Perceptions Of Implementation Of Universal Free Meals In The National School Lunch

Over the past decade, the U.S.’s economic instability has disproportionately affected the families of children from the most vulnerable groups both at home and at school, increasing their risk of food insecurity and malnutrition (Malisova et al., 2021). Before the COVID-19 pandemic, an estimated 13 million children experienced food insecurity; however, with remote learning and families out of work, these rates have likely skyrocketed (Kinsey et al., 2020). Nutrition literature defines food insecurity as uncertain or limited access to adequate food (United States Department of Agriculture [USDA], 2020a). Current statistics show that household food insecurity affects as many as 1 in 8 U.S. households (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2017; Mah & McIntyre, 2021). Students experiencing food insecurity often have poorer health, exhibit behavioral issues, and struggle to meet the necessary developmental milestones required to excel in school (Hecht et al., 2020).

Considering these detrimental outcomes, schools are the ideal platform to promote a healthy lifestyle by establishing secure meal plans across the student body, regardless of socioeconomic status (Cohen et al., 2021). In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA, 2021) approved an extension to allow school meal programs and childcare institutions across the country to return to serving Universal Free Meals (UFM) for the 2021-2022 school year. Current literature shows UFM programs to be highly beneficial in facilitating stronger student academic performance, improved diet quality, positive classroom behaviors, and better school attendance (Cohen et al., 2021). However, despite the numerous benefits of continuing UFM for all school districts, U.S. policymakers continue to view UFM as COVID-19 dependent leaving many students’ nutritional needs in limbo as the pandemic subsides.

Methods

Study Design and Data Collection

The purpose of this study was to gain insight into the perceived barriers and benefits of UFM from the perspective of individuals directly involved with children in school. Participants consisted of school district administrators and school foodservice directors or managers. School nutrition directors were contacted via email using the state directory and asked to respond as well as share with their school administrators, school nutrition managers, and other school nutrition networks. Reminder emails were sent after two business days of participants receiving an email with the survey link. Data collection procedures were approved by the University of Central Arkansas Institutional Review Board. The survey consisted of 34 questions related to meal and snack offerings, unpaid meal debt, and UFM. Previous literature on UFM was reviewed by graduate research assistants and faculty; and any reported benefits and barriers were recorded and phrased into a statement where participants could respond on a Likert-type scale using strongly agree to strongly disagree. After compiling the list of reported barriers and benefits, a panel of faculty researchers and child nutrition directors were asked to review, pilot test, and provide feedback. After this review, several questions were edited for clarity and a free text response asking “Is there anything else you would like us to know about your thoughts on providing UFM to students in public schools?” was added. Once the survey was entered into Qualtrics, the survey analytics tools identified any questions that were hard to read or structured improperly, these were corrected before launching.

An email with the survey link was sent to school personnel from the State Agency contact list. Respondents had two weeks to answer before a reminder was sent and an additional two weeks before the survey was closed. Data were extracted from Qualtrics and imported to SPSS where responses were coded and descriptive analyses conducted.

Results and Discussion

Results

A total of 233 school personnel in Arkansas responded to the survey (see Table 1 for characteristics). Of these, 83 (33.7%) were school district administrators and 150 (64.3%) were foodservice directors or managers. Only 6.9% (n=17) respondents identified their school as Provision 2 and 20.3% (n=50) identified as currently offering Community Eligibility Provision (CEP). A total of 137 (55.7%) were self-operated while 27.2% (n=67) were contract or consultant managed. The average district size was 2,815 (+4543.18; range: 119-38,005) students.

Table 1. Characteristics of Schools and Respondents* (N=233)
Characteristic	n	%
Role in district*
Foodservice Director or Manager	150	64.3
Administrator	83	35.6
School provisions*
No provisions	166	71
Community Eligibility	50	20.3
Provision 2	17	6.9
School nutrition management*
Self-operated	137	55.7
Contract/consultant managed	67	27.2
Other	2	0.8
Size of District
<2499	132	66.3
2,500-9,999	56	28.1
>10,000	11	5.5

*As a result of missing data, some questions have different frequencies than others.

Overall, the responses regarding school meals were favorable (Table 2). Of those that responded to the question, almost all (99%, n=204) responded that students benefit academically from school meals, 95.6% (n=197) reported that providing meals at no cost to students would enhance participation, and 77% (n=157) indicated that they thought test scores improved when meals were provided at no cost.

