Order Code RL31577
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Child Nutrition and WIC Programs:
Background and Funding
Updated February 26, 2003
Joe Richardson
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
Child Nutrition and WIC Programs:
Background and Funding
Summary
About a dozen federally supported child nutrition programs and related activities
– including school meal programs and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program
for Women, Infants, and Children (the WIC program) – reach over 37 million
children and almost 2 million lower-income pregnant and postpartum women. Total
FY2002 spending on these efforts was $15.1 billion. FY2003 spending is projected
at an estimated $15.9 billion under the Agriculture Department appropriations
portion (Division A) of the FY2003 Consolidated Appropriations Resolution (P.L.
108-7; H.Rept. 108-10; enacted February 20,2003). And the Administration
anticipates spending $16.3 billion under its FY2004 budget.
The School Lunch and School Breakfast programs provide cash subsidies to
participating schools and residential child care institutions (RCCIs) for all meals they
serve; larger subsidies are granted for free and reduced-price meals served to lower-
income children. The Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) subsidizes
meals and snacks served by child care centers and day care homes; in centers, higher
subsidies are given for meals/snacks served to lower-income children, while
subsidies for homes generally are not varied by children’s family income (but are
larger for homes in lower-income areas or operated by lower-income providers).
Schools, RCCIs, and other public and private nonprofit organizations operating
programs for children also can receive subsidies for snacks (and, in some cases,
meals) served in after-school and other outside-of-school settings. The Summer
Food Service program subsidizes food service operations by public and private
nonprofit sponsors in lower-income areas during the summer; all meals/snacks they
serve are subsidized, generally without regard to individual children’s family income.
The Special Milk program operates in schools and RCCIs without a lunch program
and subsidizes all milk they serve. All these subsidies are inflation-indexed and are
paid only where the subsidized meals/snacks meet federal nutrition standards. In
addition to cash aid, many providers receive food commodities from the Agriculture
Department, at a set value per meal (and may receive “bonus” commodities from
stocks acquired for agricultural support purposes). Grants also are made to help
cover state administrative expenses. And, the WIC program provides nutrition
services and tailored food packages to lower-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and
postpartum women, infants, and children who are judged to be at nutritional risk.
Other significant federal programs/activities include: a WIC farmers’ market
nutrition program, support for a Food Service Management Institute, and initiatives
to improve meal quality, food service, and safety.
The programs are administered by the Agriculture Department’s Food and
Nutrition Service and state education, social service, and health agencies. They are
actually operated, under state oversight, by over 300,000 local providers (such as
schools, child care centers, and health clinics). Federal payments do not necessarily
cover all program costs, and non-federal support is significant (e.g., children’s
families’ meal payments, state and local contributions).
Contents
General Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Programs and Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
School Lunch Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
School Breakfast Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Summer Food Service Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Special Milk Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Commodity Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
State Administrative Expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
The WIC Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Other Child Nutrition Programs and Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Funding for Child Nutrition and WIC Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
FY1996-FY1998 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
FY1999 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
FY2000 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
FY2001 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
FY2002 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
FY2002 Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Added FY2002 Funding for the WIC Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Funding the FY2002 WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program . . . . . 32
Additional Commodity Support in FY2002 (and FY2003) . . . . . . . . . 32
FY2002 Spending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
FY2003 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
FY2003 Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
FY2003 Spending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
FY2004 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Administration’s Appropriation Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Proposed Spending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
List of Tables
Table 1A. Child Nutrition & WIC Appropriations: FY1996-FY1998 . . . . . . . . 16
Table 1B. Child Nutrition & WIC Spending: FY1996-FY1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Table 2A. Child Nutrition & WIC Appropriations: FY1999 & FY2000 . . . . . . . 21
Table 2B. Child Nutrition & WIC Spending: FY1999 & FY2000 . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Table 3A. Child Nutrition & WIC Appropriations: FY2000 & FY2001 . . . . . . . 25
Table 3B. Child Nutrition & WIC Spending: FY2000 & FY2001 . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Table 4A. Child Nutrition & WIC Appropriations: FY2001 & FY2002 . . . . . . . 33
Table 4B. Child Nutrition & WIC Spending: FY2001 & FY2002 . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Table 5A. Child Nutrition & WIC Appropriations: FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Table 5B. Estimated Child Nutrition & WIC Spending: FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Table 6A. Child Nutrition & WIC Appropriations: FY2003 & FY2004 . . . . . . 46
Table 6B. Estimated Child Nutrition & WIC Spending: FY2003 & FY2004 . . 47
Child Nutrition and WIC Programs:
Background and Funding
General Background
Child nutrition programs and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants, and Children (the WIC program) provide cash, commodity, and
other assistance (including nutrition services and food packages in the WIC program)
under three major federal laws: the National School Lunch Act (originally enacted
in 1946 and renamed the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch in 1999), the
Child Nutrition Act (originally enacted in 1966), and Section 32 of the Act of August
24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c).1 The Agriculture Department’s Food and Nutrition
Service (FNS) administers the programs at the federal level; most funding is included
in the annual Agriculture Department appropriations laws; and congressional
jurisdiction is exercised by the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
Committee, the House Education and the Workforce Committee, and, to a limited
extent, the House Agriculture Committee.
Major amendments affecting child nutrition and WIC programs were made in
the most recent reauthorization law, the 1998 William F. Goodling Child Nutrition
Reauthorization Act (P.L. 105-336), and a number of laws enacted in the 106th and
107th Congresses – most notably as part of larger measures not specifically targeted
on child nutrition or WIC programs (e.g., P.L. 106-170, P.L. 106-224, P.L.106-554,
P.L. 107-76, P.L. 107-171). Reauthorization of child nutrition and WIC authorities
is scheduled for 2003.
Note: For information about legislation and legislative issues see: (1) CRS
Report 96-987, Child Nutrition Legislation in the 104th Congress, (2) CRS Report
97-108, Child Nutrition Issues in the 105th Congress, and (3) CRS Report
RL31578, Child Nutrition and WIC Legislation in the 106th and 107th Congresses.
Child nutrition and WIC programs are operated by a variety of local public and
private nonprofit providers, and the degree of direct state involvement varies by
1 The School Lunch and Child Nutrition Acts provide most of the basic authorities for child
nutrition programs. Section 32 authority provides funding for cash child nutrition subsidies
(permanent appropriations under Section 32 are transferred to the child nutrition account
annually) and the acquisition of food commodities for distribution to child nutrition
programs (Section 32 money is used to buy surplus commodities). For more information,
see Farm and Food Support under USDA’s Section 32 Program, CRS Report RS20235.
CRS-2
program and state — e.g., in the WIC program, state health agencies exercise
substantial control; in the school meal programs, local schools and school districts
(“school food authorities”) most often have the major role; in a few instances, the
federal government (FNS) takes the place of state agencies (for example, where a
state has chosen not to operate a specific program or where there is a state prohibition
on aiding private schools). At the state level, education, health, and agriculture
departments all have roles; at a minimum, they are responsible for approving and
overseeing local providers such as schools and making sure they receive the federal
support they are due. At the local level, program benefits are provided to over 36
million children and nearly 2 million lower-income pregnant and postpartum women
through some 100,000 public and private schools and residential child care
institutions, about 200,000 child care centers and family day care homes,
approximately 30,000 summer program sites, and, in the case of the WIC program,
some 10,000 local health care clinics/sites operated by nearly 2,000 health agencies.
All programs are available in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Virtually all operate in Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands, and there are no
restrictions on eligibility related to citizenship or legal residence status. American
Samoa gets assistance for school lunch and WIC operations, and the Northern
Marianas receive school lunch support. In addition, WIC benefits are available for
overseas military personnel, and Defense Department overseas dependents’ schools
participate in the School Lunch and Breakfast programs.
In the meal service programs like the School Lunch and School Breakfast
programs, summer programs, and assistance for child care centers and homes, federal
aid is in the form of legislatively set subsidies paid for each meal/snack served that
meets federal nutrition guidelines. Most subsidies are cash payments to schools and
other providers; just under 10% are in the form of federally donated food
commodities. While all meals/snacks served are subsidized, those served free or at
a reduced price to lower-income children are supported at higher rates. All federal
meal/snack subsidy rates are indexed annually for inflation,2 as are the income
standards of eligibility for free and reduced-price meals/snacks.3 But federal
subsidies do not necessarily cover the full cost of the meals and snacks offered by
participating providers, and states and localities contribute significantly to cover
program costs – as do children’s families (by paying charges for nonfree meals and
snacks). Required nonfederal cost-sharing (“matching”) is relatively minimal —
states must expend at least an amount totaling just over $200 million a year
nationally in order to receive federal school lunch funds. Federal per-meal/snack
child nutrition subsidies may cover local providers’ administrative costs, but separate
federal payments for administrative expenses are limited to administrative expense
2 Using the “food away from home” component of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for All
Urban Consumers.
3 Cash subsidy rates and income eligibility standards typically differ (are higher) for Alaska
and Hawaii. However: (1) while free milk eligibility standards vary in the Special Milk
program, federal subsidies do not; and (2) commodity support subsidies are provided
without regard to free/reduced-price eligibility determinations and do not differ for Alaska
and Hawaii. Cash subsidy rates and eligibility standards for the District of Columbia,
Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands are those for the contiguous United States.
CRS-3
grants to state oversight agencies, a small set-aside of funds for state audits of child
care sponsors, and special administrative payments to sponsors of summer programs
and family day care homes. Under the WIC program, federal appropriations pay the
cost of specifically tailored food packages and include specific amounts for related
nutrition services and administration.
The basic goals of the federal child nutrition programs are to improve children’s
nutrition, increase lower-income children’s access to nutritious meals and snacks, and
help support the agricultural economy. Most child nutrition programs are treated as
entitlements: federal funding is “guaranteed” to schools and other providers based
on the number of meals/snacks/half-pints of milk served, who is served (e.g., free
meals/snacks to poor children get higher subsidies), and legislatively set and
inflation-indexed per-meal/snack subsidy rates. The major exception is the WIC
program, which is a “discretionary” grant program. WIC agencies serve as many
applicants as possible with the money available from federal grants (and, in some
cases state subsidies), but not necessarily all eligible applicants.
Extensive information about child nutrition programs, including the WIC
program, also may be found at the Agriculture Department’s Food and Nutrition
Service website: [http://www.fns.usda.gov].
Programs and Participation
School Lunch Program
Public and private nonprofit schools and residential child care institutions
(RCCIs) — including Defense Department overseas dependents’ schools — choosing
to participate in the School Lunch program receive per-meal federal cash subsidies
and federally donated commodities for all lunches they serve to schoolchildren.
Subsidized meals must meet federal nutrition standards based on Recommended
Dietary Allowances (RDAs) and the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Participating
schools/RCCIs also must guarantee to offer free/reduced-price meals to lower-
income children, adhere to certain federal administrative standards, and follow “Buy
American” rules.4
Cash subsidies are set by federal school lunch law (and indexed annually, each
July, for inflation), and the amount of federal aid is not dependent on providers’
costs. The cash subsidies (also called “reimbursement rates”) differ depending on
whether the lunch is served free, at a reduced price (no more than 40 cents), or at
“full price” (“paid” meals for which a participating school or RCCI may charge as
it sees fit). While similar aid (primarily, federally donated commodities) for school
4 “Buy American” rules require that participating schools purchase U.S.-produced
agricultural commodities and food products processed in the U.S. “substantially” using U.S.-
produced commodities – to the maximum extent practicable. These rules apply to schools
located in the contiguous U.S. In addition, a special rule directs schools in Hawaii and
Puerto Rico to buy commodities or food products produced there, if they are produced in
sufficient quantities to meet schools’ needs.
CRS-4
meals was provided as early as the mid-1930s, the basic School Lunch program as
it operates today dates to enactment of the 1946 National School Lunch Act and
major changes to the law in the early 1960s and early 1970s.
Free lunch cash subsidies are paid for meals served to those who apply and
claim annual family cash income below 130% of the inflation-indexed federal
poverty guidelines – e.g., $19,526 for a family of three or $23,530 for a four-person
family in the 2002-2003 school year – or who are “directly certified”eligible as public
assistance (e.g., food stamp) recipients. For the 2002-2003 school year, these free-
lunch subsidies are $2.14 a lunch.
Reduced-price lunch subsidies are paid for meals served to those who apply
with family income between 130% and 185% of the inflation-indexed poverty
guidelines – e.g., between $19,526 and $27,787 for a family of three or between
$23,530 and $33,485 for a four-person family in the 2002-2003 school year. For the
2002-2003 school year, these reduced-price subsidies are $1.74 a lunch.
Subsidies for full-price (“paid”) lunches are paid for meals served to children
with family income above 185% of the poverty guidelines – e.g., above $27,787 for
a family of three or $33,485 for a four-person family in the 2002-2003 school year
– or whose families do not apply for free or reduced-price lunches. For the 2002-
2003 school year, these subsidies are 20 cents a lunch.
All of the above rates are increased by 2 cents a lunch for schools/RCCIs with
very high (60%+) free and reduced-price participation (almost half of all lunches are
subsidized with this added 2 cents).5 On top of cash subsidies, schools/RCCIs are
entitled to federal commodity assistance (discussed later in this report) for any lunch
served. Under this rule, schools/RCCIs will receive “entitlement” commodities
valued at a minimum of 15.25 cents a lunch in the 2002-2003 school year; this
amount is inflation indexed annually (each July).
5 Participating schools may offer all meals free and not make annual free/reduced-price
eligibility determinations for individual students or separately count free, reduced-price, and
full-price meals — if they pay any extra cost (i.e., claim from the federal government only
the estimated amount they would have received if they had operated a regular free, reduced-
price, full-price program). This choice generally is used by schools with high proportions
of needy children. It reduces the burden of making individual eligibility determinations and
simplifies daily meal counts and procedures for claiming federal subsidies, thereby saving
schools administrative costs. Three options to accomplish this are offered schools. The two
most widely used are named “provision 2" and “provision 3.” Under provision 2, schools
make free/reduced-price eligibility determinations in the first year of a 4-year cycle; in the
following 3 years, they count the total number of meals served, and the percentages of free,
reduced-price, and full-price meals served in the first year are applied to the total meal count
to calculate their federal subsidies. Under provision 3, schools can, for 4 years, receive
federal subsidies equal to those received in the last year in which they made free/reduced-
price eligibility determinations, adjusted for enrollment changes and inflation. For both
provisions, schools may be approved for 4-year extensions if the composition of their school
population remains stable.
CRS-5
In addition to the regular School Lunch program, schools/RCCIs may, under
provisions added by the 1998 reauthorization law, expand their program to cover
snacks served to children through age 18 in after-school programs (or other
programs operating outside regular school schedules). Federal subsidies are paid to
schools operating these programs at the free snack rate offered to child care centers,
if the snacks are served free to children in lower-income areas. In other cases,
subsidies vary by the child’s family income. (See the later discussion of the Child
and Adult Care Food program for the various federal subsidy rates for snacks, as well
as separate authority for public and private nonprofit organizations, including
schools, to get subsidies for snacks and, in some cases, meals served free in after-
school programs.)
In FY2002, well over 90% of schools and RCCIs got School Lunch program
subsidies — some 93,500 schools enrolling 48.5 million children and 5,800 RCCIs
with about 350,000 children. Average daily participation in the regular lunch
program during the school year was some 27.9 million children (57% of enrollment
in participating schools/RCCIs). Children receiving free lunches averaged 13.3
million a day; those paying for reduced-price lunches averaged 2.6 million a day; and
those buying full-price lunches averaged 12 million a day.6 Average daily
participation in the recently expanded (by 1998 legislation) after-school snack
component of the School Lunch program reached over 700,000 children in FY2002.
