Childhood Hunger Is a Political Choice: It Shouldn’t Be

At the first White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health since the Nixon administration in 1969, President Joe Biden announced his plans to eradicate hunger in the next eight years while also supporting local farms and businesses and reducing diet-related diseases. His policy proposals are sound but the time to eliminate childhood hunger is now.

National efforts are especially critical given recent state proposals that would worsen the current crisis if adopted.

According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), nearly 34 million people — including 9 million children — struggled with food insecurity in 2021. This means that they were unable to provide enough food for all of their members at some point during the year due to a lack of resources.

Childhood poverty and hunger suppress academic performance and negatively affect a wide range of health, employment, and other outcomes across a child’s life span. Even relatively short periods of food insecurity adversely affect children behaviorally, emotionally, and academically.

During the pandemic, the federal government unleased a wide array of temporary, emergency assistance to relieve the effects of economic suffering. These programs provide a natural experiment for understanding the best ways to redress poverty and its associated stressors, including childhood hunger.

Natural experiments approximate those controlled by scientists in laboratories but occur spontaneously in nature and are therefore not controlled by the researcher.

A universal approach to childhood hunger

Research shows that two pandemic programs greatly reduced food insecurity and hunger among children and households with children: the monthly advances that were given to 35 million eligible families (about $250 to $300 per child) under the pandemic Child Tax Credit (CTC) and the Pandemic Electronic Benefits Transfer (P-EBT). The latter gave food stamp-like benefits to families to help replace the costs of the free or subsidized meals that children no longer received during school closings and reduced operating schedules.

The federal government also experimented with providing free school meals to all students under the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) rather than offering free, reduced price, and full priced meals based on income. This temporary policy change, in essence, extended the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) waiver, which allows schools with very high concentrations of poverty to offer universal free meals, to every school across the nation.

Recent studies find that universal free school meals (UFM) provide the same benefits as income-based ones — without the negative side-effects.

Universal and income-based free meals both alleviate food insecurity, reduce poverty, promote health outcomes, raise academic performance, and improve academic behaviors (e.g., attendance and suspension rates). However, school meal programs that are means-tested, meaning eligibility is based on income, reduce participation among eligible children — either because their parents are intimidated by the application, are fearful that the release of sensitive personal information could lead to threats to their parental rights or immigration status, or are ashamed to admit that their children need free meals.

These issues have been exacerbated by political narratives about the lack of “personal responsibility” among low-income parents and the need to teach parents and children that “there is no such thing as a free lunch.”

Some children also go hungry because their families are slightly above the income threshold for free or reduced-price meals but are still unable to afford the cost. Others would rather go hungry than be shamed by fellow students for eating inferior “welfare food” or by cash-strapped schools — some of which publicly shame students to collect unpaid lunch debt.

Examples include stamping children’s hands with messages for their parents, taking trays away from students when they reach the cashier, giving them lower cost replacement meals like jelly sandwiches, or hiring debt collectors to pursue unpaid lunch bills.

In contrast, universal programs raise school meal participation rates among both low- and higher-income students by reducing burdensome paperwork, removing the stigma associated with accepting a “free lunch,” and collectivizing responsibility for something that is now largely viewed as an individual concern. All of these alter social norms.

Childhood hunger as a political choice

UFM is a boon for time-strapped parents. It is therefore not surprising that the policy enjoys widespread support. According to the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC), 63 percent of Americans support UFM despite its hefty price tag (approximately $11 billion to make UFM permanent).

The policy is even more popular among likely voters. A 2021 survey by Data for Progress found that 74 percent (86% Democrat, 67% Independent, 63% Republican) support making lunch and breakfast free in public schools on a permanent basis.

Given such strong public support and research-based evidence on the policy’s success, it is puzzling that Republicans blocked the renewal of UFM last spring. They accused Democrats of using the pandemic to push long-term policy changes and expressed concerns about the effects of UFM on the national budget deficit. Republicans also rejected the less costly proposal to eliminate the reduced-price meal option and create two categories of eligibility: free or full-priced.

This political choice is puzzling for another reason. Hunger is not a red state/blue state issue; families struggle in every community. Nonetheless, the ten hungriest states are Republican-controlled and the counties with the highest rates of food insecurity are located in Republican-controlled southern (87 percent) and rural (78 percent) areas.

