The school meal program in the United States provides free school meals, or at government subsidized prices, to US students from low-income families. This free or subsidized food has the potential to increase household food security, which can improve children's health and expand their educational opportunities.
The largest school feeding program in the United States is the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), which was signed into law by President Harry S. Truman in 1946. The goal is to prevent malnutrition and provide the basis for good nutritional health. The text of the National School Lunch Act, which forms the program, calls it "a measure of national security, to safeguard the health and wellbeing of the nation's children and to encourage domestic consumption of nutritious agricultural commodities".
The NSLP currently operates in more than 100,000 public schools, nonprofit private schools, and residential care agencies. It provides over 5 billion free or free lunches per year to eligible students, with the aim of ensuring nutritious food for children who may not have access to the right diet. In 2012, he serves more than 31 million children per day.
Video School meal programs in the United States
Food insecurity in children
Food insecurity includes insufficient quantity and inadequate food quality. Children not only need enough calories, but also enough nutrients for proper growth and development, and improper or inhibited growth can have a variety of medical and developmental implications. Food insecurity and malnutrition can affect the educational outcomes of children, family life, and overall health. This has been linked to poorer development outcomes for children, such as disrupted social and reading skills.
Prevalence
Food insecurity has increased in recent years. Between 2007 and 2008, the number in the US increased from 11.1 percent to 14.6 percent, the biggest annual increase since researchers began tracking rates in the mid-1990s. Among households with children, food insecurity increased from 15.8 percent to 21 percent during the period.
Four million American children "suffer from food shortage and periodic famine every year", which accounts for 8 percent of children under the age of 12. An additional 21 percent is at risk.
Implications
Food insecurity affects the health and wellbeing of children in several ways. This is a major threat to "growth, health, cognitive, and behavioral potential", and most behavioral, emotional, and academic problems are more common among starving children than children who are not hungry. Food insecurity is associated with lower math scores, difficulty getting along with peers, poor health, and more frequent illnesses. A study by researchers at Boston University School of Medicine found that children aged 6-11 years who came from unsafe food homes had lower arithmetic scores, were more likely to repeat the class or see therapists, and had more difficulty to mix with peers from similar children in safe-food homes. Hungry children are much more likely to have a clinical level of psychosocial dysfunction, and they exhibit more anxious, irritable, aggressive, and opposing behaviors than peers of low-income, food-safe families.
In addition to academic and behavioral problems, children with inadequate diets are more susceptible to disease. Researchers have found that malnutrition causes a variety of health problems that can be chronic. Under-fed children may have "extreme weight loss, stunted growth, weakened resistance to infection", and even premature death. Such illness reduces the amount of time students can spend in school.
These cognitive, behavioral, and physical problems are exacerbated in children who, other than malnourished, come from a poor background. Scientists now believe that "malnutrition changes intellectual development by disrupting the overall health and energy levels of children, the rate of motor development and the rate of growth." In addition, "low economic status can exacerbate all these factors, putting poor children at particular risk for cognitive decline later in life".
Education and food both have an effect on the "central capabilities" described by Martha Nussbaum, an American philosopher. This capability, which Nussbaum sees as part of raising people above the threshold of poverty, is: life, body health, body integrity, senses, imagination and thoughts, emotions, practical reasons, affiliations, other species, games, and control over one's environment (both political and material). Nutrition affects the body's health and body integrity, and education has a wider connection for feel, imagination and thinking, practical reasons, and control over one's environment. Without this ability, according to Nussbaum, people fall into the trap of poverty and do not have the right opportunity to rise from them. Government efforts such as the eating program can prevent people from falling into poverty, and lift them out of poverty.
Maps School meal programs in the United States
History of the school food program
Pre-World War II
Prior to the formal establishment of today's government-funded large-scale government-owned food program in the United States, small and non-governmental programs exist. In the early 19th century, cities like Boston and Philadelphia run an independent school lunch program, with the help of volunteers or charities.