School Breakfast Program 7
As with the School Lunch program, all breakfasts meeting federal nutrition
standards (and other rules applicable to the School Lunch program) are subsidized
in participating public and private nonprofit schools and RCCIs, including Defense
Department overseas dependents’ schools. Inflation-indexed subsidy rates set by
federal law vary depending on whether the breakfast is served free, at a reduced price
(no more than 30 cents), or at full price. The School Breakfast program dates back
to a 2 year pilot project established by the 1966 Child Nutrition Act and made
permanent in 1975.
Income eligibility standards for free and reduced-price breakfasts are the same
as in the School Lunch program, and, for the 2002-2003 school year, basic cash
subsidies are $1.17 per free breakfast, 87 cents per reduced-price breakfast, and 22
6 According to estimates from the 1999-2000 school year, about one-third of children
enrolled in public schools participating in the School Lunch program actually apply and are
certified eligible for free lunches, and some 7% apply and are certified eligible for reduced-
price lunches – for a total of 40% of enrolled children certified eligible for income-tested
subsidized meals. This proportion is noticeably higher than the proportion of enrolled
children who actually claim and receive free or reduced-price lunches (about one-third).
7 Additional useful information about the School Breakfast program may be found at the
website of the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) – [http://www.frac.org] –
specifically, a FRAC publication entitled: School Breakfast Score Card (2001, Eleventh
Edition).
CRS-6
cents per full-price breakfast.8 Special “severe need” rates (generally, an extra 23
cents for each free or reduced-price breakfast) are paid to schools and RCCIs with
relatively high (40%+) free and reduced-price participation, and the majority of
breakfasts are subsidized at this higher rate. With the exception of different subsidy
rates and the lack of a specific entitlement to commodity support, the School
Breakfast program operates very much like the School Lunch program, although in
fewer schools and with a lower rate of participation among enrolled children.9 As
with the School Lunch program, participation in the School Breakfast program by
schools and RCCIs is voluntary — although a number of states have enacted laws
requiring some schools with lunch programs to join the breakfast program.
In FY2002, 76% of School Lunch program schools and virtually all RCCIs in
the lunch program also operated a breakfast program — i.e., some 71,000 schools
enrolling 38.4 million children and almost 6,000 RCCIs enrolling over 300,000
children. Average daily participation in the breakfast program during the school year
was 8.1 million schoolchildren (about 21% of enrollment). Children receiving free
breakfasts formed the bulk of participants, averaging 6 million a day; those getting
reduced-price breakfasts averaged 700,000 a day; and those buying full-price
breakfasts averaged 1.4 million a day.
Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) 10
Public and private nonprofit nonresidential child care centers — typically
serving 40-60 children or more — choosing to participate in the CACFP receive cash
subsidies for each meal or snack they serve (up to two meals and one snack per child
a day, or three meals a day in emergency/homeless shelters). Eligible centers include
after-school and Head Start centers, as well as residential emergency/homeless
shelters (where all meals are served free). In order to qualify for subsidies,
meals/snacks must meet federal nutrition standards and be served to children age 12
or under (or migrant children age 15 or under, or children with disabilities). In
addition, participating centers may receive commodity assistance based on the
number of meals served (see later discussion of commodity distribution). Like the
school meal programs, inflation-indexed federal cash subsidies to centers vary by the
type of meal served (breakfast, lunch/supper, snack) and whether it is served free, at
a reduced price (no more than 40 cents for lunches/suppers, 30 cents for breakfasts,
8 As with the School Lunch program, schools may opt to offer all meals free and not make
free/reduced-price eligibility determinations (see footnote 5).
9 Child nutrition law also authorizes a limited number of demonstration projects offering
free breakfasts to all students in participating schools (regardless of family income) to test
the effects on participation and children’s school performance. In addition, recent
Agriculture Department appropriations laws (for FY2001, FY2002, and FY2003) have
provided money for a demonstration project for School Breakfast program start-up grants.
10 Under this program, a few adult day care centers — some 1,400 sponsors with about
2,200 sites serving 80,000 persons in FY2002 — receive subsidies for meals and snacks
served to elderly and chronically impaired disabled adults under the same basic terms as
child care centers.
CRS-7
and 15 cents for snacks), or at full price.11 The CACFP dates to 1968 when federal
assistance for programs serving children outside of school (“special food service”
programs) was first authorized. In 1975, the summer food service and child care
components were first formally separated as individual programs.
Income eligibility rules for free and reduced-price meals/snacks served by
centers are the same as in the school meal programs, and subsidies for lunches (or
suppers) and breakfasts are the same as those noted above for the School Lunch and
Breakfast programs. For July 2002-June 2003, the subsidies for snacks are 58 cents
for free snacks, 29 cents for reduced-price snacks, and 5 cents for full-price snacks.
With the exception of its subsidies for snacks, the child care center component of the
CACFP is very similar to the school meal programs.
The CACFP generally operates in child care centers that are public or private
nonprofit entities. For-profit child care centers can participate in the CACFP if they
receive at least some payments derived from Title XX of the Social Security Act (the
federal Social Services Block Grant) for at least 25% of enrolled children.12 In
addition, under a pilot project operating for a number of years in Iowa and Kentucky,
a more liberal test applies to for-profit centers: they may participate if at least 25%
of enrolled children meet the family income requirements for free/reduced-price
school meals; this pilot was expanded to Delaware in FY2002. Finally, under
provisions of law enacted in December 2000 (P.L. 106-554), the more liberal
Iowa/Kentucky/Delaware rule was made applicable nationwide. The nationwide
authority granted in the December 2000 law originally covered FY2001 only. But
the FY2002 Agriculture Department appropriations law (P.L. 107-76) extended it
through September 30, 2002, and the FY2003 Consolidated Appropriations
Resolution extended it through September 30, 2003.13 As a result, there are, at
present, three potential methods by which for-profit centers can qualify: the original
Title XX rule, the “pooling” variation of that rule (see footnote 12), and the
Iowa/Kentucky/Delaware rule.
In addition to the regular CACFP, the 1998 child nutrition reauthorization law
changed rules to allow public and private nonprofit organizations (including child
care centers and schools) operating after-school programs (or other programs
operated outside regular school schedules) to get federal CACFP subsidies for snacks
served free in their programs to children (through age 18) in lower-income areas —
at the free snack rate noted above. Moreover, in seven states – Delaware, Illinois,
Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, New York, and Oregon – federal subsidies may
11 At state option, subsidies for centers also may be calculated according to the family
income demographics of the center — granting a standard subsidy for each meal/snack that
is “weighted” (or “blended”) to reflect the family income make-up of the center’s children,
or weighting total payments to a center by its family income make-up.
12 Under FNS policies, any funding for-profit centers receive that includes some Title XX
contribution meets this requirement – including funding sources that “pool” Title XX money
with other funds (e.g., Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) funding). This
is a relatively recent rule and has encouraged increased enrollment of for-profit centers.
13 Also see CRS Report RL31578, Child Nutrition and WIC Legislation in the 106th and
107th Congresses, by Joe Richardson.
CRS-8
be offered for free meals, typically suppers, served in after-school programs (at the
free lunch rate, $2.14 a supper).14
Separately, the CACFP provides cash subsidies to family and group day care
homes, typically serving 4-6 children. This component operates differently than the
component for centers and was substantially changed by 1996 amendments to the law
effective July 1997.
Day care homes receive cash subsidies that generally do not differ by individual
children’s family income (i.e., unlike the free, reduced-price, full-price subsidy
structure in programs for schools and child care centers). Instead, there are two
distinct sets of subsidy rates that generally depend on the location of the home or the
provider’s income. “Tier I” homes — those located in lower-income areas or
operated by lower-income providers — receive higher cash subsidies; for July 2002-
June 2003, all lunches/suppers are subsidized at $1.80 each, all breakfasts are
subsidized at 98 cents, and all snacks are subsidized at 53 cents. The majority of
participating homes are in Tier I. On the other hand, “Tier II” homes — those not
located in lower-income areas or without a lower-income provider — receive much
lower subsidies; for July 2002-June 2003, all lunches/suppers are subsidized at $1.09
each, all breakfasts at 37 cents, and all snacks at 14 cents. Tier II homes may seek
the higher Tier I rates for individual lower-income children, and, similar to centers,
day care home sponsors may opt to have subsidies calculated according to the family
income demographics of the children in their homes — if family income
documentation is obtained.
Day care homes participate under the aegis of public or private nonprofit
“sponsoring organizations” that handle administrative tasks (e.g., overseeing
compliance with program requirements, making federal subsidy claims). These
sponsors receive separate inflation-indexed monthly payments for their
administrative/oversight costs, varying according to the number of homes the sponsor
oversees; for July 2002-June 2003, these per-home payments range from $44 to $84
a month. Centers may participate either directly as independent centers or through
a sponsoring organization; but center sponsors do not receive additional federal
administrative funds (although sponsors can assess centers for administration).
Participating day care homes and centers generally must meet state or local licensing
or other state-set approval requirements (or certain alternate federal standards if there
are no state or local rules applying to them).
In FY2002, some 42,000 centers/sites (17,000 sponsors) with an average daily
attendance of 1.8 million children participated – 28% (500,000) of the children were
in for-profit centers/sites; 7% (120,000) participated in outside-of-school-hour
centers/sites; and 28% (500,000) were served in Head Start centers/sites. In addition,
165,000 day care home sites (with 1,000 sponsors) received subsidies for an average
daily attendance of just over 900,000 children.
14 The FY2002 Agriculture Department appropriations law (P.L. 107-76) added Illinois to
this list. Also see CRS Report RL31578, Child Nutrition and WIC Legislation in the 106th
and 107th Congresses, by Joe Richardson.
CRS-9
Summer Food Service Program15
Local public and private nonprofit “service institutions” running
youth/recreation programs, summer feeding projects, or camps receive cash subsidies
and some federally donated food commodities for free food service to children age
18 and younger (and older disabled children) during the summer. Participating
service institutions (also called sponsors) generally are entities that provide on-going
year-round service to the community and include schools, local government agencies,
camps, colleges and universities in the National Youth Sports program, and (with
some restrictions governing the number of sites and children served) private
nonprofit organizations.
Sponsors of three types of summer program sites can be approved: (1) “open”
sites operating in lower-income areas where 50% or more of the children have family
income below 185% of the federal poverty guidelines (i.e., more than half the
children are eligible for free or reduced-price school meals), (2) “enrolled” sites
where at least half of the children enrolled in a sponsor’s program (e.g., a summer
education or recreation activity) are eligible for free or reduced-price school meals,
and (3) summer camps. Summer meals/snacks are provided free to all children at
open or enrolled sites and to lower-income children in camps. Summer programs
date to 1968 when federal assistance for “special food service” programs serving
children outside of school was first authorized. In 1975, the summer and child care
food service components of the Special Food Service program were first formally
separated as individual programs.
Summer sponsors get operating cost subsidies for all meals/snacks served free;
these subsidies cover documented food service costs up to annually indexed per-
meal/snack maximums.16 For the summer of 2002, the maximum operating cost
subsidy rates were: $2.30 for each lunch/supper, $1.32 for breakfasts, and 53 cents
for snacks. Subsidies do not vary by individual children’s family income, and most
sponsors receive the maximum allowable rates. Summer program sponsors also
receive significant payments for administrative costs (e.g., up to about 24 cents a
lunch) according to the number of meals/snacks served and the type of program (e.g.,
urban vs. rural sites, self-preparation vs. contracted vendor preparation), and state
agencies receive special administrative cost payments for oversight, health
inspections, and technical assistance.
In July 2002, 3,500 sponsors operating some 30,000 sites provided subsidized
meals and snacks to an average daily attendance of 1.9 million children. In addition,
at least 1.6 million children received summer meals subsidized through the School
Lunch program (1.3 million of these children received free or reduced-price meals).
15 Additional useful information about the Summer Food Service program may be found at
the website of the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) – [http://www.frac.org] –
specifically, a FRAC publication entitled: Hunger Doesn’t Take a Vacation: A Status Report
on the Summer Food Service Program for Children (2002, Tenth Edition).
16 Documentation requirements are not applied for programs sponsored by public entities
in a pilot project operating in over a dozen states. See CRS Report RL31578, Child
Nutrition and WIC Legislation in the 106th and 107th Congresses.
CRS-10
Special Milk Program
Under this program, schools and institutions like RCCIs and summer camps not
otherwise participating in a federally subsidized meal service program, along with
schools with split (part-day) sessions for kindergartners or pre-kindergartners where
the children do not have access to regular school meal programs, provide milk to all
children at a reduced price or free. Each half-pint served is federally subsidized at
a different rate depending on whether it is served free or not — but provision of free
milk to needy children is up to the participating school and is not required. Half-
pints are subsidized at 13.5 cents a half-pint for the 2002-2003 school year, or at their
net cost (typically 1.5-2.5 cents higher) if served free. Participating schools and other
outlets must have a policy of lowering any prices charged for milk they serve to the
maximum extent possible and using their federal payments to reduce the selling price
of milk to children. Although similar assistance existed in prior years, this program
dates to 1954-1955.
In FY2002, over 8,000 schools and other outlets served about 112 million
subsidized half-pints (5% free) to roughly 500,000 children.
Commodity Assistance 17
The Agriculture Department provides commodity support for School Lunch
program schools, the CACFP, and the Summer Food Service program. Federal
donations of food commodities for child nutrition operations began in the mid-1930s
to support the agricultural economy (most prominently, following enactment of
Section 32 of the Agricultural Act of August 24, 1935).
In addition to cash subsidies, schools (which receive the bulk of federally
donated commodities) and other providers are “entitled” to a specific dollar value of
commodities based on the number of meals they serve.18 The inflation-indexed (each
July) commodity entitlement is a minimum of 15.25 cents a meal for the 2002-2003
school year. The Department purchases these commodities and pays for most
processing costs to fulfill this guarantee, with the goals of meeting the preferences
of recipient agencies, supporting agricultural prices, and removing agricultural
surpluses. Schools and other providers also receive “bonus” commodities donated
from federal stocks acquired, at the Department’s discretion, only for agricultural
support reasons (e.g., surplus commodities and excess Commodity Credit
Corporation holdings). These bonus commodities were valued at $69 million in
FY2002. Finally, under current law, the value of “entitlement” commodities (i.e.,
15.25 cents x the number of meals subsidized) must equal 12% of the total cash and
17 For important supplemental information, see CRS Report RS20235, Farm and Food
Support under USDA’s Section 32 Program, by Geoffrey Becker.
18 One state (Kansas) receives cash in place of commodity assistance. In a limited number
of cases, schools, in lieu of commodities, receive cash payments or “commodity letters of
credit” to purchase commodities themselves. Moreover, one school not participating in the
regular School Lunch program — a so-called “commodity-only” school — receives
commodity assistance only; in FY2002, it received some 35 cents a meal worth of federally
donated commodities.
CRS-11
commodity assistance provided under the School Lunch program. If this “12%
requirement” is not met, the Department must purchase additional commodities to
fulfill its full entitlement responsibility.19
State Administrative Expenses
Under authority in the Child Nutrition Act tracing back to 1966, states receive
grants to help cover general administrative and oversight/monitoring costs associated
with child nutrition programs (including commodity distribution costs, but not
including WIC program costs). The national amount each year is equal to 1.5% of
federal cash payments for the School Lunch, School Breakfast, Special Milk, and
Child and Adult Care Food programs. The majority of this money is allocated to
states based on their share of spending on the programs covered above; about 15%
is allocated under a “discretionary” formula granting each state additional amounts
for Child and Adult Care Food program, commodity distribution, and “coordinated
review efforts” (see later discussion of other child nutrition programs and activities
for a description of the coordinated review effort). In addition, states receive
administrative payments for their role in overseeing summer programs. States are
free to apportion their various federal administrative expense payments among child
nutrition initiatives (including the summer program) as they see fit.
