Success Begins with School Breakfast: School Breakfast Program
Transcription
Success Begins with School Breakfast: School Breakfast Program
Success Begins With School Breakfast: School Breakfast Program Participation in New York State Public Schools 2013-2014 School Year March 2015 About Hunger Solutions New York, Inc. Hunger Solutions New York, Inc., formed in 1985 as the Nutrition Consortium of New York State, Inc., is a statewide, private, nonprofit organization. Our mission is to alleviate hunger for residents of New York State by expanding the availability of, access to, and use of federally funded nutrition assistance programs. Hunger Solutions New York, Inc. is a caring and informed voice for hungry New Yorkers. We promote awareness of hunger in New York State, awareness of programs that address hunger, full participation in nutrition assistance programs for all who are eligible, public policies that contribute to ending hunger, and public awareness of the economic and health benefits of anti-hunger programs. Hunger is a dreadful reality for many New York State residents. This includes children who are going to bed or starting their day without eating, working adults who are going without food in order to pay the rent and heating bills, and older adults who are compromising their health due to lack of nutrition. Hunger Solutions New York believes that the crippling reality of hunger in our state and nation is unacceptable, and that it is reversible. We contend that a governmental response to hunger through state and federal nutrition assistance programs is the appropriate first line of attack in the fight to end hunger. Full use of these programs, made possible by adequate federal and state support in the form of funds, policies, and actions, will significantly reduce the incidence of hunger. Hunger Solutions New York engages in the following efforts in pursuit of its mission: outreach, education, program development and implementation, policy work, coalition building, and research. For more information about Hunger Solutions New York or to sign up for our electronic mailing list, please visit Hungersolutionsny.org. You can also ‘like’ us on Facebook (Facebook.com/HungerSolutionsNY) and follow us on Twitter (@NewYorkHunger). Hunger Solutions New York Staff Linda Bopp Clare Browne Paige Cerulli Gail Cooney Patricia Deubel Laura Doherty Colleen Donovan William Heptig Diana Lezette Denise Martin Misha Marvel Jennifer Ozgur Jessica Pino-Goodspeed David Rimai Reynolds Dawn Secor James Stevenson Sheldon Taylor Patricia Vidoni Andres Vives Hunger Solutions New York Board of Directors Dana Boniewski Bernadette Cole Slaughter Christine Deska Don Friedman Irene Lurie Maureen Murphy Secretary Mark Quandt Treasurer Anne Rogan Michael Sattinger William Shapiro Vice-Chairperson Bridget Walsh Chairperson HungerSolutionsNY.org Facebook.com/HungerSolutionsNY Twitter.com/NewYorkHunger ©Hunger Solutions New York. All Rights Reserved. 1 Acknowledgements Hunger Solutions New York, Inc. greatly appreciates the support of the many public agencies, private foundations, and individuals who have made this publication possible. We acknowledge the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance and United States Department of Agriculture. We also acknowledge the support of our partners in our Campaign to End Hunger: Food Research and Action Center, Walmart Foundation, MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger, Share Our Strength, and many individual donors throughout the state. In particular, we acknowledge the New York State Education Department in their administrative efforts to promote and protect the integrity of the School Breakfast Program in New York State, in addition to providing the data on which the tables in this report are based. Special recognition to the Food Research and Action Center and the Schenectady City School District for their contributions to this report. This report was written by Jessica L. Pino-Goodspeed, LMSW with assistance from Paige Cerulli for editing. 2 Table of Contents Introduction 04 Current Realities: 2013-2014 School Year Key Findings 05 Benefits of School Breakfast 06 School Breakfast Program Basics 07 Strategies to Increase Participation in the School Breakfast Program 08 School Breakfast as a Solution: Spotlight on Schenectady City School District 09 Action Steps to Increase Participation in the School Breakfast Program 11 Conclusion 12 Interpreting the Tables 13 County-level and State-wide Analysis of the School Breakfast Program: Tables 1-5 14 Executive Summary The federally funded national School Breakfast Program (SBP) is designed to enable schools to level the playing field for all students by ensuring that each child starts the school day free from hunger, properly nourished, and prepared for a day of learning. In New York State (NYS), schools are eligible to receive federal and state reimbursement for breakfasts served to children through the SBP. Overall student participation from the 2012-2013 school year (SY) to the 2013-2014 SY increased by 4%. However, the percent of low-income children who accessed the SBP remained the same from the 2012-2013 SY to the 2013-2014 SY. In the 2013-2014 SY, of the low-income students qualified to eat a free or reduced-price breakfast, only 29% participated in the SBP. Participation in the SBP, particularly among low-income students, is linked with increased food security, improved health outcomes, and numerous educational benefits. Yet, participation in the SBP among low-income students is low when compared to participation in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP): In the 2013-2014 SY, over 1 million low-income children ate free or reduced-price lunch each day through the NSLP while only 41% of those children participated in the SBP. By incorporating school breakfast meal time into the school day or using alternative service methods, districts across the State have successfully increased the availability of, and participation in, the SBP. The school districts where both approaches are implemented have eliminated access barriers which resulted in maximum participation. The SBP enabled these school districts to alleviate hunger and improve learning environments, while also supporting students’ health and academic achievement. 