Reaching the Benchmarks for Direct Certification SNA State Agency Conference November 30, 2011 Facilitator ~ Viv Lees Branch Chief, State Systems Support Branch, Child Nutrition Division, USDA Food & Nutrition Service NEBRASKA ~ Bev Benes Director, Nutrition Services, Nebraska Department of Education NORTH DAKOTA ~ Linda Schloer Director, Child Nutrition and Food Distribution Programs, North Dakota Department of Public Instruction WASHINGTON ~ Donna Parsons Director, Child Nutrition Services, State of Washington Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction
Transcript
Reaching the Benchmarks for
Direct Certification
SNA State Agency Conference
November 30, 2011
Facilitator ~ Viv Lees Branch Chief, State Systems Support Branch, Child Nutrition Division, USDA Food & Nutrition Service
NEBRASKA ~ Bev Benes Director, Nutrition Services, Nebraska Department of Education
NORTH DAKOTA ~ Linda Schloer Director, Child Nutrition and Food Distribution Programs, North Dakota Department of Public Instruction
WASHINGTON ~ Donna Parsons Director, Child Nutrition Services, State of Washington Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction
Goals of Direct Certification
2
3
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010
Act Provisions for Direct Certification
Elimination of letter method as method of direct certification for children in SNAP households
Benchmarks and Continuous Improvement Plans (CIPs) for direct certification with SNAP
State performance awards for direct certification with SNAP Demonstrations to test direct certification with Medicaid Categorical eligibility for foster children
4
Direct Certification Benchmarks
Benchmarks set for State direct certification rates with SNAP, beginning with school year 2011-2012
States not meeting benchmarks each year must implement Continuous Improvement Plans (CIPs) to improve rates for the next school year
Goal is for States to reach 95% and maintain at least this level
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010
5
Benchmarks:
As published in the annual Reports to Congress: Direct Certification in the National School Lunch Program: State Progress in Implementation
2011 Report to Congress published 11/2/2011 shows the national mean direct certification rate as 78%
Each Fall, beginning 2012, FNS will notify States that did not meet the required benchmark for the previous school year
With FNS assistance, these States are to develop and implement continuous improvement plans (CIPs) to improve direct certification rates with SNAP
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010
7
How are States Doing Now?
2011 Report Shows States are headed in the right direction…
8
How are States Doing Now?
2011 Report Shows States are headed in the right direction…
SCHOOL YEAR 2009-2010 2010-2011
National Rate 72% 78%
States below 80% 40 27
States at 80-89% 8 17
States at 90-94% 2 5
States at 95% or above 2 3
Direct Certification Rate with SNAP
9
How are States Doing Now?
How far away is the Goal? 2011 Report to Congress shows that 25 States are at or above 80%
SCHOOL YEAR 2009-2010 2010-2011Goal
2011-2012Goal
2012-2013Goal
2013-2014
National Rate 72% 78% 80%+ 90%+ 95%+
States below 80% 40 27 0 0 0
States at 80-89% 8 17 0 0
States at 90-94% 2 5 0
States at 95% or above 2 352
All States at 95% & Above
52All States at
80% & Above 52
All States at 90% & Above
Direct Certification Rate with SNAP
10
SY 2011-2012: 80% Goal Data reporting on FNS-742 Verification Summary
Report and DC rate calculation methodology same as previous years
SY 2012-2013: 90% Goal Expect changes in FNS-742 to separate out SNAP
DC data No longer include in DC counts:
Letter method as DC SNAP zero-benefit households
Determining Rates in the Future
11
Changes/Proposed Changes in the works:
Proposed regulation for benchmarks and continuous improvement plan provisions expected to be published in next few weeks. We expect it to include proposed changes in data collection and the DC rate calculation methodology . Watch for it and COMMENT!
FNS-742 undergoing changes to separate SNAP DC data to help improve accuracy of DC calculations (as well as other needed changes). It is moving through the approval process.
Determining Rates in the Future
12
Grant Opportunities for States
Direct Certification Grants$22 million appropriated in 2010 for States to apply for Direct
Certification Grants to improve direct certification rates
Almost all States Eligible to Apply (50 of 52, counting DC and Guam)
16 States have applied to date
Connecticut New Mexico Alabama Kansas North Carolina District of Columbia North Dakota Arkansas Kentucky Ohio Florida Oregon Arizona Louisiana Oklahoma Idaho Pennsylvania California Maine South Carolina Missouri Rhode Island Colorado Maryland Tennessee Montana South Dakota Delaware Massachusetts Texas New Hampshire Washington Georgia Michigan Utah New Jersey Wisconsin Guam Minnesota Vermont
Hawaii Mississippi Virginia Illinois Nebraska West Virginia Indiana Nevada Iowa New York
States Eligible to Apply for Direct Certification Grants States that have Applied States that have not Applied
15
Grant Opportunities for States
Administrative Reviews & Training (ART) Method II Grants
Funding $4 million annually for States to apply for ART Method II Grants
for training and technology improvements to reduce errors in program operations, including Direct Certification http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/grants.htm
14 States with Active Grants
Next Opportunity Announcement Expected Planning Grants up to $75,000: January 2012 Implementation Grants up to $1.5 million: January 2012
16
How Are States Meeting the Challenges to Improve Direct Certification?
