Improve School Meal Effectiveness to Improve Education Outcomes
Document Type
Event
Abstract
Thinking Matters 2022 Abstract Proposal Improve School Meal Effectiveness to Improve Education Outcomes Policy Analysis of the Maine School Nutrition Program Ronald Adams, SNS, MPPM February 28, 2022 Based upon: PPM622 Advanced Policy Analysis Final Paper Professor Brenda Zollitsch Submitted December 6, 2021 Abstract Proposal Purpose Even before the pandemic, Maine had the highest rate of food insecurity in New England(Feeding America, 2021). School meals are prepared daily but not all students take a lunch, for a multitude of reasons. Students opting out of meal offerings reduces program effectiveness and devalues Maine’s educational investment. Research documents how increasing meal participation increases test scores and leads to better health outcomes(Rothbart, Schwartz, Gutierrez, 2020). As public schools turned to remote learning during the pandemic, school kitchens turned to home delivery to maintain critical food access for students. Nationwide problems with food access led the USDA to offer universal free meals (UFM). In 2021, California and Maine committed to continue paying for UFM with state funding. In Maine, this was a budget appropriation, so continuation will be highly dependent on the decisions of future legislatures, governors, and economic conditions. This policy analysis compares three interventions to improve school meal effectiveness. It was an opportunity to discover the costs and benefits of a “free” lunch for all students and identify the return on Maine’s investment in tomorrow’s workforce. Methods A literature review was conducted to examine the root causes of child food insecurity and the responding policies such as the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) of 1946(USDA FNS, 2017). The review includes findings such as “UFM increases participation in school food, reduces suspension rates, and improves academic achievement and perceptions of school climate”(Rothbart, Schwartz, Gutierrez, 2020, p1) and UFM improve perceptions associated with stigma for students who directly interact with UFM, but the program also has positive effects for all students regardless of their socioeconomic status(Gutierrez, 2021). The analysis compared four policy options of Maine: 1. Universal Free Meals (UFM), 2. Expanded eligibility to include the 10% of students that do not qualify for meal benefits, 3. Training and technical assistance for school kitchens to increase participation, and 4. Status Quo, representing no change from the traditional means-tested program guidelines Maine school enrollment data from the 2018-19 school year (pre-pandemic) was analyzed for enrollment, meal eligibility, and participation by group to look for similarities with research studies. Health and education outcomes were researched to inform cost-benefit analysis calculations. School lunch costs were calculated from Maine Department of Education, child nutrition data. Economic, equity, sustainability and other criteria were analyzed to determine tradeoffs between the policy options. While this was a class exercise, the research conducted for this policy was developed by the author to explore real-world scenarios related to ongoing work projects. Results The analysis compared the options based on pre-selected criteria, including economic strength, effectiveness, equity, and adaptability over time. Results are broken out as follows: Economic: In the Benefit-Cost Analysis, the UFM option had a higher BCA ratio than the Expanded Eligibility option. For every dollar spent on UFM, the UFM option returns $4.25 in value for improved wages due to better academic performance and better health outcomes. The Expanded Eligibility option returns $1.85 in value. The analysis showed that the UFM option, if selected, could potentially provide no educational benefits for nine of the ten years and still break even considering the value of the other benefits, such as improved health outcomes and value of meals provided to households. Alternatively, the Expanded Eligibility option would need three years of benefits to achieve the same breakeven point. Effectiveness: The UFM option effectively reduces the number of hungry students by increasing participation in the meal programs. With free meals, the number of higher income students having lunch increases. This reduces the stigma attached to school meals. Students that qualified for free meals but didn’t previously eat, now participate(Schwartz and Rothbart, 2019). Participation would be expected to increase for all 179,000 students as a population-level intervention. The Expanded Eligibility option would provide meals to an additional 17,808 students at no charge and would increase their participation. As a targeted intervention, it will have a limited increase in school meals since stigma remains an issue. The training and technical assistance option for school kitchens could increase participation as schools completed the coursework. It is a population intervention with the potential to increase participation for each school completing training but is limited by the capacity to do hands-on training. Equity: The UFM option would provide a high, positive level of equity in schools. Research indicates that under this option, more affluent students would still bring their lunches from home. But a large enough number of students would be in the lunch line to reduce the stigma of partaking in the lunch program for everyone and improve the school environment for all students(.