The Association between the School Breakfast Program, the National School Lunch Program, and the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program and Changes in Food Insecurity from Childhood to Adulthood

Background: Nearly a third of those living below the poverty line are food insecure, while those below 185% or the poverty line have food insecurity (FI) rates of 26.5%. For households with children, FI rates are consistently higher than for all households. Poverty predicts poor nutrition among pre-school children but not school-aged children – perhaps because of their participation in school food assistance programs. A lack of food negatively impacts children’s health, cognitive performance, levels of depression, hyperactivity/inattention, suicidal ideation, development, and mental health problems. The negative outcomes associated with food deprivation may lead to poor food intake outcomes as children become adults. Food assistance program (FAP) participation during childhood may increase an individual’s ability to navigate these programs and other systems of care in adulthood, thereby positively influencing longer-term food security. Additionally, living in poor or otherwise disadvantaged neighborhoods affects food security status (FSS). Literature on food assistance programs focuses primarily on the immediate effects of the School Breakfast Program (SBP) and the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) on FI.

Methods: We use restricted, nationally representative, longitudinal data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) from 1999-2019, to examine the associations between receiving assistance from the SBP and the NSLP on changes in FI scores from childhood to adulthood. We use a number of analytical techniques, including logistic regression to examine whether scores went up or went down from childhood to adulthood; and OLS regression and sibling fixed effects (FE), to examine changes in scores from childhood to adulthood.

Results: School-based FAPs and neighborhood advantage positively predicted improvements in food security scores and a lower likelihood of declines in food security from childhood to adulthood. Those who received assistance from both the SBP and the NSLP during their entire childhood were 3 times as likely to have improved FI scores relative to those who had incomes below 150% of the FPL and did not receive assistance. Children living in a low-income neighborhood were significantly less likely to lower their FI scores and significantly more likely to increase their FI scores. We found significant reductions in mean FI scores in FI scores in our OLS and FE models for those using the food-based school assistance programs from childhood to adulthood.

Implications: Policymakers must consider that living in less advantaged neighborhoods may affect the likelihood of becoming less FI from childhood to adulthood as well as understanding that school food programs reduce FI, no matter where children live. By strengthening the economic stability of neighborhoods, we support long-term food security outcomes. School administrators can increase access to school-based food programs through automatic enrollment in schools where a large percentage of the student body lives in disadvantaged neighborhoods. This ensures access to these programs while minimizing barriers to use such as stigma and arduous registration processes. Policy choices such as those in Pennsylvania, where the SBP is being offered for free to all students regardless of income, will serve as test cases for decreasing access and use barriers to these programs.