for peer review - wordpress.com · 2015-02-26 · for peer review nonprofit strategies to connect...

For Peer Review

Nonprofit Strategies to Connect Immigrants to Social

Services

Journal: The American Review of Public Administration

Manuscript ID: ARPA-15-OM-005

Manuscript Type: Original Manuscripts

Topic Codes:

03.State Public Administration/Governance, 04.Local and Urban Public Administration/Governance, 25.Gender and/or Minority Issues, 37.Public Private Interfaces/ Partnerships, 75.Welfare Policy, 70.Public Policy, generally

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/arpa

The American Review of Public Administration

For Peer Review

Nonprofit Strategies to Connect Immigrants to Social Services

1


The American population is becoming even more diverse and social service provision is

changing in ways that create barriers to participation for some population groups. This paper

describes how one type of nonprofit organization connects immigrant groups to public services.

Specifically, this paper analyzes the actions of food bank staff conducting outreach for the

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to immigrant populations. Using qualitative

data with 48 key informants from across the U.S., we describe a range of strategies that food

bank outreach workers use to connect immigrants to SNAP including having accurate knowledge

of multiple programs and policies; offering clear information to clients; giving assistance in a

convenient and safe environment and bridging gaps in language ability and computer literacy.

Given the changing clientele of social service agencies across the country, these findings will be

of interest for practitioners and researchers working in social policy fields as well as immigration

researchers.

Keywords: SNAP, immigration, social services, non-citizen, food bank, nonprofit

Page 1 of 27



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


2


The United States is a country of immigrants, one of the most demographically diverse

countries in the world. Currently, most foreign-born immigrants come from lower income

countries and are poorer and younger than the aging white American population (Lichter 2013;

Raphael & Smolenksy 2009). Immigrants in the United States historically settled in traditional

immigrant destinations with an established service infrastructure to assist newcomers as needed

(Marrow 2009; Singer 2013). More recently, however, newcomers settle in a variety of rural,

urban and suburban areas across the United States; including areas without a history of

immigrant settlement (Allard & Roth 2010; Donato et al. 2008; Lattanzi Shutika 2008; Marrow

2008, 2009; Massey & Capoferro 2008; Potochnick & Perreira 2007; Singer 2013). There is also

a growing share of mixed-status immigrant families, where one or more family member may

have citizenship or legal status and others may not. As a consequence, immigrants are more

likely now than ever to need to navigate a social service delivery system that was not designed

with them in mind.

While the demographic characteristics of the low-income population in America is

changing, social service delivery is shifting also. There has been a recent push towards

modernized delivery systems in programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance

Program (SNAP) which is fueled primarily by efficiency and cost-saving concerns, as opposed to

client need (Rowe et al. 2010). Modernized SNAP systems replace the caseworker model with

one involving on-line application systems, call centers, and a less individualized approach (Rowe

et al. 2010). These application procedures are likely to be less accessible to populations who

have difficulties with computer literacy, English language proficiency, and fear of contact with

the government. This may increase barriers for immigrant groups who already have distinct

Page 2 of 27



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


3

challenges accessing SNAP services and who utilize SNAP benefits at lower rates than citizen

populations (Fix, Capps, & Kaushal 2009; Fix & Passel 2002; Fortuny & Chaudry 2011; Padilla,

Scott, & Lopez 2014; Skinner 2011, 2012; Van Hook & Stamper Balistreri 2006; Zimmerman &

Tumlin 1999).

This paper describes the role of nonprofit intermediaries as a bridge connecting

immigrant groups, foreign-born citizens and non-citizens, to social services. Specifically, we

detail the actions of food bank outreach staff to connect immigrant populations to SNAP. Based

on our analysis of 48 qualitative interviews, we describe the main features of SNAP outreach to

immigrant populations. To begin, we provide information related to SNAP eligibility,

participation rates, and local service provision. Next, we describe the qualitative methods used

for data collection and our analytic method. In the results section, we present key findings that

emerged from our analysis: SNAP food bank outreach workers have knowledge of multiple

policies; offer clear information to clients; give assistance in a convenient and safe environment

and bridge gaps in language ability and computer literacy. In the conclusion, we discuss the

implications of these findings for local government officials and social service providers.

SNAP Background

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is one of the country’s largest

public assistance programs. SNAP is a means tested federal program that provides households

with benefits accessed through an electronic debit card that can be used for food purchases. To

be eligible, households must either have gross incomes that are less than 130 percent of the U.S.

poverty level (approximately $2,500 per month for a family of four) or be categorically eligible

through participation in other programs. Although details of eligibility and program

administration differ across states, the program’s basic structure and payment amounts are set

Page 3 of 27



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


4

federally and benefits are reduced by $0.30 for each dollar of net income. A family of four with

no income, for example, would be eligible for a monthly SNAP benefit payment of $632 as of

November 2013.

