House Child Nutrition Block Grant Proposal

T he Improving Child Nutrition and Education Act of 2016

(H.R. 5003) includes a three-state school meal block grant
demonstration pilot in Section 109. This bad proposal takes direct
aim at the highly effective school nutrition programs, which are
designed to reduce hunger, improve health, and support learning.
Block granting them would diminish their ability to accomplish
these fundamental goals. Additionally, the block grant proposal
would erode the nation’s bipartisan commitment to ensure that
children in the United States are not going hungry.

Basics of the Block Grant Provision:

The block grant would combine in one largely unregulated funding stream maximum annual income of $26,177 for a family of three) are eligible for

the School Breakfast, National School Lunch, Special Milk, and Team free school meals, and those who live in households with incomes

Nutrition programs. Major parts of summer food (the seamless summer between 130 and 185 percent of the poverty level (a maximum annual

option) and the school-based afterschool snacks program operate through income of $37,167 for a family of three) are eligible for reduced-price

the National School Lunch Program, so it is expected that they will be school meals. Under the block grant, states have the authority to set the

included in the block grant even though they are not specifically named in income thresholds at any level, but receive less funding to provide meals,

the bill.
States would apply to participate in the demonstration pilot, which would
run for three years, and have the option to renew for an additional three
years.
which increases the likelihood that the state will set eligibility thresholds in
which fewer children are eligible, leaving many low-income children
without access to breakfast and lunch at school. More children would lose
meals in future years as inflation eats into the block grant’s value and as
states divert the money to other purposes.

The three states would have broad discretion in how to spend the federal
Determining how to identify which children are eligible
funds, including:
Currently, families submit school meal applications in order to be certified
to receive free or reduced-price school meals. Under the proposal, states
Determining which children are eligible for free or reduced-
would no longer have to follow the federal rules for developing and
price meals. Currently, every low-income child who meets the program
collecting school meals applications. These rules ensure that the process
rules, regardless of the state in which she resides, is eligible for free or
supports children’s access to school meals and protects their civil rights. In
reduced-price school meals. This ensures that children whose families are
addition, children who are homeless, migrant, or in foster care, or who live
struggling to make ends meet are not turned down or put on a waiting list
in households that participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
and consigned to sit in a classroom hungry. Children who live in
Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), or
households with incomes at or below 130 percent of the poverty level (a
the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) are

www.FRAC.org
automatically eligible for free school meals without submitting a school
meal application. Under the block grant proposal, states would no longer
be required to set up systems to automatically qualify the most
vulnerable families. These systems ensure that some of the most
vulnerable students are able to access free school meals easily.
Determining the amount charged for reduced-price and
paid lunches. Currently, schools can only charge children who are
eligible for reduced-price school meals $0.30 for breakfast and $0.40 for
lunch, but under the proposal, states can increase the charge to any
amount. That charge already is challenging for many families, resulting in
decreased participation among children eligible for reduced-price meals,
and many missing out on the nutritious meals that they need to achieve
academically and grow up healthy.
Determining the length of time of year that meals are
provided. There is no requirement that block-granted programs
operate year-round, even though the block grant includes programs that
provide meals during both the school year and summer vacation.
Determining what standards are required of the meals
served. The provision only requires the meals to be “healthy,” and it
gives the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) no oversight on those
standards, making inapplicable the science-based standards that USDA
has issued after the Institute of Medicine’s recommendations.
There is no requirement that funding is made available to
schools to provide more than one meal per day. Currently,
lunch, breakfast and afterschool nutrition can be accessed by low-
income children under the existing programs that are folded into the
block grant. The only requirement under the block grant proposal is that
states assure in their application that at least one meal is accessible for
children during the school day.
The proposal would immediately cut the states’ funding for
the school nutrition programs. States would no longer receive the
additional $0.06 cents for each lunch served that meets the new USDA
nutrition standards — 98 percent of school districts receive this addtional
funding. States also would no longer receive the reimbursement for
“paid meals,” which are provided to students who do not qualify for free
and reduced-price school meals. The paid reimbursement is currently
$0.29 cents for each breakfast and each lunch served. These funds are
critical to the financial viability of the school nutrition programs. The
states also would not be eligible for the increased School Breakfast
reimbursement included in the House bill.
The proposal would eliminate the school nutrition
programs’ ability to respond to increased need. States opting
into the block grant would lock in their FY 2016 school meal funding
levels. This means that the funding would not increase if there is a
national or state economic downturn resulting in more children living in
households that are struggling to put food on the table, or if there is an
increase in the state’s population. Additionally, states would not receive
the annual reimbursement rate adjustments that are based upon
inflation in food prices, further eroding the state’s resources each year to
provide low-income children a nutritious school breakfast and lunch.
Allowable Uses of Funding
Under current rules, school nutrition funding is limited to public and
private nonprofit schools and residential child care institutions and
can be used to cover costs directly related to providing school meals,
such as food, staffing, and equipment. In addition, the state agency
charged with administering the programs receives funding to cover
state administrative costs. The funding provided through this block grant
proposal can be used in three ways, and states have complete flexibility
www.FRAC.org
in determining how the dollars are divided up and spent and what
entities receive funding.
States can use the funds to provide meals to school-aged children and
up to 10 percent of the total funding can be used to cover the state’s
administrative costs, but there is no requirement that any portion of the
funding goes to schools to provide meals in schools.
States can use the funds to carry out any activity the state determines will
support the goals of the block grant, and there is no federal oversight of
these spending decisions. The goals of the project include: providing
flexibility, reducing administration requirements, strengthening the
delivery of school meals and other programs, and supporting healthy
meals. This broad language and the lack of federal oversight give states
the ability to divert funding away from the school nutrition programs.
a set amount of funding each year. It immediately cuts funding for the
school nutrition programs, and, with every year, the ability of the
programs to serve children erodes, because there is no adjustment for
increased food costs. The history of most federal block grants is one of
not just inflation-driven erosion of funds, but additional legislated cuts
in funding. Furthermore, the flexibility in the way the funds can be
used and the lack of oversight on how the funds are spent makes it
possible for states to divert the federal funding intended to feed
hungry children at school to other priorities.

States can use the funds in various ways to address community

nutritional needs, to engage partners to deliver the meal programs, to
develop and strengthen public and private partnerships, to support the
community and nutritional needs of children, and to achieve
administrative and program cost savings. While it is important to address
the community’s nutritional needs, it is crucial that the school nutrition
funding support providing meals to students at school. If children are
hungry in school, the federal, state, and local education funding is being
wasted since hungery children cannot learn.

Conclusion
The House proposal includes all the components that generally make
block grants bad policy. It eliminates any guarantee that a hungry child
will have access to nutritious breakfasts and lunches at school. It
eliminates the ability of the programs to respond to increased need due
to an economic downturn or an increase in population, by providing

www.FRAC.org