Implementing Your Program

The groups we spoke to all agreed that planning up-front saved time and money down the line, and while many wished they had ironed out some of these details earlier, they all understood that the need for these programs is so urgent that “building the plane midair” will happen.

This part of the guide is dedicated to planning how the fund will be implemented with the caveat that you may have to launch before you’ve had the chance to plan every single detail. Here we discuss setting eligibility criteria, determining whether there will be a public-facing application, choosing the platform for cash delivery, and more.

Creating a cash assistance program will likely be a new line of work for you and you’ll need to have capacity to run it. Here are two roles that you should have filled as a baseline minimum:

A program owner. We mention this in the “aligning around a clear vision” section as well because it’s important for you to have someone within your team who will be responsible for the program end-to-end. This does not need to be someone who works on the program full time—a program owner is someone who will make decisions and be accountable for the program overall.

At least one dedicated full-time staff member during the duration of the program. Even if you partner with CBOs to help with outreach and implementation, you need to be prepared to play an active role in the administration of your program. CBOs should not be left to pick up work beyond the outreach that they are uniquely fit to handle. This means that there should be someone within your team to coordinate the program. This will entail everything from being a point of contact for partners, to working with technology vendors, and anything else that is needed to make the program run smoothly.

In addition to these two roles, you’d also benefit from having someone on your team who is experienced in managing data. As we’ll discuss more soon, there are many tech products available that you’ll want to be able to use. Having someone who is able to communicate with your technology vendors will be a huge asset; when we spoke with one vendor, they specifically said that they are able to provide better services when there’s someone technical in-house with whom they can communicate.

All the groups we spoke with targeted families that lost income due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Many, but not all, also focused on those who are excluded from governmental benefits included those provided by the CARES Act. These two criteria will help you identify individuals who need financial help and have limited access to other types of financial assistance.

If you or if one of the CBOs that you’re working with have a deep relationship and understanding of a particular segment of the community, think about using that to narrow your candidate pool.

As one person told us during an interview,

“If your advantage is working with a specific constituency, stay with it.”

For example, one group we spoke with focuses on supporting restaurant workers, so they used criteria that would identify workers from that industry. Another group focused on serving low income families in Northern California who were facing homelessness. For that group, residence in their community mattered. Narrowing eligibility to a specific community that you know seemed to be the right strategy for the folks that we spoke with. And even with narrow criteria, everyone emphasized that even still they were unable to reach everyone who met their eligibility requirements.

Here are a few examples of eligibility criteria that we saw from folks who tapped into their domain expertise to narrow the scope of their program:

• Eligibility by employment industry: domestic workers, restaurant workers, gig workers, etc.
• Eligibility by membership: Some groups or coalitions of groups kept applications open only to their members
• Eligibility by geographic location: participants must live in a certain area
• Eligibility by platform: some groups limited eligibility to individuals already using a particular platform, such as FreshEBT or Steady

The questions you ask during the application process should align with the eligibility criteria and the privacy best practices mentioned above. We recommend keeping data collection to a minimum, and only asking what you absolutely need to ask to determine eligibility, verify eligibility, and distribute cash. Sample applications we’ve seen include:

• Name
• Home Address (if mailing checks or cash cards, verifying based on geographic location, or for reporting or auditing purposes in line with your organizational requirements)
• Phone number (for phone interviews, to verify information, or for distributing digital payments such as Venmo or Zelle)
• Email address (for sending digital payments)
• When applicable, username (for services such as Paypal, Venmo, and Square Cash)
• Eligibility questions
  • These include questions about ability to pay rent, changes in income, and prior employment
• Some organizations had unique codes that were required for submitting an application because it was proof of membership
• Some organizations asked for demographic characteristics, which did not impact the probability of receiving payments but did provide information on the program

Some organizations may choose not to have an application and serve only individuals who are already part of their membership. Other coalitions with “closed” memberships still chose to have private applications, either requiring the help of a navigator to complete, a private invitation, or a unique code.

