The children left behind by free lunch programs, and the proposed $250M solution
This story first appeared in How We Care, a weekly newsletter by Spotlight PA featuring original reporting and perspectives on how we care for one another at all stages of life. Sign up for free here.
When Angela Girol's students started getting free breakfast and lunch in 2020, the fourth grade teacher saw huge improvements in their focus and mood.
'[I'll be] standing in the hall, and they'll come up and give you a hug, because they're happy, and their tummies are full, instead of just walking by you and not looking at you, because they're hungry,' said Girol, who works in suburban Pittsburgh.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture funded these meals during the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic, suspending income rules so all K-12 students in the U.S. could eat breakfast and lunch at no cost.
After the federal support ended in June 2022, Pennsylvania continued to provide free breakfast at public schools but went back to charging students for lunch depending on their income.
Federal meal programs still waive costs for the state's poorest children, but nearly 50,000 Pennsylvania kids live in households with incomes just outside the range to qualify for even reduced lunch. Other families that can receive this aid are too embarrassed to admit they need assistance and choose not to apply.
This results in some students going hungry, putting them at greater risk of bad grades, suspensions, and illness. If they eat a school meal that they can't afford, they risk incurring debt and shame.
The solution to this knot of economic, health, and caregiving problems, advocates argue, is universal free lunch.
Last session, state Rep. Emily Kinkead (D., Allegheny) introduced a bill that would provide free school lunch to all kids regardless of their family income, and another that would erase meal debt. She plans to reintroduce both, and argues free lunch would help students now and far into the future.
'It's a really simple, really basic way of addressing a lot of the issues that contribute to kids not becoming successful adults,' she told Spotlight PA.
During the 2022-23 school year, 56.6% of Pennsylvania's public school children qualified for free or reduced lunch, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.
Based on current participation, Kinkead said her free lunch bill would cost roughly $250 million per year if federal funding levels remain unchanged. There's a possibility that Congress will cut funding to the USDA's nutrition program for K-12 schools in low-income areas. If this happens, Kinkead estimated that providing free lunch could cost Pennsylvania taxpayers as much as $500 million a year.
The universal school lunch bill died in a Democratic-led state House committee last session. The debt elimination bill passed the state House with all Democrats on board, as well as several Republicans. However, it was not taken up in the Republican-controlled state Senate.
Kinkead told Spotlight PA that she's hopeful for GOP support this session, noting previous Republican support for her school debt bill.
'It's hard to vote against feeding kids, but it has to be brought up for a vote,' she said.
More than half of Pennsylvania's 3,200 public and nonprofit private schools are enrolled in a USDA program that pays between 40% and 100% of food costs based on the percentage of students who already qualify for free meals.
At schools that don't participate, annual household income determines whether kids qualify for free lunch. For a family of four, that amount can be no more than 130% of the federal poverty level, or $40,560.
To receive lunch at a reduced cost, a family of four's income in 2024 must not exceed 185% of the federal poverty level, or $57,720 per year. Kinkead said her legislation would especially benefit kids whose family incomes are just over that threshold. Kids in this group — from households neither decisively poor nor middle class — are more likely to not get enough nutritious food.
Unless school lunch is free to all, there will always be kids whose parents earn a little too much for them to qualify, warned Nicole Melia, the public policy and legislative chair for the School Nutrition Association of Pennsylvania, which represents school food service administrators, dietitians, and cafeteria staff.
Part of the problem, she explained, is federal rules for free and reduced school meals don't take into account varying costs of living. Families in Philadelphia and Elk County are subject to the same income standard, a uniformity that overlooks significant differences in the costs of housing and food.
Universal school lunches can have a positive impact on attendance, academic performance, and children's health, research shows. School lunches, on average, are healthier than what kids bring from home because cafeterias must adhere to federal nutrition standards that limit sugar and sodium and require a certain amount of fruits, vegetables, and grains.
On the flip side, food insecurity can have devastating consequences. Daniel R. Taylor, a board member of Pennsylvania's chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics who supports free lunch policies, said in an email that children who deal with the issue have weaker immune systems, visit emergency rooms more often, and experience more developmental delays compared to kids with consistent access to nutritious meals.
