Breakfast Strategies and Community Eligibility Option
COMMUNITY ELIGIBILITY OPTION
• Option provides an alternative to household applications
for free and reduced price meals in high poverty local
educational agencies (LEAs) and schools.
• LEA or schools electing the Option agree to serve all
students free lunches and breakfasts for four successive
school years.
• Meal program claims are based on the percentage of
identified students multiplied by a factor of 1.6.
Who are the Identified Students?
• Identified students are defined as the students certified for free
meals not through the submission of individual applications.
• This definition includes students directly certified through SNAP,
TANF, and FDPIR participation as well as homeless on the liaison list,
Head Start, pre-K Even Start, migrant youth, runaways, and nonapplicants approved by local officials. Foster children certified
through means other than an application are also included.
School Eligibility Requirements
• The 40% threshold may be determined schoolby-school, by a group of schools within the LEA,
or in the aggregate for an entire LEA.
% of identified students = Number of identified students as of April 1
Total enrollment as of April 1
x 100
• This percentage multiplied by 1.6 will be the
percentage of total meals served reimbursed at
the Federal free rate.
School Eligibility Example
DC students = 58 students
Total enrollment = 100 students
Example:
Identified Students as of April 1, 2013: 58%
School qualifies to participate in CEO
Grouped Schools Eligibility Example
Schools
# of DC
Students
Total
Enrollment
% of Identified
Students
Qualify for CEO
A
66
133
49.62
Yes
B
22
59
37.29
No
192
45.8
Yes
Grouping A & B 88
School Eligibility Requirements
• Requires participating schools to offer all
children free breakfasts and free lunches for
four successive school years. (No Local
Collections)
• Any costs of serving breakfasts and lunches in
excess of the Federal assistance received,
including Federal cash reimbursement, must
be paid from non-Federal sources.
Advantages
• All students receive free meals
• Reduces paperwork
• Eliminates the need to address Paid Lunch
Equity
• Provides potential labor savings
• Increases participation
• Improves nutrition to at risk students
Challenges
• Potential financial issues when less than 100%
claiming rate
• Determining how to interpret and utilize CEO
data for other federal programs
Application Process
• Counties must submit an application to the Office of Child
Nutrition (OCN) no later than June 30th of the school year
prior to the first year of electing the Option of interest.
• A new identified student percentage may be established
each year of the four year cycle to determine the
percentage used in the following year.
• Schools may elect to stop the Option for the next year by
notifying the OCN no later than June 30th of the current
school year.
Reimbursement
• The percentage of identified students as of April 1st of
the prior year is multiplied by 1.6 to determine the
percentage of meals reimbursed at the Federal free
rate.
• The remaining percentage of meals not covered under
the Option will be reimbursed at the Federal paid rate.
• Any meal costs in excess of the total Federal
reimbursement must be covered through non-Federal
sources
Reimbursement
Identified Students (# of students directly certified/total enrollment)
Identified Students as of April 1, 2013 50%
50 x 1.6 =80
80% of Meals Claimed at Free Rate
20% of Meals Claimed at Paid Rate
Reimbursement
Identified Students (# of students directly certified/total enrollment)
Identified Students as of April 1, 2012 63%
63 x 1.6 =100
100% of Meals Claimed at Free Rate
0% of Meals Claimed at Paid Rate
CEO Participation
WV had 54 Counties with at least 1 CEO eligible
School
35 Counties applied for CEO
283 Schools are participating
90,000 students will be impacted
11 Counties Implementing CEO Countywide
Calhoun (3 – 1,098)
Mingo (13 – 4,454)
Clay (6 – 1,993)
Summers (5 – 1,572)
Lincoln (8 – 3,657)
Webster (6 – 1,255)
Logan (17 – 6,275)
Wirt (3 – 990)
McDowell (10 – 3,481)
Wyoming (13 – 4,204)
Mercer (25 – 9,511)
24 Counties Implementing CEO in Select Schools
Berkeley (6 – 2,476)
Greenbrier (2-327)
Morgan* (7 - 2067)
Boone* (10 – 2,205)
Jackson* (8 – 2,483)
Nicholas (2- 341)
Braxton (4 – 638)
Jefferson (3 -1,236)
Ohio (4 – 1,169)
Brooke (1 – 131)
Kanawha* (51 – 15,821)
Preston (4 – 867)
Cabell (15 – 5,398)
Lewis (2 -254)
Randolph* (12 – 2,310)
Fayette (10 – 3,850)
Marion (1- 409)
Ritchie (1- 87)
Gilmer* (4 – 501)
Marshall (4 – 1,012)
Tyler* (2 – 282)
Grant (1 – 657)
Mason* (8 - 2, 703)
Wayne (12 – 3,399)
*All elementary schools are participating.
Title I
• County Title I allocations will not be effected by
participating in CEO
• Counties must assume that the % of economically
disadvantaged students in the school is
proportionate to the % of meals for which the CEO
school is reimbursed for free meals by the USDA.
• DC students x 1.6 – Low SES students
• Title I provided guidance to county Title 1 Directors
during the December meeting.
Assessment data
• The economically disadvantaged
subgroup in a CEO school would be
the same as the “all students” group.
E-Rate
• Federal law requires E-Rate to utilize
data obtained thru the National
School Lunch/Breakfast Program.
• Until further guidance is provided by
the FCC E-Rate will utilize the %
needy data obtained during the
2011- 2012 school year.