The WIC Program 20
The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children
(the WIC program) provides nutritious foods and other support to lower-income
pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding women, and to infants and children (up to
age 5).21 The program is operated through some 10,000 local health care clinics/sites
run by 2,000 local agencies and state health agencies (and over 30 Indian tribal
organizations participating as separate grantees treated like states). It also serves
overseas military personnel by way of a special extension run through the Defense
Department. Although the administering state and tribal WIC agencies have some
discretion, recipients’ household income can be no higher than 185% of the federal
19 For a brief period (FY1999 and FY2000), the value of “bonus” commodities donated from
Department stocks also was counted in judging whether the 12% threshold requirement was
met. This decreased the extent to which the Department had to purchase additional
commodities to meet the 12% rule. The rule described here (only entitlement commodities
count) expires at the end of FY2003, at which point “bonus” commodities will again count
toward the 12% requirement. Also see CRS Report RL31578, Child Nutrition and WIC
Legislation in the 106th and 107th Congresses.
20 The Commodity Supplemental Food program (CSFP) — the predecessor to the WIC
program — provides federally purchased commodity food packages to low-income elderly,
as well as women, infants, and children. It operates through over 100 projects in 28 states,
the District of Columbia, and 2 tribal areas. While the large majority of its recipients (over
80%) are now elderly persons, some 75,000 women, infants, and children were assisted in
FY2002.
21 Very useful additional information on the WIC program is available from a recent report
by the Agriculture Department’s Economic Research Service – The WIC Program:
Background, Trends, and Issues.
CRS-12
poverty guidelines (the same standard used for determining eligibility for reduced-
price school meals – e.g., $22,089 for a family of two or 27,787 for a three-person
family, until the next annual inflation adjustment in July 2003). In addition to
meeting the income test, enrollees must be judged at “nutritional risk” by health
professionals in the health agencies and clinics that administer the program — e.g.,
based on clinical measurements, documented nutritionally related medical conditions,
dietary deficiencies. The WIC program originated as a 2-year pilot project in 1972,
and was converted to its present status in 1975.
Foods are provided (“prescribed”) through vouchers/checks, listing the specific
foods and amounts appropriate to the recipient’s status, that are redeemed at
approved retail outlets (or, much less commonly, supplied directly by the
administering agency itself).22 The specific foods prescribed (e.g., juice, infant
formula, cereal, eggs) are based on a set of federally established food packages that
differ by recipient type (e.g., infant, pregnant mother). However, WIC agencies have
considerable leeway in implementing the federally defined food packages. They
choose which infant formulas (or other items like juices or cereals) are offered to
meet the federal food package requirements and how to respond to recipients’ special
needs.
Participating retailers (46,000 are approved) then redeem the vouchers/checks
for cash through arrangements with their state WIC agency. The program also
provides financial support for state and local clinic Nutrition Services and
Administrative (NSA) costs – about 28% of total federal aid provided to states and
tribal organizations. These include costs associated with nutritional risk, health, and
immunization assessments, nutrition and substance abuse education and counseling,
health care and immunization referrals, breastfeeding promotion and support,
determining eligibility, and issuing and redeeming vouchers (or directly delivering
food items).23
Finally, a relatively small (in dollar terms) WIC farmers’ market nutrition
program is supported by the WIC appropriation. It is operated, and provided
significant matching funding, by 37 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico,
and several tribal organizations. It is run by a variety of state and local agencies
(typically state agriculture offices) and offers some 2 million WIC participants
special vouchers (worth $10-$20) that are used to buy fresh produce at 2,500
participating farmers’ markets.
Annual federal appropriations are granted to state and tribal WIC agencies under
a formula that reflects food and NSA caseload costs, inflation, and “need” (as
evidenced by poverty indices) — although small amounts are set aside and
22 A pilot project in Wyoming provides WIC benefits through electronic benefit transfer
debit cards rather than paper vouchers, and the Agriculture Department and state WIC
agencies are pursuing this method of issuing WIC benefits in other states.
23 Approximately two-thirds of NSA expenses are for nutrition-related service activities like
nutrition education, breastfeeding support, and nutrition risk evaluations. The remainder
(roughly 10% of total program costs) represents traditional administrative costs (e.g.,
income eligibility determinations, handling/redeeming vouchers).
CRS-13
distributed at the Agriculture Department’s discretion for infrastructure development
like building electronic benefit issuance systems and other projects, and other funds
have been used for small special projects (e.g., immunization and health care
outreach efforts). These annual new appropriations are supplemented by unused
money carried over from year to year and reallocated among state and tribal grantees
or retained by the WIC agency for use in the next year.24
In FY2002, average monthly WIC participation was just under 7.5 million
persons: 1.8 million women, 1.9 million infants, and 3.7 million children. Average
per-person federal costs were $35 a month for food and $13 a month for NSA
expenses. As has been the case in past years, approximately $1.6 billion in rebates
from WIC food suppliers – primarily infant formula companies that state agencies
contract with as sole providers – was largely responsible for holding down the
program’s net federal costs for food.25
Other Child Nutrition Programs and Activities
Under the coordinated review effort (CRE), the FNS, in cooperation with state
agencies, conducts school evaluations to improve management and identify
administrative, subsidy claim, and meal quality problems. This $5 million-a-year
effort is the major initiative related to maintaining the integrity of child nutrition
programs. The Agriculture Department’s Economic Research Service (ERS), in
cooperation with the FNS, conducts nutrition research, studies, surveys, and
evaluations (typically totaling $6-$7 million a year for child nutrition and WIC
activities); this work was formerly done exclusively by the FNS. A national Food
Service Management Institute (FSMI) provides technical assistance, instruction,
materials in nutrition and food service management (it is funded at $3 million a year).
And an information clearinghouse provides information on community and
government food assistance initiatives (with annual funding of about $200,000).
Special FNS projects — e.g., “Team Nutrition” projects, a food safety project,
technical assistance to program operators, food service training grants, aid with
electronic food service resource systems, grants to help schools benefit from alternate
(simpler) methods for claiming federal subsidies, “program integrity” initiatives —
are aimed at helping schools and other providers improve their meal service
operations and the quality of meals, and ensure federal support is spent correctly;
they are typically funded at about $10-$20 million a year. And, recently, School
Breakfast program demonstration projects have (1) tested the effects of allowing all
children in participating schools to obtain free breakfasts, regardless of family
income (funded at $13 million over two years) and (2) supported start-up grants for
new (or expanded) breakfast programs (funded at $500,000 a year in FY2001 and
FY2002, and $3.3 million in FY2003).
24 State WIC agencies also may draw limited amounts from the upcoming year’s funding.
25 States pursue a variety of cost containment strategies such as contracting to use a single
supplier through competitive bidding for items like infant formula and juices (where WIC
spending forms a significant part of the market) in return for rebates for WIC purchases.
Other initiatives include use of “least-cost” brands and economic package sizes.
CRS-14
States are authorized to receive nutrition education and training (NET) funds to
train school food service personnel and instruct teachers and children about nutrition;
however, funding for this program ended with FY1998, and federally funded
nutrition education efforts now include only those supported through “Team
Nutrition” and other special FNS technical assistance projects (see above). A
Homeless Children Nutrition program provided food service subsidies similar to the
CACFP for homeless children in emergency shelters; the 1998 reauthorization law
merged this program into the CACFP (and support for it now is included in the
CACFP).
Funding for Child Nutrition and WIC Programs
Federal support for child nutrition and WIC programs is derived from funding
provided out of: (1) annual Agriculture Department appropriations, (2) permanent
appropriations not included in the annual appropriations laws (e.g., money directly
appropriated for the Food Service Management Institute under its authorizing law),
(3) unused money available (carried over) from prior years’ appropriations or
transferred from other Agriculture Department appropriations accounts, and (4) funds
paid for child nutrition initiatives from budget accounts separate from appropriations
to the child nutrition and WIC accounts (e.g., a large share of commodity assistance
and, in recent years, money for child nutrition and WIC nutrition research, studies,
surveys, and evaluations).
Actual spending for most child nutrition programs — but not the WIC program
— normally is dictated by the demand for federal dollars dictated by the number of
subsidized meals, snacks, or half-pints of milk served, not the funding made available
(annually appropriated or otherwise). WIC spending, on the other hand, generally is
dictated by the dollar amounts available from current and prior-year (carried-over)
appropriations. Individual programs within the child nutrition budget account (e.g.,
the School Lunch and Breakfast programs) do not receive individually specified
(“line-item”) appropriations, and, thus, funding may be shifted among the various
child nutrition programs as needed – so long as total spending stays within the overall
amount available from new appropriations and other sources.
As a result, readily identifiable annual congressional appropriations — typically
divided into two major accounts, a child nutrition account and a WIC program
account — do not provide a clear or complete picture of total federal support for (or
spending on) child nutrition and WIC programs in a given year. Rather, spending
figures shown in this report’s tables (typically, obligations) give a much better
overview than appropriations amounts.
For each fiscal year beginning with FY1996, this report presents both (1) annual
appropriations to the overall child nutrition and WIC budget accounts and (2) federal
spending figures by program/activity (including funding derived from new
appropriations and all other available sources). Care should be taken to review the
notes for each table because they describe the extent to which items have been
included or left out of the figures in the table.
CRS-15
FY1996-FY1998 Funding
Table 1A presents basic annual appropriation amounts for the child nutrition
and WIC program budget accounts, including supplemental appropriations. It does
not show (1) the portion of the FY1998 appropriation for the Economic Research
Service (ERS) attributable to funding for child nutrition and WIC studies and
evaluations (in earlier years, these studies and evaluations were funded out of
appropriations to the child nutrition and WIC budget accounts and conducted through
the FNS), (2) money available for child nutrition spending from permanent
appropriations and other budget accounts, and (3) carryover funds, recovered unspent
obligations from prior years, and transfers into the child nutrition account from other
food assistance appropriation accounts.
Table 1B presents actual spending amounts (obligations) from all available
federal funding sources. Spending figures in Table 1B are significantly different
than annual appropriations in Table 1A. They provide a better overall picture of
federal support, because, as noted earlier, they include spending derived from annual
appropriations, plus permanent mandatory appropriations, carryovers and other
unspent money from prior years, transfers from other accounts, and appropriations
for child nutrition and WIC activities from other budget accounts. Spending figures
also are adjusted to account for unused funding carried over to the next fiscal year.
CRS-16
Table 1A. Child Nutrition & WIC Appropriations:
FY1996-FY1998
($ in millions)
Annual
appropriations
account
FY1996
FY1997
FY1998
Child nutritiona
$ 7,946.0
$ 8,653.3
$ 7,767.8
WICb
3,729.8
3,805.8
3,924.0
Total
$ 11,675.8
$ 12,459.1
$ 11,691.8
Notes: The figures presented in this table are annual appropriation amounts for each fiscal year,
adjusted to include any supplemental appropriations: P.L. 104-37 (FY1996), P.L. 104-180 and P.L.
105-18 (FY1997), and P.L. 105-86 (FY1998). They are substantially lower than the total amount of
federal funding available – from all sources – to fund each fiscal year’s child nutrition and WIC
program spending shown in Table 1B (see notes below).
a Child nutrition figures do not include: (1) money for nutrition studies and surveys (about $3 million)
appropriated to the Economic Research Service in FY1998 (a similar amount was included in
the annual child nutrition appropriations for FY1996 and FY1997, and studies and surveys were
conducted through the FNS), (2) money available from permanent appropriations – just over
$400 million a year for commodities, the FSMI, nutrition education and training (FY1996 only),
and certain other activities (an information clearinghouse, homeless children and “boarder baby”
nutrition projects, school breakfast start-up grants), (3) unused money carried over from the
previous fiscal year ($141 million in FY1996, $384 million in FY1997, and $605 million in
FY1998) or recovered from the prior year’s obligations ($370 million in FY1996 and $136
million in FY1997 and FY1998, respectively), (4) money transferred from other food assistance
budget accounts ($315 million from the food stamp account in FY1998), and (5) money
appropriated for general federal administration of food assistance programs (an undifferentiated
share of which is spent on child nutrition activities).
b WIC figures include an FY1997 supplemental appropriation of $76 million (P.L. 105-18). They do
not include: (1) money for WIC research and evaluations (about $3.5 million a year)
appropriated to the Economic Research Service in FY1998 (a similar amount was included in
the WIC appropriations for FY1996 and FY1997, and research and evaluations were conducted
through the FNS), (2) unused money carried over from the previous year (well over $100
million a year), and (3) money appropriated for general federal administration of food assistance
programs (an undifferentiated share of which is spent on WIC activities). The appropriations
figures include money for the WIC farmers’ market nutrition program.
CRS-17
Table 1B. Child Nutrition & WIC Spending: FY1996-FY1998
($ in millions)
Programs/activities
FY1996 (actual)
FY1997 (actual)
FY1998 (actual)
School lunch a
$ 4,761.0
$ 5,032.1
$ 5,130.3
School breakfast a
1,124.2
1,212.7
1,299.6
Child & adult care
food a
1,556.7
1,613.0
1,562.4
Summer food service a
258.2
258.5
251.6
Special milk
18.9
18.0
18.3
Commodities b
680.0
697.7
741.8
State administrative
expenses
99.9
104.1
110.4
Nutrition education &
training c
10.0
3.7
3.7
Homeless children
nutrition 1.7
2.1
1.9
Coordinated review
effort
3.9
4.1
4.2
Nutrition studies &
surveys d
2.6
2.3
3.2
Food service
management inst.
2.0
2.0
2.0
Special projects e
13.5
10.5
9.4
Child nutrition total
$ 8,532.6
$ 8,960.8
$ 9,138.8
WIC program total f
3,695.3
3,844.1
3,893.4
(WIC farmers’ market
(6.9)
(6.6)
(10.4)
nutrition program)
Overall total
$ 12,227.9
$ 12,804.9
$ 13,032.2
Notes: The figures shown are spending (obligation) numbers from documents accompanying the
Administration’s FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000 budgets, and, in the case of the WIC program,
derived from the Agriculture Department’s FNS WIC website and National Data Bank. They differ
from appropriations (Table 1A) and include: spending from previous-year carryovers/recoveries of
unspent obligations, a $315 million FY1998 transfer from the food stamp account, permanent
appropriations, and commodity assistance and other spending drawn from separate Agriculture
Department budget accounts. The amounts shown do not reflect most federal-only child nutrition/WIC
administrative costs (roughly $40-$50 million a year), which are funded from a separate
undifferentiated general food program administration account, or the value of “bonus” commodities
not required to be provided by law. The FY1996 amounts do not reflect a reduction for an “accounts
payable writedown” adjustment of $68 million.
Notes for Table 1B are continued on the following page.
CRS-18
a Figures include cash assistance only, not the value of commodities or cash-in-lieu of commodities.
The FY1996 amount for the School Breakfast program includes spending of $2.1 million on
start-up and expansion grants (ended until limited new grants were required in FY2001).
Amounts for the Child and Adult Care Food program include funding for a demonstration
project operating in Iowa and Kentucky that applied a more liberal test to participation by for-
profit day care centers and cost approximately $4 million a year.
b Figures include cash-in-lieu of commodities (about $50-$60 million a year), some commodity
donation administrative/distribution/computer costs (approximately $6 million a year), and
about $400 million a year in commodities purchased and donated at no charge to the child
nutrition account in order to meet the commodity entitlements of schools and other providers.
