# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Together with communities, FoodCorps serves to connect kids to healthy food in school.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Congress is on the verge of helping kids in poverty to eat better over the summer months when school lunches may not be an option for them.

Tucked into the massive $1.7 trillion spending bill that lawmakers are expected to approve by the end of the week is language providing for an electronic benefit transfer program that would give families who qualify for school lunches an extra monthly grocery credit of $40 per child over the summer.

The legislation would also make it easier for some rural children to get food by allowing families to pick up meals to take home and eat later, rather than requiring the kids to eat in a centralized setting like a cafeteria during set hours.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) - the chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, which oversees food programs - said the changes would benefit as many as 29 million children and mark the first new permanent boost in such programs in 10 years.

"We know too often children who are able to get healthy meals in school go hungry during the summer," she said in a statement. "This investment is a critical step to ending childhood hunger."

It marks a turnaround, too, from earlier this year, when summer meal programs were on the verge of seeing cutbacks. A bipartisan compromise in June kept that from happening but also trimmed the school-year lunch program to pay for it.

Meanwhile, several states and governors have recently stepped up efforts to expand school lunch programs across the board.

Colorado voters in November budget surplus to approved free school lunches for all students, regardless of income. California's Universal Meals Program requires schools to offer free breakfasts and lunches to all students who request them, beginning in the current school year. And Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz said he wants to use a state program there. reinstate a temporary free breakfast and lunch

The benefits for school districts often include better classroom performance and less paperwork, as they no longer have to figure out which students meet family income eligibility requirements. They also can avoid having to dun families for school lunch debt over reduced-price meals.

Lisa Davis, a senior vice president with anti-hunger group No Kid Hungry, said in a statement that 6 out of 7 students who qualify for free or reduced-price meals don't have access to summer meal programs.

"We know these investments will work," she said.

"When the COVID-19 pandemic threatened to skyrocket childhood hunger rates, Congress acted swiftly to implement temporary versions of these policies that not only forestalled the worst impacts of the crisis, but helped to dramatically reduce the number of kids living with hunger."

However, as with the June deal, there are offsetting reductions elsewhere to keep costs down. The spending bill would cut back on early pandemic programs that boosted the monthly benefit amount for federal food assistance recipients and that loaded extra benefits onto families' EBT cards to replace lost meals amid school closures.

"We know these investments will work."

"While we are disappointed to see these reductions, we recognize that diverting these temporary funds to create permanent policies to close the summer meal gap is a trade-off worth taking," said Davis.

Another group, the Food Research & Action Center, said the change in food assistance requirements could leave some recipients at risk of a "hunger cliff" as soon as March, while older adults with benefits could see them fall from $281 a month to only $23.

"Much-needed investments in child nutrition should not be made by reducing SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] benefits or other offsets that would hurt families with low incomes," said FRAC President Luis Guardia in a statement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Poor Children's Access To Food Would Be Boosted In Spending Bill

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Congress is on the verge of helping kids in poverty to eat better over the summer months when school lunches may not be an option for them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | ‘I Can’t Imagine Who Would Think It’s OK to Take Food Away From Kids’

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The 117th Congress didn’t do two things for kids that the 118th really should.

# data[].attributes.headline
Prospect News Article about Summer Hunger

# data[].attributes.subject
Prospect News Article about Summer Hunger

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Prospect is pleased that many of the policy ideas we' ve been writing about for years have found a place in Joe Biden' s American Families Plan, which was announced on Wednesday. We devoted an entire issue last year to the subject of family care, including the elements of child care support, paid family and medical leave, and improvements to elder care. All of these are part of Biden' s Families Plan and the previous American Jobs Plan. In addition, one of the more obscure changes to the tax code Biden has proposed, eliminating the "step-up in basis" to require wealthy heirs pay capital gains taxes, was the subject of a 2019 article from staff writer Alex Sammon.
But even we were surprised to see a section of the American Families Plan focused on investing $25 billion to expand the summer meals program, which helps low-income kids who receive free or reduced-price breakfast and lunch during the school year to also receive those meals in the summer months. The expansion would allow over 9 million more children to receive summer meals.
In September 2019, former writing fellow Kalena Thomhave wrote a feature about the summer meals program, its promise, its challenges, and how to improve it. Few other outlets have focused on this critical support to reduce childhood hunger. With the release of the American Families Plan, the Prospect is re-publishing Kalena' s piece today.

It's a muggy August afternoon as I meander through a maze of apartment homes in Ypsilanti, Michigan, to find where a group of kids will be eating a free meal. Near the leasing office of the apartment complex, Sycamore Meadows, I spy a small tent. Bright orange yoga mats, trimmed to fit children, lie under it. Some of the children those mats are intended for are riding tiny bikes in the parking lot, mostly spinning in circles. This is one of thousands of sites in communities across the country where children can eat for free during the summer.

Hunger during the school year has largely (though not entirely) been addressed thanks to the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). But summer vacation is a different matter. The program that provides meals at Sycamore Meadows, the federal Summer Food Service Program (SFSP, or Summer Meals) was started as a pilot in the late 1960s and officially established in 1975, to ensure that children who ate free or reduced-price meals during the school year remained fed during the summer months. At an "open" site like Sycamore Meadows, any child under the age of 18 can come and receive a free meal.

