Evaluation of Food Stamp Research Grants to Improve Access Through New Technology and Partnerships...
-
Upload
norah-eaton -
Category
Documents
-
view
224 -
download
2
Transcript of Evaluation of Food Stamp Research Grants to Improve Access Through New Technology and Partnerships...
Evaluation of Food Stamp Research Grants to Improve Access Through New Technology
and Partnerships
November 17, 2005
2
Presented By
Rosemarie DownerFNS, Office of Analysis, Nutrition &
Evaluation
3
Overview of Presentation
• Background.• Characteristics of grantee
projects.• Lessons learned.• Summary.
4
Why Outreach?
• Low rates of participation among eligibles.
• Lack of knowledge about the program.
5
2002 Local Outreach Projects
• 19 Original Grantees– 18 grantees finished project
• Technological component and/or partnerships with other organizations
• Total of over $5 million dollars
6
General Differences
• Grant amounts ranged from $121,638 to $350,000.
• Locations varied:– Rural vs. urban vs. statewide.
• Emphasis on technology and partnerships varied.
• Venues and target populations varied:– Select venues vs. broader outreach.– Specific target populations (e.g.,
elderly, immigrants) vs. general outreach.
7
Cross-site Evaluation Methodology
Summary of Findings for National Evaluation
Qualitative Analysis
Telephone Discussions and Site Visits
Summary and
Analysis
Quantitative Analysis
Standardized Process and Outcome Data from
Web-Based System
Summary and
Analysis
Local Evaluation
Reports
18 Local Evaluation Reports
Synthesize Reports
8
Characteristics of Grantee Projects Project Organization and Development
• Prior outreach experience: 15 grantees.• Type of organization
– 15 non-profits and 3 public agencies.• Partnerships
– Types and number varied significantly.• Staffing
– 5-6 workers on average.– Use of volunteers varied: 10 sites included
volunteers.
9
Project Organization and Development (continued)
• Use of Technology– 12 grantees implemented technology for
prescreening and/or application assistance• Training
– All grantees had some training• Length varied from 20 minutes to 4
hours/session– More in-depth training required for grantees who
used technology as a centerpiece.
10
Characteristics of Grantee Projects Project Target Populations
• Half of grantees served multiple target populations and others focused more narrowly.
• Most common– Working poor ( 12 )– General low-income population ( 7 )– Immigrants ( 9 )– Elderly ( 8 )– Families with school-age children ( 2 )
11
Characteristics of Grantee Projects Project Venues
• Food distribution sites: 12 grantees• Schools: 10 grantees• Community-based service organizations: 9
grantees • Community events: 9 grantees• Senior centers: 8 grantees• Other
– Grocery stores (6 grantees), one-stop employment centers (7 grantees), and head start and child care centers (7 grantees).
12
Projects’ Relationships With FSP Office
• Provide data on outcomes• Participation in outreach efforts and
training– Training: 15 grantees– Liaison/Key contact in office: 7
grantees– Part of outreach team: 3 grantees
13
Outreach Strategies
• Information Dissemination
• Prescreening
• Application Assistance
14
Approaches to Information Dissemination
• General (flyers, presentations, etc.): all grantees
• Multi-media campaigns: 8 grantees
• Websites: 8 grantees• Hotlines: 6 grantees
15
Prescreening and Application Assistance Tools
• Paper forms: 13 grantees• Computer/software: 5 grantees• Password protected web: 4 grantees• Public access website: 7 grantees• Optional forms/tools: 10 grantees
– Flexibility for partner organizations and target population
16
Approaches to Application Assistance
• Basic information/verification documents: all• In-person assistance: 14 grantees• Delivery/submission to FSP office: 14 grantees• Transportation: 2 grantees• Simplified processing: 7 grantees• Other follow-up services (e.g., phone calls): 15
grantees
Program Accomplishments and Lessons Learned
18
General Findings
• Partnerships with community groups enhance outreach.• Partnership with the local food stamp offices is critical.• Technology to facilitate application process, while
challenging, can pay off.• Outreach leading to applications requires more than basic
education and information dissemination.• Groups with the lowest food stamp participation rates—
immigrants, seniors, and the working poor—proved the most difficult to reach.
Summary of Data
20
Total Numbers
• Applications filed: 11,500 households.
• Certifications: over 7,000 households.
• Contacts: over 380,000 persons.• Application assistance: at least
14,000 people.
21
Site Reports
• Applications: ranged from 133 to 3,300– Largest volume from sites that used
extensive partners or volunteers• Approvals: 18 to 83 percent of
applications• Cost estimates
– Labor intensive projects– “rough estimates”: $126 to $1,000 per
application
22
Site Reports (continued)
• Denials– Primary reasons varied (10
sites available)• Income and Assets: 4 sites• Failure to complete
interview: 5 sites
• Significant number– Pending/unknown– Over half in 3 sites.
