This report, the latest in an annual series, presents 2023 national and state-level estimates of the number of people eligible to receive benefits provided through the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and the percentage of the eligible population and the general U.S. population participating in the program.

• Key Findings
• Why
• How
• Interactive Graphics

The number of people eligible for WIC in 2023 remained about the same as the year prior.

• The estimated average monthly WIC-eligible population totaled 11.83 million in calendar year (CY) 2023 (Table 1), essentially unchanged from the estimate of 11.79 million in 2022.
• In 2023, about half of infants and children and more than one third of pregnant women in the U.S. were eligible to participate in WIC.

Table 1. Estimated average monthly number and percentage of individuals eligible for WIC by participant category in CY 2023.

Participant Category	Number Eligible	Percent of Total Eligible (%)	Total Population	Eligibility Rate (%)
Infants	1,796,821	15.2	3,600,389	49.9
Children	7,626,138	64.5	14,713,756	51.8
1-year-old children	1,883,018	15.9	3,672,400	51.3
2-year-old children	1,914,319	16.2	3,668,357	52.2
3-year-old children	1,937,138	16.4	3,619,422	53.5
4-year-old children	1,891,664	16.0	3,753,577	50.4
Women	2,406,255	20.3	6,615,976	36.4
Pregnant women	1,091,474	9.2	2,791,608	39.1
Postpartum women	1,314,781	11.1	3,824,368	34.4
Breastfeeding women	848,829	7.2	1,995,462	42.5
Non-breastfeeding women	465,952	3.9	1,828,907	25.5
Total	11,829,215	100.0	24,930,121	47.4

In 2023, WIC reached 56% of those who are eligible – the highest coverage rate since 2016.

• The percentage of the eligible population participating in WIC is known as the coverage rate.
• In an average month in 2023, WIC served an estimated 56.1% of those eligible for WIC (Table 2), up from the estimate for 2022 (53.5%), and the highest coverage rate since 2016.
• The increase in the coverage rate resulted from the negligible change in the number of individuals eligible for WIC combined with a significant increase in participation. WIC participation increased by around 320,000 in CY 2023, an increase of about 5% over the year prior.

Table 2. WIC coverage rate by participant characteristic in CY 2023.

Characteristic	Number Eligible	Number Participating	Coverage Rate (%)
Total	11,829,215	6,631,309	56.1
Participant Category
Infants	1,796,821	1,479,155	82.3
Children	7,626,138	3,656,078	47.9
1-year-old children	1,883,018	1,268,459	67.4
2-year-old children	1,914,319	1,004,346	52.5
3-year-old children	1,937,138	874,822	45.2
4-year-old children	1,891,664	508,450	26.9
Pregnant women	1,091,474	538,332	49.3
Postpartum women	1,314,781	957,744	72.8
Breastfeeding women	848,829	600,628	70.8
Non-breastfeeding women	465,952	357,117	76.6
Race and Hispanic Ethnicitya
Hispanic/Latino	4,341,509	2,865,239	66.0
Black-only, not Hispanic	2,477,494	1,308,652	52.8
White-only, not Hispanic	3,742,399	1,840,027	49.2
Two or more races or other race, not Hispanic	1,238,566	602,318	48.6
American Indian/Alaska Native, not Hispanic	243,653	112,539	46.2
Asian, not Hispanic	619,026	285,804	46.2
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, not Hispanic	74,125	46,583	62.8

^a See report “Table 3.1 WIC coverage rate by participant characteristics” for detailed definitions of race and ethnicity categories used in the report. 

Coverage rates varied by participant category and characteristics – continuing to be highest for infants and decreasing as children age.

• In 2023, coverage rates were highest for WIC-eligible infants (82.3%) and postpartum non-breastfeeding women (76.6%), while the coverage rates for WIC-eligible children (47.9%) and pregnant women (49.3%) continued to be lower than other participant categories.
• The relative differences in coverage rates by participant category remained mostly consistent from CY 2005 to CY 2023. Across all years, coverage rates were highest for infants, followed by coverage rates for postpartum women. Coverage rates for children were consistently the lowest (except for 2022, when the coverage rate for pregnant women was the lowest).
• In recent years, coverage rates for pregnant women have declined more rapidly than for other participant categories, declining from 53.0% in 2018 to 49.3% in 2023, despite a small increase in coverage rates for pregnant women between 2021 and 2023.
• The estimated coverage rate for WIC-eligible individuals in metropolitan areas in the average month of 2023 was 61.1%, while the coverage rate for WIC-eligible individuals in nonmetropolitan areas was 24.0%. Of the 11.83 million individuals eligible for WIC, an estimated 10.21 million lived in metropolitan areas in 2023.

A large share of Medicaid and SNAP participants do not participate in WIC despite being eligible.

• Consistent with previous findings, large percentages of Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients who were eligible for WIC did not participate in WIC in 2023.
• Among WIC-eligible Medicaid participants, 32.0% participated in WIC.
• Among WIC-eligible SNAP participants, 57.6% participated in WIC.

Coverage rates vary substantially by state.

• Coverage rates vary substantially by state, as shown in the map below (Figure 1), ranging from around 40% in some states to more than 70% in others.
• Coverage estimates are less precise for states with small populations compared to other states (see Figure 3.5 in the full report); therefore, differences between states and across years may be less pronounced than they appear in the map.

Why FNS Did This Study

WIC provides healthy foods, breastfeeding support, nutrition education, and referrals to other services to eligible pregnant, breastfeeding and non-breastfeeding (up to six months after the end of pregnancy) postpartum women, infants, and children up to age 5.

WIC funding is provided by Congress through the annual appropriations process. Since approximately 1997, Congress has funded WIC at a level sufficient for the program to serve all eligible applicants. WIC funding needs are estimated annually using the number of individuals eligible for WIC and the percentage of the eligible population likely to participate. We allocate funds to participating state agencies based on a formula that considers the previous year’s funding and the estimated eligible population in each WIC state agency, along with other factors. Accurately estimating the number of individuals eligible for WIC and the number likely to participate enables us to better predict future funding needs, measure WIC performance, and identify potentially unmet nutrition assistance needs.

This report presents estimates of the numbers of women, infants, and children eligible for WIC during an average month in 2023 and historical estimates for 2016–2022. This is the most recent report in a series that provides eligibility estimates at the national, regional, and state levels. Estimates are also provided by participant category—infants, children, pregnant women, and postpartum women—and by race and ethnicity, urbanicity, and reported household income.

How FNS Did This Study

We calculated the estimates for this study on a methodology developed in 2003 by the Committee on National Statistics of the National Research Council.¹ The 2023 estimates continue to incorporate methodological improvements first described in the 2021 report.² These methodologies use data from various sources, including the Community Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS-ASEC), American Community Survey (ACS), and National Vital Statistics. The estimates presented in this report use the same methodology as and are consistent with the 2022 WIC eligibility estimates published in 2024.³

---

¹ Ver Ploeg, M., & Betson, D. M. (Eds.). (2003). Estimating eligibility and participation for the WIC program: Final report. The National Academies Press.
² Kessler C., Bryant A., Munkacsy, K., and Gray K. (2023). National- and State-Level Estimates of WIC Eligibility and WIC Program Reach in 2021. Prepared by Insight Policy Research, Contract No 12319819A0005. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support, Project Officer: Grant Lovellette. Available online at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/research/wic/eer/2021.
³ Kessler C., Bryant A., Munkacsy, K., and Gray K. (2024). National- and State-Level Estimates of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Eligibility and WIC Program Reach in 2022. Prepared by Insight Policy Research, Contract No 12319819A0005. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support, Project Officer: Grant Lovellette. Available online at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/research/wic/eer/2022.

Interactive Graphics

Suggested Citation

Kessler C., Bryant A., Munkacsy K., Maxson S., Ressler D., Saluja R., and Farson Gray K. (2025). National- and State-Level Estimates of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Eligibility and WIC Program Reach in 2023. Prepared by Westat, Contract No. GS-00F-009DA/140D0424A0040, Order No. 140D0424F1045. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Project Officer: Grant Lovellette. Available online at: www.fns.usda.gov/research/wic/eer/2023.

Summary

In response to section 765 of the Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2017 and subsequently enacted appropriations, this rule proposes to codify a new framework for determining distinct staple food varieties and accessory foods (such as snacks, desserts, and foods meant to complement or supplement meals, which do not themselves count as staple foods) for purposes of meeting the staple food requirements for retailer participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The rulemaking is necessary to implement the codified stocking requirements of the Agricultural Act of 2014, which increased the minimum number of staple food varieties and perishables SNAP retailers must carry. A summary of this notice of proposed rulemaking is posted on regulations.gov.

Request for Comments

Comments must be received by Nov. 24, 2025.

The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA, invites interested persons to submit comments on this proposed rule. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Preferred method; follow the online instructions for submitting comments on docket FNS-2025-0018 or enter “RIN 0584-AF12” and click the “Search” button. Follow the instructions at this website.
• Mail: Comments should be addressed to SNAP Retailer Policy Division, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 1320 Braddock Place, Alexandria, Virginia 22314.

All comments submitted in response to this rulemaking will be included in the record and will be made available to the public. Please be advised that the substance of the comments and the identity of the individuals or entities submitting the comments will be subject to public disclosure. FNS will make the comments publicly available on the internet via: regulations.gov. We encourage commenters to include supporting facts, research, and evidence in their comments. When doing so, commenters are encouraged to provide citations to the published materials referenced, including active hyperlinks. Likewise, commenters who reference materials which have not been published are encouraged to upload relevant data collection instruments, data sets, and detailed findings as a part of their comment. Providing such citations and documentation will assist us in analyzing the comments.

Supplementary Information

Background

The Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill) amended the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (herein referred to as “the Act”) to increase the number of staple food varieties that certain SNAP authorized retail food stores must have available on a continuous basis in each of four staple food categories. The standards were increased from requiring a minimum of three (3) varieties to seven (7) varieties in each of the four (4) staple food categories and increased the number of varieties that must be perishable from one (1) variety in each of two (2) different staple food categories to one (1) variety in each of three (3) different staple food categories.

The Department promulgated regulations to implement the increased breadth of stock requirements in the final rule, “Enhancing Retailer Standards in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)’’ (81 FR 90675), published on Dec. 15, 2016 (the “2016 final rule”). That rule also outlined what constituted a variety in all four staple food categories. However, after the regulations were finalized, section 765 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017 and provisions in subsequent appropriations acts have in effect prohibited the Department from implementing, administering, or enforcing the retailer ‘‘Breadth of Stock’’ and “Variety” provisions of the 2016 final rule until the Department makes regulatory modifications to the definition of ‘‘variety’’ that would increase the number of food items that count as acceptable staple food varieties for purposes of SNAP retailer eligibility. To meet this directive, the Department published a proposed rule, “Providing Regulatory Flexibility for Retailers in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)” (84 FR 13555) on April 5, 2019. An overwhelming majority of the almost 9,000 comments received were opposed to the provisions as arbitrary and confusing and many argued the provisions would impact SNAP households’ access to a variety of healthy food options and make it easier for fraud-prone retailers that do not primarily sell food to enter the program. Additionally, the 2019 proposed rule did not incorporate specific criteria described in the preamble into proposed regulatory text. Supportive comments, from retail food stores and industry groups, generally advocated for more flexibility overall. For these reasons, and because of the length of time that has passed since comments were received, the Department is issuing this new proposed rule to solicit fresh comments on a new proposed framework to determine distinct staple food varieties that would be codified in regulatory text. The Department also proposes to add and codify food categories that count as accessory foods, which are generally considered snacks or dessert foods or are meant to complement or supplement meals. Accessory foods do not count towards meeting the staple food stocking or sales requirements for retailer eligibility. While the “Accessory Food Items” provision of the 2016 final rule did go into effect, the specific criteria that determined what qualifies as an accessory food were not incorporated into regulatory text but were, instead, implemented through agency guidance Retailer Policy Management Division Policy Memo 2020-05 and SNAP Accessory Foods List. USDA is now proposing to codify, with modifications, these two guidance documents. This proposed rule does not modify any other provisions or components of the 2016 final rule.

