Evaluation of the US National School Lunch Program - Research Paper Example

National School Lunch Program: Program Evaluation 1. Introduction The USDA report “Household Food Security in the United States in 2010” reported that that over 9.8 percent of homes with children experience some level of sustenance insecurity. Children in homes unable to provide sustainable amounts of food, or a balanced diet, can produce negative effects, including malnutrition. Subject on its severity, this can include extremes in wasting and the development of negative learning and behavioral problems. In 1946, President Harry Truman implemented the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). Under this federal assistance program, all eligible childcare institutions receive state and federal benefits for participation. Children whose family’s income is between 130 percent and 185 percent of the poverty level meet the requirements to purchase low-cost meals or obtain free lunch. NSLP distributes school lunches and snacks with the nutrients needed for children to optimize performance during and after school. Through an objective evaluation using various sources, including academic literature, and government and media reports regarding the program, the efficacy of the NSLP program will be weighed. 2. Background The evaluation of the effectiveness of the school lunch program is not a novel idea. Various studies have evaluated its necessity and effects on various health issues including obesity. For example, Schanzenbach evaluated the relation between the lunch program and prevalence of obesity. By using panel data, he found out that children who benefited from the school lunch program had higher chances of obesity compared to other children with the same obesity rates who did not benefit from the lunch program (Schanzenbach, 2009).Millimet, Tcherns and Husain also reiterated the same proposition that NSLP exacerbates the obesity epidemic (Millimet, Tcherns& Husain, 2009). Furthermore, Gundersen, Kreider and Pepper, using the survey data and auxiliary administrative information, revealed that the NSLP had negative effects on the health of participating children (Gundersen, Kreider& Pepper, 2011). Other studies have contrasted with the linkage between participation in NSLP and obesity. For example, using data from school nutritional dietary assessment study, Gleason et al. indicated that there existed no positive relation between obesity and the participation in the NSLP (Gleason et al., 2009). Other studies indicate that the health hazards posed by the NSLP are gender specific. Ledford, while investigating the linkage between eating school lunch and obesity in elementary school, revealed that girls were more likely to be overweight or obese after participation in the lunch program (Ledford, 2009). However, other studies indicate that the effect of NSLP of health is interplay between the program and the amount of emphasis on physical exercises. The finance project, in its report, indicated that the waning emphasis on exercises is what increased the chances of health problems (The Finance Project, 2009). B. Program Eligibility Criteria Children in schools that offer NSLP are qualified to partake in the program if they meet specified criteria. Nevertheless, those ineligible can be involved in the program through meeting the total cost of the food. A child is eligible for the free meals if the family of such a child has an income below 130% of the poverty level. If the family is between 130% and 185%, the child is eligible for subsidized meals (less than 40% of the cost of the meal). Above the 185%, the child is required to pay the full price for the food (Millimet, Tcherns& Husain, 2009; Gundersen, Kreider& Pepper, 2011). Consequently, eligibility changes with the changes in poverty and family incomes. For example, according to the 2008 poverty guidelines, an income of less than $27, 000 qualified children free meals, while between the same income and $ 39, 220 earned a child reduced cost meals. All the meals offered in the school are required to meet the USDA requirements. Each meal offered must not exceed 30% in fat calories. Further, the meal should have less than 10% of calories in concentrated fats. Additionally, it must meet at least a third of the stipulated daily intakes of protein, vitamin A, vitamin C, iron, calcium, and calories.The meals are also required to contain little levels of sodium and increased levels of fiber content (Millimet, Tcherns& Husain, 2009). The program operates in public schools and not-for-profit private schools. C. Resources and Funding The USDA operates the NSLP at the federal level. Individual states must express their intentions to operate the program according to the guidelines of USDA in order to receive funding from the federal government. The participating school districts receive cash from the federal government (Conway, Kyler, Moore &Ranalli, 2011). USDA also provides foodstuffs required for the meal. Additionally, schools may be reimbursed for meals provided to learners. The schools are entitled to USDA foods at the value of 22.5 cents for each meal served in the year 2011-2012. Furthermore, schools also get additional USDA foods available from surplus agricultural stocks. Apart from the food and money, USDA deploys nutritional experts to schools to provide nutritional information. The teams also inform school cafeterias on methods of preparing healthy meals. They also educate children on the association between diet and health. For example, in 2002, the government disbursed $9.8 billion. In 2003, the government recompensed $ 2.14 for each lunch, $ 1.74 for a subsidized lunch and $ 0.20 for all fully paid lunches(Schanzenbach, 2009). The government expenditure