How our Panel States are moving forward?
NEBRASKA - Bev Benes Director, Nutrition Services, NE Dept of Education
2009 Direct Certification/Direct Verification Grant NE Improved from 58% in 2010 to 87% in 2011
NORTH DAKOTA - Linda Schloer Director, Child Nutrition and Food Distribution Programs, ND Dept of Public Instruction
2011 Direct Certification Implementation Grant (April) ND Improved from 76% in 2010 to 85% in 2011
17
How Are States Meeting the Challenges to Improve Direct Certification?
And …
STATE OF WASHINGTON - Donna Parsons Director, Child Nutrition Services, WA Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction
2011 Direct Certification Planning Grant (January), 2011 Direct Certification Implementation Grant (November)
Improved from 72% in 2010 to 83% in 2011
18
QUESTIONS
Something on your mind?
Hang on until all Presenters finish…
Then we’ll take questions for All
19
Contact Information
Linda Schloer, Director , Child Nutrition & Food Distribution ProgramsND Department of Public Instruction
Bev Benes, DirectorNE Department of Education – Nutrition Services
We’re in the weeds now – searching for the
elusive 95%
Report to Congress NE’s Improvement
21
2009 Direct Certification and Verification Grant
• Awarded - February 23, 2010• Funding - $200,000• Goal - to move from CSV files
one time in August to an automated, nightly process
22
DCVMS
23
Nebraska Student EnrollmentData is obtained from 4 sources:– Nebraska Student and Staff Record System (NSSRS)
for Public Schools.– Nebraska Uniq-ID (eScholar System) for Non-public
schools.– Comma Separated Values (CSV) files uploaded to
the CNP website by both Public and Non-public schools for New Students entering their schools.
– Student Interactive Lookup System (SILS) used by schools to Identify SNAP/TANF beneficiaries in “Real Time”.
24
SFA Has 3 Certification Options
After logging into the CNP secure website
25
Direct Certification Listing
26
CSV File Upload
27
Student Interactive Lookup System (SILS)
28
Soundex• We started last year building our Direct
Certification and Verification Matching System (DCVMS) using a Soundex algorithm
• We were catching “Close Matches” and certifying them to the schools.
• We also were getting a very small percentage of “False Matches”
• This year we discontinued matching on Soundex and went back to 100% identical matches only.
29
Microsoft’s “Fuzzy Logic”• In most systems matches of input records
are missed because of misspellings, truncations, missing or inserted tokens, null fields, unexpected abbreviations and other irregularities.
• Microsoft’s SQL Server 2005 Integrated Services (SSIS) developed the “Fuzzy Logic” or “Fuzzy Lookup” system.
30
Fuzzy Searches
• Return a list of results based on LIKELY relevance even though search argument words and spellings may not exactly match.
• Exact and highly relevant matches appear near the top of the list.
• Subjective relevance ratings as percentages are given.
31
Direct Cert Match Results
32
Matched Entry Results
33
Results (No “Possible” Matches)
34
Verification Summary
35
The End
36
… it’s just the beginningWe’re in the weeds
now – searching for the elusive 95%
NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONDIRECT CERTIFICATION SYSTEMLinda Schloer, Director
Child Nutrition and Food Distribution Programs
HISTORY
Letter method used until SY 2006-2007
Transition System: SY 06-07 to SY 09-10 Data file from ND DHS including all children, age 3 –
19, receiving SNAP or TANF. IT staff conducted a match (twice a year – August and
December) with ND student enrollment information from the State Automated Reporting System (STARS)
Secondary matches – children with same case number as a matched child, but not listed in STARS. These names were sent to same district as the matched child with same case number.
38
HISTORY - SY 06-07 TO SY 09-10
Districts received lists of matched students file accessed through STARS
Any child not matched to a district enrollment was placed on an “unmatched list”. Provided to all LEA’s located near the child’s
address.
Letters continued to be provided to households with school aged children certified during the school year. 39
NEW SYSTEM FY 07 Direct Certification and Verification
Program Grant. Implemented SY 09-10 First year of implementation – old match was
also conducted to prevent gaps in service Learning curve at the LEAs Resistance to new system
Direct Certification is accessed through the ND STARS system.
Matching and notifications are conducted continuously as SNAP participation and LEA enrollment changes.
40
HOW IT WORKS ND student enrollment data is sent to a
Master Client Index (MCI) - central data hub housing client data for multiple state agency programs
SNAP and TANF eligibility data is also sent to the MCI
Linkages occur within the MCI for any client data that is for the same person.
Matching attributes used: First and Last Name, Middle Name/Initial Date of Birth Gender Address
NDDPI is prohibited from collecting SSI’s for any purpose
41
NOTIFICATIONS
If a match occurs: LEA receives a notification e-mail directing them to go into STARS to indicate whether or not the child is enrolled in their LEA. If child is attending LEA, the LEA enrolls the child
in the Direct Certification “Special Program”. Other “Special Programs” in STARS – Title I,
Section 504, Immigrant, 21st Century, etc. Once enrolled in Direct Certification, child’s
name is listed on the Direct Certification report, which can be generated as a pdf document or Excel file.
42
IF A CHILD CANNOT BE MATCHED
Notification is sent to 5 LEAs closest to child’s zip code listed with DHS.
LEA may indicate that the child is not attending or may enroll the child into Direct Certification.
If child is not enrolled in any LEA after 15 days from notification date, the child’s name is sent to a Research file.
The LEAs may search the Research list for specific student, but may not see the entire list.
43
BENEFITS OF NEW SYSTEM
Continuous matching and notification of Direct Certification students.
Direct certification lists are continuously updated for LEA.
Direct Certification list may be exported and imported into POS system or other applications.
Part of common student enrollment data system (STARS), utilizing data already entered by LEA – no duplication of work by LEA
ND State Longitudinal Data project increases amount of student data entered in STARS – increases matching success.
44
SUCCESS Large improvement in number of Direct
Certification students from previous year (76% - 85%).
Finalist of National Association of State Chief Information Officers 2011 Recognition Awards in the category of Data, Information and Knowledge Management.
North Dakota listed with state best practices in 2010-2011 Direct Certification Report to Congress.
45
ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT Timing issues – list for new school year is not
available until LEA enters new enrollment data into STARS.
Learning curve – many of the LEA personnel responsible for maintaining F/RP eligibility were not familiar with STARS. Before they could use new DC system, they had to learn how to navigate STARS.
Training – various forms of remote training, such as Webinars and Power Point slides with note, were tried. Many users still needed one on one instructions before they fully utilized system.
Additional features needed to make system more efficient and effective.
46
DIRECT CERTIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION GRANT – FY 2010
Provide on-site training Half-time Direct Certification Tech. System enhancements User manuals Private LEAs
47
THE FUTURE
System maintenance and enhancements
Technical Assistance and Training
Foster Children?
Suggestions/requests from LEAs
48
WASHINGTON STATE DIRECT CERTIFICATION
HISTORY OF DIRECT CERT IN WASHINGTON
STATE
Pilot 2004-2005.
Automated process to match TANF/SNAP data with student enrollment.
Match completed at the state agency level and ‘match list’ made available to LEAs.
Match process occurs once a month.
2008-09 match rate = 72%. Received Direct Cert Planning and (new) Implementation grant.
KNOWN BARRIERS
Timing of download.
Limited matching criteria.
Duplicate storage of data.
Blanket distribution of paper applications.
Disparate local systems.
Missing populations.
Infrequent downloads at LEA level.
KNOWN BARRIERS, CONT.
When the enrollment data base changes or has problems = limited matches (2X).
Data is only as good as reported.
Limited staff hours.
Limited knowledge by FS staff regarding enrollment records processing.
GOALS
Increase accuracy and reduce paperwork by simplifying the certification process.
Ensure that directly certified students receive free meals with no action on the part of the household.
Support frequent direct certifications by LEAs.
Support professional standards for food service personnel through training in direct certification.
OBJECTIVES
Redesign the current matching application.
Expand Student Search function to allow LEA to enter additional data to match a student.
Improve reporting on matches made both automatically and by the LEA.
Increase DSHS downloads to DAILY.
Inclusion of school and student identifier data.
Probable matches will be included.
OBJECTIVES, CONT.
Acquire and integrate software with broader matching rules.
Identity Resolution software.
Preliminary tests show a 14 -17% increase in match rate.
OBJECTIVES, CONT.
Preserve matches across years.
Use an index identifiers.
Reduce the number of missed matches from one year to the next.
Add populations currently missing.
Foster Children.
Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations.
Tribal TANF.
OBJECTIVES, CONT.
Design and deliver direct certification training.
Develop recommended procedures for increasing direct cert rate.
Use statewide enrollment records to pre-fill portions of each LEA’s Verification Summary Report.