Breadth of Stock

In order to be eligible to participate in SNAP, a retail food store must meet either Criterion A (staple food stock) or Criterion B (staple food sales) requirements under SNAP regulations at 7 CFR 278.1(b)(1)(ii) and (iii), respectively. Most stores are authorized under Criterion A, which requires a minimum breadth of staple food stock in each of the four staple food categories, which are (1) meat, poultry, or fish; (2) dairy; (3) bread or cereals; and (4) vegetables or fruits. Specialty food stores, such as butcher shops or fruit and vegetable stands, are typically authorized under Criterion B, which requires that at least 50% of a store’s gross sales be for staple foods in at least one staple food category. Currently, (pursuant to the conditions of Section 765 of the 2017 appropriations language Act and the repeated conditions in subsequent appropriations language) stores authorized under Criterion A must carry at least three (3) varieties of staple foods in each of the four (4) staple food categories where at least one (1) variety in at least two (2) staple food categories is perishable. For each variety, stores must carry at least three (3) stocking units. Upon finalization of a new staple food variety framework through this rulemaking, the SNAP retailer stocking requirements in Section 3(o) of the Act would also go into effect because the conditions of the appropriations language will have been satisfied. Those stocking requirements, which have already been codified at 7 CFR 278.1(b)(1)(ii) but not enforced, would require SNAP retailers to stock seven (7) varieties of staple foods in each of the four (4) staple food categories, of which at least one (1) variety in each of three (3) different staple food categories is perishable. The requirement to carry at least three (3) stocking units for each variety, as currently implemented and codified in regulations, will remain the same. The increased number of staple food varieties required under Criterion A is non-discretionary. While this proposed rule would not make any changes to the minimum breadth of stock stores are required to carry, this part of the previously codified standards would be implemented for the first time upon publication of a final rule under this rulemaking.

Definitions of Accessory Food, Prepared Food, Retail Food Store, and Staple Food

The Department proposes to remove the discussion of accessory foods, variety, and main ingredient from the “Staple Food” definition at 7 CFR 271.2 for greater clarity. Instead of addressing all four terms in one definition, this proposed rule would add a separate definition for “Accessory Food.” The definition of main ingredient and the expanded frameworks for staple food varieties and accessory foods would be codified separately at 7 CFR 278.1(b). In line with the current Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA), 2020-2025, the definition of “Staple Food” at 7 CFR 271.2 would indicate that the meat, poultry, or fish staple food category would be referred to as the protein category to be inclusive of high protein plant-based food—and it will be referred to as, simply, the protein category through the remainder of this proposed rule. Similarly, the bread or cereals category would be referred to as the grains category to be inclusive of other grain-based food products—and it will be referred to as, simply, the grains category through the remainder of this proposed rule. The current definition of “Staple Food” already accounts for plant-based options for both the protein and the dairy categories. The proposed changes to streamline the definition of “Staple Food” would not result in any substantive changes to the definition or to existing staple food categories as currently defined.

To prevent inconsistency, the Department also proposes to remove the discussion of criteria A and B and prepared food from the definition of “Retail Food Store” in 7 CFR 271.2, Criterion B is currently outlined in 7 CFR 278.1(b)(iii). Criterion A would be outlined in greater detail at 7 CFR 278.1(b)(ii), and a separate definition for “Prepared Food” would be added to 7 CFR 271.2 through this proposed rulemaking.

Finally, the Department proposes to move out of the “Retail Food Store” definition, the criteria for determining which co-located businesses are evaluated as a single firm for purposes of determining retailer eligibility. Instead, the provision would be added as new subparagraph at 7 CFR 278.1(b)(8). The proposed reorganization of provisions currently included as part of the “Retail Food Store” definition would not result in any substantive regulatory changes.

Application of Criterion A

Reorganization

For purposes of greater clarity and readability, as well as to incorporate a more detailed framework for determining distinct staple food varieties when assessing SNAP retailer eligibility, the Department proposes to reorganize 7 CFR 278.1(b)(1). Specifically, this rule proposes to remove redundancy in subparagraph (A) of 7 CFR 278.1(b)(1)(i) and break up subparagraph (A) of 7 CFR 278.1(b)(1)(ii) to address, in separate subparagraphs, the staple food stocking standards and the requirement to display the required stock for sale on a continuous basis. This action does not make any substantive changes to the current regulations. While this proposed reorganization highlights the statutory increases in the required number of varieties in each staple food category, those non-discretionary standards were already codified by the 2016 final rule, though these requirements have never been enforced due to Section 765 of the 2017 Consolidated Appropriations Act and the repeated conditions in subsequent appropriations language. If this rule were to be finalized as proposed, it is the Department’s view that the requirements of this appropriations language would have been met and thus would negate the need for continuation of this appropriations language.

Staple Food Varieties

In this rulemaking, the Department is faced with balancing several competing interests, including ensuring that SNAP retailers carry a larger variety food options, that retailer food stores can easily understand the requirements, that the requirements can be operationalized in an efficient and cost-effective manner, and that the variety framework does not undercut Congress’ intent to make the stocking standards more rigorous so that unscrupulous retailers are not able to gain entry into SNAP for the sole purpose of defrauding the program (H.R. Rep No. 113-333, 2014). In a December 2018 report, SNAP: Actions Needed to Better Measure and Address Retailer Trafficking, the General Accountability Office (GAO) reiterated its 2006 finding that the minimal requirements for the amount of food that retailers must stock could allow retailers more likely to traffic SNAP benefits (i.e., referring to the illegal exchange of SNAP benefits for cash or consideration other than eligible food) into the program. It is with all these interests in mind that the Department proposes a modified framework for distinguishing food items that would count as distinct varieties. As a result, the Department believes that the new approach described below is superior to the 2016 construct precisely because it more effectively balances all the competing interests.

Specifically, the Department proposes to codify the framework for determining distinct varieties at 7 CFR 278.1(b)(1)(ii)(C). In general, this proposed rule would maintain the overall current framework but proposes two new groups of distinct varieties for operational simplification and to give more weight to traditional staple food products. The Department believes that this approach is superior to the 2016 structure because it will provide more options for retailers to meet the variety requirements under this new staple food framework than under the 2016 framework.

To date, the criteria for determining which foods count as distinct staple food varieties (different types of food within a staple food category) have existed only in agency guidance and have generally been defined based on the type of food (by each different plant or animal) or the main ingredient of the food product. For the protein and vegetables or fruits staple food categories, this generally means that different types of food—regardless of brand, packaging, flavoring, style or cut, etc.—count as one distinct variety. For example, all types of apples fall within one variety separate from all types of oranges, just as all forms of chicken fall within one variety separate from all forms of beef. For the dairy and grains categories, this generally means that different types of products—even those that have the same main ingredient—are distinct varieties. For example, yogurt is a distinct variety from cheddar cheese, even if they both have milk as the main ingredient; and bread is a distinct variety from pasta, even if they both have wheat as the main ingredient. More recently, FNS has counted plant-based dairy alternatives as distinct dairy varieties from the traditional mammal-based varieties for each different type of plant the product is made from (e.g., almond milk is a separate variety from soy milk and both are separate varieties from cow’s milk) and counted dairy products from different mammals as distinct traditional dairy varieties (e.g., cow milk is a separate variety from goat milk). For multi-ingredient food products, long-standing agency policy has determined variety and category by the main ingredient, defined as the first listed ingredient after water, stock, or broth. For example, if a can of beef stew has beef as its main ingredient, it counts as a beef variety in the protein category.

With the non-discretionary increase in the number of varieties SNAP retailers will be required to stock in each staple food category, retailer stakeholders have expressed concern with being able to meet the new standards, particularly for the dairy and the protein categories. An analysis of 121,294 SNAP-authorized small format retail food stores (which represent 64% of all SNAP-authorized small retailers, or 45% of all SNAP-authorized retailers) determined that, in terms of meeting the higher number of staple food varieties required by the 2014 Farm Bill, 81% of the small stores already stocked enough grains and 83% already stocked enough fruits and vegetables, while only 63% already stocked enough protein and only 52% already stocked enough dairy.

Staple Food Subgroups 1 and 2

In general, the more varieties that are subdivided based on main ingredient or other factors (such as dairy or meat fat content, whole or refined grains, and cheese firmness), the more difficult the system becomes to operationalize and the more costly it becomes for FNS to identify and document the distinct varieties. It can also become more confusing for retail food stores, making it difficult for them to meet the stocking standards simply because they do not understand the requirements. Currently, FNS employs a contractor to take photos of store aisles to get a sense of the overall store inventory, but not individual items or their ingredients. When retailers are at the margin of eligibility, and the availability of certain inventory is not clear or needed information is not on the front of the packaging, follow-up store visits or documentation requests are required to determine whether the store has sufficient stock. Such situations increase the time it takes for a retailer to become authorized. To make the variety criteria more straightforward and minimize the need to identify the main ingredient for basic food products, the Department proposes to establish two separate subgroups of staple food varieties.

In group 1 under 7 CFR 278.1(b)(1)(ii)(C)(1), the specific types of raw food identified, without any other ingredients, would count as separate varieties from multi-ingredient food products with the same main ingredient. The purpose of this group is to promote the stocking of basic staple food essentials needed for the home preparation of meals rather than counting such essentials as the same variety as multi-ingredient, processed foods with the same main ingredient. The Department proposes to include the following three types of food in group 1:

• Grain-Based Flour;
• Raw Grains; and
• Dry Beans, Peas, or Lentils.

For example, as part of group 1, the following foods, which currently count as just one variety, would be separate varieties under the proposed framework:

• Cornmeal and ears of corn or a product with corn as the main ingredient;
• A bag of uncooked rice and canned soup with rice as the main ingredient; and
• A bag of dry beans and canned cooked beans.

All dry beans, all dry peas, and all dry lentils, regardless of the kind of bean, pea, or lentil, each would count as one distinct variety, for a total of 3 possible varieties, separate from any multi-ingredient product with beans, peas, or lentils as the main ingredient. The same construct would apply to each kind of grain for grain-based flour and raw grain. Therefore, instead of a bag of raw rice, rice flour, and a frozen grain bowl with rice counting as one rice variety as is currently the case, each of those items would count as its own distinct variety under the proposed framework. The same would apply for each different type (e.g., oats, barley, wheat etc.).