The overwhelming majority (more than 90%) of commodity assistance is for the School Lunch
program. Not shown are about $50-$100 million a year in “bonus” commodities donated,
beyond commodity entitlements mandated in law by the Agriculture Department when excess
federal commodity holdings permit.
c The FY1997 figure represents funding for the NET program that the Agriculture Department
redirected from other child nutrition activities. No specific FY1997 appropriation was made,
and a requested supplemental appropriation of $6.25 million was not approved. The FY1998
figure reflects spending from amounts explicitly appropriated for the NET program.
d The FY1998 appropriations law for the child nutrition account did not include a specific
appropriation/spending level for nutrition studies and surveys. Instead, it consolidated virtually
all funding (at the dollar level of the Administration’s request) for nutrition program research
and evaluation — child nutrition, WIC, and food stamps — in the Agriculture Department’s
Economic Research Service (ERS) budget. Prior to FY1998, child nutrition research was
conducted through the FNS and funded under the child nutrition account. The figure shown for
FY1998 reflects spending on child nutrition studies and surveys, by the ERS, at the
Administration’s requested level.
e Figures include money for a school meals initiative and other projects to improve food service and
meal quality (the bulk of the funds), along with support for a “boarder babies” project (now
ended) and an information clearinghouse (both funded at less than $500,000 a year).
f The WIC program totals include spending on the WIC farmers’ market nutrition program (as shown
in parentheses) and special (e.g., immunization) projects. They also include spending on WIC
research and evaluation activities (typically, about $3.5 million a year). The FY1998 WIC
appropriation itself did not include an amount for WIC research and evaluation; this also is true
for the Agriculture Department’s FNS WIC website data beginning with FY1998. Instead, the
FY1998 Agriculture Department appropriation consolidated virtually all funding (at the level
of the Administration’s request) for nutrition program research and evaluation — child nutrition,
WIC, food stamps — in the Agriculture Department’s Economic Research Service budget. The
FY1998 total in the table includes spending, through the Economic Research Service, on WIC
research and evaluation at the Administration’s requested level ($3.5 million). Prior to FY1998,
WIC research and evaluation was conducted through the FNS and funded under the WIC
account.
CRS-19
FY1999 Funding
The FY1999 appropriations for the child nutrition and WIC programs were
enacted October 21, 1998, as part of the omnibus appropriations measure for FY1999
(P.L. 105-277; H.Rept. 105-825; see Table 2A). The appropriation for the child
nutrition budget account was $9.177 billion. In addition, $3.924 billion was
appropriated for the WIC account.
The FY1999 child nutrition amount generally followed the Clinton
Administration’s request.26 Overall, the child nutrition appropriation of $9.177
billion was $53 million less than requested by the Administration, largely because of
a reduction in mandated commodity purchases (estimated at $33 million), no
appropriation for the Nutrition Education and Training (NET) program ($10 million
had been requested), and assignment of funding for child nutrition studies and
surveys ($3 million) to the Economic Research Service appropriation account (the
Administration had asked that this amount be assigned to the Food and Nutrition
Service and the child nutrition budget account). The WIC appropriation – $3.924
billion (including up to $15 million for the WIC farmers’ market nutrition program)
– was $172 million less than the requested $4.096 billion (including a separate
request for $15 million for the farmers’ market program) – and $3.5 million was
separately appropriated to the Economic Research Service for WIC research (rather
than to the Food and Nutrition Service, under the WIC account, as requested).
Actual FY1999 spending amounts for child nutrition and WIC programs were
significantly higher than provided in the appropriations noted above (and in Table
2A). As shown in Table 2B, they reflect spending in FY1999 given funding
available from all sources – including the annual appropriation in P.L. 105-277,
permanent appropriations, money carried over and otherwise available from FY1998,
and funds (and commodities) from budget accounts separate from the regular child
nutrition and WIC accounts. Child nutrition spending totaled $9.654 billion, and
money spent on WIC program activities (including the WIC farmers’ market
nutrition program) amounted to $3.956 billion.
FY2000 Funding
The FY2000 appropriations for the child nutrition and WIC programs were
enacted on October 22, 1999, as part of the Agriculture Department appropriations
measure for FY2000 (P.L. 106-78; H.Rept. 106-354; see Table 2A). The
appropriation for the child nutrition budget account was $9.554 billion. The amount
appropriated for the WIC account was $4.032 billion.
As with FY1999, the FY2000 child nutrition amount generally followed the
Clinton Administration’s request. Overall, the child nutrition appropriation of
26 The FY1999 appropriation level for the child nutrition account was some $1.4 billion
more than the appropriation for FY1998. However, this did not translate to a spending
increase of the same magnitude because about $1 billion was available for FY1998 spending
from sources outside the normal appropriations — i.e., unspent carryover funds from
FY1997 and about $300 million transferred from the food stamp budget account.
CRS-20
$9.554 billion was $11 million less than asked for. It included no appropriation for
the NET program ($2 million was requested), assigned money for child nutrition
studies and surveys ($3 million) to the Economic Research Service (not the Food and
Nutrition Service as requested), and reduced the amount requested for a school
breakfast pilot project (under which all children in the participating elementary
schools receive free breakfasts) from $13 million to $7 million.27 The $4.032 billion
appropriation for the WIC program (including up to $15 million for the farmers’
market program) was noticeably smaller than the Clinton Administration’s request
of $4.125 billion (including a separate request for $20 million for the farmers’ market
program), and, as in FY1999, a separate $3.5 million was appropriated to the
Economic Research Service for WIC research (rather than to the Food and Nutrition
Service, under the WIC account, as requested).
After the FY2000 Agriculture appropriations law, the FY2000 Consolidated
Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-113) was enacted. It directed reduction of agencies’
discretionary funds – set at .38% – the allocation of which was to be decided by the
Administration. The appropriations noted above (and in Table 2A) and the FY2000
spending shown in Table 2B do not reflect any effect of this directive on child
nutrition discretionary activities – e.g., special projects, nutrition studies and surveys
– or the WIC program (which is wholly discretionary). In its FY2001 budget, the
Administration announced that there would be no child nutrition or WIC program
cuts as a result of the .38% reduction directive.
In addition to the FY2000 appropriation for child nutrition programs, Section
241 of the Agriculture Risk Protection Act (P.L. 106-224; enacted June 20, 2000,
and discussed later in this report) directed increased commodity purchases for
distribution through the School Lunch program. The Agriculture Department was
effectively required to purchase $34 million worth of food commodities for the
School Lunch program, over and above already planned commodity acquisitions.
This $34 million in mandated commodity purchases is included in the FY2000
commodity spending figure shown in Table 2B.
Actual FY2000 spending amounts for child nutrition and WIC programs, shown
in Table 2B, were higher than provided in the annual appropriations law. They
reflect spending given funding available from all sources – including the annual
appropriation in P.L. 106-78, permanent appropriations, money carried over and
otherwise available from FY1999, funds from budget accounts separate from the
child nutrition and WIC accounts, and commodity purchases mandated in P.L. 106-
224 (noted above).
The enacted appropriation and other funding sources supported FY2000
spending for child nutrition programs, including studies and surveys financed through
the Economic Research Service, at $9.894 billion. The enacted WIC appropriation
27 Funding for the NET program stopped after FY1998. The school breakfast demonstration
was authorized (but not funded) by the 1998 William F. Goodling Child Nutrition
Reauthorization Act (P.L. 105-336). For more information on the NET program and the
demonstration, see CRS Report 97-108, Child Nutrition Issues in the 105th Congress, by Joe
Richardson.
CRS-21
for FY2001, money provided for WIC research through the Economic Research
Service (an estimated $3.5 million), and unused money carried over from FY1999
(about $120 million) supported WIC spending that totaled $3.976 billion – including
funding for the farmers’ market nutrition program, research, infrastructure grants, and
technical assistance.
Table 2A. Child Nutrition & WIC Appropriations:
FY1999 & FY2000
($ in millions)
Annual appropriations
account
FY1999 (P.L. 105-277)
FY2000 (P.L. 106-78)
Child nutritiona
$ 9,176.9
$ 9,554.0
WICb
3,924.0
4,032.0
Total
13,100.9
13,586.0
Notes: The figures presented in this table are annual appropriation amounts: P.L. 105-277 (FY1999)
and P.L. 106-78 (FY2000). They are substantially lower than the total amount of federal funding
available – from all sources – to fund each year’s child nutrition and WIC program spending shown
in Table 2B (see notes below).
a Child nutrition figures do not include: (1) money for nutrition studies and surveys, (2) money
available from permanent appropriations – just over $400 million for commodities, the FSMI,
homeless children projects (FY1999 only), and an information clearinghouse – and other budget
accounts (e.g., funds for “alternative meal count” project grants), (3) unused money carried over
or recovered from the previous year ($157 million in FY1999 and $330 million in FY2000), (4)
money appropriated for general federal administration of food assistance programs (an
undifferentiated share of which is spent on child nutrition activities), and (5) $34 million in
commodity purchases mandated for FY2000 by P.L. 106-224.
b WIC figures do not include: (1) money for WIC research and evaluations (appropriated to the
Economic Research Service budget account), (2) unused money carried over from the previous
year ($155 million in FY1999 and $121 million in FY2000), and (3) money appropriated for
general federal administration of food assistance programs (an undifferentiated share of which
is spent on WIC activities). The appropriation figures include money for the WIC farmers’
market nutrition program.
CRS-22
Table 2B. Child Nutrition & WIC Spending: FY1999 & FY2000
($ in millions)
FY1999: Actual
FY2000: Actual
Programs/Activities
spending
spending a
School lunch b
$ 5,516.6
$ 5,564.3
School breakfast b
1,354.8
1,422.9
Child and adult care food b
1,598.6
1,690.5
Summer food service b
295.6
283.7
Special milk
18.1
16.2
Commodities c
733.2
767.8
State administrative expenses
114.0
120.2
d
d
Nutrition education & training
Homeless children nutrition
1.4
*.*e
Coordinated review effort
4.3
4.3
Nutrition studies and surveys f
3.0
3.0
Food service management institute
3.0
3.0
Special projects g
11.2
17.8
Child nutrition total
$ 9,653.8
$ 9,893.7
WIC program total h
3,955.6
3,976.4
(WIC farmers’ market nutrition program)
(15.0)
(19.3)
Overall total
$ 13,609.4
$ 13,870.1
Notes: The figures shown generally are spending (obligation) estimates from documents
accompanying the Administration’s FY2001 and FY2002 budgets. They differ significantly from
appropriations (shown in Table 2A) and include: spending from previous-year carryovers/ recoveries
of unspent obligations, permanent appropriations, commodity assistance and other spending drawn
from separate Agriculture Department budget accounts, and required commodity purchases under the
Agriculture Risk Protection Act (P.L. 106-224). WIC figures show spending that reflects inter-year
carryovers (see note h on the following page). The amounts shown do not reflect most federal-only
child nutrition administrative costs (roughly $55-$65 million a year), which are funded from a separate
undifferentiated general food program administration account, or the value of “bonus” commodities
supplied to child nutrition programs at the Secretary of Agriculture’s discretion.
a Includes spending under the enacted FY2000 appropriation and the commodity purchase provisions
of P.L. 106-224, plus spending from other sources noted above.
b Figures include cash assistance only, not the value of commodities or cash-lieu-of commodities. For
the Child and Adult Care Food program, they include funding for a $4 million a year
demonstration project operating in Iowa and Kentucky that applied a more liberal test to
participation by for-profit day care centers.
Notes for Table 2B are continued on the following page.
CRS-23
c Includes cash subsidies provided in lieu of commodities (e.g., $64 million in FY2000), some
commodity donation administrative/distribution/computer costs (e.g., $7 million for FY2000),
some $400 million in commodities purchased and donated at no charge to the child nutrition
account in order to meet the commodity entitlements of schools and other providers, and $34
million (for FY2000) directed to be spent to purchase commodities by P.L. 106-224. The
overwhelming majority of commodity assistance (more than 90%) is for the School Lunch
program. Not shown specifically is the value of any “bonus” commodities that the Agriculture
Department donates if excess federal commodity holdings permit (e.g., $73 million in FY2000).
d Although the Clinton Administration requested funding for the Nutrition Education and Training
(NET) program for these years, no appropriation was forthcoming.
e As required by a 1998 change in child nutrition law, full funding for the homeless children nutrition
program is included in the figures shown for the child and adult care food program, beginning
with FY2000.
f In FY1999, as in FY1998, nutrition studies and surveys were funded through the appropriation for
the Economic Research Service (not the child nutrition appropriation). At the direction of the
appropriations law, all funding for nutrition program research and evaluation — child nutrition,
WIC, and food stamps — was consolidated in the Agriculture Department’s Economic Research
Service (ERS), at the dollar level requested by the Administration. For FY2000, the
Administration asked that $3 million be provided for nutrition studies and surveys through the
child nutrition appropriation account (and spent by the FNS). The FY2000 spending figure
shown assumes spending on child nutrition studies/surveys, through the ERS appropriation, at
the Administration’s requested $3 million level — out of a total $12.2 million for all nutrition
program research and evaluation (child nutrition, WIC, and food stamps).
g For FY1999, the amount shown for special projects includes funding for a school meals initiative
and other initiatives to improve food service and food safety (e.g., “Team Nutrition,” food
service training grants, food safety education), as well as an information clearinghouse. For
FY2000, the special projects amount also includes money for a school breakfast pilot project
offering free meals to all elementary school children in the pilot schools ($4.8 million), and $2.3
million for special grants to test alternative methods for claiming federal subsidies (“alternative
meal count” projects) directed by P.L. 105-336.
h Total WIC program figures include spending for the WIC farmers’ market nutrition program. In
FY1999, an amount equal to the full $15 million farmers’ market program appropriation was
spent. In FY2000, some $4.3 million more than the minimum $15 million explicitly
appropriated was spent. The WIC program total also includes $3.5 million a year appropriated
through the ERS for WIC research (also see note f above). The WIC spending figure for
FY1999 reflects $155 million in unused FY1998 funds available in FY1999. For FY2000, WIC
spending figures reflect $121 million in unused FY1999 funds available in FY2000, and
approximately $180 million in unused money carried out into FY2001.
CRS-24
FY2001 Funding
The FY2001 appropriations for the child nutrition and WIC programs were
enacted on October 28, 2000, as part of the Agriculture Department appropriations
measure for FY2001 (P.L. 106-387; H.Rept. 106-948); see Table 3A). The
appropriation for the child nutrition budget account was $9.451 billion. The amount
appropriated for the WIC account was $4.052 billion.
The child nutrition amount for FY2001 was slightly ($5 million) less than the
Clinton Administration’s request. It included money to fully fund child nutrition
activities under existing law, the requested $6 million to complete funding for a
school breakfast demonstration offering meals free to all children in participating
schools ($7 million was appropriated and just under $5 million was spent for this in
FY2000), and $500,000 for a Wisconsin project providing grants to start up school
breakfast programs. The Administration’s request to reinstitute funding ($2 million)
for the Nutrition Education and Training (NET) program was not approved, but its
request for $3 million to pay for child nutrition studies and evaluations was adopted
(although it was provided through the separate Economic Research Service
appropriation).
The WIC amount for FY2001 was significantly lower than requested by the
Clinton Administration. The appropriation of $4.052 billion included $4.032 billion
for the regular WIC program (about $113 million less than requested) and the
Administration’s proposed $20 million for the WIC farmers’ market program (as part
of the WIC appropriation, rather than as a separate appropriation). Requested
funding for WIC research ($3.5 million) was approved – but as part of the
appropriation for the Economic Research Service, not the WIC account as requested.
