Direct Verification

1. Direct Verification Presentation to School Nutrition Association November 29, 2007

2. 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)

3. 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]

4. Direct Certification and Direct Verification

5. Why Use Direct Verification with Medicaid (DV-M)?

6. Potential Benefits of Direct Verification • Reduce workload and hassle for school district staff • Reduce burden and intrusion on families selected for verification • Reduce number of non-respondents and rate of benefit termination for non-response • Improve program integrity by checking eligibility with programs that document income information

7. Advantages of Medicaid/SCHIP Data • Directly certified FS/TANF children are exempt from verification. • Thus, few applications will be directly verified with FS/TANF data. • Medicaid/SCHIP income limit exceeds Food Stamp income limits • Limit at or above NSLP-RP limit (185% FPL) in 46 States.

8. Number of States by Medicaid/SCHIP Eligibility Limits Number of States Medicaid/SCHIP income limit (%FPL)

9. How Does Direct Verification Work?

10. 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.

11. Alternative Ways for States to Implement Direct Verification • Send Medicaid/SCHIP data to districts • Collect application data from districts and match at State level • Develop a “look-up system” on the State CN/Education website • 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)

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. Implementation Process • Meet with State Medicaid Agency Discuss NSLP verification, direct verification, and data needs • Determine how DV-M system will work What Medicaid data to provide to districts and how; how to protect confidential data • Establish data-sharing agreements Specify data elements, formats, timing of exchange; define authority for exchange; provide assurances for protection of confidential data • Implement State-level processes Disseminate instructions and/or provide training to districts; prepare data; “go live” with website or by distributing data to districts; ongoing support

19. Implementation Challenges in 2006 • Getting access to Medicaid data Confidentiality issues in Indiana and South Carolina • Testing before going live Income data gap found in Washington; incomplete file for State in Indiana • 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 • “Go live” by October 1 Districts need data and instructions before they start verification; State needs adequate lead time with room for delays

20. Results of 2006-07 Survey of Districts

21. District Participation Varied Across States

22. Percent of Applications Directly Verified

23. Most Districts Found DV-M Easy

24. Mixed Ratings on Usefulness of DV-M

25. Most Districts Expected to Use DV-M in 2007

26. Verification Cost Per Application: All Districts

27. Verification Cost Per Application in Districts with Applications Directly Verified

28. Summary • 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

30. Slides for Q&A

31. Time and Cost of Verification Activities - Definitions • 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

32. Minutes Per Application: Direct Verification Saves Time When It Works