In January 2014, 46.5 million individuals participated in SNAP across the country

(USDA 2014a). The 2014 level of participation has decreased since the historic high of 47.8

million individuals in December 2012, but current use is still higher than October 2010 levels of

43.2 million individuals and pre-recession participation of 21 million in 2003 (USDA 2014a).

The growth in SNAP caseloads triggered by the Great Recession has received much media and

political attention. The growth reflects both the expanded population eligible for benefits due to

local employment conditions and also changes in formal eligibility rules. As a result there was a

nearly 20 percentage point increase in the participation rate among the population eligible for

benefits (Ganong & Liebman 2013). The gap between SNAP participation among eligible U.S.

citizen and non-citizen populations, however, has also grown. In 1995, immigrant SNAP

participation was 7.2 percentage points lower than citizen participation, but has grown over time

to a gap of 27.4 percentage points in 2012 (Eslami 2014; Rosso 2001), suggesting that

participation is not increasing for all groups equally. (See Table 1.)

One key driver for the increase in participation rates was the availability of funds for

SNAP agencies to partner with local organizations, such as food banks, to engage in education

and outreach activities, such as application assistance, expenses for local SNAP outreach can be

partially reimbursed (USDA 2014b). Both the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

and Feeding America have been active in leveraging partnerships for SNAP outreach with local

nonprofits, with varying levels of formality (USDA 2014b). Food banks in the Feeding America

Page 4 of 27



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


5

Network experienced an almost 100 percent increase in the number of member food banks

offering SNAP outreach and application assistance from 2009 to 2013 (citation omitted).

Although SNAP participation is at record high levels, obstacles to utilizing SNAP

benefits remain. Some barriers are similar for both citizens and non-citizens including: stigma,

misinformation, belief of ineligibility and costs of participation (transportation, time, phone and

cost of stamps) as well as long applications and limited locations for submitting applications or

completing the eligibility interviews (Allard & Roth 2010; Castner & Rosso 2000; Cunnyngham

2004; Daponte, Sanders & Taylor 1999; Dion & Pavetti 2000; Eslami 2014; Farson Gray &

Eslami 2014; Feeding America 2014; FRAC 2008; Leftin 2010; Mabli et al. 2010; Moffitt 1983;

Rosso 2001; Rosso & Faux 2003; U.S. GAO 1999; Wolkwitz & Trippe 2009). However, in

addition to the barriers listed above, non-citizens face specific obstacles that range from policy

constraints limiting their eligibility to general day-to-day challenges. Welfare reform in 1996

greatly limited immigrant access to SNAP, but with the 2002 Farm Bill eligibility was re-instated

(USDA 2007). Currently, qualified immigrants are eligible for SNAP benefits if they have been

legally present in the United States for at least five years, some groups, however are immediately

eligible (USDA 2011, 2012). Recently, the 2014 Farm Bill impacted SNAP outreach by limiting

marketing activities and outreach connected with foreign governments (i.e. at a foreign embassy

or consulate; Agricultural Act of 2014). In addition to policy restrictions, immigrants face

challenges such as mixed-family status; confusion about eligibility due to their immigration

status; fear regarding immigrant enforcement or how it may impact their immigration status;

difficulty obtaining a driver’s license in some states due to immigration status, adding to

transportation constraints; and a lack of bicultural or bilingual services, adding to constraints to

those who are mono-lingual or speak a nominal amount of English (Allard & Roth 2010; Dion &

Page 5 of 27



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


6

Pavetti 2000; Fix & Passel 2002; Fix, Capps, & Kaushal 2009; Fortuny & Chaudry 2011; FRAC

2008, 2011; Gorman et al. 2013; Martin et al. 2003; Skinner 2011; Zimmerman & Tumlin 1999).

In what follows, we present strategies used by nonprofit intermediaries to help immigrant

populations overcome barriers to participation and gain access to SNAP benefits. Specific

domains discussed below include addressing misinformation about the consequences of SNAP

participation, providing safe and convenient application assistance, providing services in many

languages and helping clients overcome computer literacy and access problems. This study is

unique in its focus on nonprofit intermediaries, food bank employees who do outreach for a

government nutrition assistance program, instead of the more traditional public management

focus on street level bureaucrats. Food bank employees have no authority in eligibility

determination and their relationship with the government is not always clear. Their role,

however, is critical for increasing access for certain population groups to formal government

social services.

