2017 School Bfast Report Online Version 3-7-17 0

School Breakfast:
Reducing Child Hunger,

Bolstering Student Success
School Breakfast Program Participation

in New York State Public Schools
2015-2016 School Year
Acknowledgements Contents
Hunger Solutions New York, Inc., greatly appreciates the support of the many public Introduction 5
agencies, private foundations, and individuals who have made this publication possible.
We acknowledge the New York State Oce of Temporary and Disability Assistance and About this Report 6
the support of our partners in our Campaign to End Hunger: the Food Research and
Action Center, The Walmart Foundation, Share Our Strength, MAZON: A Jewish Key Findings 9
Response to Hunger, and many individual donors throughout the state.
Action Steps 15
In particular, we acknowledge the New York State Education Department for their
administrative eorts to promote and protect the integrity of the School Breakfast School District Profiles 21
Program in New York State, in addition to providing the data on which the tables
in this report are based. Conclusion 29
Special recognition also goes to the Hempstead Union Free School District, the School District Level Data 30
Newburgh Enlarged City School District, and the Food Research and Action Center
for their contributions to this report. References 54
Thanks to the Newburgh Enlarged City School District and the Hempstead Union Free
School District for permitting us to use photographs taken at their schools.
This report was written by Hunger Solutions New York sta: Jessica L. Pino-Goodspeed,
LMSW, is the lead author, with design assistance from Jennifer Ozgur and editing
assistance from Kelly de la Rocha.
This institution is an equal opportunity provider.
Introduction
Every child
should start the school day with a balanced
breakfast, but a startling number of children
in New York State (NYS) do not.
Children who experience hunger are at a physical, academic and social
disadvantage.1 The School Breakfast Program (SBP) provides a vital nutritional
support to children who arrive at school hungry.2 School breakfast is a readily
available, federally-funded resource to address child hunger, yet it has been
consistently underutilized in NYS.
Hunger is a constant reality for 884,170 children throughout the state.3
Between 2008 and 2012, on average, 23.6% of all NYS households with
children experienced times when their family did not have enough money
to buy food that they needed.4 The majority of students attending NYS
public schools live in households with incomes near poverty level, with 62%
of students qualifying for free and reduced-priced (F/RP) school meals.5
School breakfasts role in reducing hunger, bolstering student success,
and improving health is critical. That is why, each year, Hunger Solutions
New York analyzes participation in the SBP using data from the New York
State Education Department (NYSED). Our findings demonstrate persistent
low participation among students from low-income households.
The SBP oers schools the opportunity to ensure students are well nourished
and prepared to learn. Inadequately leveraging the SBP to address child hunger
is a missed opportunity to fortify students health and nutrition, which are
vital to student success. Furthermore, when students who qualify for F/RP
school breakfast do not participate in the program, schools cannot leverage
the federal funding tied to each meal served.
Its just really important to make sure NYS can improve participation in the SBP by taking some key action steps.
Ensuring that all childrenespecially children from low-income households
the kids eat, because theres a lot of things eat school breakfast each day will help bolster the success of students in
in the world that make them worry, and our public schools, improve the health and wellbeing of children, while also
drawing down federal resources to address child hunger.
hunger shouldnt be one of them when
we have the ability to feed them.
Ebony Green, principal, Vails Gate High Tech Magnet School,
Newburgh Enlarged City School District
4 5
About this Report
This report measures the reach of the SBP in the 2015-2016 school yearstatewide and The findings in this report reflect NYS public schools (school districts, charter schools,
locallybased on a variety of metrics. First, we look at F/RP school breakfast participation and BOCES) that operate the federally-funded, state-administered breakfast program.
to determine how many F/RP-eligible students are being reached by the SBP. Since there is Schools that oer breakfast and lunch outside of that program, using their schools
broad participation in the lunch program, and since all students who qualify for F/RP lunch general fund, are not included. The findings also do not include the 326 public schools
also qualify for breakfast, it is a useful comparison by which to measure how many students that operate only the National School Lunch Program. At the end of this report is a chart
could and should be benefiting from school breakfast each day. that includes data for all public schools included in this analysis.
The Food Research and Action Center, a national, nonprofit anti-hunger organization, sets Throughout this report, participation refers to students actually eating meals.
an ambitious, but achievable, goal of reaching 70 free and reduced-price-eligible students
with breakfast for every 100 participating in lunch. For this report, we calculated the federal
dollars lost in NYS during the 2015-2016 school year as a result of our schools failing to
meet that goal.
Hunger Solutions New York has been tracking participation in breakfast through the
methods detailed above since the 2007-2008 school year. In addition to comparing
breakfast to lunch participation, for this report, we analyzed breakfast participation in
schools utilizing a federal provision, to ascertain the impact of oering universal school
breakfastproviding free breakfast to all students. (see below) While federal provisions
used to oer free breakfast are captured in NYSED data, a mechanism has yet to be put
into place to track schools that use non-pricing to provide free meals and those that oer
alternative breakfast service models. (see next page) This report highlights school districts
that are having great success with reaching low-income students with school breakfast, to
analyze the impact of widespread implementation of universal school breakfast coupled
with alternative service models and their impact on breakfast participation.
Oering Breakfast at No Charge Alternative Breakfast Service Models Who can participate in school breakfast?
Schools can oer breakfast at no chargeuniversal school breakfastto all students through the following options: Alternative breakfast service models are used to address Any student attending a school that oers the program
low breakfast participation. Often referred to as break- can eat breakfast. What the federal government covers,
Community Eligibility Provision Reimbursement for meals is based Non-pricing fast after the bell, these models shift service time so that and what the student pays depends on family income.
on a claiming percentage based on a breakfast is served after the start of the school day. While
The Community Eligibility Provision The application and meal tracking models can be tailored to individual schools needs, the Children from families with incomes:
formula that uses the percentage of
(CEP) is a federal option that allows identified students. processes are consistent with the following are the most eective strategies: at or below 130% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL)
schools with a high percentage of SBP, however, no fees are collected
Breakfast in the Classroom are eligible for free school meals.
students from low-income households Provision 2 from students. Typically, schools
to oer breakfast and lunch at no have absorbed the cost dierential Students eat breakfast in their classroom after between 130% and 185% of the FPL qualify for
charge to all students. Any district, Provision 2 is a federal option that into district operational budgets. the ocial start of the school day. reduced-price meals and can be charged no more
group of schools in a district, or allows schools to serve breakfast, This is not a federal option and than 25 cents for breakfast.
Grab and Go
individual school eligible for CEP with lunch, or both to all students at no is not tracked by NYSED.
Students pick up conveniently packaged breakfasts from above 185% of the FPL pay charges (referred to
40% or more identified students charge. This option operates on a
mobile service carts or vending machines in high trac as paid meals), which are set by the school.
children eligible for free school meals four-year cycle, with the first year
areas when they arrive at school or between classes.
who are identified by other means determining reimbursement for See How children are certified for F/RP meals on page 9
than an individual household appli- the subsequent three years. Second Chance Breakfast for more information.
cationcan choose to participate. This modelalso referred to as breakfast after first period
or mid-morning nutrition breakextends breakfast service
in the cafeteria past first period in middle and high schools.
6 77
Key Findings
Overview of the School Breakfast Program

in New York State during the 2015-16 School Year
Students enrolled in schools Key Finding: The SBP continues to be underutilized across NYS.
2,544,867 that oered the SBP Since the economic recession in 2008, families with for nutritional support. Overall, the number of
Schools oered children have continued to experience financial hardship low-income students participating in the SBP remains
4,880 the SBP that has put their household food security at risk. We stagnant, as we see the number of F/RP-eligible students
see this mirrored in the growing number of students who continue to grow. In the 2015-2016 school year, fewer
Students participated in school
566,267 (22.25%) breakfast each day (average)
qualify to eat F/RP school meals, and would expect to see than one in three students who qualified to eat F/RP
it also reflected in F/RP school breakfast participation. breakfast participated in the program.
While there has been consistent growth each school year
Students qualified to eat breakfast
1,589,299 for free and at a reduced price
in the average number of students participating daily in
F/RP breakfast, this growth is oset by the growing need
F/RP-eligible students participated
484,178 (30.46%) in school breakfast each day (average)
NYS has failed to leverage the SBP to respond to
Students participated in school the growing nutritional needs of families with children:
1,409,160 lunch each day (average)
F/RP-eligible students participated
1,055,250 in school lunch each day (average)
UNMET NEED
Of F/RP lunch participants
45.88% also ate breakfast
F/RP-eligible students would have participated
738,675 in breakfast if NYS reached the goal of 70%
of F/RP lunch participants eating breakfast.
Students eligible for F/RP school breakfast Students participating in F/RP school breakfast
How children are certified for F/RP meals

Most children are certified for free or reduced-price Are homeless or a runaway youth, migrant,
school meals by submitting an application collected by in foster care, or participate in Head Start.
the school district at the beginning of the school year or
during the year. Students can be certified for free school These children are considered categorically eligible
meals without an individual household application if they: (automatically eligible) and do not need to provide
income information to be certified for free school meals.
Participate in a means-tested program like the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF),
the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations
(FDPIR), and in certain instances, Medicaid.
8 99
Key Finding: Breakfast compared to lunch participation Key Finding: Failure to meet the national breakfast
among F/RP-eligible students fails to meet national standards. participation benchmark has led to the forfeit of Breakfast Reimbursement
When we analyze SBP participation by comparing the number of low-income children millions of dollars in federal reimbursements. Schools receive state and federal
who eat school breakfast with those who eat school lunch, New York State consistently New York State consistently falls well below the national benchmark of government reimbursement for each
underperforms in reaching F/RP lunch participants with breakfast. Lunch is nationally reaching 70% of F/RP lunch participants with F/RP breakfast. Failure to reach breakfast served. The reimbursement
recognized as a good benchmark of the eligible population. this benchmark leads to children needlessly starting their school day hungry amount varies based on a students
and NYS public schools missing out on millions of dollars each school year. qualification for free, reduced-price,
Statewide, only 45.88% of students who ate F/RP lunch also participated in F/RP
Participation in F/RP breakfast drives federal reimbursement. When we fail to or paid meals. Reimbursements for
breakfast during the 2015-2016 school year. If New York State had reached the national
reach vulnerable children with breakfast, we forfeit available federal funding free and reduced-price meals yield
goal of 70% of F/RP lunch participants also eating breakfast, an additional 254,496 F/RP-
designated to provide nutritional support to students who need it most. In the highest funding.
eligible students would have participated in those programs each day. That would have
resulted in breakfast participation increasing to 738,675 low-income students, on the 2015-2016 school year alone, NYS forfeited more than $71 million in For the 2015-2016 school year,
average, each school day. federal reimbursements due to low participation in F/RP breakfast. schools received the following
federal reimbursement:
School Breakfast vs. Lunch Participation
$1.66 per free breakfast;
Potential
School Reach
Breakfast vs.ofLunch
School Breakfast
Participation Federal Funding
Federal Lost
Funding Each
Lost EachSchool
School YearYear Due
to Low Participation in inF/RP Breakfast $1.36 per reduced-price
Potential Reach of School Breakfast Due to Low Participation F/RP Breakfast
breakfast; and
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 $0.29 per paid breakfast.
0
-$10,000,000
Severe-need schools received
an additional 33 cents for each
-$20,000,000 F/RP breakfast served. Schools are
-$30,000,000 considered severe need if at least
-$40,000,000 40% of the lunches served the
previous school year were free
-$50,000,000
or reduced-price.
-$60,000,000
New York states provides an
-$70,000,000
additional reimbursement:
-$80,000,000
$.1013 per free breakfast;
Over five years, the total funding lost $.1566 per reduced-price
Students eating F/RP lunch, on average, each day
amounts to over $383 million. breakfast; and
Students eating F/RP breakfast, on average, each day $.0023 per paid breakfast.
Potential students eating if 70% of students who

ate F/RP lunch also ate F/RP breakfast Key Finding: In the 2015-2016 school year, SBP
participation increased in comparison to the
previous school year.
The average number of students participating in F/RP breakfast each
school day increased by 8.57% from the 2014-2015 school year, translating
to an additional 41,662 students accessing F/RP breakfast, on average,
each school day.
Us, being a CEP school and the kids eating free, we
Participation in both F/RP and paid breakfast among all students who
get more money for the food than we would if they attend schools that oer the SBP grew by 11%, reaching an additional
paid, which means we can give them better food. 48,097 students, on average, each school day.
Sharon Gardner, Food Service Director,

Hempstead Union Free School District
10 11
Key Finding: Nearly two-thirds (64%) of SBP CEP Key Finding: Participation in school breakfast is consistently
participation growth occurred in schools implementing Under CEP, we look at school low in high-need to moderate-need schools, especially in those
the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP). breakfast participation among the that have not implemented CEP.
entire school population instead of
In the 2015-2016 school year, 1,210 public schools participated in Overall, 1,523 NYS schools eligible to implement CEP are not implementing the provision.6
solely at F/RP breakfast participation,
CEP within 89 school districts and charter schoolsan increase of 154 Any district, group of schools in a district, or individual school with 40% or more of students
since all students are considered
schools and 35 school districts/charters from the previous school year. eligible for free school meals who are already identified by means other than an individual
qualified for free school breakfast.
household application can choose to participate. Typically, schools with 60% or more
students qualified for F/RP school meals can meet this 40% identified student CEP eligibility
criteria. The chart below demonstrates that NYS public schools serving communities with
concentrated poverty are consistently failing to reach our neediest students with the SBP.
Schools eligible for CEP, but not participating, are at a distinct disadvantage in the eort
Where Growth Occurred in School Breakfast to reach those students. These schools consistently perform below the state average in
Participation in the 2015-2016 School Year reaching F/RP-eligible students with breakfast.
An additional 48,097 students participated in breakfast, on average, each day:

