As I was polishing off my post on how the Senate Agriculture Committee went at the problem of summer hunger, the White House previewed two child nutrition initiatives in the budget the President will soon propose. One is a more expansive version of the electronic benefits transfer option.
As I’ve said, the Senate Ag Committee’s version of a new Child Nutrition Act would have the U.S. Department of Agriculture distribute a limited number of EBT cards for summer food purchases to a limited number of states.
Some limited number of families in those states would get cards loaded with $30 per month, per eligible child, i.e., one who’s eligible for free or reduced-price meals during the school year. By 2020, families with a total of no more than 285,000 such children would have the cards.
Roughly 22 million children now get free or reduced-price school meals. Some of them can get free summer meals and/or snacks through an existing program the Ag Committee seeks to expand. So it’s hard to know how much the EBT complement would reduce summer hunger.
This much we do know. The bill would provide a total of $150 million from Fiscal Year 2018 through Fiscal Year 2020. USDA could then spend any money left over until it was gone. End of the EBT option then, unless a future Congress extends it.
The President’s plan would create a permanent summer EBT card program. His proposed budget would provide $12 billion over the 10-year window generally used to cost out federal spending proposals.
The program would phase in, beginning in the summer of 2017. Families with a total of nearly a million children would get a food budget boost then, according to a USDA fact sheet.
This is roughly four times as many as would initially benefit under the Ag Committee’s bill. Nine years later, when all states could participate, the number of children benefited would increase to nearly 20 million.
Families would initially get $45 a month per eligible child. The fact sheet uses the same definition of eligibility as the Ag Committee’s bill — at least so far as family income is concerned. The maximum would be 185% of the federal poverty line — roughly $37,300 a year for a single parent/two-child family if the program existed today.
We’ll need to see the budget to know how much further the proposals track — or perhaps rules, if Congress adopted the President’s. Big if.
The summer EBT card initiative is one of those evidence-based solutions we’re enjoined to favor. USDA conducted a two-year pilot, testing several variations.
Experts from three independent consulting firms found, among other things, that the cards led to “a substantial reduction” in very low food security — roughly equivalent to out-and-out hunger for at least one family member, at least some of the time.
The cards prevented such dire food insecurity for about a third of the children whose families received them. And the children generally ate more healthfully too.
A higher benefit than now proposed reduced food insecurity at the household level, i.e., among the adults as well as the children. This, USDA says, shows that parents used the extra food-purchasing money to meet the children’s “most severe needs” — rather, one notes, than easing hunger somewhat for themselves as well.
Splitting the difference between the higher and lower benefits tested, as the proposed budget will, leaves them at risk of summer hunger.
But for the time being, our federal policymakers have decided to focus on child nutrition. And there are good and proper reasons for that, if one must choose. A plethora of research documents the diverse harms children suffer from hunger and poor diets.
So it’s good to see strong bipartisan support for a better Child Nutrition Act in the Senate Agriculture Committee. And good to see the President apparently ready to sign the bill, should it come to him.
Good as well to see him trying to move policy further on child hunger — and not only during the summer. He’ll propose an expanded automatic enrollment process for free and reduced-price meals during the school year too.
Will leave such details as we’ve got to the White House announcement — at least, for the time being.