direct verification november 29, 2007 presentation to school nutrition association
Post on 31-Dec-2015
216 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Direct Verification
November 29, 2007
Presentation to School Nutrition Association
What is Direct Verification?
• Using information from means-tested programs to verify school meal applications without contacting households
Authorized means-tested programs:
• Food Stamp Program (FS)
• Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
• Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations
• Medicaid (Title XIX)
• State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) (Title XXI)
Goals For the Evaluation
• Evaluate DV-M Implementation
Is it feasible?
What types of systems work?
What are the challenges and lessons?
• Evaluate DV-M Effectiveness
What percentage of school districts use DV-M?
What percentage of applications are directly verified?
What do districts think of this tool?
• Participating States: Indiana, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Washington [Georgia in 2007]
Direct Certification and Direct Verification
Direct Certification Direct Verification
When? Before/during 1st month of school (can be repeated)
After selecting verification sample (October 1)
Data source?
Food Stamp, TANF, FDPIR Food Stamp, TANF, Medicaid/SCHIP
Purpose? Certify without application (& exempt from verification)
Verify application without contacting household
Scale? LARGE – attempt to match all children
SMALL – attempt to match children in verification sample
Why Use Direct Verification with Medicaid (DV-M)?
Potential Benefits of Direct Verification
1. Reduce workload and hassle for school district staff
2. Reduce burden and intrusion on families selected for verification
3. Reduce number of non-respondents and rate of benefit termination for non-response
4. Improve program integrity by checking eligibility with programs that document income information
Advantages of Medicaid/SCHIP Data
1. Directly certified FS/TANF children are exempt from verification.
• Thus, few applications will be directly verified with FS/TANF data.
2. Medicaid/SCHIP income limit exceeds Food Stamp income limits
• Limit at or above NSLP-RP limit (185% FPL) in 46 States.
Number of States by Medicaid/SCHIP Eligibility Limits
14
46
0
10
20
30
40
50
<133% 133-184% >=185%
Medicaid/SCHIP income limit (%FPL)
Nu
mb
er o
f S
tate
s
How Does Direct Verification Work?
Guidelines for Direct Verification with Medicaid
• Timing of data
– Use latest available Medicaid/SCHIP information, no more than 180 days prior to NSLP application date*
• Matching program data to NSLP applications
– Use names and other identifiers of children listed on the NSLP application.
– If Medicaid income limit <133% FPL, a match verifies NSLP-free eligibility. Else, Medicaid info about family income and family size (or income as %FPL) verifies eligibility for NSLP-free or RP.
• Using match results
– Match one child on the NSLP application and all children on the application are verified.
* Or use data from the month prior to application through the month of verification.
Alternative Ways for States to Implement Direct Verification
1. Send Medicaid/SCHIP data to districts
2. Collect application data from districts and match at State level
3. Develop a “look-up system” on the State CN/Education website
4. Provide direct access to existing Medicaid/SCHIP program data system
Level of effort:#1 – Low effort for State#2 – Most work for State (year after year)#3 – Upfront investment, low maintenance cost#4 – Low effort for State if available (depends on existing infrastructure)
Tennessee – Send Medicaid Data to Districts
• State divided file of Medicaid children by county and posted Excel® files on secure website
• Districts downloaded data file from State website and searched manually
• Identifiers: SSN, name, DOB, guardian name, address
• Districts verified NSLP-free eligibility by matching children to Medicaid file
Oregon – Send Medicaid Data to Districts
• State provided statewide file of Medicaid children via secure e-mail
• Districts downloaded data file, opened with their own software—usually Excel®—and searched manually
• Identifiers: name, DOB, FS/TANF #, guardian name, address
• Districts verified free/reduced-price eligibility with family income and household size from Medicaid file
Washington – Send State-Level Match Results to Districts
• State matched Medicaid children with statewide student database by name and DOB, created F/RP indicator based on Medicaid information
• State created Excel® files for selected districts and sent via email (web-based distribution planned for 2007)
• Districts searched manually and checked F/RP indicator
• Identifiers: name, DOB, gender, State student ID #, district student ID #, address, school code and name, Medicaid ID number
South Carolina – Collect NSLP application data from Districts and Match at State Level
• Districts created files of verification sample using State template
• State CN Agency collected disks from districts and sent file to Legislative Office of Research and Statistics (ORS)
• ORS matched verification sample data with Medicaid data by SSN, name, date of birth, etc.
