evaluation of the human resources administration food...

EVALUATION OF THE HUMAN RESOURCES

ADMINISTRATION FOOD STAMP RECERTIFICATION

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

FINAL REPORT

NOVEMBER 2012

Prepared for:

NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION

Prepared by:

John Trutko and Carolyn O’Brien

Capital Research Corporation, Inc.

FSRIP Final Report Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1 A. Background on the Food Stamp Recertification Improvement Program (FSRIP) ......................... 1 B. FSRIP Evaluation Objectives and Methodology ........................................................................................... 7

II. FSRIP START-UP AND ONGOING IMPLEMENTATION ..................................................... 14 A. Start-up Activities and Implementation of Program Operations ........................................................ 14 B. FSRIP Recertification Process at CBO Implementation Sites ............................................................... 24

III. ANALYSIS OF AGGREGATE DATA ON FSRIP CBO IMPLEMENTING SITE CAPACITY AND CERTIFICATIONS CONDUCTED .................................................................................... 29

A. Number and Characteristics of CBO Implementing Sites ....................................................................... 30 B. Trends in FSRIP Recertifications Conducted .............................................................................................. 41 C. Characteristics SNAP Participants Conducting FSRIP Recertifications ............................................ 50 D. Recertification Outcomes for FSRIP Participants ..................................................................................... 57

IV. PARTICIPANT PERSPECTIVES ON FSRIP PILOT .............................................................. 67

V. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ....................................................................................... 74

FSRIP Final Report Page ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background

The Food Stamp Program (also known as the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program or

SNAP) is a critical work support, which provides food assistance for 1.8 million low-income

New Yorkers including families, the elderly, and the disabled. The primary goal of the program

is to help families supplement the cost of their diet with nutritious foods. In 2009, the New York

City Human Resources Administration (HRA) applied for and was awarded an FY2009

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participation grant to design and implement

the Food Stamp Recertification Improvement Project (FSRIP). The purpose of this initiative –

which is the focus of this report – was to offer electronic recertification processing at

Community-Based Organizations (CBOs), with the goal of reducing the number of eligible

households who fail to recertify and increasing the number of participants who continue to

receive benefits as long as they remain eligible. In 2011, HRA’s Office of Evaluation and

Research contracted with Capital Research Corporation, Inc. to conduct an evaluation of FSRIP

aimed at documenting the implementation of FSRIP and assessing the extent to which FSRIP

achieved its goals.

Key Study Findings

Finding #1: HRA successfully developed an electronic recertification interface. CBO

staff reported that the recertification interface was easy to understand and functioned reliably

during the FSRIP pilot. CBOs also found the HRA Help Desk responsive and helpful during

the pilot.

Finding #2: With the help of its three key partnering organizations -- Food Bank for

New York, New York City Coalition Against Hunger (NYCCAH), and Metropolitan

Council on Jewish Poverty -- HRA exceeded its goal of establishing 10 CBO sites in

community locations. At the pilot’s end in August 2012, FSRIP recertifications were being

conducted at 25 CBO neighborhood sites. Staff at eight additional sites were trained on

FSRIP recertification procedures and these new sites were scheduled to begin conducting

recertifications in September/October 2012, bringing to 33 the total number of CBO

implementing sites. Additionally, the three key CBO partners have committed to continue

conducting FSRIP recertifications after the pilot at most (if not all) existing sites.

Finding #3: By the end of the pilot, CBO sites were spread throughout NYC providing

FSRIP recertification services for areas served by 12 of NYC’s 19 Food Stamp Centers.

Four of NYC’s five 5 boroughs were served by the end of the pilot (with plans to serve all 5

boroughs by October 2012). The 25 CBO sites conducting recertification offered slightly

over 500 hours of total staff availability per week to conduct FSRIP recertifications, with half

of the sites offering 20 or more hours per week of staff availability to conduct recertifications

for SNAP participants.

FSRIP Final Report Page iii

Finding #4: Despite FSRIP overall success, some implementation challenges were

encountered. FSRIP started up slow – initial marketing approach did not yield steady flow

of FSRIP participants and some CBOs had to field many inquiries unrelated to recertifying

eligible SNAP participants. Mailings to SNAP participants in selected zip codes served by

FSRIP lifted recruitment, but there were some glitches with content/format of letter

necessitating refinements over time. Some CBO sites struggled to fill appointment slots, and

as a result, they had capacity to conduct many more FSRIP recertification than they actually

did. Additionally, changes in HRA policy and procedures to (1) expand the window of time

available for CBO staff to assist with the recertification process and to (2) allow CBO staff to

add new individuals to a case might increase the number of participants assisted with the

recertification process in the future.

Finding #5: The total number of FSRIP recertifications completed lagged behind initial

grant goals, but exceeded HRA’s modified goal of 3,000. A total of 3,005 FSRIP

recertifications were completed during the 27 months of the pilot. While the pace of FSRIP

recertifications was slow during the first year of the pilot, as more sites were added during

the second year of the pilot and outreach efforts increased, the pace of recertifications

escalated substantially (e.g., during the last 6 months of pilot, nearly 300 recertifications

were conducted on average per month).

Finding #6: FSRIP participants were much more likely to continue receiving Food

Stamp benefits after going through the CBO recertification process than the city’s

caseload as a whole did using other recertification methods (such as in-person and

telephone recertification methods). Overall, of the recertifications conducted and tracked

during the FSRIP demonstration, 89.5 percent, successfully recertified after completing the

process at the CBO site. During the same time period, 60.1 percent of SNAP households

successfully recertified. It is not surprising that such a high percentage of FSRIP participants

successfully recertified compared to all SNAP participants citywide, because FSRIP

participants are those who already took the initiative to go to the CBO to recertify. Perhaps a

better comparison group is comprised of those who showed up at a Food Stamp office to

recertify with HRA in person: of those, 72.4 percent successfully recertified during the same

time period as the FSRIP pilot was running.

Finding #6: An analysis of closing reasons suggests that assistance provided by the staff

at the CBO implementing sites helped FSRIP participants to navigate the

recertification process. About one-third of FSRIP participants closed or rejected during the

recertification process due to these two reasons: “Failure to Recertify” (13.2 percent) or

because of “Failure to Provide Verification-Documents” (20.3 percent), both of which

indicated that the client did not complete all of the required administrative procedures for a

successful recertification. In comparison, three-quarters of SNAP participants who received

a mailer about FSRIP but chose not to do the CBO option closed/rejected during the

recertification process either because of “Failure to Recertify” (62.1 percent) or because of

“Failure to Provide Verification-Documents” (13.2 percent). The most frequent closing

reason for FSRIP participants was “Excess Earned Income”, identified as the closing reason

FSRIP Final Report Page iv

for about one-third (31.6 percent) of FSRIP participants closing during the recertification

process (compared to 9.2 percent of SNAP participants receiving the mailer). Overall, the

distribution of closing reasons was substantially different for closed/rejected FSRIP

participants during the recertification process, compared to the more general population of

closed/rejected SNAP participants (receiving the mailers informing them about FSRIP). The

difference shows that the mailer comparison group experienced more closings related to

recertification procedures, whereas the FSRIP participant group cases were more likely to

close for reasons that were not addressed by the grant initiative, such as closing for excess

earnings.

Finding #7: Focus group participants were generally very satisfied with FSRIP,

particularly in comparison to recertification experiences at Food Stamp Centers. Focus

group participants indicated the features they liked most about the FSRIP pilot were the

following:

o Convenience of CBO location;

o Short (or no) wait times for FSRIP appointments;

o Friendly, helpful, and patient CBO staff;

o Ease of getting supporting documents scanned and peace of mind that documents

would not get lost;

o Comfortable and generally not overly crowded office space (compared to Food Stamp

Centers);

o Having an intermediary/advocate in case documents get lost or Food Stamp benefits

discontinued;

o Learning about and/or being able to access other CBO services; and

o Having ready access to native language speaking CBO staff to assist with translation

(e.g., Spanish), if needed.

In conclusion, although the number of recertifications facilitated by the FSRIP initiative was

relatively small when compared to the overall number of recertifications completed citywide, the

pilot was an investment in expanded capacity to provide services and overall continued

improvements to the Food Stamp program. FSRIP provided the opportunity to build on the

success of the earlier Paperless Office System (POS) demonstration project (aimed at conducting

initial Food Stamp applications at CBO sites) by providing resources to develop a new electronic

interface within POS that enabled staff in CBO sites to assist in the recertification process, thus

improving access for eligible Food Stamp participants by making it easier for them to continue to

receive benefits. Staff at partner and CBO sites trained as part of the initiative will continue to

offer FSRIP services to participants using the process established as part of the pilot even after

the grant has ended. In addition, this initiative has provided an additional opportunity to build

upon and strengthen collaborations around delivery of Food Stamp benefits among HRA, partner

and local CBO administrators and staff.

FSRIP Final Report Page 1

EVALUATION OF THE HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION FOOD STAMP

RECERTIFICATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

This report presents findings from the evaluation of the City of New York Human

Resources Administration (HRA) Food Stamp Recertification Improvement Program (FSRIP),1

an initiative designed to reduce the number of eligible households who fail to recertify for Food

Stamp benefits by offering electronic recertification at community-based organizations (CBOs).

This report: (1) describes the design, implementation and on-going operations of the FSRIP in

CBO sites and HRA Food Stamp Centers; (2) assesses the capacity of partnering CBOs and

implementing sites to conduct FSRIP recertifications; (3) examines trends in FSRIP

recertifications over the course of the initiative; (4) examines characteristics of FSRIP

participants and their recertification outcomes; (5) examines Food Stamp participant perspectives

on the pilot project, as well as those of HRA and CBO administrators/staff; and (5) provides

study findings and conclusions on the FSRIP implementation and its effects on the Food Stamp

program in the City of New York.

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Background on the Food Stamp Recertification Improvement Program

(FSRIP)

The Food Stamp Program (also known as the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance

Program or SNAP) is a critical work support, which provides food assistance for nearly 1.8

million low-income New Yorkers including families, the elderly, and the disabled. The primary

goal of the program is to help families supplement the cost of their diet with nutritious foods.

1 At the time HRA applied for federal grant funding for FSRIP, the program was referred to as the Food Stamp

Program (FSP); it has since been renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The terms

SNAP and Food Stamp Program are used synonymously in this document.


Food Stamps can be used at many locations, including supermarkets, most farmers markets, and

some Green Carts.2 In part due to the deep recession and accompanying high unemployment

rates that gripped the nation (and New York City) beginning in the latter part of 2008, Food

Stamp participation levels have increased dramatically in recent years: for example, nationwide,

average participation levels in SNAP increased from 28.2 million in 2008 to 44.7 million in 2011

(a 58.5 percent increase) and total benefit dollars have more than doubled from $34.6 billion in

2008 to $71.8 billion (a 125 percent increase).3 Similarly, the number of SNAP participants

across New York City’s five boroughs has grown rapidly in recent years, increasing from 1.2

million SNAP participants in January 2008 to 1.8 million participants in 2011 (a 50.4 percent

increase).

As the overall SNAP caseload has grown, the number of recertification cases each month

– the main focus of the Food Stamp Recertification Improvement Program -- has also increased

substantially, more than doubling from 20,588 in May 2008 to 48,810 three years later in May

2010 (a 137 percent increase). This added volume has resulted in heavier workloads and

congestion, and, for some participants, longer wait times for in-person recertifications at HRA's

Food Stamp Centers. The continued growth in SNAP enrollment has created a pressing need for

new and innovative strategies that help the agency effectively manage the SNAP caseload in a

timely and efficient manner, without unnecessarily burdening and inconveniencing participants.

HRA, with oversight from the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability

Assistance (OTDA), has demonstrated its commitment to improving and streamlining procedures

2 For additional details about SNAP, including eligibility and how to apply for Food Stamp benefits, see the HRA

website: http://www.nyc.gov/html/hra/html/directory/food.shtml 3 From the U.S. Department of Agriculture, SNAP Data System time series data, available at:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-(snap)-data-system/time-series-

data.aspx. According to this time series data, average participation levels in SNAP for the State of New York

increased from 2.0 million in 2008 to 3.0 million in 2011.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-(snap)-data-system/time-series-data.aspx

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-(snap)-data-system/time-series-data.aspx


while at the same time expanding access to benefits. Recent initiatives to enhance Food Stamp

administrative procedures in New York City include, for example: allowing online and mail-in

applications and initial telephone interviews for recipients; encouraging participants to mail, fax

or drop off required documentation and opt for telephone interviews for recertifications;

developing the comprehensive automated Food Stamp Paperless Office System (POS), the

electronic application and enrollment processing system implemented in all Food Stamp Centers;

and launching numerous collaborative efforts with CBOs to provide expanded outreach,

eligibility prescreening and application assistance, and processing at convenient neighborhood

sites (e.g., the Food Card Access Project [FCAP]).

One such HRA initiative – which FSRIP was intended to build upon – was the Food

Stamps Paperless Office System’s Community Based Organization (POS-CBO) Pilot Project, an

initiative funded through a FY2005 USDA Food Stamp participation grant. The POS-CBO pilot,

implemented in late-2006/early-2007, was designed to increase enrollment of individuals eligible

for the Food Stamp program by expanding the role of CBOs in conducting outreach and

prescreening and in facilitating the application and enrollment process at neighborhood locations

throughout the city. CBOs participating in the pilot – the Food Bank for New York and New

York City Coalition Against Hunger (NYCCAH) -- conducted outreach efforts, assisted with the

completion of electronic Food Stamp applications, provided streamlined procedures for making

application interview appointments at designated Food Stamp Centers, and transferred required

documentation (including eligibility verification documentation) directly into the new POS

(which was being phased in at Food Stamp Centers concurrently). During this pilot, a total of

2,227 enrollments into Food Stamps were facilitated through five CBOs. An evaluation of the

pilot, conducted by Johns Hopkins University, found that although enrollment levels through the


pilot CBOs were initially lower than expected, the percentage of enrollments facilitated by staff

in pilot sites for employed individuals and for those who had not received Food Stamps in the

past five years was significantly higher than for similar applications processed only through the

Food Stamp Centers.4 Once the POS-CBO pilot demonstration period ended, HRA and the

partnering CBOs agreed to sustain the initiative – and the number of CBOs participating in the

facilitated enrollment process has continued to expand since the end of the pilot.

Based on the successful implementation of the POS-CBO pilot program, HRA applied

for and was awarded an FY2009 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

participation grant to design and implement the Food Stamp Recertification Improvement Project

(FSRIP). The purpose of this initiative – which is the focus of this report – was to offer

electronic recertification processing at CBOs, with the goal of reducing the number of eligible

households who fail to recertify and increasing the number of participants who continue to

receive benefits as long as they remain eligible. Although, as noted above, HRA and OTDA

allow and, in fact, encourage participants to mail required documentation and to conduct

recertification interviews by telephone (thereby eliminating the need to go to a local Food Stamp

Center to recertify for most SNAP participants), many SNAP participants prefer in-person

appointments.5 In addition, some participants fail to complete the recertification process and

allow their cases to be closed. For example, as noted in HRA’s original grant application for

FSRIP, “…from April 2007 through January 2009, 88,723 cases (12% of scheduled

recertifications) resulted in closed Food Stamp cases due to failure to report for the

4 D. Nightingale, B. Barnow, J. Pollack, and M. Maronick, “Evaluation of the New York City Food Stamps

Paperless Office System’s Community Based Organization Pilot: Final Report,” Johns Hopkins University, Institute

of Policy Studies, March 2009. 5 HRA is currently developing an Internet-based on-line recertification process, which will serve as an alternative to

in-person recertification offered at Food Stamp Centers and CBOs under FSRIP or the telephone recertification

process offered through the Food Stamp Change Centers. While the on-line recertification process was not available

during much of the FSRIP pilot, as of 2011 it was available.


recertification appointment, only to be re-opened within two months.”6 As further noted in

HRA’s original grant application to USDA, “while in some cases, the household circumstances

may have changed, and then changed again, in many of these cases the household simply failed

to recertify and then came in and re-applied for benefits.” HRA has identified a number of

potential reasons why SNAP participants who remain eligible, do not recertify in a timely

manner and have their cases closed, including that the SNAP participant:

falsely believes his/her household is no longer eligible for SNAP benefits;

has lost the notice or lost track of the deadline for recertification;

did not have time to recertify;

misunderstood the documentation or other requirements of the recertification process;

and/or

encountered administrative barriers, such as inconvenient office hours and locations.7

Case closure due to failure to recertify and subsequent re-opening of the case can result in

substantial hardship on SNAP recipients due to loss of Food Stamp benefits for a month or

several months, as well as additional burden for HRA Food Stamp Centers (which have to handle

additional applications of those who fail to recertify and soon after return to a Center to re-apply

for benefits). Additionally, as noted in HRA’s original grant application, “…although it is harder

to quantify, we also know there are many households that fail to recertify despite their continued

eligibility, and do not re-apply for the program.”8 The impetus for the FSRIP pilot project was to

address these issues by building on the success of the POS-CBO pilot. Through engagement of

community partners and expansion of the POS technology, the intent was to create a similar

process for completing recertifications more efficiently at convenient and comfortable

6 Human Resources Administration/Department of Social Services, “2009 USDA Supplemental Nutrition Assistance

Program Participants Grant (SNAP), June 2009, p. 6. 7 Human Resources Administration/Department of Social Services, “2009 USDA Supplemental Nutrition Assistance

Program Participants Grant (SNAP), June 2009, p. 7. 8 Human Resources Administration/Department of Social Services, “2009 USDA Supplemental Nutrition Assistance

Program Participants Grant (SNAP), June 2009, p. 7.


neighborhood CBO sites, with the ultimate goal of increasing recertification and retention in the

program for eligible participants.

Working in partnership with Food Bank for New York and New York City Coalition

Against Hunger (NYCCAH), HRA’s partners on the POS-CBO pilot, the agency proposed to

undertake four key initiatives under FSRIP:9

1. Develop Electronic Recertification Process. HRA’s MIS team was tasked with

developing new web-based interfaces to retrieve existing data and documentation

from the New York State Welfare Management System (WMS) and POS so that both

HRA staff and staff in CBO FSRIP sites could quickly access and review previously

verified information electronically. This upgrade to POS was aimed at enabling staff

to update records as needed and to scan, upload and index new documentation

required to certify continued eligibility for benefits.

2. Engage 10 CBOs to participate in FSRIP. HRA proposed to collaborate with Food

Bank for New York and NYCCAH to identify and engage 10 CBOs that were

currently active application sites for participation in FSRIP. In addition to successful

performance as application sites, under FSRIP, selected CBOs were to: provide

services in an area underserved by HRA; act as multi-service organizations; have

capacity to serve significant volume of participants; and offer services during non-

traditional hours (e.g., evenings and weekends).

3. Training on recertification procedures. Food Bank for New York was tasked with

providing NYCCAH and participating CBO staff with training on regulations,

required documentation, and the new web-based interfaces for the FSRIP process.

The training plan called for two days of training at each implementing CBO site,

followed by a three-day shadowing period and one-on-one technical assistance, as

needed.

4. Communications and outreach on the new recertification options. HRA and

CBO staff planned to implement outreach efforts to provide information about the

new recertification options at neighborhood CBOs, initially focusing on individuals

currently receiving services from the CBOs. HRA planned to phase in notification

efforts, beginning with informational letters to those who had submitted Food Stamp

applications at the FSRIP sites and later moving to those who lived in areas

surrounding the community sites.

HRA and its CBO partners laid out the following FSRIP goals to be addressed during the period

of the FSRIP pilot, from June 2010 through August 2012:

9 The addition of Metropolitan Council on Jewish Poverty (Met Council) as a partner agency in February 2012 is

discussed later in this report.


Establish up to 10 implementation sites across New York City's five boroughs that will

provide Food Stamp recertification assistance.

Facilitate the submission of 3,000 Food Stamp recertifications at these sites during the

project period (from June 2010 through August 2012).10

Increase overall recertification rates for participants targeted by the project compared to

those using Food Stamp Centers, and reduce by half the percentage of participants

targeted by the project who fail to recertify and then reapply.

B. FSRIP Evaluation Objectives and Methodology

HRA’s Office of Evaluation and Research contracted with Capital Research Corporation,

Inc. to conduct an evaluation of FSRIP. The evaluation effort was aimed at documenting the

implementation of FSRIP and assessing the extent to which FSRIP achieved its goals, as

discussed above. Exhibit I-I provides a listing of key evaluation questions addressed by this

study as well as the principal data sources that were used to address each study question. As

shown in Exhibit I-1, the findings of this evaluation are based on both qualitative and

quantitative data collection activities, including: (1) review of existing documentation; (2)

discussions with key stakeholders; (3) site visits to the three key partner organizations and

implementing CBO sites to conduct semi-structured interviews with FSRIP administrators and

10

HRA’s original grant application called for the participating CBOs to conduct a total of 22,000 recertifications,

based on a proposed budget of $1 million. This budget amount was reduced by 39 percent (to $609,292), reducing

the original goal to 13,404 for the implementation period of the grant. In a letter to USDA from Jill Berry,

Executive Deputy Commissioner (dated July 13, 2012), HRA requested a reduction in this goal to 3,000

recertifications by the end of the implementation period (as of August 31, 2012). Several key implementation

challenges were cited in this letter to justify this goal reduction, including: (1) a one- and one-half month delay in

the creation of the technical interface for POS, (2) difficulties initially encountered in informing Food Stamp

participants about using CBOs as an alternative to recertifying over the telephone or at a Food Stamp office, and (3)

a relatively short window of time for Food Stamp participants to conduct recertification interviews with CBOs under

FSRIP. These implementation challenges are discussed later in this report, particularly in the section focused on

Implementation Challenges. Source: NYCHRA, Letter to Michael Ribar, Program Officer FNS/USDA, from Jill

Berry, July 13, 2012.

EXHIBIT I-1: OVERVIEW OF EVALUATION DATA SOURCES USED TO ADDRESS KEY RESEARCH

OBJECTIVES AND QUESTIONS


KEY EVALUATION QUESTIONS

Implementation/Process Study -- Site Visit Interviews, Focus

Groups, and Document Review

Outcome Study – Analysis of HRA Administrative

Data

FSRIP Context, Project Design and Start-up

What are the major goals/objectives of the FSRIP initiative?

Who are the partner CBOs and what is their role in FSRIP?

How many SNAP recertifications are each of the implementing sites expected (contracted) to conduct?

How did the early planning for the initiative go (e.g., what steps did HRA, the partnering CBOs, and implementing sites undertake in planning the project and how long did it take)? Did HRA, the partnering CBOs, or implementing sites run into challenges in planning or initiating FSRIP? If so, what were the challenges and how were they overcome? How long did planning process/start-up take?

When did the implementing sites conduct their first recertifications?

Recruitment and Target Populations

What, if any, are the characteristics of individuals targeted for recertification in the implementing sites? Specific subpopulations? Geographic areas?

How many recertifications have been conducted to date in each of the implementing sites? What is the average number of recertifications conducted per month, and how does this compare to the implementing sites’ goals for conducting recertifications?

What are the characteristics of those who have been recertified to date? How do these characteristics compare to characteristics of Food Stamp participants in general?

What recruitment strategies and outreach methods have the partnering organizations and implementing sites used to inform SNAP participants FSRIP?

