Abstract Deep cuts have been proposed to federally funded nutrition assistance programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); and federally subsidized school breakfast and lunch programs. Yet, these programs help parents afford healthy meals for their families, pregnant and postpartum mothers access supplemental foods and health services for themselves and their infants and young children, and children obtain the nutrition necessary for optimal school performance. Participation in these programs is linked with reductions in perinatal morbidity and mortality, improved childhood growth trajectories, enhanced school performance, and reductions in food insecurity and poverty. Given these compelling health and economic benefits, the Society of Behavioral Medicine urges Congress to protect and increase funding for federally funded nutrition assistance programs, specifically SNAP, WIC, and school breakfast and lunch programs. Per the recent (2017) recommendations of the School Nutrition Association, Congress should also resist any attempts to “block-grant” subsidized school breakfast and lunch programs, which could reduce access to these programs. It is further recommended that Congress improve the scope of implementation- and outcomes-based assessments of these programs. Finally, we recommend efforts to increase awareness of and participation in SNAP, WIC, and federally funded school meal programs for eligible individuals, children, and families. Implications Practice: Federally funded nutrition assistance programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); and school meal programs, help parents afford healthy meals for their families, pregnant and postpartum mothers access supplemental foods and health services for themselves and their infants and young children, and children obtain the nutrition necessary for optimal school performance. Research: To establish a more rigorous evidence base pertaining to best practices, costs, and impacts and inform future debates regarding funding, it is recommended that Congress increase and improve the scope and quality of implementation- and outcomes-based evaluations of federally funded nutrition assistance programs. Policy: Given the documented health benefits associated with nutrition assistance program participation, the Society of Behavioral Medicine recommends that Congress continue to fund federal nutrition assistance programs such as WIC, SNAP, and school breakfast and lunch programs and resist any attempts to “block-grant” these programs . INTRODUCTION The Society of Behavioral Medicine urges Congress to protect and increase the funding of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); and federally subsidized school breakfast programs (SBPs) and school lunch programs (SLPs). Recently, deep cuts have been proposed to these federally funded nutrition assistance programs . Yet, these programs help parents afford healthy meals for their families, pregnant and postpartum mothers access supplemental foods and health services for themselves and their infants and young children, and children obtain the nutrition necessary for optimal school performance. It is argued that the economic and health-related consequences of the proposed cuts will perpetuate, rather than stem, poverty in America, and will result in serious public health problems. BACKGROUND In the USA, a country known for its wealth, economic distress and food insecurity are widespread [3, 4]. 12.7% (43.1 million people) live in poverty. Almost 20% of those living below the poverty line are children . The Department of Health and Human Services defines the poverty line as earnings of ≤$12,060 per year for individuals, and ≤$24,600 per year for a family of four . 6.4 million (one in six) American children suffer from “food insecurity” [5, 7], meaning they have “limited or uncertain access to adequate food.” [5, 8]. In households with “child food insecurity,” families run out of food by the end of the month [3, 4], and parents forgo buying food for themselves so their children can eat [3, 4]. Food insecure children are never sure there is going to be enough food [3, 4]. “Child food insecurity” is the most severe form of food insecurity [3, 4]. “Child food insecurity” exerts serious, and potentially permanent, effects on children’s neurological development [9, 10], cognitive development [10, 11], educational functioning , and overall health [10, 12]. The inadequate intake of important nutrients can lead to behavior problems, poor health [10, 12], and, counterintuitively, to obesity . Apart from food insecurity, poverty and financial strain are associated with serious health problems in adults and children. In adults, poverty is related to illnesses such as obesity, asthma, hypertension, chronic metabolic disease, diabetes, depression, and cardiovascular death [14, 15]. In children, poverty is related to higher rates of infant mortality and chronic diseases such as asthma, growth problems from poor nutrition, and increased obesity . Poverty-related psychosocial distress in families