State of the States 2008 Report Re: Nutrition Assistance Programs

8/8/2019 State of the States 2008 Report Re: Nutrition Assistance Programs

1/130

FRACs Profile of Food & Nutrion Programs Across the Naon

1875 Conneccut Avenue, NW Suite 540, Washington, DC 20009

phone: 202.986.2200 fax: 202.986.2525 web: www.frac.org

Food Research and Action Center

State of the States: 2008

November 2008


2/130

Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 ww w.frac.org

About FRACThe Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) is the leading national organization working for moreeffective public and private policies to eradicate domestic hunger and undernutrition.

For more information about the programs reviewed in this report, or to sign up for FRACs Weekly News

Digest, visit www.frac.org.

Acknowledgements

his report was prepared by Rachel Cooperand Jim Weill with assistance from JenniferAdach.

The Food Research and Action Center gratefullyacknowledges the following funders whosemajor support in 2007-2008 has helped to makepossible our work on expanding and improvingnutrition programs:

A.M. FundAnonymous DonorsThe Atlantic PhilanthropiesThe California EndowmentAnnie E. Casey FoundationClaneil FoundationEntertainment Industry FoundationEvangelical Lutheran Church in America

General Mills FoundationRobert Wood Johnson FoundationKaiser PermanenteKraft FoodsLand OLakes FoundationMAZON: A Jewish Response to HungerThe Moriah FundCharles Stewart Mott FoundationNational Dairy CouncilNew Directions FoundationDavid and Lucile Packard FoundationPresbyterian Hunger ProgramPritzker Early Childhood FoundationPublic Welfare FoundationSara Lee FoundationShare Our StrengthTaste of the NFLUPS Foundation
http://www.frac.org/http://www.frac.org/


3/130

Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 ww w.frac.org 1

About This Report

his annual report from FRAC is designed toprovide basic data as one tool for helping

government officials and agencies at alllevels, advocates, schools, emergency foodproviders, afterschool and summer programs,religious congregations, other service providers andnon-profits measure how they are doing in theeffort to get key public nutrition programs to morepeople in need and to provide more adequatebenefits. The data in this report describe the extentof hunger and food insecurity and the use ofnutrition programs for the United States as a wholeand for each of the 50 states and the District ofColumbia, giving a snapshot of how well or badlyeach state is doing in using available tools to meetthe needs of hungry people and improve the health

and economic security low-income families.

For additional information on any of the nutritionprograms described in this report, FRAC has a

range of brochures, guides and publicationsavailable, as well as extensive additionalinformation posted on our website (www.frac.org).

FRAC also has a weekly e-mail digest of news onhunger, nutrition and poverty issues, summarizingreports, events and resources on the web fromFRAC, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, othergovernment agencies, the network of anti-hungerand anti-poverty organizations, and the media. Tosubscribe go to http://frac.org/digest/index.htm.
http://www.frac.org/http://frac.org/digest/index.htmhttp://frac.org/digest/index.htmhttp://www.frac.org/


4/130


Introduction

The nation is suffering through deep economic troubles that are exacerbating greatly a broad and persistenthunger problem. At the same time, 2008 also has brought events that create hope that the nation will finallyaddress that same hunger problem seriously in the years to come.

Worsening Hunger. Even before the current recession, the decades economic growth was nottrickling down. New Census Bureau/USDA data show that, from 2000 to 2007, the percentage of American households that were food insecure rose from 10.5 to 11.1 percent. (The number ofpeople in such households rose from 33.2 to 36.2 million.) Food insecurity is the somewhat wanphrase used to describe a very real situation: households which, because of a shortage of resources,are struggling with hunger and cant purchase an adequate, healthy diet. In other words, the nationhad years of economic growth concentrated on the affluent, at the end of which period several millionmore people lived in households struggling with hunger. For the worst-off households, the picture waseven bleaker: the number of people living in households suffering from very low food security (untiltwo years ago USDA called this food insecurity with hunger) rose from 8.5 million in 2000 to 11.9million in 2007 a 40 percent increase in the number living in the hungriest households.

Even Worse Times Ahead. The 2007 data, grim as they are, predate the damage of the currentrecession. That recession is making the nations hunger problem much worse. The official 2008 hungernumbers from the Census Bureau and USDA wont be released until late 2009, but every report fromfood stamp offices, WIC programs, school meals programs, social service agencies, religiouscongregations and emergency food providers portrays a rising tide of increasingly desperate need. Ifthe recession is as long and deep as many experts predict, we are likely to see an epidemic of hunger,among children and adults alike, unlike any we have seen for decades.

Strong Programs to Help Combat Hunger. On the positive side, SNAP/Food Stamps (SNAP is theacronym for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the new federal name for the FoodStamp Program), school lunch and breakfast, child care food, and summer and afterschool food areentitlements, are sound programs, and 100 percent of benefits in them (and in WIC) are paid for withfederal funds. This means that the programs are able to expand to meet growing need when

conditions worsen, and states and local governments should assertively push that expansion along.Efforts by conservatives in Congress and the White House to eliminate or dilute this entitlement statusin 1981-1982, in 1995-1996, and in recent years have been beaten back, and now the states and thenation as a whole can see how fundamentally important it was to defeat those efforts and preservethe ability of these programs to adequately respond in times of rising need. In many ways, thenutrition programs are the strongest part of the national safety net that is still intact and has positivecountercyclical effect when the economy turns down. For example, from March 2006 to July 2007, a16-month period of economic growth (even if little trickled down to the poor), the number of peopleon SNAP/Food Stamps grew by about 300,000. But in the 13 months from July 2007 to August 2008,as the economy unraveled, SNAP/Food Stamp participation rose by nearly 3 million people. Sevenstates saw their SNAP/Food Stamp caseloads grow by 15 percent or more just from August 2007 toAugust 2008. The nutrition programs certainly have weak spots in both eligibility and payment levels,and benefit amounts in SNAP/Food Stamps in particular fall short of what is truly needed for an

adequate, healthy diet, but the programs present a very strong foundation on which to build.

