Amending Eligibility Rules for Free and Reduced-Price School Meals: Background and Policy Options

August 25, 2021 R46888

Eligibility Rules for Free and Reduced-Price
August 25, 2021
School Meals: Background and Policy Options
Kara Clifford Billings
In 1946, the National School Lunch Act (P.L. 79-396) established that schools participating in
Analyst in Social Policy
the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) would serve lunches for free or at a reduced cost to

students who were determined by school officials to be “unable to pay the full cost of a lunch.”
Alyse N. Minter
Since then, federal rules for determining which children qualify for free and reduced-price (F/RP)
Research Librarian
school meals in the NSLP and the School Breakfast Program (SBP) have been added and

changed. In the 1970s, an income-based eligibility system was adopted, and automatic
(categorical) eligibility through other programs and avenues followed in subsequent decades.
Patrick A. Landers
Analyst in Social Policy
Today, eligibility for free school lunches and breakfasts is granted to children living in

households with an income at or below 130% of the federal poverty level and those who
participate in specified federal programs (e.g., the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

[SNAP]) or meet certain statutory definitions (e.g., homeless children). Children also
automatically qualify for free meals if they attend a school participating in the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP),
Provision 2, or Provision 3, which are special program options with different eligibility and reimbursement rules . To receive
reduced-price meals (a cost of 40 cents or less per lunch and 30 cents or less per breakfast), children must live in a household
with income at or below 185% of the federal poverty level.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides a reimbursement for each meal served through the programs based on
a rate set in statute. The reimbursement rate for reduced-price meals is slightly lower than the rate for free meals. Schools
may serve free meals to additional children if other funding sources are available to cover the remainder of the fees (e.g.,
some states cover reduced-price fees). Children who do not meet the eligibility standards for F/RP meals can still purchase
meals in NSLP and SBP schools, and these full-price meals are still subsidized by the federal government at a lower rate.
Children who meet the eligibility criteria must go through a process to become certified for benefits. The traditional method
of certification for F/RP school meals is a household application (paper or electronic) that is processed by the school district.
Federal laws have also authorized direct certification pathways over the past decades that do not require action from
households; rather, states and school districts share information from programs (e.g., lists of children in households
participating in SNAP) to certify children without a household application.
In recent years, Congress has considered ways to expand or restrict eligibility for F/RP school meals. These options include
(1) changing income eligibility standards; (2) changing categorical eligibility criteria; (3) changing access to special program
options, such as CEP; and (4) providing universally free school meals (eliminating eligibility rules altogether). This report
discusses these options and presents considerations for each approach. It does not examine every possible policy option or
discuss policies that indirectly affect eligibility for F/RP school meals.
Congressional Research Service

Amending Eligibility Rules for Free and Reduced-Price School Meals

Introduction
There is longstanding debate over targeted versus universal benefits in the context of many social
programs.1 This debate has recently surfaced in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)-
administered National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP)
(collectively referred to as the school meals programs2). Some argue that the federal government
should pay the cost of al owing al children to receive free school meals—and a version of this
policy has been implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic. Others advocate for retaining the
more targeted approach of the federal government paying primarily for free or reduced-price
(F/RP) meals for children from low-income families, which has general y been the structure since
the start of the programs.
During the pandemic, arguments for federal y funded free meals for al students have centered on
the burden of administering household applications for F/RP meals and addressing heightened
rates of food insecurity that may not be reflected in previously approved applications. Similar
arguments are used for a permanent expansion of F/RP meals, as wel as arguments related to
more children eating meals and eliminating stigmas associated with receiving F/RP meals.3
Arguments for retaining or narrowing eligibility focus on targeting benefits to the children most
in-need and avoiding increases in federal spending.4
There are currently options through which schools participating in the federal school meals
programs may offer free meals to al students. One of those is a local option: schools may cover
the cost of reduced-price and/or paid meal fees with school, school district5, private, or state
funding if available (as they continue to receive the tiered federal reimbursements for free,
reduced-price, and paid meals).6 The others are federal options: schools participating in special
program options—the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), Provision 2, or Provision 3—
serve free meals to al students with fewer or no household applications.
The history of changes to eligibility rules for F/RP school breakfasts and lunches can help
contextualize current debates over restricting or expanding eligibility for these meals. This report
starts by documenting changes to school meals eligibility rules since the inception of the NSLP in
1946. It then provides an overview of current eligibility standards. Final y, the report discusses a

1 For example, see R.M. Desai, “Rethinking the universalism versus targeting debate,” T he Brookings Institution, May
31, 2017, https://www.brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2017/05/31/rethinking-the-universalism-versus-
targeting-debate and the “ Universal Policies Versus Need-T ested Benefits” section in CRS Report R43731, Poverty:
Major Them es in Past Debates and Current Proposals.
2 For background on the school meals programs, see CRS Report R46234, School Meals and Other Child Nutrition
Program s: Background and Funding.
3 For example, see Janet Poppendieck, “T op 10 Reasons to Support Free Healthy School Meals for All,” Food Research
and Action Center (FRAC), April 8, 2021, https://frac.org/blog/top-10-reasons-to-support-free-healthy-school-meals-
for-all; and Meg Wilcox, “ T he People Behind School Meals Are Pushing for Free Access for All,” Civil Eats, March 8,
2021, https://civileats.com/2021/03/08/the-people-behind-school-meals-are-pushing-for-free-access-for-all.
4 For example, see Daren Bakst and Jonathan Butcher, “ Congress Has to Avoid Universal Free School Meals Which
Include Wealthy,” The Heritage Foundation, October 23, 2020, https://www.heritage.org/welfare/commentary/
congress-has-avoid-universal-free-school-meals-which-include-wealthy.
5 T he term school district is used in this report to refer to both school food authorities, the local authorities legally
charged with operating most aspects of the school meal programs (typically, these are food service departments within
school districts), and local educational agencies, usually a broader school district or school board that plays a role in
administering the school meals programs (processing household applications, for example).
6 Schools must still process applications to receive federal reimbursements for F/RP meals served to qualifying
children.
Congressional Research Service

1

Amending Eligibility Rules for Free and Reduced-Price School Meals

selection of potential changes to the eligibility rules that would facilitate broader or narrower
eligibility for F/RP school meals, and related considerations.
This report focuses on the federal eligibility rules for F/RP school meals. It does not address al
policies that can facilitate changes in eligibility and participation in school meals, such as changes
to the funding structure (e.g., block granting the programs), errors in eligibility determinations, or
eligibility rules in intertwined programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP). The eligibility rules discussed in the report pertain to al 50 states, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam. Certain Pacific Islands (the Northern
Mariana Islands and American Samoa) receive block grants in lieu of normal child nutrition
program funding and are not discussed.7
Table 1. Acronyms Used in this Report
CEP
Community Eligibility Provision
FFCRA
Families First Coronavirus Response Act
FNS
USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service
F/RP
Free/reduced-price
HHFKA
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-296)
ISP
Identified student percentage
NSLP
National School Lunch Program
SBP
School Breakfast Program
SFSP
Summer Food Service Program
SNAP
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
SSO
Seamless Summer Option
TANF
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program
USDA
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Changes to School Meals Eligibility Rules
over Time
This section discusses the evolution of eligibility rules for F/RP school meals.
History of Eligibility Rules Applicable to Most Schools
The National School Lunch Act of 1946 (P.L. 79-396) permanently authorized appropriations for
the NSLP. Section 9 of the act required participating schools to serve lunches for free or at a
reduced price to students who were deemed by local school authorities to be “unable to pay the
full cost of a lunch.” Schools were prohibited from segregating or otherwise discriminating
against students receiving F/RP lunches.

7 For more information on child nutrition programs in the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa, see U.S.
Department of the Interior, Office of Insular Affairs, Region IX Federal Regional Council, Outer Pacific Committee,
FY2016 Report on Federal Financial Assistance to the U.S. Pacific and Caribbean Islands, May 1, 2017, p. 10,
https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/fy16-report -on-federal-financial-assistance-to-the-insular-areas.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 7 Amending Eligibility Rules for Free and Reduced-Price School Meals

In 1970, amendments to the National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (P.L.
91-248) required the Secretary of Agriculture to establish, on an annual basis, income-based
eligibility criteria for F/RP meals based on the federal poverty guidelines, at not less than 100%
of the federal poverty level. USDA established the threshold as 100% of the poverty guidelines in
1971. In 1972, P.L. 92-433 gave states the option to set eligibility for free meals at up to 125% of
the poverty guidelines and for reduced-price meals at up to 150% of the poverty guidelines. The
eligibility threshold for reduced-price meals was increased to 175% of the poverty guidelines in
1973 (P.L. 93-150). In 1975, additional amendments to the National School Lunch Act and the
Child Nutrition Act of 1966 made by P.L. 94-105 required participating schools to offer reduced-
price meals to children in households under 195% of the poverty guidelines (and above 100%-
125% of the poverty guidelines, depending on a state’s threshold for free meals). In 1978, the
Child Nutrition Amendments (P.L. 95-627) set the national income eligibility standard for free
meals at 125% of the poverty guidelines starting in 1979.8
As part of larger efforts to reduce federal domestic spending in the early 1980s, Title VIII of the
Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-35) made changes that collectively cut $1.4 bil ion
(roughly one-quarter) of the child nutrition programs’ budget in FY1982.9 One of those changes
was restricting income eligibility for reduced-price meals from 195% to 185% of the federal
poverty guidelines. However, income eligibility was raised to 130% of the federal poverty level
for free meals. The act also increased al owable charges for reduced-price lunches from 20 cents
to 40 cents and for reduced-price breakfasts from 10 cents to 30 cents, decreasing the federal
subsidy accordingly.10
Changes to the income eligibility thresholds for F/RP school meals over time are displayed in
Table 2.
Table 2. Income Eligibility Thresholds for Free and Reduced-Price (F/RP) School
Meals, 1946-Present
Income Eligibility Standards for F/RP School Meals (as a

Percentage of the Federal Poverty Guidelines from 1971-Present)

Free
Reduced-Price
1946 (enactment of National School
Students determined by local school authorities to be unable to pay the ful
Lunch Act)-1970
cost of a school meal
1971
100%
100%
1972
100%-125% (state option)
100%-150% (state option)
1973-1974
100%-125% (state option)
100%-175% (state option)
1975-1978
100%-125% (state option)
195%
1979-1980
125%
195%
1981-Present
130%
185%
Source: CRS, based on public laws and J.Y. Jones, “Appendix A: Child Nutrition Programs: A Narrative
Legislative History and Program Analysis” in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Education and Labor, Child Nutrition

