Bill Overview
Title: Healthy Breakfasts Help Kids Learn Act of 2022
Description: 22 This bill authorizes the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to provide additional food (known as commodity assistance) to states participating in the School Breakfast Program (SBP). Under current law, USDA provides commodity assistance to states participating in the National School Lunch Program based on the number of lunches served. The food may also be served as part of the SBP or other child nutrition programs. Specifically, the bill (1) repeals a provision that prohibits USDA from offering commodity assistance based on the number of school breakfasts served, and (2) requires USDA to use a specified formula to provide additional commodity assistance for each school breakfast served.
Sponsors: Rep. McGovern, James P. [D-MA-2]
Target Audience
Population: Children participating in School Breakfast Programs worldwide
Estimated Size: 14800000
- The bill focuses on expanding the School Breakfast Program (SBP) and involves the Department of Agriculture.
- The SBP is designed to provide nutritious breakfasts to children, particularly in schools.
- Children attending schools that participate in the SBP and benefitting from additional commodity foods are directly impacted.
- The bill potentially makes breakfasts more nutritious by increasing the type and amount of food resources available to schools.
Reasoning
- The policy targets students participating in the School Breakfast Program (SBP) by offering commodity assistance, potentially making breakfasts more nutritious and accessible.
- The target population's wellbeing is estimated using Cantril wellbeing scores, reflecting subjective reports of overall life satisfaction.
- Parents and guardians of children participating in SBP may also experience changes in wellbeing due to less stress about their children's nutrition.
- The policy's budget limits and projected impact on 14.8 million children necessitate a varied viewpoint from both directly involved individuals and the wider community.
- Interviews were simulated considering a mix of impacted and non-impacted persons to reflect a comprehensive assessment of the policy's implications.
Simulated Interviews
Public School Teacher (Chicago, IL)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could make a real difference in ensuring kids start their day right.
- With more resources, our school can provide a variety of healthier options.
- Nutrition is directly linked to a child's ability to concentrate and learn.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
School District Administrator (Houston, TX)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy allows us to serve healthier meals and reach more children with breakfast.
- There's administrative overhead, but the benefits outweigh it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Parent (New York, NY)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Knowing my child gets a nutritious breakfast at school relieves some stress.
- This policy will definitely benefit us as I struggle with food insecurity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Nutritionist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The increase in funding aligns with our goals for improved child nutrition.
- We can diversify the foods offered with commodity assistance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Farmer (Rural Kentucky)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy may not affect us directly but could increase demand for local produce.
- More children having better access to meals is a positive change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
State Government Official (Boston, MA)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy supports our educational and health objectives by focusing on student nutrition.
- The challenge lies in efficiently distributing the resources to all schools.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Parent (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy would mean peace of mind knowing that my kids get a healthy meal. It helps us save a little money as well.
- Food quality matters, and I hope to see fresher options.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Food Bank Manager (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Programs like the SBP can alleviate food insecurity issues.
- While this doesn't directly impact our food bank, it is a step in the right direction.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Graduate Student (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy provides an excellent case study for how nutrition can impact learning.
- Increased resources could lead to measurable improvements in student performance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Entrepreneur (Portland, OR)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If schools can buy more nutritional food, it could mean more business for us.
- A focus on healthy meals aligns with our company's values.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1200000000)
Year 2: $1020000000 (Low: $820000000, High: $1220000000)
Year 3: $1040000000 (Low: $840000000, High: $1240000000)
Year 5: $1080000000 (Low: $880000000, High: $1280000000)
Year 10: $1160000000 (Low: $940000000, High: $1360000000)
Year 100: $1800000000 (Low: $1500000000, High: $2100000000)
Key Considerations
- Estimations assume consistent participation levels in the School Breakfast Program without rapid expansion or contraction.
- Assumptions about cost are based on prior similar programs such as the National School Lunch Program.