Data & Research
This report examines the impact of using Medicaid data to directly certify students for free and reduced-price school meals in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs in 15 states in school year 2017-18. Certification, participation and reimbursement outcomes for Cohort 1 states in their second year of implementation and Cohort 2 states in their first year of implementation are discussed.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of state agencies current peer group systems, and to provide guidance to state agencies on how to evaluate and update their systems. Specifically, it uses empirical analysis to identify one or more effective models for establishing vendor peer groups that could apply to most state agencies.
The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA; PL 111-296) required the USDA Food and Nutrition Service to conduct a demonstration that adds Medicaid to the list of programs used to directly certify students for free school meals. Although students receiving Medicaid are not categorically eligible for free meals, the DC-M demonstration authorizes selected States and districts to use income information from Medicaid files to directly certify those students found to be eligible for free meals.
The purpose of this study is to describe current methods of direct certification used by state and local agencies and challenges facing states and local education agencies in attaining high matching rates.
The Prime Vendor Pilot was conducted as part of USDA's Business Process Re-engineering efforts to improve the administration and operation of the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations. Under this pilot, USDA partnered with the Department of Defense, which had an existing contract with commercial vendors and distributors.
This report describes how the Direction Card system works; the process undertaken by ODJFS and its EBT vendor to design, develop, and test the system; the implementation process and experiences; and the cost of system design, development, and implementation. Volume 2 of this report compares the ongoing administrative costs of system operations and system levels of benefit loss and diversion with those of on-line EBT systems and the Dayton pilot.