The WIC Program in the United States

The WIC Program in the United States

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, also known as WIC, is a program designed to influence nutrition and health. WIC is available for low-income pregnant women, infants, and young children. Not only does WIC assist with nutrition, but it also provides nutrition education, breastfeeding support, and referrals to health care and social services. WIC has led to healthier infants and children by providing support to families in need. Administrations and Congress have provided sufficient funding since 1977 to make sure that WIC can help all eligible women, infants, and children. 

“During the 1960s, various studies identified hunger as a major problem in this country. Physicians described young women, often pregnant, in their clinics with various ailments caused by lack of food. In Atlanta, GA, doctors, and clinic staff began to prescribe needed food, and the prescription served to needed women” (History of WIC, 2021). A decade later, the White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health decided to focus on the problem of hunger due to many families living in poverty. Conference recommendations started focusing on the nutritional needs of low-income pregnant women and pre-school children. On September 26, 1972, the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 was signed, which led to the creation of The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). A year later, WIC made two different food packages available, one for infants and another one for children and pregnant or breastfeeding women. In 1998, The William F. Goodling Child Nutrition Re-authorization Act of 1998 required all eligible parents to be physically present, provide evidence of income, and residency. The latest change in the WIC system was in 2010, under President Barak Obama. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act was established for WIC agencies to adopt an electronic benefit transfer system. This system would introduce the debit card system in order to replace the paper vouchers, which had been used in the United States since 1968.

It is very simple to apply and become a WIC participant. The individual must contact their area’s state or local agency to set up an appointment. Usually, when an individual calls to set up an appointment, someone will inform them about the nearest office in their area and what to bring to the appointment, such as picture ID, social security card, birth certificate, proof of residency, and proof of income. At the appointment, the individual will be asked to fill out forms that will determine if the mom and child are eligible for WIC. Next, the mom and child will have their weight and height measured. After all the events above are accomplished or done, the mother will be informed about their next WIC visit, and she will receive the vouchers that fit best to her situation. The WIC vouchers provide food for mothers, infants, and children. The vouchers include foods such as, infant cereal, adult cereal, fruit, vegetables, juice, eggs, milk, cheese, peanut butter, beans, bread, baby food, and so much more. 

According to the article, WIC Works: Addressing the Nutrition and Health Needs of Low-Income Families for More Than Four Decades by Steven Carlson, there is strong evidence that supports the impact that WIC has done on low-income families. “WIC supports healthier diets, promotes breastfeeding and better infant feeding practices, and may improve food security among children. Since the introduction of improved food packages better aligned with current dietary guidance, WIC participants are purchasing and consuming more fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and low-fat dairy” (Carlson, 2021). Healthy eating practices are essential during infancy and early childhood for children to grow and develop healthy. Good nutrition is very important during pregnancy in order to support the development of the fetus and to protect the mother from pregnancy risks, such as diabetes, excessive weight gain, iron deficiency anemia, and miscarriage. Therefore, WIC aims to improve the health and nutrition of low-income women and their children by providing help. 

WIC has been successful due to the help of Administrations and Congress. Both systems have made sure to provide sufficient funding for low-income pregnant women, infants, and young children. “Research suggests that prenatal and early childhood participation in WIC is associated with improved cognitive development and academic achievement. WIC is quite effective in reaching women during, rather than after, their pregnancy: 83 percent of new mothers participating in WIC enrolled during their pregnancy” (Carlson, 2021) Research has provided evidence determining that WIC has been efficient for low-income women and children. 

Works Cited

| By Steven Carlson[1] and Zoë Neuberger, & More from the Authors Steven Carlson Steven Carl. (n.d.). WIC Works: Addressing the Nutrition and Health Needs of Low-Income Families for More Than Four Decades. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/wic-works-addressing-the-nutrition-and-health-needs-of-low-income-families. 

History of WIC. Snap To Health. (n.d.). https://www.snaptohealth.org/wic-2/history-of-wic/. 

