Bill Overview
Title: SNACK Act
Description: SNACK Act This bill extends the authority of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to waive certain requirements for the school meal programs and the Child and Adult Care Food Program to address COVID-19, including by extending authority through September 30, 2022, for USDA to grant waivers related to the summer food service program.
Sponsors: Rep. Walorski, Jackie [R-IN-2]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals participating in the USDA school meal programs and Child and Adult Care Food Program
Estimated Size: 20000000
- The legislation affects school meal programs, which target school-aged children and youth.
- The Child and Adult Care Food Program also targets younger children in day care and adults in care facilities, suggesting they are also part of the target population.
- The extension of the USDA's authority to waive requirements is related to the COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizing the target population is those who may face food insecurity due to the pandemic.
- Globally, this affects only U.S. citizens as it is an American piece of legislation targeting USDA programs.
Reasoning
- The primary impact area for the SNACK Act is school-aged children and participants in child care food programs who are food insecure.
- Students from low-income families and communities that experienced significant food insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic are most likely to be affected by the policy.
- The distribution of the impact can vary due to several factors, such as geographic diversity, existing levels of poverty, and local execution of the programs.
- The budget limits suggest a broad yet restricted reach which indicates the policy might not reach every individual in need but should impact a substantively large portion of the target population.
Simulated Interviews
Student (Rural Mississippi)
Age: 8 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The waiver makes sure I still get lunch in the summer. It's important because sometimes we don't have enough food at home.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Single father, delivery driver (Urban California)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I know my son continues to get nutritious meals even when schools are closed. It helps me focus on work without worry.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
School cafeteria worker (Suburban Ohio)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The extended waiver helps ensure children in our community continue getting meals, which makes my job feel more impactful.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Director at local day care (Rural Texas)
Age: 42 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring continued access to meals through the waiver is critical for the families we serve.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Student (Inner-city New York)
Age: 10 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Getting meals from school in summer is a big relief. Sometimes that's all I eat all day.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Teacher (Millwaukee, Wisconsin)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The waiver is important because it allows my students to concentrate on learning, not where their next meal is coming from.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
School principal (Charleston, South Carolina)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy allows us to continue offering meals without interruption, which is crucial for many families.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Social worker (Remote Alaska)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring access to meal programs during the pandemic is vital in remote areas where food availability is a constant concern.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Retired (Florida)
Age: 74 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I depend on the food program for one decent meal a day, it's very important to me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
College student, part-time worker (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 20 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Knowing my siblings receive school meal program support eases the financial stress on me and my parents.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $750000000 (Low: $700000000, High: $800000000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The SNACK Act's temporary nature means that its cost effects are short-lived, only affecting the fiscal year it covers.
- The extension focuses on easing food access during pandemic recovery, relevant primarily in improving social well-being and preventing food insecurity.
- Costs and benefits are concentrated in low-income and impacted communities, directly facilitated by government funding to local authorities and service providers.