Universal free school meals now, or universal free school meals later? That is the question.
Tomorrow, the Seattle City Council will either pass a bill to enact Katie Wilson’s universal meal program for Seattle Public Schools students intact or pass an amendment from Council President Joy Hollingsworth and Councilmember Dionne Foster that would delay implementation by a year and instead enact a means-tested, targeted food assistance program for the neediest kids in the district.
The majority of food justice and education advocates do not like this amendment. But some see it as Hollingsworth and Foster do—as the most equitable way forward. The debate has also drawn more attention to the friction between the Council and the Mayor. The conflict has made it harder for Wilson to deliver on campaign priorities.
Wilson’s free school meals proposal is part of a larger package that funds the specific programs that are part of the $1.3 billion Families, Education, Preschool, and Promise (FEPP) levy that was approved by voters last November. While universal school meals were not a part of the original FEPP campaign, Wilson claimed it fit within the levy’s broader mandate.
Wilson’s office took $7.7 million from the FEPP levy’s reserve fund to pay for free school meals starting this fall. After two years, the state will take over funding for the program with revenue from the recently passed millionaires income tax. The mayor’s office estimates about 6,800 students from families who are low-income but above the federal poverty line to qualify for free school meals in Washington state will benefit.
In addition to delaying Wilson’s plan by a year, Hollingsworth’s and Foster’s amendment would allocate $3 million in FEPP funds for a food voucher program that would feed kids from up to 5,000 families on weekends and during school breaks over the next six years, and at less than half the cost of Wilson’s program.
“Right now, schools with disproportionately high needs in Seattle already have free meals, and we believe our highest need children and families deserve more resources,” Hollingsworth and Foster wrote in an email to The Stranger.
Hollingsworth and Foster introduced their amendment on July 7, just one day before the mayor’s plan was scheduled for a vote. After pushback, the vote was rescheduled for 9:30 am on July 22.
Wilson’s universal school meal program was announced back in late April, and no changes to it had been discussed publicly until the amendment dropped.
Who Gets a Free Lunch?
A 2023 Washington State law guarantees universal free meals to schools where at least 40 percent of students qualify for free or reduced-price meals. For a family of four to qualify for reduced price meals, they need to make less than $61,050 a year. The maximum income threshold for free school meals for a household of that size is $42,900. In 2024, the median annual income for a household in Seattle was nearly $119,000. That means a whole lot of people, who you could hardly call rich, fall through the cracks.
Hollingsworth and Foster also worry the millionaires tax funding won’t come through. If it is repealed by the Brian Heywood-funded ballot measure I-645 this November, the state legislature will have to find another way to fund universal school meals. The tax is also facing an active legal challenge. Delaying universal meals for a year could help the City better assess the “long-term viability” of the program, Hollingsworth and Foster said.
At a council press briefing on Monday, Hollingsworth argued the city won’t actually know how much universal school meals will cost until after the first year’s implementation.
“I would ask, ‘is it just $3 million for this year?’” Hollingsworth said. “I think there’s a potential it could be more. No one knows how much it is going to cost,” Hollingsworth said.
In an email to The Stranger, mayoral spokesperson Sage Wilson wrote that the estimates were based on costs from SPS’s ongoing meal programs, including “existing information about per-meal and costs and assumptions of uptake of meals (drawing on experience with universal school meals during COVID).”
Supporters of universal school meals say cost shouldn’t be the concern. (For context, the program’s $3.6 million price tag that has Hollingsworth and Foster sweating is less than one percent of the Seattle Police Department’s annual $489 million budget.)
“I personally don’t think we should be choosing which students get to eat and which students don’t get to eat,” says Leo Falit-Baiamonte, incoming Nathan Hale High School senior and president of the Seattle Student Union.
This whole thing might not just be about money, though. There is a possibility that universal school meals could become simply the latest casualty of the tense relationship between the City Council and Mayor’s office. At the briefing, Hollingsworth said she found out about the proposal through the Mayor’s press release, despite her long-running efforts at addressing food insecurity, including securing millions of dollars for food equity programs.
But at the briefing, Hollingsworth stressed that the council’s relationship with Mayor Wilson has improved.
“I’ve supported the mayor’s legislation, [from] homelessness to supporting junk fees [legislation], full chest out,” she said.
Do We Have to Choose?
People on both sides of this debate say a mixture of universal and targeted programs are necessary to end hunger. But by taking money directly from one program to another, the amendment has sparked a zero-sum argument between means testers and universalists.
Lizbet Huizar, the executive director of the Southeast Seattle Education Coalition, says the group’s membership, mainly nonprofit organizations, is divided on the issue.
“The debate isn’t whether one or the other works, since we know universal meals work,” Huizar said. “But the larger issue is how can we ensure this policy is sound and it actually does what it is intended to do?”
Seattle Public Schools did not respond to a request for comment about how it would implement universal school meals.
Studies show the benefits of universal school meal programs. A 2021 meta-analysis of 47 studies found that universal school meals were associated with better learning performance, participation, and diet quality, while a recent UW study found that less students had high blood pressure after the implementation of universal school meals.
Advocates also say universal school meals reduce stigma for children who receive these benefits and can help families that make more than the annual income threshold but still struggle with Seattle’s high cost of living.
Nonprofit program manager Sibongile Chadyiwa says that means testing often hurts immigrants.
“Specifically to immigrant families, there’s also language barriers,” Chadyiwa said. “Some people are dealing with these brand new systems compared to what they are used to back home.”
Who’ll Win the Food Fight?
Whatever division remains in Seattle’s nonprofit sector, there are some indications Wilson’s original proposal will survive.
More than 80 community groups and individuals have signed onto a petition organized by food justice organization FEEST Seattle in favor of rolling out universal school meals this fall.
And on Monday, the SPS teacher’s union, the Seattle Education Association, announced its opposition to Hollingsworth and Foster’s amendment with a totally different rationale: The burden of implementing a voucher program would fall on district staff. Universal school meals are “immediate and necessary action to support equitable education,” the union said.
But then again, a coalition of more than 30 non-profit organizations, including prominent Black-led organizations Urban League and Africatown, sent a letter to the Council endorsing Hollingsworth and Foster’s amendment on Tuesday.
Councilmembers Rob Saka and Eddie Lin both expressed their opposition to the amendment at the briefing. Councilmember Bob Kettle did not say how he planned to vote.
