FR 2025-03760

General Summary

The document from the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) announces the 2025 benefit levels for the Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children Program (Summer EBT). These benefit levels are updated annually based on changes in the cost of food as measured by the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP), in accordance with the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. For 2025, the monthly benefit amount remains at $40 for most areas, while regions like Alaska and Hawaii receive higher benefits due to increased costs of living.

Significant Issues and Concerns

One of the significant issues with the document is the lack of explanation regarding how the benefit levels compare to the actual cost of food in different regions. While the adjustments are based on the TFP, the document does not provide insight into whether these adjustments accurately reflect living costs, leaving a gap in understanding the adequacy of the benefits to meet families' needs.

Additionally, the document provides percentages for benefit adjustments but lacks an explanation for discrepancies across regions. For instance, some regions like Rural 2 Alaska see an increase, whereas others remain unchanged. This could raise questions about the fairness and consistency in how these adjustments are determined.

Furthermore, the contiguous states and Indian Tribal Organizations see no change in benefits despite a minor increase in the TFP. The document does not discuss whether the unchanged $40 monthly benefit is sufficient for children's nutritional needs during the summer.

Another concern is the absence of specific monthly TFP costs for some U.S. territories such as Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the document does not propose any solutions to address this lack of data.

Potential Impact on the Public

On a broad level, the document informs families who rely on the Summer EBT program about their benefits for the coming year. By maintaining a constant benefit level for most participants, it provides some stability in financial planning, although it may not inspire much confidence in the sufficiency of these benefits.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For families living in areas with higher costs of living, such as Alaska and Hawaii, the region-specific benefit increases can help bridge the gap between their higher food prices and the assistance provided by the Summer EBT program. However, the unchanged benefits might pose challenges for families in the contiguous states, where economic conditions and inflation persist, potentially making the fixed $40 monthly benefit inadequate.

The lack of specific TFP data for some U.S. territories could put families in these regions at a disadvantage, as they may receive benefits that do not accurately reflect their living costs. Additionally, the process of rounding adjustments to the nearest dollar, though simpler administratively, could cumulatively reduce potential benefits that families might have received, impacting their overall assistance over time.

In conclusion, while the document aims to deliver pertinent information about the Summer EBT program's benefits for 2025, it leaves room for further detail and clarity, particularly in ensuring that benefits remain adequate and fair across all regions.

The document provides detailed information on the financial allocations concerning the Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children (Summer EBT) Program for 2025. These allocations are crucial to ensuring that children continue to access nutritious meals during the summer months when they are not participating in school meal programs.

Summary of Financial Allocations

For 2025, Summer EBT benefits will remain largely unchanged from the previous year. The monthly benefit for children in the contiguous states and Indian Tribal Organizations is set at $40 per child, amounting to a total of $120 for the entire summer period. This benefit amount was determined by applying an adjustment based on a 1.55% increase in the cost of food as measured by the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) for the period from November 2023 to November 2024. However, due to the rounding process specified by legislation, this adjustment did not result in a change from the previous benefit level.

In Alaska, the benefit levels reflect unique geographical cost differences. The Urban Alaska monthly benefit remains at $52, while Rural 1 Alaska maintains a benefit of $66. In Rural 2 Alaska, the monthly benefit increased slightly from $80 in 2024 to $81 in 2025, reflecting the legal requirement to adjust for the cost of food. Consequently, Rural 2 Alaska’s total summer benefit for 2025 will be $243, up from the previous year’s $240.

For Hawaii, and U.S. Territories such as Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands, the 2025 benefits are based on the same TFP adjustment as the contiguous states. As a result, Hawaii's monthly benefit remains at $59, and the total summer benefit is $177. Similarly, U.S. Territories also have their monthly benefit at $59 and a total of $177 for the summer.

Relation to Identified Issues

One issue identified is the lack of specific context on how these benefit levels compare to the actual cost of food in various regions. The document does not clarify whether the benefits are sufficient to cover the increased costs of living and food in outlying areas such as Alaska or the U.S. Territories. Although the adjustments are data-driven, they may not fully capture the diverse economic conditions across different regions, potentially affecting the sufficiency of the benefits.

Additionally, while the rounding down to the nearest dollar is mandated, the document does not discuss the potential cumulative impact of such rounding on beneficiaries. Over time, these small rounding adjustments could result in significant differences in the amounts received, impacting the capacity of families to meet their nutritional needs.

Finally, the document notes the absence of specific monthly TFP costs for Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands. This lack of data could hinder accurate adjustments and leave these regions with potentially inadequate financial support through the Summer EBT benefits.

Overall, while the document outlines the financial allocations and their adjustments, further transparency on the methodology and its real-world implications on food affordability would enhance understanding and fairness of the distribution.