In group 2, under 7 CFR 278.1(b)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the specific types of food identified would count as only one distinct variety, regardless of different main ingredients or coming from different animals or plants. The purpose of this group is to make the process of identifying distinct varieties as simple and intuitive as possible for both FNS and retailers while still meeting the intent of the program to provide SNAP households with access to a broad range of staple food varieties to meet their nutritional needs. This framework is currently being applied through longstanding practice to specific dairy and grains products as indicated in agency guidance, SNAP Staple Foods. Through this rulemaking, the Department proposes to codify the framework and the specific products for which it applies. This rule also proposes to count additional dairy subproducts as distinct varieties and count tofu/tempeh as a distinct variety of protein. At the same time, the current practice of subdividing bread by various forms (such as bagels, sliced bread, tortillas, pita, etc.) would be eliminated. The Department proposes to include the following 17 different types of food products in group 2:

Unlike the foods in group 1, most of the foods in group 2 are available in multiple forms, with a wide array of main ingredients. As a result, the main ingredient of many food products listed in group 2 cannot be easily determined by just looking at the product or even knowing what kind of product it is. Breakfast cereals, for instance, may each have a different grain (such as corn, oat, or wheat) as the main ingredient. Under the proposed framework, all breakfast cereals would fall within one variety, regardless of the grain from which they are made. The same construct would apply to all the food products in group 2, greatly simplifying the process for determining if a retail food store meets the standards for Criterion A.

The Department is aware that the proposal to no longer subdivide bread by its form (e.g., rolls, baguette, sliced bread) may be controversial. However, the Department has concluded that counting each form of bread as a distinct variety is not practical given the need to categorize a large number of possibilities. Allowing a retailer to meet the stocking requirement for the grain category with just bread also subverts the purpose to require retail food stores authorized under Criterion A to carry a broader variety of staple foods in each staple food group. By separating out certain foods as distinct varieties through the combination of food items identified in both groups 1 and 2, the Department would be replacing those varieties with other, more basic varieties of grains which are easier to distinguish and are commonly stocked in retailer food stores of various types and sizes. For example, under the new proposed framework, rice products could be counted in as many as three distinct varieties: rice flour, rice grain, and any other product with rice as the main ingredient. Currently, all these products count as only one “rice” variety. By singling out these specific food products, the new variety framework would not only make it easier for FNS to determine retailer eligibility, but it would also make it easier for retailer food stores to more accurately determine if they meet the stocking requirements before deciding to move forward with applying for authorization.

Plant-Based or Grain Alternatives to Dairy Products

Plant-based alternatives are currently recognized as distinct varieties from the traditional dairy products for which they are a substitute. Under 7 CFR 278.1(b)(1)(ii)(C)(3)(i), the Department would maintain this provision but proposes to limit the number of plant-based alternatives that may count towards the dairy category to three. Current policy does not limit the number of plant-based dairy alternatives that a single retail food store may count towards meeting the staple food stocking requirements in the dairy category. For example, having sufficient units of almond milk, oat milk, and soy milk is enough to meet the current dairy stocking requirement. Yet, the DGA states that, other than fortified soy milk, no other plant-based dairy alternative contains the nutritional content to meet the dietary recommendations for dairy. This proposed change would help ensure that SNAP retailers carry a variety of milk, yogurt, and cheeses rather than meeting the standard through multiple varieties of plant-based milks.

Under 7 CFR 278.1(b)(1)(ii)(C)(3)(ii), the Department proposes to move several high protein plant foods from the vegetable or fruit category, for which almost all retail food stores already carry a sufficient number of varieties, to the protein category. Under this proposed rule, the following types of foods would count as protein: nuts and seeds, beans, peas, and lentils. This proposed change would not only add more protein varieties, but it would also properly encourage retail food stores to carry plant-based proteins and help meet the nutritional needs of SNAP households through high-fiber protein sources, particularly for individuals with plant-based diets. The Department does not propose limiting the number of plant-based varieties that may count in the protein category because the DGA includes a broad group of foods from both animal and plant sources in the protein category, which can help individuals meet the protein dietary recommendations.

Appropriations Directive

In accordance with enacted appropriations directing USDA to increase the number of items that qualify as acceptable varieties in each staple food category the proposed variety framework would create several more varieties in the protein, dairy, and grains categories than existed in the 2016 final rule. The vegetables or fruits category already includes numerous possible varieties—significantly more than any other staple food category. Furthermore, 83% of currently authorized small format stores already stock enough fruits and vegetables. Any further attempts to subdivide existing vegetable or fruit varieties would add unwarranted complexity to a category that, up to this point, has always been the most straightforward. Therefore, the Department does not propose any changes to the vegetables or fruits staple food category. However, because there has been some confusion as to whether pre-cut fruits and vegetables were considered prepared food for retailer authorization purposes, the Department would like to take this opportunity to clarify that cold pre-cut fruits and vegetables intended for home consumption count as a staple food in the vegetable and fruits category. Therefore, bags of sliced apples or broccoli florets continue to count as a staple food. In addition, the Department is proposing to codify, with modification, the definition of “Prepared Foods” in current agency guidance, “Retailer Eligibility- Prepared Foods and Heated Foods,” to allow cold pre-cut food intended for home consumption, even if cut by the retailer on the premises of the firm, to count as staple food as long as the retailer has not otherwise prepared the food for immediate consumption. This means that a bag of shredded lettuce to prepare a salad at home, regardless of whether the lettuce was shredded on the premises of the store, counts as a staple food. Shredded lettuce and other cold cut fruits or vegetables from a salad bar from which the customer must prepare their own salad by serving themselves would also count as staple food. However, if the retailer serves, mixes, and/or otherwise prepares the ingredients of the salad for the customer, even if cold, then the salad would continue to be considered prepared food that does not count towards meeting the SNAP staple food stocking or sales requirements.

As discussed earlier, carrying enough varieties in the protein and dairy categories has historically presented the biggest challenge for small format retail food stores when it comes to meeting the staple food stocking standards for SNAP authorization followed by the grains category. Therefore, the Department would like to specifically address the additional varieties the new proposed framework would create in each of those three staple food categories in comparison to the 2016 final rule. We note that the number of different groupings of varieties indicated does not reflect the total number of possible distinct varieties under that staple food category. For example, although the protein category has seven categories of varieties, there are numerous possible distinct varieties under the single “perishable meat, poultry, or fish” category because each kind of animal (e.g., cow, pig, lamb, turkey, chicken, trout, flounder) represents a separate variety, all of which would be impossible to fully identify or count.

Protein Category

The Department is proposing to subdivide protein into the following seven groupings of varieties:

• Perishable meat, poultry, or fish, including fresh or frozen versions for each different kind of animal;
• Shelf-stable meat, poultry, or fish for each different kind of animal;
• Eggs;
• Nuts/seeds;
• Raw beans, peas, or lentils, each of which would count as a distinct protein variety;
• Cooked (e.g., canned) beans,
• Peas, or lentils and multi-ingredient products with beans, peas, or lentils as the main ingredient; and
• Tofu/tempeh, together, would be a distinct variety from all other types of proteins and any other pea product as the main ingredient.

As with the 2016 final rule, this rule would add nuts/seeds as well as beans, peas, or lentils to the varieties FNS currently counts in the protein category, adding an additional 4 possible protein varieties—(1) nuts/seeds; (2) beans; (3) peas; and (4) lentils. In addition, this rule would add the last four varieties listed above to the varieties established by the 2016 final rule, allowing for numerous additional possibilities for each type of shelf-stable meat, poultry or fish, as well as three additional varieties each for beans, peas, or lentils in its raw form, and one additional variety for tofu/tempeh, which would be separate from any other product with soybeans or other peas as the main ingredient.

Dairy Category

The Department proposes to subdivide dairy into twelve distinct categories:

• Perishable liquid milk (such as whole milk, 2% milk, 1% milk, skim milk, etc.) for each different type of mammal;
• Shelf-stable liquid milk, such as canned evaporated or condensed milk and boxed milk;
• Cheese;
• Yogurt (non-liquid);
• Butter;
• Infant formula;
• Cream (other than butter, which would continue to be its own separate variety), such as heavy cream, sour cream, and half and half;
• Fermented or cultured dairy beverages, such as kefir, buttermilk, and yogurt-based drinks;
• Dried milk, such as milk powder; and
• Plant-based alternative (for up to three different dairy products listed above).

Current agency guidance counts all milk products, other than the first five products listed above, as one single “milk” variety. Under the 2016 final rule, cheese was further subdivided into soft cheese and hard/firm cheese, and milk was further subdivided into perishable and shelf-stable milk, adding two additional dairy varieties.

In agency guidance issued in April 2023, Criterion A - Stocking Requirements for Retailers: Dairy, FNS made dairy products distinct varieties for each different type of mammal (e.g., cow milk, sheep milk, goat milk) to make the distinctions for mammal milk more similar to that for plant-based dairy alternatives. Prior to this policy change in 2023, milk was one variety, regardless of the mammal it came from, while plant-based dairy alternatives were counted as separate varieties for each different kind of plant it was made from (e.g., soy milk, coconut milk, rice milk). However, such distinctions for mammal-based milk have proven to be difficult to operationalize. Feta cheese, for instance, can be made from various kinds of milk either by itself or in combination, including goat milk, sheep milk, and cow milk, making it almost impossible to determine the dairy variety without looking at the ingredients list. While the proposed framework would eliminate this recently added distinction for dairy products by mammal for the types of products listed in group 2, the four additional dairy varieties under the proposed framework are common types of dairy products that most retail food stores carry. Not only is it less likely for small format retail food stores to carry most of these products for any mammal other than cow, essentially making the distinction by mammal immaterial, it would streamline the retailer approval process by eliminating the need to identify which type of mammal milk is the main ingredient of each of those products. Under the proposed framework liquid perishable milk would continue to count as distinct varieties for each type of mammal.

In this rule, the Department proposes to carry over the 2016 provision of making shelf-stable dairy a distinct variety from perishable dairy. However, for the reasons stated above, the Department has reconsidered counting soft cheese and hard/firm cheese as two separate varieties and distinguishing dairy products, other than liquid milk, by mammal or, in the case of plant-based alternatives, by main ingredient as the 2016 final rule had. Instead, this proposed rule would add three different distinct dairy varieties in the form of cream, fermented or cultured dairy beverages, and dried milk. Therefore, cream and fermented beverages would count as a distinct variety from milk or yogurt, and dried milk would count as a distinct variety from liquid shelf-stable milk. The operational difficulties of determining which animal a product is made from or the main ingredient of a plant-based alternative, which include numerous possibilities, would impose an undue burden on the agency as discussed earlier. The Department is also proposing these changes based on retailer industry feedback indicating that counting plant-based dairy alternatives and dairy made from mammals other than cows as distinct varieties would not significantly assist small-format stores in meeting the increased SNAP stocking requirements in the dairy category since such products are note widely in demand by customers of small-format stores.

Grains Category

The Department proposes to subdivide grains into six distinct categories:

• Raw Grains for each different type of grain;
• Flour (grain-based) for each different type of grain;
• Bread;
• Pasta/Noodles;
• Breakfast Cereals/Foods (such as a box of corn flakes, frozen waffles, or pancake mix); and
• Infant Cereal.

For the grains category, the 2016 final rule subdivided bread into five varieties based on the bread form. The five varieties included bread, bagels, buns/rolls, English muffins, and pitas for each type of grain. The Department believes that such categorization introduces too much confusion as to which category a particular bread form falls under. For example, it is unclear how tortillas or croissants would be categorized. Likewise, it is unclear how cornbread or matzo bread would be categorized. Also, determining the grain each bread is made of would present significant operational challenges for a construct that is counter to the Congressional intent to require a greater range of different types of food in each staple food category.

Under this rule, the Department now proposes to count all bread as one variety, regardless of form or the grain from which it is made. However, for each type of grain, the Department proposes to count raw grain as a separate variety from any other product with that grain as the main ingredient and to count flour as a separate variety from the raw grain or any other product made with the same gain. Raw grains and flour, which are not only generally more easily identifiable on account of having the grain clearly indicated on the front of the package, are also important components for the preparation of numerous foods.

