The National School Lunch Program Direct 

Certification Improvement Study: Main Report

Nutrition Assistance Program Report August 2014 

Food and Nutrition Service Office of Policy Support 
USDA is an Equal Opportunity Provider 
 

 

The National School Lunch Program Direct 

Certification Improvement Study: Main 

Report

Authors: 

Quinn Moore 

Andrew Gothro 

Kevin Conway 

Brandon Kyler 

Submitted by: 

Mathematica Policy Research 

P.O. Box 2393 

Princeton, NJ 08543 

Project Director: 

Kevin Conway 

Submitted to: 

Office of Policy Support 

Food and Nutrition Service

3101 Park Center Drive 

Alexandria, VA 22302 

Project Officer: 

Joseph F. Robare 

This study was conducted under Contract number AG-3198-D-10-0074 with the Food and 

Nutrition 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: 

Moore, Q., Gothro, A., Conway, K., Kyler B., (2014). National School Lunch Program Direct 

Certification Improvement Study. Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Under Contract 

No. AG-3198-D-10-0074. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 

Service, Office of Policy Support, Project Officer: Joseph F. Robare. Available online at: 

www.fns.usda.gov/research-and-analysis.

Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support August 2014

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many people made important contributions to this study. We thank Joseph Robare, Vivian 

Lees, and Patty Von Reyn at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food and Nutrition 

Service (FNS) for their support, guidance, and feedback, all of which were necessary to the 

successful completion of this report.

We are very grateful to State Child Nutrition staff in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and 

Guam, as well as district-level Child Nutrition staff across the country, for participating in the 

National Survey of Direct Certification Practices. We are also grateful to the state agencies that 

participated in the in-depth case studies described in this report: the Department of Human 

Resources and State Department of Education in Alabama; the Department of Economic Security 

and Department of Education in Arizona; the Department of Social Services and State Department 

of Education in Connecticut; the Department of Education and Family Social Services 

Administration in Indiana; the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human 

Services in Nebraska; the Department of Agriculture, the Education Agency, and the Health and 

Human Services Commission in Texas; and the Department of Education and Department of 

Health and Human Services in West Virginia. Child nutrition staff members in 15 school districts 

within these States also provided valuable information on how direct certification processes worked 

at the district level.

Many Mathematica colleagues provided invaluable research assistance and advice. Sarah 

Forrestal and Larry Vittoriano managed the survey data collection effort. Ryan McInerney

contributed to qualitative data collection. Lara Hulsey provided quality assurance. Kathryn Gonzalez 

performed data analysis. John Kennedy and William Garrett carefully edited the report. Dawn 

Patterson provided production support.

v 

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...............................................................................................iii

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS.........................................................................................xi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................... ES-1 

I INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................. 1

A. Description of Direct Certification............................................................... 1

1. National School Lunch Program.......................................................... 1

2. Direct Certification in the NSLP........................................................... 3

3. Special Provisions for School Meal Reimbursement ........................... 4

B. Study Objectives........................................................................................ 5

C. Research Approach ................................................................................... 6

1. National Survey of NSLP Direct Certification Practices....................... 7

2. In-Depth Case Studies ........................................................................ 9

D. Organization of the Report....................................................................... 11

II PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF DIRECT CERTIFICATION........... 13

A. Use of Central and Local Matching Systems ........................................... 13

B. Role of Districts in Direct Certification...................................................... 14

C. Communication and Training................................................................... 18

D. Monitoring Direct Certification Activities................................................... 21

E. Direct Certification System Development Resources............................... 22

F. Relationships with Other Agencies .......................................................... 27

III DIRECT CERTIFICATION MATCHING PROCEDURES ............................... 31

A. Enrollment Data Used in Direct Certification............................................ 31

1. Enrollment Data Sources and Characteristics................................... 31

2. Statewide Student Information Systems............................................ 32

3. Challenges with Enrollment Data ...................................................... 33

B. Program Data Used in Direct Certification ............................................... 35
Contents Mathematica Policy Research

vi

C. Direct Certification Matching Frequency .................................................. 39

D. Direct Certification Matching Procedures................................................. 40

1. Data Elements Used in Matching ...................................................... 41

2. Direct Certification Matching Procedures .......................................... 44

E. Probabilistic Matching.............................................................................. 47

F. Extending Categorical Eligibility............................................................... 48

G. Approach to Nonpublic Schools............................................................... 49

H. Direct Certification Systems..................................................................... 52

I. Feasibility of Using Medicaid Data for Direct Certification........................ 54

IV CHALLENGES AND PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS TO DIRECT 

CERTIFICATION............................................................................................ 57

A. Barriers to Effective Direct Certification ................................................... 57

B. Planned Improvements to Direct Certification.......................................... 60

V LESSONS LEARNED .................................................................................... 65

APPENDIX A: NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION STATE PROFILES

APPENDIX B: IN-DEPTH CASE STUDY NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION

PROFILES
Tables and Figures Mathematica Policy Research

vii

TABLES

I.1 Final Survey Status of State- and District-Level Respondents ......................... 8

I.2 States Selected for In-Depth Case Study....................................................... 10

I.3 Summary of On-Site Data Collection Activities, by State ............................... 10

II.1 Intended Roles of Districts in Central Matching Case Study States, 

SY 2012–2013 ............................................................................................... 15

II.2 District Procedures in Central Matching Case Study States, 

SY 2012–2013 ............................................................................................... 17

II.3 Communication and Training with Districts in Case Study States, 

SY 2012–2013 ............................................................................................... 20

II.4 Monitoring of District Direct Certification Activities in Central 

Matching States, SY 2012–2013.................................................................... 21

II.5 Tracking Performance of Direct Certification System, SY 2012–2013 

(percentages)................................................................................................. 22

II.6 Entities Consulted in Developing Direct Certification Matching 

Systems, SY 2012–2013 (percentages)......................................................... 23

II.7 Resources for Developing Direct Certification Matching Systems, as 

of SY 2012–2013 (percentages) .................................................................... 24

II.8 Funding and Development Resources Employed in Case Study 

States, as of SY 2012–2013........................................................................... 25

II.9 Use of Federal Direct Certification Grants for Developing Matching 

Systems, as of SY 2012–2013 (percentages)................................................ 27

II.10 Interagency Operations in Case Study States, SY 2012–2013...................... 29

II.11 State Use of Formal Data-Sharing Agreements, SY 2012–2013 

(percentages)................................................................................................. 30

III.1 Characteristics of Enrollment Data Used in Direct Certification 

(percentages)................................................................................................. 32

III.2 Characteristics of Statewide Student Information Systems used in 

Direct Certification (percentages)................................................................... 33

III.3 Source and Quality of Enrollment Data Used in Direct Certification 

for Case Study States, SY 2012–2013.......................................................... 34

III.4 Program Data Used by States in Direct Certification (percentages)............... 36
Tables and Figures Mathematica Policy Research

viii

III.5 Frequency of State Program Data Updates in Direct Certification 

(percentages)................................................................................................. 37

III.6 Source and Quality of Program Data Used in Direct Certification for 

Case Study States, SY 2012–2013............................................................... 38

III.7 Timing of Initial Direct Certification Match and Frequency and 

Process for Subsequent Matches (percentages) ........................................... 40

III.8 Frequency of Direct Certification Matching in Case Study States, SY 

2012–2013 ..................................................................................................... 41

III.9 Data Elements Used for Direct Certification Matching (percentages)............. 42

III.10 SNAP Data Available for Direct Certification Matching (percentages)............ 43

III.11 Data Elements Used in Direct Certification Matching for Case Study 

States, SY 2012–2013 ................................................................................... 44

III.12 Features of Direct Certification Matching Procedures (percentages)............. 45

III.13 Direct Certification Matching Rules in Case Study States, SY 2012–

2013 ............................................................................................................... 46

III.14 Probabilistic Matching Procedures (percentages).......................................... 48

III.15 Process for Extending Eligibility to Additional Children in Household 

(percentages)................................................................................................. 49

III.16 Procedures for Extending Eligibility to Household Members in Case 

Study States, SY 2012–2013 ......................................................................... 50

III.17 Direct Certification Procedures in Nonpublic Schools (percentages) ............. 51

III.18 Direct Certification Methods in Nonpublic Schools in Case Study 

States, SY 2012–2013 ................................................................................... 52

III.19 Interface for Direct Certification System (percentages).................................. 53

III.20 User Interface of Direct Certification Systems for Case Study States, 

SY 2012–2013 ............................................................................................... 54

III.21 Potential Use of Medicaid Data for Direct Certification (percentages)............ 55

IV.1 Barriers to Effective Direct Certification, SY 2012–2013 (percentage 

unless indicated otherwise)............................................................................ 58

IV.2 Reported Barriers to Effective Direct Certification in Case Study 

States, SY 2012–2013 ................................................................................... 59
Tables and Figures Mathematica Policy Research

ix

IV.3 Planned Changes to Direct Certification Systems Among Central 

Matching States, as of SY 2012–2013 (percentages).................................... 61

IV.4 Recent and Planned Changes to Direct Certification in Case Study 

States, SY 2012–2013 ................................................................................... 62

V.1 Findings on Planning and Implementation of Direct Certification 

Procedures Synthesized from National Survey on Direct Certification 

Practices and Case Study Analysis................................................................ 66

V.2 Findings on Technical Aspects of Direct Certification Procedures 

Synthesized from National Survey on Direct Certification Practices 

and Case Study Analysis ............................................................................... 67

V.3 Findings on Perceived Barriers and Planned Improvements to Direct 

Certification Procedures Synthesized from National Survey on Direct 

Certification Practices and Case Study Analysis............................................ 68

FIGURES

I.1 Direct Certification Matching Methods Used by States, the District of 

Columbia, and Guam, SY 2012–2013............................................................. 4

I.2 Survey and Site Visit Respondents .................................................................. 7

xi

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS

ADE Arizona Department of Education

ALSDE Alabama State Department of Education

ART Administrative Reviews and Training

AZDES Arizona Department of Economic Security

CEP Community Eligibility Provision

CHIP Children’s Health Insurance Program

CN Child nutrition

CNP Child Nutrition Program

CRE Coordinated Review Effort

CSDE Connecticut State Department of Education

CT Connecticut

CTDSS Connecticut Department of Social Services

DC Direct certification

DCVMS Direct Certification and Verification Matching System (Nebraska)

DHHR West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources

DHHS Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services

DHR Alabama Department of Human Resources

ESEA Elementary and Secondary Education Act

FDPIR Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations

FNS Food and Nutrition Service

FSSA Indiana Family and Social Services Administration

FTP File transfer protocol

HHFKA Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act

HHSC Texas Health and Human Services Commission

ID Identification

IDOE Indiana Department of Education

i now Information Now (Alabama)

IT information technology

LEA local education agency

MARO Mid-Atlantic Regional Office

MOU memorandum of understanding

MPRO Mountain Plains Regional Office

MWRO Midwest Regional Office

NDE Nebraska Department of Education

NERO Northeast Regional Office

NSLA National School Lunch Act

NSLP National School Lunch Program

NSSRS Nebraska Student and Staff Record System

PEIMS Public Education Information Management System (Texas)
Glossary of Acronymns Mathematica Policy Research

xii

POS point-of-sale system

RCCI residential child care institution

SAIS Arizona Student Accountability Information System

SBP School Breakfast Program

SERO Southeast Regional Office

SFA school food authority

SIS Local student information system

SNAP Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

SSID statewide student identifier

SSIS statewide student information system

SSN Social Security number

STN Student Test Number (Indiana)

SY school year

TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

TDA Texas Department of Agriculture

TEA Texas Education Agency

VPN Virtual Private Network

VSR Verification Summary Report

WAN Wide area network

WIC Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children

WRO Western Regional Office

WVDE West Virginia Department of Education

WVEIS West Virginia Education Information System
ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) promotes the health and well-being of the 

Nation’s children and is one of the largest food and nutrition assistance programs in the United 

States. It provides nutritionally balanced lunches to more than 30 million children each school day, 

with free or reduced-price meals provided to income-eligible children.1 Eligible children may be 

certified for school meal benefits either by application or directly by identifying students in 

households participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) or other 

programs that confer categorical eligibility. Increasing the participation of eligible students through 

direct certification is likely to have a positive impact on the overall health of children across the 

country. Increased direct certification also reduces burden on families and district staff in preparing 

and processing applications for school meal benefits.

The purpose of this report is to provide a comprehensive picture of the direct certification 

methods employed across the country in school year (SY) 2012-2013, including the processes and 

resources used to develop the systems, the characteristics and availability of relevant data, and the 

technical aspects of matching algorithms. The report also catalogs perceived barriers to effective 

direct certification and strategies that States and districts planned to implement to address those 

barriers. This information will help FNS, State child nutrition directors, and school districts 

recognize promising trends, understand new approaches, and identify steps needed for continuous 

improvement of their direct certification efforts.

A. Direct Certification in the NSLP

Under direct certification, States and districts can use information provided by SNAP-,

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families- (TANF), and Food Distribution Program on Indian 

Reservations- (FDPIR) agencies to establish that a student is a member of a household participating 

in one of these programs and is thus automatically eligible to receive free meals. These children can

therefore be certified to receive free meal benefits without the household having to submit an 

application. Certain foster care, migrant, runaway, and homeless children may also qualify in this way 

and become certified for free meals without submitting an application, based on documentation 

submitted to the district by an appropriate State or local agency. The eligibility of directly certified 

students is not subject to the verification process.

Direct certification was first authorized in 1989, as a method of increasing certification of 

categorically eligible households, reducing burden on households and district staff, and improving 

program integrity. Under the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004, P.L. 108-265D, 

Section 104, all districts participating in NSLP are required to directly certify children in SNAP 

households in SY 2008–2009 and subsequent years.2 In addition, FNS issued a guideline in August 

2009 requiring that direct certification apply to all children in a given household, beginning in SY 

2009–2010.

 1 FNS NSLP Factsheet, September 2013: http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/NSLPFactSheet.pdf.

2 Although LEAs are also permitted to certify children in TANF households directly, homeless children, migrant 

children, and those served by programs under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, direct certification is not 

mandatory for those groups.
Executive Summary Mathematica Policy Research

ES-2

States use one of two different methods to directly certify students: 

1. Central matching. Under this method, a State agency is responsible for a system that 

matches a list of children attending schools participating in the NSLP with a list of 

children participating in SNAP or other programs. Districts may play important roles in 

central matching systems, including initiating the matching process and reconciling lists 

of matched or potentially matched students.

2. Local matching. Under this method, a State agency distributes SNAP and other 

relevant data to districts and districts then match these data with their student

enrollment lists.

B. Objectives and Research Approach

1. Study Objectives

The core aims of the study are to describe current direct certification processes and procedures 

employed by States and districts and document data-matching techniques and tools used to increase 

matching rates for States and districts. To that end, we address two overarching objectives in this 

report:

• Update national information on current practice used by States and districts to 

conduct direct certification. 

- We document the processes and resources used to develop direct certification 

systems and describe the types of changes States have made to their direct 

certification systems, including those made using grants awarded by FNS. 

- We describe how direct certification is currently implemented nationwide. We 

discuss the variety of procedures and matching algorithms used in different 

States and some of the variation in procedures within States. We describe the 

information systems, databases, and data elements States and LEAs use to 

conduct direct certification. 

• Examine the current plans for improving direct certification process in the future. 

- We describe the primary barriers States and districts face in conducting direct 

certification successfully. 

- We describe the changes States and districts have planned to address barriers for 

their future operations.

2. Research Approach

To address the study objectives, we integrated information from two primary data collection 

sources: (1) a national survey of direct certification practices, and (2) in-depth case studies.

National survey of direct certification practices. We conducted a survey of all 50 States, the 

District of Columbia, Guam, and districts in local matching States. The survey tailored questions 

based on a State’s data-matching method (central or local) and the level of respondent (State or 

district). In a State that used local matching, districts were administered one of two versions of the 

survey: (1) a long version that collected comprehensive information on the direct certification 

process, or (2) a shortened version that included a core set of key questions that were also asked of 
Executive Summary Mathematica Policy Research

ES-3

the other district and State-level respondents, thus forming the basis of all versions of the survey.

The survey questions focused on the methods of direct certification, data-matching criteria, 

frequency of matching, characteristics of systems and databases used, treatment of nonpublic 

districts, and other relevant direct certification practices. The survey also collected information on 

which direct certification practices were funded with FNS grants, planned improvements, and the 

potential use of Medicaid data for direct certification. 

We administered the survey in fall 2012 and it was in the field for approximately 17 weeks. All 

52 State-level respondents completed the survey, for a 100 percent response rate. The response rate 

for districts was 68 percent. 

In-depth case studies. Seven States and selected districts were used to collect more detailed 

information on direct certification practices in place during SY 2012-2013. The States participating 

in this study were selected to ensure there was a mix of high-performing, improving, and lowperforming States that would help us address the study objectives. The States selected-—Alabama, 

Arizona, Connecticut, Indiana, Nebraska, Texas, and West Virginia—represent each of the seven 

FNS geographic regions and included one State that employed local matching. In addition, the States 

selected offered diversity across other factors, including the number of school districts and student 

enrollment.

In each participating State we conducted site visits to interview staff involved in direct 

certification at State offices. All site visits began with discussions with the State Child Nutrition 

agency director. We interviewed key technical and policy staff from SNAP and any other relevant 

programs, such as TANF and foster care, about their roles in the direct certification process. At the 

district sites, we interviewed the district director and technical staff knowledgeable about the systems 

and data used in direct certification. At both levels, we interviewed the staff members with primary 

responsibility for developing, programming, and implementing the data-matching process at the site.

Across the seven States, we conducted 34 interviews with a total of 95 respondents. The qualitative 

interview data we obtained offer greater detail than the survey data in how direct certification is 

carried out in different States and districts. 

C. Key Findings

1. Planning and Implementation

Central matching is the predominant means of implementing direct certification. Figure 

ES.1 presents the matching method used in each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and 

Guam. In SY 2012-2013, 38 States use central matching systems, and at least 4 of the local matching 

States—Connecticut, Florida, Missouri, and New York—plan to switch to central matching. 

Interviews with central matching States indicated that some of the appealing characteristics of 

central matching systems were efficiency, the opportunity to use more sophisticated matching 

algorithms than districts may be able to develop, the uniform quality of matching across the State, 

and reduced confidentiality risk.
Executive Summary Mathematica Policy Research

ES-4

Figure ES.1. Direct Certification Matching Methods Used by States, the District of Columbia, and Guam, 

SY 2012-2013

Note: Maryland employs a hybrid matching system, where 25 large districts perform data matching for 

themselves and the State conducts matching centrally for the remaining districts.

Local matching may continue to have appeal for some States. A large majority of local 

matching States were able to include SSNs in the program data files they provide to districts for 

direct certification matching. Access to a single, high quality unique identifier may have contributed 

to districts’ ability to conduct accurate matching without sophisticated matching algorithms. 

Moreover, local matching States often cited resource barriers that may have made central matching 

systems unappealing or infeasible, such as insufficient State staff and computer resources to support 

computer matching.

Districts play key roles in direct certification processes for both central- and localmatching. The roles of districts vary substantially across States. District responsibilities often 

include uploading enrollment data, reconciling match lists with local data systems, and processing 

lists of potential matches. In central-matching States, the division of responsibility, particularly in 

identifying definite matches centrally and reconciling potential matches locally, may have allowed 

States to take advantage of both the efficiency offered by centrally developed matching algorithms 

and the local knowledge and additional student information that districts often have. In some cases, 

States took steps to minimize burden on districts and increase efficiency, such as using probabilistic 

matching scores to identify possible matches that were most likely to be legitimate.

Matching Method, SY 2012-2013

Central-Matching State (38)

Local-Matching State (14)
Executive Summary Mathematica Policy Research

ES-5

Many central matching States interviewed as part of the case study, however, noted that districts 

did not always take advantage of all the direct certification features available to them or use the 

system as intended. This was confirmed in case study interviews with district officials, who were 

often unaware of or not using certain system features.

Clear communication and training is critical to successful direct certification. States 

noted the importance of communication and training for understanding the logistics of direct 

certification and for emphasizing the increasing importance of effective direct certification. States 

used a variety of training and communication tools, including webinars, conferences, web videos, 

email, phone help centers, and in-person training. 

Some State systems include sophisticated monitoring tools, though many do not. All 

case study States maintained the ability to monitor at least basic direct certification activities. 

However, States often do not monitor the frequency or accuracy of districts’ use of direct 

certification systems. One case study State did look at discrepancies between the number of students 

matched in the central system and the number of direct certifications reported by the districts as an 

indicator of whether districts properly used direct certification systems. 

States and districts used available resources in innovative ways to improve the 

efficiency of direct certification. State IT staff and outside contractors were commonly cited as 

having contributed to system development. Figure ES.2 shows the sources of direct certification 

development resources. Federal grants represent important development resources that are available 

to States. These grants were used to upgrade computer matching systems, provide training, and 

transition to central matching. 

Figure ES.2. Direct Certification System Development Resources

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Federal grant State child nutrition 

operating funds

Other State funds District funds

Percent

Central Matching States Districts in Local Matching States
Executive Summary Mathematica Policy Research

ES-6

Successful direct certification systems rely on constructive collaboration among 

multiple State agencies. Direct certification typically involves the State education agency, the State 

agency administering programs that confer categorical eligibility, and school districts. Productive 

interagency relationships are important components of effective direct certification systems. In 

addition, formal data sharing agreements among participating agencies are nearly universal although 

some States noted that they can be challenging to execute.

2. Matching Procedures

Effective direct certification requires accurate, up-to-date student information.

Enrollment data needs vary based on whether States use central or local matching systems. States 

using central matching typically used the statewide student information system (SSIS) as the source 

of enrollment data; whereas local matching States used other sources (See Figure ES.3). The 

frequency with which enrollment data are updated ranges considerably—from daily to once 

annually. In some States in which the SSIS are not updated immediately at the beginning of the 

school year, special procedures have been developed to allow districts to directly certify newly 

enrolled students.

Figure ES.3. Source of Enrollment Data Used in Direct Certification, by Matching Method

Direct certification may be more effective when States use data from programs that 

confer categorical eligibility other than SNAP. States must establish procedures to directly 

certify children from SNAP households. However, most States also use TANF records, and many 

use foster care data (see Figure ES.4). Additional participation data sources may increase the reach 

of direct certification. For example, one State interviewed in the case study reported that 7 percent 

of directly certified students were matched through foster care. Because program data are often 

provided through automated processes, very little or no staff maintenance time may be required of 

program data partners. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Statewide Student 

Information System

Electronic files 

maintained by State

Electronic files 

maintained by 

district

Hard-copy files

Percent

Central Matching States Local Matching States
Executive Summary Mathematica Policy Research

ES-7

Figure ES.4. Program Data Used in Direct Certification, by Matching Method

Frequently updated program and enrollment data improve direct certification only if 

they are accompanied by frequent data matching. All States must conduct direct certification 

matching at least three times per year. A large majority of central matching States (68.5 percent) 

conducted matching at least monthly, whereas matching was conducted less frequently in local 

matching States—only 32 percent of districts in local matching States conducted matching at least 

monthly. Notably, States conducting daily matching cite the match frequency as a key strength of 

their direct certification systems.

Most matching systems require three or more identifiers to match and allow inexact 

matches on some elements. In directly certifying students, States and districts apply algorithms 

matching children with data in two or more data sets. First name, last name, and date of birth are 

used almost universally as matching identifiers. Figure ES.5 shows a list of the common SNAP data 

elements that are available for matching across all States. In local matching States, SSN is a common 

identifier and likely contributes to districts’ ability to conduct accurate matching without 

sophisticated matching algorithms. Central matching States typically had a process in which potential 

matches are investigated further; this investigation was often done by districts.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

TANF FDPIR Foster Care Medicaid Other 

Program

Only SNAP

Data Used

Percent

Central Matching States Local Matching States
Executive Summary Mathematica Policy Research

ES-8

Figure ES.5. SNAP Data Elements Available for Matching, All States

Probabilistic matching can be used to identify definite direct certification matches as 

well as potential matches. Direct certification systems that employ probabilistic matching 

algorithms calculate a score that indicates how likely a match is to be legitimate. The procedures may 

award higher scores for pairs in which more data elements match. They may also award points for 

data elements that are near matches, such as names that are spelled different but sound alike. The 

two States interviewed in the case study that used probabilistic matching felt that this feature was an 

important part of their system’s direct certification performance. Probabilistic matching was used by 

only 29 percent of central matching States and 9 percent of districts in local matching States. The 

use of probabilistic matching may increase the number of directly certified students while 

minimizing burden by prioritizing those potential matches that are most likely to be legitimate. 

Most matching systems had procedures in place to extend eligibility to additional 

children in households. The most common strategy for extending eligibility is revising notification 

letters informing families of their children’s eligibility to indicate that all children in the household 

are eligible for meal benefits. Districts are typically given the primary responsibility for extending 

eligibility, even in central matching States.

Nonpublic and charter schools present special challenges for the direct certification 

process. Central matching States often found that incorporating private schools into the central 

direct certification system was a challenge because the schools’ enrollment data were not included in 

the SSIS. Individual lookup and features that allow for batch upload of enrollment lists were some 

strategies for mitigating many of the challenges posed by nonpublic schools.

0 20 40 60 80 100

Phone number

School name

County

SNAP or other program ID

Parent name

SSN

Street address

City

Zip code

Gender

Middle name

Date of birth

Last name

First name

Percent
Executive Summary Mathematica Policy Research

ES-9 

In SY 2012-2013, few States appeared well positioned to incorporate Medicaid data into 

direct certification. Only 3 percent of central matching States and 17 percent of local matching 

States reported that all children eligible for Medicaid would also be eligible for free school meals. 

Some States also expressed doubts that incorporation of Medicaid data would provide substantial 

increases in direct certification. 

3. Barriers and Planned Improvements

States and districts face common challenges pertaining to student enrollment records,

program participation data, and financial and technological resources. For central matching 

States, the most commonly cited barrier was that enrollment data were not updated in time for the 

initial match. In addition, districts in central matching States were not always aware of and did not 

always appropriately use all features of direct certification systems, due to time and resource 

constraints, low levels of technical skill, or insufficient training. Barriers commonly cited by States

using local matching were a lack of sufficient staff to complete direct certification computer 

matching, insufficient computer resources, and that the enrollment data did not contain sufficient 

information to support matching. The resource barriers cited by local matching States may suggest 

that central matching systems may be infeasible in many of these States. 

Direct certification is a continually evolving process. States and districts improve their 

direct certification processes over time by introducing new technology, refining matching 

procedures, and adjusting the procedures that district and State staff use to complete the process. 

Underlying these changes is a broad shift toward greater centralization, as more local matching 

States transition to central matching.

States’ plans to improve their direct certification systems were nearly universal. States 

are planning a wide range of large and small changes to their systems, including adding more data 

elements, increasing the frequency of matching, and adding processes to resolve unmatched records. 

Figure ES.6 provides the most common planned improvements among central matching States. 

Figure ES.6. Planned Changes to Direct Certification Systems Among Central Matching States

0 10 20 30 40 50

Create a web-based lookup system

Obtain data from additional programs

Other planned changes to direct certification systems

State information system upgrade

Implement new computer matching system

Implement process to extend categorical eligibility

Increase frequency of data matching

Incorporate probabilistic matching techniques

Implement a process to resolve unmatched records

Increase frequency of sending program data

Add more elements for data matching

Percent

1

I. INTRODUCTION

The National School Lunch Program (NSLP), which has as its main goal the promotion of the 

health and well-being of the Nation’s children, is one of the largest food and nutrition assistance 

programs in the United States. It provides nutritionally balanced lunches to more than 30 million 

children each school day, with free or reduced-price meals provided to income-eligible children.1

Eligible children may be certified for school meal benefits either by application or directly by 

identifying students in households participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

(SNAP) or other programs that confer categorical eligibility. Increasing the participation of eligible 

students through direct certification is likely to have a positive impact on the overall health of 

children across the country. Increased direct certification also reduces burden on families and district 

staff in preparing and processing applications for school meal benefits.

The federal government made direct certification mandatory for States and local education 

agencies (LEAs) in the Child Nutrition and Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 

Infants, and Children (WIC) Reauthorization Act of 2004. Most States use computer data-matching 

techniques to certify students directly, but have varied levels of success.

2 However, States have made 

many changes to their direct certification systems, often funded through Food and Nutrition Service 

(FNS) grants, and performance has improved over time. The purpose of this report is to provide a 

comprehensive picture of the direct certification methods employed across the country in school 

year (SY) 2012-2013. This information will help FNS, State child nutrition directors, and LEAs 

recognize promising trends, understand new approaches, and identify steps needed for continuous 

improvement of their direct certification efforts.

In this chapter we provide background information on the NSLP and direct certification. We 

also describe the key study objectives and research questions, and provide an overview of the 

methodology we used to address them. Finally, we describe the organization of subsequent chapters

of the report.

A. Description of Direct Certification

1. National School Lunch Program

The NSLP plays a critical role in the Nation’s strategy to ensure all its citizens have access to 

adequate food. Created more than 60 years ago, the program is present in more than 100,000 public 

and nonprofit private schools throughout the country.3 The program is federally funded but 

 1 FNS NSLP Factsheet, September 2013: http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/NSLPFactSheet.pdf.

2 See the annual series of “Direct Certification in the National School Lunch Program: State Implementation 

Progress, Report to Congress,” available on FNS’ website: http://www.fns.usda.gov/ops/child-nutrition-programs.

3 FNS NSLP Factsheet, September 2013: http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/NSLPFactSheet.pdf.
Chapter I: Introduction Mathematica Policy Research

2

administered through States and local school food authorities (SFAs),

4 which usually are individual 

school districts or small groups of districts. The federal government establishes overall program 

rules, as expressed in the relevant congressional legislation and regulations. The States convey these 

requirements to their SFAs, serve as conduits for funding, and monitor local schools and districts 

for compliance with established regulations. The individual SFAs have responsibility for establishing 

student eligibility for free and reduced-price meals and for providing all children who choose to 

participate with nutritious meals.

Eligibility for free or reduced-price meals. Children are eligible to receive NSLP meals free 

if they live in households with incomes at or below 130 percent of the federal poverty level or if they 

are categorically eligible on the basis of receiving public assistance benefits from the SNAP, Food 

Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR), or, in some States, Temporary Assistance 

for Needy Families (TANF) or foster care.

5 Those with household incomes between 130 and 185 

percent of the federal poverty level are eligible to receive reduced-price lunches, which are 

substantially subsidized by the program, with a maximum price of 40 cents. In SY 2012–2013, this 

subsidy amounted to $2.86 for free lunches and $2.46 for reduced-price lunches (FNS 2013). School 

districts establish the price for meals served to children from households with incomes greater than 

185 percent of poverty. These are referred to as paid or full-price students, but their meals are also 

subsidized, although to a much lower degree than the meals for lower-income children (most SFAs 

receive a reimbursement of 27 cents per full-price lunch).

Certification for free or reduced-price meals. In schools not using special provision 

programs for reimbursements (described below), students must be certified for free or reduced-price 

meal benefits for SFAs to receive the higher level of reimbursement for the meals served to those 

students. After the district determines a student’s eligibility, the student remains eligible for the rest

of the school year. Students may become certified for free or reduced-price meals in one of two 

ways: through application or by direct certification.

Certification based on submitted applications. Most students who receive free or reducedprice meals are certified each school year on the basis of information reported by their households 

on an application submitted to the school district. Households must report either (1) detailed 

information on household size and income; or (2) a case number indicating participation in a public 

assistance program conferring categorical eligibility (SNAP, FDPIR, TANF, or foster care). 

 4 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 NSLA by using the term local education 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 the school meal programs. Sections of 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 commonly used term for the entities described as LEAs in ESEA is 

school districts. However, although this definition applies only to public entities, State agencies also enter into 

agreements with private nonprofit schools to operate NSLP; many of these agreements cover only a single school. 

