Lessons Learned for Emergency Feeding During Modifications to 11 School Feeding Programs in Latin America and the Caribbean During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

Background: School feeding programs (SFPs) can play a crucial role in the emergency food and nutrition response, but there is a dearth of information on how SFPs operate during emergencies. Design and Methods: A rapid comparative assessment of 11 SFPs throughout Latin America and the Caribbean during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data from (1) systematic document search and (2) surveys with key informants (n = 23) about barriers/facilitators to modifications were systematically analyzed using a multiple case study approach. Results: During the pandemic, all SFPs continued (although continuation plans varied from a few days in Chile to >1 month in Puerto Rico) via food kits, food vouchers, and/or grab n’ go meals. The SFP implementation was highly dependent on the programs’ autonomy and financial support, which impacted their logistics to acquire and distribute foods during the pandemic. The types of foods offered in some SFPs suggest that established nutritional guidelines were not always followed. Key informants expressed concerns about the deterioration of the nutritional quality of foods offered during the pandemic and lack of community engagement that impeded distribution to the neediest. Conclusions: Results underscore the urgency for clear implementation guidance on how to modify SFP during emergencies. Public health implications include (1) allocation of autonomous resources to an intersectoral working group to safeguard nutritional benefits during emergencies, (2) strengthening efforts of SFP community engagement before and during emergencies, and (3) establishing guidelines of the types of foods that can be distributed to meet the nutritional needs of beneficiaries during emergencies.

Pivoting school health and nutrition programmes during COVID-19 in low- and middle-income countries: A scoping review

“…The remaining studies (n = 3) were comprised of recommendations related to adapting school health programmes during the COVID-19 pandemic [ 25 , 27 , 32 ]. The following regions were represented across included studies: African Region (n = 7) [ 13 , 14 , 16 - 18 , 26 , 31 ], Region of the Americas (n = 5) [ 15 , 22 – 24 , 30 ], Southeast Asian Region (n = 5) [ 19 , 25 , 27 , 29 , 32 ], Western Pacific Region (n = 4) [ 28 , 33 – 35 ], and the Eastern Mediterranean Region (n = 2) [ 20 , 21 ] ( Table 2 ).…”

“…The included studies also investigated various school programmes impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, such as those focussed on nutrition by providing access to meals (n = 8) [ 13 , 15 , 16 , 19 , 23 , 25 , 30 ]; health services such as immunisations, eye health, and WASH (n = 4) [ 17 , 27 , 28 , 31 ]; physical activity curriculum and exercise training (n = 3) [ 22 , 33 , 35 ]; mental health counselling and curriculum (n = 3) [ 20 , 21 , 24 ]; or those that were multi-component (n = 5) [ 14 , 18 , 26 , 29 , 34 ]. Among the multi-component programmes, two studies looked at nutrition and health services [ 14 , 18 ], while one study respectively investigated health services and mental health [ 26 ], nutrition and physical activity [ 29 ], and physical activity and mental health [ 34 ].…”

“…We identified six distinct impacts due to COVID-19 across all programmes (Table S4 in the Online Supplementary Document ). This included indefinite suspension without evidence that programmes resumed after school re-opened (n = 8) [ 13 , 14 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 27 , 28 , 31 ]; delayed administration that occurred after schools re-opened (n = 1) [ 17 ]; continuation of programmes in-school after the implementation of pandemic precautions and measures (n = 4) [ 14 , 18 , 32 , 34 ]; virtual adaptations of study components, which included the programme itself or evaluation (n = 7) [ 20 – 22 , 24 , 29 , 33 , 35 ]; administration of the programme outside of schools, often directly inside students’ homes (n = 5) [ 23 , 25 , 26 , 30 ]; or the development of a new programme in replacement (n = 3) [ 15 , 16 , 23 ].…”

“…To compensate for programme suspensions, four studies began distributing meals and/or food kits to the homes of students and their families [ 15 , 23 , 25 , 30 ]. Thirteen countries implemented this model, most of which were located in Latin America (n = 11).…”

“…Thirteen countries implemented this model, most of which were located in Latin America (n = 11). Food kits, which contained foods to be prepared/cooked at home, were distributed in Argentina (specifically Buenos Aires), Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, and Peru [ 15 , 23 , 30 ]. Prepared meals were provided to students in Argentina (specifically Buenos Aires), Brazil, Colombia, Puerto Rico, Thailand, and Uruguay, either instead of or in addition to food kits [ 15 , 25 ].…”