Food stamp program client enrollment assistance demonstration projects final evaluation report

              ML 3 01999:
ool^ft-ot ft^2:f73//WFr/l//] L
USDA
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Food and
Nutrition
Srvicr
3101 Park
Center Drive
Alexandria, VA
22302
Food Stamp Program
Client Enrollment Assistance
Demonstration Projects:
Final Evaluation Report
T 3LOofc-6(0^ <L
USDAUnited states
Department off
Agriculture
Food and
Nutrition
Service
3101 Park Center
Alexandria, VA 22302
Food Stamp Program
Client Enrollment Assistance
Demonstration Projects:
Final Evaluation Report
A Product off LTG Associates, Inc.
6930 Carroll Avenue
Suite 410
Takoma Park, MD 20910
875 East Canal
Suite 1
Turlock, CA 95380
July 1999
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on tne 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) 720-2660 (voice and TDD).
To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14* and Independence Avenue. S.W..
Washington, DC. 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity employer.
>
Acknowledgments
Ths authors wish thank all of the project staff with whom we worked over the course of
the demonstrations. Special thanks are due to the local food stamp office staff who
took the time to meet with researchers and to provide their views. We are indebted to
many project clients for sharing with us their fears, frustrations, appreciation and
hopes. We have dedicated ourselves to carefully presenting the concerns of all of
these people in this report. The authors also with to thank Gary Bickel, Steven Carlson,
Robert Dalrymple, and Patricia Seward of the Food and Nutrition Service for their
guidance and assistance over the course of this evaluation.
LTG staff involved in this project and in the writing of this report include: Beatrice de la
Brosse, Research Associate; Jennifer Maahs, Research Associate; Gary Chisum,
Senior Research Associate; Marilyn Madden, Senior Research Associate; William
Millsap, Senior Research Associate; Gretchen Schafft, Project Director; and Cathleen
Crain, Project Monitor. In addition, Penny Anderson, Ireeta Morris, D. Thomas Rose,
and Nathaniel Tashima contributed to the development and production of the report.
This report was prepared as one task under contract number 53-3198-4-044 for
$343,816.16 with the Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Points of view or opinions stated in this report do not necessarily represent the official
position of the Food and Nutrition Service.
-#
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...i
I. Introduction 1
II. Background 2
A. The Food Stamp Program....................................... 2
B. The Demonstration Projects......................................................................................5
III. The Evaluation Process. 9
A. Mandate and Criteria.
B. Technical Assistance.
C. Data Collection Methods.
D. Data Analysis and Synthesis.
..10
■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■•■■■•■•(■a I mt
14
IV. The Findings
A. Clients and Client Experiences .....................................................
B. The Food Stamp Office and Food Stamp Worker Experiences..
C. The Need for Client Enrollment Assistance.........
.16
.16
...46
V. The Evaluation
A. Efforts of the Demonstration Projects to Overcome
Barriers to Participation in the FSP
B. Evaluation of the Efforts of the Demonstration
Projects to Overcome Barriers to Participation.........
C. Successful Collaborative Project Activities
.48
.48
.64
.71
VI. Summary and Conclusions.
A. Summary ......
B. Conclusions.
73
.73
.63
VII. References .86
Appendix
u^m■■ii■KIIIx■ » Bulla«loiin■! rriiuirjivicnif nHMwJMw■ i■
•$>
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Food Stamp Program (FSP) is the largest of the nation's food assistance
programs administered by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA). The FSP provides benefits to eligible low-income
households to help them obtain sufficient and nutritious foods.
In the mid-1970's the rate of participation in the FSP had been found to be less
than 50 percent of the households that were potentially eligible for the program. By
1989, the estimated participation rate had climbed to 59 percent of potentially
eligible households. Survey research found that general reasons for non-participation
included lack of information, difficulties with the enrollment process,
stigma and fear associated with the program, and the desire of many persons,
even when in need, not to receive public benefits. The survey data also showed
that certain hard-to-reach groups were served by the FSP at even lower rates than
the low-income population as a whole.
In 1990, the U. S. Congress authorized funding for a series of demonstration
projects to develop and implement innovative client-assistance strategies to help
eligible members of underserved, hard-to-reach populations groups gain access to
the FSP. Target groups included "rural, elderly, and homeless populations, low-income
working families with children, and non-English speaking minorities."
In 1993 and 1994, FNS awarded small grants totaling $2.8 million to 26 local,
mainly non-profit social-service organizations to cany out these demonstrations.
The authorizing act also directed the Secretary of USDA to assess the outcomes
of the demonstration projects and report to the Congress. In order to enlarge on
earlier studies of program barriers and access, which employed quantitative and
survey methods of data collection, the present evaluation was conducted using
qualitative observational and data collection. An Interim Evaluation Report,
detailing the methods utilized, and a Survey of the Literature on problems of
access to the Food Stamp Program were submitted in 1997. This report completes
the evaluation process.
Three basic questions guided the evaluation:
1. What barriers do eligible clients encounter in gaining access to the FSP?
2. What methods of outreach and client assistance are most effective in help
ineligible persons overcome these barriers? and,
3. Can public-private coMaboration between project sponsors and local food
stamp offices facilitate eligible persons' completion of the enrollment
process?
Barrier* to Participation. Barriers observed were varied and numerous and
interacted in complex ways. What constituted a barrier depended critically on
applicants' capacities and circumstances. Some people in all the underserved
population groups were able to complete the enrollment process with little or no
assistance. People who were able to access the benefit on their own generally
iV
possessed adequate life skills, were in reasonably good physical and mental
health, and maintained the kinds of records required to document eligibility. They
were for the most part literate, able to communicate appropriately, and able to
understand instructions. Other people needed limited assistance, such as proper
information about FSP requirements, help with transportation or copying
documents, or more accessible office hours or locations. Still other persons,
however, required intensive, ongoing support to obtain and continue their use of
the food stamp benefit, due to many, interlinking causes. Common among these
causes were basic problems with literacy, language, and cultural interpretation. As
common were limitations arising from personal physical or mental frailty or
disability, from geographic or social isolation, and from fear of dealing with an
impersonal Government bureaucracy Some persons had such overwhelming
medical, psychological, or psycho-social problems that they could apply for
benefits only if another person acted on their behalf. These latter groups of eligible
non-participants, despite serious need for food assistance, were much harder to
reach and serve than policy and advocacy groups had acknowledged in the past,
even with the assistance of eligibility workers or staff advocates.
Demonstration Project Activities. A wide variety of methods were developed by
the demonstration projects described in this report The figure below shows the
range of activities pursued.
FIGURE 5
Client Identification and Assistance Process
Establish Pubic/
Private
Collaboration
Not surprisingly, public/private agency collaboration proved useful in overcoming
many of the barriers experienced by clients in seeking to enroll in the FSP. It was
apparent that most local food stamp offices did not have the staff time or resources
to provide the extent of assistance needed by many clients. Successful
collaborations allowed client needs to be more fully met with FSP and grantee
staffs both able to play to their respective strengths.
Many methods were tried for identifying unserved potentially eligible clients, some
effective, some not Since many clients need multiple services, some of the most
successful methods involved working through related service agencies, developing
client lists, contacting clients at those agency sites, and providing FSP training to
their staffs. These activities helped overcome the lack of systematic information
sharing among agencies, one of the widespread barriers to efficient FSP
documentation of client status.
V
Contacting potentially eligible clients in settings where some degree of comfort,
safety, and privacy were available and where clients' circumstances allowed time
to talk proved effective. Sites where potentially eligible persons already were
seeking food or other aid were particularly successful. Outreach workers who were
experienced with the target population, sensitive in personal interactions, and well
trained in FSP procedures made a significant difference.
The success of media efforts to inform potentially eligible persons about the FSP
were difficult to assess. Language-specific messages on TV or Radio stations
targeting specific ethnic populations showed some success. Localized media
(small community newspapers, shoppers' guides, flyers) appeared to be most
effective. The use of 1-800 phone numbers for individuals to request detailed
information on FSP appeared effective.
Direct assistance in the application process was most effective when good liaison
was maintained between grantee and FSP staffs. Clearly identified contact
persons within the food stamp office proved highly valuable. Client pre-screening
by grantee staff was quite effective when carefully done. Ongoing training for
grantee staff in FSP procedure was needed and usefol.
Flexibility of FSP office procedure was effective in diminishing barriers for hard-to-reach
groups: arranging for eligibility workers to accept applications and interview
clients at alternative sites; providing assistance at times convenient for the
population being served; and arranging to accept applications from grantee staff
on behalf of clients. FSP offices augmented their own effectiveness when they
accepted grantee agencies' active assistance to clients throughout the enrollment
process: acting as culture brokers to ease misunderstanding; helping clients with
the initial applications, with appointments, documentation, follow-up inquiries and
information; and acting as client advocates when applications would go astray or
seem to be denied unfairly.
Overall, the projects demonstrated that motivated and well prepared non-profit
agency staff can provide highly individualized, supportive services enabling many
eligible persons in hard-to-reach population groups to successfully complete the
FSP enrollment process. These services helped clients overcome linguistic,
cultural, and cognitive challenges. In many cases, grantee agency staff provided
appropriate interventions with or between clients and FSP staff, bridging gaps that
would otherwise be likely to deter eligible persons' enrollments. Grantee agencies
that established strong public/private cooperation were able to act as adjuncts to
the food stamp office, smoothing the path for clients, including those with mental
illness or lacking essential life skills, whose comprehensive needs placed them
beyond the capabilities of both public and private agency staffs.
RJ
I. INTRODUCTION
!"his report presents the final evaluation of 26 research demonstration projects
authorized under Public Law 101-624, entitled the "Food, Agriculture,
Conservation and Trade Act" of 1990. Section 1759 of the Act authorized funding
of grants to public and private nonprofit organizations during fiscal years 1993
through 1996 "to increase participation by eligible low-income households in the
Food Stamp Program." Strategies were to be developed that would ensure that
eligible but un-enrolled members of underserved populations were made aware
of the Food Stamp Program [FSP] and that the program was made accessible to
them. The populations to be targeted, as instructed in the Act, included
members of "rural, elderly, and homeless populations, low-income working
families with children, and non-English speaking minorities."
The Act further directed that a sufficient number of projects be evaluated to be
able to "determine the effectiveness of the projects and the techniques employed
by the projects." This report serves to inform Congress of the results of the funded
demonstration projects client assistance efforts as directed. The report is
organized into five major sections. Background information on the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's [USDA] Food Stamp Program and the 26 funded
demonstration projects is presented in Section II. The processes used by
evaluators in their analyses are found in Section III.
Evaluators were requested to answer three questions in the course of the
evaluation. The first of these was: "What barriers do eligible clients encounter in
gaining access to the Food Stamp Program?"; Section IV, "The Findings",
examines the barriers that were identified during project implementation. Section
IV is divided into two major subsections, the first focusing on information
collected about the identified client groups, and the second focusing on the local
food stamp offices and food stamp employees. Responses to the second and
third questions that evaluators were to answer, "What methods of outreach and
client assistance are most effective in helping eligible persons overcome these
barriers?", and "Can public-private collaboration between project sponsors and
local food stamp offices facilitate eligible persons' completion of the enrollment
process?" are presented as Section V, The Evaluation". Section VI, provides a
summary of the findings and the evaluation, and the resulting conclusions.
Food Stamp Program
Client Enrollment Assistance Demonstration Projects:
Final Evaluation Report
HI
II. BACKGROUND
The background information presented in this section focuses on the history of
the Food Stamp Program and on development of the demonstration projects.
Some of the events surrounding and leading up to the award of 26 client-assistance
demonstration grants, as well as events that took place while project
activities were underway, also are presented to provide context for
understanding the project outcomes and their evaluations. These.outcomes and
the evaluations are presented in Section IV, The Findings, and Section V, The
Evaluation, which together are the culmination of the work of this evaluation
project.
A. The Food Stamp Program
Millions of people living in the United States rely on Federal food assistance
provided by one or more of the programs administered by USDA's Food and
Nutrition Service [FNS]. The Food Stamp Program [FSP] is the largest and most
widely used of these food assistance programs. Monthly food stamp benefits are
designed to help low-income households1 sustain a sufficiently nutritious diet.
