National School Lunch Program

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

Introduction Free & Reduced Price Meal (FRPM) data

are collected on behalf of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to provide nutritional meals to children in need.◦ re-purposed by Education as a poverty indicator◦ NSLP changes will impact the FRPM data

collection

The Departments of Agriculture and Education are partnering to identify and address challenges.

Panelists Kathy Gosa, Kansas State Department of Education

Julie Brewer, Chief, Policy and Program Development Branch, Child Nutrition Division, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Lily Clark, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, U.S. Department of Education

Ross Santy, EdFacts Director, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Data and Information, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, U.S. Department of Education

Tom Howell, Michigan Center for Educational Performance and Information

Robert Rodosky, Jefferson County Public Schools (KY)

Julie Brewer

National School Lunch ProgramProgram Eligibility

AgendaNational School Lunch Program (NSLP) Basics

Application Process

Categorical Eligibility

Direct Certification

Disclosure

Provisional Schools

Community Eligibility Option

NSLP BasicsThe NSLP is a federally assisted meal

program that provides nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free lunches to children each school day.

NSLP Administration

Schools – more than 100,000

School Food Authorities – nearly 21,000

State Agencies - 56

FNS HeadquartersAlexandria, VA

FNS Regions - 7

Federal Income GuidelinesChildren from families whose income

equals 130 percent of poverty or less are eligible for free meals

Children from families whose income equals between 131 and 185 percent of poverty are eligible for reduced price meals

Application ProcessHousehold Application

Completed at home

Self-declaration of income or other status

Beginning of the school year (August/September)

Provides information on household income and size

Income and Household SizeIncome

before any deductions (such as taxes, Social Security taxes, insurance premiums, charitable contributions and bonds)

Household a group of related or non-related people living under

one roof as one economic unit

Verification BasicsLocal responsibility, though the State may

conduct the process

Use number of applications approved as of October 1 as pool

LEAs must verify a minimum number of applications by November 15 every year

SNAP and TANF Categorical Eligibility

Children in households receiving assistance under SNAP and in some states TANF or FDPIR are eligible for NSLP free meals

Categorical Eligibility: Migrant, Runaway or Homeless Children

Migrant children in the Migrant Education Program

Children covered under the provisions of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act

Homeless children under the McKinney-Vento Act

Head Start childrenFoster children under the care of a

State/local welfare agency or court

The process by which schools certify eligible children using data from other assistance programs

States can match data either at the State or District level

Direct Certification

Direct CertificationMandatory for SNAPSNAP, TANF or FDPIR officials relay

documentation to schools that a child is part of a household certified to get those benefits

Documentation may include: Name of child A certifying statement Identifiers (e.g., SSN and DOB) Signature of program official Date

Advantages of Direct Certification

No applications; easier for households and schools

Increases program access

Enhances accuracy of the eligibility process

Direct Certification Medicaid Pilot

Demonstration Projects in selected States and SFAs

Phased in starting with School Year 2012-13

Purpose of demonstration: To determine potential of direct certification with Medicaid to:

Reach eligible, uncertified children Directly certify children who are free based on an

application To provide an estimate of the effect on Federal costs and

participation

Provision 1Simplified Application Process

Schools where 80% of students eligible for free and reduced price

Children eligible for FREE meals are certified every 2 years

Reduced and paid households apply for meal benefits annually

Provision 2Simplified Counting & Claiming

No minimum % of free or reduced price All student meals served at no chargeBase Year

Count daily meals by type Claim reimbursement from these counts SFA may delay implementation 1st claiming period

Subsequent Years Count daily total meals Claim reimbursement on base year percentages

Provision 3Simplified Counting & Claiming

Allows schools to receive the same level of federal cash and commodity assistance each year, with some adjustments, for a 4-year period

No minimum % of free or reduced price

Joint Guidance on Provision 2 & 3

February 20, 2003-USDA and ED guidance

Allowed LEA officials to deem all students in Provision 2 and 3 schools as “economically disadvantaged”

More information can be found at: http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Governance/prov-1-2-3/provision1_2_3.htm

Community Eligibility Option (CEO)

Section 104 (a) of the Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010

An alternative to collecting household applications for free and reduced price meals in high poverty local educational agencies (LEA) and schools.

Eligible LEAs/schools agree to serve all students free lunches and breakfasts for 4 successive school years.

22

Who is eligible to elect the CEO?

LEAs may elect the CEO for the entire district, individual schools, or a group of schools.

To be eligible; the LEA, individual school, or group of schools must have an identified student percentage of at least 40%.

Identified students are those certified for free meals NOT through individual household applications (example: directly certified through SNAP).

23

How does the CEO work?The identified student percentage

multiplied by a factor of 1.6 equals the percentage of total meals served reimbursed at the Federal free rate.

The remaining percentage of total meals is reimbursed at the Federal paid rate.

Any meal costs in excess of the total Federal reimbursement must be covered through non-Federal sources.

24

How does the CEO work?

LEA and schools run direct certification matches no later than April 1st of each year to obtain current counts of SNAP, TANF, and FDPIR participants.