Free Universal School Lunch

Introduction

As everybody is aware, it is virtually impossible to create a policy that pleases everybody and has no flaws and/or controversies. This is because of an issue known as inevitable error, which is the idea that there will always be errors or problems with a policy that cannot be solved. Clearly these controversies about policies must be taken into serious consideration and weighed heavily, but they do not always need to make it to where policies are not enacted, but hopefully the cons can transform the policies to better suit as many people’s agenda as possible. In the following paper the basic overview of what Free Universal School Lunch will be addressed, along with the pros and the cons of this policy. 

Basic Overview of Free Universal School Lunch

Poverty in the United States is a serious issue that impacts hundreds of thousands of children every single day. These children oftentimes go hungry while at home because their parents cannot afford to feed them adequately, which is why school breakfast and lunches are extremely important for so many of these children to have at their disposal. Free Universal School Lunch allows for all children to have access to free school lunch, and sometimes even breakfast, which eliminates many issues. One key issue this eliminates, on top of ensuring hungry children are fed, is the segregation of poor children from their peers. There is much evidence that children who receive free or reduced lunches at school are separated from their peers in the lunch line, or the other children are able to see their balance and know that they are either getting their lunches free or reduced, which can cause a lot of humiliation amongst poorer children. This humiliation and segregation amongst children can lead to bullying, low self-esteem and shame.

Arguments in favor of Free Universal School Lunch

Through the free and reduced lunch system already in place, families must meet very strict and specific criteria in order to qualify for these lunches. This has recently become a bigger issue because the Trump Administration enacted a policy that would “...tighten eligibility requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) that could result in hundreds of thousands of the poorest children losing automatic eligibility for free school lunches” (Chaney, 2018). In other words, hundreds of thousands of children will have lunch debt and go hungry at school because the requirements to receive SNAP benefits have been made more difficult, which directly correlates to the requirements needed to receive free and reduced lunches. This issue could be solved if every single student received free lunch. It would eliminate the issues of segregating poor children from wealthy children and alleviate the stress of parents that do not qualify for SNAP and free/reduced lunches from scrambling to pay for school lunches they cannot afford. Another pro of Free Universal School Lunch is the fact that there will no longer be free and/or reduced lunch paperwork for people to have to fill out. According to “The Benefits of Universal Free School Lunch Meals,” 

“...paper applications can yield errors, and some children who need meals can fall through the cracks due to transient families, language barriers and other communication breakdowns. When access to school meals is no longer linked to the application and income verification process, there is less room for error and all children are eligible to eat” (Levin & Hewins). 

In other words, eliminating paperwork reduces the risk of students not receiving free or reduced lunch as a result of errors beyond their control. The system sometimes fails to see where there is need, which can leave people behind, but with Universal Free School Lunches, this issue is gone. Another argument in favor of universal free lunches brought up by Levin & Hewins is that “Schools no longer have to foot the bill for unpaid meal fees or try to collect them from families. This allows school nutrition staff to focus on preparing and serving healthy meals and eliminates a significant financial burden for school districts and families.” This is such a crucial pro because it not only emphasizes the importance of healthy meals for these children, which many of them do not receive at home, but also shows how this policy would positively impact the school districts by saving them time and resources.

In essence, if persons are very concerned about children with low incomes going hungry, and they worry that children who ought to receive free meals at school are not getting those meals, they may prefer a universal free lunch program, as such a program would eliminate the problem of children being financially unable to purchase meals. Such a program totally removes the error of denying services or food to persons who should be getting those services. Such a policy would provide free lunches to many students who do not require such assistance, but if someone is not very concerned with that type of error, then the universal free lunch system may be a favored policy.

