USDA FNS SNAP Face2Face FY2011 | Apply Online

SNAP Face2Face FY2011 (USDA FNS) - Frequently Asked Questions

1) What is the SNAP Face2Face FY2011 grant opportunity?

SNAP Face2Face FY2011 is a discretionary federal funding opportunity from USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) to support a three-state demonstration and evaluation. It focuses on one policy question in SNAP administration: what happens when a state stops requiring the client interview for SNAP certification and/or recertification.

2) What is the main policy question this project is designed to answer?

The central question is the impact of eliminating the SNAP client interview requirement, either at initial certification only or at both certification and recertification, and how that change affects operations and client outcomes compared to a site that continues the state's usual interviewing approach.

3) What is the legal basis for this grant?

The opportunity is rooted in the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, as amended, specifically Section 17(a)(1), 7 U.S.C. 202(a)(1).

4) Why did FNS create this funding opportunity?

Many states had already received waivers to replace traditional face-to-face interviews with alternatives such as telephone interviews, delayed in-person interviews, or no interview at all. FNS noted that there had been limited rigorous research measuring real-world effects of these alternatives, so this competition was intended to generate evidence to inform future guidance to states.

5) Who was eligible to apply?

Eligible applicants were limited to state governments.

6) How many awards did FNS plan to make?

FNS planned to make three cooperative agreement awards, one to each of three selected states.

7) What type of funding instrument was used?

The funding instrument was a cooperative agreement. This indicates ongoing collaboration and involvement by FNS rather than a hands-off grant arrangement.

8) What is the CFDA number and program title associated with this opportunity?

The opportunity is associated with CFDA 10.588, titled "Assessment of Alternatives to Face to Face Interviews in SNAP."

9) What was the expected total funding amount?

The opportunity anticipated a total of about $450,000 across the three awards.

10) What was the expected award size per state?

Individual awards were expected to range from $140,000 (floor) to $170,000 (ceiling).

11) Was cost sharing or matching required?

No. There was no cost-sharing or matching requirement.

12) What demonstration design was expected from each selected state?

Each selected state would implement a pilot design with two sites: (1) a pilot site and (2) a comparison site. The structure is intended to allow side-by-side comparisons within the same state context.

13) What happens in the pilot site?

In the pilot site, the state would eliminate the SNAP interview either at certification only or at both certification and recertification for all SNAP clients served in that site.

14) What happens in the comparison site?

In the comparison site, the SNAP program would continue operating under the state's usual interviewing approach. The "usual approach" could include face-to-face interviews, telephone interviews, same-day interviews, or a mix of methods.

15) What is the purpose of using a pilot site and a comparison site?

The two-site design is intended to isolate the effects of waiving interviews by comparing outcomes in a no-interview environment against outcomes under standard practice, while keeping the broader state context consistent.

16) Who conducts the evaluation under this initiative?

FNS would work directly with the states and conduct the evaluation.

17) What outcomes and measures would FNS examine?

The evaluation would examine whether, and to what extent, eliminating interviews changes key measures including SNAP participation and access, administrative efficiency, payment accuracy, administrative costs, and overall customer access.

18) Does the evaluation consider staff and client experience?

Yes. The study emphasizes human and operational impacts, including staff satisfaction and client satisfaction, recognizing that interview policy changes can affect workload, processing times, and the client experience when applying for or renewing benefits.

19) How does this opportunity relate to interview waivers and alternatives already used by states?

The opportunity responds to the reality that many states had waivers permitting alternatives to traditional face-to-face interviews, such as telephone interviews, delayed in-person interviews, or no interview at all. The project seeks to rigorously assess the effects of these types of alternatives, particularly the elimination of interviews.

20) What is the overall end goal of the initiative?

The end goal is to produce credible findings that help FNS shape guidelines and recommendations so states can improve SNAP operating efficiency and broaden access while maintaining program integrity and accuracy.

21) When was the opportunity posted and when were applications due?

The opportunity was posted on June 24, 2011, and the application deadline was August 5, 2011.

22) What does it mean that the opportunity is archived?

The posting indicates the opportunity was archived on September 4, 2011, meaning it is no longer an active solicitation.

23) Is this grant focused on certification interviews, recertification interviews, or both?

The pilot design allowed for elimination of interviews at certification only or at both certification and recertification, depending on what the selected state implemented in its pilot site.

24) What is meant by "discretionary" in this context?

This is described as a discretionary federal grant opportunity, meaning the awards are made through a competitive process rather than being automatically distributed by formula.

25) What makes a cooperative agreement different from a typical grant in this opportunity?

The posting describes the cooperative agreement as signaling ongoing collaboration and involvement by FNS. In practice for this opportunity, that aligns with FNS working directly with states and conducting the evaluation as part of the project.