CEP Part 3: Determining which Schools will be Eligible to Participate in CEP Wednesday, April 2, 2014
Today s Moderator Paula Zdanowicz, MPH Senior Program Manager School Nutrition Foundation
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.
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
Today s Panelists Cindy Ham, Ed.S., SNS School Nutrition Program Georgia Department of Education Larry Spring Superintendent Schenectady City School District NY
Today s Panelist Madeleine Levin, MPH Senior Policy Analyst Food Research and Action Center
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
Today s Panelist Bryan Van Dorn, MPA Consultant Michigan Department of Education School Nutrition Programs
CEP in Michigan Generating Lists of Eligible and Near-Eligible Schools
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
Today s Panelist Keri Kennedy, MPH Office of Child Nutrition West Virginia Department of Education
USING GROUPING TO MAXIMIZE PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNITY ELIGIBLITY PROVISION: WEST VIRGINIA S EXPERIENCE
West Virginia CEP Participation LEA s with at least 1 CEP eligible school SY 2013 SY 2014 54 52 LEA s participating in CEP LEA s implementing CEP in every school 35 39 30 LEA s elected to group schools in SY 2014 11 14 Schools Participating 283 335 Students Impacted 90,000 >110,000 40% of students statewide
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
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.
Grouped Schools Example A Schools # of Identified Students Total Enrollment % of Identified Students Qualify for CEO A 146 173 84.39 Yes B 50 158 31.65 No Grouping A & B 196 331 59.2 Yes
Why Consider Grouping? Allows you to maximize your federal reimbursement
Grouped Schools Example B Schools # of Identified Students Total Enrollment % of Identified Students A 404 551 73.32% 117% B 165 250 66.00% 106% C 63 96 65.63% 105% D 338 582 58.08% 93% E 235 412 57.04% 91% F 67 120 55.83% 89% Grouped 1272 2011 63.25% 101% % Of Meals Reimbursed at Free Rate
Grouped Schools Example C Schools # of Identified Students Total Enrollment % of Identified Students % Of Meals Reimbursed at Free Rate A 154 240 64.17% 102.67% B 117 397 29.47% 47.15% Grouping A & B 271 637 42.54% 68.07%
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 87 146 59.59% 95.34% 1 B 42 74 56.76% 90.71% 2 C 242 449 53.90% 86.24% 3 Grouped 371 669 55.46% 88.73 n/a Title 1 Ranking
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
Determining area eligibility percentages: Schools # of Identified Students Total Enrollment % of Identified Students % of Meals Reimbursed at the Free Rate (% needy) A 87 146 59.59% 95.34% B 42 74 56.76% 90.71% C 242 449 53.90% 86.24% Grouped 371 669 55.46% 88.73%
Questions If after today s call you have questions please contact Keri Kennedy at (304) 558-2709 or via e-mail at keri.kennedy@access.k12.wv.us
Today s Panelist Cindy Ham, Ed.S., SNS School Nutrition Program Georgia Department of Education
USDA Estimator and Illinois Worksheet
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
USDA Estimator
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) 656-2800. 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. 20250-9410 or call toll free (866)632-9992 (Voice). Individuals who are hearing impaired or have speech disabilities may contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (Spanish). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Today s Panelist Larry Spring Superintendent Schenectady City School District NY
Improving Nutrition in Schools Laurence T. Spring Schenectady City School District, NY
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
Critical Tensions Racial Inequity Food Insecurity High Rates of Disability High Rates of Incarceration
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
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
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
Role of the Superintendent Establish Expectation Espouse Values Draw the Theory of Action Cheerlead Problem Solve Apply Green Tape
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
Community Feedback
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
Thank You Archives, CEU information, and other resources available at www.schoolnutrition.org/webinars