After enactment of the FY2001 Agriculture Department appropriations law,
P.L. 106-554 directed an across-the-board .22% reduction (rescission) in the
appropriations for discretionary programs operated by many agencies. The effect on
child nutrition programs was minuscule (a $29,000 reduction) – because very little
of the account is considered discretionary spending and it is almost entirely
composed of entitlement (“mandatory”) programs. However, the WIC program
appropriation was significantly reduced – by $8.9 million – because it is a wholly
discretionary program. This rescission is not reflected in the FY2001 enacted
appropriation amount shown in Table 3A, but its effect is accounted for in the
spending figures shown in Table 3B.
As with FY2000, Section 241 of P.L. 106-224, the Agriculture Risk Protection
Act directed the Agriculture Department to purchase additional food commodities for
distribution through the School Lunch program. For FY2001, the Department was
effectively mandated to buy an estimated $76 million worth of commodities, over
and above acquisitions scheduled in the FY2001 budget. This amount is included in
the estimated spending amounts shown in Table 3B, but not in the appropriations
amounts shown in Table 3A.
Actual spending for child nutrition and WIC programs was higher than the
annual appropriations noted above (and in Table 3A). As shown in Table 3B, they
CRS-25
reflect the FY2001 rescission and spending drawing on funding from all sources –
the annual appropriation, permanent appropriations, money available from FY2000,
funds from other budget accounts, and commodity buys mandated by P.L. 106-224.
The FY2001 appropriation and other sources supported spending for child
nutrition programs, including studies and surveys financed through the Economic
Research Service appropriation, of about $10.264 billion. FY2001 WIC spending –
including the regular WIC program, farmers’ market program, research,
infrastructure grants, and technical assistance – totaled $4.147 billion. This was
supported by the enacted WIC appropriation (as reduced by the rescission), money
provided for WIC research through the Economic Research Service (an estimated
$3.5 million), and money carried over from FY2000 (more than $170 million).
Table 3A. Child Nutrition & WIC Appropriations:
FY2000 & FY2001
($ in millions)
FY2001:
Annual
FY2000: Enacted
Administration’s
FY2001: Enacted
appropriations
appropriations
requested
appropriations
account
(P.L. 106-78)
appropriations
(P.L. 106-387)
Child nutritiona
$ 9,554.0
$ 9,546.1
$ 9,541.5
WICb
4,032.0
4,148.1
4,052.0
Total
$ 13,586.0
$ 13,694.2
$ 13,593.5
Notes: The figures presented in this table are annual appropriation amounts from P.L. 106-78
(FY2000), the Administration’s FY2001 budget request and H.Rept. 106-948 (the House-Senate
agreement on the FY2001 appropriations), and P.L. 106-387 (FY2001). They are substantially lower
than the total amount of federal funding available – from all sources – to fund child nutrition and WIC
program spending shown in Table 3B (see notes below). They are not adjusted to reflect the $8.9
million WIC rescission in FY2001 directed by P.L. 106-554 or additional commodity purchases
mandated by P.L. 106-224.
a Child nutrition figures do not include: (1) money for nutrition studies and surveys (except for $3
million in the Administration’s FY2001 request), (2) money available from permanent
appropriations – just over $400 million for commodities, the FSMI, and an information
clearinghouse – and other budget accounts (e.g., “alternative meal count” grants), (3) unused
money carried over or recovered from the previous year (estimated at $330 million in FY2000
and $636 million in FY2001), (4) money appropriated for general federal administration of food
assistance programs (an undifferentiated share of which is spent on child nutrition activities),
and (5) additional commodity purchases mandated by the Agriculture Risk Protection Act, P.L.
106-224 ($34 million in FY2000 and $76 million in FY2001).
b WIC figures are not adjusted for a mandated FY2001 $8.9 million rescission and do not include: (1)
money for WIC research and evaluations (except for $3.5 million in the Administration’s
FY2001 request), (2) unused money carried over from the previous year ($121 million in
FY2000 and $180 million in FY2001), and (3) money appropriated for general federal
administration of food assistance programs (an undifferentiated share of which is spent on WIC
activities). Funding for the WIC farmers market nutrition program is included in all figures
except the Administration’s FY2001 request (the Administration asked for $20 million in a
separate appropriation account).
CRS-26
Table 3B. Child Nutrition & WIC Spending:
FY2000 & FY2001
($ in millions)
FY2000: Actual
FY2001: Actual
Programs/Activities
spending a
spending a
School lunch b
$ 5,564.3
$ 5,734.7
School breakfast b
1,422.9
1,468.2
Child and adult care food b
1,690.5
1,741.8
Summer food service b
283.7
292.3
Special milk
16.2
16.7
Commodities c
767.8
847.5
State administrative expenses
120.2
126.8
d
d
Nutrition education and training
Homeless children nutrition e
*.*e
*.*e
Coordinated review effort
4.3
4.5
Nutrition studies and surveys f
3.0
3.0
Food service management institute (FSMI)
3.0
3.0
Special projects g
17.8
24.8
Child nutrition total
$ 9,893.7
$ 10,263.3
WIC program total h
3,976.4
4,147.3
(WIC farmers’ market nutrition program)
(19.3)
(21.0)
Overall total
$ 13,870.1
$ 14,410.6
Notes: The figures shown in this table are spending (obligation) amounts from documents
accompanying the Administration’s FY2001 and FY2002 budgets and are adjusted, where necessary,
based on the committee reports accompanying the House and Senate FY2001 Agriculture Department
appropriations measures and the House-Senate FY2001 conference agreement. They differ from
annual appropriations (shown in Table 3A) and include spending from previous-year carryovers and
permanent appropriations, commodity assistance and other spending supported by separate Agriculture
Department budget accounts, and required commodity purchases under P.L. 106-224. WIC figures
reflect estimated spending assuming some unused money will be carried over from year to year (see
note h on the following page). The amounts shown do not reflect most federal-only child nutrition
administrative costs (roughly $55-$65 million a year), which are funded from a separate
undifferentiated general food program administration account, or the value of “bonus” commodities.
a Includes spending under the enacted FY2000and FY2001 appropriations and the commodity
purchase provisions of P.L. 106-224, plus spending from other sources noted above.
Notes for Table 3B are continued on the following page.
CRS-27
b Figures include cash assistance only, not the value of commodities or cash in lieu of commodities.
For the Child and Adult Care Food program, they include funding for a demonstration project
in several states that applies a more liberal test to participation by for-profit day care centers.
c Includes cash subsidies provided in lieu of commodities (e.g., $68 million in FY2001), commodity
donation administrative/distribution/computer spending (e.g., $8 million in FY2001), and some
$400 million in commodities purchased and donated at no charge to the child nutrition account
in order to meet the commodity entitlements of schools and other providers. The overwhelming
majority (more than 90%) of commodity assistance is for the School Lunch program. Not
shown is the value of “bonus” commodities that the Agriculture Department donates if excess
federal commodity holdings permit (e.g., $76 million in FY2001). However, special additional
commodity purchases of $34 million in FY2000 and $76 million in FY2001 required by the
Agriculture Risk Protection Act (P.L. 106-224; enacted June 20, 2000) are included.
d Although the Clinton Administration requested funding for the Nutrition Education and Training
(NET) program for these years, no appropriation was forthcoming.
e As required by a 1998 change in child nutrition law, full funding for the homeless children nutrition
program is included in the figures shown for the child and adult care food program.
f In FY2000, nutrition studies and surveys were funded through the appropriation for the Economic
Research Service (ERS), as they were in FY1998 and FY1999. This was in contrast to the
Clinton Administration’s request that they be funded through the child nutrition appropriation
and conducted by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). At the direction of the appropriations
law, all funding for nutrition program research and evaluation — child nutrition, WIC, and food
stamps — was consolidated in the Agriculture Department’s ERS, at the dollar level requested
by the Administration. The FY2000 funding level figure shown assumes spending on child
nutrition studies and surveys, through the ERS, at the Administration’s requested $3 million
level — out of a total $12.2 million for all nutrition program research and evaluation (child
nutrition, WIC, and food stamps). For FY2001, the Administration again requested that $3
million be provided for nutrition studies and surveys through the child nutrition appropriation
account and spent by the FNS. But the enacted FY2001 appropriations law provides the $3
million through the ERS appropriation.
g The amounts shown for special projects include: funding for various projects to improve food service
and food safety covering “Team Nutrition” and food service training grants and food safety
education (e.g., approximately $15 million in FY2001), a small $200,000 grant for an
information clearinghouse, a school breakfast pilot project offering free meals to all elementary
school children in the pilot schools ($4.8 million in FY2000 and $8.2 million for FY2001), $1-2
million for special grants to test alternative methods for claiming federal subsidies (“alternative
meal count grants”) directed by P.L. 105-336. Funding ($500,000 in FY2001) for a special
school breakfast start-up grant project in Wisconsin is included in the overall school breakfast
program figure.
h Total WIC program figures include spending for the WIC farmers’ market nutrition program (shown
in parentheses). WIC totals also include $3.5 million a year for research and evaluation.
Funding for research and evaluation was provided through the ERS appropriation in FY2000
and again in FY2001 under the terms of the enacted appropriations law, although the Clinton
Administration sought to fund and operate WIC research and evaluation through the FNS (also
see note f above). The WIC spending figure for FY2000 reflects $121 million in unused
FY1999 funds available in FY2000. The FY2001 spending figure reflects about $176 million
in unused FY2000 funding available in FY2001. These carryover estimates are derived from
the Administration’s FY2002 and FY2003 budget submissions. The WIC spending amount for
FY2001 does not include $1 million provided for a related Health Program Demonstration
Project called for in P.L. 106-224.
CRS-28
FY2002 Funding
FY2002 Appropriations. Table 4A shows the Bush Administration’s
requested FY2002 annual appropriation amounts for the child nutrition and WIC
budget accounts, compared to the amounts provided for these accounts in: (1) the
enacted FY2002 Agriculture Department appropriations law (P.L. 107-76), plus (2)
for the WIC program, two additional FY2002 appropriations measures (P.L. 107-
117; and P.L. 107-206). For further comparison, the table also includes the FY2001
appropriations for the child nutrition and WIC accounts.
Administration Request. The Bush Administration’s FY2002 budget asked
for an annual appropriation for the child nutrition account totaling $10.089 billion,
$547 million more than the FY2001 appropriation. Only one new initiative was
contained in this request: $2 million to fund new School Lunch “program integrity”
activities for developing alternatives to the processes now used to determine
eligibility for free and reduced-price school meals. With this exception, the request
simply continued funding for current-law activities, with the increase reflecting
inflation indexing of federal subsidies and expected enrollment changes.28 In
addition, funding for child nutrition evaluations and studies was requested in the
Economic Research Service budget and the Food Program Administration account.
As to the WIC budget account, the Administration called for an appropriation
of $4.137 billion for FY2002, $94 million above the amount appropriated for
FY2001 (after reduction by $8.9 million under the terms of the FY2001 across-the-
board rescission noted earlier in this report). The proposed increase was to offset
expected costs due to inflation, without allowance for an increased caseload. With
regard to the other components of the WIC appropriations request, the
Administration asked for: (1) $14 million for infrastructure development grants,
including $6 million for developing electronic benefit transfer systems, and (2) $20
million for the WIC farmers’ market nutrition program.29 The infrastructure amount
was the same as FY2001, but the farmers’ market request was $1 million below
spending in FY2001. Additional funding for WIC research was requested through
the Economic Research Service budget.
House Appropriations Action. On July 11, 2001, the House approved its
version of the FY2002 Agriculture Department appropriations measure (H.R. 2330;
H.Rept. 107-116).
The House bill appropriated the full $10.089 billion for the child nutrition
account requested by the Administration, with no changes. As requested, separate
funding for child nutrition evaluations and studies was provided through the budget
accounts for the Economic Research Service and Food Program Administration. In
28 Unlike previous requests under the Clinton Administration, the FY2002 request called for
funding of child nutrition studies and surveys through the appropriation to the Economic
Research Service.
29 Of the $20 million for the farmers’ market program, $10 million was to be made available
immediately, and up to $10 million was to be released if not needed to maintain regular WIC
program caseload levels.
CRS-29
addition, language in the House Appropriations Committee’s report (1) called for a
report on enforcement of “Buy America” provisions of law that apply to school food
purchase, (2) called on the Agriculture Department to review recommendations for
change in policies affecting the sale of “competitive foods” in schools and seek
authority for any needed changes from the appropriate authorizing committees, (3)
encouraged continued efforts to resolve issues connected with application of certain
requirements of federal meat and poultry inspection laws to school meals in Ohio, (4)
asked for a report on implementation of efforts to increase and coordinate nutrition
education activities, (5) requested a report on the effect of rising food and labor costs
on school meal programs, (6) urged the Department to consider a milk vending
machine pilot project in schools (potentially located in Iowa), and (7) called for a
report on the availability of fruit and vegetables in schools (comparing schools with
and without salad bars).
For the WIC account, the House appropriated the requested $4.137 billion, but
included stipulations as to its spending that differed from the Administration’s. It
provided a total of $10 million for infrastructure development ($4 million less than
requested), but then set aside $6 million (as requested) of this amount for electronic
benefit transfer (EBT) systems. On the other hand, it increased the amount available
for the WIC farmers’ market program to $25 million ($5 million more than
requested)30 and created a new $15 million set-aside for a seniors farmers’ market
program.31 As requested, funding for WIC research was provided through the
Economic Research Service appropriation. Finally, the committee’s report (1)
directed the Department to make funding available to support state initiatives for
innovative solutions providing benefits in WIC (and seniors) farmers’ markets
through electronic benefit transfer (EBT) systems, (2) urged the Department to study
the feasibility of a pilot program to increase fresh produce consumption in WIC (and
food stamp) programs, (3) noted the committee’s concern that WIC participation in
FY2002 might be higher than expected and promised to monitor the need for
additional funds, and (4) called for a report on the status of policies regarding food
substitutions in WIC food packages to accommodate food preferences and
ethnic/cultural eating patterns.
Senate Appropriations Action. On July 18, 2001, the Senate
Appropriations Committee reported its version of the FY2002 Agriculture
Department appropriations measure (S. 1191; S.Rept. 107-41). The Senate approved
the committee’s recommendation as its version of H.R. 2330 on October 25, 2001,
with no changes to child nutrition or WIC figures.
30 The $25 million for the WIC farmers market program was made available to the extent not
needed to maintain the regular WIC caseload.
31 The seniors farmers’ market nutrition program makes grants to states and Indian tribal
organizations to provide vouchers/coupons to low-income elderly persons that can be
exchanged for food at farmers’ markets, roadside stands, and community supported
agriculture programs. It was initiated under the Clinton Administration in January 2001
using $15 million in funding available from the Agriculture Department’s Commodity
Credit Corporation. Money under the House bill was to be available for the seniors farmers’
market program to the extent not needed to maintain the regular WIC caseload. Information
about it can be found at the Agriculture Department’s website: [http://www.fns.usda.gov].
CRS-30
For the child nutrition account, the Senate bill appropriated $1.5 million less
than requested by the Administration and appropriated in the House bill. It differed
by: (1) not appropriating the $2 million asked for by the Administration for School
Lunch “program integrity” activities (instead, this amount was appropriated through
the Food Program Administration account) and (2) appropriating $500,000 to
continue a pilot project in Wisconsin making start-up grants for School Breakfast
programs.32 As with the House bill, the Senate also provided funding for child
nutrition studies and evaluations through the appropriations for the Economic
Research Service and Food Program Administration. In addition, language in the
Senate Appropriations Committee’s report (1) urged the Department to examine the
merits of experiments (in Iowa and Wisconsin) with milk vending machines and
expand them as pilot projects if found to be beneficial, (2) urged the Department to
put an increased emphasis on nutrition education and training (particularly in light
of concerns about child obesity), (3) called for a report on “Buy America” provisions
covering school food purchases, and (4) requested a report on the costs of providing
meals and snacks under child nutrition programs (expressing a concern that subsidy
rate indexes may be lagging).
