Gordon Anne R, Briefel Ronette R, Collins Ann M, Rowe Gretchen M, Klerman Jacob A
J Acad Nutr Diet. 2017 Mar;117(3):367-375.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2016.11.002. Epub 2016 Dec 22.
The Summer Electronic Benefit Transfers for Children (SEBTC) demonstration piloted summer food assistance through electronic benefit transfers (EBTs), providing benefits either through the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) EBT.
To inform food assistance policy and describe how demonstrations using WIC and SNAP models differed in benefit take-up and impacts on food security and children's food consumption.
Sites chose to deliver SEBTC using the SNAP or WIC EBT system. Within each site, in 2012, households were randomly assigned to a benefit group or a no-benefit control group.
Grantees (eight states and two Indian Tribal Organizations) selected school districts serving many low-income children. Schoolchildren were eligible in cases where they had been certified for free or reduced-price meals during the school year. Before the demonstration, households in the demonstration sample had lower incomes and lower food security, on average, than households with eligible children nationally.
Grantees provided selected households with benefits worth $60 per child per summer month using SNAP or WIC EBT systems. SNAP-model benefits covered most foods. WIC-model benefits could only be used for a specific package of foods.
Key outcomes were children's food security (assessed using the US Department of Agriculture food security scale) and food consumption (assessed using food frequency questions).
Differences in mean outcomes between the benefit and control groups measured impact, after adjusting for household characteristics.
In WIC sites, benefit-group households redeemed a lower percentage of SEBTC benefits than in SNAP sites. Nonetheless, the benefit groups in both sets of sites had similar large reductions in very low food security among children, relative to no-benefit controls. Children receiving benefits consumed more healthful foods, and these impacts were larger in WIC sites.
Results suggest the WIC SEBTC model deserves strong consideration.
儿童夏季电子福利转账（SEBTC）通过电子福利转账（EBT）试点夏季食品援助，通过妇女、婴儿和儿童特别补充营养计划（WIC）或补充营养援助计划（SNAP）EBT提供福利。
为食品援助政策提供信息，并描述使用WIC和SNAP模式的示范在福利接受情况以及对粮食安全和儿童食品消费的影响方面有何不同。
各站点选择使用SNAP或WIC EBT系统提供SEBTC。在每个站点内，2012年，家庭被随机分配到受益组或无福利对照组。
受资助者（八个州和两个印第安部落组织）选择了服务于许多低收入儿童的学区。如果学童在学年期间获得免费或减价膳食认证，则符合条件。在示范之前，示范样本中的家庭平均收入和粮食安全水平低于全国有符合条件儿童的家庭。
受资助者使用SNAP或WIC EBT系统为选定家庭提供每个孩子每月60美元的夏季福利。SNAP模式的福利涵盖大多数食品。WIC模式的福利只能用于特定的食品套餐。
关键结果是儿童的粮食安全（使用美国农业部粮食安全量表评估）和食品消费（使用食物频率问题评估）。
在调整家庭特征后，受益组和对照组之间平均结果的差异衡量了影响。
在WIC站点，受益组家庭兑换的SEBTC福利百分比低于SNAP站点。尽管如此，与无福利对照组相比，两组站点的受益组儿童中粮食安全极低的情况都有类似的大幅减少。获得福利的儿童食用了更多健康食品，并且这些影响在WIC站点更大。
结果表明WIC SEBTC模式值得认真考虑。
