Child and Adult Care Food Program 

(CACFP): Assessment of Sponsor Tiering 

Determinations 

2013 Final Report 

Nutrition Assistance Program Report September 2014 

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

Child and Adult Care Food Program 

(CACFP): Assessment of Sponsor Tiering 

Determinations 

2013 Final Report 

Authors: 

David Marker 

Mary Dingwall 

Hyunshik Lee 

David Stinchcomb 

Frederic Glantz, Kokopelli Associates 

Submitted by: 

Westat 

1600 Research Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20850 

Project Director: 

David Marker 

Submitted to: 

Office of Policy Support 

Food and Nutrition Service

3101 Park Center Drive 

Alexandria, VA 22302-1500 

Project Officer: 

Chan Chanhatasilpa 

This study was conducted under Contract number AG-3198-C-11-0004 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

Suggested Citation: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support, 

“Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP): Assessment of Sponsor Tiering 

Determinations - 2013,” by David Marker et al. Project Officer: Chan Chanhatasilpa, 

Alexandria, VA: September 2014. 

Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support September 2014 
ii 

Table of Contents 

Chapter Page

Executive Summary.................................................................................................................. ES-1

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1-1 

1.1 The Child and Adult Care Food Program ......................................... 1-1

1.2 Classification of Family Day Care Homes ........................................ 1-3

1.3 Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010 ............................................ 1-5

1.4 Organization of the Report ................................................................. 1-6 

2 Assessment Design ............................................................................................. 2-1 

2.1 Overview of the Assessment of Sponsor Tiering 

Determinations ...................................................................................... 2-1 

2.2 Sampling Design ................................................................................... 2-4

2.3 Data Collection ...................................................................................... 2-11

3 Methodology and Results of Assessment of Sponsor Tiering 

Determinations ................................................................................................... 3-1 

3.1 Independent Verification of Geographic Eligibility for 

Tier .......................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Verifying Tiering Eligibility Through Review of Sponsor 

Documents ............................................................................................. 3-6

3.3 Final Results of Assessment of Sponsor Tiering 

Determinations ...................................................................................... 3-12 

4 National Estimates of Misclassification Errors and Costs ........................... 4-1 

4.1 National Totals for CACFP FDCHs ................................................. 4-1 

4.2 National Estimates of Misclassification Errors ................................ 4-2 

4.3 National Estimates of Meals Reimbursed in Error Due to 

Misclassification of FDCHs ................................................................ 4-3 

4.4 Costs of Misclassification Errors ........................................................ 4-7 

4.5 Comparison of Results with Estimates from Previous 

Assessments ........................................................................................... 4-9 

5 Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 5-1 

5.1 Methods and Results ............................................................................ 5-1 

5.2 Implications of the Assessment Process and Results ...................... 5-2 

6 References ............................................................................................................ 6-1
iii 

Table of Contents 

(continued) 

Appendices Page

A Sampling, Weighting, and Estimation ............................................................. A-1

B Data Collection Materials .................................................................................. B-1

Tables

ES-1. Contiguous United States FDCH totals for PY2013 .................................... ES-2

ES-2. Estimated misclassification rates by tiering status in PY2013 ..................... ES-3

ES-3. National estimates of meals claimed in error, PY2013 ................................. ES-4

ES-4. National estimates of the percentage of costs and total costs of 

misclassifications, PY2013................................................................................. ES-5 

1-1. CACFP reimbursement rates for meals served in family day care 

homes ................................................................................................................... 1-2

1-2. Number and distribution of FDCHs by reimbursement tier, 

PY2013 ................................................................................................................. 1-3 

2-1. Sample sizes for the three-stage FNS Tiering Survey ................................... 2-5

2-2. Distribution of the number of FDCHs for the 55 sample 

sponsors ............................................................................................................... 2-8

2-3. Data collection from CACFP sponsors and response rates for 

2013 Assessment ................................................................................................. 2-13

2-4. Number of sample FDCHs by type of meal reimbursements 

reported for 2013 Assessment .......................................................................... 2-14

3-1. Categorizing the outcomes of the school and census match ....................... 3-4

3-2. Results of tiering verification by data matching ............................................. 3-5

3-3. Final status of FDCHs after data matching and school district 

contacts ................................................................................................................ 3-6

3-4. Tier I verification results by source of determination ................................... 3-13

3-5. Sources of Tier I misclassification ................................................................... 3-13

3-6. Overall verification results................................................................................. 3-14

4-1. Contiguous United States FDCH totals for PY2013 .................................... 4-2

4-2. Estimated misclassification rates of FDCHs by tiering status in 

PY2013 ................................................................................................................. 4-2

4-3. Tier I share of meals by meal type at Tier II FDCHs by state, 

PY2013 ................................................................................................................. 4-4

4-4. National estimates of meals claimed in error, PY2013 ................................. 4-6 

4-5. National estimates of the percentage of costs and total costs of 

misclassifications, PY2013................................................................................. 4-8 
iv 

Table of Contents 

(continued) 

Figures Page

ES-1. Estimated misclassification as a percentage of reimbursements: 

2005 through 2013 .............................................................................................. ES-5

ES-2. Estimated cost of misclassification 2005 through 2013 ($million) ............. ES-6 

2-1. Flowchart for the Tier I CACFP tiering verification process ...................... 2-3

2-2. FDCH sample results ......................................................................................... 2-9 

4-1. Estimated misclassification as a percentage of reimbursements: 

2005 through 2013 .............................................................................................. 4-10

4-2. Estimated cost of misclassification 2005 through 2013 ($million) ............. 4-10
ES-1 

Executive Summary 

The Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-300, or IPIA) requires all Federal 

agencies to identify programs and activities that may be susceptible to erroneous payments and to 

annually estimate and report to Congress the value of erroneous payments.1 This assessment 

examines the accuracy of the classification of Family Day Care Homes (FDCHs) participating in the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) for 48 

contiguous continental states (i.e., excluding AK and HI) and DC – hereafter, nationwide or national 

means this limited coverage area. The assessment provides estimates for Program Year (PY) 2013 of 

the number of FDCHs misclassified by sponsoring agencies into the wrong tier, and the resulting 

erroneous payments for meals and snacks reimbursed at the wrong rate.2 The assessment does not 

attempt to measure other types of erroneous payments in the CACFP, such as meal claiming errors 

by FDCHs. 

CACFP Background 

Meals served in CACFP FDCHs are reimbursed according to a two-tiered rate structure: Tier I and 

Tier II. Sponsoring agencies are responsible for determining the appropriate tier for each of their 

participating FDCHs. FDCHs are eligible for reimbursement at the higher Tier I rates for all eligible 

meals if they satisfy either of two conditions: geographic eligibility or provider income eligibility. 

 Geographic Eligibility: the FDCH is located in a low-income area. Geographic 

eligibility is determined by a home being located: a) in the attendance area of a school in 

which at least 50 percent of the children enrolled are certified eligible for free or 

reduced-price (F/RP) meals; or b) in a census block group (CBG) in which at least 50 

percent of the children live in households with incomes at or below 185 percent of the 

Federal poverty guidelines (FPG). In addition, the Census Bureau has provided annual 

updates based on 5-year average data coming from the American Community Survey 

since February, 2012. 

 Provider Income Eligibility: the family day care provider certifies by application that 

she or he has a household income at or below 185% of the FPG or is categorically 

eligible because of being certified for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

(SNAP) or another means-tested program with income limits of no more than 185% of 

the FPG. 

 

1 OMB guidance defines significant erroneous payments as annual erroneous payments in the program exceeding both 2.5 % of program payments 

and $10 million (OMB Circular A-123, Appendix C. August 10, 2006). The terms “improper” and “erroneous” have the same meaning within the 

OMB guidance. We Use the term “erroneous” in this report. 

2 Eight previous reports provide estimates of erroneous CACFP payments due to errors in sponsor tiering determinations for Program Years 2005-

2012. Program Year 2013 covers the twelve months from August 2012 through July 2013. 
ES-2 

FDCHs that meet geographic or income eligibility criteria are classified as "Tier I," and those that do 

not are classified as "Tier II." In Tier II FDCHs, meals served to children who qualify as lowincome are reimbursed at the Tier I rates; all other meals are reimbursed at the lower Tier II rates.3

During PY 2013, there were 123,017 family day care homes participating in the CACFP in the 

contiguous United States (the sampling universe for this Assessment), including 103,050 Tier I 

FDCHs and 19,967 Tier II FDCHs (Table ES-1).4 The CACFP provided reimbursements to 

FDCHs for 551 million meals, at a total cost of $777.2 million. 

Table ES-1. Contiguous United States FDCH totals for PY2013 

Tier I Tier II 

Number of FDCHs 103,050 19,967 

Number of meals 470 million 81 million 

Reimbursements $710.3 million $66.9 million 

Source: FNS National Data Bank totals for contiguous US (sample universe for the assessment). 

Assessment Methods and Sample Results 

For this Assessment, we attempted to verify sponsors' determinations of tiering status for a sample 

of 660 FDCHs, selected from the lists of 56 sponsors located in 14 States. All of the FDCHs in the 

final sample were reimbursed by CACFP for meals at some time between August 2012 and July 

2013. We first attempted to independently verify Tier I eligibility for all sampled FDCHs using 

matches with school and Census data. Tier I FDCHs were verified without any additional data 

collection if all three of the nearest elementary schools (by straight-line distance) or the two closest 

schools for each secondary grade were area-eligible (i.e., at least 50 percent of students were 

approved for F/RP meals), or if the FDCH was located in a CBG that was area-eligible.5 If some 

but not all of the nearest schools were area-eligible we contacted school districts or used their 

websites to determine the correct school attendance area for the FDCH, and then determined 

whether this school was area-eligible. Using these methods, we verified sponsors' determinations for 

503 Tier I FDCHs, 87.8 percent of the Tier I sample. 

 

3 Although the CACFP regulations differentiate between meals (breakfasts, lunches, and suppers) and snacks, we use the term "meals" alone in this 

report for simplicity. 

4 The FDCH counts are averages calculated from four counts in September 2012, December 2012, March 2013, and June 2013. 

5 We did not include a second or third school if it was located more than 5 miles away from the FDCH and it was more than twice as far away as 

another school. This eliminated additional processing resulting from inclusion of schools in rural areas that could be more than a dozen miles away 

from a FDCH with nearby schools. 
ES-3 

For Tier I FDCHs not verified through data matching we reviewed sponsors' documentation of 

tiering determinations. These documents confirmed the sponsors' determinations for an additional 

49 Tier I FDCHs. The assessment was completed for 100 percent of the sample. We identified 21 

misclassified Tier I FDCHs and 1 misclassified Tier II FDCH. 

National Estimates of Misclassification Errors and Costs 

FDCHs. Using sample data and sampling weights, we estimated that, nationwide, 2.98 percent of 

Tier I FDCHs and 1.22 percent of Tier II FDCHs were misclassified in PY2013. In total, there were 

an estimated 3,342 misclassified FDCHs, 2.72 percent of all FDCHs. The percentage estimates and 

the associated 90 percent confidence intervals are shown in Table ES-2. 

Table ES-2. Estimated misclassification rates by tiering status in PY2013 

Tier as Determined by 

Sponsor 

Percentage of FDCHs Misclassified 

(90% Confidence Interval) 

Number of FDCHs Misclassified 

(90% Confidence Interval) 

Tier I 2.98% 

(1.79% to 4.93%) 

3,114 

(1,870 to 5,144) 

Tier II 1.22% 

(0.25% to 5.67%) 

229 

(48 to 1,060) 

All 2.72% 

(1.62% to 4.53%) 

3,342 

(1,990 to 5,570) 

Source: Weighted estimates from 2013 sample data. 

Meals. For misclassified FDCHs, the number of meals reimbursed in error is the difference 

between the number actually reimbursed at each tiering rate and the number that would have been 

reimbursed at those rates if they had been correctly classified. Meals reimbursed at Tier I rates that 

should have been reimbursed at Tier II rates result in overpayments; meals reimbursed at Tier II 

rates that should have been reimbursed at Tier I rates result in underpayments. The erroneous 

payment for a meal reimbursed at the wrong rate is the difference between the Tier I and Tier II 

rates, which ranged from $0.52 for snacks to $0.94 for lunches and suppers (under rates effective 

from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013). 

We estimate that, as a result of misclassifications, 2.16 percent of meals served at FDCHs classified 

as Tier I were reimbursed at the higher Tier I rate when they should have been at the lower Tier II 

rate, and 0.70 percent of meals served by FDCHs misclassified as Tier II were reimbursed at the 

Tier II rate instead of the higher Tier I rate for which they were eligible. Overall, 1.98 percent of 
ES-4 

FDCH meals – a total of 10.73 million meals this year – were reimbursed at the incorrect rate. (See 

Table ES-3 for estimated percentages and their 90 percent confidence intervals.) The estimates for 

Tier I FDCHs are computed using State percentages of meals in Tier II FDCHs reimbursed at Tier I 

rates, since we do not know the actual number of Tier I-eligible children in FDCHs misclassified as 

Tier I. 

Table ES-3. National estimates of meals claimed in error, PY2013 

Tier as Determined by 

Sponsor 

Percentage of Meals Claimed in 

Error Due to Misclassification of 

FDCHs (90% CI) 

Millions of Meals Claimed in 

Error Due to Misclassification of 

FDCHs (90% CI) 

 Tier I 2.16% 

(1.01% to 3.25%) 

10.16 

(5.03 to 15.29) 

 Tier II 0.70%

(0.00% to 1.90%) 

0.56 

(0.00 to 1.54) 

 All 1.98%

(0.99% to 2.97%) 

10.73 

(5.51 to 15.95) 

Table ES-4 shows that the estimated costs of misclassification errors were overpayments of 1.08 

percent to Tier I FDCHs and 0.69 percent underpayments to Tier II FDCHs. Overall the erroneous 

payment rate was 1.05 percent, with a 90 percent confidence interval from 0.51 percent to 1.59 

percent. This corresponds to a best estimate of $7.65 million overpayment, with a confidence 

interval ranging from $3.70 to $11.61 million, and 0.46 million underpayment, with a confidence 

interval ranging from $0 to $1.26 million. 

The total estimated cost of misclassification errors (overpayments plus underpayments) is equal to 

the $8.18 million with a confidence interval ranging from $3.99 to $12.37 million. 
ES-5 

Table ES-4. National estimates of the percentage of costs and total costs of misclassifications, 

PY2013 

Tier as Determined by 

Sponsor 

Percentage of Reimbursements 

Paid in Error Due to Misclassification 

of FDCHs (90% CI) 

Millions of $ in Reimbursements 

Paid in Error Due to 

Misclassification of FDCHs (90% CI) 

Tier I 1.08% 

(0.52% to 1.63%) 

$7.65 

($3.70 to $11.61) 

 Tier II 0.69% 

(0.00% to 1.89%) 

$0.46 

($0.00 to $1.26) 

 All 1.05% 

(0.51% to 1.59%) 

$8.18 

($3.99 to $12.37) 

The estimates of misclassification rates and the cost of misclassification for PY2013 are slightly 

smaller than estimates for PY2012, but they are consistent with those observed over the last eight 

years (see Figures ES-1 and ES-2). The fluctuations in estimates of misclassification errors for the 

nine years of assessments are consistent with what we would expect in the presence of sampling 

error. 

Figure ES-1. Estimated misclassification as a percentage of reimbursements: 2005 through 

2013 

Note: 2011old and 2011new refer to the Tier I eligibility criteria before and after the effective date of the HHFK Act of 

2010. 

1.80%

1.39% 1.55%

2.06%

0.99%

1.53%

1.72% 1.58%

1.09% 1.05%

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%

3.00%

3.50%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011old 2011new 2012 2013

Upper Bound Lower Bound Percentage

Percent Reimbursed
ES-6 

Figure ES-2. Estimated cost of misclassification 2005 through 2013 ($million) 

Note: 2011old and 2011new refer to the Tier I eligibility criteria before and after the effective date of the HHFK Act of 

2010. 

Implications of the Assessment Process and Results 

This Assessment met FNS' requirements to provide estimates of misclassification rates for FDCHs 

in the CACFP and the resulting erroneous payments, within the standards of precision set by OMB. 

The 2013 Assessment produced results comparable to those of previous assessments. 

The assessment confirms that the vast majority (98 percent) of tiering determinations were accurate. 

At the same time, the document review indicates that determinations based on income are more 

error-prone than other determinations, particularly income determinations without tax return 

documents. 

Determinations based on income or program eligibility must be repeated every year by the sponsor. 

On the other hand, determinations based on geography remain valid for five years. In conducting 

this assessment we noticed that, while 92 of the sampled Tier I FDCHs were determined by 

sponsors to be eligible based on income or program eligibility, 50 of them were also eligible by 

geography. Therefore, the time sponsors spend determining eligibility could be substantially reduced 

if they first verified tiering status based on geography. This would not only reduce the burden placed 

on sponsors, it would also improve the accuracy of the determinations. 

Finally, in considering the implications of this assessment, it is important to acknowledge that tiering 

determinations are only one of several potential causes of improper payments in the CACFP. If 

13.0

9.4

10.9

15.2

7.5

11.6

13.0 12.0

8.5 8.2

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011old 2011new 2012 2013

Millions of $

Upper Bound Lower Bound Estimated Cost
ES-7 

tiering determinations were the sole source of improper payments, the CACFP would fall below the 

IPIA's reporting threshold, which mandates reports for programs with improper payments that 

exceed both $10 million per year and 2.5 percent of total payments. The CACFP has several other 

potential sources of erroneous payments to FDCHs, including errors in determining eligibility of 

children in Tier II FDCHs for Tier I meals, meal claiming errors by providers, and meal claims 

processing errors by sponsors. Furthermore, this assessment does not address erroneous payments 

to child care centers or adult day care programs. Thus, the estimates of this assessment understate 

the full extent of improper payments in the CACFP. 
1-1 

The 2013 CACFP Assessment of' Sponsor Tiering Determinations was conducted by Westat for the USDA 

Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). This Assessment is intended to provide FNS with national 

estimates of the percentage of Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) family day care homes 

(FDCHs) that were misclassified as Tier I or Tier II in Program Year (PY) 2013, and the associated 

erroneous payments. FNS is required by the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (P.L. 1 

07- 300) to report these estimates annually to the Congress. 

1.1 The Child and Adult Care Food Program 

The Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) provides reimbursements for nutritious meals 

and snacks served in family day care homes, child care centers, and other participating facilities and 

programs. In PY2013, the CACFP provided almost $3 billion in reimbursements for 1.96 billion 

meals served to an average of 3.67 million participants. About 82 percent of CACFP meals were 

served to low-income participants eligible for free or reduced-price meals.6 Ninety-six percent of 

meals were served to children, with 28 percent of children's meals served in family day care homes. 

A FDCH is a private residence where day care is provided to nonresident children. In PY2013, there 

were 123,017 approved family day care homes participating in the CACFP.7

 To participate in the 

CACFP, a FDCH must meet program requirements and be approved by a sponsoring agency. 

FDCH providers are required to log meals served to each child on a daily basis. Each month, 

FDCHs submit meal claims to sponsors to obtain reimbursement for meals served. Sponsors act as 

fiscal intermediaries, receiving claims from family day care homes and disbursing USDA funds for 

meal reimbursements. 

In PY2013 there were 855 sponsoring organizations for family day care homes in the United States. 

According to a survey of sponsors in 20 states, about 69 percent of sponsors in the year 2000 were 

 

6 Program statistics as of March 27, 2014 were obtained from the FNS National Databank, accessed May 2014. 

7 This figure is the average of counts in September 2012, December 2012. March 2013, and June 2013. Source: FNS National Databank., accessed 

March 2014. 

