Child Nutrition Programs: Current Issues
Changes from February 5, 2019 to April 24, 2019
This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with red strikethrough and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.
Child Nutrition Programs: Current Issues
January 31, 2019
Updated April 24, 2019
(R45486)
Jump to Main Text of Report
Nutrition Service (USDA-FNS) programs that provide food for children in institutional settings. Nutrition Service (USDA-FNS) programs that provide food for children in institutional settings.
Kara Clifford Billings
These include the school meals programs—the National School Lunch Program and School These include the school meals programs—the National School Lunch Program and School
Analyst in Social Policy
Breakfast Program—as well as the Child and Adult Care Food Program, Summer Food Service Breakfast Program—as well as the Child and Adult Care Food Program, Summer Food Service
Program, Special Milk Program, and Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program.Program, Special Milk Program, and Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program.
The most recent child nutrition reauthorization, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 The most recent child nutrition reauthorization, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010
(HHFKA; P.L. 111-296), made a number of changes to the child nutrition programs. In some cases, these changes spurred (HHFKA; P.L. 111-296), made a number of changes to the child nutrition programs. In some cases, these changes spurred
debate during the lawdebate during the law’'s implementation, particularly in regard to updated nutrition standards for school meals and snacks. On s implementation, particularly in regard to updated nutrition standards for school meals and snacks. On
September 30, 2015, some of the authorities created by the HHFKA expired. Efforts to reauthorize the child nutrition September 30, 2015, some of the authorities created by the HHFKA expired. Efforts to reauthorize the child nutrition
programs in the programs in the114th114th Congress, while not completed, considered several related issues and prompted further discussion about Congress, while not completed, considered several related issues and prompted further discussion about
the programs. There were no substantial reauthorization attempts in the the programs. There were no substantial reauthorization attempts in the115th Congress.
115th Congress.
Current issues discussed in this report include the following:Current issues discussed in this report include the following:
Nutrition standards for school meals and snacks. The HHFKA required USDA to update the nutrition standards for school The HHFKA required USDA to update the nutrition standards for school
meals and other foods sold in schools. USDA issued final rules on these standards in 2012 and 2016, respectively. Some meals and other foods sold in schools. USDA issued final rules on these standards in 2012 and 2016, respectively. Some
schools had difficulty implementing the nutrition standards, and USDA and Congress have taken actions to change certain schools had difficulty implementing the nutrition standards, and USDA and Congress have taken actions to change certain
parts of the standards related to whole grains, sodium, and milk.parts of the standards related to whole grains, sodium, and milk.
Offerings in the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP). There have been debates recently over whether the FFVP There have been debates recently over whether the FFVP
should include processed and preserved fruits and vegetables, including canned, dried, and frozen items. Currently, statute should include processed and preserved fruits and vegetables, including canned, dried, and frozen items. Currently, statute
permits only fresh offerings.permits only fresh offerings.
“Buy American”
"Buy American" requirements for school meals. The school meals programsThe school meals programs’' authorizing laws require schools to source authorizing laws require schools to source
foods domestically, with some exceptions, under Buy American requirements. Efforts both to tighten and loosen these foods domestically, with some exceptions, under Buy American requirements. Efforts both to tighten and loosen these
requirements have been made in recent years. The enacted 2018 farm bill (P.L. 115-334) instructed USDA to requirements have been made in recent years. The enacted 2018 farm bill (P.L. 115-334) instructed USDA to“"enforce full enforce full
compliance”compliance" with the Buy American requirements and report to Congress within 180 days of enactment. with the Buy American requirements and report to Congress within 180 days of enactment.
Congregate feeding in summer meals. Under current law, children must consume summer meals on-site. This is known as Under current law, children must consume summer meals on-site. This is known as
the the“"congregate feedingcongregate feeding”" requirement. requirement. Starting in 2010, Congress funded demonstration projects, including the Summer Starting in 2010, Congress funded demonstration projects, including the Summer
Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) demonstration, to test alternatives to congregate feeding in summer meals. Congress has Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) demonstration, to test alternatives to congregate feeding in summer meals. Congress has
increased funding for Summer EBT in recent appropriations cycles and there have been discussions about whether to increased funding for Summer EBT in recent appropriations cycles and there have been discussions about whether to
continue or expand the program.continue or expand the program.
Implementation of the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP). The HHFKA created CEP, an option for qualifying The HHFKA created CEP, an option for qualifying
schools, groups of schools, and school districts to offer free meals to all students. Because income-based applications for schools, groups of schools, and school districts to offer free meals to all students. Because income-based applications for
school meals are no longer required in schools adopting CEP, its implementation has created data issues for federal and state school meals are no longer required in schools adopting CEP, its implementation has created data issues for federal and state
programs relying on free and reduced-price lunch eligibility data.programs relying on free and reduced-price lunch eligibility data.
Unpaid meal costs and “"lunch shaming.”" The issue of students not paying for meals and schoolsThe issue of students not paying for meals and schools’' handling of these handling of these
situations has received increasing attention. Some schools have adopted what some term as situations has received increasing attention. Some schools have adopted what some term as“"lunch shaminglunch shaming”" practices, practices,
including throwing away a studentincluding throwing away a student’'s selected hot meal and providing a cold meal alternative when a student does not pay. s selected hot meal and providing a cold meal alternative when a student does not pay.
Congress and USDA have taken actions recently to reduce instances of student nonpayment and stigmatization.Congress and USDA have taken actions recently to reduce instances of student nonpayment and stigmatization.
Paid lunch pricing. One result of new requirements in the HHFKA was price increases for paid (full price) lunches in many One result of new requirements in the HHFKA was price increases for paid (full price) lunches in many
schools. Attempts have been made—some successfully—to loosen these schools. Attempts have been made—some successfully—to loosen these“"paid lunch equitypaid lunch equity”" requirements in recent years.
requirements in recent years.
Congressional Research Service
link to page 4 link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 6 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 11 link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 14 link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 16 link to page 19 link to page 20 link to page 5 link to page 8 link to page 8 link to page 14 link to page 22 Child Nutrition Programs: Current Issues
Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Current Issues .................................................................................................................................. 2
Nutrition Standards for School Meals and Snacks .................................................................... 2
Background ......................................................................................................................... 2
Implementation and Changes .............................................................................................. 3
Other Proposals ................................................................................................................... 6
“Fresh” in the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP) ...................................................... 7
“Buy American” in School Meals Programs ............................................................................. 8
Alternatives to Congregate Feeding in Summer Meals............................................................. 9
Summer EBT Demonstration .............................................................................................. 9
Other Summer Demonstrations .......................................................................................... 11
Other Proposals ................................................................................................................. 12
Community Eligibility Provision ............................................................................................ 12
Unpaid Meal Costs and “Lunch Shaming” ............................................................................. 13
Paid Lunch and Other School Food Pricing ............................................................................ 16
Figures
Figure 1. Paid Lunch Equity Formula ........................................................................................... 17
Tables
Table 1. Child Nutrition Programs’ Authorizing Laws and Regulations ......................................... 2
Table 2. Legislative and Regulatory Changes to the Milk, Whole Grain, and Sodium
Requirements for School Meals (2012-2018) .............................................................................. 5
Table 3. Appropriations for Summer Demonstration Projects, FY2010-FY2018 .......................... 11
Appendixes
Appendix. Acronyms Used in This Report .................................................................................... 19
Contacts
Author Information ....................................................................................................................... 19
Congressional Research Service
Child Nutrition Programs: Current Issues
Introduction
The term The term child nutrition programs refers to several U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and refers to several U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and
Nutrition Service (USDA-FNS) programs that provide food to children in institutional settings. Nutrition Service (USDA-FNS) programs that provide food to children in institutional settings.
The largest are the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program The largest are the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program
(SBP), which subsidize free, reduced-price, and full-price meals in participating schools.(SBP), which subsidize free, reduced-price, and full-price meals in participating schools.11 Also Also
operating in schools, the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program provides funding for fruit and operating in schools, the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program provides funding for fruit and
vegetable snacks in participating elementary schools, and the Special Milk Program provides vegetable snacks in participating elementary schools, and the Special Milk Program provides
support for milk in schools that do not participate in NSLP or SBP. Other child nutrition programs support for milk in schools that do not participate in NSLP or SBP. Other child nutrition programs
include the Child and Adult Care Food Program, which provides meals and snacks in child care include the Child and Adult Care Food Program, which provides meals and snacks in child care
and after-school settings, and the Summer Food Service Program, which provides food during the and after-school settings, and the Summer Food Service Program, which provides food during the
summer months.summer months.2
2
The child nutrition programs were last reauthorized by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of The child nutrition programs were last reauthorized by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of
2010 (HHFKA, P.L. 111-296). On September 30, 2015, some of the authorities created or 2010 (HHFKA, P.L. 111-296). On September 30, 2015, some of the authorities created or
extended by the HHFKA expired. However, these expirations had a minimal impact on program extended by the HHFKA expired. However, these expirations had a minimal impact on program
operations, as the child nutrition programs have continued with funding provided by annual operations, as the child nutrition programs have continued with funding provided by annual
appropriations acts.appropriations acts.3
In the 114th3
In the 114th Congress, lawmakers began but did not complete child nutrition reauthorization, Congress, lawmakers began but did not complete child nutrition reauthorization,
which refers to the process of reauthorizing and potentially making changes to multiple which refers to the process of reauthorizing and potentially making changes to multiple
permanent statutes—the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, the Child Nutrition Act, permanent statutes—the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, the Child Nutrition Act,
and sometimes Section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935. Both committees of jurisdiction—the and sometimes Section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935. Both committees of jurisdiction—the
Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and the House Committee on Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and the House Committee on
Education and the Workforce—reported reauthorization legislation (S. 3136 and H.R. 5003Education and the Workforce—reported reauthorization legislation (S. 3136 and H.R. 5003,,
respectively). This legislation died at the end of the respectively). This legislation died at the end of the114th 114th Congress, as is the case for any bill that Congress, as is the case for any bill that
has not yet passed both chambers and been sent to the President at the end of a Congress. There has not yet passed both chambers and been sent to the President at the end of a Congress. There
were no significant child nutrition reauthorization efforts in the were no significant child nutrition reauthorization efforts in the115th115th Congress; however, 2018 Congress; however, 2018
farm bill proposals and the final enacted bill included a few provisions related to child nutrition farm bill proposals and the final enacted bill included a few provisions related to child nutrition
programs.programs.
The implementation of the HHFKA, child nutrition reauthorization efforts in the The implementation of the HHFKA, child nutrition reauthorization efforts in the 114th114th Congress, Congress,
and the child nutrition-related topics raised during 2018 farm bill negotiations have raised issues and the child nutrition-related topics raised during 2018 farm bill negotiations have raised issues
that may be relevant for Congress in future reauthorization efforts or other policymaking that may be relevant for Congress in future reauthorization efforts or other policymaking
opportunities. These issues often relate to the content and type of foods served in schools: for opportunities. These issues often relate to the content and type of foods served in schools: for
example, the nutritional quality of foods and whether foods are domestically sourced. Other example, the nutritional quality of foods and whether foods are domestically sourced. Other
issues relate to access, including alternatives to on-site consumption in summer meals and issues relate to access, including alternatives to on-site consumption in summer meals and
implementation of the Community Eligibility Provision, an option to provide free meals to all
1 These three meal categories are subsidized by the federal government in increasing amounts. For the reimbursement
rates for school year (SY) 2018-2019, see USDA-FNS, “National School Lunch, Special Milk, and School Breakfast
Programs, National Average Payments/Maximum Reimbursement Rates,” 83 Federal Register 34105, July, 19, 2018,
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/07/19/2018-15465/national-school-lunch-special-milk-and-school-
breakfast-programs-national-average-paymentsmaximum.
2 The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) is typically reauthorized with
the child nutrition programs but is not considered a child nutrition program because it is not administered in
institutional settings. For more information on WIC, see CRS Report R44115, A Primer on WIC: The Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.
3 Most of the child nutrition programs are “appropriated entitlements,” meaning that the authorizing law sets a level of
spending that Congress must fulfill through an appropriation. In FY2016, FY2017, and FY2018, enacted annual
appropriation laws and continuing resolutions enabled the child nutrition programs to continue operating. For more
information, see CRS In Focus IF10266, An Introduction to Child Nutrition Reauthorization.
Congressional Research Service
R45486 · VERSION 1 · NEW
1
Child Nutrition Programs: Current Issues
implementation of the Community Eligibility Provision, an option to provide free meals to all students in certain schools. Stakeholders in these issues commonly include school food students in certain schools. Stakeholders in these issues commonly include school food
authorities (SFAs; school food service departments that generally operate at the school district authorities (SFAs; school food service departments that generally operate at the school district
level), hunger and nutrition-focused advocacy organizations, and food industry organizations, level), hunger and nutrition-focused advocacy organizations, and food industry organizations,
among others.among others.
This report provides an overview of these and other current issues in the child nutrition programs. This report provides an overview of these and other current issues in the child nutrition programs.
It does not cover every issue, but rather provides a high-level review of some recent issues raised It does not cover every issue, but rather provides a high-level review of some recent issues raised
by Congress and/or program stakeholders, drawing examples from legislative proposals in the by Congress and/or program stakeholders, drawing examples from legislative proposals in the
114th and 115th Congresses.114th and 115th Congresses. References to CRS reports with more detailed information or analysis References to CRS reports with more detailed information or analysis
on specific issues are provided where applicable, including the following:on specific issues are provided where applicable, including the following:
For an overview of the structure and functions of the child nutrition programs, see CRS For an overview of the structure and functions of the child nutrition programs, see CRS
Report R43783, Report R43783, School Meals Programs and Other USDA Child Nutrition Programs: A
Primer..
For more information on the child nutrition reauthorization proposals in the For more information on the child nutrition reauthorization proposals in the 114th
114th Congress, see CRS Report R44373, Congress, see CRS Report R44373, Tracking the Next Child Nutrition Reauthorization:
An Overview..
For a summary of the HHFKA, see CRS Report R41354, For a summary of the HHFKA, see CRS Report R41354, Child Nutrition and WIC
Reauthorization: P.L. 111-296..
Table 1. Child Nutrition Programs’' Authorizing Laws and Regulations
Program
Authorizing Statutes
Regulations
National School Lunch Program
Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act
7 C.F.R. 210 et seq.
(NSLP)
(42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.)
School Breakfast Program (SBP)School Breakfast Program (SBP)
Child Nutrition Act, Section 4 (42 U.S.C. 1773)Child Nutrition Act, Section 4 (42 U.S.C. 1773)
7 C.F.R. 220 et seq.7 C.F.R. 220 et seq.
Child and Adult Care Food Program Child and Adult Care Food Program
(CACFP)
Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act,
7 C.F.R. 226 et seq.
(CACFP)
Section 17 (42 U.S.C. 1766)
Summer Food Service Program
Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act,
7 C.F.R. 225 et seq.
(SFSP)
Section 13 (42 U.S.C. 1761)
Special Milk Program (SMP)
Child Nutrition Act, Section 3 (42 U.S.C. 1772)
7 C.F.R. 215 et seq.
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program
Section 17 (42 U.S.C. 1766)
Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act,
n/aa
(FFVP)
Section 19 (42 U.S.C. 1769a)Section 19 (42 U.S.C. 1769a)
n/aa
Source: Compiled by CRS. Compiled by CRS.
a.
a. FFVP currently operates according to statute and USDA guidance. USDA-FNS issued a proposed rule in FFVP currently operates according to statute and USDA guidance. USDA-FNS issued a proposed rule in
2012 to codify statutory requirements in regulations, but a final rule has not been published.2012 to codify statutory requirements in regulations, but a final rule has not been published.
Current Issues
Nutrition Standards for School Meals and Snacks
Background
Background
School meals must meet certain requirements to be eligible for federal reimbursement, including School meals must meet certain requirements to be eligible for federal reimbursement, including
nutritional requirements. These nutrition standards were last updated following the enactment of nutritional requirements. These nutrition standards were last updated following the enactment of
the HHFKA, which the HHFKA, whichcreated a timeline forrequired USDA to update the standards for school meals and USDA to update the standards for school meals and
create new nutrition standards for create new nutrition standards for“competitive”"competitive" foods (e.g., foods sold in vending machines, a la foods (e.g., foods sold in vending machines, a la
Congressional Research Service
R45486 · VERSION 1 · NEW
2
Child Nutrition Programs: Current Issues
carte lines, and snack bars).4 For the most part, the precise nutritional requirements were written
in regulations, not the HHFKA. Thecarte lines, and snack bars) within a specified timeframe.4 Specifically, the law required USDA to issue proposed regulations for law required USDA to issue proposed regulations for
competitive foods competitive foods nutrition standards within one year after enactment and for school meals standards within one year after enactment and for school meals nutrition standards standards
within 18 months after enactment. The law also provided increased federal subsidies (6 cents per within 18 months after enactment. The law also provided increased federal subsidies (6 cents per
lunch) for schools meeting the new requirements and funding for technical assistance. The lunch) for schools meeting the new requirements and funding for technical assistance. The
nutrition standards were championed by then-First Lady Michelle Obama through her “Let’s
Move” initiative.5
nutrition standards in the HHFKA were championed by a variety of organizations and stakeholders, including nutrition and public health advocacy organizations, food and beverage companies, school nutrition officials, retired military leaders, and then-First Lady Michelle Obama.5
The precise nutritional requirements were largely written in the subsequent regulations, not the HHFKA. USDA-FNS published the final rule for school meals in January 2012 and the final rule for USDA-FNS published the final rule for school meals in January 2012 and the final rule for
competitive foods in July 2016.competitive foods in July 2016.66 As required by law, the nutrition standards were based on the As required by law, the nutrition standards were based on the
Dietary Guidelines for Americans and recommendations from the Institute of Medicine (now the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and recommendations from the Institute of Medicine (now the
Health and Medicine Division of the National Academies).Health and Medicine Division of the National Academies).77 For school meals, the updated For school meals, the updated
standards increased the amount of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains in school lunches and standards increased the amount of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains in school lunches and
breakfasts.breakfasts.88 They also instituted limits on calories, sodium, whole grains, and proteins in meals They also instituted limits on calories, sodium, whole grains, and proteins in meals
and restricted milk to low-fat (unflavored) and fat-free (flavored or unflavored) varieties. Other and restricted milk to low-fat (unflavored) and fat-free (flavored or unflavored) varieties. Other
requirements included a provision that senior high school students must select a half-serving of requirements included a provision that senior high school students must select a half-serving of
fruits or vegetables with a reimbursable meal.fruits or vegetables with a reimbursable meal.9 Similarly, the nutrition standards for competitive Similarly, the nutrition standards for competitive
foods limited calories, sodium, and fat in foods sold outside of meals, among other foods limited calories, sodium, and fat in foods sold outside of meals, among other
requirements.requirements.109 The standards applied only to non-meal foods and beverages sold The standards applied only to non-meal foods and beverages sold during the
school day (defined as midnight until 30 minutes after dismissal) and include some exceptions for (defined as midnight until 30 minutes after dismissal) and include some exceptions for
fundraisers.fundraisers.
Implementation and Changes
The meal standards began phasing in during school year (SY) 2012-2013, and the competitive The meal standards began phasing in during school year (SY) 2012-2013, and the competitive
foods standards took effect in SY2014-2015.foods standards took effect in SY2014-2015.1110 However, sodium limits and certain whole grain However, sodium limits and certain whole grain
requirements for school meals were scheduled to phase in over multiple school years.requirements for school meals were scheduled to phase in over multiple school years.1211 Some Some
schools experienced challenges implementing the changes, reporting difficulty obtaining whole
4 Section 201 and Section 208 of P.L. 111-296.
5 See, for example, Nia-Malika Henderson, “President Obama signs child nutrition bill, a priority for first lady,”
Washington Post, December 13, 2010, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/13/
AR2010121302407.html; archived White House website, “Let’s Move, Healthy Schools,”
https://letsmove.obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/healthy-schools.