3 Introduction Numerous studies confirm eating breakfast is essential to children’s abilities to learn, stay healthy, and behave in school. The School Breakfast Program (SBP) offers schools the opportunity to provide the essential morning nutrition students need for academic success, while also bringing state and federal dollars directly into the school district. This is why it is vital to monitor how well schools are reaching students with the SBP, especially low-income students whose families struggle daily with tight food budgets. Hunger is a reality for too many children in New York State (NYS). On average, 23.6% of NYS households with children experienced food insecurity between 2008 and 2012. Families that are food insecure lack consistent, dependable access to enough food for active, healthy living.1 Hunger is a reality for over 927,000 food-insecure children throughout NYS.2 Hunger is also a fundamental obstacle to learning.3 Children who arrive at school hungry are at more of a physical, academic, and social disadvantage than their well-nourished peers.4 In recent years, the changing economy has caused more NYS families to turn to free or reduced-price school meals to ensure their children have access to affordable, good nutrition. Since the 2007-2008 school year (SY), NYS public schools that offer the SBP have seen an 18% increase in the number of students qualified (by having an application on file or being directly certified) for free or reduced-price school meals based on their families’ incomes. In the 2013-2014 SY, 1,500,078 students qualified to eat free or reduced-price school breakfast, yet only 29% of these low-income students ate school breakfast each day. This means that 1,066,665 low-income students qualified for the SBP did not participate in the program during the 2013-2014 SY. While the SBP has been historically underutilized in NYS, given the growing number of students who depend upon school meals to meet their nutritional needs, low participation is a persistent and mounting concern. The SBP uniquely positions school districts to be an essential part of the solution to bolster student nutrition, alleviate child hunger, and The SBP uniquely positions school districts improve learning environments, thereby supporting students’ health to be an essential part of the solution to and academic achievement. By providing the nutrition necessary to bolster student nutrition, learn, the SBP can respond to one of students’ most fundamental alleviate child hunger, and needs, properly preparing them for success. Promoting and expanding improve learning environments the SBP are strategic ways to support the health and academic thereby supporting students’ health and achievement of at least 1 million of our state’s children. Adequate academic achievement. nutrition and freedom from hunger are absolutely essential for good health and academic success. By maximizing participation in the SBP, schools can level the playing field for all students by ensuring that each child starts the school day free from hunger, properly nourished, and prepared for a day of learning. 4 Current Realities: 2013-2014 School Year Key Findings On average, 433,413 low-income children – only 29% of those who qualified to receive a free or reduced-price breakfast – accessed the School Breakfast Program. On average, only 41% of the children qualified to eat free or reduced-price school meals participated in both the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program on a daily basis. 92% of NYS public schools participating in the National School Lunch Program also participated in the School Breakfast Program. Due to schools’ lack of participation in the School Breakfast Program, 31,173 low-income children who qualified for free and reduced-price school meals lacked access to school breakfast. If each NYS public school district currently participating in the School Breakfast Program served breakfast to 70 low-income students per 100 low-income students eating lunch, school districts would receive $85,585,753.80 in additional reimbursement. In public schools across NYS that offer the SBP, 510,439 children participated in the SBP on an average day during the 20132014 SY, meaning that 20% of students attending schools that offer the SBP ate breakfast. Since the 2012-2013 SY, overall participation in the SBP increased by 4%, resulting in an additional 18,909 students eating breakfast at school. In schools that offer the SBP, only 29% of low-income students participated in the program, feeding an average of 433,413 lowincome students each day during the 2013-2014 SY. This is an increase of 11,049 children compared to the previous school year. However, this increase in the number of low-income students eating school breakfast is offset by the 38,789 additional children qualified to receive free or reduced-price school breakfast. Too many children who eat free or reduced-price school lunch through the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) do not participate in the SBP, translating to lost meals for the students and sacrificed funding for NYS. In the 2013-2014 SY, only 41% of low-income children who participated in the NSLP also participated in the SBP. On average, 1,044,892 low-income children ate free or reduced-price lunch each day through the NSLP, while only 433,413 of those children participated in the SBP. In a national ranking by the Food Research & Action Center (FRAC), NYS ranks 40th in reaching low-income children with both the NSLP and the SBP during the 2013-2014 SY. 5 For each school breakfast served, schools receive a per-meal federal and state reimbursement to pay for meal-related costs. Since serving more Over $85.5 Million breakfasts means more reimbursement, it is financially advantageous for NYS to increase participation in the SBP. Low participation among low-income students unclaimed federal resulted in NYS forfeiting over $85.5 million in additional federal child nutrition reimbursements funding. In considering the information above, it is important to note that NLSP and SBP data does not give a full picture of all students who attend public schools in NYS. The above data pertains only to public school districts currently participating in the NSLP, the SBP, or both. Due to the lack of a statewide student database, statistics that capture all students attending public schools are only available at the school district level. Thus, without a statewide baseline of the total number of students enrolled in all NYS public schools, the percentages of students eligible for, but not eating, free or reduced-price school breakfast could be higher than currently identified. 