School Breakfast -Making It Work in Large Districts - Food Research ...

School Breakfast: Making it Work in Large School Districts
School Year 2011-2012
Food Research and Action Center | January 2013
Executive Summary
This report examines the performance of school breakfast programs in 57 large urban and suburban school districts
during the 2011–2012 school year, with the goal of monitoring their progress in increasing school breakfast participation
among low-income students. Given the concentration of poverty within the student population in most of the districts
and the potential for economies of scale afforded by the large number of students, it is somewhat easier to reach
children with breakfast in districts in large metropolitan areas than elsewhere. Yet almost half of these districts failed to
reach a majority of the low-income students who eat school lunch each day with the important morning nourishment
they need to succeed in school.
All seven districts that met FRAC’s goal of reaching at least 70 low-income children with breakfast through the School
Breakfast Program for every 100 low-income children who received lunch through the National School Lunch Program
had widespread breakfast in the classroom programs. These programs, where students eat breakfast in their classroom
at the beginning of the school day, are clearly the most effective strategy to get school breakfast to the large number of
students who need it. It is especially effective for schools with high concentrations of free and reduced-price eligible
students that can offer breakfast at no charge to all students.
Key Findings
• The top 10 school districts served breakfast to two-thirds or more of the low-income students that
received school lunch each day. These districts all offer breakfast free to all or many students and all have
breakfast in the classroom programs in at least one-third of their schools. Seven districts — Boise, ID,
Charleston, SC, Detroit, MI, Houston, TX, Newark, NJ, San Antonio, TX, and Washington, DC — achieved the
goal of reaching at least 70 low-income children with breakfast for every 100 receiving lunch. If all 57 districts
had reached this goal in the 2011–2012 school year, 667,734 additional children would have been eating a
healthy school breakfast every day, and the districts combined would have collected an additional $175 million in
federal child nutrition funding.
• The bottom ten districts reached 40 or fewer low-income children with breakfast for every 100
with lunch. Some very large districts with high poverty levels were in this group. The five worst were:
Brentwood (Long Island), NY, Elgin, IL, Guilford County (Greensboro), NC, Miami-Dade County, FL, and New
York City, NY.

• Ten districts increased low-income breakfast participation by 20 percent or more in the 2011-
2012 school year, compared to the previous year. Brentwood (Long Island), NY, Chicago, IL, Clark
County (Las Vegas), NV, Little Rock, AR, and Orange County (Orlando), FL, had exceptional growth of more
than 25 percent. These districts all implemented breakfast in the classroom programs during the 2011-2012
school year, resulting in many more children participating in the program each day.
• Breakfast in the classroom programs, offered to all children at no charge, are now found in at
least some schools in most of the school districts included in this report. Forty-seven of the 57
districts in this study had some type of alternative breakfast service method—where breakfast is offered after
the school day begins—in at least some of their schools during the 2011–2012 school year. Serving models
include breakfast brought to classrooms and offered to children during the first 10 minutes of class, “grab and
go” breakfast service from carts or kiosks set up in school hallways or cafeterias, and breakfast after first
period in middle and high schools.
• The new federal Community Eligibility Option – in seven states now and in all states beginning in
the 2014-2015 school year – shows great promise of boosting participation further. Detroit was
one of the districts piloting Community Eligibility in 2011-2012, and experienced a 28.6 percent growth in
students eating lunch and 17.8 percent growth in students eating breakfast.
013
Acknowledgments
Special thanks go to the participating school district nutrition directors and their staff. This report would not be
possible without their responsiveness and willingness to share their experiences with others. We also are grateful
to state partners who provided data for this report—Maryland Hunger Solutions, Florida Impact, and Texas
Hunger Initiative—and for assistance from the American Association of School Administrators.
This report was written by FRAC Senior Policy Analyst Madeleine Levin.
The Food Research and Action Center gratefully acknowledges major support of its work to expand and improve
the School Breakfast Program in 2011–2012 from the following:
ConAgra Foods Foundation
Kraft Foods Foundation
National Dairy Council/Dairy Management, Inc.
Newman’s Own Foundation
Sara Lee Foundation
Taste of the NFL
Walmart Foundation
Additional support for FRAC’s work on the federal child nutrition programs in 2011–2012 was provided by:
Anonymous Donors
Annie E. Casey Foundation
The California Endowment
CREDO/Working Assets
General Mills Foundation
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Kaiser Permanente
About FRAC
Kresge Foundation
Land O’Lakes Foundation
Leaves of Grass Fund
MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger
The Moriah Fund
New Directions Foundation
Open Society Foundations
The Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) is the leading national organization working for more effective public and private
policies to eradicate domestic hunger and undernutrition.
For more information about FRAC, or to sign up for FRAC’s Weekly News Digest, go to: www.frac.org. For information about the School
Breakfast Food Research Program, and go Action to: http://bit.ly/sbprogram
Center | School Breakfast: Making It Work in Large School Districts 2

Introduction
Effective school breakfast programs play an important role in ensuring the food security of low-income children,
while also boosting diets, supporting improved attendance, greater academic success, good student behavior,
improved health, and reduced obesity rates. A full review of the positive effects of school breakfast can be found
at www.frac.org. School breakfast provides an especially needed support to millions of struggling families, but
with only half of low-income children getting breakfast at school, too many children are missing out. Many of the
children who do not eat breakfast start the school day unable to concentrate and not ready to learn.
As schools prepare to implement new federal meal standards for breakfast in the 2013-2014 school year, it is
more important than ever for them to increase participation in their breakfast programs. That will mean more
children benefitting from healthier food. Schools with higher breakfast participation rates also will be better able
to realize savings from economies of scale both in food purchases and labor costs. Most schools can serve
breakfast to many more children without experiencing concomitant increases in their costs for labor and
equipment. Each breakfast served brings in federal dollars (and in some cases additional state funding and
student payments). The additional revenue improves the financial health of the schools’ nutrition programs and
helps schools afford the somewhat higher costs of the healthier food required by the new regulations.
This report focuses on breakfast participation rates – and strategies to increase them – in large school districts
with many low-income students. It does so because of the great need and such districts’ unique position to
benefit from economies of scale to increase breakfast participation. The concentration of poverty in many of
these districts dictates an especially important mission to ensure that children have access to adequate nutrition
in order to learn, grow, and thrive. This report describes both the successes and the gaps in current efforts to
reach more children with a healthy morning meal.
How the School Breakfast Program Works
Who Operates the School Breakfast Program:
Any public school, nonprofit private school or residential child care institution can participate in the School Breakfast
Program. The program is administered at the federal level by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and in each state
through the state Department of Education or Agriculture.
Who can participate in the School Breakfast Program:
Any student attending a school that offers the program can eat breakfast. Children from families with incomes at or
below 130 percent of the federal poverty level are eligible for free school meals. Children from families with incomes
between 130 and 185 percent of the federal poverty level qualify for reduced-price meals and can be charged no more
than 30 cents per breakfast. Children from families with incomes above 185 percent of the federal poverty level pay
charges (referred to as “paid meals”) which are set by the school, but schools receive a small federal reimbursement for
such children.
Most children are certified for free or reduced-price meals via applications collected by the school district each year.
However, children in households participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR), as well as foster
youth, migrant, homeless, or runaway youth, and Head Start participants are “categorically eligible” (automatically
eligible) for free school meals without the need for an application. School districts are required to “directly certify”
children in SNAP participant households for free school meals through data matching of SNAP records with school
enrollment lists, and have the option of directly certifying children in TANF and FDPIR households as well.
How the School Breakfast Program is funded:
The School Breakfast Program is funded by the federal government through per meal reimbursements. The amount the
school is reimbursed for each meal depends on whether a student qualifies for free, reduced-price, or paid meals. For
the 2011-2012 school year, schools received $1.51 per free breakfast, $1.21 per reduced-price breakfast, and $0.27 per
paid breakfast. “Severe need” schools qualify for an additional 29 cents for each free or reduced-price breakfast served.
Schools are considered severe need if at least 40 percent of the lunches served during the second preceding school year
were free or reduced-price.
Food Research and Action Center | School Breakfast: Making It Work in Large School Districts 3