CEO Expectations
• Improve student access to breakfast and lunch
– Innovative Programs
– Scheduling
• Create menus and prepare meals that reflect
more cooking from scratch
• Implement an overall model food service
program.
Questions about CEO?
Innovative Breakfast Strategies
In 2012 Kate Long wrote:
• By the end of December, the number of
breakfasts served in the seven counties had
skyrocketed from 43,600 a day to 74,900 a
day. The lunch count rose to 75,597. In four
months, the extra meals pulled in more than
$1 million in additional federal funds,
compared to 2010.
Tools Provided by the WV OCN to
Date:
•
•
•
•
Talking points and media tools
From Scratch Trainings
$3000 Grants to attend From Scratch Trainings
Equipment Grants
Increasing Breakfast Participation was
a Key Part of the UFMP
•
•
•
•
Breakfast in the Classroom
Breakfast After First
Grab and Go Breakfast
Combinations of 2 or all 3
Lincoln County- Wagons
Gilmer County
Mingo County
Breakfast Participation in Mingo
County Before and After
•
•
•
•
Reality Hits…….
Percent Needy is 70.40%
Total Breakfast Participation is 31.36%
Only 1 in 3 students were starting their day
with a nutritious school breakfast
• Some secondary schools were only serving 1
in 7 students a nutritious school breakfast
Breakfast Participation in Mingo
County Before and After (con.)
• 2010 - 2011 Total Breakfast = 271,072
• 2011- 2012 Total Breakfast = 466,996
One Year After the Challenge in Mingo
County
• Out of school suspensions were reduced by
143 days
• Zero expulsion hearings this school year
• Overall attendance is up for the school year
• A decrease in students placed in the
Alternative Learning Center
Kids Eating Like a Family
In Most of These Counties it Led to an
Overall School Climate Improvement
Research Design for Universal Free
Meals Pilot (UFMP)
• Pre/Post surveys with principals and teachers
regarding changes in student behavior and school
climate from 2010-’11 to 2011-’12 (pilot year)
• Analysis of PRIMERO POS system and WVEIS from
2010-’11 year to 2011-’12
• Focus groups with superintendents, food service
directors, cafeteria managers, principals and
teachers
Preliminary Results from PRIMERO and
WVEIS Match in UFMP Counties
• Four of the pilot counties experienced a
reduction in discipline; whether it be Out of
School Suspension Days or Expulsions
• Five of the 7 counties experienced an increase
in attendance
Principal and Teachers Survey From
the 7 UFMP Counties
• 53.3% say that students are actively engaged
in learning
• 54.2% say that students are happy to be at
school
* % of Teachers and Principals that say these results are most
likely or probably due to the UFMP
Principal and Teachers Survey From
the 7 UFMP Counties
• 36.8% said students’ difficulty concentrating on
instruction an hour or two before lunch has
improved
• 34.6% said fighting between students has
decreased
• 31.9% said disruptive student behavior has
improved
* % of Teachers and Principals stating improvement since last school
year and since UFMP
Principal and Teachers Survey
General Findings
• 86.6% said they would like for their school to be
able to have UFM (Breakfast and Lunch) next
school year
• 79.6% said the UFMP has been worth the
investment (e.g. time, staff, materials and money)
• 63.2% said that the opportunity for all students
to eat free breakfast at school contributes to their
overall well-being to a major extent
Elkins Middle School Grab and Go
Breakfast
• Elkins Middle School combined grab and go
breakfast and breakfast in the classroom
• Increased % eating breakfast by 38% (125 to 415)
• Reduced office referrals for discipline by 20%
• Decreased days of In School Suspension by 21%
• Decreased Out of School Suspensions by 15%
• All within 1 year of breakfast expansion strategy
Mingo County School Cooks
Innovative Breakfast Strategies
58% of WV Schools Participated in a Breakfast
Strategy During the 2012-2013 School year
2 counties provided universal free
breakfast
8 counties eliminated the reduced price
category
Innovative Programs during school year 2012-2013:
Breakfast in the Classroom : 82 schools
Grab-N-Go:
242 schools
Breakfast After First:
79 schools
Local Wellness
USDA Recommendations for Local
Wellness
• Deficiencies handled through TA only
• Currently no final rule
• Currently there is limited implementation
guidance
• Assess progress and provide implementation
suggestions
One Exception:
• If you have NO LWP = Corrective Action
• Currently the LWP Guidance Module is being
updated by USDA
Required Elements for LWP Include:
• Goals for nutrition education, physical activity,
and school-based activities
• HHFKA – Nutrition promotion goals
• Designated LWP oversight official
• Plan for measuring implementation
LWP Activities OCN Will Assess
During Reviews
• How does the public know about the LWP?
• LWP must be available to the public.
• When and how does the review and update of
the LWP occur?
• Who is involved in reviewing and updating the
LWP and what is their relationship with the
SFA?
Continued
• Required Groups: Physical education teachers
and school health professionals/teachers
• How are potential stakeholders made aware
of their ability to participate in the
development, review, update, and
implementation of the LWP?
• How does the public know about the results
of the most recent assessment on the
implementation of the LWP?
Assessed Against 3 Criteria:
• Schools compliance with the LWP
• How the LWP compares the model LWP
• Schools’ progress toward LWP goals
Questions about Innovative
Breakfast Strategies, Local
Wellness, CEO, Other?
• Keri Kennedy –
keri.kennedy@access.k12.wv.us
• Kristy Blower • kblower@access.k12.wv.us