Because the vast majority of schools in the NSLP/SBP are parts of entities that are commonly known as school districts, 

we use that term throughout this report to refer to both public and private nonprofit local entities that enter into 

agreements with State agencies to operate the NSLP and SBP.

5 TANF receipt confers categorical eligibility only in States in which the income eligibility criteria for TANF are the

same as or more restrictive than those in effect on June 1, 1995.
Chapter I: Introduction Mathematica Policy Research

3

Households are not required to submit documentation of the income they report on the application. 

The district assesses the information on the application to determine whether the household meets 

the eligibility requirements for free or reduced-price meal benefits and, on the basis of this 

assessment, either certifies the students listed on the application or denies certification. The district 

then notifies the household of its decision. Each fall, LEAs must select a sample of the applications 

approved for free or reduced-price meal benefits and verify the accuracy of their certification 

decisions, detect erroneous payments, and deter misreporting. Students’ certification status may be 

revised as a result of the verification process. 

2. Direct Certification in the NSLP

Under direct certification, States and districts can use information provided by SNAP, TANF, 

and FDPIR agencies to establish that a student is a member of a household participating in one of 

these programs and is thus automatically eligible to receive free meals. These children can therefore

be certified to receive free meal benefits without the household having to submit an application. 

Certain foster care, migrant, runaway, and homeless children may also qualify in this way and 

become certified for free meals without submitting an application, based on documentation 

submitted to the district by an appropriate State or local agency. The eligibility of directly certified 

students is not subject to the verification process.

Direct certification was first authorized in 1989, as a method of increasing certification of 

categorically eligible households, reducing burden on households and SFA staff, and improving 

program integrity. Under the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004, P.L. 108-265D, 

Section 104, all LEAs participating in NSLP are required to certify directly children in SNAP 

households in SY 2008–2009 and subsequent years.6 In addition, FNS issued a guideline in 

August 2009 requiring that direct certification apply to all children in a given household, beginning 

in SY 2009–2010.

Most States conduct direct certification by matching school enrollment data with data from 

SNAP and other programs that confer categorical eligibility. States use one of two different 

methods—central or local matching:

1. Central matching. Under this method, a State agency is responsible for a system that 

matches a list of children attending schools participating in the NSLP with a list of children 

in participating in SNAP or other programs. District may play important roles in central 

matching systems, including initiating the matching process and reconciling lists of matched 

or potentially matched students.

2. Local matching. Under this method, a State agency distributes SNAP and other relevant 

data to LEAs and LEAs match these data with their student enrollment lists.

States may also directly certify students participating in TANF or FDPIR using the letter 

method. Under this method, the State TANF or FDPIR agency sends letters to all households with 

school-aged children participating in those programs; households submit the letters to their 

 6 Although LEAs are also permitted to certify children in TANF households directly, homeless children, migrant 

children, and those served by programs under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, direct certification is not 

mandatory for those groups.
Chapter I: Introduction Mathematica Policy Research

4

children’s schools instead of completing NSLP applications. Prior to SY 2010-2011, States could use 

this method to directly certify students participating in SNAP as well. However, following the 

passage of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA), the letter method is no longer an 

approved means of directly certifying students for that program.

Figure I.1 presents the matching method used in each of the 50 States, the District of 

Columbia, and Guam, in SY 2012-2013.

Figure I.1. Direct Certification Matching Methods Used by States, the District of Columbia, and Guam, 

SY 2012-2013

Note: Maryland employs a hybrid matching system, where 25 large districts perform data matching for 

themselves and the State conducts matching centrally for the remaining districts.

3. Special Provisions for School Meal Reimbursement

Schools may elect to receive reimbursements through special provision programs, including 

Provisions 2 and 3 and the Community Eligibility Provision. 

Provision 2 and Provision 3. NSLP allows schools the option of using special application and 

meal-counting provisions—Provision 2 or Provision 3—under which all students receive free meals 

without applying or being directly certified in a current school year. Under Provision 2, schools 

operate a base year in which they serve all meals at no charge but use standard program procedures 

Matching Method, SY 2012-2013

Central-Matching State (38)

Local-Matching State (14)
Chapter I: Introduction Mathematica Policy Research

5

to establish individual students’ free or reduced-price meal eligibility and count meals by eligibility 

category. They then may continue to serve all meals at no charge and take only a daily aggregate 

count of meals served for up to three additional years, during which they claim reimbursement based 

on the percentage of free, reduced-price, and paid meals served during the base year. Provision 3 

schools serve all meals free for up to four years; reimbursement is based on the total dollar 

reimbursement the school received during the base year, which is the most recent year in which 

applications were taken and meals were counted and claimed by category.

Community Eligibility Provision. Schools in select States may choose to be reimbursed for 

school meals under the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP). All students in schools participating 

in CEP are served meals at no charge. CEP schools are reimbursed based on the number of meals 

served to all students and the percentage of students in their CEP group identified as having been 

approved for free meals with a method that does not require verification during a base year. A CEP

group can be a single school, a group of schools within an LEA, or all schools within an LEA. A 

large majority of identified students are those who were directly certified for free meal benefits. 

Therefore, CEP participation introduces very strong incentives for effective direct certification 

because reimbursement rates are tied directly to direct certification rates. Other students may be 

identified because they are homeless, migrants, runaways or participants in Head Start or Even Start. 

CEP schools are required to identify students based on SNAP participation, but identifying students 

from the remaining programs is optional.7

B. Study Objectives

The purpose of this study is to describe current methods of direct certification used by State 

and local agencies, and challenges facing States and LEAs in attaining high matching rates. In this 

report we identify potential improvements in data-matching techniques in order to help FNS, States

and LEAs, and State Child Nutrition Directors understand current trends and provide technical 

assistance for continuous improvement. 

The core aims of the study are to describe current direct certification processes and procedures 

employed by States and LEAs and document data-matching techniques and tools used to increase 

matching rates for States and LEAs. To that end, we address two overarching objectives in this 

report:

1. Update national information on current practice used by States and LEAs to 

conduct direct certification. 

- We document the processes and resources used to develop direct certification 

systems and describe the types of changes States have made to their direct 

certification systems, including those made using grants awarded by FNS. 

- We describe how direct certification is currently implemented nationwide. We 

discuss the variety of procedures and matching algorithms used in different 

States and some of the variation in procedures within States. We describe the 

information systems, databases, and data elements States and LEAs use to 

conduct direct certification. 

 7 See Memo SP 12-2012, issued by FNS on February 9, 2012 to regional and state directors for more details.
Chapter I: Introduction Mathematica Policy Research

6

2. Examine the current plans for improving direct certification process in the future 

and the capability to adopt any potential changes that may be required in the 

Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization. 

- We describe the primary barriers States and LEAs face in conducting direct 

certification successfully. 

- We describe the changes States and LEAs have planned to address barriers for 

their future operations.

C. Research Approach

To address the study objectives, we integrated information from several data sources. The two 

primary data collection tasks performed in this study were:

1. National survey of direct certification practices of all 50 States, the District of 

Columbia, Guam, and LEAs in local matching States. The survey design tailored 

questions based on a State’s data-matching method (Central- or local-level) and the level 

of respondent (State or LEA). In a State that used local matching, a representative 

sample of LEAs was asked to complete the survey, with remaining LEAs in district-level

States being administered a shortened version.

2. In-depth case studies in seven States and selected LEAs. In each participating State, 

we conducted site visits to interview program and technical staff involved in direct 

certification at the State and LEA levels. We gathered specific technical information 

about State and LEA data-matching system characteristics; investigated the feasibility of

using Medicaid data for direct certification; and explored the issues, challenges, and 

potential solutions to barriers that might impede States’ efforts to certify directly all 

eligible SNAP participants.

Figure I.2 presents data collection activities for both the survey and the in-depth case studies.
Chapter I: Introduction Mathematica Policy Research

7

Figure I.2. Survey and Site Visit Respondents

1. National Survey of NSLP Direct Certification Practices

The national survey of direct certification practices was administered to all 50 States, the 

District of Columbia, Guam, and all districts in States where districts have primary responsibility for 

conducting local matching systems. Districts were administered one of two versions of the survey: 

(1) a long version that collected comprehensive information on the direct certification process or (2) 

a short version that collected a targeted subset of the information collected in the long version.

Because only districts in local matching States were to receive the survey, the first step in 

administering the survey was to identify States which used local-level direct certification matching in 

SY 2012-2013. The information available to Mathematica and FNS staff at the time indicated that 13 

States used local-level matching systems.8 Once local matching States were identified, the study team 

 8 The information available to the study team during the survey administration phase indicated that Nevada used a 

central-matching process. Therefore, districts in Nevada were not sampled for inclusion in the district component of the 

survey. However, in the course of data collection, we learned that Nevada used a local-matching system in SY 2012-

2013. Results pertaining to districts in local matching States generalize to all local matching States except Nevada.

Respondent Category

Site Visit, State & Local Srvy (1)

Site Visit & State Survey (6)

State & Local Surveys (12)

State Survey (33)
Chapter I: Introduction Mathematica Policy Research

8

employed a sampling procedure to randomly select 2,500 districts to receive the long version of the 

survey. We asked the remaining 1,791 districts to complete the short version.

9

We administered the Survey of Direct Certification Practices in fall 2012 to State child nutrition 

directors in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Guam, as well as 4,291 district school 

foodservice directors in the 13 States identified as using local matching. The survey was in the field 

for approximately 17 weeks. All 52 State-level respondents completed the survey, for a 100 percent 

response rate. The response rate for districts was 68.3 percent.10 Table I.1 contains the survey status 

and response rates for survey respondents.

Table I.1. Final Survey Status of State- and District-Level Respondents

Final Response Status Number

Percentage of Sample 

States/Districts

State-Level Respondents (N = 52)

Complete 52 100.0

District-Level Respondents (N = 4,291)

Complete 2,907 67.8

Partial response, sufficient for complete 19 0.4

Partial response, insufficient for complete 437 10.2

Refusal 9 0.2

Nonresponse 889 20.7

Ineligible 30 0.7

Note: Districts could be ineligible because they were RCCIs or no longer participated in the NSLP.

NSLP = National School Lunch Program; RCCIs = residential child care institutions.

The survey included primarily closed-ended questions. There were a limited number of openended questions that allowed respondents to provide answers that did not fit into the categories of 

the closed-ended questions. The content of the survey for State-level respondents varied depending 

on the level at which direct certification was conducted. Modules related to specific data-matching 

processes were asked of State staff in central matching States and of district staff in local matching

States. The content of the survey version for sampled LEAs focused primarily on LEA procedures 

and processes for direct certification while omitting questions that could be answered at the State 

level. The short version of the LEA-level survey included a core set of key questions that were also 

asked of the other LEA and State- or territory-level respondents, thus forming the basis of all 

versions of the survey.

We used the survey data to produce tables presenting how direct certification was implemented 

or performed across all States and LEAs in SY 2012-2013. The analysis summarizes the methods of 

direct certification, data-matching criteria, frequency of matching, characteristics of systems and 

databases used, online or batch processing, treatment of nonpublic LEAs, and other relevant direct 

 9 To conduct this allocation, we stratified districts based on State, reported enrollment size, and public/private 

status. We then randomly identified districts within each stratum to receive the long version of the survey. 

10 This number includes both complete and partial responses that were sufficiently complete to be used in the 

analysis.
Chapter I: Introduction Mathematica Policy Research

9

certification practices. Additionally, we used information from the national survey to examine which 

direct certification practices were funded with FNS grants, to identify planned improvements, and to 

examine the capacity to respond to the potential authorization of the use of Medicaid data for direct 

certification. Finally, we used the survey data to produce profiles of each State’s direct certification 

system, presented in Appendix A.

2. In-Depth Case Studies

To collect more detailed information on direct certification practices in place during SY 2012-

2013, the study team completed in-depth case studies of seven States. In each State, Mathematica 

conducted site visits to interview program and technical staff involved in direct certification efforts 

at the State and district levels. The study team gathered technical information about data-matching 

system characteristics and explored the issues, challenges, and potential solutions to barriers that 

impede efforts to directly certify all eligible SNAP participants.

Mathematica and FNS worked together to select States to participate in the in-depth case 

studies. The main objective was to identify a mix of high-performing, improving, and lowperforming States that would help us address key objectives of the study. In making these 

categorizations, we focused on the main direct certification performance measure from the FNS 

reports to Congress on direct certification, which is the percentage of school-age SNAP-participant 

children directly certified for free school meals. The selection process was further guided by the 

following needs: first, to select one state from each of the seven FNS regions to ensure geographic 

variation across the country; and second, to select at least one state that employs local matching.11

Finally, to the extent possible, we also sought diversity among the selected States in the number of 

school districts and student enrollment. This selection process yielded a broad geographical range of 

States. Most were high performing States and all but one used a central-matching system. States 

ranged in size from Nebraska, with fewer than 250,000 students enrolled, to Texas, with more than

5 million students enrolled (Table I.2).

The study team conducted site visits in each case-study State, including visits to State offices as 

well as two or three LEAs participating in direct certification. In selecting LEAs for the case studies, 

we worked with the State point-of-contact to select a mix of districts in size and direct certification 

performance. Across the seven States, we conducted 34 interviews with a total of 95 respondents.

Table I.3 provides a summary of activities the study team conducting during site visits.

All site visits began with discussions with the State Child Nutrition agency director. We 

interviewed key technical and policy staff from SNAP and any other relevant programs, such as 

TANF and foster care, about their roles in the direct certification process. At the LEA sites, we 

interviewed the SFA director and technical staff knowledgeable about the systems and data used in 

direct certification. At both levels, we interviewed the staff members with primary responsibility for 

developing, programming, and implementing the data-matching process at the site.

 11 We excluded from consideration any State that was participating in the Direct Certification Medicaid Study—

Alaska, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, New York, and Pennsylvania—in order to avoid creating additional burden to the 

reporting requirements associated with that study.
Chapter I: Introduction Mathematica Policy Research

10

Table I.2. States Selected for In-Depth Case Study

State Region

Primary Matching 

Method

Performance 

Designation

Number of 

Districtsa Student 

Enrollmenta

Alabama SERO Central High performing and 

improving 189 764,619

Arizona WRO Central Low performing and 

improving 458 1,043,244

Connecticut NERO Local High performing 185 531,412

Indiana MWRO Central Stalled 499 1,137,121

Nebraska MPRO Central High performing and 

improving 378 235,273

Texas SWRO Central High performing 1,259 5,222,412

West Virginia MARO Central High performing and 

improving 73 287,163

a Number of districts and student enrollment in each State drawn from final Verification Summary Report (VSR) for SY 

2011–2012.

MARO = Mid-Atlantic Regional Office; MPRO = Mountain Plains Regional Office; MWRO = Midwest Regional Office; 

NERO = Northeast Regional Office; SERO = Southeast Regional Office; WRO = Western Regional Office.

Table I.3. Summary of On-Site Data Collection Activities, by State

State

Dates of Site 

Visit State Agencies Local School Districts

Number of Interviews 

(respondents)

Alabama March 2013 Department of Education

Department of Human 

Resources

Large urban district

Small rural district

5

(21)

Arizona January 2013 Department of Education

Department of Economic 

Security

Large urban district

Charter school 

system

5

(14)

Connecticut February 

2013a Department of Education

Department of Social Services

Small suburban 

district

Medium suburban 

district

Public vocational 

school system

6

(13)

Indiana February 

2013

Department of Education

Family and Social Services 

Administration

Small suburban 

district

Medium urban district

5

(10)

Nebraska January 2013 Department of Education

Department of Health and 

Human Services

Large urban district

Small rural district

4

(10)

Texas March 2013 Department of Agriculture

Department of Education

Health and Human Services 

Commission

Large suburban 

district

Small rural district

4

(11)

West 

Virginia

December 

2012b Department of Education

Health and Human Resources

Small district 1

Small district 2

5

(16)

a Mathematica completed a phone interview with staff from Connecticut’s Department of Social Services in March 

2013.

b Mathematica completed a phone interview with the contractor that developed their direct certification system in 

December 2012. Although several case study States used contractors for some elements of the development their 

direct certification systems, their roles were not as central the West Virginia contractor.
Chapter I: Introduction Mathematica Policy Research

11

During site visit interviews, we gathered information about State and LEA data-matching 

system characteristics; investigated the potential use of Medicaid data for direct certification; and 

explored the issues, challenges, and potential solutions to barriers that might impede States’ efforts 

to certify directly all eligible SNAP participants. The qualitative interview data we obtained offer 

greater detail than the survey data in how direct certification is carried out in different States and 

LEAs. Case study data findings appear in analytical tables throughout this report as well as in State 

direct certification profiles for the seven case study States, presented in Appendix B.

D. Organization of the Report

The remainder of this report describes the study results. Chapter II contains information on 

how direct certification systems across the country were planned and implemented, including the 

extent of central versus local matching, State agency and district roles, resources required to develop 

direct certification systems, and performance monitoring capabilities. In Chapter III we describe the 

matching procedures in place during SY 2012-2013, including the characteristics of enrollment and 

program participation data, the timing and frequency of matching, data matching algorithms and 

procedures, and direct certification system characteristics. In Chapter IV we describe the primary 

challenges to successful direct certification matching as well as the improvements States and districts 

have planned for the future. We close in Chapter V by offering direct certification lessons learned, 

synthesizing the conclusions drawn from our analysis of survey and case study data.

As described above, we also include two appendices that describe direct certification systems in 

place in SY 2012-2013. Appendix A uses the National Survey of Direct Certification Practices to 

present summary information for all 50 States and the District of Columbia. Appendix B provides 

more detail on the direct certification systems in the seven in-depth case study States, including 

diagrams illustrating the process in each State. 

13

II. PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF DIRECT CERTIFICATION

In SY 2012–2013, direct certification systems varied greatly across the country. Some States 

operated centralized systems with States primarily responsible for developing and maintaining the

systems. In other States, State agencies made program data available to districts so that direct 

certification matching could be done locally. Within each type of matching system, specific agency 

and district roles varied. Direct certification required collaboration across State-level departments 

and between State agencies and districts in all cases, but the nature of these interactions varied.

In this chapter, we describe the range of direct certification matching systems in place in 

SY 2012–2013. We discuss common administrative roles and responsibilities at the State and district 

levels in different types of direct certification systems, the approaches States and districts used to 

provide effective communication and training, the different means States used to monitor direct 

certification activities, the types of resources States used to develop their direct certification systems, 

the types of interagency relationships States used to make direct certification happen.

A. Use of Central and Local Matching Systems

One of the main characteristics defining direct certification systems is whether primary 

responsibility for developing and maintaining a direct certification matching system rests with the 

State (central matching), or with districts (local matching). The distinctions between the two include 

the following:

• Central matching system. A State agency (usually the child nutrition [CN] agency) is 

responsible for a system that uses a common identifier or identifiers to match a list of 

children attending schools participating in the NSLP with a list of children participating 

in SNAP and other programs that confer categorical eligibility. This system can be set up 

in a variety of ways:

- A State agency matches State enrollment information with a State list of children 

participating in SNAP and other programs that confer categorical eligibility. A 

list of students directly certified on the basis of this match is forwarded to 

districts, which then notify the households.

- The State agency conducts an initial match. A list of matched students is sent to 

districts, which then verify the matches, obtain further information on students 

who are potential matches, or conduct other types of secondary matching.

- Districts upload enrollment information into a State-maintained computer or 

web-based system that conducts a match against a list of children in participating 

in SNAP and other programs that confer categorical eligibility. Students are 

directly certified on the basis of this match.

• Local matching system. Districts have primary responsibility for matching a list of 

children enrolled in their schools with a list of children participating in SNAP and other 

programs that confer categorical eligibility. Some States using local matching provide 

districts with a list limited to children in living in the district’s geographic area; others 

provide a full statewide list. Districts can use manual methods or their own computer 

systems to conduct matching.
Chapter II: Planning and Implementation of Direct Certification Mathematica Policy Research

14

In SY 2012–2013, most States operated central direct certification systems. Overall, 38 States 

had central matching systems. Twenty-eight of those had pure central matching systems, in which all 

matching activities occurred at the State level. 

The other 10 operated hybrid systems with a 

combination of central and local matching. 

Fourteen States used pure local matching 

systems.12 Of these, at least 4 said they plan to 

transition to a central matching system in the 

future.

Six of the seven States visited as part of the 

in-depth case study used central matching 

systems, citing efficiency and reduced district 

burden as advantages. Officials in West Virginia 

noted that their system, which incorporates 

automatic daily direct certification and probabilistic match scoring of potential matches, is more 

accurate and efficient than districts would be able to develop on their own. Officials in Nebraska 

emphasized that central matching saves districts time and resources. They also cited reduced data 

security risk as an advantage, because it allows them to avoid having to distribute to every district

statewide files containing personally identifiable information.

One interviewed State, Connecticut, used a local matching system. Officials there cited, as the 

primary reason, a lack of resources to support central matching. Connecticut was recently awarded 

an FNS direct certification grant to fund development of a central matching system. In other studies 

of direct certification systems, States using local matching have cited local knowledge of students as 

a strength of local matching.13

B. Role of Districts in Direct Certification

Regardless of whether direct certification matching is conducted centrally or locally, it requires 

significant interaction between State agencies and local school districts. In States using local 

matching, the primary role of districts is to match State-provided program participation data against 

local school enrollment data. District procedures, which vary considerably both across and within 

States, will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter III.

In central matching States, State agencies have primary responsibility for developing and 

implementing direct certification matching. However, districts play important and varied roles in the 

process. In-depth case study interviews revealed several important roles for districts in central 

matching States: (1) reconciling State-generated direct certification lists with local point-of-sale 

 12 This report covers the direct certification systems in the 50 States plus the District of Columbia and Guam.

13 Moore, Quinn, Kevin Conway, and Brandon Kyler. “Direct Certification in the National school Lunch Program: 

State Implementation Process School Year 2011-2012.” Report to Congress. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service, Office of Research and Analysis. Alexandria, VA: October 2012.

Use of Central and Local Matching Systems

Most common practices

• Thirty-eight States used central (or hybrid) 

matching systems; 4 of the 14 States using 

pure local matching planned to transition to 

central systems.

Key findings

• Efficiency, reduced district burden, availability 

of sophisticated matching algorithms, and 

reduced confidentiality risk were all cited as 

advantages of central systems.
Chapter II: Planning and Implementation of Direct Certification Mathematica Policy Research

15

(POS) systems,

14 (2) investigating lists of partially matched or unmatched children, and (3) extending 

categorical eligibility to other children in households receiving SNAP, TANF or FDPIR benefits. 

Though these roles were common in central matching States, exceptions and variations existed for 

all of them among the six central matching States studied, as described in Table II.1.

Table II.1. Intended Roles of Districts in Central Matching Case Study States, SY 2012–2013

State

Types of Additional Matching 

at District Level Other Roles of Districts

Alabama Districts match local enrollment data to State 

matched list. Districts may also conduct 

primary matching with State program data 

and may attempt to match partially matched 

students.

Districts are responsible for extending 

categorical eligibility to other members of the 

household.

Arizona Districts initiate matches in the State system, 

either by uploading updated student 

information to the State system or by 

triggering a matching between State 

enrollment and program data already in the 

State system. They then download or print 

the results and upload or manually enter 

them into their local POSa systems.

Districts receive lists of unmatched children 

in the State program data. They may attempt 

to match them in their local records. At least 

one district sends lunch benefit applications 

to students appearing on the unmatched list.

Indiana Districts load the State matched list into their 

local POS systems at least three times a 

year and as often as monthly. Districts must 

initiate the matching process, though 

beginning in SY 2013–2014, monthly 

matches will occur automatically.

Districts may use the “no county match” list 

and the “unmatched sibling match” list to 

identify partial or unmatched students or to 

extend categorical eligibility to other 

members of a matched student’s household.

Nebraska Districts are responsible for resolving lists of 

potential matched students provided by the 

State system. Districts may also upload 

updated enrollment data into the matching 

system and may use the system for singlestudent lookups.

Districts are responsible for extending 

categorical eligibility to other members of the 

household.

Texas Districts use the matched lists the State 

prepares to identify directly certified students 

in their local POS systems. Specific matching 

procedures vary across districts.

Districts are responsible for extending 

categorical eligibility to other members of the 

household.

West Virginia Districts are responsible for attempting to 

match partially matched and unmatched 

students.

District staff are responsible for updating the 

data in the statewide student information 

system.

Source: Direct certification case study interviews.

Note: Connecticut uses a local matching system.

a Federal regulations refer to “point-of-service” systems. However, the term “point-of-sale” is used much more 

commonly among State and district staff. The terms are largely interchangeable and refer to the system in which 

education staff make eligibility determinations about full-price, reduced-price, or free school meals. We use the term 

“point-of-sale” in this report.

 14 Federal regulations refer to “point-of-service” systems. However, the term “point-of-sale” is used much more 

commonly among State and district staff. The terms are largely interchangeable and refer to the system in which 

education staff make eligibility determinations about full-price, reduced-price, or free school meals. We use the term 

“point-of-sale” in this report.
Chapter II: Planning and Implementation of Direct Certification Mathematica Policy Research

16

Many interviewed central matching States 

noted that districts do not always take advantage 

of the district features built into their systems. 

This is consistent with interviews with district 

staff, which often revealed that districts were not 

using, or were unaware of, certain available direct 

certification functions. Table II.2 provides more 

information about procedures of interviewed 

district in central matching States.

Initiate direct certification process. In 

some central matching States, districts are 

required to initiate the matching process, even 

though the match itself is conducted within a 

State maintained system. Arizona, for example, 

relied on districts to log into the State system and 

initiate each matching process by uploading 

updated student information. Indiana and 

Nebraska offered a similar option to districts wishing to conduct an initial match for a school year 

before the State data system was updated to include newly enrolled students. However, officials in 

both States noted that districts often do not make use of this feature. Subsequent matches in these 

two States did not require district action.

Reconciling State-generated direct certification lists with local nutrition systems. One of 

the most important district functions in most central matching case study States was to reconcile the 

matched list generated at the State level with local student information and POS systems. In all 

interviewed central matching States except one, this step was necessary in order for matched 

students to receive the free meal benefits to which they are entitled. The exception was West 

Virginia, which uses a statewide POS system in which free-meal status through direct certification is 

transmitted automatically, with no additional step from the district. Officials in West Virginia see

this feature as an important strength of their direct certification system. This view is supported by 

officials in other States who consider the need for district reconciliation to be a barrier to effective 

direct certification. For example, officials in Nebraska noted that it is challenging for districts to 

reconcile the match lists regularly and that when reviewing direct certification counts, they 

frequently see fewer students directly certified than were matched.

Officials in several States cited the importance of a unique statewide student identifier (SSID) in 

allowing districts to incorporate State match results into their local systems easily and accurately. 

Including an SSID on the matched student file allows districts to merge the file into their local 

system. However, officials in Indiana noted that the diversity in the age, capabilities and user 

interfaces of local systems used in their State can present a challenge in developing a reconciliation 

process that works for all districts even though SSIDs are included with the matched results. 

Arizona provides the option for districts to upload files containing only SSIDs for matching. This 

was the preferred option for one of the districts which the study team visited.

The logistics of this reconciliation process varied from State to State. For example, in both 

Texas and Alabama, State agencies sent each district match results pertaining specifically to the 

district. However, Alabama also allowed districts to access the statewide matched list. Thus districts 

could attempt to identify students who had moved or had been assigned to the incorrect district list.

Role of Districts in Direct Certification

Most common practices

• District roles vary substantially across States. 

In case study States, primary roles include

uploading enrollment data, reconciling match 

lists with local data systems, and other key 

activities to increase match rates.

Key findings 

• Districts’ capability and effort to incorporate 

match results into their local systems can be a 

barrier to effective direct certification.

• Districts may be asked to resolve partially 

matched or unmatched students using 

information not available at the State level.

• Districts may not always take advantage of the 

direct certification functions available to them.
Chapter II: Planning and Implementation of Direct Certification Mathematica Policy Research

17

Table II.2. District Procedures in Central Matching Case Study States, SY 2012–2013

State District District Direct Certification Procedures

Alabama Large urban district The district disregards the State’s matched list and instead compares 

its local enrollment data with the State program data combined list. It 

conducts the matching in its local POS system based on exact 

matches of first name, last name, date of birth, and Social Security 

Number. Child nutrition staff also work to match partial matches by 

examining other variables.

Small rural district The district matches the State’s matched list against its local 

enrollment data using its local POS system. They match students 

using exact matches of Social Security Number only.

Arizona Large urban district This district used an automated batch process to upload student 

information and download matched results from the State system 

and import them into their local POS system.

Charter school system The charter school system procedures varied from school to school. 

Some schools triggered matches only three times a year; others 

matched more frequently. Some schools downloaded matched 

results and uploaded them into their local POS systems; others 

printed the results and hand-entered them.

Indiana Medium urban district District downloads direct certification match file from the State, 

restructures the file to make it compatible with their POS, and then 

pulls the file into their POS to complete the process. District POS 

flags students potentially eligible to extend categorical eligibility 

based on living in households receiving SNAP or TANF; they do not 

use the State-generated list identifying potential siblings. 

Small suburban district The district uses a manual process to incorporate information from 

State-generated match lists into the local POS. The district uses both 

the State-generated list identifying potential siblings and their POS to 

identify students eligible to extend categorical eligibility based on 

living in households receiving SNAP or TANF.

Nebraska Large urban district The district regularly processes lists of definite and potential matches.

Its POS flags students potentially eligible to extend categorical 

eligibility based on living in households receiving SNAP or TANF.

Small rural district The district processes lists of definite and potential matches at the 

beginning of the school year, but rarely has changes later. District 

staff identify students eligible to extend categorical eligibility based 

on living in households receiving SNAP or TANF based on 

knowledge of student living situations.

Texas Large suburban district District matches the State-provided list with its local student data in 

its POS system based on exact matches of Social Security Number, 

date of birth, and first and last name for direct certification. The freeand reduced-price clerk manually audits the list after the initial match 

is performed.

Small rural district The district matches the State-provided list with local student data in 

its POS system using date of birth or Social Security Number.

West Virginia Small rural district 1 District staff process lists of unmatched and partially matched 

students and extend categorical eligibility to other students living in 

households receiving SNAP or TANF.

Small rural district 2 District staff process lists of unmatched and partially matched 

students and extend categorical eligibility to other students living in 

households receiving SNAP or TANF.

Source: Direct certification case study interviews.

Note: Connecticut uses a local matching system.

POS = Point-of-sale; SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; TANF = Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families.
Chapter II: Planning and Implementation of Direct Certification Mathematica Policy Research

18

Investigating lists of partially matched or unmatched children. A second common district 

role in interviewed central matching States was investigating students who did not match, or who 

only partially matched, the State’s program participation data. Partial matches or erroneous nonmatches can occur because of misspellings, inverted dates, and other data errors. Unmatched and 

partially matched students by definition could not be reconciled using available State data; therefore, 

investigating these cases further was generally a district function. In most interviewed central 

matching States, State agencies made lists of unmatched or partially matched students available to 

districts and encouraged districts to compare them with their local enrollment files to identify 

additional matches. Most States gave districts discretion in selecting which data elements to use 

when identifying matches, although the process for investigating lists of partially matched and 

unmatched students varied greatly. Texas was the only interviewed central matching State that did 

not make lists of unmatched or partially matched children available to districts.

Both West Virginia and Nebraska provide districts with probabilistic match scores that indicate 

the likelihood of a correct match. These scores are intended to help districts focus their 

investigations on the students most likely to match, though in both States some interviewed districts 

were not taking advantage of all the probabilistic matching features. In Nebraska, districts can refine 

the probabilistic match score by including additional student information available locally but not 

included in the State match. In Indiana, districts are not provided with probabilistic match scores;

however, they are provided with two lists in addition to the standard matched list. The first list 

contains children who matched on all parameters except county; this list is intended to help districts 

identify students who moved or whose address information is incorrect. The second list contains 

children from the SNAP or TANF program files who did not match the State’s school enrollment 

data but who have the same SNAP or TANF case number as a student who did match; this file is 

intended to help districts identify unmatched students in households receiving SNAP or TANF 

benefits. For both lists, district staff use any available data elements and their own judgment when 

identifying additional matches.

