Given the major changes made to where and how clients apply for FSP benefits, it is likely that ACCESS Florida will have some effect on the relative ease or difficulty that clients experience obtaining, completing, and filing their applications, which further should impact their satisfaction with the whole process. If they are more satisfied, there should be a positive effect on the number of clients participating, while any change that decreases client satisfaction is likely to have a negative effect on the number of clients participating.
The results of our analysis indicate that FSP caseload growth ceased when ACCESS Florida was implemented. While this could suggest a reduction in program access, it also likely reflects concurrent job growth in Florida’s economy. The composition of the caseload remained effectively unchanged after ACCESS Florida was implemented, suggesting that if there were negative effects, no specific demographic group was more affected than any other. There is some evidence that participation declined in regions where local offices were closed and where the number of community partners is relatively low. Finally, while the majority of DCF staff and clients viewed the changes as positive, other DCF staff and clients voiced strong concerns that the changes reduced program access for some types of clients. Potential Effects of ACCESS Florida Changes
We begin our discussion of the potential effect of changes by identifying the portions of the modernization that, may have some influence on client access to and client satisfaction with the FSP.44 We divide the types of changes that may affect access into the same three
categories used throughout this report: organizational, policy and procedural, and
44 Throughout this chapter, we examine the extent to which evidence from administrative data and our conversations with staff and clients do or do not support our hypothesized effects of ACCESS Florida. In this type of analysis, it is not possible to control for concurrent changes unrelated to modernization, so observed effects cannot be definitively attributed to ACCESS Florida. Furthermore, some evidence we examine relies upon our interviews and focus group feedback which, while extensive, were not scientific samples designed to be representative of all experiences. Therefore, the true impact of ACCESS Florida may be different from that which we observe with the data we collected.
89
VI: Potential Effects of Modernization
technological. Overall, we expect few changes to lead to decreased access (Table VI.1). Of the 11 changes we suspect could have an effect on client access, four are likely to increase access, six could either increase and/or decrease client access, and only one change would be expected to decrease access.
Table VI.1. Potential Effects of ACCESS Florida Changes on Client Access and Client Satisfaction
Factors That Could Increase Access or Satisfaction
Factors That Could Increase and/or Decrease Access or
Satisfaction Factors That Could Decrease Access or Satisfaction Interview Procedures
Relaxed Verification Recertification Reporting Changes
Customer Call Centers Community Partners
Customer Service Center Set-up Web Application
Automated Response Unit
Change in Client/Worker Relationship
Agency Downsizing
Organizational Restructuring
Agency Downsizing. Closing local Customer Service Centers could reduce client access to the FSP. These centers traditionally serve as the entry point for public assistance. With their closure, clients may not know where to begin the application process, and/or they may be unwilling to use other entry points. Moreover, the closing of Customer Service Centers could make DCF less visible in the community, which, from an outreach perspective, could reduce the number of clients who consider applying for benefits. While DCF officials reported that they tried to consolidate offices that were in close proximity to each other, this was not always possible. The closures are likely to have a different impact in rural counties, where the nearest service center may be one or two counties away, than in urban areas where other service centers exist.
Customer Call Centers. The use of Customer Call Centers could increase or decrease client access and satisfaction. In theory, the call centers increase clients’ ability to learn about the FSP, check on the status of their applications, request a paper application be mailed to their home, or report changes that could impact benefit levels. Indeed, many of these functions could be done through the ARU at any time of day, any day of the week. At the same time, any frustration among clients with using the ARU and with waiting to talk with a call agent could discourage use of the call centers, decreasing access and satisfaction and therefore reducing clients’ willingness to participate in the FSP.
Community Partners. Community partner changes also could both increase and decrease client access and satisfaction. Partner organizations may be more conveniently located than service centers and may offer additional client services. They also might operate outside of traditional weekday business hours. In addition, clients may feel more
90
VI: Potential Effects of Modernization
comfortable going to a community-based organization. The opportunity to avoid going to a “welfare” environment might attract certain individuals who were too embarrassed to apply for food stamp benefits in the past.
On the other hand, client access also could depend on the number of partners within a reasonable distance of a client, as well as whether a partner is willing to serve the general public. Moreover, as partners become the “face” of DCF, their ability to provide effective access depends on the quality of service they provide. Partners that provide incomplete or inaccurate information, or provide access in a customer-unfriendly way could also discourage participation in the FSP.
