Bill Overview
Title: LUNCHES Act of 2022
Description: This bill increases the reimbursement rate for school lunches by 49 cents.
Sponsors: Rep. McGovern, James P. [D-MA-2]
Target Audience
Population: Students in primary and secondary schools who rely on school lunches
Estimated Size: 30000000
- The bill is focused on increasing the reimbursement rates for school lunches.
- School lunches are a primary source of nutrition for students attending kindergarten through 12th grade.
- The global population that would be impacted includes all students who rely on school-provided lunches.
- Globally, primary and secondary school enrollment is massive, with billions of students around the world.
- However, the specific impact will depend on whether similar legislation or comparable funding exists in other countries.
Reasoning
- The policy aims to improve the nutritional quality of school lunches by increasing the reimbursement rate, directly impacting students who rely on these meals.
- The policy budget suggests that not all children will be equally impacted; focus will likely be on those in the National School Lunch Program, especially low-income families.
- Creating a realistic scenario requires including both students who are directly impacted and those who are not, such as families preferring packed lunches or unaffected by the cost of school meals.
- Demographic diversity—ensuring interviews from various socio-economic, geographic, and ethnic backgrounds—reflects the differing levels of impact across the population.
- Considering the long-term effects, the policy's impact on health and educational outcomes should translate to improved wellbeing scores over time.
Simulated Interviews
student (rural Iowa)
Age: 10 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I like the school lunches because sometimes that's the only time I get to eat something hot.
- If they have more money, maybe the food will be better or there'll be more food.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
student (urban New York)
Age: 16 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Extra money for lunches sounds good; maybe they can add more variety.
- Sometimes I skip lunch when it's not filling, so more funding could help.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
teacher (suburban California)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased funding could help improve student focus and energy in class.
- I've seen kids struggle due to hunger; better meals might help attendance and performance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
stay-at-home dad (rural Texas)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This won't affect us much since I make lunches for my kids.
- It might be good for others who depend on school meals.
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 |
student (Chicago)
Age: 11 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't qualify for free lunch, but it's nice they'll improve it for my friends.
- My friends sometimes can't bring lunch; better lunches might help them.
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 |
chef (urban Minnesota)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've seen the need for better funding firsthand; increased reimbursement would help quality and variety.
- Improved lunches can lead to better overall child health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
principal (suburban Georgia)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Additional funds are welcome; they will help address some of the nutrition gaps I see daily.
- A good meal can make a big difference in how students perform academically.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
nutritionist (urban California)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased reimbursement is a step in the right direction to combat child malnutrition.
- Proper nutrition is critical for growth and cognitive development.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
truck driver (suburban Ohio)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Extra funding could mean more nutritious meals, which I'd welcome for my children's health.
- Sometimes my kids complain about meals not being enough, so more funding might help.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
retired (rural Alabama)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More funds for school lunches would ease my worries about my grandchildren getting enough to eat.
- Better food at school means less stress for us at home.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2646000000 (Low: $2381400000, High: $2910600000)
Year 2: $2672460000 (Low: $2405214000, High: $2939706000)
Year 3: $2699184600 (Low: $2429266140, High: $2969103060)
Year 5: $2754090522 (Low: $2482168470, High: $3025972574)
Year 10: $2869865373 (Low: $2582878835, High: $3156851910)
Year 100: $4362279820 (Low: $3926051838, High: $4798507802)
Key Considerations
- The increased reimbursement rate could help schools provide higher quality and more nutritious meals.
- Over time, incentivizing nutritional improvements might reduce healthcare costs related to poor childhood nutrition.
- The cost calculations assume full participation across eligible students, which might vary.
- Inflation adjustments are needed over time to ensure continued effectiveness of increased reimbursements.