Table 2. Perceptions of School Meal Offerings and Universal Free Meals* (N=233)
	Strongly agree/Agree
Statement	n	%
All school meals should provide:
Full serving of vegetables	174	84.9
Full serving of fresh fruit	169	82.8
Limited amounts of added sugar	134	66
Limited amounts of salt	124	60.5
Bottled water	79	39.1
White, low fat milk only	41	20
Foods made with whole grains only	23	11.3
	Strongly agree/Agree
Perceptions of Universal Free Meals	n	%
Students benefit academically from school meals	204	99
Providing meals at no cost to students would increase participation in the school meal program	197	95.6
I support providing meals at no cost to students	191	93.2
Providing meals at no cost would relieve the work our schools do not recover due to unpaid meal debt	183	89.3
Free or reduced lunch eligibility should be available to all students no matter parent/guardian income	171	83.8
Paperwork would be reduced if all students had meals at no cost	167	81.1
Test scores improve when implementing meals at no cost to students	157	77
Students in my school district have plenty of time to eat their lunch	156	75.7
Unpaid meal debt is a concern at my school district	154	75.1
Providing meals at no cost to students would make meal service more efficient	151	73.7
There is no stigma attached to eating school meals	87	43.1
I am concerned about the effect providing meals at no cost to students would have on my taxes or government spending	36	17.6
Free or reduced lunch eligibility should be based on income	22	10.7
Providing meals at no cost would reduce the labor needed in school kitchens	19	9.2
Providing meals at no cost to all students is a misuse of government funding	9	43.7
Providing meals at no cost to all students would decrease the quality of food that is served	8	3.9
It is not beneficial to have breakfast or lunch at no cost to students	7	3.4

*As a result of missing data, some questions have different frequencies than others.

 

More than half (81.1%, n=167) responded that paperwork would be reduced if UFM were implemented, 75.1% (n=154) reported that unpaid meal debt is a concern to the district, 83.8% (n=171) reported that eligibility should be available to all students regardless of income, 73.7% (n=151) reported that providing UFM would make meal service more efficient, and 89.3% (n=183) said that UFM would relieve the work the school has to do to recover unpaid meal debt.

More than half (81.1%, n=167) responded that paperwork would be reduced if UFM were implemented, 75.1% (n=154) reported that unpaid meal debt is a concern to the district, 83.8% (n=171) reported that eligibility should be available to all students regardless of income, 73.7% (n=151) reported that providing UFM would make meal service more efficient, and 89.3% (n=183) said that UFM would relieve the work the school has to do to recover unpaid meal debt.

Additionally, 53.7% (n=110) reported that they disagreed with the idea that providing meals would impact taxes and government spending, 90.7% (n=186) reported that they disagreed that providing meals universally free would decrease the quality of the food, 88.8% (n=182) said they disagreed with the statement that providing meals free of charge was a misuse of government funding.

Conclusions and Applications

The purpose of this research was to explore the benefits and barriers of implementing UFM’s from the perspective of school administrators and foodservice directors. Results show the majority of participants are in favor of adopting UFM in place of traditional payment structures for reduced or free school meals. Similar to Bartfeld’s (2020) argument that current nutrition programs are structurally vulnerable, the lack of CEP reported in this study demonstrates moving closer to UFMs would likely be a necessary avenue for legislature to consider in order to reach vulnerable students. Participants’ responses reflect a past systematic review which proposed UFM programs are associated with higher quality diets, stronger academics, and increased participation in school lunches (Cohen et al., 2021). Benefits from a UFM implementation would also likely include fewer classroom behavioral problems and stronger food security among all children, regardless of eligibility (Cohen et al., 2021). Lastly, participants did respond that UFM programs would be a worthy governmental expenditure, decrease resources necessary for paperwork, and eliminate concerns stemming from unpaid meal debt.

A limitation of the study is that it lacks a large sample population which could encompass a wide representation from diverse districts across the U.S; therefore, future studies should aim for a larger sample across multiple states to gain a deeper understanding of school administrators’ and foodservice employees’ support for UFM programs. Second, expanding on the perspective of stakeholders such as parents and teachers, could provide useful to gauge overall UFM support. Despite these limitations, the results add to the growing body of evidence that school meal programs can have a wide range of beneficial impacts on children and school employees (Bartfeld et al., 2019).

By implementing UFM policies into school systems, lower income but ineligible children can receive healthy meals and further reduce food insecurity among an extremely vulnerable population (Cohen et al., 2021). Further, there is recognition of connections between nutrition, health, and cognition; however, significant societal barriers often discourage NSLP eligible students from accessing needed dietary resources (Bailey-Davis et al., 2012). Adopting UFM procedures into schools would not only increase the amount of meals accessed by students therefore increasing school revenue, but UFM programs could decrease the feelings of stigma attached to reduced and free-meal statuses. Future studies would benefit from exploring the level of support among legislative stakeholders involved in the politics of nutrition in order to gauge overall feasibility and desirability of implementing UFM policies. Additionally, future researchers could investigate the overall cost, community support, and student access of UFM programs as it continues to be provided under the current COVID-19 UFM initiative in order to clearly view its benefits to traditional nutrition programs.