School Breakfast: Reducing Child Hunger, Bolstering Student Success. School Breakfast Program Participation in New York State Public Schools

School Breakfast: Reducing Child Hunger, Bolstering Student Success School Breakfast Program Participation in New York State Public 2015-2016 School Year

Acknowledgements Hunger Solutions New York, Inc., greatly appreciates the support of the many public agencies, private foundations, and individuals who have made this publication possible. We acknowledge the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance and 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 Response to Hunger, and many individual donors throughout the state. In particular, we acknowledge the New York State Education Department for their administrative efforts to promote and protect the integrity of the School Breakfast Program in New York State, in addition to providing the data on which the tables in this report are based. Special recognition also goes to the Hempstead Union Free School District, the Newburgh Enlarged City School District, and the Food Research and Action Center for their contributions to this report. 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. Contents Introduction 5 About this Report 6 Key Findings 9 Action Steps 15 School District Profiles 21 Conclusion 29 School District Level Data 30 References 54 This report was written by Hunger Solutions New York staff: 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 breakfast s 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. It s just really important to make sure the kids eat, because there s a lot of things in the world that make them worry, and hunger shouldn t be one of them when we have the ability to feed them. The SBP offers 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. NYS can improve participation in the SBP by taking some key action steps. Ensuring that all children especially children from low-income households eat school breakfast each day will help bolster the success of students in our public schools, improve the health and wellbeing of children, while also drawing down federal resources to address child hunger. 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 year statewide and locally based on a variety of metrics. First, we look at F/RP school breakfast participation to determine how many F/RP-eligible students are being reached by the SBP. Since there is broad participation in the lunch program, and since all students who qualify for F/RP lunch also qualify for breakfast, it is a useful comparison by which to measure how many students could and should be benefiting from school breakfast each day. The Food Research and Action Center, a national, nonprofit anti-hunger organization, sets 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. The findings in this report reflect NYS public schools (school districts, charter schools, and BOCES) that operate the federally-funded, state-administered breakfast program. that offer breakfast and lunch outside of that program, using their school s general fund, are not included. The findings also do not include the 326 public schools that operate only the National School Lunch Program. At the end of this report is a chart that includes data for all public schools included in this analysis. Throughout this report, participation refers to students actually eating meals. 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 offering universal school breakfast providing free breakfast to all students. (see below) While federal provisions used to offer 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 offer 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. Offering Breakfast at No Charge can offer breakfast at no charge universal school breakfast to all students through the following options: Community Eligibility The Community Eligibility (CEP) is a federal option that allows schools with a high percentage of students from low-income households to offer breakfast and lunch at no charge to all students. Any district, group of schools in a district, or individual school eligible for CEP with 40% or more identified students children eligible for free school meals who are identified by other means than an individual household application can choose to participate. Reimbursement for meals is based on a claiming percentage based on a formula that uses the percentage of identified students. 2 2 is a federal option that allows schools to serve breakfast, lunch, or both to all students at no charge. This option operates on a four-year cycle, with the first year determining reimbursement for the subsequent three years. Non-pricing The application and meal tracking processes are consistent with the SBP, however, no fees are collected from students. Typically, schools have absorbed the cost differential into district operational budgets. This is not a federal option and is not tracked by NYSED. Alternative Breakfast Service Models Alternative breakfast service models are used to address low breakfast participation. Often referred to as breakfast after the bell, these models shift service time so that breakfast is served after the start of the school day. While models can be tailored to individual schools needs, the following are the most effective strategies: Breakfast in the Classroom eat breakfast in their classroom after the official start of the school day. Grab and Go pick up conveniently packaged breakfasts from mobile service carts or vending machines in high traffic areas when they arrive at school or between classes. Second Chance Breakfast This model also referred to as breakfast after first period or mid-morning nutrition break extends breakfast service in the cafeteria past first period in middle and high schools. Who can participate in school breakfast? Any student attending a school that offers the program can eat breakfast. What the federal government covers, and what the student pays depends on family income. Children from families with incomes: at or below 130% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) are eligible for free school meals. between 130% and 185% of the FPL qualify for reduced-price meals and can be charged no more than 25 cents for breakfast. above 185% of the FPL pay charges (referred to as paid meals), which are set by the school. See How children are certified for F/RP meals on page 9 for more information. 6 7

