Background 

Direct certification increases access to school 

meals for students eligible for the National School 

Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast 

Program (SBP). It also decreases burden on 

families and district staff by limiting the amount of 

paperwork they must prepare and process. 

States conduct direct certification by matching 

school enrollment data with data from the 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

(SNAP) and other programs that confer categorical 

eligibility. States use one of two different 

methods—central or local matching. Under central 

matching, a State agency is responsible for a 

system that matches school registration data with 

SNAP, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

(TANF), or other programs’ participation data. 

Under local matching, a State agency distributes 

SNAP and other relevant data to the Local 

Education Agencies (LEAs), and LEAs match 

these data with their student enrollment lists. 

The purpose of this study is to describe current 

methods of direct certification used by State and 

local agencies and challenges facing States and 

LEAs in attaining high matching rates. 

Methods 

This study collected data in School Year (SY) 

2012-13 through a national survey and case 

studies. The national survey of direct certification 

practices was administered to all 50 States, the 

District of Columbia, Guam, and LEAs in local 

matching States. The survey design tailored 

questions based on a State’s data-matching method 

(central- or local-level) and the level of respondent 

(State or LEA). 

In-depth case studies were conducted in seven 

States and selected LEAs. Program and technical 

staff involved in direct certification at the State and 

LEA levels were interviewed via site visits. 

Findings 

Central matching is the dominant means of 

implementing direct certification. In SY 2012-

13, 38 States used central matching systems, and 

at least 4 of the remaining 14 States planned to 

switch from local to central matching. Interviews 

with central matching States indicated that some 

of the appealing characteristics of central 

matching systems were efficiency, the 

opportunity to use more sophisticated matching 

algorithms than districts may be able to develop, 

the uniform quality of matching across the State, 

and reduced risk of exposing confidential data. 

Although most States used central matching, local 

districts also played key roles in the direct 

certification process, including uploading 

enrollment data, reconciling match lists with local 

data systems, and processing lists of potential 

matches. This division of responsibility, 

particularly in identifying definite matches 

centrally and reconciling potential matches locally, 

may have allowed States to take advantage of both 

the efficiency offered by centrally developed 

matching algorithms and local knowledge and 

additional student information at the district level. 

States used a variety of methods to communicate 

with, and provide instructions and training to, 

local school districts. Some techniques were 

common across most or all central matching case 

study States; others were particular to one or two 

States. In several States, districts also relied on 

private vendors for training on technical and policy 

topics. Common means by which State agencies 

communicated with and provided training to 

districts included email, webinars, and in-person 

workshops. 

States often do not monitor the frequency or 

accuracy of districts’ use of direct certification 

systems. Discrepancies between the number of 

students matched in the central system and the 

number districts report as directly certified can be a 

THE NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM DIRECT CERTIFICATION 

IMPROVEMENT STUDY: MAIN REPORT (SUMMARY) 

Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support August 2014 
key indicator of whether districts are using direct 

certification systems properly. The study States 

varied on the frequency that they checked the 

differences between the number of students 

matched in the central system and at the district 

level. 

In addition, States often do not track direct 

certification performance statewide, with only 22 

percent of central matching States reporting that 

they calculate the direct certification matching rate 

for their State. 

States and districts draw from a diverse range of 

funding and staff resources to develop and 

maintain their direct certification systems. States 

most commonly consulted IT staff and other State 

agencies. Almost 95 percent of central matching 

States and more than 85 percent of local matching 

States consulted with IT staff. Almost 90 percent of 

central matching States and almost 80 percent of 

local matching States consulted with other State 

agencies. 

Successful direct certification systems rely on 

constructive collaboration among multiple State 

agencies. Direct certification typically involves the 

State education agency, the State agency 

administering programs that confer categorical 

eligibility, and districts. Productive interagency 

relationships are important components of effective 

direct certification systems. In addition, formal 

data-sharing agreements among participating 

agencies are nearly universal, although some States 

noted that they can be challenging to execute.

Enrollment data needs vary based on whether 

States use central or local matching systems. With 

direct certification based on central matching, 

States must identify a means of obtaining 

information on students enrolled statewide, as well 

as a means to transfer enrollment data to the entity 

conducting direct certification matching. Nearly 80 

percent of central matching States used a Statewide 

Student Information System for direct certification 

in SY 2012–13 (Table 1). In one-third of central 

matching States and one-half of local matching 

States, no transfer of enrollment data was 

necessary because the data were housed at the 

entity conducting matching. 

Table 1. Characteristics of Enrollment Data Used in 

Direct Certification (percentages) 

Almost all States have plans to improve their 

direct certification systems. States noted plans to: 

add more data elements to their matching 

algorithms; increase the frequency of data receipt 

and matching; incorporate additional program data 

sources; add processes to resolve unmatched or 

partially matched records; upgrade technological 

infrastructure; transition from local to central 

matching systems; and provide improved training 

to direct certification users. 

For More Information 

Moore, Q., Gothro, A., Conway, K., Kyler B., 

(2014). National School Lunch Program Direct 

Certification Improvement Study. Prepared by 

Mathematica Policy Research, Under Contract No. 

AG-3198-D-10-0074. Alexandria, VA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 

Service, Office of Policy Support, Project Officer: 

Joseph F. Robare. Available online at: 

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

Central 

Matching 

States 

Local 

Matching 

States

Source of Enrollment Data 

Statewide Student Information 

System 79% 29%

Electronic files maintained by 

State 18% 64%

Electronic files maintained by 

district 3% 0%

Hard-copy files 0% 7%

Method for Transferring 

Enrollment Data 

No transfer necessary; data 

housed at matching entity 33% 50%

Electronic files sent via 

automatic process 36% 29%

Electronic files sent via Internet 

and uploaded manually by staff 36% 21%

Hard-copy lists sent via mail 3% 0%

Other transfer methods 19% 0%

Sample Size 38 14

Note: States were able to select multiple responses regarding 

methods used for transferring enrollment data.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.