There can also be a serious financial cost in the form of school lunch debt.
The Pennsylvania Department of Education doesn't collect data on school lunch debt, nor does the federal government, so the extent of this issue is not known.
When a family doesn't pay their child's lunch debt, school districts decide whether to absorb the unpaid bill or send it to collections, which might hurt a parent's credit score.
'Those are the families that we're seeing rack up negative debt. They can't make payments,' Melia said.
Nick Marcil of the Debt Collective, a national organization that advocates for debt cancellation, recalled feeling shame as a public high school student near Philadelphia. When his father was out of work, his mom signed Marcil and his brother up for free lunch. Marcil said he questioned whether he deserved this support but also was relieved that he could eat lunch and not worry about how it would impact his family's budget.
'I'm sure that it is the case for so many other students across Pennsylvania,' said Marcil, who was part of the push that led the Bristol Borough School District to cancel nearly $22,000 of meal debt.
Melia also saw the effects of stigma when she managed the meal program at Great Valley School District in Chester County.
Before the pandemic, the only kids who got school breakfast were those from low-income families. One morning, one of Melia's favorite students came in late, so she gave the little girl a meal to take to class. But the student threw the food away.
'She was ashamed,' said Melia. 'She was a free student. It was not universally accepted.'
In addition to stigma, there are other reasons that kids go hungry, said Kinkead. Parents might be struggling with large medical bills, or they might be afraid to ask for financial help because a member of their household is undocumented. Others will withhold food as a form of abuse.
'There are a lot of factors that we can't take into account on paper,' she said.
Back in Pittsburgh, Girol the teacher said she'd like more students to benefit from school lunch and thinks providing it for free would help. She sees too many sack lunches that lack the right nutrition for kids to learn and grow.
'You open up their lunch box and it's like, all their Valentine candy and their Halloween candy is in there, and it's a Pop-Tart,' she said.
If you learned something from this article, pay it forward and contribute to Spotlight PA at spotlightpa.org/donate. Spotlight PA is funded by foundations and readers like you who are committed to accountability journalism that gets results.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
When Letting Your Mind Wander Helps You Learn
While you do the dishes or drive to work, your mind is likely not on the task at hand; perhaps you're composing a grocery list or daydreaming about retiring in Italy. But research published in the Journal of Neuroscience suggests you might be taking in more than you think. During a simple task that requires minimal attention, mind wandering may actually help people learn probabilistic patterns that let them perform the task better. 'The idea to study the potentially beneficial influence of mind wandering on information processing occurred to us during the COVID pandemic, when we had plenty of time to mind wander,' says Péter Simor, lead author of the recent study and a psychology researcher at Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest. Study participants practiced a simple task in which they pressed keyboard buttons corresponding to the direction of arrows that lit up on a screen. But there were patterns hidden within the task that the participants were unaware of—and they learned these patterns without consciously noticing them. The researchers found that when participants reported letting their minds wander, they adapted to the task's hidden patterns significantly faster. [Sign up for Today in Science, a free daily newsletter] 'This is an exciting and important piece of work, especially because the authors opted for a nondemanding task to check how [mind wandering] would affect performance and learning,' says Athena Demertzi, a cognitive and clinical neuroscientist at the University of Liège in Belgium. Previous related research focused more on long and demanding tasks, she says—on which zoning out is typically shown to have a negative effect. But the results are not clear-cut, says Jonathan Smallwood, a psychology researcher at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario. 'I don't think that this means the spontaneous mind-wandering episodes themselves cause implicit learning to occur,' he says. 'Rather both emerge at the same time when people go into a particular state.' Neither Smallwood nor Demertzi was involved in the new study. Simor, who studies sleep, was interested in whether participants' mind wandering displayed any neural hallmarks of dozing off. Using electroencephalogram recordings, the team showed that in those test periods, participants' brains produced more of the slow waves that are dominant during sleep. Perhaps, the researchers say, mind wandering is like a form of light sleep that provides some of that state's learning benefits. To better understand whether mind wandering might compensate for lost sleep, Simor and his colleagues next plan to study narcolepsy and sleep deprivation. 'We know that people spend significant amounts of time not focused on what they are doing,' Smallwood says. 'The authors' work is important because it helps us understand how reasonably complex forms of behavior can continue when people are focused on other things—and that even though our thoughts were elsewhere, the external behavior can still leave its mark on the person.'
