Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation:
Year 3 Addendum

Nutrition Assistance Program Report
Food and Nutrition Service
Office of Policy Support

January 2015

USDA is an Equal Opportunity Provider

Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support

January 2015

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation:
Year 3 Addendum
Authors:
Joseph Harkness
Christopher W. Logan
Azim Shivji
Hiren Nisar
Patty Connor
Submitted by:
Abt Associates
55 Wheeler St.
Cambridge, MA 02138

Submitted to:
Office of Policy Support
Food and Nutrition Service
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302

Project Director:
Patty Connor

Project Officer:
John R. EndahlThis study was conducted under Contract number AG-3198-D-11-0074 with the Food andNutrition Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
This report is available on the Food and Nutrition website: http://www.fns.usda.gov/researchand-analysis
Suggested Citation:
Harkness, Joseph, Christopher W. Logan, Azim Shivji, Hiren Nisar, and Patty Connor.
Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum. Project Officer: John R.
Endahl. Prepared by Abt Associates for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service, January 2015.

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

Table of Contents
1.

Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 CEP Background, Purpose and Milestones ..................................................................... 2
1.1.1 Authorization for the CEP and Mandate for the Evaluation............................... 3
1.1.2 Purpose and Design of the CEP .......................................................................... 3
1.2 Summary of Findings from the CEP Evaluation Report ................................................. 4
1.2.1 Study Design and Data ....................................................................................... 4
1.2.2 Implementation Study Results ............................................................................ 5
1.2.3 Impact Study Results .......................................................................................... 6
1.2.4 Summary............................................................................................................. 9
1.3 Objectives and Scope of this Addendum ......................................................................... 92.

Data and Methods ................................................................................................................. 11
2.1 Data Sources and Collection.......................................................................................... 11
2.1.1 State Data.......................................................................................................... 11
2.1.2 VSR Data .......................................................................................................... 13
2.1.3 CCD Files ......................................................................................................... 13
2.1.4 Database Construction ...................................................................................... 14
2.2 Definitions of LEA and School Eligibility and Participation in the CEP ...................... 15
2.2.1 LEA Eligibility and Participation ..................................................................... 15
2.2.2 School Eligibility and Participation .................................................................. 16
2.3 Other Definitions of Groups of LEAs ........................................................................... 17
2.3.1 Regular Public/Charter LEAs and “Other” LEAs ............................................ 17
2.3.2 Eligible LEA-Wide versus Partial Eligibility, Full versus Partial
Participation...................................................................................................... 17
2.4 Limitations ..................................................................................................................... 17

3.

Take-Up of the CE Provision in SY2013–14 ....................................................................... 19
3.1 Number of LEAs, Schools, and Students Participating in the CEP ............................... 19
3.1.1 Growth in LEA Participation in the CEP Since Inception................................ 21
3.2 Numbers of Near-Eligible, Eligible Non-Participating and Participating LEAs ........... 22
3.2.1 Regular and Charter LEAs: Numbers of Near-Eligible, Eligible NonParticipating, and Participating ........................................................................ 22
3.2.2 Other LEAs: Numbers of Near-Eligible, Eligible Non-Participating, andParticipating...................................................................................................... 25
3.3 Characteristics of Near-Eligible, Eligible Non-Participating and Participating LEAs .. 25
3.3.1 Overall Patterns of the Characteristics of Near-Eligible, Eligible NonParticipating, and Participating LEAs .............................................................. 26
3.3.2 Enrollment in Near-Eligible, Eligible Non-Participating, and Participating
LEAs by State ................................................................................................... 29
3.3.3 State Variations in the Characteristics of Near-Eligible, Eligible NonParticipating, and Participating LEAs .............................................................. 29
3.3.4 LEA Approaches to Claiming Percentages ...................................................... 35
3.3.5 Variations in CEP Participation Associated with LEA-Wide Eligibility,
Percentages of Students Eligible for Free and Reduced-Price Meals, and
ISP .................................................................................................................... 36

Abt Associates

Contents ▌pg. i

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

3.4

3.5

Numbers and Characteristics of Near-Eligible, Eligible Non-Participating andParticipating Schools ..................................................................................................... 40
3.4.1 Numbers of Near-Eligible, Eligible Non-Participating and Participating
Schools .............................................................................................................. 40
3.4.2 Variations in School Participation Associated LEA-Wide Eligibility .............. 41
3.4.3 Characteristics of Near-Eligible, Eligible Non-Participating, andParticipating Regular and Charter Schools ....................................................... 42
Summary ........................................................................................................................ 48
3.5.1 Characteristics of Participating LEAs ............................................................... 48
3.5.2 Numbers of Eligible and Near-Eligible LEAs .................................................. 49
3.5.3 Comparison of Participating, Eligible Non-Participating, and Near-Eligible
LEAs ................................................................................................................. 49
3.5.4 School Participation in the CEP ........................................................................ 49

References ............................................................................................................................................ 51
Appendix: LEA and School Characteristics by State ...................................................................... 53

pg. ii ▌Contents

Abt Associates

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

1. Introduction
Section 104(a) of the Healthy, Hunger Free Kids Act (HHFKA) of 2010 made the Community
Eligibility Provision (CEP) available to Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) and schools in highpoverty areas.1 Under the CEP, families are not required to submit applications for free or reducedprice meals, and schools must provide free lunch and breakfast to all students. Schools are reimbursed
for meals using a formula based on the percentage of students identified as eligible without anapplication (the identified student percentage, or ISP), using direct certification and other lists ofeligible students.2 LEAs must cover all costs of these meals in excess of Federal reimbursement with
non-Federal funds. The potential benefits are to increase low-income students’ access to nutritious
meals, and to reduce the administrative burden of LEAs’ experience with the school meals programs.
The phase-in of the CEP has followed a schedule specified by the HHFKA. The Food and Nutrition
Service (FNS) initially identified 10 States with the greatest potential for covering the highest numberof qualifying LEAs and schools to apply for the CEP for the first year, School Year (SY) 2011–12.
FNS then selected three States (Illinois, Kentucky, and Michigan) to participate. For SY 2012–13,
FNS encouraged all States to apply for the CEP, and selected four additional States3 (New York,
Ohio, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia), making a total of seven participating States. FNS
selected four more States to participate in the CEP for SY 2013–14 (Florida, Georgia, Maryland, andMassachusetts). The CEP will be available nationwide to all eligible LEAs and schools in SY 2014–
15. Information on State lists of eligible LEAs is available on FNS’ web site(http://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/state-information-community-eligibility-provision).
As mandated by the HHFKA, the CEP Evaluation examined the implementation and impacts of the
new framework for providing free meals to all students in high-poverty schools. The overall purposeof the evaluation was to obtain a better understanding of:

The acceptability of the Community Eligibility Provision to LEAs,

The incentives and barriers for LEAs adopting the provision,Operational issues that State agencies encounter in administrating this provision, andImplications and impacts of opting for this provision.

The report on the Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation (Logan et al., 2014) covered the firstseven participating States and presented the methods and results to address the legislatively mandated
research questions. It included descriptive information on the implementation of the CEP from the1

During the evaluation’s planning and data collection phases, the CEP was known as the Community
Eligibility Option (CEO).

2

Eligibility can also be certified based on lists maintained by LEAs or other agencies that identify
categorically eligible students, such as homeless, runaway and migrant youth, and foster children.

3

For ease of discussion, the term “State” in this report includes the District of Columbia (D.C.) government,
which supervises all LEAs participating in the USDA school meals programs within its borders, including
the D.C. Public School system, public charter schools, and non-public schools.

Abt Associates

1. Introduction ▌pg. 1

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

State and LEA perspectives, and analytic findings on the factors affecting LEA participation in the
CEP and its impacts on LEAs. This Addendum contains descriptive findings on CEP eligibility andparticipation for all 11 States where the program has been phased in to date, and updates several ofthe descriptive results published in the final report.
The next section discusses the background of the CEP in the overall context of the structure of school
meal administration, the mandate for an evaluation, and an overview of the evaluation design. A
review of findings from the final report follows. The remainder of the chapter discusses the research
objectives, scope, and organization of this Addendum.

1.1

CEP Background, Purpose and Milestones

Two school-based programs—the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast
Program (SBP)—are vital parts of the safety net against childhood hunger overseen by FNS. EachState administers these programs through Local Educational Agencies (LEAs)4 and is responsible for
ensuring that the LEAs meet Federal program guidelines. Students in households with family incomesat or below 130 percent of the Federal poverty line (FPL) are eligible for free meals at school, while
those in households with family incomes between 130 percent and 185 percent of FPL are eligible for
reduced price meals. The NSLP and SBP provide foods that meet the government’s nutritional
standards for two meals each day that school is in session.
More than 90 percent of students nationwide attend schools that offer NLSP and/or SBP. In Fiscal
Year 2013, almost 31 million children participated in the NSLP, and over 13 million children
participated in the SBP. Over 70 percent of lunches and 85 percent of breakfasts served in schools
were for children eligible for free or reduced price (FRP) meals (USDA, 2014a, 2014b). Eligibility
for FRP meals is determined through annual household applications, direct certification, and lists ofeligible children. Households can apply based on income or categorical eligibility (i.e., being part of agroup that is specified as eligible by law regardless of income).
Direct certification determines children’s eligibility for free meals by matching student enrollment
records with administrative records from programs that make children categorically eligible for free4

The Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (NSLA) uses two different terms to refer to the local
entities that enter into agreements with State agencies to operate the school meal programs. The Child
Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-265) amended the NSLA by using the term
Local Educational Agency (LEA), defined for public schools in the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (ESEA), when referring to the application, certification, and verification functions of theschool meal programs. Sections of the NSLA that deal with other aspects of the programs, such as meal
pattern requirements and meal-counting and claiming reimbursements, use the term School Food Authority(SFA), which current NSLP regulations define as the governing body that has the legal authority to operate
the NSLP/SBP in one or more schools. The term most commonly used for the entities described as LEAs in
the ESEA is school districts. While this definition applies only to public entities, State agencies also enter
into agreements to operate the NSLP with charter schools, non-public schools, or other non-profit local
entities such as an archdiocese running multiple non-public schools. Because the section of the HHFKA
that authorizes the CEP refers to LEAs, that term is used throughout this document to refer to both public
and non-public nonprofit local entities that enter into agreements with State agencies to operate the NSLP
and SBP.

pg. 2 ▌1. Introduction

Abt Associates

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

meals, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF), the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) and
Medicaid (in selected States). In addition, children can be certified as eligible for free meals based onlists of other categorically eligible individuals maintained by LEAs or other agencies, including
homeless, runaway and migrant youth, and foster children. Children certified for free meals by any ofthese means—without applications—are referred to as “identified students.”
The Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 required States to develop a direct
certification system for school-age SNAP participants by SY 2008–09. During SY 2012–13, 91
percent of LEAs participating in the NSLP directly certified some SNAP participants. Nationally,
direct certification identified 89 percent of school-age SNAP participants (Moore, Conway, Kyler,
and Gothro, 2013).
LEAs participating in NSLP and SBP receive Federal reimbursements for meals served toparticipating children. Under conventional procedures, LEAs separately count reimbursable meals
served to (a) children certified for FRP meals and (b) children paying the LEA’s full price (“paid”
meals). LEAs submit monthly claims for reimbursement based on meal counts and rates for free,
reduced, and paid meals set by USDA, to their respective State Child Nutrition (CN) Agencies.
To reduce local-level administrative burdens that accompany completing and processing thehousehold applications, USDA has established three provisions as alternatives to the conventional
requirements for annual determinations of FRP meal eligibility. All three provisions let LEAs conduct
FRP meals certification less often than annually: every two years under Provision 1, and at mostevery four years under Provisions 2 and 3 (as discussed below). These provisions can be usedthroughout the LEA or for individual schools. Under Provisions 2 and 3, LEAs offer free meals to allstudents and count only the total meals, then claim reimbursement using percentages or dollar
amounts established in the base year when students are certified for FRP meals (USDA, 2014c).
LEAs must still collect applications every four years, unless they receive an extension for an
additional four years. Stopping and starting the application process can represent a challenge forfamilies, schools, and LEAs, who may become less familiar with the application process, especially iffour-year extensions have been granted (National Research Council, 2012).
1.1.1

Authorization for the CEP and Mandate for the Evaluation

Recognizing the problem of both childhood obesity and food insecurity in children, Congress passed
the HHFKA in 2010. The HHFKA authorized funding and reformed policies for the USDA childnutrition programs, including NSLP and SBP, with the goal of improving the quality of andincreasing access to meals offered to children. The HHFKA updated standards for nutritious meals
and authorized additional funding for healthier meals. Several other program changes were designed
to improve access to NSLP and SBP through program expansion and outreach, including the CEP. As
part of the HHFKA, Congress further mandated that FNS conduct an evaluation (1) to understandhow the CEP is implemented; (2) to describe incentives and barriers for LEA and schoolparticipation; and (3) to estimate impacts on LEAs, schools and children.
1.1.2

Purpose and Design of the CEP

Section 104(a) of the HHFKA created the CEP for LEAs and schools as an alternative to household
applications for FRP meals and conventional reimbursement methods. The CEP can be used in an
entire LEA (district-wide), a group of schools in an LEA, or an individual school—if the ratio of

Abt Associates

1. Introduction ▌pg. 3

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

identified students (i.e., those certified for free meals without application) to total enrollment is 40
percent or more in the year prior to adopting the CEP.5 This criterion is known as the “Identified
Student Percentage” (ISP). LEAs and schools using the CEP must agree to serve both breakfasts andlunches free to all students, and to cover with non-Federal funds all costs of these meals in excess ofFederal reimbursements. The percentage of meals reimbursed with Federal funds at the free meals
rate (the “claiming percentage”) equals the ISP multiplied by a factor of 1.6, as established in the
HHFKA; all other meals are served free to students but are reimbursed at the paid meals rate. The
applicable ISP is for the entire LEA, the group of schools, or the individual school, depending on how
the LEA chooses to implement the CEP and establish CEP eligibility for its schools.
The CEP has two potential advantages, compared to conventional reimbursement methods: (1) it canpotentially increase student participation in meal programs by expanding access to free meals for all
students, and (2) it can decrease household and administrative burden by not requiring regularapplications to establish eligibility, and by simplifying the counting of reimbursable meals.
The CEP allows four years of reimbursement to eligible LEAs and schools with an additional fouryear cycle possible if the LEA or school continues to meet the minimum ISP of 40 percent. LEAs
using the CEP are encouraged, but not required, to conduct direct certification. If the LEA chooses to
conduct direct certification (or if the State conducts direct certification) and the ISP increases over thecourse of participation, the LEA will be reimbursed at a higher claiming percentage.6 An LEA or
school may withdraw from the CEP at any time during the four-year cycle.

1.2

Summary of Findings from the CEP Evaluation Report

1.2.1

Study Design and Data

The study design included an implementation study and an impact study in the first seven CEP States.
For the implementation study, the evaluation team collected State administrative data on thecharacteristics of all LEAs and schools. The evaluation team updated these data for this Addendum.
In addition, the evaluation team conducted the following primary data collections on CEP
implementation:


Fielded a detailed web survey on LEAs’ experiences with the CEP;Interviewed State Child Nutrition Agency directors and staff to obtain their perspectives on
implementation successes and challenges; andInterviewed Title I directors in all 51 State Educational Agencies to gather data on programs
using FRP meals data and how these programs might be affected by the elimination of FRP meals
applications under the CEP.

5

Schools participating in Provision 2 or 3 may elect the CEP if (a) they are not in the base year, when direct
certification must be conducted, and (b) they can provide an ISP for the year prior to the first year of the
CEP.

6

To renew participation after the fourth year, LEAs must obtain identified student data demonstrating thatthey still meet the ISP requirement for the participating schools.

pg. 4 ▌1. Introduction

Abt Associates

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

Three types of LEAs were of interest to the evaluation:
1) Participating in the CEP: LEAs with at least one participating school;
2) Eligible non-participating: LEAs with at least one school eligible to participate as anindividual school (i.e., with a school ISP of 40 percent or more) but no participating schools;
and3) Near-eligible non-participating: LEAs with a district-wide ISP between 30 and 40 percent
and no eligible schools.
The impact study collected and analyzed data on outcomes for matched samples of treatment(participating) and comparison (non-participating) LEAs. The two groups were matched on
characteristics related to the likelihood that the LEA would take up the CEP, using propensity scorematching. All analyses used regression models to control for observed differences between treatment
and control groups. To estimate impacts on NSLP and SBP participation and Federal reimbursements,
the evaluation team collected and analyzed State administrative data from the fall months for SY
2009–10 through 2012–13 on 285 participating LEAs and 528 matched non-participating LEAs. For
other outcomes, the evaluation team conducted several data collections in a series of nested samples,
including:
1. A web survey of 141 treatment and 105 comparison LEAs that collected non-Federal revenue
data for SY 2009–10 through 2012–13 and qualitative data about changes in participation andoperations;
2. Two data collections in a sub-sample of 52 treatment and 48 comparison LEAs,
a. interviews with LEA and school personnel on staffing and administrative costs, andb. reviews of a sample of direct certification and FRP meals application records for the
analysis of impacts on certification errors; and3. Three more intensive data collections in a sub-sample of 27 treatment and 25 comparison
LEAs (selected from the sub-sample described above):a. observations of cashiers to collect data on errors identifying reimbursable meals,b. review of school and LEA records to obtain data on meal claiming errors, andc. self-reported data from foodservice managers in the sampled schools about foods andbeverages offered for the NSLP and the SBP during a selected week.
All surveys and on-site data collection visits were conducted in the Winter and Spring of 2013.
1.2.2

Implementation Study Results

States identified, notified and recruited LEAs to participate. In turn, the LEAs learned about the CEP,
made decisions about whether to implement and in which schools, and communicated with schools
and the community. Some States and LEAs had already noticed increased meal participation, andaccording to States, LEAs were excited about the CEP. The first seven States reported that key
challenges at the State level were (1) the limited time during initial implementation to understand the
CEP, make decisions about participation, and implement it, and (2) understanding and addressing theimplications of the CEP for educational programs that use individual student FRP meals certification
data. At the LEA level, the most frequently reported barriers included financial concerns anduncertainty about the impacts of the CEP on NSLP and SBP participation. Equity issues andoperational challenges (especially for LEAs with both eligible and non-eligible schools) were also

Abt Associates

1. Introduction ▌pg. 5

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

important concerns. Addressing the timing and information issues for States is a relatively
straightforward problem. However, telephone interviews with all 51 State Title I directors indicatedthat States routinely use FRP data for multiple education-related purposes, so the lack of such data
under the CEP represents a widespread challenge.
Across the first seven States, a total of 420 LEAs and 2,312 schools participated in the CEP in SY
2012–13. On average, 32 percent of eligible regular and charter LEAs, and 29 percent of eligible
schools, participated in the CEP. Participation rates for eligible regular and charter LEAs ranged
considerably—from 24 percent in Michigan to 65 percent in West Virginia. Based on the number ofnear-eligible LEAs, it appears that the potential to increase the number of eligible LEAs was small inmost States; only Illinois and Ohio had more than 50 near-eligible LEAs.
Among participating LEAs eligible to participate LEA-wide, 92 percent used the CEP in all schools.
Ninety-seven percent of schools in participating LEAs eligible to participate LEA-wide used the CEP,
on average. On the other hand, among participating LEAs that were not eligible LEA-wide, 53
percent used the CEP at all eligible schools, and on average, 79 percent of eligible schools in allparticipating LEAs that were not eligible LEA-wide used the CEP. (A school is eligible for the CEP if
the LEA is eligible to participate LEA-wide, or if the school has an ISP of 40 percent or more, or if
the school is grouped with other schools so that the ISP for the group is 40 percent or more.)
Compared with eligible non-participating regular and charter LEAs, participating LEAs of these types
had more students, on average, higher ISPs and FRP meals eligibility percentages, higher percentagesof students in grades K–5, and higher percentages of students who are Black. Despite their larger
average size, participating regular and charter LEAs were more often very small (with enrollments
under 500 students); they also were more often urban and more often charter schools. These patterns
were replicated in most (although not all) of the first seven States.
Four factors were significantly associated with CEP participation by LEAs: ISP, enrollment, State,
and charter status. The odds of participation rose dramatically with each additional 10 percentage
points in the ISP, especially in the steps from 40 to 70 percent. The odds of participation also
increased for LEAs with larger numbers of schools. However, LEAs with below-average-size schools
were more likely to participate, possibly because of differences in school-level eligibility. Althoughcharter LEAs were more likely to participate than regular public LEAs, this finding was significant
only in Ohio. The above relationships were observed after controlling for the other factors in theanalytic model, so they may differ from the descriptive results (such as the participation rates by State
computed without controlling for differences in LEA demographics). Evidence from State CNinterviews suggests that the differences by State and charter status may reflect how the CEP was
implemented; differences in school-level eligibility may also have contributed to variation inparticipation across LEA types.
1.2.3

Impact Study Results

As noted above, the Impact Study used a matched comparison design, and impact estimates werecomputed from differences in outcomes between the treatment group (participating LEAs andschools) and the comparison group (non-participating LEAs selected to be similar in likelihood of
CEP take-up, and selected schools in these LEAs). Outcome data were drawn from Stateadministrative records, a web survey, in-person interviews and other on-site data collection, with thelargest samples devoted to the participation and revenue impacts.

pg. 6 ▌1. Introduction

Abt Associates

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

The Impact Study applied methods recommended by Schochet (2008a, 2008b) that have since been
widely applied. This method, which is one approach for dealing with the “multiple comparisons”
problem, involves dividing outcomes into those that are confirmatory versus those that are
exploratory. Confirmatory outcomes are those considered to be the primary indicators of program
success, while exploratory outcomes provide insight into the results of the program but are not used tojudge its success. The study used two confirmatory outcomes:
1. Average daily participation in the NSLP; and2. Federal revenues per reimbursable meal.
The results for impacts on participation and revenues for NSLP and SBP are based on the strongest
component of the evaluation, which uses a time-series of pre- and post-implementation data tostrengthen the controls for differences in relevant characteristics between the treatment and control
groups. Other impact results are based on a posttest-only comparison design and should be considered
exploratory.
Judged by the confirmatory outcomes selected for the evaluation, the CEP was clearly successful: it
significantly increased student participation in NSLP, and Federal reimbursements per reimbursable
meal for these programs were significantly greater among the LEAs that chose to participate.
Participation in the CEP also increased student participation in the SBP. The CEP’s impact on student
participation in school meal programs was surprisingly consistent across programs, increasing
participation by 5 to 9 percent (relative to the lunch and breakfast programs’ participation in thematched comparison schools, after controlling for differences between the two groups). The CEP’s
impact on Federal reimbursements per meal was a significant increase of about 6 percent for the
NSLP and 2 percent for the SBP. Total Federal revenue per student increased by 13.5 percent. On theother hand, the CEP did not appear to have an impact on any type of non-Federal revenue. Taken
together, the finding of increased Federal funding and the lack of evidence that other revenues
significantly declined suggest that the CEP did not have an adverse overall effect on LEA foodservice
revenues, and may have produced a net gain for participating LEAs.
Turning to exploratory outcomes, the CEP requires LEAs to offer the SBP, and it was available in all
schools in nearly all participating LEAs and non-participating LEAs that are likely to take up the
CEP. Study data did not indicate that the CEP had an impact on availability of the SBP. After
controlling for differences between groups, participating LEAs used traditional line service less often
at breakfast and served breakfast in the classroom more often, as is recommended to increase SBP
participation (USDA, 2013) but complicated to implement under conventional meal counting andclaiming procedures. Participating LEAs were less likely to offer a choice of foods at breakfast. The
reduction in choice of foods may be linked to the greater use of in-classroom breakfast.
As expected, CEP participation appeared to reduce time spent by school and LEA staff on distributing
and processing applications for free or reduced-price meals, verifying income of free/reduced pricestudents, and meal payment collections and accounting. The combined savings for these activities
were 68 minutes per student per year, representing labor cost savings of about $29 per student per
year. The CEP had no impact on the staff time and costs associated with direct certification. On theother hand, the CEP appeared to increase the staff time and cost of counting and claiming
reimbursable meals from less than 30 minutes per student per year to almost an hour, offsetting halfof the savings in other activities. Possible reasons for this result include: increased participation in

Abt Associates

1. Introduction ▌pg. 7

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

school meal programs, and new (and sometimes more manual) meal counting and claiming
procedures. It is too early to tell whether the increased time for meal counting and claiming reflects
an early implementation challenge, and adaptation to the new procedures and planned automation by
States might reduce this impact over time. On the other hand, the CEP could produce net savings inmeal counting and claiming costs in the long run, if schools could reduce the complexity and cost ofautomated systems for meal counting and payments. Treatment and comparison schools did not differ
in the total time and cost spent on administrative tasks overall or for any category of worker.
Descriptive data from interviews and surveys suggest that, for the majority of LEAs, the CEP did not
require LEAs to increase staff, the time spent on meal counting and claims was not a concern, and the
CEP made it easier for LEAs to break even or at least had no impact on the foodservice bottom line.
The CEP reduced the overall rate of certification errors and had little or no impact on errors incounting meals (at the cashier level) and claiming meals for reimbursement. The CEP did not appear
to affect errors in direct certification, which are rare. The CEP eliminated application processing
errors that, in the comparison schools, resulted in approximately 6.6 percent of applicants having thewrong certification level (too high or too low). The CEP also eliminated procedural errors inapplication processing that, in the comparison schools, affected 20.2 percent of approved applicantsand 16.9 percent of denied applications. Procedural errors (such as missing certification documents orincomplete applications) do not necessarily result in certification errors but indicate a lack ofcompliance in the process. The CEP had no significant impact on cashier error in identifying
reimbursable meals, despite concerns that increased participation might lead to more error by
speeding up service lines. One measure of meal claiming error was significantly higher inparticipating schools, but there was no impact on overall meal claiming error. The primary reason forerrors in claims submitted for CEP schools to the State was that the LEA used the wrong claiming
percentage, and usually the claiming percentage used was lower than the LEA was entitled to use.
This problem might be readily addressed through training or through claims processing by the State(which may have corrected some or all of the detected errors in claiming percentages). The baseline
levels of claiming error in the NSLP and SBP appear to be quite small, at least in the sample, so thelack of a positive impact from the CEP is not a reason for concern.
For a broad range of meal quality outcomes, there was no evidence that the CEP had a significant
impact. The methods used by the study to assess meal quality emulated, to the extent practical, themethods used by FNS and State Agencies to measure compliance with the meal component standards.
However, the study simplified the approach to assessing schools’ compliance with meal component
standards in order to reduce burden on participating schools. Therefore the research team did not haveaccess to all of the information States use for this purpose. While the study’s simplified methods
allowed objective comparisons of CEP and non-CEP schools on meal components, the study results
should not be interpreted as representing the same results FNS or State agencies would generate when
they assess compliance with NSLP standards.
At lunch, CEP schools tended to offer more vegetables but were less likely than comparison schools
to have met the (soon-to-be-required) Target 1 sodium standard. There was no evidence of impacts onmeeting NSLP requirements for other food components, the calorie range requirement, or the percent
of calories from saturated fat. There were no significant differences in meeting food component
requirements or the Target 1 sodium standard for breakfasts offered.

pg. 8 ▌1. Introduction

Abt Associates

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

The CEP appeared to have little if any impact on the number of choices offered in meal components.
There were no significant differences in the number of choices offered for fruits, vegetables, grain,
milk and entrées for lunches between the treatment and comparison schools, nor was there asignificant difference in choices for breakfast components. For lunch, the only significant impact of
the CEP was a small increase in the number of desserts offered, although the number of desserts
offered was minimal and well within allowed limits. Changes in the types of food offered to serve
more quickly, and shifts to breakfast in the classroom in CEP schools were reported but had no
significant effect on the number of breakfast choices offered in CEP schools.
1.2.4

Summary

Summing up across all of the evaluation results, the implementation of the CEP in its first two years
was successful in perhaps the two most important dimensions. First, the take-up of the CEP waswidespread among eligible LEAs, despite the uncertainties about impacts on finances and operations;further, participating LEAs were both well-satisfied and likely to continue using the CEP. Second, the
CEP appeared to increase NSLP and SBP participation and the associated Federal reimbursements,
while not adversely affecting the financial bottom-line of foodservice operations. The CEP eliminatedsubstantial levels of error in the processing of FRP meals applications, as well as eliminating the costsof processing and verifying these applications. For most other outcomes, including overall
administrative costs, meal claiming error, and meal quality, there were little or no impacts, either
positive or negative.
The results point to several key challenges for the future of the CEP. First, there is substantial
skepticism about the feasibility of the CEP among eligible non-participating LEAs; wider adoption of
the CEP may require some efforts to address this skepticism. Second, the need for household income
data for Federal and State educational programs will continue to pose perhaps the greatest
implementation challenge. Third, impact findings suggest that the LEAs experience new challenges inmeal claiming under the CEP, at least during initial implementation, based on the evidence ofincreased administrative costs and errors. Several currently-implementing CEP States have alreadyinstalled automated systems to prevent errors in the use of claiming percentages, and others indicatethat they plan to do so. As this practice becomes more widespread, it would presumably eliminate themain source of claiming error observed in CEP schools. Finally, the findings on meal quality andchoices provide evidence of little change in meal quality, suggesting that the participating LEAs have
not reduced meal quality to contain costs but also that any resources freed up by the CEP have not led
to broad improvements in meals. The only significant effects on meal quality were the positive impact
on vegetables offered and the negative impact on meeting the future intermediate sodium target.
Given the timing of the study, it is too early to determine whether the observed effects on mealquality are merely transient (reflecting CEP implementation, introduction of new standards, or both)or likely to be sustained. Across the multiple outcomes assessed by the impact study, the clear andpositive impacts on NSLP and SBP participation and reimbursements represent the most notable
results of implementing the CEP.

1.3

Objectives and Scope of this Addendum

This Addendum describes the characteristics of LEAs and schools that participated in the CEP in SY
2013–14 in the 11 States where the CEP has been offered to date. It also describes how thesecharacteristics differ for those high-poverty LEAs and schools that did not take up the CEP. The
Addendum updates the results presented primarily in Chapter 4 of the Community Evaluation

Abt Associates

1. Introduction ▌pg. 9

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

Provision Evaluation report. The findings address two research objectives posed in the Congressional
mandate for the Implementation Study:
1. Estimate the number of eligible LEAs and schools that have not chosen to participate in the
CEP; and2. Describe the LEAs and schools participating in the CEP.
Chapter 2 describes the data and methods used in this Addendum. Chapter 3 presents the descriptionof participating, eligible non-participating, and near-eligible LEAs and schools.

pg. 10 ▌1. Introduction

Abt Associates

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

2.

Data and Methods

2.1

Data Sources and Collection

Data for this Addendum were compiled from three sources:
1. Data provided by the 11 State child nutrition agencies participating in the CEP in SY 2013–
14;
2. FNS Verification Summary Report (VSR, or FNS-742) data; and3. National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data (CCD) files
2.1.1

State Data

FNS policy stipulates that ISP data as of April 1 of a given year should be used to determine CEP
eligibility for the following school year. These data are not available from the VSR or other FNS
administrative sources. In the Spring/Summer of 2013, State child nutrition agencies were asked toprovide LEA- and school-level data on CEP eligibility and participation for the 2013–14 school year.
The LEA-level data requested included: the ISP, total number of schools, number of eligible schools,
and the number of participating schools. The school-level data requested included the ISP andwhether the school was participating as (1) part of an eligible LEA; (2) part of a group of eligible
schools or an individual school; or (3) not participating. (Similar data had been requested andreceived for the earlier years examined in the evaluation.) States typically provided ISP and eligibility
data first and participation data later, since deadlines for LEA participation decisions were often madejust prior to or even after the start of the school year.
The States provided complete data on CEP participation, but for a variety of reasons, were unable toprovide all of the requested ISP data. Several States did not collect ISP data from LEAs or schoolsthat were either near-eligible or eligible but not participating. In addition, four States provided ISP
data only for regular public and charter LEAs. Exhibit 2.1 shows the percentage of LEAs and schools
both for each State and overall for which State ISP data were not available. (States are grouped here
and in other exhibits by the year when they first implemented the CEP: for example, Year 1 States
first implemented the CEP in the first year, 2011–12.) Overall, ISP data were missing for 24 percent
of LEAs and 39 percent of schools, with near-eligible LEAs and schools having the most missing ISP
data (about 50 percent). Participating LEAs and schools have the least (12 and 28 percent,respectively).7 In particular, Georgia, Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio provided no ISP data for
non-participating schools. Ohio provided ISP data only for participating LEAs, and Georgia and
Massachusetts provided ISP data only for those LEAs where the ISP was 40 percent or more, andMaryland and Michigan did not provide ISP data for non-public LEAs. The extent of missing Statedata for the ISP, a key measure, has important analytic implications for the identification of eligible
non-participating and near-eligible LEAs and schools. These ramifications are discussed in Sections
2.2 and 2.4 below.
7

We note that the lack of information on the eligibility of many LEAs and schools for CEP is, in itself, afinding. As noted in the evaluation’s final report, access to this information is one of the significant
implementation challenges for the States.

Abt Associates

2. Data and Methods ▌pg. 11

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

Exhibit 2.1: Percentage of LEAs and Schools with Missing State-Provided ISP Data
LEAs
EligibleYear 1 States:
Illinoisa
KentuckyMichiganYear 2 States:
District ofColumbia
New York
Ohio
West VirginiaYear 3 States:
FloridaGeorgia
Maryland
Massachusetts
All CEP States

Schools
Eligible

NearEligible

NonParticipating

Participating

Combined

NearEligible

NonParticipating

Participating

Combined

4.7
50.0
2.6

8.0
1.0
8.8

51.2
0.0
0.0

16.7
1.2
6.6

8.5
1.1
14.3

15.3
28.8
14.5

87.7
1.4
0.0

33.4
21.2
12.0

0.0

8.3

0.0

1.9

0.0

35.5

0.0

16.3

0.0
100.0
0.0

1.9
100.0
13.3

0.0
19.5
0.0

0.6
76.3
3.6

100.0
100.0
1.1

100.0
100.0
15.4

60.5
0.0
0.0

89.9
73.2
6.3

0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
48.8

2.9
37.3
48.8
37.1
22.4

0.0
16.3
0.0
0.0
12.1

2.0
46.2
47.7
59.6
24.3

3.3
100.0
0.0
100.0
52.8

27.6
100.0
5.5
100.0
40.0

0.8
3.9
0.0
100.0
28.1

23.4
76.1
5.3
100.0
38.8

a

For participating LEAs, Illinois provided the ISP used to establish the claiming percentage (i.e., the group ISP for school, group of schools, or entire LEA that
constitutes the unit for participation in the CEP), which is sometimes, but not always, the April 2013 ISP for individual LEAs and schools used for establishingeligibility.

pg. 12 ▌2. Data and Methods

Abt Associates

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

2.1.2

VSR Data

FNS constructs the VSR database from data submitted by the State Agencies, which compile the datafrom FNS-742 reports submitted by LEAs. The VSR data for each LEA include number of enrolled
students, number of schools, numbers of students eligible for free or reduced-price meals under
different eligibility categories, and other items. These data are based on annual official counts ofstudents eligible for free or reduced-price meals as of the last operating day in October of a given
year. FNS provided the 2010, 2011, and 2012 VSR data for the CEP States to the evaluation team.
VSR data items used for the present analysis include the LEA enrollment, the percentage of students
eligible for FRP meals, and the underlying components needed to compute the ISP . The present
analysis relies most heavily upon the most recent VSR data (i.e., from October 2012), with two
exceptions. First, CEP prior year eligibility based on available earlier years’ VSR data is also
reported. (The 2010 data were available for the first three CEP States, and the 2011 data wereavailable for the first seven CEP States.) Second, as discussed in the following paragraph, pre-CEP
data on the FRP percentage of students was used for LEAs participating in the CEP in SY 2012–13,
The VSR data for October 2012 are not appropriate for characterizing the percentage of students
eligible for FRP meals in LEAs that participated in the CEP in SY 2012–13. These LEAs did notprocess applications for FRP meals, except for schools not participating in the CEP. For these LEAs,
the analysis in this report used the FRP student percentage from the VSR data in the year prior to thefirst year the LEA participated in the CEP (e.g., 2011 data for LEAs that first used the CEP in SY
2012–13).
As noted above, many States did not provide the complete April 2013 ISP data for LEAs or schools
required to determine CEP eligibility. As a proxy for the April 2013 LEA ISP, the evaluation teamused a “projected” ISP computed from October 2012 VSR data, calculated by dividing the number ofidentified students (free meals eligible, not subject to verification) by the total LEA enrollment(excluding students enrolled in Provision 2 and 3 schools). The implications of using this projected
ISP to identify the CEP eligibility of LEAs are discussed below.
2.1.3

CCD Files

The Common Core of Data, compiled by the National Center for Education Statistics, is alongitudinal database of key characteristics of LEAs and schools operated by public entities (NCES,
2014a,b). Most data elements are obtained from administrative records maintained by State
Departments of Education. In addition to regular public school and charter school LEAs, the CCD
includes regional education service agencies, State and Federally operated agencies, and other typesof public education agencies, although data for the latter types of LEAs can be incomplete. CCD data
used for the present analysis include:

Enrollment



Enrollment by grade level (grades K–5, 6–8, and 9–12)Whether Title I school (or percent Title I schools for LEAs)

Student racial/ethnic distribution



School type (i.e., regular, charter)

Abt Associates

2. Data and Methods ▌pg. 13

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

LEA type (i.e., regular, charter, regional education service agencies, State and Federally operated
agencies, other)

Percent FRP eligible students

Whether the LEA is in an urban area

The most recent CCD data are for the 2011–12 school year, and therefore lag the VSR data by one
year, and lag the State data by one to two years depending on the item.
2.1.4

Database Construction

Exhibit 2.2 shows how the data provided by States, the VSR, and the CCD were combined to produce
the statistics reported in this Addendum. For CEP participation and associated elements, such as
LEAs’ and schools’ mode of establishing their claiming percentage, State-provided data represented
the only data source. For determining the CEP eligibility of LEAs, State-provided ISP data were thepreferred source, with projected ISPs computed from the VSR used to fill gaps. However, the ISPs for
LEAs in Chapter 3 Exhibits below are all based on projected ISPs computed from the VSR. Thisapproach was used to assure consistency of ISP data across States, although it may result in lower ISP
values for LEAs that had State-provided ISPs available, as the State-provided ISP was 2.1 percentage
points higher for LEAs with both State-provided and projected ISPs.8 LEAs had the same LEA-wide
eligibility classification (i.e., an ISP of 40 percent or more) in 87 percent of LEAs with data from both
sources. In 11 percent of cases, the State-provided ISP indicated that an LEA was eligible LEA-wide,
but the VSR-computed ISP did not. In 2 percent of cases, the VSR-computed ISP indicated that an
LEA was eligible LEA-wide, but the State-provided ISP did not.
Exhibit 2.2: Data Sources for Reported Elements
CEP Participation
CEP Eligibility and ISP
LEA
SchoolEnrollment
LEA
SchoolNumber of Schools (in LEA)
Percent Students FRP Meal Eligible
LEA
SchoolAll Other LEA and School Characteristics

State


VSR






CCD













The next section describes how data provided by States and extracted from the VSR data were used to
identify LEAs and schools that were participating in, eligible, or near-eligible for the CEP.

8State-reported ISPs based on data as of April 1 would be expected to have increased counts of identified
students in LEAs that continue direct certification after October. However, the LEA enrollment could riseor fall from October to April, so the ISP could rise or fall.

pg. 14 ▌2. Data and Methods

Abt Associates

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

2.2

Definitions of LEA and School Eligibility and Participation in the CEP

2.2.1

LEA Eligibility and Participation

This Addendum reports on three types of LEAs:
1) Participating in the CEP: LEAs with at least one participating school;
2) Eligible non-participating: LEAs with at least one school eligible to participate as anindividual school (i.e., with a school ISP of 40 percent or more, or those within four years of
beginning participation in the CEP) but no participating schools; and
3) Near-eligible: LEAs with a district-wide ISP between 30 and 40 percent and no individual
eligible schools. This category is of interest because States are required to notify near-eligible
LEAs of their status.
The universe of LEAs for the study consists of those participating in the NSLP (with or without the
SBP) and present in either the State data or the VSR.
Note that an LEA’s eligibility for the CEP is determined by both the current ISP of its member
schools and past participation. If an LEA has any school with an ISP of 40 percent or more, the LEA
is eligible to participate. In addition, participating LEAs are eligible to continue participation for four
years irrespective of current ISP. Only one LEA qualified for eligibility in 2013–14 based on priorparticipation alone.
To identify eligible non-participating and near-eligible LEAs in accordance with the definitions
above, LEA and school ISPs were required. However, as noted above, four of 11 CEP States provided
no school ISP data. Exhibit 2.3 summarizes how the three groups of LEAs were identified. All States
provided data on school’s participation in the CEP. The operationalized definition for this Addendum
therefore followed the FNS definition.
LEA eligibility could be determined based on school eligibility for most LEAs in the seven States thatprovided school-level ISP data. LEAs were also determined to be eligible if either the State-provided
ISP or the projected ISP based on VSR data was 40 percent or higher. Applying this latter criterion,
14 LEAs were counted as eligible that had no eligible schools according to State-provided school ISP
data. Thirteen of these 14 LEAs had ISPs below 40 percent, according to State-provided LEA data,
whereas the projected rates were over 40 percent based on VSR data . Of the other 327 LEAs
determined to be eligible based on the LEA ISP, 42 had both State-provided and projected ISPs thatwere 40 percent or more. The remaining LEAs had only projected ISPs (no State data).
For all LEAs neither eligible nor participating, near-eligibility was determined based on the
maximum of the State-reported and projected ISPs. Near-eligible LEAs were those where this rate fell
between 30 and 40 percent. (Those with ISPs at 40 percent or more were deemed eligible.)

Abt Associates

2. Data and Methods ▌pg. 15

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

Exhibit 2.3: Definitions of LEA Eligibility and Participation in CEPType of CEP Eligibility/
Participation
Participating
Eligible nonparticipating

Near-eligible

2.2.2

FNS Definition
The LEA has at least one
participating school.
(a) The LEA has at least one
eligible school (as specified byFNS, i.e., with ISP at least 40
percent) but no participating
schools; orOperationalized Definition
The LEA has at least one participating school
reported by the State Child Nutrition Agency.
(a) The LEA has at least one school with an
ISP of 40 percent or higher, as of April 1,2013 according to State-reported data; or(b) The LEA participated in theprevious school year (i.e., 2012–13) for 2013–14 eligibility.

(b) The LEA has a projected ISP of 40
percent or higher; or

The LEA has an ISP of 30 percent
or more and no eligible schools.

(b) The LEA has a State-reported ISP of 40
percent or higher; or(c) The LEA participated in 2012–13.
The LEA is not eligible or participating andhas either a State-reported or projected ISP
of 30 percent or more.

School Eligibility and Participation

This Addendum also distinguishes between schools that are participating, eligible non-participating,and near-eligible. The participation and eligibility classification of schools generally follows the LEA
classification scheme and the FNS rules, with some modifications to accommodate data limitations.
As summarized in Exhibit 2.4, all schools in near-eligible LEAs were classified as near-eligible, andall schools in eligible non-participating LEAs were classified as eligible non-participating (based on
the assumption that schools with ISPs below 40 percent could be combined with schools with ISPs
above 40 percent). However, non-participating schools in participating LEAs were classified as
eligible non-participating if either: (a) the school belonged to an LEA with an ISP of 40 percent ormore (and therefore all schools in the LEA were eligible regardless of ISP); (b) the school had an ISP
of 40 percent or more; or (c) the school ISP was missing. Non-participating schools in participating
LEAs not meeting any of these conditions were classified as near-eligible even if their ISP was below
30 percent, because of the possibility of combinations with schools with higher ISPs to make a neareligible group. These definitions were used to ensure consistent classifications for all States.
Exhibit 2.4: Definitions of School Eligibility and Participation in CEPType of CEP Eligibility/
Participation
Participating
Eligible non-participating

Operationalized Definition
School is participating in the CEP.
School is not participating in the CEP and either:(a) belongs to an eligible non-participating LEA; or(b) belongs to a participating LEA with an LEA ISP of 40 percent or
more; orNear-eligible(c) belongs to a participating LEA and has a school ISP of 40 percent
or more or a missing school ISP.
School is not participating in the CEP and either:(a) belongs to a near-eligible LEA; or(b) belongs to a participating LEA and does not meet any of criteria to
be classified as an eligible non-participating school.

pg. 16 ▌2. Data and Methods

Abt Associates

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

2.3

Other Definitions of Groups of LEAs

2.3.1

Regular Public/Charter LEAs and “Other” LEAs

The results presented in this Addendum distinguish between regular public/charter LEAs and “other”
LEAs. The former group consists of typical public school districts, referred to as “regular” LEAs in
the CCD, and charter school organizations treated as distinct LEAs.9 The analysis included 1,890
regular/charter LEAs.
“Other” LEAs include non-public schools, regional education service agencies, and other schools
operated by public agencies. There were 461 of these other LEAs included in the analysis. Non-public
LEAs comprised about two-thirds of the total number of other LEAs (305 of 461).10 Within theuniverse for this Addendum, Georgia has no non-public LEAs; Illinois, Michigan, and Ohio haveroughly an even split between public and non-public LEAs; Massachusetts has 68 percent non-public
LEAs; Kentucky and Maryland have about 80 percent; and Florida, New York, West Virginia, andthe District of Columbia have more than 90 percent non-public LEAs. These LEAs and schools were
excluded from most analyses because the prevalence of missing data renders reporting unreliable. In
particular, there are no CCD data for non-public LEAs and schools. Analyses (and findings) based on
only regular and charter LEAs are so characterized in exhibit titles; otherwise, results are reported for
all LEAs including regular, charter, and other LEAs.
2.3.2

Eligible LEA-Wide versus Partial Eligibility, Full versus Partial Participation

The Addendum also reports on LEAs that are “eligible LEA-wide.” These LEAs have an ISP of 40
percent or more (based on the State and VSR values, as discussed above); consequently, all schools in
the LEA are eligible.11 A distinction is also made between fully-participating and partiallyparticipating LEAs, the former being LEAs with all schools participating in the CEP and the latterbeing those with less than complete participation of schools in the LEA.

2.4

Limitations

An important implication of the procedure used for determining LEA eligibility for the CEP is thatthe number of eligible non-participating LEAs is likely to be substantially underestimated in the four
States without school ISP data (Georgia, Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio). In these States, LEAs
are identified as eligible only if they have ISPs of 40 percent or more (i.e., eligible LEA-wide) or are
9

States differ in their administration of charter schools. Among the 11 States reported on here, Kentucky andWest Virginia have no charter schools. Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, New York, and the District ofColumbia treat them as separate LEAs. Illinois and Maryland includes charter schools within regular LEAs.
Florida and Georgia have both distinct charter LEAs and well as charter schools that are part of regular
LEAs.

10

For comparison, the SY 2012–13 VSR data for these 11 States included 1,210 non-public LEAs. This countdoes not include public LEAs that are not regular or charter LEAs. Thus, the 305 LEAs that were at leastnear-eligible for the CEP represented approximately 25 percent of non-public LEAs in the 11 States.

11

VSR data for SY 2012–13 and prior years were used to determine whether LEAs were eligible LEA-wide.
If an LEA was eligible LEA-wide in a prior year it was assigned that status, even if its ISP was below 40
percent in SY 2012–13.

Abt Associates

2. Data and Methods ▌pg. 17

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

participating. For LEAs where school ISP data for their member schools are available, more than halfof eligible non-participating LEAs (as defined for this analysis) have both State-provided andprojected ISPs under 40 percent. Undercounting of eligible non-participating LEAs will, in turn,inflate the calculated CEP participation rate of eligible LEAs. If we extrapolate from the States withschool ISPs to the States without school ISP data for non-participating LEAs, the latter States may
have twice as many eligible non-participating LEAs as can be identified based on LEA-wide ISPs. If
so, then the CEP participation rates for the latter States are overstated by 50 percent. This issue does
not affect comparisons of CEP participation rates among States for LEAs that are eligible LEA-wide,
which should be accurately identified in all States.

pg. 18 ▌2. Data and Methods

Abt Associates

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

3.

Take-Up of the CE Provision in SY2013–14

This chapter describes the characteristics of LEAs and schools that took up or continued to use theCommunity Eligibility Provision (CEP) in SY 2013–14. It also describes how these characteristics
differ for other eligible and near-eligible LEAs and schools that did not take up the CEP. The firstsection presents numbers of LEAs, schools, and students participating in the CEP for the 2013–14
school year and reports on the growth in CEP participation over the three years it has been offered.
The second section reviews the numbers of both regular public/charter and other near-eligible,
eligible non-participating and participating LEAs. The third section begins with a description of thecharacteristics of near-eligible, eligible non-participating and participating LEAs. The third section
also reviews LEA approaches to establishing their claiming percentage under the CEP, and key LEA
features associated with participation. The fourth section turns to schools. It first reports on thenumbers of near-eligible, eligible non-participating and participating schools. The relationship ofschool participation to LEA-wide eligibility is then reviewed. The chapter closes with a summary of
the findings on the characteristics of near-eligible, eligible non-participating and participating
schools.

3.1

Number of LEAs, Schools, and Students Participating in the CEP

Exhibit 3.1 shows the number of LEAs and schools participating in the CEP during the 2013–14
school year in each State, with States grouped by the year when they first implemented the CEP. It
distinguishes between those LEAs and schools that are participating LEA-wide—that is, with all
schools in the LEA participating in the CEP—and partially participating LEAs where only a subset ofschools are CEP participants. All participating LEAs, both regular public/charter and other, areincluded.
A total of 3,999 schools in 638 LEAs participated in the CEP in 2013–14. Michigan and Ohio had themost LEAs—110 and 128, respectively—while Illinois and New York had the most schools—690
and 588.12 Michigan and Ohio had the most participating LEAs, but not the most participating
schools, because a substantial fraction of the participating LEAs in these States are charter school
LEAs (as discussed in Section 3.3), and these charter school LEAs usually consist of a single school.
There were more than twice the number of LEAs participating district-wide than were partiallyparticipating—438 versus 200. However, the two types of participating LEAs had nearly the same
total number of schools (about 2,000). Most States had more LEAs participating LEA-wide thanpartially participating. Georgia and West Virginia are the two notable exceptions; these States had
substantially more LEAs participating partially than LEA-wide.
The counts of participating LEAs and schools in Exhibit 3.1 suggest that LEAs with more schools are
more likely to participate partially. Further analysis (not shown) demonstrates that this is indeed thecase; partially participating LEAs have 30 schools, on average, versus five for LEAs participating
LEA-wide. (The average for partially participating LEAs includes participating and non-participating

12

All statistics on schools participating in the CEP in this Addendum exclude 250 sites in New York City thatappear to be programs within regular schools that may already be counted.

Abt Associates

3. Take-Up of the CE Provision in SY2013–14 ▌pg. 19

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

schools.) This phenomenon is not limited to States such as Illinois and New York where a single large
partially participating LEA (Chicago and New York City, respectively) raises the average for thatgroup, but rather is found in most States. The results are consistent with the expectation that large
LEAs may be more likely to have a wide range of ISPs among their schools.
Exhibit 3.1: Number of Participating LEAs and Schools, by LEA-Wide Participation and State(SY 2013–14)
LEA-Wide Participation
LEAs
Schools
Year 1 States:
Illinois
KentuckyMichiganYear 2 States:
District of Columbia
New York
Ohio
West VirginiaYear 3 States:
FloridaGeorgia
Maryland
Massachusetts
All CEP States

Partial Participation
LEAs
Schools

LEAs

Total
Schools

62
39
78

201
244
403

24
27
32

489
126
96

86
66
110

690
370
499

27
82
103
14

36
373
321
145

7
8
25
25

86
215
103
200

34
90
128
39

122
588
424
345

16
15
1
1
438

65
51
1
144
1,984

17
34
1
0
200

310
385
5
0
2,015

33
49
2
1
638

375
436
6
144
3,999

Exhibit 3.2 presents the number of students enrolled in schools participating in the CEP. An estimated
1.8 million students had access to free meals under the CEP. Illinois had the most students in CEP
schools (about 330,000) while Maryland had the least (about 2,500). Ninety-seven percent of students
in CEP schools were in regular public or charter LEAs. New York was the only State with asignificant number of students (about 53,000) enrolled in CEP schools that were in other LEAs.13
Overall, students in CEP schools made up 11 percent of all students enrolled in NSLP schools in the
11 States. Although the District of Columbia had a relatively small number of students (about 42,000)
enrolled in CEP schools, this represents over half of its approximately 75,000 students enrolled inschools participating in the NLSP. West Virginia and Kentucky also had substantial proportions ofstudents in NSLP-participating schools eligible for free meals under the CEP: 40 and 21 percent,respectively.

13

Most of the other LEAs in New York were faith-based schools in New York City.

pg. 20 ▌3. Take-Up of the CE Provision in SY2013–14

Abt Associates

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

Exhibit 3.2: Total Enrollment and Percent of Students in Schools Participating in the CEP(SY 2013–14)

Year 1 States:
Illinois
KentuckyMichiganYear 2 States:
District of Columbia
New York
Ohio
West VirginiaYear 3 States:
FloridaGeorgia
Maryland
Massachusetts
All CEP States

CEP Percent of
All Students in
NSLP Schools(%)

Regular/Charter
LEAs
(#)

Other LEAs
(#)

Total
(#)

331,103
153,734
199,147

1,682
69
362

332,785
153,803
199,50915
21
12

41,622
232,125
168,884
114,835

519
53,147
2,342

42,141
285,272
171,226
114,83556
99
40

187,341
258,746
2,203
62,821
1,752,561

865

188,206
258,746
2,511
62,821
1,811,855

7
15
<1
7
11

308
59,294

Note: Total enrollment in participating schools was estimated using school enrollment provided by State Child
Nutrition agencies where available and from the CCD where State data were not available. Gaps were filled byassuming schools with missing enrollment had the average school enrollment for the LEA. Schools with imputed
enrollment are 7 percent of all participating schools, and imputed enrollment is 6 percent of the total enrollment.

3.1.1

Growth in LEA Participation in the CEP Since Inception

Exhibit 3.3 shows the number of participating LEAs for the 11 CEP States over the first three years of
the Provision. Participation has expanded rapidly, with the number of participating LEAs growing
substantially every year in all of the Year 1 and Year 2 States except Michigan.
Among Year 1 States, Illinois had 34 participating LEAs in the first year the CEP was offered, 48 inthe second, and 69 in the third—a growth rate of more than 40 percent each year. Kentucky nearly
tripled the number of participating LEAs, from 18 to 51 between the 2011–12 and 2012–13 school
years, and expanded further to include 65 participating LEAs in 2013–14. In Michigan, the number ofparticipating LEAs rose from 82 to 111 in the first two years that the CEP was offered in the Stateand then slipped to 108 in the third year (as discussed below).
Year 2 States witnessed growth similar to that of Year 1 States in their first two years of offering the
CEP. In New York, participation doubled from 17 to 34 LEAs in the first two years that the CEP wasoffered, and in Ohio participation rose 79 percent, from 68 to 122 LEAs. The growth of the CEP wasmodest in West Virginia, although participation started out high there with 35 percent of eligible
LEAs in 2012–13.
Relatively few LEAs discontinued the CEP after starting it. A single LEA discontinued the CEP ineach of four States (the District of Columbia, Illinois, Kentucky, and New York), and two LEAs
discontinued the CEP in Ohio. Michigan was the only State where a significant number of LEAs
discontinued the CEP; 10 LEAs dropped out after the 2011–12 school year and 9 LEAs dropped out
after the 2012–13 school year. The reduction is due, in part, to consolidation and re-organization of

Abt Associates

3. Take-Up of the CE Provision in SY2013–14 ▌pg. 21

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

LEAs in Michigan, and some LEAs ceased to exist when their schools were absorbed by other LEAs
(as indicated by review of State and VSR data).
Exhibit 3.3: Number of Regular and Charter LEAs Participating by Year
122
111

108

SY 2011-12
SY 2012-13

82
69
48

68

65
51

49

34

30
19

18

IL

KY

MI

Year 1 States

3.2

SY 2013-14

DC

3539

34

30

17

NY

OH

WV

Year 2 States

FL

GA

1

1

MD

MA

Year 3 States

Numbers of Near-Eligible, Eligible Non-Participating and Participating
LEAs

This section reports on the numbers of LEAs that are near-eligible, eligible non-participating, andparticipating in the CEP. As discussed above, for reporting purposes, LEAs are grouped in two
categories: (a) regular or charter and (b) “other.” As discussed in Chapter 2, these analyses may
underestimate the number of eligible non-participating LEAs (by 50 percent or more) in Georgia,
Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio.
3.2.1

Regular and Charter LEAs: Numbers of Near-Eligible, Eligible Non-Participating, andParticipating

Exhibit 3.4 shows the counts of near-eligible, eligible non-participating, and participating LEAs by
State for the regular and charter LEAs, based on data for SY 2013–14. In the 11 States where the CEP
was implemented, there were 1,890 regular and charter LEAs that were at least near-eligible.
Among the three groups of regular and charter LEAs represented in Exhibit 3.4, more than a fourth(548) were participating, more than half (1,014) were eligible but non-participating, and less than afifth (328) were near-eligible. The overall participation rate for eligible LEAs was 35 percent.
Participation rates for eligible LEAs differed dramatically among States. Of note, New York, theDistrict of Columbia and West Virginia—three Year 2 States—had the highest participation rates for
eligible LEAs. The District of Columbia and West Virginia had participation rates of 75 percent, andpg. 22 ▌3. Take-Up of the CE Provision in SY2013–14

Abt Associates

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

New York had a participation rate of 65 percent. 14 Georgia, Kentucky, and Ohio had somewhat lower
participation rates, ranging from 39 to 46 percent of eligible LEAs. Florida, Illinois, and Michigan
constituted a third tier in terms of participation, with rates between 21 and 30 percent, andparticipation in Maryland and Massachusetts was less than 10 percent. Possible explanations fordifferences in participation rates are discussed later in this Addendum.
In all States, the number of LEAs that were eligible or participating outnumbered the number of neareligible LEAs by a substantial margin, despite the likelihood of eligible LEAs being undercounted infour States. Massachusetts had the highest proportion of near-eligible LEAs—14 out of 38. In six
States, fewer than one in six LEAs were near-eligible. Kentucky and Maryland had no near-eligible
LEAs.
Exhibit 3.4: Regular and Charter LEAs, by CEP Status and State (SY 2013–14)

Year 1 States:
Illinois
KentuckyMichiganYear 2 States:
District of Columbia
New York
Ohio
West VirginiaYear 3 States:
FloridaGeorgia
Maryland
Massachusetts
All CEP States

Eligible (#)

NearEligible(#)

NonParticipating

Participating

Total

68
0
65

162
102
400

69
65
108

299
167
573

30
39
21

5
21
106
2

10
18
135
13

30
34
122
39

45
73
363
54

75
65
47
75

10
37
0
14
328

73
57
21
23
1,014

30
49
1
1
548

113
143
22
38
1,890

29
46
5
4
35

Participation
Rate (% ofEligible)

Participation rates may be inflated in New York, Ohio, Georgia, and Massachusetts, where the number of eligible
LEAs may be underestimated due to missing ISP data for schools.

Exhibit 3.5 shows the percent of eligible LEAs that participated in the 11 CEP States over the first
three years of the program. Growth in the number of participating LEAs over time was describedearlier. The percentage of participating LEAs also grew substantially every year in all of the Year 1

14

Only 6 percent of all LEAs in New York had ISPs above 40 percent, according to the VSR data for SY
2011–12, much lower than other Year 1 and Year 2 States. As a result, New York had few LEAs falling
into the eligible groups of LEAs in Exhibit 3.3, despite its large number of LEAs. However, direct
certification in New York was reported to be highly effective, with estimates for SY 2011–12 indicatingthat 100 percent of school-age SNAP children were directly certified (Moore et al., 2012). The discrepancy
between these statistics might be explained by high concentrations of SNAP children in a small number oflarge LEAs, large numbers of heterogeneous LEAs (so that identified students are dispersed across LEAs),
or a combination of these characteristics. Also, the number of eligible LEAs in New York is likely to beunderestimated because school-level ISP data for non-participating LEAs were not available.

Abt Associates

3. Take-Up of the CE Provision in SY2013–14 ▌pg. 23

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

and Year 2 States except Michigan, where participation declined slightly in 2013–14.15 In Illinois and
Kentucky, participation rates more than doubled in the first two years of offering the CEP.
Year 2 States had high participation rates even in the first year of offering the CEP, althoughparticipation rates in two of the four Year 2 States (New York and Ohio) may be inflated. The
maximum participation rate for Year 1 States in the first year of offering the CEP was 17 percent (inboth Kentucky and Michigan). By contrast, the minimum participation rate for Year 2 States in thefirst year of offering the CEP was 31 percent (in Ohio). In the District of Columbia, 59 percent ofeligible LEAs participated in the first year that the CEP was offered, and in West Virginia the figure
was 65 percent. In their first year of offering the CEP, Year 3 States had a mix of States withrelatively high (Florida and Georgia) and low (Maryland and Massachusetts) participation.
Exhibit 3.5: Regular and Charter LEAs, Percent Participating by State and Year
SY 2011–12
Year 1 States:
Illinois
KentuckyMichiganYear 2 States:
District of Columbia
New York
Ohio
West VirginiaYear 3 States:
FloridaGeorgia
Maryland
Massachusetts
All CEP States

12
17
17

15

Participation Rate (% of Eligible)
SY 2012–13
SY 2013–14
28
36
23

30
39
21

59
35
31
65

75
65
47
75

31

29
46
5
4
35

For each year, eligible LEAs include those that became eligible for that year and those that participated in a prioryear. Participation rates may be inflated in New York, Ohio, Georgia, and Massachusetts, where the number of
eligible LEAs may be underestimated due to missing ISP data for schools.

15

The decline is partially attributable to the consolidation of Michigan LEAs, described earlier, which led tothe absorption of several participating LEAs.

pg. 24 ▌3. Take-Up of the CE Provision in SY2013–14

Abt Associates

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

3.2.2

Other LEAs: Numbers of Near-Eligible, Eligible Non-Participating, and Participating

Exhibit 3.6 shows the counts of near-eligible, eligible non-participating, and participating LEAs by
State for the “other LEAs.” This category includes non-public LEAs, regional education service
agencies, and other non-typical public education agencies. A total of 461 other LEAs were neareligible, eligible non-participating, or participating in the CEP.
Exhibit 3.6: Counts of Other LEAs and Participation Rate, by CEP Status and State(SY 2013–14)
NearEligible(#)
Year 1 States:
Illinois
KentuckyMichiganYear 2 States:
District of Columbia
New York
Ohio
West VirginiaYear 3 States:
FloridaGeorgia
Maryland
Massachusetts
All CEP States

Eligible (#)
NonParticipating
Participating

Participation
Rate (% ofEligible)

Total

17
2
13

63
2
80

17
1
2

97
5
95

21
33
2

1
12
33
0

2
34
32
2

4
56
6
0

7
102
71
2

67
62
16
0

6
0
1
7
92

30
2
20
12
279

3
0
1
0
90

39
2
22
19
461

9
0
5
0
24

Participation rates may be inflated in New York and Ohio, where the number of eligible LEAs may beunderestimated due to missing ISP data for schools.

Sixty-one percent of other LEAs were eligible for but not participating in the CEP in SY 2013–14; theremaining 39 percent were almost evenly balanced between near-eligible and participating LEAs.16
About one-fourth of eligible other LEAs participated in the CEP, a lower rate than did regular andcharter LEAs. New York contributed the largest number of participating “other” LEAs (56) in thiscategory, followed by Illinois (17). Across the States, participation rates for eligible other LEAs
varied widely, from 5 percent or less in Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, and West
Virginia, to over 60 percent in the District of Columbia and New York.

3.3

Characteristics of Near-Eligible, Eligible Non-Participating andParticipating LEAs

This section presents selected characteristics of near-eligible, eligible non-participating, andparticipating LEAs and schools, focusing on the regular and charter LEAs in all 11 States. The
section also reviews LEA approaches to establishing their claiming percentage under the CEP and
key LEA features associated with participation.

16

These proportions are very different than those reported in the Final Report due to a large shift of LEAs
from near-eligible to eligible non-participating.

Abt Associates

3. Take-Up of the CE Provision in SY2013–14 ▌pg. 25

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

3.3.1

Overall Patterns of the Characteristics of Near-Eligible, Eligible Non-Participating, andParticipating LEAs

Among regular and charter LEAs in the 11 CEP States, there were large differences between
participating and eligible non-participating LEAs on several characteristics, as shown in Exhibit 3.7.
Compared with eligible non-participating LEAs, participating LEAs, on average, had more students(7,798 versus 5,689), more schools (14 versus 9), higher ISPs (57 versus 40 percent), and higher
percentages of students approved for FRP meals (75 versus 67 percent).17 The higher ISPs ofparticipating LEAs suggest that decisions to participate in the CEP reflect incentives in thereimbursement formula. As the ISP approaches 62.5 percent, the proportion of meals reimbursed at
the free rate approaches 100 percent, and thus it becomes more financially advantageous for LEAs to
implement the CEP.
Compared with eligible non-participating LEAs, participating LEAs were also more often urban (39versus 26 percent), had more Black students (39 versus 27 percent), and were more likely to include
charter schools (41 versus 35 percent). Participating LEAs had a somewhat higher percentage ofstudents in grades K–5 (54 versus 48 percent, on average) and a lower percentage in grades 9–12.
However, there was no notable difference between the two types of LEAs in the proportion of schools
designated as Title I schools.
Although participating LEAs had more students than eligible non-participating LEAs, on average,
this difference was driven by New York City alone. Without New York City, the average enrollmentof participating LEAs was 5,598, slightly less the average of 5,689 for eligible non-participating
LEAs.
Differences between eligible non-participating and near-eligible LEAs were similar to those between
participating and eligible non-participating LEAs. Relative to near-eligible LEAs, eligible nonparticipating LEAs included roughly three times more students (5,689 versus 1,797) and schools (9versus 4). Eligible non-participating LEAs were twice as likely to be in an urban area (26 versus 13
percent) and had twice the proportion of Black students (27 versus 13 percent). They also had higher
ISPs (40 versus 33 percent) and somewhat higher proportions of students eligible for FRP meals (67versus 61 percent), and were more likely to include charter schools (35 versus 25 percent).
Differences in ISPs between near-eligible and eligible LEAs are, of course, the direct result of thedefinition of eligibility for the CEP. The grade distribution of students was about the same in the two
types of LEAs. Interestingly, eligible non-participating LEAs had a slightly lower proportion of Title
I eligible schools than near-eligible LEAs (78 versus 83 percent).
The financial feasibility of CEP participation for LEAs is related to the ratio of the percentage ofstudents eligible for FRP meals to the ISP. As discussed in Section 3.3.5 below, for LEAs withsimilar ISPs, the LEAs with the FRP percentage close to the ISP are more likely to find the CEP
financially advantageous than the ones where the FRP percentage is much larger than the ISP. Exhibit

17

As described in Chapter 2, an LEA is eligible if it has at least one school with an ISP of 40 percent or more.
Thus, eligible LEAs can have ISPs less than 40 percent. As noted in Chapter 2, for LEAs participating in
SY 2012–13, the FRP data for the year prior to CEP participation were used for the analysis in thisAddendum.

pg. 26 ▌3. Take-Up of the CE Provision in SY2013–14

Abt Associates

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

3.7 shows the means and medians of the ratio of the percentage of students eligible for FRP meals to
the ISP for LEAs that are participating, eligible non-participating, and near-eligible.18 As a measureof central tendency, the median may be more appropriate than the mean, because the distribution ofthis ratio is highly skewed, especially for eligible non-participating LEAs.
As expected, participating LEAs have the lowest mean and median ratios (1.8 and 1.6, respectively)of the percentage of students eligible for FRP meals to the ISP among the three types of LEAs.
Eligible non-participating LEAs had the second lowest median ratio (1.7), but they had the highest
mean ratio (2.2), due to extreme values. 19 The mean and median ratios for near-eligible LEAs were
1.9 and 1.8, respectively.

18

As noted above, for many participating LEAs the only students reported as FRP meal-eligible on the VSR
are those directly certified. Therefore, in computing the ratio of FRP to ISP, the analysis used thepercentage of FRP students and the ISP from the year prior to CEP participation for participating LEAs. If
the FRP/ISP ratio for the reference year was equal to one, this was taken as an indicator of erroneous data,
and the prior year’s data were used, for both participating and non-participating LEAs. In addition, the ratioof FRP to ISP necessarily declines as the ISP rises and the number of identified students approaches thetotal number of free-eligible students.

19

The two highest ratios of the percentage of students eligible for FRP meals to the ISP were 239.0 and 58.0
for eligible non-participating LEAs, compared to 15.6 and 15.0 for participating LEAs, and 5.6 and 3.1 fornear-eligible LEAs

Abt Associates

3. Take-Up of the CE Provision in SY2013–14 ▌pg. 27

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

Exhibit 3.7: Regular and Charter LEA Characteristics—All CEP States (SY 2013–14)
Near Eligible
Mean
(SD)
1,797.2(2,819.9)
29.9
52.8
10.7
6.6

Eligible NonParticipating
Mean
(SD)
5,689.4 (21,126.2)
25.9
40.3
16.5
17.3

Participating
Mean
(SD)
7,797.9 (55,238.1)
33.2
33.6
15.7
17.5

Combined
Mean(SD)
5,630.0 (33,802.4)
28.8
40.5
15.2
15.5

Enrollment
Enrollment 1–499 (%)
Enrollment 500–2499 (%)
Enrollment 2500–4999 (%)
Enrollment 5000+ (%)
Percentage distribution of students in grades K–12
Percent in grades K–5
49.5(19.5)
48.4(20.0)
53.6(21.3)
50.1(20.4)
Percent in grades 6–8
25.0(13.0)
23.8(12.2)
23.3(13.1)
23.9(12.6)
Percent in grades 9–12
25.5
(20.9)
27.8(22.8)
23.1(20.3)
26.1(21.9)
Number of schools
3.5
(4.2)
8.9
(24.1)
13.8(90.2)
9.4(52.2)
1 school (%)
35.8
28.6
33.2
31.2
2–5 schools (%)
50.3
38.2
32.8
38.7
6–14 schools (%)
11.0
22.3
21.6
20.1
15+ schools (%)
2.8
10.9
12.3
9.9
Identified Student Percentage (ISP)
33.1
(4.9)
40.0
(16.0)
56.8(21.5)
43.7(18.8)
Students approved for free/reduced meals (%) (FRP)
61.3(11.9)
67.0(19.1)
75.3(16.3)
68.5(17.9)
Ratio of FRP to ISP
Mean
1.9
(0.4)
2.2
(8.1)
1.8
(1.1)
2.0
(6.0)
Median
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.7
Any charter schools (%)
25.4
35.1
41.2
35.2
Percent Title I schools
83.3(32.8)
78.1(31.0)
78.1(32.2)
79.0(31.7)
Urban LEA (%)
13.2
26.0
38.7
27.5
Percent students Black
13.4(22.5)
26.6(33.1)
38.5(36.4)
27.8(33.6)
Percent students Hispanic/Latino
8.6(14.8)
10.3(16.5)
8.5(14.0)
9.5(15.5)
328
1,014
548
1,890
Total LEAs
318
958
536
1,812
Number of LEAs with VSR data
317
978
532
1,827
Number of LEAs with CCD data
The ISP reported in this table is the projected ISP derived from October 2012 data which States reported to FNS. The projected ISP is equal to the total number offree meal-eligible students not subject to verification, divided by the total LEA enrollment from schools not operating Provision 2 or 3.
In computing the ratio of FRP to ISP, the percentage of FRP students used is drawn from the year prior to CEP participation for participating LEAs.

pg. 28 ▌3. Take-Up of the CE Provision in SY2013–14

Abt Associates

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

3.3.2

Enrollment in Near-Eligible, Eligible Non-Participating, and Participating LEAs by State

Exhibit 3.8 shows the total enrollment in the three groups of regular and charter LEAs for each State.
More than 10 million students were in LEAs that were near-eligible, eligible, or participating in the
CEP. Participating LEAs had about 4.2 million students. Of these, an estimated 42 percent were inschools that participated in the CEP.20 Eligible non-participating LEAs had about 5.5 million students,
and near-eligible LEAs had about 570,000 students.
Florida had about one-fourth of the more than 10 million students that were in LEAs that were neareligible, eligible, or participating in the CEP, Illinois and New York each had about 14 percent, andthe remaining States had 10 percent or less. New York had the most students in participating LEAs
with about 1.4 million—of which about 1.2 million were in New York City. New York was followedby Florida, which had 784,000 students in participating LEAs, and Illinois, with 501,000. Maryland
had the least: 22,000.
With 1.8 million students in eligible non-participating LEAs, Florida had 32 percent of students inthis category of LEA. Illinois, Maryland, and Michigan each had roughly 15 percent, and theremaining States had less than 10 percent. Ohio and Georgia were the only two States with more than
100,000 students in near-eligible LEAs.
Exhibit 3.8: Total Enrollment in Regular and Charter LEAs, by CEP Status and State(SY 2013–14)
NearEligible
Year 1 States:
Illinois
KentuckyMichiganYear 2 States:
District of Columbia
New York
Ohio
West VirginiaYear 3 States:
FloridaGeorgia
Maryland
Massachusetts
All CEP States

3.3.3

62,758Eligible
NonParticipating
Participating

Total

33,394

831,003432,118
746,832

501,109263,876
287,281

1,394,870
695,994
1,067,507

2,008
58,205201,983
2,253

6,853
12,132
228,132
59,01560,901
1,364,414
185,202
211,992

69,762
1,434,751
615,317273,260

11,818161,495
037,602571,516

1,760,152
374,892
818,228
181,072
5,450,429

783,698
440,650
22,06058,4784,179,661

2,555,668
977,037
840,288277,152
10,201,606

State Variations in the Characteristics of Near-Eligible, Eligible Non-Participating, andParticipating LEAs

Most of the differences among the three groups of LEAs hold at least roughly for individual States.
Exhibit 3.9 displays, in chart form, selected State-level descriptive statistics that differ the most for
the three LEA groups. (The Appendix presents the supporting data for each State individually.)

20

Exhibit 3.2 shows that about 1.75 million students in regular and charter LEAs participated in the CEP.

Abt Associates

3. Take-Up of the CE Provision in SY2013–14 ▌pg. 29

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

Among the available characteristics, the most consistent differences among the three groups of LEAs
were in ISPs. In 10 of the 11 States, participating LEAs had higher ISPs than eligible nonparticipating LEAs. Maryland was the exception, with participating LEAs having a slightly lower ISP
than eligible non-participating LEAs (27.4 versus 27.6). In five States (District of Columbia, Florida,
Georgia, Ohio, and West Virginia), participating LEAs’ ISPs were 5–6 percentage points higher, on
average, than eligible non-participating LEAs; in three States (Illinois, Kentucky, and New York),
this gap was 11–12 percentage points. Participating LEAs in Massachusetts and Michigan had ISPs
that were 48 and 39 percentage points higher than eligible non-participating LEAs. Eligible nonparticipating LEAs had ISPs that ranged from 5.9 to 20.6 percentage points higher than those of neareligible LEAs in the same State.21
Participating LEAs generally had higher average enrollment than eligible non-participating LEAs.
There was a particularly sharp contrast in enrollment between participating and eligible nonparticipating LEAs in the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and New York, due the participationof the District of Columbia Public Schools, Boston Public Schools, and New York City Public
Schools, respectively. Different patterns were observed for Kentucky, Maryland, and Ohio, where
eligible non-participating LEAs had higher average enrollments than participating LEAs. Eligible
non-participating LEAs, in turn, generally had higher average enrollments than near-eligible LEAs,
with New York and Ohio as exceptions.
States varied considerably in the percentage of LEAs with charter schools, ranging from zero in
Kentucky and West Virginia to 80 percent or more in the District of Columbia and Florida.22 In mostStates, however, there was no noteworthy relationship between the presence of charter schools in an
LEA and CEP eligibility or participation. The two exceptions were New York and Ohio, where
eligible LEAs (both participating and non-participating) were more likely to have charter schools thannear-eligible LEAs. In Massachusetts, more than a fourth of both near-eligible and eligible nonparticipating LEAs had charters, while participating LEAs had none, owing to the fact that the single
participating LEA (Boston Public Schools) had no charters within the LEA (because charter schools
in Boston are independent for purposes of the school meals programs).
In all States except for Florida, the average percentage of students eligible for FRP meals was higher
in eligible non-participating LEAs than in near-eligible LEAs.23 Further, in eight out of 11 States, theaverage percentage of students eligible for FRP meals was greater in participating LEAs than ineligible non-participating LEAs. The exceptions were Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio.
Eligible LEAs were more often in urban areas than near-eligible LEAs in all States, but in only five of
11 States were participating LEAs more often urban than eligible non-participating LEAs. Moreover,
one of these five States was Massachusetts, where the single participating LEA (Boston Public

21

Kentucky and Maryland have no near-eligible LEAs.

22

As discussed below, States differ in their administrative treatment of charter schools. Some treat charterschools as separate LEAs, some include them as members of regular school districts, and some do both.
Exhibit 3.9 depicts the percentage of LEAs in each State with any charter schools.

23

Readers are reminded that the FRP student percentage was based on pre-CEP data for participating LEAs.

pg. 30 ▌3. Take-Up of the CE Provision in SY2013–14

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

Schools) was urban. Michigan and New York were the only two States with substantial numbers ofparticipating LEAs that were more often urban than eligible non-participating LEAs.
In all States, eligible LEAs had higher proportions of students who are Black than near-eligible LEAs,
and in most States, participating LEAs had higher proportions of students who are Black than eligible
non-participating LEAs. Illinois and Michigan had the sharpest differences between participating andeligible non-participating on this measure. On the other hand, the proportion of students who are
Black was about the same or lower among participating LEAs than among eligible non-participating
LEAs in the District of Columbia, Maryland, New York, and Ohio.
It should be noted that there were large differences in the structural characteristics of LEAs among
States. (The discussion that follows is based on the combined characteristics of participating, eligible
non-participating, and near-eligible LEAs, as shown in the State-level tables in the Appendix, and on
additional information obtained from State LEA lists). The two critical factors are the geography of
LEAs within each State and the State’s treatment of charter schools. LEAs in the Southeast region,
Maryland, and West Virginia are generally coextensive with counties. LEAs in the Northeast andMidwest regions tend to be smaller in area than counties.
In Kentucky, Maryland, and West Virginia, LEAs aligned with counties, and there were no charter
LEAs. As a consequence, these States had few small LEAs consisting of a single school or less than
500 enrolled students. Florida and Georgia were similar to Kentucky, Maryland, and West Virginia in
having regular LEAs correspond to counties. Florida and Georgia differed in their treatment of charterschools, however, insofar as some charters, but not all, were part of charter LEAs
Other States had large numbers of very small LEAs consisting of a single school or less than 500
enrolled students, while Kentucky and West Virginia (both with county-based LEAs) had almost
none. Florida, Michigan, Ohio, New York, and the District of Columbia all had considerable numbersof charter LEAs, which made up a large proportion of their LEAs with very small enrollments. New
York had large fractions of both small (less than 2,500 students) and large (more than 5,000 students)
LEAs, with few in between. Illinois had many small LEAs—77 percent with fewer than 2,500
students and 23 percent consisting of a single school—and no all-charter LEAs, although some of its
LEAs included charter schools. The District of Columbia was unique among the seven CEP States
insofar as it comprised one large regular LEA with 122 schools and 34 charter school LEAs, mostconsisting of a single school.

Abt Associates

3. Take-Up of the CE Provision in SY2013–14 ▌pg. 31

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

Exhibit 3.9: Characteristics of Near-Eligible, Eligible Non-Participating, and Participating
Regular and Charter LEAs, by State (SY 2013–14)

pg. 32 ▌3. Take-Up of the CE Provision in SY2013–14

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

Abt Associates

3. Take-Up of the CE Provision in SY2013–14 ▌pg. 33

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum Near Eligible

 Eligible Non-Participatingpg. 34 ▌3. Take-Up of the CE Provision in SY2013–14

 Participating

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

3.3.4

LEA Approaches to Claiming Percentages

Schools can establish claiming percentages for the CEP individually, as part of a group, or on an
LEA-wide basis, depending on the ISPs of the LEAs’ schools. How schools qualify for the CEP has
implications for how the LEAs operate the CEP. If the LEAs establish an LEA-wide CEP claiming
percentage, then they can operate all schools under the same rules, including those regarding FRP
meals applications and claims for reimbursement. On the other hand, establishing claiming
percentages on the basis of individual schools or groups of schools means that the LEAs claim meals
differently for CEP schools and non-CEP schools, as well as (potentially) among CEP schools.
Moreover, in these LEAs, there is an important distinction between students who get free meals
automatically at CEP schools and those who must be certified for FRP meals or pay at non-CEP
schools, and LEAs must have procedures to deal with students who transfer between CEP and nonCEP schools.
Exhibit 3.10, below, presents the distribution of regular LEAs by their mode of establishing claiming
percentages for the CEP in each State.24 The large majority of participating LEAs—69 percent—established claiming percentages on an LEA-wide basis; the proportion of LEAs doing so ranged
from 31 percent in Georgia to 100 percent in Massachusetts (with a single participating LEA).
Twenty-two percent of LEAs established their claiming percentage on a group basis, 8 percent
established their claiming percentage on an individual school basis, and 1 percent used a combinationof group and individual school bases. Single-school LEAs participating in the CEP appear in Exhibit
3.10 as establishing their claiming percentage on an LEA-wide basis.
Georgia was the only State where the majority (61 percent) of participating LEAs established theirclaiming percentage on a group basis; in Maryland, exactly half (one of two) of participating LEAs
did so. About one-third of participating LEAs in Florida, Kentucky and West Virginia establishedclaiming percentages for the CEP on a group basis; in other States, the percentage of participating
LEAs that established a claiming percentage on this basis was 20 percent or less. Florida and West
Virginia had the highest percentages of LEAs that established their claiming percentage on an
individual school basis: 18 and 23 percent, respectively. Between 6 and 13 percent of LEAs in theDistrict of Columbia, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, and Michigan did so. A few (8) participating LEAs
established claiming percentages through a combination of grouped and individual schools.

24

The categories of claiming percentage method are very closely related to whether an LEA is participatingin the CEP with some or all of its schools. Nearly all LEAs that participate in the CEP fully (in all schools)
establish a claiming percentage on an LEA-wide basis. (In the seven States with suitable data, 95 percent of
LEAs participating in all schools used an LEA-wide claiming percentage.) Similarly, nearly all LEAs thatpartially participate in the CEP establish their claiming percentage on a group or individual basis. (The best
estimate from available data is 91 percent.) About 40 percent of LEAs that establish their claiming
percentage on an individual school basis have more than one participating school, and 4 percent of LEAs
that reportedly establish their claiming percentage on a group basis have only one participating school(according to State data, which may be subject to error on this point).

Abt Associates

3. Take-Up of the CE Provision in SY2013–14 ▌pg. 35

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

Exhibit 3.10: Percentage of Participating LEAs by Mode of Establishing Claiming Percentage(SY 2013–14)
Mode of Establishing Claiming Percentage

Year 1 States:
Illinois
KentuckyMichiganYear 2 States:
District of Columbia
New York
Ohio
West VirginiaYear 3 States:
FloridaGeorgia
Maryland
Massachusetts
All CEP States
Total LEAs

3.3.5

Total
Participating
LEAs#

Entire LEA
%

Group
%

Individual%Group andIndividual
%

72
59
71

13
32
16

13
9
12

2
0
1

86
66
110

79
91
80
36

12
7
20
36

9
1
0
23

0
1
0
5

34
90
128
39

48
31
50
100
69
438

30
61
50
0
22
140

18
6
0
0
8
52

3
2
0
0
1
8

33
49
2
1
638

Variations in CEP Participation Associated with LEA-Wide Eligibility, Percentages ofStudents Eligible for Free and Reduced-Price Meals, and ISP

One factor in an LEA’s decision to participate may be whether the LEA is eligible to participate on an
LEA-wide or group/individual school basis,25 Participating LEAs must alter a number ofadministrative procedures associated with counting and claiming Federal reimbursements for school
meals. If they do not participate on an LEA-wide basis, they must follow two sets of procedures—one
for CEP and one for non-CEP schools. Likewise, the LEA must continue to collect and process FRP
meal applications for students in non-CEP schools if they do not participate on an LEA-wide basis.
As a consequence, partially participating LEAs may not realize savings in administrative costs orcomplexity.
The data presented in Exhibit 3.11 show that, in SY 2013–14, LEAs were indeed more likely toparticipate if eligible LEA-wide. Across most States, participation rates were higher—sometimes by afactor of two or more—in LEAs that were eligible LEA-wide versus those that were not. New Yorkand Ohio appeared to be very different, but the results for these States should be discounted due to

25

The CEP evaluation report (Logan et al., 2014) noted that the second most popular potential change
endorsed by eligible non-participating LEAs was to make the CEP available LEA-wide regardless of
individual schools’ ISPs.

pg. 36 ▌3. Take-Up of the CE Provision in SY2013–14

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

data limitations.26 The other two exceptions to greater participation among LEAs eligible LEA-wide
are Georgia, where there was equality in participation rates for the two types of LEAs, and Maryland,
which had only two participating LEAs. Among LEAs eligible to participate in all schools, those that
did so (fully participating) outnumbered those that participated partially by three to one. States variedin the proportion of LEAs participating LEA-wide among those eligible LEA-wide, from a very
substantial majority in the District of Columbia and New York, to one-third in Georgia (15 percent
LEA-wide versus 30 percent partially participating).
Exhibit 3.11: LEA Participation Rate, by LEA-Wide Eligibility and State (SY 2013–14)

Fully
Participating
Year 1 States:
Illinois
KentuckyMichiganYear 2 States:
District of Columbia
New York
Ohio
West VirginiaYear 3 States:
FloridaGeorgia
Maryland
Massachusetts
All CEP States

Participation Rate (% of Eligible)
Eligible LEA-WidePartially
Total
Participating
Participating

Not Eligible LEAWide

26
32
20

8
16
7

34
48
26

15
15
3

60
59
35
41

16
4
8
38

76
63
43
79

0
100
100
60

17
15
4
3
29

9
30
0
0
10

26
45
4
3
39

20
45
6
14

Participation rates for LEAs not eligible LEA-wide may be inflated in New York and Ohio, where the number of
eligible LEAs may be underestimated due to missing ISP data for schools.

Participating LEAs had a higher percentage of students certified for FRP meals compared to eligible
non-participating LEAs. As shown in Exhibit 3.12, the CEP participation rate increased with the FRP
student percentage, for both eligible LEAs and schools. For LEAs, the participation rate rises from 19
percent among LEAs with less than 51 percent FRP students to 47 percent for those with over 80
percent. For schools, participation also rises in tandem with greater percent FRP-certified students,from 4 percent participation among eligible schools with less than 51 percent FRP-certified students
to 36 percent in eligible schools with more than 80 percent FRP-certified students.

26

For New York and Ohio, data on school-level ISPs were not available. These data would enable calculationof whether an LEA is eligible in a portion of schools. Hence, the only means of identifying LEAs not
eligible LEA-wide as eligible is by whether they are participating, and the “participation rate” for such
LEAs is 100 percent by definition.

Abt Associates

3. Take-Up of the CE Provision in SY2013–14 ▌pg. 37

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

Exhibit 3.12: CEP Participation Rate for Eligible Regular and Charter LEAs and Schools, by
Percentage of Students Certified for Free or Reduced-Price (FRP) Meals (SY 2013–14)
Percent of LEAs
Participating
19
28
32
42
47
35

Percent FRP Students
<51
51–60
61–70
71–80
>80
All LEAs and schools

Percent of Schools
Participating
4
17
24
29
36
22

Percent FRP students based on pre-CEP VSR data for LEAs and 2011–12 CCD data for schools.

Exhibit 3.13 shows the distribution of projected ISPs (based on October 2012 VSR data) for LEAs by
their CEP eligibility and participation in the 2013–14 school year. As expected, all near-eligible
LEAs had ISPs below 40 percent. Both eligible non-participating and participating LEAs can befound across the spectrum of ISP levels. Not all participating LEAs had ISPs above 40 percent,because participation requires only one eligible school in the LEA. However, eligible nonparticipating LEAs tend to have lower ISPs than participating LEAs. The majority of eligible nonparticipating LEAs (68 percent) have ISPs below 50 percent, while the majority of participating LEAs
(59 percent) have ISPs above this level.
Exhibit 3.13 also shows the participation rate of eligible LEAs at various LEA-wide ISP levels.
Roughly 10–13 percent of LEAs with an ISP below 30 percent participate. For LEAs with ISPs
between 30–50 percent, participation rises to 26–28 percent. For LEAs with ISPs above 50 percent,participation is 47–55 percent. Thus, higher ISPs up to a threshold of about 50 percent appear to be
associated with greater participation. Participation appears to level off, however, with further
increases in the ISP above 50 percent.
Exhibit 3.13: Percentage Distribution of LEAs by ISP Range, CEP Eligibility, andParticipation—All CEP States (SY 2013–14)

ISP
<20

Percentage of LEAs, by ISP
Eligible NonNear-Eligible
Participating
Participating
1
8
2

Participation
Rate (% ofEligible), by ISP
10

20–39

8

12

4

13

30–39

85

18

14

28

40–49

0

25

18

26

50–59

0

11

20

47

60–69
>70
ISP missing
All ISPs
Number of LEAs

0

6

15

55

0
5
100
420

12
7
100
1,293

24
4
100
638

49
22
33

The ISP reported in this table is the projected ISP derived from October 2012 VSR data which States reported toFNS. The projected ISP is equal to the total number of free eligible students not subject to verification, divided by
the total LEA enrollment from schools not operating Provision 2 or 3. Some near-eligible LEAs are reported
having ISPs of less than 30 percent because near-eligibility status was determined using a combination of VSR
and State data, but only ISPs based on the former are shown.

pg. 38 ▌3. Take-Up of the CE Provision in SY2013–14

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

Exhibit 3.14 combines data on the percent FRP-certified students and the ISP to examine therelationship between participation and the ratio of these two quantities.27 The exhibit shows the
distribution of the ratio of the FRP student percentage to the ISP for participating, eligible nonparticipating, and all eligible LEAs. Schools participating in the CEP are reimbursed at the free-meals
rate for a percentage of meals served equal to the ISP times a multiplier of 1.6, plus the paid-meals
rate times the rest of meals served. Consequently, higher values of the ratio of the percent FRPcertified students to the ISP may indicate that the LEA would get more revenue under conventional
meal claiming than under the CEP.
In the typical participating LEA, the FRP student percentage was 1.6 times the ISP (as indicated by
the median shown above in Exhibit 3.7), while for eligible non-participating LEAs this ratio was 1.7.
As shown in Exhibit 3.14, both eligible non-participating and participating LEAs can be found acrossall levels of the ratio, but the distribution of this ratio was quite different for these two groups.
Participating LEAs are more concentrated in the lower ranges, with 54 percent of participating LEAs
having ratios below 1.6. For comparison, only 42 percent of eligible non-participating LEAs hadratios below this level.
For participating schools and LEAs that no longer collect FRP meal applications or an alternative
family income form, the free meals rate claiming percentage—which is equal to the CEP multipliertimes the ISP—may be used to estimate the FRP student percentage for programs that use thisstatistic when identifying high-poverty schools and allocating funds among schools (e.g., Title I). In
this context, the programs assume that if, for example, a school has an ISP of 40 percent, the FRP
student percentage would be 64 percent if the school took applications for FRP meals. This may be aconsideration for LEAs in deciding whether to take up the CEP. because the calculated FRP student
percentage would be used in lieu of the actual if the LEA no longer collected and processed
applications for FRP meals or an alternative family income data form.
The difference between an LEA’s ratio of FRP student percentage to ISP and the CEP multiplier (1.6)
is a measure of the consistency between the estimated FRP percentage (under Title I and otherprogram rules for participating LEAs that do not collect family income forms) and the actual (preCEP) percentage. Exhibit 3.14 shows that about 24 percent of participating LEAs had calculated FRP
student percentages within 10 percentage points of the actual (because the ratio of FRP to ISP is
between 1.5 and 1.7), and 52 percent have a calculated FRP student percentage within 20 percentage
points of the actual. At the extremes, for about 8 percent of participating LEAs, the calculated FRP
student percentage exceeds the actual by 23 percent or more, and in 5 percent of participating LEAs,

27

In computing this ratio, the percentage FRP and the ISP were drawn from VSR data for the same year. As
noted above, many participating LEAs followed FNS guidance in reporting only directly certified students
as FRP eligible on the VSR for SY 2012–13, resulting in an FRP to ISP ratio equal to one. Where thisoccurred, FRP and ISP data were drawn from the prior year’s VSR data, and the process was repeated if theprior year also had the FRP percentage equal to the ISP. For non-participating LEAs, if the FRP to ISP ratio
was equal to one for SY 2012–13, the prior year’s data were used for the ratio, but the FRP percentage and
ISP used in other tables were still taken from SY 2012–13.

Abt Associates

3. Take-Up of the CE Provision in SY2013–14 ▌pg. 39

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

the calculated FRP student percentage falls short of the actual by 36 percent or more.28 Among all
eligible LEAs, 46 percent had an FRP/ISP ratio less than 1.6.
Exhibit 3.14: Distribution of Eligible Non-Participating, Participating, and All Eligible Regular
and Charter LEAs by Ratio of FRP Student Percentage to ISP (SY 2013–14)% of LEAs
20
Eligible, Non-Participating

15

Participating
10

All Eligible LEAs

50

0-1.3 1.3-1.4 1.4-1.5 1.5-1.6 1.6-1.7 1.7-1.8 1.8-1.9 1.9-2.0 2-2.1 2.1-2.2 2.2-2.3 2.3-2.4 2.4-2.5

2.5+

Ratio of FRP Student Percent to ISP

3.4

Numbers and Characteristics of Near-Eligible, Eligible Non-Participating
and Participating Schools

3.4.1

Numbers of Near-Eligible, Eligible Non-Participating and Participating Schools

To complement the LEA-level description in the preceding sections, this section first presents thenumbers of near-eligible, eligible non-participating, and participating schools in the 11 CEP States
and then considers the similarities and differences of these three types of schools. (See Chapter 2 fordefinitions of these types of schools.) The discussion focuses on regular schools (i.e., those in publicschool districts) and charter schools for which either the States or the Common Core reported data;29data for other schools were insufficient for analysis.

28

These quantities are calculated as follows. Percent error = [(1.6*ISP ‒ %FRP) / %FRP]. In 8 percent ofparticipating LEAs, %FRP/ISP ≤ 1.3. Substituting into the equation: Percent error ≥ 0.23. Likewise, in 5
percent of participating LEAs, %FRP/ISP ≥2.5. Substituting into the equation: Percent error ≤ ‒0.36.

29

The number of schools reported in Section 3.4 is limited by the number of schools for which school-level
data are available from either the States or the Common Core of Data. This limitation creates discrepancies
between the LEA-level data and the school-level data. For instance, while the State of Massachusetts
reported that 144 schools in Boston participated in the CEP (see, for instance, Exhibit 3.1), school-level
data were only available in the Common Core for 135 of these schools.

pg. 40 ▌3. Take-Up of the CE Provision in SY2013–14

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

As shown in Exhibit 3.15, the 11 CEP States comprised a total of 19,328 regular public or charterschools that were at least near-eligible to participate in the CEP. Slightly more than 70 percent ofthese (13,758) were eligible non-participating, about 20 percent (3,800) participated, and the rest
(1,770) were near-eligible (Exhibit 3.15). While Michigan had the most eligible LEAs, Florida had
the most eligible schools—4,012. This occurred because Florida’s eligible LEAs were much larger:
about 40 schools per LEA compared to about 5 in Michigan. The District of Columbia had the fewest
participating and eligible non-participating schools (223), followed by Massachusetts, with 459. Ohio
had the most near-eligible schools both absolutely (445) and as a proportion of schools that were atleast near-eligible (29 percent).
On average, across the 11 CEP States, slightly more than one-fifth of the 17,558 eligible schools in
regular and charter LEAs participated in the CEP. It was earlier shown (Exhibit 3.5) that the Districtof Columbia and West Virginia had the highest participation rates for regular and charter LEAs.
Exhibit 3.15 shows that they also had the highest participation rates for schools—52 and 54 percent,respectively. Maryland had the lowest school participation rate, at 0.3 percent, and Florida had thesecond lowest school participation rate (9 percent, much lower than the 29 percent participation rate
for eligible LEAs).
Exhibit 3.15: Number of Regular and Charter Schools and Participation Rate, by CEP Status
and State (SY 2013–14)
Eligible (#)

Year 1 States:
Illinois
KentuckyMichiganYear 2 States:
District of Columbia
New York
Ohio
West VirginiaYear 3 States:
FloridaGeorgia
Maryland
Massachusetts
All CEP States

Participating

Total
(#)

Participation
Rate (% ofEligible)

1,435
1,163
2,101

659
369
497

2,267
1,617
2,761

31
24
19

6
103
445
90

106
1,593
659
292

117
469
409
345

229
2,165
1,513
727

52
23
38
54

328
275
36
66
1,770

3,653
1,009
1,423
324
13,758

359
436
5
135
3,800

4,340
1,720
1,464
525
19,328

9
30
<1
29
22

Near-Eligible(#)

NonParticipating

173
85
163

Note: Since non-participating schools in participating LEAs are treated as eligible if they are missing a school
ISP, the participation rate may be artificially low in New York, Ohio, and Georgia. However, the count of schools
in eligible non-participating LEAs maybe understated due to sparse ISP data in New York, Ohio, Georgia, andMassachusetts.

3.4.2

Variations in School Participation Associated LEA-Wide Eligibility

Exhibit 3.16 presents the proportion of eligible schools that used the CEP in participating LEAs. This
table distinguishes between those LEAs that were eligible to participate LEA-wide—those for which
the ISP for the LEA was at least 40 percent—and those LEAs within which only some schools were
eligible to participate. Either type of LEA could choose to participate with a subset of eligible
schools, provided that the school or group of schools had an average ISP of at least 40 percent.

Abt Associates

3. Take-Up of the CE Provision in SY2013–14 ▌pg. 41

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

The percentage of eligible schools that used the CEP was substantially higher in LEAs where allschools were eligible to participate. Among participating LEAs eligible to participate LEA-wide, 84
percent of schools used the CEP, on average, and the average proportion of schools that used the CEP
ranged from 70 percent in Florida to 100 percent in Maryland and Massachusetts.
Participating LEAs that were not eligible LEA-wide used the CEP in a smaller proportion of eligible
schools than the participating LEAs eligible LEA-wide. Among participating LEAs that were noteligible LEA-wide, 63 percent of eligible schools used the CEP. This proportion ranged from 29
percent in Kentucky to 94 percent in Illinois.
Exhibit 3.16: Percent of Eligible Schools Participating in CEP in Participating LEAs, by LEA
Eligibility Status and State (SY 2013–14)
Percent of Eligible Schools Participating
Not Eligible LEAAll Participating
Eligible LEA-Wide
Wide
LEAs

Average Percent Eligible Schools
Participating
Year 1 States:
Illinois
84
94
86
Kentucky73
29
69
Michigan80
60
78Year 2 States:
District of Columbia
82
NA82
New York
96
51
95
Ohio
90
72
90
West Virginia
73
72
73
Year 3 States:
Florida70
33
61
Georgia
79
54
77
Maryland100
33
67
Massachusetts
100
NA
100
All CEP States
84
63
82
Number of LEAs
578
60
638
Note: There were no participating LEAs that were not eligible LEA-wide in the District of Columbia or
Massachusetts.

3.4.3

Characteristics of Near-Eligible, Eligible Non-Participating, and Participating Regular
and Charter Schools

The participation patterns found for LEAs were generally replicated at the school level, althoughdifferences between participating and eligible non-participating schools were larger, most likely
because only subsets of schools in some participating LEAs implemented the CEP, and theseparticipating subsets of schools may have certain distinguishing characteristics.
As shown in Exhibit 3.17, participating schools had much higher ISPs, FRP percentages, andpercentages of Black students than near-eligible and eligible non-participating schools. Participating
schools had an average ISP of 61 percent, compared to 39 percent for eligible non-participatingpg. 42 ▌3. Take-Up of the CE Provision in SY2013–14

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

schools and 27 percent for near-eligible schools.30 Differences in FRP percentages followed a similar
pattern: 78 percent for participating schools, 60 percent for eligible non-participating schools and 52
percent for near-eligible schools. Forty-three percent of students in participating schools were Black,and 58 percent were Black or Hispanic. By comparison, 28 percent of students in eligible nonparticipating schools were Black and 48 percent were Black or Hispanic. The corresponding figures
for near-eligible schools are 12 and 22 percent.
Participating schools were also more likely to be Title I schools and to have “other” or non-standard
grade spans (that is, not K–5, 6–8, or 9–12) than eligible non-participating or near-eligible schools.
Eighty percent of participating schools are Title I, compared to under 65 percent for eligible nonparticipating or near-eligible schools. These proportions for Title I schools stand in contrast to thosefor LEAs, where participating and eligible non-participating LEAs had the same proportion of Title I
schools, and near-eligible LEAs had somewhat more Title I schools than either participating andeligible non-participating LEAs.

30

To be eligible to participate, an LEA must have at least one school with an ISP of 40 percent or more. All
schools in eligible non-participating LEAs were classified as eligible non-participating schools, because
schools with ISPs below 40 percent could be combined in groups with schools with ISPs greater than 40
percent.

Abt Associates

3. Take-Up of the CE Provision in SY2013–14 ▌pg. 43

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

Exhibit 3.17: School Characteristics in Regular and Charter LEAs—All CEP States (SY 2013–14)

Enrollment
ISP
Students free/reduced lunch (%)
Grade span
K–5 (%)
6–8 (%)
9–12 (%)
Other (%)
Title I schools (%)
Charter schools (%)
Percent students Black
Percent students Hispanic/Latino
Total number of schools
Number of schools with CCD data

Near Eligible
Mean
(SD)
582.1
(405.1)
27.1
(9.4)
52.3
(19.6)

Eligible NonParticipating
Mean
(SD)
576.0
(476.6)38.5(20.5)
60.3(25.4)

Participating
Mean
(SD)
474.6
(298.2)60.8(15.2)
78.4(15.9)

Combined
Mean
(SD)
556.2
(441.6)42.9(21.4)
63.2(24.6)

46.6
19.8
19.3
14.4
63.7
6.3
12.2
10.2
1,770
1,725

45.4
15.9
18.9
19.8
62.4
7.1
28.3
19.7
13,75813,370

49.6
12.0
12.6
25.9
80.0
7.0
43.0
14.7
3,800
3,547

46.3
15.5
17.8
20.4
65.9
7.0
29.7
17.8
19,32818,642(17.9)(15.1)(29.9)(23.6)(36.4)(22.8)(31.5)(23.0)The total number of schools refers to the total number of schools for which school-level data are available from either States or Common Core of Data.
The ISP reported in this table is based on April 2013 data submitted by the States.
The number of eligible non-participating schools includes 556 schools with missing ISPs in participating LEAs that are not eligible LEA-wide.

pg. 44 ▌3. Take-Up of the CE Provision in SY2013–14

Abt Associates

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

Exhibit 3.18 illustrates variations among States in school enrollments, ISPs, and percent Black
students for participating, eligible non-participating, and near-eligible schools. (Statistics
corresponding to those in Exhibit 3.18 are reported for individual States in Exhibits A.2.1–A.2.11.) Ineight of 11 CEP States, participating schools had smaller average enrollments than eligible nonparticipating, and near-eligible schools. The exceptions were the District of Columbia, Illinois, andNew York, where near-eligible schools had the smallest enrollments. Georgia had the largest average
enrollments for participating and eligible non-participating schools (606 and 687 students,
respectively), while Florida had the largest average enrollment for near-eligible schools (881students). West Virginia had the smallest average enrollment for participating schools (329 students),
and the District of Columbia had the smallest average enrollments for eligible non-participating andnear-eligible schools (340 and 310 students, respectively).
Across States, the average participating school ISP ranged from 50 percent in West Virginia to 65
percent in Ohio. West Virginia’s average participating school ISP of 50 percent was substantiallylower than in other States. Florida had the next lowest participating school ISP at 59 percent. For
most States, average school ISP fell between 59–65 percent.
In the seven States with complete school ISP data, participating schools consistently had higher ISPs
than eligible non-participating and near-eligible schools. West Virginia—which had the lowest
average participating school ISP—also had the smallest gap (12 percentage points) between the
average ISPs of participating schools and eligible non-participating schools. The difference between
the average ISPs of eligible non-participating schools and near-eligible schools ranged from 7
percentage points for the District of Columbia to 19 percentage points for Florida.
In nine of 11 CEP States, participating schools had the highest average percentage of Black students,
and near-eligible schools had the lowest. Kentucky, Maryland, and West Virginia were theexceptions. Two of these States—Kentucky and West Virginia—had relatively low percentages ofBlack students overall. In Kentucky, eligible non-participating schools had the highest percentages ofBlack students, and participating schools had the lowest. In Maryland, eligible non-participating
schools also had the highest percentages of Black students, but near-eligible schools had the lowest.
In West Virginia, participating schools had the highest percentages of Black students, while eligible
non-participating schools had the lowest.

Abt Associates

3. Take-Up of the CE Provision in SY2013–14 ▌pg. 45

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

Exhibit 3.18: Characteristics of Near-Eligible, Eligible Non-Participating, and Participating
Schools in Regular and Charter LEAs, by State (SY 2013–14)

pg. 46 ▌3. Take-Up of the CE Provision in SY2013–14

Abt Associates

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum Near Eligible

Abt Associates

 Eligible Non-Participating Participating

3. Take-Up of the CE Provision in SY2013–14 ▌pg. 47

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

3.5

Summary

The 2013–14 school year was the third year of the phase-in period for the CEP, which was operatingin the District of Columbia and 10 States (Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Ohio, and West Virginia). The CEP will be available to eligible
LEAs in all States for the 2014–15 school year. This Addendum updates the results presented in theCommunity Eligibility Provision Evaluation report (primarily in Chapter 4) by describing thecharacteristics of LEAs and schools that first took up and/or continued to implement the CEP in
2013–14. It also describes how these characteristics differ from those of other high-poverty LEAs andschools that did not take up the CEP. The descriptive analysis in this chapter addresses two research
objectives posed in the Congressional mandate for the Implementation Study:
1. Estimate the number of eligible LEAs and schools that have not chosen to participate in the
CEP; and2. Describe the LEAs and schools participating in the CEP.
The key results for these objectives are summarized in this section, beginning with the characteristics
of participating LEAs, then proceeding to broader information on all eligible and near-eligible LEAs,
followed by comparisons of participating and non-participating LEAs, and ending with thecharacteristics of participating schools.
3.5.1

Characteristics of Participating LEAs

Participation in the CEP has expanded rapidly over its three year history; the number of participating
LEAs has grown substantially every year in most States that have offered the CEP for more than one
year. A total of 3,999 schools in 638 LEAs participated in the CEP in 2013–14. In 438 of theparticipating LEAs, all schools participated. An estimated 1.8 million students had access to freemeals under the CEP. Further, a negligible number (six) LEAs ended their participation in the CEP(one LEA in the District of Columbia, Illinois, Kentucky, and New York, and two LEAs in Ohio
exited CEP participation). Although three times that number (19 LEAs) that participated in prioryears did not participate in 2013–14 in Michigan, the primary driver was district consolidation rather
than withdrawal from the CEP.
The overall CEP participation rate was 35 percent for eligible regular and charter LEAs (as defined in
Chapter 2). The District of Columbia and West Virginia had participation rates of 75 percent, andNew York had a participation rate of 65 percent. Georgia, Kentucky, and Ohio had somewhat lower
participation rates, ranging from 39 to 46 percent. Florida, Illinois, and Michigan constituted a third
tier in terms of LEA participation, with rates between 21 and 30 percent, and less than 10 percent
participated in Maryland and Massachusetts.31
An important choice for LEAs is whether they participate in the CEP LEA-wide, in groups ofschools, or in individual schools. This choice is operationalized by the type of claiming percentage

31

As noted in the detailed presentation, the number of eligible LEAs is likely underestimated by as much as
50 percent in Georgia, Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio, because these States did not provide ISP data
for schools, and so partially eligible non-participating LEAs could not be identified.

pg. 48 ▌3. Take-Up of the CE Provision in SY2013–14

Abt Associates

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

used. Most participating LEAs—69 percent—established their claiming percentage on an LEA-widebasis. Twenty-two percent of LEAs established their claiming percentage on a group basis, 8 percent
established their claiming percentage on an individual school basis, and 1 percent used a combinationof group and school percentages.
3.5.2

Numbers of Eligible and Near-Eligible LEAs

In the 11 CEP States, a total of 1,890 regular and charter LEAs were identified as eligible or neareligible to participate in the CEP, based on available LEA and school-level ISPs. More than a fourth(548) were participating, more than half (1,014) were eligible but non-participating, and less than afifth (328) were near-eligible. In addition, a total of 90 other LEAs32 participated in the CEP, 279
were eligible non-participating, and 92 were near-eligible in the 2013–14 school year.
More than 10 million students were in regular and charter LEAs that were near-eligible, eligible, or
participating in the CEP. Participating regular and charter LEAs represented about 4.2 million
enrolled students. Of these, an estimated 42 percent (1.8 million) were in schools that participated in
the CEP. Eligible non-participating LEAs comprised about 5.5 million students, and near-eligible
LEAs comprised about 570,000 students (based on data for regular and charter LEAs).
3.5.3

Comparison of Participating, Eligible Non-Participating, and Near-Eligible LEAs

Compared with eligible non-participating LEAs, participating LEAs, on average, had more students,
more schools, and higher ISPs and percentages of students eligible for FRP meals (based on data forregular and charter LEAs). However, the difference in enrollment was due entirely to the participationof New York City public schools—absent that single LEA, the difference between participating andeligible non-participating LEAs was negligible. Participating LEAs were also more often urban, hadmore Black students, were more likely to include charter schools, and had a somewhat higher
percentage of students in grades K–5 and a lower percentage in grades 9–12.
Differences between eligible non-participating and near-eligible LEAs were similar to those between
participating and eligible non-participating LEAs. The patterns found for LEAs were generally
replicated at the school level, although school-level differences between participating and eligible
non-participating schools were more pronounced.
3.5.4

School Participation in the CEP

The 11 CEP States comprised a total of 19,328 regular public or charter schools that were eligible orat least near-eligible to participate in the CEP. Slightly more than 70 percent of these (13,758) were
eligible non-participating, about 20 percent (3,800) participated, and the rest (1,770) were neareligible. Among participating LEAs that were eligible to participate LEA-wide, 84 percent of schools
used the CEP, while 63 percent of schools used the CEP among participating LEAs that were noteligible LEA-wide. As with LEAs, participating schools had higher ISPs, FRP percentages, andpercentages of students who are Black than eligible non-participating schools. Participating schools
were also more likely to be Title I schools and to have non-standard grade spans (i.e., not K–5, 6–8,
or 9–12).
32

The category of “other” LEAs includes non-public LEAs, regional education service agencies, and other
non-typical public education agencies.

Abt Associates

3. Take-Up of the CE Provision in SY2013–14 ▌pg. 49

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

Nearly the same percentages of charter schools were found among participating, eligible nonparticipating, and near-eligible schools. This is distinct from the LEA-level prevalence of LEAs withcharter schools, where participating LEAs were more likely to include charter schools than eligible
non-participating LEAs, which, in turn, were more likely to include charter schools than near-eligible
LEAs
The average ISP for eligible non-participating schools was about 39 percent, and more than half ofthe eligible non-participating schools for which there were ISP data had ISPs less than 40 percent.
This stems from the fact that all schools in eligible non-participating LEAs were classified as eligible
non-participating schools, because these schools could potentially be combined with other schools
with higher ISPs in the same LEA to form groups of eligible schools. (About 7 percent ofparticipating schools also had ISPs less than 40 percent.) Among schools with an ISP of 40 percent or
higher, the average eligible non-participating school ISP was 53 percent, and the average participating
school ISP was 63 percent.

pg. 50 ▌3. Take-Up of the CE Provision in SY2013–14

Abt Associates

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

References
Logan, C. W., P. Connor, E. L. Harvill, J. Harkness, H. Nisar, A. Checkoway, L. R. Peck, A. Shivji,
E. Bein, M. Levin, and A. Enver. (2014). Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation. Project
Officer: John R. Endahl. Prepared by Abt Associates for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foodand Nutrition Service. Available at: http://www.fns.usda.gov/research-and-analysis.
Moore, Q., K. Conway, B, Kyler, and A. Gothro. (2013). Direct certification in the National School
Lunch Program: State implementation progress, school year 2012–2013 (Report CN-13-DC). Project
Officer: Dennis Ranalli. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition
Service, Office of Research and Analysis.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014a). Common Core of Data: Local Education Agency(School District) Universe Survey Data (2011–12) [Data File]. Available at:
http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/pubagency.asp.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014b). Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe
Survey Data (2011–12) [Data File]. http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/pubschuniv.asp
National Research Council. (2012). Using American Community Survey data to expand access to theschool meals programs, Report of the Panel on Estimating Children Eligible for School Nutrition
Programs Using the American Community Survey, A.L. Schirm and N.J. Kirkendall, Editors.
Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Schochet, P. Z. (2008a). Statistical power for random assignment evaluations of education programs.
Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 33(1), 62–87.
Schochet, P. Z. (2008b). Guidelines for multiple testing in impact evaluations of educational
interventions: Final report. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research. Available at:
http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/pdfs/educationalinterventions.pdf
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2013). National School Lunch, Special Milk, and School Breakfast
Programs, National average payments/maximum reimbursement rates. Federal Register, 78(44), July
26. Available at: http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/NAPs13-14.pdf
U.S. Department of Agriculture (2014a). National School Lunch Program: Participation and lunches
served [Web Page]. Alexandria, VA: Author. Available at:
http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/slsummar.pdf
U.S. Department of Agriculture (2014b). School Breakfast Program: Participation and meals served[Web Page]. Alexandria, VA: Author. Available at:
http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/sbsummar.pdf
U.S. Department of Agriculture (2014c). School meals: Provisions 1, 2, and 3 [Web Page].
Alexandria, VA: Author. Available at: http://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/provisions-1-2-and-3

Abt Associates

References ▌pg. 51

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

Appendix: LEA and School Characteristics by State

Abt Associates

Appendix ▌pg. 53

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

Exhibit A.1.1: Regular and Charter LEA and School Characteristics—District of Columbia(SY 2013–14)

LEA Variables
Enrollment
Enrollment 1–499 (%)
Enrollment 500–2499 (%)
Enrollment 2500–4999 (%)
Enrollment 5000+ (%)
Percentage distribution of students ingrades K–12
Percent in grades K–5
Percent in grades 6–8
Percent in grades 9–12
Number of schools
1 school (%)
2–5 schools (%)
6–14 schools (%)
15+ schools (%)
Identified Student Percentage (ISP)
Students free/reduced lunch (%) (FRP)
Ratio of FRP to ISP
MeanMedianAny charter schools (%)
Percent Title I schools
Urban LEA (%)
Percent students Black
Percent students Hispanic/Latino
Total LEAs
Number of LEAs with VSR data
Number of LEAs with CCD data
School Variables
Enrollment
ISP
Students free/reduced lunch (%)
Grade span
K–5 (%)
6–8 (%)
9–12 (%)
Other (%)
Title I schools (%)
Charter schools (%)
Percent students Black
Percent students Hispanic/Latino
Total number of schools
Number of schools with CCD data

Near Eligible
Mean (SD)Eligible NonParticipating
Mean (SD)Participating
Mean (SD)

Combined
Mean (SD)

401.6
60.0
40.0
0.0
0.0

(356.3)

685.3
70.0
20.0
10.0
0.0

(869.2)

2,175.0 (7,967.4)
53.6
39.3
3.6
3.6

1,622.4 (6,447.7)
58.1
34.9
4.7
2.3

37.3
54.4
8.3
1.4
60.0
40.0
0.0
0.0
31.3
67.8

(47.8)(45.9)
(9.6)
(0.5)

54.9
21.4
23.7
2.1
70.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
45.4
79.1

(39.2)(19.7)(35.4)
(2.8)

2.2
2.2
100.0
80.0
100.0
68.7
18.4
5
5

(0.3)

1.9
1.8
100.0
85.0
100.0
88.5
10.3
10
10

(0.4)

310.2
34.9
64.3
33.3
33.3
0.0
33.3
83.3
100.0
65.6
20.6
6
6

(2.7)
(13.2)(44.7)(21.2)(10.7)(208.5)(3.3)(14.6)(20.5)(11.0)

339.7
28.4
58.2
39.4
13.5
18.3
28.8
50.0
43.3
71.9
11.5
106
104

(6.3)
(12.4)(33.7)(29.4)(26.9)(251.0)(16.6)(26.9)(30.6)(18.4)

51.2
14.9
33.9
6.2
57.1
28.6
10.7
3.6
51.3
82.3

(41.6)(13.3)(42.7)(22.0)

2.0
1.8
96.7
82.6
100.0
89.0
8.7
28
28

(0.7)

355.4
60.7
69.5
49.6
8.7
13.9
27.8
94.8
34.8
87.2
10.6
117
115

(10.4)(13.0)(32.2)(20.0)(17.7)(175.8)(11.8)(16.5)(21.6)(19.3)

50.6
20.6
28.8
4.7
60.5
27.9
9.3
2.3
47.6
79.9

(40.8)(22.7)(39.1)(17.8)

2.0
1.8
97.8
82.9
100.0
86.5
10.2
43
43

(0.6)

347.7
48.5
64.8
44.4
11.6
15.6
28.4
73.8
40.4
80.3
11.3
229
225

(11.0)(13.4)(33.2)(22.9)(19.3)(209.6)(20.6)(21.8)(26.7)(18.7)

Notes: The total number of schools refers to the total number of schools for which school-level data was reported(either by the State or by the Common Core of Data).

pg. 54 ▌Appendix

Abt Associates

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

Exhibit A.1.2: Regular and Charter LEA and School Characteristics—Florida (SY 2013–14)
Near Eligible
Mean (SD)LEA Variables
Enrollment
Enrollment 1–499 (%)
Enrollment 500–2499 (%)
Enrollment 2500–4999 (%)
Enrollment 5000+ (%)
Percentage distribution of students ingrades K–12
Percent in grades K–5
Percent in grades 6–8
Percent in grades 9–12
Number of schools
1 school (%)
2–5 schools (%)
6–14 schools (%)
15+ schools (%)
Identified Student Percentage (ISP)
Students free/reduced lunch (%) (FRP)
Ratio of FRP to ISP
MeanMedianAny charter schools (%)
Percent Title I schools
Urban LEA (%)
Percent students Black
Percent students Hispanic/Latino
Total LEAs
Number of LEAs with VSR data
Number of LEAs with CCD data
School Variables
Enrollment
ISP
Students free/reduced lunch (%)
Grade span
K–5 (%)
6–8 (%)
9–12 (%)
Other (%)
Title I schools (%)
Charter schools (%)
Percent students Black
Percent students Hispanic/Latino
Total number of schools
Number of schools with CCD data

1,181.8
60.0
30.0
0.0
10.0

(2,084.4)

53.5
28.2
18.3
3.0
50.0
40.0
0.0
10.0
29.0
75.0

(38.1)(32.0)(31.6)
(4.3)

2.3
2.3
80.0
77.1
20.0
12.3
40.9
10
10
10

(0.5)

881.4
23.0
41.2
45.2
16.8
21.5
16.5
58.6
10.9
16.0
14.6
328
321

(11.7)(18.1)(24.9)(10.0)(40.5)(549.9)(10.9)(18.2)(14.5)(16.6)

Eligible NonParticipating
Mean (SD)Participating
Mean (SD)

Combined
Mean (SD)24,790.9 (53,924.1)
21.1
22.5
9.9
46.5

26,123.3 (43,685.5)
26.7
13.3
13.3
46.7

23,024.0 (49,009.4)
26.1
20.7
9.9
43.2

49.7
30.4
19.9
31.1
19.7
23.9
15.5
40.8
35.6
66.6

(22.4)(22.5)(15.7)(61.6)

2.3
1.8
80.8
71.1
45.7
24.2
27.8
73
71
70

(2.0)

684.9
42.1
58.7
42.7
14.1
14.6
28.6
64.0
13.4
27.1
27.9
3,653
3,550

(16.7)(19.1)(25.2)(22.8)(24.9)(578.0)(20.5)(26.3)(25.7)(24.0)

52.4
22.5
25.1
35.7
23.3
16.7
23.3
36.7
41.0
70.4

(22.1)(16.6)(18.1)(56.1)

2.0
1.7
80.0
70.2
44.8
32.9
17.9
30
30
29

(1.1)

534.5
58.6
79.5
70.4
10.8
5.4
13.4
96.3
6.0
42.5
16.9
359
351

(14.2)(17.0)(21.0)(24.9)(19.1)(274.1)(13.1)(12.1)(29.5)(17.5)

50.8
28.1
21.1
29.8
23.4
23.4
16.2
36.9
36.5
68.4

(23.9)(22.2)(18.2)(57.7)

2.2
1.8
80.5
71.4
43.1
25.4
26.4
113
111
109

(1.7)

686.9
42.0
59.2
45.2
14.0
14.3
26.5
66.3
12.6
27.7
25.8
4,340
4,222

(15.9)(18.5)(24.0)(23.1)(25.8)(559.1)(20.7)(26.0)(26.0)(23.4)

Notes: The total number of schools refers to the total number of schools for which school-level data was reported(either by the State or by the Common Core of Data).

Abt Associates

Appendix ▌pg. 55

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

Exhibit A.1.3: Regular and Charter LEA and School Characteristics—Georgia (SY 2013–14)

LEA Variables
Enrollment
Enrollment 1–499 (%)
Enrollment 500–2499 (%)
Enrollment 2500–4999 (%)
Enrollment 5000+ (%)
Percentage distribution of students ingrades K–12
Percent in grades K–5
Percent in grades 6–8
Percent in grades 9–12
Number of schools
1 school (%)
2–5 schools (%)
6–14 schools (%)
15+ schools (%)
Identified Student Percentage (ISP)
Students free/reduced lunch (%) (FRP)
Ratio of FRP to ISP
MeanMedianAny charter schools (%)
Percent Title I schools
Urban LEA (%)
Percent students Black
Percent students Hispanic/Latino
Total LEAs
Number of LEAs with VSR data
Number of LEAs with CCD data
School Variables
Enrollment
ISP
Students free/reduced lunch (%)
Grade span
K–5 (%)
6–8 (%)
9–12 (%)
Other (%)
Title I schools (%)
Charter schools (%)
Percent students Black
Percent students Hispanic/Latino
Total number of schools
Number of schools with CCD data

Near Eligible
Mean (SD)Eligible NonParticipating
Mean (SD)Participating
Mean (SD)

Combined
Mean (SD)4,364.7
10.8
32.4
35.1
21.6

(4,553.7)

6,577.1 (12,677.4)
8.8
29.8
29.8
31.6

8,992.9 (17,528.4)
6.1
36.7
28.6
28.6

6,832.4 (13,255.9)
8.4
32.9
30.8
28.0

45.5
26.7
27.9
6.8
16.2
48.6
18.9
16.2
34.8
64.5

(8.7)
(13.7)
(5.5)
(6.5)

1.9
1.8
29.7
0.0
0.0
18.1
8.1
37
37
32

(0.2)

(3.0)
(8.5)

(0.0)
(20.1)
(7.9)

47.5
23.1
29.4
9.4
8.8
50.9
22.8
17.5
45.7
71.4

(8.7)
(3.7)
(11.8)(14.7)

1.6
1.6
26.3
0.0
9.3
38.1
6.9
57
57
54

(0.3)

(11.6)(11.1)(0.0)(22.6)
(6.1)

639.2

(322.3)687.3(374.8)63.2(12.6)

65.8(23.9)

51.9
21.1
16.2
10.9
0.0
3.4
14.5
11.1
275
266

(18.0)(13.0)

48.4
18.8
18.6
14.2
0.0
6.8
47.7
9.1
1,009
948

(31.5)(12.7)

48.7
23.6
27.7
13.1
10.2
51.0
24.5
14.3
50.8
75.8

(2.5)
(1.3)
(2.0)
(23.6)

1.5
1.4
28.6
0.0
14.9
46.3
8.0
49
49
47

(0.2)

606.1
63.2
82.2
58.1
21.3
14.0
6.6
0.0
2.6
64.1
8.4
436
422

(9.1)
(8.8)

(0.0)
(23.2)(8.1)(292.2)(14.1)(12.9)(28.1)(10.4)

47.5
24.1
28.4
10.0
11.2
50.3
22.4
16.1
44.4
71.1

(7.2)
(7.1)
(8.1)
(17.0)

1.7
1.6
28.0
0.0
9.0
36.3
7.6
143
143
133

(0.3)

656.5
63.2
70.0
51.5
19.8
17.0
11.7
0.0
5.1
46.8
9.2
1,720
1,636

(11.0)(10.6)(0.0)(24.6)(7.2)(346.5)(14.1)(21.2)(32.9)(12.2)

Notes: The total number of schools refers to the total number of schools for which school-level data was reported(either by the State or by the Common Core of Data). Note also that Georgia could not report school ISPs for
non-participating schools and that non-participating schools in participating LEAs are treated as eligible even if
they are missing a school ISP.

pg. 56 ▌Appendix

Abt Associates

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

Exhibit A.1.4: Regular and Charter LEA and School Characteristics—Illinois (SY 2013–14)

LEA Variables
Enrollment
Enrollment 1–499 (%)
Enrollment 500–2499 (%)
Enrollment 2500–4999 (%)
Enrollment 5000+ (%)
Percentage distribution of students ingrades K–12
Percent in grades K–5
Percent in grades 6–8
Percent in grades 9–12
Number of schools
1 school (%)
2–5 schools (%)
6–14 schools (%)
15+ schools (%)
Identified Student Percentage (ISP)
Students free/reduced lunch (%) (FRP)
Ratio of FRP to ISP
MeanMedianAny charter schools (%)
Percent Title I schools
Urban LEA (%)
Percent students Black
Percent students Hispanic/Latino
Total LEAs
Number of LEAs with VSR data
Number of LEAs with CCD data
School Variables
Enrollment
ISP
Students free/reduced lunch (%)
Grade span
K–5 (%)
6–8 (%)
9–12 (%)
Other (%)
Title I schools (%)
Charter schools (%)
Percent students Black
Percent students Hispanic/Latino
Total number of schools
Number of schools with CCD data

Near Eligible
Mean (SD)Eligible NonParticipating
Mean (SD)Participating
Mean (SD)

Combined
Mean (SD)

922.9
41.2
54.4
2.9
1.5

(1,004.3)

5,161.5 (24,891.6)
23.0
44.7
13.0
19.3

8,082.4 (47,849.5)
35.5
43.5
9.7
11.3

4,793.4 (28,802.4)
29.9
46.7
10.0
13.4

53.9
27.7
18.4
2.3
38.2
60.3
1.5
0.0
33.2
59.0

(17.0)(9.4)(25.8)
(1.4)

1.8
1.7
3.0
95.2
1.5
8.4
10.4
68
68
65

(0.3)

359.1
31.9
53.8
37.6
25.3
21.8
15.3
95.9
0.0
7.0
13.4
173
170

(2.7)
(11.0)(18.4)(16.8)(16.1)(253.9)(4.8)(13.7)(15.8)(20.5)

50.9
25.8
23.2
6.2
13.7
55.3
23.0
8.1
39.2
64.8

(16.5)(8.9)(25.0)
(7.4)

1.7
1.6
6.2
90.5
7.6
14.8
16.4
162
161
157

(0.4)

536.3
36.6
60.7
50.2
14.9
15.0
19.8
75.7
2.7
23.4
24.7
1,435
1,405

(13.5)(19.2)(17.0)(22.4)(21.0)(559.7)(22.5)(25.0)(29.6)(27.3)

57.1
28.4
14.5
14.4
19.4
58.1
14.5
8.1
50.5
71.2

(10.8)(5.7)(15.4)(73.7)

1.9
1.7
10.1
95.8
7.5
29.9
11.9
69
62
67

(1.0)

512.3
60.8
87.9
29.6
10.8
10.4
49.2
97.9
1.9
52.6
27.3
659
628

(20.0)(17.7)(10.3)(34.6)(19.4)(365.7)(19.4)(14.1)(40.7)(36.1)

53.0
26.8
20.1
7.0
20.6
57.0
16.2
6.2
40.2
64.9

(15.6)(8.4)(23.5)(34.5)

1.8
1.7
6.4
92.8
6.2
16.8
14.0
299
291
289

(0.6)

515.5
37.3
68.0
43.4
14.6
14.2
27.8
83.6
2.3
30.6
24.5
2,267
2,203

(14.8)(17.7)(16.2)(25.8)(19.8)(494.0)(21.9)(25.1)(35.6)(29.8)

Notes: The total number of schools refers to the total number of schools for which school-level data was reported(either by the State or by the Common Core of Data).

Abt Associates

Appendix ▌pg. 57

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

Exhibit A.1.5: Regular and Charter LEA and School Characteristics—Kentucky (SY 2013–14)
Near Eligible
Mean (SD)LEA Variables
Enrollment
Enrollment 1–499 (%)
Enrollment 500–2499 (%)
Enrollment 2500–4999 (%)
Enrollment 5000+ (%)
Percentage distribution of students ingrades K–12
Percent in grades K–5
Percent in grades 6–8
Percent in grades 9–12
Number of schools
1 school (%)
2–5 schools (%)
6–14 schools (%)
15+ schools (%)
Identified Student Percentage (ISP)
Students free/reduced lunch (%) (FRP)
Ratio of FRP to ISP
MeanMedianAny charter schools (%)
Percent Title I schools
Urban LEA (%)
Percent students Black
Percent students Hispanic/Latino
Total LEAs
Number of LEAs with VSR data
Number of LEAs with CCD data
School Variables
Enrollment
ISP
Students free/reduced lunch (%)
Grade span
K–5 (%)
6–8 (%)
9–12 (%)
Other (%)
Title I schools (%)
Charter schools (%)
Percent students Black
Percent students Hispanic/Latino
Total number of schools
Number of schools with CCD data

0
0
0
739.5
26.9
38.5
48.1
27.2
24.7
0.0
63.0
0.0
8.6
4.8
85
81

(411.1)(8.7)(12.1)

(9.2)
(3.9)

Eligible NonParticipating
Mean (SD)Participating
Mean (SD)4,236.5 (10,421.4)
5.9
48.0
29.4
16.7

4,059.6
3.1
43.1
36.9
16.9

(5,359.1)

4,167.6
4.8
46.1
32.3
16.8

(8,784.0)

47.8
23.0
29.3
8.4
1.5
40.0
47.7
10.8
48.0
66.6

(3.9)
(1.4)
(4.5)
(8.1)

47.2
23.2
29.6
7.8
7.8
43.1
40.1
9.0
41.0
62.6

(4.3)
(1.4)
(4.6)
(12.6)

1.7
1.6
0.0
77.5
3.6
5.3
3.1
167
167
167

(0.5)

46.8
23.4
29.8
7.4
11.8
45.1
35.3
7.8
36.5
60.0

(4.5)
(1.4)
(4.7)
(14.8)

1.7
1.6
0.0
76.5
2.9
4.7
3.3
102
102
102

(0.3)

483.7
44.0
55.1
42.4
15.3
27.2
15.1
63.8
0.0
12.8
4.8
1,163
1,128

(11.0)(15.1)(19.4)(6.4)(2.8)(345.5)(17.1)(20.9)(17.5)
(7.0)

1.8
1.6
0.0
78.9
4.6
6.3
3.0
65
65
65
427.2
61.6
69.6
53.7
11.4
12.6
22.3
92.7
0.0
6.0
2.7
369
341

(16.7)(13.0)(0.6)(15.4)(10.2)(3.9)(218.8)(12.4)(11.7)(11.4)(4.5)

Combined
Mean (SD)

484.6
47.9
57.7
45.2
15.1
23.9
15.9
70.1
0.0
10.9
4.3
1,617
1,550

(14.6)(14.6)(18.0)(8.1)(3.3)(330.4)(18.2)(20.2)(16.1)(6.4)

Notes: The total number of schools refers to the total number of schools for which school-level data was reported(either by the State or by the Common Core of Data).

pg. 58 ▌Appendix

Abt Associates

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

Exhibit A.1.6: Regular and Charter LEA and School Characteristics—Maryland (SY 2013–14)
Near Eligible
Mean (SD)LEA Variables
Enrollment
Enrollment 1–499 (%)
Enrollment 500–2499 (%)
Enrollment 2500–4999 (%)
Enrollment 5000+ (%)
Percentage distribution of students ingrades K–12
Percent in grades K–5
Percent in grades 6–8
Percent in grades 9–12
Number of schools
1 school (%)
2–5 schools (%)
6–14 schools (%)
15+ schools (%)
Identified Student Percentage (ISP)
Students free/reduced lunch (%) (FRP)
Ratio of FRP to ISP
MeanMedianAny charter schools (%)
Percent Title I schools
Urban LEA (%)
Percent students Black
Percent students Hispanic/Latino
Total LEAs
Number of LEAs with VSR data
Number of LEAs with CCD data
School Variables
Enrollment
ISP
Students free/reduced lunch (%)
Grade span
K–5 (%)
6–8 (%)
9–12 (%)
Other (%)
Title I schools (%)
Charter schools (%)
Percent students Black
Percent students Hispanic/Latino
Total number of schools
Number of schools with CCD data

0
0
0
504.0
21.9
41.6
54.3
17.1
22.9
5.7
0.0
0.0
8.5
4.7
36
35

(317.8)(8.3)(13.9)

(7.9)
(3.0)

Eligible NonParticipating
Mean (SD)38,963.2 (43,976.6)
0.0
4.8
14.3
81.0

Participating
Mean (SD)22,060.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0

Combined
Mean (SD)38,194.9 (43,067.8)
0.0
4.5
13.6
81.8

46.1

(2.1)

46.2

46.1

(2.1)

22.3
31.5
64.7
0.0
0.0
28.6
71.4
27.6
43.9

(0.7)
(1.7)
(69.6)

23.2
30.7
46.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
27.4
48.7

22.4
31.5
63.9
0.0
0.0
27.3
72.7
27.6
44.1

(0.7)
(1.6)
(68.0)

1.7
1.6
28.6
27.3
9.5
26.9
7.9
21
21
21

(0.4)

1.8
1.8
0.0
12.8
0.0
11.9
5.8
1
1
1

1.7
1.6
27.3
26.6
9.1
26.2
7.8
22
22
22

(0.3)

606.2
29.4
46.9
55.6
16.1
16.5
11.7
25.6
3.7
39.4
11.8
1,423
1,381

(15.2)(18.5)(18.4)(21.0)(6.0)(400.8)(21.6)(28.4)(33.1)(14.9)

445.7
59.0
82.7
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
20.7
6.5
5
3

(201.7)(10.1)
(9.5)

(2.3)
(2.8)

603.3
29.4
46.9
55.7
16.1
16.6
11.6
25.2
3.6
38.6
11.6
1,464
1,419

(14.9)(18.1)(18.3)(20.8)(5.8)(398.8)(21.5)(28.1)(33.0)(14.7)

Notes: The total number of schools refers to the total number of schools for which school-level data was reported(either by the State or by the Common Core of Data).

Abt Associates

Appendix ▌pg. 59

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

Exhibit A.1.7: Regular and Charter LEA and School Characteristics—Massachusetts(SY 2013–14)

LEA Variables
Enrollment
Enrollment 1–499 (%)
Enrollment 500–2499 (%)
Enrollment 2500–4999 (%)
Enrollment 5000+ (%)
Percentage distribution of students ingrades K–12
Percent in grades K–5
Percent in grades 6–8
Percent in grades 9–12
Number of schools
1 school (%)
2–5 schools (%)
6–14 schools (%)
15+ schools (%)
Identified Student Percentage (ISP)
Students free/reduced lunch (%) (FRP)
Ratio of FRP to ISP
MeanMedianAny charter schools (%)
Percent Title I schools
Urban LEA (%)
Percent students Black
Percent students Hispanic/Latino
Total LEAs
Number of LEAs with VSR data
Number of LEAs with CCD data
School Variables
Enrollment
ISP
Students free/reduced lunch (%)
Grade span
K–5 (%)
6–8 (%)
9–12 (%)
Other (%)
Title I schools (%)
Charter schools (%)
Percent students Black
Percent students Hispanic/Latino
Total number of schools
Number of schools with CCD data

Near Eligible
Mean (SD)Eligible NonParticipating
Mean (SD)2,685.9
21.4
42.9
7.1
28.6

(2,776.6)

7,872.7
26.1
13.0
8.7
52.2

(8,183.1)

58,478.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0

45.2
26.2
28.6
5.4
28.6
35.7
35.7
0.0
34.6
68.5

(23.4)(16.1)(24.0)
(5.0)

53.7
19.7
26.6
16.4
26.1
4.3
26.1
43.5
52.5
76.4

(20.4)(8.5)(19.8)(17.3)

47.1
21.3
31.5
140.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
57.7

50.4
22.2
27.5
15.6
26.3
15.8
28.9
28.9
47.2
73.0

(21.4)(12.0)(20.9)(25.4)

2.0
2.0
42.9
80.5
15.4
11.5
24.0
14
14
13

(0.4)

1.5
1.5
26.1
79.2
33.3
13.9
42.8
23
23
21

(0.3)

0.6
0.6
0.0
82.2
100.0
33.7
43.0
1
1
1

1.6
1.6
31.6
79.8
28.6
13.6
35.8
38
38
35

(0.5)

(3.6)
(16.6)(19.9)(11.7)(18.1)(9.5)(10.4)(25.6)(16.4)(25.8)

Participating
Mean (SD)

Combined
Mean (SD)7,293.5 (11,026.0)
23.7
23.7
7.9
44.7

(14.5)(13.5)(22.9)(14.8)(24.3)

567.4(405.6)528.2(415.9)470.3(336.1)519.9(397.9)54.3(18.6)

74.8(16.3)

70.5(13.9)

71.1(17.5)

50.0
18.2
15.2
16.7
69.7
7.6
7.1
19.5
66
66

(7.7)
(15.2)

59.0
17.3
13.3
10.5
82.7
1.2
13.1
43.6
324
324

(13.3)(25.8)

44.4
8.9
22.2
24.4
82.2
0.0
34.6
44.4
135
135

(18.5)(17.8)

54.1
15.2
15.8
14.9
81.0
1.7
17.3
40.6
525
525

(17.1)(24.3)

Notes: The total number of schools refers to the total number of schools for which school-level data was reported(either by the State or by the Common Core of Data). Since Massachusetts did not report school-level data, thefigures in this table derive exclusively from the CCD. The only participating LEA in Massachusetts was Boston
Public Schools, which elected to adopt the CEP in all schools. However, the total number of participating schools

pg. 60 ▌Appendix

Abt Associates

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum
reported in this table is based on the number of schools in Boston Public for which the Common Core reports
school-level data. This number (135) is fewer than the total number of schools in Boston Public reported by theState (144).

Abt Associates

Appendix ▌pg. 61

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

Exhibit A.1.8: Regular and Charter LEA and School Characteristics—Michigan (SY 2013–14)

LEA Variables
Enrollment
Enrollment 1–499 (%)
Enrollment 500–2499 (%)
Enrollment 2500–4999 (%)
Enrollment 5000+ (%)
Percentage distribution of students ingrades K–12
Percent in grades K–5
Percent in grades 6–8
Percent in grades 9–12
Number of schools
1 school (%)
2–5 schools (%)
6–14 schools (%)
15+ schools (%)
Identified Student Percentage (ISP)
Students free/reduced lunch (%) (FRP)
Ratio of FRP to ISP
MeanMedianAny charter schools (%)
Percent Title I schools
Urban LEA (%)
Percent students Black
Percent students Hispanic/Latino
Total LEAs
Number of LEAs with VSR data
Number of LEAs with CCD data
School Variables
Enrollment
ISP
Students free/reduced lunch (%)
Grade span
K–5 (%)
6–8 (%)
9–12 (%)
Other (%)
Title I schools (%)
Charter schools (%)
Percent students Black
Percent students Hispanic/Latino
Total number of schools
Number of schools with CCD data

Near Eligible
Mean (SD)Eligible NonParticipating
Mean (SD)Participating
Mean (SD)

607.2
49.1
50.9
0.0
0.0

(478.7)2,152.3
21.3
52.4
18.2
8.1

(3,002.9)

2,684.9
34.6
43.9
10.3
11.2

(7,198.8)

2,097.3
27.1
50.5
14.5
7.9

(4,158.7)

53.7
23.0
23.4
1.7
65.5
34.5
0.0
0.0
28.6
57.7

(20.6)(8.9)(19.9)
(1.0)

44.6
22.7
32.7
4.6
27.7
43.5
25.4
3.5
35.0
62.9

(19.0)(9.0)(22.4)
(4.8)

54.5
22.3
23.2
6.0
40.2
34.6
17.8
7.5
74.3
78.9

(18.6)(8.2)(19.4)(13.8)

47.6
22.7
29.8
4.5
34.4
40.7
21.0
3.9
42.6
65.7

(19.6)(8.8)(22.0)
(7.5)

2.1
1.9
43.1
93.2
12.5
7.5
5.1
65
55
64

(0.6)

3.1
1.8
34.8
83.2
21.7
25.2
6.6
400
347
382

(13.4)

1.8
1.6
44.4
88.2
41.7
47.3
6.9
108
107
108

(0.5)

437.2
39.2
57.3

(325.8)(17.9)(20.2)

406.5
30.1
49.2
35.6
14.4
19.4
30.6
79.4
19.4
5.3
4.2
163
160

(6.6)
(9.6)

(18.5)(16.6)(8.1)(317.5)(7.7)(13.7)(14.0)
(5.9)

45.0
16.0
23.9
15.1
72.9
8.1
18.5
6.6
2,101
2,035

(16.0)(18.8)(24.7)(35.5)(10.9)(28.6)(10.4)

398.8
64.3
81.0
43.8
11.2
20.0
25.1
90.5
12.6
53.2
11.8
497
475

(26.4)(16.4)(16.9)(40.1)(10.8)(256.5)(16.0)(12.9)(37.0)(18.4)

Combined
Mean (SD)

2.7
1.8
37.6
85.4
24.5
27.5
6.5
573
509
554
428.0
43.7
61.3
44.2
15.1
22.9
17.8
76.4
9.6
24.3
7.5
2,761
2,670

(24.4)(18.8)(11.2)(22.9)(36.6)(10.6)(313.7)(20.0)(21.1)(33.0)(12.3)

Notes: The total number of schools refers to the total number of schools for which school-level data was reported(either by the State or by the Common Core of Data).

pg. 62 ▌Appendix

Abt Associates

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

Exhibit A.1.9: Regular and Charter LEA and School Characteristics—New York (SY 2013–14)
Near Eligible
Mean (SD)Eligible NonParticipating
Mean (SD)2,771.7
23.8
57.1
14.3
4.8

(5,415.6)

674.0
61.1
38.9
0.0
0.0

(634.9)

48.4
23.4
28.3
4.9
33.3
38.1
23.8
4.8
33.9
58.3

(13.8)
(8.7)
(7.3)
(7.9)

52.3
21.4
26.2
1.9
72.2
22.2
5.6
0.0
47.8
80.7

(35.6)(24.8)(38.8)
(1.7)

1.7
1.7
14.3
96.8
15.0
13.4
14.4
21
21
20

(0.2)

1.7
1.7
72.2
94.1
64.7
55.6
20.7
18
18
17

(0.3)

Participating
Mean (SD)

Combined
Mean (SD)LEA Variables
Enrollment
Enrollment 1–499 (%)
Enrollment 500–2499 (%)
Enrollment 2500–4999 (%)
Enrollment 5000+ (%)
Percentage distribution of students ingrades K–12
Percent in grades K–5
Percent in grades 6–8
Percent in grades 9–12
Number of schools
1 school (%)
2–5 schools (%)
6–14 schools (%)
15+ schools (%)
Identified Student Percentage (ISP)
Students free/reduced lunch (%) (FRP)
Ratio of FRP to ISP
MeanMedianAny charter schools (%)
Percent Title I schools
Urban LEA (%)
Percent students Black
Percent students Hispanic/Latino
Total LEAs
Number of LEAs with VSR data
Number of LEAs with CCD data
School Variables
Enrollment
ISP
Students free/reduced lunch (%)
Grade span
K–5 (%)
6–8 (%)
9–12 (%)
Other (%)
Title I schools (%)
Charter schools (%)
Percent students Black
Percent students Hispanic/Latino
Total number of schools
Number of schools with CCD data

(2.6)
(9.1)

(7.6)
(18.7)(16.7)(10.7)(11.8)(24.3)(36.1)(22.6)

559.2(266.7)627.8(525.3)

62.7(16.3)

73.8(21.7)

47.6
10.7
15.5
26.2
96.1
1.9
14.5
29.5
103
103

(13.4)(24.8)

39.7
18.9
24.7
16.8
92.8
0.8
35.0
40.3
1,593
1,585

(28.5)(25.9)

42,637.9 (208,584.8) 20,207.8 (140,340.5
34.4
38.0
18.8
35.2
6.3
7.0
40.6
19.7

62.3
22.3
15.3
71.6
37.5
15.6
25.0
21.9
59.3
78.8

(24.1)(16.9)(14.5)(344.8)

2.5
1.5
52.9
86.7
88.2
53.9
21.8
34
32
34

(3.5)

577.1
60.7
79.7
50.6
9.3
12.7
27.4
87.3
8.5
43.3
25.0
469
354

(15.6)(13.7)(32.3)(24.4)(16.8)(333.3)(19.5)(13.9)(25.8)(20.9)

56.0
22.4
21.6
34.2
45.1
23.9
19.7
11.3
48.7
73.2

(25.4)(17.1)(22.0)(232.0)

2.1
1.6
46.6
91.3
62.0
42.5
19.4
73
71
71

(2.3)

615.5
60.7
74.3
42.0
16.8
22.1
19.1
92.0
2.2
35.5
37.1
2,165
2,042

(15.9)(15.3)(25.8)(31.9)(18.3)(487.1)(19.5)(20.6)(28.1)(25.7)

Notes: The total number of schools refers to the total number of schools for which school-level data was reported(either by the State or by the Common Core of Data). Note also that New York could not report school ISPs for
non-participating schools and that non-participating schools in participating LEAs are treated as eligible even if
they are missing a school ISP.

Abt Associates

Appendix ▌pg. 63

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

Exhibit A.1.10: Regular and Charter LEA and School Characteristics—Ohio (SY 2013–14)

LEA Variables
Enrollment
Enrollment 1–499 (%)
Enrollment 500–2499 (%)
Enrollment 2500–4999 (%)
Enrollment 5000+ (%)
Percentage distribution of students ingrades K–12
Percent in grades K–5
Percent in grades 6–8
Percent in grades 9–12
Number of schools
1 school (%)
2–5 schools (%)
6–14 schools (%)
15+ schools (%)
Identified Student Percentage (ISP)
Students free/reduced lunch (%) (FRP)
Ratio of FRP to ISP
MeanMedianAny charter schools (%)
Percent Title I schools
Urban LEA (%)
Percent students Black
Percent students Hispanic/Latino
Total LEAs
Number of LEAs with VSR data
Number of LEAs with CCD data
School Variables
Enrollment
ISP
Students free/reduced lunch (%)
Grade span
K–5 (%)
6–8 (%)
9–12 (%)
Other (%)
Title I schools (%)
Charter schools (%)
Percent students Black
Percent students Hispanic/Latino
Total number of schools
Number of schools with CCD data

Near Eligible
Mean (SD)Eligible NonParticipating
Mean (SD)Participating
Mean (SD)1,905.5
17.9
62.3
14.2
5.7

(2,283.4)

1,689.9
64.4
23.0
7.4
5.2

(5,595.5)

1,518.0
65.6
22.1
5.7
6.6

(4,469.1)

1,695.1
51.2
34.2
8.8
5.8

(4,449.9)

46.5
22.9
30.6
3.7
25.5
57.5
16.0
0.9
35.0
61.7

(18.6)(10.6)(20.1)
(3.6)

56.1
22.9
21.1
3.7
73.3
17.0
6.7
3.0
55.6
84.6

(29.5)(19.0)(31.5)(11.5)

56.8
23.7
19.4
3.7
67.2
22.1
5.7
4.9
61.3
84.0

(31.1)(22.5)(27.2)
(9.9)

53.4
23.1
23.4
3.7
57.3
30.6
9.1
3.0
51.5
77.7

(27.6)(18.2)(27.4)
(9.2)

1.8
1.7
18.9
94.3
19.8
16.7
3.4
106
106
106

(0.3)

1.6
1.5
72.6
93.1
66.4
55.4
5.7
135
135
131

(0.3)

1.6
1.5
70.5
96.7
64.6
47.9
7.6
122
122
113

(0.5)

1.6
1.6
56.2
94.6
51.7
41.2
5.6
363
363
350

(0.4)

(2.9)
(12.3)(14.1)(27.6)(5.7)(12.9)(13.5)(23.0)(34.9)
(9.2)

481.4

(287.5)429.7(266.4)56.7(24.4)

68.5(29.7)

50.5
21.7
19.2
8.6
92.8
4.7
14.7
4.1
445
428

(23.8)
(6.9)

39.4
14.4
16.1
30.2
90.5
15.6
44.0
5.4
659
620

(34.1)
(7.9)

421.3
65.0
80.0
38.5
9.8
13.7
38.0
98.7
19.5
48.7
7.9
409
379

(16.2)(13.8)(14.6)(36.5)(13.5)(251.2)(14.6)(19.9)(34.8)(13.2)

Combined
Mean (SD)

443.0
65.0
68.1
42.5
15.3
16.4
25.8
93.3
13.4
36.5
5.7
1,513
1,427

(16.4)(16.8)(18.1)(37.2)(10.1)(270.0)(14.6)(27.2)(34.7)(9.5)

Notes: The total number of schools refers to the total number of schools for which school-level data was reported(either by the State or by the Common Core of Data). Note also that Ohio could not report school ISPs for nonparticipating schools and that non-participating schools in participating LEAs are treated as eligible even if they
are missing a school ISP.

pg. 64 ▌Appendix

Abt Associates

Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation: Year 3 Addendum

Exhibit A.1.11: Regular and Charter LEA and School Characteristics—West Virginia(SY 2013–14)

LEA Variables
Enrollment
Enrollment 1–499 (%)
Enrollment 500–2499 (%)
Enrollment 2500–4999 (%)
Enrollment 5000+ (%)
Percentage distribution of students ingrades K–12
Percent in grades K–5
Percent in grades 6–8
Percent in grades 9–12
Number of schools
1 school (%)
2–5 schools (%)
6–14 schools (%)
15+ schools (%)
Identified Student Percentage (ISP)
Students free/reduced lunch (%) (FRP)
Ratio of FRP to ISP
MeanMedianAny charter schools (%)
Percent Title I schools
Urban LEA (%)
Percent students Black
Percent students Hispanic/Latino
Total LEAs
Number of LEAs with VSR data
Number of LEAs with CCD data
School Variables
Enrollment
ISP
Students free/reduced lunch (%)
Grade span
K–5 (%)
6–8 (%)
9–12 (%)
Other (%)
Title I schools (%)
Charter schools (%)
Percent students Black
Percent students Hispanic/Latino
Total number of schools
Number of schools with CCD data

Near Eligible
Mean (SD)Eligible NonParticipating
Mean (SD)Participating
Mean (SD)

1,126.5
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0

(132.2)4,539.6
0.0
46.2
30.8
23.1

(4,109.5)

5,435.7
0.0
30.8
38.5
30.8

(5,329.1)

5,060.4
0.0
37.0
35.2
27.8

(4,994.0)

41.3
25.1
33.6
3.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
27.9
51.4

(2.3)
(0.0)
(2.3)
(0.0)

45.3
23.7
31.0
10.7
0.0
30.8
46.2
23.1
34.6
52.7

(1.6)
(0.6)
(1.5)
(8.2)

46.2
23.3
30.4
13.6
0.0
17.9
51.3
30.8
40.2
55.5

(1.9)
(1.0)
(1.7)
(11.7)

45.8
23.5
30.7
12.5
0.0
24.1
48.1
27.8
38.4
54.7

(2.0)
(1.0)
(1.7)
(10.9)

1.8
1.8
0.0
53.3
0.0
0.7
0.8
2
2
2

(0.1)

1.5
1.5
0.0
50.8
15.4
1.9
0.9
13
13
13

(0.2)

1.5
1.5
0.0
55.1
2.6
3.1
0.8
39
39
39

(0.1)

1.5
1.5
0.0
54.0
5.6
2.7
0.8
54
54
54

(0.1)

534.2
29.4
44.0
46.1
21.3
19.1
13.5
24.7
0.0
4.2
2.3
90
89

(0.6)
(0.7)

(18.9)(0.3)(0.8)(373.3)
(6.1)
(8.0)

(4.9)
(2.6)

447.5
37.9
52.3
41.4
19.7
18.3
20.7
32.8
0.0
2.7
0.9
292
290

(5.3)
(7.7)

(18.6)(1.2)(1.0)(295.3)(12.9)(13.7)

(4.3)
(2.3)

328.9
49.7
63.1
70.9
12.8
7.0
9.3
67.4
0.0
5.6
0.9
345
344

Combined
Mean (SD)(16.6)(8.1)(16.4)(3.7)(1.2)(198.1)(12.0)(12.9)(10.0)
(2.1)

398.8
42.7
56.7
56.0
16.6
13.0
14.4
48.3
0.0
4.4
1.1
727
723

(14.7)(7.9)(16.8)(3.2)(1.1)(274.0)(13.9)(14.5)

(7.9)
(2.3)

Notes: The total number of schools refers to the total number of schools for which school-level data was reported(either by the State or by the Common Core of Data).

Abt Associates

Appendix ▌pg. 65