Organizations that do not have an open application but still need a way of tracking the recipients of funds often do so by setting up an internal intake form that their staff fills out.

The outreach approaches from the groups we interviewed varied widely. Some CBOs and cities sent mass text messages, had politicians and public figures discuss the fund, and had an open application process. Others did not engage in broad outreach and instead worked only with people they had prior contact with. Regardless of whether they had an open or closed application, all of the interviewees we spoke with felt they did not have the capacity to help all those who met their program’s eligibility criteria. Finding eligible recipients never was an issue.

There are pros and cons to both open and closed applications. Most of the CBOs that we spoke with chose not to have an open application process because they already work in communities that have enormous need; they didn’t need to go outside of their own network to identify potential applicants. We also heard that open applications required more administrative work: more applications to process and respond to, and more resources needed to manage expectations within the applicant pool. One group that we spoke with emphasized the importance of managing expectations,

“Low income people are used to being dragged through processes only to be disappointed. [So] how can you deliver money with the least amount of friction and fast?”

Open applications can lead to disappointment because they can set expectations of assistance that cannot be met. Groups that had chosen to publicize the fund and have a public intake form cited transparency and accessibility concerns, as they felt that everyone should have knowledge of the program. They worried about passing over vulnerable individuals who might not already be within a CBO’s network. It’s much easier to manage expectations with a closed application process.

Groups with closed applications felt that an open public form would have its own biases and accessibility issues. For example, online intake forms present technology and language barriers that are overcome by CBOs reaching community members directly.

All of this said, if you are a city or state, we understand that you might feel the responsibility to open your program to all of your residents.

How do you choose what application process is best for your program?

Instead of thinking about reaching everyone (which is impossible), think about your team’s bandwidth as well as your ability to manage the public’s expectations. If you are relying on a partner CBO to manage relationships with the public, what are they comfortable with? Ask them what they’ll be able to do best. In the end, you’ll need to provide support and communication to recipients of the fund so you want to reserve resources for relationship management beyond the initial outreach.

There are many reasons why an organization might choose to publicize a fund including: transparency and fairness or because their rules require it, to broaden the reach of the program, and to ensure that vulnerable communities have many ways of finding out about a fund. You might announce your program for the purpose of raising funds from individual donors (there are many cash assistance programs asking for donations on social media and those announcements are likely effective in raising funds).

However, announcing a fund will draw a lot of attention during a time of great need and there are risks that come with that as we mention in the section above regarding open versus closed applications. There are many people who need cash and you want to manage expectations and minimize the risk of disappointing your applicants.

If you decide to announce your program, be clear about why you are doing so and be clear about how you’ll manage expectations. When deciding whether to announce your cash transfer program, you should consider how you will manage inquiries and inbound requests for support, how you will set expectations about the demand vs. supply, and how you will choose recipients (first come, first serve; greatest need; etc.). Some organizations have created FAQs, while others have simply stated this information as part of the application process. Every organization we spoke to that had publicized their fund received more applications than they had money for, often drawing 10 times the demand compared to their supply of funds. We heard that those that were more visible and used open applications faced more backlash because many people in need developed expectations of getting support but in the end were disappointed.

“We give [large corporations] billions of dollars but want to overanalyze giving $10 to someone who is poor”

Earlier in the guide, we referenced the need to choose between speed, maintaining data privacy and security, and minimizing fraud. Under normal circumstances, when moving quickly is not as urgent, and without social distancing measures in place, organizations might ask applicants to show proof of eligibility via documentation, in-person checks, interviews, etc.

These verification methods are not easy to implement due to the current constraints of the pandemic, such as social distancing. Therefore, most organizations have opted to allow self-attestation or references from community members such as religious leaders, educators, and local advocates. In many cases, organizations chose to maintain a closed application (only open to their members or members of their affiliate groups) arguing that these organizations knew the families personally and could attest to their level of need.

Organizations establishing cash transfer funds must weigh the benefits and costs of waiving traditional verification methods versus limiting applications to a pre-selected group of individuals.

