EASSE Performance Index
Every Mississippian deserves fair access to programs that support health and economic stability.
The EASSE Performance Index reveals how access to public benefits differs across cities based on the lived experiences of the people who rely on them. Use this tool to see what’s working, what’s not, and where improvements are needed most.
About the Data
Explore the full report and dataset.
Focus Group Report
Preliminary Baseline Report
Detailed Methodology
The EASSE Performance Index converts qualitative focus group findings into a quantitative scoring system to measure the severity of access barriers across five Mississippi cities: Jackson, Greenville, Natchez, Hattiesburg, and Gulfport.
Qualitative Insights were drawn from facilitated focus groups with community members who had recently attempted to access SNAP, TANF, Medicaid, and the Childcare payment program.
Barrier Score
The barrier score represents the severity of issues across key public benefit access dimensions: application and access barriers, communication and service quality issues, eligibility and income thresholds, and systemic inefficiencies.
| CITY | BARRIER PERCENTAGE | RANK |
| Jackson | 81% | 1 |
| Natchez | 73% | 2 |
| Hattiesburg | 65% | 3 |
| Greenville | 65% | 3 |
| Gulfport | 58% | 4 |
Barrier percentage is defined as the severity score divided by maximum possible severity (28). Read the full methodology here.
Access Performance
Higher access performance scores reflect greater access equity, indicating fewer or less severe barriers to public benefits. Lower scores highlight cities where systemic challenges are concentrated and modernization and staffing investment may be highly impactful
| CITY | ACCESS PERFORMANCE | RANK |
| Gulfport | 42% | 1 |
| Greenville | 35% | 2 |
| Hattiesburg | 35% | 2 |
| Natchez | 27% | 3 |
| Jackson | 19% | 4 |
Access performance scores are calculated by subtracting the barrier percentages (Barrier Score / 26 (the maximum possible severity)) from 1 (1 – Barrier Score). Read the full methodology here.
Regional Challenges: Urban Areas
CITIES: Jackson, Hattiesburg, Gulfport
| Service quality concerns were most severe in urban areas, particularly in Jackson, where participants reported demeaning treatment, explicit racial bias, and a lack of trust in frontline staff. |
| In Jackson, administrative complexity and system navigation challenges compelled some participants to seek alternative pathways to access benefits, highlighting a breakdown in institutional trust and the inadequacy of existing processes. |
| Program performance varied by service, with Hattiesburg participants uniquely praising Medicaid’s online application process while other programs remained difficult to access. |
| Urban participants emphasized broader community solutions especially in Gulfport, including the need for public transportation, youth employment opportunities, and protections against TANF benefit fraud. |
Regional Challenges: Rural Areas
CITIES: NATCHEZ, GREENVILLE
| Transportation and broadband barriers were the dominant challenges in rural areas, particularly for participants without reliable internet access |
| Interagency coordination failures were most pronounced in rural communities, with participants describing repetitive, conflicting requirements across benefit programs. |
| Rural funding and capacity disparities limited-service availability in small towns, increasing reliance on under-sourced agencies. |
| Community-based organizations played a critical role in rural areas, helping offset service gaps and improve access to benefits. |
Barrier Indicators
Barriers were grouped into thirteen distinct issues across key access dimensions; these form the standardized comparison framework for all cities. Each city was scored per issue using 0-2 severity scale, with 0 defined as no barrier and 2 defined as a pervasive systemic barrier. Scoring was based on strength of language used in participant feedback.
Four categories of challenges appeared consistently across all five focus group locations:
Application and Access Barriers
Communication and Service Quality Issues
Eligibility and Income Threshold Problems
Systemic Inefficiencies in the Benefit Delivery System
Application and Access Barriers
Participants struggled with online systems despite generally preferring digital applications. Processing delays, lost paperwork, and missed appointments due to poor notification systems also affected participants regardless of location.
Communication and Service Quality Issues
Participants consistently described feeling dehumanized by their interactions with benefit program staff. The lack of clear communication about eligibility requirements and available resources compounded those negative experiences. Participants also described instances where program staff did not clearly communicate major program changes such as changes in eligibility requirements and benefits calculations.
Eligibility and Income Threshold Problems
The use of gross rather than net income calculations, particularly for disadvantaged working families, created situations where small pay increases resulted in significant benefit losses. Also, mentioned by participants across the focus groups was the loss of benefits due to acceptance into other public programs; thus causing a “net decrease” in overall benefits received.
Systemic Inefficiencies in the Benefit Delivery System
Systemic inefficiencies in the benefit delivery system indicated a lack of interagency cooperation which caused participants to often submit the same documentation multiple times to different programs. Inconsistent caseworker assignments also disrupted continuity of care, requiring participants to explain their situations to new staff members repeatedly.