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.
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.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.29514
复制
发表时间：
2022-08-01
影响因子：
13.8
通讯作者：
Krieger, James W.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kenney, Erica L.;Walkinshaw, Lina Pinero;Shen, Ye;Fleischhacker, Sheila E.;Jones-Smith, Jessica;Bleich, Sara N.;Krieger, James W.
这项经济评估评估了2020年3月至6月美国因COVID-19相关学校关闭期间大流行电子福利转移和学生即拿即走膳食计划的覆盖范围、成本和效益。2020年3月至6月期间，美国学校因COVID-19关闭，两个旨在替代学校膳食的计划的运营成本、家庭成本和收益，以及合资格青少年获得福利的比例是多少？在这项经济评估中，在3000万有资格获得免费或降价膳食的年轻人中，流行病电子福利转移（P-EBT）计划（国家机构向家庭发送借记卡，其中载有错过学校膳食的现金价值）覆盖了89%的合格学生，每餐费用为6.46美元。“即拿即走”的学校餐（学校食品服务部门提供预制餐供非现场消费）达到27%，每餐费用为8.07美元。这些调查结果表明，在青少年无法获得学校膳食的情况下，州和联邦机构应支持学校分发预制膳食的具有成本效益的计划，并启动P-EBT等计划，以有效地惠及符合条件的青少年。学校供餐与改善数百万美国儿童的营养和健康有关，但由于COVID-19大流行而关闭的学校中断了儿童获得学校供餐的机会。启动了两种政策办法，即大流行病电子福利转移方案，以借记卡形式直接向家庭提供缺餐的现金价值，用于购买食品，以及“即拿即走”膳食方案，在社区分发点提供学校厨房准备的膳食，以取代低收入家庭儿童的缺餐;然而，这些方案在多大程度上惠及了需要者，以及这些方案的费用尚不清楚。评估P-EBT和“即拿即走”膳食覆盖的合格青年的比例、获得的膳食或福利的数量以及实施每个方案的成本。这项横断面研究于2020年3月至6月进行。研究人群为所有19岁以下的美国青少年，包括6至18岁有资格获得免费或降价餐的美国青少年（主要分析样本）。P-EBT或Grab-and-Go学校餐的收据。主要成果是P-EBT和“抓到就走”校餐覆盖的青年百分比、每个接受者获得的平均福利和平均成本，包括每餐分发给家庭的执行成本和时间成本。在3000万有资格获得免费或减价餐的青年中，“即拿即走”餐估计达到800万（27%），P-EBT达到2690万（89%）。2020年春季，“随拿随走”学校餐计划每月发放4.29亿份餐，P-EBT计划每月发放32亿美元现金福利，相当于11亿份餐。在那些接受福利的人中，与P-EBT（110美元;各州范围，55 - 114美元）相比，抓去学校餐的平均每月福利更大（148美元;各州范围，44 - 176美元）。P-EBT每餐的成本（6.46美元;各州范围，6.41 - 6.79美元）低于“抓一抓就走”的学校餐（8.07美元;各州范围，2.97 - 15.27美元）。P-EBT计划有较低的公共部门的实施成本，但较高的无偿时间成本的家庭（如，准备时间的膳食）相比，抓和去学校用餐。在此经济评估中，P-EBT及随拿随走校餐计划均以互补的方式支持年轻人在2020年3月至6月COVID-19疫情期间美国学校关闭时获得食物。
This economic evaluation evaluates the reach, costs, and benefits of the Pandemic Electronic Benefit Transfer and grab-and-go meals programs for students during COVID-19–related school closures in the US from March to June 2020. What were the operating costs, costs and benefits to families, and proportion of eligible youths who received benefits of 2 programs aimed at replacing school meals missed when US schools were closed owing to COVID-19 from March to June 2020? In this economic evaluation, among 30 million youths eligible to receive free or reduced-price meals, the Pandemic Electronic Benefit Transfer (P-EBT) program (state agencies sent debit cards loaded with the cash value of missed school meals to families) reached 89% of eligible students and cost $6.46 per meal. Grab-and-go school meals (school food service departments provided prepared meals for off-site consumption) reached 27% and cost $8.07 per meal. These findings suggest that during times when youths cannot access school meals, state and federal agencies should support cost-efficient programs for schools to distribute prepared meals and activate programs such as P-EBT to efficiently reach eligible youths. 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. 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. 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). Receipt of P-EBT or grab-and-go school meals. 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. 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. 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.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1007/s11524-020-00476-0
发表时间：
2020-12
期刊：
Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine
影响因子：
--
作者：
McLoughlin GM;McCarthy JA;McGuirt JT;Singleton CR;Dunn CG;Gadhoke P
通讯作者：
Gadhoke P
影响因子：
2.6
作者：
McLoughlin, Gabriella M.;Fleischhacker, Sheila;Dunn, Caroline G.
通讯作者：
Dunn, Caroline G.
DOI：
10.1016/j.jand.2015.08.010
发表时间：
2016-01-01
影响因子：
4.8
作者：
Banfield, Emilyn C.;Liu, Yan;Frazier-Wood, Alexis C.
通讯作者：
Frazier-Wood, Alexis C.
影响因子：
120.7
作者：
Kinderknecht, Kelsey;Harris, Cristen;Jones-Smith, Jessica
通讯作者：
Jones-Smith, Jessica
DOI：
10.1001/jama.2016.6361
发表时间：
2016-06-07
期刊：
JAMA
影响因子：
--
作者：
Ogden CL;Carroll MD;Lawman HG;Fryar CD;Kruszon-Moran D;Kit BK;Flegal KM
通讯作者：
Flegal KM