The National School Lunch Program: An Analysis and Recommendations for Improvement

Instructor Introduction

Despite decades of research, programming, and policy aimed at supporting U.S. households' access to sufficient and nutritious food, food insecurity remains a persistent issue in our country. Upper-level undergraduates in my course on Food Security and Food Assistance in the U.S.(PUBHLTH 323) had the opportunity to explore the complex set of factors that influence food insecurity in the U.S. context, interrogate current approaches to addressing food insecurity, and propose changes to U.S. food policy to improve food security and related outcomes among U.S. households. From day one of the course, Bhaavna invested considerable, intentional effort in developing her ideas for her final paper; Bhaavna's paper reflects the excellence in writing that can result from proactive and persistent effort in one's academic training. In the current policy and economic environment--wherein school meal programs are being actively debated and food prices are undermining healthy food access at a population level--Bhaavna's paper provides a compelling case for the societal value of investing in free and universal school lunch programming.

— Jennifer Garner

The National School Lunch Program: An Analysis and Recommendations for Improvement

Executive Summary

Children are particularly vulnerable to the effects of food insecurity, through food insecurity impacting their educational outcomes, employment prospects, and economic status in adulthood. The National School Lunch Program (NLSP) aims to address food insecurity in children through helping schools provide free and reduced price meals to students, and this program has both strengths and weaknesses. The program has been demonstrated to decrease household food insecurity, which is critical due to the health and developmental impacts of food insecurity. Additionally, the NSLP both improves educational attainment among students and provides positive economic impacts for farmers, local food vendors, and households. However, there are also numerous weaknesses of the NSLP, including ineffective nutritional standards, poor program reach, and students qualifying for free and reduced meals experiencing stigma. 

In order to both build on the strengths of the NSLP, and mitigate the weaknesses of the program, the NSLP should be modified to provide free school meals to all students in all schools. Drawing from data from schools and states that already implement universal free school meals, there would be numerous benefits resulting from this modification. This would increase and improve the reach of the NSLP, through making all students eligible for free school meals and reducing the stigma that low-income students experience when partaking in the program. Additionally, a universal program would decrease costs for school districts through economies of scale and reducing administrative costs, and household food costs would decrease because of the provision of free school meals. Data from the provision of universal school meals in jurisdictions eligible for the Community Eligibility Provision also demonstrates that universal school meals would improve student academic outcomes and reduce food insecurity. These benefits collectively demonstrate the immense improvements in community well-being that could result from modifying the NSLP to provide universal free meals to all schools.

In order to build on the National School Lunch Program’s (NSLP’s) strengths of decreasing household food insecurity, improving educational outcomes, and strengthening the economy, while mitigating the NSLP’s weaknesses of reach and stigma, the NSLP should be modified to be a nationally universal program serving all students free meals.

Food Insecurity Background

Food insecurity, as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture, is “the limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods, or the limited or uncertain ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways” (Economics Research Service, n.d). In 2023, 47 million people in the United States were food insecure, including 14 million children (Feeding America, n.d.-a). Food insecurity in children is particularly harmful, with food insecurity being associated with cognitive problems in children (Gundersen et al., 2015), which can harm their educational outcomes and lead to adulthood poverty (Bradley, 2022). This could lead to adulthood food insecurity (Feeding America, n.d.-b), exacerbating this cycle of food insecurity and its harmful effects. These cyclic harms of food insecurity demonstrate the need for food assistance programming geared at children, like the NSLP. 

History of the National School Lunch Program

The NSLP resulted from a range of political, economic, social, and cultural circumstances, including the Great Depression and World War II. The Great Depression brought new economic challenges that added an additional incentive for federal assistance in both school lunch provision and agriculture. With millions of Americans losing their jobs, the demand for farm crops substantially decreased, depressing crop prices and greatly reducing income for farmers (Gunderson, 1971). At the same time, families were unable to pay for school meals or meals at home, creating a need for food assistance programming (Gunderson, 1971). In response, Congress passed Public Law 320 in 1936, which purchased surplus crops and distributed them to consumers such as schools (Gunderson, 1971). Public Law 320 was a step towards the NSLP, and World War II expedited a transition to a more comprehensive federal program. 

World War II impacted American culture in a way that incentivized the creation of the NSLP. The war created a large demand for American troops, but many men did not meet the qualifications to enroll in the military (Williams et al.,, 2016). Numerous men interested in serving were turned away due to their adverse health conditions, and many of these conditions resulted from malnutrition in childhood (Williams et al., 2016). This hurt Americans' perception of national security and strength, and it incentivized the government to invest in feeding children to create a strong culture of military preparedness and strength (Williams et al., 2016). Both the Great Depression and World War II provided circumstances for Congress to create the NSLP in 1946. 