Key Findings Overview of the School Breakfast Program in New York State during the 2015-16 School Year 2,544,867 4,880 566,267 (22.25%) 1,589,299 484,178 (30.46%) 1,409,160 1,055,250 45.88% 738,675 enrolled in schools that offered the SBP offered the SBP participated in school breakfast each day (average) qualified to eat breakfast for free and at a reduced price F/RP-eligible students participated in school breakfast each day (average) participated in school lunch each day (average) F/RP-eligible students participated in school lunch each day (average) Of F/RP lunch participants also ate breakfast F/RP-eligible students would have participated in breakfast if NYS reached the goal of 70% of F/RP lunch participants eating breakfast. Key Finding: The SBP continues to be underutilized across NYS. Since the economic recession in 2008, families with children have continued to experience financial hardship that has put their household food security at risk. We see this mirrored in the growing number of students who qualify to eat F/RP school meals, and would expect to see it also reflected in F/RP school breakfast participation. While there has been consistent growth each school year in the average number of students participating daily in F/RP breakfast, this growth is offset by the growing need for nutritional support. Overall, the number of low-income students participating in the SBP remains stagnant, as we see the number of F/RP-eligible students continue to grow. In the 2015-2016 school year, fewer than one in three students who qualified to eat F/RP breakfast participated in the program. NYS has failed to leverage the SBP to respond to the growing nutritional needs of families with children: UNMET NEED eligible for F/RP school breakfast participating in F/RP school breakfast How children are certified for F/RP meals Most children are certified for free or reduced-price school meals by submitting an application collected by the school district at the beginning of the school year or during the year. can be certified for free school meals without an individual household application if they: 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. Are homeless or a runaway youth, migrant, in foster care, or participate in Head Start. These children are considered categorically eligible (automatically eligible) and do not need to provide income information to be certified for free school meals. 8 9

Key Finding: Breakfast compared to lunch participation among F/RP-eligible students fails to meet national standards. When we analyze SBP participation by comparing the number of low-income children who eat school breakfast with those who eat school lunch, New York State consistently underperforms in reaching F/RP lunch participants with breakfast. Lunch is nationally recognized as a good benchmark of the eligible population. Statewide, only 45.88% of students who ate F/RP lunch also participated in F/RP breakfast during the 2015-2016 school year. If New York State had reached the national goal of 70% of F/RP lunch participants also eating breakfast, an additional 254,496 F/RPeligible students would have participated in those programs each day. That would have resulted in breakfast participation increasing to 738,675 low-income students, on average, each school day. School Breakfast vs. Lunch Participation Potential Reach of School Breakfast eating F/RP lunch, on average, each day eating F/RP breakfast, on average, each day Potential students eating if 70% of students who ate F/RP lunch also ate F/RP breakfast Us, being a CEP school and the kids eating free, we get more money for the food than we would if they paid, which means we can give them better food. Sharon Gardner, Food Service Director, Hempstead Union Free School District Key Finding: Failure to meet the national breakfast participation benchmark has led to the forfeit of millions of dollars in federal reimbursements. New York State consistently falls well below the national benchmark of reaching 70% of F/RP lunch participants with F/RP breakfast. Failure to reach this benchmark leads to children needlessly starting their school day hungry and NYS public schools missing out on millions of dollars each school year. Participation in F/RP breakfast drives federal reimbursement. When we fail to reach vulnerable children with breakfast, we forfeit available federal funding designated to provide nutritional support to students who need it most. In the 2015-2016 school year alone, NYS forfeited more than $71 million in federal reimbursements due to low participation in F/RP breakfast. Federal Funding Lost Each School Year Due to Low Participation 0 -$10,000,000 -$20,000,000 -$30,000,000 -$40,000,000 -$50,000,000 -$60,000,000 -$70,000,000 -$80,000,000 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Over five years, the total funding lost amounts to over $383 million. 2015-16 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. Participation in both F/RP and paid breakfast among all students who attend schools that offer the SBP grew by 11%, reaching an additional 48,097 students, on average, each school day. Breakfast Reimbursement receive state and federal government reimbursement for each breakfast served. The reimbursement amount varies based on a student s qualification for free, reduced-price, or paid meals. Reimbursements for free and reduced-price meals yield the highest funding. For the 2015-2016 school year, schools received the following federal reimbursement: $1.66 per free breakfast; $1.36 per reduced-price breakfast; and $0.29 per paid breakfast. Severe-need schools received an additional 33 cents for each F/RP breakfast served. are considered severe need if at least 40% of the lunches served the previous school year were free or reduced-price. New York states provides an additional reimbursement: $.1013 per free breakfast; $.1566 per reduced-price breakfast; and $.0023 per paid breakfast. 10 11

