|
Case
Study of National School Lunch Program
Verification Outcomes in Large
Metropolitan
School Districts
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
The
National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and
the School Breakfast Program (SBP)
provide federal financial assistance and
commodities to schools serving lunches
and breakfasts that meet required
nutrition standards. Under the NSLP and
the SBP, millions of American students
receive a free or reduced-price lunch
and/or breakfast every school day.
Concern
has grown recently that many students
who participate in the program may in
fact be ineligible for the benefits they
receive. School Food Authorities (SFAs)
that operate the NSLP must verify the
eligibility of a small sample of
approved applications by requiring
documentation of income or receipt of
food stamps or cash assistance. The
verification process is designed to
identify and deter errors in each
district. However, the system does not
provide data on the accuracy of benefit
determination nationwide.
This
report presents the results of a case
study of verification in 21 large
metropolitan SFAs around the country.
The study examined outcomes of the
verification process and made an
independent assessment of income
eligibility of households with specific
verification outcomes using data from
in-person interviews with families.
CASE
STUDY OBJECTIVES
The
study had the following three
objectives:
-
Assess
outcomes of the verification
process. Determine the
number and percentage of verified
applications that fall into various
categories defined by combinations
of preverification status and
postverification status.
-
Verify
incomes of nonresponding households.
Independently determine the income
level of households who were
initially approved on the basis of
income provided on an application
(were not categorically eligible),
were selected for verification, and
did not respond to SFA requests for
documentation of their income.
-
Verify
incomes of households with no change
in benefits. Independently
determine the income level of
households who were initially
approved on the basis of income,
were selected for verification, and
whose benefit levels were unchanged
as a result of the verification
process.
Under
the first objective, the study provides
data on the proportions of verified
households for whom verification results
in no change in benefits, in reduction
or termination of benefits due to
information provided, in an increase of
benefits due to information provided, or
in no response to the verification
request, in which circumstance the SFA
is required to terminate benefits. Under
the second objective, the study provides
information on the proportion of
nonresponding households with income
that would make them eligible if they
complied with the request for
verification. Under the third objective,
it provides a check on the accuracy of
the benefit determination conducted in
the verification process among
households that responded to the
verification request.
CASE
STUDY DESIGN
The
Case Study of Verification Outcomes in
Large Metropolitan School Districts used
a purposively selected sample of 21
large districts in seven metropolitan
areas. Food and Nutrition Service
regional office staff recruited two to
four SFAs in each of seven metropolitan
areas (Boston, Massachusetts; Orlando,
Florida; Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport
News, Virginia; Los Angeles, California;
Salt Lake City, Utah; Tulsa, Oklahoma;
and Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota). In
each SFA, the study reviewed the
verification outcomes of all cases
selected for verification during fall
2002.
We
conducted in-home interviews with 632
households who did not respond to the
district’s verification request and
with 532 households who had no change in
benefits due to verification. The
interview methodology was similar to
that used in the Evaluation of the NSLP
Application/Verification Pilot Projects.
Interviews were conducted in February
and March 2003. These interviews
obtained data on household membership
and income in the month before the
interview (January or February 2003). A
limitation of comparing the results of
the verification process and the
household interviews is that the two
measures of household circumstances are
made at different times two to three
months apart. As a result, changes in
circumstances during the intervening two
to three months may contribute to
differences in household eligibility as
assessed at verification and through the
study survey.
The
study also collected information on
whether individuals who were
nonresponders to verification had
reapplied and been reapproved for
benefits by March 1, 2003. For the
nonresponders selected for in-home
interviews, data were collected on
household size and income as reported on
the new application.
The
analysis of nonresponders to
verification and cases with no change in
benefits due to verification included
households who had initially been
approved on the basis of income and
household size. This analysis excluded
cases initially approved as
categorically eligible based on the
household providing a Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families, Food
Stamp Program, or Food Distribution
Program for Indian Reservations case
number.
It
is important to emphasize that the
verification system and the information
derived from it presented in this report
are not designed to provide information
on the accuracy of benefit determination
in individual districts or nationwide.
Instead, the system is designed to
identify and deter certification errors
in each district. To this end, federal
regulations allow districts to target
their verification efforts to specific
groups of cases whose circumstances are
such that the case has a higher
likelihood of being ineligible for the
benefit it receives. Nearly half the
districts included in this case study
use such focused sampling to select
cases for verification. This district
decision very likely leads to a greater
incidence of ineligibility in the
verification sample than would be found
if all approved cases had the same
chance of being selected for
verification.
