Issuu on Google+

TEXAS SCHOOL BREAKFAST REPORT CARD

2012 NOVEMBER


Contents OPENING LET TER 04 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 05 SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM 08 WHY BREAKFAST AT SCHOOL 10 SCHOOL BREAKFAST SERVICE MODELS 11

CURRENT REALITIES IN TEXAS 14 GOALS FOR TEXAS 17 SCHOOL DISTRICT SUCCESS STORIES 23 RESOURCES 26 TECHNICAL NOTES 27

APPENDIX A 28 APPENDIX B 78 APPENDIX C 120 ENDNOTES 122


Dear Reader, We all know that breakfast is the most important meal of the day, and studies have shown that children who face hunger fall behind in virtually every way. Too many children who participate in the free and reduced-price National School Lunch Program in Texas do not participate in the School Breakfast Program. In the 2011-2012 school year, 186,558 students that were eligible for free and reduced-price breakfast did not participate. This caused school districts to miss out on more than $46 million in total federal funds in 2012. The Texas Hunger Initiative is here to help. We focus on helping children and families with children who face food insecurity by connecting those who need help with the resources that are available to help them. The national School Breakfast Program is one of these resources. The Texas Hunger Initiative is helping to increase breakfast participation by working with local school districts to implement innovative breakfast models such as “Breakfast in the Classroom” and “Grab and Go Breakfast.” These models provide convenience to children— they no longer need to arrive early to eat breakfast—and also help reduce the stigma often associated with the School Breakfast Program. Our goal is to feed more children and, thanks to our partners, we are doing just that. Across Texas more children are going to school knowing they will not have to worry about where they will get their next meal. We are grateful to all of our partners who diligently work alongside us to expand the School Breakfast Program. Thank you to Share Our Strength’s No Kid Hungry campaign, Dairy MAX, and Children At Risk. A special thank you to the Center for Public Policy Priorities, HungerFree Colorado, and the Food Research and Action Center. This report would not have been possible without you. It is unacceptable for Texans to be hungry in 2012. As a state we have plenty of resources to feed everyone. Hunger is not a resource issue--it’s an access issue. We believe that by working together we can and will end hunger in Texas. Respectfully,

Jeremy Everett, Director

Katie Yocham, Breakfast Research and Outreach Coordinator 04


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was prepared by Cameron Lagrone and Katie Yocham and designed by Tariq Thowfeek. It would not have been possible without the support and feedback from many of our valuable partners. The Texas Hunger Initiative gratefully acknowledges major support of its work to expand and improve the School Breakfast Program in 2011-2012 from the following: • Dairy MAX • Share Our Strength’s No Kid Hungry campaign • Food Research and Action Center • CHILDREN AT RISK • ConAgra Foods Foundation • Walmart The Texas Hunger Initiative would also like to thank the following school districts for their hard work and dedication to expanding the school meal program. We are very grateful to you for sharing your experiences and expertise in this report. • Dallas ISD • Irving ISD • Abilene ISD • Dimmitt ISD

05


INTRODUCTION FOOD INSECURITY

4.6 million Texans

1.8 million children

Currently, 4.6 million Texans are food insecure.1 Texas ranks third in the nation for food insecurity.2 This means that at some point in the last year, food insecure families either experienced hunger outright or altered their consumption patterns to avoid hunger. Food insecurity is defined by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) as “a household-level economic and social condition of limited or uncertain access to adequate food.” 3 The phrase “food insecurity” is often used interchangeably with “hunger.”

Even worse, the percentage of child food insecurity in Texas is more than the national average. Texas has the eleventh highest rate of childhood food insecurity in the nation.6 In Texas, 27.1 percent of children are considered food insecure. That is over 1.8 million kids.7 Shockingly, this means that many of these kids may regularly go to school having not eaten breakfast, may not eat much over the weekends, and are often anxious about where their food will come from during summer because school might provide their only meals during the year.

Food insecurity does not discriminate. People in devastating poverty as well as families traditionally categorized as middle-class may face food insecurity. Some families become food insecure with one simple pay cut or layoff. In fact, two million food insecure Texans make too much money to receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, formerly known as food stamps.4

Fortunately, Texas law requires public and openenrollment charter schools with at least 10 percent of students eligible for free and reduced-price (FRP) school meals to serve breakfast.8 Currently, 3,102,416 Texas school children qualify for FRP meals at school; however, 1,700,259 of those children begin the day without a school breakfast. Yet many of these schools serve breakfast before the first bell, giving many students little or no opportunity to eat before class.

In 2011, households that had higher rates of food insecurity than the national average included households with children (20.6 percent), especially households with children headed by single women (36.8 percent) or single men (24.9 percent), Black nonHispanic households (25.1 percent), and Hispanic households (26.2 percent).5

This is a problem, but there is a solution.

27.1% OF CHILDREN ARE CONSIDERED

FOOD INSECURE TEXANS

06

FOOD INSECURE IN TEXAS


TEXAS HUNGER INITIATIVE

SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM

The Texas Hunger Initiative (THI) is a statewide capacity-building project within the Baylor University School of Social Work that works collaboratively with national, state, and local governments to create an efficient system of accountability that increases food security in Texas. THI implements strategies to alleviate food insecurity through policy, education, and community organizing. It convenes federal, state, and local government stakeholders with non-profits, faith communities, and business leaders to use existing resources and to develop and implement plans to increase Texas families’ access to healthy foods

The School Breakfast Program (SBP) is designed to allow schools to ensure that all children start the day alert and engaged. Schools are eligible to receive federal reimbursement for breakfasts served to children through the School Breakfast Program, though many schools do not participate. Even in schools that do serve breakfast, participation is often low when compared with total enrollment or participation in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP).9

THI’s innovative approach to public-private collaboration has also demonstrated success in specific child nutrition program outreach. THI partners with the USDA and Dairy MAX, a non-profit organization affiliated with the National Dairy Council, to help interested school districts implement alternative school breakfast models that allow all children to eat during the first 15 minutes of class. Examples of these models include Breakfast in the Classroom (BIC), Grab and Go, and Breakfast After First Period. All three organizations bring something unique to the table. USDA brings federal money for food reimbursements, Dairy MAX brings private grant money for startup costs (such as trashcans, cold cases, and warming carts), and THI recruits districts and brings expertise to help these schools through the implementation process.

59.6% STATE PARTICIPATION IN SCHOOL

Studies have shown that skipping breakfast can keep children from reaching their full potential. Some show that eating breakfast not only decreases the risk of food insecurity for a child, but also decreases their absenteeism and behavioral problems, while increasing their potential for learning.10 Other studies show that school breakfast participants are also more likely to consume diets that are adequate or exceed standards for important vitamins and minerals.11 Additionally, some show that school breakfast may protect against childhood obesity.12 Fortunately, there are federal resources already available to schools to ensure kids start their day full of nutritious food and ready to learn.

Key Findings •

Texas served 300,082,570 total breakfasts during the 2011-2012 school year for a state reimbursement of $460,290,681.13

At end of the 2011-2012 school year, Texas had 59.6% statewide participation in the School Breakfast Program (per 100 students eating Free or Reduced-Price lunch).

If each school district in Texas reached the goal of serving breakfast to 60 low-income students per 100 low-income students eating lunch, the state would receive $46,672,962 in additional reimbursement.

BREAKFAST PROGRAM

07


SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM Description The School Breakfast Program (SBP) is a federally assisted meal program to students in public and nonprofit private institutions and residential child care institutions. The program began its first operating year in 1966 but it didn’t become a permanent program until 1975. The meals must be offered at a free and reduced-price and meet federal nutrition requirements. On the federal level, the program is administered at the by the United States Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service (USDA-FNS). On the state level, it is administered by the Texas Department of Agriculture. The SBP operates similarly to the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). Districts and independent schools can choose to serve breakfast to students before school or sometime during the morning. Students’ families fill out an application at the beginning of the school year to determine eligibility for free and reduced-price meals (FRP).14

Eligibility Schools must offer meals at full price, reduced-price, or free to students based on their household income. A child from a household living at 130 percent of the federal poverty level or below is eligible for free meals. Children from a household living at 185 percent or below the poverty level are eligible for reduced-price meals. A child from a household living above 185 percent of the poverty level must pay full price for meals.15 For the 2012-2013 school year, annual income for a household of four living at 130 percent of the poverty level is $29,965. For a household of four living at 185 percent of the poverty, annual income is $42,643.16

Nutrition Requirements Districts must comply with federal nutrition guidelines when preparing breakfast for students. Each breakfast must include fruits and vegetables, a grain, a meat or meat alternative, and milk. The USDA-FNS has created specific nutrient and caloric requirements for these meals that must be followed by states.

SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM FEDERAL REIMBURSEMENTS FOR 2011-2012 SCHOOL YEAR NON-SEVERE NEED

SEVERE NEED

FREE

$1.51

$1.80

REDUCED PRICE

$1.21

$1.50

PAID

$0.27

$0.27

http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Governance/notices/naps/NAPs11-12.pdf

Reimbursement The USDA reimburses schools in cash for each breakfast distributed. Schools classified as non-severe need receive $1.51 for each free meal, $1.21 for each reduced-price meal, and $0.27 for each paid meal. Schools receive extra money if they are classified as “severe-need.” To qualify, a school must have 40% or more of meals distributed served at free or reduced-price. The school then receives $1.50 per reduced-price meal and $1.80 per free meal.18

08


I have the audacity to believe that people everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for the minds and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

Federal Legislation The USDA-FNS requires schools to have students apply for FPR meals at the beginning of each school year. In order to make this process easier and more efficient for schools, a school can apply to be Provision 1, Provision 2, or Provision 3. These provisions offer different methods of filing applications for meals.