6 USDA-FNS, “Nutrition Standards in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs,” 77 Federal
Register 17, January 26, 2012, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2012/01/26/2012-1010/nutrition-standards-
in-the-national-school-lunch-and-school-breakfast-programs; USDA-FNS, “National School Lunch Program and
School Breakfast Program: Nutrition Standards for All Foods Sold in School as Required by the Healthy, Hunger-Free
Kids Act of 2010; Final Rule,” 81 Federal Register 50131, July 29, 2016, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/
2016/07/29/2016-17227/national-school-lunch-program-and-school-breakfast-program-nutrition-standards-for-all-
foods-sold-in. For current nutritional requirements, see 7 C.F.R. 210.10 for the NSLP and 7 C.F.R. 220.8 for the SBP.
7 Section 201, Section 208, and Section 441 of P.L. 111-296.
8 See USDA-FNS, Comparison of Previous and New Regulatory Requirements, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/
default/files/cn/comparison.pdf.
9 This is commonly known as the “offer versus serve” requirement because it can result in schools having to serve,
rather than offer, a half-serving of fruits or vegetables to high school students.
10 Related information is available at the USDA-FNS website: https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/tools-schools-
focusing-smart-snacks.
11 For the original implementation schedule based on the January 2012 final rule, see USDA-FNS, Implementation
Timeline, http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/implementation_timeline.pdf. Most of the lunch requirements
took effect in SY2012-2013, while most breakfast requirements took effect in SY2013-2014.
12 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
R45486 · VERSION 1 · NEW
3
Child Nutrition Programs: Current Issues
schools experienced challenges implementing the changes, reporting difficulty obtaining whole grain and low-sodium products, issues with student acceptance of foods, reduced participation, grain and low-sodium products, issues with student acceptance of foods, reduced participation,
increased costs, and increased food waste. These accounts were shared in news stories and by the increased costs, and increased food waste. These accounts were shared in news stories and by the
School Nutrition Association (SNA), a national, nonprofit professional and advocacy organization School Nutrition Association (SNA), a national, nonprofit professional and advocacy organization
representing school nutrition professionals.representing school nutrition professionals.1312 Studies by the U.S. Government Accountability Studies by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office and USDA confirmed that many of these issues were present in SY2012-2013 and Office and USDA confirmed that many of these issues were present in SY2012-2013 and
SY2013-2014, the first two years of implementation.SY2013-2014, the first two years of implementation.1413 SNA advocated for certain changes to the SNA advocated for certain changes to the
standards, while other groups called for maintaining the standards, arguing that they were standards, while other groups called for maintaining the standards, arguing that they were
necessary for childrennecessary for children’'s health and that implementation challenges were easing with time.s health and that implementation challenges were easing with time.15
14
In January 2014, USDA removed weekly limits on grains and protein.In January 2014, USDA removed weekly limits on grains and protein.1615 Then, in the FY2015, Then, in the FY2015,
FY2016, and FY2017 appropriations laws, Congress enacted provisions that loosened the milk, FY2016, and FY2017 appropriations laws, Congress enacted provisions that loosened the milk,
whole grain, and/or sodium requirements from SY2015-2016 through SY2017-2018.whole grain, and/or sodium requirements from SY2015-2016 through SY2017-2018.1716 USDA USDA
implemented similar changes for SY2018-2019 in an interim final rule.implemented similar changes for SY2018-2019 in an interim final rule.1817 In December 2018, In December 2018,
USDA published a final rule that indefinitely changes these three aspects of the standards starting USDA published a final rule that indefinitely changes these three aspects of the standards starting
in SY2019-2020.in SY2019-2020.1918 Specifically, the rule Specifically, the rule
allows all SFAs to offer flavored, low-fat (1%) milk as part of school meals and allows all SFAs to offer flavored, low-fat (1%) milk as part of school meals and
as beverages sold in schools,as beverages sold in schools,2019 and requires unflavored milk to be offered and requires unflavored milk to be offered
alongside flavored milk in school meals;
13 For examples of news coverage, see B. Wood, Students, parents, educators displeased with new school lunch
standards, Deseret News, September 27, 2012, https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865563339/Students-parents-
educators-displeased-with-new-school-lunch-standards.html; and L. Lopez, “We're Still Hungry!” Student Lunches
Leave Stomachs Rumbling, NBCLA, September 26, 2012, https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Los-Angeles-
Unified-School-District-LAUSD-Nutrition-School-Lunch-No-Kid-Hungry-171439851.html. Also see School Nutrition
Association, Stories from the Frontlines: School Cafeteria Professionals Discuss Challenges with New Standards, May
28, 2014, https://schoolnutrition.org/5—News-and-Publications/2—Press-Releases/Press-Releases/Stories-from-the-
Frontlines—School-Cafeteria-Professionals-Discuss-Challenges-with-New-Standards/.
14 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Implementing Nutrition Changes Was Challenging and
Clarification of Oversight Requirements Is Needed, January 2014, https://www.gao.gov/assets/670/660427.pdf;
Standing et al., Special Nutrition Program Operations Study: State and School Food Authority Policies and Practices
for School Meals Programs School Year 2012-13, prepared by Westat for USDA-FNS, October 2016; J. Murdoch et
al., Special Nutrition Program Operations Study, SY 2013-14 Report, prepared by 2M Research Services, 2016; GAO,
USDA Has Efforts Underway to Help Address Ongoing Challenges Implementing Changes in Nutrition Standards,
September 2015, https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/672477.pdf. Numerous studies have examined the efficacy of the
nutrition standards in these and more recent school years in terms of a number of programmatic outcomes, including
participation rates, food waste, and nutritional quality. It is beyond the scope of this report to review this entire body of
literature.
15 For example, see School Nutrition Association, 2014 Position Paper on Federal Child Nutrition Programs,
https://schoolnutrition.org/uploadedFiles/Legislation_and_Policy/SNA_Policy_Resources/SNA2014PositionPaper.pdf;
and archived USDA-FNS webpage, Support for Healthy Meals Standards Continues to Grow, May 2014,
https://www.fns.usda.gov/pressrelease/2014/012714.
16 USDA-FNS, “Certification of Compliance With Meal Requirements for the National School Lunch Program Under
the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010,” 79 Federal Register 325, January 3, 2014,
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/01/03/2013-31433/certification-of-compliance-with-meal-
requirements-for-the-national-school-lunch-program-under-the.
17 P.L. 113-235, P.L. 114-113, and P.L. 115-31.
18 USDA-FNS, “Child Nutrition Programs: Flexibilities for Milk, Whole Grains, and Sodium Requirements; Interim
Final Rule,” 82 Federal Register 56703, November 30, 2017, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/11/30/
2017-25799/child-nutrition-programs-flexibilities-for-milk-whole-grains-and-sodium-requirements.
19 USDA-FNS, “Child Nutrition Programs: Flexibilities for Milk, Whole Grains, and Sodium Requirements: Final
Rule,” 83 Federal Register 63775, December 12, 2018, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/12/12/2018-
26762/child-nutrition-programs-flexibilities-for-milk-whole-grains-and-sodium-requirements.
20 The final rule also allows flavored, low-fat milk to be served to children ages six and older in CACFP and SMP.
Congressional Research Service
R45486 · VERSION 1 · NEW
4
link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 9 Child Nutrition Programs: Current Issues
alongside flavored milk in school meals;
requires SFAs to adhere to a 50% whole grain-rich requirement (the original requires SFAs to adhere to a 50% whole grain-rich requirement (the original
regulations required 100% whole grain-rich starting in SY2014-2015);regulations required 100% whole grain-rich starting in SY2014-2015);2120 states states
may make exemptions to allow SFAs to offer may make exemptions to allow SFAs to offernon-wholenonwhole grain-rich products; and grain-rich products; and
maintains Target 1 sodium limits from SY2019-2020 through SY2023-2024, maintains Target 1 sodium limits from SY2019-2020 through SY2023-2024,
implements Target 2 limits starting in SY2024-2025 and thereafter, and implements Target 2 limits starting in SY2024-2025 and thereafter, and
eliminates Target 3 limits (the strictest target).eliminates Target 3 limits (the strictest target).22
21Table 2 provides a timeline from the 2012 final rule to the 2018 final rule, showing the ways in provides a timeline from the 2012 final rule to the 2018 final rule, showing the ways in
which milk, whole grain, and sodium requirements have been modified over time. Apart from which milk, whole grain, and sodium requirements have been modified over time. Apart from
these changes, the nutrition standards for school meals remain largely intact. The changes to the these changes, the nutrition standards for school meals remain largely intact. The changes to the
milk requirements also affect other beverages sold in schools; otherwise, the nutrition standards milk requirements also affect other beverages sold in schools; otherwise, the nutrition standards
for competitive foods have not been changed substantially.for competitive foods have not been changed substantially.
Table 2. Legislative and Regulatory Changes to the Milk, Whole Grain, and Sodium
Requirements for School Meals (2012-2018)
Policy Provision
Milk
Whole Grains
Sodium
USDA-FNS January 2012
Required flavored milk to
Required 50% of grains to
Created maximum weekly
final rulea
be fat-free and unflavored
be whole-grain rich by
levels of sodium for
milk to be low-fat (1%) or
SY2012-2013 for lunches
breakfasts and lunches
fat-free by SY2012-2013.
and by SY2013-2014 for
based on a student’s grade
breakfasts; required 100%
level. Scheduled Target 1
whole grain-rich by
limits for SY2014-2015,
SY2014-2015.
Requirements for School Meals (2012-2018)
USDA-FNS January 2012 final rulea
Created maximum weekly levels of sodium for breakfasts and lunches based on a student's grade level. Scheduled Target 1 limits for SY2014-2015, Target 2 limits for Target 2 limits for
SY2017-2018, and Target SY2017-2018, and Target
3 limits for SY2022-2023.3 limits for SY2022-2023.
FY2015 appropriation
n/a
Required USDA to allow
Postponed reductions in
FY2015 appropriation (§§751 and 752 of (§§751 and 752 of P.L. 113-235)
Required USDA to allow states to exempt SFAs demonstrating hardship from the 100% whole grain requirement from December 2014 through P.L.
states to exempt SFAs
sodium below Target 1
113-235)
demonstrating hardship
indefinitely (“until the
from the 100% whole
latest scientific research
grain requirement from
establishes the reduction
December 2014 through
is beneficial for children”).
SY2015-2016. Exempted SY2015-2016. Exempted
SFAs must comply with SFAs must comply with
the 50% requirement.the 50% requirement.
FY2016 appropriation
n/a
Extended exemptions
Same language as FY2015.
FY2016 appropriation (§733 of (§733 of P.L. 114-113)
FY2017 appropriation P.L. 114-113)
through SY2016-2017.
FY2017 appropriation
Required USDA to allow
Extended exemptions
Retained Target 1 through
(§747 of (§747 of P.L. 115-31)
Required USDA to allow states to grant hardship-P.L. 115-31)
states to grant hardship-
through SY2017-2018.
SY2017-2018.
based exemptions to SFAs based exemptions to SFAs
to offer flavored low-fat to offer flavored low-fat
(1%) milk from May 2017 (1%) milk from May 2017
through SY2017-2018.
USDA-FNS November
Allowed all SFAs to offer
Extended exemptions
Retained Target 1 through
2017 interim final ruleb
through SY2017-2018.
USDA-FNS November 2017 interim final ruleb
Allowed all SFAs to offer flavored low-fat (1%) milk inflavored low-fat (1%) milk
through SY2018-2019.
SY2018-2019.
in SY2018-2019.
21 USDA-FNS, Grain Requirements for the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program, SP 30-
2012, April 26, 2012, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/cn/SP30-2012os.pdf. “Whole grain-rich”
products must contain at least 50% whole-grains, and the remaining grain, if any, must be enriched.
22 The sodium targets set incrementally stricter weekly caps on sodium in school meals based on a student’s grade
level. The standards included three incrementally stricter targets that were to phase in over time (Target 1, Target 2, and
Target 3). For example, for high school students, school lunches must contain ≤1,420 milligrams (mg) of sodium under
Target 1, ≤1,080 mg under Target 2, and ≤740 mg under Target 3, on average over the school week.
Congressional Research Service
R45486 · VERSION 1 · NEW
5
link to page 9 Child Nutrition Programs: Current Issues
Policy Provision
Milk
Whole Grains
Sodium
USDA-FNS December
Allows all SFAs to offer
Institutes 50% whole grain Retains Target 1 in
2018 final rulec
flavored low-fat (1%) milk
requirement for all SFAs
SY2019-2020 through
in SY2019-2020 and
starting SY2018-2019.
USDA-FNS December 2018 final rulec
Retains Target 1 in SY2019-2020 through in SY2019-2020
SY2023-2024, implements
thereafter.
and thereafter. Allows
Target 2 starting in
states to grant
SY2024-2025 and
exemptions to SFAs to
thereafter, and eliminates
offer grains that are not
Target 3.
whole-grain rich.
SY2023-2024, implements Target 2 starting in SY2024-2025 and thereafter, and eliminates Target 3.
Source: Compiled by CRS.Compiled by CRS.
Notes: n/a indicates that the law did not include pertinent content. The FY2017 appropriation was enacted n/a indicates that the law did not include pertinent content. The FY2017 appropriation was enacted
shortly after the November 2017 interim final rule but is presented before it in this table because of the school shortly after the November 2017 interim final rule but is presented before it in this table because of the school
years that each policy affected. Not shown are (1) the FY2012 appropriations act, which retained Target 1 years that each policy affected. Not shown are (1) the FY2012 appropriations act, which retained Target 1
indefinitely and prohibited the establishment of any whole grain requirements that did not define indefinitely and prohibited the establishment of any whole grain requirements that did not define “"whole grain,whole grain,”
" and (2) USDA guidance and regulations that lifted weekly maximums on whole grains starting in 2012.and (2) USDA guidance and regulations that lifted weekly maximums on whole grains starting in 2012.
a.
a. USDA-FNS, USDA-FNS, “"Nutrition Standards in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs,Nutrition Standards in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs,”" 77 77 Federal
Register 17, January 26, 2012, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2012/01/26/2012-1010/nutrition- 17, January 26, 2012, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2012/01/26/2012-1010/nutrition-
standards-in-the-national-school-lunch-and-school-breakfast-programsstandards-in-the-national-school-lunch-and-school-breakfast-programs.
b. .
b. USDA-FNS, USDA-FNS, “"Child Nutrition Programs: Flexibilities for Milk, Whole Grains, and Sodium Requirements; Child Nutrition Programs: Flexibilities for Milk, Whole Grains, and Sodium Requirements;
Interim Final Rule,Interim Final Rule,”" 82 82 Federal Register 56703, November 30, 2017, https://www.federalregister.gov/56703, November 30, 2017, https://www.federalregister.gov/
documents/2017/11/30/2017-25799/child-nutrition-programs-flexibilities-for-milk-whole-grains-and-sodium-documents/2017/11/30/2017-25799/child-nutrition-programs-flexibilities-for-milk-whole-grains-and-sodium-
requirements.
c. USDA-FNS, “requirements.
c. USDA-FNS, "Child Nutrition Programs: Flexibilities for Milk, Whole Grains, and Sodium Requirements: Child Nutrition Programs: Flexibilities for Milk, Whole Grains, and Sodium Requirements:
Final Rule,Final Rule,”" 83 83 Federal Register 63775, December 12, 2018, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/63775, December 12, 2018, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/
12/12/2018-26762/child-nutrition-programs-flexibilities-for-milk-whole-grains-and-sodium-requirements12/12/2018-26762/child-nutrition-programs-flexibilities-for-milk-whole-grains-and-sodium-requirements.
.
Other Proposals
Legislative proposals related to the nutrition standards were considered in the Legislative proposals related to the nutrition standards were considered in the 115th 115th Congress. For Congress. For
example, the House-passed version of 2018 farm bill (one version of H.R. 2) would have required example, the House-passed version of 2018 farm bill (one version of H.R. 2) would have required
USDA to review and revise the nutrition standards for school meals and competitive foods. USDA to review and revise the nutrition standards for school meals and competitive foods.
According to the bill, the revisions would have had to ensure that the standards, particularly those According to the bill, the revisions would have had to ensure that the standards, particularly those
related to milk, related to milk,“"(1) are based on research based on school-age children; (2) do not add costs in (1) are based on research based on school-age children; (2) do not add costs in
addition to the reimbursements required to carry out the school lunch program … and (3) addition to the reimbursements required to carry out the school lunch program … and (3)
maintain healthy meals for students.maintain healthy meals for students.”23"22 This provision was not included in the enacted bill. This provision was not included in the enacted bill.
Child nutrition reauthorization proposals in the House and Senate during the Child nutrition reauthorization proposals in the House and Senate during the 114th114th Congress also Congress also
would have altered the nutrition standards. The House committeewould have altered the nutrition standards. The House committee’'s proposal (H.R. 5003) would s proposal (H.R. 5003) would
have required USDA to review the school meal standards at least once every three years and have required USDA to review the school meal standards at least once every three years and
revise them as necessary, following certain criteria.revise them as necessary, following certain criteria.2423 In addition, under the proposal, fundraisers In addition, under the proposal, fundraisers
by student groups/organizations would no longer have had to meet the competitive food standards by student groups/organizations would no longer have had to meet the competitive food standards
and any foods served as part of a federally reimbursable meal would have been allowed to be sold and any foods served as part of a federally reimbursable meal would have been allowed to be sold
a la carte.a la carte.2524 The Senate committee The Senate committee’'s proposal (S. 3136) would have required USDA to revise the s proposal (S. 3136) would have required USDA to revise the
whole grain and sodium requirements for school meals within 90 days after enactment. Although whole grain and sodium requirements for school meals within 90 days after enactment. Although
not included in the proposal itself, negotiations between the Senate committee, the White House, not included in the proposal itself, negotiations between the Senate committee, the White House,
23 Section 4205 of H.R. 2 (as engrossed in the House on June 21, 2018).
24 The Secretary of Agriculture, with consultation from school stakeholders, would have been required to certify that
certain requirements were met, including that the regulations were age-appropriate, did not increase the costs of
implementing the school meals programs, and did not discourage students from participating in the school meals
programs.
25 For more information, see CRS Report R44373, Tracking the Next Child Nutrition Reauthorization: An Overview.
Congressional Research Service
R45486 · VERSION 1 · NEW
6
Child Nutrition Programs: Current Issues
USDA, and the School Nutrition Association resulted in an agreement that these revisions, if USDA, and the School Nutrition Association resulted in an agreement that these revisions, if
enacted, would have reduced the 100% whole grain-rich requirement to 80% and delayed the enacted, would have reduced the 100% whole grain-rich requirement to 80% and delayed the
Target 2 sodium requirement for two years.Target 2 sodium requirement for two years.26
“Fresh”25
"Fresh" in the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP)
Under current law, fruit and vegetable snacks served in FFVP must be fresh.Under current law, fruit and vegetable snacks served in FFVP must be fresh.2726 According to According to
USDA guidance, fresh refers to foods USDA guidance, fresh refers to foods“"in their natural state and without additives.in their natural state and without additives.”28"27 In recent In recent
years, some have advocated for the inclusion of frozen, dried, canned, and other types of fruits years, some have advocated for the inclusion of frozen, dried, canned, and other types of fruits
and vegetables in the program, while others have advocated for continuing to maintain only fresh and vegetables in the program, while others have advocated for continuing to maintain only fresh
products.products.2928 Stakeholders on both sides include agricultural producers and processors. Stakeholders on both sides include agricultural producers and processors.