• ORS sent verification sample files with match results to State CN Agency, which sent them to school districts
Indiana - Look-up System on State Website
• State provided form-based interface on secure website
• Query of FS, TANF and Medicaid Data (children eligible in July, August, September, or October)
• Districts login to website and search for individuals using:
– Student name & DOB (phonetic match)
– FS/TANF case #
– Parent/guardian name/SSN
• Search returned identifiers, F/RP status, reference number
Georgia - District Access to Existing Medicaid Data System
• Current Food Stamp/TANF/Medicaid eligibility data available via online inquiry system (“GO”)
• School districts obtained login and installed software to access GO system
• Query by child’s name, DOB (or age), and sex, or by case number, or parent’s SSN
• Case record indicated FS/TANF/Medicaid eligibility and listed case members
• Budget screen provided household income
1. Meet with State Medicaid AgencyDiscuss NSLP verification, direct verification, and data needs
2. Determine how DV-M system will workWhat Medicaid data to provide to districts and how; how to protect confidential data
3. Establish data-sharing agreementsSpecify data elements, formats, timing of exchange; define authority for exchange; provide assurances for protection of confidential data
4. Implement State-level processesDisseminate instructions and/or provide training to districts; prepare data; “go live” with website or by distributing data to districts; ongoing support
Implementation Process
1. Getting access to Medicaid data
Confidentiality issues in Indiana and South Carolina
2. Testing before going live
Income data gap found in Washington; incomplete file for State in Indiana
3. Making it easy for districts to use
Oregon file hard to use; batch matching helpful for large districts; include only the right amount of information
4. “Go live” by October 1
Districts need data and instructions before they start verification; State needs adequate lead time with room for delays
Implementation Challenges in 2006
Results of 2006-07 Survey of Districts
District Participation Varied Across States
27%
41%
100%
44%52%
63%68%
100%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Indiana (N=37)
Oregon (N=34)
Tennessee (N=17)
Washington (N=33)
Percent of all selected
Percent of respondents
Percent of Applications Directly Verified
Among Districts Using DV-M
18%14%
18%
3%
20%
10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Tennessee Washington
All applications
Free applications
RP applications
Most Districts Found DV-M Easy
Was DV-M easy?
78%
56%
91%
67%
7%
9%22%
37%23%
10%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Indiana Oregon Tennessee Washington
Easy or very easy Indifferent Difficult or very difficult
Mixed Ratings on Usefulness of DV-M
Was DV-M useful?
25%37% 35%
62%5%
15% 26%
11%70%
48%39%
27%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Indiana Oregon Tennessee Washington
Useful or very useful Indifferent Not useful
Most Districts Expected to Use DV-M in 2007
Will you use DV-M next year?
52% 50%70%
84%
14% 22%
16%35% 28% 30%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Indiana Oregon Tennessee Washington
Yes Maybe No
Verification Cost Per Application: All Districts
$1.70
$18.50 $18.00
$0
$4
$8
$12
$16
$20
All districts(N=79)
Direct verif ication Household verif ication Total
Verification Cost Per Application in Districts with Applications Directly Verified
$1.71
$19.31$18.39
$0
$4
$8
$12
$16
$20
DV used,#DV>0(N=56)
Direct verif ication Household verif ication Total
• States have demonstrated technically feasible approaches to DV-M
• Challenges for implementation are mainly on the “soft side”—negotiating agreements, promoting district participation, setting and keeping schedule
• If the State offers DV-M and makes it easy to use, school districts are likely to use it
• Substantial percentage of applications may be verified if data are timely and complete
• Effectiveness of DV-M is primarily influenced by district participation and Medicaid income limits
• When DV-M is effective, it can save time for districts
Summary
Slides for Q&A
• Direct verification time/cost includes:
– Reading instructions and orienting to new process
– Accessing system to download data or search
– Searching for students listed on NSLP applications selected for verification
– Documenting results
• Household verification time/cost includes:
– Sending initial letters to households
– Answering queries from households
– Processing household documents, determining eligibility, and following up if documents are incomplete
– At least one follow-up contact with nonresponders
Time and Cost of Verification Activities - Definitions
Minutes Per Application: Direct Verification Saves Time When It Works
6 6
78
54
78
54
4
90
36
84
42
0
20
40
60
80
100
All districts(N=79)
DV not used(N=8)
DV used,#DV=0(N=15)
DV used,#DV>0(N=56)
DirectVerif.
Householdverification
Total
top related