PROVISION 1 In order to be Provision 1, a school must have at least 80% of their students eligible for FRP meals. Children eligible for free meals only need to fill out an application every two school years. This reduces the burden of collecting applications each school year. All other children must be notified of their eligibility for reduced-price or paid meals. Schools must also keep a daily record of meals distributed based on type for reimbursement claims. There is no requirement with this provision to serve meals at no charge to all students.19

PROVISION 2 Provision 2 reduces the burden of applications, meal counts, and claiming for reimbursements due to the following: Schools that choose this provision only need to collect applications and take meal counts every four years. During the first year, or base year, the school establishes eligibility determinations, takes meal counts, and then applies those numbers to the next three school years. During the next three years, the school makes no new eligibility determinations and counts only the total number of reimbursable meals served each day. Reimbursement during these years is determined by applying the percentages of free, reduced price and paid meals served during the corresponding month of the base year to the total meal count for the claiming month. The base year is included as part of the four years. Federal reimbursement is given as a percentage of the base year reimbursement adjusted for enrollment and inflation. Schools must serve breakfast to all students at no charge

for all 4 years. At the end of the fourth year, a school can choose to reapply for another four years if the income level of the school’s population remains stable. Schools electing this alternative must pay the difference between federal reimbursement and the cost of providing all meals at no charge. The money to pay for this difference must be from sources other than federal funds.20

PROVISION 3 Provision 3 is similar to Provision 2 with regards to the reduction in application burdens and meal counting and claiming procedures. Under this provision, schools are allowed to simply receive the same total federal reimbursement and commodity assistance each year, with some adjustments, for a four year period. Provision 3 schools must serve meals at no cost to all participating children for a period of four years. These schools do not make additional eligibility determinations. A school can collect data for a base year and then apply that to the following four years. Federal reimbursement is the same for all four years, adjusted for changes in enrollment and inflation. The base year is not included as part of the four years. When the four year period is up, an extension can be requested by the school. If the income level of the school’s population remains stable, TDA may approve a four year extension. Like Provision 2, schools electing this alternative must pay the difference between federal reimbursement and the cost of providing all meals at no charge. The money to pay for this difference must be from sources other than federal funds.21

Universal Free Breakfast Another option for serving breakfast is to serve all students breakfast free of charge. This is called universal breakfast. A school providing universal breakfast still collects a meal count and files for federal reimbursement. The most effective methods for increasing participation in school breakfast is a universal breakfast program that serves breakfast free to all students regardless of income. Determining whether a school can afford to serve a universal breakfast is the first step. The higher the percentage of students qualifying for FRP meals, the greater the reimbursement a school would receive when serving all meals free. Many schools need to be at least 40 percent FRP to break even when serving all meals free. Other schools find that they need at least 60 to 70 percent of students who qualify for FRP meals. The “break even” point depends on the size of the school and the cost to run the breakfast program.

09


WHY BREAKFAST AT SCHOOL? HEALTH AND NUTRITION

BEHAVIORAL

Participants in school breakfast are more likely to consume diets that meet or exceed the recommended daily amounts of vitamins and minerals.22

Children who are hungry are more likely to be hyperactive, absent, and tardy, and to have behavioral and attention problems more frequently than others.31

Student participation in school breakfast is associated with a lower body mass index (an indicator of excess body fat), lower probability of overweight, and lower probability of obesity.23

Seventy-three percent of surveyed teachers credit breakfast with better behavior in the classroom.32

School breakfast has been linked with fewer visits to the school nurse, particularly in the morning.24

Students who participate in school breakfast show improved attendance and behavior as well as decreased tardiness.33

Four out of 5 surveyed teachers credit breakfast with preventing headaches and stomachaches.25

Breakfast in the classroom is associated with fewer trips to the disciplinary office.34

EDUCATIONAL

IMPACT ON TEACHERS

Nine out of 10 surveyed teachers say breakfast is very important for academic achievement.26

Surveyed teachers credit breakfast with increased concentration (95%) and better academic performance (89%).27

According to a recent report by Share Our Strength, three out of five teachers say they have children in their classrooms who regularly come to school hungry. Even more surprising is that four out of five of those teachers report that these same children come to school hungry at least once a week.35

Children experiencing hunger have lower math scores and are more likely to repeat a grade.28

More than half of teachers (53%) say they purchase food for hungry kids in their classrooms.36

Children who eat breakfast at school closer to class and test taking time perform better on standardized tests than those who skip breakfast or eat breakfast at home.29

Teachers who buy food for hungry kids in their classrooms spend an average of $26 a month.37

Children who eat breakfast show improved cognitive function, attention, and memory.30

Adapted from Food Research and Action Center’s “Breakfast for Learning.” http:// frac.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/ breakfastforlearning.pdf and “Hunger In Our Schools: Share Our Strength’s Teachers Report 2012.” http://join.strength.org/ site/DocServer/2012-teacher-report-final. pdf?docID=8901

10


SCHOOL BREAKFAST SERVICE MODELS Traditional Breakfast This model is a common approach to serving breakfast and is usually served before the school day begins in the cafeteria. Many schools find that participation is low when students are required to get to school before the bell rings to eat breakfast in the cafeteria. Various factors can limit children’s access to breakfast before the bell including: • • • •

School buses do not arrive in time for breakfast. Long lines in the cafeteria discourage participation. When given an option, many children will choose to spend time with friends or play outside before class begins. Traditional breakfast is often associated with “poor students.” When students feel stigmatized about their need to eat at school, participation will be low.

Despite these challenges it is possible to make traditional cafeteria breakfast more accessible. Some schools find that they can have high participation in serving breakfast before the bell. Strategies for increasing the success of this serving model include: •

Ensuring that all buses arrive in time for school breakfast.

Having students enter the building at the door closest to the cafeteria.

Making eating in the cafeteria a normal and fun part of the day.

11


SCHOOL BREAKFAST SERVICE MODELS (cont.) ALTERNATIVE SERVICE MODELS FOR BREAKFAST Breakfast in the Classroom

Grab and Go Breakfast

Serving Breakfast in the Classroom (BIC) either during homeroom or first period is one of the most effective ways of increasing breakfast participation. It is often thought of as the “silver bullet” in making sure that all children have access to school breakfast.

This is a popular alternative model for serving breakfast, especially in middle and high schools.

Breakfast is brought into each classroom in containers that keep the food hot or cold. Meals are distributed to children and a meal count is taken by the teacher or by cafeteria staff and is then returned to the school nutrition staff. In some schools food service staff distribute meals in the doorway of the classroom. Trash bags are provided to each classroom and trash is collected immediately. The containers are returned to the cafeteria. During breakfast teachers often eat with their students, take attendance, and read and provide other educational activities. Because all students eat breakfast as a normal part of the school day, in-classroom breakfast eliminates the stigma often associated with school breakfast. In most schools breakfast is also served free to teachers and staff who can model good eating habits for the students. While this alternative service model works best when all meals are served free, it is possible in schools that charge for reduced and full-priced meals as well.

12

Food is distributed in carts that are located in high-traffic areas in halls or at the entrance to school. Children “grab” a meal and “go” to their next class where they eat their breakfast. Depending on the point of sale system in place in a school, this can work in schools where breakfast is free for all students or in schools that charge for reduced and paid meals.

Breakfast After First Period Many children, especially teenagers, are not hungry when they first wake up in the morning, but some time before lunch their stomachs start to grumble. Breakfast After First Period, also known as “Second Chance Breakfast,” allows these students to eat when they are hungry. Food is distributed during a “nutrition break” later in the morning. This can be done with the Grab and Go style between classes or during an official break in the school day. This alternative service model can be employed in schools with universal free breakfast program or in schools that do not serve free breakfast to all students.


Breakfast on the Bus In school districts where most students have long bus rides to school, serving Breakfast on the Bus can help students get through a long commute and arrive at school focused and ready to learn. Using this model food is kept in containers and served to students as they get on the bus. This alternative service model is usually employed by schools that serve universal free breakfasts.

Vending Machines Some schools have employed models where students can enter their student ID or PIN number into a vending machine that allows them to select from a variety of prepackaged reimbursable meals which include milk. This alternative service model is especially popular in high schools and can be implemented even if a school is not participating in the universal free breakfast program.

Adapted from USDA, Dairy MAX, and Texas Hunger Initiative’s “Backing Breakfast: Texas School Breakfast Resource Guide.” For additional information on the expanding the School Breakfast Program, see the resource guide at www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/178235.pdf Originally adapted from USDA’s “Discover School Breakfast Toolkit” and Maryland Hunger Solutions’ “Students Can Have Their Breakfast and Eat it Too: A Guide to Expanding School Breakfast in Maryland.”

13


CURRENT REALITIES IN TEXAS In the 2011-2012 school year, 59.6% of Texas students who ate FRP lunch also ate FRP breakfast. With this percentage, 1,402,157 FRP students ate breakfast daily last year. This was an increase of 38,837 students eating FRP breakfast per day from the 2010-2011 school year of 1,363,320, or 58.4%, students per day.

Poverty Level (FPL) eat for free, while those from families with income between 130185 percent of FPL eat at a reduced price. CHILDREN AT RISK proposes that the Texas Legislature require schools to provide free school breakfast to all interested students in any school wherein student populations of 80% or more live at or below 185% of the federal poverty level. This would eliminate reducedprice and paid breakfast.39

CURRENT LEGISLATION State legislation is an important strategy to ensure that schools participate in the School Breakfast Program. It is particularly important that schools with significant populations of low-income students offer breakfast, an important first step towards guaranteeing that the program is widely available. The state of Texas currently requires any public or open-charter school with 10% or more Free and Reduced-Price eligibility to serve school breakfast [TEX. EDUC. CODE ANN. § 33.901]. Texas does not allocate any state funds towards the School Breakfast Program. Some states, such as Colorado, reimburse schools with state funds in addition to the federal funding provided for each reimbursable meal served.

RECOMMENDATIONS •

Join the Texas Food Policy Roundtable to advocate on behalf of Texans who rely on federal programs like the School Breakfast Program.38

Under federal law, students from families with income under 130 percent of the Federal

“ 14

Encourage Texas legislators to request additional state funding for school meal programs like the School Breakfast Program.

Join FRAC and CPPP’s efforts in calling for Congress to increase funding for school meals and other child nutrition programs.40

FINANCES USDA-FNS reimbursements make it possible for schools to serve FRP meals to their students daily. States receive reimbursement, per meal, to cover the administrative costs of serving FRP breakfast and lunch. Federal funds are allotted for each state through the Child Nutrition Act of 1966.41 For each student that does not eat breakfast, whether they qualify for a free, reduced-price or paid meal, Texas misses out on additional federal funds, money that could be used to cover costs and spent in the local economy. For the 2011-2012 school year, Texas served 300,082,570 total breakfasts for a state reimbursement of $460,290,681.42 Even with the substantial number, Texas is missing out on additional reimbursement.

If we can conquer space, we can conquer childhood hunger.