A Pledge from President-elect Obama. In October 2008, the Obama campaign released anexcellent platform, Obama and Biden: Tackling Domestic Hunger, which committed to endingchildhood hunger in the U.S. by 2015. That document also highlighted the need for an immediateSNAP/Food Stamp increase to help struggling families and serve as an economic stimulus in therecession, and noted that reducing poverty (e.g., by raising the minimum wage and expanding theEarned Income Tax Credit) is an essential component of an anti-hunger strategy. The plan called aswell for further improvements in school meals access, summer food, and other child nutritionprograms, SNAP/Food Stamps, and nutrition supports for seniors. Strengthening the federal nutrition


5/130


programs is essential not only to President-elect Obamas proposed anti-hunger effort, but also tomany of his other domestic priorities. The nutrition programs improve the quality of early childhoodeducation; improve school achievement scores; support local nonprofits (e.g., child care centers,afterschool and summer programs), including faith-based groups; and reduce obesity. And givenPresident-elect Obamas anti-poverty goals, investments in SNAP/Food Stamps may be among thequickest and most cost-effective ways to make measurable progress toward reducing poverty as well.SNAP/Food Stamp benefits are as effective as the Earned Income Tax Credit in lifting children abovethe poverty line.

In brief, then, we have a major hunger problem in this country, and it is getting worse; but we have the toolswith which we can address it, and we have a President taking office who is committed to doing so.

There are four steps that Congress, President Bush while he remains in office, President-elect Obama after heis sworn in, and state and local officials must take if the nation is to mitigate some of the impact of therecession right now and then begin to reach President-elect Obamas goal.

1) Include a SNAP/ Food Stamp benefit boost in stimulus/ economic recovery legislation. TheDemocratic Congressional leadership has consistently talked about putting a boost in SNAP/Food Stampallotments into the next stimulus/recovery bill, and President-elect Obama has endorsed that idea. Economistsfrom all points on the political spectrum call a SNAP/Food Stamp boost the single best form of stimulus, when

measured by each dollars impact. Mark Zandi of Moodys Economy.com, who also was an advisor to SenatorMcCains campaign, calculates that each dollar of added SNAP/Food Stamp benefits adds $1.73 to theeconomy; extending unemployment insurance benefits adds $1.64; a dollar of infrastructure spendingproduces $1.59; aid to the states adds $1.36; a refundable tax rebate boosts the economy $1.26; and acorporate tax cut produces $.0.30 for each dollar invested. Of course, the SNAP/Food Stamp boost is morethan a stimulus; in this terrible economy beneficiaries desperately need a boost to begin to be able to afford anadequate diet. SNAP/Food Stamp benefits are based on the Thrifty Food Plan a government market basket ofminimally adequate foods that research shows low-income households whether seniors, families withchildren, or working age adults can seldom afford with the amounts of SNAP/Food Stamp benefits thegovernment provides. Rapid food price inflation, especially in food items lower-income families purchase,means that SNAP/Food Stamp allotments have fallen further and further behind reality. From September 2007to September 2008, the cost of the Thrifty Food Plan rose 10.3 percent while general food inflation rose 7.6percent. The gap between benefit allotments and what families actually spend is rising every month. A

SNAP/Food Stamp benefits boost is desperately needed by beneficiaries, and by the economy.

2)Pass a good child nutrition reauthorization bill in 2009. The child nutrition programs (WIC, schoollunch and school breakfast, summer and afterschool food, and the child care food program that providesnutrition in Head Start, child care centers, family child care homes, and homeless and domestic violenceshelters) are up for reauthorization in 2009. For all their flaws, these programs, like SNAP/Food Stamps, aremiracles of good public policy. They not only reduce hunger, but they have a range of positive outcomes thatadvance key national priorities. They improve birth outcomes, boost child development, improve health,improve school achievement and student behavior, reduce obesity, boost family incomes, stimulate localeconomic growth, and improve the quality of child care and afterschool programs. Congress and the ObamaAdministration must invest significant additional funds in these proven effective programs in 2009 so that thereauthorization can both increase the number of children who participate in them, and improve thehealthfulness of the food offered to children. The goals of reducing hunger and reducing and preventingobesity are intertwined and both can be achieved with stronger child nutrition programs.

3) Cities, counties and states need to use their existing options under federal rules to greatlyincrease participation in the nutrition programs. Particularly in the midst of the recession, state and localofficials must recognize that:

the programs are important sources of economic development for example, as discussed above,every added $1 in federal SNAP/Food Stamp funding that a state draws down produces nearly $2 ineconomic activity;


6/130


the nutrition programs are job creation (and job salvation) programs the money for schools, childcare, afterschool and summer programs, and grocery stores generates jobs; and

the entitlement nature of the programs means that there is much more available federal money thatthe states and localities can draw down if they improve access to the programs, and more than everthis is the time to do that aggressively and urgently.

Put differently, governors, state legislators, state cabinet officers and local officials, staring down the barrel ofthis very ugly recession with growing human needs and declining revenues, should figure out how to quicklydraw down more federal nutrition dollars in SNAP/Food Stamps, in school meals and afterschool food, inchild care food and in summer food.

4) Determine the strategy to achieve the President-elect s goal to eliminate hunger. The transitionteam, the new Administration and Congress need to address this goal seriously and purposefully. They need todetermine the mixture of improved jobs and wages, improved income supports like refundable tax credits andmore reasonably available unemployment insurance, and improved nutrition programs that will actually havethe effect of eliminating childhood hunger. They need to figure out how to get these private and publicsupports in place so the nation can reach the 2015 goal. These are not plans that can be written in 2014 or2012. The nation needs to start now to reach this incredibly important goal.

Going down this path is also what the public very much wants. A substantial proportion of American adults saythat they are worried about being able to put enough food on the table. Large majorities of Americans: classifyhunger as a very important social issue; believe the U.S. government must make solving hunger a higherpriority; say that a candidates position on reducing hunger is important when deciding their vote; supportSNAP/Food Stamps and child nutrition programs; and want the federal government to invest more in anti-hunger programs.