Nonprofits have a long history of service delivery and complementary (i.e. government

partnership) or supplementary (i.e. providing a service government fails to supply) work with

government (Salamon 1995; Weisbrod 1977; Young 2000). The existing literature covers

theories of nonprofit involvement and advocacy of client groups, but does not largely cover

nonprofits’ role in bridging clients to government services (Austin 2003; Salamon 1995; Young

2000). This paper addresses an important gap in that literature. No research in the extant

literature, of which we are aware, provides a clear and detailed account of potential barriers to

social service participation for immigrant populations or documents the strategies taken by

nonprofit intermediaries to address these barriers.

Data and Method

Page 6 of 27



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


7

Sample Design

During the summer of 2013, 48 interviews were completed across six states (Arizona,

California, New York, Ohio, Texas, and Wisconsin) through a combination of telephone (42)

and in-person1 (6) interviews with staff from nine food banks. These sites were chosen as part of

a larger study directed by Feeding America.2 Respondents were selected due to their connection

to the SNAP outreach program within the food bank and included chief executive or operations

officers (4); SNAP outreach program directors (13); employees affiliated with SNAP advocacy

and education (5); and SNAP outreach staff (26).

Interviews followed a semi-structured guide with open-ended questions. Interviews

differed slightly depending on the interviewee’s position within the food bank (i.e. SNAP

outreach workers received slightly different questions than a food bank CEO/COO) but focused

on the interviewee’s main functions regarding SNAP outreach. Questions were designed to

document the SNAP program history at the food bank as well as detail how SNAP program

operations worked on the ground. Respondents were asked to describe perceived barriers specific

populations in the community had to SNAP participation and how they designed SNAP outreach

activities to reach these groups; immigrants were one of the specific populations discussed in

every interview.

Interviews lasted, on average, about forty-five minutes and ranged from thirty to seventy-

five minutes. All interviews were conducted in English, recorded and transcribed; verbatim

interview transcripts comprise the data for the results section. The coding process started from

preliminary topic areas that arose during interviews and from our initial conceptualization of the

interview guide. From there, we coded and analyzed the data and reviewed our findings,

consistent with the standard in the field (Creswell 2013; Patton 2002).

Page 7 of 27



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


8

In the results section below, we present findings that emerged from our analysis of

interview transcripts with SNAP outreach staff regarding their work with immigrant populations.

Our results are not generalizable but represent a range of approaches taken across the sites

studied. Our findings provide a description of existing gaps in formal services for immigrant

populations and how one nonprofit intermediary—food banks—worked to fill that gap.

Results

From our analysis of interview transcripts, we present our findings organized into four

main strategies food bank SNAP workers use to increase access to SNAP participation: 1)

Clarifying misinformation about SNAP participation; 2) Providing convenient and “safe” service

delivery; 3) Overcoming language barriers; and 4) Enhancing computer literacy and access.

After documenting each barrier, we present information on the variety of reported strategies to

link clients to services within each area.

1. Clarifying misinformation about SNAP participation

Since immigrant eligibility for SNAP depends on immigration status, dual program

knowledge is required to accurately advise and process applications. Misinformation regarding

both SNAP eligibility requirements and the implication for their immigrant status was reported

to be a widespread barrier to SNAP participation. SNAP outreach workers we interviewed

reported informing their clients that use of SNAP will not be reported to immigration and will

not impact their path to citizenship. Additionally, basic knowledge about SNAP was often

lacking. For example, it was sometimes erroneously believed that SNAP benefits would need to

be repaid by the recipient.

Page 8 of 27



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


9

Outreach workers corrected the misinformation in a number of ways. In several

locations, SNAP outreach staff offered confirmation that SNAP participation would not be

reported to immigration services by carrying a letter from the Department of Homeland Security.

“I actually went to the immigration website and I carry around a sheet from the INS that

shows that [SNAP] would not be ever counted as a public charge.”

The letter explains that SNAP participation does not impact immigration status nor prohibit the

recipient from applying for citizenship in the future. Outreach workers viewed this formal letter

as an important educational tool because it offers credibility—it is not just the SNAP outreach

worker’s word, but the government’s word. Clients had various reactions to the letter. Some

kept a copy for their personal files while others found it enough to have viewed the letter. As

another outreach worker explained,

“we have a great letter from Homeland Security, Department of Immigration Services

where they are saying, the actual bureau is saying, that receiving and applying for SNAP

is not gonna hurt their chances of becoming legal permanent [residents] or citizens. So

that letter is basically a tool that we use.”

SNAP outreach workers dispelled other myths about SNAP participation specific to

immigrant populations as well. It was reported that mixed-status families were often reluctant to

apply for SNAP benefits for citizen children because adults did not want to be asked about their

citizenship status. In at least one location, SNAP eligibility workers worked with clients to

prepare them for the eligibility interviewing, advising them to not answer questions that were not

legally required.

