630 - Impact of State Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer (SEBT) Implementation on Household Food Insufficiency

Publication Number: 3611.630

Sarah Revak, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States; Senbagam Virudachalam, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States; Christina Roberto, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States; Diana Montoya-Williams, Childre's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, United States; Justine Shults, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Ambler, PA, United States; Aditi Vasan, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, United States

Background: Children who receive school-based meals during the school year often face an added burden of hunger during the summer. Starting in 2024, states could opt into the federally funded Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer (SEBT) program, which provides a summertime grocery benefit of $120 per child to low-income families with school-aged children. Little is known about SEBT's impact on food insufficiency, defined as lack of consistent access to an adequate quantity of food.

Objective: Examine the association of state implementation of SEBT with household food insufficiency among low-income households with school-aged children.

Design/Methods: Difference-in-differences study using repeated cross-sectional data from the national Household Pulse Survey (HPS). Population: Households with children age 5-17 years eligible for SEBT based on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) receipt and/or income ≤185% of the federal poverty level. Outcome: Household food insufficiency assessed by a single item. Households reporting "sometimes not enough to eat" or "often not enough to eat" in the past week were classified as food insufficient, while those reporting "enough and the kinds of food we wanted to eat" or "enough but not always the kinds of food we wanted to eat" were classified as food sufficient. Analysis: Difference-in-differences approach comparing changes in household food insufficiency from January to September 2024 in states that did and did not implement SEBT (Fig. 1A). We also estimated the weighted proportion of eligible households reporting SEBT receipt in states that implemented SEBT.

Results: The analysis included 31,351 households in 33 states with SEBT and 18 states without SEBT. SNAP and public insurance receipt were higher in SEBT states (Table 1). Only 38.5% of eligible families reported receiving SEBT (Fig. 1B). Food insufficiency was similar in SEBT and non-SEBT states prior to policy implementation (Fig. 2A). Difference-in-differences regression modeling showed no significant change in food insufficiency among eligible households in states that implemented SEBT compared to those that did not (+1.1 percentage point relative difference; 95% CI, -3.3 to +5.6) (Fig. 2B).

Conclusion(s): States that opted into SEBT did not see a relative decrease in food insufficiency among eligible households during the program's first year. This finding may reflect the small benefit size, limited awareness and/or uptake of SEBT among eligible caregivers, and limitations of the HPS's single-item food insufficiency measure, which may not capture more subtle changes in household food security.

Figure 1. Timing of State Distribution of 2024 Summer EBT Benefits and Self-reported Receipt of Summer EBT
A. Map depicting the month in which SEBT was implemented and benefits were distributed in each state during summer 2024, retrieved from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) SEBT State Profiles and confirmed, when possible, from state department websites. *June includes the District of Columbia.
B. Percentage of eligible families who self-reported receipt of SEBT in states that had implemented SEBT as of a given Household Pulse Survey cycle. SEBT receipt defined by the question, "Do you or does anyone in your household receive benefits from Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer (Summer EBT)?"

Table 1. Characteristics of Eligible Families in Summer EBT and Non-Summer EBT States
a Includes District of Columbia.
b Households with children age 5-17 years eligible for SEBT by self-reported Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) receipt and/or income ≤185% of the federal poverty level (FPL).
c Unweighted sample size and weighted population prevalence for each group are shown.
d Household income was approximated as a percentage of the FPL by assigning each household the upper limit of their reported income bracket and dividing this by the FPL for the corresponding household size and state of residence.
e Self-reported.

Figure 2. Unadjusted Trends and Difference-in-Differences Estimates of the Association Between State Implementation of Summer EBT and Household Food Insufficiency
A. Unadjusted 2024 prevalence of household food insufficiency among households eligible for SEBT, stratified by households in states that did (SEBT) and did not (non-SEBT) implement SEBT between May 28, 2024 and August 19, 2024. The dashed vertical line indicates the earliest month in which SEBT was implemented among the SEBT states.

B. Difference-in-difference estimates of household food insufficiency. The y-axis shows the absolute difference in prevalence of household food insufficiency in SEBT and non-SEBT states, with error bars representing 95% CIs. The x-axis represents the number of Household Pulse Survey cycles relative to when SEBT was implemented. For non-SEBT states, time "0" is HPS cycle 6, the earliest cycle in which SEBT was implemented among SEBT states.