Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for

Children (SEBTC) Demonstration: Evaluation

Findings for the Third Implementation 

Year

2013 Final Report

Nutrition Assistance Program Report November 2014

Food and Nutrition Service

Office of Policy Support
USDA is an Equal Opportunity Provider 
r

Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support November 2014

Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for

Children (SEBTC) Demonstration: 2013

Final Report

Authors:

Ann M. Collins 

Ronette Briefel 

Jacob Alex Klerman 

Anne Wolf 

Gretchen Rowe 

Ayesha Enver 

Submitted by:

Abt Associates Inc. 

Mathematica Policy Research 

Maximus 

Project Director:

Ann M. Collins

Christopher W. Logan 

Syeda Fatima 

Marina Komarovsky 

Julia Lyskawa 

Stephen Bell 

Submitted to:

Office of Policy Support 

Food and Nutrition Service 

3101 Park Center Drive 

Alexandria, VA 22302-1500

Project Officer:

Chan Chanhatasilpa 

This study was conducted under Contract number AG-3198-C-11-00024 with the Food and 

Nutrition Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 

This report is available on the Food and Nutrition website: http://www.fns.usda.gov

Suggested Citation:

Collins, A.M., Briefel, R., Klerman, J.A., 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 under 

Contract number AG-3198-C-11-00024. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Research and Analysis, Project Officer: Chan 

Chanhatasilpa, Alexandria, VA: November 2014 

Acknowledgements

Page i 

Acknowledgments 

The authors would like to acknowledge the many individuals who made important

contributions during the development of this report. Most importantly, the 2013 report would

not have been possible without the help of the four grantees, their State and local partners,

and the participating school food authorities. We also appreciate the time of the families

selected for the evaluation study that responded to the surveys.  

We gratefully acknowledge the assistance provided by the Department of Agriculture, Food and

Nutrition Service. We would like to recognize the help of Hoke Wilson, Melissa Abelev, Joseph

Robare, Chanchalat Chanhatasilpa, Marisa Kirk‐Epstein, and Ronald Maynard.  

We thank the evaluation team members who helped make the 2013 demonstration year a

success. Jacey Greece served as site liaison to Chickasaw Nation and Delaware. Data liaisons

coordinated data requests and data transfers with the grantees, working to assist with any data

questions and ensure that data were collected and transferred securely and on a tight time

schedule. The data liaison team, included RJ de la Cruz, Eric Friedman, and Vinh Tran.  

A number of individuals assisted with the design, random assignment, and analysis for the

SEBTC evaluation study. Marianne Beauregard helped to ensure that all of the major evaluation

tasks were on schedule, particularly as they related to getting data on households. Lisa Zingman

helped manage the impact study process.  Charles DiSogra and Stas Kolenikov developed the

sample weights, with the assistance of David Izrael and in consultation with David Judkins.

Edward Bein consulted on major issues related to design and weighting.  Randall Juras was

responsible for conducting the balance testing and writing the related text in the appendix. In

addition, Faith Lewis calculated the survey response rates and wrote the accompanying text.

We acknowledge the data programming and analysis efforts of Nancy McGarry, Kimberly

Ferzco, Louise Hadden, Peter Honnef, and Vinh Tran needed for the impact study and related

analysis. We also acknowledge the efforts of Marina Komarovsky and Ayesha Envers for their

work creating analysis files from the EBT data. We also recognize the efforts of Mary Kay

Crepinsek, Eric Lundquist, Denise Mercury, Elizabeth Condon, Katie Niland, and Brendan Kirwan

in the preparation of nutrition‐related analytic variables.  

We thank the data collection team leaders, including Andy Weiss, Rhoda Cohen, Jason

DiBartolo, Dan Duplantier, Damian Emmerich, Loring Funaki, Diane Grill, Felicia Hurwitz, Shelly

Jacobs, Beverly Kelly, Faith Lewis, Dan Loew, Marjorie McNaul, Brianna Roche, Jesse Rude,

Margie Rosa, Betsy Santos, Evelyn Schlinski, Ae Sengmavong, Phyllis Shank, Lucy Tindall, April

Villone, Bob Vojinovic, and Jeremy Wells, and the team of locators, telephone interviewers,

field staff and supervisors at Mathematica and Abt SRBI.   

Philip Gleason and Chris Hamilton provided insightful comments in his technical review of this

report.  

Contents

Page iii 

Contents 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... 1

E.1 Introduction .......................................................................................... 1

E.2 Evaluation Overview .............................................................................. 3

E.3 Major Findings ...................................................................................... 4

E.3.1 SEBTC Implementation and Use of Benefits ............................. 4

E3.2. Households in the Study and Impacts of SEBTC ....................... 5

E.4 Next Steps ............................................................................................ 9

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1

1.1 Policy Context: Summer Food Insecurity Among Children ..................... 2

1.2 The SEBTC Demonstration ..................................................................... 4

1.2.1 Household Eligibility and SEBTC Benefits ................................. 4

1.2.2 Overview of Program Models................................................... 5

1.2.3 SEBTC Grantees ...................................................................... 5

1.3 Overview of the Evaluation .................................................................... 8

1.3.1 Evaluation Framework for the SEBTC Demonstration ............... 9

1.3.3 Data Sources ........................................................................ 13

1.3.4 Analyses ............................................................................... 13

1.4 Findings from the 2012 Evaluation ....................................... 14

1.4.1 SEBTC Implementation in 2012 and Use of Benefits .............. 14

1.4.2 Impact on Very Low Food Security Among Children 

(VLFS-C) ................................................................................ 14

1.4.4 Other Impacts of SEBTC ........................................................ 15

1.5 Report Contents ................................................................... 15

CHAPTER 2: THE DEMONSTRATION GRANTEES PARTICIPATING IN THE EVALUATION 

AND IMPLEMENTATION EXPERIENCES ..................................................... 17

2.1 Grantee Organizational Structures ...................................................... 18

2.2 Overview of the Demonstration Sites and Local Context ...................... 19

2.2.1 Characteristics of Grantees and Their Partners ...................... 19

2.2.2 Local Population and Characteristics of Participating 

SFAs ..................................................................................... 21

2.2.3 School Calendars and Benefit Periods .................................... 24

2.3 Consent Process and Providing Benefits to Households ....................... 25

2.3.1 Identifying Eligible Children and Households ........................ 26

2.3.2 Obtaining Households Consent ............................................. 26

2.3.3 Notifying Households of Benefit Receipt ............................... 28

2.3.4 Issuing SEBTC Benefits .......................................................... 28
Contents

Page iv 

2.3.5 Benefit Expiration and Expungement .................................... 30

2.4 Conclusion .......................................................................................... 31

CHAPTER 3: USE OF SEBTC BENEFITS .......................................................................... 33

3.1 Research Questions and Key Findings ................................................. 33

3.1.1 Research Questions .............................................................. 33

3.1.2 Key Findings ......................................................................... 34

3.2 Data and Methods ............................................................................... 35

3.2.1 Data ..................................................................................... 35

3.2.2 Methods ............................................................................... 36

3.3 Description of SEBTC Benefit Use by Site ............................................. 37

3.3.1 Benefit Participation and Redemption Rates .......................... 37

3.3.2 Value of Benefit Issued and Redeemed .................................. 41

3.3.3 SEBTC Benefit Exhaustion .................................................... 42

3.3.4 Patterns of Benefit Redemption by Food Category in 

WIC-Model Sites .................................................................... 43

3.3.5 Differences in Benefit Use Between WIC and SNAP 

Models ................................................................................. 45

3.4 Impact of a $60 SEBTC Benefit Relative to a $30 Benefit on SEBTC 

Benefit Use ......................................................................................... 46

3.5 Impact of a $60 SEBTC Benefit Relative to a $30 Benefit on SEBTC 

Benefit Use by Site .............................................................................. 48

3.6 Impact of a $60 SEBTC Benefit Relative to a $30 Benefit on SEBTC 

Benefit by WIC vs. SNAP Models .......................................................... 50

3.7 Impact of a $60 Benefit Relative to a $30 Benefit on SEBTC Use 

Outcomes, by Demographic Subgroup ................................................ 52

3.8 Conclusion .......................................................................................... 53

CHAPTER 4: CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS IN THE SUMMER EBT FOR CHILDREN 

DEMONSTRATION .................................................................................. 55

4.1 Research Questions and Key Findings ................................................. 55

4.1.1 Research Questions .............................................................. 55

4.1.2 Key Findings ......................................................................... 55

4.2 Overview of Random Assignment and Household Survey Data Collection57

4.2.1 Conducting Random Assignment .......................................... 57

4.2.2 Response Rates .................................................................... 57

4.2.3 Household Survey Data Collection ......................................... 58

4.2.4 Survey Instrument ................................................................. 59

4.3 Household Characteristics................................................................... 59

4.3.1 Household Size and Composition .......................................... 60
Contents

Page v 

4.3.2 Household Income ................................................................ 60

4.3.3 Other Household Characteristics ........................................... 61

4.3.4 Characteristics of the Survey Respondents ............................ 62

4.3.5 Characteristics of Children Certified for FRP Meals ................ 62

4.3.6 Where Children Usually Ate Lunch During the 

Summer ................................................................................ 63

4.3.7 Participation in Nutrition Assistance Programs 

Targeting Households ........................................................... 67

4.4 Conclusion .......................................................................................... 68

CHAPTER 5: IMPACT OF SUMMER EBT FOR CHILDREN ON CHILDREN’S FOOD SECURITY, 

NUTRITIONAL STATUS, AND OTHER OUTCOMES ..................................... 69

5.1 Research Questions and Key Findings ................................................. 69

5.1.1 Research Questions .............................................................. 69

5.1.2 Key Findings ......................................................................... 70

5.2 Data and Methods ................................................................ 71

5.3 Impacts on Summer Food Security of Providing $60 of SEBTC Benefits 

Rather than $30 .................................................................................. 75

5.3.1 Very Low Food Security among Children ............................... 75

5.3.2 Other Measures of Household Food Security ......................... 76

5.3.3 Impacts on Food Security by Site ........................................... 77

5.3.4 Impacts on Food Security by Subgroup ................................. 79

5.3.5 Spring-to-Summer Change in Food Security Among 

Children, 2013 ..................................................................... 80

5.4 Non-Experimental Estimates of the Food Security Impact of a $30 

Benefit ................................................................................................ 81

5.5 Impacts on Household Food Expenditures of Providing $60 of SEBTC 

Benefits Rather than $30 ..................................................................... 84

5.6 Impacts on Children’s Nutritional Status of Providing $60 of SEBTC 

Benefits Rather Than $30 .................................................................... 87

5.7 Impacts on Household Participation in Nutrition Assistance Programs 

and Whether Households Paid for their Children’s Lunch ..................... 92

5.8 Conclusion .......................................................................................... 93

CHAPTER 6: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................ 95

6.1 Participating Grantees and Implementation of SEBTC in 2013 .............. 96

6.2 SEBTC Benefit Issuance and Use .......................................................... 96

6.3 Impacts of SEBTC on Food Security and Other Household Outcomes ... 98

6.3.1 Impacts on Children’s Food Insecurity .................................. 98

6.3.2 Impacts on Households’ Food Expenditures, 

Children’s Nutritional Status, and Household’s 

Participation in Federal Nutrition Programs ........................... 99
Contents

Page vi 

6.4 Conclusion in Brief ............................................................................ 100

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... 101

LIST OF APPENDICES:

Appendix 1: SEBTC Food Package in Sites Implementing the WIC Model

Appendix 2: Site Maps for 2013 Implementation Year

Appendix 3A: File Creation for EBT Outcomes Analysis

Appendix 3B: Supplementary Descriptive Tables

Appendix 3C: Supplementary EBT Outcomes Results

Appendix 4A: Random Assignment

Appendix 4B: Sample Design and Response Rates

Appendix 4C: Spring and Summer Survey Instruments

Appendix 4D: Household Characteristics, By Site

Appendix 5A: Additional Methodological Detail

Appendix 5B: Description of Covariates in Impact Analysis Models

Appendix 5C: Household and Child Weights  

Appendix 5D: Creation of Selected Dependent Variables

Appendix 5E: Detailed Impact Analysis Results

   
Contents

Page vii 

Table of Figures 

Exhibit E.1 Estimated Impact of $60 versus $30 SEBTC Benefit on Very Low 

Food Security among Children in Summer 2013 ................................. 6 

Exhibit E.2 Estimated Impact of $60 versus $30 SEBTC Benefit on Food 

Insecurity among Children, Summer 2013 .......................................... 7

Exhibit E.3 Non-Experimental Cross-Year Estimated Impact of $30 versus no 

SEBTC Benefit on VLFS-C and FI-C, Summers of 2012 and 2013 .......... 8

Exhibit E.4 Monthly Household Food Expenditures with a $60 and $30 SEBTC 

Benefit Amount, Summer 2013 ........................................................... 9

Exhibit 1.1 Overview of the SEBTC Demonstration by Year ................................... 7

Exhibit 1.2 Publications on Summer EBTC for Children Evaluation ........................ 9

Exhibit 1.3 Logic Model for the SEBTC Evaluation ............................................... 11

Exhibit 1.4 Flow of Activities in 2013 of FNS, Grantees, and Evaluation Team ..... 12

Exhibit 2.1 The SEBTC Grantees, Their Partners, and Participating Local Areas, 

2013 ................................................................................................ 20

Exhibit 2.2 Characteristics of 2013 Demonstration Areas Compared to the 

Nation .............................................................................................. 22

Exhibit 2.3 Duration of the Summer Benefit, 2013 ............................................. 25

Exhibit 2.4 Consent Rates by Grantee, 2013 ...................................................... 27

Exhibit 2.5 Benefit Expiration and Expungement Dates ...................................... 31

Exhibit 3.1 Households and Children Assigned, Issued, and Redeeming SEBTC 

Benefits, by Site for All Months, Summer 2013 ................................. 38

Exhibit 3.2 Percentage of SEBTC Benefits Redeemed, All Households, By Site 

for All Months, Summer 2013 ........................................................... 40

Exhibit 3.3 Percentage of SEBTC Benefits Redeemed, Participating 

Households, By Site for All Months, Summer 2013............................ 41

Exhibit 3.4 Mean Dollar Amount of SEBTC Benefits Issued and Redeemed, by 

Site for All Months, Summer 2013 .................................................... 42

Exhibit 3.5 Exhaustion of SEBTC Benefits by Site for All Months, Summer 2013 .. 43

Exhibit 3.6a Percentage of SEBTC Benefits Redeemed by Food Category, 

Households with $60 per Child, WIC-Model Sites, Summer 2013 ...... 44

Exhibit 3.6b Percentage of SEBTC Benefits Redeemed by Food Category, 

Households with $30 per Child, WIC-Model Sites, Summer 2013 ...... 45

Exhibit 3.7 Estimated Impact on Benefit Use Outcomes of $60 Relative to $30 

on Participation Rate, Percent of Benefits Redeemed and Benefit 

Exhaustion Rate, Summer 2013 ........................................................ 46

Exhibit 3.8 Estimated Impact of $60 Relative to $30 Benefit on the 

Participation Rate by Site, Summer 2013 .......................................... 49
Contents

Page viii 

Exhibit 3.9 Estimated Impact of $60 Relative to $30 Benefit on the Benefit 

Redemption Rate by Site, Summer 2013 ........................................... 49

Exhibit 3.10 Estimated Impact of $60 Relative to $30 Benefit on the Benefit 

Exhaustion Rate by Site, Summer 2013 ............................................. 50

Exhibit 3.11 Estimated Impact of $60 Relative to $30 Benefit on the 

Participation, Benefit Redemption, and Benefit Exhaustion Rates by 

SEBTC Model, Summer 2013 ............................................................. 51

Exhibit 3.12 Estimated Impact of $60 Relative to $30 Benefit on the Percent of 

Benefits Redeemed, and Benefit Exhaustion Rate by Selected 

Subgroup, Summer 2013 .................................................................. 53

Exhibit 4.1 Response Rates, All Sites and by Site, Spring and Summer 2013 ....... 58

Exhibit 4.2 SEBTC Household Characteristics, 2013............................................ 61

Exhibit 4.3 Characteristics of SEBTC Respondents and Ages of Children 

Certified for Free or Reduced-Price Meals, 2013 ............................... 63

Exhibit 4.4 Where Children Usually Ate Lunch, Monday through Friday, 

Summer 2013 and Summer 2012 ..................................................... 64

Exhibit 4.5 Whether Children Had a Secondary Location for Lunch, Monday 

through Friday, by Primary Location, Summer 2013 .......................... 65

Exhibit 4.6 Number of Days Children Usually Received Free Lunch, Monday 

through Friday, Summer 2013 .......................................................... 66

Exhibit 4.7 Awareness of a Program in the Neighborhood that Provides Free 

Meals, Summer 2013 ........................................................................ 66

Exhibit 4.8 Reasons Provided for Why Children Did Not Attend Known 

Programs Providing Free Meals, Summer 2013 ................................. 67

Exhibit 4.9 Reported Participation in Household Nutrition Programs in Sites, 

Spring 2013 ..................................................................................... 67

Exhibit 5.1 Estimated Impact of $60 versus $30 SEBTC Benefit on Very Low 

Food Security among Children in Summer 2013 ............................... 75

Exhibit 5.2 Estimated Impact of $60 versus $30 SEBTC Benefit on Food 

Insecurity among Children, Summer 2013 ........................................ 76

Exhibit 5.3 Estimated Impact of $60 versus $30 SEBTC Benefit Amount on 

Food Security Among Children, Adults, and Households in 

Summer 2013 .................................................................................. 77

Exhibit 5.4 Estimated Impact of $60 versus $30 SEBTC Benefit on Very Low 

Food Security among Children, Summer 2013 .................................. 78

Exhibit 5.5 Estimated Impact of $60 versus $30 SEBTC Benefit on Food 

Insecurity among Children, Summer 2013 ........................................ 79

Exhibit 5.6 Estimated Impact of $60 versus $30 SEBTC Benefit on Food 

Insecurity Among Children, by Subgroup in Summer 2013 (When 

Significant) ....................................................................................... 80
Contents

Page ix 

Exhibit 5.7 Estimated Prevalence of Food Security among Children in Summer 

for the $60 and $30 SEBTC Benefit Groups, by Food Security in 

Spring, 2013 .................................................................................... 80

Exhibit 5.8 Non-Experimental Cross-Year Estimated Impact of $30 versus no 

SEBTC Benefit on VLFS-C and FI-C, Summers of 2012 and 2013 ........ 82

Exhibit 5.9 Non-Experimental Cross-Year Estimated Impact of $30 SEBTC 

Benefit as a Percent of $60 SEBTC Benefit, for VLFS-C and FI-C, 

Summers of 2012 and 2013 ............................................................. 83

Exhibit 5.10 Non-Experimental Cross-Year Estimated Impact of $30 versus no 

SEBTC Benefit on Food Security Outcomes, Summers 2012 and 

2013 ................................................................................................ 84

Exhibit 5.11 Monthly Household Food Expenditures with a $60 and $30 SEBTC 

Benefit Amount, Summer 2013 ......................................................... 86

Exhibit 5.12 Estimated Impact of $60 versus $30 SEBTC Benefit on Monthly 

Household Food Expenditure and Its Components, Summer 2013 .... 86

Exhibit 5.13 Estimated Impact of $60 versus $30 SEBTC Benefit on Children’s 

Food Consumption, Summer 2013 ................................................... 89

Exhibit 5.14 Estimated Impact of $60 versus $30 SEBTC Benefit on Daily Cup 

Equivalents of Fruits and Vegetables (without Fried Potatoes), by 

Program Delivery Model, Summer 2013 ............................................ 90

Exhibit 5.15 Estimated Impact of $60 versus $30 SEBTC Benefit on SEBTC-WIC 

and SEBTC-SNAP on Children’s Food Consumption, Summer 2013 .... 91

Exhibit 5.16 Non-Experimental Cross-Year Estimated Impact of $60 versus no 

SEBTC Benefit on Nutritional Outcomes, Summers 2012 and 2013 ... 92

Exhibit 5.17 Estimated Impact of $60 versus $30 SEBTC Benefit on 

Participation in Nutritional Assistance Programs and Whether 

Children’s Households Paid for Lunch, Summer 2013 ....................... 93

Executive Summary

Page 1 

Executive Summary 

E.1 Introduction 

Children’s development, health, and well‐being depend on access to a safe and secure source

of food. Food security, that is, access at all times to enough food for an active and healthy life,

is measured at the household level as well as separately for the adults and for the children

living in the household (ERS, 2013a). Food insecure households are those in which the children

or adults or both report limited access to food resulting in: a) reduced quality or variety of diet

(low food security), or b) reduced food intake or disrupted eating patterns (very low food

security).  In 2012, 3.9 million households that included children (approximately 10% of all U.S.

households with children) were food insecure at some time during the year (Coleman‐Jensen et

al., 2013). Nearly 8.3 million children lived in households with food‐insecure children, and 1.0

million children lived in households with very low food security among children (VLFS‐C), the

most severe level of food insecurity.

To address children’s needs in the summer, when school is out of session, the Summer Food

Service Program (SFSP) provides free meals and snacks to children who receive the National

School Lunch Program (NSLP) or the School Breakfast Program (SBP) during the school year.1  

The SFSP enriches the lives of millions of low‐income children in communities across the U.S.;

however, it reaches far fewer children than the school programs (Gordon and Briefel, 2003;

FNS, 2013c; Food Research and Action Center, 2013a). Many communities also provide other

types of food assistance and child programs during the summer months to meet the nutritional

needs of low‐income children. Locations and resources are limited, though, so there are still

gaps in low‐income children’s access to food during the summer in many communities.  

As part of its efforts to end child hunger, the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA) is studying alternative approaches to providing food

assistance to children in the summer months. The 2010 Agriculture Appropriations Act (P.L.

111‐80) authorized and provided funding for USDA to implement and rigorously evaluate the

Summer Food for Children Demonstration, one component of which is the Summer Electronic

Benefits Transfer for Children (SEBTC) (FNS, 2013d). FNS contracted with Abt Associates,

Mathematica Policy Research, and Maximus to study how the demonstration program has

unfolded over time and its impact on program participants.

In 2011, FNS conducted a “proof of concept” (POC) year of the SEBTC in five states to test

whether the summer benefit intervention could be implemented successfully, with a $60 per

child monthly benefit amount (relative to no SEBTC benefit), and whether the evaluation,

                                                      

1 The NSLP and SBP provide subsidized meals to children in school. Children from low‐income families obtain these

meals free or at a reduced price (FRP). Children living in households with incomes at or below 130% of the poverty

level are eligible to receive meals for free; those with incomes between 131 and 185% of poverty level are eligible

for reduced price (FNS, 2013a, 2013b).   
Executive Summary 

Page 2 

targeting 5,000 households, could be done with fidelity (Belotti et al., 2011; Briefel et al., 2012;

Collins et al., 2012). The second year, referred to as the “full implementation year” (2012)

expanded the demonstration to 10 grantees and a total of 14 sites,2 and targeted 27,000

households for the evaluation.  Again, in 2012, the study assessed the impact of a $60 per child

monthly benefit amount relative to no SEBTC benefit.

Grantees provided the SEBTC benefit to households with children from pre‐kindergarten

through 12th grade who were certified for FRP school meals in the demonstration school food

authorities (SFAs) during the previous school year.3 The $60 per child monthly benefit is

comparable to the cost of free lunches plus breakfasts under the NSLP and SBP. Benefits—

provided monthly on an EBT card and prorated for partial summer months—were administered

by grantees in the summer for the period when school was not in session.4

  

The 2011 and 2012 evaluations showed that the SEBTC model could be implemented with

fidelity across a range of States and communities. Further, the evaluation showed that SEBTC

lowered (i.e., improved) Very Low Food Security among Children (VLFS‐C), the study’s primary

outcome. More specifically, averaging across all sites, SEBTC significantly reduced VLFS‐C in the

summer of 2012 by 3.1 percentage points (the prevalence of VLFS‐C was 9.5% in the no‐benefit

group, compared to 6.4% in the group that received the $60 SEBTC benefit).  In addition, the

SEBTC benefit resulted in significant and substantial reductions in all of the other measures of

household food insecurity used by the study.  Prior reports (Collins et al., 2012; Collins et al.,

2013) provide additional details about the impacts of SEBTC in the 2011 and 2012

implementation years.

After learning about the promising impacts of the $60 benefit amount in the previous years,

FNS added add a third demonstration year (2013) to test the impacts of two levels of SEBTC

benefits—a $60 value versus $30 value per month per eligible child in the household—and

targeted 18,000 households for the evaluation. In 2013, there were four grantees (Chickasaw

Nation, Delaware, Michigan, Oregon), each of which participated in the SEBTC demonstration in

previous years. These grantees implemented SEBTC in a total of six demonstration areas, which

included urban areas (Detroit, MI, Grand Rapids/Kentwood, MI and Portland, OR) and relatively

large, predominantly rural areas (Chickasaw Nation and Mid‐Michigan).  Delaware implemented

SEBTC throughout the state; the site therefore included a mix of urban, suburban, and rural

communities.   

The grantees implemented the SEBTC benefits through either their existing SNAP or WIC EBT

systems. In the sites using the SNAP EBT systems to deliver SEBTC, participants could redeem

                                                      

2 The term “grantee” refers to the State agency or group of agencies implementing the demonstration. In 2012,

two of the 10 grantees were Indian Tribal Organizations (ITOs) with demonstration sites in Oklahoma. Chickasaw

Nation was the only ITO in the 2013 evaluation. For this report, the term “State” or grantee refers to the grantees

composed of  States and ITOs.  

3 SFAs are responsible for the provision of school meals and can include one or more schools or districts.

4 More information on these evaluations and projects can be found on the FNS website at

[http://www.fns.usda.gov/ops/summer‐food‐children‐demonstrations].
Executive Summary

Page 3 

benefits for SNAP‐eligible foods at any SNAP‐authorized retailer in the nation. In contrast, the

sites using the WIC EBT systems only allowed households to purchase specific packages of WIC‐

allowable foods at WIC‐authorized stores in the participating State. The SEBTC package for the

WIC sites was specified by FNS based on existing WIC food prescriptions, adjusted for the older

age of the children. In 2013, the $60 package included reduced‐fat milk, 100% juice, cheese,

cereal, eggs, whole wheat bread, beans, peanut butter, canned fish and a $16 voucher for fruits

and vegetables. The $30 package but did not include 100% juice, cheese, or canned fish,

provided an $8 voucher for fruit and vegetables, and provided lesser quantities of the other

foods.5

This report provides the results for the evaluation of the SEBTC Demonstration in its third year;

i.e., comparing a $60 SEBTC benefit to a $30 SEBTC benefit.   

E.2 Evaluation Overview 

Authorizing the Summer Food for Children Demonstrations (FNS, 2013d), Congress directed

USDA to conduct a rigorous independent evaluation of the SEBTC. The SEBTC evaluation in 2011

and 2012 had five broad objectives:

1. To assess the feasibility of implementing SNAP and WIC models of SEBTC benefit delivery

2. To examine the implementation of SEBTC, including approaches used, and the challenges

and lessons learned during the demonstrations  

3. To describe receipt and use of SEBTC benefits

4. To examine the impact of SEBTC benefits on children and their families’ food security, food

expenditures, use of other nutrition programs, and children’s nutritional status  

5. To determine and document the total and component costs of implementing and operating

the demonstrations  

For 2013, FNS added a sixth objective: to compare the differential impacts of a $60 monthly per

eligible child SEBTC benefit versus a $30 per eligible child amount.   

For the impact analysis, the evaluation used a random assignment design, in which households

were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. Such a random assignment design provides

the most credible and rigorous estimates of the impact of a demonstration.  In 2011 and 2012

households were assigned to either receive the $60 monthly per child benefit (i.e., be in the

treatment group) or receive no benefit (i.e., be in the control group). In 2013, where the

motivation was to determine if reducing the amount of the SEBTC benefit alters the food

security improvements and other positive effects of the intervention or, alternatively, yields

just as much benefit to individual families, households were assigned to receive either a $60

monthly per child benefit or to $30 benefit amount. In 2013, since there was no $0 SEBTC

                                                      

5 SNAP participants can purchase a much wider range of foods than permitted in the WIC model. For a full list of

SNAP‐approved foods, visit the FNS website at [http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/faqs.htm#10].
Executive Summary 

Page 4 

benefit group (that is, there was no true control group), it was only possible to directly compare

the relative impacts of the two groups that received the benefit using an experimental design.  

In all years of the study, the analyses of food security and most other outcomes of interest

were based on household interviews.  Households participating in the evaluation were

interviewed in the spring, before the school year ended, and again in the summer. Survey

questions related to, among other topics, food security, nutrition assistance program

participation, and whether and how frequently children ate certain foods and beverages.  In

addition, in all years, the evaluation included detailed analysis of EBT transaction data, which

described patterns of household receipt and the use of the summer benefits. Finally, in 2011

and 2012, the SEBTC evaluation included a detailed implementation study, which was not

conducted in 2013.

E.3 Major Findings 

E.3.1 SEBTC Implementation and Use of Benefits 

All four of the grantees completed the consent process in time to deliver the SEBTC benefits at

the end of their school years and five of the six sites met or exceeded their specific consent

targets. In fact, Delaware received consent for more than 6,500 children beyond its target. In

contrast, the number of consenting children in Detroit was substantially below its target, due to

delays in beginning the consent process, issues with targeting eligible children, and staffing

constraints.  The sites were successful in assigning benefits for 50,600 children; households for

43,000 of the children were included in the evaluation.6  

Among all households issued SEBTC benefits, 93% of those issued the $60 SEBTC benefit and

91% those issued the $30 benefit participated (i.e., used some portion of their SEBTC benefits)

during summer 2013.   

Over all households (both those who used it at least once and those who did not use it at all),

those in the $60 SEBTC benefit group redeemed 74% of their benefits, and those in the $30

group redeemed 72%. Considering all households assigned to receive the SEBTC benefit, the

average benefit redeemed per eligible child was $134 for the $60 group and $64 for the $30

group over the course of the full summer.  In the $60 SEBTC 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.  As in previous years, rates of participation,

redemption, and benefit exhaustion were lower in WIC‐model sites than in SNAP‐model sites,

suggesting that households find it more difficult to redeem WIC benefits or that they are not

interested in some of the specified foods.

                                                      

6 During the consent process in Detroit, it was discovered that many of the schools included in the study operated

year‐round or had expanded school years, making them ineligible for the evaluation, although eligible to receive

the benefit. This is the source of the discrepancy between the two numbers.
Executive Summary

Page 5 

Compared to a $60 SEBTC benefit, a $30 benefit increased participation and redemption rates

by a small but statistically significant amount (a 2% relative difference in the participation rate

and a 3% relative difference in the redemption rate).  On the other hand, the $60 SEBTC benefit

group was 17% less likely than the $30 benefit group to have at least one month during the

summer in which they exhausted all available SEBTC benefits.   

E3.2. Households in the Study and Impacts of SEBTC 

Households in the Study 

As in previous years of the study, households included in the SEBTC demonstration were

relatively disadvantaged, compared to the national population of households with children

under 18. Reported mean household monthly income at baseline was $1,516 (compared to

$6,685 for U.S. households with children in 2012), with 3.7% reporting no income in the

previous 30 days. The study population was even more disadvantaged than the low‐income

(FRP certified) population nationally. Nearly three‐quarters of households in the sample (74.2%)

had monthly incomes below the federal poverty line,7 compared to 51% of children nationally

who are certified for FRP meals (CPS, 20138).

Households in the study were also significantly more like to have experienced VLFS‐C in the

spring compared to similar households. The SEBTC 2013 spring sample (Briefel, et. al., 2014)

had a VLFS‐C rate of 7.2%; for 2013; the corresponding national estimate is 1.7% (Coleman‐

Jensen et al., 2013).   

Impacts on Summer Food Security of Providing $60 of SEBTC Benefits Rather than 

$30 

As stated earlier, a major goal of the study’s third year is to establish the differential impact of a

$60 SEBTC benefit over a $30 benefit on the most severe level of food insecurity among

children (VLFS‐C). Results from 2013 do not show clear evidence that a $60 benefit has a larger

impact than a $30 benefit in reducing VLFS‐C (the evaluation’s pre‐specified confirmatory

outcome). Exploratory analyses of other food security outcomes, however, do find that the $60

benefit amount achieved improvements compared to the $30 amount.

Specifically, averaging across all sites, in 2013, a $60 SEBTC benefit did not significantly reduce

VLFS‐C in the summer of 2013 relative to a $30 benefit. As shown in Exhibit E.1, the prevalence

of VLFS‐C among the $60 SEBTC benefit group was 5.7% in the summer of 2013 compared to

6.1% in the $30 benefit group, a difference of 0.4 percentage points, which is not statistically

different from having no impact. Given statistical uncertainty, the potential impact ranges

                                                      

7 The Federal Poverty Level (FPL) is adjusted for household size. An FPL is calculated for the contiguous United

States, Alaska, and Hawaii. The 2013 FPL for a family of four is $23,550 per year (i.e., $1,963 per month) in the 48

contiguous States (http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm).  

8 Computation by Abt Associates using the data from the 2012 Current Population Food Security Supplement (

https://explore.data.gov/Income‐Expenditures‐Poverty‐and‐Wealth/Current‐Population‐Survey‐Food‐Security‐

Supplement/d6pf‐n3qs).
Executive Summary 

Page 6 

between a decrease of 1.1 percentage points and an increase of 0.3 percentage points (95

percent confidence interval).  

Exhibit E.1 Estimated Impact of $60 versus $30 SEBTC Benefit on Very Low Food Security

among Children in Summer 2013  

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013 (n=19,684).  

Difference = –0.37; SE = 0.36; p‐value = 0.30.

The study team also assessed the impact of a $60 SEBTC benefit compared to a $30 benefit on

other measures of household food security. These non‐confirmatory analyses suggest that,

relative to the $30 SEBTC benefit, a $60 SEBTC benefit reduced food insecurity among children

(FI‐C), defined to include both VLFS‐C and low food security among children (Exhibit E.2). The

prevalence of 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, a statistically significant reduction of 3.7 percentage

points. This reduction is fully 10% of the prevalence of FI‐C with a $30 SEBTC benefit.  In fact,

the study found, with the exception of VLFS‐C, a $60 monthly benefit compared to $30 lowers

(improves) all other measures of household food insecurity used by the study.  
Executive Summary

Page 7 

Exhibit E.2 Estimated Impact of $60 versus $30 SEBTC Benefit on Food Insecurity among

Children, Summer 2013

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013 (n=19,684).  

Food insecurity includes low food security and very low food security among children.

Difference = –3.69; SE = 0.65; p‐value < 0.0001.

As is common with this type of research design, SEBTC involved random assignment within six

purposively selected sites. Findings should not be extrapolated to the nation as a whole since

the selected sites are not necessarily representative of the country. For example, as noted,

levels of food insecurity during the school year in the SEBTC full implementation sites were

considerably higher than national estimates for similar households (i.e., those with school‐age

children and incomes below 185% of FPL).  

Non-Experimental Estimates of the Impact on Summer Food Security of Providing 

$30 of SEBTC Benefits Compared to No Benefits 

Since no households in 2013 were assigned to a zero benefit amount, the 2013 could not use an

experimental design to assess the impact of a $30 per child monthly SEBTC benefit compared to

no benefit.  Using non‐experimental methodology, and pooling data from 2012 and 2013, the

study team produced such estimates. Exhibit E.3 presents these non‐experimental cross‐year

estimates for VLFS‐C and FI‐C. For each set of estimates, the left bar presents the 2013

experimental impacts (comparing the $60 benefit with the $30 benefit).  The total height of the

right bar for each estimate is the impact of a $60 per child SEBTC benefit (relative to no

benefit), estimated with the 2012 data. Superimposed on the right bars are the 2013 $30‐$60

comparisons. The lower part of the right bars is the difference between the $30 versus $60

results and the $60 versus $0 results; i.e., the impact of a $30 SEBTC benefit compared to no

benefit.  

32.6%

36.3%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

$60 Benefit $30 Benefit

Percent of Households with FI‐C

‐3.7
Executive Summary 

Page 8 

Exhibit E.3 Non‐Experimental Cross‐Year Estimated Impact of $30 versus no SEBTC Benefit

on VLFS‐C and FI‐C, Summers of 2012 and 2013

Source: SEBTC, Summer Surveys, 2012 and 2013

Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding. Estimates for $60 vs. $0 (2012) and $60 vs. $30 (2013) estimates are based on

linear regression and therefore differ slightly from the main results reported in 2012 and 2013 which are based on logistic

regression. See Appendix 5E (Exhibit 5E.1.2) of this document for the linear regression results for $60 vs. $30 and Appendix 5E

(Exhibit 5E.1.2) of Collins, et al. (2013) for linear regression results for $60 vs. $0.

Stars on the left vertical bar of each pair are for the test that the differential impact of $60 per child relative to $30 per child is

zero. Stars in the lower part of the right vertical bar are for the test that the impact of a $30 per child benefit (relative to no

benefit) is zero.  

*.05 p < .10, **.01 p < .05, ***p <. 01.

The non‐experimental cross‐year estimates show that, for VLFS‐C, the estimated impact of a

$30 per child SEBTC benefit relative to no benefit is 2.7 percentage points. Statistical tests imply

that this estimate of the impact of $30 per child versus no benefit is clearly different from zero.

Similarly, for FI‐C, the impact of the first $30 of the benefit is 4.8 percentage points.  

Impacts on Other Outcomes of Providing $60 of SEBTC Benefits Rather than $30 

Relative to households receiving the $30 per child SEBTC benefit, the $60 per child benefit

resulted in an increase of $29 in household monthly total food expenditures for the household

(households had an average of 2.0 eligible children). (See Exhibit E.4.)  This increase is the net

result of redemption of $45 more of SEBTC benefits in the $60 group, with a decline of $14 in

food expenditures from other sources. Thus, each additional dollar of SEBTC benefit redeemed

in the $60 group compared to the $30 group led to a 65 cent increase in total household food

expenditures. This net increase in food expenditures is considerably higher than standard

estimates of the impact of a dollar of SNAP benefits on total food expenditures (Hanson, 2010),

and slightly higher than the 2012 SEBTC food expenditure estimates (which compared a $60

SEBTC benefit to no benefit; Collins, et al., 2013).  

VLFS‐C FI‐C
Executive Summary

Page 9 

Exhibit E.4 Monthly Household Food Expenditures with a $60 and $30 SEBTC Benefit

Amount, Summer 2013

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey and SEBTC redemption data, 2013 (n=18,705). Data on out‐of‐pocket food expenditures in the

last 30 days and SNAP benefit redeemed in the last 30 days were obtained from the household survey. Data on average

monthly SEBTC redemption amount were obtained from SEBTC administrative data for June and July 2013.

Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.

Finally, relative to children in households receiving the $30 benefit, children in households

receiving the $60 SEBTC benefit ate slightly more fruits and vegetables and whole grains. There

was no impact on consumption of total daily added sugars, sugar‐sweetened beverages, dairy

foods or nonfat/low‐fat milk. For fruits and vegetables, the impact was larger for the WIC

model than for the SNAP model. Each of these impacts—both overall and between the SNAP

and WIC models—was small in dietary terms.

E.4 Next Steps 

Building on the SEBTC demonstration’s findings for the first three years of the project, in 2014,

FNS plans to add a fourth year of SEBTC in a small number of sites.  In 2014, households will not

be randomly assigned and no impact study will be conducted. Instead, the 2014 study will only

involve an implementation analysis and an analysis of the use of SEBTC benefits.

$269 $271

$281 $295

$87 $42

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$60 Benefit $30 Benefit

SEBTC redeemed

Out‐of‐pocket

SNAP redeemed

$637 total $608 total

Chapter 1

Page 1 

Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Children’s development, health, and well‐being depend on access to a safe and secure source

of food. Food security, that is, access at all times to enough food for an active and healthy life,

is  measured at the household level as well as for the adults and the children living in the

household (ERS, 2013a). In 2012, 3.9 million households included children who were food

insecure (approximately 10% of all U.S. households with children) at times during the year

(Coleman‐Jensen et al., 2013). Nearly 8.3 million children lived in households with food‐

insecure children, and 1.0 million children lived in households with very low food security

among children (VLFS‐C).

To address children’s needs in the summer, when school is out of session, the Summer Food

Service Program (SFSP) provides free meals and snacks to children who receive the National

School Lunch Program (NSLP) or the School Breakfast Program (SBP) during the school year.9

  

The SFSP enriches the lives of millions of low‐income children in communities across the U.S.;

however, it reaches far fewer children than the school programs (Gordon and Briefel, 2003;

FNS, 2013c; Food Research and Action Center, 2013a). Many communities also provide other

types of food assistance and child programs during the summer months to meet the nutritional

needs of low‐income children. Locations and resources are limited, though, so there are still

gaps in low‐income children’s access to food during the summer in many communities (see

section 1.1 for additional details on the SFSP).  

As part of its efforts to end child hunger, the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA) is studying alternative approaches to providing food

assistance to children in the summer months. The 2010 Agriculture Appropriations Act (P.L.

111‐80) authorized and provided funding for USDA to implement and rigorously evaluate the

Summer Food for Children Demonstration, one component of which is the Summer Electronic

Benefits Transfer for Children (SEBTC) (FNS, 2013d). FNS contracted with Abt Associates,

Mathematica Policy Research, and Maximus to study how the demonstration program has

unfolded over time and its impact on program participants.

This report provides an evaluation of the SEBTC demonstration for 2013, the SEBTC

demonstration’s third year. In 2011, FNS conducted a “proof of concept” (POC) year of the

SEBTC to test whether the summer benefit intervention could be implemented successfully by

five State grantees, and whether the evaluation, targeting 5,000 households, could be done

                                                      

9 The NSLP and SBP provide subsidized meals to children in school. Children from low‐income families obtain these

meals free or at a reduced price (FRP). Children living in households with incomes at or below 130% of the poverty

level are eligible to receive meals for free; those with incomes between 130–185% of poverty level are eligible for

reduced price (FNS, 2013a, 2013b).
Chapter 1 

Page 2 

with fidelity (Belotti et al., 2011; Briefel et al., 2012; Collins et al., 2012). The second year,

referred to as the “full implementation year” (2012) expanded the demonstration to 10 State

agencies and a total of 14 sites,10 and targeted 27,000 households for the evaluation.  FNS

added a third demonstration year (2013) in four grantees (Chickasaw Nation, Delaware,

Michigan, and Oregon) with six sites, and targeted 18,000 households for the evaluation (Briefel

et al., 2012). This introductory chapter, serving as a foundation for the rest of the report, details

the issue of summer food insecurity among children, describes the goals and timeline of the

SEBTC demonstration and its evaluation, and provides a road map for the remainder of the

report.  

1.1 Policy Context: Summer Food Insecurity Among 

Children 

Food security is defined as access by all members of the household at all times to enough food

for an active, healthy life.11 Children living in a food insecure household face higher risks of

health, psychosocial, and developmental problems compared to children in food secure

households (Nord, 2009).  Further, food insecurity among children is also associated with

poorer child health and nutrition status (Center on Hunger and Poverty, 2002; Nord, 2009;

Institute of Medicine, 2011). Household food security is determined by the food security status

of the adults and the children living in the household. Food secure households are those in

which both adults and children are food secure. Food insecure households are those in which

the adults or children or both have limited access to food, resulting in reduced quality or variety

of diet (low food security). The most severe form of food insecurity is very low food security,

among children (VLFS‐C), adults (VLFS‐A) or any member of the household (VLFS‐H), which

occurs when there is reduced food intake or disrupted eating patterns (very low food security

[VLFS]). These levels of food insecurity are assessed and used to categorize the food security

status of both the adults and the children living in the household, as well as the household as a

unit.  

In 2012, the national prevalence of food insecurity among households with children and

incomes at or below 185% of poverty was 39%, (Coleman‐Jensen et al., 2013).  Nationwide,   

among households with incomes below the poverty line, the prevalence of food insecurity

among children was 24% and VLFS‐C, 3.1% (Coleman‐Jensen et al., 2013). The prevalence of

VLFS‐C has improved slightly (that is, declined) since 2008, when it was 4.1% among households

living below the poverty line (Nord, 2009).

                                                      

10 The term “grantee” refers to the State agency or group of agencies implementing the demonstration. In 2012,

two of the 10 grantees are Indian Tribal Organizations (ITOs) with demonstration sites in Oklahoma. For this

report, the term “State” or grantee refers to the 10 grantees composed of eight States and two ITOs.  

11 The food security status of each interviewed household is determined by the number of food‐insecure

conditions and behaviors reported by the household, using the standard 18‐item, 30‐day survey module developed

by USDA (Economic Research Service, 2013a).  
Chapter 1

Page 3 

An in‐depth analysis of School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study‐III data on food security

provides some insights into household characteristics of food insecure school‐age children

(Potamites and Gordon, 2010). Nearly all lived in low‐income households; 90% lived in

households with incomes at or below 185% of poverty, and most (72%) were at or below 130%

of poverty. Nearly all food insecure children (93%) participated in NSLP, 80% participated in the

SBP, half (46%) received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, and 19%

were in families that had used emergency food services in the last month. Other local

characteristics associated with food insecurity among low‐income households with children

include higher local housing costs, fuel costs, lack of access to public and private transportation

and/or supermarkets and grocery stores (Bartfeld et al., 2010; Webber and Rojhani, 2010).

Food insecurity among children tends to be more prevalent in large cities and in

nonmetropolitan (largely rural) areas than in the suburban and exurban commuting areas

around large cities (Nord, 2009; Coleman‐Jensen et al., 2013).   National data for 2012 indicate

that the prevalence of food insecurity among children was higher among Hispanic and non‐

Hispanic black households with children compared to other racial/ethnic or non‐Hispanic white

households (Coleman‐Jensen et al., 2013).12  

Because low‐income children rely on school meal programs as a consistent source of food

assistance during the school year but lack access to such programs in the summer, there is

concern that their food insecurity increases in the summer. However, research on seasonal

differences in food security among households with children is limited. One analysis of national

data from the 1995 through 2001 Current Population Survey (CPS) suggests that food insecurity

changes seasonally in States that provide fewer SFSP meals and summer school lunches. The

reported effect among households with income less than 185% of the poverty line was a 1.1

percentage point higher rate of VLFS among adults (rather than children) in the summer

compared to the school year (Nord and Romig, 2006).  

SFSP was implemented in 1968 to reduce the risk that children in low‐income households

would miss meals during the summer when they have little or no access to the NSLP and SBP.13

In July 2012, approximately 9.3% of school‐age children who were eligible for SFSP received it

(Food Research and Action Center, 2013b).14 FNS has funded evaluations of demonstrations to

strengthen SFSP, including home delivery of summer meals to children in rural areas, and

providing food backpacks to children to cover days when SFSP sites are not operating. The

                                                      

12 This statement reflects all income groups combined. National data on food insecurity among households with

children were not reported by race/ethnicity and income subgroups (Coleman‐Jensen et al., 2013).  

13 The SBP began as a pilot program in 1966 and was established as a permanent program in 1975

[http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/summer/about/program_history.html].

14 Based on July average daily attendance figures for summertime NSLP participation reported by FNS, but not

adjusted for absenteeism because summer absentee figures are not available for SFSP as they are for NSLP;

estimate assumes that SFSP accounts for approximately 65% of summer nutrition meals. About 14.3% of eligible

children participated in summer nutrition meals in 2012 (Food Research and Action Center, 2013b).  
Chapter 1 

Page 4 

effectiveness of providing grants to SFSP providers (sponsors) to enhance activities at sites and

financial incentives to encourage operation for more than eight weeks also was tested.15

The SFSP provides free, nutritious meals and snacks to help children age 18 and younger get the

nutrition they need to grow, learn, and play throughout the summer months when school is not

in session (FNS, 2013c; Food Research and Action Center, 2013a). Many of these programs

provide not only food assistance for children, but also summer programs and activities that

foster physical movement and social interaction—important factors in child development.

Logistical and practical considerations still present barriers to SFSP serving more children during

the summer. An earlier national evaluation reported several barriers to SFSP participation, such

as lack of transportation to sites, lack of publicity about the program, limited site operation

days/hours, lack of program activities, and parents’ concerns about neighborhood safety

(Gordon and Briefel, 2003).16 In addition, most SFSP sites operate for fewer than eight weeks,

leaving low‐income children without access to the program for some summer weeks.  

1.2 The SEBTC Demonstration 

In response to concern about food insecurity among low‐income children during summer

months, Congress provided $85 million to USDA to improve access to food for low‐income

children in the summer months when school is not in regular session (P.L. 111‐80). In addition

to the SFSP demonstrations described earlier, FNS planned and implemented a demonstration

that used the existing electronic benefit delivery systems for the SNAP and the Special

Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) to deliver electronic

benefits during the summer to households with eligible children.  

1.2.1 Household Eligibility and SEBTC Benefits 

The SEBTC benefit was provided to households of children from pre‐kindergarten through 12th

grade who are certified for FRP school meals in the demonstration school food authorities

(SFAs).17 The amount of the benefit in 2011 and 2012, an approximately $60 value per summer

month per eligible child in the household, is comparable to the cost of free lunches plus

breakfasts under the NSLP and SBP. Benefits—provided monthly on an EBT card and prorated

for partial summer months—were administered by grantees in the summer for the period

when schools are not in session.18 FNS added a third demonstration year in 2013 to evaluate

two levels of SEBTC benefits—a $60 value versus $30 value per month per eligible child in the

household.

                                                      

15 More information on these evaluations and projects can be found on the FNS website at

[http://www.fns.usda.gov/ops/summer‐food‐children‐demonstrations].  

16 A 2006 study of 200 nonparticipating households found that among those aware of SFSP in their area, 42% had

chosen a different summer program to meet their children’s needs (FNS, 2006).

17 SFAs are responsible for the provision of school meals and can include one or more schools or districts.

18 More information on these evaluations and projects can be found on the FNS website at

[http://www.fns.usda.gov/ops/summer‐food‐children‐demonstrations].
Chapter 1

Page 5 

The SEBTC benefit supplements rather than replaces the SFSP programs in the demonstration

areas. Many SFSP programs provide summer activities as well as food assistance, but one

critical advantage of the SEBTC approach is that it does not require that children be physically

present at sites where meals are served. By directly augmenting the food purchasing power of

households with eligible children, FNS expects the children to have greater access to food, thus

achieving the ultimate goal of reducing the prevalence of food insecurity among children.

1.2.2 Overview of Program Models 

For the first two years of the SEBTC demonstration FNS issued RFAs to States to implement

summer benefits through either the SNAP or WIC EBT systems (FNS, 2010a, 2010b, 2011a,

2011b). Grantees could choose to administer SEBTC by loading benefits onto existing EBT cards

for those who were already receiving SNAP or WIC; or to issue separate SEBTC cards for

selected households.  

In the sites using the SNAP EBT systems to deliver SEBTC, participants could redeem benefits for

SNAP‐eligible foods at any SNAP‐authorized retailer in the nation. In contrast, the WIC sites only

allowed households to purchase specific packages of WIC‐allowable foods at WIC‐authorized

stores in the participating State. The SEBTC package was specified by FNS based on existing WIC

food prescriptions, adjusted for the older age of the children.  The $60 package included

reduced‐fat milk, 100% juice, cheese, cereal, eggs, whole wheat bread, beans, peanut butter,

canned fish and a $16 voucher for fruits and vegetables. The $30 package did not include 100%

juice, cheese, or canned fish, but provided an $8 voucher for fruit and vegetables, and provided

lesser quantities of the other foods.19 Grantees implementing the WIC approach also worked

with FNS to customize the package to meet the tastes of the local population (for example,

substituting whole grain tortillas for whole wheat bread) and to fit within local food costs.  

1.2.3 SEBTC Grantees 

Exhibit 1.1 summarizes key features of the SEBTC demonstration from 2011 to 2013, including

characteristics of the grantees, the number of beneficiaries, and the number of households in

the evaluation subsample. Each grantee worked with school authorities to obtain contact

information for children and households eligible for the evaluation. This information was used

to obtain consent from the eligible households for two purposes: 1) to take part in the

demonstration and 2) to release household information to the grantee and the evaluation

team. Sites chose to implement an “active” consent process, in which households had to return

consent forms in order to be included in the demonstration, or a “passive” process, in which

households only returned forms if they chose not to participate. In 2011 and 2012 there was a

mix of active and passive consent sites. In 2013 all six sites used an active consent process.  

In 2011, five grantees (Connecticut, Michigan, Missouri, Oregon, and Texas) implemented the

SEBTC demonstration, each in a single site. In the second year, all of these grantees continued

to implement SEBTC in the original site, and all but one of these grantees (Texas) also

                                                      

19 SNAP participants can purchase a much wider range of foods than permitted in the WIC model. For a full list of

SNAP‐approved foods, visit the FNS website at [http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/faqs.htm#10].
Chapter 1 

Page 6 

implemented SEBTC in a second site. In 2012, there were also five new grantees (Chickasaw

Nation, Cherokee Nation, Delaware, Nevada, and Washington), each with one site.  

In late 2012, FNS instructed all 10 grantees to provide SEBTC benefits in 2013 to all of the

households who received them in 2012, if they still had eligible children. In addition, FNS

selected four of the 2012 grantees (Chickasaw Nation, Delaware, Michigan, and Oregon) to

participate in the 2013 evaluation. Some of these grantees were asked to expand a 2012

demonstration area or establish a new demonstration site in order to meet the target number

of beneficiaries needed for the 2013 evaluation. Together, these four grantees implemented

SEBTC in six sites. Two sites (Delaware and Portland) offered benefits using SNAP EBT systems.

The remaining sites used the WIC model. These included the Chickasaw Nation and three

Michigan sites—Detroit (a new site), Grand Rapids/Kentwood, and Mid‐Michigan.20 In all of the

sites, each participating household received SEBTC benefits of either $60 or $30 per summer

month for each eligible school‐age child. (Chapter 2 provides additional information about the

participating grantees; their partner agencies, and SFAs; program model; and consent and

implementation processes in 2013.)

                                                      

20 The Mid‐Michigan site covered six counties in central Michigan (Bay, Arenac, Clare, Gladwin, Midland, and Tuscola).
Exhibit 1.1 Overview of the SEBTC Demonstration by Year

Study Design Characteristic

Year 1: Proof‐of‐Concept (POC) Year

(2011)

Year 2: Full Implementation Year

(2012)

Ye

Im

Number of grantees and sites 5 grantees with one site each:

(Connecticut, Michigan, Missouri,

Oregon, and Texas)

10 grantees (14 sites)

–5 new (Cherokee Nation, Chickasaw

Nation, Delaware, Nevada, and

Washington)–5 POC grantees; 4 (excluding Texas)

with an expansion site

4 continuing 

(Chickasaw 

Michigan, a

Active or passive consent 3 grantees/sites with active consent

2 grantees/sites with passive consent

7 grantees with active consent (9

sites)3 grantees with passive consent (5

sites)

All active co

SEBTC model 3 SNAP model

2 WIC model

8 SNAP model

6 WIC model

2 SNAP mod4 WIC mode

SEBTC benefit tested $0 versus $60 per month per eligible

child

$0 versus $60 per month per eligible

child

$30 versus $

child

Number of children and householdsissued SEBTC benefits

Approximately 12,500 children in

about 7,000 households

Approximately 67,000 children in

about 37,000 households

Approximat

about 51,00

Number of households in theevaluation subsampleb

Approximately 9,700 households Approximately 42,000 households Approximat

Reports Bellotti et al. 2011

Briefel et al. 2011

Collins et al. 2012

Briefel et al. 2012c

Collins et al. 2013

Current rep

a Includes approximately 50,400 children in about 28,000 returning households from the 2012 demonstration who were eligible for the 2013 benefit b There was a subsample of consenting households to the evaluation in 2011 and 2012. In 2013 there was no need to subsample; however, some of 

in Delaware and Detroit were excluded from the evaluation.

c Report includes grantee profiles.
Chapter 1 

Page 8 

1.3 Overview of the Evaluation 

In authorizing the Summer Food for Children Demonstrations (FNS, 2013d), Congress directed

USDA to conduct a rigorous independent evaluation of the SEBTC. The SEBTC evaluation has

five broad objectives:

1. To assess the feasibility of implementing SNAP and WIC models of SEBTC benefit delivery

2. To examine the implementation of SEBTC, including approaches used, and the challenges

and lessons learned during the demonstrations  

3. To describe receipt and use of SEBTC benefits

4. To examine the impact of SEBTC benefits on children and their families’ food security, food

expenditures, use of other nutrition programs, and children’s nutritional status  

5. To determine and document the total and component costs of implementing and operating

the demonstrations  

Originally, the SEBTC evaluation was planned to be conducted for two years. After learning

about promising impacts in the POC year, FNS decided to add a third year to the evaluation. For

2013, FNS added a sixth objective: to compare the differential impacts of a $60 monthly per

eligible child SEBTC benefit versus a $30 per eligible child amount.   

The evaluation design for the SEBTC demonstration in 2011 and 2012 included three

components: an impact study, an implementation study, and a cost study. For the 2011 and

2012 impact analysis, the evaluation used a random assignment design, assigning households to

either receive a food benefit of approximately $60 per summer month per eligible child or be

part of a control group that received no SEBTC benefit. The design allows the most credible and

rigorous estimates of the impact of a $60 SEBTC benefit (Collins et al., 2012; Colllins et al.,

2013). In both years, households were interviewed during the spring, before the school year

ended, and again in the summer. Survey questions covered topics such as food security,

nutrition assistance program participation, and whether and how frequently children consumed

certain foods and beverages. The evaluation also included a detailed analysis of SEBTC

transaction data, which describes patterns of household receipt and use of the summer

benefits.  

The 2013 evaluation was slightly different than in previous years. The study again used a

random assignment design and included both a spring and a summer survey.  However, in

2013, the motivation was to determine if reducing the amount of the SEBTC benefit alters the

food security improvements and other positive effects of the intervention or, alternatively,

yields just as much benefit to individual families and society.  Thus, the impact study’s primary

objective in 2013 was to compare the prevalence of VLFS‐C in a group receiving a$60 SEBTC

benefit to the corresponding prevalence in a group receiving a $30 benefit amount.  Therefore,

rather than randomly assigning households to either a $60 benefit group or a no benefit group,

households were randomly assigned into one of two groups and received either the $60 or the

$30 benefit amount. In 2013, since there was no $0 SEBTC benefit group (that is, there was no
Chapter 1

Page 9 

control group), it is only possible to directly compare the relative impacts of the two groups

that received the benefit using an experimental design.21

Finally, while the 2013 evaluation included descriptive and impact analysis of EBT data, unlike

previous years, it did not include implementation and cost studies.  

Exhibit 1.2 provides information about the six earlier SETBC reports, including their time periods

and the topics covered.  The remainder of this chapter describes findings for 2012, the

evaluation framework, the overall study design, and the research questions for this report. The

body of this report summarizes the impact findings for the six sites participating in the 2013

evaluation.

Exhibit 1.2 Publications on Summer EBTC for Children Evaluation

Publication   Topics Covered

(Belotti et al., 2011) Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for

Children: Early Experiences Through June 2011 of the Proof‐of‐

Concept Year

SEBTC implementation

(Briefel et al., 2011) Congressional Status Report: Summer

Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children Demonstrations

SEBTC implementation

First EBT issuance cycle (summer 2011)

SEBTC household characteristics

(Collins et al., 2012) Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for

Children (SEBTC) Demonstration:  Evaluation Findings for

the Proof of Concept Year

SEBTC implementation

Full summer 2011 EBT issuance

SEBTC household characteristics

Impacts

SEBTC costs

(Briefel et al., 2012) Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for

Children (SEBTC) Demonstration: 2012 Congressional Status

Report

SEBTC implementation

First EBT issuance cycle (summer 2012)

SEBTC household characteristics

(Collins et al., 2013) Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer

for Children (SEBTC) Demonstration:  Evaluation Findings

for the Full Implementation Year

SEBTC implementation

Full summer 2012 EBT issuance

SEBTC household characteristics

Impacts

SEBTC costs

(Briefel et al., 2014) Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for

Children (SEBTC) Demonstration: 2013 Congressional Status

Report

SEBTC implementation

First EBT issuance cycle (summer 2013)

SEBTC household characteristics

1.3.1 Evaluation Framework for the SEBTC Demonstration 

Children’s food security and nutritional status are outcomes associated with a complex set of

inter‐relationships between household resources to obtain adequate and safe foods for all

household members, and the policies, nutrition assistance programs, and institutions (for

example, schools and retailers) in the community where the family lives and eats (Finney

Rutten et al., 2010). Low‐income families may experience reduced access to affordable and

                                                      

21 As discussed in Chapter 5 and Appendix 5A, the study also includes non‐experimental analyses of the impact of a

$30 SEBTC benefit vs. no SEBTC benefit.  These analyses combine results across 2012 and 2013.
Chapter 1 

Page 10 

healthful foods such as fresh fruits and vegetables and whole grains (Beaulac et al., 2009; Ver

Ploeg et al., 2009; Walker et al., 2010). Those living in rural areas may face additional barriers

including lack of transportation to attend SFSP and other summer nutrition programs

(Wauchope and Stracuzzi, 2010). Children’s consumption of affordable and healthful foods is

associated with household socioeconomic characteristics, food availability, and access to food

or meals (for example, FRP meals, child care meals/snacks, SFSP meals/snacks).

Exhibit 1.3 illustrates how children’s food security and nutritional status is related to nutrition

policies and programs, community institutions, and household characteristics, and how the

impact of the SEBTC may be determined by these factors. Specifically, the theory of action of

SEBTC is as follows: SEBTC provides a benefit to eligible households, which first affects

household behaviors. Households may use the benefit to alter their food budget, grocery

shopping practices, and/or eating practices at home or away from home.  

These household changes may affect the amounts and types of foods purchased by the

household and therefore available to children living in the household. Children also consume

meals at school or summer sites, and other locations outside the home. Ultimately, the

availability of (or lack of) food affects children’s food security and nutritional status. The goal of

the SEBTC is to provide EBT benefits so that low‐income households can spend more on food,

improve diet quality and nutritional status, and reduce food insecurity among children.  
Chapter 1

Page 11 

Exhibit 1.3 Logic Model for the SEBTC Evaluation  

FNS, the grantees, and the evaluation team began work in early 2013 to complete a series of

tasks related to implementing the demonstration and evaluation before the 2012‐2013 school

year ended, when SEBTC benefits became available to households. Exhibit 1.4 lays out the flow

of activities that had to be accomplished during 2013. First, FNS confirmed eligibility rules and

policy.  Next, participating SFAs identified eligible children, group them into households, and

obtain their consent to take part in the demonstration and evaluation. Households with at least

one child certified for NLSP and/or SBP and consented to participate in the evaluation were

randomly assigned to one of the two SEBTC benefit groups ($60 or $30). In each demonstration

site, grantees then notified the eligible families about their SEBTC benefit levels ($60 or $30 per

eligible child), loaded EBT benefits onto cards and distributed them, and provided training and

other supports related to the use of the cards.22   

                                                       

22 In 2013, FNS also provided funding for $60 benefits for approximately 50,400 children in households that

participated in the 2012 demonstration in all 14 sites, including the four 2012 sites that participated in the 2013

evaluation. In those four sites, households with children that received SEBTC in 2012 and were still eligible for FRP

meals were could automatically receive them in 2013 but were excluded from the evaluation. This report focuses

only on the households and children that participated in the 2013 evaluation.
Chapter 1 

Page 12 

Exhibit 1.4 Flow of Activities in 2013 of FNS, Grantees, and Evaluation Team  

SEBTC = Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) for Children

a

With technical assistance from the evaluation team.

   
Chapter 1

Page 13 

For the 2013 evaluation, FNS provided funding for the $60 and $30 per month benefits to

approximately 50,000 children in approximately 25,600 households in the six evaluation sites.

The numbers of children participating in the evaluation ranged from 4,600 to 14,000 per site

and the children came from approximately 23,000 households.

The evaluation team attempted to contact all households to complete a survey before the

SEBTC benefits were issued (that is, before the school year ended) and again during the

summer when they were receiving SEBTC benefits. These surveys gathered data on household

food security and food expenditures, children’s food consumption and eating behaviors as

measures of diet quality and nutritional status, as well as other outcome measures. Rigorous

estimates comparing the differential impact of a $60 benefit versus a $30 benefit were made

based on the responses to the summer survey.

The 2013 evaluation also included a detailed analysis of SEBTC transaction data. This analysis

describes patterns of receipt and use of SEBTC benefits for the $60 SEBTC benefit group and the

$30 benefit group of households. This analysis also provides rigorous comparisons between the

impact of a $60 SEBTC benefit and the impact of a $30 benefit on key SEBTC benefit‐use

outcomes.  

1.3.3 Data Sources 

The 2013 evaluation relied on several sources of data. Information on 2013 implementation

strategies and challenges, used to help provide context for the impact findings, was obtained

from technical assistance calls and communications between the evaluation team, grantees,

and FNS. To describe the monthly benefits issued and redeemed, the team used EBT data for

households participating in the 2013 evaluation. Finally, for the main impact analysis, surveys

were conducted by telephone with household respondents in the evaluation sample in the

spring and before the summer ended, and took approximately 25 minutes to complete.23  

1.3.4 Analyses 

Rigorous estimates comparing the differential impact of a $60 SEBTC benefit to a $30 benefit

were made based on the responses to the summer survey.  The 2013 evaluation also included a

detailed analysis of SEBTC transaction data. This analysis describes patterns of receipt and use

of SEBTC benefits for the $60 SEBTC benefit group and the $30 benefit group of households.

This analysis also provides rigorous comparisons between the impact of a $60 SEBTC benefit

and the impact of a $30 benefit on key SEBTC benefit‐use outcomes.  

                                                      

23 The first two years of the evaluation included a detailed implementation study on the operational feasibility of

the demonstration and a cost study. The evaluation team collected a variety of data from organizations involved in

the demonstrations, including stakeholder interviews during in‐depth site visits to grantees, telephone interviews

toward the end of implementation, and administrative reports and documents.  There was no such detailed

implementation study in the third year.
Chapter 1 

Page 14 

1.4 Findings from the 2012 Evaluation 

The 2013 SEBTC evaluation builds on two years of evidence that the SEBTC benefit could be

implemented with fidelity by grantees in a range of communities, that it successfully reduced

VLFS‐C for households that received the $60 SEBTC benefit amount, and that the $60 amount

also improved other food security outcomes.  This section briefly describes key findings from

2012.

1.4.1 SEBTC Implementation in 2012 and Use of Benefits 

Although in many ways successful, most of the grantees had difficulties with several aspects of

SEBTC implementation in 2012, as in the previous year, including identifying eligible

households, obtaining consent, and getting SEBTC benefits loaded onto cards and issued before

the 2013 school year ended. Despite these difficulties, findings from both 2012 and 2011

indicate that SEBTC is feasible across a range of partners and approaches. As a result of the

efforts of grantees and their partners, a total of 66,772 children from 36,956 households were

issued SEBTC benefits in summer of 2012. In 2012, the SEBTC evaluation showed that in the 14

sites, the vast majority of households issued SEBTC benefits used them, and the households

used most of the SEBTC benefit that was available to them.  Specifically, among the households

that were issued benefits, 90% participated in SEBTC, defined as using their benefits at least

once during the demonstration. Among these households, the mean percent of SEBTC benefits

redeemed in 2012 was 86% equivalent to $150 SEBTC benefits over the summer per

participating child.  

1.4.2 Impact on Very Low Food Security Among Children (VLFS-C) 

Households that took part in the 2012 SEBTC demonstration were relatively disadvantaged,

compared to the national population of households with children under 18.24 Among the group

taking part in the demonstration, the benefits provided to these families through SEBTC led to a

substantial reduction in the percentage with households with very low food security (VLFS‐C),

the study’s primary outcome. Averaging across all sites, SEBTC significantly reduced VLFS‐C in

the summer of 2012 by 3.1 percentage points.  The prevalence of VLFS‐C was 9.5% in the

control group, which did not receive SEBTC, compared to 6.4% in the treatment group, which

did receive the$60 SEBTC benefit.  In addition, the SEBTC benefit resulted in significant and

substantial reductions in all of the other measures of household food insecurity used by the

study.

While the SEBTC results cannot necessarily be generalized, it is useful to note that the study

found SEBTC resulted in reductions in VLFS‐C in all but one of the 14 communities selected by

grantees (although site‐level impacts were not always statistically significant). These

                                                      

24 For instance, the SEBTC 2012 spring sample had a VLFS‐C rate of 9.0% for 2012 (Briefel et al., 2012) compared to

2.8% among households with children and incomes under 185% FPL nationally in 2012 (Coleman‐Jensen et al.,

2013).
Chapter 1

Page 15 

communities varied greatly in size, geographic location, and composition of the eligible

population.25  

The data showed little evidence that impacts on VLFS‐C differed across many different

subgroups of households. Impacts were shown to be larger, however, for households that had

VLFS‐C in the spring, for households with three or more children, and for households with

adolescents (Collins et al., 2013).

1.4.4 Other Impacts of SEBTC 

SEBTC also showed some positive impacts on children’s food consumption. Children in

households with SEBTC ate more servings of fruits and vegetables, whole grains, and dairy

foods, and less added sugars26 from sugar‐sweetened beverages. These dietary impacts show

movement toward meeting the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (Newby, 2007; Briefel et al.,

2008; Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 2009; USDA and U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services, 2010). There was no impact on consumption of overall added sugars or

nonfat/low‐fat milk. The dietary impacts were present for sites that used either a SNAP or WIC

model, but were much larger for the sites using the WIC model.

The 2012 study also showed that SEBTC caused increases in total food expenditures (including

the SEBTC benefit) by $48 per household per month. This increase is the net result of

redemption of the SEBTC benefit of $91, less a smaller decline in out‐of‐pocket household food

expenditures ($43). Thus, each dollar of SEBTC benefit redeemed led to a $0.53 increase in total

household food expenditures, which is considerably higher than standard estimates. For

instance, research indicates that a dollar of SNAP benefits leads to an increase in food

expenditures of about $0.30 (Hanson, 2010).  

SEBTC had no impact on SNAP participation, but slightly decreased participation in SFSP (from

8% to 7%) and summer use of food pantries and other emergency food distribution sites (from

14% to 12%). Children receiving SEBTC benefits were less likely to receive free lunches in the

summer from any source compared to children who did not (16% versus 19% received free

lunches at least one day per week).

1.5 Report Contents 

Beyond this introduction, findings in this report are presented in four additional chapters.

Chapter 2 provides an overview of the 2013 grantees and their partner agencies, and describes

the variations in the overall program models they chose to implement. Chapter 3 describes

                                                      

25 Similarly, in 2011, impacts were in the desired direction in four of the five POC sites.  Because the full

implementation year included a sample size more than five times as large as the POC year, the 2012 impact

findings have greater precision and allow for statements about subgroups, and are therefore the focus of the

summary of the impact findings.

26 Added sugars are sugars and syrups that are added to foods or beverages when they are processed or prepared,

adding empty calories (that is, added sugars add calories to the food but few or no nutrients) (Center for Nutrition

Policy and Promotion, USDA, 2013).
Chapter 1 

Page 16 

households’ use of SEBTC benefits and estimates the differential impact of the $60 SEBTC

benefit versus the $30 benefit on use of the SEBTC benefit. Chapter 4 describes characteristics

of the 2013 study population. Chapter 5 describes difference in impacts on household food

security and other outcomes between the two groups and also findings from non‐experimental

analysis on the potential impacts of a $30 SEBTC benefit compared to no benefit. Chapter 6

summarizes key study findings and their implications. The appendices provide supporting data

tables and documentation.
Chapter 2

Page 17 

Chapter 2 

The Demonstration Grantees 

Participating in the Evaluation and 

Implementation Experiences 

In the 2013 implementation year, all grantees from 2012 were approved to provide the $60

benefit to those households that participated in 2012. In addition, for the purposes of the

SEBTC evaluation, four of the 2012 grantees received additional funding to serve new families

in a total of six sites. The 2013 sites include returning, expanded, and new areas.  Returning

and/or expanded sites (i.e., those that participated during 2012) included Chickasaw Nation,

Delaware (expanded statewide in 2013), Grand Rapids (expanded to include Kentwood),

Michigan’s Mid‐Michigan site and Grand Rapids/Kentwood.  Michigan also added a new site

that did not participate in 2012—Detroit.  Similarly, Oregon added Portland as a new site in

2013. All sites used active consent processes for the 2013 demonstration. All households with

children participating in the evaluation received one of the two SEBTC benefit amounts—either

$60 per month per eligible child or $30.  

For the 2013 implementation, the evaluation team collected information on the

implementation process during technical assistance calls to provide context in interpreting the

impact results in the following chapters. No formal implementation study was conducted. This

chapter reports information learned during those discussions. The discussion focuses on the

grantees’ organizational structures, characteristics of the six sites, the consent processes, and

SEBTC participation rates. Key evaluation findings for the 2013 implementation year discussed

in detail in this chapter include the following:

 Consent rates across sites ranged from 21% to 42% of eligible children. The 2013 rates were

consistent with rates for active consent sites in previous years.  

 All grantees completed the consent process and five of the six met or exceeded their

consent targets. In fact, Delaware received consent for more than 6,500 children beyond its

target. In contrast, the number of consenting children in Detroit was substantially below its

target, largely due to delays in beginning the consent process, issues with targeting eligible

children, and staffing constraints.

 Only about a third of the consenting children in Detroit were included in the evaluation

sample. During the consent process in Detroit, it was discovered that many of the schools
Chapter 2 

Page 18 

included in the study operated year‐round or had expanded school years, making them

ineligible for the evaluation.27

 The sites were successful in assigning benefits for 50,600 children, of whom approximately

43,000 came from households that were included in the evaluation (those excluded were in

Detroit, as described above). As a result of their efforts, the evaluation to met the goal of

obtaining completed surveys from more than 18,000 households.

2.1 Grantee Organizational Structures 

When awarding the SEBTC grants, FNS gave grantees the flexibility to choose the agency or

agencies to lead the effort. Grantees also could define the roles of other State and local

partners and identify the local demonstration areas. Three of the four grantees—Chickasaw

Nation, Delaware, and Oregon—chose the agency that administers the SNAP or WIC program as

the lead grantee, while Michigan selected the education agency that administers NSLP and SFSP

to serve as its lead.  

For all grantees, planning and implementing the SEBTC program was a large undertaking,

requiring the involvement of additional State and local partners. Although the partnering

arrangements in 2013 were similar to those in past years, generally partner involvement was

more limited. For instance, all sites coordinated with their departments of education in 2013,

but in Delaware, the Department of Education primarily helped with recruiting new SFAs and

general support and advisement, as opposed to being involved in planning and consulting on

decisions in 2012. In Oregon, the Department of Education was informed of the new

demonstration site but was not involved beyond initial discussions about recruitment; in

previous years they served as a liaison between DHS and SFAs. While the Oklahoma

Department of Education was a major partner to Chickasaw Nation in 2012, the grantee

changed its consent approach this year to reduce the burden on SFAs, drastically reducing the

department’s role in implementing the program for 2013.  

Grantees collaborated with other organizations to varying degrees.  Partner involvement varied

from working intensely with SFAs and local agencies on the consent process to simply advising

the lead agency on program design and administration. The Michigan grantee worked closely

with the Michigan Department of Community Health, the agency that administers WIC, to

compile participant data, manage benefit issuance, and track redemption. As in 2012, the

Delaware grantee worked with the Data Service Center, a nonprofit State agency that provides

information technology support to school and was a key partner in managing the consent

process. While most sites used at least one key partner, Chickasaw Nation and Oregon did not

collaborate with any major partners in 2013. Exhibit 2.1 describes the lead grantee and major

partners for each site.

                                                      

27 FNS determined that Detroit could provide benefits to these children during the months they were not in school,

but because they would not receive a full summer of benefits, they would be excluded from the evaluation.
Chapter 2

Page 19 

2.2 Overview of the Demonstration Sites and Local 

Context 

FNS worked closely with the four grantees from 2012 to select one or more geographically

contiguous SFAs to participate in the evaluation. Together these four grantees provided

benefits to approximately 43,000 children in 23,000 households who participated in the 2013

evaluation.28 Initially all consenting households in these six sites were expected to be included

in the evaluation sample; however, late in the consent process, the Michigan grantee

discovered that 44 of the 100 schools in Detroit were operating an extended school year and

were therefore only eligible for a prorated benefit. Because the evaluation attempted to

estimate the impact of a full summer of SEBTC, households from these schools were excluded

from the evaluation.  

The characteristics of the six demonstration areas potentially influenced both the

implementation of the demonstration and its impact on the participating households. The

characteristics of these sites varied greatly in terms of geographic area, population

characteristics, and benefit periods. Each is described below.  

2.2.1 Characteristics of Grantees and Their Partners 

The SEBTC sites included urban areas (Detroit, Grand Rapids/Kentwood, and Portland), and

relatively large, predominantly rural areas (Chickasaw Nation and Mid‐Michigan). The Delaware

site was statewide and contained a mix of urban, suburban, and rural communities. The size of

the local population in the demonstration areas varied from slightly less than 190,000 residents

in Chickasaw Nation to more than 970,000 in Delaware.  One site, Chickasaw Nation, includes an

American Indian/Alaskan Native population, comprising 16.3% of the demonstration

population; the site targeted not only American Indian/Alaskan Native children  but all children

in the participating SFAs, which were all part of the Oklahoma public school system. Appendix 2

provides maps of the demonstration areas in each State.  