“When [government employees] ask [potential SNAP clients] do you have a Social

Security number or are you, what’s your status here? We teach them how to answer

Page 9 of 27



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


10

those questions. We say you’re only applying for your children, it’s not for you. It’s only

for them….that’s all you have to say because you have the right not to answer those

questions because …it’s only for [the kids], and they feel safe.”

Since many immigrants are employed as day laborers and seasonal workers, some with

and some without a work visa, documentation of income required for SNAP eligibility

determination was also cited as a barrier to participation. SNAP outreach workers reported

providing a clear format and one-on-one education to help clients learn to document their income

from day labor. One SNAP outreach worker described her instructions:

“we give them…a self-employment sheet where they can write, ‘Well, on this day, I

worked so and so and I cleaned her yard. They paid me $50.00.’ ‘On this day, I fixed

somebody’s lamp and they gave me $10.00, and here is her phone number.’”

Thus, nonprofit intermediaries used a variety of strategies to address the misinformation

in the immigrant community regarding the consequences of SNAP participation. Additionally,

SNAP outreach workers provided clear instructions for immigrants on how to negotiate the

application process, provide necessary documentation and answer questions during the eligibility

interview. In order to be successful, SNAP outreach workers need a high level of knowledge

regarding SNAP program rules and the ability to communicate with immigrant groups.

2. Providing convenient and “safe” service delivery

In the nine locations we studied, submitting a SNAP application usually required

interacting with the county or state SNAP eligibility workers at least once face-to-face or per

telephone during standard business hours where wait times for either service were reported to be

substantial. In addition, finger printing was still required in one location. According to our

Page 10 of 27



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


11

interviews, immigrants often feared contacting government employees directly and had difficulty

arranging transportation around work and family obligations.

Food bank SNAP outreach workers made the SNAP application process more accessible

by allowing the initial submission of the application and accompanying documentation to occur

off-site from official government offices during a variety of hours which included evenings and

weekends. Outreach strategies to immigrant communities varied across the locations we studied.

Some SNAP outreach workers reported conducting outreach activities in local libraries, while

others drove several hours to conduct outreach in rural communities, and still others worked with

community organizations targeting immigrant groups, such as the Mexican Consulate.

In addition to creating more convenient entry into the SNAP application system, the

manner in which services were provided was also felt to be important. Specifically, SNAP

outreach workers reported consciously trying to create a neutral, safe and respectful space. For

example, in cases where families lived in mixed-status situations, immigration status was not

discussed except in relation to those family members covered directly by SNAP benefits.

Offering outreach at a non-governmental neutral space, such as food distribution points, helps

those who qualify for benefits, but who also fear government contact.

“[We are] incredibly upfront at the beginning that this is a safe space for all people

and…our objective is to tell you about these programs…not to ask them any personal

information or anything else.”

Community partnerships helped some food banks gain access to hard to reach

populations, such as seasonal agricultural workers. In one location, the agricultural firm placed a

flyer from the food bank with SNAP eligibility and application information in the last paycheck

of the season. Other sites used collaborations with migrant worker organizations to get into

Page 11 of 27



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


12

contact with migrant workers and thus increase the accessibility of SNAP services. Working with

farms employing large numbers of seasonal workers, migrant worker organizations as well as

working with foreign embassies or consulates were cited as effective strategies to make SNAP

benefits accessible to immigrant populations.

SNAP outreach workers tailored their strategies to create safe and convenient services for

immigrants depending on the needs of their local populations. Some of the strategies, such as

conducting outreach at libraries or at food distribution sites, are not necessarily targeted

specifically at immigrants but could service many different populations at the same time. While

all populations benefit from the provision of social services in a safe and convenient manner,

food bank outreach staff interviewed clearly prioritized the needs of immigrant populations when

designing services.

3. Overcoming language barriers

Language is another aspect of the changing demography in the United States. There are

currently more than 381 different languages spoken in homes across the country and 20 percent

of Americans speak a language other than English at home (Ryan 2013). After English, Spanish

is the second most frequently spoken language in the United States followed by Chinese, with

37.6 and 2.8 million speakers respectively (Gonzalez-Barrera & Hugo Lopez 2013; Ryan 2013).

The USDA encourages local SNAP offices to be sensitive to language needs by trying to

accommodate clients with language barriers and to conduct outreach in languages other than

English (USDA 2014b).

It is perhaps no surprise then that language was often the first barrier to SNAP

participation for immigrant clients identified by SNAP outreach workers. Outreach staff

recognized the benefit of bi-lingual English-Spanish speaking employees as well as printing

Page 12 of 27



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


13

outreach and application materials in both English and Spanish, or other dominant languages in

their service area. Websites from all six states had SNAP benefit information available in both

English and Spanish, including a basic description of SNAP benefits and a link to start the

application process. Additionally, many food banks had a call-center hotline or customer support

center option to access multiple languages.

