Bill Overview
Title: No Hungry Kids in Schools Act
Description: This bill modifies the school meal programs of the Department of Agriculture to establish an option for states to utilize a statewide community eligibility program for certain special assistance payments.
Sponsors: Rep. Porter, Katie [D-CA-45]
Target Audience
Population: Children in schools globally
Estimated Size: 15000000
- The bill focuses on school meal programs, which will primarily impact children in schools.
- School meal programs typically serve children from low-income families who rely on school meals for daily nutrition.
- Children in schools whose states decide to opt into the statewide community eligibility program will benefit directly.
- Schools and school districts will also be impacted as they will need to adjust administrative and food service practices accordingly.
- Parents and families of impacted children might also experience secondary effects, such as reduced financial strain.
- The employees and contractors involved in managing, distributing, and preparing school meals may see changes in their roles or volume of work.
Reasoning
- The policy focuses on improving nutrition for students from low-income families by enhancing the school meal programs. The primary beneficiaries are children in public schools, particularly those who rely on school meals.
- The policy, with a budget of $500,000,000 in year one and $5.9 billion over ten years, aims to ensure that a significant portion of the 30 million children currently participating in the National School Lunch Program receive meals without the stigma of payment and income verification.
- Secondary beneficiaries include parents who may face reduced financial strain and schools which will have to adjust their administration and operations accordingly.
- Given the budget constraints, the policy will likely prioritize schools in low-income areas or with higher needs, impacting around 15 million children in the U.S. over time.
Simulated Interviews
Student (Rural Alabama)
Age: 10 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm happy because it would mean more meals for me and my friends.
- I won't have to worry about not having lunch money.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Student (Urban New York)
Age: 14 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's good because now I don't need to worry about asking my parents for lunch money every day.
- I think this will help a lot of my friends too.
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 | 8 | 7 |
School Administrator (Suburban Colorado)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see the strain on our resources and families every day.
- This policy would streamline processes and eliminate a lot of paperwork.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Parent (Rural Kentucky)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I won't have to worry about saving up every month for school meals.
- It'll give us a little more room in our budget.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Food Service Worker (Urban California)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This would secure more consistent work hours for me.
- I hope the policy leads to improvements in what we can serve.
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 |
Teacher (Suburban Texas)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's crucial for students to have meals in order to focus in class.
- It's heartbreaking to see kids come to school hungry.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Student (Rural Wisconsin)
Age: 15 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Knowing that there's always food will make school less stressful.
- I think my grades will improve without the worry about meals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
School District Official (Urban Illinois)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could transform our approach to providing necessary nutrition to students.
- We will need to reevaluate our resource allocation and communication strategies.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired Professor (Rural Louisiana)
Age: 66 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With this policy, fewer families should visit the food bank.
- Education improves when students aren't hungry.
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 |
Student (Urban Florida)
Age: 12 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Lunch is important, and I'm glad this policy will keep it free.
- It feels good to know that meals will continue without worrying my parents.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Year 2: $520000000 (Low: $420000000, High: $630000000)
Year 3: $540000000 (Low: $440000000, High: $650000000)
Year 5: $580000000 (Low: $470000000, High: $700000000)
Year 10: $680000000 (Low: $550000000, High: $830000000)
Year 100: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1200000000)
Key Considerations
- Implementation efficiency will vary by state, potentially impacting effectiveness and cost.
- The uptake of the statewide community eligibility option by states will determine actual costs and savings experienced.
- Equity in access to meals might foster political and community support.
- Costs could rise if food prices increase or more states take up the option than anticipated.