Modernization has increased the number of self-service options available to clients in all case study states. Some changes have also resulted in less personal attention, particularly in-person interaction between staff and clients. New options, such as online applications, have reduced the need for clients to come to SNAP offices. In four of the five case study states (Massachusetts is the exception), more than half of all SNAP applications are submitted online. Clients can also check their account, report changes, and recertify online. Interviews by telephone are even more pervasive in most states, though less so in Massachusetts. Still, paper applications and in-person interviews are available, at least upon request.
Some other changes were less optional for clients. In Florida, Georgia, and Washington, clients no longer had an assigned caseworker who followed their case through the SNAP lifecycle. Even in the other two states, where each worker owned specific cases, clients were likely to interact with others at some points. In Massachusetts, staff in some offices were divided between intake and ongoing cases, so the person who processed the application passed the case along to a different worker for recertification—although that worker then kept the case through all subsequent
recertifications. In Utah, a client’s call might be answered by any member of the client’s caseworker’s team.
Shorter interviews and less frequent interviews also resulted in less time interacting with a caseworker. Interviews occurred less frequently in some states than before modernization due to policy changes that lengthened certification periods and/or required interviews to be conducted only at alternate certifications. Although many clients found such changes convenient, others missed the greater degree of personal attention.
In some places, there is no longer a nearby office location for clients to seek SNAP staff.
Florida closed more than half of its local offices during the period from 2004 to 2012, and Washington closed almost 20 percent of local offices from 2001 to 2012, to consolidate operations and save on facilities costs. In Utah, no eligibility staff remain in local offices.
Reaching SNAP staff by telephone is also more difficult now. As discussed in greater detail later, limited numbers of lines at both call centers and local offices resulted in frequent busy signals, and even those calls that got through can have long hold times.
Florida
Modernization in Florida began after a 2003 state legislative mandate to reduce administrative costs and staffing levels. Caseload growth of 183 percent between 2004 and 2011 and federal incentives to reduce error rates provided additional motivation for continued modernization. In streamlining program delivery, the state focused on four goals: (1) reducing administrative costs, (2) decreasing staff burden, (3) reducing payment errors, and (4) expanding program access.
Key Modernization Initiatives
Restructuring of administrative functions. Staff functions were specialized and centralized in a shift away from the traditional caseworker model. Under the new structure, statewide call centers answered questions and processed client-reported changes, and region-wide case maintenance units handled system-generated changes. Local office staff focused on intake and recertification, with eligibility workers typically specializing in either interviewing or processing information to determine eligibility. To encourage clients to self-serve, early modernization efforts also included redesigning office lobbies, equipped with computers for accessing online applications and accounts; photocopy, fax, and scanning equipment for submitting verification documents; and telephones for reaching the call center. From 2004 to 2011, the state reduced staff levels by 41 percent and closed more than half of its local offices. Telecommuting became common among eligibility staff.
Expanding uses of technology. Florida expanded technology systems used by both clients and staff. To facilitate access and encourage self-service, the state launched an online application and later created online accounts. The functionality of online accounts expanded gradually to allow change reporting, recertification, notifications, and documentation uploading, in addition to providing account information. Enhanced technological tools developed for staff included a document imaging system to support paperless client files, two key workflow management tools that supported the shift to a process model, and a Quality Management System to facilitate reviews of eligibility determinations.
Partnering with community organizations. The state developed an extensive community partner network. Community liaisons recruited new partners, provided training and technical assistance, and monitored partner organizations. As of early 2012, a total of 3,344 partners were enrolled. The majority of partners in the network had staff available to provide assistance in the SNAP application process. Other partners provided clients access to self-service equipment, including computers, fax and photocopy machines, and telephones. In addition, seven partners participated in a pilot project under an FNS waiver permitting selected nonstate employees to conduct face-to-face interviews, with training and monitoring from SNAP staff.
