BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 839
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 13, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Julia Brownley, Chair
AB 839 (Brownley) - As Introduced: February 17, 2011
SUBJECT : Pupil nutrition: federal School Breakfast Program
participation
SUMMARY : Requires each school district or county superintendent
of schools maintaining kindergarten or any of grades 1 through
12 to submit specified reports and governing board resolutions
to the California Department of Education (CDE) regarding access
and participation in the federal School Breakfast Program (SBP).
Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes findings and declarations regarding the importance of
breakfast and the SBP, including the following:
a) Children who eat breakfast have more healthful diets and
demonstrate better cognitive performance and improved
academic achievement.
b) Research shows that breakfasts served at school are
often more nutritious than breakfasts served at home or
elsewhere; pupils who participate in federal SBP are more
likely to have a healthier body weight than
nonparticipants.
c) Alternative delivery models, such as Classroom Breakfast
and Second Chance Breakfast, have been shown to improve
school breakfast participation and improve learning
environments by decreasing pupil absenteeism, tardiness,
reports of stomachache and headache and disciplinary
issues.
2)Specifies that to increase access to the federal SBP, each
school district shall do all of the following:
a) Submit a report to the CDE on each noncharter, public
schoolsite within the district that did not operate a
federal SBP in the previous school year that shall include:
i) The number of pupils enrolled at the site who are
eligible to receive free or reduced-price meals.
ii) The average daily participation in the federal
National School Lunch Program (SLP) among low-income
AB 839
Page 2
pupils at the site.
iii) The reasons for not operating a breakfast program at
the site.
b) Hear and discuss the report at two school district board
meetings.
c) Adopt a resolution that does each of the following and
submit it to the CDE:
i) Indicates which noncharter, public schoolsites that
did not operate a federal SBP in the previous school year
will continue not to operate the program and articulates
the reason for continued nonoperation.
ii) Indicates which noncharter, public schoolsites that
did not operate a federal SBP in the previous school year
will begin to operate the program and provides a timeline
for implementation of the program.
3)Specifies that to increase participation in the federal SBP at
sites where a breakfast program already exists, school
districts shall do all of the following:
a) Identify noncharter, public schoolsites within the
district that operate a federal SBP but experience low
participation. Specifies that for purposes of this bill,
sites experiencing low participation in the federal SBP are
those in which either of the following apply:
i) Average daily participation of free- and
reduced-price-lunch-eligible pupils in the federal SBP is
20% or less, or is less than the average daily
participation in free- and reduced-price-lunch-eligible
pupils in the federal National SBP.
ii) Average daily participation of free and
reduced-price-lunch-eligible pupils in the federal SBP is
15% or less than the number of enrolled pupils.
b) Submit a report to the CDE that includes all of the
following for each schoolsite in the school district:
i) The number of pupils enrolled at the schoolsite who
are eligible to receive free or reduced-price school
meals.
ii) The average daily participation in the federal
AB 839
Page 3
National SBP among low-income pupils at the schoolsite.
iii) Consideration of options including, but not limited
to, alternative service locations, service times, and
payment structures for the federal SBP.
c) Hear and discuss the report at two school district board
meetings.
d) Adopt a resolution that does each of the following and
submit it to the CDE:
i) Indicates which noncharter, public schoolsites
within the district that operate a federal SBP will
continue to operate the program without changes to
service locations, service times, or payment structures
and articulates the reasons and fiscal analyses for not
making changes to the program.
ii) Indicates which noncharter, public schoolsites
within the district that operate a federal SBP will
continue to operate the program with changes to service
locations, service times, or payment structures and
provides a timeline for implementing those changes.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Finds that the proper nutrition of children is a matter of
highest state priority and that there is a demonstrated
relationship between the intake of food and good nutrition and
the capacity of children to develop and learn.
2)Specifies that, because a hungry child cannot learn, the
Legislature intends, as a state nutrition and health policy,
that the SBP be made available in all schools where it is
needed to provide adequate nutrition for children in
attendance. Requires the CDE to, in cooperation with school
districts and county superintendents of schools, provide
information and limited financial assistance to encourage
program startup and expansion into all qualified schools.
3)Requires each school district or county superintendent of
schools maintaining any kindergarten or any of grades 1
through 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.
AB 839
Page 4
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.
5)Requires the governing board of a school district and the
county superintendent of schools to make applications for free
or reduced price meals available to students at all times
during each regular schoolday. Requires the application to
contain specified information.
6)Authorizes the governing board of any school district to
establish rules by which to determine which pupils are needy
except for family day care homes which shall be reimbursed for
75% of the meals served. Specifies that any pupil within the
category of children eligible for aid or services under
specified public assistance programs shall be deemed needy.
7)Requires the CDE to create a computerized data-matching system
using existing databases from the CDE and the State Department
of Health Care Services to directly certify recipients of the
Food Stamp Program, the California Work Opportunity and
Responsibility to Kids Program (CalWORKs), and other programs
authorized for direct certification under federal law, for
enrollment in the SLP and SBPs.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : According to the author, "School breakfast
consumption is associated with better nutrition, better health
and improved academic achievement. Children who eat breakfast
have healthier diets, perform better in school and are less
likely to be overweight or obese. Today, millions of lowincome
kids in California attend schools that do not offer the
federallyfunded School Breakfast Program (SBP) or that operate
the program but arent reaching enough students. Schools can
improve student health, bolster academic achievement and
capitalize on available federal funds by putting breakfast
first."
School meal programs : Existing law requires LEAs to provide one
nutritiously adequate free and reduced-price meal to needy
children once a day during each schoolday. A needy child is
defined as a child who meets the federal eligibility for free
AB 839
Page 5
and reduced-price meals. School meal programs are funded
predominantly by the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) through its National School Lunch and School Breakfast
programs and supplemented by state funds. These programs are
federal entitlement programs, which mean that allocations are
not at a set amount; federal funds will be provided as long as
recipients meet eligibility criteria. In 2009-10, the state
received $341.3 million for SBP and $1.2 billion for SLP. State
funds augmented the program by $40.6 million for SBP and $93.8
million for SLP. According to the CDE, on an average day, more
than 4.7 million nutritious meals are served at approximately
43,000 locations. Income eligibility is 130% of federal poverty
guidelines for free meals ($28,665 for a family of four) and
185% of federal poverty guidelines for reduced-price meals
($40,793 for a family of four). 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 free and
reduced-price meal program, and a categorically eligible
process, whereby migrant, homeless and foster care children are
also automatically enrolled. Existing law requires a LEA to
make applications for free or reduced price meals available to
students at all times during each regular schoolday. According
to the CDE, 1,013 of 1,047 districts in the state offer SLP
while 866 districts offer SBP.
An analysis by Kidsdata.org found that the percentage of
students who are eligible for free or reduced price meals
increased between 2008 and 2010, from 51% to 56%. More students
are eligible for free meals (47%) than reduced meals (9%).
This bill requires each local educational agency (LEA) to
prepare two reports, one focusing on schools that do not offer
SBP and another on schools that do offer SBP but have low
participation rates. According to the sponsor, the California
Food Policy Advocates (CFPA), there are drafting errors in the
definition of "low participation rate" that result in confusion
in the intention of the bill. The author offers clarifying
amendments on page 4, beginning line 25, that should read as
follows:
(A) Average daily participation of free- and
reduced-price-lunch-eligible pupils in the federal School
Breakfast Program is 20 percent or less , or is less than the
average daily participation of in free- and
AB 839
Page 6
reduced-price-lunch-eligible pupils in the federal National
School Lunch Program.
(B) Average daily participation of free and
reduced-price-lunch-eligible pupils in the federal School
Breakfast Program is 15 percent or less than the number of
enrolled pupils who are eligible for free- and reduced-price
meals.
According to the sponsor, while participation rate by school
districts and students are high for the SLP - 70% of eligible
students - participation in the SBP is only 30% of eligible
students. Specifically, a survey conducted by CFPA found that
there are 750 public schools in California, enrolling over
54,000 low-income students, that do not offer SBP. While 91% of
California's public schools do operate SBP, over 2.3 million of
California's low-income students do not eat breakfast. The goal
of this bill is to increase access to SBP by requiring LEAs to
prepare and discuss two specified reports at two governing board
meetings to shed light on why schools are not offering SBP or
why students do not participate in the program, even if their
schools offer breakfast. The bill also requires a governing
board to adopt a resolution with specified information; and
submit the reports and the resolutions to the CDE. The
following details the information required in the reports and
the resolutions:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Report on schools that did not |Report on schools with low SBP |
|operate SBP during the previous |participation rate among |
|school year: |eligible students: |
| | |
| The number of pupils | The number of pupils |
| enrolled at each | enrolled at the schoolsite |
| schoolsite who are | who are eligible to |
| eligible to receive free | receive free and |
| or reduced-price meals. | reduced-price meals. |
| The average daily | The average daily |
| participation in the NLP | participation in the SLP |
| among low-income pupils at | among low-income pupils at |
| each schoolsite. | the schoolsite. |
| The reasons for not | Consideration of |
| operating a SBP at each | options, including, but |
| schoolsite. | not limited to, |
| | alternative service |
AB 839
Page 7
| | locations, service times, |
| | and payment structure for |
| |the SBP. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| Adopt a resolution that contains the following: |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| | |
| Indicates which | Indicates which |
| noncharter, public | noncharter, public |
| schoolsites that did not | schoolsites within the |
| operate a SBP in the | district that operate a |
| previous school year will | SBP will continue to |
| continue not to operate | operate the program |
| the program and the | without changes to service |
| reasons for continued | locations, services times, |
| nonoperation. | or payment structures and |
| | articulates the reasons |
| Indicates which | and fiscal analyses for |
| noncharter, public schools | not making the changes to |
| that did not operate a SBP | the program. |
| in the previous year will | |
| begin to operate the | Indicates which |
| program, including the | noncharter, public |
| timeline for | schoolsites within the |
| implementation. | district that operate a |
| | SBP will continue to |
| | operate with changes to |
| | service locations, service |
| | times, or payment |
| | structures, including a |
| | timeline for |
| | implementation. |
| | |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Prior Study . 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
AB 839
Page 8
reimbursement and to report the results of the study to the
Legislature. The bill also appropriated $170,000 for the study.
The CDE contracted with WestEd to conduct the study, which
focused on "severe need" schools that do not offer breakfast,
defined by the federal government as schools where at least 40%
of the lunches served to students at the school in the second
preceding school year were served free or at a reduced price.
The federal government provides $.28 more per meal served at
severe need schools. The study, based on a randomly sampled
survey of severe need schools, found that challenges to
initiating SBPs include logistics of meshing the SBP with bus
schedules and class schedules, anticipated lack of student
participation, extra paper work required, and cost to hire an
additional district nutrition services staff.
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 free and reduced-price
meals. This bill requires the report focusing on low
participation rate at schools that participate in the SBP to
consider strategies to increase breakfast participation by
offering breakfast in non-traditional ways, including
alternative service locations, services, times, and payment
structures. The USDA promotes alternative delivery models such
as breakfast after first period (also called nutrition break
breakfast), grab 'n go breakfast (also called breakfast carts),
second chance breakfast, breakfast on the bus, and the most
popular being breakfast in the classroom. In the breakfast in
the classroom model, hot or cold breakfasts are packed in
insulated bags 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.
Teachers that participate in this delivery model strongly
support the concept. Allowing 10 to 15 minutes for students to
eat breakfast has many longer-term benefits, including incentive
to come to school on time, increasing energy and concentration,
better attendance rates, and fewer illnesses. Parents are
supportive of the program, recognizing that breakfast is
frequently skipped because mornings are so hectic. According to
the sponsor, there are a number of schools that have implemented
breakfast in the classroom, including Alum Rock Union Unified,
Berkeley Unified, Compton Unified, Folsom-Cordova Unified,
Hawthorne Unified, Modesto City Unified, North Monterey County
Unified, Oakland Unified, Pittsburgh Unified, San Diego Unified,
AB 839
Page 9
Sanger Unified, and West Contra Costa Unified.
Breakfast after the first period or second chance breakfast
provides students a mid-morning snack in between classes. These
models can be combined with grab 'n go whereby students can pick
up a nutritious food (fruit, milk) from a cart after the first
class. Breakfast on the bus has more logistical challenges but
the idea is that kids eat their breakfast on the bus. In an
alternative payment structure, a school can waive the payment
for a pupil eligible for reduced-price meals or seek
reimbursement through "provision 2" whereby breakfast is
provided at no charge for any student that wants it that day.
Provision 2 reduces application burdens and simplifies meal
counting and claiming procedures by allowing schools to
establish claiming percentages. Provision 2 works best at
schools where at least 75% of students are eligible for free and
reduced-price meals.
To encourage adoption of alternative delivery models, the CDE
awards SBP start up or expansion grants of $15,000 to schools
with at least 20% of students eligible for free and
reduced-price meals to pay for nonrecurring expenses related to
initiating or expanding innovative programs. An average of 74
schools receives funding every year.
2006 Advisory Committee recommendations . This bill is
consistent with the recommendations of former Superintendent of
Public Instruction Jack O'Connell's Advisory Committee on
Nutrition Implementation Strategies. The Advisory Committee,
comprised of representatives of district superintendents,
parents, students, teachers, nutrition advocates, principals,
food service directors, and CDE looked at how to improve and
increase access to healthy food. The Advisory Committee issued
a report "School Nutrition . . . By Design!" in 2006 that
includes in its recommendations a suggestion that local
governing boards review a decision not to participate in a meal
program annually.
Arguments in Support . The co-sponsors of the bill, the CFPA and
the Junior Leagues of California, state, "Research shows that
school breakfast programs have the ability to positively affect
student health, nutrition, and academic achievement, as well as
district finances. Consequently, all stakeholders from parents
to teachers to school board members should have the opportunity
to participate in decisions affecting these programs. Faced
AB 839
Page 10
with limited state resources for public education, a significant
achievement gap between low-income students and their more
affluent peers, and a persistent childhood obesity epidemic,
California cannot afford to forego federal funds that would help
bring the health and academic benefits of breakfast to more
students in the state."
Considerations . The bill requires a local governing board to
discuss the reports at two meetings. The author may wish to
consider whether one meeting would be sufficient.
The bill requires the governing board to hear the report and
adopt a resolution, as specified. The author may wish to
consider incorporating the information required by the
resolution in the report.
Related legislation . AB 402 (Skinner), pending in the Assembly
Education Committee, authorizes a school district or a county
superintendent of schools to incorporate CalFresh program
information in the SLP application
Prior related legislation . 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.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Food Policy Advocates (co-sponsor)
Junior Leagues of California (co-sponsor)
California Action for Healthy Kids
AB 839
Page 11
California Association of Food Banks
California Chiropractic Association
California School Employees Association
California School Nurses Organization
Junior League of Fresno
Junior League of Monterey County
The Junior League of San Francisco, Inc.
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087