Dataset Information

Costs, Reach, and Benefits of COVID-19 Pandemic Electronic Benefit Transfer and Grab-and-Go School Meals for Ensuring Youths' Access to Food During School Closures.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

School meals are associated with improved nutrition and health for millions of US children, but school closures due to the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted children's access to school meals. Two policy approaches, the Pandemic Electronic Benefit Transfer (P-EBT) program, which provided the cash value of missed meals directly to families on debit-like cards to use for making food purchases, and the grab-and-go meals program, which offered prepared meals from school kitchens at community distribution points, were activated to replace missed meals for children from low-income families; however, the extent to which these programs reached those who needed them and the programs' costs were unknown.

Objective

To assess the proportion of eligible youths who were reached by P-EBT and grab-and-go meals, the amount of meals or benefits received, and the cost to implement each program.

Design, setting, and participants

This cross-sectional study was conducted from March to June 2020. The study population was all US youths younger than 19 years, including US youths aged 6 to 18 years who were eligible to receive free or reduced-price meals (primary analysis sample).

Exposures

Receipt of P-EBT or grab-and-go school meals.

Main outcomes and measures

The main outcomes were the percentage of youths reached by P-EBT and grab-and-go school meals, mean benefit received per recipient, and mean cost, including implementation costs and time costs to families per meal distributed.

Results

Among 30 million youths eligible for free or reduced-price meals, grab-and-go meals reached an estimated 8.0 million (27%) and P-EBT reached 26.9 million (89%). The grab-and-go school meals program distributed 429 million meals per month in spring 2020, and the P-EBT program distributed $3.2 billion in monthly cash benefits, equivalent to 1.1 billion meals. Among those receiving benefits, the mean monthly benefit was larger for grab-and-go school meals ($148; range across states, $44-$176) compared with P-EBT ($110; range across states, $55-$114). Costs per meal delivered were lower for P-EBT ($6.46; range across states, $6.41-$6.79) compared with grab-and-go school meals ($8.07; range across states, $2.97-$15.27). The P-EBT program had lower public sector implementation costs but higher uncompensated time costs to families (eg, preparation time for meals) compared with grab-and-go school meals.

Conclusions and relevance

In this economic evaluation, both the P-EBT and grab-and-go school meal programs supported youths' access to food in complementary ways when US schools were closed during the COVID-19 pandemic from March to June 2020.

SUBMITTER: Kenney EL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9434357 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Costs, Reach, and Benefits of COVID-19 Pandemic Electronic Benefit Transfer and Grab-and-Go School Meals for Ensuring Youths' Access to Food During School Closures.

Kenney Erica L EL Walkinshaw Lina Pinero LP Shen Ye Y Fleischhacker Sheila E SE Jones-Smith Jessica J Bleich Sara N SN Krieger James W JW

JAMA network open 20220801 8

<h4>Importance</h4>School meals are associated with improved nutrition and health for millions of US children, but school closures due to the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted children's access to school meals. Two policy approaches, the Pandemic Electronic Benefit Transfer (P-EBT) program, which provided the cash value of missed meals directly to families on debit-like cards to use for making food purchases, and the grab-and-go meals program, which offered prepared meals from school kitchens at commu ...[more]

PMID: 36044212

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionSchool closures, while an effective measure against the spread of disease during a pandemic, may carry unintended social and economic consequences for students and families. We evaluated these costs and consequences following a 4-day school closure in Mississippi's Harrison County School District (HCSD).MethodsIn a survey of all households with students enrolled in HCSD, we collected information on difficulties related to the school closure, including interruption of employment and pay, loss of access to subsidized school meals, and arrangement of alternative childcare. We analyzed this information in the context of certain demographic characteristics of the survey respondents and households, such as race, level of education, and income. We also estimated the average number of lost work days and documented the childcare alternatives chosen by households affected by the school closure.ResultsWe received 2,229 (28.4%) completed surveys from an estimated 7,851 households eligible to participate. About half (1,082 [48.5%]) of the households experienced at least some difficulty during the closure, primarily in three areas: uncertainty about duration of the closure, lost income, and the effort of arranging alternate childcare. Adults working outside the home, particularly the major wage earner in the household, were more likely to suffer lost income while schools were closed, an effect mitigated by paid leave benefits. Difficulty arranging childcare was reported most frequently by respondents with lower levels of education and households with younger children. Beyond the top three concerns expressed by households in HCSD, the survey also shed light on the issue of food insecurity when subsidized school meals are not available. Reported by 17.9% of households participating in the subsidized school lunch program, difficulty providing meals during the closure was associated with higher numbers of dependent children, selection of "other" as the race of the household respondent, and lower levels of education.ConclusionTo help prevent undue financial hardship in families of school children, public health authorities and school administrators should provide recommendations for childcare alternatives and paid leave or remote work options during prolonged school closures, particularly to households in which all adults work outside of the home.

