How do cigarette taxes impact household budgets?

When Governor DeWine announced his budget proposal earlier this year, there were a lot of major changes that were fascinating for policy analysts. At Scioto Analysis, we’ve written about things like stadium subsidies, library funding, and especially the Child Tax Credit.

Another important part of the Governor’s budget was an increase in taxes on cigarettes, marijuana, and gambling, collectively referred to as “sin taxes.” My colleague Rob Moore wrote about the benefits of taxing these goods from an economic perspective, but he also acknowledged the most frequently cited downside: sin taxes are regressive. On average, lower-income people spend a larger percentage of their income on these goods, and as a result they bear most of the burden of these increased taxes. 

When faced with higher prices, people will usually consume less of a good. From a theoretical perspective, we often ignore the actual mechanism of people participating less in a market. The effect of one out of 100 people quitting smoking is the same as all smokers reducing their smoking by 1%. 

In practice though, people have different responses to increased prices. Some people who have a low willingness to pay for these goods will stop consuming them altogether, people with a moderate willingness to pay may adjust their consumption by a little, and people with a high willingness to pay will not change their consumption and instead just manage the higher prices. 

The third group is the one I want to highlight today. 

A new working paper released this month looks into the question of how households change their consumption habits when faced with higher cigarette taxes. They use two approaches to answer this question. First, they surveyed current smokers and asked them how they would respond to a hypothetical price increase. Then they looked at actual consumption data and quantitatively assessed how people responded when taxes went up. 

The survey responses aligned with what we expect to happen in practice. Some people said that if faced with higher prices they would try to quit, some people said they would try to reduce their smoking habits, and some people said they would just deal with the higher prices. 

The most interesting findings came from the quantitative analysis. When households (particularly low-income households) are faced with higher cigarette prices, they tend to reallocate their spending away from what the authors describe as “human capital forming expenditures.” These authors suggest that households offset nearly 70% of the increased cost of cigarettes with reduced human capital expenditures. 

Previous research on cigarette taxes has shown that higher taxes lead to better human capital outcomes, such as better health and higher education, despite lower spending on these goods by households. This seems to suggest that the benefits of overall reduced consumption of cigarettes outweighs the increased cost and resulting reduction in human capital investment. 

One commonly suggested policy option for reducing the regressivity of taxes is to take the additional revenue and rebate it back to the households that bear the burden. In this case, the state could use the revenue generated from a tobacco tax and use it to subsidize the human capital-developing goods that people consume less of as a result. Think financing college scholarships for low-income households with tobacco tax revenue.

Regressive sales taxes present challenges for policymakers and families. This paper highlights undesirable consequences that come from increasing the costs of goods that have negative externalities. However, benefits still may outweigh the costs depending on the exact structure of the tax, and with some careful planning many of the downsides can be offset.

What is the difference between economic impact analysis and cost-benefit analysis?

“New study finds cycling has $1.4 billion economic impact on Iowa each year.” 

This was the headline for an article published in the Des Moines Register in January of this year. It was covering a study we did on spending by cyclists in Iowa.

“Study: Adult-Use Cannabis Legalization in Ohio Would Generate $260M in ‘Net Benefits for Society’”

This was the headline for an article in cannabis industry news website Ganjapreneur in 2023 on a study we did on a ballot initiative to legalize recreational marijuana in Ohio.

While these headlines seem deceptively similar, we used very different methodologies to come to these two numbers. Ultimately, these two statistics are referring to two different things entirely.

The former article was an approach called “economic impact analysis.” Economic impact analysis works by finding a base spending figure then estimating how that spending ripples throughout the economy. We do this using a concept called “economic multipliers.” 

While it sounds technical, the intuition behind multipliers is simple. When you spend money at a bicycle store for example, the business spends that money on more bicycles and wages for its employees. Employees then spend that money on rent, groceries, transportation to work, and the bicycle wholesaler spends that money on buying bicycles from manufacturers and paying its employees. Then the bicycle manufacturer spends that money on employees and parts, and so on.

Researchers at the Bureau of Economic Analysis have analyzed spending patterns across the country and have used that data to estimate how much a dollar spent in one industry spurs new spending in other industries. We can use this to estimate how much spending in one industry ends up impacting other industries, how it grows wages, and how many jobs are supported by an industry.