Food stamps primarily supplement the food budget of households in transition
and experiencing a temporary need for assistance, although they do help
provide long-term food security for some low-income households.
The FSP was initiated as a pilot program in 1961 and became permanent in
1964. Initially participants were required to purchase their food stamps, which
were available at a fraction of their actual value. Stamps could then be used at
their full value to purchase food. In 1977 the structure of the FSP was changed
to eliminate the fixed-benefit allotment for households according to size and the
requirement that recipients pay for a portion of the benefits cost. Benefits are
currently adjusted for each household, depending on its available income.
Although FSP funding, program rules, and requirements are Federally
generated, the programs are administered at the State and local levels. In
general, the program is governed by the same Federal rules and requirements
throughout the country.
Eligibility Criteria
In order for individuals to participate in the FSP, they must meet eligibility criteria
set at the Federal level related to income, assets, and employment. Eligibility for
the benefit is non-categorical so it may include many kinds of low-income
populations such as full or part-time wage earners, people who are unemployed,
recipients of Temporary Aid to Needy Families [TANF] or Supplemental Security
1 A household is defined as 'either one person or a group of people who buy and prepare their food together.*
Food Stamp Program
Client Enrollment Assistance Demonstration Projects:
Final Evaluation Report
PI
Income [SSI], older people or people with disabilities, and people who are
homeless.
To receive food stamps, a household's assets may not exceed $2,000, or $3,000
for households with one person 60 years of age or older. An eligible household's
net income, after certain allowable deductions, must be less than or equal to 100
percent of the' Federal poverty income guidelines. The quantity of food stamps a
household receives is based on the USDA Thrifty Food Plan, a low-cost,
nutritious model diet. The Plan is reevaluated each year to reflect current food
prices.
The FSP Application Process
Most FSP applicants must follow a similar application process, which is
illustrated in Figure 1 and detailed below.
FIGURE 1
Components of the FSP Application Process
Client completes FSP j
application form
Client meets with FSPI
eligibility worker for
interview
Client provides
required documents to|
FSP eligibility worker
FSP eligibility worker
determines client
eligibility and amount
of benefit
Potential FSP clients obtain an application form in person or by mail from their
local FSP office. Once the application is completed and returned to the local
food stamp office, an interview with a food stamp eligibility worker2 takes place.
In some food stamp offices, clients can schedule an appointment for the
interview, but in others they are seen on a first come, first served basis. At the
time of the evaluation project, when appointments were made but not kept,
eligibility workers were required to contact the household to try to schedule a
second interview.
During the interview, the eligibility worker explains FSP regulations, helps clients
complete any part of the application form that is not fully and/or accurately
completed, asks for verification of eligibility, provides a copy of client rights and
responsibilities, and answers any questions that clients may have. Clients are
required to bring to the interview proof of identity, residence, and income for all
household members. Clients may also be requested to provide additional
records such as current utility bills, medical bills, and disability verification.
2 The term "ttigfeiKty worker* is used in this report to refer to all FSP staff who are responsible for determining client
•ligibtty.
Food Stamp Program
Client Enrollment Assistance Demonstration Projects:
Final Evaluation Report
Eligibility workers must review these documents before client eligibility is
determined. At times clients must gather additional information and participate in
a second interview before their eligibility can be determined.
Once eligibility has been determined and a household has begun to receive food
stamps, any changes in circumstances, such as unexpected wages, must be
immediately reported by a client to her or his assigned eligibility worker at the
food stamp office. If there are no changes in circumstances, clients are required
to prove that they are still eligible for the FSP within time frames set by individual
State agencies. Clients are informed by letter when recertification is required,
and in most cases they must resubmit documentation and participate in another
interview at the food stamp office.
Special provisions have been made for people who need food assistance
immediately and are unable to wait the typical 30 day period after submission of
their application to receive benefits. For these people services are expedited,
and they can receive their food stamps within seven days. Clients receiving
expedited benefits must still complete the eligibility screening process in full
during their first month of enrollment in order to continue receiving benefits.3
Special provisions have also been made for those unable to attend an interview
at the local food stamp office. These people, primarily those who are older or
who have disabilities, can be interviewed at an alternative location or by
telephone, or they can arrange for another person to act as their authorized
representative at meetings with the eligibility worker.
Research on FSP Participation and Access
Periodic studies of the FSP have been conducted in an attempt to understand
the populations served by the program, and in particular those eligible for
benefits that have not been reached [Allin and Beebout 1989, Trippe and Doyle
1992, Trippe 1996]. A variety of studies have revealed that rates of participation4
in the FSP continually increased, from less than half of eligible households
enrolled in the program in the 1970's [Coe 1983], to 59 percent in January 1989,
to 74 percent in January of 1992 [Trippe 1996]. In general, it appeared that non-participants
were older, had fewer children, less need, and more financial
resources than those who were using food stamps [US GAO 1990, Trippe and
Sykes 1994].
* For more information on exoedeaci service, especially in relation to on* of the demonstration target populations.
homeless persons, see Susan Oarbttt, "Evaluation of Expedited Service in the Food Stamp Program* in Nutrition and
Food Security in the Food Stamp Program. Deryt Hal and Mace Stavrianos. eds. United Sates Department of
Agriculture. Food and Consumer Service; Alexandria, VA: January 1996.
4 The number of participants enroled in the FSP divided by an estimated number of those in the total population thought
tobeefigfelestthsttime.
Food Stamp Program
Client Enrollment Assistance Demonstration Projects:
Final Evaluation Report
w
Congressional expansion of eligibility criteria for the food stamp benefit to include
more categories of at-risk people appears to have increased overall participation
in the FSP over the years. These changes in eligibility criteria were made at the
same time as other programmatic changes were instituted by USDA, Food and
Nutrition Service [FNSJ,5 in an effort to improve people's knowledge about the
FSP and facilitate their access to the program. Together, these changes made
FSP benefits more accessible for many groups [Trippe and Doyle 1992], thus
increasing not only the total number of people who were receiving the food
stamp benefit, i.e., the gross participation figures, but also increasing the number
of those people who were potentially eligible, who actually enrolled in the FSP,
i.e., the participation rate. A number of informational outreach projects, jointly
undertaken by the FSP and the Statessand specifically funded to address the
participation rate, may have contributed to the increase in the percentage of
those eligible who were actually accessing the FSP. However, it became
apparent that even with legislative changes and program initiatives designed to
increase access and participation, certain populations in need of food assistance
were still not being reached.
Researchers have broadly identified some problems that keep eligible clients from
obtaining food stamps. These findings, which were based on client reports,
indicated that issues impeding FSP participation include insufficient information
regarding the FSP, administrative problems with applications, reluctance to deal
with local food stamp offices, uncertainty about eligibility, and low benefit amounts
[Coe 1983]. Later, similar studies found that many eligible non-participants did not
want the benefits, did not have correct information about the FSP, and/or had
experienced or anticipated problems with the program [Allin and Beebout 1989,
US GAO 1990]. What was missing from the research was a better understanding
of the clients decision-making process, the context in which decisions were made,
and information on ways of effectively addressing those problems that could be
overcome.
B. The Demonstration Projects
In 1990, as a result of concerns about the patterns of participation in the FSP,
the United States Congress authorized funding [Food, Agriculture, Conservation
and Trade Act of 1990, P.L. 101-624, Section 1759 (1)(A)] for public and private
non-profit agencies to conduct demonstration projects to develop and implement
innovative client-assistance strategies. In 1993 and 1994 FNS awarded
competitive grants to 26 Food Stamp Program Client-Assistance Demonstration
1 Renamed Food and Consumer Service [FCS] during the period 1993 -1998.
' Individual States used funding to make 1-800 numbers available for information and referral. They printed flyers and
brochures about the FS" and its eligibility criteria, and developed electronic media campaigns to increase awareness of
the FSP.
Food Stamp Program
Client Enrollment Assistance Demonstration Projects:
Final Evaluation Report
[5]
Projects across the United States and, as required in the original legislation,
specifiea that the demonstrations be evaluated to determine *heir effectiveness.
Successfully demonstrated client-assistance strategies could then serve as
models for improving access to the FSP for previously unserved populations in
need of food assistance. An analysis of unsuccessful strategies also would be
useful to explain more fully why some eligible people were unable to take
advantage of the food stamp benefit or were discouraged from doing so.
The 26 funded demonstration projects were implemented in two cycles from
1993 to 1996. Agencies could apply for funding for a period of 12 or 18 months.
The first of the two funding cycles began in 1993, when funds were provided
under the Congressional authorization, and included 16 projects in 12 States and
the District of Columbia. In the second cycle another 10 agencies were funded
in six additional States.
All of the target groups named in the authorizing legislation were served by one
or more of the demonstration projects. Most projects directed their activities to
more than one population group. The low income populations served included:
♦ Working people and families;
♦ Older people;
♦ People with disabilities;
♦ Homeless people;
♦ Members of non-English-speaking populations; and,
♦ Members of othei minority populations including African Americans,
Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian Americans and Pacific
Islanders.
The organizations funded to implement the demonstration projects were primarily
nonprofit agencies, although one local food stamp office was funded to conduct
a demonstration project working with private nonprofit organizations as
subcontractors. The size of the awards and the organizational structure of the
grantee agencies varied widely from site to site, which gave the programs
diversity and allowed many different approaches to be explored. Community
Action Agencies, advocacy groups, general service organizations, and
organizations serving single populations, such as migrant or homeless people,
were represented among the grantees. The funded agencies, their rural/urban
status, and the populations targeted by each included the following:
Food Stamp Program
Client Enrolment Assistance Demonstration Projects:
Final Evaluation Report
P]
Table 1.
Food Stamp Program Client Enrollment Assistance Demonstration Project Sites7
Site Location Specified Population Group[s]
1. Arizona Community Action Association, Inc.,
Phoenix. AZ
Rural
Native Americans
2. Southern California Interfarth Hunger Coalition,
Los Anodes. CA
Urban Homeless People
Non-English-Speaking Minorities [Middle Eastern
American and Russian American]
Older People
Low-Income Working Families
3. Colorado Coalition for the Homeless,
Denver, CO
Urban/Rural
Homeles« People
Migrant People
4. D.C. Hunger Action,
Washington. O.C.
Urban Homeless People
Non-English-Speaking Minorities [Asian American and
Hispanic American]
5. Immigrant Center,
Honolulu. HI
Urban
Non-English-Speaking Minorities [American Samoan,
Chinese American, Filipino American. Korean
American, and Vietnamese American]
6. Protect Bread - The Walk for Hunger, Inc.,
Boston, MA
Urban
Low-Income Working Families
Non-English Speaking Minorities [Asian American and
Hispanic American]
Older People
7. Mississippi Action for Community Education, Inc.,
Greenville. MS
Rural
Low-Income Working Families [African American]
Older People [African American]
8. East Btoomfeij Central School District,
East Bloomfieii NY
Rural
Low-Income Working Families
Migrant People
9. Community Food Resource Center, Inc.,
New York, NY
Urban Low-Income Working Families
Older People
People with Disabilities
10. InterReigious Council of Central NY.
Syracuse, NY
Rural
Low-Income Woricinq Families
Cider People
11. Douglas-Cherokee Economic Authority,
Momstown. TN
Rural Low-Income Working Families
Older People
12. West Tennessee Legal Services. Inc.
Jackson, TN
Rural Low-Income Working Families [African American]
Older People [African American]
13. The Dairy Planet.
Urban Homeless People
14. Central Vermont Community Action Council, Inc.
Barre.VT
Rural
Low-Income Working Families
Older People
15. Fremont Public Association,
Seattle, WA
Urban/Rural
Homeless People
Low-Income Working Families
16. Western Daaytand Economic Opportunity
Council,
Independence. Wl
Rural
Low-Income Working Families
Older People
Homeless People
17. Food Bank of North Central Arkansas,
Rural
Low-Income Working Families
' Numbers 1-16 were funded in the first funding cycle and numbers 17-26 in the second. Two programs, D.C. Hunger
Action and Community Food Resource Center, Inc. received funding in both cycles.
Food Stamp Program
Client Enrollment Assistance Demonstration Projects:
Final Evaluation Report
m
Site Location Specified Population Group's]
Norfolk. AR Older People
18. San Francisco Department of Soaal Services,
San Francisco, CA
Urban
Low-Income Working Families
Non-English-Speaking Minorities [Asian American and
Hispanic American]
19. Center for Emptoyment Training,
San Jose, CA
Urben/Rural Non-English-Speaking Minority [Hispanic American]
20.D.C. Hunger Action
Washington. D.C.
