|
Moderated by Neera Tanden, President, Center for American Progress
Tuesday, September 1, 2015
Center for American Progress
Washington, D.C.
MS. TANDEN: Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Neera Tanden, and I am president and CEO of the Center for American Progress. We are very honored to have Secretary Tom Vilsack join us today to discuss what should be one of Congress' most important priorities as it returns from recess: reauthorization of our children nutrition programs.
As kids go back to school this fall, too many of them struggle with hunger in the classroom because their families are having trouble making ends meet. Federal child nutrition programs such as school breakfast and lunch, summer meals, and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, better known as WIC, are vital to our children's success and their families' economic security. Congress has a vital responsibility to preserve and strengthen these programs with the reauthorization of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, which is why we are joined by the Secretary today.
Before joining the Obama administration, Secretary Vilsack served two terms as Governor of Iowa. In more than 6 years as Secretary of Agriculture, he has made tremendous strides in promoting rural economies and strengthening nutrition assistance programs. Under Secretary Vilsack's leadership, the Department of Agriculture partnered with First Lady Michelle Obama's Let's Move! initiative to improve the health of America's kids. He also helped pass and implement the original Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, which he'll discuss today.
I also look forward to sitting down with him after his remarks for a discussion about child nutrition programs where we'll take your questions. He has really brought renewed focus and attention to these critical, critical issues, and it is my great, great pleasure to welcome him to the stage today.
[Applause.]
MS. TANDEN: Thanks.
SECRETARY VILSACK: Thank you. Neera, thank you very, very much, and it is an honor to be back here at CAP to talk about something that I think is extraordinarily important. In fact, on the way over here, I told my staff that I was going to say something provocative at the beginning of this, so here it goes. I think I can make the case that what we're discussing today is significant in relationship to national security, and it's not the Iranian nuclear deal. I think I can make the case that it is central to the economic competitiveness of the United States in the future, particularly in and against and involving our Asian competitors, and it's not the Trans-Pacific Partnership discussions that will take place in Congress this month. And I think that I can make the case that this is a way in which we can significantly reduce expenditures on health care, and it's not protecting the important efforts of the Affordable Care Act from any budget gimmicks that may take place.
This is important work. Now, why do I say that it's as important to national security, economic security, and health care expense? Simply for this reason: 76 percent of America's teachers report that children come to school hungry. I don't know about the folks who are here in this audience or those who may be watching this, but I know that I don't perform as well when I'm hungry, and the reality is neither do children. And if we are going to expect them to be at their best in terms of educational achievement, we want to make sure that they are well fed at schools.
I think I can make the case that this is about national security because retired admirals and generals from Mission Readiness have suggested deep concern about whether or not we will have sufficient numbers of young people physically fit to do military service to support an all-volunteer military. In fact, only today, one out of four young people ages 19 to 24 are fit for military service, and when you're dealing with a situation where 15.8 million of our children are living in food-insecure homes and nearly 30 percent are obese or at risk of being obese, I think you can also make the case that healthcare costs may go up or down, depending upon how well we deal with child nutrition. Why? Because we currently spend tens of billions of dollars on preventative conditions linked to obesity in healthcare costs today. So this is an important subject.
And 5 years ago, we treated this subject with the importance it deserved through the passage of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. In doing so, we reached out to experts, and we said, "Tell us what we need to do, particularly as it relates to those meals where some youngsters in America today receive a third or a half of the calories that they take in during the school year." The experts came back and said, "Your school lunches, your school snacks, there's too much sugar. There's too much sodium. There's too much fat. You need to promote more fruits and vegetables, low-fat dairy, and whole grains. You need to have a consistent message in your school snack program with what you're doing in school meals. You need to expand access to school breakfast, and you need to frankly make it a little bit easier in those school districts where there is a significantly high number of free and reduced-lunch kids for everyone to have access to a good meal.