The latter study on cannabis legalization works differently. For this study, we utilized a framework called “cost-benefit analysis.” Cost-benefit analysis concern more spending patterns, instead looking at the economy in a broad sense by including nonmarket impacts. Because analysts conducting cost-benefit analysis monetize outcomes that are not traded on markets, they do not have precise data to work with that they do when conducting an economic impact analysis. Often, cost-benefit analysis involves using studies on the impacts of policies in certain places and making adjustments based on local conditions to estimate where the impacts of a policy could be elsewhere.

Early childhood education is a great example of this. Most of the work done by Nobel Laureate James Heckman and Leading Economic Development Economist Timothy Bartik relies on studies such as the Perry Preschool Project and the Abecedarian Project. These experiments were randomized controlled trials conducted in the 1960s and 1970s with follow-up surveys collected in the decades that followed. These studies allowed researchers to estimate the long-term impacts of programs by comparing a treatment group to a control group that did not participate in the early childhood education program. We assume that the impacts of these programs in the 1960s and 1970s through today will be similar to the impacts of programs implemented today 50 and 60 years into the future.

This isn’t to say that economic impact analysis does not come with its own assumptions. Multipliers an analyst uses today are based on economic conditions a few years old. Upheavals like the COVID-19 pandemic, Brexit, or new tariffs across the economy can reshape the economic landscape in a short amount of time, making data collected just a few years ago less informative to analysis done today. But they still provide a starting place for analysts and decision makers.

One thing economic impact analysis has come under fire for over the past decade is its use in promoting subsidies for stadiums.

Often sports teams justify public subsidies with economic impact analysis studies showing hundreds of millions of dollars of economic impact associated with the investments. These are often the result of restaurants and bars developing around a sports stadium after construction, generating new economic activity where there was no activity before.

The reason economists are skeptical of these studies is the lack of accounting for opportunity costs. Economic impact analysis, by its design, only tells an analyst what the benefits of economic activity or a project are. They do not address costs.

The main costs economists worry about around stadiums is the entertainment that they displace. Since people are spending money at restaurants and bars in close proximity to a stadium, they are not spending their money elsewhere in the city. Since entertainment budgets are not very flexible (people do not suddenly stop spending money on rent, groceries, and gas to go to a Browns game because of a new stadium), new developments usually means displacement of economic activity elsewhere.

This does not address other costs, such as the tax drag created by financing the subsidies and potential social costs such as violence associated with bars in proximity to the stadium.

This is where cost-benefit analysis can be a more useful tool for analyzing the impact of a project. A well-designed cost-benefit analysis will give a policymaker an understanding of the major economic impacts of a policy–positive and negative.

This does not mean a cost-benefit analysis is superior to an economic impact analysis. They answer different questions. An economic impact analysis answers the question of “how big this project or sector is in the grand scheme of the economy.” A cost-benefit analysis answers “what the net impact adoption of a policy or program will have on the economy.”

Economic impact analysis can confuse the public if not explained clearly. Even with all the work we have done to explain the limitations of economic impact analysis and what exactly it tells us, reporters are human. They still make simple mistakes like comparing spending on a program to its economic impact and trying to make back-of-the envelope return on investment calculations. What you need to keep in mind is this: economic-impact analysis helps you understand how big an impact a sector or policy is, not whether its benefits outweigh its costs.

The long-term effects of abandoning Ohio’s Fair School Funding plan

Early this budget season, Ohio House Speaker Matt Huffman said school funding cuts were on the horizon. His House budget certainly follows up with that promise.

According to analysis by the Ohio River Valley Institute, the FY2027 school allocation under the House Plan falls $2.7 billion short of what the General Assembly agreed to invest in public education in the 2022 Fair School Funding Plan. That represents a funding cut of about 25% from the previous plan.

These cuts will be felt across the state. According to the same analysis, 91% of school districts will have less funding under the House plan than the Fair School Funding Plan. An unlucky 26 school districts will see their state support reduced by 50% or more.

In February, my firm Scioto Analysis asked 17 Ohio economists for their thoughts about the plan to cut spending on public education. Of those economists, 14 agreed the cuts would hurt Ohio’s economy in the long run. Only one disagreed.

Dr. Kathryn Wilson of Kent State University explained the harms reductions in school spending can have on the economy, saying they can lead to lower human capital development that hurts the productivity of future workers, but also that it can lead to more costs for taxpayers with more government assistance and criminal justice spending needed with a less educated state population.

