1. Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017
May 10-12, 2017
The Community Eligibility Program and the New Administration: What Could Change?
Julia Martin & Kelly Christiansen

2. Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
Agenda
CEP in a Nutshell
Potential Changes in the New Administration
Potential Changes in the New Congress
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

3. Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
CEP in a Nutshell
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

4. Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
CEP in a Nutshell
CEP allows local educational agencies (LEAs) and individual schools to bypass household applications for free and reduced-price meals and offer free meals to all students.
Meal costs are federally reimbursed based on percentage of “identified students”
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

5. Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
Who Can Participate?
LEAs or schools that:
Have an “identified student percentage” (ISP) of at least 40% as of April 1 the prior year
May be determined by group of schools to maximize ISP
Agree to serve free breakfast AND lunch to all students
Have a record of administering the programs in accordance with regulations
An LEA may participate in the CEP for all schools OR only for some schools
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

6. Who are “Identified Students?”
Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
Who are “Identified Students?”
Students “certified for free meals through means other than individual household applications” as of April 1 (or other date with permission from FNS)
Certified based on “direct certification” data from their or their families’ participation in:
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR)
Head Start/Even Start
Programs for homeless (on local liaison’s list), runaway, and migrant youth
Non-applicants approved by local officials and identified through means other than an application
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

7. Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
Calculating ISP
(total # of identified students)
ISP =
(number of enrolled students*)
*“Enrolled students” = all students who are enrolled in and attending schools participating in CEP, and who have access to at least one meal service daily (breakfast or lunch)
Must be at least 40% to participate in CEP
May not round up: guidance says “a percentage of 39.98% does NOT meet the threshold”
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

8. Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
Reimbursement
Schools/LEAs receive reimbursement at federal free rate based on “claiming percentage”
Remaining meals (equaling up to 100%) reimbursed at “federal paid reimbursement rates”
Under regular school meal program, there are 3 rates: free, reduced-price, and paid
All vary depending on school poverty, location, and meal (breakfast vs. lunch vs. snacks) and are adjusted from year to year
Under CEP, there are 2 rates: free and paid
CEP participating LEAs/schools must use non-federal funds for all meal costs in excess of federal reimbursement
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

9. What is the “Claiming Percentage?”
Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
What is the “Claiming Percentage?”
“Claiming Percentage” represents amount a school/LEA is reimbursed for CEP meals
Round to one decimal place using standard rounding
May not exceed 100%
ISP x (multiplier) = total % of meals reimbursed at federal free meal reimbursement rate, a.k.a. “claiming percentage”
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

10. How Long is the Claiming Percentage Valid?
Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
How Long is the Claiming Percentage Valid?
Percentages established in the first year may be used for up to four years
But schools “encouraged” to update numbers annually
During the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th years, the LEA/school may choose the higher of:
Identified student percentage from the immediately preceding school year; or
The year prior to the first year of CEP (the original ISP)
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

11. What is the “Claiming Percentage Multiplier?”
Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
What is the “Claiming Percentage Multiplier?”
ISP x (multiplier) = total % of meals reimbursed at federal free meal reimbursement rate, a.k.a. “claiming percentage”
Currently set at 1.6 through school year
USDA FNS may change the multiplier Must be between 1.3 and 1.6 according to HHFKA
If multiplier is changed, schools can keep multiplier for 4-year cycle, then change calculation at beginning of new cycle
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

12. Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
CEP Timeline
April 1: LEA conducts data “matches” or collects other eligibility data
April 15: States provide eligibility information to LEAs who can participate LEA-wide
April 15: LEAs provide school-level eligibility information to State
May 1: State posts list of eligible (and near- eligible) schools and LEAs on website. Provides link to USDA
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

13. Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
CEP Timeline, cont.
June 30:* LEAs notify State of intent to participate in CEP (or withdraw). LEAs must submit identified student and enrollment data to confirm eligibility *Note: this deadline has been extended as late as August 31st in recent years
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

14. Impact on Data Collection
Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
Impact on Data Collection
ED: The “CEP percentage of identified students and direct certification data combined with household applications in non-CEP schools are all considered NSLP data under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act”
However, an LEA “may use another poverty data source” for a school as long as that source is permitted under ESEA.
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

15. ESEA: Other Data Sources
Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
ESEA: Other Data Sources
ESEA Sec. 1113(a)(5) (as amended by ESSA):
Census data
Free or reduced-price lunch data
TANF
Medicaid eligibility
Composite of above
Must use the same measure for:
Identifying eligible areas
Ranking areas
Determining allocations
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