The 2014 farm bill (Section 4214 of P.L. 113-79) funded a pilot project that incorporated canned, The 2014 farm bill (Section 4214 of P.L. 113-79) funded a pilot project that incorporated canned,
dried, and frozen (CDF) fruits and vegetables in FFVP in a limited number of states. USDA dried, and frozen (CDF) fruits and vegetables in FFVP in a limited number of states. USDA
selected schools in four states (Alaska, Delaware, Kansas, and Maine) that reported difficulty selected schools in four states (Alaska, Delaware, Kansas, and Maine) that reported difficulty
obtaining, storing, and/or preparing fresh fruits and vegetables. According to the final (2017) obtaining, storing, and/or preparing fresh fruits and vegetables. According to the final (2017)
evaluation, 56% of the pilot schools chose to incorporate CDF fruits and vegetables during an evaluation, 56% of the pilot schools chose to incorporate CDF fruits and vegetables during an
average week of the demonstration.average week of the demonstration.3029 Schools most often introduced dried and canned fruits, Schools most often introduced dried and canned fruits,
which resulted in decreased vegetable offerings and increased fruit offerings in the FFVP. which resulted in decreased vegetable offerings and increased fruit offerings in the FFVP.
However, there was no significant impact on studentsHowever, there was no significant impact on students’' vegetable consumption, while fruit vegetable consumption, while fruit
consumption declined on FFVP snack days (likely because students consumed a smaller quantity consumption declined on FFVP snack days (likely because students consumed a smaller quantity
of fruit when it was dried or canned). There was also no significant impact on student of fruit when it was dried or canned). There was also no significant impact on student
participation. Student satisfaction with FFVP decreased slightly during the pilot, parentsparticipation. Student satisfaction with FFVP decreased slightly during the pilot, parents’
' responses to the pilot were mixed, and school administrators (who opted into the pilot) generally responses to the pilot were mixed, and school administrators (who opted into the pilot) generally
favored the changes.favored the changes.
Legislative proposals to change FFVP offerings on a more permanent basis have also been Legislative proposals to change FFVP offerings on a more permanent basis have also been
considered. For example, in the considered. For example, in the115th115th Congress, the House version of H.R. 2 would have allowed Congress, the House version of H.R. 2 would have allowed
CDF and puréed forms of fruits and vegetables in FFVP and removed CDF and puréed forms of fruits and vegetables in FFVP and removed“fresh”"fresh" from the program from the program
name. This provision was not included in the enacted bill. In the name. This provision was not included in the enacted bill. In the114th114th Congress, child nutrition Congress, child nutrition
reauthorization legislation in the House (H.R. 5003) included a similar proposal to allow reauthorization legislation in the House (H.R. 5003) included a similar proposal to allow
participating schools to serve participating schools to serve“"all formsall forms”" of fruits and vegetables as well as tree nuts. The Senate of fruits and vegetables as well as tree nuts. The Senate
committee’committee's proposal (S. 3136) would have provided temporary hardship exemptions for schools s proposal (S. 3136) would have provided temporary hardship exemptions for schools
with limited storage and preparation facilities or limited access to fresh fruits and vegetables that with limited storage and preparation facilities or limited access to fresh fruits and vegetables that
would have allowed them to serve CDF fruits and vegetables in FFVP. Such schools would have would have allowed them to serve CDF fruits and vegetables in FFVP. Such schools would have
to transition to 100% fresh products over time.
26 The SNA posted a January 15, 2016, statement of the terms of the agreement at https://schoolnutrition.org/News/
AgreementReachedOnSchoolNutritionStandards/. The terms were also discussed in a colloquy between Ranking
Member Debbie Stabenow and Senator John Hoeven during the committee’s markup.
27 Section 19 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1769a).
28 USDA-FNS, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program: A Handbook for Schools, December 2010, p. 15, https://fns-
prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/handbook.pdf.
29 American Frozen Food Institute, House Support Expansion Letter of FFVP in CNR, April 7, 2016,
http://www.affi.org/assets/resources/public/house-support-letter-expansion-of-ffvp-in-cnr-april-2016_2.pdf; United
Fresh, National Produce Leaders FFVP Letter to House, April 21, 2016, https://www.unitedfresh.org/content/uploads/
2016/05/National-Produce-Leaders-FFVP-Letter-to-House.pdf.
30 USDA-FNS, Evaluation of the Pilot Project for Canned, Frozen, or Dried Fruits and Vegetables in the Fresh Fruit
and Vegetable Program (FFVP-CFD): Volume I: Report, prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, January 2017,
https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/ops/FFVP-CFD.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
R45486 · VERSION 1 · NEW
7
Child Nutrition Programs: Current Issues
“Buy American”to transition to 100% fresh products over time.
"Buy American" in School Meals Programs
Schools participating in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and/or School Breakfast Schools participating in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and/or School Breakfast
Program (SBP) must comply with federal requirements related to sourcing foods domestically. Program (SBP) must comply with federal requirements related to sourcing foods domestically.
These requirements are outlined in the school meals programsThese requirements are outlined in the school meals programs’' authorizing laws and clarified in authorizing laws and clarified in
USDA guidance.USDA guidance.
Under the Buy American requirements, schools participating in the NSLP and/or SBP in the 48 Under the Buy American requirements, schools participating in the NSLP and/or SBP in the 48
contiguous states must purchase contiguous states must purchase“"domestic commodities or products … to the maximum extent domestic commodities or products … to the maximum extent
practicable.practicable.”31"30 Statute defines Statute defines “"domestic commodities or productsdomestic commodities or products”" as those that are both as those that are both
produced and processed substantially in the United States. Accompanying conference report produced and processed substantially in the United States. Accompanying conference report
language elaborated that language elaborated that“"processed substantiallyprocessed substantially”" means the product is processed in the United means the product is processed in the United
States and contains over 51% domestically grown ingredients, and this definition is also included States and contains over 51% domestically grown ingredients, and this definition is also included
in USDA guidance (discussed below).in USDA guidance (discussed below).3231 USDA regulations essentially restate the statutory USDA regulations essentially restate the statutory
requirement.requirement.33
32
USDA has issued guidance on how SFAs and state agencies should implement the Buy American USDA has issued guidance on how SFAs and state agencies should implement the Buy American
requirements. The most recent guidance (as of the date of this report) was published in a June requirements. The most recent guidance (as of the date of this report) was published in a June
2017 memorandum.2017 memorandum.3433 According to USDA-FNS guidance, the Buy American requirements apply According to USDA-FNS guidance, the Buy American requirements apply
to any foods purchased with funds from the nonprofit school food service account, whether or not to any foods purchased with funds from the nonprofit school food service account, whether or not
they are federal funds (childrenthey are federal funds (children’'s paid lunch fees, for example, also go into the nonprofit school s paid lunch fees, for example, also go into the nonprofit school
food service account).food service account).3534 The guidance encourages SFAs to integrate Buy American into their The guidance encourages SFAs to integrate Buy American into their
procurement processes; for example, by monitoring the USDA catalog for appropriate products procurement processes; for example, by monitoring the USDA catalog for appropriate products
and placing Buy American language in solicitations, contracts, and other procurement documents. and placing Buy American language in solicitations, contracts, and other procurement documents.
The guidance explains that SFAs are permitted to make exceptions to the Buy American The guidance explains that SFAs are permitted to make exceptions to the Buy American
requirements on a limited basis when a product requirements on a limited basis when a product“"is not produced or manufactured in the U.S. in is not produced or manufactured in the U.S. in
sufficient and reasonably available quantities of a satisfactory qualitysufficient and reasonably available quantities of a satisfactory quality”" or when or when “"competitive bids competitive bids
reveal the costs of a U.S. product are significantly higher than the non-domestic product.reveal the costs of a U.S. product are significantly higher than the non-domestic product.”36"35 SFAs SFAs
must interpret when this is the case and document any exceptions they make. SFAs may also must interpret when this is the case and document any exceptions they make. SFAs may also
request a waiver from the requirements for a product that does not meet these criteria. State request a waiver from the requirements for a product that does not meet these criteria. State
agencies must review SFAsagencies must review SFAs’' compliance with the Buy American requirements, including any compliance with the Buy American requirements, including any
exceptions an SFA has made, and take corrective action when necessary.exceptions an SFA has made, and take corrective action when necessary.
The enacted 2018 farm bill (Section 4207 of P.L. 115-334) included a provision requiring USDA The enacted 2018 farm bill (Section 4207 of P.L. 115-334) included a provision requiring USDA
to to“"enforce full complianceenforce full compliance”" with the Buy American requirements and with the Buy American requirements and “"ensure that States and ensure that States and
school food authorities fully understand their responsibilitiesschool food authorities fully understand their responsibilities”" within 180 days of enactment. In within 180 days of enactment. In
addition, the bill requires USDA to submit a report to Congress by the 180-day deadline on addition, the bill requires USDA to submit a report to Congress by the 180-day deadline on
actions taken and plans to comply with the provision. The provision clarifies the definition of
31 Section 12(n) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1760(n)). Alaska is exempt and
Hawaii and Puerto Rico are subject to separate but related requirements.
32 U.S. Congress, Conference Committee, William F. Goodling Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act of 1998,
conference report to accompany H.R. 3874, 105th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 105-786 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1998), p.
38. According to USDA guidance, more than 51% means that more than 51% of a product’s “food components,” as
defined in 7 C.F.R. 210.2 (meats/meat alternatives, grains, vegetables, fruits, and fluid milk) and as measured by
weight or volume must be domestically grown in the United States or U.S. territories.
33 7 C.F.R. 210.21 and 7 C.F.R. 220.16.
34 USDA-FNS, Compliance with and Enforcement of the Buy American Provision in the National School Lunch
Program, SP 38-2017, June 30, 2017, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/cn/SP38-2017os.pdf.
35 Ibid.
36 Ibid, p. 3.
Congressional Research Service
R45486 · VERSION 1 · NEW
8
Child Nutrition Programs: Current Issues
actions taken and plans to comply with the provision. The provision clarifies the definition of domestic products for the purposes of USDAdomestic products for the purposes of USDA’'s enforcement, stating that domestic products are s enforcement, stating that domestic products are
those that are those that are“"processed in the United States and substantially contain … meats, vegetables, processed in the United States and substantially contain … meats, vegetables,
fruits, and other agricultural commoditiesfruits, and other agricultural commodities”" produced in the United States, the District of produced in the United States, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the United States, or Columbia, Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the United States, or“"fish harvestedfish harvested”" in in
the Exclusive Economic Zone or by a U.S.-flagged vessel. The provision in the enacted bill the Exclusive Economic Zone or by a U.S.-flagged vessel. The provision in the enacted bill
amended a related provision in the Senate-passed version of the farm bill.amended a related provision in the Senate-passed version of the farm bill.37
36
Proponents of stricter requirements have cited economic and food safety reasons for domestic Proponents of stricter requirements have cited economic and food safety reasons for domestic
sourcing and expressed particular concern over sourcing from China.sourcing and expressed particular concern over sourcing from China.3837 Others have argued for Others have argued for
maintaining or increasing schoolsmaintaining or increasing schools’' discretion in food procurement, arguing that high-quality discretion in food procurement, arguing that high-quality
domestic options are not always available or cost-effective.domestic options are not always available or cost-effective.39
38
Alternatives to Congregate Feeding in Summer Meals
Under current law, summer meals are generally provided in Under current law, summer meals are generally provided in“congregate”"congregate" or group settings where or group settings where
children come to eat while supervised. These meals are provided through the Summer Food children come to eat while supervised. These meals are provided through the Summer Food
Service Program (SFSP) and the National School Lunch ProgramService Program (SFSP) and the National School Lunch Program’'s Summer Seamless Option s Summer Seamless Option
(SSO).(SSO).4039 In recent years, policymakers have weighed different proposals and tested alternatives to In recent years, policymakers have weighed different proposals and tested alternatives to
congregate meals in SFSP and SSO. Some of these alternatives focus on rural areas, which may congregate meals in SFSP and SSO. Some of these alternatives focus on rural areas, which may
face particular barriers to onsite consumption of summer meals. According to a May 2018 study face particular barriers to onsite consumption of summer meals. According to a May 2018 study
by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, states commonly reported that reaching children by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, states commonly reported that reaching children
in rural areas was in rural areas was“very” or “extremely”"very" or "extremely" challenging in SFSP. challenging in SFSP.41
40
Summer EBT Demonstration
The 2010 Agriculture Appropriations Act (Section 749(g) of P.L. 111-80) provided $85 million in The 2010 Agriculture Appropriations Act (Section 749(g) of P.L. 111-80) provided $85 million in
discretionary funding for discretionary funding for“"demonstration projects to develop and test methods of providing access demonstration projects to develop and test methods of providing access
to food for children in urban and rural areas during the summer months.to food for children in urban and rural areas during the summer months.”" One of these is the One of these is the
Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer for Children (SEBTC or Summer EBT) project, which began Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer for Children (SEBTC or Summer EBT) project, which began
in summer 2011 and has continued each summer since (as of the date of this report) in a limited in summer 2011 and has continued each summer since (as of the date of this report) in a limited
number of states and Indian Tribal Organizations.number of states and Indian Tribal Organizations.4241 The project provides electronic food benefits The project provides electronic food benefits
to households with children eligible for free or reduced-price school meals. Depending on the site to households with children eligible for free or reduced-price school meals. Depending on the site
and year, either $30 or $60 per month is provided on an electronic benefits transfer (EBT) card and year, either $30 or $60 per month is provided on an electronic benefits transfer (EBT) card
for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) or
37 Section 12622 of H.R. 2 (as passed in the Senate on June 28, 2018).
38 See, for example, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives et al., Enforcement of Buy American Provision Letter,
December 2015, http://ncfc.org/letter/enforcement-of-buy-american-provision/; Murphy.senate.gov, Murphy, Feinstein,
Boxer Call On Schools to Buy American & Support Local Farmers, https://www.murphy.senate.gov/newsroom/press-
releases/murphy-feinstein-boxer-call-on-schools-to-buy-american-and-support-local-farmers; Lamalfa.house.gov,
LaMalfa and Garamendi Introduce the “American Food for American Schools” Act, March 1, 2017,
https://lamalfa.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/lamalfa-and-garamendi-introduce-the-american-food-for-
american-schools.
39 H. Bottemiller Evich, USDA’s enforcement of ‘Buy American’ regulations strains school-meal programs,
PoliticoPro, March 5, 2018.
40 To learn more about these programs, see CRS Report R43783, School Meals Programs and Other USDA Child
Nutrition Programs: A Primer.
41 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Summer Meals: Actions Needed to Improve Participation Estimates
and Address Program Challenges, May 2018, pp. 23-30, https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/692193.pdf.
42 USDA-FNS, Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer for Children (SEBTC), https://www.fns.usda.gov/ops/summer-
electronic-benefit-transfer-children-sebtc.
Congressional Research Service
R45486 · VERSION 1 · NEW
9
link to page 14 Child Nutrition Programs: Current Issues
for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Participants in jurisdictions providing Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Participants in jurisdictions providing
benefits through SNAP can redeem benefits for SNAP-eligible foods at any SNAP-authorized benefits through SNAP can redeem benefits for SNAP-eligible foods at any SNAP-authorized
retailer, while participants in the WIC EBT jurisdictions are limited to the smaller set of WIC-retailer, while participants in the WIC EBT jurisdictions are limited to the smaller set of WIC-
eligible foods at WIC-authorized retailers.eligible foods at WIC-authorized retailers.43
42
An evaluation of Summer EBT was conducted from FY2011 through FY2013.An evaluation of Summer EBT was conducted from FY2011 through FY2013.4443 The study, which The study, which
used a random assignment design, found a significant decline in the prevalence of very low food used a random assignment design, found a significant decline in the prevalence of very low food
security among participants (9.5% of control group children experienced very low food security security among participants (9.5% of control group children experienced very low food security
compared to 6.4% in the Summer EBT group).compared to 6.4% in the Summer EBT group).4544 It also showed improvements in children It also showed improvements in children’s
's consumption of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. Both the WIC and SNAP models showed consumption of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. Both the WIC and SNAP models showed
increased consumption, but increases were greater at sites operating the WIC model.increased consumption, but increases were greater at sites operating the WIC model.46
45
Congress has provided subsequent funding for Summer EBT projects (Congress has provided subsequent funding for Summer EBT projects (seesee Table 3). Most . Most
recently, the recently, theFY2018 appropriations act (P.L. 115-141third FY2019 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 116-6) provided $28 million for the Summer EBT ) provided $28 million for the Summer EBT
demonstration. Awardees for summer 2017 were Connecticut, Delaware, Michigan, Missouri, demonstration. Awardees for summer 2017 were Connecticut, Delaware, Michigan, Missouri,
Nevada, Oregon, Virginia, and the Chickasaw and Cherokee nations.Nevada, Oregon, Virginia, and the Chickasaw and Cherokee nations.4746 For summer 2018, USDA For summer 2018, USDA
also awarded grants to Tennessee and Texas.also awarded grants to Tennessee and Texas.4847 Many of these jurisdictions participated in Summer Many of these jurisdictions participated in Summer
EBT in previous summers as well. In October 2018, USDA-FNS announced a new strategy for EBT in previous summers as well. In October 2018, USDA-FNS announced a new strategy for
determining grant recipients in FY2019, stating that the agency will prioritize new states that determining grant recipients in FY2019, stating that the agency will prioritize new states that
have not participated before, statewide projects, and projects that can operate in the summers of have not participated before, statewide projects, and projects that can operate in the summers of
2019 through 2021.2019 through 2021.49
48
There were proposals in the There were proposals in the 114th and 115th114th and 115th Congresses to expand Summer EBT. For example, the Congresses to expand Summer EBT. For example, the
Senate committeeSenate committee’'s child nutrition reauthorization proposal in the s child nutrition reauthorization proposal in the 114th114th Congress (S. 3136) would Congress (S. 3136) would
have allowed a portion of SFSPhave allowed a portion of SFSP’'s mandatory funding to cover Summer EBT and authorized up to s mandatory funding to cover Summer EBT and authorized up to
$50 million in discretionary funding for the program. In addition, in its FY2017 budget proposal,
43 Collins et al., Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer for Children (SEBTC) Demonstration: Summary Report, prepared
by Abt Associates Inc. for USDA-FNS, May 2016, p.5, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/ops/
sebtcfinalreport.pdf. Also see USDA-FNS, WIC Food Packages - Regulatory Requirements for WIC-Eligible Foods,
April 2018, https://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/wic-food-packages-regulatory-requirements-wic-eligible-foods.
44 The first year—the proof-of-concept year—was evaluated to test the feasibility of the EBT delivery system and to
prepare for full implementation in demonstration sites for the following year. The second year—the full
implementation year—evaluated the impact of SEBTC on improving children’s food security and nutritional status in
the summer time. Finally, the third year compared the impact of two benefit levels, $60 and $30, to determine the effect
of different benefit levels on improving food security and nutritional status. Final reports and status reports to Congress
are available on the USDA-FNS website, http://www.fns.usda.gov/ops/summer-electronic-benefit-transfer-children-
sebtc.
45 Collins et al., Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children (SEBTC) Demonstration: Evaluation Findings for
the Full Implementation Year, prepared by Abt Associates, Mathematica Policy Research, and Maximus (Alexandria,
VA: USDA-FNS, 2013), p. 105. Very Low Food Security (VLFS) is the lowest of four levels of food security; USDA
defines it as “At times during the year, eating patterns of one or more household members were disrupted and food
intake reduced because the household lacked money and other resources for food.” Improvements in VLFS varied
significantly between Summer EBT sites.
46 Ibid, p. 124.
47 USDA-FNS, USDA Announces Summer EBT Grants; Includes New States, Rural Communities, June 28, 2017,
https://www.fns.usda.gov/pressrelease/2017/006617.
48 Ibid.
49 Grants.gov, Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer for Children (Summer EBT) Grant Program: Fiscal Year 2019
Request for Applications, USDA-FNS, October 31, 2018, https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/view-opportunity.html?
oppId=310059.
