BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1240
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 22, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Patrick O'Donnell, Chair
AB 1240
Bonta - As Amended April 9, 2015
SUBJECT: Pupil nutrition: free or reduced-price meals:
breakfast
SUMMARY: Requires each school district or county office of
education maintaining any kindergarten through grade 12 to offer
breakfast at schools where at least 40% of the pupils enrolled
at the school are considered "needy." Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires, from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017, a nutritionally
adequate breakfast to be made available each schoolday for
sale or at no cost to pupils at a school where at least 40% of
the pupils are considered needy. Specifies that beginning
July 1, 2017, this requirement applies only at schools where
at least 40%, but less than 60%, of the pupils enrolled are
needy children.
2)Requires, from July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018, a nutritionally
adequate breakfast to be made available each schoolday for
sale or at no cost at a school where at least 60% of pupils
are considered needy. Requires breakfast to be available
after instruction has begun for the schoolday. Specifies that
beginning July 1, 2018, this requirement applies only at
AB 1240
Page 2
schools where at least 60%, but less than 80%, of all pupils
enrolled are needy children.
3)Requires, on and after July 1, 2018, a nutritionally adequate
breakfast to be made available each schoolday at no cost at a
school where at least 80% of the pupils are considered needy.
Requires breakfast to be available after instruction has begun
for the schoolday.
4)Specifies that no pupil shall be required to consume a meal.
5)Defines "after instruction has begun for the schoolday" as
after the time the schoolday has begun for a majority for the
pupils enrolled at that school.
6)Finds and declares that research shows that children who eat
breakfast have improved cognitive function, demonstrate higher
academic achievement, exhibit better behavior, and have
healthier diets. Further finds that public schools would
receive $344 million in federal funds through the federal
School Breakfast Program (SBP) if the federal SBP reached as
many low-income pupils as the National School Lunch Program
(SLP).
EXISTING LAW:
1)Expresses the intent of the Legislature that, as a state
nutrition and health policy, that the School Breakfast Program
be made available in all schools where it is needed to provide
adequate nutrition for children in attendance, because a
hungry child cannot learn. (Education Code (EC) Section
49550.3)
AB 1240
Page 3
2)Requires each school district or county superintendent of
schools maintaining any kindergarten through grade 12 to
provide for each needy pupil one nutritionally adequate free
or reduced-price meal during each schoolday, except for family
day care homes that shall be reimbursed for 75% of the meals
served. (EC Section 49550)
3)Requires the California Department of Education (CDE) to
conduct a study on or before March 31, 2007, identifying the
number of schools that meet the qualifications for federal
severe need reimbursement, that do not offer breakfast, the
costs and feasibility associated with requiring schools to
offer breakfast, and the changes that need to be made to
existing law to implement a program to require schools to
offer breakfast. (EC Section 49550.2)
4)Defines "needy children" as those children who meet federal
eligibility criteria for free and reduced-price meals, except
for family day care homes which shall be reimbursed for 75% of
the meals. (EC Section 49552)
FISCAL EFFECT: The Legislative Counsel has keyed this bill as a
state-mandated local program.
COMMENTS: Is breakfast important? Research has shown that
breakfast, particularly school breakfast, improves student
participation in school, gives students energy so that they can
pay better attention, and may even improve behavior. In a 2014
study by the Journal of Public Economics, David Frisvold from
the University of Iowa found gains in student math achievement
using National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data.
The study concludes that "Overall, these results suggest that
the persistent exposure to the relatively more nutritious
breakfast offered through the SBP throughout elementary school
AB 1240
Page 4
can yield important gains in achievement."
Free and reduced-price meal (FRPM) programs. Existing law
requires local educational agencies to provide one nutritiously
adequate FRPM to needy children once a day during each
schoolday. A needy child is defined as a child who meets the
federal eligibility for FRPM. For the free meal category,
household income must be at or below 130% of the federal poverty
guidelines. For the reduced-price category, household income
must be between 130% and 185% of federal poverty guidelines. As
an example, a pupil is eligible for free meals if his/her family
income is less than $31,525 for a family of four, and
reduced-price meals if his/her family income is less than
$44,863. Current law also establishes a direct certification
process, whereby children who are enrolled in certain public
benefits programs such as CalWORKs and CalFresh are
automatically enrolled in the FRPM program, and a categorically
eligible process, whereby migrant, homeless and foster care
children are also automatically enrolled. Schools can also
exercise the Community Eligibility Option, which allows school
districts to provide breakfast and lunch to all pupils at a
school or district where at least 40% of the identified students
were deemed eligible through eligibility for CalWORKs or
CalFresh in the prior year. Federal regulations limit the charge
for reduced-price meal to $.30 for SBP and $.40 for SLP.
