Overview 

The Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer 

for Children (SEBTC) demonstration seeks 

to find innovative strategies for addressing 

hunger during summer, when low-income 

children do not have access to school meals. 

Through a rigorous evaluation, SEBTC tests 

the impact of a monthly benefit during the 

summer on children’s food security. 

A prior evaluation of implementation in 

2012 found that a $60 per month per child 

benefit reduced very-low food security 

among children (VLFS-C) by one-third. 

The 2013 evaluation examined whether a 

$30 benefit could produce similar results. 

The study indicated that the $30 benefit 

reduced VLFS-C as well as the $60 benefit, 

but the $60 benefit produced greater 

reductions in food insecurity among adults 

and the full household. 

Pilot Implementation 

For the 2013 SEBTC evaluation, four of the 

2012 grantees received additional funding to 

serve new families in a total of six sites. The 

2013 sites included returning, expanded, and 

new areas: 

 Chickasaw Nation served additional 

children in the 2013 evaluation; 

 Delaware expanded to a statewide 

implementation; 

 Michigan included sites in MidMichigan, Grand Rapids, Kentwood, and 

added Detroit; 

 Oregon added Portland as a new site in 

2013. 

Delaware and Portland offered benefits 

using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program (SNAP) Electronic Benefit 

Transfer (EBT) systems. The remaining sites 

used the Special Supplemental Nutrition 

Program for Women, Infants, and Children 

(WIC) model. These sites included urban 

areas (Detroit, MI, Grand Rapids/Kentwood, 

MI, and Portland, OR) and relatively large, 

predominantly rural areas (Chickasaw 

Nation and Mid-Michigan). Delaware 

contains a mix of urban, suburban, and rural 

areas. 

All 2013 sites used an “active consent” 

process, in which participants had to return 

forms in order to be included in the 

evaluation. Across the 6 evaluation sites, 

consent rates across sites ranged from 23% 

to 42% of eligible children. These rates were 

consistent with rates for active consent sites 

in previous years. As in 2012, the 

percentage of eligible children reached at all 

SEBTC sites exceeded the percentage of 

eligible children served through traditional 

summer feeding programs (about 16 

percent).1

Taken together, benefits were issued to 

approximately 51,000 households with 

100,000 children. Of these, about 25,600 

households with 50,000 eligible children

were included in the evaluation. 

Methodology 

In 2013, households in the 6 evaluation sites 

were randomly assigned into one of two 

groups that received either the $60 or the 

 

1 USDA FNS National Databank (NDB), 2013 

SUMMER ELECTRONIC BENEFITS TRANSFER FOR CHILDREN: 

EVALUATION FINDINGS FOR THE THIRD IMPLEMENTATION YEAR 2013 (SUMMARY) 

Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support November 2014
$30 benefit amount (there was no $0 benefit 

group in 2013). 

The evaluation conducted two surveys, in 

the spring and summer, to calculate the 

impact of the SEBTC benefits on food 

security, consumption, and spending 

patterns. 

Findings 

Benefit Redemption: Households in the $60 

benefit group had similar participation and 

redemption rates to those in the $30 benefit 

group: 

 Across all sites, 93% of households 

who received the $60 benefit used it at 

least once during summer compared to 

91% of those issued the $30 benefit. 

 Of those households that used their 

benefit at least once, the redemption 

rates were 74% for the $60 group and 

71% for the $30 group. 

The average amount redeemed over the 

summer per child was $134, or 74% of the 

$180 in total benefits received during the 

summer, for the $60 benefit group and $64, 

or 71% of the $90 received, for the $30 

benefit group. 

In the $60 benefit group, 36% of households 

exhausted their benefits (i.e., used all 

available benefits) in at least one month, 

compared to 43% of households in the $30 

benefit group. 

Food Insecurity: Both the $60 and $30 

benefits had the same impact on VLFS-C, 

the most severe form of food insecurity. 

However, there were statistically significant 

differences on other measures of food 

insecurity. The prevalence of food insecurity 

among children (FI-C) in the $60 SEBTC 

benefit group was 32.6% in the summer of 

2013 compared to 36.3% in the $30 SEBTC 

benefit group. In addition, the prevalence of 

very-low food security and food insecurity 

was higher in the $30 group than the $60 

group for adults and households. 

The study conducted exploratory analysis 

using data from 2012 and 2013 to consider 

the impact of $30 compared to no benefit. 

The results indicate that the impact of a $30 

benefit amount had greater impact on VLFSC than no benefit. 

Summary 

The third implementation year of the 

SEBTC demonstration allowed a 

comparison between the impacts of a $30 

and a $60 benefit. 

Households in both the $30 and $60 groups 

redeemed their benefits at similar rates. The 

comparison of the impact of $30 per month 

relative to $60 per month on food insecurity 

showed that the $30 benefit was just as 

effective at addressing VLFS-C as the $60 

benefit, but was not as effective for the other 

categories of food insecurity (i.e., less 

severe food insecurity among children, 

adults, households). This indicates that 

households were using the $30 to meet the 

children’s most severe needs. For 

households in the $60 group, the remainder 

of the benefit helped to defray costs in ways 

that eased hunger for the rest of the family. 

For More Information 

Collins et al. (2014). Summer Electronic 

Benefits Transfer for Children (SEBTC) 

Demonstration: Evaluation Findings for the 

Third Implementation Year. Prepared by 

Abt Associates, Mathematica Policy 

Research, and Maximus. Alexandria, VA: 

USDA, Food and Nutrition Service. Project 

Officer, Chan Chanhatasilpa. 

Available online at: 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/ops/research-andanalysis

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.