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