications. Muskegon staff mailed applications with a checklist of 

required verification documents to clients, offered further assistance to some applicants, and 

provided help filling out applications for others who needed more intensive help (e.g., limited 

English speakers). Miami also noted that some completed applications generated by 

RealBenefits were mailed to applicants who were then responsible for their delivery to the food 

stamp office. Others were completed in face-to-face meetings and then faxed directly to the 

food stamp office by grantee staff. Provision of in-person help varied by volunteer worker at 

GPCAH; in Connecticut, the decision of whether they wanted help with the applications was 

left up to the applicants. In SHFB and Tulsa, the grantees worked with clients to complete the 

first two pages of the application form, but applicants had to go to the food stamp office to 

finish filling out the rest of the application. Several grantees noted that applicants in need of 

immediate assistance (e.g., homeless, no food) were referred to the food stamp office for 

expedited service and, in some cases, to other community resources, such as a food pantry. 

Application delivery. Fourteen grantees provided assistance in delivering and/or 

submitting applications to food stamp offices. The methods and the frequency of delivery 

varied widely among and within sites. Grantees used several mechanisms for delivering 

applications, including in-person delivery, mail, electronic formats, and fax. In some sites these 

practices varied among the counties served. For example, Central NY faxed or mailed 

applications in one county, but was required to hand-deliver applications in two others. 

Application delivery also sometimes varied by volunteer preference. For example, one GPCAH 

volunteer hand-delivered all applications he assisted with and waited for a receipt; other 

GPCAH volunteers required that the applicant deliver the form to the food stamp office. 

Muskegon staff made in-person deliveries of applications to the food stamp office daily. While 

Illinois generally faxed or e-mailed applications to food stamp offices, they noted that they had 

one person deliver a group of applications after a large outreach event. Madison mailed, faxed, 

or hand-delivered applications and could also submit them electronically. SHFB staff handdelivered applications to food stamp offices and instituted a log-in procedure in response to 

lost applications early in the program. 

All grantees set up some type of system to track the outcomes for applications 

attributable to their outreach activities. All of the tracking systems were developed in 

consultation with the local food stamp offices. Some processes worked better than others, and 

some grantees modified their tracking system during the course of their projects. For example, 

some grantees tried special color-coded or project-overlay forms, but found that these types of 

connectors were less reliable than unique personal identifiers. Many projects used Social 

security numbers for identifiers, but these were not perfect because not all clients had SSNs. 

One site (Delaware) was given on-line access to the state’s data base so they could track their 

clients’ (identified by their SSNs) progress through the application process. Often systems to 

23
 

identify applications were backed up by a point person in the local office with responsibility 

for tracking the outcomes of the grantees’ applications. 

Transportation. Two grantees provided transportation assistance to the local food 

stamp office. Atlantic City was able to provide rides to the office through a city-funded 

program. Indiana staff reported that they occasionally provided rides to the food stamp office 

to senior applicants living in rural areas. 

Simplified processing. Seven grantees worked with the FSP to simplify the application 

process by eliminating initial food stamp office visits. For example, Atlantic City’s local food 

stamp office waived the in-person eligibility requirement for seniors and Spanish-speakers who 

completed the application process with the grantee; these applicants had to go to the food 

stamp office only to pick up their program identification and electronic benefit transfer (EBT) 

cards. Madison’s project included the services of a dedicated food stamp office outreach 

worker who met applicants at community sites to complete certain components of the 

application with a portable workstation. In GPCAH, applicants who were unable to go to the 

food stamp office were able to complete the process through phone interviews with eligibility 

workers. 

Follow-up. Fifteen grantees provided some type of follow-up service, usually calling 

clients they prescreened and/or assisted with the application process. Tulsa and SHFB made 

follow-up calls to all families they had referred to the food stamp office. MCC made similar 

follow-up calls, but found it took several calls to each client to make sure the process was 

proceeding. Delaware project staff called prescreened individuals to encourage them to apply 

for food stamp benefits. 

Other assistance. Four sites did not provide in-person application assistance, but 

provided other forms of help with the application process. ACORN sent completed 

prescreening forms to the local food stamp office, gave prescreened applicants a list of required 

verification documents, and informed them that FSP staff would contact them to arrange an 

eligibility determination interview. Vermont’s publicly accessible FSP web site provided 

information on application procedures, a downloadable application form, a list of required 

verification documents, and contact information for and directions to local food stamp offices. 

24
 

V. Program Accomplishments and Lessons Learned 

This section summarizes the major program accomplishments and lessons learned across the 

18 grantee projects. It begins with a general description of the scope and major outcomes 

across all sites. It then highlights the outcomes from each site, which indicate the reach of the 

projects. It proceeds with a detailed discussion of specific implementation lessons, taking into 

account the diversity across the outreach projects. 

General Findings 

In total, the USDA spent approximately $4.8 million on the 18 outreach projects.11 Grantees 

made over 380,000 contacts through their food stamp outreach activities. While contacts 

ranged from getting a flyer or attending an informational event to intensive activities such as 

completing and submitting food stamp applications, more than two-thirds were made by 

distributing fliers.12 If web page visits or public service announcements were counted, the 

grantees’ total contacts would increase to the millions. Grantees provided application 

assistance, which varied from a simple referral to actual help filling out and filing the form at 

the local food stamp office, to at least 14,000 of the people who were contacted.13 In terms of 

food stamp participation outcomes, grantees reported that more than 11,500 food stamp 

applications were filed and 7,000 approved during the outreach projects. 

Note that these estimates do not account for longer-term effects of outreach services 

that extend beyond the timeframe of this evaluation. Grantees that invested heavily in 

developing software for prescreening and application assistance in particular will be able to 

benefit from these technologies and relevant training beyond the time of their outreach project. 

Despite the variety of project goals and approaches, the following common themes 

arise across grantees: 

Partnerships with community groups serving low-income families contribute to 

successful outreach efforts. Partnerships with other established community groups, including 

service delivery agencies, schools, faith-based organizations, and employers, were critical to 

the success of these projects. Partners that were trusted organizations within the community 

provided access to potential clients, opened doors to other groups in the community serving 

low-income populations, and helped implement outreach strategies. 

 

11This dollar estimate excludes one grantee in Kentucky that did not implement an outreach initiative. Kentucky

received an initial grant amount of $287,985. 

12 See appendix B for site-specific numbers on grantee processes from the grantee reports. The 380,000 estimate is 

a lower bound because Atlantic City was unable to report contact information. Approximately two-thirds of the

contact estimates represents fliers, most of which were counted by Illinois in their intervention. 

13 This estimate is a lower bound because application assistance estimates were not available at four sites (Atlantic 

City, Delaware, North Carolina, and Vermont). 

25
 

Cooperation and buy-in from the local food stamp offices are critical to successful 

outreach. While no single type of relationship guaranteed a success, grantees reported that FSP 

management and front-line staff needed to understand and support outreach activities from the 

beginning and they needed regular updates about project activities. Food stamp office staff 

trained outreach staff in many projects, and they sometimes participated directly in outreach 

activities. Food stamp office staff also provided the critical link to project outcomes—data on 

applications filed and approved. In a few cases, grantees’ failure to establish productive 

relationships with the local food stamp offices stymied their project’s success. 

Technology that facilitates FSP eligibility prescreening and applications, while 

challenging, can pay off. New Internet tools require trained personnel to develop the software, 

maintain it, and adjust it to changing requirements. Partners and outreach project staff must be 

trained to use the software. Some food stamp clients, especially the elderly, may find the new 

technology challenging to use. However, multiple projects showed that implementation of 

web-based systems that included either in-person or software-driven application assistance 

could facilitate the process, especially for broader target populations. Four projects eventually 

were able to submit application forms electronically to local food stamp offices. Also, grantees 

expected that these tools will be used to facilitate applications beyond the project time frames. 

Successful outreach requires more than basic education and information 

dissemination. All grantees reported that general mass marketing alone had little effect on 

getting a person to apply for benefits. Most potential applicants required more intensive efforts 

that helped them understand their benefit eligibility and the requirements for benefit approval. 

Grantees also found that specific requirements for more intensive assistance depend on the 

target population. While prescreening and benefits counseling were sufficient to induce some

people to apply at the food stamp office, others found the application too difficult to complete 

on their own. Some grantees provided more intensive help by submitting their clients’ 

application forms, accompanying them to the food stamp office, and/or making frequent 

follow-up calls to monitor and to facilitate the process. 

The groups with the lowest food stamp participation rates—immigrants, seniors, and 

the working poor—proved the most difficult to reach. Certain target populations, especially 

Hispanics and the elderly, often required assistance tailored to their needs. Grantees repeatedly 

reported the importance of involving culturally sensitive workers, partners, and volunteers to 

build trust among these populations. These target groups also needed information that 

eliminated misinformation about the FSP. Some target populations, especially the working 

poor, proved difficult to locate because they were less likely to visit the outreach sites than 

nonworking clients. 

Summary of Data Collection Activities

About half the grantees successfully reported outcomes and, to a lesser extent, project activities 

via the national evaluator’s Internet-based system. The other half collected outcome data for 

most individuals reached in their projects, though they generally ran into difficulties tracking 

referrals from certain activities (especially information dissemination), obtaining data on 

outcomes for the full project period, and/or collecting data on all applications referred to the 

26
 

27

 

food stamp office.14 Three sites could not track individual client applications and approvals at 

the food stamp office because they were unable to set up a good tracking system. 

Quantifying grantee activity, especially total contacts and application assistance, 

proved difficult because of the diverse outreach approaches and local tracking systems. As 

definitions of data elements from these reports varied across sites, it would be misleading to 

make comparisons across grantees. For example, some projects had difficulties defining 

exactly what a contact was, particularly when presenting FSP information to large audiences. 

Similarly, comparing application assistance totals might be misleading because they do not 

reflect the intensity of the assistance (e.g., a simple referral versus actual help in filling out and 

filing the form at the local food stamp office). 

Outcome Data 

Exhibit V.1 summarizes the major outcome data submitted through the national evaluator’s 

web site, along with notes about the difficulties some sites experienced collecting outcome 

data. The outcome data, summarized at the household level, include the number of applications 

filed and approved from grantee referrals based on FSP administrative data.15 The table shows 

the share of applications approved and denied. The percent pending/unknown reflects the 

difference between the known outcomes (approvals and denials) and total applications. The 

target group, grant amounts, and project durations are also reported in Exhibit V.1 to provide 

some context on grantee characteristics. Of course, outcomes for individual sites must be 

assessed in the context of their specific project characteristics. Appendix B discusses 

individual site outcomes. 

The large range of outcomes across grantees underscores the differences in project 

scope and ability to reach specific target populations. The number of applications ranged from 

133 to 3,300. Approvals ranged from 18 to 83 percent of total applications. 

Approval Rates 

As noted in Exhibit V.1, the reported approvals likely undercount the actual number at several 

sites. Some sites reported difficulties tracking applications. For example, Tulsa reported being 

unable to track around 65 percent of their referrals at the food stamp office, suggesting their 

project approvals might be closer to 300 than 108 when adjusting for the undercount. Two sites 

provided estimates of outreach effects by comparing outcomes at outreach sites with similar 

characteristics

14 In some grantee locations, the food stamp office was unable to track outcomes for some applications submitted 

by the grantees. However, grantees could not verify if application forms were lost, if the applicants never 

submitted their applications, or if the applications were not appropriately tracked after being filed. 15 See appendix Exhibit D.3 for specific definitions. 
Exhibit V.1: Project Outcomes based on Administrative Data Reported to National Evalua

Grantee 

(target 

population) Applications Approvals 

% 

 approved

% 

denied 

% 

pending/

unknown 

Grant 

amount

Total 

months of 

outreacha 

ACORN (broad) 

341 230 67% 11% 22% $262,000 22 According to the evaluation 

was higher because the granreceived benefits in the past system retained the ID assig

Atlantic City (seniors and Hispanics) 

174 129 74% 26% 0 $179,911 12

Central NY (broad) 

403 315 78% 22% 0 $217,827 16 These data do not include th

downloaded applications forunable to determine whether to the food stamp office. 

Connecticut(broad) 

-- -- -- -- -- $195,000 17 This grantee submitted some 

because of significant probleapplications. 

Delaware (broad) 

935 780 83% 17% 0% $349,592 22

GPCAH (broad) 

3,300 2,470 75% 20% 5% $310,822 21

Illinois (families with school-age children)

765 504 66% 33% 1% $300,000 17 The local evaluation report n

FSP applications referred by the food stamp office. 

Indiana(broad) 

1,307 603 46% 49% 5% $285,766 23

Madison (working poorand elderly) 

264 90 34% 10% 56% $171,300 12 According to evaluation rep

had been approved in the co(and policy changes, especiaform). The smaller estimate grantee could track. 

MCC (youngfamilies) 

133 70 53% 22% 25% $325,352 20

Miami (lowwageworkers)

595 116 19% 10% 71% $350,000 13 According to evaluation rep

forms were submitted and 7reported). These claims coul
Exhibit V.1 (continued): Project Outcomes based on Administrative Data Reported to National 

Grantee 

(target 

population) Applications Approvals 

% 

 approved

% 

denied 

% 

pending/

unknown 

Grant 

amount

Total 

months of 

outreacha 

Muskegon(broad) 

-- -- -- -- -- $209,934 24 Grantee provided estimates 

comparisons sites. Howevenumber of outcomes due to economic and policy changAs noted in appendix B, the prescreening cases. 

North Carolina (elderly, minorities, rural) 

354 280 79% 21% 0 $217,218 19 According to the evaluation 

(45 percent) did not provide track applications at the foonot included in the totals. 

Project Bread (broad) 

460 85 18% 29% 53% $344,500 10

Salem-Keizer (families with school-age children)

-- -- -- -- -- $121,638 21 The evaluation report focus

dissemination activities at scaseloads suggested the intecaseloads overall. 

SHFB (Immigrants) 

1,398 457 33% 34% 33% $287,680 21

Tulsa (workingpoor) 

136 108 79% 17% 4% $336,093 12 In the evaluation report, gra

data for 73 percent of the reoffice (511 of the 699 total 

Vermont(broad) 

1,008 814 81% 19% 0 $294,297 13

-- = not available a Represents the number of months included in the data collection activity. For specific start and end dates, see Site Profiles. 
 

The grantees with larger numbers of applications and approvals were successful in 

leveraging partners and volunteers in conducting their outreach activities. For example, 

GPCAH worked with several partner agencies and had volunteers (especially college students) 

who devoted considerable time and effort to outreach assistance. Vermont trained staff at 95 

partner agencies to use their web site and to assist visitors with the web site’s prescreening 

process. Delaware included 90 trained partner agencies (20–25 who were very active). All 

three of these sites also targeted broad target populations. 

Some sites had fewer applications than expected because they had difficulties locating 

their target populations and/or experienced unanticipated changes in the project or FSP staff. 

For example, Atlantic City focused on hard-to-reach seniors and Hispanics and had start-up 

issues. These issues included delays in hiring a project coordinator and receiving approval to 

purchase laptops for field workers. 

Sometimes the relatively low number of applications was influenced heavily by large 

technological investments and relatively short time frames for conducting the actual outreach. 

Because of the time it took to develop these innovations, several sites had only a year or less to 

conduct their outreach activities. While some grantees anticipated shorter time frames for 

conducting actual outreach, others had unexpected delays in software development or hardware 

access. 

Denial rates: The relatively high denial and pending/unknown outcome rates in some

sites reflect several factors, many of which were raised in the local evaluation reports.16 These 

factors include less intensive prescreening processes that referred ineligible people to the food 

stamp offices, applicants’ difficulties in completing the application process, and difficulties 

tracking project outcomes. 

Exhibit V.2 summarizes common reasons for application denials among sites that 

reported data for at least 30 cases.17 At four sites, the income and asset limits were the primary 

reasons for denial. High denial rates can reflect client characteristics or the prescreening 

activity. Two of these sites (Atlantic City and North Carolina) targeted the elderly, and these 

grantees reported that elderly clients were more likely to be denied food stamps because of 

assets. Other grantees noted that the income information provided by clients during 

prescreening did not always match what they eventually submitted to the food stamp office. 

This tended to occur more often for seniors who had family members taking care of their 

finances. 

In other sites, applicants’ failure to complete the interview process or provide accurate 

information caused the high denial rates. Many clients who completed the prescreening and 

application processes, especially immigrants, found it difficult to provide all the required 

verification documents and follow through with in-person eligibility interviews. Several 

 

16 National rates of approval and denial are not readily available. 

17 While most sites were able to provide this information, some sites did not have information on all denied cases. 

So in some cases, the number of denials in Exhibit V.2 may not match the number reported in Exhibit V.1. 

30
 

evaluation reports noted the importance of following up on applications. In Delaware, the 

grantee attempted to follow up directly with prescreened applicants who had not completed the 

application process, though the grantee was only able to locate and encourage a small number 

of those individuals to reapply. 

Cost information: A common theme across all grantees was that outreach proved 

costly because it was very labor intensive. While cost information on specific activities is not 

available, rough estimates of the cost per approval can be generated by dividing grant amounts 

by the number of approvals.18 Based on these calculations, the cost per approved application 

certification varied from approximately $126 in GPCAH to over $1,000 in multiple locations.19

Costs per approval were generally lower in sites with a large number of denied applications, 

Exhibit V.2: Reasons for Denial among Applications Submitted at Grantee Sites 

(minimum of 30 cases)

Reason for Denials (%) 

Grantee 

Number

of denials 

Income/ 

assets too

high 

Citizenship status/

does not live

within the FSP 

jurisdiction 

Failure to complete 

interview process, 

incomplete/inaccurate 

information Other 

ACORN -- -- -- -- --

Atlantic City 45 53% 0% 31% 16% 

Central NY 88 51% 0% 48% 1% 

Connecticut -- -- -- -- --

Delaware 154 26% 0% 42% 32%

GPCAH 660 26% 1% 39% 34%

Illinois 237 33% 1% 59% 7%

Indiana 645 21% 0% 54% 25%

Madison -- -- -- -- --

MCC -- -- -- -- --

Miami -- -- -- -- --

Muskegon -- -- -- -- --

North Carolina 74 47% 3% 30% 20% 

Project Bread 116 8% 5% 46% 41% 

Salem-Keizer -- -- -- -- --

SHFB 473 32% 6% 49% 13%

Tulsa -- -- -- -- --

Vermont 194 51% 4% 36% 9%

Notes: Four sites (Acorn, Madison, MCC, and Tulsa) that provided denial data had relatively low denial rates, and

their denials did not exceed 30. One site (Miami) did not obtain denial information from its state. The remaining 3 

sites were unable to provide outcome data representative of their project. 

 

18 Note, however, that these costs represent an upper bound given the data issues noted above. Nonetheless, they

represent reasonable approximations for their costs, which can be adjusted using the information in the notes for 

Exhibit V.1. 

19It is difficult to estimate precise costs for some grantees with very low award numbers because of data collection 

issues. 

31
 

possibly suggesting that more careful prescreening of applicants and/or more intensive 

outreach assistance leads to higher costs but lower denial rates. Sites with low denial rates, 

such as ACORN (11 percent) and Madison (10 percent), had higher application costs. These 

comparisons are simply suggestive, however; it is not possible to attribute success directly to a 

specific strategy. 

Detailed Implementation Lessons 

Grantees’ strategies for implementing their projects and delivering services provide further 

context for the findings summarized above and provide insights for future outreach activities. 

Project development and organization, along with relationships with partners and the food 

stamp offices, all played key roles in the relative success of the projects. The description below 

summarizes the lessons learned about project implementation. Text boxes provide in-depth 

examples of specific lessons.20 

Organizational Characteristics and Project Development 

While no single “best” approach to organizational structure and project development can be 

identified, grantees learned several important lessons. 

Staffing: Staff skills and characteristics were a critical component of program

implementation and operation. Grantees with particularly dynamic project coordinators felt this 

person was an important ingredient for success. For example, Central NY benefited from the 

vision and expertise of an experienced project coordinator who had been involved in a similar 

FSP education and outreach effort and was a former employee of the state FSP agency. She 

used her expertise to develop county-specific training manuals for partner staff volunteers. 

Staff in Tulsa noted the need for dynamic and committed staff and the importance of a program

manager who can see the “big picture,” along with a clearly defined project team. Several 

partner agencies attributed much of Tulsa’s success to the project manager’s efforts to promote 

and market the outreach activities. Similarly, the director of SHFB’s outreach activities 

attributed many of their accomplishments to their lead outreach worker’s strong leadership and 

marketing abilities. 

Grantees that targeted immigrant and limited English speaking populations emphasized 

the importance of having culturally compatible outreach workers who related to the unique 

concerns of this population. SHFB attributed some of its success to outreach workers who 

“spoke the language of the community.” Not surprisingly, grantees that targeted non-English 

speaking populations also found it essential to have at least one bilingual worker assist with 

outreach activities. Muskegon’s bilingual outreach worker, for example, traveled to the 

outlying areas of two remote counties to reach out to migrant workers. 

 

20 The text box lessons are taken primarily from the site visit notes and the local evaluation reports. 

32
 

Not surprisingly, another lesson was that staff turnover and hiring delays adversely 

affected outreach activities. Several sites experienced staff turnover over the course of the 

project, though only a few grantees reported these changes had major consequences for their 

outreach efforts. In Salem, the grantee director lost outside funding for her position. The 

grantee’s local evaluator took on managerial responsibilities for the duration of the grant, and 

the original project director offered some assistance as a consultant. Other grantees (e.g., 

ACORN and Tulsa) reported that turnover among key staff slowed implementation of 

outreach. 

Use of volunteers: Several grantees, especially ACORN, Central NY, GPCAH, SHFB, 

and Tulsa, found that volunteers provided an invaluable, low-cost source of outreach workers. 

These grantees relied on volunteers’ assorted activities, from basic information dissemination 

(e.g., handing out fliers) to more intensive prescreening and application assistance. Grantees 

reported that extensive networks of volunteers successfully put a “face” on outreach activities. 

ACORN’s evaluation report noted that volunteers effectively interacted with individuals in 

supermarkets about the benefits of participating in the FSP. These personal interactions led to 

more immediate application completions on site, rather than postponements. Some grantees 

also found that recruiting volunteers from the same general demographic group (and who 

spoke the same language) as the targeted populations increased trust and acceptance. 

Training represented a major cost of incorporating volunteers into outreach activities. 

These costs were especially high in areas with more intensive training activities and high 

turnover. Central NY reported that turnover was especially costly because it had to consistently 

train new volunteers in prescreening. 

Another important lesson was that volunteers had to be comfortable providing different 

outreach services. In Central NY volunteers were reluctant to conduct prescreenings because 

they were uncomfortable asking individuals to divulge personal information or afraid of 

making a calculation error. SHFB limited the role of their volunteer “promotores” to case 

referrals after local food stamp office raised concerns about errors attributable to volunteers. 

GPCAH (see GPCAH text box), the largest user of volunteers across the projects, 

found that focusing on a smaller group of very committed volunteers was more productive than 

supervising a much larger group of volunteers. Not surprisingly, the volunteers who devoted 

the most time to the project were generally more productive. The GPCAH local evaluation 

report found that the student volunteer team screened and enrolled over twice as many clients 

as the community/faith-based volunteer team. However, many of the students had strong 

incentives to perform exceptionally because the outreach activities qualified as a work-study 

activity or helped to satisfy a course requirement. 

33
 

Greater Philadelphia Coalition against Hunger (GPCAH) Use of Volunteers 

GPCAH relied heavily on volunteers to conduct outreach activities. Student volunteers were

recruited from 11 colleges and universities and included work-study students (paid through 

university funds) and students enrolled in service learning courses and programs that required 

community service work as part of their course requirements. Community and faith-based 

volunteers were recruited through GPCAH’s longstanding partnership with the Interfaith 

Hunger Group and the GPCAH newsletter. 

GPCAH-trained student and community/faith-based volunteers disseminated information 

about the FSP and provided prescreening and application assistance at assigned sites 

throughout the community. GPCAH developed and provided a four-hour training session for 

volunteers that included an overview of the FSP and instructions on performing outreach, 

prescreening, and application assistance. Volunteers also received training on collecting and 

logging data from each contact with potential applicants for evaluation purposes. 

GPCAH found that volunteers varied in their level of comfort conducting the activities 

needed for this project. Student volunteers were more comfortable than other volunteers with 

the math skills needed to calculate potential eligibility and benefit levels, although they were 

not as comfortable approaching people and promoting the program. Community and faithbased volunteers were often more experienced in working with low-income populations and 

often incorporated FSP outreach into services they were already providing (e.g., working at a 

food pantry). 

GPCAH found that recruiting, training, and supervising volunteers was very time 

consuming. It also found that only a limited number of volunteers could dedicate the needed 

time and energy to this project. The GPCAH local evaluation report noted that their student 

volunteer team screened and enrolled over twice as many clients as the community/faith-based 

volunteer team and their top five volunteers each enrolled more than 45 people for the 

program. The grantee concluded that selective recruitment that identifies volunteers with the 

time, energy, and interest in working with the target population is most effective. Many student 

volunteers also had an extra incentive to perform because they received pay and credit hours 

for the work. 

When asked about future use of volunteers, GPCAH staff responded: “We decided that we 

wanted to continue with this because it’s been rewarding. We feel like sometimes the training 

takes a lot of time, and it takes people some time to pick up on how to do screenings and stuff 

like that, but in the end it’s worthwhile. Hearing students...say...they’ve grown from the 

experience. They’ve never...been exposed to working in the city before, or listened to what 

was going on in the lives of people who are low income. That hasn’t been a reality that they’ve 

had to deal with before, and it’s been very rewarding.” 

Partnerships: All grantees generally reported that active community partners helped 

them leverage their resources, enhance their outreach activities, and reach their various target

populations. ACORN paired up with an immigrant social services organization to provide 

further access to immigrant populations. GPCAH developed new partnerships with one-stop 

employment centers and workforce agencies where new clients were accessing the system (as 

opposed to food banks and pantries where GPCAH saw the same individuals on multiple 

visits). 

34
 

Grantees cited several important components of developing successful partnerships (see 

text box). First, it was important to identify partners with longstanding roots and established 

relationships with the target population. Second, a successful partnership required buy-in from

the partner organization, particularly at the management level. Specifically, partners needed to 

understand the project and be willing to commit staff to it. Third, the partner operated most 

efficiently when it clearly understood its role throughout the outreach activity. Fourth, the ideal 

partner must understand the FSP or be willing to learn about the program (and changing 

policies). Finally, staff from partner organizations must be comfortable performing outreach 

activities, including more challenging prescreening and application assistance activities. 

Most partnership concerns stemmed from the grantee’s limited management control 

over staff who reported to another agency and a loss of interest or commitment over time. The 

biggest problem reported in two sites—Illinois and Salem-Keizer—was that partner staff was 

not able to dedicate adequate time to FSP outreach activities. In both sites, school staff added 

FSP outreach to their other job duties, with no additional compensation or reduction in other 

duties. Also, while Illinois completed a successful partnership, it reported that outreach

activities were not a top priority of school administrators or staff. In other projects, such as 

Central NY, partners’ staff performance was inconsistent, attributed in part to staff turnover. 

Some grantees reported difficulties maintaining their partnerships and keeping them active. For 

example, Delaware’s local evaluation report estimated that while many member agencies 

agreed to participate, only one-third were actively involved throughout the project. In many 

cases, partners that were inactive either did not fully understand their roles or did not buy in to 

the process. Another challenge was that some partners could not implement all aspects of the 

grantee’s outreach activities or data collection efforts. In some cases, this was due to a lack of 

experience or understanding of the need for data tracking. In others, it was a result of lack of 

technological expertise. 

At least two grantees felt they had to overcome the attitudes of some community 

leaders about the FSP. For example, church leaders in North Carolina mentioned their families 

did not need assistance from the FSP because other private services already took care of these 

families. Muskegon had difficulties engaging the Veterans Affairs Office because the office 

did not fully understand (or believe in) the benefits of the FSP for its clientele. 

New technology: As noted in section IV, the use of technology for prescreening, 

application assistance, and sometimes application submission was an essential component of 

project development in most sites. However, designing and implementing new technology, or 

adapting existing technologies, proved challenging and labor intensive. 

Seven grantees with technology applications ran into project start-up delays. Delays 

resulted from technical challenges and bureaucratic approval processes. For example, project 

activities in Atlantic City were delayed for several months while staff awaited final approval 

for the purchase of new laptop computers. Project Bread had to readjust timelines to 

accommodate the schedules of multiple contractors and had to continually readjust

specifications for a new web site. Tulsa changed software vendors because it needed a more 

flexible prescreening program. Even grantees that originally planned to use the USDA 

prescreening software faced delays and made other arrangements when the release of this tool 

was delayed. 

35
 

Creating Successful Partnerships—SHFB and Illinois Grantee Experiences 

The experiences of the grantees highlight several key ingredients for a successful partnership. 

Here are the partnership strategies successfully employed by two grantees: 

Identify and cultivate partners who have established relationships with the target population. 

SHFB chose as its key partners three community social service agencies whose service 

populations included large numbers of low-income Hispanic families and individuals. The 

three partner agencies were the Familia Center (a food distribution agency and family resource 

center with “one-stop shopping” for the low-income population), La Manzana Community

Resources Center (a one-stop, multipurpose family resource center), and Salud Para la Gente (a 

community agency that provides health services to the Latino population). Each community

partner provided a dedicated part-time outreach worker who assisted applicants with the 

prescreening and application process and provided case management and follow-up for clients 

he or she assisted. SHFB found that partnering with staff who were already providing other 

social services/nutrition education and who had established personal connections and rapport 

with members of the community proved successful. Social service agency partners provide 

broader reach in the community and a sense of teamwork. These partnerships also extended 

outreach to a more diverse geographical and cultural population base. 

Obtain project buy-in from the partner organization, particularly at the management level. 

Illinois developed a new partnership with the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) to increase 

enrollment in the FSP among families with children in the school system. Illinois worked with 

KidCare coordinators (KCCs), CPS staff who conducted outreach and completed applications

for Illinois’ Children’s Health Insurance Program, KidCare. Project staff helped KCCs use a 

web-based prescreening and application assistance tool, which allowed them to add food stamp 

outreach to their existing activities. Illinois found that securing the investment of 

administrators at the top levels of the system, including members of the board of education, the 

Superintendent of the schools, directors of the finance department, and local school 

administrators, was crucial to the success of their project. The number of applications 

generated for CPS families increased after a meeting with top-level school officials in the fall 

of 2004. Parent attendance was high at outreach events conducted by Illinois and KCCs at 

schools whose principal was interested in the project’s activities and made sure parents and 

staff understood the importance of the work. 

One important lesson in rolling out new technology was the need to accommodate the 

different technological skills of partners, volunteers, and applicants. Tulsa staff noted a 

challenge in “creating a web site that would be helpful and useful to folks who did not have 

access to the Internet in their homes or who lacked experience using computers.” 

Once implemented, grantees continually monitored and updated their electronic 

prescreening and application tools. A few grantees interacted with users to improve their web 

site throughout the project. Central NY and Project Bread staff modified their web site based 

on user suggestions, new data requirements, and changes in food stamp guidelines. Similarly, 

Vermont staff used focus groups to formally solicit feedback and update their web site. 

Five grantees reported the software developed for their projects would be used after 

their grants ended (including Project Bread, Tulsa, Madison, Vermont, and Central NY). 

36
 

Atlantic City, a site that used software developed by the local food stamp office, said that their 

local food stamp offices encouraged them to continue using the tool. 

Training: Training was a major development activity for several grantees, especially 

those with extensive partnerships or volunteer arrangements and those implementing 

technology applications. Training sessions varied significantly across projects, often in 

response to the sophistication of the outreach activities. Because of frequent turnover among 

partner staff and volunteers, training continued after initial project start-up. 

Venue: Despite diverse outreach settings, grantees frequently identified two 

characteristics of promising venues. First, clients needed some privacy. Staff in Indiana and 

Madison reported that clients resisted outreach in very public spaces where they feared a friend 

or neighbor would see them. GPCAH, Illinois, Muskegon, and SHFB found their hotlines were 

effective because clients could seek assistance from knowledgeable staff on their own terms (in 

the privacy of their homes, at a convenient time, etc.). Second, some grantees noted that access 

to a changing audience proved very important in expanding the scope of outreach services. For 

example, staff in GPCAH and Muskegon found that outreach at health centers and career 

centers, where they regularly saw new faces, was more productive than at food banks and 

pantries, which generally served a consistent clientele. Similarly, the Salem-Keizer evaluation 

report questioned the effectiveness of repeated outreach efforts through school events because 

the same families attended each event. 

Some grantees reported different experiences at the same types of venues, suggesting 

that the type of setting did not matter as much as its specific characteristics and the mode of

outreach services (see text box). For example, Muskegon found schools an ineffective avenue 

for reaching potential applicants, noting the schools inconsistently distributed materials to 

parents. In contrast, Illinois found it could effectively target information dissemination to 

families with children in school lunch programs, but found schools a poor setting for 

prescreening and application assistance because busy parents did not have the time to focus on 

this assistance at school events. 

Partnerships with Food Stamp Offices 

Grantees implemented a variety of successful approaches to foster communication with the 

FSP agency. For example, SHFB staff held regularly scheduled meetings to discuss challenges 

at all levels and resolve operational issues. GPCAH worked extensively with FSP staff at the 

regional and local levels to develop protocols for processing their cases. Liaisons were 

appointed at each local office to work with project staff and ensure careful tracking of project 

outcomes. Illinois (see text box) formalized a similar effort—Community Quality Councils—

to improve communication across the food stamp offices, community groups, and outreach 

staff. 

37
 

Effective Outreach at Select Venues 

Schools: Grantees had mixed views on the effectiveness of outreach in school settings, 

suggesting schools may be best suited for increasing awareness about the FSP, rather than 

helping families with prescreening or applications. Outreach workers in Illinois found schoolbased events were good opportunities for outreach and disseminating information, but not good 

for completing applications. The local evaluation report concluded that piggybacking on other 

events (health fairs, report card pickup, and other multiservice events) was not the most 

effective strategy. While multiservice events provide an opportunity to advertise the FSP and 

other services, and school employees are available for application assistance, parents became 

distracted at events where several services were offered and did not have the time or the 

patience to complete applications. Events dedicated to educating parents about their rights and 

eligibility along with completing applications on their behalf proved far more effective than 

cosponsoring events with other agencies. 