Other demographics disproportionately affected — large urban centers and Black and Hispanic households — are more likely to be Democratic constituencies. Children in general are at highest risk of hunger nationwide, but children of color — especially Black children — experience even higher rates of food insecurity because they are more likely to grow up in poverty. Such disparities reflect the accumulation of many different forms of systemic racism, including the Black-White wealth gap.

Along with the widespread public support for UFM, these demographics should be enough to spur bipartisan agreement; however, concerns about the effects of UFM on the deficit are also short-sighted from a societal perspective. They inappropriately focus on short-term costs while ignoring the long-term benefits for society, democracy, and the economy.

Childhood hunger from a societal perspective

A recent study linked the universal free lunch program in Sweden to individual information about school children since the 1950s. It found that free and nutritious lunches had substantial positive effects on educational attainment, lifetime earnings, and health. The resulting increased earnings were significantly higher than the cost of the meals. These positive effects were particularly large for the lowest income children and for those who were exposed to the program at earlier ages, yet even the wealthiest students derived benefits.

Although more limited in scope, studies in the United States confirm that UFM produces broader, long-term societal benefits.

One study found that UFM positively influenced the academic performance of both poor and non-poor students in New York City middle schools. Other research finds that free school meals reduce long-term health care costs by improving students’ physical and mental health and decreasing rates of obesity and chronic diseases (e.g., heart disease and diabetes).

In fact, recent research shows that, across social settings, schools are the healthiest place children eat. This finding is critical because most children are in school for 6 hours a day and, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, consume as much as half of their calories there. For many low-income children, free or reduced-price school meals are their only source of daily calories.

Universal programs are preferable to creating categories of eligibility based on income for another reason. The government has a long and unsuccessful history of using means-testing for programs that primarily serve women and children. Though the primary intent may have been to reduce costs by limiting program eligibility, these programs create regulatory hurdles that increase administrative costs and limit access for low-income Americans.

Means-tested programs are also typically underfunded because they discourage political participation and demand-making (e.g., voting, organizing, contributing to campaigns, lobbying). They do so by stigmatizing participants and/or differentiating between citizens in ways that foster isolation, apathy, alienation, and distrust in government and fellow citizens. Welfare is the prime example.

In contrast, entitlements, like Social Security, create vocal constituencies that have a vested interest in defending, expanding, and improving the quality of these programs.

With respect to the NSLP, the federal government began funding programs to feed students during the Great Depression to help farmers who were struggling with surpluses due to economic devastation. It was in response to widespread evidence of malnutrition among draftees during World War II, though, that Congress adopted the National School Lunch Act in 1946. The program provided a daily meal to over 7 million low-income children.

In 1966, the NSLP was expanded to include free school breakfasts for low-income children, but the movement to provide UFM failed. The income-based NSLP has experienced periodic threats ever since, such as the debate about dismantling it in 1995.

Conservatives have typically used the connection between income and school meals to link the NSLP with narratives about how welfare destroys society by “discouraging personal responsibility.” These punitive and paternalistic narratives are used to justify reducing costs through cuts in services and/or quality, such as requiring that children clean schools to pay for their “free lunch” and designating ketchup as a vegetable.

The ability to link social interests (i.e., the children who are no longer eligible for free or reduced-price meals) with economic interests (i.e., those that would suffer as a result of reduced demand, such as bakers, dairies, farmers, and their employees) has sometimes helped stave off program cuts; however, lobbying by economic interests has also sometimes weakened the quality of school meals and resulted in program inefficiencies.

These developments are unfortunate for many reasons, but two include the effects on national security and democratic performance.

According to the nation’s retired generals, free and nutritious school meals remain critical for national security. Obesity and other health issues are related to poverty and hunger because the lack of access to affordable, nutritious food results in the consumption of cheaper, less healthy options. Nationwide, 71 percent of those ages 17 to 24 do not qualify for military service; obesity disqualifies 31 percent. Tellingly, recruits from Southern states — where both food insecurity and the propensity to serve are higher — had lower levels of physical fitness and were more likely to be injured during basic training.

The stigmatization of low-income families and children and the failure to redress their needs also harms democratic performance. It sows distrust in schools and other democratic institutions and escalates the costs associated with crime, behavioral issues in school, and other negative social behaviors. While teens overwhelmingly prefer to earn money through a formal job, when faced with acute food insecurity, some will resort to criminal behavior, including shoplifting food or stealing and selling items for cash.