-Buzz Aldrin


STATE SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM

Texas Student Enrollment

2009-2010

2010-2011

2011-2012

Change from 2009-2012 (% Change)

4,838,671

4,905,907

5,517,931

679,260 (+12.3%)

FRP Percent Eligible

60.2%

61.3%

56.2%

-4.0%

FRP Eligible

2,913,848

3,009,283

3,102,181

188,333 (+6.07%)

Average Daily Participation in School Breakfast

1,498,285

1,608,519

1,652,372

154,087 (+9.3%)

Average Daily Participation in FRP Breakfast

1,270,980

1,363,320

1,404,660

133,680 (+9.5%)

FRP Breakfasts/100 FRP Lunches

56.4%

58.4%

59.6%

3.3%

15


GREATEST FRP PARTICIPATION RATE DECREASE IN SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM BETWEEN 2009-2010 AND 2011-2012 District or School

Difference in Participation Rate

EAST AUSTIN COLLEGE PREP ACADEMY

-56.4%

KIPP: SAN ANTONIO

-53.5%

TEXAS JUVENILE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT

-52.6%

LAKE WORTH ISD

-51.1%

JAMIE'S HOUSE CHARTER SCHOOL

-47.1%

EVOLUTION ACADEMY CHARTER

-41.2%

THE RHODES SCHOOL

-40.1%

BRACKETT ISD

-38.8%

RIVIERA ISD

-36.1%

HASKELL CISD

-35.7%

GREATEST FRP PARTICIPATION RATE INCREASE IN SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM BETWEEN 2009-2010 AND 2011-2012 District or School

16

Difference in Participation Rate DILLEY ISD

+65.5%

FAITH FAMILY KIDS INC DBA WAXAHACHIE FAITH FAMILY ACADEMY

+49.8%

SHORELINE INC

+43.9%

DUBLIN ISD

+43.0%

ST CECILIA'S CHURCH

+41.1%

HART ISD

+39.1%

SACRED HEART SCHOOL-ROCKPORT

+39.0%

TEKOA CHARTER SCHOOL

+37.8%

TWO DIMENSIONS PREPARATORY ACADEMY

+37.5%

ST CECILIA SCHOOL

+37.2%


GOALS FOR TEXAS The Food Research & Action Center set a goal for states to reach 60 students eating free and reducedprice breakfast for each 100 students participating in free and reduced-price lunch. In the 20112012 school year, Texas had 59.6% students participate in FRP breakfast for every 100 students that participated in FRP lunch. In order to reach the goal of 60% of students participating in FRP breakfast in Texas, the state needs to serve breakfast to an additional 8,688 students per day. When Texas reaches 60% statewide participation in FRP breakfast, the state will receive an additional $2,152,341 in federal reimbursement. Since the 2009-2010 school year, Texas has increased FRP breakfast participation by 73,688 students per day, adding $18,460,953 in federal reimbursement. Due to districts with extremely high participation rates in FRP breakfast, Texas has a high statewide participation rate across the board. Unfortunately, many of the school districts that have high participation rates are smaller districts, while many districts fall below 60% participation, including several larger districts. In order to ensure that every student that needs a meal is eating breakfast, Texas needs to not only have a statewide breakfast participation of 60%, but also a district-wide participation of 60%. If every school district in Texas reached this goal of serving FRP breakfast to 60% of students eating FRP lunch, the state would receive $46,672,962 in additional reimbursement. This would serve FRP breakfast to an additional 186,558 low-income students each day. For example, Figure 1 shows the largest amounts of additional federal funding that school districts would receive if they reached a 60% FRP participation in the SBP. Texas’ success in increasing participation in the School Breakfast Program over the past few years has largely been due to the implementation of alternative service models in schools. Schools with a high percentage of FRP eligible students are encouraged to explore the use of one of these alternative models for serving breakfast. Serving universal breakfast is another way to increase participation; it has been proven cost effective as well.43 Everyone in the district can be involved in increasing breakfast participation in their schools. The next section outlines some ways that each member of the district can help.

Children are our most valuable resource.

-Herbert Hoover

17


ADDITIONAL STATEWIDE PARTICIPATION AND FUNDING IF 60 LOW-INCOME (FREE AND REDUCED-PRICE) STUDENTS WERE SERVED SCHOOL BREAKFAST (SBP) PER 100 SERVED SCHOOL LUNCH (NSLP) School Year 2011-2012 Actual Total Free and Reduced-Price (FRP) SBP Students

Total FRP Students if 60 SBP per 100 NSLP

FRP Students in SBP per 100 NSLP

Additional FRP Students if 60 SBP per 100 NSLP

Additional Annual Federal Funding if 60 SBP per 100 NSLP FRP Students

2009-2010

1,274,651

1,357,026

56.36

82,376

$20,613,295

2010-2011

1,363,320

1,401,675

58.36

38,355

$9,580,957

2011-2012

1,402,157

1,410,845

59.63

8,688

$2,152,341

ADDITIONAL PARTICIPATION AND FUNDING IF 60 LOW-INCOME (FREE AND REDUCED-PRICE) STUDENTS WERE SERVED SCHOOL BREAKFAST (SBP) PER 100 SERVED SCHOOL LUNCH (NSLP) School Year 2011-2012

Additional FRP Students if 60 SBP per 100 NSLP

District

Additional Annual Federal Funding if 60 SBP per 100 NSLP FRP Students

DALLAS ISD

15,704

$3,933,443.51

FORT WORTH ISD

9,031

$2,239,595.81

AUSTIN ISD

6,818

$1,712,115.97

GARLAND ISD

6,099

$1,534,608.66

MESQUITE ISD

6,079

$1,528,147.58

NORTH EAST ISD

5,814

$1,461,424.99

NORTHSIDE ISD (San Antonio)

5,402

$1,344,161.69

ARLINGTON ISD

4,933

$1,286,464.71

PASADENA ISD

4,941

$1,207,129.78

FORT BEND ISD

4,584

$1,166,260.76

Figure 1

18


Total  Student  Enrollment  in  Texas   Number  of  Students  

 5,900,000      5,700,000      5,500,000      5,300,000      5,100,000      4,900,000      4,700,000      4,500,000    

2010  

2011  

2012  

Percentage  of  FRP  Eligible  Students   Par7cipa7ng  in  SBP   62%  

%  FRP  

60%   58%   56%   54%   52%  

2010  

2011  

2012  

Number  of  Students  Eligible  for  FRP   School  Breakfast  Program   Number  of  Students  

 3,300,000      3,200,000      3,100,000      3,000,000      2,900,000      2,800,000    

2010  

2011  

2012  

19


GOALS FOR TEXAS (cont.) SUPERINTENDENTS As a school superintendent you can help prepare students for success by promoting and supporting the School Breakfast Program in your community. Healthy eating patterns are essential for students to achieve their full academic potential, optimal physical and mental development, and lifelong health and well-being. School nutrition programs positively influence students’ eating habits. Students need your voice to reinforce the importance of the School Breakfast Program in your district. With your support, students will have access to healthy breakfast options through the School Breakfast Program. Strategies for Success: •

Let staff and the community know that you value and enthusiastically support a healthy school nutrition environment, including the School Breakfast Program. Let your actions reflect your values.

Require a breakfast program in every school.

Support non-traditional serving options to encourage participation (such as in-classroom breakfast, Second Chance Breakfast, Grab and Go, Breakfast on the Bus, etc.).

Expanding school breakfast participation requires involvement from the entire school community. Although everyone working with students will likely benefit from the improved educational performance, behavior, and health of their students, implementing change brings challenges. Because of these challenges, leaders may encounter resistance on the part of the school community. Below are strategies to help ensure support from principals, teachers school nutrition staff, building engineers, and families.

PRINCIPALS Principals play an important role in implementing or expanding the School Breakfast Program. They lead teachers in the development of successful students. They are role models for students and the leaders in the educational community. Principals can influence the success of the School Breakfast Program as well as the success of their students. For instance, some schools serve breakfast on test days because studies show an improvement in performance when students have eaten breakfast. However, breakfast is important every school day. Students must be alert and learn skills throughout the school year to do well on standardized tests. Strategies for Success:

20

Share research with teachers, staff, parents, and students on the importance of increasing breakfast participation in schools.

Host meetings to provide more information on the alternative models for serving breakfast that are available to your school.

Encourage teachers to be creative by incorporating in-classroom breakfast into the curriculum and morning activities.


TEACHERS Teachers have multiple roles within the school environment and are important supporters in implementing a successful school breakfast program. The studies mentioned in this report show that eating a healthy breakfast improves attention span, academic performance, and classroom behavior. In schools that have implemented alternative models for serving breakfast, teachers have found the longterm benefits far outweigh their initial concerns. In breakfast expansion efforts, particularly methods that involve serving in-classroom breakfast, teachers may be concerned about: Will my workload increase? Teachers may be concerned that their workloads will increase if they are responsible for monitoring breakfast, especially if it is served in the classroom. However, if a meal count is taken while taking attendance, teachers find that their workloads do not change. In addition, many teachers have found creative ways to incorporate educational activities into breakfast time, such as reading aloud or math puzzles. Some elementary, home economics, health education, and physical education teachers even choose to integrate school breakfast and nutrition education into their curriculum. Will in-classroom breakfast take away from instructional time? No matter the service model being used, breakfast can take as little as 2 minutes (Grab and Go), 10 minutes (Breakfast in the Classroom), or as long as the time available (Traditional Breakfast, Breakfast on the Bus). Will in-classroom breakfast cause disruption and mess? When breakfast is served in the classroom, food service staff provide garbage bags, paper towels, and other cleaning supplies for students to use. Students assist in clean-up after eating their nutritious meals. This model of serving can limit both work and cleanup for everyone. Strategies for Success: •

Discuss the importance of school breakfast with other teachers.

Share the research which shows that students behave and perform better after school breakfast.

Invite an educator from a school that has already implemented the program to speak to school staff about school breakfast and answer questions. Texas FRAC ranking: Low-Income Student Participation in School Breakfast Program and National School Lunch Program 2001-2002

6th

2002-2003

7th

2003-2004

5th

2004-2005

7th

2005-2006

11th

2006-2007

12th

2007-2008

11th

2008-2009

10th

2009-2010

7th

2010-2011

7th

See Food Research & Action Center’s School Breakfast Scorecards from 2001-2011.

21


SCHOOL NUTRITION STAFF As discussed earlier, nutrition services in school districts are the key to providing students with nutritious breakfast in the morning. Most school nutrition staff are eager to find ways to expand their meal service and will be able to determine the best breakfast service model for each school. Strategies for Success: •

Request a meeting with the school nutrition director in the district to begin planning breakfast expansion.

Discuss the different service models and determine which model is most appropriate for each school.

BUILDING ENGINEERS The role of building engineers may change when a school implements Breakfast in the Classroom or any service model where students eat outside the cafeteria. However, many building engineers find that their workloads do not increase. In addition, building engineers often appreciate that expanding breakfast makes a positive difference in the school environment and are happy to participate. Strategies for Success: •

Work with building engineers to ensure that cleanup and waste removal will be planned and monitored.

PARENTS Some parents enjoy eating breakfast with their children at home, but for many families a lack of resources or busy morning routines make sitting down to eat as a family unrealistic in the morning. For this reason many parents and guardians of children not currently participating in the program may be pleased that their child will now be receiving a free or low-cost meal at school. Even if a school already serves breakfast, many families may not realize that eating breakfast at school is an option. Strategies for Success: •

Send a letter to all parents informing them about the availability of school breakfast and announcing any changes in your school breakfast program such as serving all meals free in the classroom.

Record automated calls informing parents of changes in your breakfast program.