Key Finding: Nearly two-thirds (64%) of SBP participation growth occurred in schools implementing the Community Eligibility (CEP). In the 2015-2016 school year, 1,210 public schools participated in CEP within 89 school districts and charter schools an increase of 154 schools and 35 school districts/charters from the previous school year. CEP Where Growth Occurred in School Breakfast Participation in the 2015-2016 School Year Under CEP, we look at school breakfast participation among the entire school population instead of solely at F/RP breakfast participation, since all students are considered qualified for free school breakfast. Key Finding: Participation in school breakfast is consistently low in high-need to moderate-need schools, especially in those that have not implemented CEP. Overall, 1,523 NYS schools eligible to implement CEP are not implementing the provision. 6 Any district, group of schools in a district, or individual school with 40% or more of students eligible for free school meals who are already identified by means other than an individual 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. eligible for CEP, but not participating, are at a distinct disadvantage in the effort to reach those students. These schools consistently perform below the state average in reaching F/RP-eligible students with breakfast. An additional 48,097 students participated in breakfast, on average, each day: 14,145 in schools not using a federal option to offer free breakfast to all students 2,971 in schools using 2 30,981 in schools using CEP 80% or more F/RP-eligible students enrolled 70% to 80% F/RP-eligible students enrolled 60% to 70% F/RP-eligible students enrolled that have not adopted CEP or 2 to offer universal breakfast Number of Enrolled F/RP-eligible Participation 785 353,316 315,349 32% 375 224,492 168,815 25% 337 186,062 120,906 27% Key Finding: using both universal school breakfast and alternative breakfast service models have maximized access to their school breakfast programs. Alternative breakfast service models like breakfast in the classroom, grab and go, and second chance breakfast have been a driving force for significant increases in school breakfast participation. New York City Public and two large districts outside of New York City, all of which offer universal school breakfast, implemented alternative service models during the 2015-2016 school year and saw a tremendous increase in breakfast participation. Those districts successes account for three-quarters of the state s 2015-2016 growth in SBP participation. Profiles on the districts, which can be found beginning on page 21, demonstrate that the key to significant change in breakfast participation largely lies in the service model used. Key Finding: with F/RP rates between 40% and 60% are also underperforming in reaching low-income children with breakfast. The low breakfast participation trend is consistent in moderate-need schools with F/RPeligible student participation rates of 50% to 60% and 40% to 50%, where participation among F/RP-eligible students drops even further, to 21% and 17% respectively. 12 13

Action Steps They are more alert. They re ready to go. They re definitely ready to learn. Nobody s falling asleep. They re not focused on their stomachs. They re focused on the work. Karen Delgado, kindergarten teacher, Newburgh Enlarged City School District 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 year, our state ranked 42 nd in a national ranking by the Food Research Action Center. 7 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 funds are designated to ensure students have reliable, consistent access to a nutritious morning meal each school day. With one in five children facing hunger in NYS, we cannot afford more lost opportunities to reduce child hunger. Studies show that skipping breakfast and experiencing hunger impair children s ability to learn. 8 Participation in the SBP not only reduces student hunger but has also been linked with positive impacts on health and education, such as improved overall diet quality; lower probability of overweight and obesity; fewer instances of tardiness, absenteeism, and disciplinary problems; and fewer visits to the school nurse. 9 The SBP is a readily available resource designed to level the playing field for all students by ensuring that each child starts the school day free from hunger, properly nourished, and prepared for a day of learning. Following are recommendations for how federal and state legislators and local school administrators can ensure as many students as possible receive the nutritional benefits of school breakfast. What s on the menu? Each breakfast reimbursed through the SBP must, according to federal nutrition guidelines, include fruits and/or vegetables, a whole-grain-rich item, a meat or meat alternative and low-fat/nonfat milk. Meal nutrition standards limit 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 offering 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 hunger for residents of New York State by expanding the availability of, access to, and participation in federally funded nutrition assistance programs. Within this context, we serve as a statewide child nutrition program resource. Our work helps to ensure all children get the healthy food they need to succeed., federal and state agencies, and federal and state elected officials play a vital role in the effort to alleviate child hunger through the nutrition assistance programs. We are committed to supporting this work by: Providing schools with technical assistance and resources to implement universal breakfast and alternative breakfast service models. Providing agencies with outreach resources, sample policy guidance, and support in disseminating best practices to expand program access. Providing elected officials with sample legislation, case studies, and data analysis. Learn more about the work that we do to promote 14 these programs at SchoolMealsHubNY.org. 15

Action Step: Protect school meal programs and CEP from federal cuts. The federally funded, state-administered SBP, National School Lunch Program and CEP must be protected from funding cuts and structural changes at the federal level so that states can maximize their impact locally. Given the millions of children who rely on school meals, access cannot be restricted. It is more important than ever to recognize those programs importance, efficiency and effectiveness in reducing childhood hunger and improving learning and health outcomes. Action Step: Establish an action plan to reach 70% of F/RP school lunch participants with breakfast. This goal is most efficiently achieved by targeting the highest-need schools in the state, which have the highest concentration of F/RP-eligible students, and thus are most strategically positioned to reach the eligible population. Therefore, it is essential to ensure those schools increase accessibility to breakfast through universal breakfast and alternative service models. The following techniques outline steps to create systemic changes to breakfast in our state s neediest public schools: Ensure all CEP schools offer an alternative breakfast service model. This goal is especially achievable for CEP schools, since one effective tool for increasing access to school breakfast universal breakfast is already in place. Furthermore, CEP facilitates the implementation of alternative breakfast service models. CEP schools are not required to collect fees or count each meal served by fee category. This simplifies implementation of breakfast in the classroom and grab and go service models. Only half (54%) of CEP schools are succeeding in reaching 70% of the students who participate in F/RP lunch with breakfast. Adding alternative breakfast service models in every CEP school can address barriers to breakfast participation and further boost participation. Increasing breakfast participation in these schools can leverage a significant amount of federal funding in the highest-poverty areas in NYS. Potential Reach: If CEP schools were to reach 70% of the students who participate in 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. Ensure all schools, especially schools with concentrated populations of F/RP students, offer alternative breakfast service models. The best way to boost participation in the SBP is to offer universal breakfast in conjunction with alternative service models like breakfast in the classroom or grab and go. See the School District Profiles section on page 21 for success stories from districts throughout NYS. Any school can implement alternative service models to help boost participation. However, schools with concentrated populations of F/RP-eligible students (40% or more) should definitely implement them, since they are strategically positioned to reach the most low-income students. Ensure schools, especially those with 60% or more F/RP-eligible students, offer universal breakfast. CEP is the preferred method to offer universal breakfast because it facilitates the implementation of alternative breakfast service models the other key strategy for increasing breakfast participation. The majority of schools potentially eligible for CEP and not utilizing the option are falling below the state average in reaching F/RP-eligible students with school breakfast. Hunger Solutions New York strongly recommends CEP-eligible schools adopt the option. Following is the recommended order of priority for CEP implementation: 1. Ensure all schools with 80% or more F/RP-eligible students implement CEP. IMPACT: 785 NYS public schools in 57 districts 2. Encourage use of CEP by schools with 60-80% F/RP-eligible students. IMPACT: 712 NYS public schools in 208 districts. 3. Encourage schools with 40% to 60% F/RP rates to explore options to provide universal breakfast. Some may qualify for CEP, depending on their direct certification data, while others can explore non-pricing. More information on this option can be found in our SBP factsheet. 10 Analysis: The 1,497 schools included in this analysis, with F/RP rates at or above 60%, should be utilizing CEP. Many schools across NYS with similar F/RP rates have implemented CEP successfully. Lessons learned from other states Many of the states with the most successful school breakfast programs have adopted breakfast after the bell legislation, which has been the key catalyst for growth and maintaining high breakfast participation rates. States have structured these policies in different ways, but all utilize alternative breakfast models and universal breakfast as key strategies to increase participation. Some states require all schools to implement an after-the-bell model, while others target schools by grade level or level of need. Policies can include funding to help schools comply with a requirement, but many successful examples exist without this funding. Examples of states with breakfast after the bell legislation include Colorado, District of Columbia, New Mexico, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, and Illinois. A list of states school breakfast legislation can be found at: frac.org/ state-school-breakfast-legislation The money s here. I m in a position now where I m getting new equipment. Sharon Gardner, Food Service Director, Hempstead Union Free School District 16 17

Action Step: Provide incentives for implementing alternative breakfast models. NYS can incentivize the implementation of alternative breakfast models by establishing a fund for school breakfast programs, to assist with initial start-up costs. States that have established incentive funds typically target schools with at least 40% F/RP-eligible students and/or underperforming schools with particularly low rates of F/RP breakfast participation. States that have combined incentivized funding and legislative mandates on breakfast after the bell have led the country in breakfast participation growth. This funding can be distributed in either or both of the following ways: Provide a 10-cent incentive for every school breakfast served through an alternative breakfast service model. Legislation to establish this type of fund has been established in Virginia and introduced in New Jersey, Illinois, and California. Provide start-up grants to school districts, to assist in the implementation of new service models. States that have implemented this funding model include Arkansas, District of Columbia, Maryland, Nevada, and West Virginia. Action Step: Address barriers to implementation of CEP and alternative breakfast service models. Some high-need schools are failing to reach students with breakfast because of the difficulties associated with the implementation of tactics like breakfast after the bell and CEP. The following are suggested systemic changes that can streamline and simplify the process: Refine state aid formulas to address potential repercussions from eliminating school meal applications when schools transition to CEP. New York s school aid formulas have not kept pace with the changing landscape of F/RP meal eligibility determination. As more schools adopt CEP, the number of F/RP meal applications collected in those schools is drastically reduced in favor of more efficient means-tested, data-matching processes. However, state foundation aid still relies on the information provided in F/RP applications to determine need, and therefore the elimination of meal applications could affect state foundation aid to local districts. Eliminating school meal applications under CEP is tremendously efficient 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. Address local-level barriers to the current Direct Certification Matching Process. Improvement to the current NYS Direct Certification Matching Process (DCMP) would help ease the administrative burden of data-matching at the local level. School districts and charter schools report that the current process is time consuming and cumbersome. Many schools have found it necessary to put extensive amounts of time into DCMP in order to effectively adopt CEP, which has proven to be a significant barrier to CEP adoption. Best practices outlined by the USDA indicate that New York s current process can be improved in the following ways: 1. Adopt a state-level, central matching system in which the New York State Education Department (NYSED) utilizes computer matching to link DCMP records with statewide student enrollment records and distributes match results to Local Education Authorities. 2. Enhance the current online matching system. Enhance matching algorithms to include probabilistic matching, to increase efficiency and match rate of students. 3. Increase matching to more than three times per year. More frequent updates of newly enrolled SNAP or TANF recipients would enable students who become eligible at various points during the school year to be identified and directly certified, making direct certification a more dynamic process. 4. Strengthen interagency relationships to facilitate the exchange of data. Perform matches with additional program data sources, such as foster care data. Provide clear administrative guidance. NYSED must issue clear administrative guidance to school districts, stating that time spent eating school breakfast in the classroom counts as instructional time and does not conflict with NYS education law. States that have issued such guidance include California, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Michigan. Direct certification in NYS Direct certification lists are largely made up by the New York State Education Department s Direct Certification Matching Process (DCMP). The process is intended to automatically certify certain students for free school meals. DCMP specifically includes students who reside in a household receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) or Medicaid benefits.* are responsible for crossreferencing the official DCMP direct certification list with their enrollment lists. Hunger Solutions New York s tip sheet on direct certification and CEP provides information about how to verify and correct direct certification lists. *Medicaid recipients determined by the Medicaid Program to be at or below 133 percent of the federal poverty guidelines. 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, Hempstead Union Free School District 18 19

School District Profiles Try it. Give it a chance and you will see the benefits. It provides responsibility, routine, and happy, healthy students. It s a win-win situation. Dee Dee Russell-Scott, 4th grade teacher, Newburgh Enlarged City School District New York City Public New York City (NYC) Department of Education has offered universal breakfast breakfast at no charge to all students through CEP, 2 and non-pricing tactics (see Offering Breakfast at No Charge on page 6) in all NYC public schools since Hunger Solutions New 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 effectively addressing all the breakfast access barriers students faced. In an effort 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. School Breakfast Service Models 2014-15 11 2015-16 12 schools 2,486 2,546 offering breakfast 2,443 2,510 In the cafeteria before school 2,402 2,222 In the classroom 218 321 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 255,000 251,788 245,000 235,000 225,000 215,000 237,722 220,899 226,647 227,109 205,000 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Implementation of Breakfast in the Classroom in all NYC Public Elementary 20 21

