Perceived impact of a state-level universal free school meal policy on households with varying income levels: An analysis of parental perspectives

• Published in: Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
• Main Authors: Cohen, Juliana Fw, Chapman, Leah E, Olarte, Deborah A, Hecht, Christina A, Hecht, Kenneth, Minc, Leran, Ohri-Vachaspati, Punam, Orta-Aleman, Dania, Patel, Anisha I, Polacsek, Michele, Ritchie, Lorrene D, Zuercher, Monica D, Gosliner, Wendi
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 07.10.2024
• Subjects: Food Insecurity; Universal Free School Meals; Stigma; Child health; School Meal Participation
• ISSN: 2212-2672
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jand.2024.10.001

In the U.S., a means-tested approach is often used to provide free or reduced-price meals (FRPM) to students from lower-income households. However, federal income thresholds do not account for regional cost of living variations. Thus, many ineligible households may be at risk for food insecurity. Universal free school meal (UFSM) policies may help address this issue, especially in states with a higher cost of living. To evaluate parent perceptions of the impact of Massachusetts' statewide UFSM policy on households eligible and ineligible for FRPM. Cross-sectional survey of parents across income categories conducted during the 2022-23 school year. Massachusetts parents (n=403) with children in grades kindergarten-12 with incomes ranging from <185% of the Federal Poverty Line (FPL) to >300% of the FPL. Parents' perceived impact of Massachusetts' UFSM policy on their child and household. Analysis of variance examined differences in the perceived impact of UFSM by FRPM eligibility, adjusting for demographic characteristics. Households that were FRPM eligible or near eligible were significantly more likely to report that their ability to have enough food for their family would be harder without UFSM (p<0.0001) compared to those in the highest income category. Across all income categories, approximately 75% of parents reported that school meals should be free for all children, and UFSM saved their family money and time and reduced stress, with no significant differences by FRPM eligibility. Roughly half (52%) reported their household finances would be hurt and 42% of parents from households eligible for FRPM reported their child would be less likely to eat school meals if the UFSM policy ended. This study found strong parent support of UFSM policies regardless of income level. Additionally, parents perceived that discontinuing UFSM may adversely impact school meal participation, including among students from lower income households, as well as food security among households ineligible for FRPM, particularly in areas with higher costs of living. Policies to expand UFSM should be considered among additional states and at the national level.