(Rothbart, Schwartz, Gutierrez, 2020). Without the external signs from the cafeteria practices of handling money, bills or meal applications, there is less opportunity for bullying or other inappropriate behaviors(Gutierrez, 2021, Burris, et al., 2020). This option also capitalizes on research findings that show UFM can improve subgroups’ academic performance, notably Hispanic, with Andreyeva and Sun (2021) finding the UFM approach “improving reading scores of Hispanic children by 0.055 standard deviations.” (Andreyeva & Sun, 2021, p9) Policy Analysis Application Since UFM has been approved in the Maine’s biennial budget, discussions could begin in 2022 to include its cost in the Department of Education’s Essential Programs and Services funding. This would increase the likelihood of its availability into the foreseeable future. Maine spent $12,433 per pupil in 2018 including funding for buses and bus drivers, textbooks, and computer technicians, as well as athletic equipment and coaches. (Maine DOE, 2021; Maine State Chamber of Commerce, 2020) Each of those elements of school-based offerings have been shown to help ensure that children can maximize their education. School meals are another tool shown to effectively help students perform better in the classroom. Selecting the proposed UFM option would add $354 or 3% to the per pupil cost of education to improve access to school meals for all students. According to Weber (2019),“hunger impacts a child’s ability to learn. Research demonstrates that children from families who are not sure where their next meal may come from are more likely to have lower math scores and repeat a grade, among other challenges.” Increased participation in school meals is an important investment that improves the academic performance and health outcomes for Maine children. Improving the effectiveness of school meals will reduce hungry students in schools, improve academic performance, and improve health outcomes. This policy analysis indicates that codifying UFM through the selection of this option would make significant changes at a relatively high cost, but that the benefits far exceed the costs, showing its adoption a financially sound return on investment. One that increases the effectiveness, equity, and adaptability of providing school meals to students and achieving and abundance of associated learning, equity, and health benefits to Maine students.
Improve School Meal Effectiveness to Improve Education Outcomes
Thinking Matters 2022 Abstract Proposal Improve School Meal Effectiveness to Improve Education Outcomes Policy Analysis of the Maine School Nutrition Program Ronald Adams, SNS, MPPM February 28, 2022 Based upon: PPM622 Advanced Policy Analysis Final Paper Professor Brenda Zollitsch Submitted December 6, 2021 Abstract Proposal Purpose Even before the pandemic, Maine had the highest rate of food insecurity in New England(Feeding America, 2021). School meals are prepared daily but not all students take a lunch, for a multitude of reasons. Students opting out of meal offerings reduces program effectiveness and devalues Maine’s educational investment. Research documents how increasing meal participation increases test scores and leads to better health outcomes(Rothbart, Schwartz, Gutierrez, 2020). As public schools turned to remote learning during the pandemic, school kitchens turned to home delivery to maintain critical food access for students. Nationwide problems with food access led the USDA to offer universal free meals (UFM). In 2021, California and Maine committed to continue paying for UFM with state funding. In Maine, this was a budget appropriation, so continuation will be highly dependent on the decisions of future legislatures, governors, and economic conditions. This policy analysis compares three interventions to improve school meal effectiveness. It was an opportunity to discover the costs and benefits of a “free” lunch for all students and identify the return on Maine’s investment in tomorrow’s workforce. Methods A literature review was conducted to examine the root causes of child food insecurity and the responding policies such as the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) of 1946(USDA FNS, 2017). The review includes findings such as “UFM increases participation in school food, reduces suspension rates, and improves academic achievement and perceptions of school climate”(Rothbart, Schwartz, Gutierrez, 2020, p1) and UFM improve perceptions associated with stigma for students who directly interact with UFM, but the program also has positive effects for all students regardless of their socioeconomic status(Gutierrez, 2021). The analysis compared four policy options of Maine: 1. Universal Free Meals (UFM), 2. Expanded eligibility to include the 10% of students that do not qualify for meal benefits, 3. Training and technical assistance for school kitchens to increase participation, and 4. Status Quo, representing no change from the traditional means-tested program guidelines Maine school enrollment data from the 2018-19 