Homeless, migrant youth, and foster children lists are matched no later than April 1st of each year to include in the identified student percentage.

Each year of the 4-year cycle, LEAs or schools may use the identified student percentage from the year prior to the first year or an updated identified student percentage from the prior year, whichever is higher.

25

When is the CEO available?

FNS selected three states for SY2011-12, four states for SY2012-13, and will select four states for SY2013-14.

Available nationwide starting in SY2014-2015.

LEAs and schools in Illinois, Kentucky, and Michigan implemented the Option in SY2011-2012 and the District of Columbia, New York, Ohio, and West Virginia will implement the Option in SY2012-2013.

26

Disclosure and Privacy

LEAs may disclose children’s free and reduced price meal eligibility information to programs, activities, and individuals that are specifically authorized access under the National School Lunch Act (NSLA) (42 U.S.C. 1758)

Disclosure is always an option, not a requirement

Disclosure and Privacy

Personal information may only be disclosed under select circumstances outlined in the NSLA (Sec. 9 (b)(6))

Examples include: Disclosures to Federal, State, and local education

programs (eligibility status only, parental consent required for local programs)

Disclosures to the Comptroller General of the United States for purposes of audit and examination (all eligibility information)

Disclosures to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials investigating alleged criminal activity (all eligibility information)

Comments or Questions

FERPA & NSLA Privacy Protections

NSLA’s and FERPA’s privacy protections are not fully aligned

USDA & ED recognize that there is confusion in the education field about under which circumstances disclosure under both statutes is allowed

2011 FERPA Regulations ED’s recent amendments to the FERPA

regulations clarify the limited circumstances where SEAs and LEAs may disclose student information to assess the effectiveness of State and Federally-funded education programs

2011 FERPA Regulations: Joint Guidance

As stated in our 2011 FERPA regulations:

“Because of the importance of assuring not only that FERPA requirements are met, but also that all of the Federal confidentiality protections in the National School Lunch Act are met, the two Departments intend to jointly issue guidance in the near future for use by the educational community and by State and local administrators of USDA programs.”

Joint Guidance Update

Ongoing meetings between USDA & ED

Plan to have joint guidance out before next Winter Forum meeting

Joint Guidance Update Currently conducting a legal analysis of the

two statutes to identify inconsistencies

Anticipate that joint guidance will clarify the use of FRPL data under FERPA’s audit/evaluation exception, reconciling:◦ Definitions of “education program”◦ Who has a “need to know” versus “legitimate

educational interest”

Help Inform the Joint Guidance

Looking forward to receiving input from standing committees on the challenges your SEAs/LEAs face implementing overlapping USDA and ED requirements

36

Uses of NSLP Data Across Education

Ross SantyDirector, EDFacts

U.S. Department of Education

The Common Core of Data (CCD) is ED’s primary database on public elementary and secondary education in the United States.

CCD’s objectives are to provide:◦ an official listing of public elementary and

secondary schools and school districts in the nation, which can be used to select samples for other NCES surveys

◦ basic information and descriptive statistics on public elementary and secondary schools

37

Use of NSLP Data: CCD

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is the largest nationally representative and continuing assessment of what America’s students know and can do in various subject areas.

NAEP’s state assessment are administered across a representative sample of schools.

A national sample will have sufficient schools and students to yield data for public schools, each of the four NAEP regions of the country, as well as sex, race, degree of urbanization of school location, parent education and eligibility for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP).

38

Use of NSLP Data: NAEP

39

NAEP results are disaggregated by NLSP eligibility

Funding Formulas (all four of them) use Census data to determine the number of poor children ages 5-17. NSLP data are not used here.◦ Many LEAs have historically used NSLP data for within district distributions of

Title I funds

Accountability for student progress requires states to assess not only the progress of the LEA or school as a whole but also examine and report the progress of students by:◦ Major racial and ethnic groups

◦ English proficiency

◦ Disability

◦ Economic status

Uses of NSLP Data: Title I

December 17, 2002 ◦ Recognized that for many LEAs NSLP data “is likely the

best, and perhaps the only source of data available”◦ Priority for public school choice and eligibility for

supplemental educational services must be established using the same data LEAS use for making within-district Title I allocations

◦ Allowed use of NSLP eligibility data to administer and enforce Title I subgroup requirements

◦ Urged school officials to establish a memorandum of understanding among all involved parties (school lunch administration and education officials)

ED & USDA Joint Guidance on Title I uses of NLSP data

February 20, 2003◦ Focused upon impact of Provision 2 and Provision 3 when

using NSLP data within administration of Title I requirements

◦ “We have determined that, for purposes of disaggregating assessment data and for identifying students as "economically disadvantaged" in implementing supplemental educational services and the priority for public school choice, school officials may deem all students in Provision 2 and 3 schools as "economically disadvantaged."

◦ “In addition, when determining Title I eligibility and allocations for a Provision 2 or 3 school, LEA officials may assume that the school has the same percentage of students eligible for free and reduced price lunches as it had in the most recent year for which the school collected that information.”