8 T his paragraph draws on discussion from J.Y. Jones, “Appendix A: Child Nutrition Programs: A Narrative
Legislative History and Program Analysis” in U.S. Congress, House Com m ittee on Education and Labor, Child
Nutrition Program s: Issues for the 103rd Congress, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., Serial No. 103-H (Washington, DC: GPO,
1994), pp. 72-73.
9 Ibid, p. 44.
10 Ibid, p. 69.
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 12 Amending Eligibility Rules for Free and Reduced-Price School Meals

Programs: Issues for the 103rd Congress, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., Serial No. 103-H (Washington, DC: GPO, 1994), pp.
72-73.
Notes: Table does not reflect other eligibility rules, such as categorical eligibility rules, for F/RP school meals or
eligibility in schools participating in the Community Eligibility Provision or Provision 1, Provision 2, and Provision
3.
In 1986, P.L. 99-661 authorized automatic (categorical) eligibility for free meals for children
whose households received assistance through the food stamp program (now SNAP) and Aid to
Families with Dependent Children (now the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families [TANF]
program). These determinations were made through a household providing a SNAP or AFDC
case number on a school meals application.11 Subsequent legislation—the Child Nutrition and
WIC Reauthorization Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-147)—added another certification option, al owing
school districts to directly certify children’s participation in the school meals programs without
the need for a household application.
The Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-265) expanded access to free
school meals by extending categorical eligibility and direct certification to homeless children,
migrant children, and children served under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act. Eligibility for
free school meals was also expanded through the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010
(HHFKA; P.L. 111-296), which extended categorical eligibility and direct certification to foster
children and established a pilot project for direct certification (but not categorical eligibility) of
children in Medicaid households school meals (discussed further in the “Direct Certification”
section).
History of Alternative Eligibility Rules Used by Some Schools
Over time, special program options have been added to the Richard B. Russel National School
Lunch Act that are aimed at simplifying eligibility determinations and paperwork in high-poverty
schools.
The first two options, Provision 1 and Provision 2, were added in 1977 by P.L. 95-166. Provision
1 al ows high-poverty schools to certify children for free meals for a two-year period instead of a
one-year period. Provision 2 al ows any school that agrees to provide free meals to al students to
make F/RP eligibility determinations every four years. The 1994 child nutrition reauthorization
(P.L. 103-448) added a third special option, Provision 3, which is similar to Provision 2 but has a
different reimbursement formula.12
More recently, the HHFKA added another special option, CEP, for schools that agree to serve free
meals to al students.13 Unlike Provision 2 and Provision 3, schools must meet an eligibility

11 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), Office of Research and Analysis, Direct
Certification in the National School Lunch Program : State Im plementation Progress Report to Congress, December
2008, p. 3, https://www.fns.usda.gov/direct -certification-national-school-lunch-program-state-implementation-progress.
12 USDA, FNS, “Provisions 1, 2, and 3,” May 6, 2014, https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/provisions-1-2-and-3.
13 P.L. 111-296 also authorized “universal meal service through Census data” demonstration projects, allowing USDA
to test alternative eligibility determination procedures and reimbursement using Census or other socioeconomic survey
data (Section 11(g) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. 1759a(g)) . USDA
ultimately decided not to carry out these demonstration projects after exploring the feasibility of the approach in a study
conducted with the National Academy of Sciences: National Research Council, Committee on National Statistics,
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Using Am erican Com m unity Survey Data to Expand Access
to the School Meals Program s. Panel on Estim ating Children Eligible for School Nutrition Program s Using the
Am erican Com m unity Survey, prepared for USDA, FNS, 2012, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/
CNST AT .pdf.
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 10 link to page 10 Amending Eligibility Rules for Free and Reduced-Price School Meals

threshold to participate in CEP. According to the Senate committee report accompanying the
legislation, CEP was intended to increase access to free meals and reduce paperwork for schools
and families by eliminating applications. It was also intended to eliminate any stigmas children
receiving F/RP meals may have experienced in the cafeteria.14
Provision 1, Provision 2, Provision 3, and CEP are discussed further in the “Current Law:
Eligibility for Free and Reduced-Price School Meals” section.
Changes to Eligibility Rules During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Pandemic response laws and administrative actions have facilitated an expansion of free meals
during the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years.15
The Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA; P.L. 116-127, as amended through P.L.
117-2) expanded USDA’s authority to waive child nutrition program requirements in FY2020 and
FY2021. USDA used the authority under FFCRA to issue a number of waivers during the
pandemic.16 One of these—the area eligibility waiver—al ows school districts and nonprofits to
serve free meals to al children (without eligibility determinations) through the Summer Food
Service Program (SFSP) and Seamless Summer Option (SSO) (which is normal y only al owed in
areas where at least 50% of children qualify for F/RP meals).17 The Trump Administration made
this option available to all states starting on May 6, 2020 and continued the option through school
year 2020-2021.18
For school year 2021-2022, the Biden Administration announced that school districts in states that
opt into the waiver may choose to operate under a different policy; specifical y, they may choose
to operate SSO through June 30, 2022, serve free meals to al children without eligibility
determinations, and receive the higher SFSP reimbursement rates.19 School districts are not
required to participate under the SSO waiver, and may instead choose to operate NSLP and/or
SBP, which require eligibility determinations for F/RP meals. School districts that choose to
operate NSLP/SBP in school year 2021-2022 wil receive the NSLP/SBP reimbursement rates.

14 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, report to
accompany S. 3307, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 111-178 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2010), p. 6.
15 For a longer discussion of these changes, see CRS Report R46681, USDA Nutrition Assistance Programs: Response
to the COVID-19 Pandem ic. For more information on summer meals program rules, see CRS In Focus IF11633,
Sum m er Meals for Children: An Overview of Federal Aid .
16 For a list of child nutrition program waivers that USDA has issued during the pandemic, see USDA, FNS, “ Child
Nutrition COVID-19 Waivers,” https://www.fns.usda.gov/programs/fns-disaster-assistance/fns-responds-covid-19/
child-nutrition-covid-19-waivers.
17 USDA, FNS, “COVID–19: Child Nutrition Response #77,” FNS-GD-2021-0017, March 9, 2021,
https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/covid-19-child-nutrition-response-77.
18 USDA, FNS, “Nationwide Waiver to Extend Area Eligibility Waivers–Extension 3,” October 9, 2020,
https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/covid-19-response-60; and USDA, FNS, “ COVID–19: Child Nutrition Response #73,”
FNS-GD-2021-0013, March 9, 2021, https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/covid-19-child-nutrition-response-73.
19 CRS communication with FNS in June 2021; USDA, FNS, “ Nationwide Waiver to Allow the Seamless Summer
Option through School Year 2021-2022,” Child Nutrition Response #85, April 20, 2021, https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/
child-nutrition-response-85; and USDA, FNS, “ Nationwide Waiver to Allow Summer Food Service Program
Reimbursement Rates in School Year 2021 -2022,” Child Nutrition Response #86, April 20, 2021,
https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/child-nutrition-response-86. For more information on SSO’s rules, see CRS In Focus
IF11633, Sum mer Meals for Children: An Overview of Federal Aid .
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 10

Amending Eligibility Rules for Free and Reduced-Price School Meals

Current Law: Eligibility for Free and Reduced-Price
School Meals
This section provides further detail on eligibility rules for F/RP school meals under current law
(except changes to those rules in school years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 related to the COVID-
19 pandemic). It starts with a brief summary of the benefits associated with F/RP meals, and then
discusses the overarching eligibility rules applicable to most schools. Final y, it presents further
information on eligibility in schools operating Provision 1, Provision 2, Provision 3, or CEP.
Eligibility at a Glance
In most NSLP and SBP participating schools, children are eligible for F/RP meals based on (1) an
income test or (2) meeting categorical eligibility criteria (i.e., participating in another means-
tested program or fal ing into a certain category; discussed in the following sections).
An overview of the eligibility determination process is shown in Figure 1. In general, income
eligibility is determined via a household application that is reviewed by a school district official,
and categorical eligibility determinations may be made via household application (e.g., by
supplying a program case number) or through direct certification. Direct certification is the
process through which state agencies and school districts certify children for free school meals
based on documentation from other state or local program officials, without the need for the
household to submit an application.
Figure 1. Certification Pathways for Free and Reduced-Price School Meals

Source: CRS adaptation of figure from U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), School Meals Programs:
USDA Has Enhanced Controls, but Additional Verification Could Help Ensure Legitimate Program Access, GAO-14-262,
May 2014, p. 13.
Notes: Direct certification of children in Medicaid demonstration states for reduced-price meals is not depicted
in this graphic. SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, FPG = federal poverty guidelines.
Congressional Research Service

6

Amending Eligibility Rules for Free and Reduced-Price School Meals

Eligibility Rules Applicable to Most Schools
Income Eligibility
To be income eligible for free meals, children must live in a household at or below 130% of the
federal poverty guidelines ($34,060 for a household of four in school year 2020-2021). Eligibility
for reduced-price meals is based on a household income of greater than 130% and less than or
equal to 185% of the federal poverty guidelines ($48,470 for a household of four in school year
2020-2021).20
These thresholds are based on the annual federal poverty guidelines established by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, and are updated annual y for inflation. USDA’s Food
and Nutrition Service (FNS) publishes the corresponding income limits by household size for
F/RP meals in the Federal Register on an annual basis.21
To become income eligible for school meals, a child’s parent or guardian must complete a paper
or online application that includes the income of each household member, the household size, and
other information.22 Household applications and eligibility determinations are administered at the
start of the school year, but families can also fil out applications on a rolling basis throughout the
school year. On occasion, school district officials are authorized to fil out household applications
on behalf of families if they have family income and family-size data from other sources.23
Household income is defined as total gross income (before taxes or deductions), including
earnings and wages, certain public assistance benefits (e.g., unemployment compensation, social
security benefits, child support payments), and retirement and pension income.24 Households are
asked to provide current weekly, biweekly, twice monthly, or monthly income amounts, which
school district officials compare to the income eligibility thresholds to determine eligibility for
free meals, reduced-price meals, or neither.25 Households only need to fil out one application if
they have multiple children in the same school district.

