II. CASE STUDY OF MODERNIZATION: FLORIDA
1. Client Access and Satisfaction
a. SNAP Participation and Growth Rates
Florida experienced tremendous growth in SNAP participation during the past decade. By December 2011, 1.8 million households (3.3 million individuals) were enrolled, a four-fold increase from 2000 (a 266 percent increase in individuals). Participation was, on balance, roughly level until the economic recession. Spurred by dismal economic conditions, the number of individuals receiving SNAP grew 153 percent between 2004 and 2011.22 In 2010, 1 in 6 Floridians were living below the poverty level, 1 in 9 were unemployed, and 2.79 million were receiving SNAP benefits in an average month (Figure II.7).
Figure II.7. Trends in Monthly Average Number of SNAP Recipients and Economic Indicators, 2000–2011, Florida
Sources: Participation is based on Mathematica tabulations of data provided by the Florida DCF.
Unemployment rates are from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics. Poverty rates are from the U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Briefs.
22 Severe hurricanes and tropical storms in 2004 and 2005, including Hurricane Katrina, contributed to increases in participation in those years.
Average monthly SNAP recipients Unemployment rate Poverty rate
Access to SNAP improved since 2005, fulfilling one of Florida’s modernization goals. The state’s PAI, which indicates the proportion of low-income people who enroll in SNAP, increased from 0.41 in 2005 to 0.68 in 2010 (Figure II.8). Initiatives designed to make SNAP more accessible to eligible individuals, such as the partnership network and telephone interviews, might have played a role in participation growth. The access index in Florida improved from 44th to 34th in the nation.
The index improved more quickly beginning in 2008, commensurate with participation growth. This trend was also seen across the nation.
Figure II.8. Trends in SNAP Program Access Index, 2005- 2010, Florida
Source: PAI data are from the USDA FNS.
Notes: PAI, a measure calculated by FNS, represents a ratio of the average monthly number of SNAP participants over the course of a calendar year to the number of state residents with income below 125 percent of the federal poverty level. A higher PAI indicates greater program access.
Regardless of the causes behind the recent participation growth, SNAP participation at this scale makes the case for modernization. While DCF officials could not have imagined that caseloads would nearly triple between 2004 and the end of 2011, the initial changes they put in place—
including restructuring staff functions, employing new technology, and changing policies—were also necessary to help reduce burdens on workers in later years and allow them to process the additional applications and maintain the higher caseload. As discussed earlier, state staff at all levels recognized more could still be done and have continued to look for ways to further streamline processes.
SNAP participation grew faster in urban counties than rural ones. Between 2000 and 2011, caseloads had tripled in rural counties and quadrupled in urban ones. There was also much variation at the regional level. The Southern region, which encompasses Miami, experienced the least growth, while caseloads grew the most in the SunCoast region (home to Ft. Myers).23
23 DCF grouped counties into “regions” in state FY 2008. To calculate regional growth rates in earlier years, counties were assigned to their current regional designation.
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Program Access Index
Year
Florida U.S.
Joblessness during the recession precipitated a greater need for food assistance among working adults. Perhaps for this reason, participation among households headed by elderly or disabled individuals grew consistently throughout the past decade but by less than other groups.24 It is unclear whether emphasizing self-service—in particular, encouraging clients to manage their cases online and communicate by telephone, without the help of an assigned caseworker—was a barrier for certain demographic populations. The number of heads of households 60 or older doubled since many initiatives were implemented in 2005. This growth was eclipsed by other age groups, possibly because the income of older adults was less affected by the recession (Figure II.9). The same trend was apparent among heads of households with disabilities. Their growth was sizable (about 130 percent since 2005), but slower than nondisabled recipients. The proportion of heads of households who are Hispanic has remained relatively constant, while in terms of numbers, they have grown 156 percent since 2005.
Figure II.9. Changes in Characteristics of Heads of SNAP Household in Florida, 2000–2011
Source: Mathematica tabulations of data provided by the Florida DCF.
Note: Data represent heads of households. Historical data at the individual level are unavailable in Florida.
b. Application Submissions
Consistent with caseload growth, the number of SNAP applications submitted to DCF began escalating in 2008 (Figure II.10).25 In 2011, DCF received approximately 121,000 initial applications per month, more than twice as many as in 2005, when many modernization changes were first
24 Client demographics in Florida represent heads of households only. Historical data at the individual level are unavailable in Florida.