Alternatively, staff in Muskegon found schools an ineffective avenue for reaching potential 

applicants because schools inconsistently distributed materials to parents. They suggested that 

targeting families with children in free and reduced-price lunch programs may be more 

effective. Salem-Keizer staff found that they reached the same core group of parents that 

frequently attended school events, never reaching the working poor (especially single parents) 

who did not attend these events. In contrast to Illinois, staff at Project Bread and Miami found 

that trying to catch parents before and after school was not a good strategy because parents 

were often too hurried to stop and discuss food stamp benefits. 

Grocery Stores: Grantees had varied thoughts on the success of conducting outreach in 

grocery stores. ACORN and GPCAH, for example, found it a very successful way to “get the

word out” about food stamp benefits. However, staff in Indiana and Madison found grocery 

stores were good outlets for distributing information about the FSP, but not for conducting 

prescreening because of stigma concerns (i.e., clients were concerned about being seen by their 

neighbors). 

Other Program/Tax Filing Centers: Project Bread found that settings where clients were 

already applying for a public benefit were a more natural fit: clients are already prepared to 

provide the necessary application information and have allocated time to apply for assistance.

Similarly, Tulsa was able to capitalize on the documentation that EITC clients had with them

when seeking assistance with tax preparation: much of the same information was required for 

tax services and applying for the FSP. 

Group Presentations: Staff in North Carolina found that many potential applicants were not 

comfortable approaching staff to be prescreened after group presentations. The grantee 

responded by asking seniors who were interested in being prescreened to write down their 

names and phone numbers as well as a convenient time for a more private prescreening. 

Similarly, staff in Connecticut found many clients were not comfortable with prescreening in a 

group setting. Connecticut also began accepting individual appointments. 

While communicating with FSP management staff was important, Tulsa staff also 

stressed the importance of communicating with front-line staff. One respondent noted, “It’s not 

only that you’ve got to manage relationships with the local level, and even down to the level of 

the receptionist that is at each [food stamp] office where you’re referring to clients....You need 

38
 

to think of who are the gatekeepers...and how you need to build that relationship and make 

sure that they feel part of the process.” 

Some grantees found it most effective to designate point persons at the food stamp 

office to handle all the grantees’ applications. In California, SHFB and the food stamp office 

established a formal communication protocol that worked well over the course of the project. 

The lead outreach worker directed case management questions to food stamp supervisors at the 

two food stamp offices, and directed more complex questions about regulations to the senior 

analyst overseeing the project at the welfare office. 

Illinois Hunger Coalition: Developing Relationships with the Food Stamp Office 

The Illinois Hunger Coalition had a longstanding, close working relationship with Illinois Department 

of Human Services (IDHS) staff going into this project. Throughout, they worked with the food stamp 

office to improve services. RealBenefits liaisons were designated in each local food stamp office to 

improve how applications submitted by the grantee were handled. These liaisons received all 

applications generated by the grantee and acted as designated contacts for all questions regarding 

applications completed using RealBenefits (the grantee’s online prescreening tool). 

Illinois staff worked with IDHS to develop Community Quality Councils. Established in six local 

welfare offices, these councils were designed to build relationships among community groups and staff 

and increase the understanding of FSP policies and procedures. Typically, Illinois staff and their 

outreach workers met with and case managers and administrators from the welfare office to discuss 

issues that arose. Through these meetings, staff worked together to decrease barriers and generally

improve outreach. The councils, according to the local evaluator, were “instrumental in empowering” 

outreach workers and helping them provide better services for their families by giving them personal 

contacts at the welfare office. The councils also created a forum for educating local food stamp office 

staff about the outreach effort. 

Grantee staff felt the councils engaged food stamp eligibility workers in the outreach effort, noting 

“one of the benefits has been [providing real connections] to kids at school and I think it made 

[eligibility workers] want to work a little harder and try to...make...coming to the local office a little 

easier. They felt like they could be part of a solution.”

Some sites incorporated food stamp office staff in their training exercises, creating 

important direct links between partners and food stamp staff. Other grantees noted the benefits 

of involving FSP staff in more phases of outreach. In Madison a food stamp worker conducted 

eligibility determination activities in the field and eliminated the need for some applicants to 

visit the food stamp office. Food stamp staff workers in North Carolina frequently 

accompanied outreach workers to presentations and distributed information to potential 

applicants. 

Sometimes circumstances at local food stamp offices limited the quality of

relationships with outreach grantees. Connecticut noted that high turnover among staff and 

administrators at the food stamp office made it difficult to sustain consistent relationships 

during the planning and early implementation of project. Two sites (Illinois and Connecticut) 

reported that high work volumes made it difficult or impossible for food stamp staff to track 

outcomes for large numbers of applications submitted through the outreach initiatives. 

39
 

Connecticut addressed the problem, though not completely, by submitting all applications to a 

central location and creating a detailed record keeping system.

Some grantees had difficulties getting local food stamp office staff to buy in to the 

outreach activities. For example, while the food stamp office regularly sent staff to outreach 

activities in Salem, the local FSP staff were not always proactive in engaging and enrolling 

event participants. They also resisted providing necessary tracking information for those 

families that they did engage. 

Outreach Strategies 

Grantees provide numerous lessons about how to disseminate information, the most effective 

prescreening processes, and the importance of application assistance. 

Information dissemination: Outreach grantees spent considerable effort disseminating 

information about food stamp benefits, and changing public perception of food stamps as a 

welfare benefit. For example, GPCAH staff presented the FSP as a “food assistance” program

rather than a welfare program. Consistent with existing studies, most grantees reported 

misinformation and misperceptions about the FPS among potential applicants. Grantees 

reported a general lack of understanding about who is eligible to receive food stamps. Also, 

some people did not know which stores accepted food stamps or that paper food stamp 

coupons were eliminated. Other potential applicants thought there was a “catch” to receiving 

benefits such as immigrants believing that the benefits would have to be paid back. Stigma and 

privacy issues were also identified as major barriers to FSP participation. 

Grantees found some approaches to information dissemination worked better than 

others. At least one grantee found informational flyers were generally more effective when 

they included eligibility information, such as maximum income levels, potential benefit 

amounts, and a list of required verification documents. Illinois’ staff found that detailed flyers 

helped applicants come to outreach events better prepared. As one staff member noted, “I think 

that really helped a lot because we had people coming in a little more educated, a little more 

familiar with what the [process would be].” 

While it was difficult to track the effectiveness of broad information dissemination 

approaches, SHFB found television and, to a lesser extent, radio ads were more effective than 

billboards in conveying information about the FSP program (see text box). Similarly, 

Muskegon staff found radio advertisements more effective than billboards (based on the 

number of phone calls they received to their hotline) in educating the public and reducing 

stigma associated with food stamp receipt. 

While broad information dissemination was effective in generating publicity at several 

sites, some grantees preferred personal interactions because they were the most effective way 

to communicate the benefits of FSP participation. For example, ACORN’s evaluation reported 

that face-to-face outreach was more effective than “paper” dissemination because it gave 

40
 

Second Harvest Food Bank (SHFB): Information Dissemination Strategies 

SHFB outreach workers handed out 60,859 flyers, brochures, and posters (including the USDA-issued 

materials stamped with the SHFB logo) in English and Spanish at community agencies and 

organizations, food pantries, health fairs, and soup kitchens. SHFB outreach workers made 865 

outreach/screening/assistance/presentations at more than 100 sites, speaking with 31,663 potential food 

stamp clients. SHFB felt these contacts were very successful and attributed much of their success to the 

cultural appropriateness of their outreach workers—they felt that they were successful because they

“spoke the language of the community.” 

SHFB also developed and ran on major broadcast television stations two 30-second English/Spanish 

public service announcements designed to increase awareness of food stamp eligibility and present the 

FSP as a nutrition program for low-income workers. Those ads increased calls to the local community

food hotline by 68 percent and made 3,196,000 “gross impressions”, a rough estimate of the number of 

people that heard these announcements. 

In addition, SHFB developed a 5-minute English-Spanish video loop dispelling 12 common FSP 

myths that featured a bilingual California Assembly member as narrator. The myths included a fear that 

FSP participation would have negative effects on immigration status, an assumption that if parents were 

not eligible no one in the family was eligible, and a belief that the benefits would have to be paid back 

by their sponsors. Finally, SHFB worked with the LA Regional Food Bank to develop an outreach web 

site with a prescreening tool. 

SHFB tracked the number of outreach materials distributed and the media impact of the PSAs by

asking applicants how they heard about their services. This information was recorded on the applicant’s 

waiver form granting permission for SHFB workers to act as liaisons with the food stamp office for 

them and tracked on spreadsheets by outreach workers. The hotline staff also tracked the number of calls 

about food stamp benefits after the PSAs aired and which television stations generated the calls. SHFB 

also informally tracked reasons why some who met with an outreach worker decided not to complete the 

application process. Besides immigration fears, SHFB found that clients dropped out because of the time 

and complexity involved in the application process. This information allowed the project to “ make midstream course corrections” and to “adjust outreach efforts for greater success.” This information was 

also used as the basis for the short video aimed at breaking down barriers to food stamp participation. 

At the end of the grant period, SHFB staff felt that they had “built up trust in the FSP program

among the community members.” In the word of one staff member, “I think it’s mainly in that area of 

having many more people in the community aware of their potential eligibility, understanding the role of 

the FSP, and the amount of trust and interaction between the outreach workers and people in the 

community around food stamps.” Staff also felt their successful demystifying of the FSP had resulted in 

increased participation. 

applicants an opportunity to discuss their concerns. On the other hand, several grantees viewed 

hotlines as an especially effective part of their information dissemination campaign because 

grantees could directly address FSP participation concerns in an anonymous venue that put 

most potential applicants at ease. 

41
 

Prescreening: In addition to identifying an eligible pool of applicants, many grantees 

reported that prescreening encouraged participation in the FSP. Prescreens showed reluctant 

individuals if they were eligible and their potential benefit amounts. 

In most cases, grantees used a mixture of prescreening formats (paper, computer, and 

web-based), which they changed based on the technology access at the prescreening venues 

(see text box). The prescreening tool also varied depending on the client in some sites. For 

example, elderly clients in Madison preferred paper prescreening forms because they worried 

about entering their personal information in a computer. Most grantees emphasized that 

flexibility in using these tools was essential for getting different populations started. 

While these projects do not provide a definitive assessment of the effectiveness of

prescreening alone, some do provide some insights. Ten projects moved directly from

prescreening to helping eligible clients fill out an application form, making it impossible to 

assess whether the prescreenings alone would have encouraged clients to fill out applications. 

Five projects (ACORN, Delaware, GPCAH, Indiana, and Vermont) stopped their initial 

outreach step with a prescreening and left it up to the clients to fill out and take their 

applications to the food stamp office. (Most of these projects did, however, follow up with 

clients who did not submit applications.) Two projects reported that about half of those 

prescreened as eligible submitted applications, and two other sites had lower ratios of

submissions to prescreenings (based on their outcome data). One site, Indiana seemed to have 

greater success. Based on their outcome data, about two-thirds of their prescreened clients 

submitted applications. While it is not clear why Indiana had greater success with prescreening 

than the others, one factor may have been that they did not include non-English-speaking 

groups who generally have a more difficult time understanding the whole application process 

in their target population. Three other sites (Connecticut, MCC, and North Carolina) attempted 

to test the effectiveness of different outreach strategies, including prescreening alone. All three 

sites concluded that more intensive “case management” services were more effective. 

Application assistance: Despite the variety in their target populations and outreach 

processes, nine grantees concluded that successful completion of an FSP application process 

required intensive assistance. Many clients prescreened as eligible did not submit applications 

to the food stamp office on their own. Further, clients for whom application forms were 

submitted to the food stamp office often missed their certification appointments or failed to 

provide all the necessary verification documents. Some grantees intensified their application 

assistance once they recognized these issues. 

Grantees found they had to follow-up with applicants multiple times. MCC staff often 

followed up with clients as many as three or four times. They reported that of the 133 

households that submitted applications, 70 percent did so only after extensive application 

assistance and support. Delaware’s local evaluator noted staff found many prescreened 

individuals “did not understand they would need to go to a service center and apply for 

benefits.” They also reported “several clients had a change in their personal situation that 

affected their eligibility, but some clients just lost interest.” 

 

42
 

Community Action Program for Madison County (Madison): Use of Prescreening 

The Community Action Program for Madison County (Madison) was the only grantee to 

develop a publicly accessible web site that allows a user to not only prescreen and complete an 

application form online but also submit an application directly to the food stamp office. 

Madison’s web site (www.madisoncountyfoodstamps.org), created specifically for this grant, 

was launched on October 1, 2003. A consultant was hired to develop the web site, ensure the 

online application mirrored the statewide application, and make modifications as needed. Staff 

felt the development and early implementation of the web site was extremely successful, 

particularly in terms of the good cooperation between the technical consultant, the FSP staff, 

and the Madison outreach coordinator 

Madison’s web site includes a six-question prescreening tool (based on the USDA 

prescreening tool) to determine likelihood of eligibility for the FSP and the maximum monthly

benefit. If it appears to the person conducting the prescreening that the applicant will be 

eligible, the client can continue on to the application. Applications can be completed and 

submitted online directly to the local food stamp office, where they are printed and assigned to 

the FSP outreach worker for processing and eligibility determination. Applications can also 

downloaded, filled out, and mailed or hand-delivered to the local office. Once the application 

has been processed, the food stamp office sends a letter stating the application has been 

received and approval is pending provision of required documentation. If the applicant is not 

required to come to the food stamp office, an interview can be conducted by phone, 

documentation can be mailed, and the FSP outreach worker can meet with the applicant off-site 

to complete the photo ID and finger imaging components. 

Individuals can access and use this site on their own or with the assistance of Madison’s 

outreach worker, the FSP outreach worker, or trained staff at various sites throughout the 

community. Extensive training on the web site (and promotion of its use) was conducted by the 

Madison Outreach Coordinator. 

Staff considered the web site development and their success in “getting the word out to the 

people” about the new tool major victories. In the words of one staff member, “I think we’ve 

made the whole FSP more visible to the community, emphasizing that it is an agricultural 

program instead of a welfare program, because we have had that message, we’ve put forth that 

message over and over again.” They also reported the community was receptive to the web 

site, noting they continued to field calls from individuals who had heard about the web site and 

wanted to know how to sign on. 

Even grantees that sent complete application forms electronically to the food stamp 

office reported that clients needed follow-up with appointments and verification requirements. 

For example, Madison’s local evaluation report noted that the biggest reason for denial for 

their clients was incomplete documentation. Their clients reported the following reasons for 

not following up: not aware of the extent of the documentation required, unable to get to the 

food stamp office (lived over an hour away), did not receive return phone calls from a food 

stamp office worker, felt the process violated their privacy, and did not want to go to the DSS 

office. 

The three sites that conducted their application assistance in conjunction with other 

public programs found this was an efficient way to assist families with their food stamp 

43
 

applications. These grantees reported they needed to market the FSP with some other program

to make it more appealing. For example, Muskegon packaged FSP benefits with health 

insurance, and engaged more people in their outreach activities as a result. Miami marketed 

their information dissemination activities and subsequent assistance as part of an economic 

benefits package. They discussed the EITC and the state’s SCHIP program along with the FSP. 

Tulsa (see text box) invited people to prescreening for several services while they were waiting 

for free tax preparation services. The outreach project took advantage of the fact that the 

documents required for tax filing also provided good information about eligibility for other 

low-income programs. 

Community Action Project of Tulsa County (CAPTC): 

Partnership with Tax Preparation Sites 

CAPTC provided food stamp prescreening and application assistance using its web-based 

prescreening tool in conjunction with its annual Earned Income Tax Credit outreach and free 

tax preparation services. Screenings were conducted at the nine tax preparation sites in and 

around Tulsa. Clients waiting to have their taxes prepared were asked if they would like to

check their eligibility for various programs in their community, rather than if they wanted to be 

screened for food stamp benefits. CAPTC’s flyers promoting the prescreening tool also 

avoided mentioning the FSP by name. Instead, the flyer said: “Answer a few simple questions 

to see if you qualify for FREE assistance with: food, education, job training, housing, child 

care, utilities, health services, prescription assistance, financial assistance.” Staff found it 

highly effective to pitch this as a broader screening of “programs to take advantage of.” This 

also helped them work around the stigma attached to the FSP. 

Clients that agreed to participate in the screening could be screened immediately at the tax 

preparation center or schedule a time to return for a prescreening. If clients were called in to 

have their taxes prepared before finishing the food stamp screening, they could resume the 

screening after doing their taxes or could make an appointment to complete it over the phone or 

at a CAPTC office. 

Grantees also reported on obstacles their clients faced in getting the food stamp office. 

Over half the sites reported that transportation was a major barrier, particularly in rural areas. 

In Madison, some applicants reported traveling up to 75 miles round-trip to reach a food stamp 

office. In some sites, these issues were compounded by offices that were only open during 

regular business hours. 

Lessons Learned about Target Populations’ Participation Barriers 

The outreach projects provided lessons about barriers among specific target populations, 

including non-English speakers, the elderly, and low-wage workers, as well as grantees’ 

strategies to reach these populations. 

Non-English Speakers 

Grantees that served noncitizen and limited English-speaking populations found these groups 

had difficulties because of language issues and a mistrust or misunderstanding of FSP rules. 

44
 

Illinois staff noted a myth circulating in one immigrant community that if families applied for 

FSP benefits, their family members would be drafted into the Armed Services. Illinois 

successfully educated Hispanic and Indian/Pakistani populations through their information 

dissemination in the Chicago public school system. Other grantees felt their outreach activities 

erased misperceptions among immigrant parents that did not understand that citizen children 

could receive food stamp benefits even when parents were ineligible. 

Many grantees reported that immigrants’ fears over jeopardizing their immigration 

status prevented many potentially-eligible immigrants from applying for benefits. The SHFB 

employed several strategies to dispel this myth, including a flyer explaining that food stamp 

benefits are not a public charge issue and contact information for a regional immigration 

information hotline. SHFB also distributed a policy letter generated by the U.S. Citizen

Information Service (formerly the INS) to allay these fears. SHFB also switched the focus for 

outreach workers during the course of their projects. Reacting to the large number of denials 

among immigrants that submitted applications—often because of failure to complete their 

interviews or provide information—the grantee conducted more follow-up services. Several 

other grantees that worked with immigrants noted the challenge of assuring immigrants that 

their SSNs and other personal data would not be turned over to immigration authorities. 

Grantees also noted the importance of having translation services both as part of the 

outreach services and at local food stamp offices. Some immigrants reported that translation 

services were not always available at local offices. Grantees that worked with these 

populations generally reported that immigrants needed more intensive outreach services, 

including follow-up to help them through what is perceived as a complex application process. 

A few grantees sent volunteers to immigrants’ homes to help them with verification 

documents. 

Elderly 

Several grantees reported unique challenges in serving elderly clients, who often noted the 

stigma of welfare receipt and did not believe the benefits of FSP participation outweighed the 

hassles of applying for benefits. Grantees working with elderly clients reported that the elderly 

did not want their friends or neighbors to know that they were interested in food stamps. Other 

projects noted that the elderly found the application process complex and were unwilling 

and/or unable to wait for long times at the local food stamp office. 

Seniors also did not want to provide personal information to outreach workers. These 

barriers were especially difficult at sites, such as Madison, where applicants had to share 

personal information over the Internet and at sites in states requiring fingerprinting and photo 

identification. 

Staff in Connecticut and Delaware reported that the elderly often received incorrect 

information or misunderstood the information, making the application process confusing. One 

worker noted “the challenge with [the elderly] is, again, to get them to listen and to make them

believe there’s something different than what they heard. You know, they’ve heard time and 

45
 

time again that there’s only $10 they qualify for, which, in some case, is the truth, then you’re 

not going to get them to be receptive.” 

Grantees pursued various strategies to build trust with the elderly community. North 

Carolina, which conducted one of the most extensive outreach efforts to seniors, found 

outreach that included local leaders and/or family members was an effective mechanism in 

building trust with the elderly (see text box). Madison staff attempted to build trust by using 

paper prescreening tools to calm fears of senior citizens wary of electronic forms. Connecticut 

suggested using senior volunteers to reach out to seniors because the elderly seemed to distrust 

young outreach workers. 

North Carolina: Reaching Out to Seniors 

North Carolina disseminated information about food stamp benefits to numerous seniors and 

used a paper prescreening tool to determine seniors’ benefit eligibility at partner sites. In some 

counties, outreach workers conducted follow-up calls to seniors who were prescreened and 

eligible to determine whether they applied and what happened. North Carolina worked with a 

broad group of aging organizations as advisers and as outreach participants, and developed a

strong relationship with the regional food stamp office, which helped with presentations and 

the development of the paper prescreening tool. 

North Carolina found that privacy and confidentiality issues presented barriers, especially

for those living in rural areas. The grantee recognized that many seniors were not comfortable 

coming up to be prescreened after the presentation, “They did not want their neighbors...to 

know that they might need and want this.” Outreach staff responded by asking seniors who 

were interested to write down their names and phone numbers and later called them to set up 

an appointment for a more private prescreening. 

North Carolina also found that seniors responded best to known individuals and family

members. For example, seniors distrusted outreach workers who were basically strangers. The 

grantee subsequently brought individuals from community agencies who were known to these 

seniors to help with the presentations and tried to identify “peer leaders” who could talk to 

seniors about food stamp benefits. Family members also exerted a tremendous influence on 

seniors and whether they followed through with their benefit applications. Some family

members handled their finances and had the documentation required to file an application. 

North Carolina developed a special information packet and sent letters to seniors’ family

members. 

North Carolina also found that getting to the food stamp office and waiting at the office for 

their appointment could be difficult for the seniors. The project was able to “bring the food 

stamp office to the elderly” in one county. Caseworkers came to a low-income housing unit 

and assisted seniors with their application forms and documentation. 

Low-Wage Workers 

Working poor populations presented several challenges to grantees, including overcoming 

stigma, facilitating accessing the food stamp office, and identifying this population at typical 

outreach venues. Many working poor individuals did not want charity and especially did not 

want to go to a welfare office for help. One grantee (Connecticut) noted that working poor 

46
 

families turn to the FSP as a “last resort,” only in a crisis. Many grantees avoided using the 

term “food stamps” in their dissemination literature and referred to benefits as “food 

assistance” instead. 

Access to the local food stamp office was a consistently reported barrier among 

families with children and working poor families. Participants had competing obligations, 

including work and child care, that made getting to the food stamp office very difficult, 

especially in rural locations where the drive to the food stamp office was lengthy. Working 

poor families also found it difficult to get to the food stamp office during their regular business 

hours. One site (ACRON) arranged for 7:30 a.m. eligibility interviews for their employed 

referrals at the local food stamp office. Some grantees also reported barriers in finding the 

working poor, especially those who were not connected to a community or government 

program. 

Miami specifically targeted the working poor by reaching out to employers (see text 

box). A key element of Miami’s strategy was packaging services, such as health insurance, 

with food stamp benefits to increase the incentive for potential applicants to apply. Miami was 

able to enlist some interest from employers, although it was difficult to sustain. 

Human Services Coalition of Miami: Employers as Partners 

During presentations at local businesses, HSC staff presented the FSP as one component of an 

“economic benefits package” to help working families. The grantee believed that food stamp 

benefits alone would not be attractive to most employers, and instead promoted a package of 

benefits available to low-income families. Interested individuals were provided information 

about the FSP along with the EITC and Florida’s Kid Care Health Insurance. Employees were

given a phone number to call for a prescreening. A web-based tool was used to prescreen 

potential applicants (often over the phone) and estimate benefits. If individuals appeared 

eligible, the tool was used to complete and generate applications for submission to the food

stamp office. 

The grantee reached out to employers by distributing information and conducting 

presentations at local businesses (for workers and human resource departments); it set up tables 

at local health fairs, and included information about benefits with the pay stubs of low-wage 

workers. 

On a limited basis, some local businesses used the software to prescreen their employees 

for food stamp eligibility. After screening employees and/or their family members, human 

resources staff at a local hotel faxed the completed applications to the food stamp office. 

Future Plans 

At the end of the projects, 10 grantees said that their outreach activities would continue in 

some form after their projects ended. In most cases, the grantees claimed their projects

heightened the awareness of the FSP in their communities and created interest by various 

entities, especially their partners, in continuing some form of the original outreach. 

Additionally, all the grantees that implemented public access web sites (Central NY, Madison, 

47
 

and Vermont) claimed they would continue to maintain their web sites and; in Madison, the 

state has indicated interest in reproducing the grantee’s online web site throughout the state. 

Even grantees expecting some continuation of outreach services, however, expected the 

activities to be more limited. 

Five sites (Illinois, Muskegon, Project Bread, SHFB, and Tulsa) stated they had 

received additional public or private funding to extend their outreach efforts. Illinois will use 

regular administrative matching funds from USDA to continue a similar effort focused on 

some Chicago public schools. Muskegon received new funding to work with other partners on 

their state FSP Outreach Plan, which would allow staff to continue providing similar outreach 

activities. Project Bread received private funding to continue their web-based system, as well 

as other activities with partner organizations. SHFB expects to continue its FSP outreach work, 

in part relying on grant funding from various areas. Finally, Tulsa received a grant from USDA 

for a three-year partnership with the state Department of Human Services to incorporate BESO 

into their service delivery package. 

Three grantees (MCC, North Carolina, and Salem-Keizer) said they would not continue 

any of their outreach efforts. MCC and Salem-Keizer cited a lack of funding for discontinuing 

efforts. North Carolina, which has the project operating under its Department of Health and 

Human Services Division of Aging, did not have a plan to continue the project, and suggested 

moving the project under the purview of the local food stamp office. 

In summary, the plans for continued outreach activities across the majority of sites 

suggest the sustainability of most of the funded projects. While it is impossible to quantify the 

effects of these future plans, the plans provide some additional context for interpreting the 

outcomes across sites. 

48
 

VI. Summary and Implications.

The features, experiences, and outcomes associated with the 18 food stamp outreach projects 

embody an important USDA initiative to improve participation in the FSP Projects occurred in 

local areas across the country and varied in their approaches and their target populations. Some

projects aimed to reach broad low-income populations in their communities, while others 

targeted specific groups, such as immigrants, seniors, and the working poor. 

Together, the projects provide lessons about and suggest strategies that could improve 

FSP participation. Grass-roots efforts that educate service providers, community leaders, 

businesses, and low-income populations about food stamp benefits help demystify an

application process perceived as complex. Using outreach workers with similar cultural and 

demographic characteristics to approach potential clients increases the likelihood of engaging 

clients in the process. New technologies that automate the application process also can 

facilitate participation. Clients can see whether they are eligible in a private, familiar setting. 

Eligible clients can be encouraged to move forward with an application. 

However, since members of the most vulnerable populations often fail to follow 

through with the process at the food stamp office, increasing program participation requires 

more than education and initial help filling out an application. The labor-intensive application 

assistance that some grantees provided is not cost-effective or feasible nationwide. Simplifying 

the verification documents required for eligibility and greater use of telephone eligibility 

interviews could help. Recent changes in food stamp regulations and legislation that allow 

states to simplify the application process should move the program toward a more user-friendly 

system for those that need and want food assistance. States should be encouraged to simplify 

the application process, train “pro-participation” eligibility workers, and provide basic followup services for eligible applicants who drop out of the process. 

Improvements in state office procedures that require additional caseworkers, of course, 

likely will entail additional administrative costs for state and federal governments. Investments 

should pay off, however, by enhancing the image of the program and improving food security 

among America’s poorest citizens. States also must balance new procedures that simplify the 

application and approval process against a goal of minimizing program errors. 

Materials for Operating a FSP Outreach Project 

Readers interested in developing their own FSP outreach projects might be interested in the 

materials provided by grantees under this project. Three projects (Central NY, Madison, and 

Vermont) have public access web sites that might be of interest for the development of future 

web sites (see text box). Additionally, two projects, Central NY and Illinois, provided an 

extensive list of supporting materials relevant to operating a FSP outreach project. Central NY 

developed a comprehensive document that outlines the steps for starting and maintaining a FSP 

outreach project, including suggestions for planning a project, setting up partnerships, training, 

49
 

expenses, and ongoing maintenance activities. Illinois sent in a list of flyers, photos, and other 

supporting materials that are relevant to the day-to-day operations of conducting FSP outreach. 

Readers interested in obtaining additional materials from these sites, as well as additional 

information from the local evaluation reports, should contact FNS or the grantees.21

Grantee Public Access Web Sites with Prescreeners 

Central New York: www.foodstampshelp.org 

Madison: www.madisoncountyfoodstamps.org 

Vermont: www.vermontfoodhelp.com

 

21 A reference list of grantee project reports is included in appendix Exhibit C.6. 

50
 

References 

Bartlett, Susan, Nancy Burstein, and William Hamilton. 2004. Food Stamp Program Access 

Study: Final Report. Report submitted to the Economic Research Service, USDA, 

Washington, DC. 

Council of Economic Advisers. 2004. Economic Report of the President, Transmitted to the 

Congress February 2004. U.S. GPO: Washington, DC. 

Cunnyngham, Karen. 2005. Trends in Food Stamp Program Participation Rates: 2003. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, the Food and Nutrition Service. A product of Mathematica 

Policy Research, Washington, DC. 

Dean, Stacy, and Ray Horng. 2002. States’ Vehicle Asset Policies in the Food Stamp Program. 

Report. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Washington, DC. 

Farrell, Mary, Michael Fishman, Matthew Langley, and David Stapleton. 2003. The 

Relationship of Earnings and Income to Food Stamp Participation: A Longitudinal 

Analysis. Report to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 

Lewin Group and Cornell Center for Policy Research, Fairfax, VA. 

FNS. 2005. Food Stamp Program Participation and Costs, downloaded from

http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/fsfypart.htm on April 26, 2005. 

Gabor, Vivian, Susan Schreiber Williams, Hilary Bellamy, and Brooke Hardison. 2001. 

Seniors’ Views of the Food Stamp Program and Ways to Improve Participation: Focus 

Group Findings in Washington State. Health Systems Research, Washington, DC. 

Hanson, Kenneth, and Craig Gundersen. 2002. Issues in Food Assistance: How Unemployment 

Affects the Food Stamp Program. Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Report No. 

26-7. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC. 

Kaplan, Jan. 2003. “Restoring Food Stamp Eligibility for Legal Immigrants: State 

Implementation Issues”. Welfare Information Network Vol 7, No. 3, Washington, DC. 

LTG Associates. 1999. Food Stamp Program Client Enrollment Assistance Demonstration 

Projects: Final Evaluation Report. Report to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, FNS. 

Takoma Park, MD. 

McConnell, Sheena, and Michael Ponza. 1999. The Reaching the Working Poor and Poor 

Elderly Study: What We Learned and Recommendations for Future Research. Report to 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, FNS. Mathematica Policy Research, Washington, 

DC. 

McKernan, Signe-Mary, and Caroline Ratcliffe. 2003. Employment Factors Influencing Food 

Stamp Participation. Research report. Urban Institute, Washington, DC. 

51
 

Ponza, Michael, James C. Ohls, Lorenzo Moreno, and Amy Zambrowski. 1999. Customer 

Service in the Food Stamp Program: Final Report. Report No. 8243-140 to the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, FNS. Mathematica Policy Research, Princeton, NJ. 

Rosenbaum, Dorothy. 2000. Improving Access to Food Stamps. New Reporting Options Can 

Reduce Administrative Burdens and Error Rates. Center on Budget and Policy 

Priorities, Washington, DC. 

Super, David and Stacy Dean. 2001. New State Options to Improve the Food Stamp Vehicle 

Rule. Report. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Washington, DC. 

United States General Accounting Office (U.S. GAO). 1999. Various Factors Have Led to 

Declining Participation. GAO-99-185. Washington, DC: U.S. GAO. 

United States General Accounting Office. 2002. States’ Use of Options and Waivers to 

Improve Program Administration and Promote Access. GAO-02-409. Washington, DC: 

U.S. GAO. 

United States General Accounting Office. 2004. Food Stamp Program: Steps Have Been Taken 

to Increase Participation of Working Families, but Better Tracking of Efforts is 

Needed. U.S.GAO-04-346. Washington, DC: U.S.GAO. 

United States Department of Agriculture FNS. 2002a. “Trends in Food Stamp Program 

Participation Rates: 1994 to 2000.” Alexandria, VA: FNS. 

United States Department of Agriculture FNS. 2002 b. “State Options Report.” 

www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/rules/memo/support/pdfs/stateoptionreport.pdf. 

United States Department of Agriculture. 2004. Research Grants to Improve Food Stamp 

Program Access Through Partnership and Technology: 2001 Program Evaluation 

Summary. FNS, Alexandria, VA. 

Wegener, Virginia. 1999. Food Stamp Education and Outreach Working to Provide Nutrition 

Benefits to Eligible Households. Welfare Information Network Issue Note Volume 3, 

Issue 11. Washington, DC. 

Wilde, Parke and Elizabeth Dagata. 2002. Food Stamp Participation by Eligible Older 

Americans Remains Low. Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, DC. 

Wilde, Parke, Peggy Cook, Craig Gundersen, Mark Nord, and Laura Tiehen. 2002. The 

Decline in Food Stamp Program Participation in the 1990s. Research Report Number 

7. Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, DC. 

52
 

Zedlewski, Sheila, and Sandra Nelson. 2003. Families Coping without Earnings or 

Government Cash Assistance. Assessing the New Federalism Occasional Paper 64. 

Urban Institute, Washington, DC. 

Zedlewski, Sheila, and Kelly Rader. 2005. “Have Food Stamp Program Changes Increased 

Participation?” Social Service Review 79(3): 537–61. 