The nation faces a daunting economic situation, but at the same time remains a place of almost unimaginableabundance by the standards of much of the rest of the world, and the standards of our parents andgrandparents. The pieces are in place to transform Americas anti-hunger policy, and the resources areavailable. A Presidential commitment, strong public support, and strong programs on which to build make itpossible to rid our nation of this lingering disease of domestic hunger a disease that is eminently curable.

Jim WeillPresidentFood Research and Action CenterNovember 2008


7/130


Overview of the Federal NutritionPrograms


8/130


SNAP/ Food Stamps

he Food Stamp Program is the first line ofdefense against hunger and undernutrition

in the United States. Delivered throughElectronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards, which areused like debit cards at authorized food retailersnationwide, food stamp benefits enhance thepurchasing power of low-income households. In2007, in an average month 26.5 million Americansrelied on the Food Stamp Program to help themput food on the table. Because of the recession,as of August 2008 that number had risen to 29.5million.

As of October 1, 2008, the Food Stamp Programhas a new national name the SupplementalNutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The changewas included in the Farm Bill that was enacted thisyear, and is among many improvements to theprogram. Other changes include the first-everincrease in the minimum monthly benefit (from $10to $14), an increase in the standard deduction forhouseholds of three or fewer, and removal of thecap on how much of its dependent care costs ahousehold can deduct from income to determine itsbenefit amount. Retirement and education savingsaccounts will no longer be counted against ahouseholds eligibility.

The SNAP/Food Stamp Program is a lifeline for a

broad array of low-income people. Forty-onepercent of SNAP/Food Stamp recipients live inhouseholds where someone is working. SNAP/FoodStamps serve people of all ages 49 percent ofrecipients are children while 9 percent are elderly.SNAP/Food Stamp benefits lifted nine percent ofparticipating households above the poverty line.

SNAP/Food Stamp benefits are fully federally-funded. The program is largely administered bythe states, with federal and state governmentssharing the administrative costs nearly equally.Benefit levels are based on the "Thrifty Food Plan,"USDA's theoretical estimate of what it would costto purchase a minimally adequate diet. TheSNAP/Food Stamp Program assumes thathouseholds will be able to purchase the ThriftyFood Plan using their benefits in addition to 30percent of any income they receive (after certainallowable deductions). In fiscal year 2007, theaverage monthly SNAP/Food Stamp benefit perperson was $97, an important boost to ahousehold struggling to make ends meet, but an

amount often inadequate for a family to obtain anadequate, healthy diet.

SNAP/Food Stamps not only help individualrecipients but also give a boost to local retailers andthe local economy, helping to sustain andstrengthen struggling communities. According to aUSDA estimate, each dollar of SNAP/Food Stampbenefits generates approximately $1.80 in economicactivity. Increasing participation enhances localbusinesses and tax revenues to local governments.

Despite its critical role in alleviating hunger andstrengthening communities, the SNAP/Food StampProgram is seriously underutilized. Only two-thirdsof eligible people receive the benefits they need.

National Facts

In fiscal year 2007, 26.5 million people in anaverage month relied on the SNAP/Food StampProgram to help put food on the table.

The average monthly income for food stamphouseholds in 2007 was only $691, and 39percent of all beneficiary households lived inextreme poverty (income less than half of thepoverty level.)

SNAP/Food Stamps reach those most in need -88 percent of benefits go to households thatcontain children, the elderly or the disabled.

USDA estimates that only 67 percent of eligiblepeople are enrolled in the SNAP/Food StampProgram. The participation rate of the eligibleworking poor is even lower, at only 57 percent.

Who is Eligible for SNAP/ Food Stamps?

Income: Household gross income below 130percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) and

net income (after deductions) below 100percent of the poverty level;

Resources: Savings or resources of less than$2,000 ($3,000 for households with elderly ordisabled applicants);

Citizenship: US citizen or an eligible non-citizen. Eligible non-citizens include, forexample, asylees, refugees, documentedchildren, some disabled immigrants and thosewho have been Lawful Permanent Residentsfor at least five years.


9/130


School Breakfast

xperts agree that breakfast is the mostimportant meal of the day. Study after

study has shown that for school childrenbreakfast in school is the key to better nutritionand child health and improved school attendanceand performance. Yet, many children skipbreakfast altogether because their familiesstruggle to put a meal on the table or becausethey do not have the time to eat during themorning rush, and then their schools do not havea school breakfast program, or a program thatworks well enough to be accessible.

Breakfast has been shown to improve mathgrades, vocabulary skills, memory, school

attendance and discipline. Children who eatbreakfast at school closer to class and test-taking time perform better on standardized teststhan those who skip breakfast or eat breakfast athome.

School breakfast also helps to build lifelong healthyeating habits. The meals served are required tobe nutritionally balanced and USDA researchshows that children who participate in schoolbreakfast eat more fruits, drink more milk, andconsume a wider variety of foods than those whodo not eat school breakfast or who have breakfastat home. Overall, children and adolescents whoeat breakfast are significantly less likely to beoverweight, while skipping breakfast is associatedwith a higher risk of obesity.

National Facts

In school year 2006-2007 there were a record8.1 million low-income children eating free andreduced-price breakfast on an average day, anincrease of 391,000 children from 2005-2006.

A record 10.1 million children (including free,reduced-price and paid) participated in the

School Breakfast Program on an averagemorning in the 2006-2007 school year, a 5.9percent increase from 2005-2006.

Nationally, comparing free and reduced-priceschool breakfast participation to free andreduced-price lunch participation, 45.3 childrenate breakfast for every 100 children who ate

lunch in school year 2006-2007, compared to aratio of 44.6 to 100 in the prior year.

If every state had met the achievable goal of 60low-income children receiving breakfast forevery 100 receiving lunch in the 2006-2007school year, 2.6 million more children wouldhave been eating a healthy school breakfastevery day, and states would have collected anadditional $555 million in federal child nutritionfunding.

The percentage of schools with lunch programswhich also offer breakfast grew to 84.8 percentin 2006-2007. Last year alone, 2,100 more

schools across the country instituted a breakfastprogram.