5 Benefits of School Breakfast The SBP is not only an extremely effective means to reduce hunger among lowincome children; it also improves nutrition, prevents obesity, increases academic achievement, and improves the school environment. The school environment is positively impacted by reducing discipline problems and improving students’ attendance and attentiveness. Studies continue to show the effectiveness of increasing school breakfast participation in improving students’ nutrition, health, and overall school achievement, creating a win-win situation for all. The information below presents just some of the evidence demonstrating the positive impacts of the SBP. Breakfast for Learning Eating a healthy breakfast helps to lay the groundwork children need to learn. Numerous studies prove that nutritional status has an impact on cognitive functions in school, thus enhancing students’ concentration and quality of school work. Correspondingly, the amount of time between breakfast consumption and class further impacts the level of academic achievement. Children who eat breakfast at school perform better on standardized tests than those who skip breakfast or eat breakfast at home. Providing breakfast at school benefits those students with long commutes and ensures all students are adequately prepared for school.6 Breakfast for Health Times have changed; busy morning schedules can make providing children a nutritious breakfast at home a challenge. All schools that participate in the SBP must meet new and improved federal nutrition requirements for example, requiring breakfasts to contain more whole grains and more fresh fruits instead of juice. Not only does this help meet students’ nutritional needs, but it also underscores the large body of research on the strong links between school breakfast consumption and favorable dietary, health, and educational outcomes among children and adolescents.7 6 School Breakfast Program Basics The SBP is administered at the federal level by the Food and Nutrition Service of the United States Department of Agriculture, and at the state level by the NYS Education Department. Any public school, nonprofit private school, or residential child care institution can choose to participate in the SBP. The federal government provides local school food authorities with reimbursements for each breakfast served. NYS provides an additional reimbursement per breakfast served. If at least 40% of the lunches served by a school are free or reduced-price, the school is considered to be “severe need.” Severe need schools are eligible to receive an additional $0.29 in federal funding for each free or reduced-price breakfast served. Schools receive federal and state reimbursements of: 2014-2015 School Breakfast Program Reimbursement Rates Effective July 1, 2014 – June 30, 2015 Category Federal Federal (Severe Need) State Free $1.62 $1.93 $0.1013 Reduced-Price $1.32 $1.63 $0.1566 Full Price/Paid $0.28 $0.28 $0.0023 In NYS, all severe need elementary schools in school districts with at least 125,000 inhabitants are required to participate in the School Breakfast Program.8 In these schools, the State reimburses all expenses exceeding revenues in the first year of SBP implementation in a public school. Who Can Participate in the School Breakfast Program? Any student attending a school that offers the program can eat breakfast. Based on family income, some students qualify to eat for free or at a reduced price. Some children are certified for free school meals without submitting an application, or “directly certified.” Through data matching, agencies share information with schools to identify these children and automatically enroll them for free school meals. This includes children who live in households that participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Cash Assistance (TANF), or the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR). Children who are homeless, migrant, in foster care, or in Head Start are also certified for free meals without application. In New York State, children in a household with at least one child or household member who receives Medicaid benefits at or below 133 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines are also considered directly certified for free school meals.9 Other low-income families can apply for free or reduced-price meals by submitting an application directly to their school. Children are divided into three groups based on family income: Free: Children from families with incomes at or below 130% of the federal poverty level (FPL) eat at no cost. Reduced-Price: Children from families with incomes between 130% and 185% of the FPL are charged no more than 25 cents per breakfast in NYS. Paid: Children from families with incomes above 185% of the FPL pay charges which are set by the school. 7 Strategies to Increase Participation in the School Breakfast Program Make Breakfast a Part of the School Day Many states and school districts with high participation in the SBP have achieved these gains by moving breakfast out of the cafeteria before school and scheduling it “after the bell”—making it more convenient and feasible for students to participate. The implementation of breakfast-after-the-bell programs has proven to be the most successful strategy for schools to increase breakfast participation. Options include: Breakfast in the Classroom: Students eat breakfast in their classrooms at the start of the school day. Meals can be delivered to the classroom or served from the cafeteria or carts in the hallway. Grab and Go: Children (particularly older students) grab a bagged morning meal with all the components of their breakfast from the cafeteria line or from carts or kiosks set up in a high-traffic area like a lobby or hallway. They can eat the meal in their classroom or on the way to class, depending on school rules. Second Chance Breakfast: Students are offered a second chance to eat breakfast after homeroom or first period. Many middle and high school students are not hungry first thing in the morning. Making breakfast available after first period allows them ample time to get situated to start their school day, while still providing them with a