In order to attract kids to sites, most program sponsors lean into the joy of summer vacation, offering fun programming or at least activities like jump rope or sidewalk chalk-drawing. Today, besides the chalk, it's story time with a librarian from the Ypsilanti District Library across the street, and then a singalong.

Sentra Brownlee, a mother of four who lives in the area and who helps coordinate this site for the Michigan-based anti-hunger nonprofit Food Gatherers, has made it her mission to publicize this program and get children to it. It's helpful for her as a parent-four lunches she doesn't have to worry about many days during the summer-and for most of the families who live at Sycamore Meadows, which is subsidized housing. Today, about 16 kids gather on the yoga mats, but earlier in the summer, at the height of the program, they served as many as 100 kids for lunch or snacks.

As Brownlee and I are talking, another woman walks toward the leasing office. Brownlee pauses midsentence and turns to the woman: "Hey, you have any kids? They can come here to get free meals during the summer." The woman nods: She knows. Her kids have eaten there.

Of the 22 million students who receive free or reduced-price lunch at school, only 14.1 percent are served summer meals. Summer remains the worst time for children's hunger.

But Brownlee's efforts at this site both mask and illustrate the problem with SFSP. For all she has done to publicize Summer Meals, knocking on doors and handing out flyers, there are kids in other areas who need a program like this and have never participated. Energy like Brownlee's is necessary for the program to succeed, but that commitment-which certainly exists across the country in many communities-is a finite resource.

Of the 22 million students who receive free or reduced-price lunch at school, only 14.1 percent-one in seven-are served summer meals. In other words, the program has not satisfied its intention of replacing the NSLP during school break: Summer remains the worst time for children's hunger. And despite efforts to ramp up access to summer meals during the Obama administration, the number of kids served has fallen since 2016.

According to a recent report by the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC), in July 2018 (July is the most popular month of the program), almost 2.9 million lunch meals were served in the nutrition programs operating during the summer-the Summer Food Service Program, and for those few students in summer school, the National School Lunch Program. That's a decrease of about 171,000 meals as compared to July 2017.

You may assume that this program is another casualty of a Trump administration bent on destroying the social safety net in the name of personal responsibility. The truth is a little like the program itself-complex.

The Summer Meals program, which is not well known across the country and rarely covered in the media, is not a major legislative priority, and while that generally keeps it out of the crosshairs of conservative budget-cutters, it's also a problem. Food Gatherers may serve meals at more than 30 sites across Washtenaw County in Southeastern Michigan, but the federal program model at large is outdated and ineffective. Nonprofits, schools, and Food and Nutrition Service career staff may come up with creative work-arounds, but the program's structure limits them from serving all the kids who need food during the summer. Compared with the school meal program, Summer Meals is largely failing.

"What we're doing now is not enough," says Kevin Concannon, who was undersecretary of food, nutrition, and consumer services for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service (USDA FNS) during the Obama administration. "[T]he collective efforts of the federal government, state government, nonprofit sector, and schools are not enough to address the issue of food insecurity for children, particularly in the summer months."

The good news is Congress can do something about it.

THE NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH Program was enshrined into law in 1946 as both a response to the malnutrition seen in potential soldiers during World War II and a way to prop up farmers, who were producing more food than the country needed. Many young men were rejected from the military as a result of hunger; therefore keeping kids fed was " a measure of national security." Congress figured they could address this problem by feeding kids agricultural excess that the government purchased from farmers-supporting American agriculture and American kids. Today, most kids from low-income families eat free or reduced-price lunches at school, ensuring that kids are fed each day and that their families have smaller food expenses. (School breakfast, a less popular program, is offered too.)

Rural rates of poverty have always been higher than urban poverty rates. But implementing summer nutrition programs in rural areas constantly runs into roadblocks.

One mark of a successful program is that its existence is not really challenged. Most of the time, when school lunch as a program is attacked from the right, it's due to its strict nutrition standards (case in point: the Trump administration has already loosened many of them), not the program itself. For most of the year, kids can reliably get fed at school for two meals a day.

But what about the rest of the year? The United States, of course, for the past century has had a system of giving children the summers off school, originally to allow wealthier children to join their families on vacation, and to account for the lack of air conditioning in classrooms. With school no longer in session, there was no clear and easy national distribution program in operation to ensure low-income kids were fed during those months.

There's been a lot of research on summer learning loss in between school years, which is generally stronger for lower-income kids than higher-income ones. One reason could be discrepancies (or lack thereof) in summer programming for kids based on income. And food insecurity and hunger probably play roles in this "summer slide" for kids who rely on NSLP throughout the school year, too. So if SFSP is clearly needed ... why does it reach so few kids?

There are numerous reasons. Besides the fact that kids at school are a captive population, Summer Meals suffers from the program's extremely complicated structure.

"It is a pretty intense program to run-and communities restart them every summer," says Crystal FitzSimons, director of school and out-of-school time programs at FRAC. In order to serve meals, a meal site must have a sponsor, which can be schools or nonprofits. Every year, the sponsor must re-apply to the state child nutrition agency (typically the education department) to serve meals at its sites. It is then reimbursed for each meal that's correctly served to a child.

That "correctly" bit is important, because a site has some complicated requirements too. Most significant is what's called "congregate feeding," which means children must eat at the site and they must all eat together-no picking up a meal and taking it home, no delivering meals to kids at home. This requires that children travel to the site itself to eat. If a child takes a meal and runs off with it, the site cannot claim that meal for reimbursement.

