School breakfast and lunch programs are in the spotlight again with Tim Walz.

I see people (often libertarians) wondering why they just don't means test these programs instead of making them universal.

There are some not so readily apparent reasons for that. In New York and California they found eligible children weren't fully utilizing the programs.

Poor kids were worried about stigma. Parents weren't doing the administrative work. Some schools weren't fully participating for various reasons. Immigrant families were worried their participation would risk deportation and other scrutiny.

There is also a bit of an eligibility gap. Some families made just enough to be ineligible, but were still food insecure. Especially the case in high cost of living environments. You could see this in terms of existing lunch debt.

In any case, what may look inefficient can have some downstream effects that help soften the inefficiency. A lot of families relied less on food banks and other food relief after implementation of universal breakfast and lunch programs.