Key Characteristics of the National School Lunch Program

The NSLP provides cash subsidies and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Foods to schools that participate in the program and serve reimbursable foods. This helps these schools provide free or reduced price lunches to their students (United States Department of Agriculture, 2017). Reimbursement rates differ by state, with schools in Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, having higher reimbursement rates due to higher food costs in these areas (United States Department of Agriculture, 2017). For schools in the contiguous states in which 60 percent or greater of lunches are free or reduced price, schools are reimbursed 44 cents for paid, free, and reduced meals (United States Department of Agriculture, 2024-b). For schools in the contiguous states in which less than 60 percent of lunches are free or reduced price, the reimbursement rate is 42 cents (United States Department of Agriculture, 2024-b). In addition to the reimbursements that the NSLP provides, USDA Foods are provided to participating schools (Nourishing Children and Supporting American Agriculture Nationwide, 2022). These foods are purchased from American farmers, supporting domestic agriculture (Nourishing Children and Supporting American Agriculture Nationwide, 2022). 

Students at participating schools can qualify for free or reduced price school lunches through either being deemed “categorically eligible” or by qualifying through household income and family size eligibility guidelines (United States Department of Agriculture, 2017). Categorically eligible refers to eligibility determined by participation in other programming, like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or through an identity such as being homeless, a foster child, or a migrant (United States Department of Agriculture, 2017). Students with categorical eligibility can be eligible for free meals (United States Department of Agriculture, 2017). For household income eligibility, students whose family income is either at or below 130 percent of the Federal Poverty Line (FPL) can receive free lunches (United States Department of Agriculture, 2017). If their household income is between 130 and 185 percent of the FPL, students are eligible for reduced price meals (United States Department of Agriculture, 2017).

The Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) expands the services of the NSLP. It allows schools and school districts in low-income areas to provide free school meals to all of their students (United States Department of Agriculture, 2024-a). Students no longer need to apply or be determined eligible for free school meals if attending a school that qualifies for the CEP (United States Department of Agriculture, 2024-a). Schools qualify for the CEP if 25% of their students would be eligible for free school meals under the NSLP (United States Department of Agriculture, 2024-c). Thus, the CEP expanded the reach of the NSLP in low-income areas. 

Program Strengths  

1. Decreased Household Food Insecurity

One strength of the NSLP is its positive effects on household food insecurity. A study by Arteaga and Heflin (2014) found that the NSLP reduces food insecurity, and this study also found that for low-income households, paying full price for school lunches is associated with increased food insecurity. A study by Huang and Barnidge (2015) supported Arteaga and Heflin’s (2014) findings, with their study examining seasonal variations in NSLP participation and food insecurity. Through comparing both summer and non-summer (when the NSLP is not implemented) food insecurity household data, Huang and Barnidge (2015) found that participation in the NSLP is associated with a 14 percent decreased food insufficiency risk. This evidence demonstrates that the NSLP is effective in decreasing household food insecurity. 

These positive effects of the NSLP related to household food insecurity are especially important when understanding the downstream effects of food insecurity. Food insecurity hinders children’s development and ability to learn in the classroom (Chilton, 2007), which is especially harmful given the cycle of poverty and food insecurity this can lead to, as described earlier. Additionally, food insecurity can increase risks of chronic disease through the compensatory eating behaviors that can result from being food insecure, and food insecurity is associated with diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease, and hypertension (Seligman et al., 2010). Thus, the NSLP’s effectiveness in reducing household food insecurity is a strength because it can help to mitigate the downstream harmful effects of food insecurity.

2. Improving Educational Attainment among Students

The NSLP is also effective in improving educational attainment among school children. Hinrichs (2010) found positive effects on educational attainment resulting from the NSLP, with there being a significant positive relationship between educational attainment and exposure to the NSLP. Hinrichs (2010) hypothesized that the study’s positive results on educational attainment indicate that the free and reduced lunches from the NSLP incentivized students to attend school, providing a mechanism for improved educational attainment. This strength of the NSLP is important, given the current achievement gap between low income and high income students (Bradley, 2022). Through improving educational outcomes, the NSLP could help combat this achievement gap and promote equity. The impact of school performance and educational outcomes on adulthood employment and poverty further depicts the importance of the NSLP’s ability to improve educational attainment.   