Congress passed, with bipartisan support, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, and we began the process of implementing it. And over the course of the last several years, we've seen, I think, significant acceptance of these standards, 95 percent of schools certified under the new standards, and it's not just school districts certified. It's also an acceptance in the general public. Based on recent surveys, up to 90 percent of the American public believes it's appropriate to have standards, federal standards, national standards for our schools and school meals. It's embraced by parents of school-age children; 72 percent of parents in a recent survey suggested support for the new standards. It's embraced by the students themselves, over 70 percent of elementary students and nearly 60 percent of high school students embracing the standards. It's resulting in more fruits and vegetables being consumed, according to the CDC and according to a Harvard Public Health School study, and it's resulting in less plate waste according to a University of Connecticut study.
Bottom line is the standards are being embraced. They are making a difference, and if given an opportunity to do over a long period of time, it will result in healthier youngsters, better achievement at school, a stronger economy, and more young people to draw from in terms of the public service, military, and other opportunities that national service could provide. That's why it's important for Congress to get back to work, as youngsters are getting back to school, and reauthorize our nutrition programs. It's important for Congress not to take a step back. It's important for Congress to continue the forward movement.
Now, look, we understand and appreciate there may be from time to time a school district that has a challenge meeting the standards. It may be related to the standards. It may be related to the circumstances of an individual school. Despite the fact that over 450 million additional dollars has been put into the system as a result of reimbursement increases, we understand and appreciate at USDA that there are still some schools that are struggling. That's why we established a school equipment grant program to assist those schools in making a transition to being able to produce food on site. It's why we encourage states to continue to utilize the implementation money that came with the passage of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. It is incredible to note today that $28.2 million is unspent by states from the resources that were provided when the law was initially passed. That's 28.2 million opportunities to provide assistance and help to struggling schools.
It's why we have focused our efforts in creating flexibility in the system to give the food processing industry time to adjust and adapt, and it's why most recently, we have established our Team Up for Success program. It's an opportunity for us to take struggling schools and link them with succeeding schools so that they can learn the procurement strategies, the menu strategies, and farm-to-school opportunities that exist that can create easier compliance with the new standards.
As Congress returns to work, it's important that we not only reinforce the standards, but that we continue to provide opportunities to strengthen them. With additional resources for our school equipment grant program, with an acknowledgement of the success of the Team Up for Success program and institutionalizing that effort, we can over a long period of time continue to whittle down and reduce the number of schools that struggle with the new standards.
And it's not just school lunches. It's also about breakfast, expanding breakfast opportunities. One of the highlights of this effort has been the fact that we have seen, as a result of a lot of outside help, a real promotion of school breakfast, reducing the stigma associated with school breakfasts—380,000 more school breakfasts being served on a daily basis as a result of this new focus, over 13 million school breakfasts served daily across the United States. Folks, this is particularly important in the rural concept and the rural areas of this country because one out of four youngsters who live in Rural America are living in a food-insecure home. The percentages of persistent poverty in rural areas is actually much higher than you would anticipate, and in fact, over 90 percent of the counties in this country with persistently high poverty rates, in excess of 25 to 30 percent, are rural in nature, not urban. So these programs are significantly important, particularly in the rural areas of this country, which is why USDA is putting a lot of time and effort on child poverty and incorporating our nutrition assistance programs in that effort.
It's also about making sure that we eliminate the hassles associated with compliance with any federal program. That's why an important component of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act was the concept of community eligibility. We know that there are school districts across the United States where there are 75, 80, 90 percent of the students who are free- and reduced-lunch kids, and there's no reason why we are requiring them, their parents, and the school district to go through the process of making applications and making sure that the paperwork gets back from the third grader to mom and dad and back to the third grade teacher and incorporate it into the school system's records. That's why community eligibility provides for the opportunity to eliminate that administrative expense and allow for all of the students in that particular school to have access to a meal.
So whether it's improving the standards, making it easier, or even also focusing on making sure that the programs are done in a way that reinforces the integrity of the programs, it's important for Congress to focus on this portion of the law.