ED & USDA Joint Guidance on Title I uses of NLSP data

Significant aspects of CEO for educational use of NSLP data:◦ CEO will allow schools to certify eligibility for free and reduced-

priced lunches once every four years.

◦ CEO schools will use only “direct certification” data

◦ “An LEA may treat the CEO school the same as it treats a Provision 2 or Provision 3 school. Accordingly the economically disadvantaged subgroup in a CEO school would be the same as the “all students” group”

◦ When calculating Title I fund eligibility/priority “An LEA must assume that the percentage of economically disadvantaged students in the school is proportionate to the percentage of meals for which that CEO school is reimbursed for free meals by the USDA for the same school year.”

Source: 2011 ED letter to Chief State School Officers in CEO states

43

Community Eligibility Option (CEO)

Reported percentage of “NSLP eligible” students within a school is becoming a less accurate representation of poverty within the individual school

Data to determine “Within-District Title I Allocation” are not the same as data on “Economically Disadvantaged” students under Title I – even if using NSLP eligibility for both

States or districts may be implementing new collections on poverty that shift burden from NLSP administration to ED-related program administration

44

Implications on continued use of NSLP data within education

NCES has been studying possible alternatives to NSLP eligibility

CEO states are only now beginning to look into the impact on the usefulness of NSLP data within educational program administration

Provision 4 will be used by more states ED is actively seeking input from the Forum

and other groups on the continued use of these data

45

Next steps for using NSLP data within education

MICHIGANState Perspective on the USDA Direct

Certification Program and the Community Eligibility Option

Statewide Free/Reduced Lunch Counts Fall 2010

◦ Total Student Population: 1,631,138◦ Total Free/Reduced Eligible: 754,246 (46%)

Fall 2011◦ Total Student Population: 1,603,456◦ Total Free/Reduced Eligible: 768,809 (48%)

Community Eligibility Option (CEO) The program was piloted in school year

2011. Eligibility - restricted to those schools where

40% or more of their economically disadvantaged (ED) student population can be directly certified by the state.

820 schools (approx. 20% of Michigan schools) chose to participate in the program

Free/Reduced Lunch CountsCEO Schools Fall 2010 (prior to the program)

◦ Total Students Attending: 178,573◦ Total Free/Reduced Eligible: 140,040 (78.4%)

Fall 2011◦ Total Students Attending: 175,450◦ Total Free/Reduced Eligible: 139,827 (79.7%)

Some Challenges 207 (25.2%) of the CEO schools reported a

change of more than 5% in Economically Disadvantaged Student (ED) counts ◦ 44 had a drop in ED rates of 5% to 10%◦ 37 had a drop in ED rates of >10% to 20%◦ 6 had a drop in ED rates of >20%

◦ 72 had an increase in ED rates of 5% to 10% ◦ 32 had an increase in ED rates of >10% to 20%◦ 16 had an increase in ED rates of >20%

State Impacts Title I Rank and Serve Rules are

compromised Title I services for students attending

private, not-for-profit schools is reduced where CEO schools overstate their ED counts

State Section 31A uses ED counts to distribute funds, reliability impacts allocations

Most small group analysis are completed using ED counts for achievement and participation

An Alternative Metric USDA already requires Direct Certification

for the National School Lunch Program Participating schools are required to

attempt to directly certify eligible students multiple times per year

Most states provide this service to the schools

MI (current) - Based on SNAP, Foster Care MI (future) – TANF, and possibly Medicaid

Direct Certification Success Statewide Results

◦ Fall 2010: 418,292 students (25.6% of all students)

◦ Fall 2011: 478,303 students (29.8% of all students)

CEO Schools Only◦ Fall 2010: 91,29 students (51.3% of CEO students)◦ Fall 2011: 102,451 students (58.4% of CEO

students)

Kentucky◦ Districts: 176◦ CEO Districts (11-12): 18

JCPS◦ Enrollment: 100,193◦ % Fee/Reduced Lunch: 61.8◦ Meal Sites: 147◦ Sites Eligible for CEO: 91

As of Today JCPS has not selected CEO option

Programs CEO Impacts Family Resource/Youth Services (FRYSC) E-Rate Title 1 Educational Professional Standards Assessment Title II Gifted and Talented Education Services Kentucky Educational Excellence Scholarship

(KHEAA) School Safety/Violence (Center for School Safety) Technical Education Data System (TEDS) Waiver of School Fees Preschool Education Program Support Education Excellence in Kentucky (SEEK) Advanced Placement

Proposed Workflow for CEO Participating Schools on Meal Eligibility Processing

Food Service Director District Staff

FSD downloads direct

certification dataMatch DC file to student

roster

Calculate DC percentage

Share list of matched students with district

admin

Match DC file to student roster in Infinite Campus; any

matches will receive a free meal status

Collect household & income forms

Process forms using FRAM household application wizard

JCPS Concerns

1. Who / Cost

2. Student Assignment / Choice

3. Student Mobility