Urban Older People
People with AIDS
21. Cambodian Association of Illinois,
Chicago. IL
Urban Non-Engish-SpaeMng Minorities [Refugees from
Cambodia, China, Ethiopia, Laos, and Vietnam.
22. Panquis Community Action Program,
Bangor.ME
Rural
Low-Income Working Families
Older People
People with Dtsabiafes
23. Community Food Resource Center, Inc.
New York, NY
Urban
Low-Income Working Families [And Those Recently
Unemployed]
Older People
People with Disabirjes
24. Outside In,
Portland, OR
Urban
Homeless Youth
25. Green Thumb Food for Health,
RapicCity. SD
Rural
Older People
26. Foodbank of Southeastern Virginia,
NorfoRcVA
Rural
Older People
Food Stamp Program
Client Enrollment Assistance Demonstration Projects:
Final Evaluation Report
III. THE EVALUATION PROCESS
A. Mandate and Criteria
The authorizing legislation for the demonstration projects included a mandate for
the Secretary of Agriculture to have conducted, and to report, an evaluation of the
projects' success in read ng their goals. As noted, the three central questions to
be addressed in the evaluation were:
♦ What barriers do eligible clients encounter in gaining access to the
FSP?
♦ What methods of outreach and client assistance are most effective in
helping eligible persons overcome these barriers? and,
♦ Can public-private collaboration between project sponsors and local
food stamp offices facilitate eligible persons' completion of the
enrollment process?
The evaluation also responded to the need at FNS to increase the scope of the
methods used to study non-participation. This additional focus had been called
for in a review of the literature on non-participation by Allin and Beebout [1989,
58]:
Many studies have sought to identify the causes of non-participation
in the FSP, and their results provide reasonably
consistent evidence on the factors associated with a high or low
probability ofparticipation, as well as the groups in the FSP-eligible
population likely to have relatively high or low entry or exit rates.
We know very little, however, about households' actual behavior in
deciding whether to participate in the program... Thus the task of
future research is to identify the motivations behind the behavior of
eligible non-participants so that specific policy recommendations
can be made.
An important subsidiary question for evaluators to examine was why some people
eligible for and in need of food assistance, having been offered assistance
specifically designed to overcome known barriers, still might choose not to
participate in the program.
Problems of access and reasons why many potentially eligible clients are hesitant
or find it difficult to enroll in the FSP or other public benefit programs are not easily
studied through survey research. Researchers had compiled clients' self-reported
reasons for not enrolling in the FSP. These reasons suggested general areas of
concern, but as Allin and Beebout [1989, xi] stated "...we may know who does not
Food Stamp Program
Client Enrollment Assistance Demonstration Projects:
Final Evaluation Report n
participate, but we cannot be certain about the underlying reason why." They
suggested that understanding these decision processes "requires a less structured
and more probing method of data collection than a survey of households." The
evaluators and the project staff of the 26 demonstrations have undertaken such a
method in their data collection. Critical to this effort was the use of both qualitative
and quantitative methods; relying on any single method often provides a limited
and narrow view of the phenomena under study. Researchers employing
qualitative and quantitative methods together may be able to capture more
adequately complex information, including people's decision-making processes.8
In their design for evaluating the 26 demonstration projects, evaluators included
methods for capturing both quantitative and qualitative data about the conduct of
the projects as well as about the behaviors, concerns, and beliefs affecting the
decision-making process of participants and potentially eligible non-participants in
the FSP. The evaluation team played dual rotes with the demonstration projects.
The evaluators directly collected qualitative data about each site using a variety of
methods that will be discussed below. Evaluators also provided the sites with
technical assistance in developing and managing their own quantitative data
collection systems; these data were then reported to the evaluators for analysis.
As far as possible, a single evaluation team member was the primary contact for a
specific site. Therefore, the evaluator and demonstration project manager were
able to develop rapport over time. By establishing rapport, both parties had an
easier time designing and understanding any changes to project activities that
might be necessary, and the evaluator was able to gain an enhanced knowledge
of the project's history and process.
B. Technical Assistance
The first task undertaken by the evaluators was providing demonstration project
staff with technical assistance to support their collection of quantitative project
data. The quantitative data collected by demonstration project staff included the
number of people who:
'...It is important to koto the distinction between qualitative and quantitative rssearch visible and
dear. In the first, categories take shape in the course of research, whereas in the second, they are
fixed from the beginning. In the tint the analyst uses his or her methods to capture complexity and
to search out patterns of interrelabbnship between many categories The tint is designed to etcH
testimony that the respondent has difficulty articulating with ease and clarity. The second seeks to
ask deferent, more precisely answerable, questions. In the tint, the investigator is an Instrument of
investigation, m the second, the investigator is the deabtntety dupasaionate operator of a piece of
finely caabrated methodological machinery. Finally, the qualitative tradition often explanations that
take us "back stage'h the culture in question, to let us glimpse assumptions and categories that an
otherwise hidden from view It is not intended to capture issues of distribution and generalization. It
teas us what people think and do, not how many of them mink and do it [McCncken 1988:49]
Food Stamp Program
Client Enrollment Assistance Demonstration Projects:
Final Evaluation Report
[10]
♦ Were contacted;
♦ Were referred by project staff to the FSP;
♦ Applied for food stamps; and,
♦ Subsequently were enrolled as FSP participants.
Figure 2 illustrates the basic quantitative data collected by demonstration project
staff for analysis by the evaluators. Project staff reported this information to the
evaluators primarily during their monthly telephone discussions but also during in-person
discussions when evaluators were on-srte.
FIGURE 2
Basic Quantitative Data Collected by
Demonstration Project Staff
caant Contacts
McMa
OMorbiai
In order to prepare project staff for their data collection responsibilities, evaluators
assisted with:
♦ Developing strategies for tracking client-specific information;
♦ Identifying and planning for reporting the data needed for monthly
telephone interviews with evaluation staff, and,
♦ Establishing a method with the local or State food stamp office to track
and verify the number of clients who actually applied for food stamps,
completed the application process, enrolled in the program, or were
disqualified from participation in the FSP.
Along with this last task, project staff were encouraged to establish their lines of
communication with the local food stamp office. Through the early implementation
of any joint phnning and activities, staff could help to ensure that training and
communication between the agencies would begin on time and continue to occur
routinely. To assist the first round of funded projects to accomplish this
collaboration, evaluators conducted preliminary site visits to 15 of the 16 sites.
During these site visits, evaluators assisted project staff to develop site-specific
reporting methods. Evaluators continued to provide technical assistance during
their monthly telephone discussions with project managers. In the second round
of funding, where the public/private partnership requirement was made more
explicit, representatives of the project agencies, cooperating food stamp offices,
Food Stamp Program
Client Enrollment Assistance Demonstration Projects:
Final Evaluation Report
[11]
the evaluation team, and FNS staff met for a day and a half at a USDA-sponsored
seminar on evaluation. This seminar served both to promote constructive
public/private partnerships and to facilitate data collection in the second funding
cycle.
As a result of the ongoing technical assistance provided by evaluators,
demonstration project staff were able to collect both observational and numerical
data in ways that were useful both for understanding process and for determining
the outcomes of their projects. Evaluators considered information about
challenges encountered by the projects in the conduct of activities to be as
important as information on successful strategies. Challenges assisted evaluators
to judge the potential of such projects' methods for future replication. Therefore,
as the demonstration projects proceeded, evaluators noted and conducted cross-site
comparisons of both positive and negative responses to and information about
their activities.
C. Data Collection Methods
As noted, key to this evaluation was an examination of qualitative as well as
quantitative data. Evaluation team members collected qualitative information
during review of project reports and other written materials; monthly telephone
interviews; and in-person, on-site observations and discussions with project staff,
eligibility workers, and clients.
Discussions were topic driven; the open-ended questions contained in the
interviewing guides developed for the project served to focus, but not limit
discussion. Especially where cultural sensitivities were at issue, conducting
focused but open-ended research was essential to producing data that captured
barriers and facilitators to client application and enrollment in the FSP. This
methodology allowed the evaluators to obtain the most relevant and
comprehensive information possible within a specified time frame and within the
context of the research questions. The following section details the approaches
taken to the two primary methods of data collection: telephone interviews and on-site
visits.
Telephone Interviews
Evaluators conducted monthly telephone interviews with project managers during
which they collected project staffs statistical information. In addition, through
these interviews, evaluators obtained project staffs observations and reports on
factors that appeared to influence FSP participation or non-participation among
their clients as well as information on the activities being instituted to overcome
barriers to accessing the FSP. These discussions included exploration of
contextual issues facing the projects and of events or situations in the communities
Food Stamp Program
Client Enrollment Assistance Demonstration Projects:
Final Evaluation Report
[12]
that might influence the intended project outcomes. Such events could include
factors as diverse as layoffs and plant closings, natural disasters, and crop
successes or failures. Evaluators encouraged project managers to have staff
elaborate on questions where responses were too general to be useful. When
terms appeared frequently in reports by staff and in quotations from clients, for
example, the term 'hassle,' project staff were encouraged to return to clients for
definitions or explanations of the terms in their own words.
Through ongoing assessment of project activities during these telephone
interviews, evaluators and demonstration project staff were able to continuously
reflect on the assistance being offered by the projects, the needs and challenges
experienced by the clients to whom it was offered, and the kinds of activities that
were both effective and efficient Managers explored with evaluators as well as
with their FNS Project Officer what changes they might make in project activities
that would not compromise the validity of their data or alter the essential nature of
the demonstration, while at the same time increasing the potential benefit of their
activities to those needing food stamp assistance. Project managers sometimes
improved their strategies of providing client assistance during the course of the
demonstration by, for example, moving the location of their activities, improving
communication with the local food stamp office, or strengthening staff capabilities
through additional training.
Site Visits
All but one of the 26 demonstration project sites, Hawaii, were funded for site
visits. In eight of the projects, evaluators conducted a second site visit. Evaluators
remained on-site for five days during each visit. In preparation for the visits,
evaluators reviewed project materials including project plans, progress reports,
and evaluation plans. While on site, evaluators reviewed additional resources,
such as informational materials developed by the projects.
A major focus of the evaluators while on-site was to gather in-depth information
regarding the projects. They interviewed project managers, staff, and clients in all
of the sites visited. Where feasible, they also conducted interviews with FSP
eligibility workers and with FSP-eligible non-participants. Evaluators obtained their
information not only by conducting interviews and group discussions but also
through extended observation.
Evaluators' observations of project activities and, where possible, of local FSP
office operations, provided valuable sources of data about the projects, the clients,
and the FSP. The evaluation staff attempted to conduct their observations at
times and places designed to successfully capture information about clients'
experiences with the demonstration project and FSP operations, exposing the
impact of variables and approaches that might otherwise go unreported. For
Food Stamp Program
Client Enrollment Assistance Demonstration Projects:
Final Evaluation Report
[13]
example, staff of two different projects provided information about the FSP in
homeless shelters. In one project the workers sat behind a table and waited for
clients to approach them. In the other, the workers moved through the shelter
actively interacting with residents. While individual project staff might not have
deemed these individual nuar.ces of approach relevant to report, these differences
produced demonstrabfy different client responses.
At each location, evaluators also collected contextual data. These data included
information about each community's social and economic conditions, other food
resources available, transportation, demographic patterns, the location of both
grantee agencies and food stamp offices, and places to cash vouchers and to use
food stamps in relation to the location[s] of the target population. All of these
variables can have, and in many instances did have, an impact on the
demonstration projects and the clients they served.
D. Data Analysis and Synthesis
Figure 3 illustrates the steps used by evaluators to gather, process, and analyze
information about the projects, their clients, and local and State FSPs.