Arguments Against Free Universal School Lunch

As stated previously, with any policy, there will always be inevitable error. Free Universal School Lunch is not an exception to this, so it is important to note the injustices or inefficiencies this policy can produce. One problem presented by McDonald, is the idea that Free Universal School Lunch would make it less likely for children to bring their own lunches from home since the school lunch would be free (2019). This is an issue because school lunches are not known for being healthy, and there is significant evidence to suggest that “children who ate school lunches were more likely to be obese than children who brought a lunch from home—despite entering kindergarten with the same obesity rates” (McDonald, 2019). In other words, promoting Free Universal School Lunch, in a way, is encouraging children to not bring their own lunches to school, which means they will be eating unhealthier school lunches and the obesity rates could increase. Another argument presented by Mull, is that the Universal Free School Lunch system creates more people reliant on the government for assistance (2017). This is an issue because the more people that are living on any type of government assistance are less likely to “bite the hand that feeds them” (Mull, 2017), which then makes bigger government more likely. This then leads to the government being in control of the children’s nutrition, which takes away “parental role in a child’s nutritional development” (Mull, 2019). All in all, this is an argument that is in favor of preserving family values, and the Free Universal School Lunch hinders these values.

There are also issues of fairness to consider. The funds for universal free lunches would come from the Federal Income Tax, or perhaps state taxes on incomes, sales, and property. Everyone would pay. Free lunches would be universal, meaning all children could receive their free lunches. The implications are that wealthy children who had no need of free school lunches would be getting a benefit they didn’t need, while working-class and middle class families would be paying for the wealthy children’s lunches through their taxes. Further, if children do not pay for their lunches, they could potentially adopt an attitude that devalued their meals, and they might be more prone to wasting food. Restaurants near schools, where students might frequently go for lunches or after-school food, would possibly see a decline in their business, and the proprietors of such restaurants would certainly perceive this as unfair competition. Finally, school lunches typically include meat, and the consumption of animal flesh is deeply offensive to some persons, based on their religious or ethical values. Promoting the consumption of animals during school lunches may benefit ranchers and large-scale factory livestock operations, but this is an inefficient use of the planet’s resources, and contributes to global warming, so unless vegetarian or vegan options are available, the continuing emphasis on meat consumption during school lunches raises ethical issues for taxpayers whose convictions are ignored when the government promotes all school children to eat animals without paying for the costs of producing such food.

Conclusion

As noted, when weighing the decision to enact or not enact a policy, it is crucial to consider the pros and the cons of that policy. This is to ensure that all sides of the argument are heard and provides the means of altering the policy if need be to eliminate as many of its errors as possible. Free Universal School Lunch would create an avenue where poor children are provided meals without their parents having to worry about how they will pay for those meals, but also promotes obesity in children and is thought to make people rely more on the government. Altogether, the pros of Free Universal Free Lunches seem to outweigh the cons. 

References

Chaney, M. (2018, December 14). Making Healthy School Lunches Free for All Should Be a National Priority. Civil Eats. https://civileats.com/2018/12/14/making-healthy-school-lunches-free-for-all-should-be-a-national-priority/

Levin, M., & Hewins, J. The Benefits of Universal Free School Lunch. CFPA. https://cfpa.net/ChildNutrition/benefits_of_universal_free_meals_7_26_16.pdf

McDonald, K. (21 January 2019). It’s Clear the Federal Government Shouldn’t Be Involved in the School Lunch Business. Foundation for Economic Education. https://fee.org/articles/its-clear-the-federal-government-shouldn-t-be-involved-in-the-school-lunch-business/

Mull, T. (24 February 2017). Why cutting back “free” school lunches would be a favor to families. The Hill. https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/education/321021-why-cutting-back-free-school-lunches-would-be-a-favor-to

Student suggests after Community Eligibility Provision is eliminated, Springfield ought to continue making lunches free for all students in District 186

Dear Mayor Jim Langfelder,

I appreciate that you are taking the time to read my proposal and I promise that you will not be disappointed with what I have to say. Currently, I am a junior Social Work major at the University of Illinois Springfield, with plans to get my MSW and become a DCFS Investigator in Illinois. I am very passionate about this subject, and after reading this, I hope you are too. 

For years I have lived with the gnawing feeling of guilt that there are hundreds and hundreds of children in Springfield that do not receive adequate meals every day. These children live in a world where going without a meal or two every single day is normal, but just because it is normal for them, does not mean it is right. We live in one of the most developed countries in the world, yet we allow our children to go hungry. Thinking about this issue in that context makes it feel like an impossible feat to conquer, and that is why I am writing you this letter today. 