In 2023, we conducted a cost-benefit analysis of school spending in Ohio. We built off evidence of the relationship between school spending, test scores, and graduation rates to estimate the long-term impacts of school spending on labor force productivity. We found that increased investment in students leads to wage impacts in the long run that will grow the state’s economy. We also found cuts will hurt productivity and reduce output for the state.

According to the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce, Ohio has about 1.7 million children currently enrolled from Kindergarten to Grade 12. This means the proposed $2.7 billion cut would represent about a $1,600 per-student decrease in spending from the baseline of the General Assembly’s Fair School Funding Plan.

In our 2023 study, we estimated what would happen if the state reduced school funding levels to the per-student expenditure in Indiana, which is about $3,600 lower than Ohio. We estimated this would cost the state somewhere between $30 billion and $120 billion in economic value in the long run.

Scaling these losses to match the Ohio House’s $1,600 reduction in per-pupil spending, we can estimate the reduction in statewide school funding will cost the state economy somewhere from $14 billion to $54 billion in the long run in the form of lower earnings from lower test scores, lower graduation rates, and higher social spending.

Yes, $2.7 billion is a lot of money. But educating a state workforce costs money. Cutting corners on education might lead to short-term benefits, but there are long-term costs the state will have to bear for decisions like this. These include lower productivity, lower earnings, and higher spending on social services and criminal justice.

This commentary first appeared in the Ohio Capital Journal.

Do school vouchers help students?

Last year, my colleague Rob wrote a piece for the Ohio Capital Journal about Ohio’s private school voucher program. This is the system by which families can get public money to help pay for private school. Essentially it allows qualifying families to choose a private school over whatever their local public school would be. 

Proponents of school vouchers argue that this allows families to choose whatever education works best for their children. Opponents argue that these vouchers shift public funds from public schools to private schools, worsening conditions for those who remain in public schools. 

One question that largely goes unanswered in any debates on this topic is what private school vouchers actually do for students. 

It’s not enough to just compare private school outcomes to public school outcomes, that ignores the self-selecting nature of private schools. We also should be interested in how outcomes change for people who don’t receive these vouchers, since their education situation is changing as well. 

Thanks to a new paper from researchers at the Urban Institute, we can now answer these questions. 

One important caveat to note is that this research focuses on Ohio’s school voucher program when eligibility was restricted to low income students. It has since seen a significant expansion, with nearly all Ohio families now qualifying for at least some benefit.  

This research found that students who enrolled in the school voucher program attended and graduated from college at higher rates than their peers in public schools. These impacts were felt most strongly by black students and students from the lowest income families. 

Perhaps an even more encouraging finding was that students who were eligible for school vouchers but chose instead to remain in public school also saw modest increases in their rates of college enrollment and graduation. It appears that by allowing these families to make a more flexible decision about their education creates positive externalities for other students too.

I will admit, I was pretty skeptical about school vouchers before reading this paper. I was particularly hesitant about what this program might mean for people who don’t participate in it, but the evidence speaks for itself. 

However, I don’t think this paper means that school vouchers are always good no matter what. I’ve written in the past about some of the challenges that arise when policymakers try to scale up pilot programs. Just because this program is effective for one group does not mean it will be effective for everyone. 

I’m curious to see how many students change schools as a result of this expansion. My prior assumption is that families with higher incomes who are now exposed to this subsidy might already have the requisite income to choose private school if they desire. If that is true, then this subsidy won’t change people’s education behaviors, but instead will just free up income for other types of consumption. However, if the expansion does manage to change people’s education choices, I now suspect that it will create positive outcomes for students. 

Free School Lunch: How we got it and where it’s going

The USDA reports that in 2024, 20.5 million children received free lunches and 900,000 children received reduced-price lunches. While the square pizza in the American Public Education system seems omnipresent, it’s a relatively recent phenomenon. 

School lunches were born out of the postwar era, when President Truman signed the National School Lunch Act of 1946. The policy aimed to stabilize the agricultural labor force and reduce chronic child malnutrition. The number of people engaged in farming dropped 67% in 20 years, from 17 percent of the total workforce in 1940 to six percent in 1960. The National School Lunch Act supported farmers by creating a guaranteed market for agricultural goods. In addition, policymakers saw school lunches as a way to address child malnutrition.

