CACFP Participation in Vermont: 2024
Scroll down to learn more about Vermont's child care Programs' Participation in CACFP in 2024
Introduction
The Child Care and Adult Food Program (CACFP) is an important federally funded program that increases access to nutritious, well-balanced meals for children in child care settings. CACFP has many wide-ranging benefits that underscore why participation in CACFP is a critical support for children and their families, child care providers, and their communities. First and foremost, CACFP contributes to the overall health, wellness, and development of children as they develop healthy eating habits. The program helps reduce food insecurity and offers assurance to families that their children will receive high-quality, nutritious meals each day, which provides some relief for family budgets. During the pandemic, CACFP remained an indispensable source of support for families by providing meals onsite, serving as meal pick-up sites for grab-and-go meals, offering meal delivery, and sharing information about other available nutrition resources.
CACFP also strengthens the quality and financial stability of child care providers . Child care, or early care and education (ECE), providers receive guidance, best practices, training, and technical assistance from their lead state agency and Sponsoring Agencies of the CACFP so they can offer the most nutritiously available foods to children in their care. Providers are reimbursed for serving nutritious meals through CACFP, which can also support a provider’s financial viability. When child care providers participate in CACFP , they support the local economy by purchasing from grocery stores, farmers markets, or even directly through local producers and farms through Farm-to-Early Childhood programs .
Mapping CACFP Participation in Vermont
The map below, created by CCAoA in partnership with the Vermont Farm to Early Childhood Coalition , Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets , Department of Health , Child Development Division and Agency of Education , explores CACFP participation statewide in Vermont. Beyond the findings, this story map is a testament to how these state agencies work together to implement, provide training on, and raise awareness of CACFP within Vermont.
Included below is Vermont’s CACFP story map from 2022. We are excited to continue our collective mapping work in 2024 to update data on child care providers and CACFP participation across the state.
You can explore all of our maps by:
Zooming in – Zoom in on an area by double-clicking on a point on the map, or by using the “+” and “-“ buttons on the lower right-hand of your screen.
Moving the map – Click and hold an area of the map to move the map around and zoom in on different areas.
Layer list icon to view the legend.
Viewing the legend -- Click on the layer list icon at the bottom left corner of each map featured in the story map.
CACFP Participation
As of May 2024, Vermont has 900 child care providers, and 319 (35%) participate in CACFP. The majority of CACFP-participating providers (60%) are registered family child care, while 36 percent are center-based child care programs and 4 percent are licensed family child care.
Data Disclaimer: All provider calculations in the story map exclude School Age providers. Note that this differs from our 2022 calculations. Users can see the dashboard at the bottom of this webpage to see the CACFP landscape for school age providers.
CACFP Participation at the County Level
This map shows the rate of CACFP participation of Vermont child care providers at the county level. The lighter gradient colors indicate relatively fewer child care providers participating in CACFP. We identified 10 counties (71%) where fewer than half of its child care providers participate in CACFP. Throughout this story map, we will highlight a few of these counties and how they may be in a strategic position to benefit from CACFP participation expansion. Click on the county to learn more about its CACFP participation.
Food Deserts
Lack of access to nutritious food options can lead to greater health risks, including higher chances of diabetes and obesity, and is associated with lower levels of neighborhood child opportunity. The USDA defines “food deserts” as areas of low access to supermarkets or grocery stores, meaning there is low access to fresh and nutritious food within 1 mile for urban areas and 10 miles for rural areas by census tract. There are 40 census tracts designated as food deserts in Vermont.
Child Care Providers in Food Deserts
There are 230 child care providers (26%) in Vermont operating in food deserts. For children enrolled in child care in these communities, CACFP can be a critical support for regular access to fresh, nutritious meals.