Even though we cannot change the entire country’s hunger crisis, we can take steps to change our cities. That is why I am proposing the policy of Free Universal School Lunch for all children attending public schools throughout Springfield, Illinois. The children that already get free or reduced lunches are forced to be ridiculed by peers (and sometimes staff) every single day because of their qualification for free lunches, and the ones that have lunch debt, that their parents cannot pay, are oftentimes made to eat nothing but a cold sandwich and a milk. 

After reading the article “America’s New School Lunch Policy: Punishing Hungry Students for Their Parents Poverty,” Steven Singer elaborates on a few ideas policymakers have had to punish poor parents for their child’s lunch debt. One policy was created by the Trump Administration and was “a plan to tighten eligibility requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) that could result in hundreds of thousands of the poorest children losing automatic eligibility for free school lunches,” which makes no sense because, although it is punishing parents, this will only create more families with lunch debt. Another ridiculous idea is forcing children whose parents cannot pay their lunch debt to be put in foster homes (Steven Singer describes how school officials in Wyoming Valley West school district in Pennsylvania warned parents that they could be taken to dependency court if they did not pay school lunch debts, and threatened that a plausible result could be having their children placed in foster care). As if our country does not already have a serious enough issue with too many children in the foster care system. Finally, “the [Pennsylvania] state legislature even voted in June to reinstate lunch shaming—the practice of denying lunch or providing low-cost meals to students with unpaid lunch bills’ (Singer). That just proves how little Pennsylvania cares for its children, the literal future of this country. But, I hope Illinois is different.  

So, why should you consider consider implementing healthy Universal Free School Lunches in the city of Springfield, Illinois?

For many children, school lunch is the only nutrition they receive. Yet just recently, the Trump Administration posed to “...lower nutrition standards for the National School Lunch Program...” which only hinders the “...13 million or more children living in food-insecure households” that may only get their school lunch as a meal in any given day (M. Carney). The idea that our children matter so little to this administration that they will take away nutritious meals to save a buck is absolutely beyond my comprehension. It proves where their priorities lie, which is not in humanity, but rather in the economy. I’m glad that you are not like them.

Implementing Universal Free School Lunch in Springfield would not only improve the “health and nutrition” of our children but would also save us from the issues of student lunch debt and humiliating children whose parents cannot afford to pay for their lunches (M. Carney). It probably comes as no surprise that schools segregate the children who have free or reduced lunches from their peers. I myself experienced this segregation. When I was growing up, I received free lunches, and I remember my peers being aware of this because the kids that had free or reduced lunches were forced to stand at the back of the line. I am still unaware as to why my school did this, but sometimes I feel as if they were somehow punishing us for our parent’s poverty. As I got older, we began scanning our fingers to get our lunches, and all the kids who had free lunches did not have to scan their fingers – again reiterating the fact that we were poor. On top of this humiliation, I had to watch my mother struggle to put adequate meals on the table for my sister and me while she oftentimes had to go without. So, the fact that my school was humiliating me for poverty that was beyond my control while I also had to watch my family struggle to make ends meet, showed me how little the adults running the system care about children. These experiences I had as a child are why I am so passionate about providing a system that not only provides adequate and healthy meals for its children but also saves families the burden and embarrassment of applying for free or reduced lunches.

On top of saving families from these burdens, Universal Free School Lunches benefit the schools as well. This may not seem true because the money for these lunches must come from somewhere and people automatically assume it would be coming out of the school districts pocket. According to the article “Universal Free School Meals: Comparing Funding Options to Create Hunger-Free Schools,” there are three different school meal funding options that would provide healthy and free meals for all children (Universal 1). In other words, there are options that provide the funding schools need for this, at no cost to them, with other benefits included. Some of these benefits are reduced or eliminated stigma, elimination of the financial barrier of paying for school meals, reduction in paperwork for school nutrition staff, streamlined meal service operations, elimination of the hassle of dealing with unpaid meal debt, and fewer students turned away due to inability to pay (Universal 1). This funding not only directly helps the kids and their families, but also helps save the schools from the immense burden of the free and reduced lunch system. 