20 USDA, FNS, “Child Nutrition Programs: Income Eligibility Guidelines,” 85 Federal Register 16050, March 20,
2020; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE),
“Poverty Guidelines,” January 15, 2021, https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines.
21 For example, see USDA, FNS, “Child Nutrition Programs: Income Eligibility Guidelines,” 85 Federal Register
16050, March 20, 2020.
22 T he adult household member filling out the application is required to provide the last four digits of his/her Socia l
Security number (Section 9(d)(1) of the NSLA), or, according to program regulations, indicate that he/she does not
have one (7 C.F.R. §245.6(a)(6)). T he law does not allow for citizenship eligibility restrictions; Section 742(a) of P.L.
104-193 states that individuals who are eligible for free public education benefits under state and local law shall remain
eligible to receive school lunch and school breakfast benefits.
23 7 C.F.R. §245.6(d). According to USDA, “this option is intended for limited use in individual situations and must not
be used to make eligibility determinations for categories or groups of children”; USDA, FNS, “Child Nutrition
Programs: Income Eligibility Guidelines,” 85 Federal Register 16050, March 20, 2020; and USDA, FNS, Eligibility
Manual for School Meals: Determ ining an d Verifying Eligibility, July 2017, p. 42, https://www.fns.usda.gov/eligibility-
manual-school-meals.
24 7 C.F.R. §245.6(a)(5)(ii). Also see USDA, FNS, “Child Nutrition Programs: Income Eligibility Guidelines,” 85
Federal Register 16050, March 20, 2020; USDA, FNS, Eligibility Manual for School Meals: Determ ining and
Verifying Eligibility, July 2017, https://www.fns.usda.gov/eligibility-manual-school-meals; and USDA, FNS,
“Applying for Free and Reduced Price School Meals,” https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/applying-free-and-reduced-price-
school-meals.
25 Ibid. Households are asked to report this income for the most recent period prior to the application , unless it does not
reflect their typical income—in which case they can provide the amount of income they normally receive in a month.
Congressional Research Service

7

Amending Eligibility Rules for Free and Reduced-Price School Meals

The verification of household applications and detailed information on meal reimbursements are
not discussed in this report. For information on these concepts, see CRS Report R46234, School
Meals and Other Child Nutrition Programs: Background and Funding.
Categorical Eligibility
As an alternative to income eligibility, children can become eligible for free school meals if they
fal into a certain category (referred to as categorical eligibility). Per statute, children are
automatical y eligible for free lunches and breakfasts (without consideration of household
income) if they26
 are in a household receiving assistance through the following programs:
 SNAP;
 the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (a program that
operates in lieu of SNAP on some Indian reservations); or
 TANF27;
 are enrolled in Head Start;
 are enrolled in a Runaway and Homeless Youth program;
 meet the definition of a foster child28;
 meet the definition of a migratory child29; or
 meet the definition of a homeless child or youth.30
Categorical eligibility for free meals may be determined via a household application (households
may provide a case number on the application) or through direct certification (discussed in the
next section). The vast majority of categorical y eligible children are certified for free meals
through direct certification as compared to household application (approximately 94% versus
6%).31
Direct Certification
Direct certification is a process through which state agencies and school districts automatical y
certify children for free meals based on documentation of a child’s status in a program or
category without the need for a household application.32 States are required to conduct direct

26 See Section 9(b)(12)(A) of the Russell National School Lunch Act (codified at 42 U.S.C. §1758(b)(12)(A)) for more
specific definitions of these categories. SNAP, FDPIR, and T ANF have income limits, but the other categories as
defined in the statute are not limited by income.
27 For further information on the T ANF categorical eligibility rules, see 7 C.F.R. §245.12 and USDA, FNS,
“Categorical Eligibility—T emporary Assistance to Needy Families,” SP 22-2010; CACFP 10-2010; SFSP 08-2010,
April 2010, https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/categorical-eligibility-tang.
28 Specifically, “a foster child whose care and placement is the responsibility of an agency that administers a State plan
under part B or E of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 621 et seq.); or (ii) a foster child who a court has
placed wit h a caretaker household.”
29 As defined in Section 1309 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. §6399).
30 As defined in Section 725(2) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. §11434a(2)).
31 CRS calculations based on FNS-742 administrative data provided by USDA, FNS on June 1, 2021 .
32 Direct certification authority is in Section 9(b)(4)-(5) of the Russell National School Lunch Act (codified at 42
U.S.C. §1758(b)(4)-(5)). Direct certification is defined in NSLP/SBP program regulations at 7 C.F.R. §245.2.
Congressional Research Service

8

Amending Eligibility Rules for Free and Reduced-Price School Meals

certification for SNAP and have the option of conducting direct certification for the other
programs and categories that convey categorical eligibility.
For SNAP and other federal programs, the direct certification process typical y involves state
agencies (e.g., state SNAP and state educational agencies) cross-checking program rol s.33 A list
of matched children is sent to the school district, which certifies children for free meals without
the need for a household application.34 For foster, homeless, and migrant children, direct
certification typical y involves school district communication with a local or state official who
can provide documentation of the child’s status in one of these categories.35
Direct Certification with Medicaid Demonstration
The HHFKA initiated a demonstration project to conduct direct certification of children
individual y participating in Medicaid and children in Medicaid households.36 Unlike the other
programs used to directly certify children for school meals, Medicaid does not convey categorical
eligibility for free school meals, but rather identifies children in households that would meet the
income eligibility thresholds for F/RP school meals.37
As of school year 2020-2021, there were 19 states directly certifying children based on Medicaid
data. Four of those states (Il inois, Kentucky, New York, and Pennsylvania) used Medicaid
household income data to directly certify for free meals only. Fifteen states (California,
Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, Texas, Utah,
Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin) were operating under an expanded direct
certification demonstration project to test direct certification with Medicaid for free and reduced-
price meals using a household income test.38

33 USDA, FNS, Direct Certification in the National School Lunch Program State Implementation Progress Report to
Congress School Year 2017-2018 & School Year 2018-2019, June 2021, https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/direct-
certification-national-school-lunch-program-state-implementation-progress-report.
34 Parents and guardians are notified of the child’s enrollment in free meals and are allowed to opt -out.
35 USDA, FNS, Eligibility Manual for School Meals: Determining and Verifying Eligibility, July 2017,
https://www.fns.usda.gov/eligibility-manual-school-meals.
36 For more information on the direct certification with Medicaid demonstration, see USDA, FNS, Final Report: Direct
Certification with Medicaid for Free and Reduced -Price Meals (DCMF/RP) Dem onstration, Year 1 , Mathematica
Policy Research, August 2019, https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/evaluation-direct -certification-medicaid-free-and-reduced-
price-meals; and USDA, FNS, Direct Certification with Medicaid for Free and Reduced -Price Meals (DCM-F/RP)
Dem onstration, Year 2, Mathematica Policy Research, September 2020, https://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp/evaluation-
direct-certification-medicaid-free-and-reduced-price-meals-dcm-frp.
37 USDA, FNS, “Request for Applications to Participate in Demonstration Projects to Evaluate Direct Certification
with Medicaid,” January 27, 2016, https://www.medicaid.gov/federal-policy-guidance/downloads/cib-02-12-16.pdf.
38 CRS communication with USDA, FNS in March 2021. T he demonstration uses authority in Section 9(b)(15) of the
Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (as amended by HHFKA [P.L. 111-296]) as well as FNS’s pilot
authority under Section 18(c) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (codified at 42 U.S.C. §1769(c)).
For the latest grant announcement as of the date of this report, see USDA, FNS, “ National School Lunch Program and
School Breakfast Program Demonstration Projects to Evaluate Direct Certification with Medicaid,” July 30, 2021,
https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/direct -certification-medicaid-demonstration-project.
Congressional Research Service

9

Amending Eligibility Rules for Free and Reduced-Price School Meals

Table 3. Key Statutory References to Free/Reduced-Price School Meal Eligibility and
Certification Rules
Richard B. Russell
National School
Lunch Act
Description
Section 9(b)(1), (2), (3), Income eligibility rules and household applications
(9), (11), (12), (13), and
(14), and (d)(1)
Section 9(b)(4)
Mandatory direct certification with SNAP
Section 9(b)(5)
Optional direct certification with TANF, Runaway
and Homeless Youth (RHY) programs, Head Start,
foster children, migrant children, homeless children
Section 9(b)(6)
Data sharing permissions for free and reduced-price
eligibility information
Section 9(b)(12)
Categorical eligibility with SNAP, TANF, RHY
programs, Head Start, foster children, migrant
children, homeless children
Section 9(b)(15)
Demonstration for direct certification with Medicaid
Section 9(d)(2)
Required documentation for free and reduced-price
meal certification
Source: CRS, based on current law.
Alternative Eligibility Rules Applicable to Some Schools
Provision 1, Provision 2, and Provision 3
Provision 1 al ows high-poverty schools—defined as schools with at least 80% of students
qualifying for F/RP lunches—to certify children for free meals for two consecutive school years
instead of a single year (reducing the administrative burden on schools and households). Children
who are not certified for free meals must stil be provided an application for F/RP meals on an
annual basis, and they may apply for such meals on an ongoing basis.39
Provision 2 al ows schools that agree to provide free meals to al students to make eligibility
determinations every four years.40 Provision 2 schools’ meal reimbursements are based on the
proportion of meals served at the free/reduced-price/paid rate during the first year applied to the
total meal counts in the current year.
Similar to Provision 2, schools using Provision 3 must agree to provide free meals to al students
and they may operate the provision for a four-year period. The difference is the reimbursement

39 7 C.F.R. §245.9(a).
40 Eligibility determinations in the first year are made via household application and direct certification. USDA, FNS,
“Provision 2 Guidance National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs,” last updated in 2002, https://fns-
prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/Prov2Guidance.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

10

link to page 12 link to page 16 Amending Eligibility Rules for Free and Reduced-Price School Meals

formula: Provision 3 schools make eligibility determinations and track meal counts in a base year
(the year before the four-year period). The amount of funding they receive in subsequent years is
the amount in the base year adjusted for inflation, enrollment, and operating days, and they do not
have to track meal counts.41
Unlike Provision 1 and CEP, there is no eligibility threshold for schools to participate in
Provision 2 or Provision 3. There were 63 schools operating Provision 1 and roughly 3,900
schools operating Provision 2 or Provision 3 in school year 2019-2020.42
Community Eligibility Provision (CEP)
Like Provision 2 and Provision 3, CEP requires participating schools to provide free meals to al
students, and schools may opt into the provision for a four-year period. The main differences are
that CEP schools must meet an eligibility threshold to participate, are not required to administer
household applications, and receive meal reimbursements based on an alternative formula.43
To qualify for CEP, a school, group of schools, or school district must have an identified student
percentage (ISP) of at least 40%.44 The ISP is the percentage of enrolled students who are
certified for free meals by the school district or state agency without the use of a household
application. A school’s ISP is essential y the same as its direct certification rate (discussed in the
“Direct Certification” section) except that the ISP does not include students who are directly
certified for reduced-price meals through the Medicaid demonstration.45 Instead of receiving the
normal reimbursements for each free, reduced-price, and full-price meal served, CEP schools
receive funds under an alternative formula: the ISP is multiplied by 1.6 to calculate the
percentage of meals served that are reimbursed at the free rate, with the remainder of meals
reimbursed at the lower paid rate.46 For example, if a CEP school has an ISP of 40%, then 64% of
meals would be reimbursed at the free-meal rate and 36% would be reimbursed at the paid rate.
CEP was phased in over three school years and became an option for school districts in al states
in school year 2014-2015.47 As of school year 2019-2020, there were more than 30,600 schools
nationwide (approximately 33% of NSLP schools) participating in the provision (see Figure 2).48