Have the partnering CBOs and implementing sites experienced recruitment challenges? If so, what specific challenges have been encountered and how have they been addressed?

Recertification Process/Flow of Participants Through Recertification

What are the basic steps that SNAP participants go through during recertification (i.e., flow of participants from point at which they are scheduled for recertification through to end of the recertification process)?

Which staffs at the implementing sites is involved in administering the FSRIP initiative and interacts with participants during the recertification process?

How long does the recertification process take (average duration; minimum/maximum time)? How does this compare to the duration in a regular Food Stamp center? What are participant views about the process?

Has the implementing site’s staff encountered problems/challenges in conducting recertifications? If so, what are the challenges, and how have they been addressed?

To what extent is the recertification process similar/different

EXHIBIT I-1: OVERVIEW OF EVALUATION DATA SOURCES USED TO ADDRESS KEY RESEARCH

OBJECTIVES AND QUESTIONS


KEY EVALUATION QUESTIONS

Implementation/Process Study -- Site Visit Interviews, Focus

Groups, and Document Review

Outcome Study – Analysis of HRA Administrative

Data

from the process SNAP participants encounter at a Food Stamp Center?

Does actual implementation of FSRIP differ from HRA’s original model for conducting recertifications? If so, how and why?

FSRIP Outcomes and Effects

What are the views of administrators/staff at HRA, partnering CBOs, and implementing sites on the overall effects of FSRIP?

What are views of Food Stamp participants about advantages/disadvantages of conducting recertification through CBOs? Why did some participants choose to recertify at a CBO, while others elected to recertify by telephone or at a Food Stamp Center?

Does using CBO partnering organizations to conduct recertifications create a quick, convenient, comfortable way for Food Stamp clients to complete recertifications without having to visit Food Stamp centers? What are the advantages/disadvantages of having partnering CBOs/implementing sites conduct recertifications (versus regular Food Stamp center)?

Has FSRIP reduced congestion and workload at HRA Food Stamp centers? If so, to what extent and how?

What effect has FSRIP had on overall recertification rates for participants targeted by the project compared to those using Food Stamp Centers?

To what extent has FSRIP reduced the percentage of participants targeted by the project who fail to recertify and then reapply?


staff and to observe the FSRIP recertification process; (4) site visits to HRA Food Stamp Home

and Change Centers to conduct interviews with Food Stamp administrators and staff and to

observe the regular recertification process; (5) in-person interviews with Food Stamp

participants; and (6) analysis of HRA administrative data on recertifications conducted under

FSRIP and SNAP participant characteristics and outcomes. A summary of each of these

activities is provided below:

Review of Existing Documentation. The research team collected and reviewed

reports and other program documents prepared by HRA and CBO partner staff,

including the original FSRIP grant application prepared for the U.S. Department of

Agriculture (USDA) and other HRA internal memoranda/documentation.

Discussions with Key Stakeholders. Preliminary discussions were conducted at the

onset of the evaluation effort with HRA administrators and staff responsible for

overseeing the initiative, focusing on clarification of the goals and structure of FSRIP

as well as refinement of the key objectives and research questions to be addressed by

the evaluation effort. Additional discussions with HRA MIS staff provided

background information on available aggregate and participant-level data. The

research team also attended a number of the monthly meetings convened by the

FSRIP planning committee, which included HRA administrators and staff tasked with

oversight responsibilities for the program, as well as representatives from the key

partner organizations. Attendance at these meetings kept the research team updated

on the overall progress of the initiative and also provided valuable insights on

implementation challenges and how they were addressed over the course of the

project period.

Site Visits to CBO Partners and Implementing Sites to Interview FSRIP

Administrators/Staff and Observe FSRIP Recertification Process. An important

part of the evaluation effort focused on documentation of the recertification process in

the local CBO sites and collection of the views and opinions of administrators and

staff about the FSRIP process. To accomplish this task, the evaluation team

conducted site visits between June 2011 and August 2012 to six CBOs FSRIP

implementing sites under the direction and supervision of the three partner agencies -

NYCCAH, Food Bank for New York City and Met Council (see Exhibit II-2).

During the site visits, the research team conducted interviews with a total of six

administrators at the three CBO partner agencies, as well as additional in-person

interviews with nine staff responsible for conducting recertifications at the CBO

implementing sites. These semi-structured interviews provided the opportunity to

gain input from multiple perspectives on topics such as: the objectives of FSRIP;

start-up and ongoing challenges; marketing/recruitment strategies; client flow/steps in


EXHIBIT I-2: FSRIP CBO SITES VISITED

CBO Partners CBO Implementing Sites Visited as Part of the

Evaluation Effort

NYCCAH Yorkville Common Pantry (Manhattan)

Child Development Support Corporation (Brooklyn)

Cathedral Community Cares (Manhattan)

Food Bank for New York City Ridgewood-Bushwick Senior Citizens Council

(Brooklyn)

Food Bank Community Resource Center/Community

Kitchen (Manhattan)

Metropolitan Council on Jewish

Poverty (Met Council)

Good Shepherd Services (Brooklyn)

the recertification process; participant interest in and reaction to the ability to recertify

at CBO sites (as well as possible reasons for choosing not to recertify at CBO sites);

benefits of FSRIP to Food Stamp participants; and early perceived effects and results

of the initiative.11

During the site visits to the CBO implementing sites, the team also observed a total of

8 FSRIP recertification interviews.12

CBO FSRIP staff were observed as they

conducted SNAP participant recertification interviews; reviewed and updated case

records; and scanned, indexed and submitted recertification documentation as the

CBO authorized representative to POS (and the Food Stamp Change Center for

processing). These observations provided the opportunity to gain a first-hand

understanding of the interactions between staff and Food Stamp participants and the

various tasks associated with each step of the recertification process. During these

observations, the researchers were also able to speak informally with the majority of

the participants to obtain their feedback on their experiences with the process,

including their reasons for choosing a particular recertification option. In addition,

the team observed a CBO FSRIP staff person while he completed a series of

recertification interviews as the authorized representative for six FSRIP participants

with the designated Food Stamp Change Center representative. (Note: This is a

telephone discussion that normally occurs near the end of the day in which the CBO

authorized representative reviews documentation and the details of each FSRIP

recertification conducted during the day. See Section II.B. for additional details.)

11

Discussion guides used to structure these interviews are attached in Appendix I-A (for Administrators in Partner

Organizations) and Appendix I-B (for Administrators/Staff in CBO sites implementing FSRIP.) 12

During both one-on-one and focus group discussions, Food Stamp participants were informed about the purposes

of the study and provided consent to be observed and/or interviewed; they were also given assurances of

confidentiality if they agreed to share their perspectives about FSRIP. The focus group discussion guide (included

in Appendix I-C) provides the language used in informing participants about the study and requesting consent to

participate in the focus group discussions.


Site Visits to Food Stamp Home and Change Centers to Interview

Administrators/Staff and Observe Regular Recertification Process. In order to

understand the implementation and operation of FSRIP from the HRA agency

perspective, the research team also visited a Food Stamp Change Center (East New

York) where staff who conduct telephone interviews are located and two Food Stamp

Home Centers (East New York and Ft. Greene) where applicants and participants

meet in person with Food Stamp Program staff. At the Food Stamp Change Center,

the researchers completed interviews with three administrators and staff responsible

for overseeing and conducting FSRIP recertification telephone interviews with CBO

staff as well as standard one-on-one telephone recertifications with individual

participants. Interviews were also conducted with six administrators and staff at the

two Food Stamp Home Centers to capture differences between the in-person

recertification process and the FSRIP process. During the visit to the Food Stamp

Home Centers, the research team also observed 3 in-person recertification interviews.

In-person Interviews with Food Stamp participants. In order to address research

questions focused on SNAP participant perspectives on FSRIP, the research team

conducted focus groups with SNAP participants at each of the three CBO partnering

agencies. The research team, with recruitment and logistical assistance from each of

the three CBO partner agencies, convened focus groups at four CBO implementing

sites. Attendees were offered an incentive payment (a $15 Metrocard) and a light

meal as encouragement to attend the session. A total of 11 SNAP participants who

had recently completed a FSRIP recertification at a participating CBO site attended

the focus groups and shared their views on the process, including, for example, their

reasons for deciding to recertify at the CBO site, how satisfied they were the services

they received, and suggestions for improving the process.13

Analysis of administrative data on Food Stamp participants. The quantitative

data collection activities for the evaluation involved analysis of data from the HRA

administrative data systems on Food Stamp recipients served by the CBO

implementing sites and Food Stamp recipients receiving FSRIP outreach mailings.

HRA and the three partnering CBOs provided two main sources of data to support

these quantitative analyses: (1) aggregate data on the number of recertifications,

broken out by CBO implementing site, as well as other characteristics of

implementing sites; and (2) an individual-level SNAP participant file (including

individuals that had completed the FSRIP recertification process and others who had

received notification of FSRIP, but did not choose to recertify under the pilot), which

included demographic characteristics of participants, recertification outcomes and

closing reasons, and their recent patterns of participation in the SNAP program.

13

The Focus Group Discussion Guide is attached as Appendix I-C.


II. FSRIP START-UP AND ONGOING IMPLEMENTATION

In this section of the report, the start-up activities and early development of the program

structure and operations are first discussed. This is followed by a detailed description of the

recertification process implemented at the CBO sites under FSRIP.

A. Start-up Activities and Implementation of Program Operations

As detailed above, HRA outlined four key tasks to be completed under the initiative: (1)

development of the electronic recertification process; (2) engagement of CBOs to participate in

FSRIP; (3) training on recertification procedures; and (4) communication and outreach on the

new recertification options. The following section provides a summary of each of these

activities.

The first of these tasks, the development of an electronic recertification interface for

POS, was successfully completed by HRA’s MIS team at the start of the project. The early

phase of the FSRIP pilot was focused on getting the web-based infrastructure up and running

properly. For the most part, the development of the interface moved along on schedule and

without complications, in part because of prior system development experiences under the POS-

CBO initiative. Several aspects of developing and fully implementing the new web-based

interface to support CBO recertifications took slightly more time than initially anticipated. For

example, it took some added time to develop and refine the capability to allow a worker to swipe

a participant’s Food Stamp card through a reader so that data fields within the HRA data system

would automatically populate with some of the participant’s household information.

Once the new interface was operational (after about a six-week developmental and testing

period), CBO staff occasionally encountered error messages or instances when they could not


connect to the HRA system (i.e., the HRA system was “down”). Additionally, some CBO

implementing sites did not initially have proper phone lines or laptops. HRA information

technology staff had to work with sites to ensure that proper equipment was available and to

troubleshoot any initial communications glitches. After the initial rollout of the system, CBO

administrators and staff felt that the FSRIP interface functioned reliably over the course of the

project period.

CBO staff were generally able to easily adapt to using the new interface for conducting

FSRIP recertifications because they had been trained earlier on using POS to conduct initial

Food Stamp applications. According to CBO administrators and staff involved in conducting

FSRIP recertifications (most of whom were already trained on and familiar with POS), the new

web-based recertification function was easy to understand and use. Staff also reported that they

consistently received quick and helpful responses from HRA’s Help Desk when technical

problems did occur (e.g., when the HRA POS system was unavailable). A few sites reported

some slowness or other difficulties associated with scanning and uploading documents during

recertification interviews, but these issues appeared to be related to the organization’s own

equipment rather than the HRA system itself.14

The second task, the engagement of community partners and selection of 10 CBO

sites to implement FSRIP was accomplished with the help of the two original partner

organizations, NYCCAH and Food Bank for New York, throughout the project implementation

period (from May 2010 through August 2012), and, beginning in February 2012, with the help of

14

HRA encountered some initial difficulties in systematically tracking recertification submissions by individual

CBO implementing sites and assigned staff, but this issue was addressed with some additional system upgrades and

training of CBO staff over the course of the project. By about the mid-point of the project, HRA was able to track

recertifications at the CBO level by individual staff conducting the FSRIP recertification.


new (third) CBO partner, Metropolitan Council on Jewish Poverty (i.e., Met Council).15

With

oversight by HRA, CBO FSRIP implementing sites were selected by the CBO partner

organizations based on their past successful performance as POS sites responsible for providing

assistance with Food Stamp applications (as well as offering other types of services for their

target population) at neighborhood locations. Many of the CBO sites identified for FSRIP had

also been involved in the Food Card Access Project (FCAP) outreach and application assistance

project. As described in more detail in Section III (below), the process for selecting and

establishing FSRIP sites started out slowly and built up over time as new sites were recruited,

contracts were negotiated, and staff to conduct the recertifications were identified and trained.

Overall, HRA exceeded its goal of establishing 10 CBO sites in community locations; as the

grant period for the FSRIP pilot was coming to a close in August 2012, FSRIP services were

being provided at 25 CBO neighborhood sites throughout the city, with plans for bringing on an

additional 8 CBO implementing sites in the months following the end of the pilot. Section III of

this report provides more detailed analysis of the buildup in the number CBO implementing sites

and characteristics of these sites, including staffing and schedule for conducting FSRIP

recertifications.

The third task, training on recertification procedures, was primarily the responsibility

of the Food Bank for New York. Initially, HRA provided Food Bank and NYCCAH staff with

training on the POS workflow and recertification regulations and eligibility requirements. Using

the POS application curriculum as a model, Food Bank staff developed a FSRIP Recertification

15

NYCCAH and Food Bank of New York City received grant funds to offset costs associated with provision of

FSRIP services, and, for Food Bank of New York City, costs associated with training and technical assistance. Met

Council did not receive grant funds for participating in FSRIP. It should be noted that the grant funding was mostly

expended on development of the web interface and other MIS development costs, as well as training staff to conduct

FSRIP recertifications using POS and mailing costs associated with the monthly mailer to SNAP participants

approaching their recertification period. The ongoing costs moving forward (after the pilot period) are mostly the

cost of the monthly mailer, which is being covered by HRA.


User Guide and training curriculum (including PowerPoint slides to be used during training

sessions). This curriculum included step-by-step instructions on procedures for CBO staff to

follow in conducting the recertification interview and using the HRA recertification interface.

Additionally, the curriculum included instructional POS recertification screenshots supplied by

the HRA MIS staff. After HRA’s review of the curriculum (which, according to some partner

staff, was extensive and resulted in some delay in initiating the training and consequently

program operations), the new curriculum was used to guide half- to full-day training sessions for

CBO implementing site administrators and staff on the proper methods for conducting FSRIP

recertifications under the pilot. Food Bank trainers typically provided group training sessions,

which included presentations (using a PowerPoint briefing package), a demonstration of how to

use the electronic recertification interface, and hands-on practice by attendees in using the

interface and completing the basic steps involved in the recertification process.16

There was

some variation by CBO in the location at which training was provided. For example, Food Bank

trainers provided training workshops for NYCCAH staff at NYCCAH’s main office, while they

visited the Food Bank implementing sites to conduct on-site training for their administrators and

staff.17

In January 2012, Food Bank also conducted a group training session for staff at nine new

CBO implementing sites (in preparation for start-up of FSRIP recertifications the following

month) at HRA’s training facilities. Additionally, as needed, Food Bank provided one-on-one

training for CBO staff if it was not possible or practical to form a group for a training workshop.

Once staff were trained on how to properly conduct FSRIP certifications, Food Bank trainers

16

For example, a staff person at one CBO implementing site visited indicated she had been part of a group of 12

CBO staff trained during an all-day (9 AM to 4:30 PM) workshop conducted by Food Bank. Training at this session

had been provided on the FSRIP recertification process, including conducting the recertification interview,

collecting necessary documents, scanning and entry of data into POS. This staff person indicated that the trainer had

presented a PowerPoint briefing and that she had received a handout with additional details about the recertification

process. She also indicated that the training workshop had “prepared us well” to conduct FSRIP recertifications. 17

In 2011, Food Bank trainers provided 26 staff at FSRIP sites on the FSRIP recertification process.


were available to provide ongoing technical assistance as requested by CBO implementing sites,

as well as in-person training for new staff hired at these sites.

Finally, a slightly different train-the-trainer model was employed for Metropolitan

Council implementing sites (which joined the pilot in early 2012). Under this model, Food Bank

staff trained several key Metropolitan Council staff, who in turn, went to each Metropolitan

Council implementing site prior to site start-up to provide hands-on instruction on procedures for

conducting FSRIP recertifications, including using the HRA’s web-based recertification

interface.

The knowledge base developed at CBO partners (and their implementing sites)

concerning procedures for conducting recertifications and using the POS interface is one of the

legacies of the FSRIP pilot – one that will continue to provide dividends as long as CBO staff

continue to conduct recertifications. Additionally, the train-the-trainer model initiated when

Metropolitan Council joined the pilot represented a low-cost approach to providing training for

CBO staff that could be used in the future as new CBO implementing sites are added (or as a

method for training newly hired staff at existing sites).

The final task, which included communications and outreach activities regarding the

new CBO-based electronic recertifications being piloted under FSRIP, was addressed by

both HRA and partner staff. Initially, partner and neighborhood CBO staff in the first

implementing sites conducted their own outreach and recruitment efforts. These outreach

efforts, which were more broadly focused on all SNAP participants, included posting flyers

about FSRIP in the local CBO offices, at supermarkets and 7/11’s, at WIC offices, in Head Start

Centers, and at other neighborhood locations.18

NYCCAH developed these outreach materials in

18

NYCCAH, for example, made arrangements with Krasdale Corporation to post and distribute outreach brochures

in five supermarkets in the target area.


English and Spanish to inform its clientele (and particularly SNAP participants) about FSRIP

and, specifically, the option for SNAP participants to conduct recertification interviews at a

neighborhood CBO (versus going to a Food Stamp Center for an in-person recertification

interview or conducting a recertification interview by telephone with a Food Stamp Change

Center). According to several CBO partner administrators and staff, these early outreach efforts

were not sufficiently targeted on SNAP participants due to recertify for their Food Stamp

benefits. As a result, these more generalized outreach efforts resulted in substantial numbers of

telephone inquiries from SNAP participants not approaching their period of recertification who

were therefore not appropriate or eligible for FSRIP recertifications. For example,

administrators at several CBO partners indicated they had to spend many hours fielding inquiries

about Food Stamps concerning a range of issues unrelated to recertification (e.g., eligibility for

Food Stamps, why a current SNAP participant’s benefits had been suspended, and where an

individual should go to apply for benefits or resolve payment issues). In addition to burdening

CBO partners with responding to these types of Food Stamp inquiries, the more generalized

outreach efforts produced a very low volume of SNAP participants eligible for and interested in

recertifying their Food Stamp benefits at a neighborhood CBO under FSRIP. Consequently,

early FSRIP implementing sites (at the time mostly NYCCAH sites) had difficulty filling the

number of recertification appointment slots available at their sites – and completed very few

recertification interviews in the early months of the pilot (see Section III for additional details on

the build up of FSRIP recertifications over the course of the pilot).

HRA and the CBO partners determined in the first few months of the pilot that a more

targeted and nuanced outreach approach was needed under FSRIP – one that was squarely

focused on SNAP participants who had previously been engaged with CBO sites or participants


due for recertification in specific zip codes served by the CBO implementing sites. Initially, in

the summer of 2010 (shortly after the first sites began conducting FSRIP recertifications), HRA

developed a new POS interface that provided NYCCAH and the Food Bank with an automated

list of upcoming recertifications by CBO site (i.e., a “recertification inquiry list). As a result,

NYCCAH and the Food Bank could conduct targeted outreach to these individuals to encourage

them to schedule an appointment for their recertification at a nearby CBO implementing site.

HRA and its CBO partners also determined that targeting SNAP participants who had previously

used a particular CBO to apply for Food Stamp benefits and were also coming up for

recertification would be a more direct and effective recruitment strategy. Despite the

implementation of this more targeted approach, the volume of FSRIP recertifications continued

to lag behind levels anticipated originally under the grant, and CBO implementing sites were

unable to fully fill FSRIP recertification appointment slots throughout much of the first year of

the pilot.

Beginning in May 2011, in an effort to expand outreach efforts and identify even more

potential candidates for FSRIP recertification services, HRA designed and began sending

targeted “mailings” or letters to all Food Stamp participants scheduled for recertification who

resided in zip codes served by the participating CBO sites.19

These letters, timed to arrive at the

recipient’s home at nearly the same time the full recertification package sent from OTDA

(described below), reminded the recipient of his/her upcoming recertification and provided

contact information for the designated FSRIP CBO partner or specific implementing site, based

on the participant’s borough and zip code. These “Help is in Your Neighborhood” mailings

19

Targeted mailers were not employed at the outset of the pilot, in part because the HRA FSRIP Oversight

Committee had concerns that CBOs might get inundated with calls for scheduling appointments and have to turn

clients away, which might reflect poorly on the CBOs (since they are there to serve the community). After initial

responses to non-mailer outreach efforts were studied and CBO appointment slots were going unfilled, the mailer

was tried as a means of boosting volume by spreading the word about FSRIP.


instructed recipients to call the designated CBO to learn more about the FSRIP recertification

process and whether they were likely eligible to conduct their recertification at the site. Exhibit

II-1 shows month-to-month patterns in the number of mailings sent to SNAP participants

informing them that they could potentially recertify with a FSRIP CBO implementing site in

their community, as an alternative to conducting their recertification either in-person at a Food

Stamp Center or by telephone, if eligible. As shown in the graphic and table portions of Exhibit

II-1, the mailings began in May 2011 (one year into the pilot period) and extended through

August 2012 (the end of the pilot period).20

During the 16-month period between May 2011 and

August 2012, a total of just fewer than 100,000 outreach mailings were distributed to SNAP

households potentially eligible for FSRIP recertifications at implementing CBOs. As shown in

the tabular part of this exhibit, the number of zip codes covered by the mailings increased by

about tenfold over the course of the pilot, reflecting the expansion in the number of CBO

implementing sites (and overall capacity of CBOs to conduct recertifications). In May 2011, the

mailings covered 5 zip codes and were sent to 1,559 SNAP households due for recertifications.

The number of zip codes targeted for the mailings about doubled in August 2011 to 11 (and went

to 3,623 SNAP households) and then jumped fivefold in May 2012, to 51 zip codes (and went to

14,244 SNAP households). Over the course of the 16 months in which the mailings were sent

out, on average the mailings went to 314 SNAP households per zip code.

20

These mailings have continued after the end of the FSRIP pilot, and according to HRA officials, are expected to

continue indefinitely after the end of the pilot, as long as the CBO partners agree to continue to conduct FSRIP

recertifications. A copy of the “Help Is in Your Neighborhood” mailer as of August 2012 is provided in Appendix

II-A.


