Blogs

This month, the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) published a report, “National School Lunch Program: Trends and Factors Affecting Student Participation,” that examines influential factors and trends with regard to participation in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). One of the report’s key findings is that NSLP participation among low-income children had been on the rise even before the 2010 Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act (HHFKA) and USDA nutrition regulations were implemented. The report also found a declining trend in the number of children who are not eligible for free or reduced-price meals. 

FRAC President Jim Weill told POLITICO that the report’s data “paint a far more nuanced picture: The recession, lunch pricing, and other long-term trends have dwarfed any impact of the school nutrition regulations.” Essentially, FRAC argues that the following factors have influenced NSLP participation more than the USDA/HHFKA nutrition standards: 

• Factors Increasing Free and Reduced-Price Student Participation: The Great Recession (increased the number of children from low-income households); the Community Eligible Provision (CEP); and an “improved direct certification of categorically eligible children” (based on participation in other means-tested programs and the expansion of universal free meal programs).
  
  
• Factors Decreasing Paid Student Participation: The Great Recession (decreased the number of children from high-income households); an increase in prices for paid meals; and sales of competitive foods.

From academic years (AY) 2003–2004 through 2013–2014, student participation in free meals under the NSLP has increased by 4.9 million children on an average day (and this rising trend has been continuous, regardless of the new USDA standards). However, paid meal participation trends have fluctuated; there was a steady increase in participation between AY2003–2004 through AY2006–2007, followed by a 5% decrease every year since the recession hit in 2008 to AY2013–2014. Meanwhile, reduced-price meal participation trends have remained relatively flat over the past 10 years.

The report also provides useful background information on the National School Lunch Program, how students are certified for free or reduced-price meals, the 2010 HHFKA, and the Community Eligible Provision (CEP) for those who want to get up to speed on the nutrition debate. (More CEP resources can be found here as well.) And, based on its findings, FRAC has provided the following policy recommendations to increase student participation in school meal programs: 

• USDA should reexamine the Paid Lunch Equity provision. (Allow more waivers and consider participation vs. revenue tradeoffs.)
  
  
• Ensure strong implementation of the Smart Snacks Rule.
  
  
• Support school districts that are having issues implementing the new USDA/HHFKA standards with technical assistance, peer mentoring, and training opportunities. (For example, programs like USDA’s Team Up For Success can help.) 
  
  
• Improve school nutrition finances by bringing in more students who are eligible for free meals. (Encourage eligible schools to enroll in CEP to offer universal free meals. According to the report, many schools have reported that CEP has “strengthened the school nutrition department budget,” which has allowed them a chance to improve nutrition quality, purchase new equipment and supplies, and provide food staff professional training.)

However not everyone agrees with the report, as the School Nutrition Association (SNA) pushed back against FRAC last Wednesday. “This report ignores the fact that 1.4 million fewer students are participating in the National School Lunch Program each day since the new nutrition standards took effect, according to USDA,” said Patricia Montague, CEO of SNA. While she agreed that economic trends and the CEP have “caused a redistribution of students” from paid to free and reduced-price meal categories, overall participation in the NSLP had still been increasing since 1990. 

Montague told POLITICO, “It wasn’t until USDA’s new rules took effect that total student lunch participation began to free fall, despite increasing student enrollment in participating schools…. More students have access to school meals but fewer are buying them—a troubling trend that increases the stigma on students who rely on school meals as their primary source of nutrition.”