Finally, the Department proposes to combine both the cold and “hot” cereal varieties with the baking mix variety included in the 2016 final rule. However, the category would be expanded to include other breakfast foods, such pre-made frozen/cold waffles, pancakes, etc. With the introduction of raw grains and flour as distinct varieties for each type of grain, the Department believes that having three separate varieties for breakfast foods is not only unnecessary but would add unwarranted complexity by requiring varieties to be based on whether it is intended to be eaten hot or cold as well as whether it is ready-to-eat or not. Also, the Department believes that having a baking mix variety would not, in most cases, add additional possibilities. Baking mixes for dessert foods (such as cakes, brownies, cookies, etc.) would be considered accessory foods that do not count towards the staple food stocking requirements even if the main ingredient is flour. Also, any baking mix that has an accessory food as the main ingredients would also be an accessory food. Therefore, having a separate baking mix variety would give the false impression that any baking mix counts as a separate variety in the grains category, leading to both retailer confusion and operational ambiguity.

In the end, the Department has determined that the addition of raw grains and flour for each type of grain more than makes up for the removal of the of other distinct grain varieties while staying true Congressional intent. Under 7 CFR 278.1(b)(1)(ii)(C)(4)-(5), the Department proposes to codify existing long-standing policy. Current policy prohibits counting a food product in more than one staple food category. Current policy also does not count a single type of food that is packaged differently as distinct varieties. For example, chicken wings and chicken breasts are both currently counted as one “chicken” variety. Similarly, ground beef and chuck roast are both currently counted as one “beef” variety. A single type of food that is prepared differently is also not currently counted as separate varieties. For example, whole fresh tomatoes, 100% tomato juice, and tomato sauce all currently count as one “tomato” variety. Similarly, pork loin and pork hotdogs are both currently counted as one “pork” variety. Different flavorings also do not currently count as distinct varieties. For example, chocolate milk and plain milk both currently count as one “milk” variety. Finally, different kinds of the same type of food also do not count as distinct varieties. For example, brown rice, wild rice, and white rice all currently count as one “rice” variety. Similarly, mandarin oranges, tangerines, and navel oranges all count as one “orange” variety. These current policies would remain unchanged in this proposed rule.

Under 7 CFR 278.1(b)(1)(ii)(C)(6), the Department proposes to also codify the long-standing definition of “main ingredient” currently used to determine the staple food category and variety of a food product with multiple ingredients. “Main ingredient” is currently defined as the first listed ingredient unless the first ingredient is water, stock, or broth. If the first ingredient is water, stock, or broth, the next ingredient is considered the main ingredient for determining the variety of staple food or whether it is an accessory food. This definition is based on the Food and Drug Administration requirement that ingredients be listed from highest to lowest quantity by weight in the ingredients list on the product’s label (21 CFR 101.4). The definition would remain unchanged in this proposed rule.

Accessory Food

In accordance with section 3(q)(2) of the Act, and as currently codified at 7 CFR 271.2 (definition of “Staple Food”) and 7 CFR 278.1(b)(1)(ii)(C), accessory foods do not count towards meeting the retailer staple food stocking or sales requirements discussed above. The current definition of “Staple Food” at 7 CFR 271.2 also defines accessory foods as foods that are generally considered snacks or desserts and/or are meant to complement or supplement meals and provides several illustrative examples for each of the two groups. Agency guidance, SNAP Accessory Foods List (March 5, 2018), provides several more examples and states that any food product that is not specifically identified as an accessory food in agency guidance shall be considered a staple food. In an effort to further the purpose of the program to provide low-income households access to nutritious food essential to health and well-being, as well as to meet the intent of Congress to reduce fraud at retail stores by requiring more rigorous staple food stocking standards, the Department is taking this opportunity to update the current accessory foods list and to codify it through this proposed rulemaking.

Under this proposed rule, the Department would separate the current list of accessory foods by creating a third group ̶ edible items primarily used as part of the food preparation process. Most of the foods that would be listed under this group are already included in the current accessory foods list under one of the other two existing groups. Additional specific examples would be added for clarity and consistency, including yeast, starch, broth, stock and gelatin. These items are subproducts of currently listed items and considered accessory foods under long-standing agency practice. This clarification would also be consistent with the definition of “main ingredient,” which is the first ingredient listed in the ingredient list of food product after broth, stock, or water. Water is already explicitly identified as an accessory food, as is bouillon. These proposed changes would not have any material impact on current practice.

The Department also proposes adding three new groups of foods to the accessory food list. The proposed new groups are:

• Snack bars, including but not limited to, protein, granola, and baked bars. Such food products are not generally eaten as a meal, but as a snack between meals. Furthermore, because multi-ingredient food products are categorized by the main ingredient, snack bars may fall under any one of the four staple food categories. This makes it difficult to categorize snack bars by looking at the package itself and leads to counterintuitive classification, such as a protein bar that has whey as the main ingredient counting as a staple food in the dairy category.
• Jerky, other than whole-muscle meat jerky, including but not limited to beef jerky and plant-based jerky. While jerky is rich in protein, non-whole muscle jerky is also typically eaten as a snack between meals. Counting jerky as a staple food also allows stores to meet the protein staple food category by merely stocking jerky sticks of different animals, such as beef jerky, turkey jerky, and pork jerky, which are currently counted as three separate protein varieties. This classification of jerky does not further the purposes of the program or the intent of Congress for SNAP retailers to be required to carry a broader variety of foods in each staple food category. Changing jerky to an accessory food may also compel SNAP retailers to stock alternative food varieties that would count under the protein staple food category.
• Cheese or fruit dips and spreads, including but not limited to, cheese sprays, jams, jelly, marmalade, preserves and compote. Cheese or fruit dips and spreads are meant to complement or supplement a meal, which the Act explicitly identifies as a category of accessory foods. In addition, cheese dips and spreads are highly processed cheeses made with less real cheese and more additives. Similarly, fruit spreads tend to be high in sugar content, which is not foundational to a balanced diet.

The Department recognizes that many individuals may occasionally or frequently eat some of these food products as meal replacements. These proposed changes, however, would not prevent households from purchasing these food items with SNAP benefits. All accessory foods, while not counted as staple foods for retailer eligibility purposes, are generally eligible for SNAP purchase. ¹

¹ With approval by the Secretary for a demonstration project waiver, authorized by Section 17 of the Act, states may restrict the purchase of certain foods with SNAP benefits. For additional information, see SNAP Food Restriction Waivers.

Under the leadership of Secretary Brooke Rollins, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is committed to strengthening strategies to encourage healthy choices, healthy outcomes, and healthy families, along with clarifying program requirements for our state agency partners. In support of these goals, this memorandum provides guidance to TEFAP state agencies on requirements for public posting of TEFAP information at 7 CFR 251.4(l). Each state agency must post a list of eligible recipient agencies (ERAs) that have an agreement with the state agency on a publicly available webpage. In addition, state agencies must post the state’s uniform statewide eligibility criteria on a publicly available webpage. The public posting of ERAs and uniform statewide eligibility criteria must be implemented by Oct. 31, 2025. State agencies are encouraged to implement these provisions before that deadline.

ERAs that have an Agreement with the State Agency

TEFAP regulations at 7 CFR 251.4(l) require each state agency to post a list of ERAs that have an agreement with the state agency on a publicly available webpage. At a minimum, this list must include the name, address, and contact telephone number of all ERAs that have an agreement with the state agency. State agencies must update this list annually but are encouraged to update it more frequently as needed.

FNS recognizes that state agencies may identify a compelling public safety reason to forgo posting an ERA address publicly; for example, for a domestic abuse shelter. In such circumstances and without divulging sensitive or confidential information, the state agency should submit general information to their FNS regional office regarding why the location should be exempted from the publicly available list posted online. FNS will work with state agencies on a case-by-case basis for ERAs in this situation.

State Agency Option to Post Additional ERA Information

State agencies may choose to exceed the above minimum posting requirements to support public awareness. While state agencies are not required to post information about ERAs that have agreements with other ERAs, states have the option to publish this information online. State agencies may also choose to include additional information about ERAs on the webpage, such as operating hours, the areas served by the ERA, links to ERA websites, and distribution site addresses. In addition, state agencies may develop tools to aid eligible individuals in accessing the program, for example by establishing a searchable tool to identify aid based on zip code.

Posting TEFAP Statewide Eligibility Information

TEFAP regulations at 7 CFR 251.5(b) require each state agency to establish uniform statewide criteria for determining the eligibility of households to receive USDA Foods for home consumption, including requirements for demonstrating income and residency. Per 7 CFR 251.4(l), state agencies must post this uniform statewide eligibility criteria to a publicly available webpage. This information must be updated on an annual basis or whenever changes to eligibility criteria are made. Additional guidance on establishing criteria and methods for determining the eligibility of households to receive TEFAP can be found in Participant Eligibility in TEFAP (revised).

State agencies should contact their respective FNS regional office with any questions about this memorandum.

Sara Olson
Director
Policy Division
Supplemental Nutrition and Safety Programs

Under the leadership of Secretary Brooke Rollins, USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is prioritizing the clarification of statutory, regulatory, and administrative requirements, as well as strengthening strategies to encourage healthy choices, healthy outcomes, and healthy families. In support of these goals, FNS is issuing this memorandum to provide CSFP state agencies, including ITOs, with guidance on implementing 7 CFR § 247.14(a), which requires local agencies, as appropriate, to make referrals and provide CSFP applicants with written information on specific public assistance programs. The specific public assistance programs are:

1. supplemental security income benefits (SSI);
2. medical assistance under Title XIX of the Social Security Act, including medical assistance provided to qualified Medicare beneficiaries;
3. the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); and
4. beginning on Oct. 31, 2025, the Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (SFMNP).

Methods of Information Sharing

CSFP local agencies may provide written materials in hard copy or via electronic means such as a link to a webpage, an email, or text messages to applicants.

State and Local Agency Coordination

FNS recommends that, as applicable, CSFP state agencies coordinate with the appropriate state agency for each public assistance program to ensure written information for local agency dissemination is accurate and up to date. Coordination may also occur between CSFP local agencies and entities administering the identified public assistance programs at the local level; for example, between a CSFP local agency and the local Social Security Office. For further information and applicable state or local agency contacts, see below:

1. SSI
   • SSI Information
   • Locate your local SSI office
2. Medicaid and Medicare
   • Medicaid information
   • Locate your state Medicaid agency contact
   • Medicare information
   • Locate your Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services regional office contact
3. SNAP
   • SNAP information
   • Locate your SNAP state agency contact
4. SFMNP
   • SFMNP information
   • Locate your SFMNP state agency contact

Considerations for the Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program

SFMNP is a federal nutrition assistance program that provides low-income seniors with seasonal benefits that can be exchanged for eligible foods directly from farmers, farmers’ markets, roadside stands, and community-supported agriculture programs (CSAs). CSFP and SFMNP work in tandem to serve the low-income senior population and help meet their nutritional needs. Connecting CSFP participants with SFMNP creates new opportunities for American farmers to connect with federal nutrition assistance programs.

SFMNP is administered by state agencies, which are responsible for determining months of operation, as the program may not be available year-round. SFMNP is not available nationwide and, in states where it does operate, may not be available in all areas of a state. CSFP state and local agencies may use discretion on when it is appropriate to distribute materials and make referrals to SFMNP based on program availability.