FIGURE 3
Evaluation Process
Monthly Data
Collection
Evaluation team
interviews
demonstration project |
staff
Periodic Data
Collection
Evaluation team
conducts on-site visits I
and focus groups
Monthly AfTy—
Emluofcon —m miMing id
analr*« of inMrni d»u
IntarwTi syntfiMis of oMJ I
dovolopRMnt of now
ojuMUuns
Outoom* Evaluation
Firm fyntMaa and anafyiai
ordaa
The information gathered in telephone interviews and during on-site discussions
and observations was carefully documented by the evaluation team. As new
data were collected, evaluators added them to existing data in ways that allowed
the team to manage and systematically review them. The ongoing process used
Food Stamp Program
Client Enrollment Assistance Demonstration Projects:
Final Evaluation Report
114)
to analyze the data was based on principles of grounded theory research
[Crabtree and Miller 1992, Denzin and Lincoln 1994, Silverman 1993]. This
approach consisted of monthly meetings during which evaluation team members
discussed the current issues arising from their telephone interviews and site
visits. Also during these meetings, evaluators redefined or added new areas of
inquiry they would pursue in their subsequent contacts with project staff. Using
this method, evaluators continued to refine the questions asked of project staff,
eligibility workers, and clients over the course of the evaluation. Through the
refining process, evaluators were able to derive responses to' the complex
questions being asked.
Once evaluators had synthesized and evaluated their findings, they used a
lexical computer program [ISYS] to review the majority of printed project
documentation, including both project materials and evaluator site visit reports.
The review allowed evaluators to determine associations between concepts, and
to point out any specific interrelationships that they may have missed in previous
analyses. Evaluators then finalized and condensed the findings and the
evaluation for presentation in this final report. The results of this process are
found in Section IV, The Findings, and in Section V Ihe Evaluation.
Food Stamp Program
Client Enrolment AtiMino Demonstration Projects:
Final Evaluation Report
(15J
IV. The Findings
This section contains descriptions and analyses of the data collected on
challenges or barriers to successful access to the food stamp benefit during the
development and implementation of the demonstration projects. Emphasis is
placed on the experiences of members of the targeted hard-to-reach population
groups and food stamp employees engaging in the activities of the
demonstration projects. The findings are arranged in two sections: A., The
Clients and Client Experiences, and, B., The Food Stamp Office and Food
Stamp Worker Experiences.
In Section A, The Clients and Client Experiences, the focus is on clients, both
those who chose to participate and those who could not or would not participate
despite apparent need, and their interaction with the FSP in general and with the
demonstration projects specifically. Characteristics of clients who are able to
successfully access the FSP benefit, with or without assistance, are presented.
These characteristics are compared with the information obtained during
implementation of the demonstration projects on client needs and the specific
barriers clients encountered that kept them from applying for benefits or
prompted them to drop out of the application process once they had begun.
In Section B, The Food Stamp Office and Food Stamp Worker Experiences,
conditions in the local food stamp offices are described. These descriptions
include the FSP application process activities as well as current changes being
experienced in many States as a result of reorganizing the service delivery
process and of adopting new technologies in the workplace. All of these
circumstances affected the context within which food stamp eligibility workers
were functioning while part of the demonstration partnership. Expression is
given to eligibility workers' experiences with clients and with the staff of the non-profit
agencies implementing the demonstration projects. Understanding the
issues that eligibility workers faced while trying to enroll hard-to-reach clients and
learning from their insights gained through these experiences, allows a fuller
appreciation of the complexity of the FSP application process when applied to
the target populations.
A. Clients and Client Experiences
The clients and potential clients who were the focus of the FSP demonstration
projects presented project staff and researchers with a population in need of
food support but with a wide range of requirements for assistance in order to
gain access to the benefit Clients were found to fall somewhere on a continuum
of needs for assistance [see Figure 4]. Some were able to use the benefit with
Food Stamp Program
Client Enrollment Assistance Demonstration Projects:
Final Evaluation Report
[16]
no assistance; some needed limited assistance; and some required intensive,
ongoing support ir order to gain access to and maintain use of the benefit.
There were also people at either end of the continuum who would not use the
benefit, and those who, even with assistance, could not do so.
FIGURE 4
Continuum of CMantNoad for
Food Stamp Application Assistance
1. Challenges Inherent in Client Asset Inventory
In order to address the continuum of need for assistance, it is important first to
explore what is required of clients in order to enroll in the FSP. Eligible clients
who applied successfully to the FSP often had certain elements in place in their
lives that enabled them to negotiate the FSP application process. The FSP
application can be most easily completed by those clients with adequate life
skills who are in reasonably good physical and mental health. An individual must
be able to read and write to find the local food stamp office,9 complete the
application form, and maintain the records that are required for documenting
need. Further, the individual must be able to communicate appropriately and
understand instructions in order to comply with the requirements of the
application. Clients must have adequate time, energy, cognitive skills, and
perseverance to complete the process successfully. Transportation and access
to copying machines are also necessary. Five important client centered barriers
influencing success were identified and are illustrated in the following chart:
' See Evaluation of Food Stamp Outmach and Client Atwtfance, Interim Report
Food Stamp Program
Client EnroHmtnt Assistance Demonstration Project!:
Final Evaluation Report
[17]
Chart 1
Client-Centered Barriers
Major
Barriers
Characteristics of
Client Challenges
Consequences for Food
Stamp Application
Lack of
Access
to
Technical
Support
• Limited or no personal or public
usnsporxaDon.
• Limited access to copying machines.
• No telephone and/or living a distance from
telephones.
• Difficulty in attending interviews.
• Unable to copy required documents.
• Unable to can for appointments, call for
information, or participate in a telephone
interview.
Lack of
Adequate
Support
Systems
• No family or friends to support clients
during the process [i.e., assist with child
care, transportation].
• Uncooperative employers and landlords.
• Difficulty in attending interviews while
attending to children.
• Difficulty in acquiring proof of employment
and residence.
Lack of
Adequate
Life Skills
• Limited coping skills resulting in low
tolerance for stress.
• Poor organizational skis.
• Limited oroblem-sorving and processing
skis.
• Low literacy level
• Poor communication skis.
• Limited motivation and perseverance.
• Unable to overcome fears of the unknown.
• Limited record-keeping system for
documentation purposes.
• Difficulty arriving at interviews on time.
• Unable to find solutions to meeting
requirements; Le.. gathering documents,
etc
• Unable to read and complete forms, gather
correct documentation, respond to
correspondence aidependently.
• Unable to follow directions, ask for
aanncauon.
• Difficulty in completing all requirements and
pursuing the process through to enrollment
Unstable
Living
Situations
• Lack of permanent housing.
• Temporary/seasonal/part-time employment
• Temporary famiy crisis due to illness of a
family member, domestic violence, marital
separation or divorce.
• Difficulty in providing verification of living
arrangements
• Dif cuty in providing verification of
employment and lack of consistency in
monthly income.
• Lack of access to needed documents.
• Difficulty provfctng verification of status.
• liability to complete process due to lack of
support and/or affected coping
mechanisms.
Poor
Physical
and
Msntal
Hsalth
• Severe *n*u and unabte to Have the
home, to travel or wait long periods.
• Unable to think with clarity
• Difficulty in attending interviews at FSP
office.
• InabHty to pursue the whole process,
includbiQ understanding and completing
forms, gathering documents, and
understarxfeng directions.
Food Stamp Program
Giant Enrolment Assistance Demonstration Projects:
Final Evaluation Report
[18]
mil
2. Context and Program Barriers Affecting Client Decisions on
Participation
There were numerous reasons for eligible people to choose not to apply or to
drop out of the FSP application process, thereby never becoming enrolled in the
FSP. In order to thoroughly understand these issues, it is critical to be aware of
clients' perceptions of the FSP, clients' concerns about becoming enrolled in the
FSP, clients' access to and use of other strategies for food security, and of the
barriers clients encountered when applying for food stamps. These contextual
and program barriers are more fully described below.
a. Client Perceptions of the FSP
Clients Perceiving Food Stamps as a Marker of Diminished Status
Project staff found that many potentially eligible clients were unwilling to consider
participation in the FSP even when need was present. This was due in large
part to many peoples' emphasis on self-sufficiency; people were greatly affected
by the "welfare stigma" and found participation in the FSP too high a cost to their
self-esteem. For these clients a personal decision-making process took place in
which they weighed the expected increase in food security from participating in
the FSP against the possible self or community deprecation of accepting a very
visible and much discussed government benefit The analysis of client
interviews from a number of different sites indicates that how clients felt about
their personal reputation, and their ethnic or social group's position vis-a-vis
"being on food stamps" determined in large part whether they were willing to
make an application to the FSP even when need was present.
During the period of these demonstration projects, welfare reform was underway
with officials of both political parties vowing to "end welfare as we know it" This
debate increased the feelings among low-income people of their own
vulnerability. Some immigrant and ethnic groups feared that a high acceptance
of the FSP benefit would have long-term negative effects on the way the larger
population viewed their participation in American society. While it is difficult to
connect the overall atmosphere and discussion in the country with individual
decision-making, it was clear from interviews with project staff and clients that
many were well aware of perceptions of food stamps as a part of the welfare
system and the stigma that could accrue to recipients of the benefit. If the FSP
is to be a bridge for people who are in need of food assistance, this perception
defeats that purpose.
One lady, always has her groceries delivered, and of course the girl
will take her stamps right there, so she wont have to go to the
store with them. There's an old stigma about passing out food
rood Stamp Program
Client Enrollment AWWtWOM Denmistration Projects:
Final Evaluation Report
[19]
stamps. That's what people hate around here, very much so.
[Project Staff Worker in interview]
Words commonly used in conjunction with decisions regarding whether to apply
for food stamps are "stigma" and "pride." The literature [Rank 1994, Silverstein
and Puma 1992], and project staff often referred to the "stigma of accepting food
stamps," but clients, phrasing it differently, often referred to not accessing the
benefit because of "pride" in self-sufficiency or in the ability to care for one's
family.
They are so proud. In their day, in the '30's when people had to be
on relief, they were kind of disgraced or they felt disgraced. Thafs
what we find ...here, real proud people. [Eligibility worker]
I never had to ask for anybody to help me. And it was a very, very
hard thing forme to do. [Client in a discussion grdup]
A lot of older people equate food stamps with welfare, and they
don't want to take charity. [Client]
For many people, receiving food stamps puts the government in control of their
state of well-being. Individual autonomy is threatened by the questions that are
posed and the responsibilities one has to assume for interacting with the
government agency correctly. For those with limited skills, this is an abdication
of self-sufficiency that may lead to events that he or she does not believe can be
predicted or controlled, such as being out of compliance with the FSP
regulations.
Use of food stamps connotes not only a decrease in pride and self-sufficiency,
but also opens potential clients to the disapprobation of neighbors and
community members. When a food stamp recipient goes to the store and uses
the benefit, it is not a private act. Clients, eligibility workers and demonstration
project staff all reported a great deal of community policing of use of food
stamps. Remarks are made in stores as clients use the stamps and community
members were reported to make calls to the local food stamp offices to describe
suspected misuse of the benefit by people they know or observe.
People look down on people for using food stamps because they're
on welfare so to speak... They feel the checkers look down on
them. The person behind them will have ugly comments to say
about the foods they buy. [Eligibility Worker in discussion]
Food Stamp Program
Client Enroltment Assistance Demonstration Projects:
Final Evaluation Report
[20}
Clients who decided to use food stamps often used the stamps outside of their
own neighborhoods, shopping at some distance from their homes. Others
designated another family member to use the food stamps so as to avoid
embarrassment themselves. One potentially eligible client in a discussion
stated:
It might be a problem for me, but I mean, if I had them [food
stamps], I'd have somebody else go... I'd let my wife go and do the
shopping. I think I'd have a little problem. You see, I always
worked for what I wanted.
The use of food stamps can also be an internal marker of a client's status. For
some, needing to be assisted by the food stamp benefit was a symbo! of lowered
health or income status. Older, frail people were reported by project staff as
being particularly vulnerable to these concerns. Those who are out of work often
saw the use of food stamps as a sign that they were unable to obtain or retain a
job. For some people, food stamps have become a sign of the hopelessness of
their situation, not a means of obtaining food until their situations resolve.
One lady came in. This lady had never had to ask for help. When
she was filling out the paper work, she just broke down and cried.