Adapted from USDA, Dairy MAX, and Texas Hunger Initiative’s “Backing Breakfast: Starting the Day Right!” Resource Guide. For additional information on the expanding the School Breakfast Program, see the resource guide at www.baylor.edu/ content/services/document.php/178235.pdf

22


SUCCESS STORIES All across the state, many school districts are doing an exemplary job increasing breakfast participation in their schools. Below are just a few examples of school districts that have seen the positive effects of increasing school breakfast through the implementation of various alternative service models. DIMMITT INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT Dimmitt Independent School District is a small rural district in Castro County with about 1,200 students enrolled in the elementary, middle, and high school. The district began serving Breakfast in the Classroom (BIC) in 2002 due to low participation in the School Breakfast Program. The Child Nutrition Department staff implemented BIC in the middle school with the hopes of increasing the number of students eating breakfast in the morning. Dimmitt Middle School now has not only the highest breakfast participation rate, but also the highest attendance rate in the district (96%). The elementary school and high school serve traditional, before the bell breakfast in the cafeteria. The district also has an alternative school that serves Grab and Go breakfast in the morning. Charles Ketchum, Director of Child Nutrition, and Larry Garcia, Assistant Director of Child Nutrition, both agree that Breakfast in the Classroom is their most effective program. Ketchum and Garcia have been approved by the USDA for Early Adoption of the new requirements for breakfast under the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, and to receive 6 cents per meal in additional funding. Ketchum says his district is capable of meeting the new regulations and is excited about starting the new service this 2012-2013 school year.

23


IRVING INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT Irving Independent School District is a mid-sized urban district in Dallas County with approximately 35,000 students. In 2002, Food & Nutrition Services (F&NS) department staff, in partnership with campusbased staff, realized that “hunger [among children] was there” and was creating a barrier to education, and thus they decided to do something about it. As a result, Britain Elementary and Schulze Elementary Schools began school year 2002-2003 as the first two schools in the district to serve BIC to their students. A great success, BIC soon spread to other Irving ISD schools. Currently, Irving ISD serves BIC in 18 of their 20 elementary schools (and all three early childhood schools), with plans of expanding the program to the other two elementary schools in the near future. The F&NS department staff developed their BIC model from the ground up. Breakfast is prepared in the schools’ kitchens and delivered to the classrooms (before the start of the school day) in insulated ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ containers. Students pick up their breakfasts on their way into the classrooms and the teachers check their names on a roster. Teachers give announcements, pass back papers, and chat with the students as they eat for 15-20 minutes. Trash is thrown away and placed in the hallways to be picked up by the custodial staff. Unused food is put in specially marked containers to be picked up by F&NS staff. After breakfast, the kitchen F&NS staff check the meal counts against both leftover foods and the teachers’ rosters, and report to the F&NS department for claiming purposes.

Serving BIC is a “win-win” for everyone involved in the schools According to Michael Rosenberger, director of the F&NS department, Breakfast in the Classroom is his favorite program. When asked if it is worth the trial and error process, he responds with an enthusiastic yes. Serving BIC is a “win-win” for everyone involved in the schools he says. The nurses are freed up to take care of sick children because they have fewer visits from hungry children. Teachers experience fewer tardies and better classroom behavior. The cafeterias are available for student programs in the morning, because no cleanup from breakfast is necessary. Michael says that the staff, teachers, and administrators willingly use class time for BIC and put in the effort to help the students. BIC is worth the effort because everyone benefits: staff, teachers, administrators, and students. In short, we all know, and research tells us, that hungry students do not learn. The chief benefit of BIC is that, by providing healthy breakfasts to hungry students, hunger as a barrier to the educational process is eliminated. BIC “levels the playing field” for all students, aiding to prepare all students for educational excellence. Irving ISD’s BIC program is just one example of how the district lives its motto as a place “where children come first.” 24


SUCCESS STORIES (cont.) ABILENE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT Abilene Independent School District (AISD) is a small to mid-sized suburban district in Taylor County. AISD has approximately 16,900 students. Two years ago AISD implemented a BIC pilot program at an elementary campus with a 65% participation in free and reduced-price lunch. At the end of the first year BIC was expanded to another school and then two more the following year. AISD follows the alternative method of delivering hot breakfasts to the classroom during the first fifteen minutes of class.. Each delivery cart feeds 3-5 classes. The teachers’ responsibilities are limited to moving students to the hall to receive breakfast and placing the trash in the hall after the students finish eating. The success of the BIC program has been shown through fewer visits to the nurses’ offices, positive feedback from parents, and students arriving on time to school more regularly. Currently, AISD is serving BIC at a total of six schools with the hopes of expanding to two more by the end of the 2012-2013 school year. The increase of the number of breakfast served to students has been more than 50% at each site. By taking this program on slowly, they have been able to educate teachers and staff so that implementation can be as efficient as possible.

DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT Dallas Independent School District is a large urban district with 158,126 students. The district implemented in-classroom breakfast in the 2011-2012 school year, beginning with 13 schools and expanding to 61 schools. Their program’s mission is to reach every student every day through the alternative service models of Grab and Go and Breakfast in the Classroom. After implementing in-classroom breakfast in a few schools, Dora Rivas took the idea to the superintendent and key community supports such as USDA, Dairy Max, and the Texas Hunger Initiative. The idea was then presented to the school board, highlighting the community support for the program. The school board agreed that these alternative service models were ideal and should be expanded to more schools. From here, cafeteria supervisors and operational specialists were trained on the BIC model and its delivery methods. To further develop the program and raise awareness, Dallas ISD partnered with Acson America, a Hispanic community activist organization, to host breakfast meetings with principals. Dallas ISD Child Nutrition Services also spoke with school site based decision making teams to discuss BIC, presented at local organizations’ meetings and events, and hosted a community breakfast event at one of the schools during National School Breakfast week. For the 2012-2013 school year, Dallas ISD is developing training and promotional videos for BIC. They are also seeking feedback from students and teachers to show how BIC fosters student achievement. Finally, they are hosting promotional contests which encourage schools to promote BIC for a chance to win a visit from their Food and Child Nutrition Services mascot or to have lunch with an unannounced special guest. Overall, the success of BIC in Dallas ISD has spurred the district on to expand to more schools and increase participation across the board.

25


FINANCIAL SUPPORT Dairy MAX is a nonprofit organization affiliated with the National Dairy Council and funded by the dairy farming families in Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and southwest Kansas. Dairy MAX is a longtime supporter of the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs and has supported schools by allocating checkoff funds to provide nutrition education programs for teachers, expanding breakfast grants at the district level, and promoting school programs such as Fuel Up to Play 60. Dairy MAX has funds available for schools participating in the School Breakfast Program. These funds can help schools achieve the nutrition and academic benefits of greater breakfast participation through the establishment of an alternative service model such as Breakfast in the Classroom.

The goal of an expanded breakfast grant program is to increase average daily breakfast participation 50 percent or more by instituting one of the following alternative models for serving breakfast: •

Breakfast in the Classroom

Grab and Go Breakfast

Breakfast After First Period

Funds can be used to start and operate the expanded breakfast program but funds cannot be used for food, labor, or routine disposable items.

Examples of how funds can be used: •

Equipment such as mobile carts, kiosks, insulated bags, tables, warmers, milk barrels, coolers, etc.

Supplies such as trays, bins, clipboards, trash receptacles, etc.

Marketing tools such as posters, signs, brochures, parent mailings, promotional paper bags, etc.

Visit Dairy MAX at www.dairymax.org or call (800) 332-4790 to learn more.

26


TECHNICAL NOTES The data in this report are collected from the Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA). Due to rounding, the numbers in the tables may not add up to 100 percent. STUDENT PARTICIPATION Student participation data for the 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011-2012 school years are based on daily averages of number of breakfasts and lunches served during the school year, as provided by TDA.

SCHOOL PARTICIPATION Tables that display data from 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011-2012 school years only display schools or districts that reported breakfast data to TDA for the three consecutive years. Schools with free and reduced-price eligibility of 10% or higher are required to report to TDA the number of meals served each month. At the end of every year, these numbers are added up to make total meals served for the school year. This report includes Independent School Districts, public schools, charter schools, private schools, residential child care institutions, and any other institution that reported data to TDA. If an institution is not listed, they did not report data and are not serving breakfast. County level data counts all schools of the school district, even if they include schools from other counties, in the county where the district office is located

STATEWIDE DATA This report uses the Food Research & Action Center’s (FRAC) goal of a ratio of 60 children receiving free or reduced-price breakfast for every 100 children receiving free or reduced-price lunch. This report used the FRAC’s School Breakfast Calculator to calculate the number of additional children who would be reached if each state reached this 60:100 ratio. The Calculator then multiplies this unserved population by the reimbursement rate for the number of school days of breakfast. Days of service for breakfast and lunch are inputted manually for each school year. Average Daily Participation (ADP), and dollars lost for the 2011-2012 school year were calculated using FRAC’s School Breakfast Calculator. FRAC assumes each state’s mix of free and reduced-price students would apply to any new participants, and conservatively assumes that no additional student’s meal is reimbursed at the higher rate that severe need schools receive.

DISTRICT-WIDE DATA The same method used to calculate statewide data was used to calculate district-wide data for number of additional children needed to reach a 60:100 breakfast to lunch ratio, as well as dollars lost.

27


Free and Reduced-Price (FRP) Eligibility and School Breakfast Program (SBP) Participation Rates by County and District APPENDIX A

28


Free and Reduced-Price (FRP) Eligibility and School Breakfast Program (SBP) Participation Rates by County and District 2009-2010

