Questions and Answers: Food Stamp Program High Performance Bonuses Performance Measures

Q1 - How will the money be divided up?

A1 - The money will be divided up among State agencies in proportion to the size of their caseloads. For example, if 6 states are to split $6 million and State A accounts for 40 percent of all food stamp participants in these 6 states, State A will receive 40% of $6 million, or $2.4 million.

We believe this is the most equitable way to divide the money up. A State with a large participant caseload that improves its payment accuracy rate by 4 percentage points has a greater national impact than a State with a small participant caseload that improves its payment accuracy rate by 4 percent. All States, large and small, will have sufficient incentive to compete for the bonuses if the money is divided proportionally.

Q2 - How will the most improved payment error rate be determined, by percent increase or by percentage point increase?

A2 - We will determine the most improved payment error rate by measuring the percentage points improved. For example, if State A has a payment error rate of 10% in 2003 and a payment error rate of 6% in 2004, its improvement is 4 percentage points, or a 40 percent improvement. If State B has a payment error rate of 6% in 2003 and a payment error rate of 4% in 2004, its improvement is 2 percentage points, or a 50 percent improvement. We would rank State A higher than State B because its absolute improvement is greater even though its relative improvement is less. We believe absolute improvement has more of an impact on the national program than relative improvement. For example, if States A and B both issued $100 million in benefits, State A would have reduced its payment error by $4 million while State B would have reduced by only $2 million.

Q3 - Will a State agency that has improved its payment accuracy rate by the most percentage points, but whose payment accuracy rate is still above the national average be able to win a bonus?

A3 - Yes, for fiscal year (FY) 2003, a State agency that improves its payment accuracy rate by the most percentage points will be able to win a bonus even if its payment accuracy rate is above the national average. For further explanation, see question and answer number 11.

Q4 - How will the most improved negative error rate be determined, by percent decrease or by percentage point decrease?

A4 - We will determine the most improved negative error rate by measuring the percentage points improved. For example, if State A has a negative error rate of 3% in 2003 and a negative error rate of 1% in 2004, its improvement is 2 percentage points, or 66 percent. If State B has a negative error rate of 10% in 2003 and 5% in 2004, its improvement is 5 percentage points, or 50 percent. We would rank State B higher than State A because its absolute improvement is greater, even though its relative improvement is less. We believe absolute improvement has a greater impact than relative improvement.

Q5 - What data will we use to calculate the participant access rate? Will we make adjustments for special situations, such as the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) population in California and the individuals residing on reservations that choose to receive commodities?

A5 - We will use a variety of data sources to calculate the participant access rate. The denominator is composed of data from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey. We will use annual state counts of persons in poverty from the Census Bureau shortly after it is released, usually in late September. These counts are based on income received in the previous calendar year. Because persons receiving SSI are ineligible for food stamps in California, we will reduce the number of poor persons in California by the percentage of poor who received SSI in the previous year. This data is collected from the Census Bureau as well.

For the number of Food Stamp participants, we will use administrative counts of participants by State over the same calendar year for the Census Bureau's persons in poverty, averaging 12 months of data. Because some individuals residing on reservations may choose to receive food assistance from either the Food Stamp Program or the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) but not both simultaneously, we will add to the Food Stamp participants the number of FDPIR participants using administrative data over a calendar year, averaging 12 months of data. The sum of these two numbers is the numerator. The adjusted numerator divided by the adjusted denominator produces the participant access rate.

Q6 - What is the Federal application-processing standard that we will use to measure performance under the application processing timeliness measure?

A6 - We will use the application-processing standard of 30 days. An applicant must be given the “opportunity to participate” (as defined in 274.2) within thirty days (or 7 days for expedited service). New applications that are processed outside this standard will be considered untimely for this measure. We recognize that the regulations at 7 CFR 273.2 provide procedures for State agencies that, for one reason or another, are unable to meet the 30-day standard. Some may argue that we should measure compliance with these regulations rather than performance under a 30-day standard. However, we believe this measure is a test of performance not compliance, and of customer service regardless of who is at fault for the delay. We would not want to reward a State that is weak in meeting the 30-day standard but good at getting benefits out within 60 days. Furthermore, it would be difficult, based upon certification records, to consistently distinguish between delays that are applicant vs. agency caused.

Q7 - Will both approvals and denials be included in the determination of timeliness?

A7 - No, this measure is focused on meeting the 30-day standard for providing eligiblehouseholds the opportunity to participate.

Q8 - Are there revised quality control (QC) requirements for application processing timeliness?

A8 - Yes, the revised QC instructions are in the 310 handbook as item 71B. However, the final handbook has not been published yet nor put on the web page. We anticipate this happening soon and will let the Regional offices know as soon as it does.

Q9 - Since QC pulls a case for a specific review month, will the Food and Nutrition Service only look at timeliness of applications if the review month is the month the application was processed? Or will every case pulled be evaluated to see if an application was filed in FY 2003, and those applications will be evaluated for timeliness?

A9 - We will look at new applications that were filed on or after the beginning of FY 2003 because they were filed within the performance measurement year for which the bonuses are awarded.

Q10 - Can a State agency win more than one bonus, i.e., the best and the most improved?

A10 - No, a State cannot be awarded two bonuses in the same category, i.e., the best and most improved participant access rate. If a State is among the most improved in a category, it would not be counted among the best. This allows the “next best” State to receive an award as being among the best States. A State may be awarded bonuses for different categories, such as most improved negative error rate and highest participant access rate.

Q11 - Can a State agency that is assessed a liability receive a bonus?

A11 - For FY 2003, no State agency will be assessed a liability. The farm bill provides that no State may receive a bonus that has been assessed a quality control liability. Since a State must have a payment error rate above the national average for two years in a row in order to be assessed a liability, and FY 03 is the first year, no State will be assessed a liability in FY 03. Therefore, all States could be eligible to receive a bonus in FY 2003. The prohibition against awarding bonuses to States that have been assessed a liability will take effect for FY 04 regardless of whether that liability is waived.

Back to the Top