Serving Free School Meals through the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP): Background and Participation
Congressional research reportMay 20, 2020
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Serving Free School Meals through the
Community Eligibility Provision (CEP):
Background and Participation
May 20, 2020
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R46371
SUMMARY
Serving Free School Meals through the
Community Eligibility Provision (CEP):
Background and Participation
The Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) is an option within the National School Lunch
Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP) that is designed to enable high-poverty
schools to serve free meals to all students without collecting household applications. Since the
provision’s implementation nationwide, the number of CEP schools has more than doubled: from
over 14,200 in school year (SY) 2014-2015 to just over 28,700 in SY2018-2019. CEP schools
now comprise approximately 30% of all NSLP schools, and nearly 13.7 million students
nationwide attend a CEP school.
R46371
May 20, 2020
Kara Clifford Billings
Analyst in Social Policy
Jameson A. Carter
Research Assistant
CEP was authorized by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-296), the most recent child nutrition
reauthorization act. The provision was intended to increase access to and participation in free school meals, reduce paperwork
for schools and families by eliminating applications for meals, and remove stigmas that free- and reduced-price meal
recipients may face in the cafeteria.
CEP is available to schools, groups of schools, and school districts that participate in NSLP and SBP and have an identified
student percentage (ISP) of at least 40%. The ISP is the percentage of students who are certified under categorical eligibility
rules for free school meals without a household application, primarily through direct certification with the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Each year, school districts are given the opportunity to opt in to CEP on behalf of
eligible schools.
Schools that participate in CEP receive an alternative federal reimbursement formula. Under the traditional NSLP/SBP
formula, schools receive different reimbursement rates for free, reduced-price, and paid (full-price) meals (for lunch, up to
$3.65, $3.25, and $0.47 per lunch respectively in SY2019-2020). Under CEP, schools receive the free reimbursement rate for
a percentage of meals (calculated by multiplying the school’s ISP by 1.6) and the paid rate for the remainder of the meals
they serve. Schools may operate CEP for a period of four years before redetermining their eligibility.
There were at least 15,400 schools that were eligible but did not participate in CEP in SY2018-2019. Both the impact on
students and financial considerations may impact the decision to participate in CEP. The data highlighted in this report show
that schools with lower ISPs are less likely to adopt CEP. CEP participation also varies by state, and may be influenced by
factors including state policies and outreach, private-sector outreach, and states’ proficiencies in directly certifying children
for school meals through SNAP and other pathways.
CEP is not the only way that schools can provide free meals to all students. Any school may use local or state funds (if
available) to cover the cost of full-price meals and the reduced-price copay. There are also two other, less-utilized federal
options that offer alternative reimbursement formulas for schools that provide free meals to all students. Provision 2 and
Provision 3—options that existed prior to CEP—allow such schools to operate under simplified eligibility determination and
reimbursement procedures. These options are similarly intended to reduce paperwork for schools and families and increase
access to school meals.
CEP will likely be of continuing interest to Congress as a relatively new and increasingly utilized option within the federal
school meals programs.
Congressional Research Service
Community Eligibility Provision (CEP): Background and Participation
Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 3
“Traditional” Certification Methods ......................................................................................... 4
Household Applications ...................................................................................................... 4
Direct Certification ............................................................................................................. 4
The Emergence of Alternative Certification and Reimbursement Options ............................... 5
Provision 1, Provision 2, and Provision 3 ........................................................................... 6
Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) ............................................................................. 6
How Does CEP Work? .................................................................................................................... 8
Eligibility for CEP..................................................................................................................... 8
The Four-Year CEP Cycle and Reimbursement ...................................................................... 10
CEP Participation and Trends ........................................................................................................ 13
Identified Student Percentage (ISP) ........................................................................................ 14
District Size ............................................................................................................................. 15
State ......................................................................................................................................... 16
District Type ............................................................................................................................ 21
District Location...................................................................................................................... 22
Local Decisionmaking ............................................................................................................ 23
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 23
Figures
Figure 1. CEP Participation, SY2014-2015 to SY2018-2019 ......................................................... 1
Figure 2. Community Eligibility Provision (CEP): Eligibility and Reimbursement ......................11
Figure 3. CEP Participation in SY2018-2019 by Identified Student Percentage (ISP) ................. 15
Figure 4. CEP Participation in SY2018-2019 by District Size ...................................................... 16
Figure 5. CEP-Eligible and Participating Schools in SY2018-2019, by State .............................. 18
Figure 6. CEP Participation in SY2018-2019, By Year CEP Became Available in State .............. 20
Tables
Table 1. Reimbursement Rates: NSLP and SBP, SY2019-2020...................................................... 4
Table 2. NSLP/SBP: Traditional Versus Special Options, SY2018-2019 ....................................... 5
Table 3. Comparing Provision 1, Provision 2, Provision 3, and CEP ............................................. 7
Table 4. Hypothetical Scenario: Reimbursement Under Traditional NSLP Versus CEP .............. 12
Table 5. CEP Participation, SY2011-2012 to SY2018-2019 ......................................................... 13
Table 6. Public Versus Private School District Participation in CEP, SY2018-2019 .................... 22
Table B-1. CEP Participation by State, SY2018-2019 .................................................................. 26
Congressional Research Service
Community Eligibility Provision (CEP): Background and Participation
Appendixes
Appendix A. Available CEP Data and Limitations ........................................................................ 24
Appendix B. CEP Participation by State ....................................................................................... 26
Contacts
Author Information........................................................................................................................ 27
Congressional Research Service
Community Eligibility Provision (CEP): Background and Participation
Introduction
The Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) was authorized by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids
Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-296). CEP enables high-poverty schools participating in the National
School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP) to eliminate household
applications and operate under a revised federal funding formula if they offer free breakfasts and
lunches to all students.
CEP phased in over three school years (SYs) in selected states starting in SY2011-2012, and
became available nationally in SY2014-2015. Since then, the number of schools participating has
more than doubled, from over 14,200 schools in SY2014-2015 to just over 28,700 schools in
SY2018-2019.1 CEP schools now represent approximately 30% of all NSLP schools (Figure 1).
Figure 1. CEP Participation, SY2014-2015 to SY2018-2019
CEP Schools as a Proportion of NSLP Schools
Source: CRS tabulations of the Food Research and Action Center’s (FRAC’s) CEP Database. Data from
SY2014-2015 were compiled by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). The number of NSLP
schools was provided by USDA on April 3, 2020.
Notes: The number of NSLP schools is collected in October of each year and updated on an ongoing basis. The
chart excludes a relatively small number of schools operating only the SBP.
CEP aims to increase access to free meals and reduce paperwork for households and schools by
eliminating applications.2 By eliminating household applications, CEP also eliminates the need
for school districts to conduct a legislatively mandated annual verification of a sample of
household applications. Some also view the provision as a remedy for student meal debt and socalled lunch shaming, a term that refers to practices schools may use when students do not pay
meal fees, such as providing an alternative meal or denying a meal. CEP virtually eliminates meal
1 CRS tabulations of Food Research and Action Center’s (FRAC’s) CEP Database. Data from SY2014-2015 was
compiled by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).
2 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), “Community Eligibility Provision,”
available at https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/community-eligibility-provision.
Congressional Research Service
1
Community Eligibility Provision (CEP): Background and Participation
debt (aside from pre-existing meal debt) and lunch shaming by providing free meals to all
students.3
P.L. 111-296 required the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to conduct an evaluation of
CEP. In 2014, USDA released its study of CEP in early implementation states. The evaluation
found that the provision reduced administrative burdens on households and, to a lesser extent,
school districts.4 By eliminating household applications, the evaluation also postulated that CEP
may reduce errors and fraud.5 USDA’s evaluation also found that CEP increased student
participation in school meals, particularly in school breakfast.6 CEP’s impact on school food
service revenue was mixed. The study found that the provision increased federal funding, but it
was not clear if the additional funding made up for the loss in student payments for full-price
meals.7
CEP is not the only way to provide free meals to all students. Some school districts use local
funds to cover the remaining meal costs for reduced-price and/or paid-rate meals. In addition,
some states (including Colorado, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New
Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington) cover
reduced-price copays for breakfasts and/or lunches using state funding. Many other states provide
state-funded reimbursements that may enable schools to remove reduced-price meal fees.8
Since CEP’s inception, there have been proposals both to expand and scale back the provision. In
2016, during the 114th Congress, authorizing committees in the House and Senate marked up
child nutrition reauthorization legislation that did not receive floor consideration. The House
committee’s proposal—the Improving Child Nutrition and Education Act of 2016 (H.R. 5003)—
would have raised the eligibility threshold for CEP—the ISP—from 40% to 60% beginning in
SY2017-2018. It also would have allowed for a grace period of one school year for schools that
had been eligible for CEP but would no longer be eligible under the amended law. CBO estimated
that the proposal would have resulted in 6,500 schools no longer participating in CEP and a
reduction of direct spending of approximately $1.6 billion over 10 years.9 (The Senate committee
bill did not propose changes to CEP.) In the 116th Congress, several introduced bills proposed
expanding access to free school meals through CEP and other mechanisms. The Expanding
Access to School Meals Act of 2019 (H.R. 5308) and the School Hunger Elimination Act of 2019
(S. 2752), for example, would increase the CEP reimbursement multiplier from 1.6 to 1.8. The
Universal School Meals Program Act of 2019 (H.R. 4684/S. 2609) would provide federal funding
for all schools to serve free meals to all students.