2010-2011

% Total Participation in SBP

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

2011-2012

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

% Total Participation in SBP

% Change in FRP Eligible Students

% Change in FRP Eligbile Students Participating in SBP

County and District

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

ANDERSON

58.9%

45.0%

36.4%

58.3%

37.2%

29.0%

60.4%

32.1%

24.1%

1.5%

-12.9%

CAYUGA ISD

38.5%

30.4%

23.5%

38.9%

34.7%

17.8%

38.2%

25.5%

19.8%

-0.4%

-4.9%

ELKHART ISD

49.0%

23.2%

17.8%

56.3%

19.4%

29.0%

52.5%

19.9%

14.2%

3.5%

-3.4%

FRANKSTON ISD

54.8%

33.6%

25.1%

55.6%

34.6%

26.3%

57.9%

37.8%

27.8%

3.1%

4.2%

NECHES ISD

47.5%

41.7%

34.0%

43.0%

39.9%

20.8%

41.8%

42.9%

34.1%

-5.7%

1.2%

PALESTINE ISD

72.3%

65.4%

59.5%

66.4%

45.4%

50.3%

70.8%

31.2%

23.1%

-1.4%

-34.2%

SLOCUM ISD

47.3%

45.7%

35.2%

49.3%

42.4%

22.7%

48.8%

40.3%

32.3%

1.5%

-5.3%

WESTWOOD ISD

55.9%

32.2%

24.1%

56.7%

35.4%

46.1%

61.1%

37.0%

27.5%

5.1%

4.8%

ANDREWS

52.4%

22.9%

18.4%

53.9%

22.8%

18.9%

52.8%

25.8%

21.2%

0.4%

2.9%

ANDREWS ISD

52.4%

22.9%

18.4%

53.9%

22.8%

23.7%

52.8%

25.8%

21.2%

0.4%

2.9%

ANGELINA

68.9%

33.3%

24.5%

69.2%

34.3%

25.7%

67.0%

45.0%

35.5%

-2.0%

11.7%

CENTRAL ISD

56.5%

24.6%

17.8%

58.7%

25.7%

9.5%

54.3%

27.7%

20.2%

-2.2%

3.1%

DIBOLL ISD

76.0%

34.4%

26.9%

78.4%

36.8%

19.0%

74.7%

43.9%

36.8%

-1.3%

9.5%

HUDSON ISD

59.3%

40.0%

29.0%

58.0%

42.3%

42.8%

60.1%

41.5%

30.3%

0.8%

1.5%

HUNTINGTON ISD

54.8%

31.7%

23.9%

55.1%

30.2%

32.9%

55.6%

32.3%

24.1%

0.8%

0.6%

LUFKIN ISD

75.7%

32.4%

23.7%

76.1%

34.5%

30.5%

72.4%

53.9%

44.7%

-3.3%

21.5%

PINEYWOODS COMMUNITY ACADEMY

65.0%

34.9%

26.3%

59.2%

27.6%

25.9%

60.5%

27.7%

20.7%

-4.5%

-7.2%

ZAVALLA ISD

63.3%

27.3%

20.7%

63.4%

24.5%

18.5%

61.1%

26.8%

20.6%

-2.3%

-0.5%

ARANSAS

66.8%

35.7%

28.1%

66.8%

36.4%

29.9%

63.5%

39.7%

31.7%

-3.2%

4.1%

ARANSAS COUNTY ISD

68.2%

36.8%

29.0%

68.2%

36.1%

20.8%

64.8%

39.5%

30.9%

-3.4%

2.7%

SACRED HEART SCHOOL-ROCKPORT

39.1%

9.6%

9.5%

38.2%

42.9%

83.1%

36.1%

48.6%

45.1%

-3.0%

39.0%

ARCHER

36.9%

37.0%

29.4%

36.6%

35.5%

28.4%

36.9%

32.1%

26.6%

-0.1%

-4.9%

ARCHER CITY ISD

37.9%

34.0%

30.0%

36.4%

35.0%

50.3%

40.0%

31.7%

30.4%

2.1%

-2.4%

HOLLIDAY ISD

28.2%

25.8%

19.0%

26.8%

26.3%

25.9%

26.0%

21.9%

16.5%

-2.2%

-3.9%

WINDTHORST ISD

51.4%

50.8%

43.1%

55.3%

42.0%

36.8%

53.9%

39.9%

36.2%

2.5%

-11.0%

ARMSTRONG

39.9%

26.5%

20.8%

40.4%

32.8%

25.2%

42.3%

34.0%

26.4%

2.4%

7.5%

CLAUDE ISD

39.9%

26.5%

20.8%

40.4%

32.8%

30.5%

42.3%

34.0%

26.4%

2.4%

7.5%

ATASCOSA

72.2%

41.0%

39.4%

72.8%

56.7%

59.5%

70.0%

54.9%

54.7%

-2.2%

13.9%

ATASCOSA COUNTY JUVENILE JUSTICE CENTER

96.7%

14.4%

42.9%

68.2%

21.1%

25.0%

86.4%

15.0%

30.8%

-10.3%

0.6%

CHARLOTTE ISD

85.7%

47.1%

50.3%

85.1%

50.7%

46.4%

74.2%

59.7%

57.8%

-11.5%

12.7%

JOURDANTON ISD

65.9%

66.5%

68.2%

65.1%

60.7%

46.1%

58.1%

61.7%

60.3%

-7.8%

-4.8%

LYTLE ISD

72.5%

45.6%

42.8%

72.5%

47.7%

36.4%

70.7%

49.1%

44.4%

-1.8%

3.5%

PLEASANTON ISD

67.6%

35.9%

32.9%

68.6%

75.2%

23.0%

68.9%

66.1%

68.1%

1.2%

30.2%

POTEET ISD

80.6%

29.4%

25.0%

84.1%

30.7%

49.1%

79.8%

33.7%

30.2%

-0.9%

4.3%

AUSTIN

48.2%

35.5%

26.6%

51.5%

34.4%

25.5%

52.6%

34.6%

25.6%

4.5%

-0.9%

BELLVILLE ISD

42.1%

37.4%

27.7%

44.9%

33.6%

24.0%

46.3%

32.8%

23.9%

4.2%

-4.5%

30

% Total Participation in SBP

Change from 2009-2012

Counties are represented in gray


2009-2010

2010-2011

% Total Participation in SBP

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

2011-2012

% Total Participation in SBP

Change from 2009-2012

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

% Total Participation in SBP

% Change in FRP Eligible Students

% Change in FRP Eligbile Students Participating in SBP

County and District

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

BRAZOS ISD

53.7%

39.1%

30.5%

58.8%

39.4%

51.6%

55.7%

37.6%

29.3%

2.0%

-1.5%

SEALY ISD

51.3%

33.2%

24.8%

54.7%

33.1%

4.7%

56.9%

34.8%

25.7%

5.6%

1.6%

BAILEY

82.2%

54.1%

46.4%

83.5%

58.1%

49.4%

83.1%

57.1%

48.4%

0.8%

2.9%

MULESHOE ISD

82.2%

54.1%

46.4%

83.5%

58.1%

36.5%

83.0%

57.1%

48.4%

0.8%

2.9%

BANDERA

53.0%

33.3%

25.6%

52.7%

29.8%

23.0%

51.6%

29.4%

22.3%

-1.4%

-3.9%

BANDERA ISD

52.7%

33.6%

25.9%

53.1%

29.6%

26.4%

52.2%

28.9%

21.8%

-0.5%

-4.7%

MEDINA ISD

55.5%

31.8%

24.0%

50.0%

30.7%

20.8%

46.2%

35.8%

27.1%

-9.3%

4.0%

BASTROP

64.9%

32.8%

24.9%

66.6%

34.7%

26.5%

67.6%

32.8%

24.9%

2.7%

0.0%

BASTROP ISD

65.1%

30.1%

22.7%

67.0%

32.4%

46.1%

68.1%

30.5%

23.0%

3.0%

0.4%

ELGIN ISD

68.7%

36.6%

27.5%

69.0%

38.2%

23.0%

69.4%

35.0%

26.2%

0.7%

-1.6%

MCDADE ISD

68.7%

57.6%

51.6%

68.0%

58.7%

0.0%

70.1%

64.9%

56.0%

1.5%

7.3%

SMITHVILLE ISD

55.0%

33.6%

26.4%

58.6%

35.8%

27.1%

60.9%

34.8%

27.4%

5.9%

1.2%

BAYLOR

53.6%

28.9%

21.9%

53.0%

27.7%

20.6%

56.0%

29.5%

21.3%

2.4%

0.6%

SEYMOUR ISD

53.6%

28.9%

21.9%

53.0%

27.7%

27.1%

56.0%

29.5%

21.3%

2.4%

0.6%

BEE

77.5%

50.2%

46.3%

75.5%

50.0%

45.6%

68.9%

47.6%

40.4%

-8.6%

-2.6%

BEEVILLE ISD

81.2%

49.2%

46.1%

77.6%

47.8%

23.0%

71.0%

46.1%

38.0%

-10.2%

-3.1%

PAWNEE ISD

82.5%

76.7%

83.1%

79.6%

77.6%

19.8%

65.2%

81.8%

77.3%

-17.3%

5.1%

PETTUS ISD

69.9%

41.9%

36.4%

68.1%

40.1%

18.8%

67.1%

41.2%

33.2%

-2.8%

-0.6%

SKIDMORE-TYNAN ISD

64.7%

55.2%

49.4%

69.2%

60.9%

6.1%

59.2%

51.0%

45.6%

-5.5%

-4.2%

ST MARY ACADEMY

78.1%

49.2%

42.9%

76.5%

43.7%

10.0%

75.8%

48.5%

42.4%

-2.3%

-0.7%

BELL

54.7%

32.2%

24.8%

56.1%

31.6%

24.2%

56.1%

33.1%

25.0%

1.4%

0.9%

ACADEMY ISD

43.1%

27.1%

23.0%

41.7%

32.7%

36.5%

38.6%

33.8%

26.3%

-4.5%

6.7%

BARTLETT ISD

74.6%

53.7%

49.1%

69.7%

60.8%

32.6%

71.2%

57.7%

50.4%

-3.3%

4.0%

BELL COUNTY JUVENILE BOARD

100.0%

37.0%

24.6%

100.0%

46.3%

19.7%

100.0%

47.1%

31.4%

0.0%

10.1%

BELTON ISD

48.8%

44.9%

33.8%

49.7%

40.5%

0.0%

48.4%

42.5%

31.5%

-0.4%

-2.4%

HOLLAND ISD

51.5%

44.6%

36.5%

53.1%

41.9%

24.6%

52.7%

42.7%

35.6%

1.1%

-1.9%

KILLEEN ISD

54.1%

26.7%

20.8%

55.5%

26.7%

1.2%

55.6%

29.0%

21.9%

1.5%

2.3%

ROGERS ISD

47.6%

42.4%

32.6%

50.3%

36.5%

10.9%

52.6%

34.3%

26.6%

5.0%

-8.1%

SALADO ISD

27.7%

27.0%

19.7%

25.1%

24.3%

58.6%

27.6%

26.7%

19.1%

-0.1%

-0.4%

ST MARY'S SCHOOL

10.6%

0.0%

0.0%

6.5%

0.0%

15.7%

7.2%

0.0%

0.0%

-3.4%

0.0%

TEMPLE ISD

70.7%

42.1%

31.4%

74.7%

41.3%

0.0%

76.1%

40.0%

30.6%

5.4%

-2.0%

THE TEMPLE EDUCATION CENTER

84.8%

45.3%

45.0%

76.5%

55.3%

12.0%

62.7%

46.8%

38.1%

-22.0%

1.5%

TROY ISD

46.6%

41.0%

31.5%

46.8%

49.5%

20.6%

50.7%

43.8%

35.0%

4.2%

2.8%

BEXAR

63.8%

44.0%

34.1%

64.7%

44.3%

34.6%

62.6%

43.0%

33.2%

-1.2%

-0.9%

ACADEMY OF AMERICA DBA BEXAR COUNTY ACADEMY

92.5%

51.5%

35.2%

97.9%

60.1%

33.0%

94.0%

43.8%

34.6%

1.4%

-7.7%

31


2009-2010

2010-2011

% Total Participation in SBP

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

2011-2012

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

% Total Participation in SBP

% Change in FRP Eligible Students

% Change in FRP Eligbile Students Participating in SBP

County and District

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

ACADEMY OF CAREERS & TECHNOLOGIES

46.9%

5.5%

4.7%

43.4%

7.8%

24.6%

41.3%

15.1%

11.4%

-5.6%

9.6%

ALAMO HEIGHTS ISD

21.9%

28.8%

19.8%

22.8%

24.7%

9.7%

24.0%

24.2%

16.7%

2.1%

-4.6%

BAPTIST CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

100.0%

28.3%

18.8%

100.0%

36.5%

1.2%

100.0%

39.1%

26.0%

0.0%

10.8%

BEXAR COUNTY JUVENILE PROBATION DEPARTMENT

100.0%

49.4%

33.0%

100.0%

41.0%

27.1%

100.0%

45.7%

30.5%

0.0%

-3.7%

BOYSVILLE INC

100.0%

36.9%

24.6%

100.0%

31.6%

25.3%

100.0%

30.7%

20.5%

0.0%

-6.2%

BROOKS ACADEMY OF SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

67.5%

12.8%

9.7%

57.1%

19.8%

87.1%

76.0%

23.0%

22.8%

8.5%

10.2%

CITY CENTER HEALTH CAREERS

57.3%

28.4%

24.2%

69.9%

22.8%

10.9%

77.7%

10.0%

8.7%

20.4%

-18.4%

CLARITY CHILD GUIDANCE CENTER

88.4%

1.3%

1.2%

88.6%

1.2%

10.0%

75.8%

35.0%

27.5%

-12.7%

33.7%

EAST CENTRAL ISD

64.4%

34.5%

27.1%

65.7%

33.1%

30.2%

67.1%

36.4%

29.1%

2.7%

1.9%

EDGEWOOD ISDSAN ANTONIO

91.0%

71.8%

71.2%

91.3%

70.2%

58.6%

91.0%

70.0%

69.2%

0.0%

-1.8%

FT SAM HOUSTON ISD

35.9%

27.1%

21.2%

32.1%

27.7%

12.7%

34.7%

26.6%

21.5%

-1.3%

-0.4%

GEORGE GERVIN ACADEMY

75.9%

37.7%

25.3%

40.5%

39.5%

9.9%

98.4%

37.2%

29.4%

22.5%

-0.5%

HARLANDALE ISD

86.6%

89.2%

87.1%

86.6%

91.4%

19.3%

87.1%

89.3%

88.8%

0.5%

0.1%

HARMONY SCIENCE ACAD (SAN ANTONIO)

41.2%

8.3%

6.1%

53.6%

22.7%

24.8%

57.6%

19.9%

15.6%

16.4%

11.7%

HEALY MURPHY CENTER INC

85.1%

5.9%

10.9%

85.1%

10.7%

0.0%

5.3%

12.3%

8.3%

-79.8%

6.5%

HENRY FORD ACADEMY-SAN ANTONIO

56.8%

10.3%

10.0%

64.4%

13.7%

12.0%

68.3%

22.6%

17.7%

11.6%

12.3%

HOLY NAME CATHOLIC SCHOOL

17.4%

35.7%

26.8%

26.4%

35.2%

20.6%

41.3%

47.6%

33.6%

23.9%

11.9%

JOHN H. WOOD JR. CHARTER SCHOOL

92.2%

45.4%

30.2%

57.0%

25.0%

36.7%

100.0%

42.4%

28.2%

7.8%

-3.0%

JUBILEE ACADEMIC CENTER

86.9%

54.2%

58.6%

92.2%

55.7%

50.4%

76.8%

52.8%

51.7%

-10.1%

-1.3%

JUDSON ISD

63.9%

34.3%

30.9%

66.7%

35.9%

37.1%

66.7%

37.1%

34.3%

2.8%

2.9%

KIPP: SAN ANTONIO

79.9%

90.5%

87.8%

80.0%

52.1%

11.6%

85.2%

37.0%

29.9%

5.3%

-53.5%

LACKLAND ISD

32.4%

14.6%

12.7%

41.4%

7.4%

17.4%

32.6%

15.1%

11.4%

0.2%

0.5%

LIGHTHOUSE CHARTER SCHOOL

90.2%

37.9%

40.3%

93.2%

36.9%

28.0%

90.4%

40.7%

36.6%

0.2%

2.8%

LITTLE FLOWER SCHOOL

40.0%

12.3%

9.9%

38.6%

13.6%

50.3%

52.7%

0.0%

0.0%

12.7%

-12.3%

NEW FRONTIERS CHARTER SCHOOL, S.A.

89.7%

21.2%

15.7%

92.5%

20.2%

61.2%

92.5%

24.0%

17.4%

2.8%

2.8%

32

% Total Participation in SBP

Change from 2009-2012


2009-2010

2010-2011

% Total Participation in SBP

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

2011-2012

% Total Participation in SBP

Change from 2009-2012

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

% Total Participation in SBP

% Change in FRP Eligible Students

% Change in FRP Eligbile Students Participating in SBP

County and District

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

NORTH EAST ISD

44.9%

25.4%

19.3%

45.9%

23.3%

46.1%

47.4%

23.1%

17.6%

2.6%

-2.3%

NORTHSIDE ISDSAN ANTONIO

50.1%

31.5%

24.8%

51.8%

32.9%

2.1%

55.1%

31.9%

25.5%

5.0%

0.3%

OUR LADY OF PERPETUAL HELP

5.4%

0.0%

0.0%

7.2%

0.0%

0.0%

5.9%

0.0%

0.0%

0.4%

0.0%

POR VIDA ACAD CHARTER H S

88.4%

14.0%

12.0%

91.9%

12.3%

0.0%

89.7%

7.7%

6.9%

1.3%

-6.2%

RADIANCE ACADEMY OF LEARNING

83.0%

27.0%

20.6%

84.2%

25.2%

24.8%

79.0%

30.8%

25.2%

-4.0%

3.8%

RANDOLPH FIELD ISD

11.7%

24.2%

18.3%

9.6%

24.8%

0.0%

9.6%

22.5%

16.8%

-2.1%

-1.7%

ROY MAAS YOUTH ALTERNATIVES, INC

100.0%

25.8%

17.2%

100.0%

30.3%

0.0%

100.0%

31.4%

20.9%

0.0%

5.6%

SAN ANTONIO CAN/America Can

83.5%

39.9%

36.7%

86.7%

32.9%

37.5%

91.7%

33.4%

55.6%

8.2%

-6.4%

SAN ANTONIO ISD

91.1%

57.5%

50.4%

91.8%

59.0%

11.0%

91.5%

56.6%

51.9%

0.4%

-0.9%

SAN ANTONIO SCHOOL FR INQUIRY

82.9%

45.9%

37.1%

86.8%

37.5%

25.8%

92.4%

34.8%

37.0%

9.5%

-11.1%

SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE ED

90.6%

51.9%

48.0%

84.9%

75.6%

51.7%

82.5%

57.3%

56.0%

-8.1%

5.5%

SCHOOL OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

45.6%

15.8%

11.6%

46.4%

27.3%

29.6%

52.3%

26.0%

20.0%

6.7%

10.2%

SCHOOL OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DISCOVERY

63.7%

23.6%

17.4%

63.4%

61.9%

45.0%

62.2%

18.1%

14.2%

-1.5%

-5.5%

SHEKINAH RADIANCE ACADEMY

77.4%

37.1%

28.0%

80.0%

29.0%

39.6%

3.8%

26.3%

17.6%

-73.5%

-10.8%

SOMERSET ISD

83.1%

51.9%

50.3%

82.8%

48.6%

33.9%

83.8%

49.7%

48.8%

0.6%

-2.1%

SOUTH SAN ANTONIO ISD

87.8%

61.3%

59.3%

87.8%

66.7%

41.7%

87.8%

64.1%

62.0%

0.0%

2.7%

SOUTHSIDE ISD

76.7%

68.3%

61.2%

83.4%

56.3%

32.8%

80.8%

56.7%

54.1%

4.1%

-11.7%

SOUTHWEST ISD

86.5%

46.8%

46.1%

85.3%

48.2%

33.7%

84.5%

47.9%

46.6%

-2.0%

1.2%

SOUTHWEST PREPARATORY SCHOOL

60.3%

2.9%

2.1%

84.2%

2.9%

27.0%

62.7%

8.6%

6.5%

2.5%

5.7%

ST CECILIA'S CHURCH

57.1%

0.0%

0.0%

57.1%

42.9%

39.0%

50.4%

41.1%

31.5%

-6.7%

41.1%

ST GREGORY THE GREAT CATHOLIC CHURCH

9.6%

0.0%

0.0%

8.1%

0.0%

29.9%

10.5%

0.0%

0.0%

0.9%

0.0%

ST JAMES THE APOSTLE CATHOLIC CHURCH

41.4%

0.0%

0.0%

41.1%

60.4%

33.2%

55.3%

35.6%

27.0%

13.8%

35.6%

ST JOHN BERCHMAN'S SCHOOL

56.0%

30.4%

22.1%

51.6%

18.2%

31.4%

53.3%

36.8%

26.6%

-2.7%

6.4%

ST LEO'S SCHOOL

60.5%

31.5%

24.8%

68.0%

20.2%

23.6%

67.6%

21.7%

15.6%

7.1%

-9.8%

ST LUKE'S CATHOLIC CHURCH

3.4%

0.0%

0.0%

3.6%

0.0%

27.8%

2.0%

0.0%

0.0%

-1.4%

0.0%

ST MARGARET MARY'S CHURCH

35.5%

0.0%

0.0%

35.6%

0.0%

24.4%

36.1%

14.8%

10.9%

0.6%

14.8%

Counties are represented in gray

33


2009-2010

2010-2011

% Total Participation in SBP

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

2011-2012

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

% Total Participation in SBP

% Change in FRP Eligible Students

% Change in FRP Eligbile Students Participating in SBP

County and District

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

ST MARY MAGDALEN CATHOLIC CHURCH

54.8%

16.9%

13.7%

56.9%

12.7%

25.8%

54.7%

15.4%

13.4%

-0.1%

-1.6%

ST MATTHEW CATHOLIC SCHOOL

2.3%

0.0%

0.0%

2.5%

0.0%

21.9%

1.8%

0.0%

0.0%

-0.6%

0.0%

ST PAUL'S CATHOLIC SCHOOL

19.6%

0.0%

0.0%

27.2%

0.0%

59.0%

27.6%

0.0%

0.0%

8.0%

0.0%

ST PETER - ST JOSEPH CHILDREN'S HOME

100.0%

47.9%

31.9%

100.0%

43.9%

36.7%

100.0%

42.5%

28.4%

0.0%

-5.4%

ST PHILIP OF JESUS SCHOOL- DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY OF ST VINCENT DE

32.3%

0.0%

0.0%

36.4%

0.0%

26.1%

44.9%

0.0%

0.0%

12.6%

0.0%

ST PIUS X SCHOOLSAN ANTONIO

7.5%

0.0%

0.0%

8.4%

0.0%

21.7%

10.0%

0.0%

0.0%

2.5%

0.0%

T.O.P. MINISTRIES INC/ TRUDY M PEREZ

55.2%

31.9%

37.5%

47.0%

34.9%

11.0%

51.0%

33.6%

33.3%

-4.1%

1.7%

THE CHILDREN'S SHELTER OF SAN ANTONIO

100.0%

16.5%

11.0%

100.0%

23.5%

28.1%

100.0%

22.3%

14.8%

0.0%

5.7%

YOUTH EMPOWERMENT SERVICES INC.