She said, V feel so ashamed to ask for help.' [Eligibility worker
reporting an experience with a client]
On the other hand, there were situations where clients identified using the food
stamp benefit as an internal and/or external marker of increased stability and of
taking charge and exhibiting responsibility. This was true of some clients who
were homeless, some of whom had also been substance abusers, who were
gaining more control over their life situations. This sentiment was also
expressed by some clients who had responsibility for feeding other family
members, especially children. In other cases, clients' recognition of their own
responsibility for the well-being of others allowed them to overcome their own
barriers of stigma or pride and apply for the benefit.
I've drawed food stamps before, If I had to... I'd use [them] to keep
my children from starving. But as long as I can feed them, that's
what I'm going to do, cause I'm their mother... The kids were
younger so I stayed home. Now they are all in school. As soon as
my last kid started school, I went to work. [Eligibility worker on
former experience using food stamps]
[Does it help?] oh, yes-it helps. I go to the grocery store and I'm
not ashamed, not more than I am giving her a twenty dollar bill. I
Food Stamp Program
Client Enrolment Assistance Demonstration Projects:
Final Evaluation Report
P1]
don't care who's in back of me waiting. I'm glad to have them. I
appreciate them. I'm thankful for it. I get two hundred sixty dollars
worth. I have a granddaughter in my household and a great
grandson.
Older people sometimes felt that using food stamps signified that they were
taking proper care of themselves. For example, they were purchasing foods they
needed to meet specific medical or dietary needs; foods that are not generally
available at congregate meal sites or are otherwise too expensive to purchase
on a routine basis.
b. Client Concerns About Becoming Enrolled in the FSP
Client Concerns with Status Issues
Often clients feared that applying for food stamps would endanger or decrease
other government benefits that they were currently receiving, such as rent
subsidies or SSI. In addition, immigrants almost uniformly stated their fear that
applying for food stamps would endanger their residency status or limit the
possibility of sponsoring other family members living outside of the United
States. They were, therefore, hesitant to apply for food stamps despite a need
for food assistance.
Client Concerns About Working with s Large Bureaucratic System
Across populations, project staff encountered clients who feared dealing with a
bureaucratic system as large as the FSP. They were afraid of making mistakes,
reluctant to disclose personal information, and intimidated by the impersonal
nature of the application process, the eligibility workers' probing questions, and
an attitude they often interpreted as judg.nental.
They got to know the whole history ofyour life. All of it! Every time
I go in they ask, "who gives you money?" They got to know
everything. [Client]
There's a lot of people who think they ask too many questions, Its
really none of their business. For ten dollars a month... all the
questions, all the paperwork. [Older client on why some people do
not want to apply for food stamps]
They cut me off once... They said they didn't get all the stuff. You
know, they want to know all your business. If you don't tell them
your business, you ain't nowhere. [Client in discussion group]
Foe rt Stamp Program
Cbent Enrollment Assistance Demonstration Projects:
Final Evaluation Report
122]
On the other hand, there were many clients, as illustrated by the following
statement, who appreciated the workload and limitations that some eligibility
workers faced:
A lot of the caseworkers are overworked. You might not get your
stamps because she forgets. It would be good to have on-theiob
training and have others take information and pass it on. [Client in
discussion]
Numerous clients noted that they preferred working with one familiar contact
person at the local food stamp office and that interacting with strangers in an
unfamiliar environment was highly uncomfortable for them. In many urban areas
clients are seen by the first available worker at each visit Clients then are
required to explain repeatedly the complexities of their lives and economic
problems.
They changes workers, you don't know who your worker is. They
don't let you know nothing. [Client]
Some clients were also afraid of making mistakes that could lead to personal
liability; they had either made mistakes in reporting their income and assets in
the past or had heard of others who had. The repercussions of such mistakes
were very serious, especially for those with unstable employment and incomes.
My income went up, so I had to pay back money, [the system]
keeps you in the hole. [Client]
When you start working, they cut. You're still in the same position.
You never get ahead. You make a dollar, they take a dollar.
[Client]
Some clients were found to have applied to the FSP previously without
completing the process. These people were hesitant to apply again for fear they
would be reprimanded for not having complied with requests in the past Many
older people's resources were non -renewable; they no longer earned a paycheck
or received an income. When faced with assessing their resources, fear may
influence their willingness or even ability to process information, even about a
benefit that might help them. In addition, they were reluctant to spend down any
resource they might need in the future to pay for medical or personal expenses
in order to become eligible for food stamps.
Food Stamp Program
Client Enrollment Assistance Demonstration Projects:
Final Evaluation Report
123]
Client Experiences ofBeing Intimidated or Treated Poorly
For some clients, the application process was experienced as demeaning, in
large part because of the nature of the interactions at the food stamp office.
Eligibility workers who check for fraud are also those who provide the social
service function of delivering a benefit. This is confusing to many applicants who
feel assaulted by the process.
When you go in there they look at you. First, I was dressed nice. I
take care of my clothes and don't wear them out. My son had
taken me. Well, they just treated me like 'What are you doing in
hem? You don't need help." I'm not the only person that has said
this about the place. They act as if they are doing you a favor,
which they are, but you felt like crawling out of there. They made
me feel very low. [Client in a discussion group]
They don't have so much problem when you look nice. I come in
there half limping, crawling, and I don't get no help. [Homeless
client in discussion group]
In some cases, clients had experienced rude and judgmental treatment by
workers in the office.
They treated you so nasty, you hated to go back again. They
talked to you like an animal. [Client in discussion group]
The [Department of Social Services] front desk person was hired to
scare people away. [Client in discussion group]
I went to a lady fin the food stamp office for help] and it was very
bad. That lady lived up to her reputation... like a drill sergeant... I
had her about four or five years. She called me cuss words. But I
never let it keep me from getting my stamps. [Client in discussion
group]
In addition, the application process was found by many to be tiring and
demanding. For example, clients frequently reported that they had to sit many
hours in an FSP waiting room before being called upon for their interviews. The
time and effort was quite debilitating for them.
It doesn't make sense to have people coming there at 7:30 in the
morning to stand in q line, no chairs to sit down. People are ailing.
I can't stand on my feet long and then you go in, they give you a
Food Stamp Program
Client Enrollment Assistance Demonstration Projects:
Final Evaluation Report
[24]
number and call your number and you wait, wait, wait. [Client in a
discussion group]
I went in at 8:30. They didn't call me till 3:30. [Client]
When you go [to apply for food stamps] you have to wait a long
time and you miss your meal, if you move you lose. The lines are
so long, and you have to be out in inclement weather. You might
be there all day long and might not be waited on. [Client in
discussion group]
The attitudes displayed to clients by workers, and the messages conveyed by
the offices themselves played an important role in how clients experienced the
local FSPs and influenced their desire to apply for food stamps or complete a
FSP application. In some cases, location and condition of a food stamp office
and its waiting area, the tenor of the messages to clients evident on posters and
in rules, the attitude of reception staff and eligibility workers toward potential or
existing clients, and the procedures by which clients must set up appointments
and make inquiries provided such negative experiences that clients reported
feeling suspected and diminished just by going to the office.
.../ finallyjust gave it up. I came all the way from uptown and stood
in line for 3 hours. And they kept saying, This aint right, this ain't
right.." So I just give it up. [Client describing third trip to office to
apply for food stamps]
In many cases, these same observations were corroborated by demonstration
project staff, evaluators during on-site visits, and even by eligibility workers
themselves.
Walking down [the street where the only food stamp office for the
area is located] can be intimidating [for clients]. There's a line
outside at 7 a.m.. They only allow a certain number of people in
the door at one time. Accessibility is set up for hours and budget
restraints... [Once a client is in the building] routing takes 15
minutes to one and half hours and there can be many breakdowns
in communications. If a client has been admitted to the building but
has not yet had his appointment, he must leave the building at
noon when it is cleared for lunch hour. ... Workers need to be more
accessible to clients. [Eligibility Worker describing working
conditions in discussion group]
Food Stamp Program
Client Enrollment Assistance Demonstration Projects:
Final Evaluation Report
[25]
Client Concerns About the Amount ofBenefit They Would Receive
Older people in particular were especially difficult to enroll in the FSP, in large
part because the food stamp allotment for many eligible older clients was
frequently regarded as low [between $10 and $20]. Many older people did not
want to spend the time or go through the anxiety-producing process of applying
for the FSP given the perceived benefit, despite their continual and severe need
for greater food security.
When you have to go from place to place and then only get $15
[worth of food stamps] it isn't worth it. When you go back lots of
times, it isn't worth it. [Client in discussion group]
I even tell them that its only going to be $10. Sometimes they
don't even want to [apply], cause for an elderly person its difficult.
They have to get out of the house, wait in line to pick up food
stamps. [Eligibility worker in discussion group]
I had a woman who sent back her mother's food stamps this
morning, and if I sent more, she was going to throw them in the
trash-because she only got $10 worth. [Eligibility worker]
On the other hand, according to another client:
I've received $10 and I find that it helps. Every little bit helps. Lets
put it that way. [Client]
Additional Client Cost-of-Benefit Concent*
Some homeless people in particular felt that with no place to store or heat food,
food stamps were not of sufficient benefit to make the application worth their
time. Given this fact, some homeless people found that receiving food in
shelters, at meal sites, and from mobile vans in urban areas met most of their
needs if they planned carefully and were able to reach food distribution centers
on schedule. [This was not possible for those who were too sick to travel the
distances to meal sites, got in line too late for food, or arrived after food supplies
had been exhausted]. Advantages of applying for food stamps for this
population included extra food security and the ability to be able "to feel like
other people who shop in stores for what they need." It was also an advantage
to have the benefit when employed. As one client stated:
With food stamps you can get something good. [Homeless client in
discussion group]
Food Stamp Program
Client Enrolment Assistance Demonstration Projects:
Final Evaluation Report
PSJ
But ifyou are working, you can't eat breakfast here [shelter]. Ifyou
get out of work at 6 or 7 you can't eat here. Thats when food
stamps come in handy. [Client in discussion group]
These advantages were weighed by clients against disadvantages.
Disadvantages mentioned by clients included having to disclose P®^0"^!
identities, the fear of facing eligibility workers* scorn for being able-bodied but
unable to provide for themselves and their families, and the fact that in order to
apply for food stamps, they would miss their opportunity to go to a shelter or
meal site to obtain food. Many were also employed sporadically and felt tha
their inability to get reluctant employers to verify income combined with the ns
of being found out of compliance with the regulations for reporting fluctuating
income were too great.
More homeless people were willing to take the one-month expedited food stamp
offer than to complete a regular application for stamps, either initially or after the
first month of participation had expired. The rules for expedited service allowed
this group of clients to be served immediately without much documentation or
completion of a lengthy application. After the initial period, however, more
information was required and many chose not to continue the application
process. Others were unable to complete it because it required skills they did
not have, and did not have access to through social support networks.
c. Client Access to and Use of Alternative Strategies for Food Security
Some people who were contacted by the projects indicated they did not need
assistance or noted that they would find other ways of managing in order to
avoid enrolling in the FSP. Individuals interviewed across programs described
how they, their families, friends, and neighbors were able to find ways of feeding
themselves without assistance from the FSP. At one end of the continuum were
those who were able to creatively budget in order to ensure enough food on their
tables Careful monthly food purchasing and meal planning, buying in bulk,
taking advantage of sales and discounts, buying from salvage stores, and
limiting purchases to inexpensive foods were some of the strategies people used
to creatively stretch their monthly food budgets. Some people supplemented
their food budgets by eating in shelters and meal sites a portion of every month.
Sometimes I go without eating awhile. The check I get is $10 for
food stamps, so I come over here [the shelter] to eat. [Client]
Gardens, hunting, and fishing remain resources available to some people in rural
areas Those who were physically able to maintain these activities found that
they were helpful. These resources were sometimes cited as one of the reasons
clients did not apply for food stamps, at least during some seasons of the year.
Food Stamp Procrwn
CW« EfwoMmomHW—Demonstration Projects
Fnai Evtfuabon R*oor
P71
Even those who could not engage in such self-sufficient pursuits themselves
sometimes had neighbors or family members who provided extra food for them.
Most people raise their food. People come in to these buildings
[senior housing] selling stuff. Thafs where we get our fresh
vegetables from. We buy it if we can. And so we put it in our
freezers, you know, so we have something to live on during the
winter time. [Older client in a low-income senior citizens' residence]
Communities have a variety of food resources that individuals and families can
and do use. Food banks, food pantries, community meal centers, mobile meal
sites, and commodity distribution sites are available widely throughout the
country. Geographic distribution of these alternative food resource sites is
uneven, however, and usually clients must have a source of transportation to
reach them. They also do not always consistently offer products throughout the
month and there is not a wide choice of foods, although sometimes the food
banks are supported by both government surplus foods and private donations.
