This White Paper examines whether any additional means-tested programs might be feasible for use in the direct certification of school-age children participating in school meals or for verification of household income on meal applications.
Under the Community Eligibility Provision, schools do not collect or process meal applications for free and reduced-price meals served in the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program. Schools must serve all meals at no cost with any costs in excess of the federal reimbursement paid from non-federal sources.
Program errors and the risk of erroneous payments in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP) continue to be a concern. Slightly more than one in five students were certified inaccurately or erroneously denied benefits in school year (SY) 2005-06. New data estimates the gross cost of school meals erroneous payments due to certification error at about $935 million while other operational errors represent about $860 million.
From July to September 2002, FNS reviewed the free and reduced price eligibility determination process (i.e., application, verification, reapplication, meal ticket status) for each of 3,474 applications selected for verification in 14 large school food authorities in the 2001-02 school year. These SFAs enroll nearly one million children, among whom 45 percent were approved for free meals and 7 percent were approved for reduced price meals as of Oct. 31, 2001.
The National School Lunch Program operates in over 94,000 schools and institutions. More than 26 million children receive meals through the program on any given day; about half of these meals are provided free of charge. The School Breakfast Program operates in approximately two-thirds of the schools and institutions that offer the NSLP, most commonly in schools that serve large numbers of economically disadvantaged children.
Data was collected from directors of 34 school food authorities participating in the Nutrient Standard Menu Planning demonstration during fall 1995 and winter 1996. This information was used to assess the implementation status of these sites and examine perceived strengths and weaknesses of the system.