Until the 1930s, most school lunch programs were a voluntary effort led by teachers and mother clubs. These programs draw on the expertise of a professional home economy. For people who start these programs, the school lunchroom is the perfect place to feed the poor children and, more importantly, teach immigrant and middle-class children on the principles of nutrition and healthy eating. Thus, the original intention of the school meal program is not primarily to improve the food security of poor children and ease educational problems, but rather to inculcate cultural norms.
During the Great Depression, the number of hungry children looking for a meal filled with lunch. Thus, local programs start looking for state governments, and then national governments, for resources. The national government began providing funding for small school lunches in early 1932. This funding came from New Deal agents such as the Federal Emergency Assistance Administration, Corporate Finance Reconstruction, and Civil Works Administration. The federal government monitors supplies from commercial farmers and buys commodity surpluses (Levine 6). The school serves as an outlet for federal commodities donations. In 1935, the program expanded through the Progress Administration and the National Youth Administration, both of which provided labor for the school cafeteria. During World War II, the Food War Administration (1943-45) helped to create a school lunch program.
Finally, the New Deal policy began to dissolve, and agricultural surplus declined. However, there is still a desire to keep the lunch program at school, so federal cash aid begins to be adjusted every year-to-year, and the National School Lunch Program is developed.
1946-2000
The United States Congress passed the School National Lunch Act in 1946 after an investigation found that the health of the poor who were rejected for the World War II draft was associated with malnutrition in their childhood.
At the end of the first year, the National School Lunch Program has helped 7.1 million children. However, from the beginning, the program links nutrition of children with priorities of agriculture and food interests, and the agenda of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). In these early years, the program provided great welfare to commercial farmers as an outlet for commodity surplus, but provided some free food for poor children and fed a small number of schoolchildren.
In the 1960s, a group of major national women's organizations began focusing on the shortcomings of NSLP. The evidence they present becomes important for Congressional debates on race and poverty. In 1962, Congress changed the NSLP, turning it from a state-sponsored grant donor distributor to a permanently funded meal replacement program. In 1969, President Richard Nixon encouraged Congress to provide funding for school lunches outside the replacement program, stating, "The time has come to an end to hunger in America."
Among other things, in 1966, Congress passed the Child Nutrition Act, stating that educational progress is the goal of the school food program. The bill, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson, creates a federally subsidized School Breakfast Program (SBP), which complements the existing lunch program by providing free or free breakfast for students at public and non-profit public schools. It also created the Summer Food Service Program and founded the National School Lunch Week.
In the late 1970s, many supporters saw privatization as the only way to keep the school lunch program going. Fast food from private companies began to be served in cafeterias, rather than more nutritious meals.
In 1994, a number of changes were made to the NSLP, primarily to standardize the nutritional quality of school meals. Dietary guidelines were proposed to take effect in 1996, and the USDA launched the Healthy School Food Initiative to improve nutrition education for school-aged children.
At the end of the 20th century, the NSLP was the second largest domestic food program of the two countries, following the Supplemental Nutrition Program (more commonly known as food stamps).
21st century
In 2004, when the childhood obesity crisis became a national focus, the USDA urged school districts to set health policies and initiatives tailored to local needs. The USDA regulations are intended to strengthen national nutrition education while providing autonomy to schools to decide what types of food can be sold in their cafeterias and vending machines.
In 2007, the USDA employed the Institute of Medicine (IOM, now the National Academy of Medicine) to develop recommendations for "bringing the latest school food with science today". Dr. Virginia Stallings, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Philadelphia Children's Hospital who leads the IOM team, concluded, "As the school food program was last updated, we have gained a greater understanding of children's nutritional needs and dietary factors that contribute to obesity, heart disease , and other chronic health problems. "
In 2010, the Hunger and Famine-free Children's Law made the biggest change in NSLP history, putting snack vending machines and ÃÆ' la carte menu items under federal regulation for the first time. Presented by First Lady Michelle Obama and directed by the USDA, the law establishes guidelines that require more fruits, vegetables, and whole grains in school meals. Guidelines applicable to the 2012-13 school year, also limit the intake of sodium, fat, and calories based on the age of the students.
