Congressional Republicans’ Big Beautiful Bill Threatens Access to Free School Meals

American families are facing an affordability crisis, with nearly half unable to meet the real cost of living as expenses for utilities, health care, food, child care, and everyday essentials continue to increase.¹ Now, families are set to confront yet another obstacle in managing their budgets: diminished access to free school meals.

One in five children in the United States lives in a household that struggles to afford sufficient food.² Research has consistently found that child hunger and food insecurity negatively affects student achievement, concentration, behavior, and school attendance.³ Conversely, access to free school meals improves student achievement and attendance, while providing high-quality nutrition that supports students’ health and development.⁴ It’s simple: When a student’s basic needs are met, they’re equipped to succeed and ready to learn. But when a student sits hungry in a classroom, they face a multitude of barriers to engaging with essential instruction.

In recognition of this, the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP) offer free and reduced-price meals to families based on their income.⁵ According to a new Center for American Progress analysis, 24.6 million children enrolled in public school, or 50 percent of all public school students,⁶ were individually eligible for free or reduced-price lunch through the NSLP in the 2024-25 school year. As of June 2026, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported that 22.2 million children received free or reduced-price lunch through the NSLP and 12.8 million received free or reduced-price breakfast through the SBP.⁷ Income eligibility requirements for the programs are based on the federal poverty level (FPL), with families earning at or below 130 percent of the FPL eligible for free meals and those earning between 130 percent and 185 percent of the FPL eligible for reduced-price meals.⁸ This means that a family of four earning $42,900 per year or less is eligible for free meals, while a family of four earning between that and $61,050 is eligible for reduced-price meals.⁹ Both incomes are dramatically lower than the living wage in even the most affordable states.¹⁰ Moreover, these income requirements fail to include all food-insecure students.¹¹

Even for eligible families, household applications, stigma, and other barriers may limit student participation.¹² To reduce barriers and administrative costs, districts participating in national school meal programs use direct certification to automatically qualify students who participate in programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or Medicaid in some states, for free school meals.¹³ Districts and schools with at least 25 percent of students directly certified to receive free school meals are eligible to participate in the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), which allows schools to offer free meals to all students without collecting household applications, lessening stigma and contributing to a positive learning environment for all students.¹⁴ In the 2024-25 school year, more than 49,000 public schools reported participating in the CEP, reaching more than 25 million public school students, according to CAP analysis. Altogether, CAP analysis finds that approximately 33.9 million public school students were eligible to receive free or reduced-price meals either through individual eligibility or school participation in the CEP in the 2024-25 school year.

While some may remember their school meals in the past as not being particularly nutritious, nutritional standards for school meals have improved substantially over the past two decades.¹⁵ In fact, studies have shown that current school lunches provide a much higher nutrient quality than meals obtained elsewhere.¹⁶ Furthermore, districts providing free meals to all students are much more likely to serve scratch-prepared entrées daily than those that do not offer free meals for all students.¹⁷ School meals prepared from scratch are generally healthier and help reduce the consumption of overly processed foods.¹⁸ Benefits of free school meals spill over into dietary improvements at home as well, since the money saved lets families make healthier everyday food purchases.¹⁹

While the “Make America Healthy Again” strategy claims an emphasis on childhood nutrition,²⁰ recent Trump administration actions say otherwise, as they are jeopardizing any progress made toward ensuring kids are fed nutritious meals at school. The 2025 passage of congressional Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) threatens to eliminate free school meals for students, despite these meals often being their healthiest option, by making cuts to SNAP and Medicaid and putting states in difficult financial positions that may force them to make tough budget decisions that further limit access to food.²¹ In addition to these cuts, the federal government is currently spending billions of dollars on military operations in Iran, further increasing the cost of everyday goods for Americans. The amount of money spent thus far on this war of choice would be enough to provide free school lunches to every school-age child in the United States for an entire year.²²

With rising costs,²³ many families will now have to find ways to afford thousands of dollars per year in additional food expenses to provide nutritious meals, previously supplied by schools, for their children. This report discusses how the OBBBA will affect access to free and reduced-price school meals, analyzes the local impact families will feel, and provides recommendations to state lawmakers to mitigate harm where possible.

The OBBBA introduced significant cuts to SNAP and Medicaid that are already reducing participation and, in turn, making it harder for children to access school meals.²⁴ SNAP is the nation’s primary defense against hunger, supporting²⁵ more than 42 million individuals in 2025,²⁶ while Medicaid provides health coverage to low-income adults and children, pregnant women, and people with disabilities, covering around 68 million people.²⁷ Together, these programs support 34 million children—nearly 45 percent of all children in the United States—with essential food assistance and health care.²⁸ But from the enactment of the OBBBA in July 2025 to May 2026, more than 700,000 children in just the 12 states that reported child participation data lost their SNAP benefits.²⁹

The OBBBA imposes new barriers and restrictions for people trying to access SNAP and Medicaid, and it makes the largest cuts³⁰ ever to both programs.³¹ Since the law took effect in July 2025, nearly 4.2 million people³² lost SNAP benefits by February 2026 following the implementation of more burdensome paperwork requirements³³ and stricter eligibility restrictions.³⁴ Beyond these cuts, beginning in October 2026, states will be required³⁵ to cover 75 percent³⁶ of SNAP administrative costs—up from 50 percent—and by October 2027, will also assume 5 percent to 15 percent of benefit costs,³⁷ for states that have payment error rates at or above 6 percent,³⁸ with higher shares imposed on those with higher error rates. Importantly, these payment error rates are not a measure of fraud but rather reflect payment accuracy errors that are largely unintentional.³⁹ This shift places significant fiscal pressure on state and some county budgets⁴⁰ and creates strong incentives to restrict enrollment further⁴¹ or scale back access. States may also scale back⁴² or eliminate⁴³ policies such as broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE),⁴⁴ which currently expands SNAP access for low-income working families;⁴⁵ doing so could result in millions of people losing benefits, including more than 1.8 million children.⁴⁶ Also, new Medicaid work reporting requirements, which go into effect on January 1, 2027,⁴⁷ are expected to cause 5.2 million people to lose Medicaid coverage by 2034.⁴⁸

When children lose access to SNAP or Medicaid, they may also lose their direct certification for free school meals, leading to potential delays in service as schools and families navigate applications and wait times. They could also lose their eligibility for free school meals altogether, despite no change in their family income, as SNAP income limits for some families are higher⁴⁹ than the federal NSLP and SBP income eligibility limit in many states.⁵⁰ These harms expand beyond the individual student and family. If a school or district drops below 25 percent of its student population directly certified,⁵¹ it loses eligibility for the CEP,⁵² taking away access⁵³ to free school meals from an entire school or district and reducing federal meal reimbursements to schools.⁵⁴

As CEP participation declines, schools face increased administrative burden,⁵⁵ the return of applications and income verification, and renewed stigma that can deter participation.⁵⁶ At the same time, reduced funding strains school nutrition programs, making it harder to maintain staffing and food quality. As states face difficult budget decisions under the new cost-share model, other state-level investments, such as state-funded universal free school meal programs, may also come under threat.⁵⁷ Together, the changes under the OBBBA not only reduce access to health care and food at home⁵⁸ but also weaken the systems schools rely upon to ensure that students consistently receive nutritious meals.⁵⁹ All these things have potential negative implications⁶⁰ for student health,⁶¹ attendance,⁶² and overall academic outcomes.⁶³

According to CAP analysis of the National Center for Education Statistics’ Common Core of Data,⁷¹ around 33.9 million public school students were eligible to receive free or reduced-price meals either through individual eligibility or school participation in the CEP nationwide during the 2024-25 school year; 24.6 million of these students were individually eligible, including approximately 10.6 million who were directly certified for free meals. More than 49,000 public schools reported participating in the CEP, serving nearly 25.1 million public school students.

Figure 1 below shows the number and percentage of public school students in each congressional district who had access to free or reduced-price lunch either through individual eligibility or school participation in the CEP during the 2024-25 school year, as well as breakdowns of how many public school students were individually eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL), were eligible for FRPL through direct certification, and the number and percentage of public schools, and their students, participating in the CEP. At the congressional district level, the map highlights how these figures vary across the country, illustrating the scale of student need, the reach of direct certification, and the extent of CEP participation. For state-level totals, see Table 1. The data also include important limitations; for further details, refer to the Methodological appendix.

Families who lose access to free school meals, due to an individual’s loss of direct certification, school-level loss of community eligibility, or state-level termination of universal free school meal programs, will face a sudden, and potentially expensive, cost shift. CAP estimates that a family with two children in public school will spend an additional $1,170 on school-offered lunch and $720 on school-offered breakfast, totaling $1,890 per school year, or more than $2,214 on packed meals.⁷² This is assuming schools do not need to increase the price of school meals as the cost of production increases, which is unlikely given, for example, a nearly 6 percent increase in the cost of elementary school breakfast from the 2024-25 school year to the 2025-26 school year.⁷³ This new financial burden is on top of the higher costs families are paying for gas and utilities, health care, child care, and other everyday consumer goods, as well as additional food costs that families who lose SNAP benefits will have to assume.⁷⁴ Table 1 shows the estimated cost by state but is only inclusive of lunch prices due to limited state-level data available on the cost of school-offered breakfast.

The OBBBA will inevitably inflict harm on American families, restrict access to healthy food, and worsen the affordability crisis.⁸⁶ Under strained state budgets, states and some counties will be left with difficult decisions as they navigate federal cuts to services that provide for Americans.⁸⁷ To help mitigate the harms the OBBBA will inflict on children nationwide, states must take action to try to lessen the impact on access to school meals wherever feasible.

Forty-three states and Washington, D.C., use BBCE,⁸⁸ a policy that lets states give SNAP eligibility to households receiving or authorized to receive noncash benefits or services funded by Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).⁸⁹ By aligning income and asset rules with TANF-funded supports, BBCE permits states to raise income eligibility thresholds and increase or eliminate asset tests. This enables more low-income households to receive benefits and streamlines program administration while reducing error rates.⁹⁰ For example, the federal income limit for free meals under the NSLP and the SBP is at or below 130 percent of the federal poverty level,⁹¹ which is the same as general federal income requirements for SNAP.⁹² However, by qualifying through BBCE, households earning up to 200 percent of the FPL in some states are eligible for SNAP benefits.⁹³ Yet with the OBBBA’s benefit and administrative cost shifts, states may have to end BBCE to save money.⁹⁴ At the same time, the Trump administration is expected to propose a rule to end BBCE, even though it is effective and makes up a small share of total SNAP costs.⁹⁵ Ending BBCE could cause millions of people to lose benefits, including more than 1.8 million children.⁹⁶

Eliminating BBCE would be particularly harmful to families on the cusp of income eligibility,⁹⁷ adding new expenses to their plate and making it even more difficult to overcome the benefit cliff in place under regular SNAP program rules.⁹⁸ In turn, as more families lose eligibility, the percentage of students in a school or district who are directly certified for free school meals will decline, threatening CEP eligibility and school meals for all students. It is imperative for states to maintain BBCE to maximize access to free school meals for food-insecure students who would otherwise go hungry. Without it, millions of children will lose SNAP eligibility and even more could lose access to free school meals.⁹⁹

Nine states currently operate state-funded universal school meal programs to provide free meals to all students regardless of family income.¹⁰⁰ To do so, states couple federal funding received through the NSLP and the SBP with state funds to cover the additional costs.¹⁰¹ These programs increase meal access, improve student health and achievement, and reduce administrative burdens, allowing school staff to focus on other essential areas of school operations.¹⁰² States with existing universal school meal programs should prioritize maintaining these programs to ensure their students continue to receive free access to healthy meals during the school day, regardless of changes to their eligibility for other nutritional programs. As children face potential loss of nutritional programs at home, it will be critical to ensure students have access to free and healthy food while at school.

To ensure that every eligible child receives free or reduced-price meals, states should help districts and schools improve their direct certification practices and simplify their school meal application processes. Doing so will increase individual free school meals access as well as schoolwide access through the CEP.

Although the number of students directly certified for school meals may decline, states should continue to ensure that all eligible children are directly certified. This includes students who participate in SNAP, TANF, the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR), and in some states Medicaid. Additionally, students who are homeless, migrant, runaway, in foster care, or enrolled in Head Start are eligible.¹⁰³ Currently, 44 states participate in the Direct Certification with Medicaid Demonstration Project, which permits states to use Medicaid data for direct certification for free and reduced-price school meals.¹⁰⁴ States that do not participate in this program should apply to do so to expand access. States can also bolster their current direct certification efforts by ensuring systems are in place to extend eligibility to all children in a household, increasing the frequency of direct certification matches, improving data-matching systems to use all available data, and providing training for school staff to identify vulnerable children.¹⁰⁵

However, as more students lose direct certification, schools may see more families who may qualify but are unfamiliar with the household application process. Although eligibility requirements for the NSLP and the SBP are set at the federal level, it’s schools and districts that create and distribute application materials for families.¹⁰⁶ To improve access, online and paper applications should be available in multiple languages and should be included in the distribution of mandatory forms at events such as back-to-school nights and parent-teacher conferences. Application materials should also be simplified to make clear what information is necessary and what is optional, with explicit confidentiality language that explains protections and clearly states that a Social Security number is not needed to complete the form.¹⁰⁷ Using community sites and sending frequent reminders can also help increase application completion, ultimately providing access to nutritious meals to more children.¹⁰⁸

In addition to school-level efforts, state and local agencies should make sure families get clear and consistent education at all stages of SNAP and Medicaid participation, including eligibility determinations, recertification, and service delivery procedures. Education should be integrated into both online and in-person pathways and provided at multiple touchpoints, whether families are approved or denied. Direct certification¹⁰⁹ allows children who are categorically eligible¹¹⁰ to receive free school meals automatically without filling out separate applications.¹¹¹ However, recent policy changes¹¹² may push states to implement stricter program rules,¹¹³ such as eliminating BBCE and shortening certification periods to make families prove their eligibility more often.¹¹⁴ These changes may make families less likely to apply for or maintain their benefits if they think the process is too difficult or the benefits are too small, especially since benefit amounts are already limited.¹¹⁵

To reach families who may not engage with the benefit application process, information should also be shared through trusted family-serving programs such as Head Start, home visiting programs, and other community-based organizations. Because the programs are interconnected, when families lose SNAP or Medicaid, they may also lose access to other supports for which they are categorically eligible, including free school meals. These ripple effects can reduce children’s access to essential nutrition and increase hardship for families. Families therefore should also receive clear information on how anti-poverty programs are linked through categorical eligibility, how changes in participation may affect access to multiple benefits, and the steps they can take to get support if they lose SNAP or Medicaid eligibility. This includes guidance on how to apply for free school meals through standard application processes.¹¹⁶

As federal cuts increase food insecurity for students, schools must adopt sustainable strategies to ensure access to affordable, nutritious meals. Expanding structured partnerships among school districts, local farmers, and community-based programs such as school gardens¹¹⁷ through farm-to-school initiatives¹¹⁸ and local procurement contracts is an effective solution.¹¹⁹ States can invest in and encourage these partnerships by coordinating statewide networks, setting goals, providing training, and developing tools to connect schools with local producers.¹²⁰ For example, South Carolina’s Farm to School Program brings together schools, local farmers, and communities to increase access to healthy local food and promote agricultural education.¹²¹ Alabama facilitates these connections through a dedicated website,¹²² while Arizona supports partnerships by training school nutrition staff and connecting them directly with local farms.¹²³ Other states such as Maryland,¹²⁴ Connecticut,¹²⁵ and Virginia promote partnerships through special events and programs,¹²⁶ such as farm-to-school weeks and recognition initiatives, that encourage schools and communities to participate. Michigan’s former 10 Cents a Meal program, which reimbursed schools for 50 percent of the cost of Michigan-grown foods in schools and child care settings, served as a model as well.¹²⁷ These examples demonstrate that states can play an active role in building and strengthening partnerships between schools, farmers, and communities. However, to maximize the impact of these initiatives, the federal Local Food for Schools (LFS) program, which provided critical funding to help states expand access to locally sourced foods in schools, must be reinstated.¹²⁸

Research shows¹²⁹ that farm-to-school programs enable schools to access fresh, local foods¹³⁰ and enhance student nutritional knowledge and healthy food selection, while strengthening community food systems.¹³¹ Survey data suggest that farm-to-school programs can lower meal costs and reduce food waste.¹³² A 2026 report on the LFS program also found that local food purchasing improved access to fresher, higher-quality foods for students.¹³³ New York’s 30 percent local food purchasing initiative¹³⁴ increases school lunch reimbursement—from approximately 5.9 cents to 25 cents¹³⁵ per meal—when districts source at least 30 percent of their food locally. This policy reduces costs, expands access to free or reduced-price meals, and encourages partnerships with local farms that can generate positive economic returns. Partnerships with local farms¹³⁶ directly increase students’ access¹³⁷ to fresh foods—reducing ultra-processed foods and exposure to toxic and harmful chemicals¹³⁸—while supporting regional agriculture.¹³⁹ Hands-on programs,¹⁴⁰ such as school gardens and food education initiatives, have been shown to improve students’ health and understanding of nutrition.¹⁴¹ Strengthening partnerships with local farmers through targeted state policies can further enable schools to reduce meal costs and expand access to nutritious food.

Roughly half of Americans report they cannot afford the true cost of living.¹⁴² Yet the OBBBA would significantly increase financial pressure on families by putting students at risk of losing access to free or reduced-price school meals. Cuts to programs such as SNAP and Medicaid will decrease direct certification, meaning many students could lose automatic eligibility for free meals even if their household income remains unchanged.¹⁴³ As a result, families could then be forced to pay an additional $1,890 per year on school-offered meals or more than $2,214 per year on packed meals, adding a new strain amid rising costs.¹⁴⁴ At the same time, the Trump administration is spending billions of dollars on a failed war in Iran, rather than addressing the everyday challenges Americans face.¹⁴⁵ Losing access to free or reduced-price school meals, which millions of students rely on, threatens their health, well-being, and academic success.

While the negative effects are substantial, states can still take steps to mitigate the harm by protecting essential basic-needs programs, simplifying access, and strengthening local partnerships. Ensuring students continue to receive nutritious meals is critical—not only for their well-being but also for their success in the classroom and beyond.

The authors would like to thank Sara Estep, Colin Seeberger, Weadé James, Natasha Murphy, Jill Rosenthal, Alex Cogan, Madeline Shepherd, Emily Gee, Rachel Cotter Johnson, and Anne Knapke of the Center for American Progress—as well as Lily Roberts and Kyle Ross, formerly of the Center for American Progress—for their valuable contributions to this report. They would also like to thank Kennedy Andara, Hailey Gibbs, Jazmine Amoako, and Madison Weiss for their thorough fact-checking assistance and CAP’s Data Visualization team for their expert development of this report’s visuals.

The authors used the National Center for Education Statistics’ (NCES) Elementary/Secondary Information System’s (ElSi) table generator, which uses data from the Common Core of Data (CCD).¹⁴⁶ The authors created a custom table reflecting public school names, state name, congressional district, National School Lunch Program status, public school student enrollment in FRPL, public school student enrollment in FRPL through direct certification, total public school student enrollment excluding adult education, and school operational status. These data were pulled for all 50 states, plus Washington, D.C., schools operated under the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), and domestic Department of Defense Dependents Schools (DODDS), for the 2024-25 school year. This table can be accessed using the unique table ID 658195.¹⁴⁷ The authors removed any public schools listed as “closed,” “inactive,” or “future” from their analysis, as well as any school that reported 0 students enrolled.

For the 2024-25 school year, Idaho did not report CEP participation and South Carolina’s FRPL and direct certification data were suppressed due to data quality concerns.¹⁴⁸ Therefore, the authors created a custom table reflecting the same variables as above for the 2023-24 school year for Idaho and South Carolina, inclusive of schools under the BIE and domestic DODDS in both states. This table can be accessed using the unique table ID 658209.¹⁴⁹ The authors removed any public schools listed as “closed,” “inactive,” or “future” from their analysis, as well as any school that reported 0 students enrolled. In this report, Idaho’s CEP participation and enrollment data reflect the 2023-24 school year, while the FRPL and direct certification data reflect the 2024-25 school year. South Carolina’s CEP participation and enrollment data reflect the 2024-25 school year, while the FRPL and direct certification data reflect the 2023-24 school year.

Similarly, North Carolina did not report any public schools participating in the CEP to the NCES in the 2024-25 school year or the 2023-24 school year. To fill this gap, the authors used North Carolina’s CEP reporting to the USDA for the 2024-25 school year, which was obtained directly from North Carolina’s Office of School Nutrition.¹⁵⁰ The authors assigned these North Carolina public schools to congressional districts using their state local education agency ID and school ID and matched these IDs to the NCES’ Education Demographic and Geographic Estimates (EDGE) Public School File for the 2024-25 school year.¹⁵¹ A total of 20 schools in the state report could not be matched to a congressional district, but it was determined that these schools were closed, private schools, or early education learning centers; they were not included in this analysis. North Carolina’s FRPL and direct certification data and total public school and enrollment counts were taken from ElSi for the 2024-25 school year.

To calculate the total number of public school students eligible to receive FRPL either through individual eligibility or school participation in the CEP, the authors calculated the number of public school students individually eligible for FRPL in schools not participating in the CEP and the total number of public school students enrolled in schools participating in the CEP. Some exceptions were made due to data reporting issues. For states that do not report FRPL eligibility, the reported number of public school students eligible through direct certification was used as a proxy. For Ohio and Nebraska, since schools reported either FRPL data or direct certification data, both were used to more accurately represent the number of students with access to FRPL. The authors used 2023-24 data for Idaho and South Carolina as a proxy given missing data for both states in 2024-25. Finally, due to CEP participation reporting issues in North Carolina, this total number is not inclusive of public school students in North Carolina who are not individually eligible for FRPL but do receive free lunch through school participation in the CEP. Therefore, the total number of public school students eligible to receive FRPL either through individual eligibility or school participation in the CEP may be higher than estimated here.

School FRPL data reporting was incomplete and varied across schools and states, with some states not reporting direct certification, others missing FRPL counts, and some states reporting only direct certification. Nearly 13 percent of public schools in Alaska were missing FRPL counts, as were 15 percent in Idaho. Fifteen percent of public schools in Idaho were also missing direct certification counts, as were 10 percent in South Carolina and 16 percent in South Dakota. Ohio and Nebraska included some public schools that reported only direct certification and others that reported FRPL count but not direct certification; no schools reported both. As a result, some congressional districts in both states have reported more public school students directly certified than public school students participating in the NSLP. These data should be interpreted with caution. It is also important to note that while the CCD still stands as a strong national measure, school reporting on student eligibility for FRPL has become less consistent in recent years.¹⁵²

A total of 1,853 public schools were missing NSLP status data related to CEP participation, accounting for less than 2 percent of public schools included in this analysis. The majority of these public schools were in California, accounting for 11.1 percent of its public schools, and New York, accounting for 14.66 percent of its public schools. Meanwhile, 952 public schools were missing total public school student enrollment data, accounting for less than 1 percent of public schools included in this analysis. In most states, this accounted for less than 1 percent of its public schools, aside from Alabama (10.25 percent), California (1.66 percent), Delaware (1.72 percent), Illinois (5.13 percent), Maine (4.57 percent), Rhode Island (2.56 percent), Virginia (12.51 percent), and West Virginia (3.99 percent). Of these public schools missing enrollment, 146 were public schools participating in the CEP, accounting for less than 1 percent of public schools participating in the CEP included in this analysis. In most states, this accounted for less than 1 percent of CEP public schools, aside from Alabama (2.38 percent), Illinois (2.72 percent), Rhode Island (1.75 percent), and Virginia (2.69 percent).

Note that state legislatures across the country are engaging in mid-decade redistricting efforts that may affect how these estimates are calculated and interpreted. Please be advised that the congressional districts represented here are derived from 2024.

Since this analysis is only inclusive of public school data reported to the NCES, student and school counts may differ from other analyses that examine a similar time period.

Using FNS-828 School Food Authority Paid Lunch Price Report Data,¹⁵³ the authors found that in school year 2025-26, the national median price for paid school lunch was $3.25, excluding territories, states operating universal free school meals programs, and school food authorities that reported no charges or $0.00 charges for paid lunches. The authors also grouped data by state to determine state median prices for paid school lunch, making the same exclusions as made for the federal median. Since similar reporting does not exist for paid school breakfast, the authors relied on the School Nutrition Association’s estimated national median price for paid school breakfast in school year 2025-26, $2.00.¹⁵⁴ To calculate the national median and state median prices per family, the authors assumed a 180-day school year and found the national median cost of paid school meals to be $1,890 for a family with two children in public school.

To estimate the cost of packed school meals, the authors relied on Deloitte’s estimated average cost of packing a school lunch for school year 2025-26 ($6.15).¹⁵⁵ Assuming a 180-day school year, the national average cost of packed school lunches for a family with two children is $2,214. The estimated cost for packed meals does not include the cost of breakfast and is therefore more than the estimated $2,214.