The school lunch program has been a convenient partnership for agricultural surpluses, especially dairy. As post-war agricultural production ramped up, the federal government often found itself with too much milk, cheese, and butter on hand. To prevent these goods from going to waste and allowing prices to tank, the USDA bought the excess and distributed it through schools. 

By the 1980s, this relationship with the dairy industry became so significant that critics referred to government stores as “the cheese caves” due to the massive stockpiles of processed cheese. School lunches became a way to stabilize agricultural markets while feeding children, making items like milk and cheese fixtures in cafeterias nationwide. 

While school lunches were federally supported by the mid-20th century, school breakfasts were not institutionalized until later. The National School Lunch Program expanded steadily after its initial rollout. The Child Nutrition Act passed in 1966 which laid the groundwork for school breakfasts. Support for these programs, however, often reflected the political will of the moment. Grassroots organizations filled the gaps of the school meal program.

One of the earliest large-scale, community-led efforts to solve child hunger came from the Black Panther Party. Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale founded the Black Panther Party in 1966 and they served their first free school breakfast in January of 1969 within an Episcopal church. Without government funding, Panther members solicited local grocery stores for donations, consulted with nutritionists to determine what would make a good breakfast, and then got to work serving it up. The children received chocolate milk, eggs, meat, cereal, and fresh oranges.

School officials immediately reported results in kids who had free breakfast before school. “The school principal came down and told us how different the children were,” Ruth Beckford, a parishioner who helped with the program, said later. “They weren’t falling asleep in class, they weren’t crying with stomach cramps.”

In 2010, President Obama signed the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act. This policy introduced more nutritious food into school lunches and aimed to reduce the number of children diagnosed with obesity within one generation. A study conducted on children who ate the reimbursed meals before and after the introduction of the policy found that their Healthy Eating Index scores increased by 30% for low-income students, 31% for low- to middle-income students, and 19% for middle- to high-income students.

In more recent years, attention has turned to the impact of school meals on students’ academic performance. In 2017, the Brookings Institution published research on how the quality of school lunches affects test scores. Among students enrolled in 9,700 California schools, access to healthier school lunches was associated with improvements in test scores of 0.03 to 0.04 standard deviations, or roughly four percentiles.

Reducing class size is another strategy aimed at improving test scores. The same Brookings study compared the relative cost of healthier school lunches—around $80 per student per year—to the gains achieved through smaller class sizes. Reducing class size by one-third cost about $2,000 per student in 1999. While reducing class sizes requires hiring more teachers and thus comes with higher labor costs, this approach is about five times more expensive than improving school lunch quality for a comparable increase in test performance.

In response to the instability wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government picked up the tab for universal free school lunches provided to every public school student in the country. For most states, this policy expired in 2022, revealing the unmet need of many school children. Six states—California, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, and Vermont—opted to bolster their school lunch programs with state dollars immediately following the federal withdrawal of support in 2022. As a result, food insufficiency among school-aged children was 1.5 percent higher in states that did not extend universal free meals into the 2022–2023 school year compared to those that did. 

What began as a way to deal with agricultural surpluses and reduce child hunger has become a significant social safety net element for American children. The presence of milk and cheese in American lunches is more than a dietary choice, it's the legacy of economic policy. With more than 20 million children reliant on the school lunch program, Harry Truman’s words still ring clear: "In the long view, no nation is any healthier than its children or more prosperous than its farmers."

Can being a better neighbor save lives?

A few weeks ago, I wrote about new data from the World Happiness Report on the impacts of sharing meals. I encourage everyone to go read the full report in that post, but in case you haven’t already done that I wanted to talk about another finding I found interesting. 

Chapter Six of the report focuses on the connection between prosocial behavior and deaths of despair. For context, “prosocial behaviors” are activities like volunteering, donating, and offering help to strangers. “Deaths of despair” is a term for deaths due to suicide, alcohol abuse, and drug overdose. 

In the United States, we have a particular problem with deaths of despair. Between 2000 and 2019, the United States had the largest increase in the rate of deaths of despair among countries in the World Happiness Report. Among the countries that the World Happiness Report has data for, the United States does not have the highest rate of deaths of despair, but most other countries saw decreases in their rates over this same time period. Even if we include the rise in deaths of despair in the United States, the average rate across the globe has decreased. 