Month of Mailing

# of Zip Codes

Mailings Are Sent

# of Mailings

Sent

Avg. # of Mailings per

Zip Code

May-11 5 1,559 311.8

Jun-11 5 1,867 373.4

Jul-11 5 1,736 347.2

Aug-11 5 1,765 353.0

Sep-11 11 3,623 329.4

Oct-11 11 3,638 330.7

Nov-11 11 3,621 329.2

Dec-11 11 2,904 264.0

Jan-12 11 3,324 302.2

Feb-12 11 3,258 296.2

Mar-12 11 3,099 281.7

Apr-12 11 2,978 270.7

May-12 51 14,244 279.3

Jun-12 53 16,793 316.8

Jul-12 53 17,150 323.6

Aug-12 51 17,556 344.2

Total 99,115 313.7

1,559

1,867

1,736

1,765

3,623

3,638

3,621

2,904

3,324

3,258

3,099

2,978

14,244

16,793

17,150

17,556

‐ 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000

May‐11

Jun‐11

Jul‐11

Aug‐11

Sep‐11

Oct‐11

Nov‐11

Dec‐11

Jan‐12

Feb‐12

Mar‐12

Apr‐12

May‐12

Jun‐12

Jul‐12

Aug‐12

Number of FSRIP Recruitment Mailings Sent

Exhibit II‐1: Number of FSRIP Outreach Mailings Sent per Month


In addition to the outreach conducted by CBO partners and the HRA mailings,

information on the FSRIP recertification option at local CBO sites was posted on the HRA

website. Some partner sites also conducted other outreach activities throughout the project

period. For example, Food Bank for New York used a Twitter account to provide information

about FSRIP and also experimented with robo-calls to targeted individuals. Interestingly, CBO

staff reported that word-of-mouth referrals from participants who had already completed the

recertification process at CBO sites was also an important source of candidates for FSRIP

recertifications (and became increasingly more important over the course of the pilot as SNAP

participants told relatives and friends about their experiences in recertifying at a neighborhood

CBO and word about FSRIP spread). Overall, HRA administrators and CBO staff felt that the

HRA-generated monthly mailings became a critical outreach/recruitment tool under the pilot,

estimating that half or more of the FSRIP participants contacted CBO implementing sites in

response to the HRA-generated mailings. Notably, the pace of recertifications conducted under

FSRIP picked up when HRA initiated these mailings and as the number of CBO implementing

sites proliferated during the second year of the pilot. HRA and CBO partnering administrators

and staff all agreed that implementing the more targeted recruitment approach under FSRIP –

and particularly the monthly targeted mass mailings – was a critical adjustment that substantially

boosted participation in FSRIP.


B. FSRIP Recertification Process at CBO Implementation Sites

As part of the standard recertification process in New York State, Food Stamp recipients

receive a recertification packet from OTDA, which includes the recertification application form

and a recertification appointment notice.21

The packet is typically mailed to the recipient about

eight weeks prior to the benefits termination date. For example, a recipient who receives a

recertification notice in mid-April will cease to receive benefits after June 30 if the recertification

process is not completed successfully. As part of the effort to encourage telephone

recertification interviews, the recertification notice stipulates a specific date and time that the

recipient will be called for the interview (typically several weeks after the date of the letter)

noting that the completed recertification form, including any required income and expenses

verification documentation, must be received by the Food Stamp office prior to the date of the

scheduled call. If these materials are not received and processed well before the scheduled date

for the call, the call will not take place. The recertification notice also indicates that the

participant has the option of completing a face-to-face interview in a local Food Stamp Center.

As stated above, the purpose of the FSRIP pilot was to provide recertifying participants

with a more accessible, convenient, and reliable option for completing the front-end portion of

the recertification process at a neighborhood CBO site. The following section provides a

description of the steps involved in the FSRIP recertification process, as implemented in the

local CBOs. With minor exceptions, the process was successfully implemented in a similar

manner in all of the sites visited by the research team.

Step 1 – Initial Contact. As discussed in greater detail in the preceding section on

outreach and recruitment, SNAP participants became engaged with CBO implementing sites

21

In NYC, HRA mails a brochure describing the Food Stamp telephone recertification option to participants one

month prior to the mailing of the recertification package.


under FSRIP in a variety of ways, including: (1) the participant was contacted via a letter or

phone call from partner or CBO staff because the individual’s name was included on the list

provided by HRA of those who competed applications at that site and were scheduled for an

upcoming recertification; (2) the participant received a mailing from HRA describing FSRIP and

initiated a call to the CBO designated for his/her zip code (although CBO sites were not

restricted to serving participants from the zip codes assigned to their site); or (3) the individual

learned about the FSRIP option through word-of-mouth (or another source) and called or visited

the CBO site as a walk-in. For example, participants who completed initial Food Stamp

applications at some CBO sites were told at the time of initial application to contact the CBO site

as soon as they receive their recertification packages in the mail to schedule their recertification

interview; some followed up on that advice.

Step 2: Prescreening and Appointment Scheduling. Interested participants were

screened for eligibility for FSRIP services, either by partner agencies or CBO staff. Depending

on the site, the screening process could be conducted in-person (for walk-ins) or by phone. For

example, individuals who called the NYCCAH phone number listed on the HRA letter spoke

with a partner staff member who determined if he/she was an appropriate FSRIP candidate prior

to scheduling an appointment at a local CBO site. Ideally, the screening process ruled out:

participants who had waited too long and were not within the allowable time frame for

completion of the process through FSRIP prior to their scheduled interview; participants who

had already mailed their completed recertification application and documentation to the Food

Stamp Center; and participants who were required to go to the Food Stamp Center due to specific

household circumstances (e.g., adding a new household member to the case, needing to comply

with the finger-imaging requirement). Eligible participants were scheduled for a recertification


appointment (typically within a few days) with staff at the CBO implementing site and provided

with a detailed checklist of the documentation required for the meeting, including, for example:

proof of income, proof of rent, proof of residence, utility bills and proof of other relevant

expenses (e.g., child care expenses). Most CBO implementing sites also placed a reminder call

to the participant the day before the scheduled appointment to ensure that they were prepared for

the meeting and to again emphasize the importance of bringing the appropriate documentation.

Step 3: FSRIP Meeting at the CBO site. The participant and the FSRIP recertification

specialist typically met at the latter’s desk so that he/she could enter data into the computer while

the participant was present. Initially, the participant was asked to sign two agreements - one that

allowed the worker to view the participant’s case record and one that authorized the worker to

act on the participant’s behalf with the Food Stamp Agency. In other words, the participant gave

the “authorized rep” permission to complete the required telephone recertification interview for

the participant, eliminating any further need for an interview between the participant and a Food

Stamp Center (or Change Center) worker, either in-person or by telephone. Partner staff

reported that the majority of FSRIP participants opted to have the worker act as the “authorized

rep”; HRA found that 87.3 percent of recertifying clients chose this option.22

An additional form

that records the language spoken during the meeting was also completed at this time. The

recertification specialist logged into the HRA POS website and accessed the screens available to

the CBO site teams. Using the participant’s case ID number, the worker then verified that the

appropriate case record had been selected and updated the record as needed based on

documentation related to income, expenses and household composition changes that the

participant has provided. Although some CBO workers reported that lack of acceptable

documentation was sometimes a stumbling block to timely completion of the recertification

22

Letter from Jill Berry of HRA to USDA, July 13, 2012.


process, most of the participants observed by the research team had brought the appropriate

documents to their meetings. During the interview, the worker also asked a standard series of

questions (regarding, for example, receipt of benefits in other states, pending criminal charges)

included on the application, and then, printed out the pre-populated recertification application for

the participant and the worker to review and sign. Copies of all verification documents were

then made for retention at the CBO sites in case there were questions about missing

documentation later; the originals of documentation submitted by the participant were returned to

the participant. All documentation (including the completed Food Stamp recertification form

and the verification documentation) was then scanned, uploaded, indexed (i.e., organized and

identified), and forwarded to the Food Stamp Agency for review and processing. Most workers

reported that they did not submit a recertification to HRA unless all of the verification

documentation had been provided and were in an acceptable format. The worker then told the

participant that he/she would receive an approval letter from HRA that provides details on their

new Food Stamp benefit period.

Time permitting, some recertification specialists also used this meeting as an opportunity

to share information about other available services and benefits for which the participant might

be eligible. For example, during one recertification interview observed by the site visit team, the

worker advised the participant about the schedule for another staff member who could process

health insurance applications on site. Although the time required for a FSRIP recertification

interview conducted at CBO sites can vary, most staff indicated that the required time ranged

from 15-45 minutes, with most meetings averaging around 30-45 minutes. The time required to

complete a recertification can vary depending on the number of household members, the number

of documents to be uploaded and indexed, and the efficiency of the scanning equipment


available at the CBO site. However, most CBO sites scheduled recertification appointments one

hour apart (leaving a full hour for each recertification appointment), deviating slightly from the

30 minutes proposed for each meeting in the original grant application. Overall, the research

team did not identify any noteworthy differences in either the time required or the recertification

process itself as conducted at the CBO site compared with meetings conducted at the Food

Stamp Home Center.

Step 4: CBO Call-in to Food Stamp Center. Each FSRIP CBO implementing site had

a designated liaison (and at least one back-up worker) located at the assigned Food Stamp

Change Center with whom they coordinated on completion of the recertification process for

FSRIP participants. Because the designated liaisons were also responsible for other duties at the

Food Stamp Change Centers (e.g., conducting telephone interviews to recertify SNAP

participants), CBO staff had specific days and times during which they could call their HRA

Food Stamp workers to complete the FSRIP cases.23

Typically conducted at the end of the day

(usually between 3:00 and 4:00 PM), the calls provided the opportunity for the CBO FSRIP staff,

acting as the authorized representative, to complete the recertification interview process for

multiple participants at one time. During the call, the FSRIP worker used prepared notes to

highlight aspects of each case submitted while the Food Stamp liaison reviewed the case record

and the scanned documents received earlier in the day. If documents were missing or

unacceptable, the FSRIP worker was notified and instructed to provide additional documentation

as needed. If the information provided was complete, the Food Stamp liaison accepted the

recertification. The time required to review each individual case varied but staff indicated that it

usually took between three to seven minutes per case during the call with the assigned Food

23

Each CBO implementing site was assigned to a primary and at least one secondary liaison (if the primarily liaison

was not available for a particular day) at the Food Stamp Change Center.


Stamp Change Center liaison. The research team observed one of these calls that included

reviews for six cases; the call lasted about 40 minutes (i.e. about 7 minutes per case). Staff in

some CBOs indicated that from time to time they had experienced challenges making contact

with their primary HRA liaisons, attributing this to excessive caseload size for HRA or other

factors (e.g., annual leave, sick leave, other administrative duties), but even in these instances

they could generally reach the secondary liaison the same day (or if necessary, call the next day

to discuss each of the cases recertified the previous day).24

Overall, both CBO and Food Stamp

agency staff agreed that the FSRIP collaboration worked smoothly over the course of the pilot

period. CBO staff felt that the liaisons were helpful, cooperative, and thorough; Food Stamp

agency staff indicated that their counterparts at the CBO were knowledgeable and well-prepared

for the recertification reviews. CBO staff indicated that after having conducted just a few of the

telephone interviews as an authorized representative with the Food Stamp Change Center

liaisons that they understood the documentation requirements and likely questions the liaison

would have – and they made sure that they collected the necessary information and

documentation so that their calls went as smoothly as possible with the liaison.

III. ANALYSIS OF AGGREGATE DATA ON FSRIP CBO IMPLEMENTING SITE

CAPACITY AND CERTIFICATIONS CONDUCTED

Based on aggregate data provided by NYC HRA and the CBO partnering sites, this

section of the report provides more detailed analysis of the build-up of the number and capacity

of FSRIP implementing sites, followed by analysis of trends in FSRIP certifications conducted

under the pilot.

24

For example, according to one CBO partner administrator, “It took a while for HRA liaisons to get used to our

calls, but now we work well together.”


A. Number and Characteristics of CBO Implementing Sites

Number of Partnering CBOs/Local CBO Implementing Sites and Their Start-up.

As described above, one of the key goals of the FSRIP pilot was to build a network of local CBO

implementing sites across New York City’s five boroughs. Such local implementing sites were

intended to offer SNAP participants with a convenient alternative to either conducting an in-

person recertification interview at their assigned Food Stamp Home Center or a telephone

interview at one of NYC’s Food Stamp Change (or Call) Centers. Additionally, the intent of the

pilot was to provide SNAP participants with customer-friendly, mediated assistance at a CBO

implementing site, making sure the customer’s supporting documents were in order, scanned,

and received by the Food Stamp Change Center, as well as to make certain that all of the

questions/information items needed to be successfully recertified were fully addressed.

Although the overall volume of recertifications was at a relatively small scale compared to the

overall volume of recertifications across the five boroughs (less than one percent of all

recertifications scheduled citywide, as discussed later in this section), an added goal of the pilot

was to reduce the recertification workload at the Food Stamp Change Centers and Home Centers

across the city.

As noted in the original grant application, HRA, NYCCAH, and the Food Bank were to

identify local implementing sites that met the following conditions:

have a positive track record for high quality applications and significant client volume;

include areas underserved by HRA offices;

are multi-service organizations, not exclusively food programs;

have capacity to accommodate significant client volume for recertifications; and

provide nontraditional hours, evenings, and/or Saturdays.


As originally planned, for most of the 27 months of the initiative, NYCCAH and the Food Bank

were the two partnering CBOs under the initiative. However, in February 2012 (the 20th

month

of the initiative), NYC HRA reached agreement with the Metropolitan Council, an organization

with a long history of providing Food Stamp outreach and enrollment services throughout the

city, to become a third partnering CBO. The addition of Metropolitan Council had a substantial

effect on increasing the number of CBO implementing sites and capacity to conduct

recertifications under FSRIP.

As shown in Exhibit III-1, over the course of the 27-month implementation period, the

number of CBO implementing sites grew from 3 original CBO implementing sites submitting

FSRIP recertifications beginning in June 2010 to a total of 25 sites by August 2012 – more than

double the 10 CBO implementing sites proposed in NYHRA’s original proposal. Taking into

3 4

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

9

15

21

23 23 23 23

25

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Jun‐

10

Jul‐1

0

Aug‐10

Sep‐

10

Oct‐1

0

Nov‐10

Dec‐10

Jan‐

11

Feb‐

11

Mar‐1

1

Apr‐11

May‐

11

Jun‐

11

Jul‐1

1

Aug‐11

Sep‐

11

Oct‐1

1

Nov‐11

Dec‐11

Jan‐

12

Feb‐

12

Mar‐1

2

Apr‐12

May‐

12

Jun‐

12

Jul‐1

2

Aug‐12

# o

f C

BO Im

ple

me

nn

g Si

tes

Exhibit III‐1: Number of CBO Implemen ng Sites Available to Conduct FSRIP Recer fica ons, by Month, June 2010 ‐ August 2012

# of CBO Implemen ng Sites Established

First Metropolitan Council

implemen ng sites join FSRIP (February

2012)


consideration the additional 8 Metropolitan Council implementing sites -- where staff have been

trained and will initiate recertifications beginning in September or October 2012 (after the end of

the pilot) -- the number of CBO implementing sites established under the pilot increases to 33.

Exhibit III-2 (sorted by month of first FSRIP submission) provides additional details

about the gradual build up of CBO implementing sites over the course of the FSRIP pilot. As

shown in this exhibit, the five NYCCAH sites were the first to schedule and submit

recertifications under the initiative, with three NYCCAH sites – Child Development Support

Corporation (CDSC), Yorkville Common Pantry (YCP), and Part of the Solution (POTS) –

conducting their first recertifications starting in June 2010. NYCCAH’s East River

Development Alliance (ERDA) began scheduling and submitting FSRIP recertifications a month

later (in July 2010). There was then a nine-month break before the fifth (and last) NYCCAH

implementing site was trained and began submitting recertifications (in March 2011).

Once the NYCCAH sites were up and running, there was another five-month gap

following the establishment of the last of the five NYCCAH sites (ERDA) before the first of the

Food Bank implementing sites (and the sixth implementing site, Food Bank Community

Resource Center) began to schedule and submit its first FSRIP recertifications (in August 2011).

This was followed again by a five-month gap until the next group of CBO implementing sites

were trained on the FSRIP recertification process and began to submit recertifications. During

the first four months of 2012, the number of implementing sites jumped fourfold from 6 at the

end of 2011 to 23 implementing sites submitting FSRIP recertifications by the end of April 2012.

As shown in Exhibit III-2, 9 Food Bank implementing sites (including some FCAP sites) were

added during a four-month period in the first part of 2012. It was also during this first quarter of


Exhibit III-2: Monthly Pattern of Establishment of New CBO FSRIP Implementing Sites

Date 1st RIP Submitted

CBO Site CBO Borough Served

Jun-10 Child Development Support Corp. (CDSC) NYCCAH Brooklyn

Jun-10 Yorkville Common Pantry (YCP) NYCCAH Manhattan

Jun-10 Part of the Solution (POTS) NYCCAH Bronx

Jul-10 East River Development Alliance (ERDA) NYCCAH Queens

Mar-11 Cathedral Community Cares (CCC) NYCCAH Manhattan

Aug-11 Food Bank Community Resource Center Food Bank Manhattan

Jan-12 Ridgewood Bushwick Senior Citizens Council Food Bank Brooklyn

Jan-12 Encore Senior Center Food Bank Manhattan

Jan-12 Isabella Resource Center Food Bank Manhattan

Feb-12 Transfiguration of Christ Church Food Bank Queens

Feb-12 Davidson Community Center Food Bank Bronx

Feb-12 Chinese American Planning Council, Inc. Food Bank Manhattan

Feb-12 Self Help North Food Bank Queens

Feb-12 CUCS - East Harlem Met Council Manhattan

Feb-12 Boro Park JCC Met Council Brooklyn

Mar-12 The Riverfund Food Bank Queens

Mar-12 Bronx Defenders Met Council Bronx

Mar-12 St. John's Bread and Life Met Council Brooklyn

Mar-12 WHEDCO Met Council Bronx

Mar-12 Good Shepard Services Met Council Brooklyn

Mar-12 CUCS - Crotona Park Met Council Bronx

Apr-12 Bronx Works Food Bank Bronx

Apr-12 Center for Family Life of Sunset Park Met Council Brooklyn

Aug-12 MinKwon Met Council Queens

Aug-12 Goddard Riverside Met Council Manhattan

Sep-12 *West Bronx Housing Met Council Bronx

Sep-12 *Pelham Parkway Met Council Bronx

Sep-12 *UJO Williamsburg Met Council Brooklyn

Sep-12 *Groundwork Inc Met Council Brooklyn

Sep-12 *Midwood JCC Met Council Brooklyn

Sep-12 *LIFT Met Council Bronx

Sep-12 *NMIC Met Council Manhattan

Oct-12 *Project Hospitality and El Centro Met Council Staten Island

*Indicates that the implementing site did not conduct FSRIP recertifications during the pilot

period (ending August 2012), but was trained and planned to begin scheduling recertifications in

either September or October 2012.


2012 that Metropolitan Council agreed to join NYCCAH and the Food Bank as a CBO partner

and began to quickly add local implementing sites. In February 2012, the first two Metropolitan

Council sites began to submit FSRIP recertifications, and this was followed by the establishment

of five more Metropolitan Council sites in March and two additional sites in April 2012. The

final two Metropolitan Council sites began to submit FSRIP recertifications during the final

month of the project (August 2012). This brought the total number of FSRIP implementing sites

(that had submitted at least one FSRIP recertification) by the end of the pilot to 25: NYCCAH (5

sites); the Food Bank (10 sites); and Metropolitan Council (10 sites).

Boroughs and Food Stamp Centers Served by CBO Implementing Sites. One of the

goals of the FSRIP initiative was to provide SNAP participants with additional, convenient

service locations where they could complete recertifications, as an alternative to going to a Food

Stamp Center or conducting a recertification interview over the telephone with a Food Stamp

Change Center. Exhibit III-3 provides a breakdown of the boroughs served by CBO

implementing sites as of the end of the pilot period, showing multiple CBO site locations in four

of the five NYC boroughs as of August 2012: Manhattan (8 CBO implementing sites); Bronx (6

sites); Brooklyn (6 sites); and Queens (5 sites). With the 8 Metropolitan Council sites that were

trained prior to the end of the pilot initiating FSRIP recertifications in the two months following

the pilot (in September/October 2012), all five of NYC’s boroughs will be covered by FSRIP

CBOs: Manhattan (9 CBO implementing sites); Bronx (9 sites); Brooklyn (9 sites); Queens (5

sites); and Staten Island (1 site).

Similarly, Exhibit III-3 shows the specific Food Stamp Centers served by each of the

CBO implementing sites. As shown in the exhibit, the 25 FSRIP CBO implementing sites that

had submitted at least one recertification through August 2012 served a total of 12 of NYC’s 19


Exhibit III-3: Boroughs and Food Stamp Centers Served by the CBO Implementing Sites

(Sorted by Borough and Food Stamp Center)

Date 1st RIP Submitted CBO Site CBO

Borough Served

Food Stamp Center Served

Jun-10 Yorkville Common Pantry (YCP) NYCCAH Manhattan F02-East End

Feb-12 CUCS - East Harlem Met Council Manhattan F02-East End

Mar-11 Cathedral Community Cares (CCC) NYCCAH Manhattan F14-St. Nicholas

Aug-11 Food Bank Community Resource Center Food Bank Manhattan F14-St. Nicholas

Jan-12 Encore Senior Center Food Bank Manhattan F14-St. Nicholas

Aug-12 Goddard Riverside Met Council Manhattan F14-St. Nicholas

Jan-12 Isabella Resource Center Food Bank Manhattan F14-St. Nicholas/

F13-Washington Hts.

Feb-12 Chinese American Planning Council, Inc. Food Bank Manhattan F19-Waverly

Jun-10 Child Development Support Corp. (CDSC) NYCCAH Brooklyn F20-Ft. Greene

Mar-12 Good Shepard Services Met Council Brooklyn F20-Ft. Greene

Jan-12 Ridgewood Bushwick Senior Citizens Council Food Bank Brooklyn F21-Williamsburg

Feb-12 Boro Park JCC Met Council Brooklyn F22-Coney Island

Apr-12 Center for Family Life of Sunset Park Met Council Brooklyn F22-Coney Island

Mar-12 St. John's Bread and Life Met Council Brooklyn F26-North Brooklyn

Jun-10 Part of the Solution (POTS) NYCCAH Bronx F45-Concourse

Feb-12 Davidson Community Center Food Bank Bronx F45-Concourse

Mar-12 Bronx Defenders Met Council Bronx F45-Concourse

Mar-12 WHEDCO Met Council Bronx F45-Concourse

Apr-12 Bronx Works Food Bank Bronx F45-Concourse

Mar-12 CUCS - Crotona Park Met Council Bronx F46-Crotona

Jul-10 East River Development Alliance (ERDA) NYCCAH Queens F53-Queens

Feb-12 Self Help North Food Bank Queens F53-Queens

Feb-12 Transfiguration of Christ Church Food Bank Queens F53-Queens/ F54-Jamaica

Mar-12 The Riverfund Food Bank Queens F54-Jamaica

Aug-12 MinKwon Met Council Queens F54-Jamaica

Sep-12 *NMIC Met Council Manhattan F13Washington Hts.

Sep-12 *UJO Williamsburg Met Council Brooklyn F21-Williamsburg

Sep-12 *Midwood JCC Met Council Brooklyn F22-Coney Island

Sep-12 *Groundwork Inc Met Council Brooklyn F28-East New York

Sep-12 *LIFT Met Council Bronx F45-Concourse

Sep-12 *West Bronx Housing Met Council Bronx F46-Crotona

Sep-12 *Pelham Parkway Met Council Bronx F46-Crotona

Oct-12 *Project Hospitality and El Centro Met Council Staten Island F99-Richmond

*Indicates that the implementing site did not conduct FSRIP recertifications during the pilot period (ending August 2012), but was trained and planned to begin scheduling recertifications in either September or October 2012. THE Only Food Stamp Centers not served: F15-SSI Office; F40-Melrose; F44-Fordham; F-61-Residential Treatment Center; and F-79-Rockaway.


