Resource | Research | Demonstrations
Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer for Children (SEBTC) Demonstration: A Summary Report

The Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer for Children (SEBTC) demonstration distributed a monthly benefit during the summer on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) or Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) EBT cards to children eligible for free or reduced-price school meals. The first two summers (2011 and 2012) tested a $60 benefit amount. Summer 2013 compared the impacts of a $30 benefit to a $60 benefit, and summer 2014 examined implementation strategies and benefit use patterns. This comprehensive report presents results from the analysis of pooled data from all summer demonstrations.

Resource | Research | Demonstrations
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP): FY 2012

The evaluation analyzed administrative data acquired from the six States that participated in the 2012 Enhanced Summer Food Service Program (eSFSP) Demonstrations to examine the impact of the demonstrations on participation. It found that the impacts on participation were mixed. For the Backpack demonstration, sites in one State increased the number of children and meals served, sites in another State served more meals but did not increase the number of children served, and both meals and children served decreased in the third State. Analysis of the Meal Delivery demonstration indicates the demonstration likely increased the number of children served.

Resource | Research | Demonstrations
Evaluation of the 2012 Summer Food Service Program Enhancement Demonstrations

The evaluation used interviews and site visits to capture implementation strategies and stakeholders’ views of the 2012 Enhanced Summer Food Service Program (eSFSP) demonstrations. Results indicated that sites used different strategies for recruitment and outreach; the types of food delivered; training; and technical assistance. Site administrators felt that previous experience operating an SFSP site; good use of partnerships, volunteers, consultants, and activities to make the projects family friendly; a focus on healthful eating; and careful use of resources for efficiency were important to successful implementation. Also, both participating families and site operators felt the demonstrations were an important resource to address summer hunger.

Resource | Research | Demonstrations
Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children (SEBTC) Demonstration: Evaluation Findings for the Third Implementation Year: 2013 Final Report

The Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children (SEBTC) demonstration uses the SNAP and WIC EBT systems to deliver benefits to children during summer months. The evaluation examined the impact of a $30 per child per month benefit on child, adult and household food security relative to a $60 monthly benefit. It found that the $30 benefit was as effective in reducing the most severe category of food insecurity among children during the summer as the $60 benefit. However, the $30 benefit was only about half as effective as the $60 benefit at reducing the less severe but more prevalent food security among children. Results were similar across SNAP and WIC sites.

Resource | Research | Demonstrations
Report on the Summer Food for Children Demonstration Projects for Fiscal Year 2013

This Congressional report summarizes the implementation and evaluation of two approaches tested in the summers of 2011 through 2013. Summer EBT for Children (SEBTC) uses existing electronic benefits transfer systems to provide household benefits for children.  The Enhanced Summer Food Service Program (eSFSP) tests several changes to the traditional program, including incentives to extend operating periods, incentives to add enrichment activities, meal delivery for children in rural areas, and weekend and holiday backpacks.

Resource | Research | Demonstrations
Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children (SEBTC) Demonstration: Evaluation Findings for the Full Implementation Year 2012 Final Report

The Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children (SEBTC) demonstration offered a rigorous test of the impact of providing a monthly benefit of $60 per child - using existing electronic benefit transfer (EBT) systems - on food insecurity among children during the summer when school meals are not available. In the second year of operations, when the demonstration was fully implemented, the evaluation found that this approach could reach up to 75 percent of eligible children and reduce the prevalence of very low food security among children by about one-third.

Resource | Research | Demonstrations
Summer 2011 SFSP Home Delivery and Food Backpacks Demonstration Projects:

Summer 2011 SFSP Home Delivery and Food Backpacks Demonstration Projects
Request for Applications and Questions and Answers

Resource | Research | Assessing/Improving Operations
Evaluation of the Summer Food Service Program Enhancement Demonstrations: 2011 Demonstration Evaluation Report

The 2010 Agricultural, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act enabled the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) to initiate and carry out the Summer Food for Children demonstration projects, aimed at preventing food insecurity and hunger among children during summer months. The projects include the Enhanced Summer Food Service Program or “eSFSP” demonstrations, which test the impact of a number of enhancements to the existing Summer Food Service Program (SFSP). The eSFSP demonstrations include four separate initiatives, two of which began in summer 2010 with the other two launching in summer 2011. This report presents exploratory findings from the evaluation of four types of demonstrations in eight States: The Extending Length of Operation Incentive demonstration (2010-2011) in Arkansas; The Activity Incentive demonstration (2010-2011) in Mississippi; The Meal Delivery demonstration (2011-2012) in Delaware, Massachusetts, and New York; and The Backpack demonstration (2011-2012) in Arizona, Kansas, and Ohio.

Resource | Research | Assessing/Improving Operations
Evaluation of the Impact of Enhancement Demonstrations on Participation in the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP): FY 2011

This report examines administrative data obtained from the eight States that operated the 2011 eSFSP demonstrations to assess changes within demonstration sites compared to non-demonstration sites. Outcomes include the total number of meals served, the days of operation, and the total number of children served (as measured by average daily attendance or ADA). The influence of the 2011 demonstrations on food consumption and food security, as well as analyses of the implementation and costs of the demonstrations, are examined in a separate report.

Resource | Research | Assessing/Improving Operations
Evaluation of the 14 State Summer Food Service Program Pilot Project

In December 2000, the Secretary of Agriculture was authorized, through the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), to conduct a Pilot to increase SFSP participation in a number of States with low rates of feeding low-income children in the summer. States were eligible to participate in the Pilot if the proportion of low-income children they served in July 1999 through SFSP and the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) relative to March 1999 NSLP participation was below 50 percent of the national average. Fourteen States, including Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, Texas, and Wyoming, met the criteria and are participating in the Pilot. For the purpose of this Pilot, Puerto Rico is defined as a State. This 3-year Pilot began in fiscal year 2001 and has been extended until June 30, 2004. Under the Pilot, meals served by eligible sponsors in the 14 States are reimbursed at the maximum allowable rate. In addition, administrative record keeping for the Pilot sponsors was reduced since they were no longer required to record administrative and operating costs separately and they did not have to report costs to State Agencies.