can lead to behavioral health problems such as parental drug abuse, child neglect, family violence, and homelessness [17, 18], all of which are identified as toxic childhood stressors and childhood adversities [17, 18]. Many food insecure children experience profound psychosocial distress, including suicidality . In children, the health, psychological, and cognitive effects of poverty-related adversities can persist well into adulthood and can potentially reduce life expectancy by up to 20 years [17–19]. Assessment of nutrition safety nets: SNAP, WIC, and federally subsidized SBPs and SLPs SNAP—Food Stamps SNAP helps more than 40 million people pay for food . SNAP services approximately 44% of America’s poor children  (20 million children per month ). The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities calls SNAP “the nation’s most important anti-hunger program” (p. 1). • 32% of all SNAP households and 55% of SNAP households with children have at least one employed member but do not earn enough to pay for adequate food along with housing and other nondiscretionary expenses [3, 4, 21]. • SNAP reduces poverty among families by 40% , a benefit that was found to be almost as effective as Earned Income Credits in reducing poverty rates among families [22, 23]. SNAP improves child health and cognition and is related to better school performance and achievement [7, 24]. Children receiving SNAP benefits are more likely to experience • better health [25–27], • normal development (i.e., less likely to experience developmental delays) [25–27], • healthier weight [25–27], • improved reading and math skills , • increased high school graduation rates , and • better health and economic self-sufficiency into adulthood [7, 12]. SNAP is particularly effective during times when school is not in session, when children cannot access free or reduced cost breakfast and lunch programs. WIC WIC provides supplemental foods, referrals for health care and social services, breastfeeding support, and nutrition education to more than 8 million low-income pregnant and postpartum women, along with their infants and young children [28–30]. About 53% of U.S. infants receive WIC benefits [31, 28]. WIC participation is associated with • reduced preterm births, low birthweight, and infant mortality [32, 33], • reduced childhood and household food insecurity , • increased childhood immunization rates [35, 36], • increased attendance at well-child visits [37, 38], • increased use of preventative care [37, 38], • reduced childhood anemia , and • improved early childhood cognitive development and scholastic achievement . After revisions to food packages in 2009 and 2017 to meet new dietary guidelines and incentivize breastfeeding, there have been dramatic improvements among WIC participants in rates of breastfeeding initiation , childhood obesity , and household consumption of healthier foods including fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and low-fat milk [43, 44]. In fiscal year 2016, federal costs of WIC were approximately $5.95 billion . This equates to the lowest WIC spending as a share of the economy since 1997. There has also been a drop of 23% in per-participant food costs over the last 26 years, with total per-participant costs growing more slowly than the rate of inflation . Hence, WIC continues to be a cost-efficient investment of taxpayer dollars. Federally subsidized SBPs and SLPs Federally funded SBPs and SLPs provide free and low-cost meals to school children from low-income families. According to Children’s HealthWatch (2017), which monitors the impact of economic conditions and public policies on the health and well-being of young children, schools are on “the front lines of alleviating child hunger” (p. 3) . In fact, federally subsidized SBPs and SLPs are among the most ubiquitous federally funded nutrition assistance programs in the USA. Approximately 92% of all American schools offer SBPs, which include both before-class programs and “Breakfast in Class” (i.e., BICs or “After the Bell”) breakfast programs [46–48, 19, 36]. Even more schools, 95%, offer subsidized SLPs . The National School Lunch Program is the second largest food and nutrition safety net program behind SNAP . During the 2015–2016 school year, 12.1 million children in America participated in free or low-cost SBPs . “Breakfast in Class” programs increased school nutrition program participation even further [46, 47]. During the 2015–2016 school year, an average of 30 million children per day received subsidized, nutritionally balanced school lunches [1, 49]. Subsidized SBPs and SLPs are associated with multiple health and scholastic benefits for children, including • increased school attendance [50–53, 46, 47], including reduced absences and tardiness [51, 46–48]; • more focused task performance  and better psychosocial functioning, including fewer behavior problems, and less anxiety, depression, and hyperactivity [46, 48]; • better dietary intake [46, 48], including increased consumption of a variety of foods, including fruit and