Congressional Research Service
R45486 · VERSION 1 · NEW
10
Child Nutrition Programs: Current Issues
$50 million in discretionary funding for the program. In addition, in its FY2017 budget proposal, the Obama Administration recommended expansion of Summer EBT nationwide with a phase-in the Obama Administration recommended expansion of Summer EBT nationwide with a phase-in
over 10 years.over 10 years.5049 Freestanding bills in the Freestanding bills in the 114th and 115th114th and 115th Congresses had similar objectives. Congresses had similar objectives.51
50
Table 3. Appropriations for Summer Demonstration Projects, FY2010-FY2018
Demonstration
Fiscal
Appropriation
Type
Year
($ in millions)
All summer
FY2010
85.0 (available until expended)
demonstration
projects
FY2011
n/a
FY2012
n/a
FY2013
n/a
FY2014
n/a
Summer EBT only
FY2015
16.0
FY2016
23.0
FY2017
23.0
FY2018
28.0
Source: Enacted appropriations laws for FY2010-FY2018.
Notes: Appropriations for the summer demonstration projects are generally contained in the “FY2019
Fiscal Year
Appropriation ($ in millions)
Child Nutrition
Programs” section of enacted appropriations acts. However, the FY2016 appropriations act included $7 million section of enacted appropriations acts. However, the FY2016 appropriations act included $7 million
for these projects in a general provision (§741).for these projects in a general provision (§741).
Other Summer Demonstrations
Funding from the 2010 Agriculture Appropriations Act (Section 749(g) of P.L. 111-80) was also Funding from the 2010 Agriculture Appropriations Act (Section 749(g) of P.L. 111-80) was also
used for other demonstration projects. One of these, the Enhanced Summer Food Service used for other demonstration projects. One of these, the Enhanced Summer Food Service
Program (eSFSP), took place during the summers of 2010 through 2012 in eight states.Program (eSFSP), took place during the summers of 2010 through 2012 in eight states.5251 It It
included four initiatives: (1) incentives for SFSP sites to lengthen operations to 40 or more days, included four initiatives: (1) incentives for SFSP sites to lengthen operations to 40 or more days,
(2) funding to add recreational or educational activities at meal sites, (3) meal delivery for (2) funding to add recreational or educational activities at meal sites, (3) meal delivery for
children in rural areas, and (4) food backpacks that children could take home on weekends and children in rural areas, and (4) food backpacks that children could take home on weekends and
holidays.holidays.
Evaluations of eSFSP were published from 2011 to 2014. Summer meal participation rates rose Evaluations of eSFSP were published from 2011 to 2014. Summer meal participation rates rose
during the demonstration periods for all four initiatives.during the demonstration periods for all four initiatives.5352 In addition, children in the meal In addition, children in the meal
delivery and backpack demonstrations had consistent rates of food insecurity from summer to fall delivery and backpack demonstrations had consistent rates of food insecurity from summer to fall
(this was not measured for the other initiatives).(this was not measured for the other initiatives).5453 However, the results from these evaluations However, the results from these evaluations
50 Details about the Obama Administration’s Nationwide Summer EBT proposal are available in the FY2017 budget
USDA-FNS Explanatory Notes on pp. 32-34, http://www.obpa.usda.gov/32fns2017notes.pdf.
51 For example, see the Stop Child Summer Hunger Act of 2015 (S. 1539/H.R. 2715) in the 114th Congress and the
Stop Child Summer Hunger Act of 2018 (H.R. 6516/S. 3268) in the 115th Congress.
52 USDA-FNS, “Enhanced Summer Food Service Program (eSFSP),” https://www.fns.usda.gov/ops/enhanced-summer-
food-service-program-esfsp. The eSFSP pilot states were Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Kansas, Massachusetts,
Mississippi, New York, and Ohio.
53 Elinson et al., Evaluation of the Summer Food Service Program Enhancement Demonstrations: 2012 Demonstration
Evaluation Report, prepared by Westat for USDA-FNS, 2014, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/ops/
esfsp2012.pdf.
54 Elinson et al., Evaluation of the Summer Food Service Program Enhancement Demonstrations: 2011 Demonstration
Evaluation Report, prepared by Westat for USDA-FNS, November 2012, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/
Congressional Research Service
R45486 · VERSION 1 · NEW
11
Child Nutrition Programs: Current Issues
should be interpreted with caution due to a small sample size, the lack of a comparison group, and should be interpreted with caution due to a small sample size, the lack of a comparison group, and
potential confounding factors.potential confounding factors.55
54
Another demonstration project, also operating under authority provided by the 2010 Agriculture Another demonstration project, also operating under authority provided by the 2010 Agriculture
Appropriations Act, provided exemptions from the congregate feeding requirement to SFSP and Appropriations Act, provided exemptions from the congregate feeding requirement to SFSP and
SSO outdoor meal sites experiencing excessive heat each summer since 2015 (as of the date of SSO outdoor meal sites experiencing excessive heat each summer since 2015 (as of the date of
this report).this report).5655 Exempted sites must continue to serve children in congregate settings on days when Exempted sites must continue to serve children in congregate settings on days when
heat is not excessive, and provide meals in another form (e.g., a take-home form) on days of heat is not excessive, and provide meals in another form (e.g., a take-home form) on days of
excessive heat. USDA also offers exemptions on a case-by-case basis for other extreme weather excessive heat. USDA also offers exemptions on a case-by-case basis for other extreme weather
conditions. This demonstration has not been evaluated.conditions. This demonstration has not been evaluated.
Other Proposals
There were other proposals and hearings related to congregate feeding in SFSP in recent years.There were other proposals and hearings related to congregate feeding in SFSP in recent years.57
56 For example, in the For example, in the114th114th Congress, committee-reported child nutrition reauthorization proposals Congress, committee-reported child nutrition reauthorization proposals
in the Senate and the House (S. 3136 and H.R. 5003, respectively) would have enabled some rural in the Senate and the House (S. 3136 and H.R. 5003, respectively) would have enabled some rural
meal sites to provide SFSP meals for consumption offsite. Specifically, both proposals would meal sites to provide SFSP meals for consumption offsite. Specifically, both proposals would
have allowed offsite consumption for children (1) in rural areas (H.R. 5003 to a more limited have allowed offsite consumption for children (1) in rural areas (H.R. 5003 to a more limited
extent than S. 3136) and (2) in extent than S. 3136) and (2) innon-ruralnonrural areas in which more than 80% of students are certified areas in which more than 80% of students are certified
as eligible for free or reduced-price meals. The bills would have also permitted congregate as eligible for free or reduced-price meals. The bills would have also permitted congregate
feeding sites to provide meals to be consumed offsite episodically under certain conditions such feeding sites to provide meals to be consumed offsite episodically under certain conditions such
as extreme weather or public safety concerns.as extreme weather or public safety concerns.
Community Eligibility Provision
The HHFKA created the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), an option to provide free meals The HHFKA created the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), an option to provide free meals
(lunches and breakfasts) to all students in schools with high proportions of students who (lunches and breakfasts) to all students in schools with high proportions of students who
automatically qualify for free or reduced-price lunches.automatically qualify for free or reduced-price lunches.5857 CEP became available to schools CEP became available to schools
nationwide starting in SY2014-2015, and participation has increased since then. As of SY2016-nationwide starting in SY2014-2015, and participation has increased since then. As of SY2016-
2017, more than 20,700 schools participated in CEP, according to data from the Food Research
files/eSFSP_2011Demo_0.pdf.
55 See chapter 6.2, “Study Strengths and Limitation,” of Elinson et al., Evaluation of the Summer Food Service
Program Enhancement Demonstrations: 2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report, prepared by Westat for USDA-FNS,
2014, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/ops/esfsp2012.pdf.
56 USDA-FNS, “Demonstration Project for Non-Congregate Feeding for Outdoor Summer Meal Sites Experiencing
Excessive Heat with Q&As,” May 24, 2018, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/sfsp/SP14_SFSP04-
2018os.pdf.
57 For example, see S. 613/H.R. 1728 and S. 1966 in the 114th Congress and H.R. 203 in the 115th Congress. During
114th Congress hearings, witnesses testified about SFSP and summer alternatives before the House Committee on
Education and the Workforce (April 15, 2015; June 16, 2015; June 24, 2015) and the Senate Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry (May 7, 2015). In the 115th Congress, witnesses testified about SFSP and summer alternatives
before the House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education (July 17, 2018).
58 Section 104 of the HHFKA added paragraph (F), “Universal Meal Service in High Poverty Areas” to Section
11(a)(1) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (NSLA; 42 U.S.C. 1759a(a)(1)(F)). For more
information about how CEP works, see CRS Report R43783, School Meals Programs and Other USDA Child Nutrition
Programs: A Primer. Aside from CEP, schools may also provide universal free meal service through the “Provision 2”
and “Provision 3” options. CEP is unique in that no school meal applications are required. For information on other
options, see the USDA-FNS website, http://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/provisions-1-2-and-3.
Congressional Research Service
R45486 · VERSION 1 · NEW
12
Child Nutrition Programs: Current Issues
2017, more than 20,700 schools participated in CEP, according to data from the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC), a nonprofit advocacy organization.and Action Center (FRAC), a nonprofit advocacy organization.5958 This is roughly 22% of NSLP This is roughly 22% of NSLP
schools.schools.60
59
Several groups have expressed support for CEP during its implementation, arguing that the Several groups have expressed support for CEP during its implementation, arguing that the
provision improves access to meals, reduces stigma associated with receiving free or reduced-provision improves access to meals, reduces stigma associated with receiving free or reduced-
price meals, and reduces schoolsprice meals, and reduces schools’' administrative costs. administrative costs.6160 Others have sought to change the option. Others have sought to change the option.
For example, in the For example, in the114th114th Congress, the House Congress, the House’'s committee-reported child nutrition s committee-reported child nutrition
reauthorization bill (H.R. 5003) would have restricted schoolsreauthorization bill (H.R. 5003) would have restricted schools’' eligibility for CEP, which the eligibility for CEP, which the
committee majority argued was committee majority argued was“"to better target resources to those students in need, while also to better target resources to those students in need, while also
ensuring all students who are eligible for assistance continue to receive assistance.ensuring all students who are eligible for assistance continue to receive assistance.”62
"61
One secondary effect of CEP is that it has created data issues for other One secondary effect of CEP is that it has created data issues for other non-nutritionnonnutrition federal and federal and
state programs.state programs.6362 Many programs, most notably the federal Title I-A program (the primary source Many programs, most notably the federal Title I-A program (the primary source
of federal funding for elementary and secondary schools), use free and reduced-price lunch data of federal funding for elementary and secondary schools), use free and reduced-price lunch data
to determine eligibility and/or funding allocations. These data come from school meal to determine eligibility and/or funding allocations. These data come from school meal
applications, which are no longer collected under CEPapplications, which are no longer collected under CEP’'s automatic eligibility determination s automatic eligibility determination
process. For more information on this issue, see CRS Report R44568, process. For more information on this issue, see CRS Report R44568, Overview of ESEA Title I-A
and the School Meals’' Community Eligibility Provision..64
63
Unpaid Meal Costs and “"Lunch Shaming”
" Students may qualify for free meals, or they may have to pay for reduced-price or full-price Students may qualify for free meals, or they may have to pay for reduced-price or full-price
meals.meals.6564 In recent years, the issue of students owing and not paying their meal costs, and schools In recent years, the issue of students owing and not paying their meal costs, and schools’
' responses to such situations, has received increased attention. In many cases, schools serveresponses to such situations, has received increased attention. In many cases, schools serve
59 Food Research and Action Center, “Community Eligibility Continues to Grow in the 2016–2017 School Year,”
March 2017, http://www.frac.org/wp-content/uploads/CEP-Report_Final_Links_032317.pdf.
60 The 22% represents 20,721 schools participating in CEP in SY2016-2017 out of 95,642 schools participating in
NSLP in FY2017, according to participation data from USDA-FNS. This is an estimate because the time periods do not
match precisely.
61 For example, see No Kid Hungry, How the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) Can Help,
http://bestpractices.nokidhungry.org/programs/school-breakfast/about-the-community-eligibility-provision; Food
Research and Action Center, Facts: Community Eligibility Provision, http://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/frac-facts-
community-eligibility-provision.pdf; and Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), Community Eligibility:
Making High-Poverty Schools Hunger Free, October 1, 2013, https://www.cbpp.org/research/community-eligibility-
making-high-poverty-schools-hunger-free.
62 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Improving Child Nutrition and Education Act of
2016, report to accompany H.R. 5003, 114th Congress, 2nd session, H.Rept. 114-852, (Washington, DC: GPO, 2016), p.
54, https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/hrpt852/CRPT-114hrpt852-pt1.pdf. Eligibility for CEP depends on a school’s
identified student percentage (ISP), the share of enrolled students who are identified as eligible for free school meals
through direct certification. Under current law, a school, school district, or group of schools within a district must have
an ISP of 40% or greater to use CEP. The House committee-reported bill would have increased this proportion to 60%
or greater, reducing schools’ eligibility for the option.
63 Ibid, p. 163.
64 Also see M. Levin and Z. Neuberger, Improving Direct Certification Will Help More Low-Income Children Receive
School Meals, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and Food Research and Action Center, July 25, 2014, p. 3,
https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/implications-of-community-eligibility-for-the-education-of-
disadvantaged.
65 Exceptions include Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) schools/districts, which provide free meals to all
students. Some have noted that providing free meals to all students can prevent lunch shaming. See, for example, James
Weill, “How to stop school lunch shaming? Leave kids out of it,” The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/
education/333003-how-to-stop-school-lunch-shaming-leave-kids-out-of-it; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Report to
Congress: Review of Local Policies on Meal Charges and Provision of Alternate Meals, June 2016, at https://fns-
prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/cn/unpaidmealcharges-report.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
R45486 · VERSION 1 · NEW
13
Child Nutrition Programs: Current Issues
students a regular meal, charging the unpaid meal cost and creating a debt that they may try to students a regular meal, charging the unpaid meal cost and creating a debt that they may try to
collect later from the family. In other cases, schools respond with what some have called collect later from the family. In other cases, schools respond with what some have called“"lunch lunch
shaming”shaming" practices—most commonly, taking or throwing away a student practices—most commonly, taking or throwing away a student’'s selected hot foods and s selected hot foods and
providing an alternative cold meal or, less commonly, barring children from participation in providing an alternative cold meal or, less commonly, barring children from participation in
school events until debt is repaid or having children wear a visual indicator of meal debt (e.g., a school events until debt is repaid or having children wear a visual indicator of meal debt (e.g., a
stamp or sticker). Lunch shaming instances have largely been reported in news articles from stamp or sticker). Lunch shaming instances have largely been reported in news articles from
different states, and there are limited national data available on the prevalence of such practices different states, and there are limited national data available on the prevalence of such practices
(available data are discussed in the text box below).(available data are discussed in the text box below).66
65
Many school districts report that unpaid meal costs create a financial burden on their meal Many school districts report that unpaid meal costs create a financial burden on their meal
programs (see text box below for more detail).programs (see text box below for more detail).6766 In addition to federal funds, student payments for In addition to federal funds, student payments for
full and reduced-price meals are a primary source of revenue for school food programs. Schools full and reduced-price meals are a primary source of revenue for school food programs. Schools
have an interest in collecting this revenue to help fund operations.have an interest in collecting this revenue to help fund operations.6867 Also, according to federal Also, according to federal
regulations, if schools are unable to recover unpaid meal funds, the money becomes regulations, if schools are unable to recover unpaid meal funds, the money becomes“"bad debtbad debt”
" and the school or school district must use other and the school or school district must use othernon-federalnonfederal funding sources to cover the costs. funding sources to cover the costs.69
68
Starting in 2010, Congress and USDA have taken actions to address the issue of unpaid meal Starting in 2010, Congress and USDA have taken actions to address the issue of unpaid meal
costs. Section 143 of the HHFKA required USDA to examine statescosts. Section 143 of the HHFKA required USDA to examine states’' and school districts and school districts’' policies policies
and practices regarding unpaid meal charges. As part of the review, the law required USDA to and practices regarding unpaid meal charges. As part of the review, the law required USDA to
“"prepare a report on the feasibility of establishing national standards for meal charges and the prepare a report on the feasibility of establishing national standards for meal charges and the
provision of alternate mealsprovision of alternate meals”" and, if applicable, make recommendations related to the and, if applicable, make recommendations related to the
implementation of the standards. The law also permitted USDA to take follow-up actions based implementation of the standards. The law also permitted USDA to take follow-up actions based
on the findings from the report.on the findings from the report.70
USDA’69
USDA's subsequent Report to Congress in June 2016 ultimately did s subsequent Report to Congress in June 2016 ultimately did not recommend national recommend national
standards, but instead recommended standards, but instead recommended“"clarifying and updating policy guidance on specific national clarifying and updating policy guidance on specific national
policies impacting unpaid meal charges and facilitating the development and distribution of best policies impacting unpaid meal charges and facilitating the development and distribution of best
practices to support decision making by States and localities.practices to support decision making by States and localities.”71"70 USDA-FNS followed up with a USDA-FNS followed up with a
memorandum requiring SFAs to institute and communicate, by July 1, 2017, a written meal memorandum requiring SFAs to institute and communicate, by July 1, 2017, a written meal
charge policy, which was to include instructions on how to address situations in which a child
66 See, for example, B. Duhart, Kids banned from field day if they owe lunch money. School says there’s a $55,000 tab,
NJ.com, June 13, 2018, https://www.nj.com/camden/index.ssf/2018/06/
parent_claims_district_lunch_shams_kids_officials.html; S. Brown, Mass. Bill To Prevent ‘Meal Shaming’ Of
Schoolchildren Unlikely To Pass This Session, WBUR.org, May 15, 2018, http://www.wbur.org/edify/2018/05/15/
meal-shaming-bill; I. Hrynkiw, ‘I need lunch money,’ Alabama school stamps on child’s arm, AL.com, June 13, 2016,
https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2016/06/gardendale_elementary_student.html; Dallas Morning News,
Texas children could use school food pantry, avoid lunch shaming under proposed legislation, April 20, 2017,
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/2017/04/20/texas-children-use-school-food-pantry-avoid-lunch-shaming-
proposed-legislation.
67 USDA, Report to Congress: Review of Local Policies on Meal Charges and Provision of Alternate Meals, June
2016, p. 5, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/cn/unpaidmealcharges-report.pdf.
68 USDA-FNS, “Unpaid Meal Charges: Clarification on Collection of Delinquent Meal Payments,” July 8, 2016, p. 2,
https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/cn/SP47-2016os.pdf.
69 7 C.F.R. 200.426.
70 Specifically, Section 143 of the HHFKA authorized USDA to (1) implement standards, (2) implement demonstration
projects, or (3) further study the feasibility of the recommendations.
71 USDA, Report to Congress: Review of Local Policies on Meal Charges and Provision of Alternate Meals, June
2016, p. 5, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/cn/unpaidmealcharges-report.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
R45486 · VERSION 1 · NEW
14
Child Nutrition Programs: Current Issues
charge policy, which was to include instructions on how to address situations in which a child does not pay for a meal.does not pay for a meal.7271 USDA-FNS also provided clarification through webinars, other USDA-FNS also provided clarification through webinars, other
memoranda, and a best practice guide.memoranda, and a best practice guide.73
72
In the Report to Congress, USDA stated that its recommendation was based on findings from a In the Report to Congress, USDA stated that its recommendation was based on findings from a
study published by USDA-FNS in March 2014 and a Request for Information (RFI) on study published by USDA-FNS in March 2014 and a Request for Information (RFI) on“"Unpaid Unpaid
Meal ChargesMeal Charges”" published by USDA-FNS in October 2014. published by USDA-FNS in October 2014.7473 The findings from both the study The findings from both the study
and the RFI—which garnered 462 comments—showed that meal charge policies were largely and the RFI—which garnered 462 comments—showed that meal charge policies were largely
determined at the school and school district levels rather than the state level. The responses to the determined at the school and school district levels rather than the state level. The responses to the
RFI also indicated that such policies ranged in formality, with varying degrees of review (e.g., RFI also indicated that such policies ranged in formality, with varying degrees of review (e.g.,
some required school board approval while others did not) and enforcement. In the RFI some required school board approval while others did not) and enforcement. In the RFI
comments, school and district officials generally expressed a preference for local control of meal comments, school and district officials generally expressed a preference for local control of meal
charge policies, while national advocacy groups generally favored national standards.charge policies, while national advocacy groups generally favored national standards.