Scientific American
an hour ago
- Scientific American
How RFK, Jr.'s Dismissal of CDC Immunization Committee Panelists Will Affect America's Vaccine Access
In a striking move on Monday, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., secretary of the U.S. Department Health and Human Services, announced the dismissal of all sitting public health experts of an independent vaccine committee that counsels the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Called the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, the group holds public meetings to review the latest scientific evidence on vaccine safety and effectiveness and to make clinical recommendations for people in the U.S.—guidance that greatly influences access to disease-preventing shots. In his announcement in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Kennedy— who has a long history of as an antivaccine activist —framed the firings as taking 'a bold step in restoring public trust by totally reconstituting the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices.' He also alleged there were 'persistent conflicts of interest' among committee members. Public health experts had been bracing for such a move. 'This was everybody's fear about having RFK, Jr., as our HHS secretary,' says Jennifer Nuzzo, an epidemiologist and director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. ACIP's decisions shape immunization schedules —affecting which groups will be recommended vaccines, when and how often they should get them and whether health insurance will cover costs. The panelists hold three open meetings each year to assess and vote on the clinical use of various existing and new vaccines, including ones that protect people against pneumonia, chicken pox, shingles, measles, mumps and rubella (MMR), polio, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza and COVID. According to the agenda of ACIP's next meeting, slated for June 25–27, members are expected to vote on highly anticipated recommendations that would influence the next winter respiratory illness season—including guidance for COVID, flu and RSV vaccines for adults and children. In response to various questions about the plans for ACIP, an HHS spokesperson directed Scientific American to the agency's statement about the announcement and said the committee is still scheduled to meet on June 25–27. According to the statement, new committee members are currently under consideration. The secretary of health and human services gives the final approval of newly appointed ACIP members. 'I cannot imagine that they could compose a new ACIP that has been sufficiently vetted in [less than] three weeks,' Nuzzo says. 'One of the reasons why there's so much concern right now is that changing the composition of ACIP, potentially stacking it with antivaccine members, as many fear could happen, could make it harder for Americans to access vaccines that they want, that their doctors think are beneficial for them.' Scientific American spoke with Nuzzo about how the ACIP dismissal may affect vaccine policy and access and people's health. [ An edited transcript of the interview follows. ] What is the primary role of ACIP? There are a few features of the committee that make it important. One is expertise. The membership of the committee is somewhat diverse to represent a range of expert backgrounds because when you're talking about vaccines, there are pediatric issues, adult issues—a lot of different types of expertise need to be brought to bear. It's also an independent group, meaning that it's not populated by any particular political party. ACIP's members are outside experts who are appointed through a very transparent, open process, up to a fixed term. These are independent, nonpolitical actors who also have their conflicts of interests managed. Who they get money from is public knowledge. [ Editor's Note: Members withdraw themselves from deliberations and voting on any product for which they have disclosed a conflict of interest. ] How does ACIP make its decisions? During the meeting, [the members] have documents, they have people giving presentations. Sometimes those presentations are given by government scientists who have reviewed evidence, or sometimes [the members will look at] evidence from studies on vaccines. All of the meetings are open: either you could show up in public or, usually, [see a] broadcast on the web. So all of the data that are used in the discussion about vaccines and vaccine policies are made public, and they are reviewed. And not only are they reviewed, but the rationale and the interpretation of those data are public. So the public can see, interrogate, and vet the conclusions and the data that the committees use to base their conclusions. It's a very open [process], and that openness adheres to a governance structure has existed throughout multiple presidential administrations, multiple political parties presiding [over] it. It's also important to note that the CDC director does not have to accept ACIP's recommendations—the CDC director usually does, but the CDC director does not have to. My worry is not just that politics enters into ACIP; it's also just that 'Will the will of ACIP be adhered to?' How do ACIP's recommendations affect people? ACIP is one of two key advisory committees that serve the U.S. government related to vaccines [the other is the Food and Drug Administration's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) ]. ACIP makes recommendations regarding vaccine policies and utilization—and those recommendations are important, not just because they represent the scientific consensus that exists at the time but