Bill Overview
Title: Protecting Kids, Protecting Lunches Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits the Department of Agriculture from establishing certain requirements related to reserved spaces for biological males and females under the school meal programs.
Sponsors: Rep. Lesko, Debbie [R-AZ-8]
Target Audience
Population: School-aged children participating in school meal programs
Estimated Size: 30000000
- The bill affects school meal programs which can potentially impact all children attending schools that participate in these programs.
- School meal programs are widespread in many countries, particularly as part of government efforts to provide balanced meals to children in primary and secondary education settings.
- In the US, the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP) serve millions of children every day.
- Globally, the reach of school meal programs is extensive, especially in countries with established public education systems and corresponding supportive meal initiatives that target school children.
Reasoning
- The current policy targets school meal programs that affect a significant portion of the school-aged population, roughly 30 million children in the US.
- To simulate the impact, I will consider a diverse subset of families and individuals, including parents of children in public schools, school staff, and non-affected individuals.
- Each interview will explore different perspectives, including those who are directly impacted by the meal programs and those who are not, to assess the broader societal sentiment.
- Given the policy's nature and budget constraints, the impact on individual wellbeing might be subtle, but cumulatively, it could affect the trust in school systems or children's daily nutrition, depending on personal values and reliance on these programs.
Simulated Interviews
Teacher (Austin, Texas)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems redundant, as gender-specific spaces aren't usually a part of school meal programs.
- Budget could be better utilized to enhance meal quality.
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 |
Software Engineer (San Francisco, California)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't think the policy impacts my children's school meal experience at all.
- More concerned about tech education programs.
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 |
Single Mother (Detroit, Michigan)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any policy modifying school programs catches my interest due to dependence on these services.
- Changes should focus on nutrition quality rather than space allocation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
School Principal (Duluth, Minnesota)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a misallocation of resources, potentially diverting funds from crucial aspects like teacher training.
- I see no direct benefit or necessity for 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 |
Stay-at-home Mom (Miami, Florida)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The well-being of my children greatly relies on these meal programs and any changes are concerning.
- Focus should be on improving food quality, not irrelevant policies.
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 |
High School Student (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Age: 17 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think most students will not notice any impact from this policy.
- Everyone is more concerned about the actual food quality and variety.
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 |
Nutritionist (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The focus should indeed be on how to improve children's nutritional intake rather than these technical policies.
- I don't see this affecting my work significantly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Policy Analyst (Boulder, Colorado)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- In practice, this policy seems more about administrative clarity than actual on-ground impact.
- Neutral effect on overall wellbeing since it's not changing meal content or availability.
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 |
Chef (Atlanta, Georgia)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My focus is always on the nutritional quality of meals. This policy doesn't address the real issues.
- I believe schools should focus on food, not aesthetics of meal areas.
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 |
Graduate Student (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reflecting on what affected me as a student, meal quality matters more than anything else.
- This policy feels more like a formality with no actual bearing on a child's day-to-day experience.
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: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 2: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 3: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 5: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 10: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $2000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill could be subject to legal interpretations and challenges, potentially influencing future legislative activity.
- Costs related to clarifying or enforcing exclusion criteria may require minimal administrative modifications but do not significantly affect current budgets.