UFM would boost democratic performance and foster economic growth by reducing these costs, improving students’ health and educational outcomes, and promoting their long-term economic self-sufficiency. It would also increase social cohesion, social trust, and civic engagement by treating all parents and students with dignity and respect — in a similar way to how Social Security and the GI Bill (the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944) did so among program recipients.

Just as importantly, UFM would help resolve growing income inequality and reduced social mobility (defined as the percentage of children who earn more than their parents) while also redressing the inequities in poverty, health, education, and food security that have resulted from policies that marginalized Black and Hispanic Americans.

With respect to education, academic outcomes are highly correlated with poverty and children of color are more likely to grow up poor. Because low-income students would benefit more from UFM than higher income groups — even though every student is eligible — UFM would decrease income and racial gaps in academic achievement and attainment while still ensuring that all children have the opportunity to thrive.

All of these outcomes would improve democratic performance.

The paradigm shift

These findings and other research support the need for a paradigm shift away from neoliberalism, which has shaped Western democracies since the 1980s and American politics since the Reagan administration, toward a more egalitarian and communitarian approach to constructing public goods and services.

Although it encompasses a number of policies, neoliberalism focusses on (1) the promotion of economic growth through tax cuts for businesses and wealthy individuals rather than through government spending on public goods and services and distributive and redistributive policies (Keynesian economics); (2) free trade and globalization over support for communities and local institutions; and (3) reducing the size and scope of government through the deregulation of the private sector, the privatization of the public sector, and cuts to social programs.

Neoliberalism has resulted in the adoption of public policies that have privileged only a small percentage of the population under the guise that they will reinvest these gains and it will “trickle down” to other Americans through increased employment and higher wages.

Contrary to the claims of policy makers, research concurs that tax cuts for businesses and wealthy individuals have not spurred economic growth; they have, however, greatly increased income inequality (see, e.g., here, here, here).

Wages for most workers have either remained stagnant or declined and income inequality has grown to its highest level in a century. These outcomes occurred even as worker productivity increased and business profits and the stock market boomed.

In contrast, research shows that a more fair and effective way to stimulate the economy is through modest increases in taxes on the wealthiest and corporations — with the government then using those revenues to fund social welfare programs that put money into the pockets of middle- and low-income citizens; these groups then stimulate the economy through increased consumption (Keynesian economics).

The perfect example is the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP; formerly the Food Stamp Program), which provides low-income families with money to purchase food. Numerous studies find that SNAP improves the health and well-being of families and children, but it is also good for economic growth and local economies. Each dollar in federally funded SNAP benefits generates $1.79 in economic activity.

So, what might a paradigm shift look like in terms of eliminating childhood hunger?

Congress would permanently adopt UFM and redress the current gaps in the provision of needed nutrition outside-of-school through a wide range of individual and community-based policies.

About one-third of eligible children live in communities that cannot participate in the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) because the current threshold — where at least 50 percent of the children in the community must be eligible for a free or reduced-price lunch — is the most restrictive in the program’s history. This results in fewer than 4 million children accessing summer meals — compared to about 22 million receiving a free or reduced-price lunch during school.

Although SNAP helps families purchase food, the benefits do not increase over the summer when the 20 million children it serves are home and a family’s grocery bill rises by, on average, $300 a month.

The lack of adequate nutrition during school vacations contributes to the summer slide, where low-income children begin catching up during the school year and then regress over the summer months. Research attributes about 80 percent of the gap in reading between underprivileged students and their peers to the effects of this phenomenon.

Some ways that Congress could resolve this issue include removing the area eligibility threshold to allow all communities to provide summer meals under the SFSP. It could further provide start-up and technical support funding to increase site retention and expansion; allow summer meal sites to serve three meals a day; provide funding for transportation, which is particularly critical in the suburbs and rural areas; and allow sponsors to operate programs year-round by combining the SFSP with the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), which funds programs that serve meals after school yet requires that they reapply to operate summer programs.

But Congress should also increase SNAP benefits during the summer, reinstate the advance Child Tax Credit (CTC), and make permanent the Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer for Children (Summer EBT). The latter is a USDA pilot program that now operates in select states and tribal nations as a complement to summer nutrition programs; it provides $60 per summer month to purchase food — roughly equivalent to the monthly cost per child for the school breakfast and lunch programs.

