1. Food for Thought: An analysis of school breakfast implementation models Prepared by Matt Kropke for the Food Bank of Alaska UAA Masters in Public Administration Capstone Presentation April 15, 2011 1

2. Research Question How can schools maximize the results of a breakfast program based on nutrition research findings, recent policy changes and lessons learned from pilot programs around the nation? 2

3. The Problem  34,326 Alaska children receiving free or reduced lunch in 2010  23,119 Alaska children living in poverty  14,168 Alaska children receiving free or reduced breakfast  Leaving 9,000 to 20,000 at risk of hunger 3

4. “…under nutrition -even in its “milder” forms- during any periods of childhood can have detrimental effects on the cognitive development of children and their later productivity as adults.” “…under nutrition -even in its “milder” forms- during any periods of childhood can have detrimental effects on the cognitive development of children and their later productivity as adults.” (Tufts University School of Nutrition and Science Policy, 1995) Childhood Hunger 4

5. Federal Programs School lunch program official and permanent in 1946 School lunch program official and permanent in 1946 The School Breakfast Program was established in 1966. The School Breakfast Program was established in 1966. In 2010 the USDA spent over $2.4 Billion on the School Breakfast Program. In 2010 the USDA spent over $2.4 Billion on the School Breakfast Program. 5

6. The Pilot Programs Minnesota Fast Break to Learning New York State Academics & Breakfast Connection Maryland Meals for Achievement Program 6

7. Maryland Meals for Achievement 6 schools in 1998 to 196 schools in 2010 85% drop in tardiness suspensions decreased 1.6 days per month 5% increase in students scoring satisfactorily or above on the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program Non MMFA schools saw a slight decline 7

8. Additional Findings   Fast break: provide schools with a couple implementation models   ABC: increase in funds (due to the increase in the meals served) was enough to sustain the program 8

9. Cost Considerations   Each meal regardless of service model cost the same.   As meal counts increase, expenses and revenues increase.   Students qualifying for free or reduced meals will dictate total reimbursement.   Alaska reimbursement rate for qualifying free breakfast is $2.36 2010-2011.   $2 M gain for state if participation rose to 60% 9

10. Service Options  Break after 1 st period  Breakfast in the classroom  Cafeteria open early (Traditional)  Grab and go 10

11. Criteria   Student Participation in the meal program.   Non disruption of class learning time.   Lack of stigmatism attached to the service model 11

12. Scoring Service Models are scored from 1 to 3 based on each criteria. For example, in order to score a 3, Pilot schools must have demonstrated following results: Program Participation: Above 70% of students eat on average Class Disruption: No time is taken from classes for food service Stigmatism: All students eat together regardless of income 12

13. Non Weighted Results ParticipationDisruption Stigmatism (lack of) Score Breakfast In the Classroom 323 8 Break after 1 st period313 7 Grab and Go (Hallway)222 6 Cafeteria open early131 5 13

14. TeachersStudents Hunger Advocates Total Score Breakfast In the Classroom 1011 32 Break after 1 st Period810 28 Grab and Go (Hallway)888 24 Cafeteria Open Early866 20 Weighted Results 14

15. Review Thousands of kids are arriving to school hungry every day in Alaska. Hungry kids have difficulty learning Breakfast in the classroom is a high scoring solution. 15

16. Thank You! Are there any questions? 16