Category: Advocacy

Concrete Solutions for Reducing CalFresh ‘Churn’

January 23, 2017

State leadership is needed to implement modern solutions.

In our previous posts, we detailed why CalFresh ‘churn’ is such a big deal – it’s destabilizing for people on the program, expensive for administrators, and all too common.

So what to do about it?

If you were going to create a renewal process for a service or subscription, how would you do it?  What user-friendly features would you include to ensure that everyone could complete the process without lapsing and losing services?

Maybe you would use text and email reminders, instead of snail mail. Even better, put it all online, where all subscribers have to do is indicate if anything has changed since their last renewal. In an ideal world, everything would be done over the phone or online at the subscriber’s convenience. Frankly, in the modern world, none of this is too much to expect.

Unfortunately, the CalFresh renewal process is nothing like this. Clients typically get one letter by mail telling them their deadline for renewal is imminent, but the letter is difficult to understand and the requirements (submitting documents and completing an interview with county staff) are designed for the convenience of the county office, not the person in need of assistance. Not surprisingly, statewide 31% of people with a CalFresh recertification due don’t complete the process successfully. (Read our last blog post about how recertification works).

We have been digging in on this issue and have identified some common-sense solutions. Below are our top recommendations – and the research to support them — to make renewal more modern and user-friendly. We recommend that the state of California and counties work together to implement them.

  • Modernize the process for interview scheduling: ‘Modernizing the CalFresh User Experience’
    • Allow clients to schedule their own interviews for times that work for them – rather than the county assigning pre-determined interview times. Or, even better:
    • Offer ‘on-demand interviews’ so that clients can simply call the county phone number during regular business hours, and ask for an interview over the phone in that moment. This would eliminate scheduling challenges entirely.
  • Modernize communication methods between clients and the county:
  • Make it all user-friendly and intuitive:
    • Simplify bureaucratic forms, so that paperwork is always clear and easy to understand. Social and Behavioral Sciences Team of the Executive Office of the President, 2016 Annual Report

At the end of the day, we know that what gets measured gets done. So, we took county-level churn data and analyzed it over time, to help us see where there are successes and where they may be trends. Tableau visualizations of churn data by county.

The State should be doing the same thing. The problem is, the state doesn’t have the best data, and it has to rely on county-generated reports – with no way to verify or check their accuracy. At a minimum, the state should:

  • Collect monthly churn data reports from counties, that highlight certain important churn metrics. CDSS (California Department of Social Services) is developing the report format right now, and we have already made recommendations about what should be included. ‘Measuring Churn‘
  • Collect the raw, full data set every quarter – not just a selective monthly report. In order to fix churn statewide, the state needs the raw data and the opportunity to analyze it on a deeper level.
  • Offer technical assistance to counties to implement and assess the effectiveness of churn reduction strategies, starting with simplifying and streamlining the interview scheduling system, modernizing how clients receive reminders, and implementing telephonic signature options.

If the State takes the lead on implementing modern solutions and improves its collection and analysis of churn data, we know we’ll move the needle.

In case you missed them, here are the other posts in this blog series about CalFresh churn:

Post #1: CalFresh ‘Churn’ Means More Missing Meals in SF and Marin

Post #2: The Steep Cost of CalFresh ‘Churn’

Post #3: CalFresh ‘Churn’ Fueled by Outdated, Inadequate Processes

CalFresh ‘Churn’ Fueled by Outdated, Inadequate Processes

January 3, 2017

We need strong state leadership on churn in order to boost CalFresh participation rates for all counties.

We have all experienced the chore of renewing annual memberships or subscriptions. Sometimes it’s easy: you get a reminder email, you log in and update your account, and you receive confirmation that everything is settled.

But sometimes it’s not: an inconspicuous notice gets buried in the mail, or the turnaround is tight and you have to hunt for the necessary documents. Sometimes the notice is incomprehensible, and you don’t realize that you’re about to lose services. Maybe you tried to call, but customer service is only open when you’re at work, or the length of the call queue is interminable. Before you know it, the deadline has passed, and you’ve lapsed.

Unfortunately for CalFresh recipients, the program’s twice-yearly reporting and annual recertification requirements are a recipe for churn, causing them to miss out on important food benefits. At every step of the way, outdated and user-unfriendly processes make it harder than it should be to stay enrolled.