3 See, for example, V. Palacio, “Community Eligibility: A Remedy for Lunch Shaming in Some School Districts,”
CLASP, May 24, 2017, https://www.clasp.org/blog/community-eligibility-remedy-lunch-shaming-some-schooldistricts.
4 USDA, FNS, Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation, February 2014, pp. 120-121, https://www.fns.usda.gov/
community-eligibility-provision-evaluation. The evaluation found that CEP did not eliminate administrative burdens
for school districts entirely; participating schools and districts still have to conduct direct certification and count and
claim meals for reimbursement.
5 Ibid, p. 129.
6 Ibid, pp. 100-101.
7 Ibid, p. 110.
8 FRAC, “School Meals Legislation and Funding by State,” August 2019, https://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/
state_leg_table_scorecard.pdf.
9 For more information, see CRS Report R44373, Tracking Child Nutrition Reauthorization in the 114th Congress: An
Overview.
Congressional Research Service
2
Community Eligibility Provision (CEP): Background and Participation
This report provides background on traditional eligibility and reimbursement procedures in the
federal school meals programs and discusses the emergence of alternative certification and
reimbursement options available to schools, including CEP. It then describes CEP program rules
and presents data on CEP participation and trends and the characteristics of CEP schools and
districts. A closer look at how CEP has been implemented and who it is serving in its eighth year
of operation may help to inform any future congressional deliberations to amend or retain current
law.
Background
NSLP and SBP (the school meals programs) provide federal funding toward breakfasts and
lunches served in approximately 94,500 participating public and private elementary and
secondary schools nationwide.10 Federal law does not require participation in NSLP or SBP;
however, some states require schools to participate.11 Approximately 90% of students nationwide
attend a school that operates NSLP and/or SBP.12
At the federal level, the school meals programs are administered by USDA’s Food and Nutrition
Service (FNS). At the state level, the programs are often administered by a state department of
education. At the local level, the programs are administered by school food authorities—typically,
food service departments at the school district level—which oversee school meal operations.13
Local educational agencies—the broader school district or school board—also play a role in
administering the school meals programs. (Throughout this report, the term school district is used
to refer to both school food authorities and local educational agencies.)
Through the programs, free and reduced-price breakfasts and lunches are served to eligible
students, and non-eligible students may purchase full-price meals.14 Schools receive federal
reimbursements in the form of cash for each meal they serve; the highest reimbursements are
provided for free and reduced-price meals, but paid (full-price) meals also receive a small federal
reimbursement (see Table 1 for the reimbursement rates in SY2019-2020). Schools also receive a
smaller amount of commodity assistance (i.e., USDA-purchased foods) and state administering
agencies receive administrative funds. Schools must cover any remaining food service costs using
non-federal funding (e.g., state and local funding or student payments for food).
Federal funding for the school meals programs is largely mandatory appropriated funding. The
majority of this funding is for per-meal, cash reimbursements that are provided to states, who
10 USDA, FNS, “March Keydata Report (January 2020 data),” April 10, 2020, https://www.fns.usda.gov/data/march-
keydata-report-january-2020-data. A relatively small number of residential child care institutions also participate in the
school meals programs.
11 For more information, see CRS Report R46234, School Meals and Other Child Nutrition Programs: Background and
Funding.
12 51.9 million students attended a school operating NSLP and 49.4 million students attended a school operating SBP
(with overlap) as of October 2019, according to USDA, FNS, “March Keydata Report (January 2020 data),” April 10,
2020, https://www.fns.usda.gov/data/march-keydata-report-january-2020-data. 56.6 million students were enrolled in
public or private elementary or secondary schools as of fall 2019, according to U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics, “Table 105.20. Enrollment in elementary, secondary, and degree-granting
postsecondary institutions, by level and control of institution, enrollment level, and attendance status and sex of
student: Selected years, fall 1990 through fall 2028,” Digest of Education Statistics, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/
digest/d18/tables/dt18_105.20.asp.
13 In rare cases, a school food authority will oversee meal service at more than one school district. See definitions of
school food authority and local educational agency at 7 C.F.R. 210.2 and 7 C.F.R. 220.2.
14 Per statute, schools may not charge students more than 30 cents per reduced-price breakfast and more than 40 cents
per reduced-price lunch.
Congressional Research Service
3
Community Eligibility Provision (CEP): Background and Participation
distribute payments to school food authorities. For further background on the school meals
programs, see CRS Report R46234, School Meals and Other Child Nutrition Programs:
Background and Funding.
Table 1. Reimbursement Rates: NSLP and SBP, SY2019-2020
Per-meal Reimbursement Rates for the 48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia
Breakfast
Lunch
Free
$1.84-$2.20
$3.41-$3.65
Reduced-price
$1.54-$1.90
$3.01-$3.25
Paid
$0.31
$0.32-$0.47
Source: USDA, FNS, “National School Lunch, Special Milk, and School Breakfast Programs, National Average
Payments/Maximum Reimbursement Rates,” November 1, 2019, 84 Federal Register 58678,
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/11/01/2019-23946/national-school-lunch-special-milk-andschool-breakfast-programs-national-average-paymentsmaximum (see link for rates for Alaska, Guam, Hawaii,
Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands).
“Traditional” Certification Methods
Most schools participating in the NSLP and SBP certify children for free and reduced-price meals
the traditional way: through household applications and direct certification.
Household Applications
At the beginning of each school year, families are encouraged to fill out an application (online or
paper format) for free or reduced-price school meals, in which they provide the household’s size,
monthly income, and a limited amount of other information. Children in households with an
annual income at or below 130% of the federal poverty level ($33,475 for a household of four in
SY2019-2020) qualify for free meals and those in households with an annual income between
130% and 185% of the federal poverty level ($33,475 to $47,638 for a household of four in
SY2019-2020) qualify for reduced-price meals.
Under the law, some children are categorically eligible for free meals (no income test is needed)
due to household participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Food
Distribution Program on Indian Reservations, or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF); or because the children participate in Head Start or a program under the Runaway and
Homeless Youth Act, or qualify as a homeless, runaway, migrant, or foster child.15 Households
can indicate categorical eligibility on the household application.
Direct Certification
Direct certification is a process through which all NSLP/SBP-participating school districts and
state agencies certify children for free or reduced-price school meals without using a household
application.16 Per statute, state agencies and school districts must conduct direct certification with
15 See Section 9(b)(12)(A) of the Russell National School Lunch Act (codified at 42 U.S.C. 1758(b)(12)(A)) for the
specific definitions of these categories.
16 Direct certification authority is in Section 9(b)(4)-(5) of the Russell National School Lunch Act (codified at 42
U.S.C. 1758(b)(4)-(5)). Direct certification is defined in NSLP/SBP program regulations at 7 C.F.R. 245.2.
Congressional Research Service
4
Community Eligibility Provision (CEP): Background and Participation
SNAP, whereas they have the option to conduct direct certification for the other programs and
statuses that convey categorical eligibility.
For SNAP and other federal programs, the direct certification process typically involves state
agencies (e.g., state SNAP and state educational agencies) cross-checking program rolls.17 A list
of matched children is sent to the school district, which certifies children for free meals without
the need for a household application.18 For foster, homeless, migrant, and runaway children,
direct certification typically involves school district communication with a local or state official
who can provide documentation of the child’s status in one of these categories.19
In addition, USDA currently administers a demonstration project in selected states to directly
certify children in Medicaid households for free and reduced-price school meals.20
Table 2, based on USDA administrative data, shows that the majority of NSLP and SBP schools
administer school meals programs under traditional certification and reimbursement rules. CEP is
currently the most-utilized special option (special options include Provision 1, Provision 2, and
Provision 3, discussed in the next section).