Locations in our study varied greatly in how they responded to language needs.

Responses ranged from requiring Spanish language for new hires, offering free language classes

to staff members, to trying to identify volunteers in the community with the needed language

skills. Other, less preferred methods, included using computer translation services or call-in

language lines.

“We as an organization have really needed to adapt to [the increase of Spanish speakers

in the community]. So basically when we hire at this point in time, if there’s gonna be

interaction with clients, the Spanish is necessary.”

“We have so many people here who took that [Spanish language] class so I think we

kind of hit that head on several years ago.”

Other locations preferred a candidate possessing the skill-set required over a Spanish-speaker.

One SNAP project coordinator’s rationale was that:

“Ideally we would have more Spanish speakers but then you get into the cost benefit and

I'm not going to sacrifice and hire somebody that’s bilingual just because they speak

Spanish…. ideally that is what I want, that is fantastic, but if I can find somebody that

just has the skills and they’re going to be able to serve more people but not speak

Spanish then that’s what I’ve got to go for.”

Page 13 of 27



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


14

The SNAP project coordinator went on to explain that previously she had job applicants that

could speak Spanish, but they were not qualified for the job and she was not willing to make that

kind of sacrifice again. She also explained that the number of Spanish-speakers in the food

bank’s service area was not very large. It is unknown, therefore, if she would have made the

same decision if this food bank had an influx of Spanish speaking clients in their service area as

the previous food bank did.

Other food banks identified the largest language group in their service area (after

English) and focused resources on that specific language instead of trying to reach all language

groups:

“right now our biggest challenge is our lack of Spanish speaking professional staff.…The

majority [of our clients] would be…50 percent Spanish speaking and the rest, well

probably 48 percent is gonna be English and the other would be a variety of Cantonese,

Chinese and Russian and Farsi.”

This outreach worker reasoned that focusing on the largest language group, Spanish, would be

more efficient than trying to focus on all language minorities within her food bank service area.

Another site noticed that they were underserving some populations within their service area. As a

consequence, the SNAP programming supervisor appeared on a local Chinese language talk

show and discussed various aspects of SNAP on television.

The need to provide social services in many languages besides English is a growing issue

in America. Given the high SNAP caseloads during and after the Great Recession and the

changing patterns of immigrant settlement, there has been a growing need for delivery of SNAP

application assistance in non-English languages that was filled, in part, by nonprofit

Page 14 of 27



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


15

intermediaries. The strategies and the languages served varied greatly by location, however, all

sites indicated that non-English service delivery was a growing concern for their organization.

4. Enhancing computer literacy and access

Obtaining information regarding SNAP eligibility and applying for benefits directly with

state or county agencies increasingly requires computer access and literacy. According to recent

research on SNAP, not only is program eligibility information universally available on-line on

state websites, but there are also prescreening tools available in 29 states to help individuals

determine their household eligibility and at least 33 states have direct links to on-line

applications that can be submitted on-line (Rowe et al. 2010). On-line and computer based

information models may create barriers to participation for clients who have difficulty navigating

computers or accessing the internet. [Citation Omitted] found that nine out of ten of their

Hispanic respondents in Florida had difficulty using a computer and accessing the online

application system. While their study of one state is not generalizable, it suggests that varying

levels of computer literacy may create difficulties for some immigrant groups and can be even

more challenging with English language barriers.

In other interviews, SNAP outreach staff worried that the digital divide was acting as a

barrier to SNAP while still acknowledging the advantages of a modernized system. One food

bank CEO acknowledged that outreach centers, such as those at food banks, could assist in

providing internet-assistance as online applications become more and more the norm.

“doing kiosk and online apps [applications] is a way to avoid both office visit and call

center waits, but there again you have all the digital divide issues…all those issues…for

families that maybe struggle with English…to have comfort with the online stuff.

So…we’re hopeful that there’s a way in which…they can get more kiosks and

Page 15 of 27



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


16

more…customer-friendly areas…like the food bank…and somehow kind of work through

that process.”

Our analysis of interview transcripts suggested that many SNAP outreach workers

worked with clients by walking through the application question by question and then filling in

the answers to the on-line application for them; a process that, for some, took many hours to

complete. Providing these services to immigrant populations, at least according to one site, could

be a niche for food bank SNAP workers:

“A lot of the people that we serve are monolingual, like only speak Spanish or only

speak Chinese. And that’s where we come in, because they maybe are not familiar with

the internet or don’t feel comfortable going to the office [county SNAP office]. The

problem seems overwhelming for them, so that’s the demographic I think that we most – I

guess that’s our niche.”