Extending categorical eligibility to other children in the household. A third district 

function in interviewed central matching States was extending categorical eligibility to all children in 

households receiving SNAP, TANF, or FDPIR benefits. In August 2010, FNS implemented a policy 

to extend eligibility for free meals to all children in households receiving assistance from SNAP, 

TANF, or FDPIR. All case study States complied with this policy by asking districts to extend 

categorical eligibility to all students in households that contained students identified, through either 

direct certification or an application, as categorically eligible based on SNAP, TANF, or FDPIR. In 

West Virginia, the State POS includes a sibling match function. However, neither district the study 

team visited used this function, rather they identified students for extended categorical eligibility 

through applications for benefits. Other States, including Alabama and Texas, required that districts 

attempt to identify students for extended categorical eligibility. In Texas, the process for identifying 

such students varied by district and could be done either in districts’ local student enrollment 

systems or in POS systems. In Alabama, districts used their POS systems to identify other children 

in the household, matching on data elements like phone number, guardian name, or address.

C. Communication and Training

Because the role of districts in direct certification is so important, effective district 

communication and training is critical to successful direct certification. Several States noted the 

importance of communication and training, not only for instructing districts on proper use of the 

direct certification system and addressing district technical skill limitations, but also for explaining 
Chapter II: Planning and Implementation of Direct Certification Mathematica Policy Research

19

the increasing importance of direct certification and motivating districts to make their best effort to 

directly certify students.

States used a variety of methods to communicate 

with and provide instructions and training to local 

school districts (Table II.3). Some techniques were 

common across most or all central matching case 

study States; others were particular to one or two 

States. In several States, districts also relied on private 

vendors for training on technical and policy topics.

Common means by which State agencies 

communicated with and provided training to districts 

included email, webinars, and in-person workshops.

Several States make their agency staff available for 

technical assistance, and Nebraska maintains a 

telephone help center trained in providing direct 

certification technical assistance (among other 

functions). A typical communication occurred when 

States completed periodic, often monthly, matches. 

Several States, including Alabama and Texas, sent

emails to all districts alerting them that the matched files were ready for download. This email also 

contained any information on policy changes, training topics, or procedural instructions State 

administrators wished to disseminate.

Most case study States provided training to districts at least annually, though the mechanisms 

and settings varied. Alabama conducted its annual training via webinar; Texas held an annual 

workshop. Connecticut conducts several training sessions in the summer on the application and 

verification process to help their districts focus on difference between direct certification and 

categorical eligibility, and how to fill out the verification summary report (VSR). Similarly, Arizona 

conducts training for districts on the VSR to emphasize the importance of completing direct 

certification prior to direct verification in order to eliminate those students who do not need to be 

verified. West Virginia held a biannual in-person conference in addition to annual training. Nebraska 

maintains a variety of training materials on its website, including videos, and holds annual training 

conferences for district information technology (IT) and nutrition staff. Other training practices 

were specific to one or two case study States. Texas and West Virginia maintained regional support 

centers to provide training and assistance to districts. These centers gave districts points of contact 

for assistance in addition to the main State-level administrators. In Alabama, Indiana, and Texas, 

private POS vendors districts contracted with supplied technical training as needed. They also kept 

district staff informed of changes in Federal or State policy on direct certification.

Communication and Training

Most common practices

• States use a variety of communication 

tools, including webinars, conferences, 

web videos, email, phone help centers, 

and in-person training.

Key findings

• Training is important both for 

understanding the logistics of direct 

certification and for emphasizing the 

importance of effective direct certification.

• States emphasized the importance of 

clear communication and readily available 

technical assistance.

• Hands-on training was cited as a 

particularly effective training mode.
Chapter II: Planning and Implementation of Direct Certification Mathematica Policy Research

20

Table II.3. Communication and Training with Districts in Case Study States, SY 2012–2013

State

Means of Communication 

and Training

Frequency of Communication 

and Training

Summary of Communication 

and Training Activities

Alabama Email, webinar, phone The State communicates via 

email monthly and provides 

training annually and as 

requested.

The State conducts annual 

training webinars and posts 

training materials online. The 

State emails districts when 

the matched file is ready.

Arizona Email, webinar, phone The State communicates via 

email monthly and provides 

training annually and as 

requested.

State Department of 

Education staff provide 

training on the web portal and 

direct certification procedures 

for districts.

Connecticut Email, conference, phone Annual conferences, data 

updates three times a year

The Department of Education 

provides training every

summer on free and reducedprice meal applications and 

administrative review training 

each school year to districts 

under review. The department 

also provides technical 

assistance continuously. 

State staff contact districts 

three times a year to let them 

know that the program data 

file is ready.

Indiana Written system 

documentation, field staff 

interaction, phone technical 

support

As needed State staff inform districts of 

changes to the system and 

provide comprehensive 

documentation.

Nebraska Training conferences, online 

training videos and 

documentation, in-person 

training, regional support 

centers, nutrition services 

help desk, email

Separate annual conferences 

for nutrition service and IT 

staff. The State notifies 

districts by email of the 

number of newly matched 

students in the system.

The State conducts two 

annual training conferences 

and posts training materials 

online. State emphasizes inperson training. 

Texas Workshops, email, phone, 

regional support centers, 

private vendors

Texas holds annual training 

workshops and sends a 

monthly email to districts.

In addition to annual State 

training workshops, districts 

can receive training from 

regional Education Service 

Centers. Point-of-sale 

vendors also train district staff 

and inform them of system 

changes.

West Virginia Conference calls, webinars, 

conferences, videos

Regular training for districts 

occurs twice annually in 

addition to conferences every 

other year. The State offers 

training webinars for private 

schools.

The State produces training 

videos district child nutrition 

staff. Eight Regional 

Education Support Agencies 

provide assistance to districts 

as needed.

Source: Direct certification case study interviews.
Chapter II: Planning and Implementation of Direct Certification Mathematica Policy Research

21

D. Monitoring Direct Certification Activities

Though most direct certification functions in central matching States occur at the State level, 

students receive benefits only if districts complete the process by certifying matched students in 

their local POS systems. Because student benefit receipt and State performance measures depend on 

district activities, State agencies have an interest in monitoring local operations. Similarly, local 

matching States can monitor the extent to which districts are implementing direct certification. 

All case study States maintained the 

ability to monitor at least basic district 

direct certification activities, though the 

frequency and detail with which they did so

varied (Table II.4). Alabama did not 

regularly monitor district operations,

though staff had the ability to see how 

frequently districts downloaded the 

monthly matched files. State staff in 

Arizona did regularly monitor district 

activities, ensuring that districts uploaded

their enrollment data to the State database 

at least the minimum-required three times 

per school year. Connecticut mostly 

monitors district operations through the 

administrative review process.

Table II.4. Monitoring of District Direct Certification Activities in Central Matching States, SY 2012–2013

State Summary of Monitoring Activities

Alabama Though it has the ability to, the State does not regularly monitor which districts have 

conducted direct certification matching in a given month.

Arizona The State conducts informal reviews of district activities throughout the school year. The 

State online system lets State staff know how often districts upload their enrollment data, 

which should occur at least three times a year.

Connecticut The State reviews data from verification summary reports to assess district use of direct 

certification.

Indiana The State has the capability to monitor the frequency of district matching but does not 

regularly do so. In SY 2012–2013, Indiana began comparing the number of students matched 

without an application by district as reported on the FNS-742 form against the number of 

students matched in each district. Substantial discrepancies between these numbers possibly 

indicate districts not properly importing matched student information into their local point-ofsale systems.

Nebraska The State checks the number of students directly certified in each district against the number 

matched by the central system. They frequently find discrepancies in these numbers, which 

indicates that districts are not processing matched lists or lists of potential matches.

Texas Texas monitors district use of direct certification as a part of administrative review efforts and 

track the number of students matched by age and program.

West Virginia West Virginia receives performance metrics from a private system vendor. They track the 

percentage of students who end up on the unmatched list. The State does not have specific 

benchmark targets that districts have to meet.

Source: Direct certification case study interviews.

Monitoring Direct Certification Activities

Most common practices

• Although some State systems include sophisticated 

monitoring tools, many do not.

Key findings

• States often do not monitor the frequency or 

accuracy of districts’ use of direct certification 

systems.

• Discrepancies between the number of students 

matched in the central system and the number 

districts report as directly certified can be a key 

indicator of whether districts are using direct 

certification systems properly.

• States often do not track direct certification 

performance statewide.
Chapter II: Planning and Implementation of Direct Certification Mathematica Policy Research

22

Indiana, Nebraska, and West Virginia monitored district activities more closely, evaluating the 

accuracy of their matching operations. West Virginia received, from the State’s private system 

vendor, performance metrics indicating the percentage of students that appeared on each district’s 

unmatched list. Both Indiana and Nebraska compared the number of students matched in the 

central system with the number districts reported as directly certified on VSRs. 

In addition to monitoring district activities, States may also monitor direct certification system 

performance statewide. For example, States may calculate the percentage of eligible children who are 

directly certified. However, nationally it is not common for States to calculate direct certification 

performance: only 22 percent of central matching States do so (Table II.5). Among States 

interviewed as a part of the case study, several have procedures for tracking levels of direct 

certification. For example, Texas tracks the number of students matched by age and program status. 

However, these States do not typically calculate performance measures analogous to those used in 

the FNS annual reports to Congress on direct certification.15

Table II.5. Tracking Performance of Direct Certification System, SY 2012–2013 (percentages)

Central Matching States

Calculates Direct Certification Matching Rate 22.2

Among States That Calculate Matching Rates

State-calculated matching rate is typically higher than 

the Report to Congress performance measure 100.0

Program data used in matching rate include only 

school-aged children 66.7

Matching rate implied by counts of directly certified students and SNAP participant 

children 85.5

Sample Size 36

Source: National Survey of Direct Certification Practices.

SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

E. Direct Certification System Development Resources

States and districts drew on a variety of resources—financial, technological, and staffing—in 

developing and maintaining their direct certification systems. In this section, we describe the primary 

funding sources States and districts used to develop their systems and the staff responsible for 

maintaining them.

 15 In SY 2012-2013 and earlier years, the performance measures used in the reports to Congress relied on data not 

available to States. They were therefore not able to replicate the measures. Beginning in SY 2013-2014, FNS will report 

measures States develop.
Chapter II: Planning and Implementation of Direct Certification Mathematica Policy Research

23

In developing their direct certification 

systems, most States and districts consulted 

outside entities such as other State agencies, 

contractors, and IT staff in order to identify 

successful practices and learn from the 

experiences of other States. All central matching 

States and the large majority of local matching 

States consulted with at least one outside entity 

when designing their direct certification systems 

(Table II.6). States most commonly consulted IT

staff and other State agencies. Almost 95 percent 

of central matching States and more than 85

percent of local matching States consulted with 

IT staff. Almost 90 percent of central matching 

States and almost 80 percent of local matching 

States consulted with other State agencies. More than half of central matching States consulted 

outside contractors; most local matching States did not. Forty-three percent of local matching States 

consulted school districts in developing their systems, but less than 30 percent of central matching 

States did so.

Table II.6. Entities Consulted in Developing Direct Certification Matching Systems, SY 2012–2013 

(percentages)

Central Matching 

States

Local Matching 

States

Districts in Local 

Matching States

Entities Consulted on Technical Requirements of 

Direct Certification Matching

Other State agencies 88.9 78.6 —

State CN agency — — 46.2

Outside contractors 52.8 35.7 11.0

IT staff 94.4 85.7 26.9

Regional office 36.1 42.9 3.7

Other districts 27.8 42.9 10.1

None of these entities 0.0 7.1 39.0

Sample Size 36 14 1,575

Source: National Survey of Direct Certification Practices.

CN = child nutrition; IT = information technology.

Most local matching districts also consulted with outside entities when developing their direct 

certification systems, though they were less likely to do so than central or local matching States 

(Table II.6). Almost half of districts consulted with the State child nutrition agency while about a

quarter consulted with IT staff. Districts less commonly consulted with contractors, other districts, 

or FNS regional offices. More than a third of districts did not report consulting with outside entities.

Central matching States and local matching districts used a variety of different financial and 

staffing resources to develop and maintain their direct certification matching systems. Most central 

matching States used State Child Nutrition operating funds as a resource in developing their 

systems; only about a third of local matching districts did so (Table II.7). Forty-one percent of 

central matching States reported using Federal grant funds to develop their direct certification 

Direct Certification Development Resources

Most common practices

• States and districts draw from a diverse range 

of funding and staff resources to develop and 

maintain their direct certification systems.

Key findings

• State IT staff and outside contractors were 

commonly cited as having contributed to 

system development.

• Federal grants represent an important 

development resource; grants were used to 

upgrade computer matching systems, provide 

training, and transition to central matching.
Chapter II: Planning and Implementation of Direct Certification Mathematica Policy Research

24

system, compared with less than 6 percent of local matching districts. About a fifth of central 

matching States reported using State funds other than child nutrition operating funds, compared 

with less than 6 percent of local matching districts. Districts most commonly used district funds to

develop their direct certification system.

The staff involved in developing direct certification systems varied across central matching 

States and local matching districts. Most States and almost half of districts reported that State child 

nutrition IT staff developed their direct certification systems (Table II.7). More than half of central 

matching States reported that other State IT staff helped develop the systems, compared with less 

than 15 percent of local matching districts. A quarter of central matching States used outside 

contractors to develop their systems, as did almost a third of local matching districts. Central 

matching States and local matching districts less commonly used other State or district staff to 

develop their direct certification systems.

Central matching States and local matching districts used different types of staff to maintain 

direct certification software. Central matching States almost exclusively used State staff to maintain 

their systems (Table II.7). Half of central matching States used staff from the State education 

agency; about a fifth used child nutrition agency staff; 28 percent used State staff from other 

agencies. Local matching districts used either district staff (84 percent) or outside contractors

(16 percent).

Table II.7. Resources for Developing Direct Certification Matching Systems, as of SY 2012–2013 (percentages)

Central Matching 

States

Districts in Local 

Matching States

Funding Source for Developing Direct Certification System

Federal grant 41.2 5.8

Other grant 0.0 0.3

State child nutrition operating funds 58.8 33.8

Other State funds 20.6 5.5

District funds 0.0 45.5

Entities Responsible for Developing Direct Certification Software and 

Systems

State child nutrition IT staff 55.6 47.1

Other State IT staff 55.6 14.5

Other State staff 13.9 6.9

District IT staff 8.3 11.1

Other district staff 0.0 3.6

Outside contractor 25.0 31.5

Agency Maintaining Direct Certification Software

State child nutrition staff 19.4 0.0

State education agency staff 50.0 0.0

Other State staff 27.8 0.0

District staff 0.0 84.1

Outside contractor 2.8 15.9

Districts Implemented Technology Upgrades 27.8 15.5

Sample Size 36 1,606

Source: National Survey of Direct Certification Practices.

IT = information technology.
Chapter II: Planning and Implementation of Direct Certification Mathematica Policy Research

25

Most central matching States and local matching districts did not have to implement technology 

upgrades in order to conduct direct certification. Such upgrades were more common in central 

matching States than in local matching districts, 28 percent compared with 16 percent (Table II.7).

Case study States reflect the diversity in resource sources seen in the survey responses. The 

seven States in the in-depth case studies used funding from a variety of sources to develop different 

aspects of their direct certification systems. Three of the case study States received Federal grants to 

improve their systems (Table II.8). West Virginia used grant funding to purchase computer servers 

and to provide user training on the State’s matching system. In Nebraska, grant funding supported 

the shift to a web-based probabilistic matching system. Connecticut used planning and 

implementation grants to prepare for its transition to a central matching system in SY 2013–2014.

Table II.8. Funding and Development Resources Employed in Case Study States, as of SY 2012–2013

State

Summary of

Funding Resources

Summary of

Development Resources

Alabama Alabama received an ART II grant in SY 2010–

2011.

The State developed the iNOW statewide 

student information system for launch in SY 

2011–2012. The State’s direct certification 

system switched to monthly matching in that 

year, using iNOW as the State-level direct 

certification platform. No additional 

infrastructure changes were necessary.

Connecticut Connecticut received an FNS planning grant in 

2011 and an implementation grant in 2012. 

They used the planning grant to assess the 

state of direct certification across districts. The 

implementation grant will support the transition 

to a central matching system by fall 2015.

The local matching system in place in SY 2012–

2013 relied on each district conducting 

matching using local systems. Systems ranged 

from Excel spreadsheets to databases.

Indiana Indiana’s direct certification system relies strictly 

on State general funds.

Development of the State matching algorithm 

was supported almost entirely by State child 

nutrition staff.

Nebraska Received a direct certification grant from FNS in 

2009 that was used to develop their web-based 

probabilistic matching system. 

Nutrition Services staff developed the direct 

certification database and the initial probabilistic 

matching algorithm. The system switched to a 

Microsoft matching algorithm to improve 

efficiency and accuracy. An external contractor 

developed the web interface. Throughout the 

process, input was solicited from districts and 

system data providers. Consulted with other 

States in the early stages of development.

Texas Texas relies exclusively on State funds for 

direct certification operations.

Private contractors provide IT support to TEA 

direct certification system. TDA uses in-house 

staff to run the largely automated system.

West Virginia West Virginia received a grant in 2012 to 

purchase three servers and fund two usertraining conferences. The State pooled county 

technology funding to fund development of the 

updated central point-of-sale system.

The West Virginia Education Information 

System (WVEIS) grew out of a regional 

database mandated by the legislature in 1991. 

Private contractors initially developed WVEIS, 

but the State purchased the license for the code 

in 2001 and how uses in-house developers to 

customize and maintain the system.

Source: Direct certification case study interviews.

ART = Administrative Reviews and Training; TDA = Texas Department of Agriculture; TEA = Texas Education 

Agency.
Chapter II: Planning and Implementation of Direct Certification Mathematica Policy Research

26

Other States relied on State funding to develop and maintain their direct certification systems. 

Alabama’s system benefited from a larger upgrade when the State’s new statewide student 

information system, iNOW, rolled out in SY 2011–2012. No specific direct certification funding was 

required during this upgrade, but it allowed the State to transition to monthly matching using the 

new common statewide platform. In Connecticut, through the end of SY 2012–2013, districts were 

responsible for developing their own matching systems. West Virginia funded the development of 

its statewide POS system by pooling county technology resources.

Nebraska and Texas both relied on private contractors to develop or administer portions of 

their direct certification systems. In Texas, contractors provided technical support to the Education 

Agency’s systems, including for direct certification. In Nebraska, contractors developed the web 

interface for the State’s direct certification system.

Nationally, 18 central matching States reported receiving Federal direct certification grants for 

developing matching systems.16 Grant recipients used funds for many different purposes in 

improving their direct certification systems, ranging from expanding the data sources and data 

elements used in matching, to increasing the frequency of matching, to upgrading the information 

system used to support the matching process.

States receiving grants most commonly planned or implemented an increase in matching 

frequency. More than three quarters of States reporting grant receipt planned or implemented this 

change (Table II.9). Two-thirds had already implemented it at the time of the survey.

Most grant recipients also used funding to implement new computer matching systems or add 

additional data elements to matching algorithms. Almost three quarters planned to implement these 

changes or had already done so (more than half) (Table II.9).

More than 60 percent of grant recipients planned either to create a web-based lookup system or 

to introduce probabilistic matching. (This figure includes the more than half of States that had 

already used grant funds to create web-based lookup systems and the half that had already used 

grant funds to introduce probabilistic matching [Table II.9]).

More than half of States used grant funding to upgrade their State information systems or 

obtain program data from additional sources. More than half had already used grant funding to 

upgrade their State information system. Almost 45 percent had already obtained program data from 

additional sources (Table II.9).

 16 This total differs from the number of grant recipients in FNS records [http://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/fy-2010-

2012-direct-certification-grant-summaries], which lists 28 States as recipients. Part of the discrepancy arose because the survey for the 

current report excluded local matching States from the grant receipt questions. Five States in FNS’ list of grant recipients are local 

matching States and so do not appear in Table II.11 of the current report. The discrepancy for the remaining five States could be due 

to inaccurate survey responses.
Chapter II: Planning and Implementation of Direct Certification Mathematica Policy Research

27

Table II.9. Use of Federal Direct Certification Grants for Developing Matching Systems, as of SY 2012–2013 

(percentages)

Central Matching States

Awarded FNS Direct Certification Grant 48.6

Changes Associated with Grant, Implemented or Planned

State information system upgrade 55.6

Obtain program data from additional sources 55.6

Implement new computer matching system 72.2

Increase matching frequency 77.8

Add more elements for matching 72.2

Add probabilistic matching 61.1

Create web-based lookup system 61.1

Other system changes 33.3

Implemented Changes Associated with Grant

State information system upgrade 55.6

Obtain program data from additional sources 44.4

Implement new computer matching system 61.1

Increase matching frequency 66.7

Add more elements for matching 61.1

Add probabilistic matching 50.0

Create web-based lookup system 55.6

Other system changes 27.8

Planned Changes Associated with Grant

State information system upgrade 11.1

Obtain program data from additional sources 22.2

Implement new computer matching system 27.8

Increase matching frequency 22.2

Add more elements for matching 33.3

Add probabilistic matching 16.7

Create web-based lookup system 11.1

Other system changes 16.7

Sample Size 37

Source: National Survey of Direct Certification Practices.

F. Relationships with Other Agencies

Successful direct certification systems rely on constructive collaboration among multiple State 

agencies. In all States, more than one agency is required for direct certification. The agencies usually

involved are the State education agency and those administering State SNAP and TANF programs. 

In some States, the agencies administering foster care, FDPIR, or Medicaid are also involved.

Agency roles and the relationships between agencies varied for central matching compared with 

local matching States. In-depth case study data illuminate the agency roles and relationships 

necessary for the direct certification process in both types of systems.
Chapter II: Planning and Implementation of Direct Certification Mathematica Policy Research

28

State agency roles were fairly consistent

across central matching case study States. SNAP 

and TANF agencies typically provided the 

program participation data to the State 

education agency, which usually matched the 

program data against school enrollment data 

either maintained at the State level or obtained 

from local school districts. The education agency 

made the resulting matched lists available to 

local districts, which used them to identify, in 

their local enrollment data, students eligible for 

direct certification. Respondents in Alabama and 

West Virginia indicated that their direct 

certification systems’ success benefitted from 

positive, collaborative relationships between the 

SNAP and TANF agencies and the education 

agencies.

Texas offered an exception to the two-agency model, incorporating three agencies into its direct 

certification system. The Texas Education Agency received program data from the Texas Health and 

Human Services Commission and performed the match against its education enrollment data. It 

then forwarded the matched list to the Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA), which oversees the 

NSLP in Texas. TDA divided the list by school district and forwarded each district its matched list. 

Respondents in Texas reported that staff in the three agencies worked together effectively, citing it 

as a key reason for their strong direct certification performance.

Because the primary certification activities occur at the local level, State agencies have limited 

roles in local matching States. State agencies do perform essential functions in these systems, 

however. This study included only one local-level matching State, Connecticut, among the in-depth 

case studies. The primary State agency function in Connecticut’s direct certification system in SY

2012–2013 was supplying the SNAP and TANF program data that districts use in their matching 

processes. The Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) provided to the Connecticut 

Department of Social Services (CTDSS) town codes corresponding to school districts. CTDSS staff

used these codes to divide their SNAP and TANF program files geographically. They then posted 

the files on a secure web portal where districts could download them. CSDE notified the districts 

when the files were ready. Each district performed the direct certification matching according to 

locally determined algorithms and procedures. At the time of the case study, Connecticut planned to 

transition to a central matching system in SY 2013–2014. Table II.10 includes details on State agency 

roles in all seven case study States.

States use formal memoranda of understanding (MOUs) to manage the interagency operations 

involved in conducting direct certification. In SY 2012–2013, all central matching States and all but 

one local matching State had MOUs in place (Table II.11). All States interviewed as a part of the 

case study had MOUs with relevant agencies. Some States cited challenges in developing MOUs. For 

example, in Nebraska executing an MOU with the agency administering SNAP, TANF, and foster 

care took more than a year. In West Virginia, reaching an agreement to use foster care data in direct 

certification was difficult because of the perceived sensitivity of those data.

Relationships with Other Agencies

Most common practices

• Direct certification typically involves the State 

education agency, the State agency 

administering programs that confer categorical 

eligibility, and districts.

Key findings

• Productive interagency relationships are 

important components of effective direct 

certification systems.

• Formal data sharing agreements among 

participating agencies are nearly universal but 

can be challenging to execute in some cases.
Chapter II: Planning and Implementation of Direct Certification Mathematica Policy Research

29

Table II.10. Interagency Operations in Case Study States, SY 2012–2013

State State/Participating Agency Summary of Agency Roles and Interaction

Alabama Department of Human 

Resources (DHR)

DHR provides ALSDE monthly enrollment files for SNAP, TANF, and foster care. 

They move the enrollment files to a shared network location on the mainframe 

that houses both agencies’ data and alert ALSDE staff that the files are 

available.

State Department of 

Education (ALSDE)

ALSDE generates the statewide matched list each month and provides it to 

district child nutrition directors. ALSDE’s data system automatically compares the 

DHR program enrollment files with the school enrollment data from the statewide 

student information system (iNOW) to create the matched list.

Arizona Department of Economic 

Security (AZDES)

AZDES provides updated SNAP and TANF files to ADE every day through an 

automated system.

Department of Education 

(ADE)

ADE matches the SNAP and TANF program data with statewide school 

enrollment data. Districts pull the matched list three times a year. ADE also 

provides training on the web portal and direct certification procedures for 

districts.

Connecticut Department of Social 

Services (CTDSS)

CTDSS provides SNAP and TANF program data to all districts in the State three 

times a year. CTDSS staff filter the list by town code in order to send each 

district only its associated students.

State Department of 

Education (CSDE)

CSDE provides CTDSS with lists of towns that correspond to each district. CSDE 

notifies districts when the files are ready to download and conducts 

administrative reviews of district matching performance.

Indiana Family and Social Services 

Administration (FSSA)

FSSA provides monthly data files containing SNAP, TANF, and Medicaid 

information.

Department of Education 

(IDOE)

IDOE houses the State’s central direct certification system. IDOE conducts the 

matching process and makes the matched files available for districts to 

download.

Nebraska Department of Health and 

Human Services (DHHS)

DHHS set up an automated process that provides the Department of Education 

with daily files of SNAP, TANF, Medicaid, and foster care participants.

Department of Education

(NDE)

NDE receives SNAP, TANF, Medicaid, and foster care data from DHHS and 

matches it daily with State school enrollment data. NDE sends lists of matched 

and partially matched students to districts daily. NDE also provides training and 

system documentation to district staff.

Texas Health and Human Services 

Commission (HHSC)

HHSC provides monthly SNAP and TANF data to TEA for direct certification 

matching.

Texas Education Agency 

(TEA)

Each month, TEA matches monthly SNAP and TANF program data with annual 

statewide enrollment data. Once they create the matched list, they replace 

students’ Social Security Numbers with student ID numbers and give the list to 

TDA.

Department of Agriculture 

(TDA)

TDA splits the statewide matched list into district lists and sends each district a 

list of its directly certified students.

West Virginia Department of Health and 

Human Services (DHHR)

DHHR provides the SNAP, TANF, and foster care data used for direct 

certification in West Virginia. SNAP and TANF data are integrated into the 

State’s automatic direct certification system. DHHR transfers updated files to the 

Department of Education monthly via a file transfer protocol. Foster care data are 

updated monthly but are used in direct certification matching only once a year.

Department of Education 

(WVDE)

WVDE conducts the direct certification matching for the State. WVDE receives 

updated SNAP and TANF files each month and matches them daily against 

updated school enrollment data. The system provides districts with lists of 

matched students as well as unmatched records that include matching scores. 

WVDE staff also provide regular direct certification training for district staff.

Source: Direct certification case study interviews.

ID = Identification; SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; TANF = Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families.
Chapter II: Planning and Implementation of Direct Certification Mathematica Policy Research

30

Table II.11. State Use of Formal Data-Sharing Agreements, SY 2012–2013 (percentages)

Central Matching 

States

Local Matching 

States

State Has Formal Data-Sharing Agreements with Agencies Participating in 

Direct Certification 100.0 92.9

Sample Size 37 14

Source: National Survey of Direct Certification Practices.
31

III. DIRECT CERTIFICATION MATCHING PROCEDURES

Direct certification serves a straightforward purpose: to identify students eligible for school 

meal benefits without requiring an application. The methods States and districts use to achieve this 

goal, however, vary widely and can be quite complex. The primary data sets States use in direct 

certification vary in their sources and characteristics. Different States use different systems and 

interfaces to transfer and manipulate data. Each State maintains its own matching rules, including 

the frequency of matching as well as the specific data elements and algorithms used to identify 

matches. Some States calculate likelihood scores as part of probabilistic matching systems and define 

matches as scores that exceed a specified threshold. In addition to variation in core matching 

procedures, States and districts employ different techniques in extending categorical eligibility within 

households and have different methods of incorporating private and charter schools into direct 

certification systems.

In this chapter we discuss the range and variation of procedures States and districts use in direct 

certification. We begin with a discussion of school enrollment data followed by descriptions of the 

types of program data States used in the matching process. We then describe common matching 

procedures in place during SY 2012–2013, identifying patterns in central versus local matching 

systems. We discuss the prevalence of probabilistic matching, the methods for extending eligibility 

within households, the extent and nature of nonpublic school participation, and the data systems 

States and districts use to conduct direct certification. We conclude with a discussion of the 

feasibility of incorporating Medicaid data into direct certification.

A. Enrollment Data Used in Direct Certification

Effective direct certification requires accurate, up-to-date student information. If student 

enrollment data do not have accurate identifying information, it may not be possible to match the 

students to information on program participation. If the student enrollment data are not up to date, 

it might not be possible to directly certify newly enrolled students or transfers. The student 

enrollment data sources, systems, handling procedures, and content vary across States and 

sometimes across districts within States. In this section, we discuss how States and districts house 

and share their enrollment data, characteristics of Statewide Student Information Systems (SSIS), 

and challenges associated with enrollment data. 

1. Enrollment Data Sources and Characteristics

Enrollment data needs vary based on whether States use central or local matching systems. 

With direct certification based on central matching, States must identify a means of obtaining 

information on students enrolled statewide, as well as a means to transfer enrollment data to the 

entity conducting direct certification matching. Nearly 80 percent of central matching States used

SSIS for direct certification in SY 2012–2013 (Table III.1). In one-third of central matching States, 

no transfer of enrollment data was necessary, because the data were housed at the entity conducting 

matching. In other States, common methods for transferring enrollment data to the entity 

conducting matching included automated transfers and transfers via internet. 

In local matching States, use of SSIS was much less common; only 29 percent of local matching 

States used SSIS as their enrollment data source. The most common source cited by local matching 

States is district-maintained electronic files. In half of local matching States, no transfer of 

enrollment data is necessary, because the data are housed at the entity conducing matching (the 

district). 
Chapter III: Direct Certification Matching Procedures Mathematica Policy Research

32

Table III.1. Characteristics of Enrollment Data Used in Direct Certification (percentages)

Central Matching 

States

Local Matching 

States

Source of Enrollment Data

Statewide Student Information System 78.9 28.6

Electronic files maintained by State 2.6 0.0

Electronic files maintained by district 18.4 64.3

Hard-copy files 0.0 7.1

Method for Transferring Enrollment Data

No transfer necessary; data housed at matching entity 33.3 50.0

Electronic files sent via automated process 36.1 28.6

Electronic files sent via internet 36.1 21.4

Hard-copy lists sent via mail 2.8 0.0

Other transfer methods 19.4 0.0

Sample Size 38 14

Source: National Survey of Direct Certification Practices.