To recertify every year, a CalFresh recipient must (1) complete and mail a paper form to the county office; (2) re-submit documents verifying household income and expenses and any changed circumstances; and (3) complete an interview with a county worker.

A typical experience goes more like this: [1]

  • One paper notice is sent by postal mail, alerting the client that their recertification is due. (Email is not an option, even though everyone – even security-minded banks and health care providers – uses email because it’s more reliable and efficient.)
  • The notice is written in bureaucratic language that is at best confusing and at worst, nonsensical. Sometimes the notice is sent in the wrong language.
  • In this notice, the county assigns a mandatory interview date and time without any input from the client. Unsurprisingly, the time often does not work with participants’ schedules; most CalFresh recipients work, and the office is not open outside regular business hours. (Imagine your next doctor’s appointment being assigned to you by the doctor’s office, without consideration of your schedule.)
  • Sometimes the interview date has already passed by the time a notice is received.
  • If any of this is unclear or the assigned interview time requires a change, participants may have to start a long game of phone tag, during which time their benefits expire.
  • Further, if a client’s address changed in the last year, or if mail delivery is unreliable, participants may not receive any notices in the mail at all – in which case, they discover they have lost benefits while trying to buy food.

Churn is a problem across California, despite widespread recognition that it is destabilizing for participants. While some counties are making efforts to tinker with their processes within existing Federal and State requirements, true change will come from efforts to dramatically streamline and modernize those requirements. Without state leadership to identify and require effective consumer-centered policies and protocols, churn will continue to be a drag on California’s CalFresh participation rate.

When critical food benefits are at stake, a smooth renewal process can make all the difference. In our next blog post, we will explore how better churn data collection at the county level could help to uncover ideas for successful solutions, and how the State can help counties to adopt practices and procedures that are known to work. Stay tuned!

In case you missed them, here are the first two posts in this blog series about CalFresh churn:

Post #1: CalFresh ‘Churn’ Means More Missing Meals in SF and Marin

Post #2: The Steep Cost of CalFresh ‘Churn’

[1] Deep research in Contra Costa County found that all of these problems and more combine to create churn. ‘Using Data to Address and Diagnose Churn’ (August, 2016) PowerPoint presentation given to the CalFresh Learning Collaborative: http://calfreshlearningcollaborative.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/webinar-8252016.pdf

Food Safety Net Remains Intact

December 15, 2016

Many of our partners, colleagues, and clients have expressed concerns that proposed changes by the incoming federal administration will change access to safety net programs – including food assistance — that so many in our community depend on.

On November 21st, 2016, the City and County of San Francisco released a statement affirming that at this time, there are absolutely no changes to any of the vital programs administered by the SF Human Services Agency, including CalFresh and Medi-Cal. Marin County released a similar letter on December 6th, affirming its commitment to serving all residents of Marin through these vital programs.

Read the full statement from Trent Rhorer, Executive Director of SF-HSA .
Read the full statement from Grant Colfax, Director of Marin-HHS.

In the coming months and years, we may call on our community to join us in protecting these crucial programs. For now, the San Francisco Human Services Agency, the Marin County Department of Health and Human Services, and the San Francisco-Marin Food Bank remain open for business as usual.

Additionally, San Francisco has affirmed that it will remain a Sanctuary City, meaning that law enforcement will not assist in the deportation of undocumented immigrants. As always, receiving CalFresh and/or Medi-Cal will not impact anyone’s immigration status or future prospects for gaining permanent legal status. Marin County also passed a resolution on December 13th, expressing the County’s commitment to protecting the rights, freedoms and interests of all members of Marin County.

The California Department of Social Services (CDSS) has also released this All-County Information Notice instructing all California counties to assure low-income immigrants that receipt of CalFresh nutrition benefits, or other programs that do not give cash, will not impact their immigration status.

For more information about receiving CalFresh and Medi-Cal as an immigrant, click here: English/Español/中文/Tiếng Việt/русский.

