Bill Overview
Title: School Hunger Elimination Act of 2022
Description: This bill revises requirements under the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program of the Department of Agriculture, including by expanding mandatory direct certification of low-income children for free or reduced-price meals.
Sponsors: Rep. Hayes, Jahana [D-CT-5]
Target Audience
Population: school children eligible for free or reduced-price meals globally
Estimated Size: 25000000
- The bill affects the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program, which are targeted towards children, specifically those from low-income families.
- By expanding mandatory direct certification, the bill will increase the number of children who are automatically eligible for free or reduced-price meals without families having to apply, impacting children who are in school, particularly those from low-income and marginalized backgrounds.
- Globally, there are millions of children attending schools who live in poverty and would benefit from such programs, although this legislation directly impacts the United States.
- This legislation impacts public schools directly since most private institutions do not participate in federally run lunch programs.
Reasoning
- The target population affected by this policy is primarily low-income children attending public schools in the United States who are eligible for the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program.
- Given the scale of the program, it is crucial to consider a diverse range of socio-economic and geographic backgrounds to understand the policy's impact across different communities.
- While the policy increases the likelihood of children receiving meals without bureaucratic hurdles, it is essential to recognize that not all students will be significantly affected due to diverse household income situations or existing access to meal programs.
- We will include individuals who directly benefit, those who are marginally impacted, and some who experience no impact due to existing privilege or circumstances.
- The budget limitations require expansion covered in year 1 to particularly focus on areas with higher poverty rates, ensuring efficient use of resources.
Simulated Interviews
Student (Detroit, MI)
Age: 12 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's great. Sometimes we can't afford lunch and this makes it easier for me to eat at school every day.
- Mom doesn't have to fill out any forms, and it's less worrying for her.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Single Parent (Houston, TX)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My kids getting free meals really helps. I can stretch my grocery budget more.
- It’s one less thing to worry about every month.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Student (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 15 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It'll help some of my friends whose parents are struggling.
- I'm glad there’s more support in place if my family's situation changes.
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 |
School Administrator (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy relieves some burden on schools to ensure every child is fed.
- It should improve academic focus and, hopefully, 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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 10 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 9.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't have to feel embarrassed about not having lunch money.
- It'll be nice not being hungry during class.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Student (New York, NY)
Age: 13 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It probably won't change much for me personally.
- But I'm glad for classmates who need it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Social Worker (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a step in the right direction, but more is needed.
- Families need comprehensive support.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Teacher (Seattle, WA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Seeing kids without proper meals is heartbreaking; this initiative aids their overall learning environment.
- I hope the policy also includes nutritional improvement.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Student (Biloxi, MS)
Age: 11 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel better knowing I’ll get breakfast and lunch at school every day.
- It helps me concentrate during school.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Student (Boulder, CO)
Age: 16 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it’ll remove stress for some families I know.
- It’s not an immediate change for me, but definitely a good initiative.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1500000000 (Low: $1200000000, High: $1800000000)
Year 2: $1550000000 (Low: $1240000000, High: $1860000000)
Year 3: $1600000000 (Low: $1280000000, High: $1920000000)
Year 5: $1700000000 (Low: $1360000000, High: $2040000000)
Year 10: $2000000000 (Low: $1600000000, High: $2400000000)
Year 100: $3000000000 (Low: $2400000000, High: $3600000000)
Key Considerations
- Scalability and efficiency of administrative processes for certification.
- Food supply chain adjustments and potential impacts on current vendors.
- Impact on local and regional economies through spending and employment in food procurement.
- Potential public health impact through improved nutrition for children, affecting future healthcare costs.