There were good intentions on the part of this policy. For one, it's good for kids to all eat together, form social bonds, maybe participate in a summer activity. And allowing kids to take fresh food off-site could spell problems-what if the kid waits to eat their meal, and it goes bad? Better to ensure the kid eats their food under the watchful eye of an adult.

But this requirement also severely limits the reach of the program, given that children must physically reach a site. Rural areas with limited public transportation are particularly affected. The eligibility requirements for "open" sites, where any child can come to the site and eat, also disproportionately affect rural areas. In order for an open site to even be eligible to serve meals, at least 50 percent of children in a given geographical area must be eligible for free or reduced-price school meals during the school year. This makes serving meals much harder for those children who live in poverty where it is not as concentrated-like rural areas. In 2003, a comprehensive study of SFSP found that just about a quarter of sites were located in rural areas; there is no strong evidence to assume that this percentage has since changed significantly.

At Sycamore Meadows, I ask LeRonica Roberts, the community food programs coordinator at Food Gatherers, if most of the kids' parents have any idea that these meals are funded by SFSP. She doesn't think so-though they probably have an idea that it has something to do with school lunch. Of course, they don't really need to know about the ins and outs of the program: One benefit of the design is that parents don't need to be there. Children are not required to check in or write their names down, allowing the program to be part of the infrastructure of summer events and programs without parents and children realizing it's targeted toward low-income kids. Any child can come and eat.

But this also means that families are less likely to know about the program at all, realize that it's the government helping them, and point to the Summer Meals program as a positive benefit in their lives. This political buy-in is important for any program to succeed and to be a legislative priority.

Established in 1975, Summer Meals seems to have been designed with a very specific idea of economic need in mind: urban poverty. In urban areas, kids can more easily walk or take the bus to a site, and there is more infrastructure-more summer programs, more churches, more schools. Poverty is more likely to be concentrated, because the people are concentrated.

In the 1970s-and continuing today-often when people think of a stereotypical family in poverty, they think of a black family in an inner city. The Summer Food Service Program seems to have been designed according to stereotype, even though today poverty in all its varied forms looks quite different from that racist assumption. Rural rates of poverty have always been higher than poverty rates in metro areas. But implementing summer nutrition programs in rural areas runs into roadblock after roadblock.

BECAUSE OF THE LIMITATIONS of SFSP, and in the absence of legislation that would ease them, the sponsors that run the programs, the state agencies that implement them, and the federal staff that guide all of it must be extremely creative. Local organizations have always looked to new strategies to reach kids, but federal support is also key.

"Summer requires a pretty intensive call to action every year ... there really needs to be an aggressive outreach campaign to let families know where meals are available," says FitzSimons.

Under the Obama administration, USDA FNS outlined an ambitious strategy to expand Summer Meals, and ended up serving more than 80,000 sites, Concannon tells me. But he adds a qualifier. During the school year, nearly 100,000 schools in the U.S. participate in the school lunch program-for about 180 days a year. Some summer sites are open all summer, but others are open for just a few weeks, or even just one day.

"Just the number of [summer] sites alone would have you believe we're doing a better job," Concannon says. "But because many of them are counted as one of those sites but only open for a short period, it doesn't do much to predictably address hunger or food security for kids."

Still, the increase in sites led to an increase in children fed.

For Markell Miller, director of community food programs at Food Gatherers, SFSP "requires us to find existing [places] where we know kids are already congregating," because they must eat their meals on-site. "We are not able to reach all of the kids because of the congregate requirement," she says, "particularly in communities without public transit." The school buses many kids rely on during the school year are absent during the summer.

Concannon tells me that the administration identified libraries and health centers as areas where low-income kids were spending their time, and therefore as perfect places to focus collaboration on serving summer meals. FNS career staff and state staff were essential in developing these partnerships-something I am well aware of because, full disclosure, I briefly worked at FNS.

According to the FRAC report, the state with the highest amount of participation-besides the District of Columbia, which is an urban area better suited for the program-is Vermont. One in three children who eat free or reduced-price school meals during the school year are served via SFSP in the state. I spoke with Becca Mitchell, child nutrition initiatives manager at Hunger Free Vermont, to try and learn some of the state's secrets. Their challenges are similar to other states with rural and suburban areas (that is, every state).

Hunger Free Vermont has focused on overcoming the difficulties that lie in transporting kids to sites as well as the stigma inherent in assistance programs like SFSP. Some cities have sites that kids can walk to, like parks in Burlington. But other areas are spread out, and sites might be miles from one another. Mitchell's organization has worked to overcome this challenge by utilizing mobile feeding sites-bringing the food to the kids instead of the other way around. A bus with meals may have a set route each day, and drive around to several sites, dropping off meals and staying with the kids for half an hour, then moving on. Sometimes these sites are at places like libraries, where built-in programming might be available.

Mitchell does not believe that her state's high success rate with SFSP should be celebrated without reservation. "Compared to most other states in the nation we're doing well," she says. "But we're still only reaching a handful of the kids we should be reaching."

