Changes in client service in the Food Stamp Program after welfare reform a synthesis of case studies in eight states

              Nutrition Assistance Program Report Series
The Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation
Food Stamp Program Report No. FSP-01-CSFSP
Changes in Client Service in the FoodStamp Program
After Welfare Reform:
A Synthesis ofCase Studies in Eight States
KDA United States Food and January 2001
u>jL/n Department of Nutrition
Agriculture Service
WKlQUkifl
USDA
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Food and
Nutrition
Service
3101 Park
Center Drive
Alexandria, VA
22302-1500
Changes in Client Service in the Food Stamp Program
After Welfare Reform:
A Synthesis of Case Studies in Eight States
Enclosed is a copy of Changes in Client Service in the Food Stamp Program After Welfare
Reform: A Synthesis ofCase Studies in Eight States. This report is the final product of a
study designed to learn about State Food Stamp Program (FSP) policy choices and local
implementation of these policies after the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996. The report presents examples of policies and practices that
may have affected client service in the FSP in terms of program accessibility, quality of
service and availability of employment and training services, particularly for food stamp
recipients that do not receive cash assistance.
The examples are based on information gathered from on-site interviews with program
staff in 8 State agencies and 24 local offices located in one rural area, one small city,
and one urban area in each of the 8 States. The States—Colorado, Kansas, Mississippi,
Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin—were selected to provide
descriptive information about State choices regarding food stamp work sanctions, the
availability of food stamp employment and training services, and basic changes in up-front
operations.
The findings support the concern that local office choices may be another factor
contributing to the decline in FSP participation. The study also revealed examples of State
and local policies that promote both the goals of welfare reform and maximizing FSP
participation.
If you have questions about the content of this report or need additional copies, please
contact the following:
Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation
Food and Nutrition Service
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, Virginia 22302
Phone(703)305-2133
This report is also available on the Food and Nutrition Service web site:
http://www. fns. usda.gov/oane
ENCLOSURE
USDA United States Food and January 2001
Department of Nutrition Food Stamp Program
Agriculture Service Report No. FSP-01-CSFSP
Changes in Client Service in the Food Stamp Program
After Welfare Reform:
A Synthesis of Case Studies in Eight States
Authors:
Vivian Gabor
Christopher Botsko
Submitted by:
Health Systems Research, Inc.
1200 18th Street NW Suite 700
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 828-5100
FAX: (202) 728-9469
Internet: www.hsrnet.com
Project Director: Vivian Gabor
Submitted to:
Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation
USDA, Food and Nutrition Service
3101 Park Center Drive, Room 503
Alexandria, VA 22302-1500
Project Officer: Christine Kissmer
This study was conducted under Contract number 53-3198-6-020 with the Food and Nutrition Service.
This report is available on the Food and Nutrition Service web site: http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane.
Suggested Citation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation,
Changes in Client Service in the Food Stamp Program After Welfare Reform: A Synthesis of Case Studies
in Eight States, FSP-01-CSFSP, by Vivian Gabor and Christopher Botsko. Project Officer, Christine
Kissmer. Alexandria, VA: 2001.
Non-Discrimination Policy
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and
activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political
beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all
programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program
information (Braille, large print audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at
(202)720-2600 (voice and TDD).
To nib a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W,
Whitter Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call
(20?) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This synthesis of case studies on local implementation of the Food Stamp Program (FSP) under
welfare reform represents the combined efforts of many individuals. In 1997, the FNS project
officer Alana Landey and Steven Carlson of the Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation
provided excellent advice in defining the purpose and content of the case study interview and
focus group protocols as welfare reform was unfolding. More recently, Christine Kissmer, the
current project officer, provided invaluable guidance and assistance throughout the drafting of
the individual case study reports and the final production of this synthesis report. Special thanks
go to Ms. Kissmer, Steven Carlson, and the Food Stamp Program staff who carefully reviewed
and critiqued the eight case study reports, offered suggestions for improving earlier drafts of this
synthesis report, and gave their time, expertise and commitment to this project.
Also greatly appreciated are the efforts of Susan Williams, Susan Pachikara, and Karen Bagley at
HSR, who participated in the on-site interviews and pulled together summary memoranda for the
site visits they participated in. Shannon Campbell and Brooke Hardison contributed as well with
their attention to detail and accuracy in formatting the document and graphics.
This study would not have been possible without the generous commitment and assistance
provided by the many State and local food stamp administrators and workers, and representatives
from community-based non-profit agencies who spent considerable time with our case study
researchers participating in interviews, arranging site visits, and providing background data and
policy documents about their programs and their communities. A special thanks goes to each of
them for being gracious hosts and extremely informative experts on the program.
Health Systems Research, Inc. Acknowledgements
//
Table of Contents
Chapter I. Background and Overview 1
A. Policy Context 2
B. The Case Study Research 3
C. Limitations of Study Design 10
D. Organization of Findings 11
Chapter II. Key Findings from the Case Studies 13
A. Program Accessibility 13
B. Quality of Service 28
C. Availability of Services to Support ClientsD Move
Toward Employment and Self-Sufficiency 30
D. Conclusion 34
Appendix A: Lists of Case Study Sites, State Agencies Participating in Interviews, and
Nonprofit Organizations Participating in Focus Groups
Appendix B: Tables of FSP Participation and Selected Demographics for Local Sites
Health Systems Research, Inc. Table of Contents /
CHAPTER I
Background and Overview
In October 1996, Health Systems Research, Inc. (HSR) was awarded a contract by the Food
and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to conduct a study
on State Food Stamp Program (FSP) policy choices and local implementation of these policies
after welfare reform. This study, titled Tracking State Food Stamp Choices and
Implementation Strategies Under Welfare Reform, is designed to describe for FNS the State
food stamp policy choices and implementation issues at the local office level in the wake of the
new flexibility provided to States by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA).
Under this study. HSR has prepared five written products, as listed below:
■ A technical memorandum was prepared soon after the enactment of PRWORA,
summarizing new State food stamp policy options and waivers under PRWORA
and existing information available from FNS and other researcn agencies on the
choices States were making under new and ongoing State options and waiver
authority.
■ A report on State food stamp policy choices was prepared and released in May
1998, based on a telephone survey of State food stamp officials conducted in
November and early December 1997.
■ A report to FNS with recommendations for designing a systematic approach for
tracking State FSP policy choices over time.
■ A set of eight technical case study reports for FNS. describing how States have
changed their administrative structures and policy goals and how localities have
changed program implementation of the FSP since PRWORA.
■ The analytical report on local implementation practices presented here, which is
a synthesis of the key changes to client service in the FSP after welfare reform,
based on site visits to 24 local offices in eight case study States.
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter I Page l
This introductory chapter briefly summarizes the policy context in which the case studies were
conducted, the design of the case study research, and the limitations of the research for
analyzing program effects. The chapter concludes with a summary of how the key findings
will be organized and presented in Chapter II.
A. Policy Context
The central purpose of Federal welfare reform, as enacted through PRWORA. was to replace
the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program with the Temporary Assistance
to Needy Families (TANF) block grant program. TANF was designed to provide States with
more flexibility to increase work and self-sufficiency among low-income families with
children. PRWORA also introduced some changes in the FSP. The legislation made two
major changes that directly affected FSP eligibility and participation: the majority of legal
immigrants and refugees were made ineligible for participation in the program and new work
requirements and a time limit on receipt of food stamps were imposed on able-bodied adults
without dependents (ABAWDs)--a small but important segment of the food stamp clientele.
The work requirement and time limit also resulted in States making a different array of food
stamp employment and training (E&T) services available for ABAWDs.
Additionally. PRWORA gave States an array of options in food stamp policies, including the
right to impose more stringent penalties on the food stamp benefits of a household that does
not comply with TANF rules, even if the adults in that household would otherwise be exempt
from work requirements under the food stamp law. States were also given options to change
the application process for food stamps.
Recently there has been much attention paid in the news and research literature on dramatic
declines in welfare and FSP participation since the mid-1990's. Some of the decline in FSP
participation has come from the eligibility changes described above and a portion is a result of
the nation's improved economy. However, policymakers, program administrators and anti-hunger
advocates have recognized that other factors associated with welfare reform are also
likely involved. As a result, there has been increased attention paid at the Federal level to how
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter I Page 2
welfare reform policies may have indirectly affected the operation of the FSP at the local level
and changed service to individuals who are still eligible for and in need of food stamp benefits.
While many of the food stamp policy options under PRWORA and the broader welfare reform
changes to cash assistance for families had the stated goal of strengthening work incentives for
low-income individuals and had the potential for promoting self-sufficiency among food stamp
clients, they also created the possibility of changes in client service for food stamp applicants
and recipients in three areas:
■ Program accessibility,
■ Quality of services, and
■ Availability of services for the broader non-cash food stamp clientele to support
their transition from welfare to work and promote economic self-sufficiency.
These potential changes in client service are the subject of this case study report. This report
synthesizes the key findings of the individual case study documents, with an emphasis on local
policies and practices that may have altered client service in the FSP after welfare reform. The
report highlights those findings that the authors believe have implications for policymakers as
they consider ways to improve FSP access and service delivery to food stamp participants.
B. The Case Study Research
i. Overview
To capture the way client service in the FSP changed after PRWORA. information for this
study was gathered through site visits to State agencies and 24 local welfare offices—one rural,
one small city, and one large urban area—in each of eight States. The case study States were
Colorado. Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon. Tennessee. Utah. Washington, and Wisconsin. These
States and the location of the three offices visited in each State are highlighted on the United
States map in Figure 1. Appendix A provides a list of State level organizations visited in each
State, the city or county for each local office visited, and information on the size of each local
case study site (rural, small city or large urban).