The first funding, according to this article, is the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), which gives “high-poverty schools... when the identified student percentage is at least 40%...” the funding to feed the students both breakfast and lunch for free (Universal 1). This would help in Springfield because in school district 186 we have 55.4% of our children described as low-income (see the School Report Card from the IBSE at https://www.illinoisreportcard.com/district.aspx?districtid=51084186025&source=studentcharacteristics&source2=lowincome). CEP would also make it easier on the school itself because they would no longer have to worry about lunch debt and free/reduced lunch paperwork. There is no impact on education funds because 

“Schools are federally reimbursed based on the Identified Student Percentage (ISP). The ISP is multiplied by 1.6 to determine the percentage of meals served that will be reimbursed at the federal free meal rate. The remainder of meals served will be reimbursed at the federal paid meal rate. A group of schools using CEP receives school meal reimbursements based on the total enrollment and total ISPs of all schools in the group” (Universal 2).

In other words, all of the money used on the meals will be fully reimbursed at no cost to the school. This is a viable option, the only problem being that not every school in Springfield would apply, just the schools where over 40% of the student body is living in poverty.

Here are the percentages of low-income students at the middle schools and high schools in District 186:

19%   Iles Elementary (which has a middle school program): 32%  Springfield High School 48% Franklin Middle School (541 students) 56% Springfield Southeast High School63% Lanphier High School 61% Grant Middle School 71% Springfield Learning Academy73% Jefferson Middle School 74% Washington Middle School

The second funding, called Provision 2, allows all school districts to be eligible to give their students free breakfast and/or lunch (Universal 1). This is obviously different from CEP because it does not exclude any district. Again, schools would no longer have to worry about the tedious paperwork of free and reduced lunch. This is a good option because there could be a lot of children in districts that CEP excludes that need the free lunches even if majority of their peers do not. There is no impact on education funding because

“In the first/base year, schools count the meals served by fee category (free, reduced-price, or paid) and determine the percentage of meals served in each fee category. All meals are offered at no cost to all students during the first/base year. In years 2-4, schools receive reimbursement based on the percentage of meals served in each fee category during the base year” (Universal 2).

In other words, these schools are reimbursed for the free lunches offered to all students regardless of whether they are free, reduced, or paid. Again, this option is different from CEP because it offers funding to any school district that wants it, rather than solely on the districts that are “-high-poverty" (Universal 2).

The third provision, called Non-Pricing, allows any school district eligibility to offer its students free breakfast and/or lunch (Universal 1). This is different from CEP but the same as Provision 2. Like the other two, schools would no longer have to worry about student lunch debt and free/reduced lunch paperwork. Schools are federally reimbursed for meals “... based on the number of meals served in each of the fee categories (free, reduced-price, and paid). No fees are collected from students” (Universal 2). In other words, the schools will be reimbursed for the meals, regardless of whether the student falls into the category of free, reduced, or paid lunches. The only issue with Non-Pricing is that there is a possibility that it could potentially impact education funding. 

Without a doubt, there are provisions that schools can use in order to provide their students with free meals at school, at no cost to the school. On top of this no-cost for the school, it helps erase the burden lunch debt has on schools and eliminates the extra-work of paperwork dietary staff must deal with. Students would no longer have to be humiliated if they received free or reduced lunches, and kids that somehow do not qualify that need to qualify, would no longer have the burden of receiving inadequate meals (cold sandwich and milk) because their parent cannot afford to pay their lunch fines.

This is a policy that I would very much like you to consider because, unlike our federal government, you can choose to care more about the people than ‘the money.’ Students, regardless of their parent’s poverty, should be provided adequate and nutritious meals. Rather than having ridiculous guidelines on free or reduced lunch eligibility, that some students who need it do not receive because guidelines are so strict, we should be providing all students with universal free school lunch. It is obvious that there is immense poverty riddled throughout Springfield, and this is one step we can take to release some burden off of parent’s shoulders. 

Thank you so much for your time and consideration of this policy,

Here are some more numbers to think concretely about this issue.

