School meal programs in the United States
These free or subsidized meals have the potential to increase household food security, which can improve children's health and expand their educational opportunities.
[6] Hungry children are much more likely to have clinical levels of psychosocial dysfunction,[7] and they show more anxious, irritable, aggressive, and oppositional behaviors than peers whose families are low-income but food-secure.
As early as the late 19th century, cities such as Boston and Philadelphia operated independent school lunch programs, with the assistance of volunteers or charities.
In 1962, Congress amended the NSLP, changing it from a distributor of state-regulated grant aid to a permanently funded meal reimbursement program.
In 1969, President Richard Nixon pushed Congress to provide funding for school lunches beyond the reimbursement program, declaring, "The time has come to end hunger in America."
Dietary guidelines were proposed to take effect in 1996, and the USDA launched the Healthy School Meals Initiative to improve nutritional education for school-age children.
[12] In 2004, as the childhood obesity crisis came into national focus, the USDA urged school districts to establish wellness policies and initiatives tailored to local needs.
The USDA regulations were intended to strengthen nutritional education nationwide while giving schools the autonomy to decide what types of foods could be sold in their cafeterias and vending machines.
"[citation needed] In 2010, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act made the most sweeping changes in the history of the NSLP, putting vending-machine snacks and à la carte menu items under federal regulation for the first time.
Championed by First Lady Michelle Obama and directed by the USDA, the law established guidelines requiring more fruits, vegetables, and whole grains in school meals.
The Keep Kids Fed Act, signed in June 2022, ended universal eligibility,[18] but maintained temporary suspension of nutrition requirements (to accommodate supply chain issues) and on-campus delivery.
[19] With federal support uncertain and eventually ending, some states began using their own funds for an extension of pandemic-era free universal school lunches.
[20] As of August 2023, a total of eight states funded permanent universal free school lunch, with the addition of Colorado, Massachusetts,[21] Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Vermont.
The state official in charge of the NSLP works with individual school districts to make sure each lunchroom worker receives the necessary information and supplies.
School districts that choose to participate in the NSLP follow specific guidelines and receive federal subsidies for each meal they serve.
[23] The SBP works in essentially the same way as the NSLP: Participating schools receive cash subsidies from the USDA for every meal they serve.
A report by the USDA's Economic Research Service in July 2008 suggested: "Cost pressures may be a barrier to improving school menus in some cases.
Additionally, her research, which relied on data from 2005 and 2006, is now outdated, and Newman acknowledged that "another important caveat is that the foods served in schools have changed since 2005".
Private food service companies have much greater purchasing power than school districts and are able to save money by providing fewer benefits and lower salaries to their employees.
In return, they must serve lunches that meet federal nutritional requirements, and they must offer free or reduced-price meals to eligible children.
As a result, the program switched to a direct certification process, in which schools can use documentation from local or state welfare agencies to demonstrate their eligibility.
Despite a lack of cooperation between the NSLP and some welfare agencies, the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) found that direct certification significantly increased the number of participants.
David Bass wrote in 2009 that the problem was not simply an innocent one, but involved a calculated effort by school districts to commit fraud.
He argued that, because "state governments dole out benefits according to free and reduced-price lunch percentages ... local school districts have a clear incentive to register as many students in the NSLP as possible".
Bass found that some school districts that wanted to verify higher percentages of applications were threatened with legal action from the federal government.
According to military officials at the time, a large number of young men in the United States were not fit for active duty because of undernourishment.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), for instance, the percentage of overweight children between the ages of six and eleven in 2003-04 was more than double that of the late 1970s.
[43] The USDA does place some restrictions on competitive foods, requiring them to contain at least 5% of the recommended daily allowance of a number of specific nutrients, including protein and certain vitamins.
[11] An article in The Wilson Quarterly in 2011 described the impact of the NSLP in the Maplewood–Richmond Heights School District in the St. Louis suburbs, where participation in the program is increasing.
The article continued: "It takes a tough-minded school leader to assert that nutrient-rich food is the right choice for kids—and that it's an appropriate use of government dollars.