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter I Page 3
The case study findings are based on interviews with State agency staff in eight States as well
as with local program staff, including the director, casework supervisors and caseworkers in
three local welfare offices in each State. In addition, focus groups were used to gather
community service providers' and advocates' perceptions concerning changes in the FSP under
welfare reform and their potential impact on program accessibility. One such discussion was
held in each State, usually in the largest urban community visited. The site-visit interviews
took place between September 1998 and February 1999. At the time of the interviews all of
the States had established welfare reform efforts in place for at least 18 months.
2. Information Collected
The purpose of the site-visit interviews was to collect descriptive information about current
State food stamp policy choices and on the changes in local FSP practices that have occurred as
a result of welfare reform. The interviewers obtained descriptive information and opinions
from staff and advocates in four general areas:
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter I Page 4
Figure I-1.
Case Study Sites
* Local food stamp
offices visited
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter I Page 5
Changes in the Office Operations for Food Stamp Applicants and Recipients.
A major focus of the case studies was to examine how States had reorganized
their local office operations for food stamp applicants and recipients, including
those who applied for or received TANF and food stamp benefits (TANF7 food
stamp households) and those who applied for or received food stamps but not
TANF (non-TANF food stamp households). The case studies examined changes
in client flow at application, formal and informal diversion practices, the
specialization and division of work among caseworkers serving food stamp
clients, and the food stamp application and recertification processes for different
client groups.
The Extent to Which the Focus ofServices Provided for Food Stamp Clients
was on Moving Clients to Employment and Self-Sufficiency. Under
PRWORA. States were required to significantly expand their work programs for
TANF clients, many of whom also received food stamps. A central research
goal of the case study interviews was to assess whether and how local offices
also changed the availability of work and training services for the non-TANF
food stamp households.
Implementation of Optional Food Stamp Sanctions for Noncompliance with
TANF Rules. A third focus of the :ase studies was the options under PRWORA
that allow States to impose stricter food stamp sanctions on TANF/food stamp
clients who do not comply with TANF program rules. Specifically. PRWORA
gave States the option to disqualify an individual from food stamps for
noncompliance with TANF rules, under the same sanction rules that apply in
each State's TANF program. This includes the option to impose food stamp
sanctions on nor ompliant parents with children under age six. who are
otherwise exempt from food stamp sanctions under food stamp law. A second
FSP option afforded to States is the ability to reduce a household's food stamp
benefits if they do not comply with TANF rules.
Both of these sanction options were designed to reinforce the States' TANF
sanction rules. HSR's first report for this study highlighted the FSP sanction
choices States had made; however, neither the survey nor other existing studies
from FNS provides information on how often these sanctions were being
imposed or whether they were posing a barrier t ontinued access for food
stamp participants. These issues were investigated as part of the case study
interviews.
Opinions on Changes in FSP Access and Recommendations for Program
Improvements. Local office staff, community service providers and advocates
were asked their views on how FSP access and services overall have changed
since welfare reform and what they would recommend be done to improve these
facets of the program.
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter I Page 6
3. Site Selection
The eight States profiled in this report implemented a variety of approaches to welfare reform
and modified their FSP in a variety of ways in response to PRWORA. An eight-State sample
was purposely selected to capture diversity in State TANF policies and in States* FSP policy
choices. Each State was placed in one of three broad categories that reflect different
approaches the States took to operationalize the goals of welfare reform (see Table 1-1).
Table M.
Categories of Case Study States and the Selected Sample
Categories Based on State
Food Stamp Policy Choices Defining Criteria Selected States
Category t: States
Emphasizing a Sanction-
Oriented Approach
Regarding Work
Requirements
These States did not waive a large
portion of their ABAWDs from the
three-month time limit. They also
chose the new food stamp sanction
options for both TANF/food stamp
and non-TANF food stamp clients
subject to Food Stamp E&T
requirements.
Kansas
Tennessee
Mississippi
Category 2: States
Choosing c Less Sanction-
Oriented Approach and
Expanding E& T Services for
ABAWDs
1 hese States chose the less stringent
food stamp sanction options under
PRWORA. Also, in FY 1998—
earlier than most other States—the
Food Stamp Program in these States
had expanded services in the Food
S'amp E&T Program, particularly for
ABAWDs subject to the three-month
time limit for food stamps.
Colorado
Washington State
Category3: States Making
Changes in Front-End
Operations at Local Welfare
Offices
As an integral component of their
redesigned TANF programs, these
States altered the way up-front job-related
services are delivered at local
welfare offices. Their TANF plans
also indicated that they had diversion
programs for TANF applicants in the
form of lump-sum diversion
payments or mandatory job search.
Oregon
Utah
Wisconsin
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter I Page 7
The eight-State sample captured diversity not only in policy approaches, but also in size of the
food stamp caseload and percentage reduction in FSP participation after welfare reform. Tahle
1-7 provides September 1998 food Sti mp caseloads for each case study State, as well as the
change from 1996 to 1998 in each State's total food stamp participation and public assistance
(PA) versus non-public assistance (NPA) food stamp participation.
4. Data Collection Activities
The study involved extensive interviews with State and local program staff in each of the eight
States. Focused interviews with State officials were designed to collect information on current
State food stamp policy choices and on other State programmatic or administrative changes
that could affect the local delivery of FSP services. Interviews were held with the State FSP
director and the individuals in charge of FSP field operations and food stamp E&T functions,
provided there were such specialized program staff.
At each local office, the office director or manager was interviewed individually. Questions
covered the division and specialization of caseworker roles, changes in local policy and
operations (both FSP and TANF) that have affected FSP operations, and the director's views
on changes in the FSP's objectives since welfare reform and on whether welfare reform-related
policy changes had affected services to the food stamp clientele. Group interviews were also
conducted with food stamp caseworker supervisors and caseworkers at each local office. The
purpose of these sessions was to determine how clients actually proceed through the
application process, receive or are referred to E&T services, and to identify the extent of formal
and informal diversion practices. Local staff were also asked about their views on the most
significant changes in FSP operations since PRWORA and how these may have affected client
service. These group interviews were more open-ended than interviews with the State and
local administrators, since the researchers wanted to ascertain more detailed information about
how local office practices work on a day-to-day level. The objective was to determine how the
office actually ran, rather than how it was supposed to run.
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter I Page 8
BLANK
PAGE
Table 1-2.
Food Stamp Participation Data for Case Study States'
FSP
PARTICIPATION
CATEGORY 1 STATES CATEGORY 2 STATES CATEGORY 3 STATES
Kansas Mississippi Tennessee Colorado Washington Wisconsin Utah Oregon
Number of
Participants
(9/98)
113,826 301,924 522,898 181,924 323,251 181,741 89,113 221,115
Percentage
Change in FSP
Participation
(9/96- 9/98)
-30.2 -31.5 -16.8 -22.1 -27.5 -28.9 -14.5 -18.6
Percentage
Change in FSP
Participation
Among Public
Assistance (PA)
Cases (7/96-7/98)
-43.1 -57.7 -36.8 -37.2 -25.3 -82.0 -18.6 -42.5
Percentage
Change in FSP
Participation
Among Non-
Public Assistance
(NPA) Cases (7/96-
7/98)
-15.2 -17.0 -3.5 -15.9 -36.3 +36.4 -15.4 -12.5
State FSP participation data in this table represent the number jf individuals participating in the program by month and were obtained from National
Databank computer runs provided to HSR by the Food Stamp Program, Program Accountability Division at FNS.
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter I Page 9
Finally, in one community in each State, less-structured focus groups were conducted with
staff from emergency food and shelter organizations and advocacy groups. The purpose of
these focus groups was to elicit discussants' views on barriers and facilitators to FSP access
and recommended improvements to the quality of client service. A list of the organization
participating in the focus groups in each State is provided in Appendix A.
Quantitative data on population size and unemployment rates for 1996 and 1998 were collected
for each county or city where the local offices are situated. These figures are presented in the
tables in Appendix B.*
C. Limitations of Study Design
The case studies provide a rich source of detailed information about local rood stamp policies
and practices that has not been published elsewhere. However, the findings must be interpreted
in light of several limitations about this research approach.
First, the States were selected on the basis of food stamp and TANF policy choices of interest
to FNS. Further, the local offices in each State were selected by the State FSP director because
they represented the director's view of offices that best met the State's policy goals and desired
implementation practices at the local level. Thus, the site selection process was intentional and
not representative of the nation or of the selected States.
Second, reliance on interviews with State and local staff and officials produces data that
reflects not only the expertise of the respondents but also their personal perspectives on the
value of the policies and their effects on clients. Interviews with advocates for low-income
clients were included to provide an informed alternative perspective on the subject matter.
However, since this study did not include interviews with food stamp participants or
2 Efforts were also made to collect and analyze program administrative data to determine how many
individuals were sanctioned under new food stamp sanction options and how many individuals,
particularly ABAWDs. *vere served by the Food Stamp E&T Program; however, very few States had
collected or compiled data about these areas of program operations. Where data were available, they are
discussed in the findings section of this report.
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter I Page 10
applicants, firm conclusions cannot be drawn about the consequences of particular policies or
procedures for clients. Descriptions of local office operations and State policies were provided
by individuals who may have had a vested interest in describing their program in its best light.
Respondents were asked their views about the consequences of policies and procedures for
clients, but despite their regular contact with food stamp clientele, program staff and
administrators occupy very different social positions than clients and may not have been fully
aware of how policy changes affected the food stamp applicant and recipient populations.
