The aim of this pilot is to study the impact of the availability of universal-free school breakfast on breakfast participation and measures related to students’ nutritional status and academic performance. This pilot is not intended to evaluate the current SBP or the value of consuming breakfast.

This report is the final product of a study designed to learn about state Food Stamp Program policy choices and local implementation of these policies after the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The report presents examples of policies and practices that may have affected client service in the FSP in terms of program accessibility, quality of service and availability of employment and training services, particularly for food stamp recipients that do not receive cash assistance (non-TANF food stamp households).

This report represents the final evaluation of 26 research demonstration projects authorized under PL 101-264, entitled the "Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act" of 1990.

This executive summary describes Team Nutrition (TN) and findings from a pilot evaluation of the initiative. Detailed research findings are contained in two separate reports.

To explore the suitability of off-line electronic benefits transfer (EBT) as an alternative to paper issuance and on-line EBT issuance systems, USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service has supported the Ohio Department of Human Services in expanding off-line EBT issuance to all Food Stamp Program recipients in the state. A pilot project in Dayton, Ohio and a demonstration of a combined WIC-EBT off-line system in Wyoming have clearly established the technical feasibility of off-line EBT for FSP benefit issuance. 

The analysis conducted in this study builds on these two strands of the literature and uses three alternate definitions of breakfast: Consumption of any food or beverage. Breakfast intake of food energy greater than 10 percent of the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA). Consumption of foods from at least two of five main food groups and intake of food energy greater than 10 percent of the RDA. 

From October 1, 1993 to September 30, 1996, the Food and Nutrition Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture sponsored demonstration projects in Georgia, Hawaii, Missouri, South Dakota, and Texas to demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of operating the Food Stamp Employment and Training (E&T) program under the same legislative and regulatory terms as the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) program for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) recipients. Common objectives of the demonstrations were to increase compliance with E&T participation requirements among mandatory work registrants, target services to individuals most at risk of long-term dependency and those most likely to benefit from E&T services, improve participant outcomes, and improve the cost efficiency of welfare to work services.

This study evaluates the Retailer Compliance Management Demonstrations in EBT-ready States. In these demonstrations, the State food stamp agencies in New Mexico (NM) and South Carolina (SC) assumed responsibility for managing the participation of food retailers in the FSP, a task previously managed exclusively by the federal government.

The objectives of the demonstration were to determine the technological feasibility of offline EBT; whether it would be accepted by stakeholder groups; and whether it would be cost-effective.

A fundamental issue in the design of the Food Stamp Program (FSP) is the form benefits should take. Advocates of the current coupon system argue that coupons are a direct and inexpensive way to ensure that food stamp benefits are used to purchase food. Coupon advocates contend that, despite some evidence of fraud and benefit diversion under the current system, food stamps are used largely to purchase food. In addition, they contend that coupons give household food budgets some measure of protection against other demands on limited household resources. Advocates of cashing out the FSP argue that the current system limits the food-purchasing choices of recipients and places a stigma on participation. Moreover, they cite the cumbersome nature and cost of coupon issuance, transaction, and redemption.