The new research highlighted in the report finds a connection between the rates of prosocial behavior and the rate of deaths of despair. Their regression analysis estimated that for every 10 percentage point increase in the share of people participating in prosocial activities, there is one fewer death of despair per 100,000 people. People age 60+ benefit even more, with an effect size nearly double compared to the general population. 

Those numbers are a bit hard to understand, so let's put it into context. In high income countries like the United States, about 35% of people participate in prosocial behaviors. If we increased that by 10 percentage points to 45%, that would mean an extra 34 million people engaging in prosocial activities. That would result in one fewer death of despair per 100,000 people, or about 3,400 per year across the country. 

Simplifying the math a bit further, for every 10,000 additional people who participate in some type of prosocial activity, one fewer person will suffer a death of despair each year. That seems like a pretty achievable goal to me. 

From an economic perspective, encouraging people to participate in prosocial behaviors seems like a very efficient way to decrease deaths of despair. Helping a stranger is often a very low cost activity, sometimes only taking seconds out of your day. 

Unfortunately, this is not necessarily something that policymakers have a lot of influence over. This is the same issue with trying to encourage people to share meals with each other: public policy is not very effective at changing social behaviors. 

Still, there are some things policymakers could explore to help encourage prosocial behavior. We’ve done past research that shows similar interventions are beneficial to the public. There also already exist tax incentives for people to donate money. Maybe there could be a way to incentivize people to volunteer their time in a similar way, like the Illinois volunteer emergency worker credit. 

Hopefully this information can encourage more people to go out of their way to help people in their communities. I know that I probably don’t engage in enough prosocial behavior myself, and I want to change that. Small changes in behavior add up in major ways. Helping each other out can actually save lives.

Raising Minimum Wage to $15 Would Sharply Improve Housing Affordability Across Oklahoma, New Analysis Finds

A new report by Scioto Analysis reveals that raising Oklahoma’s minimum wage to $15 per hour could significantly reduce housing insecurity for tens of thousands of residents, cutting costs for both households and public services.

The report, Minimum Wages and Housing Security in Oklahoma, highlights the connection between income levels and housing stability. With over 430,000 Oklahoma households currently spending more than 30% of their income on housing, the state is facing a growing crisis of affordability.

“Our analysis shows that raising the minimum wage is not just good for low-wage workers — it will likely improve housing security for thousands of Oklahoma families,” said Rob Moore, Principal at Scioto Analysis.

Key findings from the analysis include:

• 40,000 fewer households would be cost burdened — meaning they’d no longer need to spend over 30% of income on rent — under a high-impact scenario.

• 32,000 households would be lifted out of severe housing cost burden, where rent exceeds 50% of income.

• Up to 550 fewer Oklahomans would experience homelessness each year, including a reduction of 150 in chronic homelessness.

• Emergency service use would decline, with an estimated 630 fewer annual emergency room visits and up to 330 fewer shelter beds needed statewide, translating to over $500,000 in potential healthcare savings.

• Housing cost burden would drop most for those struggling the most, including households headed by women and Black Oklahomans, as well as young adults aged 17 to 24.

• “These aren’t just numbers. They represent people — single parents, young workers, and elderly renters — who will be able to afford safe, stable housing,” Moore added.

The analysis simulated 1,000 economic scenarios using data from the American Community Survey and labor market projections from the Congressional Budget Office. The majority of models showed that increased wages lead to substantial housing improvements across the state.

The study arrives as Oklahoma debates how to respond to a doubling of the state’s homeless population since 2021 and an escalating shortage of affordable housing. With construction costs up 42% since 2018 and vacancy rates falling statewide, families are increasingly forced to choose between rent and basic needs like food or healthcare.

Americorps cuts hit Ohio classrooms

My partner is a 10th-grade geometry teacher at Mifflin High School, a Columbus City Schools secondary school on the northeast side. For the past three years, she has had an assistant from the City Year program.

This is an AmeriCorps program that places qualified full-time volunteers in schools to support teachers and the development of children.

Her City Year volunteer was a kind person who supported children and helped with her workload of teaching math to high school-age children. It wasn’t rare for her to come home telling me she didn’t know what she would do without her City Year volunteer.

She will have to figure that out soon. Earlier this week, she arrived at school to find her City Year volunteer was gone. By the end of the day, an announcement was made to the school: Columbus City School’s 30-year relationship with the City Year program was over. This was a direct result of the federal Department of Government Efficiency’s decision last week to cut 41% of the AmeriCorps program budget.