A final drawback of the case study approach in this study is the limited ability to triangulate
qualitative and quantitative data. Researchers found that the States and localities had very
limited tracking and data collection ability to identify the number of clients affected by
particular policies, such as the number of individuals who had food stamp sanctions imposed
on their household or the number of individuals participating in local Food Stamp E&T
Programs. Thus, while the authors learned about particular policies, such as comparable
sanctions. E&T approaches, or TANF diversion practices that might have posed barriers to
participation or promoted employment among able-bodied food stamp clients, the impact of
these policies on clients is not measurable.
Without outcome data or information on participants' perceptions of local policies and
practices, the case study findings on policies and practices must, by definition, be descriptive in
nature and cannot be used to tie specific policies and practices to outcomes. Hence, the
discussion of program effects in this report focuses on policies and practices that may be
impacting client services, and thus are of policy interest to FNS. other government policy
makers, and interested groups. We stress that the discussion of these potential effects is based
primarily on the observations and analyses of the senior case study researchers who attended
each site visit.
D. Organization of Findings
The aforementioned technical reports to FNS present the individual case study findings for
each of the eight States visited. Most of the information in these reports is descriptive and
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter I Page 11
focuses on the policy choices of particular interest to FNS that formed the criteria for the
State's inclusion in the study (see Table 1-1 above). The reports also present information on
demographic and economic characteristics of the local sites and additional information on the
overall structure of FSP policies and practices in each State.
Chapter II presents a synthesis of the findings of these reports in terms of how the observed
and reported practices may have affected client services, either positively or negatively. Client
services are examined in terms of the following three key dimensions.
" Program accessibility. The dimension of client service that may have been
most affected by various changes in policies and local program operations is
program accessibility. The analysis of the case study findings focuses on
changes in program operations and policies that may have affected individuals*
decision to apply for food stamps, complete the food stamp application process,
or to continue participating once they were certified.
■ Quality ofservice. The case study research also identified two types of changes
that may affect quality of service offered to food stamp applicants and recipients.
This included moving ongoing food stamp eligibility functions to a telephone
center and thereby eliminating many face-to-face interview requirements in
Utah, and a high caseworker turnover rate in several States.
■ Availability ofservices to support clients' move toward employment and
self-sufficiency. Wisconsin. Utah and Oregon were selected as case study sites
for this study because these States had implemented a strong work first
orientation for their TANF Program. The case study findings focus on how this
strong work orientation was carried over to the services for non-TANF food
stamp households.
The largest quantity of information and discussion in this report is on the first dimension,
program accessibility. This is because data collected from the site visits about the effects of
State changes on local program implementation largely has implications in this area. Findings
on the second and third dimensions of client service are limited because, as the case study
interviewers learned during their visits to 24 local offices, by 1998 and early 1999 most of the
case study States—with the exception of some localities in Wisconsin. Utah and Oregon—had
not altered either the administration of eligibility services for food stamp clients or the extent
of employment and training services available to FSP participants.
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter I Page 12
CHAPTER II
Key Findings from the Case Studies
A. Program Accessibility
Some of the State policy choices and local operational decisions about how to operate the FSP
discussed during site visits suggest that new factors may have been affecting access to the
program after welfare reform. Thus, whereas in the past factors such as the location of the
office, the length and complexity of the application process, language barriers, misinformation
about eligibility and "welfare stigma" may have affected individuals' decision to participate in
the FSP, at the time of the case studies different factors in the local operation of the program
may have also affected access in either a positive and negative manner.
Highlighted below are several changes in State policies and local office operations as reported
by the State and local FSP staff that may have acted as barriers or. in some cases, facilitators to
access for food stamp applicants and recipients. Some of these changes were a direct effect of
welfare reform, while others, such as office hours, verification requirements, and outreach
options, were policies and practices that likely affected FSP access prior to PRWORA.
1. Potential Barriers to FSP Access
The case studies revealed several areas of program operations that may have directly or
indirectly posed barriers to FSP access. These barriers can be categorbed in the following
seven areas:
■ Formal or informal job search diversion policies,
■ Limited office hours.
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter II Page 13
■ Burdensome verification requirements.
■ Shortened food stamp certification periods.
■ Lack ofE&T services to heip ABAWDs meet their work requirement and
maintain benefits.
■ Food stamp sanctions for noncompliance with TANF rules, and
■ Privatization of the TANF eligibility process.
Each of these potential barriers are discussed in the sections that follow.
a. Formal or Informal job Search Diversion Policies
While it is not official State policy to divert eligible clients away from the FSP, the case
studies provided evidence that, in practice, formal or informal applicant job search
requirements sometimes created obstacles to clients seeking to apply for food stamp
benefits.
Kansas. Kansas required TANF applicants to look for a job before their TANF
and food stamp application can be approved. In the few counties operating a
Food Stamp E&T Program, non-TANF food stamp applicants who were
mandatory work registrants were also required to conduct a job search before
their food stamp applications were approved.
One of the offices visited in Kansas had also implemented a policy designed to
further the State's goals of promoting work, but that may have resulted in
discouraging eligible individuals from applying for food stamps. The policy
required that all applicants (regardless of whether or not they have a work
requirement associated with food stamp eligibility) attend a mandatory
orientation session. The session covered work requirements for the TANF
Program and the Food Stamp E&T Program.
While this orientation was designed to provide a general overview of both TANF
and the FSP, it may have been promoting misinformation or confusion among
applicants. After the work requirements were explained, some applicants for
TANF and food stamps might not understand that they would be exempt from
work requirements if they applied for food stamps only. Others, applying for
food stamps only, might have thought they were subject to work requirements as
a condition of eligibility when they were not. As a result, after finishing the
group orientation session, some food stamp applicants may not have filed their
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter II Page 14
application or come back for a follow up interview to complete the application
process.
Utah. A few years ago, Utah merged its employment and training services and
eligibility functions for TANF, food stamps and General Assistance programs at
both the Sate and local levels. At the time of the site visit, the local offices were
transitioning to a new look that emphasized job placement and job referrals
instead of what the State called the "support services" of cash assistance and
food stamps. The local offices, called "employment centers", or "job centers",
were serving a broader population than the population eligible for means-tested
benefits. They served all people seeking employment or training. These centers
were staffed by a mixture of the old eligibility workers and staff from the former
department of employment who had experience with work registration and
delivering job placement and training services.
Since welfare reform was implemented in Utah, State agency staff told us they
had been encouraging local offices to keep people from applying for TANF if
they could find a job instead. At the time of the site visit, the State agency was
promoting a coordinated employment services design that would make job
placement a priority. Local offices were told that assistance in applying for
TANF and food stamps should be provided only as z secondary support service
for those who were not able to find jobs. Multiple steps were added to the
application process, with the goal of dissuading people from applying for TANF
and food stamps if it was possible to first help them find a job. While steps were
added to the process, the State office was also encouraging local offices to
complete the food stamp application interview, for those who did end up
applying, on the same day that they came into the employment center, though the
client might have to wait the large part of a day to complete this process.
While there was a very clear State policy goal of promoting work first and
streamlining services, the site interviews revealed that these well intentioned
policies and procedures may have been keeping eligible clients from applying for
food stamp benefits.
For example, in all but the small rural county office visited, multiple interviews
with different types of caseworkers were required before a food stamp
application could be completed. At the Cedar City office, all applicants were
required to talk to an intake/up-front worker and then to an employment
counselor before they could even receive an application for any support services,
including food stamps. Also in the Salt Lake City office, people applying for
both TANF and food stamps had to speak to multiple workers before receiving
an application form. The role of the employment counselor was to assess each
client's job readiness, provide job referrals, and establish a plan for employment
skills training. If the employment counselor decided that a food stamp
application is needed, the client would be referred to a third person to get the
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter II Page 15
application form and get assistance in filling out this form, and then wait for
several more hours that day to have the eligibility interview.
While the effort to ensure the applicant had an interview the same day they came
in for benefits was meant to streamline the process for clients, emergency food
providers and other community service providers in the State said that many
applicants became discouraged with the multi-step process. They reported that
many people left the offices before their food stamp application was even filed
and often did not choose to go back to the office for needed assistance because of
the time and hassle involved.
Oregon. In Oregon, researchers interviewed staff in Medford. Oregon—a small
city office—that had recently moved from a generic caseworker structure to a
new staffing pattern designed to accommodate the applicant job search
requirement for TANF. Clients applying for both TANF and food stamps were
required to first meet with a specified caseworker from an assessment team who
explained the 40-hour job search rules for applicants to TANF. Supervisors
interviewed at this office stated that the large majority of TANF applicants did
not complete the TANF application process either because they found a job first
or because they did not want to comply with the 40-hour-a-week job search
requirement. No information was available on how many food stamp applicants
were turned away from filing their food stamp application because of what they
learned about the TANF job search requirement at this first visit. However, if
clients do not understand the different rules between the two programs, this
could have been a potential barrier to FSP participation.
Emergency food providers and representatives from other community service
organizations in the Portland area reported instances where families interested in
food stamps and cash assistance were handed job leads instead of program
application forms in an attempt to divert the applicants from applying for
services. They said that the applicants were sometimes told to come back and
apply only if the job referrals failed to lead to employment.
Wisconsin. When Wisconsin implemented its welfare reform program, called
"W-2," it put an emphasis on diverting clients from cash assistance whenever
possible. One of the principles of W-2, according to the Wisconsin Department
of Workforce Development is that, "The new system should provide only as
much service as an eligible individual asks for or needs. Many individuals will
do better with just a light touch."J
Anyone applying for W-2 assistance was first required to see a resource
specialist, who made an initial assessment of the applicant's needs, performed
3 Department of Workforce Development. Wisconsin Works Philosophy and Goals.
http://www.dwd.state.wi.us/desw2/philosop.htm
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter II Page 16
initial referrals to employment and training service providers, diverted the
individual to other resources as appropriate, and evaluated the need for W-2
supportive services such as food stamps. This resource specialist described the
requirements of the various programs; another worker conducted food stamp
eligibility interviews.
