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 | Payment Accuracy and Program Integrity
Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP): Assessment of Sponsor Tiering Determinations – 2013

This 2013 assessment of the family daycare homes (FDCHs) component of CACFP provides a national estimate of the share of the roughly 123,000 participating FDCHs that are approved for an incorrect level of per meal reimbursement, or reimbursement "tier" for their circumstances.

Resource | Research | Assessing/Improving Operations
Regional Office Review of Applications ( RORA) for School Meals 2013

The study generates national estimates of administrative error in eligibility determinations and benefit issuance for free or reduced-price school meals.  For school year (SY) 2012-2013, local education agencies (LEAs) correctly certified 96.4 percent of students who applied for meal benefits.  LEAs assigned the correct free, reduced-price, or paid status to a slightly smaller 96.2 percent of students.  Roughly three quarters of certification and benefit issuance error resulted in a higher benefit level than was justified based on the data presented on household applications; about one quarter of LEA administrative error resulted in a lower benefit level than justified.  Certification and benefit issuance error increased slightly from SY 2011-2012 to SY 2012-2013, but the changes were not statistically significant.  Over the nine years of this report series, certification error has ranged between 2.0 and 3.9 percent; benefit issuance error has ranged between 3.0 and 4.6 percent.

Resource | Research | Assessing/Improving Operations
National School Lunch Program Direct Certification Improvement Study

The purpose of this study is to describe current methods of direct certification used by State and local agencies and challenges facing States and local education agencies in attaining high matching rates.  In addition, the analysis of unmatched records provides a better understanding of the categorically eligible children who are not matched in the direct certification process and identifies potential matching process improvements that might increase the number of matched children. This study includes analysis of data drawn from a National Survey of Direct Certification Practices and case studies of seven States for School Year 2012-2013.

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 | Assessing/Improving Operations
School Foodservice Indirect Cost Study

The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act (HHFKA) directed USDA to study the extent to which school food authorities (SFAs) participating in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP) pay indirect costs to local education agencies (LEAs). It specifically requested an assessment of the methodologies used to establish indirect costs, the types and amounts of indirect costs that are charged and not charged to the school foodservice account, and the types and amounts of indirect costs recovered by LEAs. To address the research questions, information was collected from four perspectives: (1) the State education agency finance officer, (2) the State child nutrition director, (3) the LEA business manager, and (4) the SFA director.