Fun programming attracts kids on their summer vacation, but fun programming can be pricey. It's especially difficult for smaller towns lacking huge budgets for summer camps. FitzSimons, of FRAC, tells me that during the Great Recession, participation in Summer Meals actually went down despite heightened need for anti-hunger programs, because state and local budgets couldn't afford the summer programming that's often concomitant with SFSP. This stands in contrast to programs like SNAP, as well as school lunch and school breakfast, that expand when need increases.

Unlike smaller nonprofits, Food Gatherers is able to use a good amount of external funding to improve their summer programs. This funding allows them to do things like send kids home with backpacks filled with food over the weekend, or utilize local foods in their menus. Those meals, served off-site, are not paid for by the federal government, but by outside donations.

Another benefit to adding programming to sites is that summer programs are a normal part of communities. SFSP, then, becomes an expected and necessary program that fits into the structure of the season, and reduces the stigma attached to getting a free lunch from the government. It attracts kids who might not need the meals and makes the kids who do need the meals feel more welcome. Building relationships with organizations that can offer enrichment activities for kids not only gets them fed but helps them learn, too.

Hunger Free Vermont "ha[s] been working to make [SFSP] a program that feels inclusive and welcoming to everyone," Mitchell says. "You get a free meal, but it's also a place where kids can go to be safe and socialize, [and there are] also enrichment opportunities," she says. The universality makes it "feel like a community resource and not just something that low-income families have to go to."

UNDER THE OBAMA administration, expansion was the outright goal of FNS. The agency website read in 2016 (accessed via the Internet Archive): "Increasing access to summer meals for children in low-income areas is an important priority for USDA." But today, after describing the expansion efforts from years before, FNS is clear about their current direction: "Moving forward in 2017 and beyond, FNS is focused on maintaining continuity of program operations and access."

That doesn't necessarily signal an assault on Summer Meals. The Trump administration has, without much fanfare, slowly cut back on the nutrition gains made in the school lunch program (perhaps in a handout to the agribusiness that will benefit from, for example, fewer restrictions on milk served). But SFSP has more or less been left alone. There have not been any significant threats to the program on the federal level; it's hard to attack a program exclusively focused on feeding kids. As FitzSimons notes, the program "hasn't been as much of a focus under the current administration."

However, the language used to describe the program, and the messaging surrounding it, has changed. There's "just a different approach [to] talking about the program," says Mitchell. She feels that, in lieu of a focus on expanded access, there's more focus on "program integrity," which in legislative speak means reducing fraud. Mitchell argues that fraud isn't really a prominent issue in the program.

In an April hearing before the Senate Committee on Agriculture, then-FNS administrator and acting deputy undersecretary (and now deputy undersecretary) Brandon Lipps outlined the priorities for the child nutrition programs, stating the agency was aiming "to improve customer service for our partners and participants, to protect and enhance integrity, and to strengthen the bonds between FNS programs and self-sufficiency " (emphasis mine). He also called the participants of child nutrition programs "student customers," in a nod to the run-the-government-as-a-business framework.

When I mention the focus on program integrity as a major priority to Concannon, he is noticeably uncomfortable. "Of course you want programs to comply with the general federal regulations," he says. Indeed, his administration too worked to reduce fraud in the nutrition assistance programs (as part of an Obama initiative called the Campaign to Cut Waste). Though program fraud is quite rare, preserving "program integrity" is often pointed to as a necessary objective in order to keep political support for programs intact. But even so, says Concannon, "you first and foremost want to promote the effectiveness and impact on the lives of children and households."

Even if it's just messaging, Mitchell is wary. An intentional focus on "fraud" and "self-sufficiency" (they're kids!) could, she says, "re-stigmatize some of these programs," after all the work done to make them feel warm and inclusive.

At best, it seems like promoting continuity is promoting the status quo, because the complexities and limitations inherent to Summer Meals require aggressive intervention and focus.

Though the approach of the political appointees at FNS could have had an effect on falling participation, one cannot point to merely one reason. Another explanation is simple: Weather is becoming more extreme. The Summer Meals program was designed in 1975, but we live in an ever-warming world. Many sites, by virtue of necessity, require kids to sit outside together in the summer. Sometimes the heat is too much, especially in Southern states. Even rain will keep kids away. FNS allows heat waivers for some sponsors to let kids eat meals off-site if the temperature gets too high, but that's more paperwork for a site to fill out. Sometimes, it could just be easier to close for the day.

In addition to the actual weather, the Trump administration has also created a climate of fear with its immigration policies. This has had a palpable effect on use of public-assistance programs like SNAP and Medicaid. It is reasonable to assume that this "chilling effect" also extends to SFSP. Especially in immigrant communities, there is a fear of public spaces, and the ICE agents that could disrupt them. To avoid ICE, or the ire of immigration officials who can decide who stays and who goes, parents could intentionally be keeping their children from any place where the government is providing a benefit, even though all children should ostensibly be welcome at Summer Meals sites.

FOR ALL ITS LIKELY AMBIVALENCE about the program, the Trump administration has continued a demonstration project that many advocates see as vital, and perhaps as the future of the program. In 2011, FNS began testing a new method of feeding kids over the summer, the Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer program (Summer EBT). Instead of kids needing to travel to a site and eat meals there, their families were provided with an EBT card, like what's used in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, commonly called food stamps), to use at grocery stores. Available to small populations in a handful of states, the options tested by FNS include both a SNAP model of benefits (benefits can be exchanged for almost any food item) as well as a Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) model (benefits translated into an approved food package that families could buy at the store).