Representatives from local non-profit agencies in Milwaukee pointed out that the
State's approach to the W-2 intake process may have blocked eligible clients
from accessing food stamps. In November 1998. shortly after HSR's site visit
for this project. Congressman Tom Barrett of Wisconsin called for an FNS
investigation of the W-2 agencies in Milwaukee. He cited reports from
advocates that Milwaukee W-2 agencies were giving food stamp-eligible
households a list of food banks and other resources, instead of referring them to
county workers to complete an application.4
State officials argued that they have designed the diversion process to give
individuals options, not to discourage them from receiving food stamp benefits.
They denied that ii had ever been official policy to discourage individuals from
applying for food stamps and indicated that when the controversy arose in
December 1997. the State agency sent out a memo stating that clients should not
be discouraged from applying for food stamps. Local office staff generally
agreed with the State interpretation; however, Milwaukee County officials did
indicate that when the transition to W-2 first occurred, some workers in the W-2
agencies may have discouraged food stamp applications along with TANF
applications.
Washington State. The State agency emphasized its efforts to assure access to
the FSP for all eligible individuals, and at the time of the site visit was
embarking on a study of the impact ofTANF changes on FSP participation in
the State. However, we heard a different story from one of the local office
administrators whose focus was on client outcomes. The program administrator
at a local office in Seattle told us that in his promotion of work first as an office
goal, he asked his receptionists to not only enlorce the work registration
requirement for all TANF and food stamp applicants who appeared able-bodied,
but urged them to tell applicants to go to the unemployment office and register
for work before applying for food stamps. While the supervisors and
caseworkers had no information about how many potentially eligible clients did
not apply for food stamps as a result of this informal diversion policy, it clearly
could have delayed the filing of the food stamp application by eligible
households and may have been a barrier to access for those who needed food
stamp benefits, even after they found a job.
Representative Tom Barrett's Office. Barrett Seeks Examination ofState s Food Stamp Practices. Press
Release. hnp://www.house.gov/barrett/pr981119.html. November 19. 1998.
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter II Page 17
b. Limited Hours for Accessing the Food Stamp Office
■ Portland, Oregon. During the focus group with emergency food providers and
representatives from other community service groups in Portland, we learned
that in a downtown office, new applicants for TANF and food stamps had to line
up outside the welfare office before 9:00 a.m. to make an appointment to have an
eligibility interview that day. If applicants arrived after that time, they had to
come back the next day to get an interview scheduled. Clearly these very limited
hours imposed a barrier to FSP participation.5
c. Burdensome Verification Requirements
To reduce the number of errors in the FSP. many States had shortened the food stamp
certification periods for households with a history of earned income. In these cases,
both TANF and non-TANF food stamp households were required to conduct in-office
or telephone interviews every three months rather than every six months. In some
States, including a few visited for this study, workers were also being asked by their
local administrators and State offices to conduct more checks on the validity of
information being provided by clients. In one office in Oregon and in the State of Utah,
we heard that these changes were not only placing a burden on caseworkers time, but
also causing some eligible participants to leave the FSP.
■ Oregon. In the Gresham office, the staif said that the emphasis on verification
increased the caseworkers' work burden and reduced the time they could spend
on case management to help their TANF/food stamp clients find and maintain
employment. Because of the increased numoer of office visits required, staff
said that some working clients just stopped participating in the FSP. though they
may still have been eligible and in need of food stamps.
■ Utah. At the time of the site visit, workers responsible for recertifying food
stamp cases were required to make direct contact with collateral contacts,
including employers and landlords, to verify the household's income and
Researchers on this study later learned that this office and its administrator were the subject of an FNS
audit, initiated by the local legal services office and that the office practices presenting barriers to
participation were changed as a result.
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter Page 18
circumstances. Advocates indicated that this was causing an increased burden
on many clients in Salt Lake City who did not want their employers to know that
they were applying for or receiving public benefits.
d. Shortened Food Stamp Certification Periods
Interviewees in five States (Colorado. Oregon. Utah. Washington and Wisconsin) that
had recently shortened the food stamp certification periods for clients with a history of
earned income, noted that this policy was increasing the time and paperwork burden on
caseworkers and clients. They said that clients were required to come into the office
more often and supply information and verification documents more frequently.
Caseworkers expressed particular concern about the continued food stamp participation
of families with children, working families, and persons with transportation barriers.
e. Lack of E&T Services to Help ABAWDs Meet Their Work Requirement and
Maintain Benefits
Two of the eight States visited—Utah and Oregon—had very limited E&T services
available for non-TANF food stamp clients at the time of our visit. Kansas provided
Food Stamp E&T services in a small number of counties in the State and offered no
services to ABAWDs subject to the time limit.
Utah. State officials said that they were slow to start up activities for ABAWDs
because the goal of providing workfare for ABAWDs was incompatible with the
broader State welfare reform philosophy of encouraging all applicants and
recipients to look for a suitable job and maintain unsubsidized employment.
Local office staff indicated that so much effort had gone into building up E&T
and job placement systems for TANF applicants and recipients, that they had not
yet had time to build up a similar set of options for ABAWDs. though they
hoped to in the near future.
Oregon. During our visits to the local offices, the caseworkers in Oregon told us
that since the work requirements were imposed on ABAWDs. most had left the
FSP and the workers did not know if they had found employment. The
exception to this rule was in Medford. where there was a contractor providing
workfare slots to every ABAWD subject to the work requirement, though
caseworkers stated that most ABAWDs did not go to the orientation session to
learn about activities that could help them meet their work requirement. At the
time of our interviews, the State agency staff and advocates told us that the State
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter II Page 19
had funded a non-profit organization to studv how to best serve the ABAWD
population, including how to design an effective workfare component for this
popula
Also, durmg this same period. Oregon officials were requesting a broad waiver
from FNS that would have allowed them to impose stricter job search
requirements on all food stamp work registrants and eliminate the three-month
time limit for ABAWDs. Clearly, Oregon's Food Stamp E&T Program was in
transition at the time of our visit. Very few non-TANF food stamp clients were
receiving E&T services and many ABAWDs were losing benefits due to limited
availability of qualifying work slots to help them meet their work requirement.
■ Kansas. The decision not to serve ABAWDs in the Food Stamp E&T Program
was made at the outset of welfare reform in Kansas. The State official who
administered the Food Stamp E&T Program expressed the State viewpoint that
focusing the program on workfare and education and training opportunities for
ABAWDs would change its nature and would not meet their needs or further the
goals of welfare reform in the State. Since Kansas had not requested any
waivers from FNS to exempt certain areas from the three-month time limit, the
only way for ABAWDs to collect food stamp benefits after three months was to
find unsubsidized employment.
f. Food Stamp Sanctions for Noncompliance with TANF Rules
PRWORA offers States the option to impose food stamp sanctions on TANF/food
stamp households that would otherwise be exempt from food stamp sanctions under the
Food Stamp E&T Program rules. One provision of the welfare reform law, known as
the "comparable disqualification option" allows States to disqualify a TANF/food
stamp individual from food stamps when he or she is disqualified from TANF for not
complying with TANF rules, even if the individual would otherwise be exempt from a
food stamp sanction under the Food Stamp E&T rules. A second provision allows
States to reduce a household's food stamp benefits by up to 25 percent when the
household's TANF benefits have been reduced for noncompliance with a TANF
requirement. PRWORA also offers States the option to impose food stamp sanctions
on a whole food stamp household for up to six months when the head of household is
noncompliant with TANF work requirements and a mandatory food stamp E&T
registrant.
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter Page 20
Three States—Mississippi, Kansas, and Tennessee—were selected as case study States
because they had chosen one of these sanction options after PRWORA. and thus were
assumed to be using a more punitive food stamp policy option than were many other
States. One purpose of the interviews in these States was to determine how often the
sanctions were imposed and whether there was a formal conciliation process routinely
used to help clients meet their work requirements and thereby prevent a sanction.
The following paragraphs summarize what was learned from interviews with State and
local staff about the difference in implementation of the optional sanction policies in
the three States.
Mississippi. Mississippi chose the comparable disqualification option soon after
the passage of PRWORA. Initially, the State interpreted this option more
broadly than intended by Federal policy makers. Beginning in July 1997, if an
individual did not comply with TANF work requirements or did not comply with
child support agency requirements, the whole family, including the children, lost
both TANF and food stamp benefits. At the time of the site visit, and pursuant
to a November 1997 policy clarification memorandum from FNS. the State had
changed its implementation of this sanction option to disqualify only the
noncompliant individual from food stamps. Thus, if a TANF/food stamp
household did not comply with TANF work rules and there was no child age six
or above in the household then the noncompliant individual was sanctioned. In
households with children age six or older, the whole household was still
sanctioned because the head of the household was considered a mandatory Food
Stamp E&T client and subject to Mississippi's food stamp sanction rules. State
and local officials reported that most TANF/food stamp cases were exempt from
full household food stamp E&T sanctions because they included a child under
age six.
State data on food stamp sanctions for September 1998 indicated that 540
TANF/food siamp individuals or whole households were disqualified from food
stamps that month because they had not met TANF requirements. While the
State data do not differentiate between individual and whole household
sanctions, clearly both the comparable disqualification sanction option in
PRWORA and the State's food stamp E&T sanction policies for comparable
TANF work requirements were resulting in a large total number of food stamp
sanctions thi.; month.
State and local officials indicated that the initiation of the comparable food
stamp sanction policy after PRWORA had a limited effect on clients'
compliance with the TANF work rules. Rather than be subject to a comparable
food stamp sanction many families with children under age six opted to
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter II Page 2i
discontinue TANF participation. Interviewers said that these families often
applied for food stamps as non-TANF households, thu:, avoiding TANF work
requirements and the potential for related food stamp sanctions. This behavior
on the part of clients was in large part attributed to the State's low TANF benefit
level. At the time of the site visit, Mississippi had the lowest TANF benefit level
of any State (the maximum TANF cash benefit for a family of three was $120 a
month) and as a result food stamp benefits were more valuable to clients than
TANF benefits.
Kansas. When Kansas was visited in September 1998, the State had a
comparable disqualification option in place. If a head of household in a
TANF/food stamp household violated a TANF work requirement or did not
cooperate with child support, both the TANF case and the food stamp case were
closed, and the household received no benefits from either program. This was
referred to as a 'full family sanction."6 If a household member other than the
head of household violated the TANF work requirement or did not cooperate
with child support, only that individual's TANF and food stamp benefits were
discontinued.
September 1998 data provided by the State indicated that 67 households (with an
unknown number of individuals) had their food stomp cases closed that month
due to non-compliance with a work requirement. Case managers and supervisors
indicated that the monthly number of TANF and food stamp sanctions had been
much higher when Kansas initially implemented its TANF program. Therefore,
quite a few households had probably been negatively affected by the comparable
disqualification policy since its implementation in Kansas.
At the time of the site visit, there was no routine conciliation process in effect for
households losing food stamp benefits due to sanctions. Local staff reported that
TANF/food stamp full family sanctions had to be reviewed by a caseworker
supervisor. Both workers and supervisors indicated that supervisors almost
always concurred with the worker. Some staff indicated that the workers were
influenced by their supervisor's philosophy regarding how strict they should be
when imposing sanctions. These philosophies apparently varied significantly.
Some encouraged sanctions at the first instance of noncompliance. while others
encouraged workers to spend time with the client and to do what was needed to
help them participate in a work activity before sanctioning their cash and food
stamps.
Tennessee. Tennessee was the only State visited that chose the food stamp
benefit reduction option for TANF/food stamp households that do not comply
Kansas officials were aware that its policy was not in compliance with FNS guidance; however, at the
time of the site visit. State officials stated that they disagreed with the FNS interpretation and had
decided to maintain the policy until official regulations were issued. This decision was subsequently
modified. Effective April I. 1999, the State ended the full family sanction policy for the FSP. All food
stamp penalties now effect only the individual violating the TANF requirement.
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter II Page 22
with TANF requirements. At the time of the site visit, the State reduced food
stamp benefits by 10 percent when a household did not comply with TANF
rules. Tennessee was also the only State with a very client-friendly conciliation
process designed to prevent sanctions when possible.7 Local and State staff
interviewed indicated that the benefit reduction was too small to serve as an
incentive for households to comply with TANF rules. According to the staff, it
was very common for households to receive reduced food stamp benefits for
long periods of time as a result of continued non-compliance with TANF rules.
In response to concerns about the number ofTANF cases being closed, in
January 1998 Tennessee initiated a review process for all cases that were going
to be sent a case closure notice for noncompliance. The reviews, initially done
by State employees and subsequently turned over to contract employees hired by
four State universities, involved contacting the client and keeping the family on
benefits if possible. Workers were told to maintain TANF and food stamp
benefits for the household if the reviewer found an error in the case, if the client
had good cause for noncompliance. or if the reviewer convinced the client to
agree to comply with the TANF requirement.
According to State and local staff and advocates interviewed, this conciliation
process has reduced the number of TANF sanctions and has maintained access to
the FSP at full benefit levels for most TANF households.
g. Privatization of the TANF Eligibility Process
Of all the local offices visited, only Milwaukee, Wisconsin had fully privatized TANF
eligibility and other services. One of the consequences of privatization is the delinking
of TANF and FSP functions since the FSP must be administered by State and local
personnel. This separation created challenges for food stamp workers and potential
participants in Milwaukee. The following summarizes some of the challenges and
barriers to FSP access that were assessed through the local interviews.
■ Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The local delivery of TANF benefits and services was
privatized and reorganized in Milwaukee. At the time of the site visit,
households applying for both TANF and food stamps went to one of six district
offices—administered by five different private contractors—to have their food
stamp eligibility determined by Milwaukee County workers who worked on-site
with the private contractors. To facilitate enrollment in food stamps in this
The State did not have data on the number of households that were receiving reduced food stamp
benefits because of noncompliance with TANF rules or on how many families left the FSP as a result of
this sanction.
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter II Page 23
divided system, a client could apply for food stamps at any of the district offices;
the case was then transferred to the correct office for ongoing case management.
While this arrangement addressed one potential problem for applicants, it caused
discontinuity in services and confusion for participants.
The county workers also indicated that dividing the city into regions caused
problems for themselves and clients because of the large number of cases being
transferred. Some of these transfers resulted from individuals applying at one
center and receiving ongoing case management at another, but an even greater
cause of the transfers was clients moving from one district to another. Ont
county worker reported that 300-500 case", were transferred out of his office each
month and another 300-500 cases were transferred into the office from other
TANF agencies or county food stamp offices. County caseworkers reported that
they received as many as 56 new cases from an outside TANF agency in a
month. When a case was transferred, the record needed to be reviewed and the
worker was supposed to make sure it was not due for recertification. County
workers who reviewed transferred cases said that they frequently ran into
problems because procedures had not been followed correctly. This process
placed a burden on clients as well because the transferred cases needed to be
seen in the new office within 30 days after the transfer.
The nonprofit service providers participating in the focus group in Milwaukee
reported that dividing the city into service areas presented a real problem for
clients. Many clients did not understand the divisions. Often times the office
they were assigned to was not the one closest to their home. The providers
reported that some clients had been told that they could get services at county
offices, but when they went to those offices, they were sent to private TANF
agency offices.
Another potential barrier to participation for ongoing food stamp cases in
Milwaukee was the lack of coordination between TANF and food stamp
recertifications and its resultant time burden for clients. The certification period
for most food stamp households was three months, while TANF and Medical
Assistance cases were reviewed every six months. Because different workers
were responsible for the food stamp and TANF portions of a household's case,
clients had to see two different caseworkers to be recertified, sometimes at two
different locations. As a result, they had to provide the same information twice.
In addition, while the goal of the local offices was to coordinate the scheduling
of TANF and food stamp recertifications when they occurred in the same month,
county workers indicated that in practice this was the exception rather than 'he
rule. As a result, TANF/food stamp participants often had to make multiple trips
to the office to maintain their eligibility for food stamps and TANF.
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter II Page 24
2. Potential Facilitators to FSP Access
A few of the local offices visited had implemented efforts to promote FSP participation,
particularly among ABAWDs, working families, and elderly persons. Their practices fall into
two categories:
■ Outreach, and
■ Designated caseworkers and on-site E&T assessments for ABAWDs.
a. Outreach
At the time of the site visits, few States had taken advantage of the available Federal
matching funds to develop food stamp outreach plans. Three exceptions were
Tennessee. Washington, and Colorado. After PRWORA. these States initiated new
outreach efforts targeted to populations with the largest declines in FSP participation.
For example, Tennessee began funding a community-based organization to conduct
outreach to working families and legal immigrants. In Colorado, a new outreach effort
by a private contractor at one local site focused specifically on ABAWDs who had left
the FSP. More details on these States' outreach efforts are provided below.
Tennessee. Since the 1980s, Tennessee has spent State food stamp
administrative dollars matched by Federal dollars to help fund the outreach
activities of several advocacy organizations. Manna, a Nashville area emergency
food provider and advocacy organization, has a long-standing food stamp
outreach effort that initially targeted the elderly and disabled. Since the
implementation of welfare reform. Manna has broadened its focus to include
working families and immigrants. West Tennessee Legal Services has also been
engaged in food stamp outreach activities. At the time of the site visit. East
Tennessee Legal Services had requested to get involved in food stamp outreach
and the State had agreed. The outreach effort by these advocacy groups is an
accepted part of the Tennessee program. Despite some tension between the
policy goals of advocates and those of State officials, there has been good
cooperation between the agencies.
Washington State. Washington State has had a food stamp outreach program
for several years, administered through private nonprofit organizations funded by
the Community Services Block Grant and other agencies serving hard-to-reach
populations, such as migrant farm workers and non-English speaking
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter II Page 25
immigrants. During the group interview with advocacy organizations in
Spokane, researchers learned about an interesting street outreach program
conducted by a local community action agency. This program, targeted to the
homeless, encourages participation in the FSP and specifically in workfare
programs that can help ABAWDs meet their food stamp work requirement and
maintain benefits.
Colorado. In Colorado Springs. Goodwill Industries is the E&T provider for
food stamp participants. At the time of the site visit. Goodwill was planning to
initiate an outreach program at a local soup kitchen to help ABAWDs regain
food stamp eligibility after hitting their three-month time limit. The plan was to
meet individually with these ABAWDs and talk to them about how Goodwill
and the FSP could help them get back on their feet and find a workfare
placement that would not only restore their food stamps, but also lead to the
possibility of permanent employment.
b. Designated Caseworkers and On-site E&T Assessments for ABAWDs
Two of the States visited had made extensive efforts to expand their program capacity
at the local level in order to offer every ABAWD a qualifying E&T slot. At each local
office visited in these States there was a worker specially assigned to help ABAWDs
meet their work requirement and thus maintain access to the FSP. The Food Stamp
E&T efforts for ABAWDs in these States are described below.
■ Colorado. Colorado's Food Stamp E&T Program has always had a strong
commitment of funding from the counties. By Fiscal Year 1999, the State was
planning to provide Food Stamp E&T services with funding provided by 44 of
63 of the counties, including every county that did not have a waiver from the
ABAWD provisions.
Workfare has been a major component of the State's E&T strategy for food
stamp participants since 1992, when it initiated a mandatory workfare
demonstration project in several counties. At the time of the site visit, 42 local
programs had workfare activities. The State had also encouraged counties to
expand the availability ofjob training and education services in their Food
Stamp E&T Programs. Our visits to the three local offices made it apparent that
the key to the successful participation ofABAWDs in E&T in this State was
having an individual case manager on site who saw the ABAWD right after his
or her first eligibility interview and who was highly motivated to help the client
find an appropriate E&T slot and to help him or her follow through with
participation.
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter II Page 26
Colorado is the only State visited that had outcome data on its mandatory E&T
population. The counties were required to track and report these data each
month, as a condition of receiving funds from the State. According to figures
provided by the State agency, the approach in Colorado not only helped ensure
continued food stamp participation ftr many ABAWDs, but also helped many
find employment. Forty percent of food stamp participants statewide (ABAWDs
and non-ABAWDs subject to mandatory E&T requirements) who were referred
to a workfare site complied with the site's participation requirements. More
impressive still, 55 percent of those who started a food stamp workfare
placement subsequently become employed. These numbers compare very
favorably to the ABAWD E&T participation rates noted in local offices in other
States visited for this study.
Washington State. Since the passage of PRWORA, the State food stamp
agency, with assistance from a statewide anti-poverty advocacy organization, the
Children's Alliance, had actively sought to help ABAWDs maintain their food
stamp eligibility through participation in qualifying E&T. At the time of the site
visit, each regional office in the State had staff specifically assigned to help local
offices identify more workfare sites and build their employment and training
capacity for ABAWDs. In addition, local offices were provided temporary
funding for a designated worker to provide case management services for
ABAWDs.
Each of the three local offices visited had a full-time caseworker assigned to the
ABAWD caseload. The caseworker's client responsibilities were to explain the
time limit rules and employment and training options, and to provide counseling
and referrals to job search and subsequently to workfare positions in the
community. These workers were not primarily eligibility workers, but rather
more like the case managers for TANF. Local staff reported that many
ABAWDs did not participate in the workfare assignments offered them and that
the case managers did make an effort to follow-up and assist these clients. The
ABAWD workers told us that it was their role either to help the ABAWDs link
up with employment services to find a job or to find out why they did not
participate in workfare and to help them find a more suitable workfare
placement.
Some of the staff from nonprofit agencies who participated in the focus group in
Spokane said they worked closely with the ABAWD case managers to find
appropriate workfare slots and reach out to ABAWDs who had left the program
to inform them of their right to regain food stamp eligibility if they comply with
the work requirement. This was identified by focus group participants and local
agency staff as a successful partnership effort.
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter II Page 27
B. Quality of Service
At the same time that welfare reform was changing the way States deliver services to new
applicants and participants, the case study site visits revealed changes in the caseworker
function that may have positively or negatively affected the quality of service for food stamp
clients.
1. Centralized Telephone Eligibility Center: A New Model to Streamline Services for
Ongoing, Non-TANr Food Stamp Cases
■ Utah. In June 1998, in effort to streamline functions related to determining
client eligibility and to increase staff time available for employment-related
services, Utah's Department of Workforce Service began a pilot project to assess
the feasibility of centralizing all eligibility functions for food stamps and other
supportive services at a telephone eligibility center. At the time of the site visit,
the 3,500 households in this pilot project conducted virtually all food stamp
recertification business over the telephone with this centralized staff. The sole
exception was a required annual face-to-face interview with j -aseworker at the
food stamp office. The telephone center staff were also responsible for
responding to that food stamp participant's questions and concerns in between
recertifications. Clients without telephones in their homes were being asked to
come into their local employment center and talk to a worker using a telephone
located in the office.
A consumer satisfaction survey conducted by the State found that people using
the telephone service center felt it was easier to do business with the telephone
center staff than to visit an employment center. However, two concerns arose
from the creation of this center. First, because the telephone center staff were so
focused on eligibility functions, the State's goal of integrating employment-related
services with eligibility functions for all clients was weakened somewhat.
Second, as reported by advocates in the focus group in Salt Lake City, there were
long waiting times for clients who called the telephone center. Representatives
from community groups and caseworkers also expressed some concern about the
State's plan to further automate the telephone service functions for ongoing food
stamp cases. Staff from community groups in Salt Lake City reported that
clients' were already somewhat confused and frustrated by the fact that after
their eligibility was determined they only had access to a worker by telephone.
These individuals felt that the clients would be further confused and might not
stay on the FSP if the process became less personalized by having to report
changes and provide other information to an automated voice over the telephone.
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter Page 28
Overall, it appears that the move toward a telephone eligibility system in Utah
can ease the burden of multiple office visits required for clients and potentially
provide easier access for clients to information about their case and to a worker
who can take information they need to report. The model in Utah is one that
other States have considered implementing in the near future. However. States
must learn from the experience of Utah. In the short-term, advocates in Utah
described the confusion that this change caused clients who still want to see an
individual caseworker face-to-face and who expect continuity of service from the
same worker. State agency staff reported that as the State's system evolved and
further evaluations and refinements were being made, one of the State's first
priorities would be to improve customer satisfaction by reducing the waiting
times for clients who call in and by improving customer education about the
benefits of the telephone center for them.
Another early challenge of the centralized system was the transferring of clients'
case records from paper files to a centralized automated system so that any
worker at the telephone center could quickly pull up a client's file when he or
she called in. At the time of the site visit. State agency staff reported this process
was being assessed and improved, but had not yet been perfected.
2. Caseworker Turnover
At the time of the site visits, caseworker turnover was high in many States, particularly among
the non-TANF food stamp caseworkers whose pay scale was often lower than that for the
TANF workers. Turnover may affect quality of service in at least two ways. First, turnover
increases the size of caseloads for workers who remain. Second, it means that services are
being provided by newer, less experienced staff. Case study information indicates that the
problem of caseworker turnover stemmed from a variety of factors, as described below.
■ Low Pay. Administrators and supervisors in Mississippi, Tennessee, and
Colorado pointed to low pay as a major cause of caseworker turnover. These
staff left the welfare system for better paying opportunities. In Colorado, many
caseworkers who worked with the non-public assistance food stamp clients
transferred to the Colorado Works Program (the States TANF program), where
caseloads are smaller and the resources available for both clients and workers are
greater.
■ Complexity of the Job. In Mississippi, the difficulty of understanding and
implementing complex policies in multiple programs led offices to seek out
individuals with advanced degrees. These individuals were especially prone to
leave because of the limited advancement possibilities within the State agency.
In Colorado, supervisors in the larger offices noted that there was a large
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter II Page 29
turnover in food stamp caseworkers because of the large caseloads and the
complexity and multiple changes in the food stamp rules.
Increased Emphasis on Verification and Error Prevention. In some of the
local offices visited in Washington and Utah, caseworkers said that the amount
of time they must spend rev-ewing each case to prevent errors was increasing
their workload, decreasing the amount of time they could spend with clients and
causing high turnover rates. In Oregon, caseworkers did not directly mention
high turnover as an issue, but they did say that their high caseloads and the three
month recertification period for food stamp households was resulting in
increased paperwork requirements and a consequent reduction in job satisfaction.
These workers said the time they spent on verification for food stamps took
away needed time to provide quality case management for public assistance food
stamp cases—a new function under welfare reform that had greatly increased
their job satisfaction. In Salt Lake City, some caseworkers responsible for
ongoing maintenance of cases, including contacting collate' 1 contacts and other
increased verification requirements, expressed some concern about increased
caseloads and noted high turnover and decreased job satisfaction among their
colleagues.
Limited Labor Pool in a Rural Area. In most rural offices visited, the
caseworkers serving food stamp cases had been working in the program for many
years and had experienced many changes in policies and procedures. One office
in rural Tennessee had a major problem retaining workers in their community.
Most of the workers in this office were recruited from different counties, and
were transferred when job opportunities arose closer to their homes.
C. Availability of Services to Support Clients' Move Toward Employment
and Self-Sufficiency
A number of States were trying new ways of delivering employment services for the TANF
population and, as a result, had dramatically changed the design of the local welfare office
procedures for TANF/food stamp applicants. For example, several States were accepting food
stamp applications at new employment or job service centers that were emphasizing job search
and placement, rather than public assistance eligibility determination. Three such States—
Oregon, Utah and Wisconsin—were purposely selected as category three case study sites to
examine whether this strong work orientation was carrying over to the non-TANF food stamp
clientele and helping them move toward employment and self-sufficiency. Though case study
interviewers repeatedly heard that there was little significant change in the ability of the FSP to
help non-TANF clients move toward employment and self-sufficiency in all eight case study
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter II Page 30
States, some local offices in Oregon, Utah and Wisconsin had made the greatest changes in this
area and the findings from these sites are highlighted below.
■ Oregon. Since implementation of welfare reform statewide in Oregon, the State
required everyone who applied for and received TANF benefits to conduct
applicant job search activities for 40 hours a week as a condition of eligibility and
then participate in self-sufficiency activities. Oregon also strengthened the TANF
sanctions for non-cooperation with the required activities and expanded the range
of work activities available to TANF/food stamp clients, including subsidized
employment and substance abuse treatment, which the State has a waiver to count
as a work activity for TANF/food stamp clients in need of treatment.
State officials reported that they encouraged local offices to provide case
management services to all clients coming in to apply for benefits, including the
non-TANF unemployed and underemployed food stamp households. However,
local office staff in the two urban offices (Gresham and Medford) indicated that
both limited resources and the Food Stamp E&T Program rules prevented them
from providing case management services for non-TANF food stamp households.
While there were requirements for caseworkers to refer ABAWDs to E&T
services that qualified to meet their work requirement, in these offices the focus
of the caseworkers' interaction with the non-TANF food stamp households was
on food stamp eligibility determination and verification of client circumstances to
prevent overpayments.8
At the two urban offices visited in Oregon, employment and training services and
case management were generally not available or utilized for non-TANF food
stamp individuals, except for workfare as on option in Gresham for some
ABAWDs. In the rural office of Tillamook. where all caseworkers were generic
in their responsibilities and thus determined eligibility for multiple programs for
all client types, all food stamp clients received one-on-one case management
services, even if they were not ABAWDs. This office had a particularly large
proportion of non-TANF food stamp households in its food stamp caseload. Of a
total food stamp caseload of approximately 1.300 in September 1998. 90 percent
were non-TANF food stamp households. The caseworkers, many of whom knew
these clients on a very personal level in this close-knit community, told us that
they tried to provide the same set of services, including referrals to appropriate
E&T opportunities and case management, for all their TANF and non-TANF food
stamp clientele. Also of note is that in this office, at the time of our site visit,
caseloads averaged about 100 per caseworker, a much smaller number than in the
At the tims of the site visit, Oregon had requested a comprehensive waiver to the Food Stamp E&T
Program ales that would have permitted it to enforce more stringent sanctions for noncompliance with
E&7 requirements for food stamp households and required most adults in the FSP to have a self-suffkiency
plan, with adherence to the plan a mandatory condition of eligibility. The waiver also asked
for FSP funds to be passed along to the State in a form similar to a block grant. This waiver was not
approved by FNS in the form in which it was submitted.
Health Systems Research. Inc. Chapter II Page 31
larger offices visited in Oregon and in other States. Clearly workers with smaller
caseloads had the time to provide more intensive counseling, referrals and follow-up
services for their clients.
Oregon was taking another innovative approach to E&T services in its Medford
office. At the time of our visit, this office was beginning job retention services
for families with children either diverted from TANF or who had left TANF for a
job. In this office, retention team workers provided preventive case work to assist
clients in retaining employment for the first year of work. While the supervisors
discussed an office-wide emphasis on job retention, the retention team staff—
each of whom had a caseload of about 150 to 180—felt that that the limited
funding available in the Food Stamp E&T Program overall and the Federal
requirement to target 80 percent of the available funds on ABAWDs prohibited
them from being able to provide the same intensity of services for working
households on food stamps who had not recently left the TANF rolls.
■ Utah. After State welfare reform was enacted in 1997. the Department of
Workforce Services in Utah urged all local "employment centers" to change their
image and the way they deliver services. The caseworkers were no longer to
emphasize eligibility determination for public benefits; instead, they were to serve
as "employment counselors", whose primary function was to find jobs in the
community and place people in these jobs.
State officials reported that their goal was to blur individual program lines to
provide customers with seamless employment-oriented services. When the State
merged its employment and supportive services into one-stop employment centers
at the local level, it was envisioned that all customers, regardless of the specific
reason that brought them to the office, would receive similar employment-related
services. In the State's plan, and in each of the three offices visited, each
employment center had an up-front area with a job board and other -esources.
such as personal computers, to help clients with their job search. In mid-size and
larger offices, someone was always available in this front area to help people use
the on-line job information and to counsel them briefly about job opportunities.
In the State model, each client then had a more in-depth counseling session with
an employment counselor who could match the client's skills and experience with
job openings in the community or refeirals for appropriate training if needed.
While the State encouraged a broad model of employment support for all persons
coming to an employment center, local staff reported that they were not able to
provide extensive, or in some cases any, E&T services for non-TANF food stamp
households, unless the client was job-ready. Office directors and supervisors
reported that they prioritized the TANF population because these parents had
strict work and education requirements and a three-year lifetime limit for receipt
of TANF, and the State had strict work participation rate requirements for the
local offices. In only one office visited, an office serving a large caseload in
downtown Salt Lake City, did staff routinely provide employment counseling to
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter II Page 32
non-TANF food stamp households. This was focused solely on ABAWDs subject
to the three-month time limit and disabled clients who were receiving State
general assistance and not eligible for SSI.
State officials said that one of the reasons workers may not have implemented the
employment emphasis for non-TANF food stamp households is that in most
offices, the non-TANF food stamp cases were served by a different set of
workers, whose primary function was eligibility determination and benefit
calculation. Another factor impeding the ability of caseworkers to provide
employment-related services for non-TANF food stamp households was their
larger caseloads.
Racine, Wisconsin. The local welfare office in Racine represents a model
combination of employment and benefit services. It offered integrated, one-stop
shopping approach for all clients. Like in Utah, employment services were also
available to anyone in the community seeking employment assistance. The food
stamp E&T caseworker reported that participation in food stamp E&T was higher
since E&T services and eligibility services were co-located. In the past, it was
much easier for clients to become disengaged as they went from place to place to
access E&T services.
In contrast to the offices visited in Utah, where local offices had not yet been able
to realize the State's goal of serving all clients, Racine provided one-on-one
ongoing case management for all food stamp E&T clients, including non-TANF
food stamp clients. At the Racine job center, food stamp E&T clients had the
same intensity of employment services available to them as the TANF/food stamp
clientele do. Workshops, job search assistance, and adult education classes, held
at the job center, included a mixture of TANF/food stamp participants. non-
TANF food stamp E&T participants, and other interested people from the
community. On-site child care was available for anyone who used the job center,
whether they came to look for work, meet with a food stamp or TANF worker, or
participate in an E&T activity. When major employers in the community needed
to hire a large numi*., of workers they regularly conducted their interviews in the
job center. All the staff interviewed emphasized the tremendous advantage of
having many services located in one place.
Mandatory food stamp E&T clients were assigned to a group orientation at the
job center. They then attended a group assessment, where they learned about the
resources available and were assigned to a specific component and a case
manager. The center offered multiple tools for finding a job including job search
resources at the center and a series of workshops tailored to individual client
needs. Among the workshops offered in the month of the site visit were:
"Techniques for a Great Receptionist," Career Assessment," Cover Letters,"
"Thank-you Notes and More." "Triumph over Termination." "Interviewing
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter II Page 33
Skills," "Careers in Health Care." the "Earned Income Tax Credit," and
"Nontraditional Occupations." Workshops were made available in the evening to
accommodate working people who wanted to advance their job skills.
While Racine offered a wide range of services to food stamp clients, utilization of
these services was low. According to a case manager interviewed, less then one-iiiird
of all mandatory E&T participants attended the initial orientation session.
Most people who attended the orientation and received job search assistance
found jobs quickly. Staff indicated that this was probably also the case for a
portion of clients who applied for food stamps and never went to an E&T
orientation. Those food stamp E&T participants who were not able to find a job
were assigned to .vorkfare ("work experience") slots in the public and private
sectors.
D. Conclusion
Without doubt, the strong U.S. economy and the impact of cash assistance reforms and changes
in FSP eligibility contributed to the decline in food stamp participation since 1994. These
factors also had a profound impact on the way services were delivered at local welfare offices
and on individuals' attitudes towards public assistance. This study suggests that the way in
which clients are served at local food stamp offices and changes in local office operations
under welfare reform may also affect participation decisions by eligible households in ways
that contribute to the decline in FSP participation.
The in-depth study of 24 local offices in 8 States provided an opportunity to examine how
State policy choices under welfare reform are implemented at the local level and how local
office choices affect client service. Interviews with supervisors, caseworkers and local non-profit
organizations examined ways in which the FSP is presented to applicants, the application
and recertification processes, and the availability of employment and training services to non-
TANF food stamp clients. The site "isits revealed a number of practices in several of the 24
offices visited that potentially pose barriers to participation in the FSP. Examples of these
policies and procedures included:
■ Multiple interviews with employment-related staff before the food stamp application
can be completed.
Health Systems Research, Inc. Clapterll Page 34
Withholding of information about FSP eligibility and an overemphasis on TANF
rules in ways that may have misled applicants about the differences between TANF
and FSP requirements and their relevance to their circumstances.
Overzealous promotion of employment goals to the point of urging clients to visit
the unemployment office before Filing for food stamp benefits.
More frequent certifications and direct collateral verifications of employed clients*
circumstances with the consequence that caseworkers had less time for case
management services to help clients find and maintain employment,
Limited E&T services for non-TANF food stamp clients, particularly ABAWDs and
those who were not job ready, despite, in one State, a general policy to provide these
services to all clients.
More punitive food stamp sanctions for noncompliance with TANF rules and E&T
work requirements, sometimes without opportunities for conciliation, and
Lack of coordination between TANF and food stamp certification and change
reporting processes.
Site visits also revealed local office policies and procedures that were designed to facilitate
program participation. These examples demonstrate that the goals of welfare reform and of
maximizing FSP participation by eligible households are not fundamentally in conflict with
one another. Some of these local practices included:
■ A designated worker in each office to help ABAWDs meet their work requiremen*
and thus maintain food stamp eligibility,
■ The integration and co-location of food stamp E&T and eligibility services,
■ The availability of the same mixture of E&T services to both TANF and non-TANF
food stamp participants, and
■ Food stamp outreach activities initiated to help those most affected by welfare
reform, namely, legal immigrants, ABAWDs and working families.