Food Stamp Centers. While most Food Stamp centers were served by one or two implementing

CBOs, four of the Food Stamp Centers were served by three or more implementing CBOs: F14-

St. Nicholas and F45-Concourse (5 CBO implementing sites serve each of these centers) and

F53-Queens and F54-Jamaica (3 CBO implementing sites serve each of these centers). When

the 8 additional Metropolitan Council implement sites begin conducting FSRIP recertifications

(i.e., during September/October 2012), two additional Food Stamp Centers will be served,

bringing the number of Food Stamp Centers served to 14 of NYC’s 19 Food Stamp Centers.

With these added centers, the 5 centers across the five boroughs not served by the implementing

CBOs will be the following: F15-SSI Office (which serves SSI recipients only), F40-Melrose,

F44-Fordham, F61-Residential Treatment Center, and F79-Rockaway.

Zip Codes Served by the CBO Implementing Sites. As discussed earlier in this report,

a letter showing coverage of each of the three partner CBOs and, for NYCCAH and Met

Council, their implementing sites is provided by HRA each month to SNAP participants

scheduled for a recertification appointment. The letter displays the names of the partner CBO

organizations and selected CBO implementing sites by borough, and the zip codes served. By

the end of the pilot project, a total of 64 separate zip codes across 4 of the 5 New York boroughs

were being served by the implementing CBOs.25

There are a total of 162 zip codes served by the

Food Stamp Centers across New York City’s five boroughs, and hence, the pilot project covered

about 4 in 10 (39.5 percent) of the zip codes served by Food Stamp Centers citywide. With the

addition of 8 new Metropolitan Council CBO sites in September and October 2012, an additional

14 zip codes (including Staten Island zip codes) not previously covered will be added, bringing

25

See Appendix III-A for a detailed listing of zip codes covered by NYC Food Stamp Centers and CBO

implementing sites under FSRIP. The number of zip codes covered (65) by CBO implementing sites as listed in the

mailer is slightly higher than the number of zip codes to which the mailers are sent (as discussed in Section II, which

was at its highest 53 zip codes in June and July 2012).


the total number of zip codes covered by FSRIP to 78 zip codes or nearly half (48.1 percent of

the zip codes served by Food Stamp Centers across the five boroughs). It should be noted,

however, that implementing CBO sites are not limited to serving participants from their

neighborhood zip codes; a Food Stamp recipient can take advantage of FSRIP services offered at

any participating CBO site.

Hours of Availability and Staffing at CBO Implementing Sites. One of the important

goals of the FSRIP pilot was to build capacity of CBO implementing sites across NYC’s five

boroughs to conduct recertifications. Building capacity included both opening new

implementing sites (i.e., at least 10 under the terms of the grant), providing flexible hours in

which SNAP participants could conveniently schedule recertifications within neighborhood

locations, and making well-trained staff available at these community locations to conduct the

recertification interviews. Exhibit III-4 shows the daily schedule and total number of hours that

each CBO implementing site were available for conducting FSRIP recertifications. As shown in

the upper portion of the table, the 25 CBO sites that conducted at least one FSRIP recertification

as of the end of the pilot (in August 2012), offered slightly over 500 hours of total availability

per week to conduct FSRIP recertifications (503 hours). It is important to note that staff

involved in conducting FSRIP interviews often had other responsibilities (e.g., conducting

interviews for Food Stamp applications), and so, while CBO staff were trained and available to

conduct recertification interviews, they did not have SNAP participants scheduled throughout the

period of availability. These 25 CBO implementing sites were on average available to conduct

FSRIP recertifications 21 hours per week. As shown in the exhibit, the number of days that

CBO implementing sites were available to conduct recertifications was as many as five days and

as few as a single day a week, as follows:

FSRIP Draft Final Report [For HRA Review and Comment] Page 38

Exhibit III-4: CBO Implementing Sites’ Weekly Availability to Conduct FSRIP Interviews (Sorted by Hours Scheduled)


FSRIP Daily Scheduled Availability at Location (as of August 2012)

Monday (Hours)

Tuesday (Hours)

Wednesday (Hours)

Thursday (Hours)

Friday (Hours)

Saturday (Hours)

Total Hrs.

Goddard Riverside Met Council Manhattan M, W, Th, F (9-5); T (9-7) 8 10 8 8 8 42.0

CUCS - East Harlem Met Council Manhattan M-F (9-5) 8 8 8 8 8 40.0

Bronx Defenders Met Council Bronx M-F (9-5) 8 8 8 8 8 40.0

Center for Family Life of Sunset Park Met Council Brooklyn M, T, F (10-5); W (11-7), Th (11-6) 7 7 8 7 7 36.0

St. John's Bread and Life Met Council Brooklyn M-F (8:30-3) 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 32.5

Boro Park JCC Met Council Brooklyn M-Th (9-5) 8 8 8 8 32.0

Good Shepard Services Met Council Brooklyn M-F (9-5) 8 8 8 8 32.0

Food Bank Community Resource Center Food Bank Manhattan M-F (9-3) 6 6 6 6 6 30.0

Self Help North Food Bank Queens M-F (9-3) 6 6 6 6 6 30.0

CUCS - Crotona Park Met Council Bronx M-Th (9-4) 7 7 7 7 28.0

The Riverfund Food Bank Queens W-Sa (9-3) 6 6 6 6 24.0

Chinese American Planning Council, Inc. Food Bank Manhattan W-F (9-4) 7 7 7 21.0

Transfiguration of Christ Church Food Bank Queens M, W (10-5) 7 7 7 21.0

Encore Senior Center Food Bank Manhattan M-Th (9-1) 4 4 4 4 16.0

Child Development Support Corp. (CDSC) NYCCAH Brooklyn W, Th (9-3) 6 6 12.0

Part of the Solution (POTS) NYCCAH Bronx M, F (9-3) 6 6 12.0

Cathedral Community Cares (CCC) NYCCAH Manhattan M, W (10-3) 5 5 10.0

MinKwon Met Council Queens Th (9-5) 8 8.0

Ridgewood Bushwick Sr. Citizens Council Food Bank Brooklyn Th (9-4) 7 7.0

Davidson Community Center Food Bank Bronx Th (10-5) 7 7.0

East River Development Alliance (ERDA) NYCCAH Queens M (9:30 - 4) 6.5 6.5

Yorkville Common Pantry (YCP) NYCCAH Manhattan W (9-3) 6 6.0

Isabella Resource Center Food Bank Manhattan W (9-2) 5 5.0

Bronx Works Food Bank Bronx F (9-2) 5 5.0

Subtotal (as of August 2012) 101.0 78.5 119.5 117.5 67.5 19.0 503.0

*LIFT Met Council Bronx M-F (9-5) 8 8 8 8 8 40.0

*UJO Williamsburg Met Council Brooklyn M-Th (9-5) 8 8 8 8 32.0

*NMIC Met Council Manhattan T-Th (9-5) 8 8 8 24.0

*West Bronx Housing Met Council Bronx T, Th (9-5) 8 8 16.0

*Pelham Parkway Met Council Bronx M, W (9-5) 8 8 16.0

*Groundwork Inc Met Council Brooklyn M, W (10-6) 8 8 16.0

*Midwood JCC Met Council Brooklyn T (9-5); F (9-2) 8 5 13.0

*Subtotal (Sites Added after 8/31/2012) 32.0 40.0 40.0 32.0 13.0 0.0 157.0

Total (as of October 2012) 133.0 118.5 159.5 149.5 80.5 19.0 660.0

Notes: Data not available for WHEDCO and Project Hospitality and El Centro. This exhibit shows availability to conduct FSRIP interviews at each CBO

implementing site – in nearly all sites only a portion of the time available was actually scheduled for FSRIP recertifications.

FSRIP Draft Final Report [For HRA Review and Comment] Page 39

7 sites (5 Metropolitan Council and 2 Food Bank sites) were available to conduct FSRIP

recertifications 5 days a week;

5 sites were available to conduct recertifications 4 days a week; and

12 sites were available to conduct recertifications 3 or fewer days (including 7 sites that

were available to conduct FSRIP recertifications one day per week).

As also shown in the exhibit, three FSRIP CBO implementing sites had 40 or more hours of

availability per week to conduct recertification, while over half of sites (13 sites) offered 20 or

more hours per week of availability. As also shown in the exhibit, Metropolitan Council was the

only CBO partner that offered FSRIP recertifications more than 30 hours per week (at 7

Metropolitan Council site as of August 2012).26

Five of Food Bank’s 10 implementing sites

scheduled recertifications between 21 and 30 hours per week; while all five of the NYCCAH

sites were available to conduct FSRIP recertifications between 6 and 12 hours per week. Finally,

in response to scheduling constraints that some households may have had because of work or

other commitments, three CBO implementing sites were open Saturdays to conduct FSRIP

recertifications and several CBO sites made staff available to conduct FSRIP recertification

interviews after 5 pm at least one day a week (2 sites, as of August 2012, and a third site as of

October 2012).

As discussed earlier, an important goal of the pilot was to train CBO implementing site

administrators and staff on how to conduct recertification interviews and to generally build the

capacity of CBOs as alternative venues for low-income households to apply for and recertify

their SNAP benefits. As shown in Exhibit III-5, across the 25 CBO implementing sites

(operating as of the end of the pilot in August 2012), the number of FSRIP-trained and available

staff to conduct recertifications under the pilot ranged from one to three staff per implementing

site, with 6 CBO implementing sites making 3 trained staff available; 10 CBO sites making 2

26

Metropolitan Council will be offering 30 or more hours of availability to conduct FSRIP recertifications at 2

additional sites by the end of October 2012)


EXHIBIT III-5: NUMBER OF FSRIP STAFF TRAINED AND AVAILABLE TO

CONDUCT FSRIP RECERTIFICATIONS, BY IMPLEMENTING SITE,

AS OF AUGUST 2012


# of FSRIP Trained Staff

Available

St. John's Bread and Life Met Council Brooklyn 3

Good Shepard Services Met Council Brooklyn 3

Ridgewood Bushwick Senior Citizens Council Food Bank Brooklyn 3

Goddard Riverside Met Council Manhattan 3

Chinese American Planning Council, Inc. Food Bank Manhattan 3

Isabella Resource Center Food Bank Manhattan 3

CUCS - Crotona Park Met Council Bronx 2

Bronx Works Food Bank Bronx 2

WHEDCO Met Council Bronx 2

Center for Family Life of Sunset Park Met Council Brooklyn 2

CUCS - East Harlem Met Council Manhattan 2

Food Bank Community Resource Center Food Bank Manhattan 2

Self Help North Food Bank Queens 2

The Riverfund Food Bank Queens 2

Transfiguration of Christ Church Food Bank Queens 2

MinKwon Met Council Queens 2

Bronx Defenders Met Council Bronx 1

Part of the Solution (POTS) NYCCAH Bronx 1

Davidson Community Center Food Bank Bronx 1

Boro Park JCC Met Council Brooklyn 1

Child Development Support Corp. (CDSC) NYCCAH Brooklyn 1

Encore Senior Center Food Bank Manhattan 1

Cathedral Community Cares (CCC) NYCCAH Manhattan 1

Yorkville Common Pantry (YCP) NYCCAH Manhattan 1

East River Development Alliance (ERDA) NYCCAH Queens 1

*Subtotal (for Sites Operating as of August 2012) 47

*Project Hospitality and El Centro Met Council Staten Island

4

*LIFT Met Council Bronx 2

*UJO Williamsburg Met Council Brooklyn 2

*Groundwork Inc Met Council Brooklyn 2

*Midwood JCC Met Council Brooklyn 2

*West Bronx Housing Met Council Bronx 1

*Pelham Parkway Met Council Bronx 1

*NMIC Met Council Manhattan 1

*Subtotal (for Sites Added after 8/31/2012) 15

Total (for Site as of October 2012) 62

Note: Some staff are deployed to more than one site, so the total staff count includes multiple counts of staff that serve more than one implementing site. Additionally, staff trained to conduct FSRIP recertifications often have other responsibilities, such as conducting SNAP initial applications, and though available to conduct recertifications, may devote relatively little time to conducting FSRIP recertifications (depending upon the volume of scheduling of recertifications at the CBO site) . Data not available for WHEDCO and Project Hospitality and El Centro.


staff available; and 9 CBO sites making 1 staff available. It should be noted that the CBO

partners deployed some staff trained to conduct FSRIP recertifications at more than one

implementing CBO site each week (e.g., NYCCAH deployed one of its staff to conduct FSRIP

interviews at several NYCCAH implementing sites for one day a week at each of the separate

locations). Additionally, while staff was available to conduct FSRIP recertifications, they

typically had other responsibilities (for example, facilitating initial Food Stamp applications,

providing referral and case management services, and, in some instances, providing other types

of services available through the CBO) and so, generally devoted only a portion of their time to

conducting FSRIP recertifications.

B. Trends in FSRIP Recertifications Conducted

Number of Total FSRIP Certifications Conducted. As discussed earlier, a key goal of

FSRIP was to facilitate the submission of Food Stamp recertifications conducted by CBO

implementing sites during the project period (from June 2010 through August 2012). Exhibit III-

6 shows the cumulative buildup of FSRIP recertifications across all CBO implementing sites

from the beginning (in June 2010) through the end (August 2012) of the FSRIP pilot project. As

shown in the exhibit, the FSRIP implementing sites conducted a total of 3,005 recertifications

over the course of the 27-month pilot project.27

In August 2012, just as the pilot was coming to

an end, the cumulative number of FSRIP recertifications achieved (and slightly exceeded) the

pilot’s goal of conducting 3,000 recertifications. As the slope of the line graph displays, the

number of FSRIP recertifications accumulated at a relatively slow pace early in the pilot as the

two CBO partner organizations established local implementing sites and trained staff to conduct

the recertifications. Over time, as more implementing sites and staff were added by NYCCAH

27

The total count of FSRIP recertifications is based on counts maintained and provided by the three partnering

CBOs.


and the Food Bank, the pace of enrollments increased substantially. When Metropolitan Council

was added to the pilot project as a third CBO partner in February 2012, the number of FSRIP

recertifications accelerated even more, leading to a particular surge in FSRIP recertifications

over the final six months of the project.

Exhibit III-7 shows the pattern of monthly FSRIP recertifications conducted by the CBO

implementing sites. Over the 27 months of the pilot project, on average a total of slightly over

one hundred (111.3) FSRIP recertifications were conducted per month across all CBO

implementing sites. This chart shows the month-to-month variability in the number of

recertifications conducted (e.g., ranging from 14 to 42 recertifications per month during the first

year of the pilot), as well as the overall pattern of accelerating numbers of monthly FSRIP

recertifications over the course of the pilot (e.g., over the final six months of the pilot, FSRIP


recertifications ranged from 201 to as high as 355 recertifications per month). For example,

during the first six months of the pilot, the average monthly number of FSRIP recertifications

was 25.5, but over the course of the final six months of the pilot this average monthly total had

increased by more than tenfold, to 287.7 FSRIP recertifications completed per month. As noted

earlier, two important events boosted the volume of FSRIP recertifications during the pilot (with

the second being the most evident in boosting the number of recertifications conducted under the

pilot – (1) in May 2011, HRA initiated mass mailings to selected zip codes served by the

implementing CBOs (with the numbers of recertifications about tripling over May levels by

September 2011); and (2) the addition of Metropolitan Council implementing sites beginning in

February 2012, which again provided a boost to the numbers of recertifications (i.e., leading to

another about tripling of recertifications, into the 300s by May 2012).

14 26 20 26

40 27

35 42 37 30 41 42

51

87 78

120 129

101 101 90

142

223

201

311

345

291

355

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Jun‐10 Sep‐10 Dec‐10 Mar‐11 Jun‐11 Sep‐11 Dec‐11 Mar‐12 Jun‐12 Sep‐12

# o

f FS

RIP R

ece

rfi

cao

ns

Co

mp

lete

d

Exhibit III‐7: Monthly Number of Food Stamp Recer fica on Conducted by Implemen ng CBOs, FSRIP, Overall, June 2010 ‐

August 2012

Number of FSRIP Recer fica ons 3 per. Mov. Avg. (Number of FSRIP Recer fica ons)

HRA introduces mass mailings (May 2011).

Metropolitan Council joins FSRIP and opens several implemen ng sites (February 2012)


Number of FSRIP Recertifications Completed per CBO Partner. The FSRIP pilot

began in June 2010 with two partnering CBO organizations involved in the project – Food Bank

and NYCCAH. In early 2012, Metropolitan Council joined the initiative, conducting its first

FSRIP recertifications in February 2012 and quickly building its capacity to conduct

recertifications over the final seven months of the pilot project. Exhibit III-8 provides a

breakdown of the total number and percentage of FSRIP conducted by each of the partnering

agencies over the 27-month pilot. As shown in this exhibit, just over half (50.7 percent) of all

FSRIP recertifications were conducted by NYCCAH; slightly under one-third (29.3 percent)

were conducted by the Food Bank; and one-fifth (20.0) percent were conducted by Metropolitan

Council sites.

Food Bank, 880, 29%

Met Council, 602, 20%

NYCCAH, 1523, 51%

Exhibit III‐8 Number & Percentage of Food Stamp Recer fica on Conducted by Implemen ng CBOs, FSRIP, June 2010 ‐ August 2012

NYCCAH Accounted for

about 1/2 of all recer fica ons.


Exhibit III-9 shows the cumulative build-up of recertifications for each of the three

participating CBOs, with each of the CBOs gradually picking up pace in their submissions of

recertifications over the course of the pilot. The curve of the Metropolitan Council line is

particularly steep, reflecting its very rapid build-up of implementing sites and capacity to

conduct recertifications over the final six months of the project.

Finally, Exhibit III-10 shows the monthly patterns of FSRIP submissions over the course

of the pilot project. Over the course of its 27 months of involvement in the pilot, NYCCAH

conducted (on average) 56.4 recertifications per month, while Food Bank conducted 32.6


recertifications per month.28

By comparison, over the course of its 7 months of conducting

FSRIP recertifications, Metropolitan Council conducted an average of 86.0 recertifications per

month. As also shown in Exhibit III-10, while there were monthly fluctuations in the number of

recertifications conducted by the three partnering CBOs, over time the numbers of FSRIP

recertifications conducted increased, reflecting the expanding capacity of each of the CBOs over

the course of the pilot. Appendices III-B and III-C provide a month-by-month tally of the

numbers of FSRIP recertifications by CBO partner and by CBO implementing site.

28

Food Bank conducted slightly higher average monthly recertification (at 35.2 per month), if the first two months

of the pilot are not considered (when Food Bank was just getting sites up and running and did not record any

recertifications).


Number of Recertification Completed per Implementing Site. A total of 25 local

CBO implementing sites conducted FSRIP certifications over the 27 months of the FSRIP pilot.

As shown in Exhibit III-11, a relatively small share of these 25 implementing sites accounted for

most of the FSRIP recertifications. Nine of the 25 local implementing sites recorded 100 or

more FSRIP recertifications, accounting for 84.1 percent of the recertifications completed under

the pilot. The top four local implementing sites accounted for over half (56.8 percent) of all

FSRIP recertifications – Part of the Solution (16.5 percent), Child Development Support Corp.

(16.0 percent), Food Bank Community Resource Center (14.2 percent) and Yorkville Common

Pantry (10.1 percent). The numbers of recertifications conducted ranged in excess of 400 in

three local sites (and as high as 496 at Part of the Solution) to less than 10 recertifications in four

implementing sites (three of which had been established during the final seven months of the

pilot). The average number of recertifications conducted by each of the 25 sites over the course

of the projected was 120 per site (though, as shown in the next exhibit, there was a significant

amount of variation in the number of months each site participated in the pilot, for example, with

10 sites involved in the pilot six or fewer months).

Exhibit III-12 show the considerable variation in the average number of recertifications

conducted per month across the 25 implementing sites. As shown in this exhibit, the average

number of recertifications conducted per implementing site was 12.0 per month. The average

number of recertifications ranged in excess of 30 per month in two sites (Food Bank Community

Resource Center, 32.9 recertification per month; and Boro Park JCC, 32.1) to less than to less

than 10 per month in 14 implementing sites (and less two per month in four sites).