Web-based application systems are becoming the norm for SNAP service delivery in the

United States. As a consequence, many of the food bank SNAP outreach sites within this study

worked with web-based systems, although many reported having paper applications on hand if

necessary. While reports of difficulty with web-based systems were not limited to immigrant

populations (citation omitted; Mishra et al. 2014), access and computer literacy problems were

frequently cited as especially problematic for immigrants.

Discussion

We used data from 48 interviews with SNAP outreach workers from nine food banks in

six states to document the range of strategies used to connect eligible immigrant populations to

SNAP benefits including clarifying misinformation of SNAP eligibility and participation,

providing safe and convenient access to application assistance, addressing multifaceted

Page 16 of 27



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


17

approaches to overcome language barriers and computer literacy and access problems. Although

strategies cited by interviewees varied across food banks, it was apparent that the main goal was

to build trust within immigrant communities and with clients in general. All four components

cited were necessary to effectively work with immigrant populations, but the ability to

communicate in the language of the client was clearly key.

Limitations of this research should be noted. While 48 interviews over nine sites in six

states is not a small sample, the results are not intended to be generalizable. We offer our

findings instead as suggestive of the ranges of barriers to SNAP participation experienced by

immigrant groups and the strategies used by outreach workers to connect immigrants to SNAP.

Additionally, our study did not include client interviews so we do not know if immigrants

themselves would endorse our enumeration of barriers to participation or agree that the strategies

that we have highlighted are effective.

Nonetheless, there are several implications of this research that are worth noting. First, to

the extent the 2014 Farm Bill has placed limits on allowable outreach activities, such as

advertising or partnering with foreign consulates, this may limit access to information about

services as well as services for some groups eligible for benefits. Second, the American social

welfare delivery system has typically adopted a one-size fits all approach for all population

groups, even though states are allowed to devise their own application and eligibility

determination processes. Modernization (i.e. increased reliance on the internet and technology)

appears to be the direction state and county governments are headed in order to accommodate

current fiscal pressures and high local demand for services. We found that the increased

dependence on online services and information sources may create barriers to entry for non-

native English speaking immigrant populations. Finally, nonprofit organizations are a growing

Page 17 of 27



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


18

source of innovation in terms of bridging the needs of specialized populations and formal

governmental services. Exploring options for government services to link with nonprofit

organizations in both complementary and supplementary ways may provide a way to increase

access and participation for certain hard to reach populations.

While this study provides one look into the role of nonprofit intermediaries in connecting

immigrants with services, important research questions remain unanswered. In what ways are

other nonprofit groups connecting under-serviced populations to formal governmental services

such as SNAP? Is there evidence that the need for bridging services is growing with the

increased diversity of the low-income population? Answers to these and other related questions

will be critical to our understanding of growing barriers to participation in the social welfare

system.

Page 18 of 27



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


19

References

Please note: Two references have been omitted to maintain author anonymity.

Agricultural Act of 2014, H.R. 2642, 113th Congress. (2014). Retrieved from

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/2642.

Allard, S. W. & Roth, B. (2010). Strained Suburbs: The Social Service Challenges of Rising

Suburban Poverty. Metropolitan Opportunity Series Report. Washington, DC: Brookings

Institution.

Austin, M. J. (2003). The Changing Relationship Between Nonprofit Organizations and Public

Social Service Agencies in the Era of Welfare Reform. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector

Quarterly, 32(1), 97-114. DOI: 10.1177/0899764002250008.

Castner, L. & Rosso, R. (2000). Characteristics of Food Stamp Households Fiscal Year 1998.

Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches

(3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Cunnyngham, K. (2004). Trends in Food Stamp Program Participation Rates: 1999-2002.


Daponte, B. O.; Sanders, S.; & Taylor, L. (1999). Why Do Low-Income Households Not Use

Food Stamps? Evidence from an Experiment. Journal of Human Resources, 34(3), 612-

628.

Dion, M. R. & Pavetti, L. (2000). Access to and Participation in MEDICAID and the Food

Stamp Program: A review of the recent literature. MPR Reference No.: 8661-401.


Donato, K. M.; Tolbert, C.; Nucci, A.; & Kawano, Y. (2008). Changing Faces, Changing Places:

Page 19 of 27



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


20

The emergence of new nonmetropolitan immigrant gateways. In Massey, D. (ed.). New

Faces in New Places: The changing geography of American Immigration (pp. 75-98).

New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Eslami, E. (2014). Trends in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Rates:

Fiscal Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 2012. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research.

Farson Gray, K. & Eslami, E. (2014). Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance

Program Households: Fiscal Year 2012. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research.