3. Positive Economic Impacts

A third strength of the NSLP is its positive impacts on the economy, on numerous levels. The NSLP aims to increase demand for farmers’ commodities and local foods (Ralston et al., 2008), and data demonstrates that the NSLP was effective in meeting this aim. For example, in the 2018-2019 school year, child nutrition programs spent more than $1.26 billion on local foods, providing support to farmers and other local food providers (United States Department of Agriculture, 2024-d). Additionally, a study analyzing a New York program that increased reimbursements if school districts purchased more New York local foods found that every $1 that was spent by the state to fund this program added $1.06 in gross domestic product, demonstrating economic benefits of school lunch programs (Krasnoff, 2023). This return on investment and the considerable amount of spending on local foods support that the NSLP and child nutrition programs provide demand for farmers and local foods, stimulating the economy. 

Additionally, there are positive economic impacts related to the NSLP’s positive effects on educational attainment. One report found that if the achievement gap were closed and Black and Hispanic students’ educational achievement matched that of white students, the United States economy would grow by 5.8 percent in 2050, which is equivalent to $2.3 trillion (Lynch et al., 2014). Given that the NSLP has demonstrated positive effects on educational attainment, it also contributes to the economic benefits resulting from improved educational outcomes. 

There are also economic benefits on the local level, related to household food costs and grocery store prices. Handbury and Moshary (2021) analyzed the effects of schools providing free school lunches to all students under the CEP, and they found that these free lunches reduced household grocery purchases. Downstream effects of these reduced household costs included a 10% decline in grocery sales at large stores, which led to these retail chains lowering prices, which positively impacted all community members, including those not directly benefiting from the CEP (Handburyet al., 2021). These results demonstrate that even at the local level, the NSLP provides economic benefits for all families, including those without school-aged children.

Program Weaknesses

1. Ineffective Nutritional Standards

One weakness of the NSLP is that the nutritional standards are not effective in reflecting and enforcing nutritional guidelines. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act requires the USDA to update the nutritional standards for the NSLP every time the Dietary Guidelines for Americans is updated, and the latest update was in 2020 (Toossi et al., 2024). These recent guidelines provide guidance that sugars should encompass less than 10 percent of total calories per day for individuals, yet a 2022 report found that 69% of schools served lunches with 10 percent or more of the calories being from sugars (Toossi et al., 2024). This report also detailed that out of the 10 most offered food items during school lunches, 4 included more than the recommended amount of sugars (Toossi et al., 2024). This data demonstrates the misalignment between the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the implementation of nutritional guidelines in school meals, which depicts a weakness of the NSLP. 

2. Program Reach

The NSLP’s reach is also a weakness of the program. The income thresholds for eligibility for free and reduced price meals have not been adjusted at the national level since the 1980s, when the free meal threshold was increased to 130 percent of the Federal Poverty Line (Toossi et al., 2024). Although since the 1980s certain states have increased the threshold (Toossi et al., 2024), the absence of a national expansion of eligibility hinders the NSLP’s ability to reach more students. Additionally, the reach and provisions of the program have declined over time (Toossi et al., 2024). From the Fall of 2011 to the Fall of 2019, the number of lunches served through the NSLP declined by an average of 0.9 percent per year, and participation rates also declined during this time period (Toossi et al., 2024). Both the absence of a federal policy increasing eligibility for the NSLP and the data depicting a decline in NSLP program reach demonstrate that the NSLP can improve in terms of reach and program participation. 

3. Stigma

Another weakness of the NSLP is the stigma students experience related to receiving free or reduced price lunches. There is substantial peer-reviewed research capturing this stigma, with a national survey finding that 20% of parents whose children are eligible for NSLP meals but do not participate in the program cite stigma as their reason for non-participation (Glantz et al., 1994). Additionally, 10% of high schools have a food program design that differentiates program participants from non-participants, such as the provision of a competitive à la carte food program that is generally inaccessible to low-income students (Bhatia et al., 2011). These competitive food programs’ impacts on program participation and stigma are corroborated by pilot programs in San Francisco that eliminated the provision of à la carte foods outside of the NSLP lunches (Bhatia et al., 2011). These pilot programs resulted in increased participation in the NSLP among qualifying students (Bhatia et al., 2011), demonstrating that stigma may play a role in hindering the NSLP’s reach. Another study also supports this finding, with research by Mirtcheva and Powell (2009) finding that school-level stigma is significantly associated with NSLP participation probability (Mirtcheva et al., 2009). Since the NSLP is not a universal program, students participating in it may feel stigmatized, which is a weakness of the program. 