Introduction 1 
1-2 

private nonprofit agencies, 10 percent were public agencies, 13 percent were military organizations, 

and 8 percent were identified as "other" organizations (such as schools or churches).8

 

CACFP Reimbursement for Meals Served in Family Day Care Homes (FDCHs) 

Meals served in participating FDCHs are reimbursed according to a two-tiered rate structure (Tier I 

or Tier II). 

 Tier I rates are higher and apply to all meals served in FDCHs that are located in lowincome areas (geographic eligibility) or operated by providers whose own household 

income is at or below 185 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines (FPG) (income 

eligibility) or already participate in a poverty food program (categorical eligibility). 

FDCHs that meet the geographic or provider income criteria for Tier I rates are 

classified as Tier I FDCHs. Those that do not meet Tier I criteria are classified as Tier 

II FDCHs.9

 

 Tier II homes may receive reimbursement at Tier I rates for meals served to children 

that have been determined by the sponsor to be categorically eligible or have a 

household income at or below 185 percent of the FPG. 

 Tier II rates are lower and apply to meals served to children in Tier II FDCHs that do 

not qualify for Tier I rates. 

Within each reimbursement tier, there are different rates for breakfast, lunch and supper, and 

snacks. FDCHs may claim up to two snacks and one meal (breakfast, lunch, or supper) or two meals 

and one snack each day for each participating child. The rates in effect in PY2013 for all States 

except Alaska and Hawaii are shown in Table 1-1.10 

Table 1-1. CACFP reimbursement rates for meals served in family day care homes 

Type of Meal Served 

July 1, 2012-June 30, 2013 July 1, 2013-June 30, 2014 

Tier I Rate Tier II Rate Tier I Rate Tier II Rate 

Breakfast $1.27 $0.46 $1.28 $0.47 

Lunch and Supper $2.38 $1.44 $2.40 $1.45 

Snack $0.71 $0.19 $0.71 $0.19 

*Note: Higher rates apply in Alaska and Hawaii. 

 

8 The type of agency for sponsors is not routinely collected. The most recent data are for 2000 from Bernstein, Lawrence S. and William L. Hamilton, 

Sponsoring Organizations' and the CACFP: Administrative Effects of Reimbursement Tiering. E-FAN-02-003. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Economic Research Service, April 2002. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/efan02003. 

9 Providers must meet Tier I income eligibility criteria to obtain Tier I reimbursement rates for meals served to their own children. 

10 The CACFP rates are revised effective July 1 of each year. Thus, the rates in effect during PY 2013 (August 1, 2012 through July 31, 2013) included 

the 2012-2013 rates and the 2013-2014 rates announced in July 2013. 
1-3 

In addition to the Tier I and Tier II classification of FDCHs, Tier II homes are classified into three 

groups, depending on the income-eligibility status of the participating children: 

 Tier II high: all children approved for free/reduced-price meals, all eligible meals 

reimbursed at Tier I rates; 

 Tier II mixed: some but not all children approved for free/reduced-price meals, eligible 

meals reimbursed at a combination of Tier I and Tier II rates; 

 Tier II low: no children approved for free/reduced-price meals, all eligible meals 

reimbursed at Tier II rates. 

In PY2013, 84 percent of CACFP family day care homes in the United States were approved as Tier 

I. Table 1-2 shows the total number and distribution of FDCHs in PY2013, and the distribution 

among Tier II homes. 

Table 1-2. Number and distribution of FDCHs by reimbursement tier, PY2013 

Tier 

Number of 

FHCDs 

Percent of 

All FDCHs 

Percent of 

Tier II FDCHs 

Tier I 103,050 84% --

Tier II, High 1,976 2% 10%

Tier II, Mixed 3,921 3% 20%

Tier II, Low 14,070 12% 70%

Total 123,017 100%

Definitions: Tier II, High – all meals at Tier I rates; Tier II, Mixed – combination of Tier I and Tier II meals; Tier II, Low – all meals at Tier II 

rates. 

Note: Numbers may not add to totals due to rounding. 

Source: FNS National Databank, PY2013, accessed March 2014. 

1.2 Classification of Family Day Care Homes 

Sponsors are responsible for determining the appropriate tiering levels (Tier I or Tier II) of each of 

their participating FDCHs. FDCHs that meet the criteria for Tier I reimbursement are designated 

Tier I FDCHs, while all others are designated Tier II. 

Criteria for Tier I Eligibility 

Eligibility for higher Tier I rates is based on geographic eligibility or provider income eligibility: 
1-4 

 Geographic Eligibility -the FDCH is located in a low-income area, defined in one of 

two ways: 

– School boundary area — FDCH is located in the attendance area of any school 

(covering at least one of the grades 1-12) in which at least 50 percent of the 

children enrolled qualify for free or reduced-price (FR/P) meals in the National 

School Lunch Program (NSLP), see Section 1.3 for more details11; or 

– Census block group (CBG) — FDCH is located in a CBG in which at least 50 

percent of children at or below age 12 live in households with incomes below 185 

percent of the FPG. 

 Provider Income Eligibility - the family day care provider is low income or is 

categorically eligible. 

– Income eligibility — Provider must have household income below 185 percent 

of the FPG. 

– Categorical eligibility — Provider receives benefits from the Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (formerly the Food Stamp Program), the 

Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR), certain State 

programs for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), or other meanstested program designated by the State.12 

CACFP sponsors are required to evaluate geographic eligibility for Tier I for any FDCH that 

requests a determination. To do this, they are assisted by other agencies that supply data needed to 

assess geographic eligibility. 

 School boundary area – State agencies administering the NSLP are required to provide 

the State CACFP agency with a list of all schools in the State participating in the NSLP 

in which 50 percent or more of enrolled children have been determined eligible for free 

or reduced price meals as of the last operating day of the previous October, or other 

month specified by the State agency. Lists must be provided by February 15 of each 

year; or, if data are based on a month other than October, within 90 calendar days 

following the end of the month designated by the State agency. (7 CFR 210.19) 

 Census block groups – The Census Bureau created for FNS a special tabulation of the 

2000 decennial Census tabulation providing for each CBG the percentage of children at 

or below age 12 in households with incomes below 185 percent of FPG. In addition, 

the Census Bureau has provided annual updates based on 5-year average data coming 

from the American Community Survey since February, 2012. These data are available 

 

11 Eligibility can be based on either the school attended by operator's children or the local attendance zone school. For the assessment, we consider 

only the local attendance zone school. 

12 Individual States may designate additional means-tested programs for categorical eligibility, provided that the program has an income limit of no 

more than 185 percent of the FPG. For example, one State's guardianship assistance program may be used to establish categorical eligibility. 
1-5 

in spreadsheet format from State CACFP agencies or through an interactive mapping 

program on the CACFP Mapper website.13 

Providers that are not geographically eligible for Tier I may apply for Tier I on the basis of income 

by completing an Income Eligibility Statement (IES) and providing appropriate documentation.14 

Tier I determinations are valid for a specified time period, depending on the basis of determination: 

 Geographic eligibility determined by school data is valid for 5 years; 

 Geographic eligibility determined by 2000 Census data is valid for 5 years; and 

 Income and programmatic eligibility for Tier I must be reviewed annually. 

Family day care homes that do not meet the criteria for Tier I homes are designated as Tier II 

homes. 

Tier I Documentation Requirements 

Each Tier I classification must be documented in accordance with FNS guidance.15 Documentation 

of geographic eligibility must verify the FDCH location within the specified school or CBG 

boundary area, and document the eligibility of the area. Income and categorical eligibility must be 

verified through supporting documentation from the provider or documented collateral contacts. 

Sponsors are required to hold documentation on file for as long as the classification is in effect plus 

three fiscal years. As discussed in Chapter 3, FNS guidance for documentation provides the basis for 

review of sponsor tiering documents and verification of FDCH classification. 

1.3 Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010 

The Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act (HHFKA) of 2010 expanded the eligibility of FDCHs to qualify 

as Tier I. Effective retroactive to October 1, 2010, family and group day care homes may be 

 

13 The CACFP Mapper website was developed by FairData in association with the Food Research and Action Center, and is available at: 

http://www.fairdata2000.com/CACFP/. 

14 The Income Eligibility Statement (IES) is similar to an application for free or reduced-price school meals, eliciting information about household 

members and categorical eligibility or income received by each household member. Unlike the school meals application, the IES for the CACFP 

must be accompanied by documentation of income. 

15 USDA. Food and Nutrition Service. The Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP): Eligibility Guidance for Family Day Care Homes, issued 

1997 and subsequently revised. Hard copy provided by FNS. 
1-6 

classified as Tier I for purposes of reimbursement under CACFP if the home is located in an area 

served by any public school (covering any of grades 1-12) in which at least 50 percent of the enrolled 

children are certified eligible for free and reduced-price school meals. This allows a FDCH to qualify 

based on secondary school catchment area as well as elementary school. 

Direct comparisons can be made for current estimates against the 2012 estimates (Marker et al, 

2013) and against the 2011 estimates that are referred to that evaluation (Marker et al., 2012) as the 

“new rule.” Historical comparisons to years preceding the expanded eligibility of the HHFKA can 

also be made, but one must recognize that the HHFKA introduces a source of potential 

discontinuity. Graphs of historical estimates in Chapter 4 and the Executive Summary provide 

estimates for 2011 using both the current “new” rule and the “old” rule that existed prior to the 

HHFKA. 

1.4 Organization of the Report 

The purpose of this Assessment is to identify FDCHs that were misclassified as Tier I or Tier II, 

and estimate the dollar value of erroneous payments associated with those misclassifications. 

Chapter 2 of this report provides an overview of the methodology for identifying misclassifications, 

and presents the sampling design and data collection procedures used for the assessment. Chapter 3 

describes the detailed methodology for assessing sponsor tiering determinations and identifying 

misclassifications. Chapter 3 also presents the results of each stage of the assessment for the study 

sample. Nationally representative (weighted) estimates of FDCH misclassifications and erroneous 

payments are presented in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 concludes the report. Appendix A provides 

supplementary information on sampling, weighting, and estimation. Appendix B provides the forms 

used for recruiting sponsors and data collection. 
2-1 

The purpose of this Assessment is to identify family day care home tiering classification errors; i.e., 

homes classified by sponsors as Tier I that should have been classified as Tier II, and homes 

classified by sponsors as Tier II that should have been classified as Tier I. For each of these 

misclassifications, we then estimate the value of erroneous payments due to misclassifications. This 

chapter has three sections: (1) an overview of the methodology used for verifying sponsor tiering 

determinations and the key differences from the methodology for the previous Assessments; (2) a 

description of the sampling design and recruitment of sponsors; and (3) a description of the data 

collection procedures. 

2.1 Overview of the Assessment of Sponsor Tiering 

Determinations 

The assessment of sponsor tiering determinations used two primary methods to validate those 

determinations: 

 Independent verification of geographic eligibility for Tier I by matching FDCHs with 

school and Census data. 

 Review of sponsor tiering determination documents for all Tier I FDCHs not 

independently verified as geographically eligible for Tier I and for all Tier II FDCHs 

that appeared to be area-eligible for Tier I based on school or Census data. 

The approach was specifically designed to minimize the burden on sponsors and the cost to FNS of 

doing the assessment. To this end, we used a set of rules for estimating geographic eligibility for Tier 

I based on the nearest schools. The FNS rules for school-based geographic eligibility require the 

FDCH to be located within the attendance area of a school where at least half of the students are 

approved for F/RP school meals. However, there are no national databases that can be used to 

identify the exact school attendance area for FDCHs. Instead, we identified the nearest schools to 

each FDCH (i.e., those with minimum distance) for each grade level. A maximum of three nearest 

elementary schools (includes any grade 1 to 5) and two middle and secondary schools (does not 

include any grade 1 to 5) for each grade level was identified. To avoid including unlikely schools in 

the set of nearest schools, if a school is more than 5 miles from the FDCH and more than twice the 

Assessment Design 2 
2-2 

distance to the closest school, it was not included. We assumed that if all of the nearest schools for 

any grade satisfied the F/RP requirement it would be sufficient to confirm that the sponsor's 

determination of Tier I eligibility was correct.16 

We implemented this approach for all Tier I FDCHs through the multi-step process shown in 

Figure 2-1. Step 1 (1a through 1d) consisted of data matches with school and Census data. State lists 

of schools with their percentage of students approved for F/RP meals were used for the school 

match. If Step 1 was not conclusive (as described below), the school district was contacted to 

determine the school attendance area for the FDCH (Step 2). After Steps l and 2, sponsors were 

asked to provide documentation of tiering determination for all FDCHs not verified by school or 

Census data (Step 3), and those documents were reviewed to determine the final FDCH 

classification (Step 4). 

All Tier I FDCHs fell into one of the seven groups, as follows: 

A. All of the nearest schools met the F/RP requirement and the CBG was area-eligible 

(50% of children or more at or below 185% of the FPG). 

B. All of the nearest schools met the F/RP requirement but the CBG was not area-eligible. 

C. Some (but not all) of the nearest schools met the F/RP requirement, and the CBG was 

area-eligible. 

D. None of the nearest schools met the F/RP requirement, and the CBG was area-eligible. 

E. The correct school for the FDCH, as identified by contacting the school district, met 

the F/RP requirement, but the CBG was not area-eligible. 

F. Sponsor documents consistent with Tier I eligibility confirmed the determinations for 

the FDCHs; these determinations were not confirmed by the school and Census match, 

or the school district contacts. 

G. None of the methods confirmed sponsor determinations of Tier I eligibility, and the 

FDCH was considered misclassified. 

Thus, sponsor determinations of Tier I eligibility were independently confirmed by the school and 

Census match alone (i.e., without contacting the sponsor or a school district) if the FDCH fell into 

 

16 This process is based on the assumption that the correct school attendance area for the FDCH belongs to one of the nearest schools. If this 

assumption is not correct, it is likely that the correct school attendance area is nearby and has approximately the same percentage of F/RP students 

as those of the nearest elementary schools. Nearest schools are determined by straight line distances. Less than the desired number of schools might 

be used if there are fewer schools of this grade level in the given school district. 
2-3 

group A, B, or D. Groups C and E were confirmed by contacting the school district, without 

requiring sponsor documents. 

Figure 2-1. Flowchart for the Tier I CACFP tiering verification process 
2-4 

The independent assessment process was the same for Tier II FDCHs with the exception that we 

only ask for documentation if the FDCH appears to be Tier I eligible. 

 

Comparison of This Assessment with Previous Assessments 

Eight annual Assessments of sponsor tiering determinations were previously conducted for the years 

2005 through 2012. The 2013 Assessment follows the same methodology used in the 2008 thru 2012 

Assessments as closely as possible. The only difference is: 

 The CBG eligibility was based on the Census 2000 data for tiering dates before 

February 2012, was based on the Census 2006-2010 ACS data for tiering dates between 

March 2012 and February 2013, and was based on the Census 2007-2011 ACS data for 

tiering dates after March 2013. For tiering dates in the month of February 2012 or 

February 2013, CBG eligibility was based on either old or new Census data (the FDCH 

was considered eligible if it was eligible using either data file). 

The remainder of this chapter describes the sampling design and data collection. 

2.2 Sampling Design 

This Assessment used a three-stage probability sample to select a sample of FDCHs from which 

national tiering determination error statistics were obtained. This Assessment survey pertained to 

three types of errors that occurred during the survey reference period of August 2012 to July 2013 

(referred to as the Program Year): 

 The number and percentage of FDCHs that were active and misclassified as Tier I or 

Tier II; 

 The number and percentage of meals reimbursed at the incorrect tier due to 

misclassification of FDCHs (meals reimbursed as Tier I that would have been 

reimbursed at Tier II if the FDCH had been correctly classified as Tier II, and vice 

versa); and 

 The total dollar value of erroneous payments and the percentage of total payments to 

providers made in error, including separate estimates of totals and percentages for 

overpayments to Tier I FDCHs and underpayments to Tier II FDCHs. The total error 

is defined as the sum of over and underpayments. 
2-5 

Misclassification of homes as Tier I results in overpayments at the higher Tier I reimbursement rates, 

instead of the lower Tier II rates. Misclassification of homes as Tier II results in underpayments at the 

lower Tier II reimbursement rates, instead of the higher Tier I rates. 

It would have been more efficient to select a sample of FDCHs directly but there was no sample 

frame of FDCHs available. Therefore, a three-stage sample design was used, where the first stage 

was sampling of states, from which a sample of sponsors were selected at the second-stage, and then 

at the last stage a sample of FDCHs was selected from selected sponsors. It is desirable to select an 

equal probability sample of FDCHs as much as possible because it produces more efficient (accurate 

for a given sample size) estimates. With this goal in mind, a probability proportional to size (PPS, see 

Kish (1965, page 220)) sampling of states, PPS sampling of sponsors, and simple random sampling 

of FDCHs, was implemented with the measure of size (MOS) being the number of FDCHs for PPS 

sampling. If the MOS is perfect and there are no dominating states or sponsors that require a 

certainty selection, this sample design would give an equal probability sample of FDCHs. However, 

we will see later that this was not possible to achieve because the MOS was imperfect17 and there 

were some certainties. The MOS at the first stage was the number of FDCHs per state in FY2010, 

as reported in the FNS National Databank in March 2011. Nevertheless, the sample design gave an 

approximately equal probability sample, and the loss of efficiency due to minor inequality of the 

sampling probabilities is minimal. 

The sample sizes at each stage of sampling were set at the same size as for the 2010 survey.18 Table 

2-1 presents these sample sizes. States with more than 1/15th of all FDCHs were given a chance to 

be selected twice, in which case twice as many sponsors and FDCHs were also selected from the 

state. 

Table 2-1. Sample sizes for the three-stage FNS Tiering Survey 

Sampling 

Stage 

Sampling 

Unit 

Sample Size Comments 

Per State Total 

1 State - - - 15 One state was selected twice.

2 Sponsor 4 or 8 59 That state was given a sample size of 8 sponsors. Two 

sponsors were selected twice. One state had only three 

sponsors, all of which were selected. 

3 FDCH 11 or 22 660 The two large sponsors were given a sample size of 22.

 

17 At the first stage the MOS was the total number of FDCHs in a state in FY2010, the most recently available nationally at the time of selection. 

Sampled states then provided current counts of FDCHs per sponsor, and sampled sponsors provided counts of eligible FDCHs. All three counts 

were similar but not exactly consistent. 

18 See Logan et al. (2010). 
2-6 

One departure from the sample design used for the surveys up until 2011 was that the state sample 

was selected for three years with a sample size that was three times the annual sample size in 2011. 

The state sample size for three years was 45, and a PPS sample of 45 was selected using the 

systematic PPS sampling method after sorting the list of states (48 states and DC excluding Hawaii, 

Alaska, and outlying territories) by the FNS region.19 This sample was randomly divided into three 

annual samples, and one was used in 2011, and the second one was used in 2012. The last one was 

used for the 2013 survey. Large states were selected more than once and they will be included in the 

sample more than one year. The reason for this change was to spread the sample over more states 

over the three years than when states are selected each year independently. 

