Universal School Meals post-COVID 19: A Multiple Streams Analysis
Introduction:
Research on school lunch participation demonstrates that school lunches can reduce food insecurity in households, especially low-income ones. Furthermore, food insecurity in households with children is higher in times when school lunches are not accessible- without school meals, families have to find other resources in the summer and on school breaks.
Students eating these meals have better nutritional outcomes than those who do not participate. These outcomes lead to better health and lower obesity rates, and can have positive effects on behavioral, mental, and emotional health in the classroom. A study of New York City middle-schoolers found that participating in universal free meals resulted in higher scores in math and English, both for low-income and non-low-income students.
Like many social programs, benefits are delivered both through state and federal programs. Much of school lunch funding comes through the federal Department of Agriculture, administered through programs like the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program. Eligibility for programs like these are based on children’s household income level or qualification for other federal benefits programs (like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
However, states vary in terms of whether schools are mandated to participate in these programs, and vary further when it comes to providing additional funding beyond federal dollars. In Utah, for example, schools are not mandated to offer breakfast or lunch, although liquor sales in the state contribute to additional funding for school meal programs. In 2020, these sales contributed just over $50 million to school meal programs; the bulk of program costs are covered by federal funding, with Utah receiving approximately $171 million in federal funding for school meals in 2020.
In 2020, the federal government, in an attempt to ease the effects of the economic hardships from the pandemic, issued waivers that allowed school districts to provide free meals to almost every student. This provided something of an experiment in what a universal school meal program could look like. Advocates for increased school meals hoped that this experiment would last throughout the pandemic, and potentially provide an example model that could transition into a permanent, universal model. However, in spring 2022, Republican lawmakers blocked extensions to the waivers, and in fall 2022 school districts returned to the traditional model of limited eligibility for free lunch.
This is true for Utah schools, who, as part of back-to-school preparations for fall 2022, had to alert parents that school meals were no longer free except for those who qualify for free and reduced lunch programs. Additionally, federal funds during the pandemic provided additional funding to help cover supply chain issues and other unforeseen costs. With these additional funds ending as well, schools are left to deal with increasing food costs.
Proponents of universal school meal programs argue that universal eligibility reduces administrative burdens for school districts and removes the stigma of participation for eligible students. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control identify “preventing the overt identification of students who are eligible to receive free or reduced-price meals” as a specific step for schools looking to increase participation in school meal programs. The Utah State Board of Education reported that participation in school meal programs had increased after universal waivers were issued.
Policy Formation:
In many ways, the pandemic altered policymaking processes by rapidly changing the political climate and highlighting issues that were previously not in the forefront of attention. The multiple streams analysis school of thought proposes that, in order for policies to rise to the point of success, multiple streams of attention and political will must simultaneously converge. These convergent factors are the problem stream, that attention is sufficiently focused on an issue; the policy stream, meaning that there is a viable policy developed that can be applied to the issue; and, the politics stream, which is to say that policymakers have the motivation and pressure to deal with an issue. In each of these streams, the pandemic provided new opportunities and circumstances that created the climate for universal school meals to be enacted (temporarily).
First, although advocates for universal school meals identified the benefits of easily-accessible nutrition long before the pandemic, the economic uncertainty caused by COVID-19 brought the importance of stable food sources to the front of public attention. Furthermore, unlike the economic hardships which normally qualify families for free and reduced lunch, the pandemic affected families across the income spectrum. This sudden shock for families that normally would not qualify for benefits likely created a more receptive atmosphere for universal benefit programs.
Second, a program like school lunches provides a readily-accessible policy solution. In its current form, the US Department of Agriculture already funds school lunch and breakfast programs. Furthermore, schools are already equipped to produce and distribute meals, and to accept federal reimbursement for these expenses. The limiting factor of this existing structure are the income qualifications and eligibility criteria. Thus, to expand the program, policymakers only needed to adjust the eligibility criteria, in this case issuing waivers for schools to provide universal eligibility.
Finally, the uncertainty and universal impact of the pandemic motivated lawmakers to pass legislation to combat that uncertainty and to provide economic and family stability. Paul Cairney, discussing multiple streams, suggests that policymakers attempt to read and interpret the ‘national mood’ when creating policies. At the time the universal school lunch waivers were passed, the national mood was certainly amenable to programs attempting to stabilize and ease household experiences.
With the convergence of these streams, the universal waivers for school meal programs came into existence. Yet the repeal of the waivers demonstrates that while these streams may create a temporary policy window, their temporal nature means that advocates for universal school lunches must find other ways to create political support for permanent universal lunch. There have been attempts at this policy at a national level- for example, the 2021 Universal School Meal Programs Act, sponsored by Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT)- but none have passed.
Conclusion:
This lack of national political support for universal school meals means that proponents have turned to work at a state level. In 2022, California, Vermont, Maine, Nevada, and Massachusetts introduced universal free school meals, regardless of income level. At least six other states have proposed legislation or funded universal meals for part of the school year. Advocates hope that the introduction of this legislation on a state level will increase uptake in other states, as well as creating interest in national policy. This introduces the possibility of achieving universal school meals through policy diffusion. States (or governments in general) can learn from the experiences of other governmental bodies, borrow existing legislation, and utilize campaign methods that have worked in other jurisdictions. Furthermore, as proposed by then-Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, states are the “laboratories of democracy”. Policies that are tried on a state level can prove to be experiments that can inform federal policy.
However, in this case, the experimental value of state universal meal policies is diminished, as the ‘experiment’ has already been tried at a national level. In this case, the more important elements of policy diffusion will be learning from state efforts on how to build lasting, permanent support for universal meal programs.