Survey Findings
Student Enrollment and Low-Income Student Eligibility Rates
The 57 districts that participated in this study ranged in size from 17,000 students to more than one million
students during the 2011–2012 school year. The districts responding to FRAC’s survey reported the percent of
their student enrollment determined to be eligible for free and reduced-price meals through the National School
Lunch Program. The same determination applies to breakfast. Table 1 lists the participating districts’ reported
student enrollment, and their reported enrollment of free and reduced-price eligible (i.e., low-income) students,
as well as a total combined percentage of both free and reduced-price eligible students. These eligibility figures
provide a snapshot of the relative level of poverty and nutritional need. The percentages varied from a low of 32
percent combined free and reduced-price eligible students in Montgomery County, MD to a high of nearly 100
percent in Detroit, MI.
Breakfast Participation
For this report, FRAC calculated the number of low-income students (i.e., those eligible for free or reduced-price
school meals) eating breakfast and eating lunch each day (average daily participation, or ADP) in each district by
dividing the number of free and reduced-price breakfasts and lunches (respectively) served over the course of the
school year by the number of days on which breakfast and lunch were served, as reported in the survey by each
district. Table 2 provides data for each district on the average daily number of low-income children participating
in free or reduced-price breakfast and lunch for the 2011-2012 school year.
FRAC also collected data on participation for the prior school year -- 2010-2011-- for 43 of the 57 districts. Table
3 compares the average daily participation in breakfast of low-income students for each district in the 2010-2011
and 2011-2012 school years, and shows the percent change. Ten districts increased low-income breakfast
participation by 20 percent or more. Brentwood (Long Island), NY, Chicago, IL, Clark County (Las Vegas), NV,
Little Rock, AR, and Orange County (Orlando), FL had exceptional growth of more than 25 percent. These
districts all were implementing breakfast in the classroom programs during the 2011-2012 school year, resulting
in many more children participating in the program each day. (See below for more information on breakfast in
the classroom.)
Top Ten Districts: Increase in Average Daily Participation (ADP)
from School Year 2010-11 to School Year 2011-12
District
Low-Income
Breakfast
ADP
SY 2010-11
Low-Income
Breakfast
ADP
SY 2011-12
Percent
Increase in
Breakfast ADP
Brentwood, NY 1,982 3,268 64.9%
Clark County, NV 38,108 55,643 46.0%
Little Rock, AR 5,501 7,646 39.0%
Orange County, FL 31,689 40,527 27.9%
Chicago, IL 115,989 145,902 25.8%
Elgin, IL 4,685 5,804 23.9%
Fort Worth, TX 18,718 22,866 22.2%
Denver, CO 13,772 16,813 22.1%
Wake County, NC 16,101 19,490 21.0%
Prince Georges County, MD 23,809 28,583 20.0%
Food Research and Action Center | School Breakfast: Making It Work in Large School Districts 4

Effectiveness in Reaching Low-Income Students with School Breakfast
FRAC uses free and reduced-price student participation in the National School Lunch Program as a benchmark
against which to measure low-income student participation in the School Breakfast Program. Because there is
broad participation in the lunch program by low-income students in districts around the country, it is a fair
measurement of how many students could and should be benefiting from school breakfast each day. Nationally,
for every 100 low-income children who ate free or reduced-price lunch, 50.4 low-income children ate free or
reduced-price breakfast on an average day in the 2011-2012 school year 1 . In the six best performing states —the
District of Columbia, Kentucky, New Mexico, South Carolina, Vermont, and West Virginia – the ratio was 60:100
or higher.
A challenging, yet achievable, goal is to serve breakfast to at least 70 out of 100 low-income students who eat
school lunch. A number of states are now nearing this level of breakfast participation state-wide, and large
districts can often do better: they have many low-income students, more geographic concentration, and
economies of scale coupled with increased federal reimbursements for meals served. Most importantly,
disproportionate numbers of poor children in many urban districts underscore the imperative to ensure that
children have access to adequate nutrition.
Table 4 ranks the districts in the report based on the ratio of low-income students eating school breakfast
compared to lunch in the 2011-2012 school year. Seven districts — Boise, ID, Charleston, SC, Detroit, MI,
Houston, TX, Newark, NJ, San Antonio, TX, and Washington, DC — met or exceeded the goal of 70 to 100 lowincome
student breakfast to lunch participation in the 2011-2012 school year. Twelve additional districts
exceeded a breakfast to lunch ratio of 60:100 low-income students. Altogether, 31 of the 57 districts in this study
served breakfast to more than half of their low-income students who received lunch each day, while 26 districts
were below the national average of 50.4:100.
Low-Income Students Participating in the School Breakfast Program (SBP) per 100
in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP)
Top 10 Districts Ratio Bottom 10 Districts Ratio
Newark, NJ 92.8 Des Moines, IA 40.2
Boise, ID 85.4 Knox County (Knoxville), TN 39.7
Houston, TX 82.2 Toledo, OH 39.3
Detroit, MI 79.5 Jefferson County, CO 39.0
Charleston, SC 75.7 Oakland, CA 37.4
Washington, DC 72.2 Miami-Dade County, FL 37.1
San Antonio, TX 70.5 Elgin, IL 35.4
Boston, MA 69.2 New York City, NY 35.3
Albuquerque, NM 69.0 Brentwood (Long Island), NY 33.5
Atlanta, GA 68.7 Guilford County (Greensboro), NC 27.7
For a full list of districts see Table 3
1 See FRAC School Breakfast Scorecard, School Year 2011-2012; http://frac.org/reports-and-resources/publications-archives/#breakfast
Food Research and Action Center | School Breakfast: Making It Work in Large School Districts 5

Reaching All Children Who Need School Breakfast:
The Nutritional and Fiscal Benefits
When children eat breakfast at school, it reduces hunger, absenteeism, tardiness and nurse visits, and improves
nutrition, learning and test scores. There is compelling evidence that school breakfast improves children’s health,
and may help prevent obesity. Research confirms that students in schools that offer school breakfast free to all
children are more likely to eat a nutritionally substantive breakfast compared to students in schools with a
traditional means-tested school breakfast program. These findings underscore the need to increase school
breakfast participation for districts that are committed to reducing obesity and improving student health and
achievement. See FRAC’s Breakfast for Health for more information on the links between school breakfast and
favorable health outcomes.
Missed school breakfast meals also add up to tens of millions of dollars in federal child nutrition funding going
unclaimed by districts every year. Each school day in the 2011–2012 school year, schools lost at least $1.51 in
federal nutrition funding for every child who would have received a free breakfast and $1.21 for every child who
would have received a reduced-price breakfast, but was not served. An additional 29 cents in federal funds per
child per meal were forfeited if those low-income children attended a “severe need” school—one of the thousands
of schools in which at least 40 percent of lunches served the prior year were free or reduced-price.
If each district in this survey had provided at least 70 low-income children with breakfast (through the School
Breakfast Program) for every 100 low-income children that received lunch (through the National School Lunch
Program) in the 2011–2012 school year, an additional 667,486 students would have eaten a healthy school
breakfast every day and the 57 districts would have received a combined $175 million in additional child nutrition
funding. Table 5 provides these data for each district in the report, arranged from the highest to lowest amount
of dollars lost. Most of the lost revenue and unserved low-income students are clustered in the largest districts,
with over a quarter in New York City alone. The New York City Department of Education would have collected
$50.3 million in additional federal funds, and served an additional 185,383 low-income students, if it met the
70:100 ratio. But 35 districts failed to collect at least $1 million, and in all districts falling short of the 70:100 ratio
the unnecessary loss of federal breakfast dollars hurts schools and their budgets at the same time that the
missed breakfast hurts children.
Top Five Districts in Lost Federal Funds (Amounts Foregone
Because District Failed to Reach 70 Free and Reduced-Price
Students in the School Breakfast Program per 100 Such
Students in the School Lunch Program)
District
Additional
Students
Dollars Lost
New York City, NY 185,383 $50,341,750
Miami-Dade County, FL 57,037 $14,368,573
Los Angeles, CA 51,169 $13,464,107
Clark County (Las Vegas), NV 33,426 $8,698,798
Broward County, FL 28,396 $7,591,966
For a full list of states see Table 4
Food Research and Action Center | School Breakfast: Making It Work in Large School Districts 6