For the WIC budget account, the Senate bill appropriated $110 million more
than requested by the Administration and appropriated in the House bill. As in the
House bill, funding for WIC research was provided through the Economic Research
Service appropriation. With regard to components of the WIC appropriation, the
Senate bill: (1) followed the Administration’s proposal as to infrastructure funding,
(2) increased potential funding available for the WIC farmers’ market nutrition
program to $25 million ($20 million available immediately, and $5 million available
if not needed to maintain the regular WIC program caseload), (3) did not make any
provision for seniors farmers’ nutrition market programs, and (4) stipulated that any
carryover funds from FY2001 to FY2002 in excess of $110 million could be
transferred from the WIC program to the Rural Community Advancement program.
The Senate Committee’s report also (1) asked the Department to assess the effect of
arrangements between infant formula manufacturers and hospitals on state infant
formula rebate contracts and breast-feeding rates among WIC recipients, (2) restated
a policy against having WIC agencies perform aggressive health care screening,
referral, and assessment functions that interfere with providing core WIC benefits
and services, (3) directed the Secretaries of Agriculture and Health and Human
Services to delineate responsibilities related to immunization, and (4) called for a
report on the status of policies regarding food substitutions in WIC food packages to
accommodate food preferences and ethnic/cultural eating patterns.
Enacted Appropriations. On November 9, 2001, the House-Senate
conference agreement on the FY2002 Agriculture Department appropriations bill was
filed (H.R. 2330; H.Rept. 107-275). It was approved by the House on November 13
and by the Senate on November 15. On November 28, 2001, the congressional
agreement on the FY2002 appropriations law was enacted as P.L. 107-76.
32 This Wisconsin pilot project was initiated under provisions in the FY2001 Agriculture
Department appropriations law. FY2001 funding was $500,000.
CRS-31
The FY2002 Agriculture Department appropriations law generally followed the
Senate measure and appropriated $10.087 billion for the child nutrition budget
account. This was intended to fully fund child nutrition activities. The
Administration’s requested funding for School Lunch “program integrity” activities
was funded through the Food Program Administration budget account; $500,000 was
provided for a Wisconsin School Breakfast expansion pilot project (as in FY2001);
and money for child nutrition studies and evaluations was provided through the
appropriations for the Economic Research Service and Food Program
Administration. The House-Senate conference report also (1) directed the
Agriculture Department to ensure that all guidance and other material related to “Buy
America” requirements be coordinated to ensure that these requirements do not
distinguish among sources of funds used to make purchases, (2) requested a report
on rising food and labor costs for school meals, (3) called for an increased emphasis
on nutrition education and training because of the rising incidence of childhood
obesity and diabetes, and (3) asked the Department to analyze current levels of fresh
produce available to children in school meal programs (and otherwise), review
methods of distributing fresh produce to schools, and undertake outreach efforts to
increase produce purchases through school meal programs.
For the WIC budget account, the FY2002 appropriations law provided more than
either the House or Senate bills: $4.348 billion. As in those bills, money for WIC
research was appropriated through the Economic Research Service budget. With
regard to the components of the WIC appropriation, the enacted law: (1) provided
$10 million for infrastructure development (plus $4 million if not needed to support
the regular WIC program’s caseload) and set aside $6 million for electronic benefit
transfer (EBT) systems and (2) included a potential total of $25 million for the WIC
farmers’ market nutrition program ($10 million available immediately, plus $15
million if not needed to maintain the regular WIC program’s caseload). It did not
include set-asides for the seniors farmers’ market nutrition program (as in the House)
or the Rural Community Advancement program (as in the Senate). The House-
Senate conference report also supported an infant formula study (as in the Senate),
but specifically did not include language regarding support of state EBT/farmers’
market initiatives (as in the House), although $100,000 was set aside for a New York
EBT project dealing with the use of food stamps in farmers’ markets.
Added FY2002 Funding for the WIC Program. In passing the regular
FY2002 appropriation for the WIC program, both the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees noted that there was a significant potential that the
demand for WIC services would expand beyond the level covered by the
appropriation enacted in November 2001 (P.L. 107-76). As reports of increased
pressure on WIC providers were received – showing the caseload “demand” rising
well above the 7.25 million persons originally projected by the Administration in
early 2001 or the 7.4 million persons expected to be covered by the added money
provided in the regular appropriation for FY2002 – Congress (with the
Administration’s support) acted to appropriate an additional $114 million for the
FY2002 WIC program. This was done in two appropriations measures: (1) the
FY2002 Defense Department appropriations law, P.L. 107-117 (enacted January 10,
2002) and (2) an FY2002 emergency supplemental appropriations law, P.L. 107-206
(enacted August 2, 2002).
CRS-32
Funding the FY2002 WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program. The
regular FY2002 appropriation for the WIC program set aside an immediate $10
million for the WIC farmers’ market nutrition program. It also provided up to $15
million extra, if the money was not needed to meet the regular WIC program’s
caseload requirements. Because of substantial caseload pressures on the regular WIC
program, the Agriculture Department announced, early in 2002 (as part of its FY2003
budget presentation), that it would not release the additional $15 million for the
farmers’ market program. This would have meant a substantial drop in support for
the farmers’ market program – from $20 million appropriated for FY2001 (and $21
million spent, including carryover funds from FY2000). Instead, Congress stepped
in and provided the $15 million as part of the 2002 “farm bill” (the Farm Security
and Rural Investment Act; P.L. 107-171; enacted May 13, 2002). As a result, $26
million is available for the WIC farmers’ market nutrition program in FY2002: (1)
$10 million from the regular FY2002 appropriation, (2) $15 million from the “farm
bill,” and (3) $1 million carried over from FY2001.33
Additional Commodity Support in FY2002 (and FY2003). The 2002
“farm bill” (the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act; P.L. 107-171) also
included a provision that has the effect of increasing Agriculture Department
commodity purchases in support of child nutrition programs by an estimated $50
million in FY2002 (and FY2003). It extends provisions of child nutrition law that
remove a mandate that any “bonus” commodities – already acquired by the
Department for agricultural support purposes (and then donated to schools) – be
counted toward a legal minimum requirement that 12% of all school lunch assistance
be in the form of commodities.34
FY2002 Spending. FY2002 spending for child nutrition and WIC programs
was significantly higher than provided in the appropriations laws noted above. Table
4B shows actual spending for child nutrition and WIC activities in FY2002 given the
total amount of child nutrition and WIC funding available from the regular FY2002
appropriations law and other sources – including additional appropriations, funding
carried over from FY2001, permanent appropriations, money from different budget
accounts (e.g., the Economic Research Service, Food Program Administration), and
the 2002 “farm bill.” For comparison, it also includes actual spending figures for
FY2001.
33 For details on the amount of FY2002 WIC farmers’ market nutrition program funding
granted by state (including the new money under the “farm bill”), see the Agriculture
Department’s Food and Nutrition Service website: [http://www.fns.usda.gov] .
34 Also see CRS Report RL31578, Child Nutrition and WIC Legislation in the 106th and
107th Congresses.
CRS-33
Table 4A. Child Nutrition & WIC Appropriations:
FY2001 & FY2002
(in millions)
FY 2002:
FY2002: Enacted
Administration’s
appropriations
requested
and other funding
FY2001: Enacted
appropriations
laws (P.L. 107-76,
Annual appropriations
appropriations
(original FY2002
107-117, 107-171,
account
(P.L. 106-387)
request)
and 107-206)
Child nutritiona
$9,541.5
$ 10,088.7
$10,087.2
WICb
4,052.0
4,137.1
4,477.0
Total
$ 13,593.5
$ 14,225.8
$ 14,564.2
Notes: The FY2001 figures presented in this table are annual appropriation amounts from P.L. 106-
387. They do not include: (1) an estimated $76 million in additional commodity purchases mandated
by P.L. 106-224 and (2) the rescission of $8.9 million in WIC funding directed by P.L. 106-554. The
figures for the FY2002 Administration request are taken from the FY2002 Agriculture Department
budget documents. They do not include the Administration’s two requests for additional WIC funding,
totaling $114 million and enacted in P.L. 107-117 and P.L. 107-206. The figures for FY2002 enacted
appropriations include the regular appropriations law (P.L. 107-76), additional appropriations totaling
$114 million for the WIC program enacted in two laws (P.L. 107-117 and P.L. 107-206), and
additional mandatory funding for the WIC farmers’ market nutrition program ($15 million) enacted
in P.L. 107-171. They do not include an estimated $50 million in additional commodity purchases
for child nutrition programs resulting from provisions in P.L. 107-171. These appropriations figures
are substantially lower than the total amount of federal funding available – from all sources – to fund
spending for child nutrition and WIC programs, shown in Table 4B (see notes below).
a Child nutrition figures do not include: (1) money for nutrition studies and surveys (appropriated to
the Economic Research Service and the Food Program Administration budget account), (2)
money available from permanent appropriations – just over $400 million for commodities, the
FSMI, and an information clearinghouse – and other budget accounts, (3) unused money carried
over or recovered from FY2001 (estimated at $344 million), and (4) money appropriated for
general federal administration of food assistance programs (an undifferentiated share of which
is spent on child nutrition activities).
b WIC figures do not include: (1) money for WIC research and evaluations (appropriated to the
Economic Research Service), (2) unused money carried over from the previous year (estimated
at $136 million), and (3) money appropriated for general federal administration of food
assistance programs (an undifferentiated share of which is spent on WIC activities). Funding
for the WIC farmers’ market nutrition program is included in all WIC figures. WIC figures for
the enacted FY2002 appropriations include the regular appropriation, $114 million in additional
appropriations (P.L. 107-117 and P.L. 107-206), and $15 million in mandatory funding for the
farmers’ market program provided in P.L. 107-171.
CRS-34
Table 4B. Child Nutrition & WIC Spending:
FY2001 & FY2002
($ in millions)
FY2001:
FY2002:
Programs/Activities
Actual spending a
Actual spending a
School lunch b
$ 5,734.7
$ 6,026.0
School breakfast b
1,468.2
1,541.0
Child and adult care food b
1,741.8
1,830.7
Summer food service b
292.3
307.2
Special milk
16.7
17.5
Commodities c
847.5
866.1
State administrative expenses
126.8
132.3
d
d
Nutrition education and training
Homeless children nutrition e
*.*d
*.*d
Coordinated review effort
4.5
4.7
Nutrition studies and surveys f
3.0
NA
Food service management institute (FSMI)
3.0
3.0
Special projects g
24.8
14.4
Child nutrition total
$ 10,263.3
$ 10,742.9
WIC program total h
4,147.3
4,372.3
(WIC farmers’ market nutrition program)
(21.0)
(21.3)
Overall total
$ 14,410.6
15,115.2
Notes: The figures shown in this table are spending (obligation) amounts from documents
accompanying the Administration’s FY2002, FY2003, and FY2004 budgets and are adjusted, where
necessary, based on the congressional reports accompanying the FY2001 and FY2002 Agriculture
Department appropriations measures. They differ from appropriations (shown in Table 4A) and
include spending from previous-year carryovers and permanent appropriations, commodity assistance
and other spending drawn from separate Agriculture Department budget accounts, and required
commodity purchases and WIC funding under P.L. 106-224, P.L. 107-117, P.L. 107-171, and P.L.
107-206. WIC figures reflect spending assuming some unused money will be carried over from year
to year (see note h on the following page). The amounts shown do not reflect most federal-only child
nutrition administrative costs (roughly $60-$70 million a year), which are funded from a separate
undifferentiated general food program administration account, or the value of “bonus” commodities.
a Includes spending under the enacted FY2001and FY2002 appropriations measures, the additional
funding provisions of P.L. 106-224, P.L. 107-117, P.L. 107-171, and P.L. 107-206, plus
spending from other sources noted above.
Notes for Table 4B are continued on the following page.
CRS-35
b Figures include cash assistance only, not the value of commodities or cash in lieu of commodities.
For the child and adult care food program, they include funding for a demonstration project
in several states that applies a more liberal test to participation by for-profit day care centers.
c Includes cash subsidies provided in lieu of commodities (e.g., $73 million in FY2002), certain
federal commodity donation administrative/distribution/computer spending (e.g., $11 million
in FY2002), and some $400 million in commodities purchased and donated at no charge to the
child nutrition account in order to meet the commodity entitlements. The overwhelming
majority (more than 90%) of commodity assistance is for the school lunch program. Not shown
is the value of “bonus” commodities donated if excess federal commodity holdings permit (e.g.,
$70 million in FY2002). However, special commodity purchases of $76 million in FY2001
required by the Agriculture Risk Protection Act (P.L. 106-224; enacted June 20, 2000) are
included, as are FY2002 commodity purchases required by provisions P.L. 107-171.
d Although the Clinton Administration requested funding for the Nutrition Education and Training
(NET) program through FY2001, no appropriation was forthcoming. This item is included for
purposes of historical comparison.
e As required by a 1998 change in child nutrition law, full funding for the Homeless Children Nutrition
program is included in the figures shown for the Child and Adult Care Food program. This item
is included for purposes of historical comparison.
f In FY2001, nutrition studies and surveys were funded through the appropriation for the Economic
Research Service (ERS), as in FY1998-FY2000 – in contrast to the Clinton Administration’s
request that they be funded through the child nutrition appropriation and conducted by the FNS.
At the direction of the appropriations law, all funding for nutrition program research and
evaluation — child nutrition, WIC, and food stamps — was consolidated in the Agriculture
Department’s ERS, at the dollar level requested by the Administration. The FY2001 funding
level figure shown assumes spending on child nutrition studies and surveys, through the ERS,
at the Administration’s requested $3 million level — out of a total $12.2 million for all ERS
nutrition program research and evaluation (child nutrition, WIC, and food stamps). For
FY2002, the appropriations law again earmarked $12.2 million for all nutrition program
research and evaluation. However, this was divided: $9.2 million through the ERS and $3
million through the FNS, and no comprehensive breakdown showing the child nutrition studies
and surveys portion of this total is available.
g The amounts shown for special projects include: funding for various projects to improve food
service and food safety covering “Team Nutrition” and food service training grants and food
safety education (funded at about $12 million in FY2002), a small $200,000 grant for an
information clearinghouse, a school breakfast pilot project offering free meals to all elementary
school children in the pilot schools ($8.2 million for FY2001), $1 million (FY2001) for special
grants to test alternative methods for claiming federal subsidies (“alternative meal count grants”)
directed by P.L. 105-336, and $2 million (FY2002) for a school lunch “integrity” project.
Funding ($500,000 annually) for a special School Breakfast start-up grant project in Wisconsin
is included in the overall school breakfast program figure.
h Total WIC program figures include spending for the WIC farmers’ market nutrition program (shown
in parentheses). The WIC total for FY2001 includes $3.5 million for research and evaluation.
Funding for research and evaluation was provided through the ERS appropriation in FY2001
under the terms of the appropriations law, although the Clinton Administration sought to fund
and operate WIC research and evaluation through the FNS (also see note f above). The WIC
spending figure for FY2001 also reflects $176 million in unused FY2000 available in FY2001,
but does not include $1 million provided separately for a related Health Program Demonstration
Project called for in P.L. 106-224.. The FY2002 amount does not include funding for research
and evaluation. For FY2002, the appropriations law earmarked $12.2 million for all nutrition
program research and evaluation. However, this was divided: $9.2 million through the ERS and
$3 million through the FNS, and no comprehensive breakdown showing the WIC research and
evaluation portion of this total is available. The FY2002 spending estimate reflects about $76
million in unused FY2001 funding available in FY2002. The FY2002 estimate also includes
spending derived from additional WIC (and farmers’ market) funding provided in P.L. 107-117
and P.L. 107-206 ($129 million) and reflects $108 million not used in FY2002 and carried over
into FY2003.
