Do Universal Free School Lunches Improve Student Outcomes? New Evidence and Mixed Results

As more U.S. school districts adopt universal free meal programs, researchers and policymakers are asking the same question: do free breakfasts and lunches meaningfully affect students' academic performance and well-being? This article summarizes recent research, a Scientific American analysis of district-level data, and expert perspectives to explain what the evidence does — and does not — show.

What Expanded Free Meal Programs Look Like

Universal free meal programs, which provide breakfast and lunch to every student at no charge while school is in session, have grown rapidly. Federal data indicate that the number of students enrolled in schools that operate such programs has more than tripled since the 2016–2017 school year. Funding comes from a mix of local, state and federal sources: some cities and states fund programs directly, while many districts rely on federal reimbursement through provisions of the National School Lunch Program (NSLP).

By the numbers: The NSLP — administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture — reported roughly $17.2 billion in spending for Oct. 1, 2024–Sept. 30, 2025 and funded more than 4.87 billion lunches during that period.

Selected Research Findings

Academic studies show mixed but often positive effects, particularly for specific groups of students:

• In New York City middle schools, a working paper by Amy Ellen Schwartz and a colleague found universal free meals raised math scores by up to 0.083 standard deviations and English scores by 0.059 for nonpoor students (about three and two percentile points, respectively). Poor students experienced smaller but significant gains (0.032 in math and 0.027 in English).
• Researchers in South Carolina using student-level data found that elementary schools introducing free meals saw math state standardized test scores increase by about 0.06 standard deviation.
• A synthesis of 42 studies reported minimal overall effects of school meal programs on behavioral, health or educational outcomes in high-income countries — highlighting the variability in findings across contexts and methods.

Scientific American's District-Level Analysis

To explore the relationship between universal free meals and academic performance, Scientific American analyzed two public datasets: district standardized test-score estimates from the Stanford Education Data Archive and federal records showing which schools participate in federal universal-meal funding (Community Eligibility Provision and Provisions 2 and 3 of the NSLP).

The analysis covered three pre-pandemic years (2016–2017 through 2018–2019) and two post-pandemic years (2022–2023 and 2023–2024). Key results included:

• Districts with universal free-meal programs were associated with reading scores about 1.6 grade levels lower and math scores roughly 1.66 grade levels lower in raw comparisons. When demographic controls (poverty rate, racial composition, district size and urban/rural status) were included, the gaps narrowed to roughly two-thirds of a grade level.
• In matched comparisons for 2023–2024 — 1,452 pairs of districts in the same state with similar size, poverty levels and community types — districts offering federal-funded universal meals scored on average about 1.14 grade levels lower in math and 1.08 grade levels lower in reading than matched districts without universal programs.
• Within-district (year-over-year) analyses that adjusted for changes in poverty and shared yearly trends showed no clear relationship between increases in the share of students covered by universal free meals and changes in math or reading scores.

Important caveat: These findings are associations, not evidence of causation. The analysis excluded states that ran their own universal programs in a given year, omitted districts with outlier data and left out schools that did not report universal-meal status.

Why Studies Reach Different Conclusions

Experts emphasize several reasons for mixed results across studies:

• Data limitations: District-level aggregates (like those from Stanford's archive) can mask student-level effects and suffer from reporting gaps that bias results.
• Heterogeneous implementation: Outcomes depend on how programs are run — meal nutrition, service timing, cafeteria logistics, and outreach to eligible families all matter.
• Target population differences: Benefits appear largest for children who are food insecure, those just above income cutoffs for means-tested programs, and students eligible but not participating in subsidized-meal programs.

“Some studies... have really found improvements in test scores among kids who are food insecure,” said Juliana Cohen, a nutrition and public health researcher.

Broader Household And Participation Effects

Beyond academics, universal free meals reliably increase school meal participation. A 2021 working paper estimated indirect household effects: by 2016, universal programs reduced grocery spending for the median household by roughly 4.5 percent, and after adoption, grocery spending by households with school-age children fell about 7 percent relative to households without children. Because many grocery chains set prices uniformly, local programs can produce price effects that benefit shoppers outside program areas.

Policy Implications And Takeaways

Current evidence suggests universal free school meals deliver clear benefits in participation and household cost relief, and can produce modest academic gains for some student groups — particularly those experiencing food insecurity or who fall just above eligibility cutoffs. However, district-level associations that show lower average scores where universal programs exist do not prove those programs harm learning; such patterns are likely driven by unmeasured differences in student populations, local policies, or data limitations.

Policymakers should prioritize:

• Robust, student-level, longitudinal evaluations to measure causal effects;
• Attention to implementation quality (meal nutrition, scheduling, and access); and
• Targeted outreach to ensure eligible students benefit and to measure heterogeneous effects across subgroups.

Ultimately, universal free meals are a relatively low-cost intervention with clear social benefits — food security, higher participation and household savings — and possible academic advantages for vulnerable students. Determining the scale and persistence of those academic effects requires better data and careful evaluation.