Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
State education officials detail school nutrition reimbursements, summer meals and community eligibility rules
Loading...
Summary
Department of Education staff reviewed federal reimbursement rates for school meals, clarified that summer EBT is operated by DHHS (not the Education Department), described the summer food service site rules, and outlined how the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) works and when local districts bear nonfederal costs.
Melissa White, Division Director for Learner Support at the New Hampshire Department of Education, and Kelly Rambo, Bureau Administrator for Wellness and Nutrition, briefed the Finance Division II committee on school nutrition programs, federal reimbursement rates and summer feeding options.
Rambo told the committee that ‘‘these programs are all federally funded through the USDA’’ while also noting some supplemental state funding appears in the department’s calculation of reimbursements. She walked members through packet pages that show federal reimbursement rates for the National School Lunch Program, breakfast, the Child and Adult Care Food Program and the Summer Food Service Program.
Why it matters: school meal reimbursements link directly to district budgets and to eligibility for state funding tied to free and reduced‑price counts. Committee members pressed staff about how federal and state dollars interact and how summer feeding differs from school‑year programs.
The department clarified several program differences. The Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer (Summer EBT or SEBT) is operated by the Department of Health and Human Services, not by the Department of Education; SEBT provides electronic benefits to families. The Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), by contrast, pays sites to serve meals at open or closed sites and is administered through the Education Department’s Office of Nutrition Programs and Services. Rambo said the department maintains an interactive map of approved summer sites and a phone line families can call to find a site.
Committee members raised recurring confusion over whether the presence of federal funds year‑round guarantees meals at a given school in summer. Rambo and White explained that SFSP eligibility is site‑based: some brick‑and‑mortar schools qualify as open summer sites (any child may attend) while others are closed sites serving enrolled participants or program enrollees such as YMCAs. If a local building does not qualify as an open SFSP site, families generally must use another approved site or rely on SEBT if they are eligible under DHHS rules.
Rambo also reviewed the department’s breakdown of reimbursements for FY24 by meal type and income category and explained the state portion in the National School Lunch Program is treated as a match under RSA 189:11‑a. Members asked for further detail on how the state match is allocated; Rambo offered to produce a proportional breakfast/lunch breakdown if the committee wanted it.
The packet also summarized the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), which allows districts to provide free meals to all students if their identified student percentage meets a threshold. Rambo said the federal threshold for identified students was recently reduced from 40% to 25%, and that change makes some additional schools eligible but can pose a local funding question: under CEP a district provides free meals to every student, but the district (or other nonfederal sources) must cover the nonfederal share for students who are not federally identified. Rambo said CEP ‘‘works very well for communities that have a very high percentage of poverty’’ but can be costly if a district with only 25% identified students must cover the remaining 75% locally.
Committee members requested the department publish the free/reduced data in Excel to make local comparisons easier; Rambo said she would provide that export. She also noted the department uses a memorandum of understanding and data sharing with DHHS to identify directly certified students for the National School Lunch Program and to coordinate with SEBT where appropriate.
The presenters urged caution about interpreting year‑to‑year federal totals: reimbursement totals were unusually high during COVID when USDA reimbursed meals at the free rate for all students, and FY22–FY23 figures reflect waivers and pandemic-era policies.
Looking ahead, the department said it can provide additional breakdowns of state matching calculations and distribution lines and will continue publishing summer site maps and call‑center information for families seeking meals.
Ending: Committee members asked for follow‑up data exports and for the department to return with more line‑level budget detail when the committee examines the department budget later in the session.