53
This Page Is Intentionally Left Blank 
APPENDIX A 

SUMMARY LIST OF ACRONYMS 
This Page Is Intentionally Left Blank 
APPENDIX A: SUMMARY LIST OF ACRONYMS 

Summary List of Acronyms 

Acronym Description

AAA Area Agency on Aging 

ABAWD Able bodied adult without dependents 

ABCD Action for Boston Community Development 

ACORN ACORN/ Jersey City, NJ 

Atlantic City City of Atlantic City/ Atlantic City, NJ 

BESO Benefits Eligibility System for Oklahomans 

CAO Community Assistance Offices 

CAP Community Action Programs

Central NY Food Bank of Central New York/ Cayuga, Cortland, and Oswego 

Counties in NY 

CHI Community Health Initiative 

CIS Citizenship and Immigration Services 

COMPASS Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Application for Social Services 

Connecticut Connecticut Association for Human Services/ Bridgeport, CT 

CPS Chicago Public Schools 

CQCs Community Quality Councils 

CSOCs Community School Outreach Coordinators 

DCF Department of Children and Families 

Delaware Food Bank of Delaware/ Delaware 

DSS Department of Social Services 

DTA Department of Transitional Assistance 

EBT Electronic Benefit Transfer 

EITC Earned Income Tax Credit 

FNS Food and Nutrition Service 

FSP Food Stamp Program

GAO Government Accountability Office 

GPCAH Greater Philadelphia Coalition Against Hunger/ Philadelphia, PA 

HRA Human Resources Agency 

IDA Individual Development Account 

IDHS Illinois Department of Human Services 

Illinois Illinois Hunger Coalition/ Chicago, IL 

Indiana Community Harvest Food Bank of Northeast Indiana/ Nine 

counties in Northeast IN

IT Information Technology

KCC KidCare Coordinators

LIGHTS Learning by Inviting Grown ups and Hope To School 

57
Summary List of Acronyms 

Acronym Description

Madison Community Action Program (CAP) for Madison County, 

Inc/Madison County, NY 

MCC Maternity Care Coalition/ Philadelphia, PA 

Miami Human Service Coalition of Dade County/ Miami Dade County, FL

MIS Management Information System

Muskegon Muskegon Community Health Project/ Muskegon, Newaygo, and 

Oceana Counties in MI 

North Carolina NC Division of Aging/ South Central NC 

PHEND Philadelphia Higher Education Neighborhood for Network 

Development 

Project Bread Project Bread/ Athol, Orleans, Boston and Worcester, MA 

Salem-Keizer Salem-Keizer School District/ Salem, OR 

SHFB Second Harvest Food Bank of Santa Cruz & San Benito Counties/ 

Santa Cruz, CA 

SNACK Senior Nutrition and Community Kitchen 

SSNs Social Security Numbers 

TAA Trade Adjustment Act 

TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

Tulsa Community Action Project of Tulsa County/ Tulsa, OK 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

Vermont Vermont Campaign to End Childhood Hunger/ Vermont 

WIC Women, Infants and Children Program 

58
APPENDIX B 

SITE PROFILES FOR ALL 18 PROJECTS 
This Page Is Intentionally Left Blank 
APPENDIX B: SITE PROFILES FOR ALL 18 PROJECTS 

The ACORN Institute (ACORN)

Characteristics 

Location/Number of Sites: Jersey City, New Jersey 

Intervention Start Date and End Dates: December 2002- September 2004 

Grant Amount: $262,000 

Project Objectives and Activities 

The primary goal of the project was to substantially increase food stamp enrollment 

in Hudson County’s low-income and immigrant communities using grassroots outreach 

techniques. Grantee activities included 1) dissemination of FSP information in various 

community sites located in high-poverty areas and 2) prescreening and application 

assistance at local schools, supermarkets, and community events, in homes, and by 

telephone. 

Organizational Information 

Type of Organization/Agency: The ACORN Institute, the grant recipient, is a 

national nonprofit organization created to “help grassroots community organizations 

increase their capacity to enact social change.” New Jersey ACORN, the organization 

conducting the outreach initiative, is a separate 20-year-old community-based organization 

that aims to unite and inform members of the low-income population of what they can do 

to help themselves and what others can do for them. 

 Staffing: Ten to twelve staff (mostly part-time) worked on this project. A project 

director oversaw all aspects of the project, including supervision of the field staff. A project 

coordinator was responsible for conducting outreach activities, training and supervising 

volunteers, networking with the local food stamp office, and maintaining the project 

database. There was significant turnover in this position over the course of the project – 

four different individuals acted as project coordinator during the two-year period. Two 

part-time ACORN outreach workers conducted targeted door-to-door food stamp outreach 

activities as part of their other daily outreach efforts in the low-income community in 

Hudson County. In addition, six to eight outreach workers conducted food stamp outreach 

activities one day a week. 

 Volunteers: Approximately 40 volunteers, recruited from the community, 

disseminated FSP information at three to four local supermarkets. 

61
 Key Partners: Local supermarkets in the Hudson County municipalities of Union 

City and Jersey City and elementary schools in Jersey City, Union City, Bayonne and 

Kearny. 

Food Stamp Office Partnership: The local food stamp office was involved 

throughout the project. They consulted on project design and implementation and trained 

two ACORN project staff who in turn were the primary trainers of outreach project staff 

and volunteers. FSP staff worked with ACORN staff when problems with application 

forms arose (such as illegible or clearly inaccurate information). FSP office staff sent 

copies of appointment letters to ACORN for clients referred by the project. The project 

contacted FSP office staff a few times per quarter to discuss problems and “make sure 

things were going smoothly.” This was ACORN’s first collaboration with the FPS office 

and they commented that the FSP office staff was cooperative throughout the course of the 

project. 

Outreach Activities 

 Information Dissemination: ACORN outreach staff and volunteers disseminated 

FSP information (e.g., flyers) in supermarkets, 24 local elementary schools, housing 

projects, food pantries, door-to-door in high poverty areas (where tenant organizing 

activities were underway) and at community meetings in Hudson County, New Jersey. 

Group outreach sessions were held one day per week at various sites, including the local 

food stamp office. Over time, outreach staff determined the best locations for identifying 

potentially- eligible participants and narrowed their focus to five or six sites that worked 

well. 

Staff originally thought that residents of low-income housing projects would 

already be connected to the social services system and already be enrolled in the FSP but 

they found that many were not. Outreach in these neighborhoods did prove successful, 

because most qualified for FSP. Staff also noted that immigrant neighborhoods were good 

sources of eligible participants. Initially, staff felt that dissemination of information and 

outreach activities in the schools had the greatest impact in terms of the number of inquiry 

calls received. However, the final evaluation report indicates that opinions about the 

success of specific outreach strategies changed over time and by the end of the project, 

staff felt that the direct outreach in the grocery stores was the most successful. 

 Prescreening: ACORN staff also provided prescreening services at local schools, 

supermarkets, and community events, by telephone and in person, and by going door-todoor. A one-page, paper prescreening form (developed in consultation with the local food 

stamp office) was completed and was used to determine potential eligibility; if it appeared 

that the individual might be eligible for benefits, he or she was told that they would receive 

a letter with an appointment date and time and a list of required documents from the local 

food stamp office. 

 Application Assistance: Initially, prescreened applicants were given a tear-off sheet 

from the prequalification/prescreening form with the address of the local food stamp office, 

but ACORN discontinued that practice after the first several months at the request of the 

62
local food stamp office because prescreened applicants were going to the office prior to the 

appointment. ACORN staff faxed a copy of the prescreening form to the food stamp office 

(keeping one copy at ACORN) and one dedicated FSP staff member (arrangements were 

made to have one FSP staff person handle these pre-screened referrals) checked to see if 

these individuals were in their system. If they were currently receiving FS, ACORN was 

notified; if they were in the system but currently inactive, they were sent back to their 

original caseworker. If the applicant was new, the FSP office sent an appointment letter to 

the potential client for an eligibility interview. A copy of the appointment letter was sent to 

ACORN staff so they could follow-up with the client to remind them of the interview date 

and time. ACORN outreach workers did not provide application assistance in the classic 

sense (i.e., they did not help individuals fill out FSP applications). The initial grant 

application called for electronic submission of applications but no applications were filed 

electronically and no applications were filed anywhere other than at the FSP office. See 

below. 

Grantee and Administrative Data 

A summary of the data submitted through the national evaluator’s website is 

presented below. The ACORN evaluation report noted that the number of awards were 

higher because they could not track those individuals who previously received food stamps. 

The report estimated that the number of awards attributed to the website could be 

underestimated by 50 percent because of this issue. Hence, we note a range of estimates 

below for this category. 

Exhibit B.1: Summary of Data Elements from The ACORN Institute 

Total 

# in

HH 

# HHs 

with NonCitizens 

# HHs with

Elderly or

Disabled

# HHs with

Children 

#HHs

with

Earnings

# HHs 

with

ABAWD 

Total contacts 1,329 3,353 397 214 1,060 531 415 

Follow-up contacts 18 43 2 5 11 6 1 

Pre-screened 2,354 3,717 416 250 1,147 579 430 

Application assistance 2,049 3,491 416 250 1,147 579 430 

Applications submitted 341 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Applications approved 230/460 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Applications denied 39 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Reasons for Denial:

 Income too high 14 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Assets too high N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Citizenship status 9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Does not live in juris N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Incomplete interview N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Incomplete inform N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Other reason N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Note: The total column may include households for which demographic information was not available.

N/A: The grantee never collected information on these data elements. 

Program Accomplishments and Lessons Learned 

The initial goal of using a voter turnout model to reach FSP participants 

underestimated the intensity of providing outreach activities. The total number of first-time 

63
enrollees over the life of the project was estimated at 460 new awardees (230 awards 

reported to the system). The grantee underestimated the time intensive nature of filing 

applications and the difficulty in locating potential eligibles. It became clear that the work 

of engaging people in applying for food stamps was very different from voter registration. 

Nonetheless, they still reported pre-screening 2,354 cases. A major issue was that ACORN 

could not file electronic applications because the online technology was not available 

during the grant period. The lack of technology created delays in processing applications 

and likely discouraged some potential applicants from applying. These problems were 

further compounded by burdensome paperwork requirements and some potential 

applicants’ fear of providing a SSN. 

The grantee found that face-to-face contact definitely was the most effective 

mechanism employed and that the flyers sent to school were generally less effective. These 

mechanisms allowed their clients to voice concerns and receive feedback that would 

assuage any negative perceptions. The grantee was also effective in working with the FSP 

office to eliminate several barriers to participation. Their work with the FSP office resulted 

in a number of important efficiencies that made pre-screening easier (e.g., making social 

security numbers optional on the pre-screening instrument, having a dedicated FSP office 

member to process applications from pre-screening, and providing early appointment (7:30 

am) referral options. 

Future Plans 

ACORN staff noted that they would use their newly gained understanding of the 

FSP process to continue outreach and prescreening efforts as part of their regular outreach 

work with the low-income population. “We work with low-income people who need this 

benefit. We have the relationship with the local Food Stamp Office, so we’ll absolutely 

keep enrolling people. I mean, we probably won’t do the kind of focused Friday outreach 

days where the whole staff is dedicated to it. But, as staff work door to door in low-income

neighborhoods, we’ll certainly keep asking people if they qualify and referring people and 

following up with glitches for our members.” 

City of Atlantic City, Atlantic City Senior Citizens (Atlantic City)

Characteristics 

Location/Number of Sites: Atlantic City, New Jersey 

Intervention Start Date and End Dates: September 2003- September 2004 

Grant Amount: $179,911 

Project Objectives and Activities 

This project’s primary goal was to target elderly and Spanish-speaking minorities in 

an effort to increase their utilization of the FSP in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Their 

64
primary activity was the provision of application assistance to senior citizens and members 

of the Hispanic community using an electronic application tool. 

Organizational Information 

Type of Organization/Agency: This grant was administered by the Atlantic City 

Senior Citizens program, an agency of the Atlantic City government. Housed in the city’s 

Department of Health and Human Services, this program provides a variety of services to 

the elderly (e.g., transportation, nutrition, home energy, pharmaceutical assistance). 

 Staffing: Four staff worked on this grant. The project director (part-time) provided 

overall fiscal management and established relationships with partners. The project 

coordinator (full-time) oversaw day-to-day operations of the grant and also conducted 

outreach activities. A staff member from the Atlantic City Housing Authority Agency (a 

partner on this grant) and a bilingual staffer from Atlantic City also conducted outreach. 

 Volunteers: There were no volunteers involved with this project.

 Key Partners: Key partner agencies were the Atlantic City Housing Authority and 

the Spanish Community Center. Senior Satellite Centers, where the elderly could learn 

about the FSP and receive assistance in completing applications, were established at four 

senior citizen housing complexes operated by the Atlantic City Housing Authority and two 

neighborhood centers operated by Atlantic Human Resources, Inc. Similar services were 

available at the Spanish Community Center and at City Hall. Atlantic County Department 

of Family and Community Development, the agency that administers the FSP, was also a 

key partner. 

Food Stamp Office Partnership: Food stamp office staff worked with the project 

throughout the grant. The project coordinator delivered applications to the food stamp 

office weekly, and the food stamp office generated a quarterly report showing outcomes for 

clients referred through the project. Food stamp office staff was helpful in clarifying 

information on the application form and providing the project coordinator with “tips” for 

the application process (e.g., making sure that women’s maiden names were included on 

the application). They were very cooperative and asked the grantee to continue outreach 

after the grant ended. 

Outreach Activities 

 Information Dissemination: Prior to accepting applications, grantee staff began 

placing FSP advertisements in local newspapers and posting flyers in senior citizen 

buildings and community centers. Staff felt that the newspaper ads “definitely increased 

awareness” and were effective with the elderly population (based on feedback from FSP 

inquiry calls taken by staff). 

 Prescreening: No formal prescreening activities were provided, although staff did 

review monthly income guidelines with potential applicants. 

65
 Application Assistance: This grant focused on providing application assistance to 

senior citizens and the Hispanic community. The project coordinator and other outreach 

workers offered “one-stop shopping” at the Spanish Community Center and the six Senior 

Satellite Centers established at Housing Authority sites. Staff set up a table at each site 

where people could approach them for information about food stamps. Staff visited the 

senior centers weekly and the Spanish Community Center monthly. They helped residents 

complete applications on laptops loaded with a CD containing the Omni Form application 

software (used by the local food stamp office), signature pads, and a mini-scanner. They 

informed clients of the income guidelines and if the client was interested, they helped him

or her fill out an application immediately. CDs containing completed applications and

scanned documentation were physically brought to the food stamp office weekly. Staff also 

set up appointments with potential applicants and provided assistance in their homes. 

In addition, when staff from the local food stamp office requested additional 

information from the project coordinator on the applicants, Atlantic City staff delivered the 

missing information. Applicants did not have to go to the food stamp office as part of the 

application process—the local food stamp office waived the in-person eligibility interview 

(for both seniors and Spanish-speakers). Although face-to-face contact with the food stamp 

office was waived, all clients still needed to visit the office to pick up their identification 

and Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards. They were also required to watch a video on 

using the EBT cards; however, Atlantic City staff had a copy of the video on their laptops 

so applicants could view it at home, instead of sitting at the food stamp office. The grantee 

also provided transportation assistance to the food stamp office, which was funded through 

the city’s Transportation Program. 

Grantee and Administrative Data 

A summary of the data submitted through the national evaluator’s website is 

presented below. Atlantic City submitted data to the UI website throughout the project 

period; however, the grantee data do not agree with the numbers presented in their local 

evaluation report. We were unable to reconcile the numbers, and the numbers presented 

below are those submitted to the national evaluator’s website. 

Program Accomplishments and Lessons Learned 

Project implementation was delayed considerably due to a number of program

implementation challenges. The project coordinator did not join the team until January

2004 (the grant started in September 2003). Approval to purchase laptops for use in the 

field was delayed; consequently, the computers were not acquired until July 2004 and 

Internet access for Atlantic City staff was not in place until August 2004. Due, in part, to 

these delays, Atlantic City fell short of their project goals by about 90 percent. They had 

intended to contact 3750 seniors and 2610 Hispanics, pre-screen and obtain applications for 

30 percent of the contacts, and receive benefit approval for 90 percent of these applications 

(about 1,700 applications). They contacted and prescreened about 174 households and 129 

of those received benefits. 

66
Exhibit B.2: Summary of Data Elements from Atlantic City 

Total 

# in

HH 

# HHs 

with NonCitizens 

# HHs with

Elderly or

Disabled

# HHs with

Children 

#HHs

with

Earnings

# HHs 

with

ABAWD 

Total contacts * * * * * * * 

Follow-up contacts * * * * * * * 

Pre-screened * * * * * * * 

Application assistance * * * * * * * 

Applications submitted 174 252 7 138 22 23 14 

Applications approved 129 135 2 93 9 5 8 

Applications denied 45 66 1 27 10 14 5 

Reasons for Denial 

 Income too high 24 34 1 17 4 8 D 

 Assets too high N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Citizenship status N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Does not live in juris N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Incomplete interview 6 6 0 0 0 0 3 

 Incomplete inform 8 2 0 5 2 1 0 

 Other reason 7 3 0 3 3 3 2 

Note: The total column may include households for which demographic information was not available.

* The data submitted to the UI website differ from those reported by the grantee in their local evaluation 

report. Although we were not able to reconcile the differences, the total number of applications assisted was 

likely between 166 and 192. 

N/A: The grantee never collected information on these data elements.

 

Grantee staff felt that the newspapers ads “definitely increased awareness” and were 

particularly effective with the elderly population, based on feedback from FSP inquiry calls 

taken by staff. Senior citizens were very receptive to the outreach effort – according to the 

project coordinator they were happy they did not have to deal with the local food stamp 

office. Their approach, using electronic applications with imaging and signature 

technology, allowed workers to gather everything needed to submit a complete application 

(without having to take any of the applicants’ original documents from them) and allowed 

outreach workers to work with applicants one-on-one in their surroundings where they 

were more comfortable. 

The grantee did, however, have less participation in the Hispanic community than 

anticipated. The project coordinator attributed this to two things: 1) “the word didn’t seem

to get out” (not spreading by word of mouth) to this community; and 2) this population is 

very private and does not like to share private personal information, in part because many 

are living here illegally and fear that they will be reported to Citizenship and Immigration 

Services (CIS) (formerly Immigration and Naturalization Services). Despite having a 

bilingual outreach worker (through the Hispanic community center), they were not able to 

get the word out to the Spanish-speaking community. 

 

67
Future Plans 

Local food stamp office staff asked the Atlantic City to continue their outreach 

efforts after the grant period. Even though they have not received additional funding, 

Atlantic City will incorporate project activities as an additional function of their office. 

Food Bank Of Central New York (Central NY)

Characteristics 

Location/Number of Sites: East Syracuse, New York. This grant provides services to 

Cayuga, Cortland and Oswego counties. 

Intervention Start Date and End Dates: June 2003-September 2004 

Grant Amount: $217,827 

Project Objectives and Activities 

The primary goals of the project were to: 1) to develop partnerships with at least 

three community-based programs in each of the three counties in the project target area; 2) 

to provide software technology and training for partner staff/volunteers; 3) to prescreen 

potentially eligible individuals for food stamp benefits; 4) to conduct outreach/publicity 

activities in each county; and; 5) to make this a transferable project. Activities included

information dissemination, a multi-media campaign using a variety of methods, and 

prescreening and application assistance using either a paper prescreening tool, an electronic 

prescreening tool, or the grantee’s public access website developed for this project. 

Organizational Information 

Type of Organization/Agency: Central New York, an affiliate of Second Harvest, is 

a nonprofit agency that provides services aimed at eliminating hunger in an 11 county areas 

in northern upstate New York. The outreach grant provided services to only three of these 

counties (Cayuga, Cortland and Oswego). The organization accepts food donations and 

USDA commodities and purchases food for distribution to over 600 partners, including 

food pantries, soup kitchens, shelters, summer camps, youth programs, etc. They also assist 

member programs by providing training and assistance to volunteers and professionals 

working with those in need (e.g., advocacy training, nutrition education, volunteer 

recruitment, community organizing and information and referral). Central New York also 

operates a nutrition outreach and education program in two neighboring counties 

(Onondaga and Oneida – counties not covered by this grant) that promotes participation in 

the FSP. Staff also conducted outreach and facilitated enrollment in the Child Health Plus 

and Family Health Plus programs. 

 Staffing: Two full-time staff worked on this project. The project director was

responsible for day-to-day management of the project and also directed and conducted 

68
outreach services. She recruited community partner agencies and trained and supervised 

staff and volunteers from partner agencies, developed county-specific training manuals 

(Resource Guides), coordinated activities and data collection with the three local county 

food stamp offices and attended monthly state FSP workgroup meetings. A new outreach 

worker was hired in October 2003 to assist with the training of volunteers and to conduct 

prescreening and application assistance activities. 

 Volunteers: Approximately 60 volunteers from local partner agencies also 

conducted prescreening and application assistance.

 Key Partners: Key partners included about 14 partner agencies, including the 

Office of Aging, Catholic Charities, the Cornell Co-Op Extension Program and other local 

community partner agencies (e.g., food pantries and soup kitchens). Partner agencies 

provided staff and volunteers who participated in 3-hour training sessions to learn how to 

provide prescreening and application assistance. The level of participation varied among 

partners; some who were not comfortable with the screening process limited their 

participation to dissemination of information about the FSP. Central New York continued 

its efforts to recruit new partner agencies over the life of the project, including one-stop 

employment centers near the end of the project. They also began outreach and prescreening 

at senior housing sites.

Food Stamp Office Partnership: This project fostered good relationships with the 

local food stamp offices and got their "buy in" early in the project. Central New York staff 

facilitated interactions between volunteers and FSP office staff to form cooperative 

relationships that worked well. FSP staff attended all training sessions in each county. The 

grantee noted that food stamp office staff “embraced the project as a way to increase food 

stamp participation in their county.” They also noted that local staff became more involved 

when they saw that project clients’ application forms were complete and accurate. 

However, project staff also noted that food stamp agencies suffered staffing cuts during the 

course of their project and were short-handed, particularly after the closing of one of two 

offices in the county. While the local food stamp offices tried to be supportive, they were 

limited in their ability to help the grantee with the process. 

Outreach Activities 

 Information Dissemination: Central New York’s information dissemination and 

multimedia campaign activities included distribution of USDA brochures and other flyers 

with FSP messages at community partner sites and through other means (e.g., church 

bulletins, agency newsletter, Val Pak mailings), FSP information printed on the back of 

grocery store receipts in two of the counties (Census data was used to target stores with 

pharmacies in high need areas in an effort to reach the elderly and disabled), two TV 

informational interviews, two radio announcements, weekly advertisements over a period 

of six months in a newspaper distributed throughout the three-county area and press 

releases to all other local media outlets. Staff felt that these efforts helped dispel many 

myths about food stamps, particularly in terms of educating the public about the 

69
elimination of paper coupons. Staff also noted that their website providing information on 

the FSP and how to apply for benefits averaged over 77,000 hits a month. The website 

usage evolved from a three-county to a statewide focus. 

 Prescreening: Central New York staff and partner agency staff (and volunteers) 

provided prescreening services to individuals over the phone or in person using one of 

three methods: (1) a paper prescreening form; (2) non web-based software on a CD 

(completed using a laptop); and (3) the public access website, which offers prescreening, 

budget calculation and a downloadable application. Staff decided to provide prescreening 

and application assistance tools in these three formats to fit the varying capabilities/skills of

all partner agencies: those who had no computer access could use the paper form; those 

who had computers but no internet access could use the CD prescreener; and those with 

internet access could use the website. Central New York staff recruited partner sites and 

then conducted extensive training sessions on prescreening procedures. 

 Application Assistance: Once a client was prescreened and appeared to be eligible, 

staff or volunteers could assist with completion of the application and collection of the 

required documentation. Procedures for delivering the application forms to the local FSP 

offices varied by county; in one county, application forms could be faxed or mailed to the 

office directly but the other two counties required that application forms be hand-delivered 

by partner agency staff/volunteers or the applicants. Requirements for in-person visits to 

the local FSP offices also varied by county. New York state regulations in effect during this 

project required food stamp applications to be filed at the food stamp office. Unless 

exempt, applicants usually were required to attend face-to-face interviews and 

complete finger imaging. However, some DSS offices allowed community partners to 

conduct the initial face-to-face interviews to complete the applications at their site and

guide their clients in gathering verification documents. They faxed the application forms to 

the local food stamp offices. Applications completed by partners were tracked via a 

spreadsheet that was sent to the local food stamp office with release of information 

requests. The local food stamp office informed Central New York if the applications were 

approved, open, closed, denied, or pending. Central New York requested the reasons for 

pending applications (e.g., missing documents) and tried to help clients complete their 

applications.

Central New York’s public access website (www.foodstampshelp.org) also

provided application assistance. Individuals could access the website on their own or 

receive help from a volunteer at a partner agency. The website provided a comprehensive 

set of instructions for applying for food stamps, including a drop-down box with contact 

information for all county offices in the state and a listing of required verification 

documents. An 800 number was also included so that potential applicants could contact 

Central New York directly for assistance. Initially the website only provided a 

downloadable application form; applicants printed it out, filled out the paper form, and 

delivered it to the food stamp office. In response to comments received by visitors to the 

website, upgrades were implemented that supported on-line application completion. 

Despite requests from users, the local food stamp offices were not able to accept 

applications electronically; application forms had to be printed and taken to the FSP office. 

(At the end of the grant period, some county offices indicated interest in exploring the 

70
possibility of the on-line application submission.) Their website counted the number of 

application forms that were downloaded, but these applications were never tracked as

project outcomes at the local food stamp offices. 

Grantee and Administrative Data 

A summary of the data submitted through the national evaluator’s website is 

presented below.1

 All of the data represent grantee and administrative data for Central 

NY’s community partnerships’ outreach efforts. Central NY was not able to track the 

applications submitted via their website, although they did collect the following grantee 

data for their website: 947,058 website “hits” between December 2003 and September 

2004; 6,034 prescreenings conducted during that same time period. The demographic 

breakdown of those prescreens are as follows: 

• 11,500 persons in food stamp households 

• 1,768 households with non-citizens 

• 519 households with elderly/disabled 

• 2,456 households with children 

• 2,799 households with earnings 

• 620 households with ABAWDs 

Exhibit B.3: Summary of Data Elements from the Food Bank of Central New York’s 

Community Partnerships 

Total # in HH

# HHs 

with NonCitizens 

# HHs with

Elderly or

Disabled

# HHs with

Children 

# HHs 

with

Earnings

# HHs 

with

ABAWD 

Total contacts 907 1,848 247 110 386 414 103 

Follow-up contacts 6 6 N/A 6 N/A N/A N/A 

Pre-screened 905 1,837 247 109 383 409 97 

Application assistance 408 1,089 37 92 232 256 81 

Applications submitted 403 1,068 37 87 229 253 98 

Applications approved 315 837 35 67 183 189 50 

Applications denied 88 231 2 19 47 67 24 

Reasons for Denial 

 Income too high 30 78 1 4 20 25 6 

 Assets too high 15 40 1 7 6 10 5 

 Citizenship status 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Does not live in juris 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Incomplete interview 26 68 0 4 12 24 8 

 Incomplete information 16 44 0 4 8 7 4 

 Other reason 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 

Note: The total column may include households for which demographic information was not available. 

N/A – The grantee never collected information on these data elements. 

 

1

 There are a few data inconsistencies to note. The reasons for denial for households with children add to one

less than the total number denied in that category. 

71
Central NY reported in their evaluation report that 599 prescreened applicants 

downloaded applications from their website, but they were unable to determine whether 

these applications were filed at the food stamp office and whether they resulted in benefits 

being approved. 

Program Accomplishments and Lessons Learned 

Central New York’s website was considered by staff to be its greatest success. The 

project’s website was accessed by over one million people in one year (October 2003 

through September 2004). While the exact nature of the web hits (by whom and from

where) could not be ascertained, the project concluded that it did spread knowledge about 

the FSP. Their data do show, however, that 6,034 began to fill out the eligibility form on 

line, 2,134 of these were deemed eligible, and 599 application forms were downloaded. 

Local partners also prescreened 905 households, assisted 408 of these with the application, 

and the grantee was able to track that 315 applications were eventually approved. The

information they collected through the on-line surveys indicated that the website was used 

across the state. 

The project fostered many important partnerships across a diverse group that should 

continue to benefit the community over the long run. In addition, the project built trust 

between the FSP offices and local community groups interested in food stamp outreach. In 

addition, many more individuals who work in the local partner organizations now 

understand the FSP. 

Staff noted a few challenges related to their decision to work with volunteers to 

conduct outreach. They found that working with volunteers was often problematic because 

of their concerns about asking for personal information, their fears about “making the 

wrong determinations,” and, in some cases, their lack of comfort with computer 

technology. Frequent turnover of volunteers also led to more training requirements and 

requirements for greater contact with partners. Getting paperwork and data from the FSP 

office and partners was also a challenge at times. 

Future Plans 

Central New York staff feel that their outreach activities are “a worthwhile venture, 

and we’re going to continue to do it.” They plan to keep the website operating and to have 

regular meetings with the community partner agencies to keep them abreast of any changes 

to FSP. To date, they have received no new funding for outreach activities. Two of the 

county DSS offices are interested in pursuing efforts to enable applicants to apply on-line 

through the website. 

72
Connecticut Association for Human Services (Connecticut)

Characteristics 

Location/Number of Sites: Bridgeport, Connecticut 

Intervention Start Date and End Dates: April 2003 – September 2004 

Grant Amount: $195,000 

Project Objectives and Activities 

The goals of the project were: 1) to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the FSP 

in Bridgeport, Connecticut by facilitating new food stamp applications through communitybased partnerships and linkages; 2) increase awareness of the nutritional benefits of the 

FSP and the eligibility requirements and application process through targeted outreach; to 

identify and quantify reasons for non-participation among potential eligibles and identify 

strategies to overcome barriers; and 3) to develop, test, document, and compare the 

feasibility, efficiency and effectiveness of two community-based FSP outreach 

interventions designed to: 

• Increase FSP awareness among non-eligible participants 

• Increase the number of applications filled out correctly before submission to 

the food stamp office, thereby increasing enrollment and decreasing 

application error rates. 

• Increase FSP enrollment specifically among the subpopulations of elderly, 

low-income families, current and former TANF recipients, and immigrants 

and non-English speaking minorities, through targeted efforts 

• Their activities included: 1) presentations about the FSP at a variety of 

locations, including schools, senior centers, daycare centers, food pantries, 

health fairs, and health centers; and 2) prescreening and application 

assistance. 

Organizational Information 

Type of Organization/Agency: Founded in 1910, the Connecticut Association for 

Human Services is a not-for-profit organization that promotes public policy solutions and 

brings resources to bear to strengthen needy children, families, and communities through 

education, outreach, advocacy, research, and evaluation. A key strength of Connecticut is 

their ability to work with many other organizations. They bring together diverse interests - 

concerned citizens, policy makers, human services providers, corporate leaders, labor 

leaders, academics, state and municipal agencies, and religious organizations - to help 

ensure that all state residents have the opportunity to lead healthy, productive lives. 

 Staffing: Four staff worked on this grant. The project coordinator was responsible 

for the day-to-day project management of the grant and for supervising the outreach 

workers. Two outreach workers disseminated information, prescreen clients for eligibility, 

and assisted with applications. An in-house evaluator was also involved in the grant. She 

73
conducted the evaluation, but was also responsible for the intervention design and in 

resolving issues as they arose. The site also had an advisory council that met quarterly to 

provide guidance to outreach workers. 

 Volunteers: None used. 

 Key Partners: Key partners included the Bridgeport Child Advocacy Coalition, 

which referred many clients to Connecticut. They also worked closely with the SCHIP 

outreach worker at the organization. Many partners also hosted outreach events for 

Connecticut to conduct their presentations, prescreenings, and application assistance. The 

sites included area hospitals, schools, workforce-training programs, local businesses that 

employ low-income workers, supermarkets, day care centers, and senior centers. 

Food Stamp Office Partnership: The grantee initially had buy-in from the local 

food stamp office for this project. However, shortly after this grant was awarded, the FSP 

office experienced significant cutbacks and layoffs, especially in the Bridgeport office. 

Although the grantee continued to receive support from food stamp administrators, 

eligibility workers were often unaware of the outreach effort or the need for them to track 

applications submitted by the grantee. Grantee staff spent considerable time at the local 

food stamp office informing staff about the process for tracking application forms. Also, 

the project coordinator called the local food stamp office monthly to learn about the status 

of submitted application forms. 

Outreach Activities 

 Information Dissemination: Outreach workers conducted presentations at a variety 

of locations in the City of Bridgeport– schools, senior centers, daycare centers, community 

health centers, health fairs, soup kitchens, food pantries, and homeless drop-in centers. 

Connecticut also created flyers that were posted at community health centers, library 

information boards, and other low-income focused community organizations, letting clients 

know that one-on-one prescreening assistance was available. Outreach staff worked 

predominately at partner agencies, but as the workers began networking, they received 

referrals from members of the advisory council, state Medicaid providers, community 

health organizations, and the local Department of Social Services (DSS) office. 

 Prescreening: All clients attending presentations received information through the 

presentation and were prescreened if they so chose. Prescreening was available on-site after 

the presentations, or potential applicants could schedule a private appointment for a later 

date or time. 

 Application Assistance: Due to the study design, only half of the prescreened 

clients were offered direct assistance with applications, while the other half were simply 

given the application forms and told to fill them out and submit them on their own. (Direct 

assistance was offered at half of the sites where presentations were made.) Within the sites 

where application assistance was offered, it was left up to the individual applicants to 

decide whether or not they wanted assistance. For those applicants who received 

application assistance, Connecticut staff accompanied them to their face-to-face eligibility 

74
interview at DSS. Outreach workers and clients kept in touch throughout the application 

process until eligibility was determined. 

Grantee and Administrative Data 

A summary of the data submitted through the national evaluator’s website is 

presented below. Connecticut had difficulty tracking their applications through the DSS 

office. They found that the local food stamp office was not using the tracking system they 

had created, and in many cases, the application forms from project clients’ could not be 

tracked to the outreach activities. Because they were able to track so few applications, the 

outcomes reported to the UI website are underestimates and not reported here. 

Exhibit B.4: Summary of Data Elements from the 

Connecticut Association for Human Services 

Total 

# in

HH 

# HHs 

with NonCitizens 

# HHs with

Elderly or

Disabled

# HHs with

Children 

#HHs

with

Earnings

# HHs 

with

ABAWD 

Total contacts 1262 3873 161 309 784 901 107 

Follow-up contacts 163 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Pre-screened 401 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Application assistance 168 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Applications submitted * * * * * * * 

Applications approved * * * * * * * 

Applications denied * * * * * * * 

Reasons for Denial 

 Income too high * * * * * * * 

 Assets too high * * * * * * * 

 Citizenship status * * * * * * * 

 Does not live in juris * * * * * * * 

 Incomplete interview * * * * * * * 

 Incomplete inform * * * * * * * 

 Other reason * * * * * * * 

Note: The total column may include households for which demographic information was not available.

* The site did submit data to the UI website; however, they were not able to report on specific outcomes 

because of the high volume of application forms that could not be traced to the project. The local evaluation 

report claimed that the local FSP office was only able to identify 42 application forms (of which 34 were

approved) of the 168 pre-screened eligible cases that this grantee referred to the FSP office. 

N/A: The grantee never collected information on these data elements.

Program Accomplishments and Lessons Learned 

The grantee encountered significant problems tracking applications through the 

local food stamp offices. Because the welfare offices oversaw multiple programs and were 

stressed in a cost-cutting environment (with office closures, staff departures, high 

caseloads), Connecticut was never able to establish a consistent and reliable way to track 

their clients’ application forms. The site contacted over 1,200 clients and pre-screened 401; 

however, they were only able to identify 42 applications from their clients at the food 

75
stamp offices. Because they were unable to track the actual number of client applications 

submitted to the food stamp office, the grantee was unable to empirically test the effect of 

their two outreach strategies. 

The grantee found an intensive “case management” approach for helping potentially 

eligible households to be an effective way of increasing participation especially among 

difficult to reach populations. They felt they were most successful with applications they 

handled “from start to finish.” 

The grantee’s evaluation report concluded that a project focused on FSP outreach 

can build new and important relationships with other local service providers, food stamp 

office staff, and the community. They also noted these relationships could have further 

benefits down the road. 

Future Plans 

Connecticut will continue to provide food stamp outreach and application assistance 

in conjunction with other activities. However, they will not have the funding to support the 

same level of hands-on application assistance. While they will not turn people away if they 

ask for assistance, they do not plan to publicize their services to the same extent as they did 

under this grant. 

Food Bank of Delaware (Delaware)

Characteristics 

Location/Number of Sites: Newark, Delaware 

Intervention Start Date and End Dates: October 2002- September 2004 

Grant Amount: $349,352 

Project Objectives and Activities 

The goals of this project were to: 1) make full and effective use of partnering 

organizations to increase food stamp participation; 2) encourage and lead to the 

development of replicable models that can be effectively and efficiently used nationwide; 

3) improve client knowledge and overall perception of the food stamp program through 

Internet technology; 4) identify current obstacles to FSP participation in Delaware and 

propose effective solutions; and 5) develop, plan, and design evaluation tools that test 

project process and report outcomes. The project targeted low-income individuals and 

families statewide. Their activities included information dissemination through flyers, 

posters on buses, PSAs in a local movie theater, and prescreening and limited application 

assistance. 

76
Organizational Information 

Type of Organization/Agency: The Food Bank of Delaware is a non-profit agency 

distributing food to people through nearly 240 non-profit member agencies, including food 

pantries, soup kitchens, churches, children’s feeding programs, and USDA food 

distribution programs. The grantee is the only food bank in Delaware and also serves parts 

of Maryland and Pennsylvania. It has been operating for more than 20 years. 

 Staffing: Four staff worked on this grant. The project coordinator was responsible 

for monitoring and marketing the FSP, recruiting agencies to become partners, working 

directly with the Department of Social Services (DSS), developing and maintaining the 

data collection system with the evaluator, and strengthening relationships with the state 

legislature. The outreach coordinator was responsible for training the partnering agencies 

and performing on-site prescreening. Two additional staff also worked on the project. 

 Volunteers: Many partner agencies relied on volunteers to perform outreach 

activities. 

 Key Partners: Key partners included 90 trained member agencies—20 - 25 of 

whom were actively participating in outreach (i.e., provided continuous prescreening data 

to Delaware). All participating agencies (e.g., Goodwill Industries and local food pantries) 

either conducted food stamp outreach themselves or allowed outreach to be conducted at 

their locations. In addition, pre-screening was conducted at a variety of non-member

agency sites including WIC clinics, Department of Labor offices, State Service Centers, 

and community events. Staff from the University of Delaware conducted the evaluation and 

participated in prescreening activities (some students conducted prescreening). 

Food Stamp Office Partnership: The grantee forged a new partnership with the 

local food stamp office that opened communications between the two groups. The local 

food stamp office attended regularly scheduled project meetings and provided grantee staff 

with pre- and post-data. The project also had access to the local food stamp office’s data 

system that allowed them to track their applicants’ progress through various stages of the 

application process. 

Outreach Activities 

 Information Dissemination: Delaware disseminated flyers through mobile pantries, 

posters and flyers at partner agencies, and leaflets in grocery stores. Literature was in both 

Spanish and English. They also had a media “blitz” through the local transportation 

authority (DART) with posters on the sides and insides of buses to inform people about the 

FSP. In addition, they had a PSA for the FSP through local movie theaters. 

 Prescreening: Outreach workers prescreened clients at partner agencies. The 

agencies helped with prescreening (using an automated Excel form), and they told clients 

exactly what they needed to take to the food stamp offices for the application process. The 

majority of prescreening was done on paper forms – the grantee created a paper form for 

77
those sites that were not technologically savvy and for out-stationed workers who did not 

have laptops. Applicants had to go to the local food stamp office to initiate their 

applications. The prescreening form did not count towards the application process. 

 Application Assistance: Although grantee staff did not provide application 

assistance in the classic sense (i.e., they did not help individuals fill out FSP applications), 

they did have access to the local food stamp office’s data system, which allowed them to 

see applicants’ progress through the various stages of the application process. As followup, individuals who were prescreened, but did not apply for assistance or did not complete 

the application process received a phone call from project staff (both the grantee and

University of Delaware; other partner agencies did not make follow-up calls) to encourage 

them to go to the food stamp office and apply for assistance (they used the contact number 

on the prescreening form). 

Grantee and Administrative Data 

A summary of the data submitted through the national evaluator’s website is 

presented below. 

Exhibit B.5: Summary of Data Elements from the Food Bank of Delaware 

Total 

# in

HH 

# HHs 

with NonCitizens 

# HHs with

Elderly or

Disabled

# HHs with

Children 

#HHs

with

Earnings

# HHs 

with

ABAWD 

Total contacts 1901 4651 22 344 562 385 548 

Follow-up contacts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Pre-screened 1901 3609 19 212 351 233 308 

Application assistance N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Applications submitted 935 1983 12 114 210 128 244 

Applications approved 780 1586 10 98 175 100 214 

Applications denied 154 397 2 16 35 29 34 

Reasons for Denial:

 Income too high 40 145 0 7 13 10 4 

 Assets too high N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Citizenship status 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Does not live in juris 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Incomplete interview 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Incomplete inform 63 180 1 7 18 14 13 

 Other reason 43 72 1 2 5 5 17 

Note: The total column may include households for which demographic information was not available.

N/A: The grantee never collected information on these data elements. 

Program Accomplishments and Lessons Learned 

The project was successful in developing an accurate pre-screening tool that was 

available in electronic and paper formats. Paper format was also required because not every 

location could accommodate an electronic pre-screening tool. More than half of the pre78
screenings were conducted using the paper version. The evaluation report found, however, 

that the electronic version was slightly more accurate, which resulted in a higher number of 

approvals. 

Delaware pre-screened 1,901 households. Of that number 780 were approved for 

benefits, 154 were denied, 1 was pending, 126 were already receiving food stamp benefits, 

and 840 did not apply for benefits. They conducted follow-up on cases that had not applied 

for benefits, which eventually resulted in 220 contacts, 59 new applications and 47 new 

approvals. 

The grantee’s evaluation report noted that they were able to continuously build 

ongoing partnerships within their statewide network and developed 90 collaborative 

partners for this project. The grantee found that obtaining “buy-in” from partner agencies 

was essential in developing active partnerships. They also successfully launched a 

statewide multi-media campaign. The grantee noted that they forged a new partnership with 

the local food stamp office, which served to open communication between the two 

agencies. 

Future Plans 

Staff noted they no longer have the resources to support this effort, but are 

encouraging their partner agencies to continue prescreening and assisting clients with the 

food stamp application process. 

Greater Philadelphia Coalition Against Hunger (GPCAH)

Characteristics 

Location/Number of Sites: Philadelphia, PA 

Intervention Start Date and End Dates: October 2002-June 2004 

Grant Amount: $310,822 

Project Objectives and Activities 

The primary goal of this project was to determine whether university students and 

community/faith-based volunteers engaged in a food stamp outreach campaign, based on 

pre-screening for food stamp eligibility and estimating benefit levels, could effectively 

increase food stamp enrollment among eligible populations, especially low-income

(unemployed and working) families with children. Activities included FSP information 

dissemination in various community sites and prescreening and application assistance, with 

a heavy reliance on volunteers for service delivery. 

79
Organizational Information 

Type of Organization/Agency: GPCAH is a non-profit agency and is an affiliate of 

the Share Food Program. GPCAH brings together policy makers, community-based 

emergency food providers, public health and social service professionals, faith-based 

volunteers, students, and other concerned individuals to address hunger and food insecurity 

in Southeastern Pennsylvania. GPCAH provides education and advocacy programs 

designed to empower emergency food providers, to inform and mobilize concerned 

citizens, and to help shape public policy. They also distribute USDA commodities food

from trucks and at food shelters. In addition to food stamp outreach work, GPCAH 

participates in a Food Stamp Task Force and a Food Security Research Working Group. 

They also operate a food stamp information hotline.

 Staffing: Four GPCAH staff participated in this project in some capacity. The 

outreach coordinator’s responsibilities included the day-to-day management of the grant 

activities, preparation of the GPCAH volunteer newsletter and oversight of the volunteer 

coordinator, who worked full time on this outreach project. (Initially, the project had both a 

student volunteer coordinator and a community/faith-based volunteer coordinator. Both of 

those people left their positions over the course of the project and only one volunteer 

coordinator replaced them (in 4/2004)). The outreach coordinator also participated in 

volunteer training and prescreenings. Additionally, the grant paid a portion of the salary of 

the presceener for the food stamp information hotline. A small percentage of the GPCAH 

Executive Director’s salary was also paid for by the grant. 

 Volunteers: Roughly 300 volunteers (both community and student) were recruited 

and trained, with about 120 volunteers actively conducting at least two prescreenings as of 

Summer 2004. Many of the trainees who did not do pre-screening, participated in other 

ways, such as making referrals to GPCAH’s food stamp hotline. GPCAH developed and 

provided a four-hour training session for volunteers that included an overview of the FSP 

and instructions on the outreach, prescreening, and application processes. Student 

volunteers recruited from 11 colleges and universities included both work-study students 

(paid through university funds) and students enrolled in service learning courses and 

programs that required community service work as part of their course requirements. 

Community and faith-based volunteers were recruited through GPCAH’s longstanding 

partnership with the Interfaith Hunger Group and through the GPCAH newsletter. 

Volunteers were assigned specific sites throughout the city where they could meet with 

potential applicants. 

 Key Partners: Key partners were developed with several organizations to assist in 

recruiting volunteers as well as in identifying potential FSP applicants. These included the 

Fox Leadership program at the University of Pennsylvania, which provided the student 

volunteers from service-learning courses, Philadelphia Higher Education Neighborhood for 

Network Development (PHEND), a consortium of universities in the area that recruited 

both work-study and service-learning student volunteers, the Campaign for Working 

Families which provides tax-filing and EITC assistance at community sites and cooperated 

with GPCAH to offer FSP prescreening, the Interfaith Hunger Group, which helped recruit 

faith-based and community volunteers, and the Pathmark supermarket chain, which 

80
provided sites for food stamp outreach “fairs”. GPCAH’s partnerhsips also provided access 

to eligible families from other organizations or agencies such as the Freedom Development 

Corporation, the Presbyterian Church, Pennsylvania’s Career Link 1-stop centers, various 

food pantries, cupboards and shelters, and community health centers throughout the city. 

Food Stamp Office Partnership: GPCAH staff worked closely with staff at the 

Philadelphia District Office as well as the 18 Community Assistance Offices (CAOs) that 

administer the FSP throughout the city. GPCAH did report some initial concerns from local 

food stamp office workers that outreach either would increase their workloads or eliminate 

some of their jobs (if community members were filling out applications). After meetings 

with local staff to clear these concerns, GPCAH was able to obtain the appointment of food 

stamp liaisons in each of the 18 offices. The liaisons served as key contacts for any 

questions and concerns regarding the application process that were raised by GPCAH staff. 

Training on FSP policies and procedures was provided for GPCAH by an FSP trainer. 

Initial plans to track project outcomes at the local food stamp offices through unique 

identifying codes proved difficult, and the local offices moved to a system that tracked 

applicants through their SSNs. GPCAH concluded that outcomes for applicants unwilling 

to provide their SSNs to project staff were not tracked to the project. 

 

Outreach Activities

 Information Dissemination: GPCAH’s information dissemination activities 

included press releases and paid ads about this project and the FSP in local newspapers and 

community newsletters. In addition, GPCAH-trained student and community/faith-based 

volunteers disseminated flyers, posters, brochures, magnets with information about the 

food stamp program and about GPCAH’s outreach initiative at libraries, schools, EITC

sites, soup kitchens, food cupboards, community school centers, check-cashing outlets, 

health centers, supermarkets (where they conducted “food stamp fairs”), Career Links onestop centers, and community-based organizations (e.g., Freedom Development Center). In 

addition, GPCAH operated a food stamp information hotline (paid for in part by a state 

mini-grant) through which individuals could receive FSP information and 

prescreening/application assistance. Funding through the state mini-grant also paid for FSP 

outreach ads posted on community transit buses. 

 Prescreening: Prescreening was provided by GPCAH staff (through in-person 

contact or through the FSP hotline) and trained student and community/faith-based 

volunteers at public and private institutions throughout the city. Although the original 

intent was to train volunteers to use laptops for prescreening, some volunteers were not 

comfortable with laptops and some sites had no internet access. In addition, staff felt that

COMPASS, the state’s online application system, was slow and difficult to operate. 

Consequently, for most of the project period, volunteers were trained to use a paper 

prescreening form. At the end of the grant period, there was another shift and volunteers 

were trained on and encouraged to use COMPASS. Volunteers were assigned specific sites 

throughout the city where they could meet with potential applicants. Volunteers were 

trained to collect and log data from each of their contacts for tracking purposes and for the 

evaluation. 

81
 Application Assistance: If a client appeared to be eligible after prescreening, the 

GPCAH worker reviewed the list of required documentation with the client and directed 

the individual to the appropriate local food stamp office. (By the end of the project, state 

regulations were changed such that an applicant could apply at any of the city FSP offices, 

rather than one site assigned to them based on their place of residence.) The amount of 

application assistance given applicants varied among volunteers. Some volunteers simply 

gave clients the application forms; others reviewed the application forms with applicants; 

and still others filled the forms. In nearly all cases, the client was then sent off to the local 

food stamp office. However, one volunteer that assisted clients with application 

completions hand-delivered the forms to the food stamp office and obtained a receipt for 

the delivered applications. Over the course of the project, regulations were also eased to 

allow applicants unable to visit the FSP office to complete the eligibility process through a 

phone interview. Staff noted that follow-up on individual applicants was difficult as they 

found it hard to reach the applicants via telephone; this was an issue GPCAH staff 

struggled with throughout the project. 

Grantee and Administrative Data 

A summary of the data submitted through the national evaluator’s website is 

presented below. GPCAH’s total contacts represent the clients they prescreened as well as 

outreach materials they distributed. The number prescreened represents clients prescreened 

by volunteers in the community as well as those who were prescreened over the hotline. By 

the end of the grant period, 90 applications were still pending at the local food stamp 

office, and 80 clients failed to complete the application process. 

Exhibit B.6: Summary of Data Elements from the 

Greater Philadelphia Coalition Against Hunger 

Total # in HH

# HHs 

with NonCitizens 

# HHs with

Elderly or

Disabled

# HHs with

Children 

# HHs 

with

Earnings

# HHs 

with

ABAWD 

Total contacts 20,401 * * * * * * 

Follow-up contacts 728 * * * * * * 

Pre-screened 6,239 11,774 55 1,147 1,413 1,760 175 

Application assistance 4,697 * * * * * * 

Applications submitted 3,300 * * * * * * 

Applications approved 2,470 * * * * * * 

Applications denied 660 * * * * * * 

Reasons for denial:

 Income too high 155 * * * * * * 

 Assets too high 14 * * * * * * 

 Citizenship status 4 * * * * * * 

 Does not live in juris 0 * * * * * * 

 Incomplete interview 80 * * * * * * 

 Incomplete information 178 * * * * * * 

 Other reason 229 * * * * * * 

Note: The total column may include households for which demographic information was not available. 

* GPCAH was not able to provide final demographic data for any of their data elements except those they 

prescreened. 

82
Program Accomplishments and Lessons Learned 

Ultimately, GPCAH screened 6,239 clients for food stamps, 4,697 (75 percent) 

were deemed eligible, and 3,300 applications were submitted to the food stamp office. Of 

those 3,300 applications submitted, 2,470 (75 percent) were approved within the time 

frame covered by the grant. About three out of ten of the denials (178) were attributed to 

applicants failing to complete the necessary paperwork, and one-quarter (155) was 

attributed to applicants having income too high for eligibility. 

One concern by the local evaluator was the low-rate of application by the number of 

eligibles from the pre-screening process. They note, “At best only about 50 percent of those 

clients found eligible upon pre-screening applied for food stamps. In the post-grant period 

GPCAH is seeking to determine whether a rigorous effort to help potentially eligible clients 

fill out food stamp applications results in a higher rate of successful enrollment.” This 

finding underscores the potential labor-intensive process that might be necessary to enroll a 

higher proportion of FSP eligibles. 

GPCAH’s program provides many useful lessons for using volunteers for these 

types of outreach and prescreening activities. For example, they determined that volunteers 

who are willing to make a significant time and energy commitment were the most effective. 

GPCAH shifted to working with fewer volunteers, focusing especially on motivated workstudy and service-learning students. GPCAH also found that volunteers varied in their level 

of comfort in the types of activities they would participate in, and therefore, in the types of 

outreach activities they provided. For example, student volunteers tended to be comfortable 

with the math skills needed to calculate eligibility and estimated benefits, while community 

volunteers often had more experience and comfort working with the low-income

population and often incorporated their outreach activities into services they were already 

providing (i.e., work at a food pantry).

GPCAH concluded that outreach and prescreening efforts at food banks and 

pantries (where the customers tended to be the same people) were not as successful as that 

done at Health Centers and Career Links (where the population changed regularly). In 

addition they found that key elements for a successful outreach site include a high traffic of 

low-income customers at a site where they are accustomed to seeking services and staff 

who are supportive of volunteers and the FSP. 

GPCAH also felt that the establishment of a widely advertised food stamp hotline 

that clients can call for pre-screening and information greatly enhances the effectiveness of 

an outreach campaign. Social service agencies with supportive staff can be an especially 

productive source of referrals to a hotline. 

GPCAH also emphasized a side benefit of the outreach- they put a face on poverty 

for many college students. Hence, in addition to the outreach activities, it was also an 

excellent learning opportunity. 

83
Future Plans 

Although GPCAH staff indicated that they do not have adequate funding to 

continue with all activities associated with this project, they will continue providing limited 

services. They will continue using volunteers for prescreenings because “we decided that 

we wanted to continue with this because it’s been rewarding. We feel like sometimes the 

training takes a lot of time, and it takes people some time to pick up on how to do 

screenings, but in the end it’s worthwhile.” Staff will also continue to emphasize the use of

COMPASS, the on-line application program, to increase the number of those who actually 

follow-through with applications. 

Illinois Hunger Coalition (Illinois)

Characteristics 

Location/Number of Sites: Chicago, Illinois 

Intervention Start Date and End Dates: June 2003- November 2004 

Grant Amount: $300,000 

Project Objectives and Activities 

This project’s primary goal was to increase enrollment in the FSP among families 

with students in Chicago Public Schools. This was accomplished through the education of 

parents and school staff about the FSP. Web-based prescreening and application assistance 

was provided in school settings. Their target population was low-income, potentiallyeligible families with children in the Chicago Public School system, with a particular focus 

on working poor and immigrant families. Most families in their target population were 

enrolled in the school lunch program. 

Organizational Information 

Type of Organization/Agency: Established in 1989, the Illinois Hunger Coalition is 

a non-profit, statewide member organization that uses education, advocacy, and outreach to 

end hunger and its underlying causes throughout the state. Illinois focuses its efforts on 

community organizing, educating policymakers and potential recipients about nutrition 

programs and advocating for progressive public policy. As the lead advocacy organization 

on nutrition programs, Illinois works closely with the Illinois Department of Human 

Service (IDHS) food pantries, shelters, faith-based programs and other CBOs and is 

involved in efforts to lobby and educate legislators about food-related legislation. Illinois 

also identifies and develops strategies to overcome barriers of other programs such as 

SCHIP, KidCare, Family Care, Medicaid, and cash assistance. Illinois also operates a 

statewide Hunger Hotline, staffed by bilingual staff who make referrals to food pantries, 

soup kitchens, etc. but also screen and assist with applications for WIC, school breakfast, 

KidCare, cash assistance, and other programs, in addition to FSP. Illinois received a Round 

84
1 USDA/FSP grant, under which they developed the FSP portion of their RealBenefits tool, 

a web-based prescreening and application tool that screens for FSP, KidCare, FamilyCare, 

Medicaid, TANF, LIHEAP, and other programs. Over 400 agencies in Illinois have been 

trained to use RealBenefits.

 Staffing: Approximately 12 staff worked on this grant. The project coordinator 

(full-time) was responsible for the day-to-day project management of the grant and for 

supervising the outreach. The Illinois director (part-time on the project) was involved in all 

aspects of the outreach project as needed. Nine KidCare Coordinators (KCCs) who were 

employed by the CPS were trained by IHC staff in 3 to 4 hour sessions. After training, the 

KCCs subsequently organized and attended outreach events in the community, 

disseminated information, prescreened clients for eligibility, and assisted with applications 

using the RealBenefits prescreening tool. (The KCCs served 600 schools in six regions.) 

Illinois did not pay for the KCCs; they were employed by the school district. In addition to 

the KCC training, IHC staff trained over 100 CPS staff about FSP policy and eligibility 

requirements and on the use of the Real Benefits System. Other Illinois staff (e.g., the 

Hunger Hotline Coordinator and the community organizer) contributed to the project 

indirectly, but were not paid with grant funds. 

 Volunteers: None used. 

 Key Partners: Key partners included the Chicago Public Schools (CPS), which was 

a new partnership formed for this project, local school councils, Designs for Change (a 

non-profit that supports local school councils), and the Illinois Department of Human 

Services (IDHS). Illinois’ member organizations also contributed to the project by allowing 

Illinois to conduct outreach at their facilities. 

Food Stamp Office Partnership: Although the IDHS was not involved in the 

design of the project, the grantee had regular contact with the department throughout the 

intervention, both at the Regional and Local Office levels. It was noted that the grantee had 

a longstanding, close working relationship with IDHS staff, and they had worked together 

to improve service at the local food stamp offices. RealBenefits Liaisons were designated 

in each local office. These individuals were responsible for receiving all RealBenefits 

applications and acting as the designated contact person for all RealBenefits contacts. Also 

Community Quality Councils (CQCs) were developed by the grantee in six local IDHS 

offices to build relationships among community groups and local food stamp office staff 

and increase understanding of FSP policies and procedures. In general, grantee staff, 

KCCs, case managers, and local office administrators met to discuss issues that arose

related to the project. During the initial stages of the project the local offices had difficulty 

tracking all of the applications the project sent to their offices. In fact project staff noted 

that some of their applications were not accepted as valid during the early stages. The 

establishment of the RealBenefit Liaisons corrected these problems. 

Outreach Activities 

 Information Dissemination: This initiative focused on educating parents and staff 

in the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) about their rights and responsibilities and eligibility 

85
for food stamps through several methods. They began with a direct mailing to 9,500 homes 

of families with children. The KCCs attended parent meetings at schools and community 

locations, distributed English/Spanish flyers (which contained specific information about 

maximum income levels, potential benefit levels and hotline information). Illinois also 

operated a Hunger Hotline, which clients could call for education, screening/application, 

and case-management/follow-up services. Illinois sent flyers to households with children 

who were identified by the CPS as enrolled in the free or reduced-price school meal 

program. 

 Prescreening: The families identified by the CPS as enrolled in the free or reduced 

price school meal program were asked to visit pre-arranged sites in the community 

(generally schools) where they were prescreened for potential eligibility for food stamps 

and medical assistance using the RealBenefits Quickscreen prescreening tool. The tool asks 

questions about household size, monthly income, expenses and assets. Quickscreen also 

provides an estimate of potential food stamp benefit amount but does not take into account 

certain factors that make some households ineligible (e.g., immigration status). 

Consequently, Quickscreen was not used for households of mixed immigration status. Kid 

Care Coordinators prescreened families for food stamps at the same time that they screened 

them for the Kid Care program. 

 Application Assistance: If prescreening determined that a family was potentially 

eligible for food stamps, a KCC helped them complete an application using the RealBenfits 

tool. The application was stamped with the Project’s logo and then usually faxed or emailed to the local food stamp office liaison. After large events someone usually delivered 

all of the applications to the food stamp offices that same evening. KCCs and Illinois staff 

provided follow-up and case management for applicants (this type of assistance increased 

over the course of the project) after applications were submitted. 

Grantee and Administrative Data 

A summary of the data submitted through the national evaluator’s website is 

presented below. Illinois’ total contacts included a large mailing (9,500) and flyer 

distribution (about 200,000). Illinois also indicated that this number of contacts is likely an 

underestimate; they had a difficult time training some of their outreach workers to track 

information. 

The Illinois evaluation report noted that several FSP applications, which they 

delivered or faxed to the local food stamp offices, were not traceable back to the project. 

(They did not record the exact number that could not be traced.) Also, Illinois received an 

extension of their project through November of 2004. During the two-month extension 

period, they completed about 300 new applications; however, they did not receive outcome

data for those applications. Below we have included the grantee data through November, 

2004, although the administrative data reflects the period ending September 30, 2004. 

86
Program Accomplishments and Lessons Learned 

Illinois found that outreach involved several intensive activities. First, the 

RealBenefits Quickscreen training required intensive technical support and case 

management to ensure that applications were processed appropriately. Second, they 

invested considerable upfront time in developing a partnership with the school 

administration. Third, they found educating potential recipients in their native language 

was especially beneficial. Fourth, the local food stamp offices were instrumental in the 

effort in clarifying policy and processing applications. Finally, Illinois found that more 

intensive application assistance was required to increase participation. Even with the 

electronic completion of applications, staff concluded that clients required personal 

attention, especially help with document review and follow-up to ensure that all aspects of 

the application process were completed. 

Exhibit B.7: Summary of Data Elements from the Illinois Hunger Coalition 

Total # in HH

# HHs

with NonCitizens 

# HHs with

Elderly or

Disabled

# HHs with

Children

#HHs 

with

Earnings 

# HHs with

ABAWD 

Total contacts 215,116 11,209 193 93 9,408 431 61 

Follow-up contacts 376 1,267 79 31 339 245 19 

Pre-screened 1,809 4,656 367 194 1,257 776 145 

Application assistance 1,573 3,856 312 181 1,045 613 136 

Applications submitted 765 2,230 174 101 598 293 90 

Applications approved 504 1,408 109 60 382 159 69 

Applications denied 253 804 62 39 209 130 21 

Reasons for Denial:

 Income too high 67 236 19 11 58 37 3 

 Assets too high 11 37 5 0 11 7 0 

 Citizenship status 3 12 2 3 3 2 0 

 Does not live in juris 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Incomplete interview 56 153 10 12 42 30 10 

 Incomplete information 83 254 24 11 73 41 4 

 Other reason 17 41 2 2 12 6 3 

Note: The total column may include households for which demographic information was not available.

The grantee section includes data from June 2002 through November 2004, whereas the administrative 

section only includes data through September 2004. The site was unable to obtain the administrative data for 

their outreach efforts during their extension period (October through November). 

The site was successful in developing a relationship with the Chicago Public School 

system. They also felt they were quite successful in reaching and educating immigrant 

communities (particularly Hispanics and the Indian/Pakistani population). Other 

accomplishments noted by grantee staff include linking the KCCs with the RealBenefits 

87
screening tool, which enabled them to automate their work and screen families for more

services than they could previously. Through September 2004, the KCCs assisted 1,229 

households with applications using RB2

. Of those, 765 or 62 percent were received by 

IDHS, and of those 504 or 66 percent of the received applications were approved. 

The development of Community Quality Councils was also seen as a major 

accomplishment. As noted above, these Councils brought together local food stamp office 

staff with grantee staff, and the KCCs to discuss issues that arose related to the project and 

build relationships between the community and local food stamp office staff. Both project 

and food stamp office staff concluded that these meetings were helpful. 

These accomplishments were not achieved without challenges. The grantee 

experienced some resistance on the part of the KCCs to prescreen for food stamps and to 

use the automated prescreening tool. The level of complication in the food stamp 

application process required training the liaisons, which created additional work. 

Additionally, some of the KCCs were resistant to the new technology. Previously, 

they used paper forms to prescreen and the new web-based computerized tool caused some

stress. However, once they used the tool they were able to prescreen large numbers of 

families more quickly and efficiently. The grantee staff also encountered problems related 

to relying on a third-party to complete intake forms and collect information needed for 

tracking applications. Grantee staff also noted that the lack of resources and initial project 

“buy-in” from CPS presented major challenges to project implementation. 

Future Plans 

The grantee obtained matching funds from USDA to continue a similar effort 

focusing on the city’s Community Schools program. There are also efforts to obtain 

additional funds from foundations. The KCCs will continue prescreening families with 

children enrolled in Chicago Public Schools as part of their ongoing responsibilities. 

However, the grantee will not be directly involved with the KCCs’ efforts. 

Community Harvest Food Bank Of Northeast Indiana (Indiana)

Characteristics 

Location/Number of Sites: Nine counties in Northeastern Indiana 

Intervention Start Date and End Dates: November 2002 – September 2004 

Grant Amount: $285,766 

 

2

 Illinois received and extension and continued their outreach through the end of November. The total number 

of applications generated by the project through November 2004 is 1,573. Administrative data from IDHS 

was not available for October and November, and is not reported. 

88
Project Objectives and Activities 

The primary goals of this project were to: 1) increase awareness of the FSP as a 

nutrition program, 2) increase the rate of food stamp participation in a nine-county service 

area among the newly unemployed, working poor, and low-income people of all ages, 

including homebound senior citizens, and 3) improve community services for families and 

adults who are food stamp eligible by providing a one-stop network of information and 

support. Activities included dissemination of FSP information through a multi-media 

campaign, flyers and posters and prescreening and application assistance in a variety of 

locations, including social service agencies, grocery stores, and homes. 

Organizational Information 

Type of Organization/Agency: Indiana is an independent, nonprofit agency that 

serves nine counties in northeastern Indiana and has partnerships with hundreds of member 

agencies that serve the poor (e.g., soup kitchens, emergency food pantries, shelters, senior 

citizen programs, day care centers, etc.). They are also affiliated with America’s Second 

Harvest, the national hunger relief organization. The outreach initiative operated in all nine 

counties. 

 Staffing: Five staff worked on this grant. The Executive Director of Indiana was 

responsible for overall fiscal and administrative project oversight. There were four fulltime dedicated outreach workers who were responsible for disseminating information, 

prescreening and application assistance. 

 Volunteers: None 

 Key Partners: Key partners included the Indiana member agencies (including 

churches, emergency food pantries, shelters, soup kitchens, etc), the county Councils on 

Aging, Catholic Charities, the local township trustees and the Unemployment 

Insurance/Job Works Offices. 

Food Stamp Office Partnership: Indiana worked with nine county FSP offices on 

this project and their experiences with staff varied across the offices. While grantee staff 

was sympathetic to the workload issues faced by FSP staff, they were clearly some

challenges with these relationships. Project staff worked on “winning over” staff at the 

local offices and creating a positive attitude towards the outreach project. At the end of the 

grant period, they felt that all but one of the nine county offices became “if not truly 

supportive, at least agreeable and worked with us.” Training on FSP application procedures 

was provided to the outreach workers by staff from only one county FSP office. 

Outreach Activities 

 Information Dissemination: Indiana staff disseminated information through a 

variety of methods. Their multi-media campaign included a series of eight billboards, radio 

talk shows, and newspaper coverage. (They were able to seize opportunities to publish, free 

of charge, in numerous local newspapers.) They also distributed over 20,000 flyers through 

89
partner agencies, grantee member agencies, grocery stores, churches and other community 

sites, ran articles in the Indiana newsletter, and conducted direct mailings. Staff also 

distributed information about the FSP (including prescreening questionnaires which they 

could fill out and return to the delivery person) in the SeniorPAK grocery bags delivered to 

homebound seniors on a periodic basis If a potentially eligible senior filled out the 

prescreening survey and asked for more information, an outreach worker would travel to 

the individual’s home and help them complete the application. Community Harvest also 

worked with Unemployment Insurance/Jobs Works Offices to reach the newly unemployed 

by distributing over 14,000 flyers to promote the fact that individuals can apply for food 

stamps at places other than the food stamp office. 

 Prescreening: Grantee outreach staff provided prescreening services at targeted 

locations including the agency’s four direct service program sites (e.g., Community 

Harvest’s food distribution partners, including food pantries, Kids Cafes, and Farm

Wagons that distribute fresh produce, juices, and dairy products to low-income individuals 

at various community sites), community partner agencies, in grocery stores, and in 

individuals’ homes. They also followed-up on the returned pre-screening questionnaires 

from the SeniorPaks described above. Staff reported that local FSP staff would not allow 

outreach staff to complete applications for applicants. Indiana staff initially used a 

prescreening tool developed jointly with the food stamp office to prescreen individuals, and 

gave them an application form if they appeared eligible (but they did not fill out the form

for them). As time went on, they created their own prescreener that included all of the 

questions taken verbatim from the official application form. This provided all of the 

information needed by the FSP office but technically was not an application form. (As 

noted below, some local offices eventually accepted these as application forms.)