CSFP state agencies should coordinate with SFMNP state agencies to access up-to-date information on SFMNP and determine whether the program is accepting new participants within the state. If SFMNP is not available in the applicable area(s) or the state’s SFMNP is not accepting participants, then CSFP local agencies do not need to provide written information and/or referrals to that program.

State agencies should contact their respective FNS regional office with any questions about this memorandum.

Sara Olson
Director
Policy Division
Supplemental Nutrition and Safety Programs

This study reviewed early child care and before and afterschool meals of CACFP, using the Healthy Eating Index-2015 (HEI-2015), to assess how well children’s diets and CACFP meals align with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA). Data for this study were collected during program year 2022-23¹ . These key findings focus on those most important to understanding the impact of CACFP, but all results can be found in the full report and appendices.

Definitions

Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP)

The Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) reimburses child and adult care providers for serving healthy meals and snacks to individuals in their care. This report focuses only on child care providers. Reimbursements help offset the cost of preparing those meals.

Early Child Care

In this study, early child care program providers serve children from infants through age 5 years and include child care centers, Head Start centers, and family day care homes.

Before and Afterschool

In this study, before and afterschool program providers serve children ages 6-12 years through at-risk afterschool centers and outside-school-hours care centers.

Healthy Eating Index-2015 (HEI-2015)

This study uses the Healthy Eating Index-2015 (HEI-2015) to assess how well children’s diets and CACFP meals align with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) (and with the 2020-2025 DGA, since no major changes were made to recommendations for individuals 2 years or older). We use the HEI to assess how nutritious a set of foods is. This study examined two sets of foods: all the foods children ate in a day and all the meals/snacks CACFP providers served in a week.

The HEI produces two types of scores: a total score and component scores. The total score ranges from 0 (the set of foods does not align with the DGA) to 100 (the set of foods fully aligns with the DGA). The total score can be broken down into component scores, which show how well the set of foods meets recommendations to eat or limit specific foods/nutrients (components). Each component has a maximum score of 5 or 10, but this study converted component scores to percentages—100% means a component had the maximum score. The two types of components are:

1. Adequacy components are foods and nutrients encouraged by the DGA: total fruits, whole fruits, total vegetables, greens and beans, whole grains, dairy, total protein foods, seafood and plant proteins, and fatty acids.
2. Moderation components are foods and nutrients that the DGA recommends limiting: refined grains, sodium, added sugars, and saturated fats.

• Key Findings
• Why
• How

When in the care of providers participating in CACFP, children have better overall diets on days when they are in child care than on days when they are not.

With the help of parents and study staff, SNACS-II collected data on everything kids ate over the course of a day, both at child care and at home. We found that in program year 2022-23, 3- to 5-year-old children had better overall diets on days when they attended child care than on days when they did not attend. On days in child care, 3- to 5-year-olds consumed more vegetables, fruit, whole grains, and dairy compared to days not in child care. They also consumed fewer calories from saturated fats and added sugars. These differences contributed to their higher HEI total score on days when they were in child care.

The meals and snacks CACFP providers served in 2022-23 aligned with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

SNACS-II measured how the meals and snacks served by CACFP child care providers aligned with the DGA in three ways:

1. USDA meal pattern requirements
   • USDA requires CACFP providers to serve different meal patterns for breakfast, lunch, and snacks. Meal patterns are combinations of meal components (fruits, vegetables, grains, meats/meat alternates, and fluid milk) served in portions that vary by age. Our study found that CACFP meal patterns align with the DGA.
   • In this study, most early child care programs served all the required meal components to 3- to 5-year-olds at breakfast (96%), lunch (82%), and snacks (85%). Nearly all early child care programs (99%) also met the requirement to limit fruit juice. About half (55%) met the requirement to serve whole grain-rich foods every day.
   • In this study, most before and afterschool programs served all the required meal components at snack (85%) and supper (78%).
2. HEI-2015 total scores over time
   • HEI total scores measure how well a set of foods aligns with the DGA, with scores ranging from 0 (does not align) to 100 (aligns). People should aim to meet the dietary guidelines with their overall diet—not with every single meal—so we do not expect HEI total scores to be 100 for every single CACFP meal either. Instead, we can compare HEI total scores for CACFP meals over time to see if they are improving. We expected HEI total scores to improve from SNACS-I (collected in 2016-17) to SNACS-II (collected in 2022-23) because USDA updated the CACFP meal patterns shortly after SNACS-I to align them with the DGA.
   • Note that these HEI scores for meals and snacks refer to the quality of the food served to children through CACFP, while the HEI scores in the section above refer to the food children consumed over the course of the full day.
   • For children ages 3 to 5 years in early child care programs, HEI scores for breakfasts and lunches increased from SNACS-I to SNACS-II. The HEI total score for all meals and snacks combined for this age group rose from 72 in SNACS-I to 77 in SNACS-II.
   • For children ages 6 to 12 years in before and afterschool programs, HEI total scores for snacks and suppers increased from 75 in SNACS-I to 82 in SNACS-II.

3. HEI-2015 component scores
   • When total HEI scores are broken down into their component parts (e.g. fruits, added sugars, etc.) for breakfast and lunch, most components scored high. Because a component may have a total of 5 or 10 points, we show component scores as a percentage of their maximum score. High component scores are good. In this study, they indicate that CACFP meals align with DGA recommendations to serve enough of some foods and nutrients (“adequacy components”) and limit others (“moderation components”). Low component scores indicate room for improvement.
   • Note that the meal pattern for breakfast requires providers to serve fluid milk, a fruit or vegetable, and a grain; therefore, we expect vegetable and protein-related components to have lower scores at breakfast because they are not served as often.
   • Below, we share the main findings from early child care centers in the figure and findings from before and afterschool programs in the text that follows.

• Snacks served in before and afterschool programs received high HEI component scores for total fruits (94%), saturated fats (95%), sodium (91%), and added sugars (89%), meaning snacks were consistent with DGA recommendations for those components. Scores were lower for dairy (63%) and whole grains (68%), indicating that these components are not often served as snacks since only two of five meal components are required (e.g., choice of two from fluid milk, meats/meat alternates, vegetables, fruits, and/or grains).
• Suppers served in before and afterschool programs received high HEI component scores for total fruits (98%), whole fruits (100%), dairy (100%), and added sugars (90%). The lower scores for fatty acids (42%) and sodium (50%) indicate room for improvement.

Meal reimbursement rates covered providers’ food costs but fell below total meal costs for all meal types.

USDA provides participating CACFP providers with funding (per-meal reimbursements) for meals and snacks to help offset the cost. Most of the cost to produce meals in child care centers was for labor costs rather than food costs. On average, labor costs accounted for 77% of total breakfast costs, 67% of total lunch costs, and 81% of total snack costs.

Some providers faced challenges related to CACFP.

CACFP participation: Providers reported the same top challenges to participating in CACFP in SNACS-II as they did in SNACS-I, including insufficient meal reimbursement and paperwork requirements. Although data from SNACS II indicates that CACFP reimbursements are sufficient to cover food costs, they are insufficient to cover food and labor costs. This is expected as USDA reimbursements for CACFP meals and snacks are intended to offset costs, not necessarily cover them completely.

Among SNACS-II early child care providers, 36% reported insufficient meal reimbursement as a major challenge to participation in CACFP, 31% reported it to be a minor challenge, while 33% reported it not to be a challenge. Among before and afterschool programs, 27% reported insufficient reimbursement to be a major challenge to participation, 21% reported it to be a minor challenge, while 52% reported it not to be a challenge. Paperwork requirements to receive meal reimbursement were reported as a major or minor challenge by 36% of early child care providers and 40% of before and afterschool programs, while the majority of providers reported paperwork requirements were not a challenge to participation.

Menu planning: Nearly half of providers in SNACS-II reported having no challenges planning menus that meet the CACFP meal patterns (44% of early child care programs and 48% of before and afterschool programs). Limited access to foods that fit the requirements was the most reported challenge to meeting nutritional requirements (24% of early child care programs and 27% of before and afterschool programs).

Why did FNS do this study?

SNACS-II is the second study in the SNACS study series. The series collects data about CACFP child care providers, the children they care for, the meals and snacks they serve, the cost of producing those meals and snacks, and the physical activity opportunities they provide. We use the data to learn important information about CACFP, such as how nutritious CACFP meals and snacks are and how healthy children’s diets are on the days when they are and are not in child care.

Shortly after SNACS-I data was collected for program year 2016-17, USDA updated the CACFP meal pattern requirements for the first time since 1968 (when the program began). The updated meal patterns require a larger variety of fruits and vegetables, more whole grains, and less added sugars and saturated fats. With data collected in program year 2022-23, SNACS-II helps us understand how the nutritional quality of CACFP meals and snacks and children’s diet quality may have changed with the new meal pattern requirements and provides an update on other key findings from the first study.

How did FNS do this study?

SNACS-II used similar methods to SNACS-I so we could compare key outcomes from program years 2016-17 (SNACS-I) and 2022-23 (SNACS-II).

SNACS-I and SNACS-II studied providers and children from early child care programs and before and afterschool programs. The providers and children in the SNACS studies were nationally representative, which means they had similar characteristics to all the CACFP child care providers and children in the United States. We estimated nationwide findings by scaling up the data we collected from our nationally representative study participants.

The study used surveys to collect information about the topics of interest:

• Characteristics and food service practices of CACFP providers
• Nutrient profiles of CACFP meals and snacks
• Dietary intake of children during child care and non-child care days
• Characteristics of children and families served by CACFP providers
• Infant feeding practices, infant food intake, and infants’ activity levels while in child care
• Opportunities for physical activity in programs participating in CACFP
• Plate waste
• The cost of producing a CACFP breakfast, lunch, supper, and snack

The study used the Healthy Eating Index-2015 (HEI-2015) to assess children’s diet quality and the nutritional quality of CACFP meals and snacks. The HEI total score measures how well a set of foods aligns with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, with scores ranging from 0 (does not align) to 100 (aligns). In this study, we collected data about two sets of foods:

1. All the food children ate in 24 hours: This set of foods lets us assess children’s diet quality, or how well children’s diets aligned with the DGA. We compared HEI scores on days when children did and did not attend child care to learn how CACFP meals and snacks contribute to children’s overall diet quality.
2. All the food served in CACFP meals and snacks in a week: This set of foods let us assess the nutritional quality of CACFP meals and snacks as they were served, or how well the meals and snacks aligned with the DGA. We compared HEI scores in SNACS-I and SNACS-II to assess change over time.

The HEI total score is made up of 13 component scores (for more detail, see the HEI drop down box under “Definitions”). Individual components have a maximum score of five or ten but, for purposes of this study, component scores are shown as a percentage of the maximum score for that component. Therefore, a component score of 100% indicates that a diet or meal is fully aligned with DGA recommendations for that component. We used HEI component scores to assess the nutritional quality of CACFP meals and snacks.

Suggested Citation

Forrestal, S., Boyle, M., Bleiweiss-Sande, R., Franckle, R., Hu, M., Kali, J., Neelan, T., and Niland, K. (2025). Study of Nutrition and Activity in Child Care Settings II (SNACS-II). Prepared by Mathematica, AG-3198-1-9F-0151. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support, Project Officer: Constance Newman. Available online at .

¹ In CACFP, program years align with the federal fiscal year. For example, in this case, program year 2022-23 ran from Oct. 1, 2022 through Sept. 30, 2023.

The WIC Infant and Toddler Feeding Practices Study-2 (WIC ITFPS-2), also known as the "Feeding My Baby Study," is the only national study to analyze the long-term impact of  WIC by gathering information on caregivers and children over the first nine years of the child's life after enrollment in WIC, regardless of their continued participation in the program.