The largest state in terms of the number of FDCHs was selected 5 times in the three year sample, 

twice for survey years 2011 and 2012, and once for survey year 2013. Another large state was 

selected once for survey years 2011 and 2012 but twice for survey year 2013. If a state was selected 

twice in a given year, it was given twice (i.e., 8) the sponsor sample size that would be normally given 

(i.e., 4). A total of 15 states were selected each year but one state was selected twice, and thus, 14 

unique states were selected each year. The number of unique states selected for the three years is 29; 

if yearly independent selection had been used, the expected number of unique states would have 

been 25 in three years – this is not a fixed number due to probability sampling. The three largest 

states were included with certainty for all three years. One additional state was also selected for all 

three years by chance although it had a chance of being selected only twice. One drawback of this 

strategy of selecting simultaneously for three years is that the measure of size (MOS) used for the 

second and third year selection will be somewhat less accurate than the MOS that would be used for 

independent selection; causing some loss in the sampling efficiency. This is due to the variation in 

distribution of number of FDCHs across states in the different years. However, a weighting 

adjustment through post-stratification will reduce the inefficiency caused by inaccurate MOS for the 

second and third years (the post-stratification is discussed in more detail in Appendix A). For this 

reason, we did not see any noticeable decrease in the precision of the estimates in 2013 as seen in 

2012. 

At the second stage of sampling, an initial sample of four sponsors was selected from each sampled 

state. The state that was selected twice in the state selection was given a sponsor sample of 8 twice 

the usual sample size. In the past, we selected a back-up sample of two for each state, making the 

total sample size six, but this time we did not select any back-up because back-up sponsor sample 

 

19 The 2005-2007 Assessments excluded Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and Puerto Rico because of the cost of site visits. The methodology for the 2008-2011 

Assessments did not require site visits, but the same sampling frame was used to assure consistency. 
2-7 

had never been used throughout the entire history of the survey. The sampling method at the 

second stage was also PPS sampling with the MOS being the number of FDCHs for each sponsor. 

Some sponsors were selected with certainty, because they had more than one-fourth of the FDCHs 

in the state. This was quite prevalent as it happened in seven of 14 states. Moreover, one state had 

only three sponsors, all of which were selected with certainty, and five states had only three sponsors 

selected because one sponsor was selected twice. These sponsors were given twice the FDCH 

sample size than other sponsors. Altogether 56 unique sponsors were selected from 14 states in the 

final sample. 

Recruitment and Initial Response Rates 

Recruitment of sampled sponsors for the assessment began in September 2013. Westat contacted 

selected sponsors via Federal Express or regular mail (in instances where only a P.O. Box was 

provided). In addition, state directors were asked to send an email to selected sponsors encouraging 

participation in the assessment. The sponsor recruitment package (provided as Appendix B) 

included: 

 Letter describing the assessment and the accompanying materials 

 Brochure describing the requirements for participation 

 Letters of support from The CACFP Sponsor’s Association and CACFP National 

Forum 

 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

 Instructions, user name, and password for accessing the SharePoint site 

Sponsors were offered $110 to offset the costs of providing information for the assessment, and an 

additional $150 if they met all of the deadlines specified by Westat. All honoraria were provided 

upon completion of data collection after Westat determined that all requested documents were 

received. 

As mentioned earlier, all 56 initially selected sponsors participated in the survey, and no back-up 

sample was used. The distribution of 56 sampled sponsors in terms of the number of FDCHs is 

shown in Table 2-2. The table shows that the sampled sponsors tended to be considerably smaller in 

2013 than in 2012, when the mean number of sampled FDCH sponsors was 717. Considering the 

large standard deviation, this much fluctuation is not unusual. It also demonstrates the wide range of 
2-8 

sponsor sizes, which resulted in 3 of them being selected for 22 FDCHs rather than the 11 initially 

anticipated. 

Table 2-2. Distribution of the number of FDCHs for the 56 sample sponsors 

Minimum 1st Quartile Median 3rd Quartile Maximum Mean Standard 

Deviation 

26 113 284 676 4376 541 732

Selection of FDCHs and the Final Response Rate 

At the time of recruitment, the 56 sampled sponsors were asked to provide a list of all FDCHs that 

they sponsored, regardless of whether the FDCH received reimbursement in that month. All 56 

sponsors responded. 

For each sampled sponsor, the sample was allocated between Tier I and Tier II in proportion to the 

numbers of Tier I and Tier II FDCHs they sponsored. Using simple random sampling, 11 regular 

sample FDCHs were selected along with 5 back-ups from each sample sponsor unless it was given a 

sample size twice the normal sample size. For those two sponsors that were selected twice, 22 

regular FDCHs and 10 back-ups were selected. Some sponsors have a very small number of Tier II 

homes, so stratification by tier status was not done for them. Another exception was for a state with 

only three sponsors, all of which were selected with certainty. The FDCH sample of 44 was 

proportionally allocated, and 20, 17, and 7 FDCHs were, respectively, selected from the three 

sponsors for the state along with back-up samples of 10, 3, and 7 homes. 

After the sample of FDCHs was selected, two subsequent data requests were sent to sponsors (as 

discussed in Section 2.3, which describes the data collection). Sponsors were asked to provide meal 

counts for sampled FDCHs for the reference period August 2012 through July 2013. 

If a FDCH in the regular sample was determined to be inactive (have no meal reimbursements) for 

the reference period of the assessment or ineligible for some reasons (e.g., it happened that some 

non-FDCH records were included in the list provided by a sampled sponsor), the FDCH was 

replaced with a selection from the back-up sample. The back-up sample of five FDCHs selected for 

each sponsor was enough to replace those ineligible cases for all sponsors 

In total, we selected 960 FDCHs of which 687 were fielded, and 660 were active and provided data 

(see Figure 2-2). The 27 (=687-660) ineligible FDCHs represent 3.9 percent of the whole fielded 
2-9 

sample. Considering the sample of FDCHs is roughly an equal probability sample, we expect a 

similar rate of ineligibility for the sample frame we used. This rate is lower than the rate of 6.5 and 

6.8 percent observed in 2012 and 2011, respectively, but about the same as the 2010 rate of 4.2 

percent.20

Figure 2-2. FDCH sample results 

960

Sampled

273

Unused BackUp

660

Active

27

Ineligible

687

Fielded

A final round of data collection was conducted to obtain documentation about tiering 

determinations for FDCHs that were not verified as geographically eligible for Tier I through a 

match with school and Census data and for Tier II FDCHs that appeared area-eligible for Tier I. 

Information was requested for 70 Tier I FDCHs and 8 Tier II FDCHs. The response rate for the 

final round of data collection was 100 percent, yielding a final sample of 660 FDCHs. 

Sampling Weights and Estimation 

Each FDCH in the sample received a base sampling weight equal to the inverse of its probability of 

selection. Thus, the weight reflected the probability of selecting the state, the probability of selecting 

the sponsor (given that the state had been selected), and the probability of selecting the FDCH 

(from the sponsor’s list of FDCHs in the particular tier, given that the sponsor had been selected). 

The selection probabilities for FDCHs took into account the presence in the sample of FDCHs that 

 

20 See Logan, et al (2010). 
2-10 

were found to be inactive for the reference period, so that the weights would allow projection from 

the sample to the universe of active FDCHs. 

The total number of FDCHs reported across all sponsors by the states as of August 2013 generally 

differed from the corresponding totals provided in the FNS National Databank.21 Similarly, the 

numbers of FDCHs on the sponsors’ lists (as of August 2013) differed from the corresponding 

numbers reported by the states. Because this assessment aims to provide estimates for PY2013, the 

base sampling weights were adjusted by post-stratification to two control totals: the PY2013 total 

number of Tier I homes and the total number of Tier II homes (as reported in the FNS National 

Databank as of March 2014, after eliminating the states and territories that had been excluded from 

the sampling frame for this assessment).22

The final weights assigned to the responding FDCHs were used to obtain estimates of various 

population parameters and standard errors of these estimates. For obtaining the misclassification 

rates for Tier I, Tier II, and all FDCHs, weighted estimates were computed for the number of 

misclassified FDCHs by tier and overall and the corresponding total number of FDCHs. The ratios 

of these numbers provide the national estimates for the misclassification rates by tier and overall. 

Weighted sample data also were used to estimate (by tier and overall) the percentage of meals 

reimbursed in error and the percentage of reimbursements paid in error due to misclassification of 

FDCHs. To obtain estimates of total meals reimbursed in error, these estimated percentages were 

multiplied by the national total of meals for PY2013 obtained from the FNS National Data Bank. 

Similarly, the estimated percentages of reimbursements paid in error were multiplied by the total 

reimbursements paid in PY2013, also based on FNS data. These calculations and their rationale are 

discussed further in Chapter 4 and in Appendix A. 

Standard errors for the totals and percentages of FDCHs misclassified were computed using 

Westat’s complex survey analysis system, WesVar, which takes into account the multistage sampling 

design used for the selection of FDCHs in the sample (including stratification and clustering of 

sampling units at various stages of sampling). 

Appendix A provides more detail on the estimation procedures. 

 

21 The FNS Databank provides the total number of FDCHs by state on the quarterly basis, in March, June, September, and December each year. 

22 The control totals were calculated as the average number of four quarterly total numbers of homes, reported in September 2012, December, 2012, 

March 2013, and June 2013. 
2-11 

2.3 Data Collection 

Data collection for the assessment began in August 2013 and continued through April 2014. Data 

were collected from FNS, State Child Nutrition Agencies, and CACFP sponsoring organizations. 

Family day care homes were not contacted for the assessment. 

Data Collected from FNS 

FNS provided administrative data on FDCHs and meal reimbursements for PY2010 and PY2013 

from its National Data Bank. As noted, the PY2010 counts of FDCHs by State were used as the 

measure of size (MOS) for selecting States for three years; more recent data would have given a 

better MOS but were not available at the time of sampling. However, appropriate data for the PY 

were used later as the control totals to adjust the sampling weights. 

The PY2013 data on meal reimbursements from the National Databank were used to determine 

State-level percentages of meals in Tier II homes that were reimbursed at Tier I rates. As noted 

above, Tier II homes may claim Tier I meals for children that have been certified as income-eligible. 

Thus, for misclassified Tier I homes, we cannot assume that all meals were reimbursed in error, 

because some children might individually qualify for the higher Tier I reimbursement if given the 

opportunity to apply. Lacking information about individual children in misclassified Tier I homes, 

we applied the State-level percentages of Tier I meals in Tier II FDCHs when estimating the 

number of meals reimbursed in error in homes misclassified as Tier I. The rationale for this 

methodology is further explained in detail in Section 4.3. In addition, PY2013 total meal counts 

were used in the estimation of total meals reimbursed in error (as described above). 

Data Collected from State Agencies 

The 14 selected States were asked to provide two types of data for the assessment: a list of CACFP 

sponsors in their State, and the "State list of schools" which is provided to CACFP sponsors for the 

purpose of determining FDCH eligibility for Tier I. The data request was mailed to State agencies in 

August 2013. 
2-12 

Lists of Sponsors 

States were asked to provide a list of CACFP sponsors of family day care homes to serve as the 

frame for sampling sponsors. The requested elements of the list included sponsor name, address, 

telephone number, and number of Tier I and Tier II homes. The total number of sponsors per State 

ranged from 3 to 82. Four States had 8 or fewer sponsors, six States had 15 to 23 sponsors, and four 

States had 28 or more sponsors. After data were received from State agencies, the second stage of 

sampling was conducted to select 56 sponsors for the assessment. 

State List of Schools 

State CACFP agencies are required to provide to sponsors, by February 15 of each year, a list of 

schools in the State with each school’s percentage of students approved for free or reduced-price 

(F/RP) meals. We requested this list for each school year from 2008-09 through 2012-13 (5 years). 

The submitted school lists had the following characteristics: 

 10 of the 14 States provided these lists in electronic data files suitable for matching. The 

other 4 States provided the lists in unstructured PDF or Word files that needed to be 

converted into data files suitable for matching. 

 10 of the states included district ID and school ID numbers which made matching of 

the schools with the CCD file significantly less time consuming and more accurate. The 

other 4 states required matching by name alone which was problematic because names 

were often spelled differently and/or changed in the five school years covered by the 

assessment. 

 8 states provided lists of schools with FR/P percentages and included schools both 

above and below the 50 percent cutoff, 6 states provided a list that includes only 

schools that met the F/RP requirement. 

For each State, the five lists (one for each year 2008-09 to 2012-13) were merged into a single list of 

schools active at any time over the past five years, with an indication of whether or not the school 

met F/RP requirements for each year. 

Data Collected from CACFP Sponsoring Organizations 

The 56 selected sponsors were contacted via Federal Express or regular mail (in instances where 

only a P.O. Box was provided) and recruited to participate in the assessment. In addition, state 

directors were asked to send an e-mail to selected sponsors encouraging participation. As discussed 

in the sampling section, they were asked at the time of recruitment to provide Westat with a list of 
2-13 

the homes that they sponsored, including, name, street address, city, state, zip code, Tier I/Tier II 

status, method used for tiering determination, and most recent tiering determination date for the 

home. After agreeing to participate, sponsors were contacted up to two additional times to provide 

information about the FDCHs that were sampled for the assessment: 

 Monthly meal counts for selected FDCHs. Sponsors were also asked to indicate 

whether or not a redetermination had been done during the Assessment period and, if 

so, to provide previous tiering information. 

 Copies of tiering determination documents for FDCHs not independently verified as 

Tier I through data matching. 

Table 2-3 indicates the number of requests and responses for each round of data collection from 

sponsors. Appendix B contains the data collection materials for each of the three contacts with 

sponsors. 

Table 2-3. Data collection from CACFP sponsors and response rates for 2013 Assessment 

Data Collection from CACFP Sponsors 

Number of 

Sponsors/ 

Contacts 

Number of 

Responses or 

Completes 

Response/ 

Completion Rate 

Sponsor mailing #1 – request list of 

FDCHs 56 56 100% 

Sponsor mailing #2 – request tiering dates and 

meal claims 56 56 100% 

Sponsor mailing #3 – request tiering documents 

No mailing – all FDCHs verified by data 

matching 18 NA 

Requested documents 38 38 100% 

FDCHs with documents requested 78 78 100%

Meal Counts and Tiering Dates for Selected FDCHs 

After sampling was complete, a second mailing to sponsors requested monthly counts of meals 

reimbursed for the reference period of August 2012 through July 2013. Monthly meal counts were 

requested as separate counts of breakfasts, lunches and suppers, and snacks, broken down between 

Tier I-eligible and Tier II-eligible meals. Counts of meals actually reimbursed by the sponsor were 

used. 
2-14 

If an FDCH in the primary sample was determined to be inactive (have no meal reimbursements) 

for the reference period of the assessment, the FDCH was replaced with a selection from the backup sample. As shown in Figure 2-2, 27 (3.9 percent) were replaced because they were inactive. 

Tier II FDCHs could have been reimbursed for meals at Tier I, Tier II, or both rates (concurrent 

Tier I and Tier II reimbursements), depending on whether some or all meals were served to Tier Ieligible children. In addition, Tier I FDCHs could have both Tier I and Tier II meal reimbursements 

during the data collection period if they had changed tiering status during the period.23 The 

distribution of FDCHs by types of meal reimbursements (as approved by sponsors) is shown in 

Table 2-4. 

Table 2-4. Number of sample FDCHs by type of meal reimbursements reported for 2013 

Assessment 

Type of Meal Claims 

Tier I FDCH Tier II FDCH 

Number Percent Number Percent 

Tier I claims only 557 97.2% 4 4.6%

Tier II claims only 0 0.0% 70 80.5%

Tier I and Tier II claims, concurrent 8 1.4% 12 13.8%

Tier I and Tier II claims, not concurrent 8 1.4% 1 1.1%

Total 573 100.0% 87 100.0% 

a “Concurrent” Tier I and Tier II claims occur when both Tier I and Tier II children are served in the same month. 

Source: 2013 CACFP Assessment of Sponsor Tiering Determinations. Data are unweighted. Claims were reported for August 2012 

through July 2013. 

Tiering Determination Documents for FDCHs Not Independently Verified 

A final round of data collection obtained information about tiering determinations for FDCHs that 

either were: 1) not verified as geographically eligible for Tier I through a match with school and 

Census data; or 2) Tier II FDCHs that appeared area-eligible for Tier I based on school or Census 

data. Information was requested for 70 Tier I and 8 Tier II FDCHs. The response rate for the final 

round of data collection was 100 percent, yielding a final sample of 660 eligible FDCHs. 

The final data request for copies of tiering documents was sent to sponsors after completion of the 

independent assessment of geographic eligibility, which is described in Chapter 3. Sponsors were 

asked to provide documents as specified below for FDCHs. Copies of the documentation on file 

 

23 Tier status was measured as of August 2013, the date when sponsors provided their list of FDCHs for sampling. 
2-15 

were requested for the most recent tiering determination prior to August 2013. This would include 

one or more of the following: 

 School data - boundary information and school F/RP percentage or other available 

school eligibility documentation included in the FDCH’s files 

 Census data - block group code and percentage of children in households with income 

at or below 185% of poverty 

 Household income or categorical eligibility information – Income Eligibility Statement 

listing household members and their income, and/or information about participation in 

programs that confer categorical eligibility. Also copies of documents used to verify Tier 

I income eligibility, such as wage stubs, income tax forms, or benefits letters. 

Information about the types of documentation provided by sponsors is provided in Chapter 3. 
3-1 

The purpose of this Assessment was to identify FDCHs that were misclassified as Tier I or Tier II, 

and estimate erroneous payments due to misclassifications. This chapter describes the detailed 

methodology for using the information collected (as described in the previous chapter) to verify 

sponsor tiering determinations. The chapter also presents the tiering determination results for the 

unweighted study sample. We defer until the next chapter the presentation of results weighted up to 

represent national totals. 

As shown in Figure 2-1, the first step in the assessment was to independently verify geographic 

eligibility for Tier I by matching FDCH address information with school and Census data. If needed, 

school district contacts were then used in a further attempt to independently verify Tier I eligibility. 

These steps independently verified sponsor tiering determinations for 87.8 percent of sampled Tier I 

FDCHs. 

FDCHs not verified through data matching were assessed by reviewing sponsors' documentation of 

tiering determinations. Sponsor documents confirmed the sponsors' determinations for an additional 

8.3 percent of sampled Tier I FDCHs and 7.7 percent of sampled Tier II FDCHs. There were 21 

misclassified Tier I FDCHs; there was one misclassified Tier II FDCH. Thus, the unweighted 

misclassification rates for the sample were 3.7 percent for Tier I; 1.1 percent for Tier II; and 3.3 

percent overall. 

Below, we explain how these results were obtained and provide additional unweighted sample 

statistics for the assessment. Readers are cautioned that these unweighted results are provided for 

descriptive purposes, not as national estimates. National estimates of key measures and their 

confidence intervals are provided in Chapter 4. 

3.1 Independent Verification of Geographic Eligibility for Tier 

The first step in assessing geographic eligibility was to geocode FDCH addresses to obtain latitude 

and longitude coordinates, and Census block group (CBG) code. This step is depicted at the top of 

Figure 2-1. Geocoding was accomplished using Westat’s in-house geocoding process. Thirteen 

Methodology and Results of Assessment of 

Sponsor Tiering Determinations 3 
3-2 

FDCH addresses could not be geocoded to street address because the address contained a post 

office box, did not have a specific street number, or there was a data entry error in recording the 

address. Sponsors were able to provide supplemental address information for all of these FDCHs so 

that they could be included in the verification process. 

After geocoding was complete, the "Census match" involved a simple merge of FDCHs with 

Census data by CBG code.24 In February 2012 and February 2013, FNS released Census block group 

poverty tabulations based on the Census Bureau’s annual release of American Community Survey 

(ACS) data at the block group level. The CBG eligibility was based on the Census 2000 data for 

tiering dates before February 2012, was based on the Census 2006-2010 ACS data for tiering dates 

between March 2012 and February 2013, and was based on the Census 2007-2011 ACS data for 

tiering dates after March 2013. For tiering dates in the month of February 2012 or February 2013, 

CBG eligibility was based on either old or new Census data (since tiering determinations may have 

been in progress when the data was released). 

The school match was more complicated because there are no readily available databases identifying 

school attendance areas and is described in detail below. The steps in the school match were (1) 

identify the school district where the FDCH was located; (2) within the school district, identify the 

schools nearest to the FDCH; and (3) determine if all, some, or none of the nearest schools were 

area-eligible for Tier I, i.e., they had at least 50 percent of children eligible for F/RP meals. If all of 

the nearest schools (all 3 of the nearest elementary schools for the old rule; either all 3 elementary 

schools or both of the nearest schools for any specific secondary grade for the new rule) were areaeligible for Tier I, or if the CBG was area-eligible, then the FDCH was verified as Tier I by the data 

matching process. 

School Match Process 

The school match required several sources of information. To identify school district jurisdictions, 

FDCH locations were mapped with geographic information system (GIS) software using the latitude 

and longitude coordinates obtained from the geocoding process.25 School district boundary 

 

24 FNS provides the Special Tabulation of Census Block Groups for CACFP, prepared by the US Bureau of Census. For each CBG, the file contains the 

state, county, Census tract, and Census block group FIPS codes and the percentage of children under age 13 in households with income below 185 

percent of the FPL. 

25 ArcGIS version 10.2 and PostGIS 2.0 were used for this Assessment. 
3-3 

information was obtained from the US Bureau of Census and also mapped in GIS software.26 The 

school district boundaries were overlaid on FDCH locations to identify the school district where 

each FDCH was located. Some states have different school districts for elementary and secondary 

levels and two school districts were assigned to FDCHs in these states. Of the 14 states in this 

assessment, two had elementary and secondary districts, or a mix of elementary, secondary and 

unified districts. 

After identifying the school districts containing FDCHs in the assessment sample, we assembled a 

list of public schools in those districts. Two sources of information were used to construct the list of 

schools: 

 US Department of Education, Common Core of Data (CCD) Public 

Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey: School Year 2011-12. 

 State lists of schools provided to the CACFP, with F/RP percentage, for each school 

year from SY2008-09 to SY2012-13. 

The CCD file provides a master list of all schools in the nation with information on grade level, 

whether the school is a charter or magnet school, and latitude and longitude coordinates. Only 

schools with a grade in the 1-12 range were included (PK-K only schools were dropped because 

they are not included in the basis for eligibility). Magnet and charter schools do not have defined 

boundary areas, so they were also dropped. 

The State lists of schools either contained a list of all schools with the F/RP percentages needed to 

determine CACFP area eligibility for each school or only included schools that meet the F/RP 

percentage requirement. Because Tier I area eligibility based on school data is effective for 5 years, 

State school lists were obtained for the past 5 school years. The CCD and State lists of schools were 

combined to create a single master list of schools with latitude, longitude, and F/RP eligibility flags 

for each of the past five years. 

The school match identified up to three nearest elementary schools and up to two additional 

secondary schools for each grade for each FDCH within the school district(s) where the FDCH was 

located.27 This was accomplished by calculating the distance from each FDCH to every school in the 

district(s), and then assigning the nearest schools until the required number of schools were assigned 

 

26 US Bureau of Census, Geography Division„ 2012 TIGER/LINE Shapefiles. Available at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/geo/shapefiles2012/main. 

Accessed November 2013. 

27 Fewer than three elementary schools or two secondary schools were identified if the school district had fewer than target number of schools for that 

grade level. 
3-4 

or there were no more schools at that grade level in the school district. The school match used the 

CCD list of schools active in SY2011-12 matched with eligibility information for all five years.28 For 

the initial match, eligibility for Tier I (as of the tiering date provided by the sponsor) was determined 

based on schools' percentages of children eligible for F/RP meals for that school year. 

Categorizing the Outcomes of the School and Census Match 

FDCHs were categorized according to the results of the school and Census match. CACFP program 

guidance specifies that school data should be used to determine geographic eligibility for Tier I when 

available, but Census data may be used in several circumstances.29 For this assessment, both types of 

data were used to confirm Tier I eligibility, as was done for the previous assessments. 

The categories of match outcomes are shown in the flowchart in Figure 2-1 and described in Table 

3-1. The school match was conclusive if the school data indicated that all of the nearest schools were 

area-eligible. If the school match indicated that "some" or "none" of the nearest schools were areaeligible, then additional steps were taken to confirm the FDCHs eligibility for Tier I. 

Table 3-1. Categorizing the outcomes of the school and census match 

School Match Result 

Census Block 

Group Area 

Eligibility Outcome 

All nearest schools area-eligible Yes Tier I verified by school and Census data

All nearest schools area-eligible No Tier I verified by school data only 

Some nearest schools area-eligible Yes or No School district contacted via website or 

phone to identify the school attendance 

areas for each grade level for the FDCH. If 

Tier I eligibility is not verified, documentation 

requested from sponsor. 

None of the nearest schools areaeligible Yes Tier I verified by Census data only 

None of the nearest schools areaeligible 

No Documentation requested from sponsor.

If some of the nearest schools were area-eligible in the school match, then we used one of two 

methods to identify the school attendance area for the FDCH: district website searches and school 

 

28 If Tier I eligibility was based on a school that closed before SY 2011-12 and, thus, was not included in the CCD for SY 2011-12, eligibility was 

checked by contacting the school district. 

29 Census data may be used when: a) the FDCH is located in the attendance area of a school in which 40 to 49 percent of children are eligible for free 

or reduced-price meals; b) the school district has a school choice policy or the FDCH is located in the attendance area of a school whose population 

is affected by busing; or c) the school attendance area is geographically large and obscures smaller pockets of poverty. (Source: FNS CACFP Policy 

Memorandum 08-2007, .June 15, 2007.) 
3-5 

district contacts. Tier I was verified if the school attendance area had at least 50 percent of students 

eligible for F/RP meals in the school year corresponding to the FDCH’s most recent tiering 

determination. Tier I FDCHs not verified as eligible proceeded to the request for documentation of 

the sponsor's tiering determination. 

Table 3-2 presents the results of the school and Census data match. FDCHs were categorized into 

three groups, based on these results. Group 1 comprised the FDCHs that were verified as Tier I by 

Census, the school match, or both; this group included 453 Tier I FDCHs and 2 Tier II FDCHs. 

Groups 2 and 3 in Table 3-2 comprised the FDCHs that were not verified by the school and Census 

data matching. These FDCHs required further steps in the assessment process. 

For Group 2 (91 FDCHs), school district contacts were required to determine the attendance area 

because some, but not all, of the nearest schools were area-eligible. School district contacts were able 

to confirm the tiering status for 50 of the 72 Tier I FDCHs. They also identified 6 FDCHs that may 

have incorrectly been made Tier II. The remaining 70 Tier I FDCHs are in Group 3. Their tiering 

determination could not be independently verified because the above procedures did not identify 

that the CBG or school boundary qualified for Tier I. These FDCHs that sponsors claimed as Tier 

I required sponsor documentation. The 6 possibly incorrect Tier II, along with the 2 Tier II FDCHs 

that appeared to be school eligible among Group 1, were also included in Group 3. 

Table 3-2. Results of tiering verification by data matching 

Tier I FDCHs Tier II FDCHs Total 

Number Percent Number Percent Number 

Total FDCHs 573 100.0% 87 100.0% 660 

Group 1: 

 Verified as Tier I by schools and Census 200 34.9% 0 0.0% 200 

 Verified as Tier I by schools only 193 33.7% 2 2.3% 195 

 Verified as Tier I by Census only 60 10.5% 0 0.0% 60 

Total - verified as Tier I by data match 453 79.1% 2 2.3% 455 

Group 2: 

School district contact required 72 12.6% 19 21.8% 91 

 Verified as Tier I by school district contact 50 8.7% 6 6.9% 56 

Group 3: 

Unable to verify Tier with data matching 70 12.2% 8 9.2% 78 

Source: 2013 CACFP Assessment of Sponsor Tiering Determinations. Data are unweighted. 
3-6 

The results of all independent verification attempts including data matching and school district 

contacts are shown in Table 3-3. A total of 503 Tier I FDCHs were independently verified, so 

sponsor documentation was not needed for 87.8 percent of the Tier I sample. This left 70 Tier I 

FDCHs that were not independently verified and required sponsor documentation. 

Independent verification identified 8 Tier II FDCHs that may have been misclassified (9.2 percent). 

In total sponsors were asked about 78 FDCHs (70 Tier I and 8 Tier II). Documentation review 

procedures and results are presented in the next section. 

Table 3-3. Final status of FDCHs after data matching and school district contacts 

Tier I FDCHs Tier II FDCHs Total 

Number Percent Number Percent Number 

Eligible for Tier I by schools or Census 503 87.8% 8 9.2% 511 

Not eligible for Tier I by schools or Census 70 12.2% 79 90.8% 149 

Total 573 100.0% 87 100.0% 660 

Source: 2013 CACFP Assessment of Sponsor Tiering Determinations. Data are unweighted. 

3.2 Verifying Tiering Eligibility Through Review of Sponsor 

Documents 

The school and Census matches streamlined the process of assessing sponsor tiering determinations 

for FDCHs that were geographically eligible for Tier I. All FDCHs with a sponsor-approved Tier I 

status not verified by the data matches and school district contacts were assessed by reviewing 

sponsor documentation from the most recent tiering determination. We also reviewed sponsor 

documentation for Tier II FDCHs that appeared area-eligible based on school or Census data. 

This section describes the request for tiering determination documents, the document review 

process, and the algorithms for assessing the tiering determination. Following this description, the 

results of the document review are presented. 

Request for Tiering Determination Documents 

For 78 FDCHs, Westat requested copies of the documentation on file for the most recent tiering 

determination prior to August 1, 2013. 
3-7 

This documentation included one or more of the following: 

 School data - boundary information and school F/RP percentage or other available 

school eligibility documentation included in the file for the FDCH; 

 Census data - block group code and percentage of children in households with income 

at or below 185% of poverty; 

 Household income or categorical eligibility information - (a) Income Eligibility 

Statement (IES) listing household members and their income, and/or information 

about participation in programs that confer categorical eligibility; and (b) copies of 

documents used to verify Tier I income eligibility, such as wage stubs, income tax 

forms, or benefits letters. 

For the assessment, sponsors were asked to complete a fact sheet that was preprinted with the 

names of FDCHs that required documentation. For Tier I FDCHs, they were instructed to indicate 

the method of tiering used most recently before August 2013; to indicate whether or not a 

redetermination had been done between August 1, 2012 and July 31, 2013; and to attach copies of 

documents from their files. 

For Tier II FDCHs, sponsors were instructed to provide the schools whose attendance areas include 

the FDCH, to indicate whether or not a redetermination had been done from September 2007 

through June 2013; and to provide copies of all documents associated with all tiering determinations. 

Document Review Process 

Documentation was obtained for all 70 Tier I FDCHs for which documentation was requested. 

Information from the fact sheets was used to identify the detailed documents to be reviewed. All 

documentation was reviewed by senior project staff to determine whether the information provided 

confirmed the sponsor's determination. In those instances where there were questions or concerns, 

the project director made the final determination of whether the documentation confirmed that the 

FDCHs were correctly classified. 

Similarly, documentation or an explanation from the sponsor if documentation was not available 

was provided for all 8 Tier II FDCHs for which we requested it. 
3-8 

Algorithms for Assessing Tiering Determinations Using Sponsor Documents 

The purpose of the tiering assessment algorithms was to confirm that the sponsor's tiering 

determination was correct and consistent with the FNS rules applicable to determinations made on 

that basis (geographic, program, or income). The following general rules were used to confirm 

tiering determinations: 

 Documentation required for the type of eligibility (geographic, program, or income) 

must be present; 

 Documentation must meet FNS standards for the information provided (e.g., signature 

provided when required); and 

 Documentation must be consistent with the eligibility determination by the sponsor 

(e.g., documented income is 185 percent of the FPG or less). 

Separate algorithms were used for each type of determination supported by documents provided by 

sponsors: school, Census, program certification, and provider income. 

The algorithm for assessing determinations based on school documents required all of the 

following conditions to confirm Tier I eligibility: 

1) Valid documentation that the FDCH was located in the attendance area of the identified 

school: 

 a document was provided for the school attendance area (school boundary map, page 

from school directory, Web site printout, letter from school official, or memorandum to 

file from contact with school official); 

 the document was dated after June 1, 2008; 

 FDCH address was identified on the document (not needed if the document was a 

memorandum to the file); and 

 the document was signed (only needed if the document was a letter from a school 

official or a memorandum to the file). 

2) Valid documentation of area-eligibility for the school identified: 

 a document was provided for the school F/RP percentage (copy of State school list, 

printout from a State Web site, or letter from a school official); 

 the document was dated after June 1, 2008; and 
3-9 

 if the document was a letter from a school official, it was signed. 

This algorithm identified procedural errors, i.e., instances when the sponsor did not provide 

sufficient valid documentation to verify the Tier I eligibility of the FDCH. The existence of a 

procedural error was not sufficient to find that the FDCH was actually misclassified. A sponsor 

could make a correct determination but fail to provide adequate documentation. In keeping with the 

basic rules of the assessment, therefore, we used the information provided by the sponsor with other 

resources in an attempt to independently verify the Tier I eligibility of FDCHs with procedural 

errors in determinations based on school documents. 

 If the school attendance documentation provided by the sponsor lacked sufficient detail 

to locate the FDCH in the attendance area of the identified school, online resources 

such as Google Maps and school district web sites, as well as notes from any previous 

school district contact, were used to verify the location of the FDCH and to determine 

the correct school attendance area. 

 If the sponsor did not provide documentation of area-eligibility for the identified 

school, we independently verified eligibility using the date of the determination and a 

copy of the State school list. 

The algorithm for assessing determinations based on Census documents required all of the 

following conditions to confirm Tier I eligibility: 

 the CBG code was provided; 

 a document was provided indicating that the FDCH address was in the CBG; 

 the address on the document corresponded to the FDCH address provided by the 

sponsor; and 

 a document was provided showing, the percentage of children in households with 

income less than or equal to 185% of the FPG for the CBG. 

The algorithm for assessing determinations based on means-tested program certification 

documents required all of the following, conditions to confirm Tier I eligibility: 

1) Provider submitted a valid Income Eligibility Statement (IES): 

 the provider name and address on the IES matched our files; 

 the IES was signed by the provider; 

 the date of signing of IES was between July 31, 2012 and July 31, 2013; 
3-10 

 a Social Security Number (SSN) was provided, or the provider indicated that she did not 

have a SSN; and 

 the program indicated on IES was Food Stamps, TANF, or other program accepted for 

provider eligibility for Tier I in the State. 

2) Provider submitted valid documentation of current eligibility for the program indicated on 

the IES: 

 the document was a certification letter or other document acceptable under FNS 

guidance; and 

 the date of the document indicated current eligibility as of the date of the IES. 

There were two algorithms for assessing determinations based on provider income, depending on 

whether a tax return (i.e., an Internal Revenue Service Form 1040) or other documents were 

provided. Both algorithms required the following conditions to confirm Tier I eligibility: 

 provider submitted an IES; 

 provider name and address on the IES matched our files; 

 IES was signed by provider; 

 date of signing of IES was between July 31, 2012 and July 31, 2013; 

 Social Security Number (SSN) was provided or provider indicated that she did not have 

a SSN; 

 total income on the IES was greater than zero and equal to or less than 185 percent of 

the FPG for the household size indicated on the IES.30

For determinations based on a Form 1040, the algorithm also required the following: 

 gross income on the Form 1040 was equal to or less than 185 percent of the FPG for 

the household size indicated on the IES31

 all adults listed on the IES were listed on the Form 1040, or else had other acceptable 

income documentation. 

 

30 Under FNS guidance, a provider reporting zero gross household income may be approved for Tier I for 45 days, as long as the provider explains 

how household expenses are met. The number of months of reimbursements after Tier I determination was checked to ensure that none of the 

providers was operating under a temporary approval when sampled. 

31 In computing gross income for this test, a negative amount for business income was changed to a zero, consistent with FNS policy. Income that is 

tax-exempt but reported on the IRS 1040 was counted in gross income according to FNS policy. 
3-11 

For determinations based on other income documentation, the algorithm required determining that 

valid documentation was provided for each item of income reported on the IES. The standard IES 

format requires separate reporting of each type of income (earnings, Social Security/pension, child 

support, other) for each household member. The algorithm required the following conditions to 

confirm Tier I eligibility (in addition to the IES criteria): 

 acceptable documentation for each item of income reported on the IES (dated, thirdparty source or supported by receipts or sworn statement); 

 total income on all documents was equal to or less than 185 percent of the FPG for the 

household size indicated on the IES. 

To make this determination, the reviewer used the following procedure: 

 Identify all persons in the household with reported income; 

 For each person, determine the items of income reported; 

 For each reported item of income, determine if an acceptable document was provided; 

 For each item of documentation, review the amount of income and how frequently it 

was received. 

This information was used to compute the total household income and percentage of the FPG 

indicated by the documentation. 

For determinations based on income documentation other than IRS Form 1040, the algorithm had 

two specific requirements regarding income from family day care, following FNS policy. First, the 

provider had to report income from family day care, or else indicate that this self-employment 

resulted in a loss or no net income. Under FNS policy, receipt of payment for day care services is 

not a requirement for CACFP participation, but even zero income from day care must be declared 

on the IES.32 Second, a statement of provider income and expenses other than an IRS Schedule C 

was accepted only if the statement was prepared by a third party, if receipts were provided, or if the 

documentation indicated that the sponsor had verified the statement. The provider's ledger of 

payments for day care was considered acceptable, but a statement affirming that receipts for 

expenses were available upon request was not accepted in lieu of copies of the receipts (unless there 

was indication that the sponsor had reviewed the receipts). If receipts for expenses were not 

 

32 If a provider reports zero income from day care, other household income must be reported and documented (except in the case of 45-day approvals 

as previously discussed). 
3-12 

provided, Tier I eligibility was evaluated on the basis of the provider's gross revenues from day care 

and other income. 

3.3 Final Results of Assessment of Sponsor Tiering 

Determinations 

Below, we present the results of the documentation review for FDCHs, a summary of the sources of 

misclassification, and the overall results for the study sample. 

Documentation Review Results for Tier I FDCHs 

The results of the documentation review for the Tier I FDCHs in the sample are shown in Tables 3-

4 and 3-5 together with the results of the independent verification with school and Census data. A 

total of 49 Tier I FDCHs were verified with sponsor documents. 

As with previous Assessments, income documents were the most common form of documentation, 

they were used to verify 22 of 35 FDCHs. Other forms of eligibility documentation were less 

common. Documentation of geographic (school or census) eligibility was provided for 28 Tier I 

FDCHs, of which 20 were verified. Program certification documents were provided for seven Tier I 

FDCHs, all of which were verified. 
3-13 

Table 3-4. Tier I verification results by source of determination 

Source of Determination 

Number of 

FDCHS 

Percent of FDCHs 

in Tier 

Independently Verified by Area-Eligibility 

 Verified as Tier I by schools and Census 200 34.9% 

 Verified as Tier I by schools only 193 33.7% 

 Verified as Tier I by school district contact 50 8.7% 

 Verified as Tier I by Census only 60 10.5% 

Subtotal: Independently verified by area-eligibility 503 87.8% 

Verified by Sponsor Documents 

 Verified by area-eligibility documents 20 3.5% 

 Verified by program certification documents 7 1.2% 

 Verified by income documents 22 3.8% 

Subtotal: Verified by sponsor documents 49 8.6% 

Total Tier 1 Verified 552 96.3% 

Misclassified Tier Ia 21 3.7% 

All Tier 1 573 100.0% 

Notes: 

a Tier I FDCHs were considered misclassified if they could not be independently verified as Tier I and the sponsor provided 

documentation that did not support Tier I eligibility. 

Source: 2013 CACFP Assessment of Sponsor Tiering Determinations. Data are unweighted. 

Table 3-5. Sources of Tier I misclassification 

Source of 

Determination Number of Misclassified FDCHs Total with this Sourcea Errors as % of FDCHs with this Source School 6 23 26.1%

Census 2 5 40.0%

Program 0 7 0%

Income 13 35 37.1%

Totals 21 70 30.0%

a The source of determination for Tier I FDCHs claimed in the documentation provided by sponsors in response to Mailing #3. 

Source: 2013 CACFP Assessment of Sponsor Tiering Determinations. Data are unweighted. 

Documentation Review Results for Tier II FDCHs 

There were eight Tier II FDCHs that, after the initial match with school and Census data, appeared 

to be possibly eligible for Tier I by school only. However, upon review of the documentation 

submitted by the sponsors, seven were verified as Tier II. 
3-14 

Final Overall Results for the Sample 

Combining the results for Tier I and Tier II, Table 3-6 shows the assessment confirmed sponsor 

tiering determinations for 648 FDCHs (98.2%). There were 21 misclassified Tier I FDCHs and one 

misclassified Tier II FDCH. 

These are unweighted estimates. Estimates of national misclassification rates are presented in 

Chapter 4, along with estimates of the impacts of misclassification errors: the number and 

percentage of meals reimbursed at the wrong tier, and the erroneous payments (total and 

percentages of reimbursements). 

Table 3-6. Overall verification results 

Outcome Number of FDCHs % of All FDCHs Total FDCHs verified 638 96.7%

Tier I FDCHs misclassified 21 3.2%

Tier II FDCHs misclassified 1 0.2%

Total FDCHs misclassified 22 3.3%

Total FDCHs in sample 660 100.0%

Source: Unweighted estimates from 2013 sample data. 

In conducting this assessment, we noticed that while 92 of the 660 sampled Tier I FDCHs were 

determined by sponsors to be eligible based on income or program participation, 50 of them were 

also eligible by geography. That means that over half (54%) of the annual tiering workload sponsors 

spend on income and program verification could be eliminated if they were to initially review for 

geographic eligibility. This finding is consistent with that of the 2012 Assessment, when almost twothirds of the annual tiering workload could be reduced. This suggestion on how sponsors could 

reduce their time spent on tiering, while simultaneously improving accuracy, should be 

communicated by FNS and through the sponsors’ associations. 
4-1 

In this chapter, we present the national estimates of the key measures for the CACFP Assessment of 

Sponsor Tiering Determinations for 2013: 

 Number and percentage of FDCHs misclassified by sponsors 

 Number and percentage of meals reimbursed in error due to misclassification of 

FDCHs 

 Amount and percentage of reimbursements paid in error due to misclassification of 

FDCHs (overpayments and underpayments) 

These national estimates were computed using the sample data presented in Chapter 3 and the 

adjusted sampling weights described in Chapter 2. For each of these estimates, we also present the 

lower and upper limits of the 90 percent confidence intervals, taking into account the sampling 

design. Appendix A provides further details on our estimation procedures. 

4.1 National Totals for CACFP FDCHs 

To provide context for the estimates in this chapter, Table 4-1 provides the total number of homes, 

number of meals, and reimbursements for the contiguous U.S. in PY2013, by tier and overall. 

(Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands are excluded because they were not in 

the sampling universe for the assessment.) All data in Table 4-1 are actual national totals obtained 

from State reports collected and summarized in the FNS National Data Bank (NDB).33

In PY2013, within the continental U.S., a total of 103,050 Tier I FDCHs served 470 million meals, 

and an additional 19,967 Tier II FDCHs served 81 million meals. Total reimbursements were $710.3 

million for Tier I FDCHs and $66.9 million for Tier II FDCHs. 

 

33 The 2005-2007 Assessments based all national estimates on weighted sample data. Starting with the 2008 Assessment, the known national totals 

from the NDB are provided, and estimates from sample data have been adjusted to conform as closely as practical to known national totals. See 

Appendix A for details on these adjustments. 

National Estimates of Misclassification 

Errors and Costs 4 
4-2 

Table 4-1. Contiguous United States FDCH totals for PY2013 

Tier I Tier II 

Number of FDCHs 103,050 19,967 

Number of meals 470 million 81 million 

Reimbursements $710.3 million $66.9 million 

Source: FNS National Data Bank totals for contiguous US (sample universe for the assessment). 

4.2 National Estimates of Misclassification Errors 

Our national estimates of misclassification rates for FDCHs in 2013 are 2.98 percent for Tier I and 

1.22 percent for Tier II, resulting in an overall rate of 2.72 percent of all FDCHs misclassified due to 

sponsor tiering determination errors. These misclassification rates and their 90 percent confidence 

intervals are shown in Table 4-2, which also presents estimates of the number of misclassified 

FDCHs by tier and the total overall number of misclassified FDCHs. Given the total number of 

FDCHs, this misclassification rate implies that 3,114 Tier I FDCHs and 229 Tier II FDCHs were 

misclassified. 

Table 4-2. Estimated misclassification rates of FDCHs by tiering status in PY2013 

Tier as Determined by 

Sponsor 

Percentage of FDCHs Misclassified 

(90% Confidence Interval) 

Number of FDCHs Misclassified 

(90% Confidence Interval) 

Tier I 2.98% 

(1.79% to 4.93%) 

3,114 

(1,870 to 5,144) 

Tier II 1.22% 

(0.25% to 5.67%) 

229 

(48 to 1,060) 

All 2.72% 

(1.62% to 4.53%) 

3,342 

(1,990 to 5,570) 

Source: Weighted estimates from 2013 sample data. 

A different misclassification rate can be obtained by defining a misclassified FDCH as a home with 

misclassified meals. This misclassification rate used to be slightly smaller than the rates shown in 

Table 4-2 but this time, there is no difference. A small difference can happen if FDCHs having a 

tiering error but no meals claimed for the months when the tiering error occurred, or if it was a Tier 

I misclassified as a Tier II that already claimed all meals at the higher Tier I reimbursement level. 

This happened in 2012 but not this time. 
4-3 

4.3 National Estimates of Meals Reimbursed in Error Due to 

Misclassification of FDCHs 

For misclassified FDCHs, the number of meals reimbursed in error is the difference between the 

number actually reimbursed at Tier I rates and the number that would have been reimbursed at Tier 

I rates if they had been correctly classified. Meals reimbursed at Tier I rates that should have been 

reimbursed at Tier II rates resulted in overpayments; meals reimbursed at Tier II rates that should 

have been reimbursed at Tier I rates resulted in underpayments. 

Estimation of Percentages of Meals Reimbursed at Incorrect Rate 

Recall that Tier II FDCHs may claim meals for eligible children at the Tier I rates. If a FDCH is 

classified as Tier II, parents can apply for free meals for their participating children, and the sponsor 

determines whether they are eligible. On average across the nation, 10 percent of Tier II FDCHs 

were classified as Tier II-high in PY2013, that is, all of the children they served were eligible for Tier 

I (high) rates; and 20 percent were classified as Tier II-mixed, because they served a mix of Tier I 

and Tier II children. 

It follows that when a FDCH is misclassified, not all of the meals served were reimbursed in error. 

For a FDCH misclassified as Tier I, meals served to children who would have been individually 

eligible for Tier I rates were not reimbursed at Tier I rates in error, but any meals served to children 

who would not have been individually eligible for Tier I rates were reimbursed at the incorrect (Tier 

I) rate. Conversely, for a FDCH misclassified as Tier II, any meals served to children deemed 

individually eligible for free meals were reimbursed at the correct rate, but, since all meals should 

have been reimbursed at Tier I rates, the meals for children not individually deemed eligible for free 

meals were reimbursed at the incorrect (Tier II) rates. 

For individual FDCHs misclassified as Tier I, we cannot determine the exact number of meals for 

which each FDCH was reimbursed in error. Because the FDCH was misclassified as Tier I, no 

applications for free meals were submitted by parents. Therefore, we cannot know the number of 

eligible children served by the FDCH and thus the number of meals that would have been correctly 

reimbursed at Tier I rates. 

To estimate the expected numbers of Tier I and Tier II meals for which FDCHs misclassified as 

Tier I would have been reimbursed if those FDCHs had been correctly classified, we used the 
4-4 

annual percent of Tier I meals served at Tier II FDCHs for the PY in each of the States in the 

sample. We assumed for each meal type (breakfasts, lunches or suppers, and snacks) that the 

percentage for the 12 months in that State for Tier II FDCHs provide the best predictor of the 

expected percentage of meals by tier for the FDCHs misclassified as Tier I. We estimated: 

i) The statewide proportion (denoted by ST_PR_m) of meals for a specified type of meal m in 

Tier II FDCHs that were reimbursed at the higher Tier I rate 

ii) The statewide proportion of meals for a specified type of meal in Tier II FDCHs that were 

reimbursed at the lower Tier II rate, which is one minus the proportion in i), that is 1 – 

ST_PR_m. 

The State percentages were obtained from PY 2013 meal counts in the FNS National Data Bank. 

These percentages are shown in Table 4-3. As the table shows, the percentages varied substantially 

across the States, thus the need to use separate State percentages in the computation. The national 

averages were 15.9 percent for breakfasts, 17.1 percent for lunches and suppers, and 16.3 percent for 

snacks. 

Table 4-3. Tier I share of meals by meal type at Tier II FDCHs by state, PY2013 

State Tier I Breakfasts Tier I Lunches/Dinners Tier I Snacks 

1 8.2% 8.3% 8.4% 

2 25.4% 34.7% 30.1% 

3 9.3% 9.6% 9.0% 

4 6.6% 6.7% 6.9% 

5 45.9% 67.0% 62.8% 

6 5.1% 5.7% 5.7% 

7 7.7% 7.2% 7.3% 

8 6.5% 9.2% 9.3% 

9 28.7% 29.2% 29.4% 

10 21.9% 24.9% 26.8% 

11 12.2% 15.4% 13.8% 

12 13.7% 14.8% 15.3% 

13 3.2% 4.8% 4.5% 

14 22.0% 23.8% 22.9% 

National Average 15.9% 17.1% 16.3% 

Source: FNS National Data Bank, as of March 2014. Actual averages computed for each State and Nation from aggregate data for PY

2013. National average excludes Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. 

To estimate the meal counts by tier and type that we would expect if the misclassified Tier I FDCHs 

had been correctly classified, we multiplied the State percentages for each meal type m by each 

FDCH’s total meals of that type as follows: 
4-5 

 EN_2m = AN_1m * (1 - ST_PR_m) 

where EN_2m is the expected count of Tier II meals for meal type m (if the Tier I FDCH had been 

correctly classified), and AN_1m is the actual counts of Tier I meals reimbursed for meal type m. So, 

EN_2m is the estimated number of meals reimbursed in error at the Tier I meal rate for meal type 

m.

34 

For FDCHs misclassified as Tier II, the computation of meals reimbursed in error was simpler. Had 

it not been misclassified, all meals reimbursed at Tier II rates would have been reimbursed at Tier I 

rates. Thus, the number of meals reimbursed in error equaled the number of meals reimbursed at 

Tier II rates. If we denote AN_2m as the actual counts of Tier II meals for meal type m, it is the 

number of meal type m meals reimbursed in error if the Tier II FDCH was misclassified. 

The above computations yield the number of meal type m meals (EN_2m) that should have been 

paid at Tier II rates but were not for the misclassified Tier I FDCHs and the number of meal type m

meals (AN_2m) that should have been paid at Tier I rates but were not for the misclassified Tier II 

FDCHs. 

The national percentages of meals reimbursed in error were computed using the weighted totals of 

meals reimbursed in error by FDCHs in the sample and the total of all meals reimbursed, by tier and 

overall. We then computed the percentage for each tier and overall, using the ratio of the estimated 

meals reimbursed in error to the estimated total meals. 

Table 4-4 presents national estimates of the number and percentage of meals claimed in error in 

PY2013. 

 

34 This example simplifies the actual computation slightly for exposition. The reimbursement rates effective for July 1, 2012 – June 30, 2013 applied to 

meals reimbursed for August 2012 through June 2013; the rates effective for July 1, 2013 – June 30, 2014 applied to July 2013 meals. Therefore, we 

computed the number of misclassified meals separately for these periods, so that the appropriate rates could be used in computing the cost of 

misclassification. 
4-6 

Table 4-4. National estimates of meals claimed in error, PY2013 

Tier as Determined by 

Sponsor 

Percentage of Meals Claimed in 

Error Due to Misclassification of 

FDCHs (90% CI) 

Millions of Meals Claimed in 

Error Due to Misclassification of 

FDCHs (90% CI) 

 Tier I 2.16% 

(1.01% to 3.25%) 

10.16 

(5.03 to 15.29) 

 Tier II 0.70%

(0.00% to 1.90%) 

0.56 

(0.00 to 1.54) 

 All 1.98%

(0.99% to 2.97%) 

10.73 

(5.51 to 15.95) 

Estimation of Total Meals Reimbursed in Error 

A ratio estimation procedure (Cochran, 1977 page 35) was used to estimate the total meals 

reimbursed in error. For each tier, we multiplied the percentage of meals paid at the incorrect tier 

rate (from sample data, as described above) by the actual national total count of meals (from FNS 

data) to estimate the total number of meals paid at the incorrect rate. We summed the Tier I and 

Tier II totals to estimate the overall total. To estimate the lower and upper limits for the 90 percent 

confidence interval of the total meals paid at the incorrect rate, the lower and upper limits of the 

percentages by tier were multiplied by the national totals. The 90 percent confidence intervals for 

the totals for all FDCHs were computed using the estimated variances of Tier I and Tier II totals. 

Further details of these computations are provided in Appendix A.35

Approximately 2 percent of meals were claimed at the incorrect reimbursement rate. This 

corresponded to 10.73 million meals in total, causing overpayments for 10.16 million meals and 

underpayments for 0.56 million meals. These estimates have substantial confidence intervals, e.g., 

from 5.03 million to 15.29 million meals for Tier I, from 0 to 1.54 million for Tier II, and from 5.51 

million to 15.95 million for overall. 

It is interesting to note that while the tiering determination error rate for Tier I FDCHs increased in 

PY2013 to 2.98 percent (Table 4-2) from 2.20 percent last year, the percentage of meals claimed in 

error dropped to 2.16 percent (Table 4-4) from 2.39 percent. This can occur when either smaller 

FDCHs are in error, or the errors only affect a few months of the year. 

 

35 These ratio estimates were superior to direct estimates of the totals from the sample data. As discussed in Appendix A, we determined that using 

sample data alone would result in underestimates of the totals, but that the sample-based percentages of meals reimbursed at the incorrect rate were 

valid and unbiased estimates. 
4-7 

4.4 Costs of Misclassification Errors 

The costs of misclassification errors (i.e., the erroneous payments) include overpayments to FDCHs 

misclassified as Tier I and underpayments to FDCHs misclassified as Tier II. For each meal 

reimbursed at the wrong rate due to misclassification, the cost equals the difference between the 

Tier I and Tier II rate. Overpayments represent costs to taxpayers, while underpayments represent 

costs to FDCH providers. For this assessment, we treat both overpayments and underpayments as 

costs when we compute the total cost of misclassification errors. As with the counts of meals 

reimbursed at the incorrect rate, we first estimated the percentages of reimbursements paid in error 

due to misclassification of FDCHs, and then we estimated the national total costs of 

misclassification error by applying that percentage to total costs based on the FNS National 

Databank. 

Estimation of Percentage of Reimbursements Paid in Error 

The amount of reimbursements paid in error was computed for each misclassified home in the 

sample, and then the weighted total of these amounts was computed. As previously discussed, the 

number of meals paid at the incorrect rate was computed separately for breakfasts, lunches and 

suppers, and snacks. Costs were summed across meal types to compute the total cost for each 

misclassified FDCH. The weighted total cost of misclassification errors was divided by the estimated 

total reimbursements to estimate the percentages of reimbursements paid in error, both by tier and 

overall. 

The estimated national costs of misclassification errors were 1.08 percent of reimbursements for 

Tier I FDCHs and 0.69 percent for Tier II FDCHs, resulting in an overall cost of 1.05 percent of 

reimbursements to all FDCHs (Table 4-5). The 90 percent confidence intervals for these estimates, 

as shown in Table 4-5, were plus or minus 0.55 percentage points for Tier I and between 0 and 1.89 

percent for Tier II;36 overall the 90 percent confidence interval was plus or minus 0.54 percentage 

points. Thus, overall estimates meet the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) standard, which 

requires 90 percent confidence intervals plus or minus 2.5 percentage points or less.37

 

36 The confidence interval for Tier II is not symmetric because the negative lower bound was truncated at zero. 

37 Office of Management and Budget Circular A-123. Appendix C, August 10, 2006. 
4-8 

Table 4-5. National estimates of the percentage of costs and total costs of misclassifications, 

PY2013 

Tier as Determined by 

Sponsor 

Percentage of Reimbursements 

Paid in Error Due to Misclassification 

of FDCHs (90% CI) 

Millions of $ in Reimbursements 

Paid in Error Due to 

Misclassification of FDCHs (90% CI) 

Tier I 1.08% 

(0.52% to 1.63%) 

$7.65 

($3.70 to $11.61) 

 Tier II 0.69% 

(0.00% to 1.89%) 

$0.46 

($0.00 to $1.26) 

 All 1.05% 

(0.51% to 1.59%) 

$8.18 

($3.99 to $12.37) 

Costs of misclassification were calculated separately for meals claimed in August 2012 thru June 

2013 and in July 2013 when new reimbursement rates took effect. These costs were then combined 

to produce the totals for the assessment period. 

For Tier I FDCHs, the percentage of reimbursement dollars paid in error was a half of the 2.16 

percent of meals reimbursed in error (given in Table 4-4). This difference is due to the fact that the 

overpayment is a fraction of the reimbursement for each meal reimbursed in error. For example, the 

Tier I rate for lunch or supper was $2.38 and the Tier II rate was $1.44 (using Aug 2012-Jun 2013 

rates, as shown in Table 1-1); thus the cost of a lunch or supper reimbursed at the wrong rate was 

$0.94, or about 40 percent of the Tier I rate. The ratio of the overpayment to the Tier I 

reimbursement varies by type of meal. 

Estimation of Total Costs of Misclassification of FDCHs 

For the total costs of misclassification, as for the total meals reimbursed in error, we used a ratio 

estimation procedure. For each tier, we multiplied the percentage of reimbursements paid in error 

(from sample data, as described above) by the national total reimbursements (from the NDB) to 

estimate the total cost of misclassification errors. We combined these totals to estimate the overall 

total. To estimate the lower and upper limits of the total costs of misclassification, the lower and 

upper limits of-the percentages by tier were multiplied by the national totals by tier. Further details 

of these computations are provided in Appendix A. 

The estimated national PY2013 costs of misclassification errors were $7.65 million for Tier I 

FDCHs and $0.46 million for Tier II FDCHs, resulting in a total cost (overpayments plus 
4-9 

underpayments) of $8.18 million for all FDCHs. The 90 percent confidence intervals for these 

estimates, as shown in Table 4-5, were from $3.70 million to $11.61 million for Tier I, from $0.00 

million to $1.26 million for Tier II, and $3.99 million to $12.37 million for all FDCHs. 

4.5 Comparison of Results with Estimates from Previous 

Assessments 

The 2013 Assessment is the ninth annual assessment of sponsor tiering determinations for CACFP 

FDCHs. Because of the interest in trends over time, in this section we compare the 2013 results 

with the results of previous assessments. 

Figure 4-1 compares the estimated misclassification as a percentage of total reimbursements to all 

FDCHs (i.e., the improper payment rate) for 2005 thru 2013. The estimate for 2013 is lower than 

estimate for 2012 and close to those for 2009 (the lowest in the time series). The fluctuations in 

estimates of misclassification errors for the nine years of assessments are consistent with what we 

would expect in the presence of sampling error. However, it must be recalled that the rules in effect 

for the 2011, 2012, and 2013 Assessments were different from those of the six previous 

Assessments. 

Similarly, the 2013 costs of misclassification shown in Figure 4-2 are consistent with those found in 

the previous assessments. The total cost of $8.2 million is relatively close to the lowest costs, $7.5 

million, found in the 2009 Assessment. 
4-10 

Figure 4-1. Estimated misclassification as a percentage of reimbursements: 2005 through 

2013 

Note: 2011old and 2011new refer to the Tier I eligibility criteria before, and after, the effective date of the HHFK Act of 

2010. 

Figure 4-2. Estimated cost of misclassification 2005 through 2013 ($million) 

Note: 2011old and 2011new refer to the Tier I eligibility criteria before, and after, the effective date of the HHFK Act of 

2010. 

1.80%

1.39% 1.55%

2.06%

0.99%

1.53%

1.72% 1.58%

1.09% 1.05%

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%

3.00%

3.50%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011old 2011new 2012 2013

Upper Bound Lower Bound Percentage

Percent Reimbursed

13.0

9.4

10.9

15.2

7.5

11.6

13.0 12.0

8.5 8.2

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011old 2011new 2012 2013

Millions of $

Upper Bound Lower Bound Estimated Cost
5-1 

This 2013 Assessment is intended to provide FNS with national estimates of the percentage of Child 

and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) family day care homes (FDCHs) that were misclassified as 

Tier I or Tier II in Program Year (PY) 2013, and the associated erroneous payments. During 

PY2013, there were 123,017 FDCHs participating in the CACFP in the contiguous United States 

(the sampling universe for the assessment), including 103,050 Tier I FDCHs and 19,967 Tier II 

FDCHs. Reimbursements to FDCHs totaled $777.2 million. Thus, even a relatively modest 

percentage of FDCHs misclassified would lead to millions of dollars in erroneous payments. 

5.1 Methods and Results 

For this assessment, we attempted to verify sponsors' determinations of tiering status for a sample 

of 660 FDCHs, selected from the lists of 56 sponsors located in 14 States. All of the FDCHs in the 

final sample received reimbursement for meals at some time between August 2012 and July 2013. 

We first attempted to independently verify Tier I eligibility for all sampled FDCHs using matches to 

school and Census data for the year in which tiering was most recently determined. Tier I FDCHs 

were verified without any additional data collection if all three of the nearest elementary schools (or 

nearest two secondary schools) were area-eligible (i.e., at least 50 percent of students were approved 

for F/RP meals), or if the FDCH was located in a Census Block Group (CBG) that was area-eligible 

(with at least 50 percent of children at or below 185 percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines, or 

FPG). If some but not all of the nearest schools were area-eligible, we contacted school districts or 

used their websites to determine the correct school attendance area for the FDCH, and then 

determined whether this school was area-eligible. Using these methods, we verified sponsors' 

determinations for 503 Tier I FDCHs, 87.8 percent of the Tier I sample. 

For Tier I FDCHs not verified through data matching we reviewed sponsors' documentation of 

tiering determinations. These documents confirmed the sponsors' determinations for 49 Tier I 

FDCHs. 

Conclusions 5 
5-2 

We verified 79 of the 87 Tier II FDCHs without contacting sponsors. After collecting 

documentation on the remaining 8 Tier II FDCHs, all but one were determined to be properly 

tiered. We identified 21 misclassified Tier I FDCHs and one misclassified Tier II FDCH. 

 

Using the survey weights, we estimated that, nationwide 2.98 percent of Tier I FDCHs and 1.22 

percent of Tier II FDCHs were misclassified in PY2013. As a result of these misclassifications, 2.16 

percent of meals served by Tier I FDCHs were reimbursed at the higher Tier I rate instead of the 

lower Tier II rate. This was partially off-set by 0.70 percent of meals that were reimbursed at the 

lower Tier II rate instead of Tier I. The estimated costs of misclassification errors were 

overpayments of $7.65 million to Tier I FDCHs and underpayments of $0.46 million to Tier II 

FDCHs. 

In total, we estimate that 3,342 FDCHs were misclassified and 10.73 million meals were reimbursed 

at the incorrect higher rate. 

The estimates of the cost of misclassification for 2013 are somewhat lower than the estimates for 

2012, still within the range of the estimates from prior assessments. The fluctuations in estimates of 

misclassification errors for the nine years of assessments are consistent with what we would expect 

in the presence of sampling error. 

5.2 Implications of the Assessment Process and Results 

This Assessment met FNS's requirements to provide estimates of misclassification rates for FDCHs 

in the CACFP and the resulting erroneous payments, within the standards of precision set by OMB. 

The 2013 Assessment produced results comparable to those of previous assessments. 

The Assessment confirms that the vast majority of tiering determinations –97 percent– were 

accurate. At the same time, the document review indicates that determinations based on income are 

more error-prone than other determinations, particularly income determinations without tax return 

documents. 

From our independent review of tiering qualification we found that over half (64 percent last year, 

54 percent this year) of FDCHs currently tiered based on income or program participation were also 

eligible based on geography. If sponsors were to check for geography before reviewing income or 
5-3 

program documentation they would likely approve the majority for a five year period, eliminating 

the requirement to conduct annual reviews. This would reduce the burden on sponsors and 

improve the accuracy of tiering determinations. 

Finally, in considering the implications of this Assessment, it is important to acknowledge that 

tiering determinations are only one of several potential causes of improper payments in the CACFP. 

If tiering determinations were the sole source of improper payments, the CACFP would fall below 

the IPIA's reporting threshold, which mandates reports for programs with improper payments that 

exceed both $10 million per year and 2.5 percent of total payments. The CACFP has several other 

potential sources of erroneous payments to FDCHs, including errors in determining eligibility of 

children in Tier II FDCHs for Tier I meals, meal claiming errors by providers, and meal claims 

processing errors by sponsors. Furthermore, this Assessment does not address erroneous payments 

to child care centers or adult day care programs. Thus, the estimates of this Assessment understate 

the full extent of improper payments in the CACFP. 
6-1 

Bernstein, L. S. and W.L. Hamilton, 2002. Sponsoring Organizations and the CACFP: 

Administrative Effects of Reimbursement Tiering. E-FAN-02-003. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC. 

Cochran, W. G., 1977. Sampling Techniques, Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York. 

Kish, L., 1965. Survey Sampling. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York. 

Logan, C., M. Woodford, and K.P. Srinath, 2010. Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) 

Assessment of Sponsor Tiering Determinations 2009. Project Officer, Fred Lesnett. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Research and Analysis, 

Alexandria, VA. 

Logan, C., M. Woodford, and K.P. Srinath, 2011. Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) 

Assessment of Sponsor Tiering Determinations 2010. Project Officer, Fred Lesnett. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Research and Analysis, 

Alexandria, VA. 

Marker, D.A., Dingwall, M., Stinchcomb, D., Lee, H., and Glantz, F., 2012. Child and Adult Care 

Food Program (CACFP): Assessment of Sponsor Tiering Determinations 2011. Project 

Officer, Fred Lesnett. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of 

Research and Analysis, Alexandria, VA. 

Marker, D.A., Dingwall, M., Stinchcomb, D., Lee, H., and Glantz, F., 2013. Child and Adult Care 

Food Program (CACFP): Assessment of Sponsor Tiering Determinations 2012. Project 

Officer, Chanchalat Chanhatasilpa. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 

Service, Office of Research and Analysis, Alexandria, VA. 

Newcombe, R.G., 1998. Two-sided Confidence Intervals for the single Proportion: Comparison of 

Seven Methods, Statistics in Medicine, vol. 17, pp. 857-872. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. The Child and Adult Care Food 

Program (CACFP): Eligibility Guidance for Family Day Care Homes, issued 1997 and 

subsequently revised. Hard copy provided by FNS. 

U.S. Bureau of Census, Geography Division, 2012 TIGER/LINE Shapefiles. Available at 

http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/geo/shapefiles2012/main. Accessed November 2013. 

U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 2006. Office of Management and Budget Circular 

A123. Appendix C. Issued August 10. 

References 6 
A-1 

Sampling, Weighting, and Estimation 

The base sampling weight of a FDCH is equal to the inverse of the probability of selection for the 

three-stage sampling design. Thus, those weights reflect the probability of selecting the state, the 

probability of selecting the sponsor (given that the state had been selected), and the probability of 

selecting the FDCH (from the sponsor’s list of FDCHs in the particular tier, given that the sponsor 

had been selected). The sampling method, called probability proportional to size (PPS), was used at 

the first and second stage of sampling to select respectively states and sponsors. The number of 

FDCHs was used as measure of size (MOS) for both stages. In the third stage FDCHs were selected 

by simple random sampling (SRS) within the combination of sponsor and tier. When the number of 

Tier II homes is very small compared to the Tier I, in a given sponsor, then the selection is done 

without stratifying by tier. More specifically, when stratification by tier within sponsor is present, the 

base sampling weight for FDCH ݉ in tier ݇ within sponsor ݆ in state ݅ can be written as: 

ݓ ௠௞௝௜ൌ ଵ

௙భ೔ൈ௙మ೔ೕൈ௙య೔ೕೖ೘

 (1) 

in which ݂ଵ௜ is the probability of selection for state ݅, ݂ଶ௜௝ is the probability of selection for sponsor ݆

(given that state ݅ has been selected), and ݂ଷ௜௝௞௠ is the probability of selection for FDCH ݉ in tier ݇

(given that sponsor ݆ in state ݅ has been selected). If there was no stratification by tier, then the 

subscript ݉ is redundant. 

A.1 Selection Probabilities for States 

The first stage sampling corresponds to the selection of states among the 48 contiguous continental 

states and the District of Columbia (DC) – hereafter “national” refers to these 48 states and DC. 

Every year 15 states are selected to be part of the survey. To reduce the overlap between samples 

over time, we decided to select 3-year sample (2011, 2012, and 2013) and allocate it annually to get 

15 states per year. 

Selection of the 3-year sample

For selecting a sample of 45 states, the probability of selection for a particular state is: 

ܲሺstate	݅	in	3	year	sampleሻ ൌ ସହൈሺNumber	of	FDCHs	in	state	௜ሻ

Total	number	of	FDCHs . (2) 

Where the numbers of FDCHs are from the FNS National Databank for PY2010, omitting from 

the total number in the denominator those states and territories that had been excluded from the 

sampling frame for this assessment (i.e., Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico). For 12 states, the 

number of FDCHs was large enough that their selection probability, according to formula (1), was 

Appendix A 
A-2 

greater than 1; those states were selected with certainty to be part of the 3-year sample. Some states 

were selected (hit) more than once, and therefore among the 49 states (including DC) in the frame, 

only 29 unique states were selected. 

Selection of the annual (1-year) sample

The 45 occurrences (hits) of the 29 states in the sample were assigned to one of the three years 

(2011, 2012, or 2013) using systematic sampling. The 3-year sample was sorted by state to ensure 

that the states selected at least 3 times are guaranteed to be in each of the 3 annual samples - they are 

certainty units for the annual samples. 

The final probability of selection for the annual sample is: 

݂ଵ௜ ൌ ܲሺstate	݅	in	annual	sampleሻ ൌ ܲሺstate	݅	in	3	year	sampleሻ ൈ

ଵ

ଷ

. (3) 

Three large states in terms of MOS were selected with certainty in each of the three annual samples. 

All the other states were selected with non-certainty for any given year. 

A.2 Selection Probabilities for Sponsors 

Let ݊௜ be the required number of sponsors to be selected in state	݅. In the past, a backup sample was 

selected in case of nonresponse to the survey by some selected sponsors. However, this had never 

happened, and therefore, backup sample was not selected in 2013. All sampled sponsors responded, 

and the backup sample was indeed not needed. However, information about how a backup sample 

was selected previously can be found in the reports for the past survey. 

For this stage of selection, the numbers of FDCHs came from the lists of sponsors provided by the 

states as of May or June 2013. The probability of selecting sponsor ݆ in the sponsor sample for state 

݅ is 

݂ଶ௜௝ ൌ ܲሺsponsor	݆	|	state	݅ሻ ൌ ௡೔ൈሺNumber	of	FDCHs	of	Sponsor	௝ሻ

Number	of	FDCHs	in	state	௜ . (4) 

where ݊௜ is the sample size. 

The sample size was fixed at 4 (i.e. ݊௜ ൌ 4) with an exception for large states, which were hit twice 

in state selection, and thus, given a double sample size (i.e. ݊௜ ൌ 8). In one state, there were only 

three sponsors in the sampling frame, all of which were selected with certainty. Some sponsors were 

selected with certainty due to their dominating size relative to the other sponsors in the same state, 

and some of them were selected twice so that their FDCH sample size was doubled. In total, 56 

unique sponsors were selected for the 2013 FNS Tiering sample, and all of them responded. 

Generally, the base sampling weights of each respondent is adjusted to account for nonrespondents 

to the survey. In this survey, however, no nonresponse adjustment to the weights was needed 

because all the sponsors responded to the survey. The correct sponsor weight is simply the inverse 

of (4) with sample size being the number of respondents. 
A-3 

A.3 Selection Probabilities for FDCHs 

At the third stage, for most sponsors a simple random sample (SRS) of 11 FDCHs was selected for 

each sponsor plus 5 backups for a total of 16 FDCHs per sponsor. For the sponsors selected twice 

because of their large size relatively to the others in a given state, 22 FDCHs were selected plus 10 

backups. For the state, where all three sponsors were selected with certainty, we deviated from this 

FDCH selection procedure and allocated the sample proportionally to the number of FDCHs and 

selected SRS sample of FDCHs. The allocated sample sizes were 20, 17, and 7, respectively, for the 

regular samples, and 10, 7, and 3 as backups. Unlike the sponsor selection, it was necessary to use 

the backups to compensate for ineligible (inactive or for other reasons) homes in many situations. 

We will use the term “screening” for filtering ineligible FDCHs from the sample. 

On the basis of the lists of FDCHs that the participating sponsors provided (as of August 2013), the 

number of FDCHs to be selected from the sponsor was further allocated between Tier I and Tier II 

in rough proportion to the sponsor’s numbers of FDCHs in the two tiers. For 22 sponsors in 11 

states, the fraction of FDCHs in Tier II was so small that no tier stratification was used, and no Tier 

II FDCHs were selected from them through random sampling. With those allocations as the sample 

sizes for the sponsors with tier stratification, at the third stage a simple random sample of FDCHs 

was selected from each combination of sponsor and tier. For a particular combination of sponsor 

ሺ݆ሻ and tier ሺ݇ሻ all FDCHs have the same probability of selection. For example, assume that a 

certain sponsor has 267 Tier I FDCHs and 50 Tier II FDCHs; the sample includes 9 Tier I FDCHs 

and 2 Tier II FDCHs. For this sponsor, the 9 FDCHs selected in Tier I have	݂ଷ௜௝ଵ௠ ൌ 9 267 ⁄ , and 

the 2 FDCHs selected in Tier II have	݂ଷ௜௝ଶ௠ ൌ 2 50 ⁄ . 

The sponsors were asked to list all FDCHs that they sponsored as of August 2013, so it was possible 

that some FDCHs were inactive during the reference period (August 2012 – July 2013). In the 

calculation of the base sampling weight, these inactive or other ineligible FDCHs found during 

screening and were considered part of the sample; that is, the numerator of 	݂ଷ௜௝௞௠	was equal to the 

combined number of eligible and ineligible FDCHs. (The ineligible FDCHs, however, were not used 

in estimation.) This approach is a standard way of handling ineligible sample units and allows that 

the ineligible FDCHs in the sample represent the ineligible FDCHs in the universe of FDCHs, 

whereas the eligible FDCHs in the sample represent the universe of eligible FDCHs. 

A.4 Post-stratification 

The total number of FDCHs reported by the states as of May or June 2013 generally differed from 

the corresponding totals in the FNS National Databank for PY2013. Similarly, the numbers of 

FDCHs on the sponsors’ lists (as of August 2013) differed from the corresponding numbers 

reported by the states. Because this assessment aims to provide estimates for PY2013, the base 

sampling weights were adjusted by post-stratification to two control totals: the total number of Tier 

I FDCHs and the total number of Tier II FDCHs in the FNS National Databank for PY2013 (as of 

March 2014). The control totals excluded the states and territories that had been excluded from the 

sampling frame for this assessment (Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico). The weights obtained 

through the post-stratification are the final weights used for estimation. 

 
A-4 

A.5 Estimation Procedures 

The final weights assigned to each responding FDCH were used to obtain estimates of various 

population parameters and standard errors of these estimates. For computing standard errors, three 

self-representing certainty states were treated as strata, and all other non-certainty states were put 

into another stratum. These are not real strata used in sampling but formed for variance estimation, 

and for that reason they are called variance strata. The three states selected with certainty were 

assigned to variance stratum 1, variance stratum 2 and variance stratum 3 respectively, and the 

remaining 11 states were assigned to variance stratum 4. 

Misclassification Rates 

The misclassification rates for Tier I and Tier II were computed as follows. 

The final weight for a FDCH is written as	ݓ௠௞௝௜, where ݅ denotes the state, ݆ denotes the sponsor, ݇

denotes the tier, and	݉ denotes the FDCH. Let ݕ ௠௞௝௜ൌ 1 if the FDCH ݉ in tier ݇ within sponsor 

݆ in state ݅ is misclassified and equal to zero otherwise. An FDCH is considered misclassified if it has 

an incorrect tier in any months during the assessment period. 

The estimated number of FDCHs misclassified in tier ݇ is given by 

௠௞௝௜ݓ෍෍෍ൌ௞ ܿ

௠

௠௞௝௜ݕ

௜ ௝

The misclassification rate for tier ݇ is given by the proportion 

௞ܿ ൌ௞ ݎ

ܰ෡௞

where ܰ෡௞ is the estimated total number of FDCHs in tier ݇ computed as follows: 

௠௞௝௜ݓ෍෍෍ൌ෡௞ ܰ

௜ ௝ ௠

Note that the summations in the above formulae include those FDCHs selected without 

stratification by tier within sponsor. In this case, weights and ݕ-values are defined without subscript 

݉. 

The misclassification rate for all FDCHs is given by the proportion. 

ൌ ݎ

∑ ܿ௞

ଶ

௞ୀଵ

ܰ෡

where ܰ෡ ൌ ∑ ܰ෡௞

ଶ

௞ୀଵ is the estimated total number of FDCHs in Tier I and Tier II. 
A-5 

Total Meals Reimbursed in Error: Estimates from Sample Data 

Let ݍ 	௠௞௝௜represent number of meals reimbursed in error to FDCH ݉ in tier ݇ within sponsor ݆ in 

state ݅. Let ݍଵ	 represent estimated total number of meals reimbursed in error to FDCHs 

misclassified as Tier I. ݍଵ is then given by 

ݍଵ ൌ෍෍ ෍ ݓ௝௜ଵ௠	ݍ௝௜ଵ௠ ௜ ௝ ௠

And	ݍଶ, similarly defined as the estimated total number of meals reimbursed in error to FDCHs 

misclassified as Tier II is given by 

ݍଶ ൌ෍෍ ෍ ݓ௝௜ଶ௠	ݍ௝௜ଶ௠ ௜ ௝ ௠

The estimated total number of meals reimbursed in error to either Tier I or II FDCHs is then equal 

to	ݍ ൌ ݍଵ ൅ ݍଶ. 