2. Statewide Student Information Systems

A well-developed SSIS can be an important precursor to successful direct certification systems, 

particularly for central matching States. Most States had an SSIS in place in SY 2012–2013. Only 

nine did not operate an SSIS, and of those, four had plans to implement one in the future

(Table III.2). Consistent with the importance of 

SSIS for central matching, nearly 90 percent of 

central matching States had SSIS. SSIS were 

somewhat less common in local matching States:

64 percent had them. 

SSIS provided broad coverage of districts 

and students within States operating them. SSIS 

included all public school students in all States 

that had the systems in place (Table III.2). Most 

charter school students were also included in 

SSIS, but most private school students were not.

Many States with SSIS updated enrollment 

data daily and most updated at least monthly;

however, it was not uncommon to update less 

frequently. For example, 38 percent of central matching States with SSIS updated their data daily,

and slightly more than half did so at least monthly (Table III.2). However, slightly less than half 

updated their data less frequently. 

States have processes in place to assure the quality of enrollment data stored in SSIS. Almost all 

States with SSIS used automated validation rules and edit checks to assure data quality, and about 

one-third also used random sample audit checks (Table III.2). 

Enrollment Data Used in Direct Certification

Common practices

• States using central matching usually use 

SSIS as their source for enrollment data; local 

matching States use other sources.

Key findings

• The frequency with which enrollment data are 

updated ranges considerably, from daily to 

once annually.

• In some States in which the SSIS are not 

updated immediately at the beginning of the 

school year, special procedures have been 

developed to allow districts to directly certify 

newly enrolled students.
Chapter III: Direct Certification Matching Procedures Mathematica Policy Research

33

Table III.2. Characteristics of Statewide Student Information Systems used in Direct Certification 

(percentages)

Central Matching 

States

Local Matching 

States

Use of SSIS

Uses SSIS for direct certification 78.4 14.3

SSIS in place but not used for direct certification 10.8 50.0

SSIS planned 2.7 21.4

No plans for SSIS 8.1 14.3

Among States with SSIS in Place

SSIS assigns unique ID 100.0 100.0

Percentage of school districts included in SSIS 93.4 89.7

Percentage of students included in SSIS among

Public school students 100.0 100.0

Charter school students 80.8 58.6

Private school students 19.2 0.7

Frequency SSIS enrollment data are updated

Daily 38.7 83.3

Weekly 3.2 0.0

Monthly 9.7 0.0

Less than monthly, more than three times annually 16.1 16.7

Three times annually 16.1 0.0

Other frequency 16.1 0.0

Methods for entering data into SSIS

Manual 35.5 28.6

District upload 87.1 71.4

Automated process 41.9 28.6

Methods for SSIS quality checks

Automated validation rules and edit checks 93.3 100.0

Random sample audit checks 36.7 40.0

Outside contractor performs quality checks 16.7 0.0

Sample Size 37 14

Source: National Survey of Direct Certification Practices.

3. Challenges with Enrollment Data

If enrollment data do not reflect the current set of students enrolled in each school, it may not 

be possible to match all students who are participating in programs that confer categorical eligibility. 

Infrequent updates to enrollment data may present challenges in directly certifying newly enrolled 

and transfer students. States interviewed as part of the in-depth case study provided valuable insight 

into these challenges, as described in Table III.3. 

All interviewed States used student enrollment data from SSIS, but the frequency with which 

SSIS data were updated during the school year varied considerably. Alabama, Indiana, Nebraska, and 

West Virginia used enrollment data that were updated either daily or in real time during the school 

year. Arizona, Connecticut, and Texas used statewide enrollment data updated much less frequently, 

ranging from once to three times a year. States with daily enrollment data updates cited this feature 

as a strength of their systems. However, when districts initiate direct certification matching in 

Arizona they may use more current local enrollment data. Similarly, in Connecticut, districts control 

how current enrollment data are because the State uses local matching. West Virginia noted that a 
Chapter III: Direct Certification Matching Procedures Mathematica Policy Research

34

Table III.3. Source and Quality of Enrollment Data Used in Direct Certification for Case Study States, 

SY 2012–2013

State Description of Enrollment Data Strengths and Challenges of Data

Alabama All student data are contained in Alabama’s 

Statewide Student Information System,

iNOW. Data are maintained at the district 

level and replicated nightly to the State 

iNOW system.

Enrollment data are entered at the local 

level and include data entry that could lead 

to human error and inconsistent entries 

compared to program data.

Arizona Districts update the SSIS with student 

enrollment data. The State requires districts 

to do so by the 40th day of the school year.

Data quality checks are performed on the 

format of the data used in matching. There 

are also data quality checks while 

performing the import process, detecting 

whether an incomplete file was received. 

However, some districts do not keep their 

local enrollment data up to date, which 

hinders accurate matching.

Connecticut Each district maintains its own student 

enrollment system. Districts manually 

upload their enrollment files to the 

Department of Education’s statewide 

student information system in June, 

October, and January.

Districts understand and have control of the 

enrollment data at the local level. However, 

Some districts’ point-of-sale systems do not 

have real-time updates of data and include 

manual processes and nightly batch runs.

Indiana Student enrollment data originate from local 

district systems. During the summer, 

districts must manually upload their local 

enrollment files to the SSIS to initiate the 

matching process. During the school year, 

the statewide system is updated in real 

time.

Student data in charter or parochial schools 

are not always high quality.

Nebraska Enrollment data are incorporated into the 

direct certification process in two ways. 

Enrollment data from the current school 

year are available from the end of 

September. Before that time, districts may 

upload enrollment data into a separate 

system. Nonpublic schools may also upload 

enrollment data into this second system.

Dual enrollment systems allow newly 

enrolled students to be directly certified 

early in the year. However, districts do not 

always use the upload system early in the 

year.

Texas Districts upload student enrollment date 

through the statewide student information 

system (PEIMS). State enrollment data are 

an October snapshot that becomes 

available in March of the following year.

Enrollment data from the current school 

year do not become available until March. 

Therefore data in the early school year do 

not reflect newly enrolled students or 

transfers, although kindergartners appear 

in the data due to universal preschool in 

Texas.

The Education Agency removes 

duplications across districts during quality 

checks.

West Virginia State enrollment data are stored in the 

WVSEIS, a comprehensive statewide 

system that tracks students in all districts.

Data are updated in real time throughout 

the school year. The student information, 

including direct certification status, is not 

lost when students transfer between 

districts.

Source: Direct certification case study interviews.
Chapter III: Direct Certification Matching Procedures Mathematica Policy Research

35

particular strength of their SSIS is that certification status of students is integrated into the statewide 

student and POS system. Therefore, the certification status of students who transfer within the State 

will be updated within one day of their transfer, and the student can quickly begin receiving the meal 

benefits to which they are entitled.

A challenge related to the frequency of enrollment data updates is capturing information for 

students who are newly enrolled at the beginning of the year, including students who are new to the 

school and all kindergartners. In the most extreme example, Texas enrollment data were updated 

once annually and made available in March after a lengthy quality assurance process. Therefore, 

direct certification matching conducted before March is based on enrollment data from the previous 

school year, and matching conducted after March is based on data that may be out of date by the 

time they are used for matching. The completeness of enrollment data used for matches early in the 

school year is aided by universal pre-kindergarten in Texas, which allows rising kindergartners to be 

included in the previous year’s enrollment file used in initial matches. Somewhat similar to the SSIS 

in Texas, the SSIS in Nebraska and Indiana are not populated with current year enrollment data for 

the first month of the school year. However, both States have systems in place that allow districts to 

upload more current enrollment information before the SSIS is initially updated. 

B. Program Data Used in Direct Certification

States must establish procedures to directly certify children from SNAP households. State child 

nutrition agencies must enter an agreement to obtain lists of school-aged SNAP participants from 

the relevant State agency. Central matching States use these lists to conduct direct certification 

matching; local matching States provide these lists to districts for matching. 

Direct certification may be more effective 

in States that directly certify categorically eligible 

children other than SNAP participants, such as 

those from TANF and FDPIR households; 

foster children; participants in Federally funded 

Head Start or Even Start programs; and certain 

homeless, runaway, and migrant children. In SY 

2012–2013, nearly 90 percent of States used 

program data sources in addition to SNAP 

(Table III.4). TANF was by far the most 

common additional program data source, 

followed by foster care and Medicaid. 

Direct certification may also be improved 

with more frequent updates to program data, 

which increases the chance that students who 

cycle on to eligible programs are directly

certified as well as the chance that eligible 

students will be directly certified in a timely manner. This rest of this section discusses use of 

program data in direct certification, including sources of program data and the frequency at which 

those data are updated.

Program Data Used in Direct Certification

Common practices

• States are required to use or provide SNAP 

records for direct certification, but most also 

use TANF records, and many use foster care 

records.

Key findings

• Program data are often provided through 

automated processes that require little or no 

staff maintenance time on the part of program 

data partners.

• Use of foster care records can contribute to 

increased numbers of directly certified 

students; one State reported that 7 percent of 

directly certified students were matched 

through foster care.
Chapter III: Direct Certification Matching Procedures Mathematica Policy Research

36

Table III.4. Program Data Used by States in Direct Certification (percentages)

All States

Central Matching 

States

Local Matching 

States

TANF 86.5 86.8 85.7

FDPIR 7.7 10.5 0.0

Foster Care 30.8 31.6 28.6

Medicaid 9.6 2.6 28.6

Other Program Data Source Used 1.9 2.6 0.0

No Program Data Other than SNAP Used 11.5 13.2 7.1

Sample Size 52 38 14

Source: National Survey of Direct Certification Practices.

SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; FDPIR = Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations; TANF = 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

SNAP data. As noted above, all States are required to use SNAP data in direct certification. In 

most States, SNAP data used for direct certification were updated at least monthly. About one-fourth

of States used SNAP data files that were updated at least weekly; all these States used central 

matching (Table III.5). A little more than 20 percent of States used files that were updated less often 

than monthly. Less frequent updates were more common for local matching States.

States interviewed as part of the case study noted that the frequency of program data updates 

depends largely on the technical capacity of the program data partner. Several States described 

automated program data transfer processes that require very little maintenance time for partner 

agency staff. For example, Nebraska received daily program data files delivered through a completely 

automated process from their Department of Health and Human Services. More details on data 

transfer procedures in interviewed States are in Table III.6.

TANF data. In SY 2012–2013, more than 80 percent of both central and local matching States 

used TANF data for direct certification matching (Table III.4). In most States, TANF data for direct 

certification were updated monthly. In almost one-quarter of central matching States (but in no local 

matching States), TANF data were updated daily. In about 10 percent of central matching States and 

42 percent of local matching States, data were updated less frequently than monthly (Table III.5).

All case study States used TANF data in their direct certification matching processes (Table 

III.6). TANF data are typically housed by the same agency that administers SNAP, so there is little 

additional effort for the SNAP agency to produce and transfer data files containing both SNAP and 

TANF participants. However, SNAP participation is much more common than TANF participation, 

and most TANF participants also receive SNAP. 

Foster care data. The most common additional program data source other than TANF was 

foster care. Almost one-third of States used foster care data for direct certification matching in SY 

2012–2013 (Table III.4). In most States that used foster care data, the data were updated at least 

monthly (Table III.5).

Among case study States, Alabama, Indiana, Nebraska, and West Virginia used foster care data 

for direct certification and Arizona plans to incorporate foster care data in the near future 

(Table III.6). Officials in West Virginia noted that the agency that administers the foster care system 

regards those data as particularly sensitive and that negotiating an MOU for their use was 

challenging. In Nebraska, however, foster care data were able to be included in the same file SNAP

and TANF participation data and under the same MOU. Officials in Nebraska noted the large 
Chapter III: Direct Certification Matching Procedures Mathematica Policy Research

37

Table III.5. Frequency of State Program Data Updates in Direct Certification (percentages)

All States

Central Matching 

States

Local Matching 

States

SNAP Program Data

Frequency SNAP Data Are Updated

Daily 17.6 24.3 0.0

Weekly 5.9 8.1 0.0

Monthly 54.9 51.4 64.3

Less than monthly, more than three times annually 7.8 8.1 7.1

Three times annually 13.7 8.1 28.6

TANF Program Data

TANF Data Used in Direct Certification 86.5 86.8 85.7

Frequency TANF Data Are Updated if Used

Daily 16.3 22.6 0.0

Weekly 7.0 9.7 0.0

Monthly 58.1 58.1 58.3

Less than monthly, more than three times annually 4.7 3.2 8.3

Three times annually 14.0 6.5 33.3

Foster Care Program Data

Foster Care Data Used in Direct Certification 30.8 31.6 28.6

Frequency Foster Care Data Are Updated if Used

Daily 12.5 16.7 0.0

Weekly 12.5 16.7 0.0

Monthly 56.3 50.0 75.0

Less than monthly, more than three times annually 6.3 0.0 25.0

Three times annually 0.0 0.0 0.0

Other frequency 12.5 16.7 0.0

FDPIR Program Data

FDPIR Data Used in Direct Certification 7.7 10.5 0.0

Frequency FDPIR Data Are Updated if Used

Weekly 25.0 25.0 --

Monthly 50.0 50.0 --

Other frequency 25.0 25.0 --

Medicaid Program Data

Medicaid Data Used in Direct Certification 9.6 2.6 28.6

Frequency Medicaid Data Are Updated if Used

Monthly 100.0 100.0 100.0

Sample Size 52 38 14

Source: National Survey of Direct Certification Practices.

SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; FDPIR = Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations; TANF = 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

benefit to using these data for direct certification. State documentation shows that about 7 percent 

of directly certified students were certified based on foster care data; 80 percent were directly 

certified based on SNAP and 13 percent based on TANF. 
Chapter III: Direct Certification Matching Procedures Mathematica Policy Research

38

Table III.6. Source and Quality of Program Data Used in Direct Certification for Case Study States, 

SY 2012–2013

State/Program Data Type Description of Program Data Strengths and Challenges of Data

Alabama

SNAP/TANF The data include all statewide participants in 

SNAP and TANF between ages 4 and 19. 

Data are entered in real time by county office 

staff. Data systems have field codes preventing 

some potential errors such as impossible dates. 

Data reside on same mainframe that the 

Department of Education uses, which simplifies

the transfer process.

Foster Care The data include all statewide participants of 

any age. 

Data are entered in real time by county office 

staff. Data systems have field codes preventing 

some potential errors such as impossible dates. 

Data reside on same mainframe that the 

Department of Education uses, which simplifies

the transfer process.

Arizona

SNAP/TANF The data include school-age participants 

through age 21 with indicators for SNAP and

TANF participation.

The Department of Economic Security performs 

quality checks before exporting the data. They 

export the data to the Department of Education 

every day, though the data are not necessarily 

updated every day.

Connecticut

SNAP/TANF The data include all SNAP and TANF 

participants between ages 3 and 18.

The data do not contain indicators 

distinguishing SNAP and TANF participation.

Indiana

SNAP/TANF Monthly data include participants between 

ages 3 and 21.

File includes duplicate records for participants 

in SNAP, TANF, and Medicaid. These 

duplicates are handled in the matching process.

Foster Care Program data updated monthly. Data provided by a different agency from the 

one that provides SNAP and TANF data.

Nebraska

SNAP/TANF Program data updated daily. File transfer process is completely automated 

and requires virtually no staff maintenance 

time.

Foster Care Program data updated daily. Data provided by the same agency that 

provides SNAP and TANF data as a part of the 

same file.

Texas

SNAP/TANF Program data updated monthly. The only unique identifier common across all 

data sets is Social Security Number. State staff 

would prefer to use a different data element, 

but there is no suitable alternative.

West Virginia

SNAP/TANF The data include all individuals aged 4 to 18 on 

either program as of the second Saturday in the 

month. The file includes indicators of SNAP or 

TANF participation.

The timing of the file update is designed for 

maximum accuracy. Closed cases are dropped 

on the second Friday of each month; the file is 

created the following day. The eligibility system 

automatically removes duplicate records before 

transferring the file to the Department of 

Education.

Foster Care A data file of statewide foster care children is 

provided monthly.

Foster care data are not matched through the 

same system used for SNAP and TANF data. 

Although the data are available monthly, they 

are matched only once before the start of the 

school year.

Source: Direct certification case study interviews.

SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; TANF = Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
Chapter III: Direct Certification Matching Procedures Mathematica Policy Research

39

Other program data sources. Few States used statewide data from other programs during SY 

2012–2013. About 10 percent of States participated in the Medicaid demonstration, incorporating 

data from that program into their direct certification matching process.17

Although use of statewide program data sources other than SNAP, TANF, and foster care is 

not common, it is possible that districts are using local information on participation in additional 

programs. For example, officials in West Virginia indicated that in processing lists of students who

were not matched centrally, districts may review local information that is not available at the State 

level, such as homeless liaison and runaway student lists.

Demonstration participants 

included both central and local matching States (Table III.4). Among these, all but one State used 

data updated monthly (Table III.5). Only four States used FDPIR data for direct certification during 

SY 2012–2013, all central matching States (Table III.4). No case study States used Medicaid or 

FDPIR data for direct certification in SY 2012–2013 (Table III.6).

C. Direct Certification Matching Frequency

Frequently updated program and enrollment data improve direct certification performance only 

if they are accompanied by frequent data matching. In SY 2012–2103, the frequency of direct 

certification matching ranged from three times annually—the minimum mandated by FNS—to 

daily. More frequent matching might cause more students to receive meal benefits without having to 

submit an application. It also might improve States’ direct certification performance measures. 

Frequent data matching may be particularly useful for reestablishing eligibility for students whose 

certification status is not carried over when transferring between districts.

In SY 2012–2013, a large majority of States 

and districts—87 percent of central matching 

States and almost three-quarters of districts in 

local matching States—conducted the initial 

match prior to the start of the school year

(Table III.7). In central matching States,

frequent matching was common. Nearly 70 

percent of central matching States conducted 

matches at least monthly, and about 20 percent 

did so daily. Matching was conducted less 

frequently in districts in local matching States; 

only about a third of districts conducted 

matches at least monthly. 

 17 For more information on the Medicaid demonstration, see Section IV.I below.

Direct Certification Matching Frequency

Common practices

• A large majority of central matching States 

conduct matching at least monthly, whereas 

matching was often conducted less frequently 

in local matching States.

Key findings

• States conducting daily matching cite match 

frequency as a key strength of their direct 

certification systems.
Chapter III: Direct Certification Matching Procedures Mathematica Policy Research

40

Table III.7. Timing of Initial Direct Certification Match and Frequency and Process for Subsequent Matches 

(percentages)

Central 

Matching States

Districts in Local 

Matching States

Initial Match Conducted Before the Start of the School Year 86.8 72.8

Frequency of Subsequent Matches

Daily 21.1 7.7

Weekly 7.9 0.5

Monthly 39.5 24.0

Less than monthly, more than three times annually 5.3 8.0

Three times annually 13.2 36.1

Two times annually 7.9 17.3

Other frequency 5.3 6.3

Newly Enrolled Students Matched Through Individual Lookup 23.7 37.0

Enrollment Data Used in Subsequent Matches

All students 57.9 50.4

Newly enrolled students 36.8 17.0

Students not previously certified 50.0 22.0

Enrollment data updated less frequently than matching 

conducted 5.3 0.0

Sample Size 38 2,926

Source: National Survey of Direct Certification Practices.

States included in the in-depth case study reflected the full range of match frequency observed 

nationally; two States used daily matching, two used monthly matching, one matched at the 

minimum frequency, and for the remaining two States, match frequency was determined by districts

(Table III.8). States conducting daily matches (Nebraska and West Virginia) cited frequent matching 

as a key strength of their systems. During case study interviews, respondents in most States reported 

that they either planned to match more frequently or would like to. Indiana and Connecticut both

had concrete plans to increase the frequency of matching. In SY 2012–2013, the match frequency in 

Indiana depended on how often districts initiated the matching process. In 2013–2014, Indiana will 

begin automatic Statewide monthly matching. Connecticut will use weekly matching when its central 

matching system is introduced in 2015. Staff in Arizona and Alabama expressed interest in matching 

more frequently but did not have plans to do so. Staff in Alabama cited technological and resources 

constraints as barriers to more frequent matching.

D. Direct Certification Matching Procedures

In directly certifying students, States and districts apply algorithms matching children with data

in two or more data sets. These algorithms apply a set of matching rules to elements common across 

enrollment and program data sources. Direct certification matching algorithms must strike a balance 

between the risks of false positives and those of false negatives. If the algorithm includes overly 

stringent requirements to identify matches, it may fail to directly certify students who are entitled to 

free school meals. If the algorithm has overly lax match requirements, it may directly certify students 

who are not entitled to school meal benefits.

In this section, we describe the matching rules and algorithms used in central matching States 

and in districts in local matching States. We begin by describing the data elements used in matching 

algorithms and then discuss the types of features common to central and local matching systems.
Chapter III: Direct Certification Matching Procedures Mathematica Policy Research

41

Table III.8. Frequency of Direct Certification Matching in Case Study States, SY 2012–2013

State Frequency of Matching Prospects for More Frequent Matching

Alabama Monthly Moving from monthly matching to real-time matching would 

require significant technological upgrades. It would be a 

desirable change but is not likely in the near term.

Arizona At least three times per year Districts are required to match three times a year but can 

match as any times as needed. State staff expressed a 

desire to match more frequently, but there are no concrete 

plans to do so.

Connecticut District discretion Districts are provided with program data three times per 

year. When the State transitions to a central matching 

system in 2015, they will increase the frequency to weekly.

Indiana At least three times per year Districts are instructed to initiate matching at least three 

times per year. Beginning in SY 2013–2014, the State will 

conduct automatic monthly matching.

Nebraska Daily Matching occurs at the maximum frequency.

Texas Monthly Texas has no plans to increase the frequency of matching.

West Virginia Daily Matching occurs daily with continuously updated enrollment 

data, but program data are updated only monthly. West 

Virginia plans to increase the frequency at which enrollment 

data are updated.

Source: Direct certification case study interviews.

1. Data Elements Used in Matching

States and districts select data elements for

use in direct certification matching based on their 

ability to uniquely identify students and their 

availability in both enrollment and program data. 

One of the most compelling matching data 

elements is student Social Security Number 

(SSN), which uniquely identifies individuals and 

therefore can be used to match students with 

high accuracy even with simple matching 

techniques. However, some States prohibit the 

use of SSNs as identifiers in educational 

databases. In SY 2012–2013, about half of central 

matching States used SSNs in their matching 

process (Table III.9). Use of SSNs is much more 

common in local matching States, of which about 

three-quarters reported including SSNs in the 

SNAP files provided to districts (Table III.10), 

and in which 56 percent of districts reported

using SSNs in their matching process (Table 

III.9). The general availability of SSNs in local matching States may help districts conduct efficient 

and accurate matching without developing highly sophisticated matching algorithms.

Among central matching States, the most common data elements used in direct certification 

matching in SY 2012–2013 were first name, last name, and date of birth: each was used in 95 

Direct Certification Matching procedures

Common practices

• First name, last name, and date of birth are 

used almost universally as matching 

identifiers.

• Most systems require three or more identifiers 

to match and allow inexact matches on some 

elements.

Key findings

• SSN is a common identifier in local matching 

States, which may contribute to districts’ ability 

to conduct accurate matching without 

sophisticated matching algorithms.

• Central matching States typically have a 

process in which potential matches are 

investigated further; this investigation is often 

done by districts.
Chapter III: Direct Certification Matching Procedures Mathematica Policy Research

42

Table III.9. Data Elements Used for Direct Certification Matching (percentages)

Central Matching States Districts in Local Matching States

Used in 

Matching 

Process 

Required to 

Be Used in 

Matching 

Process 

Used in 

Matching 

Process 

Required to 

Be Used in 

Matching 

Process 

Student Data Elements

SSN 50.0 23.7 57.6 30.9

First name 94.7 68.4 97.1 81.4

Phonetic first name 68.4 34.2 40.5 9.3

Middle name 65.8 15.8 70.6 22.3

Phonetic middle name 50.0 15.8 36.1 3.9

Last name 94.7 65.8 98.0 86.8

Phonetic last name 64.9 29.7 36.3 6.2

Date of birth 94.7 76.3 89.6 64.6

Gender 65.8 31.6 56.5 26.8

Street address 43.2 13.5 77.4 41.3

City 50.0 18.4 79.3 45.7

County 22.2 8.3 58.0 27.7

Zip code 45.9 13.5 76.6 47.1

Phone number 16.2 5.4 38.9 8.5

School name 40.5 8.1 51.1 24.4

SNAP or other program ID 43.2 10.8 59.7 30.3

Parent Data Elements

SSN 13.5 5.4 44.2 19.4

First name 37.8 13.5 76.7 51.4

Phonetic first name 27.8 11.1 34.1 4.9

Middle name 22.2 5.6 54.7 15.9

Phonetic middle name 18.9 5.4 31.4 3.2

Last name 37.8 13.5 78.4 55.3

Phonetic last name 27.8 11.1 32.9 4.1

Date of birth 11.1 2.8 35.7 12.7

Sample Size 38 38 2,882 2,882

Source: National Survey of Direct Certification Practices.

SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; SSN = Social Security number.
Chapter III: Direct Certification Matching Procedures Mathematica Policy Research

43

Table III.10. SNAP Data Available for Direct Certification Matching (percentages)

All States

Central Matching 

States

Local Matching 

States

Student Data Elements

SSN 55.1 47.2 76.9

First name 100.0 100.0 100.0

Middle name 84.8 82.4 91.7

Last name 100.0 100.0 100.0

Date of birth 100.0 100.0 100.0

Gender 71.1 76.5 54.5

Street address 63.6 57.6 81.8

City 68.9 60.6 91.7

County 45.2 36.7 66.7

Zip code 69.8 62.5 90.9

Phone number 19.4 24.1 0.0

School name 40.0 45.5 14.3

SNAP or other program ID 45.2 40.6 60.0

Parent Data Elements

SSN 13.2 13.8 11.1

First name 51.2 45.5 70.0

Middle name 41.9 36.4 60.0

Last name 51.2 45.5 70.0

Date of birth 8.1 7.1 11.1

Sample Size 51 37 14

Source: National Survey of Direct Certification Practices.

SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; SSN = Social Security number.

percent of such States (Table III.9). Other common data elements include phonetic first name, 

phonetic last name, middle name, and gender, each of which was used in about two-thirds of central 

matching States. The most common data elements that were required to be included in the matching 

process were first name, last name, and date of birth.

As in central matching States, nearly all districts in local matching States used first and last name 

and date of birth in their matching processes (Table III.9). However, districts in local matching 

States were much less likely to use phonetic names as matching criteria: less than 10 percent did so. 

This finding is consistent with districts being less likely than States to conduct technically 

sophisticated manipulations of names, such as with Soundex or metaphone. Other common 

elements used by districts in local matching States were parent first and last name as well as address; 

these variables were each used in more than three-quarters of districts.

Data elements used in the direct certification matching processes of States interviewed in the 

case study reflect the range of elements used nationally (Table III.11). All seven States used last 

name and date of birth, and six use first name; four of the seven States used SSN. Procedures for 

utilizing these elements in matching are discussed in the next section.
Chapter III: Direct Certification Matching Procedures Mathematica Policy Research

44

Table III.11. Data Elements Used in Direct Certification Matching for Case Study States, SY 2012–2013

Alabama Arizona Connecticut Indiana Nebraska Texas

West 

Virginia

First Name ● ○ ● ○ ○ ○

Last Name ○ ● ○ ● ○ ○ ○

Date of Birth ○ ● ○ ● ○ ○ ○

SSN ● ○ ○ ○

Address ○

Gender ○ ○ ○

Zip Code ○

County ●

Parents’ Names ○

Source: Direct certification case study interviews.

Note: Connecticut uses a local matching system and therefore does not specify which data elements districts are required 

to use in identifying matches; items listed here correspond to items included in the program data files provided to 

districts.

○ = Exact match can be used in identifying a definite match; inexact match can be used to identify a potential match.

● = An exact match is required for the given field.

No symbol indicates that the criterion is not used or not available.

2. Direct Certification Matching Procedures

In addition to matching on different data elements, direct certification systems vary in their 

matching procedures. Each central matching State and district in local matching States determines its 

own matching algorithm. Some systems require exact matches on data elements; others allow inexact 

matches. Some matching systems have procedures in place for dealing with potential matches, 

unmatched records, and duplicates; others do not. In this section, we describe some of the variation 

in matching procedures, focusing on differences between central and local matching systems.

Virtually all central matching States require a minimum number of matching elements for 

students to be directly certified; almost 80 percent require at least three data elements to match 

(Table III.12). At the same time, more than three quarters of central matching States allow inexact or 

near matches on some data elements, such as Soundex or metaphone transformations of names. 

More than a quarter of central matching States used probabilistic matching, which is discussed in 

greater detail in the next section. Most central matching States examined potential matches, though 

among States that did so, it was most commonly a district function. Half of central matching States 

examined records of children not matched in the primary matching process. More than half of 

central matching States investigated duplicate matches by examining additional information. An 

additional 32 percent identified all duplicates as matches.
Chapter III: Direct Certification Matching Procedures Mathematica Policy Research

45

Table III.12. Features of Direct Certification Matching Procedures (percentages)

Central Matching 

States

Districts in Local 

Matching States

Minimum Number of Matching Elements

No specific number of matching elements required 5.3 22.5

1 5.3 13.4

2 10.5 22.4

3 47.4 29.2

More than 3 31.6 12.6

Allow Inexact or Near Matching on Some Elements 76.3 65.0

Use Probabilistic Matching 28.9 9.1

Examine Potential Matches

State or district examines potential matches 65.8 44.7

State examines potential matches 21.1 0.0

District examines potential matches 42.1 42.1

State and district both examine potential matches 5.3 0.0

Other method 7.9 2.6

Examine Records Not Matched in Primary Process

Using any method 50.0 60.8

Examine manually 18.4 55.1

Examine via computer 47.4 24.1

Process for Duplicate Matches

Duplicate matches do not occur 10.5 27.8

Identify all duplicate students as matches 31.6 20.4

Identify first duplicate student as match 5.3 0.0

Use additional information to Identify matches 55.3 53.6

Notify students’ parents 7.9 8.8

Identify none of the students as matches 5.3 1.7

Sample Size 38 2,926

Source: National Survey of Direct Certification Practices.

Matching systems in local matching districts resembled those in central matching States in many 

respects. More than three quarters of districts required a minimum level of matching elements, 

though they were less likely than central matching States to require three or more data elements (42 

percent compared with 79 percent, Table III.12). Most allowed inexact or near matches on some 

data elements. Like central matching systems, most district-based systems examined additional 

information to reconcile duplicate matches. Local matching systems differed from central systems,

most notably in the more sophisticated elements of direct certification. District-based systems were 

much less likely than centralized systems to use probabilistic matching (9 percent compared with 29 

percent). Districts were also more likely than central matching States to examine unmatched records 

using manual processes (55 percent compared with 18 percent).

Most central matching case study States identified definite matches centrally and then allowed 

districts to identify additional matches (Table III.13). There was variation in this pattern, however. 

On one end of the continuum, Alabama, after performing a simple match, allowed districts to 

identify additional matches using the statewide program participation data file. Indiana, Nebraska, 
Chapter III: Direct Certification Matching Procedures Mathematica Policy Research

46

Table III.13. Direct Certification Matching Rules in Case Study States, SY 2012–2013

State Summary of Matching Algorithm

Approach to 

Partial Matches

Approach to 

Unmatched Records

Alabama The State directly certifies students if their 

Social Security Number and either their last 

name or date of birth exactly match between the 

statewide enrollment data and the SNAP, 

TANF, or foster care program data.

Optional at the 

district level. The 

State does not 

identify partial 

matches.

Optional at the district 

level. The State does 

not investigate 

unmatched records.

Arizona The State has a number of options on matching: 

(1) exact match on first name, last name, and 

date of birth; (2) exact match on SSN; (3) exact 

match on SAIS (school ID) number; or (4) or 

SNAP/TANF case number.

The State does 

not identify partial 

matches.

There is no process 

for reviewing 

unmatched records.

Connecticut Varies by district. Varies by district. Varies by district.

Indiana Indiana requires exact matches of first name, 

last name, date of birth, and county.

The State provides 

districts with a list 

of students who 

match on first 

name, last name, 

date of birth, but 

not county.

Districts may attempt 

to match unmatched 

records using Stategenerated lists.

Nebraska The State directly certifies students who exactly 

match on first name, last name, date of birth, 

and gender. Potential matches are identified 

with a probabilistic matching algorithm.

Districts attempt to 

match partially 

matched students.

There is no process 

for reviewing 

unmatched records.

Texas The state directly certifies students if they match 

exactly on four of the following criteria: SSN, 

date of birth, first name, last name, gender.

Beginning in SY

2013–2014 

districts will be 

able to attempt to 

certify partial 

matches.

Beginning in SY 

2013–2014 districts 

will be able to attempt 

to match these 

students.

West Virginia West Virginia directly certifies students who 

exactly match on SSN or an exact match on first 

name, last name, and date of birth. Name 

matches can be by spelling or Soundex. 

Potential matches are identified with a 

probabilistic matching algorithm.

Districts attempt to 

match partially 

matched students. 

Districts attempt to 

match unmatched 

students.

Source: Direct certification case study interviews.

SAIS = Student Accountability Information System; SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; SSN = 

Social Security Number TANF = Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

and West Virginia offered more structure to districts. After performing the central match, all three 

States provided lists of partially matched students that districts could use to attempt to identify 

additional matches; in Indiana this list included students that matched on all fields except county, 

while the lists in Nebraska and West Virginia allowed for more diverse types of partial matches 

(discussed in the next section on probabilistic matching). Indiana and West Virginia also generated 

lists of unmatched children that districts could use to identify additional matches. To limit the 

distribution of sensitive personal data, Nebraska did not provide lists of unmatched children to 

districts. At the other end of the continuum, Arizona and Texas did not have a process for districts 

to examine partial matches or unmatched children. In addition to protecting sensitive information, 

restricting district access to lists of children other than definite matches may limit false positives in 
Chapter III: Direct Certification Matching Procedures Mathematica Policy Research

47

the matching process. Texas planned to begin providing districts with lists of partially matched and 

unmatched children beginning in SY 2013–2014.

E. Probabilistic Matching

Some direct certification systems use matching algorithms to calculate a score that indicates 

how likely a match is to be accurate. This process, called probabilistic matching, allows matches to 

be made for cases with minor data quality 

problems. Probabilistic matching procedures 

may award higher scores for pairs in which more 

data elements match. They may also award 

points for data elements that are near matches, 

such as names that are spelled differently but 

sound alike or dates in which months and days 

have been inverted. 

Probabilistic matching results can be used to 

directly certify students or to identify potential 

matches requiring manual review before 

certification. These strategies are not mutually 

exclusive. Systems may set two thresholds, one 

that identifies potential matches and a higher one 

that directly certifies students without requiring 

manual review. As noted in the previous section, 

29 percent of central matching States and 9 percent of districts in local matching States use 

probabilistic matching (Table III.14). Among central matching States using probabilistic matching, 

42 percent use probabilistic matching scores both to identify matches and to identify potential 

matches that must be investigated further before determining their final status. An equal percentage 

of central matching States use probabilistic matching scores only to identify matches, and 17 percent 

use such scores only to identify possible matches. Among local matching States, it was less common 

to use probabilistic matching for identification of both matches and potential matches: only 8 

percent did so. The rest of districts in local matching States using probabilistic matching were evenly 

split between using such matching only to identify matches and using it only to identify potential 

matches.

Two case study States provide examples of how probabilistic matching is used in practice. 

Nebraska and West Virginia both conduct a round of deterministic matching that identifies a list of 

definite matches and then use probabilistic matching to identify potential matches that require 

additional review. 

Direct Certification Matching Procedures

Common practices

• Probabilistic matching is used by only 29

percent of central matching States and 9 

percent of districts in local matching States.

Key findings

• Central matching States often use probabilistic 

match scores to identify not only matches but 

also potential matches that must be 

investigated further.

• Probabilistic match scores may increase the 

number of directly certified students while 

minimizing burden; the scores allow 

investigation of unmatched records while 

prioritizing potential matches most likely to 

be legitimate.
Chapter III: Direct Certification Matching Procedures Mathematica Policy Research

48

Table III.14. Probabilistic Matching Procedures (percentages)

Central 

Matching States 

Using 

Probabilistic 

Matching

Districts Using 

Probabilistic 

Matching in 

Local Matching 

States

Use Probabilistic Matching 28.9 9.1

Among States Using Probabilistic Matching

Probabilistic matching scores are used 

Only to identify matches 36.4 45.6

Only to identify potential matches to be investigated further 18.2 45.8

To identify both matches and potential matches 45.5 8.6

Sample Size 38 2,800

Source: National Survey of Direct Certification Practices.

In Nebraska, definite matches require an exact match on first name, last name, date of birth, 

and gender. All definite matches are included on a list of students to be directly certified. The direct 

certification system in Nebraska also uses Microsoft fuzzy logic to identify potential matches among 

students who match or nearly match on some, but not all, elements. Districts are given lists of 

potential matches for further investigation and can also enter additional information through the 

individual lookup system to receive an updated probabilistic match score.

In West Virginia, definite matches require a exact match on SSN or a match on Soundex first 

name, last name, birth day, birth month and birth year. All definite matches are directly certified in 

the State POS system. Districts are given a list that contains the names of students who match on 

some data elements, as well as additional student information not included in the match and a match 

score proportional to the number of data elements that matched. Districts can use these scores to 

prioritize reconciliation of their list of potential matches. Districts investigate whether these 

potential matches are legitimate and mark the final direct certification determination in the State 

POS.

F. Extending Categorical Eligibility

In August 2010, FNS implemented a policy to 

extend categorical eligibility for free meals to all 

children in households receiving assistance from 

SNAP, TANF, or FDPIR. Most matching systems had 

procedures in place to extend eligibility to additional 

children in households in SY 2012–2013: only 5 

percent of central matching States and 11 percent of 

districts in local matching States lack such procedures.

Central matching States were most likely to extend 

eligibility through notification letters informing families 

of their children’s eligibility, with about 60 percent 

doing so. It was also common for central matching 

States to extend eligibility to students sharing the same 

parent or guardian as eligible students, or to students sharing the same address as eligible students.

Districts in local matching States were about equally likely to extend eligibility with these three 

methods, with around 45 percent using each. (Table III.15).

Extending Categorical Eligibility

Common practices

• The most common strategy for extending 

eligibility is revising notification letters 

informing families of their children’s 

eligibility to indicate that all children in the 

household are eligible for meal benefits.

Key findings

• Districts are typically given primary 

responsibility for extending eligibility, 

even in central matching States.
Chapter III: Direct Certification Matching Procedures Mathematica Policy Research

49

Table III.15. Process for Extending Eligibility to Additional Children in Household (percentages)

Central 

Matching States

Districts in Local 

Matching States

Procedures for Extending Eligibility

Notification letters inform of eligibility of other children 59.5 43.4

Students with same parent/guardian are directly certified 32.4 46.5

Students with same address are directly certified 37.8 43.2

No procedures implemented 5.4 11.2

Barriers to Extending Eligibility

Interpreting policy 8.8 10.6

Developing process for identifying children 47.1 39.7

Lack of technological resources 38.2 19.4

No barriers 23.5 44.9

Planned Changes for Extending Eligibility

Notification letters inform of eligibility of other children 26.7 38.3

Certify students with same parent/guardian 46.7 41.8

Certify students with same address 66.7 56.5

Sample Size 37 2,805

Source: National Survey of Direct Certification Practices.

Central matching States were more likely than districts in local matching States to report 

barriers to extending eligibility to other children in eligible households. Developing processes for 

identifying eligible children was the most common barrier cited by respondents from both central 

and local matching systems. Respondents from central matching States also commonly cited lack of 

technological resources as a barrier (Table III.15).

In five of seven States interviewed as part of the case study, templates for certification 

notification letters have been revised to notify parents that other children in their household are 

eligible for free meals (Table III.16). However, the primary responsibility for extending eligibility lies 

with districts in most interviewed States. This includes the local matching State and five of the six

central matching States. These States indicated that their data systems do not have the necessary 

information to develop automated processes for extending eligibility. However, two States have 

been able to develop centralized eligibility extension processes. In Indiana, the State provides 

districts with a list of unmatched children who share SNAP case numbers with matched children; if 

these children appear in district enrollment data, they are eligible for direct certification. Although 

this new system feature was potentially useful, neither Indiana district interviewed as part of the case 

study was making use of it. In West Virginia, the State flags unmatched students whose address is an 

exact match for the address of a matched student. Districts are instructed to evaluate whether these 

potential household members are eligible for extension of categorical eligibility.

G. Approach to Nonpublic Schools

Nonpublic and charter schools present special challenges for the direct certification process. 

Although all districts participating in the school meals programs are mandated to use direct 

certification, nonpublic and charter schools tend to be small and may not perceive direct 

certification to be a worthwhile use of time. This may be particularly true in nonpublic schools with 

student bodies that include few students categorically eligible for free meals. In central matching 

States, nonpublic and charter schools may not have enrollment data that are easily incorporated into 

the enrollment data used by the central matching system. 
Chapter III: Direct Certification Matching Procedures Mathematica Policy Research

50

Table III.16. Procedures for Extending Eligibility to Household Members in Case Study States, SY 2012–2013

State Summary of Procedures to Extend Eligibility

Alabama Districts have primary responsibility for extending eligibility. State certification notification 

letter template notifies households of eligibility of other children in household.

Arizona Districts have primary responsibility for extending eligibility.

Connecticut Districts have primary responsibility for extending eligibility.

Indiana State provides districts with lists of students potentially eligible for eligibility extension; 

children from this list are those who share a SNAP case number with a child who was 

matched but who were not matched themselves. Many districts use local student information 

systems to identify siblings and extend eligibility. State certification notification letter 

template notifies households of eligibility of other children in household.

Nebraska Districts have primary responsibility for extending eligibility. State certification notification 

letter template notifies households of eligibility of other children in household.

Texas This is done at the district level, either through PEIMS or through local student information 

and POS systems. State certification notification letter template notifies households of 

eligibility of other children in household.

West Virginia West Virginia can identify other eligible household members by matching exactly on address 

in the Statewide POS system. District staff can also reference applications from previous 

years to identify these individuals. State certification notification letter template notifies 

households of eligibility of other children in household.

Source: Direct certification case study interviews.

PEIMS = Public Education Information Management System; POS = point-of-sale; SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program.

In most States, all charter schools participated in direct certification in SY 2012–2103 (Table 

III.17). In most of the remaining States, at least some charter schools participated. There were only 

two States in which no charter schools participated.

Local matching States were much more 

likely than central matching States to report 

that all private schools participated in direct 

certification. Similar proportions of central and 

local matching States reported that no private 

schools participated.

Reasons nonpublic schools did not 

participate varied by matching system type

(Table III.17). Central matching States with 

nonparticipating nonpublic schools most 

commonly cited lack of access to enrollment 

data as a barrier. Few central matching States 

and no local matching States cited the lack of a 

participation requirement or a limited number 

of eligible students as reasons nonpublic

schools did not participate.

Several States interviewed as part of the case study were able to incorporate private schools 

directly into the direct certification process used for public schools or to develop alternative 

electronic matching processes for private schools (Table III.18). In Nebraska, private schools can 

Approach to Nonpublic Schools

Common practices

• Most private and charter schools participate in 

direct certification, as mandated by law.

Key findings

• Central matching States often find 

incorporating private schools into the central 

direct certification system to be challenging 

because the schools’ enrollment data are not 

included in the SSIS.

• Individual student lookup and features that 

allow batch upload of enrollment lists are 

some strategies for mitigating the direct 

certification challenges posed by private 

schools.
Chapter III: Direct Certification Matching Procedures Mathematica Policy Research

51

Table III.17. Direct Certification Procedures in Nonpublic Schools (percentages)

Central Matching 

States

Local Matching 

States

Participation of Charter Schools in Direct Certification

All participate 60.5 57.1

Some participate 15.8 21.4

None participate 2.6 7.1

There are no charter schools 21.1 14.3

Participation of Private Schools in Direct Certification

All participate 34.2 71.4

Some participate 47.4 14.3

None participate 18.4 14.3

There are no private schools 0.0 0.0

Reason Some Nonpublic Schools Do Not Participate

All nonpublic schools participate 34.2 71.4

No access to enrollment data 26.3 0.0

State does not require participation 10.5 0.0

Too few students likely to be eligible 7.9 0.0

Other reason 36.8 28.6

No nonpublic schools 0.0 0.0

Procedures for Charter Schools

Submit enrollment data to state for matching 58.6 9.1

Use State-maintained individual student lookup 20.7 9.1

Submit data to nearby district for matching 3.4 18.2

Access statewide program data and perform match locally 24.1 45.5

Access local program data and perform match locally 3.4 9.1

Procedures for Private Schools

Submit enrollment data to state for matching 51.6 16.7

Use State-maintained individual student lookup 25.8 16.7

Submit data to nearby district for matching 0.0 8.3

Access statewide program data and perform match locally 32.3 33.3

Access local program data and perform match locally 6.5 16.7

Sample Size 38 14

Source: National Survey of Direct Certification Practices.
Chapter III: Direct Certification Matching Procedures Mathematica Policy Research

52

Table III.18. Direct Certification Methods in Nonpublic Schools in Case Study States, SY 2012–2013

State Summary of Procedures 

Alabama Private schools in Alabama do not use the statewide student enrollment system. To 

conduct direct certification, private school staff download the State’s matched list every 

month and manually compare it with their local enrollment data. 

Arizona Private schools upload the student first name, last name, and date of birth in order to 

match. Private school student information is not captured in State SSIS

Connecticut Individual private schools in the NSLP participate in direct certification the same way as 

public school districts. They receive SNAP/TANF file directly from CTDSS and perform the 

matching.

Indiana Private schools may upload enrollment data to the State direct certification system and 

may also use the individual student lookup feature.

Nebraska Private schools may upload enrollment data to the State direct certification system through 

a web-based interface. They may also use the individual student lookup feature.

Texas Private schools do not participate in direct certification but will start in SY 2013–2014.

West Virginia Most of the 30 private schools in West Virginia participate in direct certification using the 

same matching system that public schools use. Private schools upload enrollment data to 

the State annually. Private schools may also conduct manual matches using lists provided 

by the State that contain unmatched children in the private school’s county. 

Source: Direct certification case study interviews.

CTDSS = Connecticut Department of Social Services; NSLP = National School Lunch Program; SNAP = 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; SSIS = Statewide Student Information System; TANF = Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families.

upload a formatted enrollment file and conduct matching with the same Statewide SNAP, TANF 

and foster care data used with public schools. Private schools also have access to Nebraska’s 

individual student lookup feature. Similarly, private schools in Indiana can upload enrollment data to 

a State matching system or use the individual student lookup feature. West Virginia has also 

developed a mechanism to work around the fact that private school enrollment data are not in the 

SSIS; schools can upload enrollment information through a software product that allows matching 

in the State’s usual direct certification matching system. Private schools can also access the list of 

unmatched children from the program data for the county in which the school is located. In 

Connecticut and Arizona, private schools who are in NSLP participate the same way as public 

school districts either by getting a list of SNAP and TANF children in their county as in Connecticut 

or uploading student information into the central matching system as they do in Arizona.

In some case study States, private schools had to use less efficient procedures than public 

schools in order to participate in direct certification in SY 2012-2013. In Alabama, for instance, 

private schools were not part of the statewide student enrollment system and had to conduct direct 

certification matching manually. Private schools did not participate in direct certification in Texas in 

SY 2012–2013, though they were expected to do so in future school years.

H. Direct Certification Systems

Software and technological infrastructure allow direct certification matching algorithms to be 

implemented, ensure that data security is maintained, and provide the means for users to complete 

their roles in the direct certification process. In this section, we describe the technology and types of 

interfaces used for these functions.
Chapter III: Direct Certification Matching Procedures Mathematica Policy Research

53

In SY 2012–2013, 70 percent of central matching States implemented their matching algorithm 

with in-house software, such as programs developed by State IT staff (Table III.19). Less than onethird of central matching States used third-party software to conduct matching. After conducting the 

match, a large majority of central matching States communicated the results by posting them to a 

secure server or State system that can be accessed by districts. More than three-fourths of central

matching States used this method, whereas another 16 percent sent electronic direct certification 

files by email to districts, and about 11 percent sent match results through the mail (Table III.19). 

Arizona noted that giving the districts the ability to look up individual students at any time allows 

them to directly certify new and incoming students prior to having to complete the required direct 

certification matches, thus assisting in getting school meal benefits to students more quickly and 

efficiently.

Table III.19. Interface for Direct Certification System (percentages)

Central 

Matching 

States

Districts in Local 

Matching States

Type of Software Used for Matching

In-house software 69.7 8.2

Third-party software specifically for direct certification 9.1 34.4

Third-party software not specifically for direct certification 18.2 57.3

Combination of in-house and third-party software 3.0 0.0

Process for Communicating Match Results

Hard copy lists 7.9 —

Data disks sent via mail 2.6 —

Electronic files sent via email 15.8 —

Results posted on secure server or updated on state 

system 78.9 —

Sample Size 38 627

Source: National Survey of Direct Certification Practices.

In contrast to central matching States, a very large majority of districts in local matching States 

used third-party software to conduct matching; less than 10 percent used software developed inhouse (Table III.19). About one-third of districts used third-party software specifically designed for 

direct certification matching. Because matching is conducted by districts in local matching States, no 

process to communicate match results is necessary.

States interviewed as part of the case study emphasized the importance of the user-friendliness 

of their direct certification system interfaces for facilitating districts’ proper use of system features. 

Six of the seven interviewed States use web-based interfaces with password protection

(Table III.20). Indiana, Nebraska, and West Virginia all pointed out that a web-based approach not 

only enables districts to use the direct certification system without technological upgrades, but also 

allows revision of the interface in response to user feedback.

After downloading direct certification information from the State—match results for central 

matching States and program data files for the local matching State—districts in six of the seven 

States must incorporate this information into their local POS system. The lone exception was West 

Virginia, which uses a Statewide POS. West Virginia districts do not have to complete additional 

steps to finalize direct certification of definite matches, though they do have to process potential and 

unmatched records. These extra processing steps take place directly in the State’s POS system.
Chapter III: Direct Certification Matching Procedures Mathematica Policy Research

54

Table III.20. User Interface of Direct Certification Systems for Case Study States, SY 2012–2013

State Type of User Interface

Process for Integrating Match 

Results into Local Records Data Security Measures

Alabama Student enrollment data are 

stored in iNOW. iNOW is 

housed on the same State 

mainframe as the program 

participation data. Districts 

access matching results 

through a secure VPN.

Districts download file from 

secure VPN, load it into local 

POS systems, and match it 

with their local enrollment 

records.

Secure VPN

Arizona Districts download the 

matched list at least three 

times a year through the 

State’s web portal.

Districts download matched 

files of their students and 

load them into their POS 

systems.

Districts access matches and 

upload information through 

secure common logon using 

a username and password.

Connecticut Districts download 

SNAP/TANF data through 

secure website.

The downloaded program 

data are matched with 

student enrollment files 

through the districts POS 

systems, another standalone 

system, or manually.

Password-protected website.

Indiana The State system uses a web 

interface.

Districts download matched 

files of their students and 

load them into their POS 

systems.

Password-protected website.

Nebraska The State system uses a web 

interface.

Districts download matched 

files of their students and 

load them into their POS 

systems.

Password-protected website.

Texas Districts download the 

matched list through the 

State’s web portal.

Each month, districts 

download the matched list 

only for their district. District 

staff load the list into their 

local POS system and match 

it with their local enrollment 

records.

Private IT contractors sign 

annual confidentiality 

agreements. The Education

Agency removes student 

Social Security Numbers 

from the matched list after 

using them to conduct match.

West Virginia Each district uses the central 

POS system which has a 

web interface.

Matched and unmatched lists 

can be viewed through the 

system. They use lists of 

unmatched and partially 

matched students to identify 

other eligible students in their 

enrollment files.

Password-protected website. 

The State maintains county 

data in separate libraries, so 

counties have access only to 

their own data.

Source: Direct certification case study interviews.

IT = information technology; POS = point-of-sale; SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; TANF = 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; VPN = virtual private network

I. Feasibility of Using Medicaid Data for Direct Certification

Beginning in SY 2012–2013, FNS authorized demonstrations in which States and districts could

use Medicaid data to directly certify students for free school meals. The demonstrations built on 

interagency relationships and existing processes in using Medicaid data to verify school meal benefit 

applications. Having data exchange agreements and processes between the Medicaid agency and the 

agency conducting direct certification in place would ease a transition into using Medicaid data for 
Chapter III: Direct Certification Matching Procedures Mathematica Policy Research

55

direct certification. In this section, we describe the feasibility of incorporating Medicaid data into 

direct certification matching based on these elements.

In SY 2012–2013, few States appeared well 

positioned to incorporate Medicaid data into 

direct certification. For example, only 3 percent 

of central matching States reported that all 

children eligible for Medicaid would also be 

eligible for free school meals; the figure was 17 

percent in local matching States (Table III.21).

Only 16 percent of central matching States and 

21 percent of local matching States used 

Medicaid data for direct verification. 

None of the States interviewed as part of the case study participated in the FNS Medicaid 

demonstration, although several States have explored the feasibility of using Medicaid for direct 

certification. Texas did so, but determined that Medicaid eligibility rules would make it difficult to 

use Medicaid data for direct certification and that there were easier changes they could make to 

improve program performance. West Virginia also looked into use of Medicaid but determined that 

most Medicaid recipients were also receiving SNAP and would be directly certified through the 

existing system. Nebraska uses Medicaid data for direct verification and has the infrastructure to use 

Medicaid for direct certification, but has not applied for participation in the Medicaid 

demonstration.

Table III.21. Potential Use of Medicaid Data for Direct Certification (percentages)

Central 

Matching States

Local Matching 

States

Districts in Local 

Matching States

Criteria for Medicaid and Free School Meal Eligibility Align 3.4 16.7 —

Use Medicaid Data for Direct Verification 15.8 21.4 24.3

Provide Data on NSLP Certifications for Medicaid/CHIP 

Referrals 19.4 15.4 27.5

Medicaid Participates in Data-Matching to Determine 

Reimbursements to School Districts

Yes 27.8 0.0 11.0

No 66.7 85.7 89.0

Varies by district 5.6 14.3 0.0

Sample Size 38 14 1,583

Source: National Survey of Direct Certification Practices.

CHIP = Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Feasibility of Using Medicaid Data 

Common practices

• FNS authorized a demonstration in which 

selected States and districts could use 

Medicaid data to directly certify students.

Key findings

• Few States report that all children eligible for 

Medicaid would also be eligible for free school 

meals.

57

IV. CHALLENGES AND PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS TO DIRECT CERTIFICATION

Direct certification is a complex process that States and districts across the country continue to 

refine. As States encounter technological and administrative challenges to effective and efficient 

matching, they enact new procedures and invest in upgraded data systems. In this chapter, we 

describe the most common direct certification challenges States encountered in SY 2012–2013, as 

well as the improvements they plan to make to their systems in the future.

A. Barriers to Effective Direct Certification

Direct certification relies on a wide array of organizations, systems, and data sources. Problems 

or weaknesses in any component can impede successful identification of eligible students. In this 

section, we describe common challenges States and districts face pertaining to student enrollment 

records, program participation data, and financial and technological resources.

Among central matching States, barriers 

pertaining to enrollment data were by far the most 

common: 94 percent identified at least one such 

barrier, 45 percent cited barriers involving

program data, and 51 percent cited barriers 

involving resources (Table IV.1). The three most 

common barriers specific to enrollment data were 

as follows:

1. State data were not updated in time for 

the initial direct certification match, which 

generally occurred prior to the start of the 

schools year.

2. It took too long to obtain data from all 

districts.

3. Data were not sufficiently detailed.

No other barrier was cited by at least 20 percent 

of central matching States; many States cited 

barriers that were specific to their own 

circumstances and not offered on the survey.

Enrollment data barriers were also the most cited by local matching States. However, these

States were more likely than central matching States to cite barriers related to resources (Table IV.1). 

Specifically, about 79 percent of local matching States cited enrollment data barriers, 73 percent 

cited resource barriers, and 57 percent program data barriers. Half of local matching States reported 

lack of sufficient staff to complete direct certification computer matching; a third cited insufficient 

computer resources. Other commonly cited specific barriers for local matching States were that 

State enrollment data do not contain enough information to support matching, and it takes too long 

to obtain enrollment data files from all districts. The resource barriers cited by local matching States 

suggest that central matching would be infeasible for them. Most districts in local matching States 

cited no barriers related to enrollment data, program data, or resources. Moreover, no specific 

barrier was cited by more than 10 percent of local matching districts.

Barriers to Effective Direct Certification

Common barriers

• Central matching States most often cited 

barriers related to enrollment data.

• Local matching States often cited barriers 

related to enrollment data and resources.

Key findings

• Resource barriers cited by local matching 

States suggest that central matching systems 

may be infeasible in many of these States.

• State resource constraints can impede the 

frequency with which program data are 

available, thereby affecting the timeliness of 

direct certification.

• Because of time and resource constraints, low 

levels of technical skill, or insufficient 

participation in training, districts might not 

always be aware of, or appropriately use, all 

features of direct certification systems.
Chapter IV: Challenges and Planned Improvements to Direct Certification Mathematica Policy Research

58

Table IV.1. Barriers to Effective Direct Certification, SY 2012–2013 (percentage unless indicated otherwise)

Central Matching 

States

Local Matching 

States

Districts in 

Local Matching 

States

Barriers Related to Enrollment Records 

No barriers related to enrollment records 5.7 21.4 64.2

State enrollment data not updated in time for fall direct 

certification 51.4 35.7 9.7

State enrollment data do not contain sufficient information 

to support matching 25.7 42.9 10.0

It takes too long to obtain enrollment data files from all 

districts 28.6 14.3 5.5

Naming conventions in enrollment data are not consistent 

with data in other systems 11.4 28.6 6.2

State does not maintain a database of students 8.6 14.3 4.6

Other barriers related to enrollment records 45.7 42.9 11.8

Barriers Related to Program Participation Data

No barriers related to program participation data 54.5 42.9 80.5

SNAP agency does not keep records in a manner that

makes it cost-effective for computer matching 3.0 28.6 3.1

It is too difficult to get data from the SNAP agency 6.1 14.3 3.6

It is too difficult to get data from agencies with relevant 

program data other than SNAP 6.1 7.1 3.5

Agencies with relevant program data other than SNAP do 

not keep records in a manner that makes it costeffective for computer matching 6.1 7.1 2.1

Other barriers related to program participation 39.4 50.0 10.3

Barriers Related to Resources or Other Factors (percentage)

No barriers related to resources or other factors 48.6 28.6 75.3

Staff not available at the State level to perform the work 

required for computer matching for direct certification 8.6 50.0 6.8

Computer resources not available at the State level to 

conduct the computer matching process 8.6 35.7 3.6

Concerned about how the State central matching system 

would compromise student confidentiality 17.1 14.3 4.7

Funds are not available to pay to train State staff to do the 

work required for computer matching 8.6 7.1 4.8

Other barriers related to resources or other factors 37.1 35.7 11.0

Perception of Barriers to Direct Certification in Public Schools 

(scale range: 1 to 5)

Cost of software 2.3 2.9 2.4

Lack of technical expertise 2.6 3.2 2.3

Suitability of student enrollment data 2.1 2.7 2.1

Perceived need for computer matching — 1.0 1.9

Perception of Barriers to Direct Certification in Nonpublic 

Schools (scale range: 1 to 5)

Cost of software 2.8 3.5 2.4

Lack of technical expertise 3.4 3.7 2.3

Suitability of student enrollment data 3.3 3.1 2.1

Perceived need for computer matching — 1.0 2.1

Sample Size 35 14 1,515

Source: National Survey of Direct Certification Practices.

SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
Chapter IV: Challenges and Planned Improvements to Direct Certification Mathematica Policy Research

59

In-depth interviews in case study States provided a more detailed picture of the types of barriers 

States face in completing direct certification. Respondents cited barriers spanning technology, 

established procedures, interagency coordination, and district operations.

Indiana and West Virginia reported technology barriers to completing effective direct 

certification. In Indiana’s case, the diversity of POS systems led to divergent performance across 

districts. Some districts operated sophisticated systems that automatically integrated State direct 

certification data. Other districts used simpler POS systems and relied on manual processes to 

process State data. Staff in West Virginia reported that limited bandwidth impeded performance of 

the direct certification system (Table IV.2).

Table IV.2. Reported Barriers to Effective Direct Certification in Case Study States, SY 2012–2013

State Summary of Reported Barriers

Alabama Additional programs could be used for direct certification if more programs used a common 

definition of poverty.

Arizona The lack of a process for investigating partial matches probably reduces the accuracy of direct 

certification. 

Connecticut Some districts reported that they had trouble getting assistance when they had questions 

about the SNAP and TANF program file. Infrequent matching can leave transfer students 

uncertified for several months.

Indiana The diversity of POS systems leads to wide variation in the ease of loading direct certification 

matching information. Districts do not always initiate matches as frequently as the State would 

like. This will change in SY 2013–2014 when automatic matches will be conducted monthly. 

Districts do not consistently utilize direct certification system features such as the No County 

Match List and the Unmatched Sibling Match List. Programs other than SNAP, TANF, and 

foster care that could potentially be used for direct certification are not able to produce the 

statewide lists that would be necessary.

Nebraska The level of district technical skill is often low, so multiple modes of effective training are 

necessary. Establishing the initial MOU with the Department of Health and Human Services 

was time-consuming.

Texas Many students are not successfully matched during direct certification. Some students are 

assigned to incorrect district lists and so are not directly certified.

West Virginia Bandwidth limitations impede system performance during peak times. The State plans to 

improve its bandwidth in the near future. Providing SNAP and TANF data more frequently than 

monthly would be difficult for the Department of Health and Human Services.

Source: Direct certification case study interviews.

MOU = memorandum of understanding; POS = point-of-sale; SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; 

TANF = Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

Multiple interviewed States cited existing direct certification practices or procedures as barriers.

Staff in Arizona explained that the absence of a process in their State for working partial matches 

probably resulted in fewer successful matches. Respondents in Texas reported that some matched 

students ended up on the wrong district’s list and so were not certified.

Some States reported that State agency operations presented barriers to direct certification. Staff 

in Indiana reported that agencies running programs other than SNAP, TANF, or foster care could 

not produce statewide enrollment lists that might be used for direct certification matching. West 

Virginia staff reported that one barrier to receiving more frequent program data files was the burden 

doing so would place on the Department of Health and Human Services. Staff in Connecticut 

reported that they had difficulty obtaining assistance when they needed to request changes to the 
Chapter IV: Challenges and Planned Improvements to Direct Certification Mathematica Policy Research

60

State SNAP and TANF files. They also reported that infrequently provided program data files left 

students uncertified for months at a time. State staff in Alabama reported that SNAP data could be 

as much as six months out-of-date due to recertification periods. They also suggested that more data 

sources could be used for direct certification if assistance programs used a common definition of 

poverty.

Finally, Staff in Indiana and Nebraska cited district operations as barriers to effective direct 

certification. Officials in Indiana reported that districts do not always initiate matching as frequently 

as State staff would like. District staff also did not always utilize the technology resources the State 

makes available to them for direct certification. This barrier may also be relevant for other States

even when State staff did not explicitly cite it; district officials interviewed as part of the case study 

were often unaware of or not using all features of the direct certification system. State officials in 

Nebraska reported that low levels of technical skill in a district impeded effective use of direct 

certification systems; they emphasized the importance of hands-on, in-person training in 

overcoming this barrier.

B. Planned Improvements to Direct Certification

Direct certification is an evolutionary process. States and districts improve their direct 

certification processes over time by introducing new technology, refining matching procedures, and 

adjusting the procedures that district and State staff use to complete the process. Underlying these 

changes is a broad shift toward greater centralization, as more local matching States transition to 

central matching. In this section, we describe the most common direct certification changes States 

have planned for the future, drawing on survey responses from central matching States as well as indepth interview data from case study States.

The most common changes respondents from central matching States reported involved

process. The most common planned change, cited by 42 percent of States, was to add more data 

elements to the matching process. Forty percent of States planned to increase the frequency of 

sending program participation data used for matching and 37 percent planned to implement a 

process to resolve unmatched records. Almost a third of States planned to increase the frequency of 

data matching (Table IV.3).

Central matching States also planned technical changes to their direct certification data systems. 

Almost a third reported that they planned to upgrade their matching system algorithm to 

incorporate probabilistic matching. Twenty-nine percent planned to upgrade the State information 

system—the same proportion of States that planned to implement a new computer matching system 

for direct certification (Table IV.3).
Chapter IV: Challenges and Planned Improvements to Direct Certification Mathematica Policy Research

61

Table IV.3. Planned Changes to Direct Certification Systems Among Central Matching States, as of 

SY 2012–2013 (percentages)

Central Matching 

States

Add more elements for data matching 42.1

Increase frequency of sending program data 40.0

Implement a process to resolve unmatched records 36.8

Increase frequency of data matching 31.6

Incorporate probabilistic matching techniques 31.6

State information system upgrade 28.9

Implement new computer matching system 28.9

Implement process to extend categorical eligibility 28.9

Obtain data from additional programs 26.3

Create a web-based lookup system 10.5

Other planned changes to direct certification systems 26.3

Sample Size 38

Source: National Survey of Direct Certification Practices.

Interviews with case study States revealed a 

wide range of planned changes, from minor 

process reforms to total system overhauls. In the 

most fundamental change, Connecticut planned 

to transition its direct certification program to a 

central matching system, which will alter State 

agency and district roles. In SY 2012–2013, 

CSDE developed a matching algorithm that 

incorporates probabilistic match scoring. The 

new algorithm will be used statewide and will 

assume the matching function performed in SY 

2012–2013 by districts. CTDSS will no longer 

divide its program data geographically by school district but will instead send statewide data to 

CSDE. Program participation data updates will occur weekly rather than three times a year, but the 

new system will create less administrative burden on CSDE, because dividing the list by district is 

much more work than simply sending an updated list. Connecticut planned to roll out its centralized 

system as a pilot in SY 2013–2014, with expected statewide implementation in SY 2015–2016

(Table IV.4).

Other case study States planned to make changes to their direct certification procedures while 

keeping their overall system in place. For instance, West Virginia planned to increase its matching 

frequency to biweekly or weekly. Arizona planned to refine its matching algorithm and incorporate 

probabilistic matching. Staff in Indiana reported that they were considering incorporating 

probabilistic matching but would do so only if they were convinced it would improve their 

performance. Texas planned to begin making unmatched lists of students available to districts 

beginning in SY 2013–2014 (Table IV.4). 

Several case study States planned to make improvements to their direct certification technology. 

Alabama planned to build the capacity to use Medicaid data in future direct certification matching.

Planned Improvements to Direct Certification

• States are planning a wide range of large and 

small changes to their systems, including 

adding more data elements, increasing 

frequency, and adding processes to resolve 

unmatched records.

• States are taking advantage of FNS grants to 

transition to central matching systems, 

upgrade technological infrastructure, and 

provide improved training to direct certification 

users.
Chapter IV: Challenges and Planned Improvements to Direct Certification Mathematica Policy Research

62

Table IV.4. Recent and Planned Changes to Direct Certification in Case Study States, SY 2012–2013

State Recent Changes Planned Changes

Alabama Rolled out iNOW in SY 2011–2012 and 

began excluding zero-benefit SNAP from 

the program data around the same time.

Plans to merge SNAP data into Medicaid infrastructure 

in 2015; building the capacity to incorporate Medicaid 

and CHIP into the direct certification process. Will move 

to a push system in which districts do not have to 

download a matched list each month. Considering 

centralizing extended eligibility determination.

Arizona In 2008, Arizona updated the web portal 

that districts use to download the file to 

make it more intuitive. In 2006, the State 

revised the matching algorithm to certify 

students matching on three data elements 

rather than five.

Arizona plans to examine additional changes to 

the direct certification matching algorithm and is 

considering introducing probabilistic matching.

Connecticut In 2006, Connecticut increased its 

matching frequency from annually to three 

times per year.

Connecticut is using funds from an FNS grant to 

transition to a central matching system by fall 2015 

following a two-year pilot in three districts. They will 

assign all public school students ID numbers that 

districts will be able to use to identify eligible students. 

The Department of Social Services will provide updated 

SNAP and TANF weekly to support weekly matching. 

The State also plans to incorporate foster care data.

Indiana In 2011, Indiana improved the SSIS so that 

it updates in real time following the start of 

the school year. This allows easier, more 

frequent subsequent direct certification 

matching. Beginning in SY 2012–2013, 

districts no longer had to upload their local 

enrollment data to conduct direct 

certification matching during the school 

year. Indiana has also simplified its direct 

certification web interface, added an option 

to view only newly certified students during 

subsequent matches, and added an 

Unmatched Sibling Match List.

Indiana plans to improve the direct certification system 

so that monthly matches occur automatically. Districts 

will no longer have to initiate the process manually. The 

State has also considered introducing probabilistic 

matching.

Nebraska Nebraska received a direct certification 

grant from FNS in 2009 and used it to 

develop their web-based probabilistic 

matching system. They have since made a 

key upgrade by switching from an internally 

developed matching algorithm to one 

based on Microsoft fuzzy logic.

Nebraska is using an FNS grant to improve direct 

certification training by introducing more in-person, 

hands-on training sessions with districts. The State is 

investigating the addition of State data on migrant and 

homeless students into the direct certification process. 

The State is also considering applying for the Medicaid 

direct certification demonstration.

Texas Texas increased the frequency of matching 

over the past decade, from annually to 

quarterly to monthly. In 2011 the State 

added a SNAP or TANF indicator to the 

matched list.

Beginning in SY 2013–2014, Texas will make the 

unmatched list available to districts so they can attempt 

to identify additional matches if they wish.

West Virginia West Virginia rolled out its POS and 

matching system in July 2010, following a 

three-month pilot. They integrated the 

system with district POS systems in August 

2010.

West Virginia plans to transition to semimonthly or 

weekly receipt of program data. The State also plans to 

introduce a continuous direct certification training 

program and to incorporate private schools into the 

system more fully. The State also plans to invest 

additional resources to expand its bandwidth. The State 

is using an FNS grant to purchase additional servers 

and provide user training.

Source: Direct certification case study interviews.

CHIP = Children’s Health Insurance Plan; ID = identification; POS = point-of-sale; SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program; SSIS = statewide student information system; TANF = Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families.
Chapter IV: Challenges and Planned Improvements to Direct Certification Mathematica Policy Research

63

West Virginia planned ongoing improvement to its data systems, including a $15,000 investment in 

improved bandwidth for direct certification operations (Table IV.4).

Finally, some States sought to improve direct certification by reducing steps districts had to take 

to complete the process. Alabama planned to begin pushing monthly direct certification files to 

districts rather than requiring that districts download them. Indiana planned to phase out its current 

system, which relies on districts to initiate the matching process, and replace it with automatic 

monthly matching. The State would alert districts when the files were ready to download each 

month. West Virginia planned to incorporate private schools more fully into the direct certification 

system public schools use so that they no longer need to conduct matching manually.

65

V. LESSONS LEARNED

Efficient and accurate direct certification is central to FNS’ efforts to provide nutritious meals 

to students. Direct certification increases access to the program benefits to which eligible students 

are entitled. It also decreases burden on families and district staff in preparing and processing 

applications for school meal benefits.

This report presents analysis of data drawn from the National Survey of Direct Certification 

Practices and case studies of seven States. This analysis documents practices used by States and 

districts in SY 2012-2013 to conduct direct certification, including the processes and resources used 

to develop the systems, the characteristics and availability of relevant data, and the technical aspects 

of matching algorithms. The analysis also catalogs perceived barriers to effective direct certification 

and strategies that States and districts planned to implement to address them. Key findings from the 

analysis are summarized in Tables V.1 through V.3 and in the text below.

Central matching has become the dominant means of implementing direct certification. In SY 

2012-2013, 38 States use central matching systems, and at least 4 of the remaining 14 planned to 

switch from local to central matching. Interviews with central matching States indicated that some of 

the appealing characteristics of central matching systems were efficiency, the opportunity to use 

more sophisticated matching algorithms than districts may be able to develop, the uniform quality of 

matching across the State, and reduced confidentiality risk. However, some findings pointed to the 

continued appeal of local matching for some States. A large majority of local matching States were 

able to include SSNs in the program data files they provide to districts for direct certification 

matching. Access to a single, high quality unique identifier may have contributed to districts’ ability 

to conduct accurate matching without sophisticated matching algorithms. Moreover, local matching 

States cited resource barriers that may have made central matching systems unappealing or 

infeasible, such as insufficient State staff and computer resources to support computer matching.

Although most States used central matching, districts played key roles in direct certification 

processes, including uploading enrollment data, reconciling match lists with local data systems, 

processing lists of potential matches. This division of responsibility, particularly in identifying 

definite matches centrally and reconciling potential matches locally, may have allowed States to take 

advantage of both the efficiency offered by centrally developed matching algorithms and the local 

knowledge and additional student information that districts often have. In some cases, States took 

steps to minimize burden on districts and allowed them to use their direct certification time most 

effectively, such as using probabilistic matching scores to identify possible matches that were most 

likely to be legitimate. 

Many central matching States noted that districts did not always take advantage of all the direct 

certification features available to them or use the system as intended. This was confirmed in case 

study interviews with district officials, who were often unaware of or not using certain system 

features. States emphasized the importance of clear communication and training in overcoming 

these obstacles. States used a variety of training and communication tools, including webinars, 

conferences, web videos, email, phone help centers, and in-person training. In-person, hands-on 

training was cited as particularly effective. 

States and districts used available resources in innovative ways to improve the efficiency of 

direct certification. Enrollment data were often drawn from well-designed SSIS, some of which 

allowed daily updates and automatic processing of transfer students within the State. States 

expanded sources of program data beyond SNAP and TANF to include foster care and other
Chapter V: Lessons Learned Mathematica Policy Research

66

program sources. Most States conducted matching monthly or more frequently, enabling timely 

updates to certification status when students’ circumstances change. Many States used matching 

algorithms that allowed for inexact matches for certain data elements or for calculation of 

probabilistic match scores. 

States’ plans to improve their direct certification systems were nearly universal, so many of 

these strategies for improving direct certification should become even more common in the coming 

years. States noted plans:

• To add more data elements to their matching algorithms

• To increase the frequency of data receipt and matching

• To incorporate additional program data sources 

• To add processes to resolve unmatched or partially matched records

• To upgrade technological infrastructure

• To transition from local to central matching systems

• To provide improved training to direct certification users

Many States took advantage of FNS grants to plan and implement these changes. As they

progress, the efficiency and accuracy of direct certification should continue to improve.

Table V.1. Findings on Planning and Implementation of Direct Certification Procedures Synthesized from 

National Survey on Direct Certification Practices and Case Study Analysis

Direct Certification 

Procedure Findings

Use of Central and 

Local Matching

• Thirty-eight States used central matching systems; at least 4 of the 14 States using 

local matching planned to transition to central matching systems.

• Efficiency, reduced district burden, availability of sophisticated matching algorithms, 

and reduced confidentiality risk were all cited as advantages of central matching 

systems.

Role of Districts • In central matching States, district roles varied substantially across States and 

included uploading enrollment data, reconciling match lists with local data systems, 

processing lists of potential matches, and other key activities to increase match rates.

• Districts did not always take advantage of the direct certification functions available to 

them.

Training and 

Communication

• States used a variety of training and communication tools, including webinars, 

conferences, web videos, email, phone help centers, and in-person training.

• Clear communication and hands-on, in-person training were cited as important to 

effective direct certification.

Monitoring Direct 

Certification Activities

• Although some State systems included sophisticated monitoring tools, many did not.

• Discrepancies between the number of students matched in the central system and 

the number districts reported as directly certified was a key indicator of whether 

districts properly used direct certification systems.

Development 

Resources

• Federal grants represented an important development resource; grants were used to 

upgrade computer matching systems, provide training, and transition to central 

matching.

Sources: National Survey of Direct Certification Practices and direct certification case study interviews.
Chapter V: Lessons Learned Mathematica Policy Research

67

Table V.2. Findings on Technical Aspects of Direct Certification Procedures Synthesized from National 

Survey on Direct Certification Practices and Case Study Analysis

Direct Certification 

Procedure Findings

Enrollment Data • States using central matching typically used SSIS as the source for enrollment data; 

local matching States used other sources.

• In some States in which the SSIS was not updated immediately at the beginning of 

the school year, special procedures were developed to allow districts to directly 

certify newly enrolled students.

Program Data • States were required to use or provide SNAP records for direct certification, but most 

also used TANF records, and many used foster care records.

• Use of foster care records contributed to increased numbers of directly certified 

students; one State reported that 7 percent of direct certified students were matched 

through foster care.

Matching Frequency • A large majority of central matching States conducted matching at least monthly, 

whereas matching was often conducted less frequently in local matching States.

• States conducting daily matching cited match frequency as a key strength of their 

direct certification systems.

Matching Procedures • Most matching systems required three or more identifiers to match and allowed for 

inexact matches on some elements.

• Central matching States typically had a process in which potential matches were 

investigated further; this investigation was often done by districts.

Probabilistic Matching • Probabilistic matching was used by only 29 percent of central matching States and 9 

percent of districts in local matching States. 

• Probabilistic match scores may increase the number of directly certified students 

while minimizing burden; the scores allowed investigation of unmatched records while 

prioritizing potential matches most likely to be legitimate.

Extending Eligibility • Districts were typically given primary responsibility for extending eligibility, even in 

central matching States.

Nonpublic Schools • Central matching States often found incorporating private schools into the central 

direct certification system to be challenging because the schools’ enrollment data 

were not included in the SSIS.

• Individual student lookup and features that allow for batch upload of enrollment lists 

were some strategies for mitigating the direct certification challenges posed by 

private schools.

Feasibility of Using 

Medicaid

• Few States reported that all children eligible for Medicaid would also be eligible for 

free school meals.

• Some States expressed doubts that incorporation of Medicaid data would provide 

substantial increases in direct certification.

Sources: National Survey of Direct Certification Practices and direct certification case study interviews.

SSIS = statewide student information system; SNAP = Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; TANF = 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
Chapter V: Lessons Learned Mathematica Policy Research

68

Table V.3. Findings on Perceived Barriers and Planned Improvements to Direct Certification Procedures 

Synthesized from National Survey on Direct Certification Practices and Case Study Analysis

Direct Certification 

Procedure Findings

Barriers to Effective 

Direct Certification

• Central matching States most often cited barriers related to enrollment data, whereas 

local matching States often cited barriers related to enrollment data and resources.

• Resource barriers cited by local matching States suggest that central matching 

systems may be infeasible in many of these States.

• In central matching States, districts were not always aware of and did not always 

appropriately use all features of direct certification systems, due to time and resource 

constraints, low levels of technical skill, or insufficient training.

Planned Improvements • States planned a wide range of large and small changes to their direct certification 

systems, including adding more data elements, increasing frequency, and adding 

processes to resolve unmatched records.

• States took advantage of FNS grants to transition to central matching systems, 

upgrade technological infrastructure, and provide improved training to direct 

certification users.

Sources: National Survey of Direct Certification Practices and direct certification case study interviews.
APPENDIX A

NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION STATE PROFILES 

Alabama NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.3 

ALABAMA NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Southeast

Matching Method: Central matching

Number of School Districts 159 Number of Schools 6,401

With fewer than 500 students 24 Public schools 6,356

With 500 to 999 students 7 Private schools 45

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 90

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 26

With 10,000 students or more 12

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP SSN

TANF First name

Foster Care Middle name / initial

Last name

Date of birth

Gender

City

Zip code

Parent SSN

Parent first name

Parent middle name / initial

Parent last name

Timing of Initial Match: July

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Monthly

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? District

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

Yes

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Use additional information to 

determine which student matches 

the program data

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Notification letters modified

Certify all with same parent/guardian

Certify all with same address

Is individual look-up available? No

Does the State use probabilistic matching? No

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Statewide Student Information 

System

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Monthly

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) 100
Alabama NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.4 

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 303.5 255.9 3.1 85.2

SY 2011-2012 281.2 253.9 7.4 92.7

SY 2010-2011 281.1 224.4 5.7 81.5

SY 2009-2010 270.8 178.7 3.2 66.8

SY 2008-2009 231.9 146.7 9.1 65.9

SY 2007-2008 205.5 121.9 6.5 61.2

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
Alaska NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.5 

ALASKA NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Western

Matching Method: Central matching

Number of School Districts 69 Number of Schools 447

With fewer than 500 students 52 Public schools 418

With 500 to 999 students 4 Private schools 29

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 8

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 2

With 10,000 students or more 3

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP First name

TANF Middle name / initial

Foster Care Last name

Date of birth

Gender

Street address

City

Zip code

Timing of Initial Match: July

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Monthly

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? State

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

Yes

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Use additional information to 

determine which student matches 

the program data

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Notification letters modified

Certify all with same parent/guardian

Is individual look-up available? No

Does the State use probabilistic matching? No

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Statewide Student Information 

System

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Once per school year

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) 100
Alaska NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.6 

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 28.0 29.6 8.0 100.0

SY 2011-2012 28.8 30.2 5.1 100.0

SY 2010-2011 28.1 24.7 4.8 100.0

SY 2009-2010 23.5 22.4 5.1 100.0

SY 2008-2009 20.4 18.2 6.3 100.0

SY 2007-2008 19.1 18.0 4.8 100.0

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
Arizona NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.7 

ARIZONA NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Western

Matching Method: Central matching

Number of School Districts 464 Number of Schools 1,788

With fewer than 500 students 288 Public schools 1,716

With 500 to 999 students 51 Private schools 72

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 71

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 27

With 10,000 students or more 27

Programs Matched: Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP SSN

TANF First name

Last name

Date of birth

SNAP or other program ID

Timing of Initial Match: August

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Three times per school year

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? District

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

No

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Identify both/all students as matches

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Certify all with same parent/guardian

Certify all with same address

Is individual look-up available? No

Does the State use probabilistic matching? No

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Statewide Student Information 

System

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) More than three times, less than 

monthly 

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) 90
Arizona NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.8 

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 391.2 256.4 39.4 72.9

SY 2011-2012 382.7 243.6 41.3 71.3

SY 2010-2011 363.4 167.7 29.3 50.2

SY 2009-2010 320.8 147.6 22.0 49.4

SY 2008-2009 258.0 152.8 23.4 65.1

SY 2007-2008 211.8 130.5 23.0 69.1

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
Arkansas NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.9 

ARKANSAS NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Southwest

Matching Method: Central matching

Number of School Districts 284 Number of Schools 1,119

With fewer than 500 students 68 Public schools 1,081

With 500 to 999 students 94 Private schools 38

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 107

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 8

With 10,000 students or more 7

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP SSN

First name

Middle name / initial

Last name

Date of birth

Gender

School name / ID

SNAP or other program ID

Parent SSN

Parent first name

Parent middle name / initial

Parent last name

Parent date of birth

Timing of Initial Match: July

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Three times per school year

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? State

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

No

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Identify both/all students as matches

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Notification letters modified

Certify all with same parent/guardian

Certify all with same address

Is individual look-up available? No

Does the State use probabilistic matching? No

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Statewide Student Information 

System

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) State Agency match once and three 

times or more this year if Direct Cert. 

Grant is funded.

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) 100
Arkansas NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.10

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 158.3 117.8 13.0 81.1

SY 2011-2012 154.2 114.5 10.5 79.7

SY 2010-2011 148.9 104.0 12.4 76.2

SY 2009-2010 138.9 91.6 13.2 72.9

SY 2008-2009 132.0 82.9 13.3 69.8

SY 2007-2008 126.5 78.4 13.7 69.5

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
California NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.11

CALIFORNIA NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Western

Matching Method: Central matching

Number of School Districts 1,094 Number of Schools 9,971

With fewer than 500 students 403 Public schools 9,743

With 500 to 999 students 123 Private schools 228

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 287

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 113

With 10,000 students or more 168

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP First name

TANF Middle name / initial

FDPIR Last name

Foster Care Date of birth

KinGAP Gender

Street address

City

County code

Zip code

Timing of Initial Match: July

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Monthly

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? State

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

No

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Identify both/all students as matches

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

None

Is individual look-up available? No

Does the State use probabilistic matching? No

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Statewide Student Information 

System

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Three times per school year

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) 100
California NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.12

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 1,645.9 1,008.9 327.1 76.5

SY 2011-2012 1,521.0 926.5 352.3 79.3

SY 2010-2011 1,527.4 768.0 323.2 63.8

SY 2009-2010 1,249.7 703.5 219.3 68.3

SY 2008-2009 1,074.4 574.8 182.9 64.5

SY 2007-2008 936.3 662.2 153.4 84.6

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
Colorado NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.13

COLORADO NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Mountain Plains

Matching Method: Central matching

Number of School Districts 209 Number of Schools 1,717

With fewer than 500 students 113 Public schools 1,671

With 500 to 999 students 23 Private schools 46

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 42

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 12

With 10,000 students or more 19

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP SSN

First name

Last name

Date of birth

Street address

City

Zip code

School name / ID

Timing of Initial Match: August

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Three times per school year

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? District

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

No

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Other

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Notification letters modified

Is individual look-up available? No

Does the State use probabilistic matching? No

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Electronic files maintained at district

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Not applicable

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) Not applicable
Colorado NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.14

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 178.0 128.2 1.2 72.5

SY 2011-2012 179.5 121.1 0.8 67.8

SY 2010-2011 155.8 104.9 0.1 67.4

SY 2009-2010 126.2 86.7 0.9 69.2

SY 2008-2009 94.9 69.1 7.9 79.5

SY 2007-2008 89.0 54.5 0.0 61.3

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
Connecticut NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.15

CONNECTICUT NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Northeast

Matching Method: Local matching

Number of School Districts 188 Number of Schools 1,159

With fewer than 500 students 57 Public schools 1,115

With 500 to 999 students 18 Private schools 44

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 85

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 18

With 10,000 students or more 10

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP First name

TANF Middle name / initial

Last name

Date of birth

Street address

City

County code

Zip code

Timing of Initial Match: Varies by district

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Varies by district

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? Districts

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

Varies by district

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Varies by district

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Varies by district

Is individual look-up available? Not applicable

Does the State use probabilistic matching? Not applicable

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Electronic files maintained at district

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Ongoing

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) 100
Connecticut NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.16

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 105.4 85.8 17.9 98.1

SY 2011-2012 98.2 65.0 29.9 95.2

SY 2010-2011 95.0 57.9 32.6 92.8

SY 2009-2010 81.4 38.6 12.0 55.7

SY 2008-2009 62.7 35.5 13.8 72.5

SY 2007-2008 60.7 33.9 14.2 72.7

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
Delaware NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.17

DELAWARE NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Mid-Atlantic

Matching Method: Central matching

Number of School Districts 44 Number of Schools 224

With fewer than 500 students 20 Public schools 212

With 500 to 999 students 4 Private schools 12

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 10

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 6

With 10,000 students or more 4

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP First name

TANF Middle name / initial

FDPIR Last name

Date of birth

Gender

Timing of Initial Match: August

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Monthly

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? State

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

No

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Use additional information to 

determine which student matches 

the program data

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Notification letters modified

Is individual look-up available? No

Does the State use probabilistic matching? No

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Statewide Student Information 

System

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Ongoing

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) 100
Delaware NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.18

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 51.5 47.3 2.1 95.7

SY 2011-2012 46.9 45.7 1.2 100.0

SY 2010-2011 41.2 36.9 1.5 92.8

SY 2009-2010 36.6 31.2 1.6 89.2

SY 2008-2009 25.7 24.2 0.1 94.6

SY 2007-2008 25.4 25.2 1.5 100.0

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
District Of Columbia NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.19

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Mid-Atlantic

Matching Method: Central matching

Number of School Districts 63 Number of Schools 229

With fewer than 500 students 43 Public schools 216

With 500 to 999 students 13 Private schools 13

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 6

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 0

With 10,000 students or more 1

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP SSN

TANF First name

Foster Care Middle name / initial

Last name

Date of birth

Gender

Street address

City

Zip code

Phone number

School name / ID

SNAP or other program ID

Parent SSN

Parent first name

Parent middle name / initial

Parent last name

Parent date of birth

Timing of Initial Match: August

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Daily or real-time updates

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? State

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

Yes

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Duplicate matches do not occur

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Certify all with same address

Is individual look-up available? Yes

Does the State use probabilistic matching? Yes

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Electronic files maintained at district

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Ongoing

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) 100
District Of Columbia NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.20

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 35.0 34.5 1.4 100.0

SY 2011-2012 36.9 17.0 16.2 82.2

SY 2010-2011 33.6 12.0 15.2 65.3

SY 2009-2010 30.9 25.3 0.0 81.9

SY 2008-2009 27.1 13.3 0.0 49.2

SY 2007-2008 28.3 15.4 0.0 54.4

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
Florida NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.21

FLORIDA NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Southeast

Matching Method: Local matching

Number of School Districts 226 Number of Schools 3,592

With fewer than 500 students 102 Public schools 3,463

With 500 to 999 students 29 Private schools 129

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 42

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 14

With 10,000 students or more 39

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP SSN

TANF First name

Medicaid Last name

Date of birth

Gender

Timing of Initial Match: Varies by district

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Varies by district

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? Districts

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

Varies by district

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Varies by district

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Varies by district

Is individual look-up available? Not applicable

Does the State use probabilistic matching? Not applicable

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Electronic files maintained at district

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Not applicable

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) Not applicable
Florida NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.22

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 1,002.2 913.9 17.0 92.8

SY 2011-2012 912.1 868.5 11.7 96.5

SY 2010-2011 863.4 706.8 4.4 82.3

SY 2009-2010 685.0 491.0 0.3 71.7

SY 2008-2009 485.8 390.9 0.5 80.6

SY 2007-2008 415.8 331.9 0.7 79.9

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
Georgia NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.23

GEORGIA NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Southeast

Matching Method: Central matching

Number of School Districts 222 Number of Schools 2,258

With fewer than 500 students 32 Public schools 2,258

With 500 to 999 students 18 Private schools 0

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 108

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 27

With 10,000 students or more 37

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP SSN

TANF First name

Middle name / initial

Last name

Date of birth

Gender

Street address

City

Zip code

Timing of Initial Match: July

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Three times per school year

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? District

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

Yes

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Identify one of the students as 

matches

Use additional information to 

determine which student matches 

the program data

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Notification letters modified

Is individual look-up available? No

Does the State use probabilistic matching? No

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Statewide Student Information 

System

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Three times per school year

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) 80
Georgia NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.24

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 613.9 538.0 42.0 94.1

SY 2011-2012 613.0 509.6 27.6 87.1

SY 2010-2011 588.7 444.5 18.9 78.0

SY 2009-2010 485.5 305.3 28.6 66.8

SY 2008-2009 405.1 238.7 25.2 62.8

SY 2007-2008 336.4 203.9 24.7 65.4

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
Guam NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.25

GUAM NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Western

Matching Method: Central matching

Number of School Districts 2 Number of Schools 43

With fewer than 500 students 0 Public schools 43

With 500 to 999 students 0 Private schools 0

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 1

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 0

With 10,000 students or more 1

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP SSN

TANF First name

Middle name / initial

Last name

Date of birth

Gender

Street address

SNAP or other program ID

Parent first name

Parent middle name / initial

Parent last name

Timing of Initial Match: September

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: More than three times, less than 

monthly

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? State

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

No

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Send letter to students' parents

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Certify all with same parent/guardian

Is individual look-up available? No

Does the State use probabilistic matching? No

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Electronic files maintained at district

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Not applicable

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) Not applicable
Guam NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.26

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 18.4 13.9 0.0 75.9

SY 2011-2012 17.4 14.5 0.0 83.4

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2011-2012

and SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress. Prior to SY 2011-2012, Guam was not included in the data used 

in the Reports to Congress. Therefore, direct certification rates are not available for earlier 

years.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
Hawaii NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.27

HAWAII NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Western

Matching Method: Central matching

Number of School Districts 35 Number of Schools 309

With fewer than 500 students 31 Public schools 299

With 500 to 999 students 3 Private schools 10

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 0

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 0

With 10,000 students or more 1

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP First name

TANF Last name

Date of birth

Parent first name

Parent middle name / initial

Parent last name

Timing of Initial Match: July

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Twice per school year

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? State

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

No

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Identify both/all students as matches

Send letter to students' parents

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Notification letters modified

Certify all with same parent/guardian

Certify all with same address

Is individual look-up available? No

Does the State use probabilistic matching? No

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Statewide Student Information 

System

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Ongoing

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) 98
Hawaii NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.28

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 53.3 46.5 0.6 88.2

SY 2011-2012 45.7 38.0 0.0 83.2

SY 2010-2011 42.2 32.9 0.0 78.0

SY 2009-2010 35.0 31.9 0.0 91.2

SY 2008-2009 28.1 22.0 0.0 78.3

SY 2007-2008 26.2 15.6 0.0 59.6

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
Idaho NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.29

IDAHO NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Western

Matching Method: Central matching

Number of School Districts 149 Number of Schools 644

With fewer than 500 students 75 Public schools 622

With 500 to 999 students 25 Private schools 22

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 36

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 8 

With 10,000 students or more 5

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match: 

SNAP First, middle, and last name

TANF Date of birth

Gender

Street address

City

County code

Zip code

Phone number

School name / ID

SNAP or other program ID

Parent first, middle, and last

name

Timing of Initial Match: July 

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Daily or real-time updates

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? District

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

Yes

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Identify both/all students as matches

Use additional information to 

determine which student matches 

the program data

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Certify all with same parent/guardian

Certify all with same address

Is individual look-up available? Yes

Does the State use probabilistic matching? Yes

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Statewide Student Information 

System

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Ongoing

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) 98
Idaho NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.30

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012-2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 78.1 61.9 1.1 80.5

SY 2011-2012 77.4 66.8 0.6 87.0

SY 2010-2011 71.6 56.6 0.7 79.9

SY 2009-2010 54.6 35.3 0.7 65.4

SY 2008-2009 36.3 17.5 0.5 48.9

SY 2007-2008 29.8 14.4 0.6 49.3

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
Illinois NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.31

ILLINOIS NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Midwest

Matching Method: Central matching

Number of School Districts 1,051 Number of Schools 4,109

With fewer than 500 students 513 Public schools 3,734

With 500 to 999 students 195 Private schools 375

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 277

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 41

With 10,000 students or more 25

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP First name

TANF Last name

Medicaid Date of birth

Foster Care Gender

Street address

City

Zip code

School name / ID

SNAP or other program ID

Timing of Initial Match: July

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Monthly

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? State

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

Yes

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Identify both/all students as matches

Use additional information to 

determine which student matches 

the program data

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Notification letters modified

Is individual look-up available? No

Does the State use probabilistic matching? No

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Statewide Student Information 

System

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Ongoing

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) 60
Illinois NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.32

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012-2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 643.4 548.9 0.0 85.3

SY 2011-2012 609.0 529.6 3.0 87.4

SY 2010-2011 564.9 419.3 6.7 75.1

SY 2009-2010 515.4 369.5 6.2 72.6

SY 2008-2009 436.3 245.5 0.2 56.3

SY 2007-2008 434.4 152.2 0.3 35.1

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
Indiana NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.33

INDIANA NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Midwest

Matching Method: Central matching

Number of School Districts 504 Number of Schools 2,072

With fewer than 500 students 174 Public schools 1,863

With 500 to 999 students 79 Private schools 209

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 193

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 36

With 10,000 students or more 22

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP First name

TANF Last name

Foster Care Date of birth

County code

Timing of Initial Match: July

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: As needed

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? District

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

No

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Duplicate matches do not occur

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Notification letters modified

Is individual look-up available? No

Does the State use probabilistic matching? No

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Statewide Student Information 

System

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Weekly

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) 100
Indiana NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.34

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 295.1 239.7 11.1 84.4

SY 2011-2012 303.1 216.1 9.4 73.6

SY 2010-2011 276.7 193.1 9.0 72.2

SY 2009-2010 241.8 171.9 8.8 73.8

SY 2008-2009 227.8 143.2 8.6 65.3

SY 2007-2008 195.6 100.6 16.3 56.2

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
Iowa NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.35

IOWA NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Mountain Plains

Matching Method: Central matching

Number of School Districts 474 Number of Schools 1,399

With fewer than 500 students 219 Public schools 1,258

With 500 to 999 students 135 Private schools 141

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 102

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 11

With 10,000 students or more 7

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP SSN

TANF First name

Foster Care Middle name / initial

Last name

Date of birth

Gender

Timing of Initial Match: July

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Weekly or biweekly

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? State

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

No

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Other

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

SFAs are provided with student 

names with the same address as a 

SNAP or FIP participant matched.

Is individual look-up available? No

Does the State use probabilistic matching? Yes

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Electronic files maintained at district

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Not applicable

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) Not applicable
Iowa NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.36

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 124.0 113.4 3.5 94.1

SY 2011-2012 120.7 102.0 2.6 86.4

SY 2010-2011 99.8 88.1 1.8 89.8

SY 2009-2010 97.8 73.1 0.5 75.1

SY 2008-2009 82.5 68.9 0.0 83.5

SY 2007-2008 71.7 50.5 0.5 70.9

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
Kansas NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.37

KANSAS NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Mountain Plains

Matching Method: Central matching

Number of School Districts 398 Number of Schools 1,521

With fewer than 500 students 218 Public schools 1,402

With 500 to 999 students 87 Private schools 119

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 72

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 14

With 10,000 students or more 7

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP SSN

TANF First name

Foster Care Middle name / initial

Last name

Date of birth

SNAP or other program ID

Parent first name

Parent last name

Timing of Initial Match: July

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Daily or real-time updates

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? State

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

Yes

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Use additional information to 

determine which student matches 

the program data

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

All students with the same 

SNAP/TANF number are considered 

matched.

Is individual look-up available? Yes

Does the State use probabilistic matching? Yes

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Statewide Student Information 

System

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Ongoing

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) 100
Kansas NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.38

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 93.9 98.7 0.0 100.0

SY 2011-2012 97.2 90.0 0.0 92.6

SY 2010-2011 89.7 82.0 0.0 91.4

SY 2009-2010 75.6 63.5 0.2 84.1

SY 2008-2009 61.6 50.1 0.2 81.6

SY 2007-2008 60.0 43.6 0.3 73.1

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
Kentucky NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.39

KENTUCKY NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Southeast

Matching Method: Local matching

Number of School Districts 188 Number of Schools 1,443

With fewer than 500 students 17 Public schools 1,340

With 500 to 999 students 24 Private schools 103

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 116

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 20

With 10,000 students or more 11

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP SSN

TANF First name

Medicaid Last name

Foster Care Date of birth

Timing of Initial Match: Varies by district

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Varies by district

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? Districts

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

Varies by district

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Varies by district

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Varies by district

Is individual look-up available? Not applicable

Does the State use probabilistic matching? Not applicable

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Statewide Student Information 

System

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Ongoing

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) 100
Kentucky NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.40

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 229.0 263.1 3.6 100.0

SY 2011-2012 237.1 218.7 0.7 92.5

SY 2010-2011 233.9 200.9 1.0 86.3

SY 2009-2010 232.5 177.5 2.4 77.1

SY 2008-2009 195.5 147.8 4.3 77.3

SY 2007-2008 187.9 149.1 6.5 82.2

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
Louisiana NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.41

LOUISIANA NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Southwest

Matching Method: Central matching

Number of School Districts 114 Number of Schools 1,570

With fewer than 500 students 18 Public schools 1,389

With 500 to 999 students 14 Private schools 181

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 40

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 22

With 10,000 students or more 20

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP SSN

First name

Middle name / initial

Last name

Date of birth

Timing of Initial Match: July

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Twice per school year

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? State

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

No

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Other

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Districts can research further.

Is individual look-up available? No

Does the State use probabilistic matching? No

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Statewide Student Information 

System

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) More than three times, less than 

monthly 

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) 69
Louisiana NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.42

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 338.1 253.4 0.0 74.9

SY 2011-2012 301.5 257.8 0.0 85.5

SY 2010-2011 284.7 235.9 0.0 82.9

SY 2009-2010 261.8 207.8 0.0 79.4

SY 2008-2009 234.3 202.0 0.0 86.2

SY 2007-2008 233.5 177.5 0.0 76.0

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
Maine NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.43

MAINE NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Northeast

Matching Method: Local matching

Number of School Districts 189 Number of Schools 593

With fewer than 500 students 94 Public schools 569

With 500 to 999 students 29 Private schools 24

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 64

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 2

With 10,000 students or more 0

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP First name

TANF Last name

Date of birth

City

County code

Timing of Initial Match: Varies by district

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Varies by district

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? Districts

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

Varies by district

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Varies by district

Use additional information to 

determine which student matches 

the program data

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Varies by district

Is individual look-up available? Not applicable

Does the State use probabilistic matching? Not applicable

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Electronic files maintained at district

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Ongoing

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) 95
Maine NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.44

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 66.1 49.6 0.2 75.3

SY 2011-2012 63.2 52.0 0.3 82.5

SY 2010-2011 66.9 46.4 0.3 69.6

SY 2009-2010 60.6 45.6 0.1 75.4

SY 2008-2009 48.6 35.4 0.2 73.1

SY 2007-2008 47.0 31.6 0.2 67.5

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
Maryland NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.45

MARYLAND NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Mid-Atlantic

Matching Method: Local matching

Number of School Districts 55 Number of Schools 1,509

With fewer than 500 students 26 Public schools 1,447

With 500 to 999 students 4 Private schools 62

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 6

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 4

With 10,000 students or more 15

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP SSN

TANF First name

Foster Care Middle name / initial

Last name

Date of birth

Street address

City

County code

Zip code

SNAP or other program ID

Timing of Initial Match: Varies by district

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Varies by district

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? Districts

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

Varies by district

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Varies by district

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Varies by district

Is individual look-up available? Not applicable

Does the State use probabilistic matching? Not applicable

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Electronic files maintained at district

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Unknown

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) Unknown
Maryland NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.46

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 223.9 202.8 0.2 90.7

SY 2011-2012 206.8 185.8 0.2 89.9

SY 2010-2011 186.9 156.1 0.2 83.6

SY 2009-2010 162.1 136.9 0.2 84.6

SY 2008-2009 116.4 86.0 0.0 73.9

SY 2007-2008 114.7 80.1 0.2 69.9

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
Massachusetts NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.47

MASSACHUSETTS NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Northeast

Matching Method: Central matching

Number of School Districts 363 Number of Schools 1,808

With fewer than 500 students 108 Public schools 1,746

With 500 to 999 students 43 Private schools 62

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 173

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 29

With 10,000 students or more 10

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP First name

TANF Middle name / initial

Last name

Date of birth

Timing of Initial Match: August

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Twice per school year

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? State

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

Yes

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Identify both/all students as matches

Send letter to students' parents

Use additional information to 

determine which student matches 

the program data

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Notification letters modified

Certify all with same address

Is individual look-up available? No

Does the State use probabilistic matching? No

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Statewide Student Information 

System

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Three times per school year

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) 73
Massachusetts NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.48

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 242.8 191.6 15.7 84.4

SY 2011-2012 242.6 183.0 9.6 78.6

SY 2010-2011 226.3 128.2 18.0 61.5

SY 2009-2010 205.0 98.6 11.2 50.9

SY 2008-2009 166.3 91.1 17.5 61.2

SY 2007-2008 144.3 75.8 16.0 59.1

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
Michigan NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.49

MICHIGAN NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Midwest

Matching Method: Central matching

Number of School Districts 847 Number of Schools 3,427

With fewer than 500 students 287 Public schools 3,233

With 500 to 999 students 176 Private schools 194

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 316

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 45

With 10,000 students or more 23

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP First name

TANF Middle name / initial

Foster Care Last name

Date of birth

Gender

Zip code

Timing of Initial Match: July

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Weekly or biweekly

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? State

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

Yes

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Identify one of the students as 

matches

Other

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Notification letters modified

Is individual look-up available? Yes

Does the State use probabilistic matching? Yes

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Statewide Student Information 

System

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Three times per school year

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) 100
Michigan NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.50

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 494.4 495.4 0.0 100.0

SY 2011-2012 544.5 450.6 0.0 82.8

SY 2010-2011 542.0 392.2 0.0 72.4

SY 2009-2010 474.2 325.0 0.0 68.5

SY 2008-2009 392.0 247.3 0.0 63.1

SY 2007-2008 404.7 232.8 0.0 57.5

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
Minnesota NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.51

MINNESOTA NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Midwest

Matching Method: Central matching

Number of School Districts 694 Number of Schools 2,044

With fewer than 500 students 420 Public schools 1,787

With 500 to 999 students 113 Private schools 257

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 120

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 27

With 10,000 students or more 14

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP First name

TANF Middle name / initial

Last name

Date of birth

Gender

Timing of Initial Match: June

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Monthly

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? State

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

No

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Identify both/all students as matches

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Notification letters modified

Is individual look-up available? No

Does the State use probabilistic matching? No

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Statewide Student Information 

System

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Three times per school year

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) 100
Minnesota NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.52

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 169.9 145.6 2.6 87.0

SY 2011-2012 164.0 140.0 1.6 86.2

SY 2010-2011 147.5 124.3 0.9 84.7

SY 2009-2010 120.9 107.5 0.7 89.4

SY 2008-2009 102.9 78.1 1.3 76.8

SY 2007-2008 99.4 73.0 0.8 74.0

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
Mississippi NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.53

MISSISSIPPI NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Southeast

Matching Method: Local matching

Number of School Districts 172 Number of Schools 930

With fewer than 500 students 25 Public schools 913

With 500 to 999 students 17 Private schools 17

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 110

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 15

With 10,000 students or more 5

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP SSN

First name

Middle name / initial

Last name

Date of birth

Gender

Street address

City

County code

Zip code

SNAP or other program ID

Parent first name

Parent middle name / initial

Parent last name

Timing of Initial Match: Varies by district

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Varies by district

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? Districts

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

Varies by district

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Varies by district

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Varies by district

Is individual look-up available? Not applicable

Does the State use probabilistic matching? Not applicable

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Statewide Student Information 

System

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Ongoing

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) 75
Mississippi NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.54

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 228.5 165.5 14.6 77.3

SY 2011-2012 221.4 159.9 14.7 77.4

SY 2010-2011 204.6 148.3 11.1 76.6

SY 2009-2010 187.3 128.7 10.0 72.6

SY 2008-2009 162.9 111.6 9.8 72.9

SY 2007-2008 154.4 101.1 13.5 71.8

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
Missouri NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.55

MISSOURI NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Mountain Plains

Matching Method: Local matching

Number of School Districts 762 Number of Schools 2,468

With fewer than 500 students 454 Public schools 2,257

With 500 to 999 students 134 Private schools 211

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 135

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 19

With 10,000 students or more 20

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP SSN

TANF First name

Middle name / initial

Last name

Date of birth

Gender

Street address

City

Zip code

Parent first name

Parent middle name / initial

Parent last name

Timing of Initial Match: Varies by district

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Varies by district

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? Districts

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

Varies by district

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Varies by district

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Varies by district

Is individual look-up available? Not applicable

Does the State use probabilistic matching? Not applicable

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Electronic files maintained at district

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Not applicable

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) Not applicable
Missouri NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.56

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 302.9 241.3 0.0 79.7

SY 2011-2012 308.3 222.1 0.0 72.1

SY 2010-2011 295.2 207.6 0.1 70.4

SY 2009-2010 266.1 175.7 0.1 66.1

SY 2008-2009 223.8 149.6 0.0 66.8

SY 2007-2008 307.0 135.1 0.0 44.0

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
Montana NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.57

MONTANA NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Mountain Plains

Matching Method: Central matching

Number of School Districts 239 Number of Schools 744

With fewer than 500 students 182 Public schools 711

With 500 to 999 students 27 Private schools 33

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 24

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 4

With 10,000 students or more 2

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP First name

Middle name / initial

Last name

Date of birth

Gender

Street address

City

County code

Zip code

School name / ID

SNAP or other program ID

Parent first name

Parent middle name / initial

Parent last name

Timing of Initial Match: July

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: More than three times, less than 

monthly

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? District

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

No

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Other

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

State staff relay info to school district 

staff during trainings, emails and 

technical assistance

Is individual look-up available? No

Does the State use probabilistic matching? No

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Statewide Student Information 

System

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Unknown

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) 94
Montana NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.58

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 35.6 19.4 6.0 65.9

SY 2011-2012 37.3 20.0 5.1 62.3

SY 2010-2011 33.3 17.8 4.9 62.4

SY 2009-2010 30.2 14.1 5.1 56.1

SY 2008-2009 23.1 11.1 3.8 57.5

SY 2007-2008 22.9 10.7 3.5 55.0

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
Nebraska NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.59

NEBRASKA NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Mountain Plains

Matching Method: Central matching

Number of School Districts 370 Number of Schools 905

With fewer than 500 students 268 Public schools 751

With 500 to 999 students 64 Private schools 154

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 29

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 4

With 10,000 students or more 5

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP First name

TANF Last name

Foster Care Date of birth

Gender

Timing of Initial Match: July

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Daily or real-time updates

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? State

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

Yes

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Use additional information to 

determine which student matches 

the program data

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

State leaves this up to Schools to 

identify 

Is individual look-up available? Yes

Does the State use probabilistic matching? Yes

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Statewide Student Information 

System

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) 2 Major Due Dates and Occasional 

other uploads

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) 56
Nebraska NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.60

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 56.1 63.6 0.0 100.0

SY 2011-2012 55.5 58.7 0.6 100.0

SY 2010-2011 54.4 47.0 0.4 87.1

SY 2009-2010 49.5 28.5 0.4 58.1

SY 2008-2009 38.2 28.5 0.1 75.1

SY 2007-2008 40.7 27.7 0.0 68.1

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
Nevada NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.61

NEVADA NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Western

Matching Method: Local matching

Number of School Districts 25 Number of Schools 582

With fewer than 500 students 11 Public schools 571

With 500 to 999 students 3 Private schools 11

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 4

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 5

With 10,000 students or more 2

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP SSN

TANF First name

Middle name / initial

Last name

Date of birth

Gender

Street address

City

County code

Zip code

School name / ID

SNAP or other program ID

Parent first name

Parent middle name / initial

Parent last name

Timing of Initial Match: Varies by district

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Varies by district

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? Districts

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

Varies by district

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Varies by district

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Varies by district

Is individual look-up available? Not applicable

Does the State use probabilistic matching? Not applicable

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Electronic files maintained at district

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Ongoing

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) 100
Nevada NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.62

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 123.6 104.5 6.5 89.3

SY 2011-2012 108.0 90.7 5.9 88.8

SY 2010-2011 98.9 82.2 3.9 86.5

SY 2009-2010 75.1 60.8 4.1 85.7

SY 2008-2009 51.0 41.0 3.5 86.6

SY 2007-2008 42.7 31.9 5.6 85.9

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
New Hampshire NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.63

NEW HAMPSHIRE NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Northeast

Matching Method: Central matching

Number of School Districts 98 Number of Schools 444

With fewer than 500 students 20 Public schools 433

With 500 to 999 students 18 Private schools 11

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 55

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 3

With 10,000 students or more 2

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP SSN

TANF First name

FDPIR Middle name / initial

Last name

Date of birth

Gender

Street address

City

County code

Zip code

School name / ID

SNAP or other program ID

Timing of Initial Match: July

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Monthly

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? State

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

No

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Use additional information to 

determine which student matches 

the program data

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

None

Is individual look-up available? No

Does the State use probabilistic matching? No

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Statewide Student Information 

System

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Once per school year

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) 100
New Hampshire NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.64

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 35.2 20.5 0.0 58.4

SY 2011-2012 35.1 23.7 0.0 67.6

SY 2010-2011 33.7 22.3 0.0 66.1

SY 2009-2010 24.7 11.5 0.0 46.7

SY 2008-2009 18.2 5.5 0.0 30.2

SY 2007-2008 18.2 6.3 0.0 34.6

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
New Jersey NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.65

NEW JERSEY NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Mid-Atlantic

Matching Method: Central matching

Number of School Districts 699 Number of Schools 6,755

With fewer than 500 students 287 Public schools 6,354

With 500 to 999 students 118 Private schools 401

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 226

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 49

With 10,000 students or more 19

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP SSN

TANF First name

Middle name / initial

Last name

Date of birth

Street address

City

County code

Zip code

Phone number

Parent first name

Parent middle name / initial

Parent last name

Timing of Initial Match: August

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Other frequency

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? District

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

Yes

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Identify both/all students as matches

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Notification letters modified

Certify all with same parent/guardian

Certify all with same address

Is individual look-up available? No

Does the State use probabilistic matching? No

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Electronic files maintained at district

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Not applicable

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) Not applicable
New Jersey NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.66

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 256.3 227.2 0.3 88.7

SY 2011-2012 274.2 211.5 0.2 77.2

SY 2010-2011 234.8 135.8 0.3 57.9

SY 2009-2010 175.4 107.9 0.2 61.6

SY 2008-2009 154.6 85.5 0.0 55.3

SY 2007-2008 144.8 63.1 2.0 44.2

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
New Mexico NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.67

NEW MEXICO NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Southwest

Matching Method: Local matching

Number of School Districts 205 Number of Schools 910

With fewer than 500 students 146 Public schools 876

With 500 to 999 students 18 Private schools 34

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 26

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 7

With 10,000 students or more 8

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP SSN

TANF First name

Middle name / initial

Last name

Date of birth

Gender

Timing of Initial Match: Varies by district

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Varies by district

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? Districts

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

Varies by district

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Varies by district

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Varies by district

Is individual look-up available? Not applicable

Does the State use probabilistic matching? Not applicable

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Statewide Student Information 

System

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Not applicable

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) Not applicable
New Mexico NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.68

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 149.0 59.8 72.1 77.8

SY 2011-2012 148.2 60.2 65.9 73.1

SY 2010-2011 128.6 44.4 65.4 70.2

SY 2009-2010 120.0 32.9 53.8 49.6

SY 2008-2009 92.5 33.1 52.2 82.0

SY 2007-2008 85.6 27.9 53.2 86.3

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
New York NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.69

NEW YORK NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Northeast

Matching Method: Local matching

Number of School Districts 1,093 Number of Schools 5,764

With fewer than 500 students 445 Public schools 4,874

With 500 to 999 students 187 Private schools 890

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 375

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 69

With 10,000 students or more 17

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP First name

TANF Middle name / initial

Medicaid Last name

Date of birth

Street address

City

Zip code

SNAP or other program ID

Parent first name

Parent last name

Timing of Initial Match: Varies by district

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Varies by district

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? Districts

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

Varies by district

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Varies by district

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Varies by district

Is individual look-up available? Not applicable

Does the State use probabilistic matching? Not applicable

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Electronic files maintained at district

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Not applicable

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) Not applicable
New York NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.70

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 839.4 819.3 185.9 100.0

SY 2011-2012 855.9 740.4 225.5 100.0

SY 2010-2011 906.5 533.9 259.3 82.5

SY 2009-2010 748.8 435.1 178.2 76.3

SY 2008-2009 602.4 406.5 169.8 94.0

SY 2007-2008 526.2 353.7 155.5 95.4

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
North Carolina NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.71

NORTH CAROLINA NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Southeast

Matching Method: Central matching

Number of School Districts 161 Number of Schools 2,478

With fewer than 500 students 32 Public schools 2,474

With 500 to 999 students 11 Private schools 4

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 52

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 29

With 10,000 students or more 37

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP SSN

TANF First name

FDPIR Middle name / initial

Last name

Date of birth

Gender

Street address

City

County code

Zip code

School name / ID

SNAP or other program ID

Parent first name

Parent middle name / initial

Parent last name

Timing of Initial Match: July

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Daily or real-time updates

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? State

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

Yes

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Use additional information to 

determine which student matches 

the program data

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

All students with same qualifying 

elements are manually verified 

before certifying

Is individual look-up available? No

Does the State use probabilistic matching? No

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Statewide Student Information 

System

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Ongoing

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) 100
North Carolina NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.72

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 544.0 442.7 0.0 81.4

SY 2011-2012 522.0 461.7 0.0 88.5

SY 2010-2011 474.3 413.7 0.0 87.2

SY 2009-2010 415.0 350.4 0.0 84.4

SY 2008-2009 339.8 271.9 0.0 80.0

SY 2007-2008 314.4 244.7 0.0 77.8

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
North Dakota NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.73

NORTH DAKOTA NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Mountain Plains

Matching Method: Central matching

Number of School Districts 202 Number of Schools 389

With fewer than 500 students 170 Public schools 355

With 500 to 999 students 18 Private schools 34

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 9

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 3

With 10,000 students or more 2

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP First name

TANF Middle name / initial

Last name

Date of birth

Gender

Street address

City

Zip code

SNAP or other program ID

Timing of Initial Match: August

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Daily or real-time updates

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? State

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

No

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Duplicate matches do not occur

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Notification letters modified

Is individual look-up available? No

Does the State use probabilistic matching? Yes

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Statewide Student Information 

System

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Ongoing

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) 100
North Dakota NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.74

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 15.2 13.4 4.8 100.0

SY 2011-2012 18.6 15.7 4.4 100.0

SY 2010-2011 18.5 12.4 3.6 83.1

SY 2009-2010 15.8 8.9 4.1 76.4

SY 2008-2009 15.2 8.3 0.0 54.5

SY 2007-2008 13.8 7.8 0.0 56.5

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
Ohio NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.75

OHIO NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Midwest

Matching Method: Central matching

Number of School Districts 1,219 Number of Schools 3,725

With fewer than 500 students 538 Public schools 3,378

With 500 to 999 students 213 Private schools 347

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 401

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 50

With 10,000 students or more 17

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP First name

TANF Middle name / initial

Last name

Date of birth

Gender

Street address

City

Zip code

Phone number

School name / ID

Parent first name

Parent last name

Timing of Initial Match: July

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Monthly

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? District

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

Yes

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Identify both/all students as matches

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Notification letters modified

Certify all with same parent/guardian

Is individual look-up available? No

Does the State use probabilistic matching? No

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Statewide Student Information 

System

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) More than three times, less than 

monthly 

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) 100
Ohio NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.76

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 534.9 481.2 6.5 91.1

SY 2011-2012 538.2 398.1 46.3 80.9

SY 2010-2011 529.6 373.7 15.7 72.7

SY 2009-2010 462.1 280.1 32.8 65.2

SY 2008-2009 387.1 237.0 30.8 66.5

SY 2007-2008 347.4 116.2 13.7 34.8

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
Oklahoma NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.77

OKLAHOMA NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Southwest

Matching Method: Central matching

Number of School Districts 572 Number of Schools 1,818

With fewer than 500 students 330 Public schools 1,793

With 500 to 999 students 107 Private schools 25

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 113

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 10

With 10,000 students or more 12

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP SSN

TANF First name

Middle name / initial

Last name

Date of birth

Gender

Street address

City

County code

Zip code

Phone number

School name / ID

Parent first name

Parent middle name / initial

Parent last name

Timing of Initial Match: July

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Daily or real-time updates

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? State

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

No

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Duplicate matches do not occur

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

The SFA is responsible for this.

Is individual look-up available? Yes

Does the State use probabilistic matching? No

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Statewide Student Information 

System

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Ongoing

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) 100
Oklahoma NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.78

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 199.6 170.5 8.7 89.4

SY 2011-2012 195.4 180.9 8.1 96.6

SY 2010-2011 193.9 158.4 7.0 84.8

SY 2009-2010 173.2 125.6 6.0 75.1

SY 2008-2009 135.7 100.3 5.6 77.1

SY 2007-2008 135.6 78.7 5.1 60.3

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
Oregon NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.79

OREGON NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Western

Matching Method: Central matching

Number of School Districts 239 Number of Schools 1,223

With fewer than 500 students 123 Public schools 1,154

With 500 to 999 students 30 Private schools 69

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 59

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 15

With 10,000 students or more 12

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP First name

TANF Middle name / initial

Last name

Date of birth

Gender

Street address

City

County code

Zip code

Phone number

School name / ID

SNAP or other program ID

Parent first name

Parent middle name / initial

Parent last name

Timing of Initial Match: July

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Weekly or biweekly

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? State

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

No

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Other

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Certify all with same address

Is individual look-up available? No

Does the State use probabilistic matching? Yes

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Statewide Student Information 

System

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Ongoing

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) 100
Oregon NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.80

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 225.0 151.4 4.3 68.6

SY 2011-2012 212.3 163.6 4.4 78.7

SY 2010-2011 199.2 142.3 0.6 71.7

SY 2009-2010 178.3 115.7 4.1 66.4

SY 2008-2009 138.8 93.9 3.2 69.3

SY 2007-2008 137.5 82.3 2.7 61.1

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
Pennsylvania NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.81

PENNSYLVANIA NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Mid-Atlantic

Matching Method: Local matching

Number of School Districts 853 Number of Schools 3,391

With fewer than 500 students 289 Public schools 3,041

With 500 to 999 students 116 Private schools 350

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 379

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 54

With 10,000 students or more 15

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP SSN

TANF First name

Medicaid Middle name / initial

Last name

Date of birth

Street address

City

County code

Zip code

SNAP or other program ID

Parent SSN

Parent first name

Parent middle name / initial

Parent last name

Parent date of birth

Timing of Initial Match: Varies by district

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Varies by district

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? Districts

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

Varies by district

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Varies by district

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Varies by district

Is individual look-up available? Not applicable

Does the State use probabilistic matching? Not applicable

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Electronic files maintained at district

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Unknown

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) Unknown
Pennsylvania NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.82

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 450.9 333.2 15.8 76.6

SY 2011-2012 461.9 290.5 15.8 65.1

SY 2010-2011 422.1 263.3 16.6 64.9

SY 2009-2010 355.0 223.1 11.0 64.9

SY 2008-2009 280.9 187.6 0.8 67.0

SY 2007-2008 275.6 178.3 1.4 65.0

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
Rhode Island NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.83

RHODE ISLAND NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Northeast

Matching Method: Central matching

Number of School Districts 53 Number of Schools 327

With fewer than 500 students 20 Public schools 327

With 500 to 999 students 2 Private schools 0

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 23

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 6

With 10,000 students or more 2

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP First name

TANF Last name

Date of birth

Gender

City

Timing of Initial Match: August

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Monthly

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? State

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

Yes

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Use additional information to 

determine which student matches 

the program data

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Notification letters modified 

Is individual look-up available? No

Does the State use probabilistic matching? Yes

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Statewide Student Information 

System

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Ongoing

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) 100
Rhode Island NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.84

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 45.1 40.5 0.0 89.9

SY 2011-2012 44.6 33.5 0.0 75.0

SY 2010-2011 42.6 29.1 2.2 72.1

SY 2009-2010 36.0 24.8 1.9 72.8

SY 2008-2009 28.5 15.3 0.0 53.7

SY 2007-2008 26.9 25.2 0.0 93.6

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
South Carolina NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.85

SOUTH CAROLINA NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Southeast

Matching Method: Central matching

Number of School Districts 94 Number of Schools 1,179

With fewer than 500 students 12 Public schools 1,176

With 500 to 999 students 6 Private schools 3

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 36

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 17

With 10,000 students or more 23

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP First name

Middle name / initial

Last name

Date of birth

Gender

Street address

City

County code

Zip code

Phone number

School name / ID

Parent SSN

Parent first name

Parent middle name / initial

Parent last name

Timing of Initial Match: July

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Monthly

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? State

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

Yes

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Use additional information to 

determine which student matches 

the program data

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Notification letters modified

Certify all with same parent/guardian

Certify all with same address

Is individual look-up available? Yes

Does the State use probabilistic matching? Yes

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Electronic files maintained at district

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) More than three times, less than 

monthly 

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) 100
South Carolina NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.86

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 273.2 235.0 0.0 86.0

SY 2011-2012 283.4 225.3 0.0 79.5

SY 2010-2011 271.4 189.2 0.0 69.7

SY 2009-2010 234.5 163.1 0.0 69.6

SY 2008-2009 205.4 125.5 0.0 61.1

SY 2007-2008 198.0 119.3 0.0 60.3

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
South Dakota NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.87

SOUTH DAKOTA NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Mountain Plains

Matching Method: Central matching

Number of School Districts 208 Number of Schools 797

With fewer than 500 students 151 Public schools 626

With 500 to 999 students 32 Private schools 171

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 23

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 0

With 10,000 students or more 2

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP SSN

TANF First name

Middle name / initial

Last name

Date of birth

Gender

County code

Timing of Initial Match: August

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Monthly

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? State

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

Yes

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Identify both/all students as matches

Use additional information to 

determine which student matches

the program data

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Notification letters modified

Certify all with same parent/guardian

Certify all with same address

Is individual look-up available? No

Does the State use probabilistic matching? No

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Statewide Student Information 

System

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Minimum once, other as needed, no 

set schedule

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) 100
South Dakota NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.88

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 32.6 23.1 6.1 87.3

SY 2011-2012 33.9 14.9 5.1 51.7

SY 2010-2011 32.3 12.3 7.7 50.0

SY 2009-2010 27.7 9.5 8.4 49.1

SY 2008-2009 20.4 7.3 6.2 51.5

SY 2007-2008 18.1 6.0 7.3 55.1

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
Tennessee NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.89

TENNESSEE NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Southeast

Matching Method: Local matching

Number of School Districts 182 Number of Schools 1,789

With fewer than 500 students 45 Public schools 1,726

With 500 to 999 students 15 Private schools 63

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 78

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 24

With 10,000 students or more 20

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP SSN

TANF First name

Foster Care Middle name / initial

Last name

Date of birth

Street address

City

County code

Zip code

SNAP or other program ID

Parent first name

Parent middle name / initial

Parent last name

Timing of Initial Match: Varies by district

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Varies by district

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? Districts

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

Varies by district

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Varies by district

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Varies by district

Is individual look-up available? Not applicable

Does the State use probabilistic matching? Not applicable

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Electronic files maintained at district

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Unknown

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) 58
Tennessee NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.90

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 400.1 379.2 1.3 95.1

SY 2011-2012 389.9 370.9 1.4 95.5

SY 2010-2011 387.5 361.1 1.2 93.5

SY 2009-2010 368.7 333.9 1.1 90.8

SY 2008-2009 296.9 270.8 1.3 91.6

SY 2007-2008 279.9 256.3 1.3 92.0

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
Texas NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.91

TEXAS NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Southwest

Matching Method: Central matching

Number of School Districts 1,247 Number of Schools 8,240

With fewer than 500 students 471 Public schools 8,152

With 500 to 999 students 235 Private schools 88

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 368

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 66

With 10,000 students or more 107

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP SSN

TANF First name

Last name

Date of birth

Gender

Timing of Initial Match: July

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Monthly

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? State

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

No

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Use additional information to 

determine which student matches 

the program data

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Notification letters modified 

Is individual look-up available? No

Does the State use probabilistic matching? No

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Statewide Student Information 