                                                      

28 As noted in Chapter 1, the 14 grantees from 2012 also issued benefits to approximately 50,000 children in

households that received SEBTC benefits in 2012 and still had eligible children in 2013. These households, along

with those from the Detroit extended year schools were excluded from the evaluation.  
Chapter 2 

Page 20 

Exhibit 2.1 The SEBTC Grantees, Their Partners, and Participating Local Areas, 2013  

Grantee

Major State

and Local

Partners Area Served

Number

of SFAs

Average

Number of

Children

per SFA

(Approx.)

Urban/

Rural

Percentage

of Children

Eligible for

FRP Mealsa

Approximate

Number of

SEBTC Eligible

Childrenb

Program

Model

Chickasaw

Nation

Nutrition

Services

None Carter, Coal,

Garvin,

Johnston,

Marshall,

McClain,

Murray, and

Pontotoc

(Oklahoma

Counties)

41 800 Rural 35 to 100 21,600 WIC

Delaware

Department

of Health

and Social

Services,

Division of

Social

Services

Delaware

Department

of Education;

The Data

Service

Center

Statewide 19 6,400 A mix,

but the

majority

of SFAs

are rural

50 64,400 SNAP

Michigan

Department

of Education

Michigan

Department

of

Community

Health

City of

Detroit

1 53,900 Urban 100c 32,000d WIC

Cities of

Grand Rapids

and

Kentwood

2 13,300 Urban 60 to 85 23,000 WIC

Bay, Arenac,

Clare,

Gladwin,

Midland, and

Tuscola

Counties

(Mid‐

Michigan)

32 1,600 A mix,

but the

majority

are rural

31 to 59 21,000 WIC

Oregon

Department

of Human

Services

None City of

Portland

1 47,500 Urban 46 21,700 SNAP

Source: Technical assistance efforts with grantees, 2012 and 2013. All grantees used active consent.  

a

Approximations based on information on children eligible for FRP meals provided by grantees and SFAs.

b Calculation based on information provided by grantees during technical assistance efforts. c Detroit Public Schools (DPS)

participate in the USDA Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), which provided free meals to all children in all schools in the

district due to the high poverty level in the area.  

d There were approximately 53,900 children receiving free meals due to CEP in the demonstration area; however,

only directly certified children were included in the SEBTC demonstration.  

   
Chapter 2

Page 21 

As shown in Exhibit 2.1, the sites varied in the number of participating SFAs—from just one SFA

in Detroit and Portland to those with many SFAs. As expected, the demonstrations with more

SFAs tended to have smaller numbers of children per SFA than those with fewer SFAs.  Thus,

Chickasaw Nation had the fewest children per SFA with an average of 800 children per SFA, and

Detroit and Portland, with single school districts, had 53,900 and 47,500 children per SFA,

respectively. Most of the SFAs had relatively high rates of children eligible for FRP meals. In two

sites the rate was over 80% (Detroit and Portland).29 In sites with multiple SFAs, the percent of

children eligible ranged widely from 31 to 100%; on average, eligibility rates were between 50

and 60%. Because the Delaware demonstration was statewide, almost 64,000 children were

potentially eligible for SEBTC, while the other sites each included about 21,000 children, with

the exception of Detroit (32,000 children).  

2.2.2 Local Population and Characteristics of Participating SFAs 

Exhibit 2.2 compares participating SFA populations in the sites participating in the 2013

evaluation to national estimates, using the Common Core of Data (CCD) for the most recent

school year available (National Center for Education Statistics, 2012). The “all sites” number is

calculated based on 2010‐2011 CCD statistics for all households in the participating SFAs in the

SEBTC demonstration areas, not just those eligible for FRP meals or the SEBTC demonstration.

Taken together, the participating SFAs were located in areas with relatively higher rates of

households living below the poverty line, greater ethnic and racial diversity, and higher

proportions of children receiving FRP meals than nationally.  

In five of the six demonstration areas participating in the 2013 evaluation, poverty rates among

households with school‐age children were between 1 and 26 percentage points higher than the

national average.  Only Delaware had a poverty rate that was lower than the national average

(3 percentage points). Nationally, 17% of households with school‐age children had incomes

below federal poverty guidelines, compared to 23% of all children in the demonstration areas

(including children that did not participate or were not eligible for SEBTC).  

School‐age children in participating SFAs in the demonstration areas were more likely to be

African American, (25% versus 12%), less likely to be Hispanic (12% versus 23%), and less likely

to be white (45% versus 52%). Children in the demonstration areas were also more likely to be

receiving FRP meals than the national average (57% compared to 48%).  

                                                      

29 Detroit schools participate in the USDA Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) so all children were eligible for free

meals. Only children directly certified for free meals in Detroit schools were included in the demonstration.
Chapter 2 

Page 22 

Exhibit 2.2 Characteristics of 2013 Demonstration Areas Compared to the Nation  

23%

18%

26%

43%

14%

21%

23%

17%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Oregon‐ Portland

Mid‐Michigan

Michigan‐ Grand Rapids/Kentwood

Michigan‐ Detroit

Delaware

Chickasaw Nation

All Demonstration Areas

Nation

Percentage of Students in Households with Incomes Below the Federal

Poverty Levela

55%

9%

71%

97%

50%

43%

55%

48%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Oregon‐ Portland

Mid‐Michigan

Michigan‐ Grand Rapids/Kentwood

Michigan‐ Detroit

Delaware

Chickasaw Nation

All Demonstration Areas

Nation

Percentage of School‐Age Children who are Minorityb
Chapter 2

Page 23 

Source:  National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (NCES, 2010‐2011)

a Percentage of enrolled children (pre‐K to grade 12) with annual household income not exceeding the federal poverty level,

measured in calendar year 2010.  

b Percentage of enrolled children who are black, Hispanic‐white, American Indian/Alaskan Native, or Other (Asian, Hawaiian

Native, Pacific Islander, or two or more races).

c

Percentage of enrolled children approved for FRP meals.

57%

46%

73%

76%

48%

64%

57%

48%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Oregon‐ Portland

Mid‐Michigan

Michigan‐ Grand Rapids/Kentwood

Michigan‐ Detroit

Delaware

Chickasaw Nation

All Demonstration Areas

Nation

Percentage of Students Receiving Free or Reduced‐Price Lunchc

23%

18%

26%

43%

14%

21%

23%

17%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Oregon‐ Portland

Mid‐Michigan

Michigan‐ Grand Rapids/Kentwood

Michigan‐ Detroit

Delaware

Chickasaw Nation

All Demonstration Areas

Nation

Percentage of Students in Households with Incomes Below the Federal

Poverty Levela
Chapter 2 

Page 24 

2.2.3 School Calendars and Benefit Periods 

The duration of SEBTC benefits was determined based on school calendars in each participating

site. The goal of SEBTC is to provide food assistance when children do not have access to FRP

meals.  Therefore, the benefit period began at the end of the 2012‐2013 school year and ended

when the following school year began. FNS gave grantees with multiple SFAs the option of

selecting a single start and end date for issuing benefits for the entire site. The start date could

be as early as the date that the first participating SFA let out for summer and the end date

could be on the day when the summer break ended for the last participating SFA. Grantees

could also choose to tailor the benefit period according to each individual school calendar (FNS,

2011a, 2011b). The latter option was chosen by Chickasaw Nation; the other sites chose single

start and end dates. There was no overlap between SEBTC benefits and FRP meals in Detroit

and Chickasaw Nation; however, there was some overlap in the other sites, ranging from four

days in some Mid‐Michigan schools to 16 days in some Delaware schools.30  

In 2013, SEBTC benefits were available for an average of 87 days, with the Chickasaw Nation

site representing the full range of 80–103 days. Households in six SFAs in the Chickasaw Nation

had an extended summer vacation and therefore received an expanded food package (see

notes to Exhibit 2.3).  Across the six sites, the average SEBTC benefit amount available over the

entire summer was approximately $182 per child in the $60 group and $88 per child in the $30

group.  

                                                      

30 Although Portland is a single school district, the grantee was administering benefits to the 2012 POC and

expansion sites as well in 2013 and had to align all of the benefit periods due to system constraints. Therefore,

there were seven days of overlap in benefits for Portland children— six days at the beginning and one day at the

end of summer.  
Chapter 2

Page 25 

Exhibit 2.3 Duration of the Summer Benefit, 2013  

Grantee/Site

Last Day of

School 2012‐ 

2013 SY

(Range

Across

Schools)

First Day of

School 2013‐

2014 SY

(Range Across

Schools)

First Day of

Benefits

Last Day of

Benefits

Number of

Summer

Benefit Days

Total Amount

of Summer

Benefit

Issued per

Eligible Child

($60 Benefit)

Total Amount

of Summer

Benefit

Issued per

Eligible Child

($30 Benefit)

Chickasaw

Nation

May 8–24 August 7–22 May 9–25 August 6–21 80–103 $186 a $94 a

Delaware

State

June 6–20 August 7–

September 4

June 7 August 28 83 $164 $82

Michigan            

Detroit June 13 September 3 June 14 September 2 81 $203 $96

Grand

Rapids/

Kentwood

June 7–19 September 3 June 8 September 2 87 $183 $86

Mid‐

Michigan

May 29–

June 12b

September 3–

4

June 1 September 2 94 $178 $84

Portland,

Oregonc

June 14 September 4 June 6 September 4 91 $177 $89

Averaged May 29 August 21 May 27 August 20 87 $182e $88 e

Source: Dates gathered during technical assistance efforts with the grantees, 2013. School dates reported from sites and

number of summer benefit days calculated from dates. Amount of summer benefit based on dates and grantees’ prorating for

partial months (with FNS approval).  

a Exhibit 2.3 presents the actual average benefit issued per household. Chickasaw Nation generally provided households with

three equal monthly SEBTC benefits. However, if the summer break was three or more days longer than the standard period of

the last month of SEBTC benefits, the treatment household received an “expanded” food package in the third benefit month.

The expanded package included additional amounts of each food category and  was the same value regardless of the additional

number of days in the summer; it increased the total benefit by $24 for the $60 benefit group and $12 for the $30 group. Six

SFAs qualified for the expanded benefit package.

b Initially, the earliest school end date was May 31, 2013, so all of the materials developed included the benefit start date as

June 1, 2013. However, in the spring, one of the schools decided to end classes early on May 29, 2013. The benefit start date

was not adjusted and children in this school did not receive benefits until June 1.

c

During the summer, the grantee was administering benefits to the 2012 POC and expansion sites as well as the Portland site

and had to align all of the benefit periods across sites due to system constraints. Therefore, children in Portland schools

received SEBTC for seven days while still in class—six days at the beginning of summer and one at the end.

d The median date across all sites is provided for those table values that include a range of dates. The benefit values are means.

e

The mean benefit amount is the actual average using weighted data for all evaluation respondents.

2.3 Consent Process and Providing Benefits to 

Households 

As part of the demonstration, grantees or their partners had to identify children eligible to

participate, conduct outreach to their parents and guardians, and obtain guardian consent to

be included in the demonstration and evaluation.31 The evaluation team randomly assigned

2013 consenting households at each site to either the $60 SEBTC benefit group or the $30

                                                      

31 In sites that participated in the 2012 evaluation, grantees or their partners also offered returning households an

opportunity to receive the $60 benefit; these households received the benefit automatically and were not included

in the evaluation sample.   
Chapter 2 

Page 26 

group.32 Using those results, each grantee notified households and issued and distributed

SEBTC benefits on new or existing EBT cards. This section describes these processes.  

2.3.1 Identifying Eligible Children and Households 

The success of the SEBTC demonstration and its evaluation relied on the ability of grantees and

their partners to develop accurate lists of eligible children and households and ensure that

contact information was up to date. The demonstration required household‐level data for the

evaluation team to randomly assign households for receipt of the $60 SEBTC benefit or the $30

benefit. In four of the six sites, household‐level data were used to deliver a single consent letter

to a household with multiple eligible children. In the other two sites (Chickasaw Nation and

Detroit), a consent letter was sent home with every eligible child regardless of whether siblings

were also eligible.

Even if the SEBTC demonstration had not included an evaluation component, implementing

SEBTC would have required accurate lists in order to identify and locate eligible children. If

grantees are successful in these tasks, the full eligible population has a chance to take part in

the demonstration, and, if selected, benefits in the correct amounts can be issued. In addition,

for the evaluation, correct listings of households and contact information are essential for

random assignment and to enable high response rates for the household survey, which is the

principal source for the study’s impact analysis.  

The sites participating in the 2013 evaluation included all households with children from pre‐

kindergarten through 12th grade who were eligible for FRP meals in participating SFAs during

the 2012‐2013 school year, including those eligible for FRP meals because of their status as

foster care, homeless youth, and emancipated youth.33 In schools in Michigan sites that had

exercised the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), only directly certified children were

included in the evaluation.34

2.3.2 Obtaining Households Consent 

Children could not be included in the demonstration if their guardians did not actively consent

to take part. The active consent process ensured that families received a consent letter and

wanted to receive the SEBTC benefit. However, some households that would have chosen and

used the benefit may not have opened the consent materials, understood the information, or

taken the time to return forms. As in previous years of the demonstration, an active consent

                                                      

32 Because Delaware received more consenting households than needed, some households were assigned to a $0

benefit group and were notified that they did not receive a benefit.  

33 The exception was households that received benefits in 2012. They automatically received them again in 2013

and were excluded from the evaluation.

34 FNS policy for SEBTC requires students to be individually and currently approved for FRP meals. Schools

operating under the CEP do not take applications for FRP meals, so only directly certified students in these schools

have current information confirming their eligibility.  
Chapter 2

Page 27 

process35—which was used by all 2013 sites—achieved consent rates that ranged from 23.1% of

eligible children in Delaware to 42.2% in Grand Rapids/Kentwood). (See Exhibit 2.4.)  

Although the consent rates varied in four of the six sites, the counts of consenting households

were within a few hundred children of their targets. The exceptions were Delaware and Detroit.

Because Delaware’s demonstration was statewide and the pool of eligible children was large,

the state received consent from the guardians of more than 17,500 children—6,500 more than

their initial target. Detroit started the consent process late in the spring and had difficulty

allocating enough staff to the effort. Detroit received consent for only about 12,000 children—

4,000 less than targeted. In addition, the grantee discovered that approximately 3,000

households had at least one child attending one of the 44 schools with an extended school year

and the entire household had to be excluded from the evaluation.36 In the end only 4,670 of the

12,000 Detroit children from households who consented could be included in the evaluation,

although all of the consenting households received benefits.  

Exhibit 2.4 Consent Rates by Grantee, 2013

Grantee

Target

Number of

Eligible

Children to

Consent for

SEBTC  

Approximate

Number of

Eligible

Households in

Demonstration

Area

Approximate

Number of

Eligible

Children in

Demonstration

Area

Percentage

of

Households

Consenting

Percentage

of Children

in

Households

Consenting

Chickasaw Nation 5,000 10,524a 21,575b 23.1%a 23.1%

Delaware State 11,000 36,773b 65,824 21.3% 26.7%b

Michigan    

Detroit 16,000 14,308a 32,360 38.0%a,b 38.0%b

Grand Rapids/Kentwood 6,000 8,418 13,226 35.0% 42.2%

Mid‐Michigan 6,000 11,107 16,608 29.8% 37.0%

Portland, Oregon 8,000 13,218 21,712 33.3% 36.4%

Source: Data obtained through technical assistance efforts and files submitted by grantees for random assignment, spring 2013  

a

This is an estimate of the number of eligible households. The grantee was not able to obtain accurate estimates of the number

of eligible households for all of their SFAs; therefore the evaluation team calculated the number of eligible households based on

the ratio of children to households from the consenting population.

b While 34,188 children were actually mailed a consent form, only 21,575 children were eligible for the SEBTC program and

ultimately included in the demonstration if consented.  

c This includes the total number of consenting children and households, not just those included in the evaluation.  

Although consent targets were mostly met or exceeded, in the returning sites consent rates

were about 10 to 15 percentage points lower in 2013 than in 2012. Staff at the SFAs in both

sites anticipated that families would apply without needing outreach, but, as has been the case  

in past years, all sites needed to ultimately conduct outreach.  

                                                      

35 In 2012, sites using a passive consent process had uniformly higher consent rates than those using an active

consent process.

36 FNS determined that Detroit could provide benefits to these children during the months they were not in school,

but because they would not receive a full summer of benefits, they were excluded from the study.
Chapter 2 

Page 28 

After compiling their site‐level file(s) of consenting households, grantees submitted the file(s) to

the evaluation team for random assignment. The evaluation team worked with each site to

clean the file—removing duplicate names of children and households, and identifying gaps in

demographic, school, and contact information. Households from the cleaned file were then

randomly assigned to the $60 SEBTC benefit group or to the $30 group.37 Approximately 50,600

children from 28,000 households consented to participate in the study.  Of these children,

about 43,000 were in 23,000 households that were ultimately included in the evaluation (those

excluded were in Detroit, as described above). All together, the sites were successful in

assigning benefits to enough children for the evaluation to meet its goal of obtaining completed

surveys from 18,000 households. Additional information about random assignment procedures

is located in Appendix 4A.  

2.3.3 Notifying Households of Benefit Receipt 

After random assignment was complete, all grantees notified households by mail that they

were selected to receive SEBTC benefits and provided information on next steps.38 With the

notification materials, all sites sent additional materials, including what foods were eligible

under SEBTC, and SFSP programs and other summer food options in the area. Chickasaw Nation

and Michigan offered optional in‐person trainings to parents to learn more about SEBTC and

WIC foods, but none of the trainings were well attended.  

2.3.4 Issuing SEBTC Benefits 

After the consent and notification processes were complete, grantees enrolled households into

their systems so they could issue benefits. At the end of the school year, all sites had completed

the required steps to assign benefits to all households. Because each grantee had a system in

place from the prior summer, there were fewer challenges with administering benefits in 2013.  

The grantees used two different approaches for developing a system to administer and issue

SEBTC benefits: (i) using the existing SNAP or WIC benefit delivery systems; or (ii) developing a

new SEBTC‐only database and system.  Oregon was the only 2013 grantee to use their existing

SNAP systems to issue SEBTC benefits. In this case, households randomly assigned to the

benefit group had to be matched to State eligibility systems before benefits could be issued.

This process involved using the parent and/or children’s name, date of birth, and address. The

process could be time consuming and records that could not be found had to be manually

entered, which sometimes resulted in data entry errors. However, once matched, benefits

could be set up relatively easily and contact information was likely to be up to date. The other

three grantees created separate but parallel systems for administering and issuing SEBTC

                                                      

37 Because Detroit did not recruit enough children for the study and Delaware recruited more than they needed,

FNS requested that the evaluation team assign benefits to an additional 3,000 children in Delaware.  

Approximately 3,500 consenting children in Delaware were not assigned benefits. Across all sites, these were the

only eligible children to consent and not receive either $60 or $30.  

38 Delaware also mailed letters to the $0 benefit group letting them know they were not selected for a benefit but

included information on how to find summer meal sites.
Chapter 2

Page 29 

benefits, allowing sites to automatically load families into the database, without matching,

which was a much faster process, eliminating the weeks of work required to match cases.  

Once SEBTC households were entered into the State’s system, the grantee could issue SEBTC

benefits to households. All grantees created automated issuance systems in which all SEBTC

cases in their system were transferred to the EBT processor for benefit administration and

benefits were automatically issued each month. Two of the States used JPMorgan as their EBT

processor, one used FIS, and one used Xerox.  

The conventional online EBT is similar to a debit card transaction in that it uses a magnetic

stripe card and requires a PIN to authenticate the transaction. The transaction is sent at the

time of the purchase through commercial credit/debit networks for authorization by the EBT

system’s central (or “host”) computer. SNAP EBT, as implemented by all States and territories,

follows this model. As with credit/debit cards, SNAP cards are portable, meaning that a card

issued in one State can be used in any State. SNAP benefits may be used only to purchase food

items at SNAP retailer locations authorized by FNS.39

WIC EBT is a different type of transaction. The WIC program issues authorization to purchase a

tailored set of foods to each recipient from a list of those authorized by each State’s WIC

program. WIC EBT systems must therefore ensure that only allowed amounts of specific WIC

“allowable foods” prescribed for an individual are purchased with the benefit card. A State with

WIC EBT may use online transaction technology, similar to the way that SNAP EBT systems

operate. An offline transaction can also be done through the use of a smart card, which has an

embedded chip that stores information about the specific foods and quantities available to the

card holder.40  

In Portland, SEBTC benefits were loaded onto existing cards for households that were already

receiving SNAP.  For non‐SNAP households, EBT cards loaded with SEBTC benefits were

distributed through the mail. Delaware, the other SNAP site, sent new EBT cards by mail to

households receiving SEBTC, whether or not they were receiving SNAP.  Michigan, a WIC‐model

site, also sent new EBT cards by mail. In contrast, the Chickasaw Nation site distributed cards

during the training sessions and through the SFAs.   

Although all of the grantees succeeded in issuing the first month of benefits to households on

time, each grantee received calls from households after the first issuance. The most common

inquiries related to EBT card pinning (assigning a secure pin number or passcode number to the

card) and activation, updating family composition, allowable food items for purchase, and

timing of card receipt. Michigan received several calls from Spanish‐speaking parents that had

difficulty pinning their cards because they were not familiar with the “#” sign on the telephone,

                                                      

39 See [http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/retailers/store‐eligibility.htm] for more information on SNAP retailer

eligibility.

40 Because the WIC EBT purchase transaction occurs between the smart card and the card acceptance terminal,

there is no real‐time communication with the EBT host system during the transaction. As a result, the transaction is

referred to as an offline transaction.
Chapter 2 

Page 30 

required for pinning. Most sites had to add a few children who were missing from the files,

most often due to data entry error or incorrect assumptions about a child’s eligibility. Some of

the sites had problems with benefits not being loaded onto the card or the wrong amount was

available on the card, but those issues were quickly resolved. In addition, all of the Michigan

sites had difficulty with finding the correct size of peanut butter allowed in the WIC food

package (18‐ounce jars were allowed but manufacturers recently changed to 16‐ounce jars,

which were not in the UPC system) and with finding the allowed brands of bread (in some

stores approved brands were not scanning due to a computer error).  

Chickasaw Nation encountered a more systemic issue with delivering cards to households. The

grantee changed the card distribution method in 2013, from mailing cards to handing out cards

during the training sessions held by SFAs. However, as discussed previously, the training

sessions were not well attended and only about 50% of the households received their EBT cards

at that time. The grantee asked the SFAs to distribute the remaining cards, but toward the end

of the first month after sending a reminder text to households to use their benefits before they

expired, the grantee realized that many households never received their EBT cards. Those that

called were issued new cards immediately; however, others may not have contacted the

grantee. The grantee believes that some SFAs may not have distributed the cards but do not

know how extensive the problem was.   

2.3.5 Benefit Expiration and Expungement 

As discussed earlier, SEBTC benefits were set to expire prior to the start of the 2013‐2014

school year.41 The expiration of benefits meant that families could no longer access SEBTC

benefits left on the cards; however, the benefits remained available to the States to settle

accounts with retailers that submitted charges incurred prior to expiration. In the two SNAP

sites, these accounts remained open for 10 days in Delaware and 26 days in Portland, at which

point the benefits were expunged from the system and any remaining benefits were returned

to or remained with FNS. Exhibit 2.5 provides the dates that benefits expired and, for the SNAP

sites, expunged. For SNAP systems, the benefits were assigned an expiration date in the EBT

host system. For WIC benefits, each month’s benefits were issued with a pre‐assigned

expiration date so there was no expungement needed.  

                                                      

41 WIC benefits expired at the end of each month, while SNAP benefits carried‐over each month until used. All

benefits became unavailable prior to the start of the school year in each demonstration area.  
Chapter 2

Page 31 

Exhibit 2.5 Benefit Expiration and Expungement Dates

Grantee Benefit Expiration Benefit Expungment

Chickasaw Nation August 6‐21, 2013 a Not applicable

Delaware State August 28, 2013 September 7, 2013

Michigan 

Detroit September 30, 2013 Not applicable

Grand Rapids/

Kentwood September 30, 2013 Not applicable

Mid‐Michigan September 30, 2013 Not applicable

Portland, Oregon September 4, 2013 September 30, 2013

Source: Dates gathered during technical assistance efforts with the grantees, 2013. Note: Under the WIC model, benefits were

assigned monthly and expired at the end of each month. Therefore, they were not expunged as with the SNAP model.

a

The benefit period was distinct for each school and was determined by the school’s start and end dates.  As a result, the

benefit end dates were from August 6th to August 21st

.

2.4 Conclusion 

Consent rates for the six sites participating in the 2013 SEBTC evaluation were consistent with

those in past years for sites using the active consent approach. Sites were able to issue benefits

to more than 43,000 children from 23,000 households to achieve the evaluation’s needed

sample size for the impact analysis. As in past years, the sites were able to successfully issue

SEBTC cards.  While some households had difficulties with their cards, and while some WIC

foods were difficult to purchase in Michigan, there were relatively few issues with the

implementation of SEBTC benefits over the course of the summer.

Chapter 3

Page 33 

Chapter 3 

Use of SEBTC Benefits 

In 2011 and 2012, the SEBTC evaluation described patterns of use of the $60 SEBTC benefit for

households in the treatment group. In 2013, in addition to providing similar descriptive results

for households who receive the $60 SEBTC benefit and the $30 benefit, the evaluation also

assessed the differential impact of a $60 SEBTC benefit relative to a $30 benefit on SEBTC

participation (i.e., any use of the SEBTC benefit), the proportion of SEBTC that households

redeemed SEBTC benefits, and the proportion of households that exhausted all of their SEBTC

benefits in at least one month. This chapter presents both of the descriptive findings and

differential impacts.

3.1 Research Questions and Key Findings 

This section identifies the research questions for the analysis of SEBTC benefit use and

summarizes the key findings.

3.1.1 Research Questions 

Specifically, this chapter addresses five broad research questions on benefit use outcomes:

1. How do the $60 SEBTC benefit group and the $30 group use their SEBTC benefits?  What are

their respective benefit participation, redemption, and exhaustion rates, overall and by

site?  For households in WIC sites, how do redemptions vary by food category?

2. Does the $60 SEBTC benefit cause more families to use the SEBTC benefit at any time during

the summer than the $30 benefit?  

3. What is the impact of a $60 SEBTC benefit relative to a $30 benefit on the share of SEBTC

benefits redeemed?  

4. What is the impact of a $60 SEBTC benefit relative to a $30 benefit on the proportion of

households exhausting SEBTC benefit in at least one month?

5. For rates of SEBTC participation, redemption, and benefit exhaustion, do impacts vary by

site, demonstration model, or household characteristics (food security, SNAP participation,

poverty status, number of children in the household, presence of an adolescent in the

household, and race/ethnicity)?  

For each of these research questions the chapter considers three key outcomes: (i) the

household SEBTC participation rate, (ii) redemption rate (share of benefits redeemed), and, (iii)

the benefit exhaustion rate.  All outcomes are defined for the entire summer. A household is

defined as having exhausted benefits if it spent the maximum redeemable amount in one or

more months in the summer. The first research question is descriptive, and it is addressed by

describing the pooled results on the levels of the key SEBTC benefit use outcomes for the $60
Chapter 3 

Page 34 

SEBTC benefit group and separately for the $30 group. The chapter also presents additional

descriptive tabulations on the dollar value of benefits issued and redeemed, and the

percentage of benefits redeemed by food category in the WIC model sites. The descriptive

analysis also reports differences in the patterns of SEBTC benefit use among the six evaluation

sites as context for the impact results. The descriptive analyses do not control for observable

differences among the sites.

Research questions 2 to 5 are causal impact questions. They are addressed by estimating the

difference between the $60 SEBTC benefit group and the $30 benefit group for the three SEBTC

use outcomes, using regression methods that adjust for site and household characteristics.  This

approach assures that estimated differences in outcomes between the two experimental

groups can be attributed to the difference in benefits, rather than to differences in site and

household characteristics.  The methods for these regression analyses are discussed briefly in

Section 3.2 and in more detail in Chapter 5 and Appendix 5A.

3.1.2 Key Findings 

The key findings in this chapter are as follows:

 Among all households issued SEBTC benefits, 93% of those issued the $60 SEBTC benefit

and 91% those issued the $30 benefit participated (i.e., used some portion of their SEBTC

benefits) during summer 2013.

 On average, households in the $60 SEBTC benefit group redeemed 75% of their benefits,

and those in the $30 group redeemed 73%. Over the entire summer, the average benefit

redeemed per eligible child (including households that did not redeem any benefits) was

$135 for the $60 group and $64 for the $30 group.

 In the $60 SEBTC 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.

 As in previous years, rates of participation, redemption, and benefit exhaustion were lower

in WIC‐model sites than in SNAP‐model sites, suggesting that households find it more

difficult to redeem WIC benefits or that they are not interested in some of the specified

foods .

 Providing a $60 SEBTC benefit compared to a $30 benefit increased participation and

redemption rates by a small but statistically significant amount (a 2% relative difference in

the participation rate and a 3% relative difference in the redemption rate).  On the other

hand, the $60 SEBTC benefit group was 17% less likely than the $30 benefit group to have at

least one month during the summer in which they exhausted all available SEBTC benefits.   

 The small difference in SEBTC participation between the $60 benefit group and the $30

group did not vary significantly between the SNAP and WIC models, but the results

suggested a larger impact in the WIC‐model sites. The difference in redemption rates was

significantly larger (by 2 percentage points) for the sites with the WIC model than for those

with the SNAP model. The differential impact on benefit exhaustion in at least one month

was significantly larger (by 9 percentage points) in the WIC‐model sites than in the SNAP‐

model sites, with no significant impact on benefit exhaustion in the latter sites.   
Chapter 3

Page 35 

 The impact of a $60 SEBTC benefit compared to a $30 benefit on SEBTC exhaustion rates

varied significantly by site, but the impact on the participation and redemption rates did

not.  

 Few of the measured impacts differed significantly among demographic subgroups but

there were some subgroup differences. The effect of a $60 SEBTC benefit relative to a $30

benefit on the participation rate was 2 percentage points larger for households with two or

fewer children at baseline than for those with more than two children. The $60 benefit

increased the benefit redemption rate (relative to that of households with the $30 benefit)

by a larger amount for households that received SNAP at baseline than for those that did

not. In terms of benefit exhaustion, the $60 benefit group was less likely to exhaust benefits

than the $30 group for all demographic subgroups, with a significantly larger difference in

impacts for non‐SNAP households compared with SNAP households.

 Taken together, the results indicate relatively small differential impacts of a $60 benefit

relative to a $30 benefit on households’ participation in and redemption of SEBTC, and little

if any variation in these impacts among groups. One exception was that the impact of a $60

benefit relative to a $30 benefit on whether a household exhausted benefits in at least one

month was larger both in percentage points and as a percentage change, and this impact

was significant only in the WIC‐model sites.   

Section 3.2 provides an overview of the data and methods used for the descriptive analysis and

the impact analysis. Section 3.3 presents descriptive results on the patterns of benefit use and

discusses differences in levels of benefit use between the WIC and SNAP models. Section 3.4

presents the main impact results for the benefit use outcomes, followed by Sections 3.5, 3.6,

and 3.7 which discuss the variation in impacts across sites, by WIC versus SNAP model, and by

demographic subgroups. Section 3.8 presents the conclusions of the benefit use analysis.

3.2 Data and Methods 

This section describes data and methods for the EBT analysis. Chapter 4 provides details about

the sample design, household data collection, and characteristics of households. Additional

details on the methodology used to estimate relative impacts and differences in outcomes

across subgroups are provided in Chapter 5 and Appendix 5A.

3.2.1 Data 

The analysis in this chapter is based on SEBTC transaction data collected from the evaluation

sites. Grantees and EBT vendors provided data on benefit issuances, redemptions, and other

transactions (such as returns and reversals) for each month of the SEBTC benefit period. Data

from the SNAP and WIC systems provided the date, time, and total dollar value of each

purchase transaction. 42 In addition to the purchase‐level data, the WIC data provided separate

                                                      

42 For SNAP sites, data were provided on SNAP benefits as well as SEBTC benefits for each month of the SEBTC

benefit period. This information permitted the identification of households currently receiving SNAP benefits.

However, since this information was not available for all sites, and because it was endogenous, survey data were

used to identify SNAP households for the analysis of impacts on benefit use among subgroups.
Chapter 3 

Page 36 

transactions for each category of food issued and redeemed, allowing for the analysis of

redemptions at the aggregate and food category levels for the WIC‐model sites. The dollar

value of WIC benefits issued was determined for each site by multiplying the quantity issued by

the average unit price in the site for each food category, and then summing across the food

categories. Thus, the value of the benefit per child varied across sites, both within and between

States, based on differences in food prices.  

The analysis team aggregated the transactions for each household to produce net amounts for

benefits issued and redeemed for each issuance cycle, and then summed the monthly benefits

issued and redeemed for the summer (taking into account benefits carried over from month to

month in the SNAP sites).43  

3.2.2 Methods 

With one exception, the descriptive results presented in Section 3.3 and Appendix 3B are based

on the survey sample, using the household summer survey weights.  The exception is Exhibit

3.1, which is based on unweighted data.44  These weights gave each site an equal weight and

adjusted for possible nonresponse bias.45 Specifically, the analyses computed totals, averages,

and distributions for the key SEBTC use measures by site and benefit type for the full SEBTC

period.  

The impact analyses in Sections 3.4 through 3.7 follow the natural analysis strategy for a

random assignment design; i.e., the analyses compare regression‐adjusted benefit use

outcomes for the $60 SEBTC benefit group to regression‐adjusted outcomes for the $30 group

measured for the full summer. This estimation, involving regression rather than simple

differences in average outcomes, adjusts for any chance imbalances at baseline in site‐ and

household‐level characteristics between the $60 and $30 benefit groups. Impacts on binary

outcomes, i.e., participation and benefit exhaustion, are estimated using a logistic regression

model, and impacts on the percent of benefits redeemed are estimated using a linear

regression model.  Chapter 5 and Appendix 5A provide more detail on the regression‐adjusted

approach used here for impact analysis.

This chapter also presents exploratory analysis of the variation in impacts across subgroups.

Results for individual sites, WIC‐ and SNAP‐model sites grouped together, and subgroups by

household demographic characteristics are reported. Subgroups of sites are defined by whether

they used the SNAP or the WIC model.  At the household level, subgroups are defined by the

following baseline characteristics from the spring survey: very low food security among children

                                                      

43 All of the analyses exclude households that received a benefit in 2013 but were ineligible for the evaluation

because they had a child that had received benefits in 2012.   The analyses included 92 households in the $60

group and 20 households in the $30 group that were assigned benefits but had no identifiable benefit issuance or

redemption activity (see Appendix 3A).

44 Exhibit 3.1 provides unweighted counts of all evaluation households assigned, issued, and receiving benefits.

These counts include survey nonrespondents. All other exhibits are based on the survey sample in order to make

the results directly comparable to the tables in Chapters 4 and 5.

45 Appendix 4B describes construction of the analysis weights.
Chapter 3

Page 37 

(VLFS‐C), SNAP participation, poverty status, number of children in the household, and

presence of an adolescent in the household. The main impact analysis uses the full summer

evaluation sample, as does the analysis of impacts by site and SEBTC model, but the

demographic subgroup impact analysis uses the sample of households with both spring and

summer survey data (i.e., the “panel sample”; see Appendix 5C for more details). Significant

differences in impacts among subgroups are presented in tables in the body of the chapter.46

Appendix 3.C presents supplementary results for other subgroups, some of which are

discussed, but not presented in tables, in the body of the chapter.   

3.3 Description of SEBTC Benefit Use by Site 

As context for the impact findings in this and subsequent chapters, the evaluation provides

descriptive information on the patterns of benefit use by households in the 2013 SEBTC

evaluation, focusing on variation across sites. These descriptive comparisons across sites do not

take into account household demographic differences across the sites. The pooled impact and

subgroup impact analyses by site, presented in Section 3.4, do control for these demographic

factors.

3.3.1 Benefit Participation and Redemption Rates 

EBT system data were used to determine the final numbers of households and children issued

benefits and the benefit participation rates, also known as take‐up rates.  For the 2013

evaluation, a total of 42,721 children in 22,848 households were assigned to receive SEBTC,

with approximately equal numbers in the $60 and $30 benefit groups, as shown in Exhibit 3.1.47

Numbers of households and children assigned benefits varied by a factor of two across sites,

and were based on each grantee’s individual agreement with FNS.  

                                                      

46 Tests of differences in levels across subgroups will be performed for the revised report, when the analysis is

repeated with the final sample.

47 As discussed in Chapter 2, the 2013 evaluation excluded several categories of households that received SEBTC in

2013: households with children that received benefits in 2012, those in Detroit with children attending extended

year schools, and those in other special circumstances.  
Chapter 3 

Page 38 

Exhibit 3.1 Households and Children Assigned, Issued, and Redeeming SEBTC Benefits, by Site for All Mont

Number Assigned

Benefits Number Issued Benefits

Percentage Issued

Benefits

Households Participating

(Redeeming Benefits)

Ch

Site

Benefit

type

House‐

holds Children

House‐

holds Children

House‐

holds Children Number

Percentage of

Households

Issued N

ChickasawNation

$60 1,189 2,471 1,188 2,476 99.9% 100.2% 979 82.4% $30 1,203 2,454 1,201 2,453 99.8% 100.0% 995 82.8% 

DelawareState

$60 3,737 6,901 3,622 6,635 96.9% 96.1% 3,433 94.8% $30 3,743 6,909 3,727 6,927 99.6% 100.3% 3,437 92.2% 

Michigan

Detroit $60 1,195 2,333 1,192 2,336 99.7% 100.1% 1,064 89.3% 

$30 1,198 2,337 1,197 2,323 99.9% 99.4% 1,056 88.2% 

GrandRapids/Kentwood

$60 1,481 2,778 1,479 2,794 99.9% 100.6% 1,322 89.4% $30 1,490 2,777 1,488 2,797 99.9% 100.7% 1,273 85.6% 

Mid‐Michigan

$60 1,637 3,050 1,635 3,054 99.9% 100.1% 1,553 95.0% $30 1,616 3,033 1,614 3,026 99.9% 99.8% 1,486 92.1% 

Portland,Oregon

$60 2,180 3,840 2,168 3,771 99.4% 98.2% 2,154 99.4% $30 2,179 3,838 2,166 3,796 99.4% 98.9% 2,151 99.3% 

All Sites $60 11,419 21,373 11,284 21,066 98.8% 98.6% 10,505 93.1% 

$30 11,429 21,348 11,393 21,322 99.7% 99.9% 10,398 91.3% 

Source: Random assignment and SEBTC transaction data (unweighted) for all evaluation households.

Due to differences in the number of households assigned to benefits across sites, larger sites have more influence on the overall percentages for all 
Chapter 3

Page 39 

The 2013 SEBTC evaluation sites issued benefits for the evaluation to a total of 11,419

households in the $60 benefit group and 11,429 in the $30 benefit group. The numbers of

children and household issued benefits closely approximated the numbers that were randomly

assigned. On average, almost 99% of households in the $60 benefit group and very nearly 100%

of households in the $30 benefit group assigned benefits were issued benefits. There were

several reasons for the small differences between the total numbers of households and

children assigned and issued benefits.  Some households that were randomly assigned to

receive benefits could not be located or declined the benefit. The number of children issued

benefits could differ from the number assigned if households, when notified about the SEBTC

benefit, identified additional eligible children or said that children had moved out of the

household. As children moved in and out of households throughout the summer, the numbers

continued to fluctuate.48 The counts in Exhibit 3.1 represent the total numbers of households

and children that were ever issued benefits in 2013.  

A total of 20,903 households in the 2013 evaluation participated in SEBTC (that is, redeemed

any benefits during the summer of 2013) in the six sites. Among all evaluation households

issued benefits, 93% of $60 benefit households and 91% of $30 benefit households participated

at least once during the summer (based on the unweighted data for Exhibit 3.1). The

unweighted household participation rates varied across the sites from Chickasaw Nation (82%

for the $60 and $30 benefit group households) to Portland (where 99% of the $60 and $30

benefit households participated in SEBTC). The descriptive results show a much greater

difference in overall participation rates between sites than differences between the $60 SEBTC

benefit group and the $30 group.  At the site level, the largest difference between the benefit

groups was 3.8 percentage points (in Grand Rapids/Kentwood).

Exhibit 3.2 shows the mean and distribution of the SEBTC benefit redemption rate, i.e., the

percentage of benefits redeemed by the evaluation households during the summer (using

weighted data for survey respondents). On average, households in the $60 group redeemed

74% of SEBTC benefits, and those in the $30 group redeemed 72%.  Overall, three out of five

households in each benefit group redeemed more than 75% of SEBTC benefits. There was

substantial variation in the mean and distribution of the benefit redemption rate across sites.

For example, the mean redemption rate ranged from 60% to 98% for the $60 SEBTC benefit

group.  The percentage of households with no redemptions had a smaller range: from around

1% to 17% for both groups. Portland (a SNAP‐model site) had the highest percentage of

households that redeemed 100% of their benefits for the entire summer (88% for both benefit

groups). On the other hand, at most 10% of households in either group in the four WIC model

sites spent 100% of their benefits for the summer.  

                                                      

48 Note that this means that, as defined here, the number of children actually receiving benefits could be more

than 100% of the children randomly assigned to receive benefits, as was the case for the $30 group.   
Chapter 3 

Page 40 

Exhibit 3.2 Percentage of SEBTC Benefits Redeemed, All Households, By Site for All Months,

Summer 2013

Site

Benefit

Type

Mean

Percentage

of Dollars

Redeemed

0% of

Benefits

>0 and

<=25% of

Benefits

>25 and

<=50%

of

Benefits

>50 and

<=75% of

Benefits

>75 and

<100%  of

Benefits

>=100%  

of

Benefits

Chickasaw

Nation

$60 60.0% 17.6 4.4 10.4 21.0 41.2 5.4

$30 60.2% 17.4 3.9 12.0 21.1 39.6 6.0

Delaware

State

$60 88.0% 7.9 0.2 2.0 4.3 61.4 24.2

$30 86.8% 8.1 0.2 2.4 6.8 59.5 23.1

Michigan     

Detroit $60 63.2% 10.7 4.1 13.1 27.5 38.7 5.9

$30 59.5% 11.8 6.4 14.8 30.1 30.3 6.7

Grand

Rapids/

Kentwood

$60 61.3% 10.6 6.5 13.7 26.8 36.8 5.7

$30 57.7% 14.4 6.2 14.9 25.5 34.2 4.8

Mid‐

Michigan

$60 75.6% 5.1 2.6 7.3 18.5 58.9 7.6

$30 72.4% 7.9 3.0 7.9 20.0 51.3 10.0

Portland,

Oregon

$60 98.0% 1.2 0.0 0.3 1.0 9.6 87.9

$30 97.2% 1.2 0.1 0.4 1.4 8.6 88.4

All Sites   $60 74.4% 8.8 3.0 7.8 16.5 41.1 22.8

$30 72.4% 10.1 3.3 8.7 17.5 37.2 23.2

Source: SEBTC transaction data (weighted) for summer 2013 survey respondents.  

The percent of benefits redeemed is greater than 100% for some households in WIC‐model sites because the imputed value of

the issued package, based on the site’s average unit cost, is less than the actual dollar value redeemed. The calculation of the

value of the WIC package is described in Section 3.2.1.

Among participating households, the average redemption rate was 82% for the $60 group and

81% for the $30 group (Exhibit 3.3). The pattern of variation in the redemption rate by

participating households for the summer across sites was similar for the two benefit groups.

Portland and Delaware had the highest mean redemption rates and percentages of households

redeeming 100% of benefits for the participating households; Grand Rapids/Kentwood had the

lowest values of these measures.
Chapter 3

Page 41 

Exhibit 3.3 Percentage of SEBTC Benefits Redeemed, Participating Households, By Site for

All Months, Summer 2013

Site

Benefit

Type

Mean

Percentage of

Dollars

Redeemed

>0 and

<=25% of

Benefits

>25 and

<=50% of

Benefits

>50 and

<=75% of

Benefits

>75 and

<100%  of

Benefits

>=100%  of

Benefits

Chickasaw

Nation

$60   72.8% 5.3 12.6 25.5 50.0 6.6

$30   72.9% 4.8 14.5 25.5 47.9 7.3

Delaware

State

$60   95.6% 0.2 2.1 4.7 66.7 26.3

$30   94.5% 0.2 2.6 7.4 64.7 25.1

Michigan         

Detroit $60   70.8% 4.6 14.6 30.8 43.4 6.6

$30   67.5% 7.2 16.7 34.1 34.4 7.6

Grand

Rapids/

Kentwood

$60   68.5% 7.3 15.3 30.0 41.2 6.4

$30   67.4% 7.2 17.4 29.8 39.9 5.6

Mid‐

Michigan

$60   79.6% 2.8 7.7 19.5 62.1 8.0

$30   78.5% 3.2 8.5 21.7 55.7 10.9

Portland,

Oregon

$60   99.2% 0.0 0.3 1.1 9.7 88.9

$30   98.9% 0.1 0.4 1.4 8.7 89.5

All Sites   $60   81.6% 3.2 8.5 18.1 45.1 25.0

$30   80.6% 3.7 9.7 19.4 41.4 25.8

Source: SEBTC transaction data (weighted) for summer 2013 survey respondents.

3.3.2 Value of Benefit Issued and Redeemed 

Exhibit 3.4 presents the total and the average dollar amounts of SEBTC benefits issued to and

redeemed per household and per child. For the $60 group, the average household benefit

issued across all the sites was $342, ranging from $300 per household in Delaware to $393 in

Michigan‐Detroit.  For the $30 group, the average household benefit issued across all sites was

$167, ranging from $151 per household in Delaware to $192 in Chickasaw Nation. The average

benefit issued per child for all sites, for the entire summer, was $181 for the $60 SEBTC benefit

group and $88 for the $30 benefit group. The standard monthly food packages in the WIC sites

were essentially the same, so the differences in benefits per child in the WIC sites were mostly

due to local price differences and the length of the benefit period. 49  The average per child

benefit redeemed across all the sites for the $60 SEBTC benefit group was $134. For the $30

group, the average per child benefit redeemed across all sites was $64. Since the average

summer benefit period was 87 days (see Exhibit 2.3 in Chapter 2), this equates to $1.54 per day

for the average school‐age child in the larger benefit group and 74 cents per day for the

average child in the smaller benefit group.

                                                      

49 As discussed in Section 3.2.1, food prices from redemption data were used to compute the dollar value of the

food package in each WIC site. The only difference in the content of the standard food packages was that

Chickasaw Nation issued a larger quantity of tuna/salmon than the Michigan sites. The Chickasaw Nation had an

expanded food package for the third benefit cycle (see Appendix 1.A).  
Chapter 3 

Page 42 

Exhibit 3.4 Mean Dollar Amount of SEBTC Benefits Issued and Redeemed, by Site for All

Months, Summer 2013

Benefits Issued Benefits Redeemed

Site Benefit Type Mean per

Household

Mean Per

Child

Mean per

Household

Mean Per

Child

Chickasaw Nation $60   383 186 239 112

$30   192 94 122 56

Delaware State $60   300 159 268 145

$30   151 82 135 71

Michigan      

Detroit $60   393 203 259 128

$30   187 96 117 57

Grand Rapids/

Kentwood

$60   345 183 220 113

$30   161 86 99 50

Mid‐Michigan $60   333 178 259 135

$30   156 83 118 60

Portland, Oregon $60   307 176 303 175

$30   154 88 153 87

All Sites   $60   342 181 258 134

$30   167 88 124 64

Source: SEBTC transaction data (weighted) for summer 2013 survey respondents.

3.3.3 SEBTC Benefit Exhaustion 

Over the summer of 2013, 36% of households in the $60 benefit group and 43% of the $30

benefit group exhausted their SEBTC benefits (i.e., used all their benefits) in at least one

summer month (Exhibit 3.5).50 There was a wide range of rates of SEBTC benefit exhaustion in

both groups. The percentages of households that exhausted their benefits at least once were as

low as 11% ($60 group in Chickasaw Nation) and as high as 94% of households (both groups in

Portland).  

Exhausting benefits for the entire summer was not common, with 20% of all households

spending their full benefit by the end of the SEBTC period. Full benefit exhaustion in the WIC

sites was very rare, ranging from 0.3% in Chickasaw to 2% in Mid‐Michigan for the $60 benefit

group, and 1% in Michigan‐Grand Rapids/Kentwood to 5% in Mid‐Michigan for the $30 group.

Appendix 3B presents the percentage of households exhausting their entire benefit by site and

benefit group.51  Since very few households exhausted their entire SEBTC benefits, the analysis

of benefit exhaustion focused on the broader measure of exhausting benefits in at least month.

                                                      

50  Exhibit 3.2 shows the percentage of households with redemptions equal to 100% of the value of benefits issued

for the entire summer. Exhibit 3.5 shows the percentage of households that exhausted their benefits in at least

one month. For SNAP model sites, benefit exhaustion was defined as spending 100% of available benefits. For WIC

sites, benefit exhaustion was defined as redeeming benefits until the quantity remaining in each food category was

less than the minimum amount that could be purchased.   

51 Appendix 3A.2 discusses benefit exhaustion thresholds in the WIC‐model sites. These thresholds are the

minimum remaining quantities determining when households exhausted their SEBTC‐WIC benefits.   
Chapter 3

Page 43 

Across all sites, the average household that exhausted benefits did so within 13 days of

issuance in both the $60‐ and $30‐groups. Households in both groups exhausted their benefits

most quickly in Portland (a SNAP‐model site), where the mean number of days was only 9 in the

$60 SEBTC group and 8 in the $30 group. Households in Mid‐Michigan took longest to exhaust

their benefits (a WIC‐model site), where the mean number of days to exhaust benefits was 26

in the $60 group and 25 in the $30 group.

Exhibit 3.5 Exhaustion of SEBTC Benefits by Site for All Months, Summer 2013

Site

Benefit

Type

Exhausted Benefits Once

or More Often Days to Benefit Exhaustion

# % Households Mean

25th

Percentile Median

75th

Percentile Maximum

Chickasaw

Nation

$60 396 10.6% 24 20 27 29 30

$30 861 23.1% 22 19 24 28 31

Delaware

State

$60 2,311 62.0% 12 5 10 18 30

$30 2,381 63.9% 11 5 10 17 30

Michigan

Detroit $60 537 14.4% 21 16 21 29 30

$30 940 25.2% 21 17 20 28 30

Grand

Rapids/

Kentwood

$60 485 13.0% 24 21 25 29 30

$30 734 19.7% 22 20 24 27 30

Mid‐

Michigan

$60 865 23.2% 26 24 28 29 32

$30 1,273 34.2% 25 23 27 29 32

Portland,

Oregon

$60 3,486 93.6% 9 3 7 13 35

$30 3,485 93.5% 8 3 6 11 35

All Sites   $60 8,080 36.1% 13 5 10 21 35

$30 9,673 43.2% 13 4 11 22 35

Source: SEBTC transaction data (weighted) for summer 2013 survey respondents.

3.3.4 Patterns of Benefit Redemption by Food Category in WICModel Sites 

Exhibit 3.6a and 3.6b present the SEBTC redemption rates for each WIC food category over the

course of the summer in the four WIC model sites (see Appendix 3A for site‐specific food

packages and the percentages of households redeeming any benefits in each food category).

Nine categories of foods were issued to households in the $60 group and six to the $30 group.52  

In the $60 benefit group (Exhibit 3.6a), households redeemed 67% of all benefits issued. The

eggs and juice categories were most popular with 77% redeemed in each. Meanwhile, only 50%

                                                      

52 Three households in the Michigan sites received the wrong benefit package. That is, they were either assigned

the $30 package and received $60 per child, or vice versa. Also, 33 households in Michigan and 19 households in

Chickasaw Nation received a mix of the $30 and $60 package.   Redemptions of the foods specific to the $60

package (cheese, juice, and tuna/salmon) by households that incorrectly received the $60 package are not

included in Exhibit 3.6a 3.6b.
Chapter 3 

Page 44 

of benefits were redeemed in the bread/tortillas/rice/oatmeal category.53 Mid‐Michigan had

the highest redemption rate in all nine food categories.  Chickasaw Nation had the lowest

redemption rate in six of the nine food categories.

In the $30 benefit group (Exhibit 3.6b), households in WIC sites overall redeemed 66% of the

food package. Benefits for eggs and fruits/vegetables were redeemed the most (73% and 71%

respectively) while benefits for beans/peanut butter were redeemed the least (54%). Mid‐

Michigan had the highest redemption rate in all six food categories (70% to 81%). Redemptions

in other sites did not exceed 71% in any category.  

Exhibit 3.6a Percentage of SEBTC Benefits Redeemed by Food Category, Households with

$60 per Child, WIC‐Model Sites, Summer 2013

Food Type

Chickasaw

Nation Detroit

Grand

Rapids/

Kentwood

Mid‐

Michigan

All WIC

Sites

Percentage of Benefits Redeemed

Milk – skim, 1/2%, 1%, 2% 66.4% 68.4% 68.5% 82.5% 70.7%

Cheese 70.6% 73.1% 69.2% 85.1% 74.5%

Eggs 71.5% 76.4% 75.1% 86.7% 77.1%

Juice 64 oz bottle/equivalent 69.7% 76.9% 73.9% 86.6% 76.6%

Cereal 60.0% 65.5% 62.2% 77.0% 65.8%

Dry/canned beans and peanut

butter 51.9% 52.0% 53.0% 74.1% 57.4%

Tuna/salmon 59.1% 63.5% 58.6% 78.5% 64.3%

Bread/tortillas/rice/oatmeal 54.1% 49.6% 41.6% 55.7% 50.4%

Fruits/vegetables 64.6% 72.3% 72.6% 82.4% 72.8%

Total 62.5% 65.8% 64.0% 77.8% 67.3%

Source: SEBTC transaction data (weighted) for summer 2013 survey respondents.

Note: Percentages of benefits redeemed are based on total redemptions divided by total benefits for all households combined.

Therefore, the percentages of all benefits redeemed in this exhibit do not match the average percentage redeemed at the

household level in Exhibit 3.2.

                                                      

53 All of the Michigan sites had difficulty with finding the correct size of peanut butter allowed in the WIC food

package (18‐ounce jars were allowed but manufacturers recently changed to 16‐ounce jars, which were not in the

UPC system) and with finding the allowed brands of bread (in some stores approved brands were not scanning due

to a computer error).   
Chapter 3

Page 45 

Exhibit 3.6b Percentage of SEBTC Benefits Redeemed by Food Category, Households with

$30 per Child, WIC‐Model Sites, Summer 2013

Food Type

Chickasaw

Nation Detroit

Grand

Rapids/

Kentwood

Mid‐

Michigan

All WIC

Sites

Percentage of Benefits Redeemed

Milk – skim, 1/2%, 1%, 2% 65.0% 61.5% 63.0% 77.3% 66.2%

Eggs 70.8% 69.3% 69.5% 81.0% 72.5%

Cereal 61.9% 60.9% 58.5% 72.2% 62.9%

Dry/canned beans and peanut

butter 52.2% 48.5% 47.7% 69.9% 54.2%

Bread/tortillas/rice/oatmeal 61.6% 65.6% 47.2% 66.0% 60.3%

Fruits/vegetables 65.4% 68.1% 68.8% 80.5% 70.5%

Total 63.7% 62.5% 61.5% 75.9% 65.6%

Note: Percentages of benefits redeemed are based on total redemptions divided by total benefits for all households combined.

Therefore, the percentages of all benefits redeemed in this exhibit do not match the average percentage redeemed at the

household level in Exhibit 3.2.

Source: SEBTC transaction data (weighted) for summer 2013 survey respondents.

3.3.5 Differences in Benefit Use Between WIC and SNAP Models 

In considering the differences in benefit use among sites in the preceding discussion, it is

important to acknowledge that the WIC model appeared to pose greater barriers for

participation, redemption and exhaustion. First, more households may be familiar with the

SNAP program than the WIC program.  Second, compared to SNAP, fewer stores are authorized

to accept WIC, so opportunities to redeem benefits are not as plentiful as with the SNAP

model.  Third, the SNAP model operates almost like cash, but the WIC model is commodity‐

based. As a result, redeeming benefits with the WIC model is more complicated because

participants must choose from a narrower set of eligible foods, and these foods may be hard to

find (as with peanut butter and whole‐grain bread in the Michigan sites). The WIC model also

requires participants to keep track of balances for each food category rather than a single

balance in dollars. Further, WIC benefits expired if not used by the end of the month, while

SNAP benefits carried over from month to month until they expired at the end of the summer.  

Finally, some households may not want some or all of the foods eligible for purchase with the

WIC model.   

The observed differences in benefit use between the WIC and SNAP models fit with

expectations based on the differences between these two benefit delivery systems. Greater

barriers to participation are associated with lower participation rates for both benefit groups in

the WIC‐model sites. Both barriers to participation in general and food‐specific issues are linked

to lower redemption and exhaustion rates for both groups in WIC‐model sites. While other

factors may be involved, it is plausible and consistent with prior years’ results that Oregon’s use

of a SNAP model where households used the same card for SEBTC and SNAP was a factor in that

site’s higher levels of participation, redemption and exhaustion compared to Delaware, which

issued a separate SEBTC card to all eligible households, even if they also had an EBT card for

SNAP.
Chapter 3 

Page 46 

3.4 Impact of a $60 SEBTC Benefit Relative to a $30 

Benefit on SEBTC Benefit Use 

This section reports the impact of receiving a $60 SEBTC benefit relative to receiving a $30

benefit on the extent to which households actually use their available SEBTC benefits. The

analysis considers three measures of utilization:  SEBTC participation (i.e., redemption of any

SEBTC benefits at any point during summer 2013), the share of SEBTC benefits redeemed, and

occurrence of SEBTC benefit exhaustion in at least one summer month.  Regression

adjustments provide the most statistically precise and reliable estimates of impact for this

purpose.  Means for the $60‐ and $30‐ benefit groups presented in this section are adjusted for

observable differences in site and household characteristics, so they differ from the unadjusted

means in Section 3.3.

Regression adjustments show that the $60 SEBTC benefit generated a relatively small increase

in SEBTC participation relative to the $30 benefit (see Exhibit 3.7).  It also raised the share of

SEBTC benefits redeemed to a slightly higher level.  At the same time, a $60 benefit was

substantially less likely than a $30 benefit to lead to exhaustion of all available benefits in one

or more given month.54

Exhibit 3.7   Estimated Impact on Benefit Use Outcomes of $60 Relative to $30 on   

Participation Rate, Percent of Benefits Redeemed and Benefit Exhaustion Rate,

Summer 2013

Outcome

Sample

Size

$60

Group  

$30

Group  

Differential

Impact

($60–$30

Difference) SE p‐value

Impact as

% of $30

Prevalence

SEBTC Participation  

(% of those issued) 19,689 91.1 89.8 1.3*** 0.16 <.001 1.5%

Benefit Redemption  

Rate (% of those

issued)

19,689 74.3 72.3 2.0*** 0.44 <.001 2.7%

Benefit Exhaustion

Rate (% exhausting

in at least one

month)

19,689 36.1 43.3  ‐7.2*** 0.88 <.001  ‐17.0%

Sources:  SEBTC and spring/summer survey data (weighted), 2013.  

*p<.10, **p<.05, ***p<.01.

While households that were issued $60 per eligible child had more to gain from participating

than the group issued half as much per eligible child, participation rates were approximately

90% for both groups. Even so, the larger $60 benefit raised the participation rate slightly, by

about 2% relative to the $30 benefit.  

                                                      

54 As in the descriptive analysis, the impact analysis treats households that did not participate as not exhausting

their benefits, so the outcome is not conditional on participating and the impact is for all 2013 evaluation

households.
Chapter 3

Page 47 

Similarly, the group given the larger benefit amount also redeemed a larger proportion of its

benefits over the entire summer, although again the difference was substantively small in

relative terms (about 3%).  The redemption rate decreased from 74.3% for the $60 group to

72.3% for the $30 group.55 Among households that participated at all in SEBTC, the regression‐

adjusted redemption rates for participants were even closer together, separated by just 1.2

percentage points (81.7% for the $60 group and 80.5% for the $30 group; not shown).  

Therefore, the overall impact on the small but statistically significant difference between the

two groups on percent of benefits redeemed comes from two sources:  making $60 households

more likely to participate and, conditional on participation, causing them to redeem a slightly

higher share of their available benefits.

As might be expected given the larger benefit, the $60 benefit reduced the rate of SEBTC

benefit exhaustion (i.e., redemption of all available benefits in at least one month over the

summer), relative to the $30 group. Only 36.1% of the $60 SEBTC group exhausted their

benefits in at least one month of the summer compared to 43.3% of the $30 group. Hence, the

regression‐adjusted impact, in absolute terms, was 7.2 percentage points, and the relative

decrease in the exhaustion rate in response to increasing the benefit was a substantial 17.0%.

The difference in exhaustion rates between the $60‐ and $30‐groups indicates that a large part

of the study population would use all of a $30 SEBTC benefit per child per month in at least one

month but, fewer would use all of a $60 benefit.  

The positive impacts of the $60 benefit on SEBTC participation and redemption can be

interpreted in a cost‐benefit framework.  Eligible households need to take certain steps to

participate in SEBTC (such as reading notices, picking up a SEBTC card, selecting a PIN, or

learning how to use benefits). These steps have costs in time and, in some sites, travel.

Households assigned a larger benefit would be expected to be more likely to incur the costs of

participation.  In addition, from a behavioral perspective, a larger benefit would provide more

motivation to deal with any perceived risks of participation. Since the differences in

participation and redemption rates were small, it appears that most households who received a

$60 per child SEBTC benefit would participate in SEBTC even if they only received a $30 per

child benefit.

The negative impact of the $60 benefit on benefit exhaustion may be interpreted in several

ways. One interpretation is that of satisficing behavior: fewer households chose to redeem all

of their benefits at the $60 level, either because they did not need all of the benefits, or

because they could have but did not want to use all of the benefits. However, it is also possible

that some households faced external barriers to using all of the $60 benefit (either obtaining

foods or preparing and serving them) that were not present with the $30 benefit. While the

process of benefit delivery was the same for both groups, the composition of the WIC food

package was different. As the analyses in the next sections show, there were significant

                                                      

55 The means for the $60 and $30 groups in Exhibit 3.7 and subsequent exhibits in this chapter are regression‐

adjusted, whereas the means in previous exhibits are not. Regression‐adjusted means may differ from un‐adjusted

means for the same sample because of differences in baseline characteristics across sites or between the $60 and

$30 groups.  
Chapter 3 

Page 48 

differences in the impact of the $60 benefit on benefit redemption and exhaustion rates

between sites using the SNAP and WIC models, and it is plausible that features of the WIC

model and differences between the $30 and $60 food packages contributed to these

differences, as discussed further in Section 3.6.

The evaluation’s logic model predicts that SEBTC will increase household food expenditures

and, as a result, lead to better food security. By extension, the $60 per child SEBTC benefit

would be expected to have more impact on food expenditures and food security than the $30

per child benefit. In practice, the difference in benefits redeemed between households in the

$60 and $30 groups is slightly larger than the difference in benefits issued, and this difference

might influence the impacts on food expenditures, food security, and nutrition outcomes.

Whether the $60 SEBTC benefit was more effective in those areas, relative to the $30 benefit, is

addressed in Chapter 5.

3.5 Impact of a $60 SEBTC Benefit Relative to a $30 

Benefit on SEBTC Benefit Use by Site 

An important additional aspect of SEBTC benefit use is the consistency across sites of the

previously‐reported impacts of a $60 SEBTC benefit relative to a $30 benefit. The descriptive

findings in Section 3.3 suggest some variation across sites in levels of participation, percent of

benefits redeemed, and benefit exhaustion in both the $60 and $30 SEBTC benefit groups.  

Impacts on these outcomes, disaggregated by site and by SNAP versus WIC model, are

presented in this section.

The impact of a $60 benefit on SEBTC participation, redemption, and exhaustion rates relative

to a $30 benefit, varied significantly among sites (Exhibits 3.8, 3.9, and 3.10).  The three

Michigan sites had significantly positive impacts of the $60 per child benefit on participation

and redemption rates, relative to the $30 benefit, while the others did not. (The impact on

participation in Detroit was weakly significant, with a p‐value of 0.052).56 There were no

significant impacts on participation and redemption in Chickasaw Nation and the two SNAP‐

model sites.

The impact of the SEBTC benefit level on the benefit exhaustion rate also varied significantly

and substantially across sites.  A $60 SEBTC benefit significantly and substantially reduced the

prevalence of benefit exhaustion in all four WIC‐model sites compared to a $30 benefit (Exhibit

3.10). The relative impacts between the $60 SEBTC benefit group and the $30 group in these

sites were one‐third or more. On the other hand, the two SNAP‐model sites had no significant

impact of the $60 benefit on benefit exhaustion relative to the $30 benefit. Section 3.6 presents

                                                      

56 The analysis tested whether the impacts on SEBTC redemption and benefit exhaustion rates varied across sites

but not whether impacts were different between any pair of  sites (due to limited statistical  power at the site

level). Thus, for example, the analysis in Exhibit 3.9 did not determine whether Grand Rapids/Kentwood had a

larger impact than Delaware.  A similar point applies to estimated impacts on benefit exhaustion rates in Exhibit

3.10.
Chapter 3

Page 49 

the results of tests for significant differences in the impact of the $60 benefit relative to the $30

benefit between the WIC and SNAP models.

Exhibit 3.8   Estimated Impact of $60 Relative to $30 Benefit on the Participation Rate by

Site, Summer 2013

Sample

Size

$60 Group

Participation

Rate

$30  Group

Participation

Rate  

Impact on

Participation

Rate ($60‐

$30

Difference) SE p‐value

%

Change

All Sites 19,689 91.1 89.8 1.3*** 0.16 <.001 1.5%

Chickasaw Nation 2,053 82.7 82.2 0.5 0.53 0.359 0.6%

Delaware State 6,437 92.1 91.9 0.2 0.32 0.567 0.2%

Michigan           

Detroit 2,121 89.0 88.4 0.6* 0.33 0.052 0.7%

Grand Rapids/

Kentwood 2,482 89.3 85.5 3.8*** 1.39 0.006 4.4%

Mid‐Michigan 3,006 94.9 92.0 2.8*** 0.64 <.001 3.1%

Portland, Oregon 3,590 98.8 98.8 <0.1 0.03 0.140 <0.1%

Sources:  SEBTC and spring/summer survey data (weighted), 2013.  

Test that $30/$60 difference varies by site:  χ2=249.580, df=5, p=.<0.001  

“% Change” is impact as a percent of $30 benefit group level.

*p<.10, **p<.05, ***p<.01.

Exhibit 3.9 Estimated Impact of $60 Relative to $30 Benefit on the Benefit Redemption

Rate by Site, Summer 2013

Sample

Size

$60  Group

Percent of

Benefits

Redeemed  

$30 Group  

Percent of

Benefits

Redeemed

Impact on

Benefit

Redemption

Rate ($60‐$30

Difference) SE

p‐

value

%

Change

All Sites 19,689 74.3 72.3 2.0 0.44 <.001 2.7%

Chickasaw Nation 2,053 60.2 59.9 0.3 1.06 0.741 0.6%

Delaware State 6,437 88.0 86.8 1.2 0.69 0.089 1.4%

Michigan     

Detroit 2,121 63.0 59.6 3.4** 1.03 0.001 5.7%

Grand Rapids/

Kentwood

2,482 61.2 576 3.6** 1.83 0.053 6.2%

Mid‐Michigan 3,006 75.4 72.4 3.1*** 0.97 0.002 4.2%

Portland, Oregon 3,590 98.0 97.7 0.3 0.28 0.305 0.3%

Sources:  SEBTC and spring/summer survey data (weighted), 2013.  

Test that $30/$60 difference varies by site:  F‐value= 6.103, df=5, p= <0.001 “% Change” is impact as a percent of $30 benefit

group level.

*p<.10, **p<.05, ***p<.01.
Chapter 3 

Page 50 

Exhibit 3.10 Estimated Impact of $60 Relative to $30 Benefit on the Benefit Exhaustion Rate

by Site, Summer 2013

Sample

Size

$60 Group

Benefit

Exhaustion

Rate

$30  Group

Benefit

Exhaustion

Rate  

Impact on

Benefit

Exhaustion Rate

($60‐$30

Difference) SE p‐value % Change

Benefit Exhaustion (%) 19,689 36.1 43.3 ‐7.2*** 0.60 <.001 ‐17.0%

Chickasaw Nation 2,053 10.7 23.1  ‐12.4*** 3.41 0.000  ‐54.0%

Delaware State 6,437 62.1 63.9  ‐1.8 1.62 0.262 2.8%

Michigan             

Detroit 2,121 14.4 25.2  ‐10.8*** 1.58 <.001  ‐43.0%

Grand Rapids/    

Kentwood

2,482 12.9 19.8  ‐6.9*** 1.55 <.001  ‐35.0%

Mid‐Michigan 3,006 23.2 34.3  ‐11.1*** 1.57 <.001  ‐32.0%

Portland, Oregon 3,590 93.6 93.5 0.0 0.75 0.972 <0.01%

Sources:  SEBTC and spring/summer survey data (weighted), 2013.  

Test that $30/$60 difference varies by site:  χ2=81.615, df=5, p=<.0001

“% Change” is impact as a percent of $30 benefit group level.

*p<.10, **p<.05, ***p<.01.

3.6 Impact of a $60 SEBTC Benefit Relative to a $30 

Benefit on SEBTC Benefit by WIC vs. SNAP Models 

The findings on site‐level variation in impacts suggest exploring the relationship of the SEBTC

service delivery model (WIC versus SNAP) to the impacts of a $60 benefit compared to a $30

benefit on SEBTC participation, redemption, and exhaustion.   There is evidence of a difference

between the two models in the estimated impact of a larger SEBTC benefit amount on

participation rates. A $60 benefit slightly increased SEBTC participation in the WIC‐model sites

(by 1.9 percentage points; see Exhibit 3.11), but had no significant impact in the SNAP‐model

sites.

The WIC‐model sites also had a significantly larger but insubstantial impact of the $60 per‐child

benefit on the redemption rate, with the additional $30 per‐child benefit leading to a small

increase of 2.6 percentage points (Exhibit 3.11). There was no significant differential impact on

the percent of benefits redeemed in the SNAP‐model sites. The difference in the relative impact

of the $60 benefit between WIC‐ and SNAP‐model sites was quite small compared with the

difference of nearly 30 points in the redemption rate for both $60‐ and $30‐benefit groups

between the SNAP‐model sites and in the WIC‐model sites, as discussed in Section 3.3.5.

The contrast between the SNAP‐ and WIC‐model sites is considerably larger for impacts on

benefit exhaustion.  About 78% of all households in the SNAP‐model sites exhausted their

SEBTC benefits in at least one month regardless of the per‐child benefit amount provided.  In

WIC model sites, the prevalence of exhaustion was much lower and—in this case—affected by

the SEBTC benefit amount. Only 26% of households receiving a $30 per‐child benefit exhausted
Chapter 3

Page 51 

all SEBTC benefits in one or more months of summer 2013. The benefit exhaustion rate was

even lower for households in the $60 group —falling to 15%, a statistically significant reduction

and one that differed significantly from essentially no impact of a larger benefit amount in the

SNAP‐model sites.

When considering differences between models in the impact of the $60 SEBTC benefit relative

to the $30 benefit, the most notable finding is that the $60 SEBTC per‐child benefit had a

negative impact on benefit exhaustion in sites using the WIC model but no such impact in sites

using the SNAP model. Thus, it does not appear that the greater size of the benefit is the

primary reason for this impact, and the explanation must lie at least in part in the distinctive

features of the WIC model.  As discussed in Section 3.3.5, there were several features of the

WIC model that could pose barriers to benefit use. The lower benefit exhaustion rate among

either benefit group in sites employing the WIC model may be the result of households having

greater difficulty keeping track of balances (with more foods in the package) or their being less

willing to overcome barriers to participation (such as traveling to participating stores and

finding approved products) once they had redeemed the WIC foods that they most needed or

desired.  In addition, it is possible that the lower rate of benefit exhaustion in the $60 WIC

group compared to the $60 SNAP group was related to the composition of the $60 food

package (particularly the relatively large quantity of bread/tortillas/oatmeal, for which

approved products were hard to find, and the inclusion of canned fish, which was less often

redeemed than most other foods).  

Exhibit 3.11 Estimated Impact of $60 Relative to $30 Benefit on the Participation, Benefit

Redemption, and Benefit Exhaustion Rates by SEBTC Model, Summer 2013

N

$60

Group

$30

Group

Difference

($60‐$30) SE p‐value

%

Change

Participation Rate

SNAP model 10,027 95.4 95.3 0.1 0.16 0.476 0.1%

WIC model 9,662 89.0 87.0 1.9** 0.18 <.001 2.2%

Difference 19,689  ‐6.5  ‐8.3 1.8* 0.18 <.001 22.0%

Benefit Redemption Rate

SNAP model 10,027 93.0 92.3 0.7 0.43 0.090 0.8%

WIC model 9,662 65.0 62.4 2.6*** 0.48 <0.001 4.1%

Difference 19,689  ‐28.1  ‐29.9 1.8** 0.54 0.001 6.1%

Benefit Exhaustion Rate

SNAP model 10,027 77.8 78.7 ‐0.9 0.9 0.319 1.1%

WIC model 9,662 15.3 25.6 ‐10.3*** 1.09 <.001 40.0%

Difference 19,689  ‐62.5  ‐53.1 ‐9.4*** 1.02 <.001 18.0%

Sources:  SEBTC and spring/summer survey data (weighted), 2013.  

*p<.10, **p<.05, ***p<.01.
Chapter 3 

Page 52 

3.7 Impact of a $60 Benefit Relative to a $30 Benefit on 

SEBTC Use Outcomes, by Demographic Subgroup 

This section presents exploratory analyses of whether the relative impact of a $60 SEBTC

benefit compared to a $30 benefit on SEBTC benefit use varied between demographic

subgroups.  The evaluation assessed differences in impacts among households grouped

according to respondents’ race/ethnicity, and the household’s status in the spring, before the

intervention, on the following characteristics: VLFS‐C, FI‐C, whether the household was below

the federal poverty line (FPL), participation in SNAP, number of children in the household, and

the presence of an adolescent in the household.  Thus, the evaluation tested for differences in

impacts on three SEBTC utilization outcomes in a total of seven sets of subgroups.  

Exhibit 3.12 presents the findings from this analysis in instances in which the impact of the $60

per child benefit relative to the $30 benefit differed significantly between subgroups at the 5%

significance level or less. Some differences in impacts for additional subgroups were significant

at the borderline 10% significance level, but are not discussed here (see Appendix Tables 3C.1,

3C.2, and 3C.3 for a full set of subgroup estimates).  Statistical tests are not corrected for

multiple comparisons so some of the significant results may be due to chance.  However, some

of the results are highly significant and therefore more likely to represent real impact

differences.

The only household characteristic significantly associated with a difference in impacts on SEBTC

use was receipt of SNAP in the spring. More specifically, the difference in SEBTC benefit

redemption rates between the $60 benefit group and the $30 benefit group was greater for

households receiving SNAP at baseline than for households that did not receive SNAP in the

spring.  Among SNAP households, the benefit redemption rate was 3 percentage points higher

for the $60 SEBTC benefit households than for the $30 benefit households, whereas there was

no difference in SEBTC redemption for non‐SNAP households.  

Second, the reduction of SEBTC benefit exhaustion among households receiving $60 per child

relative to $30 per child was larger for non‐SNAP households than for SNAP households:  10

percentage points versus 6 percentage points. While this finding likely reflects differences in

needs or attitudes between households that chose to participate in SNAP and otherwise similar

households that did not, it may also be related to greater familiarity with EBT systems—

specifically the tracking of remaining balances—among SNAP households. In Oregon, SNAP

households used the same EBT card for SNAP and SEBTC and therefore may have found SEBTC

easier to use than non‐SNAP households.
Chapter 3

Page 53 

Exhibit 3.12 Estimated Impact of $60 Relative to $30 Benefit on the Percent of Benefits

Redeemed, and Benefit Exhaustion Rate by Selected Subgroup, Summer 2013

N $60 Group   $30 Group  

Difference

($60‐$30) SE p‐value

Percent of Benefits Redeemed

Participation in SNAP    

Received SNAP in

spring 12,547 75.0 72.1 2.9*** 0.53 <.001

Did not receive SNAP

in spring 6,030 73.6 73.4 0.2 1.07 0.850

Difference 18,577 1.4 ‐1.4 2.7** 1.21 0.024

Benefit Exhaustion Rate

Participation in SNAP    

Received SNAP in

spring 12,547 36.1 42.2  ‐6.1*** 0.74 <.0001

Did not receive SNAP

in spring 6,030 36.6 46.2  ‐9.6*** 1.47 <.0001

Difference 18,577  ‐0.5 ‐4.0 3.5** 1.47 0.017

Sources:  SEBTC and spring survey data (weighted), 2013.

*p<.10, **p<.05, ***p<.01.

3.8 Conclusion 

The vast majority of SEBTC households participated, and they redeemed most of the benefits

that they were issued. However, households in the WIC‐model sites used their benefits less by

all three outcome measures: they had substantially lower levels of participation, redemption,

and exhaustion. While other factors come into play, it seems highly likely that one or more

differences in the form of benefits and the means of access between the WIC and SNAP models

contributed to the lower levels of benefit use in the WIC‐model sites.  

The $60 benefit group participated more often and redeemed a greater share of benefits than

the $30 group, but these impacts were substantively quite small: a 2% difference in the

participation rate and a 3% difference in the redemption rate. However, the $60 SEBTC benefit

group was 17% less likely than the $30 benefit group to exhaust all SEBTC benefits in at least

one of the summer months.  All of the observed overall impacts were found in the WIC‐model

sites; however, there were no significant impacts in the SNAP sites.  This difference in impacts is

likely related, at least in part, to the characteristics of the WIC model. The only household

characteristic related to impacts was receipt of SNAP at  baseline.   

Chapter 4

Page 55 

Chapter 4 

Characteristics of Households in 

the Summer EBT for Children 

Demonstration 

This chapter describes the characteristics of households taking part in the SEBTC demonstration

areas, drawing largely from surveys of approximately 20,000 households at two points in time:

in the spring (i.e., before the end of the school year), and again during the summer (when all

surveyed households were receiving some SEBTC benefit). The chapter provides important

context to help understand and interpret the differential impacts of the $60 SEBTC benefit

versus the $30 SEBTC benefit on food security, children’s nutritional status and other outcomes.

Impacts on these outcomes are discussed in the subsequent chapter.

4.1 Research Questions and Key Findings 

4.1.1 Research Questions 

The major research question addressed in this chapter is:

 What are the characteristics of households that took part in the SEBTC evaluation in 2013?  

Not all households in the full sample responded to both the spring and summer surveys. In

order to describe the same sample that was used for the impact analysis in the subsequent

chapter, household characteristics are described for those households that responded to the

summer survey. However, estimates of characteristics which could be affected by receiving

SEBTC, such as household income and use of SNAP or WIC, are based on the responses of these

households to the spring survey. For each set of characteristics described below, the survey

timing and sample are identified.  

4.1.2 Key Findings 

Households taking part in the SEBTC demonstration had the following characteristics:

 Fewer than half of the households reported having more than one adult (44.3%), and

approximately half of the households (51.6%) had one adult who was female. In terms of

race/ethnicity, the largest group identified themselves as non‐Hispanic white (43.8%), with

the next largest group being non‐Hispanic black (27.2%), followed by Hispanic (18.2%). The

mean number of children in the households (both school age and younger) was 2.4.
Chapter 4 

Page 56 

 In terms of income, households were relatively disadvantaged, compared to the national

population. Reported mean household monthly income at baseline was $1,516 (compared

to $6,685 for U.S. households with children in 201257), with 3.7% reporting no income in the

previous 30 days. The study sample is even more disadvantaged than the low‐income (FRP

certified) population nationally. Nearly three‐quarters of households in the sample (74.2%)

had monthly incomes below the federal poverty line,58 compared to 51% of children

nationally who are certified for FRP meals (CPS, 201259). The percentage of households in

the sample with incomes below the poverty line, ranged from 67.4% of households in

Chickasaw Nation to 89.7% in Detroit, Michigan.  

 As further evidence of disadvantage, the study sample had a higher rate of disability than

the national population. In the U.S. population in 2010, 21.3% of people aged 15 years and

older had a disability (Brault, 2012). In the study sample, 35.7% of respondents reported

that a member of their household was a person with a physical or mental disability, and this

varied across sites: 27.2% of households in Portland, Oregon and 42.8% of households in

Mid‐Michigan reported family members with a disability.

 Respondents reported that, during summer 2013, 84.3% of children usually ate lunch

Monday through Friday at home during the previous 30 days. Most respondents (85.3%)

indicated that the child did not usually eat at any other location, but 14.7% said children

routinely ate at a second location.  

 Two‐thirds of the households (67.8%) reported receiving SNAP benefits in the spring, prior

to when SEBTC began. Nearly one‐quarter (22.6%) reported receiving WIC. Reporting about

the summer 2013, nearly one‐tenth of the households (9.6%)  reported that their children

received NSLP or SFSP as their primary source of weekly lunch in the summer (4.8%, for

each program).

Chapter 4 first describes the random assignment process, survey response rates, the data

collection approach, and the survey instruments. It then describes key characteristics of

households in the demonstration.  

                                                      

57 The mean annual household income for families with children under age 18 in 2012 is $80,218 (Current

Population Survey, Table FINC‐03. Presence of Related Children Under 18 Years Old‐‐All Families by Total Money

Income in 2012, Type of Family, Work Experience in 2012, Race and Hispanic Origin of Reference Person;

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032013/faminc/finc03_000.htm). The mean monthly household

income is $80,218/12 months = $6,685/month.  

58 The Federal Poverty Level (FPL) is adjusted for household size. An FPL is calculated for the contiguous United

States, Alaska, and Hawaii. The 2013 FPL for a family of four is $23,550 per year (i.e., $1,963 per month) in the 48

contiguous States (http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm).  

59 Computation by Abt Associates using the data from the 2012 Current Population Food Security Supplement.

https://explore.data.gov/Income‐Expenditures‐Poverty‐and‐Wealth/Current‐Population‐Survey‐Food‐Security‐

Supplement/d6pf‐n3qs
Chapter 4

Page 57 

4.2 Overview of Random Assignment and Household 

Survey Data Collection 

4.2.1 Conducting Random Assignment 

As described in Chapter 2, the process of consent and random assignment required several

steps. First, participating SFAs constructed lists of households with children certified for FRP

meals. After working with SFAs and others to obtain consent from families (by an active

process), each grantee sent a list of consenting households to the evaluation team.60 The team

then randomly assigned their families to be in either the $60 SEBTC benefit group or the $30

benefit group, with the objective of assigning 5,000 to 14,000 children61 (depending on the site)

to receive a benefit—half to receive $60 per child and half to receive $30 per child.62 In all six

sites, all households that were randomly assigned to receive either the $60 or $30 benefit were

included in the evaluation sample and were contacted to participate in the household survey.

The essence of random assignment is that units (that is, households, in this case) are assigned

randomly—that is, by the equivalent of a coin toss—from a common pool to either the $60

benefit group or the $30 benefit group. Because households are assigned randomly, the two

groups should not differ with regard to background characteristics, measured or unmeasured,

except by chance, with chance differences diminishing when a large number of units is

randomized. As a result, any post‐randomization differences in outcomes between the two

groups of households that are statistically significant (that is, not due to chance variations) can

be interpreted confidently as differences between impacts of the two benefit amounts ($60

and $30).

4.2.2 Response Rates 

Exhibit 4.1 shows the response rates in the spring and in the summer, overall and by site. (See

Appendix 4B for details about the computation of the response rate.) Overall, the survey

achieved an 88.8% response rate in the spring and an 88.1% response rate in the summer.

Across all sites, the summer response rate among households in the $60 SEBTC benefit group

was 88.3%, compared to 87.8% in the $30 benefit group.  

Of the 22,831 households that were randomly assigned to either the $60 or $30 benefit, 19,924

of them completed the spring survey63 and 19,689 completed a summer survey.64

                                                      

60 For more details on each site’s consent approach, see Chapter 2.

61 In Delaware, the number of consented children (17,440) exceeded the target of 14,000 for the site. Therefore,

within each stratum in Delaware, 40% of households were randomly selected to receive the $60 benefit, 40% were

randomly selected to receive the $30 benefit, and the remaining 20% of households did not receive any benefit

and were excluded from the evaluation. In all other sites, all consented children were randomly assigned to either

the $60 or $30 benefit amount.

62 For more details on the random assignment approach, see Appendix 4A.

63 In the Congressional Status Report, the total number of randomized households was reported to be 23,015, with

20,142 having completed the baseline survey. However, 200 additional households were subsequently identified
Chapter 4 

Page 58 

Exhibit 4.1 Response Rates, All Sites and by Site, Spring and Summer 2013

Spring Summer

All Cases $60 SEBTC

Benefit

$30 SEBTC

Benefit All Cases

$60 SEBTC

Benefit

$30 SEBTC

Benefit

Chickasaw Nation 90.6% 90.9% 90.3% 88.1% 87.4% 88.7%

Delaware 88.3% 88.7% 87.9% 87.6% 88.0% 87.1%

Michigan    

Detroit 88.0% 88.5% 87.5% 90.5% 91.1% 89.8%

Grand Rapids/

Kentwood 87.0% 86.6% 87.4% 86.3% 86.0% 86.6%

Mid‐Michigan 93.7% 94.8% 92.6% 94.3% 94.7% 93.6%

Portland, Oregon 86.8% 86.7% 87.0% 84.1% 84.5% 83.8%

All 6 Sites 88.8% 89.1% 88.5% 88.1% 88.3% 87.8%

Test of Site

Variation

Χ2

(5)=116.27,

P<0.001

Χ2

(5)=39.43,

P<0.001

Χ2

(5)=82.57,

P<0.001

Χ2

(5)=206.08,

P<0.001

Χ2

(5)=95.72,

P<0.001

Χ2

(5)=114.15,

P<0.001

Source: Spring and Summer Household Samples, 2013.

4.2.3 Household Survey Data Collection 

For both the spring and the summer surveys, telephone calls were made from the evaluation

team’s call centers using computer‐assisted telephone interviewing (CATI). Prior to the CATI

calls, advance letters were mailed to households. The final evaluation sample included 22,831

households—11,408 households offered the $60 SEBTC benefit and 11,423 households offered

the $30 benefit. These letters provided information about the study and stated that the

interviews were voluntary and would not affect the receipt of any other benefits, and that the

findings would be confidential. A telephone number for additional questions was also provided.  

The data collection process began with an effort to reach respondents by telephone. Data

collectors asked for a parent or adult in the household who knew most about what their

children ate and drank. To reach the households for which contact information was inaccurate

or incomplete, the team used centralized locating processes (e.g., web searches of telephone

and address databases). If the centralized locating process did not result in the completion of

an interview and the potential respondent did not refuse to answer the survey, households

were assigned to field staff for further locating. Respondents who were located and agreed to

answer the survey were connected to the call center to conduct the interview.  

                                                                                                                                                                              

as ineligible and have been excluded from the sample—196 households that participated in SEBTC in 2012 and 4

households that were duplicates of other households. In addition, 16 households that had been excluded from the

sample reported in the Congressional Status Report were found to be eligible and are included in this report.

Therefore, the total sample of eligible households that were randomized was 22,831 (23,015—196 – 4 + 16 =

22,831), with 19,924 households completing the baseline survey.  

64 It is worth noting that in 2011 and 2012 only a random subsample of cases were eligible for the more rigorous

data collection protocol including in‐person interviewing. In 2013, all cases were eligible for all modes of data

collection. This means that, unlike 2011 and 2012, the 2013 response rates did not need to be weighted.
Chapter 4

Page 59 

4.2.4 Survey Instrument 

Household surveys were administered in the spring and summer by telephone. Both the spring

and summer surveys took approximately 30 minutes to complete. The surveys were conducted

in English or Spanish.  

The spring survey included questions about household characteristics, household and children’s

participation in nutrition assistance programs, household food security, and monthly food

expenditures. Respondents received a $10 incentive for completing the spring survey.  

During the summer, the survey collected similar information, as well as additional information

on children’s food consumption and breakfast and lunch behaviors, with the exception of some

questions about household characteristics, which were not asked if a respondent had already

completed a spring survey. Respondents received a $25 incentive for completing the summer

survey.

A copy of the spring and summer survey instruments can be found in Appendix 4C.  

4.3 Household Characteristics 

The exhibits in this chapter are summary findings for the study population that completed a

summer interview. Specifically, survey responses are weighted to represent the 2013 study

population.65 The sample is not nationally representative, nor representative of children

receiving FRP meals. In fact, as described in Chapter 2, compared to estimates of the national

population, the demonstration areas tended to include a higher proportion of households living

below the poverty line, a higher proportion of students who were racially and ethnically

diverse, and a higher proportion of students eligible for FRP meals.  

As stated earlier, some households responded only to the summer survey and lacked a spring

survey. In order to describe the same sample as used for the impact analysis in Chapter 5, most

household characteristics are described according to how all households responded during the

summer, regardless of whether they received a spring survey. However for characteristics that

might be influenced by the SEBTC intervention, such as household’s participation in federal

nutrition programs, spring household characteristics are reported. Where children ate lunch in

the summer is reported for the full sample, because the $60 and $30 benefit groups were found

not to differ in the location where children ate lunch in the summer. Unless otherwise noted, all

estimates are based on the summer status of all of the households.66

                                                      

65 These estimates are very similar to those reporting in the 2013 Congressional Status Report (Briefel et al., 2013).

They do not match exactly because respondents to the summer 2013 survey were not exactly the same as the

respondents to the spring survey. The construction of survey weights is described in Chapter 5 and Appendix 5B.

66 As described in the methods section, the spring survey asked for demographic information, which was updated

in the summer for those households that had completed a spring survey. Households that did not complete a

spring survey were asked the same demographic questions in summer about their household’s status during the

previous 30 days.
Chapter 4 

Page 60 

The sections that follow present average estimates across all sites. Specifically, the results are

the average of the site specific estimates, adjusting for non‐response. Sites with more

households participating in the study do not have greater weight. The analysis also tests for

variation across sites, but only mentions differences if they meet the p‐value standard of below

0.05, suggesting strong evidence of variation. Appendix 4D presents household characteristics

for both the 2013 total study population and for each site.

4.3.1 Household Size and Composition 

Across all six sites, the mean number of people in the household was 4.3, ranging from 4.2 to

4.5 (p=<0.01)67 (Exhibit 4.2; Appendix Exhibit 4D.1). This number includes all reported adults

and all children, including younger children who were not eligible for SEBTC. Almost half of the

households reported having more than one adult (44.3%), and more than half (51.7%) had one

adult who was female. The remaining households (4.0%) had one adult who was male.

Household composition varied significantly across sites, with Detroit reporting more than two‐

thirds (68.7%) of its households with one female adult, compared to Chickasaw Nation

reporting 38.9% (Appendix Exhibit 4D.1).

The mean number of children in households was 2.4. This count includes children of all ages —

those attending school and certified for FRP school meals, younger children who had not yet

started school, and any other children living in the household.68 The mean number of children

ranged from 2.2 to 2.6 across sites  (see Appendix Exhibit 4D.1). The mean number of school‐

age children who were eligible for SEBTC was 2.0.

4.3.2 Household Income 

Eligibility rules specifically limit participation in the SEBTC program to those certified for FRP

lunch (that is, at or below 185% of the federal poverty line/FPL). It would therefore be expected

that the survey sample would be relatively disadvantaged, and, in fact, mean monthly

household summer income for households in the sample was $1,516 (compared to $6,685 for

U.S. households with children in 201269), with 3.7% reporting no income that month (Exhibit

4.2). For a family of four, this represents 77% of FPL. In fact, 74.2% of the survey population had

monthly incomes below the FPL, ranging from 67.4% of households in Chickasaw Nation to

89.7% in Detroit (Appendix Exhibit 4D.1).70 Consistent with the fact that the demonstration

                                                      

67 A p value of 0.05 or lower indicates strong evidence of variation among sites. Differences among sites are only

mentioned if the p value meets the standard of below 0.05.

68 Children were defined as 18 years or younger or still in school (if older than age 18) and living with an adult in a

household. Households also included group homes if children living in the home were certified for FRP school

meals.

69 The mean annual household income for families with children under age 18 in 2012 is $80,218 (Current

Population Survey, Table FINC‐03. Presence of Related Children Under 18 Years Old‐‐All Families by Total Money

Income in 2012, Type of Family, Work Experience in 2012, Race and Hispanic Origin of Reference Person;

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032013/faminc/finc03_000.htm). The mean monthly household

income is $80,218/12 months = $6,685/month. .

70 In comparison, 18.4% of families with children reported being under the poverty level nationally in 2012 (Census

Bureau, http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/historical/hstpov4.xls).  
Chapter 4

Page 61 

areas included higher levels of household poverty when compared to national estimates (see

Chapter 2), the proportion of households with children below the poverty line in this study

population is substantially greater than the 56% reported among children certified for FRP

school meals in the 2005‐06 school year (Ponza et al., 2007).

4.3.3 Other Household Characteristics 

Most respondents had at least one employed adult in the household (68.4%; Exhibit 4.2).

Chickasaw Nation reported the highest percentage of employed adults (77.5%) and Detroit

reported the lowest (49.8%).  

Exhibit 4.2 SEBTC Household Characteristics, 2013

Characteristic Estimate SE

Household Sizea  

Mean number of people in household 4.3 0.02

Household Compositiona

Household with one adult, female   51.7% 0.66

Household with one adult, male   4.0% 0.14

Household with more than one adult 44.3% 0.66

Number of Childrena  

1 child 24.5% 0.81

2 children 34.0% 0.42

3 or more children 41.5% 1.06

Mean number of children in household 2.4 0.03

Last Month Household Incomea, c  

Median $1,297.80 0.91

Mean $1,516.10 8.64

No income (Last Month) 3.7% 0.15

Last Month Household Incomea, c

Below poverty lineb 74.2% 0.34

101‐130 percent of poverty lineb 13.5% 0.31

131‐185 percent of poverty lineb   9.4% 0.24

Above 185 percent of poverty lineb 2.9% 0.16

At least one employed adultc 68.4% 0.39

Any person with a physical or mental

disability 35.7% 0.77

Source: SEBTC, Spring and Summer Surveys, 2013 (full sample: summer survey n=19,689; spring survey n = 18,647).

a The respondent reported the household's characteristics and circumstances in the last 30 days (and last month for income).

Means and medians include households with zero income.

b Poverty level was calculated based on reported household income last month before taxes, household size, and the HHS 2013

poverty guidelines (http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm). A small percentage of households provided annual income,

which was used to calculate monthly income for the poverty distribution.

c Estimates for household income and employment are reported based on spring survey responses.

The study sample had a higher rate of disability than the national population. In the U.S.

population in 2010, 21.3% of people aged 15 years and older had a disability (Brault, 2012). In

the study sample, 35.7% percent of households reported a person with a physical or mental
Chapter 4 

Page 62 

disability, and this varied across sites: 27.2% of households in Portland and 42.8% of households

in Mid‐Michigan (Appendix Exhibit 4D.1).  

4.3.4 Characteristics of the Survey Respondents 

In addition to describing characteristics of their households, respondents also provided

information on their personal characteristics. Most of the summer survey respondents were

female (88.9%) and 70.7% were between the ages of 30 and 49 (Exhibit 4.3). There was some

age variation across sites (see Appendix Exhibit 4D.2 for site‐level details.)

In terms of racial and ethnic composition across all of the sites, the largest group identified

themselves as non‐Hispanic white (43.8%) with the next largest group being non‐Hispanic black

(27.2%) (Exhibit 4.3). There was a large amount of variation in the racial/ethnic composition

among the six sites participating in 2013. Grand Rapids/Kentwood and Delaware were the most

racially and ethnically diverse with approximately equal proportions of respondents reporting

being Hispanic, non‐Hispanic black, and non‐Hispanic white. In contrast, 89.7% of respondents

in Mid‐Michigan reported being non‐Hispanic white, and 70.8% of respondents in Detroit

reported being non‐Hispanic black (see Appendix Exhibit 4D.2).

In terms of educational attainment, approximately one‐quarter of respondents did not

complete high school, approximately one‐third completed high school (or GED), approximately

one‐third had some college, and 8% had at least a four‐year degree (Exhibit 4.3). Detroit had

respondents with the lowest educational attainment, with 36.7% who had not completed high

school and only 3.5% with a four‐year degree or higher. In contrast, 17.1% of respondents in

Portland had a four‐year degree or higher (see Appendix Exhibit 4D.2).  

Slightly over half the respondents reported being single (55.7%, including never married,

separated or divorced, or widowed), with the remaining reporting they were married or living

with a partner (44.3%) (Exhibit 4.3). Substantial variation existed across the sites: Chickasaw

Nation had the highest proportion of respondents married or living with a partner (57.8%), and

Detroit the lowest (27.7%) (see Appendix Exhibit 4D.2).

4.3.5 Characteristics of Children Certified for FRP Meals 

The survey gathered information specifically about children in the evaluation subsample

certified for FRP meals, and thus eligible for SEBTC. These children were approximately equally

distributed throughout school‐age years; approximately one‐third of children were 5‐8 years,

approximately one‐third were 9‐12 years, and approximately one‐third were 13 years or older.

A small percentage of children (3.8%) were pre‐school age (Exhibit 4.3). These pre‐school‐aged

children were enrolled in a school‐based pre‐school, and received subsidized meals from NSLP

or SBP or another source of support, and were therefore eligible for the SEBTC demonstration.
Chapter 4

Page 63 

Exhibit 4.3 Characteristics of SEBTC Respondents and Ages of Children Certified for Free or

Reduced‐Price Meals, 2013

Characteristic Percent SE

Gender*

Female (Respondent) 88.9% 0.28

Male (Respondent) 11.1% 0.28

Age of Respondenta

18‐29 years 18.5% 0.44

30‐39 years 45.1% 0.39

40‐49 years 25.6% 0.47

50‐59 years 8.3% 0.22

60 years or older 2.6% 0.14

Race/Ethnicity of Respondentb

Hispanic 18.2% 0.94

Non‐Hispanic black   27.2% 0.84

Non‐Hispanic white 43.8% 0.37

Other, non‐Hispanic 10.8% 0.29

Education Level of Respondentc

Less than high school 25.3% 0.63

Completed high school (or GED) 34.2% 0.40

Some college (including 2‐year degree) 32.3% 0.49

Four‐year degree or higher 8.2% 0.22

Marital Status of Respondent*

Married 34.6% 0.46

Living with partner 9.7% 0.34

Separated or divorced 23.7% 0.40

Widowed 2.2% 0.12

Never married 29.8% 0.46

Age of Childrena

3‐4 years 3.8% 0.21

5‐8 years 33.9% 0.76

9‐12 years 30.4% 0.42

13‐15 years 18.8% 0.78

16‐17 years 9.3% 0.44

>17 years 3.9% 0.39

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013 (n=19,689).

a Age of respondent and children were calculated from date of birth and the date the survey was administered.  

b Responses to the separate race and ethnicity questions were combined to create a race/ethnicity variable, according to OMB

reporting rules  (see http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg_race‐ethnicity).

c

Education level categories were condensed from the survey response categories to create those displayed.

4.3.6 Where Children Usually Ate Lunch During the Summer 

The summer survey asked respondents—all of whom received an SEBTC benefit of either $60 or

$30 per child—where their children usually ate lunch, Monday through Friday, in the previous

30 days. Respondents were also asked whether children also ate in a second place, and, if so, to

report the type of place as well. For both the primary (most frequent) and the secondary (i.e.,

next most frequent) locations, respondents were asked how often the child ate lunch meals

there and whether the lunch was paid, brought from home, or free.
Chapter 4 

Page 64 

Information about where children from the evaluation sample typically ate in the summer is

provided for all children pooling responses from both the $60 and $30 benefit groups.71

Because, in 2013, all households received some SEBTC benefit, which might be expected to

affect where children ate lunch, information is also provided about where children in the 2012

control group typically ate in the summer. The information about the 2012 control group, who

received no SEBTC benefit, indicates that children typically ate lunch in similar locations in the

absence of SEBTC.

In summer 2013, more than 84% of respondents reported that, during the previous 30 days,

their school‐aged children usually ate lunch at home on Monday through Friday (Exhibit 4.4).

Another 9.6% of respondents in 2013 indicated that their children ate at summer school or at

location identified by the evaluation team as an SFSP site, and 3.4% of respondents indicated

that their children usually ate lunch at another program. The remaining respondents in 2013

indicated that their children ate at a friend’s or relative’s home or another place. In 2012,

control group respondents reported a similar pattern of where children typically ate lunch in

the summer in the absence of SEBTC (Exhibit 4.4).  

There was statistically significant variation across sites in 2013 in terms of the participation in

summer school or eating lunch at an identified SFSP site, with approximately 5% in Mid‐

Michigan and Chickasaw Nation reporting that children usually ate at these locations, compared

to 16.1% in Detroit, Michigan (see Appendix Exhibit 4D.5).  

Exhibit 4.4 Where Children Usually Ate Lunch, Monday through Friday, Summer 2013 and

Summer 2012  

Summer 2013

Both $60 and $30

Benefit Groups

Summer 2012

Control Group  

(No SEBTC Benefit)

Primary Location Percent SE Percent SE

At home 84.3% 0.34 83.9% 0.47

Summer school or Identified SFSP sitea 9.6% 0.30 10.0% 0.39

Another program (camp, church, playground, daycare,

community center not coded as SFSP) 3.4% 0.17 3.6% 0.21

At friend’s or relative’s home 1.7% 0.18 1.6% 0.14

Other (work, restaurant other place, don’t know/refused) 1.1% 0.11 0.9% 0.11

Source for Summer 2013: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013 (n=19,493).

Source for Summer 2012: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2012 (n=12,807, control group only).

a

Summer Food Service Program site. Respondents reported that over the last 30 days that their child usually attended a

program that could be confirmed by the evaluation team as an SFSP site or identified as a likely SFSP site.

Respondents also reported on the secondary place where their children ate lunch Monday

through Friday in the summer (Exhibit 4.5). No matter what the primary location was, 85.3% of

respondents in 2013 reported that children did not eat at any place other than the primary

location. This was the case for nearly all children who primarily ate at home (91.8%) and for

                                                      

71 There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in where children usually ate lunch

(χ

2

=4.89, df=4, p=.30); therefore, information is presented for both groups combined.  
Chapter 4

Page 65 

nearly three‐quarters of children who primarily ate at a program that was not an SFSP site

(73.9%). Children who primarily ate at a school or an SFSP site were most likely to eat at a

second location (63.2%). Approximately one‐third of children ate lunch at a second location

when the primary place they ate was a friend’s or relative’s house (37.4%) or another location.

Again, patterns were similar in 2012 for households in the no‐SEBTC benefit (or control) group

(data not shown).

Exhibit 4.5 Whether Children Had a Secondary Location for Lunch, Monday through Friday,

by Primary Location, Summer 2013  

No Other Place Another Location

Primary Location % SE % SE

At home 91.8% 0.27 8.2% 0.27

Summer school or Identified SFSP sitea 36.8% 1.48 63.2% 1.48

Another program (camp, church, playground, daycare,

community center not coded as SFSP) 73.9% 2.04 26.1% 2.04

At friend’s or relative’s home 62.6% 3.93 37.4% 3.93

Other (work, restaurant other place, don’t know/refused) 66.5% 4.80 33.5% 4.80

All Households 85.3% 0.35 14.7% 0.35

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013 (n=19,493).

a

Summer Food Service Program site. Respondents reported that over the last 30 days that their child usually attended a

program that could be confirmed by the evaluation team as an SFSP site or identified as a likely SFSP site.

In total, 11.2% of all respondents in 2013 (including those that did not name an additional

location where their children ate lunch) reported that a summer school or SFSP site was either

the child’s primary or secondary source of lunch from Monday through Friday (results not

reported in table).72 Control group respondents in 2012 also reported 11.2% participation in

summer school and SFSP for the child’s primary or secondary source of lunch on weekdays. This

reported rate of participation among both 2013 SEBTC recipients and the 2012 control group is

similar to the national rate: 14% of children who received FRP meals during the 2011‐2012

school year received either the school lunch program in summer school or SFSP in summer

2012 (Food Research and Action Center, 2013b).73

For both primary and secondary locations where children usually ate lunch, respondents were

also asked to report whether their child’s lunch was: (1) eaten at or brought from home; (2)

paid for by the household; or (3) provided to the child for free (either because the lunch was

provided by a program or by a friend or relative).74 Most households used their own resources

                                                      

72 Among respondents in both the $60 benefit and $30 benefit groups, 4.8% of households reported that their

child usually ate at a place identified by the evaluation team as an SFSP site, an additional 4.8% reported that

school was the primary location where their child ate, an additional 1.1% reported a secondary location identified

by the evaluation team as an SFSP site, and an additional 0.5% reported that school was the secondary location.

73 Based on July average daily attendance figures for summertime NSLP participation reported by FNS, but not

adjusted for absenteeism because summer absentee figures are not available for SFSP as they are for NSLP;

estimate assumes that SFSP accounts for approximately 65% of summer nutrition meals. About 14.3% of eligible

children participated in summer nutrition meals in 2012 (Food Research and Action Center, 2013).

74 In some cases, respondents indicated that their child attended a program that offered free meals but their child

brought his or her food from home.  
Chapter 4 

Page 66 

for their children’s lunches, Monday through Friday, by either supplying lunch from or at home

or directly paying for it.  

Considering both primary and secondary locations where children usually ate lunch, 80.8% of

children usually did not receive a free lunch even one day per 5‐day week (Monday‐Friday);

4.4% of children usually received free lunch one to two days per week; 4.9% of children usually

received free lunch three to four days per week; and 8.4% of children usually received free

lunch five days per week (Exhibit 4.6).

Exhibit 4.6 Number of Days Children Usually Received Free Lunch, Monday through Friday,

Summer 2013

Number of Days Percent SE

0 Days 80.8% 0.38

1‐2 Days 4.4% 0.18

3‐4 Days 4.9% 0.26

5 Days 8.4% 0.26

Missing or unknown 1.5% 0.14

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013 (n=19,689.

Note: Number of days children received free lunch is combined for responses about both the primary and secondary locations

where children usually ate lunch Monday through Friday in the summer. Lunch at summer school was assumed to be free.

Respondents were asked if there was a program in their neighborhood that provided free meals

to children during the summer months. Approximately one‐quarter of respondents (26.6%) said

they were aware of such a program (Exhibit 4.7). Of those who knew about a program nearby

and said their child did not attend it, 32.8% indicated that there was a logistical barrier to

attending (e.g., non‐food costs of participating in a program; lack of transportation; conflicts

with child’s or parent’s schedule) (Exhibit 4.8). In addition, 30.6% indicated that the food served

at home better fit their child’s food preferences or nutritional needs and 9.5% indicated that

they did not like some aspect of the program, besides the free meals served (e.g., not

interested in activities at program; few/no friends at program; doesn’t like location/unsafe;

child did not want to attend).

Exhibit 4.7 Awareness of a Program in the Neighborhood that Provides Free Meals,

Summer 2013

Respondent Awareness Percent SE

Respondent is aware of a program that provides free meals 26.6% 0.45

Respondent indicates that there is no program that provides free meals 49.5% 0.44

Respondent does not know if there is a program that provides free meals 23.8% 0.44

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013 (n=19,483).
Chapter 4

Page 67 

Exhibit 4.8 Reasons Provided for Why Children Did Not Attend Known Programs Providing

Free Meals, Summer 2013

Reasona Percent SE

Logistical barriers to attending 32.8% 1.24

Food at home better meets child need/preference 30.6% 1.43

Does not like other aspects of the program 9.5% 0.76

Child is not eligible 4.1% 0.39

Other 17.0% 0.88

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013 (n=4,361).

a

Reasons are not mutually exclusive. Among households indicating that they were aware of a neighborhood program providing

free meals, 14.9% indicated that the child attends the program.

4.3.7 Participation in Nutrition Assistance Programs Targeting 

Households 

This section describes participation in nutrition assistance programs targeting households. Since

SEBTC potentially has an impact on households’ participation in federal nutrition programs,

information from the spring survey is used here to describe program participation before

households began receiving an SEBTC benefit.75 In addition to participation in NSLP and SBP, in

the spring, more than three‐quarters of households (76.8%) reported participating in at least

one federal nutrition assistance program in the 30 days prior to the summer interview (Exhibit

4.9). Households most commonly reported using SNAP (67.8%), followed by WIC (22.6%).

Participation rates varied across sites, with the highest proportion of respondents reporting

participation in SNAP in Detroit (87.3%), compared to 44.2% of respondents in Chickasaw

Nation. Grand Rapids/Kentwood and Detroit respondents reported the highest participation in

WIC (32.0% and 27.2%, respectively) (see Appendix Exhibit 4D.4).  

Exhibit 4.9 Reported Participation in Household Nutrition Programs in Sites, Spring 2013

Characteristics Percent SE

Household Benefits Prior to any Receipt of SEBTCa

Reported receiving SNAPb 67.8% 0.41

Reported receiving WICc 22.6% 0.38

Reported receiving food from food pantry/food bank/emergency kitchen 17.4% 0.68

Reported receiving none of the above 23.2% 0.33

Source: SEBTC Spring survey, 2013 (n= 18,647).

a Respondents reported benefits use in the spring survey. The respondent reported if anyone in the household received food

assistance from any of the programs in the last 30 days. Estimates are based on the full sample of summer respondents who

had completed a spring survey.

b Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

c Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children.

                                                      

75 By using the SNAP and WIC participation rates in the spring, while all households are certified for the FRP meals

and no households are receiving SEBTC, the estimate does not include any potential impacts of SEBTC on SNAP or

WIC participation.
Chapter 4 

Page 68 

4.4 Conclusion 

This chapter presents evidence that the households participating in the 2013 SEBTC

demonstration were economically disadvantaged and reported relatively high use of nutrition

assistance programs prior to the receipt of SEBTC. Nearly three‐quarters of households (74%)

were below the FPL. In addition to FRP meals, most households participated in one or more

nutrition assistance programs, including SNAP and WIC. Almost one in five households (17%)

reported food pantry or emergency kitchen use in the month prior to their spring interview

(i.e., during the school year). Despite the level of disadvantage, most children (84%) ate lunch at

home during the summer. Only 13% of children received a free lunch, Monday, through Friday,

more than three days per week from any source, and children in very few households

participated in SFSP or summer school as their primary or secondary source for lunch (11.2%).
Chapter 5

Page 69 

Chapter 5 

Impact of Summer EBT for 

Children on Children’s Food 

Security, Nutritional Status, and 

Other Outcomes 

5.1 Research Questions and Key Findings 

The primary goal of the SEBTC demonstration is to improve children’s food security and

nutritional status in the summer by providing resources to obtain food for households with

children who were certified for free or reduced‐price meals during the school year. As

described in Chapter 1, in 2011 and 2012, the SEBTC evaluation assessed the impacts on

children’s food security of a $60 SEBTC monthly per‐eligible‐child benefit, compared to no

benefit. Based on the 2013 research design, this chapter provides experimental estimates of

the differential impact of a $60 SEBTC monthly per‐child benefit compared to a $30 SEBTC

benefit. Combining 2013 data with 2012 data, the chapter also provides non‐experimental

estimates of the impact of a $30 SEBTC benefit compared to no benefit. The study’s primary

and confirmatory outcome is children’s very low food security (VLFS‐C). Other outcomes

considered include additional measures of food security, children’s nutritional status,

households’ food expenditures, and households’ and children’s participation in other nutrition

assistance programs.  

5.1.1 Research Questions 

Specifically, the chapter addresses seven broad research questions concerning outcomes

experienced by participating households during the summer of 2013:

1. What is the differential impact of a $60 SEBTC benefit compared to a $30 benefit on very

low food security among children (VLFS‐C) and other food security outcomes? How does

this differential impact vary by demonstration model, SNAP participation, poverty status,

baseline food security, number of children in the household, presence of an adolescent in

the household, and race/ethnicity?  

2. Using a non‐experimental approach, what is the impact of a $30 SEBTC benefit compared to

no benefit on VLFS‐C and on food insecurity among children (FI‐C)? Is it half the impact of a

$60 SEBTC benefit?

3. What is the differential impact of a $60 SEBTC benefit compared to a $30 benefit on total

household food expenditures?  
Chapter 5 

Page 70 

4. What is the differential impact of a $60 SEBTC benefit compared to a $30 benefit on the

nutritional status of children? How does the differential impact vary by demonstration

model and household poverty status?  

5. Using a non‐experimental approach, what is the impact of a $30 SEBTC benefit compared to

no benefit on the nutritional status of children?

6. What is the differential impact of a $60 SEBTC benefit compared to a $30 benefit on the

participation of households and children in other nutrition assistance programs, including

SNAP, WIC, and SFSP?

7. What is the differential impact of a $60 SEBTC benefit compared to a $30 benefit on where

children ate meals during the summer?

5.1.2 Key Findings 

 With respect to the study’s primary outcome, the experimental analysis does not show that

the $60 SEBTC benefit is superior to the $30 benefit in terms of reducing very low food

security among children (VLFS‐C) in the six study sites in the summer of 2013. The potential

impact ranges between a decrease of 1.1 percentage points and an increase of 0.3

percentage points (95 percent confidence interval).  

 The $60 SEBTC benefit significantly improves each of the other food security outcomes

measured compared to the $30 benefit, including the broader category of food insecurity

among children (FI‐C, which includes low as well as very low (VLFS‐C) food security among

children), as well as other outcomes for adults and for households (i.e., considering that

children and adults live in a household together).

 For all food security measures except VLFS‐C, the non‐experimental cross‐year analysis

suggests that the impact of a $30 SEBTC benefit amount (i.e., a $30 SEBTC benefit vs. no

benefit) is about half of the impact of a $60 benefit amount (i.e., a $60 SEBTC benefit vs. no

benefit).  

 For VLFS‐C, the impact of a $30 SEBTC benefit amount (i.e., a $30 SEBTC benefit vs. no

benefit) is more than half of the impact of a $60 benefit amount (i.e., a $60 SEBTC benefit

vs. no benefit). That is, the first $30 per child of SEBTC benefits provides a greater

improvement than the second $30 per child, which may not provide any further

improvement.

 With one exception, the impact of a $60 SEBTC benefit compared to a $30 benefit on VLFS‐C

or on FI‐C did not differ substantially across subgroups. The exception is that the impact on

FI‐C was larger for households with FI‐C at baseline in spring 2013. However there was no

evidence of a differential effect for the SNAP model vs. the WIC model or for household

characteristics other than FI‐C at baseline.  

 Relative to households receiving the $30 per child SEBTC benefit, the $60 per child benefit

resulted in an increase of $29 in household monthly total food expenditures for the

household (households had an average of 2.0 eligible children). This increase is the net

result of redemption of $45 more of SEBTC benefits in the $60 group and a decline of $14 in

food expenditures from other sources. Thus, each additional dollar of SEBTC benefit

redeemed in the $60 group compared to the $30 group led to a 65 cent increase in total

household food expenditures. This net increase in food expenditures is considerably higher
Chapter 5

Page 71 

than standard estimates of the impact of a dollar of SNAP benefits on total food

expenditures (Hanson, 2010), and slightly higher than the 2012 SEBTC food expenditure

estimates (which compared a $60 SEBTC benefit to no benefit; Collins, et al., 2013).  

 Relative to children in households receiving the $30 benefit, children in households

receiving the $60 SEBTC benefit ate slightly more fruits and vegetables, whole grains, and

dairy foods. There was no impact on consumption of total daily added sugars, sugar‐

sweetened beverages, or nonfat/low‐fat milk. For fruits and vegetables, the impact was

larger for the WIC model than for the SNAP model. Each of these impacts—both overall and

between the SNAP and WIC models—was small in dietary terms.

 Relative to households receiving the $30 SEBTC benefit, the $60 benefit had no impact on

participation in nutrition programs or on where children ate lunch during the summer.  

Since the demonstration was not conducted in a nationally representative set of locations,

generalization of these results to a potential national SEBTC program is not possible in a formal

statistical sense. Rather, the evidence here—as with the 2012 results for the impacts of a $60

benefit versus no benefit (see Chapter 1 and Collins, et al., 2013)—shows what the SEBTC

approach can accomplish in selected communities. It is the only such evidence available and

may differ from the impacts achievable in other communities or for the nation as a whole.  

The balance of this chapter presents these results in greater detail. The next section briefly

discusses data and methods. The subsequent section presents results for food security, the

study’s primary outcome. Three later sections present estimates of the impact of SEBTC on

other outcomes: household food expenditures; children’s nutritional status; and where children

ate lunch during the summer (including SFSP or other summer food programs) along with

participation in other nutrition assistance programs (including SNAP and WIC).  

5.2 Data and Methods 

This section provides an overview of the impact analysis variables and methods. Additional

methodological details are provided in Appendix 5A.

5.2.1 Analytic Approach for Experimental Analyses 

Most of this chapter reports the results of comparing two randomly assigned treatment

conditions—a $60 SEBTC benefit per eligible child per month versus a $30 benefit—in the

summer of 2013. This comparison provides estimates of the impact of a $60 SEBTC benefit

compared to a $30 benefit.  

Specifically, estimates for 2013 are regression adjusted. Appendix 5B defines the variables used

in the regression adjustment and provides descriptive statistics for those variables as well as for

the outcome variables used in this chapter.  

For all impact estimates, the chapter also reports standard errors that account for the analysis

weights and the regression adjustment. Appendix 5C describes construction of the analysis

weights for 2013, which adjust for possible nonresponse bias arising from failure to complete

summer interviews with all 2013 sample members. While the sites differ in the number of
Chapter 5 

Page 72 

households randomized and the number of completed surveys, weights were constructed such

that the sum of the weights is equal in every site. As a result, the overall estimates can be

interpreted as the simple average of the six site‐specific estimates and hence provide findings

that consider all sites equal in importance. Analyses of 2012 data use corresponding weights for

those data.  

Appendix 5D describes the construction of three sets of dependent variables—food security,

nutritional status, and participation in the Summer Food Service Program. Appendix 5E

presents supplementary findings, some of which are discussed but not presented in the body of

the chapter.

In general, impact findings are characterized as statistically significant76 if the p‐value—the

probability of the observed contrast in outcomes occurring by chance—is less than 0.05. Such

findings would occur in 1 in 20 samples even if there was no real impact of an intervention.

5.2.2 Subgroup Analyses 

As discussed in the next section, the main results for this study are pooled over the entire

sample. Results for individual sites and for programmatic and demographic subgroups are also

reported—in the body of the chapter when results differ statistically across subgroups, in

Appendix 5E for all subgroups. At the site level, subgroups of sites are defined by the SEBTC

model used by the site (i.e., the WIC model or the SNAP model). Another contextual subgroup

variable is school district locale—i.e., whether school districts were located in a rural area, an

urban area, or in a suburb or town.77 At the household level, subgroups are defined by VLFS‐C

and FI‐C at baseline, SNAP participation, poverty status, race‐ethnicity, number of children in

the household, and presence of an adolescent in the household.

5.2.3 Confirmatory and Exploratory Outcomes 

As described earlier, this chapter reports impact estimates for many outcomes and various

subgroups, raising the problem of multiple comparisons. The large number of statistical

significance tests conducted complicates the interpretation of the test findings. Conventional

standard errors of impact estimates are strictly correct only for a single test of the statistical

significance of SEBTC’s impact on that particular outcome in that particular subgroup or full

population. Given the large number of outcomes and subgroups examined, the meaning of an

entire set of statistical tests must be considered as a whole rather than treating each statistical

                                                      

76 Statistical significance measures (p‐values) are generally for two‐sided hypothesis tests, to allow detection of

unexpectedly unfavorable effects and the possibility of offsetting favorable and unfavorable effects in different

domains. Unless otherwise noted, the statistical tests are for impacts in the six 2013 SEBTC sites.  

77 Using data from the U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics’ Common Core of

Data, the study identified the locale of all school districts in the study.  NCES locale codes are linked to U.S. Census

geographic regions. Each school district is classified into one of four major types of locales: city, suburban, town,

and rural.  For the subgroup analysis, we combined the town and suburban locales into a single category.

Therefore school districts in the study were classified into three locales—rural, urban, or town/suburb.  Once

school district locale was identified, individual households were coded as having the same rural, urban, or

town/suburban residential locale.
Chapter 5

Page 73 

test as an isolated examination of a single demonstration impact (Schochet 2008, 2009). Failure

to consider the tests together substantially increases the risk of concluding the demonstration

had an impact when in fact apparent patterns are due to sampling error and no impacts at all

occurred.  

A better approach, used here and the current industry standard for policy impact evaluations,

adjusts for multiple comparisons, protecting against undue risk of falsely favorable findings

(Schochet, 2009). Before seeing the results, the evaluation team designated VLFS‐C as the

primary outcome and the corresponding statistical test of an effect on this outcome as the one

“confirmatory” conclusion the 2013 evaluation produces. The study design specified that all

other outcomes would be treated as “exploratory” and should be viewed as providing weaker

evidence on the impact of SEBTC. This strategy keeps the risk of a false positive on the study’s

primary conclusion at 5 percent. Statistically significant exploratory findings are interpreted as

providing only suggestive evidence of where additional effects may have occurred. This

approach yields the smallest possible minimum detectable effect (MDE), given the sample size,

for the confirmatory outcome, thus maximizing the evaluation’s ability to prove that an impact

on VLFS‐C occurred.  

Exploratory results are described as significant when p<0.05 and “borderline significant,”

“weakly significant,” or similar language when 0.05<p<0.10, using tests uncorrected for

multiple comparisons. Conclusions about the success of the intervention can only be based on

the statistical test for the confirmatory outcome: VLFS‐C. Results for other exploratory

outcomes can then be used to shed light on this main finding and suggest areas for further

research. If no statistically significant differential impact of the higher benefit amount on VLFS‐C

compared to the lower benefit amount is found, it cannot be concluded that the higher SETBC

benefit has a larger impact on VLFS‐C, regardless of the results of the significance tests from the

exploratory analyses.  

5.2.4 Analytic Approach for Non-Experimental Analyses 

As stated earlier, the 2013 experimental analyses cannot estimate the impact of giving

households a $30 SEBTC benefit vs. no SEBTC benefit—a contrast that has never been created

through random assignment. Yet the question of whether and in what ways the smaller benefit

amount can create impacts remains important to policy. To address the fact that the 2013

study year did not include a no‐benefit group to compare to its $30 benefit group,78 the

research team conducted non‐experimental cross‐year analyses of the impact of a $30 SEBTC

benefit versus no SEBTC benefit.  

Specifically, the non‐experimental analysis estimate of the impact of a $30 SEBTC benefit vs. no

SEBTC benefit is constructed as the difference between:

 The impact of the $60 SEBTC benefit vs. no SEBTC benefit, estimated using data from the

2012 sites in the summer of 2012, and

                                                      

78 In addition, the 2012 study did not include a $30 benefit group to compare to its no‐benefit group.
Chapter 5 

Page 74 

 The differential impact of a $60 SETBTC benefit vs. a $30 SEBTC benefit, estimated using

data from the 2013 sites in the summer of 2013.

This is the type of (non‐experimental) estimate typically made informally by policymakers and

others. Because of the importance of the magnitude and significance of this impact for policy, it

is useful for this official evaluation report to present the best possible estimates and estimates

of their precision (i.e., standard errors) of those estimates.  

Given that the chapter presents these non‐experimental cross‐year estimates of a $30 SEBTC

benefit compared to no benefit, it is important to understand their weakness: these estimates

require stronger assumptions than do the experimental within‐year estimates. Specifically, the

non‐experimental, cross‐year estimates would be technically valid if it were appropriate to

think that the set of 2012 sites and the set of 2013 sites were each drawn randomly from the

same population of sites.79 In fact, neither set of sites was drawn randomly. Grantees submitted

applications with specified sites. In addition, some of the sites participated in both 2012 and

2013, but some participated only in 2012 and some only in 2013. Finally, because the two

experiments took place in different years under different external conditions, it would be

necessary to believe that any temporal difference would not affect the impact of the

intervention.

Although these assumptions are strong, the available evidence suggests that they are not

unreasonable. The assumption that impact estimates are approximately stable across years is

the implicit assumption made whenever future policy is based on earlier experimental results.

There is variation in outcome levels across years under a $60 SEBTC benefit (the one condition

present in all study years), but that variation appears to be due to which sites are included in

the evaluation. For a given site, the levels of food security (as well as other demographic and

socio‐economic covariates) in the spring are stable across 2012 and 2013 (see Appendix 5E,

Exhibits 5E.1.10–5E.1.12b). Furthermore, there is no evidence of variation in impacts across

sites in 2013, although there is some in 2012. Finally, running the non‐experimental cross‐year

analysis only on the sites that are common to both years yields similar estimates of the effect of

a $30 benefit versus no benefit, but also results in larger standard errors (see Appendix 5E,

Exhibits 5E.1.17–5E.1.20). See Appendix 5A for details about the non‐experimental cross‐year

estimation methods used.  

                                                      

79 Note, this is not an assumption that the prevalence levels of outcomes are constant from site to site.  Instead it

is an assumption that the impacts (i) for outcomes for a $60 SEBTC benefit vs. outcomes for a $30 benefit; (ii)

outcomes for a $60 SEBTC benefit vs. outcomes for no benefit; and (iii) outcomes for a $30 SEBTC benefit vs.

outcomes for no benefit are constant from site to site (or from year to year). Furthermore, note that it is not

required that the magnitude of impacts be identical across sites (and across years). Instead, it is required that the

impacts be drawn from the same distribution (possibly including variation in the impacts across possible sites).
Chapter 5

Page 75 

5.3 Impacts on Summer Food Security of Providing $60 

of SEBTC Benefits Rather than $30 

A major goal of the study’s third year is to establish the differential impact of a $60 SEBTC

benefit over a $30 benefit on the most severe level of food insecurity among children (VLFS‐C).

As described in Chapter 1, food insecure households are those in which the children or adults or

both report limited access to food resulting in: a) reduced quality or variety of diet (low food

security), or b) reduced food intake or disrupted eating patterns (very low food security).  

Results presented in this section do not show clear evidence that a $60 SEBTC benefit has a

larger impact than a $30 benefit in reducing VLFS‐C (the evaluation’s pre‐specified confirmatory

outcome). Exploratory analyses of other food security outcomes, however, do find

improvements.  

5.3.1 Very Low Food Security among Children 

Averaging across all sites, in 2013, a $60 SEBTC benefit did not significantly reduce VLFS‐C in the

summer of 2013 relative to a $30 benefit. As shown in Exhibit 5.1, the prevalence of VLFS‐C

among the $60 SEBTC benefit group was 5.7% in the summer of 2013 compared to 6.1% in the

$30 benefit group, a difference of 0.4 percentage points, which is not statistically different from

no impact. Given statistical uncertainty, the potential impact ranges between a decrease of 1.1

percentage points and an increase of 0.3 percentage points (95 percent confidence interval).

Appendix 5E provides additional information supportive of this conclusion of no demonstrated

decrease in VLFS‐C when the per‐child monthly SEBTC monthly benefit changes from $30 to

$60.  

Exhibit 5.1 Estimated Impact of $60 versus $30 SEBTC Benefit on Very Low Food Security

among Children in Summer 2013  

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013 (n=19,684).  

Difference = –0.37; SE = 0.36; p‐value = 0.301.

5.7% 6.1%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

$60 Benefit $30 Benefit

Percent of Households with VLFS‐C

‐0.4
Chapter 5 

Page 76 

5.3.2 Other Measures of Household Food Security 

The study team also assessed the impact of a $60 SEBTC benefit compared to a $30 benefit on

other measures of household food security. These non‐confirmatory analyses suggest that,

relative to the $30 SEBTC benefit, a $60 benefit reduced food insecurity among children (FI‐C),

defined to include both VLFS‐C and low food security among children (Exhibit 5.2). The

prevalence of FI‐C in the $60 SEBTC benefit group was 32.6% in the summer of 2013 compared

to 36.3% in the $30 benefit group, a statistically significant reduction of 3.7 percentage points.

This reduction is fully 10% of the prevalence of FI‐C with a $30 SEBTC benefit.

Exhibit 5.2 Estimated Impact of $60 versus $30 SEBTC Benefit on Food Insecurity among

Children, Summer 2013

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013 (n=19,684).  

Food insecurity includes low food security and very low food security among children.

Difference = –3.69; SE = 0.65; p‐value < 0.0001.

Exhibit 5.3 repeats the findings on summer food security for children from Exhibits 5.1 and 5.2

while adding new impact measures, including effects of a $60 benefit on very low food security

and food insecurity for adults (VLFS‐A and FI‐A), and very low food security and food insecurity

for any member of the household (VLFS‐H and FI‐H).80 While the SEBTC benefit is intended to

address child food security, these estimates suggest that, relative to the $30 SEBTC benefit

benchmark, the $60 benefit improved one measure of food security for children (FI‐C, but not

VLFS‐C), both measures of food security for adults (VLFS‐A and FI‐A), and both measures of food

security for the household (VLFS‐H and FI‐H).  

                                                      

80 This study uses a method of coding food security status called the adult/child cross‐tabulation approach, which

differs slightly from that in USDA reports using the CPS data. The adult/child cross‐tabulation approach, which has

been under development at USDA as a means of eliminating a misclassification that affects a small percentage of

cases, has been recommended by USDA for the current study. The approach used does not affect the number of

households classified as VLFS‐C, the main outcome, but does slightly alter the total percentage of households

classified as VLFS or food insecure.

32.6%

36.3%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

$60 Benefit $30 Benefit

Percent of Households with FI‐C

‐3.7
Chapter 5

Page 77 

To understand the magnitude of these impacts, Exhibit 5.3 also reports the impact as a percent

of the level of that measure of food security with a $30 benefit. With the exception of VLFS‐C,

for each outcome the SEBTC benefit of $60 compared to $30 lowers (improves) the outcome by

between 9% and 13%.

Exhibit 5.3 Estimated Impact of $60 versus $30 SEBTC Benefit Amount on Food Security

Among Children, Adults, and Households in Summer 2013

Outcome

Sample

Size

$60 Benefit

Group

Prevalence

$30 Benefit

Group

Prevalence

Differential

Impact

($60/$30

Difference) SE p‐value

Impact as  

% of $30

Prevalence

Very low food

security—

children

19,684 5.71 6.08  ‐0.37 0.36 0.301 6.1%

Food

insecure—

children

19,684 32.60 36.29  ‐3.69*** 0.65 <0.001 10.0%

Very low food

security—

adults

19,684 17.81 20.56  ‐2.75*** 0.52 <0.001 13.0%

Food

insecure—

adults

19,684 39.19 43.28  ‐4.08*** 0.65 <0.001 9.4%

Very low food

security—

household

19,681 18.87 21.48  ‐2.61*** 0.53 <0.001 12.0%

Food

insecure—

household

19,683 44.72 49.26  ‐4.54*** 0.68 <0.001 9.2%

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013.

Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.

*.05 < p < .10, **.01 < p < .05, ***p <. 01.

5.3.3 Impacts on Food Security by Site 

As just reported, when all six sites are considered together, the $60 SEBTC benefit did not result

in statistically significant reductions in VLFS‐C relative to a $30 benefit, but there were

significant reductions in other measures of food insecurity. However, sites differed in terms of

their characteristics, whether they used the SNAP model or the WIC model (see Chapter 2),

SEBTC participation and redemption rates (see Chapter 3), and household characteristics (see

Chapter 4).  

Considering the $30 and $60 groups together, there is cross‐site variation in the prevalence of

VLFS‐C (Exhibit 5.4, p<0.01) and FI‐C (Exhibit 5.5, p<0.01) among sites. Can it also be said that

the difference in impact between a $60 SEBTC benefit and a $30 benefit differs by site—an

important point (if true) for policy and of relevance to the potential applicability of findings

from the six studied sites to a broader population? Although the site‐level impact estimates do

vary, that variation is not statistically significant. That the available evidence does not show
Chapter 5 

Page 78 

statistically significant cross‐site variation in the impact of a $60 SEBTC benefit relative to a $30

benefit on VLFS‐C (Exhibit 5.4; p = 0.442) or on FI‐C (Exhibit 5.5; p = 0.436) suggests impacts

that are fairly consistent under a variety of local conditions.  

Appendix 5E (Exhibits 5E1.6–5E.1.9) presents results by site for all of the other food security

measures used in the study. As is true for findings on all six sites combined, most site‐specific

estimates suggest that a $60 SEBTC benefit improves food security outcomes relative to a $30

benefit—except for VLFS‐C where this is true in just two of six sites (see Exhibit 5.4 of main

text).

Exhibit 5.4 Estimated Impact of $60 versus $30 SEBTC Benefit on Very Low Food Security

among Children, Summer 2013

Site

Sample

Size

$60 Benefit

Group

Prevalence

$30 Benefit

Group

Prevalence

Estimated

Impact

($60/$30

Difference) SE p‐value

Impact as  

% of $30

Level

All Sites 19,684 5.7% 6.1% ‐0.4 0.36 0.301 6.1%

Chickasaw Nation 2,053 2.0% 3.5%  ‐1.5 1.06 0.153 43.0%

Delaware 6,435 6.6% 8.0%  ‐1.4** 0.64 0.027 18.0%

Mid‐Michigan 2,120 7.8% 7.5%   0.3 1.10 0.756 4.6%

Detroit 2,481 6.7% 6.3%   0.4 1.00 0.701 6.1%

Grand Rapids/

Kentwood 3,006 4.1% 3.9%   0.1 0.69 0.868 2.9%

Portland, Oregon 3,589 7.1% 7.3%  ‐0.1 0.90 0.891 1.7%

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013.

Test that $30/$60 difference varies by site: χ2

= 4.79, df = 5, p‐value = 0.442

Test that, considering $60 and $30 groups together, the prevalence of VLFS‐C varies by site (i.e., that the site dummy variables

in the logistic regression are equal): χ2

= 29.16, df = 5, p‐value = <0.0001.  

Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.

*.05 < p < .10, **.01 < p < .05, ***p <. 01.
Chapter 5

Page 79 

Exhibit 5.5 Estimated Impact of $60 versus $30 SEBTC Benefit on Food Insecurity among

Children, Summer 2013

Site

Sample

Size

$60 Benefit

Group

Prevalence

$30 Benefit

Group

Prevalence

Estimated

Impact

($60/$30

Difference) SE p‐value

Impact as  

% of $30

Level

All Sites 19,684 32.6% 36.3% ‐3.7*** 0.65 <0.001 10.2%

Chickasaw Nation 2,053 29.6% 32.9%  ‐3.4* 1.89 0.075 10.2%

Delaware 6,435 36.5% 41.2%  ‐4.7*** 1.05 <0.001 11.4%

Michigan             

Mid‐Michigan 3,006 29.3% 30.6%  ‐1.3 1.56 0.423 4.1%

Detroit 2,120 30.4% 36.5%  ‐6.1*** 1.96 0.002 16.6%

Grand Rapids/

Kentwood 2,481 32.4% 35.2%  ‐2.8 1.71 0.108 7.8%

Portland, Oregon 3,589 37.4% 41.4%  ‐4.0*** 1.47 0.006 9.7%

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013.

Test that $30/$60 difference varies by site: χ2 = 4.84, df = 5, p‐value = 0.436  

Test that, considering $60 and $30 groups together, the prevalence of FI‐C varies by site (i.e., that the site dummy variables in

the logistic regression are equal):: χ2

= 18.38, df = 5, p‐value = 0.003

Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.

*.05 < p < .10, **.01 < p < .05, ***p < .01.

5.3.4 Impacts on Food Security by Subgroup 

The evaluation sought to learn whether the differential impact of a $60 SEBTC benefit

compared to a $30 SEBTC benefit on VLFS‐C or FI‐C varied with programmatic and/or

participant characteristics. Specifically, at the site level, the evaluation assessed differences in

impact among sites that used the WIC model versus sites that used the SNAP model. At the

household level, the evaluation assessed subgroup differences among households classified

according to their status in spring 2013, before receiving SEBTC benefits, for the following

characteristics: race/ethnicity, VLFS‐C, FI‐C, poverty status, regular SNAP participation, number

of children in the household, the presence of an adolescent in the household, and their

residence in a rural, urban, or suburban locale.

The only instance of a significant difference in impact for any of these subgroup dimensions

concerns FI‐C at baseline. The impact on FI‐C of a $60 SEBTC benefit compared to a $30 benefit

is larger for households that were FI‐C at baseline (Exhibit 5.6). For all other subgroup analyses,

the difference between the $60 SEBTC benefit group and the $30 group was not statistically

different by subgroup (see Appendix 5E, Exhibit 5E.1.13a for VLFS‐C and Exhibit 5E.1.13b for FI‐

C). This was the case for both VLFS‐C and for FI‐C.  
Chapter 5 

Page 80 

Exhibit 5.6 Estimated Impact of $60 versus $30 SEBTC Benefit on Food Insecurity Among

Children, by Subgroup in Summer 2013 (When Significant)

Prevalence of Food

Insecurity Among

Children (FI‐C)

Sample

Size

$60 Benefit

Group

Prevalence

$30 Benefit

Group

Prevalence

Estimated

Impact

($60/$30

Difference) SE p‐value

Impact as

% of $30

Prevalence

Baseline Food Insecurity among Children (FI‐C)

Not FI‐C at baseline 10,730 14.6 16.8 ‐2.2 ** 0.90 0.014 13.0%

FI‐C at baseline 7,894 58.1 63.9 ‐5.8 *** 1.22 <0.001 9.0%

Difference 18,630 43.5 47.0 ‐3.5 ** 1.52 0.021 7.5%

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013  

Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.

See Appendix 5E, Exhibit 5E.1.14 for results of non‐significant subgroup analyses for FI‐C.

*.05 < p < .10, **.01 < p < .05, ***p <. 01.

5.3.5 Spring-to-Summer Change in Food Security Among Children, 

2013 

The previous discussion compared outcomes for those receiving a $60 SEBTC benefit to those

receiving a $30 SEBTC benefit.  It is also of interest to compare outcomes between the spring  

and the summer  between the $60 and $30 groups.   Exhibit 5.7 reports food security status of

children in the summer by their food security status in the spring.  (Results for food security

among adults and for households are reported in the Appendix 5E, tables 5E.1.16a and

5E.1.16b.)  For both the $60 benefit group and the $30 benefit group, about 40% of those who

are VLFS‐C in the spring are also VLFS‐C in the summer (41.6% for the $60 benefit group, 41.1%

for the $30 benefit group).  Approximately equal numbers of households in each group

experience FLS‐C (40.0% and 44.4%, respectively). About one‐fifth have high or marginal food

security in both periods (i.e., 18.4% and 14.5%).   

Exhibit 5.7 Estimated Prevalence of Food Security among Children in Summer for the $60

and $30 SEBTC Benefit Groups, by Food Security in Spring, 2013

Sample Size

$60 Benefit

Group

(%)

$30 Benefit

Group

(%) Difference SE p‐value

Very Low Food Security among Children in Spring (7.1%)

VLFS‐C, Summer 563 41.6% 41.1% 0.6 2.93 0.850

LFS‐C, Summer 578 40.0% 44.4% ‐4.4 2.95 0.135

Marginal/High FS‐C, Summer 230 18.4% 14.5% 3.9 2.59 0.136

Low Food Security among Children in Spring (34.1%)

VLFS‐C, Summer 440 5.9% 6.9% ‐1.0 0.74 0.199

LFS‐C, Summer 3,281 47.1% 52.4% ‐5.3 *** 1.57 0.001

Marginal/High FS‐C, Summer 2,809 46.9% 40.7% 6.3 *** 1.50 <.0001

Marginal/High Food Security among Children in Spring (58.8%)

VLFS‐C, Summer 128 1.1% 1.2% ‐0.1 0.42 0.844

LFS‐C, Summer 1,608 13.5% 15.6% ‐2.2 * 1.16 0.063

Marginal/High FS‐C, Summer 9,001 85.4% 83.2% 2.2 1.44 0.121
Chapter 5

Page 81 

Among those who were LFS‐C in the spring, despite the SEBTC benefit, some become less food

secure.  More specifically, about 6% percent become VLFS‐C (5.9% in the $60 benefit group and

6.9% in the $30 benefit group).  Many more become marginal or high food secure (46.9% and

40.7%, respectively).

Among those who were high or moderate food secure in the spring, despite the SEBTC benefit,

some become less food secure.  About 1% percent becomes VLFS‐C (1.1% in the $60 benefit

group and 1.2% in the $30 benefit group) and more become LFS‐C (13.5% and 15.6%,

respectively).   

5.4 Non-Experimental Estimates of the Food Security 

Impact of a $30 Benefit 

The previous subsections considered the impact of a $60 SEBTC benefit relative to a $30

benefit. An earlier report from the demonstration provides impact findings for a $60 SEBTC

benefit compared to no benefit in 2012 (Collins, et al, 2013). As stated in Section 5.2.4, despite

the fact that there was no randomly‐assigned no benefit group in 2013 and therefore

experimental estimates for the impact of a $30 SEBTC benefit compared to no benefit cannot

be derived, it would also be useful to estimate the impact of a $30 SEBTC benefit relative to no

benefit.  

As also discussed in Section 5.2.4, additional assumptions allow for plausible estimates of the

impact of a $30 SEBTC benefit compared to no benefit (see Appendix 5A for details on the

estimation). The difference between the impact of a $60 SEBTC vs. no benefit (from 2012) and

the impact of a $60 SEBTC benefit vs. a $30 benefit (from 2013) will, under the conditions

discussed earlier, accurately measure the effect of a $30 benefit vs. no benefit. Given that these

formal conditions are not satisfied exactly, the results of the non‐experimental cross‐year

analyses should be viewed with some caution. Consistent with this judgment, the body of this

chapter is careful to label such results as “non‐experimental.”  

Using this non‐experimental cross‐year methodology, this section reports (i) estimates of the

impact of a $30 per child SEBTC benefit relative to no benefit; (ii) estimates of the precision

(specifically, the standard error) of that estimate; (iii) results of a test of whether that impact is

zero; and (iv) results of a test of whether that impact (of a $30 per child SEBTC benefit) is—in a

statistical sense—clearly different from half of the impact of a $60 per child SEBTC benefit. This

final test can be thought of as answering the question: Is the effect of the first $30 SEBTC

benefit per child (i.e., a per‐child benefit of $30 rather than $0) clearly greater than (or less

than) the incremental impact of the second $30 per child (i.e., a benefit of $60 rather than

$30)? There is no strong reason to believe that the incremental effect of the second $30 per

child would equal the effect of the first $30 per child, but considering whether the two effects

are equal provides a useful benchmark and insights on the level of precision of the estimates.  

Exhibit 5.8 presents the non‐experimental cross‐year estimates for VLFS‐C and FI‐C. For each set

of estimates, the left bar presents the 2013 experimental impacts (comparing the $60 benefit
Chapter 5 

Page 82 

with the $30 benefit). The total height of the right bar for each estimate is the impact of a $60

per child SEBTC benefit (relative to no benefit), estimated with the 2012 data. 81 Superimposed

on the right bars are the 2013 $30‐$60 comparisons. The remainder of the right bars is the

difference between the $30 versus $60 results and the $60 versus $0 results; i.e., the impact of

a $30 SEBTC benefit compared to no benefit.  

Exhibit 5.8 Non‐Experimental Cross‐Year Estimated Impact of $30 versus no SEBTC Benefit

on VLFS‐C and FI‐C, Summers of 2012 and 2013

Source: SEBTC, Summer Surveys, 2012 and 2013

Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding. Estimates for $60 vs. $0 (for 2012) and $60 vs. $30 (for 2013) estimates are based

on linear regression and therefore differ slightly from the main results reported in 2012 and 2013 which are based on logistic

regression. See Appendix 5E (Exhibit 5E.1.2) of this document for the linear regression results for $60 vs. $30 and Appendix 5E

(Exhibit 5E.1.2) of Collins, et al. (2013) for linear regression results for $60 vs. $0.

Stars on the left vertical bar of each pair are for the test that the differential impact of $60 per child relative to $30 per child is

zero. Stars in the lower part of the right vertical bar are for the test that the impact of a $30 per child benefit (relative to no

benefit) is zero.  

*.05 < p < .10, **.01 < p < .05, ***p <. 01.

The non‐experimental cross‐year estimates imply that, for VLFS‐C, the estimated impact of a

$30 per child SEBTC benefit relative to no benefit is 2.7 percentage points. Statistical tests imply

that this estimate of the impact of $30 per child versus no benefit is clearly different from zero.

Similarly, for FI‐C, statistical tests imply that this estimate of the impact of $30 per child versus

no benefit is clearly different from zero.

                                                       

81 The estimates differ slightly from the main estimates in Exhibit 5.3, because the non‐experimental cross‐year

methodology is based on linear regression, while the main estimates are based on logistic regression. See

Appendix 5E and Exhibit 5E.1.2 for evidence that the effect of estimation method—logistic regression vs. linear

regression—is very small. Nevertheless, the estimates are not identical.

VLFS‐C FI‐C
Chapter 5

Page 83 

Exhibit 5.9 plots the estimated impact of $30 vs. no benefit (as shown in Exhibit 5.8) as a

percent of the impact of $60 per child vs. no benefit (also shown in Exhibit 5.8). For VLFS‐C, the

impact of $30 per child is 87% of the impact of $60 per child; statistical tests clearly indicate

that the impact of $30 per child SEBTC benefit is more than half of the impact of $60 per child

benefit. In contrast for FI‐C, the impact of $30 per child is only 576% of the impact of $60 per

child; statistical tests do not indicate that the impact of $30 per child benefit is clearly greater

than half of the $60 per child benefit.

Exhibit 5.9 Non‐Experimental Cross‐Year Estimated Impact of $30 SEBTC Benefit as a

Percent of $60 SEBTC Benefit, for VLFS‐C and FI‐C, Summers of 2012 and 2013

Source: SEBTC, Summer Surveys, 2012 and 2013

Note: Stars indicate the result of a test that the impact of $30 per child relative to no benefit is half of the impact of $60 per

child relative to no impact.  Dashed red line indicates half of the $60 benefit (i.e., 50%).

*.05 < p < .10, **.01 < p < .05, ***p <. 01.

Exhibit 5.10 presents equivalent results for all six food security outcomes. For all six outcomes,

the impact of a $30 SEBTC benefit relative to no benefit is greater than zero (p<0.05). As to

whether the impact of $60 SEBTC benefit relative to $30 benefit is clearly different from half of

the impact of $60 SEBTC benefit (relative to no benefit), VLFS‐C is again the exception. For

VLFS‐C, the impact of $30 SEBTC benefit is clearly greater than half of the impact of $60 benefit.

For VLFS‐H, there is weak evidence that the impact of $30 SEBTC benefit is greater than the

impact of half of $60 benefit (p<0.10). For the other four outcomes (FI‐C, VFLS‐A, FI‐A, FI‐H),

there is no evidence that the impact of $30 SEBTC benefit is greater than (or less than) half of

the impact of $60 benefit (p>0.10).  

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

VLFS‐C FI‐C

Impact of $30 as a Percent of Impactof $60

***
Chapter 5 

Page 84 

Exhibit 5.10   Non‐Experimental Cross‐Year Estimated Impact of $30 versus no SEBTC Benefit

on Food Security Outcomes, Summers 2012 and 2013  

Outcome

$0 vs $60

(2012)

$30 vs $60

(2013) $0 vs $30 Half of Impact Test

Impact

Estimate

Impact

Estimate

Impact

Estimate SE

0‐30 Impact

as % of 0‐

60 P Value

Very Low Food Security–Children ‐3.1  ‐0.4  ‐2.7*** 0.7 87.3% 0.041**

Food Insecurity–Children ‐8.4  ‐3.6  ‐4.8** 1.6 56.7% 0.607  

Very Low Food Security–Adults ‐8.7  ‐2.7  ‐6.0*** 1.4 69.1% 0.123  

Food Insecurity–Adults ‐9.5  ‐4.0  ‐5.4*** 1.4 57.0% 0.520  

Very Low Food Security–

Households ‐9.2  ‐2.6  ‐6.6*** 1.4 72.2% 0.083*

Food Insecurity–Households ‐8.8  ‐4.5  ‐4.3** 1.8 48.6% 0.936   

Source: SEBTC, Summer Surveys, 2012 and 2013; non‐experimental cross‐year methods (see Appendix 5A).

Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding. Estimates for $60 vs. $0 (for 2012) and $60 vs. $30 (for 2013) estimates are based

on linear regression and therefore differ slightly from the main results reported in 2012 and 2013 which are based on logistic

regression. See Appendix 5E (Exhibit 5E.1.2) of this document for the linear regression results for $60 vs. $30 and Appendix 5E

(Exhibit 5E.1.2) of Collins, et al. (2013) for linear regression results for $60 vs. $0.

*.05 < p < .10, **.01 < p < .05, ***p <. 01.

5.5 Impacts on Household Food Expenditures of 

Providing $60 of SEBTC Benefits Rather than $30 

The logic model for the SEBTC program, provided in Chapter 1 (Exhibit 1.3), implies the

following pathway: SEBTC provides additional income to households in the form of an EBT card

which can be used to purchase qualifying foods. The purchases of additional qualifying foods

improve children’s food security and nutritional status.  

The amount by which such a program increases total household food expenditures is the focus

of the current section. The amount of expenditure increase might be equal to the SEBTC benefit

amount redeemed or less than that amount. The section discusses the reasons for this

theoretical ambiguity after presenting findings on the existence and degree of this expenditure

effect in the demonstration data.

To measure food expenditures, the evaluation asked households responding to the summer

survey to report their out‐of‐pocket food spending over the previous 30 days. Households were

explicitly instructed to exclude any nutrition program assistance—SNAP, WIC, and SEBTC.

Households were then separately asked about the value of any SNAP benefits received. In

addition to using these reports of expenditures, the evaluation imputes the average monthly

value of SEBTC benefits redeemed using EBT data. All expenditure estimates relate to the 30‐

day period during which food security was measured.  
Chapter 5

Page 85 

Exhibit 5.11 reports the impact of a $60 per child SEBTC benefit versus a $30 per child benefit

on total household food expenditure per month and its components.82 During the summer of

2013, the availability of a larger SEBTC benefit ($60 per child vs. $30 per child) increased total

household food expenditures by $29 per month (5%), from $608 to $637. This was less than the

$45 increase in SEBTC benefits redeemed ($87 for those randomly assigned to the larger

benefit and the $42 increase for those randomly assigned to the smaller benefit). As shown in

Exhibit 5.12 both of these measured impacts—total food expenditures and SEBTC

redemptions—are statistically significant. Together, they imply that every additional dollar of

SEBTC benefits redeemed by the $60 SEBTC benefit group compared to the $30 group

increased total food expenditure by 65 cents. The remainder of the incremental SEBTC benefit

(35 cents of each dollar) was offset by reductions in households’ out‐of‐pocket spending on

food. Out‐of‐pocket spending declined a statistically significant $14 per month, from $295 per

month for those randomly assigned to the small SEBTC benefit to $281 for those randomly

assigned to the large benefit. The amount that SNAP benefits contributed to household food

budgets ($269 or $271) was unaffected, consistent with the finding of no effect on SNAP

participation (see Section 5.7 below).  

                                                      

82 The expenditure components included in the diagram are SEBTC benefits redeemed, out‐of‐pocket

expenditures, and SNAP benefits redeemed. Unlike SEBTC benefits provided through the WIC‐model, conventional

WIC benefits are not included because the evaluation lacks information on the value of conventional WIC benefits

from program records and the price equivalent of WIC foods cannot be reported accuracy by survey respondents.

Further, since as reported later in the chapter, there do not appear to have been an effect of the $60 SEBTC

benefit compared to the $30 benefit on participation in the conventional WIC program, the value of those benefits

is likely to be similar for the two groups.
Chapter 5 

Page 86 

Exhibit 5.11 Monthly Household Food Expenditures with a $60 and $30 SEBTC Benefit

Amount, Summer 2013

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey and SEBTC redemption data, 2013 (n=18,705). Data on out‐of‐pocket food expenditures in the

last 30 days and SNAP benefit redeemed in the last 30 days were obtained from the household survey. Data on average

monthly SEBTC redemption amount were obtained from SEBTC administrative data for June and July 2013.

Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.

Exhibit 5.12 Estimated Impact of $60 versus $30 SEBTC Benefit on Monthly Household Food

Expenditure and Its Components, Summer 2013

Expenditure Category

$60 Benefit

Group  

$30 Benefit

Group  

Estimated

Impact $60

vs. $30

Difference) SE p‐value

Impact as %

of $30

Benefit

Group

Total (SEBTC + out‐of‐

pocket + SNAP) $637   $608    $29*** 4.98 <0.001 4.8%

SEBTC benefits

redeemed $87   $42    $45*** 1.47 <0.001 107.8%

Out‐of‐pocket $281   $295 ‐$14*** 3.65 <0.001 4.7%

SNAP benefits redeemed $269   $271 ‐$ 2 3.69 0.599 0.7%

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey and SEBTC redemption data, 2013 (n=18,705).

Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.

*.05 < p < .10, **.01 < p < .05, ***p < .01.

The finding that total food expenditures go up 65 cents for every additional dollar of SEBTC

benefits redeemed merits discussion relative to economic theory and past evidence from the

literature. The extent to which government benefits restricted to food purchases, such as SNAP,

increase total household food expenditures is the subject of some debate in the literature.

While households must spend the (additional) nutrition benefit (SNAP or SEBTC) on food, they

$269 $271

$281 $295

$87 $42

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$60 Benefit $30 Benefit

SEBTC redeemed

Out‐of‐pocket

SNAP redeemed

$637 total $608 total
Chapter 5

Page 87 

are able to spend less cash on food, such that total food expenditure rises by less than the

benefit and more is spent on non‐food items (Southworth, 1945).  

Earlier studies suggest that the SNAP benefit leads to larger food expenditure, but that the

increase is much smaller than the amount of the SNAP benefit itself. Specifically, a recent

analysis suggests an extra dollar of SNAP benefits redeemed increases food expenditures by

between 26 and 35 cents (Hanson, 2010). The estimate from the 2013 SEBTC Demonstration

that a dollar more of SEBTC benefits, for the $60 SEBTC benefit group (compared to the $30

benefit group) yielded a 65 cent increase in food expenditure for the $60 group is considerably

higher than the estimate for SNAP,83 but similar to the 2012 SEBTC evaluation estimate of 54

cents (comparing the $60 SEBTC group to the no benefit group; Collins, et al., 2013).

