D-SNAP Supporting Statement Part B

Supporting Statement Part B

OMB No. 0584-[NEW]

Best Practices in Disaster Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (D-SNAP) Operations and Planning

June 16, 2021

Project Officer: Eric Sean Williams

Office of Policy Support

SNAP Research and Analysis Division

Food and Nutrition Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture

1320 Braddock Place

Alexandria, VA 22314

703.305.2640

[email protected]

Part B. Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods

1. Respondent Universe and Selection Methods

Describe (including a numerical estimate) the potential respondent universe and any sampling or other respondent selection method to be used. Data on the number of entities (e.g., establishments, State and local government units, households, or persons) in the universe covered by the collection and in the corresponding sample are to be provided in tabular form for the universe as a whole and for each of the strata in the proposed sample. Indicate expected response rates for the collection as a whole. If the collection had been conducted previously, include the actual response rate achieved during the last collection.

Respondent Universe

This study will collect qualitative and administrative data from 5 States on 10 Disaster Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs (D-SNAP). The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) selected States purposefully to include a variety of disaster types (e.g., hurricane, flood, tornado) and scope. State agencies will have had to have operated a D-SNAP between 2017 and 2020 to be eligible for selection. This qualifier ensures State agencies will have retained administrative data from the time of the D-SNAP by the time data collection begins for the study and limits respondent recall bias.¹ Using these criteria, FNS identified five study States (Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, Oregon, and Tennessee), and three have confirmed their willingness to participate in the study in fall 2020/winter 2021.

Within each study State the team will visit the State agency. In States with multiple selected D-SNAPs, the study team will visit one county SNAP office (if SNAP is county administered); one local SNAP office; and three D-SNAP stakeholders (e.g., community-based organizations or SNAP retailers) for each selected D-SNAP. The study team will work with each of the five study State agencies to select the local SNAP offices and D-SNAP stakeholders to participate in the study.

Estimated Number of Respondents

All five States will be involved in both the site visit and administrative data collection components of the study. Within each State the study team will visit and interview staff at the State agency. For each selected D-SNAP, the study team will then visit and interview staff at the county SNAP office (if applicable), one local SNAP office, and up to three stakeholder organizations (see Attachments E.2, F.2, G.2, and I.2: Final State Agency Interview Protocol, Final Local Office Director Interview Protocol, Final Local Office Staff Group Interview Protocol, and Final Local Stakeholder Interview Protocol). After the local SNAP office interviews, the team will tour the D-SNAP operations site and the surrounding areas affected by the disaster to collect observational data (see Attachment H: Final D-SNAP Site Observational Tool). The team will collect extant administrative data from the State agency (see Attachment J: Final Administrative Data Request and Submission Instructions). Because the disasters profiled in this study will have taken place 1 to 3 years prior to data collection, it is possible some key State agency, county, or local office staff may have left the positions they occupied during the D-SNAP. Trained interviewers on the study team will seek to interview these individuals either in person during the site visit or afterward during a telephone interview (see Attachments E.2 and F.2: Final State Agency Interview Protocol and Final Local Office Director Interview Protocol).

Including the pretest (see Attachment D: Pretest Memorandum), the total expected number of respondents is 241 (129 State agency and local government staff, 56 staff, and 56 individuals). Out of the 241 to be contacted, 232 are expected to be responsive, and 9 are expected to be nonresponsive. Due to advance agreement with the States, FNS anticipates 100 percent participation from State, local, and tribal governments. Table B.1.1 provides the breakout of respondents and nonrespondents by respondent type.

Table B.1.1. Breakout of Respondents and Nonrespondents by Respondent Type

Respondent Type		Sample Size	Expected Number of Respondents	Expected Number of Nonrespondents
State, local, and tribal governments	State agency staff	32	32	0
	State database administrators	12	12	0
	County SNAP staff	12	12	0
	Local office staff	73	73	0
Business	D-SNAP stakeholder	56	51	5
Individuals	Former State, county, or local staff	56	52	4

2. Procedures for the Collection of Information

Describe the procedures for the collection of information including:

• Statistical methodology for stratification and sample selection

• Estimation procedure

• Degree of accuracy needed for the purpose described in the justification

• Unusual problems requiring specialized sampling procedures

• Any use of periodic (less frequent than annual) data collection cycles to reduce burden

Following OMB approval, administrative data from the five State agencies will be collected via the contractor’s secure file transfer protocol site (see Attachment J: Final Administrative Data Request and Submission Instructions), and site visits will be scheduled with all participating State agencies. Site visit data will be gathered through semi-structured interviews and observations (see Attachments E.2, F.2, G.2, H, and I.2: Final State Agency Interview Protocol, Final Local Office Director Interview Protocol, Final Local Office Staff Group Interview Protocol, Final D-SNAP Site Observational Tool, and Final Local Stakeholder Interview Protocol).

No statistical sampling methodology will be employed, no estimation of the number of data sources or systems used will be required, and no unusual problems requiring specialized sampling procedures have been identified. This is a one-time data collection, so periodic data collection cycles are not applicable.

3. Methods to Maximize Response Rates and the Issue of Nonresponse

Describe methods to maximize response rates and to deal with issues of non-response. The accuracy and reliability of information collected must be shown to be adequate for intended uses. For collections based on sampling, a special justification must be provided for any collection that will not yield “reliable” data that can be generalized to the universe studied.