25 Application data represent initial applications and recertifications.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2000 2005 2011 2000 2005 2011 2000 2005 2011
Percentage
Year
Age Race/Ethnicity Disability
implemented. In comparison, applications rose only 15 percent between 2001 and 2004. Since application increases coincided with the recession, the extent to which improved access due to modernization contributed to this trend is unclear. Regardless, application submissions on this scale make it clear that minimizing burden on existing workers through efficiency-oriented initiatives was necessary.
Figure II.10. Applications Processed per Month, 2001–2011, Florida
Source: Mathematica tabulations of data provided by the Florida DCF.
Approval rates for new applications increased throughout the study period, rising from 65 percent in January 2001 to 84 percent in December 2011, with a temporary increase occurring between late 2004 and early 2006 followed by a gradual increase from 2006 to 2011 (Figure II.11).
Although greater and more persistent economic need for food assistance likely played a large role, it is also possible the online eligibility screening tool reduced applications from those less likely to be eligible following its release in 2007.
In 2011, approval rates were highest for those applying via the intranet from a computer in a SNAP office (90 percent) followed by those who applied from a partner site (86 percent). The most common application method, applying online from a location other than a SNAP office or partner site, had an approval rate of 82 percent in 2011. These trends have persisted since 2010 (Figure II.12). Lower approval rates for online applications not submitted at a SNAP office or partner site could indicate that those who travel to a partner or local office face greater need or more readily obtain assistance that helps them through the process. It is also possible that, for those with online access, the ease of applying encourages more applications from those who are borderline eligible.
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000
Applications
Month
Applications processed per month
Figure II.11. Approval Rate of SNAP Applications by Month, 2001–2011, Florida
Source: Mathematica tabulations of data provided by the Florida DCF.
Figure II.12. Approval Rate of SNAP Applications by Method, 2009–2011, Florida
Source: Mathematica tabulations of data provided by the Florida DCF.
Application timeliness rates—the proportion of applications processed within 30 days of receipt for regular applicants and 7 days for expedited applicants (as required by federal law)—wavered somewhat throughout the past decade in conjunction with changes in the number of applications submitted. The proportion of timely applications fell from 85 percent beginning in 2005 to a low of
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percent Approved
Month
Approval rate of SNAP applications
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Application Approval Rate
Month
Paper application in SNAP office Online in SNAP office Community partner Other online location
60 percent in late 2008 before increasing to almost 90 percent in 2011 (Figure II.13). Timeliness rates were similar for paper and online applications.
Figure II.13. Average SNAP Application Processing Time and Timeliness, 2001–2011, Florida
Source: Mathematica tabulations of data provided by the Florida DCF.
Note: Mathematica calculated application processing timeliness based on submission dates and determination dates from state files. The results might differ from the official FNS QC measure of timeliness. The application data provided do not identify applications denied due to a household’s failure to complete an interview or provide requested verification documentation, so these applications are included in our calculation of timeliness.
Applications are considered timely if eligibility determinations are made within 7 days for expedited applications and 30 days for all other applications.
The time required to process applications followed the same pattern. It took an average of 12 days to process an application in 2004, 18 days in 2008, and 14 days in 2010. Most applications (54.5 percent in 2011), however, were processed within the first week of the thirty day determination period. Since 2004, an increasing proportion of applications were processed in the last week, rising from 10.5 percent in 2004 to almost 18 percent in 2011.
One way states can reduce some of the burden of processing applications is to reduce churning, which is defined as immediate reenrollment in the program after benefits are discontinued. Churning can indicate that clients needed continued benefits but were unable to recertify in time. Between 2006 and 2009, 14 to 22 percent of eligible applications were submitted by households whose SNAP benefits had elapsed for only one month before reenrolling. One-month reenrollments subsequently climbed to about 30 percent by late 2011 (Figure II.14). The state attributes the churning increase to
0 5 10 15 20 25
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Days
Percent
Month
Timely processed applications Average processing time
a federal policy change unrelated to modernization and reports that churning declined in 2012 after DCF altered its procedures for implementing the policy.26
Figure II.14. Trends in SNAP Reenrollment, 2000–2011, Florida
Source: Mathematica tabulations of data provided by the Florida DCF.