EXHIBIT III-11: NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF FSRIP RECERTIFICATIONS BY

CBO IMPLEMENTING SITE (SORTED BY NUMBER OF RECERTIFICATIONS

COMPLETED)

CBO Implementing Site CBO Borough Served

Date 1st FSRIP

Submitted

# of FSRIP Recertifi-cations

Completed

Relative %

Cumulative %

Part of the Solution (POTS) NYCCAH Bronx Jun-10 496 16.5% 16.5%

Child Development Support Corp. (CDSC) NYCCAH Brooklyn Jun-10 480 16.0% 32.5%

Food Bank Community Resource Center Food Bank Manhattan Aug-11 428 14.2% 46.7%

Yorkville Common Pantry (YCP) NYCCAH Manhattan Jun-10 304 10.1% 56.8%

Boro Park JCC Met Council Brooklyn Feb-12 225 7.5% 64.3%

Transfiguration of Christ Church Food Bank Queens Feb-12 202 6.7% 71.0%

Cathedral Community Cares (CCC) NYCCAH Manhattan Mar-11 187 6.2% 77.3%

Good Shepard Services Met Council Brooklyn Mar-12 104 3.5% 80.7%

Ridgewood Bushwick Sr. Citizens Council Food Bank Brooklyn Jan-12 100 3.3% 84.1%

St. John's Bread and Life Met Council Brooklyn Mar-12 93 3.1% 87.2%

Bronx Defenders Met Council Bronx Mar-12 89 3.0% 90.1%

East River Development Alliance (ERDA) NYCCAH Queens Jul-10 56 1.9% 92.0%

Davidson Community Center Food Bank Bronx Feb-12 40 1.3% 93.3%

CUCS - Crotona Park Met Council Bronx Mar-12 38 1.3% 94.6%

WHEDCO Met Council Bronx Mar-12 25 0.8% 95.4%

Encore Senior Center Food Bank Manhattan Jan-12 24 0.8% 96.2%

Isabella Resource Center Food Bank Manhattan Jan-12 23 0.8% 97.0%

Bronx Works Food Bank Bronx Apr-12 21 0.7% 97.7%

The Riverfund Food Bank Queens Mar-12 21 0.7% 98.4%

Center for Family Life of Sunset Park Met Council Brooklyn Apr-12 18 0.6% 99.0%

Chinese American Planning Council, Inc. Food Bank Manhattan Feb-12 12 0.4% 99.4%

Self Help North Food Bank Queens Feb-11 9 0.3% 99.7%

MinKwon Met Council Queens Aug-12 6 0.2% 99.9%

CUCS - East Harlem Met Council Manhattan Feb-12 3 0.1% 100.0%

Goddard Riverside Met Council Manhattan Aug-12 1 0.0% 100.0%

Totals 3,005 100.0%


EXHIBIT III-12: AVERAGE NUMBER OF FSRIP RECERTIFICATIONS BY CBO

IMPLEMENTING SITE, JUNE 2010 – AUGUST 2012 (SORTED BY AVERAGE

NUMBER OF RECERTIFICATIONS CONDUCTED PER MONTH)


Date 1st RIP

Submitted

# of Months Involved in FSRIP

# of FSRIP Recertifications Completed

Avg. # of FSRIP

Recerts/ Month

Food Bank Community Resource Center Food Bank Manhattan Aug-11 13 428 32.9

Boro Park JCC Met Council Brooklyn Feb-12 7 225 32.1

Transfiguration of Christ Church Food Bank Queens Feb-12 7 202 28.9

Part of the Solution (POTS) NYCCAH Bronx Jun-10 27 496 18.4

Child Development Support Corp. (CDSC) NYCCAH Brooklyn Jun-10 27 480 17.8

Good Shepard Services Met Council Brooklyn Mar-12 6 104 17.3

St. John's Bread and Life Met Council Brooklyn Mar-12 6 93 15.5

Bronx Defenders Met Council Bronx Mar-12 6 89 14.8

Ridgewood Bushwick Sr. Citizens Council Food Bank Brooklyn Jan-12 8 100 12.5

Cathedral Community Cares (CCC) NYCCAH Manhattan Mar-11 16 187 11.7

Yorkville Common Pantry (YCP) NYCCAH Manhattan Jun-10 27 304 11.3

CUCS - Crotona Park Met Council Bronx Mar-12 6 38 6.3

MinKwon Met Council Queens Aug-12 1 6 6.0

Davidson Community Center Food Bank Bronx Feb-12 7 40 5.7

Bronx Works Food Bank Bronx Apr-12 5 21 4.2

WHEDCO Met Council Bronx Mar-12 6 25 4.2

Center for Family Life of Sunset Park Met Council Brooklyn Apr-12 5 18 3.6

The Riverfund Food Bank Queens Mar-12 6 21 3.5

Encore Senior Center Food Bank Manhattan Jan-12 8 24 3.0

Isabella Resource Center Food Bank Manhattan Jan-12 8 23 2.9

East River Development Alliance (ERDA) NYCCAH Queens Jul-10 26 56 2.2

Chinese American Planning Council, Inc. Food Bank Manhattan Feb-12 7 12 1.7

Self Help North Food Bank Queens Feb-12 7 9 1.3

Goddard Riverside Met Council Manhattan Aug-12 1 1 1.0

CUCS - East Harlem Met Council Manhattan Feb-12 7 3 0.4

Totals 250 3005 12.0


FSRIP Recertifications as a Percentage of All Food Stamp Recertifications for New

York City. As a pilot project, FSRIP targeted specific zip codes across the city to provide a

small-scale test of involvement of CBOs in recertifying SNAP households. The intent of the

pilot was to demonstrate the feasibility of expanding the role of CBO partners from assisting

with initial Food Stamp applications to helping with processing recertifications. As shown in

Exhibit III-12, the number of FSRIP recertifications conducted over the 27-month pilot (3,005)

accounted for about one-fourth of one percent (0.28 percent) of the slightly more than one

million recertifications scheduled citywide over the same period.29

Hence, at the scale in which

the initiative was mounted, FSRIP reached only a very small fraction of SNAP households and

had little effect on the volume of Food Stamp recertifications processed either at Food Stamp

Centers or via HRA’s Change Centers. As shown in the exhibit, as the number of implementing

CBO sites expanded over the course of the pilot, there was a gradual increase in percentage that

FSRIP recertifications accounted for of total recertification – by the end of the demonstration

period, FSRIP recertifications accounted for nearly 1 percent of all recertifications across the

city’s five boroughs (e.g., 0.88 percent as of August 2012).

C. Characteristics SNAP Participants Conducting FSRIP Recertifications

HRA collected data on FSRIP participants using its normal SNAP/Food Stamp

management information system by noting within the system if a SNAP participant had been

sent a mailer indicating his or her household was located within a particular zip code being

served by the FSRIP initiative and whether a SNAP recipient had participated in FSRIP (i.e., by

29

This total for New York City’s five boroughs excludes Interactive Voice Recognition (IVR) recertification, as

households scheduled for IVR were not offered the opportunity to recertify through a CBO under FSRIP.


EXHIBIT III-13: FSRIP RECERTIFICATIONS AS A PERCENTAGE OF ALL FOOD

STAMP RECERTIFICATIONS CONDUCTED IN NEW YORK CITY, BY MONTH,

JUNE 2010 – AUGUST 2012

Month

# of FSRIP Recertifications

Completed

# of Recertifications

Scheduled in NYC (excluding IVR)

FSRIP as % of Recertifications

(excluding IVR) in NYC

Jun-10 14 39,108 0.04% Jul-10 26 42,121 0.06%

Aug-10 20 42,671 0.05%

Sep-10 26 40,869 0.06%

Oct-10 40 45,777 0.09%

Nov-10 27 52,224 0.05%

Dec-10 35 38,158 0.09% Jan-11 42 42,854 0.10%

Feb-11 37 37,566 0.10%

Mar-11 30 37,225 0.08%

Apr-11 41 33,637 0.12%

May-11 42 34,311 0.12%

Jun-11 51 40,977 0.12% Jul-11 87 41,012 0.21%

Aug-11 78 41,265 0.19%

Sep-11 120 39,225 0.31%

Oct-11 129 41,884 0.31%

Nov-11 101 43,105 0.23%

Dec-11 101 35,754 0.28% Jan-12 90 39,852 0.23%

Feb-12 142 37,186 0.38%

Mar-12 223 37,091 0.60%

Apr-12 201 33,826 0.59%

May-12 311 33,707 0.92%

Jun-12 345 39,733 0.87% Jul-12 291 39,575 0.74%

Aug-12 355 40,426 0.88%

Total 3005 1,064,444 0.28%

Note: Recertification conducted by Interactive Voice Recognition (IVR) have been excluded

from the total number of recertification conducted citywide. The total number of recertification

scheduled citywide over the 27 months of the pilot was 1,293,739; the total number of IVRS

recertifications scheduled was 229,295 (17 percent of total recertifications scheduled).


going to a FSRIP implementing site to conduct his/her recertification with an CBO authorized

representative).30

Exhibit III-14 provides an overview of the basic characteristics of FSRIP

participants. As shown in this exhibit, FSRIP participants were:

nearly three-quarters female (73.2 percent);

about half Hispanic (47.3 percent) and one-third Black/African American (32.0 percent);

mostly never married (60.7 percent);

about one-third under 30 years of age (33.9 percent) and 8 in 10 are under 60 years of age

(80.6 percent);

over fourth-fifths U.S. citizens (83.2 percent);

mostly receiving their recertification notification in English (74.1 percent), with the

remainder receiving their notifications in Spanish (25.9 percent);

very unlikely to be veterans (less than one percent);

about two-thirds residing in private dwellings (66.9 percent);

fairly evenly spread across three of New York City’s five boroughs (Bronx, 26.0

percent); Brooklyn (33.0 percent); and Manhattan (28.1 percent);

about as likely to have some Food Stamp total income (51.0 percent) as to have no

income under the Food Stamp program (49.0 percent), with an average (mean) Food

Stamp total income of slightly below $200 per month per household ($194.08);

one-fifth with earned income (19.2 percent), with earned income averaging $22.38 per

month per household (including those with no earned income);

one-third with unearned income (32.8 percent), with unearned income averaging $196.46

per month per household (including those with no unearned income); and

30

HRA needed to re-programmed its data system to include a variable identifying SNAP participants that were

recertified by a FSRIP implementing site. This tracking variable was included in the HRA data system several

months into the implementation period (as a result of time needed develop code to re-program the system) and so

tracking of FSRIP participants within the data system was initiated several months into the project. As shown in

Exhibit III-14, participant level data was available on 2,302 payees/alternative payees of the slightly over 3,005

FSRIP participants.

EXHIBIT III-14: FSRIP PARTICIPANT CHARACTERISTICS


Participant Characteristics Number Relative

Percentage Cumulative Percentage

Sex Male 618 26.8% 26.8% Female 1,684 73.2% 100.0% *Total* 2,302 100.0% Race White (Non-Hispanic) 356 15.5% 15.5% Asian/Pacific Islander (Non-Hispanic) 98 4.3% 19.7% Black/African American (Non-Hispanic) 735 32.0% 51.7% Hispanic (Any Race) 1,087 47.3% 99.0% Multi-Racial 24 1.0% 100.0% *Total* 2,300 100.0% Missing 2 Marital Status Married 438 19.2% 19.2% Separated, Divorced, Widowed 459 20.1% 39.3% Never Married 1,388 60.7% 100.0% *Total* 2,285 100.0% Missing 17 Age at Recertification 18-29 324 14.1% 14.1% 30-39 456 19.8% 33.9% 40-49 498 21.6% 55.5% 50-59 577 25.1% 80.6% 60-69 296 12.9% 93.4% 70+ 151 6.6% 100.0% *Total* 2,302 100.0% Average 47 Citizenship Status Citizen 1,916 83.2% 83.2% Non-Citizen 386 16.8% 100.0% *Total* 2,302 100.0% Notice Language English 1,706 74.1% 74.1% Spanish 596 25.9% 100.0% *Total* 2,302 100.0% Preferred Language for Interview English 1,667 72.4% 72.4% Spanish 584 25.4% 97.8% Chinese 30 1.3% 99.1% Russian 7 0.3% 99.4% Other 14 0.6% 100.0% *Total* 2,302 100.0% Borough Bronx 598 26.0% 26.0% Brooklyn 759 33.0% 58.9% Manhattan 648 28.1% 87.1% Queens 293 12.7% 99.8%





Staten Island 4 0.2% 100.0% *Total* 2,302 100.0% Veteran Status Veteran 16 0.7% 0.7% Not a Veteran 2,286 99.3% 100.0% *Total* 2,302 100.0% SSI Status Never Active SSI 1,575 68.4% 68.4% Active SSI 173 7.5% 75.9% SSI Pending 13 0.6% 76.5% Deemed Eligible - 0.0% 76.5% Closed/Denied/Suspended (Appeals Exhausted) 526 22.8% 99.3% Closed - Continue OASDI 15 0.7% 100.0% *Total* 2,302 100.0% Shelter Type Private 1,541 66.9% 66.9% NYCHA/Section 8 630 27.4% 94.3% Undomiciled or Temporary/Migrant 44 1.9% 96.2% Homeless/DV Shelter 67 2.9% 99.1% Group Quarters/Congregate Care 20 0.9% 100.0% SSI Categorically Eligible - 0.0% 100.0% *Total* 2,302 100.0% Food Stamp Total Income Amount $0 1,174 51.0% 51.0% $1-$99 164 7.1% 58.1% $100-$199 153 6.6% 64.8% $200-$299 170 7.4% 72.2% $300-$399 140 6.1% 78.2% $400-$499 125 5.4% 83.7% $500-$749 230 10.0% 93.7% $750-$999 146 6.3% 100.0% $1000+ - 0.0% 100.0% *Total* 2,302 100.0% Average $194.08 Food Stamp Total Net Income Amount $0 989 43.0% 43.0% $1-$99 41 1.8% 44.7% $100-$199 73 3.2% 47.9% $200-$299 75 3.3% 51.2% $300-$399 110 4.8% 56.0% $400-$499 123 5.3% 61.3% $500-$749 507 22.0% 83.3% $750-$999 384 16.7% 100.0% $1000+ - 0.0% 100.0% *Total* 2,302 100.0% Average $274.33 Food Stamp Earned Income Amount





$0 1,859 80.8% 80.8% $1-$99 6 0.3% 81.0% $100-$199 15 0.7% 81.7% $200-$299 26 1.1% 82.8% $300-$399 34 1.5% 84.3% $400-$499 42 1.8% 86.1% $500-$749 154 6.7% 92.8% $750-$999 166 7.2% 100.0% $1000+ - 0.0% 100.0% *Total* 2,302 100.0% Average $122.38 Food Stamp Unearned Income Amount $0 1,548 67.2% 67.2% $1-$99 33 1.4% 68.7% $100-$199 36 1.6% 70.2% $200-$299 57 2.5% 72.7% $300-$399 58 2.5% 75.2% $400-$499 56 2.4% 77.7% $500-$749 268 11.6% 89.3% $750-$999 246 10.7% 100.0% $1000+ - 0.0% 100.0% *Total* 2,302 100.0% Average $196.46

Food Stamp Dependent Child Care Amount $0 2,144 93.1% 93.1% $1-$99 25 1.1% 94.2% $100-$199 11 0.5% 94.7% $200-$299 29 1.3% 96.0% $300-$399 31 1.3% 97.3% $400-$499 18 0.8% 98.1% $500-$749 32 1.4% 99.5% $750-$999 12 0.5% 100.0% $1000+ - 0.0% 100.0% *Total* 2,302 100.0% Average $24.96 Food Stamp Total Deductions Amount $0 59 2.6% 2.6% $1-$99 - 0.0% 2.6% $100-$199 1,118 48.6% 51.1% $200-$299 439 19.1% 70.2% $300-$399 324 14.1% 84.3% $400-$499 162 7.0% 91.3% $500-$749 147 6.4% 97.7% $750-$999 53 2.3% 100.0% $1000+ - 0.0% 100.0% *Total* 2,302 100.0% Average $257.56





Food Stamp Allotment Less than $200 461 20.0% 20.0% $200 657 28.5% 28.5% $367 234 10.2% 38.7% $526 111 4.8% 43.5% $668 44 1.9% 45.4% $793 24 1.0% 46.5% Other Amount 771 33.5% 80.0% *Total* 2,302 100.0% Average $315.18 Food Stamp Appointment Center F45-Concourse 309 13.4% 13.4% F14-St. Nicholas 294 12.8% 26.2% F02-East End 283 12.3% 38.5% F53-Queens 229 9.9% 48.4% F22-Coney Island 223 9.7% 58.1% F26-North Brooklyn 168 7.3% 65.4% F20-Ft. Green 159 6.9% 72.3% F40-Melrose 141 6.1% 78.5% F28-East New York 127 5.5% 84.0% F46-Crontona 86 3.7% 87.7% F21Williamsburg 78 3.4% 91.1% F44-Fordham 62 2.7% 93.8% F54-Jamaica 49 2.1% 95.9% F13-Washington Heights 35 1.5% 97.4% F15-SSI Office 32 1.4% 98.8% F19-Waverly 20 0.9% 99.7% F79-Rockaway 3 0.1% 99.8% F99-Richmond 3 0.1% 100.0% F61-Residential Treatment Center 1 0.0% 100.0% *Total* 2,302 100.0%

Note: Data is for SNAP payees and alternative payees that conducted recertification interviews with FSRIP CBO implementing sites. FSRIP participants served early in the pilot were not identified in the HRA data system and are not included in the analyses.


likely to receive maximum standard Food Stamp allotments by household size (e.g., $367

for a two-person household), with the Food Stamp allotment averaging $315.18 per

household.

It was also possible to compare participant characteristics of FSRIP participants with all

SNAP participants that received mailers informing them of the option to use a FSRIP

implementing CBO for their recertification interview. Exhibit III-15 shows basic characteristics

of FSRIP participants (i.e., FSRIP payees and alternate payees) compared to those of SNAP

participants receiving mailers informing them about FSRIP for an eight-month period (January –

August 2012). This exhibit shows that in comparison to SNAP participants receiving the mailer

informing them of FSRIP, SNAP participants that recertified through the FSRIP initiative were

more likely (i.e., a difference of at least 5 percentage points between FSRIP participants and

those receiving the mailer) to be: white, Hispanic, married or separated/divorced or widowed;

older (50 or older); Spanish-speaking; residing in Manhattan or Queens; have no Food Stamp

total net income after certain allowable deductions; and have no Food Stamp earned income.

D. Recertification Outcomes for FSRIP Participants

A key goal of FSRIP was to facilitate the recertification process by providing SNAP

participants with a convenient and supportive alternative to recertifying by telephone with the

Food Stamp Change Center or in-person at a Food Stamp Center. An important goal of the

initiative was to reduce the number of eligible SNAP households who fail to recertify because of

a variety of administrative reasons, such as failure to provide necessary documentation and

failure to schedule or show for a recertification interview. Under FSRIP, CBO implementing

sites provided a convenient and comfortable neighborhood location where SNAP participants

could go to conduct their recertification interviews with a CBO authorized representative.

EXHIBIT III-15: FSRIP PARTICIPANT CHARACTERISTICS COMPARED WITH SNAP

PARTICIPANTS RECEIVING MAILER INFORMING THEM ABOUT FSRIP


SNAP FSRIP Participants Received FSRIP Mailing


Percentage Cumulative Percentage Number

Relative Percentage

Cumulative Percentage

Sex

Male 618 26.8% 26.8% 16,989 29.1% 29.1%

Female 1,684 73.2% 100.0% 41,426 70.9% 100.0%

*Total* 2,302 100.0% 58,415 100.0%

Race

White (Non-Hispanic) 356 15.5% 15.5% 5,495 9.4% 9.4%

Asian/Pacific Islander (Non-Hispanic) 98 4.3% 19.7% 4,897 8.4% 17.8%

Black/African American (Non-Hispanic) 735 32.0% 51.7% 22,004 37.8% 55.6%

Hispanic (Any Race) 1,087 47.3% 99.0% 25,519 43.8% 99.4%

Multi-Racial 24 1.0% 100.0% 360 0.6% 100.0%

*Total* 2,300 100.0% 58,275 100.0%

Missing 2 140

Marital Status

Married 438 19.2% 19.2% 8,201 14.2% 14.2%

Separated, Divorced, Widowed 459 20.1% 39.3% 7,183 12.4% 26.7%

Never Married 1,388 60.7% 100.0% 42,340 73.3% 100.0%

*Total* 2,285 100.0% 57,724 100.0%

Missing 17 691

Age at Recertification

18-29 324 14.1% 14.1% 13,841 23.9% 23.9%

30-39 456 19.8% 33.9% 14,562 25.2% 49.1%

40-49 498 21.6% 55.5% 12,769 22.1% 71.2%

50-59 577 25.1% 80.6% 11,519 19.9% 91.1%

60-69 296 12.9% 93.4% 4,029 7.0% 98.1%

70+ 151 6.6% 100.0% 1,089 1.9% 100.0%

*Total* 2,302 100.0% 57,809 100.0%

Missing - 606

Average 47

Citizenship Status

Citizen 1,916 83.2% 83.2% 47,869 82.0% 82.0%

Non-Citizen 386 16.8% 100.0% 10,518 18.0% 100.0%

*Total* 2,302 100.0% 58,387 100.0%

Missing - 28

Notice Language

English 1,706 74.1% 74.1% 48,840 83.6% 83.6%

Spanish 596 25.9% 100.0% 9,569 16.4% 100.0%

*Total* 2,302 100.0% 58,409 100.0%

Missing - 6

Preferred Language for Interview

English 1,667 72.4% 72.4% 46,562 79.7% 79.7%

Spanish 584 25.4% 97.8% 9,598 16.4% 96.1%

Chinese 30 1.3% 99.1% 1,482 2.5% 98.7%

Russian 7 0.3% 99.4% 330 0.6% 99.2%

Other 14 0.6% 100.0% 443 0.8% 100.0%

*Total* 2,302 100.0% 58,415 100.0%

Borough







Relative Percentage


Bronx 598 26.0% 26.0% 20,443 35.0% 35.0%

Brooklyn 759 33.0% 58.9% 24,362 41.7% 76.7%

Manhattan 648 28.1% 87.1% 12,030 20.6% 97.3%

Queens 293 12.7% 99.8% 1,550 2.7% 100.0%

Staten Island 4 0.2% 100.0% 26 0.0% 100.0%

*Total* 2,302 100.0% 58,411 100.0%

Missing - 4

Veteran Status

Veteran 16 0.7% 0.7% 364 0.6% 0.6%

Not a Veteran 2,286 99.3% 100.0% 58,051 99.4% 100.0%

*Total* 2,302 100.0% 58,415 100.0%

SSI Status

Never Active SSI 1,575 68.4% 68.4% 39,474 67.6% 67.6%

Active SSI 173 7.5% 75.9% 3,719 6.4% 73.9%

SSI Pending 13 0.6% 76.5% 610 1.0% 75.0%

Deemed Eligible - 0.0% 76.5% 16 0.0% 75.0%

Closed/Denied/Suspended (Appeals Exhausted)

526 22.8% 99.3% 14,310 24.5% 99.5%

Closed - Continue OASDI 15 0.7% 100.0% 286 0.5% 100.0%

*Total* 2,302 100.0% 58,415 100.0%

Shelter Type

Private 1,541 66.9% 66.9% 39,202 67.1% 67.1%

NYCHA/Section 8 630 27.4% 94.3% 14,302 24.5% 91.6%

Undomiciled or Temporary/Migrant 44 1.9% 96.2% 3,740 6.4% 98.0%

Homeless/DV Shelter 67 2.9% 99.1% 817 1.4% 99.4%

Group Quarters/Congregate Care 20 0.9% 100.0% 67 0.1% 99.5%

SSI Categorically Eligible - 0.0% 100.0% 286 0.5% 100.0%

*Total* 2,302 100.0% 58,414 100.0%

Food Stamp Total Income Amount

$0 1,174 51.0% 51.0% 30,867 52.8% 52.8%

$1-$99 164 7.1% 58.1% 4,054 6.9% 59.8%

$100-$199 153 6.6% 64.8% 3,597 6.2% 65.9%

$200-$299 170 7.4% 72.2% 3,796 6.5% 72.4%

$300-$399 140 6.1% 78.2% 2,987 5.1% 77.6%

$400-$499 125 5.4% 83.7% 2,504 4.3% 81.8%

$500-$749 230 10.0% 93.7% 4,961 8.5% 90.3%

$750-$999 146 6.3% 100.0% 2,772 4.7% 95.1%

$1000+ - 0.0% 100.0% 2,877 4.9% 100.0%

*Total* 2,302 100.0% 58,415 100.0%

Average $194.08 $224.67

Food Stamp Total Net Income Amount

$0 989 43.0% 43.0% 18,312 31.3% 31.3%

$1-$99 41 1.8% 44.7% 1,257 2.2% 33.5%

$100-$199 73 3.2% 47.9% 1,803 3.1% 36.6%

$200-$299 75 3.3% 51.2% 2,085 3.6% 40.2%

$300-$399 110 4.8% 56.0% 2,943 5.0% 45.2%

$400-$499 123 5.3% 61.3% 3,262 5.6% 50.8%







Relative Percentage


$500-$749 507 22.0% 83.3% 11,479 19.7% 70.4%

$750-$999 384 16.7% 100.0% 7,095 12.1% 82.6%

$1000+ - 0.0% 100.0% 10,179 17.4% 100.0%

*Total* 2,302 100.0% 58,415 100.0%

Average $274.33 $522.44

Food Stamp Earned Income Amount

$0 1,859 80.8% 80.8% 34,313 58.7% 58.7%

$1-$99 6 0.3% 81.0% 151 0.3% 59.0%

$100-$199 15 0.7% 81.7% 425 0.7% 59.7%

$200-$299 26 1.1% 82.8% 610 1.0% 60.8%

$300-$399 34 1.5% 84.3% 857 1.5% 62.2%

$400-$499 42 1.8% 86.1% 1,127 1.9% 64.2%

$500-$749 154 6.7% 92.8% 4,076 7.0% 71.1%

$750-$999 166 7.2% 100.0% 4,826 8.3% 79.4%

$1000+ - 0.0% 100.0% 12,030 20.6% 100.0%

*Total* 2,302 100.0% 58,415 100.0%

Average $122.38 $446.98

Food Stamp Unearned Income Amount

$0 1,548 67.2% 67.2% 36,773 63.0% 63.0%

$1-$99 33 1.4% 68.7% 602 1.0% 64.0%

$100-$199 36 1.6% 70.2% 932 1.6% 65.6%

$200-$299 57 2.5% 72.7% 1,179 2.0% 67.6%

$300-$399 58 2.5% 75.2% 1,119 1.9% 69.5%

$400-$499 56 2.4% 77.7% 1,470 2.5% 72.0%

$500-$749 268 11.6% 89.3% 6,277 10.7% 82.8%

$750-$999 246 10.7% 100.0% 4,137 7.1% 89.9%

$1000+ - 0.0% 100.0% 5,926 10.1% 100.0%

*Total* 2,302 100.0% 58,415 100.0%

Average $196.46 $296.41

Food Stamp Dependent Child Care Amount

$0 2,144 93.1% 93.1% 55,492 95.0% 95.0%

$1-$99 25 1.1% 94.2% 476 0.8% 95.8%

$100-$199 11 0.5% 94.7% 285 0.5% 96.3%

$200-$299 29 1.3% 96.0% 413 0.7% 97.0%

$300-$399 31 1.3% 97.3% 404 0.7% 97.7%

$400-$499 18 0.8% 98.1% 433 0.7% 98.4%

$500-$749 32 1.4% 99.5% 637 1.1% 99.5%

$750-$999 12 0.5% 100.0% 184 0.3% 99.8%

$1000+ - 0.0% 100.0% 91 0.2% 100.0%

*Total* 2,302 100.0% 58,415 100.0%

Average $24.96 $19.66

Food Stamp Total Deductions Amount

$0 59 2.6% 2.6% - 0.0% 0.0%

$1-$99 - 0.0% 2.6% - 0.0% 0.0%

$100-$199 1,118 48.6% 51.1% 29,487 50.5% 50.5%

$200-$299 439 19.1% 70.2% 11,465 19.6% 70.1%







Relative Percentage


$300-$399 324 14.1% 84.3% 8,565 14.7% 84.8%

$400-$499 162 7.0% 91.3% 4,295 7.4% 92.1%

$500-$749 147 6.4% 97.7% 2,820 4.8% 96.9%

$750-$999 53 2.3% 100.0% 872 1.5% 98.4%

$1000+ - 0.0% 100.0% 911 1.6% 100.0%

*Total* 2,302 100.0% 58,415 100.0%

Average $257.56 $271.54 Food Stamp Allotment

Less than $200 461 20.0% 20.0% 8,940 15.3% 15.3%

$200 657 28.5% 28.5% 17,366 29.7% 29.7%

$367 234 10.2% 38.7% 7,565 13.0% 42.7%

$526 111 4.8% 43.5% 3,861 6.6% 49.3%

$668 44 1.9% 45.4% 1,572 2.7% 52.0%

$793 24 1.0% 46.5% 519 0.9% 52.9%

Other Amount 771 33.5% 80.0% 18,592 31.8% 84.7%

*Total* 2,302 100.0% 58,415 100.0%

Missing - -

Average $315.18 $322.54

Note: Data is for SNAP payees and alternative payees that conducted recertification interviews with FSRIP CBO implementing sites. FSRIP participants served early in the pilot were not identified in the HRA data system and are not included in the analyses.