41 USDA, FNS, “ Provisions 1, 2, and 3: Special Assistance Alternatives,” May 6, 2014, https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/
provisions-1-2-and-3.
42 CRS calculations based on FNS-742 administrative data provided by USDA, FNS on June 1, 2021.
43 For further detail, see CRS Report R46371, Serving Free School Meals through the Community Eligibility Provision
(CEP): Background and Participation .
44 Section 11(a)(1)(F)(viii) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. §1759a(a)(1)(F)(viii)).
45 T he definition of the ISP is in program regulations at 7 C.F.R. Section 245.6a(c)(2) and 7 C.F.R. Section
245.9(f)(1)(ii). According to the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, “ t he term ‘identified students’ means
students certified based on documentation of benefit receipt or categorical eligibility as described in sect ion
245.6a(c)(2) of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations). ” For a simpler overview of the ISP, see
USDA, FNS, “State Agency Checklist for Checking Identified Student Percentage Accuracy,” December 20 15,
https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/cn/SP15-2016a2v2.pdf.
46 According to CEP’s implementing regulations, the 1.6 multiplier was used to estimate the F/RP eligible population
had household applications been administered. USDA, FNS, “ National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast
Program: Eliminating Applications through Community Eligibility as Required by the Healthy, Hunger -Free Kids Act
of 2010,” 81 Federal Register 50194, July 29, 2016.
47 USDA, FNS, “Community Eligibility Provision (CEP): Planning & Implementation Guidance,” September 2016, p.
8, https://www.fns.usda.gov/fall-2016-edition-community-eligibility-provision-planning-and-implementation-guidance.
48 CRS divided this number by the number of NSLP schools (94,469) in FY2019, as reported in USDA, FNS,
“September 2020 Keydata Report,” January 27, 2021, https://www.fns.usda.gov/data/september-2020-keydata-report.
Congressional Research Service

11

Amending Eligibility Rules for Free and Reduced-Price School Meals

Figure 2. Estimated Percentage of NSLP Schools Operating CEP, School Years 2014-
2015 to 2019-2020

Source: CRS, applying the number of CEP schools reported in Food Research and Action Center’s (FRAC’s)
CEP Database to USDA, FNS, Keydata files for 2014-2020.
Notes: The chart does not reflect a relatively smal number of schools operating only the SBP.
Benefit Amounts and Funding Sources
Both children and schools receive benefits when students are certified for and served F/RP school
meals. Under current law, such students receive free meals, or they pay a maximum of 40 cents
per lunch and 30 cents per breakfast for reduced-price meals.49
For schools, meals served to eligible children qualify for the federal free-meal reimbursement rate
(a maximum of $3.75 per lunch and $2.26 per breakfast in school year 2020-2021) or the
reduced-price reimbursement rate (a maximum of $3.35 per lunch and $1.96 per breakfast in
school year 2020-2021).50 Reimbursements are based on a rate provided in statute that is adjusted
annual y for inflation.51 Schools also receive a smal er paid reimbursement rate (a maximum of
$0.48 per lunch and $0.32 per breakfast in school year 2020-2021) for meals purchased by
children who are not eligible for or who do not apply for F/RP meals. This may or may not result
in a reduced charge for children paying “full price” for meals.
Most funding for school food service operations comes from federal meal reimbursements. A
USDA study of the school meals programs in school year 2014-2015 found that 63% of school
food service revenues came from federal funds, 30% came from student payments for ful price
and reduced-price meals and other school foods, and 6% came from state and local funds.52

49 Section 9(b)(1) of the NSLA (42 U.S.C. §1758(b)(1).
50 Rates are for the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia; separate rates are provided for Alaska, Guam,
Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. USDA, FNS, “ National School Lunch, Special Milk, and School
Breakfast Programs, National Average Payments/Maximum Reimbursement Rates, ” July 22, 2020, 85 Federal Register
44270.
51 Section 11(a)(3)(B) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (codified at 42 U.S.C. §1759a(a)(3)(B)).
52 USDA, FNS, Office of Policy Support, School Nutrition and Meal Cost Study, Final Report Volume 3: School Meal
Congressional Research Service

12

Amending Eligibility Rules for Free and Reduced-Price School Meals

States participating in NSLP are required by law to cover a smal proportion of school meal
program costs.53 Some states exceed this requirement. For example, California and Maine
recently enacted laws to fund free meals for al students starting in school year 2022-2023.54
Other states cover reduced-price copays for breakfasts and/or lunches using state funding or
provide school meals funding that may enable schools to remove reduced-price and/or paid-meal
fees.55 School districts may also use local or private funds to cover the remaining costs of
reduced-price and/or full price meals.
Verifying the Accuracy of Eligibility Determinations
Each fal , school districts are required to verify a sample of approved household applications on
file, with a focus on applications close to the eligibility threshold.56 Districts may also conduct
verification of questionable applications, such as applications that are missing income
information of which district officials are otherwise aware.57
Verification is not required for children who are directly certified for F/RP meals. Therefore,
verification is not required in CEP schools, since they only conduct direct certification. Districts
participating in Provision 1, Provision 2, and Provision 3 must meet verification requirements for
the years in which they administer household applications.
Districts may use data from other low-income programs to verify children’s eligibility for F/RP
school meals, but if data cannot be verified in this way, districts must contact households to
acquire documentation to verify the information provided on the household application. A child’s
eligibility status may stay the same or change (e.g., from free meals to reduced-price meals or
loss of eligibility) as a result of verification or if the household does not respond to verification
outreach (in which case eligibility would be lost, though that decision can be appealed).
National data from USDA show that 24% of households selected for verification in school year
2018-2019 did not respond to school districts’ requests for information and therefore had their
F/RP meal benefits terminated.58 Of households that responded to the verification request, 59%

Costs and Revenues, April 2019, p. 43, https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-nutrition-and-meal-cost-study.
53 Section 7(a)(1) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (codified at 42 U.S.C. §1756(a)(1)). T he
required contribution in NSLP equals 30% of funds made available to states in school year 1980 -1981 (not adjusted for
inflation) under Section 4 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, which was $200 million according to
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Child Nutrition Program s: Description,
History, Issues, and Options, committee print, 98th Cong., 1st Sess., January 1983, S. Prt. 98-15 (Washington, DC:
GPO, 1983), p. 8. States must also maintain level funding to the amount expended in FY1977 for state administrative
expenses associated with NSLP and SBP, per Section 7(f) of Child Nutrition Act (codified at 42 U.S.C. §1776(f)).
54 State of California, “2021-22 State Budget: Entire Education Budget ,” http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/budget/2021-
22EN/#/Agency/6010, accessed August 9, 2021; and H.P. 156 - L.D. 221 (130th Maine Legislature),
http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/display_ps.asp?ld=221&PID=1456&snum=130.
55 FRAC, “School Meals Legislation and Funding by State,” February 2021, https://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/
state_leg_table_scorecard.pdf.
56 Section 9(b)(3)(D) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (codified at 42 U.S.C. §1758(b)(3)(D)); 7
C.F.R. §245.6a. In general, local educational agencies must review the smaller of 3,000 of all applications or 3% of
error-prone applications. If the local educational agency h as a nonresponse rate below 20% or has more than 20,000
children approved by application for F/RP meals and a recently improved response rate, they may use alternative
sampling approaches.
57 USDA, FNS, “Eligibility Manual for School Meals,” July 2017, pp. 99-100, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/
default/files/cn/SP36_CACFP15_SFSP11-2017a1.pdf.
58 J. Leftin, C. Baxter, K. Niland et al., Study of Nonresponse to the School Meals Application Verification Process,
prepared by Mathematica for USDA, FNS, Office of Policy Support, July 2021, p. 26,
Congressional Research Service

13

link to page 19 link to page 19 Amending Eligibility Rules for Free and Reduced-Price School Meals

had no change in benefits, 3% had their benefits increased (from reduced-price to free), 16% had
their benefits decreased (from free to reduced-price), and 21% had their benefits terminated.59
Error can occur if a family provides misinformation on the household application. It can also
occur if the school district official reviewing the application miscalculates eligibility based on the
household income provided. USDA’s Office of Inspector General found an improper payment
rate (including overpayments and underpayments) of 9.1% in NSLP and 10.3% in SBP in
FY2020.60 Previous USDA research found that approximately 70% of improper payments in
NSLP and SBP were overpayments and 30% were underpayments.61 In 2019, the U.S.
Government Accountability Office recommended that FNS improve its detection of intentional
error (fraud).62
Trends in Program Participation and Costs
Current program participation rates and costs provide a baseline for considering future changes to
eligibility rules. This section presents a snapshot of free, reduced-price, and paid school meal
participation and cost trends to contextualize the policy options presented in the next section of
this report.
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, USDA estimated that between 29 milion and 30 mil ion
children participated in NSLP on a typical school day in recent years.63 Breakfast participation
was comparatively lower, at roughly 14 mil ion children in recent years.64 With the advent of the
pandemic and closure of schools, there was a decline in participation across programs and
eligibility categories, with total lunch participation dropping by 7.1 mil ion children and breakfast
participation dropping by 2.5 mil ion children in FY2020.
The proportion of children receiving free meals has general y increased over the past three
decades while the percentage of children receiving reduced-price and paid school meals has
decreased since 2007 in NSLP and stayed relatively constant in SBP. Figure 3 and Figure 4 show
the estimated number of NSLP and SBP participants, respectively, by reimbursement category
from 1976 to 2020.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/study-nonresponse-school-meals-application-verification-process.
59 Ibid, p. 27.
60 USDA, Office of Inspector General, USDA’s Fiscal Year 2020 Compliance with Improper Payment Requirements,
Audit Report 50024-0001-24, June 2021, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/audit-reports/
50024_0001_24_FR_FOIA.pdf.
61 USDA, FNS, Office of Policy Support, Program Error in the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast
Program : Findings from the Second Access, Participation, Eligibility and Certification Study (APEC) II, Volume 1:
Findings, May 2015, https://www.fns.usda.gov/nslpsbp-access-participation-eligibility-and-certification-study-ii.
62 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), USDA Has Reported Taking Some Steps to Reduce Improper
Paym ents but Should Com prehensively Assess Fraud Risks, GAO-19-389, May 21, 2019, https://www.gao.gov/
products/gao-19-389.
63 USDA, FNS, “Child Nutrition T ables: National Level Annual Summary T ables: FY 1969 -2020,” July 2, 2021,
https://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/child-nutrition-tables. USDA estimates the average daily number of school meal
participants by dividing the total number of meals served by the average number of op erating days in the school year
(and adjusting for the number of students absent on a typical day). FY2020 data are preliminary and may be subject to
more error than a typical year due to substantial variation across schools in the number of operating days during the
COVID-19 pandemic.
64 Participation in SBP tends to be lower for several reasons, including the traditionally required early arrival by
students in order to receive a meal before school starts.
Congressional Research Service

14

Amending Eligibility Rules for Free and Reduced-Price School Meals

Figure 3. Estimated Number of Participants in the National School Lunch Program
(NSLP) by Reimbursement Category, 1976-2020

Source: CRS, based on data from USDA, FNS, “Child Nutrition Tables: National Level Annual Summary Tables:
FY 1969-2020,” July 2, 2021, https://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/child-nutrition-tables.
Notes: USDA estimates the average daily number of school meal participants by dividing the total number of
meals served by the average number of operating days in the school year (and adjusting for the number of
students absent on a typical day). FY2020 data are preliminary and may be subject to more error than a typical
year due to substantial variation across schools in the number of operating days during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Figure 4. Estimated Number of Participants in the School Breakfast Program (SBP)
by Reimbursement Category, 1976-2020

Source: CRS), based on data from USDA, FNS, “Child Nutrition Tables: National Level Annual Summary Tables:
FY 1969-2020,” July 2, 2021, https://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/child-nutrition-tables.
Notes: USDA estimates the average daily number of school meal participants by dividing the total number of
meals served by the average number of operating days in the school year (and adjusting for the number of
students absent on a typical day). FY2020 data are preliminary and may be subject to more error than a typical
year due to substantial variation across schools in the number of operating days during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Congressional Research Service

15

link to page 21 link to page 23 Amending Eligibility Rules for Free and Reduced-Price School Meals

In FY2020, children in the free category made up 71% of school lunch and 83% of school
breakfast participants (this may be an underestimate of the proportion of students receiving free
meals because students in CEP schools are counted in the free and paid meal rate categories
because of the way reimbursement works in CEP schools, even though al students in such
schools receive free meals). Reduced-price participants made up 5% of school lunch and 4% of
breakfast recipients. The remaining 24% of school lunch participants and 13% of breakfast
participants purchased meals at the full price.
The increase in free lunch and breakfast participation and decline in reduced-price and paid lunch
participation may be related to a variety of factors, including economic and policy changes. For
example, free school meal participation rose during the Great Recession as more children met the
household income requirements for free meals. Subsequently, the HHFKA made changes to
school meal policy that facilitated the expansion of free meals, such as the authorization of CEP
and a demonstration project to automatical y certify children for free meals through Medicaid in
certain states. The HHFKA also included provisions that required USDA to update the nutrition
standards for school meals and required some schools to increase the price of paid meals, which
could have contributed to the decline in students purchasing lunches.65
Figure 5 displays the household poverty level of children participating in school meals based on
an analysis of Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) data.66 Most children in
poverty received free lunch and/or breakfast provided by their school in 2017. Specifical y,
approximately three-quarters of children experiencing poverty (at or below 100% of poverty) and
approximately two-thirds of children with family incomes between 100% and 199% of poverty
were reported as usual y getting free school lunch or breakfast. (These estimates are based on
household income as a percentage of the Official Poverty Measure, a different concept from the
federal poverty guidelines used in the school meals programs.67 For annual household income
according to the poverty guidelines, see Table 4). Smal er percentages of low-income children
were reported as getting reduced or full-price school lunch or breakfast, and approximately one-
fifth of low-income school-age children did not participate in school-provided meals.
The percentage of school-age children receiving F/RP school meals declined as family income
rose, though a sizable percentage of moderate and higher-income children stil received these
meals (for example, one-third of children with a family income between 300% and 399% of
poverty received a F/RP school meal). Likewise, the percentage of school-age children paying
full price for school meals increased with family income. Non-participation was also more

65 K. Ralston and C. Newman, “School Meals in T ransition,” EIB-143, USDA, Economic Research Service, August
2015, https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/44003/53570_eib143.pdf.
66 T he SIPP is a nationally representative, household-based panel survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. T he
SIPP asks households about child receipt of school lunch and breakfast separately; this analysis combines those
measures. For more information on the survey, see U.S. Census Bureau, “ Survey of Income and Program Participation
(SIPP),” https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/sipp.html. School meals program administrative data do not report
detailed demographic characteristics, so survey data are an important complement for understanding the scope of these
programs. However, survey-based estimates of the total number of children participating in school meals programs may
diverge from the results available from administrative data for a variety of reasons. For example, in this context, the
SIPP is a household survey (subject to sampling error, does not cover homeless children, etc.) , conducted at a certain
point in time (when school meals participation may vary fro m month-to-month), primarily relies on the information
reported by survey participants (responses that could be inaccurate), does not attempt to determine whether a child’s
school meals and their cost are attributable to the federal school meals programs v ersus other sources (e.g., state, local,
or private subsidies), and its measure of income-to-poverty differs from that used to administer the income eligibility
rules of the federal school meals programs. In addition, though the SIPP collects particularly detailed information on
income and participation in government programs and often performs better in these areas than other household
surveys, it still typically misses some income and participation in government programs.
67 For a discussion of these two measures, see CRS Report R44780, An Introduction to Poverty Measurement.
Congressional Research Service

16

link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 22

Amending Eligibility Rules for Free and Reduced-Price School Meals

common as family income increased. As discussed in this report, children in families above the
income eligibility thresholds for F/RP school meals (at or below 130% and 130-185% of poverty,
respectively) may receive free meals because they qualify under a categorical eligibility pathway
or attend a CEP, Provision 2, or Provision 3 school. Some children might also qualify due to an
error on the household application or in processing the application (discussed in the “Verifying
the Accuracy of Eligibility Determinations” section).
Figure 5. Estimated Household Poverty Status of Free, Reduced-Price, and Paid
School Meal Participants, 2017

Source: CRS analysis of data from the 2018 Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP).
Notes: School-age is defined as children ages 5-18 who have not attained a high school diploma or its equivalent.
The SIPP asks households about child receipt of school lunch and breakfast separately; this chart includes
children who reported receiving both lunch and/or breakfast. Program participation and income data were
reported for the previous calendar year (2017) and are subject to misreporting (typical y, underreporting of
benefit use). This analysis uses the Official Poverty Measure thresholds as determined by the U.S. Census Bureau,
which differ from the poverty guidelines published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and
used in the school meals programs. The presented values are estimates with a margin of error.
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, school meal program costs increased over the past three
decades in both inflation-adjusted (shown in Figure 6) and nominal terms.68 Because the law
guarantees reimbursement for every meal served in compliance with program requirements,
school meal costs are directly tied to participation in the programs.69 Thus, as free meal

68 For nominal costs over time, see USDA, FNS, “Child Nutrition T ables: National Level Annual Summary T ables: FY
1969-2020,” July 2, 2021, https://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/child-nutrition-tables.
69 For further background, see CRS Report R46234, School Meals and Other Child Nutrition Programs: Background
and Funding.
Congressional Research Service

17

Amending Eligibility Rules for Free and Reduced-Price School Meals

participation has risen, so have costs. Costs have also increased due to a required annual
adjustment of the per-meal reimbursement rates for food price inflation.70
Under current law, the Congressional Budget Office predicts that federal spending on the school
meal programs wil continue to increase over the next decade, with annual expenditures of nearly
$30 bil ion in 2031 as a result of food price inflation, among other factors.71
Figure 6. Federal Cost of the School Meals Programs, 1976-2020
Inflation-Adjusted Spending on the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program
(SBP)

Source: CRS, based on data from USDA, FNS, “Child Nutrition Tables: National Level Annual Summary Tables:
FY 1969-2020,” July 2, 2021, https://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/child-nutrition-tables.
Notes: Amounts are in FY2020 dol ars, adjusted for GDP inflation by CRS using Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), “Historical Tables: Table 10.1—Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical
Tables: 1940–2026,” April 2021. Total includes spending on federal y purchased commodities for school meals
(not included under NSLP or SBP).
Policy Options and Considerations
This section presents different approaches to amending eligibility rules for F/RP school meals,
should Congress consider policies to expand or restrict such rules. It also discusses considerations
for each approach, including the potential impacts on beneficiaries, program administrators, and
the federal government. These could include impacts on costs, benefits to participants and
schools, administrative burdens, state and local discretion, program integrity, equity, and
availability of data used in other programs. This report does not estimate costs associated with
different proposals, but presents Congressional Budget Office estimates where available.

70 Section 11(a)(3) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (codified at 42 U.S.C. §1759a(a)(3)).
71 Congressional Budget Office (CBO), “Baseline Projections: Child Nutrition Programs,” July 2021,
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2021-07/51293-2021-07-childnutrition.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

18

link to page 6 link to page 23 link to page 16 Amending Eligibility Rules for Free and Reduced-Price School Meals

Changes to Income Eligibility Rules
As discussed in the “Changes to School Meals Eligibility Rules over Time” section, the income
eligibility thresholds for F/RP school meals were altered in the 1970s and 1980s and have
remained the same since (less than or equal to 130% of the federal poverty guidelines for free
meals and greater than 130% but less than or equal to 185% for reduced-price meals).
Congress may consider, and has considered in the past, raising or lowering the poverty thresholds
that convey eligibility for free and/or reduced-price schools meals (specified in Section 9(b)(1) of
the Richard B. Russel National School Lunch Act). The Child Nutrition and WIC
Reauthorization Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-265), for example, authorized a pilot program in Section
18(k) of the Richard B. Russel National School Lunch Act to test raising the income eligibility
threshold for free meals to 185% of the federal poverty guidelines in five states. During hearings
accompanying the legislation, Members of Congress advocating for the demonstration argued that
extending free meals to 185% of the poverty guidelines would help families who could not afford
the reduced-price meal fees and reduce error in eligibility determinations.72 This pilot has not
been funded or implemented.
Other proposals in previous Congresses to change the income eligibility thresholds did not
become law.73 To il ustrate current and alternative eligibility thresholds, Table 4 shows annual
household income at these and other percentages of the poverty guidelines in 2021 as determined
by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
As noted in the “Benefit Amounts and Funding Sources” section, some states have already
expanded free meals to children in households up to 185% of the federal poverty guidelines by
providing state funding to cover reduced-price fees. Instead of changing the national threshold,
policymakers interested in expanding income eligibility for free meals could alternatively
consider encouraging these efforts by providing additional funding or per-meal reimbursements to
states that implement such changes. This option would al ow for more state discretion as
compared to changing the national standards.
Table 4. Annual Income as a Percentage of Poverty Guidelines for the 48 Contiguous
States and the District of Columbia: 2021
Household
Size
130%
185%
200%
225%
250%
275%
300%
1
$16,744
$23,828
$25,760
$28,980
$32,200
$35,420
$38,640
2
$22,646
$32,227
$34,840
$39,195
$43,550
$47,905
$52,260
3
$28,548
$40,626
$43,920
$49,410
$54,900
$60,390
$65,880
4
$34,450
$49,025
$53,000
$59,625
$66,250
$72,875
$79,500
5
$40,352
$57,424
$62,080
$69,840
$77,600
$85,360
$93,120
6
$46,254
$65,823
$71,160
$80,055
$88,950
$97,845
$106,740

72 Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, “Review the Federal Governmen t’s Initiatives Regarding
the School Lunch and Breakfast Programs,” S. Hrg. 108-78, 108th Congress, March 4, 2003; and House Committee on
Education and the Workforce, “Food for T hought: How T o Improve Child Nutrition Programs,” Serial No. 108 -27,
108th Congress, July 16, 2003.
73 For example, H.R. 4566 in the 103rd Congress proposed to eliminate the reduced-price meal category and retain free-
meal income eligibility up to 130% of the poverty guidelines, and H.R. 5308 in the 116th Congress proposed to increase
the income eligibility threshold for free meals to 200% of the poverty guidelines and eliminate the reduced-price
category.
Congressional Research Service

19

link to page 17 Amending Eligibility Rules for Free and Reduced-Price School Meals

Household
Size
130%
185%
200%
225%
250%
275%
300%
For each additional
person, add
$5,902
$8,399
$9,080
$10,215
$11,350
$12,485
$13,620
Source: CRS, based on U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation, “Poverty Guidelines,” January 15, 2021, https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines.
Notes: Table does not show guidelines for Alaska and Hawai .
Changing the income eligibility rules would change the number of children who qualify for F/RP
school meals. Because federal costs in the school meals programs correlate with the number of
participants, costs would be expected to increase if the eligibility rules were expanded and
decrease if they were restricted. In 2015, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the cost of
providing free meals to income-eligible children up to 185% of poverty (eliminating the reduced-
price category), projecting an increased federal cost of $5.8 bil ion over 10 years.74 In contrast,
the Congressional Budget Office anticipated that schools would likely benefit financial y from
these expanded income eligibility rules, as the increase in federal free-meal reimbursements
would outweigh the loss of payments for reduced-price meals. There would also likely be a
relatively smal reduction in school districts’ administrative costs as a result of not having to
process reduced-price meal payments.75 Eliminating the reduced-price meal category may reduce
program error by simplifying income eligibility rules, or it may increase program error if more
children are certified through household applications, which are subject to errors (as discussed
previously in the “Verifying the Accuracy of Eligibility Determinations” section).76 For children
and families, changes to the income eligibility rules in either direction would impact the cost of
meals. Their administrative burden would remain the same if household income applications were
stil required.
Changes to Categorical Eligibility Rules and Direct Certification
As discussed previously, under current law most programs and categories that convey categorical
(automatic) eligibility for free school meals also al ow certification via household application or
direct certification. Direct certification is more common, with approximately 94% of
categorical y eligible children being directly certified as of the 2019-2020 school year.77 The
direct certification demonstration with Medicaid is the one exception: in certain states operating
the demonstration, children in Medicaid households are not categorical y eligible for free school
meals; instead, they are directly certified for F/RP meals based on their household income as
measured by Medicaid. Because state agencies perform this calculation, there is no mechanism by
which children can become certified through Medicaid on a household application.

74 Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Child Nutrition Programs: Spending and Policy Options, September 2015,
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/50737-childnutritiononecolumn.pdf.
75 Ibid, pp. 26-27.
76 USDA, FNS, Office of Policy Support, Program Error in the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast
Program : Findings from the Second Access, Participation, Eligibility and Certification Study (APEC) II, Volume 1:
Findings, May 2015, pp. 42-43, https://www.fns.usda.gov/nslpsbp-access-participation-eligibility-and-certification-
study-ii. Of the students who were incorrectly certified, most were eligible for reduced-price meals, while 3.5% of the
direct certification group and 8.9% of the household application group were not qualified for free or reduced price
meals.
77 CRS calculations based on FNS-742 administrative data provided by USDA, FNS on June 1, 2021.
Congressional Research Service

20

Amending Eligibility Rules for Free and Reduced-Price School Meals

Legislative proposals to employ other programs or criteria in determining eligibility for F/RP
school meals often take one of two approaches:
1. Adding another program or definition that conveys categorical (automatic)
eligibility for free meals, and authorizes direct certification of children in the
category: Under this approach, children would be automatical y eligible for free
school meals without an income test and without any action by the household
(however, families may deny benefits).78 Proposals may specify whether direct
certification wil be required (as is the case with SNAP) or optional (as is the
case with the other programs/categories that convey categorical eligibility for
free meals) for state agencies and/or school districts.
2. Directly certifying children through another federal program with an
income test: Under this approach, income data from another program would be
used to identify children who meet the poverty thresholds for F/RP meals without
action by the household (e.g., direct certification through Medicaid in
demonstration states).79 Such proposals might specify whether direct certification
wil be used to certify children for just free meals or for F/RP meals.
Depending on which programs and criteria are used to convey categorical eligibility for free
school meals, some children in middle- to higher-income households could end up receiving
benefits. At the same time, broader eligibility could reduce stigmas for low-income children.
Certifying more children via direct certification rather than household applications shifts the
administrative burden from households to state agencies, whereas school districts are involved in
both processes.
In terms of the administrative effort for state agencies, a USDA evaluation of the direct
certification with Medicaid demonstration published in 2020 found that new responsibilities
included setting up data sharing agreements across state agencies, identifying data sources that
contained sufficient information to determine eligibility (household size, income, and child-level
information), and setting up automated searches and matches while minimizing error.80 According
to the evaluation, state administrative costs were “modest” during start-up and declined over
time.81
A 2016 report by USDA explored the use of different federal programs to directly certify students
for F/RP school meals and found significant administrative barriers, including inadequate
household income and child-level data. Some programs also had data privacy protections in
place, including state laws that would conflict with the data sharing. In addition, the report found
that available data might be outdated by the time they would be used for school meal certification
at the start of the school year. However, the report concluded that the Low Income Home Energy
Assistance Program (LIHEAP) (administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services) and the Public Housing and Housing Choice Voucher Programs (administered by the

78 T his may be accomplished by amending Section 9(b)(12) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act . For
an example of this approach, see S. 2760 (116th Congress).
79 For an example of this approach, see H.R. 8534 (116th Congress).
80 USDA, FNS, Direct Certification with Medicaid for Free and Reduced-Price Meals (DCM-F/RP) Demonstration,
Year 2, Mathematica Policy Research, September 2020, pp. 69-75, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/
resource-files/Evaluation-DCM_Year2.pdf.
81 USDA, FNS, Direct Certification with Medicaid for Free and Reduced-Price Meals (DCM-F/RP) Demonstration,
Year 2, Mathematica Policy Research (Summary) September 2020, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/
resource-files/Evaluation-DCM_Year2-Summary.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

21

Amending Eligibility Rules for Free and Reduced-Price School Meals

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) might be feasible for use in direct
certification for F/RP school meals.82
Proposals to add categorical eligibility criteria and/or direct certification avenues may also have
diminishing returns. Policymakers may want to weigh the administrative cost of eligibility
determinations with another program against the estimated number of children that would become
newly certified through the pathway (children may already be receiving meal benefits through
another avenue). For example, USDA’s 2020 evaluation found that direct certification through
Medicaid resulted in a 2.3 to 2.4 percentage point increase in the number of children newly
certified for free school meals (and the effect differed by state).83 However, higher proportions of
children were shifted from household applications to direct certification through Medicaid,
reducing paperwork for families.
Proposals to expand categorical eligibility and/or direct certification also tie children’s eligibility
for F/RP school meals to changes in eligibility rules in the linked programs. For example, USDA
estimated that proposed changes to SNAP eligibility by the Trump Administration in July 2019
would have resulted in approximately 982,000 children no longer being directly certified for free
school meals. The Administration estimated that most (96%) of these children would stil likely
qualify for F/RP meals via a household application, while 4% would lose access to benefits.84
There is also some evidence that direct certification reduces errors and fraud as compared to the
household application process. According to USDA’s most recent Access, Participation,
Eligibility, and Certification Study, based on school year 2012-2013 data, 96% of children
directly certified for free meals were accurately certified for the correct level of benefits,
compared to 79% of children certified for free meals through a household application.85
Changes to CEP, Provision 2, or Provision 3 or Providing Universal
Free School Meals
As discussed previously, CEP schools make up an increasing proportion of NSLP schools—
roughly 33% in school year 2019-2020. Provision 2 and Provision 3 are less utilized—by about

82 USDA, FNS, Office of Policy Support, Examining the Potential to Expand Data Matching in the School Meal
Program Eligibility and Verification Processes, prepared by 2M Research Services, LLC, October 2016, https://fns-
prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/ops/DataMatching.pdf. For more information about LIHEAP and these housing
programs, see CRS Report RL31865, LIHEAP: Program and Funding; CRS Report R41654, Introduction to Public
Housing; and CRS Report RL32284, An Overview of the Section 8 Housing Program s: Housing Choice Vouchers and
Project-Based Rental Assistance.
83 USDA, FNS, Direct Certification with Medicaid for Free and Reduced-Price Meals (DCM-F/RP) Demonstration,
Year 2, Mathematica Policy Research, Sept ember 2020, p. 22, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/
resource-files/Evaluation-DCM_Year2.pdf.
84 USDA, FNS, “Proposed Rule: Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(RIN 0584-AE62) – Potential impacts on Participants in the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast
Program,” Informational Analysis, FNS-2018-0037-16046, October 15, 2019, https://www.regulations.gov/document?
D=FNS-2018-0037-16046.
85 USDA, FNS, Office of Policy Support, Program Error in the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast
Program : Findings from the Second Access, Participation, Eligibility and Certification Study (APEC) II, Volume 1:
Findings, May 2015, pp. 42-43, https://www.fns.usda.gov/nslpsbp-access-participation-eligibility-and-certification-
study-ii. Of the students who were incorrectly certified, most were eligible for reduced-price meals, while 3.5% of the
direct certification group and 8.9% of the household application group were not qualified for free or reduced price
meals.
Congressional Research Service

22

link to page 15 link to page 12 Amending Eligibility Rules for Free and Reduced-Price School Meals

3% of NSLP schools.86 Policymakers may want either to expand or scale back policies that
provide federal funding for schools to serve free meals to al children, regardless of income.
Common arguments for expansion include benefits to children and reductions in administrative
effort, and arguments for restricting participation include the cost to the federal government and
targeting government resources to the children with the greatest need.
This section presents potential policy options for expanding or restricting current law options
(CEP, Provision 2, and Provision 3) that al ow some schools to receive alternative reimbursement
formulas for providing free meals to al children. It also presents considerations for proposed
universal free school meals policies.
Expanding or Restricting Access to CEP, Provision 2, and Provision 3
Proposals to expand or restrict universal free meals often focus on CEP, as it is the most utilized
option by schools to provide free meals to al students. There are two main approaches to
changing how many schools participate in CEP: (1) changing the current institutional eligibility
threshold (at least 40% ISP) for CEP, and (2) changing the current multiplier (1.6) used in the
reimbursement formula (discussed previously in the “Community Eligibility Provision (CEP)”
section).87 For example, a child nutrition reauthorization bil reported by the House Education and
Workforce Committee in the 114th Congress would have raised the ISP from 40% to 60%, thereby
restricting eligibility for CEP.88 Other bil s have attempted to increase the reimbursement
multiplier as a way to expand participation in and benefits under CEP.89 Both the Biden
Administration’s American Families Plan and its FY2022 budget proposal would lower the ISP to
25% for elementary schools and increase the reimbursement multiplier to 1.9 for middle and high
schools and to 2.5 for elementary schools.90
For proposals focused on expansion, CEP may have some limitations. The eligibility threshold for
CEP—the ISP—relies on the percentage of students certified for free meals through SNAP and
the other avenues, as discussed in the “Direct Certification” section (this excludes students
directly certified for reduced-price meals through Medicaid in the applicable states). Therefore,
whether schools are eligible for CEP depends both on (1) participation rates of households in
other programs and (2) the strength of states’ and school districts’ direct certification efforts:
1. The ISP largely depends on the number of students directly certified for free
meals via SNAP (the most common and only required direct certification
pathway), and SNAP is not a perfect proxy for poverty. For example, some
households may be financial y eligible for SNAP benefits but ineligible due to
nonfinancial rules such as citizenship and crime related restrictions.91 As one

86 CRS calculations based on FNS-742 administrative data provided by USDA, FNS on June 1, 2021.
87 Section 11(a)(1)(F)(vii)-(viii) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. §1759a(a)(1)(F)(vii)-
(viii)) currently provides USDA with the discretion to change the institutional eligibility threshold and to set the
multiplier between 1.3 and 1.6.
88 H.R. 5003 (114th Congress).
89 For example, see H.R. 5308 (116th Congress) and S. 2752 (116th Congress).
90 USDA, Office of Budget and Program Analysis, “2022 USDA Explanatory Notes – Food and Nutrition Service,”
May 2021, p. 34-25, https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/34FNS2022Notes.pdf; and White House,
“Fact Sheet: T he American Families Plan,” April 28, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-
releases/2021/04/28/fact-sheet-the-american-families-plan.
91 For more information, see CRS Report R42505, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): A Primer on
Eligibility and Benefits; CRS Report RL33809, Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Assistance: Policy Overview;
and CRS Report R42394, Drug Testing and Crim e-Related Restrictions in TANF, SNAP, and Housing Assistance.
Congressional Research Service

23

Amending Eligibility Rules for Free and Reduced-Price School Meals

potential result, schools in areas with large noncitizen populations may be less
likely to be eligible for CEP. In addition, the rate at which eligible households are
enrolled in SNAP also varies by state.92 TANF, another direct certification
pathway, also has citizenship rules, and program rules and participation vary
substantial y by state.93

Institutional eligibility for CEP is also subject to fluctuations in eligibility and
participation in such programs.94
2. Also limiting the ISP’s effectiveness as a proxy for poverty are differences
among districts and states in their direct certification systems. Direct certification
with SNAP has improved over time, and the majority of states are now meeting
the legislatively required direct certification rate of at least 95% of school-aged
children in SNAP households. However, as of school year 2018-2019, USDA
reported that 12 states were not meeting this threshold.95

States and school districts may also differ in the extent to which they directly
certify children through the optional pathways (TANF or Medicaid [in certain
states] and status as a homeless, foster, or migrant child).
As a result, there may be some schools that do not qualify for CEP but stil have high proportions
of students in poverty. Proposals to expand CEP may be subject to this limitation.
To avoid some of the limitations of CEP, policymakers interested in expanding free meals in high-
poverty schools could also consider expanding Provision 2 or Provision 3, which make eligibility
determinations in a base year to determine reimbursements in subsequent years. However, this
approach includes household applications, which would remove one of the purported benefits of
CEP, though it requires them less often (once every four to five years, or longer if an extension is
granted).96 USDA’s evaluation of CEP found that school districts previously operating Provision
2 or Provision 3 found CEP appealing because of its elimination of household applications,
particularly because “taking FRP meals applications is more difficult for Provision 2/3 schools
because they do not conduct the process annual y.”97
Policymakers interested in restricting access to special options could increase the ISP in CEP.
They could also eliminate or limit access to Provision 2 and Provision 3; for example, they could

92 See, for example, K. Cunnyngham, Reaching Those in Needs: Estimates of State Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program Participation Rates in 2016, prepared by Mathematica Policy Research for USDA, FNS, March 2019,
https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/reaching-those-need-estimates-state-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-
participation-rates-fy.
93 E. Greenberg, “ New Measures of Student Poverty,” Urban Institute, November 2018, https://www.urban.org/
research/publication/new-measures-student -poverty.
94 For example, the Urban Institute (a nonprofit research organization) estimated that the Trump Administration’s 2019
proposed changes to SNAP’s broad-based categorical eligibility rules would result in at least 142,000 fewer students
having access to CEP. K. Blagg, M. Rainer, and E. Waxman, How Restricting Categorical Eligibility for SNAP Affects
Access to Free School Meals, October 2019, https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/101280/
how_restricting_categorical_eligibility_for_snap_affects_access_to_free_school_meals.pdf.
95 USDA, FNS, Direct Certification in the National School Lunch Program State Implementation Progress Report to
Congress School Year 2017-2018 & School Year 2018-2019, June 2021, https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/direct-
certification-national-school-lunch-program-state-implementation-progress-report.
96 For further detail, see CRS Report R46371, Serving Free School Meals through the Community Eligibility Provision
(CEP): Background and Participation .
97 USDA, FNS, Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation, February 2014, p. 58, https://www.fns.usda.gov/
community-eligibility-provision-evaluation.
Congressional Research Service

24

Amending Eligibility Rules for Free and Reduced-Price School Meals

institute an eligibility threshold for these provisions. Changes to CEP would have a relatively
greater impact, as more than 30,600 schools participated in CEP in the 2019-2020 school year,
compared to the less than 3,900 schools participating in Provision 2 and Provision 3.98
Providing Universally Free School Meals
In recent years, there has been discussion over whether school meals should be provided for free
to al students. These debates have stemmed from legislative proposals, the rise in schools
providing universal y free meals through CEP, the expansion of free meals during the COVID-19
pandemic, and advocacy efforts from private-sector organizations, among other factors.99
Universal y free school meals is not necessarily a new idea; as early as the 1970s, there were
federal proposals to provide free lunches to al students through NSLP.100
There are different potential approaches to providing universal y free meals through the school
meals programs. One pertains to funding: the policy could provide the same reimbursement rate
for each breakfast and lunch served, respectively, or adjust rates based on different criteria (e.g.,
current law provides bonus reimbursements for compliance with federal nutrition standards and
schools with high F/RP rates).101 One proposal in the 117th Congress102 (also introduced in the
116th Congress103) would provide a single rate for each lunch of $3.81 (which is higher than the
current free rate), and a single rate for each breakfast of $2.72 (which is higher than the current
free rate), adjusted annual y for inflation. It would also provide a bonus reimbursement for
schools that had made at least 25% of meals in the prior school year with local farm products.
Another proposal in the 116th Congress was aimed at providing universal y free meals during

98 T he number of CEP schools is reported in FRAC, Community Eligibility: The Key to Hunger-Free Schools: School
Year 2019–2020, May 2020, https://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/CEP-Report-2020.pdf. T he number of Provision 2 and
3 schools is based on CRS calculations of FNS-742 administrative data provided by USDA, FNS on June 1, 2021.
99 For example, see H.R. 3115/S. 1530 (117th Congress) and H.R. 4684/S. 2609 (116th Congress). For a summary of
current debates over federally funded universal free meals, see, for example, Nick Roll, “ Should school lunches be free
for all? A pandemic experiment.,” Christian Science Monitor, April 7, 2021, https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/
Education/2021/0407/Should-school-lunches-be-free-for-all-A-pandemic-experiment; and Meg Wilcox, “ T he People
Behind School Meals Are Pushing for Free Access for All,” Civil Eats, March 8, 2021, https://civileats.com/2021/03/
08/the-people-behind-school-meals-are-pushing-for-free-access-for-all.
100 Senator Hubert Humphrey introduced the Universal Child Nutrition and Nutrition Education Bill (S. 2593) on
September 28, 1971, and reintroduced similar proposals in subsequent Congresses. T here were also universal free meal
proposals introduced by Representative George Miller in the 1990s, such as the Universal Student Nutrition Act of
1992 (H.R. 5490). In addition, the 1998 child nutrition reauthorization act (P.L. 105-336) authorized a demonstration
project to test the effects of providing universally free breakfasts in elementary schools in up to six school districts.
Congress subsequently appropriated $13 million for the demonstration and a study of the project (L.S. Ber nstein, J.E.
McLaughlin, M.K. Crepinsek, and L.M. Daft, “Evaluation of the School Breakfast Program Pilot Project: Final
Report,” Nutrition Assistance Program Report Series, No. CN-04-SBP, USDA, FNS, Office of Analysis, Nutrition, and
Evaluation, 2004, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED486532.pdf).
101 Section 4(b)(2) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (codified at 42 U.S.C. §1753(b)(2)) provides
an additional reimbursement of 2 cents per lunch for schools with at least 60% of lunches served for free or at a
reduced price, and Section 4(b)(3) provides an additional 6 cents (adjusted annually for inflation) for lunches compliant
with updated nutrition standards. Section 4(b)(2)(A) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. §1773(b)(2)(A))
allows USDA to provide an additional reimbursement for severe need schools (schools with at least 40% of lunches
served for free or at a reduced price). USDA provided an additional 37 cent reimbursement per breakfast served in
severe need schools in school year 2020-2021; USDA, FNS, “ National School Lunch, Special Milk, and School
Breakfast Programs, National Average Payments/Maximum Reimbursement Rates,” July 22, 2020, 85 Federal Register
44270).
102 H.R. 3115/S. 1530 (117th Congress).
103 H.R. 4684/S. 2609 (116th Congress).
Congressional Research Service

