1. Board Meeting June 9, 2014

2. .What is Community Eligibility Provision? CEP

3. 3 What is the purpose of CEP? Provide nutritious meals for students in high poverty areas at no cost to the student

4. 4 When did the CEP begin?  2011-12 three states  2012-13 three additional states & DC  2013-14 four additional states  2014-15 available in ALL states

5. 5 What are the requirements for participation?  40% “identified students”  Provide meals to all students at no cost  LEA cover costs not provided in federal reimbursement with NON-federal funds  No household applications in CEP schools

6. Students who are: (1) directly certified and (2) categorically eligible SNAP (FNS) TANF FDPIR Homeless Runaway Migrant Head Start Even Start Additional Foster Children (not already included in DC) Non-applicant students approved by the LEA

7. No-cost breakfast and lunch. Eliminates overt identification Improves nutrition to students at risk Reduces paperwork Simplifies meal counting and claiming. Increases breakfast and lunch participation.

8. Not collecting paper applications to determine individual student economic status. School must identify other procedures to determine economic status of individual students.

9. CEP is a four- year reimbursement option May opt in or opt out each year May participate in CEP for some or all schools

10. At 62.5% “identified students,” all meals are reimbursed at the Free rate. For percentages below 62.5%, meals are reimbursed at a combination of the Free and Paid Rate.

11.  Participation used from July 1 – Dec. 31, 2013  Enrollment used as of April 1, 2014  Identified students as of April 1, 2014

12.  Franklinton Elementary  Laurel Mill Elementary  Louisburg Elementary

13.  By clustering this group of school together, they can all participate in CEP and CN Program remain in the black ◦ Franklinton Elementary: 69.57% ◦ Laurel Mill Elementary: 70.67% ◦ Louisburg Elementary: 70.30% ◦ Franklinton Middle: 55.13% ◦ Edward Best Elementary: 55.98% ◦ Terrell Lane Middle: 53.73% ◦ Royal Elementary: 53.43% ◦ Bunn Elementary: 51.02%

14.  By adding LHS at 45.86% we lose a potential of $17,712.35 in funding ◦ Traditional claiming generates more revenue

15.  All Elementary Schools grouped together ◦ Potential loss in funding of $134,630.15  Revenue would have to be provided to supplement

17. 17 Child Nutrition vs. Title I For reimbursement purposes, “identified students” multiplied by USDA factor of 1.6 For Title I allocation purposes, 1.6 is only applied when some schools are CEP (and cannot use household applications) and other non-CEP schools will collect data through household applications.