16. Impact on Data Collection
Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
Impact on Data Collection
Once an LEA/school adopts CEP, “free and reduced-price” lunch data no longer available
LEA may conduct its own survey to collect the equivalent of NSLP data, however:
Discouraged -- one of the key purposes of CEP is to reduce administrative burden
May not indicate that survey is required by ED or USDA
May not use school meal program funds to conduct survey
Can use Title I unless data already used by another State program/law
Must allocate costs for survey/processing appropriately among programs that use data
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

17. Within-State Allocations
Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
Within-State Allocations
CEP data may be used in finalizing within-State allocations if:
ED’s list does not match State’s (due to, e.g., boundary changes, charter schools, new schools, etc.)
State must derive estimate of census poverty – can use CEP data if State normally uses census poverty data
State combines allocation for small LEAs
May use direct certification data only, OR direct certification x 1.6 multiplier
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

18. Within-District Allocations
Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
Within-District Allocations
For districts with both CEP and non-CEP schools, can use CEP data for within-district allocations under ESEA Sec (a)(5)
Use data from the prior year (so will be applicable in second-year or later CEP schools)
Latest allocation guidance published as part of new general ESSA fiscal guidance in November 2015
Says earlier guidance on use of CEP data still applicable
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

19. CEP Data and Rank and Serve
Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
When an LEA has both CEP and non-CEP schools, must use a “common poverty metric” to rank schools and allocate funds
Common poverty metric must also then be used to determine compliance with Title I comparability
ED suggests three methods of identifying a “common poverty metric”
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

20. CEP Data and Rank and Serve
Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
CEP Data and Rank and Serve
Suggested metric 1: multiply number of directly certified students in a school by 1.6 multiplier, then divide by the enrollment of school (provides approximation of free and reduced-price meal numbers)(faux FRL)
Suggested metric 2: rank all schools (CEP and non-CEP) based solely on percentage of students directly certified through SNAP (or other direct measure available annually for both CEP and non-CEP schools)(direct cert only)
Suggested metric 3: apply 1.6 multiplier to number of students in CEP and non-CEP schools who are directly certified (similar to metric 2, but yields a higher poverty percentage, meaning more schools may be Title I eligible)(faux CEP)
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

21. CEP Data and Rank and Serve
Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
CEP Data and Rank and Serve
If an LEA is implementing CEP, or if all schools are using CEP, an LEA may use number of directly certified students only
If application of the 1.6 multiplier results in more than one school at 100% poverty, LEA may take into consideration the direct certification percentage at each school for purposes of funding
Does not need to allocate same amount
If an LEA groups CEP schools for purposes of eligibility/reimbursement, they do not need to be grouped for purposes of ranking
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

22. CEP Data and Rank and Serve
Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
ESSA gives districts more flexibility on rank and serve
MAY include in rank-and-serve priority ranking high schools with 50% poverty or more (other schools at 75%)
Also more flexibility on schoolwide – State may waive 40% poverty threshold
Reminder: CEP groups do NOT have to be grouped for purposes of ranking
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

23. CEP and Title I Reporting
Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
CEP and Title I Reporting
LEAs and SEAs must disaggregate data based on subgroup of economically disadvantaged students for both reporting and accountability
Does not change under ESSA
Maintain State ability to set “n-size”
ED (March 2015): “For most LEAs, [school lunch] data, including CEP data, may be the best source to identify individual economically disadvantaged students”
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

24. CEP and Title I Reporting
Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
CEP and Title I Reporting
SEA can choose how to identify economically disadvantaged subgroup for purposes of Title I reporting/accountability for CEP schools:
Use survey data; or
Base reporting and accountability on all students
In this case, “economically disadvantaged” subgroup is same as “all students” subgroup
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

25. CEP and Teacher Qualifications
Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
CEP and Teacher Qualifications
SEA must report on qualifications of teachers in schools in top and bottom quartiles
ESSA eliminates HQT requirements, but not reporting
ED (2015): To identify quartile for a CEP school, an LEA may use either:
Direct certification data x 1.6 multiplier, or
Direct certification data only
In this case, must use counts from all schools regardless of whether they participate in CEP
Does not have to be the same method the LEAs use to allocate funds
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

26. Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
Private Schools
Private schools are eligible to participate in CEP if they otherwise meet the eligibility requirements
But LEAs may need to find new data for determining need for equitable services, other items
LEA must identify method it will use to determine number of private school children from low-income families who reside in participating school attendance areas
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

27. CEP and Equitable Services
Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
CEP and Equitable Services
Methods include:
Using the same poverty measure used by LEA to count public school students (*ED says this is preferred method*)
Using comparable poverty data from survey of private school families as representative sample
Using comparable poverty data from another source
Applying low-income percentage of each participating attendance area to the number of students (“proportionality”)
Using another measure of low income correlated with that used in public schools
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

28. Potential Changes in the New Administration
Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
Potential Changes in the New Administration
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

29. Potential Changes to CEP Multiplier
Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
Potential Changes to CEP Multiplier
USDA has the ability to set CEP multiplier anywhere between 1.3 and 1.6
Obama administration said repeatedly it would keep it at 1.6
Decision traditionally made every summer
E.g. in 2016, was published July 29th for school year
Final CEP regulations published in July 2016 attempt to set 1.6 as default multiplier in final regulation
But may still be modified by administration
Must be published every year
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

30. Impact of Potential Multiplier Change
Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
Impact of Potential Multiplier Change
Impact on Timing
Would come after most schools/LEAs have committed to CEP participation for the year
Statutory deadline is June 30th
Has been extended to August 31st in recent years
LEAs/schools can end participation any time
But this could be disruptive for families
Schools/LEAs can keep claiming percentage for 4- year cycle, so would impact only those starting a new cycle
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

31. Impact of Potential Multiplier Change
Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
Impact of Potential Multiplier Change
Impact on Reimbursement
ISP x (multiplier) = total % of meals reimbursed at federal free meal reimbursement rate, a.k.a. “claiming percentage”
Changing multiplier from 1.6 to 1.3 would significantly impact reimbursement
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

32. Impact of Potential Multiplier Change
Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
Impact of Potential Multiplier Change
John B. Sample Elementary School enrolls 500 students and has an ISP of 50%. It receives a reimbursement rate of $3.07 per “free” meal and $0.29 per “paid” meal.
Under the current rule, its claiming percentage is 80% (50 x 1.6).
Assuming each student eats lunch every day, Sample’s lunch reimbursement will be $1,257 per day.
((500 x 0.80) x $3.07) + ((500 x 0.20) x $0.29) = $1,257
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

33. Impact of Potential Multiplier Change
Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
Impact of Potential Multiplier Change
If USDA changes the multiplier to 1.3, Sample’s claiming percentage will become 65% (50 x 1.3).
Assuming each student eats lunch every day, Sample’s lunch reimbursement will be $1, per day.
((500 x 0.65) x $3.07) + ((500 x 0.35) x $0.29) = $1,193.50
That’s a difference of $63.50 per lunch service, or $11,430 in a 180- day school year.
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

34. Impact of Potential Multiplier Change
Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
Impact of Potential Multiplier Change
Impact on Reimbursement
Under current (1.6) multiplier, school/LEA must have ISP of 62.5% or higher in order to receive full reimbursement at federal “free” rate.
Under a multiplier of 1.3, school/LEA would need an ISP of 76.9% or higher in order to receive full reimbursement at federal “free” rate.
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

35. Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
Impact on ESEA
CEP numbers can be used for many purposes including within-State allocations, identifying economically disadvantaged subgroup for reporting
Likely won’t be affected since most calculations made using numbers of “identified” or directly certified students
But rank and serve could be impacted
Can compare CEP and non-CEP schools using direct cert data only, direct cert with multiplier, or direct cert with multiplier compared with FRL data
Biggest impact will be on LEAs that use the third option
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

36. Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
Impact on ESEA
Using 1.6 multiplier
School Name
Direct cert %
Direct cert only ranking
Direct cert plus multiplier
Multiplier ranking
FRL poverty level
FRL plus multiplier ranking
Ash
30% 4
48%
38% 5
Beech
65% 2
100% 1
76%
Chestnut
47% 3
75.2%
n/a (CEP)
Dogwood
85%
Elder
25%
40%
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

37. Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
Impact on ESEA
Using 1.3 multiplier
School Name
Direct cert %
Direct cert only ranking
Direct cert plus multiplier
Multiplier ranking
FRL poverty level
FRL plus multiplier ranking
Ash
30% 4
39%
38% 5
Beech
65% 2
84.5%
76%
Chestnut
47% 3
61.1%
n/a (CEP)
Dogwood
85% 1
100%
Elder
25%
32.5%
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

38. Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
Impact on ESEA
Teacher Qualifications
SEA and LEA must report on qualifications of teachers in schools in top and bottom quartiles
ED (2015 CEP guidance): To identify quartile for a CEP school, an LEA may use either:
Direct certification data x 1.6 multiplier in CEP schools, or
Direct certification data only (across all schools)
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

39. Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
Impact on ESEA
Using 1.6 multiplier
School Name
Direct cert %
Direct cert only quartile
Direct cert plus multiplier
Multiplier quartile
FRL poverty level
FRL plus multiplier quartile
Azalea
30% 2
48%
38%
Begonia
65% 3
100% 4
76%
Carnation
47%
75.2%
n/a (CEP)
Dahlia
85%
Edelweiss
25% 1
40%
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

40. Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
Impact on ESEA
Using 1.3 multiplier
School Name
Direct cert %
Direct cert only quartile
Direct cert plus multiplier
Multiplier quartile
FRL poverty level
FRL plus multiplier quartile
Azalea
30% 2
39%
38%
Begonia
65% 3
84.5% 4
76%
Carnation
47%
61.1%
n/a (CEP)
Dahlia
85%
100%
Edelweiss
25% 1
32.5%
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

41. Potential Changes in the New Congress
Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
Potential Changes in the New Congress
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

42. Reauthorization: House
Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
Reauthorization: House
Partisan legislation passed House Committee in May 2016 (H.R )
Controversial issues:
CEP threshold from 40% ISP to 60% ISP
One-year grace period
Rokita: don’t want to be giving wealthy kids free meals
Increase in breakfast reimbursement?
Fresh fruit and vegetable changes
3 year administrative review cycle  5 years
Loss of carryover?
Exempts student group fundraisers from standards
Removal of paid lunch equity provisions
Pelosi: will see House floor “over my dead body”
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

43. Reauthorization: Senate
Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
Reauthorization: Senate
Senate bill introduced, passed Committee in January 2015 (S )
Controversial issues:
CEP threshold from 40% ISP to 60% ISP
Fresh fruit and vegetable changes
3 year administrative review cycle  5 years
Suspends whole grain, sodium standards
Calls for review of nutrition standards
Tried to “hotline” into appropriations bill in September but too controversial
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

44. Changes in Eligibility Threshold
Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
Changes in Eligibility Threshold
School Name
ISP
Eligible under 40% threshold
Eligible under PROPOSED 60% threshold
Albatross
30% 
Blackbird
65% 
Canary
47%
Dove
85%
Egret
25%
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

45. Changes in Eligibility Threshold
Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
Changes in Eligibility Threshold
School Name
ISP
Eligible under 40% threshold
Eligible under 60% threshold
Albatross
30% 
Blackbird
65% 
Canary
47%
Group 1
Dove
85%
Egret
25%
Flamingo
Group 2
58%
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

46. Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
Likelihood of Changes
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

47. Administration Modifications
Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
Administration Modifications
Relatively easy to do
Multiplier already needs to be republished each year
Could tweak regulations through regular rulemaking process
New guidance could modify the way programs are executed
If instructed by Congress to review regulations with an eye to lowering administrative burden/cost, could make additional changes
Most likely changes to meal pattern requirements, including whole grain and sodium standards
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

48. Statutory Modifications
Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
Statutory Modifications
Much, much harder!
Need to find time on Congressional calendar
Need to find agreement among members (Senate Agriculture Democrats, House Democratic leadership vigorously oppose more changes)
Need to bring legislation through House and Senate processes
Is this a priority? Nope!
Likely to stay under the radar for the time being
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

49. Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
Resources
USDA FNS: “Community Eligibility Provision: Guidance and Q&As”(memo SP ) (Updated September 2015)
ED: “Guidance: The CEP and Selected Requirements under Title I, Part A” (March 2015)
USDA Community Eligibility Resource Center: eligibility-provision-resource-center
USDA Final Rule on Community Eligibility (July 2016): pdf
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

50. Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
Questions?
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.

51. Education: The New Federalism! Spring Forum 2017 May 10-12, 2017
Disclaimer
This presentation is intended solely to provide general information and does not constitute legal advice or a legal service.  This presentation does not create a client-lawyer relationship with Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC and, therefore, carries none of the protections under the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct.  Attendance at this presentation, a later review of any printed or electronic materials, or any follow-up questions or communications arising out of this presentation with any attorney at Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC does not create an attorney-client relationship with Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC.  You should not take any action based upon any information in this presentation without first consulting legal counsel familiar with your particular circumstances.
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC © All rights reserved.