It's also important for Congress to understand the significance of what occurs between the months of June and September when youngsters are not in school, when they don't have access to a school breakfast and a school lunch and maybe even an after-school snack or dinner. So we have focused on efforts to try to figure out ways in which we could expand in those time periods when youngsters may not have access to school meals. We've asked the University of Kentucky to take a look at rural child poverty and nutrition issues to try to figure out if there are pilots that could potentially be funded that will expand access to food across the school day and across the school year and across the calendar year. We have looked for creative ways to develop potentially here in the D.C. area and the State of Virginia an opportunity to take a look at what would happen if all three meals were available for young people, just recognizing the reality of what we face today.
But one of the components that we need help and assistance on and more additional resources from Congress is in our summer feeding program. Despite the extraordinary efforts of USDA and its partners across the United States where we've seen increase in sponsorships, increase in sites, and 23 million more meals being served during the summer months than in 2009, we still face a significant delta between the number of students who are free and reduced lunch and the number of kids who benefit from a summer feeding program. Around 20 million young people participate in free and reduced lunch. About 3.5 million kids get benefited from a summer feeding program, and there are many reasons, not the least of which is that sometimes it's difficult to get kids to a fixed location in order to take advantage of a meal that might be available. It may be that people just aren't simply aware of the summer feeding site. It may be that we need additional resources to encourage more partners and sponsorships and more sites. It may be that we need mobile and flexibility in terms of how meals get to kids. But the bottom line is, as a country, if we want to be successful economically, if we want to reduce healthcare costs, if we want to ensure our national security, then we also have to see child nutrition in the same way we see so many other issues involving national security and economic security and healthcare security. It's a critically important part.
Let me finish with this. This is personal to the people who work at USDA. We go to schools. We sit down with kids. We talk to them, and it's personal to me. And I think everyone who works with me understands that. As some of you may know, I started out life in a rather modest way in a Catholic orphanage. I was adopted into a family where my mom and dad struggled, and because of those struggles, I think I probably looked to food as a way of dealing with the challenges of substance abuse and addiction in my home. And when I did, I was obviously a bit overweight, and I can remember, as I stand here today, very graphically and very specifically in fourth grade being at the blackboard, not being able to do a math problem, and being accused of not being able to do that math problem because I was fat. I know what it feels like to have your self-image questioned. I know how it takes you off your game academically. I know what can happen in a schoolyard when you're a little overweight and a little slow because of it. I don't want that for any child, and I don't think most Americans do either. That's why this is a personal issue for me, and I suspect the people who work at USDA have similar stories in their own lives or in families' and friends' lives. This is an important opportunity for the country to reinforce good work that was done in 2010, to expand on it, to solidify it, to institutionalize it, and to strengthen it.
So I'm here today to encourage Congress to get to work, to get back to work as our youngsters are getting back to school. Don't take a step back. Let's take steps forward. That's what we did in 2010, and that's what we should do in 2015. Thank you.
[Applause.]
SECRETARY VILSACK: I passed the first test: I got up here without stumbling. That's good.
MS. TANDEN: Yes, it is. It is a big test.
Thank you so much for your remarks on child nutrition and the assistance programs, and I really appreciate your personal remarks. At CAP, we've really tried to demonstrate the impact of these programs in people. And one thing we are facing as we go forward is issues around sequestration of nutrition programs, and so I'd love for you to talk a little bit about what sequestration itself has meant in real people's lives and what do we think we can do about something like sequestration and can we get a message to Congress on that.
SECRETARY VILSACK: Well, look, first of all, sequestration as a budget policy is ill-advised because it basically treats, in many cases, everything alike, and that's just simply not the case. There are things that are more important and less important.
Fortunately, in terms of the SNAP program, sequestration is not impacted, but it does impact the ability of USDA and its staff to be able to meet the needs and demands of programs. If you have a reduction of staff, as we have suffered at USDA since I've been Secretary, roughly 20,000 FTEs, you're not in a position to do all the work that you need to do. You're not in a position to provide all the information that you need to provide to a sponsor that might be interested in setting up a summer feeding program, to a school district that's interested in the Chefs Move to School program or interested in a meal contest or interested in accessing additional opportunities through the Team Up for Success. You are limited in the capacity that you have to provide service.