The study team expects the planned methods of data collection will result in the accurate and reliable data needed for the planned analysis. To ensure the highest response rates and highest quality data possible for the site visit interviews and administrative data collection, the study team will—

• Coordinate with State agency staff well in advance of the site visits to answer all questions

• Work with State agencies to schedule site visits when convenient to State, local, and stakeholder staff to ensure their availability for data collection

• Send the administrative data request instructions and list of variables (see Attachment J: Final Administrative Data Request and Submission Instructions) to State agencies for preparing administrative data and participate in a consultative discussion with each study State agency to discuss the request and answer any questions

Because State agency staff will be responding in an official capacity and will have been designated by their employer to participate in the study, we anticipate a 100 percent response rate for these staff.

To maximize the response rates of D-SNAP stakeholders, the study team will work with the State SNAP agency contact to select stakeholders who will be responsive. Rather than “cold-calling” stakeholders, the study team will ask the State SNAP agency to email stakeholders (see Attachment M: Draft Email From State to Stakeholder) as a way of “virtually introducing” them to the study team. This email will also allow the State agency contact to encourage the stakeholders’ participation in the study. In the past such measures have minimized nonresponse by stakeholders.

The study team will also interview former State, county, or local SNAP staff as necessary who were critical to D-SNAP planning and operations at the time of the disaster but have since left their positions with the government (e.g., they retired or changed jobs). To maximize the response rates of these individuals, the study team will work with the State agency to facilitate introductions when possible. If necessary to reach out to the individual directly, the study team will send an interview request by email (Attachment N: Email to Former Staff) along with the study overview (Attachment O: D-SNAP Study Overview) and then follow up via telephone (Attachment P: Telephone Script for Former Staff) to introduce the study, answer any questions, and schedule an interview. To encourage a high response rate, a $30 token of appreciation for participating in the interview will be offered to individuals who are no longer employed by the State agency (See Attachment Q: Use of Tokens of Appreciation for Former Staff).

We anticipate all selected States will respond to the information collection because the study States have confirmed their ability and willingness to participate.

4. Tests of Procedures

Describe any tests of procedures or methods to be undertaken. Testing is encouraged as an effective means of refining collections of information to minimize burden and improve utility. Tests must be approved if they call for answers to identical questions from 10 or more respondents. A proposed test or set of tests may be submitted for approval separately or in combination with the main collection of information.

The contractor pretested the following data collection instruments for the study to evaluate the clarity of the questions asked, identify possible modifications to question wording or order that could improve the quality of the data, and estimate respondents’ burden:

• State agency interview protocol

• Local office director interview protocol

• Local office staff interview protocol

• Local stakeholder interview protocol

• D-SNAP Site Observational Tool

• D-SNAP Administrative Data Request

The study team pretested the instruments with respondents from Texas, which is a State not included in the study. After the pretest, the study team made minor revisions to the instruments, which included changing the order of some questions, deleting some questions to reduce redundancy, and making minor edits to clarify wording. See Attachment D: Pretest Memorandum for details.

5. Consultants

Provide the name and telephone number of individuals consulted on statistical aspects of the design and the name of the agency unit, contractor(s), grantee(s), or other person(s) who will actually collect and/or analyze the information for the agency.

FNS consulted with a mathematical statistician from USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), who reviewed the study methodology and statistical procedures. The review from NASS and the study team’s response to NASS’s comments appear in Attachments T.1: NASS Comments and T.2: Response to NASS Comments, respectively.

FNS has contracted with Insight Policy Research (Insight) to conduct this study. Table B.5.1 lists the names and contact information for Insight staff members who will be responsible for the collection and analysis of the study data. The Project Officer for the contract providing funding for the evaluation, Dr. Eric Sean Williams, will be responsible for receiving and approving all contract deliverables; the table also includes his information.

Table B.5.1. Consultants

Name	Title (Project Role)	Organizational Affiliation and Address	Telephone Number
Brittany McGill	Project Director and Qualitative Analysis Lead	Insight Policy Research, Inc. 1901 North Moore Street, Suite 1100 Arlington, VA 22209	703.504.9485
Betsy Thorn	Quantitative Analysis Lead	Insight Policy Research, Inc. 1901 North Moore Street, Suite 1100 Arlington, VA 22209	703.504.9488
Elizabeth Weber	Principal Investigator	Insight Policy Research, Inc. 1901 North Moore Street, Suite 1100 Arlington, VA 22209	571.366.3898
Christine Bevc	Subject Matter Expert	RTI International 3040 E. Cornwallis Rd, P.O. Box 12194 Durham, NC 27709	919.485.2606
Eric Sean Williams	FNS Project Officer	Food and Nutrition Service, USDA Office of Policy Support SNAP Analysis Branch 1320 Braddock Place Alexandria, VA 22314	703.305.2640
Elizabeth Garcia	Program Specialist VII	Texas Health and Human Services Commission	512.206.5501
Maria Elena Gomez	Operations Lead	Texas Health and Human Services Commission	512.206.4748
Christopher Adkins	Operations Officer	Texas Health and Human Services Commission	512.206.5636
Hector Garza Jr.	Regional Director	Texas Health and Human Services Commission	956.971.1234
Monica Shepherd	Information Technology (IT) Strategy and Prioritization Manager	Texas Health and Human Services Commission	512.206.4842
Mary Catherine Baily	IT Director	Texas Health and Human Services Commission	512.691.2117
Saravana Jagadeesan	IT Contractor	Deloitte	512.691.2075
Cathy Moore	Executive Director	Epiphany Community Health Outreach Services	703.270.0369
Alison Black	NASS Reviewer	USDA-NASS 1400 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20250	202-720-2518]

1 These data are approved under existing OMB control number 0584-0594; Expiration Date: 07/31/2023, titled Food Reporting Program System and OMB control number 0584-0037; Expiration Date 02/29/2021 (currently going through OMB approval process) titled D-SNAP Benefit Issuance and Commodity Distribution for Disaster Relief Recordkeeping only.