Project description:IntroductionEconomic evidence on how much it may cost for vaccinators to reach populations is important to plan vaccination programs. Moreover, knowing the incremental costs to reach populations that have traditionally been undervaccinated, especially those hard-to-reach who are facing supply-side barriers to vaccination, is essential to expanding immunization coverage to these populations.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review to identify estimates of costs associated with getting vaccinators to all vaccination sites. We searched PubMed and the Immunization Delivery Cost Catalogue (IDCC) in 2019 for the following costs to vaccinators: (1) training costs; (2) labor costs, per diems, and incentives; (3) identification of vaccine beneficiary location; and (4) travel costs. We assessed if any of these costs were specific to populations that are hard-to-reach for vaccination, based on a framework for examining supply-side barriers to vaccination.ResultsWe found 19 studies describing average vaccinator training costs at $0.67/person vaccinated or targeted (SD $0.94) and $0.10/dose delivered (SD $0.07). The average cost for vaccinator labor and incentive costs across 29 studies was $2.15/dose (SD $2.08). We identified 13 studies describing intervention costs for a vaccinator to know the location of a beneficiary, with an average cost of $19.69/person (SD $26.65), and six studies describing vaccinator travel costs, with an average cost of $0.07/dose (SD $0.03). Only eight of these studies described hard-to-reach populations for vaccination; two studies examined incremental costs per dose to reach hard-to-reach populations, which were 1.3-2 times higher than the regular costs. The incremental cost to train vaccinators was $0.02/dose, and incremental labor costs for targeting hard-to-reach populations were $0.16-$1.17/dose.ConclusionAdditional comparative costing studies are needed to understand the potential differential costs for vaccinators reaching the vaccination sites that serve hard-to-reach populations. This will help immunization program planners and decision-makers better allocate resources to extend vaccination programs.

Project description:ImportanceThe White House National Strategy on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health included expanding free school meals to all students, regardless of income, which has sparked debate in the United States.ObjectiveTo assess the association between universal free school meals (UFSMs) and school and student outcomes in the United States.Evidence reviewAn expert panel-informed protocol was developed to evaluate intervention or cohort studies comparing UFSM programs, such as the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), with non-UFSM programs in US schools from August 2012 (excluding 2020-2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic) in peer-reviewed publications or government reports. Outcomes included meal participation rates, attendance, dietary intake and quality, food waste, economic impact, food insecurity, anthropometrics, disciplinary actions, stigma, and shaming. A search of Medline, Econlit, Business Source Ultimate, ERIC, Agricola, Cab Abstracts, and CINAHL was performed in April 2024. Two researchers screened articles for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias, using the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions tool, for each included study. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations was used to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.FindingsThe search identified 2784 records, with 6 studies included, representing more than 11 000 elementary, middle, and high schools. Nonrandomized intervention studies performed difference-in-difference or rate ratio analysis to investigate CEP participation rates, attendance, anthropometrics, and/or suspensions. CEP was associated with increased lunch (3 studies; moderate certainty) and breakfast (1 study; very low certainty) participation. School attendance was unchanged or improved in schools with CEP compared with schools without UFSM (2 studies; low certainty). CEP was associated with lower obesity prevalence (1 study; very low certainty) and fewer suspensions (1 study; very low certainty). Reasons for downgrading the certainty ratings included indirectness (data not fully representative of the United States) and inconsistency (small number of studies limiting ability to assess consistency). Despite the limitations, the evidence reflected well-designed longitudinal intervention studies appropriate for decision-making.Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review, UFSMs were associated with increased meal participation, no or slight improvements in attendance, and decreased obesity prevalence and suspension rates; certainty of evidence was moderate for lunch participation and low or very low for other outcomes. Studies did not report several important outcomes, such as diet quality and food security, suggesting the need for more high-quality research encompassing policy-relevant indicators.

Dataset Information

Costs, Reach, and Benefits of COVID-19 Pandemic Electronic Benefit Transfer and Grab-and-Go School Meals for Ensuring Youths' Access to Food During School Closures.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Exposures

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Publications

Costs, Reach, and Benefits of COVID-19 Pandemic Electronic Benefit Transfer and Grab-and-Go School Meals for Ensuring Youths' Access to Food During School Closures.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets