Fate of Colorado’s universal school lunch program hangs on Props LL, MM results – The Denver Post

Report on Colorado’s Healthy School Meals for All Program and its Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Program Overview and Initial Impact

In 2022, Colorado voters approved Proposition FF, establishing the “Healthy School Meals for All” program. This initiative provides universal free school meals, aiming to address key socio-economic and developmental challenges. The program’s first year demonstrated significant success in expanding food access for students.

• Increased Meal Consumption: In the 2023-2024 school year, schools served 25 million more meals than the previous year.
• Specific Increases:
  1. Breakfasts served increased by 8 million (37%).
  2. Lunches served increased by over 16 million (30%).
• Universal Participation: Every eligible school district in the state enrolled in the program.

2.0 Financial Challenges and Proposed Legislative Solutions

Despite its success, the program has faced significant financial shortfalls due to rising food prices, exceeding initial budget estimates by $50 million in each of its first two years. To ensure its continuation and sustainability, two new measures, Propositions LL and MM, are on the November ballot.

• Proposition LL: Allows the state to retain and spend approximately $12.4 million in tax revenue collected above the 2022 projections.
• Proposition MM: Proposes to further limit tax write-offs for households earning over $300,000 annually. This would effectively raise taxes for less than 6% of Colorado taxpayers to generate additional, stable funding for the program.

Failure of both propositions would result in the program being scaled back, limiting universal free meals to low-income schools only.

3.0 Direct Contribution to Sustainable Development Goal 2: Zero Hunger

The Healthy School Meals for All program is a direct policy action aimed at achieving SDG 2: Zero Hunger by ensuring all students have access to nutritious food during the school day, thereby combating food insecurity among children.

• Eradicating Child Hunger: Proponents, including Hunger Free Colorado, warn that without the additional funding from Propositions LL and MM, child hunger will “rise sharply” in the state, reversing progress made.
• Ensuring Food Access: The program’s success, demonstrated by the dramatic increase in meals served, confirms a pre-existing need and shows that the initiative is critical for ensuring students have reliable access to food.
• Promoting Sustainable Agriculture: The program’s goals include sourcing more locally grown foods, which supports SDG Target 2.4 on sustainable food production systems, although this has been limited by funding shortfalls.

4.0 Broader Alignment with Multiple Sustainable Development Goals

Beyond its primary focus on hunger, the program contributes to a range of interconnected SDGs, creating a more equitable and supportive environment for Colorado’s youth.

• SDG 1 (No Poverty): The program provides significant financial relief to families, with estimates suggesting savings of $1,250 per child annually. This directly supports households facing affordability challenges.
• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): By providing consistent access to healthy meals, the program supports the physical health and well-being of students. Additional funding would allow for more from-scratch cooking and less reliance on processed foods.
• SDG 4 (Quality Education): Stakeholders note a direct link between nutrition and learning. Ensuring students are not hungry improves their ability to concentrate and engage in the classroom, creating a “better learning environment for everyone” and supporting quality education.
• SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): The universal nature of the program removes the stigma often associated with free meal programs, creating an “equitable playing field” for all students regardless of their family’s income. The funding mechanism, which taxes the highest earners, also aligns with the goal of reducing economic inequality.

5.0 Stakeholder Perspectives and Future Outlook

The debate surrounding Propositions LL and MM highlights differing views on the program’s funding and scope.

5.1 Support for Continuation

• Advocates argue the program is a proven success that addresses fundamental needs related to hunger, education, and equity.
• The Colorado School Nutrition Association emphasizes that stable funding is necessary to improve meal quality, increase the use of local ingredients, and provide better staff training.
• Supporters view the program as a communal investment in children’s well-being, funded through an equitable tax mechanism.

5.2 Opposition and Concerns

• Opponents, such as the Independence Institute, argue the program is “financially unsound” and that taxpayers should not fund meals for children from families who can afford them.
• Concerns have been raised about “bracket creep,” where inflation may push more families into the higher tax bracket over time.
• The opposition’s core argument is that aid should be targeted only to low-income families rather than provided universally.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

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

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger

  The article’s central theme is the “Healthy School Meals for All” program in Colorado, which directly aims to combat hunger among school children by providing free meals. It discusses the risk of hunger rising if the program is not fully funded, quoting an advocate who says, “Without LL and MM, hunger will rise sharply across our state.”

• SDG 1: No Poverty

  The program provides significant financial relief to families, which is a key aspect of poverty reduction. The article states that the program “saved Colorado families $1,250 per child in school annually,” directly addressing the economic burden on households and contributing to their financial stability.

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  The article links nutrition directly to educational outcomes. A parent is quoted saying that children having access to food “really shows up in a lot of ways, both in their physical health and their learning.” The universal meal program is presented as a way to create a “better learning environment for everyone,” thus connecting food security to the quality of education.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The program is designed to create an “equitable playing field” for all students, regardless of their family’s income. By providing universal free meals, it removes the “fear of shame and stigma” often associated with free lunch programs that target only low-income students. Furthermore, its funding mechanism—raising taxes on high-income households—is a fiscal policy aimed at reducing economic inequality.

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  The initiative is not just about providing food, but about providing *healthy* food. The article mentions that additional funding will help “keep school meals healthy and made from scratch” and allow the program to “use more locally grown foods.” This focus on nutrition directly contributes to the physical health and well-being of children.

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

1. SDG 2: Zero Hunger

   • Target 2.1: By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round.

     The “Healthy School Meals for All” program directly addresses this target by ensuring all students in participating schools have access to sufficient and nutritious food throughout the school year.

2. SDG 1: No Poverty

   • Target 1.2: By 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions.

     The program contributes to this target by alleviating the financial burden on families. The article quantifies this by stating the program saves families “$1,250 per child in school annually,” which helps reduce a key dimension of economic hardship.

3. SDG 4: Quality Education

   • Target 4.a: Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all.

     The article supports this target by arguing that universal access to meals creates a more inclusive and “better learning environment for everyone.” By removing hunger as a barrier, the program helps establish a foundation for effective learning.

4. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Target 10.4: Adopt policies, especially fiscal, wage and social protection policies, and progressively achieve greater equality.

     The program is a clear example of a social protection policy funded by a progressive fiscal policy. The article details how it is “funded by limiting write-offs that Coloradans making more than $300,000 per year can claim,” thereby using the tax system to fund a universal benefit and promote greater equality.

5. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   • Target 3.4: By 2030, reduce by one third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases through prevention and treatment and promote mental health and well-being.

     The program’s emphasis on providing “healthy” meals made from “locally grown foods” serves as a preventative health measure. Ensuring children have access to nutritious food can help combat diet-related health issues, contributing to long-term well-being.

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

1. Indicators for SDG 2 (Zero Hunger)

   • Number of meals served: The article provides specific data, stating that in the first year, “students ate 25 million more school meals than the year before,” including “8 million more breakfasts” (a 37% increase) and “16 million more lunches” (a 30% increase). This directly measures increased access to food.
   • Prevalence of hunger: While not a number, the article implies this is a key indicator by quoting an advocate who warns that “hunger will rise sharply” if the program is cut, indicating that the program’s success is measured by its ability to prevent hunger.

2. Indicators for SDG 1 (No Poverty)

   • Household cost savings: The article explicitly mentions an estimate that “the program saved Colorado families $1,250 per child in school annually.” This is a direct financial indicator of the program’s impact on family budgets.

3. Indicators for SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

   • Program participation rate: The fact that “Every eligible school district signed up for the program” and the significant increase in meals served suggest that the universal, stigma-free approach is successful in achieving broad participation, thus promoting inclusion.
   • Revenue from progressive taxation: The article mentions the funding mechanism and the amount of revenue collected, such as the “$12.4 million in taxes collected over initial expectations.” This measures the implementation of the fiscal policy designed to reduce inequality.

4. Indicators for SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being)

   • Quality and source of food: The article implies progress can be measured by the ability to provide meals that are “healthy and made from scratch” and the increased use of “locally grown foods.” These are qualitative indicators of the nutritional value of the meals provided.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: denverpost.com