Additionally, CBO staff helped to facilitate the recertification process so that it could be

completed in a timely and appropriate manner, for example, collecting and scanning supporting

documents, making sure that all questions are addressed during the recertification interview,

making sure all documents are transmitted to the Food Stamp Change Center, acting as the

authorized representative for the participant during the recertification interview the Food Stamp

Change Center, and if necessary, collecting additional information or documentation that may be

required to successfully complete the recertification process.

Overall, of the 2,845 with valid recertification data tracked through the FSRIP

demonstration, 2,547, or 89.5 percent, successfully recertified after completing the process at the

CBO site.31

During the same time period, 60.1 percent of SNAP households successfully

recertified. It is not surprising that such a high percentage of FSRIP successfully recertified

compared to the city as a whole, because FSRIP participants are those who already took the

initiative to go to the CBO to recertify. A better comparison group is comprised of those who

showed up at a Food Stamp office. Of those, 72.4 percent successfully recertified during the

same time period as the FSRIP pilot was running.32

This shows that FSRIP participants were

much more likely to continue receiving Food Stamp benefits after going through the CBO

recertification than the city’s caseload as a whole did from using other recertification methods.

Analysis of recertification outcomes and closing reasons sheds further light on this issue.

Exhibit III-16 shows the closing reasons for FSRIP participants in comparison to SNAP

participants (i.e., payees and alternative payees) who received the mailer informing them of their

31

This number differs from the previously reported 3,005 FSRIP case total because some cases were unable to be

captured by HRA’s POS system in the early phases of CBO implementation. The 2,845 total here reflects only those

that could be identified in terms of recertification outcome (case successfully recertified, or case closed during

recertification process for specific reason). 32

Citywide recertification numbers provided by HRA’s Family Independence Administration (FIA).


potential eligibility to conduct their recertification at a neighborhood CBO under FSRIP.33

Because FSRIP clients took the initiative to schedule an appointment with the CBO, it is not

surprising that the percentage of FSRIP participants closing their cases as a result of the

recertification process (11.6 percent) was about half that of all SNAP participants who received

the FSRIP mailers (24.3 percent). This is further illustrated by analyzing the closing reasons.

Closing for “Failure to Recertify” (Closing Reason Y10) – associated with failing to mail back a

complete recertification package and/or failure to schedule or show for the recertification

interview – was substantially higher for SNAP mailer recipients (15.1 percent) compared with

FSRIP participants (1.5 percent). For FSRIP cases, CBO staff usually completed the required

recertification interview with HRA on behalf of the client (acting as an “authorized

representative” of the client), though in some cases the client wanted to complete the interview

on his/her own instead. If the client failed to do so within a certain timeframe after leaving the

CBO, the case closed for a “Failure to Recertify” reason. The mailer group, however, had more

opportunity to have a “Failure to Recertify” closing reason, because any non-responsiveness to

HRA’s recertification packet would have resulted in this action because the client failed to

attempt a recertification via CBO, mail/phone process, or in-person with HRA. Additionally,

“Failure to Provide Verification – Documents” (Closing Reasons E50/V21) is slightly higher for

SNAP participants receiving the mailer (3.2 percent) versus FSRIP participants (2.4 percent).

CBO staff were responsible for informing clients of any missing or incomplete documents, such

as official identification, rent receipts, and pay stubs, though it was possible for a client to be

informed of a missing document while at the CBO location and then having a failure to follow

up with the CBO with the required document before the case recertification deadline. By

33

The SNAP participants received this one-page flyer at just about the same time as they received their

recertification package notifying of the need to recertify. The table provides data on SNAP participants receiving

mailers for the period January 2012 through August 2012.


EXHIBIT III-16: CLOSING REASONS AS A PERCENTAGE OF ALL FSRIP

RECIPIENTS AND SNAP MAILER RECIPIENTS DURING THE FOOD STAMP

RECERTIFICATION PROCESS

Food Stamp Closing Reason

% of Participants Scheduled for

Recertification by Closing Reason

All FSRIP Participants (N=2,302)

All SNAP Mailer

Recipients (N=58,415)

Failure to Recertify (Y10) 1.52% 15.06%

Failure to Provide Verification-Documents (E50/V21) 2.35% 3.20%

Excess Earned Income (E30/E31) 3.65% 2.24%

Forced Closing-System Generated (968) 1.56% 1.75%

Failure to Comply with Employment Requirements (WE1/WE2/WE3) 1.17% 0.67%

Overdue Recertification (Y66) 0.22% 0.26%

Failure to Provide Verification for Expedited SNAP (Y29) 0.13% 0.18%

Client Requested Closing (M90/M91) 0.13% 0.14%

Failure to Comply Finger Imaging (M88) 0.09% 0.08%

Receiving Duplicate Assistance (M97/N66/N67) 0.00% 0.08%

Changed from SNAP to CA/SNAP Case (F65) 0.04% 0.07%

Not a Resident of NYC-Moved (267/E61/E63) 0.00% 0.07%

Ineligible Student (F90) 0.17% 0.05%

Died (E95/G39) 0.04% 0.03%

Added to Another SNAP Case (G68/M68) 0.09% 0.03%

Incarcerated (939) 0.00% 0.03%

Excess Unearned Income (E35/E39) 0.17% 0.03%

Failed to Respond to Call-in (M25) 0.04% 0.01%

Failure to Validate SSN (F17/N18) 0.00% 0.01%

Excess Resources-Assets (U45) 0.00% 0.00%

Other Closing Reason 0.17% 0.27% *Total (% of All FSRIP or Mailer SNAP Cases Closed during the

Recertification Process)* 11.56% 24.26%

Note: SNAP participants in select zip codes served by FSRIP CBO implementing sites received a one-page flyer by

mailer notifying them about their potential eligibility to conduct their recertification under the FSRIP pilot at just

about the same time as they received their recertification package. The table provides data on (1) SNAP

participants receiving mailers for the period January 2012 through August 2012 and (2) FSRIP participants

recertifying with CBO implementing sites during the pilot.


comparison, “Excess Earned Income” (E30/E31) – a closing reason that is independent of

negotiating the administrative requirements of the recertification process – was the most

frequently identified closing reason for FSRIP participants (i.e., identified for 3.7 percent of all

FSRIP participants scheduled for recertification compared with 2.2 percent of SNAP participants

receiving the mailer and scheduled for recertification).

Exhibit III-17 provides an additional breakdown of closing reasons during the

recertification process for closed or rejected FSRIP recipients in comparison to closed or rejected

SNAP participants receiving the FSRIP. As shown in this exhibit, nearly three-quarters of SNAP

participants closed/rejected during the recertification process receiving the FSRIP mailer closed

either because of “Failure to Recertify” (Closing Reason Y10, 62.1 percent) or because of

“Failure to Provide Verification-Documents” (Closing Reasons E50/V21, 13.2 percent). This

compares to only about one-third of FSRIP participants closed or rejected during the

recertification process due to these two reasons -- “Failure to Recertify” (Closing Reason Y10,

13.2 percent) or because of “Failure to Provide Verification-Documents” (Closing Reasons

E50/V21, 20.3 percent). The most frequent closing reason for FSRIP participants was “Excess

Earned Income” (E30/E31), identified as the closing reason for about one-third (31.6 percent) of

FSRIP participants closing during the recertification process (compared to 9.2 percent of SNAP

participants receiving the mailer). Overall, the distribution of closing reasons was substantially

different for closed/rejected FSRIP participants during the recertification process, compared to

the more general population of closed/rejected SNAP participants (receiving the flyers informing

them about FSRIP). The difference shows that the mailer comparison group experienced more

closings related to recertification procedures, whereas the FSRIP participant group was more

likely to close for reasons that were not addressed by the grant initiative, such as closing for


EXHIBIT III-17:

CLOSING REASONS FOR FSRIP RECIPIENTS AND SNAP MAILER RECIPIENTS

CLOSED OR REJECTED DURING THE FOOD STAMP RECERTIFICATION

PROCESS

Food Stamp Closing Reason Closed/Rejected FSRIP Recipients

Closed/Rejected SNAP Mailer Recipients

Number Percentage Number Percentage

Failure to Recertify (Y10) 35 13.2% 8796 62.1%

Failure to Provide Verification-Documents (E50/V21)

54 20.3% 1870 13.2%

Excess Earned Income (E30/E31) 84 31.6% 1310 9.2%

Forced Closing-System Generated (968) 36 13.5% 1024 7.2%

Failure to Comply with Employment Requirements (WE1/WE2/WE3)

27 10.2% 391 2.8%

Overdue Recertification (Y66) 5 1.9% 152 1.1%

Failure to Provide Verification for Expedited SNAP (Y29)

3 1.1% 107 0.8%

Client Requested Closing (M90/M91) 3 1.1% 80 0.6%

Failure to Comply Finger Imaging (M88) 2 0.8% 48 0.3%

Receiving Duplicate Assistance (M97/N66/N67) 0 0.0% 47 0.3%

Changed from SNAP to CA/SNAP Case (F65) 1 0.4% 41 0.3%

Not a Resident of NYC-Moved (267/E61/E63) 0 0.0% 38 0.3%

Ineligible Student (F90) 4 1.5% 27 0.2%

Died (E95/G39) 1 0.4% 20 0.1%

Added to Another SNAP Case (G68/M68) 2 0.8% 19 0.1%

Incarcerated (939) 0 0.0% 17 0.1%

Excess Unearned Income (E35/E39) 4 1.5% 16 0.1%

Failed to Respond to Call-in (M25) 1 0.4% 6 0.0%

Failure to Validate SSN (F17/N18) 0 0.0% 5 0.0%

Excess Resources-Assets (U45) 0 0.0% 1 0.0%

Other Closing Reason 4 1.5% 156 1.1%

*Total* 266 100.0% 14171 100.0%

Note: SNAP participants in select zip codes served by FSRIP CBO implementing sites received a one-page flyer by mailer notifying them about their potential eligibility to conduct their recertification under the FSRIP pilot at just about the same time as they received their recertification package. The table provides data on closed/rejected (1) SNAP participants receiving mailers for the period January 2012 through August 2012 and (2) FSRIP participants recertifying with CBO implementing sites during the pilot.


excess earnings. This finding suggests that assistance provided by the staff at the CBO

implementing sites helped FSRIP participants to navigate the recertification process, compared

to a less successful SNAP mailer group left to make it through the normal Food Stamp

recertification process largely on their own without CBO assistance.34

35

IV. PARTICIPANT PERSPECTIVES ON FSRIP PILOT

This report section provide highlights of participant views and opinions regarding the

recertification services offered as part of FSRIP, shared during in-person interviews with

participants during FSRIP recertifications and focus groups held at CBO implementing sites (see

Section I for additional background on these interviews). Participants shared their views about

how they heard about their potential ability to recertify at a neighborhood CBO and how they felt

about recertifying at a CBO in comparison to prior experiences recertifying by telephone or in-

person at a Food Stamp Center.

About half of the 11 focus group participants indicated that they had been made aware of

the FSRIP recertification option through the HRA letter they had received in the mail and had

called the numbers listed for their zip codes. Several others indicated they had been contacted

directly by the CBO implementing site; one participant was told about the process when she was

at the CBO for assistance with her Medicaid benefits. Two participants had heard about the

34

If the “Failure to Recertify-Y10” reason is removed as a closing reason for both groups, the distribution of closing

reasons become more similar for the two groups, though with still some variation. The leading closing reasons for

closed/rejected FSRIP participants and SNAP participants receiving the mailers were the same, but the first two

reasons were reversed in terms of relative frequency for these two groups: (1) E50-V21-Failure to Provide

Verification-Documents (SNAP mailer group – 34.8 percent; FSRIP participants - 23.4 percent); (2) E30/E31-

Excess Earned Income (SNAP mailer group – 36.4 percent; FSRIP participants – 24.4 percent); and (3) 968-Forced

Closing-System Generated (SNAP mailer group – 19.1 percent; FSRIP participants – 15.6 percent). 35

See Appendix III-D for a detailed comparison of participant characteristics of active and closed/rejected FSRIP

participants and SNAP participants receiving the mailer.


possibility of conducting their recertifications at a neighborhood CBO under FSRIP from a

friend or relative and one had discovered the option while perusing the HRA website.

Focus group participants were generally very satisfied with FSRIP, particularly in

comparison to experiences conducting recertifications at Food Stamp Centers, liking:

convenience of CBO location;

Short (or no) wait times for FSRIP appointments;

Friendly, helpful, and patient CBO staff;

Comfortable and generally not overly crowded office space (compared to FS Centers);

Ease of getting supporting documents scanned and peace of mind that documents would

not get lost;

Having an intermediary/advocate in case documents get lost or FS benefits discontinued;

Learning about and/or being able to access other CBO services; and

Having ready access to native language speaking CBO staff to assist with translation

(e.g., Spanish), if needed.

Food Stamp participants who completed a recertification at a FSRIP site were generally very

satisfied with their experiences, noting the streamlined procedures, the friendliness and patience

of the CBO staff and the confidence they had in the staff’s ability to ensure that the process was

completed in a timely and accurate manner. For example, one focus group participant described

the process at the CBO as “very nice…pleasant. I was there for half an hour. [I’m] glad these

people [at the CBO] are here to help me out.” Others described it as “marvelous” and “a breath

of fresh air” and “much easier.”

Several focus group participants cited the convenience of going to a neighborhood

location as both a reason they chose to recertify with a particular implementing CBO site and as

something they really liked about the pilot project. These participants found that the CBO was a


convenient distance, either walking or by subway/bus, from their homes (“it’s five minutes from

my house!”) or workplace. A participant who noted that she worked near the CBO site observed

that in addition to being conveniently located, the CBO offered convenient hours that fit her

schedule: “The Food Stamp office near my house is closed by the time I get home. I find it easier

this way [to come here].”

Focus group participants were also very appreciative of the fact that they were able to

easily schedule an interview time at the CBO and when they showed up for their recertification

interview they experienced no wait time or a very short wait time. For example, one focus group

participant described her recent experience recertifying her Food Stamp benefits at a CBO: “ I

was in and out within 45 minutes…I told others about this [my experience]…the process was

very simple…they even call you to remind you of your appointment.” A second focus group

participant echoed this sentiment, indicating that short wait time was a key advantage of the

CBO recertification process: “…Beautiful…I was seen within 15 minutes [of my arrival at the

CBO]…the interview took 45 minutes…staff was knowledgeable and I was notified within

several weeks by HRA [of my continued eligibility and SNAP benefit amount].” In comparison,

a number of focus group participants indicated that they had experienced much longer wait times

for appointments at Food Stamp Centers. Several of the focus group participants reflected on

their recent experiences at a Food Stamp Center, indicating that the absence of a wait time was a

major advantage of the CBO-based recertification process (particularly, compared to waiting to

the last minute and attempting to walk in without an appointment at a Food Stamp Center):

“…It is too rough and too crowded at the Food Stamp office. You have to wait and wait.

I can’t stand in line. My knees hurt and I have emphysema.”

“…Even though you make an appointment [at the Food Stamp Center], you still have to

wait. It’s terrible – I can’t go there. They make you wait – and then you have to bring

back stuff.”


“…At the Food Stamp Office, lines are around the corner [of the block]…you have to

wait, wait, wait. I try not to go there…I am glad these people [at the implementing CBO

site] are here to help me out.”

Despite their sometimes lengthy waits at Food Stamp Centers, focus group participants indicated

that recertification interview process was essentially the same at the Food Stamp Center (as well

as on the telephone with the Change Center) – with the recertification interviews under each

method lasting about the same amount of time (once with the staff person), involving the same

types of questions, and requiring the same types of documentation and general process.

Focus group participants were quick to point out that CBO staff they interviewed with

were friendly, helpful, and patient. One of the individuals interviewed following a recertification

observed: “They help me out real good [at the CBO implementing site]…they know me

here…they have my paperwork…there is no hassle.” Several focus group participants indicated

that the CBO staff took the time to explain the process and why certain types of documentation

were necessary, as well as the next steps (following the interview) that would take place and

when the participant would hear from HRA on the status of their benefits. Several focus group

noted that they had completed their initial Food Stamp applications at the same CBO site and had

had a positive experience working with the staff – and that was a primary factor for coming back

to conduct the recertification at the CBO. For example, a repeat customer at a CBO site said:

“…They [staff at the CBO] ask for everything they needed at one time here so I don’t

have to come back for several appointments. [When I heard I could do my recertification

here] I said, “Of course – if it’s faster, I want to do it here.”

Several focus group participants also indicated that they really liked that the CBO was relatively

inviting, comfortable, and not overcrowded. In the past, when they had gone to Food Stamp

Centers to apply for or recertify Food Stamp benefits, they had found often fairly crowded and

not always comfortable waiting areas. For example, one focus group participant noted: “…At


the Food Stamp Center, the wait is so long…there are so many people at the center…I waited 7

hours for my recertification one day…it is tight and tense at the center…I will definitely come

here [i.e., the CBO] in the future.”

Several focus group participants pointed to the relative ease of getting supporting

documents scanned and sent directly to HRA as a particularly good feature of the pilot – one that

reassured them that their documents would not get lost during the process, resulting in the

potential loss of Food Stamp benefits and the need to reapply. This was a key advantage of the

CBO-based recertification process – whereby the CBO staff person directly scans all documents

using the HRA POS interface during the recertification interview – in comparison to the

document submission process required under the telephone interview recertification process with

the Food Stamp Change Center. Under the telephone recertification option participants receive a

packet from HRA in advance of their recertification interview and must mail in the signed and

completed recertification form, along with copies of supporting documentation (e.g., pay stubs)

in advance of the scheduled time of the recertification interview with the Change Center. While

this is a potentially convenient method of recertification for many SNAP participants (i.e., not

requiring travel to a Food Stamp Center or CBO), participants must take the time to copy

documents and mail them to HRA in advance of their recertification date. Despite the

convenience of not having to make an in-person visit to a Food Stamp center, some SNAP

participants do not choose the telephone recertification option for a variety of reasons, including:

they do not have or take the time to complete necessary paperwork, are unable or unwilling to

make copies of necessary back-up documentation, or fail to submit the required documents

before the deadline for the telephone interview. Others are not confident that their

documentation will be received by the appropriate staff at the Food Stamp Center. In some


instances, Food Stamp participants submit what they believe are the proper documents, but in

fact, the documentation is incomplete or the documents are received by HRA after the deadline

for receipt has passed. In such situations, the planned telephone interview is canceled and

participants must come to a Food Stamp Center in person to recertify. Food Stamp participants

sometimes are not aware that their scheduled telephone interviews have been canceled because

of failure to submit documents in a timely and complete manner – and they end up waiting for a

call from the HRA Change Center (to conduct the recertification) that never comes. This failure

to receive a call during a previous recertification was cited by several focus group participants as

one of the reasons that they had decided (this time around) to recertify with a CBO implementing

site rather than over the telephone with HRA. Additionally, several focus group participants

indicated that in comparison to the telephone recertification interview process, the CBO FSRIP

process eliminated the need to copy and mail documents to HRA (which saved time and effort),

as well as eased concerns that such documents might be lost in the mail or not be processed by

HRA. For example, one participant interviewed after she had completed a recertification at an

implementing CBO observed: “This is very convenient…We have the proof after the

recertification [at the CBO]…we used to stress out – we would send in the paperwork [for the

recertification to HRA] and they [HRA] would say it did not arrive…two or three times we had

our benefits cut off in the past because of this [failure to get paperwork to HRA].”

A few focus group participants also indicated that the CBO recertification process gave

them additional peace of mind because they felt they had an intermediary/advocate that could

intervene with HRA should documents get lost or Food Stamp benefits be suspended or

discontinued. The implementing CBO maintained a copy of the client’s recertification

documentation that could be provided to HRA upon request by the participant or HRA. Also, the


CBO staff person could represent the participant and attest to the fact that all documents had

been submitted in a timely manner and/or suggest appropriate reasons that HRA should consider

reinstatement of suspended Food Stamp benefits.