nutritious start early in the day. Offer Breakfast at No Charge to All Students This “universal” approach offers the best opportunity to boost participation among hungry children, remove the “breakfast is for poor kids” stigma associated with the SBP, and streamline the implementation of successful alternative service methods. Schools can offer universal breakfast at no charge to all students through the following options: 8 Community Eligibility Provision (CEP): The newest federal option available, any district, group of schools in a district, or individual school with 40% or more students “directly certified” for free school meals can participate in CEP. “Directly certified” students (also referred to as “identified students”) are children eligible for free school meals who are already identified by means other than an individual household application (see School Breakfast Basics box). By operating CEP, schools offer free breakfast and lunch to all students and do not collect, process, or verify school meal applications, or keep track of meals by fee category. This results in increased participation and a significant reduction in administrative work.10 Provision 2: This federal option allows schools to collect, process, verify school meal applications, directly certify students, and keep track of meals by fee category during only year one of the four-year Provision 2 cycle. Provision 2 schools have the option to serve only breakfast or lunch, or both breakfast and lunch, to all students at no charge. Non-pricing: The application process and meal tracking is consistent with the SBP program. However, no fees are collected from students, while schools continue to receive reimbursements for the meals served under the three-tier federal fee categories (free, reduced-price, and paid). Typically, schools have absorbed the cost differential into school district operational budgets. School Breakfast as a Solution The Spotlight on Schenectady City School District At the start of the 2013-2014 SY, Schenectady City School District took the two most important steps to expand access to the SBP. Concurrently, the school district implemented an alternative breakfast program and adopted the Community Eligibility Provision districtwide, allowing all students to eat both school breakfast and lunch for free. This change was driven by Superintendent Laurence Spring, who provided dynamic leadership and support to work through challenges with implementation. Superintendent Spring framed breakfast as an equity initiative for the district and utilized breakfast-after-the bell as a tool to level the playing field across the district by alleviating the stress of food insecurity. From this perspective, Superintendent Spring commented that during implementation his job as an administrator was not to hinder action or decision-making with rules and regulations but rather offer “green tape” to ensure effective access to breakfast in each building. Making Breakfast a Part of the School Day In September 2013, each school implemented a delivery system unique to their building and leadership, and many engaged students with delivery and clean up. All elementary schools started the day with Breakfast in the Classroom, middle schools were provided with “Grab and Go” kiosks, and “Grab and Go” vending machines were installed in the high school. As a result, overall school breakfast participation increased by 127% throughout the district. The district has gone from feeding only 23% of students in the 2012-2013 SY to feeding 52% in the 2013-2014 SY, resulting in an additional 2,872 students eating breakfast, on average, each day. In addition, increased school breakfast participation has also translated to more students eating school lunch. In the 2013-2014 SY, participation in the school lunch program increased by 24% with an additional 1,013 students eating lunch each day. As the number of meals being served in the district increased, the amount of federal and state reimbursement coming into the district also increased. The expenses of school food service are only paid for by revenue generated from meals served. Thus, the increased revenue provided a new opportunity for the school to invest in new equipment and facilities. 9 Leveling the Playing Field with School Breakfast The benefits of breakfast extended beyond the cafeteria and largely impacted the district’s learning environment. As a result of Schenectady’s school breakfast expansion, Superintendent Spring has noted that overall, students are more attentive in class, attendance has improved, and there are fewer disciplinary problems. Teachers combine their morning work with school breakfast and have embraced the new calm, communal beginning to the school day. Teachers found that fitting breakfast in during morning activities has translated to more time in the midafternoon because now that students start the day with the nutrition they need to focus, they are settled in and ready to learn. Throughout the district, breakfast-after the bell has been recognized as being instrumental in preparing students for that critical morning period of instruction. In addition, the number of students with chronic attendance issues has shrunk. Attendance is measured as one the benchmarks for predictors of academic success. In this type of analysis, students who attend school at least 90 percent of the time is considered a tipping point for academic success. Statistics show students with 90 percent attendance are more likely to graduate while students who show up to school less than 90 percent of the time are more likely to drop out. Furthermore, children who attend 95 percent of the time or more tend to do very well in school. Prior to this initiative, in January 2013, only 58 percent of elementary students attended school 90 percent of the time. By January 2014, 98.9 percent of elementary school students, 92 percent of middle school students, and 88 percent of high school students were attending school 90 percent of the time. In the elementary schools, 92.2 percent of those students attended 95 percent of the time. Additionally over the school year, the district noted a decrease in disciplinary issues. Across the district, the number of students with no disciplinary referrals improved by 44 percent. This initiative was funded by a grant from the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) with funds from