Data on Unpaid Meal Costs and “"Lunch Shaming”
"
There are limited national data available on the prevalence of There are limited national data available on the prevalence of “"lunch shaminglunch shaming”" practices. However, there are data practices. However, there are data
on unpaid meal costs and schoolson unpaid meal costs and schools’' reported responses to these costs. For example, USDA-FNS reported responses to these costs. For example, USDA-FNS’'s study published s study published
in March 2014 examined the policies and practices of a nationally representative sample of SFAs in SY2011-2012. in March 2014 examined the policies and practices of a nationally representative sample of SFAs in SY2011-2012.
That study found that 58% of SFAs reported incurring unpaid meal charges prior to recovery attempts.That study found that 58% of SFAs reported incurring unpaid meal charges prior to recovery attempts.7574 Of these Of these
SFAs, 50.4% served the equivalent of a reimbursable meal to students unable to pay, 38.0% served an alternative SFAs, 50.4% served the equivalent of a reimbursable meal to students unable to pay, 38.0% served an alternative
meal (e.g., a cold meal), 5.4% combined these approaches, 4.9% did something else, and 1.3% did not serve a meal (e.g., a cold meal), 5.4% combined these approaches, 4.9% did something else, and 1.3% did not serve a
meal.meal.7675 On average, SFAs recovered 31% of lost revenues from unpaid meals. On average, SFAs recovered 31% of lost revenues from unpaid meals.
USDA-FNSUSDA-FNS’'s RFI published in October 2014 also shed light on schoolss RFI published in October 2014 also shed light on schools’' and school districts and school districts’' perspectives and perspectives and
policies regarding unpaid meal charges.policies regarding unpaid meal charges.7776 According to USDA According to USDA’'s analysis of the comments, many school and district s analysis of the comments, many school and district
officials said that they allowed a certain number of charges before providing an alternative meal or cutting students officials said that they allowed a certain number of charges before providing an alternative meal or cutting students
off from meals.off from meals.7877 The most common reported alternative meal was a cheese or peanut butter and jelly sandwich, a The most common reported alternative meal was a cheese or peanut butter and jelly sandwich, a
fruit or vegetable, and unflavored milk. Generally, school districtsfruit or vegetable, and unflavored milk. Generally, school districts’' policies were more lenient for elementary policies were more lenient for elementary
school students and stricter for middle and high school students. Many officials reported that unpaid meal charges school students and stricter for middle and high school students. Many officials reported that unpaid meal charges
were a financial burden on their school food service account, both in terms of lost revenue and the costs were a financial burden on their school food service account, both in terms of lost revenue and the costs
associated with collecting debt from families.associated with collecting debt from families.
The topics of lunch shaming and unpaid meal costs also surfaced in the The topics of lunch shaming and unpaid meal costs also surfaced in the 115th115th Congress. For Congress. For
example, a provision in the FY2018 appropriations law stated that funds appropriated in the law
72 USDA-FNS, “Unpaid Meal Charges: Local Meal Charge Policies,” July 8, 2016, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/
default/files/cn/SP46-2016os.pdf. The best practice guide is called “2017 Edition: Overcoming the Unpaid Meal
Challenge: Proven Strategies from Our Nation’s Schools,” available at https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/2017-
edition-overcoming-unpaid-meal-challenge-proven-strategies-our-nations-schools.
73 For a list of resources, see USDA-FNS, “Unpaid Meal Charges,” https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/unpaid-
meal-charges.
74 May et al., Special Nutrition Program Operations Study: State and School Food Authority Policies and Practices for
School Meals Programs School Year 2011-12, prepared by Westat under Contract No. AG-3198-D-10-0048
(Alexandria, VA: USDA-FNS, March 2014), p. 147-148, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/
SNOPSYear1.pdf; USDA-FNS, “Request for Information: Unpaid Meal Charges,” 79 Federal Register 62095, October
16, 2014, https://www.regulations.gov/docketBrowser?rpp=25&po=0&dct=PS&D=FNS-2014-0039.
75 May et al., Special Nutrition Program Operations Study: State and School Food Authority Policies and Practices for
School Meals Programs School Year 2011-12, prepared by Westat under Contract No. AG-3198-D-10-0048
(Alexandria, VA: USDA-FNS, March 2014), p. 147-148, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/
SNOPSYear1.pdf.
76 Ibid.
77 USDA-FNS, “Request for Information: Unpaid Meal Charges,” 79 Federal Register 62095, October 16, 2014,
https://www.regulations.gov/docketBrowser?rpp=25&po=0&dct=PS&D=FNS-2014-0039.
78 USDA, Report to Congress: Review of Local Policies on Meal Charges and Provision of Alternate Meals, June
2016, p. 3-5, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/cn/unpaidmealcharges-report.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
R45486 · VERSION 1 · NEW
15
Child Nutrition Programs: Current Issues
example, a provision in the FY2018 appropriations law stated that funds appropriated in the law could not be used in ways that result in discrimination against children eligible for free or could not be used in ways that result in discrimination against children eligible for free or
reduced-price meals, including the practices of segregating children and overtly identifying reduced-price meals, including the practices of segregating children and overtly identifying
children by special tokens or tickets (note that this does not pertain to children paying for full-children by special tokens or tickets (note that this does not pertain to children paying for full-
price meals).price meals).7978 Legislative proposals in the Legislative proposals in the 115th115th Congress included the Anti-Lunch Shaming Act Congress included the Anti-Lunch Shaming Act
of 2017 (H.R. 2401of 2017 (H.R. 2401//S. 1064), which sought to establish national standards for how schools treat S. 1064), which sought to establish national standards for how schools treat
children unable to pay for a meal.children unable to pay for a meal.80
79
Unpaid meal costs and lunch shaming have also been active topics at the state level. In recent Unpaid meal costs and lunch shaming have also been active topics at the state level. In recent
years, a number of states have enacted legislation aimed at addressing these issues.years, a number of states have enacted legislation aimed at addressing these issues.8180 For For
example, in 2018, Illinois passed legislation that requires schools to serve a regular example, in 2018, Illinois passed legislation that requires schools to serve a regular
(reimbursable) meal to students who do not pay and allows school districts to request an offset (reimbursable) meal to students who do not pay and allows school districts to request an offset
from the state for debts exceeding $500.from the state for debts exceeding $500.82
81
Paid Lunch and Other School Food Pricing
The HHFKA created new requirements related to schoolsThe HHFKA created new requirements related to schools’' pricing of paid lunches (sometimes pricing of paid lunches (sometimes
referred to as referred to as“"paid lunch equitypaid lunch equity”" requirements). requirements).8382 Specifically, the law required all NSLP- Specifically, the law required all NSLP-
participating SFAs to review their average price of paid lunches and, if necessary, gradually participating SFAs to review their average price of paid lunches and, if necessary, gradually
increase prices based on a formula.increase prices based on a formula.8483 The law also gave SFAs the option to meet the requirements The law also gave SFAs the option to meet the requirements
with specified with specifiednon-federalnonfederal funding sources instead of raising prices. funding sources instead of raising prices.85
84
According to the Senate committee report on the HHFKA, the requirements were intended According to the Senate committee report on the HHFKA, the requirements were intended “"to to
ensure that children receiving free and reduced price lunches receive the full value of federal ensure that children receiving free and reduced price lunches receive the full value of federal
funds.funds.”86"85 Prior to the paid lunch equity requirements, a USDA study found that federal subsidies Prior to the paid lunch equity requirements, a USDA study found that federal subsidies
for free and reduced-price lunches were cross-subsidizing other aspects of the meals programs, for free and reduced-price lunches were cross-subsidizing other aspects of the meals programs,
likely including paid lunches.likely including paid lunches.8786 This can occur because federal reimbursements for free, reduced- This can occur because federal reimbursements for free, reduced-
price, and paid lunches are all mixed into the same SFA-run price, and paid lunches are all mixed into the same SFA-run“"nonprofit school food service account" (NSFSA).87 Some observers argue, however, that raising prices may reduce participation in paid lunches.88
Under the paid lunch equity formula, the price per paid lunch must eventually match or exceed the difference between the federal reimbursements for free and paid lunches. If this is not the case, schools must increase prices over time until they make up the difference. For example, the federal reimbursement was $3.37 for free lunches and $0.37 for paid lunches SY2018-2019 for some schools.89 Under the requirements, if schools were not charging at least $3.00 per paid lunch, they would be required to increase the price of a paid lunch gradually, based on a formula, until they closed the gap (see Figure 1). Schools cannot be required to raise the price by more than 10 cents annually, but they may choose to do so.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
For examples of news coverage, see B. Wood, Students, parents, educators displeased with new school lunch standards, Deseret News, September 27, 2012, https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865563339/Students-parents-educators-displeased-with-new-school-lunch-standards.html; and L. Lopez, "We're Still Hungry!" Student Lunches Leave Stomachs Rumbling, NBCLA, September 26, 2012, https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Los-Angeles-Unified-School-District-LAUSD-Nutrition-School-Lunch-No-Kid-Hungry-171439851.html. Also see School Nutrition Association, Stories from the Frontlines: School Cafeteria Professionals Discuss Challenges with New Standards, May 28, 2014, https://schoolnutrition.org/5—News-and-Publications/2—Press-Releases/Press-Releases/Stories-from-the-Frontlines—School-Cafeteria-Professionals-Discuss-Challenges-with-New-Standards/.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
The SNA posted a January 15, 2016, statement of the terms of the agreement at https://schoolnutrition.org/News/AgreementReachedOnSchoolNutritionStandards/. The terms were also discussed in a colloquy between Ranking Member Debbie Stabenow and Senator John Hoeven during the committee's markup.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
See, for example, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives et al., Enforcement of Buy American Provision Letter, December 2015, http://ncfc.org/letter/enforcement-of-buy-american-provision/; Murphy.senate.gov, Murphy, Feinstein, Boxer Call On Schools to Buy American & Support Local Farmers, https://www.murphy.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/murphy-feinstein-boxer-call-on-schools-to-buy-american-and-support-local-farmers; Lamalfa.house.gov, LaMalfa and Garamendi Introduce the "American Food for American Schools" Act, March 1, 2017, https://lamalfa.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/lamalfa-and-garamendi-introduce-the-american-food-for-american-schools.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
nonprofit school food service
79 See Section 768 (Title VII of Division A) of P.L. 115-141, which references Section 9(b)(10) of the Richard B.
Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(b)(10)) and 7 C.F.R. 245.8.
80 Specifically, the legislation would have prohibited SFAs from (1) publicly identifying children who cannot pay for a
meal or those who have meal debt, (2) having those children perform chores or other activities, and (3) throwing away
a child’s meal. See Section 2 of H.R. 2401 and S. 1064 (identical text).
81 School Nutrition Association, State Legislation and Policy Reports, 2016-2018, https://schoolnutrition.org/
uploadedFiles/Legislation_and_Policy/State_and_Local_Legislation_and_Regulations/SNA-2018-Third-Quarter-State-
Legislative-Report.pdf; D. Temkin, and A. Cox, State policies to address school lunch shaming, Child Trends,
February 2018, https://www.childtrends.org/state-policies-address-school-lunch-shaming.
82 Illinois State Legislature, Hunger-Free Students’ Bill of Rights Act (Public Act 100-1092), https://legiscan.com/IL/
bill/SB2428/2017.
83 Section 205 of P.L. 111-296, codified at 42 U.S.C. 1760(p) and 7 C.F.R. 210.14.
84 7 C.F.R. 210.14 and Section 12(p) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1760(p)).
85 Ibid. Financial support from non-federal sources must be “for the direct support for paid lunches.” Revenue from
competitive foods and funds specified for the School Breakfast Program, free or reduced-price lunches, or other child
nutrition programs cannot be used.
86 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010,
report to accompany S. 3307, 111th Congress, 2nd session, S.Rept. 111-178, (Washington, DC: GPO, 2010), pp. 37-38,
https://www.congress.gov/111/crpt/srpt178/CRPT-111srpt178.pdf.
87 S. Bartlett, F. Glantz, and C. Logan, School Lunch and Breakfast Cost Study-II, USDA-FNS, Office of Research,
Nutrition and Analysis, final report, April 2008, https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-lunch-and-breakfast-cost-study-ii.
Congressional Research Service
R45486 · VERSION 1 · NEW
16
link to page 20 
Child Nutrition Programs: Current Issues
account” (NSFSA).88 Some observers argue, however, that raising prices may reduce participation
in paid lunches.89
Under the paid lunch equity formula, the price per paid lunch must eventually match or exceed
the difference between the federal reimbursements for free and paid lunches. If this is not the
case, schools must increase prices over time until they make up the difference. For example, the
federal reimbursement was $3.37 for free lunches and $0.37 for paid lunches SY2018-2019 for
some schools.90 Under the requirements, if schools were not charging at least $3.00 per paid
lunch, they would be required to increase the price of a paid lunch gradually, based on a formula,
until they closed the gap (see Figure 1). Schools cannot be required to raise the price by more
than 10 cents annually, but they may choose to do so.
Figure 1. Paid Lunch Equity Formula
An Example of Schools’ Pricing of Paid Lunches Under the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 Using
SY2018-2019 Reimbursement Rates
Source: CRS, based on Section 205 of P.L. 111-296.
88 7 C.F.R. 210.14. These three meal categories are subsidized by the federal government in increasing amounts. For
example, in school year 2018-19, the federal reimbursement was $0.37 for paid lunches, $2.97 for reduced-price
lunches, and $3.37 for free lunches for many schools.
89 For example, see School Nutrition Association, 2015 Position Paper Reauthorization of the Healthy, Hunger-Free
Kids Act: Modify Section 205, https://schoolnutrition.org/uploadedFiles/Legislation_and_Policy/
SNA_Policy_Resources/6-2015PP-PaidLunchEquityOnePager.pdf.
90 USDA-FNS, “National School Lunch, Special Milk, and School Breakfast Programs, National Average
Payments/Maximum Reimbursement Rates,” 83 Federal Register 34105, July, 19, 2018,
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/07/19/2018-15465/national-school-lunch-special-milk-and-school-
breakfast-programs-national-average-paymentsmaximum.
Congressional Research Service
R45486 · VERSION 1 · NEW
17
Child Nutrition Programs: Current Issues
Notes: If schools are charging under the reimbursement difference (based on their average price of a paid lunch
in October of the previous school year), they must increase the price of paid lunches by at least 2% plus the
percentage change in food inflation. Schools may round down to the nearest $0.05.
The HHFKA also included related requirements for revenue from “nonprogram” (i.e.,
competitive) foods.91 The law required that any revenue from nonprogram foods accrue to the
SFA-run NSFSA. In practice, this prevents revenue from competitive foods from being used for
other school purposes outside of food service. The law also required that, broadly speaking,
revenue from nonprogram foods equal or exceed the costs of obtaining nonprogram foods (see the
regulations for a specific formula).92
In June 2011, USDA-FNS published an interim final rule implementing the requirements starting
in SY2011-2012, offering some flexibility for that first year.93 USDA subsequently provided
certain exemptions through agency guidance for SY2013-2014 through SY2017-2018 for SFAs
“in strong financial standing,” as determined by state agencies based on different criteria.94 For
SY2018-2019, the enacted FY2018 appropriation (Section 775 of P.L. 115-141) expanded the
exemptions, requiring only SFAs with a negative balance in the NSFSA as of January 31, 2018,
potentially to have to raise prices for paid meals.95
Other legislative proposals related to the paid lunch equity requirements were considered in
recent Congresses. For example, the House committee’s child nutrition reauthorization proposal
in the 114th Congress would have eliminated the requirements.96 The Senate committee’s proposal
would have replaced the requirements with a broader “non-federal revenue target,” which could
have come from household payments for full-price lunches or other state and local
contributions.97
91 Section 206 of P.L. 111-296.
92 7 C.F.R. 210.14.
93 USDA-FNS, “National School Lunch Program: School Food Service Account Revenue Amendments Related to the
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010,” 76 Federal Register 35301, June 17, 2011, https://www.federalregister.gov/
documents/2011/06/17/2011-14926/national-school-lunch-program-school-food-service-account-revenue-amendments-
related-to-the-healthy.
94 USDA-FNS, Paid Lunch Equity: Guidance for School Years 2015-16 and 2016 -2017, February 9, 2015,
https://www.fns.usda.gov/paid-lunch-equity-guidance-sys-2015-16-and-2016-17; and USDA-FNS, Paid Lunch Equity:
Guidance for School Year 2017-18, January 12, 2017, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/cn/SP17-
2017os.pdf. Criteria included whether the SFA had been certified as meeting the meal pattern requirements, if the SFA
was taking steps toward meeting the competitive foods standards, and if the increase would cause the SFA to exceed a
balance limit on the nonprofit school food service account.
95 Also see USDA-FNS, “Paid Lunch Equity: Guidance for School Year 2018-19,” April 19, 2018, https://fns-
prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/cn/SP12-2018os.pdf.
96 Section 105(e) of H.R. 5003.
97 Section 106 of S. 3136.
Congressional Research Service
R45486 · VERSION 1 · NEW
18
Child Nutrition Programs: Current Issues
Appendix. Acronyms Used in This Report
CACFP: Child and Adult Care Food Program
CDF: Canned, dried, or frozen
CEP: Community Eligibility Provision
eSFSP: Enhanced Summer Food Service Program
FFVP: Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program
HHFKA: Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act
NSFSA: Nonprofit school food service account
NSLP: National School Lunch Program
SBP: School Breakfast Program
SFA: School food authority
SFSP: Summer Food Service Program
SMP: Special Milk Program
SSO: Summer Seamless Option
Summer EBT or SEBTC: Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer for Children
SY: school year
USDA-FNS: U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service
Author Information
Kara Clifford Billings
Analyst in Social Policy
Acknowledgments
Randy Alison Aussenberg, CRS Specialist in Nutrition Assistance Policy; Katie Jones, CRS Analyst in
Housing Policy; and Alyse Minter, CRS Research Librarian, assisted with this report.
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
Congressional Research Service
R45486 · VERSION 1 · NEW
19
Child Nutrition Programs: Current Issues
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
Congressional Research Service
R45486 · VERSION 1 · NEW
20
Contents
- Introduction
- Current Issues
- Nutrition Standards for School Meals and Snacks
- Background
- Implementation and Changes
- Other Proposals
- "Fresh" in the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP)
- "Buy American" in School Meals Programs
- Alternatives to Congregate Feeding in Summer Meals
- Summer EBT Demonstration
- Other Summer Demonstrations
- Other Proposals
- Community Eligibility Provision
- Unpaid Meal Costs and "Lunch Shaming"
- Paid Lunch and Other School Food Pricing
Tables
Appendixes
Summary
The term The term child nutrition programs refers to several U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and refers to several U.S. Department of Agriculture Food andNutrition Service (USDA-FNS) programs that provide food for children in institutional settings. Nutrition Service (USDA-FNS) programs that provide food for children in institutional settings.