Historically, NSLP and other food programs have been used to improve the health of children who are not food safe or at risk of malnutrition. More recently, however, the NSLP has made significant changes to fight obesity and malnutrition. Unhealthy eating patterns in overweight children - such as thin children - are often linked not only to individual choice but also to social and economic conditions such as family income and access to fresh food. The school feeding program provides a way in which these socioeconomic circumstances can be targeted to improve the diet of children.
Most students benefit from NSLP, even if they do not receive a free lunch, as the program also subsidizes full-priced meals in most US schools.
Organizational structure
National School Lunch Program
The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), an agency of the USDA, manages NSLP at the federal level. Within each state, the program is administered by state agencies, in most cases the Department of Education. (If state legislation prevents the state from managing the program, the appropriate regional FNS office can manage it.) The state official responsible for the NSLP works with each school district to ensure every lunchroom worker receives necessary information and supplies. In addition, he received instructions from the United States Agriculture Minister. School districts that choose to participate in the NSLP follow specific guidelines and receive federal subsidies for each meal they serve.
The NSLP has links to several other federal agencies and programs. For example, the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, an initiative of the US Department of Defense (DEPD), allows schools to use USDA dollars right to buy fresh produce. NSLP also works closely with the Provisional Assistance for Families in Need and Supplemental Nutrition Program (SNAP) program.
In addition to its impact on public organizations, NSLP also affects enterprise vendors and local businesses. The program is designed to help local farmers by buying fresh fruits and vegetables, which make their way to schoolchildren. In addition, many companies reformulate their food to meet federal guidelines so they can sell their products to the government.
School Breakfast Program
SBP began as a pilot program in 1966 and became permanent in 1975. It was developed specifically to help poor children; "Original legislation stipulates that the first consideration for program implementation is to be given to schools located in poor areas or in areas where children have to travel very far to school", and in 1971, "Congress steered that priority considerations for the program will include schools where there is a special need to improve the nutrition and diet of children of working mothers and children from low-income families ".
SBP works basically in the same way as NSLP: Participating schools receive cash subsidies from USDA for every food they serve. They must meet federal nutritional requirements and offer free or low-priced breakfast for eligible children. USDA provides technical training and assistance to help school workers prepare and present healthy foods, as well as nutritional education to help children understand the relationship between diet and health.
In 1970, before it was made permanent, the SBP served 500,000 children. In fiscal year 2011, more than 12.1 million children participated every day, 10.1 million of whom received free breakfast or low price.
Cost and funding
The National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program provide cash reimbursement for meals served at participating schools. In the school year 2012-13, the NSLP provides the following replacement costs for "no-heavy" schools: $ 2.86 for free lunch, $ 2.46 for lunch at a lower price, $ 0.27 for lunch paid, $ 0.78 for free snacks, $ 0.39 for price-reduction snacks, and $ 0.07 for paid snacks. (Students eligible for food at a discounted price are paid no more than 40 cents per meal.) A school may be eligible for a higher "need for higher" cost reimbursement if 40 percent or more of its lunch is served free or at a higher price low in the second year before.
SBP provides the following replacements in 2012-13: $ 1.55 for free breakfast, $ 1.25 for breakfast at cheaper rates, and $ 0.27 for paid breakfast.
For fiscal year 2011, the cost of SBP was $ 3 billion, compared to $ 10.8 million in 1970. The cost of NSLP was $ 11.1 billion in 2011, compared to $ 70 million in 1947.
The budget trend shows that the cost of food production over the last five years has risen faster than income. A report by the USDA Economic Research Service in July 2008 states: "Cost pressures may be a barrier to improving school menu in some cases.12 Study on lunch costs and breakfast costs National school II shows that while the average reported lunch costs during the year 2005 -06 was below the replacement level, about one in four school districts reported costs above the replacement level. "This went on," Furthermore, the average full cost produces lunches higher than the replacement rate. "
The study also found that reported costs increased, but full cost down, from 1992-2005, reflecting an increase in the number of school food authorities demanded by school districts for indirect costs in response to local budgetary pressures (School Nutrition Association) 2006). Other sources of financial stress include an increase in health care costs for employees (GAO, 2003; Woodward-Lopez et al., 2005) and, more recently, rising food costs (FRAC, 2008).
