Executive Summary This report examines the performance of school breakfast programs in 29 large urban school districts during the 2009–2010 school year, with the goal of monitoring their progress in increasing school breakfast participation among low-income students. Given the concentration of poverty within the student population, it is somewhat easier to reach children with breakfast in large urban areas than elsewhere. This is borne out by the finding that 16 of the 29 districts performed above the national average in reaching low-income students with breakfast. But more than half failed to reach a majority of their low-income students with the important morning nourishment they need to succeed in school, and only two districts met FRAC’s goal of reaching at least 70 low-income children with breakfast through the School Breakfast Program for every 100 low-income children who received lunch through the National School Lunch Program. Key Findings: The top five school districts—Newark (NJ), Detroit, Boston, Columbus (OH), and Pittsburgh— served breakfast to over 60 percent of the low-income students that received school lunch. Only Newark and Detroit achieved the goal of reaching at least 70 low-income children with breakfast for every 100 receiving lunch. If all 29 districts had reached this goal in the 2009–2010 school year, 595,649 additional children would have been eating a healthy school breakfast every day, and the districts combined would have collected an additional $151 million in federal child nutrition funding. The districts serving breakfast in the classroom have the highest participation rates. The two top-performing districts feature programs in which all students are offered breakfast at no charge and eat in the classroom at the beginning of the school day. Of the top ten school districts, all provide universal free breakfast throughout their district, and all but two have large-scale in-classroom breakfast programs. Chicago Public Schools increased the participation rate of low-income students the most dramatically over the past year by implementing an effective model of breakfast in the classroom in over half of its elementary schools. There is increased momentum for the adoption of universal classroom breakfast programs in large urban school districts. This is the key strategy for rapid expansion of school breakfast programs in large urban school districts. The districts are taking steps to improve the quality of school breakfast. Twenty-eight of the 29 districts in this study recently have taken one or more actions to improve the quality of their breakfast meals. Twenty-six have reduced the sugar content of their offerings. Twenty-three have increased the percentage of whole grains used in the meals. Twenty have removed trans fat from all menu items. Twenty-seven of the 29 districts are participating in a healthy eating/wellness initiative such as the Healthier US School Challenge or Fuel Up to Play 60. School Breakfast in America’s Big Cities January 2011 Food Research and Action Center
Transcript
Executive Summary This report examines the performance of school breakfast programs in 29 large urban school districts during the 2009–2010 school year, with the goal of monitoring their progress in increasing school breakfast participation among low-income students. Given the concentration of poverty within the student population, it is somewhat easier to reach children with breakfast in large urban areas than elsewhere. This is borne out by the finding that 16 of the 29 districts performed above the national average in reaching low-income students with breakfast. But more than half failed to reach a majority of their low-income students with the important morning nourishment they need to succeed in school, and only two districts met FRAC’s goal of reaching at least 70 low-income children with breakfast through the School Breakfast Program for every 100 low-income children who received lunch through the National School Lunch Program. Key Findings:
The top five school districts—Newark (NJ), Detroit, Boston, Columbus (OH), and Pittsburgh—
served breakfast to over 60 percent of the low-income students that received school lunch. Only Newark and Detroit achieved the goal of reaching at least 70 low-income children with breakfast for every 100 receiving lunch. If all 29 districts had reached this goal in the 2009–2010 school year, 595,649 additional children would have been eating a healthy school breakfast every day, and the districts combined would have collected an additional $151 million in federal child nutrition funding.
The districts serving breakfast in the classroom have the highest participation rates. The two
top-performing districts feature programs in which all students are offered breakfast at no charge and eat in the classroom at the beginning of the school day. Of the top ten school districts, all provide universal free breakfast throughout their district, and all but two have large-scale in-classroom breakfast programs.
Chicago Public Schools increased the participation rate of low-income students the most
dramatically over the past year by implementing an effective model of breakfast in the classroom in over half of its elementary schools.
There is increased momentum for the adoption of universal classroom breakfast programs in
large urban school districts. This is the key strategy for rapid expansion of school breakfast programs in large urban school districts.
The districts are taking steps to improve the quality of school breakfast. Twenty-eight of the 29
districts in this study recently have taken one or more actions to improve the quality of their breakfast meals. Twenty-six have reduced the sugar content of their offerings. Twenty-three have increased the percentage of whole grains used in the meals. Twenty have removed trans fat from all menu items.
Twenty-seven of the 29 districts are participating in a healthy eating/wellness initiative such
as the Healthier US School Challenge or Fuel Up to Play 60.