school year (pre-pandemic) was analyzed for enrollment, meal eligibility, and participation by group to look for similarities with research studies. Health and education outcomes were researched to inform cost-benefit analysis calculations. School lunch costs were calculated from Maine Department of Education, child nutrition data. Economic, equity, sustainability and other criteria were analyzed to determine tradeoffs between the policy options. While this was a class exercise, the research conducted for this policy was developed by the author to explore real-world scenarios related to ongoing work projects. Results The analysis compared the options based on pre-selected criteria, including economic strength, effectiveness, equity, and adaptability over time. Results are broken out as follows: Economic: In the Benefit-Cost Analysis, the UFM option had a higher BCA ratio than the Expanded Eligibility option. For every dollar spent on UFM, the UFM option returns $4.25 in value for improved wages due to better academic performance and better health outcomes. The Expanded Eligibility option returns $1.85 in value. The analysis showed that the UFM option, if selected, could potentially provide no educational benefits for nine of the ten years and still break even considering the value of the other benefits, such as improved health outcomes and value of meals provided to households. Alternatively, the Expanded Eligibility option would need three years of benefits to achieve the same breakeven point. Effectiveness: The UFM option effectively reduces the number of hungry students by increasing participation in the meal programs. With free meals, the number of higher income students having lunch increases. This reduces the stigma attached to school meals. Students that qualified for free meals but didn’t previously eat, now participate(Schwartz and Rothbart, 2019). Participation would be expected to increase for all 179,000 students as a population-level intervention. The Expanded Eligibility option would provide meals to an additional 17,808 students at no charge and would increase their participation. As a targeted intervention, it will have a limited increase in school meals since stigma remains an issue. The training and technical assistance option for school kitchens could increase participation as schools completed the coursework. It is a population intervention with the potential to increase participation for each school completing training but is limited by the capacity to do hands-on training. Equity: The UFM option would provide a high, positive level of equity in schools. Research indicates that under this option, more affluent students would still bring their lunches from home. But a large enough number of students would be in the lunch line to reduce the stigma of partaking in the lunch program for everyone and improve the school environment for all students(.(Rothbart, Schwartz, Gutierrez, 2020). Without the external signs from the cafeteria practices of handling money, bills or meal applications, there is less opportunity for bullying or other inappropriate behaviors(Gutierrez, 2021, Burris, et al., 2020). This option also capitalizes on research findings that show UFM can improve subgroups’ academic performance, notably Hispanic, with Andreyeva and Sun (2021) finding the UFM approach “improving reading scores of Hispanic children by 0.055 standard deviations.” (Andreyeva & Sun, 2021, p9) Policy Analysis Application Since UFM has been approved in the Maine’s biennial budget, discussions could begin in 2022 to include its cost in the Department of Education’s Essential Programs and Services funding. This would increase the likelihood of its availability into the foreseeable future. Maine spent $12,433 per pupil in 2018 including funding for buses and bus drivers, textbooks, and computer technicians, as well as athletic equipment and coaches. (Maine DOE, 2021; Maine State Chamber of Commerce, 2020) Each of those elements of school-based offerings have been shown to help ensure that children can maximize their education. School meals are another tool shown to effectively help students perform better in the classroom. Selecting the proposed UFM option would add $354 or 3% to the per pupil cost of education to improve access to school meals for all students. According to Weber (2019),“hunger impacts a child’s ability to learn. Research demonstrates that children from families who are not sure where their next meal may come from are more likely to have lower math scores and repeat a grade, among other challenges.” Increased participation in school meals is an important investment that improves the academic performance and health outcomes for Maine children. Improving the effectiveness of school meals will reduce hungry students in schools, improve academic performance, and improve health outcomes. This policy analysis indicates that codifying UFM through the selection of this option would make significant changes at a relatively high cost, but that the benefits far exceed the costs, showing its adoption a financially sound return on investment. One that increases the effectiveness, equity, and adaptability of providing school meals to students and achieving and abundance of associated learning, equity, and health benefits to Maine students.
