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. 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. In particular, the bill extends authority through September 30, 2022, for USDA to grant waivers related to summer food service programs; through June 30, 2022, for USDA to grant waivers of requirements to allow non-congregate feeding in the CACFP for purposes of providing meals and snacks with appropriate safety measures with respect to COVID-19; and through June 30, 2023, for USDA to grant waivers related to the nutritional content of meals served in child nutrition programs if it determines the waiver is necessary to provide meals and snacks, and there is a food supply chain disruption due to COVID-19. 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. Finally, the bill requires USDA to ensure that technical assistance is made available to states and school food authorities for assisting parents and school leaders with transitioning to the operation of school meal programs without certain waivers.
Sponsors: Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH]
Target Audience
Population: People worldwide reliant on school meal programs and child nutrition programs, including CACFP
Estimated Size: 45000000
- The bill primarily targets the school meal programs which aim to provide reduced price or free meals to students.
- All students enrolled in schools that participate in the National School Lunch Program or the School Breakfast Program could potentially be affected by changes in funding and reimbursement rates.
- Students in these programs are not just from the United States; many international students also benefit from such programs.
- The Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) includes both adults and children, although the majority are children given the focus on day care and school-related feeding programs.
- Rescinding of certain funds from prior COVID-19 relief acts may indirectly affect businesses, the economy, or institutions that benefitted from those funds.
Reasoning
- The policy is focused on improving nutrition for children and possibly some adults via school and daycare programs, which targets a significant subset of the American population estimated to be around 45 million people.
- The changes in reimbursement rates, while beneficial, are relatively modest (e.g., 40 cents for lunches and 15 cents for breakfasts), so the policy effectively provides marginal improvements that will directly affect the wellbeing of those reliant on these meals.
- Families and children in low-income areas will likely see the greatest direct benefits from the increased financial support to meal programs, improving nutritional intake and indirectly supporting better educational outcomes through improved health and concentration.
- Businesses and sectors previously funded by the rescinded COVID-19 relief funds may face negative financial impacts as a result, but the policy does not directly aim to benefit them.
- Since many caregivers and providers benefit from the CACFP, those particularly in roles related to childcare and senior care could see indirect benefits as meal quality and availability improve.
Simulated Interviews
Elementary School Teacher (Detroit, MI)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The increased funding for school meals is very welcomed in our community. We have so many kids relying on school for at least one decent meal a day.
- It's not a huge change overnight, but it can make a difference in the nutritional quality we can offer.
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 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Child Care Provider (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.5 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy helps stabilize the cost of providing quality meals to these kids, but it's not changing my overall financial outlook.
- The extra reimbursement can help us offer a little more variety in what's served.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
School Nutrition Coordinator (Houston, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the waivers will help us streamline our meal services, especially in the wake of supply chain disruptions.
- I'm concerned about what happens after the COVID waivers expire—it's a temporary relief.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Farmer (Rural Kansas)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not directly impacted by the school meal funding, but stable demand from local schools is always good for business.
- The rescinding of some funds worries me; it could impact my partners more directly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Non-profit Worker (New York, NY)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any policy that supports increased funding for school meals is a positive step. However, administrative challenges in implementing changes shouldn't be underestimated.
- We need policies beyond one year to make measurable impacts on child hunger rates.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
College Student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Meal programs are a lifeline for many students, especially those from low-income families like mine.
- Even small increases in funding can help alleviate food insecurity for students, but sustained support is needed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Single Parent (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The increased reimbursement helps schools offer better meals, which I appreciate.
- I am worried about what happens when COVID funds are rescinded, but for now, it's a relief.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
School Superintendent (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.5 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy provides immediate financial relief, but we need more long-term investment in education infrastructure.
- Balancing budget cuts and increased needs is a persistent challenge.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Pediatrician (Seattle, WA)
Age: 46 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Good nutrition is foundational to health, and this policy supports a very vulnerable group.
- Improving food quality in schools has lifelong health benefits, which is why this funding is critical.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired Chef (Miami, FL)
Age: 59 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.5 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see firsthand how important free school meals are for many families. Anything that enhances these programs is a plus.
- The policy is a step in the right direction, but more comprehensive actions are needed to fight childhood hunger.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $3000000000 (Low: $2800000000, High: $3200000000)
Year 2: $3000000000 (Low: $2800000000, High: $3200000000)
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 policy aims to enhance child nutrition during school hours while partially rolling back emergency COVID-19 funding measures.
- The cost of increased meal reimbursements significantly outweighs potential offsets from rescinded funds, leading to net increased federal expenditure.