Key Takeaways
- HMI is a cooperative agreement between Action for Healthy Kids and the USDA's Food and Nutrition Service.
- Sub-grants of up to $150,000 per district went to small and/or rural School Food Authorities (SFAs).
- Funding could be used for staff training, kitchen equipment, facility renovation, and other modernization projects that improve nutritional quality.
- Across multiple award rounds, nearly $30 million has been distributed to 264 districts in 44 states plus DC.
About the HMI Grant Program
The Healthy Meals Incentives (HMI) grant program was built to move resources into the kinds of school nutrition programs that most need them and have the hardest time competing for funding: small districts, rural districts, and districts operating on tight budgets with a handful of staff. Rather than a prescriptive one-size-fits-all grant, HMI sub-grants were designed to be flexible enough for districts to address their specific bottlenecks, whether that meant buying equipment, training existing staff, or hiring new expertise.
The program is run by Action for Healthy Kids under a cooperative agreement with the USDA's Food and Nutrition Service. That structure gave a single experienced nonprofit responsibility for outreach, application review, sub-grant administration, and ongoing technical assistance, while keeping federal oversight and alignment with USDA nutrition priorities.
Who Was Eligible
Sub-grant eligibility was limited to School Food Authorities that met the USDA's definition of small and/or rural. In practice, that meant:
- Participates in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and/or School Breakfast Program (SBP).
- Meets USDA size and geography thresholds for small or rural designation.
- Is located in the United States, a U.S. territory, or the District of Columbia.
This focus was intentional. Larger urban districts have more access to other federal and philanthropic funding. Small and rural programs often operate with one or two staff members, older equipment, and limited procurement options, which makes even modest grants transformative.
What the Funding Supports
Sub-grant dollars are typically split across four buckets, based on each district's assessment of where the biggest constraint is.
Kitchen Equipment
Combi ovens, tilting skillets, scratch-cooking equipment, walk-in coolers, dishwashers, and other big-ticket items that unlock new capabilities.
Staff Training
Professional development through the Institute of Child Nutrition, visiting chef programs, and peer-to-peer workshops with other districts.
Facility Improvements
Kitchen renovations, cafeteria refreshes, and infrastructure work required to support scratch cooking and fresh ingredient handling.
Procurement & Local Sourcing
Building relationships with local farms and producers, investing in cold storage, and setting up systems for handling raw ingredients.
What Grantees Did With It
The most striking pattern across grantee case studies: a single strategic purchase often unlocked a cascade of improvements. Replacing a broken dishwasher meant staff could finally plate fresh fruit without reverting to disposables. A combi oven turned frozen chicken nuggets into from-scratch grain bowls. A walk-in cooler let a rural district start buying from a local farm.
- Maysville School District 7 (OK) used HMI funds for a double oven, dishwasher, and generator. The equipment made it possible to serve hot, scratch-made breakfasts in place of prepackaged donuts and snack cakes, and to roughly halve sodium at lunch by sourcing local beef.
- Newman-Crows Landing USD (CA) hired Chef Nanci Miramontes to train the foodservice team on scratch-cooking techniques. The menu expanded to include orange chicken, chicken tinga, chicken pesto, and butter chicken.
- Port Townsend School District 50 (WA) used grant funds to hire a year-round gardener and purchase equipment for expanded school gardens that feed directly into the lunchroom.
- North Crawford School District (WI) invested in staff training in scratch cooking, which unlocked menu possibilities the team hadn't considered before.
Each of these is covered in depth on the Cafeteria Chronicles blog.
Timeline and Award Rounds
Sub-grants were awarded in rounds, with application windows staggered so districts had multiple opportunities to apply. Each round included outreach, State Agency engagement, application review, and post-award onboarding.
-
1
Request for Applications released
Announced through State Agency channels, Action for Healthy Kids newsletters, and direct outreach to small/rural SFAs.
-
2
Application window
Districts submitted budgets, narratives, and State Agency letters of support.
-
3
Review & selection
Applications scored against a published rubric. Funding recommendations sent to the USDA for review.
-
4
Award & implementation
Funds disbursed with ongoing technical assistance, quarterly check-ins, and outcomes reporting.
Early Outcomes
It's still early to assess long-term impact across 264 districts, but the patterns emerging from case studies and interim reports are encouraging. Districts that paired kitchen investments with staff training tend to sustain improvements past the grant period, while districts that invested in equipment alone sometimes struggle to keep up the practice changes.
A few consistent themes from the grantee cohort:
- Meal participation tends to rise when scratch cooking starts producing visibly fresher food.
- Staff retention improves when workers see their skills growing and their kitchens getting real investment.
- The districts that share wins with students, families, and school boards build a durable base of support for continued improvement.