Change in Client/Worker Relationship. Altering the organizational structure of remaining Customer Service Centers could increase or decrease client access or satisfaction. For example, the move to specialized workers means that there is no longer a single point of contact handling most aspects of a case. Rather, there are specialized staff and an increased emphasis on client self-service. This could decrease the satisfaction, and therefore reduce access, for clients preferring the personal touch of a caseworker model. Conversely, access and satisfaction may be increased among clients who find new approach less stigmatizing.
Policy and Procedural Changes
Customer Service Center Set-up. The new and more self-service oriented arrangement of the lobbies of Customer Service Centers could increase access to the FSP. For clients who are proficient in using the technology in the lobbies, the new self-service focus could make their visits quicker and more efficient. However, other clients may find the new arrangement confusing and complicated. This could decrease satisfaction and discourage participation in the FSP.
Interview Procedures. The adoption of abbreviated interviews for most applicants, as well as the increased reliance on phone interviews, could increase client access. Under ACCESS Florida, the new eligibility interview procedures help to reduce the amount of time that clients must spend applying for benefits, as well as the number of trips they must make to a Customer Service Center. They can also make the application process appear less intrusive and burdensome.
Relaxed Verification. Similarly, the adoption of relaxed verification rules could also lead to increased client access. Relaxing the verification rules reduces the amount of information applicants need to compile, potentially reducing the number of trips they must make to a Customer Service Center and making the process appear less intrusive. This makes it easier to apply for FSP benefits.
Recertification. Changes to the recertification process also can make the program more accessible to clients. Additionally, the interview requirements at recertification have been relaxed for many clients. These changes make continued participation in the FSP less burdensome to clients. As a result, more clients may be willing to participate and participate for longer spells, thus leading to higher caseloads.
91
VI: Potential Effects of Modernization
Reporting Changes. The ACCESS Florida procedures for reporting changes could have a positive impact on access. Simplified reporting rules decrease the number of changes that many clients have to report, making it less burdensome to participate. Moreover, the fact that clients can submit documentation for reporting changes without having to wait for DCF staff may also make the process less burdensome. However, as discussed above, potential frustrations with the call center could mitigate these potential effects.
Technology Changes
Web Application. The web application under ACCESS Florida could both increase and decrease client access. Because it helps expand the number of places where clients can apply, the availability of the web application 24 hours per day could lead more individuals participating in the FSP. It may also be easier for applicants to get friends and family members to help them complete the application outside of the constraints of the location and hours of the Customer Service Centers. However, the web application includes more questions than the RFA because it incorporates some questions that would previously have been asked of a client by a caseworker doing the intake interview. Moreover, the web application requires users to be computer savvy enough to navigate the screens, enter information, and submit the application. The added length combined with potential frustrations for users who are less computer literate could potentially discourage participation.
Automated Response Unit. As with the web application, the ARU could increase access for some clients, but could frustrate clients who do not like navigating phone menus to get information. The ARU can make it easier for clients to learn about how and where to apply for benefits and to check on the status of their applications. However, for clients who do not like using technology and clients who simply need to speak with a call agent, the ARU may be a barrier to having their needs met.
Measures of Client Access and Client Satisfaction
In this section, we explore some changes over time in the types of clients receiving FSP benefits, changes in application rates, changes in measures of program access, and usage of the Customer Call Center. The measures of client access and client satisfaction tell a story that is mixed.
Changes in Participation
The food stamp caseload in Florida has grown from 900 thousand participating individuals in 2001 to 1.2 million participating in 2006 (a 31 percent increase). Most of this growth occurred between 2001 and 2004 (Figure VI.1). After a drop in the caseload in January 2005, the number of FSP participants in Florida remained constant through 2005 and started declining in 2006.45
45 With improving employment, Florida tightened its implementation of the federal policy on time-limited benefits for Able Bodied Adults without Dependents (ABAWD) in January 2005. As a result that caseload fell
92
VI: Potential Effects of Modernization
Figure VI.1. Percent Change in the Number of FSP Participants after July 2001
Source: MPR tabulations of FNS Program Operations data.