(HHFKA; P.L. 111-296), made a number of changes to the child nutrition programs. In some cases, these changes spurred (HHFKA; P.L. 111-296), made a number of changes to the child nutrition programs. In some cases, these changes spurred
debate during the lawdebate during the law
September 30, 2015, some of the authorities created by the HHFKA expired. Efforts to reauthorize the child nutrition September 30, 2015, some of the authorities created by the HHFKA expired. Efforts to reauthorize the child nutrition
programs in the programs in the
the programs. There were no substantial reauthorization attempts in the the programs. There were no substantial reauthorization attempts in the
meals and other foods sold in schools. USDA issued final rules on these standards in 2012 and 2016, respectively. Some meals and other foods sold in schools. USDA issued final rules on these standards in 2012 and 2016, respectively. Some
schools had difficulty implementing the nutrition standards, and USDA and Congress have taken actions to change certain schools had difficulty implementing the nutrition standards, and USDA and Congress have taken actions to change certain
parts of the standards related to whole grains, sodium, and milk.parts of the standards related to whole grains, sodium, and milk.
should include processed and preserved fruits and vegetables, including canned, dried, and frozen items. Currently, statute should include processed and preserved fruits and vegetables, including canned, dried, and frozen items. Currently, statute
permits only fresh offerings.permits only fresh offerings.
foods domestically, with some exceptions, under Buy American requirements. Efforts both to tighten and loosen these foods domestically, with some exceptions, under Buy American requirements. Efforts both to tighten and loosen these
requirements have been made in recent years. The enacted 2018 farm bill (P.L. 115-334) instructed USDA to requirements have been made in recent years. The enacted 2018 farm bill (P.L. 115-334) instructed USDA to
the the
Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) demonstration, to test alternatives to congregate feeding in summer meals. Congress has Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) demonstration, to test alternatives to congregate feeding in summer meals. Congress has
increased funding for Summer EBT in recent appropriations cycles and there have been discussions about whether to increased funding for Summer EBT in recent appropriations cycles and there have been discussions about whether to
continue or expand the program.continue or expand the program.
schools, groups of schools, and school districts to offer free meals to all students. Because income-based applications for schools, groups of schools, and school districts to offer free meals to all students. Because income-based applications for
school meals are no longer required in schools adopting CEP, its implementation has created data issues for federal and state school meals are no longer required in schools adopting CEP, its implementation has created data issues for federal and state
programs relying on free and reduced-price lunch eligibility data.programs relying on free and reduced-price lunch eligibility data.
situations has received increasing attention. Some schools have adopted what some term as situations has received increasing attention. Some schools have adopted what some term as
including throwing away a studentincluding throwing away a student
Congress and USDA have taken actions recently to reduce instances of student nonpayment and stigmatization.Congress and USDA have taken actions recently to reduce instances of student nonpayment and stigmatization.
schools. Attempts have been made—some successfully—to loosen these schools. Attempts have been made—some successfully—to loosen these
Introduction
The term The term child nutrition programs refers to several U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and refers to several U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and
Nutrition Service (USDA-FNS) programs that provide food to children in institutional settings. Nutrition Service (USDA-FNS) programs that provide food to children in institutional settings.
The largest are the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program The largest are the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program
(SBP), which subsidize free, reduced-price, and full-price meals in participating schools.(SBP), which subsidize free, reduced-price, and full-price meals in participating schools.
operating in schools, the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program provides funding for fruit and operating in schools, the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program provides funding for fruit and
vegetable snacks in participating elementary schools, and the Special Milk Program provides vegetable snacks in participating elementary schools, and the Special Milk Program provides
support for milk in schools that do not participate in NSLP or SBP. Other child nutrition programs support for milk in schools that do not participate in NSLP or SBP. Other child nutrition programs
include the Child and Adult Care Food Program, which provides meals and snacks in child care include the Child and Adult Care Food Program, which provides meals and snacks in child care
and after-school settings, and the Summer Food Service Program, which provides food during the and after-school settings, and the Summer Food Service Program, which provides food during the
summer months.summer months.
2010 (HHFKA, P.L. 111-296). On September 30, 2015, some of the authorities created or 2010 (HHFKA, P.L. 111-296). On September 30, 2015, some of the authorities created or
extended by the HHFKA expired. However, these expirations had a minimal impact on program extended by the HHFKA expired. However, these expirations had a minimal impact on program
operations, as the child nutrition programs have continued with funding provided by annual operations, as the child nutrition programs have continued with funding provided by annual
appropriations acts.appropriations acts.
which refers to the process of reauthorizing and potentially making changes to multiple which refers to the process of reauthorizing and potentially making changes to multiple
permanent statutes—the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, the Child Nutrition Act, permanent statutes—the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, the Child Nutrition Act,
and sometimes Section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935. Both committees of jurisdiction—the and sometimes Section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935. Both committees of jurisdiction—the
Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and the House Committee on Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and the House Committee on
Education and the Workforce—reported reauthorization legislation (S. 3136 and H.R. 5003Education and the Workforce—reported reauthorization legislation (S. 3136 and H.R. 5003,
respectively). This legislation died at the end of the respectively). This legislation died at the end of the
has not yet passed both chambers and been sent to the President at the end of a Congress. There has not yet passed both chambers and been sent to the President at the end of a Congress. There
were no significant child nutrition reauthorization efforts in the were no significant child nutrition reauthorization efforts in the
farm bill proposals and the final enacted bill included a few provisions related to child nutrition farm bill proposals and the final enacted bill included a few provisions related to child nutrition
programs.programs.
and the child nutrition-related topics raised during 2018 farm bill negotiations have raised issues and the child nutrition-related topics raised during 2018 farm bill negotiations have raised issues
that may be relevant for Congress in future reauthorization efforts or other policymaking that may be relevant for Congress in future reauthorization efforts or other policymaking
opportunities. These issues often relate to the content and type of foods served in schools: for opportunities. These issues often relate to the content and type of foods served in schools: for
example, the nutritional quality of foods and whether foods are domestically sourced. Other example, the nutritional quality of foods and whether foods are domestically sourced. Other
issues relate to access, including alternatives to on-site consumption in summer meals and issues relate to access, including alternatives to on-site consumption in summer meals and
authorities (SFAs; school food service departments that generally operate at the school district authorities (SFAs; school food service departments that generally operate at the school district
level), hunger and nutrition-focused advocacy organizations, and food industry organizations, level), hunger and nutrition-focused advocacy organizations, and food industry organizations,
among others.among others.
It does not cover every issue, but rather provides a high-level review of some recent issues raised It does not cover every issue, but rather provides a high-level review of some recent issues raised
by Congress and/or program stakeholders, drawing examples from legislative proposals in the by Congress and/or program stakeholders, drawing examples from legislative proposals in the
on specific issues are provided where applicable, including the following:on specific issues are provided where applicable, including the following:
Primer..
An Overview..
Program
Authorizing Statutes
Regulations
National School Lunch Program (NSLP)
Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.)
7 C.F.R. 210 et seq.
(CACFP)
7 C.F.R. 226 et seq.
Summer Food Service Program (SFSP)
Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, Section 13 (42 U.S.C. 1761)
7 C.F.R. 225 et seq.
Special Milk Program (SMP)
Child Nutrition Act, Section 3 (42 U.S.C. 1772)
7 C.F.R. 215 et seq.
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP)
nutritional requirements. These nutrition standards were last updated following the enactment of nutritional requirements. These nutrition standards were last updated following the enactment of
the HHFKA, which the HHFKA, which
create new nutrition standards for create new nutrition standards for
competitive foods competitive foods nutrition standards within one year after enactment and for school meals standards within one year after enactment and for school meals nutrition standards standards
within 18 months after enactment. The law also provided increased federal subsidies (6 cents per within 18 months after enactment. The law also provided increased federal subsidies (6 cents per
lunch) for schools meeting the new requirements and funding for technical assistance. The lunch) for schools meeting the new requirements and funding for technical assistance. The
competitive foods in July 2016.competitive foods in July 2016.
Dietary Guidelines for Americans and recommendations from the Institute of Medicine (now the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and recommendations from the Institute of Medicine (now the
Health and Medicine Division of the National Academies).Health and Medicine Division of the National Academies).
standards increased the amount of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains in school lunches and standards increased the amount of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains in school lunches and
breakfasts.breakfasts.
and restricted milk to low-fat (unflavored) and fat-free (flavored or unflavored) varieties. Other and restricted milk to low-fat (unflavored) and fat-free (flavored or unflavored) varieties. Other
requirements included a provision that senior high school students must select a half-serving of requirements included a provision that senior high school students must select a half-serving of
fruits or vegetables with a reimbursable meal.fruits or vegetables with a reimbursable meal.
foods limited calories, sodium, and fat in foods sold outside of meals, among other foods limited calories, sodium, and fat in foods sold outside of meals, among other
requirements.requirements.
school day (defined as midnight until 30 minutes after dismissal) and include some exceptions for (defined as midnight until 30 minutes after dismissal) and include some exceptions for
fundraisers.fundraisers.
foods standards took effect in SY2014-2015.foods standards took effect in SY2014-2015.
requirements for school meals were scheduled to phase in over multiple school years.requirements for school meals were scheduled to phase in over multiple school years.
increased costs, and increased food waste. These accounts were shared in news stories and by the increased costs, and increased food waste. These accounts were shared in news stories and by the
School Nutrition Association (SNA), a national, nonprofit professional and advocacy organization School Nutrition Association (SNA), a national, nonprofit professional and advocacy organization
representing school nutrition professionals.representing school nutrition professionals.
Office and USDA confirmed that many of these issues were present in SY2012-2013 and Office and USDA confirmed that many of these issues were present in SY2012-2013 and
SY2013-2014, the first two years of implementation.SY2013-2014, the first two years of implementation.
standards, while other groups called for maintaining the standards, arguing that they were standards, while other groups called for maintaining the standards, arguing that they were
necessary for childrennecessary for children
FY2016, and FY2017 appropriations laws, Congress enacted provisions that loosened the milk, FY2016, and FY2017 appropriations laws, Congress enacted provisions that loosened the milk,
whole grain, and/or sodium requirements from SY2015-2016 through SY2017-2018.whole grain, and/or sodium requirements from SY2015-2016 through SY2017-2018.
implemented similar changes for SY2018-2019 in an interim final rule.implemented similar changes for SY2018-2019 in an interim final rule.
USDA published a final rule that indefinitely changes these three aspects of the standards starting USDA published a final rule that indefinitely changes these three aspects of the standards starting
in SY2019-2020.in SY2019-2020.
may make exemptions to allow SFAs to offer may make exemptions to allow SFAs to offer
eliminates Target 3 limits (the strictest target).eliminates Target 3 limits (the strictest target).
which milk, whole grain, and sodium requirements have been modified over time. Apart from which milk, whole grain, and sodium requirements have been modified over time. Apart from
these changes, the nutrition standards for school meals remain largely intact. The changes to the these changes, the nutrition standards for school meals remain largely intact. The changes to the
milk requirements also affect other beverages sold in schools; otherwise, the nutrition standards milk requirements also affect other beverages sold in schools; otherwise, the nutrition standards
for competitive foods have not been changed substantially.for competitive foods have not been changed substantially.
Policy Provision
Milk
Whole Grains
Sodium
Required flavored milk to be fat-free and unflavored milk to be low-fat (1%) or fat-free by SY2012-2013.
Required 50% of grains to be whole-grain rich by SY2012-2013 for lunches and by SY2013-2014 for breakfasts; required 100% whole grain-rich by SY2014-2015.
SY2017-2018, and Target SY2017-2018, and Target
3 limits for SY2022-2023.3 limits for SY2022-2023.
n/a
SFAs must comply with SFAs must comply with
the 50% requirement.the 50% requirement.
Postponed reductions in sodium below Target 1 indefinitely ("until the latest scientific research establishes the reduction is beneficial for children").
n/a
Extended exemptions through SY2016-2017.
Same language as FY2015.
to offer flavored low-fat to offer flavored low-fat
(1%) milk from May 2017 (1%) milk from May 2017
Extended exemptions through SY2017-2018.
Retained Target 1 through SY2017-2018.
Extended exemptions through SY2018-2019.
Retained Target 1 through SY2018-2019.
Allows all SFAs to offer flavored low-fat (1%) milk in SY2019-2020 and thereafter.
Institutes 50% whole grain requirement for all SFAs starting in SY2019-2020 and thereafter. Allows states to grant exemptions to SFAs to offer grains that are not whole-grain rich.
Notes: n/a indicates that the law did not include pertinent content. The FY2017 appropriation was enacted n/a indicates that the law did not include pertinent content. The FY2017 appropriation was enacted
shortly after the November 2017 interim final rule but is presented before it in this table because of the school shortly after the November 2017 interim final rule but is presented before it in this table because of the school
years that each policy affected. Not shown are (1) the FY2012 appropriations act, which retained Target 1 years that each policy affected. Not shown are (1) the FY2012 appropriations act, which retained Target 1
" and (2) USDA guidance and regulations that lifted weekly maximums on whole grains starting in 2012.and (2) USDA guidance and regulations that lifted weekly maximums on whole grains starting in 2012.
standards-in-the-national-school-lunch-and-school-breakfast-programsstandards-in-the-national-school-lunch-and-school-breakfast-programs
documents/2017/11/30/2017-25799/child-nutrition-programs-flexibilities-for-milk-whole-grains-and-sodium-documents/2017/11/30/2017-25799/child-nutrition-programs-flexibilities-for-milk-whole-grains-and-sodium-
12/12/2018-26762/child-nutrition-programs-flexibilities-for-milk-whole-grains-and-sodium-requirements12/12/2018-26762/child-nutrition-programs-flexibilities-for-milk-whole-grains-and-sodium-requirements
example, the House-passed version of 2018 farm bill (one version of H.R. 2) would have required example, the House-passed version of 2018 farm bill (one version of H.R. 2) would have required
USDA to review and revise the nutrition standards for school meals and competitive foods. USDA to review and revise the nutrition standards for school meals and competitive foods.
According to the bill, the revisions would have had to ensure that the standards, particularly those According to the bill, the revisions would have had to ensure that the standards, particularly those
related to milk, related to milk,
addition to the reimbursements required to carry out the school lunch program … and (3) addition to the reimbursements required to carry out the school lunch program … and (3)
maintain healthy meals for students.maintain healthy meals for students.
would have altered the nutrition standards. The House committeewould have altered the nutrition standards. The House committee
have required USDA to review the school meal standards at least once every three years and have required USDA to review the school meal standards at least once every three years and
revise them as necessary, following certain criteria.revise them as necessary, following certain criteria.
by student groups/organizations would no longer have had to meet the competitive food standards by student groups/organizations would no longer have had to meet the competitive food standards
and any foods served as part of a federally reimbursable meal would have been allowed to be sold and any foods served as part of a federally reimbursable meal would have been allowed to be sold
a la carte.a la carte.
whole grain and sodium requirements for school meals within 90 days after enactment. Although whole grain and sodium requirements for school meals within 90 days after enactment. Although
not included in the proposal itself, negotiations between the Senate committee, the White House, not included in the proposal itself, negotiations between the Senate committee, the White House,
enacted, would have reduced the 100% whole grain-rich requirement to 80% and delayed the enacted, would have reduced the 100% whole grain-rich requirement to 80% and delayed the
Target 2 sodium requirement for two years.Target 2 sodium requirement for two years.
Under current law, fruit and vegetable snacks served in FFVP must be fresh.Under current law, fruit and vegetable snacks served in FFVP must be fresh.
USDA guidance, fresh refers to foods USDA guidance, fresh refers to foods
years, some have advocated for the inclusion of frozen, dried, canned, and other types of fruits years, some have advocated for the inclusion of frozen, dried, canned, and other types of fruits
and vegetables in the program, while others have advocated for continuing to maintain only fresh and vegetables in the program, while others have advocated for continuing to maintain only fresh
products.products.
dried, and frozen (CDF) fruits and vegetables in FFVP in a limited number of states. USDA dried, and frozen (CDF) fruits and vegetables in FFVP in a limited number of states. USDA
selected schools in four states (Alaska, Delaware, Kansas, and Maine) that reported difficulty selected schools in four states (Alaska, Delaware, Kansas, and Maine) that reported difficulty
obtaining, storing, and/or preparing fresh fruits and vegetables. According to the final (2017) obtaining, storing, and/or preparing fresh fruits and vegetables. According to the final (2017)
evaluation, 56% of the pilot schools chose to incorporate CDF fruits and vegetables during an evaluation, 56% of the pilot schools chose to incorporate CDF fruits and vegetables during an
average week of the demonstration.average week of the demonstration.
which resulted in decreased vegetable offerings and increased fruit offerings in the FFVP. which resulted in decreased vegetable offerings and increased fruit offerings in the FFVP.
However, there was no significant impact on studentsHowever, there was no significant impact on students
consumption declined on FFVP snack days (likely because students consumed a smaller quantity consumption declined on FFVP snack days (likely because students consumed a smaller quantity
of fruit when it was dried or canned). There was also no significant impact on student of fruit when it was dried or canned). There was also no significant impact on student
participation. Student satisfaction with FFVP decreased slightly during the pilot, parentsparticipation. Student satisfaction with FFVP decreased slightly during the pilot, parents
' responses to the pilot were mixed, and school administrators (who opted into the pilot) generally responses to the pilot were mixed, and school administrators (who opted into the pilot) generally
favored the changes.favored the changes.
considered. For example, in the considered. For example, in the
CDF and puréed forms of fruits and vegetables in FFVP and removed CDF and puréed forms of fruits and vegetables in FFVP and removed
name. This provision was not included in the enacted bill. In the name. This provision was not included in the enacted bill. In the
reauthorization legislation in the House (H.R. 5003) included a similar proposal to allow reauthorization legislation in the House (H.R. 5003) included a similar proposal to allow
participating schools to serve participating schools to serve
with limited storage and preparation facilities or limited access to fresh fruits and vegetables that with limited storage and preparation facilities or limited access to fresh fruits and vegetables that
would have allowed them to serve CDF fruits and vegetables in FFVP. Such schools would have would have allowed them to serve CDF fruits and vegetables in FFVP. Such schools would have
Schools participating in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and/or School Breakfast Schools participating in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and/or School Breakfast
Program (SBP) must comply with federal requirements related to sourcing foods domestically. Program (SBP) must comply with federal requirements related to sourcing foods domestically.
These requirements are outlined in the school meals programsThese requirements are outlined in the school meals programs
USDA guidance.USDA guidance.
contiguous states must purchase contiguous states must purchase
practicable.practicable.
produced and processed substantially in the United States. Accompanying conference report produced and processed substantially in the United States. Accompanying conference report
language elaborated that language elaborated that
States and contains over 51% domestically grown ingredients, and this definition is also included States and contains over 51% domestically grown ingredients, and this definition is also included
in USDA guidance (discussed below).in USDA guidance (discussed below).
requirement.requirement.
requirements. The most recent guidance (as of the date of this report) was published in a June requirements. The most recent guidance (as of the date of this report) was published in a June
2017 memorandum.2017 memorandum.
to any foods purchased with funds from the nonprofit school food service account, whether or not to any foods purchased with funds from the nonprofit school food service account, whether or not
they are federal funds (childrenthey are federal funds (children
food service account).food service account).
procurement processes; for example, by monitoring the USDA catalog for appropriate products procurement processes; for example, by monitoring the USDA catalog for appropriate products
and placing Buy American language in solicitations, contracts, and other procurement documents. and placing Buy American language in solicitations, contracts, and other procurement documents.
The guidance explains that SFAs are permitted to make exceptions to the Buy American The guidance explains that SFAs are permitted to make exceptions to the Buy American
requirements on a limited basis when a product requirements on a limited basis when a product
sufficient and reasonably available quantities of a satisfactory qualitysufficient and reasonably available quantities of a satisfactory quality
reveal the costs of a U.S. product are significantly higher than the non-domestic product.reveal the costs of a U.S. product are significantly higher than the non-domestic product.
must interpret when this is the case and document any exceptions they make. SFAs may also must interpret when this is the case and document any exceptions they make. SFAs may also
request a waiver from the requirements for a product that does not meet these criteria. State request a waiver from the requirements for a product that does not meet these criteria. State
agencies must review SFAsagencies must review SFAs
exceptions an SFA has made, and take corrective action when necessary.exceptions an SFA has made, and take corrective action when necessary.
to to
school food authorities fully understand their responsibilitiesschool food authorities fully understand their responsibilities
addition, the bill requires USDA to submit a report to Congress by the 180-day deadline on addition, the bill requires USDA to submit a report to Congress by the 180-day deadline on
those that are those that are
fruits, and other agricultural commoditiesfruits, and other agricultural commodities
Columbia, Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the United States, or Columbia, Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the United States, or
the Exclusive Economic Zone or by a U.S.-flagged vessel. The provision in the enacted bill the Exclusive Economic Zone or by a U.S.-flagged vessel. The provision in the enacted bill
amended a related provision in the Senate-passed version of the farm bill.amended a related provision in the Senate-passed version of the farm bill.
sourcing and expressed particular concern over sourcing from China.sourcing and expressed particular concern over sourcing from China.
maintaining or increasing schoolsmaintaining or increasing schools
domestic options are not always available or cost-effective.domestic options are not always available or cost-effective.