 Application Assistance: Following prescreening, potential applicants were given an 

application to fill out and take to the food stamp office. As noted above, outreach workers 

went to some seniors’ homes to deliver and explain the application form. While most FSP 

offices would not allow Indiana staff to fill out applications for clients, staff did note that 

some counties would actually accept these prescreening/ application forms as applications; 

others were steadfast in their refusal. This form was either sent to the food stamp office by 

the outreach worker or the applicant would take it there themselves. Most applicants were 

still required to visit the FSP office as part of the application process. Workers also 

informed individuals about the documents required for the application process. Some

follow-up on those who had submitted applications was provided (e.g., if an applicant had 

special needs). 

Grantee and Administrative Data 

A summary of the data submitted through the national evaluator’s website is 

presented below. Indiana’s total contacts represent all clients prescreened as well as 

persons receiving outreach materials and information about the FSP through presentations 

or a brochure. Their number of follow-up contacts represents the number of FSP applicants 

90
with whom Indiana successfully followed-up to see where they were in the application 

process. The follow-up process was very labor-intensive, so the grantee did not provide this 

service during the entire grant period. The majority of the follow-up contacts (143) were 

calls initiated by the applicant asking for assistance with the FSP office regarding their 

case. 

By the end of the grant period, there were 59 applications submitted as a result of 

Indiana’s outreach efforts for which they did not know the outcome. Most of these 

applications were still pending, although outcomes for about 10-15 applications could not 

be identified by the food stamp office. 

Program Accomplishments and Lessons Learned 

Indiana’s outreach efforts resulted in more than 1,300 individuals applying for food 

stamps, although less than half of those applications (603 or 46 percent) resulted in families 

being approved for food stamp benefits. Almost half of denials were due to clients not 

following through with interviews. Regardless, grantee staff members were very proud of 

their work with the elderly in terms of “de-stigmatizing” the FSP and convincing them to 

apply, although it often took repeated efforts. Staff also reported the importance of 

enthusiastic and concerned outreach workers, who were not government employees 

“behind an FSP office door” and able to guide applicants through the food stamp 

application process. Finally, staff noted taking pride in all of the presentations they had 

made about their efforts; they felt like they had spread the word about the importance of 

this type of outreach work. 

Exhibit B.8: Summary of Data Elements from the 

Community Harvest Food Bank of Northeast Indiana 

Total # in HH

# HHs 

with NonCitizens 

# HHs with

Elderly or

Disabled

# HHs with

Children 

# HHs 

with

Earnings

# HHs 

with

ABAWD 

Total contacts 15,850 * * * * * * 

Follow-up contacts 253 468 9 200 49 38 41 

Pre-screened 1,931 4,205 249 622 705 735 663 

Application assistance 1,496 3,068 179 445 475 465 552 

Applications submitted 1,307 * * * * * * 

Applications approved 603 * * * * * * 

Applications denied 645 * * * * * * 

Reasons for denial:

 Income too high 113 * * * * * * 

 Assets too high 0 * * * * * * 

 Citizenship status 22 * * * * * * 

 Does not live in juris 0 * * * * * * 

 Incomplete interview 304 * * * * * * 

 Incomplete information 42 * * * * * * 

 Other reason 164 * * * * * * 

Note: The total column may include households for which demographic information was not available. 

*Indiana was not able to provide final demographic data for all of their data elements except those they

prescreened, followed-up with, and assisted with the application process. 

91
Indiana also felt their efforts to recruit, educate, and build collaborations with large 

numbers of community partners were particularly successful. According to the local 

evaluation, the majority of applicants learned about the FSP through Indiana’s partnerships, 

particularly their member partners. Few applicants reported learning about FSP directly 

from their mass media advertisements, although word of mouth contributed to awareness of 

the program. 

Future Plans 

While Indiana has not received any additional funding to continue this work, staff at 

many of the partner agencies who participated in information sessions and training were 

interested in continuing to share FSP information with potential applicants. They also 

indicated that they would maintain a stock of informational pamphlets at each of those 

locations. For example, Catholic Charities will continue to keep applications on hand and 

give application assistance. At the end of the project, Indiana sent their toll free number and 

their website information to partner agencies, hoping that they would continue to promote 

these resources. The local evaluator concluded that “the value of the relationships that have 

been built through this grant in the nine county area will have lasting impact that will 

positively improve the process for clients for years to come.” 

Community Action Program For Madison County (Madison)

Characteristics 

Location/Number of Sites: Madison County, New York 

Intervention Start Date and End Dates: May 2003 – September 2004 

Grant Amount: $171,300 

Project Objectives and Activities 

The primary goal of this project was to increase the number of new households 

participating in the Food Stamp Program in Madison County by approximately 25 percent 

in the year following implementation of the project. Activities included a multi-media 

campaign with more general dissemination of information (e.g., flyers, posters, and 

brochures) and outreach presentations. Prescreening and application assistance was 

provided at various community sites and a public access website with a prescreening tool 

and online application was created. 

Organizational Information 

Type of Organization/Agency: The Community Action Program for Madison 

County, Inc. (CAP) is a private, non-profit Community Action Agency that provides 

92
information and referral, direct assistance, and support services leading to economic selfsufficiency to families who live or work in Madison County. CAP coordinates and supports 

the activities of all eleven food pantries in the county, works with local churches to 

organize food distribution, operates the Early Head Start program, the home visiting 

program (Starting Together), provides emergency assistance and transportation assistance 

(assistance in repairing or buying a car-through a DOL grant), and provides services 

(including transitional housing) to the homeless population. CAP also conducts outreach 

and enrollment for Child Health Plus, Family Health Plus, and Medicaid. 

 Staffing: Seven staff worked on this outreach initiative. The project director 

devoted 10-15 percent of her time to general project oversight and management. The food 

stamp outreach coordinator worked full time on this project and was responsible for 

coordinating all outreach efforts, training staff at partner agencies (e.g, food pantries, 

libraries) and outreach and application assistance at four public sites. The grant funded the 

salary of a traveling food stamp outreach worker from DSS who participated in project 

outreach activities for one year. She accompanied the outreach coordinator on visits to sites 

to meet with applicants and used a portable work station (with a laptop and photo and 

finger-imaging capability) to process applications on a limited basis. Four frontline family 

support advocates at the CAP also spent 5-10 percent of their time on food stamp outreach, 

referral, prescreening and application assistance activities for this project. 

 Volunteers: A few senior volunteers worked on project activities at food pantries. 

 Key Partners: Partners included a variety of community service providers including 

food cupboards and other food distribution sites, libraries, WIC sites, and senior living 

centers. The Madison County Office for the Aging and the New York State Department of 

Health were also partners in this initiative. Staff at both agencies were provided with 

laptops and dial-up accounts and were trained to provide both paper and on-line 

prescreening and application assistance. The intent was that workers would provide this 

assistance in their local offices, at other sites in the community and in individuals’ homes 

with their target populations as part of their other outreach efforts. However, due to both 

technical glitches and the reluctance of their clients to use the website, only paper FSP 

applications were submitted to DSS (which they had been doing prior to this project).

Food Stamp Office Partnership: The local DSS office was a major partner on this 

project from the outset, providing a dedicated outreach worker as well as monitoring and 

oversight of all applications resulting from this initiative. This site worked with only one 

local office with which they had a long history of collaboration. The DSS office was very 

involved in all phases of the project from the beginning; in fact, the three key partners, the 

CAP, the evaluator, and DSS, had all worked together on a prior study of welfare leavers in 

Madison County. All partners were involved in the grant writing and all continued to play a 

major role in this intervention. Grantee staff felt that DSS’s willingness to dedicate one 

worker to this project who would go out in the community to conduct activities (photo IDs, 

copying verification information, etc) that would otherwise require a trip to the DSS office 

was a very positive change. “That was much more of a customer focused kind of process 

than what is standard at DSS.” 

93
Outreach Activities 

 Information Dissemination: This grantee conducted a multi-media campaign and 

the more general dissemination of information. This consisted of numerous press releases 

in local newspapers, radio PSAs, and distribution of customized USDA flyers, posters, 

brochures (including a tear-sheet with the website address) and other FSP informational 

materials in supermarkets, laundromats, post offices, churches, food pantries, day care 

providers, doctors’ offices, libraries and many other community sites. Staff also made 

outreach presentations, set up informational kiosks and provided information on the 

application process and the new website (see below) at various community events (e.g, Eat 

Well Play Hard event; Living Well with Diabetes forum, flu shot clinics). 

Outreach staff also conducted similar outreach efforts at Food Sense Distribution 

sites, food cupboards, libraries, and WIC sites. CAP made a special effort to target the 

elderly population and made numerous visits to SNACK (Senior Nutrition and Community 

Kitchen) sites where seniors often gathered (staff noted that this is a “vital prospect to any 

outreach effort targeting seniors”) and to senior living centers and other senior community 

meetings. Direct FSP mailings were targeted to households that applied for free or reduced 

lunch through the schools, school nurses and guidance counselors (to inform them of the 

website and the link between obesity and poverty), and to homes in targeted zip codes with 

an underserved populations. CAP front-line family support advocates also provided FSP 

information to families they worked with as needed. 

 Prescreening: Madison’s public access website, (www.madisoncountyfood 

stamps.org), developed specifically for this grant, was launched on October 1, 2003. 

Individuals can access and utilize this site on their own or with the assistance of the 

Madison Outreach coordinator, the DSS Outreach Worker or trained staff at various sites 

throughout the community. Extensive training on the use of the website (and promotion of 

its use) was conducted by the CAP Outreach Coordinator for the CAP Family Support 

Advocates, librarians, staff at Office for Aging and Department of Health (described 

above) and other community service providers. 

The website includes a six-question prescreening tool (based on the USDA 

presceening tool) to determine likely eligibility and the potential FSP benefit. If it appears 

from the prescreener that the applicant will be eligible, they can then continue with the

application process. Throughout this project, the outreach coordinator and the DSS 

outreach worker conducted outreach, prescreening and application assistance at the CAP 

office and other community sites and/or events described above during both business and 

extended hours. Prior to the launching of the new website, prescreening was provided using 

paper forms. After the website was launched, this assistance was provided using laptops to 

access the new website, if internet access was available at a particular site. If internet 

access was not available, this assistance was still provided using paper forms. 

 Application Assistance: As with the prescreening process, the Outreach 

Coordinator and the DSS outreach worker were available to provide application assistance 

at various sites. Applications could be completed and submitted online directly to the local 

94
DSS where they were printed and assigned to the DSS outreach worker for processing and 

determination of eligibility. Applications could also be downloaded, filled out and faxed, 

mailed or hand-delivered to the local office. Once the application was processed, DSS sent 

a letter stating that the application has been received and outlining documentation 

requirements. The DSS outreach worker also had a portable workstation that enabled her to 

conduct other identification components of the application process (e.g., the photo ID and 

finger-imaging processes) at community sites, under certain circumstances. Required 

documentation could be faxed directly to the DSS office. Madison County also 

implemented use of a shortened, two-page application during this program that simplified 

this step considerably. 

Grantee and Administrative Data 

A summary of Madison’s grantee and administrative data is presented below. 

Madison’s grantee data represent clients prescreened either through Madison’s website tool 

or by the community partners. Note that Madison’s number of applications assisted is an 

undercount of the total due to a change in their method for reporting this data element midgrant. 

Throughout the grant period, Madison reported caseload data for their entire county 

to the national evaluator’s website (which the local evaluator analyzed using a pre-post 

model in the grantee’s evaluation report). The DSS food stamp outreach worker tracked the 

applications filed directly as a result of Madison’s outreach efforts (either through the use 

of the website or through community partners). The administrative data presented below 

represent the outcomes for these specific applications. The food stamp outreach worker was 

not, however, able to collect data on the reasons for denial or the demographic information 

on the applications submitted, approved and denied. Three (3) of the applications submitted 

to the food stamp office were voluntarily withdrawn by the client. Ten percent (27) of the 

applications submitted were denied. Outcomes are unknown for 79 applications either 

because the application was pending by the end of the grant or because the application was 

submitted prior to March 2004, the period for which they do not have pending or denial 

information. 

Program Accomplishments and Lessons Learned 

The local evaluation report’s pre-post analysis of county caseload data suggests that 

Madison achieved their project goal by increasing the number of new food stamp cases 

opened from 1,072 in the year prior to the intervention to 1,349 cases in the intervention 

year (277 households). Their caseload and outreach specific administrative data do suggest 

that their intervention did have an important effect. Unexpectedly, they also found an 

increase in the number of denials in their caseload analysis (155 denials in the base year 

and 322 denials during the intervention year). They reported few denials in their 

administrative data (27 of the 264 submitted), although over half (55 percent) of the 

applications they submitted to the food stamp office were either pending or the outcome 

was unknown to the food stamp outreach worker by the end of the grant period. 

95
Exhibit B.9: Summary of Data Elements from the 

Community Action Program for Madison County 

Total # in HH

# HHs 

with NonCitizens 

# HHs with

Elderly or

Disabled

# HHs with

Children 

# HHs 

with

Earnings

# HHs 

with

ABAWD 

Total contacts 840 2,776 15 183 548 789 149 

Follow-up contacts 66 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Pre-screened 840 2,776 15 183 548 789 149 

Application assistance 402 703 6 56 108 223 58 

Applications submitted 264 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Applications approved 90 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Applications denied 27 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Reasons for denial:

 Income too high N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Assets too high N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Citizenship status N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Does not live in juris N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Incomplete interview N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Incomplete information N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Other reason N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Note: The total column may include households for which demographic information was not available. 

N/A: The grantee never collected information on these data elements. 

Further analysis of their county caseload data pointed to the lack of follow-through 

on applications. The most common reason for denial of applications was incomplete 

documentation. Madison noted a number of reasons for incomplete documentation, 

including: lack of awareness of the extent of the documentation required when they 

applied, difficulty getting to the DSS office, no follow-up from DSS workers, etc. Staff 

also noted specific difficulties in targeting subgroups, especially the elderly, who were 

generally opposed to participating in the FSP because they viewed it as welfare. 

Madison made great strides in simplifying the process (including their 

implementation of the shortened application form), though, like many other grantees, they 

had many cases that required labor-intensive efforts. They noted that they would like to 

pursue efforts to change the FSP culture. They found that finger printing, photos, and 

significant documentation represented important barriers to participation, though they 

believed they could be overcome with further outreach. 

Future Plans 

The website will continue to operate after the grant ends with some sharing of the 

minimal costs for the license between the grantee and the FSP office. The FSP outreach 

worker will likely still be responsible for handling all of the online applications received 

through the website. However, the presentations, media ads and similar outreach activities 

96
will not continue because the outreach coordinator position (which had been funded by this 

grant) was eliminated and no other funds were available for those activities. The grantee 

organization’s in-house family resource advocates will still field calls about food stamps as 

a part of their regular work and will continue to assist clients with FSP applications on the 

website. 

In addition, staff from the state agency (ODTA) responsible for administering the 

FSP have indicated interest in reproducing the grantee’s on-line web access throughout 

New York State. 

Maternity Care Coalition (MCC)

Characteristics 

Location/Number of Sites: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, targeting two sites each in 

Montgomery and Delaware Counties 

Intervention Start Date and End Dates: February 2003-September 2004 

Grant Amount: $325,352 

Project Objectives and Activities 

The primary goal of this project was to educate non-participating pregnant women 

and families with young children about the benefits of the FSP, facilitate the application 

process, and increase enrollment among eligible families. Grantee activities included: 1) 

information dissemination to food insecure pregnant women and families with young 

children; and 2) prescreening and application assistance in a variety of settings (some using 

the state’s online application tool, COMPASS). 

Organizational Information 

Type of Organization/Agency: MCC is a non-profit comprehensive health 

promotion program that offers extensive family health education, self-sufficiency 

counseling, and linkage to critical human services for identified families. MCC’s 

MOMobile Program provides outreach, health promotion education, and family support to 

more than 3,000 families each year in neighborhoods with high rates of infant mortality, 

child abuse, and poverty. In collaboration with the Philadelphia Food Bank, MCC provided 

emergency food to 1,532 participating families in FY02, distributing over 2,359 cans of

infant formula. Using MCC’s brightly colored minivans (MOMobiles), MCC’s community 

health workers (advocates) make regular home visits to families, offering health education 

and providing links to public benefits and critical human services. 

 Staffing: Seven staff worked on this outreach project. The project manager (parttime) oversaw the project coordinator (full-time), while the project coordinator managed 

the day-to-day project activities, which included setting up community partnerships and 

97
educating them about the FSP, and recruiting, training and overseeing four site outreach 

workers (one at each project site). The project coordinator also provided direct (fill-in-thegap) outreach education, as well as participated in pre-screening and application assistance 

activities. The project coordinator also worked directly with a food stamp office in each 

county to track their outreach applications. MCC had an in-house research director (parttime) who conducted the evaluation of MCC’s outreach initiative. 

MCC faced some initial staffing challenges; they were not able to hire their project 

coordinator until 6 months after the start of the grant (February 2003), which delayed the 

recruitment and training of the outreach advocates. Additionally, MCC experienced 

significant turnover among the outreach advocates, and they found it particularly difficult 

to hire bilingual staff. 

 Volunteers: Having volunteers was not part of the original project proposal, but 

MCC did take advantage of opportunities as they arose. For example, a rabbinical student 

studying hunger and a high school student doing a school project gave volunteer assistance 

to the project. 

 Key Partners: MCC collaborated with a broad range of local faith-based and 

community-based organizations, including food cupboards, hospitals, low-income health 

clinics, senior centers, childcare centers, churches and other social service agencies. 

Specifically, MCC collaborated with agencies such as the Bernadine Center (a food 

pantry), the Ardmore Senior Center, and the Montgomery County Early Head Start and 

Early Learning Centers. 

Food Stamp Office Partnership: MCC partnered with two local County Assistance 

Offices (CAOs, the local food stamp entity), one each in Montgomery and Delaware 

Counties. The project director worked extensively with liaisons in the CAOs to track 

applications for their referred clients. The grantee reported that developing and maintaining 

these relationships with staff at the local food stamp offices took “a great deal of time and 

attention...more than most people would anticipate.” The project coordinator met with 

CAO supervisors multiple times, took applications to key point people in the local offices 

herself, and followed up with the local office contacts to determine the status of referred 

applications. 

Outreach of Activities

MCC used a three-tiered intervention where the outreach advocates provided: 1) 

education for non-participants about the FSP and its nutritional benefits; 2) pre-screening; 

and 3) direct assistance completing and submitting applications. Staff found that few clients 

submitted applications on their own and began offering the three tiers of intervention on an 

as-needed basis, rather than in a phased-in sequence. 

 Information Dissemination: Initially, through their MOMobile services, MCC 

offered food insecure pregnant women and families with very young children educational 

information about the benefits, eligibility rules, and application procedures for the FSP. 

They later expanded their target audience by partnering with local faith-based and 

98
community-based organizations to include senior citizens, immigrants, and other 

individuals at risk of food insecurity. The outreach advocates were based in local offices in 

each of the four community sites, but also went out into the community to conduct outreach 

activities at partnering agencies’ sites, such as food banks, senior centers, and health 

clinics. 

From the outset, MCC distributed flyers and gave presentations to partner agencies 

and to potential food stamp eligible groups to educate them about the FSP and its 

nutritional benefits, as well as to dispel common misconceptions about the FSP. MCC also 

devoted time to educating the medical community (such as nurses and midwives) about the 

FSP. They found that there was a great deal of misunderstanding about the FSP and felt it 

was crucial to educate service providers. 

 Prescreening: Staff prescreened potential applicants for food stamp benefits 

using a paper prescreening tool. 

 Application Assistance: Outreach staff gave clients the choice of filling out and 

submitting applications on their own or with assistance from MCC. If clients submitted 

applications on their own and informed MCC staff during follow-up calls, MCC would 

track those applications and provide necessary advocacy at the CAO. Applications

submitted by MCC staff members were also tracked and by the project coordinator who 

followed-up with clients. The grantee reported that clients “generally needed three or four 

follow up calls before they fully completed the application process and picked up their 

EBT cards.” 

 Focus Groups: MCC conducted three focus groups that were designed to 

understand barriers to food stamp participation. MCC recruited participants (46 overall) 

from their food stamp outreach project and invited them to have lunch and receive a $25 

food gift certificate. The focus groups were held in three different communities with 

different demographic compositions: a Spanish speaking community, a blue-collar 

neighborhood, and a low-income community bordering an affluent area. They heard about 

extensive feelings of stigma about the use of food stamps, either because of first-hand prior 

experiences in applying or perceived stigma. They also documented the complexity of the 

application process and the need for dispelling myths about the FSP, such as the perception 

that food stamp benefits would need to be paid back when their incomes increased. Among 

the non-English speakers, barriers included a lack of interpreters at the CAOs and fear of 

an impact on their immigration status. 

Grantee and Administrative Data 

A summary of the data submitted through the national evaluator’s website is 

presented below.3

 MCC’s number of total contacts represents all contacts with persons 

educated about the FSP, prescreened or assisted with applications. The local evaluation 

notes that 491 unique households were educated about the FSP, which averages to 2.3 

 

3 There are data inconsistencies to note. The reasons for denial for households with ABAWDs and households 

with elderly/disabled persons sum to one less than the total number of denied applications in these categories. 

99
contacts per household. Of the 296 prescreened, 11 households were screened more than 

once. (MCC reported that 285 unique households were prescreened.) 

Not included in the number of total contacts, but reported to the national evaluator’s 

system in the notes field, is the number of outreach materials distributed (i.e., persons 

educated about the FSP but for whom no contact information was obtained). MCC 

distributed over 5,000 brochures, flyers and food stamp packets at presentations and events 

at their community partners. 

Exhibit B.10: Summary of Data Elements from the Maternity Care Coalition 

Total # in HH

# HHs 

with NonCitizens 

# HHs with

Elderly or

Disabled

# HHs with

Children 

# HHs 

with

Earnings

# HHs 

with

ABAWD 

Total contacts 1,121 3,209 437 274 743 666 113 

Follow-up contacts 630 1,908 307 149 462 423 47 

Pre-screened 296 849 85 83 180 155 38 

Application assistance 270 765 77 79 167 137 33 

Applications submitted 133 392 48 36 89 76 15 

Applications approved 70 199 24 21 46 36 8 

Applications denied 29 107 14 8 24 20 2 

Reasons for denial:

 Income too high 7 27 2 2 5 5 0 

 Assets too high 4 13 2 0 3 3 1 

 Citizenship status 1 8 0 1 1 1 0 

 Does not live in juris 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Incomplete interview 8 31 5 1 7 6 0 

 Incomplete information 3 10 2 0 3 3 0 

 Other reason 6 18 3 3 5 2 0 

Note: The total column may include households for which demographic information was not available. 

Program Accomplishments and Lessons Learned 

Initially, MCC staff planned to offer education about the food stamp program to 

clients and then follow-up within a month to see if clients would like to be prescreened for 

benefits and receive assistance with the application process (a phase-in strategy for the 

three tiers of intervention). Staff found that few clients were submitting applications on

their own when just provided with education about the FSP, or even after being 

prescreened. Staff began offering the three tiers of intervention on an as needed basis, 

rather than in a phased in sequence. MCC staff found it took three to four follow-up calls to 

each client to make sure that the application process was proceeding, more follow-up than 

they had initially anticipated. This may, in part, reflect their target groups – non-English 

speaking individuals and the working poor. They reported that 70 percent of the 133 

households who submitted applications “required extensive assistance and support.” 

MCC’s outreach efforts led to only 70 approvals by the end of the grant period (out of 133 

applications submitted). 

The grantee originally planned to provide application assistance using the state’s 

online application (COMPASS). However, due to a lack of technical capacity early on and 

problems with the online tool, the grantee used a paper application tool instead. Toward the 

100
end of the project, when computers and Internet access were upgraded at local offices and 

staff members were more familiar with the online tool, outreach advocates began using the 

web-based application tool. 

The grantee noted that developing and maintaining relationships with the local food 

stamp office took a considerable amount of time and effort. They also noted that it was 

crucial to educate both service providers and clients about the FSP to dispel their 

misconceptions. 

Future Plans 

MCC will not continue their outreach activities due to a lack of funding. However, 

grantee staff felt the legacy of the project—staff awareness of the FSP—would permeate 

the other service delivery areas of the MCC. 

Human Services Coalition of Dade County (Miami-Dade)

Characteristics 

Location/Number of Sites: Miami, Florida 

Intervention Start Date and End Dates: June 2003- July 2004 

Grant Amount: $350,000 

Project Objectives and Activities 

The primary goal of this project was to enroll low-income employees through 

outreach to businesses, welfare to work agencies, and job retraining agencies using roving 

Fringe Benefits Specialists and RealBenefits, an internet-based toolset that allows 

calculation of food stamp eligibility and awards amounts. Grantee outreach activities 

included presentations about “economic benefit packages” to local businesses with lowwage workers as well as prescreening and application assistance using on online screening 

tool. 

Organizational Information 

Type of Organization/Agency: Founded in 1996, the Human Services Coalition of 

Dade County is a non-profit organization with a membership coalition of over 6,000 

members that includes representatives of service providers, faith-based groups, labor, 

consumers, grass roots organizations and citizens associations. Miami-Dade staff act as 

advocates to the poor and low-income families and are part of a community team of 

advocates and a similar chain working throughout the state. In addition to delivering FSP 

outreach activities by conducing web-based prescreening and application assistance as part 

of a Round One FSP Outreach grant, Miami-Dade has also conducted outreach activities 

for Florida KidCare (Florida’s SCHIP) and the EITC. 

101
 Staffing: Six staff worked on this project. The project director was responsible for 

oversight, monitoring and coordination with partner agencies. The project coordinator 

conducted outreach activities and supervised the work of the outreach workers. As of July 

2004, there were four outreach workers who devoted part of their time to these efforts. 

These workers conducted outreach and prescreening activities and recruited and trained 

staff at partner agencies on the FSP prescreening/application assistance process, in addition 

to performing other community outreach activities not covered by this grant. 

 Volunteers: None used.

 Key Partners: Primary partners for this grant included businesses and the South 

Florida Workforce (SFW). Miami-Dade worked with local businesses as well as SFW to 

inform and prescreen potentially eligible individuals for the FSP program. Some small 

businesses actually conducted the prescreening themselves. Another partner, Community 

Catalyst, furnished and provided support for the web-based prescreening, eligibility, and 

benefits calculator, RealBenefits. They also trained agency staff in the use of the tool. The 

Alliance for Human Services, an organization that provides funding and support for local 

community based organizations was also a partner. 

Food Stamp Office Partnership: The Department of Children and Families (DCF, 

the state food stamp agency) also was a key partner in the initiative, participating in regular 

meetings and ongoing discussions on various FSP issues (e.g., customer service). They also 

provided policy updates and general information about the FSP to grantee staff. A regional 

DCF staff member served as liaison to the project and attended monthly grantee meetings. 

She also worked with the grantee project coordinator to resolve issues related to individual 

applications. The local food stamp office logged in HSC client applications assigning them

unique case numbers, the same way that all applications were treated. The only identifier 

was a fax cover sheet from HSC. This led to problems tracking project outcomes. The 

outcome data was obtained from the state by asking them to match outcome data with their 

clients’ SSN’s. 

Types of Activities 

 Information Dissemination: The project coordinator and other outreach workers 

conducted FSP outreach through presentations to local businesses with low wage 

employees. During presentations at local businesses, the FSP was included as one 

component of an “economic benefit package” that included the EITC and Florida’s Kid 

Care Health Insurance. 

In addition to their stand-alone presentations, Miami-Dade staff joined staff from

South Florida Workforce (the local Workforce Investment Board) as part of their rapid 

response efforts with dislocated workers. They made joint presentations to employees who 

were being laid off and were covered under the Trade Adjustment Act (TAA). Employees 

were generally not screened for FSP eligibility during these presentations, but were given 

information on getting in touch with Miami-Dade to complete an application. Even if 

Miami-Dade staff could not participate in a presentation, information about their services 

was included in the packets given to participants. 

102
FSP information was also disseminated through outreach and presentations at local 

businesses, community organizations and at health fairs and other community events. Some

employers included the information in paychecks, etc. A flyer summarizing new eligibility 

criteria for legal immigrants was developed and distributed throughout the community and 

placed in a newsletter with over 600 readers. 

 Prescreening: During presentations, interested individuals were provided 

information about the FSP and the eligibility requirements and a Miami-Dade phone 

number to call for a prescreening. (This “hotline” was actually a referral line for a range of 

issues and benefits programs.) The RealBenefits web-based tool was used to prescreen 

potential applicants (often over the phone) and to calculate probable benefits. Other MiamiDade outreach educators used the RealBenefits tool to prescreen families for food stamps. 

For example, one was assigned to conduct outreach to families with children enrolled in a 

particular middle school. He worked out of the school and targeted parents when they came

to the school. He also visited families in their homes. 

Other community-based organizations and local businesses signed agreements with 

Miami-Dade to be trained to use the RealBenefits web-based tool for prescreening and to 

produce completed applications. A local Marriott resort, for example, used the software to 

prescreen employees for food stamp eligibility. After screening employees and/or their 

family members, they faxed the completed application to the food stamp office. 

 Application Assistance: If individuals appeared eligible, RealBenefits was also 

used to complete and generate applications, which were then mailed to clients with a list of

documents to bring to the food stamp office. It was the applicant’s responsibility to take the 

completed application to the office. In some cases, outreach workers completed 

applications face-to-face and faxed them directly to the food stamp office, thus eliminating 

one visit for applicants. (Miami-Dade kept copies of the applications for follow-up 

purposes.) Appointment notices were generated by the food stamp office and mailed to 

applicants who then needed to bring their verification documents to an eligibility interview 

to complete the application process. The outreach workers and project coordinator also 

followed up with applicants, intervened on issues that arose between applicants and food 

stamp workers, and advocated on behalf of applicants. 

Grantee and Administrative Data 

A summary of the data submitted through the national evaluator’s website is 

presented below. Miami-Dade’s local evaluation report included data for a subset of the 

elements on the website. (The numbers included in the local evaluation report are much

higher and could not be verified despite requests for explanations from the national 

evaluator.) As noted above, the grantee had difficulty establishing a tracking system for 

their applications. Since the state only reported final outcomes that could be traced to their 

clients that supplied SSNs, the total number of approvals may be an underestimate. Also, 

the state was not able to provide data on reasons for denials. 

103
Program Accomplishments and Lessons Learned 

Through this project and the “Greater Miami Prosperity Campaign” the grantee 

built solid relationships with the business community. They created more than 30 

partnerships with employers to provide FSP information and prescreening. Staff found that 

it was difficult to promote food stamp benefits on their own – people were more receptive 

to learning about a comprehensive “economic benefits” package that included the EITC, 

health care, etc. 

The grantee solidified their working relationships with the food stamp office. The 

project coordinator, for example, fostered relationships with the site manager at each of the 

approximately 20 local offices (called “service centers”) in their region. 

Exhibit B.11: Summary of Data Elements from the Human Services Coalition 

of Dade County 

Total 

# in

HH 

# HHs 

with NonCitizens 

# HHs with

Elderly or

Disabled

# HHs with

Children 

#HHs

with

Earnings

# HHs 

with

ABAWD 

Total contacts 707 1,868 247 54 335 257 N/A 

Follow-up contacts 16 34 3 2 8 4 N/A 

Pre-screened 694 1,814 243 53 322 252 N/A 

Application assistance 385 906 78 26 156 126 N/A 

Applications submitted 595 1,596 209 49 273 210 N/A 

Applications approved 116 358 0 0 71 31 N/A 

Applications denied 61 131 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Reasons for Denial:

 Income too high N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Assets too high N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Citizenship status N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Does not live in juris N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Incomplete interview N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Incomplete inform N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Other reason N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Note: The total column may include households for which demographic information was not available.

N/A: The grantee never collected information on these data elements. 

The grantee encountered some barriers working with RealBenefits – many business 

and community-based organizations trained to use the software did not stay motivated to 

use the system. In addition, many sites were not Internet-ready, requiring outreach staff to 

complete paper applications and enter the information into the computer in the grantee’s 

office. 

Future Plans 

The grantee will continue their business outreach through the “Greater Miami 

Prosperity Campaign”, an initiative designed to “put more money in people’s hands 

through government assistance.” Food stamps will be part of their bundled benefits 

package. 

104
Muskegon Community Health Project (Muskegon)

Characteristics 

Location/Number of Sites: Muskegon, Michigan – Muskegon, Newago and Oceana 

counties 

Intervention Start Date and End Dates: January 2003- November 2004 

Grant Amount: $209,934 

Project Objectives and Activities 

The primary goals of the project were to: (1) develop a secure computer subsystem

for project data collection and maintenance; (2) educate 4,000 persons about the benefits, 

eligibility rules, and application procedures of the FSP; (3) assist 2,000 persons to 

participate in the FSP; (4) identify barriers to participation in the FSP process; and (5) 

develop strategies to overcome barriers to participation in the FSP, and evaluate project 

outcomes. Activities included: (1) dissemination of FSP information and a multimedia 

campaign and (2) prescreening and application assistance using both a paper form and webbased prescreening tools at various community sites. 

Organizational Information 

Type of Organization/Agency: The Muskegon Community Health Project is a 

nonprofit organization whose goal is to develop health care systems and policy reform 

initiatives through community-based decision-making. Among other projects, Muskegon 

implemented a community-wide outreach and enrollment program for Medicaid and 

MICHild (SCHIP) and developed an internet-based information-sharing system for multiagency case management of the indigent population in Muskegon County. 

 Staffing: Five staff worked on this project. The project coordinator was responsible 

for the day-to-day project management of the grant and for supervising three outreach 

specialists (including a Latino specialist) who conducted FSP outreach and information 

dissemination and prescreening and application assistance at food pantries, health fairs, 

commodities trucks and other community sites. A financial coordinator and a financial 

clerical person were also partially covered through this grant.

 Volunteers: None

 Key Partners: Key partners included the WIC offices, Workforce Development 

Centers, local Head Start agencies, and a number of other community service providers. 