CRS-36
FY2003 Funding
FY2003 Appropriations. Table 5A shows the Administration’s requested
FY2003 appropriations for the child nutrition and WIC budget accounts compared
to: (1) the amounts provided for these accounts in the FY2003 Agriculture
Department appropriations bills reported by the House Appropriations Committee
(H.R. 5263; H.Rept. 107-623) and the Senate Appropriations Committee (S. 2801;
S.Rept. 107-223), (2) the omnibus FY2003 appropriations measure approved by the
Senate on January 23, 2003 (H.J.Res. 2), and (3) the FY2003 Consolidated
Appropriations Resolution (P.L. 108-7; H.Rept. 108-10; enacted February 20, 2003).
Beginning February 21, 2003, spending for child nutrition and WIC programs
is provided for by the FY2003 Consolidated Appropriations Resolution; Division A
of this resolution covers the Agriculture Department. For October 1, 2002, through
February 20, 2003, spending for child nutrition and WIC programs was governed by
the terms of a series of temporary continuing resolutions. These terms and projected
spending under the FY2003 Consolidated Appropriations Resolution are described
in the following section of this report – FY2003 Spending – and Table 5B. In
addition, the Administration revised its original request for the WIC program
downward in early January 2003 – see the discussion of the Administration Request
below.
Administration Request. The Administration’s FY2003 budget asked for
an appropriation for the child nutrition account totaling $10.576 billion, $489 million
more than appropriated for FY2002.35 No new initiatives were contained in the
request for funding under the child nutrition account. By and large, the request
simply continued funding for current-law activities, with an increase reflecting
inflation indexing of federal subsidies and expected enrollment changes. However,
money for food safety education projects was reduced by half (from $2 million in
FY2002 to $1 million in FY2003), funds for the coordinated review effort were
increased noticeably (from $4.5 million in FY2002 to $5.1 million in FY2003), and
the $500,000 provided in FY2002 for a Wisconsin school breakfast expansion pilot
initiative was not renewed. Moreover, in the separate Food Program Administration
account, the Administration asked for a substantial increase in money for “program
integrity” activities affecting all FNS programs – up from $6.5 million in FY2002 to
$11 million in FY2003.36 Funding for child nutrition evaluations and studies was
requested separately in the Economic Research Service budget.
As to the WIC budget, the Administration originally called for an appropriation
of $4.751 billion for FY2003, $274 million above total FY2002 funding level
provided through the regular appropriation and other, later funding laws. The
35 This figure is slightly less than the “official” Administration request ($10.577 billion).
It does not include $553,000 asked for to cover certain pension and health benefit costs.
This amount reflects a change in budgeting policy not adopted by the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees.
36 While $2 million of the $6.5 million in FY2002 was clearly earmarked for child nutrition
program integrity initiatives, it is unclear how much of the increased amount for FY2003
would be earmarked for child nutrition integrity activities.
CRS-37
proposed increase was to provide money for an increased number of applicants and
slightly higher food costs, and to create a $150 million contingency fund should
costs/participation exceed budget projections. With regard to the other components
of the WIC appropriations request, the Administration asked for: (1) $14 million for
infrastructure development grants ($4 million more than FY2002), including $6
million for developing electronic benefit transfer systems, (2) no funds for the WIC
farmers’ market nutrition program, and (3) $2 million for a new study of the
management of approved WIC vendors. Additional funding for WIC research was
requested as part of the Economic Research Service budget.
On January 3, 2003, the Administration submitted amendments to its original
FY2003 requests. They did not affect child nutrition account, but did propose a
smaller FY2003 appropriation for the WIC account – a $25 million reduction. This
was characterized as a $25 million decrease in the $150 million contingency fund
contained in the original budget, and the Administration stated that it was possible
because of lower-than-anticipated WIC food costs in FY2003. It went on to contend
that, even after this reduction, the remaining $4.726 billion (including a $125 million
contingency amount) would be “sufficient to ensure that WIC can serve all eligible
persons seeking services” (i.e., 7.8 million persons, up from 7.5 million in FY2002,
according to the original FY2003 budget). The funds derived from this reduction in
the WIC appropriation would, according to the Administration, be used to offset
accompanying proposals for a new “Farm Bill Technical Assistance” account and for
funding for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
House Appropriations Action. On July 26, 2002, the House
Appropriations Committee reported its version of the FY2003 Agriculture
Department appropriations measure (H.R. 5263; H.Rept. 107-623).
The House committee bill appropriated the $10.576 billion for the child
nutrition account requested by the Administration. In doing so, it accepted the
Administration’s proposed changes in funding for food safety education, the
coordinated review effort, and Wisconsin’s school breakfast pilot (as noted above).
Separately (in the Food Program Administration budget account), the House bill
provides $2 million of the Administration’s request for a $4.5 million increase in
money for FNS program integrity initiatives; it is unclear how this would affect
additional program integrity spending for child nutrition programs (vs. other FNS
programs). As requested, funding for child nutrition evaluations and studies was
provided through the Economic Research Service budget. Finally, language in the
House Appropriations Committee’s report, supported establishment of a “Youth
Nutrition Education Media” campaign.
For the WIC account, the House committee bill appropriated $4.776 billion, $25
million more than requested. In doing so, it accepted the Administration’s original
$150 million contingency fund, as well as proposals for infrastructure development
funding, a study of WIC vendor management, and funding of other WIC research
through the Economic Research Service (as noted above). However, unlike the
Administration’s request, it specifically included $25 million for the WIC farmers’
market nutrition program (and, in Committee report language, noted that several
million dollars of FY2002 money also will be available to support farmers’ markets
in FY2003). In the Committee’s report, it: (1) called for the Department’s
CRS-38
recommendation as to providing state WIC agencies with the flexibility to deal with
infant formula can-size issue so that recipients may receive the full authorized
amount of formula, (2) expressed concern over the delay in updating the rules
governing the content of WIC food packages and asked for quarterly reports on the
status of the updating regulations, and (3) directed the Department to clarify that
blended 100% fruit juices are eligible WIC food products and should be objectively
evaluated by state WIC agencies for inclusion on their list of approved WIC foods.
Senate Appropriations Action. On July 25, 2002, the Senate
Appropriations Committee reported its version of the FY2003 Agriculture
Department appropriations measure (S. 2801; S.Rept. 107-223). On January 23,
2003, the Senate approved its version of an omnibus FY2003 appropriations bill
(H.J.Res. 2). For the child nutrition account, the Senate-passed omnibus bill included
virtually the same amount as the Senate Appropriations Committee bill. However,
for the WIC account, less was provided because the full WIC program appropriation
was subject to an across-the-board cut in funding for discretionary programs (see the
discussion below for more detail).
The Senate committee bill appropriated $10.58 billion for the child nutrition
account, $4 million more than requested by the Administration and included in the
House bill. In doing so, it accepted the Administration’s proposed changes in
funding for food safety education and the coordinated review effort (noted above).
However, in a number of relatively small funding provisions, it differed from the
Administration and the House bill – (1) it included $3.3 million for a school breakfast
startup grant program building on a Wisconsin initiative begun in FY2001 (at least
$1 million was to go to Wisconsin’s effort, and the remainder to at least five
additional states with low participation in the School Breakfast program); (2) it
provided $200,000 to Food Works of Vermont to fund a “Common Roots” program;
(3) it made $500,000 available for 2 years to establish a Child Nutrition Archive
Resource Center at the National Food Service Management Institute, and (4) it set
aside $3.2 million for child nutrition evaluations and studies through the FNS (from
the child nutrition account), rather than the Economic Research Service (as requested
by the Administration and included in the House bill). Separately (in the Food
Program Administration budget account), the Senate bill also provided the full $4.5
million increase in funding requested for FNS program integrity activities.
The Senate-approved omnibus FY2003 appropriations measure provided an
appropriation for the child nutrition account equal to the amount appropriated in the
Senate Committee bill. However, a very small amount of this appropriation was
subject to an across-the-board cut mandated for discretionary programs. The cut
would be at least 1.6%, and some rough estimates placed the total required reduction
at 2.9%. Depending on how this directive for a discretionary program reduction was
interpreted, it could have affected between $4 million and $15 million of the total
$10.58 billion child nutrition appropriation – i.e., a cut of under $500,000.
For the WIC account, the Senate committee bill appropriated the
Administration’s original request of $4.751 billion, and, in doing so, accepted the
Administration’s proposals for infrastructure development and a study of WIC
vendor management. While the Senate committee’s total appropriation was $25
million less than the House bill, it reduced the $150 million contingency fund to $125
CRS-39
million and specifically provided $25 million for the WIC farmers’ market nutrition
program. In another difference with the Administration (and the House bill), the
Senate committee measure assumed funding of WIC research through the FNS (from
the WIC account), as with child nutrition evaluations and studies; no specific figure
is noted. The Committee’s report also included language on infant formula can-size
requirements and the updating of rules governing the content of WIC food packages
that is comparable to that in the House report.
As regards the WIC account, the Senate-approved omnibus FY2003
appropriations measure followed the Senate committee bill, with one major
difference. The full WIC appropriation was subject to an across-the-board cut in
appropriations for discretionary programs. This would be at least 1.6%, and some
rough estimates of the total required reduction placed it at 2.9%. This translated into
at least a $76 million reduction in the overall WIC appropriation of $4.751 billion
(using the 1.6% minimum figure). However, while the total WIC appropriation was
effectively lowered by this cut, the $25 million set-aside for the WIC farmers’ market
nutrition program was unaffected.
Consolidated Appropriations Resolution.37 On February 20,2003, the
President signed the FY2003 Consolidated Appropriations Resolution approved by
the House and Senate February 13, 2003 (P.L. 108-7; H.J.Res. 2; H.Rept. 108-10).
Division A of this law covers appropriations for the Agriculture Department,
including child nutrition and WIC programs.
The FY2003 appropriation for the child nutrition account provides $10.58
billion – effectively the same as in the two Senate measures and some $4 million
more than requested and recommended by the House Appropriations Committee. In
doing so, it accepts the Administration’s proposed changes in funding for food safety
education and the coordinated review effort (noted earlier). As with the two Senate
measures, the FY2003 appropriation also: (1) includes $3.3 million for a school
breakfast startup grant program ($1 million for Wisconsin); (2) provides $200,000
for a Vermont “Common Roots” program; and (3) makes $500,000 available for a
Child Nutrition Archive Resource Center. It does not set aside money from the child
nutrition account for child nutrition research (instead appropriating funds through the
Economic Research Service, as requested and recommended by the House
Appropriations Committee) and provides only $1 million of the requested $4.5
million increase in money for program integrity activities. Finally, an across-the-
board .65% reduction to be applied to discretionary activities may affect between $4
million and $15 million of the total $10.58 billion child nutrition appropriation – i.e.,
a cut of less than $100,000.
37 Drawing on a recommendation in the Senate appropriations measures, the enacted
Consolidated Appropriations Resolution also includes a provision changing child nutrition
law. This amendment extends a rule liberalizing the conditions under which for-profit child
care centers may participate in the Child and Adult Care Food program – through the end
of FY2003. Also refer to CRS Report RL31578, Child Nutrition and WIC Legislation in the
106th and 107th Congresses, by Joe Richardson.
CRS-40
As regards the WIC account, the FY2003 appropriation provides a total of
$4.696 billion – significantly less than requested by the Administration. However:
(1) it accepts the Administration’s proposals for infrastructure development funding
and a study of WIC vendor practices; (2) includes a $125 million contingency fund,
(3) earmarks $25 million for the WIC farmers’ market nutrition program; and (4)
accepts the Adminstration’s request (and House recommendation) to fund WIC
research from the Economic Research Service appropriation. The WIC appropriation
is specifically exempted from the law’s across-the-board reduction in spending for
discretionary programs.
FY2003 Spending. FY2003 spending for child nutrition and WIC programs
is expected to be significantly higher than provided in the FY2003 Consolidated
Appropriations Resolution. Table 5B shows estimated spending for child nutrition
and WIC activities in FY2003 under the Administration’s request and the FY2003
Consolidated Appropriations Resolution – given the total amount of child nutrition
and WIC funding available from all sources (regular appropriations, funding carried
over from FY2002, permanent appropriations, money from different budget accounts,
and the 2002 “farm bill”). Child nutrition spending will be an estimated $11.3 billion
and WIC spending is projected at $4.6 billion.
Until February 21, 2003, spending on child nutrition and WIC programs was
governed by the terms of a series of continuing resolutions. These resolutions
provided different spending rules for child nutrition and WIC programs, depending
on the type of program or activity, as follows.
For programs that are treated as entitlements or mandatory payments, the
resolutions provided spending authority sufficient to fund all costs incurred under
current law, even if they were higher than comparable FY2002 amounts. The
resolution stipulated that these programs were to be continued at a rate that would
maintain whatever assistance levels are dictated by the terms of current law. The
overwhelming majority of child nutrition spending was included under this rule: the
School Lunch and School Breakfast programs, the Child and Adult Care Food
program, the Summer Food Service program, the Special Milk program, funding for
state child nutrition administrative expenses, and commodity assistance for child
nutrition programs.
A second, very small set of child nutrition programs and activities operate under
permanent appropriations and, as such, were not affected by the continuing
resolutions; they could spend out at the rate consistent with their permanent annual
appropriation level. They included: the Food Service Management Institute ($3
million) and funding for an information clearinghouse ($200,000).
A third group of programs are classified as discretionary. They were funded at
their FY2002 spending/obligation level, and, typically, also must allocate their
funding at the FY2002 rate. Normally, discretionary programs allocate funding in
equal monthly or quarterly shares of the total amount available. In the case of these
continuing resolutions, they could allocate the portion of the FY2002
spending/obligation amount equal to the percentage of the fiscal year covered by the
continuing resolution (four months, or one-third). The few programs and activities
covered by this rule included: funding for the child nutrition coordinated review
CRS-41
effort and the “Team Nutrition” initiative, and research and direct federal
administrative costs linked to child nutrition and WIC programs.
The regular WIC program and the WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition program also
are treated as discretionary, and thus limited to spending/obligating no more than the
total FY2002 amount. But, under the terms of the continuing resolutions and special
provisions in WIC law, they were treated somewhat differently than the other
discretionary programs/activities noted above. As opposed to allocating funds in
equal shares or according to how much of the fiscal year is covered (as is typical for
discretionary programs), allocations to states under the WIC program must be “front-
loaded” under terms stipulated in WIC law. States were due one-third of the FY2002
obligations amount (as adjusted for carryovers between fiscal years; one-third of
$4.396 billion) by the beginning of December 2002; in January 2003, another one-
twelfth was allocated; and in February 2003 another one-twelfth was allocated.38 In
the case of the WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition program, the difference from other
discretionary programs was not the rate at which money becomes available, but the
amount. In FY2002, the WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition program spent an estimated
$21 million; this included money derived from the regular WIC appropriation ($10
million), funding added from a non-WIC budget account by the 2002 “farm bill”
(P.L. 107-171), and a small amount of carryover funding from FY2001. Under the
continuing resolutions, the WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition program was funded at
its FY2002 level, but this FY2002 level was interpreted to mean only the amount
appropriated in the regular appropriation ($10 million), not the higher spending
amount including derived from the “farm bill” add-on or the carryover.
A final group of programs/activities were not funded at all under the continuing
resolutions because funding was anticipated to be terminated after FY2002, they were
one-time projects, or they were proposed by the Administration or Congress as part
of the FY2003 appropriations. These included: a free school breakfast pilot project,
a special school breakfast start-up grant pilot project in Wisconsin, an Administration
initiative to significantly expand “program integrity” activities, and Senate proposals
to expand the start-up grant pilot project and add almost $1 million for two special
projects (a “Common Roots” program in Vermont and a Child Nutrition Resource
Center at the Food Service Management Institute). In addition, a shifting of funding
for research related to nutrition assistance programs – from the Economic Research
Service to the Food and Nutrition Service – proposed by the Senate was not provided
for under the continuing resolutions.
38 The January allocation was supplemented with additional funding (approximately $60
million) available from money “recovered” or carried over from FY2002.
CRS-42
Table 5A. Child Nutrition & WIC Appropriations: FY2003
(in millions)
FY 2003: House
P.L. 108-7:
Appropriations
FY2003: Senate-
Enacted FY2003
Annual
FY2003:
Committee bill
approved omnibus
Consolidated
appropriations
Admin.
(H.R. 5263;
appropriations bill
Appropriations
account
request
H.Rept. 107-623)
(H.J.Res. 2)
Resolution
Child nutrition a
$10,576.2
$ 10,576.2
$10,580.1
$10,580.2
(Senate
Appropriations
Committee bill;
(10,580.2)
S. 2801)
WIC b
4,726.0 c
4,776.0
4,675.0
4,696.0
(Senate
Appropriations
Committee bill;
(4,751.0)
S. 2801)
Total
$ 15,302.2
$ 15,352.2
$ 15,255.1
$15,276.2
Notes: The figures presented in this table are annual appropriation amounts for these accounts. They
are taken from the FY2003 Agriculture Department budget documents, amendments to the FY2003
budget request submitted by the Administration on January 3, 2003, the appropriate House and Senate
measures, and the enacted law. These appropriations figures are substantially lower than the total
amount of federal funding available – from all sources – to fund spending for child nutrition and WIC
programs, shown in Table 5B (see notes below).
a Child nutrition figures do not include money for nutrition studies and surveys under the
Administration’s request and the House bill (where they are appropriated to the Economic
Research Service). They also do not include: (1) money available from permanent
appropriations – just over $400 million for commodities, the FSMI, and an information
clearinghouse – and other budget accounts, (2) additional commodity purchases under P.L. 107-
171, (3) unused money carried over or recovered from FY2002 (estimated at $356 million), and
(4) money appropriated for general federal administration of food assistance programs (an
undifferentiated share of which is spent on child nutrition activities). The figure for the Senate’s
omnibus appropriations bill includes a very small reduction reflecting the across-the-board cut
for discretionary appropriations included in the Senate measure.
b The WIC figure shown for the Senate’s omnibus appropriations bill reflects a 1.6% across-the-board
reduction mandated for discretionary programs. This was the minimum cut directed by the
Senate measure. All WIC appropriations figures include contingency funds of varying sizes;
however, the likelihood that the contingency fund will be tapped is much greater under enacted
Consolidated Appropriations Resolution because the total is well below the Administration’s
request and includes an earmarked (unrequested) amount for the WIC farmers’ market nutrition
program. WIC figures do not include (1) money for WIC research under the Administration’s
request, the House bill, and the enacted law (where they are appropriated to the Economic
Research Service), (2) unused money carried over from the previous year (estimated at $107
million), and (3) money appropriated for general federal administration of food assistance
programs (an undifferentiated share of which is spent on WIC activities). Funding for the WIC
farmers’ market nutrition program is not included in the Administration’s request for the WIC
program, but is included under the House and Senate bills and the enacted law.
c The Administration’s original FY2003 budget requested a total of $4.751 billion for the WIC
account. In an amendment to its request submitted to Congress on January 3, 2003, it reduced
its request by $25 million, to $4.726 billion.
CRS-43
Table 5B. Estimated Child Nutrition & WIC Spending: FY2003
(in millions)
FY2003 estimated
FY2003 estimated
spending: P.L. 108-7
spending:
Enacted Consolidated
Administration
Appropriations
Programs/Activities
request a
Resolution a
School lunch b
$ 6,389.0
$ 6,389.0
School breakfast b
1,680.6
1,680.6
Child & adult care food b
1,925.1
1,925.1
Summer food service b
288.2c
288.2c
Special milk
15.4
15.4
Commodities d
855.7
855.7
State administrative expenses
134.0
134.0
Coordinated review effort
5.1
5.1
Nutrition studies and surveyse
*.*e
*.*e
Food service management institute (FSMI)
3.0
3.0
Special projectsf
11.2
15.2
Child nutrition total
11,307.3
11,311.3
WIC programg
4,538.7
4,563.7
(WIC farmers’ market prog.)
(0.0)
(25.0)
Overall total
$ 15,846.0
$ 15,875.0
Notes: All figures have been adjusted to reflect newer estimates contained in the FY2004 budget.
Care should be taken in using this table because, in some cases, it is not comparable with earlier tables
in this report. Earlier tables include specific items for nutrition education and training and a homeless
children nutrition program, but no funding request has been made for nutrition education and training
and the program for homeless children is now encompassed in the child and adult care food program.
The figures shown in this table are spending (obligation) amounts from documents accompanying the
Administration’s FY2003 and FY2004 budgets and the congressional documents accompanying the
Agriculture Department appropriations bills and enacted appropriation for FY2003. They differ from
appropriations (new budget authority shown in Table 5A) and include spending from previous-year
carryovers and permanent appropriations, as well as commodity assistance and other spending drawn
from separate Agriculture Department budget accounts. WIC figures reflect estimated spending
assuming some unused money will be carried over from year to year (see note g below). WIC figures
do not include spending on WIC research (typically appropriated to the Economic Research Service).
The amounts shown also do not reflect most federal-only child nutrition administrative costs (roughly
$60-$70 million a year), which are funded from a separate undifferentiated general food program
administration account, or the value of “bonus” commodities.
Notes for Table 5B are continued on the following page.
CRS-44
a Figures have been adjusted from those originally presented in the Administration’s FY2003 budget
– using more current estimates from the FY2004 budget.
b Figures include cash assistance only, not the value of commodities or cash-in-lieu of commodities.
For the child and adult care food program and the summer Food Service program, they include
some of the funding required for pilot projects expanding participation.
c When compared to FY2002, these estimates for FY2003 appear to show a decrease in spending on
summer programs. However, this may be due to the estimating methodology used by the
Agriculture Department and a shift of payments for summer meals from the summer program
to the school lunch program. Separately calculated program indicators point to a 7% increase
in meals served and a rise in subsidy rates under the summer program from FY2002 and
FY2003.
d Includes cash subsidies provided in lieu of commodities (e.g., $73 million in FY2002), certain
federal commodity donation administrative/distribution/computer spending ($9 million
estimated for FY2003), some $200 million in commodities purchased for and donated at no
charge to the child nutrition account in order to meet commodity entitlements, and additional
commodity purchases required by P.L. 107-171. The overwhelming majority (more than 90%)
of commodity assistance is for the school lunch program. Not shown is the value of any
“bonus” commodities that the Agriculture Department may donate if excess federal commodity
holdings permit (e.g., $70 million in FY2002).
e Under the Administration’s request and the enacted law, funds for research related to FNS programs
are largely appropriated to the Economic Research Service account; no specific figure is
indicated for child nutrition activities, but spending is estimated at some $3 million.
f The amounts shown for shown for special projects include funding for a school meals initiative
including projects to improve food service and food safety ($11 million) and a small $200,000
grant for an information clearinghouse. In addition, the figure for the enacted law includes a
total of $4 million for: (1) an expanded $3.3 million school breakfast startup grant program and
(2) $700,000 for 2 small special projects noted earlier in the description of Senate
appropriations action. Funding for initiatives to improve the child nutrition program integrity
(e.g., of free and reduced-price meal eligibility determinations in school meal programs) is not
included in these figures. It was specifically funded at $2 million in FY2002. For FY2003, the
enacted law provides a total of $7.5 million for program integrity initiatives in all FNS
programs, up from a total of $6.5 million in FY2002 (including the $2 million for child nutrition
activities); but no specific amount for child nutrition activities is noted. Funds for program
integrity are provided through the Food Program Administration budget account.
g Total WIC program figures include estimated spending for the WIC farmers’ market nutrition
program (shown in parentheses). WIC totals do not include what typically has been
approximately $3.5 million for research and evaluations. Under the Administration’s request
and the enacted law, money for research related to FNS programs is largely appropriated to the
Economic Research Service account; no specific figure is indicated for WIC activities, although
it is likely to be on the order of $3.5 million. All spending figures assume $107 million will be
carried into FY2003 from FY2002, and that as much as $227 million may be carried out from
FY2003 into FY2004 – as estimated in the Administration’s FY2004 budget submission.
CRS-45
FY2004 Funding
Administration’s Appropriation Request. On February 3, 2003, the
Administration released its budget for FY2004, including the funding request for
child nutrition and WIC programs as part of the Agriculture Department
appropriation. Table 6A presents the Administration’s requests for child nutrition
and WIC appropriations, compared with the appropriations levels in FY2002.
For the child nutrition account, the budget asks for a total appropriation of
$11,418,441,000, $838 million more than was appropriated for FY2003.39 The
increase is primarily due to inflation adjustments to federal subsidies and projected
changes in enrollment. The only new initiative (other than legislative initiatives that
may be proposed when Congress considers child nutrition reauthorization measures)
is an expansion of spending on enhanced program integrity in child nutrition
programs – a total of $6 million is proposed.
For the WIC account, the budget requests a total appropriation of
$4,769,232,000, a $73 million increase over the FY2003 appropriation. Included in
the request are a $25 million contingency fund and several new initiatives: (1) $5
million for evaluation of the WIC program’s effectiveness, (2) $30 million for
support for state management information systems, (3) $20 million for breastfeeding
peer counselors, and (4) $5 million for childhood obesity prevention projects. Money
for the WIC farmers’ market nutrition program ($20 million, down from $25 million
provided in FY2003) is included a separate budget account – the Commodity
Assistance Program.
Proposed Spending. Table 6B presents the Administration’s estimates of
FY2004 spending on specific child nutrition programs/activities and the WIC
program, compared to FY2003 estimated spending levels.
39 This increase appears to be larger than it is. A substantial portion (perhaps one-third to
one-half) of the difference reflects provision for a “cushion” normally offered by unspent
carryover funds from the previous year. Note that the estimated difference in spending
(Table 6B) is only $510 million.
CRS-46
Table 6A. Child Nutrition & WIC Appropriations:
FY2003 & FY2004
(in millions)
FY2003: P.L. 108-7
Annual appropriations
Enacted Consolidated
FY 2004: Administration
account
Appropriations Resolution
Request
Child nutrition a
$10,580.2
$ 11,418.4
WIC b
4,696.0
4,769.2
Total
$ 15,276.2
$ 16,187.6
Notes: The figures presented in this table are annual appropriation amounts for these accounts. They
are taken from the FY2004 Agriculture Department budget documents. These appropriations figures
are substantially lower than the total amount of federal funding available – from all sources – to fund
spending for child nutrition and WIC programs, shown in Table 6B (see notes below).
a Child nutrition figures do not include money for nutrition studies and surveys; they are to be
appropriated to the Economic Research Service. They also do not include: (1) money available
from permanent appropriations – just over $400 million for commodities, the FSMI, and an
information clearinghouse – and other budget accounts and (2) money appropriated for general
federal administration of food assistance programs (an undifferentiated share of which is spent
on child nutrition activities).
b The WIC figures include contingency funds. The FY2003 figure does not include money for WIC
research (they are appropriated to the Economic Research Service); however, the
Administration’s request does include $5 million in special funding for WIC evaluation
activities. The FY2003 figure does includes $25 million for the WIC farmers’ market nutrition
program; for FY2004, the Administration is asking that $20 million be appropriated in a
separate budget account. As much as $227 million is projected to be carried over from FY2003
to FY2004; figures shown here are not adjusted for this. Money appropriated for general federal
administration of food assistance programs (an undifferentiated share of which is spent on WIC
activities) also is not reflected in this table.
CRS-47
Table 6B. Estimated Child Nutrition & WIC Spending:
FY2003 & FY2004
(in millions)
FY2004 estimated
FY2003 estimated
spending under the
spending under
Administration’s
Programs/Activities
P.L. 108-7
request
School lunch a
$ 6,389.0
$ 6,683.7
School breakfast a
1,680.6
1,797.9
Child & adult care food a
1,925.1
2,019.0
Summer food service a
288.2
308.7
Special milk
15.4
15.3
Commodities b
855.7
831.3
State administrative expenses
134.0
140.2
Coordinated review effort
5.1
5.2
Nutrition studies and surveysc
*.*c
*.*c
Food service management institute (FSMI)
3.0
3.0
Special projects d
15.2
17.2
Child nutrition total
11,311.3
11,821.5
WIC programe
4,563.7
4,493.2
(WIC farmers’ market prog.)
(25.0)
(20.0)
Overall total
$ 15,875.0
$ 16,314.7
Notes: All figures have been adjusted to reflect newer estimates contained in the FY2004 budget.
Care should be taken in using this table because, in some cases, it is not comparable with earlier tables
in this report. Earlier tables include specific items for nutrition education and training and a homeless
children nutrition program, but no funding request has been made for nutrition education and training
and the program for homeless children is now encompassed in the child and adult care food program.
The figures shown in this table are spending (obligation) amounts from documents accompanying the
Administration’s FY2004 budget. They differ from annual appropriations (shown in Table 6A) and
include spending from previous-year carryovers and permanent appropriations, as well as commodity
assistance and other spending supported by separate Agriculture Department budget accounts. WIC
figures reflect estimated spending assuming some unused money will be carried over from year to year
(see note e below). FY2003 WIC figures do not include spending on WIC research (typically
appropriated to the Economic Research Service), but the Administration’s request includes $5 million
for a special WIC evaluation.. The amounts shown also do not reflect most federal-only child nutrition
administrative costs (roughly $60-$70 million a year), which are funded from a separate
undifferentiated general food program administration account, or the value of “bonus” commodities.
Notes for Table 6B are continued on the following page.
CRS-48
a Figures include cash assistance only, not the value of commodities or cash-in-lieu of commodities.
For the child and adult care food program and the summer food service program, they include
some of the funding required for pilot projects expanding participation.
b Includes cash subsidies provided in lieu of commodities (e.g., $73 million in FY2002), certain
federal commodity donation administrative/distribution/computer spending ($9 million
estimated for FY2003), some $200-$400 million in commodities purchased for and donated at
no charge to the child nutrition account in order to meet the commodity entitlements of schools
and other providers. The overwhelming majority (more than 90%) of commodity assistance is
for the school lunch program. Not shown is the value of any “bonus” commodities that the
Agriculture Department may donate if excess federal commodity holdings permit (e.g., $70
million in FY2002).
c Fund for research related to FNS programs are largely appropriated to the Economic Research
Service account; no specific figure is indicated for child nutrition activities.
d The amounts shown for special projects include funding for a school meals initiative including
projects to improve food service and food safety ($11 million) and a small $200,000 grant for
an information clearinghouse. In addition, the figure for FY2003 includes a total of $4 million
for: (1) an expanded $3.3 million school breakfast startup grant program and (2) $700,000 for
2 small special projects noted earlier in the description of Senate FY2003 appropriations action.
The figure for the Administration’s request does not include this $4 million in special projects,
but does include $6 million for child nutrition program integrity initiatives. In FY2003, some
funding ($7.5 million) is available for program integrity activities for all FNS programs through
the Food Program Administration budget account.
f Total WIC program figures include estimated spending for the WIC farmers’ market nutrition
program (shown in parentheses). WIC totals do not include what typically has been
approximately $3.5 million for research and evaluations. However, the Administration’s request
includes some $5 million for a special WIC evaluation project. Spending figures assume $227
million will be carried from FY2003 to FY2004, and that $198 million will be carried from
FY2004 to FY2005.