The Steep Cost of CalFresh ‘Churn’

December 15, 2016

Up to $1.16 million lost each year in SF and Marin due to CalFresh ‘recertification churn’

CalFresh recertification churn hurts far too many of our most vulnerable neighbors.  Collectively, they are losing out on thousands of dollars of food assistance:  we estimate that in San Francisco and Marin, upwards of $96,503 in CalFresh dollars are lost by participants each month due to recertification churn.[1]  Recertification churn happens when households do not complete the recertification process (“RRR”) at the one-year mark, only to re-enroll in benefits within 3 months.

In a year, that’s $1.16 million in CalFresh dollars.  When we look at the potential impact on our local economy, the number is even greater – $2 million in lost economic activity over the course of a year.[2] This report found that the administrative costs of recertification were anywhere from 1/2 to 1/3 the costs of processing an initial application. If it takes only 5 minutes more to complete the new applications compared to processing the recertification for those that reapply within 30 days, the added workload would be 100 hours per month.

For neighbors who are struggling to make ends meet, staying enrolled in CalFresh can be a big challenge. In San Francisco County, 25% of people with an RRR due fail to complete it and do not receive benefits the next month. In Marin County, that number is much higher, at 41%.

When counting the losses as missed meals, the numbers are even more alarming. Taking only those cases that reapplied within 30 days and calculating the loss of CalFresh benefits for them at the average benefit rate, San Francisco and Marin are missing out on about 32,000 meals per month. Over a year, that’s almost 400,000 meals.[3]

Two counties that appear to be doing a good job of keeping people continuously enrolled on CalFresh through their RRR process are Tulare and Fresno. In both counties, about 85% of households that have an RRR due are still receiving benefits the following month, compared to 59% and 75% in Marin and San Francisco respectively.

Next week, we will explore why churn is so common and what aspects of the recertification process make it so easy to fall off.

In case you missed it, learn the basics about CalFresh Churn in last week’s blog post.

 

[1] These estimates assume that each household that did not receive benefits in the month following their recertification but then reapplied within 30 days lost a month’s worth of CalFresh benefits at the average benefit level for that county. Those that reapplied in 60 or 90 days are not included in this calculation.

[2] California Food Policy Advocates, ‘Lost Dollars, Empty Plates’ (2014)

[3] It is worth noting that benefits lost due to churn following semi-annual reporting are not captured here.

 

CalFresh ‘Churn’ Means More Missing Meals in SF and Marin

December 1, 2016

CalFresh – known nationally as SNAP and formerly as ‘food stamps’ – is a cornerstone of our food safety net in California. Almost 4.5 million people participate in CalFresh statewide, and more than 60,000[1] people participate in San Francisco and Marin combined. CalFresh participants receive an “EBT card” – which functions like a debit card that gets replenished with CalFresh benefits each month; participants then use CalFresh benefits to buy food in grocery stores and farmers’ markets.

Unfortunately, CalFresh churn is a big problem among many recipients.

Churn is when an eligible recipient unexpectedly loses CalFresh benefits, usually because of missed reporting requirements, only to re-enroll within one to three months.

In order to stay on benefits, CalFresh households must report eligibility information periodically. At six months after initial application, participants must notify the county of any household circumstances that have changed through a form called a SAR 7; at one year, they must re-verify all household information and complete an interview. The idea is that household circumstances sometimes change, and having a regularly scheduled time when participants submit documents and verifications ensures their status with CalFresh remains accurate.

But in practice, many households suddenly find themselves with an empty EBT card, unable to buy groceries. Imagine standing at a grocery check-out counter, only to find that your debit card unexpectedly had a $0 balance? What would that mean for feeding your family and paying the rest of your bills that month?

An interruption in CalFresh benefits, even for a month, can have real, damaging consequences for a family that is living on the edge of financial stability. For example, a household with the average CalFresh benefit of $304 per month would lose about 100 meals during the month when benefits are interrupted.

Statewide, one in five Calfresh applications received is from someone who was on CalFresh in the last 90 days.

Why does this happen? Confusion about the semi-annual reporting process, difficult-to-read letters from the county, language barriers, a missed interview, or a recent change in address or phone number can all result in benefits being terminated. It is not difficult to imagine a situation in which a busy family with multiple jobs, hectic schedules of school and childcare, combined with the stress of paying bills and keeping household paperwork in order, could end up missing CalFresh deadlines. Once benefits have been lost, households sometimes have to reapply for benefits all over again.