The case study findings also suggest that local office characteristics may influence how State
welfare reform policies are implemented. For example, in one State, an office in a more rural
area was more successful at offering E&T services to all food stamp clients than its urban
counterparts, in large part because of smaller caseloads and personal relationships between
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter II Page 35
workers and clients. In another State, years of experience operating workfare projects was the
basis for the commitment to serve ABAWDs. Finally, many of the local food stamp outreach
initiatives that were identified built upon prior relationships with community-based
organizations serving low-income individuals.
Although case studies provide a rich source of detailed information about local food stamp
policies and practices, the research approach has several limitations. First, the site selection
was purposive and not representative of the nation or of particular States, although State
officials were asked to select offices that best met the State's policy goals. As a result, the list
ofexamples is not comprehensive and statements about the prevalence ofcertain practices
cannot be made. Second, the data are qualitative and impacts on participation were not
measured. The study, however, does support the concern that the design of local office food
stamp operations may be a factor contributing to the rapid decline in FSP participation.
The task of identifying and remedying practices that can negatively impact access to the FSP is
a difficult challenge for policymakers because, as this study demonstrated, official State
policies are not a reliable indicator of what occurs at the local level. This study also revealed
that many local procedures that may impede program participation are frequently the product
of well-intentioned efforts to further the goals of welfare reform.
Health Systems Research, Inc. Chapter II Page 36
Appendix A: Lists ofCase Study Sites, State Agencies
Participating in Interviews, and Nonprofit Organizations
Participating in Focus Groups
n y>
Case Study Sites
States Local Food Stamp Offices
Offices in Rural
Areas
Offices in Small Cities
(Name of City)
Offices in Large Urban
Areas
(Name of Major City)
Kansas
Mississippi
Tennessee
McPherson County
Adams County
Robertson County
CATEGORY 1 STATES
Saline County
(Salina)
Washington County
(Greenville)
Montgomery County
(Clarksville)
Sedgwick County
(Wichita)
Hinds County
(Jackson)
Knox County
(Knoxville)
Colorado
Washington
Bent County
Tri-County Area
Stevens County
Pend Oreille
Ferry County
CATEGORY 2 STATES
Fremont County
(Canon City)
Spokane East
(Spokane)
El Paso County
(Colorado Springs)
Ballard
(Seattle)
Oregon
Utah
Wisconsin
CATEGORY 3 STATES
Tillamook County Medford
(Medford)
Beaver County
Dodge County
Iron County
(Cedar City)
Racine County
(Racine)
Gresham Branch
(East Portland)
Downtown Salt Lake
City Office
(Salt Lake City)
Milwaukee County
(Milwaukee)
Health Systems Research, Inc. Appendix A Page A-i 3f
State Food Stamp Agencies in the Case Study States
State Agency
CATEGORY 1 STATES
Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services
Mississippi Department of Human Services
Tennessee Department of Human Services
CATEGORY 2 STATES
Colorado
Washington
Department of Human Services
Department of Social and Health Services
CATEGORY 3 STATES
Oregon
Utah
Wisconsin
Adult and Family Services Division, Department of Human Resources1
Department of Workforce Services
Department of Workforce Development
The agency name was changed to the Oregon Department of Human Services after the site visit was conducted.
Health Systems Research, Inc. Appendix A Page A-2 >1
Non-Profit Agencies and Advocacy Groups
Participating in Focus Groups
CATEGORY 1 STATES
Wichita, Kansas
The Salvation Army
Interfaith Ministries
The Campaign to End Childhood Hunger
Jackson, Mississippi
Stewpot Community Services
Iona House
Knoxville, Tennessee
Knoxville Community Action Committee
The Private Industry Council
Knox Area Rescue Ministries
Knoxville Community Development Corporation
The Salvation Army
Volunteers of America
CATEGORY 2 STATES
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Care and Share Food Bank
Manna Ministries
Ecumenical Social Ministries
Ranch House Ministries
Westside Cares
Faith-Based Mentoring Task Force
Spokane, Washington
Spokane Food Bank
Central United Methodist Church
Spokane Neighborhood Action Program
Children's Alliance
Health Systems Research, Inc. Appendix A Page A-3 *?
CATEGORY 3 STATES
Portland, Oregon
Asian Family Services
Oregon Food Bank
Oregon Hunger Relief Task Force
Sisters of the Road
Salt Lake City, Utah
Cathedral of the Madeline
Salt Lake Community Action Program
Northwest Food Pantry
Crossroads Urban Center
Utahans Against Hunger
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Hunger Task Force of Milwaukee
Hmong/American Friendship Association
Central City Churches
New Life Presbyterian Church
Social Development
Health Systems Research, Inc. Appendix A Page A-4 ¥1
Appendix B: Tables ofFSP Participation and Selected Demographics for
Local Sites
Y2-
- - ■ ■ ■
Table B-l.
S*ate and Local Food Stamp Participation Trends For the Case Study Sites
September 1996 to September 19981
Location
Number of Individuals Participating Percentage Decline
in Participation
September 19% September 1998 1996-1998
U.S. Totals 24.85 million 18.68 million 24.8
Kansas 163,172 113,826 30.2
CO
w
H
H
CO
>
Oou
H
<<
U
McPherson
County
884 733 17.1
Saline County 3,403 2,102 38.2
Sedgwick County 37,268 24,917 33.1
Mississippi 440,523 301,924 31.5
Adams County 7,933 5,956 24.9
Hinds County 44,318 29,247 34.0
Washington
County
19,205 15,288 20.4
Tennessee 628,657 522,898 16.8
Knox County 34,371 27,002 21.4
Montgomery
County
10,320 8,211 20.4
Robertson
County
3,634 3,245 10.7
CATEGORY
2 STATES
Colorado 233,505 181,924 22.1
Bent County 805 651 19.1
El Paso County 26,031 21,333 18.8
Fremont County 3,172 2,532 20.2
Data on the number of individuals participating in each State's Food Stamp Program in September 1996
and September 1998 were obtained from National Databank computer runs provided by the USDA, FNS,
Food Stamp Program, and Program Accountability Division on February 11, 1999. The State food stamp
agencies provided county and local office-specific food stamp participation data.
Health Systems Research, Inc. Appendix B Page B-i
ft
Table B-l (continued).
State and Local Food Stamp Participation Trends For the Case Study Sites
September 1996 to September 1998
Location
Number of Individuals Participating Percentage Decline
in Participation
September 1996 September 1998 1996-1998
Washington2 446,036 323,251 27.5
Ballard Office-
Seattle
7,404 5,363 27.6
Spokane East
Office 13,637 10,875 20.3
Tri-county Office 7,164 6,363 11.2
Ed
H<H
as
Oo
Ed
H<
Oregon 271,491 221,115 18.6
Gresham Office-
Portland
60,025 38,537 35.8
Medford Office 10,549 7,950 24.6
Tillamook Office 1,571 1,303 17.1
Utah 104,216 89,113 14.5
Beaver County 319 280 12.2
lion County 2,378 2,197 7.6
Salt Lake City 40,699 32,789 19.4
Wisconsin 255,669 181,741 28.9
Dodge County 1,334 961 28.0
Milwaukee
County
126,459 94,125 25.6
Racine County 8,631 6,053 29.9
In 1996, Washington State converted to a new computer system. Though the State believes the 1996
data it provided are reliable, these represent the average number of cases per month and are a
combination of the old and new computer data.
Health Systems Research, Inc. Appendix B Page B-2
/Yf
Table B-2.
Population ant' Unemployment Rates for the Local Case Study Sites
Location
Population1 in
1998
Unemployment Rates2
1996 1 1998
i 1 ,
Vi u
H
<
mi
>
0oHH
<g
Kansas
McPherson
County 28,549 3.0% 2.8%
Saline County 51,399 3.9% 3.5%
Sedgwick County 447,819 4.4% 3.3%
Mississippi
Adams County 34,141 7.0% 8.3%
Hinds County 247,262 4.0% 4.1%
Washington
County 65,173 10.1% 9.2%
Tennessee
Knox County 374,693 3.4% 3.1%
Montgomery
County 127.156 4.0% 3.5%
Robertson County 53,192 5.0% 3.4%
CATEGORY 2
STATES
Colorado
Bent County 5,798 4.0% 4.0%
El Paso County 490,044 4.6% 4.5%
Fremont County 44,225 5.0% 4.7%
U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates,
http: 'www.cen,us.uov/population www estimates popest.html
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemf. oyment Statistics. Selective
Access, http:' slats.bls.^ov lauhome.htm
Health Systems Research, Inc. Appendix B Page B-3
/
/
$
TaMe B-2 (continued).
Population and Unemployment Rates for the Local Case Study Sites
Location Population in
1998
Unemployment Rates
19% 1998
0 cc
o w
Washington
Seattle 536,978 5.8% 3.6%
Spokane 184,058 6.6% 5.5%
Tri-county
Stevens County 39,591 10.8% 9.0%
Pend Oreilie 11,523 16.4% 12.1%
Ferry County 7,163 13.7% 11.5%
CATEGORY 3 STATES
Oregon
Portland 503,891 5.5% 5.1%
Medford 57,156 7.8% 6.4%
Tillamook County 24,283 6.0% 6.0%
Utah
Beaver County 5,901 5.3% 4.9%
Iron County 28.777 3.8% 3.9%
Salt Lake City 174,348 3.0% 3.4%
Wisconsin
Dodge County 83,007 2.8% 2.8%
Milwaukee County 911,536 4.1% 4.0%
Racine County 185,537 4.2% 4.1%
Health Systems Research, Inc. Appendix B Page B-4
%