Affordability

A. Abstract

This section of the report focuses on cost and the effectiveness of public schools in New York City in providing affordable meals to its students. As well the government’s effectiveness in maintaining a sustainable cost effective program under which schools can continue to be funded to provide meals to its students. The goal is to illustrate the breakdown of the cost of school lunches, breakfasts and other foods, both the creating and providing of these school meals. The section breaks down how money is used by the state and national government to provide foods. Also illustrated is how the government determines who is eligible for free meals. Explored is whether the current program provides families with cost effective lunches for their children. After examination of peer reviewed research, governmental sites and newspapers, it is evident that government spending for school meals could be more efficient. It is also evident that the cost of school lunches should not create unneeded burden on families who most need the services.  The “Conclusion” section proposes two main solutions to increase cost efficiency of government funding for school meals and decrease the burden of buying school meals for families.

B. Current Pricing of School Meals

To fully understand the way in which New York City school lunch programs function, one must first understand that the NYCschoolfood program is meant to provide meals for the 1.1 million students in over 1,700 schools that comprise the New York City public school system ¹.  In 2013, “about 75 percent of all New York City public school students qualified for free or reduced price lunch” ². Also, the large “majority of the nation’s schools — about 94% — are participating in the National School Lunch Program, which reimburses schools for the meals they serve and provides food at lower cost to feed lower-income students” 3.

In September 2013, New York City school lunch prices rose for the first time in a decade. Full price meals rose from $1.50 to $1.75  ². At the same time, it was announced that those who previously qualified for reduced price lunches would now be able to get their lunches for free. The increase in pricing was qualified by “City officials” who “said the change is necessary because prices have gone up for ingredients, such as skim milk and whole-wheat bread, which are now standard in the school system’s healthier meals program. At the same time, the federal lunch subsidy has not kept pace”  ². According to SchoolFoodNYC, “students who do not return an application and/or are not eligible for a free or reduced-price meal will pay $1.75 for lunch, up from $1.50. And, students who qualify for a reduced-price meal will now receive lunch for FREE, down from the $0.25 that had been charged” 4.

Besides providing breakfast and lunch for students on school days, New York City school food programs also provide free breakfast for all New York City school students regardless of financial background ⁵. As well as free breakfast and lunch during the summer months, free and full priced Saturday meals and snacks for younger children ⁶.

 

C. Affordability for Families

 

Figure 1.⁷

Figure 2. 8

According to Figure 1., families are eligible for free lunch if the families’ annual income is up to 130% of poverty⁷. With the recent price decrease of reduced price lunches, families with incomes up to 185% of poverty, who previously only qualified for reduced lunches, are eligible for free lunches⁷. However, families over 185% of poverty pay for full price lunches, or $1.75 per child ⁷. Figure 2., demonstrates “federal poverty guidelines” and according to these two charts, a family of 4 with an annual of $47,700 would be at 200% of poverty and thus ineligible for free lunch 8. The 25¢ increase for full price lunches seems to be a slight increase, however, over time the 25¢ increase can take a toll on middle income families. For example, “[a] family of two adults and three children with a household income of about $36,000 a year has to pay for lunch and that extra 25 cents — three times a day 180 school days – adds up to an extra $135 for the course of the school year” ².

Additionally, according to a 2014 study, lack of affordable housing in New York City causes “over half of renter households in New York City [to be] rent burdened, paying more than 30 percent of their gross income on rent and utilities” 9. In addition to increasing rents, an increase in lunch prices for the many families who benefit from subsidized school lunches, and are just over the poverty cutoff or have other reasons for being unable to fill out the necessary paperwork, is an unnecessary burden for the “roughly 350,000 kids whose parents either make too much to qualify or failed to fill out the necessary paperwork” 10.

According to the USDA,

In Fiscal Year 2012 over 12.9 million children participated every day. Of those, over 10.1 million received their meals free or at a reduced‐price. Participation has slowly but steadily grown over the years: 1970: 0.5 million children; 1975: 1.8 million children; 1980: 3.6 million children; 1985: 3.4 million children; 1990: 4.0 million children; 1995: 6.3 million children; 2000: 7.5 million children. 11 

This steady increase in the amount of children participating in New York City school meal program stresses the necessity of increased and more comprehensive funding for these programs. Also, “[i]n 2009/10, 78.2 percent of New York City public school children received free or reduced-price school lunch compared to 35.5 percent in Rest of State. This disparity between New York City and Rest of State has remained fairly constant” 10. In 2012, “city schools serve a total of 860,000 meals a day” with “72,000 students” paying for full-price lunches ¹² . As the cost of living increases, more families are in need of assistance to provide nutritious, consistent meals for their children.

The city government increased the cost of full priced meals with the intention of offsetting increasing costs for ingredients, however, within the last decade, many New York City schools have seen an increase in the amount of students unable to pay for their full priced school meals. Although schools are not required to allow students to keep a tab, many schools do and these schools end up accumulating debt as a result. From 2004 to 2011, “the city… absorbed at least $42 million in unpaid lunch fees” ¹³. As more families find it increasingly difficult to pay their children’s lunches, the debt’s that schools incur, which is then eventually paid by the government, also increases.

Finally,

A 2012 SNA survey of school meal program directors found that 53 percent of school districts were experiencing an increase in unpaid meal charges. Of those facing the increase, 56 percent anticipated that the accumulated debt from those charges would be greater at the end of the school year compared with that of the previous school year. Thirty-three percent anticipated a significant increase in debt ¹³.

Individual schools can owe several thousand dollars, “I.S. 145 in Jackson Heights, Queens” for instance owed $25,598, “P.S. 276 in Canarsie, Brooklyn” owed $21,907, and “P.S. 24 in the Riverdale section of the Bronx” owed $20,22217 ¹⁵.

D. Cost Effectiveness of Government Funding

The full cost of a school lunch is estimated to be about $2.90, including ingredients and other services needed to create and provide the meal within schools 2. In 2013, the “Department of Education spokeswoman Marge Feinberg said even at $1.75, the price doesn’t cover the real cost of the meal” 2. According to her,  the difference between the $1.75 full price meal and the real cost of $2.90 is made up “with tax levy (funds)” 2. The differences in the cost is also made up by reimbursements the government gives to schools. The majority of the support the “USDA provides to schools in the School Breakfast Program comes in the form of a cash reimbursement for each breakfast served. The current (July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014) basic cash reimbursement rates for non‐severe need are” stated as free breakfasts at $1.58, reduced-price breakfasts at $1.28 and paid breakfasts at $0.28 16.

In addition, “schools may qualify for higher ‘severe need’ reimbursements if 40% or more of their lunches are served free or at a reduced price in the second preceding year. Severe need payments are up to 30 cents higher than the normal reimbursements for free and reduced‐price breakfasts. About 77 percent of the breakfasts served in the School Breakfast Program receive severe need payments” 17. The cost of maintaining the School Breakfast Program has steadily increased every year, “[f]or Fiscal Year 2012, the School Breakfast Program cost $3.3 billion, up from $1.9 billion in Fiscal Year 2005. The cost in previous years was in 1970, $10.8 million; in 1980, $287.8 million; in 1990, $ 599.1 million; and in 2000, $1.39 billion” 17.

Figure 3. 18

According to Figure 3., of the money that is used to fund these programs, as of 2008, approximately 48% was used for labor, 37% for the actual ingredients used in the meals, and 15% was used for “other” costs. Labor costs include “the cost of the staff who prepare and serve food as well as those who perform the administrative functions associated with operating a meal program” 18. The “other” costs include “supplies, equipment, and indirect charges by the school district” 19. Startlingly, approximately “16 percent of school food service revenues” are provided by “competitive foods”, foods such as vending machine snacks, that are “sold in competition with federally reimbursed meals” 19. Schools often choose to provide “competitive foods” as a way to increase revenue and offset any losses they might incur. However, these foods are often unhealthy and although they create revenue, they also are directly competing with provided reimbursed meals.

 

In addition, school food programs are supported by “USDA food support” 19. The USDA program aims to “support American agricultural producers by providing cash reimbursements for meals served in schools and other child nutrition institutions” and provides “approximately 20 percent of the food served in school lunches” 20. Studies “by California Food Policy Advocates (CFPA) and Samuels & Associates (S&A;)” have shown that “while this may be good for commodity farmers”, the nutritional value of these foods might be more negative than positive. The study gave the USDA commodity foods a “failing grade” 19, and rightfully so, as “[n]ationally, over 50 percent (55 percent in California) of commodity foods are sent to processors before they are delivered to school districts. Processing, which may add fat, sugar and sodium to foods, is unregulated for nutritional quality” 20. The foods include canned, processed foods such as “[c]anned Apricots, Blueberries, Dried Cherries, Reduced Fat Cheese, Pork, Turkey, UHT Milk, [and] Walnuts” ¹⁶. These commodity foods are given “[i]n addition to cash reimbursements… at a value of 23.25 cents for each meal served in Fiscal Year 2012‐2013” 20.