In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, one of the most impactful yet under-discussed policy shifts in the United States was the temporary expansion of free school meals to all K-12 students, regardless of income. This change, which removed eligibility requirements for school meal programs, had a profound effect on food security in households with children. Now, with some states choosing to maintain these policies through their own “School Meals for All” (SMFA) initiatives, new research sheds light on the long-term benefits of universal school meals. A recent study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine explores whether these state-level policies have helped reduce food insecurity among families, particularly those just above the income threshold for traditional meal assistance programs.

The article, written by Kathy Goss for World Hunger News, highlights findings from a study led by Dania Orta-Aleman, PhD, and Marlene Schwartz, PhD. The researchers surveyed over 3,300 caregivers of public and charter school students across eight states during the 2022–2023 academic year. Four of these states—California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont—had adopted universal school meal policies, while the remaining four—Arizona, Texas, Illinois, and New Hampshire—had not. By focusing on families who were not previously eligible for free or reduced-price meals before 2020, the study aimed to isolate the effects of SMFA policies on food insecurity.

One of the most significant takeaways from the study is that households in SMFA states reported lower rates of food insecurity. This was true not only for families who would have qualified for assistance under traditional guidelines but also for those just above the income cutoff. I found this detail striking because it points to a population often overlooked in policy discussions—families who earn too much to qualify for aid but still struggle to meet basic needs.

Food insecurity is a complex issue influenced by many factors, but access to consistent, nutritious meals at school can be a stabilizing force. The study did not delve into the specific mechanisms behind the reduction in food insecurity, but it aligns with previous research showing that universal meal programs are easier to administer and help reduce the stigma often associated with free or reduced-price lunches. According to the article, stigma and administrative hurdles have historically deterred participation, even among eligible families. In fact, a 2021 USDA report found that 34% of full-price payers and 28% of reduced-price payers were actually eligible for assistance but were not certified due to reporting or administrative errors.

By removing income-based eligibility requirements, SMFA policies eliminate these barriers, ensuring more children receive the nutrition they need to succeed both in and out of the classroom. The simplicity of universal access also benefits school administrators, who no longer need to process and verify thousands of individual applications. This streamlining can free up resources and reduce the risk of errors that prevent students from receiving meals.

Beyond the immediate nutritional benefits, the article touches on broader implications for household stability and educational outcomes. When families no longer need to budget for daily school meals, even modest savings can be redirected toward other essentials like housing, healthcare, or transportation. This financial breathing room can make a tangible difference, particularly for households living paycheck to paycheck. Meanwhile, students who are well-fed are better equipped to focus, learn, and participate in school activities, potentially improving academic performance and long-term opportunities.

The policy implications are clear: expanding universal school meal programs at the federal level could be a powerful tool in the fight against child hunger. It could also promote equity by ensuring that no child is singled out or excluded due to their family’s income or paperwork errors. While the initial cost of such programs might be a concern, the potential benefits—increased participation, reduced stigma, and improved educational outcomes—present a compelling case for investment.

As the study concludes, SMFA policies were associated with lower household food insecurity, especially among families near or just above the eligibility thresholds for traditional meal assistance. This finding supports the idea that universal school meals are not just a temporary pandemic-era measure but a viable long-term strategy for improving child nutrition and well-being. With more states considering similar policies, and growing evidence of their effectiveness, the conversation around school meals may be shifting from eligibility to accessibility for all.

For those interested in exploring the topic further, the full study is available through the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Additional resources include the USDA’s overview of school nutrition programs and the Food Research & Action Center’s summary of state policies.

Read more at worldhunger.org