In 2012, researchers compared the previous year's data with limited year-end data to see if previously identified problems still exist. They found that in fiscal 2011, the NSLP served 5.18 billion lunches at a cost of $ 11.1 billion, an increase of 181 percent from fiscal year 2000.
In terms of cost efficiency, one can compare the eligible lunch and lunch costs of NSLP presented at schools not participating in the program. Constance Newman "Healthy School Food Costs" (2012) compares those costs over the 2005-06 school year. Newman found that healthy food is more expensive than foods that do not meet the new nutritional standards. He also found that "the reported average cost for lunch replacement is $ 2.36, while the replacement rate is $ 2.51", or 106 percent of the cost. However, revenues for non-replaceable foods (eg, adult lunch) account for only 71 percent of the cost of the food.
To address this, the Healthy and Hunger Famine Children Act of 2010 requires a gradual increase in reimbursement to 100 percent of the covered costs. In addition, USDA increased the School Food Substitution (SFA) replacement rate by 6 cents per meal for the 2012-13 school year.
Not all of Newman's cost increases are due to food prices; almost half associated with overhead, such as equipment, labor, and training. In addition, his research, which relies on data from 2005 and 2006, is now out of date, and Newman acknowledges that "another important caveat is that food served at schools has changed since 2005".
Recently, there has been a push to privatize the school meal program because of the rising costs. Private food service companies have much greater purchasing power than school districts and are able to save money by providing fewer benefits and lower salaries to their employees.
Participation and eligibility
Participation in NSLP is voluntary. Independent school and school districts that choose to take part receive cash and commodity subsidies donated from the USDA for each meal they serve. In return, they must present lunch that meets federal nutritional requirements, and they should offer free or low-priced meals for eligible children. Schools can also be substituted for snacks served to children in educational or after-school enrichment programs.
In the late 1990s, NSLP officials stipulated in the "Direct Certification Study in National School Lunch Program" that the process paper application program was inefficient and potentially excluded eligible school districts (Jackson, Gleason, Hall and Strauss, 2000). As a result, the program switched to a direct certification process, where schools could use documentation from local or state welfare agencies to demonstrate their eligibility. Despite the lack of cooperation between NSLP and some welfare agencies, Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) found that direct certification significantly increases the number of participants. In 2008, Philip Gleason, senior researcher for Mathematica Policy Research, wrote a paper confirming that certification directly extends access to NSLP.
However, some researchers have identified the opposite problem: acceptance into a program of students who are not eligible for it. A three-year study by FNS (Gleason, 2008) found that 77.5 percent of NSLP applicants were properly certified. However, 15 per cent are certified as eligible when they are not fully qualified, and 7.5 per cent are denied benefits despite being eligible. While the number of incorrect payments during the 2005-06 school year was relatively small as a percentage of the total program cost, they totaled over $ 759 million (Ponza, 2007). Subsequent research by Molly Dahl found that the problem continued, with estimated payments of more than $ 1.5 billion in 2011.
David Bass wrote in 2009 that the problem is not just an innocent problem, but it involves the efforts that school districts take into account to commit fraud. He argues that, since "the state government provides benefits in line with the percentage of free lunches and price reductions... local school districts have a clear incentive to register as many students as possible in the NSLP." While the NSLP has an internal verification process, only about 3 percent of apps can be reviewed to verify reported earnings. Bass found that some school districts that wanted to verify a higher percentage of applications were threatened with legal action from the federal government. He also identified a district that found that 70 percent of apps reviewed were incorrect.
Nutritional guidelines
Lunch at school must meet the prevailing recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, stating that no more than 30 percent of a person's calories should come from fat, and no more than 10 percent of saturated fat. Lunch at school should also provide one-third of the recommended daily allowance of calories, protein, vitamin A, vitamin C, iron, and calcium. However, decisions about which specific foods should be served and how to prepare them are made by local school officials. The 2007 School Nutrition Diet Assessment Study, based on research by the USDA during the 2004-05 school year, found that students in more than 90 percent of schools surveyed had the opportunity to choose lunch that met dietary standards for fats and saturated fats.