milk, vitamin C, vitamin A, and calcium ; • improved health outcomes, including lowered body mass index , and fewer visits to the school nurse, especially for stomachaches and headaches ; • improved test performance [50, 53, 48]; and • increased high school graduation rates . SBPs and SLPs were also found to mitigate the effects of poverty [50, 52, 56] and reduce overall poverty levels in the USA . IMPLICATIONS OF CURRENT POLICIES Substantial reductions in federal funding for SNAP, WIC, and school meal programs have been proposed. The Trump administration’s fiscal year 2018 budget proposes $192 billion in cuts to SNAP  and $11.1 billion (15.1%) in cuts to WIC . School meal programs would be funded through fixed block grants instead of more flexible federal entitlements. This change stands to ultimately reduce subsidized school meal funding by 12%. (Note: In lieu of more flexible federal entitlements, fixed “block-funded” grants are proposed to finance federally subsidized SBPs and SLPs [1, 60]. In this plan, schools would lose all paid-meal reimbursements, plus six-cents per meal in programs certified as meeting federal nutrition standards . In addition, safeguards would be removed regarding federal rules for food safety, quantity, and nutritional value . Furthermore, eligibility for free meals would narrow to potentially exclude some children at or near the poverty line . According to recent analyses [1, 60], the grant funding to the states would be set below the funding level for FY 2016 and then be frozen for 3 years with no adjustment for inflation, resulting in 12% funding cuts by the third year. States could then extend the block funding for another 3 years. However, if the grant funding ran out during the school year [which could happen in times of economic hardship such as recession or natural disaster], poor or indigent children could lose their access to free or low-cost school meals [1, 60].) The proposed reductions to these critical programs not only stand to exact an overwhelming toll on individuals, families, and children, but also would create crippling financial costs for communities, cities, and states, which would need to support those suffering from severe financial crises and food deprivation. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS The Society of Behavioral Medicine recommends that Congress should: • Continue to fund federal nutrition assistance programs including SNAP, WIC, and SBPs and SLPs. • Resist any attempts to “block-grant” subsidized SBPs and SLPs, per the recent (2017) recommendations of the School Nutrition Association . • Improve the scope of implementation- and outcomes-based evaluations of federally funded nutrition programs. This would establish a more rigorous evidence base pertaining to best practices, costs, and impacts and inform future debates regarding funding. • Increase efforts to raise awareness of and participation in nutrition assistance programs for eligible individuals, families, and children. Compliance With Ethical Standards Primary Data: On October 24, 2017, a shorter version of this manuscript was posted, in policy brief format, on the Society of Behavioral Medicine’s Twitter and Facebook pages. The authors have full control of the entire content of this manuscript and allow the journal to review its information and sources. Conflict of Interest: Pamela Behrman, Jill Demirci, Betina Yanez, Nisha Beharie, and Helena Laroche declare they have no conflicts of interest. Ethical Approval: This manuscript is not being simultaneously submitted elsewhere. All procedures were conducted in accordance with ethical standards. This article does not contain studies with human participants performed by any of the authors. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors. Acknowledgments The authors of the Nutrition Safety Net policy brief gratefully acknowledge the Health Policy Committee and the Health Policy Council for their constructive guidance and feedback. The authors also acknowledge the contributions and support of the Ethnic Minority and Multicultural Health (EMMH) Special Interest Group. The authors also thank the Advisory Board of the Child and Family Health Special Interest Group for their interest and support. This project was not funded. References 1. School Nutrition Association. School meal block grants compromise children’s nutrition . 2017 Position Paper. 2017; https://schoolnutrition.org/ uploadedFiles/2_ Meetings_and_Events/LAC_2017/ Pages/LAC2017-Infographic.pdf. Accessibility verified September 03, 2017. 2. Lu D, Soffen K. Politics: What Trump’s budget cuts from the social safety net. The Washington Post . 2017; https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-budget-benefits-cuts/?utm_term= .6d20022e42fe. Accessibility verified May 29, 2017. 3. McMillan T. The new face of hunger: Why are people malnourished in the richest country on earth? National Geographic Magazine . 2014; http://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/hunger/. Accessibility verified September 11, 2017. 