Areas for Potential CACFP Expansion
CACFP is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) through grants to the states, which then reimburse eligible providers for each qualifying meal they serve per child. Participating providers can provide either up to two reimbursable meals and one snack per day or two snacks and one meal to each child in their care (up to age 12). Each meal and snack needs to meet the nutrition standards set by USDA. Rates of CACFP reimbursement to providers are calculated based on the federal income poverty guidelines and are adjusted at the federal level annually. Reimbursements vary based on the type of meal served and child care provider setting:
Almost all center-based providers are eligible to receive some level of reimbursement from CACFP. Child care centers are reimbursed based on the household income of the child and type of meal served (lunch and supper have higher reimbursement rates than breakfast or snacks). Each meal and snack is reimbursed to the provider at the free, reduced-price, or paid rate based on each child’s family household income . Children of families with household incomes below 130% of the federal poverty guidelines qualify for free meals, and families between 130-185% qualify for reduced-priced rate for the provider.
Family child care providers are typically reimbursed using a two-tiered system. Tier 1 rates provide higher levels of reimbursement to family child care providers located in low-income areas or if the provider’s household income is under 185% of Federal poverty guidelines. Tier 2 rates provide lower levels of reimbursements to family child care providers that do not meet the location or provider income criteria for Tier 1 rates. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, all family child care providers were reimbursed at Tier 1 rates through June 2023 as allowed under the Keep Kids Fed Act of 2022 , but that provision has since expired. The return of this two-tiered reimbursement system provides unique challenges to FCC providers who are considering participation in CACFP.
This map uses the important CACFP threshold of 185% federal poverty level (FPL) to identify areas with young children in families with low incomes. Child care programs that serve low-income families who also qualify for free or reduced-price meals receive higher reimbursements, which may serve as an incentive for the program to participate in CACFP to offset the cost of food and serve fresh, nutritious meals to children in need.
This map shows the average share (or percentage) of families with children under five that have household incomes at or below 185% FPL according to the 2023 American Community Survey. Darker purple shading shows areas with more families in poverty. This map demonstrates the need to provide access to meals for low-income families with young children. Even if families live near sources of nutritious food (i.e., outside of food deserts), they may not have the financial means to regularly access it. The average share of low-income families with children under five who may be eligible for snacks and meals reimbursed at the free or reduced-price rate in Vermont is 20.6% of families per census tract.
By overlaying the poverty data with child care providers, map users can use the slider tool to identify key areas for potential CACFP expansion. Use the slider tool to help compare child care providers with areas of high concentrations of families experiencing poverty. Zoom in to see more detail.
Food Insecurity and Poverty: An Intersection
We mapped food deserts overlaid with family poverty to highlight specific areas where CACFP could especially meet an urgent need by providing nutritious food to children from low-income families living in areas with low food access. We define areas of high family poverty as census tracts where the percentage of families with children under five living below 185% FPL is at or above the state average (Vermont’s average = 20.58% families per tract). Census tracts that are both a food desert and at or above the state’s average for the share of families experiencing poverty are highlighted as areas that would particularly benefit from CACFP services. Overlaying child care providers on this intersectional map identifies the providers that operate in these highlighted areas and whether they participate in CACFP.
In Vermont, there are 76 providers operating within a highlighted tract reflecting the geographic intersection of high food insecurity and high family poverty. 52 (68%) of those providers are not yet participating in CACFP. By enrolling in CACFP, these providers could increase the number of low-income children accessing fresh, nutritious meals in their neighborhoods. Because we know that parents seek care outside of their own neighborhoods , providers close to these tracts should also be considered for expansion.
Child Opportunity Index 3.0
When considering CACFP capacity building, it is wise to consider other factors alongside those that directly relate to the program itself such as family income and healthy food availability. To gain a more complete understanding of the child food insecurity and opportunity spaces for the expansion of CACFP, it is also important to look at poverty rates and other socioeconomic factors because these have been shown to be related with child food security. Here, we use Diversity Data Kids’ Child Opportunity Index to help us take that more nuanced look. The Child Opportunity Index (COI) is a powerful tool for visualizing children's opportunities. The COI, now in its third iteration labeled as version "3.0", encompasses 44 factors such as education, health, environment, and social and economic conditions that have been shown to affect childhood outcomes. The index compares different areas across states and the nation using indicators that predict child outcomes. The data for COI 3.0 is mapped at the census tract or community level (scroll down to “Technical Notes” for more information in census tracts). This index is a reliable predictor of child outcomes in adulthood and provides important context for our discussion of CACFP expansion in Vermont.