• Key Findings
• Why
• How

WIC Participation Is Associated With Declining Rates of Hunger

• Over the course of the nine-year study, household hunger among study participants declined dramatically from baseline (during pregnancy or shortly after birth) to age 6 (from 48% to 22%) and then rose slightly to 26% at age 9 (Figure 1).
• Although the study children were no longer eligible to receive WIC at age 9, nearly 20% of their caregivers received WIC for themselves or another child or both.
• Households with at least one WIC participant when the study child was 9 years old were less likely to report experiencing household hunger, as well as child hunger, compared to those not participating in WIC (Figure 2).

WIC Caregivers Choose Healthier Foods for Their Families

• Four out of every five study caregivers reported that they learned something from WIC that helps them make decisions about what foods to offer their 9-year-old child.
• Around 40% of study caregivers said they learned how to choose healthier foods for their 9-year-old child and 38% of caregivers indicated their families eat more fruits and vegetables because of something they learned from WIC (Figure 3).
• Caregivers who reported at year nine that they learned something from WIC that helped them make decisions about the foods they offer to the study child were more likely to say they often or very often had fruits, dark green vegetables, and reduced fat milks available in their home compared to caregivers who said they didn’t learn something from WIC.

WIC Participation Beyond Age 3 is Linked to Higher Diet Quality¹ in Young Children

• Looking at duration of WIC participation up to age 9, diet quality scores were higher for children who participated in WIC beyond age 3 compared to children who stopped participating before age 3 (Figure 4).
• This study found that 9-year-old children who previously participated in WIC had similar diet quality scores as the national average at ages 2, 3, 4, and 6 and significantly higher scores at ages 5 and 9, regardless of the duration of WIC participation.
• Consumption of nutrients of concern like saturated fat, added sugars, and sodium among study children was also similar to the general U.S. population at age 9.

Why FNS Did This Study

WIC is one of USDA, FNS's nutrition assistance programs. WIC safeguards the health of pregnant and postpartum women, infants, and young children from households with low incomes who are at nutritional risk. The WIC Infant and Toddler Feeding Practices Study-2 (WIC ITFPS-2), also known as the "Feeding My Baby Study," is the only national study to capture information about caregivers and their children over the first nine years of the child's life after enrollment in WIC, regardless of their continued participation in the program.

Little is known about the long-term impact of WIC participation on the health and diets of children who participate early in life. In 2024, we published the WIC ITFPS-2 Sixth Year Report showing that WIC participation is positively linked to diet quality among children. We extended WIC ITFPS-2 until the study children turned 9 years old. Continuing the study helped us better understand the longer-term diet, health, and food security status of children who participated in WIC as infants and young children.

How FNS Did This Study

Starting in July 2013, we enrolled 3,775 caregiver-child pairs in the study who were certified to participate in WIC during the caregiver’s pregnancy or shortly after the child’s birth. Caregivers and their children were enrolled in the study if the caregiver was at least 16 years old, spoke English or Spanish, and were certified at a WIC agency that enrolled at least 30 new pregnant women or infants per month.

Throughout the study, caregivers were interviewed every 2 to 6 months through the child’s fifth birthday, with follow-up interviews at ages 6 and 9 years. While many caregivers stayed in the study up to age 9, the analysis for the WIC ITFPS-2 Ninth Year report was made up of the 683 caregivers who completed every interview in the study – that is “the longitudinal sample”.

During the year 9 interview, caregivers completed a survey over the phone and a 24-hour dietary recall. To analyze the information provided by caregivers, we used statistical weights to inflate the sample to represent a national population of study-eligible caregivers and their children.

The interview questionnaires and recruitment materials for this study are available at RegInfo.gov. Publicly available data from pregnancy through age 5 can be found on Ag Data Commons.

Suggested Citation

Borger, C., Zimmerman, T. P., DeMatteis, J., Gollapudi, B., Thorn, B., Whaley, S.E., & Ritchie, L. (2025). WIC Infant and Toddler Feeding Practices Study-2: Year 9 report. Westat. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. This report was conducted by Westat under Contract No. GS-00F-009DA.

¹ Overall diet quality was measured using the Healthy Eating Index Score (HEI). On a scale of 0 to 100, an HEI score of 100 means that the diet meets all the Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommendations.

Series Overview

Households redeem their monthly Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, received through an electronic benefit transfer (EBT), to purchase food at authorized retailers. We periodically examine the benefit redemption patterns related to the timing, number, and dollar amount of transactions and the rate at which households spend down and exhaust their monthly benefits. These studies also report on the number of transactions made and the share of benefits redeemed at various types of stores. Beginning with the fiscal year (FY) 2022 study, store types authorized to redeem SNAP benefits include online retailers. Date sources available for the analyses do not have item level information on what is purchased during a transaction.

Series Reports

Benefit redemption patterns in SNAP:

• FY 2022
• FY 2017
• FY 2009
• FY 2003

We release annual reports describing the persons and households participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). This report uses the fiscal year (FY) 2023 SNAP Quality Control data to examine the demographic characteristics and economic circumstances of SNAP households at the national and state level.

• Key Findings
• Why
• How
• Additional Information

SNAP supports children, the elderly, and individuals with a disability.

• In FY 2023, four in five (79%) SNAP households included either a child, an elderly individual, or a nonelderly individual with a disability. These households contained 88% of all SNAP participants and received 83% of all SNAP benefits. See figure below.
• About 39% of SNAP participants were children, 20% were elderly, and 10% were nonelderly individuals with a disability.

SNAP supports households in poverty.

• Most SNAP households lived in poverty. Seventy-three percent had a gross monthly income at or below 100% of the poverty level.
• Most SNAP benefits go to the poorest households. Eighty-six percent of all SNAP benefits go to households with gross monthly income at or below the poverty level and 51% of benefits go to those with gross monthly income at or below 50% of the poverty level. In contrast, 27% of households with a gross monthly income above the poverty level received 14% of all benefits.
• When added to households’ gross incomes, SNAP benefits raised the incomes of 17% of SNAP households above the poverty level. Pandemic-related supplemental benefits, known as emergency allotments, raised the incomes of an additional 13% of households above the poverty level. When including both SNAP benefits and emergency allotments, the percentage of SNAP households living above the poverty level increased from 27% to 57%. 

The average SNAP benefit varied by household.

• The average SNAP household received a monthly benefit of $332. That’s $177 per person based on the average SNAP household size of 1.9 people.
• Households with children received a larger average monthly benefit of $574 due to the larger average household size of 3.3 people. The average benefit per person for these households was $174.

SNAP households had different sources of income.

• Social Security was the most common source of income among SNAP households. Thirty-three percent of SNAP households received Social Security benefits (an average of $1,096 monthly).  
• Earnings from work and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) were the next most common sources of income. Twenty-eight percent of households had earnings (an average of $1,548 monthly) and 23% of households received SSI benefits (an average of $723 monthly).
• General Assistance (GA) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefits were less common sources of income. About 4% of SNAP households received GA (an average of $380 monthly) and 3% received TANF benefits (an average of $573 monthly). 

Why FNS Did This Study

This study is part of the annual SNAP Characteristics Report series. Its purpose is to describe the characteristics and economic circumstances of SNAP households and participants in FY 2023 (October 2022 through September 2023).

How FNS Did This Study

The study team analyzed FY 2023 SNAP Quality Control (QC) data for this report.

State agencies send administrative data for a representative sample of SNAP households to us for QC purposes every year. State agencies verify SNAP household information in these data to complete the QC reviews. We refer to these data as the SNAP QC data. You may read more about the SNAP QC system online.

Study Data and External Publications

• SNAP QC Data
• SNAP in Action Dashboard
• SNAP Characteristics Report Series

Program This Study Evaluates

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

Suggested Citation

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Evidence, Analysis, and Regulatory Affairs Office, Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2023, by Mia Monkovic and Ben Ward. Project Officer, Aja Weston. Alexandria, VA, 2025. Available online at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/research/snap/characteristics-fy23.

In 2021, Congress provided the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) with $390 million and waiver authority for outreach, innovation, and program modernization in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) and the WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (FMNP). The WIC and FMNP Modernization Evaluation tracks the progress and outcomes of these efforts.

This first annual report provides an overview of the WIC and FMNP modernization efforts underway and highlights early implementation findings, covering activities from September 2022 – September 2024.

• Key Findings
• Why
• How
• Additional Information

WIC and FMNP Modernization Grants

• We awarded grants to all 88 WIC state agencies to modernize technology and service delivery, improve the shopping experience, and improve access to farmers’ markets.
• As of September 2024, many WIC and FMNP state agency projects were in the planning (pre-implementation) stage (Table 1).
• Total WIC participation increased from 6.24 million participants in FY 2021 to 6.58 million in FY 2023. This upward trend continued into FY 2024. WIC participation grew to 6.84 million in September 2024 (Figure 1). As WIC and FMNP modernization progresses, the WIC and FMNP Modernization Evaluation will determine whether these efforts are associated with changes in participation and other outcomes.

 

Table 1. Grants and stage of implementation, by focus area, as of September 2024.

	Modernizing Technology and Service Delivery	Improving the Shopping Experience	Improving Access to Farmers' Markets	Across Focus Areas
Grant	WIC Technology and Service Delivery Improvement grants Offline to Online EBT grants	WIC Shopping Experience Improvement grants	FMNP eSolution grants	WIC Modernization grants WIC General Infrastructure grants
Year(s) awarded	FY 2022 and 2023	FY 2022 and 2023	FY 2022, 2023, and 2024	FY 2023 and 2024
Number of grants awarded	51	21	37	95
Number of state agencies participating	75	21	37	88
Funding amount	$75,161,144	$10,984,204	$9,172,475	$106,767,651
Stage of Implementation
Planning	14	4	3	64
Implementing	36	15	26	31
Complete	1	2	8	0

WIC and FMNP Modernization Waivers

In 2021, Congress gave us time-limited authority through Sept. 30, 2024 to grant waivers for WIC and FMNP state agencies to support modernization. We approved 1,069 waivers across 24 waiver categories. All 88 WIC state agencies received Physical Presence and Remote Issuance waivers. As of September 2024, 80 WIC state agencies (91%) have implemented the Physical Presence waiver, and 72 WIC state agencies (82%) have implemented the Remote Issuance waiver.  

• Physical Presence waivers give WIC state agencies the option to allow participants to enroll and re-enroll in WIC, if they are deemed eligible, without visiting a clinic in person.
• Remote Issuance waivers give WIC state agencies the option to issue WIC food instruments and benefits remotely, so that participants do not have to pick up their food instruments or benefits in person.

Most waivers are in effect through Sept. 30, 2026, or until we end evaluation efforts, whichever is later.

Early Implementation Highlights and Challenges

• Two WIC state agencies successfully converted from offline electronic benefit transfer (EBT) technology to online EBT by September 2024. Offline EBT technology limits state agencies to issuing and modifying benefits in person. Modernizing to online EBT technology enables WIC families to receive benefits without having to visit a WIC clinic and makes online shopping possible.
• Six WIC state agencies have developed and implemented plain language materials and resources for WIC participants to use while shopping in stores or online. The most common materials include shopping lists in multiple languages, document translation, and shopping education videos.
• Of the 37 FMNP state agencies awarded grants to transition to electronic purchasing methods (eSolutions), 24 reported successfully procuring and implementing eSolutions throughout their service areas by September 2024.
• State agencies have experienced several challenges while planning and implementing modernization projects. The most common challenges experienced through September 2024 include project and implementation delays, staffing issues, cost constraints, and competing priorities. 