So one drawback of sequestration and one drawback of this whole focus on budget is that you have fewer people, and we at USDA actually have tried to deal with this in the right way by not impacting policies and people. We have tried to figure out ways in which we could be more effective with the dollars we have by leveraging our resources and by getting more partnerships focused. So many folks out in the field may not have seen a significant drop-off in our productivity, but we are asking a lot of the folks who work in Federal Government if we continue to expect them to do more and more with less and less. That's number one.
Number two, I think it is important, as we look at the cost of food, as we look at inflation rates. The six cent reimbursement rate was effective and helpful, no question. The fact that we have $28.2 million left on the table is a little troublesome to me, so we have been asking governors to focus on this, and for whatever reason, they refuse to do so or are unable to do so. But there is, I think, a need for us to have additional resources, and when you talk about sequestration and then you turn around and say you need to support summer feeding programs more effectively, you need to put together more resources for our EBT pilot project that gives folks a card that allows them to access more food in the summer, it makes it a lot harder to make that case.
MS. TANDEN: I also wanted to just touch upon your personal story. We've recently launched a national story campaign asking people across the country who have benefited from these programs to share their stories. So, one example, Mary from Bowling Green, Kentucky, likened the WIC program to "a life raft in a stormy sea." For so many people like Mary across the country, these programs have really become an oasis in stormy times. As you know, they play an important role, and you touched upon this in your discussion of economic security. They play an important role in really stabilizing families. So how do you see these programs work together in addressing the needs of families? I think it's also really important. Our story is focusing on this, and people think of these programs as serving other people.
I grew up in tough circumstances too. My family relied on food stamps, got us through a very difficult time. There are millions of people who experience food stamps, and yet people really think it's something helping other people. How do we break through that?
SECRETARY VILSACK: Well, first of all, let's talk about the WIC program and the fact that over 50 percent of America's children zero to 5 are affected and impacted at some point in time by that WIC program. Let's talk about the impact that that WIC program has on getting youngsters to understand and appreciate at a very early age the opportunities that nutritious snacks, fruits, and vegetables create.
I was talking to a mother of a young child earlier today, and she was talking about how her toddler was embracing fruits and vegetables because she had access to fruits and vegetables. So the WIC program creates that access, that additional access, with a particular emphasis on things that maybe wouldn't traditionally be purchased by a family because either it's too expensive or they just don't know how to prepare it or they never thought to buy it. But now as a result of WIC, they have access to those fruits and vegetables that they might not otherwise buy. Their youngsters acquire a taste for it, and that creates a much more positive beginning to life.
The school lunch and school breakfast programs, it's fairly obvious here. With as many food-insecure kids as we have, 15.8 million, as many kids coming from families that are struggling financially, they may get a third to a half of their calories at school, so obviously parents are benefiting from this. And the fact that we're seeing increased numbers of free- and reduced-lunch kids is a result of the economy. It is also a result of greater outreach. Back to your sequester question, you can't do that outreach, you can't get information about a program unless you got people to do it.
But the ability to deal with that after-school time, the ability for us to deal with weekends and summer is directly related to creating a continuum of support, and that summer feeding program is extraordinarily important. It's particularly important in rural areas where it's sometimes hard to know precisely where that meal site might be. A city might have 20 or 30 different options. In a rural areas, you may only have one option, and transportation may be a problem. A kid may be in an isolated rural area and not be able to get access to that summer feeding program. So the ability for us to have a continuum of support, enough flexibility to deal with the changing circumstances of a family is helpful.