Visiting the CBO for the Food Stamp recertification interview also provided an

opportunity for participants to learn about other services/assistance that could potentially be of

help to the participant (or his/her family), particularly in overcoming barriers to employment and

achieving self-sufficiency. Some staff indicated that they tried to make participants aware of

other services offered by the CBO, particularly as they learned more about the participant and

his/her household’s needs during the interview. By the same token, a few focus group

participants indicated they had learned more about service offerings of the CBO as a result of

coming in to apply for or recertify SNAP benefits.

Finally, the implementing CBO sites offered on-site staff that could serve as translators in

a variety of languages, including Spanish, Russian, Chinese (Mandarin), French Creole, Hebrew,

and other languages. For example, one Spanish-speaking participant who reported difficulty

communicating with her caseworker at HRA had a more satisfying experience completing her

recertification with a Spanish-speaking worker at the CBO site, noting that she “liked it a lot

better” because she understood what ”she was supposed to bring in and what was going to

happen.” Another participant pointed to the increased level of privacy and lessened sense of

stigma associated with conducting Food Stamp business at a CBO rather than a Food Stamp

Center.


V. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The FSRIP initiative, designed to provide an additional option for completing Food

Stamp recertifications by creating a system for electronic recertification processing at a network

of CBO sites, was implemented successfully over the course of the pilot period. The four key

tasks outlined in the original grant application were accomplished: (1) the electronic

recertification interfaces to POS that allowed access to HRA MIS case records were developed

and implemented; (2) in collaboration with partners’ NYCCAH, Food Bank for New York, and

Met Council, 25 CBO sites (exceeding the original goal of 10) were established to offer

recertification services at convenient, customer-friendly sites located throughout the city,

creating an alternative to conducting an in-person visit to recertify at a Food Stamp Center or a

telephone recertification interviews with a Food Stamp Change Center; (3) training on the FSRIP

process was completed for key partner and local CBO staff; and (4) HRA and partner staff

developed multiple strategies for FSRIP outreach and recruitment that evolved over the 27-

month pilot period, including the creation of HRA-generated, site-specific lists of recertification-

ready participants who had been prior customers of the CBOs, as well as HRA mailings to SNAP

participants that provided guidance on the FSRIP option for targeted participants scheduled for

recertification.

Specified goals for the FSRIP initiative were also met and, in most cases, exceeded. As

described above, staff were recruited and trained and recertification assistance was being

provided at 25 neighborhood CBO sites by the end of the pilot period in August 2012. An

additional 8 sites had trained staff and were slated to begin offering FSRIP services in

September/October 2012. Over the 27-month pilot period, 3,005 Food Stamp recertifications

were completed with the assistance of FSRIP CBO site staff, slightly exceeding the goal of 3,000


recertifications. Further quantitative analysis suggested that FSRIP participants faced a lower

rate of case closings during the recertification process, as well as a smaller share of closings due

to administrative reasons, like completing the recertification interview and returning all required

documents to either the CBO or HRA. Partner and local CBO staff agreed that the initiative had

been implemented successfully, and with few modifications and variations, across the

participating sites.

Some implementing sites struggled to fill appointment slots, despite aggressive outreach

efforts. In terms of the low response rate to HRA mailings, partner and CBO staff provided a

few explanations for the lack of interest in completing recertifications at CBO sites. For

example, some participants may have mailed required documentation to the Food Stamp Center

and completed a telephone interview successfully in the past; they saw no reason to change their

previous practice. Other employed participants may not have been able to visit their

neighborhood CBOs during the limited days and hours FSRIP services were being provided.

Partner and CBO staff also pointed out they had contact with, either in person or by

phone, many interested participants that were ineligible for FSRIP recertification services. These

included individuals who had already mailed in documentation, who had waited too long and

were too close to the time limit for FSRIP services, or who needed to add a family member to the

case. Revision of the HRA letter to provide more specific instructions about both the FSRIP

procedures and the timeline for services could potentially address some of these roadblocks to

providing recertification services to additional participants. In addition, changes in HRA policy

and procedures to: (1) expand the window of time available for CBO staff to assist with the

recertification process and to (2) allow CBO staff to add new individuals to a case might increase

the number of participants assisted with the recertification process. Although the overall number


of recertifications facilitated by the FSRIP initiative was relatively small when compared to the

overall number of recertifications completed citywide, the pilot was an investment in expanded

capacity to provide services and overall continued improvements to the Food Stamp enrollment

process. FSRIP provided the opportunity to build on the success of the earlier POS

demonstration project (aimed at initial FS application) by providing resources to develop a new

electronic interface within POS that enabled staff in CBO sites to assist in the recertification

process, thus improving access for eligible Food Stamp participants by making it easier for them

to continue to receive benefits. Staff at partner and CBO sites trained as part of the initiative will

continue to offer FSRIP services to participants using the process established as part of the pilot

even after the grant has ended. In addition, this initiative provided an additional opportunity to

build upon and strengthen collaborations around delivery of Food Stamp benefits among HRA,

partner, and local CBO administrators and staff.


APPENDIX I-A:

INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR ADMINISTRATORS/STAFF AT FSRIP

PARTNERING AGENCIES


HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION FOOD STAMP RECERTIFICATION

IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (FSRIP)

INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR ADMINISTRATORS/STAFF AT FSRIP PARTNER

AGENCIES

Introduction

I am (we are) researchers from the Capital Research Corporation, a private, nonprofit research

organization based in Arlington, Virginia, which conducts policy-related research on a variety of

social welfare and economic issues.

Capital Research Corporation is under contract to the City of New York Human Resources Administration (HRA) to conduct a study of the Food Stamp Recertification Improvement Project. Our visit here today is part this evaluation effort. A major aim of the evaluation is to identify lessons learned from your experiences in implementing this initiative. As part of this evaluation, we are conducting site visits to the partnering community-based organizations (CBOs) and each implementation sites. We are here to learn about how the recertification process is being conducted in your location under this initiative and your perspectives on this initiative. Our aim is to learn from your experiences – this is not an audit.

Before beginning the interview, I (we) want to thank you for agreeing to participate in the study.

I (we) know that you are busy and we will try to be as focused as possible. We have many

questions and are going to talk to many different people, so please do not feel as though we

expect you to be able to answer every question. And, we understand that your participation in

this discussion is voluntary and you may choose to not answer questions you don’t wish to.

In addition, before we start, I want to let you know that though we take notes at these interviews,

information is never repeated with the name of the respondent. When we write our reports and

discuss our findings, information from all interviews is compiled and presented so that no one

person can be identified. We also ask that you refrain from sharing anything we discuss today

with others to help us ensure your confidentiality and the confidentiality of others we are

interviewing.

Do you have any questions before we begin?

A. GENERAL INFORMATION ON ORGANIZATION AND INTERVIEWEE

1. Before we begin, we’d like to get (verify) some general contact information on your

organization.

a. Organization name

b. Contact information (address, telephone, fax, e-mail)

c. Website address

2. Obtain the following information on each respondent involved in the interview (note:

request a business card from each interviewee):


a. Name

b. Organization

c. Contact information (address, telephone, e-mail)

d. Title

e. Position/role under FSRIP

f. How long the individual been employed by the organization and been involved in

FSRIP?

3. Please provide background on your organization [note: request brochure/recent annual

report on the organization]:

a. Type of organization

b. Organization’ budget for most recently completed program year

c. Organization’s major sources of funding (e.g., funding from federal/state/city

agencies, foundations, private contributions, fee for service, etc.)

d. Organization’s total # of paid staff: _______

e. When organization was established

f. Types of clients/customers served or targeted

g. Major programs/initiatives operating other than FSRIP – for each program (excluding

FSRIP)

o Name of program/initiative

o Number and types of clients/customers served for most recently completed

program year (unduplicated count)

o Service area for program

o Brief description of services provided

o Whether the program is linked in any way to FSRIP project

h. Other relevant features about the organization that has affected the FSRIP program

implementation/operations

B. PROJECT DESIGN AND START UP

1. From your perspective (as a partnering organization on this initiative), what are the major

goals/objectives of the FSRIP initiative?

2. Under your contract with HRA, what are the main tasks you are expected to perform

(note: if available, review the scope of work in the contract)?

o How many implementing sites are you expected to have?

o How many SNAP recertifications is your organization expected (contracted)

to conduct?

o Have goals for the number of recertifications been set for individual

implementing sites? If so, what are the goals?

o What are the main tasks your organization is expected to conduct under its

scope of work for this project?

o Have there been any modifications to your scope of work/contract under this

project? If so, please discuss.

3. How did the early planning for this initiative go?


a. What steps did your organization and/or implementing sites undertake in planning the

project and how long did it take?

b. How were implementing sites selected? What was the original timetable for getting

each site up and running – and when did each implementing site get up and running

and conduct its first recertification?

c. Were any implementing sites originally planned that have not yet been implemented?

If so, why and will they be implemented in the future?

d. Did your organization or implementing sites run into any challenges in planning or

initiating FSRIP? If so, what were the challenges and how were they overcome?

C. RECRUITIMENT AND TARGET POPULATIONS

1. What, if any, are the characteristics of individuals targeted for recertification by your

organization (and implementing sites)?

a. Specific subpopulations?

b. Geographic areas?

2. What recruitment strategies and outreach methods have been employed by HRA, your

organization, and your implementing sites to inform SNAP participants about the option

of in-person recertification (under FSRIP)? Please discuss each recruitment/outreach

strategy.

a. What approaches have been most and least successful?

b. How have approaches changed over time?

3. What do you think are the reasons that SNAP participants decide to recertify in-person at

your implementing sites under FSRIP (versus telephone recertification or in-person

recertification at a Food Stamp Center)?

4. What do you think are the reasons that SNAP participants are not interested in and do not

recertify at your implementing site under FSRIP?

5. How many recertifications have been conducted to date in each of your implementing

sites?

a. What is the actual number of recertifications conducted per month by your

organization and by implementing site? Has the number recertified changed from

month to month? What accounts for month-to-month fluctuations within sites?

b. How does the number of recertifications by your organization compare to your

overall goals?

c. Have certain implementing sites been more or less successful in meeting

enrollment goals? If so, which ones and why?

d. Have cancelations or failure to show for recertification appointments been an

issue? About what percent of those scheduled fail to show for appointments? Do

you know why individuals fail to show?

6. Overall, has your organization (and its implementing sites) experienced recruitment

challenges?

a. If not already discussed, what specific challenges have been encountered?

b. How have they been addressed?


D. RECERTIFICATION PROCESS/FLOW OF PARTICIPANTS THROUGH

RECERTIFICATION

1. What are the basic steps that SNAP participants go through during the in-person

recertification (implemented under FSRIP) within your implementing sites?

a. Could you please describe the flow of participants from point at which they are

scheduled for recertification through to end of the recertification process?

b. Does this process/flow vary across implementing sites? If so, how and why?

c. To what extent is the recertification process similar/different from the process

SNAP participants encounter at a Food Stamp Center? Please discuss.

d. To what extent is the recertification process similar/different from the process

SNAP participants encounter during a recertification by telephone? Please

discuss.

e. Has the process or flow of participants through the in-person recertification

process at your implementing sites changed over time (or remained the same since

FSRIP was initiated). If so, please describe changes and why they were made.

2. How long does the recertification process typically take?

a. Average duration

b. Minimum/maximum time

c. How does this compare to the duration of a recertification conducted…at a regular

Food Stamp center? …during a telephone recertification?

d. What is the waiting time to begin the process at an implementation site and how

does it compare to waiting times at regular Food Stamp centers?

3. What types of staff and how many staff are involved in conducting recertifications under

FSRIP at each implementing sites? Was existing staff used or new staff hired to conduct

FSRIP recertification?

4. Has implementing site’s staff encountered problems/challenges in conducting

recertifications?

a. What are the challenges and how have they been addressed?

b. Are these challenges similar to those encountered in regular Food Stamp centers?

E. FSRIP OUTCOME AND EFFECTS

1. What are the relative advantages/disadvantage of having partnering CBOs/implementing

sites conduct recertifications (versus regular Food Stamp centers)?

2. What are the relative advantages/disadvantages of having partnering CBOs/implementing

sites conduct recertifications (versus the telephone interview conducted by regular Food

Stamp Centers)?

3. What are the views your organization (and implementing sites) on the overall effects of

FSRIP to date? Probe views on the following:

o Do you think that using CBO partnering organizations to conduct

recertifications results in a quick, convenient, and/or comfortable way for


Food Stamp clients to complete recertifications without having to visit Food

Stamp centers? If so, please discuss.

o Do you think that FSRIP has reduced congestion and workload at HRA Food

Stamp centers? To what extent and how?

o Do you think that FSRIP has had an effect on overall recertification rates for

participants targeted by the project compared to those using Food Stamp

Centers? Please discuss.

o To what extent do you think FSRIP has reduced the percentage of participants

targeted by the project who fail to recertify and then reapply? Please discuss.


APPENDIX I-B:

INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR STAFF INVOLVED IN CONDUCTING

RECERTIFICATIONS AT FSRIP IMPLEMENTING CBO SITES




INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR STAFF INVOLVED IN CONDUCTING

RECERTIFICATIONS AT FSRIP IMPLEMENTING CBO SITES

Introduction

I am (we are) researchers from the Capital Research Corporation, a private, nonprofit research

organization based in Arlington, Virginia, which conducts policy-related research on a variety of

social welfare and economic issues.

Capital Research Corporation is under contract to the City of New York Human Resources Administration (HRA) to conduct a study of the Food Stamp Recertification Improvement Project. Our visit here today is part this evaluation effort. A major aim of the evaluation is to identify lessons learned from your experiences in implementing this initiative. As part of this evaluation, we are conducting site visits to the partnering community-based organizations (CBOs) and each implementation sites. We are here to learn about how the recertification process is being conducted in your location under this initiative and your perspectives on this initiative. Our aim is to learn from your experiences – this is not an audit.

Before beginning the interview, I (we) want to thank you for agreeing to participate in the study.

I (we) know that you are busy and we will try to be as focused as possible. We have many

questions and are going to talk to many different people, so please do not feel as though we

expect you to be able to answer every question. And, we understand that your participation in

this discussion is voluntary and you may choose to not answer questions you don’t wish to.

In addition, before we start, I want to let you know that though we take notes at these interviews,

information is never repeated with the name of the respondent. When we write our reports and

discuss our findings, information from all interviews is compiled and presented so that no one

person can be identified. We also ask that you refrain from sharing anything we discuss today

with others to help us ensure your confidentiality and the confidentiality of others we are

interviewing.

Do you have any questions before we begin?

Obtain the following information on each respondent involved in the interview (note:

request a business card from each interviewee):

b. Name

c. Organization

d. Contact information (address, telephone, e-mail)

e. Title

f. Position/role under FSRIP

g. How long the individual been employed by the organization and been involved in

FSRIP?


A. IMPLEMENTING DESIGN AND START UP

1. From your perspective, what are the major goals/objectives of the FSRIP initiative?

2. As an implementing site, what are the main tasks you are expected to perform?

o How many SNAP recertifications is your implementing site expected

(contracted) to conduct?

o What are the main tasks your implementing site is expected to conduct under

this project?

3. How did the early planning and start-up go at your site?

a. What steps did your site undertake in planning the project and how long did it take?

b. What was the original timetable for getting your site up and running – and when your

site actually gets up and running and conduct its first recertification?

c. Did your site run into any challenges in planning or initiating FSRIP? If so, what

were the challenges and how were they overcome?

B. RECRUITIMENT AND TARGET POPULATIONS

1. What, if any, are the characteristics of individuals targeted for recertification by your

site?

a. Specific subpopulations?

b. Geographic areas?

2. What recruitment strategies and outreach methods have been employed by HRA, your

organization, and your site to inform SNAP participants about the option of in-person

recertification (under FSRIP)? Please discuss each recruitment/outreach strategy.

a. What approaches have been most and least successful?

b. How have approaches changed over time?

3. What do you think are the reasons that SNAP participants decide to recertify in-person at

your implementing site under FSRIP (versus telephone recertification or in-person

recertification at a Food Stamp Center)?

4. What do you think are the reasons that SNAP participants are not interested in and do not

recertify at your implementing site under FSRIP?

5. How many recertifications have been conducted to date at your implementing site?

a. What is the actual number of recertifications conducted per month since inception?

Has the number recertified changed from month to month? What accounts for

month-to-month fluctuations within your site?

b. How does the number of recertifications by your site compare to your overall goal?

c. Have cancelations or failure to show for recertification appointments been an issue?

About what percent of those scheduled fail to show for appointments? Do you know

why individuals fail to show?

6. Overall, has your implementing site experienced recruitment challenges?

a. If not already discussed, what specific challenges have been encountered?

b. How have they been addressed?


C. RECERTIFICATION PROCESS/FLOW OF PARTICIPANTS THROUGH

RECERTIFICATION

1. What are the basic steps that SNAP participants go through during the in-person

recertification (implemented under FSRIP) within your implementing site?

a. Could you please describe the flow of participants from point at which they

are scheduled for recertification through to end of the recertification process?

b. To what extent is the recertification process similar/different from the process

SNAP participants encounter at a Food Stamp Center? Please discuss.

c. To what extent is the recertification process similar/different from the process

SNAP participants encounter during a recertification by telephone? Please

discuss.

d. Has the process or flow of participants through the in-person recertification

process at your implementing site changed over time (or remained the same

since FSRIP was initiated). If so, please describe changes and why they were

made.

2. How long does the recertification process typically take?

a. Average duration

b. Minimum/maximum time

c. How does this compare to the duration of a recertification conducted…at a

regular Food Stamp center? …during a telephone recertification?

d. What is the waiting time to begin the process at your site and how does it

compare to waiting times at regular Food Stamp centers?

3. What types of staff and how many staff are involved in conducting recertifications

under FSRIP at this site? Was existing staff used or new staff hired to conduct FSRIP

recertification?

4. Has site staff encountered problems/challenges in conducting recertifications?

a. What are the challenges and how have they been addressed?

b. Are these challenges similar to those encountered in regular Food Stamp

centers?

D. FSRIP OUTCOME AND EFFECTS

1. What do you think are the relative advantages/disadvantage of having partnering

CBOs/implementing sites conduct recertifications (versus regular Food Stamp

centers)?

2. What do you think are the relative advantages/disadvantages of having partnering

CBOs/implementing sites conduct recertifications (versus the telephone interview

conducted by regular Food Stamp Centers)?

3. What your views on the overall effects of FSRIP to date? Probe views on the

following:


o Do you think that using CBO partnering organizations to conduct

recertifications results in a quick, convenient, and/or comfortable way for

Food Stamp clients to complete recertifications without having to visit Food

Stamp centers? If so, please discuss.

o Do you think that FSRIP has reduced congestion and workload at HRA Food

Stamp centers? To what extent and how?

o Do you think that FSRIP has any effect on overall recertification rates for

participants targeted by the project (compared to those using Food Stamp

Centers)? If so, please discuss.

o Do you think FSRIP has reduced the percentage of participants targeted by the

project who fail to recertify and then reapply? If so, please discuss.


APPENDIX I-C:

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE –

INDIVIDUALS RECERTIFIED BY CBO SITE UNDER FSRIP




Focus Group Discussion Guide –

Individuals Recertified by CBO Site Under FSRIP

A. Introduction

Thank you very much for taking time to join us here, today. We are hosting this focus

group session to learn the views of participants like you about the Food Stamp program,

especially recertification for Food Stamp benefits. All of the attendees at this focus group

session were re-certified for Food Stamp benefits by a community-based organization. My name

is __________, and I'm a researcher with the Capital Research Corporation. I will be leading the

session today and my associate ______ will take notes during the discussion and may ask some

questions too. Your presence, and the opinions, ideas, and feelings of all of you are important in

a focus group. It is a way to learn what people think through group discussion, to find out what

opinions and ideas you have in common, and where some of you may have different opinions.

From what we learn today, combined with other data we are collecting, we will be writing a

report to the Human Resources Administration. None of you will ever be quoted by name in that

report, and nothing you say here will be repeated to your case managers or other program staff.

Everything is kept strictly confidential.

The session today will last up to one hour.

In a group interview like this it is very important that you express yourself openly. There are no

right or wrong answers. We are interested in all your ideas and comments, both positive and

negative, and you should feel free to respectfully disagree with one another when that is how you

feel. Occasionally, I may ask how many of you agree with a statement one or two of you make.

B. Personal Introductions (2 minutes)

Let's go around the table and have each of you introduce yourself with your first name only and

tell us in what borough of NYC you currently live.

C. Key Questions

1. When and how did you first learn about the requirement that you needed to recertify to

continue to be eligible to receive Food Stamps?

2. What do you know about your options for how to go about recertifying for eligibility to

continue to receive Food Stamps? Can someone in this group identify one or more ways

in which it is possible to recertify?


a. In-person at a Food Stamp Center – how many of you know you can do this?

How many of you have done this in the past?

b. By telephone via the Food Stamp Call Center (sometimes referred to as IVR) –

how many of you know you can do this? How many of you have done this in the

past?

c. In-person at a community-based organization (selected by HRA to be part of a

special project that is an importance focus of this focus group)?

3. For those who have conducted an in-person recertification at a Food Stamp Center in the

past, please tell me briefly about your experiences? Specifically, for your last

recertification–

a. Did you have an appointment for the recertification or simply walk in?

b. If you had an appointment – how long did you wait once you arrived at the center

before your recertification interview started? Did this time seem reasonable?

c. If you simply walked in (without an appointment) – about how long did you wait

at the center before your recertification interview started? Did this time seem

reasonable?

d. Please tell us a little about your recertification experience? How did it go? Did

the visit go smoothly? Did you experience any difficulties or challenges?

4. For those who have conducted telephone recertification at a HRA Call Center in the past,

please tell me briefly about your experiences? Specifically, for your last recertification–

a. What was your experience with scheduling the appointment for your telephone

recertification? Was it a straightforward and easy process? Did your experience

any difficulties or challenges?

b. Did you have to cancel or change your appointment? If so how many times and

why?

c. Please tell us a little about your recertification experience? How did it go? Did it

go smoothly? Did you experience any difficulties or challenges?

5. All of you in this group recertified for Food Stamps at a community-based organization.

I would like to ask you a few questions about your experiences –

a. At which CBO site location did you conduct your recertification?

b. How did you hear about this CBO location as an alternative to recertifying by

telephone or in-person?

c. Why did you decide to recertify at a CBO location versus in-person at a regular

Food Stamp Center or by telephone with the Food Stamp Call Center?

d. How long did it take you to set up an appointment for the recertification at the

CBO site? How did this compare to past experiences in scheduling a

recertification at a Food Stamp center or at the Food Stamp call center?

e. Did you miss or have to re-schedule any appointments for your recertification at

the CBO site location? If so, how many times and why?

f. How long did it take you to travel to the CBO site to attend your recertification

interview? Was this more or less time than it would have taken to get to the Food

Stamp Center to conduct your recertification?


g. When you came for your recertification at the CBO site how long did you have

wait once you arrived at the CBO for your appointment to begin your

recertification interview? Did this time seem reasonable to you?

h. About how long did it take to complete the recertification interview at the CBO?