96.1%

75.2%

72.4%

88.1%

67.9%

67.9%

93.0%

66.5%

61.0%

-3.1%

-8.8%

BLANCO

45.0%

34.3%

25.8%

47.8%

34.5%

26.4%

49.6%

34.4%

25.9%

4.6%

0.1%

BLANCO ISD

47.4%

35.3%

25.8%

50.0%

34.8%

39.6%

53.2%

34.3%

25.6%

5.9%

-0.9%

JOHNSON CITY ISD

41.7%

33.2%

25.8%

44.8%

34.0%

18.9%

44.8%

34.5%

26.4%

3.1%

1.3%

BORDEN

35.9%

57.0%

51.7%

35.7%

58.1%

52.4%

36.5%

52.9%

47.9%

0.6%

-4.2%

BORDEN COUNTY ISD

35.9%

57.0%

51.7%

35.7%

58.1%

41.7%

36.5%

52.9%

47.9%

0.6%

-4.2%

BOSQUE

61.5%

42.0%

32.7%

62.4%

42.8%

33.3%

63.1%

42.6%

33.4%

1.6%

0.7%

CLIFTON ISD

53.8%

39.8%

29.6%

55.8%

34.2%

27.0%

53.9%

39.0%

30.0%

0.0%

-0.8%

CRANFILLS GAP ISD

75.9%

50.2%

45.0%

77.2%

61.1%

39.0%

84.0%

45.6%

46.2%

8.1%

-4.6%

IREDELL ISD

56.1%

47.3%

39.6%

64.0%

45.6%

24.4%

59.7%

42.6%

35.2%

3.6%

-4.7%

KOPPERL ISD

72.4%

35.3%

30.8%

76.1%

40.7%

27.4%

71.7%

48.4%

38.7%

-0.7%

13.0%

MERIDIAN ISD

67.4%

44.3%

33.9%

63.9%

44.8%

59.0%

69.5%

36.7%

28.7%

2.1%

-7.6%

MORGAN ISD

86.7%

45.9%

41.7%

81.6%

56.8%

26.1%

95.3%

47.2%

38.2%

8.7%

1.4%

VALLEY MILLS ISD

52.5%

41.0%

32.8%

55.1%

49.9%

40.1%

55.9%

42.3%

34.2%

3.5%

1.3%

WALNUT SPRINGS ISD

82.6%

43.8%

33.7%

81.7%

48.0%

41.4%

82.8%

62.9%

44.8%

0.3%

19.2%

BOWIE

57.0%

37.7%

27.9%

58.9%

37.3%

27.8%

60.8%

35.9%

26.5%

3.8%

-1.8%

HOOKS ISD

56.6%

36.0%

27.0%

57.3%

36.7%

36.7%

58.7%

35.5%

26.1%

2.1%

-0.5%

HUBBARD ISD-DE KALB

69.1%

48.0%

39.0%

70.6%

34.1%

21.7%

60.2%

45.3%

37.9%

-8.9%

-2.7%

LEARY ISD

56.1%

38.8%

29.9%

58.0%

31.4%

28.1%

60.7%

31.8%

24.0%

4.5%

-7.1%

LIBERTY-EYLAU ISD

74.0%

41.5%

33.2%

76.4%

40.6%

22.8%

77.4%

43.7%

35.2%

3.4%

2.2%

MAUD ISD

49.2%

40.1%

31.4%

54.9%

30.2%

21.8%

49.6%

35.8%

27.9%

0.4%

-4.4%

34

% Total Participation in SBP

Change from 2009-2012

Counties are represented in gray


2009-2010

2010-2011

% Total Participation in SBP

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

2011-2012

% Total Participation in SBP

Change from 2009-2012

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

% Total Participation in SBP

% Change in FRP Eligible Students

% Change in FRP Eligbile Students Participating in SBP

County and District

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

PLEASANT GROVE ISD

24.0%

26.7%

18.9%

23.8%

29.0%

49.0%

29.9%

19.7%

13.9%

5.9%

-7.0%

SIMMS ISD

54.9%

31.5%

23.6%

54.9%

31.7%

35.2%

59.9%

30.8%

22.6%

5.0%

-0.7%

TEXARKANA ISD

58.7%

37.6%

27.8%

60.9%

37.5%

27.3%

62.5%

35.7%

26.3%

3.8%

-1.8%

BRAZORIA

46.0%

34.7%

26.4%

47.2%

35.5%

27.0%

46.7%

35.3%

26.5%

0.7%

0.6%

ALVIN ISD

53.9%

31.7%

24.4%

55.8%

33.8%

59.0%

52.8%

34.1%

25.9%

-1.1%

2.4%

ANGLETON ISD

62.3%

32.4%

25.8%

60.1%

36.2%

26.1%

57.7%

38.6%

29.3%

-4.7%

6.2%

BRAZORIA COUNTY JUVENILE PROBATION DEPT.