E

For More on School Breakfast

For more information on the School BreakfastProgram see FRACs School BreakfastScorecard 2007 .
http://www.frac.org/pdf/SBP_2007.pdfhttp://www.frac.org/pdf/SBP_2007.pdfhttp://www.frac.org/pdf/SBP_2007.pdfhttp://www.frac.org/pdf/SBP_2007.pdf


10/130


School Lunch

larmed by the number of undernourishedmilitary recruits during World War II,

Congress created the National SchoolLunch Program in 1946 as a way to improvenational security by protecting the health andwell-being of Americas children. Since then theNational School Lunch Program has grown toserve an estimated 95 percent of public schools(private schools and residential child careinstitutions also are eligible to participate). Onan average school day, 30.6 million children, 55percent of Americas schoolchildren, participate.Of them, 18 million are low-income and receivefree or reduced-price lunches.

The School Lunch Program has been sosuccessful because it offers nutritious lunches toevery child in a participating school and makesthem affordable. While the majority of lunchesserved are to low-income students (free orreduced-price meals), 41 percent of lunches areto paying students.

School lunches must be nutritionally balancedand provide no more than 30 percent of caloriesfrom fat. USDA research indicates that childrenwho participate in the School Lunch Program

have superior nutritional intakes compared tothose who bring lunch from home or otherwisedo not participate.

National Facts

In school year 2006-2007 18 million studentsqualified for free or reduced-price lunches, anincrease of more than 600,000 students from2005-2006.

A record 30.6 million children (free, reduced-price and paid) participated in the National

School Lunch Program on an average day in2006-2007, an increase of almost one millioncompared to the prior year.

In 2006-2007 99,839 schools offered theschool lunch program, compared to 99,510the year before.

AWho is Eligible for School Meals?

Any public school, nonprofit private school orresidential child care institution (RCCI) canchoose to participate in the National SchoolLunch and School Breakfast Programs, whichare funded through and administered by theUnited States Department of Agriculture(USDA).

Any student attending a school that offerseither program can eat. The amount the schoolis reimbursed by the federal governmentdepends on the students family income.

Families must complete an application, or bedirectly certified, to determine eligibility for

free or reduced-price meals through the SchoolLunch and School Breakfast Program. Thereare three reimbursement levels based onfamily income:o Free: Children from families with incomes

at or below 130 percent of the federalpoverty level eat at no cost, and federalreimbursement is at the maximum.

o Reduced-Price: Children from familieswith incomes between 130 and 185percent of poverty can be charged nomore than 30 cents per meal forbreakfast and 40 cents for lunch, andfederal reimbursement is the maximum

minus these amounts.o Paid: Children from family with incomes

above 185 percent of poverty pay fortheir meals, but schools are reimbursedby USDA 24 cents per meal for breakfastand 23 cents for lunch.


11/130


Summer Nutrit ion

hen the school bell rings to signal thestart of summer vacation, millions ofchildren who receive free or reduced

price breakfast and lunch at school during theregular school year no longer have access to thosemeals. Two federal programsthe Summer FoodService Program (SFSP) and the National SchoolLunch Program (NSLP)offer children from low-income families and neighborhoods the kind ofnutritious meals and snacks in the summer thatthey would receive during the school year.Together they are referred to as the SummerNutrition programs.

Recent studies show that not only does foodinsecurity increase for households with children

during the summer, but that summer also is thetime of the year when young school-children aremost likely to gain weight. Unfortunately, too fewchildren have access to the Summer Nutritionprograms.

Providing good nutritious meals goes hand in handwith ensuring that children have constructiveactivities to keep them safe, engaged, and learningduring the summer months. The Summer Nutritionprograms support meals served at local summereducation and enrichment programs, recreationcenters, and other locations at which children

congregate during the summer. These meals drawchildren into programs that are critical for theirdevelopment, health, and well-being, and providecare while their parents are working.

National Facts

Participation in the federal Summer Nutritionprograms lags far behind participation in theschool breakfast and lunch programs during theregular school year. Only 17.5 childrenparticipate in Summer Nutrition programs forevery 100 who receive free or reduced-priceschool lunches during the school year.

Overall participation in the Summer Nutritionprograms (SFSP and NSLP combined) grew by0.1 percent from July 2006 to July 2007. Whilethe increase in 2007 is a positive step, theSummer Nutrition programs are still servingsignificantly fewer children (2.85 million) thanthe 3.2 million that were served five years ago,during the summer of 2002.

If every state had served in summer 2007 justtwo-fifths of the children who eat free or

reduced price school lunch during the regularschool year, an additional 3.7 million childrenwould have been fed through the SummerNutrition programs, bringing states an additional$222 million in federal funds.

Congress created a Simplified Summer FoodProgram that reduces paperwork andmaximizes reimbursement for summer food.Through summer 2007, Summer Nutritionparticipation generally grew at a much fasterrate in states with the Simplified Program thanin the 24 states and the District of Columbia thatwere never included in the Simplified program.

For example, from 2000 to 2007, participation inthe 13 original pilot states grew 54.1 comparedto a 14.4 percent drop in non-Simplified states.The data in this report provide the last snapshotof progress in Simplified versus Non-Simplified states, because Congress expandedthe Simplified Summer Food Program to allstates and the District of Columbia beginning inthe summer of 2008.

W

Summ er Food Standards

of Excellence

When summer food sites serve quality, child-friendly food, it attracts children to the programsand makes them more likely to consistentlyparticipate. To identify and promote qualitysummer food sites, FRAC created its SummerFood Standards of Excellence.

The Summer Food Standards of Excellence can beused to evaluate what works and what does not inSummer Nutrition, identify areas of improvement,and encourage sites to reach the next level ofprogram excellence.

By evaluating summer food sites and holdingthem to high standards, FRACs goal is to increasethe quality of food served and the siteenvironment so that participation increases andmore hungry children receive healthier and morenutritious meals when school is out. For moreinformation, visit www.frac.org/afterschool/.