Food Stamp Office Partnership: Muskegon staff worked with three county FSP 

offices on this outreach initiative. Staff felt that relationships improved over the course of 

the project with some of the offices (e.g., a new director in one of the offices “seemed to 

grasp the outreach effort a lot more” which led to staff seeming “a lot more 

105
accommodating.”) One FSP supervisor who was “a tremendous help” came to the project 

steering committee meetings. However, staff also noted that they faced a number of 

challenges working with the FSP offices both in terms of processing applications and in 

providing data on outcomes. They attributed these challenges to staff cuts, turnover, and 

unmanageable caseloads. 

Outreach Activities 

 Information Dissemination: Muskegon’s outreach efforts included billboards, 

radio ads, print ads in local newspapers, FSP articles in local newspapers, and distribution 

of posters, flyers, brochures, and other FSP information though a variety of methods. For 

example, information was distributed at commodities trucks where food is distributed, sent 

home in packets with Head Start families, and distributed in community organizations such 

as food pantries, senior meal sites, schools, churches, and learning centers for migrant and 

bilingual programs. Muskegon distributed USDA materials labeled with local contact 

information as part of their outreach presentations. They noted that “branding” of USDA 

materials was important - they would place their brochures with the posters so people could 

read about the program and then contact someone at a partner agency about FSP. Radio ads 

ran every other week for five weeks. Grantee staff found that they had to skip a week with 

the ads to accommodate all the people who came to the office to complete applications

after they were aired. Muskegon used the USDA–produced radio ads as a voice-over for 

the USDA print ads and made a 30 second ad to run on cable TV. 

 Prescreening: Muskegon provided prescreening services using both a paper 

prescreening form and web-based prescreening tools which could be used by outreach 

specialists to prescreen individuals and calculate benefits at their offices, at partnering 

agencies, at community events (e.g., health fairs, church events) and in clients’ homes. 

Initially, Muskegon used the prescreening tool which the Center for Social Justice 

developed under a Round One FNS access grant and which was accessed through the 

Michigan Food Stamp Network. This tool was revised and not available for about six 

months (and discontinued in April of 2004) so staff used either the USDA prescreener or 

other sites available on the Internet. If no on-line prescreening site was available, staff used 

a paper prescreening form. 

 Application Assistance: After prescreening, applications were mailed or given to 

those who appeared eligible, along with a checklist of required verification documents and 

the offer of further assistance from outreach staff. If an individual appeared to be in need of 

immediate assistance (e.g., homeless; no food in the house), they would be sent directly to 

a food pantry to address those needs and then on to the FSP office for expedited services. If 

an individual needed additional help (particularly the case for Hispanic families) they made 

an appointment with grantee staff and, at that time, they received help filling out the 

application. 

Grantee staff could also provide assistance with locating and collecting all of 

verification documents, if necessary. Applications were then dated, stamped, and delivered 

to the food stamp office every day. At one point during the grant period, a grantee staff 

member who was a former FSP worker was allowed to do the in-person eligibility 

106
interview (thus eliminating a trip to the FSO office) but that person left and all applicants 

were then required to go the FSP office to complete the process. The bilingual outreach 

worker also provided outreach and prescreening and application assistance offsite on a 

regular basis in the outlying areas of two of the more remote counties, in order to better 

meet the needs of the migrant workers. 

Grantee and Administrative Data 

A summary of the data submitted through the national evaluator’s website is 

presented below. Muskegon was not able to establish a system for tracking applications 

through the local food stamp offices. Therefore, their evaluation relied on caseload 

information to estimate the effects of their outreach. Those data are not included below. 

 

Exhibit B.12: Summary of Data Elements from Muskegon 

Community Health Project 

Total 

# in

HH 

# HHs 

with NonCitizens 

# HHs with

Elderly or

Disabled

# HHs with

Children 

#HHs

with

Earnings

# HHs 

with

ABAWD 

Total contacts 11,780 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Follow-up contacts 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Pre-screened 575 543 0 0 70 30 39 

Application assistance 193 217 0 0 53 13 2 

Applications submitted * * * * * * * 

Applications approved * * * * * * * 

Applications denied * * * * * * * 

Reasons for Denial:

 Income too high * * * * * * * 

 Assets too high * * * * * * * 

 Citizenship status * * * * * * * 

 Does not live in juris * * * * * * * 

 Incomplete interview * * * * * * * 

 Incomplete inform * * * * * * * 

 Other reason * * * * * * * 

Note: The total column may include households for which demographic information was not available.

* The site did submit data to the UI website; however, the data represented total caseload numbers for the 

counties. The site was unable to track the outcomes of their contacts. N/A: The grantee never collected 

information on these data elements. 

Program Accomplishments and Lessons Learned 

Muskegon used a combination of broad information dissemination efforts coupled 

with more intensive pre-screening and application assistance. Their major grantee activities 

included 575 pre-screenings and 425 direct referrals, and multiple information 

dissemination activities, which they estimated reached about 30,000 people directly or 

indirectly (e.g., through radio ads). They had difficulties setting up a system at FSP offices 

to track outcomes, and hence, relied on caseload information to estimate the effects of

outreach. Their descriptive paired site analysis suggested that 4,229 more eligible 

households enrolled in the FSP in outreach counties relative to comparison counties with 

107
similar characteristics, though they did not attempt to adjust the results using a multivariate 

analysis. They broadly attributed caseload increases to the economy, local policy changes 

and outreach activities. The actual number of awards directly due to the outreach project is 

unknown, but the data presented above show that relatively few clients were directly 

prescreened or assisted. 

While staff felt that their efforts to educate the population about the FSP through 

media campaigns in the form of televised commercials on local cable channels and radio 

advertisements were successful in terms of increasing awareness (especially relative to

billboard ads), they felt it was difficult to meet their enrollment goals without more 

intensive assistance. They also found that prescreening for other programs such as 

Medicaid and SCHIP provided a good opportunity to prescreen for the FSP program. 

The choice of venue had important implications for reaching their target 

populations. Fostering relationships with different community groups, churches, and 

schools proved to be the single most effective means to access different populations, 

especially Hispanics. Additionally, they had some success in working with other programs, 

especially Head Start, WIC, and the Migrant Health Center. However, they encountered 

difficulties in enrolling migrant workers on farms and incorporating the Veterans Affairs 

Office. 

Future Plans 

Muskegon plans to continue similar outreach work. According to staff, “We’re 

going to continue with this because we think it’s so important.” The grantee and the state 

FSP agency received new funding to work with other partners on their state Food Stamp 

Outreach Plan, which would fund staff and allow them to continue outreach activities. They 

also have an appropriation through their county for their outreach work and they will 

continue to pursue other funding opportunities.

North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Aging (North 

Carolina)

Characteristics 

Location/Number of Sites: Stanly, Rowan, Mecklenburg, Gaston, and Cabarras counties in 

North Carolina 

Intervention Start Date and End Dates: March 2003-September 2004 

Grant Amount: $217,218 

Project Objectives and Activities 

The primary goal of this project was to examine four different approaches to 

increasing food stamp participation among adult aged 60 and older in south central North 

108
Carolina through a six-phase intervention (described below). Their main activities 

involved targeted dissemination of information as well as prescreening and follow-up. 

Organizational Information 

Type of Organization/Agency: The North Carolina Department of Health and 

Human Services, Division of Aging (DoA) is a state agency that promotes independence of 

the State’s elderly population. DoA was the grant recipient and provided project oversight 

and grant administration. The Centralina Council of Government’s Area Agency on Aging 

(AAA) is a quasi-governmental agency that addresses various needs of the elderly on a 

regional basis including advocacy, planning, program and resource development, 

information brokerage, funds administration, and quality assurance. They contract with 

other agencies to provide a variety of home and community services to older adults. AAA 

staff conducted the daily outreach activities under this grant.

 Staffing: Three staff members worked on this grant. The project coordinator is in 

charge of the day-to-day responsibilities in each of the six counties. Two full-time AAA 

outreach workers assisted in presentations, statistical reports, follow-up calls, prescreening, 

and preparing the packaging of materials. In addition, the DoA project director monitored 

the project. On occasion, the county senior service department helped “get the word out” to 

their clients. They also escorted outreach workers to the sites, especially in the rural areas. 

 Volunteers: AAA used five volunteers from a local senior center to help with bulk 

mailings. 

 Key Partners: Key partners included the project’s Advisory Committee that 

consists of representatives from the Council on Aging, DoA, Nutrition Program, Clergy 

Association, Division of Social Services (DSS, the agency that administers the FSP), and 

food stamp representatives from each county. The Advisory Committee provided guidance 

throughout the project (especially in the beginning), but did not provide direct help with the 

intervention. The grantee indicated that the Committee existed primarily to assist and 

advise the staff to make sure everything was addressed. Other partners involved in the 

intervention include local service providers, senior centers, Goodwill, and churches (the 

AAA outreach workers contacted the elderly through these sites). 

Food Stamp Office Partnership: In addition to participating in the project’s 

Advisory Committee, food stamp staff played a direct role on many occasions. The 

Regional Coordinator from the North Carolina DSS food stamp office trained outreach 

staff on food stamp eligibility. On occasion, when DSS staff members were available, they 

accompanied outreach staff to their presentations to ensure that information being 

presented was correct and to answer questions that came up during the presentation. DSS 

staff also prepared the paper prescreening tool used by outreach workers. On at least one 

occasion, food stamp eligibility workers accepted applications on-site so elderly applicants 

would not have to travel to the food stamp office. 

109
Outreach Activities 

 Information Dissemination: AAA distributed thousands of mailings to elderly 

households in six counties. The mailings included the USDA flyers describing the Food

Stamp Program and included the DSS phone number for each of the six counties in the 

intervention. AAA also sent the “North Carolina Food Stamp Fact Sheets” (developed for 

this effort), which included a checklist specifying materials and documents needed to apply 

for food stamps. The site used the DoA database to find the mailing addresses. Flyers were 

sent to every elderly person in the DoA database (in the six counties) regardless of their 

financial situation. The grantee also conducted several presentations at various nutrition 

sites, churches, and senior centers where the elderly organized. 

 Prescreening: AAA also prescreened the elderly, using a paper pre-screener 

developed by the NC Department of Social Services Food Stamp Office for AAA. They 

had originally planned to use the USDA electronic prescreener on laptops, but the 

prescreener was not developed in time for the site to use it. The site also conducted followup calls for those clients who they prescreened. They asked them if they applied and if they 

did, what was the result. 

 Application Assistance: The grantee did not provide formal application assistance. 

They did, however, conduct follow-up calls to clients who did not apply for food stamps 

after being prescreened in two counties. 

The outreach activities described above were not available to all clients. AAA 

introduced the intervention in phases by county. The study included six counties. An 

additional service was provided in each county. The following outlines the intervention: 

• Phase I: Flyers only. The grantee sent USDA flyers describing the Food Stamp 

Program. The flyers also included the DSS phone number for each of the six 

counties in the intervention. (Gaston County) 

• Phase II: Flyers and Checklists. The grantee mailed the flyers and the “North 

Carolina Food Stamp Fact Sheets”, which included a checklist specifying

materials and documents needed to apply for food stamps in North Carolina. 

(Cabarrus County) 

• Phase III: Flyers, Checklists, and Presentations. In addition to the mailings, the 

grantee held presentation on the food stamp program at low-income nutrition 

sites for the elderly. (Stanly County) 

• Phase IV: Flyers, Checklists, Presentations, and Pre-screenings. In addition to 

the mailings and presentations, the grantee prescreened clients using a paper 

tool. (Rowan County) 

• Phase V: Flyers, Checklists, Presentations, Pre-screenings, and Follow-up. In 

addition to the mailings, presentations, and prescreenings, AAA also conducted 

110
follow-up calls for those clients who did not apply for assistance after they were 

prescreened. (Iredell County) 

• Phase VI: Flyers, Checklists, Presentations, Pre-screenings, and Follow-up. In 

addition to the mailings, presentations, and prescreenings, AAA also conducted 

follow-up calls for those clients who did not apply for assistance after they were 

prescreened. (Mecklenburg County) 

The difference between phases V and VI is that Iredell County is very rural while 

Mecklenburg County is predominantly urban. AAA conducted their outreach in each 

county and then decided to go back to do a second round of outreach. Staff conducted the 

second round of outreach in each of the counties, except Iredell (because their partner felt 

that they had reached all of the eligible seniors during the first round). During the second 

pass in Mecklenburg County they expanded their efforts to encompass places like Goodwill 

and other places where seniors might gather. 

Grantee and Administrative Data 

A summary of the data submitted through our website is presented below. North 

Carolina noted that the total number of applications submitted (and therefore awards and 

denials) is likely underestimated. They estimate that about 45 percent (159) of their clients 

did not provide a social security number, which the site used to track applications at the 

FSP office. The site was unable to track these applications. 

North Carolina’s total contacts include the total number of persons the grantee had 

face-to-face contact with, as well as the flyers (8,533) and the checklists (7,600) sent across 

the six counties. 

Exhibit B.13: Summary of Data Elements from the 

North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Aging 

Total # in HH

# HHs with 

NonCitizens 

# HHs with 

Elderly or 

Disabled 

# HHs with 

Children 

#HHs 

with 

Earnings

# HHs with 

ABAWD 

Total contacts 17,610 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Follow-up contacts 62 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Pre-screened 195 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Application assistance N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Applications submitted 354/513 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Applications approved 280 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Applications denied 74 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Reasons for Denial: 

 Income too high 26 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Assets too high 9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Citizenship status 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Does not live in juris 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Incomplete interview 11 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Incomplete inform 11 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Other reason 15 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Note: The total column may include households for which demographic information was not available.

111
N/A: The grantee never collected information on these data elements.

Program Accomplishments and Lessons Learned 

While North Carolina did not increase FSP applications to the extent projected in 

their grant application, this project did increase food stamp applications among their target 

population. They contacted thousands of elderly clients through mass mailings and 

presentations, and were able to track 280 awards. The project’s local evaluation found that 

the increase in food stamp participation in the treatment sites was actually lower than the 

increase in the external comparison counties. However, they also reported that the 

comparison counties with the greatest increase in program participation had higher than 

average rates of poverty. In addition, when the comparison was restricted to one county 

with the most similar characteristics, the treatment county had higher rates of increase in 

participation. 

The grantee concluded they were effective at disseminating information to and 

informing seniors about the FSP. They also established good partnerships, worked closely 

with local food stamp offices, and tried to present a different image of the food stamp 

office to the elderly. The grantee attributed some of their success to the local partnerships 

they developed. These partnerships facilitated their access to the elderly in communities 

where they were not well known. 

This site learned a considerable amount about barriers to food stamp participation 

among the elderly, including: issues of privacy and confidentiality, stigma and the 

perception of food stamps as “welfare,” issues of trust, a negative perception of the food 

stamp agency, the complexity of the application process, and lack of transportation. They 

also found that family members have a tremendous influence on seniors and whether or not 

they follow through with their food stamp applications. 

Future Plans 

There are no plans to continue this project. However, the state food stamp office 

was researching future outreach options. The project coordinator hoped that outreach 

would be sustained by the food stamp office. The coordinator also was encouraging others 

to pick up the program such as the Area Agencies on Aging. 

Project Bread

Characteristics 

Location/Number of Sites: Boston, Massachusetts, four sites (Athol, Orleans, Boston, and 

Worcester) 

Intervention Start Date and End Dates: January 2004- November 2004 

Grant Amount: $344,500 

112
Project Objectives and Activities 

The grantee’s primary goals were to develop and launch an Internet-based program

through which low-income families could screen themselves for eligibility and submit

application information directly to the Department of Transitional Assistance’s (the state 

welfare agency) centralized computer system. Secondary goals were: 1) to partner with 

four pre-selected community agencies serving three distinct populations (low-income 

working and unemployed parents, elders, and veterans) and launch the online tool in local 

settings where target groups already seek services and routinely spend time; and 2) to 

provide ongoing technical assistance to produce a steady flow of completed food stamp 

applications, totaling a minimum of 1000 applications across the four partner sites 

throughout the project period. 

Organizational Information 

Type of Organization/Agency: Project Bread is a private, non-profit organization 

that has served as Massachusetts’ leading anti-hunger agency for 30 years. The 

organization reaches out to low-income families, the elderly, and veterans and has a 

statewide focus on outreach and legislative change. They currently operate a statewide tollfree hunger hotline and engage in many other anti-hunger activities. Under a Round One 

FSP Access grant, they developed a website (www.gettingfoodstamps.org) which provides 

information about the FSP and prescreens for benefits.

 Staffing: Five staff worked on this grant. The project coordinator was responsible 

for the day-to-day project management of the grant and coordinated the partnerships and 

provided general oversight for the partner agencies, ensuring agreements were in order and 

proper training was administered. The in-house evaluator developed the evaluation plan, 

maintained contact with partners, and was responsible for the baseline evaluation. The 

project manager coordinated the partnerships and provided general oversight for the partner 

agencies, ensuring agreements are in order and proper training is administered. A 

webmaster was responsible for developing the website. An application assistant worked in 

the field and served as the contact on-site to work with the clients and explain the online 

application. 

 Volunteers: None used. 

 Key Partners: Project Bread partnered with schools, health centers, and social 

service agencies in four communities across the state. Key pilot partners initially included 

two elementary schools in the Boston Public School System (later replaced with the Family 

Resource Center in the BPS system); Massachusetts Veterans, Inc.’s Computer Academy 

program in Worcester; and two Healthy Connections programs (a health insurance and 

health access initiative) in Athol and in Orleans. Several partners were added later in the 

project, including the Boston Chapter of the American Red Cross, Quincy Community 

Action Program, eight groups within the ABCD (Action for Boston Community 

Development), the Chelsea Health Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, and the 

Brockton Health Center. Community Catalyst was the primary technology partner in the 

development of the website. 

113
Food Stamp Office Partnership: Project Bread had a longstanding relationship 

with the state food stamp office -- the Massachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance 

(DTA) prior to this grant. The grantee received support from the DTA Commissioner; the 

launch of this project was featured in the Commissioner’s monthly newsletter – clearly 

indicating his support of the project. DTA also participated in a project called the Virtual 

Gateway that provides another avenue for online applications. The local food stamp offices 

were involved in many aspects of this project. Local food stamp office staff participated in 

most partner trainings. This was done to foster personal connections and allow them to see 

how the partners were being trained on submitting applications and to make them aware 

that these applications would be coming through. State office staff members were very 

involved in the technology aspects of this project and were key to facilitating the 

transmission of electronic applications and generating letters of receipt. 

Outreach Activities 

 Information Dissemination: The grantee worked with their partners to promote the 

online application through flyers, postcards, signs, and advertisements in local publications. 

They placed ads in the Cape Cod Parent and Child Magazine. 

 Prescreening: Project Bread developed a password-protected, online prescreening 

tool and food stamp application program that allowed applicants to directly submit an 

application to the food stamp agency. The website is available in both Spanish and English 

(the application is only available in English). Clients accessed the tool at one of the partner 

agencies involved in the intervention. Staff at the partner agencies were trained to use the 

tool and helped clients determine if they were eligible for benefits. 

 Application Assistance: Using the tool described during prescreening, staff at 

partner agencies helped clients complete FSP applications. Clients were not required to 

complete a prescreening before filling out an application. Once applications were 

completed, clients could electronically submit them to the food stamp office (DTA). The 

website allowed applicants to track their applications and provided them with a 

verification checklist. After submission, a letter from DTA was automatically generated 

and sent to clients advising them that DTA staff would contact them directly to complete 

the application process. Some partner sites also made copies of all of the clients’ 

verification materials and faxed them to the local DTA office. 

Grantee and Administrative Data 

A summary of the data submitted through our website is presented below. Note that by the 

end of the project, the awards and denials did not account for 241 of the applications. Of 

those applications, 175 were still pending, 21 were withdrawn, and 45 had no result. 

 

114
Exhibit B.14: Summary of Data Elements from Project Bread 

Total 

# in

HH 

# HHs 

with NonCitizens 

# HHs with

Elderly or

Disabled

# HHs with

Children 

#HHs

with

Earnings

# HHs 

with

ABAWD 

Total contacts 460 946 57 116 200 154 128 

Follow-up contacts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Pre-screened 230 438 30 60 89 59 63 

Application assistance 460 946 57 116 200 154 128 

Applications submitted 460 995 65 106 202 173 141 

Applications approved 85 234 7 29 52 40 58 

Applications denied 134 253 17 28 57 42 44 

Reasons for Denial:

 Income too high 9 17 1 1 3 5 1 

 Assets too high 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 

 Citizenship status 2 3 2 2 0 0 0 

 Does not live in juris 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 

 Incomplete interview 11 27 2 0 6 2 5 

 Incomplete inform 42 91 4 9 20 19 15 

 Other reason 48 110 8 12 22 14 17 

Note: The total column may include households for which demographic information was not available.

N/A: The grantee never collected information on these data elements. 

Program Accomplishments and Lessons Learned 

While Project Bread was able to build a successful on-line application tool and 

partner with several agencies, they only assisted with 460 applications (far below their 

goal), of which approximately 85 were approved by the end of the project period. The vast 

majority of applications were either pending (38 percent) or denied (30 percent). The high 

denial rate occurred because clients did not complete the application process. For example, 

47.8 percent of the denials could be attributed to clients’ failure to follow through, such as 

not turning in all required documentation (verifications), not completing the interview, or 

not returning the application summary signature page. The grantee reported that submission 

of verifications and the interview/signature steps of the process were their “biggest 

stumbling blocks” When online applicants were helped via follow-up, they were more 

likely to be approved. They reported that the pilot partners that had the best results were 

those that sent over (by fax or mail) at least some of the applicant’s verifications at the 

same time as the application was submitted on line. They also concluded that clients must 

be made aware of the “benefits clock” – the 30 days for completion of the application 

process. 

Grantee staff and the local evaluation report noted that follow-up with applicants is 

key. As their evaluation report noted, “the biggest stumbling blocks were the submission of 

verifications and the interview/signature steps of the process. When online applicants were 

helped with follow-up, they tended to be approved.” The pilot partners suggested that 

regular site-specific results reports would be helpful to them in following up with their

clients and further investigating the surprising rate of denials. In response, Project Bread 

did begin to provide this feedback to partners. 

115
Grantee staff noted that providing people with an alternative to the welfare office 

for applying for food stamps was also a major accomplishment. It created a friendlier 

environment for the application process. 

Project Bread noted that they did not meet their goals due to unrealistic 

expectations, setbacks in the development schedule, challenges in incorporating the online 

application into the flow of some our partner’s work, and some unsuccessful application 

sites. This project experienced a number of delays associated with the technological 

challenges of creating a new website. The local evaluator noted that when they initiated the 

project, staff did not fully understand the partners’ technological capabilities. The 

contracted entity served as a strategic partner and sub-contracted actual web development 

work to a third party. This intermediary relationship added a level of complexity and 

detracted from the grantee’s ability to influence the prioritization of the work of the third 

party. Staff noted the difficulties presented in coordinating the work of several key partners 

and the need to readjust timelines and schedules to accommodate partner staff time 

commitments, workloads and priorities. In addition, staff had initially planned to have the 

benefit calculator information transmit directly to the application (to eliminate duplication 

of effort) but this proved technologically unfeasible. 

Future Plans 

The grantee has private funding to continue their efforts to maintain the system. 

They did note that some of their partners were able to assist them because Project Bread 

paid their staff to continue with application assistance. At the end of the grant period, the 

grantee was still pursuing additional sources of funding to allow them to continue to 

support this activity. In addition, they would like to expand the website to broader public 

use (possibly by adding the tool to the gettingfoodstamps.org website), while maintaining a 

section for their partners. Project Bread also has funding to provide technology grants to 

organizations for the purchase of computer equipment so they can access the online 

application from their agencies. 

Salem-Keizer School District (Salem-Keizer)

Characteristics 

Location/Number of Sites: Salem, OR, specifically three public elementary schools within 

the Salem-Keizer School District. 

Intervention Start Date and End Dates: January 2003-September 2004 

Grant Amount: $121,638 

Project Objectives and Activities 

The primary goal of the project was to improve access to food stamps for families 

with elementary school age children in three of Salem’s highest need neighborhoods by 

bringing food stamp outreach directly to families as they interacted with their child’s 

116
school. Grantee activities included 1) dissemination of FSP information through the 

distribution of flyers, posters, and newsletters to students and families in the three targeted 

schools; and 2) prescreening and application assistance by DHS workers at community and 

school based events. 

 

Organizational Information 

Type of Organization/Agency: Salem-Keizer is a public school district with 

approximately 40,000 students and 52 schools. This outreach effort was initially designed 

to focus on four elementary schools (Bush, Richmond, Grant, and Highland Elementary 

Schools) within three of Salem’s highest need neighborhoods. Highland Elementary School 

withdrew from the project due to a change in principal. Bush and Richmond schools were 

traditional elementary schools with children in grades K-5, while Grant was a combined 

elementary/ middle school serving K-8th graders. Enrollment at the time of the grant for the 

three schools was 540 at Grant, 365 at Richmond, and 320 at Bush. They estimate that the 

1,225 children represented between 650-800 families (since multiple children from the 

same family sometimes attended the same school). Between 50 and 60 percent of the 

students attending these schools was Hispanic. 

 Staffing: Initially, six staff members were assigned to work on this project 

(although grant funds were not allocated for staff salaries, with the exception of the 

evaluator). Four pre-assigned staff, one at each of the four schools, who provided referrals 

for families in need of services such as food, housing, or medical assistance, were trained 

in food stamp eligibility and application procedures so that they could incorporate food 

stamps into the array of referrals they provided to their families. The pre-assigned staff

members were Family Health Coordinators at the Bush and Richmond Schools, and 

initially, Community Health Initiative (CHI) staffers at Grant and Highland schools. 

The project director and the project evaluator (a professor from Willamette 

University) were the other two staff originally assigned to this grant. The project director, 

who conceived of and applied for this grant, was an employee of the school district and 

director of a state grant funded program (LIGHTS) that was designed to bring family social 

service outreach and education and after-school enrichment to the four schools. The grant 

established the Learning by Inviting Grown-Ups and Hope to School (LIGHTS) 

consortium of Community Learning Centers. LIGHTS provided the funding for the Family 

Health Coordinators at the Bush and Richmond Schools. 

By the Fall of 2002, Highland was no longer participating in the project and funding 

for the CHI at the Grant School ended so they assigned their Community School Outreach 

Coordinators (CSOCs) to participate in the grant. The CSOC’s role was to coordinate the 

relationship between the school and the community for the purposes of social service 

delivery. In May 2003, funding for the LIGHTS program ended and the project director 

and Family Health Coordinators were laid off. The principals at Bush and Richmond 

schools assigned their CSOCs to the grant project and the evaluator reallocated money 

from the grant budget to hire the former project director as a part-time consultant for the 

117
remainder of the grant or until she found full-time employment elsewhere. The principal of 

the Grant School agreed to take over the project coordination position for the grant, 

although the evaluator and the consultant, primarily the evaluator, handled the day-to-day 

management of the project. 

Department of Health Services’ (DHS) outreach workers participated in monthly 

family events at each school and at various community events such as health fairs, car seat 

clinics, and block parties. 

 Volunteers: No volunteers were used in Salem-Keizer’s outreach efforts. 

 Key Partners: This project was designed to partner school district personnel with 

DHS staffers and to promote food stamp participation in the four schools. DHS also 

provided training to Salem-Keizer staff on food stamp policies and provided ongoing 

monthly updates on policy changes affecting the FSP. Additionally, Jenni’s Food Store, a 

WIC-only food store that provided food and nutrition education to women and children in 

the Highland/Grant neighborhoods hosted events such as car seat clinics and nutrition 

education classes where they included a DHS worker who conducted food stamp outreach. 

Jenni’s Food Store also displayed the flyers and brochures from the grant that advertised 

the FSP. 

Food Stamp Office Partnership: DHS staff participated in all of the school and 

community events and provided information about the FSP and prescreening and 

application assistance services to families. Families developed a “comfort level” with 

repeated exposure to the same the DHS representative at school events; DHS 

representatives were bilingual and knew the community. However, the grantee did report a 

lack of enthusiasm in promoting the FSP on the part of the DHS representatives. The 

grantee attributed some of this to the requirement that DHS representative had to attend 

events outside of normal work hours (they received comp time for this work). The DHS 

office was not able to track outcomes for individuals reached by the project. 

Outreach Activities 

 Information Dissemination: Salem Keizer’s multimedia campaign included 

dissemination of FSP information (e.g. posters and flyers) to children in the three targeted 

elementary schools, dissemination of information in both English and Spanish in the 

monthly school newsletters that go home with children, and dissemination of information 

in a newsletter in one of the targeted neighborhoods (with a circulation of 2,500 

households). DHS staff attending monthly school and community events provided 

information about the Food Stamp Program to families attending the events. Additionally, 

employees in Jenni’s Store handed out flyers and brochures and displayed FSP posters. 

 Prescreening/Application Assistance: Prescreening services and application 

assistance were available once a month at each school during an informational event where 

DHS staff members were present. Salem-Keizer provided in-person outreach at 29 different 

school and community events over a 21 month period. As originally designed, the outreach 

118
for this grant had two components: the in-school staff members were to incorporate food 

stamp outreach as part of their service delivery and they were to coordinate with DHS 

workers to attend the school and community family events where they would provide 

information about food stamps and prescreening and application assistance. 

The DHS staff faithfully attended monthly events at each school (“family night” 

that included dinner and a program) where bilingual staff provided an introduction to the 

Food Stamp Program, including information on eligibility, and offered one-on-one 

prescreening and application assistance for families that approached the food stamp 

assistance table. For eligible families, applications were filled out on paper and mailed in to 

the DHS office. About 75 families attended each event. DHS workers also participated in 

outreach events sponsored by Jenni’s Food Store. The same DHS representative attended 

repeated events at the same venue, thereby generating a personal comfort level among 

parents. 

Grantee and Administrative Data 

A summary of the data submitted through the national evaluator’s website is 

presented below. Salem-Keizer’s contacts represent the total number of families that 

attended the outreach events held at their schools (or at the WIC-only store), as well as the 

total number of flyers or newsletters distributed either through handouts to children at the 

three schools or to families at outreach events. Since there were often multiple children per 

family and multiple flyers distributed at different times to the children in the schools, the 

total number of contacts does not represent the impact of their outreach, but it does 

represent a level of effort. The numbers prescreened and assisted with applications is an 

undercount of the true numbers prescreened and assisted since DHS workers were not 

consistent in their tracking of contacts and activities with families at the outreach events. 

Salem-Keizer was not able to obtain outcome data for the applications submitted 

via their outreach efforts, despite repeated attempts to establish a tracking system with the 

DHS workers attending the school and community events. The evaluator was able to obtain 

caseload data and via a multivariate-paired site analysis in their local evaluation report 

(comparing caseload data in the three targeted school districts to caseload data in five nontargeted school districts), suggested that the intervention did not have an overall significant 

effect on caseloads. 

Program Accomplishments and Lessons Learned 

Salem-Keizer did a significant amount of outreach at the school and community events 

despite serious staffing challenges. They were successful in reaching their target 

population, although their targeted population, families attending school events, may have 

been a very select population – a group more engaged in their child’s school, and therefore, 

more “together” than other families who may need food stamps. Additionally, since 

119
Exhibit B.15: Summary of Data Elements from the Salem-Keizer School District 

Total # in HH

# HHs 

with NonCitizens 

# HHs with

Elderly or

Disabled

# HHs with

Children 

# HHs 

with

Earnings

# HHs 

with

ABAWD 

Total contacts 9,478 N/A 5,281 N/A 8,299 779 N/A 

Follow-up contacts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Pre-screened 59 N/A 53 N/A 32 2 N/A 

Application assistance 54 N/A 50 N/A 27 2 N/A 

Applications submitted N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Applications approved N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Applications denied N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Reasons for Denial:

 Income too high N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Assets too high N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Citizenship status N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Does not live in juris N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Incomplete interview N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Incomplete information N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Other reason N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Note: The total column may include households for which demographic information was not available. 

N/A: The grantee never collected information on these data elements. 

families that are likely to attend any school event are likely to attend more than one event, 

they felt that they were able to build a level of comfort and familiarity with DHS staff and 

the FSP. However, given the nature of the outreach (school and community family events) 

there was a sense of preaching to a saturated population (and a select population) and in 

some cases to a population that was already linked up with the food stamp program (e.g., 

the WIC-only store clients). The evaluator pointed out in several places that they felt that 

multiple outreach attempts at the same schools may have been overkill – after a few 

outreach events, they felt that most of the parents knew what they had to say. 

The project suffered from a lack of core paid staff and was seriously constrained by 

the lack of funding and differing priorities (and philosophies) of the tightly strapped school 

districts. School staff time was not budgeted into this grant (the grant covered the 

evaluation and the cost of producing and distributing outreach materials such as brochures, 

flyers and newsletters). As a result, school staff did not have clearly defined job 

responsibilities related to this project – these activities were really never a part of anyone’s 

job description. Even the school principals were never fully vested in the process. The 

project experienced considerable turnover in key positions, most significantly with the

project coordinator’s loss of funding and her shifting to part-time consultant status. While it 

would appear that schools would be the ideal place to catch parents, school staff members 

were terribly overburdened and budgets were very tight. The grantee indicated that a staff 

person who was paid to coordinate school related activities would have significantly 

facilitated Salem-Keizer’s outreach efforts. 

Additionally staff felt constrained by the lack of control of the “corporate culture” 

in which outreach workers operate. Staff felt that, “if we actually had some arrangement 

120
where we had an employee on the grant who was the outreach worker, that was enthusiastic 

about it...that we had been able to sort of hire and train, that would have been a different 

environment than what we had.” 

Future Plans 

There are no plans to continue with the specific outreach activities in the three 

participating elementary schools. Staff noted, however, to the extent that the CSOCs are 

now aware of the food stamp program and have gained an understanding of the application 

process, they could add that to their repertoire of referral services they provide to families. 

Second Harvest Food Bank of Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties (SHFB)

Characteristics 

Location/Number of Sites: Santa Cruz County, California 

Intervention Start Date and End Dates: October 2002-September 2004 

Grant Amount: $287,680 

Project Objectives and Activities 

The primary goal of this project was to: 1) educate legal immigrant and low-income

families on the nutritional value of food stamps and improvements in the Food Stamp 

Program; 2) increase food stamp participation among legal immigrants and low-income

families and individuals in Santa Cruz County; and 3) assess the effectiveness of a multilevel social marketing campaign, including information dissemination. Activities included 

information dissemination and a multimedia campaign targeting Hispanic and other 

immigrant families and prescreening and application assistance in a variety of settings, 

including food distribution sites. 