AmeriCorps was the beginning of my career. I enrolled as a full-time volunteer a few months after graduating from Denison University and was selected to serve as a community organizer supporting neighborhood associations for the mayor of Omaha, Nebraska. At the same time, my mother, back in the workforce with her three children out of high school, enrolled in AmeriCorps to evaluate literacy instruction programs for young children.

In 2020, my firm Scioto Analysis conducted a cost-benefit analysis of AmeriCorps programs in Ohio. We found that the programs have significant impacts on the trajectory of participants. People who enroll in the program have much higher future earnings and lower chances of criminal justice involvement. The best evidence available tells us cutting AmeriCorps will result in lower wages and higher crime rates for Ohio. We found that the net benefits of the program in Ohio range somewhere from from $1 million to $30 million and that expansions of the program could push net benefits into the nine-figure range.

It seems that the decisions being made at the federal level are blind to one side of the accounting ledger. In the fervor to reduce spending and cut administrative offices at the federal level, DOGE leader Elon Musk and other decision makers are failing to consider the benefits of programs they eliminate. I have no doubt in my mind that there are reasonable cuts that can be made to federal programs. The problem is that the current approach is not reasonable: it is the public finance equivalent of conducting open-heart surgery with a chainsaw.

The sad thing about this from the perspective of the fiscal hawk is that these cuts will have very little effect on the federal debt. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, even a spending cut 1,000 times the size of the AmeriCorps cut last week would only reduce the federal-debt-to-GDP ratio by one percentage point in the next decade. Cutting AmeriCorps is a drop in the bucket in the context of U.S. debt.

The benefits of cutting Americorps funds are hard to divine. Its costs are clear. In the meantime, volunteers will be lost and children from low-income families in a high-poverty school district will have one less resource available to them in their already under-resourced classrooms.

This commentary first appeared in the Ohio Capital Journal.

Banking on Food Banks

I’ve been on both sides of the food pantry check-in table. As a college student, I worked the desk at the University of Iowa food pantry, tucked into a quiet corner of the Student Union. You’d never find it by accident. Each week, students and faculty lined up with reusable sacks, filling them with dirt-dusted carrots, bruised broccoli, and boxed cornbread mix. The produce was often misshapen, a little off-color—but fresh all the same.

Two years later, I was the one in need. I coasted into a gas station with just enough in my account to fill the tank halfway and maybe buy a sandwich. My stomach growled. At my new part-time job, I asked—ashamed—if staff could use the food pantry. “Absolutely,” they told me. “That’s what it’s there for.”

So when I read the headline, “After Trump Cuts Aid, Food Banks Scrounge and Scrimp,” I deeply appreciated the hot cup of coffee in front of me. The Trump Administration cut $1 billion from two major federal food assistance programs: The Emergency Food Assistance Program and the Local Food Purchase Assistance program. The Emergency Food Assistance Program and the Local Food Purchase Assistance Program support food-insecure households by increasing access to nutritious, locally sourced food while supporting small-scale farmers. 

Due to the cuts, farmers aren’t receiving their expected payments from the federal government. Their harvests, instead of moving quickly through the food banking system, sit in storage until they rot. Workers running the soup kitchen typically expect to receive a main dish, a starch, a vegetable, a fruit, and a dessert. They are now receiving only one of those categories at any given time. 

These shortages trace back to the food banks themselves. When funding to the Local Food Purchase Assistance Program was cut, it disrupted the system that has coordinated America’s food assistance for decades. Farmers once sold surplus crops to the federal government; food banks purchased those surplus goods using federal funds.

While often used interchangeably, food banks and food pantries are distinct in form and function. Food banks are the distributional backbone of food assistance. They staff warehouses, provide refrigeration, and manage the trucking capacity needed to move massive quantities of food. In Ohio, this is coordinated by the Mid-Ohio Food Collective.

Food banks turn over their inventories almost daily, ensuring that local food pantries and soup kitchens have the supplies they need. Food pantries are where individuals can pick up cooking ingredients like fresh produce, box mixes, dried pasta, and occasionally toiletries or diapers. Soup kitchens provide hot, ready-to-eat meals directly. Many require individuals to show proof of economic need.

