About Us Hunger in PA News Take Action Events Contact Us



Hunger Action news

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT Sue N. Mitchem 717-233-6705
December 13, 2005   717-592-8139(c)
  Berry Friesen 717-233-6705
    717-471-9691(c)

PENNSYLVANIA SCHOOLS SLOW IN RECOGNIZING IMPORTANCE OF BREAKFAST

School Breakfast Report Card Shows District-by-District Performance

Harrisburg (December 13, 2005) Amid rising concern about childhood obesity and too little academic achievement, many Pennsylvania school districts are still ignoring one of the most obvious tools to reach their goals – implementation of the federally financed School Breakfast Program.

A national report released today by the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) shows that Pennsylvania has slipped in the national rankings from 38 th to 42 nd among the states in making school breakfast available to students in need. The full FRAC report is available at http://www.frac.org/Press_Release/12.13.05.html.

Data provided by the PA Department of Education show that in the 2004-05 school year, daily participation in school breakfast programs across the state averaged 212,358 students. This compares to an average of 196,592 students in 2003-04 and is an increase of 8 percent. Among low-income students, the increase was 7 percent. While these increases demonstrate progress, they are less than what is being achieved in other states, thus accounting for the fact that Pennsylvania is being “left in the dust”.

Multiple research studies have shown that children have the best chance for academic success if they start their day with a nutritious breakfast. Studies have also shown that a healthy breakfast minimizes children’s consumption of junk foods and reduces the incidence of obesity and overweight.

Sue Mitchem, a child nutrition specialist for the Pennsylvania Hunger Action Center, commented on Pennsylvania’s ranking in the latest FRAC report. “Our state is making modest progress at a time when dramatic action is necessary. Our schools and our state policy-makers still haven’t made the obvious connection between how a child starts his or her day and big problems such as obesity and academic achievement. They’ve put breakfast in a box and don’t recognize it is part of the solution to bigger things.”

One obvious explanation for Pennsylvania’s relative decline is its lack of a state law requiring school districts to offer breakfast. All of Pennsylvania’s neighbors have such “breakfast mandates” except for Delaware. Pennsylvania, in contrast, leaves the decision to each school district.

During 2004-05 breakfast was available in 70 percent of Pennsylvania schools. In many schools the program is popular with students. Still other schools offer breakfast but do not take the steps to impress the program’s importance on parents and students. Districts need to market breakfast as a program which can benefit all children regardless of socio-economic background.

Expanding school breakfast should not be an economic problem for districts because adequate federal and state funding is available. Currently the number of Pennsylvania’s low-income children receiving school breakfast is only 36 percent of the number receiving school lunch. Were Pennsylvania to raise this ratio to 55 percent, which is the level achieved by leading states such as West Virginia and Kentucky, an additional $19.7 million in federal funds would be available to cover costs. Joyce Ciarla of the Mahanoy Area School District stated: “A well-run regular breakfast program can only enhance the bottom line for school food service. The regular breakfast program worked so well for us that we took the dramatic step of Universal Free Breakfast which gives free breakfast to all students.”

For students from families whose income is below 130 percent of poverty, breakfast is free. Students from families between 130 and 185 percent of poverty pay no more than 30 cents per breakfast. Students from families with incomes above 185 percent of poverty pay the full price, as determined by the local school district.

Increasingly, the option of eating breakfast in school is taken by children who can afford to pay. Statewide, during the past school year the number of full-price breakfasts increased by 8 percent.

The Pennsylvania School Breakfast Report Card, a comprehensive look at the performance of school districts across the state,includes five categories. In addition to citing schools that are not providing needed nutritional support, it gives recognition to schools that are offering exemplary breakfast programs. Key findings follow. Also attached is the full Report Card.

Star Performers

“Star Performers” are school districts that integrate breakfast into the school day and encourage all children to participate. Selected for recognition this year are districts in which average daily breakfast participation was at least 50 percent of average daily lunch participation. Leading the way in 2004-05 for the fifth consecutive year was Farrell Area School District in Mercer County. Breakfast participation at Farrell last year was 86 percent of lunch participation.

New schools in this year’s report include the following school districts: Avella Area (Washington), Union (Clarion), Purchase Line (Indiana), Turkeyfoot Valley Area (Somerset), Galeton Area (Potter) and Towanda Area (Bradford).

Getting the Job Done

Schools with many children from low-income families have a special responsibility because of the likelihood that some of those children had nothing to eat before they were sent off to school. Recognized here are districts that have high participation rates among at-risk kids.

Among school districts in which at least 29 percent of the children came from low-income families, fifteen stood out for serving breakfast to at least half of those students each day. Again topping this list of schools that are “Getting the Job Done” was Farrell Area School District; 82 percent of its low-income students had breakfast at school.

New to this category in the 2004-05 report are these districts: Avella Area (Washington), Jeannette City (Westmoreland), Conemaugh Township Area (Somerset), Turkeyfoot Valley Area (Somerset), Galeton Area (Potter), and Union (Clarion).

