Child hunger is a concern that should bridge our polarized political divide. After all, wouldn’t most responsible adults in the United States agree that providing children with food is a national responsibility?
Yet, despite the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) 2023 report that showed an increase in food insecurity in households with children, more than a dozen U.S. states opted out of enrollment in a summer 2024 federal food program that provides funding for families during the months when children who receive breakfast and lunch in schools lose access to that food. Modeled on the pandemic-era Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) programs implemented by some states, Indian Tribal Organizations and territories – programs that successfully addressed child hunger when schools were closed due to COVID-19 – the new, permanent Summer EBT program will benefit an estimated 21 million children, but that is only around 70% of the total population of children eligible. As Margaret Huang, president and CEO of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), points out in an opinion in The Hill, “[A]nother 10 million eligible kids in states that turned down the funding will face the possibility of going to bed hungry. Significantly, seven of the states that declined to participate – Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas – are in the South, the region with the highest average food insecurity and poverty rates.”
Ensuring nutrition and health is fundamental to children’s education and to our nation’s well-being and future. This fact is one that should not divide us, and one that we should be able to discuss and address across our differences.
The Beginnings of School Food Programs
Providing children with healthy food in school is based on a simple premise: The human brain requires nutrients to develop and maintain its functions. In the early 1900s, educators noticed a relationship between nutrition and student learning and worked within their communities to organize school lunch systems.
In 1910, The New York Times chronicled the efforts of a school lunch committee in New York that worked to provide lunches for 3 cents (roughly 96 cents today, adjusting for inflation). The committee found that children in the “poorer parts of the city come to school ill-nourished,” and “the underfed children are those who fall behind in their class work.” A physician with the committee explained that 10% of children in school did not have an adult to give them lunch because their parents worked far from home and left so early for work that children had little or no breakfast. The committee also noted an increase in the cost of living and a family’s lack of adequate food as contributing factors to a child’s malnutrition. While the committee laid bare the facts of child hunger and the effects on learning, a question still loomed over the nation: What do we do about it?
The efforts to address child hunger continued unevenly in communities until 1946, when the U.S. Congress passed the National School Lunch Act. The law describes safeguarding the health and well-being of children in the U.S. by providing adequate meals as a matter of “national security.” Food is crucial for children’s well-being and learning, and children’s education is essential for the continued development of a nation. Since passage of the act, the federal government has taken additional strides in addressing child hunger. In 1966, Congress passed the Child Nutrition Act to expand the scope of the National School Lunch Act. The act recognized that “good nutrition” affects the capacity of children to learn and authorized the School Breakfast Program. Further amendments such as the Child and Adult Care Food Program and the Summer Food Service Program were added to the National School Lunch Act.
However, barriers remain to ensuring children do not go hungry, including lack of political will and resistance to programs that address poverty.
Addressing Child Hunger Today
The USDA report found that in 2022, 12.8% of U.S. households (17 million households) and 8.8% of households with children (3.3 million households) experienced food insecurity. In one of the wealthiest countries in the world – and a nation that considers child nutrition a matter of national security – millions of people, including children, experience hunger.
Among the barriers to food security for children is the fact that programs are not “universal” in nature – they are not intended to feed all children. To qualify for free or reduced-cost meals, families must meet income eligibility guidelines, and families must apply within their state to determine qualification. According to the USDA, in November 2022, only 55% of food-insecure households participated in one or more of the three most extensive federal nutrition assistance programs: the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); and the National School Lunch Program. Studies have cited several factors – including work requirements, the stigma of “welfare,” lack of information about eligibility and difficulty completing applications – as contributing to the lack of participation.
If all children, regardless of family income, received healthy free meals without the need to apply for them, families could bypass the stigma and barriers that affect participation in food programs. Having universal food programs would make it simply a cultural ethic that all children are guaranteed food. Reducing barriers would also further ensure the country honors its commitment to “national security” by providing all children with access to food and the security and well-being that comes with that access. As of April 2024, only eight states had universal food programs in schools; dozens of others are only now considering similar legislation.