Certainly, community meal sites are an excellent way for families to enjoy healthy meals together, yet many experience difficulties accessing these congregate settings and will still need increased funding to purchase food.

Studies show that increases in SNAP and the Summer EBT are extremely effective at reducing food insecurity. A 10 percent increase in SNAP purchasing power decreases food insecurity among children by 22 percent and the Summer EBT reduces by one-third the share of children directly experiencing very low food security.

Where there’s a political will, there’s a way

A handful of states have already adopted or are considering adopting UFM; however, the federal government — with its larger and less regressive tax base — is far better able to ensure that free school meals are truly universal.

While Federal taxes have become more regressive due to tax cuts for the most well-off, they are still more progressive overall than state taxes — with all but a few states making incomes more unequal by taxing lower-income Americans more than wealthier ones.

The costs of UFM pale in comparison to the tax breaks adopted by former President Trump and a Republican-controlled Congress under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which largely benefited corporations and wealthy Americans while not improving economic growth. They are also a drop in the bucket compared to the $858 billion bipartisan defense bill passed in December of 2022.

A recent proposal by Iowa House Republicans is another example of why national action is needed. If adopted, it would place a slew of new restrictions on who qualifies for SNAP and what foods they may buy with their benefits.

SNAP is funded by the federal government but administered by the states. There are already limits on what recipients are allowed to purchase at the grocery store. This proposal would go even further by restricting, among other things, the ability of recipients in Iowa to use their benefits to purchase meat, nuts, seeds, flour, sliced cheese, butter, certain types of beans, canned vegetables and fruit, frozen prepared foods, and herbs and spices, including salt and pepper.

Like the refusal of Republicans to renew UFM at the national level, the Iowa legislation is misguided from a regulatory, economic, and societal perspective. It will increase costs associated with administrative red tape by forcing recipients to jump through more regulatory hoops to become and remain eligible for SNAP. It will also harm individual well-being, increase socioeconomic inequality, and reduce economic growth.

The bill is one component of a legislative package that has been drafted, disseminated, and bankrolled by national conservative think tanks and bill mills in states across the nation. That package is part of a long-term effort to focus voters on “wasteful liberal social spending” rather than the negative effects of Republican tax cuts on the deficit, economic growth, and socioeconomic inequality.

We, as a democratic society, should be wary of these narratives and their associated punitive policies for another reason. They reduce trust in government, social trust, and social cohesion — all of which are critical for democratic performance — by pitting the most well-off against the least well-off and middle- and lower-income Americans against one another.

Citizens are rightfully worried about the decline in their economic and physical well-being, but that has left them vulnerable to political candidates that scapegoat others for societal problems and advocate punitive policies rather than working together to resolve the political, social, and economic issues that affect us all.

These claims are supported by research and public opinion polls. For example, trust in government and fellow citizens has been declining since the 1980s when the gap between the rich and the poor began to expand and growing numbers of citizens felt shut out of the American dream and therefore lost their sense of a shared fate.

A more egalitarian and communitarian approach to constructing public goods and services would help reverse these trends by more fairly distributing opportunities while improving economic growth and democratic performance.

Concluding thoughts

The fundamental concept behind a free and universal system of public education is that a person is not truly free if they are hemmed in by the ill effects of poverty, such as childhood hunger, and a lack of education. Society has made the choice to pay for school buildings, books, personnel costs, school buses, sports, and so forth. Healthy and nutritious school meals are equally important as some of these costs and more important than others for ensuring a more socially just, healthy, educated, and productive society.

The well-being of a nation’s children ought to be a moral imperative, but today’s schoolchildren will be part of a modern global economy that requires a vast array of skills and knowledge. They will also be responsible for caring for an aging Baby Boomer generation that currently has a lot of influence over policy decisions and, in consequence, the ability to alter America’s future in ways that help younger generations and therefore themselves.

We are all connected.

The failure to meet children’s basic needs — such as access to stable housing, adequate nutrition, and health care — harms us as a society. Supporting younger generations so that they are able and willing to contribute to the commonweal — the well-being common to all of us — will ensure that the United States is prepared to face the many new and grave challenges that affect us all.

Dr. Jody Longo Schmid is the author of Children not widgets: How to fight and fix the willful miseducation of students and the dismantling of public education. Connect with her here: https://jodylongoschmid.com