Implementation Lessons
24
Staffing
• Staff skills, expertise, and background matter.– Dynamic project
coordinators.– Committed staff.– Culturally-appropriate
outreach workers.
25
Use of Volunteers
Need committed volunteers with enough time.
• Can establish rapport and trust with community.
• Must match activities to volunteers’ “comfort” levels and skills.
• Culturally-appropriate volunteers.
26
Partnerships
• Partnerships enhance outreach activities:– Facilitate access to target populations.– Provide venues for outreach activities.
• Characteristics of successful partnerships:– Established agencies.– Managers and staff who understand and
support project goals.– Clear roles and responsibilities.– Knowledge of target populations.– Comfortable performing outreach activities.
27
Lessons in Working with Local Food Stamp Offices
• Communication must be ongoing.• Liaisons/point persons at local offices can be useful.• Integrating food stamp office staff in outreach activities
helps with “buy in.”• Active food stamp office participation gives project
legitimacy to partners, volunteers.• Dual benefits: clients come to FSP more prepared.• Tracking outcomes requires clear identifiers, processes.
28
Lessons about Training
• Significant time and effort required.• Training must be adapted to volunteers’ experience.• Training may be ongoing to accommodate turnover.• Local food stamp program staff provide effective
training.• New technologies require specialized training.
29
Lessons about New Technology
• Requires knowledgeable staff, ability to work with technical contractors.
• Can require significant start-up time.
• Requires access to hardware, internet.
• Comfort levels among volunteers and clients vary.
• Investment – many of the tools will continue to be used.
30
Lessons about Venues
• Privacy is essential.• Access to changing audiences is important.• Grantees had mixed experiences with different
venues.– Health, community, and one-stop centers regularly
provide “new faces”.
– Schools – a mixed picture.
– Grocery stores are effective for information dissemination, but not prescreening.
– Community centers trusted by target groups work well.
Outreach Strategy Lessons
32
Information Dissemination
Information dissemination can:• Help to change public perception of food stamps
as welfare.• Increase understanding about who is eligible.• Prepare people for the next steps in the process.
33
Information Dissemination (Continued)
Information dissemination can:• Help to eliminate “myths” about food stamps,
especially among immigrants:– Fear of deportation.– Belief that benefits must be paid back.– Belief that workers cannot get benefits.
Information alone cannot:• Generally get individuals to the food stamp office
(all grantees).
34
Methods of Information Dissemination Can Matter
• Media more effective than billboards.
• Personal interactions, presentations more effective than flyers.
• Hotlines, websites provide privacy and should “feel” local.
35
Prescreening Assistance
• Draws interest by showing reluctant individuals if eligible and for how much.
• Requires multiple tools for different settings and individuals.
• “Invites” applications among eligibles.
36
Prescreening Assistance Success
• Five sites stopped at prescreening (with follow up, however)– 1/3 –1/2 led to application submission– One site (Indiana) did better, but not entirely clear why.
• Three sites tested different strategies– All concluded intensive case management is required.
• Ten sites moved directly from prescreening to application assistance.
37
Lessons about Application Assistance
• FSP application assistance combined with other public programs can make participation more appealing (2 grantees).
• Electronic submission of applications can save time for applicants and food stamp offices (4 grantees).
• Successful completion of the process requires intensive assistance (9 grantees):– Help getting the application to the food stamp office.– Transportation to the food stamp office.– Repeated phone calls to check on eligibility
appointments, submission of verification documents.
Lessons Learned About Target Populations’ Participation Barriers
39
Non-English Speakers and Immigrants
Barriers:• Language Issues:
– Difficult to understand program rules– Translators not always available at local food
stamp offices• Fears:
– Immigration status– Must pay back benefits
40
Non-English Speakers and Immigrants
Strategies:
• Outreach by trusted community organizations.– Dispel myths.– Establish trust with personal
data.
• Intensive application follow up.
41
The Elderly
Barriers:• Stigma--don’t want their friends, neighbors to
know.• Benefits do not outweigh hassles of applying.
Fears about providing personal information.
Family members sometimes have their financial information.
42
The Elderly
Strategies:• Requires building trust.• Simplify application process (e.g., waive
interview, finger printing)• Application assistance (transportation).
43
The Working Poor
Barriers:• Difficult to locate, identify:
– Do not frequent community centers, attend school meetings.
• Too busy to apply.• Stigma, don’t want to go to welfare office.• Difficult to get to food stamp office during
business hours.
44
The Working Poor
Strategies:• Businesses can play a role (1 site).• Connections to other supports (EITC, health
insurance) help (2 sites).• Access outside of business hours helps (1 site).
45
Conclusions
46
Conclusions
• Grass roots efforts to educate people about food stamps can eliminate myths, demystify the process.
• New technologies can facilitate the application process.
• Many people, especially the most vulnerable populations, require intensive application services to complete the process.