Under current law, summer meals are generally provided in Under current law, summer meals are generally provided in
children come to eat while supervised. These meals are provided through the Summer Food children come to eat while supervised. These meals are provided through the Summer Food
Service Program (SFSP) and the National School Lunch ProgramService Program (SFSP) and the National School Lunch Program
(SSO).(SSO).
congregate meals in SFSP and SSO. Some of these alternatives focus on rural areas, which may congregate meals in SFSP and SSO. Some of these alternatives focus on rural areas, which may
face particular barriers to onsite consumption of summer meals. According to a May 2018 study face particular barriers to onsite consumption of summer meals. According to a May 2018 study
by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, states commonly reported that reaching children by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, states commonly reported that reaching children
in rural areas was in rural areas was
discretionary funding for discretionary funding for
to food for children in urban and rural areas during the summer months.to food for children in urban and rural areas during the summer months.
Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer for Children (SEBTC or Summer EBT) project, which began Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer for Children (SEBTC or Summer EBT) project, which began
in summer 2011 and has continued each summer since (as of the date of this report) in a limited in summer 2011 and has continued each summer since (as of the date of this report) in a limited
number of states and Indian Tribal Organizations.number of states and Indian Tribal Organizations.
to households with children eligible for free or reduced-price school meals. Depending on the site to households with children eligible for free or reduced-price school meals. Depending on the site
and year, either $30 or $60 per month is provided on an electronic benefits transfer (EBT) card and year, either $30 or $60 per month is provided on an electronic benefits transfer (EBT) card
benefits through SNAP can redeem benefits for SNAP-eligible foods at any SNAP-authorized benefits through SNAP can redeem benefits for SNAP-eligible foods at any SNAP-authorized
retailer, while participants in the WIC EBT jurisdictions are limited to the smaller set of WIC-retailer, while participants in the WIC EBT jurisdictions are limited to the smaller set of WIC-
eligible foods at WIC-authorized retailers.eligible foods at WIC-authorized retailers.
used a random assignment design, found a significant decline in the prevalence of very low food used a random assignment design, found a significant decline in the prevalence of very low food
security among participants (9.5% of control group children experienced very low food security security among participants (9.5% of control group children experienced very low food security
compared to 6.4% in the Summer EBT group).compared to 6.4% in the Summer EBT group).
's consumption of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. Both the WIC and SNAP models showed consumption of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. Both the WIC and SNAP models showed
increased consumption, but increases were greater at sites operating the WIC model.increased consumption, but increases were greater at sites operating the WIC model.
recently, the recently, the
demonstration. Awardees for summer 2017 were Connecticut, Delaware, Michigan, Missouri, demonstration. Awardees for summer 2017 were Connecticut, Delaware, Michigan, Missouri,
Nevada, Oregon, Virginia, and the Chickasaw and Cherokee nations.Nevada, Oregon, Virginia, and the Chickasaw and Cherokee nations.
also awarded grants to Tennessee and Texas.also awarded grants to Tennessee and Texas.
EBT in previous summers as well. In October 2018, USDA-FNS announced a new strategy for EBT in previous summers as well. In October 2018, USDA-FNS announced a new strategy for
determining grant recipients in FY2019, stating that the agency will prioritize new states that determining grant recipients in FY2019, stating that the agency will prioritize new states that
have not participated before, statewide projects, and projects that can operate in the summers of have not participated before, statewide projects, and projects that can operate in the summers of
2019 through 2021.2019 through 2021.
Senate committeeSenate committee
have allowed a portion of SFSPhave allowed a portion of SFSP
over 10 years.over 10 years.
Demonstration Type
All summer demonstration projects
FY2010
85.0 (available until expended)
FY2011
n/a
FY2012
n/a
FY2013
n/a
FY2014
n/a
Summer EBT only
FY2015
16.0
FY2016
23.0
FY2017
23.0
FY2018
28.0
FY2019
28.0
Source: Enacted appropriations laws for FY2010-FY2019.
Notes: Appropriations for the summer demonstration projects are generally contained in the "Child Nutrition Programs"for these projects in a general provision (§741).for these projects in a general provision (§741).
used for other demonstration projects. One of these, the Enhanced Summer Food Service used for other demonstration projects. One of these, the Enhanced Summer Food Service
Program (eSFSP), took place during the summers of 2010 through 2012 in eight states.Program (eSFSP), took place during the summers of 2010 through 2012 in eight states.
included four initiatives: (1) incentives for SFSP sites to lengthen operations to 40 or more days, included four initiatives: (1) incentives for SFSP sites to lengthen operations to 40 or more days,
(2) funding to add recreational or educational activities at meal sites, (3) meal delivery for (2) funding to add recreational or educational activities at meal sites, (3) meal delivery for
children in rural areas, and (4) food backpacks that children could take home on weekends and children in rural areas, and (4) food backpacks that children could take home on weekends and
holidays.holidays.
during the demonstration periods for all four initiatives.during the demonstration periods for all four initiatives.
delivery and backpack demonstrations had consistent rates of food insecurity from summer to fall delivery and backpack demonstrations had consistent rates of food insecurity from summer to fall
(this was not measured for the other initiatives).(this was not measured for the other initiatives).
potential confounding factors.potential confounding factors.
Appropriations Act, provided exemptions from the congregate feeding requirement to SFSP and Appropriations Act, provided exemptions from the congregate feeding requirement to SFSP and
SSO outdoor meal sites experiencing excessive heat each summer since 2015 (as of the date of SSO outdoor meal sites experiencing excessive heat each summer since 2015 (as of the date of
this report).this report).
heat is not excessive, and provide meals in another form (e.g., a take-home form) on days of heat is not excessive, and provide meals in another form (e.g., a take-home form) on days of
excessive heat. USDA also offers exemptions on a case-by-case basis for other extreme weather excessive heat. USDA also offers exemptions on a case-by-case basis for other extreme weather
conditions. This demonstration has not been evaluated.conditions. This demonstration has not been evaluated.
56 For example, in the For example, in the
in the Senate and the House (S. 3136 and H.R. 5003, respectively) would have enabled some rural in the Senate and the House (S. 3136 and H.R. 5003, respectively) would have enabled some rural
meal sites to provide SFSP meals for consumption offsite. Specifically, both proposals would meal sites to provide SFSP meals for consumption offsite. Specifically, both proposals would
have allowed offsite consumption for children (1) in rural areas (H.R. 5003 to a more limited have allowed offsite consumption for children (1) in rural areas (H.R. 5003 to a more limited
extent than S. 3136) and (2) in extent than S. 3136) and (2) in
as eligible for free or reduced-price meals. The bills would have also permitted congregate as eligible for free or reduced-price meals. The bills would have also permitted congregate
feeding sites to provide meals to be consumed offsite episodically under certain conditions such feeding sites to provide meals to be consumed offsite episodically under certain conditions such
as extreme weather or public safety concerns.as extreme weather or public safety concerns.
The HHFKA created the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), an option to provide free meals The HHFKA created the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), an option to provide free meals
(lunches and breakfasts) to all students in schools with high proportions of students who (lunches and breakfasts) to all students in schools with high proportions of students who
automatically qualify for free or reduced-price lunches.automatically qualify for free or reduced-price lunches.
nationwide starting in SY2014-2015, and participation has increased since then. As of SY2016-nationwide starting in SY2014-2015, and participation has increased since then. As of SY2016-
schools.schools.
provision improves access to meals, reduces stigma associated with receiving free or reduced-provision improves access to meals, reduces stigma associated with receiving free or reduced-
price meals, and reduces schoolsprice meals, and reduces schools
For example, in the For example, in the
reauthorization bill (H.R. 5003) would have restricted schoolsreauthorization bill (H.R. 5003) would have restricted schools
committee majority argued was committee majority argued was
ensuring all students who are eligible for assistance continue to receive assistance.ensuring all students who are eligible for assistance continue to receive assistance.
state programs.state programs.
of federal funding for elementary and secondary schools), use free and reduced-price lunch data of federal funding for elementary and secondary schools), use free and reduced-price lunch data
to determine eligibility and/or funding allocations. These data come from school meal to determine eligibility and/or funding allocations. These data come from school meal
applications, which are no longer collected under CEPapplications, which are no longer collected under CEP
process. For more information on this issue, see CRS Report R44568, process. For more information on this issue, see CRS Report R44568, Overview of ESEA Title I-A
and the School Meals
" Students may qualify for free meals, or they may have to pay for reduced-price or full-price Students may qualify for free meals, or they may have to pay for reduced-price or full-price
meals.meals.
' responses to such situations, has received increased attention. In many cases, schools serve
collect later from the family. In other cases, schools respond with what some have called collect later from the family. In other cases, schools respond with what some have called
providing an alternative cold meal or, less commonly, barring children from participation in providing an alternative cold meal or, less commonly, barring children from participation in
school events until debt is repaid or having children wear a visual indicator of meal debt (e.g., a school events until debt is repaid or having children wear a visual indicator of meal debt (e.g., a
stamp or sticker). Lunch shaming instances have largely been reported in news articles from stamp or sticker). Lunch shaming instances have largely been reported in news articles from
different states, and there are limited national data available on the prevalence of such practices different states, and there are limited national data available on the prevalence of such practices
(available data are discussed in the text box below).(available data are discussed in the text box below).
programs (see text box below for more detail).programs (see text box below for more detail).
full and reduced-price meals are a primary source of revenue for school food programs. Schools full and reduced-price meals are a primary source of revenue for school food programs. Schools
have an interest in collecting this revenue to help fund operations.have an interest in collecting this revenue to help fund operations.
regulations, if schools are unable to recover unpaid meal funds, the money becomes regulations, if schools are unable to recover unpaid meal funds, the money becomes
" and the school or school district must use other and the school or school district must use other
costs. Section 143 of the HHFKA required USDA to examine statescosts. Section 143 of the HHFKA required USDA to examine states
and practices regarding unpaid meal charges. As part of the review, the law required USDA to and practices regarding unpaid meal charges. As part of the review, the law required USDA to
provision of alternate mealsprovision of alternate meals
implementation of the standards. The law also permitted USDA to take follow-up actions based implementation of the standards. The law also permitted USDA to take follow-up actions based
on the findings from the report.on the findings from the report.
standards, but instead recommended standards, but instead recommended
policies impacting unpaid meal charges and facilitating the development and distribution of best policies impacting unpaid meal charges and facilitating the development and distribution of best
practices to support decision making by States and localities.practices to support decision making by States and localities.
memorandum requiring SFAs to institute and communicate, by July 1, 2017, a written meal memorandum requiring SFAs to institute and communicate, by July 1, 2017, a written meal
memoranda, and a best practice guide.memoranda, and a best practice guide.
study published by USDA-FNS in March 2014 and a Request for Information (RFI) on study published by USDA-FNS in March 2014 and a Request for Information (RFI) on
Meal ChargesMeal Charges
and the RFI—which garnered 462 comments—showed that meal charge policies were largely and the RFI—which garnered 462 comments—showed that meal charge policies were largely
determined at the school and school district levels rather than the state level. The responses to the determined at the school and school district levels rather than the state level. The responses to the
RFI also indicated that such policies ranged in formality, with varying degrees of review (e.g., RFI also indicated that such policies ranged in formality, with varying degrees of review (e.g.,
some required school board approval while others did not) and enforcement. In the RFI some required school board approval while others did not) and enforcement. In the RFI
comments, school and district officials generally expressed a preference for local control of meal comments, school and district officials generally expressed a preference for local control of meal
charge policies, while national advocacy groups generally favored national standards.charge policies, while national advocacy groups generally favored national standards.
on unpaid meal costs and schoolson unpaid meal costs and schools
in March 2014 examined the policies and practices of a nationally representative sample of SFAs in SY2011-2012. in March 2014 examined the policies and practices of a nationally representative sample of SFAs in SY2011-2012.
That study found that 58% of SFAs reported incurring unpaid meal charges prior to recovery attempts.That study found that 58% of SFAs reported incurring unpaid meal charges prior to recovery attempts.
SFAs, 50.4% served the equivalent of a reimbursable meal to students unable to pay, 38.0% served an alternative SFAs, 50.4% served the equivalent of a reimbursable meal to students unable to pay, 38.0% served an alternative
meal (e.g., a cold meal), 5.4% combined these approaches, 4.9% did something else, and 1.3% did not serve a meal (e.g., a cold meal), 5.4% combined these approaches, 4.9% did something else, and 1.3% did not serve a
meal.meal.
USDA-FNSUSDA-FNS
officials said that they allowed a certain number of charges before providing an alternative meal or cutting students officials said that they allowed a certain number of charges before providing an alternative meal or cutting students
off from meals.off from meals.
fruit or vegetable, and unflavored milk. Generally, school districtsfruit or vegetable, and unflavored milk. Generally, school districts
school students and stricter for middle and high school students. Many officials reported that unpaid meal charges school students and stricter for middle and high school students. Many officials reported that unpaid meal charges
were a financial burden on their school food service account, both in terms of lost revenue and the costs were a financial burden on their school food service account, both in terms of lost revenue and the costs
associated with collecting debt from families.associated with collecting debt from families.
reduced-price meals, including the practices of segregating children and overtly identifying reduced-price meals, including the practices of segregating children and overtly identifying
children by special tokens or tickets (note that this does not pertain to children paying for full-children by special tokens or tickets (note that this does not pertain to children paying for full-
price meals).price meals).
of 2017 (H.R. 2401of 2017 (H.R. 2401
children unable to pay for a meal.children unable to pay for a meal.
years, a number of states have enacted legislation aimed at addressing these issues.years, a number of states have enacted legislation aimed at addressing these issues.
example, in 2018, Illinois passed legislation that requires schools to serve a regular example, in 2018, Illinois passed legislation that requires schools to serve a regular
(reimbursable) meal to students who do not pay and allows school districts to request an offset (reimbursable) meal to students who do not pay and allows school districts to request an offset
from the state for debts exceeding $500.from the state for debts exceeding $500.
The HHFKA created new requirements related to schoolsThe HHFKA created new requirements related to schools
referred to as referred to as
participating SFAs to review their average price of paid lunches and, if necessary, gradually participating SFAs to review their average price of paid lunches and, if necessary, gradually
increase prices based on a formula.increase prices based on a formula.
with specified with specified
ensure that children receiving free and reduced price lunches receive the full value of federal ensure that children receiving free and reduced price lunches receive the full value of federal
funds.funds.
for free and reduced-price lunches were cross-subsidizing other aspects of the meals programs, for free and reduced-price lunches were cross-subsidizing other aspects of the meals programs,
likely including paid lunches.likely including paid lunches.
price, and paid lunches are all mixed into the same SFA-run price, and paid lunches are all mixed into the same SFA-run
Figure 1. Paid Lunch Equity Formula
An Example of Schools' Pricing of Paid Lunches Under the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 Using SY2018-2019 Reimbursement Rates
Source: CRS, based on Section 205 of P.L. 111-296.
Notes: If schools are charging under the reimbursement difference (based on their average price of a paid lunch in October of the previous school year), they must increase the price of paid lunches by at least 2% plus the percentage change in food inflation. Schools may round down to the nearest $0.05.
The HHFKA also included related requirements for revenue from "nonprogram" (i.e., competitive) foods.90 The law required that any revenue from nonprogram foods accrue to the SFA-run NSFSA. In practice, this prevents revenue from competitive foods from being used for other school purposes outside of food service. The law also required that, broadly speaking, revenue from nonprogram foods equal or exceed the costs of obtaining nonprogram foods (see the regulations for a specific formula).91
In June 2011, USDA-FNS published an interim final rule implementing the requirements starting in SY2011-2012, offering some flexibility for that first year.92 USDA subsequently provided certain exemptions through agency guidance for SY2013-2014 through SY2017-2018 for SFAs "in strong financial standing," as determined by state agencies based on different criteria.93 For SY2018-2019, the enacted FY2018 appropriation (Section 775 of P.L. 115-141) expanded the exemptions, requiring only SFAs with a negative balance in the NSFSA as of January 31, 2018, potentially to have to raise prices for paid meals.94
Other legislative proposals related to the paid lunch equity requirements were considered in recent Congresses. For example, the House committee's child nutrition reauthorization proposal in the 114th Congress would have eliminated the requirements.95 The Senate committee's proposal would have replaced the requirements with a broader "non-federal revenue target," which could have come from household payments for full-price lunches or other state and local contributions.96
Appendix. Acronyms Used in This ReportCACFP: Child and Adult Care Food Program
CDF: Canned, dried, or frozen
CEP: Community Eligibility Provision
eSFSP: Enhanced Summer Food Service Program
FFVP: Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program
HHFKA: Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act
NSFSA: Nonprofit school food service account
NSLP: National School Lunch Program
SBP: School Breakfast Program
SFA: School food authority
SFSP: Summer Food Service Program
SMP: Special Milk Program
SSO: Summer Seamless Option
Summer EBT or SEBTC: Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer for Children
SY: school year
USDA-FNS: U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service
Author Contact Information
Kara Clifford Billings, Analyst in Social Policy
([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed])
Acknowledgments
Randy Alison Aussenberg, CRS Specialist in Nutrition Assistance Policy; Katie Jones, CRS Analyst in Housing Policy; and Alyse Minter, CRS Research Librarian, assisted with this report.
Footnotes
These three meal categories are subsidized by the federal government in increasing amounts. For the reimbursement rates for school year (SY) 2018-2019, see USDA-FNS, "National School Lunch, Special Milk, and School Breakfast Programs, National Average Payments/Maximum Reimbursement Rates," 83 Federal Register 34105, July, 19, 2018, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/07/19/2018-15465/national-school-lunch-special-milk-and-school-breakfast-programs-national-average-paymentsmaximum.
The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) is typically reauthorized with the child nutrition programs but is not considered a child nutrition program because it is not administered in institutional settings. For more information on WIC, see CRS Report R44115, A Primer on WIC: The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.
Most of the child nutrition programs are "appropriated entitlements," meaning that the authorizing law sets a level of spending that Congress must fulfill through an appropriation. In FY2016, FY2017, and FY2018, enacted annual appropriation laws and continuing resolutions enabled the child nutrition programs to continue operating. For more information, see CRS In Focus IF10266, An Introduction to Child Nutrition Reauthorization.
Section 201 and Section 208 of P.L. 111-296.
See, for example, C. Schwartz and M. Wootan, "How a Public Health Goal Became a National Law: The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010," Nutrition Today, January 16, 2019, pp. 6-8, https://journals.lww.com/nutritiontodayonline/Abstract/publishahead/How_a_Public_Health_Goal_Became_a_National_Law_.99960.aspx; N. Confessore, "How School Lunch Became the Latest Political Battleground," The New York Times Magazine, October 7, 2014, https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/12/magazine/how-school-lunch-became-the-latest-political-battleground.html; and Nia-Malika Henderson, "President Obama signs child nutrition bill, a priority for first lady," Washington Post, December 13, 2010, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/13/AR2010121302407.html.
USDA-FNS, "Nutrition Standards in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs," 77 Federal Register 17, January 26, 2012, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2012/01/26/2012-1010/nutrition-standards-in-the-national-school-lunch-and-school-breakfast-programs; USDA-FNS, "National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program: Nutrition Standards for All Foods Sold in School as Required by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010; Final Rule," 81 Federal Register 50131, July 29, 2016, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/07/29/2016-17227/national-school-lunch-program-and-school-breakfast-program-nutrition-standards-for-all-foods-sold-in. For current nutritional requirements, see 7 C.F.R. 210.10 for the NSLP and 7 C.F.R. 220.8 for the SBP.