Notes: Shaded area reflects the period when most ACCESS Florida changes were implemented. Southeast Region includes: AL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN. Large states include: CA, IL, MI, NY, OH, PA, TX. Florida experienced severe hurricanes and tropical storms in August and September 2004 (Hurricanes Charley, Frances, and Ivan, and Tropical Storm Bonnie) and in July through October of 2005 (Hurricanes Dennis, Wilma, and Katrina). These storms partially explain fluctuations in the caseload growth rate in Florida during these periods, as well as in other states in the Southeast Region and other large states (such as Texas). Hurricane Rita in October 2005, which did not touch Florida, also affected the Southeast region and Texas.
The flattening caseload trend in Florida after 2004 was not observed in other large states, nor was it observed in other states in the Southeast region. Those states experienced growth rates similar to Florida’s before 2005, and their caseloads continued to grow after 2005. This discrepancy could suggest that ACCESS Florida reduced rates of program participation in Florida.46
by 30,000 individuals. In this policy change, nondisabled, nonelderly, childless adults (otherwise known as ABAWDs) can receive FSP benefits for only 3 out of every 36 months unless they are working, exempted, or meet other requirements. Most states implemented this ABAWD policy change soon after new federal rules in 1996, but Florida received FNS waivers that resulted in the state not adopting the new policy until 2005.
46 The overall caseload trend in Florida is measured using USDA Program Operations data. These data, which reflect FNS’s official counts of the number of individuals receiving food stamps each month, facilitate cross-state comparisons in participation trends. However, Program Operations data do not contain the detailed characteristics on program participants that are needed to examine participation patterns by subgroup or by county/district. For those estimates, presented throughout this report, we use administrative data provided by Florida’s Department of Children and Families. These separate data sources yield slightly different total caseload sizes because they refer to slightly different reference periods each month and because they have different procedures for adjusting for individuals that receive benefits through emergency food stamps.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Jul 2001 Oct 2001 Jan 2002 Apr 2002 Jul 2002 Oct 2002 Jan 2003 Apr 2003 Jul 2003 Oct 2003 Jan 2004 Apr 2004 Jul 2004 Oct 2004 Jan 2005 Apr 2005 Jul 2005 Oct 2005 Jan 2006 Apr 2006 Jul 2006
Florida Total US
SE Region (Excluding FL) Large States (Excluding FL)
93
VI: Potential Effects of Modernization
However, ACCESS Florida was not the only difference between Florida and other states in 2005 and 2006. Another important difference is that Florida’s economy was growing and its unemployment rate shrinking at rates faster than observed in other states. In January 2002, Florida’s unemployment rate was 5.9 percent (Figure VI.2). In late 2003, Florida’s unemployment rate fell below 5 percent, and continued to decline to 3.2 percent in 2006. As the unemployment rate fell, Florida’s FSP caseload stopped growing. Other states in the FNS Southeast region did not experience such employment growth. In those states, the unemployment rate remained above 5 percent from 2002 to 2006, and the collective caseloads continued to grow (Figure VI.3).
Figure VI.2. FSP Caseload Growth and Unemployment Rate in Florida
Source: MPR tabulations of FNS Program Operations data and unemployment data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Given that FSP caseloads are influenced by, among other things, economic conditions, it is possible that the flattening of Florida’s FSP caseload can be at least partially explained by Florida’s declining unemployment (while the higher unemployment rates in other Southeastern states allowed the caseloads there to continue growing). One way to examine whether ACCESS Florida is still contributing to these caseload trends, however, is to examine changes in participation by subgroup. If ACCESS Florida had a dampening effect on FSP participation, we would expect to see participation patterns for the most sensitive groups disproportionately affected. This does not appear to be the case.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Jul 2001 Oct 2001
Jan 2002 Apr 2002 Jul 2002 Oct
2002
Jan 2003 Apr 2003 Jul 2003 Oct
2003
Jan 2004 Apr 2004 Jul 2004 Oct
2004
Jan 2005 Apr 2005 Jul 2005 Oct
2005
Jan 2006 Apr 2006 Jul 2006
C asel oad Percent C h ange from Jul y 2001 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 U n em pl oym e nt R a te (Percent) Unemployment Rate: 5.9% Unemployment Rate: 4.6% Unemployment Rate: 3.2% FSP Caseload
94
VI: Potential Effects of Modernization
Figure VI.3. FSP Caseload Growth and Unemployment Rate in Other Southeast States
Source: MPR tabulations of FNS Program Operations data and unemployment data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Notes: Southeast Region includes: AL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN.
