School Nutrition Audit

Current State School Nutrition Programs Audit | v1.0 Page 1
School Nutrition Programs Audit
Executive Summary
Situational Review
As a result of the pandemic thru June 30, 2022, School Nutrition Programs (SNP) have been permitted to
offer free meals to all students without an application thanks to federal regulatory waivers.
Student meal programs under the governance of SNP include the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), School
Breakfast Program (SBP), Afterschool Snack Program, Special Milk Program, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable, Summer
Food Service Program (SFSP), Summer Camp Special Milk Program, and Team Nutrition.
• Primary and core value propositions school meal programs offer include a significant role in
combatting childhood hunger, reduce food insecurity, support healthy eating, and enhance
academic achievement and school attendance.
• However, through the pandemic with fewer students in class on campus and with virtual learning
models, school districts have struggled financially and operationally to provide meals to all students
who need them.
• At the onset of the pandemic, the number of meals served across the state plummeted from pre-
pandemic benchmarks.
• Counts did bottom out and then stabilized quickly. Since April 2020, there has been modest month
over month growth, however the number of meals served are still significantly below pre-pandemic
benchmarks after 15 months into the pandemic.
• Of significance, the pandemic and its impact has highlighted educational inequities with school
nutrition departments needing to improve financial outlooks to sustain robust accessible programs
post-pandemic.
• Looking forward to the 2021 Summer period and to the Fall of 2021 and beyond, two dynamics are
at play.
o There remains a risk to lose momentum at the onset of Summer due to the historic annual time
period declines in meals served. In addition, there remain operational and discretionary
operations issues at the district level associated with program availability, financial cost-
justification concerns and staffing requirements.
o The coming 2021-22 School Year uncertainties of the lingering pandemic influence on on-
campus Fall student attendance and degree of continued virtual learning. Further, uncertainties
surrounding future changes to USDA waivers and guidelines for free for all meals.
• As a result, the campaign has the challenge of being impactful across two distinct time periods with
differing program objectives to maximize participation and meals served.

Notable Campaign Considerations
The overall communications challenge may be the broad dissemination for the campaign's positioning
and messaging across all community socio-economics to reinforce school meal participation is for all
and is an easy, reliable and assessable student benefit. It should further strive to remove any
remaining legacy barriers or stigmas that may still exist associated with free or reduced school meal
programs to maximize participation as widely as possible across the state and within each community.
• Positioning & Messaging
o The campaign may need to not only strive to enhance current participation counts as
measured in meals served as the primary goal, but also reinforce the sustaining growth and
adoption of school meal programs post-pandemic to ensure no kids (students) ever go
hungry.
o This may further require core overlying campaign positioning with a message platform using
two tiered messaging blocks with one aimed at immediate (summer) participation impact
and the second serving to reinforce sustaining engagement for the 2021-22 school year as
students begin to go back to school (with foresight the end of free for all is scheduled for
June 30, 2022).
• Geo and Audience Targeting
o Another added communications challenge may be the diverse socio-demographic nuances
across the state where one message (or set of messages) for all may not resonate
universally requiring deeper execution at local levels.
• District Operational Nuances and Discretions
o Not all districts operate the same, nor do they offer standard, look-alike, programs. This
reinforces the message platform may need to be developed with tiered messaging based on
locality.
• Alternative Program Choices
o Of added note, the campaign may need to consider alternative community choices do exist
and which may increase the noise surrounding community food programs and benefits. In
addition to SNAP and WIC government food programs, and the supplemental P-EBT benefit
linked to NSLP eligibility, each community (more prevalent in larger urban areas) has
alternative choices through food banks and charities to access food programs.
o Therefore, the positioning is likely to mirror other (or be highly similar) to available program
alternatives. Therefore, the messaging framework may need to convey the unique school
affiliation differentiators heavily focused on key value propositions that are meaningful to
varied target audiences.

Section 1 | Current Landscape
Michigan Student Meal Program Trends 4
National Trends | Pandemic Impact 6
National Legislative Support | Directions 8
State Student Meal Legislative Mandates 9
School Program Eligibility Guidelines 9
Urban vs. Rural Poverty Considerations 10
General Meal Program Q&As 11
Section 2 | Campaign Marketing Themes
Positioning Statements 12
Value Propositions 12
Messaging Themes 13
Random Communications Topics 14
Audience Targeting 15
Meal Program Opportunities 16
Meal Program Threats & Challenges 17
Competing Campaign Noise 18
Section 3 | Appendices
State Legislative Student Meal Program Mandates 21
National | State Student Meal Program Categories 22
Michigan School District List 24
Michigan School Snapshot Vitals 25
Michigan Pandemic Child Nutrition Programs 26
USDA Waiver CACFP Programs 27
2021 Federal Poverty Guidelines 28
Michigan Key (2019) Census Data 29
FRAC Survey Sample Methodology 30
Reference Sources 31
CONTENT

Michigan Student Meal Program Trends | Pandemic Impact
Michigan schools have served millions fewer meals during the pandemic, with financial consequences.
Some families have been turning to alternative food program choices, or more troubling, kids may be
going hungry.
[Of note: Michigan's national rank and percentage change in fewer meals served was minimal compared to other states.]
• Number of school meals served has significantly dropped at major school districts across
the state largely attributed to the pandemic impact on school attendance.
o Jan. 2020 | 810,124 participants
o Jan. 2021 | 778,259 participants | (-3.9% Chg.)
• Of consequence, anticipated popularity of Grab and Go and other pandemic school options
were also not utilized as other community organizations and outlets offered alternatives
making school meals only one option of many.
• IMPACT: For schools, fewer meals translated into less school funding and reimbursements
leaving shortfalls in school food service budgets which also imperiled food service jobs.
o USDA Reimbursement Benchmarks
― $3.51 for every FREE lunch
― $1.89 for every FREE breakfast
― lower amounts for reduced and paid meals
MICHIGAN MEAL PROGRAM PARTICIPATION WAS GROWING PRE-PANDEMIC | Source: FRAC
Benchmark Period: 2019-20 School Year - Sept. 2019 through Feb. 2020
Jul. 2019 | Summer Food Service Programs Reach
Meals Served Breakfast Ratio: 52.1 per 100 low-income children
Meals Served Lunch Ratio: 11.1 per 100 low-income children
SCHOOL DISTRICT
2019-20
MEALS SERVED
2020-21
MEALS SERVED
(%) CHANGE
DETROIT 9,600,000 2,200,000 (436%)
GRAND RAPIDS 2,800,000 863,169 (324%)
LANSING 2,600,000 1,200,000 (216%)

Michigan SBP and NSLP Program Benchmarks (2020-21)
Culture of Learning Pre-Pandemic Current
Total Breakfast Participation as a Percentage of Total Lunch Participation 53.9% 55.6%
Free and Reduced Lunch Participation by Eligible Students 69.3% 71.1%
Economically Disadvantaged Students 51.1% 50.9%
Michigan District/County Top Locations by Meal Program Participant Counts
Location Type City/County Enrollment Eligibility Student Participation
County Wayne 64% 168,415
City Detroit 86% 70,355
County Oakland 34% 60,491
County Macomb 50% 59,631
County Kent 51% 51,757
County Genesee 60% 36,512
County Ingham 48% 20,418
County Kalamazoo 48% 16,176
County Muskegon 63% 16,151
City Flint 89% 15,563
County Saginaw 58% 15,049
County Washtenaw 32% 14,391
County Ottawa 32% 14,351
County Berrien 59% 14,287
County Jackson 55% 12,295
County Calhoun 58% 11,411
County Saint Clair 48% 9,709
County Monroe 44% 8,920
County Van Buren 54% 8,205
County Montcalm 65% 7,646
Full list by urban area/county is available.

National Trends | Pandemic Impact
Shuttering of schools when the pandemic began and the variety of school schedules including
virtual/remote learning dramatically reduced participation and changed operations in school meal
programs.
To support food access efforts during COVID-19, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued in
March 2020 (now extended through the 2021–22 school year) key nationwide waivers to allow greater
flexibility in serving meals during the pandemic.
Core components include:
• All meals can be served through the Summer Nutrition Programs in place of the traditional school
meals programs.
• Meals can be taken home and parents and/or guardians can pick up meals for their children, with
school district discretion to distribute multiple days’ worth of meals at one time.
• The requirement for summer and afterschool meal sites must be located in an area in which at least
half of the children are eligible for free or reduced-price school meals has been waived. This waiver
ensures that all families in need are able to access meals, regardless of the community in which they
live.
• The supplemental Pandemic Electronic Benefit Transfer (P-EBT) program was created, which
provides households an EBT card with the value of the free school breakfast and lunch
reimbursement rates for each enrolled student for the days schools were closed during COVID-19.
This has been expanded to include out-of-school summer break days in 2021.
National Baseline Survey: 54 large districts across 28 states and the District of Columbia | Source: FRAC
• Oct. 2019, school districts
surveyed served a combined
total of 38.8 million breakfasts
and 62.8 million lunches. The
reach of school breakfast was
significantly less than lunch.
• Apr. 2020, the month following
the shutdown for a majority of
the country’s schools, 17.7
million breakfasts and 18.8
million lunches were served (a
decrease of 54 and 70 percent,
respectively).
46%
54%
Meals Served (Type)
October 2020
Breakfast Lunch
Since pandemic, breakfast to lunch ratios have
improved representing a shifting trend compared to
Oct. 2019 ratios:
38% Breakfast vs. 62% Lunch

• In October 2020, 18.5 million breakfasts and 21.5 million lunches were served. Between April
2020 and October 2020, breakfast increased by 761,300 meals, and lunch by an additional 2.8
million.
• Over this time period, participation in breakfast and lunch continued to significantly lag behind
the previous school year, with 52 percent fewer breakfasts and 66 percent fewer lunches
served in October 2020 when compared to October 2019.
• Of note, since April 2020 there has been a steady, gradual month over month rebound in
meals served after the initial pandemic drop-off.
Meals Served Oct. 2019 Apr. 2020 Oct. 2020
Breakfasts 38,779,470 17,730,727 18,492,027
Lunches 62,801,239 18,750,556 21,548,440

National Legislative Support | Directions
With Congress support, the USDA has implemented broader guidelines for granting child nutrition
waivers to support greater access to school, summer and afterschool nutrition programs.
• National funding for meal programs has been extended to the 2021-2022 school year (June 30
2022) which offers ALL student meals at no charge.
• Congress is seeking to still enact legislation:
o Allow schools to provide free school meals to all after the pandemic (June 2022). A national
movement is underway.
o Expand direct certification to automatically link children to free school meals (P-EBT
enablement uses this direct certification based on NSLP enrollment).
o Support Breakfast After the Bell initiatives (which had seen high adoption pre-pandemic) to
increase school breakfast participation. Reinforces significance of the breakfast meal and
creates a stimulus for greater overall participation.

State Student Meal Legislative Mandates
Many states have passed legislative mandates for offering student meals and are passing Breakfast
After the Bell legislation for stimulating greater meal program participation and availability at no charge
which addresses timing, cost and stigma challenges experienced in the past.
― CO, DC, NM, FL, TX - aimed at high poverty schools
― WV, IL, NJ, NY, WA - aimed at all schools
(see addendum for legislation by state)
School Program Eligibility Guidelines | Temporarily Suspended
• FREE Meals: incomes at or below 130% of the poverty level
• REDUCED Cost Meals: incomes between 130% and 185% of the poverty level
• INCOME GUIDELINES: 2020-21 School Year
o 130% poverty level ($34,060) for a family of 4
o 185% poverty level ($48,470) for a family of 4
o Families with incomes over 185% pay full price
The current income range national poverty level guidelines (effective thru June 30, 2021) established
by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Total Family Size Low Annual Low Monthly High Annual High Monthly
1 $16,588 $1,383 $23,606 $1,968
2 $22,412 $1,868 $31,894 $2,658
3 $28,236 $2,353 $40,182 $3,349
4 $34,060 $2,839 $48,470 $4,040
5 $39,884 $3,324 $56,758 $4,730
6 $45,708 $3,809 $65,046 $5,421
7 $51,532 $4,295 $73,334 $6,112
8 $57,356 $4,780 $81,622 $6,802

Urban vs. Rural Poverty Considerations
Rural Participation Considerations
o Many Summer Food Service Program sponsors report that they lose money when operating the
program. This is particularly true for rural sponsors, which often have increased transportation and
food costs.
o Households in rural areas are more likely to be food insecure than in metropolitan areas, and
children living in rural areas have 26 percent greater odds of being overweight or obese compared
to urban children.
o A recent report from the Afterschool Alliance found that only 28 percent of rural children
participated in a summer program (which provides the platform for summer meals), even though
nearly half of rural parents would like their children to participate in a program.
o Participation in the Summer Nutrition Programs tends to be lower in rural areas because many of
the barriers that limit participation in all communities are amplified in rural areas.
o There are fewer summer programs, activities, and locations where children congregate.
o It also can be more difficult to qualify sites to participate in the Summer Nutrition Programs under
the area eligibility (temporarily waived) test because poverty is often less concentrated in rural
areas.
o Families also face more pronounced transportation barriers because of longer distances and the
scarcity of public transportation.
o Summer P-EBT also is a particularly important strategy for rural areas. It provides families additional
resources to purchase the food needed to overcome the loss of school breakfast and lunch.
18% of Michigan's population lives in rural areas | 1.8M

General Background Q&As
Q. Who Operates Student Meal Programs?
Any public school, nonprofit private school, or residential child care institution can participate in the
National School Breakfast Program (SBP) or National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and receive
federal funds for each breakfast and/or lunch served. The program is administered at the federal
level by the U.S. Department of Agriculture with state government oversight, typically through the
state department of education or agriculture.
Q. What Are Some of the [Community] Food Program Alternatives?
FNS (Food and Nutrition Service) programs, SNAP, WIC, P-EBT, and state and local sponsored non-
profits, community food banks, community food pantries, others.
No Kid Hungry, as a federal umbrella food program facilitated through both schools and
community-based organizations, has a charter to make sure children are fed, both during this crisis
and in the recovery to follow. Through a combination of emergency grants, strategic assistance,
advocacy and awareness, No Kid Hungry is helping kids, families and communities have the food they
need.
Additional food program resources in Michigan specifically include Michigan Department of Health
and Human Services Food Assistance Program, Michigan Food Distribution Program, MI Bridges,
Michigan WIC (Assistance Programs for Women, Infants, and Children), and P-EBT Food Assistance
Benefits for Families.
Q. Who Can Participate in Student School Nutrition Programs?
Any student attending a school that offers SBP or NSLP program can eat breakfast or lunch. What the
federal government covers, and what a student pays, depends on family income based on family
poverty level thresholds. (Since the pandemic, the U.S. Department of Agriculture will continue
reimbursing schools and childcare centers for free meals to all students regardless of their income
through the end of the 2021-22 school year.
Traditional Student Meal Programs have been governed by the following criteria:
• Children from families with incomes at or below 130 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL)
are eligible for free school meals.
• Children from families with incomes between 130 to 185 percent of the FPL qualify for reduced
price meals and can be charged no more than $0.30 per breakfast.
• Children from families with incomes above 185 percent of the FPL pay charges (referred to as
“paid meals”), which are set by the school.
Other federal and, in some cases, state rules, however, make it possible to offer free meals to all
children, or to all children in households with incomes under 185 percent of the national
poverty level, especially in schools with high proportions of low-income children.

Positioning Statements
• No student (child) deserves to grow up hungry
• Every student matters, we need to combat student (child) hunger
o 1 in 4 kids in America could face hunger this year because of the pandemic. That’s 1
in 4 little leaguers, ballerinas, readers and future leaders. That’s 1 in 4 kids who
can’t learn, can’t reach their full potential.
• School meals play a critical role in student health, well-being, and academic success
Value Propositions
• Reduce Food Insecurity | Combat Hunger
• Nutrition | Support Healthy Eating
• Academic Achievement and Attendance
• Accessibility | Meal Distribution
o 81% of programs
grab-and-go | curbside drive-thru pickup
o 42% of programs
home delivery
o 32% of programs
bus route neighborhood pickups
o parent/guardian pickup
o multi-meal | multi-day meal packs
CAMPAIGN MARKETING RESEARCH

Messaging Themes
• Theme - Childhood hunger is a solvable problem
o reduce food insecurity (est. 12M youths nationwide)
o free school meals combat childhood hunger
o no matter where you live, there are children who are hungry
o hunger hurts children's futures
o hunger hurts kids every day
o every kid deserves a healthy breakfast
• Theme - Making a Difference | A Brighter Future
o alleviates food insecurity and poverty, and family concerns
o focus on long-term benefits: improves academic achievement and attendance
 children are able to eat free, healthy meals at school (and in the summer when
school is out), so families can focus on building bright futures for their kids
o access to summer meals
 no-cost, nutritious meals and snacks during the summer months
 food insecurity and food insufficiency among children are higher in the summer
• Theme - Nutrition | Health Meals
o Healthy meals support a good education
o Healthy and nutritious meals to fuel minds and bodies
o [School] meals provides the nutrients students need for growth, development, learning,
and overall health, especially for the nation’s most vulnerable children and adolescents
 giving kids food they need
 supporting healthy eating habits
 meals offer superior nutrient quality from other sources
• Theme - Increased Access | Removing burdensome application and qualification processes
o focus on urgency and critical need for access and nutrition, particularly related to
economic impact from COVID-19.
o breakfast at no cost to all students (possibly through community eligibility), and using
breakfast in the classroom, “grab and go” breakfast, and second chance breakfast
models
 grab and go and second chance breakfasts show particular evidence of success
for middle and high school students
o addresses common barriers to program participation, such as stigma, cost, and, for
breakfast, arriving to school too late

Random Communications Topics | Marketing
• New menu items, recipes, special dietary needs, smart snacks, fresh fruit and vegetables, new
cafeteria events.
• Local support - vegetables planted in the school garden, local farmers that support.
• Connecting food with developing healthy lifestyles, nutrition education, agriculture, and cooking
tips.
• Differentiating healthy food to stand out from the highly processed meals kids eat outside of
school.
• Nutritional values - school meal consumption has nutritional advantages for daily dietary intake:
elementary and middle school students who eat school breakfast every day consume more
fruits and vegetables, whole grains, dairy, fiber, and calcium per day, when compared to
students who eat school breakfast less frequently (i.e., 0 to 4 days per week).24 Students who
eat school lunch daily consume more dairy and calcium per day compared to those who eat
school lunch less frequently.
• School meals support and improve student physical and mental health, including weight-related
(obesity) outcomes | linked with fewer visits to the school nurse, particularly in the morning,31
and positive impacts on mental health, including reductions in behavioral problems, anxiety, and
depression.
• Many children do not have the opportunity to eat breakfast on a regular basis because of
working parents, long bus rides, or the inability of families to provide enough food. These
children are hungry when they reach school. They will continue to be hungry until lunch time, or
they may eat less nutritious food to stave off hunger pangs.
• Studies have shown that children whose nutritional needs are met have fewer attendance and
discipline problems, and their ability to learn is enhanced.

Primary Target Audiences | Low-income Students-Households
Top Michigan Geo-Locations Eligible for Free Lunch
Urban/Rural Locations for Students Most
Qualified (as a Percentage) for Free Lunch.
Detroit, Redford, Hillsdale, Grosse Pointe,
Ortonville, Marshall, Saginaw, Dearborn Heights,
Clinton, Hamtramck, Gaylord, Wilson, Hesperia,
Grand Rapids, Sault Sainte Marie, Kalamazoo,
Hersey, Warren, Benton Harbor, Muskegon,
Ypsilanti, Allegan.
Approximately 45% of public school students in
Michigan are eligible for free lunch (2021).
The public school with the highest percentage of
students eligible for free lunch in Michigan is
Ace Academy Jefferson Site with 100% of
students eligible.
Counties with the highest poverty rates.
County State Location Percentage
Isabella Mid-Michigan 23.4%
Lake Northern Michigan 22.3%
Wayne Southeast Michigan 21.7%
Luce Northern Michigan 20.7%
Clare Northern Michigan 20.6%
Counties with the highest percentage of ALICE households.
Baraga Northern Michigan 43.0%
Alger Northern Michigan 40.6%
Luce Northern Michigan 40.1%
Montmorency Northern Michigan 38.7%
ALICE is a metric developed by United Way that counts the number of households in each county, as well as statewide,
whose income puts them above the federal poverty line, and yet they still cannot afford a basic household budget.
Counties with the highest rate of student homelessness by fifth grade.
Oceana West Michigan 27.4%
Isoco Northern Michigan 22.9%
Alcona Northern Michigan 22.4%
Ogemaw Northern Michigan 18.8%
Newaygo West Michigan 18.8%

Meal Program Opportunities
• School nutrition programs are good for students, good for schools, and good for local
economies.
• School district use of USDA waivers and CEP programs are expanding student participation
through greater implementation flexibility and are being widely adopted by districts over
traditional school meal programs.
• Greater general emphasis on breakfast may support increased participation for all available
daily and seasonal programs.
o Historically, breakfast programs have lagged behind lunch programs. Breakfast
participation is critical to combatting childhood hunger according to a recent FRAC report.
o Nationally, breakfast programs reached 58.4 low-income students for every 100 who
participated in NSLP. FRAC has set a state-level benchmark goal for 70/100.
o Barriers such as bus schedules and morning commutes mean most students are not in
school early enough to participate in traditional breakfast programs. Breakfast After the
Bell models have shown it can be a stimulus to increase reach and participation.
o Three proven strategies for greater breakfast participation: 1) Free for All, 2) mandated
state legislation, 3) Breakfast After the Bell programs.
• Free for All expands student participation across all programs providing easy access to meals,
while removing any associated stigmas.
• Supporting summer programming events is a key strategy to increase summer meals
participation.
o Most successful summer meal sites offer educational, enrichment, recreational, and physical
activities that keep children safe, learning, engaged, and active while providing crucial child
care for working families.
o Sites can be schools, recreation centers, Boys & Girls Clubs, YMCAs, churches, parks,
libraries, or any other location at which children congregate during the summer.

Meal Program Threats & Challenges
• Since April 2020, pandemic school shutdowns and virtual/remote learning has resulted in
fewer meals served year over year (2019|2020) impacting children/families of need.
o Apr. thru Oct. 2020, the number of meals served has seen a slow month over month
recovery but has yet to reach pre-pandemic October 2019 levels.
o School nutrition finances have been stretched thin due to increased program costs and
decreased reimbursements resulting from lower overall student participation.
• Nationally, Summer Nutrition Programs have struggled to meet the need, serving just one
child summer lunch for every seven low-income children who participated in school lunch
during the regular school year.
o The low participation in the Summer Nutrition Programs is driven in significant part by the
lack of affordable summer programming available to low-income families.
o Summer programs provide the platforms on which to build summer meals programs, but
there is far too little federal investment in supporting the actual summer programs.
o State and local public funding for summer programs varies significantly and often fluctuates
from year to year depending on state and local budgets.
• Transportation is one of the biggest barriers (especially in rural areas) to participation in
summer meals. If the cost of getting to and from a site is too high, many families will not be able
to attend.
• Many Summer Food Service Program sponsors report that they lose money when operating
the program. This is particularly true for rural sponsors, which often have increased
transportation and food costs.
• Uncertainty surrounding Post-Pandemic (June 2022) guidelines for future administration and
changes to meal programs.

Competing Campaign Noise
A number of national and state campaigns are underway which will compete for attention with any
School Nutrition Program campaign effort. Positioning and messaging may be similar, so it will be
critical to differentiate the Mighty Meals campaign and its benefits to target audenices.
No Kid Hungry Campaign Videos
• Common Theme | Hunger
o Meet Up and Eat Up
o Making Sure Every Kid Gets the
Food They Need
o Hunger is a Problem We Can Fix
o No Kid Should Go to Bed
Without A Meal
o Have You Ever Been Hungry?
o A Season of Hunger | Hunger is Still a Presence
o Millions of American Kids Live One Emergency Away from Hunger
Voices for Health Kids
• Common Theme | Universal Free School Meals Movement
o COVID-19 pandemic has been devastating and school-aged children
o Universal free school meals free breakfast and lunch) regardless of their family’s income
for all children enrolled in
schools that operate the
National School Lunch Program
or School Breakfast Program
o Provide equitable access to
healthy meals, reduces burdens
on families, and give children
the tools they need to succeed
in school
o Ensures children who might be
on the edges of or cycle in and
out of eligibility, or children who
are experiencing homelessness,
have recently immigrated, have
caregivers who may struggle
with administrative paperwork
or are in foster care do not fall
through the cracks

School Lunch for All (non-profit organization)
WHO ARE WE?
Movement started to ensure that
school meals are provided, free of
charge, to every K-12 student in
America.
Calls for an end to the
indefensible practice of school
lunch debt, and school lunch
shaming.
Believes that no student should
go hungry at school and that no
child or family should experience
financial strain, public shame, or
debt in exchange for those meals.
A child’s access to food shouldn’t
depend on geography or income,
especially during a crisis.
Every year, students across the
country collectively accrue
millions of dollars of school lunch
debt. How? Because they rely on
school meals, but can’t afford
those meals.
Instead of providing meals for free, many districts continue to charge students’
families. As a result, families can accrue thousands of dollars of debt, some
districts employ collections agencies to recoup that
debt and students are often shamed at school — an
emotionally abusive practice.
WHAT’S SCHOOL LUNCH SHAMING? The cruel
practice of publicly humiliating students who run out
of money in their school lunch accounts. This can
include stamping them, forcing them to return meals
or making a point of serving them alternate cold
meals.

APPENDICES

State Legislative Student Meal Program Mandates
State SBP or NSLP Summer SFSP or NSLP State SBP or NSLP Summer SFSP or NSLP
Alabama Montana
SFSP or NSLP Summer
Programs
Alaska Nebraska
Arizona K-8 Nevada
Schools with 70%
student eligibility
Arkansas
Schools with 20%
student eligibility
New
Hampshire
All public schools
California
All public + charter
Schools
K-12 Public Schools New Jersey
Schools with 70%
student eligibility
Schools with 50%
student eligibility
Colorado
Schools with 70%
student eligibility
New Mexico
Schools with 85%
student eligibility
Connecticut
K-8 schools with 80%
student eligibility
New York
Schools with 70%
student eligibility
Delaware
All public + charter
participating in CEP
North
Carolina
All public schools
Wash. DC All public + charter North Dakota
Florida
K-6 + all schools 80%
student eligibility
Schools with 50%
student eligibility
Ohio All public + charter
Schools intervention
programs
Georgia All public schools Oklahoma
Hawaii
All public schools with
on campus lunches
Oregon
All Title 1 schools + all
70% student eligibility
Idaho Pennsylvania
Illinois All public schools
Schools operating
summer programs
Rhode Island All public schools
Indiana
All public schools 15%
student eligibility
South
Carolina
All public schools
Iowa All public schools South Dakota
Kansas All public schools Tennessee All public schools
Kentucky Texas
student eligibility
Schools with 50%
student eligibility
Louisiana All public schools Utah
Maine All public schools
Schools with 50%
student eligibility
Vermont All public schools
Schools with 50%
student eligibility
Maryland All public schools All public schools Virginia
student eligibility
Massachusetts All public schools Washington
All schools 25%
student eligibility
Schools with 50%
student eligibility
Michigan All public schools West Virginia All public schools
Minnesota
student eligibility
Wisconsin
Missouri
student eligibility
Schools with 50%
eligibility
Wyoming
Mississippi

National | State Meal Program Categories
K-12 students from families with low incomes below 130% of the federal poverty level are eligible for a fully
subsidized (FREE) lunch. Those from families with incomes between 130% and 185% of poverty are eligible for
(REDUCED-PRICED) lunch.
School Breakfast Program (SBP)
• Potential program stigma (for poor kids) and requires pre-school arrival
• Breakfast After the Bell offers meals in class and is Free for All removing stigma
o Breakfast After the Bell model
― Breakfast in the Classroom (out of cafeteria and part of school day)
― Grab and Go (hallway carts and kiosks)
― Second Chance Breakfast (late meal)
o Non-pricing model
― free breakfast under three-tier federal fee categories (free, reduced, paid)
National School Lunch Program (NSLP)
• NSLP Program Variations
o Seamless Summer Option (SSO)
― low-income urban areas
― serve meals thru Summer Nutrition Programs (SNP)
― operates at community locations (rec. centers, libraries, camps, schools, other)
― breakfast, lunch, supper, snack
o Community Eligibility Provision (CEP)
― federal program offers breakfast and lunch at no charge to all students
― highest poverty schools (40% enrolled students directly certify for free meals)
― eliminates traditional school meal application process
― increases participation
― no apps, no ID/meal card requirements
― easier administration
o Provision 2 Option
― free for all
― high poverty schools
― reduced stigmas
― increased participation
― no apps, no ID/meal card requirements
― easier administration | requires base year reporting

National School Lunch Program (NSLP) continued
o After School Meal Program
― can be operated under NSLP
― targeted in low-income communities
― on and off school sites
Summer Food Service Programs (SFSP) | Summer Nutrition Programs (SNP)
• Can be operated during times of unexpected school closures
o Seamless Summer Option (SSO)
o Summer Food Service Program (SFSP)
― grab and go (on and off school grounds)
― bus stops, home delivery, neighborhood food trucks, designated areas
― inclusion of adult and family meals
Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP)
• Pandemic Activated | USDA Waiver - Non-Congregate Feeding
• Targeted use in low-income communities
• Providers can use alternative meal service methods
o on and off school sites such as grab and go and home delivery
• Can be applied for all CACFP programs
o child and adult care, at-risk after school programs, emergency shelters
Pandemic Electronic Benefit Transfer (P-EBT)
• Managed under the Families First Coronavirus Act.
• Provides an EBT card with the value of free school breakfast, lunch, and a snack to make up for
the free or reduced-price meals that children have missed due to schools that have closed or
reduced their hours.
• Supplemental benefit for student families enrolled in a school with a National School Lunch
Program and are eligible for free or reduced school meal programs.
• Debit cards for qualified families for use at participating community locations.
• If the school district participates in community eligibility, there is no application to complete.
• In most states, EBT cards will be sent to the address on file with the school district.
• Will be able to receive P-EBT benefits for the days schools are closed for summer break, benefits
for all weekdays during the covered summer period, up to 90 days.
SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (SNAP)
• Benefits are not related to school meal programs: based on household income criteria.
• SNAP, formerly food stamps, provides temporary help for people going through hard times –
providing supplemental money to buy food until they can get back on their feet.

MICHIGAN LARGEST SCHOOL DISTRICTS
District Location School Count Students
1 Detroit Public Detroit 108 49,931
2 Utica Community Sterling Heights 38 26,878
3 Dearborn City Dearborn 37 20,717
4 Ann Arbor Public Ann Arbor 33 18,054
5 Plymouth-Canton Community Plymouth 24 17,478
6 Chippewa Valley Clinton Township 20 16,061
7 Grand Rapids Public Grand Rapids 23 15,434
8 Rochester Community Rochester 23 15,434
9 Livonia Public Livonia 26 14,077
10 Warren Consolidated Warren 24 13,767
11 Walled Lake Consolidated Walled Lake 20 16,615
12 Troy Troy 22 13,130
13 Kalamazoo Public Kalamazoo 33 12,772
14 Wayne-Westland Community Westland 19 10,863
15 Lansing Public Lansing 32 10,619
16 L'Anse Creuse Public Clinton Township 19 10,390
17 Forest Hills Public Grand Rapids 18 9,772
18 Farmington Public Farmington 19 9,497
19 Traverse City Area Traverse City 16 9,433
20 Kentwood Public Grand Rapids 18 9,276
21 Huron Valley Highland 16 8,966
22 Portage Public Portage 14 8,804

MICHIGAN SCHOOL SNAPSHOT VITALS
Largest School Districts Demographic Characteristics
Children Below Poverty Children Below 185% of Poverty
Number Percent Number Percent
371,020 17.6% 760,730 36.1%
33.8% of households in Michigan receiving SNAP benefits have children.
1 in 7 children struggles with hunger.
source: feedingamerica.org

MDE Pandemic Child Nutrition Programs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For programs that participated in the CACFP, NSLP, SBP, SSO or the SFSP, there are several options to
participate during the public health crisis.
Unanticipated School Closure Summer Food Service Program
• Districts and schools who participate in the NSLP, SBP, or previously participated in the SFSP,
and who are/were in good standing, can distribute meals through the Unanticipated School
Closure Summer Food Service Program.
Early Head Start, Head Start and Great Start to Readiness Programs
• Childcare centers in good standing that are located within public school buildings can be
classified as a childcare site for essential workers and serve meals to enrolled participants under
CACFP guidelines.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

USDA Waiver CACFP Programs
Non-Congregate Feeding
• Provides nationwide approval for States to locally waive congregate feeding in all child nutrition
programs.
• Under CACFP, providers can use alternative meal service methods such as home delivery or grab-
and go meals to enrolled participants.
• Applies to all CACFP program types: • Child and Adult Care • At-risk Afterschool Programs •
Emergency Shelters.
Parent/Guardian Meal Pickup
• Provides for non-congregate feeding to allow parents and guardians to pick up meals for their
children at meal distribution sites.
• Institutions and Sponsors are encouraged to provide families with guidelines for meal pick up times
and locations to maintain social distancing guidelines.
Mealtimes
• Provides waiver to serve meals outside of established mealtimes in non-congregate meal service
settings.
• Meals distributed to program participants do not have to be distributed during the meal and snack
times declared on program applications.
• Can distribute more than one meal/snack at the same time.
Afterschool Activity
• Provides removing the requirement that NSLP afterschool snack program and CACFP at-risk
afterschool program serve meals and snacks in a structured, supervised environment and provide an
enrichment activity.
• Eligible at-risk afterschool programs in good standing can distribute supper and snack without the
enrichment activity requirement.
• Meals/snacks do not have to be consumed on-site.
Meal Pattern
• Provides approval for State Agencies to locally waive specific meal pattern requirements as needed
due to food shortages to support access to nutritious meals when certain foods are not available
due to the novel coronavirus.
• Requires operators to maintain program integrity by serving meals and snacks that meet meal
pattern requirements. Good nutrition is key to good health during a public health emergency.
Pandemic EBT (P-EBT)
• Enables children who would receive free or reduced-price meals if not for school closures to be
eligible to receive assistance under this provision.

2021 Federal Poverty Guidelines
48 CONTIGUOUS STATES & DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ALASKA HAWAII
PERSONS FAMILY HOUSEHOLD POVERTY GUIDELINE POVERTY GUIDELINE POVERTY GUIDELINE
1 $12,880 $16,090 $14,820
2 $17,420 $21,770 $20,040
3 $21,960 $27,450 $25,260
4 $26,500 $33,130 $30,480
5 $31,040 $38,810 $35,700
6 $35,580 $44,490 $40,920
7 $40,120 $50,170 $46,140
8 $44,660 $55,850 $51,360
For families/households with more than
(8) persons add designated amount.
Add $4,540 for each
additional person.
Add $5,680 per each
additional person
Add $5,220 per each
additional person

Michigan Key (2019) Census Data
Population
Population estimates, July 1, 2019, (V2019) 9,986,857
Population estimates base, April 1, 2010, (V2019) 9,884,116
Population, percent change - April 1, 2010 (estimates base) to July 1, 2019, (V2019) 1.0%
Race and Hispanic Origin
White alone 79.2%
Black or African American alone 14.1%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 0.7%
Asian alone 3.4%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone Z
Two or More Races 2.5%
Hispanic or Latino 5.3%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 4.7%
Computer and Internet Use
Households with a computer, percent, 2015-2019 89.6%
Households with a broadband Internet subscription, percent, 2015-2019 81.5%
Income & Poverty
Median household income (in 2019 dollars), 2015-2019 $57,144
Per capita income in past 12 months (in 2019 dollars), 2015-2019 $31,713
Persons in poverty 13.0%
QR Code Enabled
Michigan Poverty Rate by County
Interactive Map + Rank + Table
https://bit.ly/3ogRfCt

FRAC Survey Sample Methodology
FRAC surveyed 54 large school districts about their breakfast and lunch participation and operating
status in October 2019, April 2020, and October 2020 in order to analyze participation and program
operations pre-pandemic, in the spring when schools were shuttered, and in the fall when schools were
operating under a variety of school schedules.
Completed surveys for the 54 school districts were submitted by districts in 28 states and the District of
Columbia.
The size of the school districts ranged from 9,737 students in Floyd County Schools (GA) to 1,148,696
students in New York City Department of Education (NY).
Of the surveyed school districts, 27 percent had student enrollments of more than 100,000 students.
In 52 percent of the surveyed school districts, 70 percent or more of the students were certified to
receive free or reduced-price school meals.

Reference Sources
• https://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/Large-District-Report-2021.pdf
• https://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/FRAC_BreakfastScorecard_2021.pdf
• https://frac.org/research/resource-library/summer-nutrition-programs-interactive-map-and-
tables-summer-2019
• https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/CACFP_Public_Health_Emergency_Participation_Op
tions_and_FAQ__685537_7.pdf
• https://aspe.hhs.gov/2021-poverty-guidelines
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/04/20/usda-extends-universal-free-lunch/
• https://www.freep.com/story/news/education/2021/05/03/michigan-students-free-lunches-
decline/7411268002/
• https://schoolnutrition.org/AboutSchoolMeals/SchoolMealTrendsStats/
• https://www.greatschools.org/michigan/#districts
• https://www.mischooldata.org/dashboard/
• https://www.publicschoolreview.com/free-lunch-stats/michigan
• https://news.umich.edu/michigan-poverty-map-shows-economic-security-by-county/
• https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/bar/1672-students-receiving-free-or-reduced-priced-
lunch?loc=24&loct=2#5/3744-3753/true/574/any/3551
• https://www.fns.usda.gov/disaster/pandemic/covid-19/fns-frequently-asked-questions
• https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/MI/AGE295219
• https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/michigan/percent-of-people-of-
all-ages-in-poverty#map
• https://schoolnutrition.org/aboutschoolmeals/schoolmealtrendsstats/
• https://www.thelunchbox.org/marketing
• https://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/School-Meals-are-Essential-Health-and-Learning_FNL.pdf
• https://voicesforhealthykids.org/take-action/campaigns/lend-your-voice-for-universal-school-
meals
• https://cspinet.org/sites/default/files/attachment/School%20Food%20Messaging%20CSPI.pdf

School Nutrition Audit

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to School Nutrition Audit

Similar to School Nutrition Audit (20)

More from Daniel McKean

More from Daniel McKean (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

School Nutrition Audit