Appendix 5E (Exhibit 5E.2.1a and Exhibits 5E.2.2a‐5.E.2.2f) reports site‐ and individual‐level

subgroup analyses to ascertain whether SEBTC had a differential impact on food expenditures

by subgroup. Few statistically significant impacts emerged and those that did were not of a

substantively important magnitude.

5.6 Impacts on Children’s Nutritional Status of Providing 

$60 of SEBTC Benefits Rather Than $30 

In 2013, relative to a $30 SEBTC benefit, a $60 benefit improved several of the measured

dietary indicators of children’s nutritional status. The evaluation used dietary factors or

indicators drawn from food frequency questions used in the 2009‐2010 National Health and

Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) as proxies for nutritional status.84 The household

survey included questions about children’s intake of foods shown to be associated with

nutritional risk among school‐age children and to reliably assess consumption of dietary factors

important to dietary guidance (Newby, 2007; Briefel et al., 2008; Reedy and Krebs‐Smith, 2010;

Taveras et al., 2010).  

Specifically, the evaluation estimated the differential impact of a $60 SEBTC benefit relative to a

$30 benefit on eight dietary indicators of nutritional status:85

                                                      

83 Why the SEBTC‐based estimates are larger than Hanson’s (2010) SNAP estimates is unclear. One possible

explanation is the method of inferring the food expenditure effect of a food‐dedicated benefit (the SEBTC findings

are based on a random assignment experiment, while Hanson relied on a natural experiment). Another possible

explanation concerns the different household populations involved in the two analyses: the SEBTC population

appears to be poorer than the low‐income (FRP‐certified) population nationally (see Chapter 4, section 4.3.2).  

84 The 2009‐2010 NHANES Diet Screener Questionnaire was used to assess the intake of specific dietary factors

(NCI, 2013). The scoring algorithms convert survey responses to estimates of individual dietary intake for analysis.

The algorithms can be found at: http://appliedresearch.cancer.gov/studies/nhanes/dietscreen/scoring/ and are

described in Appendix 5D

85 Daily amounts of fruits and vegetables and dairy are measured in cup equivalents and in ounce equivalents for

whole grains, as defined by the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Added sugars are measured in teaspoons

and are derived from reported frequencies of consuming sugar‐sweetened beverages (soda, fruit‐flavored drinks,

and sugar or honey added to coffee or tea); cookies/cakes/pies; doughnuts; ice cream; candy; and cereals.  
Chapter 5 

Page 88 

1. Cup equivalents per day of fruits and vegetables  

2. Cup equivalents per day of fruits and vegetables, excluding fried potatoes  

3. Ounce equivalents per day of whole grains  

4. Cup equivalents per day of dairy  

5. Whether the child usually drank nonfat or low‐fat milk during the last 30 days

6. Teaspoons per day of added sugars from all foods and beverages

7. Teaspoons per day of added sugars from all foods and beverages, excluding cereal

8. Teaspoons per day of added sugars from sugar‐sweetened beverages  

Greater intake of nonfat or low‐fat milk, fruits, vegetables (non‐fried) and whole grains are

associated with a more healthful diet (USDA and HHS, 2010). Cookies, cake, pie, doughnuts,

brownies, and sugar‐sweetened beverages are major sources of children’s discretionary calories

and are indicative of a less healthful diet (Malik et al., 2006; Pereira, 2006; Vartanian et al.,

2007; Reedy and Krebs‐Smith, 2010). In the summer survey, respondents were asked to report

how often children ate these food items over the last 30 days.86 Scoring procedures developed

by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) were used to convert the respondents’ reports of their

children’s consumption of specific items into daily amounts of fruits and vegetables (cup

equivalents), whole grains (ounce equivalents), dairy (cup equivalents), and added sugars

(teaspoons). These diet measures are consistent with those used in the USDA Food Patterns

(USDA, 2013).87  

Relative to a $30 SEBTC benefit, a $60 benefit led to favorable, but substantively small changes

in several of the measured dietary indicators of children’s nutritional status (see Exhibit 5.13).

While neither group’s mean intake met the recommended 4 to 5 cup equivalents of fruits and

vegetables (USDA and HHS, 2010), children receiving a $60 SEBTC benefit consumed 3.3 cup

equivalents of fruits and vegetables per day versus 3.1 cup equivalents consumed by children

receiving a $30 SEBTC benefit (p<0.01). This differential impact of 0.2 cup equivalents is roughly

equivalent to one‐fifth of a cup of raw fruit or two‐fifths of a cup of salad greens. Overall, this

SEBTC impact (0.2 cup equivalent) is approximately two‐thirds of the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable

Program intervention’s impact, which improved treatment children’s daily consumption of

fruits and vegetables by 0.3 cup equivalents (Bartlett et al., 2013).

                                                      

86 One age‐eligible child was randomly selected per household to be the subject of the summer survey questions

on foods consumed, where lunches were eaten, and child nutrition program participation.

87 The calorie range of 1,800 to 2,400 applies to school‐age children. The recommended daily amount of fruits and

vegetables for school‐age children is 4‐5 cup equivalents (depending on age and sex).  
Chapter 5

Page 89 

Exhibit 5.13 Estimated Impact of $60 versus $30 SEBTC Benefit on Children’s Food

Consumption, Summer 2013

Outcome

Sample

Size

$60 Benefit

Group

Consumption

$30 Benefit

Group

Consumption

Differential

Impact ($30/$60

Difference) SE p‐Value

Impact

as % of

$30

Benefit

Level

Fruits and vegetables (cup

equivalents per day)a 18,958 3.26 3.07   0.19*** 0.03 <0.001 6.3%

Fruits and vegetables,

without fried potatoes

(cup equivalents per

day)a

18,986 3.14 2.95   0.19*** 0.03 <0.001 6.4%

Whole grains (ounce

equivalents per day)b 19,110 2.17 2.01   0.16** 0.07 0.014 8.0%

Dairy (cup equivalents per

day)c 19,194 2.48 2.43   0.05* 0.03 0.059 2.0%

Usually drank nonfat or

low‐fat milk (%)d 18,742 10.95 10.75   0.20 0.55 0.719 1.8%

Added sugars (teaspoons

per day)e 18,833 17.73 17.67   0.06 0.69 0.937 0.3%

Added sugars excluding

cereals (teaspoons per

day)e

18,958 16.31 16.43  ‐0.12 0.60 0.845 0.7%

Sugar‐sweetened

beverages (teaspoons

per day)e

19,211 7.29 7.35  ‐0.06 0.80 0.941 0.8%

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013.

Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.

a Daily amounts of fruits and vegetables and dairy are measured in cup equivalents and in ounce equivalents for whole grains,

as defined by the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. For fruits and vegetables, 1 1 cup equivalent is defined as 1 cup raw or

cooked fruit or vegetables, vegetable juice, or fruit juice; 2 cups leafy green vegetables; or 1/2 cup dried fruit. bOne ounce

equivalent of whole grains is 1 one‐ounce slice bread; 1 ounce uncooked pasta or rice; 1/2 cup cooked rice; pasta; or cereal; 1

6‐inch diameter tortilla; 1 5‐inch diameter pancake; or 1 ounce ready‐to‐eat cereal.

c

One cup equivalent of dairy is 1 cup milk, fortified soy beverage, or yogurt; 11⁄2 ounces natural cheese; or 2 ounces of

processed cheese.  

d Respondents who reported that their child consumed more than one type of milk were included if any of the milk types

reported were nonfat or low‐fat. Those reporting only whole milk and/or 2% milk were not considered to usually consume

nonfat or low‐fat milk.

e

Teaspoons of added sugars are derived from reported frequencies of consuming sugar‐sweetened beverages (soda, fruit‐

flavored drinks, and sugar or honey added to coffee or tea); cookies/cakes/pies; doughnuts; ice cream; candy; and cereals.  

*p<.10, **p<.05, ***p<.01.

Children receiving a $60 SEBTC benefit consumed 2.2 ounce equivalents of whole grains per day

vs. 2.0 ounce equivalents among children receiving a $30 benefit. This improvement of 0.2

ounce equivalents (p<0.05), which is roughly equivalent to one‐fifth of a slice of whole wheat

bread or one‐tenth of a cup of cooked brown rice for example, makes a small contribution

towards the recommended intake of whole grains (USDA, 2013).  

Children receiving a $60 SEBTC benefit consumed 2.5 cup equivalents of dairy products per day,

only slightly more than for the $30 SEBTC benefit (2.4 cup equivalents; the difference is

borderline statistically significant, p<0.10). However, a high proportion of children in both
Chapter 5 

Page 90 

groups (89%) were not meeting the Dietary Guideline recommendation to consume only nonfat

or low‐fat milk and milk products. Usual consumption of nonfat or low‐fat milk did not vary

according to experimental groups (in both groups, 11% of children usually drank nonfat or low‐

fat milk).  

Relative to a $30 SEBTC benefit, a $60 benefit had no impact on total daily consumption of

added sugars from foods and beverages, from beverages alone, or from foods excluding

cereals. Both the $60 and $30 benefit groups consumed 18 teaspoons (302 calories) from

added sugars per day.  Given the larger benefit, it is noteworthy that the $60 benefit group did

not consume more added sugars than the $30 group.  

The study assessed differences in impacts on nutritional status for SEBTC benefits delivered by

the WIC model and the SNAP model. There is some evidence that impacts are statistically

significant and favoring more healthful food consumption for children in sites using the WIC

model than in those sites using the SNAP model (see Exhibits 5.14 and 5.15). For fruit and

vegetable intake, there is a statistically significant differential impact for both the SNAP and the

WIC model (p=0.036). The differential impact (for a $60 SEBTC benefit relative to a $30 benefit)

is twice as large in the WIC model (0.23 vs. 0.11; both estimates are statistically significantly

different from zero). For whole grains, dairy, and added sugar, there is no statistically different

differential impact across the WIC and the SNAP models (not shown in Exhibit 5.15; see

Appendix 5E, Exhibit 5E.3.1).  

Exhibit 5.14 Estimated Impact of $60 versus $30 SEBTC Benefit on Daily Cup Equivalents of

Fruits and Vegetables (without Fried Potatoes), by Program Delivery Model,

Summer 2013

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013 (n=18,986).

3.1 3.2

3.0 2.9

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

SNAP Model WIC Model

Daily Cup Equivalents

$60 Benefit $30 Benefit
Chapter 5

Page 91 

Exhibit 5.15 Estimated Impact of $60 versus $30 SEBTC Benefit on SEBTC‐WIC and SEBTC‐

SNAP on Children’s Food Consumption, Summer 2013

$60 Benefit

Group

Consumption

$30 Benefit

Group

Consumption Difference SE p‐value

Impact as % of

$30 Group

Consumption

Fruits and Vegetables (cup equivalents per day) (n=18,958)

SNAP model 3.20 3.09 0.11 *** 0.04 0.008 3.6%

WIC model 3.29 3.06 0.23 *** 0.04 <0.001 7.6%

Difference 0.09  ‐0.03 0.12 ** 0.06 0.036 388.7%

Fruits and Vegetables without Fried Potatoes (cup equivalents per day) (n=18,986)

SNAP model 3.08 2.98 0.11 *** 0.04 0.006 3.7%

WIC model 3.17 2.94 0.23 *** 0.04 <0.001 7.8%

Difference 0.08  ‐0.04 0.12 ** 0.05 0.029 312.1%

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013.  

Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding. See notes to Exhibit 5.13 for details on the measures.

The p‐values are based on a test of the difference between treatment group households and control group households. The null

hypothesis being tested is that the treatment‐control difference is zero (either the treatment‐control difference in food

consumption within a subgroup or a subgroup difference in the treatment‐control difference in prevalence rates).  

*p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01

The evaluation also assessed whether there were differential impacts in any measures of

nutritional status by poverty status, but found none (see Appendix 5E, Exhibit 5E.3.2).  

Finally, using the non‐experimental cross‐year methodology, the evaluation considered

whether a $30 SEBTC benefit would improve nutritional outcomes relative to no benefit and

whether the impact of the second $30 per child (from $30 to $60) differed from the impact of

the first $30 per child (from $0 to $30) (Exhibit 5.16).88 The analysis suggests that, relative to no

benefit, a $30 benefit would increase fruit and vegetable intake, whole grains intake, and dairy

intake and lower sugar‐sweetened beverages. Finally, there is some evidence of lowering intake

of added sugars excluding cereal (p<0.10), but no evidence of lowering added sugars including

cereal (p>0.10). For all of the nutrition outcomes, the impact of the second $30 per child (from

$30 to $60) is not significantly different from the impact of the first $30 (from $0 to $30).  

                                                      

88 See the discussion in Section 5.2.4 and Section 5.4 about the assumptions required by these non‐experimental

cross‐year estimates and their plausibility.  
Chapter 5 

Page 92 

Exhibit 5.16 Non‐Experimental Cross‐Year Estimated Impact of $60 versus no SEBTC Benefit

on Nutritional Outcomes, Summers 2012 and 2013

Outcome

$0 vs $60

(2012)

$30 vs $60

(2013) $0 vs $30 Half of Impact Test

Impact

Estimate

Impact

Estimate

Impact

Estimate SE

0‐30 Impact

as % of 0‐60 P Value  

Fruits and vegetables (cup

equivalents per day) 0.36 0.19 0.16** 0.07 46.1 0.811   

Fruits and vegetables, without

fried potatoes (cup equivalents

per day)

0.36 0.19 0.17** 0.06 47.0 0.844

  

Whole grains (ounce equivalents

per day) 0.50 0.16 0.33** 0.13 67.4 0.308   

Dairy products (cup equivalents per

day)

0.22 0.05 0.17*** 0.05 78.0 0.133   

Usually drank nonfat or low‐fat

milk (%) ‐0.44 0.24  ‐0.67 0.82 154.0 0.549   

Added sugars (teaspoons per day) ‐0.20 0.06  ‐0.25 0.22 127.0 0.348   

Added sugars excluding cereals

(teaspoons per day) ‐0.50  ‐0.12  ‐0.38* 0.21 76.1 0.373   

Sugar‐sweetened beverages

(teaspoons per day) ‐0.63  ‐0.06  ‐0.57** 0.22 90.5 0.169   

Source: SEBTC, Summer Surveys, 2012 and 2013; non‐experimental cross‐year methods (see Appendix 5A).

Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding. See notes to Exhibit 5.13 for details on the measures.

*p<.10, **p<.05, ***p<.01.

In summary, relative to a $30 SEBTC benefit, a $60 benefit clearly but only slightly improves

some important aspects of children’s diet quality (i.e., consumption of fruits and non‐fried

vegetables, whole grains, and dairy), but not others (e.g., added sugars).  

For fruits and vegetables, positive impacts are present for SNAP model sites, but the differences

between the $60 SEBTC benefit group and the $30 group were larger for WIC model sites. Sites

chose their delivery model, so these differential SNAP‐model/WIC‐model impacts need to be

interpreted with care because differential impacts could be due to other site‐related factors.  

5.7 Impacts on Household Participation in Nutrition 

Assistance Programs and Whether Households Paid 

for their Children’s Lunch 

The added purchasing power of a $60 SEBTC benefit, compared to a $30 benefit, might reduce

households’ use of other nutrition assistance programs, including SFSP, SNAP, WIC, and food

kitchens and emergency food pantries. The added amount also might change households’

summer strategies for feeding their children breakfast and lunch, Monday through Friday.  

Relative to the $30 SEBTC benefit, the $60 benefit did not produce any statistically significant

changes in program participation or where children ate (Exhibit 5.17).  
Chapter 5

Page 93 

Exhibit 5.17 Estimated Impact of $60 versus $30 SEBTC Benefit on Participation in

Nutritional Assistance Programs and Whether Children’s Households Paid for

Lunch, Summer 2013

Outcome

Sample

Size

Percent

of $60

Benefit

Group

Percent

of $30

Benefit

Group

Differential

Impact ($30/$60

Difference) SE p‐value

Impact

as % of

$30

Group

Participation in SNAP 19,602 66.5% 67.1% ‐0.6 0.54 0.293 0.8%

Participation in WIC 19,582 21.7% 21.9% ‐0.2 0.50 0.667 1.0%

Participation in food

pantry/emergency kitchen 19,618 11.0% 11.7%  ‐0.7    0.51 0.149 6.3%

Participation in SFSP 19,493 5.6% 6.4% ‐0.7 0.54 0.168 11.6%

Participation in National

School Lunch Program  

(in Summer)  

19,689 4.6% 4.7%  ‐0.1    0.36 0.842 1.5%

Participation in School

Breakfast Program  

(in Summer)

19,689 3.3% 3.2% 0.1    0.32 0.751 3.2%

Participation in Supper

Program (in Summer) 19,689 0.6% 0.7%  ‐0.1    0.17 0.473 17.4%

Participation in Backpack

Program (in Summer) 19,362 3.5% 3.7%  ‐0.3    0.34 0.463 6.7%

Child usually received free

lunch at least 1 day/week 19,432 17.9% 18.0%  ‐0.1    0.71 0.887 0.6%

Child usually received free

lunch at least 3 days/week 19,425 13.6% 13.5% 0.1    0.61 0.829 1.0%

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013.

Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.

*p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01

5.8 Conclusion 

This chapter presented study findings on the impact of a $60 SEBTC benefit compared to a $30

SEBTC benefit for the study’s principal outcomes, based on experimental methods and random

assignment. In the six sites that implemented the 2013 evaluation, the study found no

significant effect of the larger benefit on VLFS‐C, the evaluation’s primary outcome. Additional

exploratory analyses found that the $60 SEBTC benefit, compared to the $30 benefit, resulted

in a statistically significant improvement (between 9 and 13 percent of the level for the $30

benefit) in all other measures of food insecurity used by the study. Pooling data from 2012 and

2013, a non‐experimental cross‐year analysis also indicates that, compared to no benefit, the

$30 SEBTC benefit reduces VLFS‐C.  While the research team believes the non‐experimental

cross year analysis is appropriate given available data, the accuracy of the approximation

depends on assumptions about similarities between participating sites and between external

conditions in 2012 and 2013.  The results for this second set of analysis should therefore be

viewed with caution more caution than results for the analysis using an experimental design.
Chapter 5 

Page 94 

Other experimental, but exploratory analyses showed a favorable impact of a $60 SEBTC

benefit compared to a $30 benefit on several of children’s nutritional outcomes (increased daily

intake of fruits and vegetables, whole grains, and dairy). Further, it showed that some of the

measured effects were more pronounced in sites using the WIC benefit‐delivery model than in

sites using the SNAP benefit‐delivery model. However, the small improvements moved children

only slightly closer to meeting specific dietary guidelines.

Further discussion about the implications of the 2013 SEBTC evaluation can be found in

Chapter 6.
Chapter 6

Page 95 

Chapter 6 

Discussion and Conclusions 

The 2010 Agriculture Appropriations Act provided FNS with authority and funding to

demonstrate and rigorously evaluate approaches for reducing or preventing food insecurity and

hunger among children in the summer months when there is reduced access to child nutrition

programs. The Summer EBT for Children (SEBTC) demonstration, the largest such intervention

funded by the 2010 Act, delivered $60 per child per month of SEBTC benefits through WIC or

SNAP EBT systems to households with eligible children. The evaluation of the SEBTC in 2011

(i.e., the Proof of Concept (POC) year), showed that SEBTC could be implemented with fidelity

and found a positive impact on food security outcomes for households with eligible school‐age

children (Collins et al., 2012). The study’s 2012 full implementation year demonstrated that:

 The summer benefit intervention could be implemented successfully by the State and local

grantees entrusted with its actuation; and

 In the 14 participating sites, SEBTC unambiguously and substantially advanced the

intervention’s main goal, reducing children’s very low food security (VLFS‐C) in the summer.   

The evaluation also found favorable effects on all of the broader food security measures used in

the study and on several dietary indicators of nutritional status of children, the latter in

particular for sites using the SEBTC‐WIC model (Collins et al., 2013).

In the first two study years, households were randomly assigned to receive a $60 per child

SEBTC benefit or no benefit (i.e., the control group). Based on the consistent, positive results

from the 2011 and 2012 SEBTC demonstration years, during which more than 90,000 children

were issued the $60 per child SEBTC monthly benefit amount over the summer and more than

32,000 households selected for the evaluation were interviewed, FNS added a third year to the

SEBTC Demonstration and Evaluation. In 2013, households were randomly assigned either to a

$60 per child SEBTC monthly benefit group or to a $30 benefit group.  The motivation for the

third year of the study was to determine if a reduced amount of the SEBTC benefit alters the

food security improvements and other positive effects of the intervention or, alternatively,

yields just as much benefit to participating families. Each of the State grantees participating in

the 2013 evaluation also participated in at least one prior year (although some of the sites were

new).  Therefore, unlike previous years, the most recent year of the evaluation did not include

an implementation or cost study as the related information gathered from 2011 and 2012 was

sufficient to show FNS the SEBTC could be implemented successfully and with fidelity in a range

of different communities.

This chapter summarizes and discusses the findings from 2013 and their implications.
Chapter 6 

Page 96 

6.1 Participating Grantees and Implementation of 

SEBTC in 2013 

For the 2013 evaluation, FNS selected four grantees (Chickasaw Nation, Delaware, Michigan,

and Oregon). The grantees worked with the evaluation team to implement the study in six sites,

which included three urban areas (Detroit and Grand Rapids/Kentwood, Michigan and Portland,

Oregon), and two relatively large, predominantly rural areas (Chickasaw Nation in Oklahoma

and mid‐Michigan). The Delaware site was statewide and contained a mix of urban, suburban,

and rural communities.  As a result of the grantees’ efforts, a total of approximately 23,000

households participated in the evaluation, representing about 43,000 eligible school‐age

children.   

All of the grantees participating in 2013 used the active consent process, in which grantees had

to return forms in order to be included in the study.  The 2013 consent rates were consistent

with rates those sites in previous years that chose to use similar consent processes, ranging

from 21% to 42% of eligible children. All grantees completed the consent process and five of

their six sites met or exceeded their recruitment goals. The one exception was Detroit, where

the number of consenting children was substantially lower than planned, largely due to delays

in beginning the consent process, issues with identifying eligible children, and staffing

constraints.  In contrast, Delaware received consent for more than 6,500 children beyond its

goal.

As in past years of the SEBTC demonstration, households in the SEBTC evaluation were

disadvantaged.  Nearly three‐fourths of households in the sample (74%) had monthly incomes

below the federal poverty line, compared to 51% of children nationally who are eligible for FRP

meals (CPS, 2012).  The percentage of households in the sample with incomes below the

poverty line, ranged from 67% of households in Chickasaw Nation to 90% in Detroit, Michigan.  

Sixty‐eight percent of the households participated in SNAP at baseline and 22% participated in

the WIC program.

With only a few exceptions, the grantees successfully issued SEBTC benefits to eligible

households. In Michigan, there were some issues with families being able to redeem some WIC

foods.  In Chickasaw Nation, it appears that School Food Authorities (SFAs) may not always have

sent EBT cards to households that did not come to scheduled initial trainings on use of the

cards.  However, the grantees’ overall success in meeting the consent goals and successfully

implementing the SEBTC demonstration made it possible to conduct the 2013 impact

evaluation as a valid test of the differential impact of a $60 SEBTC benefit relative to a $30

benefit.

6.2 SEBTC Benefit Issuance and Use 

As in previous years of the SEBTC demonstration, a very high percentage of households that

were issued benefits used them at least once during the summer and differences across the $60
Chapter 6

Page 97 

and $30 benefit groups were small.  Among all households issued SEBTC benefits, 93% of those

issued the $60 SEBTC benefit and 91% of those issued the $30 benefit used some portion of

their SEBTC benefits.  On average, among all households issued benefits, households in the $60

SEBTC benefit group redeemed 75% of their benefits, and those in the $30 group redeemed

72%.  Regression adjusted comparisons showed that a smaller monthly benefit per child

modestly reduced participation and redemption rates, by 2% and 3% respectively.   

There was a greater difference in participation and redemption rates among sites than between

the $60‐ and $30‐benefit groups.  For instance, 89% of households in the $60 benefit group in

Portland—which used the SNAP model and loaded benefits onto existing SNAP cards for SNAP

participants—redeemed all of their SEBTC benefits. In contrast, 26% of households in the $60

benefit group in Delaware—which used a SNAP model with separate cards for SEBTC—used all

of their benefits. Eight percent or fewer of the $60 benefit households in any of the four sites

using the WIC model used all of their benefits.  The redemption rate for both $60‐ and $30‐

benefit groups was nearly 30 percentage points higher in the SNAP‐model sites than in the WIC‐

model sites.

While there are many differences among the sites that might account for the pronounced site‐

level differences in SEBTC use, it is plausible that the different delivery models contribute to

these differences:  the WIC model appeared to pose greater barriers to participation,

redemption, and benefit exhaustion.  There are a number of reasons why this may be so.  First,

more households may be familiar with the SNAP program than the WIC program.  Over two‐

thirds of households in the evaluation were participating in SNAP at baseline compared to one‐

fifth of households participating in WIC.  Second, fewer stores are authorized to accept WIC, so

opportunities to redeem benefits are not as plentiful as with the SNAP model.  Third, the SNAP

model operates almost like cash, but the WIC model is commodity‐based.  As a result,

redeeming benefits with the WIC model is more complicated because participants may choose

only from a narrower set of eligible foods, and some of these foods may be hard to find (e.g.,

one‐pound loaves of whole‐wheat bread). The WIC model also requires participants to keep

track of balances for each food category rather than the SNAP model which only requires

participants to keep track of a single balance in dollars.  Fourth, the SEBTC‐WIC benefits expired

if not used by the end of the month, while the SEBTC‐SNAP benefits carried over to the next

month (but expired at the end of the summer).  Finally, some households may not want some

or all of the foods eligible for purchase with the WIC model.   

In dollar terms, the average redemption amount for the entire summer period was $134 per

eligible child for the benefit group receiving $60 per child and $64 per eligible child for those

receiving the $30 per‐child benefit amount.  This equates to $1.54 per day for the average

school‐age child in the $60 benefit group and $0.74 in the $30 benefit group.  

While there were only small differences in SEBTC participation and redemption between the

$60‐ and $30‐groups, there were differences in SEBTC benefit exhaustion (i.e., use of all

benefits) in a summer month.  In the $60 SEBTC benefit group, 36% of households exhausted

their benefits in at least one month, compared to 43% of households in the $30 benefit group,
Chapter 6 

Page 98 

implying that smaller benefit amounts increased exhaustion rates by about one‐sixth.  Further,

the impact of a $60 benefit relative to a $30 benefit on whether a household exhausted

benefits in at least one month was larger both in percentage points and as a percentage

change.  This impact was significant in the WIC‐model sites, but not in the SNAP sites.

6.3 Impacts of SEBTC on Food Security and Other 

Household Outcomes 

To test the differential impact of the $60 SEBTC per‐child benefit amount with the $30 amount,

on food security and other study outcomes, the impact analysis relied on a random assignment

design.  A random assignment design is considered the gold standard for estimating the impacts

of programs and policies. All evidence indicates that random assignment was implemented with

fidelity in 2013.  Furthermore, the summer survey achieved an 88% response rate. Therefore,

the impact analysis for the SEBTC in 2013 provides a high quality estimate of the differential

impact of a $60 per child SEBTC benefit relative to a $30 per child benefit. In 2013, no

households in the study were assigned to a no‐benefit group. Household food security was

measured with an 18‐item survey module that was developed by USDA to assess and monitor

food security in large‐scale population studies.

To address the question of whether and in what ways a $30 SEBTC benefit might improve

outcomes compared to no SEBTC benefit the research team also conducted a non‐experimental

analysis combining data from two years of demonstration:  2012 data on a $60‐versus‐$0

comparison and 2013 data on a $60‐versus‐$30 comparison.   The difference in measured

impacts between these two results approximates how much a $30 benefit improves on no

benefit.  While the research team believes this analysis is appropriate given available data, the

accuracy of the approximation depends on assumptions discussed elsewhere in the report and

produces results that should be viewed with caution.

6.3.1 Impacts on Children’s Food Insecurity 

With respect to the study’s primary outcome, the experimental analysis does not show that the

$60 SEBTC benefit is superior to the $30 benefit in terms of reducing very low food security

among children (VLFS‐C) in the six study sites in the summer of 2013.  However, it does show

that, relative to a $30 per child SEBTC benefit, a $60 benefit significantly improves the other

food security outcomes measured by the study, including food insecurity among children (FI‐C,

which combines low and very low food security) as well as food security outcomes for adults

and for households overall.

Research associating food security with child development and wellbeing provides important

context for considering the implications of these findings.  This body of research shows that

children living in food insecure households have more learning, health, psychosocial and

behavioral problems than children living in food‐secure households (Center on Hunger and

Poverty, 2002; Nord, 2009). Food insecurity among children may also be associated with poorer

nutritional status including iron deficiency anemia and overweight or obesity (Nord, 2009;
Chapter 6

Page 99 

Institute of Medicine, 2011). It has not been well established, however, if interventions that

improve food security also would result in improved children’s health and developmental

outcomes.

With one exception, the impact of a $60 SEBTC benefit compared to a $30 benefit on VLFS‐C or

on FI‐C did not differ substantially across demographically‐defined subgroups; the exception is

that the impact on FI‐C was larger for households with FI‐C at baseline in spring 2013.  There

was no evidence of a differential effect for the SNAP model versus the WIC model.   

The non‐experimental cross‐year analyses add another dimension to this picture. These

analyses suggest that the impact of a $30 SEBTC benefit amount compared to no benefit is

about half the impact of a $60 benefit amount for almost all of the food security outcomes.   

The exception is VLFS‐C, for which the first $30 per child of SEBTC benefits provides a greater

improvement than the second $30 per child (which may not provide any further improvement).

As is common with this type of research design, SEBTC involved random assignment within

purposively selected sites; 14 sites in 2012 and six in 2013. Findings should not be extrapolated

to the nation as a whole since the selected sites are not representative of the nation. For

example, food insecurity during the school year in the 2013 SEBTC evaluation sites were

considerably higher than national estimates for similar households (i.e., those with school‐age

children and incomes below 185% of FPL). The SEBTC 2013 spring sample (Briefel et. al., 2013)

had a VLFS‐C rate of 7.5%; for 2012; the corresponding national estimate is 2.8% (Coleman‐

Jensen et al., 2013).   

6.3.2 Impacts on Households’ Food Expenditures, Children’s 

Nutritional Status, and Household’s Participation in Federal 

Nutrition Programs 

Relative to households receiving the $30 per child monthly SEBTC benefit, the $60 per child

benefit resulted in an increase of $29 in household monthly total food expenditures for the

household, despite the fact that two children lived in each household on average.  This increase

is the net result of redemption of $45 more in SEBTC benefits in the $60 and a decline of $14 in

food expenditures from other sources.  The implied net increase of  65 cents for each additional

dollar of SEBTC benefit redeemed is considerably higher than standard estimates of the impact

of a dollar of SNAP benefits on total food expenditures (Hanson, 2010), and slightly higher than

the 2012 SEBTC estimate (which compared a $60 SEBTC benefit to no benefit; Collins et al.,

2013).  

The $60 per child benefit amount slightly improves children’s nutritional status, assessed using

indicators of dietary quality, compared to a $30 benefit, leading children to eat slightly more

fruits and vegetables, whole grains, and dairy.  There was no impact on consumption of total

daily added sugars, added sugars from sugar‐sweetened beverages, or nonfat/low‐fat milk

(versus higher‐fat types of milk).  For fruits and vegetables, the impact was larger for the WIC‐

model than for the SNAP‐model.  Each of these differential impacts—both overall and between

the SNAP‐ and WIC‐models—was small in dietary terms.   
Chapter 6 

Page 100 

The 2013 EBT analysis showed that households in both the $60 SEBTC benefit group and the

$30 used lower amounts of SEBTC benefits than households in the SNAP model sites and, the

$60 SEBTC benefit group, relative to the $30 group, achieved only limited improvements in

children’s nutritional status. These findings should be viewed in the context of the 2012 findings

on SEBTC’s impacts on children’s nutritional status. In 2012, the comparison of a $60 SEBTC

benefit to those with no benefit showed positive impacts found on children’s consumption of

fruits and vegetables, whole grains, dairy, and added sugars from sugar‐sweetened beverages

that were consistently larger for children in sites using the WIC model than for those using the

SNAP model, although in most cases there were statistically significant impacts for children in

both types of sites (Collins et al., 2013). For instance, relative to sites using the SNAP model,

impacts in WIC sites were twice as large for fruits and vegetables, four times as large for whole

grains, and three times as large for dairy.   

Relative to households receiving the $30 SEBTC benefit, the $60 benefit had no impact on

participation in nutrition programs or on where children ate lunch during the summer.   

6.4 Conclusion in Brief 

The findings from 2013 built on the body of evidence of the SEBTC’s impact from the two prior

years of the evaluation. In 2011 and 2012, the SEBTC demonstration and evaluation showed the

feasibility of the SEBTC approach in a variety of communities across the U.S. and the significant

and substantial impact of a $60 per child benefit in these communities on reducing VLFS‐C in

the summer. The study also showed that the $60 benefit amount improved some aspects of

children’s nutritional status.  In 2013, FNS added to this body of evidence by evaluating the

differential impact of a $60 per child per month benefit compared to the $30 benefit in six sites.

The 2013 evaluation did not find evidence that the higher benefit amount resulted in improved

levels of VLFS‐C overall.  The 2013 evaluation did show that the $60 SEBTC per child benefit,

relative to the $30 benefit led to greater improvements in all of the other measures of food

insecurity, in measures of households food expenditures, and most measures of child

nutritional status considered assessed by the study.  
References

Page 101 

References 

Baranowski T, Stables G. 2000. Process Evaluations of the 5‐a‐Day Projects. Health Education &

Behavior, 27(2), 157‐166.  

Bartfeld JS, Jeong‐Hee R, Lingling W. 2010. Local Characteristics are linked to Food Insecurity

among Households with Elementary School Children, Journal of Hunger & Environmental

Nutrition, 5:4, 471‐483.  

Bartlett S, Glantz F, Logan C. 2008. School Lunch and Breakfast Cost Study II, Final Report.

Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates Inc.  

Bartlett S, Olsho L, Patlan KL, Blocklin M, Klerman J, Connor P, Crawford P. (2013). Food and

Nutrition Service Evaluation of the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP): Final Evaluation

Report.  Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.  

Beaulac J, Kristjansson E, Cummins S. 2009. A Systematic Review of Food Deserts, 1966‐2007.

Preventing Chronic Disease, 6(3), A105.

Bellotti J, Collins A, Owens C, Cabili C, Logan C, Climaco C, Paxton N, Relich P, Patrabansh S.

2011. Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children: Early Experiences Through June 2011

of the Proof‐of‐Concept Year. Submitted to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and

Nutrition Service. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.

Brault, MW. 2012. Americans with disabilities: 2010. Current Population Reports, P70‐131.

Washington, DC: United States Census Bureau. Available at:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p70‐131.pdf  

Briefel R, Collins A, Bellotti J, Klerman J, Logan CW, Cabili C, Rowe G, Greece J, Owens C, Weiss

A. 2011. Congressional Status Report: Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children

Demonstrations. Submitted to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service.

Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.

Briefel R, Collins A, Rowe G, Wolf A, Klerman JA, Logan CW, Wulsin CS, Enver A, Owens C,

Jacobson J, Bell S. 2012. Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children (SEBTC)

Demonstration: 2012 Congressional Status Report. Submitted to the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.

Briefel R, Collins A, Rowe G, Wolf A, Lyskawa J, Logan CW, Klerman JA, Fatima S. 2014. Summer

Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children (SEBTC) Demonstration: 2013 Congressional Status

Report. Submitted to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service.

Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates
References 

Page 102 

Briefel RR, Dodd AH, Cabili C, Suitor CW. 2008. Application of adult‐based dietary guidelines to

children: Evidence, knowledge gaps and policy implications. Report to the U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services, Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. Washington, DC:

Mathematica Policy Research.  

Briefel RB, Wilson A, Gleason PM. 2009. Consumption of low‐nutrient, energy‐dense foods and

beverages at school, home, and other locations among school lunch participants and

nonparticipants. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 109 (1 suppl), S79‐S90.

Burstein NR, Price C, Rossi PH, Fox MK. 2004. Food Stamp Program. In MK Fox, W Hamilton, &

BH Lin (Eds.), Effects of food assistance and nutrition programs on nutrition and health: Vol. 3.

Literature review (Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Report No. 19‐3). Washington, DC:

Economic Research Service.

Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2013. What are

Added Sugars? Available at: http://www.choosemyplate.gov/weight‐management‐

calories/calories/added‐sugars.html .

Center on Hunger and Poverty. 2002, June. The Consequences of Hunger and Food Insecurity

for Children. Evidence from Recent Scientific Studies. Waltham, MA: Brandeis University.

Cole, Nancy and Mary Kay Fox. 2008. Diet Quality of American School‐Age Children by School

Lunch Participation Status: Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey,

1999‐2004. Report submitted to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition

Service. Cambridge MA: Abt Associates Inc.

Coleman‐Jensen A, Nord M, Singh A. 2013. Household Food Security in the United States in

2012. Economic Research Service Report No. 155. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service.

Coleman‐Jensen Al, Nord M, Andrews M, Carlson S. 2011. Household Food Security in the

United States in 2010. Economic Research Service Report No. 125. Washington, DC: Economic

Research Service.Collins A, Briefel R, Klerman JA, Bell S, Bellotti J, Logan CW, Gordon A, Wolf A,

Rowe G, McLaughlin SM, Enver A, Fernandes M, Wolfson C, Komarovksy M, Cabili C, Owens C.

2012. Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children (SEBTC) Demonstration: Evaluation

Findings for the Proof‐of‐ Concept Year. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition

Service.

Collins AM, Briefel R, Klerman JA, Rowe G, Wolf A, Logan CW, Gordon A, Wolfson C, Enver A, l

Owens C, Cabili C, Bell S. 2013. Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children (SEBTC)

Demonstration: Evaluation Findings for the Full Implementation Year.  

Feeding America. 2011. Kids Café. Available at: http://feedingamerica.org/how‐we‐fight‐

hunger/programs‐and‐services/child‐hunger.aspx.
References

Page 103 

Fernandes MM. 2012. Effect of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) on

frequency of beverage consumption among youth in the United States. Journal of the Academy

of Nutrition and Dietetics, 112(8), 1241‐1246.

Finney Rutten LJ, Yaroch AL, Colon‐Ramos U, Johnson‐Askew W, Story M. 2010. Poverty, food

insecurity, and obesity: A conceptual framework for research, practice, and policy. Journal of

Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 5(4), 403‐415.

Food and Nutrition Service. 1994. The Evaluation of Maryland EBT Demonstration: Final Results.

Available at:  

http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/Published/snap/FILES/ProgramOperations/MarylandEBT_

Summary.pdf  

Food and Nutrition Service. 2006. Analysis of Summer Food Service Program and Food Needs of

Nonparticipating Children: Final Report. Special Nutrition Programs Report No. CN‐06‐SFSP.

Available at: http://www.fns.usda.gov/Ora/menu/Published/CNP/FILES/SFSPFoodNeeds.pdf.

Food and Nutrition Service. 2007. Report to Congress: USDA’s Simplified Summer Food Program

2001—2006 Summary. Available at:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/Published/CNP/FILES/SimplifiedSummerSummary.pdf.

Food and Nutrition Service. 2008. Food Stamp Electronic Benefit Transfer Systems. A Report to

Congress. Alexandria, VA: Food and Nutrition Service.

Food and Nutrition Service. 2010a. Request for Application. Summer Electronic Benefits

Transfer for Children (SEBTC). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Model.  

Summer 2011 Demonstrations. Available at:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/DemoProjects/SummerFood/2011/SEBTCSNAPModel_RFA

.pdf.  

Food and Nutrition Service. 2010b. Request for Application. Summer Electronic Benefits

Transfer for Children (SEBTC). Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and

Children (WIC) Model. Summer 2011 Demonstrations. Available at

http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/DemoProjects/SummerFood/2011/SEBTCWICModel_RFA.

pdf

Food and Nutrition Service. 2011a. Evaluation of the 14 State Summer Food Service Program

Pilot Project. Available at: http://www.fns.usda.gov/Ora/menu/Published/CNP/FILES/SFSPPilot.

pdf.

Food and Nutrition Service. 2011b. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation

and Costs. Available at: http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm.

Food and Nutrition Service. 2012. Summary of Evaluation of 2011 Enhanced Summer Food

Service Program Demonstrations. Available at:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/Ora/menu/Published/CNP/FILES/eSFSP_2011Demo_Summary.pdf  
References 

Page 104 

Food and Nutrition Service. 2013a. National School Lunch Program. Available at:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/slp

Food and Nutrition Service. 2013b. School Breakfast Program. Available at:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/sbp

Food and Nutrition Service. 2013c. Summer Food Service Program. Available at:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/summer‐food‐service‐program‐sfsp.

Food and Nutrition Service. 2013d. Summer Food for Children Demonstrations. Available at:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/Ora/menu/DemoProjects/SummerFood/Default.htm

FNS Personal Communication, M Kirk‐Epstein to R Briefel and A Collins, August 2013

Food Research and Action Center. 2011. Hunger Doesn’t Take A Vacation. Available at:

http://frac.org/pdf/summer_report_2011.pdf.

Food Research and Action Center. 2013a. Summer Meals Reaching Fewer Low‐Income Children.

http://frac.org/federal‐foodnutrition‐programs/summer‐programs/  

Food Research and Action Center. 2013b. Hunger Doesn't Take a Vacation: Summer Nutrition

Status Report 2013. Available at: http://frac.org/pdf/2013_summer_nutrition_report.pdf

Fox MK, Hanson C, Briefel RR. 2007. Nutrition Education Research Brief: Message Framing, Use

of Interactive Technology to Tailor Messages, and Intervention Intensity. Washington, DC:

Mathematica Policy Research.

Fox MK, Hamilton W, Lin B‐H. 2004. Effects of Food Assistance and Nutrition Programs on

Nutrition and Health: Volume 3, Literature Review (Food Assistance and Nutrition Research

Report No. FANRR19‐3). Washington, DC: Economic Research Service.

Fraker T. 1990. The Effects of Food Stamps on Food Consumption: A Review of the Literature.

Washington, DC: USDA, Food and Nutrition Service.

Fraker TM, Long SK, Post CE. 1990. Analyses of the 1985 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by

Individuals. Volume I, Estimating Usual Dietary Intake, Assessing Dietary Adequacy, and

Estimating Program Effects: Applications of Three Advanced Methodologies Using FNS's Four‐

Day Analysis File. Alexandria, VA: USDA, Food and Nutrition Service.

French, SA, Stables G. 2003. Environmental Interventions to Promote Vegetable and Fruit

Consumption among Youth in School Settings. Preventive Medicine, 37(6, pt. 1), 593‐610.  

Geller DM, Harrington M, Vinokurov A, et al. National Survey of WIC Participants II. Volume 2:

State and Local Agencies (Final Report) April 2012.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/Ora/menu/Published/WIC/FILES/NSWP‐II_Vol2.pdf  
References

Page 105 

Gordon A, Briefel R. 2003. Feeding Low‐income Children When School is Out. The Summer Food

Service Program: Executive Summary. Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Report, no. 30.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

Gordon A, Briefel R. 2004. Feeding Low‐income Children When School is Out. The Summer Food

Service Program: Executive Summary. Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Report, no. 30.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

Gortmaker S, Long M, Wang YC. The Negative Impact of Sugar‐Sweetened Beverages on

Children’s Health. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Research Synthesis; 2009. Robert Wood

Johnson Foundation website.

http://www.healthyeatingresearch.org/images/stories/her_research_briefs/her_ssb_synthesis

_091116.pdf. Accessed May 18, 2012.

Groves RM. 2006. Nonresponse rates and nonresponse error in household surveys. Public

Opinion Quarterly, 70, 646–75.  

Hanson K. 2010. The Food Assistance National Input‐Output Multiplier (FANIOM) Model and

Stimulus Effects of SNAP. Report ERR‐103. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research

Service. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err‐economic‐research‐

report/err103.aspx.

Hoisington A, Schultz JA, Butkus S. 2006. Coping strategies and nutrition education needs

among food pantry users. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 34, 326‐333.  

Hoynes HW, Schanzenbach DW. 2010. Work Incentives and the Food Stamp Program (NBER

Working Paper No. 16198). Available at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w16198.  

Institute of Medicine. 2011. Hunger and Obesity: Understanding a Food Insecurity Paradigm—

Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.  

Izrael D, Battaglia M, Frankel M. 2009a. Extreme Survey Weight Adjustment as a Component of

Sample Balancing (a.k.a. Raking). Presented at the 2009 SAS Global Forum. Available at:

http://www.abtassociates.com/Page.cfm?PageID=40858&FamilyID=8600http://www.abtassoci

ates.com/Page.cfm?PageID=40858&FamilyID=8600.

Izrael D, Battaglia M, Frankel M. 2009b. Raking Survey Data.  Available at:

http://abtassociates.com/Expertise/Surveys‐and‐Data‐Collection/Raking‐Survey‐Data‐(a‐k‐a‐‐

Sample‐Balancing).aspx

Kempson K, Keenan DP, Sadani PS, Adler A. 2003. Maintaining food sufficiency: Coping

strategies identified by limited‐resource individuals versus nutrition educators. Journal of

Nutrition Education and Behavior, 35, 170‐188.

Logan C, Klerman JA. 2008. Feasibility of Assessing Causes of State Variation in Food Stamp

Program Administrative Costs. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.
References 

Page 106 

Mabli J, Cohen R, Potter F, Zhao Z. 2010. Hunger in America 2010: National report prepared for

Feeding America. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.

Maddala GS. 1986. Limited‐Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge

University Press.

Malik V, Schulze M, Hu F.2006. Intake of Sugar‐sweetened Beverages and Weight Gain: A

Systematic Review. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 84(2), 274–288.

Meyerhoefer CD, Yang M. 2011. The relationship between food assistance and health: A review

of the literature and empirical strategies for identifying program effects. Applied Economic

Perspectives and Policy, 33(3), 304‐344. First published online August 11, 2011,

doi:10.1093/aepp/ppr02.  

Moffitt R.  1989.  Estimating the Value of an In‐Kind Transfer: The Case of Food Stamps

Econometrica, 57(2), 385‐409.

National Cancer Institute. 2009. Dietary factors & food items included in the Multifactor Diet

Screener in NHANES 2009‐10. Available at:

http://riskfactor.cancer.gov/studies/nhanes/relationship.html.  

National Center for Education Statistics. 2012. Common Core of Data [Interactive database].

Washington, DC: Author. Available at: http://nces.ed.gov/  

Newby PK. 2007. Are dietary intakes and eating behaviors related to childhood obesity? A

comprehensive review of the evidence. Journal of Law, Medicine, & Ethics, 35(1), 35‐60.

Nord M, Prell M. 2011.  Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP

Benefits. Report ERR‐116. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

Nord M, Romig K. 2006. Hunger in the summer: Seasonal food insecurity and the National

School Lunch and Summer Food Service Programs. Journal of Children and Poverty 12(2):,141‐

158.

Nord M. 2009. Food Insecurity in Households with Children: Prevalence, Severity, and

Household Characteristics (EIB‐56).  Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic

Research Service.

Nord M. 2011. Psychometric Assessment of Food Security Response Data in the SEBTC Study.

Working Paper. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

Pereira M. 2006. The Possible Role of Sugar‐sweetened Beverages in Obesity Etiology: A Review

of the Evidence. International Journal of Obesity, 30(S3), S28‐S36.
References

Page 107 

Peter Z. Schochet.  2008.  Statistical power for random assignment evaluations of education

programs.  Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 33, 62‐87. First published on

October 22, 2007. doi:10.3102/1076998607302714

Ponza M, Gleason P, Grau E, Hall J, Hulsey L, Moore Q. 2007. NSLP/SBP Access, Participation,

Eligibility, and Certification Study. Erroneous Payments in the NSLP and SBP Volume II: Sampling

and Data Analysis Appendices, Final Report. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Potamites E, Gordon A. 2010. Children’s Food Security and Intakes from School Meals.

Contractor and Cooperator Report No. 61. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Economic Research Service.

Reedy J, Krebs‐Smith S. 2010. Dietary Sources of energy, solid fats, and added sugars among

children and adolescents in the United States. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 110,

1477‐1484.

Reynolds KD, Franklin, FA, Binkley D, Raczynski JM, Harrington, KF, Kirk KA, Person S.2000.

Increasing the fruit and vegetable consumption of fourth‐graders: Results from the High 5

Project. Preventive Medicine, 30(4), 309‐319.

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. 2009. The Negative Impact of Sugar‐Sweetened Beverages

on Children’s Health.  Available at: http://www.rwjf.org/en/research‐publications/find‐rwjf‐

research/2009/11/the‐negative‐impact‐of‐sugar‐sweetened‐beverages‐on‐children‐s‐h.html.  

Schochet PZ. 2008. Guidelines for testing in impact evaluations of educational interventions.

Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.  

Schochet PZ. 2009. An approach for addressing the multiple testing problem in social policy

impact evaluations. Evaluation Review, 33(6), 537‐567.

Southworth HM.  1945. The Economics of Public Measures to Subsidize Food Consumption.

Journal of Farm Economics, 27, 38‐66.

Taveras EM, Gillman MW, Kleinman K, Rich‐Edwards JW, Rifas‐Shiman SL. 2010. Racial/ethnic

differences in early‐life risk factors for childhood obesity. Pediatrics, 125, 686‐685.

The American Association for Public Opinion Research. 2011. Standard Definitions: Final

Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. 7th edition. Deerfield, IL: Author.

Trippe CS, Ewell D. 2007. An Analysis of Cash Food Expenditures of Food Stamp Households.

Report to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Washington, DC:

Mathematica Policy Research.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2012.  Current Population Survey, 2011 Annual Social and Economic

Supplement. Table POV07: Families With Related Children Under 18 by Number of Working

Family Members and Family Structure: 2010. Available at:
References 

Page 108 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032011/pov/new07_100_01.htm. Retrieved

April 26, 2012.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Food Policy and Promotion. 2013. USDA Food

Patterns. Available at: http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/USDAFoodPatterns.htm  

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Economic Research Service. 2013a.

Food Security in the U.S. Survey Tools. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food‐

nutrition‐assistance/food‐security‐in‐the‐us/survey‐tools.aspx.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2010. Dietary

Guidelines for Americans, 2010. 7

th Edition, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Vartanian L, Schwartz M, Brownell K. 2007. Effects of Soft Drink Consumption on Nutrition and

Health: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis. American Journal of Public Health, 97(4), 667–

675.

Ver Ploeg M, Breneman V, Farrigan T, Hamrick K, Hopkins D, Kaufman P, et al. 2009. Report to

Congress: Access to affordable and nutritious food: Measuring and understanding food deserts

and their consequences. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research

Service.

Walker R, Keane CR, Burke, JG. 2010. Disparities and access to healthy food in the United

States: A review of food deserts literature. Health & Place, 16, 876‐84.

Wauchope B, Stracuzzi N. 2010. Challenges in Serving Rural American Children through the

Summer Food Service Program. Carsey Issue Brief No. 13.  

Webber CB, Rojhani A. 2010. Food or Fuel: Rising Gasoline Prices and Food Access Among WIC

Families in Non‐Metropolitan Southwest Michigan, Journal of Hunger & Environmental

Nutrition, 5:4, 484‐497.

Wilde PE, Troy LM, Rogers BL. 2009. Food Stamps and Food Spending: An Engel Function

Approach. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91(2), 416‐430. Available at SSRN:

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1375799.  

Wolter KM. 1985.  Introduction to Variance Estimation. New York: Springer‐Verlag.Wolter KM.

2007. Introduction to Variance Estimation, 2nd Edition. New York: Springer.
Appendix 1

Page 1 

Appendix 1 

SEBTC Food Package in Sites 

Implementing the WIC Model 
Appendix 1 

Page 2 

1A.1 Standard SEBTC WIC Food Package 

Exhibit 1A.1 shows the resulting SEBTC WIC food package and compares the food items with

the standard WIC package issued to children between ages. Using Nielsen national price data

for 2012, the standard food package was valued at $53.00 for $60 benefit households and

$26.57 for $30 benefit households.  

Exhibit 1A.1   SEBTC Food Package in Sites Implementing the WIC Model

Substitute or

Food

Subgroup

WIC Package

for 1‐4 Year Olds $60 SEBTC Package $30 SEBTC Package

WIC Food Group Quantity Unit Quantity Unit Quantity Unit

Juice (100%) 128 Oz 64 Oz 0  ‐‐

Milk, low fat/nonfat 13 Qt 12 Qt 12 Qt

Cheese 1 Lb 1 Lb 0  ‐‐

Cereal, all 36 Oz 36 Oz 18 Oz

Eggs 1 Doz 1 Doz 1 Doz

Cash Value Voucher 6 $ 16 $ 8 $

Bread, whole wheat 2 Lb 3 Lb 1 Lb

Beans, dry 0.33 Lb 0.50 Lb 0.25 Lb

Bean, canned 21 Oz 32 Oz 16 Oz

Peanut Butter 6 Oz 18 Oz 9 Oz

Canned fish, all 0 ‐‐ 18 Oz 0  ‐‐

WIC Food Group

Substitutes or  

Food Subgroups

FY 2011 Food Package

Cost in Dollars ($)

FY 2012 SEBTC  

$60 Food Package  

Cost in Dollars ($)

FY 2012 SEBTC  

$30 Food Package  

Cost in Dollars ($)

Juice (100%) 7.47 2.37 ‐‐

Milk, low fat/nonfat 12.14 9.60 9.60

Cheese 4.53 3.83 ‐‐

Cereal, all 7.77 6.20 3.10

Eggs 1.55 1.47 1.47

Cash Value Voucher 6.00 16.00 8.00

Bread, whole wheat 4.43 5.40 1.80

Beans, dry 0.51 0.67 0.33

Bean, canned 1.52 1.80 0.90

Peanut Butter 0.87 2.72 1.36

Canned fish, all 0.00 2.93 ‐‐

$46.81 $53.00 $26.57

Source:   Provided by the USDA, FNS for FY2011 in December 2010, and revised for FY2012 in January 2013.

Note:   Cash voucher is for fruits and vegetables. Totals may not equal the sum of the individual items due to rounding of the

cost of individual items.   

 
Appendix 1

Page 3 

1A.2 Site-Level Costs of the SEBTC WIC Food Package 

Exhibits 1A.2 to 1A.5 present supplementary information on the costs per unit issued for each

food category in each WIC‐model site. The WIC issuance data provided by the sites did not

provide the dollar value of benefits. The evaluation team imputed the value of benefits issued

for each food category using the average cost per unit based on total quantity and dollars

redeemed from the redemption data for that month in each site. The overall unit costs for the

summer, shown here, are the unweighted averages of the unit costs in each of the three

months.  
Appendix 1 

Page 4 

Exhibit 1A.2 Average Costs of WIC Food Package, Chickasaw Nation, 2013

Category Description Unit

Cost Per

Unit

$30 Benefit Group $60 Benefit Gro

Units Per

Child

Cost Per

Category

Units Per

Child

Cos

Cate

1 Milk: skim, 1/2%, 1%, 2% Gal $4.00 3 $12.01 3 $122 Cheese Lb $4.44 1 $43 Eggs Dozen $1.72 1 $1.72 1 $14 Juice 64‐oz bottle/equivalent Container $3.00 1 $35 Cereal Oz $0.22 18 $3.98 36 $76 Dry/canned beans & peanut butter Unit $2.34 1 $2.34 2 $48 Tuna/salmon Oz $0.21 18 $316 Bread/tortillas/rice/oatmeal Lb $2.71 1 $2.71 3 $819 Fruits/vegetables Dollar $1.00 8 $8.00 16 $16

Total Value of Food Package $30.76 61

Source: EBT redemption data from Chickasaw SETBC participants, 2013Exhibit 1A.3 Average Costs of WIC Food Package, Detroit, 2013

Category Description Unit

Cost Per

Unit

$30 Benefit Group $60 Benefit Gr

Units Per

Child

Cost Per

Category

Units Per

Child

Cos

Cate

1 Milk: skim, 1/2%, 1%, 2% Gal $3.61 3 $10.84 3 $12 Cheese Lb $6.20 1 $63 Eggs Dozen $1.72 1 $1.72 1 $14 Juice 64‐oz bottle/equivalent Container $3.78 1 $35 Cereal Oz $0.31 18 $5.59 36 $16 Dry/canned beans & peanut butter Unit $3.26 1 $3.26 2 $68 Tuna/salmon Oz $0.25 15 $316 Bread/tortillas/rice/oatmeal Lb $2.80 1 $2.80 3 $819 Fruits/vegetables Dollar $1.00 8 $8.00 16 $1

Total Value of Food Package $32.21 $6

Source: EBT redemption data from Detroit SETBC participants, 2013
Exhibit 1A.4 Average Costs of WIC Food Package, Grand Rapids/Kentwood, 2013

Category Description Unit

Cost Per

Unit

$30 Benefit Group $60 Benefit Gr

Units Per

Child

Cost Per

Category

Units Per

Child

Cos

Cate

1 Milk: skim, 1/2%, 1%, 2% Gal $3.16 3 $9.47 3 $92 Cheese Lb $5.74 1 $53 Eggs Dozen $1.64 1 $1.64 1 $14 Juice 64‐oz bottle/equivalent Container $3.45 1 $35 Cereal Oz $0.25 18 $4.44 36 $86 Dry/canned beans & peanut butter Unit $2.55 1 $2.55 2 $58 Tuna/salmon Oz $0.21 15 $316 Bread/tortillas/rice/oatmeal Lb $2.62 1 $2.62 3 $719 Fruits/vegetables Dollar $1.00 8 $8.00 16 $1

Total Value of Food Package $28.72 $6

Source: EBT redemption data from Grand Rapids/Kentwood SETBC participants, 2013Exhibit 1A.5 Average Costs of WIC Food Package, Mid‐Michigan, 2013

Category Description Unit

Cost Per

Unit

$30 Benefit Group $60 Benefit Gr

Units Per

Child

Cost Per

Category

Units Per

Child

Cos

Cate

1 Milk: skim, 1/2%, 1%, 2% Gal $2.98 3 $8.93 3 $82 Cheese Lb $5.67 1 $53 Eggs Dozen $1.63 1 $1.63 1 $14 Juice 64‐oz bottle/equivalent Container $3.14 1 $35 Cereal Oz $0.22 18 $3.88 36 $76 Dry/canned beans & peanut butter Unit $2.64 1 $2.64 2 $58 Tuna/salmon Oz $0.20 15 $316 Bread/tortillas/rice/oatmeal Lb $2.67 1 $2.67 3 $819 Fruits/vegetables Dollar $1.00 8 $8.00 16 $1

Total Value of Food Package $27.75 $5

Source: EBT redemption data from Mid‐Michigan SETBC participants, 2013

Appendix 2 

Page 7 

Appendix 2 

Site Maps for 2013 Implementation 

Year 

 
Appendix 2 

Page 8 

List of Site Maps 

2.1 Demonstration Area in Indian Tribal Organization in Oklahoma, 2013  

2.1.1 School Districts (SDs) Participating in the Demonstration in Chickasaw Nation,

2013   

2.2 School Districts (SDs) Participating in the Demonstration in Delaware, 2013  

2.3 Demonstration Areas in Michigan, 2013

2.3.1 Detroit, 2013

2.3.2 Grand Rapids/Kentwood, 2013  

2.3.3 Mid‐Michigan, 2013  

2.4 Demonstration Area in Oregon, 2013

2.4.1 Portland, 2013    

Source: 2013 Census Bureau School District Boundaries, available http://www.census.gov/geo/maps‐data/data/tiger‐line.html

Note: The areas on these maps are appropriately identified as School Districts (SDs) rather than School Food Authorities

(SFAs). This report uses SFAs to identify demonstration areas throughout most of the text; not all school districts that

participated in the demonstration are SFAs.

 
Appendix 2 

Page 9 

Exhibit 2.1 Demonstration Areas in Indian Tribal Organization in Oklahoma, 2013 
Appendix 2 

Page 10 

Exhibit 2.1.1 School Districts (SDs) Participating in the Demonstration in Chickasaw Nation, 

2013 
Appendix 2 

Page 11 

Exhibit 2.2 School Districts (SDs) Participating in the Demonstration in Delaware, 2013 
Appendix 2 

Page 12 

Exhibit 2.3 Demonstration Areas in Michigan, 2013 
Appendix 2 

Page 13 

Exhibit 2.3.1 Detroit SD Participating in Michigan, 2013 

 
Appendix 2 

Page 14 

 Exhibit 2.3.2 School Districts (SDs) Participating in the Grand Rapids/Kentwood Site, 2013 

 
Appendix 2 

Page 15 

Exhibit 2.3.3 School Districts (SDs) Participating in the Mid-Michigan Site, 2013 

 
Appendix 2 

Page 16 

Exhibit 2.4 Demonstration Area in Oregon, 2013 

 
Appendix 2 

Page 17 

Exhibit 2.4.1 School Districts (SDs) Participating in the Portland Site, 2013 

Appendix 3A 

Page 1 

Appendix 3A 

File Creation for EBT Outcomes 

Analysis 

This appendix supplements the discussion of EBT data in Chapter 3 by providing additional

details on the creation of household‐level analysis files from SEBTC transaction data and

household survey data. The following section discusses checks that were performed during the

process of creating EBT household‐level files to ensure the accuracy of created variables.

Section 3A.2 provides details on benefit exhaustion thresholds in the WIC sites that were used

to determine whether a household had exhausted their SEBTC benefits. Section 3A.3 provides

an overview of how evaluation households that were not issued benefits were dealt with in the

EBT outcomes analysis.  

3A.1 Data Checks on EBT Household-level Analysis File 

Creation 

Various data checks were performed during the process of aggregating transaction records to

monthly issuance and purchase amounts for each evaluation household. The raw SEBTC

transaction data were checked for missing information and inconsistencies, and the created

household‐level variables were checked for consistency with the transaction data and random

assignment information. The main checks are described below.

For the WIC‐model sites, the issuance data were checked to confirm that the quantity issued

per household was consistent with the household’s assigned benefit package. WIC SEBTC data

contained child‐level records for each food item issued. The evaluation team checked whether

the issuance amounts per child matched the household’s assigned benefit group. For cases with

discrepancies between the issuance data and assigned benefit group, further investigation

determined whether children in the same household were assigned to different benefit groups.

Only a handful of households in Chickasaw Nation and Michigan received an incorrect or mixed

package. Fifteen households in Chickasaw Nation and three households in the Michigan sites

received the wrong benefit package. That is, they were either assigned the $30 package and

received $60 per child, or vice versa. Also, 13 households in Michigan received a mix of the $30

and $60 package.

Similar checks to confirm that households were issued the correct benefit package could not be

performed in the SNAP sites, because the data did not provide child‐level issuance information

or the number of children in each household. Moreover, site update information on the

number of children receiving benefit was not always sufficient or consistent with the SEBTC

issuance data.  
Appendix 3A

Page 2 

In addition, constructed variables for monthly net available benefit and redemption amounts

per household were checked for accuracy in the SNAP sites. The calculated account balance

(difference between net benefits and net redemptions) was compared to the account balance

from the raw data after the last transaction of the monthly benefit cycle. If balances did not

match, the transaction data were investigated for missing records or records where the

settlement time may have been after the transaction time at the end of the cycle.

3A.2 Benefit Exhaustion Thresholds in WIC-Model Sites 

Exhibit 3A.1 provides the minimum remaining quantities in SEBTC‐WIC accounts used in the

analysis determining when households exhausted their SEBTC‐WIC benefits for the month. For

each site and each food category, the amount listed in the table is the minimum quantity that

participants could purchase with their benefits, based on the approved foods list. For example,

the minimum amount of tuna or salmon that a participant could buy was 3.75 ounces in

Chickasaw but 5 ounces in Michigan. These minimum purchase amounts were determined by

examining the State’s WIC food list and the observed purchase amounts. If a participant had

less than the minimum purchase amount for a food category remaining in their SEBTC account

before the end of the month, that participant was determined to have exhausted benefits for

that category. Participants who exhausted benefits for every category in a month were

determined to have exhausted all of their benefits for the month.

Exhibit 3A.1 Minimum Remaining Food Quantities in SEBTC‐WIC Accounts for Benefit Exhaustion Analysis

Minimum Remaining Units per Site

Food Category Unit Type Chickasaw

Michigan—

Detroit

Michigan—

Grand Rapids

/Kentwood

Mid‐

Michigan

Milk: skim, 1/2%, 1%, 2% Gal 0.18 1 1 1

Cheese Lb 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Eggs Dozen 1 1 1 1

Juice 64‐oz bottle/

equivalent Container 1 1 1 1

Cereal Oz 7 11 11 11

Dry/canned beans &

peanut butter Unit 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

Tuna/salmon Oz 3.75 5 5 5

Bread/tortillas/rice/

oatmeal Lb 0.8 1 1 1

Fruits/vegetables Dollar 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Sources: State WIC Food Lists and SEBTC WIC transaction data, 2013.

3A.3 Evaluation Households that were not Issued 

Benefits 

Some households assigned to receive the SEBTC benefit were never issued a benefit in any

month of the summer. Instead of being dropped from the EBT outcomes analysis, these
Appendix 3A 

Page 3 

households were treated as nonparticipants, and having redeemed 0 percent of their assigned

benefit. Table 3A.3 shows the number of evaluation households that were not issued an SEBTC

benefit. The number of evaluation households that did not receive an SEBTC benefit was

greatest in Delaware (108 in the $60 benefit group, and 13 in the $30 group). Only one to two

households in the individual WIC sites were not issued any benefit.

Exhibit 3A.3 Number of Evaluation Households that were Not Issued an SEBTC Benefit, by Site

Number of Evaluation Households

Site $60 Benefit $30 Benefit

Chickasaw 0 2

Delaware State 108 13

Michigan      

Detroit 1 0

Grand Rapids/Kentwood 1 1

Mid‐Michigan 0 2

Portland, Oregon 12 12

All Sites 122 30

Sources: SEBTC transaction data and spring/summer survey data, 2013.

Appendix 3B 

Page 1 

Appendix 3B 

Supplementary Descriptive 

Analysis Tables 

This appendix provides supplementary tables with descriptive information on SEBTC benefit

use.

Exhibit 3B.1   Exhaustion of Entire SEBTC Benefit by Site, Summer 2013

Site Benefit Type

Exhausted Entire SEBTC Benefit

# % Households

Chickasaw Nation $60 10 0.3%

$30 43 1.1%

Delaware State $60 1,015 27.2%

$30 937 25.2%

Michigan

Detroit $60 40 1.1%

$30 104 2.8%

Grand Rapids/ Kentwood $60 46 1.2%

$30 42 1.1%

Mid‐Michigan $60 78 2.1%

$30 168 4.5%

Portland, Oregon $60 3,286 88.2%

$30 3,294 88.4%

All Sites   $60 4,475 20.0%

$30 4,588 20.5%

Source: SEBTC transaction data (weighted) for summer survey respondents, 2013.
Appendix 3B

Page 2 

Exhibit 3B.2a Percentage of Benefits Redeemed by Households Redeeming Within Each Food Category, $60

Food Package, 2013

Food Type

Chickasaw

Nation Detroit

Grand

Rapids/

Kentwood

Mid‐

Michigan

All WIC

Sites

$60 Food Package

Percentage of Benefits Redeemed

Milk: skim, 1/2%, 1%, 2% 78.2% 76.0% 76.9% 86.6% 79.2%

Cheese 84.3% 82.1% 80.0% 90.3% 84.2%

Eggs 84.6% 85.4% 84.9% 91.7% 86.6%

Juice 64 oz bottle/equivalent 83.5% 86.6% 84.4% 92.3% 86.7%

Cereal 71.5% 74.0% 72.4% 81.8% 74.8%

Dry/canned beans and peanut

butter 63.4% 63.5% 64.8% 81.2% 68.3%

Tuna/salmon 73.9% 76.3% 73.8% 87.3% 77.7%

Bread/tortillas/rice/oatmeal 66.8% 57.6% 52.3% 62.2% 60.0%

Fruits/vegetables 76.1% 80.4% 80.6% 86.4% 80.9%

Total 74.9% 74.8% 74.2% 83.4% 76.7%

Note: Percentages of benefits redeemed are based on total redemptions divided by total benefits for households that

redeemed that food item.  

Source: SEBTC transaction data (weighted) for summer survey respondents, 2013.

Exhibit 3B.2b   Percentage of Benefits Redeemed by Households Redeeming Within Each Food Category, $30

Food Package, 2013

Food Type

Chickasaw

Nation Detroit

Grand

Rapids/

Kentwood

Mid‐

Michigan

All WIC

Sites

$30 Food Package

Percentage of Benefits Redeemed

Milk: skim, 1/2%, 1%, 2% 76.5% 69.9% 72.1% 83.0% 75.2%

Eggs 84.1% 79.4% 80.4% 87.8% 83.0%

Cereal 73.7% 72.0% 70.4% 79.5% 73.7%

Dry/canned beans and peanut

butter 65.8% 64.2% 64.0% 79.9% 68.6%

Bread/tortillas/rice/oatmeal 75.5% 79.4% 68.5% 81.7% 76.6%

Fruits/vegetables 76.7% 76.5% 78.5% 86.2% 79.5%

Total 75.7% 72.8% 73.3% 83.2% 76.2%

Note: Percentages of benefits redeemed are based on total redemptions divided by total benefits for households that

redeemed that food item.  

Source: SEBTC transaction data (weighted) for summer survey respondents, 2013.
Appendix 3C 

Page 1 

Appendix 3C 

Supplementary EBT Outcomes 

Results 
Appendix 3C

Page 2 

Exhibit 3C.1   Estimated Impact of $60 Relative to $30 on Participation Rate by Subgroup, Summer 2013

Subgroup n

$60 Group

Participation

Rate

$30 Group

Participation

Rate

Difference

($60‐$30) SE p‐value

VLFS‐C at Baseline

Not VLFS‐C at baseline 17,209 91.0 89.7 1.3** 0.41 0.001

VLFS‐C at baseline 1,368 93.1 91.3 1.8 1.78 0.323

Difference 18,577 2.1 1.7 0.4 1.88 0.818

FI‐C at Baseline

Not FI‐C at baseline 10,697 90.9 88.6 2.3*** 0.8 0.004

FI‐C at baseline 7,880 91.5 91.5 0.0 0.75 0.994

Difference 18,577 0.6 2.9 ‐2.3* 1.33 0.083

Poverty

Not below 100% FPL 4,996 92.8 92.2 0.6 0.88 0.476

Below 100% FPL 13,271 90.5 88.9 1.6*** 0.57 0.005

Difference 18,267  ‐2.3 ‐3.3 1.0 1.23 0.431

Participation in SNAP in Spring

Received SNAP in spring 12,547 92.2 90.1 2.1*** 0.49 <.001

Does not receive SNAP 6,030 88.9 89.1 ‐0.2 1.00 0.828

Difference 18,577 3.3 1.0 2.3* 1.23 0.059

Number of Children in Household (HH)

3 or more children in HH 7,444 91.3 91.2 0.2 0.67 0.811

2 or fewer children 11,134 91.0 88.8 2.2*** 0.64 0.001

Difference 18,578  ‐0.3 ‐2.3 2.1* 1.08 0.058

Presence of Adolescent in Household

No adolescent in HH 9,377 88.9 87.1 1.8* 1.05 0.085

Adolescent in HH 9,200 93.7 92.8 0.9 0.64 0.178

Difference 18,577 4.8 5.7 ‐1.0 1.59 0.547

Race/Ethnicity

Black 5,106 92.7 90.1 2.6*** 0.89 0.004

Hispanic 3,633 87.9 87.6 0.3 1.26 0.818

White/Other 9,681 91.4 90.3 1.1 0.92 0.223

Black v White/Other 1.3 ‐0.1 1.5 1.60 0.360

Hispanic v White/Other ‐3.5 ‐2.7 ‐0.8 1.64 0.610

Hispanic v Black   ‐4.8 ‐2.5 ‐2.3 1.88 0.224

Sources:  SEBTC and spring survey data (weighted), 2013.  

Test that $30/$60 difference varies by race:  χ2=2.187, df=2, p=.335

*p<.10, **p<.05, ***p<.01.
Appendix 3C 

Page 3 

Exhibit 3C.2   Estimated Impact of $60 Relative to $30 on the Benefit Redemption Rate by Subgroup, Summer

2013

Subgroup n

$60 Group

Percent of

Benefits

Redeemed

$30 Group

Percent of

Benefits

Redeemed

Difference

($60‐$30) SE p‐value

VLFS‐C at Baseline

Not VLFS‐C at baseline 17,209 74.3 72.3 2.0*** 0.51 <0.001

VLFS‐C at baseline 1,368 78.0 75.5 2.5 1.67 0.129

Difference 18,577 3.7 3.2 0.5 1.74 0.765

FI‐C at Baseline

Not FI‐C at baseline 10,697 73.1 70.4 2.7*** 0.77 0.001

FI‐C at baseline 7,880 76.6 75.5 1.1 0.69 0.107

Difference 18,577 3.5 5.0 ‐1.6 1.08 0.144

Poverty

Not below 100% FPL 4,996 78.6 77.4 1.2 0.91 0.173

Below 100% FPL 13,271 73.1 70.8 2.3*** 0.63 <0.001

Difference 18,267  ‐5.5 ‐6.6 1.1 1.19 0.364

Participation in SNAP in Spring

Received SNAP in spring 12,547 75.0 72.1 2.9*** 0.53 <.001

Does not receive SNAP 6,030 73.6 73.4 0.2 1.07 0.850

Difference 18,577 1.4 ‐1.4 2.7** 1.21 0.024

Number of Children in Household (HH)

3 or more children in HH 7,444 75.2 73.9 1.3 0.77 0.106

2 or fewer children 11,134 74.1 71.5 2.6*** 0.61 <.001

Difference 18,578  ‐1.0 ‐2.4 1.4 0.97 0.159

Presence of Adolescent in Household

No adolescent in HH 9,377 69.7 67.8 1.9* 0.99 0.056

Adolescent in HH 9,200 80.1 77.8 2.2*** 0.67 0.001

Difference 18,577 10.4 10.0 0.3 1.41 0.815

Race/Ethnicity

Black 5,106 71.8 68.7 3.2*** 0.88 <0.001

Hispanic 3,633 73.5 72.8 0.7 1.33 0.596

White/Other 9,681 76.2 74.2 2.0** 0.88 0.026

Black v White/Other   ‐4.3 ‐5.5 1.2 1.48 0.419

Hispanic v White/Other   ‐2.6 ‐1.4 ‐1.3 1.46 0.389

Hispanic v Black   1.7 4.2 ‐2.5 1.89 0.195

Sources:  SEBTC and spring survey data (weighted), 2013.  

Test that $30/$60 difference varies by race:  F‐value=0.846, df=2, p=.431

*p<.10, **p<.05, ***p<.01.
Appendix 3C

Page 4 

Exhibit 3C.3   Estimated Impact of $60 Relative to $30 on the Benefit Exhaustion Rate by Subgroup, Summer

2013

Subgroup n

$60 Group

Benefit

Exhaustion

Rate

$30 Group

Benefit

Exhaustion

Rate

Difference

($60‐$30) SE p‐value

VLFS‐C at Baseline

Not VLFS‐C at baseline 17,209 36.1 43.0 ‐6.9*** 0.71 <.001

VLFS‐C at baseline 1,368 38.7 49.3 ‐10.6*** 2.8 <.001

Difference 18,577 2.6 6.3 ‐3.7 2.59 0.155

FI‐C at Baseline

Not FI‐C at baseline 10,697 33.9 40.7 ‐6.7*** 0.77 <.001

FI‐C at baseline 7,880 39.7 47.5 ‐7.9*** 1.22 <.001

Difference 18,577 5.7 6.9 ‐1.1 1.31 0.395

Poverty

Not below 100% FPL 4,996 43.8 52.2 ‐8.3*** 1.79 <.001

Below 100% FPL 13,271 33.8 40.4 ‐6.6*** 0.74 <.001

Difference 18,267  ‐10.1 ‐11.8 1.7 1.83 0.356

Participation in SNAP in Spring

Received SNAP in spring 12,547 36.1 42.2 ‐6.1*** 0.74 <.001

Does not receive SNAP 6,030 36.6 46.2 ‐9.6*** 1.47 <.001

Difference 18,577 ‐0.5 ‐4.0 3.5** 1.47 0.017

Number of Children in Household (HH)

3 or more children in HH 7,444 33.4 40.6 ‐7.2*** 0.92 <.001

2 or fewer children 11,134 38.3 45.5 ‐7.1*** 1.15 <.001

Difference 18,578 4.9 4.8 0.1 1.48 0.953

Presence of Adolescent in Household

No adolescent in HH 9,377 32.7 39.0 ‐6.3*** 0.85 <.001

Adolescent in HH 9,200 40.4 48.6 ‐8.2*** 1.17 <.001

Difference 18,577 7.7 9.6 ‐1.9 1.33 0.162

Race/Ethnicity

Black 5,106 29.6 35.7 ‐6.0*** 1.21 <.001

Hispanic 3,633 42.4 48.0 ‐5.6*** 1.61 <.001

White/Other 9,681 37.5 45.7 ‐8.2*** 1.14 <.001

Black v White/Other   ‐7.8 ‐10.1 2.2 1.4 0.115

Hispanic v White/Other 4.9 2.3 2.6 2.12 0.217

Hispanic v Black   12.8 12.3 0.4 2.16 0.848

Sources:  SEBTC and spring survey data (weighted), 2013.  