Note: Percentages are based on the number of households that enrolled in the given month. For instance, 18 percent of those who enrolled in January 2006 had previously received SNAP benefits in November 2005, but did not receive benefits in December 2005. Households that stop receiving SNAP benefits and later enroll again are counted again as a new enrollment.
Another seven percent of new enrollees had received SNAP benefits two months before reenrolling. If they had stayed enrolled, they would have submitted recertification forms instead of new applications, which would have been faster for clients to submit and workers to process, while ensuring clients in need were not without food assistance.
c. Client Use of New Points of Contact
Florida created three new points of contact for clients to apply, recertify, submit verification, report changes, and seek answers to questions: the online system, call center, and partnership network. We discuss data available on client use of these contact points below, along with reports from staff and clients. In sum, the online system and call center were highly utilized; the call center faced challenges due to high volume. Use of partners was unclear.
Online system. DCF strongly encourages clients to apply online and self-serve through their online account, and the data bear this out. In 2011, there were roughly 30,000 unique visitors a day
26 According to a DCF official, FNS’s policy regarding SNAP recertifications changed in late 2009 or early 2010 to give clients an extra 30 days to complete required actions. Initially, if a client submitted a recertification form but did not complete his or her interview (if required) or submit documentation, DCF closed the case on the last day of the client’s eligibility period and reopened the case if a client fulfilled requirements within 30 days. Closing cases automatically generated case closure notices to clients. In response, clients tended to submit a new initial application, rather than completing outstanding actions. DCF changed their procedures in late 2011 to leave cases open pending client actions, rather than closing and reopening cases.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Percentage of Eligible Applications
Month
One month since last SNAP spell ended Two months since last SNAP spell ended
to the online system’s home page. Online applications comprised at least 70 percent of all submissions in 2006, the year following its introduction (Figure II.15). Use of online methods has grown every year since, and by 2011, approximately 90 percent of all applications were submitted online.27
Figure II.15. Percentage of SNAP Applications Submitted Online and on Paper, 2006–2011, Florida
Source: Mathematica tabulations of data provided by the Florida DCF.
Note: Paper applications include those that were submitted by mail or fax, or that were dropped off at a local office. Online applications include those submitted from the internet by applicants or community partners, or from the intranet on SNAP office computers. Other methods of submission not shown include SUNCAP and telephone applications.
SNAP recipients increasingly used their online accounts to check their benefits, report a change, apply for additional assistance, and upload documents. Checking benefit amounts was by far the most common reason for logging into an account. In 2011, the webpage for checking benefits received 3.6 million hits per month on average, up from 2.2 million hits in 2009, the year following its introduction (Figure II.16). The same year, clients reported approximately 51,400 changes online in an average month, and submitted 38,100 electronic requests for additional assistance programs (Figure II.17). Clients have quickly taken to using their account to submit verification. In December 2011, four months after its introduction, clients uploaded 31,160 documents. It is no surprise that DCF staff cited the online system as one of the state’s most significant modernization changes. In addition to improving access, online tools increase client self-sufficiency, in turn reducing call volume and staff workload.
27 The number of online applications discussed here includes applications submitted through the intranet at local offices as well as online applications submitted by community partners. According to staff, online applications account for around 95 percent of all applications.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentage
Month
Online applications Paper applications
Figure II.16. Monthly Website Hits to Online Account for Checking Benefits, 2009–2011, Florida
Source: Mathematica tabulations of data provided by the Florida DCF.
Figure II.17. Use of Online Account for Reporting Changes, Applying for Additional Assistance, and Uploading Documents, 2010–2011, Florida
Source: Mathematica tabulations of data provided by the Florida DCF.
In general, those with language or cultural barriers, minimal computer skills or access, or low literacy may face more difficulty accessing online tools. These barriers may be more pronounced in rural areas. Some staff questioned whether modernization works well in rural areas where residents do not typically own a computer or know how to use one, and do not understand the self-service features, including client accounts. There are also fewer rural partners to go to for help.
Nevertheless, data indicate that residents in rural counties were about as likely to apply online as their urban counterparts.
0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000
Number of Monthly Hits to Check Benefits
Month
Hits to online account for checking benefits
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000
Number of Online Submissions
Month
Changes reported Applications for additional assistance Documents uploaded
Call center. Client use of the call center increased to substantial levels as participation grew.