in 2009 reached $ 10 billion (Gundersen, Kreider& Pepper, 2011). D. Synthesis There is a strong case for the necessity of the NSLP. According to the report by USDA regarding the family food security, a significant percentage of the population is food insecure. According to the 2010 study, 85.5% of the population was food secure (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2010). This meant that 14.5% of the families were food insecure. This represented 17.2 million families. This indicates that 17.2 million households experienced problems in accessing food. Furthermore, the study revealed that 6.4 million households had extremely diminished food security (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2010). This means that children from such families were in risk of nutrition and deprivation. Due to the seriousness of the issue, a great number of children get their meals free under NSLP. About 48% of the children get their meals free, while about 9% access it at subsidized prices(Schanzenbach, 2009). Consequently, numerous scholars who have evaluated varied issues concerning the NSLP program have appreciated the imperative role it plays in ensuring that children gain access to enough amounts of healthy foods despite the social-economic status of their families (Schanzenbach, 2009; Millimet, Tcherns& Husain, 2009; Gundersen, Kreider& Pepper, 2011). However, though undoubtedly necessary, its effectiveness may be under compromise if it results to extensive health problems. This has been the center of various debates and studies. Specifically, the rising cases of juvenile obesity have triggered studies evaluating the effect of the NSLP on the health quandary. Schanzenbach indicated that casual evaluation of data suggests that eating lunch at school elevated the chances of obesity, since 14% of the children under the program, and 11% percent of those using other means, are obese (Schanzenbach, 2009). On further analysis, Schanzenbach indicated that the hypothesis still held. This he indicated was because that during each lunch meal, the students consumed an extra 40 calories. The study accounted for confounding influences such as races and incomes. Accumulation of the calories was responsible for the weight gain. Importantly, Schanzenbach indicated that the extra calories occurred on lunch meals only. However, in another research, the SBP included more LNED than NSLP (Gleason et al., 2009). Nevertheless, an analysis of the effects of both SBP and NSLP showed asserted the findings by Schanzenbach(Millimet, Tcherns& Husain, 2009). One of the reasons identified was the elevated self-selection associated with SBP compared to NSLP.These negative effects of NSLP on children health have appeared on recent studies (Gundersen, Kreider& Pepper, 2011). The study used novel ways of conceptualizing MIV to augment the regression discontinuity design utilized in the other studies. It is therefore evident that the NSLP has associated negative health effects. E. Recommendations The evaluation of the NSLP has previously occurred necessitating institution of new policies. For example, in 1995, a research led to the ‘School Meals Initiative for Healthy Children’. After the institution of the policy, 2/3 of cafeterias indicated that there was a change in the meals they prepared (Schanzenbach, 2009). This improved the quality of the meals. The program continues to be imperative in countering hunger and malnutrition in children. However, the revelation of negative health effects upon the usage of the meals provided necessitates another reevaluation of the quality of the food. A new legislation should be drafted to provide stricter guidelines for the preparation of the meals. This would reduce the negative effects and improve the health of the children. There should also be an elevated emphasis on physical exercise to alleviate obesity. F. Conclusion The NSLP continues to be an important program in feeding of children, especially children from food insecure families. The number of such children continues to increase, underscoring the imperativeness of the program. Nevertheless, the elevated number of children in the program presents a great social risk. If the program bears negative effects, then the effects transmit to a great number of children.The revelations of the positive correlation between NSLP and obesity, in children, point to the need for new guidelines restricting the quality of meals. References Coleman-Jensen, A. et al. (2011). Household food security in the United States, 2010.U.S.: Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Report 125.Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/CNP/FILES/DirectCert2011.pdf Conway, K., Kyler, B., Moore, Q., & Ranalli, D. (2011).Direct certification in the National Lunch Program: state implementation progress school year 2010-2011: Report CN-11-DC.Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR125/ERR125.pdf Gleason, P. et al. (2009). School Meal Program Participation and Its Association with Dietary Patterns and Childhood Obesity: Final Report PR09-41. Mathematica Policy Research, 1-170. Gundersen, C., Kreider, B., & Pepper, J. (2011). The impact of the National School Lunch Program on child health: A Nonparametric Bounds Analysis. Journal of Econometrics, 166 (1), 1-13. Ledford, D. (2011). The relationship between eating school lunch and overweight or obesity in elementary school children. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. Millimet, D.L., Tchernis, R., Husain, M. (2010). School nutrition programs and the incidence of childhood obesity. Journal of Human Resources, 45(3), 640–654. Schanzenbach, D. (2009). Do school lunches contribute to childhood obesity? Journal of Human Resources, 44(3), 684-709. Read More