Findings From A Survey of New York City EBT Clients

Prepared by Barbara Leyser for the National Consumer Law Center with funding from James N. Jarvie Commonwealth Service

February 2001

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

NEW YORK EBT CLIENT SURVEY RESULTS

With the generous assistance of local advocates and community based agencies from around the country, the National Consumer Law Center conducted the first ever multi-state survey of low-income government benefit recipients whose benefits are delivered via electronic benefit transfer (EBT) systems. The surveys were conducted from late summer of 2000 through January 2001. In all, completed surveys were obtained for 352 individuals, including 129 throughout New York City. This report presents the results for New York City and, where significant, contrasts those findings to those obtained for the full multi-state sample.

DEMOGRAPHICS

Participants by Age

Participants by Highest Grade of School Completed

Participants by Identified Special Needs

Participants by Primary Language

Survey Conducted in:

By design, the New York City EBT survey sample was both older (64% age 60 and over compared to 30% for the entire sample) and more heavily non-English speaking (63% for the NY sample compared to 26% for the full survey). Probably in large part because of these two factors, the New York sample also tended to be less educated than the full sample (60% with less than a twelfth grade education compared to 47% for the full sample) and those with less education were more than twice as likely to fall in the eighth grade or less grouping, with a fairly high proportion having indicated they had not completed grade school. The differences in the demographics of the NY sample may well account for some of the variances from the full sample findings that are noted below.

PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS

Benefits Received by Respondents

Stopped Receiving Benefits because of Switch to EBT?

Length of Time Using EBT

IN-PERSON TRAINING

Was in-person training on how to use the EBT card received?
25 Yes
100 No
4 No Response

If no, what reason was given for not attending in-person training?

If attended in-person training, did respondent understand how to use the EBT card to get benefits?

22 Yes
2 No
1 No Response

After attending the training, did the respondent understand what to do if had any problems with the card?

18 Yes
4 No
3 No Response

Were special accommodations needed for the training?

2 __Yes
20__No
3 __No Response

If yes,

a. what accommodations were needed? (check all that apply)
__ wheelchair accessibility 1 translation services __child care services
__closed captioning video 1 transportation to training site __other

b. were they provided?
_Yes
1 No
1 No Response

USING THE EBT CARD

Have any benefits been missing from the EBT account that respondent thought should have been there?

7 (05%) ___Yes
116______ No
6 ________No Response

If yes,
a. How does respondent think the benefits were taken or lost? (check all that apply)

2 lost or stolen card
__wrong amount deposited into account
__store clerk error or fraud
1 store machine error
1 ATM error
__taken by someone I asked to shop for me
__taken by another household member
2 do not know how it happened
1 other

b. About how much was missing?

$ 259.71 in food stamps less than $1 in cash benefits

c. Did respondent report the problem?

4 Yes
3 No

If yes, what happened?

2 all benefits were replaced
__only food stamp benefits were replaced
1 no benefits were replaced
__only cash benefits were replaced
1 other matter still pending

Has respondent ever given someone else their EBT card to shop for them or withdraw cash?

All Respondents:

36 (28%) Yes
82 (64%) No
11 No Response

By Age:

If yes,

a. Has that person had difficulty using the card because he/she was not the respondent?
1 Yes
27 No
6 Do not know
2 No Response

b. Would respondent feel safer if could limit the amount or type of benefit the other person could get with their EBT card?
8 (22%) Yes
19 No
9 No Response

If no, would respondent be more likely to let someone else use the card for them if they could limit that person's access to their benefits?

6 Yes
8 No (Note: This question was not actually asked of New York City respondents but rather reflects those who responded to the above question despite having indicated that they had never let anyone else use their card.)

New York City respondents were more likely to have given someone else their EBT card to use for them, even controlling for age - 32% for those 60 and over compared to the national sample finding of 29% and 26% for those under age 60 compared to 18% for the full sample of those under 60. In addition, NYC respondents seemed to feel more confident about security matters when it came to letting someone else use their card. While only 22% of the New York respondents indicated they would feel safer if they could limit the amount or type of benefits the other person could access with their card, 36% of the full sample responded "yes" to this question.

QUESTIONS SPECIFIC TO FOOD STAMPS

Has respondent had any problems buying food with the EBT card?
17 (13%) Yes
105 (82%) No
6 No Response

If yes, what problems were identified?
3 store did not have a POS machine
8 (47%) store's machine was out of order
0 card locked up because wrong PIN entered
1 forgot PIN
2 could not figure out how to use the card
5 (29%) card would not work
4 card was lost or damaged
0 could not use system because of a disability
0 unable to shop at the stores I like
0 unable to shop at farmers markets
0 unable to use card in other state(s) where I shop
1 other

If respondent indicated having had a problem with buying food with their card and that their EBT card was rejected at a store or the store's system was out of order, what consequences did respondents report encountering? (Note: These are tallies from those who reported encountering a problem. Thus, the first entry shows that of the 17 respondents who indicated they had encountered one or more problems, 5, or 29%, reported having had to have used cash on at least one occasion because of a problem with the food stamp portion of the EBT system.)

5 (29%) used cash
2 did not buy food that day
0 signed paper voucher
9 (53%) went to another store
0 store allowed me to buy "on credit"
1 other

If respondent did not indicate having problems buying food with the EBT card but did indicate that their EBT card was rejected at a store or the store's system was out of order, what consequences did respondents report encountering?

10 (10%) used cash
7 (07%) did not buy food that day
0 signed paper voucher
32 (30%) went to another store
0 store allowed me to buy "on credit"
0 other

Has respondent encountered any store that tried to place any restrictions on their use of the EBT card?
5 (04%) Yes
92 No
31 No Response

If yes, what restrictions?
1 wanted fee for food stamp purchase
2 required minimum purchase
2 would not let anyone else use my card to shop for me
0 other

The New York City respondents were significantly less likely than the full sample to report having encountered problems buying food using their Benefit card -- the "yes" response of 17% for NYC compares to 37% for the full sample. However, this may simply be a reflection of NYC respondents' greater tolerance of program failures. Virtually all of those respondents who did not indicate having had a problem but did indicate having had their card rejected in a store or having to make alternative arrangements because the store's system was down were from NYC.
Thus, perhaps the more significant finding for New York is one not reflected by the individual questions but the combined responses which show that 32% of all food stamp recipients in New York reported having had to go to another store because of an equipment problem.

QUESTIONS SPECIFIC TO CASH BENEFITS

Does cash assistance recipient have a bank account?

3 Yes
31 No
1 No Response

If yes, would respondent like to be able to have cash benefits directly deposited into that bank account instead of using the EBT system?
2 Yes
1 No

Has respondent had any problems using the EBT card to get cash?

Gen'l Asst.
1 Yes
7 No

TANF
8 (30%) Yes
19 No

If yes, what types of problems has respondent had
3 could not find ATM that accepted Benefit cards
2 store did not have a Benefit machine
1 store's machine was out of order
2 store only accepted card for purchases, not cash withdrawals
2 store required minimum purchase to get cash back
0 store limited cash back to $50 or less
0 card locked up because wrong PIN used
0 forgot PIN
0 could not figure out how to use the card
2 card would not work
0 card was lost or damaged
0 could not use system because of a disability
2 other

(Note: Spanish speaking recipients did not identify any problems in this area, while Asian American population had one check each for "no ATM that accepted Benefit card" and "store required a minimum purchase for cash back".)

Is respondent able to access all cash benefits in the EBT account without paying a fee or surcharge?

Gen'l. Asst.
2 Yes
6 No

TANF
6 Yes
21 No

a. On average, how much does respondent pay in fees and surcharges for each cash transaction?

2	$.85
26 (74%)	between $.86 and $2.50
2	between $2.51and $5
0	more than $5

b. On average, how much does respondent pay in total each month for accessing cash benefits with the EBT card?

0	$.85
6 (35%)	between $.86 and $2.50
13 (37%)	between $2.51 and $5
7 (20%)	more than $5
1	more than $10

Where does respondent usually use the EBT card to get cash?
(Note: Survey asked that respondents rank in order of use - 1 being most often and 5 being least often but most merely identified the sources they used without applying a ranking. For tallying purposes, we counted each check mark as a ranking of "1" and combined those results with all the actual ranked responses. New York City was the only place in the entire survey where check cashers received a ranking of first, second, or third.)

ATM
8 First choice
18 Second choice
2 Third choice
Fourth choice
Fifth choice

Grocery Store
5 First choice
4 Second choice
2 Third choice
Fourth choice
Fifth choice

Other Store
2 First choice
1 Second choice
Third choice
4 Fourth choice
Fifth choice

Check Casher
24 First choice
3 Second choice
2 Third choice
Fourth choice
Fifth choice

Other
3 First choice
Second choice
Third choice
Fourth choice
Fifth choice

Has respondent had any problems paying bills because could not get cash benefits using the EBT card system?

Gen'l. Asst.
2 Yes
6 No
0 No Response

TANF
3 Yes
19 No
5 No Response

CUSTOMER SERVICE

Has respondent ever called the toll free customer service number?

All Respondents:
57 (44%) Yes
59 No
13 No Response

By Age:

Under 60

26 (68%) Yes 6 No 6 No Response

60 and Over

26 (32%) Yes 49 No 7 No Response

By Primary Language:

English 17 (41%) Yes 22 No 2 No Response

Spanish 32 (59%) Yes 14 No 8 No Response

Chinese 3 (11%) Yes 22 No 2 No Response

If yes, why did respondent call the customer service number? (check all that apply)

All Respondents:

9 to report a lost, misplaced or stolen card
3 to change PIN
43 to check the account balance
2 to make a complaint
7 other

By Age:

Under 60
5 to report a lost, misplaced or stolen card
2 to change PIN
18 to check the account balance
0 to make a complaint
4 other

60 and Over
4 to report a lost, misplaced or stolen card
1 to change PIN
20 to check the account balance
2 to make a complaint
3 other

By Primary Language:

How long did it take respondent to get an answer to a question or resolve a problem raised with the customer service representative?

