blog post California’s Farmworkers and Their Children Are Vulnerable to Food Insecurity By Paulette Cha Apr 25, 2023 Farmworkers—90% of whom are immigrants—have access to a patchwork of food assistance programs. For many, this patchwork does not include all of the nutritional safety net programs that help reduce poverty across the state.
Fact Sheet California’s Nutrition Safety Net By Tess Thorman, Patricia Malagon Apr 3, 2023 The state’s three largest nutrition programs—CalFresh, WIC, and school meals—serve almost 4 million California households. This fact sheet offers a snapshot of these programs and their impact on poverty.
Report Targeted K–12 Funding and Student Outcomes By Julien Lafortune Oct 6, 2021 As students return to the classroom, record-high funding through the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) will help California districts address gaps after a year of remote learning. In this report, we examine school and district spending against trends in student outcomes to offer insight into whether the LCFF is meeting its goal of improving equity in education.
Report Improving California Children’s Participation in Nutrition Programs By Caroline Danielson, Sarah Bohn Dec 12, 2016 Food and nutrition assistance programs help children gain access to adequate amounts of nutritious food—reducing child hunger and food insecurity as well as promoting healthy development. Yet in California, enrollment varies widely across counties and across the main nutrition programs that serve children: CalFresh, popularly known as food stamps; the WIC program, which serves infants and preschool-age children; and school meals, which include lunch and often other meals. Increasing children’s enrollment in CalFresh and achieving healthier outcomes for Californians are priorities for the state. The governor’s January 2016 budget set a goal of enrolling 400,000 more eligible children in CalFresh over two years. This report assesses children’s eligibility for CalFresh and eligible children’s participation in the three main nutrition programs to explore opportunities for improving enrollment and the benefits of higher enrollment. Key findings include: CalFresh has lower enrollment than free school meals and WIC. In 2015, 24 percent of all California children participated in CalFresh, while more than twice as many age-eligible children (51%) were enrolled in free school meals; 44 percent of infants and 34 percent of young children were enrolled in WIC. There is substantial potential to expand the impact of nutrition programs. We estimate that if all CalFresh-eligible children were fully enrolled in both CalFresh and either free school meals or WIC, these programs would reach 1.6 million more children. Infants and young children are better connected to nutrition programs. Among CalFresh-eligible children, we find that 12 percent of public school students participate in neither CalFresh nor free school meals—more than a quarter million school children (331,000). In contrast, only 4 percent of infants (21,000) and 9 percent of young children (87,000) are disconnected from both CalFresh and WIC. Higher participation in nutrition programs would lower child poverty. Among public school students living in poverty, we project that full participation in nutrition programs would increase family resources by 15 percent. Among infants and young children living in poverty, we project that family resources would increase by 9 percent following full participation in nutrition programs. To some extent, lower CalFresh enrollment reflects more restrictive eligibility requirements. However, there is good reason to believe that more children participating in free school meals and WIC could be connected to CalFresh. Currently, most policies designed to integrate nutrition programs run from CalFresh to school meals. Building robust, two-way connections could help counties and the state better achieve the goals of these programs so more children have access to adequate, nutritious food.
Report Low-Income Students and School Meal Programs in California By Caroline Danielson Mar 12, 2015 School nutrition programs help improve nutrition among vulnerable children. In so doing, they help build a better future for these children and the state. Now that California is implementing the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), there is additional reason to make sure all students who are eligible for free or low-cost meals enroll in these programs. Along with English Learners and foster youth, low-income students—in other words, students who are eligible for free and reduced-price meals—are targeted for additional funds under the LCFF. This renewed focus on enrollment could also prompt further consideration of participation in school nutrition programs. This report looks at factors that might be linked to variations in student enrollment and participation in free or reduced-price meals. Not surprisingly, we find that districts with higher poverty rates identify higher levels of eligibility than wealthier districts. Low-income high school students appear to be enrolled at levels comparable to younger students, but students in elementary school districts are much more likely to participate in lunch programs than students in other types of districts. We also find that schools in districts with higher shares of foreign-born residents have modestly lower participation levels (but not identification of low-income students). Finally, we find evidence that schools with smaller enrollments are more successful than larger schools at identifying and serving low-income students. One way to further the goal of full enrollment among low-income students is to cut the large share of low-income students who must submit applications for free or reduced-price meals. Achieving this objective is arguably an important part of a larger state effort to integrate social safety net programs and services.
Report Implementing Local Accountability in California’s Schools: The First Year of Planning By Paul Warren, Giselle Carrillo Mar 12, 2015 The passage of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) in 2013 gave California school districts flexibility in allocating resources and significantly boosted state support for the education of disadvantaged students. LCFF also includes a Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP), which requires districts to enlist the help of parents and the public in identifying student performance goals and ways to achieve them. Our research in 25 California districts suggests that educators have worked hard to develop the first of these three-year plans, but that knowledge about strategic planning, data-driven decisionmaking, and involving parents and the public in the process varies significantly among districts. As a consequence, the clarity and effectiveness of the initial plans varies widely. The state can help by making technical assistance to districts and county offices of education available and affordable. Our research also indicates that expanding the role of county offices would help them push for improved student performance.
Report School Finance By Margaret Weston Nov 14, 2012 There is broad consensus that California's school finance system is inequitable, inadequate, and overly complex. In response to these critiques, this year Governor Jerry Brown proposed an overhaul of our school finance system. Also, two initiatives on the November ballot asked voters to increase education funding through tax increases: voters approved Proposition 30, which was integral to the governor's budget plan, and rejected Proposition 38, a citizens' initiative. Despite the passage of Proposition 30, California faces many school finance challenges. This report provides an overview of the state's school finance system and outlines some longstanding school finance issues that may be in play next year.