Springfield’s District has 14,063 students, and 55% of those are low income students (from households with income low enough to receive free meals or reduced-price 40¢ meals). The income threshold for free meals is 130% of poverty, and the threshold for 40¢ meals is 185% of poverty.  For a single parent with one child in school, the thresholds in 2020 would be $1,828 per month for free lunches and $2,658 per month for reduced price lunches. Assuming those single parents were working full time, for 155 hours per month, their hourly wages would be below $12.05 per hour to get free lunches and below $17.15 per hour to get the reduced priced lunches for their child.

  https://www.fdacs.gov/Food-Nutrition/Nutrition-Programs/National-School-Lunch-Program/Financial-Management/Reimbursement-Rates 

Currently, the Federal government supports school lunches with about $3.42 per child who gets a free lunch, $3.02 for children who get reduced-priced lunches, and $0.33 for students who pay for their own school lunches (the kids making fun of those who got free lunches didn’t really know that the government was paying over 30¢ to keep their lunch costs down, did they?)  Assume that the 55% of students in 186 are divided with 91% of those getting free lunches and 9% getting reduced priced lunches, (that estimate is based on the fact that nationally there are 20.2 million free lunches and 1.8 million reduced price lunches and 7.7 million full price lunches, for which the government is subsidizing about 32¢ per meal, served each day in the USA (https://schoolnutrition.org/aboutschoolmeals/schoolmealtrendsstats/) 

That would mean each day 7,102 students are getting free lunches and 633 are getting reduced-price lunches. Assume 3/4 of the remaining children buy school lunches at full price (and others bring lunches from home instead of buying school lunches), and that means 4,726 buy “full price” lunches at $3.42 per meal and 1,582 bring meals made at home.  So, we get this:

	children	Feds pay	Kids pay	Actual cost to district for providing meals	Net to school per meal	School District income each meal
Free	7102	$3.42	$0.00	$3.00	$0.42	$2,982.84
40¢	633	$3.02	$0.40	$3.00	$0.42	$265.86
Full Price	4726	$0.32	$2.75	$3.00	$0.07	$330.82
From Home	1582	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00

If we provided free meals to everyone without participating in the CEP:

	children	Feds pay	Kids pay	Actual cost to district for providing meals	Net to school per meal	School District income each meal
Free	7102	$3.42	$0.00	$3.00	$0.42	$2,982.84
40¢	633	$3.02	$0.00	$3.00	$0.02	$12.66
Full Price	4726	$0.32	$0.00	$3.00	-$2.68	-$12,665.68
From Home	1582	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00

So, if there were no other sources of income, and meals cost the District $3.00 per child per meal, the district would be losing $9,670 per day to cover the cost of giving everyone a free lunch (assuming there were still about 1,600 kids who didn’t come to school that day or came and brought their own lunches). With 175 days in a school year (https://www.illinoisreportcard.com/District.aspx?source=environment&source2=numberschooldays&Districtid=51084186025) we multiply $9,670 by 175 to see that offering free lunches to all students will cost about $1,692,000 per year.  There would also be cost savings associated with having no personnel collecting money for the free lunches, but on the other hand, the district would probably charge for treats and extra drinks and other things not on the regular lunch menu, so the total cost savings on labor are perhaps in the order of only about 4,000 labor hours per year, which might bring the net cost down to $1,650,000.  District 186 has a budget of $130 million, but the state estimates that it needs $190 million to adequately fulfill its mission of educating all the children.  A shift of resources from where the district had been earning $626,000 per year on the school lunch system, to one where it was spending $1.65 million would reallocate about 2% of the school district’s resources from its education mission to its health & nutrition mission.  If we could increase the school’s overall budget through contributions from city and county governments, or raise taxes slightly, maybe we could raise 3% or 4% of the funding for our school, and then that would cover the free lunches and give us a little left over to help get from our current $130 million toward the desired (needed) $190 million.

Raising the money to cover the free lunches after the federal government stops paying for this would require about $2 million in additional revenue.  That would work out to something like $60 per household (that is a very approximate and rough estimate). Each household in Springfield would pay about $5.00 per month in additional taxes to feed the children in Springfield. Landlords would raise rents by an additional $5 per month.  I think if you explained the benefits to this, and how it helps us create the sort of society we want, you might get people to look at that extra cost in their taxes and decide it is a worthwhile investment, and you could pass a tax increase to cover this.