Policy simplifications. Simplified policies streamlined SNAP processes. A waiver of face-to-face interviews permitted interviews to be conducted by telephone. In addition, most interviews were shortened from about one hour to approximately ten minutes. The state also implemented a variety of changes to eligibility and documentation requirements, including adopting broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE), excluding certain types of income and assets, and introducing a CAP that enrolls SSI recipients for SNAP without requiring a separate application.
Measures of Performance
Outcomes following modernization were generally positive. SNAP applications and participation climbed, with the number of households enrolled quadrupling from 2000 to 2011 (although this increase reflected growth in the number of people eligible for SNAP as well as increases in program accessibility). Clients frequently used new points of access to benefits; most notably, approximately 90 percent of applications in 2011 were submitted online. Clients reported that they were generally satisfied with the modernized system of benefit delivery, although challenges related to accessing assistance from staff in times of high demand remain.
The state also experienced improved outcomes in terms of both payment errors and administrative costs. Cost reductions were due in part to staff reductions and office closures. Remaining staff generally viewed modernization as necessary for managing caseload growth within limited resources.
Georgia
Efforts to modernize SNAP administration in Georgia have evolved incrementally, with most reforms occurring over the past few years. One of the state’s core modernization goals, to reduce and evenly distribute staff burden, was motivated largely by caseload growth that occurred with the recession, concurrent with staff reductions caused by a hiring freeze. Nearly being placed under FNS sanction for high payment error rates in 2007 prompted the goal to improve errors. In addition, Georgia sought to increase program access.
Key Modernization Initiatives
Restructuring of administrative functions. Creating a single statewide call center—with responsibility for answering client questions, processing changes, and registering online applications—was among the earliest modernization initiatives in Georgia. More recently, the state shifted away from the traditional caseworker model to a process-based model in which each worker specializes in a particular eligibility task, such as processing initial applications. At the same time, the state began centralizing operations across county offices within each region.
Expanding uses of technology. Georgia’s technological advances have focused on creating and enhancing online access for clients. Applicants can use online tools to screen for benefits, submit an application, and check the status of their online applications. SNAP recipients can create online accounts, from which they can check their benefits, report changes to their household circumstances, and recertify.
More recently, the state began making additional significant investments in technology for SNAP workers, piloting a document imaging system to facilitate caseload sharing across offices. Enhanced workflow management tools and reports were still in development during the study period.
Partnering with community organizations. Georgia’s efforts to build a formal, statewide network of partners were also in progress. A pilot was initiated in 2011 with two umbrella organizations overseeing 16 additional registered partners. Umbrella organizations train, support, and monitor other partners, to minimize the oversight burden on state staff. At least initially, umbrella organizations are community organizations that have existing relationships with the SNAP agency—such as SNAP outreach grantees. A single full-time coordinator was appointed in spring 2012 to work with umbrella organizations and expand the network statewide.
Policy simplifications. The state instituted several policy simplifications aimed at reducing errors and burden. Simplifications to eligibility and reporting rules included implementing BBCE, reducing verification requirements, and simplifying reporting requirements. The state received waivers from FNS that allowed clients to interview by telephone and postponed interviews for expedited cases until after eligibility determinations. Initial eligibility interviews were shortened for clients who applied online and for all recertification interviews, due to more comprehensive information collected in the online application and expanded recertification forms. In addition, Georgia reduced the frequency of all recertification interviews to once per year.
Measures of Performance
Over the past decade, several outcomes in Georgia have changed, although many key initiatives coincided with the national recession, making it difficult to disentangle the effects of modernization. The state experienced strong participation growth and improvements in client access. The SNAP caseload more than doubled from 2007 to 2011. Application approval rates overall changed little between 2010 and 2011, but were slightly lower for online applicants, which comprised approximately two-thirds of all applications in late 2011. Both payment errors and administrative costs per case decreased during the study period.
Clients were generally satisfied with the modernization changes, although some reported challenges accessing staff by telephone. Staff facing an increased workload reported that modernization changes were helpful in general, but that some modifications and additional planning would be beneficial.
Massachusetts
The primary goal of modernization efforts in Massachusetts has been to increase program access, driven largely by the low rates of program participation among eligible households during the early 2000s, relative to other states. A secondary goal to improve the efficiency of the program took on increasing importance as the state’s SNAP caseload increased dramatically. Modernization choices were also influenced by several active stakeholders, including the state legislature, food and nutrition advocacy groups, legal advocacy groups, and a strong, active union representing eligibility workers.
Key Modernization Initiatives
Restructuring of administrative functions. Administrative restructuring began on a limited scale in Massachusetts. A local initiative that specialized the roles of different staff in two offices—by separating intake and ongoing case management activities—expanded to slightly more than half of all local offices in the state.
Massachusetts has also outstationed some eligibility workers. The functions of the statewide call center were limited to providing information, because call center staff are not authorized eligibility workers. Processing of online applications was centralized in some parts of the state through the creation of two regional web application units.
Expanding uses of technology. The most visible technological innovation was an online application.
The Provider View component was developed first and allowed authorized community partners to assist clients in completing an online application and to view the status of such applications. The newer Consumer View allowed individuals to screen for eligibility and apply online, and the most recent module lets clients create accounts to view information about their case online. Massachusetts also upgraded its rules-based eligibility system to a more user-friendly, web-based version, which includes a new series of reports that assist staff with workflow management.
Partnering with community organizations. Developing strong partnerships with community organizations and sister agencies to improve outreach was a key focus of modernization in Massachusetts. The SNAP agency sought to capitalize on existing relationships organizations—particularly those that target underserved populations, such as the elderly, individuals with disabilities, noncitizens, or Hispanic/Latino populations—had within the community to educate potential beneficiaries and assist them in applying for SNAP. The state provided training to prepare community-based organizations (CBOs) to serve SNAP clients, and formal partners had access to the Provider View of the online application. For a growing set of outreach partners (14 in 2012), the agency also provided partial reimbursement of costs incurred in providing outreach and application assistance.
Policy simplifications. A second key focus of the state’s effort to increase access was pursuing policy options to reduce barriers and burden on potential clients, particularly underserved populations. Early policy changes included shortening the application from 16 pages to 4 and instituting simplified reporting. Later, Massachusetts obtained a waiver of face-to-face interviews, implemented BBCE, instituted standardized deductions for medical expenses, and streamlined verification requirements. Certification periods were maximized to two years for elderly and disabled clients and one year for all other households. To reduce the burden elderly and disabled clients, the state obtained a waiver from FNS to eliminate the recertification interview requirement for elderly and disabled households with no earned income, implemented a CAP, and reduced the application to two pages for elderly clients.
Measures of Performance
During the period of modernization changes from 2003 to 2011, Massachusetts experienced increasing applications and caseloads, but disentangling these trends from the effects of the recession is difficult.
Application processing time and timeliness suffered when staffing did not increase at the same rate as caseloads. Despite the availability of an online application and partner assistance, most clients applied in person because they could get their benefits faster that way. Administrative costs per case fell, even as the number of eligibility workers increased. Error rates also declined, but the sharpest decline occurred before the state’s modernization efforts started.
Utah
Utah’s primary goals in modernizing its SNAP operations were to increase program efficiency and increase ease of access for clients. Due to Utah’s large rural areas, physical access to local offices varies widely across the state, motivating the need for alternative access points. Efforts to increase efficiency took on added urgency during the economic downturn beginning in 2008, as caseloads increased sharply and the state mandated cuts to the department’s budget, leaving the department with less money to process more applications.
Key Modernization Initiatives
Restructuring of administrative functions. A 2009 reorganization of the agency responsible for SNAP consolidated eligibility operations from five regions into a single statewide system operated as a unified, virtual call center. Although workers are still physically dispersed—based in one of four physical call center locations, in work spaces in some local employment offices or telecommuting from home—this centralization standardized procedures statewide and equalized both the number of cases per worker and customer service for clients. All eligibility functions are now handled through the virtual call center, and the agency’s local employment centers have banks of computers that connect to the online application and staff who can provide basic assistance in completing it.