Program Modification

To enhance the NSLP’s strengths of decreasing household food insecurity, improving educational outcomes, and strengthening the economy, and address the NSLP’s weaknesses of reach and stigma, the NSLP should be modified to be a universal program serving all students free meals. 

Modifying the NSLP to be universal in all schools, and not just schools eligible for universal free meals under the CEP, would increase the NSLP’s reach. By having lunches be free for all students, participation in the program would increase (Toossi et al., 2024, p. 30). A systematic review also found that universal free school meals are associated with increased meal participation, demonstrating how this modification to the NSLP would effectively address the program’s weakness related to reach and participation (Spill et al., 2024). Another study by Marcus and Yewell (2022) found that universal free school meals can increase program participation and reach through a different mechanism: reducing the stigma that program participants experience. The ability of universal free school lunches to address both program participation and stigma demonstrates how this would be a strong modification to the NSLP. 

Additionally, this modification to the NSLP would strengthen the program’s economic impacts, both at the school district and household level. Given that a universal NSLP would increase participation rates, there would be a greater chance for economies of scale and school districts’ fixed costs being spread among more students participating in food programming, thus giving schools more budgetary flexibility (Toossi et al., 2024, p. 28). Additionally, through making all students eligible for the NSLP, a universal program would decrease administrative costs for school districts related to determining eligibility (Toossi et al., 2024, p. 30). With school districts no longer having to use time and resources to determine which students would be eligible for free or reduced price lunches, they can save costs (Toossi et al., 2024, p. 30). These savings in time and resources could also be used for other school initiatives, like improving school meal nutritional quality, which would address another current weakness of the NSLP. Studies also support these savings for school districts resulting from universal school meals, with one systematic review finding that lower-income school districts can have positive financial outcomes stemming from the provision of universal school meals (Cohen et al., 2021). Modifying the NSLP to be universal would decrease costs for school districts, building on the already positive economic impact of the NSLP. 

Households will also experience economic benefits from a universally free NSLP. A universally free program for all households would decrease the financial burden on families by alleviating the need to pay for school lunches and eliminating existing unpaid meal charges (Toossi et al., 2024, p. 30). This decreased financial burden for households has been quantified, through analyzing the impact of the CEP on households (Marcus et al., 2022). For households exposed to universal school meals through the CEP, monthly food purchase costs decreased by $11 (Marcus et al., 2022). Additionally, this decrease in household food costs has been demonstrated to cause a decrease in grocery store prices, providing benefits to all households in communities with free school lunches (Handbury et al., 2021). These economic benefits at the household level demonstrate another benefit of modifying the NSLP to be universally free for all students. 

This program modification would also strengthen the NSLP’s impacts on food insecurity and academic achievement. There is substantial evidence supporting that universal school meals through the CEP decrease household food insecurity (Marcus et al., 2022; Cohen et al., 2021). Furthermore, in states that already provide statewide universal free school meals, compared to states that do not, households are less likely to report that their children often or sometimes do not have enough to eat (Toossi et al., 2024, p. 30). Universal free school meals also improve academic outcomes, with free school lunch programs in New York City middle schools leading to improvements in math and English language arts test scores (Schwartz et al., 2020). A systematic review also supports this positive impact on academic performance (Cohen et al., 2021). Improving impacts on food insecurity and academic outcomes are two other key reasons for modifying the NSLP to be universal and free. 

Conclusion

The NSLP aims to address food insecurity and improve educational outcomes, yet limitations in the program’s reach hinder its ability to positively impact households. Although the CEP allows for the universal implementation of free school meals in certain districts, not all districts and not all households qualify for the CEP. The NSLP should be amended to provide free lunches to all students in all schools across the country, since this would bolster the strengths of the current program and diminish the weaknesses. Universal free school meals are demonstrated to improve the NSLP’s reach, reduce school district and household costs, lower household food insecurity, and improve educational outcomes. These benefits depict why modifying the NSLP to be free and universal is crucial, in order to protect and improve the health and well-being of American children and households. 

References

Arteaga, I., & Heflin, C. (2014). Participation in the National School Lunch Program and food security: An analysis of transitions into kindergarten. Children and Youth Services Review, 47, 224-230.

Bhatia, R., Jones, P., & Reicker, Z. (2011). Competitive foods, discrimination, and participation in the National School Lunch Program. American journal of public health, 101(8), 1380-1386.

Bradley, K. (2022). The socioeconomic achievement gap in the US public schools. Ballard Brief, 2022(3), 10.