Section 201, Section 208, and Section 441 of P.L. 111-296.
See USDA-FNS, Comparison of Previous and New Regulatory Requirements, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/cn/comparison.pdf.
Related information is available at the USDA-FNS website: https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/tools-schools-focusing-smart-snacks.
For the original implementation schedule based on the January 2012 final rule, see USDA-FNS, Implementation Timeline, http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/implementation_timeline.pdf. Most of the lunch requirements took effect in SY2012-2013, while most breakfast requirements took effect in SY2013-2014.
Ibid.
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Implementing Nutrition Changes Was Challenging and Clarification of Oversight Requirements Is Needed, January 2014, https://www.gao.gov/assets/670/660427.pdf; Standing et al., Special Nutrition Program Operations Study: State and School Food Authority Policies and Practices for School Meals Programs School Year 2012-13, prepared by Westat for USDA-FNS, October 2016; J. Murdoch et al., Special Nutrition Program Operations Study, SY 2013-14 Report, prepared by 2M Research Services, 2016; GAO, USDA Has Efforts Underway to Help Address Ongoing Challenges Implementing Changes in Nutrition Standards, September 2015, https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/672477.pdf. Numerous studies have examined the efficacy of the nutrition standards in these and more recent school years in terms of a number of programmatic outcomes, including participation rates, food waste, and nutritional quality. It is beyond the scope of this report to review this entire body of literature.
For example, see School Nutrition Association, 2014 Position Paper on Federal Child Nutrition Programs, https://schoolnutrition.org/uploadedFiles/Legislation_and_Policy/SNA_Policy_Resources/SNA2014PositionPaper.pdf; and archived USDA-FNS web page, Support for Healthy Meals Standards Continues to Grow, May 2014, https://www.fns.usda.gov/pressrelease/2014/012714.
USDA-FNS, "Certification of Compliance With Meal Requirements for the National School Lunch Program Under the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010," 79 Federal Register 325, January 3, 2014, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/01/03/2013-31433/certification-of-compliance-with-meal-requirements-for-the-national-school-lunch-program-under-the.
P.L. 113-235, P.L. 114-113, and P.L. 115-31.
USDA-FNS, "Child Nutrition Programs: Flexibilities for Milk, Whole Grains, and Sodium Requirements; Interim Final Rule," 82 Federal Register 56703, November 30, 2017, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/11/30/2017-25799/child-nutrition-programs-flexibilities-for-milk-whole-grains-and-sodium-requirements.
USDA-FNS, "Child Nutrition Programs: Flexibilities for Milk, Whole Grains, and Sodium Requirements: Final Rule," 83 Federal Register 63775, December 12, 2018, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/12/12/2018-26762/child-nutrition-programs-flexibilities-for-milk-whole-grains-and-sodium-requirements.
The final rule also allows flavored, low-fat milk to be served to children ages six and older in CACFP and SMP.
USDA-FNS, Grain Requirements for the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program, SP 30-2012, April 26, 2012, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/cn/SP30-2012os.pdf. "Whole grain-rich" products must contain at least 50% whole-grains, and the remaining grain, if any, must be enriched.
The sodium targets set incrementally stricter weekly caps on sodium in school meals based on a student's grade level. The standards included three incrementally stricter targets that were to phase in over time (Target 1, Target 2, and Target 3). For example, for high school students, school lunches must contain ≤1,420 milligrams (mg) of sodium under Target 1, ≤1,080 mg under Target 2, and ≤740 mg under Target 3, on average over the school week.
Section 4205 of H.R. 2 (as engrossed in the House on June 21, 2018).
The Secretary of Agriculture, with consultation from school stakeholders, would have been required to certify that certain requirements were met, including that the regulations were age-appropriate, did not increase the costs of implementing the school meals programs, and did not discourage students from participating in the school meals programs.
For more information, see CRS Report R44373, Tracking the Next Child Nutrition Reauthorization: An Overview.
Section 19 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1769a).
USDA-FNS, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program: A Handbook for Schools, December 2010, p. 15, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/handbook.pdf.
American Frozen Food Institute, House Support Expansion Letter of FFVP in CNR, April 7, 2016, http://www.affi.org/assets/resources/public/house-support-letter-expansion-of-ffvp-in-cnr-april-2016_2.pdf; United Fresh, National Produce Leaders FFVP Letter to House, April 21, 2016, https://www.unitedfresh.org/content/uploads/2016/05/National-Produce-Leaders-FFVP-Letter-to-House.pdf.
USDA-FNS, Evaluation of the Pilot Project for Canned, Frozen, or Dried Fruits and Vegetables in the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP-CFD): Volume I: Report, prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, January 2017, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/ops/FFVP-CFD.pdf.
Section 12(n) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1760(n)). Alaska is exempt and Hawaii and Puerto Rico are subject to separate but related requirements.
U.S. Congress, Conference Committee, William F. Goodling Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act of 1998, conference report to accompany H.R. 3874, 105th Cong., 2nd sess., H.Rept. 105-786 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1998), p. 38. According to USDA guidance, more than 51% means that more than 51% of a product's "food components," as defined in 7 C.F.R. 210.2 (meats/meat alternatives, grains, vegetables, fruits, and fluid milk) and as measured by weight or volume must be domestically grown in the United States or U.S. territories.
7 C.F.R. 210.21 and 7 C.F.R. 220.16.
USDA-FNS, Compliance with and Enforcement of the Buy American Provision in the National School Lunch Program, SP 38-2017, June 30, 2017, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/cn/SP38-2017os.pdf.
Ibid.
Ibid., p. 3.
Section 12622 of H.R. 2 (as passed in the Senate on June 28, 2018).
H. Bottemiller Evich, USDA's enforcement of 'Buy American' regulations strains school-meal programs, PoliticoPro, March 5, 2018.
To learn more about these programs, see CRS Report R43783, School Meals Programs and Other USDA Child Nutrition Programs: A Primer.
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Summer Meals: Actions Needed to Improve Participation Estimates and Address Program Challenges, May 2018, pp. 23-30, https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/692193.pdf.
USDA-FNS, Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer for Children (SEBTC), https://www.fns.usda.gov/ops/summer-electronic-benefit-transfer-children-sebtc.
Collins et al., Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer for Children (SEBTC) Demonstration: Summary Report, prepared by Abt Associates Inc. for USDA-FNS, May 2016, p.5, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/ops/sebtcfinalreport.pdf. Also see USDA-FNS, WIC Food Packages - Regulatory Requirements for WIC-Eligible Foods, April 2018, https://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/wic-food-packages-regulatory-requirements-wic-eligible-foods.
The first year—the proof-of-concept year—was evaluated to test the feasibility of the EBT delivery system and to prepare for full implementation in demonstration sites for the following year. The second year—the full implementation year—evaluated the impact of SEBTC on improving children's food security and nutritional status in the summer time. Finally, the third year compared the impact of two benefit levels, $60 and $30, to determine the effect of different benefit levels on improving food security and nutritional status. Final reports and status reports to Congress are available on the USDA-FNS website, http://www.fns.usda.gov/ops/summer-electronic-benefit-transfer-children-sebtc.
Collins et al., Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children (SEBTC) Demonstration: Evaluation Findings for the Full Implementation Year, prepared by Abt Associates, Mathematica Policy Research, and Maximus (Alexandria, VA: USDA-FNS, 2013), p. 105. Very Low Food Security (VLFS) is the lowest of four levels of food security; USDA defines it as "At times during the year, eating patterns of one or more household members were disrupted and food intake reduced because the household lacked money and other resources for food." Improvements in VLFS varied significantly between Summer EBT sites.
Ibid., p. 124.
USDA-FNS, USDA Announces Summer EBT Grants; Includes New States, Rural Communities, June 28, 2017, https://www.fns.usda.gov/pressrelease/2017/006617.
Ibid.
Grants.gov, Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer for Children (Summer EBT) Grant Program: Fiscal Year 2019 Request for Applications, USDA-FNS, October 31, 2018, https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/view-opportunity.html?oppId=310059.
Details about the Obama Administration's Nationwide Summer EBT proposal are available in the FY2017 budget USDA-FNS Explanatory Notes on pp. 32-34, http://www.obpa.usda.gov/32fns2017notes.pdf.
For example, see the Stop Child Summer Hunger Act of 2015 (S. 1539/H.R. 2715) in the 114th Congress and the Stop Child Summer Hunger Act of 2018 (H.R. 6516/S. 3268) in the 115th Congress.
USDA-FNS, "Enhanced Summer Food Service Program (eSFSP)," https://www.fns.usda.gov/ops/enhanced-summer-food-service-program-esfsp. The eSFSP pilot states were Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Kansas, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New York, and Ohio.
Elinson et al., Evaluation of the Summer Food Service Program Enhancement Demonstrations: 2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report, prepared by Westat for USDA-FNS, 2014, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/ops/esfsp2012.pdf.
Elinson et al., Evaluation of the Summer Food Service Program Enhancement Demonstrations: 2011 Demonstration Evaluation Report, prepared by Westat for USDA-FNS, November 2012, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/eSFSP_2011Demo_0.pdf.
See chapter 6.2, "Study Strengths and Limitation," of Elinson et al., Evaluation of the Summer Food Service Program Enhancement Demonstrations: 2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report, prepared by Westat for USDA-FNS, 2014, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/ops/esfsp2012.pdf.
USDA-FNS, "Demonstration Project for Non-Congregate Feeding for Outdoor Summer Meal Sites Experiencing Excessive Heat with Q&As," May 24, 2018, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/sfsp/SP14_SFSP04-2018os.pdf.
For example, see S. 613/H.R. 1728 and S. 1966 in the 114th Congress and H.R. 203 in the 115th Congress. During 114th Congress hearings, witnesses testified about SFSP and summer alternatives before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce (April 15, 2015; June 16, 2015; June 24, 2015) and the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry (May 7, 2015). In the 115th Congress, witnesses testified about SFSP and summer alternatives before the House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education (July 17, 2018).
Section 104 of the HHFKA added paragraph (F), "Universal Meal Service in High Poverty Areas" to Section 11(a)(1) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (NSLA; 42 U.S.C. 1759a(a)(1)(F)). For more information about how CEP works, see CRS Report R43783, School Meals Programs and Other USDA Child Nutrition Programs: A Primer. Aside from CEP, schools may also provide universal free meal service through the "Provision 2" and "Provision 3" options. CEP is unique in that no school meal applications are required. For information on other options, see the USDA-FNS website, http://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/provisions-1-2-and-3.
Food Research and Action Center, "Community Eligibility Continues to Grow in the 2016–2017 School Year," March 2017, http://www.frac.org/wp-content/uploads/CEP-Report_Final_Links_032317.pdf.
The 22% represents 20,721 schools participating in CEP in SY2016-2017 out of 95,642 schools participating in NSLP in FY2017, according to participation data from USDA-FNS. This is an estimate because the time periods do not match precisely.
For example, see No Kid Hungry, How the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) Can Help, http://bestpractices.nokidhungry.org/programs/school-breakfast/about-the-community-eligibility-provision; Food Research and Action Center, Facts: Community Eligibility Provision, http://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/frac-facts-community-eligibility-provision.pdf; and Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), Community Eligibility: Making High-Poverty Schools Hunger Free, October 1, 2013, https://www.cbpp.org/research/community-eligibility-making-high-poverty-schools-hunger-free.
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Improving Child Nutrition and Education Act of 2016, report to accompany H.R. 5003, 114th Congress, 2nd session, H.Rept. 114-852, (Washington, DC: GPO, 2016), p. 54, https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/hrpt852/CRPT-114hrpt852-pt1.pdf. Eligibility for CEP depends on a school's identified student percentage (ISP), the share of enrolled students who are identified as eligible for free school meals through direct certification. Under current law, a school, school district, or group of schools within a district must have an ISP of 40% or greater to use CEP. The House committee-reported bill would have increased this proportion to 60% or greater, reducing schools' eligibility for the option.
Ibid., p. 163.
Also see M. Levin and Z. Neuberger, Improving Direct Certification Will Help More Low-Income Children Receive School Meals, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and Food Research and Action Center, July 25, 2014, p. 3, https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/implications-of-community-eligibility-for-the-education-of-disadvantaged.
Exceptions include Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) schools/districts, which provide free meals to all students. Some have noted that providing free meals to all students can prevent lunch shaming. See, for example, James Weill, "How to stop school lunch shaming? Leave kids out of it," The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/education/333003-how-to-stop-school-lunch-shaming-leave-kids-out-of-it; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Report to Congress: Review of Local Policies on Meal Charges and Provision of Alternate Meals, June 2016, at https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/cn/unpaidmealcharges-report.pdf.
See, for example, B. Duhart, Kids banned from field day if they owe lunch money. School says there's a $55,000 tab, NJ.com, June 13, 2018, https://www.nj.com/camden/index.ssf/2018/06/parent_claims_district_lunch_shams_kids_officials.html; S. Brown, Mass. Bill To Prevent 'Meal Shaming' Of Schoolchildren Unlikely To Pass This Session, WBUR.org, May 15, 2018, http://www.wbur.org/edify/2018/05/15/meal-shaming-bill; I. Hrynkiw, 'I need lunch money,' Alabama school stamps on child's arm, AL.com, June 13, 2016, https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2016/06/gardendale_elementary_student.html; Dallas Morning News, Texas children could use school food pantry, avoid lunch shaming under proposed legislation, April 20, 2017, https://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/2017/04/20/texas-children-use-school-food-pantry-avoid-lunch-shaming-proposed-legislation.
USDA, Report to Congress: Review of Local Policies on Meal Charges and Provision of Alternate Meals, June 2016, p. 5, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/cn/unpaidmealcharges-report.pdf.
USDA-FNS, "Unpaid Meal Charges: Clarification on Collection of Delinquent Meal Payments," July 8, 2016, p. 2, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/cn/SP47-2016os.pdf.
7 C.F.R. 200.426.
Specifically, Section 143 of the HHFKA authorized USDA to (1) implement standards, (2) implement demonstration projects, or (3) further study the feasibility of the recommendations.
USDA, Report to Congress: Review of Local Policies on Meal Charges and Provision of Alternate Meals, June 2016, p. 5, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/cn/unpaidmealcharges-report.pdf.
USDA-FNS, "Unpaid Meal Charges: Local Meal Charge Policies," July 8, 2016, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/cn/SP46-2016os.pdf. The best practice guide is called "2017 Edition: Overcoming the Unpaid Meal Challenge: Proven Strategies from Our Nation's Schools," available at https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/2017-edition-overcoming-unpaid-meal-challenge-proven-strategies-our-nations-schools.
For a list of resources, see USDA-FNS, "Unpaid Meal Charges," https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/unpaid-meal-charges.
May et al., Special Nutrition Program Operations Study: State and School Food Authority Policies and Practices for School Meals Programs School Year 2011-12, prepared by Westat under Contract No. AG-3198-D-10-0048 (Alexandria, VA: USDA-FNS, March 2014), pp. 147-148, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/SNOPSYear1.pdf; USDA-FNS, "Request for Information: Unpaid Meal Charges," 79 Federal Register 62095, October 16, 2014, https://www.regulations.gov/docketBrowser?rpp=25&po=0&dct=PS&D=FNS-2014-0039.
May et al., Special Nutrition Program Operations Study: State and School Food Authority Policies and Practices for School Meals Programs School Year 2011-12, prepared by Westat under Contract No. AG-3198-D-10-0048 (Alexandria, VA: USDA-FNS, March 2014), pp. 147-148, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/SNOPSYear1.pdf.
Ibid.
USDA-FNS, "Request for Information: Unpaid Meal Charges," 79 Federal Register 62095, October 16, 2014, https://www.regulations.gov/docketBrowser?rpp=25&po=0&dct=PS&D=FNS-2014-0039.
USDA, Report to Congress: Review of Local Policies on Meal Charges and Provision of Alternate Meals, June 2016, p. 3-5, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/cn/unpaidmealcharges-report.pdf.
See Section 768 (Title VII of Division A) of P.L. 115-141, which references Section 9(b)(10) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(b)(10)) and 7 C.F.R. 245.8.
Specifically, the legislation would have prohibited SFAs from (1) publicly identifying children who cannot pay for a meal or those who have meal debt, (2) having those children perform chores or other activities, and (3) throwing away a child's meal. See Section 2 of H.R. 2401 and S. 1064 (identical text).
School Nutrition Association, State Legislation and Policy Reports, 2016-2018, https://schoolnutrition.org/uploadedFiles/Legislation_and_Policy/State_and_Local_Legislation_and_Regulations/SNA-2018-Third-Quarter-State-Legislative-Report.pdf; D. Temkin, and A. Cox, State policies to address school lunch shaming, Child Trends, February 2018, https://www.childtrends.org/state-policies-address-school-lunch-shaming.
Illinois State Legislature, Hunger-Free Students' Bill of Rights Act (Public Act 100-1092), https://legiscan.com/IL/bill/SB2428/2017.
Section 205 of P.L. 111-296, codified at 42 U.S.C. 1760(p) and 7 C.F.R. 210.14.
7 C.F.R. 210.14 and Section 12(p) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1760(p)).
Ibid. Financial support from nonfederal sources must be "for the direct support for paid lunches." Revenue from competitive foods and funds specified for the School Breakfast Program, free or reduced-price lunches, or other child nutrition programs cannot be used.
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, report to accompany S. 3307, 111th Congress, 2nd session, S.Rept. 111-178, (Washington, DC: GPO, 2010), pp. 37-38, https://www.congress.gov/111/crpt/srpt178/CRPT-111srpt178.pdf.
S. Bartlett, F. Glantz, and C. Logan, School Lunch and Breakfast Cost Study-II, USDA-FNS, Office of Research, Nutrition and Analysis, final report, April 2008, https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-lunch-and-breakfast-cost-study-ii.
7 C.F.R. 210.14. These three meal categories are subsidized by the federal government in increasing amounts. For example, in school year 2018-19, the federal reimbursement was $0.37 for paid lunches, $2.97 for reduced-price lunches, and $3.37 for free lunches for many schools.
For example, see School Nutrition Association, 2015 Position Paper Reauthorization of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act: Modify Section 205, https://schoolnutrition.org/uploadedFiles/Legislation_and_Policy/SNA_Policy_Resources/6-2015PP-PaidLunchEquityOnePager.pdf.
USDA-FNS, "National School Lunch, Special Milk, and School Breakfast Programs, National Average Payments/Maximum Reimbursement Rates," 83 Federal Register 34105, July, 19, 2018, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/07/19/2018-15465/national-school-lunch-special-milk-and-school-breakfast-programs-national-average-paymentsmaximum.
Section 206 of P.L. 111-296.
7 C.F.R. 210.14.
USDA-FNS, "National School Lunch Program: School Food Service Account Revenue Amendments Related to the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010," 76 Federal Register 35301, June 17, 2011, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2011/06/17/2011-14926/national-school-lunch-program-school-food-service-account-revenue-amendments-related-to-the-healthy.
USDA-FNS, Paid Lunch Equity: Guidance for School Years 2015-16 and 2016 -2017, February 9, 2015, https://www.fns.usda.gov/paid-lunch-equity-guidance-sys-2015-16-and-2016-17; and USDA-FNS, Paid Lunch Equity: Guidance for School Year 2017-18, January 12, 2017, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/cn/SP17-2017os.pdf. Criteria included whether the SFA had been certified as meeting the meal pattern requirements, if the SFA was taking steps toward meeting the competitive foods standards, and if the increase would cause the SFA to exceed a balance limit on the nonprofit school food service account.
Also see USDA-FNS, "Paid Lunch Equity: Guidance for School Year 2018-19," April 19, 2018, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/cn/SP12-2018os.pdf.
Section 105(e) of H.R. 5003.
Section 106 of S. 3136.