Offering Breakfast Free to All Children
and Breakfast in the Classroom
All of the districts in this report have schools with significant concentrations of poverty. In such schools, federal
program rules offer important options to help districts reach many more children with breakfast, including
offering breakfast free to all children and making breakfast part of the school day. The pace at which districts are
able to implement these options depends on a range of factors: administrative support, resources for start-up
expenses, and buy-in from the school community (parents, principals, teachers, janitors, and other school
support personnel). This section provides information about and examines the effectiveness of the school
districts’ efforts to increase breakfast participation through the implementation of such programs. Table 6
summarizes the status of choices by district.
Programs that offer meals at no charge to all students, regardless of income (sometimes called “universal”), help
reach more children. The traditional means-tested school breakfast served in the cafeteria before school (in which
the higher-income children pay) creates a sense among the children that the program is just “for poor kids.” (This
is less true for lunch, at least through middle school, because typically all children go into the cafeteria for lunch.)
Serving breakfast free to everyone can be done in the cafeteria, but it also helps schools implement programs
such as breakfast in the classroom or offering breakfast from “grab and go” carts in the hallways at the start of
the school day. Of the school districts surveyed in this report, only three—Austin, TX, Cypress-Fairbanks, TX, and
Salt Lake City, UT —do not offer breakfast free to all students, regardless of income, at some or all of their
schools.
The three most prevalent models for offering breakfast at no charge to all children in schools are “non-pricing”,
Community Eligibility and Provision 2. These models are explained below.
Non-Pricing
School districts can provide free breakfast to all students in one or all of their schools using the traditional
approach of tracking which children eat and claiming meals for federal reimbursement by fee category: free,
reduced-price, and paid. The only difference in this model is that schools do not collect fees from families for
reduced-price and paid meals. Schools still must certify each child by fee category, track each child’s meals and
fee status, and claim the meals served accordingly. The federal options discussed below allow schools to reduce
administrative work and simplify the meal claiming process, making it more cost effective for them to offer
breakfast at no charge.
Community Eligibility
Community Eligibility is the newest option for offering both breakfast and lunch at no charge to students in
schools with high percentages of low-income students. Community Eligibility promises to significantly expand
participation in the School Breakfast Program by eliminating application barriers for families and administrative
obstacles for school nutrition staff. It will be available to any school that chooses to participate and that has 40
percent or more of its students certified for free meals without submitting a school meal application, which
includes children who are directly certified (through data matching) for free meals because they live in
households that participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF), or the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR), as well as children who
are automatically eligible for free school meals because of their status as being in foster care, Head Start,
homeless, or migrant. Reimbursements are determined by multiplying the percentage of children qualified for free
meals without submitting an application by 1.6 to determine the percent of meals eaten that will be reimbursed
at the free rate. For example, a school with 50 percent of children qualified for free meals without an application
would be reimbursed for 80 percent of the meals eaten at the free reimbursement rate and 20 percent at the
paid rate.
Food Research and Action Center | School Breakfast: Making It Work in Large School Districts 7

Community Eligibility is being phased in. Illinois, Kentucky and Michigan implemented the new option in the 2011-
2012 school year, and breakfast participation increased among low-income children in all three states at a higher
rate than the 7.5 percent rate of the nation as a whole—up 15.9 percent in Illinois, 8.4 percent in Kentucky, and
13.1 percent in Michigan 2 . The District of Columbia, New York, Ohio, and West Virginia were added in the 2012-
2013 school year, and another four states will be added in the 2013-2014 school year. Community eligibility will
be available nationwide beginning in the 2014-2015 school year.
Detroit Public Schools is the only district in this report that implemented Community Eligibility in the 2011-12
school year, and the impact there demonstrates the power of this option to increase participation in both
breakfast and lunch. Implemented district-wide, an additional 5,526 students participated in breakfast each day,
a 17.8 percent increase, with an even larger increase in the number of additional students eating lunch each day–
10,229 students or 28.6 percent. The breakfast increase is smaller because the district had implemented a
district-wide breakfast in the classroom program in the 2009-2010 school year, so that a high percentage of
students already were participating in breakfast.
Provision 2
Of the 54 districts in this study that offer breakfast free to all children in all or many of their schools, 25 use
“Provision 2” of the National School Lunch Act as a funding structure. Provision 2 enables schools to offer meals
(breakfast and/or lunch) at no charge to all of their students, while reducing paperwork and administrative costs.
Under Provision 2, all students, regardless of income, are offered free meals. Schools collect applications for free
and reduced-price meals only once every four years. The reimbursement rate for meals in all four years is based
on the percentage of meals in the school that are served in each category (free, reduced-price, and paid) during
the “base year.” Provision 2 schools are responsible for the difference between the cost of serving meals at no
charge to all students and the federal reimbursement for the meals. The increased participation, resulting in
increased federal reimbursement, and the significant administrative savings (e.g., fewer applications to process)
associated with Provision 2 help offset all or much of the cost differential.
Alternative Service Methods
Breakfast in the Classroom: Food service staff packs breakfasts into coolers or insulated bags to be delivered to
each classroom by school staff or designated students. Alternatively, schools can use a “grab and go” service model,
described below, where students pick up breakfast meals and bring them to their classroom. Students eat during the
first 10-15 minutes of class during morning announcements or while the teacher takes attendance or reviews lessons.
Students clear trash and wipe down desks, and breakfast trash is placed in the hallway to be collected by custodial
staff. Delivering breakfast to the classroom is ideal for lower grade levels where children start the day in the same
classroom with the same teacher each day, making delivery and meal counting smoother for teachers and food service
staff.
“Grab and Go”: Food service staff packs breakfast meals in bags for student pick-up, or students select items and put
them in bags themselves in the cafeteria or at kiosks in the hallway. Students select breakfast meals as they arrive at
school and eat on the way to class or at their desks after the bell during the first 10-15 minutes of class. If eating in the
classroom, students clear trash and wipe down desks, and breakfast trash is placed in the hallway to be collected by
custodial staff. “Grab and Go” works well for schools that do not have the capacity to deliver food to each classroom or
have infrastructure obstacles (e.g., multiple stories) that make delivery impracticable.
Breakfast after First Period or “Second Chance Breakfast”: Students eat breakfast after first period during a
morning nutrition break. Depending on the model used, students can eat in the cafeteria (similar to traditional
breakfast) or take a bagged meal from the cafeteria or kiosks in the hallway to be eaten in between classes or during
the next period. In the cafeteria, clean-up is similar to traditional before-school breakfast service. Second chance
breakfast works particularly well for secondary schools because older students often are not hungry early in the
morning and tend to arrive at school closer to the start of the school day.
2 FRAC School Breakfast Scorecard, School Year 2011-2012; http://frac.org/reports-and-resources/publications-archives/#breakfast
Food Research and Action Center | School Breakfast: Making It Work in Large School Districts 8

Breakfast in the Classroom
Forty-seven of the 57 districts in this study had some type of alternative breakfast service method—where
breakfast is served after the school day begins—in at least some of their schools during the 2011–2012 school
year. Districts used a variety of methods, including breakfast in the classroom, “grab and go,” and breakfast after
first period for middle and high school students. Breakfast in the classroom is especially prevalent in elementary
schools. Whether delivered to the classroom or served from carts in the hallway, allowing students to eat
breakfast in the classroom dramatically increases participation by making it convenient and accessible to all. It
helps families whose early morning schedules make it difficult to fit in breakfast—either at home or in the
cafeteria before school starts—due to long commutes and nontraditional work hours. Also, it eliminates the
problem caused by tight school bus schedules or school security lines when students do not always arrive at
school in time for breakfast before the first bell rings. Notably, districts with the widest implementation of
breakfast in the classroom have the highest participation rates. And, the top ten districts have breakfast in the
classroom programs in at least one-third of their schools. The practice of district-wide in-classroom breakfast
programs has now spread beyond well-established programs in Detroit, MI, Houston, TX, Newark, NJ, and
Washington, DC, to Chicago, IL, Los Angeles, CA and most recently Dallas, TX.
Partners for Breakfast in the Classroom Expands
After a very successful initial year working with five large districts, the Partners for Breakfast in the
Classroom, funded by the Walmart Foundation, are working in ten additional districts. The Partners for
Breakfast in the Classroom are the Food Research and Action Center, National Education Association Health
Information Network, National Association of Elementary School Principals Foundation, and School Nutrition
Foundation. The project provides school districts with funding for startup and equipment costs. Through a
comprehensive training, outreach, and promotional campaign, the Partners build support for breakfast in the
classroom among teachers, principals, and other important community stakeholders.
In the 2010-2011 school year, the Partners implemented the program in five large school districts: Dallas
Independent School District (TX), Little Rock School District (AR), Memphis City Schools (TN), Orange County
Public Schools (Orlando, FL), and Prince George’s County Public Schools (MD). All districts continued to
expand the program during the 2011-2012 school year and saw significant growth.
In the 2012-2013 school year, the Partners are working to implement breakfast in the classroom in ten new
school districts including: Charleston County School District, SC, Denver Public Schools, CO, Des Moines Public
Schools, IA, Elgin School District U-46, IL, Guilford County Schools, NC, Jefferson County Public Schools, KY,
Kansas City Kansas Public Schools, KS, and Knox County Schools, TN. Two additional districts are yet to be
finalized.
For more information see www.breakfastintheclassroom.org
Food Research and Action Center | School Breakfast: Making It Work in Large School Districts 9

Breakfast in the Classroom Successes
Boise, Idaho
Boise has achieved impressive results in its breakfast program through implementation of innovative service models
in 41 of the 45 schools served by Boise schools’ Food and Nutrition Services. Twelve elementary schools offer
breakfast in the classroom at no charge to all students, utilizing Provision 2. Peggy Bodnar, Food and Nutrition
Services Supervisor, credits the convenience and timing of breakfast in the classroom with the significant increase in
participation. She states, “Students and families are not dependent upon buses, when the school opens for students
to come in and eat, or other variables that impact missing breakfast at school.” The district also offers several
breakfast models in its secondary schools. Both junior high and senior high schools have breakfast before school
starts in the cafeteria and then offer a “second chance breakfast” to students in the cafeteria during a morning
break, around 9:30 a.m. Two-thirds of the breakfasts are eaten during the 10 to 15 minute break, so each school
has multiple serving lines to get students through quickly. Breakfasts are offered in a convenient “grab and go” style
at the high schools. Bodnar concludes that “offering a range of serving times is a big part of our success.”
Brentwood (Long Island), New York
Brentwood Union Free School District in Suffolk County, Long Island increased average daily participation in
breakfast among low-income children by 65 percent in the 2011-2012 school year through implementation of
breakfast in the classroom in elementary schools, and “grab and go” in middle and high schools. The
implementation of alternative serving methods was supported by a grant from the Walmart Foundation through
the American Association of School Administrators, with additional support from New York Action for Healthy
Kids, Children’s Defense Fund-New York, and Hunger Solutions New York. Calling the initiative “Bring on
Breakfast in Brentwood,” Superintendent Joseph Bond and Food Service Director Nancy Padrone worked together
to ensure that all key stakeholders—including principals, teachers, cafeteria workers, and custodians—understood
at the beginning of the initiative the purpose of the changes in how breakfast was served and how those changes
would positively affect the students. At the start of the 2011-2012 school year, the district had an average daily
participation in breakfast of 13 percent of enrollment, but by the end of the year it was serving 39 percent of all
students. Ten out of the district’s 17 schools serve alternative breakfast, with the other seven slated to start in
the 2012-2013 school year.
Clark County (Las Vegas), Nevada
Breakfast participation increased a dramatic 46 percent in the Clark County School District with the implementation
of a “breakfast after the bell” program in 78 high-poverty, Title I schools in the 2011-2012 school year. With
leadership from new Superintendent Dwight Jones and Food Services Director Charles Anderson, the district
developed a program that ensures all children have the opportunity to eat a healthy breakfast at no charge as they
start their school day. The district utilizes Provision 2 to ease administrative burden and maximize efficiency in the
program. In most of the schools, all students go to the cafeteria at the beginning of the school day where they can
eat breakfast before returning to class; however, the district has adapted the program to fit the needs of different
schools. For example, some schools allow students to take their meal back to the classroom. As a result, 17,535
additional low-income children received breakfast at school each day compared to the previous year.
Little Rock, Arkansas
Little Rock School District increased average daily participation in breakfast by low-income children by 39 percent in
the 2011-2012 school year through implementation of a breakfast in the classroom program supported by a grant
from Walmart through the Partners for Breakfast in the Classroom Project (the Partners are the Food Research and
Action Center, the National Association of Elementary School Principals Foundation, the National Education
Association Health Information Network, and the School Nutrition Foundation). In Little Rock School District, the
Partners worked in collaboration with Food Service Director Lilly Bouie and the Little Rock Classroom Teachers
Association to implement breakfast in the classroom in 15 elementary schools. The Arkansas Association of
Elementary Administrators and the Arkansas Hunger Relief Alliance provided support for the effort. At the end of the
2011-2012 school year, breakfast participation in the 15 schools had increased dramatically to 77.5 percent of
average daily attendance from 17 percent at the start of the 2010-2011 school year. The district plans to continue
expanding the program to an additional eight schools in the 2012-2013 school year.
Food Research and Action Center | School Breakfast: Making It Work in Large School Districts 10

Conclusion
School breakfast participation is growing, especially in school districts that offer breakfast in the classroom free to
all students. With the spread of Community Eligibility, many more schools serving high concentrations of lowincome
students can offer school meals at no charge, making it easier to move breakfast out of the cafeteria.
Further, schools nationwide are working to increase participation levels and efficiencies in their breakfast
programs as they prepare to implement new federal meal standards for breakfast in the 2013-2014 and 2014-
2015 school years. In addition to making fiscal sense, higher participation levels benefit children and schools with
positive outcomes—higher attendance, lower absenteeism, better health, reduced behavior problems, fewer visits
to the school nurse, reduced obesity, and higher student achievement.
Food Research and Action Center | School Breakfast: Making It Work in Large School Districts 11

Table 1: Total Enrollment, Free and Reduced-Price School Meal Enrollment, and Percent of
Students Determined to be Eligible for Free and Reduced-Price Meals in SY 2011-12
District
Total
Enrollment
Free &
Reduced-
Price
Enrollment*
Percent
Free &
Reduced-
Price
Albuquerque Public Schools (NM) 88,244 52,483 59.5%
Atlanta Public Schools (GA) 50,009 37,389 74.8%
Austin Independent School District (TX) 87,005 56,988 65.5%
Baltimore City Public Schools (MD) 85,484 71,297 83.4%
Boise School District (ID) 23,128 10,272 44.4%
Boston Public Schools (MA) 51,980 44,764 86.1%
Brentwood Union Free School District (NY) 17,010 13,744 80.8%
Broward County Schools (FL) 227,098 137,444 60.5%
Charleston County School District (SC) 43,345 22,719 52.4%
Chicago Public Schools (IL) 376,424 318,216 84.5%
Cincinnati Public Schools (OH) 34,439 26,641 77.4%
Clark County School District (NV) 314,839 180,274 57.3%
Columbus City Schools (OH) 50,483 40,621 80.5%
Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District (TX) 108,290 53,062 49.0%
Dallas Independent School District (TX) 155,221 138,915 89.5%
DeKalb County Public Schools (GA) 97,121 69,774 71.8%
Denver Public Schools (CO) 77,066 53,893 69.9%
Des Moines Public Schools (IA) 30,763 20,561 66.8%
Detroit Public Schools (MI) 73,358 73,358** 100.0%**
District of Columbia Public Schools (DC) 44,679 30,783 68.8%
Duval Public Schools (FL) 155,389 85,962 55.3%
Elgin School District (IL) 40,661 22,327 54.9%
Fort Worth Independent School District (TX) 83,922 68,900 82.1%
Fulton County Schools (GA) 88,601 39,742 44.9%
Guilford County Schools (NC) 72,434 43,512 60.1%
Hillsborough County Schools (FL) 206,074 113,143 54.9%
Houston Independent School District (TX) 194,837 158,958 81.6%
Indianapolis Public Schools (IN) 31,682 27,350 86.3%
Irving Independent School District (TX) 36,483 29,369 80.5%
Jeffco Public Schools (CO) 81,273 27,079 33.3%
Jefferson County Public Schools (KY) 99,361 64,186 64.6%
Kansas City Kansas Schools (KS) 19,095 18,121 94.9%
Knox County Schools (TN) 58,512 33,345 57.0%
Lee County Schools (FL) 71,388 50,126 70.2%
Little Rock School District (AR) 25,537 18,143 71.0%
Long Beach Unified School District (CA) 83,779 59,640 71.2%
Los Angeles Unified School District (CA) 609,259 480,665 78.9%
Memphis City Schools (TN) 107,450 92,551 86.1%
Food Research and Action Center | School Breakfast: Making It Work in Large School Districts 12

District
Total
Enrollment
Free &
Reduced-
Price
Enrollment*
Percent
Free &
Reduced-
Price
Miami-Dade Public Schools (FL) 315,816 230,237 72.9%
Mesa Public Schools (AZ) 65,192 37,827 58.0%
Montgomery County Schools (MD) 145,689 47,024 32.3%
New York City Dept. of Education (NY) 1,113,000 741,000 66.6%
Newark Public Schools (NJ) 36,953 31,097 84.2%
Oakland Unified School District (CA) 37,831 26,731 70.7%
Omaha Public Schools (NE) 47,940 36,097 75.3%
Orange County Schools (FL) 199,135 116,838 58.7%
Philadelphia School District (PA) 154,875 120,647 77.9%
Pinellas County Schools (FL) 104,511 54,658 52.3%
Portland Public Schools (OR) 42,415 19,699 46.4%
Prince Georges County Public Schools (MD) 124,820 71,506 57.3%
Richmond City Public Schools (VA) 22,369 17,138 76.6%
Salt Lake City School District (UT) 26,502 15,981 60.3%
San Antonio Independent School District (TX) 54,215 49,607 91.5%
San Diego Unified School District (CA) 112,262 81,444 72.5%
Syracuse City School District (NY) 19,370 17,242 89.0%
Toledo Public Schools (OH) 21,997 17,233 78.3%
Wake County Public Schools (NC) 146,478 52,726 36.0%
*Students determined to be eligible for free and reduced-price meals through direct certification or paper applications.
** Detroit Public Schools utilize the Community Eligibility Option, which allows them to claim all meals in the Free category.
Food Research and Action Center | School Breakfast: Making It Work in Large School Districts 13

Table 2: Average Daily Participation (ADP) for Low-Income Students in
Lunch and Breakfast and Ratio of Low-Income Students in School Breakfast (SBP)
per 100 in School Lunch (NSLP) for SY 2011-2012
District
Free &
Reduced-
Price
Breakfast
ADP
Free &
Reduced-
Price
Lunch
ADP
Ratio F & RP
Students in
SBP per 100
in NSLP
Albuquerque Public Schools (NM) 23,154 33,543 69.0 9
Atlanta Public Schools (GA) 19,528 28,429 68.7 10
Austin Independent School District (TX) 19,640 44,096 44.5 40
Baltimore City Public Schools (MD) 21,879 47,016 46.5 37
Boise School District (ID) 6,373 7,461 85.4 2
Boston Public Schools (MA) 22,777 32,894 69.2 8
Brentwood Union Free School District (NY) 3,268 9,769 33.5 56
Broward County Schools (FL) 42,598 101,419 42.0 45
Charleston County School District (SC) 13,792 18,211 75.7 5
Chicago Public Schools (IL) 145,902 240,532 60.7 18
Cincinnati Public Schools (OH) 11,477 17,487 65.6 12
Clark County School District (NV) 55,643 127,241 43.7 41
Columbus City Schools (OH) 20,878 31,470 66.3 11
Cypress- Fairbanks Independent School District (TX) 22,606 41,684 54.2 28
Dallas Independent School District (TX) 48,057 106,625 45.1 39
DeKalb County Public Schools (GA) 26,226 61,739 42.5 44
Denver Public Schools (CO) 16,813 39,570 42.5 43
Des Moines Public Schools (IA) 6,169 15,343 40.2 48
Detroit Public Schools (MI) 36,551 45,957 79.5 4
District of Columbia Public Schools (DC) 11,865 16,435 72.2 6
Duval Public Schools (FL) 26,815 45,607 58.8 22
Elgin School District (IL) 5,804 16,414 35.4 54
Fort Worth Independent School District (TX) 22,866 53,161 43.0 42
Fulton County Schools (GA) 17,323 31,307 55.3 27
Guilford County Schools (NC) 9,687 34,982 27.7 57
Hillsborough County Schools (FL) 50,829 87,937 57.8 25
Houston Independent School District (TX) 96,709 117,696 82.2 3
Indianapolis Public Schools (IN) 13,800 22,969 60.1 19
Irving Independent School District (TX) 14,822 23,329 63.5 15
Jeffco Public Schools (CO) 6,487 16,647 39.0 51
Jefferson County Public Schools (KY) 28,865 49,618 58.2 24
Kansas City Kansas Schools (KS) 6,649 13,402 49.6 32
Knox County Schools (TN) 8,449 21,261 39.7 49
Lee County Schools (FL) 23,317 39,744 58.7 23
Little Rock School District (AR) 7,646 12,867 59.4 21
Long Beach Unified School District (CA) 18,336 39,792 46.1 38
Los Angeles Unified School District (CA) 152,328 290,711 52.4 31
Memphis City Schools (TN) 41,577 65,291 63.7 14
Rank
Among
Districts
in Study
Food Research and Action Center | School Breakfast: Making It Work in Large School Districts 14

District
Free &
Reduced-
Price
Breakfast
ADP
Free &
Reduced-
Price
Lunch
ADP
Ratio F & RP
Students in
SBP per 100
in NSLP
Mesa Public Schools (AZ) 15,550 33,236 46.8 36
Miami-Dade Public Schools (FL) 64,212 173,212 37.1 53
Montgomery County Schools (MD) 17,363 35,219 49.3 33
New York City Dept. of Education (NY) 188,525 534,153 35.3 55
Newark Public Schools (NJ) 23,947 25,801 92.8 1
Oakland Unified School District (CA) 7,030 18,797 37.4 52
Omaha Public Schools (NE) 14,049 26,340 53.3 29
Orange County Schools (FL) 40,527 84,327 48.1 35
Philadelphia School District (PA) 51,044 85,729 59.5 20
Pinellas County Schools (FL) 16,144 38,745 41.7 46
Portland Public Schools (OR) 8,097 14,260 56.8 26
Prince Georges County Public Schools (MD) 28,583 54,266 52.7 30
Richmond City Public Schools (VA) 6,578 10,680 61.6 17
Salt Lake City School District (UT) 5,183 12,742 40.7 47
San Antonio Independent School District (TX) 30,217 42,835 70.5 7
San Diego Unified School District (CA) 38,677 60,137 64.3 13
Syracuse City School District (NY) 7,667 12,092 63.4 16
Toledo Public Schools (OH) 5,039 12,834 39.3 50
Wake County Public Schools (NC) 19,490 39,989 48.7 34
Rank
Among
Districts
in Study
Food Research and Action Center | School Breakfast: Making It Work in Large School Districts 15

Table 3: Average Daily Participation (ADP) for Low-Income Students in
Breakfast for SY 2010-2011 and SY 2011-2012, and Percent Change
District
Free &
Reduced-
Price
Breakfast
ADP SY
2010-11
Free &
Reduced-
Price
Breakfast
ADP SY
2011-12
Albuquerque Public Schools (NM) 22,633 23,154 2.3%
Atlanta Public Schools (GA) 18,266 19,528 6.9%
Austin Independent School District (TX) 19,885 19,640 -1.2%
Baltimore City Public Schools (MD) 20,868 21,879 4.8%
Boise School District (ID) N/A 6,373 N/A
Boston Public Schools (MA) 20,544 22,777 10.9%
Brentwood Union Free School District (NY) 1,982 3,268 64.9%
Broward County Schools (FL) N/A 42,598 N/A
Charleston County School District (SC) N/A 13,792 N/A
Chicago Public Schools (IL) 115,989 145,902 25.8%
Cincinnati Public Schools (OH) 10,894 11,477 5.4%
Clark County School District (NV) 38,108 55,643 46.0%
Columbus City Schools (OH) 19,771 20,878 5.6%
Cypress- Fairbanks Independent School District (TX) 21,265 22,606 6.3%
Dallas Independent School District (TX) 40,558 48,057 18.5%
DeKalb County Public Schools (GA) 24,896 26,226 5.3%
Denver Public Schools (CO) 13,772 16,813 22.1%
Des Moines Public Schools (IA) 6,002 6,169 2.8%
Detroit Public Schools (MI) 31,025 36,551 17.8%
District of Columbia Public Schools (DC) 12,093 11,865 -1.9%
Duval Public Schools (FL) N/A 26,815 N/A
Elgin School District (IL) 4,685 5,804 23.9%
Fort Worth Independent School District (TX) 18,718 22,866 22.2%
Fulton County Schools (GA) 16,489 17,323 5.1%
Guilford County Schools (NC) N/A 9,687 N/A
Hillsborough County Schools (FL) N/A 50,829 N/A
Houston Independent School District (TX) 96,202 96,709 0.5%
Indianapolis Public Schools (IN) 13,304 13,800 3.7%
Irving Independent School District (TX) 14,026 14,822 5.7%
Jeffco Public Schools (CO) N/A 6,487 N/A
Jefferson County Public Schools (KY) 27,122 28,865 6.4%
Kansas City Kansas Schools (KS) 6,212 6,649 7.0%
Knox County Schools (TN) N/A 8,449 N/A
Lee County Schools (FL) 23,011 23,317 1.3%
Little Rock School District (AR) 5,501 7,646 39.0%
Long Beach Unified School District (CA) N/A 18,336 N/A
Los Angeles Unified School District (CA) 168,780 152,328 -9.7%
Memphis City Schools (TN) 38,983 41,577 6.7%
Mesa Public Schools (AZ) N/A 15,550 N/A
Percent
Change in
F & RP SBP
ADP
Food Research and Action Center | School Breakfast: Making It Work in Large School Districts 16

District
Free &
Reduced-
Price
Breakfast
ADP SY
2010-11
Free &
Reduced-
Price
Breakfast
ADP SY
2011-12
Miami-Dade Public Schools (FL) 62,487 64,212 2.8%
Montgomery County Schools (MD) 14,892 17,363 16.6%
New York City Dept. of Education (NY) 182,320 188,525 3.4%
Newark Public Schools (NJ) 20,894 23,947 14.6%
Oakland Unified School District (CA) 6,308 7,030 11.4%
Omaha Public Schools (NE) 13,545 14,049 3.7%
Orange County Schools (FL) 31,689 40,527 27.9%
Philadelphia School District (PA) 52,990 51,044 -3.7%
Pinellas County Schools (FL) N/A 16,144 N/A
Portland Public Schools (OR) 7,753 8,097 4.4%
Prince Georges County Public Schools (MD) 23,809 28,583 20.0%
Richmond City Public Schools (VA) N/A 6,578 N/A
Salt Lake City School District (UT) 5,220 5,183 -0.7%
San Antonio Independent School District (TX) 31,124 30,217 -2.9%
San Diego Unified School District (CA) 41,720 38,677 -7.3%
Syracuse City School District (NY) N/A 7,667 N/A
Toledo Public Schools (OH) N/A 5,039 N/A
Wake County Public Schools (NC) 16,101 19,490 21.0%
Percent
Change in
F & RP SBP
ADP
Food Research and Action Center | School Breakfast: Making It Work in Large School Districts 17

Table 4: District Effectiveness in Reaching Low-Income Students with School Breakfast
(SBP) as Ratio to School Lunch (NSLP) Participation in School Year 2011-2012
RATIO
F & RP Rank
District
Students in Among
SBP per 100 in Districts in
NSLP
Study
Newark Public Schools (NJ) 92.8 1
Boise School District (ID) 85.4 2
Houston Independent School District (TX) 82.2 3
Detroit Public Schools (MI) 79.5 4
Charleston County School District (SC) 75.7 5
District of Columbia Public Schools (DC) 72.2 6
San Antonio Independent School District (TX) 70.5 7
Boston Public Schools (MA) 69.2 8
Albuquerque Public Schools (NM) 69.0 9
Atlanta Public Schools (GA) 68.7 10
Columbus City Schools (OH) 66.3 11
Cincinnati Public Schools (OH) 65.6 12
San Diego Unified School District (CA) 64.3 13
Memphis City Schools (TN) 63.7 14
Irving Independent School District (TX) 63.5 15
Syracuse City School District (NY) 63.4 16
Richmond City Public Schools (VA) 61.6 17
Chicago Public Schools (IL) 60.7 18
Indianapolis Public Schools (IN) 60.1 19
Philadelphia School District (PA) 59.5 20
Little Rock School District (AR) 59.4 21
Duval Public Schools (FL) 58.8 22
Lee County Schools (FL) 58.7 23
Jefferson County Public Schools (KY) 58.2 24
Hillsborough County Schools (FL) 57.8 25
Portland Public Schools (OR) 56.8 26
Fulton County Schools (GA) 55.3 27
Cypress- Fairbanks Independent School District (TX) 54.2 28
Omaha Public Schools (NE) 53.3 29
Prince Georges County Public Schools (MD) 52.6 30
Los Angeles Unified School District (CA) 52.4 31
Kansas City Kansas Schools (KS) 49.6 32
Montgomery County Schools (MD) 49.3 33
Wake County Public Schools (NC) 48.7 34
Orange County Schools (FL) 48.1 35
Mesa Public Schools (AZ) 46.8 36
Baltimore City Public Schools (MD) 46.5 37
Long Beach Unified School District (CA) 46.1 38
Dallas Independent School District (TX) 45.1 39
Food Research and Action Center | School Breakfast: Making It Work in Large School Districts 18

RATIO
F & RP Rank
District
Students in Among
SBP per 100 in Districts in
NSLP
Study
Austin Independent School District (TX) 44.5 40
Clark County School District (NV) 43.7 41
Fort Worth Independent School District (TX) 43.0 42
Denver Public Schools (CO) 42.5 43
DeKalb County Public Schools (GA) 42.5 44
Broward County Schools (FL) 42.0 45
Pinellas County Schools (FL) 41.7 46
Salt Lake City School District (UT) 40.7 47
Des Moines Public Schools (IA) 40.2 48
Knox County Schools (TN) 39.7 49
Toledo Public Schools (OH) 39.3 50
Jeffco Public Schools (CO) 39.0 51
Oakland Unified School District (CA) 37.4 52
Miami-Dade Public Schools (FL) 37.1 53
Elgin School District (IL) 35.4 54
New York City Dept. of Education (NY) 35.3 55
Brentwood Union Free School District (NY) 33.5 56
Guilford County Schools (NC) 27.7 57
Food Research and Action Center | School Breakfast: Making It Work in Large School Districts 19

Table 5: School Districts’ Additional Funding and Participation if 70 Low-Income Students
Were Served School Breakfast Per 100 Served School Lunch
District
Additional Low-
Income
Students in
Breakfast if 70
per 100 in Lunch
Additional Federal
Funding if 70 Low-
Income Breakfast
Students per 100
Receiving Lunch
Albuquerque Public Schools (NM) 326 $85,003.56
Atlanta Public Schools (GA) 372 $102,274.87
Austin Independent School District (TX) 11,227 $2,819,506.63
Baltimore City Public Schools (MD) 11,032 $2,765,551.72
Boise School District (ID) * *
Boston Public Schools (MA) 249 $66,884.07
Brentwood Union Free School District (NY) 3,570 $915,913.85
Broward County Schools (FL) 28,396 $7,591,966.26
Charleston County School District (SC) * *
Chicago Public Schools (IL) 22,470 $5,708,958.65
Cincinnati Public Schools (OH) 763 $208,334.01
Clark County School District (NV) 33,426 $8,698,798.15
Columbus City Schools (OH) 1,151 $300,539.84
Cypress- Fairbanks Independent School District (TX) 6,573 $1,661,883.76
Dallas Independent School District (TX) 57,037 $14,368,572.83
DeKalb County Public Schools (GA) 26,580 $6,976,482.29
Denver Public Schools (CO) 16,992 $4,570,509.74
Des Moines Public Schools (IA) 10,886 $2,766,519.33
Detroit Public Schools (MI) 4,571 $1,223,679.40
District of Columbia Public Schools (DC) * *
Duval Public Schools (FL) * *
Elgin School District (IL) 5,110 $1,287,778.85
Fort Worth Independent School District (TX) 5,686 $1,464,972.83
Fulton County Schools (GA) 14,347 $3,557,992.74
Guilford County Schools (NC) 4,592 $1,209,457.81
Hillsborough County Schools (FL) 14,800 $3,960,651.44
Houston Independent School District (TX) 10,727 $2,691,778.24
Indianapolis Public Schools (IN) * *
Irving Independent School District (TX) 2,278 $610,724.42
Jeffco Public Schools (CO) 1,508 $380,023.87
Jefferson County Public Schools (KY) 5,166 $1,331,746.17
Kansas City Kansas Schools (KS) 5,868 $1,531,696.75
Knox County Schools (TN) 2,732 $767,732.44
Lee County Schools (FL) 6,433 $1,629,081.71
Little Rock School District (AR) 4,504 $1,224,091.77
Long Beach Unified School District (CA) 1,360 $358,280.89
Los Angeles Unified School District (CA) 9,518 $2,513,123.58
Food Research and Action Center | School Breakfast: Making It Work in Large School Districts 20

District
Additional Low-
Income
Students in
Breakfast if 70
per 100 in Lunch
Additional Federal
Funding if 70 Low-
Income Breakfast
Students per 100
Receiving Lunch
Memphis City Schools (TN) 51,169 $13,464,106.63
Mesa Public Schools (AZ) 4,127 $1,112,088.14
Miami-Dade Public Schools (FL) 7,715 $2,060,371.80
Montgomery County Schools (MD) 7,291 $1,956,079.73
New York City Dept. of Education (NY) 185,383 $50,341,750.00
Newark Public Schools (NJ) * *
Oakland Unified School District (CA) 6,128 $1,643,647.15
Omaha Public Schools (NE) 4,389 $1,013,193.71
Orange County Schools (FL) 18,502 $4,950,244.08
Philadelphia School District (PA) 8,966 $2,405,332.55
Pinellas County Schools (FL) 10,978 $2,780,125.76
Portland Public Schools (OR) 1,885 $479,887.38
Prince Georges County Public Schools (MD) 9,403 $2,516,189.30
Richmond City Public Schools (VA) 898 $237,994.60
Salt Lake City School District (UT) 3,736 $975,801.47
San Antonio Independent School District (TX) * *
San Diego Unified School District (CA) 3,419 $877,111.71
Syracuse City School District (NY) 797 $212,669.19
Toledo Public Schools (OH) 3,945 $1,043,567.50
Wake County Public Schools (NC) 8,503 $2,264,775.48
TOTAL 667,486 $175,685,448.65
* Already exceeds 70 free and reduced-price school breakfasts per 100 free and reduced-price school lunches
Food Research and Action Center | School Breakfast: Making It Work in Large School Districts 21

Table 6: Schools in Districts Adopting Key Breakfast Options*
District
Breakfast
Offered
Free to
All
Provision
2^
Albuquerque Public Schools (NM) Some Yes Yes
Atlanta Public Schools (GA) Some No Yes
Austin Independent School District (TX) No No No
Baltimore City Public Schools (MD) All Yes Yes
Boise School District (ID) Some Yes Yes
Boston Public Schools (MA) All Yes Yes
Brentwood Union Free School District (NY) Some No Yes
Broward County Schools (FL) Some No No
Charleston County School District (SC) All No Yes
Chicago Public Schools (IL) Some No Yes
Cincinnati Public Schools (OH) All Yes No
Clark County School District (NV) Some Yes Yes
Columbus City Schools (OH) All No Yes
Cypress- Fairbanks Independent School District (TX) No No No
Dallas Independent School District (TX) Some No Yes
DeKalb County Public Schools (GA) Some Yes No
Denver Public Schools (CO) All No Yes
Des Moines Public Schools (IA) Some Yes Yes
Detroit Public Schools (MI) All No Yes
District of Columbia Public Schools (DC) All Yes Yes
Duval Public Schools (FL) Some No Yes
Elgin School District (IL) Some No Yes
Fort Worth Independent School District (TX) Some No Yes
Fulton County Schools (GA) Some No Yes
Guilford County Schools (NC) Some No Yes
Hillsborough County Schools (FL) All No Yes
Houston Independent School District (TX) All No Yes
Indianapolis Public Schools (IN) Some Yes Yes
Irving Independent School District (TX) All Yes Yes
Jeffco Public Schools (CO) Some No Yes
Jefferson County Public Schools (KY) Some Yes Yes
Kansas City Kansas Schools (KS) Some No Yes
Knox County Schools (TN) Some Yes Yes
Lee County Schools (FL) All No Yes
Little Rock School District (AR) Some Yes Yes
Long Beach Unified School District (CA) Some Yes Yes
Los Angeles Unified School District (CA) Some Yes Yes
Memphis City Schools (TN) All No Yes
Mesa Public Schools (AZ) Some Yes Yes
Miami-Dade Public Schools (FL) All No No
Montgomery County Schools (MD) Some No Yes
New York City Dept. of Education (NY) All Yes Yes
Breakfast
In the
Classroom*
Food Research and Action Center | School Breakfast: Making It Work in Large School Districts 22

District
Breakfast
Offered
Free to
All
Provision
2^
Newark Public Schools (NJ) All No Yes
Oakland Unified School District (CA) All Yes Yes
Omaha Public Schools (NE) All Yes Yes
Orange County Schools (FL) Some Yes Yes
Philadelphia School District (PA) All No Yes
Pinellas County Schools (FL) Some No No
Portland Public Schools (OR) Some Yes Yes
Prince Georges County Public Schools (MD) Some No Yes
Richmond City Public Schools (VA) Some Yes No
Salt Lake City School District (UT) No No No
San Antonio Independent School District (TX) All No Yes
San Diego Unified School District (CA) Some Yes Yes
Syracuse City School District (NY) All Yes Yes
Toledo Public Schools (OH) Some No No
Wake County Public Schools (NC) Some No Yes
Breakfast
In the
Classroom*
^“Provision 2” of the National School Lunch Act enables schools to offer lunch and/or breakfast at no charge to all of their students, while
reducing paperwork and administrative costs.
* In this chart “breakfast in the classroom” also includes “grab and go” and breakfast after first period
Food Research and Action Center | School Breakfast: Making It Work in Large School Districts 23

Appendix
The Survey
In the summer of 2012, FRAC sent a survey regarding school year 2011-2012 school breakfast participation and
practices to 79 large urban and suburban school districts. FRAC selected the districts based on size and
geographic representation, seeking to look not just at the nation’s largest districts but at large school districts in a
substantial number of states. School food service staff in 48 districts responded between August and December
2012.
The major goals of the survey were to:
• determine the extent to which these districts reach low-income children with the School Breakfast Program
and assess trends;
• consider the additional number of low-income students who would be served if the districts achieved higher
participation rates and determine the federal dollars lost to the districts as a result of not providing these
meals;
• monitor progress and examine the effectiveness of school districts’ efforts to increase school breakfast
participation through the provision of “universal” breakfast (breakfast offered at no charge to all students) and
the implementation of programs where breakfast is eaten in the classroom at the beginning of the school day;
and
• collect information on promising practices in the districts that might serve as national models for increasing
school breakfast participation by low-income students.
Methodology
The data in this report were collected directly from the school districts’ food and nutrition department personnel
through an email survey and follow-up phone interviews. Additional data were collected from three state antihunger
organizations – Florida Impact, Maryland Hunger Solutions, and Texas Hunger Initiative.
Student Participation
Student participation data are based on the total number of breakfasts and lunches served during the school
year, with average daily participation determined by dividing the data by the number of serving days provided by
each district.
The Cost of Low Participation Rates
The cost estimate is based on a calculation of the average daily number of children receiving free or reducedprice
breakfasts for every 100 children receiving free or reduced-price lunches during the same school year. FRAC
then calculated the number of additional children who would be reached if each district reached a ratio of 70 in
breakfast to 100 in lunch. FRAC then multiplied this unserved population by the reimbursement rate for 168
school days of breakfast. (While some districts served breakfast for more or fewer days during the 2011–2012
school year, 169 was the national average.) FRAC assumed each district’s mix of free and reduced-price students
would apply to any new participants, and conservatively assumed that no additional student’s meal would be
reimbursed at the higher rate that “severe need” schools receive.
Food Research and Action Center | School Breakfast: Making It Work in Large School Districts 24

School District Contacts
District State Contact Title Phone Email
Albuquerque Public NM Mary Swift Director 505-345-5661 swift@aps.edu
Schools
x37041
Atlanta Public Schools GA Marilyn Hughes Director of
Nutrition
Administration
404-802-1599 mhhughes@atlanta.k12.ga.us
Austin Independent School
District
TX Chris Carrillo-Spano Director 512-414-0228 chriscar@austinisd.org
Baltimore City Public
Schools
MD Elizabeth Marchetta Office of the CFO 410-396-8768 eamarchetta@bcps.k12.md.us
Boise Public Schools ID Peggy Bodnar Supervisor 208-854-4104 peggy.moorebodnar@boiseschools.org
Boston Public Schools MA Michael Peck Director 617.635.9144 mpeck@boston.k12.ma.us
Brentwood Union Free NY Nancy Padrone Director of 631-434-2316 npadrone@bufsd.org
School District
Operations
Broward County Public
Schools
FL Mary Mulder Director 754-321-0215 mary.mulder@browardschools.com
Charleston Co. School
District
SC Walter Campbell Director 843-566-8180 walter_campbell@charleston.k12.sc.us
Chicago Public Schools IL Leslie Fowler Director 773-553-2833 Lafowler@cps.edu
Cincinnati Public Schools OH Jessica Shelly Director 513-363-0818 Shellyj@cps-K12.org
Clark County School
District (Las Vegas)
NV Virginia Beck Coordinator 702-799-8123 vkbeck@interact.ccsd.net
Columbus City Schools OH Joe Brown Food Service
Director
614-365-5671 jbrown@columbus.k12.oh.us
Cypress-Fairbanks
Independent School Dist.
TX Darrin Crawford Director 281-897-4541 jeffery.crawford@cfisd.net
Dallas Independent School
District
TX Dora Rivas Executive Director 214-932-5503 drivas@dallasisd.org
DeKalb County School
District
GA Joyce Wimberly Director 678.676.0156 joyce_r_wimberly@fc.dekalb.k12.ga.us
Denver Public Schools CO Theresa Hafner Director 720-423-5611 theresa_hafner@dpsk12.org
Des Moines Public Schools IA Sandy Huisman Director 515-242-7712 sandy.huisman@dmschools.org
Detroit Public Schools MI Betti Wiggins Director 313-578-7220 betti.wiggins@detroitk12.org
District of Columbia Public
Schools
DC Jeffrey Mills Director 202-384-2490 jeffrey.mills@dc.gov
Duval County Public
Schools
FL Wayne Atwood Supervisor 904-858-6310 atwoodw@duvalschools.org
Elgin School District IL Claudie Phillips Director 847-888-5000
x5036
ClaudiePhillips@u-46.org
Fort Worth Independent
School District
TX Glenn Headlee Director 817-814-3500 roy.headlee@fwisd.org
Fulton County Schools GA Alyssia Wright Executive Director 404-669-8960 WrightAL@fulton.k12.ga.us
Guilford County Schools
(Greensboro)
NC James Faggione Director 336-370-3266 faggioj@gcsnc.com
Hillsborough County Public
Schools (Tampa)
FL Mary Kate Harrison Director 813-840-7092 marykate.harrison@sdhc.k12.fl.us
Houston Independent TX Julie Spreckelmeyer Director of 713-491-5835 jsprecke@houstonisd.org
School District
Communications,
Food Service
Indianapolis Public Schools IN Jane Cookson Director 317-226-4772 cooksonj@ips.k12.in.us
Irving Independent School TX Michael
Director 972-600-6900 mr@irvingisd.net
District
Rosenberger
JeffCo Public Schools CO Linda Stoll Executive Director 303-982-6746 lstoll@jeffco.k12.co.us
Jefferson County Public
Schools (Louisville)
KY Julie Bauscher Director 502-485-3186 Julia.Bauscher@jefferson.kyschools.us
Food Research and Action Center | School Breakfast: Making It Work in Large School Districts 25

District State Contact Title Phone Email
Kansas City Kansas Public
Schools
KS Karla Robinson Director 913-627-3914 karobin@kckps.org
Knox County Schools
(Knoxville)
TN Jon Dickl Director 865-594-3614 jon.dickl@knoxschools.org
Lee County Public Schools
(Fort Myers)
FL Sonny Stelmacki Director 239-461-8432 SonnyAS@leeschools.net
Little Rock School District AR Lilly Bouie Director of
Nutrition
501-447-2452 Lilly.bouie@lrsd.org
Long Beach Unified School CA Cecelia Slater Director 562-427-7923 cslater@lbschools.net
District
x.249
Los Angeles Unified School CA Laura Benavidez Asst. Director, Food 213-241-2993 laura.benavidez@lausd.net
District
Services Division
Memphis City Schools TN Anthony Geraci Food Service
Director
901-416-5556 GERACIA@mcsk12.net
Mesa Public Schools AZ Loretta Zullo Director 480-472-0909 lzullo@mpsaz.org
Miami-Dade County Public FL Susan Rothstein Coordinator, 786-275-0438 srothstein@dadeschools.net
Schools
Nutritional
Wellness
Montgomery County Public
Schools
MD Marla R. Caplon Director 301-840-8170 Marla_R_Caplon@mcpsmd.org
New York City Dept. of NY Robert Deschak Strategic Initiatives, 718-707-4334 rdeschak@schools.nyc.gov
Education
School Food
Newark Public Schools NJ Tonya Riggins Director 973-733-7172 triggins@nps.k12.nj.us
Oakland Unified School
District
CA Jennifer LeBarre Director 510-879-8345 Jennifer.lebarre@ousd.k12.ca.us
Omaha Public Schools NE Tammy Yarmon Director 402-557-2230 Tammy.Yarmon@ops.org
Orange County Public
Schools (Orlando)
FL Lora Gilbert Director 407-317-3963 Lora.gilbert@ocps.net
Philadelphia School District PA Wayne Grasela Director 215-400-5531 wgrasela@philasd.org
Pinellas County Public
Schools (Clearwater)
FL Art Dunham Director 727-547-7155 dunhama@pinellas.k12.fl.us
Portland Public Schools OR Gitta Grether-
Sweeney
Director 503-916-3397 gsweeney@pps.net
Prince George's County
Public Schools
MD Joan Shorter Director 301-952-6580 jshorter@pgcps.org
Richmond Public Schools VA Susan Roberson Director 804-780-8240 sroberso@richmond.k12.va.us
Salt Lake City School
District
UT Kelly Orton Director 801-578-8599 kelly.orton@slcschools.org
San Antonio Independent TX Sally Cody Director 210-227-3522 scody1@saisd.net
School District
ext. 122
San Diego Unified School
District
CA Gary Petill Director 858-627-7301 gpetill@sandi.net
Syracuse City School NY Cindy Bonura Director 315-435-4207 Cbonura@scsd.us
District
Sturgeon
Toledo Public Schools OH Reynald Debroas Executive Director 419-244-8893 rdebroas@tps.org
Wake County Public
Schools
NC Marla Moody Senior Director 919-856-2918 mbmoody@wcpss.net
Food Research and Action Center | School Breakfast: Making It Work in Large School Districts 26