44 same day
8 3-7 days
0 more than a month
2 2-3 days
1 more than a week
1 did not resolve

Has respondent had any of the following problems with customer service? (check all that apply)

4 number is always busy
0 cannot call from pay phone
13 always get a recording, never a live person
12 kept on hold for more than 5 minutes
11 help not available in my primary language
2 customer service staff was rude or not helpful
1 other

Taken as a whole, New York City respondents were much less likely to have called the customer service hot line than the full survey sample (44% compared to 57% for the full sample). However, this disparity totally disappears when one takes the age of the respondents into account. Broken down by age groupings, the New York figures of 68% and 32% actually exceeded the full survey findings of 67% for those under age 60 and 29% for those age 60 and over. Additionally, the New York percentage for the elderly would have been substantially higher were it not for the Asian American participants, only 3 (out of 27) of whom reported ever having placed a call to the customer service number. Whether this response from the Asian American sample reflects the fact that customer service assistance in New York is not available in languages other than English or Spanish or whether it instead reflects some sort of cultural barrier to using this kind of service is something we cannot determine from this survey but is certainly something that appears worthy of further investigation.

With respect to the various complaints respondents had about the customer service feature, New York City respondents were the only ones to complain about help not being available in their primary language. Two of the Asian American respondents took the time to amplify their responses on this point noting that, because of the lack of Chinese speaking customer service representatives, they had had to have someone else place the call for them to try to resolve a problem, only to have that person be told by the customer service representative that the representative was not authorized to share information with the person calling on the recipient's behalf. Since customer service help is supposed to be available in Spanish, we cannot explain why 14% of our Hispanic sample in NY also noted problems in this area.

In addition to the language barrier issue, NYC respondents accounted for nearly 45% of all complaints about being kept on hold for more than 5 minutes, 34% of the complaints about not being able to get a live person to speak with, and 40% of the complaints about constant busy signals. Given the fact that NYC respondents only accounted for 28% of those survey respondents who indicated they had ever tried to call the customer service number, these percentages show a much higher problem rate with the customer service line in NY than for our sample as a whole. Indeed, the rate of complaints about the New York City customer service feature was higher than in any of our other survey states.

OVERALL IMPRESSIONS

Do respondents feel that the EBT card system has limited their ability to get benefits or shop in any way other than those covered in other survey questions?

9 Yes 107 No 13 No Response

In general, what is respondent's overall feeling about the EBT system?

All Respondents:
19 (15%) Love it - it's much better than the old system
33 (26%) Like it - it's a little better than the old system
45 (35%) No preference
25 (19%) Do not like it, but can use it
3 (02%) Hate it
4 No Response

By Age:

Under 60

6 (16%) Love it - it's much better than the old system
12 (32%) Like it - it's a little better than the old system
10 (26%) No preference
8 (21%) Do not like it, but can use it
1 (03%) Hate it
1 No Response

60 and Over

13 (16%) Love it - it's much better than the old system
18 (22%) Like it - it's a little better than the old system
29 (35%) No preference
17 (21%) Do not like it, but can use it
2 (02%) Hate it
3 No Response

By Primary Language:

English

8 (20%) Love it - it's much better than the old system
9 (22%) Like it - it's a little better than the old system
17 (41%) No preference
5 (12%) Do not like it, but can use it
1 (02%) Hate it
1 No Response

Spanish

7 (13%) Love it - it's much better than the old system
24 (44%) Like it - it's a little better than the old system
10 (19%) No preference
11 (20%) Do not like it, but can use it
0 Hate it
2 No Response

Chinese

4 (15%) Love it - it's much better than the old system
0 Like it - it's a little better than the old system
14 (52%) No preference
7 (26%) Do not like it, but can use it
2 (07%) Hate it
0 No Response

There was only one major difference between the feelings about the EBT system among New York City respondents and those for our full multi-state sample. While the responses of New Yorkers 60 and over closely mirrored those of their counterparts in the full sample, respondents under age 60 from New York City had a less favorable reaction to the system than the full sample of all those under 60. Thus, while 48% of this subset of the New York sample indicated they preferred EBT to the old system and 24% stated a preference for the old system, the comparable figures for the full sample of those under age 60 were 60% and 16% respectively. Because of the small sample size of those under age 60 from NY, we cannot tell whether this finding is significant. However, we can speculate that one factor that may account for some of this difference is that the former system in NYC enabled cash assistance recipients to access their benefits without incurring any fees whereas cash assistance recipients in the other states frequently had to pay some kind of fee to get their assistance checks cashed.