the Walmart Foundation. Each district from NYS that received an AASA grant also received technical support from Hunger Solutions New York. 10 Action Steps to Increase Participation in the School Breakfast Program Ensuring that children—especially low-income children—eat a healthy breakfast each day can have dramatic effects on alleviating hunger and improving learning environments, while also supporting students’ health and academic achievement. Support and leadership from school system leaders, at all levels, are essential to ensuring that the SBP meets the needs of all students. At the district level, administrators, such as superintendents and principals, play key roles in effectively implementing alternative service methods and breaking down barriers to implementation. Statewide, education leaders and legislators are instrumental in increasing NYS students’ access to a nutritious breakfast and removing barriers to implementing universal school breakfast. Working together, school system leaders can maximize federal funds received under the SBP and level the playing field for all NYS students. Recommendations for School District Leaders: Make breakfast part of the school day. Implement breakfast-after-the-bell programs to ensure that all students have the opportunity to access a nutritious morning meal. Offer universal breakfast. Provide breakfast at no charge to all students, regardless of income, to help reach more children. High-poverty schools can utilize the Community Eligibility Provision to support SBP expansions. Couple universal breakfast with breakfast-after-the-bell. Combine the two recommendations above to maximize both financial reimbursement and student impact. NYS schools that have implemented both the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) and breakfast-after-the-bell have seen significantly greater increases in participation in SBP than results when implementing CEP alone. Make breakfast a priority. Implement a school district policy, through the school board or wellness committee, requiring all schools to offer school breakfast through alternative service methods. Be a school breakfast advocate/champion. Educate all stakeholders—students, teachers, and staff—about the benefits of school breakfast. Create a school breakfast team. Engage the school community in this process by getting students involved in menu choices and setting up competitions among school buildings with the goal of increasing breakfast participation. Recommendations for State Education Leaders: Make school breakfast a regular part of the school day. Increase access to the School Breakfast Program by making breakfast, similar to lunch, a regular part of the school day. Require schools to offer breakfast service time after the school day’s official start. Allow time spent during Breakfast in the Classroom to count as instructional time. Clear guidance is needed to allow meal time to be a part of instruction time. Other states, such as California, Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, have accomplished this through a memorandum from the state agency clarifying that breakfast must complement, not compete with, instructional time. Increase the number of eligible schools implementing the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) in order to expand school breakfast participation. Employ new ways to encourage school districts with eligible schools to participate in CEP. A significant barrier to the implementation of CEP at the local level is the lack the understanding of what classifies a student as directly certified/categorically eligible for free school meals. Multiple opportunities for school districts to learn about direct certification and categorical eligibility are needed. Improve the Direct Certification Matching Process. Ensure maximum effectiveness of state-level electronic data matching for direct certification of school meals by improving the current system in the following ways: Adopt state-level, central matching system by developing statewide student enrollment records. Enhance current online matching system by integrating more sophisticated matching algorithms. Increase matching to more than three times per year. Strengthen interagency relationships to facilitate the exchange of data. 11 Recommendations for New York State Legislators: Strengthen current NYS school breakfast legislation. Amend the current legislation to require all schools in which 40% or more students qualify for free or reduced-price school lunch to participate in the School Breakfast Program. Require high-need schools to offer universal school breakfast through after-the-bell service method(s). Require schools with 80% or more students qualifying for free or reduced-price meals to offer a universal, nutritious after-the-bell breakfast program with all-student access. Colorado, District of Colombia, New Mexico, Texas, Washington, and West Virginia have passed similar school breakfast legislation. Conclusion Ensuring that all children—especially low-income children—eat a healthy breakfast each day helps level the playing field for all students in NYS public schools. Increasing participation in the SBP effectively alleviates hunger and improves learning environments, while also supporting students’ health and academic achievement. Current participation in the SBP is exceptionally low, causing too many NYS students to go needlessly hungry while also forfeiting federal funding. In order to maximize the benefits of the SBP, all school system leaders must take the necessary actions to increase access and participation in the SBP. Resources: 1. Food Research and Action Center (FRAC). “Food Hardship 2008-2012: Geography and Household Composition Data for the Nation, States, Regions, and 100 MSAs.” September 2013. http://frac.org/pdf/ food_hardship_geography_household_composition_2008-2012.pdf 2. Feeding America. 2011. Map the Meal Gap: Child Food Insecurity. www.mapthemealgap.com 3. Winicki J, and K Jemison. 2003. "Food Insecurity and Hunger in the Kindergarten Classroom: Its Effect on Learning and Growth." Contemporary Economic Policy. 21 (2): 145-157. 4. Weinreb L, C Wehler, J Perloff, R Scott, D Hosmer, L Sagor, and C Gundersen. 2002. "Hunger: its impact on children's health and mental health." Pediatrics. 110 (4). 5. FRAC. “School Breakfast Scorecard: School Year 2013-2014.” February 2015. http://frac.org/pdf/ School_Breakfast_Scorecard_SY_2013_2014.pdf 6. FRAC. Breakfast for Learning. Fall 2011. http://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/breakfastforlearning.pdf 7. FRAC. Breakfast for Health. Fall 2011. http://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/breakfastforhealth.pdf 8. [8 N.Y. CODES R. & REGS. § 114.2] 9. New York State Education Department Child Nutrition Eligibility Guide. http://portal.nysed.gov/portal/page/pref/CNKC/Eligibility_pp/Child%20Nutrition%20Eligibility%20Guide.pdf 10. Logan, C.W., Connor, P., Harvill, E.L., et al. (2014). “Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation.” Washington DC: Prepared by Abt Associates for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/CEPEvaluation.pdf 12 Interpreting the Tables *all tables are based on March 2014 data Table 1: Overall Average Daily Participation in the School Breakfast Program (SBP) This table shows the percentage of all students, who attend schools that offer the SBP, eating school breakfast. Out of all the students enrolled in schools that offered the SBP, only 1 in 5 students, on average, ate school breakfast. Table 2: Low-Income Students (Free and Reduced-Price Meal Qualified) Eating School Breakfast This table shows the percentage of low-income students, who attend schools that offer the SBP, eating school breakfast. Less than 1 in 3 low-income students participated in the SBP during the 2012-2013 school year. Across NYS, over 1 million low-income students who qualified to eat breakfast for free or at a reduced price missed out on morning nutrition. Table 3: Low-Income Student (Free and Reduced-Price Meal Qualified) Participation in the School Breakfast Program (SBP) Compared to Low-Income Student Participation in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) Participation in the SBP among low-income students is low when compared to participation in the NSLP. In the 2013-2014 school year, over 1 million low-income children ate free or reduced-price lunch each day through the NSLP, while only 41% of those children participated in the SBP. Table 4: Schools Operating the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and Schools Operating the School Breakfast Program (SBP) This table shows the percentage of schools that operate both the NSLP and the SBP. In the 2013-2014 school year, 92% of NYS public schools participating in the NSLP also participated in the SBP. Overall, 383 schools that offered lunch through the NSLP did not offer breakfast through the SBP. Please note: Schools that do not participate in the NSLP are not captured in the data set. Table 5: Additional Participation & Funding If 70% of Low-Income Students Eating School Lunch Also Ate School Breakfast in the 2012-2013 School Year Currently, only 41% of low-income students eating lunch through the NSLP also eat breakfast at school through the SBP. If NYS achieved a goal of reaching 70% of these low-income students, the State could receive 85.6 million additional federal reimbursement dollars. Please note: Hamilton and Schenectady Counties have been excluded from this analysis as both counties exceed this goal of reaching 70% of low-income students. 13 Table 1: Overall Average Daily Participation in the School Breakfast Program (SBP) 2012-2013 County Albany Allegany Broome Cattaraugus Cayuga Chautauqua Chemung Chenango Clinton Columbia Cortland Delaware Dutchess Erie Essex Franklin Fulton Genesee Greene Hamilton Herkimer Jefferson Lewis Livingston Madison Monroe Montgomery Nassau Niagara Oneida Onondaga Ontario Orange Orleans Oswego Otsego Putnam Rensselaer Rockland Saint Lawrence Saratoga Schenectady Schoharie Schuyler Seneca Steuben Suffolk Sullivan Tioga Tompkins Ulster Warren Washington Wayne Westchester Wyoming Yates Rest of the State New York City Total NYS 14 School Enrollment 33,359 7,086 28,741 13,972 10,077 20,384 12,179 7,871 11,332 7,729 6,901 6,317 42,476 125,426 3,989 7,921 8,871 7,905 6,474 567 7,010 18,916 4,417 10,389 10,705 99,018 7,163 118,940 27,757 32,806 66,030 16,564 60,713 6,282 20,884 7,730 10,896 21,575 35,566 15,963 29,373 22,469 4,448 1,943 3,810 16,139 198,376 9,745 8,065 11,138 23,633 9,288 8,606 14,859 96,767 4,223 2,317 1,434,100 1,094,656 2,528,756 # Students Eating SBP 6,376 1,919 5,930 2,906 1,769 4,279 2,041 2,615 2,343 1,239 1,574 1,923 4,335 36,881 1,045 2,431 1,401 1,357 1,194 258 1,461 3,982 898 1,897 1,396 26,000 1,848 14,040 4,913 7,039 16,271 2,518 9,063 1,048 3,648 2,192 875 3,967 4,590 4,311 2,315 3,859 900 389 633 3,914 32,081 2,443 1,702 2,354 3,459 1,303 1,912 2,645 10,180 724 437 267,024 224,506 491,530 2013-2014 % Students Eating SBP 19% 27% 21% 21% 18% 21% 17% 33% 21% 16% 23% 30% 10% 29% 26% 31% 16% 17% 18% 46% 21% 21% 20% 18% 13% 26% 26% 12% 18% 21% 25% 15% 15% 17% 17% 28% 8% 18% 13% 27% 8% 17% 20% 20% 17% 24% 16% 25% 21% 21% 15% 14% 22% 18% 11% 17% 19% 19% 21% 19% % Change Over 1 year -3% -8% -9% -6% -2% 1% 6% -2% -4% -4% -3% -11% -5% 1% -7% -2% -6% -11% -6% -15% -9% -2% -18% -11% -15% 5% -1% 13% 1% -4% 9% -3% -5% -11% -8% -13% -13% -5% -19% -4% -5% -18% -7% 0% -3% -5% 15% -6% -5% -3% -7% -5% -11% 1% -10% -17% 1% 0% -8% -4% School Enrollment 31,605 7,052 28,471 13,759 9,869 20,353 11,852 7,605 11,161 7,655 6,809 6,272 41,916 126,091 3,909 7,832 8,314 7,617 6,307 540 7,278 18,729 4,363 10,348 10,655 92,385 7,636 118,097 27,479 32,599 65,906 16,416 61,440 6,144 20,571 7,519 10,790 21,257 37,833 15,700 29,326 22,326 4,459 1,902 3,742 15,750 199,589 9,858 7,967 11,053 24,597 9,154 8,479 14,655 97,069 4,112 2,285 1,424,457 1,094,281 2,518,738 # Students Eating SBP 6,894 1,830 6,356 2,948 1,973 4,541 2,169 2,507 2,116 1,267 1,462 1,873 4,564 36,918 1,031 2,369 1,244 1,314 1,166 252 1,408 3,698 899 1,802 1,420 26,391 1,956 14,126 5,208 7,442 16,120 2,385 9,407 1,013 3,614 2,045 939 4,537 5,136 4,132 2,258 6,677 874 368 644 3,749 34,455 3,135 1,722 2,183 3,739 1,327 1,742 2,624 13,287 772 381 278,412 232,027 510,439 % Students Eating SBP 22% 26% 22% 21% 20% 22% 18% 33% 19% 17% 21% 30% 11% 29% 26% 30% 15% 17% 18% 47% 19% 20% 21% 17% 13% 29% 26% 12% 19% 23% 24% 15% 15% 16% 18% 27% 9% 21% 14% 26% 8% 30% 20% 19% 17% 24% 17% 32% 22% 20% 15% 14% 21% 18% 14% 19% 17% 20% 21% 20% % Change Over 1 year Rank 19 12 17 22 27 18 37 2 33 45 21 6 56 7 10 4 49 42 36 1 32 29 25 40 54 8 13 55 34 16 14 50 47 46 39 9 57 23 53 11 58 5 30 31 43 15 41 3 20 28 48 51 26 38 52 35 44 24 - 8% -5% 7% 1% 12% 6% 6% -4% -10% 2% -7% -3% 5% 0% -1% -3% -11% -3% -2% -3% -4% -7% 0% -5% 2% 2% 6% 1% 6% 6% -1% -5% 4% -3% -1% -7% 7% 14% 12% -4% -2% 73% -3% -5% 2% -4% 7% 28% 1% -7% 8% 2% -9% -1% 31% 7% -13% 4% 3% 4% Prepared by Hunger Solutions New York, January 2015 Raw data provided by NYS Education Department, based on March 2014 SBP Participation Table 2: Low-Income Students (Free and Reduced-Price Meal Qualified) Eating School Breakfast (SB) 2012-2013 County Albany Allegany Broome Cattaraugus Cayuga Chautauqua Chemung Chenango Clinton Columbia Cortland Delaware Dutchess Erie Essex Franklin Fulton Genesee Greene Hamilton Herkimer Jefferson Lewis Livingston Madison Monroe Montgomery Nassau Niagara Oneida Onondaga Ontario Orange Orleans Oswego Otsego Putnam Rensselaer Rockland Saint Lawrence Saratoga Schenectady Schoharie Schuyler Seneca Steuben Suffolk Sullivan Tioga Tompkins Ulster Warren Washington Wayne Westchester Wyoming Yates Rest of the State New York City Total NYS # Low-Income Students 14,923 3,598 14,102 6,870 3,970 11,053 5,989 4,282 4,988 3,322 3,121 3,563 13,794 66,036 1,800 4,062 4,610 3,184 2,638 239 3,318 8,943 2,053 3,224 4,116 51,962 4,090 45,561 13,422 18,608 32,815 5,361 24,126 3,021 10,392 3,349 1,838 8,447 12,657 8,092 6,230 10,482 1,960 851 1,686 7,717 72,066 5,678 3,794 4,235 9,114 3,175 3,978 6,285 46,835 1,758 1,226 628,609 832,680 1,461,289 2013-2014 # Low-Income % Low-Income # Low-Income % Low-Income # Low-Income Students Students Students Students Students Eating SB Eating SB Eating SB Eating SB 5,387 1,450 5,132 2,351 1,326 3,643 1,720 2,003 1,791 1,047 1,183 1,408 3,391 33,490 724 1,848 1,191 1,017 905 131 1,130 3,032 651 1,453 1,103 23,822 1,545 11,185 3,912 6,023 13,945 2,005 7,366 842 3,105 1,497 513 3,348 3,765 3,382 1,595 3,118 716 288 535 3,059 24,822 2,011 1,352 1,851 2,591 1,016 1,467 2,220 8,468 493 376 220,739 201,626 422,364 36% 40% 36% 34% 33% 33% 29% 47% 36% 32% 38% 40% 25% 51% 40% 45% 26% 32% 34% 55% 34% 34% 32% 45% 27% 46% 38% 25% 29% 32% 42% 37% 31% 28% 30% 45% 28% 40% 30% 42% 26% 30% 37% 34% 32% 40% 34% 35% 36% 44% 28% 32% 37% 35% 18% 28% 31% 35% 24% 29% 15,530 3,623 14,756 7,036 4,087 11,736 6,816 4,203 5,127 3,607 3,134 3,488 14,086 67,233 1,853 3,970 4,457 3,107 2,715 255 3,417 9,162 2,079 3,413 4,117 52,654 4,439 45,023 14,086 20,653 34,167 5,438 24,812 3,134 10,337 3,355 2,013 9,965 13,545 7,902 6,524 12,106 1,990 837 1,696 7,894 74,837 5,700 3,801 4,345 10,071 3,321 3,965 6,481 48,410 1,470 1,170 649,148 850,930 1,500,078 Prepared by Hunger Solutions New York, January 2015 Raw data provided by NYS Education Department, based on March 2014 SBP Participation 5,960 1,408 5,506 2,426 1,578 3,959 1,793 1,924 1,728 1,077 1,129 1,383 3,767 33,840 736 1,805 1,067 1,008 905 142 1,155 2,900 666 1,425 1,136 24,518 1,662 11,240 4,119 6,544 14,512 1,929 7,701 848 3,136 1,441 574 3,731 4,277 3,262 1,635 5,890 711 274 522 3,010 26,738 2,480 1,373 1,713 2,887 1,034 1,384 2,237 10,891 545 315 233,556 199,857 433,413 38% 39% 37% 34% 39% 34% 26% 46% 34% 30% 36% 40% 27% 50% 40% 45% 24% 32% 33% 56% 34% 32% 32% 42% 28% 47% 37% 25% 29% 32% 42% 35% 31% 27% 30% 43% 28% 37% 32% 41% 25% 49% 36% 33% 31% 38% 36% 44% 36% 39% 29% 31% 35% 35% 22% 37% 27% 36% 23% 29% % Change Over 1 Year Rank 17 15 21 30 16 32 53 5 33 45 24 13 52 2 12 6 56 36 34 1 31 39 37 10 49 4 19 55 46 38 9 27 42 50 44 8 48 20 40 11 54 3 25 35 43 18 26 7 23 14 47 41 28 29 58 22 51 57 - 11% -3% 7% 3% 19% 9% 4% -4% -3% 3% -5% -2% 11% 1% 2% -2% -10% -1% 0% 8% 2% -4% 2% -2% 3% 3% 8% 0% 5% 9% 4% -4% 5% 1% 1% -4% 12% 11% 14% -4% 2% 89% -1% -5% -2% -2% 8% 23% 2% -7% 11% 2% -6% 1% 29% 10% -16% 6% -1% 3% 15 Table 3: Low-Income Student (Free and Reduced-Price Meal Qualified) Participation in the School Breakfast Program (SBP) Compared to LowIncome Student Participation in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) 2012-2013 County Albany Allegany Broome Cattaraugus Cayuga Chautauqua Chemung Chenango Clinton Columbia Cortland Delaware Dutchess Erie Essex Franklin Fulton Genesee Greene Hamilton Herkimer Jefferson Lewis Livingston Madison Monroe Montgomery Nassau Niagara Oneida Onondaga Ontario Orange Orleans Oswego Otsego Putnam Rensselaer Rockland Saint Lawrence Saratoga Schenectady Schoharie Schuyler Seneca Steuben Suffolk Sullivan Tioga Tompkins Ulster Warren Washington Wayne Westchester Wyoming Yates Rest of the State New York City Total NYS 16 # Low-Income Eating SBP 5,387 1,450 5,132 2,351 1,326 3,643 1,720 2,003 1,791 1,047 1,183 1,408 3,391 33,490 724 1,848 1,191 1,017 905 131 1,130 3,032 651 1,453 1,103 23,822 1,545 11,185 3,912 6,023 13,945 2,005 7,366 842 3,105 1,497 513 3,348 3,765 3,382 1,595 3,118 716 288 535 3,059 24,822 2,011 1,352 1,851 2,591 1,016 1,467 2,220 8,468 493 376 220,739 201,626 422,364 # Low-Income Eating NSLP 11,295 2,743 10,392 5,184 2,853 8,353 4,376 3,165 3,657 2,462 2,448 2,574 8,888 50,441 1,373 3,157 3,077 2,415 1,915 178 2,335 6,808 1,618 2,427 2,841 38,848 3,141 36,691 9,906 13,972 24,259 4,021 17,676 2,207 7,261 2,450 1,605 6,349 9,460 5,763 4,962 7,066 1,468 638 1,309 5,623 56,139 4,072 2,858 3,212 6,723 2,312 3,002 4,690 32,741 1,096 932 469,425 582,260 1,051,685 2013-2014 % Low-Income SBP and NSLP 48% 53% 49% 45% 46% 44% 39% 63% 49% 43% 48% 55% 38% 66% 53% 59% 39% 42% 47% 74% 48% 45% 40% 60% 39% 61% 49% 30% 39% 43% 57% 50% 42% 38% 43% 61% 32% 53% 40% 59% 32% 44% 49% 45% 41% 54% 44% 49% 47% 58% 39% 44% 49% 47% 26% 45% 40% 47% 35% 40% # Low-Income Eating SBP 5,960 1,408 5,506 2,426 1,578 3,959 1,793 1,924 1,728 1,077 1,129 1,383 3,767 33,840 736 1,805 1,067 1,008 905 142 1,155 2,900 666 1,425 1,136 24,518 1,662 11,240 4,119 6,544 14,512 1,929 7,701 848 3,136 1,441 574 3,731 4,277 3,262 1,635 5,890 711 274 522 3,010 26,738 2,480 1,373 1,713 2,887 1,034 1,384 2,237 10,891 545 315 233,556 199,857 433,413 # Low-Income Eating NSLP 11,896 2,725 10,879 5,358 2,927 8,838 5,081 3,163 3,705 2,433 2,429 2,539 9,166 51,385 1,377 3,061 3,005 2,418 1,889 186 2,358 6,910 1,634 2,492 2,962 39,104 3,252 36,264 10,305 15,227 24,777 4,078 17,935 2,302 7,359 2,395 1,757 7,060 10,148 5,676 4,897 8,198 1,467 621 1,344 5,931 57,897 4,262 2,860 3,102 7,021 2,355 2,935 4,859 33,425 1,078 888 481,595 563,297 1,044,892 % Low-Income SBP and NSLP 50% 52% 51% 45% 54% 45% 35% 61% 47% 44% 46% 54% 41% 66% 53% 59% 35% 42% 48% 76% 49% 42% 41% 57% 38% 63% 51% 31% 40% 43% 59% 47% 43% 37% 43% 60% 33% 53% 42% 57% 33% 72% 48% 44% 39% 51% 46% 58% 48% 55% 41% 44% 47% 46% 33% 51% 35% 48% 35% 41% Rank 22 17 20 33 14 34 54 5 29 35 30 13 45 3 15 7 51 43 26 1 23 42 46 11 49 4 18 58 47 38 8 27 39 50 40 6 56 16 41 10 55 2 24 36 48 19 31 9 25 12 44 37 28 32 57 21 52 53 - Prepared by Hunger Solutions New York, January 2015 Raw data provided by NYS Education Department, based on March 2014 SBP Participation Table 4: Schools Operating the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and Schools Operating the School Breakfast Program (SBP) 2012-2013 County Albany Allegany Broome Cattaraugus Cayuga Chautauqua Chemung Chenango Clinton Columbia Cortland Delaware Dutchess Erie Essex Franklin Fulton Genesee Greene Hamilton Herkimer Jefferson Lewis Livingston Madison Monroe Montgomery Nassau Niagara Oneida Onondaga Ontario Orange Orleans Oswego Otsego Putnam Rensselaer Rockland Saint Lawrence Saratoga Schenectady Schoharie Schuyler Seneca Steuben Suffolk Sullivan Tioga Tompkins Ulster Warren Washington Wayne Westchester Wyoming Yates Rest of the State New York City Total NYS # of NSLP Schools 75 17 53 29 23 47 22 19 28 13 18 18 75 232 14 18 19 16 14 5 13 36 8 18 27 187 13 282 51 81 129 29 84 11 41 19 21 41 67 38 48 45 12 5 11 36 343 21 20 31 47 20 22 35 202 8 4 2,861 2,133 4,994 # of SBP Schools 66 16 53 28 22 46 22 19 28 13 17 18 73 221 13 17 19 16 14 5 13 36 8 18 25 170 12 165 48 68 116 29 82 11 40 19 15 40 55 35 40 45 12 5 10 36 269 18 20 30 45 20 22 35 146 8 4 2,496 2,095 4,591 2013-2014 # of NSLP SBP Schools as % of Schools NSLP Schools Without SBP 9 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 11 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 17 1 117 3 13 13 0 2 0 1 0 6 1 12 3 8 0 0 0 1 0 74 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 56 0 0 365 38 403 Prepared by Hunger Solutions New York, January 2015 Raw data provided by NYS Education Department, based on March 2014 SBP Participation 88% 94% 100% 97% 96% 98% 100% 100% 100% 100% 94% 100% 97% 95% 93% 94% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 93% 91% 92% 59% 94% 84% 90% 100% 98% 100% 98% 100% 71% 98% 82% 92% 83% 100% 100% 100% 91% 100% 78% 86% 100% 97% 96% 100% 100% 100% 72% 100% 100% 87% 98% 92% # of NSLP Schools 73 17 53 29 23 46 22 18 27 13 18 18 75 230 14 18 18 16 14 5 13 36 8 18 27 175 14 282 50 83 128 29 81 11 42 19 21 41 67 34 43 36 12 5 11 35 345 21 20 30 42 20 22 35 202 8 4 2,817 2,207 5,024 # of SBP Schools 64 16 53 28 22 45 22 18 27 13 17 18 73 222 13 17 18 16 14 5 13 36 8 18 25 158 14 167 46 69 115 29 81 11 41 19 15 40 59 33 40 44 12 5 10 34 272 18 20 29 41 20 22 35 144 8 4 2,476 2,165 4,641 # of NSLP SBP Schools as % of Schools NSLP Schools Without SBP 9 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 17 0 115 4 14 13 0 0 0 1 0 6 1 8 1 3 -8 0 0 1 1 73 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 58 0 0 341 42 383 88% 94% 100% 97% 96% 98% 100% 100% 100% 100% 94% 100% 97% 97% 93% 94% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 93% 90% 100% 59% 92% 83% 90% 100% 100% 100% 98% 100% 71% 98% 88% 97% 93% 122% 100% 100% 91% 97% 79% 86% 100% 97% 98% 100% 100% 100% 71% 100% 100% 88% 98% 92% 17 Table 5: Additional Annual Participation & Funding If 70% of Low-Income Students Eating School Lunch (NSLP) Also Ate School Breakfast (SBP) 2013-2014 County Current # Low-Income Students Eating School Breakfast Current # Low-Income Students Eating School Lunch Albany Allegany Broome Cattaraugus Cayuga Chautauqua Chemung Chenango Clinton Columbia Cortland Delaware Dutchess Erie Essex Franklin Fulton Genesee Greene Hamilton Herkimer Jefferson Lewis Livingston Madison Monroe Montgomery Nassau Niagara Oneida Onondaga Ontario Orange Orleans Oswego Otsego Putnam Rensselaer Rockland Saint Lawrence Saratoga Schenectady Schoharie Schuyler Seneca Steuben Suffolk Sullivan Tioga Tompkins Ulster Warren Washington Wayne Westchester Wyoming Yates Rest of the State New York City Total NYS 5,960 1,408 5,506 2,426 1,578 3,959 1,793 1,924 1,728 1,077 1,129 1,383 3,767 33,840 736 1,805 1,067 1,008 905 142 1,155 2,900 666 1,425 1,136 24,518 1,662 11,240 4,119 6,544 14,512 1,929 7,701 848 3,136 1,441 574 3,731 4,277 3,262 1,635 5,890 711 274 522 3,010 26,738 2,480 1,373 1,713 2,887 1,034 1,384 2,237 10,891 545 315 233,556 199,857 433,413 11,896 2,725 10,879 5,358 2,927 8,838 5,081 3,163 3,705 2,433 2,429 2,539 9,166 51,385 1,377 3,061 3,005 2,418 1,889 186 2,358 6,910 1,634 2,492 2,962 39,104 3,252 36,264 10,305 15,227 24,777 4,078 17,935 2,302 7,359 2,395 1,757 7,060 10,148 5,676 4,897 8,198 1,467 621 1,344 5,931 57,897 4,262 2,860 3,102 7,021 2,355 2,935 4,859 33,425 1,078 888 481,595 563,297 1,044,892 18 70% of Low-Income Students Eating Both NSLP and SBP 8,327 1,907 7,616 3,751 2,049 6,186 3,557 2,214 2,593 1,703 1,701 1,778 6,416 35,969 964 2,143 2,104 1,692 1,322 130 1,651 4,837 1,144 1,745 2,074 27,373 2,276 25,385 7,213 10,659 17,344 2,854 12,555 1,611 5,151 1,676 1,230 4,942 7,104 3,973 3,428 5,739 1,027 435 941 4,151 40,528 2,983 2,002 2,172 4,914 1,649 2,055 3,402 23,398 754 622 337,117 394,308 731,425 Additional Annual # Additional LowFunding If 70% LowIncome Students Eating Income Students Eating SBP to Reach 70% NSLP NSLP Also Ate SBP 2,367 500 2,110 1,324 471 2,227 1,763 291 865 626 572 395 2,649 2,129 229 338 1,037 685 417 495 1,936 478 319 938 2,854 614 14,145 3,095 4,115 2,832 926 4,853 764 2,015 235 656 1,211 2,827 711 1,793 315 161 419 1,141 13,789 504 628 459 2,027 615 671 1,164 12,506 209 307 103,560 194,451 298,011 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 681,554.98 141,612.42 604,985.33 377,359.10 134,190.70 638,966.57 510,538.04 82,088.87 245,282.70 178,164.52 162,314.99 111,648.07 759,677.25 615,868.48 63,877.53 95,711.94 297,390.30 193,381.53 119,023.78 141,161.40 543,257.86 134,039.14 90,901.86 266,762.03 825,014.59 176,125.84 4,042,390.21 886,250.78 1,184,112.85 819,210.49 263,590.08 1,379,660.55 218,080.49 576,312.62 66,027.28 186,346.59 349,934.97 811,529.17 202,031.53 510,169.29 89,028.41 46,213.60 118,598.87 322,254.75 3,936,405.06 143,794.00 178,512.48 130,826.35 578,013.26 175,228.20 190,797.54 330,349.27 3,574,504.19 58,989.38 87,750.18 29,647,812.25 55,957,530.40 85,605,342.65 ` Prepared by Hunger Solutions New York, January 2015 Raw data provided by NYS Education Department, based on March 2014 SBP Participation © 2015 Hunger Solutions New York. All Rights Reserved 2013-2014 School Breakfast Program Report