Some groups have chosen to conduct phone interviews. A few have established social distancing protocols for in-person interviews, using networks of trusted community organizations and set time appointments to minimize person-to-person contact.

Is self-attestation sufficient to curb fraud? We overwhelmingly heard that fraud has been extremely rare. Groups told us that recipients of cash payments have expressed the desire to pay back the money that they received, often opting to take smaller amounts so that others could also receive assistance. For example, one group told us that they asked their community members how much they wanted to receive in payments.

“We surveyed our impacted community and most said that they prefer $500-$1,000 [over higher amounts] in assistance so that the fund reaches more people.”

From a cost-benefit perspective, putting large amounts of resources into vetting did not seem to offer much value. One group said, “if the worst-case fraud scenario is one person gets $500 dollars twice, maybe that’s not useful to focus on.” Relying on private funds gives CBOs more flexibility regarding verification requirements, and that flexibility has enabled groups to focus on distributing money over nonessential oversight.

Many of the groups that we spoke to used digital applications throughout all phases of running their programs—from raising funds to distributing cash. While many started off with makeshift solutions to manage their work, in the end they all agreed these were not sustainable in handling scale and high volume.

For managing data, CRMs are better than spreadsheets. Think about using a long-term data management solution like a customer relationship management (CRM) system from the beginning—even if that requires paying for one. Organizations cited that the volume of incoming applications was much larger than they ever expected. One group said, “we thought we'd serve 1,000 families [total] but we received 4,500 applications in days”. When they relied on tools that worked well for their usual business, they ran into problems related to data volume. Here are a few quotes from our interviews:

“We started with a Squarespace site that dumped applications into a google spreadsheet. Once we got [media] coverage, we had 30,000 applications and this was too much for the google spreadsheet. Once the spreadsheet was full, Squarespace bounced back applications so some applications were rejected just because our spreadsheet was full.”

Groups that we spoke with were mostly using CRMs and, while the most common one was Salesforce, we also heard of groups using Oracle and Microsoft. It should be noted that the groups we spoke with didn’t have time or resources to do market research. “We never shopped. There could be better solutions than [what we’re using]” we heard from one group.

It is likely that there may be better and/or cheaper tools out there that we never discussed in our interviews. If you have one that you are comfortable using, it’s probably best to stay within that system.

“We're using [the commercial CRM we were already using for other work]. We made some fixes overnight and it's nimble.”

If you don’t have one, be forewarned that pricing can be high. See if you can negotiate a discount given the work that you will use it for — some of the organizations that we spoke with were able to get additional discounts on top of nonprofit pricing.

Choose tech that integrates with your existing tools. Other things to consider when deciding which technology platform to use include how it will integrate with your existing tools, whether it provides options for customer service and back-and-forth communication, and if it will allow for partners from external organizations to have access to information being stored in the system. This was especially critical in models where one central organization had built the intake form and was dispensing funds, but partner organizations were submitting applications or adjudicating applications on their behalf.

There are a variety of ways to deliver cash to your program’s recipients. The least technology-dependent way is if you and your CBO decide to distribute payments in person. We spoke with a few organizations that opted for making their cash assistance program an entirely in-person operation. They personally conducted outreach and they personally delivered payments (in the form of checks, gift cards, or prepaid cards) to program recipients. These organizations felt that they knew their communities well enough to go to them directly and didn’t want to build additional infrastructure to operate the fund.

However, as a city, you’ll likely create a program that is too large for this type of in-person model. You’ll most likely rely on different software for both intake and cash distribution. And if so, you’ll want to consider using a payment facilitator to streamline the work of connecting all of these tools so that you can deliver cash to the right individuals in the way that’s most useful to them.

Streamlining the process

End-to-end payment facilitators help you streamline administrative responsibilities that arise as you stitch together the application intake process to your cash delivery service. For example, if you have a CBO help you with intake, a payment facilitator will connect their intake data to your payment infrastructure. Working with a payment facilitator means using one of their software platforms to connect all the tech products involved in your end-to-end cash delivery.