And then finally, the SNAP program, look, the reality is that the characteristics of SNAP have changed. People may not think of senior citizens as SNAP beneficiaries, but they are—and hopefully in increasing numbers in terms of the number of seniors who are living on a fixed income, a very small Social Security check, who are reluctant to take SNAP because they see it as something other than what it is, which is nutrition assistance. They don't understand that it's in our collective best interest for that senior to be well fed because they won't have the healthcare issues that are associated with malnutrition. It's also important to note that 42 percent of recipients are children or working moms and dads. So when you add the senior citizens, the children, the working moms and dads, and folks with disabilities who would love to be able to work but can't, you've got almost 80 percent of the SNAP population. And so I say to folks, "Which of those groups do you not want to help, and which of those groups doesn't represent your friends and neighbors down the street?" And for the 20 percent that are able-bodied and potentially capable of working, we're working on that. We're trying to create opportunities for states to do a better job of using the resources we've provided in employment and training to link up, but those folks may have challenges with transportation. They may have challenges with child care. They may have challenges with a whole series of things that make it difficult for them to access the workplace. Let's figure out what those barriers are, and let's use the resources we have to reduce those barriers.
MS. TANDEN: Thank you. I also wanted to just-you touched very briefly just now on rural issues and talked a little bit about them in your speech. I know that children in rural areas has been something that you fixed on throughout your career. I really wanted to ask you about the statistics you laid out, about how many kids in rural areas need nutrition assistance. What are the forces driving that? Why is that happening? It seems like you're taking particular steps to address it.
SECRETARY VILSACK: Well, I think there are a number of reasons. Number one, I think you have to look at the economy of Rural America. For far too long, we assumed that the economy was linked solely and completely on the basis of agriculture. Certainly, production agriculture is a critical component to the rural economy, but because we have seen larger and larger farming operations, we have fewer and fewer farms. And what we're seeing in rural areas is, in many cases, an aging and declining population which makes it hard to attract economic opportunity, so the folks that are still there have limited economic opportunity.
So we in this Administration are trying to create a new economy for Rural America, trying to support a foundation that takes advantage of the natural resources, local and regional food systems, a biobased economy, conservation, and a more sensitive way to create more economic opportunity. So part of it is economic opportunity.
Part of it is a lack of understanding and appreciation for what programs there are. So it's important for us to focus on ways in which we can educate people about what programs exist and where they might be able to access those programs. The Rural Council, which the President established, which I chair, has now been tasked with a real focus on trying to figure out how do we get all of the programs that are out there. We know that there are a number of programs. How do we make sure that everybody knows about them and can access them? And what we found at USDA through our StrikeForce initiative is that if we go down, work with a community-building organization, educate the community leaders of the existence of the programs, they can take advantage of them. And we've seen over $16 billion invested in very, very poor, persistently poor counties from USDA based on that premise. So the Rural Council is basically looking at that same kind of concept: How can we make sure that HHS programs, Department of Labor programs, Commerce programs, Justice programs can all be accessed in those communities with a greater awareness and reducing the difficulty of understanding how to apply for all of this? They need technical assistance. They need help.
And then finally, it is really about figuring out the best way to use those programs. If we do something for mom and dad over here, but we do something for children over here, and they're not connected, we might have some benefit. But what if we decided to do everything we could do for the family? What if we took a two-generation approach, the mom-and-dad program combined with the programs for children? Could we move the dial? Could we make a greater impact on those families? I suspect we can, and we're going to try to test-market that concept and idea with a two-generation approach through the Rural Council, coordinating all of our various programs, and see if we can really, really make a difference. And if we can, then that will tell us how to more effectively and efficiently use the resources we have.
MS. TANDEN: Yeah. And that's something that other agencies can learn from as well. I'm going to ask one or two more questions, and then we really want to open it up to the audience to get your questions ready, and we'll have someone go through.
You mentioned the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act in 2010. You played a critical role in that. An important feature of that, controversial feature, but a very important feature was the adoption of new nutrition standards. There has been some controversy around those issues, but truthfully, actually most schools are adopting them. As a mom with kids in public school, I like the nutrition. It's like I can actually count on it, count on what my kids are actually eating in a school that I entrust them in. What can we learn about the program, what's been happening? How can we strengthen that, not weaken that, in reauthorization? And what should we be doing going forward?
SECRETARY VILSACK: Well, I think we have to trust the experts who tell us. Pediatricians, dieticians, nutrition experts tell us we're on the right tracks. We have to trust the experts and stay on that track. We can't create a step back. We can't relax the standards. We can't remove the standards. We're able and willing to provide flexibility where it's warranted, but taking a step back would be a mistake.