One group that many feared would stop participating under modernization was the elderly. The proportion of the FSP caseload that was older than age 60 actually grew slightly—from 14.1 to 15.5 percent—between July 2004 and July 2006 (Table VI.2). While this pattern could be driven by a relative increase in the entry rate among the elderly, it could also be observed if non-elderly individuals were more likely to exit the FSP, making ongoing participating elderly individuals (who have longer certification periods) a higher proportion of the caseload.47
47 Estimates using USDA administrative data show that the percent of all participants that are elderly decreased slightly from 9.6 percent in FY2001 to 8.7 percent in FY2006 (Rosso 2003, Wolkwitz 2007). Due to Florida’s unique demographic composition, we would not necessarily expect to observe the same pattern in Florida. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Jul 2001 Oct 2001
Jan 2002 Apr 2002 Jul 2002 Oct
2002
Jan 2003 Apr 2003 Jul 2003 Oct
2003
Jan 2004 Apr 2004 Jul 2004 Oct
2004
Jan 2005 Apr 2005 Jul 2005 Oct
2005
Jan 2006 Apr 2006 Jul 2006
C a sel oad Percent C h ange from Jul y 2001 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
Unemployment Rate (Percent)
Unemployment Rate: 5.8%
Unemployment Rate: 5.4%
Unemployment Rate: 5.1% FSP Caseload
95
VI: Potential Effects of Modernization
Table VI.2. Composition of Florida FSP Caseload by Age, Race and Disability Status, 2001-2006
Percent of Caseload
ACCESS Florida
Implementation Characteristic July 2001 July 2002 July 2003 July 2004* July 2005 July 2006 Age
Under 18 46.5 47.2 46.0 46.0 45.9 45.2
18 to 59 36.5 37.0 38.4 39.8 39.6 39.3
60 and older 16.9 15.8 15.6 14.1 14.5 15.5
Race/Ethnicity White, not Hispanic 31.6 31.6 31.1 31.9 31.4 31.1
Black, not Hispanic 39.0 38.3 37.8 37.1 37.3 36.9
Hispanic 27.0 27.6 28.3 28.4 28.5 28.9
Other 2.4 2.5 2.8 2.6 2.9 3.2
Disabled 29.2 27.0 26.1 22.4 22.0 23.0
Source: MPR tabulations of Florida Department of Children and Families data.
* Note: The implementation period began in April 2004, but July appears here for consistency with the rest of the table.
Similarly, the distribution of the FSP caseload by race/ethnicity has remained constant from before ACCESS Florida until July 2006. As discussed later, many individuals interviewed through this study feared that non-English speakers would be adversely affected by the modernization changes. Although we do not have data on language ability, we do know that Hispanics include a disproportionately high share of non-English speakers. The proportion of the caseload that is Hispanic has remained between 27 and 29 percent since 2001 with very little fluctuation as a share of the caseload since 2003.48
A third group that many feared would be adversely affected by the modernization changes is the disabled. As with the elderly and Hispanic populations, there is little evidence that ACCESS Florida had a disproportionately negative impact on participation among the disabled. The proportion of the Florida caseload that is disabled was falling monotonically between July 2001 and July 2004. The disabled were 29.2 percent of the caseload in July 2001, and only 22.4 percent in July 2004. After modernization began, the proportion of the
48 Estimates using USDA administrative data show that the percent of all participants that are Hispanic increased slightly from 18.3 percent in FY2001 to 19.6 percent in FY2006 (Rosso 2003, Wolkwitz 2007). Due to Florida’s unique demographic composition, we would not necessarily expect to observe the same pattern in Florida.
96
VI: Potential Effects of Modernization
caseload that is disabled remained relatively constant, even increasing slightly to 23.0 percent in July 2006.49
In short, the FSP caseload stopped growing in 2005 as the Florida unemployment rate fell and as ACCESS Florida was implemented. There is little evidence that the groups most sensitive to ACCESS Florida were disproportionately affected by the changes. However, the concurrent effect of the Florida economy on other subgroups – an effect that cannot be isolated in this study – complicates this analysis. It could be the case that ACCESS Florida reduced participation for groups like the elderly and the disabled while the economy reduced participation for other groups, keeping the relative composition of the caseload constant. It is beyond the scope of this study to tease out the component effects of these changes.
In addition to examining changes in participation by subgroup, we can examine changes