While working with a payment facilitator can be a great help, payment facilitators are execution-focused and you’ll need to have your program strategy in place. In particular, you’ll need to know how you want to deliver payments, whether by one-time debit card, by Venmo or PayPal, etc.

There are three nonprofit payment facilitators that we learned about through our interviews. These organizations had begun facilitating cash transfers before the COVID-19 pandemic, and are expanding access to the platforms that they developed. They are:

• UpTogether, a platform offered by the Family Independence Initiative (FII)
• GiveDirectly, a platform that’s being used for fund distribution in many cities already
• Alia Cares, a platform focused on delivering cash to unbanked communities offered by the National Domestic Workers Alliance innovation arm, NDWA Labs.

These three nonprofits are mission-driven rather than commercially-driven. They manage intake and payment disbursement. If you are interested in working with any of them, contact them to see whether you’d be a match. However, if you aren’t, there are also commercial payment facilitators to work with.

Here are commercial payment facilitators that manage the payment disbursement process that organizations we spoke with were using:

• Usio
• GreenDot

Some groups we spoke with relied on Usio products to help them send prepaid cards either directly to the recipient or to a CBO, which then distributed the card. Green Dot is an online banking company that several groups use. Both companies have the ability to issue anonymous cards, which can be activated without the company gathering personal information from the recipient.

Finally, here are more commercial products that groups we spoke with relied on to streamline the payment distribution process:

• Stripe offers products to support end-to-end payment delivery.
• Hyperwallet (by PayPal) to enable programs to transfer money to a recipient’s bank account
• Paypal to enable programs to send payments to a PayPal or Venmo account

Some organizations have worked directly with major financial institutions such as MasterCard and Visa to set up payment options that work for their needs, such as one-time debit or prepaid cards.

Organizations we spoke to had different ways of determining how much money they would distribute to recipients. Sometimes, funders set the payment limits, while other organizations simply chose a number that would allow them to maximize the number of households they could serve while still contributing a meaningful amount.

One organization we spoke to calculated the monthly rent or mortgage payment in their area, while others based the payment amount on average unemployment insurance payments, the stimulus check amounts, or comparable benefits payments.

Some groups attempted to customize payment levels based on individual need but later determined that this was too complicated and slowed the process down.

Similarly, groups that have opted to regrant funds to partner organizations should decide whether each group will abide by a payment amount they set, or whether the partner organization can set their own limit.

While the payment amounts varied, the most common ranges we saw in our research were one-time payments of: $200, $400, $1,000, and $2,000. As we stated earlier, the common tradeoff was choosing to serve more families at a lower payment point, or supply fewer families with more money. Organizations set these limits with IRS regulations in mind, ensuring that the amount would be considered a non-taxable gift and would not trigger public charge rules later on (though it does appear that the federal emergency declaration negates public charge concerns.)

Some organizations chose to allow applicants to say how much they needed, up to a cap. This ensured that recipients received enough for their own needs, while also allowing the fund to stretch as far as possible. The average payment was significantly lower than the cap, indicating that allowing recipients to determine their own needs might make funds stretch further while also ensuring recipients had agency in the process.

From the implementation side, one-time cards are more quickly and easily distributed than reloadable ones. One of the card distribution teams that we spoke with told us that,

“If we added 100,000 customers overnight that needed reloadable cards, customer service would be an issue. But I think we could add 1 million cards without much change if they were one-time cards.”

Also, a few of the organizations we spoke to only issued one-time payments because they worried that recurring payments could count against public benefit eligibility or have tax implications for the recipient. Regarding determining the tax implications, we recommend seeking advice from counsel or a financial advisor to understand whether using reloadable cards will create new risks.

*Note that if you are involved in running a cash assistance program and you have lessons of your own to share, believe that we left something out, or believe that we got something wrong, please let us know. We’ll be collecting feedback through the end of July. Thank you!