Because
of this feature of the verification
process, caution must be used in drawing
conclusions from the case study about
underlying rates of certification
inaccuracy in the participating
districts.
CASE
STUDY FINDINGS
Outcomes
of Verification
On
average across the districts, half of
households selected for verification did
not respond to the request for
verification. The review of
verification records indicated that:
-
50
percent responded to the request for
verification by the December 15,
2002, deadline, and 50 percent did
not.
-
Among
the 50 percent who responded:
- 32 percent had no change in their
benefit.
- 1 percent had their benefit
increased from reduced-price to
free.
- 9 percent had their benefit
reduced from free to reduced-price.
- 8 percent had their benefit
terminated (changed from free or
reduced-price to paid status).
Approximately
13 percent of all households verified
were categorically eligible, and 87
percent were approved on the basis of
income. Categorically eligible
households were less likely to have
their benefits reduced or terminated and
more likely to have had no change in
benefits.
The
percentage of households selected for
verification who did not respond to the
verification request was larger in
districts using focused sampling, and
the percentage with no change was
smaller. Nonresponding cases were 56.0
percent of cases in focused-sampling
districts and 45.3 percent in
random-sampling districts. No-change
cases were 23.1 and 39.5 percent of the
total in focused- and random-sampling
districts, respectively.
About
one-fourth of households approved on the
basis of income who did not respond to
verification had been reapproved for
free or reduced-price meal benefits by
March 1, 2003. Since households
approved on the basis of income who did
not respond made up 47 percent of cases
verified, the nonresponders who were
reapproved made up 12 percent of all
verified cases.
Income
Eligibility of Nonresponders
Just
over one-half of nonresponder households
were eligible for at least the benefit
they had been receiving prior to
verification.
-
Among
nonrespondents who had been approved
for free meals:
- 51 percent were eligible for free
meals.
- 26 percent were eligible for
reduced-price meals.
- 23 percent were not eligible for
either free or reduced-price meals.
-
Among
nonrespondents who had been approved
for reduced-price meals:
- 23 percent were eligible for
reduced-price meals.
- 31 percent were eligible for free
meals.
- 46 percent were not eligible for
either free or reduced-price meals.
In
random-sampling districts, 55.8 percent
of nonresponders were eligible for at
least the benefit they were initially
approved to receive. In focused-sampling
districts, 49.1 percent were eligible
for this level of benefit.
More
than three-fourths of the nonresponding
households who were reapproved by March
1, 2003, were eligible for at least the
benefit for which they had been
reapproved. Among reapproved
households who completed the study
survey:
-
64
percent were eligible for exactly
the level of benefits for which they
had been reapproved.
-
14
percent were eligible for a higher
benefit than they had been
reapproved for.
-
22
percent were not eligible for the
benefits they had been approved for.
Income
Eligibility of Households with No
Benefit Change
About
one-third of households whose benefits
were unchanged as a result of
verification were ineligible for their
approved benefit level two to three
months after completing the verification
process.
-
Among
free-approved students whose meal
price status was unchanged, the
study found that, as of
February/March 2003:
- 64 percent were eligible for free
meals.
- 27 percent were not eligible for
free meals but were eligible for
reduced-price
meals.
- 9 percent were not eligible for
either level of benefits.
-
Among
reduced-price approved students
whose meal price was unchanged, the
study found that, as of
February/March 2003:
- 42 percent were eligible for
reduced-price meal benefits.
- 25 percent were eligible for free
meal benefits.
- 33 percent were not eligible for
either level of benefits.
In
random-sampling districts, 30.1 percent
of no-change cases were not eligible for
the benefit they were receiving. In
focused-sampling districts, 39.2 percent
were not eligible.
A
part of the difference in the percentage
found eligible in the survey compared to
the verification process may be due to
changes in household circumstances.
Based on the nearly contemporaneous data
from the new applications of reapproved
cases and the study survey, we estimate
that as much as 30 to 40 percent of the
difference between the survey estimate
of income eligibility and the SFA’s
determination at the point of
verification may be due to changes in
household circumstances between the
period covered in documentation and the
period reported in the study’s survey.
Eliminating this part of the difference
suggests that approximately 20 percent
of those whose benefits were unchanged
in verification were ineligible for the
benefit they were receiving at the time
of verification.
Last modified: 12/04/2008
|