Table 2. NSLP/SBP: Traditional Versus Special Options, SY2018-2019
Percentage of
NSLP/SBP Schools
Percentage of
Students Enrolled in
NSLP/SBP Schools
Traditional NSLP/SBP
67.4%
70.7%
CEP
29.8%
27.1%
Provision 2 or Provision 3
2.7%
2.1%
Provision 1
0.1%
0.1%
100.0%
100.0%
Total
Source: CRS tabulations of USDA FNS-742 administrative data for SY2018-2019.
The Emergence of Alternative Certification and Reimbursement
Options
Starting in 1977, Congress authorized special options intended to reduce paperwork for schools
and households and increase access to school meals. Authorized in Section 11 of the Richard B.
17 USDA, FNS, Office of Policy Support, Direct Certification in the National School Lunch Program: State
Implementation Progress, School Year 2014–2015: Report to Congress, Special Nutrition Programs Report No. CN-15DC, December 2016, p. xiii, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/ops/NSLPDirectCertification2015.pdf.
18 However, parents and guardians are notified of the child’s enrollment in free meals and are allowed to opt out.
19 USDA, FNS, Eligibility Manual for School Meals: Determining and Verifying Eligibility, July 2017,
https://www.fns.usda.gov/eligibility-manual-school-meals.
20 According to CRS communication with USDA, FNS in November 2019, as of SY2019-2020, there were 19 states
operating direct certification with Medicaid. Four of the states (Illinois, Kentucky, New York, and Pennsylvania) used
Medicaid to directly certify for free meals only (130% of the poverty level or below). Fifteen states (California,
Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington,
West Virginia, and Wisconsin) were operating under an expanded direct certification demonstration project to test
direct certification with Medicaid for free and reduced-price meals (up to 185% of the poverty level).
Congressional Research Service
5
Community Eligibility Provision (CEP): Background and Participation
Russell National School Lunch Act, the options provide alternative eligibility determination
processes and reimbursement formulas to schools electing the options.21
Provision 1, Provision 2, and Provision 3
Provision 1 and Provision 2 were authorized in 1977 (P.L. 95-166). Provision 1 allows highpoverty schools—those with at least 80% of students qualifying for free or reduced-price
lunches—to certify children for free meals for two consecutive school years instead of a single
year (reducing the paperwork burden). Children who are not certified for free meals must still be
provided an application for free or reduced-price meals on an annual basis, and they may apply
for such meals on an ongoing basis.22
Provision 2 allows schools that agree to provide free meals to all students to make eligibility
determinations every four years.23 Eligibility determinations in the first year (base year) are made
via household application and direct certification. Provision 2 schools’ meal reimbursements are
based on the proportion of meals served at the free/reduced-price/paid rate during the base year
applied to the total meal counts in the current year.
Provision 3 was added in 1994 (P.L. 103-448). Similar to Provision 2, schools must agree to
provide free meals to all students and they may operate the provision for a four-year period. The
difference is the reimbursement formula: Provision 3 schools make eligibility determinations and
track meal counts in a base year (the year before the four-year period). The amount of funding
they receive in subsequent years is the amount in the base year adjusted for inflation, enrollment,
and operating days.
Unlike Provision 1 and CEP, there is no eligibility threshold for schools to participate in
Provision 2 or Provision 3. While Provision 2 and Provision 3 are more widely accessible than
CEP, USDA’s CEP evaluation found that school districts operating Provision 2 or Provision 3
found CEP appealing because of its reimbursement formula and elimination of household
applications (discussed below).24
Community Eligibility Provision (CEP)
CEP was created in 2010 by P.L. 111-296.25 According to the Senate committee report
accompanying the legislation, CEP was intended to increase access to free meals and reduce
21 Section 11(a)(1)(B) is Provision 1, (C)-(D) is Provision 2, (E) is Provision 3, and (F) is the Community Eligibility
Provision.
22 7 C.F.R. §245.9(a).
23 USDA, FNS, “Provision 2 Guidance National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs,” last updated in 2002,
https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/Prov2Guidance.pdf.
24 USDA, FNS, Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation, February 2014, p. 58, available at
https://www.fns.usda.gov/community-eligibility-provision-evaluation.
25 P.L. 111-296 also authorized “universal meal service through Census data” demonstration projects, allowing USDA
to test alternative eligibility determination procedures and reimbursement using Census or other socioeconomic survey
data (Section 11(g) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. 1759a(g)). USDA
ultimately decided not to carry out these demonstration projects after exploring the feasibility of the approach in a study
conducted with the National Academy of Sciences: National Research Council, Committee on National Statistics,
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Using American Community Survey Data to Expand Access
to the School Meals Programs. Panel on Estimating Children Eligible for School Nutrition Programs Using the
American Community Survey, prepared for USDA, FNS, 2012, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/
CNSTAT.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
6
Community Eligibility Provision (CEP): Background and Participation
paperwork for schools and families by eliminating applications.26 It was also intended to
eliminate any stigmas that low-income children face in the cafeteria.
CEP was phased in over three school years, and became an option for school districts in all states
in SY2014-2015. The first states to implement CEP were Illinois, Kentucky, and Michigan in
SY2011-2012, followed by the District of Columbia, New York, Ohio, and West Virginia in
SY2012–2013, and Florida, Georgia, Maryland, and Massachusetts in SY2013-2014.27 States had
to apply for early implementation, and FNS selected the pilot states based on “State and local
support, eligibility of schools within the State, and the State’s overall level of readiness for
CEP.”28
Like Provision 2 and Provision 3, CEP requires participating schools to provide free meals to all
students, and schools may opt into the provision for a four-year period. The main differences
between CEP and Provision 2 and Provision 3 are that (1) schools must meet an eligibility
threshold to participate in CEP, (2) CEP does not use household applications, and (3) CEP
provides a different reimbursement formula.
Table 3 summarizes the differences between Provision 1, Provision 2, Provision 3, and CEP.
Table 3. Comparing Provision 1, Provision 2, Provision 3, and CEP
Provision 1
Provision 2
Provision 3
CEP
Institutional
eligibility
A school with at
least 80% of
students certified
for free or reducedprice meals can
participate
Any school, group
of schools, or
school district can
participate
Any school, group
of schools, or
school district can
participate
Any school, group
of schools, or
school district with
an identified student
percentage (ISP)
greater than or
equal to 40% can
participate
Programs affected
Must operate for
NSLP and SBP, or
just NSLP
Can operate for
NSLP and/or SBP
Can operate for
NSLP and/or SBP
Must operate for
NSLP and SBP
Universal meal
service
Not required
Must serve free
meals to all students
Must serve free
meals to all students
Must serve free
meals to all students
26 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, report to
accompany S. 3307, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 111-178 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2010), p. 6.
27 USDA, FNS, “Community Eligibility Provision (CEP): Planning & Implementation Guidance,” September 2016, p.
8, https://www.fns.usda.gov/fall-2016-edition-community-eligibility-provision-planning-and-implementation-guidance.
28 Ibid. Also see USDA, FNS, “USDA Announces Universal Meal Service Option to Boost School Meal Participation
in High-Poverty Areas,” March 24, 2011, https://www.fns.usda.gov/pressrelease/2011/000111; and USDA, FNS,
“USDA Announces Next States Chosen to Phase In Streamlined Free School Meal Option,” May 4, 2012,
https://www.fns.usda.gov/pressrelease/2012/fns-212.
Congressional Research Service
7
Community Eligibility Provision (CEP): Background and Participation
Provision 1
Provision 2
Provision 3
CEP
Frequency of
eligibility
determinations
Children may be
certified for free
meals for a twoyear period; annual
household
applications for all
other children
Household
applications and
direct certification
every four yearsa
Household
applications and
direct certification
every five yearsa
Direct certification
at least every four
years
Meal counting
Must keep track of
free/reducedprice/paid meals
(normal counting)
Must keep track of
free/reducedprice/paid meals in
first year; total
number of meals in
subsequent years
Must keep track of
free/reducedprice/paid meals in
first year; total
number of meals in
subsequent years
Must keep track of
total number of
meals
Reimbursement
Based on
proportion of meals
served at
free/reducedprice/paid rates
(normal
reimbursement)
Based on
proportion of meals
served at
free/reducedprice/paid rates in
first year applied to
total meal counts in
subsequent years
Based on total funds
received in first year
adjusted for
inflation,
enrollment, and
operating days in
subsequent years
The proportion of
meals reimbursed at
the free rate is the
ISP multiplied by 1.6;
remainder of meals
are reimbursed at
the paid rate
Source: CRS, based on Section 11 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1759a) and 7
C.F.R. §245.9.
a. At the end of the initial cycle, and each subsequent four-year cycle, state agencies may allow schools to
continue operating under Provision 2 or Provision 3 for another four years (without administering
household applications and direct certification) “if the local educational agency can establish, through
available and approved socioeconomic data, that the income level of the school’s population, as adjusted for
inflation, has remained stable, declined or has had only negligible improvement since the base year” (7 C.F.R.
245.9(c) and 7 C.F.R. 245.9(e)).
How Does CEP Work?
CEP allows eligible schools, groups of schools, and school districts to offer free meals to all
students, eliminate household applications, and receive an alternate federal reimbursement
formula. Local educational agencies make the decision about whether to participate in CEP on
behalf of eligible schools. Eligible schools must operate both NSLP and SBP in order to
participate in CEP.
Eligibility for CEP
Schools, groups of schools, or school districts must also have an identified student percentage
(ISP) of at least 40%.29 The ISP is the percentage of enrolled students who are certified for free
meals by the school district or state agency without the use of a household application based on30
29 Section 11(a)(1)(F)(viii) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1759a(a)(1)(F)(viii)).
30 The definition of the ISP is in program regulations at 7 C.F.R. 245.6a(c)(2) and 7 C.F.R. 245.9(f)(1)(ii). According to
the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, “The term ‘identified students’ means students certified based on
Congressional Research Service
8
Community Eligibility Provision (CEP): Background and Participation
participation in
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),
the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR),
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF),
a program under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act,
Head Start, or
Medicaid (demonstration states only)31;
or status as a
foster child,
homeless child, or
migrant child.
As discussed previously, school districts and states are required to directly certify children in
SNAP households for free meals. They are not required to certify children in the other categories
(and may instead rely on household applications for such pathways).
Because CEP eligibility and reimbursement are based on the ISP, household applications are no
longer required under CEP. This has caused some difficulty for other federal and state programs
that use the percentage of free and reduced-price eligible students for funding allocations and
program eligibility.32 Notably, the free and reduced-price lunch percentage is often used to
approximate school-level poverty to allocate funds to schools in the federal Title I-A program.
The U.S. Department of Education developed alternatives to free and reduced-price lunch data in
Title I-A, and currently allows flexibility to use the ISP, household income surveys, and other
measures of poverty. For more information, see CRS Report R44568, Overview of ESEA Title I-A
and the School Meals’ Community Eligibility Provision.
Some Factors That Affect Schools’ Identified Student Percentages (ISPs)
According to USDA, CEP is intended for “high-poverty” schools.33 However, there are several reasons why the
pool of CEP-eligible schools may not represent all high-poverty schools in the United States. First, the ISP is not a
perfect proxy for poverty. The ISP largely depends on the number of students directly certified for free meals via
SNAP, and SNAP itself is not a perfect proxy for poverty. For example, some households may be financially
eligible for SNAP benefits but ineligible due to non-financial rules such as student-, citizenship- and crime-related
documentation of benefit receipt or categorical eligibility as described in section 245.6a(c)(2) of title 7, Code of Federal
Regulations (or successor regulations).” For a simpler overview of the ISP, see USDA, FNS, “State Agency Checklist
for Checking Identified Student Percentage Accuracy,” December 2015, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/
files/cn/SP15-2016a2v2.pdf. A school’s ISP is essentially the same as its direct certification rate, except that the ISP
does not include students who are directly certified for reduced-price meals through the Medicaid demonstration. The
ISP may also include a small number of students in households that do not submit an application but who are certified
by a school official as meeting the household income standards for school meals.
31 Students are only included in the ISP if they are certified for free meals (not reduced-price meals) through the
Medicaid direct certification demonstration project.
32 For a list of state education funding formulas as of June 2017 that use free and reduced-price school meal data, see
Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) and Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), “Alternative
Approaches to Using School Meals Data in Community Eligibility (CEP) Schools,” June 2017, https://frac.org/wpcontent/uploads/cep-state-education-data-policies.pdf.
33 USDA, FNS, “Community Eligibility Provision,” https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/community-eligibilityprovision.
Congressional Research Service
9
Community Eligibility Provision (CEP): Background and Participation
restrictions.34 As one potential result of this, schools in areas with large noncitizen populations may be less likely
to be eligible for CEP. In addition, the rate at which eligible households are enrolled in SNAP also varies by state.35
Differing rates of participation in SNAP may also affect CEP eligibility.
Also limiting the ISP as a proxy for poverty, there are differences among districts and states in directly certifying
children for free school meals via SNAP. Direct certification with SNAP has improved over time, and many states
are now meeting the legislatively-required direct certification rate of at least 95% of school-aged children in SNAP
households. However, as of SY2016-2017 (the latest year for which data are available), USDA reported that 23
states and one territory were not meeting this threshold.36
As discussed earlier in this report, the ISP is also informed by the number of students directly certified through
pathways such as participation in TANF or Medicaid (in certain states) and status as a homeless, foster, or migrant
child. Direct certification using these pathways is not mandatory, and depends on states’ and school districts’
efforts. Participation rates in TANF and Medicaid also vary substantially by state.
For these reasons, CEP eligibility is subject to changes in eligibility and participation in the aforementioned federal
programs, particularly SNAP. For example, the Urban Institute (a nonprofit research and advocacy organization)
analyzed the effects of USDA’s 2019 proposed change to SNAP’s broad-based categorical eligibility rules, and
estimated that it would result in at least 142,000 fewer students having access to CEP.37 USDA’s regulatory impact
analysis of the effect of the proposed rule on eligibility for free school meals recognized that the rule may reduce
some schools’ ISPs, and thus their reimbursements under CEP, but predicted that the “vast majority of CEPparticipating schools will be able to continue to participate in CEP under this proposal.”38
The Four-Year CEP Cycle and Reimbursement
Per statute, state agencies are required to publish a list of CEP-eligible and near-eligible (ISP of
30% or higher) schools by May 1 of each school year.39 By June 30, local educational agencies
must notify the state agency if they plan to operate CEP for an eligible district, group of schools,
or individual school in the next school year.40
Though CEP schools serve free meals to all students, they are not necessarily reimbursed at the
free rate for every meal served. The law provides a funding formula: the ISP is multiplied by 1.6
to estimate the proportion of students who would have been eligible for free or reduced-price
meals had they been certified via application. The result is the percentage of meals served that
34 For more information, see CRS Report R42505, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): A Primer on
Eligibility and Benefits; CRS Report RL33809, Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Assistance: Policy Overview;
and CRS Report R42394, Drug Testing and Crime-Related Restrictions in TANF, SNAP, and Housing Assistance.
35 See, for example, K. Cunnyngham, Reaching Those in Needs: Estimates of State Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program Participation Rates in 2016, prepared by Mathematica Policy Research for USDA, FNS, March 2019,
https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/reaching-those-need-estimates-state-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-programparticipation-rates-fy.
36 Q. Moore, K. Conway, and B. Kyler, et al., Direct Certification in the National School Lunch Program: State
Implementation Progress, School Year 2014-2015: Report to Congress, prepared by Mathematica Policy Research for
USDA FNS, CN-15-DC, October 2016, p. 24, https://www.fns.usda.gov/direct-certification-national-school-lunchprogram-report-congress-state-implementation-progress-0.
37 For example, the Urban Institute estimated the effects of changes to SNAP’s broad-based categorical eligibility
(BBCE) rules on eligibility for school meals and CEP in K. Blagg, M. Rainer, and E. Waxman, How Restricting
Categorical Eligibility for SNAP Affects Access to Free School Meals, October 2019, https://www.urban.org/sites/
default/files/publication/101280/
how_restricting_categorical_eligibility_for_snap_affects_access_to_free_school_meals.pdf
38 USDA, FNS, “Proposed Rule: Revision of Categorical Eligibility in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(RIN 0584-AE62) – Potential impacts on Participants in the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast
Program,” Informational Analysis, FNS-2018-0037-16046, October 15, 2019, https://www.regulations.gov/document?
D=FNS-2018-0037-16046.
39 Section 11(a)(1)(F)(x)(IV) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1759a(a)(1)(F)(x)(IV)).
40 Section 11(a)(1)(F)(x) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1759a(a)(1)(F)(x)).
Congressional Research Service
10
Community Eligibility Provision (CEP): Background and Participation
will be reimbursed at the free meal rate (for lunches, $3.41-$3.65 in SY2019-2020), with the
remainder reimbursed at the lower paid meal rate ($0.32-$0.47 per lunch in SY2019-2020). For
example, if a CEP school has an ISP of 40%, then 64% of its meals served would be reimbursed
at the free meal rate and 36% would be reimbursed at the paid meal rate. If a school has an ISP of
at least 62.5%, then 100% of its meals would be reimbursed at the free rate (62.5% multiplied by
1.6 equals 100%). The formula is displayed in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Community Eligibility Provision (CEP): Eligibility and Reimbursement
Source: Graphic by CRS based on current law formula.
Notes: The Identified Student Percentage (ISP) is the percentage of enrolled children who are certified for free
meals without a household application.
While the law allows USDA to set the multiplier between 1.3 and 1.6, the multiplier has been 1.6
since CEP’s phase-in and was finalized in implementing regulations published in 2016.41
Schools must recalculate the ISP annually on April 1. If the ISP increases in the second, third, or
fourth year of CEP, schools may choose to use the most recently-calculated ISP to determine their
reimbursement rate in that school year instead of the original ISP. Schools may also choose to
start a new four-year CEP cycle with the most recent ISP if it is higher.
The ISP in the fourth year is used to determine schools’ eligibility for another four-year cycle.42 If
the ISP falls below the 40% threshold, but is above 30%, schools are eligible for a fifth (grace)
year of CEP.
41 Section 11(a)(1)(F)(vii) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1759a(a)(1)(F)(vii)); USDA
FNS, “National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program: Eliminating Applications through Community
Eligibility as Required by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010,” 81 Federal Register 50194, July 29, 2016.
42 7 C.F.R. 245.9(f).
Congressional Research Service
11
Community Eligibility Provision (CEP): Background and Participation
Local educational agencies can end participation in CEP and switch back to traditional
NSLP/SBP procedures at any time, though USDA discourages mid-year switches unless
necessary.43
Table 4 shows the total monthly lunch reimbursement that a school serving 500 meals would
receive under three hypothetical scenarios: (1) traditional NSLP reimbursement, (2) CEP with a
40% ISP, and (3) CEP with a 60% ISP. CEP with a 60% ISP provides the highest monthly
reimbursement. CEP with a 40% ISP provides a slightly higher reimbursement than traditional
NSLP. However, this assumes that CEP’s 1.6 multiplier accurately reflects the number of meals
that the school would have served at a free or reduced-price under traditional NSLP. The 1.6
multiplier was based on national studies, and it may not reflect the student population in every
school.44 If a school served more free and reduced-price meals than was reflected in the 1.6
multiplier, then traditional NSLP/SBP would be more financially viable than CEP at a 40% ISP.
Table 4. Hypothetical Scenario: Reimbursement Under Traditional NSLP Versus CEP
Monthly Reimbursements Under Traditional NSLP Versus CEP for a School Serving 500 Lunches a Month
Reimbursement
Category
Maximum
Reimbursement
Rate, SY2019-2020
(Actual)
Number of Lunches
Served
(Hypothetical)
Total Monthly
Lunch
Reimbursements
Traditional NSLP (some students receive free meals)
Free
$3.65
220
$803
Reduced-price
$3.25
100
$325
Paid
$0.47
180
$85
500
$1,213
Total
CEP at a 40% ISP (all students receive free meals)
The number of lunches reimbursed at the free rate is 40% of 500 = 200 x 1.6 = 320
Free
$3.65
320
$1,168
Paid
$0.47
180
$85
500
$1,253
Total
CEP at a 60% ISP (all students receive free meals)
The number of lunches reimbursed at the free rate is 60% of 500 = 300 x 1.6 = 480
Free
$3.65
480
$1,752
Paid
$0.47
20
$9
500
$1,761
Total
Source: CRS, based on Section 11 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1759a) and 7
C.F.R. §245.9.
Notes: In CEP, the number of lunches reimbursed at the free rate is the ISP multiplied by 1.6.
43 USDA, FNS, “Community Eligibility Provision (CEP): Planning & Implementation Guidance,” September 2016, p.
56, https://www.fns.usda.gov/fall-2016-edition-community-eligibility-provision-planning-and-implementationguidance.
44 USDA, FNS, “National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program: Eliminating Applications through
Community Eligibility as Required by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010,” 81 Federal Register 50194, July
29, 2016.
Congressional Research Service
12
Community Eligibility Provision (CEP): Background and Participation
CEP Participation and Trends
CRS used FRAC’s CEP database and USDA’s administrative data to examine CEP participation
and the characteristics of CEP schools and districts (data sources described in Appendix A).
According to FRAC’s CEP Database, 28,714 schools in 4,742 school districts participated in CEP
in SY2018-2019, representing approximately 31% of the schools and 24% of the school districts
participating in the school meals programs.45 Nearly 13.7 million students attended CEP schools.
Table 5 shows the number of CEP schools, districts with at least one CEP school, and student
enrollment in CEP schools over time.
Table 5. CEP Participation, SY2011-2012 to SY2018-2019
Number of CEP Schools and Districts and Student Enrollment Since CEP’s Inception
Number of CEP
Schools
Number of
Districts with at
Least One CEP
School
665
n/a
0.3
Number of
Students
(millions)
School Year
CEP Availability
2011-2012
3 states
2012-2013
6 states and DC
3,495
420
1.0
2013-2014
10 states and DC
3,999
638
1.8
2014-2015
Nationwide
14,230
2,222
6.7
2015-2016
Nationwide
18,220
2,987
8.5
2016-2017
Nationwide
20,721
3,544
9.7
2017-2018
Nationwide
24,950
4,107
11.8
2018-2019
Nationwide
28,714
4,742
13.7
Source: Figures for SY2011-2012 and the number of students in SY2012-2013 are from M. Levin, and Z.
Neuberger, Community Eligibility: Making High-Poverty Schools Hunger Free, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
2013, https://www.cbpp.org/research/community-eligibility-making-high-poverty-schools-hunger-free. The
number of schools and districts for SY2012-2013 is from USDA, FNS, Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation,
February 2014, https://www.fns.usda.gov/community-eligibility-provision-evaluation. Figures for SY2013-2014 are
from USDA, FNS, “Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum,” January 2015. The number of
students in SY2014-2015 and SY2015-2016 are from FRAC, Community Eligibility: The Key to Hunger-Free Schools:
School Year 2018–2019, May 2019, https://frac.org/research/resource-library/community-eligibility-the-key-tohunger-free-schools-school-year-2018-2019. Remaining figures for SY2014-2015 to SY2018-2019 are from CRS
tabulations of FRAC’s CEP Database as of March 2020.
Notes: n/a = not available.
Not all eligible schools participated in CEP. There were at least 15,486 eligible schools in 9,291
districts that did not participate in CEP in SY2018-2019.46 Most eligible districts (those with at
least one eligible school) elected CEP for all or none of their schools: roughly 48% elected CEP
45 The percentage of schools was calculated using FRAC’s CEP Database for SY2018-2019 and applied to the total
number of NSLP schools as of October 2019 from USDA, FNS, “March Keydata Report (January 2020 data),” April
10, 2020, https://www.fns.usda.gov/data/march-keydata-report-january-2020-data. The percentage of school districts
was calculated using USDA FNS-742 administrative data for SY2018-2019.
46 CRS tabulations of FRAC’s CEP Database for SY2018-2019 as of March 2020. This is likely an underestimate of
CEP-eligible schools because the dataset does not include schools with an ISP lower than 40% that could have, but did
not, group with other schools in order to participate.
Congressional Research Service
13
Community Eligibility Provision (CEP): Background and Participation
for all eligible schools, 43% did not elect CEP for any eligible schools, and 9% elected CEP for
some eligible schools.47
This section presents statistics on CEP schools and districts and discusses the factors associated
with CEP participation. Several factors may inform a local educational agency’s decision to opt in
to CEP for one or more eligible schools, including the ISP (and the resulting level of federal
reimbursement) and the district’s size. In general, schools with ISPs between 55% and 80% and
large, public school districts are more likely to participate in CEP. State-level factors may also
influence CEP participation, such as state agency outreach and the strength of the state’s direct
certification system.
Identified Student Percentage (ISP)
As discussed previously (see the “The Four-Year CEP Cycle and Reimbursement” section),
federal reimbursements increase with the ISP up to 62.5%, at which point schools receive the free
reimbursement rate for all meals.
In SY2018-2019, most schools that participated in CEP had ISPs between 40% and 80%. There
were relatively few eligible or participating schools with ISPs above that range. The average ISP
of participating schools was 61.0%. Just over half (53%) of participating schools had ISPs at or
above 62.5%.
As would be expected, schools with the lowest ISPs (between 40% and 50%) were the least likely
to participate in CEP in SY2018-2019. Schools with an ISP between 60% and 65% were the most
likely to adopt CEP, perhaps reflecting the financial incentive of reaching the 62.5% threshold
(Figure 3).
Less expectedly, CEP participation decreased at higher ISP levels. This indicates that the highest
poverty schools took up CEP at lower rates. There are a few potential explanations. First, there is
no added financial benefit of having an ISP of 62.5% versus a higher ISP (both would receive the
free reimbursement for 100% of meals). Second, higher-poverty schools may already be serving
free meals to all students and reducing household applications through other mechanisms and
may see less of a need for CEP. In a study published in August 2018, USDA’s Economic
Research Service (ERS) examined CEP participation in SY2015-2016 and found relatively low
participation among school districts with ISPs between 90% and 100%. It found that such
districts were more likely to be “very small,” with an average enrollment of 1,000 students or
fewer. The study theorized that such districts were likely already providing free meals to all
students and eliminating household applications by directly certifying all students for free meals
or by operating Provision 2 or Provision 3. Therefore, such districts “may not find it worth the
extra effort to adopt CEP if the burden of certification is already low and virtually all students are
already covered.”48
47 Ibid. Several schools were missing data on the type of grouping; therefore, these estimates should be viewed as
approximations.
48 S. Rogus, J. Guthrie, and K. Ralston, Characteristics of School Districts Offering Free School Meals to All Students
Through the Community Eligibility Provision of the National School Lunch Program, ERR-255, USDA, ERS, August
2018, p. 18, https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=89947.
Congressional Research Service
14
Community Eligibility Provision (CEP): Background and Participation
Figure 3. CEP Participation in SY2018-2019 by Identified Student Percentage (ISP)
Source: CRS tabulations of FRAC’s CEP Database for SY2018-2019.
Notes: The ISP is the percentage of students who are certified for free meals without the use of a household
application. Schools, groups of schools, or school districts must have an ISP of at least 40% to participate in CEP.
The ISP informs the amount of federal funding that CEP schools receive.
District Size
On average, CEP participation increases with district size. In SY2018-2019, approximately 57.0%
of large school districts operated CEP for at least one school, compared to 36.3% of medium
districts, 25.5% of small districts, and 23.6% of very small districts (Figure 4).49 Like the ERS
study cited previously, CRS defined very small districts as those with fewer than 1,000 students,
small districts as those with 1,000 to fewer than 5,000 students, medium districts as those with
5,000 to fewer than 20,000 students, and large districts as those with 20,000 or more students.
The ERS study of CEP found similar results, in that very small and small districts were less likely
to operate CEP for eligible schools compared to large school districts and these differences were
statistically significant.
49 CRS tabulations of USDA FNS-742 administrative data for SY2018-2019. These findings are similar to those in a
School Nutrition Association (SNA) survey of its member districts in SY2018-2019; see SNA, 2019 School Nutrition
Trends Report, https://schoolnutrition.org/2019-school-nutrition-trends-summary-report.
Congressional Research Service
15
Community Eligibility Provision (CEP): Background and Participation
Figure 4. CEP Participation in SY2018-2019 by District Size
Percentage of NSLP/SBP School Districts with at Least One CEP School
Source: CRS tabulations of USDA FNS-742 administrative data for SY2018-2019.
As noted in the previous section, the ERS study also found interactions between school district
size and ISP. Specifically, eligible very small districts with a low ISP (between 40% and 50%)
were more likely to participate in CEP than eligible large districts in the same ISP range.
Conversely, large districts with a high ISP (between 90% and 100%) were more likely to
participate in CEP than eligible districts of all other sizes in the same ISP range.50
Research shows that higher CEP participation among larger districts may be due to increased
administrative capacity to learn new program rules and to serve a higher volume of meals. The
ERS study theorized that larger school districts may have an easier time serving an increased
volume of meals under CEP, as larger districts “can take advantage of economies of scale, thereby
reducing costs by large volume purchasing and efficient use of labor, food, and other resources.”51
USDA’s 2014 evaluation of early implementation states postulated that large districts may have
greater administrative capacity to implement CEP and/or may have more advanced direct
certification systems and thus higher ISPs.52
State
As would be expected, populous states such as California, New York, and Texas had the largest
raw numbers of CEP schools. In some states, CEP schools comprised a large proportion of the
state’s NSLP schools.53 For example, in Alaska, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Kentucky,
50 S. Rogus, J. Guthrie, and K. Ralston, Characteristics of School Districts Offering Free School Meals to All Students
Through the Community Eligibility Provision of the National School Lunch Program, ERR-255, USDA, ERS, August
2018, p. 19, https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=89947.
51 Ibid, p. 15.
52 USDA, FNS, Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation, February 2014, pp. 58, 88, https://www.fns.usda.gov/
community-eligibility-provision-evaluation.
53 This report examines CEP schools as a proportion of NSLP schools because data on the number of NSLP- and SBPparticipating schools is not available. The vast majority of NSLP schools also operate SBP.
Congressional Research Service
16
Community Eligibility Provision (CEP): Background and Participation
Louisiana, New Mexico, New York, and West Virginia, CEP schools were more than half of all
NSLP schools in the state in SY2018-2019 (Table B-1).
In some cases, CEP schools were a low proportion of NSLP schools because few schools were
eligible for CEP. For example, Wyoming had a high uptake rate—11 out of 12 eligible schools
participated in CEP in SY2018-2019—but CEP schools made up only 4% of NSLP schools. In
other cases, not all eligible schools participated. In Nebraska, for instance, 26 out of 183 eligible
schools (14%) participated in CEP, and CEP schools were 3% of NSLP schools in the state.
The percentage of eligible schools participating in CEP varied by state. States with the highest
level of CEP uptake included New York, North Dakota, Kentucky, Louisiana, Vermont, and
Wyoming, where the percentage of eligible schools participating in CEP exceeded 90%. States
with low proportions of eligible schools participating included Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New
Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Washington, which all fell below 40%.
Figure 5 shows the number of CEP-eligible schools in each state in SY2018-2019 and the
percentage participating in CEP.
Congressional Research Service
17
Community Eligibility Provision (CEP): Background and Participation
Figure 5. CEP-Eligible and Participating Schools in SY2018-2019, by State
Number of Eligible Schools and Percentage Participating in CEP
Source: CRS tabulations of FRAC’s CEP Database for SY2018-2019.
Congressional Research Service
18
Community Eligibility Provision (CEP): Background and Participation
Differences in CEP participation by state may be due to a variety of factors, including (1)
outreach by private-sector organizations, state agencies, and FNS Regional Offices, (2) the
quality of states’ direct certification systems, (3) the presence of supportive state laws and
policies, and (4) the year that CEP became available in the state.
State and private-sector outreach: USDA’s evaluation of CEP participation in early
implementation states found that “almost one-quarter of the eligible non-participating LEAs
[local educational agencies] (24 percent) reported that they had not been informed about the
CEP.”54 More recently, qualitative evidence collected by FRAC in SY2018-2019 suggested that
high CEP participation rates in several states followed intensive outreach efforts by state agencies
and advocacy organizations.55
Direct certification systems: As discussed earlier in this report, states have differing levels of
progress in directly certifying children for school meals. States with more effective direct
certification systems will likely have a larger number of CEP-eligible schools and may see higher
levels of CEP uptake, as this would likely result in schools having higher ISPs and therefore
higher federal reimbursements under CEP.
State laws and policies: Differences in CEP participation may also be affected by state laws and
policies that promote adoption of CEP. For example, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
(CBPP), a nonprofit research and advocacy organization, reported that CEP adoption was higher
in states that issued clear guidance on how CEP schools would be treated under state funding
formulas that relied on free and reduced-price meal data, and lower in states that did not provide
such assurances.56 Similarly, USDA’s evaluation of CEP in early implementation states found that
concern about federal and state education allocations were one of the largest perceived barriers to
adoption of CEP.57
In the future, state laws may play an increasing role in CEP participation. As of the date of this
report, two states had enacted state-level policies to facilitate greater adoption of CEP. California
enacted a law in 2017 requiring all school districts, as of SY2018-2019, to apply to operate CEP
or Provision 2 for all schools that have an ISP of 62.5% or higher.58 Oregon enacted legislation in
2019 providing additional state funding for schools participating in CEP starting in SY20202021.59
Year of availability: The aforementioned ERS study examined whether the year that CEP
became available in a state was associated with school district participation in CEP. The study
found that, as of SY2015-2016, school districts in states that implemented CEP during the phase-
54 USDA, FNS, Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation, February 2014, p. 48, https://www.fns.usda.gov/
community-eligibility-provision-evaluation.
55 FRAC, Community Eligibility: The Key to Hunger-Free Schools: School Year 2018–2019, May 2019,
https://frac.org/research/resource-library/community-eligibility-the-key-to-hunger-free-schools-school-year-2018-2019.
56 CBPP, Community Eligibility Adoption Rises for the 2015–2016 School Year, Increasing Access to School Meals,
May 13, 2016, https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/community-eligibility-adoption-rises-for-the-2015-2016school-year.
57 USDA, FNS, Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation, February 2014, pp. 55-62, https://www.fns.usda.gov/
community-eligibility-provision-evaluation.
58 California Department of Education, “Senate Bill 138: Universal Meal Service,” Bulletin No. CNP-02-2018,
February 2018, https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/nu/sn/mbsnp012018.asp.
59 Oregon Department of Education, “Community Eligibility Provision Incentive Reimbursement Program,” Rule No.
581-051-0610, April 23, 2020, https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/view.action?ruleNumber=581-051-0610.
Congressional Research Service
19
Community Eligibility Provision (CEP): Background and Participation
in period (which began in SY2011-2012) had statistically significantly higher participation rates
compared to districts in states in which CEP became available in SY2014-2015.60
However, the ERS study examined participation only one year after CEP became available
nationally, and it is possible that participation in the later-implementing states has increased since
then. CRS’s analysis of FRAC’s CEP Database finds smaller but remaining differences in CEP
participation in the phase-in states compared to states that gained access to CEP in SY2014-2015
(during national implementation). However, CEP uptake was similar among districts in states that
gained access to CEP during the first year of implementation (SY2011-2012) and SY2014-2015
(Figure 6).
Higher CEP participation among districts in early implementation states may reflect unmeasured
factors, such as more supportive state and local environments and more effective direct
certification systems.
Figure 6. CEP Participation in SY2018-2019, By Year CEP Became Available in State
Number of Eligible Districts and Percentage Participating in CEP
Source: CRS tabulations of FRAC’s CEP Database for SY2018-2019.
Notes: Eligible districts are defined as those with at least one CEP-eligible school. SY2011-2012 states: Illinois,
Kentucky, and Michigan; SY2012-2013: DC, New York, Ohio, and West Virginia; SY2013-2014: Florida, Georgia,
Maryland, and Massachusetts; SY2014-2015: all remaining states.
Examples from certain states illustrate how the factors discussed above may contribute to higher
CEP participation rates. New York has the largest number of CEP schools and one of the highest
levels of CEP uptake. CEP became available in New York in SY2012-2013, the second year of
implementation. New York’s high CEP participation rate is largely due to the fact that all New
York City schools have adopted CEP as of SY2017-2018.61 New York City’s decision to adopt
CEP reflects the importance of school administrator decisionmaking (local decision-making
60 S. Rogus, J. Guthrie, and K. Ralston, Characteristics of School Districts Offering Free School Meals to All Students
Through the Community Eligibility Provision of the National School Lunch Program, ERR-255, USDA, ERS, August
2018, https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=89947.
61 New York City schools made up approximately 68% of New York State’s CEP-participating schools, according to
CRS calculations using FRAC CEP data for SY2018-2019.
Congressional Research Service
20
Community Eligibility Provision (CEP): Background and Participation
discussed further below), but also improvements to New York’s direct certification system that
resulted in increased ISPs for the city’s schools (and higher reimbursement under CEP).62
Louisiana has a smaller number of CEP schools, but a similarly high rate of CEP uptake.
Louisiana was not an early implementation state. Instead, the Louisiana Budget Project, a
nonprofit advocacy organization, attributed Louisiana’s high CEP participation to outreach by the
Governor’s office, advocacy groups, and local officials.63 CBPP also noted in a 2016 report that
Louisiana saw an increase in its number of CEP schools after the state clarified how CEP schools
could use alternative data sources (instead of free and reduced-price meal data) for state education
funding.64
District Type
There are close to 32,500 private schools in the United States, of which approximately 4,600
participate in NSLP.65 Private schools that participate in the school meals programs have
relatively low rates of participation in CEP compared to public schools, according to USDA’s
FNS-742 administrative data. As shown in Table 6, private school food authorities make up
19.7% of school food authorities in the school meals programs, but they make up 11.9% of school
food authorities with at least one CEP school. Altogether, 14.8% of private school food
authorities operated CEP for one or more schools in SY2018-2019, compared to 26.8% of public
school food authorities.
There is limited research to explain why participation in CEP is lower among private school food
authorities.66 Private schools have a smaller proportion of students living in households near or
below the federal poverty level compared to public schools, and therefore may be less likely to
qualify for CEP.67 Private schools are also smaller, on average, than public schools, which may
contribute to lower levels of CEP participation given the previously discussed evidence that
smaller districts participate in CEP at lower rates.68
62 Hunger Solutions New York, “New York City Announces School Lunch is Free for Every Public School Student,”
https://hungersolutionsny.org/new-york-city-announces-school-lunch-free-every-public-school-student.
63 Louisiana Budget Project, “Record Number of Eligible Louisiana Schools Provide Meals to all Enrolled Students this
School Year,” December 5, 2018, https://www.labudget.org/2018/12/record-number-of-eligible-louisiana-schoolsprovide-meals-to-all-enrolled-students-this-school-year.
64 CBPP, Community Eligibility Adoption Rises for the 2015–2016 School Year, Increasing Access to School Meals,
May 13, 2016, https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/community-eligibility-adoption-rises-for-the-2015-2016school-year.
65 U.S. Department of Education (ED), National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Private School Universe
Survey (PSS), 2017–18, “Table 15. Number of private schools, students, full-time equivalent (FTE) teachers, and 201617 high school graduates, by state: United States, 2017–18,” https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pss/tables/
TABLE15fl1718.asp; As of October 2019, there were 89,664 public schools and 4,606 private schools participating in
NSLP and 85,251 public schools and 2,742 private schools participating in SBP, according to CRS communication
with FNS on July 1, 2019.
66 USDA’s CEP evaluation and the ERS study did not include data on private schools.
67 ED, NCES, School Choice in the United States: 2019, NCES 2019-106, September 2019, https://nces.ed.gov/
pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2019106.
68 ED, NCES, Characteristics of Private Schools in the United States: Results from the 2015-16 Private School
Universe Survey: First Look, 2017, https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2017/2017073.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
21
Community Eligibility Provision (CEP): Background and Participation
Table 6. Public Versus Private School District Participation in CEP, SY2018-2019
Number of
SFAs
Percentage of
SFAs
Number of
SFAs with at
Least One
CEP School
Percentage of
SFAs with at
Least One
CEP School
Public
15,190
80.3%
4,071
89.1%
Private
3,735
19.7%
551
11.9%
Total
18,925
100.0%
4,622
100.0%
Source: CRS tabulations of USDA FNS-742 administrative data for SY2018-2019.
There is some evidence to suggest that charter schools may participate in CEP at higher rates.
Charter schools are public schools that operate independently from a state’s public school system,
and they typically manage one school (regular districts usually oversee multiple schools).69 There
are approximately 7,000 charter schools in the United States.70 USDA’s evaluation of CEP early
implementation states found that charter schools had slightly higher participation rates than
regular schools.71 The study’s interviews with state child nutrition program staff indicated that
“charter schools generally did not face the problem confronted by regular public school districts
… that the CEP would result in reallocating funds away from the schools with the highest
concentrations of students in poverty.”72
Charter schools and districts are more common in some states than others. The District of
Columbia, for example, has one large regular school district and 59 charter districts. More than
half of the districts in Utah, Arizona, Louisiana, Delaware, and North Carolina are independent
charter districts.73
District Location
The ERS study of CEP participation in SY2015-2016 found no statistically significant difference
between urban and rural districts’ CEP participation when other factors (such as district size) were
held constant. The study found that suburban districts were slightly less likely to participate in
CEP than rural districts, which the authors said “should be explored in future research.”74
Similarly, USDA’s evaluation of early implementation states found no statistically significant
difference in participation among urban versus other types of schools.
69 88% of all independent charter districts manage one school compared with 16% of regular districts. CRS tabulations
of ED, NCES, CCD Data, SY2016-2017.
70 ED, NCES, CCD, “Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey,” 1990-91 through 2016-17,
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_216.20.asp.
71 USDA, FNS, Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation, February 2014, p. 88, https://www.fns.usda.gov/
community-eligibility-provision-evaluation.
72 Ibid, p. 58. Title I-A allocations to charter schools that operate their own local educational agencies are based on
Census Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) data.
73 CRS tabulations of ED, NCES, CCD, “Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey” for SY2017-2018.
74 S. Rogus, J. Guthrie, and K. Ralston, Characteristics of School Districts Offering Free School Meals to All Students
Through the Community Eligibility Provision of the National School Lunch Program, ERR-255, USDA, ERS, August
2018, p. 19, https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details/?pubid=89947.
Congressional Research Service
22
Community Eligibility Provision (CEP): Background and Participation
Local Decisionmaking
Differences in local decisionmaking likely influence CEP participation. According to USDA’s
evaluation of early implementation states, administrator support was associated with a higher
likelihood of adopting CEP. Specifically, the study found that “LEA [local educational agency]
leadership had to be comfortable with and supportive of an initiative that involved change and
uncertainties.”75 Financial considerations, the administrative capacity of the district, and the
poverty of the community were all factors that local administrators considered when choosing
whether to adopt CEP.76 The study also found that the local decisionmakers most frequently
involved in the local educational agency’s choice to participate in CEP were school boards,
superintendents, and food service directors.77
Conclusion
CEP is an option within NSLP and SBP statute designed to enable high poverty schools to
eliminate household applications and receive an alternative federal funding formula if they
provide free meals to all students. An increasing number of schools and districts have adopted
CEP since it became available nationwide in SY2014-2015.
The data in this report show CEP participation varies substantially across states. The data also
show that the highest poverty schools—those with ISPs between 80% and 100%—are less likely
to adopt CEP than schools with slightly lower ISPs. Finally, the data show that public districts
and large districts adopt CEP at higher rates than private and small school districts.
Research helps to explain some of these patterns. Differences in participation by state have been
attributed to differences in state outreach, policies, and direct certification systems, among other
factors. Differences in participation by ISP may be a result of the fact that schools with very high
ISPs are smaller and thus may be less likely to adopt CEP.
There were at least 15,000 schools that were eligible for, but did not participate, in CEP in
SY2018-2019. CEP participation may continue to increase in the coming years if more eligible
schools decide to participate. Other factors could cause CEP participation to decrease, such as if
SNAP participation declines. The future of CEP will be informed both by its reception among
students and families and by decisions made by local, state, and federal decisionmakers and
policymakers.
75 USDA, FNS, Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation, February 2014, p. 58, https://www.fns.usda.gov/
community-eligibility-provision-evaluation.
76 Ibid, p. 52.
77 Ibid, p. 44.
Congressional Research Service
23
Community Eligibility Provision (CEP): Background and Participation
Appendix A. Available CEP Data and Limitations
FRAC CEP Database
The Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) is a national nonprofit research and anti-hunger
advocacy organization.78 Since SY2015-2016, FRAC has collected annual data on the CEP
eligibility and participation status of schools nationwide. FRAC’s CEP Database also includes
data collected by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) for SY2014-2015. The data
collection has been done in consultation with FNS, which does not administer its own CEP data
collection in an effort to minimize reporting burdens for states. FNS recognizes FRAC’s CEP
Database as the best source of national school-level CEP data.79
FRAC compiles CEP eligibility data from state agencies, which are required by law to report a
list of CEP-eligible and near-eligible schools by May 1 of each year.80 FRAC completes a
subsequent data collection from September through February to obtain each school’s CEP
participation status, consults with schools about potentially erroneous or missing data, and then
publishes the resulting file online.81
The dataset has a few limitations. First, the universe is limited to CEP-eligible, near-eligible, and
participating schools; it does not capture every NSLP- and SBP-participating school. Second, in
the earlier years of CEP (SY2014-2015 and SY2015-2016), some school districts reported higher
ISPs than they actually had (for example, eight schools had ISPs above 100%, which are not
possible). CRS attempted to correct for this issue by removing ISPs over 100%, but it is possible
that there are an unknown number of schools with ISPs below 100% that were falsely reported.
Therefore, the CEP eligibility data for SY2014-2015 and SY2015-2016 in this report should be
viewed as more imprecise than data from subsequent years. There was also a relatively small
number of schools with missing ISPs.
USDA FNS-742 Administrative Data
The FNS-742 is a standard form that must be completed by school food authorities and submitted
to the state agency by December of each year. The state agency then compiles the forms and
provides the resulting statewide dataset to USDA by April. USDA uses the dataset primarily to
monitor states’ verification activities—an annual process through which school districts verify the
accuracy of a sample of approved household applications. However, the FNS-742 form also
includes descriptive data on the number of schools participating in CEP and the other special
provisions.
CRS used the FNS-742 data to compare the number of schools operating CEP with schools
operating traditional school meal programs or other special provisions. There are two notable
limitations to this dataset: (1) it does not include CEP eligibility, only the number of schools
participating in the program, and (2) FRAC’s participation data are reported at the local
educational agency level, which is the entity that makes the decision to opt in to CEP, whereas
USDA’s data are reported at the school food authority level. In addition, FRAC’s data are slightly
78 FRAC, “What We Do,” https://frac.org/about/what-we-do.
79 CRS correspondence with USDA in January 2020.
80 Section 11(a)(1)(F)(x)(IV) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (codified at 42 U.S.C.
1759a(a)(1)(F)(x)(IV)).
81 CRS correspondence with FRAC and USDA in January 2020.
Congressional Research Service
24
Community Eligibility Provision (CEP): Background and Participation
more current (USDA’s data are collected from October through December, whereas FRAC’s data
are collected from September through February).
Congressional Research Service
25
Community Eligibility Provision (CEP): Background and Participation
Appendix B. CEP Participation by State
Table B-1. CEP Participation by State, SY2018-2019
Number of CEP Districts and Schools and CEP Schools as a Percentage of NSLP Schools
Number of School
Districts with at
Least One CEPParticipating School
(SY2018-2019)
Number of
CEPParticipating
Schools
(SY2018-2019)
Number of
NSLP Schools
(October
2019)
CEP Schools as a
Percentage of
NSLP Schools
Alabama
46
444
1,333
33%
Alaska
30
208
399
52%
Arizona
153
372
1,761
21%
Arkansas
63
201
1,056
19%
California
289
2,833
9,561
30%
Colorado
82
105
1,735
6%
Connecticut
36
307
994
31%
Delaware
23
119
228
52%
District of Columbia
37
117
231
51%
Florida
188
1,356
3,851
35%
Georgia
106
818
2,278
36%
Hawaii
16
69
282
24%
Idaho
23
82
654
13%
Illinois
248
1,541
3,925
39%
Indiana
72
362
2,031
18%
Iowa
22
156
1,288
12%
Kansas
7
75
1,343
6%
Kentucky
160
984
1,283
77%
Louisiana
121
1,016
1,467
69%
Maine
30
87
589
15%
Maryland
15
242
1,454
17%
Massachusetts
83
613
1,923
32%
Michigan
300
1,105
3,241
34%
Minnesota
65
163
1,945
8%
Mississippi
59
410
875
47%
Missouri
99
420
2,378
18%
Montana
56
157
763
21%
Nebraska
13
26
898
3%
Nevada
12
167
617
27%
New Hampshire
4
4
429
1%
State
Congressional Research Service
26
Community Eligibility Provision (CEP): Background and Participation
Number of School
Districts with at
Least One CEPParticipating School
(SY2018-2019)
Number of
CEPParticipating
Schools
(SY2018-2019)
Number of
NSLP Schools
(October
2019)
CEP Schools as a
Percentage of
NSLP Schools
New Jersey
84
331
2,814
12%
New Mexico
121
546
842
65%
New York
379
3,565
5,540
64%
North Carolina
102
882
2,531
35%
North Dakota
21
29
394
7%
Ohio
322
998
3,392
29%
Oklahoma
125
427
1,848
23%
Oregon
78
341
1,249
27%
Pennsylvania
205
1,031
3,208
32%
Rhode Island
6
37
328
11%
South Carolina
59
515
1,162
44%
South Dakota
27
97
658
15%
Tennessee
91
836
1,779
47%
Texas
327
2,716
8,206
33%
Utah
13
52
937
6%
Vermont
22
62
315
20%
Virginia
62
428
1,900
23%
Washington
72
273
2,102
13%
West Virginia
52
540
659
82%
Wisconsin
110
438
2,361
19%
Wyoming
6
11
297
4%
4,742
28,714
94,457
30%
State
United States
Source: CRS tabulations of FRAC’s CEP Database for SY2018-2019. The number of NSLP schools by state was
provided by USDA on April 24, 2020; it was collected in October 2019 and updated on an ongoing basis.
Notes: There are a small number of schools nationwide that participate in SBP but not NSLP, which are not
reflected in these estimates. CEP schools must participate in both NSLP and SBP. The total number of NSLP
schools in the United States includes schools in territories (not shown).
Author Information
Kara Clifford Billings
Analyst in Social Policy
Congressional Research Service
Jameson A. Carter
Research Assistant
27
Community Eligibility Provision (CEP): Background and Participation
Acknowledgments
The Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and
Nutrition Service (FNS) provided the data files used in this report.
Brion Long, CRS Visual Information Specialist, provided graphic design assistance.
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
Congressional Research Service
R46371 · VERSION 1 · NEW
28
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.