Chilton, M., Chyatte, M., & Breaux, J. (2007). The negative effects of poverty & food insecurity on child development. Indian Journal of Medical Research, 126(4), 262-272.

Cohen, J. F., Hecht, A. A., McLoughlin, G. M., Turner, L., & Schwartz, M. B. (2021). Universal school meals and associations with student participation, attendance, academic performance, diet quality, food security, and body mass index: a systematic review. Nutrients, 13(3), 911.

Economics Research Service. (n.d.). Measurement. United States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved from https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-u-s/measurement/

Feeding America. (n.d.-a). Hunger in America. Retrieved from https://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america

Feeding America. (n.d.-b). Hunger and Food Insecurity. Retrieved from https://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/food-insecurity.

Glantz, F. B., Berg, R., Porcari, D., Sackoff, E., & Pazer, S. (1994). School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants: Final Report.

Gundersen, C., & Ziliak, J. P. (2015). Food insecurity and health outcomes. Health affairs, 34(11), 1830-1839.

Gunderson, G. (1971). The National School Lunch Program: Background and Development. https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/NSLP-program-history.pdf#page=5

Handbury, J., & Moshary, S. (2021). School food policy affects everyone: Retail responses to the national school lunch program (No. w29384). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Hines, C. T., Markowitz, A. J., & Johnson, A. D. (2021). Food insecurity: what are its effects, why, and what can policy do about it?. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8(2), 127-135.

Hinrichs, P. (2010). The effects of the National School Lunch Program on education and health. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(3), 479-505.

Huang, J., & Barnidge, E. (2016). Low-income Children's participation in the National School Lunch Program and household food insufficiency. Social Science & Medicine, 150, 8-14.

Krasnoff, S. M., Schmit, T. M., & Bilinski, C. B. (2023). Economic impact assessment of public incentives to support farm-to-school food purchases. Food Policy, 121, 102545.

Lynch, R. G., & Oakford, P. (2014). The Economic Benefits of Closing Educational Achievement Gaps: Promoting Growth and Strengthening the Nation by Improving the Educational Outcomes of Children of Color. Center for American Progress.

Marcus, M., & Yewell, K. G. (2022). The effect of free school meals on household food purchases: evidence from the community eligibility provision. Journal of Health Economics, 84, 102646.

Mirtcheva, D. M., & Powell, L. M. (2009). Participation in the National School Lunch Program: importance of school‐level and neighborhood contextual factors. Journal of School Health, 79(10), 485-494.

Murray, S. (2006). Poverty and health. Cmaj, 174(7), 923-923.

Ralston, K., Newman, C., Clauson, A., Guthrie, J., & Buzby, J. (2008). The National School Lunch Program: Background, Trends, and Issues. United States Department of Agriculture. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/46043/12051_err61_1_.pdf?v=0

Schwartz, A. E., & Rothbart, M. W. (2020). Let them eat lunch: The impact of universal free meals on student performance. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 39(2), 376-410.

Seligman, H. K., & Schillinger, D. (2010). Hunger and socioeconomic disparities in chronic disease. N Engl J Med, 363(1), 6-9.

Spill, M. K., Trivedi, R., Thoerig, R. C., Balalian, A. A., Schwartz, M. B., Gundersen, C., ... & MacFarlane, A. J. (2024). Universal free school meals and school and student outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA Network Open, 7(8), e2424082-e2424082.

Toossi, S., Todd, J. E., Guthrie, J., & Ollinger, M. (2024). The National School Lunch Program: Background, Trends, and Issues, 2024 Edition.

United States Department of Agriculture. (2017, November). The National School Lunch Program. https://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp/factsheet

United States Department of Agriculture. (2024-a, June 13). Community Eligibility Provision. https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/cep

United States Department of Agriculture. (2024-b, July 10). NSLP, SMP, SBP - National Average Payments/ Maximum Reimbursement Rates. https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/fr-071024

United States Department of Agriculture. (2024-c, February 6). Community Eligibility Provision: Guidance and Updates Q&As. https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/cep-guidance-updated-qas

United States Department of Agriculture. (2024-d, December 4). I’m New to Farm to School. https://www.fns.usda.gov/f2s/im-new-farm-school 

Williams, L., & Tucker-Gruchala, B. (2016, October 27). USDA Foods’ Local Roots: DoD Fresh Connects the Farm to School. Usda.gov. https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2016/10/27/usda-foods-local-roots-dod-fresh-connects-farm-school