The COI 3.0 is represented on the map using census tracts. It's categorized as Very Low, Low, Moderate, High, or Very High child opportunities. The darker gradients on the map indicate higher predicted opportunities for child success, making it easier to identify areas that need more attention and resources.
Spotlight: West Brattleboro and Brattleboro, VT
West Brattleboro and Brattleboro are both towns in Windham County, located in southern Vermont. This spotlight represents a use case for this map for rural areas with low overall ECE supply. Often, ECE research, analyses, and policy are based on situations in urban areas in ways that are not always transferrable to a rural context. Less populated spaces should not be forgotten in discussions of child care systems, including CACFP, especially in a rural state like Vermont.
We can examine the Child Opportunity Index alongside the highlighted layer showing the intersection of food deserts and high rates of families experiencing poverty. When viewing the overlap of these layers, we see that West Brattleboro is both highlighted and has predictors of low child opportunity. The neighboring town, Brattleboro, is divided into two census tracts found to have very low and low child opportunity. These two towns have a total of 19 child care providers. 8 providers participate in CACFP, while 11 do not. Zooming out to observe surrounding communities, these areas range from low to high child opportunities. Since children residing in any low-opportunity tract are likely to be enrolled in care from providers both in and near their residential neighborhoods, any provider in West Brattleboro and Brattleboro could be providing care for these children and thus can be prioritized for CACFP expansion and outreach. In areas of encompassing need, CACFP sponsors and advocates have an opportunity to focus their efforts on these lower-opportunity spaces to maximize the impact of their expansion efforts.
Strategies for Change
While the program has many benefits , CACFP is often underutilized in states , with common challenges including low awareness, inadequate reimbursement rates, and burdensome reporting and administrative requirements. Common barriers across provider settings include difficulty navigating the enrollment application process, compliance with meal pattern requirements, and burdensome enrollment and reporting paperwork.
Inadequate reimbursements are another reason why providers do not participate in CACFP, especially for family child care , who are reimbursed at two different rates depending on their household income or the income of the families served. An additional strain for providers is that CACFP currently only reimburses two meals and a snack (or two snacks and a meal), meaning participating providers must pay for any additional non-reimbursable meals and snacks themselves.
While many changes to strengthen CACFP must be made at the federal level, there are actions that states can take to reduce barriers so more providers enroll and remain in the program.
Vermont is considering using the information shared in this story map to:
Boost awareness of CACFP with key collaborators and partners in Vermont who share a vested interest in children’s health and wellness and nutrition security.
Inform the Ending Childhood Hunger Campaign being developed under the leadership of Hunger Free Vermont and underscore CACFP as a strategy to end childhood hunger in Vermont.
Inform initiatives which align with, adapt, and/or expand existing state policies that advance nutrition security, nutrition and food systems education, and Vermont’s early childhood system. Vermont has several policy levers including a Farm to School and Early Childhood Grants Program, Local Food Purchasing Incentive, Universal School Meals and an expansive Child Care Bill, all of which could offer opportunities to support CACFP utilization.
Contribute to Building Bright Futures, Vermont Early Childhood Action Plan and the Vermont Early Childhood Data and Policy Center Data Portal. The action plan serves as Vermont’s roadmap to improve the well-being of young children and families and the data portal supports accountability and measuring success advanced through the action plan.
You can find more strategies states, CCR&Rs, and other early childhood education partners can consider to expand CACFP participation in CACFP: Strategies for Change .
Map Dashboard
Click on the map dashboard below to view and interact with all the data featured in the story map. This map dashboard includes the ability to toggle layers on and off and filter child care providers by participation in CACFP and county. For more information, click the "How to use this map" tab underneath the map. Click the export icon in the upper right corner to view the map dashboard in a new tab.