System

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) More than three times, less than 

monthly 

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) 88
Texas NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.92

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 1,570.2 1,213.0 325.7 97.5

SY 2011-2012 1,611.8 1,166.0 311.2 89.7

SY 2010-2011 1,457.5 1,052.1 279.4 89.3

SY 2009-2010 1,208.6 760.4 286.4 82.5

SY 2008-2009 1,035.1 596.2 220.5 73.2

SY 2007-2008 942.9 522.1 228.5 73.1

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
Utah NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.93

UTAH NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Mountain Plains

Matching Method: Central matching

Number of School Districts 94 Number of Schools 890

With fewer than 500 students 27 Public schools 883

With 500 to 999 students 23 Private schools 7

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 25

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 5

With 10,000 students or more 14

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP First name

TANF Last name

Foster Care Date of birth

Street address

City

Zip code

School name / ID

Parent first name

Parent last name

Timing of Initial Match: July

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Daily or real-time updates

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? District

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

Yes

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Identify both/all students as matches

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Notification letters modified

Is individual look-up available? Yes

Does the State use probabilistic matching? No

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Electronic files maintained at district

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Monthly

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) 100
Utah NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.94

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 94.3 86.0 2.7 93.8

SY 2011-2012 97.1 78.9 1.3 82.3

SY 2010-2011 97.4 71.3 1.3 74.2

SY 2009-2010 75.6 51.6 1.3 69.5

SY 2008-2009 51.8 37.8 1.3 74.8

SY 2007-2008 42.5 33.1 1.9 81.6

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
Vermont NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.95

VERMONT NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Northeast

Matching Method: Central matching

Number of School Districts 88 Number of Schools 350

With fewer than 500 students 32 Public schools 318

With 500 to 999 students 17 Private schools 32

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 37

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 2

With 10,000 students or more 0

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP Unknown

TANF

Timing of Initial Match: August

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Monthly

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? State

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

Yes

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Use additional information to 

determine which student matches 

the program data

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Notification letters modified

Certify all with same parent/guardian

Certify all with same address

Is individual look-up available? No

Does the State use probabilistic matching? No

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Statewide Student Information 

System

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Unknown

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) 100
Vermont NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.96

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 23.1 20.7 1.4 95.4

SY 2011-2012 21.5 20.6 0.5 98.3

SY 2010-2011 21.9 16.9 0.1 77.6

SY 2009-2010 22.1 14.2 0.0 64.5

SY 2008-2009 14.5 9.8 0.0 67.2

SY 2007-2008 12.6 9.3 0.0 73.9

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
Virginia NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.97

VIRGINIA NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Mid-Atlantic

Matching Method: Local matching

Number of School Districts 151 Number of Schools 1,966

With fewer than 500 students 18 Public schools 1,938

With 500 to 999 students 12 Private schools 28

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 72

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 21

With 10,000 students or more 28

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP SSN

TANF First name

Middle name / initial

Date of birth

Gender

Street address

City

County code

Zip code

Parent first name

Parent middle name / initial

Parent last name

Timing of Initial Match: Varies by district

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Varies by district

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? Districts

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

Varies by district

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Varies by district

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Varies by district

Is individual look-up available? Not applicable

Does the State use probabilistic matching? Not applicable

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Electronic files maintained at district

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) More than three times, less than 

monthly 

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) 100
Virginia NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.98

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 249.5 242.4 0.0 97.1

SY 2011-2012 290.6 221.7 0.0 76.3

SY 2010-2011 257.9 207.9 0.0 80.6

SY 2009-2010 224.1 174.4 0.0 77.8

SY 2008-2009 183.4 141.3 0.0 77.0

SY 2007-2008 170.3 133.1 1.2 78.7

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
Washington NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.99

WASHINGTON NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Western

Matching Method: Central matching

Number of School Districts 319 Number of Schools 2,152

With fewer than 500 students 131 Public schools 2,119

With 500 to 999 students 46 Private schools 33

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 86

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 27

With 10,000 students or more 29

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP First name

TANF Middle name / initial

Last name

Date of birth

Gender

Street address

City

Zip code

School name / ID

SNAP or other program ID

Timing of Initial Match: July

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Monthly

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? State

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

No

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Other

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Certify all with same address

Is individual look-up available? Yes

Does the State use probabilistic matching? No

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Statewide Student Information 

System

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Monthly

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) 100
Washington NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.100

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 323.5 246.2 11.9 79.0

SY 2011-2012 312.2 246.5 12.9 82.4

SY 2010-2011 290.5 232.4 10.4 83.0

SY 2009-2010 256.5 182.2 3.5 72.0

SY 2008-2009 180.2 119.3 2.4 67.1

SY 2007-2008 158.2 117.8 2.7 75.8

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
West Virginia NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.101

WEST VIRGINIA NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Mid-Atlantic

Matching Method: Central matching

Number of School Districts 71 Number of Schools 713

With fewer than 500 students 16 Public schools 694

With 500 to 999 students 1 Private schools 19

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 38

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 9

With 10,000 students or more 7

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP SSN

TANF First name

Foster Care Middle name / initial

Last name

Date of birth

Timing of Initial Match: July

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Monthly

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? State

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

Yes

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Use additional information to 

determine which student matches 

the program data

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Notification letters modified

Certify all with same address

Is individual look-up available? No

Does the State use probabilistic matching? Yes

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Statewide Student Information 

System

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Ongoing

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) 77
West Virginia NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.102

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 97.8 107.2 0.0 100.0

SY 2011-2012 99.5 99.7 0.0 100.0

SY 2010-2011 95.9 80.1 0.0 83.6

SY 2009-2010 93.3 73.2 0.0 78.4

SY 2008-2009 82.1 68.7 0.0 83.7

SY 2007-2008 75.9 67.6 0.0 89.1

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
Wisconsin NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.103

WISCONSIN NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Midwest

Matching Method: Central matching

Number of School Districts 799 Number of Schools 2,515

With fewer than 500 students 459 Public schools 2,088

With 500 to 999 students 142 Private schools 427

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 168

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 21

With 10,000 students or more 9

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP First name

TANF Middle name / initial

Last name

Date of birth

School name / ID

Timing of Initial Match: August

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Three times per school year

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? District

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

No

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Other

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Not Applicable

Is individual look-up available? No

Does the State use probabilistic matching? No

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Electronic files maintained at district

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Not applicable

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) Not applicable
Wisconsin NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.104

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 260.4 237.3 1.3 91.6

SY 2011-2012 268.1 229.6 1.0 86.0

SY 2010-2011 247.0 217.6 1.8 88.7

SY 2009-2010 210.4 151.5 2.2 72.8

SY 2008-2009 156.4 111.1 1.2 71.6

SY 2007-2008 139.5 84.1 1.1 60.7

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
Wyoming NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.105

WYOMING NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILE, SY 2012-2013

FNS Region: Mountain Plains

Matching Method: Local matching

Number of School Districts 62 Number of Schools 331

With fewer than 500 students 26 Public schools 316

With 500 to 999 students 15 Private schools 15

With 1,000 to 4,999 students 17

With 5,000 to 9,999 students 2

With 10,000 students or more 2

Programs Matched: SNAP Data Elements Used in Match:

SNAP First name

Foster Care Middle name / initial

Last name

Date of birth

City

Zip code

Timing of Initial Match: Varies by district

Frequency of Subsequent Matches: Varies by district

Who is responsible for subsequent matches? Districts

Are steps taken to follow up on students in program 

data who do not match enrollment data?

Varies by district

What is the process for dealing with duplicate matches? Varies by district

What methods are used to identify additional children in 

households with directly certified children?

Varies by district

Is individual look-up available? Not applicable

Does the State use probabilistic matching? Not applicable

Source of Student Enrollment Data: Statewide Student Information 

System

Frequency of SSIS Updates (if applicable) Not applicable

Percentage of Districts Using SSIS (if applicable) Not applicable
Wyoming NSLP Direct Certification Profile, SY 2012-2013 Mathematica Policy Research

A.106

NSLP Direct Certification Rates and Component Statistics, SY 2007–2008 through SY 2012- 2013

School-Age SNAP 

Participants

(thousands)

NSLP Direct 

Certifications

(thousands)

SNAP Participants in 

Non-Base Year NSLP 

Provision 2 or 

Provision 3 Schools

(thousands)

Direct Certification 

Rates (percentage)

SY 2012-2013 11.8 11.3 0.5 100.0

SY 2011-2012 10.1 11.1 0.8 100.0

SY 2010-2011 11.3 10.2 0.6 95.6

SY 2009-2010 8.7 7.6 0.7 95.0

SY 2008-2009 7.4 4.5 0.0 60.7

SY 2007-2008 6.8 4.4 0.0 65.0

This NSLP direct certification profile was compiled using data from the SY 2012-2013 National 

Survey of Direct Certification Practices, Verification and Summary Reports from SY 2007-2008 

through SY 2012-2013, and FNS’ annual Direct Certification in the NSLP: State Implementation 

Progress Reports to Congress.

0 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Percentage

School Year

NSLP Direct Certification Rates
APPENDIX B 

IN- DEPTH CASE STUDY NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILES

Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research

B.3 

IN-DEPTH CASE STUDY NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILES

INTRODUCTION

The In-Depth Case Study NSLP Direct Certification Profiles expand on the information 

presented in the summary profile by providing additional detail in how direct certification worked in 

the seven in-depth case study States in SY 2012-2013. The profiles provide narrative descriptions of 

each State’s approach to direct certification; details on the data, systems, and algorithms used in the 

matching process; the history of the State’s direct certification program; plans for future 

improvement; and strengths and challenges staff reported in the process. 

A diagram illustrating each step in the direct certification process follows each narrative 

description. The flow chart depicts the sequence of events and indicates the agency and district 

functions in the process. Each flow chart contains a legend identifying the symbols used in the chart. 

The symbols represent the key steps and system components involved in the process to directly 

certify school age children for free school meals. 

APPENDIX B.1

IN- DEPTH CASE STUDY NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILES

ALABAMA
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research

B.6 

Table B.1. Profile of Direct Certification Procedures for Alabama, SY 2012–2013

Approach to Matching Alabama is a central matching State that allows districts great flexibility in 

how to carry out direct certification. The State Department of Education

produces a list of directly certified students and provides it to district child 

nutrition offices. Districts can either match this list to their local enrollment 

data or they can match to the State program enrollment data directly.

Timing of match or data distribution The State provides its matched list to districts monthly and encourages 

districts to match monthly. Districts may match more frequently during 

some times in the year.

Use of program participation data and 

integration with other agencies

The State matches using data from SNAP, TANF, and Foster Care, using 

data provided by the Department of Human Resources. Staff reported a 

productive interagency relationship.

Matching algorithms or guidelines The state’s algorithm uses an exact match of the Social Security Number 

and either the last name or date of birth for direct certification. Districts 

are permitted to use other algorithms if they choose.

Approach to identifying children from the 

same household

Districts are responsible for identifying other children in direct certification 

households.

Transmission procedures for direct 

certification results or matching data

The Department of Human Resources provides program data to the 

Department of Education by moving it to a shared location on the state 

mainframe. The Department of Education makes the matched file 

available to the districts for download via secure VPN.

History of Direct Certification Process Alabama successfully piloted an automated process in one school in 

1996-1997 that led to statewide implementation of direct certification in 

2001. Gradual improvements and grants led to statewide student 

management system (iNOW) that allowed ALSDE to transition from 

annual matching to monthly matching in 2010-2011.

Plans for Improving Direct Certification 

Process 

The district plans to update their data systems to push the matched list to 

the districts every month rather than requiring them to download it.

Strengths of Process • Recent automation may have improved accuracy of matching.

• Strong data security reduces risk to students

• Positive interagency relationships help the process run smoothly.

• Good communication between Child Nutrition office and IT staff in the 

Department of Education ensures that data systems meet program 

needs.

Challenges of Process Private schools use a manual matching process. The wide variety of 

point-of-sale systems in use by the districts may lead to variation in direct 

certification procedures.

Respondents expressed data quality concerns and DHR staff suggested 

that more data sources could be used for direct certification if additional 

assistance programs used a common definition of poverty. 
Yes

AL State Department of Education Districts AL Department of Human Resources Post program data and matched list and send email to districts iNOW combines and de-dupes file and performs match Exact match?

Conduct separate 

matching process in 

district POS

Use State match 

list?

Sent notification 

of DC certfied to 

household

Yes

No

Link State match list 

with enrollment info 

on POS

District updates to 

iNOW with student 

enrollment info 

No

Manually review/

match potential 

matches in POS

Exact match?

No

Yes

Monthly

State mainframe 

system

State mainframe shared between ALSDE and DHR. SNAP, TANF, Foster Care data accessed monthly by ALSDE

Nightly batch 

process

Alabama NSLP Direct Certification Process Flow

APPENDIX B.2

IN- DEPTH CASE STUDY NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILES

ARIZONA
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research

B.10

Table B.2. Profile of Direct Certification Procedures for Arizona, SY 2012–2013

Approach to Matching The Arizona Department of Economic Security (AZDES) provides SNAP 

and TANF program data to the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) 

daily. ADE stores the program data and statewide school enrollment data, 

and districts logon to the child nutrition web portal and initiate matches 

using one of five match methods. Districts can query the direct 

certification system any time in the year to determine the certification 

status for individual students.

Timing of match or data distribution ADE requires districts to perform a match at least three times but districts 

often do more frequent matching. The initial match is performed in 

September. Districts can look up individual students’ direct certification 

status at any time.

Use of program participation data and 

integration with other agencies

Arizona uses SNAP and TANF program data for direct certification. 

AZDES pushes the program data file to ADE daily through an FTP server.

Matching algorithms or guidelines An exact match on all of the elements (first name, last name, date of 

birth; or SSN, or student ID; or SNAP/TANF case number) is required 

for a student to be directly certified regardless of match method used

Approach to identifying children from the 

same household

The districts are responsible for extending categorical eligibility to 

students within the same household. 

Transmission procedures for direct 

certification results or matching data

Once a match is complete, districts can download or view match or 

unmatched results from the central matching system web portal. At any 

time, districts can pull the direct certification status for individual students 

by querying the State system. 

History of Direct Certification Process Direct certification began in Arizona in 2003. The State revised the 

matching system in 2006, creating a more user-friendly process for 

districts.

Plans for Improving Direct Certification 

Process 

Arizona is considering revising the direct certification matching algorithm 

and introducing probabilistic matching. ADE is also planning on 

enhancing the report functionality in the central matching system as well 

as incorporating Medicaid and possibly foster care data in the near future.

Strengths of Process The State provides multiple options and flexibility for districts to perform 

direct certification matching through centralized system. Districts can look 

up the certification status of students at any time, enabling them to 

directly certify new and transfer students.

Challenges of Process Because there is an exact match required for the three elements in order 

for a student to be directly certified, many potential matches are lost. 

Additionally, the lack of review process for unmatched or partially 

matched students limits the direct certification accuracy. High migrant 

population makes matching eligible kids not registered in the NSLP 

program problematic. There are a good amount of subgroups of schools 

that participate in FDPIR, but are not part of the matching process 

currently. Some issues in the reporting of the FNS-742 data at the district 

level. 
Yes

AZ Department of Education Districts AZ Department of Economic Security File created for direct certification Conduct direct certification matching process Use State match method? Upload file into SAIS District updates SAIS with student enrollment info AZDES School-age SNAP and TANF recipients exported daily via FTP ADE SAIS Daily Districts are required to report student info by 40th day of SY No Po

dow

Exact match? Yes No Prepare standard format file Prepare SAIS IDs file

Prepare student 

SSNs file

Prepare case 

numbers

Districts are required to match at least 3 times a year

Arizona NSLP Direct Certification Process Flow

APPENDIX B.3

IN- DEPTH CASE STUDY NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILES

CONNECTICUT
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research

B.14

Table B.3. Profile of Direct Certification Procedures for Connecticut, SY 2012–2013

Approach to Matching Connecticut is a local matching state. The Department of Social Services 

(CTDSS) provides the SNAP and TANF enrollment data to the districts 

three times per year. Each district matches its local enrollment data 

against the SNAP and TANF program data to complete direct 

certification. District procedures vary greatly across the State.

Connecticut will transition to a central matching model in fall 2015. 

Timing of match or data distribution CTDSS makes SNAP and TANF program data available to districts three 

times per year: in August/September, in November/December, and in 

March.

Use of program participation data and 

integration with other agencies

Connecticut uses SNAP and TANF program data, both maintained by 

CTDSS. It is exploring using Foster Care data in the future, which would 

involve working with the Department of Child and Family Services. 

Matching algorithms or guidelines Procedures vary by district.

Approach to identifying children from the 

same household

Procedures vary by district.

Transmission procedures for direct 

certification results or matching data

CTDSS makes the SNAP and TANF program data available to districts 

on a password-protected website as fixed-length text files. 

History of Direct Certification Process Connecticut has conducted direct certification in some districts since the 

early 1990s. In the beginning, State staff sent the program data to 

districts on tapes. More districts gradually began conducting direct 

certification until 2005, when all districts in the State participated. Districts 

matched once per year until 2006 when all districts matched three times 

per year.

Plans for Improving Direct Certification 

Process 

Connecticut plans to transition to a central matching model and increase 

the frequency of direct certification matching from three times per year to 

weekly in fall 2015.

Strengths of Process The strength of Connecticut’s local matching model is that each district is 

responsible for its own students. Staff reported that they therefore have a 

particularly strong incentive not to miss any eligible students. 

Challenges of Process The weaknesses of the current local matching model are infrequent 

matching and inconsistent procedures across the state.
CT State Department of Education Districts CT Department of Social Services Compile and send list of towns and district contacts Text file available for download by town code.

Conduct separate 

matching process 

manually or in 

district POS

CTDSS informs 

CSDE of new list

District updates to 

CSDE with CN 

contact info 

Manually review/

match potential 

matches in POS

Exact match?

No

Yes

CTDSS Mainframe 

System

File of SNAP/TANF children age 3-18 is provided three times a SY

CSDE informs 

districts list is 

available for 

download

Districts download 

file for matching

Each district in CT performs either an automated, manual, or combination automated/manual DC process

Connecticut NSLP Direct Certification Process Flow

APPENDIX B.4

IN- DEPTH CASE STUDY NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILES

INDIANA
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research

B.18

Table B.4. Profile of Direct Certification Procedures for Indiana, SY 2012–2013

Approach to Matching Indiana uses a central matching system and conducts two types of direct 

certification matching: With the “traditional matching” method, districts 

upload their local enrollment files to the State’s matching tool. The State 

then matches these local files with State SNAP, TANF, and Foster Care

program data to produce lists of matched students. With the “student test 

number matching” (STN) method, the State draws student enrollment 

information directly from the statewide student information system, which 

is updated in real time during the school year. This method is easier, but 

can only be done during the school year. Therefore, the initial match, 

which is conducted prior to the start of school each year, uses the 

traditional matching method. Subsequent matches use the student test 

number matching method.

Timing of match or data distribution The initial match is conducted annually prior to the start of school. 

Program data are updated monthly while student enrollment data is 

updated in real time during the school year. The State matches these two 

data sources together monthly, while districts upload the matched data 

into their local point-of-sale systems at least three times annually. 

Beginning in SY 2013-2014, monthly matching will be conducted 

automatically statewide.

Use of program participation data and 

integration with other agencies

The Indiana Family and Social Services Administration provides monthly 

data files containing SNAP, TANF, and Foster Care information.

Matching algorithms or guidelines Indiana directly certifies students with exact matches on first name, last 

name, date of birth, and county. First and last name matches may be 

exact matches by spelling or by soundex.

Approach to identifying children from the 

same household

The State generates a list of unmatched siblings, identified as children in 

the program data who do not match the enrollment data but who have the 

same SNAP or TANF case number as a directly certified student. Districts 

may use this list to extend eligibility.

Transmission procedures for direct 

certification results or matching data

Districts download the matched list from the State direct certification 

system as often as monthly. For subsequent matches, districts have the 

option of downloading the entire district matched list or a list of newly 

matched students.

History of Direct Certification Process The direct certification matching algorithm has remained unchanged 

since it was introduced in the late 1990s.

Plans for Improving Direct Certification 

Process 

Indiana plans to improve the direct certification system so that monthly 

matches occur automatically. Districts will no longer have to initiate the 

process manually. The State has also considered introducing probabilistic 

matching.

Strengths of Process Direct certification saves staff time. Completing the initial match early and 

getting notification letters to families quickly can preempt application 

submissions. Individual student look-up allows districts to certify newly 

eligible students more quickly and reduce applications.

Challenges of Process District processes can create a bottleneck in the direct certification 

system. Even if students are matched efficiently at the State level, they 

are not certified until districts load the updated information into their pointof-sale systems.
Yes

IN Department of Education Districts IN Family and Social Services 

Administration

Conduct direct 

certification matching 

process

Use STN match 

method?

District updates 

SSIS with student 

enrollment info 

FSSA mainframe 

system

School-age SNAP and TANF recipient sent monthly via FTP. A separate file of foster care children is also sent monthly

IDE SSIS

Enrollment information is updated in real-time after start of SY

Post matched 

download or p

districts

Exact match?

Yes

No

Districts typically initiate matching 3 times a year

Upload file into IDE 

Application Center

Prepare enrollment 

file from Local SIS No

Indiana NSLP Direct Certification Process Flow

APPENDIX B.5 

IN- DEPTH CASE STUDY NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILES

NEBRASKA 
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research

B.22

Table B.5. Profile of Direct Certification Procedures for Nebraska, SY 2012–2013

Approach to Matching Nebraska uses a central matching system that is based on probabilistic 

matching of school enrollment data to SNAP, TANF and Foster care data.

State Department of Education staff access student enrollment data 

through the Nebraska Student and Staff Record System (NSSRS). They 

return lists of definite and possible matches to districts. Districts then 

investigate possible matches and incorporate matched students into their 

local student information and POS systems. Districts also have access to 

an individual student lookup feature that allows for inclusion of student 

information not available in the State enrollment system.

Timing of match or data distribution Initial match is conducted before the beginning of each school year with 

nightly matches conducted throughout the year. Initial matches are not 

conducted with current enrollment data until September unless districts 

upload their own enrollment data.

Use of program participation data and 

integration with other agencies

Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services set up an 

automated process that provides the Department of Education with daily 

files of SNAP, TANF, Medicaid and Foster Care participants. This 

process requires no staff time unless changes are requested. Although 

establishing an MOU between the relevant agencies was time 

consuming, both agencies praise the quality of their relationship.

Matching algorithms or guidelines The main matching algorithm uses four fields: first name, last name, date 

of birth, and gender. Additional data fields that are not available in the 

State student enrollment data (but that are included in the State program 

data) can be used in the individual student lookup feature. The 

probabilistic matching algorithm was originally based on an internally 

developed algorithm but was recently switched to Microsoft fuzzy logic to 

improve accuracy and efficiency. 

Approach to identifying children from the 

same household

Districts are responsible for extending eligibility to children in households 

receiving SNAP, TANF, or FDPIR. Most districts use POS systems that 

include electronic matching for extending eligibility.

Transmission procedures for direct 

certification results or matching data

Districts may download match lists as often as daily and are encouraged 

to process lists weekly. The State also recommends that districts use the 

individual student lookup feature whenever there is a new student or 

transfer. 

History of Direct Certification Process Nebraska received a direct certification grant from FNS in 2009 that was 

used to develop their web-based probabilistic matching system.

Plans for Improving Direct Certification 

Process 

Nebraska plans to incorporate data on homeless and migrant students 

into the direct certification process.

Strengths of Process System was designed to save time for districts, both in processing 

applications and conducting direct certification. Using a web-based 

system increases access and allows for user-friendly features. The State 

believes that daily matching and use of Foster Care data adds 

substantially to their match rates. Single student lookup is very effective, 

especially for Nebraska’s many small rural schools. Smooth 

communication with partner agency and automated program data transfer 

improve efficiency.

Challenges of Process District technical skill level is often low, which must be mitigated with 

multiple modes of effective training. Establishing the initial MOU with the 

Department of Health and Human Services was time consuming.
NE Department of Education Districts NE Department of Heath and Human 

Services

Conduct direct 

certification matching 

process

Public districts 

update NSSRS with 

student enrollment 

information 

DHHS mainframe 

system

NDE NSSRS

NSSRS data reflect previous year enrollment for first month of SY and are updated continuously therafter.

Post list for 

download or print by 

districts

Exact match?

Yes

No

Review Match and 

Possible Match

NDE DCVMS

Upload single 

student lookup 

through CNP 

interface

Matches are done daily and on-demand

Perform Fuzzy 

Match and 

probabilistic scoring

Student already directly 

certified?

Yes

No

Daily

School-age SNAP, TANF, and Foster Care recipient data sent via .csv files daily

Upload district 

enrollment file 

through CNP 

interface

Districts are encouraged to submit enrollment data early in the SY before NSSRRS reflect current year data

Nebraska NSLP Direct Certification Process Flow

APPENDIX B.6 

IN- DEPTH CASE STUDY NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILES

TEXAS
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research

B.26

Table B.6. Profile of Direct Certification Procedures for Texas, SY 2012–2013

Approach to Matching Texas is a central matching State with a fairly limited scope for district 

activities. State staff match the State enrollment file with SNAP and TANF 

program data. They then split the resulting matched list by district using 

the address information in the SNAP and TANF data. Each district 

receives a list containing only the students that appear to attend schools 

in that district. District staff then match the state list with their local 

enrollment files in their point-of-sale systems. Students assigned to the 

incorrect district’s list are not directly certified.

Timing of match or data distribution The State matches the enrollment data with the SNAP and TANF 

program data monthly. The SNAP and TANF data are updated monthly; 

the enrollment data is updated annually each spring and presents a 

snapshot of enrollment from the previous October.

Use of program participation data and 

integration with other agencies

The Texas Human Services Commission (HSSC) provides the SNAP and 

TANF program data for direct certification. The Texas Education Agency 

(TEA) conducts the matching using statewide enrollment data. The Texas 

Department of Agriculture (TDA) splits the State list into district-specific 

lists and makes them available to the districts. 

Matching algorithms or guidelines The Texas Education Agency conducts the matching in two phases. In 

the first phase, they directly certify students who exactly match on Social 

Security Number and three of the four other elements: date of birth, first 

name, last name, or gender. In the second pass, they directly certify 

students who do not match on Social Security Number but match on all 

four of the other elements.

Approach to identifying children from the 

same household

Districts are responsible for identifying children from the same household. 

They either do this through the statewide student information system 

(PEIMS) or through their local point-of-sale system.

Transmission procedures for direct 

certification results or matching data

Districts download the matched lists each month from the TDA secure 

web portal.

History of Direct Certification Process Texas has conducted direct certification since the early 1990s. Though 

the algorithm has remained constant for most of that time, the 

organizational structure, the matching frequency, and the matching 

systems have changed. In the beginning, TEA conducted matching 

annually with assistance from private contractors. Contractors initially 

used SAS programs in the matching process. In 2004, legislative 

changes required that TDA assume responsibility for matching. Over 

time, the matching frequency increased to quarterly and then monthly, 

and the State transitioned from a SAS-based system to an automated 

matching system.

Plans for Improving Direct Certification 

Process 

Beginning in SY 2013-2014, TDA will make the entire unmatched list 

available to districts.

Strengths of Process • A strong partnership between the State agencies facilitates effective 

data sharing and problem solving.

• High quality IT support keeps systems operating effectively.

• Automation improves efficiency of matching process.

Challenges of Process • Some students end up on the wrong district’s list and therefore do not 

get directly certified.

• The statewide student enrollment data is updated only annually and 

made available on a six-month delay. Therefore, the data are 6 to 17 

months out-of-date when used for matching.
TX Education Agency Districts TX Health and Human Services 

Commission

Conduct direct 

certification matching 

process

Public districts update 

PEIMS with student 

enrollment info 

HHSC Data System

PEIMS

Districts upload enrollment data annually usually in October

Unmatched list 

is created

Match on SSN?

No

Sends email to 

districts when list is 

ready

Matches are conducted monthly

TX Department of 

Agriculture

Match on 3 of the 4 

remaining fields?

Yes

Match on remaining 4 

fields?

NoNo

Match list is created

Yes

Yes

TDA divides the 

matched list only by 

district

Conduct separate 

matching process 

through their POS

Manually review/match 

potential matches in 

POS

Verify matches?

Yes

No

Districts download 

file for matching

School-age SNAP and TANF recipient data sent monthly via FTP

Texas NSLP Direct Certification Process Flow

APPENDIX B.7 

IN- DEPTH CASE STUDY NSLP DIRECT CERTIFICATION PROFILES

WEST VIRGINIA
Appendix B Mathematica Policy Research

B.30

Table B.7. Profile of Direct Certification Procedures for West Virginia, SY 2012–2013

Approach to Matching West Virginia is a central matching state in which the State Department of 

Education (WVDE) matches SNAP and TANF program data against the 

statewide school enrollment data monthly and makes matched, 

unmatched, and partially matched lists available to each district once per 

month. The State incorporates Foster Care data into the process once 

per year.

Timing of match or data distribution Matching with SNAP and TANF data occurs monthly, following the 

second Saturday in each month. Matching with Foster Care data occurs 

annually.

Use of program participation data and 

integration with other agencies

The Department of Health and Human Resources provides SNAP and 

TANF data monthly and Foster Care data annually to the WVDE for direct 

certification matching.

Matching algorithms or guidelines WVDE directly certifies students who exactly match on Social Security 

Number or an exact match on first name, last name, and date of birth. 

Name matches can be by spelling or phonetically through soundex 

algorithms.

Approach to identifying children from the 

same household

Districts identify other members of direct certification households by 

matching on home address. Districts can also identify these individuals by 

referencing applications from previous years.

Transmission procedures for direct 

certification results or matching data

Each month through Primero Edge system, districts can view matched 

and partially/unmatched listing of students. 

History of Direct Certification Process West Virginia began using SNAP and TANF data for direct certification in 

2004. Each district initially operated different point-of-sale systems. 

However, around 2007, the State hired a private vendor to operate a 

central point-of-sale system (Primero Edge) for the entire state. Now all 

public schools—and most private schools—use the same system 

statewide. The State initially conducted direct certification matching 

annually. In 2010, they increased to three times per year. In 2011 they 

increased to quarterly. In 2012, they increased to monthly matching.

Plans for Improving Direct Certification 

Process 

West Virginia plans to transition to semi-monthly or even weekly 

matching. The State also plans to introduce a continuous direct 

certification training program and to incorporate private schools into the 

system more fully. The State also plans to invest additional resources to 

improve its system infrastructure to make the system more reliable and 

faster and to expand its bandwidth.

Strengths of Process The primary advantage of West Virginia’s central model is that State staff 

have access to data from all districts. System automation allows accurate 

and timely matching. Strong interdepartmental relationships help the 

system run smoothly.

Challenges of Process Bandwidth limitations impede system performance during peak times. 
WV Department of Education Districts WV Department of Health and Human 

Resources

Conduct direct 

certification matching 

process

Public districts 

update WVEIS with 

student enrollment 

information 

DHHR RAPIDS 

mainframe system

WVEIS

Enrollment data is accessed nightly by WVEIS

Create match and 

unmatched lists for 

each district

Exact match?

Yes

No

Review Ma

Possible 

Primero Edge Server

Matches are done monthly

Perform Fuzzy 

Match and 

probabilistic scoring

WVDE WAN

Nightly 

Each night enrollment file is sent via FTP to Primero Edge Server

Local Prim

Edge Softw

Ema

coordi

lists ar

re

School age SNAP and TANF recipient data sent monthly via FTP. Foster care data is sent once per year.

West Virginia NSLP Direct Certification Process Flow
www.mathematica-mpr.com

Improving public well-being by conducting high quality, objective research and surveys

Princeton, NJ ■ Ann Arbor, MI ■ Cambridge, MA ■ Chicago, IL ■ Oakland, CA ■ Washington, DC

Mathematica® is a registered trademark of Mathematica Policy Research