How did this time compare to what you have experienced in the past at a Food

Stamp Center? How did this time compare to what you have experienced during

recertifications conducted with the Food Stamp Call Center.

i. Please briefly describe your recertification experience at the CBO. How did it

go? Did it go smoothly? Do you feel positive or negative about this experience?

j. Did you experience any difficulties or challenges with recertifying at a CBO?

k. Do you feel like you received the same result for your recertification as you

would have gotten had you conducted the recertification at a Food Stamp Center

or by telephone with the Food Stamp Call Center?

l. Would you recertify again at this CBO? Why or why not?

m. Would you recommend this service to your friends? Why or why not?

n. Are there any changes you would like to see in how CBOs conduct

recertifications? For example, more hours? More service locations?

o. Are there any changes you would like to see made in how Food Stamp

recertifications are conducted?

Conclusion and Wrap-up

That concludes our focus group for today. If you have no questions or other concerns about the

study, we want to thank you again for coming. Your comments and insight have been very

helpful. Thank you and goodbye.


APPENDIX II-A : “HELP IS IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD” MAILER

APPENDIX III-A: ZIP CODES AND FOOD STAMP OFFICES COVERED BY

MAILINGS AT END OF FSRIP PILOT (AUGUST 2012) AND WITH ADDITIONAL

METROPOLITAN COUNCIL SITES (BY OCTOBER 2012)


Zip Codes/Food Stamp Offices Covered by

FSRIP 08/31/2012

Covered by FSRIP

10/31/2012

10001 F19 WAVERLY

10002 F19 WAVERLY

10003 F19 WAVERLY

10004 F19 WAVERLY

10005 F19 WAVERLY

10007 F19 WAVERLY

10008 F19 WAVERLY

10009 F19 WAVERLY

10010 F19 WAVERLY

10011 F19 WAVERLY

10012 F19 WAVERLY

10013 F19 WAVERLY

10014 F19 WAVERLY

10015 F19 WAVERLY

10016 F19 WAVERLY 1 1

10017 F02 EAST END

10018 F14 ST. NICHOLAS



10021 F02 EAST END

10022 F02 EAST END


10024 F14 ST. NICHOLAS 1 1



10027 F02 EAST END 1 1

10028 F02 EAST END 1 1

10029 F02 EAST END 1 1


10031 F13 WASHINGTON HEIGHTS 1


10033 F13 WASHINGTON HEIGHTS 1 1

10034 F13 WASHINGTON HEIGHTS

10035 F02 EAST END 1 1








FSRIP 08/31/2012

Covered by FSRIP

10/31/2012

10038 F19 WAVERLY


10040 F13 WASHINGTON HEIGHTS 1


10044 F02 EAST END 1 1

10047 F19 WAVERLY

10048 F19 WAVERLY

10069 F19 WAVERLY

10128 F02 EAST END

10280 F19 WAVERLY

10281 F19 WAVERLY

10282 F19 WAVERLY

10301 F99 RICHMOND 1

10302 F99 RICHMOND






10308 F99 RICHMOND



10311 F99 RICHMOND


10313 F99 RICHMOND


10451 F45 CONCOURSE 1 1




10455 F40 MELROSE 1 1

10456 F40 MELROSE 1 1

10457 F46 CROTONA 1 1

10458 F44 FORDHAM 1 1

10459 F40 MELROSE 1 1

10460 F46 CROTONA 1 1

10461 F46 CROTONA






FSRIP 08/31/2012

Covered by FSRIP

10/31/2012

10462 F46 CROTONA 1 1


10464 F46 CROTONA

10465 F46 CROTONA

10466 F46 CROTONA

10467 F46 CROTONA 1 1


10469 F40 MELROSE


10471 F44 FORDHAM 1 1

10472 F46 CROTONA 1 1

10473 F40 MELROSE 1 1

10474 F40 MELROSE 1 1

10475 F46 CROTONA 1 1

11001 F54 JAMAICA - FLORAL PARK

11004 F54 JAMAICA - GLEN OAKS

11005 F54 JAMAICA - FLORAL PARK

11040 F54 JAMAICA - NEW HYDE PARK

11096 F54 JAMAICA - INWOOD

11101 F53 QUEENS

11102 F53 QUEENS

11103 F53 QUEENS

11104 F53 QUEENS

11105 F53 QUEENS

11106 F53 QUEENS

11201 F20 FT. GREENE 1 1

11203 F20 FT. GREENE 1 1

11204 F22 CONEY ISLAND 1 1

11205 F26 NORTH BROOKLYN 1 1

11206 F21 WILLIAMSBURG 1 1

11207 F28 EAST NEW YORK 1 1


11209 F20 FT. GREENE 1

11210 F20 FT. GREENE

11211 F21 WILLIAMSBURG 1








FSRIP 08/31/2012

Covered by FSRIP

10/31/2012

11214 F22 CONEY ISLAND

11215 F20 FT. GREENE 1 1


11217 F20 FT. GREENE - 1 1





11222 F21 WILLIAMSBURG



11225 F20 FT. GREENE 1 1

11226 F20 FT. GREENE 1 1

11227 F20 FT. GREENE




11231 F20 FT. GREENE 1 1

11232 F20 FT. GREENE 1 1


11234 F28 EAST NEW YORK



11237 F21 WILLIAMSBURG 1 1

11238 F20 FT. GREENE 1 1

11239 F28 EAST NEW YORK

11354 F53 QUEENS

11355 F53 QUEENS

11356 F53 QUEENS

11357 F53 QUEENS

11358 F53 QUEENS

11360 F53 QUEENS

11361 F53 QUEENS

11362 F54 JAMAICA

11363 F53 QUEENS

11364 F54 JAMAICA

11365 F54 JAMAICA






FSRIP 08/31/2012

Covered by FSRIP

10/31/2012

11366 F54 JAMAICA

11367 F54 JAMAICA

11368 F53 QUEENS 1 1

11369 F53 QUEENS

11370 F53 QUEENS

11371 F53 QUEENS

11372 F53 QUEENS 1 1

11373 F53 QUEENS 1 1

11374 F53 QUEENS

11375 F54 JAMAICA

11377 F53 QUEENS

11378 F53 QUEENS

11379 F53 QUEENS

11385 F53 QUEENS

11411 F54 JAMAICA

Total Zip Codes Covered by FSRIP 64 78

APPENDIX III-B: NUMBER OF FSRIP RECERTIFICATIONS BY CBO PARTNER

AND BY MONTH, JUNE 2010 – AUGUST 2012


Month Food Bank Met Council NYCCAH Total Cumulative % of Total

Jun-10 0 0 14 14 14 0.5%

Jul-10 0 0 26 26 40 1.3% Aug-10 1 0 19 20 60 2.0%

Sep-10 13 0 13 26 86 2.9%

Oct-10 15 0 25 40 126 4.2%

Nov-10 4 0 23 27 153 5.1%

Dec-10 10 0 25 35 188 6.3%

Jan-11 4 0 38 42 230 7.7% Feb-11 7 0 30 37 267 8.9%

Mar-11 7 0 23 30 297 9.9%

Apr-11 8 0 33 41 338 11.2%

May-11 4 0 38 42 380 12.6%

Jun-11 0 0 51 51 431 14.3%

Jul-11 17 0 70 87 518 17.2% Aug-11 15 0 63 78 596 19.8%

Sep-11 21 0 99 120 716 23.8%

Oct-11 26 0 103 129 845 28.1%

Nov-11 18 0 83 101 946 31.5%

Dec-11 18 0 83 101 1,047 34.8%

Jan-12 22 0 68 90 1,137 37.8% Feb-12 45 4 93 142 1,279 42.6%

Mar-12 93 55 75 223 1,502 50.0%

Apr-12 74 37 90 201 1,703 56.7%

May-12 131 103 77 311 2,014 67.0%

Jun-12 91 155 99 345 2,359 78.5%

Jul-12 119 102 70 291 2,650 88.2% Aug-12 117 146 92 355 3,005 100.0%

Total 880 602 1,523 3,005

Percent 29.3% 20.0% 50.7% 100.0%

APPENDIX III-C: NUMBER OF FSRIP RECERTIFICATIONS BY CBO IMPLEMENTING SITE




Total # FSRIP Recerts.

Jun-10

Jul-10

Aug-10

Sep-10

Oct-10

Nov-10

Dec-10

Jan-11

Feb-11

Mar-11

Bronx Works Food Bank Bronx 21 Chinese American Planning Council, Inc Food Bank Manhattan 12 Davidson Community Center Food Bank Bronx 40 Encore Senior Center Food Bank Manhattan 24 Food Bank Community Resource Center Food Bank Manhattan 428 1 13 15 4 10 4 7 7 Isabella Resource Center Food Bank Manhattan 23 Ridgewood Bushwick Senior Citizens Council

Food Bank Brooklyn 100 Self Help North Food Bank Queens 9 The Riverfund Food Bank Queens 21 Transfiguration of Christ Church Food Bank Queens 202 Boro Park JCC Met

Council Brooklyn 225

Bronx Defenders Met Council

Bronx 89 Center for Family Life of Sunset Park Met

Council Brooklyn 18

CUCS - Crotona Park Met Council

Bronx 38 CUCS - East Harlem Met

Council Manhattan 3

Good Shepard Services Met Council

Brooklyn 104 St. John's Bread and Life Met

Council Brooklyn 93

WHEDCO Met Council

Bronx 25 Midwood JCC Met

Council Brooklyn 0

Groundwork Inc Met Council

Brooklyn 0 UJO Williamsburg Met

Council Brooklyn 0

LIFT Met Council

Bronx 0 *Pelham Parkway Met

Council Bronx 0

*West Bronx Housing Met Council

Bronx 0 Goddard Riverside Met

Council Manhattan 1

NMIC Met Council

Manhattan 0 MinKwon Met

Council Queens 6

Project Hospitality and El Centro Met Council

Staten Isl. 0 Cathedral Community Cares (CCC) NYCCAH Manhattan 187 4 Child Development Support Corp. (CDSC) NYCCAH Brooklyn 480 5 12 1 7 10 11 6 18 13 6 Part of the Solution (POTS) NYCCAH Bronx 496 4 4 2 0 6 5 10 9 9 8 Yorkville Common Pantry (YCP) NYCCAH Manhattan 304 5 2 8 3 7 7 8 10 7 5 East River Development Alliance (ERDA) NYCCAH Queens 56 8 8 3 2 0 1 1 1 0 Totals 3005 14 26 20 26 40 27 35 42 37 30




CBO Site CBO

Apr-11

May-11

Jun-11

Jul-11

Aug-11

Sep-11

Oct-11

Nov-11

Dec-11

Jan-12

Feb-12

Mar-12

Bronx Works Food Bank Chinese American Planning Council, Inc. Food Bank 2 5 Davidson Community Center Food Bank 3 13 Encore Senior Center Food Bank 2 5 3 Food Bank Community Resource Center Food Bank 8 4 0 17 15 21 26 18 18 8 18 30 Isabella Resource Center Food Bank 2 3 1 Ridgewood Bushwick Senior Citizens Council Food Bank 10 6 15 Self Help North Food Bank 3 0 The Riverfund Food Bank 7 Transfiguration of Christ Church Food Bank 5 19 Boro Park JCC Met

Council 3 40

Bronx Defenders Met Council

3 Center for Family Life of Sunset Park Met

Council

CUCS - Crotona Park Met Council

1 CUCS - East Harlem Met

Council 1 2

Good Shepard Services Met Council

3 St. John's Bread and Life Met

Council 5

WHEDCO Met Council

1 Midwood JCC Met

Council

Groundwork Inc Met Council

UJO Williamsburg Met

Council

LIFT Met Council

*Pelham Parkway Met

Council

*West Bronx Housing Met Council

Goddard Riverside Met

Council

NMIC Met Council

MinKwon Met

Council

Project Hospitality and El Centro Met Council

Cathedral Community Cares (CCC) NYCCAH 0 0 3 5 4 12 12 10 8 14 21 9 Child Development Support Corp. (CDSC) NYCCAH 12 12 13 15 23 34 33 23 26 27 24 31 Part of the Solution (POTS) NYCCAH 6 16 16 29 16 37 38 28 35 16 29 25 Yorkville Common Pantry (YCP) NYCCAH 14 10 18 19 20 16 19 19 14 10 19 9 East River Development Alliance (ERDA) NYCCAH 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 1 Totals 41 42 51 87 78 120 129 101 101 90 142 223




CBO Site CBO Apr-

12 May-

12 Jun-

12 Jul-12

Aug-12

Bronx Works Food Bank

4 7 4 3 3 Chinese American Planning Council, Inc. Food

Bank 4 0 0 0 1

Davidson Community Center Food Bank

3 9 6 3 3 Encore Senior Center Food

Bank 5 4 2 3 0

Food Bank Community Resource Center Food Bank

24 44 21 43 52 Isabella Resource Center Food

Bank 0 3 6 4 4

Ridgewood Bushwick Senior Citizens Council Food Bank

16 17 20 9 7 Self Help North Food

Bank 1 3 2 0 0

The Riverfund Food Bank

1 5 3 4 1 Transfiguration of Christ Church Food

Bank 16 39 27 50 46

Boro Park JCC Met Council

12 32 57 32 49 Bronx Defenders Met

Council 5 16 21 18 26

Center for Family Life of Sunset Park Met Council

3 6 0 7 2 CUCS - Crotona Park Met

Council 2 9 8 7 11

CUCS - East Harlem Met Council

0 0 0 0 0 Good Shepard Services Met

Council 7 25 36 19 14

St. John's Bread and Life Met Council

4 9 24 18 33 WHEDCO Met

Council 4 6 9 1 4

Midwood JCC Met Council

Groundwork Inc Met

Council

UJO Williamsburg Met Council

LIFT Met

Council

*Pelham Parkway Met Council

*West Bronx Housing Met

Council

Goddard Riverside Met Council

1 NMIC Met

Council

MinKwon Met Council

6 Project Hospitality and El Centro Met

Council

Cathedral Community Cares (CCC) NYCCAH 20 25 16 12 12 Child Development Support Corp. (CDSC) NYCCAH 27 20 26 18 27 Part of the Solution (POTS) NYCCAH 29 11 43 29 36 Yorkville Common Pantry (YCP) NYCCAH 10 13 10 8 14 East River Development Alliance (ERDA) NYCCAH 4 8 4 3 3 Totals 201 311 345 291 355

APPENDIX III-D: CHARACTERISTICS OF ACTIVE AND CLOSED/REJECTED

FSRIP PARTICIPANTS VERSUS SNAP PARTICIPANTS RECEIVING MAILING

BROCHURE


Participant Characteristics FSRIP Active

(N=2,036)

Mailer Active

(N=44,244)

FSRIP Closed/Rejected

(N= 266)

Mailer Closed/Rejected

(N=14,171)

Sex Male 26.0% 27.7% 33.1% 29.1% Female 74.0% 72.3% 66.9% 70.9% *Total* 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Race White (Non-Hispanic) 16.2% 9.8% 10.2% 9.4% Asian/Pacific Islander (Non-Hispanic) 4.4% 8.8% 3.4% 8.4% Black/African American (Non-Hispanic) 31.2% 36.1% 38.0% 37.8% Hispanic (Any Race) 47.3% 44.6% 47.0% 43.8% Multi-Racial 1.0% 0.6% 1.5% 0.6% *Total* 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Marital Status Married 20.0% 15.8% 12.5% 14.2% Separated, Divorced, Widowed 20.2% 13.1% 19.2% 12.4% Never Married 59.8% 71.1% 68.3% 73.3% *Total* 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Age at Recertification 18-29 13.3% 21.7% 20.3% 23.9% 30-39 19.8% 25.2% 19.5% 25.2% 40-49 21.3% 22.6% 24.4% 22.1% 50-59 24.5% 21.1% 29.3% 19.9% 60-69 13.9% 7.4% 5.3% 7.0% 70+ 7.3% 2.0% 1.1% 1.9% *Total* 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Citizenship Status Citizen 83.0% 80.8% 85.3% 82.0% Non-Citizen 17.0% 19.2% 14.7% 18.0% *Total* 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Notice Language English 73.1% 82.3% 82.0% 83.6% Spanish 26.9% 17.7% 18.0% 16.4% *Total* 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Preferred Language for Interview English 71.4% 77.8% 80.5% 79.7% Spanish 26.3% 17.8% 18.0% 16.4% Chinese 1.3% 3.0% 1.5% 2.5% Russian 0.3% 0.6% 0.0% 0.6% Other 0.7% 0.8% 0.0% 0.8% *Total* 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Borough Bronx 26.2% 34.5% 24.4% 35.0% Brooklyn 33.2% 42.0% 31.2% 41.7% Manhattan 27.6% 20.7% 32.3% 20.6% Queens 12.8% 2.7% 12.0% 2.7% Staten Island 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%



BROCHURE



(N=2,036)

Mailer Active

(N=44,244)


(N= 266)


(N=14,171)

*Total* 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Veteran Status Veteran 0.8% 0.6% 0.0% 0.6% Not a Veteran 99.2% 99.4% 100.0% 99.4% *Total* 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% SSI Status Never Active SSI 68.1% 67.7% 71.1% 67.6% Active SSI 7.9% 7.1% 4.5% 6.4% SSI Pending 0.6% 1.0% 0.4% 1.0% Deemed Eligible 0.0% 23.7% 0.0% 24.5% Closed/Denied/Suspended (Appeals Exhausted)

22.7% 0.0% 23.7% 0.0% Closed - Continue OASDI 0.7% 0.5% 0.4% 0.5% *Total* 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Missing Shelter Type Private 65.8% 66.6% 75.6% 67.1% NYCHA/Section 8 28.6% 26.4% 18.0% 24.5% Undomiciled or Temporary/Migrant 1.7% 5.4% 3.4% 6.4% Homeless/DV Shelter 3.1% 1.1% 1.5% 1.4% Group Quarters/Congregate Care 0.8% 0.1% 1.5% 0.1% SSI Categorically Eligible 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% *Total* 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Food Stamp Total Income Amount $0 50.0% 51.0% 58.3% 52.8% $1-$99 7.5% 7.5% 4.1% 6.9% $100-$199 6.7% 6.5% 6.4% 6.2% $200-$299 7.4% 6.8% 7.5% 6.5% $300-$399 6.1% 5.4% 5.6% 5.1% $400-$499 5.7% 4.5% 3.4% 4.3% $500-$749 10.1% 8.6% 9.4% 8.5% $750-$999 6.5% 4.9% 5.3% 4.7% $1000+ 0.0% 4.9% 0.0% 4.9% *Total* 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Food Stamp Total Net Income Amount $0 41.2% 27.9% 78.2% 31.3% $1-$99 1.9% 2.2% 0.8% 2.2% $100-$199 3.2% 3.2% 1.1% 3.1% $200-$299 3.5% 3.8% 0.8% 3.6% $300-$399 4.9% 5.3% 1.5% 5.0% $400-$499 5.6% 5.8% 2.6% 5.6% $500-$749 22.4% 20.7% 9.4% 19.7% $750-$999 17.3% 12.9% 5.6% 12.1% $1000+ 0.0% 18.3% 0.0% 17.4% *Total* 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Food Stamp Earned Income Amount



BROCHURE



(N=2,036)

Mailer Active

(N=44,244)


(N= 266)


(N=14,171)

$0 80.1% 56.5% 85.7% 58.7% $1-$99 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% $100-$199 0.7% 0.8% 0.0% 0.7% $200-$299 1.2% 1.1% 0.8% 1.0% $300-$399 1.5% 1.5% 1.1% 1.5% $400-$499 2.0% 2.0% 0.8% 1.9% $500-$749 6.8% 7.4% 6.0% 7.0% $750-$999 7.4% 8.7% 5.6% 8.3% $1000+ 0.0% 21.8% 0.0% 20.6% *Total* 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Food Stamp Unearned Income Amount $0 65.8% 61.1% 78.2% 63.0% $1-$99 1.5% 1.1% 0.8% 1.0% $100-$199 1.6% 1.6% 1.1% 1.6% $200-$299 2.7% 2.1% 0.8% 2.0% $300-$399 2.7% 2.0% 1.5% 1.9% $400-$499 2.4% 2.7% 2.6% 2.5% $500-$749 11.9% 11.4% 9.4% 10.7% $750-$999 11.3% 7.5% 5.6% 7.1% $1000+ 0.0% 10.5% 0.0% 10.1% *Total* 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Food Stamp Dependent Child Care Amount

$0 93.3% 94.5% 91.7% 95.0% $1-$99 1.1% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% $100-$199 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.5% $200-$299 1.2% 0.8% 1.9% 0.7% $300-$399 1.3% 0.8% 1.9% 0.7% $400-$499 0.7% 0.8% 1.1% 0.7% $500-$749 1.4% 1.1% 1.5% 1.1% $750-$999 0.5% 0.3% 0.8% 0.3% $1000+ 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% *Total* 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Food Stamp Total Deductions Amount $0 2.5% 0.0% 3.4% 0.0% $1-$99 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% $100-$199 47.5% 48.8% 56.4% 50.5% $200-$299 19.7% 19.7% 13.9% 19.6% $300-$399 14.2% 15.3% 12.8% 14.7% $400-$499 7.3% 7.8% 4.9% 7.4% $500-$749 6.5% 5.2% 5.3% 4.8% $750-$999 2.2% 1.6% 3.4% 1.5% $1000+ 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 1.6% *Total* 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Food Stamp Allotment Less than $200 19.0% 14.5% 27.8% 15.3%



BROCHURE



(N=2,036)

Mailer Active

(N=44,244)


(N= 266)


(N=14,171)

$200 27.8% 27.4% 34.6% 29.7% $367 10.5% 13.1% 7.9% 13.0% $526 5.1% 6.8% 3.0% 6.6% $668 2.0% 2.8% 1.1% 2.7% $793 1.1% 0.9% 0.8% 0.9% Other Amount 34.6% 34.5% 24.8% 31.8% *Total* 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Food Stamp Appointment Center F45-Concourse 13.8% N/A 10.9% N/A F14-St. Nicholas 13.0% N/A 11.3% N/A F02-East End 11.7% N/A 16.5% N/A F53-Queens 10.1% N/A 8.6% N/A F22-Coney Island 10.5% N/A 3.8% N/A F26-North Brooklyn 7.1% N/A 9.0% N/A F20-Ft. Green 6.7% N/A 8.6% N/A F40-Melrose 6.5% N/A 3.0% N/A F28-East New York 5.4% N/A 6.8% N/A F46-Crontona 3.7% N/A 4.1% N/A F21Williamsburg 3.3% N/A 3.8% N/A F44-Fordham 2.0% N/A 7.9% N/A F54-Jamaica 2.2% N/A 1.9% N/A F13-Washington Heights 1.2% N/A 3.8% N/A F15-SSI Office 1.6% N/A 0.0% N/A F19-Waverly 1.0% N/A 0.0% N/A F79-Rockaway 0.1% N/A 0.0% N/A F99-Richmond 0.1% N/A 0.0% N/A F61-Residential Treatment Center 0.0% N/A 100.0% N/A *Total* 100.0% N/A 100.0% N/A

Note: SNAP participants in select zip codes served by FSRIP CBO implementing sites received a one-page flyer by mailer notifying them about their potential eligibility to conduct their recertification under the FSRIP pilot at just about the same time as they received their recertification package. The table provides data on active and closed/rejected (1) SNAP participants receiving mailers for the period January 2012 through August 2012 schedule for recertification and (2) FSRIP participants scheduled for recertification with CBO implementing sites during the pilot.