also because they usually influence people's access to vaccines. One real concern is: if ACIP doesn't recommend a vaccine, insurers may decide not to cover the cost , and some of these vaccines have important out-of-pocket costs. Some of us can afford that, but a lot of us can't. And so there are real issues about who is going to be able to benefit from vaccines, and it creates a real inequity. It may also have an effect on the market and companies' willingness to incur the risks of making vaccines. Vaccines are not like making a car. There are a discovery process and research-and-development process that have to occur. If vaccine manufacturers fear that they're not going to be able to sell vaccines, that people aren't going to be able to access them, then they may simply decide not to make them. They might decide that the U.S. market is not where they want to invest their resources and may decide to instead serve other countries. So it's not just that ACIP provides advice that the American public can use to make their own vaccine decisions but also [that it] is often the basis by which [vaccine] providers and insurers make vaccines available. So it's not just about information; it's also about access. What does this action potentially mean for future vaccine policies? I'm worried about all vaccines at this point. I can't rule out that that isn't just the first warning shot. Some of the rationale around who should or should not get COVID boosters, in my view, feels like an opening to removing the availability of flu vaccines. We've seen the secretary of HHS wrongly malign MMR vaccines amid one of the worst measles outbreaks the U.S. has seen in decades. So I fear that everything's fair game.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Senators grill NIH director in budget hearing: 4 takeaways
National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya faced questions from senators during an Appropriations subcommittee hearing Tuesday, as the federal government agency has taken hits to its staffing levels and grant-making ability since under President Trump. Senators focused on the Trump administration's requested 2026 budget, which calls for cutting NIH's funding by $18 billion from 2025 levels. That roughly 40 percent reduction means 1,800 fewer new grants would be awarded and funded through the NIH and would impact many current grants, according to STAT. The budget also details Trump administration plans to restructure the agency and consolidate its 27 institutes into eight. Congress has the final say on how federal dollars are allocated, so the final NIH budget could look different. Here are four takeaways from the hearing: National Institutes of Health grant awards have plummeted since Trump returned to the White House in late January. One analysis found that the NIH has issued $2.3 billion less in new grant funds between January and April of this year than it did during that same time in 2024. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) questioned Bhattacharya about the drop in grant funding and asked who was behind the decision to terminate or withhold funding. Bhattacharya, at first, tried to sidestep the question but eventually took responsibility for the agency's grant cancellations. 'There [have been] changes in priorities for the NIH, to move away from politicized science. I've made those decisions,' he said. 'Decisions regarding, for instance, Harvard and some other institutions, that's joint with the administration.' The NIH has canceled $9.5 billion worth of funding through 2,100 research grants since January and another $2.6 billion in contracts supporting clinical trials, according to a recent letter signed by more than 2,000 NIH scientists condemning the Trump administration's research cuts. Democratic Senators hammered Bhattacharya over the administration's desire to greatly reduce the NIH's spending. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill) noted that research in his home state has taken a hit and that Northwestern University has not 'received a penny in NIH grants in 11 weeks.' 'I'm very hopeful that a resolution can be made with the universities where those decisions have been made,' Bhattacharya said. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) questioned Bhattacharya over the NIH's decision to impose a 15 percent cap on indirect costs in grant research. Bhattacharya said that he could not speak directly to the cap since it is subject to litigation. Instead, he spoke to how changes in the NIH's grant funding process are an opportunity to ensure that funds are more broadly distributed across the country's research institutions. He argued that the agency's research funding 'very concentrated' with 20 universities receive 60 percent to 65 percent of NIH's funding. 'It's absolutely vital that the NIH's investments are geographically dispersed,' he said. 'I would love to work with Congress to think of ways to make NIH's investment in scientific research more geographically dispersed.' Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) pushed Bhattacharya to answer long-standing questions about the consequences of the Trump administration's changes to the NIH, including just how many staff members have been terminated or left the agency amid threats of future layoffs. Murray also asked the director just how many clinical trials have been impacted by the NIH's grant terminations or pauses and how many fewer clinical trials the agency would be able to fund next year if the proposed budget were approved. Bhattacharya said he could not answer either question but pledged to send a response to Murray's office by the end of the day.
