Using American Community Survey Data to Expand Access to the School Meals Programs (2012) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
5 A Plan for Implementing the AEO
5 A Plan for Implementing the AEO
Pages 151-202
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 151... ...
in reimbursing school districts for the federal government's share of the costs of providing free school meals to all enrolled students in participating schools. Expanding the availability of free meals would likely lead to increased participation by students, which in turn could well lead to such desired outcomes as improved nutrition, health, and school performance.
|
From page 152... ...
Although this evidence supports the statement that the AEO may appeal to districts with free or reduced-price eligibility percentages greater than 75 percent, it also shows that there must be reasons why districts with smaller percentages of free- and reduced-price-eligible students may choose to participate. The panel observes further that because many districts with less than 75 percent eligible students districtwide include some schools that exceed the 75 percent cutoff, still more students could benefit from a universal free meals program should these districts adopt the AEO for a subset of their schools.
|
From page 153... ...
The remainder of this chapter briefly summarizes the reasons why the panel's initial goal of a universal method could not be achieved and then provides a detailed description of a tailored approach to implementing the AEO for consideration by FNS. In the subset of districts that decides to investigate the AEO and for which accurate claiming percentages can be developed, it might still be possible to achieve the AEO's advantages of providing universal free meals and eliminating applications.
|
From page 154... ...
. Systematic Differences The first, and most important, impediment to a universal, one-sizefits-all approach for the AEO is that in districts with more than 50 percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price meals, ACS direct estimates,2 when compared with administrative estimates for all such school districts and for all the schools in the panel's five case study districts, generally understate the percentage of students eligible for free meals and overstate the percentages eligible for reduced-price and full-price meals.
|
From page 155... ...
, and the importance of each factor varies among districts. Sampling Variability In addition to the systematic differences between ACS eligibility estimates and administrative data, the ACS estimates exhibit sampling variability, which could cause claiming percentages and reimbursements to fluctuate excessively from year to year.
|
From page 156... ...
The base-year participation rates will reflect any changes in participation due to providing free meals to all students, and they can be used in conjunction with ACS eligibility estimates for establishing claiming percentages. Of course, a full cost-benefit calculation also needs to account for nonpecuniary benefits, such as an improved environment in the cafeteria due to elimination of stigma and improvements in diet quality that may ultimately lead to improvements in student health and school performance.
|
From page 157... ...
All of these officials, however, emphasized that their district would need to "run the numbers" to determine whether the AEO was financially viable in terms of the district being able to cover the costs of the meals programs through federal reimbursements and other sources of funds while providing free meals to all students attending schools in which the AEO might be adopted. OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED AEO As noted above, the AEO proposed by the panel, like Provision 2, begins with a base year during which districts collect applications, conduct verifications, and count meals but feed all students free of charge.
|
From page 158... ...
As described in more detail below, it will be important for FNS to monitor the accuracy of ACS eligibility estimates, the accuracy of administrative certification estimates, and the accuracy and stability of differences between ACS and administrative estimates. If FNS detects substantial changes, the causes and implications of such changes will need to be investigated.
|
From page 159... ...
Program for all school districts included in its geographic database. Hence, it should be relatively straightforward for the Census Bureau to prepare estimates for school districts according to the panel's specifications.4 The AEO Calculator The panel envisions that FNS will provide the AEO Calculator, a web-based tool for districts to use in analyzing the feasibility of the AEO, calculating benchmarked ACS eligibility percentages, and calculating claiming percentages for use under the AEO.
|
From page 160... ...
The AEO Calculator would produce benchmarked estimates -- that is, estimates adjusted to reflect local circumstances, such as a large migrant population or other systematic differences between the ACS data and local administrative data. The district would assess the relationship among district administrative data, the ACS eligibility estimates, and ACS benchmarked estimates and determine whether the 5The panel found a paucity of consistent data on costs of administrative processes for school districts.
|
From page 161... ...
Should the district decide to go forward with the AEO, the benchmarking adjustments and participation rates derived during the base year would be used to produce updated benchmarked ACS eligibility estimates and claiming percentages in future years as new ACS data were released. After the initial base year, no additional base years would be required.
|
From page 162... ...
The Census Bureau has indicated that if school districts were to provide sufficiently accurate digitized school attendance area boundaries or lists of the census blocks associated with school attendance areas (or both) , it would be able to provide special ACS tabulations of students eligible for free and reduced-price school meals for those areas.
|
From page 163... ...
After ACS estimates have been derived by the Census Bureau according to the procedures described above and released, a district that is potentially interested in districtwide adoption of the AEO can follow these steps: 1. Calculate preliminary benchmarked ACS eligibility estimates and BRRs.
|
From page 164... ...
TABLE 5-2 Number and Percentage of School Districts in the United States in 2009-2010 by Need, Heterogeneity of Need, and Enrollment Size Need: School District Percentage Approved for Free or Reduced-Price Meals Low (< 50%) Medium (50 to 75%)
|
From page 165... ...
Step 1: Calculate Preliminary Benchmarked ACS Eligibility Estimates and BRRs The first step for a district that is interested in the AEO is to use the AEO Calculator to obtain preliminary benchmarked ACS estimates and BRRs based on those estimates. For purposes of this discussion, we assume that it is early 2013, just after the Census Bureau has provided 2011, 2009-2011, and 2007-2011 ACS estimates of students eligible for the school meals programs to FNS.
|
From page 166... ...
If a large district determines that the BRRs based on 1-year estimates fluctuate too much from year to year, it may find that the BRRs based on 3- or 5-year estimates are sufficiently stable. A district should keep in mind that its participation rates will likely increase -- although differentially across categories -- and the total meals served will increase if it offers free meals to all students (see Step 3 below, which entails conducting an AEO base year to observe participation effects)
|
From page 167... ...
Step 1c: Calculate preliminary benchmarking adjustments (illustrated for 5-year estimates) Bf5 = SC5 f f SE5 =b enchmarking adjustment for 5-year estimates of percentage of students eligible for free meals, and Br5 = SrC5 - SE5 r =benchmarking adjustment for 5-year estimates of percentage of students eligible for reduced-price meals.
|
From page 168... ...
, the district should consider waiting another year until the 2012, 2010-2012, and 2008-2012 ACS estimates are released, allowing the assessment of BRRs constructed from benchmarked ACS estimates based on the new population controls for 3 years.13 If a district concludes from its assessment that it would be financially viable to operate under the AEO using benchmarked ACS estimates and that BRRs are likely to be sufficiently stable, it should proceed to the next step. If the BRRs fall outside an acceptable range or are excessively variable, the district can either cease its consideration of the AEO or conduct further research to determine, for example, whether a different adjustment method would improve the estimates.
|
From page 169... ...
It should also monitor changes in the total number of meals served and record the number of meals served to students in each eligibility category during October of the base year.14 These figures 14Ifthe student enrollment in a district fluctuates seasonally with, for example, the movement of families of migrant workers, the district may be able to use average administrative estimates of certified students and meals served for the entire school year, rather than figures just for October, in the calculations performed to benchmark ACS estimates and derive claiming percentages.
|
From page 170... ...
The AEO Calculator will also compute updated BRRs using each set of benchmarked ACS estimates and the district's participation rates for October of the AEO base year. Step 5: Conduct a Final Assessment of the Use of Benchmarked ACS Estimates to Implement the AEO In Step 5, a district will perform an assessment that is similar to the preliminary assessment conducted in Step 2.
|
From page 171... ...
, and Dp* , respectively, are the free, reduced-price, and full-price fB rB participation rates from the AEO base year, and SEk12 and SEk12 are the bench marked k-year eligibility percentages (k = 1, 3, or 5)
|
From page 172... ...
Examples of Calculations for Case Study Districts The panel's recommended procedure is illustrated here with calculations for the case study districts. For these illustrative calculations, we use the ACS 1-year estimates because enough sets of 3- and 5-year estimates BOX 5-5 Benchmarking Future ACS Eligibility Estimates Step 7a: Benchmark each new set of ACS estimates If the district is using the k-year estimates to establish claiming rates, the bench marked eligibility percentages are fB SEkTT = SEkTT f + Bk,Final f , rB SEkTT = SEkTT r + Brk,Final , and pB SEkTT = 1- SEkTT fB - SEkTT rB , where TT is the last year in the reference period for the k-year estimates; e.g., TT f r = 13 for the 5-year estimates for 2009-2013.
|
From page 173... ...
For the sake of illustration, we assume that the districts are beginning to consider the AEO in early 2009, just after the release of the ACS 1-year estimates for 2007, the third set of estimates after the previous release of estimates for 2005 and 2006. Tables 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, and 5-6 illustrate the calculation of the average of ACS eligibility percentages, the average of district certification percentages, the preliminary ACS benchmarking adjustments, and the preliminary benchmarked ACS eligibility percentages.
|
From page 174... ...
Percentage Certified for Free Meals Austin, Texas 52 52 54 53 Chatham County, Georgia 49 52 57 53 Norfolk, Virginia 48 46 47 47 Omaha, Nebraska 49 57 50 52 Pajaro Valley, California 58 56 55 56 Percentage Certified for Reduced-Price Meals Austin, Texas 9 8 8 9 Chatham County, Georgia 8 9 9 9 Norfolk, Virginia 11 11 11 11 Omaha, Nebraska 9 11 11 10 Pajaro Valley, California 5 7 9 7 NOTE: For Pajaro Valley, the panel was unable to obtain administrative data for 2005 (the 2005-2006 school year) so estimates for that year are based on data from the Common Core of Data (CCD)
|
From page 175... ...
Adjustment District 2005 2006 2007 (%) 2005 2006 2007 Percentage Eligible for Free Meals Austin, Texas 35 40 42 14 49 54 55 Chatham County, Georgia 34 42 37 16 49 57 52 Norfolk, Virginia 45 47 44 2 47 49 46 Omaha, Nebraska 40 43 35 13 53 56 48 Pajaro Valley, California 36 28 35 24 60 51 58 Percentage Eligible for Reduced-Price Meals Austin, Texas 10 11 11 2 8 9 9 Chatham County, Georgia 17 16 18 8 9 8 10 Norfolk, Virginia 14 17 11 3 11 14 8 Omaha, Nebraska 10 10 11 0 10 10 11 Pajaro Valley, California 12 15 19 8 4 6 10 NOTE: ACS = American Community Survey.
|
From page 176... ...
Austin, Texas 2005 49 8 2.34 1.94 0.24 1.81 2006 54 9 2.42 2.02 0.25 86 72 34 1.96 2007 55 9 2.49 2.09 0.25 2.04 Chatham County, Georgia 2005 49 9 2.34 1.94 0.24 1.64 2006 57 8 2.42 2.02 0.25 75 72 48 1.83 2007 52 10 2.49 2.09 0.25 1.82 Norfolk, Virginia 2005 47 11 2.34 1.94 0.24 1.67 2006 49 14 2.42 2.02 0.25 77 71 43 1.80 2007 46 8 2.49 2.09 0.25 1.71 Omaha, Nebraska 2005 53 10 2.34 1.94 0.24 1.69 2006 56 10 2.42 2.02 0.25 92 84 61 1.81 2007 48 11 2.49 2.09 0.25 1.72 Pajara Valley, California 2005 60 4 2.34 1.94 0.24 1.97 2006 51 6 2.42 2.02 0.25 68 52 23 1.94 2007 58 10 2.49 2.09 0.25 2.13 NOTE: It is assumed that in each year, each district qualified for the additional reimbursement of $0.02 per meal for having served at least 60 176 percent of meals free or reduced price 2 years earlier. BRR = blended reimbursement rate.
|
From page 177... ...
SOURCE: Prepared by the panel. administrative certification percentages instead of the benchmarked ACS eligibility estimates.
|
From page 178... ...
Austin, Texas 2005 52 9 2.34 1.94 0.24 1.87 2006 52 8 2.42 2.02 0.25 86 72 34 1.94 2007 54 8 2.49 2.09 0.25 2.01 Chatham County, Georgia 2005 49 8 2.34 1.94 0.24 1.64 2006 52 9 2.42 2.02 0.25 75 72 48 1.76 2007 57 9 2.49 2.09 0.25 1.90 Norfolk, Virginia 2005 48 11 2.34 1.94 0.24 1.68 2006 46 11 2.42 2.02 0.25 77 71 43 1.73 2007 47 11 2.49 2.09 0.25 1.79 Omaha, Nebraska 2005 49 9 2.34 1.94 0.24 1.61 2006 57 11 2.42 2.02 0.25 92 84 61 1.85 2007 50 11 2.49 2.09 0.25 1.77 Pajara Valley, California 2005 58 5 2.34 1.94 0.24 1.97 2006 56 7 2.42 2.02 0.25 68 52 23 2.01 2007 55 9 2.49 2.09 0.25 2.08 NOTES: For Pajaro Valley, the panel was unable to obtain administrative data for 2005 (the 2005-2006 school year) , so certification percentages for that year are based on data from the Common Core of Data (CCD)
|
From page 179... ...
Table 5-13 displays the calculation of the final benchmarking adjustments, and Table 5-14 shows the calculation of benchmarked eligibility percentages for 2005 through 2008. For evaluating the updated benchmarked estimates, Table 5-15 presents the calculation of BRRs based on the benchmarked eligibility percentages and the districts' participation rates during the base year, which reflect the effects on participation of offering free meals to all students.
|
From page 180... ...
Percentage Certified for Free Meals Austin, Texas 52 52 54 56 53 Chatham County, Georgia 49 52 57 59 54 Norfolk, Virginia 48 46 47 48 47 Omaha, Nebraska 49 57 50 50 52 Pajaro Valley, California 58 56 55 59 57 Percentage Certified for Reduced-Price Meals Austin, Texas 9 8 8 8 8 Chatham County, Georgia 8 9 9 9 9 Norfolk, Virginia 11 11 11 11 11 Omaha, Nebraska 9 11 11 11 10 Pajaro Valley, California 5 7 9 9 7 NOTE: For Pajaro Valley, the panel was unable to obtain administrative data for 2005 (the 2005-2006 school year) so estimates for that year are based on data from the Common Core of Data (CCD)
|
From page 181... ...
Table 5-20 shows how benchmarked ACS estimates for 2009 are calculated. Table 5-21 illustrates how the new benchmarked ACS estimates are used with the participation rates from the AEO base year to obtain updated claiming percentages.
|
From page 182... ...
Benchmarking District 2005 2006 2007 2008 Adjustment (%) 2005 2006 2007 2008 Percentage Eligible for Free Meals Austin, Texas 35 40 42 38 15 50 55 56 53 Chatham County, Georgia 34 42 37 34 18 52 60 55 52 Norfolk, Virginia 45 47 44 50 1 46 48 45 51 Omaha, Nebraska 40 43 35 43 11 51 54 47 54 Pajaro Valley, California 36 28 35 37 23 60 51 58 60 Percentage Eligible for Reduced-Price Meals Austin, Texas 10 11 11 10 2 7 9 9 8 Chatham County, Georgia 17 16 18 12 7 10 9 11 5 Norfolk, Virginia 14 17 11 13 3 11 14 8 10 Omaha, Nebraska 10 10 11 12 0 10 10 10 12 Pajaro Valley, California 12 15 19 18 9 3 6 10 9 NOTE: ACS = American Community Survey.
|
From page 183... ...
Eligibility Option (AEO) base year will increase participation rates among students otherwise eligible for free, reduced-price, and full-price meals by 5, 7, and 10 percentage points, respectively, relative to the participation rates during the prior year, when the meals programs were operated under traditional procedures.
|
From page 184... ...
($) Austin, Texas 2005 1.75 1,039,289 $1,813,969 2006 1.91 1,218,713 2,325,666 2007 1.99 1,306,676 2,594,775 2008 2.00 1,285,461 2,566,296 Chatham County, Georgia 2005 1.65 470,642 775,083 2006 1.85 508,795 938,984 2007 1.83 548,438 1,006,208 2008 1.74 517,731 901,720 Norfolk, Virginia 2005 1.60 512,977 819,495 2006 1.73 547,106 947,629 2007 1.63 514,439 837,414 2008 1.85 530,040 981,970 Omaha, Nebraska 2005 1.62 774,990 1,257,158 2006 1.74 803,735 1,400,777 2007 1.64 830,806 1,361,501 2008 1.90 885,620 1,681,162 Pajara Valley, California 2005 1.88 234,119 439,247 2006 1.83 228,119 416,916 2007 2.04 258,285 527,601 2008 2.16 252,468 544,635 NOTE: The estimates of total meals served include the effects on participation of offering free meals to all students.
|
From page 185... ...
In addition, it is assumed that offering free meals to all students during the AEO base year will increase participation rates among students otherwise eligible for free, reduced-price, and full-price meals by 5, 7, and 10 percentage points, respectively, relative to the participation rates during the prior year, when the meals programs were operated under traditional procedures. The actual participation effects of offering free meals to all students could be substantially different from what is assumed for one of these districts or any other particular district.
|
From page 186... ...
(%) Austin, Texas 2005 1.75 1.79 0.05 3 2006 1.91 1.86 0.04 2 2007 1.99 1.94 0.05 3 2008 2.00 2.05 0.05 2 Chatham County, Georgia 2005 1.65 1.58 0.07 4 2006 1.85 1.70 0.14 8 2007 1.83 1.84 0.01 1 2008 1.74 1.96 0.22 11 Norfolk, Virginia 2005 1.60 1.62 0.02 1 2006 1.73 1.66 0.07 4 2007 1.63 1.72 0.10 6 2008 1.85 1.81 0.05 3 Omaha, Nebraska 2005 1.62 1.57 0.06 4 2006 1.74 1.81 0.06 4 2007 1.64 1.73 0.09 5 2008 1.90 1.80 0.10 6 Pajaro Valley, California 2005 1.88 1.87 0.00 0 2006 1.83 1.92 0.09 5 2007 2.04 1.98 0.06 3 2008 2.16 2.13 0.02 1 NOTE: AEO = American Community Survey (ACS)
|
From page 187... ...
base year will increase participation rates among students otherwise eligible for free, reduced-price, and full-price meals by 5, 7, and 10 percentage points, respectively, relative to the participation rates during the prior year, when the meals programs were operated under traditional procedures. The actual participation effects of offering free meals to all students could be substantially different from what is assumed for one of these districts or any other particular district.
|
From page 188... ...
base year will increase participation rates among students otherwise eligible for free, reduced-price, and full-price meals by 5, 7, and 10 percentage points, respectively, relative to the participation rates during the prior year, when the meals programs were operated under traditional procedures. The actual participation effects of offering free meals to all students could be substantially different from what is assumed for one of these districts or any other particular district.
|
From page 189... ...
If financial considerations are causing the district to explore the adoption of the AEO in only a group of its schools, the BRRs that are calculated for the entire district will likely appear too low and should not deter the district from continuing its assessment of the AEO. Instead, the district's preliminary assessment should focus on determining whether the BRRs based on benchmarked ACS estimates for the entire district are sufficiently stable.
|
From page 190... ...
ACS estimates for the selected geographic areas containing the group of schools will be provided by the Census Bureau from at least the four most recent ACS data releases. Step 4: Follow the Seven Steps for Assessing and Implementing the AEO for an Entire District, Treating the Group of Schools as If It Were a District The district will next need to follow each of the seven steps outlined in the previous section, but treat the group of schools it has selected as if it were a district.
|
From page 191... ...
The calculations specified in this section assume that the only data available for districts that are currently operating under Provision 2 or 3 are the claiming percentages developed during the base year -- that is, there are no administrative data on the distribution of students across categories. An implication of this assumption is that participation rates cannot be calculated.
|
From page 192... ...
The benchmarking adjustments are different only in that they are based on the differences between the Provision 2 or 3 claiming percentages (rather than average certification percentages) and average ACS eligibility percentages.
|
From page 193... ...
The benchmarked ACS estimates shown in Box 5-8 reflect adjusted claiming percentages rather than eligibility percentages. For a small district, the AEO Calculator will produce eight such benchmarked estimates.
|
From page 194... ...
Step 2: Conduct an Assessment of the Use of Benchmarked ACS Estimates to Implement the AEO The district will examine the BRRs calculated in Step 1 to determine whether they are sufficiently stable from year to year and within an acceptable range for operating the school meals programs. For this assessment, the AEO Calculator can multiply each BRR, which gives the average reimbursement per meal, by a recent monthly or annual figure for the total number of meals served to estimate the total reimbursement the district would have received based on the benchmarked ACS estimates.
|
From page 195... ...
If the BRRs based on these estimates are substantially higher or lower than BRRs based on previous estimates, the district should consider waiting another year until the 2013, 2011-2013, and 2009-2013 ACS estimates are released, allowing the assessment of four BRRs constructed from benchmarked ACS estimates based on the new population controls. Step 3: Make a Decision About Adopting the AEO and Obtain Necessary Approvals Based on its assessment in Step 2, a district will decide whether to adopt the AEO.
|
From page 196... ...
Adjusting for Students Living in Nontraditional Housing19 As discussed in Chapter 4, one reason for discrepancies between ACS and administrative estimates is that the ACS estimates for school districts exclude students who do not live in traditional housing. However, homeless students and students living in migrant labor camps, for example, are likely known to school districts (which receive lists of such students)
|
From page 197... ...
In addition to certification rates and participation rates for at least 3 years, the district will need to have total enrollment (E) and the total number of students who live in nontraditional housing and are categorically eligible for free meals (H)
|
From page 198... ...
To facilitate such monitoring, the panel suggests that FNS allow districts that have adopted the AEO to continue working with state agencies to match district enrollment lists with lists of SNAP recipients, as is done for direct certification, and derive SNAP recipiency rates.21 Then, the relationships between these SNAP recipiency rates and ACS eligibility estimates can be analyzed to identify districts with substantial changes 20One limitation of this sample for learning about changes that might be affecting districts that have already adopted the AEO is that it will become more selective over time, consisting of proportionately more districts for which the AEO is not attractive. 21Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
|
From page 199... ...
Instead, with estimates provided annually by a highly credible and reliable source, the U.S. Census Bureau, districts can use the AEO Calculator to determine updated benchmarked eligibility percentages and claiming percentages that are then used in conjunction with the total number of meals served to determine monthly reimbursements.
|
From page 200... ...
For example, the ACS does not represent all populations with equal accuracy. If a school or district has high numbers of homeless students or migrant students living in nontraditional housing, it will be in the district's interest to augment and refine its ACS estimates with supplementary information available at the local level.
|
From page 201... ...
percentages for students who have exercised choice opportunities and left the district with the certification percentages for students who have remained enrolled in district schools. If certification data are no longer available because the district has already adopted the AEO, the district will be able to match enrollment lists with SNAP records to derive SNAP recipiency rates, as described above.
|
From page 202... ...
Benchmarked eligibility percentages, for example, can be used in place of aggregate certification percentages for purposes of ranking schools based on the percentages of economically disadvantaged children. As with Provisions 2 and 3 and the Community Eligibility Option (CEO)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.