Briefly describe a program that you are familiar with.? Highlight the evaluation method(s) you believe are in place. How are stakeholders ca

Snap Program details

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamp Program, is a federal government program in the United States that provides food- purchasing assistance for low-income and no-income individuals and families. Its primary goal is to help them maintain adequate nutrition and health.

Here's a breakdown of how the SNAP program generally works:

 Federal Program, State Administered: While SNAP is a federal program funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), it is administered by individual state agencies through local o ices. This means eligibility requirements and application processes can have slight variations from state to state.

 Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) Card: Instead of paper food stamps, benefits are now issued electronically on an EBT card, often called a "Lone Star Card" in Texas, which works much like a debit card. This card can be used to purchase eligible food items at authorized grocery stores, supermarkets, convenience stores, and even some farmers' markets.

 What You Can Buy: SNAP benefits can be used to buy most food items for the household, including:

o Fruits and vegetables

o Meats, poultry, and fish

o Dairy products

o Breads and cereals

o Snacks and non-alcoholic beverages

o Seeds and plants that produce food for the household to eat.

 What You Cannot Buy: SNAP benefits cannot be used for:

o Alcoholic beverages or tobacco products

o Non-food items (e.g., pet food, cleaning supplies, household supplies like toilet paper, hygiene items like shampoo)

o Vitamins and medicines

o Hot, prepared foods ready for immediate consumption (though some states have programs for elderly, homeless, or disabled individuals to buy prepared meals).

Eligibility for SNAP:

Eligibility for SNAP is primarily based on a household's income, resources, and certain other factors:

 Income Limits: Most households must meet both gross monthly income (before deductions) and net monthly income (after deductions) limits. These limits vary based on household size and change annually. Generally, gross income must be at or below 130% of the federal poverty line, and net income at or below the poverty line. Households with an elderly or disabled member may only need to meet the net income test.

 Resource Limits: Households must also meet resource limits, which are assets like cash or money in a bank account. These limits also vary by state and household size. Certain resources are typically not counted, such as your home, most retirement plans, and resources of individuals receiving SSI or TANF.

 Work Requirements: Most able-bodied adults aged 18-54 who do not have dependents are subject to work requirements. This typically means they must be working (paid or unpaid) or participating in a work/training program for a certain number of hours per month (e.g., 80 hours) to receive benefits for more than 3 months in a 3-year period. There are exemptions for certain individuals (e.g., those caring for a child or incapacitated family member, pregnant individuals, veterans, those experiencing homelessness, or those exempt for physical/mental health reasons).

 Citizenship/Immigration Status: Generally, to qualify, non-citizens must have lived in the U.S. for at least 5 years, be receiving disability-related assistance, or be children under 18.

 Household Definition: A "household" for SNAP purposes includes everyone who lives together and purchases and prepares food together. Spouses and most children under 22 living together are typically considered part of the same SNAP household.

Application Process:

The application process typically involves:

1. Checking Eligibility: Many states o er online pre-screening tools to help you determine if you might be eligible.

2. Gathering Documents: You'll need to provide documentation to verify identity, residency, income, expenses, social security numbers for all household members, and potentially other information.

3. Submitting an Application: Applications can usually be submitted online, by mail, or in person at your local state SNAP o ice.

4. Completing an Interview: Most applicants will need to complete an interview, which may be conducted by phone or in person, after submitting their application.

5. Providing Additional Information: Your caseworker may request further documentation or clarification.

6. Receiving a Decision: You will typically receive a decision about your eligibility within 30 days of submitting your application. If eligible for expedited benefits (e.g., very low income and resources), you might receive benefits within 7 days.

SNAP is a critical anti-hunger program that provides vital support to millions of Americans, helping them a ord nutritious food and contributing to local economies.

1122924 – SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) ©

What is an evaluator’s responsibility with regard to evaluation focus? To what extent is an evaluator only obligated to evaluate the objectives of a program as stated by program leadership? To what extent does an evaluator have a responsibility to study other potential impacts of a program beyond the intended goals?

In the Real World … Revisiting the Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study (CSYS): Ideology. The CSYS was introduced in Chapter 2. The purpose of CSYS (Cabot, 1940) was both to prevent juvenile delinquency among boys as well as to study the effectiveness of juvenile delinquency interventions. It is revisited here to illustrate how ideology relates to design, role, and methods.

While it is impossible to truly know what Cabot’s ideology was with regard to evaluation, we can surmise from descriptions of the study where his beliefs might fall along each calibrator continuum. With regard to the design calibrators, the design indicates he favored the medical model of research design and it does not appear that findings were used for program improvement. With regard to role calibrators, the evaluators were external and do not appear to have had much involvement with the program beyond data collection. There is no evidence that CSYS was a capacity-building evaluation. With regard to methods calibrators, while some qualitative methods may have been used, the predominant methods appear to have been quantitative and focused on the objectives of the CSYS.