School Breakfast in America’s Big CitiesJanuary 2011
Food Research and Action Center
dkeirstead
New Stamp
Food Research and Action Center School Breakfast in America’s Big Cities 3
Acknowledgements Special thanks go to the participating school district nutrition directors and their staff. This report would not have been possible without their responsiveness and willingness to share their experience with others. This report was written by Senior Policy Analyst Madeleine Levin, with assistance from Communications Intern Gretchen Kast. This project was funded by the National Dairy Council/Dairy Management, Inc. FRAC also gratefully acknowledges major support of its work to expand and improve the School Breakfast Program in 2009–2010 from the following: Kraft Foods Foundation Sara Lee Foundation Walmart Foundation Additional support for FRAC’s work on the federal child nutrition programs in 2009–2010 was provided by: Anonymous Donors The Atlantic Philanthropies The California Endowment Annie E. Casey Foundation Claneil Foundation ConAgra Foods Foundation Evangelical Lutheran Church in America General Mills Foundation Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Kaiser Permanente Land O’Lakes Foundation Leaves of Grass Fund A.L. Mailman Family Foundation MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger The Moriah Fund New Prospect Foundation Pritzker Early Childhood Foundation
About FRAC The Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) is the leading national organization working for more effective public and private policies to eradicate domestic hunger and undernutrition. For more information about FRAC, or to sign up for FRAC’s Weekly News Digest, visit www.frac.org. For information about the School Breakfast Program, go to: www.frac.org/html/federal_food_programs/programs/sbp.html
F-2
Food Research and Action Center School Breakfast in America’s Big Cities 4
Introduction
illions of families in the United States cannot afford to feed their children the healthy breakfasts needed to succeed in school. In 2009, according to the federal government, 17.2 million American children, or almost one in four, lived in food insecure households where their families faced a constant struggle
against hunger. Two years earlier the number was 12.4 million children. The continuing recession has resulted in record numbers of low-income children participating in both the School Breakfast and National School Lunch Programs. In 2009–2010, the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) reached nearly 20 million low-income children on an average day, an increase of 1.2 million compared to the prior year. Participation in the School Breakfast Program (SBP) also grew in the 2009–2010 school year—with 663,000 more low-income children eating breakfast at school each day than the year before. Indeed, use of free and reduced-price school breakfast (up 7.6 percent) grew faster than use of free and reduced-price lunch (up 6.4 percent). Still, school breakfast reached only 47.2 low-income children for every 100 low-income children who ate free and reduced-price lunch. This is an improvement from the previous year, when the ratio of breakfast to lunch participation was 46.7, and a substantial improvement over the past five years when the ratio was 43.9. School breakfast provides a needed support to millions of struggling families, but with fewer than half of eligible children getting breakfast, too many children are missing out. A school may not offer breakfast or may make participation difficult or uncomfortable for children (e.g school buses arriving too late). Parents may be unaware of the breakfast program, or have trouble getting their children to school early enough due to work and commuting schedules. Many of the children who do not eat breakfast start the school day unable to concentrate and not ready to learn. From every perspective—nutrition, health, education, productivity, restoring economic growth—cities should be doing much more to get children to breakfast and breakfast to children, and pulling down federal dollars to do so. School breakfast improves children’s diets, increases school achievement and positive student behavior, reduces obesity, and builds lifelong healthy eating habits. A full review of the positive effects of school breakfast can be found in FRAC’s School Breakfast Outreach Center at www.frac.org. This report focuses on large urban districts* with many low-income students because of the great needs of their children and because of the cities’ unique position to benefit from economies of scale to increase breakfast participation. The concentration of poverty in many cities means that these districts have an especially important mission to ensure that children have access to adequate nutrition in order to learn, grow, and thrive. This report describes the gaps in many cities’ current efforts, and the strategies they can use to reach more children. *FRAC gathered information for this report through a survey sent to 36 large school districts representing a broad geographic distribution around the U.S. Twenty-nine districts completed the survey. More information about the survey and methodology can be found in the Appendix.
M
F-3
Food Research and Action Center School Breakfast in America’s Big Cities 5
Eligibility for Free and Reduced-Price Meals: How It Works Any public or private nonprofit school can participate in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs. School districts must apply to their administering state agency—usually the education agency—in order to institute a program, which is administered nationally through the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service. All students in participating schools may take part in the school meals programs. Household income generally determines whether students receive free meals, reduced-price meals, or "paid" meals. Children from families with incomes at or below 130 percent of the federal poverty line receive school meals for free. Children from families with incomes between 130 percent and 185 percent of the poverty line receive school meals at a reduced price. All other participating students, officially designated as receiving paid meals, pay most of the cost for their breakfast, often approximately $1.00. As discussed later, however, some schools offer meals—or at least breakfasts—free to all students. The federal government provides funds to a school (through the state) based on how many breakfasts and lunches it provides to students in each category. In the 2009-2010 school year, schools received $1.46 for each free breakfast, $1.16 for each reduced-price breakfast (families could be charged a maximum co-payment of 30 cents), and $0.26 for each paid breakfast served. Schools received an additional $0.28 for each free and reduced-price breakfast served if at least 40 percent of the lunches served during the second preceding school year were free or reduced-price. (These are called “severe need” schools.)
Survey Findings Enrollment and Student Eligibility Rates The 29 districts that participated in this study ranged in size from 26,000 students to more than 1 million students during the 2009–2010 school year. Table A in the Appendix lists the participating districts’ reported enrollment, from largest to smallest, along with the trend over the past year of increasing or decreasing enrollment. Enrollment trends within school districts can impact participation, but even districts with declining enrollment are achieving increases in breakfast participation. Also, due to the recession, most districts had increased numbers of students qualifying for free and reduced-price meals, even those with falling overall enrollment. The districts responding to this survey reported the percent of their student enrollment determined to be eligible for free and reduced-price meals through the National School Lunch Program. These eligibility figures provide a snapshot of the relative level of poverty and nutritional need. Table B in the Appendix shows the reported percentage of students determined to be eligible for free and reduced-price meals, as well as a total combined percentage of both free and reduced-price eligible students. The percentages varied from a low of 43.6 percent combined free and reduced-price eligible in Seattle, Washington to a high of 86.4 percent in Dallas, Texas. Breakfast Participation For this report, FRAC calculated the number of low-income students – i.e. those eligible for free or reduced-price school meals – eating breakfast each day (average daily participation, or ADP) in each city by dividing the number of breakfasts served over the course of the school year by the number of days on which breakfast was served, as reported in the survey by each district. Table C in the Appendix provides data for each district on the average daily number of low-income children participating in free or reduced-price breakfast and lunch in each district, for both the 2009-2010 school year and the 2008-2009 school year. Five districts -- Baltimore, Columbus, Denver Pittsburgh and Oakland -- had fewer daily low-income breakfast participants than in the previous year. All of these districts, with the exception of Columbus, served fewer low-income students despite increasing enrollment. Cities that were able to significantly increase daily low-income student breakfast participation included Chicago by 32,082 students (40 percent increase), San Diego by 9,660 students (33 percent increase), Boston by 3,129 students (16 percent increase), Houston by 9,078 students (16 percent increase), Philadelphia by 5,943 students (14 percent increase), and Milwaukee by 2,388 students (10 percent increase).
F-4
Food Research and Action Center School Breakfast in America’s Big Cities 6
Effectiveness in Reaching Low-Income Students with School Breakfast FRAC uses free and reduced-price participation in the school lunch program as a benchmark against which to measure low-income student participation in school breakfast. Because there is broad participation in the lunch program by low-income students in districts around the country, it is a fair measurement of how many students could and should be benefiting from school breakfast each day. Nationally, for every 100 low-income children who ate free or reduced-price lunch, 47.2 low-income children ate free or reduced-price breakfast in school year 2009–2010. In many of the best performing states, the ratio is about 60:100 — in a few cases well above that level. A challenging, yet achievable, goal for large urban districts would be to serve breakfast to at least 70 out of 100 low-income students who eat school lunch. Their large student populations allow them to benefit from economies of scale, and the concentration of free and reduced-price eligible students translates into larger federal reimbursements for the meals served. Most importantly, the concentrations of poor children in these urban areas present districts with the imperative to ensure that children have access to adequate nutrition in order to learn, grow, and thrive. Only two districts—Detroit, MI and Newark, NJ—met or exceeded the FRAC goal of 70 percent low-income student breakfast participation. Boston came close, and an additional ten of the 29 urban districts in this study served breakfast to more than half of their low-income students that received lunch each day. Twelve districts were below the national average (47.2:100). Eleven were below even their state average for low-income student participation.
Effectiveness in Reaching Low‐Income Students with School Breakfast in School Year 2009‐2010
94.0
84.6
68.7
61.0 60.8 60.0
57.3 56.9 56.2 56.1 55.7 55.6 55.3
48.4 48.2 47.4 46.845.6 44.7 44.4
43.1 43.0
39.638.6
37.435.1
34.132.0
29.4
Newark, NJ
Detroit, MI
Boston, MA
Colum
bus, OH
Pittsburgh, PA
San D
iego, CA
Minneapolis, MN
Milwaukee, WI
Houston, TX
Los Angeles, CA
Atlanta, GA
Philadelphia, PA
Cleveland, OH
Washington, DC
Memphis, TN
Omaha, NE
Seattle, WA
Charlotte, NC
Baltimore, MD
Little Rock, AR
Prince George's Co, MD
Chicago, IL
Dallas, TX
Denver, CO
Miam
i, FL
Orlando, FL
New York, NY
Oakland, CA
Las Vegas, NV
Ratio of
Breakfasts to Lunches
F-5
Food Research and Action Center School Breakfast in America’s Big Cities 7
Table 1 ranks the districts in the report based on their ratio of low-income students eating school breakfast compared to lunch, and compares the 2009-2010 school year with the previous school year. Table 1: City Effectiveness in Reaching Low-Income Students with School Breakfast, and
Comparison of School Years 2009–2010 and 2008–2009
School District
Free & Reduced-Price
Students in SBP per 100 in NSLP SY 2009–2010
Rank
Free & Reduced-Price
Students in SBP per 100 in NSLP SY 2008–2009
Rank
Newark Public Schools (NJ) 94.0 1 95.7 1 Detroit Public Schools 84.6 2 * ^ Boston Public Schools 68.7 3 62.6 3 Columbus City Schools (OH) 61.0 4 65.3 2 Pittsburgh Public Schools 60.8 5 59.2 5 San Diego Unified School District 60.0 6 51.2 11 Minneapolis Public Schools 57.2 7 56.1 6 Milwaukee Public Schools 56.9 8 53.6 9 Houston Independent School District 56.2 9 49.7 12 Los Angeles Unified School District 56.1 10 55.1 7 Atlanta Public Schools 55.7 11 52.0 10 Philadelphia School District 55.6 12 48.3 15 Cleveland Metropolitan School District 55.3 13 54.0 8 District of Columbia Public Schools 48.4 14 48.4 14 Memphis City Schools 48.2 15 * ^ Omaha Public Schools 47.4 16 48.8 13 Seattle Public Schools 46.8 17 47.4 17 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 45.6 18 46.7 18 Baltimore City Public Schools 44.7 19 47.8 16 Little Rock School District 44.4 20 44.9 19 Prince George’s Co. Public Schools (MD) 43.1 21 43.2 ^ Chicago Public Schools 43.0 22 30.9 25 Dallas Independent School District 39.6 23 39.8 20 Denver Public Schools 38.6 24 37.6 22 Miami-Dade County Public Schools 37.4 25 38.1 21 Orange County Public Schools (FL) 35.1 26 * ^ New York City Dept. of Education 34.1 27 32.5 24 Oakland Unified School District 32.0 28 35.1 23 Clark County School District (NV) 29.4 29 * ^
* Data not collected ^ Not ranked in the 2008–2009 Report
Shaded boxes = 13 districts that improved their ratio between SY 2008-09 and 2009-10
F-6
Food Research and Action Center School Breakfast in America’s Big Cities 8
Table 2 compares the districts’ performance in breakfast participation to the average for their state. Districts are listed in order of their rank for average daily participation of low-income children in breakfast for every 100 participating in free or reduced-price lunch.
Table 2: City and State Comparison of Effectiveness in Reaching Low-Income Students with School Breakfast in School Year 2009-2010
School District
City F & RP Students in SBP per 100 in NSLP
State Average F & RP
Students in SBP per 100 in NSLP
State* Rank
Newark Public Schools, NJ 94.0 37.6 46 Detroit Public Schools, MI 84.6 46.0 23 Boston Public Schools, MA 68.7 42.3 35 Columbus City Schools, OH 61.0 46.2 22 Pittsburgh Public Schools, PA 60.8 41.6 36 San Diego Unified School District, CA 60.0 43.3 28 Minneapolis Public Schools, MN 57.2 42.9 31 Milwaukee Public Schools, MN 56.9 40.3 40 Houston Independent School District, TX 56.2 56.1 7 Los Angeles Unified School District, CA 56.1 43.3 28 Atlanta Public Schools, GA 55.7 55.7 8 Philadelphia School District, PA 55.6 41.6 36 Cleveland Metropolitan School District, OH 55.3 46.2 22 District of Columbia Public Schools, DC 48.4 48.4 20 Memphis City Schools, TN 48.2 52.6 12 Omaha Public Schools, NE 47.4 37.1 47 Seattle Public Schools, WA 46.8 43.4 27 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, NC 45.6 48.5 19 Baltimore City Public Schools, MD 44.7 45.4 24 Little Rock School District, AR 44.4 53.9 10 Prince Georges Co Public Schools, MD 43.1 45.4 24 Chicago Public Schools, IL 43.0 38.0 45 Dallas Independent School District, TX 39.6 56.1 7 Denver Public Schools, CO 38.6 38.2 44 Miami-Dade County Public Schools, FL 37.4 44.6 25 Orange County Public Schools, FL 35.1 44.6 25 New York City Dept. of Education, NY 34.1 41.1 37 Oakland Unified School District, CA 32.0 43.3 28 Clark County School District, NV 29.4 34.9 50
* State rankings are from FRAC’s School Breakfast Scorecard 2010 (www.frac.org)
Shaded Boxes = 11 Districts with Ratios below Their State Average
F-7
Food Research and Action Center School Breakfast in America’s Big Cities 9
Reaching All Children Who Need School Breakfast: The Nutritional and Fiscal Benefits Uneaten meals represent substantial harm to children’s health and development. When children eat breakfast at school, it reduces hunger, tardiness and nurse visits, and improves nutrition and student achievement. Missed school breakfast meals also add up to tens of millions of dollars in federal child nutrition funding going unclaimed by districts every year. Each school day in 2009–2010, schools lost at least $1.46 in federal nutrition funding for every child who would have received a free breakfast and $1.16 for every child who would have received a reduced-price breakfast, but was not served. An additional $0.28 in federal funds per child per meal was forfeited if those low-income children attended a “severe need” school—one of the thousands of schools in which at least 40 percent of lunches served were free or reduced-price. If each district in this survey had provided at least 70 low-income children with breakfast (through the School Breakfast Program) for every 100 low-income children that received lunch (through the National School Lunch Program) in the 2009–2010 school year, an additional 595,649 students would have eaten a healthy school breakfast every day and the 29 districts would have received an additional $151 million in child nutrition funding. Table 3 provides these data for each district in the report, arranged from the highest to the lowest participation ratio. Most of the lost revenue and unserved low-income students are clustered in the largest districts, with nearly one third in New York City alone. The New York City Department of Education would have collected $48.5 million in additional federal funds, and served an additional 189,385 low-income students, if it met the 70:100 ratio. But 21 districts failed to collect at least $1 million. In every district, the unnecessary loss of federal breakfast dollars hurt children and schools.
F-8
Food Research and Action Center School Breakfast in America’s Big Cities 10
Table 3: School Districts’ Additional Funding and Participation if 70 Low-Income Students
Were Served School Breakfast (SBP) Per 100 Served School Lunch (NSLP)
* Already exceeds 70 free and reduced-price school breakfasts per 100 free and reduced-price school lunches
School District
Ratio of Low-Income SBP
Students to 100 Low-Income
NSLP Students
Additional Low-Income
Students Served if 70 SBP per 100
NSLP
Additional Annual Funding if 70 Low-Income
Students Served SBP per 100 NSLP
Newark Public Schools (NJ) 94.0 * *Detroit Public Schools 84.6 * *Boston Public Schools 68.7 430 $112,856Columbus City Schools (OH) 61.0 2,887 $710,323Pittsburgh Public Schools 60.8 1,397 $358,014San Diego Unified School District 60.0 6,411 $1,662,998Minneapolis Public Schools 57.2 2,129 $523,604Milwaukee Public Schools 56.9 6,300 $1,592,876Houston Independent School District 56.2 16,230 $4,070,267Los Angeles Unified School District 56.1 48,647 $12,225,702Atlanta Public Schools 55.7 4,040 $1,055,785Philadelphia School District 55.6 12,641 $3,219,780Cleveland Metropolitan School District 55.3 4,072 $1,034,927District of Columbia Public Schools 48.4 4,600 $1,202,844Memphis City Schools 48.2 14,841 $3,863,222Omaha Public Schools 47.4 6,111 $1,433,014Seattle Public Schools 46.8 3,067 $779,051Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 45.6 13,907 $3,590,607Baltimore City Public Schools 44.7 11,139 $2,783,088Little Rock School District 44.4 3,239 $829,798Prince George’s Co. Public Schools (MD) 43.1 14,061 $3,523,022Chicago Public Schools 43.0 70,762 $17,173,116Dallas Independent School District 39.6 33,989 $8,598,591Denver Public Schools 38.6 9,263 $2,304,885Miami-Dade County Public Schools 37.4 54,841 $14,087,806Orange County Public Schools 35.1 26,736 $6,896,951New York City Dept. of Education 34.1 189,385 $48,469,116Oakland Unified School District 32.0 6,959 $1,817,867Clark County School District (NV) 29.4 27,565 $7,117,906TOTAL 595,649 $151,038,015
F-9
Food Research and Action Center School Breakfast in America’s Big Cities 11
Providing Universal Breakfast and Breakfast in the Classroom Universal breakfast (providing breakfast at no charge to all students) has proven to be an effective strategy for increasing student participation, in part because it reduces stigma that can be a barrier to low-income student participation, and also because it makes it easier to implement service models that expand participation. Schools with a high percentage of low-income students find that they can afford to offer universal breakfast most effectively and easily when they increase participation through breakfast in the classroom. The increased participation and resulting federal reimbursements, coupled with the reduced administrative efforts spent on recovering unpaid fees, help districts break even. All of the districts in this report have schools with high concentrations of poverty where they can offer universal breakfast and breakfast in the classroom to reach many more children. The pace at which districts are able to implement these programs depends on a range of factors: administrative support, financial resources for start-up expenses, and buy-in from the school community (parents, principals, teachers, janitors, and other school support personnel). This section provides information about and examines the effectiveness of urban school districts’ efforts to increase breakfast participation through the implementation of programs where breakfast is consumed in the classroom at the beginning of the school day. Universal Breakfast Programs that offer meals at no charge to all students, regardless of income, often are called universal. The traditional means-tested school breakfast served in the cafeteria before school (in which the higher income children pay) creates a sense among the children that the program is just “for poor kids.” (This is less true for lunch, at least through middle school, because typically all children go into the cafeteria for lunch.) Universal breakfast reduces the stigma, making school breakfast more attractive to all children, including particularly low-income children who need it, and providing all children the opportunity to start the school day ready to learn. Serving breakfast free to everyone can be done in the cafeteria, but adopting universal breakfast also helps schools implement programs such as breakfast in the classroom or offering breakfast from “grab and go” carts in the hallways at the start of the school day. Of the 29 large urban school districts surveyed in this report, only four—Charlotte, Dallas, Little Rock, and Seattle —do not provide free breakfast to all students, regardless of income, at many or all of their schools. Notably, three out of four of these districts failed even to match the participation rate for low-income student breakfast in their states.
Alternative Service Methods
Breakfast in the Classroom: Students eat breakfast in their classroom, either at the beginning of the school day or early during the day. Often breakfast is brought to classrooms from the cafeteria in containers or served from carts in the hallways by food service staff. “Grab and Go”: All the components of school breakfast are conveniently packaged so students can easily grab a reimbursable meal quickly from the cafeteria line or from carts elsewhere on school grounds. Depending on the school’s rules, students can eat in the cafeteria, the classroom, or somewhere else on campus. Breakfast after First Period or “Second Chance Breakfast”: Usually implemented in middle and high schools, this method allows students time after their first period to obtain breakfast from the cafeteria or carts in the hallway, or to eat in the classroom or cafeteria. Computerized systems ensure that children receive only one breakfast each day.
F-10
Food Research and Action Center School Breakfast in America’s Big Cities 12
Provision 2 Of the 25 districts in this study that offer free breakfast to all or many of their students, fourteen use “Provision 2” of the National School Lunch Act as a funding structure. Provision 2 enables schools to provide meals (breakfast and/or lunch) at no charge to all of their students, while reducing paperwork and administrative costs. Under Provision 2, all students, regardless of income, are offered free meals. Schools collect applications for free and reduced-price meals only once every four years. The reimbursement rate for meals for all four years is based on the percentage of meals in the school that are served in each category (free, reduced-price, and paid) during the “base year.” Provision 2 schools are responsible for the difference between the cost of serving meals at no charge to all students and the federal reimbursement for the meals. The increased participation, resulting in increased federal reimbursement, and the significant administrative savings (e.g., fewer applications to process) associated with Provision 2 help offset all or much of the cost differential. Breakfast in the Classroom Twenty-three of the 29 districts in this study had some type of classroom breakfast program—where breakfast is served after the school day begins—in at least some of their schools during the 2009–2010 school year. Districts used a variety of methods, including “grab and go”, and breakfast after first period for middle and high school students. Allowing students to eat in the classroom dramatically increases participation by making it convenient and accessible to all. It helps families whose early morning schedules make it difficult to fit in breakfast—either at home or in the cafeteria before school starts—due to long commutes and nontraditional work hours. Also, it eliminates the problem caused by tight school bus schedules or school security lines when students do not always arrive at school in time for breakfast before the first bell rings.
Partners for Breakfast in the Classroom The Walmart Foundation is funding an exciting new initiative—Breakfast in the Classroom—to reduce childhood hunger by increasing participation in the School Breakfast Program. Through Foundation support and a partnership with the Food Research and Action Center, National Education Association Health Information Network, National Association of Elementary School Principals Foundation, and School Nutrition Foundation, five large school districts will move breakfast from the cafeteria to the classroom, thereby providing thousands of additional students with the nutrition they need each day to succeed in school.
The four national organizations involved with the project, collectively known as Partners for Breakfast in the Classroom, equip school districts with the tools needed to ensure a successful program. Funding is provided for startup and equipment costs. The nation’s top school food service experts work with each district to design a breakfast in the classroom service model tailored to its specific needs. Through a comprehensive training, outreach, and promotional campaign, Partners for Breakfast in the Classroom builds support for the program among teachers, principals, and other important stakeholders within the school community.
The five districts taking part in the initiative are: Dallas Independent School District (TX), Little Rock School District (AR), Memphis City Schools (TN), Orange County Public Schools (Orlando, FL), and Prince George’s County Public Schools (MD). For more information see www.breakfastintheclassroom.org
F-11
Food Research and Action Center School Breakfast in America’s Big Cities 13
Table 4 summarizes results from the cities FRAC surveyed on universal (free for all) and in-classroom breakfast programs (including all the alternative service methods described above). Twenty-three of the 29 school districts have at least some schools that are offering breakfast after the school day begins, usually providing it during the first ten minutes of class time. Newark Public Schools and Detroit Public Schools reach the largest percentage of low-income students by requiring classroom breakfast in all K–8 schools. Houston was in the process of implementing classroom breakfast in all K–8 schools during the 2009–2010 school year, and completed district-wide implementation in fall 2010.
Table 4: Universal Breakfast and Breakfast in the Classroom*
School Districts Universal Breakfast
Provision 2
Breakfast In the
Classroom*
Ratio of low-
income students
eating breakfast compared to lunch
Newark Public Schools All No Most 94.0
Detroit Public Schools All No Most 84.6
Boston Public Schools Partial Yes Some 68.7
Columbus City Schools All No Some 61.0
Pittsburgh Public Schools All Yes None 60.8
San Diego Unified School District Partial Yes Some 60.0
Minneapolis Public Schools All No Some 57.2
Milwaukee Public Schools Partial No Most 56.9
Houston Independent School District All No Most 56.2
Los Angeles Unified School District Partial Yes Some 56.1
Atlanta Public Schools Partial No Some 55.7
Philadelphia School District All No Some 55.6
Cleveland Metropolitan School District All Yes None 55.3
District of Columbia Public Schools All Yes Some 48.4
Memphis City Schools All No Some 48.2
Omaha Public Schools All Yes Some 47.4
Seattle Public Schools None No None 46.8
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools None No Some 45.6
Baltimore City Public Schools All Yes Some 44.7
Little Rock School District None No None 44.4
Prince George’s Co. Public Schools (MD) Partial No Some 43.1
Chicago Public Schools All No Some 43.0
Dallas Independent School District None No Some 39.6
Denver Public Schools All Yes Some 38.6
Miami-Dade County Public Schools All No None 37.4
Orange County Public Schools Partial Yes Some 35.1
New York City Dept. of Education All Yes Some 34.1
Oakland Unified School District Partial Yes Some 32.0
Clark County School District (NV) Partial Yes None 29.4
* In this chart “breakfast in the classroom” also includes “grab and go” and breakfast after first period
F-12
Food Research and Action Center School Breakfast in America’s Big Cities 14
Healthy Eating and Wellness Efforts The School Breakfast Program is important to low-income children’s well-being and provides well-documented nutritional and health benefits—but the program can be even stronger. Efforts to expand access to school breakfast should go hand-in-hand with efforts to improve the quality of menu items. Children are attracted to school breakfast when given food choices that are attractive (i.e., eye-appealing and tasty), fresh, convenient (e.g., no lines), kid-friendly, culturally appropriate, and served at the proper temperature. USDA will propose early in 2011 updated standards for breakfast menus to reflect the latest scientific evidence. Most of the districts that participated in this study are already moving forward in improving their breakfast offerings. Twenty-eight of the 29 districts in this study reported recently taking one or more of the following actions to improve the quality of their breakfasts:
1. Reduced sugar content of offerings (92.9%) 2. Increased percentage of whole grains (82.1%) 3. Removed trans fat from offerings (71.4%) 4. Offered only 1% and non-fat milk (67.9%) 5. Added a serving of fruit (50.0%) 6. Switched from juice to whole fruit (42.9%)
When low-income children have greater access to the nutrient-rich foods provided through the School Breakfast Program, evidence suggests that their risk of obesity is lowered, which is why most healthy eating and physical activity initiatives in schools include the promotion of school breakfast. Twenty-seven of the 29 districts are involved in one or more of these healthy eating/wellness initiatives:
1. Fuel Up to Play 60 (63.0%) 2. Alliance for a Healthier Generation (55.6%) 3. Healthier US Schools Challenge (51.9%) 4. Action for Healthy Kids (29.6%) 5. Other – e.g. “Healthy Trays”; partnership with NBA to promote breakfast; farm to school (25.9%)
For more information on the connection between improvements in the school meal programs and the fight against child obesity and hunger, see FRAC’s Issue Brief How Improving Federal Nutrition Program Access and Quality Work Together to Reduce Hunger and Promote Healthy Eating at http://frac.org/initiatives/hunger-and-obesity/.
Fuel Up to Play 60 Supports School Breakfast
Seventeen of the 29 districts in this study participate in Fuel Up to Play 60, which is a partnership between the National Dairy Council and the National Football League (NFL), in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), to empower youth to take action to improve nutrition and physical activity at their school and for their own health. Several districts, including Atlanta, Boston, Pittsburgh, and San Diego, received grants from the project to support their school breakfast programs. In Boston, 25 schools received $1,000 breakfast promotion grants. In San Diego, funds from the initiative supply colorful, educational placemats to all schools implementing in-classroom breakfast. In Pittsburgh, Banksville Elementary School won the Fuel Up to Play 60 "My Breakfast Promise" contest and a visit from local NFL star Hines Ward. More than 200 students at the school made a promise to eat breakfast and participate in a minimum of 60 minutes of physical activity every day. The event included exercises and question and answer sessions with Hines Ward and a registered dietician stressing the importance of breakfast and the rationale for offering universal breakfast to all students every day. In the 2010–2011 school year, the program will distribute a total of $100,000 to school districts across the country to help schools build or expand their breakfast programs. For more information go to: www.fueluptoplay60.com
F-13
Food Research and Action Center School Breakfast in America’s Big Cities 15
Case Studies: Breakfast in the Classroom Successes Chicago Public Schools: Breakfast Max Chicago schools are seeing positive improvements in all facets of school life after expanding their breakfast in the classroom program in the 2009–2010 school year. By the end of the school year, 182 schools had adopted breakfast in the classroom, with additional schools expected to implement the program in the current school year. As a result, more than 32,000 additional low-income students ate breakfast each day in the 2009-2010 school year —a 40 percent increase over the previous year. At McAuliffe Elementary, food service staff assemble thermal bags of both hot and cold meals, which students retrieve and bring to their classrooms, where breakfast is served and eaten at the beginning of first period. In addition to improving the children’s nutrition, teachers report that it gives students a chance to take on more responsibility through the serving and clean-up processes. Since the program began at McAuliffe, students are more likely to arrive at school on time and less likely to have disciplinary problems. Teachers also noticed a significant increase in student alertness. The percentage of students meeting or exceeding state test standards increased by 9.2 percent after the school began serving breakfast in the classroom. Schools with large student populations, like Harold Washington Elementary, take a different approach and opt for the “grab and go” service model. Upon arrival in the morning, each student picks up a pre-packed meal from a strategic location (like the front hallway or stairwell) and brings it to his or her first class. Once in the classroom, students eat at their desks while the teacher takes attendance and makes morning announcements. No matter which model the schools use, there is no question about the success of breakfast in the classroom. “Breakfast has brought a sense of community and closeness to the classroom,” says Ms. Rubis, a 4th grade teacher at North River Elementary School, which saw a 40 percent drop in student misconduct after program implementation. D. C. Public Schools: Impact of the Healthy Schools Act The D.C. Healthy Schools Act has prompted some big changes in D.C. Public Schools, most notably in the breakfast program. All schools in D.C. now are required to offer free breakfast to all students, and schools with more than 40 percent of the students qualifying for free or reduced-price meals (most of the schools meet this criterion) are required to serve it in the classroom. D.C. is the first city to legislate breakfast in the classroom—and it is proving to be a success. As a result of moving breakfast into the classroom, participation has increased across the city, with many schools seeing double digit improvements. Participation increased by 29 percent after the first month of implementation. After a year of serving breakfast in the classroom as one of the city’s pilot programs, River Terrace Elementary School become the first D.C. school to win the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Gold Award for the Healthier US Challenge. Each morning breakfast is served by a student-led “breakfast team” – a group of older students who pick up the meals from the cafeteria and deliver them to the classrooms. When the students are finished eating, they clean up and the trash is picked up by the custodian. River Terrace has done more than change how breakfast is served; they have integrated nutrition into daily school life. Posters promoting breakfast are situated next to student math projects. The enthusiasm for the program can be seen throughout the school, from the administration, to the parents, to the food service staff. Principal Shannon Foster understands how indispensible the program is. “Health and wellness are connected to a child’s learning,” she says. “We cannot always know or control what is happening at home but we can control
F-14
Food Research and Action Center School Breakfast in America’s Big Cities 16
what goes on at school. We need our children to focus at school and we cannot be naïve and assume that kids are living in homes with stocked refrigerators.” Detroit Public Schools: Mandatory K- 8 Classroom Breakfast Detroit public schools serve an average of 36,713 breakfasts a day, or almost 85 percent of the low-income students that eat school lunch each day. This ranks them number two among the cities in this report. Betti Wiggins, nutrition program operations associate, reports that the key to their success is district-wide, K–8 implementation of breakfast in the classroom. This program was made possible through the leadership of the District’s Emergency Financial Manager, Robert Bobb, who mandated that all elementary and middle schools provide breakfast in the classroom in the 2009–2010 school year. There are three different breakfast service models used in the school district. Some schools have the food service staff deliver individually bagged meals to the classroom on rolling carts. Other schools use a “grab and go” model, having the students pick up their meals themselves at the start of each day. The most popular program uses teacher-selected student “breakfast captains” who pick up the meals from the cafeteria and bring them back to the class. It is up to the teachers to decide how to structure the morning meal. Some use the time to have an open dialogue about school or personal issues. Others see it as a chance to teach kids life skills, such as proper eating habits, manners, and responsibility. While some initially worried it would take away from instruction time, they now see it as a “teachable moment.” Most importantly, breakfast in the classroom gives all students the opportunity to start their day off right. Regardless of their situation at home, all students are able to get the nutrition they need. “Hunger prevents many students from achieving their best,” says Janet Tisdale, Interim Executive Director of Detroit Public School Office of Food Service. “Even if a family is going through economic hardship, their children can still receive up to three meals a day in school.” Jean Daniel Ostertag, a teacher at the Foreign Language Immersion School, calls it a “leveling tool”. “I don’t want to have to think that half of my classroom is not working at the proper level just because breakfast was missed this morning.” Dr. Carmen Wilson, principal of Osborn Upper School, values the effect breakfast in the classroom has on the rest of the school day. “We saw a tremendous increase in attendance, community, and academic performance,” she says. On average, 90 percent of Osborn’s student population eats breakfast at school each morning. Conclusion Large urban school districts need to do much more to reach children with school breakfast and reap the nutritional, health and educational benefits it brings. This report shows that school districts that offer breakfast in the classroom free to all students have the highest participation rates. The increased participation and resulting increased federal reimbursements, coupled with the economies of scale, and lower administrative costs, often help districts do this and break even or come out ahead financially. More districts and schools need to move to this model and experience its positive outcomes—higher attendance, lower absenteeism, reduced behavior problems, fewer visits to the school nurse, and higher student achievement.
F-15
Food Research and Action Center School Breakfast in America’s Big Cities 17
Appendices The Survey In the summer of 2010, FRAC sent a survey regarding school year 2009-2010 school breakfast participation and practices to 35 large urban school districts. FRAC selected the districts based on size and geographic representation, seeking to look at not just the nation’s largest districts but at the largest school districts in a substantial number of states. School food service staff in 28 districts responded between August and October 2010, and one district responded in December 2010, with data on the 2009–2010 school year, as well as answers to questions about current school breakfast practices. The major goals of the survey were: To determine the extent to which these districts reach low-income children with the School Breakfast Program
and assess trends; To consider the additional number of low-income students who would be served if the districts achieved
higher participation rates and determine the federal dollars lost to the districts as a result of not providing these meals;
To monitor progress and examine the effectiveness of school districts’ efforts to increase school breakfast participation through the provision of “universal” breakfast (breakfast offered at no charge to all students) and the implementation of programs where breakfast is eaten in the classroom at the beginning of the school day; and
To collect information on promising practices in the districts that might serve as national models for increasing school breakfast participation by low-income students.
Methodology
The data in this report were collected directly from the school districts’ food and nutrition department personnel through an email survey and follow-up phone interviews. Student Participation Student participation data are based on the total number of breakfasts and lunches served during the school year, with average daily participation determined by dividing the data by the number of serving days provided by each district. The Cost of Low Participation Rates The cost estimate is based on a calculation of the average daily number of children receiving free or reduced-price breakfasts for every 100 children receiving free or reduced-price lunches during the same school year. FRAC then calculated the number of additional children who would be reached if each district reached a ratio of 70 in breakfast to 100 in lunch. FRAC then multiplied this unserved population by the reimbursement rate for 169 school days of breakfast. (While some districts served breakfast for more or fewer days during the 2009–2010 school year, 169 was the national average.) FRAC assumed each district’s mix of free and reduced-price students would apply to any new participants, and conservatively assumed that no additional student’s meal would be reimbursed at the higher rate that “severe need” schools receive.
F-16
Food Research and Action Center School Breakfast in America’s Big Cities 18
Table A: Total Student Enrollment
School District Name SY 09–10 Total Enrollment
Change in Enrollment from
SY 08–09 to SY 09–10
New York City Department of Education, NY 1,093,000 increase Los Angeles Unified School District, CA 628,169 decrease Chicago Public Schools, IL 382,147 decrease Clark County Schools, NV 305,984 decrease Miami-Dade County Public Schools, FL 337,066 increase Houston Independent School District, TX 199,218 decrease Orange County Public Schools, FL 176,585 increase Philadelphia School District, PA 165,095 decrease Dallas Independent School District, TX 158,210 increase Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, NC 136,577 decrease San Diego Unified School District, CA 133,633 increase Prince George’s County Public Schools, MD 127,039 decrease Memphis City Schools, TN 110,233 decrease Detroit Public Schools, MI 87,685 decrease Milwaukee Public Schools, WI 82,972 decrease Baltimore City Schools, MD 83,676 increase Denver Public Schools, CO 78,500 increase Boston Public Schools, MA 56,594 increase Columbus Public Schools, OH 52,242 decrease Cleveland Metropolitan School District, OH 49,734 decrease Atlanta Public Schools, GA 48,909 decrease Omaha Public Schools, NE 47,386 decrease District of Columbia Public Schools, DC 44,269 decrease Seattle Public Schools, WA 44,521 decrease Newark Public Schools, NJ 39,316 decrease Oakland Unified School District, CA 38,163 increase Minneapolis School District, MN 34,454 increase Pittsburgh Public Schools, PA 27,599 increase Little Rock School District, AK 25,837 decrease
F-17
Food Research and Action Center School Breakfast in America’s Big Cities 19
Table B: Percent of Student Enrollment Determined to be Eligible for Free and Reduced-Price School Meals
School District
Percent of Students Eligible for Free
and Reduced-
Price Meals
2009-10
Percent of Students
Eligible for Free and Reduced-
Price Meals
2008-09
Percent of
Students Eligible for Free Meals
2009-10
Percent of
Students Eligible for Free Meals
2008-09
Percent of
Students Eligible
for Reduced-
Price Meals
2009-10
Percent of Students
Eligible for Reduced-
Price Meals
2008-09
Dallas Independent SD 86.4 85.9 80.4 78.5 6.0 7.4
Newark Public Schools 85.7 82.6 76.3 72.1 9.4 10.5
Chicago Public Schools 85.5 84.0 77.7 75.6 7.8 8.4
Seattle PS 43.6 41.8 35.3 32.9 8.3 8.9 Data are the percentage of a district’s student enrollment determined to be eligible for free and reduced-price meals through direct certification and paper applications. * Data not collected
F-18
Food Research and Action Center School Breakfast in America’s Big Cities 20
Table C: Average Daily Participation (ADP) for Low- Income Students in Lunch and Breakfast for SY 2009-10 and SY 2008-09
School District
Free and Reduced-Price Breakfast ADP in SY 09–10
Free and Reduced-Price Breakfast ADP in SY 08-09
Free and Reduced-Price Lunch ADP in SY 09–10
Free and Reduced-Price Lunch ADP in SY 08-09
Little Rock SD 5,607 5,266 12,637 11,733
Oakland Unified SD 5,850 5,991 18,298 17,079
Seattle PS 6,187 6,120 13,219 12,902
Pittsburgh PS 9,226 10,125 15,175 17,101
Minneapolis PS 9,567 9,130 16,734 16,271
District of Columbia PS 10,275 9,479 21,250 19,567