Looking at the District 186 website, it seems that in school year 2018-19 the school was participating in CEP, and lunches were free for everyone in District 186. 

Community Eligibility Provision (CEP)All schools in District #186 are part of the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) through the National School Lunch and Breakfast Program. CEP will be providing all students a healthy breakfast and lunch each day at no charge to the students for the school year 2018-2019. Although students receive a meal at no cost, they will still be able to purchase extra items (extra milk, juice, water, etc.) at a nominal cost.

References

Chaney, M. (2018, December 14). Making Healthy School Lunches Free for All Should Be a National Priority. Civil Eats. https://civileats.com/2018/12/14/making-healthy-school-lunches-free-for-all-should-be-a-national-priority/

Universal Free School Meals: Comparing Funding Options to Create Hunger-Free Schools. No Kid Hungry. Retrieved February 20, 2020, from http://bestpractices.nokidhungry.org/sites/default/files/providing-universal-free-school-meals_0.pdf

Singer, S. (2019, July 24). America’s New School Lunch Policy: Punishing Hungry Students for Their Parent’s Poverty. Common Dreams. https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/07/24/americas-new-school-lunch-policy-punishing-hungry-students-their-parents-poverty

National School Lunch Programs

Without the National School Lunch Program so many children would go hungry at school. The program was established in 1946 and signed into law by President Harry Truman. The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) helps plan balanced meals in public and private schools. The NSLP helps develop healthy and educational outcomes for students coming from low-income families. Students from low-income families are eligible for the National School Lunch Program. These students receive price reduced lunches or free meals at school. Families with incomes below 130% of the poverty line and receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) or Temporary Assistance of Needy Families (TANF) is eligible for free lunches. Families with incomes between 130-185% of the poverty line are eligible for price reduced lunches. Most of these students are also eligible for snack, breakfast, and summer lunch programs. Schools cannot charge reduced price lunch families more than 40 cents per reduced lunch. Some students are still going hungry, because their family doesn’t know about the NSLP or they don’t qualify.

The NSLP provided price reduced lunches to over 30.4 million daily in 2016 at a cost of $13.6 billion. Behind SNAP in the nation the National School Lunch Program is the second largest food and nutrition assistance program. In 2015-2016 school years, over 98,000 schools participated in NSLP. The meals must meet federal nutrition standards. The program is administered on a state and federal level. On a federal level it is through the U.S. Department of Agriculture. On a state level it is through the State Department of Education or Agriculture. 

The program enhances children’s learning ability by contributing to their physical and mental well-being. It has always been said that students who don’t eat proper meals have a harder time concentrating and learning in the classroom.

Documents are kept to prove the lunch program follows the state and federal guidelines. For example, applications submitted by families for free or reduced meals, by site and description of the follow-up actions to verify eligibility. They must keep record of income, expenditures, along with contributions received. Record the numbers of free, price reduced, and full price lunches in categories served each day. The other record that is kept is meal production and inventory records that show the amounts and types of food used. 

Schools get paid on a reimbursement basis. Agencies get paid by the number of meals served. Schools have to submit a monthly reimbursement claim to the Child Nutrition Information Payment System. The department has to then review and approve the reimbursement claim. The claim then goes to the State Controller’s office. After this the check will be issued. It takes about four to six weeks after submitting the reimbursement claim before receiving the check. 

Student believes policy to change SNAP to food delivery program is wrong-headed.

Trump has recently suggested that instead of giving SNAP recipients more cash benefits we should instead cut the amount of food stamps they receive in half and give them a box of food each month. This would provide food for the poor and hungry people along with making it cheaper for the government, but it is not a good idea.