Why FNS Did This Study

This brief is part of the WIC and FMNP Modernization Evaluation series. In 2021, Congress provided a one-time appropriation of $390 million and waiver authority to support WIC and FMNP modernization (PL 117-2). Evaluation of the modernization efforts allows us to track the progress and outcomes of these efforts. The evaluation is in the early stages, so this brief provides an initial look at implementation progress and findings.

How FNS Did This Study

• For this first annual report, the evaluation team examined the early implementation experiences of WIC state agencies, drawing on FNS administrative data and grantee progress reports covering activities through September 2024.
• We will soon begin additional data collection efforts to support this evaluation. Future reports will draw on interviews with WIC state agencies; case studies of local agency modernization efforts; surveys of WIC participants, staff, and vendors; reports from cooperative agreements; and data from other FNS data collections.

Background

• We received funding and waiver authority to support WIC modernization through the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (PL 117-2).
• Federal agencies must comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before collecting data from the public, we publish the data collection plan and ask the public for comments. You may read the 60-day request for public comments.

Resources

• We used data from this evaluation to create an interactive data visualization: WIC and FMNP Modernization Dashboard.
• Series webpage: WIC and FMNP Modernization Evaluation

Programs This Study Evaluates

• Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
• WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program (FMNP)

Suggested Citation

White, S., Boyle, M., and Navarro, S. (2025). Brief: WIC Modernization Annual Evaluation Report, 2024. Prepared by Mathematica, Contract No. 47QRAA18D00BQ. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Evidence, Analysis, and Regulatory Affairs, Project Officer: Carol Dreibelbis. Available online at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/research/wic/fmnp-modernization-evaluation/annual-report-2024.

Series Overview

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides nutrition assistance to eligible individuals and households with low-income. SNAP is the largest domestic nutrition assistance program we administer.

We publish national SNAP participation rates, which are estimated percentages of people who are eligible for SNAP who participate in the program. In the list below, you can access published reports that go back to 1994. 

Each report includes national participation and benefit receipt rates for all individuals, households, and certain subgroups. Most reports compare rates across fiscal years (FY) to demonstrate recent trends in SNAP participation. As a result, these reports are typically referred to as Trends in SNAP Participation Rates.

Series Reports

Publication date is included in parenthesis next to each FY.

¹ There was no report covering FY 2021 because data were incomplete due to COVID-19 pandemic-related administrative waivers in place through most of the year.

Series Overview

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides nutrition assistance to eligible, low-income individuals and households. SNAP is the largest domestic nutrition assistance program we administer.

We publish SNAP participation rates for each state, which are estimated percentages of all people who are eligible for SNAP who participate in the program. For most years, we also estimate participation rates for “working poor” people, who are eligible people that live in households with income from a job.

In the list below, you can access published reports that go back to 1994. Each link includes a Reaching Those in Need research brief, and a technical report detailing the methodology used.

Series Reports

Publication date is included in parenthesis next to each fiscal year (FY).

¹ There was no report for FY 2021 because data were incomplete due to COVID-19 pandemic-related administrative waivers in place through most of the year.

The goal of this study was to pilot creating a Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) participant and program characteristics (PC) longitudinal data set with one WIC state agency. This report describes the process of working with one WIC state agency to create a pilot WIC PC longitudinal data set of infant and child participants and the challenges and successes of this effort.

• Key Findings
• Why
• How

Seven of eight WIC state agencies surveyed had “ideal” or “sufficient” capabilities to provide a longitudinal WIC PC data set.

Three had “ideal” capabilities and only one scored “insufficient” for any of the necessary capabilities (Figure 1; see Table 1 for definitions). The ability to provide longitudinal WIC PC data was based on whether a state agency included data elements that could be used to link records across data sets (e.g., participant identification (ID), last and first name), the type and amount of retrospective data available, availability of key WIC PC variables, and whether participant IDs are retained when participants re-enroll.

Table 1. Summary of management information system (MIS) criteria for state agency selection.

MIS Criteria	MIS Capabilities: Ideal	MIS Capabilities: Sufficient	MIS Capabilities: Insufficient
Data elements that could be used to link records across data sets	Consistent participant identification (ID), household ID, and first and last name	Consistent participant ID only	No data elements that could be used to link records across data sets
Type of available data	All instances of updates and changes to each participant’s record	All certification and recertification visits but no records from other visit types	Inconsistent or uncertain frequency of records across caseload
Years of available data	5 years of retrospective data	Between 4 and 5 years of retrospective data and capability to provide periodic prospective submissions	Fewer than 5 years of data
Scope of available data	All infants and children enrolled at any time during previous 5 years with an indicator for currently enrolled	All infants and children enrolled at any time during the previous 5 years without an indicator for currently enrolled or records for currently enrolled infants and children only	The state agency can provide records for only a subset of enrolled infants and children
Available variables	Five key supplemental variables (i.e., date of first WIC certification, education level of parent, number in household on WIC, birth weight, and birth length) available for all available years of data	Fewer than five key supplemental variables (i.e., date of first WIC certification, education level of parent, number in household on WIC, birth weight, and birth length) available for all available years of data	N/A
ID persistence	ID retained for infants and children who re-enroll in WIC after a period of nonparticipation	New ID assigned for infants and children who re-enroll in WIC	N/A

Matching techniques correctly linked nearly all (99%) WIC participant records over time.

• Deterministic matching uses participant ID to link records belonging to the same person. It cannot link records of participants with more than one ID. Nearly all (99.9%) infants and children had only one participant ID and were able to be linked by participant ID (i.e., through deterministic matching). As with all state agencies, the pilot state agency had processes in place to minimize the number of participants with multiple participant IDs over time in their management information systems (MIS). However, probabilistic matching is still helpful because participants could receive more than one participant ID over time due to data entry mistakes or imperfect data cleaning processes. Although women were not included in this pilot, we expect that probabilistic matching is especially important for women as they are more likely to leave WIC and return if they have multiple pregnancies, and thus may be more likely to be assigned multiple participant IDs.
• Probabilistic matching uses other variables to link records likely to belong to the same person. It can link records of participants with more than one ID. To inform decisions about whether records with different IDs belonged to the same participant, the researchers used variables that should not change over time and are available in all state agencies (i.e., first name, last name, date of birth, sex, race, and ethnicity). The researchers then developed a similarity score that used those variables to quantify the similarity between records. During testing, the probabilistic matching similarity score correctly matched records longitudinally for 99.97% of tested cases.
• The matching procedure for this study resulted in a high-quality longitudinal WIC PC data set containing records for all infants and children over a six year period for one state agency. This study suggests that similar results could be achieved with other state agencies.

The pilot longitudinal WIC PC data set was successfully used to determine retention and anemia resolution among WIC participants.

• Analysis from the WIC PC longitudinal data set showed that among infants and children, 85% first enrolled before the age of one and 56% were last certified for WIC benefits before turning 3 years old (Figure 2). Children are eligible for WIC until age 5, yet the pilot data analysis found that most participants drop out by age 3. Future analysis using a longitudinal WIC PC data set could determine factors associated with later enrollment in WIC and dropping out of WIC early.

Age at First Certification

Age at Last Certification

• The longitudinal WIC PC data were used to determine that 21% of infants and children had a normal hemoglobin level within 12 months of first being identified as anemic. Although further analysis on resolution of anemia status was not conducted for this study, future analyses could allow for a better understanding of which WIC participants are most likely to experience poor health outcomes such as anemia or unhealthy weight.

Why FNS Did This Study

At the time of this study, we had no participant-level longitudinal data sets containing WIC PC data. Since 1992, we have collected WIC PC data every two years. The WIC PC data are a census of WIC participants and describe participant-level information on demographics, income, nutritional risks, anthropometrics, hematology, breastfeeding status, and food package prescriptions during the month of April for each WIC PC year.

Currently, WIC PC data can only be used to identify population trends in the program over time. Because the WIC PC data lack identifiers to link participants over time, individual-level longitudinal analyses such as participant retention cannot be measured. This report describes the process of working with one WIC state agency to create a pilot WIC PC longitudinal data set of infant and child participants and the challenges and successes of this effort.

How FNS Did This Study

Eight state agencies with varying MIS platforms and high quality WIC PC 2020 data completed a survey about their MIS and longitudinal data provision capabilities. The survey assessed these state agencies’ MIS capabilities, as measured in six areas, to provide a longitudinal data set.

Next, we chose one state agency and worked with state agency staff and their MIS contractor to extract longitudinal data that included one record per infant or child per week from January 2014 to December 2019.

Once the data were collected, we used two matching approaches to link the records for each infant or child over time. First, we used deterministic matching where the participant ID provided by the state agency was used to link records belonging to the same infant/child. Second, for records that had more than one participant ID, we used probabilistic matching where other identifying variables (e.g., date of birth, first name, and last name) were used to match records that likely belonged to the same participant. Each potential probabilistic match was rated with a similarity score. We reviewed the probabilistic matches and compared their similarity scores to a predetermined threshold to determine whether matches were accepted.

Finally, we conducted example analyses to demonstrate the type of information that could be gained from longitudinal WIC PC data.

Next Steps

• We have taken lessons learned from this pilot (see Key Findings) to inform the first national collection of longitudinal WIC PC data as part of the 2024 WIC PC data collection. These findings helped shape guidance and technical assistance for state agencies.
• The WIC PC 2024 collection built off recommendations from the pilot to include women in the longitudinal data set, and to link household members via household ID. We will use these data for new analyses to better understand retention and changes in other key measures over time.

Suggested Citation

Beckerman-Hsu, J., Huret, N., & Zvavitch, P. (2025). Development of a WIC Participant and Program Characteristics Longitudinal Data Set. Prepared by Insight Policy Research, Inc., Contract No. GS-10F-0136X, Order No. 12319820F0078. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Project Officer: Amanda Reat. Available online at: www.fns.usda.gov/research/wic/pc-longitudinal-dataset.

Summary

The intended purpose of this information collection is to administer the 2027 Farm to School Census (Census), previously titled 2023 Farm to School Census. This information collection request is for a revision and extension for three years to the currently approved Farm to School Census and Comprehensive Review (OMB Number 0584-0646, expiration date 5/31/2025).

Section 18 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (NSLA) authorized and funded the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to establish a farm to school program to assist eligible entities, through grants and technical assistance, in implementing farm to school programs that improve food and agriculture education as well as access to local foods in schools. This work is housed within the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) Community Food Systems Division (CFSD). As part of the Farm to School Program's authorization, CFSD collects and disseminates information on farm to school activities throughout the country. The Census provides the only nationally representative data available on farm to school participation and activities in the United States. It also compiles detailed information about state- and school food authority (SFA)-level farm to school engagement.

Need and Use of the Information

The 2027 Census will collect and synthesize data from a national census of SFAs to fulfill the following study objectives:

1. Establish the scope of SFA participation in farm to school activities and the characteristics of participating SFAs;
2. describe details of SFA participation in certain farm to school activities (especially procurement of local foods);
3. assess sources of support for farm to school activities and identify areas for additional assistance; and
4. compare findings across different types of SFAs (i.e., based on characteristics such as size, urbanicity, and eligibility for free and reduced-price meals) and to findings from the 2023 and 2019 Census.

The results of this study will be used to assess farm to school program engagement and to set priorities for USDA outreach and technical support, as mandated by the NSLA.