Schools that have not adopted CEP
2,971 in schools or Provision 2 to oer universal breakfast
using Provision 2
Number Students F/RP-eligible Participation
30,981 in schools of Schools Enrolled Students in F/RP Breakfast
using CEP 80% or more
14,145 in schools F/RP-eligible 785 353,316 315,349 32%
not using a federal students enrolled
option to oer free 70% to 80%
breakfast to all students F/RP-eligible 375 224,492 168,815 25%
students enrolled
60% to 70%
F/RP-eligible 337 186,062 120,906 27%
students enrolled
Key Finding: Schools using both universal school breakfast

and alternative breakfast service models have maximized
access to their school breakfast programs. Key Finding: Schools with F/RP rates between 40% and 60%
are also underperforming in reaching low-income children
Alternative breakfast service models like breakfast in a tremendous increase in breakfast participation. with breakfast.
the classroom, grab and go, and second chance breakfast Those districts successes account for three-quarters
have been a driving force for significant increases in school of the states 2015-2016 growth in SBP participation. The low breakfast participation trend is consistent in moderate-need schools with F/RP-
breakfast participation. New York City Public Schools and Profiles on the districts, which can be found beginning eligible student participation rates of 50% to 60% and 40% to 50%, where participation
two large districts outside of New York City, all of which on page 21, demonstrate that the key to significant among F/RP-eligible students drops even further, to 21% and 17% respectively.
oer universal school breakfast, implemented alternative change in breakfast participation largely lies in the
service models during the 2015-2016 school year and saw service model used.
12 13
Action Steps
They are more alert. Theyre

ready to go. Theyre definitely
ready to learn. Nobodys falling
asleep. Theyre not focused on New York State consistently ranks among the lowest performing states in the country
in reaching our most vulnerable students with F/RP breakfast. In the 2015-2016 school
their stomachs. Theyre focused year, our state ranked 42nd in a national ranking by the Food Research Action Center.7
on the work. While F/RP participation in the SBP has seen growth, New York State continues to fail to
reach the growing number of F/RP-eligible students. As a result, schools across the state
forfeit millions of federal dollars$71.1 million in the 2015-2016 school year alone. Those
Karen Delgado, kindergarten teacher, funds are designated to ensure students have reliable, consistent access to a nutritious
Newburgh Enlarged City School District morning meal each school day. With one in five children facing hunger in NYS,
we cannot aord more lost opportunities to reduce child hunger.
Studies show that skipping breakfast and experiencing hunger impair

childrens ability to learn.8 Participation in the SBP not only reduces
student hunger but has also been linked with positive impacts on health Whats on the menu?
and education, such as improved overall diet quality; lower probability
of overweight and obesity; fewer instances of tardiness, absenteeism, Each breakfast reimbursed through
and disciplinary problems; and fewer visits to the school nurse.9 The SBP the SBP must, according to federal
is a readily available resource designed to level the playing field for all nutrition guidelines, include fruits
students by ensuring that each child starts the school day free from and/or vegetables, a whole-grain-rich
hunger, properly nourished, and prepared for a day of learning. item, a meat or meat alternative and
low-fat/nonfat milk.
Following are recommendations for how federal and state legislators
and local school administrators can ensure as many students as possible Meal nutrition standards limit
receive the nutritional benefits of school breakfast. calories and sodium.
Increases in school breakfast participation are linked to two key

strategies: serving meals through alternative service models like breakfast
in the classroom, and oering free breakfast through CEP. Thus, the
recommendations to increase statewide participation in school
breakfast are structured around those strategies.
How can Hunger Solutions New York help with the following action steps?
The mission of Hunger Solutions New York is to alleviate We are committed to supporting this work by:
hunger for residents of New York State by expanding the
availability of, access to, and participation in federally Providing schools with technical assistance and
funded nutrition assistance programs. resources to implement universal breakfast and
alternative breakfast service models.
Within this context, we serve as a statewide child nutrition
program resource. Our work helps to ensure all children Providing agencies with outreach resources, sample
get the healthy food they need to succeed. Schools, federal policy guidance, and support in disseminating best
and state agencies, and federal and state elected ocials practices to expand program access.
play a vital role in the eort to alleviate child hunger Providing elected ocials with sample legislation,
through the nutrition assistance programs. case studies, and data analysis.
Learn more about the work that we do to promote
14 these programs at SchoolMealsHubNY.org. 15
15
Action Step: Protect school meal programs Ensure all schools, especially schools with concentrated Lessons learned
and CEP from federal cuts. populations of F/RP students, oer alternative breakfast from other states
service models.
The federally funded, state-administered SBP, National School Lunch Program and CEP Many of the states with the most
must be protected from funding cuts and structural changes at the federal level so that The best way to boost participation in the SBP is to oer universal successful school breakfast programs
states can maximize their impact locally. Given the millions of children who rely on school breakfast in conjunction with alternative service models like breakfast have adopted breakfast after the bell
meals, access cannot be restricted. It is more important than ever to recognize those in the classroom or grab and go. See the School District Profiles section legislation, which has been the key
programs importance, eciency and eectiveness in reducing childhood hunger and on page 21 for success stories from districts throughout NYS. catalyst for growth and maintaining
improving learning and health outcomes. Any school can implement alternative service models to help boost high breakfast participation rates.
participation. However, schools with concentrated populations of States have structured these
F/RP-eligible students (40% or more) should definitely implement them, policies in dierent ways, but all
Action Step: Establish an action plan to reach 70% since they are strategically positioned to reach the most utilize alternative breakfast models
of F/RP school lunch participants with breakfast. low-income students. and universal breakfast as key strategies
to increase participation. Some states
This goal is most eciently achieved by targeting the highest-need schools in the state, Ensure schools, especially those with 60% or more
require all schools to implement an
which have the highest concentration of F/RP-eligible students, and thus are most strategi- F/RP-eligible students, oer universal breakfast. after-the-bell model, while others
cally positioned to reach the eligible population. Therefore, it is essential to ensure those target schools by grade level or level
CEP is the preferred method to oer universal breakfast because it
schools increase accessibility to breakfast through universal breakfast and alternative service of need. Policies can include funding
facilitates the implementation of alternative breakfast service models
models. The following techniques outline steps to create systemic changes to breakfast in to help schools comply with a require-
the other key strategy for increasing breakfast participation.
our states neediest public schools: ment, but many successful examples
The majority of schools potentially eligible for CEP and not utilizing exist without this funding.
Ensure all CEP schools oer an alternative breakfast service model. the option are falling below the state average in reaching F/RP-eligible
students with school breakfast. Hunger Solutions New York strongly Examples of states with breakfast after
This goal is especially achievable for CEP schools, since one eective tool for the bell legislation include Colorado,
recommends CEP-eligible schools adopt the option.
increasing access to school breakfastuniversal breakfastis already in place. District of Columbia, New Mexico,
Furthermore, CEP facilitates the implementation of alternative breakfast service Following is the recommended order of priority for CEP implementation: Texas, Washington, West Virginia, and
models. CEP schools are not required to collect fees or count each meal served Illinois. A list of states school breakfast
by fee category. This simplifies implementation of breakfast in the classroom 1. Ensure all schools with 80% or more
F/RP-eligible students implement CEP. legislation can be found at: frac.org/
and grab and go service models. state-school-breakfast-legislation
IMPACT: 785 NYS public schools in 57 districts
Only half (54%) of CEP schools are succeeding 2. Encourage use of CEP by schools with 60-80%
F/RP-eligible students.
in reaching 70% of the students who participate
IMPACT: 712 NYS public schools in 208 districts.
in F/RP lunch with breakfast.
3. Encourage schools with 40% to 60% F/RP rates to explore options
to provide universal breakfast. Some may qualify for CEP, depending
Adding alternative breakfast service models in every CEP school can address barriers on their direct certification data, while others can explore non-pricing.
to breakfast participation and further boost participation. Increasing breakfast More information on this option can be found in our SBP factsheet.10
participation in these schools can leverage a significant amount of federal funding
in the highest-poverty areas in NYS. Analysis:
The 1,497 schools included in this analysis, with F/RP rates at
Potential Reach: or above 60%, should be utilizing CEP. Many schools across NYS
If CEP schools were to reach 70% of the students who participate in
with similar F/RP rates have implemented CEP successfully.
F/RP lunch with breakfast, this action would expand the reach of the
SBP to an additional 42,258 students in CEP schools, generating
nearly $12.8 million in additional federal revenue.
The moneys here. Im in a position now

where Im getting new equipment.
Sharon Gardner, Food Service Director,
16 17
Action Step: Provide incentives for implementing Address local-level barriers to the current Direct certification in NYS
alternative breakfast models. Direct Certification Matching Process.
Direct certification lists are largely
NYS can incentivize the implementation of alternative breakfast models by establishing a Improvement to the current NYS Direct Certification Matching Process made up by the New York State
fund for school breakfast programs, to assist with initial start-up costs. States that have (DCMP) would help ease the administrative burden of data-matching Education Departments Direct
established incentive funds typically target schools with at least 40% F/RP-eligible students at the local level. School districts and charter schools report that the Certification Matching Process
and/or underperforming schools with particularly low rates of F/RP breakfast participation. current process is time consuming and cumbersome. Many schools have (DCMP). The process is intended to
States that have combined incentivized funding and legislative mandates on breakfast after found it necessary to put extensive amounts of time into DCMP in order automatically certify certain students
the bell have led the country in breakfast participation growth. to eectively adopt CEP, which has proven to be a significant barrier to for free school meals. DCMP specifi-
CEP adoption. Best practices outlined by the USDA indicate that New cally includes students who reside in
This funding can be distributed in either or both of the following ways: Yorks current process can be improved in the following ways: a household receiving Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
Provide a 10-cent incentive for every school breakfast served through an alternative 1. Adopt a state-level, central matching system in which the New York
or Medicaid benefits.*
breakfast service model. Legislation to establish this type of fund has been established State Education Department (NYSED) utilizes computer matching
in Virginia and introduced in New Jersey, Illinois, and California. to link DCMP records with statewide student enrollment records Schools are responsible for cross-
and distributes match results to Local Education Authorities. referencing the ocial DCMP direct
Provide start-up grants to school districts, to assist in the implementation of new
certification list with their enrollment
service models. States that have implemented this funding model include Arkansas, 2. Enhance the current online matching system. Enhance matching
lists. Hunger Solutions New Yorks tip
District of Columbia, Maryland, Nevada, and West Virginia. algorithms to include probabilistic matching, to increase eciency
sheet on direct certification and CEP
and match rate of students.
provides information about how to
3. Increase matching to more than three times per year. More frequent verify and correct direct certification
Action Step: Address barriers to implementation updates of newly enrolled SNAP or TANF recipients would enable lists.
of CEP and alternative breakfast service models. students who become eligible at various points during the school *Medicaid recipients determined by the
year to be identified and directly certified, making direct certification Medicaid Program to be at or below 133
Some high-need schools are failing to reach students with breakfast because of the a more dynamic process. percent of the federal poverty guidelines.
diculties associated with the implementation of tactics like breakfast after the bell
and CEP. The following are suggested systemic changes that can streamline and simplify 4. Strengthen interagency relationships to facilitate the exchange
the process: of data. Perform matches with additional program data sources,
such as foster care data.
Refine state aid formulas to address potential repercussions from
eliminating school meal applications when schools transition to CEP. Provide clear administrative guidance.
New Yorks school aid formulas have not kept pace with the changing landscape NYSED must issue clear administrative guidance to school districts, stating
of F/RP meal eligibility determination. As more schools adopt CEP, the number of that time spent eating school breakfast in the classroom counts as instruc-
F/RP meal applications collected in those schools is drastically reduced in favor of tional time and does not conflict with NYS education law. States that have
more ecient means-tested, data-matching processes. However, state foundation issued such guidance include California, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Michigan.
aid still relies on the information provided in F/RP applications to determine need,
and therefore the elimination of meal applications could aect state foundation aid
to local districts. Eliminating school meal applications under CEP is tremendously
ecient on one hand, but extremely uncertain as it relates to school aid. NYS
has yet to provide clear policy guidance on this barrier faced by many schools
considering adopting CEP. We strongly encourage policy guidance that holds all
CEP schools harmless from reductions in need-based state foundation aid.
Having breakfast in the classroom, it definitely has assisted

our kids in just being more responsive throughout the day.
Arlise Carson, principal, Front Street Elementary,
18 19
School District Profiles
Try it. Give it a chance

and you will see the benefits.
It provides responsibility, New York City Public Schools
routine, and happy, healthy New York City (NYC) Department of Education has oered universal breakfastbreakfast
at no charge to all studentsthrough CEP, Provision 2 and non-pricing tactics (see Oering
students. Its a win-win Breakfast at No Charge on page 6)in all NYC public schools since Hunger Solutions New
situation. York started analyzing SBP participation in the 2007-2008 school year. Even though school
breakfast had been universal for several years, participation was stagnant. This approach
alone was not eectively addressing all the breakfast access barriers students faced.
Dee Dee Russell-Scott, 4th grade teacher,
Newburgh Enlarged City School District In an eort to maximize participation in free breakfast, NYC Department of Education rolled
out an initiative to expand breakfast in the classroom in NYC public schools. In the 2015-16
school year, breakfast in the classroom became available in 155 additional NYC schools.
2014-15 11 2015-16 12
Total schools 2,486 2,546
Schools oering breakfast 2,443 2,510
In the cafeteria before school 2,402 2,222
School Breakfast
In the classroom 218 321
Service Models
Grab and go to the classroom 110 162
As a result, in the 2015-16 school year, an additional 24,697 students, on average, each
school day participated in school breakfast. This is the most significant increase in school
breakfast participation Hunger Solutions New York has seen since our organization began
tracking this information. NYC public schools accounted for half of the statewide growth
in school breakfast participation during the 2015-16 school year.
Participation in the SBP in NYC Public Schools
255,000 251,788
245,000
237,722
235,000 227,109
220,899 226,647
225,000
215,000
205,000
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
Implementation of Breakfast in the Classroom

in all NYC Public Elementary Schools
20 21
While NYC has experienced growth over the past school year, the district has yet to meet Hempstead Students Participating
the goal of reaching 70 F/RP-eligible students with breakfast for every 100 who are receiving
in School Breakfast, on Average, Each Day
lunch. If NYC public schools had reached that goal during the 2015-2016 school year, an
additional 156,913 low-income students would have received school breakfast each day,
4,000 3,535
and NYC would have drawn down an additional $45,822,288 in federal funding.13
3,000
Concentrated Areas of Growth Outside NYC 2,000

1,473
1,643 1,428
1,298
133%
Other areas of significant growth since the 2014-2015 school year occurred in two large
1,000 Increase
districts: Hempstead Union Free School District (UFSD) in Nassau County and Newburgh
Enlarged City School District in Orange County. Both districts rolled out a large-scale
implementation of breakfast after the bell in the 2015-2106 school year. The eorts of
those districts alone accounted for a quarter of the growth in F/RP breakfast participation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
outside of NYC. Both districts received grants from the Walmart Foundation. The grants
were overseen by AASA, the Superintendents Association, which assisted with the districts CEP implemented Breakfast after the bell
expansion eorts. rolled out
The reward is so worth it, when you see how many kids are eating that werent eating
before, said Sharon Gardner, the districts food service director. The numbers dont lie.
Hempstead UFSD And you just see the results. You see these kids. Theyre eating. Its not just somebody
Hempstead began oering free school meals to all students throwing a breakfast out. Theyre eating the food.
through CEP beginning in the 2012-2013 school year, which In the 2016-2017 school year, Hempstead added two vending machines in the less central
allowed some growth in average daily breakfast participation. branches of the middle school, which serve a complete breakfast and stay open after the
However, program growth did not continue past that initial bell. The district plans to continue expanding its program, thanks to the additional revenue
year of implementation. Serving breakfast solely before school generated by robust breakfast participation. Broken and outdated kitchen equipment is
started was a significant barrier to breakfast access. being replaced, and the district is discussing plans to put in a coeehouse-style smoothie
Hempstead is a school without any bussing. Students were bar with pub tables and chairs in a common area, which will provide a full, compliant break-
expected to arrive at school early to eat, and if they did arrive fast. The coeehouse theme is a creative marketing approach to increase participation
early, they then had to choose between socializing with friends among high school students, an especially hard-to-reach population.
before class and eating breakfast. In the high school, which is Hempsteads eorts to expand the reach of school breakfast have nearly reached the
made up of three buildings, the cafeteria is not readily accessible. national standard of reaching 70% of lunch participants with breakfast. While the district
falls just below the benchmark, with 68% of lunch participants eating breakfast, breakfast
participation has continued to grow in the 2016-2017 school year.
Recognizing those significant barriers to universal school breakfast,
Hempstead undertook an initiative to increase accessibility by imple-
menting alternative breakfast service. Over the course of the 2015- Hempstead UFSD
2016 school year, the district rolled out breakfast in the classroom Breakfast vs. Lunch Participation
in eight elementary schools. In their middle school, a grab and go
station was installed. The high school now has two vending machines
located at the entrances, which serve complete breakfasts beyond 6,000 5,200
the start of the school day. Both the middle and high schools also 4,685 4,413
continue to serve breakfast in the cafeteria, although the majority 4,000 3,535
of breakfasts are not served there. Cafeteria service is extended 1,643
for an additional two hours each morning so all children have an
2,000 1,428 68%
opportunity to eat breakfast. 35% 32%
2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
As a result of breakfast after the bell, an additional 2,107 students
participated in breakfast, on average, each day during the 2015-2016 Students Eating F/RP Breakfast Students Eating F/RP Lunch
school yearan increase of 133% since the previous school year.
22 23
Newburgh made breakfast after the bell available in all making it free for everybody, noted Caitlin Lazarski, the
of its schools starting on the first day of the 2015-2016 districts director of food service. For the high school, Newburgh is unique in comparison to the other districts
school year. This included all nine elementary schools the vending machinesthe tech around itthey think its featured, due to its rollout of CEP. The district piloted CEP
serving breakfast in the classroom in all pre-kindergarten cool. Even if the same thing is being oered in the cafeteria, in the 2014-2015 school year in one elementary school.
to fifth-grade classrooms. For grades six to eight, grab theyd rather get it out of the vending machine. That school then saw breakfast participation increase by
and go breakfast became available through kiosks, in the 39%, with breakfast served solely in the cafeteria before
cafeteria and in other designated areas. The high schools Implementation of breakfast after the bell resulted in an the start of the school day. Once breakfast was moved into
also added grab and go options; Second Chance Breakfast, additional 2,709 Newburgh students eating breakfast, on the classroom in the 2015-2016 school year, participation
by extending breakfast service through third period; and average, each school dayan increase of 67% compared increased another 24%.
vending machines in two of the three high schools. to the previous school year.
The 2015-2016 Newburgh breakfast initiative launch included
The trick in high school is oering multiple venues for the implementation of universal breakfast districtwide.
breakfast, allowing them to take it to the classroom, All students were able to eat for free regardless of their
households income. Individual schools that started
breakfast in the classroom and universal breakfast saw a
Newburgh Students Participating dramatic increase in breakfast participation. The highest
in School Breakfast, On Average, Each Day increase was 261%, followed by increases of 163% and 120%.
7,000 6,774
5,000
4,064
3,493 3,440 3,620
3,000
1,000
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
School Breakfast Participation

in Newburgh Enlarged City
School District by School
2013-14
CEP, BIC Implemented

2014-15

CEP Implemented
BIC Implemented
BIC Implemented
BIC Implemented
BIC Implemented
2015-16
CEP Implemented
BIC Implemented
BIC Implemented
BIC Implemented
BIC Implemented
Universal Breakfast implemented
in all schools in 2015-16
BIC= Breakfast in the Classroom
24 25
Over the past two years, we have seen our
attendance for students improve, weve seen
While all students experienced a shift to free breakfast, behind the scenes, the district [bad] behavior go down. Our suspension
was working toward districtwide implementation of CEP. CEP was expanded to six rates are going down. Our numbers are
additional schools in the 2015-2106 school year. The remaining six schools oered
free breakfast, but the meal expense for reduced-price-eligible students and those looking really good.
who did not qualify for reduced-price meals was covered by the cafeteria fund.
Meanwhile, the district carefully inspected its direct certification data to identify all Dr. Roberto Padilla, Superintendent,
students eligible for free school meals without an application. Eective implementation Newburgh Enlarged City School District
of CEP is dependent on that information. The percentage of those students in individual
schools and/or the district is what determines reimbursement under CEP. In order for
Newburgh to maximize the districts reimbursements under CEP, their food service direc-
tor needed to compare their enrollment list to the direct certification database
export, line-for-line, to ensure each eligible student was accounted for. Thanks to the
due diligence of the district, districtwide CEP was instituted in the 2016-2017 school year.
While Newburgh has had tremendous success with increasing breakfast participation,
the district plans to continue to implement innovative ways to increase breakfast access,
especially in their middle and high schools. The growth in participation during the 2015-
2016 school year resulted in excess revenue, after years of having a program that ended
each year with a negative budget. The additional funds allowed the district to further
improve its breakfast program in the 2016-2017 school year by adding more vending
machines in the high schools. The district plans to redesign a student lounge to include
a coee-shop-style grab and go area, to provide high-school students with a reimbursable
breakfast that includes a hot drink and baked goods made from scratch.
Newburghs approach to expanding breakfast participation has allowed the district to
exceed the national benchmark for reaching at least 70% of F/RP lunch participants with Other areas of growth in school breakfast:
breakfast. In the 2015-2016 school year, 90% of F/RP lunch participants ate breakfast.
School districts that newly implemented CEP in the 2015-2016 school year and had the
greatest increases in breakfast participation include: Beekmantown Central School District
(175%), Central Valley Central School District at Ilion-Mohawk (148%), Lyons Central
Newburgh Enlarged City School District School District (145%), and Clyde-Savannah Central School District (107%). Each of
Breakfast vs. Lunch Participation these school districts simultaneously implemented universal breakfast with alternative
breakfast programssuch as breakfast in the classroom and grab and go and are now
8,000 all exceeding the goal of reaching 70% of lunch participants with breakfast.
6,677
5,556 6,077 6,029
6,000
2015-16 School Breakfast vs. Lunch Participation
4,000 3,198 3,616 90% in Other NYS School Districts
2,000 59%
58% 1,326 1,412
1,217
1,139
2013-14 2014-15 2015-16
716
Students Eating F/RP Breakfast Students Eating F/RP Lunch 582
92% 81% 463
526
81% 88%
Beekmantown CSD Central Valley CSD Lyons CSD Clyde-Savannah CSD

at Ilion-Mohawk
Students Eating F/RP Breakfast Students Eating F/RP Lunch

26 27
Conclusion
Hunger remains an unacceptable reality for one in four NYS households with children.
Children who experience hunger lack a fundamental building block to health and academic
success. The SBP oers a way to ensure childrenespecially those from low-income
householdseat a healthy breakfast each day. However, the key findings of this report
demonstrate that the program is consistently underutilized and that NYS is failing to
reach our most vulnerable children with school breakfast.
Fewer than one in three students who qualified to eat F/RP breakfast participated in the
SBP during the 2015-2016 school year. In addition, low breakfast participation among
F/RP-eligible students led NYS to forfeit millions of dollars in federal reimbursements.
NYS must make increasing SBP participation a priority. That can be accomplished in a
variety of ways: through the eorts of school leaders, through the implementation of
federal- and state-level policy and legislative solutions, and through incentivizing the
best practices discussed in this report.
The action steps in this report detail initiatives schools, federal and state agencies,
and legislative ocials can take to improve statewide school breakfast participation.
Our report findings show there was an increase in breakfast participation during the 2015-
2016 school year, in comparison to the previous school year. That growth was concentrated
in schools that oered universal school breakfast through CEPa federal option that allows
high-poverty schools to oer free school meals to all students. Notable growth also occurred
in schools that oered universal breakfast in conjunction with alternative breakfast service
models. The combination of those strategies is recognized as the most eective way to
increase school breakfast participation. All schools, especially those eligible for CEP, are
urged to implement both.
Hunger Solutions New York works to ensure every public school student has access to
school breakfast. Our organization provides school districts with tools, resources and one-
on-one support to help maximize the SBPs reach and to help ensure every student starts
the school day free from hunger, properly nourished and prepared for a day of learning.
This is now a programboth breakfast

and lunchfor everyone. And from the time
they are little, theyre not going to know any
dierent. This is a program that comes just
like a textbook or just like my teachers. Its
just something that comes with school and I
think the value of that is huge for every kid.
Caitlin Lazarski, Food Service Director,

28 29
30
School District Level Data
the school district that utilized a certain provision.
that participated in the SBP are not included in the data.

F/RP-eligible students and among the overall student body.
schools, comparing the 2014-2015 school year to the 2015-2016 school year.
Special notes: This analysis only captures public schools that operated the federal
SBP during the school years specified above. Private schools are not included. Also,
Authority or SFA) utilized a federal provision to provide free breakfast to all students
in certain cases, school districts may not have oered the SBP in all of their buildings,
This analysis provides an overview of students eligible for F/RP school breakfast within
therefore, while the district may be represented in this data set, the individual buildings
each district/charter school. In addition, it provides an overview of participation among
This table gives a local-level overview of SBP participation at school districts and charter
Furthermore, the table reveals whether or not a school (also referred to as School Food
during the 2015-2016 school year. It also indicates the number of individual schools within
F/RP Eligible Students Participating Overall School Information on Universal Breakfast

Students in F/RP Breakfast Breakfast Participation for 2015-2016 SY
Total
Provision Schools Using Schools
County School District 2014-15 2015-16 2014-15 2015-16 2014-15 2015-16 Used Provision within SFA
Albany Albany City SD 97% 96% 31% 33% 31% 33% CEP 18 18
Albany Albany Community Charter School 86% 81% 58% 56% 54% 52% None 0 2
Albany Albany Leadership Charter HS-Girls 96% 100% 32% 27% 31% 27% CEP 1 1
Albany Berne-Knox-Westerlo CSD 39% 39% 26% 29% 13% 15% None 0 2
Albany Bethlehem CSD 8% 10% 8% 3% 2% 1% None 0 1
Albany Brighter Choice Charter Middle-Girls 100% 100% 57% 70% 57% 70% CEP 2 2
Albany Cohoes City SD 65% 78% 45% 45% 37% 40% CEP* 3 6
Albany Green Tech High Charter School 84% 90% 32% 36% 28% 36% CEP 1 1
Albany Guilderland CSD 17% 20% 17% 16% 3% 4% None 0 6
Albany Henry Johnson Charter School 95% 95% 63% 52% 63% 51% None 0 1
Albany Kipp Tech Valley Charter School 87% 98% 66% 75% 65% 75% CEP 1 1
Albany Menands UFSD 30% 34% 24% 30% 13% 16% None 0 1
Albany North Colonie CSD 21% 23% 27% 30% 8% 10% None 0 10
Albany Ravena-Coeymans-Selkirk CSD 38% 40% 33% 35% 16% 17% None 0 4
Albany South Colonie CSD 29% 35% 26% 24% 11% 13% None 0 8
Albany Voorheesville CSD 8% 8% 22% 18% 3% 3% None 0 1
Albany Watervliet City SD 68% 69% 44% 38% 34% 30% None 0 2
Allegany Alfred-Almond CSD 38% 41% 42% 40% 21% 20% None 0 1
Allegany Andover CSD 55% 52% 44% 47% 30% 30% None 0 1
Allegany Belfast CSD 53% 57% 37% 40% 25% 29% None 0 1
Allegany Bolivar-Richburg CSD 60% 64% 34% 36% 24% 26% None 0 2
Allegany Canaseraga CSD 57% 61% 36% 37% 25% 27% None 0 1
Allegany Cuba-Rushford CSD 55% 56% 27% 29% 17% 17% None 0 3
Allegany Fillmore CSD 50% 51% 28% 28% 17% 16% None 0 1
Allegany Friendship CSD 69% 69% 30% 39% 25% 31% None 0 1
Allegany Genesee Valley CSD 56% 69% 54% 61% 40% 61% CEP 1 1
Allegany Scio CSD 69% 84% 47% 62% 40% 62% CEP 1 1
Allegany Wellsville CSD 51% 53% 37% 40% 26% 29% None 0 2
Allegany Whitesville CSD 51% 53% 43% 53% 34% 40% None 0 1
Broome Binghamton City SD 95% 100% 35% 35% 34% 35% CEP 13 13
31
32

Total
Broome Chenango Forks CSD 37% 39% 45% 42% 21% 21% None 0 3
Broome Chenango Valley CSD 39% 42% 35% 38% 19% 22% None 0 3
Broome Deposit CSD 64% 65% 39% 53% 32% 44% Provision 2* 1 2
Broome Harpursville CSD 58% 60% 43% 49% 30% 39% None 0 2
Broome Johnson City CSD 67% 68% 37% 39% 26% 28% None 0 2
Broome Maine-Endwell CSD 33% 36% 30% 33% 12% 14% None 0 4
Broome Susquehanna Valley CSD 41% 46% 38% 39% 20% 23% None 0 4
Broome Union-Endicott CSD 51% 51% 36% 38% 22% 24% None 0 6
Broome Vestal CSD 24% 24% 28% 29% 11% 10% None 0 7
Broome Whitney Point CSD 55% 55% 33% 39% 21% 25% None 0 3
Broome Windsor CSD 49% 49% 32% 33% 20% 21% None 0 4
Cattaraugus Allegany-Limestone CSD 36% 36% 21% 21% 9% 9% None 0 2
Cattaraugus Cattaraugus-Little Valley CSD 48% 53% 28% 24% 15% 15% None 0 2
Cattaraugus Ellicottville CSD 34% 33% 29% 39% 18% 22% None 0 1
Cattaraugus Franklinville CSD 57% 76% 35% 30% 27% 30% CEP 2 2
Cattaraugus Gowanda CSD 59% 59% 35% 35% 24% 24% None 0 3
Cattaraugus Hinsdale CSD 56% 50% 42% 42% 28% 25% None 0 1
Cattaraugus Olean City SD 61% 62% 27% 31% 18% 21% None 0 5
Cattaraugus Portville CSD 46% 41% 21% 28% 13% 16% None 0 1
Cattaraugus Randolph Acad UFSD 90% 100% 45% 46% 44% 46% CEP 2 2
Cattaraugus Randolph CSD 49% 53% 41% 41% 26% 28% None 0 2
Cattaraugus Salamanca City SD 91% 94% 54% 53% 54% 53% CEP 3 3
Cattaraugus West Valley CSD 41% 42% 31% 37% 21% 26% None 0 1
Cattaraugus Yorkshire-Pioneer CSD 53% 54% 29% 30% 19% 21% None 0 4
Cayuga Auburn City SD 52% 65% 38% 33% 24% 26% CEP* 5 8
Cayuga Cato-Meridian CSD 39% 41% 22% 24% 11% 12% None 0 2
Cayuga Moravia CSD 45% 46% 39% 34% 21% 19% None 0 2
Cayuga Port Byron CSD 51% 52% 52% 50% 39% 37% CEP* 1 2
Cayuga Southern Cayuga CSD 45% 45% 46% 44% 25% 25% None 0 1
Cayuga Union Springs CSD 32% 36% 25% 29% 11% 14% None 0 3

Total
Cayuga Weedsport CSD 28% 31% 20% 31% 8% 14% None 0 2
Chautauqua Bemus Point CSD 26% 27% 27% 26% 8% 7% None 0 2
Chautauqua Brocton CSD 68% 66% 41% 39% 31% 29% None 0 1
Chautauqua Cassadaga Valley CSD 54% 54% 33% 28% 20% 18% None 0 2
Chautauqua Chautauqua Lake CSD 47% 49% 28% 28% 16% 17% None 0 1
Chautauqua Clymer CSD 43% 45% 35% 32% 19% 20% None 0 1
Chautauqua Dunkirk City SD 100% 100% 33% 31% 33% 31% CEP 6 6
Chautauqua Falconer CSD 47% 47% 27% 30% 14% 17% None 0 3
Chautauqua Forestville CSD 53% 51% 39% 42% 32% 28% None 0 2
Chautauqua Fredonia CSD 35% 38% 34% 35% 17% 18% None 0 3
Chautauqua Frewsburg CSD 40% 41% 30% 34% 15% 17% None 0 2
Chautauqua Jamestown City SD 96% 100% 31% 35% 31% 35% CEP 9 9
Chautauqua Panama CSD 43% 42% 23% 25% 11% 11% None 0 1
Chautauqua Pine Valley CSD (South Dayton) 56% 56% 48% 57% 35% 42% None 0 2
Chautauqua Ripley CSD 68% 72% 86% 85% 76% 76% None 0 1
Chautauqua Sherman CSD 52% 57% 41% 46% 30% 34% None 0 1
Chautauqua Silver Creek CSD 55% 57% 42% 40% 28% 28% None 0 2
Chautauqua Southwestern CSD At Jamestown 33% 32% 20% 21% 8% 7% None 0 3
Chautauqua Westfield CSD 48% 51% 25% 35% 16% 22% None 0 1
Chemung Elmira City SD 79% 99% 25% 26% 25% 26% CEP 12 12
Chemung Elmira Heights CSD 51% 54% 20% 22% 11% 13% None 0 2
Chemung Horseheads CSD 38% 34% 19% 29% 12% 14% None 0 8
Chenango Afton CSD 66% 65% 56% 53% 47% 45% None 0 1
Chenango Bainbridge-Guilford CSD 52% 54% 46% 47% 32% 33% None 0 3
Delaware Delaw-Chenango-Madison-Otsego 74% 46% 44% 24% 36% 13% None 0 2
Boces
Chenango Georgetown-South Otselic CSD 66% 69% 48% 50% 36% 40% None 0 1
Chenango Greene CSD 49% 48% 48% 51% 32% 34% None 0 3
Chenango Norwich City SD 58% 60% 38% 40% 25% 27% None 0 4
Chenango Oxford Academy & CSD 59% 59% 33% 38% 25% 29% None 0 3
Chenango Sherburne-Earlville CSD 58% 55% 41% 44% 31% 31% None 0 2
33
34

Total
Chenango Unadilla Valley CSD 63% 64% 56% 56% 48% 48% None 0 1
Clinton Ausable Valley CSD 49% 50% 27% 31% 15% 18% None 0 3
Clinton Beekmantown CSD 51% 67% 38% 65% 24% 65% CEP 4 4
Clinton Chazy UFSD 27% 27% 48% 38% 16% 14% None 0 1
Clinton Clinton-Essex-Warren-Washing 76% 86% 65% 49% 63% 50% None 0 1
Boces
Clinton Northeastern Clinton CSD 48% 47% 43% 39% 26% 24% None 0 3
Clinton Northern Adirondack CSD 67% 67% 47% 53% 47% 53% CEP 2 2
Clinton Peru CSD 42% 43% 30% 30% 15% 16% None 0 2
Clinton Plattsburgh City SD 54% 70% 32% 32% 19% 32% CEP 6 6
Clinton Saranac CSD 41% 41% 30% 37% 15% 18% None 0 3
Columbia Chatham CSD 36% 38% 26% 23% 13% 11% None 0 3
Columbia Germantown CSD 35% 43% 28% 27% 15% 16% None 0 1
Columbia Hudson City SD 82% 82% 31% 32% 31% 32% CEP 3 3
Columbia Kinderhook CSD 32% 32% 26% 27% 11% 11% None 0 3
Columbia New Lebanon CSD 41% 40% 26% 34% 15% 17% None 0 2
Columbia Taconic Hills CSD 55% 55% 33% 35% 21% 22% None 0 1
Cortland Cincinnatus CSD 56% 55% 37% 37% 29% 26% None 0 1
Cortland Cortland City SD 49% 52% 36% 37% 21% 23% None 0 8
Cortland Homer CSD 41% 38% 36% 35% 19% 19% None 0 3
Cortland Marathon CSD 49% 53% 34% 44% 20% 26% None 0 2
Cortland Mcgraw CSD 52% 54% 27% 32% 16% 20% None 0 2
Delaware Andes CSD 60% 54% 45% 39% 28% 26% None 0 1
Delaware Charlotte Valley CSD 69% 62% 54% 56% 48% 46% None 0 1
Delaware Delaware Academy CSD At Delhi 47% 42% 30% 35% 21% 22% None 0 2
Delaware Downsville CSD 53% 55% 39% 40% 30% 30% None 0 1
Delaware Franklin CSD 56% 56% 41% 41% 28% 26% None 0 1
Delaware Hancock CSD 61% 58% 31% 29% 21% 20% None 0 2
Delaware Margaretville CSD 55% 61% 30% 28% 22% 22% None 0 1
Delaware Roxbury CSD 53% 59% 44% 47% 28% 32% None 0 1
Delaware Sidney CSD 59% 58% 39% 46% 31% 36% None 0 2

Total
Delaware South Kortright CSD 40% 44% 82% 72% 71% 63% None 0 1
Delaware Stamford CSD 51% 55% 40% 35% 29% 22% None 0 1
Delaware Walton CSD 61% 62% 25% 30% 18% 21% None 0 2
Dutchess Arlington CSD 22% 24% 14% 17% 4% 5% None 0 11
Dutchess Beacon City SD 47% 46% 22% 20% 13% 11% None 0 6
Dutchess Dover UFSD 42% 50% 26% 45% 13% 24% None 0 3
Dutchess Dutchess Boces 59% 61% 47% 45% 33% 32% None 0 2
Dutchess Hyde Park CSD 43% 43% 31% 32% 18% 20% None 0 8
Dutchess Millbrook CSD 26% 26% 10% 11% 3% 4% None 0 4
Dutchess Northeast CSD 56% 65% 24% 22% 16% 17% None 0 3
Dutchess Pawling CSD 22% 25% 15% 13% 5% 5% None 0 3
Dutchess Pine Plains CSD 35% 37% 26% 37% 12% 19% None 0 3
Dutchess Poughkeepsie City SD 92% 96% 37% 50% 37% 50% CEP 7 7
Dutchess Red Hook CSD 18% 22% 16% 18% 4% 6% None 0 3
Dutchess Rhinebeck CSD 16% 18% 15% 23% 4% 7% None 0 3
Dutchess Spackenkill UFSD 21% 21% 13% 21% 4% 6% None 0 4
Dutchess Wappingers CSD 24% 25% 21% 20% 7% 7% None 0 15
Erie Akron CSD 34% 36% 28% 28% 13% 13% None 0 3
Erie Alden CSD 30% 28% 33% 33% 16% 13% None 0 3
Erie Amherst CSD 34% 33% 29% 30% 14% 15% None 0 4
Erie Buffalo City SD 100% 100% 62% 61% 62% 61% CEP 71 71
Erie Buffalo United Charter School 93% 100% 18% 20% 16% 20% CEP 1 1
Erie Charter School For Applied Tech- 85% 82% 63% 55% 57% 51% None 0 3
nolog
Erie Cheektowaga CSD 68% 74% 50% 53% 42% 49% CEP* 3 4
Erie Cheektowaga-Maryvale UFSD 46% 47% 38% 42% 22% 24% None 0 4
Erie Cheektowaga-Sloan UFSD 57% 60% 46% 48% 36% 37% None 0 3
Erie Clarence CSD 12% 11% 16% 17% 6% 6% None 0 6
Erie Cleveland Hill UFSD 55% 55% 24% 33% 15% 20% None 0 2
Erie Depew UFSD 43% 46% 51% 52% 34% 35% None 0 3
Erie East Aurora UFSD 14% 14% 16% 22% 5% 9% None 0 3
35
36
Total
Erie Eden CSD 22% 21% 16% 26% 5% 7% None 0 3
Erie Erie 2-Chautauqua-Cattaraugus 76% 77% 19% 20% 16% 17% None 0 2
Boces
Erie Evans-Brant CSD (Lake Shore) 45% 47% 31% 35% 18% 22% None 0 5
Erie Frontier CSD 31% 30% 30% 30% 13% 12% None 0 6
Erie Global Concepts Charter School 79% 77% 32% 33% 26% 26% None 0 2
Erie Grand Island CSD 23% 24% 18% 20% 5% 6% None 0 5
Erie Hamburg CSD 19% 18% 28% 22% 8% 6% None 0 6
Erie Health Sciences Charter School 82% 100% 39% 46% 37% 46% CEP 1 1
Erie Holland CSD 24% 28% 36% 43% 12% 15% None 0 2
Erie Iroquois CSD 17% 17% 19% 20% 6% 6% None 0 5
Erie Kenmore-Tonawanda UFSD 44% 45% 37% 34% 21% 19% None 0 11
Erie Lackawanna City SD 86% 80% 37% 41% 33% 35% None 0 4
Erie Lancaster CSD 22% 21% 25% 28% 10% 9% None 0 7
Erie North Collins CSD 44% 39% 29% 30% 14% 13% None 0 2
Erie Oracle Charter School 94% 95% 31% 34% 29% 33% None 0 1
Erie Orchard Park CSD 13% 13% 18% 20% 4% 5% None 0 6
Erie South Buffalo Charter School 83% 100% 80% 74% 81% 74% CEP 1 1
Erie Springville-Griffith Inst CSD 31% 32% 17% 18% 7% 7% None 0 4
Erie Sweet Home CSD 45% 47% 46% 43% 24% 23% None 0 9
Erie Tapestry Charter School 60% 61% 14% 20% 10% 14% None 0 1
Erie Tonawanda City SD 47% 45% 30% 25% 17% 14% None 0 4
Erie West Seneca CSD 35% 35% 16% 17% 8% 9% None 0 9
Erie Western Ny Maritime Charter School 79% 81% 49% 47% 41% 41% None 0 1
Erie Westminster Community Charter 100% 100% 73% 71% 73% 71% CEP 1 1
School
Erie Williamsville CSD 18% 17% 25% 24% 7% 7% None 0 12
Essex Crown Point CSD 52% 89% 39% 28% 31% 38% None 0 1
Essex Elizabethtown-Lewis CSD 48% 55% 28% 30% 19% 21% None 0 1
Essex Keene CSD 42% 40% 57% 47% 36% 31% None 0 1
Essex Lake Placid CSD 37% 39% 24% 18% 12% 10% None 0 2

Total
Essex Minerva CSD 42% 46% 44% 36% 28% 25% None 0 1
Essex Moriah CSD 51% 54% 49% 48% 33% 32% None 0 1
Essex Newcomb CSD 40% 40% 55% 41% 49% 43% None 0 1
Essex Schroon Lake CSD 63% 90% 27% 38% 20% 38% CEP 1 1
Essex Ticonderoga CSD 56% 66% 30% 32% 19% 32% CEP 2 2
Essex Westport CSD 44% 46% 29% 27% 17% 15% None 0 1
Essex Willsboro CSD 48% 55% 49% 50% 32% 34% None 0 1
Franklin Brushton-Moira CSD 61% 64% 48% 52% 36% 41% None 0 1
Franklin Chateaugay CSD 43% 45% 50% 60% 27% 32% None 0 1
Franklin Malone CSD 51% 51% 40% 40% 26% 26% None 0 6
Franklin Salmon River CSD 77% 75% 59% 59% 57% 56% None 0 2
Franklin Saranac Lake CSD 37% 39% 31% 34% 15% 17% None 0 3
Franklin St Regis Falls CSD 66% 63% 44% 51% 35% 41% None 0 1
Franklin Tupper Lake CSD 41% 44% 34% 31% 19% 20% None 0 2
Fulton Broadalbin-Perth CSD 41% 40% 26% 26% 14% 15% None 0 2
Fulton Gloversville City SD 78% 100% 28% 30% 23% 30% CEP 7 7
Fulton Johnstown City SD 51% 46% 16% 18% 9% 9% None 0 5
Fulton Mayfield CSD 46% 47% 22% 21% 12% 12% None 0 2
Fulton Northville CSD 54% 51% 13% 33% 9% 27% None 0 1
Fulton Wheelerville UFSD 50% 57% 47% 47% 45% 47% None 0 1
Genesee Batavia City SD 54% 56% 31% 35% 19% 23% None 0 4
Genesee Byron-Bergen CSD 39% 37% 37% 35% 18% 17% None 0 2
Genesee Elba CSD 34% 46% 17% 20% 7% 10% None 0 1
Livingston Genesee Valley Boces 24% 30% 36% 31% 12% 11% None 0 5
Genesee Le Roy CSD 31% 32% 21% 24% 11% 12% None 0 2
Genesee Oakfield-Alabama CSD 53% 48% 35% 40% 27% 25% None 0 2
Genesee Pavilion CSD 40% 41% 29% 23% 17% 13% None 0 2
Genesee Pembroke CSD 32% 34% 35% 34% 16% 18% None 0 3
Greene Cairo-Durham CSD 54% 57% 40% 48% 26% 31% None 0 2
Greene Catskill CSD 51% 49% 25% 26% 14% 15% None 0 2
37
38

Total
Greene Coxsackie-Athens CSD 39% 42% 30% 33% 14% 16% None 0 4
Greene Greenville CSD 34% 34% 33% 34% 13% 15% None 0 1
Greene Hunter-Tannersville CSD 52% 52% 31% 35% 20% 22% None 0 2
Greene Windham-Ashland-Jewett CSD 47% 43% 32% 33% 21% 23% None 0 1
Hamilton Indian Lake CSD 34% 35% 58% 57% 42% 46% None 0 1
Hamilton Lake Pleasant CSD 38% 41% 66% 66% 56% 52% None 0 1
Hamilton Long Lake CSD 41% 42% 74% 77% 48% 55% None 0 1
Hamilton Wells CSD 52% 61% 43% 56% 45% 58% None 0 1
Herkimer Central Valley CSD At Ilion-Mohawk 54% 73% 27% 44% 18% 44% CEP 5 5
Herkimer Dolgeville CSD 61% 60% 29% 32% 20% 21% None 0 1
Herkimer Herk-Fulton-Hamilton-Otsego Boces 15% 19% 55% 36% 10% 8% None 0 1
Herkimer Little Falls City SD 54% 53% 34% 33% 20% 20% None 0 2
Herkimer Town Of Webb UFSD 41% 41% 25% 22% 14% 13% None 0 1
Herkimer West Canada Valley CSD 40% 43% 34% 32% 21% 20% None 0 1
Jefferson Alexandria CSD 44% 54% 48% 43% 30% 30% None 0 1
Jefferson Belleville-Henderson CSD 95% 58% 28% 51% 56% 49% None 0 1
Jefferson Carthage CSD 50% 49% 38% 38% 23% 24% None 0 5
Jefferson General Brown CSD 40% 41% 31% 30% 17% 16% None 0 3
Jefferson Indian River CSD 47% 47% 26% 31% 16% 18% None 0 8
Jefferson La Fargeville CSD 51% 51% 24% 20% 15% 12% None 0 1
Jefferson Lyme CSD 50% 51% 41% 37% 26% 22% None 0 1
Jefferson Sackets Harbor CSD 36% 38% 26% 31% 11% 15% None 0 1
Jefferson South Jefferson CSD 46% 47% 33% 31% 21% 20% None 0 3
Jefferson Thousand Islands CSD 39% 42% 38% 34% 19% 18% None 0 3
Jefferson Watertown City SD 60% 65% 31% 32% 21% 24% None 0 9
Lewis Beaver River CSD 50% 47% 31% 35% 19% 22% None 0 1
Lewis Copenhagen CSD 43% 51% 34% 37% 18% 24% None 0 1
Lewis Harrisville CSD 49% 54% 33% 37% 21% 27% None 0 1
Lewis Lowville Academy & CSD 45% 45% 32% 29% 21% 19% None 0 2
Lewis South Lewis CSD 62% 71% 25% 42% 17% 34% CEP* 2 3

Total
Livingston Avon CSD 28% 27% 29% 29% 11% 10% None 0 2
Livingston Caledonia-Mumford CSD 30% 32% 48% 52% 24% 25% None 0 2
Livingston Dalton-Nunda CSD (Keshequa) 47% 46% 32% 37% 18% 19% None 0 2
Livingston Dansville CSD 50% 52% 43% 45% 26% 28% None 0 3
Livingston Geneseo CSD 32% 35% 48% 50% 18% 20% None 0 1
Livingston Livonia CSD 33% 34% 30% 27% 12% 12% None 0 2
Livingston Mt Morris CSD 68% 63% 52% 48% 39% 35% None 0 1
Livingston York CSD 42% 44% 24% 32% 14% 17% None 0 1
Madison Brookfield CSD 50% 56% 57% 52% 41% 41% None 0 1
Madison Canastota CSD 51% 56% 21% 28% 12% 17% None 0 4
Madison Cazenovia CSD 20% 20% 22% 24% 5% 6% None 0 2
Madison Chittenango CSD 37% 37% 29% 28% 13% 13% None 0 4
Madison Deruyter CSD 52% 55% 34% 36% 21% 22% None 0 1
Madison Hamilton CSD 26% 29% 28% 27% 12% 12% None 0 1
Madison Madison CSD 52% 45% 20% 26% 14% 16% None 0 1
Madison Madison-Oneida Boces 77% 83% 34% 32% 30% 30% None 0 1
Madison Morrisville-Eaton CSD 56% 55% 37% 36% 25% 24% None 0 2
Madison Oneida City SD 49% 51% 21% 24% 11% 13% None 0 6
Madison Stockbridge Valley CSD 46% 49% 32% 37% 21% 25% None 0 1
Monroe Brockport CSD 41% 43% 33% 30% 17% 16% None 0 5
Monroe Churchville-Chili CSD 27% 28% 25% 28% 9% 10% None 0 5
Monroe Discovery Charter School 100% 100% 85% 86% 85% 86% CEP 1 1
Monroe East Irondequoit CSD 55% 56% 30% 29% 19% 18% None 0 6
Monroe East Rochester UFSD 47% 46% 24% 25% 12% 13% None 0 2
Monroe Eugenio Maria De Hostos Charter 100% 100% 67% 68% 67% 68% CEP 2 2
Scho
Monroe Fairport CSD 19% 21% 23% 26% 5% 7% None 0 7
Monroe Gates-Chili CSD 47% 51% 29% 31% 17% 19% None 0 7
Monroe Genesee Comm Charter School 31% 31% 72% 66% 35% 35% None 0 1
Monroe Greece CSD 51% 52% 45% 46% 27% 28% CEP* 1 17
Monroe Hilton CSD 26% 26% 29% 31% 11% 12% None 0 5
39
40

Total
Monroe Honeoye Falls-Lima CSD 15% 14% 56% 46% 12% 10% None 0 4
Monroe Monroe 1 Boces 82% 82% 47% 44% 44% 39% None 0 3
Monroe Penfield CSD 13% 15% 33% 31% 10% 11% None 0 6
Monroe Puc Achieve Charter School 90% 89% 89% 55% 91% 57% None 0 1
Monroe Rochester City SD 100% 100% 55% 55% 55% 55% CEP 52 52
Monroe Rush-Henrietta CSD 40% 40% 32% 32% 17% 18% None 0 9
Monroe Spencerport CSD 31% 32% 26% 24% 10% 10% None 0 6
Monroe True North Rochester Prep Charter 100% 100% 84% 85% 84% 85% CEP 4 4
Monroe University Prep Char Sch-Young Men 97% 97% 37% 52% 37% 52% CEP 1 1
Monroe Urban Choice Charter School 100% 100% 94% 94% 94% 94% CEP 2 2
Monroe West Irondequoit CSD 26% 27% 22% 30% 7% 10% None 0 10
Monroe Wheatland-Chili CSD 40% 40% 48% 57% 22% 26% None 0 2
Montgomery Amsterdam City SD 74% 86% 42% 42% 36% 40% CEP* 6 7
Montgomery Canajoharie CSD 48% 50% 22% 29% 13% 17% None 0 2
Montgomery Fonda-Fultonville CSD 38% 40% 25% 23% 12% 13% None 0 1
Montgomery Fort Plain CSD 69% 86% 35% 35% 27% 32% CEP* 1 2
Montgomery Oppenheim-Ephratah-St. Johnsville 67% 82% 33% 34% 25% 29% CEP* 1 2
Cs
Nassau Academy Charter School 77% 77% 41% 52% 41% 52% CEP 1 1
Nassau Baldwin UFSD 28% 11% 4% None 0 5
Nassau Bethpage UFSD 15% 16% 19% 28% 5% 8% None 0 2
Nassau East Meadow UFSD 21% 12% 5% None 0 3
Nassau East Rockaway UFSD 26% 27% 24% 24% 13% 15% None 0 3
Nassau East Williston UFSD 5% 6% 14% 16% 10% 12% None 0 2
Nassau Elmont UFSD 59% 59% 21% 23% 16% 18% None 0 6
Nassau Evergreen Charter School 89% 86% 30% 42% 28% 39% None 0 1
Nassau Farmingdale UFSD 26% 26% 15% 18% 7% 7% None 0 6
Nassau Freeport UFSD 72% 74% 20% 22% 17% 20% None 0 8
Nassau Garden City UFSD 2% 2% 2% 6% 1% 1% None 0 2
Nassau Glen Cove City SD 59% 59% 19% 22% 13% 15% None 0 6
Nassau Great Neck UFSD 15% 16% 8% 9% 2% 2% None 0 8

Total
Nassau Hempstead UFSD 100% 100% 19% 45% 19% 45% CEP 10 10
Nassau Hewlett-Woodmere UFSD 17% 22% 15% 19% 6% 10% None 0 2
Nassau Hicksville UFSD 32% 38% 15% 18% 8% 10% None 0 9
Nassau Island Park UFSD 37% 38% 17% 17% 9% 8% None 0 2
Nassau Island Trees UFSD 18% 22% 10% 11% 3% 3% None 0 2
Nassau Lawrence UFSD 67% 72% 15% 18% 11% 13% None 0 5
Nassau Levittown UFSD 20% 22% 4% 4% 1% 2% None 0 4
Nassau Locust Valley CSD 15% 17% 20% 19% 4% 4% None 0 1
Nassau Long Beach City SD 33% 36% 21% 21% 8% 9% None 0 7
Nassau Lynbrook UFSD 12% 14% 1% 5% 0% 2% None 0 3
Nassau Malverne UFSD 42% 45% 17% 21% 9% 12% None 0 4
Nassau Mineola UFSD 24% 29% 12% 8% 4% 3% None 0 5
Nassau Nassau Boces 58% 57% 75% 75% 48% 45% None 0 7
Nassau North Shore CSD 7% 10% 9% 13% 2% 2% None 0 1
Nassau Oceanside UFSD 15% 17% 13% 10% 4% 4% None 0 8
Nassau Oyster Bay-East Norwich CSD 16% 21% 22% 21% 12% 9% None 0 1
Nassau Plainview-Old Bethpage CSD 8% 8% 10% 14% 2% 2% None 0 1
Nassau Port Washington UFSD 19% 19% 30% 29% 8% 9% None 0 7
Nassau Rockville Centre UFSD 27% 15% 24% 42% 8% 8% None 0 2
Nassau Roosevelt Childrens Academy Char- 88% 88% 37% 42% 35% 40% None 0 2
ter School
Nassau Roosevelt UFSD 82% 98% 50% 50% 46% 50% CEP 5 5
Nassau Roslyn UFSD 11% 11% 21% 19% 3% 3% None 0 5
Nassau Sewanhaka Central HS District 27% 30% 14% 13% 6% 6% None 0 5
Nassau Syosset CSD 6% 6% 11% 16% 3% 5% None 0 3
Nassau Uniondale UFSD 68% 68% 16% 19% 14% 16% None 0 9
Nassau Valley Stream 24 UFSD 36% 39% 8% 8% 4% 4% None 0 3
Nassau Valley Stream Central HS District 36% 31% 9% 8% 6% 5% None 0 7
Nassau Wantagh UFSD 5% 7% 27% 33% 11% 10% None 0 1
Nassau West Hempstead UFSD 43% 43% 29% 25% 15% 14% None 0 5
Nassau Westbury UFSD 84% 98% 48% 48% 45% 48% CEP 6 6
41
42
Total
New York City Achievement First Bushwick Charter 80% 9% 9% CEP 2 2
New York City Amber Charter School 85% 100% 21% 24% 20% 24% CEP 1 1
New York City Bronx Academy Of Promise Charter 100% 100% 31% 30% 31% 30% CEP 1 1
School
New York City Bronx Charter School For The Arts 94% 100% 17% 18% 16% 18% CEP 1 1
New York City Brooklyn Dreams Charter School 86% 86% 59% 50% 53% 44% None 0 1
New York City Brooklyn Excelsior Charter School 88% 91% 63% 24% 57% 23% None 0 1
New York City Brooklyn Laboratory Charter School 74% 72% 29% 16% 27% 15% None 0 1
New York City Brooklyn Prospect Charter School 38% 43% 5% 4% 4% 3% None 0 2
New York City Brooklyn Scholars Charter School 91% 91% 58% 59% 55% 57% None 0 1
New York City Brooklyn Urban Garden Charter 58% 56% 7% 12% 6% 11% None 0 1
School
New York City Brownsville Ascend Charter School 80% 89% 56% 44% 52% 44% CEP 5 5
New York City Coney Island Prep Public Charter 93% 93% 28% 23% 28% 23% CEP 2 2
School
New York City Dream Charter School 100% 18% 18% CEP 1 1
New York City Family Life Academy Charter School 88% 100% 12% 17% 12% 17% CEP 1 1
I
New York City Family Life Academy Charter School 100% 100% 71% 74% 71% 74% CEP 1 1
II
New York City Harbor Science & Arts Charter 79% 82% 44% 47% 41% 47% None 0 1
School
New York City Harlem Childrens Zone Promise 91% 100% 27% 43% 27% 43% CEP 3 3
New York City Harlem Hebrew Language Academy 58% 52% 83% 60% 69% 52% None 0 1
New York City Harriet Tubman Charter School 81% 81% 26% 20% 26% 20% CEP 1 1
New York City Heketi Community Charter School 100% 50% 50% CEP 1 1
New York City Hyde Leadership Charter School 94% 91% 2% 1% 2% 1% None 0 1
New York City Inwood Acad For Leadership Charter 59% 100% 3% 9% 3% 9% CEP 2 2
New York City John W Lavelle Prep Charter School 75% 72% 31% 28% 27% 23% None 0 1
New York City Kipp Infinity Charter School 87% 88% 4% 6% 4% 6% None 0 1
New York City Middle Village Prep Charter School 61% 53% 8% 5% 5% 3% None 0 1
New York City Mott Haven Academy Charter School 100% 100% 40% 48% 40% 48% CEP 1 1

Total
New York City Neighborhood Charter School Of 93% 94% 52% 64% 52% 64% CEP 1 1
Harlem
New York City New American Academy Charter 83% 59% 57% None 0 1
School (The)
New York City New Heights Academy Charter 90% 90% 6% 15% 6% 15% Provision 2 1 1
School
New York City NYC Chancellors Office 77% 78% 22% 25% 20% 23% CEP/Provi- CEP (756)/Pro- 2332
sion 2 /None vision 2 (1380)/
None (196)
New York City Pave Academy Charter School 100% 100% 30% 23% 30% 23% CEP 1 1
New York City Renaissance Charter School (The) 74% 76% 41% 36% 32% 29% None 0 1
New York City Riverton Street Charter School 87% 88% 66% 47% 63% 44% None 0 1
New York City South Bronx Charter School 100% 100% 44% 49% 44% 49% CEP 1 1
New York City Success Academy Charter 67% 68% 18% 20% 15% 19% None 0 14
Niagara Barker CSD 49% 46% 38% 35% 23% 19% None 0 1
Niagara Lewiston-Porter CSD 19% 21% 11% 10% 3% 3% None 0 3
Niagara Lockport City SD 55% 57% 33% 33% 22% 22% None 0 8
Niagara Newfane CSD 41% 45% 30% 32% 16% 19% None 0 4
Niagara Niagara Falls City SD 88% 100% 26% 26% 26% 26% CEP 11 11
Niagara Niagara-Wheatfield CSD 36% 37% 32% 32% 15% 15% None 0 6
Niagara North Tonawanda City SD 42% 43% 27% 30% 14% 17% None 0 8
Niagara Royalton-Hartland CSD 42% 43% 36% 36% 23% 24% None 0 1
Niagara Starpoint CSD 23% 24% 45% 40% 23% 24% None 0 2
Niagara Wilson CSD 40% 39% 29% 32% 14% 15% None 0 2
Oneida Adirondack CSD 55% 55% 38% 38% 27% 26% None 0 4
Oneida Camden CSD 56% 53% 31% 36% 21% 23% None 0 5
Oneida Holland Patent CSD 46% 44% 42% 45% 29% 30% None 0 2
Oneida Oneida-Herkimer-Madison Boces 47% 50% 35% 36% 20% 22% None 0 25
Oneida Rome City SD 60% 63% 42% 42% 28% 29% None 0 10
Oneida Sherrill City SD 42% 44% 32% 28% 15% 15% None 0 5
Oneida Utica City SD 100% 100% 30% 31% 30% 31% CEP 14 14
Oneida Whitesboro CSD 33% 33% 28% 26% 13% 12% None 0 7
43
44
Total
Onondaga Baldwinsville CSD 28% 29% 24% 21% 8% 8% None 0 6
Onondaga East Syracuse-Minoa CSD 37% 40% 27% 26% 14% 13% None 0 7
Onondaga Fabius-Pompey CSD 29% 32% 37% 35% 17% 15% None 0 2
Onondaga Fayetteville-Manlius CSD 10% 12% 23% 34% 4% 7% None 0 3
Onondaga Jamesville-Dewitt CSD 18% 19% 22% 21% 5% 5% None 0 5
Onondaga Jordan-Elbridge CSD 43% 39% 29% 34% 15% 17% None 0 3
Onondaga Lafayette CSD 41% 42% 35% 37% 18% 19% None 0 7
Onondaga Liverpool CSD 41% 43% 34% 33% 26% 26% None 0 13
Onondaga Lyncourt UFSD 64% 61% 35% 35% 24% 24% None 0 1
Onondaga Marcellus CSD 17% 21% 19% 16% 4% 5% None 0 4
Onondaga North Syracuse CSD 33% 34% 30% 31% 13% 14% None 0 10
Onondaga Skaneateles CSD 9% 11% 21% 18% 3% 3% None 0 1
Onondaga Solvay UFSD 56% 61% 23% 22% 15% 15% None 0 4
Onondaga Southside Academy Charter School 100% 100% 64% 68% 64% 68% CEP 1 1
Onondaga Syracuse Academy of Science Char- 73% 76% 40% 39% 32% 37% None 0 5
ter School
Onondaga Syracuse City SD 100% 100% 51% 54% 51% 54% CEP 33 33
Onondaga Tully CSD 28% 30% 41% 37% 15% 14% None 0 2
Onondaga West Genesee CSD 21% 24% 19% 20% 6% 6% None 0 7
Onondaga Westhill CSD 16% 16% 25% 30% 7% 7% None 0 4
Ontario Canandaigua City SD 32% 34% 32% 30% 13% 14% None 0 3
Ontario East Bloomfield CSD 34% 35% 39% 40% 17% 18% None 0 2
Ontario Geneva City SD 73% 79% 35% 38% 29% 30% CEP* 3 5
Ontario Gorham-Middlesex CSD (Marcus 52% 51% 51% 52% 30% 29% None 0 4
Whitman)
Ontario Honeoye CSD 33% 34% 33% 32% 15% 14% None 0 1
Ontario Manchester-Shortsville CSD (Red 51% 54% 39% 42% 23% 27% None 0 2
Jack)
Ontario Naples CSD 41% 43% 34% 35% 17% 18% None 0 2
Ontario Phelps-Clifton Springs CSD 38% 39% 30% 31% 14% 14% None 0 4
Ontario Victor CSD 17% 17% 27% 27% 7% 7% None 0 5

Total
Orange Chester UFSD 34% 32% 17% 20% 8% 9% None 0 2
Orange Cornwall CSD 16% 19% 25% 24% 6% 7% None 0 5
Orange Florida UFSD 25% 28% 15% 17% 4% 7% None 0 2
Orange Goshen CSD 23% 25% 15% 17% 5% 7% None 0 4
Orange Greenwood Lake UFSD 28% 28% 28% 24% 10% 10% None 0 2
Orange Highland Falls CSD 35% 37% 31% 32% 13% 14% None 0 3
Orange Middletown City SD 76% 76% 29% 32% 24% 26% None 0 6
Orange Minisink Valley CSD 22% 24% 17% 15% 7% 6% None 0 4
Orange Monroe-Woodbury CSD 22% 24% 15% 14% 5% 5% None 0 7
Orange Newburgh City SD 74% 82% 43% 65% 36% 60% CEP* 10 16
Orange Orange-Ulster Boces 57% 60% 38% 42% 24% 28% None 0 3
Orange Pine Bush CSD 39% 40% 29% 30% 17% 18% None 0 7
Orange Port Jervis City SD 54% 62% 27% 31% 15% 21% None 0 4
Orange Tuxedo UFSD 18% 19% 7% 6% 2% 1% None 0 1
Orange Valley CSD (Montgomery) 33% 34% 24% 27% 11% 13% None 0 7
Orange Warwick Valley CSD 15% 17% 10% 10% 3% 2% None 0 3
Orange Washingtonville CSD 25% 25% 12% 14% 4% 5% None 0 5
Orleans Albion CSD 59% 60% 13% 14% 8% 9% None 0 3
Orleans Holley CSD 56% 54% 37% 43% 25% 29% None 0 2
Orleans Kendall CSD 48% 50% 41% 41% 26% 26% None 0 2
Orleans Lyndonville CSD 50% 50% 46% 46% 30% 32% None 0 1
Orleans Medina CSD 54% 55% 31% 38% 20% 24% None 0 3
Oswego Altmar-Parish-Williamstown CSD 58% 58% 41% 38% 28% 26% None 0 2
Oswego Central Square CSD 42% 45% 23% 24% 11% 13% None 0 7
Oswego Fulton City SD 58% 60% 29% 31% 18% 20% None 0 7
Oswego Hannibal CSD 63% 66% 43% 43% 29% 31% None 0 3
Oswego Mexico CSD 56% 59% 27% 28% 17% 18% None 0 6
Oswego Oswego City SD 51% 51% 29% 31% 16% 17% None 0 7
Oswego Phoenix CSD 53% 53% 29% 29% 17% 17% None 0 3
Oswego Pulaski CSD 49% 49% 27% 28% 15% 16% None 0 3
45
46
Total
Oswego Sandy Creek CSD 57% 59% 43% 45% 32% 34% None 0 1
Otsego Cherry Valley-Springfield CSD 55% 55% 54% 47% 42% 37% None 0 1
Otsego Cooperstown CSD 29% 27% 37% 35% 17% 15% None 0 2
Otsego Edmeston CSD 45% 46% 45% 41% 42% 39% None 0 1
Otsego Gilbertsville-Mount Upton CSD 62% 54% 50% 57% 37% 39% None 0 1
Otsego Laurens CSD 55% 55% 59% 61% 41% 42% None 0 1
Otsego Milford CSD 53% 54% 49% 44% 31% 28% None 0 2
Otsego Morris CSD 59% 55% 55% 61% 43% 49% None 0 1
Otsego Oneonta City SD 41% 41% 27% 30% 13% 15% None 0 4
Otsego Otego-Unadilla CSD 53% 52% 36% 35% 26% 25% None 0 3
Otsego Schenevus CSD 43% 51% 30% 34% 17% 22% None 0 1
Otsego Worcester CSD 61% 47% 19% 19% 13% 12% None 0 1
Putnam Brewster CSD 25% 28% 29% 31% 14% 15% None 0 4
Putnam Carmel CSD 22% 25% 22% 19% 8% 8% None 0 5
Putnam Haldane CSD - 13% - 11% - 3% None 0 1
Putnam Putnam Valley CSD 20% 19% 16% 24% 7% 8% None 0 3
Putnam Putnam-Northern Westchester 50% 26% 66% 30% 33% 9% None 0 3
Boces
Rensselaer Averill Park CSD 20% 21% 23% 22% 6% 7% None 0 6
Rensselaer Berlin CSD 50% 50% 45% 42% 29% 29% None 0 2
Rensselaer Brunswick CSD (Brittonkill) 24% 25% 23% 21% 8% 8% None 0 2
Rensselaer East Greenbush CSD 19% 22% 28% 27% 8% 9% None 0 8
Rensselaer Hoosic Valley CSD 30% 34% 17% 20% 7% 8% None 0 2
Rensselaer Hoosick Falls CSD 47% 47% 26% 29% 15% 16% None 0 1
Rensselaer Lansingburgh CSD 81% 81% 29% 33% 29% 33% CEP 4 4
Rensselaer Rensselaer City SD 91% 91% 40% 48% 40% 48% CEP 1 1
Rensselaer Schodack CSD 19% 20% 64% 62% 18% 18% None 0 3
Rensselaer Troy City SD 86% 86% 49% 47% 49% 47% CEP 8 8
Rensselaer True North Troy Prep Charter School 100% 100% 78% 80% 78% 80% CEP 1 1
Rensselaer Wynantskill UFSD 24% 25% 61% 66% 25% 24% None 0 1
Rockland Clarkstown CSD 13% 17% 16% 15% 4% 4% None 0 17

Total
Rockland East Ramapo CSD (Spring Valley) 80% 81% 40% 45% 35% 41% None 0 13
Rockland Haverstraw-Stony Point CSD (North 52% 54% 20% 22% 12% 14% None 0 9
Rockland)
Rockland Nanuet UFSD 19% 20% 13% 21% 5% 9% None 0 5
Rockland Nyack UFSD 29% 30% 33% 35% 11% 13% None 0 5
Rockland Ramapo CSD (Suffern) 20% 23% 21% 24% 6% 8% None 0 5
Rockland South Orangetown CSD 12% 14% 8% 11% 2% 3% None 0 5
Saint Lawrence Brasher Falls CSD 57% 57% 38% 38% 26% 26% None 0 2
Saint Lawrence Canton CSD 43% 42% 40% 37% 21% 19% None 0 3
Saint Lawrence Clifton-Fine CSD 63% 66% 68% 68% 53% 56% None 0 1
Saint Lawrence Colton-Pierrepont CSD 40% 45% 28% 23% 14% 14% None 0 1
Saint Lawrence Edwards-Knox CSD 66% 69% 25% 45% 20% 36% None 0 1
Saint Lawrence Gouverneur CSD 60% 58% 35% 40% 24% 32% None 0 3
Saint Lawrence Hammond CSD 55% 58% 31% 29% 20% 20% None 0 1
Saint Lawrence Hermon-Dekalb CSD 63% 68% 46% 56% 36% 47% None 0 1
Saint Lawrence Heuvelton CSD 52% 53% 35% 43% 23% 29% None 0 1
Saint Lawrence Lisbon CSD 44% 43% 50% 46% 34% 30% None 0 1
Saint Lawrence Madrid-Waddington CSD 45% 45% 55% 56% 45% 42% None 0 1
Saint Lawrence Massena CSD 58% 60% 41% 45% 28% 32% None 0 5
Saint Lawrence Morristown CSD 53% 57% 45% 39% 29% 29% None 0 1
Saint Lawrence Norwood-Norfolk CSD 60% 57% 33% 32% 22% 22% None 0 2
Saint Lawrence Ogdensburg City SD 58% 57% 44% 42% 31% 29% None 0 3
Saint Lawrence Parishville-Hopkinton CSD 45% 48% 33% 33% 18% 18% None 0 1
Saint Lawrence Potsdam CSD 37% 39% 42% 44% 19% 21% None 0 3
Saratoga Ballston Spa CSD 29% 29% 25% 26% 9% 9% None 0 6
Saratoga Corinth CSD 45% 50% 32% 34% 20% 21% None 0 2
Saratoga Edinburg Common SD 57% 58% 47% 52% 40% 40% None 0 1
Saratoga Galway CSD 27% 29% 33% 38% 13% 15% None 0 2
Saratoga Mechanicville City SD 39% 42% 29% 25% 13% 12% None 0 1
Saratoga Saratoga Springs City SD 21% 21% 21% 25% 6% 7% None 0 9
Saratoga Schuylerville CSD 28% 27% 21% 26% 11% 12% None 0 2
47
48
Total
Saratoga Shenendehowa CSD 15% 16% 17% 18% 4% 4% None 0 10
Saratoga South Glens Falls CSD 34% 35% 28% 28% 13% 13% None 0 5
Saratoga Stillwater CSD 27% 29% 42% 34% 15% 14% None 0 2
Saratoga Waterford-Halfmoon UFSD 34% 41% 24% 26% 11% 14% None 0 1
Schenectady Duanesburg CSD 23% 27% 40% 43% 16% 20% None 0 2
Schenectady Niskayuna CSD 11% 11% 18% 24% 3% 4% None 0 8
Schenectady Rotterdam-Mohonasen CSD 36% 37% 36% 39% 20% 22% None 0 4
Schenectady Schalmont CSD 28% 29% 35% 36% 13% 13% None 0 4
Schenectady Schenectady City SD 96% 96% 57% 56% 57% 56% CEP 19 19
Schenectady Scotia-Glenville CSD 26% 27% 38% 37% 16% 16% None 0 6
Schoharie Cobleskill-Richmondville CSD 47% 50% 38% 36% 20% 20% None 0 4
Schoharie Gilboa-Conesville CSD 59% 56% 34% 37% 24% 25% None 0 2
Schoharie Jefferson CSD 55% 54% 74% 72% 57% 56% None 0 1
Schoharie Middleburgh CSD 44% 49% 30% 34% 16% 21% None 0 2
Schoharie Schoharie CSD 41% 41% 35% 37% 17% 18% None 0 2
Schoharie Sharon Springs CSD 58% 63% 37% 36% 27% 26% None 0 1
Schuyler Odessa-Montour CSD 50% 51% 34% 41% 22% 27% None 0 2
Schuyler Watkins Glen CSD 44% 48% 29% 36% 15% 22% None 0 2
Seneca Romulus CSD 60% 66% 30% 44% 23% 31% None 0 1
Seneca Seneca Falls CSD 41% 45% 30% 38% 13% 18% None 0 3
Seneca South Seneca CSD 53% 63% 45% 46% 33% 40% CEP* 1 2
Seneca Waterloo CSD 49% 53% 25% 27% 14% 16% None 0 4
Steuben Addison CSD 56% 59% 44% 43% 33% 33% None 0 3
Steuben Avoca CSD 54% 56% 43% 44% 29% 31% None 0 1
Steuben Bath CSD 56% 58% 44% 42% 29% 28% None 0 2
Steuben Bradford CSD 61% 60% 55% 60% 47% 50% None 0 1
Steuben Campbell-Savona CSD 51% 56% 41% 43% 29% 33% None 0 2
Steuben Canisteo-Greenwood CSD 56% 59% 36% 42% 24% 29% None 0 2
Steuben Corning City SD 41% 41% 30% 34% 15% 17% None 0 9
Steuben Hammondsport CSD 55% 59% 43% 44% 30% 33% None 0 1
Steuben Hornell City SD 57% 59% 36% 37% 23% 24% None 0 6

Total
Steuben Jasper-Troupsburg CSD 57% 59% 28% 32% 20% 22% None 0 2
Steuben Prattsburgh CSD 51% 57% 54% 51% 39% 40% None 0 1
Steuben Wayland-Cohocton CSD 59% 58% 44% 38% 31% 27% None 0 4
Suffolk Amityville UFSD 77% 78% 19% 22% 16% 19% None 0 5
Suffolk Babylon UFSD 17% 17% 27% 29% 6% 7% None 0 3
Suffolk Bay Shore UFSD 55% 55% 27% 30% 18% 20% None 0 7
Suffolk Bayport-Blue Point UFSD 11% 12% 3% 7% 0% 1% None 0 2
Suffolk Brentwood UFSD 78% 78% 54% 50% 50% 47% Provision 2* 17 18
Suffolk Bridgehampton UFSD 54% 60% 48% 50% 29% 30% None 0 1
Suffolk Brookhaven-Comsewogue UFSD 30% 32% 18% 21% 7% 8% None 0 6
Suffolk Center Moriches UFSD 23% 24% 24% 31% 9% 11% None 0 3
Suffolk Central Islip UFSD 78% 81% 89% 86% 89% 87% None 0 8
Suffolk Connetquot CSD 19% 20% 9% 13% 3% 5% None 0 1
Suffolk Copiague UFSD 69% 70% 27% 31% 22% 26% None 0 6
Suffolk Deer Park UFSD 40% 41% 14% 14% 8% 8% None 0 5
Suffolk East Hampton UFSD 33% 42% 16% 16% 8% 9% None 0 3
Suffolk East Islip UFSD 17% 22% 13% 12% 5% 6% None 0 6
Suffolk East Moriches UFSD 12% 14% 12% 14% 2% 2% None 0 2
Suffolk Eastern Suffolk Boces 66% 77% 52% 57% 36% 46% CEP* 3 9
Suffolk Eastport-South Manor CSD 14% 16% 17% 17% 4% 5% None 0 5
Suffolk Elwood UFSD 18% 20% 34% 34% 12% 12% None 0 4
Suffolk Greenport UFSD 59% 68% 19% 21% 12% 15% None 0 1
Suffolk Half Hollow Hills CSD 16% 16% 15% 16% 4% 4% None 0 9
Suffolk Hampton Bays UFSD 53% 52% 16% 16% 10% 10% None 0 3
Suffolk Harborfields CSD 11% 12% 17% 22% 2% 3% None 0 4
Suffolk Hauppauge UFSD 10% 12% 10% 12% 5% 4% None 0 1
Suffolk Huntington UFSD 47% 50% 22% 21% 11% 11% None 0 8
Suffolk Islip UFSD 28% 27% 19% 19% 9% 8% None 0 5
Suffolk Kings Park CSD 9% 12% 9% 8% 2% 3% None 0 1
Suffolk Lindenhurst UFSD 34% 35% 13% 17% 6% 8% None 0 9
49
50
Total
Suffolk Longwood CSD 46% 49% 47% 43% 26% 25% None 0 7
Suffolk Middle Country CSD 33% 36% 17% 20% 9% 11% None 0 14
Suffolk Miller Place UFSD 12% 12% 12% 12% 2% 2% None 0 4
Suffolk Mt Sinai UFSD 5% 7% 16% 16% 3% 4% None 0 3
Suffolk North Babylon UFSD 40% 42% 16% 14% 9% 8% None 0 7
Suffolk Northport-East Northport UFSD 11% 5% 1% None 0 3
Suffolk Patchogue-Medford UFSD 49% 49% 20% 25% 13% 16% None 0 11
Suffolk Riverhead Charter School 70% 76% 88% 84% 68% 67% None 0 1
Suffolk Riverhead CSD 53% 62% 27% 30% 15% 20% CEP* 3 7
Suffolk Rocky Point UFSD 26% 27% 19% 20% 7% 8% None 0 4
Suffolk Sachem CSD 21% 22% 20% 20% 10% 9% None 0 18
Suffolk Sayville UFSD 10% 10% 15% 12% 3% 2% None 0 5
Suffolk Shelter Island UFSD 23% 20% 23% 34% 7% 15% None 0 1
Suffolk Smithtown CSD 6% 7% 14% 10% 2% 2% None 0 2
Suffolk South Country CSD 55% 56% 23% 24% 14% 16% None 0 6
Suffolk South Huntington UFSD 45% 48% 30% 28% 15% 15% None 0 7
Suffolk Southampton UFSD 42% 42% 26% 28% 14% 15% None 0 3
Suffolk Southold UFSD 32% 34% 22% 20% 9% 8% None 0 1
Suffolk Three Village CSD 7% 10% 7% 9% 3% 3% None 0 3
Suffolk Tuckahoe Comn SD 50% 55% 28% 34% 15% 20% None 0 1
Suffolk West Babylon UFSD 37% 39% 19% 21% 7% 9% None 0 7
Suffolk West Islip UFSD 12% 14% 9% 9% 3% 3% None 0 1
Suffolk Western Suffolk Boces 54% 60% 53% 55% 33% 37% None 0 6
Suffolk Westhampton Beach UFSD 24% 28% 19% 15% 6% 6% None 0 3
Suffolk William Floyd UFSD 57% 59% 28% 34% 20% 26% None 0 8
Suffolk Wyandanch UFSD 87% 100% 44% 50% 42% 50% CEP 4 4
Sullivan Eldred CSD 45% 42% 39% 34% 20% 17% None 0 1
Sullivan Fallsburg CSD 100% 100% 57% 59% 57% 59% CEP 2 2
Sullivan Liberty CSD 68% 72% 41% 61% 35% 61% CEP 2 2
Sullivan Livingston Manor CSD 55% 55% 51% 56% 47% 49% None 0 1
Sullivan Monticello CSD 70% 79% 42% 54% 37% 47% CEP* 3 5

Total
Sullivan Roscoe CSD 55% 51% 43% 50% 39% 47% None 0 1
Sullivan Sullivan Boces 74% 76% 46% 49% 38% 41% None 0 2
Sullivan Sullivan West CSD 42% 42% 27% 26% 14% 13% None 0 2
Sullivan Tri-Valley CSD 44% 47% 36% 31% 19% 17% None 0 2
Tioga Candor CSD 51% 55% 43% 43% 29% 31% None 0 2
Tioga Newark Valley CSD 48% 50% 35% 39% 20% 23% None 0 3
Tioga Owego-Apalachin CSD 47% 53% 41% 33% 24% 22% CEP* 1 5
Tioga Spencer-Van Etten CSD 50% 50% 30% 31% 18% 18% None 0 3
Tioga Tioga CSD 57% 60% 43% 43% 35% 35% None 0 3
Tioga Waverly CSD 50% 51% 21% 29% 12% 18% None 0 4
Tompkins Dryden CSD 48% 46% 38% 41% 22% 24% None 0 5
Tompkins Groton CSD 43% 44% 33% 41% 18% 23% None 0 2
Tompkins Ithaca City SD 37% 38% 43% 44% 18% 19% None 0 13
Tompkins Lansing CSD 24% 24% 29% 28% 10% 10% None 0 3
Tompkins Newfield CSD 58% 55% 52% 57% 52% 52% None 0 2
Tompkins Tompkins-Seneca-Tioga Boces 71% 71% 43% 42% 33% 32% None 0 1
Tompkins Trumansburg CSD 30% 33% 39% 37% 16% 17% None 0 3
Ulster Ellenville CSD 65% 66% 28% 26% 21% 19% None 0 2
Ulster Highland CSD 35% 39% 25% 24% 12% 12% None 0 3
Ulster Kingston City SD 56% 61% 20% 22% 12% 14% CEP* 3 10
Ulster Marlboro CSD 32% 34% 23% 23% 10% 11% None 0 3
Ulster New Paltz CSD 22% 24% 13% 13% 5% 5% None 0 4
Ulster Onteora CSD 42% 43% 31% 36% 17% 20% None 0 4
Ulster Rondout Valley CSD 46% 46% 33% 35% 18% 19% None 0 4
Ulster Saugerties CSD 45% 43% 25% 28% 13% 14% None 0 5
Ulster Ulster Boces 53% 52% 17% 17% 11% 9% None 0 1
Ulster Wallkill CSD 33% 33% 38% 45% 22% 26% None 0 5
Warren Bolton CSD 30% 29% 17% 30% 9% 12% None 0 1
Warren Glens Falls City SD 48% 52% 25% 24% 14% 15% None 0 7
Warren Hadley-Luzerne CSD 52% 54% 41% 43% 28% 31% None 0 2
Warren Johnsburg CSD 55% 52% 24% 20% 16% 13% None 0 1
51
52

Total
Warren Lake George CSD 24% 24% 33% 28% 12% 12% None 0 2
Warren North Warren CSD 47% 52% 41% 34% 25% 22% None 0 1
Warren Queensbury UFSD 29% 30% 32% 35% 12% 17% None 0 4
Warren Warrensburg CSD 50% 57% 31% 28% 18% 19% None 0 2
Washington Argyle CSD 36% 42% 40% 36% 19% 18% None 0 1
Washington Cambridge CSD 40% 40% 31% 36% 17% 20% None 0 1
Washington Fort Ann CSD 40% 47% 41% 39% 23% 24% None 0 1
Washington Fort Edward UFSD 58% 59% 35% 37% 24% 26% None 0 2
Washington Granville CSD 51% 54% 31% 37% 19% 23% None 0 3
Washington Greenwich CSD 29% 27% 31% 31% 13% 12% None 0 3
Washington Hartford CSD 42% 45% 35% 34% 19% 19% None 0 1
Washington Hudson Falls CSD 54% 57% 36% 36% 24% 25% None 0 7
Washington Putnam CSD 52% 60% 88% 93% 73% 91% None 0 1
Washington Salem CSD 56% 52% 19% 18% 12% 10% None 0 1
Washington Whitehall CSD 58% 59% 45% 42% 29% 29% None 0 2
Wayne Clyde-Savannah CSD 59% 59% 39% 66% 27% 56% CEP* 1 2
Wayne Gananda CSD 24% 27% 28% 29% 10% 12% None 0 3
Wayne Lyons CSD 63% 76% 37% 63% 26% 63% CEP 2 2
Wayne Marion CSD 46% 46% 29% 29% 15% 16% None 0 3
Wayne Newark CSD 55% 69% 40% 41% 26% 34% CEP* 3 5
Wayne North Rose-Wolcott CSD 61% 60% 45% 42% 32% 29% None 0 3
Wayne Palmyra-Macedon CSD 35% 39% 22% 21% 9% 9% None 0 4
Wayne Red Creek CSD 51% 53% 35% 40% 20% 24% None 0 2
Wayne Sodus CSD 61% 63% 37% 40% 24% 27% None 0 3
Wayne Wayne CSD 32% 30% 27% 28% 11% 11% None 0 5
Wayne Williamson CSD 45% 49% 34% 30% 18% 17% None 0 3
Westchester Amani Public Charter School 66% 66% 3% 7% 3% 6% None 0 1
Westchester Ardsley UFSD 7% 8% 20% 19% 3% 4% None 0 2
Westchester Bedford CSD 27% 28% 21% 21% 9% 8% None 0 7
Westchester Chappaqua CSD 3% 3% 5% 8% 1% 2% None 0 2

Total
Westchester Charter Sch-Educ Excellence 84% 84% 74% 58% 65% 49% None 0 1
Westchester Dobbs Ferry UFSD 15% 14% 19% 24% 6% 8% None 0 2
Westchester Elmsford UFSD 51% 55% 17% 22% 12% 16% None 0 3
Westchester Greenburgh CSD 49% 53% 25% 31% 18% 21% None 0 5
Westchester Harrison CSD 18% 17% 27% 23% 8% 7% None 0 6
Westchester Hendrick Hudson CSD 22% 24% 31% 31% 10% 9% None 0 4
Westchester Irvington UFSD 10% 9% 18% 33% 4% 4% None 0 1
Westchester Lakeland CSD 24% 23% 28% 29% 10% 13% None 0 2
Westchester Mamaroneck UFSD 22% 22% 19% 18% 5% 5% None 0 3
Westchester Mt Vernon School District 78% 78% 55% 55% 52% 52% CEP* 4 16
Westchester New Rochelle City SD 53% 53% 13% 13% 8% 8% None 0 11
Westchester North Salem CSD 9% 9% 14% 15% 2% 2% None 0 2
Westchester Ossining UFSD 53% 53% 13% 16% 9% 11% None 0 6
Westchester Peekskill City SD 79% 79% 18% 22% 16% 19% None 0 6
Westchester Pelham UFSD 13% 10% 7% 6% 1% 1% None 0 4
Westchester Port Chester-Rye UFSD 68% 68% 11% 11% 10% 10% None 0 7
Westchester Rye Neck UFSD 13% 14% 65% 49% 22% 17% None 0 1
Westchester Somers CSD 6% 8% 8% 7% 2% 2% None 0 4
Westchester Tuckahoe UFSD 13% 15% 21% 21% 5% 5% None 0 2
Westchester Ufsd-Tarrytowns 55% 54% 9% 11% 6% 7% None 0 4
Westchester Westchester Boces 62% 76% 64% 49% 54% 41% None 0 2
Westchester White Plains City SD 56% 56% 19% 20% 12% 13% None 0 9
Westchester Yonkers City SD 69% 69% 16% 17% 13% 13% None 0 38
Wyoming Attica CSD 34% 35% 36% 37% 19% 20% None 0 2
Wyoming Letchworth CSD 37% 39% 29% 25% 14% 13% None 0 1
Wyoming Perry CSD 45% 54% 25% 20% 13% 12% None 0 2
Wyoming Warsaw CSD 39% 42% 27% 30% 12% 14% None 0 2
Yates Dundee CSD 61% 62% 32% 33% 22% 23% None 0 1
Yates Penn Yan CSD 54% 54% 22% 25% 14% 16% None 0 3
53
References
References About Hunger Solutions New York
1. Weinreb L, C Wehler, J Perlo, R Scott, D Hosmer, L Sagor, and C Gundersen. 2002. Hunger Solutions New York is a caring and informed We consult with, train, and provide resources to
Hunger: its impact on childrens health and mental health. Pediatrics. 110 (4). voice for hungry New Yorkers. We believe no one non-profit organizations, schools, and other agencies
should ever wonder where their next meal is coming to help make their anti-hunger eorts more ecient
2. Winicki J, and K Jemison. 2003. Food Insecurity and Hunger in the Kindergarten from. We strive to maximize participation in, and the and eective.
Classroom: its Eect on Learning and Growth. Contemporary Economic Policy. 21 eectiveness of, federally funded nutrition assistance
(2): 145-157. programs including: Hunger Solutions New York advocates for policies and
legislation to improve nutrition assistance programs
3. Feeding America. Map the Meal Gap 2016. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program at the state and federal level. Based on consultation
4. Food Research and Action Center (FRAC). Food Hardship 2008-2012: Geography with federal and state administering agencies, partner
The School Breakfast Program organizations and local providers, we develop public
and Household Composition Data for the Nation, States, Regions, and 100 MSAs.
September 2013. http://frac.org/pdf/food_hardship_geography_household_composi- The National School Lunch Program policy recommendations to help significantly reduce
tion_2008-2012.pdf hunger in New York State.
The Summer Food Service Program
5. New York State Education Department (March 2016). Based on data from the
The Child and Adult Care Food Program
National School Lunch Program, analyzed by Hunger Solutions New York.
Hunger Solutions New York works one-on-one with
6. Food Research and Action Center (2016) Community Eligibility Database. Available
those who struggle to keep food on the table. We fund
at: http://frac.org/CommunityEligibilityDatabase/
community-based organizations to provide education,
7. Food Research and Action Center (2017). School Breakfast ScorecardSchool Year support and application assistance through the Nutrition
2015-2016. Available at: http://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/school-breakfast-score- Outreach and Education Program and the Targeted SNAP
card-sy-2015-2016.pdf Outreach Initiative on Long Island. These programs
connect New Yorkers to federally funded nutrition
8. Food Research and Action Center (2016) Research Brief: Breakfast for Learning. assistance programs.
Available at: http://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/breakfastforlearning.pdf
9. Food Research and Action Center (2016) Research Brief: Breakfast for Health. Linda Bopp, Executive Director
Available at: http://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/breakfastforhealth.pdf
Board of Directors:
10. Hunger Solutions New York. (2016) School Breakfast Basics Factsheet. Available
at: http://hungersolutionsny.org/sites/default/files/included/sb_program_basics_interac- Our Board is comprised of professionals from across
tive_9_6_16.pdf the state who share a personal passion for alleviating hunger.
11. Food Research and Action Center (2016). School Breakfast: Making it Work
PRESIDENT Dana Boniewski Irene Lurie
in Large School Districts - SY 2014-2015. Available at: http://frac.org/wp-content/ Emereti professor, University at Albany
Bridget Walsh Conway & Kirby, PLLC
uploads/2016/10/School_Breakfast_Large_School_Districts_SY2014_2015.pdf Schuyler Center
for Analysis and Advocacy Bernadette Cole Slaughter, Ph.D., Anne Rogan, Ph.D., RD, CDN
12. Food Research and Action Center (2017) School Breakfast: Making it Work in Professor, SUNY Cobleskill, School
Emeriti university professor and former
Large Districts. Available at: http://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/school-breakfast- of Agriculture and Natural Resources;
VICE PRESIDENT dean, SUNY Cobleskill
large-school-districts-sy-2015-2016.pdf consultant, Schoharie County Head Start
William Shapiro
Public Policy Research and Consulting Christine Deska
13. ibid. Michael Sattinger
Columbus Citizens Foundation
SECRETARY Associate professor, SUNY Albany,
Robert Frawley Department of Economics
Maureen Murphy
Early Childhood Policy Associates
Price Chopper Supermarkets
TREASURER
Don Friedman
Empire Justice Center
Mark Quandt
Regional Food Bank
of Northeastern New York
54 55
FoodHelpNY.org
SummerMealsNY.org
ChildcareMealsNY.org
SchoolMealsHubNY.org
Afte rschoolM ea l sNY.o rg
HungerSolut ionsN Y.org
1 4 Com p uter D ri ve E a s t Albany, NY 12205 518-436-8757

2017 School Bfast Report Online Version 3-7-17 0

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2017 School Bfast Report Online Version 3-7-17 0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

School Breakfast:

Reducing Child Hunger,

School Breakfast Program Participation

Overview of the School Breakfast Program

How children are certified for F/RP meals

Potential students eating if 70% of students who

Sharon Gardner, Food Service Director,

An additional 48,097 students participated in breakfast, on average, each day:

Key Finding: Schools using both universal school breakfast

They are more alert. Theyre

Studies show that skipping breakfast and experiencing hunger impair

Increases in school breakfast participation are linked to two key

The moneys here. Im in a position now

Having breakfast in the classroom, it definitely has assisted

Try it. Give it a chance

Participation in the SBP in NYC Public Schools

Implementation of Breakfast in the Classroom

Concentrated Areas of Growth Outside NYC 2,000

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

School Breakfast Participation

CEP, BIC Implemented

CEP, BIC Implemented

CEP, BIC Implemented

CEP, BIC Implemented

CEP, BIC Implemented

CEP, BIC Implemented

CEP, BIC Implemented

CEP, BIC Implemented

Beekmantown CSD Central Valley CSD Lyons CSD Clyde-Savannah CSD

Students Eating F/RP Breakfast Students Eating F/RP Lunch

This is now a programboth breakfast

Caitlin Lazarski, Food Service Director,

the school district that utilized a certain provision.

that participated in the SBP are not included in the data.

F/RP Eligible Students Participating Overall School Information on Universal Breakfast

F/RP Eligible Students Participating Overall School Information on Universal Breakfast

F/RP Eligible Students Participating Overall School Information on Universal Breakfast

F/RP Eligible Students Participating Overall School Information on Universal Breakfast

F/RP Eligible Students Participating Overall School Information on Universal Breakfast

F/RP Eligible Students Participating Overall School Information on Universal Breakfast

F/RP Eligible Students Participating Overall School Information on Universal Breakfast

F/RP Eligible Students Participating Overall School Information on Universal Breakfast

F/RP Eligible Students Participating Overall School Information on Universal Breakfast

F/RP Eligible Students Participating Overall School Information on Universal Breakfast

F/RP Eligible Students Participating Overall School Information on Universal Breakfast

F/RP Eligible Students Participating Overall School Information on Universal Breakfast

F/RP Eligible Students Participating Overall School Information on Universal Breakfast

F/RP Eligible Students Participating Overall School Information on Universal Breakfast

F/RP Eligible Students Participating Overall School Information on Universal Breakfast

F/RP Eligible Students Participating Overall School Information on Universal Breakfast

F/RP Eligible Students Participating Overall School Information on Universal Breakfast

1 4 Com p uter D ri ve E a s t Albany, NY 12205 518-436-8757

You might also like