The Child and Adult Care Food Program: Barriers to Participation and Financial Implications of Underuse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess facilitators and barriers to participation in the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) and estimate foregone federal funds because of CACFP underuse. METHODS: An online survey of food service practices and experiences with CACFP among Connecticut-based licensed child care centers (n = 231). RESULTS: Serving meals and the center's nonprofit status predicted CACFP participation. The most common challenge among participants was collecting family income eligibility. Streamlining paperwork (mentioned by 44% of respondents) and funding for nonfood, administrative costs (40%) were recommended facilitators to increase CACFP uptake. Nonparticipating centers had limited knowledge about the program and its eligibility. Foregone federal funding due to CACFP underuse among eligible Connecticut centers was estimated at $30.7 million in 2019, suggesting that 20,300 young children from low-income areas missed out on CACFP-subsidized food. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Improving knowledge about CACFP and reducing participation burdens through additional funding and technical assistance can help expand the program to support child nutrition.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".