People share with each other. Sometimes I go on bread and water
all day. I use the food bank sometimes. You have to take your
card and fill out a form at the food bank. It isn't always what you
want. Not always nourishing. [Client]
Some clients reported that they preferred receiving food from a food bank
because the interactions required less personal information sharing and the help
was often provided by peers who were friendly and supportive. The help is also
provided immediately without any, or only a minor, requirement for
documentation of need. On the other hand, some clients described experiences
with local food banks where they felt that personnel distributed items in an
arbitrary and discriminatory manner.
Meals-on-Wheels, a program in which meals are delivered to the door on a
regular basis, is another option for older and disabled people. The SHARE
program is also available, a program that offers clients an option of volunteering
for service, thereby doubling their food stamp or dollar purchases in a food bank
setting. Further, senior centers provide Federally-subsidized meals throughout
the United States for those older people who are able to get to them.
Some however find that their options become elemental. People reported that
Ihey skipped meals, reduced their food portions, or went hungry. Some clients
told project staff that they limited their use of electricity or heat in order to buy
food. Some older people noted that they might decide to prioritize their needs
Food Stamp Program
Client Enrolment Assistance Demonstration Projects:
Final Evaluation Report
P8)
differently each month, for example, alternating food purchases with medication
purchases.
One time I didn't have the money to buy groceries afterpaying bills.
I'd get enough food to last about a week. Well, then for about a
week I didn't eat. One lady that I knew, she would bring over a jar
of green beans. But over a period of time, you start to lose it - you
don't have an appetite. At that particular time I tost 65 pounds. I
was starving myself to death. [Client in a discussion group]
3. Application Process Barriers Affecting Client Participation
a. Problems of Access
In some cases access is impeded by simple lack of knowledge of the benefit.
No one knows when you're eligible for food stamps, right. You
don't know when you're eligible or when you're not eligible, or be
eligible for a very little, be eligible for $10 or $12. I think there's a
lot of people that could get food stamps that have not tried. They
don't know how to go about getting them. [Client]
Across sites, clients who did not want to apply or feared applying had outdated
or incorrect information about the FSP, often from personal experience or from
stories from friends and family, of incidents that happened years ago.
The reason I didn't apply... was because I figured I wasn't going to
get it [food stamps] I heard about how they have to get a history
of your life, and you're not going to get but about ten or fifteen
dollars worth, you know I had mom discouragement than I did
someone encouraging me, so Ijust didn't bother with it. [Client]
This is a rumor, I have heard that they are so rude to you at that
food stamp office, so I did not go. And I've been here since 1990.
They say you have to sit for hours. [Client]
She only makes $206 a month, and she thought she had to buy
[food stamps] like you used to. And she also thought that she had
to be on welfare to get mem, and she was very happy to find out
the difference. [Demonstration project staff]
In other cases access to the actual food stamp office was a problem. Some
people reported having no personal transportation and limited access to public
transportation. For these individuals, arranging for transportation so that they
Food Stamp Program
Client Enrollment Assistance Demonstration Projects
Final Evaluation Report
(29)
could get to the local food stamp office to pick up the application form, return
home to gather the required documentation, and then return to the food stamp
office to attend the scheduled interview was virtually impossible.
Its hard to service people who can't get to the services. [Eligibility
worker in discussion group]
Transportation is a big problem. Then if you're a few minutes late,
they embarrass you in public. "You was supposed to be here...
[etc.r You may have a transportation problem. You may be late,
and they want to reschedule your appointment. But you can be
there and sit there and sit there and sit there. I sat for an hour and
a half before they called my name. But if I had been ten minutes
late, I would have to reschedule my appointment. They don't have
patience with you, but you have to have patience with them.
[Client]
Older rural clients in particular often did not have their own cars and had to rely
on others for transportation, sometimes having to pay someone to take them to
their appointments. This cost often equaled the amount of one month of their
food stamp benefit Even urban older clients encountered this barrier.
...Street, that's where I had to go yesterday [to cash her food stamp
voucher], and I got a ride because I cant ride the busses too good.
My friend carried me there, so that's the closest place that I know.
You got to run all around with $10 and pay car fare unless you
have a friend to cany you to cash a $10 coupon. I think thats
really sad. [Older Client in discussion group]
Older people frequently were unaware that they were entitled to conduct their
interview with a food stamp eligibility worker over the telephone, and local food
stamp offices often did not make this option clear to them.
Some families did not have telephones, which made it difficult for clients to
contact eligibility workers. Even clients with telephones sometimes found
eligibility workers very difficult to reach. For some clients this communication
barrier was difficult to overcome, especially for those depending on pay phones
or friends' telephones. For some of the working poor, the inability to make or
receive telephone calls in the workplace was also a barrier to contacting their
eligibility worker.
Food Stamp Program
*»r - —. r II CMnt tnroamie■ n.iti Aft s■s■IiIsIBtaInIIce■ DHeimoHnsiltlra»<tiioi mn rHrio■ lfiopailsa .
FmaI Evaluation Report
[30]
b. Problems of Understanding the Application Process
Staff found that many clients were confused by the FSP requirements, found the
paper work to be overwhelming, and the application forms to be confusing.
They need to shorten that form! [Client]
Also the food stamp application is... come on! You are talking
about elderly people, homeless people. We are not getting all
these Ph.D.'s... of course we know it because it is our job, but
especially tor recertification, why should you have to have the
same information. Especially for the elderly. They look at the
application like a book. [Eligibility worker]
The language and vocabulary used by food stamp eligibility workers contributed
to this confusion; many potential clients did not understand or remember what
"verification" meant or even "wage or rent receipts."
The FSP process was particularly difficult for clients and families who were in
temporary crisis, who lacked adequate life skills, or who had not developed
adequate coping strategies to advocate for themselves. Families und*r stress
due to illness, family violence, and/or marital separation found the additional
pressures of complying with FSP application requirements overwhelming. For
example, mothers with young school children found getting their children to
school and attending early morning FSP interviews conflicting and difficult
Applying for food stamps required clients to take responsibility for completing an
application, visiting the food stamp office on a number of occasions, and
providing the required documentation requested by FSP regulations. Others
were unable to sustain the application procesi due to difficulties scheduling and
attending appointments and following reporting deadlines.
c. Problems With Providing Appropriate Documentation
Clients sometimes found it impossible to comply with the requests for
documentation that eligibility workers required to make a determination of FSP
eligibility. Some clients did not have an organized record system in which pay
stubs, bank account statements, and rent receipts were filed.
/ had to bring back my telephone bill, [utility] bill and a bank
statement Why should I have to bring that when you have my
social security number? Isn't that sufficient for anything? Your
government uses it for everything? [Client]
Food Stomp Program
Cunt Eflrafenont Assistance Demonstration Prefects:
Final Evaluation Report
P1]
Often people in unstable circumstances could not provide proof of their living
arrangements or employment or predict future wages.10
TTiere':; a revolving door of temporary employment Every three
months groups trade places. [Client on hiring practices at local
factory]
You dont know when you're going to work and when you aren't.
You might not won* for a whole month. Thafs why people don't
want ft> work because may's going to be cut off of food stamps...
They cut you off, but they don't give you no pemianentjob. [Client
in discussion group]
A fat cf employers are getting reluctant to fill out the employment
form. Some even said they wen going to charge them ten dollars
to VII ttiem out. [Eligibility worker]
Thure are temporary agencies that get $15/hour, but the worker
only gets $5mour. The factory doesn't have to worry about putting
them on their insurance. They dont employ them. They just
contract with an agency. [Eligibility worker on temporary nature of
local work opportunities]
Some clients who worked temporary jobs, for example, and/or did not receive
rent receipts, relied on their employers or their landlords to provide letters for
verification of employment and living arrangements. Clients with inadequate
transportation or with resistant employers and landlords found gathering these
documents a difficult task and one that created an additional burden to
sometimes already stressful and unstable lives. For other people, simply
providing some type of public identification was a problem; some did not have a
social security card, birth certificate, or driver's license. A paper trail for those
who often had the greatest need was not always possible to locate. Even if
individuals were able to locate and gather the necessary documentation, they
then faced what for some was the challenge of obtaining access to a copying
machine.
* Through atJW prmir lw*i IH—i WWtajW that tow OlJWe, trying ID take advantage of S» job*.and the
iiuwiiJtiiiiitiiiinfflii-rt-TTrr- ■■ ■"■■—jww»wwM»wwwttww^twwwMwyw»»iwwyifc »
•arm -sees employers were oMoutfy working off the books, paying own wages and in others, the suppty of WWWt
mm MMm was »yewoaali that employers oouk) Jhu ■■■■»» spoil! Una* workers whommI tor ■*■*»■i ■*■
ftom nwragormm. In the c—e of ulHoi anajtoyea, they dM not ska Bio ojpiW canrio*JBPnthatrrBjMbec*>antothsg
tsery practice! if their mytoywi won seen mfij ffmrt Ttrnrn hi the cast Jt housing, much the same scenario
appeared to be the case according to chants' reports in some cases, landlords ware renting PWWftM not zoned or
aqutopad for rents* and in others they ware aapaang too rnariy paopte in oi» rantol uni. On the Star **£*«•
anto-s were subietting space to famry and mends without the landlords' knowhjdgs. With a hmeed supply of affordable
rwuaing in maiiy corrnaaa^as. thaae taancW
caaasaraa«stofira«anaatoouadacBaoM.word-of-rnou»am
Food Stamp Program
Caent Enroamant Aaaratarse Deiiiunauauon Projects:
Final Evaluation Report
(32]
d. Problems with Language
Language difficulties placed many recent immigrants and others with limited
English-speaking ability at a disadvantage when applying to the FSP. Some
staff found that clients who did not speak English well and who were not
assertive waited for long periods of time to be called upon in busy offices. In
some instances, when their names were called they were mispronounced and
not recognized by the clients, who then missed their interviews. Some of these
clients had to rely on others to translate during food stamp Interviews, to
complete their food stamp applications, and to help them collect the necessary
documentation.
e. Problems with Cognition and Basic Life Skills
For some potential clients, the issue of literacy was a major barrier.
A lot of the elderly are illiterate, there are even 18-year-olds that
can't read. Workers should take time to explain to the client
Workers are usually rushed for time. They're like a factory. For
some illiterates, friends will help them fill out the food stamp
applications. However, there can be some inaccuracy which may
cause ineligibilfty [Client in discussion group]
Some people is not able to read and write. Some of the people will
get help from a worker, but if you get one of the mean and nasty
ones you have to wait until somebody has enough time to fill it out
for you. [Client in discussion group]
Some people who are eligible for the FSP are incapable of applying because of
mental ilness or a lack of basic life skills. This remaining group of eligible non-participants,
despite their need for food assistance, are much harder to reach
and serve than policy and advocacy groups have acknowledged in the past.
Those in this category include a broad spectrum of people with physical and
cognitive barriers to obtaining benefits through the FSP.
/ tad a customer today who wanted to go through the procedure,
bit you can tell that this person is not mentally alert, and they are
just agreeing to everything. You would be happier ifsomeone were
there representing them. You don't want them to be cheated and
you don't want to have anything come back on you. [Eligibility
worker]
...its hard to service those who really cant participate because
mentally they are not capable. [Eligibility worker]
Food Stamp Program
Client Enrollment Assistance Demonstration Projects:
Final Evaluation Report
P3J
Cognitive limitations make the process of applying and continuing to be able to
provide proof of eligibility for the FSP very difficult for a small number of people
even with the assistance of eligibility workers or staff advocates. These people
would find it difficult to use the food stores, to buy food on a regular basis, or to
understand how much they must pay for items. One group in this category is
people who are living on the street who do not interact with others in standard
ways. For some of these people, the process of enrolling in the FSP and using
food stamps, would be an impossibility. From reports of other street people,
these individuals survive on what they find in trash bins, food that mobile vans
bring them, and food that other homeless people provide for them. From reports
of project personnel and people living on the street, a number of these people
are living in protected circumstances or have family members who are providing
and managing food resources for them. Others are without the means or support
to assure basic subsistence.