Secondly, I think it is important for us to look for ways in which we can streamline the processes by which young people can apply to participate in the program. We're doing this internally at USDA looking at our application process, but to the extent that we can continue to press community eligibility and not take a step back in terms of that opportunity for school districts that have high poverty rights, high free- and reduced-lunch rates, allow them to save the administrative expense, and basically treat all kids in the same way, make it much easier for them.
I think it is important for us to focus time and resources on the time when kids aren't in school. There's an opportunity, I think, for us to strengthen our breakfast efforts as well, and I think, frankly, we have to also look at the integrity side of this because what we don't want is an easy opportunity for critics to say because there is an error rate of X or there's a mistaken rate of Y, we shouldn't promote the program. We see this in SNAP all the time. People say, "Oh, there's a lot of fraud, waste, and abuse in SNAP." The reality is the SNAP fraud rate is at near historic lows, at 1.3 percent. Most federal programs are not at that level. The error rate is a little over 3.5 percent. So the combined rates are less than they've ever been, and we're going to continue to work on those issues, but we don't want to necessarily use that as an excuse for not supporting the program.
There is an opportunity for us, I think, to create more support and assistance, technical assistance for school districts; the Team Up for Success effort, which started as a regional effort in the Southern part of the country. Mississippi State has a wonderful nutrition center. They were willing to do a one-day-and-a-half conference. We found mentoring schools willing to spend a little time with the struggling schools, and what we're finding is people are really interested. They are learning about procurement. They are learning about Farm to School opportunities. They are learning about our Farm to School grant program. They are learning about the resources available for school equipment programs. So I think there are ways in which we can strengthen all of those efforts and incorporate that in a commitment to child nutrition across the board.
MS. TANDEN: And then I'm just going to ask one last question, and then I'll tee it up for the audience. Just one question I really can't-you mentioned this before. We at CAP are really seeing across the country, efforts to politicize SNAP and to really demonize SNAP. You have policymakers in various states trying to restrict access to SNAP, putting limits on SNAP that are really unrelated to the program. What can you suggest to us and others about how we can make clear to folks what SNAP is really about, and what are ways that you and others can sort of fight back against these efforts?
SECRETARY VILSACK: Well, first and foremost, it's making sure people understand who actually is receiving the benefits from SNAP and that it is a supplemental nutrition assistance program. No one is surviving on SNAP benefits alone. That's, I think, a fiction out there that we need to basically attack, if you will.
I think it is important to note, as I said before, 80 percent or more of our SNAP beneficiaries are children, people with disabilities, senior citizens, and working men and women. Really, why wouldn't we want to support that? The folks that aren't-are able-bodied and able to work, we're working on trying to get states to do a better job of the hundreds of millions of dollars that we provide to state governors, state human services departments, state workforce development departments, to find work, to link those people who are on SNAP. And we have 10 pilots that were part of the Farm Bill that I think will glean best practices and perhaps encourage this.
Look, this is also-the SNAP expansion that occurred during the recession was a result of the recession, and we're now beginning to see, with the economy improving, fewer people in need of this. We're seeing numbers come down. That's the way it's supposed to work. It's a very effective tool.
The other thing I would suggest is that it also helps to mitigate the impacts of poverty. We know for a fact that millions are taken, in essence, out of the status of poverty by virtue of these support programs, and it allows people the opportunity and the dignity of knowing that. And hundreds of thousands, millions of kids are taken out of poverty as a result. So I think if people fully understood who is getting it, the important work that is being done on fraud, waste, and abuse to reduce that, the work we're doing with states to try to give economic opportunity to folks who are looking for it or want it and love to work, if they can find work-you know, sometimes it's a person in a rural area that would love to work, but they can't get to the job that's 45 miles away because they don't have a decent car or they don't have mass transportation. Or they would love to work, but they've got a 3-year-old child, and there is no child care access in their community. What do you do with that person? I think there are ways in which we can provide help and assistance.
|