Feeding America. (2014). Hunger in America 2014, Executive Summary. Chicago, IL: Feeding

America. Retrieved from http://help.feedingamerica.org/HungerInAmerica/hunger-in-

america-2014-summary.pdf.

Fix, M.; Capps, R.; & Kaushal, N. (2009). Immigrants and Welfare: Overview. In Fix, M. (ed.)

Immigrants and Welfare, The Impact of Welfare Reform on America’s Newcomers (pp. 1-

36). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Fix, M. & Passel, J. (2002). The Scope and Impact of Welfare Reform’s Immigrant Provisions.

Discussion Paper: Assessing the New Federalism, An Urban Institute Program to Assess

Changing Social Policies. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Fortuny, K. & Chaudry, A. (2011). A Comprehensive Review of Immigrant Access to Health and

Human Services. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Food Research and Action Center (FRAC). (2008). Access and Access Barriers to Getting Food

Stamps: A review of the literature. Retrieved from http://frac.org/wp-

content/uploads/2009/09/fspaccess.pdf.

Food Research and Action Center (FRAC). (2011). SNAP Access in Urban America, A city-by

Page 20 of 27



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


21

city Snapshot. Retrieved from http://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/

urbansnapreport_jan2011.pdf.

Ganong, P. & Liebman, J. B. (2013). The Decline, Rebound, and Further Rise in SNAP

Enrollment: Disentangling Business Cycle Fluctuations and Policy Changes. NBER

Working Paper No. 19363.

Gonzalez-Barrera, A. & Hugo Lopez, M. (2013). Spanish is the most spoken non-English

language in U.S. homes, even among non-Hispanics. Pew Research Center. Retrieved

from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/08/13/spanish-is-the-most-spoken-non-

english-language-in-u-s-homes-even-among-non-hispanics/.

Gorman, K. S.; Smith, A. M.; Cimini, M. E.; Halloran, K. M. & Lubiner, A. G. (2013). Reaching

the Hard to Reach: Lessons Learned from a Statewide Outreach Initiative. Journal of

Community Practice. 21(1-2), 105-123. DOI: 10.1080/10705422.2013.788369.

Lattanzi Shutika, D. (2008). The Ambivalent Welcome: Cinco de Mayo and the Symbolic

Expression of Local Identity and Ethnic Relations. In Massey, D. (ed.). New Faces in

New Places: The changing geography of American Immigration (pp. 274-307). New

York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Leftin, J. (2010). Trends in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Rates:

2001 to 2008. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research.

Lichter, D. T. (2013). Integration or Fragmentation? Racial Diversity and the American Future.

Demography, 50, 359–391. DOI 10.1007/s13524-013-0197-1.

Mabli, J.; Cohen, R.; Potter, F. & Zhao, Z. (2010). Hunger in America 2010: National Report.

Prepared for Feeding America. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Marrow, H. B. (2008). Hispanic Immigration, Black Population Size, and Intergroup Relations in

Page 21 of 27



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


22

the rural and Small-Town South. In Massey, D. (ed.). New Faces in New Places: The

changing geography of American Immigration (pp. 211-248). New York, NY: Russell

Sage Foundation.

Marrow, H. B. (2009). Immigrant Bureaucratic Incorporation: The Dual Roles of Professional

Missions and Government Policies. American Sociological Review. 74, 756-776.

Martin, K. S.; Cook, J. T.; Rogers, B. L.; Joseph, H. M. (2003). Public versus Private Food

Assistance: Barriers to Participation Differ by Age and Ethnicity. Journal of Nutrition

Education and Behavior, 35(5), 249–254.

Massey, D. & Capoferro C. (2008). The Geographic Diversification of American Immigration In

Massey, D. (ed.). New Faces in New Places: The changing geography of American

Immigration (pp. 25-50). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Mishra, A. N.; Ketsche, P.; Marton, J.; Snyder, A.; & McLaren, S. (2014). Examining the

potential of information technology to improve public insurance application processes:

enrollee assessments from a concurrent mixed method analysis. Journal of the American

Medical Informatics Association, 21, 1045–1052. doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2014-002716.

Moffitt, R. (1983). An Economic Model of Welfare Stigma. The American Economic Review,

73(5), 1023-1035.

Padilla, Y. C.; Scott, J. L.; Lopez, O. (2014). Economic Insecurity and Access to the Social

Safety Net among Latino Farmworker Families. Social Work. 59(2), 157-165. doi:

10.1093/sw/swu013.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Potochnick, S. & Perreira, K. M. (2007). The Southern Immigrant Academic Adaptation Study:

Page 22 of 27



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


23

Being Well and Doing Well: The Health and Academic Experiences of Latino High

School Students in North Carolina. Chapel Hill, NC: The Carolina Population Center.