25

Amending Eligibility Rules for Free and Reduced-Price School Meals

school year 2020-2021; it would have provided the current law free rate for meals (and retained
the adjustments for compliance with nutrition standards and high F/RP schools in current law).104
In addition, proposals may require states and school districts to provide free meals to al students,
or they may al ow them to opt-in. If optional, they could require matching funds from states that
take up the option. Lawmakers may consider piloting a universal free-meals approach (similar to
CEP) or making it immediately available to al states and school districts.
A universal school meals policy would have various implications, including the following:
Impacts on participants: Providing federal funding for universal y free school meals would
eliminate full-price and reduced-price copays for families. In addition, studies of CEP have
shown that universal free-meal programs can increase children’s participation in school meals and
reduce stigmas among low-income children, particularly high school students (however, findings
from CEP schools may not be generalizable to al schools).105 There is limited research on the link
between universal free meals and food insecurity, dietary quality, and academic performance.106
One USDA study of a universal school breakfast pilot project in elementary schools in six school
districts from school year 2000-2001 to school year 2002-2003 found mixed impacts on student
outcomes.107
Changes in costs and administration: Federal costs would be higher if the federal free
reimbursement rate were provided for al meals served through NSLP and SBP. Federal costs may
also increase if universal free school meals led to increases in children’s participation in school
meals, as happened with CEP.108
For state agencies, there would likely be a reduction in costs associated with direct certification
activities. For school food authorities, there would be a reduction in administrative costs
associated with reviewing household applications, conducting direct certification, and processing
meal claims. These rules and processes currently contribute to errors and fraud in the NSLP and
SBP, and removing them may improve program integrity.109 In addition, an analysis by USDA’s
Economic Research Service found that serving universal y free school meals through CEP

104 H.R. 7887 (116th Congress).
105 J.F.W. Cohen et al. “Universal school meals and associations with student participation, attendance, academic
performance, diet quality, food security, and body mass index: A systematic review. ” Nutrients vol. 13, no. 3, 2021, p.
911; USDA, FNS, Com m unity Eligibility Provision Evaluation, February 2014, p. 58, https://www.fns.usda.gov/
community-eligibility-provision-evaluation; and J. Leos-Urbel et al. “ Not just for poor kids: T he impact of universal
free school breakfast on meal participation and student outcomes.” Econom ics of Education Review, vol., 36, 2013, pp.
88-107.
106 M.W. Long, K. Marple, and T . Andreyeva, “Universal Free Meals Associated with Lower Meal Costs While
Maintaining Nutritional Quality,” Nutrients vol. 13, no. 2, p. 670, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13020670.
107 L.S. Bernstein, J.E. McLaughlin, M.K. Crepinsek, and L.M. Daft, “Evaluation of the School Breakfast Program
Pilot Project: Final Report,” Nutrition Assistance Program Report Series, No. CN-04-SBP, USDA, FNS, Office of
Analysis, Nutrition, and Evaluation, 2004, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED486532.pdf.
108 USDA, FNS, Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation, February 2014, p. 58, https://www.fns.usda.gov/
community-eligibility-provision-evaluation.
109 USDA, FNS, Office of Policy Support, Program Error in the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast
Program : Findings from the Second Access, Participation, Eligibility and Certification Study (APEC) II, Volume 1:
Findings, May 2015, pp. 42-43, https://www.fns.usda.gov/nslpsbp-access-participation-eligibility-and-certification-
study-ii.
Congressional Research Service

26

Amending Eligibility Rules for Free and Reduced-Price School Meals

resulted in lower meal costs due to economies of scale among medium and large schools
participating in the provision, but not among smal schools.110
The average school food authority would likely see an increase in total revenue, if the free
reimbursement rate were provided for al meals served. According to USDA’s most recent report
on school meal cost data, the average school food authority received $3.39 in revenue (from any
source, so this includes household payments and both federal and state funding) per school lunch
served in school year 2014-2015. Of that revenue, $0.88 was from student payments. Providing
that year’s free rate for al meals, assuming al other costs and revenue were the same, would
have resulted in an average increase in federal revenue of $1.22 per meal.111 This estimated
revenue increase would appear to more than cancel out the loss of student payments; however,
this might not be true for al schools, especial y those charging higher-than-average prices for
paid meals.
Differential school impacts: School meal reimbursements are currently structured to provide the
most benefits to schools with high numbers of children approved for F/RP meals. Therefore,
schools with higher-income students (that do not receive as many F/RP meal reimbursements)
may benefit the most financial y from a universal free school meals policy.
Schools with high concentrations of children eligible for F/RP meals may also lose bonus
reimbursement funding they receive under current law under a universal free meals policy.112 One
barrier to retaining such funding is that F/RP eligibility data would likely be lost with a shift to
universal free school meals (discussed in the next section).
Loss of F/RP School Meals Data Used in Other Programs
Proposals to expand universal school meals options like CEP or provide universal y free school
meals in al NSLP and SBP schools would result in a loss of up-to-date F/RP school meal
eligibility data, which has implications for other federal and state programs and funding streams
(including other child nutrition programs and activities).
The largest of the programs relying on F/RP eligibility data is the federal Title I-A program, under
which many local educational agencies use the data (often the best indicator of school-level
poverty) to al ocate funds to high-poverty schools.113 In response to the loss of this data in CEP
schools and under COVID-19 response policies, the U.S. Department of Education and USDA
have issued guidance on alternative data sources that may be used in Title I-A funding
al ocations.114 One of those alternatives is the ISP data that CEP schools are stil required to report

110 M.W. Long, K. Marple, and T . Andreyeva, T . “Universal Free Meals Associated with Lower Meal Costs While
Maintaining Nutritional Quality,” Nutrients 13, no. 2: 670, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13020670.
111 CRS analysis of data presented in USDA, FNS, School Nutrition and Meal Cost Study (SNMCS), Volume 3: Meal
Costs and Revenues, April 23, 2019, p. 53, https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-nutrition-and-meal-cost-study.
112 Section 4(b)(2) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (codified at 42 U.S.C. §1753(b)(2)) provides
an additional reimbursement of 2 cents per lunch for schools with at least 60% of lunches served at free or reduced-
price, and Section 4(b)(2)(A) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. §1773(b)(2)(A)) allows USDA to provide
an additional reimbursement for severe need schools (schools with at least 40% of lunches served at free or reduced-
price). USDA provided an additional 37 cent reimbursement per breakfast served in severe need schools in school year
2020-2021 (USDA FNS, “ National School Lunch, Special Milk, and School Breakfast Programs, National Average
Payments/Maximum Reimbursement Rates,” July 22, 2020, 85 Federal Register 44270).
113 For more information, see CRS Report R46600, ESEA: Title I-A Poverty Measures and Grants to Local Education
Agencies and Schools.
114 U.S. Department of Education and USDA, “ Community Eligibility Provision: Revised Department of Education
T itle I Guidance,” April 27, 2015, https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/updated-title-i-guidance-schools-electing-community-
Congressional Research Service

27

Amending Eligibility Rules for Free and Reduced-Price School Meals

annual y. Other examples of federal programs that use F/RP data include other child nutrition
programs, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, Medicaid, the SNAP Nutrition Education
and Obesity Prevention Grant Program, and Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act youth
programs.115 Several states also use F/RP data to al ocate state education funds.116
Policymakers interested in providing universal y free school meals may consider conforming
amendments to programs that rely on F/RP eligibility data. However, there are currently limited
alternatives for school-level poverty data (though the U.S. Department of Education is studying
the creation of an alternative measure).117 Lawmakers could consider retaining some form of
F/RP school meals eligibility data collection, though the elimination of household applications is
often one of the primary benefits cited by advocates for universal y free school meals.118 One
approach, similar to how CEP works, would be to require only annual direct certification;
however, some states and school districts have required CEP schools to retain household
applications, indicating that such stakeholders may not find direct certification data to be
sufficient for use in other programs.119
Conclusion
Eligibility rules for F/RP school meals have changed throughout the history of the school meals
programs. Income eligibility standards have remained the same since the 1980s, whereas
categorical (automatic) eligibility and direct certification of children for F/RP meals have
expanded. In addition, approximately one-third of participating NSLP schools in 2019-2020 made
use of CEP, a special program option that al ows eligible schools to provide free meals to al
students without eligibility determinations. Future congressional deliberations would inform
whether the programs continue to expand free school meals to more children or retain a targeted
focus on low-income students.

eligibility; and U.S. Department of Education and USDA, “ Department of Education Guidance on Implementation of
Child Nutrition Program Waivers,” SP 07-2021, February 19, 2021, https://www.fns.usda.gov/cn/department -
education-guidance-implementation-child-nutrition-program-waivers.
115 A list of potential programs affected by a loss of F/RP school meal data can be provided to congressional clients by
CRS upon request .
116 Urban Institute, “Measuring Student Poverty: Dishing Up Alternatives to Free and Reduced-Price Lunch,”
September 20, 2019, https://www.urban.org/features/measuring-student -poverty-dishing-alternatives-free-and-reduced-
price-lunch.
117 See U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, “Grants for Statewide, Longitudinal Data
Systems: Request for Applications,” June 19, 2019, https://ies.ed.gov/funding/pdf/2020_84372.pdf; and CRS Report
R46600, ESEA: Title I-A Poverty Measures and Grants to Local Education Agencies and Schools.
118 For example, see Janet Poppendieck, “T op 10 Reasons to Support Free Healthy School Meals for All,” FRAC, April
8, 2021, https://frac.org/blog/top-10-reasons-to-support-free-healthy-school-meals-for-all.
119 FRAC, “ Alternative Approaches to Using School Meals Data in Community Eligibility (CEP) Schools,” June 2017,
https://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/cep-state-education-data-policies.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

28

Amending Eligibility Rules for Free and Reduced-Price School Meals

Author Information

Kara Clifford Billings
Patrick A. Landers
Analyst in Social Policy
Analyst in Social Policy

Alyse N. Minter

Research Librarian

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R46888 · VERSION 1 · NEW
29

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Aug. 25, 2021

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

Domestic Social Policy

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov

Raw Metadata: JSON