Test that $30/$60 difference varies by race:  χ2=3.000, df=2, p=.223

*p<.10, **p<.05, ***p<.01.
Appendix 4A 

Page 1 

Appendix 4A 

Random Assignment 

4A.1 Overview 

This appendix provides a summary of the SEBTC random assignment procedure, in which

households were assigned to either the $60‐per‐child benefit condition or the $30‐per‐child

benefit condition, and then elaborates on different aspects of the random assignment

(including site‐specific details).

4A.2 Random Assignment 

The process of consent and random assignment required three steps. As a first step,

participating SFAs at each site constructed lists of households with children certified for free or

reduced‐price (FRP) meals.  Second, after obtaining consent from families (by an active consent

process) the SFAs or their grantees sent the lists of consented children to the evaluation team.

Third, the team randomly assigned the households of the consented children to be in one of

two benefit conditions – the $30 monthly per eligible child benefit condition (the “$30 group”)

or the $60 monthly per eligible child benefit condition (the “$60 group”), with the objective of

assigning 5,000 to 14,000 children to receive either the $30 or $60 benefit amount, depending

on the site. In all six sites, all households that were randomly assigned to either the $30 or $60

benefit groups were included in the evaluation sample and were contacted to participate in the

household survey. (In addition, in sites that participated in 2012, households in that year’s

treatment group were automatically provided with the $60 benefit amount, but excluded from

the 2013 evaluation.) The balance of this section provides additional detail about the steps

entailed in the random assignment process.

As described in Chapter 2, participating SFAs in the six sites constructed lists of eligible children,

combined them into households, and obtained their consent to participate in the evaluation. In

2013, all six sites used an active consent process, by which a guardian was required to sign and

return a consent form in order to participate in the evaluation.

At the second step, the sites forwarded their lists of consented children to the evaluation team.  

These lists included a site‐assigned household identifier to indicate household membership,

parent names, contact information, and demographic variables, including school district

attended. Upon receipt of a site’s list, the evaluation team processed the list in order to: (1)

identify duplicate records, (2) adjust household membership, and (3) for sites that participated

in SEBTC previously, identify any households that received a benefit in 2012 so they could be

excluded from the evaluation sample. Regarding (2), two kinds of adjustments were sometimes

made by the evaluation team. First, there was sometimes information in the site‐provided lists
Appendix 4A 

Page 2 

that indicated that two site‐assigned households might be sharing the same residence and

potentially sharing food costs and cooking. In such a circumstance, there was no way for the

evaluation team to know with certainty whether or not these households shopped and cooked

together, but to preclude the possibility that one household would be assigned the $60 benefit

and the other would be assigned the $30 benefit, these two site‐assigned households were

considered as a single household for the purposes of benefit assignment. Second, sometimes

two site‐assigned households appeared to be headed by the same parent; e.g., the households

shared a residence and had the same parent name. Since, in some of the survey questions, we

wanted parents to answer with respect to all of the children in their household, two such site‐

assigned households would be considered a single household for the purposes of survey

administration. With regard to (3), as stated earlier, all households that received a benefit in

2012 were offered a $60 benefit again in 2013 and were excluded from the evaluation.

At the third step, the population of consenting households was stratified by school district and

number of children in the household (1, 2, or 3+). Small strata (that is, containing less than 2%

of the total sample for the site) characterized by the same number of children in the household

were combined with a stratum for an adjacent school district. Then in all sites except Delaware,

half of the households within strata were randomly assigned to the $60 group and half were

randomly assigned to the $30 group.  Households in the “3+” strata were handled somewhat

differently.  In those strata, households were progressively randomly assigned to the $60 group

until half the number of children from the strata was reached; the remaining households were

assigned to the $30 group.  

In Delaware, the number of consented children (17,440) exceeded the target of 14,000 for the

site. Therefore, within each stratum in Delaware, 40% of households were randomly assigned

to the $60 group, 40% were randomly assigned to the $30 group, and the remaining 20% of

households did not receive any benefit and were excluded from the evaluation. Households in

the “3+” strata were progressively randomly selected until 40% was reached for the $60

condition and 40% was reached for the $30 condition. Again, the remaining 20% did not receive

any benefit and were excluded from the evaluation.

Exhibit 4A.1a provides a capsule summary of number of households in each who consented and

were randomly assigned to the $30 and $60 groups. Appendix 4A.1b provides similar

information about children.1 Note that the numbers of site‐defined and evaluation‐defined

households that consented varied for the reasons described above. In all sites except Delaware,

the number of evaluation‐defined consented households and children is the same as the

number of households and children in the evaluation sample. In these five sites, half the

households were assigned to each benefit condition.   

 

1 There were no differences between the sites’ and the evaluation team’s numbers of children in consenting

households, once duplicates were removed.
Appendix 4A 

Page 3 

Exhibit 4A.1a Random Assignment and Household Sample Sizes by Site, 2013

Site

Total

Number

Consented

(Site‐

Defined)

Total Number

Consented

(Evaluation

Defined)

Households

Total

Number

Consented

AND Eligible

Total

Number in

Evaluation

Random Assignment

$60

Benefit

$30

Benefit

No

Benefita

Chickasaw Nation 2,434 2,421 2,392 2,392 1,189 1,203 0

Delaware State 9,772 9.502 9,341 7,470 3,730 3,740 1,871

Michigan             

Detroit 5,586 5,511 2,390 2,390 1,193 1,197 0

Grand Rapids/

Kentwood 3,154 3,001 2,969 2,969 1,480 1,489 0

Mid‐Michigan 3,307 3,298 3,252 3,252 1,616 1,636 0

Portland, Oregon 4,397 4,359 4,358 4,358 2,180 2,178 0

Total 28,650 28,077 24,734 22,831 11,408 11,423 1,871 a Households in Delaware that were not randomly selected to receive either the $60 or $30 benefit (that is, those who received

no benefit) are not included in the evaluation.

b A total of 5,442 households were randomly assigned to benefits in Detroit. However, only 2,390 households were included in

the evaluation.

Exhibit 4A.1b Random Assignment and Child Sample Sizes by Site, 2013

Site

Total Number

Consented

Children

Total  Number

Consented

AND Eligible

Total

Number in

Evaluation

Random Assignment

$60

Benefit

$30

Benefit No Benefita

Chickasaw Nation 4,979 4,925 4,925 2,471 2,454 0

Delaware 17,440 17,248 13,810 6,901 6,909 3,438

Michigan    

Detroit 12,308 4,670 4,670b 2,333 2,337 0

Grand Rapids/

Kentwood 5,578 5,555 5,555 2,778 2,777 0

Mid‐Michigan 6,142 6,083 6,083 3,050 3,033 0

Portland, Oregon 7,678 7,678 7,678 3,840 3,838 0

Total 54,125 46,159 42,721 21,373 21,348 3,438 a Households in Delaware that were not randomly selected to receive either the $60 or $30 benefit (that is, those who received

no benefit) are not included in the evaluation.

b A total of 12,308 were randomly assigned to benefits in Detroit. However, only 4,670 children were included in the evaluation.

Appendix 4B 

Page 1 

Appendix 4B 

Sample Design and Response 

Rates 

4B.1 Sample Design 

All households that were randomly assigned to either the $60 or the $30 groups were included

in the evaluation sample and were contacted for the household survey. All households were

sent an advance letter that included a toll‐free number that parents or guardians could call to

complete the interview. Several days after these letters were sent, call center staff initiated

outbound calls to the households. If the household could not be reached after multiple

attempts, or if the contact information was problematic, the team initiated database location

work to attempt to find a better telephone number. All non‐respondents were moved to the

field protocol for in‐person data collection immediately after the case finished the telephone

protocol.

Exhibits 4B.1a and 4B.1b summarize the 2013 spring and summer data collection schedule. In

the spring, data collection ranged from 28 to 47 days. The duration of data collection was

bounded by the completion of the active consent process (used in all sites) and the date that

school ended. In each site, spring data collection ended on the last day of school or the first day

the benefit was available, whichever was earlier. During the summer, data collection ranged

from 39 to 74 days. Data collection began 30 days after the last day of school or the first day

the benefit was available for use, whichever was later; and ended either the day before school

began, or the last day of the SEBTC benefits, whichever was earlier.

Exhibit 4B.1a   Spring 2013 Data Collection Schedule

Site Consent Start Date End Datea Days

Chickasaw Nation Active 4/1 5/8 – 5/24 37 – 53

Delaware Active 5/1 6/6 36

Michigan    

Mid‐Michigan Active 4/24 5/29 – 5/31 35 – 37

Detroit Active 5/16 6/13 28

Grand Rapids/

Kentwood Active 4/22 6/7 46

Portland, Oregon Active 4/19 6/5 47

Source: SEBTC Spring Survey, 2013.

a

Spring data collection ended on the last day of school or the first day the benefit was available for use, whichever was earlier.

This date varied by SFA in some sites.
Appendix 4B 

Page 2 

Exhibit 4B.1b  Summer 2013 Data Collection Schedule

Site Consent Start Datea End Dateb Days

Chickasaw Nation Active 6/7‐6/23 8/6‐8/21 51‐74

Delaware Active 7/6‐7/20 8/21‐9/3 39‐53

Michigan    

Mid‐Michigan Active 6/28‐7/12 9/1/2013 51‐65

Detroit Active 7/13/2013 9/2/2013 51

Grand Rapids/

Kentwood Active 7/7‐7/19 9/2/2013 45‐57

Portland, Oregon Active 7/14/2013 9/3/2013 51

Source: SEBTC Summer Survey, 2013.

a

Summer data collection began 30 days after the benefit began or school ended. This date varied by district in some sites.

b Summer data collection ended on the first day of school or the last day the benefit was available for use, whichever was

earlier. This date varied by school district in some sites.

4B.2 Response Rates 

Exhibits 4B.2a and 4.B.2b provide site‐by‐site detail on the disposition of cases for the spring

and summer surveys. Within each site, each case was resolved as either “household

confirmed,” or “household not confirmed.” Any completed or partial interview (respondent

began the interview but broke‐off after the module on food security  and did not complete the

interview at a later time) falls within household confirmed. Additionally, if the correct

household was verified, but the selected respondent declined to complete an interview

(“refusal”) or did not speak one of the languages the survey was offered in (“foreign language”),

or an interview could not be completed before the field period ended (“incomplete”), those

cases also fall under “household confirmed,” as well as selected respondents that did not

qualify for the study (“screen‐out”), either because they moved out of the district, or there was

an error in creating the sample (i.e., duplicate case). The category of “household not

confirmed” includes cases where a household respondent could not be verified as the selected

household, either because contact could not be made (“incomplete”), or refusals from

gatekeepers (“refusal”).  

From those dispositions, Exhibits 4B.2b and 4B.2b report the eligibility rate (e). Exhibits 4B.3a

and 4B.3b provide the overall spring and summer response rates (AAPOR 4), as well as the

response rate for the $30 and $60 group for each of the sites.  

The spring response rates in Exhibit 4.B.2a and 4.B.3a area modified versions of the response

rate reported in the 2013 SEBTC Congressional  Status Report (Briefel, et al., 2013), based upon

more recent information provided for 216 cases.1

 

1 In the Congressional Status Report, the total number of randomized households was reported to be 23,015, with

20,142 having completed the baseline survey. However, 200 additional households were subsequently identified

as ineligible and have been excluded from the sample—196 households that participated in SEBTC in 2012 and 4

households that were duplicates of other households. In addition, 16 households that had been excluded from the

sample reported in the Congressional Status Report were found to be eligible and are included in the sample.
Appendix 4B 

Page 3 

Additionally, Exhibits 4B.4a and 4B.4b summarize the combined response to the two surveys.

Exhibit 4B.4a provided a response rate for respondents that completed both the baseline and

summer surveys. All cases have been resolved as either a “complete,” screen‐out, household

confirmed (not complete) or household not confirmed. Exhibit 4B.4b provides a response rate

for respondents that completed either the spring or the summer survey.  

Using AAPOR Response Rate 4, the response rate is:

Response Rate [AAPOR 4] = (I+P) / (I+P+O+R+e(UO))

Where:

I=Complete interview

P=Partial interview

R=Refusal and break‐off

NC=Non‐contact

O=Other

UO=Unknown, other

e=Estimated proportion of cases of unknown eligibility that are eligible

Where e (the estimated proportion of cases of unknown eligibility that are eligible) is computed

as:

Eligibility Rate [e] = (I+P+O+R) / (I+P+O+R+NC)

Using the full survey data from Exhibits 4B.2a and 4B.2b, the spring response rate is:

RR4 = (19862+62) / (19862+62+1267+365+0.959(917) =88.8% 

And the summer response rate is:

RR4 = (19622+67) / (19622+67+1944+456+0.988(271) =88.1% 

 

Therefore, the total sample of eligible households that were randomized was 22,831 (23,015—196 – 4 + 16 =

22,831), with 19,924 households completing or partially completing the baseline survey.
Appendix 4B 

Page 4 Exhibit 4B.2a Disposition of Cases for the Spring Survey, 2013

Household Confirmeda Household Not Con

Site Complete Partialc Incomplete Refusal

Foreign

Language

Screen

Out (Not

Eligible) Incomplete Refusal To

Chickasaw Nation 2109 6 66 34 0 50 116 11 2Delaware State 6489 20 400 116 38 85 300 22 7Michigan

Mid‐Michigan 2993 5 51 40 2 48 107 6 3Detroit 2055 8 73 39 21 35 145 14 2Grand Rapids/Kentwood 2503 11 133 54 76 74 106 12 2

Portland, Oregon 3713 12 226 82 181 66 76 2 4All Sites 19862 62 949 365 318 358 850 67 22

Source: SEBTC Spring Survey, 2013.a Indicates that a household respondent was reached and verified that they were the selected household.b Indicates that no household respondent was located and reached to verify whether it was the selected household.c Represents cases that began the interview but broke‐off after section F (food security) and did not complete the interview at a later time.d 219 cases were deemed ineligible after the start of data collection and excluded from the sample prior to the weighting process.
Exhibit 4B.2b Disposition of Cases for the Summer Survey, 2013

Household Confirmeda Household Not Con

Site Complete Partialc Incomplete Refusal

Foreign

Language

Screen

Out (Not

Eligible) Incomplete Refusal To

Chickasaw Nation 2047 6 181 49 1 60 46 2 2Delaware 6410 27 644 130 43 119 90 7 7Michigan

Mid‐Michigan 3001 5 89 72 2 63 17 3 3Detroit 2113 8 101 43 26 44 55 0 2Grand Rapids/Kentwood 2471 11 194 65 99 94 34 1 2

Portland, Oregon 3580 10 331 97 233 91 15 1 4All Sites 19622 67 1540 456 404 471 257 14 22

Source: SEBTC Summer Survey, 2013.a Indicates that a household respondent was reached and verified that they were the selected household.b Indicates that no household respondent was located and reached to verify whether it was the selected household.c Represents cases that began the interview but broke‐off after section D (food security) and did not complete the interview at a later time.d 219 cases were deemed ineligible after the start of data collection and excluded from the sample prior to the weighting process.
Appendix 4B 

Page 6 

Exhibit 4.B.3a Response Rates for the Spring Survey, 2013

All Cases $30 Group $60 Group

Chickasaw Nation 90.6% 90.3% 90.9%

Delaware State 88.3% 87.9% 88.7%

Michigan

Mid‐Michigan 93.7% 92.6% 94.8%

Detroit 88.0% 87.5% 88.5%

Grand Rapids/

Kentwood 87.0% 87.4% 86.6%

Portland, Oregon 86.8% 87.0% 86.7%

All Sites 88.8% 88.5% 89.1%

Source: SEBTC Spring Survey, 2013

Exhibit 4.B.3b Response Rates for the Summer Survey, 2013

All Cases $30 Group $60 Group

Chickasaw Nation 88.1% 88.7% 87.4%

Delaware State 87.6% 87.1% 88.0%

Michigan

Mid‐Michigan 94.3% 93.8% 94.7%

Detroit 90.5% 89.8% 91.1%

Grand Rapids/

Kentwood 86.3% 86.6% 86.0%

Portland, Oregon 84.1% 83.8% 84.5%

All Sites 88.1% 87.8% 88.3%

Source: SEBTC Summer Survey, 2013
Exhibit 4B.4a Disposition of Cases That Completed Either Survey, 2013

Household Confirmeda

Household Not

Confirmedb

Site Complete/ Partialc Incomplete

Screen Out

(Not Eligible) Incomplete Total

Eli

Chickasaw Nation 2217 73 54 48 2392 97Delaware State 6908 363 102 97 7470 98Michigan

Mid‐Michigan 3121 59 52 20 3252 99Detroit) 2220 74 41 55 2390 97Grand Rapids/ Kentwood 2643 208 83 35 2969 98

Portland, Oregon 3857 414 71 16 4358 99All Sites 20966 1191 403 271 22831d 98

Source: SEBTC Spring and Summer Surveys, 2013.a Indicates that a household respondent was reached and verified that they were the selected household.b Indicates that no household respondent was located and reached to verify whether it was the selected household.c Represents cases that began the interview but broke‐off after section F (food security) and did not complete the interview at a later time.d 219 cases were deemed ineligible after the start of data collection and excluded from the sample prior to the weighting process.Exhibit 4B.4b Disposition of Cases That Completed Both Surveys, 2013

Household Confirmeda

Household Not

Confirmedb

Site Complete/ Partialc Incomplete

Screen Out

(Not Eligible) Incomplete Total

Eli

Chickasaw Nation 1951 333 60 48 2392 97Delaware State 6038 1215 120 97 7470 98Michigan

Mid‐Michigan 2883 286 63 20 3252 99Detroit 1964 327 44 55 2390 97Grand Rapids/ Kentwood 2353 486 95 35 2969 98

Portland, Oregon 3458 790 94 16 4358 99All Sites 18647 3437 476 271 22831d 98

Source: SEBTC Spring and Summer Surveys, 2013.a Indicates that a household respondent was reached and verified that they were the selected household.b Indicates that no household respondent was located and reached to verify whether it was the selected household.c Represents cases that began the interview but broke‐off after section F (food security) and did not complete the interview at a later time.d 219 cases were deemed ineligible after the start of data collection and excluded from the sample prior to the weighting process.

Page 4C-1

Appendix 4C 

Spring and Summer Survey 

Instruments 

Page 4C-2

Reference No.: 

OMB No.: 0584-0559 

Expiration Date: 03/31/2014

Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for 

Children 

Spring Baseline Questionnaire 

April 17, 2013 

 

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it 

displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection will be entered after clearance. 

The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 25 minutes per response, including the time to 

review instructions, search existing data resources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information collection. 
Page 4C-3

SECTION A: INTRODUCTION

BA1. Hello, my name is _________ and I’m calling on behalf of the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. 

 

 May I please speak to 

 [%UFName % ULName]? 

 [INTERVIEWER NOTE: REFER TO FAQ’S TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, 

INCLUDING CONTENT OF SURVEY] 

 SPEAKING TO [NAME OF PARENT] ....................... 1 GO TO BA2 

 [NAME OF PARENT] COMES TO PHONE .............. 2 GO TO BA2 

 NOT A GOOD TIME .................................................. 4 SCHEDULE CALLBACK 

[IF RECORD IS _U] 

BSOUR. INTERVIEWER RECORD: 

 INBOUND FROM RESPONDENT ............................ 2 [BECOMES _R] GO TO BSI1

 INBOUND FROM IN-PERSON ................................. 3 [BECOMES _I] GO TO BSI1 

OUTBOUND FROM LOCATOR RESP ON PHONE . 4 [BECOMES _F] 

UPDATE PHONE ONLY ........................................... 5 [SCHEDULE CALLBACK] 

ALL OTHER CASES DEFAULT TO 1 

[QLEVEL=1 IF BSOUR >1 AND <5] 

[ASK IF BSOUR>1] 

BSI1 Just in case we are disconnected, what telephone number can I reach you at 

for the interview? 

 Provided phone number ............................................ 1 GO TO BA2

 (VOL) respondent will call back ................................. 2 GO TO BA2

 Don’t know................................................................. 8 GO TO BA2

 Refused ..................................................................... 9 GO TO BA2

[IF SAMPLE FLAGGED AS CELL PHONE] 

BSC1 If we have reached you on a cell phone, are you in a safe place to talk right 

now? 

IF DRIVING VOLUNTEERED, CODE AS 2USE LL INTRO FOR LL CALLBACKS 

 Yes, safe place to talk ............................................... 1 

 No, call me later ........................................................ 2 SCHEDULE CALLBACK 

 No, CB on land-line ................................................... 3 RECORD NUMBER, 

 SCHEDULE CALLBACK

 (VOL) on landline ...................................................... 4 GO TO BA2

 Don’t know................................................................. 8 

 Refused ..................................................................... 9 
Page 4C-4

[IF SAMPLE FLAGGED AS CELL PHONE] 

BSC2 Are you driving? 

 Yes, call me later ....................................................... 1 SCHEDULE CALLBACK 

 No .............................................................................. 2 

 Don’t know................................................................. 8 

 Refused ..................................................................... 9 

BA2. We are doing research about the food choices of children and their families for the 

U.S.D.A, Food and Nutrition Service. The study will help the USDA improve its child 

nutrition programs for school-age children. 

BA2a. Is there a child living in your home who attends an elementary, middle or high school in 

the [NAME OF SCHOOL DISTRICT]? 

 [If DK/REF: PROBE, “I understand this is sensitive information, but in order to see if your 

household qualifies for this important study, I need to know if there is a child living in this 

household who attends one of these schools in your school district.” 

[IF CHILDREN ARE IN MORE THAN 1 DISTRICT: I just need to confirm that there is at least 1 

child in your household that attends school in this district. All of your children do not 

need to attend a school in this district.] 

 YES ................................................................................ 1

 NO .................................................................................. 2 S/O NO CHLDRN SCH 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 GO TO REFUSAL

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 GO TO REFUSAL

BA3. Are you the parent or adult in the household who knows the most about what the schoolage children in this household ate over the last 30 days? 

 [IF R ANSWERS “PROBABLY” OR “AS MUCH AS ANYONE ELSE,” ENTER “1,YES.”] 

 YES ........................................................................... 1 GO TO BA4.3 

 YES, BUT NOT AVAILABLE NOW ........................... 2 GO TO CALLBACK 

 NO ............................................................................. 3 

 DON’T KNOW ........................................................... 8 

 REFUSED ................................................................. 9 

BA4.1 What is the name of the parent or adult who knows the most about what the school-age 

children in this household ate over the last 30 days? 

 ENTER NAME OF PARENT/ADULT: ____________________________ 

 DON’T KNOW ........................................................... 8 

 REFUSED ................................................................. 9 

 
Page 4C-5

QUALIFIED LEVEL 2: (BA3=1 OR 2) OR (GAVE NAME IN BA4.1) 

BA4.2 May I speak with (him/her)? 

 YES ........................................................................... 1 

 YES, BUT NOT AVAILABLE NOW ........................... 2 GO TO CALLBACK

 CANNOT COME TO PHONE .................................... 3 GO TO CALLBACK 

 (VOL) Not available at this phone number ................ 4 GO TO UPDATE PHONE

 DON’T KNOW ........................................................... 8 GO TO CALLBACK

REFUSED ................................................................. 9 GO TO REFUSAL 

BA4.3 [READ IF BA4.2=1] Hello, my name is _________ and I’m calling on behalf of the 

USDA., Food and Nutrition Service. We are conducting a research study about the food 

choices of children and their families.

[READ TO ALL:] Are you at least 18 years old? 

 YES ........................................................................... 1 

 NO ............................................................................. 2 SCREEN-OUT RESP UNDER 18

 DON’T KNOW/REFUSED ......................................... 8 SCREEN-OUT RESP UNDER 18 REF

QUALIFIED LEVEL 3: BA4.3=1 
Page 4C-6

[READ IF MARKET NE 34:] 

BA4.4 For quality assurance purposes, this call may be monitored or recorded. 

 The study has two parts - an interview that will take about 25 minutes and a second 

interview during the summer. As a way of saying thank you, you will get a total of $35 for 

completing both interviews. We will send you a $10 Visa Prepaid card when we finish 

today’s interview and a $25 Visa Prepaid card after completing the interview in the 

summer. You will get a total of $35 if you do both interviews. 

 The interviews have questions about your children’s food choices as well as general 

questions about you and your household. Your answers will help the government make 

its child nutrition programs better for school-age children. 

 Your participation in this interview is voluntary and you may stop at any time. You may 

also refuse to answer any question. Your benefits will not be affected by any answers to 

questions or if you choose not to participate. 

 

All the information you give us will be kept private to the extent allowed by law. There is 

a small risk of the loss of confidentiality of your data, but procedures are in place to 

minimize this risk. Your name will not be attached to any of your answers. Your 

information will be used only in combination with information from other households for 

research purposes. 

 Do you have any questions about the interview before I begin? 

 

 [REFER TO FAQ’S TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS] 

 
Page 4C-7

[READ IF MARKET=34:] 

BA4.4 This call may be monitored or recorded to check on my work. 

 The study has two parts - an interview that will take about 25 minutes and a second 

interview during the summer. 

 I would ask questions about what your child eats and general questions about you and 

your family. Your answers will help the USDA improve its child nutrition programs for 

kids in school. 

 Your participation in this interview is voluntary. You may stop at any time. You may also 

refuse to answer any question. Your benefits will not change no matter how you answer 

the questions or if you choose not to participate. 

 

All the information you give us will be kept private.. Your name will not be attached to 

any of your answers. Your answers will be used only in combination with answers from 

other families for research. 

 We will send you a $10 Visa Prepaid card when we finish today’s interview. 

 Do you have any questions about the interview before I begin? If you have any 

questions about the study or your rights as a participant, I can give you a toll free 

number to call. 

[IF REQUESTED: ] 

 For questions about the study, please call Ann Collins, the Project Director, at 1-885-

281-6385. 

 For questions about your rights as a study participant, please call the Washington State 

Institutional Review Board at 1-800-584-8488. 

 

[REFER TO FAQ’S TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, INCLUDING THE ROLE 

OF THE WASHINGTON STATE INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD.] 

[ASK ALL] 

BA5 If now is a good time for you and you are willing to participate, I’d like to begin my 

questions. 

 YES, IT’S A GOOD TIME AND I’M WILLING ................. 1 GO TO BB1

 YES, I’M WILLING BUT NOT AVAILABLE NOW ........... 2 SCHEDULE CALLBACK

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE ........................................ 9 GO TO REFUSAL 

BA6. May we call you back at another time? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 SCHEDULE CALLBACK 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 GO TO REFUSAL 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 SCHEDULE CALLBACK 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 GO TO REFUSAL 
Page 4C-8

SECTION B: HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS 

The first few questions are about the people you live with. 

QUALIFIED LEVEL 4: REACHES BB1 

BB1. Including yourself, how many people live in your household? Don’t forget to include 

non-relatives who live here and, of course, babies, small children and foster children. 

Also include people who usually live here but may have been away within the last 30 

days for reasons such as: vacation, traveling for work, or in the hospital. Do not include 

children living away at school. 

 

_________ Number of people [RANGE 1-20] 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 

[If BB1=1:] 

BB1a. Just to confirm, you are the only person living in the household. There are no children, 

non-relatives, or people who usually live there but are currently away? 

 YES ............................................................................... 1 SCREEN-OUT: 1 PERSON 

 IN HH 

 NO, CORRECT NUMBER ............................................ 2 

BB1.1 Do all the people who live with you share the food that is bought for the household? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 GO TO BB2

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 

BB1.2 Including yourself, how many people in your household share the food that is bought for 

the household? 

[PROGRAMMER NOTE: IF BB1 NE 88/99 BB1.2 CANNOT BE GREATER THAN BB1] 

 _________ Number of people

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 
Page 4C-9

BB2. How many of those (IF BB1.1=1, FILL NUMBER FROM BB1, OTHERWISE, FILL 

NUMBER FROM BB1.2) people are children age 18 or younger or over 18 but still in 

high school? 

 [(IF BB1.1 AND BB1.2 = 88 OR 99) OR (BB1=88/99 AND BB1.1=1)], READ:] How 

many people in your household are children age 18 or younger or over 18 but still in high 

school? 

[PROGRAMMER NOTE: BB2 CANNOT BE GREATER THAN BB1/BB1.2] 

 _________ Number of children [RANGE 1-20] GO TO BB3

 NO CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD .................................. 00 SCREEN-OUT: NO 

 CHILDREN IN HH 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 

 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 

BB2.1 Is there at least one child living in your household? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1

 NO .................................................................................. 2 SCREEN-OUT: NO 

 CHILDREN IN HH 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 TERMINATE: DK/REF 

 NUM OF CHILDREN IN HH 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 TERMINATE: DK/REF 

 NUM OF CHILDREN IN HH 

BB3. I’d like to make a list of the first names or initials of the children, age 18 or younger, and 

those over 18 but still in high school and their birthdays. What is the name of the (first 

child?[IF 1 CHILD READ:] What is the name of the child age 18 or younger, or over 18 

but still in high school living in your household? 

[IF NEEDED: YOU CAN GIVE ME THE CHILD’S INITIALS OR SOME OTHER WAY TO 

REFER TO THE CHILD]

BB4a. What is (NAME1)’s birthday? 

 | | | / | | | / | | | | | 

 MONTH DAY YEAR 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 
Page 4C-10

IF NO CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD 3 YEARS OR OLDER, SCREEN OUT - S/O NO CHLDRN SCH

 

BB4b. IF CHILD IS 3 YEARS OR OLDER: Is that child in grades pre-K through 12 in your local 

school system? 

[IF NEEDED: THIS DOES NOT NEED TO BE THE SAME SCHOOL DISTRICT I ASKED YOU 

ABOUT EARLIER. IT CAN BE ANY SCHOOL IN YOUR LOCAL SYSTEM.] 

 YES ................................................................................ 1

 NO .................................................................................. 2 S/O NO CHLDRN SCH

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 TERMINATE: DK/REF 

 CHILD IN SCHOOL

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 TERMINATE: DK/REF 

 CHILD IN SCHOOL

BB4c. IF BB4b=YES AND AGE AT BB4a=20 OR OVER: Just to confirm, (NAME1) was born in 

(INSERT YEAR FROM BB4a)? 

YES ................................................................................ 1

 NO .................................................................................. 2 GO TO BB4a & CORRECT

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 

BB5. What is the name of the next child? 

BB5a. What is (NAME2)’s birthday? 

 | | | / | | | / | | | | | 

 MONTH DAY YEAR 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

BB5b. IF CHILD IS 3 YEARS OR OLDER: Is that child in grades pre-K through 12 in your local 

school system?

 YES ................................................................................ 1

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 
Page 4C-11

BB5c. IF BB5b=YES AND AGE AT BB5a=20 OR OVER: Just to confirm, (NAME 2) was born 

in (INSERT YEAR FROM BB5a)? 

YES ................................................................................ 1

 NO .................................................................................. 2 GO TO BB5a & CORRECT 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 

PROGRAMMER RESPONDENT MUST PROVIDE NAME AND RESPONSE TO BB4B FOR 

AT LEAST ONE CHILD. IF NOT TERMINATE: DK/REF NUM OF CHILDREN IN HH] 

PROGRAMMER CREATE GRID, USING BB2 FOR NUMBER OF CHILDREN. 

IF MORE THAN1 CHILD IN HOUSEHOLD WITH BB4B=1 BB5B ETC, USE RANDOM 

SELECTION TO CHOOSE FOCAL CHILD FROM ALL CHILDREN IN HH WHERE BB4B, 

BB5B=1. 

PROGRAMMER – CREATE PROGRAMMED VARIABLE FOR NUMBER OF KIDS IN 

HOUSEHOLD, NUMBER OF ELIGIBLE KIDS IN HOUSEHOLD, TOTAL HOUSEHOLD SIZE. 
Page 4C-12

SECTION C: CHILD DEMOGRAPHICS

QUALIFIED LEVEL 5: REACHES BC1 

[IF NUMBER OF CHILDREN >1] For the next set of questions, we are going to focus on [CHILD 

NAME]. 

READ IF NECESSARY: Throughout the survey there will be questions asked only about [CHILD 

NAME]. This child has been randomly selected and we cannot change to ask about a 

different child. 

BC1. Is [CHILD NAME] a boy or girl? 

[ASK IF THEY HAVE NOT ALREADY MENTIONED CHILD’S SEX] 

 BOY ............................................................................... 1 

 GIRL ............................................................................... 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

BC1a. During the past 30 days, since [DATE (DATE OF INTERVIEW -30 DAYS)], how many 

days did [CHILD NAME] live in this household? 

 

 IF RESPONDENT SAYS EVERYDAY, ENTER 30. 

 _________ Number of days [RANGE 1-30] 

 NONE ............................................................................. 0 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 

 

 
Page 4C-13

SECTION E: PROGRAM PARTICIPATION – CHILD 

For the next series of questions we’ll be asking about meals and snacks [CHILDNAME] may 

have had during the last 30 days since [DATE (DATE OF INTERVIEW -30 DAYS)]. 

BE1. During the last 30 days did [CHILD NAME] usually eat breakfast each day? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

BE2.1. On school days during the last 30 days, did [CHILD NAME] get free or reduced price 

breakfasts at school? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

BE2.2 On school days during the last 30 days, did [CHILD NAME] get free or reduced price 

lunches at school? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

BE2.3 During the last 30 days, how many days a week did [CHILD NAME] get free supper 

meals at an after school program held in (his/her) school building? 

 

 ONE DAY ....................................................................... 1 

 TWO DAYS ................................................................... 2 

 THREE DAYS ................................................................ 3 

 FOUR DAYS .................................................................. 4 

 FIVE DAYS/EVERYDAY ................................................ 5 

 NO DAYS/EATS SUPPER SOMEPLACE ELSE ........... 6 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 
Page 4C-14

IF BE2.3=6, 8, OR 9 INSERT “an”; IF BE2.3=1-5 INSERT “any other”.

BE3. During the last 30 days, did [CHILD NAME] participate in (an/any other) after school 

program where meals or snacks are served? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

BE4. During the last 30 days since [DATE (DATE OF INTERVIEW -30 DAYS)], did [CHILD 

NAME] get food through a backpack food program for children? 

 [IF NEEDED: THE BACKPACK FOOD PROGRAM PROVIDES FOOD FOR CHILDREN 

TO TAKE HOME OVER WEEKENDS AND HOLIDAYS] 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

 
Page 4C-15

SECTION F: FOOD SECURITY – HOUSEHOLD 

[PROGRAMMER NOTE: SELECT APPROPRIATE FILLS DEPENDING ON NUMBER OF 

ADULTS AND CHILDREN IN THE HOUSEHOLD. DEFAULT TO MULTIPLE ADULTS AND 

MULTIPLE CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD. 

DEFINITIONS: 

BASELINESINGLE ADULT: BB1-BB2=1 

MULTIPLE ADULTS: (BB1-BB2>1) OR (BB1=88 OR BB1=99) 

SINGLE CHILD: BB2=1 

MULTIPLE CHILDREN: BB2>1

QUALIFIED LEVEL 6: REACHES BF1 

The next questions are about the food eaten in your household in the last 30 days and whether 

you were able to afford the food you need. 

BF1. Now I’m going to read you several statements that people have made about their food 

situation. For these statements, please tell me whether the statement was often true, 

sometimes true, or never true for your household in the last 30 days. 

 The first statement is “We worried whether our food would run out before we got money 

to buy more.” Was that often true, sometimes true, or never true for your household in 

the last 30 days? 

 OFTEN TRUE ................................................................ 1 

 SOMETIMES TRUE ....................................................... 2 

 NEVER TRUE ................................................................ 3 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

BF2. “The food that we bought just didn’t last, and we didn’t have money to get more.” Was 

that often, sometimes, or never true for your household in the last 30 days? 

 OFTEN TRUE ................................................................ 1 

 SOMETIMES TRUE ....................................................... 2 

 NEVER TRUE ................................................................ 3 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

BF3. “We couldn’t afford to eat balanced meals.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for 

your household in the last 30 days? 

 OFTEN TRUE ................................................................ 1 

 SOMETIMES TRUE ....................................................... 2 

 NEVER TRUE ................................................................ 3 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 
Page 4C-16

PROGRAMMER: IF AFFIRMATIVE RESPONSE (I.E., “OFTEN TRUE” OR “SOMETIMES 

TRUE”) TO ONE OR MORE OF QUESTIONS BF1-BF3, THEN CONTINUE 

TO BF4; OTHERWISE, SKIP TO BF9. 

BF4. DISPLAY IF SINGLE ADULT: 

 In the last 30 days, did you ever cut the size of your meals or skip meals because there 

wasn't enough money for food? 

DISPLAY IF MULTIPLE ADULTS: 

 In the last 30 days, did you or other adults in your household ever cut the size of your 

meals or skip meals because there wasn't enough money for food? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 GO TO BF5 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 GO TO BF5

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 GO TO BF5

[ASK IF BF4=1] 

BF4a. In the last 30 days, how many days did this happen? 

 _________ Number of days [RANGE 1-30] GO TO BF5 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 GO TO BF5

BF4b. Do you think it was one or two days, or more than two days? 

 ONE OR TWO DAYS ..................................................... 1 

 MORE THAN TWO DAYS ............................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

BF5. In the last 30 days, did you ever eat less than you felt you should because there wasn't 

enough money for food? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 
Page 4C-17

BF6. In the last 30 days, were you ever hungry but didn’t eat because there wasn’t enough 

money for food? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

BF7. In the last 30 days, did you lose weight because there wasn’t enough money for food? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

PROGRAMMER: IF AFFIRMATIVE RESPONSE TO ONE OR MORE OF QUESTIONS 

BF4-BF7, THEN CONTINUE TO BF8. OTHERWISE, SKIP TO BF9. 

BF8. DISPLAY IF SINGLE ADULT: 

 In the last 30 days, did you ever not eat for a whole day because there wasn't enough 

money for food? 

DISPLAY IF MULTIPLE ADULTS: 

 In the last 30 days, did you or other adults in your household ever not eat for a whole 

day because there wasn't enough money for food? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 GO TO BF9 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 GO TO BF9

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 GO TO BF9

[ASK IF BF8=1] 

BF8a. In the last 30 days, how many days did this happen? 

 _________ Number of days [RANGE 1-30] GO TO BF9

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 GO TO BF9

BF8b. Do you think it was one or two days, or more than two days? 

 ONE OR TWO DAYS ..................................................... 1 

 MORE THAN TWO DAYS ............................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 
Page 4C-18

SELECT APPROPRIATE FILLS DEPENDING ON NUMBER OF ADULTS AND NUMBER OF 

CHILDREN IN THE HOUSEHOLD.

BF9. Now I’m going to read you several statements that people have made about the food 

situation of their children. For these statements, please tell me whether the statement 

was often true, sometimes true, or never true in the last 30 days for [your child/children 

living in the household who are under 18 years old or 18 or older but still in high school]. 

IF SINGLE ADULT AND SINGLE CHILD: 

 “I relied on only a few kinds of low-cost food to feed my child because I was running out 

of money to buy food.” 

IF SINGLE ADULT AND MULTIPLE CHILDREN: 

 “I relied on only a few kinds of low-cost food to feed my children because I was running 

out of money to buy food.” 

IF MULTIPLE ADULTS AND SINGLE CHILD: 

 “We relied on only a few kinds of low-cost food to feed our child because we were 

running out of money to buy food.” 

IF MULTIPLE ADULTS AND MULTIPLE CHILDREN: 

 “We relied on only a few kinds of low-cost food to feed our children because we were 

running out of money to buy food.” 

SHOW FOR ALL: 

 Was that often, sometimes, or never true for your household in the last 30 days? 

 OFTEN TRUE ................................................................ 1 

 SOMETIMES TRUE ....................................................... 2 

 NEVER TRUE ................................................................ 3 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 
Page 4C-19

BF10. IF SINGLE ADULT AND SINGLE CHILD: 

 “I couldn’t feed my child a balanced meal, because I couldn’t afford that.” 

IF SINGLE ADULT AND MULTIPLE CHILDREN: 

 “I couldn’t feed my children a balanced meal, because I couldn’t afford that.” 

IF MULTIPLE ADULTS AND SINGLE CHILD: 

 “We couldn’t feed our child a balanced meal, because we couldn’t afford that.” 

IF MULTIPLE ADULTS AND MULTIPLE CHILDREN: 

 “We couldn’t feed our children a balanced meal, because we couldn’t afford that.” 

SHOW FOR ALL: 

 Was that often, sometimes, or never true for your household in the last 30 days? 

 OFTEN TRUE ................................................................ 1 

 SOMETIMES TRUE ....................................................... 2 

 NEVER TRUE ................................................................ 3 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 
Page 4C-20

BF11. IF SINGLE ADULT AND SINGLE CHILD: 

 “My child was not eating enough because I just couldn’t afford enough food.” 

IF SINGLE ADULT AND MULTIPLE CHILDREN: 

 “My children were not eating enough because I just couldn’t afford enough food.” 

 IF MULTIPLE ADULTS AND SINGLE CHILD: 

 “Our child was not eating enough because we just couldn’t afford enough food.” 

IF MULTIPLE ADULTS AND MULTIPLE CHILDREN: 

 “Our children were not eating enough because we just couldn’t afford enough food.” 

SHOW FOR ALL: 

 Was that often, sometimes, or never true for your household in the last 30 days? 

 OFTEN TRUE ................................................................ 1 

 SOMETIMES TRUE ....................................................... 2 

 NEVER TRUE ................................................................ 3 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

PROGRAMMER: IF AFFIRMATIVE RESPONSE (I.E., “OFTEN TRUE” OR “SOMETIMES 

TRUE”) TO ONE OR MORE OF QUESTIONS BF9-BF11, THEN 

CONTINUE TO BF12. OTHERWISE, SKIP TO BG1. 

BF12. DISPLAY IF SINGLE CHILD: 

 In the last 30 days, did you ever cut the size of your child’s meals because there wasn’t 

enough money for food? 

DISPLAY IF MULTIPLE CHILDREN: 

 In the last 30 days, did you ever cut the size of any of your children’s meals because 

there wasn’t enough money for food? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 
Page 4C-21

BF13. DISPLAY IF SINGLE CHILD: 

 In the last 30 days, did your child ever skip meals because there wasn’t enough money 

for food? 

DISPLAY IF MULTIPLE CHILDREN: 

 In the last 30 days, did any of your children ever skip meals because there wasn’t 

enough money for food? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 GO TO BF14

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 GO TO BF14

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 GO TO BF14

[ASK IF BF13=1] 

BF13a. In the last 30 days, how many days did this happen? 

 _________ Number of days [RANGE 1-30] GO TO BF14 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 GO TO BF14

BF13b. Do you think it was one or two days, or more than two days? 

 ONE OR TWO DAYS ..................................................... 1 

 MORE THAN TWO DAYS ............................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

BF14. DISPLAY IF SINGLE CHILD: 

 In the last 30 days, was your child ever hungry but you just couldn’t afford more food? 

DISPLAY IF MULTIPLE CHILDREN: 

 In the last 30 days, were your children ever hungry but you just couldn’t afford more 

food? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 
Page 4C-22

BF15. DISPLAY IF SINGLE CHILD: 

 In the last 30 days, did your child ever not eat for a whole day because there wasn't 

enough money for food? 

DISPLAY IF MULTIPLE CHILDREN: 

 In the last 30 days, did any of your children ever not eat for a whole day because there 

wasn't enough money for food? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 
Page 4C-23

SECTION G: PROGRAM PARTICIPATION – HOUSEHOLD 

[PROGRAMMING NOTE: SET PARTIAL FLAG AT BG1.] 

BG1. Next, I’m going to read the names of some programs that provide food or meals to 

individuals or households. 

BG1.1 In the last 30 days that is since [DATE OF INTERVIEW -30 DAYS], did you or anyone in 

your household receive food or benefits from the Women, Infants and Children program 

called WIC? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 GO TO BG1.3 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 GO TO BG1.3

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 GO TO BG1.3

BG1.2aHow many women or children in the household got WIC foods or benefits? 

 _________ Number of women or children [RANGE 1-20] 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 GO TO BG1.3

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 GO TO BG1.3

[ASK IF BG1.2A=1] 

BG1.2ba Is that person who got WIC foods or benefits an infant less than 1 year old? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 [CODE AS 1 IN BG1.2B]

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 

[ASK IF BG1.2A>1 AND NOT DK/REF] 

BG1.2bHow many of those [NUMBER FROM G1.2a] people who got WIC foods or benefits are 

infants less than 1 year old? 

 _________ Number of infants [RANGE 0-20] 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 

CREATE PROGRAMMED VARIABLE COMBINING BG1.2BA AND BG1.2B 

 
Page 4C-24

BG1.3 In the last 30 days did you or anyone in your household receive food or meals from food 

pantries, food banks, local soup kitchens or emergency kitchens? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

BG2. Are you [IF MULTIPLE PEOPLE IN HOUSEHOLD: or others in your household] 

currently receiving [FILL STATE SNAP PROGRAM NAME], also known as food stamps? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 GO TO BG6 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 GO TO BG6

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 GO TO BG6

BG3. How long have you (and your household) been receiving [FILL STATE SNAP 

PROGRAM NAME]? 

 RANGE 1 - 

1__ DAYS [RANGE 1-365] 

2__ WEEKS [RANGE 1-52] 

3__ MONTHS [RANGE 1-12] 

4__YEARS [RANGE 1-50] 

888 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 

999 REFUSED 

 
Page 4C-25

BG4. What is the amount of the [FILL STATE SNAP PROGRAM NAME] (you receive/your 

household receives) per month? 

 _________ Enter amount [$1 - $9999] 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

BG5. How many weeks do your [FILL STATE SNAP PROGRAM NAME] usually last? 

 [CODE ANY ANSWER GREATER THAN 8 WEEKS AS 8] 

 _________ Enter number of weeks (range 0-8) 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 

[ASK BG6 IF IF BG2>1 AND MARKET=51] 

BG6. Do you (or others in your household) currently receive monthly commodity foods as part 

of the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR [fid-purr])? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 
Page 4C-26

SECTION H: SHOPPING AND EATING BEHAVIOR – HOUSEHOLD 

Now, I’d like to ask some questions about shopping for food and eating at restaurants. 

BH1. First I’ll ask you about money spent at supermarkets and other stores. Then we will talk 

about money spent at fast food restaurants and other restaurants. 

 Excluding any purchases made with government benefits like SNAP or WIC, since 

[DATE (DATE OF INTERVIEW –30 DAYS)] how much money [did your family/did you] 

spend out of pocket at supermarkets, grocery stores, and other stores? Please do not 

include fast food restaurants and other types of restaurants. (You can tell me per week 

or per month.) 

 PROBE: This includes stores such as Wal-mart, Target, and Kmart, convenience stores 

like 7-11 or Mini Mart, stores like Costco or Sam’s Club, dollar stores, bakeries, meat 

markets, vegetable stands, or farmer’s markets. 

 [RECORD “0” IF NO MONEY WAS SPENT] 

0__NO MONEY SPENT GO TO BH6

1__ PER WEEK [RANGE $1-$9,999] 

2__ PER MONTH [RANGE $1-$9,999] 

8 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE GO TO BH6 

9 REFUSED GO TO BH6

BH2. Was any of this $[AMOUNT FROM BH1] per [week/month] spent on nonfood items 

such as cleaning or paper products, pet food, cigarettes or alcoholic beverages? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 GO TO BH4

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 GO TO BH4

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 GO TO BH4

 
Page 4C-27

BH3. About how much OF THE $[AMOUNT FROM BH1] per [week/month FROM BH1] was 

spent on nonfood items? 

PROGRAMMER: AMOUNT CANNOT BE MORE THAN THE AMOUNT ENTERED ON 

QUESTION BH1. 

PROGRAMMER: IF UNIT TYPE (WEEK/MONTH) PROVIDED IN BH3 IS NE TO UNIT TYPE 

IN BH1, SHOW: “Just to confirm, was that per [WEEK/MONTH]?” 

 [RECORD “0” IF NO MONEY WAS SPENT] 

0__NO MONEY SPENT 

1__ PER WEEK [RANGE $1-$9,999] 

2__ PER MONTH [RANGE $1-$9,999] 

8 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 

9 REFUSED 

BH4. [IF BG1.1=1 AND (BH1=1 OR BH1=2):] Just to confirm, did the [AMOUNT REPORTED 

AT BH1] you spent at supermarkets and other stores include purchases made with your 

household’s WIC fruit & vegetable voucher? 

YES ................................................................................ 1 

NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

BH5. [IF BG2=1 AND (BH1=1 OR BH1=2):] (And) just to confirm, did the [AMOUNT 

REPORTED AT BH1] you spent at supermarkets and other stores include purchases 

made with your household’s SNAP benefits? 

 

YES ................................................................................ 1 

NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

 
Page 4C-28

BH6. During the last 30 days, how many times did your family eat food from a fast food 

restaurant? Include fast food meals at home, or at fast food restaurants, carryout, or 

drive thru. (You can tell me per week or per month.) 

 [IF NEEDED, SAY: “SUCH AS FOOD YOU GET AT MCDONALD’S, KFC, PANDA 

EXPRESS, TACO BELL, OR FOOD TRUCKS.”] 

0__NEVER 

1__ PER WEEK [RANGE 1-99] 

2__ PER MONTH [RANGE 1-99] 

8 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 

9 REFUSED 

BH7. During the last 30 days, how many times did your family eat food at other kinds of 

restaurants? (You can tell me per week or per month.) 

 [IF NEEDED, SAY: “SUCH AS FOOD YOU GET AT APPLEBEE’S, CHILI’S, TGI FRIDAYS, 

ETC.”] 

0__NEVER 

1__ PER WEEK [RANGE 1-99] 

2__ PER MONTH [RANGE 1-99] 

8 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 

9 REFUSED

[PROGRAMMER: IF BH6 AND BH7=0, GO TO BI1] 

BH8. About how much money [did your family/did you] spend on food at all types of 

restaurants including fast food restaurants during the last 30 days? (You can tell me per 

week or per month.) 

0__NO MONEY SPENT 

1__ PER WEEK [RANGE $1-$9,999] 

2__ PER MONTH [RANGE $1-$9,999] 

8 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 

9 REFUSED 

 
Page 4C-29

SECTION I: CAREGIVER DEMOGRAPHICS

BI1. Now, I have a few questions about you. 

[RECORD GENDER FROM OBSERVATION.] 

[ONLY IF NECESSARY – ASK: Because it is sometimes difficult to determine over the phone, I 

am asked to confirm with everyone...Are you male or female?] 

 MALE ............................................................................. 1 

 FEMALE ......................................................................... 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

BI2. What is your relationship to [CHILD NAME]? 

READ ONLY IF NECESSARY: Are you [CHILD NAME’s]... 

 BIOLOGICAL/ADOPTIVE PARENT .............................. 1 

 STEP-PARENT .............................................................. 2 

 GRANDPARENT ........................................................... 3 

 GREAT GRANDPARENT .............................................. 4 

 SIBLING/STEPSIBLING ................................................ 5 

 OTHER RELATIVE OR IN-LAW .................................... 6 

 FOSTER PARENT ......................................................... 7 

 OTHER NON-RELATIVE ............................................... 8 

 PARENT’S PARTNER ................................................... 9 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 
Page 4C-30

BI3. Are you of Hispanic or Latino origin? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

BI4. I am going to read a list of five race categories. Please choose one or more races that 

you consider yourself to be. American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian; Black or African 

American; Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander; White?

 MARK ALL THAT APPLY 

 AMERICAN INDIAN OR ALASKA NATIVE ................... 1 

 ASIAN ............................................................................ 2 

 BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN ................................ 3 

 NATIVE HAWAIIAN OR 

 OTHER PACIFIC ISLANDER ........................................ 4 

 WHITE ........................................................................... 5 

 DON’T KNOW ............................................................... 8 

 REFUSED ..................................................................... 9 

 

BI5 What is your current marital status? Are you now married, divorced, separated, 

widowed, never married, or living with a partner? 

 MARRIED ...................................................................... 1 

 SEPARATED OR DIVORCED ....................................... 2 

 WIDOWED ..................................................................... 3 

 NEVER MARRIED ......................................................... 4 

 LIVING WITH PARTNER ............................................... 5 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

BI6. Please tell me your birth date. 

 | | | / | | | / | | | | | 

 MONTH DAY YEAR 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 
Page 4C-31

PROGRAMMER: MUST BE OLDER THAN 18. IF NOT ASK: 

BI6a. You said your date of birth is [INPUT ANSWER FROM BI6), is this correct? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 REPEAT BI6

 

BI7. What is the highest grade or level of school you have completed or the highest degree 

 you have received? 

 [ENTER HIGHEST LEVEL OF SCHOOL.] 

 NEVER ATTENDED/KINDERGARTEN ONLY .............. 0 

 1ST GRADE ................................................................... 1 

 2ND GRADE .................................................................. 2 

 3RD GRADE .................................................................. 3 

 4TH GRADE .................................................................. 4 

 5TH GRADE .................................................................. 5 

 6TH GRADE .................................................................. 6 

 7TH GRADE .................................................................. 7 

 8TH GRADE .................................................................. 8 

 9TH GRADE .................................................................. 9 

 10TH GRADE ............................................................... 10 

 11TH GRADE ............................................................... 11 

 12TH GRADE, NO DIPLOMA ....................................... 12 

 HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE ........................................ 13 

 GED OR EQUIVALENT ................................................ 14 

 SOME COLLEGE, NO DEGREE .................................. 15 

 ASSOCIATE DEGREE: OCCUPATIONAL, 

 TECHNICAL, OR VOCATIONAL PROGRAM .............. 16 

 ASSOCIATE DEGREE: ACADEMIC PROGRAM ......... 17 

 BACHELOR’S DEGREE (EXAMPLE: BA, AB, 

 BS, BBA) ....................................................................... 18 

 MASTER’S DEGREE (EXAMPLE: MA, MS, MEng, 

 MEd, MBA) .................................................................... 19 

 PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL DEGREE 

 (EXAMPLE: MD, DDS, DVM, JD) ................................. 20 

 DOCTORAL DEGREE (EXAMPLE: PhD, EdD) ........... 21 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 
Page 4C-32

BI8. The next questions are about your current job or business. Were you working for pay in 

the last 30 days that is, since [DATE (DATE OF INTERVIEW -30 DAYS)]? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 GO TO BI10

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

BI9. Was any other adult in the household working for pay in the last 30 days that is, since 

[DATE (DATE OF INTERVIEW -30 DAYS)]? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

BI10. What was your household’s total income last month, during [MONTH (CURRENT 

MONTH -1)] before taxes? Please include all types of income received by all household 

members last month, including all earnings, Social Security, pensions, child support, and 

cash welfare benefits such as TANF (TAH-nif) and SSI. Do not include the value of 

SNAP benefits or food stamps, WIC, Medicaid, or public housing. 

 NO INCOME .................................................................. 0 GO TO BI12 

 GAVE ANSWER ..................... 1 [RANGE $1 – 99,999] GO TO BI12

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

[IF BI10> $12,500 ASK]: 

BI10a. You said your household’s total income last month was [INPUT ANSWER FROM BI10), 

is this correct? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 REPEAT BI10
Page 4C-33

BI11. Some people find it easier to select an income range. Please stop me when I reach your 

household’s total income for last month. Was it... 

 Less than $500, ............................................................. 1 

 $500 to less than $1,000, ............................................... 2 

 $1,000 to less than $1,500, ............................................ 3 

 $1,500 to less than $2,000, ............................................ 4 

 $2,000 to less than $2,500, ............................................ 5 

 $2,500 to less than $3,000, ............................................ 6 

 $3,000 or more? ............................................................. 7 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

BI12. And, what was your household’s total income last year before taxes? Please include all 

types of income received by all household members last year, including all earnings, 

Social Security, pensions, child support, and cash welfare benefits such as TANF (TAHnif) and SSI. Do not include the value of SNAP benefits or food stamps, WIC, Medicaid, 

or public housing. 

 NO INCOME .................................................................. 0 GO TO BI14 

 GAVE ANSWER ..................... 1 [RANGE $1 – 999,999] GO TO BI14

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 
Page 4C-34

BI13. Some people find it easier to select an income range. Please stop me when I reach your 

household’s total income for last year. Was it... 

 Less than $10,000, ........................................................ 1 

 $10,000 to less than $20,000, ........................................ 2 

 $20,000 to less than $35,000, ........................................ 3 

 $35,000 to less than $50,000, ........................................ 4 

 $50,000 to less than $75,000, ........................................ 5 

 $75,000 to less than $100,000, ...................................... 6 

 $100,000 to less than $150,000 or, ............................... 7 

 $150,000 or more? ......................................................... 8 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 

[IF BI12> $150,000 OR BI13=8 ASK]: 

BI13a. You said your household’s total income last year was [INPUT ANSWER FROM BI12 or 

BI13], is this correct? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 REPEAT BI12

BI14. Has a doctor or other health care professional ever told you or anyone in your household 

that they had a disability? By disability, I mean a physical or mental impairment. 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

 
Page 4C-35

SECTION J: ADDITIONAL CONTACT INFORMATION

QUALIFIED LEVEL 7: REACHES J1 

BJ1. [READ IF JSOUR NE 3:] Thank you very much for your time. You have really helped us 

with this study. I’d like to confirm your address so we can send you a $10 Visa Prepaid 

card within the next few weeks. 

BJ1. [READ IF JSOUR=3:] Thank you very much for your time. You have really helped us 

with this study. The interviewer will give you your $10 Visa prepaid card. While we have 

you on the phone, we would like to check your mailing address. 

[ASK ALL:] 

BJ1a. According to our records we have... 

 [IF BA3=1, FILL NAME FROM FILE. ELSE, FILL FROM BA4.1] 

 [FILL STREET ADDRESS FROM SAMPLE FRAME] 

 [FILL CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE FROM SAMPLE FRAME] 

 NAME AND ADDRESS IS CORRECT .......................... 1 GO TO BJ2 

 NAME AND ADDRESS NEEDS UPDATING ................. 2 

 UPDATE: NAME 

 UPDATE: STREET ADDRESS: 

 ___________________________________________ 

 ___________________________________________ 

 CITY: ______________________________________ 

 STATE: ____________________________________ 

 ZIP CODE: _________________________________ 

BJ2. We would also like to do a follow up interview during the summer to see how you are 

doing. You will get a $25 Visa Prepaid card for participating in that interview. 

 In case we can’t reach you at this number, is there another number we should try? 

 PHONE NUMBER: | | | | - | | | | - | | | | | 

 NO ADDITIONAL PHONE AVAILABLE ......................... 2 

 (VOL) GAVE INTERNATIONAL PHONE NUMBER ...... 3 

 REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE IN SUMMER 

 INTERVIEW ................................................................... 9 GO TO END 

 
Page 4C-36

[ASK BJ2.A IF RESPONDENT PROVIDES PHONE IN BJ2, OTHERWISE SKIP TO BJ2.B] 

BJ2.a. What type of phone number is this? 

 HOME ............................................................................ 1 

CELL .............................................................................. 2 

 WORK ............................................................................ 3 

 OTHER, SPECIFY ......................................................... 4 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

BJ2.b. Please give me an email address that we can reach you at? 

 EMAIL ADDRESS: ____________________________ 

 NO EMAIL ADDRESS AVAILABLE ............................... 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

BJ3. In case we have trouble reaching you during the summer, please give me the name and 

telephone number of a relative or friend who would know where you could be 

reached.(Please give me the name of someone not currently living in the household.) 

 [BE SURE TO VERIFY SPELLING] 

 ENTER FIRST NAME: ________________________ 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

 ENTER LAST NAME: _________________________ 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

BJ4. What is this person’s telephone number, beginning with the area code? 

 | | | | - | | | | - | | | | | 

 (VOL) GAVE INTERNATIONAL PHONE NUMBER ...... 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

 
Page 4C-37

BJ5. And what is [NAME FROM ABOVE]’s relationship to you? 

 RELATIONSHIP: 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

Thank you again for your help and have a good day/good evening. We look forward to 

speaking with you again during the summer. 
Page 4C-39

Reference No.: 

OMB No.: 0584-0559 

Expiration Date: 03/31/2014 

Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for 

Children 

Summer Questionnaire 

April 2, 2013 

 

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it 

displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection will be entered after clearance. 

The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 30 minutes per response, including the time to 

review instructions, search existing data resources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information collection. 
Page 4C-40

SECTION A: INTRODUCTION

SA1. Hello, my name is _________ and I’m calling on behalf of the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. 

 

 May I please speak to 

 [%UFName % ULName]? 

 [INTERVIEWER NOTE: REFER TO FAQ’S TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, 

INCLUDING CONTENT OF SURVEY] 

 SPEAKING TO [NAME OF PARENT] ....................... 1 GO TO CHECKPOINT 

 [NAME OF PARENT] COMES TO PHONE .............. 2 GO TO CHECKPOINT

 NOT A GOOD TIME .................................................. 4 SCHEDULE CALLBACK 

QUALIFIED LEVEL 1 SA1=1 OR 2 

[IF RECORD IS _U] 

SSOUR. INTERVIEWER RECORD: 

 INBOUND FROM RESPONDENT ............................ 2 [BECOMES _R] GO TO SSI1

 INBOUND FROM IN-PERSON ................................. 3 [BECOMES _I] GO TO SSI1 

OUTBOUND FROM LOCATOR RESP ON PHONE . 4 [BECOMES _F] 

UPDATE PHONE ONLY ........................................... 5 [SCHEDULE CALLBACK] 

ALL OTHER CASES DEFAULT TO 1 

[ASK IF SSOUR>1] 

SSI1. Just in case we are disconnected, what telephone number can I reach you at 

to complete the interview? 

 Provided phone number ............................................ 1 GO TO CHECKPOINT

 (VOL) respondent will call back ................................. 2 GO TO CHECKPOINT

 Don’t know................................................................. 8 GO TO CHECKPOINT

 Refused ..................................................................... 9 GO TO CHECKPOINT

QUALIFIED LEVEL 2: SSI1=1 

[IF SAMPLE FLAGGED AS CELL PHONE] 

SSC1. If we have reached you on a cell phone, are you in a safe place to talk right 

now? 

IF DRIVING VOLUNTEERED, CODE AS 2 

USE LL INTRO FOR LL CALLBACKS 

 Yes, safe place to talk ............................................... 1 

 No, call me later ........................................................ 2 SCHEDULE CALLBACK 

 No, CB on land-line ................................................... 3 RECORD NUMBER, 

SCHEDULE CALLBACK

 (VOL) on landline ...................................................... 4 GO TO CHECKPOINT

 Don’t know................................................................. 8 

 Refused ..................................................................... 9 

 

 
Page 4C-41

[IF SAMPLE FLAGGED AS CELL PHONE] 

SSC2. Are you driving? 

 Yes, call me later ....................................................... 1 SCHEDULE CALLBACK 

 No .............................................................................. 2 

 Don’t know................................................................. 8 

 Refused ..................................................................... 9 

CHECKPOINT: IF BLINE=1, GO TO SA7. Set Qualified Level to 4. 

 IF BLINE=2, GO TO SA2. 

SA2. We are doing research about the food choices of children and their families for the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. The study will help the 

USDA improve its child nutrition programs for school-age children. 

SA2a. Is there a child living in your home who attended an elementary, middle or high school 

during the most recently completed school year in the [NAME OF SCHOOL DISTRICT]? 

 [If DK/REF: PROBE, “I understand this is sensitive information, but in order to see if your 

household qualifies for this important study, I need to know if there is a child living in this 

household who attended one of these schools in your school district during the most 

recently completed school year.” 

[IF CHILDREN ARE IN MORE THAN 1 DISTRICT: I just need to confirm that there is at least 1 

child in your household that attended school in this district during the most recently 

completed school year. All of your children do not need to attend a school in this 

district.] 

 YES ................................................................................ 1

 NO .................................................................................. 2 S/O NO CHLDRN SCH 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 GO TO REFUSAL

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 GO TO REFUSAL

SA3. Are you the parent or adult in the household who knows most about what the school-age 

children ate over the last 30 days since the school year ended? 

 INTERVIEWER: IF R ANSWERS “PROBABLY” OR “AS MUCH AS ANYONE ELSE,” 

ENTER “1,” “YES.” 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 GO TO SA4.3 

 YES, BUT NOT AVAILABLE NOW ................................ 2 GO TO CALLBACK 

 NO .................................................................................. 3 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 
Page 4C-42

SA4.1 What is the name of the parent or adult who knows most about what the school-age 

children ate over the last 30 days since the school year ended? 

 ENTER NAME OF PARENT/ADULT: 

 ___________________________________________ 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 GO TO CALLBACK

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 GO TO REFUSAL

QUALIFIED LEVEL 3: (SA3=1 OR 2) OR (GAVE NAME IN SA4.1) 

SA4.2 May I speak with (him/her)? 

 YES ........................................................................... 1 

 YES, BUT NOT AVAILABLE NOW ........................... 2 GO TO CALLBACK

 CANNOT COME TO PHONE .................................... 3 GO TO CALLBACK 

 (VOL) Not available at this phone number ................ 4 GO TO UPDATE PHONE

 DON’T KNOW ........................................................... 8 GO TO CALLBACK

REFUSED ................................................................. 9 GO TO REFUSAL 

SA4.3 [READ IF SA4.2=1] Hello, my name is _________ and I’m calling on behalf of the 

U.S.D.A., Food and Nutrition Service. We are conducting a research study about the 

food choices of children and their families. 

 [READ TO ALL:] Are you at least 18 years old? 

 YES ........................................................................... 1 

 NO ............................................................................. 2 SCREEN-OUT: RESP UNDER 

18 

 DON’T KNOW/REFUSED ......................................... 8 SCREEN-OUT: RESP UNDER 

18 REF

QUALIFIED LEVEL 4: SA4.3=1 
Page 4C-43

[READ IF MARKET NE 34:] 

SA5 For quality assurance purposes, this call may be monitored or recorded.

 The interview will take approximately 25-30 minutes. It has questions about your 

children’s food choices as well as general questions about you and your household. 

Your answers will help the government make its child nutrition programs better for 

school-age children. As a way of saying thank you, we will (send/give) you a $25 VISA® 

prepaid card for helping us. 

 Your participation in this interview is voluntary and you may stop at any time. You may 

also refuse to answer any question. Your benefits will not be affected by any answers to 

questions or if you choose not to participate. 

 

All the information you give us will be kept private to the extent allowed by law. There is 

a small risk of the loss of confidentiality of your data, but procedures are in place to 

minimize this risk. Your name will not be attached to any of your answers. Your 

information will be used only in combination with information from other households for 

research purposes. 

 Do you have any questions about the interview before I begin? 

 [REFER TO FAQ’S TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS] 

[READ IF MARKET=34:] 

SA5 This call may be monitored or recorded to check my work..

 The interview will take approximately 25-30 minutes. I will ask you questions about what 

your child eats and general questions about you and your family. Your answers will help 

the USDA improve its child nutrition programs for kids in school. 

 Your participation in this interview is voluntary. You may stop at any time. You may also 

refuse to answer any question. Your benefits will not change no matter how you answer 

the questions or if you choose not to participate. 

 

All the information you give us will be kept private. Your name will not be attached to 

any of your answers. Your answers will be used only in combination with answers from 

other families for research. 

 As a way of saying thank you, we will (send/give) you a $25 VISA® prepaid card. 

 Do you have any questions about the interview before I begin? If you have any 

questions about the study or your rights as a participant, I can give you a toll free 

number to call. 

[IF MARKET=34] 

[IF REQUESTED:] 

 For questions about the study, please call Ann Collins, the Project Director, at 1-885-

281-6385. 

 For questions about your rights as a study participant, please call the Washington State 

Institutional Review Board at 1-800-584-8488. 

 

 [REFER TO FAQ’S TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, INCLUDING THE ROLE OF 

THE WASHINGTON STATE INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD.] 

 
Page 4C-44

SA6 If now is a good time for you and you are willing to participate, I’d like to begin my 

questions. 

 YES, IT’S A GOOD TIME AND I’M WILLING ................. 1 GO TO SB1 

 YES, I’M WILLING BUT NOT AVAILABLE NOW ........... 2 SCHEDULE CALLBACK

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 GO TO SA6.1

 REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE ................................... ....9 GO TO REFUSAL 

SA6.1. May we call you back at another time? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 SCHEDULE CALLBACK 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 GO TO REFUSAL 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 SCHEDULE CALLBACK 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 GO TO REFUSAL 

[READ IF BLINE=1:] 

SA7. For quality assurance purposes, this call may be monitored or recorded. 

 First, we want to thank you for completing the previous survey with us. As we mentioned 

during that interview, we are conducting a research study about the food choices of 

children and their families for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 

Service. The study will help the government make its child nutrition programs better for 

school-age children. 

[READ IF MARKET NE 34:]

SA8. This follow-up interview will take approximately 25-30 minutes. The questions are similar 

to the last interview. For completing this follow-up interview, we will (send/give) you a 

$25 VISA prepaid card for helping us. 

 Your participation in this interview is voluntary and you may stop at any time. You may 

also refuse to answer any question. Your benefits will not be affected by any answers to 

questions or if you choose not to participate. 

 All the information you give us will be kept private to the extent allowed by law. There is 

a small risk of the loss of confidentiality of your data, but procedures are in place to 

minimize this risk. Your name will not be attached to any of your answers. Your 

information will be used only in combination with information from other households for 

research purposes. 

 Do you have any questions before I begin? 

[REFER TO FAQ’S TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS]

[READ IF MARKET=34:] 

SA8 This follow-up interview will take approximately 25-30 minutes. The questions are similar 

to the last interview. For completing this follow-up interview, we will (send/give) you a 

$25 VISA prepaid card for helping us. 
Page 4C-45

 Your participation in this interview is voluntary and you may stop at any time. You may 

also refuse to answer any question. Your benefits will not be affected by any answers to 

questions or if you choose not to participate. 

 All the information you give us will be kept private to the extent allowed by law. There is 

a small risk of the loss of confidentiality of your data, but procedures are in place to 

minimize this risk. Your name will not be attached to any of your answers. Your 

information will be used only in combination with information from other households for 

research purposes. 

 Do you have any questions before I begin? If you have any questions about the study or 

your rights as a participant, I can give you a toll free number to call. 

[IF REQUESTED: ] 

 For questions about the study, please call Ann Collins, the Project Director, at 1-885-

281-6385. 

 For questions about your rights as a study participant, please call the Washington State 

Institutional Review Board at 1-800-584-8488. 

 

 

 [REFER TO FAQ’S TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, INCLUDING THE ROLE 

OF THE WASHINGTON STATE INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD.] 

 
Page 4C-46

SA9 If now is a good time for you and you are willing to participate, I’d like to begin my 

questions. 

 YES, IT’S A GOOD TIME AND I’M WILLING ................. 1 GO TO SB1

 YES, I’M WILLING BUT NOT AVAILABLE NOW ........... 2 SCHEDULE CALLBACK

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 GO TO SA10

 REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE ................................... ....9 GO TO REFUSAL 

SA10. May we call you back at another time? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 SCHEDULE CALLBACK 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 GO TO REFUSAL 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 SCHEDULE CALLBACK 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 GO TO REFUSAL 

TIMING 1 

 
Page 4C-47

SECTION B: HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS VERIFICATION 

QUALIFIED LEVEL 5: REACHES SB1 

CHECKPOINT: IF BLINE =1, GO TO SB6. 

 IF BLINE =2, ASK SB1. 

The first few questions are about the people you live with. 

SB1. Including yourself, how many people live in your household? Don’t forget to include 

non-relatives who live here and, of course, babies, small children and foster children. 

Also include persons who usually live here but are temporarily away for reasons such 

as: vacation, traveling for work, or in the hospital. Do not include children living away at 

school. 

 

 | | | Number of people [RANGE 1-20]

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 

[If SB1=1:] 

SB1a. Just to confirm, you are the only person living in the household. There are no children, 

non-relatives, or people who usually live there but are currently away? 

 YES ............................................................................... 1 SCREEN-OUT: 1 

PERSON IN HH 

 NO, CORRECT NUMBER ............................................ 2 

SB1.1. Do all the people who live with you share the food that is bought for the household? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 GO TO SB2

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 

SB1.2. Including yourself, how many people in your household share the food that is bought for 

the household? 

[PROGRAMMER NOTE: IF SB1 NE 88/99 SB1.2 CANNOT BE GREATER THAN SB1] 

 | | | PEOPLE 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 
Page 4C-48

SB2. How many of those (IF SB1.1=1, FILL NUMBER FROM SB1, OTHERWISE, FILL 

NUMBER FROM SB1.2) people are children age 18 or younger or over 18 but still in 

high school during the most recently completed school year? 

 [(IF SB1.2 = 88 OR 99) OR (SB1=88/99 AND SB1.1=1)], READ:] How many people in 

your household are children age 18 or younger or over 18 but were still in high school 

during the most recently completed school year? 

[PROGRAMMER NOTE: SB2 CANNOT BE GREATER THAN SB1/SB1.2] 

 _________ Number of children [RANGE 1-20] GO TO SB3

 NO CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD .................................. 00 SCREEN-OUT: NO 

CHILDREN IN HH 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 

SB2.1. Is there at least one child living in your household? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 SCREEN-OUT: NO 

CHILDREN IN HH 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 TERMINATE: DK/REF 

NUM OF CHILDREN 

IN HH 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 TERMINATE: DK/REF 

NUM OF CHILDREN 

IN HH 

SB3. I’d like to make a list of the first names or initials of the children, age 18 or younger, and 

those over 18 who were still in high school during the most recently completed school 

year, and their birthdays. What is the name of the first child? 

 [IF 1 CHILD READ:] What is the name of the child age 18 or younger, or over 18 but 

was still in high school during the most recently completed school year living in your 

household? 

[IF NEEDED: YOU CAN GIVE ME THE CHILD’S INITIALS OR SOME OTHER WAY TO 

REFER TO THE CHILD]

SB4a. What is (NAME1)’s date of birth? 

 | | | / | | | / | | | | | 

 MONTH DAY YEAR 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 
Page 4C-49

SB4b. IF CHILD IS 3 YEARS OR OLDER: Was this child in grades pre-K through 12 in your 

local school system during the most recently completed school year?

[IF NEEDED: THIS DOES NOT NEED TO BE THE SAME SCHOOL DISTRICT I ASKED YOU 

ABOUT EARLIER. IT CAN BE ANY SCHOOL IN YOUR LOCAL SYSTEM.] 

 YES ................................................................................ 1

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 

SB4c. IF SB4b=YES AND AGE AT SB4a=20 OR OVER: Just to confirm, (NAME1) was 

born in (INSERT YEAR FROM SB4a)? 

YES ................................................................................ 1

 NO .................................................................................. 2 GO TO SB4a & 

CORRECT

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 

SB5. What is the name of the next child? 

SB5a. What is (NAME2)’s date of birth? 

 | | | / | | | / | | | | | 

 MONTH DAY YEAR 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

SB5b. IF CHILD IS 3 YEARS OR OLDER: Was this child in grades pre-K through 12 in your 

local school system during the most recently completed school year? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 
Page 4C-50

SB5c. IF SB5b=YES AND AGE AT SB5a=20 OR OVER: Just to confirm, (NAME2) was born in 

(INSERT YEAR FROM SB5a)? 

YES ................................................................................ 1

 NO .................................................................................. 2 GO TO SB5a & 

CORRECT

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 

PROGRAMMER RESPONDENT MUST PROVIDE NAME AND RESPONSE TO SB4B FOR 

AT LEAST ONE CHILD. IF NOT TERMINATE: DK/REF NUM OF 

CHILDREN IN HH] 

PROGRAMMER CREATE GRID, USING SB2 FOR NUMBER OF CHILDREN. 

IF MORE THAN 1 CHILD IN HOUSEHOLD WITH SB4B=1 SB5B ETC, USE RANDOM 

SELECTION TO CHOOSE FOCAL CHILD FROM ALL CHILDREN IN HH WHERE SB4B, 

SB5B=1. 

PROGRAMMER – CREATE PROGRAMMED VARIABLE FOR NUMBER OF KIDS IN 

HOUSEHOLD, NUMBER OF ELIGIBLE KIDS IN HOUSEHOLD, TOTAL HOUSEHOLD SIZE. 

[ASK SB6-SB7.3 IF BLINE =1. IF BLINE =2, GO TO SC1] 

SB6. According to my records from our last interview, there were [HHNUMB] people in your 

household that share their food together. Is that still correct? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 GO TO SB7.1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

SB6.1 Including yourself, how many people live in your household? Don’t forget to include 

non-relatives who live here and, of course, babies, small children and foster children. 

Also include persons who usually live here but are temporarily away for reasons such 

as: vacation, traveling for work, or in the hospital. Do not include children living away at 

school. 

 INTERVIEWER: BY TEMPORARILY AWAY WE MEAN AWAY WITHIN THE LAST 30 

DAYS. 

____________Number of people [RANGE 1-20] 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 
Page 4C-51

[If SB6.1=1:] 

SB6.1a. Just to confirm, you are the only person living in the household. There are no children, 

non-relatives, or people who usually live there but are currently away? 

 YES ............................................................................... 1 SCREEN-OUT: NO 

 

CHILDREN IN HH 

 NO, CORRECT NUMBER ............................................ 2 

SB6.1.1 Do all the people who live with you share the food that is bought for the household? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 GO TO SB7.1

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

SB6.1.2 How many people in your household share the food that is bought for the household? 