CACFP Participation in VT: 2024
Technical Notes
Census tracts [outlined in light gray] within counties [outlined in bold black]
- A census tract is a statistical subdivision of a county, an area roughly equivalent to a neighborhood with a population size between 1,200 and 8,000 people. When the Census Bureau reports data by various geographic areas, there is a hierarchy wherein census tracts make up counties or wards. The census tract geographic unit of analysis allows us to see the state's population in more uniform portions within counties. For this mapping project, we use both census tract-level and county-level data. To the right is a snapshot of several census tracts (outlined in light gray) within counties (outlined in bold black).
- The COI 3.0 vintage shown here uses data from 2021. This update includes pandemic-era data, taking into account the changes brought about by COVID-19. Additionally, Diversity Data Kids has made significant changes to its methodology, which includes adjustments to data sources and component indicators and revised methods from COI 2.0. Due to these changes, comparing COI 3.0 with COI 2.0 may not be feasible. Therefore, we do not recommend comparing COI levels from our 2022 story map with those shown here. More information about their methodology can be found here .
- In 2023, CCAoA changed its formula for defining spaces with high rates of family poverty from a tract having at or above the average number of families with children under five below 185% FPL to at or above the average rate, share, or percent of these families compared to all families with children under five. While the census tract helps somewhat normalize population across spaces with different population density, it does not do so consistently or uniformly. Therefore, taking the percent of families with young children in a tract living below 185% FPL rather than the raw number of these families helps us more consistently and evenly evaluate family poverty across the state.
At the time of this project, the USDA’s food desert data were from year 2019. In order to use the most updated family poverty data from the American Community Survey, CCAoA opted to use census tract geographies from the 2023 year, downloaded from the US Census’ TIGER line shapefiles repository . The Census substantially changes the geographies of census tracts between decennial decades, and consequently, the most recent food desert dataset from the USDA did not match the census tracts we needed to use to perform the analyzed detailed here. Learn more about census tract definitions’ change between the 2010 and 2020 datasets here .
To account for this, we employed an upsampling technique similar to how we moved between geographies in our playful learning work with KABOOM! in Philadelphia . We converted the each 2019 food desert census tract to raster cells state-wide measuring 0.001 square decimal degrees. Food desert cells were coded to = 1, and non-desert spaces = 0. We overlaid the 2022 census tract borders on top of the food desert binary raster. We then calculated the average food desert binary value contained within each neighborhood and planning district to get an average food desert score for each layer. For those 2022 geographies for which at least 50% of its area was a 2019 food desert, those tracts became food desert tracts for this project. If they averaged less than 50% food deserts, they were not considered food desert tracts for this project.
In this method, each 2020 tract gets proportionally allocated the food desert value from each of its intersecting 2019 food desert census tracts. Thus, if a 2020 tract was covered 75% by a tract that was designated as a food desert in 2019 by the USDA and another non-desert 2019 tract covered the remaining 25%, the neighborhood would have an average food desert score of 0.75 [(.75*1+.25*0)=0.75]. Because a majority of the area was a food desert in 2019, the new 2022 tract is also designated a food desert.
While we’re aware of the pitfalls of this methodology (re. Modifiable Areal Unit Problem), we feel it is a consistent and quantitatively sound way of transitioning scales with the substantial benefit of including new family poverty data in these maps. Furthermore, of the 6,659 2020s tracts across our states, only 523 (8%) were not 100% matches with the 2019 USDA food deserts. This means that 92% of the 2022 tracts can fully and completely represent 2019 USDA food desert data. And, only 20 of the 523 not perfectly matching tracts (0.3%) have greater than 10% of a food desert discrepancy. This means that where there are discrepancies between 2019 and 2022 tract geographies, they are very small. Most of the time, the 2022 tract is over 90% covered by a food desert or non-desert, meaning we have a very accurate food desert and combination layer used in this map which we can use with confidence.