Organizational Information 

Type of Organization/Agency: Second Harvest Food Bank (SHFB) is an 

independent, nonprofit, community organization that provides food to approximately 

42,000 individuals per month through a network of 120 agencies and programs throughout 

their service area. SHFB is a founding member of America’s Second Harvest. About 80 

percent of SHFB’s work is physically moving food to people (they serve 1,500 households 

at their peak in winter through their USDA food distribution site), while 20 percent of their 

resources are focused on education and outreach, including nutrition outreach. The 

organization also operates a hotline (funded through a state grant) through which SHFB 

staff can provide FSP information, determine whether or not a caller may be eligible for 

food stamps and then transfer callers via a Centrex line to the county FSP office, if desired 

121
 Staffing: Five staff, a project manager and four outreach workers worked on this 

project. The lead outreach worker was a staff member at SHFB; half of his time was funded 

through this outreach grant while the other half was funded through their Nutrition 

Network Outreach grant. The other three outreach workers (paid part-time through this 

grant) were employees of (and continued to be supervised by) three local community-based 

partner agencies. The project manager provided overall project management (including 

coordination of the efforts of partner agencies and the local FSP), conducted training on the 

FSP, developed FSP outreach materials, managed the data collection, tracking and 

reporting, and oversaw the work of the lead outreach worker. The lead outreach worker 

oversaw the activities of the other three outreach workers, conducted outreach 

presentations throughout the community, talked about the FSP at food distribution sites and 

oversaw the work of the hotline workers. The lead outreach worker also conducted 

prescreenings and provided application assistance at outreach sites and presentation 

sessions, and provided case management and advocacy services. The other outreach 

workers were responsible for the day-to-day FSP outreach and prescreening and application 

assistance, including case management for those applications they assisted with. 

 Volunteers: Twelve volunteers (or “Promoters”) were trained to be community FSP 

educators and to direct food stamp applicants to outreach workers and two half-time 

volunteers were trained to work on the hotline, and help with applications if the lead 

outreach worker were not available. (Originally, Promoters were to help fill out 

applications but the county FSP office was wary of having too many people working on 

applications and too many applications being submitted for individuals who were not 

eligible.) SHFB staff felt that the volunteers were a more “credible voice because they were 

part of the community.” 

 Key Partners: SHFB collaborated with three key partner agencies with whom they 

had previously-established relationships. They were: the Familia Center (a food distribution 

agency for the low-income population), La Manzana Community Resources Center (a onestop, multi-purpose family resource center), and Salud Para la Gente (a community agency 

that provides health services to the Latino population). Each of these partners provided a 

designated part-time outreach worker who assisted applicants with the prescreening and 

application process.

Food Stamp Office Partnership: The county Human Resources Agency (HRA) 

office in Santa Cruz County that administered the FSP was a key partner on this project. 

The SHFB project director had a longstanding relationship with the local HRA office 

because of prior collaborative efforts (e.g., immediate transfer of hotline callers to the HRA 

caseworkers via the Centrex line) and work on the local hunger coalition so this project was 

able to build on those relationships. Early on they held regular joint meetings to discuss 

challenges at all levels and felt that these were successful in solving operational issues. 

HRA also provided a 1-day training on eligibility procedures for the outreach workers and 

promoters. SHFB and HRA also established a formal communication protocol clearly 

defining roles that worked well over the course of the project. 

122
Outreach Activities 

 Information Dissemination: SHFB disseminated FSP information and conducted a 

multi-media campaign throughout their service area. SHFB distributed flyers, brochures 

and posters (all in English and Spanish) at community agencies and organizations, food 

pantries, health fairs and soup kitchens. Outreach workers also updated and modified a 

Power Point presentation about food stamps and electronic benefits transfer (EBT) in 

particular and made in-person outreach visits and presentations to community sites (e.g., 

food distribution lines). Over the course of the project, SHFB developed and ran two 30-

second English/Spanish public service announcements on 3 major broadcast television 

stations that were designed to increase awareness of food stamp eligibility. The message 

focused on food stamps as a nutrition program and a program for low-income workers. In 

addition, SHFB developed a 5-minute English-Spanish video loop dispelling 12 common 

FSP myths designed to run in community agencies and worked with the LA Regional Food 

Bank to develop an outreach website with a prescreening tool. 

 Prescreening: The SHFB lead outreach worker and the outreach workers from the 

three partnering agencies provided FSP information and prescreening and application 

assistance at their own sites, food pantries, USDA distribution sites, and other community 

organizations that reach people with food needs. Staff used a software prescreening tool 

developed by the LA Regional Food Bank under a Round 1 grant to determine if a person 

might be eligible and if so, the potential amount of benefits. Staff viewed this prescreening 

process as a sales tool or a “hook” for potential applicants, displaying their likely eligibility 

and potential benefits. In many cases, this step was skipped if the applicant appeared 

willing to apply. Staff noted that the prescreening process was not always useful for 

applicants who appeared to be in the “gray “ area – if it showed them eligible for only $10, 

they might be less likely to move forward with the process. The new technology was 

challenging for some outreach workers at partner agencies. 

 Application Assistance: All application assistance was completed using paper 

forms. Outreach workers either assisted families with filing out the first two pages of the 

standard application form on site, or the outreach worker got a signature on an HRA release 

form, collected the applicant’s telephone number, and followed-up to complete the 

application by phone. Additionally, outreach workers could refer people to SHFB’s hotline 

for assistance. The outreach workers collected all non-expedited applications and hand 

delivered them directly to HRA for processing; expedited applications were taken to HRA 

directly by the applicant. SHFB instituted a log-in procedure for delivery of applications 

after some hand-delivered applications were lost at HRA. Outreach workers followed-up 

by phone with many applicants to confirm that HRA contacted them to set up an interview. 

Applicants were also given a list of required documentation to take to the eligibility 

appointment. Other follow-up, client assistance and case management was provided by 

outreach workers as needed. 

123
Grantee and Administrative Data 

A summary of the data submitted through the national evaluator’s website is 

presented below. SHFB’s total contacts represent a count of the number of persons with 

whom they had face-to-face contact (or hotline contact) regarding food stamps, as well as 

the number of flyers and outreach materials distributed during the first three months of the 

grant. (Prior to the outreach workers being hired and trained, SHFB reported the number of 

outreach materials distributed as their grantee data contacts). 

By the end of the grant period, SHFB reported a significant number of applications 

with unknown status (478 applications, or 1/3 of the applications submitted to the food 

stamp office). Seventy of these unknown applications were actually voluntarily withdrawn 

by the applicant, whereas the SHFB did not know the outcomes for the remaining 408 

applications. 

Exhibit B.16: Summary of Data Elements from the Second Harvest Food Bank of 

Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties 

Total # in HH

# HHs 

with NonCitizens 

# HHs with

Elderly or

Disabled

# HHs with

Children 

# HHs 

with

Earnings

# HHs 

with

ABAWD 

Total contacts 40,843 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Follow-up contacts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Pre-screened 742 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Application assistance 1,651 3,920 566 156 859 687 N/A 

Applications submitted 1,398 N/A 180 32 329 217 15 

Applications approved 457 784 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Applications denied 473 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Reasons for denial:

 Income too high 134 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Assets too high 21 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Citizenship status 13 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Does not live in juris 14 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Incomplete interview 189 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Incomplete information 40 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Other reason 62 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Note: The total column may include households for which demographic information was not available. 

N/A: The grantee never collected information on these data elements. 

Program Accomplishments and Lessons Learned 

Overall, outreach workers assisted 1,656 food stamp applications, 1,398 of which 

were received by the Santa Cruz County Human Resources Agency (HRA). Of the 

submitted applications, 457 were approved, 533 denied and 135 expedited. The project 

generated 13.1 percent of all food stamp applications received by HRA during the project 

period, including 20 percent of the Latino and 28.3 percent of the Spanish language 

applications.

124
This site reported an increase in notoriety from the public ads based on calls to their 

hotline. Specifically, they noted that a 30-second television PSA on food stamps was 

produced by the project (in English and Spanish), played on area TV stations making 

3,196,000 gross impressions and increasing calls to the local Community Food Hotline by 

68 percent. 

A major finding was that the SHFB felt that they had to switch the focus for 

outreach workers from education to more intensive application assistance for their clients. 

The large number of denials supported their case. Specifically, they found that while they 

could get people into the food stamp office, follow through was an important task. Many 

clients did not complete their applications without additional encouragement and help. The 

grantee noted that the biggest challenge to getting clients to apply for food stamps was their 

belief that the application process was too long and complicated. Consequently, SHFB 

began modifying its goals to focus on more follow-up services, which were intensive and 

time-consuming. They attempted to train their team to be more proactive for FSP 

participation, rather than simply disseminating information for educating the public about 

the FSP. 

A key barrier noted was the fear among the Latino population of the effect of 

receipt of food stamp benefits on immigration status. SHFB employed a number of 

strategies to dispel some of these myths, including a flyer explaining that food stamps and 

other non-cash benefits are not a public charge issue. The flier also contained contact 

information for a regional immigration information hotline. They also distributed a policy 

letter generated by USCIS (previously INS) to allay these fears. 

SHFB staff felt that their relationship with the FSP office evolved and matured over 

the course of the project. Initially, the project was seen as “just one more headache for the 

local HRA offices” that were suffering budget and staffing cuts, a new multi-eligibility 

software system, the implementation of EBT, a shift to quarterly reporting, and increased 

FSP caseloads. The grantee reported that some of the program changes, such as elimination 

of the vehicle asset test, easing the requirements for face-to-face interviews, and moving to 

quarterly reporting, actually made applying for food stamp benefits more attractive. 

SHFB also attributed their success to the cultural appropriateness of their outreach 

partners and workers; they felt that they were successful because they “spoke the language 

of the community.” SHFB also felt that they had “built up trust in the FSP program among 

the community members”; they believed that their success in de-mystifying the FSP had 

resulted in success in increased participation. 

Future Plans 

SHFB expects to continue their food stamp outreach work, in part relying on other 

grant funding. They will also continue collaborations with the LA Regional Food Bank on 

the website. Staff at the three partner organizations will continue to provide FSP outreach 

and application assistance will be a part of their regular menu of client services. Staff was 

125
hopeful that HRA will continue to allow them to help with FSP applications and deliver 

them to the offices but they were less certain that HRA would continue to track the 

outcomes of those applications. 

Community Action Project Of Tulsa County (Tulsa)

Characteristics 

Location/Number of Sites: Tulsa, OK 

Intervention Start Date and End Dates: January 2004-December 2004 

Grant Amount: $336,093 

Project Objectives and Activities 

The primary goal of the project was to develop a web-based screening and 

application assistance tool for use within Tulsa’s Earned Income Tax Credit outreach and 

free tax preparation sites to screen clients for eligibility for food stamps and other state and 

federal benefit programs, with the primary goal of increasing access to food stamps. 

Additionally, Tulsa made their web-based system (Benefits Eligibility System for 

Oklahomans, or BESO) available to other community organizations, such as Head Start 

and Workforce Oklahoma, to increase access to food stamps for their clients. Tulsa’s 

outreach activities included 1) development of the BESO software system; 2) prescreening 

and application assistance at nine tax preparation sites during the 2004 tax season; and 3) 

marketing of BESO to community based organizations and the Oklahoma Department of 

Human Services (OKDHS) for use in connecting potentially eligible Tulsans to the Food 

Stamp Program. 

Organizational Information 

Type of Organization/Agency: The Community Action Project of Tulsa County 

(CAPTC) is a nonprofit, anti-poverty community action agency funded by the Tulsa Area 

United Way. Their mission is to help individuals and families in economic need achieve 

self-sufficiency through emergency aid, medical care, housing, community development, 

education and advocacy delivered in an atmosphere of respect. They provide an array of 

federal, state and privately funded programs in support of this mission. Many of their 

programs are designed to assist low-income individuals in meeting basic needs, such as 

food, health care, and housing. CAPTC provides Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) 

outreach, free tax preparation, Head Start, Early Head Start, social services and emergency 

aid, medical clinics, housing programs, and Individual Development Account (IDA) 

savings programs. 

 Staffing: Nine paid staff worked on this grant: one project coordinator (full-time) 

and eight part-time workers. The part time workers included three Management 

126
Information System (MIS)/Information Technology (IT) staff, two screeners, one staff 

person from the public policy department, the Executive Director, and the local evaluator. 

The MIS/IT staff researched and acquired the necessary software for the Internet-based 

screening tool (BESO) and provided technical support to users throughout the grant. One of 

the two screeners was employed for 2 months during the tax season and screened clients at

CAPTC’s tax centers; the other screener was stationed at one of CAPTC’s social services 

sites. Additional staff supporting the project (but not paid by the grant) included volunteer 

screeners (about 50) at the tax centers and CAPTC outreach workers stationed at CAPowned housing developments who incorporated BESO into the array of services they 

offered to the residents of the housing developments. In addition, staff at partner agencies 

used BESO to screen their clients. 

The project coordinator was responsible for the day-to-day project management and 

for meeting with and promoting their outreach initiative to other non-profit agencies in 

Oklahoma. The project coordinator worked with caseworkers and management at OKDHS 

to gain support for their outreach initiative and to encourage OKDHS to incorporate BESO 

into their service delivery system. The project coordinator was also responsible for 

recruiting and training volunteers to use and maintain the BESO tool and database.

 Volunteers: About 50 volunteers screened clients at tax centers using BESO. 

 Key Partners: Tulsa hired ACS, Inc. to design BESO, the Internet-based tool used 

to prescreen and generate applications for food stamps and other benefits. During the 2004 

tax season, Tulsa used BESO to screen clients attending one of their 9 Earned Income Tax 

Credit outreach and free tax preparation sites. The nine sites included: 

• Bank of Oklahoma 

• Tulsa Federal Employees Credit Union 

• Houston Center 

• Church Assembly of God in West Tulsa 

• South Peoria Neighborhood House 

• Owasso Senior Citizen Community Center 

• Broken Arrow Community Center 

• Claremore, RCB Bank 

• St. Francis Xavier Church (bilingual site) 

After the 2004 tax season Tulsa pursued partnerships with a variety of community 

based organizations. Three organizations successfully introduced BESO into their packages 

of service delivery during the grant period. These agencies included the one-stop 

employment centers (Workforce Oklahoma), Head Start and Early Head Start centers

(Family and Children’s Services), and a homeless shelter and service provider for the 

homeless, near-homeless, and at risk individuals (John 3:16 Mission). Tulsa recruited 

numerous other community organizations that had not begun using BESO by the end of the 

grant period, but were in the preparation stage. 

127
These included agencies such as Catholic Charities, Legal Aid, senior centers, 

several food banks, housing authorities, and many other community based groups. Note 

that Tulsa only held 10 licenses for BESO. A license costs $1,000 for the first year and 

$100 after for maintenance (the evaluator reported that they were able to negotiate a 

discounted price of $607.50 for the first year). Tulsa could roll out BESO to anyone who 

was part of the grant under their license, but would have to supply licenses (or negotiate for 

licenses with ACS Inc.,) to partners outside of the original grant once they distributed the 

10 that they purchased. 

Food Stamp Office Partnership: Tulsa’s project included minimal involvement 

from the local food stamp office. They did work with representatives at the state and local 

levels to promote the benefits of their system and they worked with the state about 

functional issues related to their system’s implementation. While DHS staff did not provide 

formal training on the food stamp application process, information was provided 

informally. Initially the DHS was not able to track outcomes due to the lack of a unique 

identifier, and the project later modified their reports to include clients’ SSNs. 

Outreach Activities 

Prescreening Tool Development: During the first year and a half of the grant, Tulsa 

designed and completed the BESO tool. Originally, they considered using Real Benefits 

software, but decided against it because it did not allow for in-house management of the 

tool. In August 2003, they hired a software developer, and in September they began 

adapting the contractor’s Help Works software to the Oklahoma eligibility rules for food 

stamps and other benefit programs to create their BESO tool.4 BESO was fully functional 

at the beginning of the 2004 tax season and could prescreen for food stamps and numerous 

other benefit programs, including TANF, Medicaid, eye and dental clinic services, summer 

food program, WIC, EITC, case management, housing assistance, etc. By mid summer, the 

BESO tool had been programmed to screen for 31 different benefit programs. 

During the testing phase of BESO, they found that the estimate of food stamp 

benefits was often within $1 of what OKDHS would award an eligible family. Given that 

the targeted population (individuals waiting for tax services) had all of the documentation 

necessary for filing their taxes and applying for food stamps, the applications submitted to 

OKDHS via Tulsa’s outreach tended to be extremely accurate and complete. 

 Prescreening/Application Assistance: Tulsa provided prescreening and application 

assistance using BESO in conjunction with their annual Earned Income Tax Credit 

outreach and free tax preparation services. Screenings happened at the nine tax preparation 

sites in and around Tulsa (including one Hispanic, bilingual site). Clients at the tax 

preparation sites waiting to have their taxes prepared were approached and asked if they 

would like to see if they could take advantage of various programs in their community 

(rather than if they wanted to be screened for food stamps – staff felt that this approach was 

effective given the public arena and the stigma surrounding food stamps as “welfare”). 

Clients who agreed to participate in the screening had the option of being screened by 

 

4

 The grantee supplemented their FNS grant with other CAP funds to expand software functions. 

128
volunteers immediately at the tax preparation center or of scheduling a time to come back 

for a prescreening. If a client was called in to have their taxes prepared before they finished 

the BESO screening, they could resume the screening after doing their taxes or they could 

make an appointment to do it over the phone or at a CAP office. 

Once a client went through the prescreening and was found to be eligible, the 

software calculated an estimated benefit level. The clients were then asked if they would 

like to submit an initial application and if they agreed, a 2-page initial application was 

populated with the information collected from the prescreening and mailed to the food 

stamp office. The actual application for food stamps was a 13-page application that 

includes applications for various other social programs (TANF, Medicaid, Child Care 

subsidies, and food stamps). The 2-page application that Tulsa’s software produced was the 

portion of the 13-page application that was pertinent to food stamps. By the end of the tax 

season, Tulsa was able to batch submit each day’s applications by site to the food stamp 

office (although they were working toward automatic submission at the time that the 

application was generated – see below – this did not happen until after the end of the 

grant). This submission automatically generated a case number and file at the food stamp 

office. The caseworker then called the applicant to set up a time for them to come in to fill 

out the 13-page application. Tulsa provided applicants with a checklist of verification 

documents they needed to bring with them to the appointment with the food stamp office 

caseworker. Tulsa did not provide assistance beyond the screening and generating of the 

initial application and list of verification documents. Although Tulsa would submit the 

initial application to OKDHS, it was up to the client to follow through with the remainder 

of the application process. 

Tulsa worked with OKDHS to allow electronic submission of the completed 

applications via email, but this did not happen during the tax season outreach (they had 

difficulties routing applications to the correct office because they did not have the list of zip 

codes to map to the correct office). During the tax season, Tulsa screeners printed the 

completed applications and mailed them to the appropriate DHS office. After the end of the 

grant (January 2005) electronic submission of completed applications was functional in 

four counties. Tulsa staff talked about ultimately sending all verification documents 

electronically as well (via scanned copies) and they are working with OKDHS to make this 

happen. Staff felt that if there was no need to see an IRS agent to submit your taxes, the 

same philosophy should be applied to applying for food stamp benefits. (Note: Tulsa 

received a second USDA grant to continue work with OKDHS to incorporate BESO into 

their service delivery system.) 

Post Tax Season Outreach Activities: After the tax season and once BESO was 

fully functional, the project coordinator dedicated his time to recruiting other local nonprofits and introducing them to BESO through a Power Point presentation. Additionally, he 

worked with OKDHS to continue to garner buy-in on incorporating BESO and allowing for 

electronic submission of applications and verification documents. 

Tulsa developed a web-based tool www.public.captc.org that was not publicly 

available by the end of the grant period. They found that they needed to develop a new 

questionnaire for the website that asked simpler questions yet got at the same type of 

129
information needed for the formal application. After completing this public access 

screening, individuals still need to come in to CAP or a partner agency for a full screening. 

Tulsa did follow-up calls with the families they referred to OKDHS. They made 

initial calls to all families they had referred, and 50 had responded (although only 40 

provided usable responses). They asked clients whether they applied for benefits and if so, 

were they eligible? They found, for some who were not eligible, they had not disclosed 

wages from tips. More than half had actually applied for benefits (23). 

Grantee and Administrative Data 

A summary of the data submitted through the national evaluator’s website is 

presented below. Tulsa’s contact information represents the total number of clients 

prescreened with the BESO system and highlights the number that filled out an initial 

application through BESO. Tulsa was not able to obtain outcome data for all of the 699 

applications that they assisted with and for which they submitted initial applications to the 

food stamp office. The majority of their applications were obtained during the 2004 tax 

season, however, OKDHS was only able to provide outcomes for 188 referrals made by 

Tulsa between May 1, 2004 and September 30, 2004 (representing 27 percent of all 

referrals). Of the 188 referrals, 49 had not applied for food stamps by the end of September. 

The outcomes for the 136 submitting full applications are listed in the table below. Note 

that demographic information was not available for the 108 applications OKDHS provided 

outcome data for. 

Exhibit B.17: Summary of Data Elements from the Community Action 

Project of Tulsa County 

Total # in HH

# HHs 

with NonCitizens 

# HHs with

Elderly or

Disabled

# HHs with

Children 

# HHs 

with

Earnings

# HHs 

with

ABAWD 

Total contacts 1,430 4,497 185 294 1,120 1,079 314 

Follow-up contacts 20 64 4 4 16 8 1 

Pre-screened 1,430 4,497 185 294 1,120 1,079 314 

Application assistance 699 2,083 61 100 467 383 172 

Applications submitted 136 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Applications approved 108 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Applications denied 23 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Reasons for denial

 Income too high 9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Assets too high 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Citizenship status 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Does not live in juris 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Incomplete interview 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Incomplete information 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

 Other reason 7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Note: The total column may include households for which demographic information was not available. 

N/A: The grantee never collected information on these data elements. 

130
Program Accomplishments and Lessons Learned 

Despite significant implementation challenges including having the original project 

manager leave after 6 months with little accomplished on the project, changing software 

vendors almost a year into the grant, and struggling with OKDHS to allow electronic 

submission of the pre-application form and to track the applications Tulsa referred, Tulsa 

successfully built a sustainable web-based screening tool that they used to refer significant 

numbers of Tulsans to the FSP. Over the course of the project, Tulsa prescreened over 

1,400 individuals and referred almost 700 to OKDHS for food stamps. Well-trained and 

committed project staff, including skilled MIS/IT staff, were the keys to the success of

Tulsa’s efforts. Tulsa was also successful in promoting their BESO system to other partners 

in the community and expanded their reach beyond clients at their tax preparation sites to 

include families in the Head Start program and clients at Workforce Oklahoma, as well as

individuals at food banks and shelters throughout the city. 

Throughout the grant Tulsa struggled with various technical issues (and buy-in 

issues at OKDHS) including the electronic submission of applications directly to OKDHS 

and the tracking of applications referred to OKDHS via Tulsa’s outreach. They worked 

unsuccessfully during the grant period (but successfully shortly after the grant ended) to 

allow BESO to submit completed food stamp pre-applications directly to OKDHS via 

email. A technical issue with BESO during early implementation prevented Tulsa from 

submitting tracking information to OKDHS on referred clients. OKDHS also had tracking 

problems on their end, and as a result of these issues, Tulsa was not able to provide 

outcome data for all of the clients that they referred to the food stamp office. They obtained 

outcomes for clients referred May through September 2004. 

Future Plans 

This project has become institutionalized and is seen as an ongoing part of Tulsa’s 

activities. They received a second grant from USDA for a three-year partnership with the 

state Department of Human Services to incorporate BESO into their service delivery 

package. Tulsa staff hoped that this would lead DHS to “put some of their resources and 

really their personnel ...in place and take some ownership, or at least sponsorship, of this 

project.” Tulsa also received additional funding from private foundations to support work 

with BESO including an award from The Center for Financial Services Innovation to use 

their BESO system to work with employers to encourage low-income Oklahomans to link 

government benefits to savings products at area banks and credit unions. Additionally, 

Tulsa’s staff planned to continue work on their public access website. 

131
Vermont Campaign to End Childhood Hunger (Vermont) 

Characteristics 

Location/Number of Sites: State of Vermont; targeting two local jurisdictions with high

unemployment rates (Newport and Springfield) 

Intervention Start Date and End Dates: September 2003- November 2004 

Grant Amount: $294,297 

Project Objectives and Activities 

The primary goals of the project were to 1) develop a Vermont food stamp website 

with a prescreening tool and online barrier survey and 2) create a food stamp marketing 

campaign with a target audience component. Their activities included a multi-media 

campaign with radio spots and advertisements in newspapers in targeted areas, more 

general dissemination of information about the FSP and their website and distribution of 

brochures, small cards, and posters statewide. Web-based prescreening and benefit 

calculation was available through their website developed for this project. 

Organizational Information 

Type of Organization/Agency: Vermont Campaign to End Childhood Hunger 

(VTCECH) is a stand-alone non-profit hunger coalition created in 1992 to address hunger 

among children in the state. Vermont works with a variety of other partner organizations 

throughout the state to provide access to information about food stamps and to provide

outreach to those who may be eligible but are not receiving food stamps. VTCECH 

currently has an FSP outreach grant from the state and also facilitates a food stamp work 

group convened to address barriers to participation in the FSP. The organization also works 

with the public schools on efforts to expand participation in the school meals programs, 

offers nutrition education programs, and trains staff at other community organizations 

about FSP policies and benefits. 

 Staffing: Five staff members were paid through this grant to work on the outreach 

project. The project manager oversaw the work of the project coordinator, met with 

partners and communicated with the state food stamp office. The project coordinator was 

responsible for day-to-day project management, coordinated the work of the contractors 

and partners, and recruited and trained new partner organizations about the FSP and the 

grantee’s website. A staff member from the University of Vermont was responsible for 

oversight of website development and ongoing operations; another part-time worker from

UVM assisted that person. In addition, a media consultant was hired early on during the 

project to oversee the multimedia campaign; she in turn subcontracted with a graphic 

design firm. 

 Volunteers: Volunteers were used only occasionally to assist with mass mailings. 

 Key Partners: Key partners included community service providers and non-profit 

agencies that work with the low-income population (e.g., Community Action Agencies, 

132
Head Start Centers, employment offices, senior centers) and provide access to computers 

and the Internet at their locations. The project coordinator made presentations about the 

FSP, the website and the Internet at 95 organizations throughout the state over the two-year 

project period, training 425 community service providers and advocates to enable them to 

help low-income individuals use the website’s prescreening tool. Staff at these 

organizations also distributed and made available all of the project outreach materials. The 

University of Vermont, whose staff oversaw web operations and conducted the evaluation, 

was also a key partner. 

Food Stamp Office Partnership: The state agency administering the FSP, the 

Vermont Department of Prevention, Assistance, Transition and Health Access (PATH), 

was also a key partner on this project.5

 The grantee has a longstanding relationship with 

PATH, collaborating on a food stamp work group whose purpose is to bring community 

service providers and advocates together discussing issues of mutual interest. PATH was 

very involved in this project from its beginning, assisting in all phases of design and 

implementation. PATH staff worked closely with all project partners to modify their 

computer system to collect data for this project. They also collaborated with the grantee to 

train PATH field staff on the use of the website. 

Outreach Activities 

 Information Dissemination: Vermont developed a public access website, 

www.vermontfoodhelp.com, which provides information on how the FSP works, who is 

eligible, how to apply for benefits and the economic and nutritional advantages of

participation. The grantee also conducted a statewide food stamp outreach campaign 

providing general FSP information and promoting use of their website by distributing 

flyers, brochures, small information cards, and posters to state agencies, community 

organizations, libraries, food stamp retailers, food banks, town halls, and other venues 

throughout the state. Vermont also conducted a multimedia campaign, which focused on 

two target areas (Newport and Springfield) and included ads in six newspapers and radio 

PSAs on six radio stations in those areas. 

 Prescreening: Vermont’s website, launched on September 26, 2003, includes a 

prescreening tool which determines potential eligibility and calculates probable benefits. It 

also provides general information about the FSP, directions on how to apply, a listing of 

documents required at the time of application, contact information and maps/directions to 

PATH offices. Website visitors can request an FSP application by three methods: email, a 

downloadable PDF file, or via an 800 number. A contact box is also available so that 

individuals’ concerns and/or comments can be addressed. As noted above, trained staff at 

partner agencies provided access to computers and the internet and were available to help 

website visitors navigate the website and complete the prescreening tool. Accommodations 

for visitors with visual impairments are available and information is presented in four 

 

5

 The name of the agency administering the FSP was changed to the Agency of Human Services Department

for Children and Families during the project. 

133
languages. Specific information pertaining to immigrants’ concerns is also included. The 

site also included a barriers survey that asked participants about their experiences regarding 

barriers to participation. 

 Application Assistance: Although no face-to-face assistance in filling out FSP 

applications was provided, applications could either be downloaded from the website, filled 

out, and taken to the food stamp office, or visitors could request that an application be sent 

to them by mail. Applications could not be filled out and submitted electronically. With 

some exceptions, applicants had to visit the PATH office to complete the application 

process. PATH staff collected data regarding applicants’ use of the website.

Grantee and Administrative Data 

A summary of the data submitted through the national evaluator’s website is 

presented below.6

 Vermont’s grantee data were limited to total contacts (or web “hits”) and 

the number pre-screened (or those that followed through with the prescreening part of their 

web tool). Vermont’s data cover the period September 2003 through November 2004, 

although there is one month excluded (July 2004) because of lost data at the web host due 

to a change in their server. 

 

Program Accomplishments and Lessons Learned 

Vermont staff felt that the greatest accomplishments of the intervention were (1) the 

success in terms of crafting a closer relationship with the PATH offices through 

collaboration on development of the website, and (2) the increase in participation in the 

FSP. By the end of the initiative, 814 households received food stamps, representing almost 

2,000 people. 

Vermont found that providing training for community service providers was a key 

addition to their original program design. Initially, training sessions were intended to 

provide an overview of the website so that service providers working with low income 

individuals would be able help applicants complete the prescreening tool. However, it 

became clear that many providers needed basic information about using the Internet as 

well. These training sessions were seen as an important means of reaching the target 

population, and providing them with access to the site. 

Although their online barriers survey was somewhat limited due to some

technological glitches, the grantee found that the largest barrier was reluctance to accept 

charity and the stigma associated with food stamp receipt. 

 

6

 There are a few data inconsistencies to note. The total number of applications approved and denied adds to

one more (1,008) than the total number of applications submitted via Vermont’s outreach efforts (1,007, as

reported into our system and in the local evaluation report). Also, the total number of households with

ABAWDs that submitted food stamp applications is not available because Vermont was not able to report the 

number of households with ABAWDs who were denied food stamps. Finally, the total number of persons in

food stamp households that were denied benefits reported into our system is higher than the sum of that

category’s reasons for denials (498 versus 488 for the sum of the reasons for denial). 

134
Exhibit B.18: Summary of Data Elements from the 

Vermont Campaign to End Childhood Hunger 

Total 

# in

HH 

# HHs with

NonCitizens 

# HHs with

Elderly or

Disabled

# HHs with

Children 

# HHs 

with

Earnings

# HHs with

ABAWD 

Total contacts 33,260 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Follow-up contacts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Pre-screened 3,679 10,644 197 344 2,027 2,213 448 

Application assistance N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Applications submitted 1,007 2,443 40 218 682 455 N/A 

Applications approved 814 1,945 33 196 579 370 184 

Applications denied 194 498 7 22 103 85 N/A 

Reasons for denial:

 Income too high 91 268 4 12 59 82 N/A 

 Assets too high 7 17 4 2 4 3 N/A 

 Citizenship status 3 8 0 3 1 0 N/A 

 Does not live in juris 4 8 3 3 2 0 N/A 

 Incomplete interview 62 123 0 5 22 0 N/A 

 Incomplete information 8 16 0 2 5 0 N/A 

135
This Page Is Intentionally Left Blank 
APPENDIX C 

BACKGROUND ON PREVIOUS LITERATURE AND RECENT FSP 

POLICY CHANGES 
This Page Is Intentionally Left Blank 
APPENDIX C: BACKGROUND ON PREVIOUS LITERATURE AND RECENT 

FSP POLICY CHANGES 

Appendix C provides additional contextual information initially described in 

Section II on the previous literature and policy changes that likely influenced the goals and 

results of the 18 outreach projects. This review highlights some of the individual and 

institutional factors that hinder participation in FSP. It also describes policy changes that 

occurred throughout the course of the projects, roughly defined as the period between 2001 

and 2004, which might influence grantee activities and/or outcomes were in full swing 

between 2002 and 2003. 

Previous Findings on Factors Affecting Participation

Many people eligible for food stamps do not participate in the program. The official 

estimates indicate that about 56 percent of eligible individuals participated in the FSP in 

2003 (Cunnyngham 2005). While the current rate represents a significant decline from the 

high of 75 percent in 1995, it shows an increase from the recent low of 53 percent reached 

in 2001. 

Participation rates have been changing recently for various reasons. Changes in 

welfare enacted by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act 

(PRWORA) of 1996 moved many families off the welfare rolls and discouraged cash 

welfare participation. Consequently, the number of food stamp eligible families on welfare 

(with a strong link to FSP participation) declined, and the number of working poor eligible 

families (with relatively low rates of participation) increased (See, for example, Wilde et al 

2002). The strong economy during the mid- to late-1990s also played a role in reducing 

participation. During 2000 and 2001, Cunnyngham (2005) reports that changes in FSP 

rules (especially for families that own vehicles) and the downturn in the national economy 

increased the number eligible for benefits and reduced participation rates. She also reports 

that increased FSP outreach, increased poverty, and restoration of eligibility for noncitizens 

in the U.S. for five years or more have increased participation rates since 2001. 

Official estimates also show that some groups have higher or lower participation 

rates than others (Cunnyngham 2005). For example, 42.9 percent of eligible employed 

families and 27.5 percent of persons age 60 and older participated in the program in 2003. 

Also, eligible noncitizens have low rates of participation (39 percent in 2002). In contrast, 

about 70 percent of children eligible for benefits participate in the program. 