4. McMillan T. Shift to ‘Food Insecurity’ creates startling new picture of hunger in America: Millions of working Americans are “food insecure.” National Geographic/News . 2014; http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/ 2014/07/140716-hunger-america-food-poverty-nutrition-diet/. Accessibility verified September 11, 2017. 5. USDA Economic Research Service. Topics: Food and nutrition assistance—Key statistics and graphics. 2015; https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/ food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statistics-graphics.aspx. Accessibility verified August 06, 2017. 6. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. U.S. Federal poverty guidelines used to determine financial eligibility for certain federal programs. 2017; https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines. Accessibility verified August 10, 2017. 7. Nokidhungry.org. Hunger devastates children: Facts on childhood hunger in America. 2016; https://www.nokidhungry.org/pdfs/Fact_Sheet-2016.pdf. Accessibility verified August 07, 2017. 8. Watson T. Do safety net programs impact food security in the United States? Econofact.org—Social Policy. 2017; http://econofact.org/do-safety-net-programs-impact-food-security-in-the-u-s. Accessibility verified August 04, 2017. 9. Rosales FJ, Reznick JS, Zeisal SH. Understanding the role of nutrition in the brain and behavioral development of toddlers and preschool children: Identifying and overcoming methodological barriers. Nutr Neurosci . 2009; 12( 5): 190– 202. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 10. Cook JT, Frank DA. Food security, poverty, and human development in the United States. Ann NY Acad Sci . 2008; 1136( 1): 193– 209. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 11. Basch CE. Breakfast and the achievement gap among urban minority youth. J Sch Health . 2011; 81( 10): 635– 640. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 12. Carlsen S, Rosenbaum D, Keith-Jennings B, Nchako C. SNAP works for America’s children. Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. 2016; https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/snap-works-for-americas-children. Accessibility verified August 06, 2017. 13. Dhurandhar EJ. The food-insecurity obesity paradox: A resource scarcity hypothesis. Physiol Behav . 2016; 162: 88– 92. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 14. Brown A. With poverty comes depression, more than other illnesses: Many in poverty lack access to health basics needed to treat or prevent illness . Gallup. 2012; http://www.gallup.com/poll/158417/poverty-comes-depression-illness.aspx? utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm _campaign=syndication&utm_ content=morelink&utm_term= All%20Gallup% 20Headlines. Accessibility verified August 11, 2017. 15. Levine JA. Poverty and obesity in the U.S. Diabetes . 2011; 60( 11): 2667– 2668. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 16. American Academy of Pediatrics. Poverty threatens health of U.S. children: Experts gather at Pediatric Societies’ meeting to lay out agenda to end childhood poverty . AAP Press Release. 2013; https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/pages/Poverty-Threatens-Health-of-US-Children.aspx. Accessibility verified August 11, 2017. 17. Anda R. The health and social impact of growing up with adverse childhood experiences: The human and economic costs of the status quo. 2009; http://www.acestudy.org/files/Review_of_ACE_Study_with_references_summary_table_2.pdf. Accessibility verified March 30, 2015. 18. Fellitti V, Anda R, Nordenberg Det al. Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction in many of the leading causes of death in adults. Am J Prev Med . 1998; 14( 4): 245– 258. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 19. Chilton M, Knowles M, Bloom SL. The intergenerational circumstances of food insecurity and adversity. J Hunger Environ Nutr . 2017; 12( 2): 269– 297. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 20. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. SNAP helps struggling families put food on the table. 2017; https://www.cbpp.org/ research/ food-assistance/chart-book-snap-helps-struggling-families-put-food-on-the-table. Accessibility verified August 10, 2017. 21. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. SNAP increasingly serves the working poor. 2017; https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/? chartId =82672. Accessibility verified September 11, 2017. 22. Sherman A, Trisi D. Safety net more effective against poverty than previously thought: Correcting for underreporting of benefits reveals stronger reductions in poverty and deep poverty in all states . Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. 2015; https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/safety-net-more-effective-against-poverty-than-previously-thought. Accessibility verified August 04, 2017. 23. Chaudry A, Wimer C, Macartney Set al. Poverty in the United States:50-Year trends and safety net impacts. 2016; https://aspe.hhs.gov/ system/files/pdf/154286/50YearTrends.pdf. Accessibility verified August 04, 2017. 24. Maryland Center of Economic Policy. More Maryland families will go hungry unless Congress rejects administration budget . Christopher Meyer, Blog: Maryland’s Money Matters. 2017; http://www.mdeconomy.org/more-maryland-families-will-go-hungry-unless-congress-rejects-administration-budget. Accessibility verified August 04, 2017. 25. Children’s Health Watch. The SNAP vaccine: Boosting children’s health . Children’s HealthWatch Report. 2012; http://www.childrenshealthwatch.org/upload/resource/snapvaccine_report_ feb12.jpeg.pdf. Accessibility verified September 10, 2017. 26. Coleman S, Cook J, Ettinger de Cuba Set al. Boost to SNAP benefits protected young children’s health . Children’s HealthWatch. 2011; http://www.childrenshealthwatch.org/upload/resource/snapincrease_brief_oct11.pdf. Accessibility verified September 10, 2017. 27. Keith-Jennings B. SNAP plays a critical role in helping children. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 2012; http://cpbb.org. Accessibility verified September 10, 2017. 28. USDA Food and Nutrition Service. “About WIC-WIC at a glance.” 2015; https://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/about-wic-wic-glance. Accessibility verified August 02, 2017. 29. Carlson S, Neuberger Z. Policy Futures WIC works: Addressing the nutrition and health needs of low-income families for 40 years . Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 2017; https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/wic-works-addressing-the-nutrition-and-health-needs-of-low-income-families. Accessibility verified August 02, 2017. 30. USDA Food and Nutrition Service. Women, Infants, and Children (WIC): Final rule—Revisions in the WIC Food Packages. 2016; https://fns.usda.gov/Women-Infants-and-Children-WIC-Final-rule-Revisions-in-the-WIC-Food-Packages. Accessibility verified August 09, 2017. 31. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Review of WIC Food Packages: Proposed Framework for Revisions: Interim Report . Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2016. 32. Fingar KR, Lob SH, Dove MS, Gradziel P, Curtis MP. Reassessing the association between WIC and birth outcomes using a fetuses-at-risk approach. Matern Child Health j . 2017; 21( 4): 825– 835. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 33. Khanani I, Elam J, Hearn R, Jones C, Maseru N. The impact of prenatal WIC participation on infant mortality and racial disparities. Am j Public Health . 2010; 100( suppl 1): S204– S209. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 34. Metallinos-Katsaras E, Gorman KS, Wilde P, Kallio J. A longitudinal study of WIC participation on household food insecurity. Matern Child Health j . 2011; 15( 5): 627– 633. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 35. Thomas TN, Kolasa MS, Zhang F, Shefer AM. Assessing immunization interventions in the Women, Infants, and Children ( WIC) program. Am J Prev Med . 2014; 47( 5): 624– 628. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 36. Buescher PA, Horton SJ, Devaney BLet al. Child participation in WIC: Medicaid costs and use of health care services. Am J Public Health . 2003; 93( 1): 145– 150. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 37. Lee JY, Rozier RG, Norton EC, Kotch JB, Vann WF, Jr. Effects of WIC participation on children’s use of oral health services. Am J Public Health . 2004; 94( 5): 772– 777. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 38. Schneider JM, Fujii ML, Lamp CL, Lönnerdal B, Dewey KG, Zidenberg-Cherr S. The use of multiple logistic regression to identify risk factors associated with anemia and iron deficiency in a convenience sample of 12-36-mo-old children from low-income families. Am J Clin Nutr . 2008; 87( 3): 614– 620. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 39. Jackson MI. Early childhood WIC participation, cognitive development and academic achievement. Soc Sci Med . 2015; 126: 145– 153. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 40. Whaley SE, Koleilat M, Whaley M, Gomez J, Meehan K, Saluja K. Impact of policy changes on infant feeding decisions among low-income women participating in the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children. Am J Public Health . 2012; 102( 12): 2269– 2273. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 41. Pan L, Freedman DS, Sharma AJet al. Trends in obesity among participants aged 2–4 years in the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children—United States, 2000–2014. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep . 2016; 65(45): 1256– 1260. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 42. Kong A, Odoms-Young AM, Schiffer LAet al. The 18-month impact of special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children food package revisions on diets of recipient families. Am J Prev Med . 2014; 46( 6): 543– 551. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 43. Tester JM, Leung CW, Crawford PB. Revised WIC food package and children’s diet quality. Pediatrics . 2016; 137( 5): e20153557. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 44. Carlsen S, Neuberger Z, Rosenbaum D. WIC participation and costs are stable . Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 2017; https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/wic-participation-and-costs-are-stable. Accessibility verified January 16, 2018. 45. Bovell A, Poblacion A. First Annual Report: Ending hunger in our classrooms: Expanding “After the Bell” breakfast programs for Massachusetts students . Eos Foundation and Children’s HealthWatch. 2017; http://eosfoundation.org/wp/wp-content/ uploads/ 2014/09/CHW-School-Breakfast-Report_April-2017.pdf. Accessibility verified September 14, 2017. 46. Anzman-Frasca S, Djang HC, Halmo MM, Dolan PR, Economos CD. Estimating impacts of a breakfast in the classroom program on school outcomes. JAMA Pediatr . 2015; 169( 1): 71– 77. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed 47. MD Hunger Solutions. First class breakfast in Maryland: A guide to expanding school breakfast. A project of Kaiser-Permanente and the Maryland Partnership to End Childhood Hunger . Available at http://mdhungersolutions.org/pdf/ first_class_breakfast_toolkit.pdf. Accessibility verified September 14, 2017. 48. Food Research and Action Center. School breakfast program. 2017; http://frac.org/programs/school-breakfast-program. Accessibility verified September 03, 2017. 49. Thielman S. ‘Outrageous’: expert slams White House for denying school meals’ link to learning—Author of groundbreaking study of school meals’ impact on class achievement said proposed cuts to programs reflects a lack of knowledge or…dishonesty. The Guardian . 2017; https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/17/school-lunch-program-cuts-student-performance-link. Accessibility verified September 03, 2017. 50. Meyers AF, Sampson AE, Weitzman M, Rogers BL, Kayne H. School Breakfast Program and school performance. Am J Dis Child . 1989; 143( 10): 1234– 1239. Google Scholar PubMed 51. Roustit C, Hamelin AM, Grillo F, Martin J, Chauvin P. Food insecurity: Could school food supplementation help break cycles of intergenerational transmissions of social inequalities? Pediatrics . 2010; 126( 6):1174–1181. 52. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of Population Health. Health and academic achievement. CDC Publication. 2014; https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/ health_and_academics/pdf/health-academic-achievement.pdf. Accessibility verified September 03, 2017. 53. Bro RT, Shank LL, McGlaughlin TF, Williams RL. Effects of a breakfast program on on-task behavior of vocational high school students. J Educ Res . 1996; 90( 2): 111– 115. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS 54. Pinkus L. Using early-warning data to improve graduation rates: Closing cracks in the education system . Alliance for Excellent Education—Policy Brief. 2008; https://www.rcsd.ms/cms/lib07/MS01910580/Centricity/ Domain/671/ Resources/ Using_Early_ Warning_Data_to_Improve_Graduation.pdf. Accessibility verified September 03, 2017. 55. Marcus A. School lunch programs might break the poverty cycle . Reuters. 2010; http://www.reuters.com/article/us-school-lunch/school-lunch-programs-might-break-poverty-cycle-idUSTRE6AM5PE20101123. Accessibility verified September 03, 2017. 56. Burman L. News flash: Antipoverty programs can reduce poverty . Forbes. 2011; https://www.forbes.com/sites/leonardburman/ 2011/11/07/news-flash-antipoverty-programs-can-reduce-poverty/#51ccd89c516c. Accessibility verified September 03, 2017. 57. Alcindor Y. Trump budget cuts programs for poor while sparing many older people. New York Times—Politics . 2017; https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/ 22/us/politics/budget-food-stamps-poverty.html. Accessibility verified August 15, 2017. 58. Aisch G, Parlapiano A. How Trump’s budget would affect every part of the government. The New York Times: Politics . 2017; https://www.nytimes.com/ interactive/2017/05/23/us/politics/trump-budget-details.html. Accessibility verified August 15, 2017. 59. Neuberger Z. House proposal to block-grant school meal programs would put children’s nutrition at risk . Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. 2016; https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/house-proposal-to-block-grant-school-meal-programs-would-put-childrens. Accessibility verified September 03, 2017. 60. Pratt-Heavner D. Block grants would slash millions from school meal budgets and compromise meal service for students . School Nutrition Association Press Release. 2016; https://schoolnutrition.org/NewsPublications/ PressReleases/ BlockGrants WouldSlashMillions FromSchoolMealBudgets/. Accessibility verified September 03, 2017. © Society of Behavioral Medicine 2018. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: email@example.com. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices)
Translational Behavioral Medicine – Oxford University Press
Published: May 3, 2018
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud