BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 839
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 839 (Brownley)
As Amended May 27, 2011
Majority vote
EDUCATION 7-2 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Brownley, Ammiano, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield, |
| |Buchanan, | |Bradford, Charles |
| |Bonilla, Carter, Eng, | |Calderon, Campos, Davis, |
| |Williams | |Gatto, Hill, Hall, Lara, |
| | | |Mitchell, Solorio |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Norby, Halderman |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, |
| | | |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires a local governing board to consider specified
data regarding the federal School Breakfast Program (SBP) in the
process of approving the consolidated application for specified
categorical program funding. 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; and,
AB 839
Page 2
d) Through the school district board approval of the
consolidation application, many local governing boards meet
annually to address the number of low-income pupils they
serve, which provides an excellent opportunity for local
governing boards to discuss the SBP and its potential to
support these pupils.
2)Specifies that to increase access to and participation in the
federal SBP, school districts that elect to apply for
specified categorical program funding through the consolidated
application process, shall, in the process of the school
district board approving the application, use data required in
the application, specifically, the number of pupils eligible
for free and reduced-price meals, to assess and discuss, in a
regularly scheduled governing board meeting, each of the
following that applies:
a) Access to the federal SBP. Requires the governing board
to identify the number of pupils who are eligible for free
and reduced-price meals and attend a school that does not
operate the SBP. Requires the governing board to include
in the consolidated application a statement that does all
of the following:
i) Affirms which schools not operating the SBP will
continue not to operate the program and articulates the
reasons for continued nonoperation of the program at
these schools; and,
ii) Indicates which schools not operating the SBP will
begin to operate the program and provides a date of
program implementation for each of these schools.
b) Participation in the SBP. Requires a local governing
board to do all of the following:
i) Use existing data that is regularly collected for
the purposes of claiming school meal reimbursements to
identify schoolsites within the school district that have
low participation in the SBP. For purposes of this bill,
school sites with low participation in the SBP are those
in which either of the following applies:
(1) Average daily participation of free and
AB 839
Page 3
reduced-price-meal-eligible pupils in the federal SBP
is 20% or less than the average daily participation of
free- and reduced-price-meal-eligible pupils in the
federal National School Lunch Program (SLP); or,
(2) Average daily participation of free and
reduced-price-meal-eligible pupils in the federal SBP
is 15% or less than the number of enrolled pupils who
are eligible for free- and reduced-price meals.
ii) Consider options, including, but not limited to,
alternative service locations, service times, and payment
structures for operating the federal SBP; and,
iii) Include in the consolidated application a statement
that:
(1) Indicates which schools within the school
district that operate a federal SBP with low
participation will continue the program without
operational changes, including, but not limited to,
changes in service locations, service times, or
payment structures, and articulates the reasons and
fiscal analyses for not making these changes to the
program; and,
(2) Indicates which schools within the district
that operate a federal SBP with low participation will
implement operational changes to the program and
provides a date of implementation for those changes.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, General Fund/Proposition 98 cost pressure to school
districts, likely less than $200,000, to meet all of the
reporting and public disclosure requirements of this bill. In
2009-10, there were 1,021 school districts in the state.
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
AB 839
Page 4
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."
Existing law requires local educational agencies (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
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 California Department of
Education (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 the California Work Opportunity and
Responsibility to Kids 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 LEAs interested in submitting a consolidated
application for specified categorical funds to use SBP data to
determine how to increase access to and participation in SBP.
AB 839
Page 5
According to the CDE, the consolidated application is used by
the CDE to distribute categorical funds from various state and
federal programs to county offices, school districts, and
direct-funded charter schools throughout California, including
funds for Economic Impact Aid, federal Title I funds to assist
disadvantaged pupils, federal professional development programs,
California Peer Assistance and Review programs and state and
federal school safety programs.
According to the sponsor, the California Food Policy Advocates
(CFPA), 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, which 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
consider options that will increase access to SBP at schoolsites
that do not offer SBP and increase the participation rate at
schoolsites that do offer the SBP.
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 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."
Analysis Prepared by : Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087
FN: 0001143
AB 839
Page 6