While NYC has experienced growth over the past school year, the district has yet to meet the goal of reaching 70 F/RP-eligible students with breakfast for every 100 who are receiving 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, and NYC would have drawn down an additional $45,822,288 in federal funding. 13 4,000 Hempstead Participating in School Breakfast, on Average, Each Day 3,535 3,000 Concentrated Areas of Growth Outside NYC Other areas of significant growth since the 2014-2015 school year occurred in two large 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 efforts of those districts alone accounted for a quarter of the growth in F/RP breakfast participation outside of NYC. Both districts received grants from the Walmart Foundation. The grants were overseen by AASA, the Superintendent s Association, which assisted with the districts expansion efforts. 2,000 1,000 1,473 1,298 2011-12 1,643 1,428 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 CEP implemented 133% Increase Breakfast after the bell rolled out Hempstead UFSD Recognizing those significant barriers to universal school breakfast, Hempstead undertook an initiative to increase accessibility by implementing alternative breakfast service. Over the course of the 2015-2016 school year, the district rolled out breakfast in the classroom 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 the start of the school day. Both the middle and high schools also continue to serve breakfast in the cafeteria, although the majority of breakfasts are not served there. Cafeteria service is extended for an additional two hours each morning so all children have an opportunity to eat breakfast. As a result of breakfast after the bell, an additional 2,107 students participated in breakfast, on average, each day during the 2015-2016 school year an increase of 133% since the previous school year. Hempstead began offering free school meals to all students through CEP beginning in the 2012-2013 school year, which allowed some growth in average daily breakfast participation. However, program growth did not continue past that initial year of implementation. Serving breakfast solely before school started was a significant barrier to breakfast access. Hempstead is a school without any bussing. were expected to arrive at school early to eat, and if they did arrive early, they then had to choose between socializing with friends before class and eating breakfast. In the high school, which is made up of three buildings, the cafeteria is not readily accessible. The reward is so worth it, when you see how many kids are eating that weren t eating before, said Sharon Gardner, the district s food service director. The numbers don t lie. And you just see the results. You see these kids. They re eating. It s not just somebody throwing a breakfast out. They re eating the food. In the 2016-2017 school year, Hempstead added two vending machines in the less central branches of the middle school, which serve a complete breakfast and stay open after the bell. The district plans to continue expanding its program, thanks to the additional revenue generated by robust breakfast participation. Broken and outdated kitchen equipment is being replaced, and the district is discussing plans to put in a coffeehouse-style smoothie bar with pub tables and chairs in a common area, which will provide a full, compliant breakfast. The coffeehouse theme is a creative marketing approach to increase participation among high school students, an especially hard-to-reach population. Hempstead s efforts to expand the reach of school breakfast have nearly reached the 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. 6,000 4,000 2,000 Hempstead UFSD Breakfast vs. Lunch Participation 1,643 4,685 2013-14 1,428 4,413 35% 32% Eating F/RP Breakfast 3,535 5,200 68% 2014-15 2015-16 Eating F/RP Lunch 22 23

Newburgh Enlarged City School District Newburgh made breakfast after the bell available in all of its schools starting on the first day of the 2015-2016 school year. This included all nine elementary schools serving breakfast in the classroom in all pre-kindergarten to fifth-grade classrooms. For grades six to eight, grab and go breakfast became available through kiosks, in the cafeteria and in other designated areas. The high schools also added grab and go options; Second Chance Breakfast, by extending breakfast service through third period; and vending machines in two of the three high schools. The trick in high school is offering multiple venues for breakfast, allowing them to take it to the classroom, making it free for everybody, noted Caitlin Lazarski, the district s director of food service. For the high school, the vending machines the tech around it they think it s cool. Even if the same thing is being offered in the cafeteria, they d rather get it out of the vending machine. Implementation of breakfast after the bell resulted in an additional 2,709 Newburgh students eating breakfast, on average, each school day an increase of 67% compared to the previous school year. Newburgh Participating in School Breakfast, On Average, Each Day Newburgh is unique in comparison to the other districts featured, due to its rollout of CEP. The district piloted CEP in the 2014-2015 school year in one elementary school. That school then saw breakfast participation increase by 39%, with breakfast served solely in the cafeteria before the start of the school day. Once breakfast was moved into the classroom in the 2015-2016 school year, participation increased another 24%. The 2015-2016 Newburgh breakfast initiative launch included the implementation of universal breakfast districtwide. All students were able to eat for free regardless of their household s income. Individual schools that started breakfast in the classroom and universal breakfast saw a dramatic increase in breakfast participation. The highest increase was 261%, followed by increases of 163% and 120%. 7,000 6,774 5,000 3,000 3,493 3,440 3,620 4,064 1,000 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 School in Newburgh Enlarged City School District by School 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Universal Breakfast implemented in all schools in 2015-16 BIC= Breakfast in the Classroom CEP, BIC Implemented BIC Implemented BIC Implemented CEP Implemented BIC Implemented BIC Implemented CEP, BIC Implemented CEP, BIC Implemented CEP, BIC Implemented CEP, BIC Implemented 24 25

While all students experienced a shift to free breakfast, behind the scenes, the district was working toward districtwide implementation of CEP. CEP was expanded to six additional schools in the 2015-2106 school year. The remaining six schools offered free breakfast, but the meal expense for reduced-price-eligible students and those 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 students eligible for free school meals without an application. Effective implementation 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 district s reimbursements under CEP, their food service director 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. Over the past two years, we have seen our attendance for students improve, we ve seen [bad] behavior go down. Our suspension rates are going down. Our numbers are looking really good. Dr. Roberto Padilla, Superintendent, Newburgh Enlarged City School District 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 coffee-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. Newburgh s 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 breakfast. In the 2015-2016 school year, 90% of F/RP lunch participants ate breakfast. 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 Newburgh Enlarged City School District Breakfast vs. Lunch Participation 3,198 5,556 3,616 58% 59% 6,677 6,077 6,029 90% 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Other areas of growth in school 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 School District (145%), and Clyde-Savannah Central School District (107%). Each of these school districts simultaneously implemented universal breakfast with alternative breakfast programs such as breakfast in the classroom and grab and go and are now all exceeding the goal of reaching 70% of lunch participants with breakfast. 2015-16 School Breakfast vs. Lunch Participation in Other NYS School Districts 1,217 1,326 1,139 1,412 Eating F/RP Breakfast Eating F/RP Lunch 92% 81% 716 582 463 526 81% 88% Beekmantown CSD Central Valley CSD Lyons CSD Clyde-Savannah CSD at Ilion-Mohawk Eating F/RP Breakfast 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 offers a way to ensure children especially those from low-income households eat 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 efforts 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 officials 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 offered universal school breakfast through CEP a federal option that allows high-poverty schools to offer free school meals to all students. Notable growth also occurred in schools that offered universal breakfast in conjunction with alternative breakfast service models. The combination of those strategies is recognized as the most effective 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 oneon-one support to help maximize the SBP s 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 program both breakfast and lunch for everyone. And from the time they are little, they re not going to know any different. This is a program that comes just like a textbook or just like my teachers. It s just something that comes with school and I think the value of that is huge for every kid. Caitlin Lazarski, Food Service Director, Newburgh Enlarged City School District 28 29

School District Level Data This table gives a local-level overview of SBP participation at school districts and charter schools, comparing the 2014-2015 school year to the 2015-2016 school year. This analysis provides an overview of students eligible for F/RP school breakfast within each district/charter school. In addition, it provides an overview of participation among F/RP-eligible students and among the overall student body. Furthermore, the table reveals whether or not a school (also referred to as School Food Authority or SFA) utilized a federal provision to provide free breakfast to all students during the 2015-2016 school year. It also indicates the number of individual schools within the school district that utilized a certain provision. 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, in certain cases, school districts may not have offered the SBP in all of their buildings, therefore, while the district may be represented in this data set, the individual buildings that participated in the SBP are not included in the data. 30 31 Participating Using County School District 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

County School District Participating Using 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% 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 County School District Participating Using 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 Boces 74% 46% 44% 24% 36% 13% None 0 2 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 32 33

County School District Participating Using 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 Boces 76% 86% 65% 49% 63% 50% None 0 1 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 County School District Participating Using 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 Technolog 85% 82% 63% 55% 57% 51% None 0 3 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 34 35

County School District Participating Using 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 Participating Using County School District 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 36 37

County School District Participating Using 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 County School District Participating Using 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 Scho 100% 100% 67% 68% 67% 68% CEP 2 2 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 38 39

County School District Participating Using 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 Cs 67% 82% 33% 34% 25% 29% CEP* 1 2 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 County School District Participating Using 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 Children s Academy Charter School 88% 88% 37% 42% 35% 40% None 0 2 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 40 41

County School District Participating Using 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 School 100% 100% 31% 30% 31% 30% CEP 1 1 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 School 58% 56% 7% 12% 6% 11% None 0 1 New York City Brownsville Ascend Charter School 80% 89% 56% 44% 52% 44% CEP 5 5 New York City Coney Island Prep Public Charter School 93% 93% 28% 23% 28% 23% CEP 2 2 New York City Dream Charter School 100% 18% 18% CEP 1 1 New York City Family Life Academy Charter School I New York City Family Life Academy Charter School II New York City Harbor Science & Arts Charter School 88% 100% 12% 17% 12% 17% CEP 1 1 100% 100% 71% 74% 71% 74% CEP 1 1 79% 82% 44% 47% 41% 47% None 0 1 New York City Harlem Children s 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 County School District New York City Neighborhood Charter School Of Harlem New York City New American Academy Charter School (The) New York City New Heights Academy Charter School Participating Using 93% 94% 52% 64% 52% 64% CEP 1 1 83% 59% 57% None 0 1 90% 90% 6% 15% 6% 15% 2 1 1 New York City NYC Chancellor s Office 77% 78% 22% 25% 20% 23% CEP/ 2 /None CEP (756)/ 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 2332 42 43

County School District Participating Using 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 Charter School 73% 76% 40% 39% 32% 37% None 0 5 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 Whitman) 52% 51% 51% 52% 30% 29% None 0 4 Ontario Honeoye CSD 33% 34% 33% 32% 15% 14% None 0 1 Ontario Manchester-Shortsville CSD (Red Jack) 51% 54% 39% 42% 23% 27% None 0 2 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 County School District Participating Using 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 44 45

County School District Participating Using 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 Boces 50% 26% 66% 30% 33% 9% None 0 3 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 County School District Participating Using Rockland East Ramapo CSD (Spring Valley) 80% 81% 40% 45% 35% 41% None 0 13 Rockland Haverstraw-Stony Point CSD (North Rockland) 52% 54% 20% 22% 12% 14% None 0 9 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 46 47

County School District Participating Using 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 County School District Participating Using 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% 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 48 49

County School District Participating Using 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 County School District Participating Using 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 50 51

County School District Participating Using 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 County School District Participating Using 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 52 53

References About Hunger Solutions New York 1. Weinreb L, C Wehler, J Perloff, R Scott, D Hosmer, L Sagor, and C Gundersen. 2002. Hunger: its impact on children s health and mental health. Pediatrics. 110 (4). 2. Winicki J, and K Jemison. 2003. Food Insecurity and Hunger in the Kindergarten Classroom: its Effect on Learning and Growth. Contemporary Economic Policy. 21 (2): 145-157. 3. Feeding America. Map the Meal Gap 2016. 4. Food Research and Action Center (FRAC). Food Hardship 2008-2012: Geography and Household Composition Data for the Nation, States, Regions, and 100 MSAs. September 2013. http://frac.org/pdf/food_hardship_geography_household_composition_2008-2012.pdf 5. New York State Education Department (March 2016). Based on data from the National School Lunch Program, analyzed by Hunger Solutions New York. 6. Food Research and Action Center (2016) Community Eligibility Database. Available at: http://frac.org/communityeligibilitydatabase/ 7. Food Research and Action Center (2017). School Breakfast Scorecard School Year 2015-2016. Available at: http://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/school-breakfast-scorecard-sy-2015-2016.pdf 8. Food Research and Action Center (2016) Research Brief: Breakfast for Learning. Available at: http://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/breakfastforlearning.pdf Hunger Solutions New York is a caring and informed voice for hungry New Yorkers. We believe no one should ever wonder where their next meal is coming from. We strive to maximize participation in, and the effectiveness of, federally funded nutrition assistance programs including: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program The School Breakfast Program The National School Lunch Program The Summer Food Service Program The Child and Adult Care Food Program Hunger Solutions New York works one-on-one with those who struggle to keep food on the table. We fund community-based organizations to provide education, support and application assistance through the Nutrition Outreach and Education Program and the Targeted SNAP Outreach Initiative on Long Island. These programs connect New Yorkers to federally funded nutrition assistance programs. We consult with, train, and provide resources to non-profit organizations, schools, and other agencies to help make their anti-hunger efforts more efficient and effective. Hunger Solutions New York advocates for policies and legislation to improve nutrition assistance programs at the state and federal level. Based on consultation with federal and state administering agencies, partner organizations and local providers, we develop public policy recommendations to help significantly reduce hunger in New York State. 9. Food Research and Action Center (2016) Research Brief: Breakfast for Health. Available at: http://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/breakfastforhealth.pdf 10. Hunger Solutions New York. (2016) School Breakfast Basics Factsheet. Available at: http://hungersolutionsny.org/sites/default/files/included/sb_program_basics_interactive_9_6_16.pdf Linda Bopp, Executive Director Board of Directors: Our Board is comprised of professionals from across the state who share a personal passion for alleviating hunger. 11. Food Research and Action Center (2016). School Breakfast: Making it Work in Large School Districts - SY 2014-2015. Available at: http://frac.org/wp-content/ uploads/2016/10/school_breakfast_large_school_districts_sy2014_2015.pdf 12. Food Research and Action Center (2017) School Breakfast: Making it Work in Large Districts. Available at: http://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/school-breakfastlarge-school-districts-sy-2015-2016.pdf 13. ibid. PRESIDENT Bridget Walsh Schuyler Center for Analysis and Advocacy VICE PRESIDENT William Shapiro Public Policy Research and Consulting SECRETARY Maureen Murphy Price Chopper Supermarkets TREASURER Mark Quandt Regional Food Bank of Northeastern New York Dana Boniewski Conway & Kirby, PLLC Bernadette Cole Slaughter, Ph.D., Emeriti university professor and former dean, SUNY Cobleskill Christine Deska Columbus Citizens Foundation Robert Frawley Early Childhood Policy Associates Don Friedman Empire Justice Center Irene Lurie Emereti professor, University at Albany Anne Rogan, Ph.D., RD, CDN Professor, SUNY Cobleskill, School of Agriculture and Natural Resources; consultant, Schoharie County Head Start Michael Sattinger Associate professor, SUNY Albany, Department of Economics 54 55

FoodHelpNY.org SummerMealsNY.org ChildcareMealsNY.org SchoolMealsHubNY.org AfterschoolMealsNY.org HungerSolutionsNY.org 14 Computer Drive East Albany, NY 12205 518-436-8757