Data available since 2008 clearly show that demand significantly outpaced the call center’s capacity, despite gaining an additional 30 staff members between 2009 and 2011. Indeed, one state official characterized the call center as the state’s “Achilles’ heel.” Clients wishing to speak with an agent must connect to the IVR, and then connect to a queue for an agent.28 Connecting at either juncture emerged as a key issue. DCF added extra telephone lines into the IVR in January 2012 to accommodate the growth in volume. Before then, around 30 percent of callers in 2011 heard a busy signal before ever reaching the IVR (of 237,300 attempted calls per day), compared to 10 percent in 2010 (of 143,300 calls attempted per day) (Figure II.18).29 In 2011, calls to the IVR were up 330 percent from summer 2006, and the number of monthly calls outnumbered active SNAP cases nearly 3 to 1.30
Figure II.18. Daily Calls to IVR and Success in Reaching IVR, 2009–2011, Florida
Source: Mathematica tabulations of data provided by the Florida DCF.
Note: The IVR is accessible seven days a week, and the call center operates on business days. For consistency, daily call rates to the IVR are based on the number of business days in a month.
In addition to the challenge faced in getting through to the IVR, clients also faced difficulty in reaching an agent. Since 2008, around 60 percent (86,700 daily calls in 2011) of those who were able to connect to the IVR attempted to speak with an agent, usually without success. Most (71,350 daily calls or 82 percent in 2011) were disconnected before reaching a call center agent or terminated the call while on hold (Figure II.19). The problem was no doubt exacerbated when callers who were
28 At the time of this report, clients were transferred from the IVR to a queue for a particular call center, and then to a queue for an agent within that call center. Thus, clients had to get through to a call center line before waiting for an agent. DCF was planning to eliminate this intermediate juncture so that clients could directly transfer to a queue for an agent at any of the call center locations.
29 The IVR is accessible 7 days a week and the call center operates on business days. For consistency, daily call rates to the IVR are based on the number of business days in a month.
30 Data from 2006 were reported in Cody et al. (2008).
0%
Average Number of Daily Calls to IVR
Month
Daily calls attempted Daily calls that reach ARU
disconnected called back. Clients fared only slightly better in the past three years. Although average hold times were only 15 minutes in 2011, staff and clients reported significantly longer hold times during peak hours, particularly on Mondays, days after holidays, and lunch times.31 Similar to past years, calls lasted seven minutes, on average, in 2011.
Figure II.19. Call Center Performance, 2008–2011, Florida
Source: Mathematica tabulations of data provided by the Florida DCF.
Note: Data from 2008 represent July through December. Data are unavailable from May through August 2011, when call volume was peaking.
The proportion of callers opting to speak with an agent suggests that most questions were too complex for the IVR or callers were calling for other purposes, such as to complete an interview.
Call center agents completed 23 percent of interviews conducted in 2011. These patterns are consistent with reports from focus group respondents that the IVR did not answer their questions and most of the time they needed to speak with an agent.
Community partners. The extent to which clients seek information, self-service equipment, or assistance from DCF’s network of 3,344 community partners, the third major new contact point, is unclear. Although data on the number of clients who visit a partner for any form of assistance are unavailable, the number of applications received via partner sites provides a minimum estimate of client use. Overall, partners accounted for a small but growing proportion of all applications: seven percent in 2011, up from less than one percent in 2006.32
31 At the time of the study period, Florida was planning to introduce a “virtual hold” feature permitting clients to leave their telephone number and receive a call back, rather than waiting on hold.
32 Self-service and assisted-site partners submit online applications via a unique URL, which DCF uses to track the applications originating at partner sites. Florida also tracks the number of applications partners send via other electronic means, such as email. According to ACCESS liaisons, it is not uncommon for computers at partner sites to inadvertently reset URLs, in which case applications submitted could not be tracked. Thus, data presented here on submissions via partners is possibly an underestimate.
0
Daily calls answered Daily calls not answered Average call wait time Average call duration
d. Client Satisfaction
Focus groups with SNAP participants and eligible nonparticipants, as well as interviews with staff and community partners, highlighted both positive and negative client reactions to SNAP
Focus groups with SNAP participants and eligible nonparticipants, as well as interviews with staff and community partners, highlighted both positive and negative client reactions to SNAP