School food programs are increasingly using more grains, fruits and vegetables, lean protein, and low-fat milk. Efforts such as the Local School Health Policy required by Child Nutrition 2004 and the WIC Reauthorization Act have led parents, students, and school communities to be involved in efforts to promote healthy eating and increased physical activity on school campuses.
In 2009, the National Academy of Medicine released School Food: Building Block for Healthy Children, which reviewed and recommended updates to NSLP and SBP nutritional standards as well as food requirements. It also sets the standard for menu planning focusing on food groups, calories, saturated fat, and sodium, and which combines the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the recommendations of the Intake Reference Diet.
Unhealthy and malnourished food
Unhealthy school lunches contribute to malnutrition both in the short and long term. In many cases, an unhealthy adult diet can be traced back to an unhealthy school lunch, as children learn eating habits from social environments such as schools. A 2010 study of 1,003 high school students in Michigan found that those who ate lunch at school were significantly more likely to be obese than those who did not.
Promoting healthy eating at school can reduce adolescent obesity by as much as 25 percent. One such effort is the Berkeley Food System, which uses vegetable gardens to promote education about healthy eating. Janet Brown, who started the project, explained that students are more likely to eat healthy foods like fruits and vegetables when they are better introduced to them.
In 2008, the USDA Economic Research Service issued a report entitled "The National School Lunch Program: Background, Trends, and Issues", which reaffirm that one of the NSLP's main goals, as identified by Congress, is to "promote the health and well-being of children -children of the nation ". According to the report, new challenges for this purpose have emerged with increased oversight of high-fat commodities donated by the USDA, such as meat, cheese, and milk. The authors argue that providing a high-fat USDA food subsidy contributes to childhood obesity. While NSLP participants have higher intake of calcium and fiber - the higher nutrients often consumed less by children - they also have a higher fat intake. However, the results of a study comparing weight gain between NSLP and nonparticipant participants can not be concluded.
A 2011 article in the Journal of Econometrics, "The Impact of the National School Lunch Program on Children's Health: A nonparametric border analysis", confirms the nutritional benefits of the Healthy and Hunger-Free Children Act but found that "children children in households who report free or reduced school meal receipts through the National School Lunch Program are more likely to have negative health outcomes than those of the same observation. " The authors affirm that certain groups do not receive the expected nutritional benefits of NSLP, and propose two possible explanations: First, children who receive free food or reduced prices tend to differ from their counterparts in a way that is not reflected in data. Second, the children's households most affected by lunch at low prices may misreport the participation in the program.
Competitive food
The USDA report in 2008 identified the emergence of "competitive food" as an impediment to NSLP's nutritional goals. Competitive food - which may include off-campus items, campus-purchased ÃÆ' la carte items, vending machine products, food purchased for school fundraising, school meals available, and snacks given to students by teachers - not included in the NSLP replacement plan so it is not required to meet USDA standards. In general, competitive foods are lower in key nutrients and higher in fat than NSLP-replaceable foods. The availability of such foods in schools often undermines the nutritional goals of NSLP.
This study recommends that nutritional standards be applied to all foods served or sold in schools. In addition, it was noted that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommended in 2005 that the USDA authority to regulate "food with minimal nutritional value" was extended to a broader food class.
Obesity
Research shows that 36 percent of participants in low-priced lunch programs are not food safe and 19 percent are obese.
A study comparing NSLP and nonparticipant participants has been convincing about whether the rates of weight gain differ between the two groups. The 2008 Economic Research Service study found "the same caloric intake for participants and nonparticipants but higher fat and sodium intake for participants". The most obvious challenge to address the problem is that even if nutritious food is provided, there is no guarantee that students will eat it. In addition, the NSLP does not take into account the physiological differences among participants: Some children are smaller than others, some are more athletic, and some have metabolism that requires more calories than the NSLP allows.
Three ideas have been proposed to tackle obesity in school:
- Tell students only for fruits and vegetables as a snack. A 2009 study of the Journal of Nutrition, "Restricting Snack Foods in Primary Schools Associated with Frequency of Fruit and Vegetable Consumption", found that "children in schools with limited availability of snacks have a higher frequency of fruit significant and vegetable consumption than children in schools without the availability of unlimited snacks, "and suggested that a tight snack policy should be part of a multifaceted approach to improving children's diets.
- Educate all students about nutrition. The APPLE Project: 2-y findings of community-based obesity prevention programs in elementary school-aged children, "states," A relatively simple approach, providing coordinator activities and basic nutritional education at school, significantly reducing the rate of excessive weight gain in children. "
- Encourage healthier food selection without limiting choice. Researchers at Cornell University have suggested techniques based on behavioral economics, such as placing white milk in front of chocolate milk in coolers, moving and highlighting the look of the fruit, and using an appealing name for vegetables to enhance palatability.
Results
Educational attainment
Research has shown a positive correlation between school feeding programs and increased food security. Among low-income children, the level of insecurity of marginal food from those with access to the School Breakfast Program is lower than for those children who do not have access to the program.
This increase in food security has not been proven to have significant long-term health benefits, but it has a positive impact on education. Subsidized lunch seems to encourage children to go to school, and to free food at home for other family members to eat. Public policy researchers at Georgetown University found in 2010 that "increasing the NSLP exposure by ten percentage points resulted in an average increase in education of.365 years" for girls, and "improving education on average for almost a year" for boys. The researchers found that participation in grades seven to twelve "had a stronger effect on educational attainment than in previous classes, whereas there is some evidence to suggest that participation in previous classes is more important for health outcomes".
Student reactions
An article in The Wilson Quarterly in 2011 illustrates the impact of the NSLP at Maplewood-Richmond Heights School District on the outskirts of St. Louis. Louis, where participation in the program is increasing. Linda Henke, school district superintendent, said: "I was impressed by the positive vibrations around the revamped program.A teacher said he lost seven pounds by eating in the high school cafeteria every school day for the previous three months.A senior girl who had accepted the change from early observing that even he was surprised when the soccer player started to eat the salad, the 14-year-old primary school chef told me his job is now more difficult, but it's worthwhile. "The article continues:" It takes a hard-minded school leader to insist that rich in nutrition is the right choice for children - and that is the proper use of government dollars.The children will complain initially but will come in. And the collateral benefit figures follow when students are eating well Anecdotal reports from schools with healthy food and scented show that the teachers have started eating with si self-sufficiency, higher attendance rates, and fewer students falling asleep in class or vandalizing and violence in schools. "
Another article examines the effects of the program in the Los Angeles Unified School District. District food service director David Binkle said: "From what I see and what I hear now that students are getting used to [new menus] and they have tasted it, they love it.Whenever you make changes, and changes this is an evolution we have to go through There will be people who say the food is too healthy for children and that it is things they do not know.A fact that is part of this country will see what we have gone through [when they adopted a new diet rule.] We did this on purpose so we really could get out before this and start working through it and adjust.I think the rest of this country will see much of the same impact [we've seen this year]. "Binkle adds," What I hear from principals is that as we keep adjusting and teaching and encouraging children, more and more ak who participated. "
Research has shown an increasing trend in NSLP participation. However, the Wilson Quarterly article describes the challenge: "Since 2004, the USDA has organized a Healthy School Challenge, made a difference but no money, to schools that volunteered to improve their food health.On the past autumn, only about 841 of the 101,000 schools in the NSLP (less than one percent) have received awards.That leaves many schools still promoting Tater Tot Day and reheating frozen pizza. "The HealthierUS School Challenge (HUSSC) is a voluntary certification initiative that recognizes schools which has created a healthier environment by promoting nutrition and physical activity. Schools enrolled may be awarded HUSSC certification and monetary incentives. On March 11, 2014, there were 6,706 certified schools, 6 per cent of schools participating in the NSLP.
References
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments