Bill Overview
Title: Support Kids Not Red Tape Act of 2022
Description: This bill extends and modifies the authority of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to waive certain requirements related to the National School Lunch Program, the School Breakfast Program, the Child and Adult Care Food Program, and the Summer Food Service Program. Current law authorizes USDA to waive certain requirements, such as those related to nutritional content and congregate feeding, for the purpose of dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. Under this bill, USDA shall have authority through FY2023 to grant such a waiver, with no waiver having effect past FY2023. Currently, USDA's authority to grant a waiver expires on June 30, 2022, with no waiver having effect past the 2021-2022 school year. If a state elects to receive a waiver that modifies the operation of a school breakfast or lunch program for the 2022-2023 school year, the state must provide a transition plan to USDA. USDA must provide technical assistance to help school food authorities and states meet nutritional standards and resume regular meal program operations for the 2023-2024 school year. While a waiver is in effect during the 2022-2023 school year, the state subject to the waiver must provide technical assistance in lieu of fiscal action for meal pattern violations due to supply chain disruptions. The bill also appropriates funds as necessary to carry out this bill's activities.
Sponsors: Sen. Stabenow, Debbie [D-MI]
Target Audience
Population: Students and young individuals reliant on school meal programs
Estimated Size: 35000000
- The bill impacts students who rely on the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program as it extends waivers during the 2022-2023 school year.
- The Child and Adult Care Food Program and the Summer Food Service Program also serve children and adolescents who will be affected by the waivers this bill allows.
- These programs serve economically disadvantaged populations who are at risk of food insecurity.
- Millions of children in the United States rely on free or reduced-price meals provided by these programs.
Reasoning
- The policy is primarily designed to extend COVID-19 waivers for meal programs essential for students and young individuals, particularly from low-income families, which affects their access to nutritious meals.
- Given that the budget is limited, not all school districts or states might benefit equally, especially those who may have already improved their operations post-pandemic.
- As the waiver is extended through FY2023, the immediate impact will be most felt during this year with gradual tapering as regular meal programs resume.
- The geography of impact varies; urban areas with higher populations of economically disadvantaged children might experience more benefits compared to rural areas where reaching the student population might be harder.
- The policy's focus on technical assistance suggests an emphasis on capacity building to return to normal operations, which may have short and long-term effects on schools' capability to provide nutritional meals.
Simulated Interviews
student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 10 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The lunch at school is really important for me because sometimes we don't have much at home.
- It's good that the meals don't change too much this year, except maybe more vegetables now.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
school nutritionist (Des Moines, IA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The extension offers a valuable buffer to handle food shortages post-pandemic.
- It makes it easier to ensure more children receive meals, though the shift back to pre-pandemic standards will be challenging.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
student (Jacksonville, FL)
Age: 8 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I like getting lunch at school because sometimes we don't have dinner until late.
- I hope the food keeps coming to school like before.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
school principal (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Extending these waivers is absolutely necessary given current economic challenges.
- We now have some leeway to deal with supply issues while ensuring students remain fed.
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 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
high school student (Houston, TX)
Age: 15 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's been a tough few years and the free lunch is a big relief, especially when money is tight at home.
- If it gets harder to get meals, it might mean skipping some days.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
parent (Albuquerque, NM)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Knowing the kids will get nutritious meals at school lifts a huge burden off my shoulders.
- I hope the support continues as we rebuild after the pandemic.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
state education administrator (Seattle, WA)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The flexibility afforded by the waivers gives us the time and resources to properly scale back to regular operations.
- It's essential for maintaining compliance and nutrition standards in the long run.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
student (Cleveland, OH)
Age: 11 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- At my old school, we always got food, so I'm hoping nothing changes here.
- More kids might need food because things are expensive now.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
retired (Rural, KY)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These waivers are lifelines for children out here, especially during the summer programs.
- Without this extension, many kids would struggle much more.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
non-profit worker (New York, NY)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The waiver allows for more seamless and continuous support during times when adaptations are still necessary.
- It helps mitigate the abrupt return to pre-pandemic standards.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1400000000 (Low: $1200000000, High: $1600000000)
Year 2: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
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
- Ensuring sufficient funding to cover increased demand for meal programs under the waivers is crucial.
- Consider potential inflationary pressures as food costs rise due to supply chain issues.