First off, as it stands right now SNAP only provides the equivalent of about $1.45 per meal per person, that means that each person receives only $4.32 to eat each day. For many Americans that is not enough to be able to eat three meals a day, let alone three healthy meals. Buying a full meal for $1.45 that is not fast food is nearly impossible in America. This means that those who receive SNAP are more times than not skipping meals every single day, or are having to skip full days because of this problem. This will cause a lot of health problems as well as other problems such as being able to function properly during the day. If a person does not eat much they will not be able to focus in school or work as well as they would with a full stomach. This loss of productivity may cost the adult their job if they have one, and if they don’t, it may make their motivation to look for one go down. If anything, the government should provide these people with more money so they can sustain healthier, more enjoyable lives. Providing them with more money for food could possible keep their medical bills lower later on, which would save the government more money on Medicaid. It is cheaper to prevent a problem than to treat one later on. Also with more food security they are more likely to become better members of community, because they would be happier, healthier, and more motivated since they are more stable in life. 

The food box would take away family’s rights to self-determination, their rights to choose what food they want. They may feel more like animals being fed than humans since they would not be allowed to choose their own food which is likely to make them more depressed. Along with that the food they would provide in these boxes would not be healthy food at all. The boxes would contain mostly starches because they last the longest which could make these poor people also become obese and have more medical problems in the future along with lowering their self-worth. 

Other problems may be in how they would receive the box. Many poor individuals do not have reliable transportation to go pick up the box every month. If the boxes were delivered what would happen when the poor person moves because they are often moving to stay with different friends and family members of theirs often. If they have their own living space they are at high risk of being evicted since they do not have much money. How would the homeless receive their boxes every month and where would they store all of that food if they are living on the side of the street somewhere?

In conclusion we should be proving poor people with more food security, not less. This can save the government expenses in other areas later on such as through Medicaid. The miserly benefits targeted for cuts are only $1.45 per meal, and that is not enough money for a meal in America, so I believe this amount should be re-determined and the government should provide them with more money for food. With the money they receive now they cannot eat healthy foods, and cutting that money in half and forcing them to eat mostly starchy food will only make matters of health for these people worse. Lastly, the problem of how would the people receive and store their food each month is also something that would need examined.

As this is only a reaction paper, I would not expect you to make a fair and impartial analysis of this policy suggestion.  Your strong negative to the proposal gets some sympathy for me.  You have criticized the idea of reducing spending on food security by reducing benefit levels and transferring some of those reduced benefits to a program where the government selects and provides food rather than allowing recipients to shop for their food in the normal way.  You criticize it on the following grounds:

1) Benefit levels now are insufficient, and ought to be increased, rather than decreased.  The cut in spending on food security cannot be entirely gained by new efficiencies, and must result in fewer benefits and corresponding poorer nutrition and health for poor persons.

2) Benefit programs are already stigmatizing, when in fact the right to adequate food and nutrition is a human right, and securing it for everyone is a way to enhance freedom and health in our society; but changes in the program of food and nutrition benefits that remove autonomy and freedom of choice from the beneficiaries will increase stigmatization and remove human dignity.  Welfare safety net programs such as SNAP ought to encourage autonomy and human dignity, rather than further alienating and infantilizing persons who are experiencing poverty. 

3) The government could not possibly provide the right foods to everyone, and the government-selected non-perishable foods provided in the proposed policy would likely contain foods that were less nutritious or perhaps even harmful to recipients.

There are also many other objections to the policy proposal, but in a reaction essay like this, you are supposed to only allow yourself an hour to write yor paper, so you did not have time to question many other troubling flaws in this policy suggestion.

There are also several reasons to support the policy, or look at aspects of it with sympathy, or fairly present the arguments and then raise doubts about those arguments.  Again, given the limitations of this reaction paper, you didn't have time to do that, and perhaps you weren't inclined to do so.  But, it's worth thinking through why anyone would suggest such a revolutionary policy change with SNAP. For  example, while non-perishable foods might be starchy and unhealthy, current practice by most SNAP recipients may not be very wise or healthy (on average) anyway, and possibly pastas would be better than what people buy now.  Certainly canned or dried beans and rice might be staples distributed in food boxes, and at least with beans you might be helping people change to healthier diets compared to what they eat now. Do the meat industries and wheat farmer interests, as well as the grocery interests prefer the current SNAP arrangement, and might bean farmers, rice farmers, and nut growers benefit from the proposed change in SNAP policies?