School meal programs are funded predominantly by the United
States Department of Agriculture through its National School
Lunch and School Breakfast Program and supplemented by state
funds. These programs are federal entitlement programs, which
mean that allocations are not fixed; federal funds will be
provided as long as recipients meet income eligibility criteria.
The federal government also offers a higher reimbursement rate
for schools enrolling higher levels of eligible students, which
enables those schools to provide meals to all pupils.
AB 1240
Page 5
According to the CDE, in 2013-14, the state received $447
million in federal funds for SBP and $1.35 billion in federal
funds for SLP. State funds augmented the program by $53 million
for SBP and $101 million for SLP.
What does this bill do? This bill requires, beginning July 1,
2016, all schools where at least 40% of the pupils enrolled at
the school are eligible for FRPM to offer breakfast. In future
years, schools with higher levels of pupils eligible for FRPM
are required to offer breakfast after instruction has begun and
free of charge. Specifically, this bill requires breakfast to
be provided according to the following:
------------------------------------------------------------------
| Timeline | % of pupils | Breakfast provided | Free? |
| | eligible for | after Instruction | |
| | FRPM | Begins? | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|------------------+----------------+---------------------+--------|
|Beginning July 1, | 40% - 60% | No | No |
| 2016 | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|------------------+----------------+---------------------+--------|
|Beginning July 1, | 60% - 80% | Yes | No |
| 2017 | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|------------------+----------------+---------------------+--------|
|Beginning July 1, | 80% + | Yes | Yes |
| 2018 | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
Purpose of this bill. According to the sponsor, the
California Food Policy Advocates (CFPA), the purpose of the bill
AB 1240
Page 6
is to increase the level of participation in the SBP. According
to the CDE, participation in the SBP is about half of the
participation in the SLP. In 2013-14, 2.5 million of the 3.4
million students eligible for SLP participated in the SLP
(73.53%), compared with 1.3 million participating in the SBP
(38%).
According to CDE, there are 151 schools that meet the 40% needy
student criterion that offer SLP but do not offer SBP. There
are an additional 658 schools that do not offer FRPM programs.
However, it is unclear how many of these schools offer meals on
their own without participating in the FRPM program or that have
pupils participating in another school's meal program (e.g.,
pupil enrolled in a county office of education-run program
located at a district schoolsite).
Other models of delivery. Low participation may be due to
students not arriving at school early enough for breakfast and
students' reluctance to go to the cafeteria for fear of being
identified as a student eligible for FRPM. This bill attempts
to provide other strategies for when and how to offer breakfast
to increase breakfast participation. The USDA promotes
alternative delivery models such as grab 'n go breakfast (also
called breakfast carts), typically served in a bag from carts
that students can pick up on their way to their first class;
second chance breakfast (also called nutrition break breakfast),
which enables students to grab breakfast during morning recess;
breakfast on the bus, where students get a bagged breakfast on
the bus; and breakfast in the classroom.
In the breakfast in the classroom model, hot or cold breakfasts
are packed in insulated bags or coolers and brought to the
classrooms in carts or wagons. While the teacher is taking
attendance, collecting homework, or making announcements,
students are eating their breakfasts. According to the sponsor,
there are a number of school districts that have implemented
AB 1240
Page 7
breakfast in the classroom, including Adelante Unified, Alum
Rock Union Unified, Chula Vista Unified, Clovis Unified, Compton
Unified, El Monte Unified, Hawthorne Unified, Lemon Grove
Unified, Los Angeles Unified, Oakland Unified, Oceanside
Unified, Pajaro Valley Unified, Riverside Unified, San Diego
Unified, and Sanger Unified.
A national survey of 1,000 K-8 public schools in 2013 found that
serving breakfast after the bell (after instruction has begun)
increased breakfast participation by 35% in one year. This bill
requires, for schools enrolling at least 60% of students
eligible for FRPM, breakfast to be provided after instruction
has begun for a majority of the students at the school. The
bill does not dictate when after the bell breakfast must be
served or how breakfast will be served. Therefore, a school can
implement a breakfast in the classroom model or a second chance
breakfast model during morning recess. According to the
sponsor, this bill will result in access to breakfast after the
bell at more than 5,000 schools and of those, breakfast free of
charge to all students at more than 3,000 schools.
Implementation challenges. Requiring breakfast to be served
after instruction has begun may result in some challenges. Some
teachers do not favor breakfast in the classroom due to the time
it takes from instruction, particularly at the higher grade
levels. Staff recommends limiting the requirements of this bill
to elementary schools. The CDE has also pointed out potential
conflicts for schools that receive funds from the Fresh Fruit
and Vegetable program, which provides healthy snacks during
non-meal times. If schools choose to offer breakfast during
morning recess, the fruit and vegetable snacks may have to be
provided as an afternoon snack.
School breakfast report. AB 569 (Garcia), Chapter 72, Statutes
of 2006 required the CDE to submit a report to the Legislature
regarding the feasibility of providing breakfasts at schools
AB 1240
Page 8
that meet the requirements for the federal severe need
reimbursement (schools where 40% or more of the lunches that
were served two years earlier were provided free or at a
reduced-price). The CDE contracted with WestEd to conduct the
report. The report found that while a majority of the severe
need schools participated in the SBP, many students were still
not eating breakfast. The report recommended support for a
state requirement that severe need schools provide breakfast,
but suggested that a waiver process be available. The report
also suggested encouraging schools to try a variety of proven
strategy to increase participation in the SBP, including the
strategies intended by this bill. The author may wish to
consider including a waiver from the requirement to offer
breakfast after instruction has begun for those schools that
already have a high participation rate in their current
breakfast program.
Arguments in support. The author states, "School breakfast is
associated with improved academic achievement, attendance, and
classroom behavior. Children who eat breakfast demonstrate
increased cognitive function and focus and perform better on
tests. Children who eat breakfast also demonstrate better
emotional health and stronger memory function. School breakfast
participants are more likely to consume essential vitamins and
micronutrients and have overall healthier diets. Eating
breakfast is also associated with healthier body weight.
After-the-bell breakfast models are known to reach more students
than traditional school breakfast service.
Current law does not adequately ensure that students have access
to school breakfast. Three out of four students in California
miss out on the health and academic benefits of a nutritious
school breakfast."
Prior related legislation. AB 839 (Brownley), held in the
Senate Appropriations suspense file in 2011, would have
required a local governing board to consider specified data
AB 1240
Page 9
regarding the federal SBP in the process of approving the
consolidated application for specified categorical program
funding.
AB 1966 (Garcia), held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee
suspense file in 2008, requires schoolsites that enroll more
than 400 pupils and meet the qualifications of federal severe
need reimbursement to offer breakfast, beginning with the
2010-11 school year.
AB 92 (Garcia), held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee
suspense file in 2007, requires each schoolsite that meets the
qualifications of the federal severe need reimbursement to offer
breakfast, beginning with the 2008-09 school year.
AB 569 (Garcia), Chapter 72, Statutes of 2006, required the CDE
to conduct a study on or before March 31, 2007 regarding the
feasibility of providing breakfasts at schools that meet the
requirements for the federal severe need reimbursement and to
report the results of the study to the Legislature.
AB 1916 (Garcia), held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee
in 2006, would have required each schoolsite that meets the
qualifications of the federal severe need reimbursement to offer
breakfast.
AB 2935 (Goldberg), vetoed by Governor Davis in 2002, would have
required a school district meeting specified criteria for low
performance, to hold a public hearing at a regularly scheduled
meeting to discuss items relating to offering breakfast to their
students through the SBP.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
AB 1240
Page 10
Support
California Food Policy Advocates (sponsor)
Alameda County Community Food Bank
California Association of Food Banks
California Catholic Conference of Bishops
California Center for Public Health Advocacy
California Conference of local Health Department Nutritionists
California Hunger Action Coalition
California Pan-Ethnic Health Network
California School-Based Health Alliance
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Community Food and Justice Coalition
AB 1240
Page 11
Food Bank of Contra Costa and Solano
Hunger Action Los Angeles
Hunger Advocacy Network
Jewish Family Service of San Diego
Locally Delicious, Inc.
National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter
OC Food Bank
Orange County Food Access Coalition
Roots of Change
San Diego Hunger Coalition
San Francisco Unified School District
SF-Marin Food Book
Urban & Environmental Policy Institute
AB 1240
Page 12
Western Center on Law and Poverty
Numerous individuals
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by:Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087