Raphael, S. & Smolenksy, E. (2009). Immigration and Poverty in the United States. In Cancian,

M. & Danziger, S., (eds.). Changing Poverty, Changing Policies (pp. 122-150). Russell

Sage Foundation: New York.

Rosso, R. (2001). Trends in Food Stamp Program Participation Rates: 1994-1999. Washington,

DC: Mathematica Policy Research.

Rosso, R. & Faux, M. (2003). Characteristics of Food Stamp Households: Fiscal Year 2002.


Rowe, G.; O’Brien, C.; Hall, S.; Pindus, N.; Eyster, L.; Koralek, R.; Stanczyk, A. (2010).

Enhancing Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Certification: SNAP

Modernization Efforts, Final Report, Volume 1. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service.

Ryan, C. (2013). Language Use in the United States: 2011. American Community Survey

Reports, U.S Census Bureau. Retrieved from

https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acs-22.pdf.

Salamon, L. (1995). Partners in Public Service. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.

Singer, A. (2013). Contemporary Immigrant Gateways in Historical Perspective. Dædalus, the

Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences. 142(3), 76-91.

doi:10.1162/DAED_a_00220.

Skinner, C. (2011). SNAP Take-up among immigrant families with children. New York, NY:

National Center for Children in Poverty.

Skinner, C. (2012). State Immigration Legislation and SNAP Take-Up among Immigrant

Page 23 of 27



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


24

Families with Children. Journal of Economic Issues, 46(3), 661-681. DOI

10.2753/JEI0021-3624460304

U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2007). 2002 Farm Bill. Retrieved from

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/ap-administrative-publication/ap-022.aspx

U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2011). Supplemental Nutrition

Assistance Program: Guidance on Non-Citizen Eligibility. Retrieved from

http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/Non-Citizen_Guidance_063011.pdf.

U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2012). SNAP Policy on Immigrant

Access Issues. Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/030912.pdf.

U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2014a). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance

Program data. Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-

assistance-program-snap.

U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2014b). Outreach: State Outreach Plan

Guidance. Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/outreach/state-outreach-plan-

guidance.

U.S. General Accounting Office (U.S. GAO). (1999). Food Stamp Program: Various Factors

Have Led to Declining Participation. Washington, DC: GAO. Retrieved from

http://www.gao.gov/assets/230/227751.pdf

Van Hook, J. & Stamper Balistreri, K. (2006). Ineligible parents, eligible children: Food Stamps

receipt, allotments, and food insecurity among children of immigrants. Social Science

Research, 35, 228-251. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2004.09.001.

Weisbrod, B. A. (1977). The voluntary nonprofit sector. Lexington: D.C. Heath and Company.

Wolkwitz, K. & Trippe, C. (2009). Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance

Page 24 of 27



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


25

Program Households: Fiscal Year 2008. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research.

Young, D. (2000). Alternative Models of Government-Nonprofit Sector Relations: Theoretical

and International Perspectives. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 29(1), 149-

172. DOI: 10.1177/0899764000291009.

Zimmerman, W. & Tumlin, K. (1999). Patchwork Policies: State Assistance for Immigrants

under Welfare Reform. Occasional Paper Number 24: Assessing the New Federalism, An

Urban Institute Program to Assess Changing Social Policies. Washington, DC: The

Urban Institute.

Page 25 of 27



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


26

Footnotes

1 During one site visit, six face-to-face interviews were conducted. In addition, we observed the

geographic location of the food bank and the physical design of the SNAP outreach area.

2 For a comprehensive overview of the economic, political and administrative context for each

state and site in our study, please refer to [citation omitted].

Page 26 of 27



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

For Peer Review


27

Table 1: SNAP Participation Rates, including non-citizens and citizen children living with

non-citizens

SNAP Participation Rates

19951

19981

20022

20083

20124

Average Individuals in all Households 72.8% 59.4% 53.8% 66.8% 83.1%

Non-citizens 65.6% 62.1% 39.4% 51.0% 55.7%

Citizen children living with non-citizen

adults

57.9% 39.3% 43.7% 55.2% 74.8%

Percentage point difference in participation rates compared to average individuals in all

households

Non-citizens -7.2 +2.7 -14.4 -15.8 -27.4

Citizen children living with non-citizen

adults

-14.9 -20.1 -10.1 -11.6 -8.3

1Rosso 2001; 2Cunnyngham 2004; 3 Leftin 2010; 4Eslami 2014

Page 27 of 27



123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960

for peer review - wordpress.com · 2015-02-26 · for peer review nonprofit strategies to connect...

Documents