The County of Santa Clara
California

Board Referral
100353
Approved as Amended
Feb 11, 2020 9:30 AM

Approve referral to administration to establish a pilot program to provide supplemental funding to school districts that participate in universal meal programs to reduce food insecurity among students. (Ellenberg/Simitian)

Information

Department:Supervisor Susan Ellenberg (Supervisorial District Four)Sponsors:
Category:Board Referral

Body

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

This referral requests that administration develop a pilot program that would allow for $2,000,000 per year in supplemental funding for schools that apply to participate in the pilot over a four-year period, for a total of $8,000,000. Additional resources may be identified by the Administration for program evaluation and implementation activities.

It is requested that funding be available to support participating schools for the start of the 2020-2021 school year.

Meal gap projections produced by Second Harvest of Silicon Valley estimate that approximately 12,000 students would be served over three million meals per year under this proposal at a County cost of about $0.60 per meal (1).

REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION

Second Harvest of Silicon Valley estimates that 1 in 3 children in Santa Clara County are food insecure and child hunger was identified as a top priority in the Comprehensive Child Health Assessment conducted by the County of Santa Clara in 2018 – 2019 (2).

The County of Santa Clara plays a crucial role in addressing child food security through the administration of CalFresh, the California program of the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) supplemental nutrition program. However, federal rule changes on who can access CalFresh and for how long, as well as the fear created by regulations such as Public Charge, mean that The County of Santa Clara finds it increasingly difficult to connect families to important food assistance programs. Additionally, with the high cost of living in Santa Clara County, many families struggling with food insecurity may fall above the threshold for food assistance programs and free and reduced price school meal programs which is set at 185% of the federal poverty level, or less than $50,000 annually for a family of four.

This environment requires additional collaboration and leveraging of resources between the County, School Districts and local partners like Second Harvest of Silicon Valley to ensure that federal and state resources are maximized in our community, that programs have a broad reach, and that vulnerable families are supported. 

Research shows that receiving free or reduced-price school lunches reduces food insecurity, obesity rates, and poor health outcomes for children (3, 4). Additionally, research has shown that kids who participate in school breakfast programs have higher standardized test scores, fewer behavioral problems and higher attendance (4, 5). In Santa Clara County, approximately 68% of eligible students participate in the school lunch program and only 35% participate in School Breakfast leaving nearly 30,000 eligible children unserved for lunch and over 55,000 unserved for breakfast (6). 

One approach to expanding access to healthy meals for children and reducing family food insecurity is the adoption of universal meal programs in high-needs schools. The Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) and Provision 2 (P2) are mechanisms in the federally funded National School Lunch Program that enable high-poverty schools to serve meals free-of-charge to all students (3). Adoption of CEP or P2 can benefit the entire school campus by increasing meal participation, eliminating stigma or fear of enrolling in school meal programs, eliminating parent debt for unpaid school meals, reducing administrative demands on schools and building a sense of community at school (3). The expansion of school meal participation can allow families to extend their financial resources further including County-administered CalFresh and WIC assistance.  

While nationally almost half of schools eligible for CEP have adopted the model only 15% in California have opted to utilize CEP, the third lowest state in the U.S. (7). In several states and in the District of Columbia this adoption has been supported by providing supplemental funding to participating schools for each meal above the federal reimbursement (8).

This referral directs Administration to establish a four-year pilot program to provide supplemental meal funding for high-needs schools in Santa Clara County that choose to participate in universal meal programs.  The pilot would be inclusive of all school campuses in Santa Clara County that meet eligibility for CEP or that have at least 70% of students eligible for free or reduced-price meals (FRPM). The proposed funding level of $2,000,000 per year assumes 50% of eligible campuses participate in the pilot. Based on 2019 student data there are 84 campuses across 17 school districts in Santa Clara County that would be eligible for this pilot program (9).

 

 

Eligible Districts

Eligible Campuses

2019 Enrollment at Eligible Campuses

Alum Rock Union Elementary

24

9112

Campbell Union

1

466

Eastside Union High

7

4146

Evergreen Elementary

2

910

Franklin-McKinley Elementary

13

5611

Gilroy Unified

4

1610

Luther Burbank

1

516

Milpitas Unified

2

585

Moreland

1

386

Morgan Hill Unified

4

1640

Mount Pleasant Elementary

3

1268

Mountain View – Los Altos Union

1

79

Mountain View Whisman

1

268

Oak Grove Elementary

3

1283

San Jose Unified

13

5882

Santa Clara Unified

3

506

Sunnyvale

1

475

17 Districts

84 Schools

34,743 Students

 

This proposed pilot program would run from the fall of 2020 through the spring of 2024 to cover four full academic years in alignment with meal program eligibility criteria which runs in four-year cycles. Funding disbursement and confirmation of ongoing school participation would be provided annually. The pilot program should include the following elements:

-         Program eligibility criteria to be inclusive of all school campuses in Santa Clara County that meet eligibility for CEP or that have at least 70% of students eligible for FRPM to participate in P2.

-         A standard per meal funding level across all pilot participants and projections of a maximum funding level for each eligible school based on student enrollment and projected meals served.

-         A participant application and review process that prioritizes 1) districts with higher percentages of low-income students 2) schools with larger student enrollment and 3) schools that will provide universal breakfast using “breakfast after the bell models” to align funding with best practices, and selection of at least one eligible applicant school in each supervisorial district to participate, if possible.

-         An evaluation of pilot program reach and impact leveraging existing school meals reporting mechanisms. Key elements should include changes in participation, meal program costs and reimbursement, and lessons learned from participating schools. An evaluation of the first three years of implementation and sustainability recommendations should be presented to the Board of Supervisors no later than December 2023.

The engagement of the Santa Clara County Office of Education and Second Harvest of Silicon Valley in developing pilot program criteria, review processes and outreach to eligible school districts is requested as part of this referral to assure alignment with existing data on meal program eligibility, school meal program operations, and mechanisms for school district communication. 

To allow for implementation by the start of the 2020-2021 school year this referral requests administration return to the Board on March 24, 2020 with an initial pilot program plan, timeline and authorization of program funding. Subsequent action may include finalizing an evaluation plan and agreements with participating schools for the pilot.

BACKGROUND

The National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program are child nutrition programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service to provide food in school or institutional settings. These programs are operated by public and private schools throughout the country. State agencies receive the federal funds to distribute to local school districts that serve the meals and may create additional standards for school nutrition programs in their jurisdictions. Since federal funding does not cover the full cost of meals offered by the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program, the remaining costs for meals is borne by children’s families or states or localities that choose to supplement federal funding with grants or additional per-meal reimbursement (8). 

Universal free meals through the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) and Provision 2 are mechanisms in the federally funded National School Lunch Program that enable high-poverty schools to serve free-of-charge to all students.

CEP is a tool that allows high-poverty districts or schools to offer both breakfast and lunch to all students at no charge. A district can utilize this option for any school that has an Identified Student Population (ISP) of 40% of enrollment or more. ISP students are children directly certified for free meals through data matching because their households receive CalFresh, CalWorks, or MediCal or children who are certified for free meals without an application because they are homeless, migrant, enrolled in Head Start, or in foster care. CEP is a relatively new option for schools and became available nationwide at the start of the 2014-2015 school year.

Provision 2 allows schools to offer breakfast, lunch or both at no charge to all students and is a financially viable reimbursement options for schools that have around 70% of students enrolled in free or reduced-price meals.

REFERENCES

(1)    Second Harvest Silicon Valley, CEP and Provision 2 Eligibility Projections, December 2019

(2)    County of Santa Clara Public Health Department, Santa Clara County Children’s Health Improvement Plan, September 2019.

(3)    Second Harvest Silicon Valley, Universal School Meals Fact Sheet, 2019.

(4)    “Benefits of School Lunch”, Food Resource and Action Center, accessed December 2019,  https://www.frac.org/programs/national-school-lunch-program/benefits-school-lunch.

(5)    “No Kid Hungry Starts with Breakfast”, Ending Childhood Hunger: A Social Impact Analysis, No Kid Hungry, accessed December 2019, http://bestpractices.nokidhungry.org/sites/default/files/download-resource/No%20Kid%20Hungry%20Starts%20with%20Breakfast.pdf

(6)    Santa Clara County Nutrition and Food Insecurity Profile, California Food Policy Advocates, accessed December 2019, https://cfpa.net/county-profiles/

(7)    Food Resource and Action Center, 2017. “Report: Community Eligibility Provision Continues to Grow in the 2016-2017 School Year”, Food Resource and Action Center, 2017.

(8)    “Summary of State Laws Addressing the School Breakfast Gap”. The Network for Public Health Law. May 2019.

(9)    Free and Reduced Price Meal Eligibility Data, California Department of Education, cde.ca.gov/ds/sh/cw.

 

 

Meeting History

Feb 11, 2020 9:30 AM Video Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting

Taken out of order after Item No. 16.

President Chavez returned to her seat at 2:40 p.m.

Two individuals addressed the Board.

At the request of Vice President Wasserman, the Board further directed Administration to report to the Board on date uncertain relating to research regarding possible sources for matching funds.

RESULT:APPROVED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER:Susan Ellenberg, Supervisor
SECONDER:S. Joseph Simitian, Supervisor
AYES:Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez, Dave Cortese, Susan Ellenberg, S. Joseph Simitian

Transcript

Feb 11, 2020 9:30 AMBoard of SupervisorsRegular Meeting

 

2:40 PMTalking about our society ingeneral.>> it's society, state, federal,etcetera. what's happening here is thecounty is doing what it can tomake things better. Those percentages of kids going without are atrocious.us being 46th or 47th inanything is not good.
Everybody has voted. to the staff who's working onthis body of work for thecounty, I will do this throughdr. smith, I think one of the other great opportunities for usis to learn more about the fuelfood systems in the schools. That's going to be helpful to us. What I like to recommend is wemake sure we have somebody fromwhatever department you think is most appropriate where you thinkwe might want to have a biggerdiscussion about the foodsystem. We'll show the -- that passesunanimously. We'll move to item 19. We have about another 10 items that we're going through. They are pretty meaty. For the most part, just giventhat we have folks waiting,ly keep going.
2:42 PMThe county now hasopportunity to undergo thenecessary studies that the county can effectively addressvarious community concerns. We support the countyinitiatives to conduct a study regarding the other municipalservices that stanford May notbe providing. We additionally stand in solidarity can scope andcomments that will come.
2:46 PMSanford has no right topermanent application if they're not in compliance withrequirements of the communityplan and county general plan. By not completing updated municipal services study. They are not upholding theirduty to provide all municipalservices to good faith effort. Student body refuses to stand byand watch as workers continue tosuffer. Fundamentally, stanford is feeling its own community andregion.
2:48 PMWelcome.>> it took closer to 20 years. now that application has beenwithdrawn, we don't know whenthe discussion will be reopened. The county does have the authority to undertakeamendments to the stanfordcommunity plan outside of theapplication.
2:52 PMEssentially getting more.which would indicate environmentam review for two at the sametime. in regard to the academic growthboundary submitted a letter,which is in the administrativerecords suggesting that the land be annexed to palo alto andtreated similar to open spacezoning where 90% of it would bededicated to parkland and 10% would have development right. Only the voters can remove itfrom parkland. Since that time, stanford might want to exchange suchdevelopment rights for anotherpart of its land that's in paloalto or annexed palo alto and developed density is for there.
Thank you.>> all votes have been cast.that passes unanimously. thank you to the speakers.item 20p this is the countyexecutive's report.
2:53 PMI'll save my comments until budget update.
2:54 PMJust I will give littleintroduction and turn it over togreg our county budget officer. this is our routine mid-yearreadjustment every year, we takea few basic actions. Number one, we readjustments to the current fiscal year budget.that is for this year, '19-'20.
2:55 PMLike general fund department,the largest cost growth is in employee compensation. The cost for other services andsupplies are growing sharply. Healthcare cost growth is a national challenge. Subject to great national debateand public hospital systems arenot immune to these challenges. And to make adjustments toreserve to balance the budget. The most significant adjustmentsare need to reconcile the annual ending fund balances from lastfiscal year. When the budget for this fiscalyear was adopted last june, it was based on estimated availablebalances remaining from lastfiscal year for this fiscalyear. After publication of thefinancial statements indecember 2019, we find that56 million additional fund balance is available in thegeneral fund. That the hospital funds areshort by $40 million. New child care reserve isexplored by the board and countydepartments. Previously mentioned, cost to maintain services are growingmuch faster than revenue. The deficit between costs andrecurring revenue will be approximately $180 million inthe fiscal year 2021 that beginson July 1, 2020. County departments will be recommending and implementingmany strategies to adjust thisdeficit. Including redirecting resources, recommendations for suspensionor defunding a programs andprojects, I should say, reducingthe use of overtime and extra help. Redeploying staff and limitingthe reappropriations for fromuntil year to next fiscal year. For example, we are analyzingthe relationship between risingcost in overtime and extra help. The cost to provide services continue to grow sharply. This is a structural budgetdeficit where that necessitatessolutions. Unlike the federal government,the county has no choice but tobalance the budget before newfiscal year begins on June 1, 2020. Any adjustments to it to arriveat board adoptive budge will bebalance adjusted. Budget workshops have have beenscheduled for mid-may an hearinghas been set for the week ofjune 15-19.