Expanding uses of technology. The state introduced document imaging in 1999, which paved the way for electronic case records and the portability of eligibility work. In 2008 Utah rolled out its statewide online application, enabling clients to apply for benefits from any computer with an Internet connection. Online tools for clients expanded to include an online screening tool, client account information, online chat with eligibility workers, electronic correspondence, and change-reporting functionality. In addition, the state replaced its legacy mainframe system with a modern, web-based, eligibility system, which was later enhanced with a workload prioritization feature. The new eligibility system is linked to both the online application and a data verification system.
Partnering with community organizations. Links to community partner organizations remain informal, but the state planned to develop stronger, more formal relationships with community partners to increase outreach to eligible households not participating in SNAP. In 2012, the SNAP agency introduced third-party access to the online system, which made it possible for community organizations and other client advocates to apply for benefits on behalf of clients and, depending on the level of authorization designated by a client, view details of the client’s account, report changes, or complete the online recertification form. The state provided training to some community organizations on the online system.
Policy simplifications. To facilitate the transition to the statewide virtual call center model, Utah obtained waivers from FNS to allow initial and recertification interviews to be conducted over the telephone for all clients and to waive interview scheduling requirements. Other policy changes include simplified reporting and a break-in-service policy, under which clients whose eligibility has lapsed for fewer than 30 days can be reinstated without submitting a new application. FNS also approved a waiver providing clients the option of receiving only electronic notices, rather than notices through the mail.
Measures of Performance
During the period of Utah’s comprehensive administrative and technological changes, outcome measures were generally positive. Costs dropped sharply when accounting for the caseload increases of 240 percent from July 2000 to December 2011. Payment error rates, a particular problem for Utah at the beginning of the study period, fell sharply and remained at or below the national average for the rest of the decade. Application processing timeliness was temporarily disrupted during the period of Utah’s most significant technological and administrative changes, which also occurred during the height of the economic downturn of 2008 and 2009, but quickly returned to normal levels. Clients and staff had generally positive opinions of the changes in Utah during the study period.
Washington
Three key goals motivated Washington’s SNAP modernization process: (1) to reform eligibility operations in preparation for the expected influx of cases following the 2008 economic downturn; (2) to decrease eligibility determination times, improve customer service, and reduce costs; and (3) to standardize operations across the state for both staff and clients. The economic downturn created conditions that made increasing the efficiency of eligibility operations imperative: caseloads rose rapidly, substantially increasing the department’s workload even as state budget pressures resulted in a staff hiring freeze and office closures.
Key Modernization Initiatives
Restructuring of administrative functions. Washington shifted away from the traditional caseworker model to a process-based model. Responsibility for processing changes and answering client questions was consolidated into a single statewide virtual call center, most recertification reviews were assigned to three regional teams, and document imaging was centralized at five hubs. Within local offices, staff teams rotate through a set of eligibility-determination tasks following standardized processes, including providing same-day service for clients who apply in person by 2:00 p.m. with all necessary verification documents. Responsibility for backlog work is shared by all staff across the state. The state also established two mobile offices that travel to remote locations.
Expanding uses of technology. The portability of work was facilitated by centralized document imaging, electronic case records, and a statewide workload management system. A single system houses imaged documents (in clients’ electronic case records) and contains workload management tools to assign work and monitor productivity. For clients, the state offered an online application and screening tool, and accounts that enable clients to check application status or benefit information, report changes, and recertify from any computer with Internet access.
Partnering with community organizations. The state developed a network of community partners to provide outreach and application assistance. All partners provided printed information about SNAP,
Partnering with community organizations. The state developed a network of community partners to provide outreach and application assistance. All partners provided printed information about SNAP,