Bill Overview
Title: Keep Kids Fed Act of 2022
Description: This bill provides funding for and makes changes to school meal programs and the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). It also rescinds certain funds provided under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021; the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021; and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). Specifically, the bill increases the reimbursement rate for school lunches by 40 cents and for school breakfasts by 15 cents for the school year beginning in July 2022. Further, the bill changes income eligibility for school meal programs for the school year beginning in July 2022. The bill extends the authority of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to waive certain requirements for the school meal programs and the CACFP to address COVID-19, including by extending authority through September 30, 2022, for USDA to grant waivers related to summer food service programs. The bill authorizes USDA to establish a nationwide waiver of statutory and regulatory requirements under child nutrition programs for the 2022-2023 school year. Additionally, the bill increase the reimbursement rate for meals and snacks under the CACFP by 10 cents for the school year beginning in July 2022. Further, the bill increases the reimbursement of tier II family or group day care homes to tier I amounts for the 2022-2023 school year. The bill rescinds certain funding provided to USDA, the Department of Education, and the Small Business Administration.
Sponsors: Rep. Scott, Robert C. "Bobby" [D-VA-3]
Target Audience
Population: School children and children in care programs dependent on US government meal programs
Estimated Size: 35000000
- The bill targets children who benefit from school meal programs, which are largely utilized in public schools across the United States.
- It impacts children in Child and Adult Care Food Programs (CACFP), which also includes afterschool care environments.
- The bill affects mechanisms deployed to deal with food insecurity heightened by the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly for low-income families.
- These meal programs are essential for children from low-income families, suggesting a focus on this demographic.
- The funding changes result in better meal reimbursement rates, directly affecting the food security of children relying on these programs.
- The bill also impacts adults involved in the Child and Adult Care Food Program, although children are the primary target.
Reasoning
- The primary group affected by the Keep Kids Fed Act of 2022 is children who rely on school meal programs, particularly those from low-income families. This group is large, as approximately 30 million children receive free or reduced-price meals through school programs.
- The reimbursement rate increases will directly improve the quality and reliability of meals, which is likely to enhance the wellbeing of children who depend on these meals for essential nutrition.
- Adults involved in childcare settings and daycares through CACFP will benefit indirectly, as increased reimbursement rates may improve financial stability and allow for more nutritious food offerings.
- Some individuals will not be affected, especially those from higher income families whose children do not participate in these programs.
- The policy has a set budget, which suggests that while the policy can make a meaningful impact, its scale is still limited by financial resources and administrative reach. Thus, not all potential beneficiaries might see a change, or the change may vary in magnitudew based on regional implementations and school district capabilities.
Simulated Interviews
student (Detroit, MI)
Age: 8 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The school meals are sometimes the only consistent nutrition source for me during the day.
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 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
daycare provider (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased meal reimbursements will help us provide better meals for the kids, reducing stress on our budget.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
teacher (Austin, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy would make it easier to ensure our students receive reliable and nutritious meals.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
high school student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 16 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Knowing that meal quality will improve, I feel less worried about going hungry during the day.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
parent (New York, NY)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Enhanced meal programs mean I can worry a bit less about food security for my kids.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
non-profit worker (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 25 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While the policy helps, spread and impact will depend heavily on local execution and community awareness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
school administrator (Houston, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased funding assists in resolving budget issues but the overall long-term effect is limited by wider economic factors.
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 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
freelance journalist (Miami, FL)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The measures are more of a stopgap rather than a substantial long-term solution to food insecurity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
middle school student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 12 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I might not see a difference immediately since my parents help with meals too.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
student (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 9 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hoping for better food options after they've mentioned the changes, sounds like a good thing!
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 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $350000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $400000000)
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 increases in reimbursements are time-bound to the 2022-2023 school year, limiting long-term fiscal impact.
- Limiting the rescinding actions to funds primarily allocated for relief measures blunts potential negative backlash.
- This is a temporary measure set to aid recovery post-COVID-19, whereby its urgency lies in managing transitional aid.
- Reimbursement rate adjustments may necessitate continuation based on future policy assessments, possibly increasing long-term fiscal exposure.