In addition to hurting recipients, CalFresh churn is inefficient and troublesome for county administrators. Instead of helping new clients enroll or improving the program overall, workers spend valuable time completing new applications for cases which should never have been discontinued in the first place.

We estimate that in San Francisco and Marin, $280,000 in CalFresh money are lost each month due to churn.

Over the next month, the Food Bank Advocacy Team will share a series of blog posts about CalFresh churn. Next week, we will dive into our county-level data in San Francisco and Marin. In subsequent weeks, we will explore more specifically what causes churn, and provide recommendations to diagnose churn and implement effective solutions.

Join us as we explore this topic!

 

[1] DFA 256 Report, August 2016: http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/research/PG352.htm
[2] CDSS CalFresh Household Profile, FFY, 2014: http://www.calfresh.ca.gov/PG844.htm

Post-election 2016 | We’re in this together

November 17, 2016

A message from Executive Director Paul Ash

This year’s election has shaken many of us, regardless of our political beliefs. While we don’t yet know what changes will come from this new administration, it will be more important than ever to keep safety net services in place for the most vulnerable in our community.

The Food Bank team continues to move forward with hope and determination. We remain committed to ensuring that those in need have a place to turn for food, and always will.

Today, neighbors in our community received enough nutritious food for 100,000 meals. Tomorrow, we’ll do it again. Now, as always, we are so grateful for you – our loyal supporters – and your unwavering commitment to continuing the important work of providing food for all.

We’d love to hear your thoughts, questions or concerns during this time. Please, share your comments below.

The Food Bank says no to donated soda, votes YES on beverage tax

August 29, 2016

In 2014, the San Francisco-Marin Food Bank officially drove out the last can of soda from our inventory. For the past decade, we have steadily reduced the amount of soda we receive.

Readers may wonder how soda ever found its way into the Food Bank inventory. Rest assured, food drive participants weren’t placing two-liters in the collection bins. Soda comes to food banks by way of mixed truckloads donated by food manufacturers and other food banks. For instance, two pallets of soda might be stacked in the back of an 18-wheeler of donated cereal.

Limited options and new resources

In the late ‘80s, our ability to source food – any food – was very limited, and we filled our small warehouse with whatever the market would bear. We reasoned that people were hungry and they could use the calories, even if the nutritional content of the donated product wouldn’t make a doctor proud. And the market offered us plenty of processed snacks – and sugary beverages.But over time, our priorities have shifted. The Food Bank is no longer a source of emergency food but a source of weekly nutrition for our city’s most vulnerable residents. It’s up to us, at the Food Bank, to not only provide food, but provide healthy food to the people we serve. Accordingly, more than 60 percent of our current distribution is fresh fruits and vegetables.

“In just about all of our communities now, we have pockets of need,” Bacho said.

The cost to public health

Everything has a cost, even donated soda. There’s a cost for storing product and a cost for delivering it to our pantries. Making room for a pallet of soda in our warehouse reduces the storage space available for healthier foods. But most importantly, while soda and snacks may enter our inventory as a free donation, there are long-term costs to our program participants’ health that far exceed any temporary infusion of calories.

We’ve learned from public health experts to pay attention to that cost. These days, we know all too well that low-income households are surrounded by unhealthy food choices and struggle to afford more nutritious options. Some live in food deserts, places where potato chips are the freshest vegetable to be found. For others, their budgets severely limit their food selection to choices that produce the most calories for the fewest dollars.

“You’d think you’d see it all the time, but you don’t,” said Goldie Pyka, spokeswoman for the Food Bank. “You pass someone on the street, they don’t wear T-shirts saying they are hungry. But they are. And there are so many different types of people in need.”

If our participants pay the price with their health, there’s no such thing as free soda

Ending hunger is about more than making sure people have enough calories.

The sugary beverage tax measure is expected to decrease consumption of sugary beverages between 20 to 31 percent and generate revenue of about $35-54 million a year. This revenue is intended to fund programs that restore community health. Some dollars will be used to provide healthy food to low-income San Franciscans. Other revenues will fund local improvements in school nutrition, nutritional education and recreational opportunities.

The Food Bank is passionate about increasing access to healthy food and nutrition education, and we support policy efforts to discourage consumption of sugary beverages. The Food Bank votes “yes” on the proposed soda tax.