Bill Overview
Title: No Shame at School Act of 2022
Description: 22 This bill establishes requirements for the treatment of a child who is participating in the National School Lunch Program or the School Breakfast Program and owes unpaid school meal fees. It also requires local educational agencies to certify certain children (e.g., homeless children) as categorically eligible for free lunches or breakfasts without an application.
Sponsors: Rep. Omar, Ilhan [D-MN-5]
Target Audience
Population: Children participating in school meal programs
Estimated Size: 30000000
- The bill primarily affects children who participate in the National School Lunch Program or the School Breakfast Program, which according to USDA data, included approximately 30 million students in 2021.
- Children who owe unpaid school meal fees are directly addressed by this bill, aiming to ensure they are not shamed or treated differently, significantly impacting their school experience and wellbeing.
- The bill mandates that local educational agencies certify certain children, such as homeless children, as eligible for free meals, impacting all homeless children and others in similar circumstances across the US.
- Homeless children and other vulnerable groups attending schools are often in greater numbers in lower-income communities, emphasizing the broad reach of the impact given the significant number of economically disadvantaged students in the US.
Reasoning
- Considerations for this policy include the target population of approximately 30 million children who are part of the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs. The target also includes specific groups such as homeless children who will automatically receive assistance. This is a significant number given the population of school-age children in the U.S.
- The policy is expected to mainly benefit economically disadvantaged students who might experience meal insecurity, directly affecting their wellbeing. The cost of this broad policy requires careful understanding of its financial impacts over a medium-to-long-term timeline.
- In order to cover the wide target population with the provided budget, the distribution of funds must ensure adequate resources reach areas with a higher density of economically disadvantaged students. The benefits are expected to be more pronounced in districts with a higher proportion of students dependent on school meal programs.
Simulated Interviews
Student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 9 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's embarrassing when I can't pay for lunch sometimes. It would be great if I didn't have to worry about it anymore.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 11 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Sometimes other kids make fun of me because I have to stand in a separate line if I can't pay.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Student (Houston, TX)
Age: 13 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having free meals helps us because I know I'll at least have two meals each day at school.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Student (Miami, FL)
Age: 17 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Not having to pay for meals would make things easier at school. I could focus more on my studies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Student (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 8 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't like when I can't eat the same food as my friends.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Student (New York, NY)
Age: 16 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad it would help my younger brother and sister. They struggle with food security more than I do.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Student (Detroit, MI)
Age: 10 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel more secure at school, knowing I'll have lunch and breakfast.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Student (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 15 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If meals are covered, we won't have to stretch food expenses at home as much.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Student (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 12 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It helps my mom to not worry about extra school expenses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Student (Boston, MA)
Age: 18 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This would have helped me more when I was younger. I'm glad it helps others.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)
Year 2: $320000000 (Low: $270000000, High: $370000000)
Year 3: $330000000 (Low: $280000000, High: $380000000)
Year 5: $340000000 (Low: $290000000, High: $390000000)
Year 10: $360000000 (Low: $310000000, High: $410000000)
Year 100: $380000000 (Low: $330000000, High: $430000000)
Key Considerations
- Existing school meal program funding will be utilized more inclusively.
- Administrative costs could be mitigated by adopting efficient certification processes.
- Ensuring children receive meals without stigma may have important social and educational benefits.