The results have been promising. FNS commissioned a 2016 report on the demonstration by Abt Associates, Mathematica Policy Research, and Maximus. They found that, among child recipients of Summer EBT, the most severe food insecurity was cut by one-third. Food insecurity in general dropped by one-fifth.

A handful of states had been participating in the demonstration project, but it's scaled back on the number of states to serve more children in fewer states. This summer, Michigan, Wisconsin, the Chickasaw Nation, and the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona participated, and will continue to do so for at least the next two summers. Some lawmakers representing states that lost out on funding to implement the program were upset, but as it's a demonstration program with a focus of gathering data, the new, streamlined focus does seem fair. Strangely though, FNS has stopped announcing the Summer EBT grantees over the past two years, letting the program continue to fly under the radar.

Summer EBT is only a demonstration project now. It could be expanded in a coming child nutrition reauthorization and become a permanent piece of summer nutrition programs.

THOUGH THERE ARE DISTINCT complications and challenges baked into SFSP, there is a way to loosen the rules. Congress is in charge of reauthorizing the statutes that govern the child nutrition programs, including Summer Meals. The last time they did this was in 2010 with the passage of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. That expired in 2015 (though of course, the programs continue to operate). Child nutrition reauthorization (CNR) failed to pass in 2016 due to partisan disagreements, though before 2010, reauthorizing the nutrition programs for children had typically been bipartisan.

Some signs point to a 2019 Congress ready to pass a new CNR. When the Senate returns in the fall, it could be ready to mark up a bill. Several bipartisan marker bills have already been introduced.

Some of the elements of these marker bills are exciting. There could be real opportunities to open up flexibilities for Summer Meals-maybe loosening the congregate feeding requirement, easing the eligibility requirements for sites, or expanding Summer EBT. That's what advocates are gunning for.

The Stop Child Summer Hunger Act, sponsored by Democratic Senator Patty Murray of Washington, would expand the Summer EBT program nationwide to all children who receive free or reduced-price lunch at school; their families would receive an EBT card with $150 per child for the summer. Its cost is entirely offset by closing a business tax loophole.

The Hunger-Free Summer for Kids Act is another marker bill, co-sponsored by Republican Senator John Boozman of Arkansas and Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont. It would allow states flexibility on the congregate feeding requirement or allow them to implement some version of Summer EBT (though details are vague; the Stop Child Summer Hunger Act is definitely more aggressive on the Summer EBT front).

FitzSimons says that FRAC also supports lowering the eligibility requirement for summer sites from 50 percent free and reduced-price lunch participation to 40 percent. This would expand the number of sites able to serve kids, especially in rural areas where just one family moving out of the district could completely change access for hundreds of kids.

To ensure that kids actually get adequate nutrition, FRAC recommends that sites be allowed to serve three meals a day-right now, sites can only serve two. That seems unlikely to get past lawmakers obsessed with "self-sufficiency," but it would go a long way to fight hunger. The Summer Meals Act of 2019, marker bills introduced by Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska in the Senate and Republican Representative Don Young of Alaska and Democratic Representative Rick Larsen of Washington in the House, would lower the eligibility threshold from 50 percent to 40 percent and also allow sites to serve three meals a day.

If the content of these bills makes it into the final CNR-and it actually passes-the summer meal programs could be well on their way to serving their mission. Eliminating red tape and funding effective alternatives like Summer EBT challenges the bureaucracy and paperwork that get in the way of ensuring that children are adequately fed.

"The concept of feeding kids seems so simple," Mitchell says. "And it should be."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Prospect is pleased that many of the policy ideas we' ve been writing about for years have found a place in Joe Biden' s American Families Plan, which was announced on Wednesday. We devoted an entire issue last year to the subject of family care, including the elements of child care support, paid family and medical leave, and improvements to elder care.

# data[].attributes.headline
Summer eats, feeding MA kids during summer

# data[].attributes.subject
Summer eats, feeding MA kids during summer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Summer Eats | Free Meals for all Kids and Teens in MA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
All kids and teens in Massachusetts, ages 0-18, can receive free meals at any Summer Eats site in the state. No registration or identification required. Find a site near you!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Before the pandemic, summer was already a hard time for families struggling to feed their kids, with schools closed and school meals gone. This year, schools closed in March, leaving many children without reliable daily meals for months on end. In the wake of COVID-19, more American families are waiting in line at food banks and rationing meals for their kids.

This report gives new insight into the pandemic's impact on children - how they're coping and what new sacrifices their families are forced to make. The story is a bleak one - even more so for Black and Latino children.

But there is a thin ray of light. More Americans are newly aware of just how many families were living on the edge before the pandemic - and how many children struggle with hunger. And more Americans are willing to invest in a stronger safety net to feed them. It's a safety net we must strengthen, for meals they cannot afford to miss.

More Kids Facing Hunger

"When you're in a tough situation like this you basically go into survival mode and go back to the basics. How am I going to keep a roof over my son's head and how am I going to keep food on our table?"

- Kyle, father, New York

During the COVID-19 pandemic, 47% of American families are living with hunger. The numbers are worse among Black families (53%) and Latino families (56%).

Over the past decade we made real progress in the fight against childhood hunger. But COVID-19 has set us back. Some organizations have reported data showing 1 in 4 households with children facing hunger and our new research shows an even higher figure. This represents a huge leap from the 1 in 7 reported in September 2019.

So drastic a change in such a short time period shows that many families were one lost job or stalled school meal program away from hunger.

CHILDHOOD HUNGER SINCE 2010 AND THE COVID-19 SPIKE

During the pandemic, many struggling families have been forced to make new sacrifices to get by.

Children on Both Sides of the Economic Divide

Even though most parents try to shield them, many kids whose families are struggling are experiencing the pandemic differently than kids from more affluent families.

"We try to keep that part from them. We want them to be innocent. We want them to not have to worry about if we have food on the table, if they're gonna be able to eat."

- MELYSSA, MOTHER, NEW YORK

First Time at the Food Bank

"I never thought I would have this problem or even be worried about it."

- James, father, Georgia

As the pandemic closed businesses across the country and unemployment skyrocketed, American families who were just keeping their heads above water before are now struggling to make ends meet and feed their children.

Half of working parents have reported losing their jobs or had their hours reduced because of COVID-19. Some face even starker rates of job loss, such as Black parents (53%) and Latino parents (59%).

- Michelle, mother, Washington

Essential Workers Struggling to Get By

Though this pandemic has made clear how much "essential workers" contribute to society, families working in healthcare, food service, public works and other essential industries are among the hardest hit by the pandemic.
74% of food insecure parents who are still working are in essential industries
A Visible Crisis

Childhood hunger was a crisis in the United States before COVID-19. The pandemic has worsened that crisis, and also made it visible in new ways.

85% of those who are currently living with hunger were dealing with the same hunger in the 12 months prior to COVID-19.

The majority of parents we surveyed said that COVID-19 made them realize more families struggle with hunger in their communities than they knew. We asked them what changed their minds.

Now Americans Know: Schools Feed Kids

Earlier this year, as schools across the country closed their doors, school staff had to change their operations, sometimes literally overnight. For the rest of the academic year, schools worked overtime to feed kids, many of them shifting to drive-thru or walk-up services, as well as delivering meals using school buses and partnerships with community groups.
70% of parents said COVID-19 made them realize that more kids rely on school meals than they were previously aware of.
Just as seeing long lines at food banks has made more Americans aware of the depth of food insecurity in this country, seeing school staff move heaven and earth to stay open and keep feeding kids has helped Americans realize how critical school meals programs are for millions of children in the United States.

Light in Dark Days

These data and stories paint a grim picture; the pandemic has been catastrophic for many American families. But we believe this crisis can be the moment when we end childhood hunger in America.

With their eyes opened to the depth of childhood hunger in our country by COVID-19, more Americans are willing to support programs that can solve it.

Rising support for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). We know that SNAP - a federal program that provides direct help for families to purchase food - is one of the most effective ways we can feed kids. Since COVID-19, 76% of Americans believe SNAP funding should be maintained or increased.

Rising support for food programs. 39% of Americans are more supportive of SNAP and federal school meal programs than they were before COVID-19.

More Americans want to invest in feeding kids. Since COVID-19, 55% of Americans think there should be more federal funding to ensure children have access to food

"Me and my wife had no idea where income was going to come from, so that was really rough. We had to apply for SNAP because I wasn't working, and that was a godsend. That allowed us to eat. That was what SNAP did for us. SNAP is a really important program for families that are struggling."
- Justin, father, Texas

The Congressional Budget Office estimates it may take a decade to fully recover from the impact of the pandemic, and unemployment is likely to remain high through next year. And it's hard to say what "back-to-school" will look like for children in different communities.

But we know what works when it comes to feeding kids:

Stronger school meals programs. The pandemic has shown how critical schools are to feeding kids. They will need more support as they reopen and explore new ways to reach students, whether that's meals delivery or alternatives to how traditional school meals like lunch are served.

Breakfast & dinner at school. In districts across the country, we've seen how making breakfast available during the regular school day helps feed far more students than the traditional method of serving breakfast in the cafeteria before school begins. We've also seen how afterschool meals programs have become a critical way to reach more children in need.

More help for low-income communities. Schools are also expanding access to school meals by making them free to all students through programs such as the Community Eligibility Program, which lets schools in low-income neighborhoods serve meals at no cost to every student without making parents apply.

Better ways to feed kids in the summer. Many kids depend on school meals - meals that disappear during the summer. We've long known that the current patchwork approach to summer meals isn't effective. During the pandemic, many communities have adopted new approaches to feeding children during the summer -- approaches that show us how we could do better.

Less restrictive rules. Summer meals programs, funded by the USDA and run by school districts and local organizations, help feed children when schools are closed. In past years, students had to eat these meals together at the site each day, which limited participation. During the pandemic, with temporary waivers to the usual rules, parents have been able to pick up meals that last several days or have meals delivered. This has been invaluable -- both for safety and to feed kids in rural and hard-to-reach areas.

Direct benefits. During the pandemic, federal and state governments approved payments to parents whose children qualified for free or reduced-price meals at schools. Those benefits are a far more effective way to feed children - during this crisis and in the future. (During the crisis, families are relying on Pandemic Electronic Benefits Transfer, or P-EBT, but a similar program - Summer EBT - has also proven to be effective at reducing hunger in the summer and should be expanded.)

A safety net for kids. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is one of the most effective ways to feed hungry children. Today, over 20 million kids rely on SNAP for the food they need. During the pandemic, No Kid Hungry and other organizations have pushed Congress to strengthen SNAP - expanding benefits and making it more flexible, like allowing parents to buy groceries online.

"I'd have fifty bucks to spend on groceries for a family, so I wouldn't buy healthy greens and fresh fruit. I might buy one tomato. But mainly I would get rice and pasta. Once we started getting SNAP, I started buying a lot more fruit and vegetables."
- Rebecca, Mother, Oregon

This crisis can be the moment when we end childhood hunger in America. More eyes - and hearts - are open than ever before. Otherwise the problem will worsen, even as we recover from the pandemic.
Methodology: Research for The Longest Summer was conducted by Marketing for Change for No Kid Hungry. You can find the methodology in the complete report.
Now is the time to help America's kids.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Before the pandemic, summer was already a hard time for families struggling to feed their kids, with schools closed and school meals gone. This year, schools closed in March, leaving many children without reliable daily meals for months on end.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NYC Just Made A Major Change To Public School Lunch Menus

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the government waived eligibility requirements for free school lunches so all children could get the nutrition they need. NYC’s public schools have taken an additional step.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SNAP is administered by the Department of Transitional Assistance (DTA).

SNAP benefits include:
* Monthly funds on an EBT card to buy food
* $40, $60 or $80 a month put back on your EBT card when you use SNAP to buy local produce via the Healthy Incentives Program (HIP)
* SNAP Path to Work free education and training opportunities
* Free nutrition education classes and resources
* Connections to other kinds of help, like utility discounts, free school meals and discounted admissions to many Commonwealth museums and cultural institutions via EBT Card to Culture

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SNAP is administered by the Department of Transitional Assistance (DTA).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The world is in a very different place to where it was six years ago when it committed to the goal of ending hunger, food insecurity and all forms of malnutrition by 2030.

At the time, we were optimistic that with transformative approaches, past progress could be accelerated, at scale, to put us on track to achieve that goal.

Yet, the past four editions of The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World (SOFI) revealed a humbling reality.

The world has not been generally progressing either towards ensuring access to safe, nutritious and sufficient food for all people all year round (SDG Target 2.1), or to eradicating all forms of malnutrition (SDG Target 2.2).

Conflict, climate variability and extremes, and economic slowdowns and downturns are the major drivers slowing down progress, particularly where inequality is high. The COVID-19 pandemic made the pathway towards SDG2 even steeper.

So, if the world is at a critical juncture, where do we stand now? And what can be done to help us build forward better and put us on track to achieving Zero Hunger?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2021

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How fragile are our agri-food systems and how can they affect the number of people going hungry? Find out with our State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2021 report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is Food Insecurity? | Feeding America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hunger affects millions of people in America. Learn about the root causes of food insecurity and hunger in America and it’s impacts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In support of our mission to end hunger in Massachusetts, we use internal and external data to inform our direct service programs and to make evidence-based policy recommendations.

We believe scientific evidence is critical in promoting equity and so we prioritize providing inclusive and accurate statistics. Our research and analyses is based on our efforts to ensure that we are using the highest quality data available.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hunger & Food Insecurity in Massachusetts | Project Bread

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In support of our mission to end hunger in Massachusetts, we use internal and external data to inform our direct service programs and to make evidence-based policy recommendations. We believe scientific evidence is critical in promoting equity and so we prioritize providing inclusive and accurate statistics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What We Offer

Wholesome, fresh food. Service with dignity. Respect. Community. For everyone. Our Neighbors' Table's grocery programs are currently operating in a curbside pick-up model. See the Get Food page for more details about online grocery ordering and curbside pick-up. Our Community Meals will continue to operate with takeout meals at the the Main Street Congregational Church.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Wholesome, fresh food. Service with dignity. Respect. Community. For everyone. Our Neighbors' Table's grocery programs are currently operating in a curbside pick-up model. See the Get Food page for more details about online grocery ordering and curbside pick-up. Our Community Meals will continue to operate with takeout meals at the the Main Street Congregational Church.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The mission of Nourishing the North Shore is to ensure equal access to healthy, local food to all members of the North Shore Communities in a manner that builds community, fosters connection, and promotes dignity and self-reliance.

We work with community members, farmers, and local non-profits to create reliable access to healthy food. We work to increase the accessibility of local produce and create accessible growing spaces for our community!

POUNDS OF LocalY Grown PRODUCE DISTRIBUTED
Through our partnerships with farmers and regional food pantries, we have created both free and subsidized long-term, reliable access channels to local produce for middle-and-low-income community members.

PEOPLE SERVED Annually
NNS strives to create reliability. We work to have enough produce volumes so that our community members and neighbors can adequately eat, serve, and cook healthy food with their families.

VOLUNTEERS
NNS is a grassroots organization that is built and sustained by the power of our community.

Food brings people together. At Nourishing the North Shore we use the strength of our community to build our local food system. Whether it is time, money, or skills, you have a place at NNS!

Sign Up For a Program
Join our Organic Community Garden, sign up for a CSA, or take a workshop!

Volunteer opportunities
Got a hand to lend? Help us at the garden or make a produce delivery!

Make a Donation
Your donation goes directly towards increasing access to locally grown food.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We work with community members, farmers, and local non-profits to create reliable access to healthy food. We work to increase the accessibility of local produce and create accessible growing spaces for our community! Through our partnerships with farmers and regional food pantries, we have created both free and subsidized long-term, reliable access channels to local produce for middle-and-low-income community members.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An official website of the United States government

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The School Food Institute gives school food service professionals and childhood nutrition advocates the in-depth training, operational skills, and strategic vision necessary to make school food fresh, healthy, and sustainable.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Chef Ann Foundation is dedicated to promoting whole-ingredient, scratch-cooking in schools. Scratch-cooking enables schools to serve the healthiest, tastiest meals so that kids are well-nourished and ready to learn.

As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, we work with both public and private schools in all 50 states. Founded in 2009 by Chef Ann Cooper, we recently celebrated 10 years of making a difference. Our programs provide school districts with grant funds, salad bars, assessments, professional development, and free tools and resources.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Chef Ann Foundation is dedicated to promoting whole-ingredient, scratch-cooking in schools. Scratch-cooking enables schools to serve the healthiest, tastiest meals so that kids are well-nourished and ready to learn. As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, we work with both public and private schools in all 50 states.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Given the Impact of the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19), What Has Changed about the Operation of the National School Lunch Program for School Year 2021/2022?

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is focused on ensuring America's families are safe, secure, and healthy during this national emergency. USDA is granting states significant program flexibilities and contingencies to best serve program participants. The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)'s Office for Food and Nutrition Programs (FNP) is working with Local School Food Authorities to implement these flexibilities and ensure children in the commonwealth have access to school meals.

What Is the National School Lunch Program?

The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) is a federally assisted meal program operating in nearly 95,000 public and nonprofit private schools and residential childcare institutions. It provides nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free lunches to more than 26 million children each school day. The National School Lunch Act was signed by President Harry Truman in 1946. Boston was an early adopter of the National School Lunch Program and started serving hot lunches to high school students in 1908!

How Do Local Organizations Participate in the National School Lunch Program?

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), through its Food and Nutrition Service, administers the program at the Federal level. At the State level, the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) operates the program through agreements with local school districts. School districts and independent schools that choose to take part in the lunch program receive cash reimbursement and donated commodity assistance from USDA for each meal they serve. In return, they must serve lunches that meet Federal nutrition requirements, and they must offer free and reduced-price lunches to eligible children. Participating schools can be public, private, charter or residential childcare institutions. DESE performs administrative reviews which comprehensively evaluate participating School Food Authorities (SFA) to ensure they comply with NSLP requirements.

What Are the Nutritional Requirements for the School Lunch?

Meals served as part of the National School Lunch Program must follow high nutritional and food safety standards. In 2010 the Hunger-Free Kids Act was passed, which based the new school meal standards on independent, expert recommendations from the Institute of Medicine. This act was passed to ensure that children are offered healthy food while they are at school. the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act aims to help reduce America's childhood obesity epidemic and reduce health risks for children by helping schools produce balanced meals, so children have access to healthy foods during the school day. All meals served:

Ensure students are offered both fruits and vegetables every day of the week;

Increase offerings of whole grain-rich foods;

Offer only fat-free or low-fat milk;

Limit calories based on the age of children being served to ensure proper portion size;

Increase the focus on reducing the amounts of saturated fat, trans fats, added sugars, and sodium

USDA has made a commitment to improve the nutritional quality of all school meals. The Department works with state and local school food authorities through the Nutrition Education and Training Program and Team Nutrition initiative to teach and motivate children to make healthy food choices, and to provide school food service staff with training and technical support.

USDA resources:

Massachusetts Specific:

How Do Children Qualify for Free and Reduced-price Meals?

Any child at a participating school may purchase a meal through the National School Lunch Program. Children from families with incomes at or below 130 percent of the poverty level are eligible for free meals. Those between 130 percent and 185 percent of the poverty level are eligible for reduced-price meals, for which students can be charged no more than 40 cents.

Children from families with incomes over 185 percent of poverty pay a full price, though their meals are still subsidized to some extent. Local school food authorities set their own prices for full-price meals.

What Financial Reimbursement and Resources Do Schools Who Serve Meal in the NSLP Receive?

Cash Reimbursement: Most of the support USDA provides to schools in the National School Lunch Program comes in the form of a cash reimbursement for each meal served.

USDA Foods Assistance: In addition to cash reimbursements, schools are entitled by law to receive commodity foods, called "entitlement" foods. Schools can also get "bonus" commodities as they are available from surplus stocks.

Eligible schools can streamline and improve school nutrition programs through providing universal breakfast and lunch to all students through the community eligibility provision.

Additional information can be found on:
Last Updated: January 19, 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
massachusetts department of elementary and secondary education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The goal of the Massachusetts public K-12 education system is to prepare all students for success after high school. Massachusetts public school students are leading the nation in reading and math and are at the top internationally in reading, science, and math according to the national NAEP and international PISA assessments.

# data[].attributes.headline
Current legislation (BILL) in MA house. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Current legislation (BILL) in MA house. 

# data[].attributes.headline
About the Bill in the MA General Assembly 

# data[].attributes.subject
About the Bill in the MA General Assembly 

# data[].attributes.body
Advocates for specific changes to school lunches!