Participation Patterns

Previous research provides some insights into these participation patterns.

McConnell and Ponza (1999), for example, identified five reasons why the elderly and the 

working poor do not participate in the FSP: a lack of information, a perception that they do 

not need the assistance, low expected benefits, the hassle involved in the application and 

recertification process, and stigma. Wilde and Dagata (2002) found that elderly on 

participants were more likely to be non-Hispanic whites than members of other race/ethnic 

139
groups using data from the 2001 Current Population Survey (CPS). They showed 

nonparticipating elderly individuals were healthier and more food secure than elderly 

participants (despite being older), leading these authors to suggest that elders who face the 

most severe hardships are more likely to take steps to apply for food stamp benefits than 

others. They also highlight the important connection between the FSP and the 

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, as approximately 40 percent of elderly food 

stamp participants also participated in SSI in comparison to only 7 percent of 

nonparticipants.7

 During focus groups with older Americans in Washington State, Gabor, 

Schreiber, Bellamy, and Hardison (2001) found that pride and perceived stigma of program

participation act as factors that discourage participation. 

Participation Likelihood 

A recent Government Accountability Office (GAO 2004) study, based on 2000 data 

from the Current Population Survey (CPS), reported that working families’ participation in 

the FSP increased with higher potential benefit amounts, the presence of young children, 

and participation in other assistance programs (including Medicaid, school meals, the 

Women, Infants, and Children program (WIC), and job training). The study also showed 

that home ownership and the lack of citizenship decrease the likelihood of participation. 

Using data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), Farrell et al. 

(2003) showed that nonparticipating working households are more likely than participating 

households to have income that exceeded 100 percent of the federal poverty level in the 

past two years. Their finding suggested that those with short-term needs were less likely to 

participate than those with longer-term needs. Similarly, Zedlewski and Rader (2005), 

using three years of the National Survey of America’s Families, found that families with 

higher incomes in the year preceding eligibility were less likely to participate. 

Low Participation 

Zedlewski and Nelson (2003) found that participation in the FSP program was 

surprisingly low among very low-income nonelderly families who reported no current

earnings or cash government assistance. The study, which was based on qualitative 

interviews conducted in 2002, found that only about half of these families participated in 

the FSP despite their obvious eligibility. Nonparticipating families fell into two general 

groups: (1) families that reported a prior bad experience with the program, and (2) those 

that refused help from the government on principle or because they did not want to comply 

with program rules, such as the child support establishment system. 

Lack of Knowledge 

In general, lack of knowledge explains why some eligible individuals do not pursue 

food stamp benefits. Ponza, Ohls, Moreno, Zambrowski and Cohen (1999) reported that 

about three-quarters of eligible non-participating households were unaware of their 

eligibility. Some believed that some aspect of their family’s situation makes them ineligible 

 

7

 This finding is not surprising given that the two programs are generally linked. In most states, elderly SSI 

participants are automatically eligible for food stamp benefits. 

140
(such as their car’s value, work, or some other government assistance), and others think 

they are eligible for such a small benefit that is not worth the effort to obtain (McConnell 

and Ponza 1999). Bartlett, Bursetin, and Hamilton (2004) found that over half of eligible 

nonparticipant households either believed that they were ineligible or were not sure they 

were eligible. Those that believed themselves ineligible were more likely to have abovepoverty incomes and bank accounts and less likely to have received food stamps in the 

past. (Demographic characteristics such as age, race, and ethnicity were not associated with 

whether households believed they were eligible). Some had significant misperceptions 

about program rules such as believing that workers (55 percent) and those that received 

other government assistance (19 percent) could not get benefits. 

Individual Attitudes 

Other studies have found that individual attitudes affect food stamp participation. 

Some potential eligible participants do not want government help, while others do not want 

to face what they believe is a demeaning and cumbersome process (either based on past

experience or some other secondary knowledge). For example, 31 percent of the sample of 

eligible nonparticipants in the Bartlett et al (2004) survey said they would not apply for 

benefits even if they knew they were eligible. All of those unwilling to participate 

mentioned personal reasons – including a desire for personal independence (91 percent). 

Also, nearly 75 percent reported at least one reason related to policies, including the cost of 

applying (64 percent), a previous “bad experience” (24 percent), and confusion about how 

to apply (12 percent). 

Some studies have found that eligible participants have had difficulties in accessing 

benefits because of procedures at the FSP office or the length of the application. Bartlett et 

al (2004) found that common local office practices can discourage participation based on a 

survey of administrative practices in a nationally-representative sample of FSP offices. For 

example, they reported that over one quarter of food stamp applicants decided not to pursue 

their application because of some aspect of the application process, including verification 

requirements, length of time to wait before receiving benefits, long waits in the food stamp 

office, missing work, paying for someone to care for a child or elderly dependent, and 

general confusion about the process. 

Office Accessibility 

Office accessibility, especially availability during non-working hours, also appears 

to influence participation decisions. Bartlett el al (2004) reported that households with 

earnings are significantly less likely to complete the application process in offices open 

only Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. They also found that “pro-participation” 

attitudes expressed by supervisors and child friendliness is positively associated with the 

likelihood that applicants complete the application process. McKernan and Ratcliffe (2003) 

showed that families working nontraditional hours were less likely to participate in the FSP 

than other workers, suggesting that daytime food stamp office hours can limit participation 

among working families. 

141
Summary 

In summary, individual characteristics, lack of knowledge about the program, 

attitudes and the complexity of the application process can affect FSP participation. As 

described later, the outreach projects aimed to overcome these factors by improving 

knowledge about the program and facilitating the application process using technology, 

partnerships, and other techniques. 

Detailed Review of Policy Changes 

There have been significant changes in food stamp legislation and regulations in 

recent years, and some of these changes likely have enhanced outreach efforts in several 

areas to varying degrees by expanding eligibility requirements for certain groups, and 

simplifying the application process (Exhibit C.1). Changes include the restoration of food 

stamp eligibility for some immigrants, restoration of benefit levels, simplified paperwork 

requirements, and liberalized vehicle ownership restrictions. 

While some of the changes were implemented nationwide, others were offered to 

states as options to simplify procedures and improve access to the FSP. States can loosen 

financial restrictions by increasing vehicle asset limits, excluding child support and other 

types of income, and simplifying the Standard Utility Allowance rules. States can also 

improve access to the FSP by increasing certification periods, reducing reporting 

requirements for certain households, and implementing procedures that improve access or 

simplify the application process. 

States have embraced many of the new options, especially those that simplify 

families’ reporting requirements and allow participant families to own a vehicle of greater 

value than is specified in the federal default rules. Almost all states adopted one or more 

options to reduce payment errors, ease program administration, and/or simplify client 

paperwork requirements by October 2001 (U.S. GAO 2002). For example, 35 states use the 

simplified (or semiannual) reporting option. By September 2001, 33 states used available 

options to exempt some or all vehicles when determining food stamp eligibility, and the 

number of states exempting some or all vehicles increased to 39 by February 2002 (Dean 

and Horng 2002). 

142
143

Exhibit C.1: Summary of Relevant FSP Policy Changes 1999-2002 

Immigrant 

eligibility

In 2002 the Farm Bill (U.S. Public Law 107-171) restored benefit eligibility to most legal noncitizens in the U.S. 

before August 1996 and for a large share of those who entered after that time.8

 Legal noncitizens with disabilities 

became eligible for food stamps on October 1, 2002; legal noncitizens in the U.S. for five years became eligible for 

food stamps on April 1, 2003; and all legal noncitizen children under age 18 became eligible for benefits on 

October 1, 2003 (Kaplan 2003). 

Benefit levels In agricultural appropriations for 2001 (U.S. Public Law 106-387), Congress reversed reductions in the shelter and 

standard deductions originally passed during welfare reform in 1996. The 2002 Farm Bill increased the standard 

deduction for larger households (more than 6 persons). 

Paperwork 

requirements 

States now have numerous options for reducing paperwork requirements that should make it easier for families to 

obtain and maintain eligibility. In 1999, the Clinton administration issued new guidance allowing states to require 

families with earnings to file reports every 3 months or only when a change (such as a new job, a change in pay or 

hours) occurs (Rosenbaum 2000). The new guidance also specified that states only had to require families to 

complete face-to-face interviews once a year. The federal government further eased reporting requirements in late 

2000 (CFR 273.12 (a) (vii)), allowing states to use semiannual reporting for families with earnings, with a 

requirement that families report changes in income if their income exceeds 130 percent of the federal poverty level. 

States are held responsible only for errors resulting from miscalculating benefits at certification, or in cases where 

income exceeds 130 percent of the poverty level and the change is not reported. The 2002 Farm Bill allowed states 

to use the semiannual reporting requirement for all nonelderly families (not just families with earnings). States also 

can adopt simplified income and resource tests to provide more uniform definitions with those used in TANF and 

Medicaid. States can increase the transitional food stamp benefit timeframe for families leaving welfare from three 

to five months. 

Vehicle 

restrictions 

States also can adopt options to allow eligible families to own vehicles of a greater value than specified by Federal 

law. The federal law counts the fair market value of a vehicle in excess of $4,650 towards a household’s $2,000 

asset limit.9

 Rules codified in 2000 gave states the option to extend eligibility to households that receive benefits 

funded at least in part by TANF funds even if that means they are exempt from the vehicle asset test (65 Fed. Reg. 

70198). In agricultural appropriations for 2001 (U.S. Public Law 106-387), Congress broadened this flexibility by 

allowing states to value vehicles by any method used in another low-income support program. 

Error Rates The 2002 Farm Bill revamped error and thresholds for sanctions of states’ food stamp error rates by focusing 

sanctions on states with serious, persistent problems rather than annual sanctioning of all states with errors above 

the national average rate. The change should encourage states to adopt some of the new reporting options for 

families with incomes that tend to vary frequently, because penalties for overpayments and underpayments will be 

less of a consideration than before. 

 

8

 Most legal noncitizens lost eligibility for food stamp benefits with the 1996 PRWORA legislation. Later, in 

1997, the federal government allowed states to purchase food stamps for issuance to legal noncitizens (U.S. 

Public Law 105-18), and 1998 legislation (U.S. Public Law 105-185) reinstated eligibility for elderly, 

disabled, and child noncitizens residing in the U.S. at the time the 1996 welfare reform law was passed. 

9

 The FSP has rules covering multiple vehicles and the federal test of $4,650 applies to all vehicles owned by 

members of the household. Some states (15) now exclude the value of all vehicles; others (7) exclude the 

value of one per household and then apply the federal standard to subsequent vehicles. See the Center on 

Budget and Policy Priorities (2005) for a detailed description of the food stamp vehicle test, including the 

current rules in the states. 
This Page Is Intentionally Left Blank 
APPENDIX D: 

NATIONAL EVALUATOR ACTIVITIES AND METHODOLOGY 
This Page Is Intentionally Left Blank 
APPENDIX D: NATIONAL EVALUATOR ACTIVITIES AND METHODOLOGY 

This appendix describes the major national evaluation data collection and analysis 

activities. The combination of findings from these activities was used to describe each

project’s objectives, activities, outcomes, and lessons learned. 

• Quantitative Data Collection: The quantitative analysis included a 

summary of the findings on processes and outcomes that are used to 

highlight effective outreach strategies and innovative practices. Included 

data collected on processes (e.g., number of contacts made) and outcomes 

(e.g., number of applications submitted) from all 18 sites using a web-based 

data collection system. 

 

• Qualitative Data Collection: The qualitative analysis provides an in-depth 

understanding of outreach implementation experiences and lessons. It also 

provided contextual information for the quantitative analysis and insights on 

the factors that influenced these outcomes. Included three rounds of phone 

calls to all 18 grantees and site visits to six grantees to gain insights into 

each site’s outreach activities, implementation status, successes and 

challenges, and outcomes. 

 

• Local Evaluation Report Synthesis: The synthesis of local evaluation 

reports provided additional insights on the implementation activities and 

outcomes, which were used to supplement the quantitative and qualitative 

findings. 

Quantitative Data Description 

The national evaluator’s goal was to collect comparable information on major 

processes and outcomes across all sites. While their outreach activities and target

populations varied significantly, all sites shared the same general goal of increasing food 

stamp participation. 

A web-based data collection system was developed early in the project following an 

initial kickoff meeting with all of the grantees and FNS, though this meeting occurred after 

some of the grantee projects had already started. The web-based data collection protocols 

were revised following several beta tests at each of the project sites. These tests improved 

the quality of the data collected, and ensured that each of the project coordinators (and their 

evaluators) understood the nature of the data collection. 

The website included two reporting systems: a Grantee Report and an 

Administrative Report ( Exhibits D.1-D.3). Grantees submitted data for their reports on a 

monthly or quarterly basis depending on their ability to obtain and transmit data. The 

Grantee Report summarized the general scope and characteristics of the outreach activities 

at each site, including information on the number of total contacts, follow-up contacts, 

147
prescreens, and the number of persons assisted with the application process (including

counts of specific application assistance activities). The Administrative Report summarized 

the major outcomes from each project, including data on the number of applications filed, 

the number of applications approved, the number of applications denied, and the reasons 

for denials. For all data elements in both reports, demographic characteristic information 

for the grantee activities and outcomes were collected, including the total number of

households that included non-citizens, elderly/disabled persons, children, earnings, and 

able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs). Information was also collected on the 

number of persons in food stamp households for the various data elements. 

Data Quality Monitoring

The timing of the implementation of the web-based system created some initial data 

collection issues that influenced the amount of information that could be entered in the 

web-based system. Specifically, the Urban Institute received the national evaluator’s 

contract after all the outreach projects were awarded. Hence, the data collection began after 

some projects had already fully implemented their outreach activities and had their own 

tracking systems in place. Some grantees were asked to provide retrospective information 

and others attempted to modify their current data systems. While the grantees were flexible 

with these requests, it was difficult to collect full information on some of the information 

included in the data collection efforts. Also, some grantees had some initial technical 

difficulties accessing the website (e.g. slow modem speed). In these cases, the Urban 

Institute worked with the grantees to ensure that the data collection efforts did not impose 

new costs in conducting their intervention. Ultimately, some grantees decided that they 

could not provide certain non-essential data elements, such as demographic characteristics 

of the clients that they served. As the project progressed, all grantees became comfortable 

using the system, and the general quality of the data collection improved. Nonetheless, as 

discussed body of the report and in the site profiles in Appendix A, some grantees 

encountered problems reporting full information on all activities and outcomes. 

The national evaluator implemented a number of data quality assessment activities to 

improve the data collection. Phone calls with all grantees at the start of the project 

identified technical difficulties and addressed questions relating to specific data elements. 

More importantly, throughout the project, two data experts provided technical assistance 

and monitored the Grantee and Administrative Reports. As issues related to codifying data 

elements arose, the data experts clarified the definitions of those data elements. They also 

followed up with individual sites about data issues (e.g., missing data elements, late 

reports, inconsistencies) and worked to resolve any outstanding problems. Finally, at the 

end of the project, the data experts followed-up on any reported differences between the 

local evaluation reports and the data submitted to the website. When applicable, the data 

experts asked local evaluators and project directors to rectify the differences between the 

data in the local evaluation reports and the national evaluator’s data collection site to

finalize the data for this report. 

148
Exhibit D.1: Monthly Grantee Report Data Guide 

Year: Month:Grantee Name

Grantee Reporting Information (Nature of the Intervention)

Total 

Households 

Total Number 

of Persons in

All Food

Stamp 

Households 

Number of

Households 

with Noncitizens 

Number of

Households 

with Elderly/ 

Disabled

Number of

Households 

with Children

w

How many contacts did you make this month?How many of these were follow-up contacts?How many were pre-screened for potential eligibility?How many were assisted with the application process?

Of those who were assisted with the application process, how many were assisted with the following activities: Code a

Filling out an application form Reviewing verification documents Submitting an application formTranslation services Accompanied to the Food Stamp Office Transportation Application follow-up/advocating on behalf ofclient/encouragementSome other type of assistance (please specify) Describe Other assistance provided: 

Clarifications/Explanations:
Exhibit D.2: Monthly/Quarterly Administrative Report Data Guide

Quarter:

Starting Month of Quarter: Choose starting month Ending Month of Quarter: Choose ending month 

Reporting Month Choose reporting Month 

Grantee Name

FSP Office Reports (Outcomes) 

Total Households 

Total Number of Persons inAll Food StampHouseholds 

Number ofHouseholds with Noncitizens 

Number ofHouseholds with Elderly/ Disabled

Number ofHouseholds with Children

Total applicantsNumber approved (do not include recertifications) Number denied 

Of those project participants denied benefits, how many were denied for the following reasons: Code one per 

Income too high Assets too high Citizenship status Does not live within the FSP jurisdictionFailure to complete interview process Incomplete/inaccurate informationOther 

Clarifications/Explanations:
Exhibit D3: Description of Data Elements from 

Administrative and Grantee Reports 

Data Elements Included in Grantee and Administrative Reports 

Total Households: Total number of households. Please only count one person per household. For example, if you

contact a husband and a wife please record this as one household. 

Total Number of Persons in All Food Stamp Households: Includes the number of individuals in each food 

stamp household. For example, if you contacted three households and each of those households had three people in

the household, then you would record 9 people. 

Number of Households with Non-Citizens: Number of households with at least one person who does not have 

U.S. citizenship. 

Number of Households with Elderly/Disabled: Number of households with at least one person age 60 and above 

or with at least person who has a disability. 

Number of Households with Children: Number of households with at least one person under age 18. 

Number of Households with Earnings: Number of households with at least one person who has income from

employment in the last month. 

Number of Households with ABAWDS: Number of households with at least one person who is an able-bodied 

adult without dependents (ABAWD). Individuals with the following characteristics are ABAWDS: those age 18-

50 who are not exempt from work (due to a medical condition, responsibility for a dependent child, or pregnancy). 

Data Elements Included the Grantee Report 

Contacts: A contact includes all direct contact with a household. The purpose of this variable is to record all 

interactions that a grantee has with potential applicants. For example, a contact can include a phone call, mail flyer, 

face-to-face contact, email, or other web-based contact. Mass media contacts such as radio and TV ads are not 

included in contacts (special media events should be noted in the comments field in the quarter in which they 

occurred).10 

Follow-up contacts: A follow-up contact includes any repeated or subsequent contact with the same household 

beyond an initial contact. For example, if your agency initially contacts a household at a supermarket and that 

household comes to your office for a pre-screening, please count this meeting/activity as a follow-up contact. 

All follow-up contacts should also be recorded in the contact category. 

Pre-screened: Any household for whom you estimated food stamp eligibility either formally (e.g. website prescreening or a pre-screening calculator/form) or informally (e.g. verbal estimate without formal pre-screening tool) 

is considered a pre-screen activity. 

Assisted with the application process: Any household or individual assisted with any of the activities: 

Filling out an application form; Reviewing verification documents; Submitting an application form; Translation

services; Accompanied to food stamp office; Transportation; Application follow-up/Encouragement/Advocating

on behalf of client; Other type of assistance. 

Filling out an application form: Any assistance filling out an electronic or paper application. This activity can

occur at any location including the local food stamp office, your agency, another site (e.g. supermarket), or on-line. 

Reviewing verification documents: Any assistance with gathering the necessary verification materials needed for 

the application process as well as any assistance reviewing verification documents. 

Submitting an application form: Any assistance in submitting an electronic or paper application. This activity 

can occur at any location including the local food stamp office, your agency, or on-line. 

Translation services: Any verbal or written translation assistance. For example, translation of written application

materials at a food stamp office counts as a translation service. Alternatively, verbal assistance in communicating 

with food stamp staff also counts as a translation service. 

Accompanied to food stamp office: Accompanying an applicant to the food stamp office. For example, this may 

include walking the applicant to the office. 

Transportation: Any assistance in transporting applicants to and from the food stamp office as well as to and from

your agency. Transportation may include an actual car ride or simply providing bus or taxi fare. 

 

10 Each outreach “contact” as described above should be counted as a contact even if it is with the same

household at different points within the month or previous months. For example, if a grantee contacted two 

people from the same household (e.g., husband and wife), this interaction would count as one contact.

However, if the grantee contacted different members of the household at different times, record each 

contact separately. Multiple contacts within the same day are not counted. 

151
Application follow-up/Encouragement/Advocating on behalf of client: This category includes a broad range of 

activities, including any follow-up activity with an applicant household, a food stamp office, or a stakeholder (e.g. 

family members). For example, this activity might include bringing forms to potential applicants, encouragement, 

or any other types of follow-up activity. 

Other type of assistance: Any type of assistance not included in the categories above. Please define this activity in

the text box as well as the demographic group targeted. 

Clarification/Explanations: Please describe any problems you had with data collection this month including any

missing data items. 

Data Elements for the Administrative Report 

Total applicants: Total number of households who filed an application (either complete or incomplete) for food

stamp benefits. Total number of applicants does not need to sum to total recipients plus total denied benefits. For

example, a pending case would neither be recorded as a recipient nor a denial, but would be included in total 

applicants. 

Number approved: Total number of households who were approved for food stamp benefits. Note: this does not

include recertifications. 

Number denied: Total number of households who were denied food stamp benefits. Note: this does not include 

pending or withdrawn cases. 

Income too high: Total number of households denied food stamp benefits due to income exceeding the eligibility 

threshold. 

Assets too high: Total number of households denied food stamp benefits due to the total amount of assets

exceeding the eligibility threshold. 

Citizenship status: Total number of households denied food stamp benefits due to the entire household being a 

non-eligible non-citizen. 

Does not live within FSP jurisdiction: Total number of households denied food stamp benefits due to living 

outside of the county in which they applied. 

Failure to complete interview process: Total number of households denied food stamp benefits due to failing to

complete the in-person or phone interview (e.g. did not appear in the food stamp office or call back for scheduled 

interview). 

Incomplete or inaccurate information: Total number of households denied food stamp benefits due to failing to

provide all required information or providing inaccurate information (e.g. not providing all verification documents, 

not completing all sections of the application, or providing false information on the application). 

Other: Other reasons for denial including drug felony, ABAWDS whose 3 months expired, failure to comply with

employment and training requirements, etc. 

Clarification/Explanation: Please describe any problems you had with data collection this month including any

missing data items.

 

Qualitative Data Collection

The qualitative data collection aimed to collect comparable information about the 

actual design and implementation of the outreach projects and the context within which 

each initiative was implemented. The project collected qualitative information in the 

following five general areas throughout the project (Exhibit D.4): 

• Program Activities—including the project design, activities, and operation; 

• Organization Information—including characteristics of the organizations; 

• Interaction with FS Office/Local Economic Conditions—including 

descriptions of the relationship with the local FSP office and any economic or 

policy changes that influenced the outreach activities; 

152
Exhibit D.4: Summary of Research Questions for Qualitative Analysis 

Program Activities 

What were the main features of the(se) outreach initiative(s)?

What types of outreach methods were implemented?

What populations (if any) were targeted?

Organization Information 

What types of staff was used to implement the outreach initiative (e.g., in-house staff, volunteers, staff from

other agencies/organizations)?

What training was provided to staff involved in the outreach efforts? 

What was the nature and extent of interagency interaction in providing this outreach effort? What agency or

agencies were involved? What were their responsibilities?

Interaction with FS Office/Local Economic Conditions 

How involved was the food stamp office in this intervention? At what point did they become involved in

the intervention? What role did they eventually play in the intervention?

Were there any other changes/events at the state or local level that might have had an effect on the success 

of this project (e.g., changes in the local economy, state or local administrative or policy changes that could 

have had an effect on the food stamp participation rates)?

Implementation Experiences 

Which aspects of the design were the most difficult to implement and why? 

What factors facilitated project implementation? 

What implementation barriers were encountered? How were barriers overcome? What effect did problems

and resolutions have on overall implementation?

Were any aspects of the design not implemented or only partially implemented?

Outcomes 

What were the major accomplishments of this intervention? How successful were they in reaching target

populations; in setting up partnerships that facilitate access; in implementing new technology; and in 

completing the goals originally defined?

What were the greatest challenges faced by this site? How were they addressed?

What are the major barriers to food stamp participation? 

What are the most important lessons learned to pass on to others who may want to engage in similar 

outreach efforts?

Were there any future plans to continue this project? 

• Implementation Experiences—including similarities and differences in 

implementation experiences, challenges, and successes (across sites, as well as 

by type of outreach method and target group(s)); and 

• Outcomes—including contextual information necessary for synthesizing 

(rather than simply consolidating) local evaluation findings and informing the 

interpretation of results regarding our quantitative data collection activities 

(described above). 

The primary methods used to collect this information included periodic telephone 

discussions with individuals involved in the each of the outreach projects, site visits to six 

selected grantee projects, and a document review of grantee proposals and quarterly 

progress reports sent to FNS. 

153
Telephone Discussions 

The national evaluator conducted three rounds of phone discussions to assess the 

status of each grantee’s progress at the start, mid-point, and end of their project. During 

the first round, conducted between June and July 2003, the evaluator verified the 

intervention and data collection start dates, procedures for tracking outreach efforts, the 

system for tracking applications submitted by the grantee through the food stamp office, 

and whether any problems or issues with data collection existed. 

The second round of phone calls, conducted between October 2003 and December 

2003, reviewed the implementation activities with the project coordinator at each site. 

These discussions augmented the descriptive project information obtained from the 

grantees’ proposals and progress reports. Discussions focused on grantees’ operations, 

any start-up problems and early challenges, and grantees’ efforts to resolve these early

implementation issues. 

Follow-up calls to each of the local evaluators augmented the second round calls 

to the project coordinators. These calls reviewed the local evaluators’ plans for 

submitting a final evaluation report and provided technical feedback on proposed 

evaluation approaches. 

The final round of phone calls, conducted with project coordinators between 

September 2004 and November 2004, assessed the full set of outreach activities and 

outcomes. These discussions provided general impressions of the project implementation

experiences and outcomes. Discussions focused on the perceived successes and 

challenges of the project, important outcomes, and lessons for future outreach activities. 

Site Visits 

The national evaluator conducted six site visits (GPCAH, Illinois, Madison, 

Miami, SHFB, and Tulsa) between June 2004 and August 2004 to provide further 

contextual information on the implementation activities and outcomes at different sites 

(Exhibit D.5). The site visits aimed to provide outreach lessons with wide applicability, as 

well as insights and considerations associated with implementing specific outreach 

methods or targeting specific populations. For example, GPCAH provides an example of 

an outreach project that relied heavily on volunteers from multiple partners to reach out 

to unemployed and working poor families and immigrants, Illinois used a school-based 

outreach to focus on working poor families, and Tulsa connected its food stamp outreach 

activities to centers helping low-income families apply for the Earned Income Tax Credit 

(EITC). 

The open-ended character and the face-to-face approach of in-person discussions 

provided a more complete picture of the factors that influence the effectiveness of various 

types of outreach initiatives, the processes required for their implementation, and the 

complexities involved in coordinating with different organizations/partners and reaching

154
Exhibit D.5: Grantee Project Characteristics of the Six Grantees Included in the Site Visits11

Grant 

Amount Activities Organization Characteristics 

Grantee 

Low = 

<$200,000

Medium = 

$200,000 –

299,000 

High = 

>$300,000

Multimedia 

Campaign 

Public 

Access 

Website 

Web-Based 

application Volunteers Primary Partners Target Populati

Madison Low 9 9 9 9

(limited)

Community service 

providers, 

government

agencies 

Working poor and elderly

GPCAH High 9 Multiple (Faithbased, Universities, 

Advocacy Groups) 

Unemployed and working pwith children, immigrants, e

Miami-Dade High 9 Employers,

government

agencies 

Working poor families, imm

Illinois High 9 Schools Working poor families and 

specifically, focused on famchildren in the Chicago pub

SHFB Medium 9 9* 9 Community service 

providers and other 

agencies that 

distribute food

Working poor families, Latiimmigrants

Tulsa High 9* 9 9 EITC sites (banks, 

community centers, 

churches), OneStop Centers, Head 

Start 

Working poor families – spfocused on those who visit tparticipate in EITC eligibili

*SHFB and Tulsa began work on public acces websites during the grant period but they were not fully functional by the end of the gran

staff conducted site visits in Indiana and Philadelphia (MCC) that are not represented in this Exhibit. 

11 FNS researchers also conducted sites visits to Indiana and MCC. They shared a brief summary of their findings, which we have incor

Profiles in Appendix B. 
out to various populations. In later sections, details from these site visits provide further 

insights about a range of outreach activities. 

Two-person research teams comprised of one implementation expert and one data 

expert conducted two-day visits to each site. Teams spoke with a variety of respondents in 

each site, including the lead person responsible for implementing and overseeing outreach 

activities, other relevant key management-level staff within the lead agency, front-line 

outreach workers (paid and volunteers), partner organization staff (e.g., schools, other 

public agencies, other community based organizations), and the local evaluator. The teams 

also held discussions with local FSP staff in outreach-targeted areas to better understand 

their role in the outreach initiative, the way FSP applications are normally processed in that 

site, any in-house efforts to simplify applications and increase enrollments, and perceptions 

of the strengths and weaknesses of the outreach efforts under examination. 

FNS representatives also conducted site visits at two additional sites (Indiana and 

MCC). FNS used the national evaluator’s discussion guides and forwarded a written 

summary of their findings. This report also incorporates their findings. 

Document Review 

A review of the initial proposals and on-going quarterly progress reports from each 

grantee supplemented the qualitative analysis. These documents detailed the grantees’ 

project design and goals, and allowed the national evaluator to track the projects’ 

implementation progress. These documents helped to customize the phone and site visit 

discussions around specific project activities and outcomes. 

Local Evaluation Synthesis

The final set of activities included a synthesis of local evaluations submitted by each of the 

grantee projects. The local evaluators were charged with producing performance reports 

documenting the implementation of the outreach activities, general outcomes, and 

important lessons learned. Thirteen of the grantees hired an independent evaluator affiliated 

with a local university or consulting firm and five grantees (Connecticut, Illinois, MCC, 

North Carolina and Project Bread) used an in-house evaluator.12

 The scope and focus of the evaluation reports varied, though all of the evaluations 

included a general description of the major processes and summary of major outcomes 

related to applications submitted, approved, and denied. Several evaluators supplemented 

this information with a review of implementation lessons during the project (e.g., 

experiences in creating partnerships, hiring volunteers), suggestions for future outreach

projects, and formal surveys and/or small group interviews of clients to assess participation 

barriers.13 Additionally, some evaluators made detailed comparisons of outcomes across 

target populations, multimedia campaign activities (e.g., billboards, radio ads), and various 

 

12 Salem-Keizer’s also employed an independent evaluator who eventually took over duties of project director

after a staffing change. 13 In one case, Central NY even provided a manual for setting up an outreach activity. 

156
outreach approaches (e.g., comparisons across types of outreach locations and volunteers). 

Finally, some examined overall FSP caseload changes where the outreach had been 

implemented. 

The local evaluation reports were used to verify the national summary of the 

project’s quantitative and qualitative findings and to identify information not obtained in 

the quantitative or qualitative data collection efforts. If verification led to questions, the 

national evaluator followed up with the local evaluator or project director to clarify 

differences. The report incorporates reflections from all of the local evaluators’ summaries 

of the major outcomes, challenges, and lessons learned. Exhibit D.6 provides a reference 

list for all the local evaluation reports for readers interested in further information. 

157
Exhibit D6: Summary of Citations for Local Evaluation Reports 

ACORN Institute, Food Stamp Outreach Research Project. Final Report Submitted to FNS, January 2005. 

Central North Carolina, Division of Aging and Adult Services (DAAS): Final Report: The Intervention. 

Submitted to FNS, January 4, 2005. 

Community Harvest Food Bank of Northeast Indiana, Inc., USDA Food Stamp Program Resarch Grant to

Improve Access Through the Use of New Technology and Partnerships Final Report. Submitted to

FNS, October 1, 2005

Connecticut Association for Human Services, Final Performance Report. Submitted to FNS, September 2004

Curtis, Karen A., Abena Aidoo, M.S., Joy Oliver, M.A. Evaluation of the Food Bank of Delaware’s Food

Stamp Outreach Project, (Year 1 and 2), Evaluation Period October 1, 2002 through September 30, 

2004. Submitted to FNS, December 15, 2004. 

Food Bank of Central New York, Research Project Final Report. Submitted to FNS, November 2004 

Greater Philadelphia Coalition Against Hunger, Final Evaluation: Using Volunteer Outreach to Improve 

Access to the Food Stamp Program. Submitted to FNS, January 24, 2005. 

Harrison, Kenneth, and Jennifer Kyke, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Psychology. Atlantic City Food Stamp 

Report. Submitted to FNS, December 20, 2004 

Human Services Coalition of Dade County: Food Stamp Outreach to Working Families Final Report. 

Submitted to FNS, December 30, 2004. 

Lionberger, Annie and Mary Froehle, Chicago Public Schools Food Stamp Outreach Project, Illinois Hunger 

Coalition Final Performance Report. October 1, 2002 to November 30, 2004. Submitted to FNS, 

November 2004 (Edited by Diane Doherty, MSW). 

Maternity Care Coalition. MOMobile: Food Stamp Participation Project Final Report. Evaluation Period

September 2002 – August 2004. Submitted to FNS, December 2004. 

Polverento, Gerry, Lynn Breer, Amanda Carpenter, and Molly Smeltzer. Center for Collaborative Research in

Health Outcomes and Policy at the Michigan Public Health Institute. Muskegon Community Health

Project: The Muskegon GET FED Final Evaluation Report. Submitted to FNS, February 2005. 

Ryan, Diane, Mike Fitzgerald; and Jill Tiefenthaler. Final Report and Evaluation Community Action

Program of Madison County. Submitted to FNS, December 1, 2004. 

Second Harvest Food Bank of Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties (SHFB). From Outreach to Advocacy:

Final Report. Submitted to FNS, December 2004. 

Slobodow, Elisa and Stephanie Ettinger De Cuba. Massachusetts Food Stamps Online Pilot Project; Project 

Bread the Walk for Hunger Final Report. Submitted to FNS, December 2004. 

Tulsa County Community Action Project in partnership with ACS, Inc.: Help Works Final Performance 

Report. Submitted to FNS, January 22, 2004. 

Vermont Campaign to End Childhood Hunger: “Draft” Final Performance Report, to Improve Access

through the Use of Technology and Partnerships. Submitted to FNS, December 30, 2004. 

158