A report by the United States Department of Agriculture recently found that 18.0 million U.S. households were food insecure at some time during 2023. That’s 13.5% of all households in the country. Feeding America reports that 100% of counties in America have food insecurity. The same report found seven states with rates of food insecurity above the national average: Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Kentucky, and South Carolina. 

These states with the highest rates of food insecurity are home to groups advocating for churches to serve as primary providers of social welfare, including food assistance. The World Food Policy Center released a 2020 report detailing the many unique ways that faith communities support food insecure individuals in their communities like providing Halal or Kosher foods that are harder to find at public food pantries.

While faith-based organizations play a crucial role, relying solely on them overlooks the scale of need and the infrastructure required to address it comprehensively. Churches don’t have access to the trucking or refrigeration capacities necessary for large scale food distribution.

As political and economic climates change, America must face its paradoxical wealth. The United States is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, if not the wealthiest, yet food security persists among its residents. 

The barren images of food pantry shelves and food bank walk-in freezers harkens back to the Cold War Era obsession with the abundant, beautiful food lining American grocery store shelves. But as food prices and hunger rise, we must ask, what have we been fighting for? 

States and municipalities around the country have implemented numerous strategies to combat rising hunger during this period of instability. 

1. Indianapolis, Indiana

Indianapolis is home to the Community Access Food Coalition, a community-driven, independent allegiance of community members who are passionate about expanding access to fresh foods. This organization is composed of diverse residents, constituents, business owners, farmers, educators, community organizations, and other stakeholders. They receive funding through the city-county council and serve as a community liaison regarding food policy. 

2. Waterbury and Naugatuck, Connecticut

Ahead of federal budget cuts, food banks in Waterbury and Naugatak, Connecticut organized private donations and adjusted their budgets to ensure the longevity of dwindling food supplies. Organizers hope these proactive efforts will maintain a consistent level of support for the increasing number of people reliant on food assistance. 

3. Ohio

In the summer of 2024, Ohio’s Department of Job and Family Services expanded Electronic Benefits Transfer to include additional aid during the summer months when children lack access to school lunches. This program is called “SUN Bucks,” and was created to help low-income Ohioans stretch their food budgets and buy healthy food. 

4. Sacramento, California 

Sacramento County is part of a guaranteed income pilot program that provides families with young children $725 each month. This program, Families First Economic Support Pilot Program,  was started to alleviate economic hardship and reduce the number of families involved in the child welfare system. Electronic Benefits Transfer like SNAP function essentially as a cash payment to low-income families. $100 in SNAP benefits frees up $100 you might otherwise have had to spend on groceries.

Do cell phones belong in school?

On April 3, 1973, Martin Cooper placed the first ever cell phone call. He held the Motorola DynaTAC. Weighing 2.5 pounds and measuring 9 inches long, “The Brick” required a 10-hour charge to power just 35 minutes of conversation. 

Cooper could not have known that 50 years later, there would be more mobile phones than people on Earth. As they have become more compact, efficient, and useful, mobile phones have become more popular. Initially a tool reserved for the wealthiest, those who could afford a car phone, now cellphone ownership is ubiquitous.

In 2024, Pew released a survey finding 98% of Americans own a phone with 46% of American teenagers reporting being online “almost constantly.” A far cry from “The Brick,” modern cellphones weigh less than 6 ounces, the weight of a tennis ball. These new devices can charge within 30 minutes and last up to 30 hours. 

Now cellphones are often “smart phones.” Smart phones allow users to access social media websites, video streaming, artificial intelligence, and more. It’s akin to having a computer in your hand all the time. Because of their convenience and ubiquity, children and adolescents are encountering digital content at younger ages, with fewer barriers to access than ever before. 

A 2023 UNESCO report argues that smartphones should be allowed in classrooms only when they will bolster learning. Unstructured smartphone use exacerbates decreased student engagement and attentiveness. These challenges may be more pronounced in under-resourced schools, where limited staff capacity can make classroom management more difficult. As a result, disparities between students in low-income neighborhoods and more affluent areas may be further intensified.

A lot of resources are dedicated to addressing literacy in schools, but there appears to be another educational issue emerging in Ohio. Keyboarding classes are becoming less common, with younger students opting to type out entire papers on cellphone touch screens. The Journal reports that in 2000, 44% of high school graduates completed a typing class. In 2019 that number had fallen to just 2.5%. Without access to technological education, students may fall behind not only in reading literacy but also in digital literacy, which is an increasingly important skillset for the modern workforce. The Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission discussed the tech divide in Franklin County in their Technology and Broadband Access report. 