The Summer EBT program is another positive step in preventing child hunger. While other local and federal programs, such as the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), provide meals during summer, only a small percentage of eligible children participate due to barriers and gaps in services.
“The problem with those programs is that they’re at a meal site where not everyone – especially if you’re in a rural community – has access,” says Theresa Lau, senior policy counsel at the SPLC. According to Feeding America’s Map the Meal Gap report, 9 out of 10 high food insecurity counties are rural. “The Summer EBT program is unique,” Lau says, “because it provides a lot of flexibility and autonomy for families to make decisions on how to feed their families.” The program provides a $120-per-child credit that is loaded onto EBT cards (eligible participants can also load funds onto existing benefit cards). Families can use the money to purchase food at local grocery stores instead of traveling to a location for in-person meal services. This allows families control of their dietary needs and supports local communities.
A 2016 summary report, examining data from prior versions of the program between 2011 and 2014, found that the Summer EBT for Children program “decreased the prevalence of the most severe food insecurity among children by one-third.” More recently, as noted by SPLC leader Huang, “Research on the temporary Pandemic EBT program found that the program decreased children’s food hardship by a third, and it lifted between 2.7 and 3.9 million children out of hunger. It also supported healthier diets for children, with upticks in the consumption of fruits, vegetables and whole grains.” Yet 14 states, for various stated reasons (some have indicated upfront administrative costs and logistical challenges), have chosen not to participate in the new expanded program, denying millions of dollars in aid to families who are experiencing poverty and food insecurity.
Lau, whose work focuses on federal policy around eradicating poverty, is working to expand participation in the Summer EBT program. “I am focused on making sure that members of Congress and federal stakeholders understand what is at stake,” Lau says. The implications loom large over states that opted out of the program, like Mississippi and Alabama. For decades, Mississippi has ranked among the poorest states in the country. More than half of its counties are rural (65 out of 82), 19% of its population lives in poverty and 1 in 4 children faces hunger. In Mississippi, 324,000 children would be eligible to receive Summer EBT benefits in 2024. Next door, in Alabama, 22% of children live in poverty, and 1 in 4 children faces hunger. The Summer EBT program disbursed $63 million in benefits to 530,000 Alabama students in 2023. Approximately 545,000 children in Alabama would have been eligible to receive Summer EBT benefits in summer 2024.
The USDA released 2024’s Initial Guidance for State Implementation of Summer EBT on June 7, 2023, one day after Alabama’s legislative session ended. “A lot of folks are not aware of the different kind of budgetary pieces that are in play, as well as the overall impact,” says Jerome Dees, the SPLC’s Alabama policy director. While Alabama did not opt in to the 2024 Summer EBT, Dees is working to ensure students have access to nutrition. “The thrust of our campaign is to make sure that it is high on the radar for leaders of the state that they make this a priority,” Dees says. He is working to secure appropriations for the SPLC’s coalition partners, like food banks, to make sure they’re in operation for summer 2025, as well as securing some funding for summer 2024.
Together We Can Make a Difference
Information and advocacy efforts can have a positive impact. In spring 2024, the SPLC and the Hunger Free Alabama coalition’s advocacy helped to secure the state’s approval of $10 million to ensure Alabama participates in the 2025 Summer EBT Program.
While the country has made strides with school food programs, we are still struggling to protect all our children from hunger. The most vulnerable among us, families and children experiencing poverty and food insecurity, often do not have the access to advocate for themselves due to some of the same barriers to participation in food programs. Therefore, we all must make the commitment to advocate for ensuring children in the U.S. do not go hungry and families are supported. And we all have a responsibility to hold our elected officials accountable for prioritizing the well-being of all children.
Having universal food programs would make it simply a cultural ethic that all children are guaranteed food.
Ultimately, how the nation moves forward in preventing child hunger will depend on whether we believe it is a moral imperative to ensure all children have access to food, along with other necessities such as shelter, health care and education.
Amid the haranguing about the state of divisive politics in the U.S. and the need to protect children, what does it say about our commitment to our so-called “national security” if we do not offer all our children free and accessible nutrition?