Moving Up!

Eleven school districts began offering the breakfast program last year including five school districts from last year’s list of “failures”. By starting breakfast, these eleven districts joined others that have made the link between nutrition, health and academics.

Also meriting special recognition for a change for the better are Valley View School District, which increased its daily breakfast attendance by 89 percent, and West Shore School District, which increased daily breakfast attendance by 88 percent.

Improvement Needed

Twelve school districts with at least 25 percent low-income students are cited for reaching only a tiny fraction of those students with breakfast. Kennett Consolidated (Chester), with 1297 low-income students, led this list; only 1 in 25 received school breakfast on a typical school day. At Mifflinburg Area (Union), which has over 601 low-income students, the ratio was also very poor (1 in 15).

Failing the Children

Twelve districts with a high ratio of low-income children did not offer breakfast in its schools. Once again Pottsville Area School District, with 1,300 low-income children and no breakfast program, had the dubious distinction of leading this list.

Barefield Development Corporation of Pottsville recently received a $373,000 Physical Education Program (PEP) grant from the U.S. Department of Education. The grant, “Pottsville Project Fit”, will increase the opportunities for fitness, good health and nutrition in the Pottsville schools and community. Craig Shields of the Barefield Development stated, “We are hopeful that ‘Pottsville Project Fit’ will help encourage the best possible health outcomes for our children, including bringing nutritious breakfasts to our schools.”

With schools across the state formulating federally mandated Wellness Policies to enhance student health, now is the perfect time for all schools to get on board with breakfast.  If not now, when?

***************

Star Performers

Making Breakfast a Regular Part of the School Day

County

School District

NSLP-SBP Ratio

Low-Income Students

% Low-Income

Mercer

FARRELL AREA SD

85.84%

849

81.71%

Beaver

MIDLAND BOROUGH SD

80.32%

238

69.19%

Indiana

HOMER-CENTER SD

72.16%

414

41.99%

Beaver

WESTERN BEAVER COUNTY SD

70.53%

281

29.27%

Beaver

ALIQUIPPA SD

69.63%

1045

73.28%

Schuylkill

MAHANOY AREA SD

67.55%

748

60.86%

Clearfield

HARMONY AREA SD

64.71%

227

59.58%

Dauphin

HARRISBURG CITY SD

62.82%

7217

84.24%

Westmoreland

JEANNETTE CITY SD

57.47%

677

52.68%

Washington

AVELLA AREA SD

54.35%

274

37.03%

Somerset

CONEMAUGH TOWNSHIP AREA SD

54.30%

433

38.52%

Allegheny

CORNELL SD

53.11%

438

58.40%

Allegheny

STO-ROX SD

52.59%

1036

70.24%

Clarion

UNION SD

52.15%

361

46.46%

Indiana

PURCHASE LINE SD

51.26%

685

56.33%

Somerset

TURKEYFOOT VALLEY AREA SD

50.59%

145

41.08%

Potter

GALETON AREA SD

50.30%

252

57.40%

Bradford

TOWANDA AREA SD

49.85%

727

41.66%

 

Getting the Job Done

Serving Breakfast to Most Low-Income Children

County

School District

% Low-Income
Participating
In Breakfast

Low-Income
Students

% Low-
Income

Mercer

FARRELL AREA SD

82.21%

849

81.71%

Clearfield

HARMONY AREA SD

66.08%

227

59.58%

Beaver

MIDLAND BOROUGH SD

65.55%

238

69.19%

Beaver

WESTERN BEAVER COUNTY SD

61.57%

281

29.27%

Potter

GALETON AREA SD

60.71%

252

57.40%

Indiana

HOMER-CENTER SD

60.14%

414

41.99%

Beaver

ALIQUIPPA SD

59.52%

1045

73.28%

Westmoreland

JEANNETTE CITY SD

58.79%

677

52.68%

Somerset

CONEMAUGH TOWNSHIP AREA

52.89%

433

38.52%

Washington

AVELLA AREA SD

52.55%

274

37.03%

Dauphin

HARRISBURG CITY SD

52.43%

7217

84.24%

Clarion

UNION SD

51.80%

361

46.46%

Wayne

WALLENPAUPACK AREA SD

51.16%

1335

34.58%

Somerset

TURKEYFOOT VALLEY AREA SD

51.03%

145

41.08%

Forest

FOREST AREA SD

49.85%

331

46.23%

 

 Moving Up!

Starting or Growing Breakfast Programs Last Year

School District

Daily Breakfasts

Valley View ( Lackawanna)

89.1

% increase

West Shore ( York)

88.4

% increase

Derry Area (Westmoreland)

82.8

% increase

Franklin Area (Venango)

66.7

% increase

Sharpsville Area (Mercer)

65.6

% increase

Upper Darby ( Delaware)

63.1

% increase

Fort Leboeuf ( Erie)

493

new program

Dover Area ( York)

306

new program

Dubois Area ( Clearfield)

268

new program

Twin Valley (Berks)

228

new program

South Williamsport (Lycoming)

172

new program

Rockwood Area ( Somerset)

156

new program

Lakeland ( Lackawanna)

97

new program

Schuylkill Valley (Berks)

90

new program

Red Lion Area ( York)

82

new program

Penn Trafford (Westmoreland)

58

new program

Warwick ( Lancaster)

52

new program

 

Improvement Needed

Lots of Need – Few Breakfasts Served

County

School District

% Low-Inc.
Participating
In Breakfast

Low-Income Students

% Low-
Income

Chester

KENNETT CONSOLIDATED

4.01%

1297

35.71%

Union

MIFFLINBURG AREA SD

6.16%

601

24.95%

Lancaster

EPHRATA AREA SD

7.90%

861

20.75%

York

WEST YORK AREA SD

8.22%

706

22.71%

Carbon

LEHIGHTON AREA SD

9.60%

646

25.43%

Schuylkill

SCHUYLKILL HAVEN AREA

10.20%

402

28.76%

Northampton

BANGOR AREA SD

10.90%

752

23.43%

Susquehanna

MOUNTAIN VIEW SD

10.93%

549

38.18%

Cambria

FOREST HILLS SD

11.84%

929

40.20%

Butler

BUTLER AREA SD

11.97%

2188

27.62%

Dauphin

MIDDLETOWN AREA SD

12.58%

652

26.35%

Northampton

EASTON AREA SD

12.60%

2095

25.97%

Dauphin

SUSQUEHANNA TWP SD

12.62%

737

23.72%

Delaware

UPPER DARBY SD

13.29%

4206

36.37%

Adams

UPPER ADAMS SD

13.34%

622

33.91%

Northumberland

LINE MOUNTAIN SD

13.45%

357

28.27%

Venango

CRANBERRY AREA SD

13.49%

467

35.14%

Erie

MILLCREEK TOWNSHIP SD

13.71%

1700

23.80%

Clearfield

DUBOIS AREA SD

13.76%

1628

36.21%

Mifflin

MIFFLIN COUNTY SD

14.00%

2043

34.06%

Beaver

MONACA SD

14.33%

314

42.20%

Northumberland

SHAMOKIN AREA SD

15.15%

1241

48.04%

 

Failing the Children

No Breakfast Despite the Need 

County

School District

% Low-Income

Low-Income Students

NSLP ADP

Schuylkill

POTTSVILLE AREA SD

41.37%

1261

2166

Elk

JOHNSONBURG AREA SD

36.59%

266

520

Lackawanna

RIVERSIDE SD

35.83%

535

851

Schuylkill

NORTH SCHUYLKILL SD

34.56%

678

1286

Carbon

WEATHERLY AREA SD

30.71%

242

554

Fulton

FORBES ROAD SD

30.06%

141

372

Adams

GETTYSBURG AREA SD

29.48%

1013

2354

York

HANOVER PUBLIC SD

28.36%

473

930

Westmoreland

KISKI AREA SD

26.28%

1105

2567

Berks

ANTIETAM SD

25.99%

288

554

Lawrence

WILMINGTON AREA SD

25.50%

393

857

Schuylkill

TAMAQUA AREA SD

24.58%

530

1370

Adams

CONEWAGO VALLEY SD

24.40%

862

1771

Allegheny

BALDWIN-WHITEHALL SD

23.85%

1093

2048

Cumberland

SHIPPENSBURG AREA SD

23.85%

744

1693

Erie

HARBOR CREEK SD

23.45%

491

1408

Lackawanna

DUNMORE SD

22.78%

419

838

Mercer

MERCER AREA SD

22.78%

339

937

Westmoreland

GREATER LATROBE SD

22.36%

908

2792

Perry

GREENWOOD SD

21.89%

174

556

Montgomery

POTTSGROVE SD

21.77%

434

1042

Perry

SUSQUENITA SD

21.73%

485

1550

Armstrong

FREEPORT AREA SD

21.08%

416

1128

Lehigh

WHITEHALL-COPLAY SD

20.81%

811

2416

 

To View the Press Release for Your Area,

Click on One of Links Below

Allegheny County Beaver County Berks County
Bradford County Cambria & Blair County Central PA
Clarion County Clearfield County Delaware, Montgomery & Chester County
Erie County Forest & Elk County Fulton County
Indiana County Lackawanna County Lancaster
Lehigh, Northampton & Carbon Mercer County Potter County
Schuylkill County Somerset County Union, Lycoming, Northumberland & Mifflin
Venango, Butler, Lawrence & Armstrong Washington County Wayne County
Westmoreland County    

 

Back to Top

Pennsylvania Hunger Action Center
email: info@pahunger.org
site design by LightSky Design Studio