CEP Part 3: Determining which Schools will be Eligible to Participate in CEP. Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Transcription

1 CEP Part 3: Determining which Schools will be Eligible to Participate in CEP Wednesday, April 2, 2014

2 Today s Moderator Paula Zdanowicz, MPH Senior Program Manager School Nutrition Foundation

3 Today s Topics Participants will gain a better understanding of: Generating lists of eligible and near-eligible schools, Grouping schools, Using USDA s reimbursement estimating tool, and A school superintendent s perspective on implementing CEP.

4 Today s Panelists Bryan Van Dorn, MPA Consultant Michigan Department of Education School Nutrition Programs Madeleine Levin, MPH Senior Policy Analyst Food Research and Action Center Keri Kennedy, MPH Office of Child Nutrition West Virginia Department of Education

5 Today s Panelists Cindy Ham, Ed.S., SNS School Nutrition Program Georgia Department of Education Larry Spring Superintendent Schenectady City School District NY

6 Today s Panelist Madeleine Levin, MPH Senior Policy Analyst Food Research and Action Center

7 How Community Eligibility Provision Works Schools provide breakfasts and lunches at no charge to all students Schools do not collect applications, make eligibility determinations, verify applications, or track eligibility categories when meals are served Any school district can use this option if at least one of its schools has 40 percent or more students certified for free meals without application (called Identified Students ) The district may implement community eligibility in one school, a group of schools or district-wide Free claiming percentage = % Identified Students x 1.6 (capped at 100%) Example: a school with 50% Identified Students would be reimbursed at the free rate for 80% of the breakfasts and lunches it served (50% x 1.6 = 80%) and the remaining 20% would be reimbursed at the paid rate Participating schools are guaranteed to receive the same free claiming percentage (or a higher one if the Identified Student Percentage increases) for 4 years

8 Today s Panelist Bryan Van Dorn, MPA Consultant Michigan Department of Education School Nutrition Programs

9 CEP in Michigan Generating Lists of Eligible and Near-Eligible Schools

10 Well-Established DC System At-A-Glance School District Fall General Collection Field reported numbers of directly certified students October Data Available for Analysis in January Lists are sorted and filtered Two individual reports produced Eligible (30% - 40%) Near-Eligible (40% and above) Disseminated publically via our website Output Data is Just a Guide Actual eligibility is based on field reported data reflective of April 1

11 Today s Panelist Keri Kennedy, MPH Office of Child Nutrition West Virginia Department of Education

12 USING GROUPING TO MAXIMIZE PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNITY ELIGIBLITY PROVISION: WEST VIRGINIA S EXPERIENCE

13 West Virginia CEP Participation LEA s with at least 1 CEP eligible school SY 2013 SY LEA s participating in CEP LEA s implementing CEP in every school LEA s elected to group schools in SY Schools Participating Students Impacted 90,000 >110,000 40% of students statewide

14 Grouping Individual school, group, mix, or whole LEA Any criteria ex: neighborhood, elementary, ISP You can be very strategic with ISPs by grouping schools that have ISPs over 62.5% with lower schools

15 Why Consider Grouping? Allows you to enroll schools that would not be eligible on their own. Example: Kanawha County= 53 CEP Schools of which 12 do not qualify on their own.

16 Grouped Schools Example A Schools # of Identified Students Total Enrollment % of Identified Students Qualify for CEO A Yes B No Grouping A & B Yes

17 Why Consider Grouping? Allows you to maximize your federal reimbursement

18 Grouped Schools Example B Schools # of Identified Students Total Enrollment % of Identified Students A % 117% B % 106% C % 105% D % 93% E % 91% F % 89% Grouped % 101% % Of Meals Reimbursed at Free Rate

19 Grouped Schools Example C Schools # of Identified Students Total Enrollment % of Identified Students % Of Meals Reimbursed at Free Rate A % % B % 47.15% Grouping A & B % 68.07%

20 Schools Impact on Title I: You must use the individual school data for the purposes of school ranking # of Identified Students Total Enrollment % of Identified Students % of Meals Reimbursed at the Free Rate (% needy) A % 95.34% 1 B % 90.71% 2 C % 86.24% 3 Grouped % n/a Title 1 Ranking

21 Determining area eligibility percentages for grouped schools Schools electing CEP as part of a group must use their individual data rather than district wide data for the following programs: Child and Adult Care Food Program Including at-risk afterschool meals Summer Food Service Program Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program

22 Determining area eligibility percentages: Schools # of Identified Students Total Enrollment % of Identified Students % of Meals Reimbursed at the Free Rate (% needy) A % 95.34% B % 90.71% C % 86.24% Grouped % 88.73%

23 Questions If after today s call you have questions please contact Keri Kennedy at (304) or via at [email protected]

24 Today s Panelist Cindy Ham, Ed.S., SNS School Nutrition Program Georgia Department of Education

25 USDA Estimator and Illinois Worksheet

26 Budgetary Concerns with CEP Future Revenues Lack of Student Revenues Federal Reimbursement Breakfast and Lunch Participation by Schools Breakfast and Lunch A la carte Sales

27

28 USDA Estimator

29

30

31

32

33 In accordance with State and Federal law, the Georgia Department of Education prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, or age in its educational and employment activities. Inquiries regarding the application of these practices may be addressed to the General Counsel of the Georgia Department of Education, 2052 Twin Towers East, Atlanta, Georgia, 30334,(404) In accordance with Federal law and U.S. Department of Agriculture policy, this institution is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. To file a complaint of discrimination write: USDA, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, S. W., Washington, D.C or call toll free (866) (Voice). Individuals who are hearing impaired or have speech disabilities may contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) or (800) (Spanish). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

34 Today s Panelist Larry Spring Superintendent Schenectady City School District NY

35 Improving Nutrition in Schools Laurence T. Spring Schenectady City School District, NY

36 Schenectady City School District, NY Small City School District 10,000 + Students 17 Schools (19 Campuses) 80% Free and Reduced Lunch Rate 1/3 as wealthy as the average district in NY 13th Highest Concentration of Childhood Poverty in the Country Student Population 33% Black 33% White 16% Hispanic 18% All Other

37 Critical Tensions Racial Inequity Food Insecurity High Rates of Disability High Rates of Incarceration

38 Food Insecurity Significant numbers of Schenectady Students experience food insecurity Despite very high rates of poverty and food insecurity, a relatively small percentage of students took advantage of free meals This was especially small at breakfast

39 Community Eligibility Anxiety About the Forms Income Verification Form Anxiety About Free for All or a free-for-all Tracking System & Protocols Anxiety About Quality of Food ( I would never serve that cereal in my home! ) Establishment of a District Committee of Parents, Students & Staff to Educate and Address Concerns

40 Schenectady s Breakfast Program K-6 Breakfast in the room Most teachers combine morning work with breakfast Students help with food delivery and management 7-12 Grab-n-Go Cafeteria stations

41 Role of the Superintendent Establish Expectation Espouse Values Draw the Theory of Action Cheerlead Problem Solve Apply Green Tape

42 Financial Implications Moving to the Community Eligible Option actually increases our revenue Increased students eating breakfast The majority of whom live in poverty Increased reimbursement rate (factor of 1.6) High rate of poverty increases the leverage of this reimbursement

43 Community Feedback

44 Results Academic Achievement too early to know Biggest Change is Attendance 2012: 58% of K-6 had 90% attendance 2013: 91% of K-6 had 90% attendance 2012: 31% of K-6 had 95% attendance 2013: 78% of K-6 had 95% attendance Similar, but slightly smaller improvements at secondary levels

45

46 Thank You Archives, CEU information, and other resources available at