A decade ago, the Pew Research Center released the results of a 2015 survey finding that more than half of adult Americans lacked what they called “digital readiness”—a set of skills needed to use the internet and technology for more complex tasks. Americans with digital readiness tended to be younger and had higher incomes and education levels than those without these skills. They were more comfortable using and troubleshooting technology, as well as in their ability to seek out and evaluate trustworthy information.

Globally, some countries have taken legislative steps to restrict smartphone use in schools. UNESCO relays that in Zhengzhou, China, cellphone use in primary and secondary schools have been further restricted, with schools demanding that parents provide written consent for pedagogical use of the cellphone. 

In France, a ‘digital break‘ was suggested in lower secondary schools. The digital break requires French middle schoolers to turn off their cellphones and hand them in at the start of the school day. Students receive their phones back at the end of the day. 

At the opposite end, Saudi Arabia reversed its ban due to the opposition by disability groups for medical purposes. For example, students with a chronic illness like diabetes are able to monitor their blood sugars through an app on their phone. Additionally, disabled students with speech delays may be cut off from their communication devices, which help them to participate in conversation. 

Domestically, states are handling the cellphone conundrum in different ways.

According to the Education Commission of the States, Florida’s HB 379 passed in 2023, prohibiting students from using cell phones during instructional time and requiring teachers to designate an area for cell phones during instructional time. 

South Carolina took a slightly different approach by legislating that all schools needed to have a minimally sufficient student conduct policy. To be minimally sufficient, schools had to include directives for cellphone use at school.

In May 2024, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed HB 250, which requires all school districts to place an emphasis on limiting cell phone use and reducing cell phone-related distractions in classrooms. HB 250 includes exceptions for students who require a cell phone to monitor a health concern or for student learning as determined by school officials. In Ohio, students with disabilities are permitted to use their phones if such an accommodation is outlined in their 504 or Individualized Education Plan (IEP). 

The question doesn’t seem to be whether smartphones belong in schools, but under what conditions their presence enhances or hinders learning. It’s not enough to simply restrict access. Given the interwoven nature of cellphones and modern life, educators and families will need to take an active role in teaching young people how to think critically about the information they consume online, how to stay safe, and how to protect their private information. 

We can’t go back to a life without cellphones, but we can craft policies that use technology to enhance equity, rather than broaden the gap. Here are some policy options for districts working to navigate this territory.

Establish Clear, Consistent Usage Policies:

Communities can develop district-wide guidelines specifying when and how smartphones are used during school. These policies should distinguish between instructional time and free time. Policies should also provide explicit expectations for both students and staff.

Implement Technology-Free Zones and Times:

Rising anxiety rates among adolescents has been linked to their increased screen time. Schools may benefit from designating phone-free times and places—such as during instructional time in the classroom or during the lunch hour—to encourage focused study and face-to-face interactions. One study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that about 1 in 4 teenagers who had at least 4 hours of daily screen time have experienced anxiety (27.1%) or depression symptoms (25.9%) in the past 2 weeks.

Invest in Digital Literacy Education:

Schools should teach students how to use smartphones responsibly and to critically evaluate online information. Individuals need to be informed about the lasting impact of their digital footprint. 

Additionally, many adults lack basic digital literacy since the “.com boom” happened after completing their formal education. Expanding digital literacy classes to adults can improve community-wide use of technology.

Provide Alternatives for Technology-Integrated Instruction:

Providing each teacher or classroom with a set of laptops has become increasingly common, often called the “chrome cart." When cellphones or personal computers are integrated into instruction, students should be given the opportunity to use their own device or to borrow one from the school. By providing access to every student, but allowing for flexibility, schools can potentially reduce inequality.

Include Students in Policy Implementation:

As students are growing up immersed in digital technology, they can offer valuable insights into how these tools are used in educational settings. Including student perspectives in the development of digital use policies can help ensure that such policies are practical and reflective of real-world experiences.

Monitor and Evaluate Policy Effectiveness:

Data collection on student engagement, academic performance, and overall wellbeing may provide valuable insights as we adjust our society bit by bit. Each misstep in technology use policy provides us information to better approach the problem going forward.