B. The Food Stamp Office and Food Stamp Worker
Experiences
An examination of local food stamp office operations is essential in order to
understand the complexity of issues that influence client participation in the FSP.
The evaluation of local FSPs involved with the 26 demonstration projects brought
to light a number of significant factors that had an impact on eligibility workers,
their relationships with clients, and ultimately the effectiveness with which they
were able to provide client services. Across local FSP programs involved with
the demonstration projects, eligibility workers often indicated that they were
overwhelmed by State and local program changes and heavy workloads. They
also stated that they had difficulties following some FSP policies and procedures
effectively. These factors, coupled with an increase in clients with complex
needs, in some instances limited eligibility workers' ability to meet the wide array
of needs of their clients and limited the extent to which they could provide
services. The major issues and their influences on local FSP service delivery
are detailed below.
1. The Local Food Stamp Office
Local food stamp offices varied greatly in how easily accessible they were for
clients in terms of transportation, hours of operation, the safety of the area in
which they were located, the comfort and condition of the public waiting areas
and the amount of time clients were expected to wait, the messages displayed,
the arrangements and amenities for clients in the facilities, the attitude and ability
of reception staff to provide general information to the client and the availability
of reception staff or eligibility workers to answer questions or to follow-up on
Food Stamp Program
Client Enrolment Assistance Demonstration Projects:
Rnal Evaluation Report
[34]
problems. The broad variation in these conditions can result in potentially
eligible clients being encouraged and successfully enrolled or being discouraged
and therefore denied access to the FSP simply by virtue of the FSP office to
which they have tried to relate.
A major problem that we have is the sign that says you are not to
have anything to eat or drink. Most of them who come down here
are already hungry. Then they can't eat a candy bar or they will be
thrown out. They are scared to leave because the wonder will call
them, but they sit for hours. They bring the baby and the baby
cannot be fed. If they go out of the building, they might be called.
[Eligibility wori<er]
When potentially eligible clients finally reach an eligibility worker for an interview,
they sometimes receive or perceive negative messages about their worthiness
for assistance. They therefore may be feeling helpless or outraged and may
express or even direct these feelings to the eligibility workers. Some eligibility
workers expressed frustration with the FSP office environment that affected
clients even before they met with an eligibility worker.
If we had more workes, they wouldn't have to wait so long. They
have to wait five hours, and we should have a video about how to
fill out the application. Then the worker comes through and says,
'I'll see you when I come back from lunch." They need a
designated area for lids. You are trying to interview, but you have
to deal with the kids. And they are tired and they are hungry.
[Eligibility woricerin discussion]
The working environments and the types and numbers of cases differ for
eligibility workers among local offices. State programs vary greatly in the levels
and sophistication of technologies they employ, in the levels of State and local
funding, and in the types of FSP waivers under which their employees work.
These differences account for some of the noticeable variations in the size and
types of client caseloads handled in each office. Eligibility workers in many local
food stamp offices are being asked to train on and work within new State
guidelines, with new application forms, new configurations of service programs,
and new organizational systems and technological tools. The increasing
technological sophistication of local offices also has an effect on the ease of
obtaining information for clients on documentation and on other government
programs. All of these changes have been occurring at a time when eligibility
worker caseloads have been increasing in some offices as a result of staff
reductions.
Food Stamp Program
Chert Enrollment Assistance Demonstration Projects:
Final Evaluation Report
P5J
.../ thought [the new computer system] would help in the
application, but I am finding we have as much paper work with a
multi-million dollar computer system. [Eligibility wonder]
New computer system [is an improvement]. People who would not
have applied for food stamps are now, getting them because they
are asked when they come in for any benefit. [Eligibility won\er]
If they can work on automated systems, they can have an
interstate system. When people come in and say they have left a
bad situation in [another State], we have to feed them. We have
no way of knowing unless we contact another State. [Eligibility
Worker]
A number of the demonstration projects were being operated in areas in which
the food stamp offices were under court order to increase the timeliness of their
routine or expedited enrollments, or were under pressure to decrease their error
rates. Such situations placed both supervisory staff and eligibility workers under
significant stress, sometimes negatively affecting their job satisfaction, attitudes
toward clients, and ability to deliver services as required. The frustration of one
eligibility worker came through when speaking of trying to maintain
communication and good will with clients over the telephone:
Most [clients]... think if they call by 8 o'clock you should have the
answer by 3 p.m. They don't understand. They don't comprehend
that you have five phone calls right after theirs.
To maintain some control over their workloads, some eligibility workers reported
setting time aside when they would not accept phone calls. During this time they
would conduct client interviews, complete paperwork, and research and follow-up
on cases. However, they reported that this technique sometimes resulted in
losing contact with a client For example, calls were not always properly
forwarded to another individual or records of incoming calls were not kept for the
eligibility worker to return at another time. In addition, more limited hours often
increased the difficulty that a client without regular access to a telephone already
faced when trying to reach the eligibility worker.
2. Changes in State and Local Procedures
Many States have responded to changes in the Federal welfare programs by
modifying or restructuring their own State system of service delivery. In an
attempt to eliminate duplication of effort and to lessen the complexity of applying
to numerous benefit programs, many States have been reevaluating the roles
Food Stamp Program
Cfcrrt EnroUmant A—M—l DawumiaUon Projects:
Final Evaluation Report
136]
and responsibilities of eligibility workers. There has been a movement towards
re-training caseworkers to become "genenc workers" to assist clients to enroll in
all or most of the benefit programs available. In a number of cases, States have
redesigned application forms to combine the various benefit programs [i.e.,
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, Medical Assistance, and the FSP] in
their efforts to streamline the application process. In some instances these
changes have had a significant impact on eligibility workers, including on their
sense of direction and job security.
[Staff in] the whole agency and the whole state at this point are in
fluctuation as to what theirjobs are and what they are going to be.
Unfortunately we don't exactly know where we're headed. Our
agency has not given us a goal at the end so we're moving back
and forth without a real direction. [Eligibility Woricer]
As States move towards "generic" caseworkers, eligibility workers have been
required to learn policies related to each additional benefit program for which
they have some responsibility. Some workers have been with one benefit
program for many years. The following is an example of a caseworker's attitude
towards these changes:
It's too much of a challenge to learn all of the policies. Its
overwhelming, trying to learn food stamp policy, AFDC policy, and
Medicaid policy. There are so many different charts for each
program that its hard.
Restructuring and streamlining programs has, in some cases, resulted in staff
reductions. Fewer caseworkers coupled with the increasingly complex needs of
clients have served to increase workers' caseloads. As noted by one eligibility
worker, workers can become overwhelmed by their additional responsibilities:
/ am a bilingual worker and everyone expects me to do [translation]
in addition to my duties with no compensation. We used to have a
multi-cultural unit ?.nd we had people with different languages.
That isn't mere any more.
3. FSP Policies and Procedures
FSP eligibility workers are required to follow standard procedures for providing
assistance to potential FSP applicants and for determining eligibility for food
stamp benefits. Eligibility workers often reported to evaluators that they had
difficulties following and enforcing FSP policies due to the intricacy of the rules
and regulations and the difficulties certain clients experienced with the
Food Stamp Program
uNem cnroHmeni Assistance uemon»uauori r rojecu.
Final Evaluation Report
137]
application process. In addition, the dual role of eligibility workers as social
service providers and as compliance regulators in some instances places them
in conflicting situations, in the following subsections these issues are described
in greater detail.
a. Issues Related to the FSP Application Process
As noted, in order for clients to receive food stamps they are required to
complete an FSP application form, participate in an interview with an eligibility
worker, and provide verification of eligibility. Eligibility workers in turn are
directed to assist clients throughout this process. Eligibility workers stated,
however, that growing numbers of clients were having difficulty following the
standard application process, which had an impact on workers' ability to carry
out their responsibilities efficiently. First, some clients had difficulties completing
the FSP application fully and accurately on their own. Consequently, eligibility
workers found it necessary to take additional time and effort to assist these
clients with their applications. As stated by one local eligibility worker
Somebody may take the application but the applications are not
always completed to the extent that they should be. During the
interview you have to redo the application right from scratch.
Second, eligibility workers indicated that in some instances, clients were either
late for their interviews or missed their scheduled appointments altogether. In
cases where regulations required eligibility workers to follow-up on clients in
order to re-schedule missed appointments, eligibility workers felt they were being
asked to sacrifice even more of their already limited time.
Third, clients were required to provide verification of income, residence, and
employment so that workers could determine their eligibility and the quantity of
food stamps they would receive. Eligibility workers often stated that this step in
the process was the most difficult for clients to fulfill. It was reported that clients
would sometimes arrive with only a portion of the required documentation, and
workers then had to request additional verification before they could determine
eligibility. These factors repeatedly had an impact on how quickly and efficiently
workers could help clients complete the application and enrollment process. As
one eligibility worker stated when discussing what aspects of the job were most
difficult for her "Getting the client to report on time and correctly."
b. Issues Related to the Complexity in Determining Eligibility
Some eligibility workers reported an increase in the number of clients who were
applying for assistance were Irving in unpredictable circumstances. Conditions of
homelessness and/or of holding down multiple temporary or part-time jobs added
Food Stamp Program
Client Enrollment Assistance Demonstration Projects:
Final Evaluation Report
138]
to the tension between processing clients in a timely manner and determining
eligibility and level of eligibility with certainty.
What's been popular is people standing at the comer, then
employers picking them up. Theyjust get a job for a day, but those
people don't want to verify that they paid these people, so they
have no way of verifying to us that they wonted. [Eligibility worker]
For example, clients whose incomes varied from month to month due to
temporary or part-time employment had difficulty estimating their incomes for
upcoming months. This had an impact on eligibility workers' ability to determine
appropriate benefit amounts. According to one worker
The eligibility workers have to guess [what a clients income] will be
over the next three months... One client worked through three
different temporary work agencies and trying to guess what she
would make in the coming three months was a nightmare.
Eligibility workers were aware that mistakes in favor of the client could damage
their local agency's error rating. Such errors could also cause the client to
receive diminished benefits and/or be required to reimburse the government in
the future. Such outcomes can be extremely detrimental to clients who were
frequently just able to "make ends meet"
Furthermore, eligibility workers often indicated that regulations determining
"household" classifications were confusing and difficult to enforce.11 As
previously stated, a "household" can be one individual or a group of people who
buy and prepare their food together. Determining what constituted a household
was sometimes difficult especially rf a large group of people lived under one
roof. In following the guidelines, eligibility workers reported that they often
encountered more than one household living in the same house. They also
reported that this issue had been known to influence what clients reported to
eligibility workers in order to ensure their food stamp enrollment As one worker
stated:
...We ask them to prove that even though they are living under the
same roof, they are separate households. We ask them if they eat
separately. Some [large groups of people living under one root]
would have to start at two o'clock in the morning to fix breakfast for
everybody to fix their own food. They may say, "well we eat
11 During the course of these dernonstrst^yu, some provisions of ernendn Mils to the Food Stamp Act of 1977 included
in the Mickey Ltiand Chtdhood Hunger Relief Act Chapter 3. Tito XIII. Omrubus WWM—I Act of 1903. Pubte Law
103-06. enacted August 10.1903. wan rnptomentod and changed some of the criteria for defining separate households
for FSP purpose*.
Food Stamp Program
Chant Enrolment Assistance) Darnonsliaum i Protects:
Final Evaluation Report
together." And we ask, 'well if you get food stamps will you eat
separately," and they say "uh huh."
c. Issues Related to Dual Rolas of Eligibility Workers
Built into the structure of the FSP is protection of the program's resources from
those who are not legally eligible to participate. Eligibility workers in local food
stamp offices therefore must assume a role that combines fraud-prevention with
assistance. Some eligibility workers felt a strong responsibility to ensure that
their clients were truthful about their employment and living arrangements and
were extremely concerned about making mistakes in calculating benefits in their
cases. These attitudes and concerns were voiced in statements such as:
...the hardest clients I've found are the clients that have never been
on aid before, and we come down to the bottom of the safety net,
and the/re feeling really stressed out, and we are the first person
they have to approach. The other kind is sometimes the ones who
are committing fraud and they know their way around and they
know their eligibility and they know the loopholes. They say, 'I
want my food stamps." {Eligibility worker]
Fear of making errors sometimes influenced eligibility workers' attitudes and
behavior toward certain clients whose proof of need they found questionable. In
these instances, staff sometimes, required clients to provide additional
documentation before they would determine eligibility.
The ones that I personally aggravate the most, are those who I find
their situation questionable, and I go in depth with questioning.
[Eligibility worker]
This may be prejudice on my part, but I just had a client come in
who was dressed to the ninth, had on all this jewelry that cost a lot
of money. She had had troubles with her back and had a medical
statement to exempt her from work participation; three months I
had her with zero income. Now, she continues to come in with
zero income. Its hard to believe that someone can live on zero
income. She told me her mother was paying for her shelter
expenses. When I told her I would need a letter from her mother,
she went ballistic on me. ...This woman is living on something. You
don't come into my office and look like you do [and need food
stamps]. [Eligibility worker]
Some eligibility workers resolved the tension between behaving as a social
service provider and also as an eligibility monitor, by performing the first role
Food Stamp ProQfwn
Cttnt Enrolment AwM—i 0—WlH—l Projocts:
Frol Evaluation Report
f40]
outside their regular duties. In many offices, it was found that eligibility workers
spent time and energy making sure that clients who were not eligible or clients
who were in immediate need of assistance were directed to other community
resources for help. However, according to some workers, by trying also to
perform as social workers, they would jeopardize their jobs.
4. The Provision of Client Services
Many eligibility workers found their jobs both rewarding and stressful:
Very [rewarding]. We are feeding 375 families, each of us. Thafs
the reality. If we don't do it, no one will. For some it is getting over
the hump. [Eligibility worker]
Ifs a constant challenge. It can never be boring. [Eligibility worker
one]
It can also never be done. [Eligibility worker two]
Many eligibility workers also spoke of feeling overwhelmed, saddened or
angered by the needs of some of their clients and their own inability to provide all
the help required:
Ifs frustrating foryou to see people in need and you are not able to
get them help. [Eligibility worker]
Eligibility workers often admitted that employment insecurity, changes in service
delivery procedures, heavy workloads, and the complexity of policies had an
impact on their ability to provide the in-depth services some clients needed.
Our job description says that we should have a caseload of 275,
but we have 350 or more. We can't go into detail like we should.
We can't do much because we are always in a hurry.
These complex issues also had an impact on eligibility worker's attitudes towards
clients and how they viewed their own jobs. Although some eligibility workers
were aware that services to clients could be improved, some expressed their
frustration at rarely being praised for the hard work they performed:
We are here to serve the community, but we start out at low
salaries and stay at low salaries for years. This is a stressful job.
Give us some attention. We had training in customer service. I
think the majority of us are being customer-friendly, yet it is implied
that we are not doing what we should be doing. Yet there is talk
Pood Stamp Program
Cbent Enrollment Assistancs Demonstration Projects:
Pinal Evaluation Report
(411
about cutting our salaries, sending us on furioughs. We are doing,
doing, doing. I don't ever see "Hey, you are doing a great job."
Give us a desk, some supplies.
About one out of every 500 or 600 clients says thank you. And you
know you have made a difference even if they are not aware of it.
If not for the adults, then for the children in the household.
[Eligibility worker]
On the other hand, eligibility workers demonstrated an awareness of their clients'
needs. For example, one eligibility worker expressed her understanding of some
of the fears and misperceptions that influenced older clients' decisions regarding
applying for food stamps:
/ think a lot [of older people] dont apply because they are under
the misconception that you can't own property, you can't have a
bank account, and a lot of elderly people, lets face it, they don't
want everybody to know their business... don't want [people] to
know how much [they] have. They're going to take my house if I
get this thing." I think it's because they are not educated as to what
they need and what the eligibility criteria is. You explain something
to somebody, and its like going to the doctor. Do you comprehend
everything the doctor tells you? And I'm pretty sure that most
people that are sitting in front of me when they get home, a lot of
them go, Whoa, what did she say? I don't remember anything."
That may be one of the reasons that you don't get back [the
completed forms and documentation that] you're supposed to get
back.
Furthermore, some eligibility workers stated that they were occasionally
frustrated because they could not always help those who they felt needed
assistance due to the constraints of the regulations.
There are a lot of people that we feel are deserving that we deny
for one reason or another. [Eligibility worker]
A number expressed their desire for current policies to be changed in ways they
felt would be more equitable for their clients. Some stated, for example, that it
was unfair that clients were required to deplete their resources, sell their cars,
and empty their savings accounts before they could be eligible for assistance.
One worker reported:
rood Stamp Program
Client Enrollment Assistance Demonstration Projects:
Final Evaluation Report m
We had a plant close. These people have been employed. They've
purchased dependable transportation, and that transportation
makes them ineligible. They had that good job when they bought
that car; they bought it on payments. What they owe on it doesn't
make any difference. Any car less than $6,000 may not be
dependable. Clients say, "Well I can't eat that car." The workers
says, "I'm sorry you're still ineligible."
It is unfair for us to deny an application because somebody is over
eligibility with no income or low income, but they have a vehicle
that puts them over. Out here in this area, you have to have a
decent vehicle. [Eligibility worker]
They don't consider the people out in these rural areas. Ifyou're in
Chicago you can use the buses..., but we don't have that and its
not fair. [Eligibility worker]
The primary concern for many workers was the olaer population, especially given
the tact that for many of them the FSP benefit was small.
The trouble they have to go through with the completion of the
application, bringing in all the information, expecting to be helped
and then we say "you'llbe eligible for $10.00." [Eligibility worker]
To me It's just a travesty that an elderly person maybe is feeding
grand kids and the son comes in now and then. The elderly think
its not worth it to come down to our office. They have doctors
appointments and filling out 20 applications ...its not worth it. We
dont have a place for them to redeem their stamps. To cash it,
they have to buy a ride. [Eligibility worker]
The elderiy [and their level of benefits]. Those $10 just make me
so mad. I'm so embarrassed [to give so little]. Thats what makes
you realty angry, when you know that this woman who is getting
$400 in food stamps is [using the stamps unwisely or illegally] and
the little old lady is getting $10 and sitting at home. [Eligibility
worker]
The interactions between clients and eligibility workers at local food stamp
offices are both affected by and are a result of the conditions cited above. For
example, many eligibility workers had differing views on the worthiness and
truthfulness of their clients as a whole. Some felt that the majority of the clients
who came to see them were genuinely in need:
Food Stamp Program
m™ cfWMnwn Assistance Demonstration projects.
Final Evaluation Report
K3]
Maybe one in every 60-80 [clients] are cheating. For the most part,
clients really do need food stamps.
One worker mentioned feeling "hurt," when she overheard a client say "Got the
paperwork done. Its free money from now on." On the other hand, many
eligibility workers cited the number of clients they felt knew how and were
manipulating the system unfairly to their own advantage:
Some clients are real entrepreneurs. [Eligibility worker]
The attitudes... you meet the attitude before the people. People
with something to hide.... They have money in the bank. Big car.
Working under the table. They are lying to you, and they know
they won't be approved. They are arrogant. [Eligibility worker in a
focus group]
Some previously unserved clients felt that the behavior of some long-time
recipients of benefits, especially those who were cheating the system, were
negatively affecting the eligibility workers' judgments of their cases.
Why should it be so hard for me to get help? You have people who
are not working, have never worked and have no problems getting
food stamps. I think the setup with this food stamp thing, I think
they look at one andjudge all. [Client]
There's something else. People who are on welfare, are in mat
welfare notch have their Ph.D. in it. They know. We don't. ...but
its almost like generation after generation, that they know what to
do to get into the system. [Client]
Some of the eligibility workers and clients, through their individual statements,
revealed some commonly-held beliefs about worthiness and deservedness for
the FSP benefit. These beliefs expressed the value of work and of showing
personal respect, and were often expressed in terms of whether experiences,
rules or outcomes were fair.
/ feel that these people have worked, they have put something into
the system, now its time to get something out of it, and they are
getting ten dollars. It just doesn't seem fair. Then there are other
people who don't work, have never worked, and they are getting
$330 or $400 a month. Ijust don't think its fair. [Eligibility worker]
Food Stamp Program
Client Enrollment Assistance Demonstration Protects:
Fmal Evaluation Report
M
We are conscientious workers and good people. I've been here for
16 years. The only way I can justify this sort of thing is that I feel
that in order to help one that really needs it, I got to help 9 that sit
on their can that could work and do better. Thafs the only way I
canjustify and do my wo/*. [Eligibility worker]
...this is the easy way out [for the client]. "We don't have to do
anything for it. You get your salary, you owe this to us." [Eligibility
worker on client attitudes]
Look. They are not going to go hungry. They will get a job. They
will provide for their family. Make them go to a poor house. Make
them have a garden... Today it is a handout. [Eligibility worker]
I've worked all my life, I'm not on unemployment because I don't
want to work, but because my job moved. Why should it be so
hard for me to get help? You have people who are not working,
have never worked and have no problems getting food stamps...
[Client]
Some people have their pride. Some are shy. If you've been
working, why do I have to have a slap to get something? Anybody
who is eligible should be able to get [food stamps]. [Client]
I mink you are due a courteous audience no matter what the
situation is. You were at one time a taxpayer. Tomorrow you
might damn sight be another, and when you cross me you in
trouble. Thafs why I stay away from agencies. [Client]
And there appeared in many statements by individuals in both groups a
sensitivity, expressed with fear, anger, or indignation, about the closeness and
economic vulnerability of both clients and eligibility workers:
We've had people sitting across from us, Ph.D.'s, service men, it
makes you think twice. We've had some co-workers come m.
[Eligibility worker]
They [the eligibility workers] don't know how to talk to you. Now
thafs theirjob to do whatever they are in there doing. If it wasn't
because of your situation they wouldn't have a job. But they donl
know how to sit there and talk to you in a decent way, and I think
that's terrible. [Client in discussion group]
Food Stamp ProQfvn
Client Enrollment Assistance Demonstration Projects:
Final Evaluation Report
You'd think they were giving it to us from their pockets. [Client]
If it weren't for food stamps, they wouldn't have no job. [Client]
They are just one step from where we're at, and I say "Just
remember, you could always come back to where I'm at." [Client]
C. The Need for Client Enrollment Assistance
The findings show that individual, unserved members of the populations in need
of food assistance targeted by the demonstration projects, are diverse and
frequently present complex challenges, requiring individualized and variable
amounts and duration of support and assistance during the application process
in order to access the food stamp benefit. As noted above, in the analyses,
these challenges to enrollment are located for different categories of non-participating
individuals along a continuum of need. [See Figure 4].
Of those clients requiring assistance, some need only minimal services, usually
of the kind that can be addressed by providing proper information, transportation,
or expanded times or locations of application. Others need more intensive
assistance, in many cases to overcome problems with literacy, language, cultural
interpretation, physical or mental frailty or disability, or isolation. This group of
clients might need a substantial intervention or continual, long-term assistance if
they are to successfully complete the entire enrollment process. Some clients
had such overwhelming medical, psychological or psychosocial barriers to
contend with that accessing the FSP and making use of food stamps was
beyond the scope of the demonstration projects' activities.
One category of potentially eligible clients who could use assistance are those
who make the decision not to pursue the benefit despite need. In some cases
these decisions are made in order to spend personal time, energy and assets in
pursuit of other competing needs such as employment immediate food or
shelter. In other cases, they are made in order to avoid experiencing enrollment
as an internal marker of personal failure or experiencing the use of the benefit as
an outward marker of failure to the community.
The findings also show that many food stamp workers are highly dedicated to
assisting people in need. Currently, workers in most local food stamp offices
perform dual roles as social service providers to those in need of food security
and as guardians of the benefit [taxpayers money] against those who seek to
defraud or abuse the system. The stress and attitudes that can be fostered by
these roles and workers' experiences within them, combined in many cases with
Food Stamp Program
Client Enrolment Assistance Demonstration
Final Evaluation Report
Projects:
increasing work loads, can negatively affect their relationships with clients,
especially clients with complex and time-consuming needs.
Many of the growing number of clients with complex needs have unrealistic or
incorrect expectations about the FSP and its eligibility workers regarding the
application process. Many clients also react to specific applica