Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Meals Expansion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supporters Urge Expansion of Free School Meals to 300% of Poverty; Fiscal Note and Funding Questions Loom
Summary
HB 665 would raise eligibility for free school meals to households at or below 300% of the federal poverty level. Supporters—including lawmakers, health advocates and nonprofits—said expanded access would reduce food insecurity and improve learning; Department of Education fiscal estimates and proposed funding sources were discussed but parties
Lawmakers heard testimony on HB 665, a bill that would expand eligibility for free school meals to families with household incomes up to 300% of the federal poverty guidelines.
Representative Muriel Hall, the bill’s sponsor, told the committee a bipartisan study committee recommended expanding eligibility and that the bill’s goal is to ensure that “no student is sitting at a desk trying to learn while hungry.” Hall said the minority recommendation on that legislative study favored a 300% level and urged the committee to consider that broader threshold to reduce hunger and improve educational outcomes.
Witnesses included health and anti‑hunger organizations and local nonprofits. Nancy (Nassy) Vaughn, government relations director for the American Heart Association, said school meals provide nutrition and help academic performance. Brianna Kaur from New Hampshire Hunger Solutions, a registered clinic nutritionist, provided data and said school meals are vitamin‑fortified and meet federal nutrition standards; she cited Census Pulse data showing high levels of household food insufficiency and said many working households fall into the gap between current free/reduced thresholds and true household need.
United Way of Greater Nashua outlined local impacts: for Nashua, shifting students currently in the reduced‑price category into the free category would remove ongoing out‑of‑pocket costs for many families. Witnesses argued expansion would also reduce unpaid school meal debt, streamline administration, and eliminate stigma associated with reduced‑price meals.
Representative Spilsbury and others asked about fiscal mechanics. A Department of Education fiscal note circulated to the committee (updated after initial filings) estimated the cost of expanding eligibility to 300% at roughly $48 million annually to cover the additional meals; witnesses proposed potential funding sources, including earmarking revenue from proposed cigarette and vaping tax increases (a separate bill in Ways & Means that would direct about $49.5 million to the Education Trust Fund was cited by an AHA witness).
Opponents argued the proposal could be costly and asked whether the measure would change how free and reduced eligibility interacts with school funding formulas. Supporters said the bill would not alter the funding formula and was focused on nutrition access. Several legislators urged the House Ways & Means committee to consider the funding path, and witnesses offered studies linking nutrition to improved attendance, test scores and long‑term economic benefits.
No vote was taken; members asked for the updated fiscal note and materials and discussed funding strategies and timeline for any appropriation.