Request for Comments

Comments regarding this information collection received by April 25, 2025 will be considered. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website www.reginfo.gov/​public/​do/​PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting “Currently under 30-day Review—Open for Public Comments” or by using the search function. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

USDA's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides nutrition assistance to eligible low-income individuals and households in need. This report is the latest in a series on states’ SNAP participation rates, which are estimated percentages of people who are eligible for SNAP who participate in the program in each state. This report presents rates for fiscal year (FY) 2022 and revised rates for pre-pandemic FY 2020.

Key Findings

• An estimated 88% of eligible people received SNAP benefits in FY 2022, nationwide. However, participation rates vary widely from state to state.
• In 19 states and the District of Columbia, the SNAP participation rates in FY 2022 were statistically significantly higher than the national rate of 88%, while in 19 states, the rates were significantly lower.
• Some states have been consistently in the top in recent years. In both pre-pandemic FY 2020 and FY 2022, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin had significantly higher participation rates than two-thirds of the states.
• FNS' Midwest Region had the highest participation rate at 98%, which was significantly higher than the rates for other FNS regions in FY 2022.

Pre-pandemic FY 2020 participation rates in this report differ from those published in prior reports mostly due to revised data from the Census Bureau. The COVID-19 public health emergency affected the amount of data available to estimate participation rates. As a result, the FY 2020 participation rates reflect the pre-pandemic period of October 2019 through February 2020, rather than a full year. FY 2021 participation rates were not estimated due to inadequate data for most of that year. FY 2022 participation rates are based on a full year of data.

Why FNS Did This Study

The Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) is a federal program that provides reimbursement to care providers for nutritious meals and snacks served to children and certain groups of adults. Emergency shelters have been eligible to participate in CACFP since July 1999, when the Homeless Child Nutrition Program was integrated into CACFP. Children and some adults with disabilities that are homeless and are temporarily residing at an emergency shelter are eligible to receive free meals through CACFP.

All CACFP participants at emergency shelters may receive up to three meals per day, but little is known about the organizations that participate in this component of CACFP or who they serve. This report describes the first national study of emergency shelters participating in CACFP. The objective of this study was to gain a general understanding of the characteristics of CACFP emergency shelters, who they serve, how CACFP fits into their operations, and their challenges with CACFP.

How FNS Did This Study

FNS sent a short survey to all 368 emergency shelters that participated in CACFP in fiscal year (FY) 2023. Two hundred and forty-two shelters (66%) responded to the web survey between October and December 2023.

FNS analyzed the survey data and combined it with other data sources, including public data posted at the national and state level and data from other FNS studies. State-level findings are included in Table A of this report. A more detailed description of each data set is available in Appendix B of this report.

Key Findings

Emergency shelters are a small but diverse group of providers that represent just 0.25% of CACFP participating sites. From March 2020 to September 2022, CACFP emergency shelters claimed approximately 234,000 meals per month on average. This component of CACFP can also play a role in disaster recovery—see the full report for an example of how CACFP emergency shelters were used to support families after Hurricane Harvey.

What is a CACFP emergency shelter?

• Most CACFP emergency shelters (92%) operate 365 days per year.
• Over half (62%) of CACFP emergency shelters reported that residents stay an average of 90 days or less. Four in ten (43%) indicated that there was an official limit on the number of days residents could stay at the emergency shelter. Limits may be set by the shelter or by local or state regulations.
• Most CACFP emergency shelters (80%) served fewer than 45 residents per day, but 11% served more than 90 residents per day.
• Most shelters (58%) indicated that their shelter uses a Homeless Management Information System.
• A little more than a quarter (28%) of shelters indicated that they were affiliated with a national non-profit organization, such as Catholic Charities, the Salvation Army, or the YMCA.
• Less than half (46%) of CACFP emergency shelters also provide child care.
• Most CACFP emergency shelters provide three or more of the following non-meal services to their residents: case management (95%), clothing assistance (93%), mental health services (60%), substance abuse services (38%), legal services (33%), or medical services (33%).

What populations do CACFP emergency shelters serve?

• One-fifth of shelters (21%) only serve children.
• About half the population served at shelters are adults whose meals may not be eligible for reimbursement under CACFP.
  • Most shelters (79%) serve meals to adults over age 18, but only 23% of shelters claim CACFP meals for adults with disabilities.
  • Over a quarter of CACFP emergency shelters (28%) also serve meals to non-residents whose meals cannot be reimbursed through CACFP.
• Most CACFP emergency shelters (77%) specialize in working with one or more of the following populations: victims of abuse (55%), families (45%), migrants (17%), or youth (15%).

How does CACFP fit into emergency shelters' operations?

• Most shelters (72%) claimed three meals per day during FY 2022.
• Most CACFP emergency shelters (73%) only participate in CACFP’s emergency shelter component. The remainder also participate in CACFP as child care centers (19%), outside school hours care centers (12%), and/or Head Start programs (4%). About 9% also participate in the CACFP At-Risk Afterschool program.
• One hundred and forty-two shelters provided reasons for participating in CACFP.
  • More than half of them (59%) said that the program was an important source of funding.
  • Nearly half (44%) said that the program enabled them to provide meal services to their residents. Many said that it was also important to them that the meals were healthy.
  • Thirteen shelters (9%) said that CACFP training and guidance played an important role in educating shelter staff and organizing meal services.
• Most CACFP emergency shelters (74%) receive funding from public and private funding sources. Just over half (51%) receive public funding from local, state, and federal sources other than CACFP.

What are the challenges that emergency shelters experience with CACFP?

• Most CACFP emergency shelters (63%) did not describe any challenges with the program.
• Among those that described challenges, administrative burden was the most cited challenge for emergency shelters. Specific causes of administrative burden included: a) navigating application and meal claiming systems that are designed for child care centers, b) planning, tracking, and claiming meal services for a population that changes frequently, and c) keeping participant information private while meeting CACFP monitoring requirements.
• Several shelters expressed difficulty balancing their mission to support their clients’ decision-making power while also meeting the meal pattern requirement. This was more common among shelters that specialize in working with victims of abuse and/or with families. Emergency shelters are the only CACFP providers that may interact directly with parents or guardians during a meal service, which can be challenging if parents’ or guardians’ preferences for feeding their children do not align with the meal pattern.
• Training was a challenge for some shelters. Respondents suggested making CACFP training available year-round to accommodate high staff turnover rates at shelters and advocated for training materials specific to the emergency shelter component of CACFP. Popular topics for additional training included: nutrition label reading, food purchasing and meal planning, using reporting tools, meal pattern substitutions, and the rules around claiming meals for adults with disabilities.

National Summary

Individual Graphics

State Summaries and Graphic Files

Use the dropdowns below to download the full infographic and individual image files for your state/territory.

Why FNS Did This Study

Adult day care centers have been eligible to operate the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) since 1987. Adult day care centers receive payments for serving nutritious meals to adults who are age 60 or older, or who are physically or mentally impaired to an extent that limits their independence and ability to carry out activities of daily living. Centers may receive payments for up to two meals and one snack per participant per day. See the CACFP Adult Day Care Handbook for more information about the program.

FNS collects administrative data, tracking aggregated sponsor, site, and attendance information on participating centers from states twice each fiscal year.

The objective of this study is to better understand key characteristics of adult day care centers participating in CACFP. Key characteristics include a) the types of organizations that participate in CACFP as adult day care centers and the populations they serve; and b) the meal services and non-meal services offered at CACFP adult day care centers.

How FNS Did This Study

Data was collected through a short survey sent to 2,495 adult day care centers located in 48 states (including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) that participated in CACFP in fiscal year (FY) 2023. The survey was conducted in early 2024 and 1,147 centers (47%) responded. Centers provided information about their meal services using October 2023 as a point of reference. Weights were used to correct for non-response.

FNS analyzed the frequency of responses to each question and conducted significance testing based on three center characteristics: organization type (private for-profit, private non-profit, or public), center size, and whether centers are independent or sponsored.

Key Findings

• The number of adult day care centers participating in CACFP varied widely from state to state and was not always proportional to the state’s population of older adults and people with disabilities. Over half of the 2,495 CACFP-participating adult day care centers in FY 23 were in just five states: Texas (14.1%), California (11.6%), Florida (9.1%), New Jersey (8.2%), and New York (7.3%).
• About half of centers (48.1%) operate CACFP independently, while fewer centers (43.3%) have a sponsoring organization that supports the administration of CACFP. The sponsor status of 8.6% of centers is unknown.

CACFP Adult Day Care Centers and Participants

• Just over half (51.7%) of centers identified themselves as private, for-profit organizations (see Figure 1).
• Most centers (69%) serve both adults over age 60 and adults under age 60 with disabilities (see Figure 1).

• Two-thirds (67.1%) of the population served at centers in October 2023 were adults over age 60.
• Adults who participated in CACFP at adult day care centers were substantially more likely to be non-White than the general population of older adults and people with disabilities. Adults identifying as Asian were much more likely to participate in CACFP at adult day care centers compared to their share of the population.

Meal Services Offered at Participating Centers in October 2023

• According to FNS administrative data, nearly all meals claimed by adult day care centers in October 2023 were free (96%). Survey results indicate that nearly all participants (92.5%) who ate a CACFP meal at adult day care centers in October 2023 were certified for free meals.
• Most centers (59%) only claimed free meals in October 2023. Another 16.7% claimed free and paid meals, while 16.1% claimed free, reduced-price, and paid meals.
• Most centers (58.1%) claimed breakfast, lunch, and snack services (See Figure 2).

• Almost every center claimed lunch (96.9%) in October 2023, and very few centers (6.7%) claimed suppers.
• Most centers (55.6%) prepared CACFP meals on site, and just over one quarter (27.1%) purchased meals from a commercial vendor.
• Most centers (60.8%) served individual meals, either pre-plated or “boxed” (See Figure 2).
• The top five non-meal services centers provided were: exercise/physical activities (88.5%); assistance with activities of daily living (85.9%); music or art therapy (75.6%); nursing and other health-related services (70.5%); and mental, behavioral health, or social work services (56.0%).

For-profit vs. Nonprofit Centers

• For-profit adult day care centers are only eligible to participate in CACFP if they receive compensation under Title XIX (Medicaid) and/or Title XX (Social Services Block Grant) of the Social Security Act and at least 25% of enrolled participants receive Title XIX or Title XX benefits. Just over half (54%) of for-profit centers reported that all CACFP participants were also Title XIX or Title XX recipients.
• Most for-profit centers (97%) are in just 14 states. In the four states with the most CACFP adult day care centers, most centers were for-profit: Texas (91% of all centers), California (79%), Florida (70%), and New Jersey (80%).
• For-profit centers accounted for about 72 % of all meals claimed in the adult daycare component of CACFP in October 2023, while private, nonprofit centers accounted for 24.9 %. The remaining 3.3 % of meals were claimed by public centers.
• Compared to non-profit centers, for-profit centers were significantly more likely to claim free meals and to serve a larger proportion of adults over age 60. Other significant differences between for-profit and nonprofit centers are shown in Figure 3.

¹ Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, CACFP Adult Daycare 2023 Characteristics Survey, Spring 2024, Question #1 and Question #6.
²Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, CACFP Adult Daycare 2023 Characteristics Survey, Spring 2024, Questions #13 through #16 and Question #18. Centers could select multiple meal service methods in their response to Question #18. Offer versus Serve is described on page 35 of the CACFP Adult Day Care Handbook.
³ Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, CACFP Adult Daycare 2023 Characteristics Survey, Spring 2024. All differences are statistically significant at p≤ 0.05.