THE COMMUNITY ELIGIBILITY PROVISION MFANN Conference SUSAN GROSS - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

SUSAN GROSS

Johns Hopkins University

THE COMMUNITY ELIGIBILITY PROVISION MFANN Conference

The Community Eligibility Provision

 Community eligibility uses federal funding to allow

schools to provide free breakfast and lunch to all students

 Removes barriers to participation in school meals,

including the stigma that theses programs are only for “poor” children

Schools without Community Eligibility Schools with Community Eligibility

Individual eligibility for free

• r reduced-price meals is

based on family’s income Eligibility for free school meals is determined at the school or “community” level

The Community Eligibility Provision

Eligibility based on FARMs forms CEP eligibility based on existing poverty data

 Free Meals

 Students with household

incomes <130% of the Federal Poverty Line

 Reduced-Price Meals

 Students with household

incomes between 130% and 185% of the Federal Poverty Line

“Identified students”

 Supplemental Nutrition

Assistance Program (SNAP)

 TANF  Homeless  Migrant  Foster care  Head Start

“Identified student” rate must be >40% to qualify a school for CEP

Free & Reduced Meal Forms --- Community Eligibility

JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH MARYLAND HUNGER SOLUTIONS JOHNS HOPKINS CENTER FOR A LIVABLE FUTURE

Feeding Baltimore’s Students:

The Impact of the Community Eligibility Provision

Research Question

What impact does Baltimore City Public Schools’ implementation of the Community Eligibility Provision have on Baltimore City students?

 School meal participation  Absenteeism  Tardiness  Suspensions  Discipline referrals  School nurse visits  Academic achievement  School advancement and graduation  Food security status

School-level Data Analysis -- Methods

 Public use data was extracted from the Maryland State

Department of Education for 214 BCPS and 196 schools in a comparison district (CDPS) in a nearby county

 School years: 2012-13 to 2016-17  School-level outcomes  School meal participation: All  Grade 10 promotion rate: High

 Changes from baseline (2012-13) were calculated for

each district using SPSS GradPack and compared over time using Joinpoint Regression Program for a select

• utcome.

 All comparisons were made between BCPS and CDPS

schools not participating in CEP

Measure Grade Level Change from 2012-13 to 2016-17 (mean)*

BCPS CDPS Grade 10 promotion rate High +3.91% 0.00% Graduation rate High

• 2.65%

+1.08% Change from 2014-15 to 2015-16 Average daily participation (ADP) school breakfast All +1.89% +3.41% ADP school lunch All +20.56% +1.06%

Preliminary Results

Joinpoint Regression: Grade 10 Promotion Rate

Household Food Security Survey -- Methods

 Online Survey

 5 Baltimore City Public Schools  3 Matched schools from one other school district

 Recruitment

 Flyers sent home with survey link/Onsite School Activities (iPAD)  Consent collected at beginning

 Measurement

 USDA food insecurity screening tool was used to measure food

insecurity rates

 Two- points in time (Spring and Fall, 2017)

 Spring 2017 Responses

 57 Comparison District Public Schools (CDPS) responses  180 BCPS responses

USDA Food Insecurity Screening

 “I worried whether our food would run out before I

got money to buy more.”

 Was that often, sometimes, or never true for (you/your

household) in the last 12 months?

 “The food that I bought just didn’t last, and I didn’t

have money to get more.”

 “I couldn’t afford to eat balanced meals.”  “In the last 12 months, did you or other adults in

your household ever cut the size of your meals or skip meals because there wasn't enough money for food?”

Defining Food Security

 FOOD SECURE:

 Raw scores of 0-1 indicate high or marginal food security, referred to

generally as “food security.”

 LOW FOOD SECURITY:

 Raw scores of 2-4 indicate low food security, which is characterized

by reduced quality, variety or desirability of the diet.

 VERY LOW FOOD SECURITY:

 Raw scores of 5-6 indicate very low food security, which is

characterized by disrupted eating patterns and reduced food intake.

 Low food security and very low food security are

combined to represent food insecurity.

Food Security Status of Selected Maryland Public Schools (n=237)

High/Marginal Food Security Low Food Security Very Low Food Security

Preliminary Data: Spring 2017 Food insecurity higher than expected

Food Security Status by CEP Participation

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Marginal Low Very Low All CEP Eligible not Participating CEP Participating

Preliminary Data: Spring 2017 Schools Participating in CEP more food secure

Food Security Status by CEP Status and Ethnicity

43.8 31.5 24.7 57.9 26.3 15.8 28.6 37.1 34.3

High Food Security Low Food Security Very Low Food Security

Percent Food Security Status

Hispanic Population

71.3 15 13.8 71.7 13.8 14.5 68.2 22.7 9.1

High Food Security Low Food Security Very Low Food Security

Percent Food Security Status

Non-Hispanic

Total CEP Participating CEP Eligible non- participating

Preliminary Data: Spring 2017 CEP Participation especially protective for Hispanic households

Parent Focus Group -- Preliminary Results

Impact of CEP on Food Availability “Before [CEP], if they didn't qualify for free lunch, we were packing them lunch. Sometimes, when you don't have a lot of money to buy groceries or food for the children, you don't send them with food at

• school. Now, all the children have free food, the breakfast, and the
• lunch. I think that it is good for everybody.”

“I think it's great there is this [CEP] program. I know from a fact that there is a lot of families that the only meal they have here is at this school.” “… maybe at the time when you apply [for free and reduced-price school meals] you don't need it, but things can change throughout the

• year. Sometimes, there is more work than other times. It can get

messy and is a problem. The kids should always be able to have food at the table.”

Acknowledgements

 Maryland Hunger Solutions

 Michael J. Wilson  Tam Lynne Kelley

 Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

 Marycatherine Augustyn  Elizabeth Brown  Emily Payne  Dana Stretchberry  Lacy Boyle

 Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future

 Anne Palmer  Karen Bassarab  Claire Fitch

Questions?