Note that ݍ 	௠௞௝௜ൌ 0 if the FDCH was not misclassified. 

Estimation of Percentage of Meals Reimbursed in Error 

The estimated percentage of meals served by misclassified Tier I FDCHs is obtained by dividing the 

estimated total number of meals reimbursed in error by the estimated total number of meals 

reimbursed to FDCHs in Tier I. (Note that if Tier I home was misclassified, all meals served by the 

home were misclassified.) Let ݑ ௠௞௝௜represent the total number of meals reimbursed to FDCH ݉ in 

tier ݇ within sponsor ݆ in state ݅, and let ݑ ௞represent the estimated total number of meals 

reimbursed to FDCHs in tier ݇.	ݑଵ, the estimated total number of meals reimbursed to Tier I 

FDCHs, is given by 

ݑଵ ൌ෍෍ ෍ ݓ௝௜ଵ௠	ݑ௝௜ଵ௠ ௜ ௝ ௠

and	ݑଶ, defined as the estimated total number of meals reimbursed to Tier II FDCHs, is given by 

ݑଶ ൌ෍෍ ෍ ݓ௝௜ଶ௠	ݑ௝௜ଶ௠ ௜ ௝ ௠

The percentage of total number of meals reimbursed in error to Tier I FDCHs is estimated by the 

ratio ܯܴଵ multiplied by 100, where 

ܯܴଵ ൌ ݍଵ⁄ݑଵ (5) 

Similarly, the percentage of total number of meals reimbursed in error to Tier II FDCHs is 

estimated by the ratio ܯܴଶ multiplied by 100, where 
A-6 

ܯܴଶ ൌ ݍଶ⁄ݑଶ (6) 

Total Overpayments and Underpayments to FDCHs: Estimates from Sample Data 

Let ݌ 	௠௞௝௜represent erroneous payments made to FDCH ݉ in tier ݇ within sponsor ݆ in state ݅.

38

Let ݌ 	௞represent estimated total payments made in error to FDCHs misclassified as Tier ݇. ݌ଵ, 

which is the estimated total overpayments made to FDCHs misclassified as Tier I is given by 

݌ଵ ൌ෍෍ ෍ ݓ௝௜ଵ௠	݌௝௜ଵ௠ ௜ ௝ ௠

And	݌ଶ, similarly defined as the estimated total underpayments to FDCHs misclassified as Tier II is 

given by 

݌ଶ ൌ෍෍ ෍ ݓ௝௜ଶ௠	݌௝௜ଶ௠ ௜ ௝ ௠

The estimated total erroneous payments are then equal to	݌ ൌ ݌ଵ ൅ ݌ଶ. 

Estimation of Percentage of Payments in Error 

The estimated percentage of payments made to misclassified Tier I FDCHs is obtained by dividing 

the estimated total overpayments by the estimated total payments made to FDCHs in Tier I. Let 

ݐ ௠௞௝௜represent the total payments made to FDCH ݉ in tier ݇ within sponsor ݆ in state ݅, and let ݐ ௞

represent the estimated total dollars paid to FDCHs in tier ݇.	ݐଵ, the estimated total amount paid to 

Tier I FDCHs, is given by 

ݐଵ ൌ෍෍ ෍ ݓ௝௜ଵ௠	ݐ௝௜ଵ௠ ௜ ௝ ௠

and	ݐଶ, the estimated total dollars paid to Tier II FDCHs, is given by 

ݐଶ ൌ෍෍ ෍ ݓ௝௜ଶ௠	ݐ௝௜ଶ௠ ௜ ௝ ௠

The percentage of reimbursements to Tier I FDCHs paid in error is estimated by the ratio 

ܧܴଵ multiplied by 100, where 

ܧܴଵ ൌ ݌ଵ⁄ݐଵ (7) 

Similarly, the percentage of reimbursements to Tier II FDCHs paid in error is estimated by the ratio 

ܧܴଶ multiplied by 100, where 

 

38 When Tier I FDCH is misclassified, not all payments are in error because Tier II FDCHs can claim Tier I rate for eligible children. It is not possible 

to determine how many such children there were in the misclassified Tier I FDCHs in the sample. State overall percentage of the total Tier II 

reimbursement paid at the (low) Tire I rate to the total reimbursement paid to all Tier II FDCHs in the state for the PY was used to calculate the 

overpayment amount to each misclassified Tier I FDCH, which is incorporated in ݌௝௜ଵ௠. For detailed discussion, see Section 4.3 in the main text. 
A-7 

ܧܴଶ ൌ ݌ଶ⁄ݐଶ (8) 

Ratio Estimation Procedure for Final Estimates of Total Meals Reimbursed in Error and 

Erroneous Payments 

As in the past assessments, the sample estimate of total meals for which FDCHs received 

reimbursement underestimated the known totals from the FNS data. Therefore, using weighted 

sample data without adjustment would yield underestimates of total meals reimbursed in error and 

costs of misclassification errors. 

Careful consideration of the nature of the sampling frames for the FNS reports and our assessment 

indicated that these frames differed in how they deal with FDCHs that do not claim meals in all 

twelve months of a fiscal year. It was reported that in 2008, this subtle difference in sampling frame 

induced a difference in the estimates of the number of meals between the weighted sample data and 

the FNS National Databank information of 11 percent for Tier I FDCHs and 7 percent for Tier II 

FDCHs.39 As in the past, this concern led us to adoption of a ratio estimator which takes the FNS 

National Databank numbers as exactly correct. Furthermore, ratio estimation is more efficient if the 

variable to be estimated and the auxiliary variable is highly correlated.40 We discuss that method here. 

The same method was used in the 2008 through 2013 assessments. The report of the 2008 

assessment provides an explanation for why the sample data underestimate the national total meal 

counts and reimbursements.41

Estimation of Total Meals Reimbursed in Error 

To produce revised national estimates of meals reimbursed in error and the associated costs of 

sponsor classification errors, we used the standard ratio-estimation procedure. This procedure 

assures that the national estimates of total meals served and total payments based on the sample data 

are consistent with the national totals as reported in the FNS National Data Bank.42 Specifically, we 

proceeded as follows. 

First, we used the weighted sample data to estimate the percentage of meals reimbursed at the wrong 

tier, ܯܴଵ for Tier I and ܯܴଶ for Tier II, as described above. 

Second, we estimated the totals of meals reimbursed at the wrong tier (denoted as ܰܧܯଵ

and	ܰܧܯଶ) using the national totals of PY2013 meals reimbursed to Tier I and Tier II FDCHs 

(denoted as ܯܨଵ and	ܯܨଶ) as reported by FNS and included in the National Data Bank. To do this, 

we multiplied the FNS national total (from the FNS National Data Bank; not the estimate derived 

directly from our survey) by the appropriate percentage estimated from weighted sample data (ܯܴଵ

or	ܯܴଶ, see formulae 5 and 6). For Tier I, the calculation used the following formula: 

 

39 See section A.6 of Logan et al. (2011).

40 We believe that this is the case for our study although it is not possible to check due to lack of information on the reimbursement amounts reported 

to FNS for individual sampled FDCHs. However, we can still use the ratio estimation method because we need only the national total (except the 

outlying states and territories). 

41 Ibid.

42 We acknowledge the possibility that the FNS totals are affected by non-sampling error.
A-8 

ܰܧܯଵ ൌ ܯܨଵ ൈ ܯܴଵ (9) 

We used similar calculations to estimate the total meals reimbursed in error (ܰܧܯଶ) for Tier II 

FDCHs, and we summed the estimates for Tier I and Tier II to estimate the totals for all FDCHs. 

Then the estimated total number of meals reimbursed in error is given by 

 (10) ଶܧܯܰ ൅ ଵܧܯܰ ൌ ܧܯܰ

Estimation of Total Costs of Misclassification of FDCHs 

We used the same procedure to estimate the national total costs of misclassification for Tier I and 

Tier II FDCHs, denoted as ܰܯܥଵ and ܰܯܥଶ. First, we used the weighted sample data to estimate 

the percentage of reimbursements paid in error for each tier, ܧܴଵ and	ܧܴଶ as shown above (see 

formulae 7 and 8). We then estimated the total reimbursements paid in error using the totals of all 

PY2013 FDCH reimbursements by tier (from the FNS National Data Bank), denoted as ܨܴଵ and 

ܨܴଶ. For Tier I, the calculation used the following formula: 

ܰܯܥଵ ൌ ܨܴଵ ൈ ܧܴଵ (11) 

The analogous calculation was used to estimate		ܰܯܥଶ, the national cost of misclassification for 

Tier II FDCHs. Then the estimated total cost of misclassification is given by 

 (12) ଶܯܥܰ ൅ ଵܯܥܰ ൌ ܯܥܰ

A.6 Standard Errors of Estimates and Construction of Confidence Intervals 

Standard errors for the totals, ratios, and percentages of FDCHs misclassified were computed using 

Westat’s complex survey analysis system, WesVar, which takes into account the multistage sampling 

design used for the selection of FDCHs in the sample (including clustering of sampling units at 

various stages of sampling). Standard errors were used to compute the lower and upper bounds for 

the 90 percent confidence intervals of estimates using the student t-distribution – these intervals are 

symmetric about the estimates. However, we used the Wilson 90 percent confidence interval for 

percentages of misclassified FDCHs because it has superior coverage property for proportions than 

the usual symmetric t-based interval, especially for proportions close to zero or one (Newcombe, 

1998). The Wilson interval is not symmetric and does not produce a nonsensical negative lower 

bound or greater than 100 percent upper bound as the symmetric interval can. Unfortunately, the 

Wilson interval is not available for the ratios, and their confidence interval based on the tdistribution can go out of the natural bounds. When this happens, the bound is usually replaced by 

the natural bound (e.g., a negative lower bound by zero). This happened for the lower 90 percent 

confidence interval for estimated percentages of meals reimbursed in error and reimbursements paid 

in error, and their corresponding total meal counts and total reimbursements in error for Tier II. 

All computations of standard errors were done under the assumption that primary sampling units 

were sampled with replacement. The primary sampling units (PSUs) in variance strata 1, 2, and 3 

(the certainty states) are sponsors, whereas the primary sampling units in variance stratum 4 (the 

non-certainty states) are states. Under this assumption, variances are computed based only on the 

PSU level estimates and generally are slight overestimates of the variance. Variance estimation 
A-9 

without this assumption is more complex and would require second order probabilities of selection 

at first and subsequent stages. Generally slight overestimation is well accepted in practice as the 

statistical inference based on a slight overestimate of variance gives a slightly conservative result. For 

example, a confidence interval is slightly longer, and the null hypothesis of a statistical test is slightly 

less likely to be rejected. 

The confidence intervals for total meals reimbursed in error and total costs of misclassification used 

the confidence intervals for the estimated percentages of meals and reimbursements and the totals 

from FNS National Data Bank (NDB), which were known with certainty. For example, the 

computation of the 90 percent confidence interval (CI) for total meals reimbursed in error (ܰܧܯ௞

given by formula 9) for Tier ݇ FDCHs was as follows: 

௞ܱܹܮ_ܴܯ ൈ௞ ܯܨ ൌ௞ ܱܹܮ_ܧܯܰ

௞ܪܩܫܪ_ܴܯ ൈ௞ ܯܨ ൌ௞ ܪܩܫܪ_ܧܯܰ

where, 

ܰܧܯ_ܮܱܹ =௞90 % CI lower bound of total meals reimbursed in error due to 

misclassification for Tier ݇ FDCHs 

ܯܨ = ௞total meals reimbursed to Tier ݇ FDCHs from FNS NDB 

ܯܴ_ܮܱܹ =௞90 % CI lower bound for ܯܴ) ௞percentage of meals reimbursed in error for 

Tier ݇ FDCHs) 

ܰܧܯ_ܪܩܫܪ =௞90 % CI upper bound of total meals reimbursed in error due to 

misclassification for 

Tier ݇ FDCHs. 

ܯܴ_ܪܩܫܪ = ௞90 % CI upper bound for ܯܴ) ௞percentage of meal reimbursed in error for 

Tier ݇ FDCHs) 

The standard error for the estimated overall total meals reimbursed in error (ܰܧܯ (is given by 

ඥܸ෠ሺܰܧܯଵሻ ൅ ܸ෠ሺܰܧܯଶሻ ൌ ටܯܨଵ

ଶ ൈ ܸ෠ ሺܯܴଵሻ ൅ ܯܨଶଶ ൈ ܸ෠ሺܯܴଶሻ

where ܸ෠ሺܯܴଵሻ and ܸ෠ ሺܯܴଶሻ are variance estimates for ܯܴଵ and ܯܴଶ, which were obtained from 

WesVar. The 90 percent confidence interval (ܯܴ_ܮܱܹ௞, ܯܴ_ܪܩܫܪ (௞for ܯܴ ௞is then computed 

using the usual formula with the appropriate t-value. 

The confidence intervals for 	ܰܯܥଵ, 	ܰܯܥଶ, and ܰܯܥ) see formulae 11 and 12)are computed in 

the same way. 
B-1 

Data Collection Materials 

 

Appendix B 
B-2 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mailing #1 Documents 
B-3 

«Date» 

«Name» 

«CACFP» 

«Address» 

«PO_Box» 

«City», «State» «Zip» 

Dear «Name»: 

The USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) needs your help for the 2013 CACFP Assessment 

of Sponsor Tiering Determinations. FNS collects information each year to estimate the accuracy 

of tiering determinations by CACFP sponsors for family day care homes, as required by the 

Improper Payments Information Act. Westat is conducting the 2013 assessment for FNS. You may 

have heard about this assessment from your State Child Nutrition Director. 

As explained in the enclosed brochure, you are one of 60 sponsors nationwide that have been 

randomly selected to represent all CACFP sponsors in this year’s assessment. Your participation is 

crucial to ensure scientifically valid findings. I am writing to explain the assessment and to ask you to 

participate. 

In brief, here’s what we ask you to do by «Due date»: 

1. Read and sign the enclosed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which explains the 

requirements of the assessment and how your data will be protected and used. Please 

keep one signed copy of the MOU for your own records. 

2. Compile a list of all family day care homes (FDCH) that you sponsor, including their 

name, street address (no PO Boxes), city, state, zip code, Tier I/Tier II status, method 

used for tiering determination, and most recent tiering determination date 

BEFORE AUGUST 2013. 

3. Return the MOU to Westat using the enclosed pre-paid envelope. Using our secure 

website you may either manually enter the information requested in Step 2 or upload a 

Word or Excel file containing the data. Directions for accessing and using the website 

are included. If you prefer to send the list on a CD or on paper, please used the 

enclosed pre-paid envelope. 

Once we receive your list of FDCHs, we will select a sample of about 15 homes that you sponsor. 

Then, we will send you the list of homes and ask for their counts of meals approved for 

reimbursement for August 2012 through July 2013. Westat will attempt to verify the tier status of 

each home using Census and school information. About a month after we receive your meal counts, 

we will let you know if we are not able to verify the Tier I eligibility for any of your sampled homes 
B-4 

and will ask you to send us the documentation of your tiering determination for that home. We will 

not contact family day care homes. 

Section 305 of the Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act (CNR) now requires participation in 

assessment and evaluation studies conducted on behalf of USDA/FNS. However, in recognition of 

your time and effort, we will provide a $110 honorarium to sponsors that complete all parts of the 

assessment and an additional $150 if you meet all of the deadlines specified during each mailing. 

In this packet, you will find letters of support for the CACFP Assessment of Sponsor Tiering 

Determinations from the CACFP Sponsors Forum and The CACFP Sponsor’s Association. These 

organizations recognize the importance of documenting the integrity of the CACFP. 

Westat will not reveal the identities of participating sponsors or selected family day care homes to 

USDA/FNS. Information provided by sponsors will be kept confidential, to the extent provided by 

law, and results will be reported only at the national level. 

USDA/FNS and Westat need your participation to assure that this assessment fairly and accurately 

represents the integrity of the CACFP. We thank you in advance for your time and cooperation in 

this important study. If you have any questions about the study, please feel free to call the toll-free 

help line at 1-855-561-0082, or send an e-mail to CACFP@Westat.com. 

Sincerely, 

David Marker 

Project Director 

Enclosures: 

1. Program Assessment Brochure 

2. Letters of Support 

3. Memorandum of Understanding 

4. User Name and Password 

5. Instructions for Website 

6. FedEx label for returning documents/data 
Instructions: The table below shows the information we need for each of the FDCHs you sponsor. 

Please provide the following: (a) FDCH name, (b) street address, (c) city, (d) state abbreviation, (e) zip code, (f) whether the FD

date of most recent tiering determination RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT PERIOD -- before August 1, 2013, and (h) method 

IMPORTANT NOTE: The assessment period is from 8/1/12 - 7/31/13. Please make sure the tiering information you pr

example, if an FDCH has a current tiering date of 9/1/13, we need to know the PREVIOUS tier, date, and determination m

of the assessment period. All dates should be BEFORE 8/1/13. 

You may use this form, which is available in the Mailing #1 folder on the secure website at https://www.cacfp-assessment.com to 

you may generate the report yourself and upload an Excel file, a delimited text file (CSV or tab-delimited) or a Word file containin

FDCH Name 

(a)

Street Address 

(NO PO Boxes) 

(b)

City 

(c) 

State 

(d)

Zip Code 

(e)

Tier I or 

Tier II 

(f)

Date of Most Recent Tie

Determination for Assess

Period

(BEFORE 8/1/13)

(g)

|___|___| / |___|___| / |___

M M D D Y 

<FDCH ID> 

|___|___| 

Tier I . . . . . 1 |___|___| / |___|___| / |___Tier II. . . . . 2 M M D D Y 

<FDCH ID> 

|___|___| 

Tier I . . . . . 1 |___|___| / |___|___| / |___Tier II. . . . . 2 M M D D Y 

<FDCH ID> 

|___|___| 

Tier I . . . . . 1 |___|___| / |___|___| / |___Tier II. . . . . 2 M M D D Y 

<FDCH ID> 

|___|___| 

Tier I . . . . . 1 |___|___| / |___|___| / |___Tier II. . . . . 2 M M D D Y 

<FDCH ID> 

|___|___| 

Tier I . . . . . 1 |___|___| / |___|___| / |___Tier II. . . . . 2 M M D D Y 

Return this information to Westat using the secure website located at https://www.cacfp-assessment.com or the provided envelope. If y

provide this information, please send an e-mail to CACFP@Westat.com or call us toll-free at 1-855-561-0082 
Frequently Asked Questions 

1. When do I get the honorarium? » Westat will send you a check when we 

receive the requested information. You will receive $110 if you provide all of the requested data. If you meet all of the deadlines, you will receive an additional $150. 

2. What if all my information is on 

paper and I can’t send you a data file? 

» We like to get EXCEL or delimited text 

(CSV or tab-delimited) files because it’s less work for us! We can also accept WORD files. But if all you have is paper, you can enter the information using the template on our secure website or mail it to us and we will compile a file. 

3. If I participate once, do I have to do 

it again? 

» Each year, an independent sample of 

sponsors and homes is selected for assessment. If you are a large sponsor, there is a chance you will be selected in multiple years. It’s important that you participate! 

4. Will Westat contact the selected 

homes? 

» NO. We will obtain all of the information 

for the Assessment from you. 

For more information 

Call 1-855-561-0082 

(toll-free) 

Or send e-mail to 

CACFP@Westat.com 

1600 Research Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20850 

Phone: 301-251-1500 

Fax: 301-294-2040 

A

D

AssessmFood and 
About the Assessment 

Each year the USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is required to report to Congress the percentage of CACFP family day care homes that are misclassified as Tier I or Tier II, and the resulting improper payments. Error rates are low in the CACFP! In 2012, only 1.8 percent of homes were misclassified and 1.2 percent of payments were associated with errors. 

CACFP Family Day Care Homes, 2012 

CACFP provides about $783 million in meal benefits annually, and so the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 requires continued measurement of error rates. The study of CACFP tiering determinations has become easier! Sponsors can now upload their files to a secure website. Sponsors will only be able to view their own data. You can also download templates for entering your data or to view items included in each mailing. 

Your Role in the Assessment You are one of 60 sponsors nationwide that have been randomly selected this year to represent all CACFP sponsors. Your participation is crucial to ensure scientifically valid findings. Westat will not visit you or intrude on your operations. We will provide you with a secure website where you can upload files. We’ll also provide pre-paid envelopes for mailing. You will receive up to $260 honorarium for your effort. Westat will collect the following from Sponsors: 1. Signed Memorandum of Understanding. This 

document confirms your participation. 

2. List of homes that you sponsor, tiering status, 

method used, most recent tiering determination date that was applicable between August 2012 and July 2013. This information is needed so that we can draw a sample of your homes for the Assessment and begin verifying their status. 

3. Meal counts for the sampled homes. We will 

send you the list of sampled homes. For each selected home, we will need the monthly counts of approved Tier I and Tier II breakfasts, snacks, and lunches/dinners for the period from August 2012 to July 2013. Use our secure website or mail us the information. 

4. Certification documents. We will let you know 

if we were unable to verify a home and need more information from you. We anticipate that most homes can be verified as Tier I based on Census or school information, so few homes will need followup. 

Due dates vary depending upon when you receive our request. Deadlines will be included with each request. 

What shou First, rea

of Underdocumenundersta

a) the 

ass

b) the 

recass

c) how 

and 

» Sign b

yourseenvelo

 Second, 

day care This list syou currewhether tfor the m

 For each 

street addTier II statiering, andate. 

» Enter 

EXCEIf you prepai

 Third, let 

questionreduce yosuccessfreached a

C
B-8 
B-9 
B-10 

CACFP Assessment of Tiering Determinations 

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN WESTAT AND 

Family League of Baltimore City, MD 

This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING is entered into by Family League of Baltimore City 

(SPONSOR) and Westat. 

A. PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT:

Westat and SPONSOR hereby agree to the terms of an exchange of information between SPONSOR and 

Westat. The USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) has contracted with Westat to conduct the CACFP 

Program Assessment of Tiering Determinations (the Assessment). This annual Assessment is required by the 

Improper Payments Act of 2002. The sampling approach used by the Assessment provides an alternative to 

comprehensive federal reporting requirements. Section 305 of the Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act (CNR) 

requires participation in assessment studies on behalf of USDA/FNS. 

For Westat, this agreement assures that the SPONSOR consents to participate and understands the 

requirements and honorarium for participating in the study. 

For SPONSOR, this agreement provides assurance that information provided to Westat will be safeguarded 

and used only for specific research purposes directly connected to the administration of the CACFP. None of 

the information provided by SPONSOR to Westat will be released in a way that will identify SPONSOR or 

individual homes to USDA or any third party, unless required by law. 

B. WESTAT AGREES TO:

1. Provide clear instructions to SPONSOR and pre-paid mailing envelopes for sending information to 

Westat. 

2. Provide a toll-free telephone number, dedicated e-mail address, and secure website for SPONSOR to 

use when contacting Westat. 

3. Provide timely feedback, within 3 business days of receipt, if Westat is unable to read a data file, fax, or 

other document, or if Westat deems the data incomplete. 

4. Provide a $110 honorarium to SPONSOR in recognition of the effort of participating in the study. 

Westat will provide an additional $150 honorarium if SPONSOR meets all specified deadlines. 

C. SPONSOR AGREES TO:

Provide the following to Westat: 

1. List of family day care homes. SPONSOR will provide a list of all homes under sponsorship as of 

August 2013, regardless of whether the home received CACFP reimbursements for July 2013. The list 

must include the following data elements: 

 Name of home or name of provider 

 Street address (not PO Box) of home including city and zip code 

 Tier I or Tier II status as determined by SPONSOR 

 Method used to determine tiering status 

 Tiering determination date for the home that was applicable between August 2012 and July 2013

SPONSOR will upload the requested information in a WORD or EXCEL file onto Westat’s secure 

website, enter the data using the templates provided on the secure website, or send it to Westat using 

the pre-paid envelope provided by Westat. 

2. Monthly meal counts for selected homes. Westat will select a sample of homes (ranging from about 

15-30 homes) from the list that SPONSOR provides and send the list of sampled homes to SPONSOR 

in late September or early October. For each sampled home, SPONSOR will provide to Westat monthly 

counts of meals approved for reimbursement for the twelve-month period from August 2012 through 

July 2013. For sampled FDCH whose tiering status was redetermined between 8/1/2012 and 7/31/2013, 

SPONSOR will provide the tiering status, date, and method used for BOTH the current and the 
B-11 

previous determinations. 

3. Documentation of tiering determination. Westat will attempt to independently verify the Tier I 

eligibility of the selected homes using Census and school data. If Westat is unable to verify Tier I 

eligibility for a home, Westat will ask SPONSOR to provide copies of the complete documentation of 

tiering determination for that home. 

D. HONORARIUM:

Westat will pay an honorarium to SPONSOR in recognition of the expected costs and effort of participating in 

the Assessment. The amount of the honorarium is $110 payable upon receipt of the final data (documentation 

of tiering determination) or when SPONSOR is notified that no further data are needed. SPONSOR will 

receive an additional $150 if they meet all of the specified deadlines for submitting information to Westat. 

Each deadline will be clearly specified in the letter from Westat requesting the information. 

Please tell us who we should make honorarium checks payable to: _______________________________ 

E. DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF CONFIDENTIALITY:

Westat will keep all information provided by SPONSOR confidential, to the full extent allowed by law, and 

will use the information only for the purposes of the Assessment. Westat will use the data to prepare a final 

Assessment report, in which all data will be reported in an aggregated form and information cannot be linked 

to individual sponsors or homes. The information provided by SPONSOR under this agreement will be 

protected against unauthorized access or disclosure: 

a) The information subject to this agreement shall be used only to the extent necessary to assist in the valid 

needs for this specific Assessment and shall be disclosed only for the purposes as defined in this 

agreement. 

b) Westat will not use the information for any purposes not specifically authorized under this agreement. 

c) All members of the Westat project team with access to data provided by sponsors will sign data 

confidentiality agreements. Data will be stored in locked cabinets or password-protected files. 

d) Westat will not identify participating sponsors, providers, or the location of providers in any publications 

or data files provided to the Food and Nutrition Service, USDA. 

e) Under these restrictions, Westat will provide data files to FNS, which plans to use the files to replicate the 

research and to release a public-use data set. Non-FNS users will be asked to sign a pledge that they will 

not combine the public-use data with other data in a way that may identify sponsors or providers. 

F. DURATION OF AGREEMENT

The confidentiality provisions of this agreement shall remain in effect indefinitely. All other provisions shall 

be in effect for one year from the date of signature. 

PRINCIPAL CONTACTS: 

Westat Contact SPONSOR Contact 

David Marker, Project Director Name: _____________________________________ 

Westat Address: ___________________________________ 

1600 Research Blvd. City, State, Zip: ______________________________ 

Rockville, MD 20850 

Phone: 855-561-0082 Phone: _____________________________________ 

FAX: 301-610-4900 E-Mail: _____________________________________ 

E-Mail: CACFP@Westat.com

 _____________________________ _________ _____________________________ ________ 

 SIGNATURE DATE SIGNATURE DATE 
B-12 

 

Mailing #2 Documents 
B-13 

[DATE] 

«Contact» 

«Sponsor» 

«Address» 

«City», «State» «Zip» 

Dear «Contact»: 

On behalf of the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) and Westat, I want to thank you for agreeing to 

participate in the 2012 CACFP Assessment of Sponsor Tiering Determinations. Your participation is 

crucial to ensure scientifically valid findings. 

Enclosed you will find two different types of forms. 

1. The first form is a list of the CACFP family day care homes under your sponsorship that we have 

selected for this year’s assessment. Please read the instructions and provide the relevant tiering 

information. 

2. The second form is for monthly meal counts. We have included a separate form for each selected 

home. Please provide the following information for each FDCH: 

 Monthly counts of meals approved for reimbursement during August 2011-July 2012. We 

need separate counts of breakfasts, lunches or suppers, and snacks, broken down between 

Tier I-eligible and Tier II-eligible meals. You may provide a report with this information or 

copies of approved claims. Please see the attached instructions. 

 If meal counts for a home are not available for any of the 12 specified months, please 

provide an explanation on the list of homes or in an attached note. 

Please go to the secure study website located at https://www.cacfp-assessment.com to submit monthly meal 

counts in a data file (preferably in Excel) or to enter the information directly into our template. If you prefer 

to use the template, make sure that you clearly identify the provider’s name and address. If you need to send 

hardcopies or the information on a CD, please use the enclosed FedEx materials. Please submit all 

completed forms by January 17, 2013.

Once again, we remind you that Westat will not contact family day care homes, and we will not reveal the 

identity of cooperating sponsors or homes selected for the assessment (other than notifying State agencies of 

their sponsors that were selected). 

Thank you in advance for your time and cooperation with the assessment. As specified in the Memorandum 

of Understanding, we may contact you for information again in about one month. If you have any questions, 

please call us toll-free at 1-888-924-9742, or send an e-mail to CACFP@Westat.com. Your agency will 

receive a check for $110 at the end of your data collection and an additional $150 if you meet all of the 

specified deadlines. 

Sincerely, 

David Marker 

Project Director 
Instructions: The table below lists the family day care homes that have been selected for the 2012 CACFP Assessment of Spons

Based on information you provided earlier, we have completed Columns 2 – 3 for you. 

 If Columns 2 - 3 are blank, please identify whether each FDCH is a Tier I or Tier II home and the date of the most recent tie

done BEFORE AUGUST 1, 2012. 

 In Column 4, indicate whether or not you conducted a tiering redetermination for that FDCH FOR ANY REASON between 

response is “No,” you do not need to complete Columns 5 - 7 for that FDCH. 

 Only if you responded “Yes” in Column 4, complete Columns 5 – 7 for the FDCH. We need the tiering information that 

tiering information provided in Columns 2 – 3. 

Name of Provider 

(1) 

Recent Tiering Information 

Redetermination 

Done Between 

8/1/2011 and 

7/31/2012? 

(4)

Previous Tierin

Tier I 

or 

Tier II 

(2)

Date of Most Recent 

Tiering Determination 

(BEFORE 8/1/12) 

|___|___| / |___|___| / |___|___| 

 MM DD YY 

(3)

Tier I 

or 

Tier II 

(5)

Date of Previous 

Tiering Determination 

|___|___| / |___|___| / |___|_

 MM DD Y

(6)

«FDCH_FirstName» «FDCH_LastName» 

«tier» «tiering_date»«Next Record» 

Yes .............. No ................ 

«FDCH_FirstName» «FDCH_LastName» 

«tier» «tiering_date»«Next Record» 

Yes .............. No ................ 

«FDCH_FirstName» «FDCH_LastName» 

«tier» «tiering_date»«Next Record» 

Yes .............. No ................ 

«FDCH_FirstName» «FDCH_LastName» 

«tier» «tiering_date»«Next Record» 

Yes .............. No ................ 

B-14 
«FDCH_FirstName» «FDCH_LastN

«fdch_address1», «fdch_city», «fdch_state» «fdc

Instructions: For this home, please provide the number of approved CACFP meals for each month fr

through July 2012. Provide separate counts for Tier I and Tier II meals and for each type of meal: bresupper, and snacks. At the bottom of the form, please indicate the number of months for which meal claims are provided. Ithan 12 for the listed home, explain in the space provided. If you prefer to attach a report or documentyou may do so. Monthly meal counts

Month Tier I Eligible Meals Tier II Eligible MeAugust, 2011 

 Breakfast:  Lunch or Supper:  Snacks: 

 Breakfast: 

 Lunch or Supper:  Snacks: 

September, 2011 

 Breakfast:  Lunch or Supper:  Snacks: 

 Breakfast: 

 Lunch or Supper:  Snacks: 

October, 2011 

 Breakfast:  Lunch or Supper:  Snacks: 

 Breakfast: 

 Lunch or Supper:  Snacks: 

November, 2011 

 Breakfast:  Lunch or Supper:  Snacks: 

 Breakfast: 

 Lunch or Supper:  Snacks: 

December, 2011 

 Breakfast:  Lunch or Supper:  Snacks: 

 Breakfast: 

 Lunch or Supper:  Snacks: 

B-15 
Monthly meal counts (continued) Month Tier I Eligible Meals Tier II Eligible MeJanuary, 2012 

 Breakfast:  Lunch or Supper:  Snacks: 

 Breakfast: 

 Lunch or Supper:  Snacks: 

February, 2012 

 Breakfast:  Lunch or Supper:  Snacks: 

 Breakfast: 

 Lunch or Supper:  Snacks: 

March, 2012 

 Breakfast:  Lunch or Supper:  Snacks: 

 Breakfast: 

 Lunch or Supper:  Snacks: 

April, 2012 

 Breakfast:  Lunch or Supper:  Snacks: 

 Breakfast: 

 Lunch or Supper:  Snacks: 

May, 2012 

 Breakfast:  Lunch or Supper:  Snacks: 

 Breakfast: 

 Lunch or Supper:  Snacks: 

June, 2012 

 Breakfast:  Lunch or Supper:  Snacks: 

 Breakfast: 

 Lunch or Supper:  Snacks: 

July, 2012 

 Breakfast:  Lunch or Supper:  Snacks: 

 Breakfast: 

 Lunch or Supper:  Snacks: 

Total Number of Months of Claim Data Provided: _________ Explanation if Less Than 12 Months of Claim Data Provided: ________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________

B-16 
B-17 

 

Mailing #3 Documents 
B-18 

<date TBD> 

«Contact» 

«Sponsor» 

«Address» 

«City», «State» «Zip» 

Dear «Contact»: 

Westat is nearing completion of the 2012 CACFP Assessment of Sponsor Tiering 

Determinations. Your participation has been appreciated! We have one final request for 

information from you before we can complete the assessment. 

Enclosed you will find a list of the CACFP family day care homes (FDCHs) under your sponsorship 

that we selected for the assessment and for which we were unable to verify tiering status. Tier I 

FDCHs may not have been verified due to an error on our part in matching to school and Census 

data, or because the provider applied for Tier I status on the basis of income or program 

participation. Tier II FDCHs may not have been able to be matched to school and Census data, due 

to insufficient address information. 

Please provide the following information for each listed FDCH by April 19, 2013 using the enclosed 

FedEx materials: 

1. Tier I FDCHs: please provide copies of the documentation that you have on file for the 

most recent tiering determination done before August, 2012. NOTE: IF YOU 

COMPLETED A DETERMINATION BETWEEN 8/1/2011 AND 7/31/2012 

FOR ANY OF THE FDCH’s LISTED YOU WILL NEED TO PROVIDE 

DOCUMENTATION FOR BOTH THE CURRENT DETERMINATION AND 

THE PREVIOUS DETERMINATION. 

This will include one or more of the following: 

 School data – boundary information and school FRP percentage or other 

available school eligibility documentation included in the FDCH’s file. 

 Census data – block group code and percentage of children in households with 

income at or below 185% of poverty. 

 Household income or categorical eligibility information – application form listing 

household members and their income, and/or information about participation in 

programs that confer categorical eligibility. Include copies of documents used to 

verify Tier I income eligibility, such as wage stubs, income tax forms, or benefit 

letters. 
B-19 

2. For Tier II FDCHs, tell us: 

 Whether the provider’s tier status was determined or redetermined during the 

period from September 2006 to June 2012. 

 If a tiering determination was made between September 2006 and June 2012, 

provide copies of all documents associated with the tiering determination(s) (as 

listed above for Tier I FDCHs). 

 If a Tier II FDCH requested to have their tiering level re-evaluated in the time 

period, please provide a copy of their request. 

Once again, we remind you that Westat will not contact family day care homes and we will not 

reveal the identity of homes selected for the assessment. All documents of tiering determinations 

provided to Westat will be kept confidential as provided under the Memorandum of Understanding 

between your agency and us. 

Thank you in advance for your time and cooperation with the assessment. If you have any 

questions, please call us toll-free at 1-888-924-9742, or send an e-mail to CACFP@Westat.com. 

Sincerely, 

David Marker 

Project Director 
Return this information to Abt Associates using the provided Fed Ex envelope. If you have a question about how to provide this information, please 

Tier I Family Day Care Homes Instructions: The table below lists the FDCHs that you have classified as Tier I and we were unable to verify using Census or sch

Columns 2 – 3 and Columns 5 – 7 for you. If any of this information is incorrect, cross it out and record the correct information.

 Most Recent Tiering Determination (Before 8/1/12). Please provide copies of all documents associated with the tiering 

method of determination and may include: 

o If school data were used – street address (not PO box or rural route), school boundary map, State list of schools 

website information. 

o If Census data were used – street address (not PO box or rural route), block group boundary map, documentatio

o If provider income or eligibility was used - copy of form used by provider to list household members and their in

program approved for Tier I determinations. Also include copies of documents used to verify income or categorical 

wage stubs. 

o If you can’t provide documentation for an FDCH, please provide an explanation in Column 4. 

 Previous Tiering Determination. If you conducted a redetermination between 8/1/11 and 7/31/12, please provide copie

o If you can’t provide documentation for an FDCH, please provide an explanation in Column 8. 

Name of Provider 

(1)

Recent Tiering Information 

Date of Most Recent 

Tiering Determination 

(BEFORE 8/1/12) 

|___|___| / |___|___| / |___|___| 

 MM DD YY 

(2)

Method of Tiering 

Determination Used 

(3)

Explanation of 

Documentation 

Not Provided 

(4)

Tier I 

or 

Tier II 

(5)

|_

 

Milissa Borde WI01-0468 

7/1/2012  School data 

 Census data  Income  Program participation

1 

 School data  Census data  Income  Program participation

B-20 
Return this information to Westat using the secure website located at https://www.cacfp-assessment.com or the provided Fed Ex envelope. If you have a question ab

free at 1-888-219-0554. 

Tier II Family Day Care Homes Instructions: The table below lists the FDCHs that you have classified as Tier II that we were unable to verify using Census or sch

school attendance area and whether the FDCH’s tier was determined or redetermined at any time from September 2006 through 

 If Tier II status was determined or redetermined – or if a Tier II FDCH applied for Tier I eligibility – during this period, please 

Documents may include: 

o Requests from provider for tiering determination based on school or Census data 

o If school data were used – street boundary map, State list of schools indicating FRP percentage for school, letter 

o If provider income or categorical eligibility was used - copy of form used by provider to list household member

TANF, or other program approved for Tier I determinations. Also include copies of documents used to verify incom

income tax form, or wage stubs. 

o If you can’t provide documentation for an FDCH, please provide an explanation in Column 4. 

Name of Provider 

(1)

Schools whose attendance area include 

the FDCH 

(2)

Was the FDCH’s tier d

from September 20

 Yes – provide docu Provider applied bu No application or de Yes – provide docu Provider applied bu No application or de Yes – provide docu Provider applied bu No application or de Yes – provide docu Provider applied bu No application or de

B-21