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: Sen. Smith, Tina [D-MN]
Target Audience
Population: children participating in the US National School Lunch Program or the School Breakfast Program
Estimated Size: 30000000
- The National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program impact a large number of children across the United States who participate in federally assisted meal programs in schools.
- There are approximately 30 million children participating annually in the National School Lunch Program, which implies a large scale of impact from this legislation.
- This legislation aims to directly affect children with unpaid school meal fees and homeless children, ensuring they receive meals without stigma or the need for an application.
- Globally, the United States has one of the largest national school lunch programs, but similar legislation may indirectly encourage other countries to adopt related models for child nutrition programs, albeit this particular legislation is US-centric.
- Only children in the United States will be directly impacted by this bill.
Reasoning
- The policy targets children participating in school meal programs, ensuring that unpaid fees do not prevent access to meals or subject children to stigma. Approximately 30 million children are involved in these programs, suggesting a widespread impact.
- With a substantial budget, the policy aims to alleviate food insecurity and stigma, potentially improving the wellbeing of affected children significantly.
- A diverse sample covering students from various socio-economic backgrounds, geographic locations, and living situations provides insight into the policy's reach and effect.
- The legislation's focus is on children with unpaid fees and those categorically eligible for free meals (such as homeless children), likely benefiting them most noticeably and possibly impacting their families' well-being as well.
Simulated Interviews
student (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 10 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Without the policy, sometimes I feel embarrassed during lunch.
- This new policy will mean I can eat lunch without anyone asking my mom for more money.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
student (Detroit, MI)
Age: 13 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's tough but I know I'll get breakfast and lunch now without any trouble.
- I feel more secure knowing I won't have to skip meals 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 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 15 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The stigma around not paying for lunch has been stressful.
- This policy would really help take that worry off my shoulders.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
student (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 17 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Handling meal fees and qualification paperwork is a hassle.
- This program will help ensure I can focus more on school.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
student (New York, NY)
Age: 9 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I like having food at school, it's sometimes the best part of my day.
- With this policy, my parents don't worry as much about my lunch.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
student (Houston, TX)
Age: 16 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Getting meals without shame will help me relax more in school.
- It's good to know everyone gets what they need without feeling bad.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 12 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I won't worry as much about school lunches with this bill.
- My parents don't need to juggle fees now.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
student (Rural Alabama)
Age: 11 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Lunch is often the main meal I get, so this means a lot.
- I can now focus on studies rather than on getting meals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 10 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The lunch program is so helpful already.
- This policy makes sure every kid gets a chance without being singled out.
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 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
student (Miami, FL)
Age: 9 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It helps everyone to know they can eat without embarrassment.
- I think my classmates will be happier and less stressed too.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Year 2: $510000000 (Low: $410000000, High: $610000000)
Year 3: $520200000 (Low: $420200000, High: $620300000)
Year 5: $541208000 (Low: $441313600, High: $641416800)
Year 10: $594465792 (Low: $494932634, High: $694699945)
Year 100: $1500000000 (Low: $1200000000, High: $1800000000)
Key Considerations
- The fiscal impact depends on the number of new children certified for free meals and the administrative efficiency in implementing the changes.
- Variability in costs for meals, influenced by inflation, might affect budget predictions.
- Potential for reduced stigma around unpaid meals could lead to better educational achievements, indirectly affecting economic outcomes.