Colorado’s Healthy School Meals for All (HSMA) program provides free breakfast and lunch to all students, regardless of economic background, and aims to strengthen farm-to-school systems and school food service workers’ pay. After unexpected increases in student participation, the program faced a significant budget shortfall that raised warning flags for program sustainability. In response, Colorado’s Joint Budget Committee called for a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) to develop policy options that balance revenue and expenditures to be considered during the 2025 legislative session. The Urban Institute facilitated the TAG, engaged with stakeholders, and conducted other research to develop this report, which summarizes 27 policy options for the state to consider.

Why This Matters

Many students in Colorado are receiving free meals in schools because of HSMA, which is paid for by a voter-approved tax increase on high-earning Coloradans. The Colorado General Assembly will be considering how to sustain the program moving forward during the 2025 legislative session. This report, additional supporting documentation maintained by the Colorado Department of Education, and planned updates to the revenues and expenditures in the coming months will ensure the Joint Budget Committee, governor, Department of Education, legislators, stakeholders, and voters have the information they need to make HSMA sustainable.

What We Found

What options does Colorado have?

This report summarizes 27 policy options that came from stakeholder input. Policy options were sorted into three categories:

• Revenue-raising options generate new or expand existing revenue sources. Most revenue-raising options would require voter approval, meaning they would not change revenues until the 2026–27 school year.
• Alternative financing options seek creative ways to pay for HSMA without raising taxes or cutting costs. Some of these options were favored by stakeholders because of alignment with the original HSMA goals, but others raised considerations around feasibility.
• Cost-reducing options reduce costs to the state, but stakeholders noted these options would shift costs to schools or families instead.

Stakeholders largely felt that free meals should be kept universal for all students in Colorado. They felt that the local food grant programs and staffing enhancements, which have been delayed, should be reinstated to keep the program whole. Stakeholders’ values most closely aligned with options that maintain or increase the revenue from the existing revenue source generated by Proposition FF.

What can we learn from other states?

Colorado’s revenue source for universal free meals and its broader tax structure are unique compared with other states with universal free meals. Many other states rely on broad-based taxes and generally have a greater ability to increase revenues for universal free meals or other new state programs. Other states similarly saw increases in meal participation rates after implementing universal free meals and saw similar challenges associated with increased participation, including longer lunch lines, kitchen infrastructure challenges, and staffing shortages. Because of Colorado’s unique context, there were no strategies identified in other states that could solve the challenges Colorado is facing in making the program more sustainable. But several innovative practices are noted.

How We Did It

Beginning in July 2024, the Urban Institute convened and facilitated eight TAG meetings to develop the stakeholder engagement plan, review district-level feedback, assess fiscal impacts, and compile policy considerations. Urban led a two-stage public engagement strategy that included two rounds of focus groups with stakeholders and two rounds of open, online public feedback opportunities. Urban also conducted desk research and interviewed officials in other states that have implemented universal free meal programs. The Colorado Department of Education and Bright Fox Analytics, along with support from Legislative Council Staff and the Office of State Planning and Budgeting, modeled potential revenues and expenditures for policy options. Urban compiled all findings into this report.