Federal funding cuts could shift school meal costs to Michigan parents and state – The Michigan Independent

Report on the Michigan School Meals Program and its Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Program Overview and Context

• For the past two years, the Michigan School Meals program has provided universal free breakfast and lunch to all K-12 public school students, irrespective of family income.
• The program was established as a key state initiative after federal COVID-19 meal waivers expired at the start of the 2022-2023 school year.
• State funding for the program was initially $160 million in the 2024 school aid budget, increasing to $200 million in the 2025 budget.
• The program’s continuation is currently threatened by recent federal cuts to social safety net programs and a state-level legislative budget impasse.

Contribution to SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being)

• The program is a direct intervention supporting SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) by addressing food insecurity, which affects one in five children in Michigan.
• It promotes SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) by ensuring students have access to nutritious meals they might not receive at home, as families may be forced to purchase cheaper, less healthy food to manage budgets.
• According to the Michigan Department of Education (MDE), the program has significantly increased student participation in school meals:
  • A 31% rise in students eating breakfast at school in October 2024 compared to October 2022.
  • A 25% rise in students eating lunch at school during the same period.
• As noted by nutrition professionals, addressing student hunger is critical, as it is linked to a higher likelihood of behavioral and health challenges.

Advancing SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

• The initiative is a key enabler for SDG 4 (Quality Education). Stakeholders, including Richard Browder of Brighton Area Schools, affirm that students cannot be prepared to learn while distracted by hunger.
• The program has been linked to improved student academic and attendance rates.
• By being universal, the program advances SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). It eliminates the stigma often associated with receiving free or reduced-price meals, ensuring all students have equal access.
• As noted by June Altom of the School Nutrition Association of Michigan, the universal approach also promotes body positivity among teens who may otherwise feel uncomfortable eating in front of peers.

Economic Impact and Alignment with SDG 1 (No Poverty)

• The program contributes to achieving SDG 1 (No Poverty) by reducing the financial burden on households.
• State data estimates that the program saves families up to $850 per student, per year.
• It has proven especially beneficial for middle-income families who struggle with rising costs but may not be eligible for other forms of assistance.
• A key benefit has been the prevention of families incurring school lunch debt.

Institutional Challenges and Threats to Sustainability (SDG 16)

1. Federal Policy Impact: Changes resulting from the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” are projected to remove hundreds of thousands of Michiganders from SNAP and Medicaid. This directly impacts the number of students automatically qualifying for meal assistance.
2. Reduced Federal Reimbursement: The state’s federal reimbursement for the program is contingent on the number of students qualifying via SNAP and Medicaid data. In the last school year, this amounted to $87.6 million. A decrease in qualifying students will reduce this federal support, straining the state’s ability to fund the program.
3. Lack of Permanent Legislation: The program is funded on a year-to-year basis. A 2023 bill to make the program permanent was introduced in the state Senate but was never brought to a vote.
4. State Budget Deadlock: As of July 30, Michigan’s split legislature had not passed a 2026 fiscal year budget. The House Republican budget proposal passed on June 11 would completely eliminate funding for the universal school meals program.

Conclusion and Future Outlook

• The Michigan School Meals program represents a critical investment in child welfare, directly supporting SDGs related to hunger, health, education, poverty, and inequality.
• Should the program be discontinued, school districts would revert to a direct certification model requiring parents to submit applications. This process is expected to result in fewer children being enrolled and could leave many food-insecure students without daily meals.
• Stakeholders like Amanda Klein of the American Heart Association have urged lawmakers to prioritize children’s health and academic success by restoring program funding in the final state budget.
• As stated by a student nutrition director, many families “really do value and need this program in order to help their kids to be successful in school.”

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article discusses issues related to school meal programs, food security, student well-being, and government funding, which connect to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These goals focus on ending poverty and hunger, ensuring health and education, reducing inequality, and promoting strong institutions.

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger: This is the most central SDG, as the article’s main topic is the provision of free school breakfast and lunch to combat child hunger and ensure students have access to nutritious food.
• SDG 1: No Poverty: The article connects the meal program to poverty by highlighting how it saves families money (“up to $850 per year, per student”) and benefits middle-income families who struggle with costs. It also discusses the link between the program’s funding and social safety net programs like SNAP.
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: The article explicitly links nutrition to health, stating that “children who go hungry are more likely to have… health challenges” and that schools provide “nutritious food for children that they might not get at home.” The involvement of the American Heart Association further underscores this connection.
• SDG 4: Quality Education: A direct link is made between nutrition and learning. The article notes that the program “improves student academic and attendance rates” and quotes a source saying, “In order to be able to be prepared to learn, students can’t have the distraction of being hungry.”
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The program is described as “universal,” providing meals “regardless of their family’s income.” This addresses inequality among students and “reduces the stigma associated with receiving free meals.”
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article details the political and institutional challenges threatening the program, such as the budget impasse in Michigan’s split government, the year-to-year funding model, and the failure to pass legislation to make the program permanent. This relates to the need for effective and stable institutions.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues discussed, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

SDG 2: Zero Hunger

1. Target 2.1: By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round.
   • Explanation: The Michigan School Meals program directly aims to ensure that all K-12 public school students, a vulnerable population, have access to sufficient food (breakfast and lunch) throughout the school year. The article highlights that without the program, some students “wouldn’t be able to eat breakfast or lunch every day.”
2. Target 2.2: By 2030, end all forms of malnutrition…
   • Explanation: The article emphasizes the nutritional aspect of the meals, noting that schools provide “nutritious food” that children might not otherwise receive, as families may have to buy “cheaper, unhealthier meal options.” This directly addresses the goal of ending malnutrition by improving the quality of food children consume.

SDG 1: No Poverty

1. Target 1.3: Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all… and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable.
   • Explanation: The universal school meal program is presented as a social protection system. The article states it “saves families up to $850 per year” and largely benefits “middle-income families… who may struggle with rising costs but may not be eligible for social safety net programs,” thereby extending a protective measure to a broader segment of the population.

SDG 4: Quality Education

1. Target 4.a: Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all.
   • Explanation: The article explains that the universal program creates a more inclusive and effective learning environment by removing the “distraction of being hungry” and reducing “the stigma associated with receiving free meals.” This fosters an environment where all students can focus on learning.

SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

1. Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… economic or other status.
   • Explanation: The program’s universal nature, providing meals “regardless of income and zip code,” directly promotes social inclusion within the school environment. It ensures that access to food is not a point of differentiation or stigma among students, thereby reducing inequality.

ol>

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article mentions several quantitative and qualitative indicators that can be used to measure progress.

Indicators for SDG 2 (Zero Hunger)

• Prevalence of food insecurity: The article provides a baseline statistic: “One in five children in Michigan is food insecure.” Progress could be measured by a reduction in this rate.
• Participation rate in school meal programs: The article provides specific data points: “about 31% more students ate breakfast at school in October 2024 compared to October 2022” and “Approximately 25% more students are eating lunch at school.” These percentages are direct indicators of the program’s reach and success in providing meals.

Indicators for SDG 1 (No Poverty)

• Financial relief for families: The article quantifies the program’s benefit as saving “families up to $850 per year, per student.” This figure serves as an indicator of the program’s contribution to easing the financial burden on families.
• Coverage by social protection programs: The article implies this indicator by discussing how eligibility for SNAP and Medicaid determines federal reimbursement levels. The number of students qualifying through these programs is a measure of coverage for the most vulnerable.

Indicators for SDG 4 (Quality Education)

• Student academic and attendance rates: The article explicitly states that the universal free school meal program “improves student academic and attendance rates.” Tracking these rates would be a direct way to measure the program’s impact on educational outcomes.

Indicators for SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

• Stability of program funding: The article indicates a lack of stability by noting the program is “funded on a year-to-year basis” and that a bill to “make the program permanent… was never brought up for a floor vote.” Achieving permanent, stable funding would be a key indicator of institutional effectiveness.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

SDGs	Targets	Indicators Identified in the Article
SDG 2: Zero Hunger	2.1: End hunger and ensure access by all people… to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round.	Prevalence of food insecurity (“One in five children in Michigan is food insecure”). Percentage increase in students eating school breakfast (31%) and lunch (25%).
SDG 1: No Poverty	1.3: Implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all.	Financial savings for families (“saves families up to $850 per year, per student”). Prevention of school lunch debt.
SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being	3.4: …promote mental health and well-being.	Provision of “nutritious food” to prevent health challenges. Promotion of body positivity among teens.
SDG 4: Quality Education	4.a: …provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all.	Improvement in “student academic and attendance rates.” Reduction of stigma associated with receiving free meals.
SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities	10.2: …promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… economic or other status.	Provision of meals “regardless of income and zip code.”
SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions	16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.	Program funding status (“funded on a year-to-year basis”). Status of legislation to make the program permanent (stalled).

Source: michiganindependent.com