12/130


Special Supplemental Nutrition Programfor Women, Infants and Children (WIC)

ince the early 1970s the SpecialSupplemental Nutrition Program for Women,Infants and Children (WIC) has provided

nutritious foods, nutrition education and access tohealth care to low-income pregnant women, newmothers, and infants and children deemed to be atnutritional risk. The WIC program provides a hugeboost to nutrition and health. Estimates are thatevery dollar spent on WIC results in savings ofbetween $1.77 and $3.13 in Medicaid costs fornewborns and their mothers. WIC is an importantsafety net for Americas children 45 percent of allinfants born in the United States rely on the WIC

program.

WIC provides participants with supplemental foodsthrough a monthly package tailored to enhancetheir health and meet their special dietary needs.The foods are chosen to provide nutrients likely tobe missing from the diets of low-income women,infants and children. In late 2007, the USDA issuedthe first update to the WIC food package indecades based on current nutritional science andcultural preferences. It added fruits andvegetables, whole grain bread, corn tortillas, wholegrains, and the option of soymilk and tofu, and

moved to low-fat milk and whole grain cereals.These items join the current list of approved WICfoods, including iron-fortified infant formula, infantcereal, milk, eggs, cheese, iron fortified breakfastcereal, vitamin C-rich juice, beans, tuna fish,carrots and peanut butter.

States have until October 2009 to implement thechanges to the WIC food package, which willempower mothers to chose healthier foods andstrengthen WICs role in reducing obesity andimproving nutrition.

National Facts

In fiscal year 2007, nearly 8.3 million women,infants and children relied on the WIC programevery month.

WIC provided nutritious food to 6.2 millionchildren every month in fiscal year 2007 2.2million infants and 4 million children under agefive.

S

Who is Eligible for WI C?

1. Categorical requirement: a participantmust be either a pregnant, postpartum, orbreast-feeding woman, an infant, or a childunder the age of five;

2. Income requirement: a participantshousehold income must be below 185percent of the federal poverty line (anindividual who receives Food Stamps, TANFor Medicaid, or is a member of a family inwhich a pregnant woman or infant receivesMedicaid benefits, is deemed to meet thisrequirement);3. Nutritional Risk requirement: aparticipant must be certified by a healthprofessional (often one at a WIC clinic) to beat nutritional risk, which can includeproblems such as: inadequate diet; a history

of high-risk pregnancy; child growthproblems such as stunting, underweight, oranemia; or homelessness or migrancy.


13/130


Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP)

any low-income working parents rely onchild care and afterschool programs to

provide a safe and healthy place for theirchildren while they commute and work. By payingfor nutritious meals and snacks for eligible childrenwho are enrolled at participating child carecenters, day care homes and Head Start programs,the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP)plays an important role in improving the quality ofthose programs and in making them moreaffordable for low-income parents. Researchshows that 87 percent of the family child carehomes considered to provide good quality careparticipate in CACFP. CACFP also provides meals tochildren residing in emergency shelters and snacksto youths participating in afterschool careprograms, as well as meals to seniors attendingadult day care centers.

While the Child and Adult Care Food Program hasseveral segments, the major categories are:

Centers & Family Child Care Homes

Young children attending participating family childhomes, child care centers or Head Start programscan receive up to two meals and a snack that meetUSDA nutritional standards. Depending on the typeof program, eligibility is based either on thepoverty status of the area or on the income of the

enrolled children. The majority of CACFPparticipants are preschool-aged children.

Afterschool

School-based programs providing enrichmentactivities for children and teenagers after schoolcan provide free snacks through CACFP in areaswhere at least 50 percent of children are eligiblefor free or reduced-price meals. CACFP funds alsocan pay for suppers for children attendingafterschool programs.

Homeless Shelters

CACFP provides up to three meals a day forchildren age 18 and younger living in homelessshelters.

Adult Day Care

Seniors who attend nonresidential day care centersmay receive meals and snacks through CACFP.

National Facts

Nearly 2.2 million children enrolled in nearly48,000 child care centers benefited daily fromCACFP in fiscal year 2007.

In fiscal year 2007, more than 142,000 familychild care homes relied on CACFP to providehealthy meals to more than 850,000 low-incomechildren daily.

M

The Impact of the CACFP Means Test

As part of the reform of welfare undertaken in1996, major changes in the way family childcare homes are reimbursed in the Child and

Adult Care Food Program were mandated. Ameans test was instituted which effectively cutin half the federal reimbursement for mealsand snacks for providers serving moderate-income children.

These changes have had negative consequencesthat continue to affect the program. Between1996 and 2007 the number of family child carehomes participating in CACFP dropped by 27.1percent, while the number of children servedfell by 126,000. This is in contrast to thegrowth of child care centers (and Head Startprograms) using CACFP over that time. Duringthe same 11 year period, the participation ofcenters in CACFP grew by 41.8 percent and thenumber of children served by those centersgrew by almost 800,000.


14/130


The Emergency FoodAssistance Program

(TEFAP)

critical but little publicized program in thebattle against hunger is The EmergencyFood Assistance Program (TEFAP). TEFAP

provides USDA commodities to states, whichdistribute the food through local food banks andpantries directly to households that meet theirstates eligibility criteria. Along with food donatedby the public and businesses, TEFAP foods arerelied upon by the millions of Americans who turnto food pantries every year.

TEFAP is also a crucial source of food for groupsthat serve meals to those in need, like soup

kitchens and emergency shelters.

National Facts

The Emergency Food Assistance Programprovided more than $191 million incommodities in fiscal year 2007, which included$132 million in base funding and $58 million inbonus commodities.

CommoditySupplemental Food

Program (CSFP)

he Commodity Supplemental Food Program(CSFP) provides nutritious USDAcommodities to low-income pregnant and

postpartum women, infants, and children up to sixyears old, as well as seniors over age 60. The largemajority of participants in CSFP are elderly(enrollees in CSFP cannot be receiving WIC at thesame time), and they receive supplemental foodpackages that help to ensure that they have accessto the nutrients they need.

The Commodity Supplemental Food Programcurrently serves nearly half a million people in 32

states, the District of Columbia and two IndianReservations. Seniors with incomes of less than130 percent of the federal poverty level andwomen, infants and children living below 185percent of the poverty line are eligible in thesejurisdictions.

National Facts The Commodity Supplemental Food Program

served 433,000 elderly people and more than33,000 women, infants and children in fiscalyear 2007.

A


15/130


National and State Profiles


16/130


17/130

Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 ww w.frac.org United States p.1

United States

Demographics, Poverty and Food InsecurityPopulation (2007)

Total People 301,621,159Children (Under Age 18) 73,907,975

Income and Poverty (2007)Median Household Income (2007) $50,740

Rank Among States --Total People Living In Poverty 38,052,247Poverty Rate 13.0%

Rank Among States (Highest to Lowest) --Children (Under Age 18) Living In Poverty 13,097,100Child Poverty Rate 18.0%

Rank Among States (Highest to Lowest) --Total People Living Below 185% of Federal Poverty Level 81,815,413

Food Insecurity Among Households (2007)Number of Households that are Food Insecure 13,011,000

Percent of Households that are Food Insecure 11.1%Number of Households that are Very Low Food Secure 4,749,000Percent of Households that are Very Low Food Secure 4.1%

Federal Nutrition ProgramsSchool Breakfast Program (School Year 2006-2 007)

Average Daily Student Participation 10Free and Reduced-Price Students 8,130,457Paid Students 1,988,336

Change in Free and Reduced-Price Participation in Last 10 Years 59.2%Free and Reduced-Price Student Participation Rate (Compared to School Lunch Participation) 45.3

Rank Among States -- Additional Free and Reduced-Price Students Served if Participation Rate Reached 60% 2,586,083 Additional Federal Dollars States Would Receive if Participation Rate Reached 60% $555,249,388Number of Schools Participating 84,627School Participation Rate (Compared to Number of Schools Serving Lunch) 84.8%Federal Funding for School Breakfast $2,163,309,165School Breakfast Mandate in Law (Yes/No) No

National School Lunch Program (School Year 2006-2 007) Average Daily Student Participation 30

Free and Reduced-Price Students 17,966,115Paid Students 12,597,668

Number of Schools Participating 99,839Federal Funding for School Lunch $7,704,270,028

Summ er Nutrition Participation (July 2007) Average Daily Summer Nutrition Participation in July 2,852,877

July Summer Food Service Participation 1,548,688July National School Lunch Participation in Free and Reduced-Price Lunch 1,304,189

Change in Average Daily Summer Nutrition Participation in Last 10 Years -11.8%Low-Income Participation Rate (Compared to Regular Year Free and Reduced-Price School Lunch) 17.5

Rank Among States -- Additional Low-Income Children Served if Participation Rate Reached 40% 3,685,016 Additional Federal Dollars States Would Receive if Participation Rate Reached 40% $222,095,904Number of Summer Food Service Sponsors 3,654Number of Summer Food Service Sites 30,895Federal Funding for Summer Food Service Program $249,559,234


18/130

Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 ww w.frac.org United States p.2

United States Continued

SNAP/ Food Stamp Program (FY 2007) Average Monthly Participation (Individuals) 26,4

Change in Participation in Last 5 Years 38.6% Average Monthly Benefit per Person Participation Rate of Eligible Persons (FY 2005) 65%

Rank Among States --Participation Rate of Eligible Working Poor (FY 2005) 57%Federal Funding for SNAP/Food Stamps $30,373,271,213

Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Wom en, Infants and Children (WIC) (FY 2007 ) Average Monthly Participation

Women 2,093,271Infants 2,165,567Children 4,026,411

Change in Participation in Last 10 Years 11.9%Federal Funding for WIC $5,367,608,143

Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) (FY 2007)Number of Participating Family Child Care Homes 141,985Family Child Care Home Average Daily Participation of Children 850,354Change in Family Child Care Daily Participation in Last 10 Years -14.7%Number of Participating Child Care Centers (Includes Head Start) 47,673Child Care Center Average Daily Participation of Children (Includes Head Start) 2,181,087Change in Center Daily Participation in Last 10 Years 51.2%Federal Funding for CACFP $2,023,804,070

The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) (FY 2007 )Federal Entitlement Funding $132,194,294

Federal Bonus Commodity Funding $58,552,145 Administrative Funding

Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) (FY 2007) Average Monthly Participation

Federal Funding for CSFP $107,828,081

Economic Security PoliciesMinimum Wage (2007)

Minimum Wage $5.85 (July, 2007)

Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) (2007)EITC (Yes/No) Yes

Refundable (Yes/No) Yes

Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) (FY 2006) Average Monthly Participation (FY 2006) 4,230

Adults Children 3,235,694

Maximum Monthly Benefit per 3-Person Family (FY 2005) N/AFederal and State Funding for Cash Assistance $9,906,038,682


19/130

Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 ww w.frac.org Alabama p.1

Alabama




Rank Among States 47Total People Living In Poverty 759,835Poverty Rate 16.9%

Rank Among States (Highest to Lowest) 7Children (Under Age 18) Living In Poverty 269,086Child Poverty Rate 24.3%

Rank Among States (Highest to Lowest) 5Total People Living Below 185% of Federal Poverty Level 1,540,701

Food Insecurity Among Households (2005-200 7, 3-Year Averages)Number of Households that are Food Insecure 219,000

Percent of Households that are Food Insecure 11.9%Number of Households that are Very Low Food Secure 79,000Percent of Households that are Very Low Food Secure 4.3%


Average Daily Student Participation Free and Reduced-Price Students 161,443Paid Students 33,883


Rank Among States 21 Additional Free and Reduced-Price Students Served if Participation Rate Reached 60% 48,390 Additional Federal Dollars State Would Receive if Participation Rate Reached 60% $10,426,445Number of Schools Participating 1,373School Participation Rate (Compared to Number of Schools Serving Lunch) 89.9%Federal Funding for School Breakfast $43,056,103School Breakfast Mandate in State Law (Yes/No) No

National School Lunch Program (School Year 2006-2 007) Average Daily Student Participation

Free and Reduced-Price Students 349,721Paid Students 226,952

Number of Schools Participating 1,527Federal Funding for School Lunch $149,904,664

Summ er Nutrition Participation (July 2007) Average Daily Summer Nutrition Participation in July 30,719

July Summer Food Service Participation 20,187July National School Lunch Participation in Free and Reduced-Price Lunch 10,532


Rank Among States 41 Additional Low-Income Children Served if Participation Rate Reached 40% 98,958 Additional Federal Dollars State Would Receive if Participation Rate Reached 40% $5,964,187Number of Summer Food Service Sponsors 37Number of Summer Food Service Sites 536Federal Funding for Summer Food Service Program $3,012,683


20/130

Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 ww w.frac.org Alabama p.2

Alabama Continued

SNAP/ Food Stamp Program (FY 2007) Average Monthly Participation (Individuals)


Rank Among States 25Participation Rate of Eligible Working Poor (FY 2005) 63%Federal Funding for SNAP/Food Stamps $601,413,135


Women 31,446Infants 36,287Children 58,547

Change in Participation in Last 10 Years 6.2%Federal Funding for WIC $96,344,828

Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) (FY 2007)Number of Participating Family Child Care Homes 1,204Family Child Care Home Average Daily Participation of Children 6,549Change in Family Child Care Daily Participation in Last 10 Years -43.7%Number of Participating Child Care Centers (Includes Head Start) 725Child Care Center Average Daily Participation of Children (Includes Head Start) 35,666Change in Center Daily Participation in Last 10 Years 61.0%Federal Funding for CACFP $33,004,276


Federal Bonus Commodity Funding $950,489 Administrative Funding

Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) (FY 2007) Average Monthly Participation No

Federal Funding for CSFP in This State

State Economic Security PoliciesMinimum Wage (2007)

State Minimum Wage $5.85 (July, 2007 -Federal)

Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) (2007)State EITC (Yes/No) No

Refundable (Yes/No) No

Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) (FY 2006) Average Monthly Participation (FY 2006) 4

Adults Children 34,824

Maximum Monthly Benefit per 3-Person Family (FY 2005) $215Federal and State Funding for Cash Assistance $34,578,824


21/130

Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 ww w.frac.org Alaska p.1

Alaska


Total People 683,478Children (Under Age 18) 181,119




Rank Among States (Highest to Lowest) 46Total People Living Below 185% of Federal Poverty Level 142,587






Rank Among States 48 Additional Free and Reduced-Price Students Served if Participation Rate Reached 60% 9,127 Additional Federal Dollars State Would Receive if Participation Rate Reached 60% $1,952,789Number of Schools Participating 295School Participation Rate (Compared to Number of Schools Serving Lunch) 68.3%Federal Funding for School Breakfast $5,064,535School Breakfast Mandate in State Law (Yes/No) No



Number of Schools Participating 432Federal Funding for School Lunch $23,446,355


July Summer Food Service Participation 846July National School Lunch Participation in Free and Reduced-Price Lunch 1,218

Change in Average Daily Summer Nutrition Participation in Last 10 Years 154.4%Low-Income Participation Rate (Compared to Regular Year Free and Reduced-Price School Lunch) 6.3

Rank Among States 49 Additional Low-Income Children Served if Participation Rate Reached 40% 10,944 Additional Federal Dollars State Would Receive if Participation Rate Reached 40% $659,608Number of Summer Food Service Sponsors 20Number of Summer Food Service Sites 36Federal Funding for Summer Food Service Program $367,008


22/130

Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 ww w.frac.org Alaska p.2

Alaska Continued


Change in Participation in Last 5 Years 21.7% Average Monthly Benefit per Person $Participation Rate of Eligible Persons (FY 2005) 67%





Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) (FY 2007)Number of Participating Family Child Care Homes 438Family Child Care Home Average Daily Participation of Children 2,039Change in Family Child Care Daily Participation in Last 10 Years -8.9%Number of Participating Child Care Centers (Includes Head Start) 189Child Care Center Average Daily Participation of Children (Includes Head Start) 7,126Change in Center Daily Participation in Last 10 Years 57.5%Federal Funding for CACFP $6,629,534

The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) (FY 2007 )Federal Entitlement Funding $294,915



Federal Funding for CSFP $439,838


State Minimum Wage $7.15



Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) (FY 2006) Average Monthly Participation (FY 2006)




23/130

Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 ww w.frac.org Arizona p.1

Arizona





















24/130

Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 ww w.frac.org Arizona p.2

Arizona Continued







Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) (FY 2007)Number of Participating Family Child Care Homes 3,452Family Child Care Home Average Daily Participation of Children 11,400Change in Family Child Care Daily Participation in Last 10 Years 2.5%Number of Participating Child Care Centers (Includes Head Start) 674Child Care Center Average Daily Participation of Children (Includes Head Start) 34,389Change in Center Daily Participation in Last 10 Years 7.6%Federal Funding for CACFP $40,132,024













25/130

Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 ww w.frac.org Arkansas p.1

Arkansas


Total People 2,834,797Children (Under Age 18) 701,492










Rank Among States 11 Additional Free and Reduced-Price Students Served if Participation Rate Reached 60% 14,468 Additional Federal Dollars State Would Receive if Participation Rate Reached 60% $3,111,609Number of Schools Participating 1,084School Participation Rate (Compared to Number of Schools Serving Lunch) 100.1%Federal Funding for School Breakfast $31,624,224School Breakfast Mandate in State Law (Yes/No) Yes









26/130

Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 ww w.frac.org Arkansas p.2

Arkansas Continued






Change in Participation in Last 10 Years -3.3%Federal Funding for WIC $57,490,578

Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) (FY 2007)Number of Participating Family Child Care Homes 820Family Child Care Home Average Daily Participation of Children 6,021Change in Family Child Care Daily Participation in Last 10 Years 14.1%Number of Participating Child Care Centers (Includes Head Start) 728Child Care Center Average Daily Participation of Children (Includes Head Start) 31,826Change in Center Daily Participation in Last 10 Years 115.9%Federal Funding for CACFP $29,986,776













27/130

Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 ww w.frac.org California p.1

California




Rank Among States 8Total People Living In Poverty 4,433,014Poverty Rate 12.4%

Rank Among States (Highest to Lowest) 23Children (Under Age 18) Living In Poverty 1,591,295Child Poverty Rate 17.3%


Food Insecurity Among Households (2005-200 7, 3-Year Averages)Number of Households that are Food Insecure 1,314,000



Average Daily Student Participation 1Free and Reduced-Price Students 893,491Paid Students 128,825



National School Lunch Program (School Year 2006-2 007) Average Daily Student Participation 2

Free and Reduced-Price Students 2,192,981Paid Students 775,136

Number of Schools Participating 10,796Federal Funding for School Lunch $1,025,810,968




Rank Among States 4 Additional Low-Income Children Served if Participation Rate Reached 40% 191,067 Additional Federal Dollars State Would Receive if Participation Rate Reached 40% $11,515,601Number of Summer Food Service Sponsors 167Number of Summer Food Service Sites 1,450Federal Funding for Summer Food Service Program $12,855,819


28/130

Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 ww w.frac.org California p.2

California Continued

SNAP/ Food Stamp Program (FY 2007) Average Monthly Participation (Individuals) 2,


Rank Among States 49Participation Rate of Eligible Working Poor (FY 2005) 34%Federal Funding for SNAP/Food Stamps $2,569,814,590




Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) (FY 2007)Number of Participating Family Child Care Homes 18,557Family Child Care Home Average Daily Participation of Children 128,910Change in Family Child Care Daily Participation in Last 10 Years -5.7%Number of Participating Child Care Centers (Includes Head Start) 4,823Child Care Center Average Daily Participation of Children (Includes Head Start) 181,412Change in Center Daily Participation in Last 10 Years 26.4%Federal Funding for CACFP $228,338,191


Federal Bonus Commodity Funding $6,891,839 Administrative Funding







Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) (FY 2006) Average Monthly Participation (FY 2006) 1,049


Maximum Monthly Benefit per 3-Person Family (FY 2005) $704Federal and State Funding for Cash Assistance $3,479,718,022


29/130

Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 ww w.frac.org Colorado p.1

Colorado





















30/130

Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 ww w.frac.org Colorado p.2

Colorado Continued







Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) (FY 2007)Number of Participating Family Child Care Homes 1,866Family Child Care Home Average Daily Participation of Children 6,898Change in Family Child Care Daily Participation in Last 10 Years -67.3%Number of Participating Child Care Centers (Includes Head Start) 604Child Care Center Average Daily Participation of Children (Includes Head Start) 24,954Change in Center Daily Participation in Last 10 Years 33.4%Federal Funding for CACFP $17,358,819













31/130

Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 ww w.frac.org Connecticut p.1

Connecticut


Total People 3,502,309Children (Under Age 18) 819,050










Rank Among States 47 Additional Free and Reduced-Price Students Served if Participation Rate Reached 60% 36,167 Additional Federal Dollars State Would Receive if Participation Rate Reached 60% $7,806,378Number of Schools Participating 596School Participation Rate (Compared to Number of Schools Serving Lunch) 51.5%Federal Funding for School Breakfast $14,005,719School Breakfast Mandate in State Law (Yes/No) Yes







Rank Among States 10 Additional Low-Income Children Served if Participation Rate Reached 40% 18,487 Additional Federal Dollars State Would Receive if Participation Rate Reached 40% $1,114,191Number of Summer Food Service Sponsors 23Number of Summer Food Service Sites 144Federal Funding for Summer Food Service Program $768,259


32/130

Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 ww w.frac.org Connecticut p.2

Connecticut Continued




















33/130

Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 ww w.frac.org Delaware p.1

Delaware












Rank Among States 17 Additional Free and Reduced-Price Students Served if Participation Rate Reached 60% 5,028 Additional Federal Dollars State Would Receive if Participation Rate Reached 60% $1,082,503Number of Schools Participating 238School Participation Rate (Compared to Number of Schools Serving Lunch) 99.2%Federal Funding for School Breakfast $5,268,012School Breakfast Mandate in State Law (Yes/No) No







Rank Among States 13 Additional Low-Income Children Served if Participation Rate Reached 40% 7,073 Additional Federal Dollars State Would Receive if Participation Rate Reached 40% $426,304Number of Summer Food Service Sponsors 19Number of Summer Food Service Sites 413Federal Funding for Summer Food Service Program $1,504,999


34/130

Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 ww w.frac.org Delaware p.2

Delaware Continued














Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) (2007)State EITC (Yes/No) Yes






35/130

Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 ww w.frac.org District of Columbia p.1

District of Columbia












Rank Among States 19 Additional Free and Reduced-Price Students Served if Participation Rate Reached 60% 4,313 Additional Federal Dollars State Would Receive if Participation Rate Reached 60% $935,951Number of Schools Participating 208School Participation Rate (Compared to Number of Schools Serving Lunch) 95.4%Federal Funding for School Breakfast $4,114,625School Breakfast Mandate in State Law (Yes/No) No







Rank Among States 1 Additional Low-Income Children Served if Participation Rate Reached 40% -- Additional Federal Dollars State Would Receive if Participation Rate Reached 40% --Number of Summer Food Service Sponsors 19Number of Summer Food Service Sites 404Federal Funding for Summer Food Service Program $3,307,909


36/130

Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 ww w.frac.org District of Columbia p.2

District of Columbia Continued







Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) (FY 2007)Number of Participating Family Child Care Homes 90Family Child Care Home Average Daily Participation of Children 285Change in Family Child Care Daily Participation in Last 10 Years -32.3%Number of Participating Child Care Centers (Includes Head Start) 176Child Care Center Average Daily Participation of Children (Includes Head Start) 5,895Change in Center Daily Participation in Last 10 Years 41.2%Federal Funding for CACFP $3,439,347







Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) (2007)State EITC (Yes/No) Yes

Refundable (Yes/No) Yes





37/130

Food Research and Action Center State of the States 2008 ww w.frac.org Florida p.1

Florida




Rank Among States 28Total People Living In Poverty 2,158,832Poverty Rate 12.1%






Average Da

State of the States 2008 Report Re: Nutrition Assistance Programs

Documents

Transcript of State of the States 2008 Report Re: Nutrition Assistance Programs