Breakfast Strategies and Community Eligibility Option

1. Breakfast Strategies and Community Eligibility Option

2. 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.

3. 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 non-applicants approved by local officials. Foster children certified through means other than an application are also included. Students who are categorically eligible based on submission of a free and reduced price application are not included.

4. School Eligibility Requirements • The 40% threshold may be determined school-by-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 x 100 Total enrollment as of April 1 • This percentage multiplied by 1.6 will be the percentage of total meals served reimbursed at the Federal free rate.

5. 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

6. Grouped Schools Eligibility Example

7. 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.

8. 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

9. Challenges • Potential financial issues when less than 100% claiming rate • Determining how to interpret and utilize CEO data for other federal programs

10. 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.

11. 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

12. Reimbursement

13. Reimbursement

14. CEO Participation

16. *All elementary schools are participating.

17. 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.

18. Assessment data • The economically disadvantaged subgroup in a CEO school would be the same as the “all students” group.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. Questions about CEO?

22. Innovative Breakfast Strategies

23. 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.

24. 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

25. 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

26. Lincoln County- Wagons

29. Gilmer County

31. Mingo County

32. 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

33. Breakfast Participation in Mingo County Before and After (con.) • 2010 - 2011 Total Breakfast = 271,072 • 2011- 2012 Total Breakfast = 466,996

34. 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

35. Kids Eating Like a Family

36. In Most of These Counties it Led to an Overall School Climate Improvement

37. 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

38. 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

39. 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

40. 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

41. Principal and Teachers SurveyGeneral 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

42. 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

43. Mingo County School Cooks

44. Innovative Breakfast Strategies

45. Local Wellness

46. 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

47. One Exception: • If you have NO LWP = Corrective Action • Currently the LWP Guidance Module is being updated by USDA

48. 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

49. 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?

50. 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?