What if the CSYS evaluators had had a different ideology? Consider each scenario and identify ways that the change may have affected the findings from the study.

SCENARIO 1: Suppose the evaluators chose to forgo a control group and included all youth in the program.

SCENARIO 2: Suppose findings were used throughout the program to improve services for the children involved.

SCENARIO 3: Suppose the evaluator was someone internal to the program.

SCENARIO 4: Suppose the evaluators worked closely with stakeholders throughout the program, building processes for them to collect and analyze their own data.

SCENARIO 5: Suppose the youth were observed and data were collected from these observations, instead of from instruments designed to measure behavior.

SCENARIO 6: Suppose the evaluators did not use the stated objectives of the program to drive the study, but instead examined any potential outcome of the program.

Ideally, the relationship between evaluators and stakeholders would be a partnership, such that decisions regarding the focus of an evaluation can be jointly determined. See “In The Real World” for a discussion of how ideology may have influenced the Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study.

4.2.4 Calibrators and Ideology

The six calibrators discussed above are provided for you as areas to reflect upon as you develop your own ideology around evaluation. Figure 4.2 includes a graphical representation of how these calibrators shape ideology—and how ideology, in turn, guides our choices regarding evaluation designs and approaches. On the right side of the diagram are additional influencers that affect our use of evaluation designs and approaches. For instance, resources and context can constrain the types of research designs that might be employed. Evaluator skills and experiences, as well as the degree of access we have to stakeholders, influence the approaches that we are able to take with regard to a particular evaluation. The following two sections will address evaluation design and approaches. The section on designs focuses on how they were shaped by early evaluators and only includes a brief explanation of their purpose (Chapter 8 provides detailed information on evaluation design). Evaluation approaches describe some common evaluation approaches in the field and who contributed to the development of each approach.

1122924 – SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) ©

Description

Figure 4.2 Evaluation Ideology Calibrators and Influencers

Quick Check 1. How does an evaluator’s ideology affect their choice of evaluation designs and approaches? 2. Do you think an evaluator should build evaluation capacity among the staff of the program they are evaluating? Why or why not? 3. If you had limited resources for an evaluation, would you use qualitative or quantitative methods? Explain your reasoning. 4. Explain the six calibrators that affect an evaluator’s ideology. What are your thoughts on each calibrator? Do you have strong preferences regarding

any of the calibrators?

4.3 EVALUATION DESIGN Ideology influences the evaluation designs we choose to use. In particular, our philosophy regarding the design and methods calibrators drives the overall structure of our evaluation. While there are additional factors that affect and constrain choices regarding evaluation design and methods, our underlying ideology shapes the extent to which we view different research designs as strong or weak. In this section, major contributors to evaluation design will be discussed, within the framework of the evaluation designs themselves. Chapter 8 will explore evaluation design in more detail.

4.3.1 Experimental Designs

Donald Campbell.

Donald Campbell was one of the most critical pioneers in the call for social experimentation in the field of evaluation (Rossi, Lipsey, & Henry, 2018). His groundbreaking work pioneered the application of the experimental model used in psychological research to the evaluation field (Christie & Alkin, 2013). The experimental model of research includes random assignment of subjects to a program/intervention or to a control condition. Campbell’s perspective was that decisions about policy and programs should be made on the basis of experimental research. His perspectives are detailed in his 1969 article “Reforms as Experiments.” For over half a century, his work has guided social science researchers and evaluators on how to conduct rigorous research aimed at establishing causal inference. Causal inference is the ability of evaluators to claim that the program they are evaluating is responsible for the outcomes they measured. One of the most influential books in the field was written by Campbell and his coauthor Julian Stanley. Campbell and Stanley’s (1963) seminal work Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research is one that every researcher and evaluator should have in their library. They detail design considerations for randomized controlled experiments, quasi-experiments, and nonexperimental studies. Their work has had a lasting impact on the field of evaluation and has facilitated the use of both experimental and quasi-experimental designs (Shadish & Luellen, 2013). It began a shift in the field, which led to randomized experiments being considered the “gold standard” design for establishing causal inference (Christie & Alkin, 2013).

Causal inference: the ability of an evaluator to claim that the program they are evaluating is responsible for the outcomes they measured; causality can be claimed with experimental designs.

Robert Boruch.

Similar to Campbell’s legacy, Robert Boruch has been instrumental in furthering the use of randomized experiments in the evaluation field. One of Boruch’s (1997) most influential works, Randomized Experiments for Planning and Evaluation, provides a practical guide to randomized experiments for evaluators. Boruch is a

1122924 – SAGE Publications, Inc. (US) ©

strong proponent of using randomized experiments, promotes them as the most effective method for evaluating a program’s effects, and argues that any program can employ randomized experiments to determine their effectiveness. As stated by Christie and Alkin (2013),