Pandemic-EBT and grab-and-go school Meals: Costs, reach, and benefits of two approaches to keep children fed during school closures due to COVID-19
Authors: Kenney Erica L. , Walkinshaw Lina Pinero , Shen Ye , Fleischhacker Sheila E. , Jones-Smith Jessica , Bleich Sara N. , Krieger James W. 
Published: April 2022

Importance

School meals improve nutrition and health for millions of U.S. children. School closures due to the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted children’s access to school meals. Two policy approaches were activated to replace missed meals for children from low-income families. The Pandemic Electronic Benefit Transfer (P-EBT) program provided the cash value of missed meals directly to families on debit-like cards to use for making food purchases. The grab-and-go meals program offered prepared meals from school kitchens at community distribution points. The effectiveness of these programs at reaching those who needed them and their costs were unknown.

Objective

To determine how many eligible children were reached by P-EBT and grab-and-go meals, how many meals or benefits were received, and how much each program cost to implement.

Design

Cross-sectional study, Spring 2020.

Setting

National.

Participants

All children <19 years old and children age 6-18 eligible to receive free or reduced price meals (FRPM).

Exposure(s)

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

Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s)

Percentage of children reached by P-EBT and grab-and-go school meals; average benefit received per recipient; and average cost, including implementation costs and time costs to families, per meal distributed.

Results

Grab-and-go school meals reached about 10.5 million children (17% of all US children), most of whom were FRPM-eligible students. Among FRPM-eligible students only, grab-and-go meals reached 27%, compared to 89% reached by P-EBT. Among those receiving benefits, the average monthly benefit was larger for grab-and-go school meals ($148) relative to P-EBT ($110). P-EBT had lower costs per meal delivered - $6.51 - compared to $8.20 for grab- and-go school meals. P-EBT had lower public sector implementation costs but higher uncompensated time costs to families (e.g., preparation time for meals) compared to grab-and-go school meals.

Conclusions and Relevance

Both programs supported children’s access to food when schools were closed and in complementary ways. P-EBT is an efficient and effective policy option to support food access for eligible children when school is out.

KEY POINTS

Question

What were the operating costs, costs and benefits to families, and proportion of eligible children who received benefits of two programs aimed at replacing school meals missed when schools were closed due to COVID-19?

Findings

In this cross sectional analysis, we found that the Pandemic-Electronic Benefit Transfer program, in which state agencies sent debit cards loaded with the cash value of missed school meals directly to families, reached nearly all low income students (89%) and cost relatively little per meal provided. In comparison, grab-and-go school meals, in which school food service departments provided prepared meals for offsite consumption, reached 27% of low income children and was associated with larger per meal costs.

Meaning

During times when children cannot access school meals, state and federal agencies should support cost-efficient programs for schools to distribute prepared meals and activate programs like P-EBT to efficiently reach eligible children.