[PROGRAMMER NOTE: IF SB6.1 NE 88/99 SB6.1.2 CANNOT BE GREATER THAN SB6.1] 

 _________ Number of people [RANGE 1 – 20]

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 

SB7.1 How many children are currently living in your household that were age 18 or younger or 

over 18 but were still in high school during the most recently completed school year? 

[PROGRAMMER NOTE: SB7.1 CANNOT BE GREATER THAN SB6.1 OR SB6.1.2] 

 _________ Number of children [RANGE 1-20] GO TO SB7.5

 NO CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD .................................. 00 SCREEN-OUT: NO 

CHILDREN IN HH 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 
Page 4C-52

SB7.2 Is there at least one child living in your household? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 SCREEN-OUT: NO 

 CHILDREN IN HH 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 SCREEN-OUT: 

DK/REF NUM OF 

CHILDREN IN HH 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 SCREEN-OUT: 

DK/REF NUM OF 

CHILDREN IN HH 

COMPUTE PROGRAMMED VARIABLE FOR NUMBER OF KIDS IN HOUSEHOLD. 

IF SB7.1<88, NUMBER OF KIDS=SB7.1. 

IF SB7.1>20 AND SB7.2=1, NUMBER OF KIDS=HHNUMB-1 . 

SB7.5 What is the date of birth of the oldest child currently living in your household who is age 

18 or younger or over 18 but was still in high school during the most recently completed school 

year? 

 | | | / | | | / | | | | | 

 MONTH DAY YEAR 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

TIMING 2 
Page 4C-53

SECTION C: CHILD DEMOGRAPHICS 

QUALIFIED LEVEL 6: REACHES SC1 

[IF BLINE NE 1: 

[IF NUMBER OF CHILDREN >1] For the next set of questions, we are going to focus on [CHILD 

NAME]. 

READ IF NECESSARY: Throughout the survey there will be questions asked only about [CHILD 

NAME]. This child has been randomly selected and we cannot change to ask about a 

different child. When we ask questions about one child, answer them about [CHILD 

NAME]. 

[IF BLINE = 1: 

[IF NUMBER OF CHILDREN >1] For the next set of questions, we are going to focus on [CHILD 

NAME]. 

READ IF NECESSARY: This child was randomly selected during the interview you completed 

this spring and we cannot change to ask about a different child. Throughout the survey 

there will be questions asked only about [CHILD NAME]. When we ask questions about 

one child, answer them about [CHILD NAME]. 

 Child DOB: [cdob] 

[ASK IF BLINE=2. IF BLINE=1, GO TO SC1A] 

SC1. Is [CHILD NAME] a boy or girl? 

 [ASK IF THEY HAVE NOT ALREADY MENTIONED CHILD’S SEX] 

 BOY ............................................................................... 1 GO TO SC1a 

 GIRL ............................................................................... 2 GO TO SC1a 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 GO TO SC1a 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 GO TO SC1a 

ASK ALL 

SC1a. Thinking about the past 30 days, since [DATE (DATE OF INTERVIEW -30 DAYS)], how 

many days did [CHILD NAME] live in this household? 

 

 IF RESPONDENT SAYS EVERYDAY, ENTER 30. 

 _________ Number of days [RANGE 1-30]

 

 NONE ............................................................................. 0 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 

TIMING 3 

[ASK SD1-SD15 FOR ALL RESPONDENTS] 
Page 4C-54

SECTION D: FOOD SECURITY – HOUSEHOLD 

[PROGRAMMER NOTE: SELECT APPROPRIATE FILLS DEPENDING ON NUMBER OF 

ADULTS AND CHILDREN IN THE HOUSEHOLD. DEFAULT TO MULTIPLE ADULTS AND 

MULTIPLE CHILDREN IN HOUSEHOLD.] 

DEFINITIONS: 

IF BLINE =1 

SINGLE ADULT: (SB6=1 and HHNUMB-SB7.1=1) OR (SB6.1-SB7.1=1) 

MULTIPLE ADULT: (SB6=1 and HHNUMB-SB7.1>1) OR (SB6.1-SB7.1>1) 

SINGLE CHILD: SB7.1=1 

MULTIPLE CHILDREN: SB7.1>1 

IF BLINE NE 1: 

SINGLE ADULT: SB1-SB2=1 

MULTIPLE ADULTS: (SB1-SB2>1) OR (SB1=88 OR SB1=99) 

SINGLE CHILD: SB2=1 

MULTIPLE CHILDREN: SB2>1

QUALIFIED LEVEL 7: REACHES SD1 

The next questions are about the food eaten in your household in the last 30 days and whether 

you were able to afford the food you need. 

SD1. Now I’m going to read you several statements that people have made about their food 

situation. For these statements, please tell me whether the statement was often true, 

sometimes true, or never true for your household in the last 30 days. 

 The first statement is “We worried whether our food would run out before we got money 

to buy more.” Was that often true, sometimes true, or never true for your household in 

the last 30 days? 

 OFTEN TRUE ................................................................ 1 

 SOMETIMES TRUE ....................................................... 2 

 NEVER TRUE ................................................................ 3 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 
Page 4C-55

SD2. “The food that we bought just didn’t last, and we didn’t have money to get more.” Was 

that often, sometimes, or never true for your household in the last 30 days? 

 OFTEN TRUE ................................................................ 1 

 SOMETIMES TRUE ....................................................... 2 

 NEVER TRUE ................................................................ 3 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

SD3. “We couldn’t afford to eat balanced meals.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for 

your household in the last 30 days? 

 OFTEN TRUE ................................................................ 1 

 SOMETIMES TRUE ....................................................... 2 

 NEVER TRUE ................................................................ 3 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

PROGRAMMER: IF AFFIRMATIVE RESPONSE (I.E., “OFTEN TRUE” OR “SOMETIMES 

TRUE”) TO ONE OR MORE OF QUESTIONS SD1-SD3, THEN 

CONTINUE TO SD4; OTHERWISE, GO TO SD9. 

SD4. 

DISPLAY IF SINGLE ADULT: 

 In the last 30 days, did you ever cut the size of your meals or skip meals because there 

wasn't enough money for food? 

DISPLAY IF MULTIPLE ADULTS: 

 In the last 30 days, did you or other adults in your household ever cut the size of your 

meals or skip meals because there wasn't enough money for food? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

[ASK IF SD4=1]

SD4a. In the last 30 days, how many days did this happen? 

 | | | DAYS [RANGE 1 – 30] .................................. GO TO SD5

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 GO TO SD5 

SD4b. Do you think it was one or two days, or more than two days? 

GO TO SD5 
Page 4C-56

 ONE OR TWO DAYS ..................................................... 1 

 MORE THAN TWO DAYS ............................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

SD5. In the last 30 days, did you ever eat less than you felt you should because there wasn't 

enough money for food? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

SD6. In the last 30 days, were you ever hungry but didn’t eat because there wasn’t enough 

money for food? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

SD7. In the last 30 days, did you lose weight because there wasn’t enough money for food? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

PROGRAMMER: IF AFFIRMATIVE RESPONSE TO ONE OR MORE OF QUESTIONS 

SD4-SD7, THEN CONTINUE TO SD8. OTHERWISE, SKIP TO SD9. 
Page 4C-57

SD8. 

DISPLAY IF SINGLE ADULT: 

 In the last 30 days, did you ever not eat for a whole day because there wasn't enough 

money for food? 

DISPLAY IF MULTIPLE ADULTS: 

 In the last 30 days, did you or other adults in your household ever not eat for a whole 

day because there wasn't enough money for food? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

[ASK IF SD8=1] 

SD8a. In the last 30 days, how many days did this happen? 

 | | | DAYS [RANGE 1 – 30] .................................. GO TO SD9

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 GO TO SD9 

SD8b. Do you think it was one or two days, or more than two days? 

 ONE OR TWO DAYS ..................................................... 1 

 MORE THAN TWO DAYS ............................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

 

GO TO SD9 
Page 4C-58

SELECT APPROPRIATE FILLS DEPENDING ON NUMBER OF ADULTS AND NUMBER OF 

CHILDREN IN THE HOUSEHOLD. 

SD9. Now I’m going to read you several statements that people have made about the food 

situation of their children. For these statements, please tell me whether the statement 

was often true, sometimes true, or never true in the last 30 days for [your child/children 

living in the household who are under 18 years old or 18 or older but still in high school 

during the most recently completed school year]. 

IF SINGLE ADULT AND SINGLE CHILD: 

 “I relied on only a few kinds of low-cost food to feed my child because I was running out 

of money to buy food.” 

IF SINGLE ADULT AND MULTIPLE CHILDREN: 

 “I relied on only a few kinds of low-cost food to feed my children because I was running 

out of money to buy food.” 

IF MULTIPLE ADULTS AND SINGLE CHILD: 

 “We relied on only a few kinds of low-cost food to feed our child because we were 

running out of money to buy food.” 

IF MULTIPLE ADULTS AND MULTIPLE CHILDREN: 

 “We relied on only a few kinds of low-cost food to feed our children because we were 

running out of money to buy food.” 

SHOW FOR ALL: 

 Was that often, sometimes, or never true for your household in the last 30 days? 

 OFTEN TRUE ................................................................ 1 

 SOMETIMES TRUE ....................................................... 2 

 NEVER TRUE ................................................................ 3 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 
Page 4C-59

SD10. IF SINGLE ADULT AND SINGLE CHILD: 

 “I couldn’t feed my child a balanced meal, because I couldn’t afford that.” 

IF SINGLE ADULT AND MULTIPLE CHILDREN: 

 “I couldn’t feed my children a balanced meal, because I couldn’t afford that.” 

IF MULTIPLE ADULTS AND SINGLE CHILD: 

 “We couldn’t feed our child a balanced meal, because we couldn’t afford that.” 

IF MULTIPLE ADULTS AND MULTIPLE CHILDREN: 

 “We couldn’t feed our children a balanced meal, because we couldn’t afford that.” 

SHOW FOR ALL: 

 Was that often, sometimes, or never true for your household in the last 30 days? 

 OFTEN TRUE ................................................................ 1 

 SOMETIMES TRUE ....................................................... 2 

 NEVER TRUE ................................................................ 3 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

SD11. IF SINGLE ADULT AND SINGLE CHILD: 

 “My child was not eating enough because I just couldn’t afford enough food.” 

IF SINGLE ADULT AND MULTIPLE CHILDREN: 

 “My children were not eating enough because I just couldn’t afford enough food.” 

 IF MULTIPLE ADULTS AND SINGLE CHILD: 

 “Our child was not eating enough because we just couldn’t afford enough food.” 

IF MULTIPLE ADULTS AND MULTIPLE CHILDREN: 

 “Our children were not eating enough because we just couldn’t afford enough food.” 

SHOW FOR ALL: 

 Was that often, sometimes, or never true for your household in the last 30 days? 

 OFTEN TRUE ................................................................ 1 

 SOMETIMES TRUE ....................................................... 2 

 NEVER TRUE ................................................................ 3 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

PROGRAMMER: IF AFFIRMATIVE RESPONSE (I.E., “OFTEN TRUE” OR “SOMETIMES 

TRUE”) TO ONE OR MORE OF QUESTIONS SD9-SD11, THEN 

CONTINUE TO SD12. OTHERWISE, GO TO SE1. 

SD12. DISPLAY IF SINGLE CHILD: 
Page 4C-60

 In the last 30 days, did you ever cut the size of your child’s meals because there wasn’t 

enough money for food? 

DISPLAY IF MULTIPLE CHILDREN: 

 In the last 30 days, did you ever cut the size of any of your children’s meals because 

there wasn’t enough money for food? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

SD13. DISPLAY IF SINGLE CHILD: 

 In the last 30 days, did your child ever skip meals because there wasn’t enough money 

for food? 

DISPLAY IF MULTIPLE CHILDREN: 

 In the last 30 days, did any of your children ever skip meals because there wasn’t 

enough money for food? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 GO TO SD14

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 GO TO SD14

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 GO TO SD14

[ASK IF SD13=1]

SD13a. In the last 30 days, how many days did this happen? 

 | | | DAYS [RANGE 1 – 30] .................................. GO TO SD14

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 GO TO SD14 

SD13b.Do you think it was one or two days, or more than two days? 

 ONE OR TWO DAYS ..................................................... 1 

 MORE THAN TWO DAYS ............................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 
Page 4C-61

SD14. DISPLAY IF SINGLE CHILD: 

 In the last 30 days, was your child ever hungry but you just couldn’t afford more food? 

DISPLAY IF MULTIPLE CHILDREN: 

 In the last 30 days, were your children ever hungry but you just couldn’t afford more 

food? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

SD15. 

DISPLAY IF SINGLE CHILD: 

 In the last 30 days, did your child ever not eat for a whole day because there wasn't 

enough money for food? 

DISPLAY IF MULTIPLE CHILDREN: 

 In the last 30 days, did any of your children ever not eat for a whole day because there 

wasn't enough money for food? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

TIMING 4 

 
Page 4C-62

[PROGRAMMING NOTE: SET PARTIAL FLAG AT SE1.] 

[ASK SE1-SE23 IF SC1A>0 AND SC1A<88] 

SECTION E: DIETARY BEHAVIORS – CHILD 

For the next series of questions we’ll be asking about meals and snacks [CHILDNAME may 

have had during the last 30 days since [DATE (DATE OF INTERVIEW -30 DAYS)]. 

SE1. During the last 30 days, since [DATE (DATE OF INTERVIEW -30 DAYS)], did [CHILD 

NAME] usually eat breakfast each day? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

The next questions are about the different kinds of foods [CHILD NAME] ate or drank during the 

last 30 days since [DATE (DATE OF INTERVIEW -30 DAYS)]. When answering, please include 

meals and snacks eaten at home, at summer school, in restaurants, and anyplace else. 

SE2. During the last 30 days, how often did [CHILD NAME] eat hot or cold cereal? (You can 

tell me per day, per week or per month.) 

0__NEVER GO TO SE3 

1__ PER DAY [RANGE 1-9] 

2__ PER WEEK [RANGE 1-63] 

3__ PER MONTH [RANGE 1-270]

8 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 

9 REFUSED 

[IF DAY>3 OR WEEK>21 OR MONTH>90: You said (display # of times) per (display unit). Is 

that correct?] 

1__ YES, CONTINUE 

 2__ NO, CORRECT NUMBER PER DAY/WEEK/MONTH 
Page 4C-63

SE2.1. During the last 30 days, what kind of cereal did [CHILD NAME] usually eat? 

 [PROBE FOR CLARITY IF NEEDED: NAME AND VARIETY] 

 [INTERVIEWER: RECORD INFORMATION FOR ONLY ONE CEREAL. IF MORE THAN 

ONE CEREAL NAMED, TAKE FIRST CEREAL MENTIONED. RECORD NAME AND 

VARIETY IN PART A AND BRAND IN PART B.] 

a. NAME/VARIETY:________________________________________________ 

(GAVE CEREAL TYPE) 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 

[PROBE: What brand of cereal is that?] 

b. BRAND: 

KELLOGG’S ................................................................... 1 

 GENERAL MILLS .......................................................... 2 

MALT-O-MEAL .............................................................. 3 

POST ............................................................................. 4 

 QUAKER ........................................................................ 5 

 OTHER NAMED BRAND (SPECIFY) ............................ 6 

 UNNAMEDSTORE BRAND/GENERIC ......................... 7 

DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

PROGRAMMER: IF SE2.1a AND SE2.1b=8 OR 9, GO TO SE3 

SE2.2. Was there another cereal that [CHILD NAME] ate? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 GO TO SE3

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 GO TO SE3

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 GO TO SE3

 
Page 4C-64

SE2.3. During the last 30 days since [DATE (DATE OF INTERVIEW -30 DAYS)], what second 

kind of cereal did [CHILD NAME] usually eat? 

 [PROBE FOR CLARITY IF NEEDED: NAME AND VARIETY] 

 [INTERVIEWER: RECORD INFORMATION FOR ONLY ONE CEREAL. IF MORE THAN 

ONE CEREAL NAMED, TAKE FIRST CEREAL MENTIONED. RECORD NAME AND 

VARIETY IN PART A AND BRAND IN PART B.] 

a. NAME/VARIETY:________________________________________________ 

(GAVE CEREAL TYPE) 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 

[PROBE: What brand of cereal is that?] 

b. BRAND: 

KELLOGG’S ................................................................... 1 

 GENERAL MILLS .......................................................... 2 

MALT-O-MEAL .............................................................. 3 

POST ............................................................................. 4 

 QUAKER ........................................................................ 5 

 OTHER NAMED BRAND (SPECIFY) ........................... 6 

 UNNAMEDSTORE BRAND/GENERIC ......................... 7 

DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

SE3. (During the last 30 days since [DATE (DATE OF INTERVIEW -30 DAYS)], how often did 

[CHILD NAME/] have): 

 Milk (either to drink or on cereal)? Do not include soy milk or small amounts of milk in 

coffee or tea. (You can tell me per day, per week or per month.) 

INCLUDE: SKIM, NONFAT, LOW-FAT, WHOLE MILK, BUTTERMILK, AND LACTOSEFREE MILK. ALSO INCLUDE CHOCOLATE OR OTHER FLAVORED MILKS. 

 DO NOT INCLUDE: CREAM 

0__NEVER GO TO SE4

1__ PER DAY [RANGE 1-12] 

2__ PER WEEK [RANGE 1-84] 

3__ PER MONTH [RANGE 1-300]

8 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 

9 REFUSED 

 
Page 4C-65

[IF DAY>4 OR WEEK>28 OR MONTH>120: You said (display # of times) per (display unit). Is 

that correct?] 

1__ YES, CONTINUE 

 2__ NO, CORRECT NUMBER PER DAY/WEEK/MONTH 

SE3.1. What type of milk did [CHILD NAME/] usually have? Was it whole or regular milk, 2% fat 

or reduced-fat milk, 1% or 1/2% fat or low-fat milk, or fat-free, skim, nonfat milk? Do not

include soy milk or rice milk.

 IF RESPONDENT CANNOT PROVIDE USUAL TYPE, CODE ALL THAT APPLY. 

 IF RESPONDENT MENTIONS CHOCOLATE OR OTHER FLAVORED MILKS, ASK: 

Do you know if it is whole, 2%, 1% or nonfat milk? 

 WHOLE MILK ................................................................ 1 

 2% FAT OR REDUCED FAT MILK ................................ 2 

 1% OR 1/2% FAT MILK ................................................. 3 

 FAT-FREE, SKIM, NONFAT MILK ................................ 4 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

SE4. (Thinking about the last 30 days since [DATE (DATE OF INTERVIEW -30 DAYS)], how 

often did [CHILD NAME/] drink): 

 Regular soda or pop that contains sugar? Do not include diet soda. (You can tell me per 

day, per week or per month.) 

INCLUDE: MANZANITA (man-zuh-nee-tuh) AND PENAFIEL (pen-yah-fee-EL) SODAS. 

 DO NOT INCLUDE DIET OR SUGAR-FREE DRINKS. DO NOT INCLUDE JUICES OR 

TEA IN CANS. 

0__NEVER 

1__ PER DAY [RANGE 1-12] 

2__ PER WEEK [RANGE 1-84] 

3__ PER MONTH [RANGE 1-300]

8 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 

9 REFUSED 

[IF DAY>4 OR WEEK>28 OR MONTH>120: You said (display # of times) per (display unit). Is 

that correct?] 

1__ YES, CONTINUE 

2__ NO, CORRECT NUMBER PER DAY/WEEK/MONTHS 

SE5. During the last 30 days, how often did [CHILD NAME /] drink... 
Page 4C-66

 100% pure fruit juice, such as orange, mango, apple, grape, and pineapple juice? Do not 

include fruit-flavored drinks with added sugar or fruit juice you made at home with added 

sugar. (You can tell me per day, per week or per month.) 

INCLUDE: ONLY 100% PURE JUICES 

 DO NOT INCLUDE: FRUIT-FLAVORED DRINKS WITH ADDED SUGAR, LIKE 

CRANBERRY DRINK, HI-C, LEMONADE, KOOL-AID, GATORADE, TAMPICO (tampee-koh), AND SUNNY DELIGHT. 

0__NEVER 

1__ PER DAY [RANGE 1-12] 

2__ PER WEEK [RANGE 1-84] 

3__ PER MONTH [RANGE 1-300]

8 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 

9 REFUSED 

[IF DAY>4 OR WEEK>28 OR MONTH>120: You said (display # of times) per (display unit). Is 

that correct?] 

1__ YES, CONTINUE 

2__ NO, CORRECT NUMBER PER DAY/WEEK/MONTH

SE6. (During the last 30 days since [DATE (DATE OF INTERVIEW -30 DAYS)], how often did 

[CHILD NAME /] drink): 

 Coffee or tea that had sugar or honey added to it? Include coffee and tea you 

sweetened yourself and presweetened tea and coffee drinks such as Arizona Iced Tea 

and Frappuccino. Do not include artificially sweetened coffee or diet tea. (You can tell 

me per day, per week or per month.) 

0__NEVER 

1__ PER DAY [RANGE 1-12] 

2__ PER WEEK [RANGE 1-84] 

3__ PER MONTH [RANGE 1-300]

8 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 

9 REFUSED 

[IF DAY>4 OR WEEK>28 OR MONTH>120: You said (display # of times) per (display unit). Is 

that correct?] 

1__ YES, CONTINUE 

 2__ NO, CORRECT NUMBER PER DAY/WEEK/MONTH 

SE7. [During the last 30 days since DATE (DATE OF INTERVIEW -30 DAYS)], how often did 

[CHILD NAME/] drink sweetened fruit drinks, sports or energy drinks, such as Kool-Aid, 

lemonade, Hi-C, cranberry drink, Gatorade, Red Bull, or Vitamin Water? Include fruit 

juices you made at home with added sugar. 
Page 4C-67

 Do not include diet drinks or artificially sweetened drinks. (You can tell me per day, per 

week or per month.) 

0__NEVER 

1__ PER DAY [RANGE 1-12] 

2__ PER WEEK [RANGE 1-84] 

3__ PER MONTH [RANGE 1-300]

8 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 

9 REFUSED 

[IF DAY>4 OR WEEK>28 OR MONTH>120: You said (display # of times) per (display unit). Is 

that correct?] 

1__ YES, CONTINUE 

2__ NO, CORRECT NUMBER PER DAY/WEEK/MONTH

SE8. (During the last 30 days since [DATE (DATE OF INTERVIEW -30 DAYS)], how often did 

[CHILD NAME/] eat): 

 Fruit? Include fresh, frozen or canned fruit. Do not include juices. (You can tell me per 

day, per week or per month.) 

DO NOT INCLUDE: DRIED FRUITS 

0__NEVER 

1__ PER DAY [RANGE 1-9] 

2__ PER WEEK [RANGE 1-63] 

3__ PER MONTH [RANGE 1-270]

8 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 

9 REFUSED 

[IF DAY>3 OR WEEK>21 OR MONTH>90: You said (display # of times) per (display unit). Is 

that correct?] 

1__ YES, CONTINUE 

 2__ NO, CORRECT NUMBER PER DAY/WEEK/MONTH 
Page 4C-68

SE9. During the last 30 days, how often did [CHILD NAME/] eat a green leafy or lettuce salad, 

with or without other vegetables? (You can tell me per day, per week or per month.) 

 [INCLUDE: SPINACH SALADS] 

0__NEVER 

1__ PER DAY [RANGE 1-9] 

2__ PER WEEK [RANGE 1-63] 

3__ PER MONTH [RANGE 1-270]

8 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 

9 REFUSED 

[IF DAY>3 OR WEEK>21 OR MONTH>90: You said (display # of times) per (display unit). Is 

that correct?] 

1__ YES, CONTINUE 

2__ NO, CORRECT NUMBER PER DAY/WEEK/MONTH 

SE10. During the last 30 days, how often did [CHILD NAME/] eat any kind of fried potatoes, 

including French fries, home fries, or hash brown potatoes? (You can tell me per day, 

per week or per month.) 

 [DO NOT INCLUDE: POTATO CHIPS] 

0__NEVER 

1__ PER DAY [RANGE 1-9] 

2__ PER WEEK [RANGE 1-63] 

3__ PER MONTH [RANGE 1-270]

8 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 

9 REFUSED 

[IF DAY>3 OR WEEK>21 OR MONTH>90: You said (display # of times) per (display unit). Is 

that correct?] 

1__ YES, CONTINUE 

 2__ NO, CORRECT NUMBER PER DAY/WEEK/MONTH
Page 4C-69

SE10.1. During the last 30 days, how often did [CHILD NAME/] eat other kind of potatoes such 

as mashed potatoes, sweet potatoes, or potato salad? (You can tell me per day, per 

week or per month.) 

 [INCLUDE: ALL TYPES OF POTATOES EXCEPT FRIED. INCLUDE POTATOES 

AU GRATIN, AND SCALLOPED POTATOES]. 

0__NEVER 

1__ PER DAY [RANGE 1-9] 

2__ PER WEEK [RANGE 1-63] 

3__ PER MONTH [RANGE 1-270]

8 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 

9 REFUSED 

[IF DAY>3 OR WEEK>21 OR MONTH>90: You said (display # of times) per (display unit). Is 

that correct?] 

1__ YES, CONTINUE 

2__ NO, CORRECT NUMBER PER DAY/WEEK/MONTH

SE11. (During the last 30 days since [DATE (DATE OF INTERVIEW -30 DAYS)], how often did 

[CHILD NAME/] eat): 

 Refried beans, baked beans, beans in soup, pork and beans or any other type of cooked 

dried beans? Do not include green beans. (You can tell me per day, per week or per 

month.) 

 [INCLUDE: SOYBEANS, KIDNEY, PINTO, GARBANZO, BLACK BEANS, LENTILS, 

BLACK-EYED PEAS, COW PEAS, AND LIMA BEANS. INCLUDE CANNED BEANS.] 

0__NEVER 

1__ PER DAY [RANGE 1-9] 

2__ PER WEEK [RANGE 1-63] 

3__ PER MONTH [RANGE 1-270]

8 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 

9 REFUSED 

[IF DAY>3 OR WEEK>21 OR MONTH>90: You said (display # of times) per (display unit). Is 

that correct?] 

1__ YES, CONTINUE 

2__ NO, CORRECT NUMBER PER DAY/WEEK/MONTH

 
Page 4C-70

SE12. (During the last 30 days since [DATE (DATE OF INTERVIEW -30 DAYS)], how often did 

[CHILD NAME/] eat): 

Brown rice or other cooked whole grains, such as bulgur, cracked wheat, or millet? Do 

not include white rice. 

 INTERVIEWER NOTE: Brown rice is a type of whole grain. It is brown in color and 

takes longer to cook than white rice. It contains almost all of the rice grain and is not as 

processed as white rice. Compared to white rice it also contains more fiber and more of 

some vitamins and minerals that are lost during the processing of rice. 

0__NEVER 

1__ PER DAY [RANGE 1-9] 

2__ PER WEEK [RANGE 1-63] 

3__ PER MONTH [RANGE 1-270]

8 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 

9 REFUSED 

[IF DAY>3 OR WEEK>21 OR MONTH>90: You said (display # of times) per (display unit). Is 

that correct?] 

1__ YES, CONTINUE 

2__ NO, CORRECT NUMBER PER DAY/WEEK/MONTH

SE13. (During the last 30 days since [DATE (DATE OF INTERVIEW -30 DAYS)], not including 

what you just told me about lettuce salads, potatoes, cooked dried beans, how often did 

[CHILD NAME/] eat): 

 Other vegetables? (You can tell me per day, per week or per month.) 

 [DO NOT INCLUDE: RICE 

 EXAMPLES OF OTHER VEGETABLES INCLUDE: TOMATOES, GREEN BEANS, 

CARROTS, CORN, CABBAGE, BEAN SPROUTS, COLLARD GREENS, AND 

BROCCOLI. INCLUDE ANY FORM OF THE VEGETABLE (RAW, COOKED, CANNED, 

OR FROZEN).] 

0__NEVER 

1__ PER DAY [RANGE 1-9] 

2__ PER WEEK [RANGE 1-63] 

3__ PER MONTH [RANGE 1-270]

8 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 

9 REFUSED 

 
Page 4C-71

[IF DAY>3 OR WEEK>21 OR MONTH>90: You said (display # of times) per (display unit). Is 

that correct?] 

1__ YES, CONTINUE 

2__ NO, CORRECT NUMBER PER DAY/WEEK/MONTH

 

SE14. (During the last 30 days since [DATE (DATE OF INTERVIEW -30 DAYS)], how often did 

[CHILD NAME/] have): 

 Mexican-type salsa made with tomato? (You can tell me per day, per week or per 

month.) 

[INCLUDE: ALL TOMATO-BASED SALSAS.] 

0__NEVER 

1__ PER DAY [RANGE 1-9] 

2__ PER WEEK [RANGE 1-63] 

3__ PER MONTH [RANGE 1-270]

8 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 

9 REFUSED 

[IF DAY>3 OR WEEK>21 OR MONTH>90: You said (display # of times) per (display unit). Is 

that correct?] 

1__ YES, CONTINUE 

2__ NO, CORRECT NUMBER PER DAY/WEEK/MONTH

SE15. (During the last 30 days since [DATE (DATE OF INTERVIEW -30 DAYS)], how often did 

[CHILD NAME/] eat): 

 Pizza? Include frozen pizza, fast food pizza, and homemade pizza. (You can tell me per 

day, per week or per month.) 

0__NEVER 

1__ PER DAY [RANGE 1-9] 

2__ PER WEEK [RANGE 1-63] 

3__ PER MONTH [RANGE 1-270]

8 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 

9 REFUSED 

[IF DAY>3 OR WEEK>21 OR MONTH>90: You said (display # of times) per (display unit). Is 

that correct?] 

1__ YES, CONTINUE 

2__ NO, CORRECT NUMBER PER DAY/WEEK/MONTH

SE16. (During the last 30 days since [DATE (DATE OF INTERVIEW -30 DAYS)], how often did 

[CHILD NAME/] have): 
Page 4C-72

 Tomato sauces such as with spaghetti or noodles or mixed into foods such as lasagna? 

Please do not count tomato sauce on pizza. (You can tell me per day, per week or per 

month.) 

0__NEVER 

1__ PER DAY [RANGE 1-9] 

2__ PER WEEK [RANGE 1-63] 

3__ PER MONTH [RANGE 1-270]

8 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 

9 REFUSED 

[IF DAY>3 OR WEEK>21 OR MONTH>90: You said (display # of times) per (display unit). Is 

that correct?] 

1__ YES, CONTINUE 

2__ NO, CORRECT NUMBER PER DAY/WEEK/MONTH 

SE17. (During the last 30 days since [DATE (DATE OF INTERVIEW -30 DAYS)], how often did 

[CHILD NAME/] eat): 

 Any kind of cheese? Include cheese as a snack, cheese on burgers, sandwiches, and 

cheese in foods such as lasagna, quesadillas, or casseroles. Please do not count 

cheese on pizza. (You can tell me per day, per week or per month.) 

[INCLUDE: MACARONI AND CHEESE, ENCHILADAS 

 DO NOT INCLUDE: CREAM CHEESE OR CHEESES MADE FROM NON-DAIRY 

FOODS, SUCH AS SOY OR RICE, OR CHEESE ON PIZZA.] 

0__NEVER 

1__ PER DAY [RANGE 1-9] 

2__ PER WEEK [RANGE 1-63] 

3__ PER MONTH [RANGE 1-270]

8 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 

9 REFUSED 

 

[IF DAY>3 OR WEEK>21 OR MONTH>90: You said (display # of times) per (display unit). Is 

that correct?] 

 1__ YES, CONTINUE 

 2__ NO, CORRECT NUMBER PER DAY/WEEK/MONTH

SE18. (During the last 30 days since [DATE (DATE OF INTERVIEW -30 DAYS)], how often did 

[CHILD NAME/] eat): 
Page 4C-73

 Whole grain bread (and tortillas) including toast, rolls and in sandwiches? Whole grain 

breads include whole wheat, rye, oatmeal and pumpernickel. Do not include white bread 

or potato bread. (You can tell me per day, per week or per month.) 

0__NEVER 

1__ PER DAY [RANGE 1-9] 

2__ PER WEEK [RANGE 1-63] 

3__ PER MONTH [RANGE 1-270]

8 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 

9 REFUSED 

[IF DAY>3 OR WEEK>21 OR MONTH>90: You said (display # of times) per (display unit). Is 

that correct?] 

1__ YES, CONTINUE 

2__ NO, CORRECT NUMBER PER DAY/WEEK/MONTH 

SE19. (During the last 30 days since [DATE (DATE OF INTERVIEW -30 DAYS)], how often did 

[CHILD NAME/] eat): 

Chocolate or any other types of candy? Do not include sugar-free candy. 

0__NEVER 

1__ PER DAY [RANGE 1-9] 

2__ PER WEEK [RANGE 1-63] 

3__ PER MONTH [RANGE 1-270]

8 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 

9 REFUSED 

[IF DAY>3 OR WEEK>21 OR MONTH>90: You said (display # of times) per (display unit). Is 

that correct?] 

1__ YES, CONTINUE 

2__ NO, CORRECT NUMBER PER DAY/WEEK/MONTH

 
Page 4C-74

SE20. (During the last 30 days since [DATE (DATE OF INTERVIEW -30 DAYS)], how often did 

[CHILD NAME/] eat): 

 Doughnuts, sweet rolls, Danish, muffins, (pan dulce) or pop-tarts Do not include sugarfree items. (You can tell me per day, per week or per month.) 

 [INCLUDE: LOW-FAT KINDS, TWINKIES AND HOSTESS CUPCAKES 

 DO NOT INCLUDE: PANCAKES, WAFFLES, FRENCH TOAST, CAKE, ICE CREAM 

AND OTHER FROZEN DESSERTS OR CANDY] 

0__NEVER 

1__ PER DAY [RANGE 1-9] 

2__ PER WEEK [RANGE 1-63] 

3__ PER MONTH [RANGE 1-270]

8 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 

9 REFUSED 

[IF DAY>3 OR WEEK>21 OR MONTH>90: You said (display # of times) per (display unit). Is 

that correct?] 

1__ YES, CONTINUE 

2__ NO, CORRECT NUMBER PER DAY/WEEK/MONTH

SE21. (During the last 30 days since [DATE (DATE OF INTERVIEW -30 DAYS)], how often did 

[CHILD NAME/] eat): 

 Cookies, cake, pie, or brownies? Do not include sugar-free kinds. (You can tell me per 

day, per week or per month.) 

 [INCLUDE: LOW-FAT KINDS, TWINKIES AND HOSTESS CUPCAKES 

 DO NOT INCLUDE: ICE CREAM AND OTHER FROZEN DESSERTS OR CANDY] 

0__NEVER 

1__ PER DAY [RANGE 1-9] 

2__ PER WEEK [RANGE 1-63] 

3__ PER MONTH [RANGE 1-270]

8 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 

9 REFUSED 

[IF DAY>3 OR WEEK>21 OR MONTH>90: You said (display # of times) per (display unit). Is 

that correct?] 

1__ YES, CONTINUE 

2__ NO, CORRECT NUMBER PER DAY/WEEK/MONTH

SE22. (During the last 30 days since [DATE (DATE OF INTERVIEW -30 DAYS)], how often did 

[CHILD NAME/] eat): 
Page 4C-75

 Ice cream or other frozen desserts? Do not include sugar-free kinds. (You can tell me 

per day, per week or per month.) 

 [INCLUDE: LOW-FAT KINDS, ALSO INCLUDE FROZEN YOGURT AND SHERBET. 

 DO NOT INCLUDE: NON-DAIRY FROZEN DESSERTS, SUCH AS SORBET, SNOCONES 

0__NEVER 

1__ PER DAY [RANGE 1-9] 

2__ PER WEEK [RANGE 1-63] 

3__ PER MONTH [RANGE 1-270]

8 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 

9 REFUSED 

[IF DAY>3 OR WEEK>21 OR MONTH>90: You said (display # of times) per (display unit). Is 

that correct?] 

1__ YES, CONTINUE 

2__ NO, CORRECT NUMBER PER DAY/WEEK/MONTH

SE23. (During the last 30 days since [DATE (DATE OF INTERVIEW -30 DAYS)], how often did 

[CHILD NAME/] eat): 

 Popcorn? (You can tell me per day, per week or per month.) 

 [INCLUDE: LOW-FAT POPCORN 

0__NEVER 

1__ PER DAY [RANGE 1-9] 

2__ PER WEEK [RANGE 1-63] 

3__ PER MONTH [RANGE 1-270]

8 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 

9 REFUSED 

[IF DAY>3 OR WEEK>21 OR MONTH>90: You said (display # of times) per (display unit). Is 

that correct?] 

1__ YES, CONTINUE 

2__ NO, CORRECT NUMBER PER DAY/WEEK/MONTH

TIMING 5 

[ASK SF1-SF6 IF SC1A>0 AND SC1A<88] 

SECTION F: PROGRAM PARTICIPATION – CHILD 

SF1. During the last 30 days since [DATE (DATE OF INTERVIEW -30 DAYS)], where did 

[CHILD NAME/] usually eat lunchtime meals Monday to Friday? 
Page 4C-76

IF NEEDED, SAY: “At home, summer school, daycamp, etc.” 

 INTERVIEWER: IF RESPONDENT MENTIONS MORE THAN ONE PLACE, PROBE 

FOR THE PLACE CHILD WENT TO MORE FREQUENTLY OR IF SPLIT TIME 

EVENLY BETWEEN 2 PLACES, RECORD FIRST PLACE IN SF1.1 AND SECOND 

PLACE IN SF4.2. 

 MARK ONE 

 HOME ............................................................................ 1 GO TO SF4.1a

 FRIEND’S OR RELATIVE’S HOME ............................... 2 GO TO SF4.1a

 SCHOOL ........................................................................ 3 

 DAY CAMP .................................................................... 4 GO TO SF4 

 SLEEP AWAY CAMP .................................................... 5 GO TO SF4

 CHURCH, SYNAGOGUE, OR MOSQUE ...................... 6 GO TO SF4

 CHILD CARE/DAY CARE .............................................. 7 GO TO SF4.1a

 PLAYGROUND/PARK/DEPT OF PARKS & REC ......... 8 GO TO SF4 

COMMUNITY CENTER/BOYS & GIRLS CLUB/YMCA . 9 GO TO SF4 

RESTAURANT/FAST FOOD RESTAURANT ................ 10 GO TO SF4.1a

 WORK ............................................................................ 11 GO TO SF4.1a 

 SOME OTHER PLACE .................................................. 12 GO TO SF4 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 GO TO SF5

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 GO TO SF5 

SF1.1. Is this a grade school, elementary, middle, or high school? 

 YES ............................................................................... 1 

 NO ................................................................................. 2 GO TO SF4

 DON’T KNOW ............................................................... 8 GO TO SF4

 REFUSED ..................................................................... 9 GO TO SF4 

SF1.2. Is [CHILD NAME] taking summer school classes? 

 YES ............................................................................... 1 

 NO ................................................................................. 2 GO TO SF4

 DON’T KNOW ............................................................... 8 GO TO SF4

 REFUSED ..................................................................... 9 GO TO SF4 
Page 4C-77

SF1.3. Please tell me the name of the school and the city where it’s located. 

 NAME: _____________________________________ 

 CITY:_______________________________________ 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

SF2. During the last 30 days, how many days a week did [CHILD NAME/] usually get a 

 complete school lunch at this summer school? 

 

 ONE DAY ....................................................................... 1 

 TWO DAYS ................................................................... 2 

 THREE DAYS ................................................................ 3 

 FOUR DAYS .................................................................. 4 

 FIVE DAYS/EVERYDAY ................................................ 5 

 NO DAYS/EATS SOMEPLACE ELSE ........................... 6 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

SF3. During the last 30 days, how many days a week did [CHILD NAME/] usually get a 

complete breakfast at this summer school?

ONE DAY ....................................................................... 1 

 TWO DAYS ................................................................... 2 

 THREE DAYS ................................................................ 3 

 FOUR DAYS .................................................................. 4 

 FIVE DAYS/EVERYDAY ................................................ 5 

 NO DAYS/EATS BREAKFAST SOMEPLACE ELSE .... 6 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

SF3.1. During the last 30 days, how many days a week did [CHILD NAME/] get free supper

meals at an after school program held in (his/her) school building? 

 

 ONE DAY ....................................................................... 1 GO TO SF4.2 

 TWO DAYS ................................................................... 2 GO TO SF4.2

 THREE DAYS ................................................................ 3 GO TO SF4.2

 FOUR DAYS .................................................................. 4 GO TO SF4.2 

 FIVE DAYS/EVERYDAY ................................................ 5 GO TO SF4.2

 NO DAYS/EATS SUPPER SOMEPLACE ELSE ........... 6 GO TO SF4.2

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 GO TO SF4.2

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 GO TO SF4.2

SF4. Please tell me the name of the [FILL WITH PLACE FROM SF1] and the city where it’s 

located. 
Page 4C-78

 NAME: _____________________________________ 

 CITY:_______________________________________ 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

SF4.1a. During the last 30 days, how many days a week did [CHILD NAME/] usually get lunch 

there Monday to Friday? 

 

 ONE DAY ....................................................................... 1 

 TWO DAYS ................................................................... 2 

 THREE DAYS ................................................................ 3 

 FOUR DAYS .................................................................. 4 

 FIVE DAYS/EVERYDAY ................................................ 5 

 NO DAYS/EATS SOMEPLACE ELSE ........................... 6 GO TO SF4.2

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 GO TO SF5

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 GO TO SF5 

PROGRAMMER: IF SF1=1 GO TO SF4.2 

SF4.1b. Did you usually send food for your child’s lunch, pay for lunch, or was the lunch [CHILD 

NAME/] received at [FILL WITH PLACE FROM SF1] free? 

 SEND FOOD FOR LUNCH ............................................ 1 

 PAY FOR LUNCH .......................................................... 2 

LUNCH WAS FREE ....................................................... 3 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

PROGRAMMER: IF SF4.1a=5 GO TO SF5 
Page 4C-79

SF4.2. During the last 30 days, excluding [(FILL WITH PLACE FROM F1 that you’ve told me 

about)], where (else) did [CHILD NAME/] get lunchtime meals Monday to Friday?

PROBE: Any place else? 

 MARK ALL THAT APPLY 

 HOME ............................................................................ 1 

 FRIEND’S OR RELATIVE’S HOME ............................... 2 

 SCHOOL ........................................................................ 3 

 DAY CAMP .................................................................... 4 

 SLEEP AWAY CAMP .................................................... 5 

 CHURCH, SYNAGOGUE, OR MOSQUE ...................... 6 

 CHILD CARE/DAY CARE .............................................. 7 

 PLAYGROUND/PARK/DEPT OF PARKS & REC ......... 8 

COMMUNITY CENTER/BOYS & GIRLS CLUB/YMCA . 9 

RESTAURANT/FAST FOOD RESTAURANT ................ 10

 WORK ............................................................................ 11 

 SOME OTHER PLACE .................................................. 12 

NO OTHER PLACE ....................................................... 13 GO TO SF5

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 GO TO SF5

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 GO TO SF5 

PROGRAMMER: IF MORE THAN ONE RESPONSE <88 TO SF4.2, GO TO SF4.2a 

IF ONLY ONE RESPONSE <14 TO SF4.2: IF SF4.2=1, 2, 10 OR 11 GO TO SF4.3b; IF 

SF4.2=3 GO TO SF4.2b, IF SF4.2=4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, OR 12 GO TO SF4.3a. 

SF4.2a. Which of these places did [CHILD NAME/] eat at more frequently? 

 PROBE: These places include [INSERT PLACE (1-13) FROM SF4.2] 

 HOME ............................................................................ 1 GO TO SF4.3b

 FRIEND’S OR RELATIVE’S HOME ............................... 2 GO TO SF4.3b

 SCHOOL ........................................................................ 3 

 DAY CAMP .................................................................... 4 GO TO SF4.3a 

 SLEEP AWAY CAMP .................................................... 5 GO TO SF4.3a

 CHURCH, SYNAGOGUE, OR MOSQUE ...................... 6 GO TO SF4.3a

 CHILD CARE/DAY CARE .............................................. 7 GO TO SF4.3a

 PLAYGROUND/PARK/DEPT OF PARKS & REC ......... 8 GO TO SF4.3a 

COMMUNITY CENTER/BOYS & GIRLS CLUB/YMCA . 9 GO TO SF4.3a 

RESTAURANT/FAST FOOD RESTAURANT ................ 10 GO TO SF4.3b

 WORK ............................................................................ 11 GO TO SF4.3b 

 SOME OTHER PLACE .................................................. 12 GO TO SF4.3a 

NO OTHER PLACE ....................................................... 13 GO TO SF5

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 GO TO SF5 

REFUSED .............................................................................. 99 GO TO SF5
Page 4C-80

SF4.2b. Is this a grade school, elementary, middle, or high school? 

 YES ............................................................................... 1 

 NO ................................................................................. 2 GO TO SF4.3a

 DON’T KNOW ............................................................... 8 GO TO SF4.3a

 REFUSED ..................................................................... 9 GO TO SF4.3a 

SF4.2c. Is [CHILD NAME/] taking summer school classes? 

 YES ............................................................................... 1 

 NO ................................................................................. 2 GO TO SF4.3a

 DON’T KNOW ............................................................... 8 GO TO SF4.3a

 REFUSED ..................................................................... 9 GO TO SF4.3a

SF4.2d. Please tell me the name of the school and the city where it’s located. 

 NAME: _____________________________________ 

 CITY:_______________________________________ 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

SF4.2e. During the last 30 days, how many days a week did [CHILD NAME/] usually get a 

complete school lunch at this summer school? 

 

 ONE DAY ....................................................................... 1 

 TWO DAYS ................................................................... 2 

 THREE DAYS ................................................................ 3 

 FOUR DAYS .................................................................. 4 

 FIVE DAYS/EVERYDAY ................................................ 5 

 NO DAYS/EATS SOMEPLACE ELSE ........................... 6 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

SF4.2f. During the last 30 days, how many days a week did [CHILD NAME/] usually get a 

complete breakfast at this summer school? 

 ONE DAY ....................................................................... 1 

 TWO DAYS ................................................................... 2 

 THREE DAYS ................................................................ 3 

 FOUR DAYS .................................................................. 4 

 FIVE DAYS/EVERYDAY ................................................ 5 

 NO DAYS/EATS BREAKFAST SOMEPLACE ELSE .... 6 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

SF4.2g. During the last 30 days, how many days a week did [CHILD NAME/] get free supper

meals at an after school program held in (his/her) school building? 

 
Page 4C-81

 ONE DAY ....................................................................... 1 GO TO SF5 

 TWO DAYS ................................................................... 2 GO TO SF5 

 THREE DAYS ................................................................ 3 GO TO SF5 

 FOUR DAYS .................................................................. 4 GO TO SF5

 FIVE DAYS/EVERYDAY ................................................ 5 GO TO SF5 

 NO DAYS/EATS SUPPER SOMEPLACE ELSE ........... 6 GO TO SF5 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 GO TO SF5 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 GO TO SF5 

SF4.3a . Please tell me the name of the [FILL WITH PLACE FROM SE4.2 OR SE4.2a] and the 

city where it’s located. 

 NAME: _____________________________________ 

 CITY:________________________________________ 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

SF4.3b. During the last 30 days, how many days a week did [CHILD NAME/] usually get lunch 

there Monday to Friday? 

 

 ONE DAY ....................................................................... 1 

 TWO DAYS ................................................................... 2 

 THREE DAYS ................................................................ 3 

 FOUR DAYS .................................................................. 4 

 FIVE DAYS/EVERYDAY ................................................ 5 

 NO DAYS/EATS LUNCH SOMEPLACE ELSE ............. 6 GO TO SF5 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

PROGRAMMER: IF ONLY 1 RESPONSE TO SF4.2 AND IT =1 OR IF SF4.2a=1 GO TO SF5 

SF4.3c. Did you usually send food for your child’s lunch, pay for lunch, or was the lunch [CHILD 

NAME/] received at [FILL WITH PLACE FROM SF4.2a] free? 

 SEND FOOD FOR LUNCH ............................................ 1 

 PAY FOR LUNCH .......................................................... 2 

LUNCH WAS FREE ....................................................... 3 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

 
Page 4C-82

SF5. Excluding summer school, is there a program in your neighborhood that provides free 

meals to children during the months when they are not in school? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 GO TO SF6

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 GO TO SF6

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 GO TO SF6 

PROGRAMMER: IF SF1=1 AND SF4.1a=5 GO TO SF5.1b 

IF SF1=1, 2, 7, 10 OR 11 AND SF4.2 = 1,2,7,10,11 OR 13 GO TO SF5.1b 

SF5.1a. Does [CHILD NAME] attend that summer program? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 GO TO SF6

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 GO TO SF6

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 GO TO SF6 

SF5.1b. Why doesn’t [CHILD NAME/] go to that summer program? 

 MARK ALL THAT APPLY 

 PREFERS TO EAT AT HOME/IS WITH 

 PARENT AT HOME ....................................................... 1 

NO NEED FOR MEALS/FOOD PROVIDED 

 AT HOME ....................................................................... 2 

 DOESN’T LIKE THE FOOD THEY SERVE/FOOD 

 DOESN’T MEET CHILD’S NEEDS ................................ 3 

 NOT INTERESTED IN ACTIVITIES AT 

 PROGRAM/HAS FEW/NO FRIENDS AT PROGRAM ... 4 

 NO TRANSPORTATION TO PROGRAM/TOO FAR ..... 5 

 DON’T LIKE LOCATION OF PROGRAM (UNSAFE) .... 6 

 CHILD HAS A JOB/WORKS .......................................... 7 

 GOES TO SUMMER SCHOOL ..................................... 8 

 CONFLICTS WITH CHILD/PARENT SCHEDULE/ 

 TOO BUSY .................................................................... 9 

 CHILD ATTENDS THIS SUMMER PROGRAM ............. 10 

 ATTENDS ANOTHER PROGRAM/CAMP/DAYCARE 

 (INCLUDES BABYSITTER) ........................................... 11 

 DOESN’T WANT TO GO/IS EMBARRASSED .............. 12 

 CHILD DOESN’T QUALIFY/IS TOO YOUNG/ 

 TOO OLD ....................................................................... 13 

 DON’T KNOW MUCH ABOUT THE PROGRAM/NOT FAMILIAR WITH 

PROGRAM .................................................................... 14 

 DOESN’T EAT LUNCH .................................................. 15 
Page 4C-83

 COST CONCERNS ...............................................16 

 PROGRAM NOT AVAILABLE (NO VACANCIES/NOT STARTED YET/ 

ENDED)...............................................................17 

 MEDICAL CONDITION ......................................... 18 

 PROGRAM IS A FOOD PANTRY/SOUP KITCHEN......19 

 OTHER REASON .......................................................... 20 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 
Page 4C-84

SF6 During the last 30 days, since [DATE (DATE OF INTERVIEW -30 DAYS)], did [CHILD 

NAME/] receive food through a backpack food program for children? 

[IF NEEDED: THE BACKPACK FOOD PROGRAM PROVIDES FOOD FOR CHILDREN TO 

TAKE HOME OVER WEEKENDS AND OTHER DAYS 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

TIMING 6 

 
Page 4C-85

[ASK ALL:] 

SECTION G: PROGRAM PARTICIPATION – HOUSEHOLD 

SG1. Next, I’m going to read the names of some programs that provide food or meals to 

individuals or households. 

SG1.1. (IF BENTYPE=3: Excluding any special summer WIC program benefits,) In the last 30 

days, since [DATE OF INTERVIEW -30 DAYS], did you or anyone in your household 

receive food or benefits from the regular Women, Infants and Children program called 

WIC? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

SG1.2aa. How many women in the household got regular WIC foods or benefits? 

 | | | WOMEN [RANGE 0-20]

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 REFUSED99 

SG1.2ab. How many children in the household got regular WIC foods or benefits? 

 | | | CHILDREN [RANGE 0-20]

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 

SG2. In the last 30 days did you or anyone in your household receive food or meals from food 

pantries, food banks, local soup kitchens or emergency kitchens? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

SG3. Are you (or others in your household) currently receiving regular [FILL STATE SNAP 

PROGRAM NAME], also known as food stamps? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 GO TO SG4

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 GO TO SG4

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 GO TO SG4

SG3.1. What is the amount of the regular [STATE AND NAME OF SNAP PROGRAM] benefits 

you receive per month? Please do not include any special summer benefits for children. 

GO TO SG2 
Page 4C-86

 Enter amount [$1 - $9999] ............................................. GO TO SG6

DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 GO TO SG6

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 GO TO SG6

SG4. Have you (or others in your household) applied for regular [FILL STATE SNAP 

PROGRAM NAME] in the last 30 days? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

[ASK SG6 IF SG3>1 AND MARKET=51] 

SG5. Do you (or others in your household) currently receive monthly commodity foods as part 

of the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR [fid-purr])? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

SG5.1 Please tell me if you have access to a working refrigerator to store food you get for your 

household? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

TIMING 7 

BENTYPE 1=SNAP SEBTC 

BENTYPE 2=HYBRID SNAP SEBTC 

BENTYPE 3=WIC SEBTC

SG6. According to my records, you’ve received special summertime food benefits for your 

(child/children). Is that correct? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 GO TO SH1 

[STATES WITH BENTYPE 2] 

NOT AWARE OF RECEIPT OF SPECIAL 

SUMMERTIME BENEFITS ............................................ 3 GO TO SH1 

 TOLD STATE WE DIDN’T WANT/NEED THEM ........... 4 GO TO SH1 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 GO TO SH1 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 GO TO SH1 
Page 4C-87

SG6.1. Have you used these summer benefits since you received them? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 GO TO SH1 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

[ASK SG9 IF BENTYPE= 3] 

SG9. Now, think about the special summertime food benefits that you received for your 

(child/children). Using a scale of very good, good, fair, or poor, how would you rate the 

food benefits for... 

RANDOMIZE SG9A-SG9D VERY 

GOOD GOOD FAIR POOR 

DON’T 

KNOW REFUSED 

a. Providing the right quantity of 

food? .............................................. 4 3 2 1 8 9 

b. Offering foods that (your children 

like/your child likes) to eat? ........... 4 3 2 1 8 9 

c. Offering food choices in sizes that 

you can find on the shelf? For 

example, if the benefit is for a 64 

oz. container of juice, you can find 

it in the store where you shop ........ 4 3 2 1 8 9 

d. Letting you shop at stores that are 

convenient and easy to shop at ..... 4 3 2 1 8 9 

NO G10-G11 THIS VERSION 

[ASK SG12 –SG13 IF SG6.1=1, 8 OR 9 AND (BENTYPE= 1 OR BENTYPE= 3 OR 

(BENTYPE= 2 AND SG3 NE1))] 

SG12. Using a scale of very good, good, fair, or poor, what overall rating would you give to the 

ease of obtaining the EBT card for the special summertime benefits for children? 

 VERY GOOD ................................................................. 4 

 GOOD ............................................................................ 3 

 FAIR ............................................................................... 2 

 POOR ............................................................................ 1 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

SG13. Using a scale of very good, good, fair, or poor, what overall rating would you give to the 

directions for using the EBT card for the special summertime benefits for children? 

 VERY GOOD ................................................................. 4 
Page 4C-88

 GOOD ............................................................................ 3 

 FAIR ............................................................................... 2 

 POOR ............................................................................ 1 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

[ASK SG14 – SG15 IF SG6.1=1, 8 OR 9] 

SG14. (Using a scale of very good, good, fair, or poor) what overall rating would you give to the 

ease of using the EBT card to get food? 

 VERY GOOD ................................................................. 4 

 GOOD ............................................................................ 3 

 FAIR ............................................................................... 2 

 POOR ............................................................................ 1 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

SG15. Using a scale of very good, good, fair, or poor, what overall rating would you give to the 

ease of resolving problems with the EBT card [for the special summertime benefits] 

for children? [PROGRAMMER: OMIT PHRASE IN BRACKETS WHERE SG2=1 AND 

BENEFIT TYPE=2] 

 VERY GOOD ................................................................. 4 

 GOOD ............................................................................ 3 

 FAIR ............................................................................... 2 

 POOR ............................................................................ 1 

 HAD NO PROBLEMS .................................................... 5 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

TIMING 8 
Page 4C-89

[ASK ALL] 

SECTION H: SHOPPING AND EATING BEHAVIOR – HOUSEHOLD 

QUALIFIED LEVEL 8: REACHES SH1 

Now, I’d like to ask some questions about shopping for food and eating at restaurants. 

SH1. First I’ll ask you about money spent at supermarkets or grocery stores. Then we will talk 

about money spent at other types of stores. 

 Excluding any purchases made with government benefits like SNAP or WIC, since 

[DATE (DATE OF INTERVIEW –30 DAYS)] how much money [did your family/did you] 

spend out of pocket at supermarkets, grocery stores, and other stores? Please do not 

include fast food restaurants and other types of restaurants. (You can tell me per week 

or per month.) 

 PROBE: This includes stores such as Walmart, Target, and Kmart, convenience stores 

like 7-11 or Mini Mart, stores like Costco or Sam’s Club, dollar stores, bakeries, meat 

markets, vegetable stands, or farmer’s markets. 

[RECORD “0” IF NO MONEY WAS SPENT] 

0__NO MONEY SPENT GO TO SH6

1__ PER WEEK [RANGE $1-$9,999]

2__ PER MONTH [RANGE $1-$9,999] 

8 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE GO TO SH6 

9 REFUSED GO TO SH6

SH2. Was any of this $[AMOUNT FROM SH1] per [week/month] spent on nonfood items such 

as cleaning or paper products, pet food, cigarettes or alcoholic beverages? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

 

GO TO SH4 
Page 4C-90

SH3. About how much OF THE $[AMOUNT FROM SH1] per [week/month FROM SH1] was 

spent on nonfood items? 

PROGRAMMER: AMOUNT CANNOT BE MORE THAN THE AMOUNT ENTERED ON 

QUESTION BH1. 

PROGRAMMER: IF UNIT TYPE (WEEK/MONTH) PROVIDED IN SH3 IS NE TO UNIT TYPE 

IN SH1, SHOW: “Just to confirm, was that per [WEEK/MONTH]?” 

 [RECORD “0” IF NO MONEY WAS SPENT] 

0__NO MONEY SPENT 

1__ PER WEEK [RANGE $1-$9,999]

2__ PER MONTH [RANGE $1-$9,999] 

8 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 

 9 REFUSED 

SH4. [IF SG1.1=1 AND (SH1=1 OR SH1=2):] Just to confirm, did the [AMOUNT REPORTED 

AT SH1] you spent at supermarkets and other stores include purchases made with your 

household’s regular WIC fruit & vegetable voucher? 

YES ................................................................................ 1 

NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

SH5. [IF SG3=1 AND (SH1=1 OR SH1=2):] (And) just to confirm, did the [AMOUNT 

REPORTED AT SH1] you spent at supermarkets and other stores include purchases 

made with your household’s regular SNAP benefits? 

 

YES ................................................................................ 1 

NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

SH5a. (And) just to confirm, did the [AMOUNT REPORTED AT SH1] you spent at 

supermarkets and other stores include purchases made with your household’s special 

summertime benefits? 

 

YES ................................................................................ 1 

NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 
Page 4C-91

SH6. During the last 30 days, how many times did your family eat food from a fast food 

restaurant? Include fast food meals at home, or at fast food restaurants, carryout, or 

drive thru. (You can tell me per week or per month.) 

 [IF NEEDED, SAY: “Such as food you get at McDonald’s, KFC, Panda Express, 

Taco Bell, or food trucks.”] 

0__NEVER 

1__ PER WEEK [RANGE 1-99]

2__ PER MONTH [RANGE 1-99] 

8 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 

 9 REFUSED 

SH7. During the last 30 days, how many times did your family eat food at other kinds of 

restaurants? (You can tell me per week or per month.) 

 [IF NEEDED, SAY: Such as food you get at Applebee’s, Chili’s, TGI Fridays, etc.] 

0__NEVER 

1__ PER WEEK [RANGE 1-99] 

2__ PER MONTH [RANGE 1-99]

8 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 

9 REFUSED

[PROGRAMMER: IF SH6 AND SH7=0, GO TO SI1.] 

SH8. About how much money [did your family/did you] spend on food at all types of 

restaurants including fast food restaurants during the last 30 days? (You can tell me per 

week or per month.) 

0__NO MONEY SPENT 

1__ PER WEEK [RANGE $1-$9,999]

2__ PER MONTH [RANGE $1-$9,999]

8 DON’T KNOW/NOT SURE 

 9 REFUSED 

TIMING 9 

 
Page 4C-92

SECTION I: CAREGIVER DEMOGRAPHICS

CHECKPOINT: IF BLINE=1, GO TO SI14.1 

 IF BLINE=2, GO TO SI1 

SI1. Now, I have a few questions about you. 

[RECORD GENDER FROM OBSERVATION.] 

[ONLY IF NECESSARY – ASK: Because it is sometimes difficult to determine over the phone, I 

am asked to confirm with everyone...Are you male or female?] 

 MALE ............................................................................. 1 

 FEMALE ......................................................................... 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

SI2. What is your relationship to [CHILD NAME/]? 

READ ONLY IF NECESSARY: Are you [CHILD NAME’s]... 

 BIOLOGICAL/ADOPTIVE PARENT .............................. 1 

 STEP-PARENT .............................................................. 2 

 GRANDPARENT ........................................................... 3 

 GREAT GRANDPARENT .............................................. 4 

 SIBLING/STEPSIBLING ................................................ 5 

 OTHER RELATIVE OR IN-LAW .................................... 6 

 FOSTER PARENT ......................................................... 7 

 OTHER NON-RELATIVE ............................................... 8 

 PARENT’S PARTNER ................................................... 9 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 

SI3. Are you of Hispanic or Latino origin? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 
Page 4C-93

SI4. I am going to read a list of five race categories. Please choose one or more races that 

you consider yourself to be. American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian; Black or African 

American; Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander; White? 

 MARK ALL THAT APPLY 

 AMERICAN INDIAN OR ALASKA NATIVE ................... 1 

 ASIAN ............................................................................ 2 

 BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN ................................ 3 

 NATIVE HAWAIIAN OR 

 OTHER PACIFIC ISLANDER ........................................ 4 

 WHITE ........................................................................... 5 

 DON’T KNOW ............................................................... 8 

 REFUSED ..................................................................... 9 

 

SI5. What is your current marital status? Are you now married, divorced, separated, 

widowed, never married, or living with a partner? 

 MARRIED ...................................................................... 1 

 SEPARATED OR DIVORCED ....................................... 2 

 WIDOWED ..................................................................... 3 

 NEVER MARRIED ......................................................... 4 

 LIVING WITH PARTNER ............................................... 5 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

SI6. Please tell me your birth date. 

 | | | / | | | / | | | | | 

 MONTH DAY YEAR 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

PROGRAMMER: MUST BE OLDER THAN 18. IF NOT ASK: 

SI6a. You said your date of birth is [INPUT ANSWER FROM SI6), is this correct? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 REPEAT SI6
Page 4C-94

SI6.1. What is the highest grade or level of school you have completed or the highest degree 

you have received? 

 [ENTER HIGHEST LEVEL OF SCHOOL.] 

 NEVER ATTENDED/KINDERGARTEN ONLY .............. 0 

 1ST GRADE ................................................................... 1 

 2ND GRADE .................................................................. 2 

 3RD GRADE .................................................................. 3 

 4TH GRADE .................................................................. 4 

 5TH GRADE .................................................................. 5 

 6TH GRADE .................................................................. 6 

 7TH GRADE .................................................................. 7 

 8TH GRADE .................................................................. 8 

 9TH GRADE .................................................................. 9 

 10TH GRADE ............................................................... 10 

 11TH GRADE ............................................................... 11 

 12TH GRADE, NO DIPLOMA ....................................... 12 

 HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE ........................................ 13 

 GED OR EQUIVALENT ................................................ 14 

 SOME COLLEGE, NO DEGREE .................................. 15 

 ASSOCIATE DEGREE: OCCUPATIONAL, 

 TECHNICAL, OR VOCATIONAL PROGRAM .............. 16 

 ASSOCIATE DEGREE: ACADEMIC PROGRAM ......... 17 

 BACHELOR’S DEGREE (EXAMPLE: BA, AB, 

 BS, BBA) ....................................................................... 18 

 MASTER’S DEGREE (EXAMPLE: MA, MS, MEng, 

 MEd, MBA) .................................................................... 19 

 PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL DEGREE 

 (EXAMPLE: MD, DDS, DVM, JD) ................................. 20 

 DOCTORAL DEGREE (EXAMPLE: PhD, EdD) ........... 21 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 

SI7. The next questions are about your current job or business. Were you working for pay in 

the last 30 days since [DATE (DATE OF INTERVIEW -30 DAYS)]? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 GO TO SI10

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

 
Page 4C-95

SI8. Was any other adult in the household working for pay in the last 30 days since [DATE 

(DATE OF INTERVIEW -30 DAYS)]? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

SI10. And now, my final questions. What was your household’s total income last month, 

during [MONTH (CURRENT MONTH -1)] before taxes? Please include all types of 

income received by all household members last month, including all earnings, Social 

Security, pensions, child support, and cash welfare benefits such as TANF (TAN-IF) and 

SSI. Do not include the value of SNAP benefits or food stamps, WIC, Medicaid, or 

public housing. 

 NO INCOME .................................................................. 0 GO TO SI12 

 GAVE ANSWER ..................... 1 [RANGE $1 – 99,999] GO TO SI12

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

[IF SI10> $12,500 ASK]: 

SI10a. You said your household’s total income last month was [INPUT ANSWER FROM SI10), 

is this correct? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 GO TO SI12

 NO .................................................................................. 2 REPEAT SI10

SI11. Some people find it easier to select an income range. Please stop me when I reach your 

household’s total income for last month. Was it... 

 Less than $500, ............................................................. 1 

 $500 to less than $1,000, ............................................... 2 

 $1,000 to less than $1,500, ............................................ 3 

 $1,500 to less than $2,000, ............................................ 4 

 $2,000 to less than $2,500, ............................................ 5 

 $2,500 to less than $3,000, ............................................ 6 

 $3,000 or more? ............................................................. 7 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

 
Page 4C-96

SI12. And, what was your household’s total income last year before taxes? Please include all 

types of income received by all household members last year, including all earnings, 

Social Security, pensions, child support, and cash welfare benefits such as TANF (TANIF) and SSI. Do not include the value of SNAP benefits or food stamps, WIC, Medicaid, 

or public housing. 

 NO INCOME .................................................................. 0 GO TO SI14 

 GAVE ANSWER ..................... 1 [RANGE $1 – 999,999] GO TO SI14

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

SI13. Some people find it easier to select an income range. Please stop me when I reach your 

household’s total income for last year. Was it... 

 Less than $10,000, ........................................................ 1 

 $10,000 to less than $20,000, ....................................... 2 

 $20,000 to less than $35,000, ........................................ 3 

 $35,000 to less than $50,000, ........................................ 4 

 $50,000 to less than $75,000, ........................................ 5 

 $75,000 to less than $100,000, ...................................... 6 

 $100,000 to less than $150,000 or, ............................... 7 

 $150,000 or more? ......................................................... 8 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 88 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 99 

[IF SI12> $150,000 OR SI13=8 ASK]: 

SI13a. You said your household’s total income last year was [INPUT ANSWER FROM SI12 or 

SI13], is this correct? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 REPEAT SI12

SI14. Has a doctor or other health care professional ever told you or anyone in your household 

that they had a disability? By disability, I mean a physical or mental impairment. 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 

 NO .................................................................................. 2 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

CHECKPOINT: IF BLINE=2, GO TO SJ1 
Page 4C-97

SI14.1 And now, my final questions. Thinking about [NAME OF PAST MONTH], what was your 

household’s total income last month before taxes? Please include all types of income 

received by all household members last month, including all earnings, Social Security, 

pensions, child support, and cash welfare benefits such as TANF (TAN-IF) and SSI. Do 

not include the value of SNAP benefits or food stamps, WIC, Medicaid, or public 

housing. 

 NO INCOME .................................................................. 0 GO TO SJ1 

 GAVE ANSWER ..................... 1 [RANGE $1 – 99,999] GO TO SI14.1a

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

[IF SI14.1> $12,500 ASK]: 

SI14.1a.You said your household’s total income last month was [INPUT ANSWER FROM 

SI14.1], is this correct? 

 YES ................................................................................ 1 GO TO SJ1

 NO .................................................................................. 2 REPEAT SI14.1

SI14.2 Some people find it easier to select an income range. Please stop me when I reach your 

household’s total income for last month. Was it... 

 Less than $500, ............................................................. 1 

 $500 to less than $1,000, ............................................... 2 

 $1,000 to less than $1,500, ............................................ 3 

 $1,500 to less than $2,000, ............................................ 4 

 $2,000 to less than $2,500, ............................................ 5 

 $2,500 to less than $3,000, ............................................ 6 

 $3,000 or more? ............................................................. 7 

 DON’T KNOW ................................................................ 8 

 REFUSED ...................................................................... 9 

TIMING 10 

 
Page 4C-98

SECTION J: CLOSING AND ADDRESS VERIFICATION

QUALIFIED LEVEL 9: REACHES SJ1 

SJ1. [READ IFJSOUR NE 3:] Thank you very much for your time. You have really helped us 

with this study. We will send you a $25 VISA Prepaid card within the next few weeks 

and I’d like to check your mailing address. 

SJ1. [READ IF JSOUR=3:] Thank you very much for your time. You have really helped us 

with this study. The field locator will give you your $25 VISA Prepaid card. While we 

have you on the phone, we would like to check your mailing address. 

[ASK ALL:] 

SJ1a. According to our records we have... 

 [IF SA3=1, FILL NAME FROM FILE. ELSE, FILL FROM SA4.1] 

 [FILL STREET ADDRESS FROM SAMPLE FRAME] 

 [FILL CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE FROM SAMPLE FRAME] 

 NAME AND ADDRESS IS CORRECT .......................... 1 

 NAME AND ADDRESS NEEDS UPDATING ................. 0 

 UPDATE: NAME 

 UPDATE: STREET ADDRESS: 

 ___________________________________________ 

 ___________________________________________ 

 CITY: ______________________________________ 

 STATE: ____________________________________ 

 ZIP CODE: _________________________________ 

 

[ONLY IF NEEDED: THE PROJECT DIRECTOR AT ABT ASSOCIATES CAN BE REACHED 

AT 855-281-6385] 

Thank you again for your help and have a good day/good evening. 

TIMING 11 
Appendix 4D 

Page 1 

Appendix 4D 

Household Characteristics, By Site 

4D.1 Household Characteristics, All Sites and By Site 

Exhibit 4D.1a Household Size, Number of Children, Presence of an Employed Adult, and

Presence of a Person with a Disability

Total

Sample

Sizea

Household Size

Number of

Children

At Least One

Employed Adult

Any Person

With a Physical

or Mental

Disability

Mean SE Mean SE Pct SE Pct SE

All 19,689 4.3 0.02 2.4 0.03 68.4% 0.39 35.7% 0.77

Chickasaw Nation 2,053 4.5 0.04 2.5 0.03 77.5% 1.28 32.7% 1.27

Delaware 6,437 4.3 0.03 2.4 0.01 75.5% 0.52 33.3% 1.21

Michigan‐Detroit 2,121 4.4 0.06 2.6 0.06 49.8% 1.17 41.9% 1.44

Michigan‐Grand

Rapids/Kentwood 2,482 4.4 0.03 2.6 0.03 66.3% 0.90 36.3% 1.30

Mid‐Michigan 3,006 4.2 0.06 2.2 0.06 71.2% 1.42 42.8% 1.08

Oregon‐Portland 3,590 4.2 0.03 2.3 0.02 69.8% 0.76 27.2% 0.76

Analysis Sample Size 19,686 19,683 18,606b 18,736

Test of Site Variation P =<0.01 P =<0.01 P =<0.01 P =<0.01

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013

a

Site‐level analysis sample sizes may vary slightly for some characteristics reported.

b Estimates for employment are reported based on the SEBTC Spring Survey, 2013.

Exhibit 4D.1b Household Composition

Sample

Size

Single Female‐Headed

Households

Single Male‐Headed

Households

Two or More Adults in

Household

Pct

SE

(Pct Pts) Pct

SE

(Pct Pts) Pct

SE

(Pct Pts)

All 19,583 51.7% 0.66 4.0% 0.14 44.3% 0.66

Chickasaw Nation 2,051 38.9% 1.30 3.2% 0.43 57.8% 1.42

Delaware 6,403 54.5% 1.21 3.6% 0.27 41.9% 1.31

Michigan‐Detroit 2,083 68.7% 1.23 3.6% 0.41 27.7% 1.22

Michigan‐Grand

Rapids/Kentwood 2,470 57.1% 1.72 3.8% 0.50 39.0% 1.48

Mid‐Michigan 3,001 42.1% 1.04 4.5% 0.44 53.4% 1.19

Oregon‐Portland 3,575 48.9% 0.86 5.3% 0.45 45.7% 0.81

Test of Site Variation P =<0.01

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013
Appendix 4D 

Page 2 

Exhibit 4D.1c Number of Children

1 Child 2 Children 3 or More Children

Sample

Size Pct

SE (Pct

Pts) Pct

SE (Pct

Pts) Pct

SE (Pct

Pts)

All 19,687 24.5% 0.81 34.0% 0.42 41.5% 1.06

Chickasaw Nation 2,053 20.8% 1.52 33.7% 0.91 45.5% 1.43

Delaware 6,436 25.5% 0.45 34.8% 0.55 39.7% 0.50

Michigan‐Detroit 2,121 23.7% 1.51 29.0% 1.22 47.4% 2.09

Michigan‐Grand

Rapids/Kentwood 2,482 19.9% 0.77 33.4% 1.19 46.7% 1.42

Mid‐Michigan 3,006 28.9% 1.97 37.4% 0.82 33.7% 2.24

Oregon‐Portland 3,589 28.3% 0.71 35.6% 0.79 36.2% 0.78

Test of Site Variation P =<0.01

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013
Exhibit 4D.1d Household Income as a Percentage of the Federal Poverty Level (Spring 2013)

Sample

Size

Below Poverty Line

101‐130 Percent of

Poverty Line

131‐185 Percent of

Poverty Line

Over 185 P

Povert

Pct

SE (Pct

Pts) Pct

SE (Pct

Pts) Pct

SE (Pct

Pts) Pct

All 18,322 74.2% 0.34 13.5% 0.31 9.4% 0.24 2.9% Chickasaw Nation 1,927 67.4% 1.15 15.5% 0.90 12.7% 0.84 4.4% Delaware 5,903 69.7% 0.59 14.7% 0.47 11.6% 0.41 4.1% Michigan‐Detroit 1,922 89.7% 0.67 6.3% 0.56 3.3% 0.43 0.7% Michigan‐GrandRapids/Kentwood 2,316 81.5% 0.72 10.8% 0.66 6.0% 0.53 1.6% Mid‐Michigan 2,846 69.3% 0.97 16.8% 1.14 11.0% 0.57 2.9% Oregon‐Portland 3,408 67.6% 1.01 17.1% 0.81 11.9% 0.53 3.5% Test of Site Variation P =<0.01

Source: SEBTC, Spring Survey, 2013Exhibit 4D.1e Household Income (Spring 2013)

No Income (Last Month) Income (Last Month)

Sample

Size Pct SE (Pct Pts)

Sample

Size Median SE Mean 

All 18,216 3.7% 0.15 18,322 $1,297.80 30.98 $1,516.10 Chickasaw Nation 1,916 2.1% 0.35 1,927 $1,499.60 5.09 $1,778.10 Delaware 5,855 2.6% 0.21 5,903 $1,399.80 2.64 $1,633.20 Michigan‐Detroit 1,916 9.5% 0.68 1,922 $898.30 24.67 $1,037.50 Michigan‐GrandRapids/Kentwood 2,304 3.7% 0.41 2,316 $1,199.80 3.33 $1,353.10 Mid‐Michigan 2,830 2.1% 0.27 2,846 $1,426.10 132.66 $1,631.50 Oregon‐Portland 3,395 2.3% 0.30 3,408 $1,488.00 169.09 $1,660.40 Test of Site Variation P =<0.01 P =<0.01

Source: SEBTC, Spring Survey, 2013
Appendix 4D 

Page 4 

4D.2 Respondent Characteristics, All Sites and By Site 

Exhibit 4D.2a Respondent Gender

   Percent Female

   Sample Size Pct SE (Pct Pts)

All 19,646 88.9% 0.28

Chickasaw Nation 2,052 91.0% 0.69

Delaware 6,429 90.9% 0.38

Michigan‐Detroit 2,094 91.2% 0.67

Michigan‐Grand Rapids/

Kentwood 2,479 88.5% 1.26

Mid‐Michigan 3,005 87.5% 0.54

Portland, Oregon 3,587 84.2% 0.76

Test of Site Variation P =<0.01

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013
Exhibit 4D.2b Respondent Age

Sample

Size

18‐29 Years 30‐39 Years 40‐49 Years 50‐59 Years 

Pct

SE

(Pct Pts) Pct

SE

(Pct Pts) Pct

SE

(Pct Pts) Pct

SE

(Pct Pts) 

All 19,386 18.5% 0.44 45.1% 0.39 25.6% 0.47 8.3% 0.22 Chickasaw Nation 2,039 24.5% 1.18 46.8% 1.38 20.0% 0.98 5.8% 0.50 Delaware 6,334 13.4% 0.54 44.4% 0.67 28.2% 0.60 10.4% 0.49 Michigan‐Detroit 2,071 19.3% 1.19 46.2% 1.24 23.3% 1.17 8.3% 0.60 Michigan‐GrandRapids/Kentwood 2,456 26.0% 1.01 45.7% 1.04 21.0% 0.96 5.8% 0.45 Mid‐Michigan 2,984 16.3% 1.11 44.0% 1.06 29.7% 0.89 8.3% 0.54 Oregon‐Portland 3,502 11.1% 0.67 43.7% 1.12 31.3% 1.13 11.0% 0.60 Test of Site Variation P =<0.01

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013Exhibit 4D.2c Respondent Race/Ethnicity

Sample Size

Hispanic Black non‐Hispanic White non‐Hispanic 

Pct SE (Pct Pts) Pct SE (Pct Pts) Pct SE (Pct Pts) 

All 19,488 18.2% 0.94 27.2% 0.84 43.8% 0.37 Chickasaw Nation 2,049 12.3% 0.58 3.9% 0.35 61.0% 1.17 Delaware 6,388 23.8% 3.34 36.1% 1.05 35.0% 2.22 Michigan‐Detroit 2,069 20.1% 2.86 70.8% 2.26 4.0% 0.53 Michigan‐GrandRapids/Kentwood 2,461 26.2% 0.48 34.6% 1.58 28.4% 0.80 Mid‐Michigan 2,993 5.1% 0.48 1.7% 0.26 89.7% 0.72 Oregon‐Portland 3,528 21.8% 0.47 17.1% 0.48 43.4% 0.77 Test of Site Variation P =<0.01

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013
Appendix 4D 

Page 6 Exhibit 4D.2d Respondent Education Level

Less than High School High School Degree/GED Some College C

Sample Size Pct SE (Pct Pts) Pct SE (Pct Pts) Pct SE (Pct Pts) 

All 19,562 25.3% 0.63 34.2% 0.40 32.3% 0.49 Chickasaw Nation 2,049 21.4% 1.00 37.7% 1.29 32.3% 1.01 Delaware 6,392 27.0% 2.04 35.3% 0.85 28.9% 1.16 Michigan‐Detroit 2,085 36.7% 1.21 32.9% 1.05 27.0% 1.10 Michigan‐GrandRapids/Kentwood 2,470 29.7% 1.00 33.7% 1.01 31.0% 1.06 Mid‐Michigan 2,999 15.4% 0.67 37.5% 1.03 41.4% 0.97 Oregon‐Portland 3,567 21.9% 0.70 27.9% 0.81 33.1% 0.85 Test of Site Variation P =<0.01

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013Exhibit 4D.2e Respondent Marital Status

Married

Separated or

Divorced Widowed Never Married 

Sample

Size Pct

SE

(Pct Pts) Pct

SE

(Pct Pts) Pct

SE

(Pct Pts) Pct

SE

(Pct Pts) 

All 19,583 34.6% 0.46 23.7% 0.40 2.2% 0.12 29.8% 0.46 Chickasaw Nation 2,051 47.6% 1.58 27.1% 1.41 2.7% 0.40 12.3% 0.81 Delaware 6,403 31.8% 0.73 25.1% 0.68 2.7% 0.22 30.3% 0.91 Michigan‐Detroit 2,083 19.0% 0.83 15.8% 0.80 2.4% 0.35 54.1% 1.48 Michigan‐GrandRapids/Kentwood 2,470 28.6% 1.35 21.2% 1.01 1.3% 0.26 38.4% 1.18 Mid‐Michigan 3,001 43.8% 1.27 27.4% 0.85 1.8% 0.27 17.4% 0.89 Oregon‐Portland 3,575 36.7% 0.79 25.7% 0.74 2.1% 0.22 26.4% 0.69 Test of Site Variation P =<0.01

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013
4D.3 Characteristics of Children, All Sites and By Site Exhibit 4D.3a Age of Sampled Child

0‐4 Years 5‐8 Years 9‐12 Years 13‐15 Years 16‐17 Years 

Sample

Size Pct

SE (Pct

Pts) Pct

SE (Pct

Pts) Pct

SE (Pct

Pts) Pct

SE (Pct

Pts) Pct

SE (Pc

Pts) 

All 19,383 3.8% 0.21 33.9% 0.76 30.4% 0.42 18.8% 0.78 9.3% 0.4Chickasaw Nation 2,028 3.8% 0.85 42.4% 2.20 31.3% 1.33 15.0% 0.94 5.1% 0.6Delaware 6,349 2.7% 0.30 29.4% 1.02 28.5% 0.59 21.1% 0.83 13.3% 0.6Michigan‐Detroit 2,078 3.1% 0.69 34.0% 3.22 34.8% 1.32 17.8% 2.73 6.0% 1.7Michigan‐GrandRapids/Kentwood 2,454 6.8% 0.74 36.5% 1.06 27.7% 1.06 16.2% 0.89 9.8% 0.7Mid‐Michigan 2,970 3.3% 0.51 31.9% 1.18 29.9% 1.02 20.4% 0.99 10.8% 0.7Oregon‐Portland 3,504 2.8% 0.35 28.9% 1.60 30.2% 1.04 22.6% 1.32 10.8% 0.7Test of Site Variation P =<0.01

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013
Appendix 4D 

Page 8 4D.4 Reported Program Participation by Households, All Sites an

(Spring 2013) 

Exhibit 4D.4a Household Participation in Nutrition Assistance Programs

Sample

Size Reported Receiving SNAP Reported Receiving WIC

Reported Receiving Food

from Food Pantry/

Emergency Kitchen

No 

SNA

Totala Pct SE (Pct Pts) Pct SE (Pct Pts) Pct SE (Pct Pts) 

All 18,647 67.8% 0.41 22.6% 0.38 17.4% 0.68 Chickasaw Nation 1,951 44.2% 1.43 20.2% 1.04 11.3% 0.96 Delaware 6,038 63.4% 0.62 18.7% 0.51 14.4% 0.43 Michigan‐Detroit 1,964 87.3% 0.77 27.2% 0.99 18.6% 0.91 Michigan‐GrandRapids/Kentwood 2,353 75.4% 0.91 32.0% 0.98 21.1% 0.91 Mid‐Michigan 2,883 64.6% 0.89 18.6% 1.30 18.1% 3.32 Oregon‐Portland 3,458 71.8% 0.72 18.9% 0.65 20.7% 0.78 Analysis Sample Size 18,597 18,631 18,622 Test of Site Variation P =<0.01 P =<0.01 P =<0.01 

Source: SEBTC Spring Survey, 2013a Site‐level analysis sample sizes may vary slightly by nutrition assistance program.
4D.5 Where Kids Ate Lunch in Summer, Whether Household Paid

Eat at Free Program, All Sites and By Site 

Exhibit 4D.5a Where Children Usually Ate Lunch Monday through Friday, Summer 2013 (Both $60 and $30 B

At Home

At Friend’s or

Relative’s Home School or SFSP Site Another Program

Sample

Size Pct

SE

(Pct Pts) Pct

SE

(Pct Pts) Pct

SE

(Pct Pts) Pct

SE

(Pct Pts) 

All 19,493 84.3% 0.34 1.7% 0.18 9.6% 0.30 3.4% 0.17 Chickasaw Nation 2,035 84.9% 1.21 3.4% 0.95 5.0% 0.73 4.9% 0.54 Delaware 6,370 81.1% 0.59 1.8% 0.18 10.3% 0.44 5.2% 0.36 Michigan‐Detroit 2,095 80.7% 1.07 0.8% 0.23 16.1% 0.93 1.7% 0.50 Michigan‐GrandRapids/Kentwood 2,451 86.8% 0.82 1.6% 0.30 9.2% 0.75 1.9% 0.33 Mid‐Michigan 2,985 88.6% 0.75 1.6% 0.25 5.0% 0.49 3.7% 0.39 Oregon‐Portland 3,557 83.4% 0.75 1.3% 0.22 11.9% 0.65 2.7% 0.35 Test of Site Variation P =<0.01

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013.Exhibit 4D.5b Whether Children had

a Secondary Location for Lunch Monday through Friday, Summer 2013 

Benefit Groups)

No Other Place Othe

Sample Size Pct SE (Pct Pts) Pct 

All 3,015 85.3% 0.35 14.7% Chickasaw Nation 194 90.8% 0.84 9.2% Delaware 985 85.3% 0.50 14.7% Michigan‐Detroit 413 80.6% 1.22 19.4% Michigan‐GrandRapids/Kentwood 366 85.5% 0.89 14.5% Mid‐Michigan 381 88.5% 0.65 11.5% Oregon‐Portland 676 81.1% 0.79 18.9% Test of Site Variation P =<0.01Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013.
Appendix 4D 

Page 10 Exhibit 4D.5c Number of Days Children Usually Received Free Lunch Monday through Friday, Summer 2013 

Benefit Groups)

No Days Free 1‐2 Days Free 3‐4 Days Free 

Pct SE (Pct Pts) Pct SE (Pct Pts) Pct SE (Pct Pts) P

All 19,432 82.0% 0.37 4.4% 0.18 5.0% 0.26 Chickasaw Nation 2030 85.1% 1.20 3.3% 0.47 3.3% 0.56 Delaware 6350 81.3% 0.59 4.6% 0.27 5.4% 0.33 Michigan‐Detroit 2089 76.0% 1.19 4.0% 0.52 3.5% 0.69 1Michigan‐GrandRapids/Kentwood 2443 84.3% 0.94 3.4% 0.44 6.8% 0.71 Mid‐Michigan 2977 86.9% 0.83 4.2% 0.37 5.0% 0.47 Oregon‐Portland 3543 78.4% 0.92 7.1% 0.53 5.8% 0.51 Test of Site Variation P =<0.01

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013.
Exhibit 4D.5d Awareness of Neighborhood Program Providing Free Meals, Summer 2013 (Both $60 and $30 

Aware of Program

Sample Size Pct 

All 19,483 26.6% Chickasaw Nation 2,034 14.3% Delaware 6,367 19.6% Michigan‐Detroit 2,093 24.9% Michigan‐Grand Rapids/Kentwood 2,450 23.8% Mid‐Michigan 2,984 21.1% Oregon‐Portland 3,555 56.2% Test of Site Variation P =<0.01

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013.Exhibit 4D.5e Reasons Why Child Did Not Attend Neighborhood Program Providing Free Meals, Summer 20

Benefit Groups)

Prefers Home Dislikes Program Logistical Barriers Not Eligible 

Sample

Size Pct

SE

(Pct Pts) Pct

SE

(Pct Pts) Pct

SE

(Pct Pts) Pct

SE

(Pct Pts) 

All 4,361 30.6% 1.43 9.5% 0.76 32.8% 1.24 4.1% 0.39 Chickasaw Nation 248 27.9% 8.45 3.8% 2.85 39.1% 4.46 1.8% 0.87 Delaware 1,043 27.7% 1.63 8.1% 0.95 34.2% 1.73 3.9% 0.69 Michigan‐Detroit 425 24.1% 2.48 10.6% 3.95 31.1% 2.51 4.3% 1.21 Michigan‐GrandRapids/Kentwood 499 31.9% 2.69 12.8% 1.87 29.0% 2.57 4.7% 1.11 Mid‐Michigan 519 32.6% 2.40 6.9% 1.36 34.5% 3.02 3.8% 1.01 Oregon‐Portland 1,627 34.0% 1.35 10.6% 0.93 32.4% 1.52 4.6% 0.66 Test of Site Variation P =0.207 P =0.209 P =0.162 P =0.459 

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013.

Appendix 5A

Page 1 

Appendix 5A 

Additional Methodological Detail 

This section describes the models used to estimate the impact of Summer EBT for Children.

These models apply to all variables measured in both the $60 treatment group and the $30

treatment group in 2013.  

5A.1 Basic Model—Pooled Across Sites 

The random assignment procedure should ensure that there are no systematic differences

between research groups other than the presence of the intervention. Since the key outcome

for this study, very low food security among children (VLFS‐C), is binary, the main impact

estimates (reported in the body of the report) use logit models. These models explicitly account

for the necessarily non‐linear relation between covariates and the probability of the outcomes.  

Linear regression is used for continuous outcomes (expenditure, nutrition).   

The following discussion only presents the logistic regression specification. For continuous

outcomes (e.g., expenditure, nutritional status/food intake), estimation is via (weighted) linear

regression. The corresponding linear regression specification should be clear from the

specification for the logistic regression case (i.e., replace the index, I, with the continuous

outcome).   

The logit model for pooled impacts across sites is:

(1) s h i Ds h X s h i s s h i I , , , , , , ,          

where I and y are related by:  

(2) 0 0

1 0

, , , ,

, , , ,

  

  

s h k s h i

s h k s h i

y I

y I

;

y is the outcome of interest for individual i in household h in site s. D is an indicator variable for

the more intensive treatment (that is, 1 for $60 treatment group households and 0 for $30

treatment group households; with s and h subscripts, but no i subscript—randomization is at

the household level).  is the impact of the program in site s, X is a vector of characteristics

observed at baseline that are correlated with the outcome included to increase the statistical

precision of the impact estimates,  is the corresponding vector of regression coefficients,  is a

vector of dummy variable for site s, and  is a regression residual.  

A common set of covariates is used for all analyses.  Appendix 5B identifies the specific

covariates, X, used in all analyses.
Appendix 5A

Page 2 

Under the assumption that  has the logistic distribution, this construction yields the

conventional logit model (Maddala, 1986, p. 22) . For expositional clarity, the discussion that

follows only states the index, I; the transformation to the binary outcomes is as in Equation (2)

above.     

Estimation proceeds using SAS PROC SURVEYLOGISTIC and SURVEYREG.  The parameters of

these statistical procedures are specified to be consistent with the survey sampling procedure.  

In particular, the models are estimated using the WEIGHT and REPWEIGHT options to apply

weights to adjust for the sampling procedure and non‐response.  The following SAS code was

used for logistic regression (where SITE is a categorical variable, & IndependentVariables stands

for the vector of independent variables, WGT is the sampling weight variable, and REPWGT1 –

REPWGT200 are the 200 replicate weights):

proc surveylogistic VarMethod=jackknife; 

class site; 

model DependentVariable (event='1')= treatment site 

&IndependentVariables 

/ridging=none; 

weight WGT; 

repweights REPWGT1 – REPWGT200 /df=199 jkcoeffs=.995; 

run;

The following SAS code was used for linear regression:

proc surveyreg VarMethod=jackknife; 

class SITE; 

model DependentVariable = treatment site &IndependentVariables; 

weight WGT; 

repweights REPWGT1 – REPWGT200 /df=199 jkcoeffs=.995; 

run;

For binary outcomes, the logistic regression coefficients estimate impact in the logit (or log

odds) scale.  Policy interest primarily focuses on impact on the probability scale, which is

estimated by simulation.  Specifically, the regression estimated mean for the $60  treatment

group is the mean over all observations (both the$60 treatment group and the $30 treatment

group) of the predicted value of the logistic regression on the probability scale, setting T=1 for

every observation.  Conversely, the regression estimated mean for the $30 treatment group is

the mean of the predicted value of the logistic regression for every observation (both the $60

treatment group and the $30 treatment group), setting T=0.  

5A.2 Subgroup Analysis 

The evaluation’s main estimates of the impact of (binary) subgroups are analyzed using a

generalization of the model specified above. Denote subgroup membership by g; g=1 is in the

subgroup (e.g., white); g=0 is outside the subgroup (e.g., not white).  Then to estimate the

impact of a binary subgroup, the following model is used:
Appendix 5A

Page 3 

(3) s h i s h s hTs h Xs h i s s h i I T g , , , , , , , , ,             ,   

where g is also included in the X vector non‐interacted with T, with coefficient, .  The analysis

of subgroups begins by testing for homogeneity; i.e., test if =0.    If =0 is rejected, then the

analysis estimates the impact for those in the subgroup as +, and for those outside the

subgroup as .  If the analysis fails to reject homogeneity, then the pooled estimate (i.e., the

estimate without considering subgroups) is taken to be the impact for both groups.   

When subgroups are formed with a three‐way or greater split of the population (e.g., the three‐

way race/ethnicity classification) analysis proceeds analogously.  New variables are created as

interactions of $60 treatment group with all but one of the categories, and the corresponding

regression coefficients are estimated.  The coefficient on the non‐interacted $60 treatment

group dummy variable D gives the impact on the excluded category.  The sum of that

coefficient and the coefficient on the interaction of the $60 treatment group dummy variable D

with an included subgroup dummy variable gives the impact for that subgroup.

5A.3 Computing Appropriate Standard Errors 

For each of models, the analysis computes appropriate standard errors that consider the

following issues:

 Stratification: To improve precision, the sample is stratified by the number of children in the

household (1, 2, or 3 or more children) and to ensure balance among SFAs in demonstration

areas where there are multiple SFAs. Such stratification has some, but usually small,

implications for standard errors.  

 Weighting: Survey response is incomplete.  Weights were constructed weights to adjust for

survey non‐response.   Some list information is available, which supports better non‐

response models than the standard survey sampling case (e.g., Random Digit Dial).  In

addition, nutrition outcomes are computed for a reference child (rather than for the

household).  We weight those analyses to account for variation in number of eligible

children. Appendix 5C discusses construction of the weights.  

Models were estimated these models using SAS PROC SURVEYREG and SAS PROC

SURVEYLOGISTIC with the appropriate weight (correcting for the non‐response and variation in

the number of children per household) and strata (as defined in the original sampling scheme).

5A.4 Non-Experimental Cross-Year Estimates 

The study uses the impacts estimated in Year 2 and Year 3 to indirectly estimate the impact of a

$30 SEBTC benefit vs. no SEBTC benefit. This estimate is determined by subtracting the

estimate of the incremental impact of $60 benefit vs. a $30 benefit for 2013 from the impact of

$60 benefit (vs. no benefit) for 2012 to infer the impact of $30 benefit vs. no benefit:

   ∆ଷ଴,଴ൌ ∆଺଴,଴ െ ∆଺଴,ଷ଴ ,  where
Appendix 5A

Page 4 

 ∆଺଴,଴ is the (regression‐adjusted) mean difference in outcomes between the $60 treatment

group and control group (using 2012 data), and

 ∆଺଴,ଷ଴ is the (regression‐adjusted) mean difference in outcomes between the $60 treatment

group and the $30 treatment group (using 2013 data).  

Cross‐year, non‐experimental estimates derived in this manner would be exactly valid under

assumptions discussed in the main text.   

Specifically, the cross‐year non‐experimental estimates of the impact of a $30 SEBTC benefit vs.

no benefit is estimated using independent weighted least squares regressions in the two years,

with a full set of covariates. 1

  Standard errors are calculated using a stratified jackknife

procedure. The basic idea behind the jackknife is that the impact estimate is systematically re‐

calculated in samples that each omit one observation (in this case, site), which are called

replicates. An estimate of the standard error is then calculated from the set of replicates. Unlike

standard inference, jackknifing does not rely on parametric assumptions such as the

assumption that observations are independent and identically distributed, which would be in

doubt in a sample where there is likely to be clustering within sites.

Specifically, the stratified jackknife procedure used three strata: 2012‐only sites, 2013‐only

sites, and returning sites. This procedure is specified in equation 4.5.3 on page 178 of Wolter

(2007). A total of 16 jackknife samples were created, each excluding one uniquely‐identified

site, where the four Year 2 sites that returned in Year 3 are each assigned a single site ID. For

each jackknife sample, weights were re‐scaled in the remaining 15 sites such that the weights

sum to their original value within each of the three strata; i.e. weights were separately rescaled

for the 2012 sites and the 2013 sites; for the returning sites, when a site was dropped from the

2012 estimator it was also dropped from the 2013 estimator.   

5A.5 Variance Estimation for the Non-Experimental 

Cross-Year Estimates 

This section discusses the variance estimation for the non‐experimental cross‐year estimates.  

Let t index years (2012, 2013), j index sites (j=1, ..., 16) and i index households within sites.  Let

Ytij be an outcome of interest, X0ij be a row vector of baseline covariates, Ttij indicate

treatment status, wtij be a sampling weight.   

 

1 We also considered estimating impacts and associated standard errors using multi‐level modeling with random

intercepts and treatment slopes, and interactions between covariates and year. We ruled out this approach for

two reasons: First, the model estimates a single random error on the treatment slope, although treatment status

actually has different meanings in Year 2 and Year 3. Second, it is not always possible to exactly replicate all three

underlying impact estimates because of restrictions on the weights. However, we note that our results are not

particularly sensitive to the choice of method—for example, for the outcome of VLFS‐C, jackknifing gives a

standard error of 0.71; multi‐level modeling using SAS PROC MIXED with REML, heteroskedasticity, and robust

standard errors gives a standard error of 0.69.  
Appendix 5A

Page 5 

Estimate effect of $60 versus $0 as 12

ˆ

 from the model

12, 0 12 12, 12 12, ij ij ij ij y   XT e  

using weighted least squares and w12,ij .  Note that the 2012 report included effects estimates

based on both linear and logistic models.  The model used here is the same as the one used to

prepare the linear‐model estimates for the 2012 report, including dummy variables for the

sites.   

Estimate Effect of $60 versus $30 as 13

ˆ

 from model

13, 0 13 13, 13 13, ij ij ij ij y   XT e  

using WLS and w13,ij .  Again, this model is the same as used to prepare the official linear‐model

estimates of 2013, including dummy variables the EBT adjustment.   

Estimate effect of $30 versus $0 as 12 13

ˆ ˆ   with no new estimation activity.   

Estimate departure from linear dose‐response relationship as 12 13 12 12 13

ˆˆˆ ˆ ˆ      /2 /2 .

To estimate variances, let 12( )

ˆ j  be an estimate of the effect of $60 versus $0 that is prepared

without the j‐th site.  Similarly, let 13( )

ˆ j  be an estimate of the effect of $60 versus $30 that is

prepared without the j‐th site.  The two sets of replicate estimates are produced with the same

models as above but with modified weight sets w12( ), j ik and w13( ), j ik .  The sites are numbered in

such a way that j=1‐10 correspond to sites that are only in 2012, j=11‐14 are in both 2012 and

2013, and j =15‐16 are only in 2013.  Variances were estimated from a stacked file with one

record for every 2012 responding household and one record for every 2013 responding

household.  A total of 16 jackknifed weights were prepared for each respondent in each year.  If

a site was not in the study for a particular year, then dropping that site would not change the

point estimate for that year, and so, corresponding replicate weights were set equal to the full

sample weights.  This design does not conform neatly to any standard design.  After discussions

with some of the experts in the field of variance estimation, the evaluation team decided to

treat the experiment as it were stratified in each year by reuse status.  So the 2012 sample was

treated as a stratified cluster design with 10 clusters in one stratum and 4 clusters in the other

stratum.  Similarly, the 2013 sample was treated as a stratified cluster design with 4 clusters in

one cluster and 2 clusters in the other stratum.  In order to capture the correlation from using

the 4 sites over again, the total two‐year design was treated as a stratified cluster design with

three strata of sizes 10, 4, and 2 clusters, respectively.  With these conventions, the jackknifed

weights were created as follows:  

For j =1,..., 10,
Appendix 5A

Page 6 

10

12,

1

12( ), 12, 10

12,

1

12,

0 if ,

if {1, ,10} and ,

if {1, ,10},

i

i

j ik ik

i

i

j

ik

k j

w

w w k kj

w

w k









 





   







  



















  

and w w 13( ), 13, j ik ik 

For j =11,..., 14,

14

12,

11

12( ), 12, 14

12,

11

12,

0 if 

if {11, ,14} and 

if {11, ,14},

i

i

j ik ik

i

i

j

ik

k j

w

w w k kj

w

w k









 





   







  



















and

14

13,

11

13( ), 13, 14

13,

11

13,

0 if 

if {11, ,14} and 

if {11, ,14},

i

i

j ik ik

i

i

j

ik

k j

w

w w k kj

w

w k









 





   







  



















For j =15,16,

w w 12( ), 12, j ik ik  and

16

13,

15

13( ), 13, 16

13,

15

13,

0 if ,

 if {15,16} and ,

if {15,16},

i

i

j ik ik

i

i

j

ik

k j

w

w w k kj

w

w k









 





   







  

 

 










Appendix 5A

Page 7 

Note that on the stacked file, there is only one weight for each household.  There are not

separate 2012 and 2013 weights.  The notation above appears to suggest the opposite, but the

year subscript is only meant to disambiguate the other subscripts.   

As further explanation of how the replicate weights were created, we illustrate some of the

more difficult combinations.  Consider first a household that participated in the 2013 study and

was in site #15.  Suppose further that the household’s 2013 full sample weight was 1.00.  Then

jackknifed weights #1‐#14 for this household would all also be equal to 1.00, jackknife weight

#15 would be equal to zero, and jackknife weight #16 would be close to 2.  Consider second a

household that participated in the 2012 study and was in site #7.  Suppose further that the

household’s 2012 full sample weight was 1.00.  Then jackknifed weights #11‐#16 for the second

household would all also be equal to 1.00, jackknife weight #7 would be equal to zero, and

jackknife weights #1‐#6 and #8‐#10 would be close to 1.11. Consider third a pair of households

from site #11, one of which participated in the 2012 study and one in 2013.  Again, assume that

both have full sample weights of 1.00.  Then jackknifed weights #1‐#10 and #15‐#16 for these

two households would also be equal to 1.00, jackknife weight #11 would be equal to zero for

both households, and jackknife weights #12‐#14 would be close to 1.33.  

The replicate weights were created first.  Then the replicated point estimates.  Note that due to

the construction technique, the 2013 term in 12( ) 13( )

ˆ ˆ j j    is constant for j =1,..., 10.  Similarly,

the 2012 term in n 12( ) 13( )

ˆ ˆ j j    is constant for j =15,16.  Both parts vary only for j =11,..., 14.  So

variability in 12( ) 13( )

ˆ ˆ j j    for j =1,..., 10 is reflecting uncertainty due to variability in effects

across the 2012‐only sites, while variability in the same for j =11,..., 14 is reflecting uncertainty

due to variability in effects across the dual 2012/2013 sites, and variability across replicates 15

and 16 reflects uncertainty due to variability in effects across the 2013‐only sites.

Finally, the variances were estimated as  

     

 

2 2 10 10 14 14

12 13 12( ) 13( ) 12( ) 13( ) 12( ) 13( ) 12( ) 13( )

1 1 11 11

2 16 16

12( ) 13( ) 12( ) 13( )

15 15

9 1 31 ˆˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ 10 10 4 4

1 1 ˆˆ ˆˆ

2 2

jj jj

j j

j j

j

v         

 

  

 

  

              

 

      

  

 

 

 

 



and

 

2 2

10 10 14 14

12( ) 12( ) 12( ) 12( )

12 13 13( ) 13( ) 13( ) 13( )

1 1 11 11

12( ) 12( )

13( ) 13( )

ˆ ˆ ˆˆ 9 1 31 ˆˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ / 2

10 2 10 2 4 2 4 2

ˆ ˆ 1 1 ˆ ˆ

22 22

j j jj

j j

j j

j j

j

v

  

    

 

 

  



    

             

    

 

    

 

    

 





2

16 16

j15 15

 

 

 

 

This is the “Jones” version of the stratified jackknife.  See equation 4.5.3 in Wolter (1985).  Test

sizes were then calculated using t‐statistics formed from these point estimates and variance
Appendix 5A

Page 8 

estimates and the assumption that the effective degrees of freedom are equal to 13.  This was

derived by subtracting the count of strata from the number of clusters.

References 

Maddala GS. 1986. Limited‐Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge

University Press.

Wolter KM. 1985.  Introduction to Variance Estimation. New York: Springer‐Verlag.

Wolter KM. 2007. Introduction to Variance Estimation, 2nd Edition. New York: Springer.
Appendix 5B

Page 1

Appendix 5B 

Description of Covariates in 

Impact Analysis Models 

This appendix defines and presents descriptive statistics for the covariates used in the

regression‐adjusted models estimating the impacts of SEBTC on food security and other food‐

related outcomes. Variables included as covariates in the impact analysis were measured using

the spring survey, before SEBTC benefits were issued.  

Covariates fall into four groups:

 Food security  

 Household characteristics  

 Respondent characteristics

 Reported participation in nutrition assistance programs  

The four sections of this appendix discuss each of these groups of covariates.

5B.1 Food Security 

The food security measures were described in Section 5C.1. Six measures of food security

during the school year were included in impact analysis models as covariates. Measures of both

severe and general food insecurity among children in the household, adults in the household,

and the household as a whole were included in impact models. Covariate measures of food

security were constructed in the same way as outcome measures of food security; the timing of

measurement was the only difference (school year versus summer).  

Exhibit 5B.1 presents descriptive statistics for each of the six measures of spring food insecurity

used as covariates—for households overall, for the $60 benefit group, and for the $30 benefit

group.  

5B.2 Household Characteristics 

Seven measures describing household characteristics are used as covariates in impact models:  

 Number of people in the household was collected from the following survey question—

“Including yourself, how many people live in your household? Don’t forget to include non‐

relatives who live here and, of course, babies and small children. Also include persons who

usually live here but are temporarily away for reasons such as vacation, traveling for work,
Appendix 5B

Page 2

or in the hospital. Do not include children living away at school.” Values larger than 7 people

in the household were coded as “8 or more people.”

 Number of children in the household was collected from the following survey question—

“How many of those people (in question about number of people in the household) are

children age 18 or younger or over 18 but were still in high school during the most recently

completed school year?” Values larger than 5 children in the household were coded as “6 or

more children.”

 Age of the oldest child in the household was calculated based on the birthdate for each

child in the household, as reported on the survey, and the survey date. Children over age 21

were excluded, and the age of the next oldest child was used instead. This variable was

missing for households that did not report the birthdate of a child under age 21 years.

 Presence of an adolescent in the household was also calculated based on the birthdate for

each child in the household, as reported on the survey, and the survey date. An adolescent

was defined as a child aged 13 to 20 years.  

 Household composition, dummy variables indicating households with two adults (married

or unmarried), one female adult, or one male adult, were constructed from survey

questions about respondent’s marital status and gender.  

 Income‐to‐needs ratio, or annual income as a proportion of the 2013 Federal Poverty Level,

as defined by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, was calculated by dividing

annual household income, as reported on the survey, and the Federal Poverty Level, based

on the size of the household. Values were top‐coded at 1.85 times FPL.

 Employment status was a dichotomous variable indicating whether at least one adult in the

household was working in the last 30 days or not.

For each of the seven household characteristics measures used as covariates, Exhibit 5b.2

presents descriptive statistic for households overall,  for the $60 SEBTC benefit group, and for

the $30 benefit group.  

5B.3 Respondent Characteristics 

Two household respondent characteristics reported on the survey were included as covariates

in impact analyses:

 Race/ethnicity –respondents were coded as (a) Hispanic/Latino, (b) non‐Hispanic black, or

(c) non‐Hispanic white, or non‐Hispanic other race/ethnicity, including American Indian or

Alaskan Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, or non‐Hispanic multiracial.

 Education level—respondents’ highest level of education was coded as (a) less than a high

school degree, (b) a high school degree or GED, (c) some college/associate degree, or (d)

bachelor’s degree) or higher.

Exhibit 5B.3 presents the percentage of respondents— for respondents overall, for respondents

in the $60 benefit group, and for respondents in the $30 benefit group —who are in each

race/ethnicity category and in each education level category.
Appendix 5B

Page 3

5B.4 Reported Participation in Nutrition Assistance 

Programs 

Four measures of households’ reported participation in nutrition assistance programs were

used as covariates in impact analyses—participation in SNAP, participation in WIC, participation

in the National School Lunch Program, and participation in the School Breakfast Program.

Exhibit 5B.4 presents the percentage of households— for respondents overall, for respondents

in the $60 benefit group, and for respondents in the $30 benefit group —that participated in

each nutrition assistance program.
Appendix 5B

Page 4

Exhibit 5B.1 Prevalence during the School Year of Severe and General Food Insecurity among Children, Adults, and 

Status and for All Households, Spring 2013

All Households $60 Benefit Group $30 Benefit Group

Outcome

Sample

size Estimate SE

Sample

size Estimate SE

Sample

size Estimate 

Very low food security among children 18,643 7.2 0.21 9,353 7.4 0.29 9,290 6.9 Food insecurity among children 18,643 41.3 0.40 9,353 41.5 0.56 9,290 41.2 Very low food security among adults 18,645 24.1 0.34 9,355 24.4 0.48 9,290 23.8 Food insecurity among adults 18,645 49.4 0.40 9,355 49.3 0.57 9,290 49.5 Very low food security amonghouseholds 18,638 25.3 0.35 9,350 25.6 0.49 9,288 25.0 Food insecurity among households 18,642 55.3 0.40 9,352 55.2 0.57 9,290 55.3 

Source: SEBTC, Spring Survey, 2013

Note: The p‐values are reported for a test of the difference in the prevalence rate for households in the $60 Benefit Group compared to households in the $30 

being tested is that the total percentage point difference in the prevalence rates is zero.

*p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01
Exhibit 5B.2 Descriptive Statistics for Measures of Household Characteristics Used as Covariates In Impact Analysis, 

Households, Spring 2013

Household Characteristics, In spring

All Households $60 Benefit Group $30 Benefit Grou

Sample

size Estimate SE

Sample

size Estimate SE

Sample

size Estimate 

Numberofpeopleinhousehold(mean) 18,655 4.3 0.01 9,359 4.3 0.02 9,296 4.3 Numberofchildreninhousehold(mean) 18,672 2.4 0.01 9,370 2.4 0.01 9,302 2.4 Ageinyearsofoldestchildinhousehold(mean) 18,405 12.0 0.03 9,232 12.0 0.05 9,173 12.0 Presenceofanadolescentinthehousehold(%) 18,442 47.8 0.40 9,254 47.9 0.57 9,188 47.8 Income‐to‐needsratio(ProportionofFPLa) 18,322 0.8 0.00 9,193 0.7 0.01 9,129 0.8 Atleastoneemployedadultinhousehold(%) 18,606 68.4 0.37 9,328 68.5 0.53 9,278 68.3 HouseholdComposition 18,573 9,317 9,256

Twoormoreadults 44.7 0.40 44.4 0.56 45.1 Onefemaleadult 51.3 0.40 51.7 0.56 50.9 Onemaleadult 4.0 0.16 3.9 0.22 4.0 

Source: SEBTC,SpringSurvey,2013

Note: The p‐values are reported for a test of the difference in household characteristic between households in the $60 Benefit Group compared to household

hypothesis being tested is that the difference is zero.

a FPL = Federal Poverty Level

*p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01
Appendix 5B

Page 6

Exhibit 5B.3 Descriptive Statistics for Measures of Respondent Characteristics Used as Covariates in Impact Analysis

All Households, Spring 2013

All Households $60 Benefit Group $30 Benefit Group

Respondent Characteristics,

In spring

Sample

size Estimate SE

Sample

size Estimate SE

Sample

size Estimate 

Race/Ethnicity (%) 18,482 9,261 9,221

Non‐Hispanic Black 27.0 0.30 27.0 0.46 27.0 0Hispanic 18.2 0.30 18.0 0.42 18.5 0Non‐Hispanic White/Other 54.7 0.32 55.0 0.51 54.5 0

Education (%) 18,553 9,296 9,257

Less than high school 25.4 0.35 25.7 0.50 25.1 0High school degree/GED 33.9 0.39 33.9 0.54 33.9 0Some college/AA 32.4 0.38 31.9 0.53 32.9 0College degree or higher 8.2 0.21 8.4 0.31 8.1 0

Source: SEBTC, Spring Survey, 2013

Note: The p‐value is reported for a test of the difference in the distribution of race/ethnicity and education level for households in the $60 Benefit Group com

Group. The null hypothesis being tested is that there is no difference in the distributions for the two conditions.

*p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01
Exhibit 5B.4 Descriptive Statistics for Measures of Nutrition Assistance Used as Covariates in Impact Analysis, by Be

Households, Spring 2013

All Households $60 Benefit Group $30 Benefit Group

Nutrition Assistance Program

Sample

Size Estimate SE

Sample

Size Estimate SE

Sample

Size Estimate 

Participation in SNAP (%) 18,597 67.8 0.36 9,329 68.2 0.52 9,268 67.3 0Participation in WIC (%) 18,631 22.5 0.34 9,349 23.1 0.48 9,282 22.0 0Children’s participation in NationalSchool Lunch Program (%) 18,571 95.3 0.17 9,313 95.1 0.24 9,258 95.4 0Children’s Participation in SchoolBreakfast Program (%) 18,364 86.1 0.27 9,208 85.8 0.39 9,156 86.5 0Source: SEBTC, Spring Survey, 2013

Note: The p‐values are reported for a test of the difference in nutrition assistance program participation rates for households in the $60 Benefit Group compa

Group. The null hypothesis being tested is that the difference is zero.

*p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01

Appendix 5C

Page 1 

Appendix 5C 

Household and Child Weights 

Household summer and panel sampling weights were computed for the completed interviews

via a coherent five‐step procedure that closely followed procedure used to construct the spring

survey sampling weights used in the descriptive analysis on households for the 2013

Congressional Status Report (Briefel et al., 20013). The child sampling weights were based on

the household weights, and included two additional steps. The following description of the

weighting procedures presupposes an understanding of the SEBTC random assignment and the

sample design, which are described in Appendix 4A. Additionally, since auxiliary variables of

household poverty, food security, and SEBTC take‐up were used in weight adjustments, the

reader should refer to Appendix 5B for an understanding of how these variables were derived.

The households that were outside of the scope of the study in 2013, such as those interviewed

in prior years, those on a school year calendar not compatible with the dates of the study, or

those not randomized into the study for other reasons, were removed before weighting.

Step 1: Base Weights. The first step of sampling weight construction created base weights. For

each consenting household randomly assigned to each of the two benefit groups ($30 and $60),

its base weight is the reciprocal of the probability that the household was assigned to the group

with that level of benefit. This probability equals the number of consenting households

assigned to that level of benefit in the SFA stratum to which the household belongs (see

Appendix 4A for a description of these strata), divided by the total number of consenting

households in the stratum. For Delaware, the denominator of this probability also included the

households that were assigned zero benefit, as they constitute households in the scope of the

study, and could potentially have been randomized into a non‐zero amount of the benefit.

Step 2: Non‐Response Subsample‐Adjusted Weights. In the second step, the weights were

adjusted for household non‐response. For each stratum within site, the proportion of non‐

respondent households was computed. For the spring and summer weights, the set of

respondents was defined as the households that completed the survey in the respective time

period. For the panel weights, the respondents were defined as the households that completed

the survey in both spring and summer; i.e., the panel households are the common subset of the

spring and summer households. Then, the non‐response adjusted weights were computed as

the product of the base weights from Step 1 and the reciprocal of the non‐response fraction.

Further, the non‐response adjusted household weights of non‐respondents were set to zero.

Step 3: Adjustment for Ineligible Households. In the third step, further weighting adjustments

to account for ineligible households were made. During the course of field interviewing, a small

number of households were found to be ineligible for the survey. In each stratum, the

proportion of eligible households was estimated as the sum of the non‐response‐adjusted

weights of the households known to be eligible for the survey divided by the sum of the non‐
Appendix 5C 

Page 2 

response‐adjusted weights of households known to be either eligible or ineligible. In turn, each

stratum’s count of the number of eligible households was estimated as its proportion of eligible

households multiplied by its total number of households in the study (i.e., including non‐

respondents with unknown eligibility). Then, for each stratum, adjustment factors were

computed separately within the $30 and $60 benefit groups as the stratum’s eligible household

count divided by the non‐response‐adjustment‐weighted count of completed interviews. The

non‐response eligibility‐adjusted household weights were computed as the non‐response‐

adjusted weights multiplied by the appropriate eligibility adjustment factor.

Step 4: Two Raking Adjustments. Raking is a commonly used weight calibration technique for

adjusting sampling weights so that the weighted distributions of certain control variables, such

as demographic characteristics and available frame variables, in the sample are made to be as

close as possible to the distributions of these variables in the population from which the sample

is drawn. Children’s age, grade level, gender, race, language spoken at home, and free or

reduced price NSLP status were used as raking controls. These distributions were obtained from

the listing all of eligible and consented children and households submitted by each site to the

evaluation team. Two raking passes were conducted per site. In the first raking pass, the

weights from Step 3 were adjusted via the IGCV algorithm (Izrael, Battaglia, and Frankel, 2009)

so that the weighted distributions of household demographic variables within the $30 and $60

benefit closely matched the distributions of these variables within the site. Adjustments were

made separately within the $30 and the $60 benefit groups, with the target distributions being

the distributions for the whole site. In the second raking pass, food security and EBT benefit use

were added to the list of control variables. The target proportion of food‐secure households

was estimated using the weights from the first pass of raking, as this information was only

available for the households that completed the survey, and these weights are the most

accurate weights for the subsample in which food security is defined. The distribution of the

benefit take‐up was estimated using the base weights, as SEBTC use was known for virtually all

households, and the base weights are the most accurate weights for this subsample. For panel

weights, two additional raking variables were indicators of the poverty status and presence of

adolescent children in the household.

Step 5: Balancing the sites. As the final step of the weighting process, the scale of the raked

weights was adjusted so that the sums of weights were equal from site to site. These are the

final weights. Thus, each site contributes the same amount of (weighted) information for

evaluation models.

At each weighting step, the weights were reviewed and diagnosed for any anomalies and

outliers. For instance, at Step 4, the definition of the control variables to be used differed from

site to site due to available sample sizes and the quality of the data, such as the extent of the

missing data problems, and the discrepancies between the weighted distributions and the

population distributions were made to not exceed 0.05% in each category.

Steps 6 and 7: Child weights. The household weight from Step 5 was multiplied by the number

of eligible children in the household, capped at five. The raking adjustments were then
Appendix 5C

Page 3 

implemented for the sample of children using the child‐level distributions within the population

at large and child‐level food insecurity. As the final step in child weight construction, the

weights were rescaled in a way similar to that of the household weights so that each site

contributes the same total weighted number of children to the analysis.

For one sensitivity analysis of impacts on the six food security outcomes (see Appendix 5E1.1),

an intermediate variant of weights was used that did not correct for the EBT usage. That is,

these household weights were calibrated for the randomization groups, baseline demographic

characteristics and baseline household food security for the cross‐sectional summer sample.

Replicate weights. A system of R=200 replication weights was created using the random groups

(delete‐a‐group jackknife) approach (Kott 2001; Lu, Brick and Sitter 2006). To create the r‐th

replication subsample (r=1, ..., R), a systematic 1‐in‐R sample of households was excluded from

the data, using the r‐th observation as the starting one, where the data were sorted by RACELL

random assignment variable; the weights from step 3 of the remaining observations were

rescaled to sum up to the original number of observations; and these weights were treated as

the step‐3 weights for the purposes of further adjustments steps 4–5 for the household

weights, and additional steps 6–7 for the child weights. The households and children excluded

in the r‐th replication subsample received zero weights in the corresponding r‐th replicate

weight. To speed up convergence and reduce the time required to produce the weights,

convergence criteria were relaxed to only have up to 10 iterations, and reproduce the target

totals up to 0.5%, vs. 100 iterations and 0.05% accuracy, respectively, used as the convergence

criteria for the main weights. For comparison, the median number of iterations to produce the

first stage of raking for the summer household weights, which is the most computationally

intensive step, was 17, with a range from 10 to 74, and in the second stage, the median number

of iterations was 6, with a range from 3 to 11. Detailed diagnostics show that enough of the

adjustment occurs in the first 10 iterations for the purposes of replicate weight creation. Kim

(2010) advocates even simpler one‐iteration replicate weights in the context of a related

calibration method, exponential tilting The data can be analyzed in software that supports

replicate weights:

 SAS specification: PROC SURVEYMEANS or SURVEYFREQ with varmethod = 

jackknife option and repweights ... ; statement

 Stata specification: svyset , vce(jackknife) jkrw(...)

 R specification:  svrepdesign(repweights=...,type=”JKn”) object,  

In the above software stylized code, “... “ must  containe the appropriate list of replicate weight

variables).
Appendix 5C 

Page 4 

References 

Izrael D, Battaglia M, Frankel M. 2009b. Raking Survey Data.  Available at:

http://abtassociates.com/Expertise/Surveys‐and‐Data‐Collection/Raking‐Survey‐Data‐(a‐k‐a‐‐

Sample‐Balancing).aspx

Kim, J. K. (2010). Calibration estimation using exponential tilting in sample surveys. Survey

Methodology, 36 (2), 145–155.

Kott, P. S. (2001). The Delete‐a‐Group jackknife. Journal of Official Statistics 17 (4), 521‐526.

Lu, W. W., J. M. Brick, and R. R. Sitter (2006). Algorithms for constructing combined strata

variance estimators. Journal of the American Statistical Association  101 (476), 1680‐1692.
Appendix 5D

Page 1 

Appendix 5D 

Creation of Selected Dependent 

Variables 

This appendix presents additional information on variable construction for three sets of

dependent variables

 Food security  

 Nutritional status

 Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) participation

5D.1 Creating Food Security Outcomes 

Household food security was measured with an 18‐item survey module that was developed by

USDA to assess and monitor food security in large‐scale population studies such as the Current

Population Survey and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).1 The

survey module used for the SEBTC evaluation asks respondents to recall information about food

security over the previous 30 days (i.e., last 30 days). The instrument has been well‐tested and

has well‐documented sensitivity and specificity for measuring food security in households with

children (Economic Research Service 2012a, 2012b; National Research Council 2005, 2006; Nord

and Hopwood 2007).  

Exhibit 5D.1 lists the 18 questions in the standard battery. For 15 of the items, respondents

were asked to indicate for their household, in the last 30 days, if the statement was often true,

sometimes true, or never true or give a yes/no response. For 3 items, respondents were asked

to indicate for how many of the last 30 days the event had occurred. For those who responded

“don’t know,” follow‐up questions to determine if “one or two days” or “more than two days”

were asked to facilitate scoring. Each item was scored as shown in Exhibit 5D.1.  

 

1 These national studies typically use the previous 12 months as the reference period, but have at times used the

previous 30 days for specific research objectives.  
Appendix 5D

Page 2 

Exhibit 5D.1   Items in Food Security Index

Survey Questions. Respondents were asked to indicate if the

statement was often true, sometimes true, or never true for their

household in the last 30 days. Scoring

Measures

food security

among...2  

1. We worried whether our food would run out before we got

money to buy more.  

1=often/sometimes  

0=never true

Adults

2. The food that we bought just didn't last, and we didn't have

money to get more.

1=often/sometimes  

0=never true

Adults

3. We couldn't afford to eat balanced meals.   1=often/sometimes  

0=never true

Adults

4. In the last 30 days, did [you/you or other adults in your

household] ever cut the size of your meals or skip meals because

there wasn't enough money for food?

1=yes  

0=no Adults

4a. In the last 30 days, how many days did this happen?2 1= ≥3 days

0= <3 days Adults

5. In the last 30 days, did you ever eat less than you felt you should

because there wasn't enough money for food?

1=yes

0=no Adults

6. In the last 30 days, were you ever hungry but didn't eat because

there wasn't enough money for food?

1=yes

0=no Adults

7. In the last 30 days, did you lose weight because there wasn't

enough money for food?

1=yes

0=no Adults

8. In the last 30 days, did [you/you or other adults in your

household] ever not eat for a whole day because there wasn't

enough money for food?

1=yes  

0=no Adults

8a. In the last 30 days, how many days did this happen? 2 1= ≥3 days

0= <3 days Adults

9. [I/We] relied on only a few kinds of low‐cost food to feed

[my/our] [child/children] because [I was/we were] running out of

money to buy food.  

1=often/sometimes  

0=never true

Children

10. [I/We] couldn't feed [my/our] [child/children] a balanced meal,

because [I/we] couldn't afford that.  

1=often/sometimes  

0=never true

Children

11. [My/Our/The] [child was/children were] not eating enough

because [I/we] just couldn't afford enough food.  

1=often/sometimes  

0=never true

Children

12. In the last 30 days, did you ever cut the size of [your child's/any

of the children's] meals because there wasn't enough money for

food?

1=yes  

0=no Children

13. In the last 30 days, did [your child/any of the children] ever skip

meals because there wasn't enough money for food?

1=yes

0=no Children

13a. In the last 30 days, how many days did this happen? 2 1= ≥3 days

0= <3 days Children

14. In the last 30 days, [was your child/were your children] ever

hungry but you just couldn't afford more food?

1=yes

0=no Children

15. In the last 30 days, did [your child/any of the children] ever not

eat for a whole day because there wasn't enough money for food?

1=yes

0=no Children

 

2 The 18‐item measure is a household‐level measure of food insecurity among the general household, adults in the

household, and children in the household. The first 10 items (questions #1–8a) are the “adult scale” and the

remaining 8 questions (questions #9–15) are the “child scale.”

2

Those who said “don’t know” were asked a follow‐up question to determine if it was “one or two days” or “more

than two days” to facilitate scoring as 0 or 1.  
Appendix 5D

Page 3 

Items are summed across:

 Two levels:  (1) severe food insecurity (i.e., very low food security) and (2) general food

insecurity (i.e., very low or low food security), and  

 For three groups:  (a) children in the household, (b) adults in the household, and (c) any

member of the household,  

to create six measures of food security.

As indicated in Exhibit 5D.1, there are 8 items measuring food security among children in the

household (items 9–15). These 8 items were summed, and the following two dichotomous

measures of food insecurity among children were created:

 Very Low Food Security Among Children, VLFS‐C, the most severe form of food insecurity

among children in the household, is defined as a sum of 5 points or higher  

 Food Insecurity Among Children in the Household, FI‐C, indicating low or very low food

insecurity, is defined as a sum of 2 points or higher  

Similarly, the 10 items measuring food security among adults in the household (items 1–8a in

Exhibit 5D.1) were summed, and the following two dichotomous measures of food security

among adults were created:

 Very Low Food Security Among Adults, VLFS‐A, in the household is defined as a sum of 6

points or higher  

 Food Insecurity Among Adults in the Household, FI‐A, indicating low or very low food

insecurity is defined as a sum of 3 points or higher  

The SEBTC study uses a method of coding food security status called the adult/child cross‐

tabulation approach, which differs slightly from that in the USDA reports using the CPS data.

The adult/child cross‐tabulation approach has been under development at USDA as a means of

eliminating a misclassification that affects a small percentage of cases and was recommended

by the USDA for the current study. The approach used does not affect the number of

households classified as VLFS‐C (i.e., very low food security among children), but does slightly

alter the percentage of households classified as experiencing very low food security (VLFS‐H) or

food insecurity (FI‐H).

Using the adult/child cross‐tabulation approach, two measures of food security in the

household overall were constructed based on the measures of food security among children

and adults in the household:

 Very Low Food Security in the Household Overall, VLFS‐H, is defined as very low food

security among children, very low food security among adults, or very low food security

among both children and adults.
Appendix 5D

Page 4 

 Food Insecurity in the Household Overall, indicating low or very low food security, FI‐H, is

defined as food insecurity among children, food insecurity among adults, or food insecurity

among both children and adults.

5D.2 Construction of the Nutritional Status Outcomes 

Information on intake of specific dietary factors included in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for

Americans (USDA and HHS, 2010) recommendations was used to assess children’s nutritional

status. In the 2013 summer survey, dietary intake data were collected using food frequency

questions drawn from the 2009–2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

(NHANES) Diet Screener Questionnaire (National Cancer Institute [NCI], 2013). Respondents

reported how often (per day, per week, or per month) the selected target child ate 23 food

items over the last 30 days. For cereals, they also reported the name and brand for the cereal

eaten most often and for a second cereal, if applicable. Using scoring procedures developed by

the NCI,3 reports of children’s consumption of the specific items were converted into eight

dietary indicators for the impact analysis in chapter 5:

1. Cup equivalents4 per day of fruits and vegetables  

2. Cup equivalents3 per day of fruits and vegetables, excluding fried potatoes  

3. Ounce equivalents5 per day of whole grains (from cereals, whole‐grain breads and tortillas,

whole‐grain rice, and popcorn)

4. Cup equivalents6 per day of dairy  (from milk, cheese, ice cream, and pizza)

5. Whether the child usually drank non‐fat or low‐fat milk during the last 30 days

6. Teaspoons7 per day of added sugars from all foods and beverages

7. Teaspoons6 per day of added sugars from all foods and beverages, excluding cereals  

8. Teaspoons6 per day of added sugars from sugar‐sweetened beverages

Before applying the NCI scoring algorithms, the study team performed two main data

preparation tasks. First, the reported frequencies of consumption for each food item in the

survey were reviewed. Extreme values were identified and excluded from the analysis,

consistent with the procedures recommended by NCI. Then all reported cereal names/brands

 

3 The scoring algorithms used for the analysis are based on 24‐hour dietary recalls collected in the NHANES 2003–

2006 and can be found at: http://appliedresearch.cancer.gov/studies/nhanes/dietscreen/scoring/.   

4 Daily amounts of fruits and vegetables are measured in cup equivalents, as defined by the 2010 Dietary

Guidelines for Americans. For fruits and vegetables, 1 cup equivalent is defined as 1 cup raw or cooked fruit or

vegetables, vegetable juice, or fruit juice; 2 cups leafy green vegetables; or 1/2 cup dried fruit.  

5 Whole grain amounts are measured in ounce equivalents. One ounce equivalent of whole grains is defined as 1

one‐ounce slice bread; 1 ounce uncooked whole‐grain pasta or rice; 1/2 cup cooked rice; pasta; or cereal; 1 6‐inch

diameter whole‐grain tortilla; 1 5‐inch diameter whole‐grain pancake; or 1 ounce ready‐to‐eat whole grain cereal.  

6 One cup equivalent of dairy is defined as 1 cup milk or yogurt; 11⁄2 ounces natural cheese; or 2 ounces of

processed cheese. Ice cream and pizza also contribute to the dairy score.

7 Added sugars are measured in teaspoons and are derived from reported frequencies of consuming sugar‐

sweetened beverages (soda, fruit‐flavored drinks, and sugar or honey added to coffee or tea); cookies/cakes/pies;

doughnuts; ice cream; candy; and cereals.  
Appendix 5D

Page 5 

were mapped to the closest food codes in the USDA Food and Nutrition Database for Dietary

Studies (FNDDS). The procedures used are summarized below.

5D.2.1 Identifying Extreme Values 

All reported frequencies of consumption (per day, per week, and per month) were first

converted to daily values for each of the 23 food items. The study team reviewed the

distributions of the reported frequencies, including the mean, median, lower and upper

quartiles, minimum and maximum values. Since it was plausible for a child to consume a food

item a small number of times or not at all over the 30‐day period, the review focused on

identifying outliers and likely entry errors at the upper end of the distribution.8,9 For each food

item, the distribution of daily consumption was compared to the “Maximum Acceptable Daily

Frequency Values” used by the NCI to exclude extreme values from analyses of the NHANES

2009–2010 Dietary Screener Questionnaire (http://appliedresearch.cancer.gov/studies/

nhanes/dietscreen/scoring/identify.html). The NCI defined the maximum acceptable value for

each food item as the highest daily frequency observed just prior to the discontinuous point of

the distribution.10 For the 2013 summer survey, daily frequencies of intake that exceeded the

NCI maximums were set to “missing.” For each food item, the resulting number of excluded

values was less than 1%.  

 

8 Acceptable ranges in the SEBTC 2013 Summer Questionnaire were 1–9 times per day for foods and 1–12 times

per day for beverages. Interviewers confirmed values with respondents for foods or beverages if the reported

times per day >3 or 4; per week >21 or 28; and per month >90 or 120.

9 The study team also reviewed the distributions of consumption frequencies reported on a weekly or monthly

basis. Although some unusual values were identified, the team did not attempt to develop rules for excluding or

recoding values that fell within the accepted ranges in the questionnaire or would have been confirmed with the

respondent during the interview. For example, there were a number of “30 times per week” responses (4.3 per

day). The respondent may have meant “30 per month” (1 per day); however, the interviewer would have

confirmed this report since the value was greater than 21 (food) and 28 (beverage) times per week.

10 The NHANES maximums, based on the general US population ages 2 through 69 years, are recommended by NCI

to be appropriate for most U.S. populations.  
Appendix 5D

Page 6 

Exhibit 5D.2   Maximum Acceptable Daily Frequency Values for Foods  

Food Item

Maximum Acceptable Daily

Frequency Value from NHANES

2009–2010

Number of Excluded Values for

SEBTC Summer Survey 2013

Any cereal 7 2

Any milk (not soy) 10 5

Soda 8 3

Fruit juice (100%) 8 24

Sugar/honey in coffee/tea 10 0

Fruitades/sports drinks 7 36

Fruit   8 8

Salad   5 1

Fried potatoes 5 1

Other potatoes 3 3

Dried beans 4 1

Cooked whole grains   4 2

Other vegetables 5 17

Salsa 3 8

Pizza 2 19

Tomato sauce 2 18

Cheese 6 5

Whole grain bread 6 4

Candy 8 1

Doughnuts 5 1

Cookies, cake, pie 7 0

Ice cream 5 9

Popcorn 3 9

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013 (n=19,689).

Note: Most respondents reported two cereals, so the total number excluded reflects the number of cereals rather than cases.

5D.2.2 Cereal Coding 

The NCI scoring algorithms use information about both the frequency and the particular types

of cereals consumed to estimate daily amounts of whole grains (in ounce equivalents) and  

added sugars (in teaspoons) for individual children

(http://appliedresearch.cancer.gov/studies/nhanes/dietscreen/scoring/cereal.html).

The algorithms first classify each reported cereal as hot or cold, and then by nutrient density for

four factors (whole grains, added sugars, fiber, and calcium). Based on their nutrient content,

the cereals are then linked to data   from the FNDDS (version 5) for scoring whole grains and

added sugars.11 Before running these algorithms, study nutritionists worked with programming

staff to assign the most appropriate food code from the FNDDS to each reported cereal

(n=32,967). This process involved several automated and manual steps, including:

 

11 In addition, if two different cereal types were reported for the first cereal reported, the algorithms assume the

first cereal is the most frequently consumed and weights it at 0.75; the second cereal, assumed to be less

frequently consumed, is weighted at 0.25. (See details at:

http://appliedresearch.cancer.gov/studies/nhanes/dietscreen/scoring/cereal.html).  
Appendix 5D

Page 7 

1. Running the matching algorithm program developed for the 2012 survey data, which

matched reported cereals to FNDDS food codes and descriptions based on exact or “fuzzy”

names and/or brands (92.5% of records matched).

2. Conducting manual coding of the remaining cereals that could not be matched by the

algorithm (7.5% of records; 1,869 unique name/brand combinations), including web

searches of new or unfamiliar cereals and those reported in Spanish.

3. Conducting an independent quality assurance review of all cereals coded by the matching

algorithm and manually.  

The study team used NCI’s mapping of cereal names/brands reported in NHANES 2009–2010 to

FNDDS food codes as the basis for both the matching algorithm and manual coding. This

“master list” included some default codes to use when detailed descriptions were not provided

(e.g., “cereal, ready‐to‐eat, not further specified”). Additional defaults and coding rules,

developed for the 2012 cereal data, were consulted when a reported cereal name/brand was

not found in the NCI master list (usually a generic brand or new‐to‐market cereal), when a

cereal name was missing but brand was reported, and when the cereal name, brand, or type

(e.g., hot, cold, oat, wheat, rings, flakes, pre‐sweetened) could not be determined.

Some respondents (less than 0.5%) reported multiple cereal names for the cereal consumed

most often in the last 30 days (first cereal), the second cereal, or both. If multiple cereal names

were reported for the first cereal, only the first name was retained and coded unless the

second cereal response was missing. In this case, the next reported cereal name was coded as

the second cereal. If multiple cereal names were reported for the second cereal but the first

cereal was missing, the first name was coded as the first cereal. When multiple cereal names

were reported for both the first and second cereals, only the first cereal for each response was

coded.  

Missing or unusable data for the first, most commonly consumed cereal was rare (less than

0.5%) and handled as follows: (1) If a valid second cereal was reported, it was coded as the first

cereal, and (2) non‐cereal items (for example, cereal bars, yogurt, pancakes) or otherwise

unrecognizable cereal names were set to missing.  

5D.3 Construction of Summer Food Service Program 

(SFSP) Participation Outcome 

This section provides a summary of the process and guidelines that were used to code Section F

of the 2013 summer survey for SEBTC. Respondents were asked where their child usually ate

lunch Monday through Friday in the last 30 days. These questions were used to describe the

locations where children ate lunch (e.g., home, friend’s or relative’s home, school, child care,

day camp, church/synagogue/mosque, park/playground, community center, etc.) and whether

the lunch was free or paid. The questions were also used to identify whether the reported

location or place where lunch was eaten was a Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) site to

estimate SFSP participation. This work included back‐coding for the lunch locations reported by
Appendix 5D

Page 8 

respondents and assignment of the location (i.e., place or program) to an SFSP variable. The

data file uses the following codes for the new “SFSPsite” variable that was created:

1. Confirmed SFSP site

2. Not an SFSP site

3. A likely SFSP site

4. Unknown if an SFSP site (information from the respondent was insufficient to code as a 1, 2,

or 3 or was missing a name and/or city)  

5D.3.1 Overview of Process 

Several steps were used to clean the raw data to create an “SFSPsite” analysis variable for each

of the four “location” survey questions:

1. SEBTC site‐specific lists of SFSP sponsors/sites that aligned with the demonstration areas

were created based on the following:

a. lists of sponsors and/or sites found or created by the evaluations team by searching for

information on‐line  (State SFSP website, Food Research and Action Center website,

local area websites)

b.   Google searches of reported program and location names and addresses  

2. One SFSP site list per SEBTC site was maintained and used for coding the “SFSPsite” variable

as 1, 2, 3, or 4. In some cases, the SFSP contact for the State was able to provide additional

clarifying information or confirmation about SFSP sites and their locations.  

The SFSP site lists were used for coding and for quality control purposes. Exhibit 5D.3 provides a

summary of the guidelines used for backcoding the location variables and coding the “SFSPsite”

variable. Below we provide specific details on variable names that support the table of coding

guidelines.  

5D.3.2 Details Related to Coding the Location and “SFSP site” 

Variables 

This coding applies to four lunch “location” survey questions in Section F of the Summer

Household Survey (up to two per respondent). In addition to classifying the reported location as

an SFSP site or not (described above) the location questions were used to characterize the

frequency and variety of places that children ate lunch on Monday through Friday in the

summer (descriptive data are reported in Chapter 4). For consistency in describing the types of

places where lunch was eaten (in addition to whether it was an SFSP site) backcoding guidelines

developed in previous study years were applied in 2013, and expanded if needed (Table 5D.3).  

For example, a location code was added for emergency feeding locations such as food banks,

kitchens, and shelters.

For each specific category of location listed in the table, coding criteria were used to

characterize the location as (1) a confirmed SFSP site; (2) not an SFSP site; (3) a likely SFSP site;

or (4) not enough information. Using a report of “school” as an example, children could be
Appendix 5D

Page 9 

classified as eating lunch at summer school (i.e., NSLP) or eating lunch at a program at school or

on school grounds. For the non‐summer school cases, the reported information was compared

to the SEBTC master SFSP site list to determine if the program at school or on school grounds

was an SFSP site or not. In some cases, the coding required backcoding to an existing code or

the addition of new location codes (e.g., code 13 for other educational institutions such as a

community college campus hosting Upward Bound).  
Appendix 5D

Page 10 

Exhibit 5D.3 Coding Criteria for SFSP Site Variable and Back‐coding Criteria for Lunch Location

1. IS AN SFSP SITE 2. IS NOT AN SFSP SITE 3. IS A LIKELY SFSP SITE

4. NOT ENOUGH

INFORMATION

BACK

Home (1) and Friend’s or Relative’s House (2) and Restaurant/Fast Food Restaurant (10) and Work (11)

All sites in these categories.

School (3)

Listed on grantee‐provided

SFSP site list.

Is a program that operates

on school grounds but

website explicitly says it

does not participate in SFSP

(e.g., “students must bring a

lunch.”)

School district is a site

sponsor but specific school is

not listed.

Is a private or parochial

school that is not listed on

SFSP site list.

Day c

“scho

camp 

summ

consisday carepor

Is a curricular program at an

SFSP site school (e.g., an

academy within a school).

Is a pre‐K or Head Start

program participating in the

Child and Adult Care Feeding

Program (CACFP).

Is a public school but may be

in a district outside of POC or

expansion area.

Is a camp or other program

that may operate on school

grounds, but the relationship

to the school is unknown.

Churcminis

were 

Is a private or parochial

school summer program that

explicitly says it does

participate in SFSP or

provides meals for those

who participate in NSLP.

Is a charter school either

authorized by or located

within a participatingdistrict.

Privat

affilia

were 

Non‐p(e.g., univewere 

code 

institu

UpwaschooHead 

at sch

locati
1. IS AN SFSP SITE 2. IS NOT AN SFSP SITE 3. IS A LIKELY SFSP SITE

4. NOT ENOUGH

INFORMATION

BACK

Day Camp (4) and Sleep Away Camp (5)

Listed on grantee‐provided

SFSP site list.

Website has languagespecifically saying it does not

participate in SFSP (e.g.,

students must bring a lunch)

Is operated by a sponsor

listed on SFSP site list (e.g.,Boys and Girls Scout Camp

or camp put on by

Department of Parks and

Recreation).

Camp is not listed on SFSP

list.

If plac

coded NOT b

Website has explicit

language stating it

participates in SFSP or offers

free lunch to those who

participate in NSLP.

Camp only has one instance

in data set and that student

either brought or paid for

lunch.

Camp is affiliated with a

school or school district

(listed or not listed).

Camp does not have a

sponsor listed on SFSP list.

If plac

educacoded NOT b

Camp has tuition; may or

may not offer scholarships.

If plac

Girls Csimila

9.

If plac

do NO

camp 

Church, Synagogue, or Mosque (6)

Listed on grantee‐provided

SFSP site list.

Website has language clearly

indicating it is not an SFSP

site (e.g., church operates a

food bank funded through

donations from its

parishioners).

Place is a day care,

community service

organization, or similar runby a religious organization

that is a site sponsor.

All churches, synagogues, or

mosques that do not meetcriteria for 1, 2, or 3.

Sunda

minis

as 6.

Church can be identified but

is not listed on grantee‐

provided SFSP list.

Parocrun d

NOT b

3 or 7in the 
Appendix 5D

Page 12 

1. IS AN SFSP SITE 2. IS NOT AN SFSP SITE 3. IS A LIKELY SFSP SITE

4. NOT ENOUGH

INFORMATION

BACK

Child Care or Day Care (7)

Listed on grantee‐provided

SFSP site list.

Website indicates that the

program participates inCACFP.

Day care is operated by a

sponsor listed on SFSP site

list (e.g., YMCA, boys and

girls club).

All Child Cares or Day Cares

do not meet criteria for 1, 2,

or 3.

Head 

reporleft as 

Day care center is reported

by only one respondent, and

respondent indicated that

student paid for or brought

lunch.

Child with i

shoul

Goog

searcfriend

These 

Playground, Park, Department of Parks and Recreation (8)

Listed on grantee‐provided

SFSP site list.

Place name is a day camp

operated by an SFSP‐

sponsoring parks and

recreation department.

Park is operated by a

department of parks and

recreation not appearing onsite list; may be outside the

demonstration area.

Address of place matches

the address of a park listed

on SFSP site list. This

includes parks orplaygrounds adjoining

schools that are SFSP sites.

Place name is a day camp

operated in a public park

maintained by a sponsoring

parks and recreation

department.

Park hosts a day camp that

does not appear on SFSP list.

Park or playground hosts an

SFSP sponsor (e.g., a daycamp operated in the park, a

community center that sets

up a lunch station in the

park, etc.). This wasdetermined through Google

search.
1. IS AN SFSP SITE 2. IS NOT AN SFSP SITE 3. IS A LIKELY SFSP SITE

4. NOT ENOUGH

INFORMATION

BACK

Community Center, Boys and Girls Club, YMCA, Sports Center (9)

Listed on grantee‐provided

SFSP site list.

Website states where

organization gets food from

(e.g., a food bank that does

not receive SFSP money,

donations from a local

restaurant)

Local Boys and Girls Club or

YMCA is a sponsor but the

specific branch named is not

on SFSP list (other branches

may be listed).

All community centers, boys

and girls clubs, or YMCAs not

meeting the criteria for 1, 2,

or 3.

Day c

comm

coded 

were 

Is a program that operates at

a community center on the

SFSP site list (e.g., a hang‐out

room for teens).

Place is a program run by

community center, but

handbook for program

clearly indicates that it is not

SFSP (e.g., participants must

bring a bagged lunch).

Program is a sleep‐away

camp or off‐site program

sponsored by community

center (e.g., at a school or a

park).

A program that shares an

address with a community

center on the SFSP site list

(where street addresses are

available to be searched).
Appendix 5D

Page 14 

1. IS AN SFSP SITE 2. IS NOT AN SFSP SITE 3. IS A LIKELY SFSP SITE

4. NOT ENOUGH

INFORMATION

BACK

Some Other Place, includes Zoo, Library, Hospital, Medical Facility, Bus Stop, Guidance Services (12)

Follow instructions for

category entry is backcoded

into.

Follow instructions for

category entry is backcoded

into.

Follow instructions for

category entry is backcoded

into.

Follow instructions for

category entry is backcoded

into.

Code

backcsites a

with t

shoul

crimin

couns

Code

match 

those 

lead o

if resp

summand m

respo

childrpark a

as a s

respo

backc

Schoo

be ba

Other Educational Institution (13)

Listed on grantee‐provided

SFSP site list.

Website clearly indicatesthat it is not an SFSP site.

Institution hosts an SFSP site

(e.g., an early‐college high

school, lab school, summer

program, or Upward Bound

location).

Place does not meet criteria

for 1, 2, or 3.

If an i

educa

care o

backcinstitucente

Place is “college dining hall”

or similar.

If an i

educa

summ

backc

camp
1. IS AN SFSP SITE 2. IS NOT AN SFSP SITE 3. IS A LIKELY SFSP SITE

4. NOT ENOUGH

INFORMATION

BACK

Emergency Feeding (Food Bank, Kitchen, Shelter) (14)

Listed on grantee‐provided

SFSP site list.

Food bank clearly indicates it

does not receive SFSP

funding.

Place is generically named

(“food bank”) and is located

in town of food bank that is

an SFSP‐sponsor; a Google

search indicates the food

bank in that town has one or

more SFSP locations.

Place is a program operated

by a food bank (e.g., mobile

food truck) that is an SFSP

sponsor.

Include Salvation Army

meals (often in combination

with shelter, soup kitchen)

Note: SEBTC 2013 Summer Survey Coding Guidelines for Section F.1 Codes refer to the number listed in the SEBTC 2012 Summer Survey, questions SF1, SF4, and SF4a.

Appendix 5E 

Page 1 

Appendix 5E 

Detailed Impact Analysis Results 

This appendix presents detailed additional impact analysis related to Chapter 5. The appendix

proceeds in four sections:

 Food security (section 5E.1)

 Food expenditures (section 5E.2)

 Additional results on nutritional status in summer 2013 (section 5E.3)

 Participation in nutrition assistance programs and whether the child’s household paid for

lunch in summer 2013 (section 5E.4)

5E.1 Food Security 

This section presents findings on SEBTC’s impact on the food security of children, adults, and

households in the summer of 2013, organized into four sets of exhibits:

 Findings from alternative impact estimation methods (no regression adjustment, linear

regression, and using non‐replicate, EBT‐adjusted weights)—Exhibits 5E.1.1 to 5E.1.3

 Findings for the 18 individual food security questions on the summer survey and findings for

all cut‐points on the summed scores from the child and adult food security questions—

Exhibit 5E.1.4 to 5E.1.5

 Findings by site—Exhibits 5E.1.6 to 5E.1.9

 Comparison of 2012 and 2013 baseline levels of food security and other covariates –

Exhibits 5E.1.10 to 5E.1.12b

 Findings for impacts for subgroups—Exhibits 5E.1.13a to 5E.1.15

 Findings for spring‐to‐summer changes in adult and household food security – Exhibits

5E.1.16a and 5E.1.16b  

 Findings for alternative specifications of the non‐experimental cross‐year analysis – Exhibits

5E.1.17 to 5E.1.20.

5E.1.1 Findings Using Alternative Methods 

Standard statistical approaches imply that simple treatment/control comparisons are unbiased

and consistent (i.e., on average results are correct and approach the true value as the sample

size grows), but that regression‐adjusted estimates are more precise. Exhibit 5E.1.1 suggests

that impacts on food security outcomes are very similar with and without a regression

adjustment (the former shown in Exhibit 5.3 in the body of the report), although results with

regression adjustment are slightly more precise. For example, the standard error of the

estimate for VLFS‐C drops from 0.36 without a regression adjustment to 0.357 with an

adjustment; for FI‐C the corresponding drop is from 0.69 to 0.65.  
Appendix 5E

Page 2 

Exhibit 5E.1.1 Summer Impact Estimates without a Regression Adjustment, 2013

Outcome n

$60

Benefit

$30

Benefit

$60‐$30

Difference SE p‐value

Very Low Food Security –

Children 19,684 5.79% 5.99%  ‐0.20    0.36 0.582

Food Insecure – Children 19,684 32.72% 36.18% ‐3.45 *** 0.69 <0.001

Very Low Food Security –

Adults 19,684 17.97% 20.40%  ‐2.43 *** 0.62 <0.001

Food Insecure – Adults 19,684 39.31% 43.17% ‐3.86 *** 0.71 <0.001

Very Low Food Security –

Household 19,681 19.04% 21.31%  ‐2.28 *** 0.61 <0.001

Food Insecure – Household 19,683 44.80% 49.19% ‐4.39 *** 0.72 <0.001

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013  

Note: The p‐values are based on a test of the difference in the prevalence rates for households in the $60 benefit group

compared to households in the $30 benefit group. The null hypothesis being tested is that the difference in the prevalence

rates is zero.  

*p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01

Exhibit 5E.1.2 shows that impacts on food security outcomes, reported in percentage points,

using linear regression (with regression adjustment) are similar to those in the body of the

report. In the body of the report, the analysis estimates percentage point impacts from logistic

regression (again, with regression adjustment). The largest difference between the estimates

using linear regression and those using logistic regression is 0.06 percentage points (for FI‐C).

Exhibit 5E.1.2 Summer Impact Estimates Using Linear Regression (Rather than Logistic

Regression), 2013  

Outcome n

$60

Benefit

$30

Benefit

$60‐$30

Difference SE p‐value

Very Low Food Security –

Children 19,684 5.70% 6.08%  ‐0.38    0.36 0.296

Food Insecure – Children 19,684 32.64% 36.26% ‐3.63 *** 0.66 <0.001

Very Low Food Security –

Adults 19,684 17.83% 20.53%  ‐2.70 *** 0.53 <0.001

Food Insecure – Adults 19,684 39.22% 43.27% ‐4.05 *** 0.65 <0.001

Very Low Food Security –

Household 19,681 18.90% 21.44%  ‐2.55 *** 0.53 <0.001

Food Insecure – Household 19,683 44.74% 49.26% ‐4.52 *** 0.68 <0.001

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013  

Note: The p‐values are based on a test of the difference in the prevalence rates for households in the $60 benefit group

compared to households in the $30 benefit group. The null hypothesis being tested is that the difference in the prevalence

rates is zero.  

*p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01

As discussed in Appendix 5B, analyses of the administrative data suggest that conventional

survey weights do not completely control for survey non‐response. Specifically, weighted

tabulations of EBT data for survey respondents imply higher proportions of SEBTC redemptions

than observed for the population of households that received SEBTC. Appendix 5B describes

the construction of weights that use the EBT data to further adjust for non‐response bias.
Appendix 5E 

Page 3 

However, using the EBT information to create the weights also resulted in considerable

variation in weights across observations.  In such a case, conventional linear standard errors can

be misleading.  To address this concern, the main results in Chapter 5 use these EBT‐adjusted

replicate weights described in Appendix 5B.   

In practice, in almost all cases, estimates and in standard errors using EBT‐adjusted replicate

weights differ only slightly from EBT‐adjusted non‐replicate weights.  For example, Exhibit

5E.1.3 presents results for the main food security analyses using the EBT‐adjusted, non‐

replicate weights. The prevalence rates and impact estimates using these weights are identical

to those presented in the body of the report (Exhibit 5.3); the standard errors are only very

slightly different. The standard errors using replicate weights are larger than those using non‐

replicate weights, by 0.03 for VLFS‐C and 0.01 for FI‐H. For the other measures of food security,

the standard errors using the replicate weights are the same or very slightly smaller (by ‐0.01)

than those using non‐replicate weights. The significance levels using the two estimation

approaches are almost identical.  

Exhibit 5E.1.3 Summer Impact Estimates Using EBT‐Adjusted Non‐Replicate Summer

Weights (Logistic Regression), 2013  

Outcome n

$60

Benefit

$30

Benefit

$60‐$30

Difference SE p‐value

Very Low Food Security –

Children 19,684 5.71% 6.08%  ‐0.37    0.33 0.264

Food Insecure – Children 19,684 32.60% 36.29% ‐3.69 *** 0.65 <0.001

Very Low Food Security –

Adults 19,684 17.81% 20.56%  ‐2.75 *** 0.53 <0.001

Food Insecure – Adults 19,684 39.19% 43.28% ‐4.08 *** 0.66 <0.001

Very Low Food Security –

Household 19,681 18.87% 21.48%  ‐2.61 *** 0.54 <0.001

Food Insecure – Household 19,683 44.72% 49.26% ‐4.54 *** 0.67 <0.001

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013  

Note: The p‐values are based on a test of the difference in the prevalence rates for households in the $60 benefit group

compared to households in the $30 benefit group. The null hypothesis being tested is that the difference in the prevalence

rates is zero.  

*p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01

5E.1.2 Findings for Individual Items of Food Security Survey Module 

Exhibit 5.3 in Chapter 5 presents results for VLFS and FI—for children, for adults, and for

households. Those measures aggregate responses to individual food security items. (See

Appendix 5D for a description of how the module is used to create the food security outcomes.)

Exhibit 5E.1.4 shows the tabulations of differential impact on the individual items. There is

strong evidence of the differential impact of SEBTC on most of the items, with the exception of

some items (e.g., children did not eat for a whole day; children skipped meals for three or more

days in the past month).
Appendix 5E

Page 4 

Exhibit 5E.1.4 Summer Impact Estimates, Item By Item (Impacts on Percent of

Respondents Indicating that a Statement Was Sometimes or Often True),

2013

Outcome n

$60

Benefit

$30

Benefit

$60‐$30  

Difference SE p‐value

Items Measuring Food Insecurity Among Adults in the Household (“The Adult Scale”)

Worried food would run out 19,663 53.08% 57.77% ‐4.68 *** 0.78 <0.001

Food didn’t last 19,668 44.59% 48.54% ‐3.95 *** 0.66 <0.001

Couldn’t afford balanced meals 19,638 39.90% 43.58% ‐3.67 *** 0.76 <0.001

Adults cut/skipped meals 19,668 25.18% 28.44% ‐3.27 *** 0.56 <0.001

Adults cut/skip meals ≥ 3/day 19,677 20.13% 23.25% ‐3.12 *** 0.54 <0.001

Adults ate less than should 19,669 27.56% 30.80% ‐3.24 *** 0.65 <0.001

Adult was hungry but didn’t eat 19,680 15.95% 18.39% ‐2.44 *** 0.55 <0.001

Adult lost weight without money for

food   19,378 9.27% 10.64%  ‐1.37 *** 0.43 0.002

Adult did not eat for a whole day 19,678 6.00% 6.43% ‐0.42     0.37 0.249

Adult did not eat for ≥ 3days 19,683 4.31% 4.60% ‐0.29     0.32 0.362

Items Measuring Food Insecurity Among Children in the Household (“The Child Scale”)

Relied on only a few low‐cost foods 19,657 49.02 52.55 ‐3.53 *** 0.72 <0.001

Couldn’t feed children balanced

meals 19,658 32.83 35.99  ‐3.16 *** 0.65 <0.001

Children were not eating enough 19,671 17.26 18.73 ‐1.47 *** 0.51 0.004

Cut the size of children’s meals 19,678 10.26 10.90 ‐0.64     0.44 0.143

Children skipped meals 19,674 4.76 5.15 ‐0.39     0.32 0.215

Children skipped meals ≥ 3 days 19,683 3.28 3.69 ‐0.41     0.28 0.138

Children were hungry 19,663 7.99 8.87 ‐0.88 ** 0.35 0.012

Children did not eat for a whole day 19,677 1.26 1.39 ‐0.13     0.25 0.607

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013  

Note: P‐values are based on a test difference in the percentage of households indicating that a statement was sometimes or

often true, comparing households between the $60 benefit group and the $30 benefit group. The null hypothesis being tested

is that the difference is zero. *p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01

Exhibit 5E.1.5 reports the impact of a $60 SEBTC benefit vs. a $30 SEBTC benefit on the number

of items on the child scale rated sometimes or often true – from at least one to eight items. The

larger benefit appears to lead fewer households to give positive responses for one to four items

(the cut‐off for FI‐C is at least two “often/sometimes true” responses on the child scale) but

does not reduce the number of households positive responses to five (the cut‐off for VLFS‐C) or

more items.
Appendix 5E 

Page 5 

Exhibit 5E.1.5 Household Food Security – Child Scale: Impacts on Percentage of

Respondents Positive Responses, Summer 2013

Number of Positive

Responses

$60 Benefit

Group

Prevalence

$30 Benefit

Group

Prevalence

Differential Impact

($60/$30 Difference) SE p‐value

1 or more 54.00% 57.46% ‐3.46 *** 0.72 <0.001

2 or more 32.60% 36.29% ‐3.69 *** 0.65 <0.001

3 or more 18.12% 19.56% ‐1.43 *** 0.51   0.005

4 or more 10.20% 11.05% ‐0.84 ** 0.41   0.038

5 or more 5.71% 6.08% ‐0.37 0.36   0.301

6 or more 3.34% 3.77% ‐0.43 0.27   0.109

7 or more 2.00% 2.29% ‐0.30 0.23   0.198

8 items 0.53% 0.60% ‐0.07 0.14   0.623

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013 (n=19,684)  

Note: The p‐values are based on a test of the difference in the prevalence rates for households in the $60 benefit group

compared to households in the $30 benefit group. The null hypothesis being tested is that the difference in the prevalence

rates is zero.  

*p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01

5E.1.3 Site-Level Findings 

The body of the report presents results for six food security measures pooling across all sites

(Exhibit 5.3) and site specific estimates for VLFS‐C and FI‐C (Exhibits 5.4 and 5.5). Exhibits

5E.1.6‐5E.1.9 present results for other food security outcomes for individual sites. Given the

sample sizes in each site, statistically significant results would not be expected for each site.

Nevertheless, across these five food security outcomes, relative to a $30 benefit, a $60 SEBTC

benefit significantly improved food security (other than VLFS‐C) in most sites.  

Exhibit 5E.1.6 Summer Impact Estimate, VLFS‐Adult by Site, 2013  

Outcome/Site

Sample

Size

$60

Benefit

$30

Benefit

$60‐$30

Difference SE p‐value % Change

VLFS‐A 19,684 17.81% 20.56% ‐2.75 *** 0.52 <0.001 13.4%

Chickasaw Nation 2,053 17.41% 20.33% ‐2.92 * 1.64 0.075 14.3%

Delaware 6,435 18.32% 22.86% ‐4.54 *** 0.87 <0.001 19.9%

Michigan     

Detroit 2,121 15.24% 18.98% ‐3.75 ** 1.53 0.015 19.7%

Grand Rapids/

Kentwood 2,481 17.55% 18.33%  ‐0.79    1.35 0.562 4.3%

Mid‐Michigan 3,006 20.60% 21.01% ‐0.42 1.34 0.757 2.0%

Portland, Oregon 3,588 17.75% 21.82% ‐4.07 *** 1.12 <0.001 18.6%

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013  

Test that $30/$60 difference varies by site: χ2

=9.97, df=5, p=0.076

*p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01
Appendix 5E

Page 6 

Exhibit 5E.1.7 Summer Impact Estimates, Food Insecurity‐Adult by Site, 2013  

Outcome/Site

Sample

Size

$60

Benefit

$30

Benefit

$60‐$30

Difference SE p‐value % Change

FI‐A 19,684 39.19% 43.28% ‐4.08 *** 0.65 <0.001 9.4%

Chickasaw Nation 2,053 36.21% 39.60% ‐3.39 * 2.05 0.098 8.6%

Delaware 6,435 42.38% 47.24% ‐4.87 *** 1.12 <0.001 10.3%

Michigan    

Detroit 2,121 36.98% 42.71% ‐5.73 *** 2.20 0.009 13.4%

Grand Rapids/

Kentwood 2,481 37.33% 42.54%  ‐5.21 *** 1.62 <0.001 12.2%

Mid‐Michigan 3,006 39.05% 39.94% ‐0.89 1.54 0.562 2.2%

Portland, Oregon 3,588 43.23% 47.64% ‐4.41 *** 1.38 <0.001 9.3%

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013  

Test that $30/$60 difference varies by site: χ2=5.29, df=5, p=0.382

*p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01

Exhibit 5E.1.8 Summer Impact Estimates, VLFS‐Household by Site, 2013  

Outcome/Site

Sample

Size

$60

Benefit

$30

Benefit

$60‐$30

Difference SE p‐value % Change

VLFS‐H 19,681 18.87% 21.48% ‐2.61 *** 0.53 <.0001 12.1%

Chickasaw Nation 2,053 17.81% 20.79% ‐2.98 * 1.63 0.068 14.3%

Delaware 6,434 19.72% 24.24% ‐4.52 *** 0.91 <0.001 18.7%

Michigan    

Detroit 2,120 16.87% 19.71% ‐2.84 * 1.56 0.069 14.4%

Grand Rapids/

Kentwood 2,481 18.73% 18.95%  ‐0.23    1.34 0.866 1.2%

Mid‐Michigan 3,006 20.92% 21.21% ‐0.29 1.35 0.829 1.4%

Portland, Oregon 3,587 19.17% 23.95% ‐4.78 *** 1.19 <0.001 20.0%

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013  

Test that $30/$60 difference varies by site: χ2

=11.78, df=5, p=0.038

*p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01

Exhibit 5E.1.9 Summer Impact Estimates, Food Insecurity‐Household by Site, 2013  

Outcome/Site

Sample

Size

$60

Benefit

$30

Benefit

$60‐$30

Difference SE p‐value % Change

VLFS‐H 19,683 44.72% 49.26% ‐4.54 *** 0.68 <0.001 9.2%

Chickasaw Nation 2,053 42.02% 45.98% ‐3.96 * 2.07 0.056 8.6%

Delaware 6,434 48.29% 53.39% ‐5.10 *** 1.20 <0.001 9.5%

Michigan    

Detroit 2,120 41.59% 48.32% ‐6.73 *** 2.17 0.002 13.9%

Grand Rapids/

Kentwood 2,481 42.02% 48.27%  ‐6.25 *** 1.69 <0.001 13.0%

Mid‐Michigan 3,006 43.42% 44.78% ‐1.35 1.64 0.408 3.0%

Portland, Oregon 3,589 50.95% 54.80% ‐3.85 *** 1.39 0.006 7.0%

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013  

Test that $30/$60 difference varies by site: χ2

=6.20, df=5, p=0.287

*p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01
Appendix 5E 

Page 7 

5E.1.4 Comparison of 2012 and 2013 Baseline Food Security Levels 

and Household Characteristics used as Covariates 

To understand the plausibility of the non‐experimental cross‐year analyses, this section

considers differences in the levels of food security and covariates across years. These

differences are shown for all sites that participated in either 2012, 2013, or both years (“all

sites”), for all sites that participated in either 2012, 2013, or both years and used the active

consent process (“active consent sites”),1 for sites that participated in both years (“common

sites”), and for school districts within the common sites that participated in both years

(“common districts”).2  

For the level of food security, the exhibits show no change between 2012 and 2013 in VLFS‐C

across sites for all active consent sites, common sites, and common districts. For FI‐C in

common sites and common districts, there is an increase of nearly 4 percentage points (about

10%) between 2012 and 2013.  

 

1 In 2013, all sites used an active consent process. In 2012, some sites used an active consent process and others

used a passive consent process.

2 Some of the 2012 sites expanded to include additional school districts. The “common school districts” estimates

are for only those school districts that participated in both years.
Appendix 5E

Page 8 

Exhibit 5E.1.10 Descriptive Statistics for Baseline Food Security in 2012 and 2013 for All

Sites, Active Consent Sites, Common Sites, and Common Districts

Food Security,  

in spring  

2012 2013 Difference (2013‐2012)

n Estimate SE n Estimate SE Difference SE

Very Low Food Security among Children (%)

All Sites 22,281 8.8 0.23 18,655 7.7 0.23 ‐1.1 *** 0.33

Active Consent Sites 16,223 8.0 0.26 18,655 7.7 0.23 ‐0.2     0.34

Common Sites 7,755 6.5 0.34 13,245 6.6 0.25 0.1     0.42

Common Districts 7,755 6.5 0.34 8,549 6.7 0.30 0.2     0.46

Food Insecurity among Children (%)

All Sites 22,281 45.1 0.48 18,655 45.3 0.41 0.2     0.63

Active Consent Sites 16,223 45.6 0.60 18,655 45.3 0.41 ‐0.3     0.73

Common Sites 7,755 41.0 1.00 13,245 44.8 0.50 3.8 *** 1.12

Common Districts 7,755 41.0 1.00 8,549 44.6 0.58 3.7 *** 1.15

Very Low Food Security among Adults (%)

All Sites 22,282 25.3 0.41 18,651 26.4 0.37 1.1 * 0.55

Active Consent Sites 16,224 26.5 0.52 18,651 26.4 0.37 ‐0.1     0.64

Common Sites 7,756 22.8 0.82 13,243 26.5 0.45 3.7 *** 0.94

Common Districts 7,756 22.8 0.82 8,550 26.6 0.52 3.8 *** 0.97

Food Insecurity among Adults (%)

All Sites 22,282 53.7 0.48 18,651 54.2 0.41 0.5     0.63

Active Consent Sites 16,224 55.7 0.61 18,651 54.2 0.41 ‐1.5 ** 0.73

Common Sites 7,756 50.1 1.00 13,243 54.0 0.49 3.9 *** 1.12

Common Districts 7,756 50.1 1.00 8,550 53.7 0.57 3.6 *** 1.16

Very Low Food Security in Households (%)

All Sites 22,282 27.2 0.42 18,650 27.6 0.38 0.4     0.56

Active Consent Sites 16,224 28.1 0.53 18,650 27.6 0.38 ‐0.4     0.65

Common Sites 7,756 24.3 0.83 13,243 27.6 0.46 3.3 *** 0.95

Common Districts 7,756 24.3 0.83 8,549 27.7 0.53 3.4 *** 0.99

Food Insecurity in Households (%)

All Sites 22,282 59.4 0.48 18,650 60.7 0.39 1.3 ** 0.62

Active Consent Sites 16,224 61.2 0.60 18,650 60.7 0.39 ‐0.5     0.72

Common Sites 7,756 55.4 0.99 13,243 60.6 0.47 5.1 *** 1.10

Common Districts 7,756 55.4 0.99 8,549 60.2 0.55 4.8 *** 1.13

Source: SEBTC, Spring Survey, 2012 and Spring Survey, 2013

Note: The p‐values are based on a test of the difference in the baseline prevalence rates for households in the evaluation

sample in 2013 compared to households in the evaluation sample in 2012. The null hypothesis being tested is that the

difference in the prevalence rates is zero. *p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01

With respect to covariates, relative to 2012, in 2013, the oldest child is slightly younger,

households are slightly less likely to have an adolescent, households became slightly poorer

(average income to needs ratio), households were less likely to have a working adult,

households are slightly more likely to have one female adult, and slightly less likely to have two

adults. Few of the differences are large. The modest differences between 2012 and 2013

suggest that the non‐experimental cross‐year analysis’ implicit assumption of stability across

the two years is plausible.
Appendix 5E 

Page 9 

Exhibit 5E.1.11a Descriptive Statistics for Baseline Household Characteristics in 2012 and

2013 for All Sites, Active Consent Sites, Common Sites, and Common

Districts

Household

Characteristics,  

in spring  

2012 2013 Difference (2013‐2012)

n Estimate SE n Estimate SE Difference SE

Number of People in Household (Mean)

All Sites 22,279 4.36 0.01 18,654 4.32 0.01 ‐0.04 ** 0.02

Active Consent

Sites 16,221 4.33 0.02 18,654 4.32 0.01  ‐0.01     0.02

Common Sites 7,753 4.36 0.03 13,243 4.33 0.01 ‐0.03     0.03

Common Districts 7,753 4.36 0.03 8,548 4.37 0.02 0.01     0.03

Number of Children in Household (Mean)

All Sites 22,280 2.43 0.01 18,658 2.43 0.01 0.00     0.02

Active Consent

Sites 16,222 2.41 0.01 18,658 2.43 0.01 0.02     0.02

Common Sites 7,754 2.42 0.03 13,244 2.42 0.01 0.00     0.03

Common Districts 7,754 2.42 0.03 8,548 2.45 0.01 0.03     0.03

Age in Years of Oldest Child in Household (Mean)

All Sites 22,050 12.40 0.04 18,398 11.99 0.03 ‐0.42 *** 0.05

Active Consent

Sites 16,071 12.22 0.05 18,398 11.99 0.03  ‐0.24 *** 0.06

Common Sites 7,677 12.16 0.08 13,095 11.91 0.04 ‐0.25 *** 0.09

Common Districts 7,677 12.16 0.08 8,453 11.69 0.05 ‐0.47 *** 0.10

Presence of an Adolescent in the Household (%)

All Sites 22,078 51.91 0.48 18,435 47.62 0.41 ‐4.29 *** 0.64

Active Consent

Sites 16,098 49.53 0.61 18,435 47.62 0.41  ‐1.91 ** 0.74

Common Sites 7,703 47.94 1.01 13,108 47.74 0.50 ‐0.20     1.13

Common Districts 7,703 47.94 1.01 8,465 45.38 0.58 ‐2.55 ** 1.16

Income‐to‐Needs Ratio (Proportion of FPL1)

All Sites 21,936 0.81 0.01 18,335 0.75 0.00 ‐0.06 *** 0.01

Active Consent

Sites 16,003 0.83 0.01 18,335 0.75 0.00  ‐0.08 *** 0.01

Common Sites 7,619 0.82 0.01 13,013 0.79 0.01 ‐0.04 *** 0.01

Common Districts 7,619 0.82 0.01 8,401 0.77 0.01 ‐0.05 *** 0.01

At Least One Employed Adult in Household (%)

All Sites 22,240 71.28 0.40 18,620 68.27 0.38 ‐3.01 *** 0.55

Active Consent

Sites 16,196 71.53 0.50 18,620 68.27 0.38  ‐3.25 *** 0.62

Common Sites 7,743 73.22 0.80 13,224 72.37 0.44 ‐0.85     0.91

Common Districts 7,743 73.22 0.80 8,536 70.89 0.53 ‐2.33 ** 0.95

Source: SEBTC, Spring Survey, 2012 and Spring Survey, 2013 1

FPL = Federal Poverty Level  

Note: The p‐values are based on a test of the difference in the baseline estimates for households in the evaluation sample in

2013 compared to households in the evaluation sample in 2012. The null hypothesis being tested is that the difference in the

estimates is zero.  

*p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01

   
Appendix 5E

Page 10 

Exhibit 5E.1.11b Descriptive Statistics for Baseline Household Composition in 2012 and 2013

for All Sites, Active Consent Sites, Common Sites, and Common Districts

Household

Composition,  

in spring

2012 2013 Difference (2013‐2012)

n

Estimate

(%) SE n

Estimate

(%) SE Difference (%) SE

All Sites 22,207 18,587

One Female Adult 10,748 48.37 0.48 9,656 51.36 0.40 2.99 *** 0.62

One Male Adult 785 3.52 0.15 722 3.92 0.16 0.40 * 0.22

Two or More Adults 10,674 48.11 0.48 8,209 44.72 0.40 ‐3.39 *** 0.62

Active Consent Sites 16,181 18,587

One Female Adult 7,297 45.82 0.60 9,656 51.36 0.40 5.54 *** 0.72

One Male Adult 543 3.28 0.18 722 3.92 0.16 0.64 *** 0.24

Two or More Adults 8,341 50.90 0.61 8,209 44.72 0.40 ‐6.18 *** 0.73

Common Sites 7,733 13,199

One Female Adult 3,513 45.98 1.00 6,614 47.81 0.49 1.82     1.11

One Male Adult 270 3.48 0.28 480 3.66 0.19 0.18     0.34

Two or More Adults 3,950 50.53 1.00 6,105 48.54 0.50 ‐2.00 * 1.12

Common Districts 7,733 8,519

One Female Adult 3,513 45.98 1.00 4,082 49.00 0.57 3.02 *** 1.15

One Male Adult 270 3.48 0.28 311 3.55 0.21 0.07     0.35

Two or More Adults 3,950 50.53 1.00 4,126 47.45 0.57 ‐3.09 *** 1.15

Source: SEBTC, Spring Survey, 2012 and Spring Survey, 2013

Note: The p‐values are based on a test of the difference in the baseline estimates for households in the evaluation sample in

2013 compared to households in the evaluation sample in 2012. The null hypothesis being tested is that the difference in the

estimates is zero.  

*p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01
Appendix 5E 

Page 11 

Exhibit 5E.1.12a Descriptive Statistics for Baseline Race/Ethnicity in 2012 and 2013 for All

Sites, Active Consent Sites, Common Sites, and Common Districts

Respondent

Race/Ethnicity, in

spring

2012 2013 Difference (2013‐2012)

n

Estimate

(%) SE n

Estimate

(%) SE Difference (%) SE

All Sites 22,128 18,496

Non‐Hispanic Black   4,228 18.9 0.27 5,108 27.1 0.31 8.3 *** 0.41

Hispanic 7,070 32.3 0.40 3,651 18.3 0.31 ‐14.1 *** 0.51

Non‐Hispanic White/

Other 10,830 48.8 0.45 9,737 54.6 0.33 5.8 *** 0.56

Active Consent Sites 16,119 18,496

Non‐Hispanic Black 1,902 11.3 0.27 5,108 27.1 0.31 15.8 *** 0.41

Hispanic 4,403 27.9 0.49 3,651 18.3 0.31 ‐9.6 *** 0.58

Non‐Hispanic White/

Other 9,814 60.8 0.53 9,737 54.6 0.33  ‐6.2 *** 0.63

Common Sites 7,715 13,163

Non‐Hispanic Black 1,441 18.9 0.55 3,152 19.0 0.33 0.1     0.64

Hispanic 1,571 21.3 0.67 2,454 17.0 0.36 ‐4.3 *** 0.76

Non‐Hispanic White/

Other 4,703 59.9 0.84 7,557 64.1 0.41 4.2 *** 0.93

Common Districts 7,715 8,509

Non‐Hispanic Black 1,441 18.9 0.55 1,487 19.6 0.44 0.7     0.71

Hispanic 1,571 21.3 0.67 1,573 20.5 0.47 ‐0.7     0.81

Non‐Hispanic White/

Other 4,703 59.9 0.84 5,449 59.9 0.48 0.0     0.97

Source: SEBTC, Spring Survey, 2012 and Spring Survey, 2013

Note: The p‐values are based on a test of the difference in the baseline estimates for households in the evaluation sample in

2013 compared to households in the evaluation sample in 2012. The null hypothesis being tested is that the difference in the

estimates is zero.  

*p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01
Appendix 5E

Page 12 

Exhibit 5E.1.12b Descriptive Statistics for Baseline Education Level in 2012 and 2013 for All

Sites, Active Consent Sites, Common Sites, and Common Districts

Respondent

Education,  

in spring

2012 2013 Difference (2013‐2012)

n

Estimate

(%) SE n

Estimate

(%) SE Difference (%) SE

All Sites 22,190 18,567

Less than high school 6,157 27.8 0.42 4,685 25.5 0.36 ‐2.4 *** 0.55

HS degree/ GED 6,912 31.6 0.45 6,263 33.8 0.39 2.3 *** 0.59

Some college/AA 7,368 33.1 0.46 5,989 32.5 0.39 ‐0.6     0.60

College degree or

higher 1,753 7.5 0.24 1,630 8.2 0.22 0.7 ** 0.33

Active Consent Sites 16,162 18,567

Less than high school 4,322 26.5 0.52 4,685 25.5 0.36 ‐1.1 * 0.64

HS degree/ GED 5,094 31.9 0.56 6,263 33.8 0.39 1.9 *** 0.69

Some college/AA 5,425 33.8 0.59 5,989 32.5 0.39 ‐1.3 * 0.70

College degree or

higher 1,321 7.7 0.31 1,630 8.2 0.22 0.5     0.38

Common Sites 7,730 13,184

Less than high school 2,037 26.9 0.90 3,194 23.5 0.42 ‐3.4 *** 0.99

HS degree/ GED 2,574 33.0 0.88 4,709 35.7 0.48 2.8 *** 1.00

Some college/AA 2,488 32.5 0.99 4,299 33.6 0.47 1.1     1.10

College degree or

higher 631 7.6 0.55 982 7.2 0.26  ‐0.5     0.60

Common Districts 7,730 8,515

Less than high school 2,037 26.9 0.90 2,039 25.6 0.51 ‐1.3     1.04

HS degree/ GED 2,574 33.0 0.88 2,998 34.8 0.55 1.8 * 1.04

Some college/AA 2,488 32.5 0.99 2,876 32.7 0.54 0.2     1.13

College degree or

higher 631 7.6 0.55 602 6.9 0.29  ‐0.7     0.62

Source: SEBTC, Spring Survey, 2012 and Spring Survey, 2013

Note: The p‐values are based on a test of the difference in the baseline estimates for households in the evaluation sample in

2013 compared to households in the evaluation sample in 2012. The null hypothesis being tested is that the difference in the

estimates is zero.  

*p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01

5E.1.5 Findings for Subgroups 

Exhibit 5.6 in Chapter 5 presents results for subgroups for which there was evidence of

differential impacts; i.e., a test for equality across the subgroups (e.g., FI‐C at baseline/not FI‐C

at baseline) rejected equality at p<0.05. Exhibit 5E.1.13a and Exhibit 5E.1.13b present results

for all subgroups, showing impacts on VLFS‐C and FI‐C, respectively. Impacts by baseline SNAP

participation are shown separately for SNAP‐model sites and WIC‐model sites in Exhibit 5E.1.14

for VLFS‐C and Exhibit 5E.1.15 for FI‐C.  
Appendix 5E 

Page 13 

Exhibit 5E.1.13a Differential Impact of SEBTC on Prevalence of VLFS‐C, by Subgroup, 2013

(Logistic Regression)

Prevalence of Very Low

Food Security—Children

(VLFS‐C) n

$60

Benefit

$30  

Benefit

$60‐$30  

Difference SE p‐value

WIC/SNAP Model

SNAP model 10,024 6.87 7.64 ‐0.77 0.55 0.164

WIC model 9,660 5.12 5.29 ‐0.17 0.44 0.704

Difference 19,684  ‐1.75 ‐2.36 0.60 0.69 0.385

Very Low Food Security among Children (VLFS‐C) at Baseline

Not VLFS‐C at baseline 17,254 2.88 3.30 ‐0.42 0.38 0.273

VLFS‐C at baseline 1,370 41.92 40.81 1.11 3.00 0.711

Difference 18,630 39.04 37.51 1.53 2.96 0.606

Food Insecurity among Children (FI‐C) at Baseline

Not FI‐C at baseline 10,730 1.11 1.20 ‐0.09 0.36 0.809

FI‐C at baseline 7,894 12.23 12.75 ‐0.52 0.85 0.543

Difference 18,630 11.12 11.55 ‐0.43 0.92 0.640

Poverty

Not below 100% FPL 5,007 3.78 5.21 ‐1.43** 0.60 0.018

Below 100% FPL 13,300 6.33 6.35 ‐0.01 0.49 0.977

Difference 18,307 2.55 1.14 1.41** 0.71 0.049

Participation in SNAP in Spring  

Does not receive SNAP 6,030 5.55 5.21 0.34 0.72 0.636

Receives SNAP in spring 12,544 5.72 6.39 ‐0.66 0.43 0.120

Difference 18,574 0.17 1.17 ‐1.00 0.71 0.160

Number of Children in Household (HH)  

3 or more children in HH 7,461 5.41 6.12 ‐0.71 0.57 0.212

2 or fewer children 11,164 5.83 5.90 ‐0.07 0.53 0.892

Difference 18,625 0.42 ‐0.22 0.64 0.71 0.365

Presence of Adolescent in Household  

No adolescent in HH 9,181 4.29 4.26 0.02 0.52 0.968

Adolescent in HH 9,222 7.22 7.93 ‐0.70 0.57 0.216

Difference 18,403 2.94 3.66 ‐0.72 0.68 0.289
Appendix 5E

Page 14 

Prevalence of Very Low

Food Security—Children

(VLFS‐C) n

$60

Benefit

$30  

Benefit

$60‐$30  

Difference SE p‐value

Respondent Race/Ethnicity  

Difference overall 18,463 Χ2

(2) = 0.51, p=0.774

African American (AA) 5,113 6.71 6.96 ‐0.25 0.70 0.720

Hispanic 3,643 7.61 7.80 ‐0.19 0.83 0.822

White/Other 9,707 4.41 4.98 ‐0.57 0.57 0.316

Difference (AA v. other) 14,820 2.30 1.98 0.32 0.88 0.716

Difference (Hisp v other) 13,350 3.20 2.81 0.39 0.90 0.668

Difference (Hisp v. AA) 8,756 0.90 0.84 0.06 1.11 0.955

School District Locale

Difference overall 19,684 Χ2

(2) = 1.89, p=0.389

Rural 4,771 3.56 4.64 ‐1.08 0.92 0.259

Town/Suburb 7,168 5.37 5.91 ‐0.54 0.58 0.324

Urban 7,745 7.13 7.01 0.12 0.56 0.820

Difference (Rural v Urban) 12,516  ‐3.57 ‐2.37 ‐1.20 1.16 0.684

Difference (Town v Urban) 14,913  ‐1.75 ‐1.10 ‐0.65 1.10 0.289

Difference (Rural v Town) 11,939  ‐1.82 ‐1.27 ‐0.55 0.83 0.399

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013  

Note: The p‐values are based on a test of the difference between $60 SEBTC benefit group households and $30 SEBTC benefit

group households. The null hypothesis being tested is that the $60‐$30 difference is zero (either the $60‐$30 difference in

prevalence rates within a subgroup or a subgroup difference in the $60‐$30 difference in prevalence rates).  

*p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01
Appendix 5E 

Page 15 

Exhibit 5E.1.13b Differential Impact of SEBTC on Prevalence of FI‐C, by Subgroup, 2013

(Logistic Regression)

Prevalence of Food

Insecurity—Children (FI‐C) n $60 Benefit $30 Benefit

$60‐$30

Difference SE p‐value

WIC/SNAP Model

SNAP model 10,024 36.95 41.31 ‐4.36*** 0.90 <0.001

WIC model 9,660 30.43 33.78 ‐3.35*** 0.90 <0.001

Difference 19,684  ‐6.52 ‐7.52 1.01 1.29 0.436

Very Low Food Security among Children (VLFS‐C) at Baseline

Not VLFS‐C at baseline 17,254 28.75 32.42 ‐3.67*** 0.76 <0.001

VLFS‐C at baseline 1,370 81.61 85.47 ‐3.86* 2.27 0.091

Difference 18,630 52.86 53.05 ‐0.19 2.26 0.933

Food Insecurity among Children (FI‐C) at Baseline

Not FI‐C at baseline 10,730 14.61 16.83 ‐2.21** 0.90 0.014

FI‐C at baseline 7,894 58.11 63.86 ‐5.75*** 1.22 <0.001

Difference 18,630 43.50 47.04 ‐3.54** 1.52 0.021

Poverty

Not below 100% FPL 5,007 29.81 33.93 ‐4.11*** 1.30 0.002

Below 100% FPL 13,300 33.71 37.34 ‐3.63*** 0.80 <0.001

Difference 18,307 3.90 3.42 0.48 1.46 0.741

Participation in SNAP in Spring  

Does not receive SNAP 6,030 34.29 37.90 ‐3.61** 1.53 0.019

Receives SNAP in spring 12,544 31.66 35.41 ‐3.74*** 0.81 <0.001

Difference 18,574  ‐2.62 ‐2.49 ‐0.13 1.77 0.942

Number of Children in Household (HH)  

3 or more children in HH 7,461 33.18 36.05 ‐2.87*** 1.08 0.009

2 or fewer children 11,164 32.03 36.31 ‐4.29*** 0.91 <0.001

Difference 18,625  ‐1.16 0.26 ‐1.42 1.38 0.305

Presence of Adolescent in Household  

No adolescent in HH 9,181 27.87 31.57 ‐3.69*** 0.93 <0.001

Adolescent in HH 9,222 37.61 41.35 ‐3.74*** 1.13 <0.001

Difference 18,403 9.74 9.79 ‐0.05 1.44 0.972

Respondent Race/Ethnicity  

Difference overall 18,463 Χ2

(2) = 5.01, p=0.082

African American (AA) 5,113 30.15 34.97 ‐4.82*** 1.28 <0.001

Hispanic 3,643 39.12 44.96 ‐5.84*** 1.68 <0.001

White/Other 9,707 31.54 33.94 ‐2.40** 0.94 0.012

Difference (AA v. other) 14,820  ‐1.39 1.03 ‐2.41 1.64 0.142

Difference (Hisp v other) 13,350 7.58 11.02 ‐3.44* 1.74 0.050

Difference (Hisp v. AA) 8,756 8.97 9.99 ‐1.02 2.20 0.642
Appendix 5E

Page 16 

Prevalence of Food

Insecurity—Children (FI‐C) n $60 Benefit $30 Benefit

$60‐$30

Difference SE p‐value

School District Locale

Difference overall 19,684 Χ2

(2) = 1.49, p=0.475

Rural 4,771 30.03 33.05 ‐3.02** 1.45 0.038

Town/Suburb 7,168 34.17 36.94 ‐2.77** 1.23 0.025

Urban 7,745 32.99 37.64 ‐4.65*** 1.13 <0.001

Difference (Rural v Urban) 12,516  ‐2.96 ‐4.59 1.63 2.08 0.899

Difference (Town v Urban) 14,913 1.18 ‐0.70 1.87 1.93 0.399

Difference (Rural v Town) 11,939  ‐4.13 ‐3.89 ‐0.24 1.68 0.260

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013  

Note: The p‐values are based on a test of the difference between $60 SEBTC benefit group households and $30 SEBTC benefit

group households. The null hypothesis being tested is that the $60‐$30 difference is zero (either the $60‐$30 difference in

prevalence rates within a subgroup or a subgroup difference in the $60‐$30 difference in prevalence rates).  

*p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01

Exhibit 5E.1.14 Differential Impact on Prevalence of VLFS‐C, by Baseline SNAP Participation,

within SNAP Sites and WIC Sites, 2013 (Logistic Regression)

Prevalence of Very Low

Food Security—Children

(VLFS‐C) n $60 Benefit $30 Benefit

$60‐$30  

Difference SE p‐value

All Sites Pooled  

Does not receive SNAP 6,030 5.55 5.21 0.34 0.72 0.636

Receives SNAP in spring 12,544 5.72 6.39 ‐0.66 0.43 0.120

Difference 18,574 0.17 1.17 ‐1.00 0.71 0.160

SNAP Model Sites

Did not receive SNAP 3,125 7.32 7.35 ‐0.03 0.41 0.940

Received SNAP in spring 6,338 6.58 7.74 ‐1.15 *** 0.40 0.005

Difference 9,463  ‐0.73 0.39 ‐1.12 * 0.60 0.064

WIC Model Sites

Did not receive SNAP 2,905 4.68 4.11 0.58 0.50 0.248

Received SNAP in spring 6,206 5.27 5.73 ‐0.46 * 0.27 0.094

Difference 9,111 0.59 1.62 ‐1.03 ** 0.52 0.048

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013  

Note: The p‐values are based on a test of the difference between $60 SEBTC benefit group households and $30 SEBTC benefit

group households. The null hypothesis being tested is that the $60‐$30 difference is zero (either the $60‐$30 difference in

prevalence rates within a subgroup or a subgroup difference in the $60‐$30 difference in prevalence rates).

*p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01
Appendix 5E 

Page 17 

Exhibit 5E.1.15 Differential Impact on Prevalence of FI‐C, by Baseline SNAP Participation,

within SNAP Sites and WIC Sites, 2013 (Logistic Regression)

Prevalence of Food

Insecurity—Children  

(FI‐C) n $60 Benefit $30 Benefit

$60‐$30  

Difference SE p‐value

All Sites Pooled  

Does not receive SNAP 6,030 34.29 37.90 ‐3.61 ** 1.53 0.019

Receives SNAP in spring 12,544 31.66 35.41 ‐3.74 *** 0.81 <0.001

Difference 18,574  ‐2.62 ‐2.49 ‐0.13 1.77 0.942

SNAP Model Sites

Did not receive SNAP 3,125 40.71 43.64 ‐2.94 *** 0.89 0.001

Received SNAP in spring 6,338 35.11 40.26 ‐5.15 *** 0.68 <0.001

Difference 9,463  ‐5.60 ‐3.38 ‐2.22 ** 0.98 0.025

WIC Model Sites

Did not receive SNAP 2,905 30.99 35.04 ‐4.04 *** 0.94 <0.001

Received SNAP in spring 6,206 29.98 32.95 ‐2.96 *** 0.55 <0.001

Difference 9,111  ‐1.01 ‐2.09 1.08 1.26 0.391

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013  

Note: The p‐values are based on a test of the difference between $60 SEBTC benefit group households and $30 SEBTC benefit

group households. The null hypothesis being tested is that the $60‐$30 difference is zero (either the $60‐$30 difference in

prevalence rates within a subgroup or a subgroup difference in the $60‐$30 difference in prevalence rates).

*p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01

5E.1.6 Spring-to-Summer Change in Food Security among Adults 

and Households, 2013 

Exhibit 5.7 in Chapter 5 presents summer food security among children, based on the level of

food security among children in the spring.  Exhibit 5E.1.16a and Exhibit 5E.1.16b present

results for food security among adults and food security among households, respectively.  

Among adults and households with lower food security during the school year, summer food

security is more favorable in the $60 benefit group than in the $30 benefit group.   
Appendix 5E

Page 18 

Exhibit 5E.1.16a   Estimated Prevalence of Food Security among Adults in Summer for the $60

and $30 SEBTC Benefit Groups, by Spring Food Security among Adults, 2013

Sample

Size

$60

Benefit

Group

(%)

$30

Benefit

Group

(%) Difference SE p‐value

Very Low Food Security among Adults in Spring (24.0%)

VLFS‐A, Summer 2,410 49.6% 56.2% ‐6.6 *** 1.70 <0.001

Low FS‐A, Summer 1,175 25.1% 25.0% 0.1 1.46 0.941

Marginal FS‐A, Summer 502 11.8% 9.2% 2.6 *** 1.00 0.009

High FS‐A, Summer 549 13.5% 9.6% 3.9 *** 1.06 <0.001

Low Food Security among Adults in Spring (25.2%)

VLFS‐A, Summer 815 15.5% 18.4% ‐3.0 ** 1.38 0.034

Low FS‐A, Summer 1,796 34.4% 39.9% ‐5.5 *** 1.62 0.001

Marginal FS‐A, Summer 1,281 26.7% 26.1% 0.5 1.55 0.735

High FS‐A, Summer 948 23.4% 15.5% 7.9 *** 1.33 <0.001

Marginal Food Security among Adults in Spring (25.4%)

VLFS‐A, Summer 266 5.3% 6.0% ‐0.7 0.76 0.359

Low FS‐A, Summer 898 18.7% 18.7% 0.1 1.39 0.963

Marginal FS‐A, Summer 1,776 35.5% 40.3% ‐4.8 *** 1.73 0.006

High FS‐A, Summer 1,768 40.5% 35.0% 5.5 *** 1.84 0.003

High Food Security among Adults in Spring (25.3%)

VLFS‐A, Summer 122 2.3% 2.9% ‐0.6 0.51 0.253

Low FS‐A, Summer 337 7.0% 7.9% ‐0.9 0.87 0.295

Marginal FS‐A, Summer 808 17.6% 18.4% ‐0.8 1.29 0.537

High FS‐A, Summer 3,183 73.2% 70.9% 2.3 1.50 0.125

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013  

Exhibit 5E.1.16b   Estimated Prevalence of Household Food Security in Summer for the $60

and $30 SEBTC Benefit Groups, by Household Food Security in Spring, 2013

Sample

Size

$60

Benefit

Group

(%)

$30

Benefit

Group

(%) Difference SE p‐value

Food Insecure Households in Spring (55.1%)

Food Insecure‐H, Summer 7,306 65.2% 73.0% ‐7.8 *** 1.01 <.0001

Food Secure‐H, Summer 3,254 34.8% 27.0% 7.8 *** 1.01 <.0001

Food Secure Households in Spring (44.9%)

Food Insecure‐H, Summer 1,607 19.2% 19.9% ‐0.7 1.03 0.500

Food Secure‐H, Summer 6,465 80.8% 80.1% 0.7 1.03 0.500

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013  
Appendix 5E 

Page 19 

5E.1.7 Findings for Alternative Specifications of the NonExperimental Cross-Year Analysis 

Section 5.4 of Chapter 5 presents non‐experimental cross‐year estimates for food security

outcomes, for all sites in 2012 and 2013; Exhibit 5.10 is repeated here as Exhibit 5E.17. This

section also presents results for all sites that participated in either 2012, 2013, or both years

and used the active consent process (“active consent sites”; Exhibit 5E1.18), for sites that

participated in both years (“common sites”; Exhibit 5E1.19), and for school districts within the

common sites that participated in both years (“common districts; Exhibit 5E.1.20). The results

for the latter three groups are less precise, but broadly consistent.  

Exhibit 5E.1.17 Cross‐Year Estimates of the Impact of a $30 SEBTC Benefit (vs. No SEBTC

Benefit) on Food Security Outcomes, Summer 2012 and 2013 (using Linear

Regression)  

Outcome

$0 vs $60

(2012)

$30 vs $60

(2013) $0 vs $30 Half of Impact Test

Impact

Estimate

Impact

Estimate

Impact

Estimate SE

0‐30 Impact

as % Of 0‐

60 P Value

Very Low Food Security–Children ‐3.1 ‐0.4 ‐2.7 *** 0.7 87.3% 0.041 **

Food Insecurity–Children ‐8.4 ‐3.6 ‐4.8 ** 1.6 56.7% 0.607

Very Low Food Security–Adults ‐8.7 ‐2.7 ‐6.0 *** 1.4 69.1% 0.123

Food Insecurity–Adults ‐9.5 ‐4.0 ‐5.4 *** 1.4 57.0% 0.520

Very Low Food Security–

Households ‐9.2  ‐2.6  ‐6.6 *** 1.4 72.2% 0.083 *

Food Insecurity–Households ‐8.8 ‐4.5 ‐4.3 ** 1.8 48.6% 0.936

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2012 and Summer Survey, 2013  

Note: The p‐values are based on a test of the difference in the estimated impact of $30 vs $0 compared to half of the impact of

$60 vs $0. The null hypothesis being tested is that the estimated impact of $30 vs $0 is equal to half of the impact of $60 vs $0.  

*p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01

Exhibit 5E.1.18 Cross‐Year Estimates of the Impact of a $30 SEBTC Benefit (vs. No SEBTC

Benefit) on Food Security Outcomes in Active Consent Sites Only, Summer

2012 and 2013 (using Linear Regression)  

Outcome

$0 vs $60 (2012) $30 vs $60 (2013) $0 vs $30

Impact

Estimate SE

Impact

Estimate SE

Impact

Estimate SE

Very Low Food Security–Children  ‐3.6 0.45 ‐0.4 0.33  ‐3.2 0.56

Food Insecurity–Children ‐10.2 0.91 ‐3.7 0.65  ‐6.5 1.12

Very Low Food Security–Adults ‐10.3 0.76 ‐2.8 0.53  ‐7.6 0.93

Food Insecurity–Adults ‐10.8 0.93 ‐4.1 0.66  ‐6.7 1.14

Very Low Food Security–Households ‐10.7 0.76 ‐2.6 0.54  ‐8.1 0.93

Food Insecurity–Households ‐10.2 0.93 ‐4.5 0.67  ‐5.7 1.15

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2012 and Summer Survey, 2013    
Appendix 5E

Page 20 

Exhibit 5E.1.19 Cross‐Year Estimates of the Impact of a $30 SEBTC Benefit (vs. No SEBTC

Benefit) on Food Security Outcomes in Common Sites Only, Summer 2012

and 2013 (using Linear Regression)  

Outcome

$0 vs $60 (2012) $30 vs $60 (2013) $0 vs $30

Impact

Estimate SE

Impact

Estimate SE

Impact

Estimate SE

Very Low Food Security–Children ‐3.9 0.65 ‐0.6 0.37  ‐3.3 0.75

Food Insecurity–Children ‐10.5 1.47 ‐3.0 0.78  ‐7.5 1.66

Very Low Food Security–Adults ‐9.5 1.18 ‐2.1 0.65  ‐7.4 1.35

Food Insecurity–Adults ‐9.3 1.53 ‐3.6 0.79  ‐5.7 1.72

Very Low Food Security–Households ‐10.3 1.20 ‐2.0 0.66  ‐8.3 1.37

Food Insecurity–Households ‐9.8 1.55 ‐4.1 0.81  ‐5.6 1.75

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2012 and Summer Survey, 2013  

Exhibit 5E.1.20 Cross‐Year Estimates of the Impact of a $30 SEBTC Benefit (vs. No SEBTC

Benefit) on Food Security Outcomes in Common Districts Only, Summer

2012 and 2013 (using Linear Regression)  

Outcome

$0 vs $60 (2012) $30 vs $60 (2013) $0 vs $30

Impact

Estimate SE

Impact

Estimate SE

Impact

Estimate SE

Very Low Food Security–Children  ‐3.9 0.65 ‐0.4 0.43  ‐3.5 0.78

Food Insecurity–Children ‐10.5 1.47 ‐3.9 0.90  ‐6.7 1.72

Very Low Food Security–Adults  ‐9.5 1.18 ‐2.3 0.75  ‐7.3 1.40

Food Insecurity–Adults  ‐9.3 1.53 ‐4.7 0.92  ‐4.6 1.79

Very Low Food Security–Households ‐10.3 1.20 ‐2.0 0.76  ‐8.2 1.42

Food Insecurity–Households  ‐9.8 1.55 ‐5.2 0.93  ‐4.6 1.81

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2012 and Summer Survey, 2013  

5E.2 SEBTC Impacts on Food Expenditures 

This section presents additional results on food expenditures. Exhibit 5E.2.0 shows out‐of‐

pocket expenditures (as presented in Exhibits 5.11 and 5.12 in Chapter 5) separated into

grocery store expenditures and restaurant spending, using EBT‐adjusted weights.  

Exhibit 5E.2.0 Differential Impact on Out‐of‐Pocket Food Expenditures, by Grocery Store

and Restaurant Spending, 2013 (EBT‐Adjusted Weights)  

Outcome n

$60

Benefit

$30

Benefit

$60‐$30

Difference SE p‐value

Total Out‐of‐Pocket 19,010 $279.93 $295.34 $‐15.41 *** 3.67 <0.001

Grocery Stores 19,204 $223.35 $236.14 $‐12.79 *** 3.28 <0.001

Restaurants 19,319 $57.07 $59.19 $‐2.12 1.61 0.191

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013  

*p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01

In addition, this section presents detailed results for all subgroup analyses using EBT‐adjusted

replicate weights (Exhibit 5E.2.1 and Exhibits 5E.2.2a‐5E2.2f). Section 5.5 in Chapter 5 presents

pooled results for the impact on food expenditures of a $60 SEBTC benefit relative to a $30
Appendix 5E 

Page 21 

benefit. To streamline the chapter, the section did not present impacts for subgroups on food

expenditure.  

In this section, the exhibits present complete subgroup results on food expenditures. They

show consistent, but small, subgroup differential impacts on SEBTC benefits redeemed by WIC

and SNAP models and for many of the household‐level subgroups. For the other outcomes,

including out‐of‐pocket expenditures, SNAP benefits redeemed, and total food expenditures,

there are many fewer differential subgroup impacts. Some exceptions include:

 For total food expenditures, the differential impact is larger for households with an

adolescent (relative to households that do not have an adolescent) and for households with

three or more children (relative to households with one or two children).  

 For out‐of‐pocket expenditures but not for total food expenditures, the differential impact

varies by race ethnicity (larger for white non‐Hispanics, smaller for Hispanics, blacks in

between).

Exhibit 5E.2.1 Differential Impact on Monthly Household Food Expenditures, by WIC/SNAP

Program Model, 2013 (EBT‐ Adjusted Summer Weights)  

n $60 Benefit $30 Benefit

$60‐$30

Difference SE p‐value

WIC Model

Out‐of‐pocket 9,204 $272.96 $282.32 $‐9.36 * 5.08 0.067

SNAP amount 9,204 $280.06 $283.35 $‐3.29 5.04 0.514

SEBTC benefits redeemed 9,204 $82.77 $38.83 $43.95 *** 1.71 <0.001

Total (out‐of‐pocket, SNAP,

SEBTC redeemed) 9,204 $635.80 $604.50 $31.30 *** 6.72 <0.001

SNAP Model

Out‐of‐pocket 9,501 $296.44 $319.18 $‐22.74 *** 5.29 <0.001

SNAP amount 9,501 $246.95 $246.73 $0.22 3.71 0.952

SEBTC benefits redeemed 9,501 $95.18 $47.85 $47.33 *** 1.13 <0.001

Total (out‐of‐pocket, SNAP,

SEBTC redeemed) 9,501 $638.57 $613.76 $24.81 *** 5.95 <0.001

Difference between WIC Model and SNAP Model

Out‐of‐pocket 18,705 $‐23.48 $‐36.86 $13.38 * 7.66 0.082

SNAP amount 18,705 $33.12 $36.63 $‐3.51 6.03 0.561

SEBTC benefits redeemed 18,705 $‐12.41 $‐9.02 $‐3.39 *** 1.17 0.004

Total (out‐of‐pocket, SNAP,

SEBTC redeemed) 18,705 $‐2.78 $‐9.26 $6.48     8.90 0.467

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013, *p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01
Appendix 5E

Page 22 

Exhibit 5E.2.2a Differential Impact on Monthly Household Food Expenditures, by Poverty

Status, 2013 (EBT‐Adjusted Panel Weights)  

n

$60

Benefit

$30

Benefit

$60‐$30

Difference SE p‐value

Below 100% FPL

Out‐of‐pocket 12,654 $237.73 $253.11 $‐15.38 *** 5.16 0.003

SNAP amount 12,654 $331.44 $335.22 $‐3.78 4.65 0.418

SEBTC benefits redeemed 12,654 $88.43 $42.26 $46.17 *** 0.79 <0.001

Total   12,654 $657.59 $630.59 $27.00 *** 5.48 <0.001

Not Below 100% FPL

Out‐of‐pocket 4,862 $401.71 $408.80 $‐7.09 8.75 0.419

SNAP amount 4,862 $91.65 $87.18 $4.47 4.84 0.357

SEBTC benefits redeemed 4,862 $83.25 $40.83 $42.42 *** 1.27 <0.001

Total   4,862 $576.61 $536.81 $39.80 *** 8.70 <0.001

Difference between Poverty and Not

Out‐of‐pocket 17,516 $‐163.98 $‐155.69 $‐8.29 10.51 0.431

SNAP amount 17,516 $239.79 $248.04 $‐8.25 6.49 0.205

SEBTC benefits redeemed 17,516 $5.18 $1.43 $3.75 ** 1.53 0.015

Total   17,516 $80.99 $93.78 $‐12.79 10.70 0.233

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013, *p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01

Exhibit 5E.2.2b Differential Impact on Monthly Household Food Expenditures, by

Participation in SNAP at Baseline, 2013 (EBT‐Adjusted Panel Weights)

n

$60

Benefit

$30

Benefit

$60‐$30

Difference SE p‐value

Receiving SNAP at Baseline

Out‐of‐pocket 11,911 $203.16 $213.90 $‐10.74 ** 4.69 0.023

SNAP amount 11,911 $374.08 $375.86 $‐1.78 5.59 0.751

SEBTC benefits redeemed 11,911 $88.90 $42.19 $46.70 *** 0.73 <0.001

Total   11,911 $666.14 $631.95 $34.19 *** 5.60 <0.001

Not Receiving SNAP at Baseline

Out‐of‐pocket 5,787 $444.27 $461.67 $‐17.40 ** 8.04 0.032

SNAP amount 5,787 $46.33 $49.40 $‐3.07 7.00 0.662

SEBTC benefits redeemed 5,787 $83.22 $41.16 $42.06 *** 1.61 <0.001

Total   5,787 $573.81 $552.23 $21.59 ** 9.47 0.024

Difference between Receiving and Not Receiving SNAP at Baseline

Out‐of‐pocket 17,698 $‐241.10 $‐247.77 $6.66 9.39 0.479

SNAP amount 17,698 $327.75 $326.46 $1.29 10.47 0.902

SEBTC benefits redeemed 17,698 $5.68 $1.03 $4.65 ** 1.91 0.016

Total   17,698 $92.32 $79.73 $12.60 11.93 0.292

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013, *p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01
Appendix 5E 

Page 23 

Exhibit 5E.2.2c Differential Impact on Monthly Household Food Expenditures, by Presence

of an Adolescent in the Household, 2013 (EBT‐Adjusted Panel Weights)  

n

$60

Benefit

$30

Benefit

$60‐$30

Difference SE p‐value

Adolescent in the Household

Out‐of‐pocket 8,796 $297.47 $303.35 $‐5.89 5.71 0.304

SNAP amount 8,796 $276.42 $277.12 $‐0.70 5.50 0.899

SEBTC benefits redeemed 8,796 $107.76 $51.49 $56.27 *** 1.12 <0.001

Total   8,796 $681.64 $631.95 $49.69 *** 6.43 <0.001

No Adolescent in the Household

Out‐of‐pocket 8,757 $264.36 $282.45 $‐18.10 *** 5.87 0.002

SNAP amount 8,757 $262.93 $266.71 $‐3.78 4.34 0.385

SEBTC benefits redeemed 8,757 $68.49 $33.14 $35.35 *** 1.26 <0.001

Total   8,757 $595.78 $582.31 $13.46 ** 5.96 0.025

Difference between Adolescent and No Adolescent

Out‐of‐pocket 17,553 $33.11 $20.90 $12.21 8.30 0.143

SNAP amount 17,553 $13.49 $10.40 $3.09 6.68 0.645

SEBTC benefits redeemed 17,553 $39.27 $18.34 $20.93 *** 2.00 <0.001

Total   17,553 $85.87 $49.64 $36.23 *** 8.78 <0.001

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013, *p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01

Exhibit 5E.2.2d Differential Impact on Monthly Household Food Expenditures, by Baseline

Very Low Food Security Among Children (VLFS‐C), 2013 (EBT‐Adjusted Panel

Weights)  

n

$60

Benefit

$30

Benefit

$60‐$30

Difference SE p‐value

VLFS‐C at baseline

Out‐of‐pocket 1,302 $272.58 $307.09 $‐34.51 ** 16.46 0.037

SNAP amount 1,302 $254.35 $251.32 $3.03 12.14 0.804

SEBTC benefits redeemed 1,302 $92.86 $43.94 $48.92 *** 2.72 <0.001

Total   1,302 $619.79 $602.35 $17.43 18.23 0.340

Not VLFS‐C at baseline

Out‐of‐pocket 16,440 $281.52 $292.52 $‐11.00 *** 4.23 0.010

SNAP amount 16,440 $269.39 $272.34 $‐2.95 3.73 0.429

SEBTC benefits redeemed 16,440 $86.71 $41.70 $45.01 *** 0.63 <0.001

Total   16,440 $637.62 $606.56 $31.06 *** 4.70 <0.001

Difference between VLFS‐C and Not VLFS‐C

Out‐of‐pocket 17,745 $‐8.95 $14.57 $‐23.51 17.15 0.172

SNAP amount 17,745 $‐15.04 $‐21.02 $5.98 12.58 0.635

SEBTC benefits redeemed 17,745 $6.16 $2.24 $3.91 2.71 0.151

Total   17,745 $‐17.83 $‐4.21 $‐13.62 19.53 0.486

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013, *p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01
Appendix 5E

Page 24 

Exhibit 5E.2.2e Differential Impact on Monthly Household Food Expenditures, by Number of

Children in Household, 2013 (EBT‐Adjusted Panel Weights)  

n

$60

Benefit

$30

Benefit

$60‐$30

Difference SE p‐value

1 or 2 Children in Household

Out‐of‐pocket 10,629 $257.61 $270.79 $‐13.18 *** 4.50 0.004

SNAP amount 10,629 $206.40 $209.06 $‐2.66 3.62 0.463

SEBTC benefits redeemed 10,629 $63.00 $29.74 $33.26 *** 0.78 <0.001

Total   10,629 $527.01 $509.59 $17.42 *** 5.10 0.001

3 or more Children in Household

Out‐of‐pocket 7,114 $314.20 $326.19 $‐11.99 8.82 0.176

SNAP amount 7,114 $356.77 $360.23 $‐3.46 7.31 0.636

SEBTC benefits redeemed 7,114 $121.55 $59.43 $62.12 *** 1.26 <0.001

Total   7,114 $792.52 $745.85 $46.67 *** 9.09 <0.001

Difference between 1‐2 Children versus 3+ Children

Out‐of‐pocket 17,743 $‐56.59 $‐55.40 $‐1.19 10.60 0.911

SNAP amount 17,743 $‐150.37 $‐151.17 $0.80 8.10 0.921

SEBTC benefits redeemed 17,743 $‐58.55 $‐29.69 $‐28.86 *** 1.41 <0.001

Total   17,743 $‐265.51 $‐236.26 $‐29.25 *** 11.13 0.009

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013, *p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01

Exhibit 5E.2.2f Impact of SEBTC on Monthly Household Food Expenditures, by Respondent’s

Race/Ethnicity, 2012 (EBT‐Adjusted Panel Weights)  

n

$60

Benefit

$30

Benefit

$60‐$30

Difference SE p‐value

Non‐Hispanic Black

Out‐of‐pocket 4,854 $175.82 $193.33 $‐17.51 *** 5.73 0.003

SNAP amount 4,854 $343.41 $339.28 $4.13 6.41 0.520

SEBTC benefits redeemed 4,854 $86.54 $41.62 $44.93 *** 1.53 <0.001

Total   4,854 $605.77 $574.23 $31.54 *** 7.07 <0.001

Hispanic

Out‐of‐pocket 3,460 $376.95 $414.35 $‐37.40 *** 12.54 0.003

SNAP amount 3,460 $243.13 $247.68 $‐4.55 9.53 0.634

SEBTC benefits redeemed 3,460 $92.37 $43.59 $48.78 *** 1.92 <0.001

Total   3,460 $712.46 $705.62 $6.83 14.44 0.637

Non‐Hispanic White/Other

Out‐of‐pocket 9,298 $301.63 $302.71 $‐1.07 5.33 0.840

SNAP amount 9,298 $239.61 $245.37 $‐5.75 4.92 0.243

SEBTC benefits redeemed 9,298 $85.86 $41.44 $44.43 *** 1.16 <0.001

Total   9,298 $627.11 $589.51 $37.60 *** 6.09 <0.001

Difference

Out‐of‐pocket 17,612 F (2) = 4.82*** 0.009

SNAP amount 17,612 F (2) = 0.84 0.434

SEBTC benefits redeemed 17,612 F (2) = 2.49* 0.085

Total   17,612 F (2) = 1.78 0.171

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013, *p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01
Appendix 5E 

Page 25 

5E.3 Nutritional Status 

Exhibit 5.15 in the body of the report presents results of subgroups for which there was

evidence for differential impacts by SNAP model vs. WIC model; i.e., a test for equality across

the subgroups rejected equality at p=0.10. Exhibits 5E.3.1‐5E.3.3 present findings on SEBTC’s

impact on nutritional status in the summer of 2013 by subgroup—i.e., by program model and

poverty status.  

Exhibit 5E.3.1 Differential Impact Estimates for Daily Food Consumption, by SNAP/WIC

Model, Summer 2013

$60 Benefit $30 Benefit Difference SE p‐value

Fruits and Vegetables Including Fried Potatoes (cup equivalents per day) (n=18,958)

SNAP/SNAP‐hybrid 3.20 3.09 0.11 *** 0.04 0.008

WIC model 3.29 3.06 0.23 *** 0.04 <0.001

Difference 0.09  ‐0.03 0.12 ** 0.06 0.036

Fruits and Vegetables without Fried Potatoes (cup equivalents per day) (n=18,986)

SNAP model 3.08 2.98 0.11 *** 0.04 0.006

WIC model 3.17 2.94 0.23 *** 0.04 <0.001

Difference 0.08  ‐0.04 0.12 ** 0.05 0.029

Whole Grains (ounce equivalents per day) (n=19,110)

SNAP model 1.97 1.96 0.02 0.12 0.895

WIC model 2.27 2.04 0.23 *** 0.08 0.005

Difference 0.30 0.09 0.22 0.15 0.152

Dairy Products (cup equivalents per day) (n=19,194)

SNAP model 2.29 2.21 0.08 ** 0.03 0.012

WIC model 2.58 2.54 0.03 0.04 0.360

Difference 0.28 0.33 ‐0.05 0.04 0.280

Usually Drank Nonfat or Low‐Fat Milk (%) (n=18,742)

SNAP model 15.75 15.62 0.13 0.98 0.897

WIC model 8.52 8.25 0.26 0.68 0.698

Difference ‐7.28  ‐7.37 0.14 1.24 0.913

Added Sugars from All Foods and Beverages (teaspoons per day) (n=18,833)

SNAP model 17.31 17.10 0.21 0.24 0.389

WIC model 17.93 17.96 ‐0.02 1.05 0.984

Difference 0.62 0.86 ‐0.23 1.10 0.832

Added sugars Excluding Cereals (teaspoons per day) (n=18,958)

SNAP model 16.12 15.90 0.21 0.21 0.319

WIC model 16.41 16.68 ‐0.27 0.92 0.766

Difference 0.29 0.78 ‐0.49 0.96 0.612

Added Sugars from Sugar‐Sweetened Beverages (teaspoons per day) (n=19,211)

SNAP model 7.03 6.71 0.32 0.23 0.166

WIC model 7.43 7.66 ‐0.23 1.22 0.852

Difference 0.41 0.95 ‐0.55 1.27 0.667

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013.  

Note: The p‐values are based on a test of the difference between $60 SEBTC benefit group households and $30 SEBTC benefit

group households. The null hypothesis being tested is that the $60‐$30 difference is zero (either the $60‐$30 difference in daily

amounts within a subgroup or a subgroup difference in the $60‐$30 difference in daily amounts).  See Appendix 5D for

definitions of nutrition outcomes.

*p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01
Appendix 5E

Page 26 

Exhibit 5E.3.2 Differential Impact Estimates for Daily Food Consumption, by Poverty

Status, Summer 2013

$60 Benefit $30 Benefit Difference SE p‐value

Fruits and Vegetables Including Fried Potatoes (cup equivalents per day) (n=17,684)

Not below 100% FPL 3.03 2.83 0.20 *** 0.08 0.009

Below 100% FPL 3.33 3.14 0.20 *** 0.04 <0.001

Difference 0.31 0.31 0.00 0.07 0.947

Fruits and Vegetables without Fried Potatoes (cup‐equivalents per day) (n=17,712)

Not below 100% FPL 2.92 2.71 0.20 *** 0.07 0.006

Below 100% FPL 3.21 3.02 0.19 *** 0.04 <.0001

Difference 0.29 0.31 ‐0.01 0.07 0.859

Whole Grains (ounce equivalents per day) (n=17,824)

Not below 100% FPL 1.82 1.75 0.07 0.10 0.484

Below 100% FPL 2.30 2.10 0.20 * 0.10 0.060

Difference 0.47 0.34 0.13 0.16 0.412

Dairy Products (cup equivalents per day) (n=17,897)

Not below 100% FPL 2.37 2.36 0.01 0.04 0.846

Below 100% FPL 2.52 2.47 0.05 0.03 0.146

Difference 0.15 0.11 0.04 0.05 0.449

Usually Drank Nonfat or Low‐Fat Milk (%) (n=17,441)

Not below 100% FPL 16.27 17.19 ‐0.92 1.29 0.477

Below 100% FPL 9.32 8.73 0.60 0.66 0.370

Difference ‐6.94  ‐8.46 1.52 1.38 0.274

Added Sugars from All Foods and Beverages (teaspoons per day) (n=17,565)

Not below 100% FPL 16.38 16.53 ‐0.14 0.41 0.732

Below 100% FPL 18.07 18.13 ‐0.06 0.23 0.794

Difference 1.69 1.61 0.08 0.49 0.869

Added Sugars Excluding Cereals (teaspoons per day) (n=17,679)

Not below 100% FPL 15.51 15.62 ‐0.11 0.36 0.755

Below 100% FPL 16.49 16.75 ‐0.26 0.22 0.227

Difference 0.98 1.13 ‐0.15 0.45 0.744

Added Sugars from Sugar‐Sweetened Beverages (teaspoons per day) (n=17,910)

Not below 100% FPL 6.49 6.63 ‐0.14 0.31 0.652

Below 100% FPL 7.44 7.68 ‐0.24 0.25 0.337

Difference 0.96 1.06 ‐0.10 0.42 0.811

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013.  

Note: The p‐values are based on a test of the difference between $60 SEBTC benefit group households and $30 SEBTC benefit

group households. The null hypothesis being tested is that the $60‐$30 difference is zero (either the $60‐$30 difference in daily

amounts within a subgroup or a subgroup difference in the $60‐$30 difference in daily amounts). See Appendix 5D for

definitions of nutrition outcomes.

*p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01

 
Appendix 5E 

Page 27 

Exhibit 5.16 in Chapter 5 presents non‐experimental cross‐year estimates for nutrition

outcomes for all sites in 2012 and 2013. Exhibits 5E.3.3‐5E.3.5 present these differences for all

sites that participated in either 2012, 2013, or both years and used the active consent process

(“active consent sites”), for sites that participated in both years (“common sites”), and for

school districts within the common sites that participated in both years (“common districts”).

The results are less precise, but broadly consistent.  

Exhibit 5E.3.3 Cross‐Year Estimates of the Impact of a $30 SEBTC Benefit (vs. No SEBTC

Benefit) on Nutrition Outcomes in Active Consent Sites Only, Summer 2012

and 2013

Outcome

$0 vs $60 (2012) $30 vs $60 (2013) $0 vs $30

Impact

Estimate SE

Impact

Estimate SE

Impact

Estimate SE

Fruits and vegetables (cup

equivalents per day)a 0.4 0.04   0.2 0.03   0.2 0.05

Fruits and vegetables, without

fried potatoes (cup equivalents

per day)a

0.4 0.04   0.2 0.03   0.2 0.05

Whole grains (ounce equivalents

per day)b 0.4 0.06   0.2 0.06   0.2 0.08

Dairy products (cup equivalents

per day)a 0.2 0.03   0.1 0.02   0.2 0.04

Usually drank nonfat or low‐fat

milk (%)c ‐0.5 0.97   0.2 0.52  ‐0.7 1.10

Added sugars from all foods and

beverages (teaspoons per day)d 0.0 0.21   0.0 0.19  ‐0.1 0.28

Added sugars excluding cereals

(teaspoons per day)d ‐0.3 0.19  ‐0.1 0.17  ‐0.2 0.25

Added sugars from sugar‐

sweetened beverages

(teaspoons per day)d

‐0.4 0.20  ‐0.1 0.19  ‐0.3 0.28

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2012 and Summer Survey, 2013  
Appendix 5E

Page 28 

Exhibit 5E.3.4 Cross‐Year Estimates of the Impact of a $30 SEBTC Benefit (vs. No SEBTC

Benefit) on Nutrition Outcomes in Common Sites Only, Summer 2012 and

2013

Outcome

$0 vs $60 (2012) $30 vs $60 (2013) $0 vs $30

Impact

Estimate SE

Impact

Estimate SE

Impact

Estimate SE

Fruits and vegetables (cup

equivalents per day)a 0.5 0.07 0.2 0.03 0.3 0.08

Fruits and vegetables, without

fried potatoes (cup equivalents

per day)a

0.5 0.07 0.2 0.03 0.3 0.08

Whole grains (ounce equivalents

per day)b 0.7 0.10 0.2 0.06 0.5 0.12

Dairy products (cup equivalents

per day)a 0.3 0.05 0.1 0.03 0.3 0.06

Usually drank nonfat or low‐fat

milk (%)c ‐0.8 1.26 0.3 0.64  ‐1.0 1.41

Added sugars from all foods and

beverages (teaspoons per day)d ‐0.6 0.34  ‐0.1 0.23  ‐0.5 0.41

Added sugars excluding cereals

(teaspoons per day)d ‐1.0 0.31  ‐0.3 0.21  ‐0.7 0.37

Added sugars from sugar‐

sweetened beverages

(teaspoons per day)d

‐1.1 0.33  ‐0.3 0.24  ‐0.7 0.41

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2012 and Summer Survey, 2013  
Appendix 5E 

Page 29 

Exhibit 5E.3.5 Cross‐Year Estimates of the Impact of a $30 SEBTC Benefit (vs. No SEBTC

Benefit) on Nutrition Outcomes in Common Districts Only, Summer 2012

and 2013

Outcome

$0 vs $60 (2012) $30 vs $60 (2013) $0 vs $30

Impact

Estimate SE

Impact

Estimate SE

Impact

Estimate SE

Fruits and vegetables (cup

equivalents per day)a 0.5 0.07   0.2 0.04   0.3 0.08

Fruits and vegetables, without

fried potatoes (cup equivalents

per day)a

0.5 0.07   0.2 0.04   0.3 0.08

Whole grains (ounce equivalents

per day)b 0.7 0.10   0.2 0.07   0.5 0.12

Dairy products (cup equivalents

per day)a 0.3 0.05   0.0 0.03   0.3 0.06

Usually drank nonfat or low‐fat

milk (%)c ‐0.8 1.26   0.1 0.72  ‐0.8 1.45

Added sugars from all foods and

beverages (teaspoons per day)d ‐0.6 0.34  ‐0.1 0.26  ‐0.5 0.43

Added sugars excluding cereals

(teaspoons per day)d ‐1.0 0.31  ‐0.3 0.23  ‐0.7 0.39

Added sugars from sugar‐

sweetened beverages

(teaspoons per day)d

‐1.1 0.33  ‐0.2 0.27  ‐0.8 0.43

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2012 and Summer Survey, 2013  

5E.4 Participation 

Exhibits 5E.4.1‐5E.4.5 present site‐level findings on SEBTC’s impact on participation in nutrition

assistance programs and whether the child’s household paid for lunch in the summer of 2013.

Finally Exhibit 5E.4.6 shows that there is no differential impact on participation for households

receiving SNAP at baseline.
Appendix 5E

Page 30 

Exhibit 5E.4.1 Summer Impact Estimates for Participation in SFSP, by Site, 2013  

Outcome/Site

Sample

Size

$60

Benefit

$30

Benefit

$60‐$30

Difference SE p‐value % Change

SFSP‐All Sites 19,493 5.6% 6.4% ‐0.7 0.54 0.168 11.6%

Chickasaw Nation 2,035 3.0% 3.4% ‐0.4 2.11 0.861 10.8%

Delaware 6,370 6.8% 7.0% ‐0.2 0.66 0.715 3.4%

Michigan     

Detroit 2,095 7.0% 7.5% ‐0.5 1.26 0.687 6.8%

Grand Rapids/

Kentwood 2,451 3.9% 3.7% 0.2 0.90 0.824 5.4%

Mid‐Michigan 2,985 3.5% 3.7% ‐0.2 0.79 0.827 4.7%

Portland, Oregon 3,557 9.5% 12.9% ‐3.3 *** 1.20 0.005 26.0%

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013  

Note: The p‐values for each site are based on a test of the difference in the participation rates for households in the $60 benefit

group compared to households in the $30 benefit group. The null hypothesis being tested is that the difference in the

participation rates is zero.

Test that the magnitude of the $60/$30 difference varies by site: χ2

=4.92, df=5, p=0.426

*p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01

Exhibit 5E.4.2 Summer Impact Estimates for Participation in SNAP, by Site, 2013  

Outcome/Site

Sample

Size

$60

Benefit

$30

Benefit

$60‐$30

Difference SE p‐value % Change

SNAP‐All Sites 19,602 66.5% 67.1% ‐0.6 0.54 0.293 0.8%

Chickasaw Nation 2,048 44.5% 47.6% ‐3.1 * 1.69 0.068 6.5%

Delaware 6,400 62.3% 62.4% 0.0 0.77 0.979 0.0%

Michigan    

Detroit 2,112 85.7% 85.8% ‐0.1 1.33 0.949 0.1%

Grand Rapids/

Kentwood 2,470 73.0% 73.4%  ‐0.4    1.42 0.781 0.5%

Mid‐Michigan 3,001 62.0% 62.4% ‐0.4 1.02 0.684 0.7%

Portland, Oregon 3,571 71.6% 71.0% 0.6 0.95 0.509 0.9%

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013  

Note: The p‐values for each site are based on a test of the difference in the participation rates for households in the $60 benefit

group compared to households in the $30 benefit group. The null hypothesis being tested is that the difference in the

participation rates is zero.

Test that the magnitude of the $60/$30 difference varies by site: χ2

=4.18, df=5, p=0.524

*p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01
Appendix 5E 

Page 31 

Exhibit 5E.4.3 Summer Impact Estimates for Participation in WIC, by Site, 2013  

Outcome/Site

Sample

Size

$60

Benefit

$30

Benefit

$60‐$30

Difference SE p‐value % Change

WIC‐All Sites 19,582 21.7% 21.9% ‐0.2 0.50 0.667 1.0%

Chickasaw Nation 2,037 18.7% 18.7% ‐0.1 1.27 0.967 0.3%

Delaware 6,406 16.7% 17.8% ‐1.1 0.80 0.169 6.2%

Michigan    

Detroit 2,106 27.8% 27.0% 0.8 1.53 0.599 3.0%

Grand Rapids/

Kentwood 2,468 31.7% 30.9% 0.7    1.43 0.607 2.4%

Mid‐Michigan 2,996 18.4% 18.9% ‐0.6 0.84 0.505 2.9%

Portland, Oregon 3,569 16.7% 17.8% ‐1.1 0.77 0.148 6.2%

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013  

Note: The p‐values for each site are based on a test of the difference in the participation rates for households in the $60 benefit

group compared to households in the $30 benefit group. The null hypothesis being tested is that the difference in the

participation rates is zero.

Test that the magnitude of the $60/$30 difference varies by site: χ2

=3.16, df=5, p=0.675

*p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01

Exhibit 5E.4.4   Summer Impact Estimates for Whether Child Usually Received Free Lunch at

Least One Day per Week, by Site, 2013

Site

Sample

Size

$60

Benefit

$30

Benefit

$60‐$30

Difference SE p‐value % Change

All Sites 19,432 17.9% 18.0% ‐0.1 0.71 0.887 0.6%

Chickasaw Nation 2,030 15.8% 14.0% 1.8 2.55 0.481 12.8%

Delaware 6,350 18.1% 19.3% ‐1.2 1.62 0.457 6.3%

Michigan    

Detroit 2,089 24.2% 23.7% 0.5 2.28 0.821 2.2%

Grand Rapids/

Kentwood 2,443 15.3% 16.0%  ‐0.8    1.95 0.698 4.7%

Mid‐Michigan 2,977 13.3% 12.9% 0.4 1.29 0.785 2.7%

Portland, Oregon 3,543 20.9% 22.2% ‐1.3 1.59 0.407 5.9%

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013  

Note: The p‐values for each site are based on a test of the difference in the participation rates for households in the $60 benefit

group compared to households in the $30 benefit group. The null hypothesis being tested is that the difference in the

participation rates is zero.

Test that the magnitude of the $60/$30 difference varies by site: χ2

=1.77, df=5, p=0.881

*p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01
Appendix 5E

Page 32 

Exhibit 5E.4.5   Summer Impact Estimates for Whether Child Usually Received Free Lunch at

Least Three Days per Week, by Site, 2013  

Site

Sample

Size

$60

Benefit

$60

Benefit

$60‐$30

Difference SE p‐value % Change

All Sites 19,425 13.6% 13.5% 0.1 0.61 0.829 1.0%

Chickasaw Nation 2,030 12.5% 10.7% 1.8 1.99 0.356 17.2%

Delaware 6,346 13.5% 14.6% ‐1.1 1.29 0.394 7.5%

Michigan    

Detroit 2,089 20.6% 19.3% 1.3 2.06 0.535 6.6%

Grand Rapids/

Kentwood 2,443 11.9% 12.6%  ‐0.7    1.64 0.660 5.7%

Mid‐Michigan 2,975 9.4% 8.6% 0.8 1.12 0.481 9.2%

Portland, Oregon 3,542 13.8% 15.1% ‐1.3 1.38 0.349 8.6%

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013  

Note: The p‐values for each site are based on a test of the difference in the participation rates for households in the $60 benefit

group compared to households in the $30 benefit group. The null hypothesis being tested is that the difference in the

participation rates is zero.

Test that the magnitude of the $60/$30 difference varies by site: χ2

=3.68, df=5, p=0.597

*p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01

Exhibit 5E.4.5 shows that the result of no impact on SNAP participation is present both for

households with SNAP at baseline and for households without SNAP at baseline.

Exhibit 5E.4.6 Summer Impact Estimates for Participation in SNAP, by Baseline SNAP

Participation, 2013  

Outcome

Sample

Size

$60

Benefit

$30

Benefit

$60‐$30

Difference SE p‐value

No SNAP at baseline 6,009 13.5% 14.4% ‐0.9 1.20 0.452

SNAP at baseline 12,504 91.7% 92.2% ‐0.6 0.54 0.303

Difference 18,513 78.1% 77.8% 0.4 1.36 0.800

Source: SEBTC, Summer Survey, 2013  

Note: The p‐values for each site are based on a test of the difference in the participation rates for households in the $60 benefit

group compared to households in the $30 benefit group. The null hypothesis being tested is that the difference in the

participation rates is zero.

*p<.10 **p<.05 ***p<.01