100.0%

32.9%

21.9%

100.0%

30.6%

11.0%

100.0%

34.6%

23.1%

0.0%

1.7%

BRAZOSPORT ISD

56.6%

36.5%

27.4%

57.4%

36.2%

28.1%

58.1%

35.0%

26.5%

1.5%

-1.5%

COLUMBIA-BRAZORIA ISD

49.4%

66.9%

59.0%

54.2%

57.6%

21.8%

56.2%

54.4%

48.1%

6.8%

-12.5%

DAMON ISD

78.6%

44.0%

36.7%

72.4%

55.3%

75.2%

71.7%

54.0%

45.5%

-6.9%

10.1%

DANBURY ISD

29.1%

34.3%

26.1%

30.5%

27.9%

49.0%

31.4%

34.6%

26.8%

2.3%

0.3%

PEARLAND ISD

24.8%

29.7%

21.7%

26.4%

30.0%

35.7%

27.8%

28.9%

21.2%

3.0%

-0.8%

SWEENY ISD

50.6%

31.0%

23.1%

53.3%

35.0%

39.0%

53.1%

36.4%

27.3%

2.6%

5.4%

BRAZOS

56.6%

35.5%

25.6%

57.1%

35.5%

25.7%

57.5%

35.9%

25.8%

0.9%

0.4%

BRAZOS COUNTY JUVENILE SERVICES

100.0%

16.5%

11.0%

100.0%

16.4%

44.0%

99.0%

14.6%

9.7%

-1.0%

-1.9%

BRYAN ISD

70.4%

37.5%

28.1%

71.6%

38.2%

72.1%

70.9%

38.7%

28.8%

0.5%

1.2%

COLLEGE STATION ISD

32.8%

32.6%

22.8%

33.4%

30.1%

68.5%

34.4%

30.1%

21.2%

1.6%

-2.5%

THE BRAZOS SCH INQ & CREATIVITY

97.4%

28.8%

21.8%

94.3%

31.5%

16.4%

91.9%

34.8%

24.9%

-5.5%

6.0%

BREWSTER

57.1%

52.2%

48.9%

55.4%

49.9%

46.7%

54.2%

50.3%

45.2%

-2.9%

-1.9%

ALPINE ISD

55.4%

51.5%

47.6%

53.9%

46.4%

72.1%

52.0%

46.5%

41.7%

-3.5%

-5.0%

MARATHON ISD

58.0%

67.6%

75.2%

65.4%

75.0%

27.3%

72.2%

42.1%

59.2%

14.2%

-25.5%

TERLINGUA CSD

70.3%

48.5%

49.0%

66.7%

66.5%

61.1%

67.9%

71.6%

67.2%

-2.5%

23.1%

BRISCOE

58.9%

49.6%

44.0%

61.6%

51.5%

47.5%

60.6%

41.1%

42.0%

1.7%

-8.5%

SILVERTON ISD

58.9%

49.6%

44.0%

61.6%

51.5%

29.4%

60.6%

41.1%

42.0%

1.7%

-8.5%

BROOKS

82.0%

65.4%

71.8%

82.1%

44.2%

49.1%

80.0%

42.6%

44.5%

-2.1%

-22.8%

BROOKS ISD

82.0%

65.7%

72.1%

82.3%

43.7%

43.9%

80.0%

42.6%

44.5%

-2.0%

-23.1%

BROWN

60.6%

49.0%

40.8%

61.5%

45.8%

38.6%

61.7%

43.5%

35.7%

1.1%

-5.5%

BANGS ISD

56.8%

55.6%

49.0%

56.9%

50.5%

41.4%

56.2%

42.9%

35.4%

-0.6%

-12.7%

BLANKET ISD

72.1%

66.5%

68.5%

69.7%

67.3%

43.9%

69.8%

65.8%

65.3%

-2.3%

-0.6%

BROOKESMITH ISD

51.6%

69.1%

60.9%

54.4%

63.7%

45.6%

58.5%

46.7%

41.9%

6.9%

-22.5%

BROWNWOOD ISD

65.8%

49.6%

40.1%

68.8%

44.1%

36.1%

67.5%

43.7%

36.4%

1.6%

-5.8%

EARLY ISD

50.1%

33.7%

27.0%

43.9%

35.8%

25.6%

46.9%

35.6%

27.3%

-3.2%

2.0%

MAY ISD

57.5%

48.6%

41.4%

57.6%

45.7%

39.0%

53.5%

42.6%

35.7%

-4.0%

-6.0%

ZEPHYR ISD

55.5%

52.5%

43.9%

69.0%

48.0%

41.1%

78.9%

44.0%

35.4%

23.5%

-8.6%

BURLESON

55.5%

47.7%

36.9%

61.1%

43.9%

33.7%

59.2%

39.3%

29.6%

3.7%

-8.4%

CALDWELL ISD

50.7%

48.2%

35.7%

56.5%

40.9%

37.7%

54.5%

37.6%

26.8%

3.8%

-10.6%

SNOOK ISD

61.9%

43.6%

35.2%

68.6%

38.8%

25.3%

67.3%

41.2%

32.0%

5.4%

-2.3%

35


2009-2010

2010-2011

% Total Participation in SBP

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

2011-2012

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

% Total Participation in SBP

% Change in FRP Eligible Students

% Change in FRP Eligbile Students Participating in SBP

County and District

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

SOMERVILLE ISD

68.1%

48.3%

45.6%

71.3%

60.1%

36.4%

68.8%

41.9%

39.8%

0.7%

-6.4%

BURNET

57.7%

40.0%

32.9%

60.2%

40.7%

33.4%

59.8%

42.1%

34.9%

2.1%

2.1%

BURNET CONS ISD

57.1%

40.5%

36.1%

59.2%

41.8%

66.1%

58.8%

47.5%

42.6%

1.7%

6.9%

MARBLE FALLS ISD

58.2%

39.2%

29.9%

60.9%

39.3%

72.4%

60.7%

37.1%

27.9%

2.5%

-2.1%

CALDWELL

69.7%

36.3%

28.0%

70.7%

51.7%

45.2%

72.4%

64.5%

59.7%

2.7%

28.2%

LOCKHART ISD

68.9%

35.5%

27.3%

70.1%

53.3%

61.1%

72.1%

72.0%

69.0%

3.2%

36.6%

LULING ISD

68.1%

34.0%

25.6%

68.4%

37.7%

74.3%

68.7%

32.7%

24.5%

0.5%

-1.3%

PEGASUS SCHOOLS INC

100.0%

42.7%

28.5%

100.0%

44.3%

65.2%

100.0%

43.6%

29.1%

0.0%

0.9%

PRAIRIE LEA ISD

69.8%

40.4%

37.7%

75.1%

68.1%

61.8%

78.9%

58.7%

63.4%

9.1%

18.3%

CALHOUN

60.9%

29.9%

22.3%

64.6%

26.3%

19.7%

60.8%

25.0%

18.4%

0.0%

-4.9%

CALHOUN CO ISD

61.3%

30.4%

22.7%

65.1%

26.7%

29.2%

61.5%

25.5%

18.8%

0.2%

-5.0%

OUR LADY OF THE GULF CHURCH

42.2%

0.0%

0.0%

41.7%

0.0%

22.2%

30.2%

0.0%

0.0%

-12.0%

0.0%

CALLAHAN

52.7%

39.3%

31.9%

54.2%

38.9%

32.7%

56.8%

33.1%

27.7%

4.1%

-6.2%

BAIRD ISD

61.8%

70.1%

66.1%

59.3%

78.3%

25.0%

62.8%

63.8%

61.0%

1.0%

-6.3%

CLYDE CONS ISD

47.3%

35.4%

26.7%

50.2%

30.6%

72.4%

51.4%

24.3%

18.2%

4.1%

-11.1%

CROSS PLAINS ISD

60.2%

27.9%

21.1%

66.7%

39.2%

61.1%

69.9%

26.6%

21.0%

9.6%

-1.3%

EULA ISD

57.9%

42.5%

39.0%

53.3%

47.9%

44.2%

59.9%

49.7%

48.3%

2.0%

7.2%

CAMERON

82.2%

45.0%

36.7%

82.7%

49.7%

41.4%

85.6%

57.0%

48.6%

3.4%

12.0%

AMIKIDS RIO GRANDE VALLEY

100.0%

35.9%

24.0%

100.0%

17.2%

29.4%

100.0%

50.0%

33.3%

0.0%

14.1%

BROWNSVILLE ISD

84.5%

33.8%

25.0%

84.4%

39.4%

61.8%

90.6%

56.4%

44.5%

6.1%

22.6%

HARLINGEN CONS ISD

78.9%

36.3%

29.2%

81.5%

45.5%

36.4%

76.7%

46.0%

39.7%

-2.2%

9.7%

HARMONY SCIENCE ACADEMY - BROWNSVILLE

67.2%

19.6%

16.4%

65.2%

18.2%

40.8%

76.4%

26.5%

21.3%

9.2%

6.9%

INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICES INC

100.0%

44.1%

29.4%

100.0%

46.8%

33.4%

100.0%

47.5%

31.7%

0.0%

3.4%

LA FERIA ISD

87.1%

71.1%

72.4%

87.5%

69.8%

22.6%

87.2%

71.3%

72.1%

0.1%

0.1%

LOS FRESNOS CONS ISD

83.6%

64.5%

61.1%

83.6%

63.7%

86.5%

82.9%

61.4%

57.3%

-0.7%

-3.1%

POINT ISABEL ISD

83.4%

75.8%

74.3%

82.7%

85.4%

37.0%

84.0%

85.8%

85.3%

0.6%

10.0%

RIO HONDO ISD

75.8%

75.0%

61.8%

75.8%

75.7%

19.1%

82.5%

73.9%

66.7%

6.7%

-1.1%

SAN BENITO CONS ISD

81.4%

51.6%

44.2%

81.1%

54.0%

84.9%

85.0%

53.3%

47.9%

3.7%

1.7%

SANTA MARIA ISD

88.4%

78.9%

65.2%

94.6%

70.9%

30.5%

94.4%

63.6%

64.9%

6.0%

-15.3%

SANTA ROSA ISD

87.7%

67.3%

61.8%

86.6%

79.6%

81.0%

88.7%

76.6%

72.1%

1.0%

9.3%

SOUTH TEXAS ISD

59.4%

29.9%

22.2%

61.8%

29.1%

36.4%

72.0%

27.5%

21.9%

12.6%

-2.4%

CAMP

77.5%

34.0%

25.3%

76.6%

34.9%

26.2%

74.8%

28.9%

21.3%

-2.7%

-5.1%

PITTSBURG ISD

77.5%

34.0%

25.3%

76.6%

34.9%

50.6%

74.8%

28.9%

21.3%

-2.7%

-5.1%

CARSON

31.9%

42.1%

36.8%

33.9%

41.3%

36.4%

35.9%

37.7%

31.8%

4.0%

-4.4%

GROOM ISD

39.6%

27.4%

25.3%

29.1%

47.7%

33.9%

38.3%

30.4%

28.8%

-1.2%

3.1%

PANHANDLE ISD

26.6%

40.6%

36.4%

30.0%

40.2%

19.8%

28.2%

35.1%

29.2%

1.6%

-5.5%

36

% Total Participation in SBP

Change from 2009-2012


2009-2010

2010-2011

% Total Participation in SBP

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

2011-2012

% Total Participation in SBP

Change from 2009-2012

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

% Total Participation in SBP

% Change in FRP Eligible Students

% Change in FRP Eligbile Students Participating in SBP

County and District

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

WHITE DEER ISD

38.9%

49.4%

40.8%

42.6%

39.2%

25.4%

48.4%

42.8%

36.6%

9.5%

-6.6%

CASS

61.7%

43.8%

35.3%

62.2%

42.4%

33.7%

61.9%

39.5%

30.3%

0.1%

-4.3%

ATLANTA ISD

66.7%

49.3%

40.1%

67.7%

50.3%

86.5%

67.8%

44.3%

33.1%

1.1%

-5.0%

AVINGER ISD

77.0%

43.3%

33.4%

82.6%

53.0%

16.4%

78.6%

57.6%

50.8%

1.6%

14.4%

HUGHES SPRINGS ISD

59.3%

51.5%

42.8%

62.2%

42.0%

19.8%

62.2%

39.5%

31.9%

3.0%

-12.0%

MCLEOD ISD

52.0%

29.3%

25.9%

47.1%

30.9%

84.9%

50.1%

29.5%

24.3%

-1.9%

0.2%

QUEEN CITY ISD

57.4%

30.2%

22.6%

56.8%

30.6%

36.4%

55.1%

31.3%

22.9%

-2.4%

1.1%

CASTRO

70.7%

70.8%

63.0%

70.7%

74.9%

65.7%

74.4%

77.8%

70.9%

3.7%

7.0%

DIMMITT ISD

77.5%

89.1%

86.5%

77.5%

91.4%

50.6%

81.5%

87.4%

91.6%

4.0%

-1.6%

HART ISD

82.4%

22.8%

16.4%

84.5%

21.0%

84.9%

87.3%

61.8%

54.6%

4.9%

39.1%

NAZARETH ISD

20.2%

8.8%

9.3%

19.6%

14.8%

49.6%

20.3%

19.3%

16.1%

0.1%

10.5%

CHAMBERS

36.0%

40.8%

32.0%

35.7%

38.2%

30.0%

36.9%

41.4%

32.0%

0.8%

0.5%

ANAHUAC ISD

51.5%

44.0%

37.0%

52.3%

47.0%

52.9%

53.1%

52.1%

43.3%

1.7%

8.1%

BARBERS HILL ISD

23.7%

36.1%

28.3%

25.4%

28.5%

50.6%

26.0%

31.6%

24.9%

2.3%

-4.5%

EAST CHAMBERS ISD

59.4%

44.5%

33.9%

53.2%

46.4%

84.9%

57.9%

47.2%

35.0%

-1.5%

2.7%

CHEROKEE

74.4%

41.5%

34.2%

75.7%

42.2%

35.0%

74.6%

41.5%

33.6%

0.2%

0.0%

ALTO ISD

72.2%

27.6%

19.1%

74.1%

29.2%

36.4%

70.3%

33.6%

22.9%

-1.9%

6.0%

JACKSONVILLE ISD

79.5%

33.5%

24.9%

81.0%

33.6%

62.4%

79.2%

33.0%

24.0%

-0.3%

-0.5%

NEW SUMMERFIELD ISD

92.3%

53.7%

52.9%

91.1%

57.3%

12.2%

91.2%

57.9%

53.7%

-1.1%

4.2%

RUSK ISD

59.3%

57.5%

50.6%

61.3%

59.2%

32.0%

62.4%

56.0%

49.2%

3.1%

-1.5%

WELLS ISD

74.7%

48.3%

36.4%

70.5%

44.4%

33.5%

67.5%

44.5%

34.5%

-7.2%

-3.8%

CHILDRESS

54.8%

26.4%

19.8%

57.9%

25.6%

19.3%

56.2%

56.9%

50.4%

1.4%

30.4%

CHILDRESS ISD

54.8%

26.4%

19.8%

57.9%

25.6%

49.6%

56.2%

56.9%

50.4%

1.4%

30.4%

CLAY

48.3%

72.4%

75.5%

53.3%

70.3%

66.1%

46.5%

70.4%

70.8%

-1.8%

-2.0%

BELLEVUE ISD

50.3%

32.8%

26.1%

58.9%

35.1%

84.2%

47.8%

39.9%

31.0%

-2.5%

7.1%

BYERS ISD

57.4%

87.0%

89.0%

54.6%

86.1%

62.4%

47.2%

62.0%

68.7%

-10.3%

-25.0%

HENRIETTA ISD

44.0%

78.6%

84.9%

52.8%

76.5%

32.0%

45.7%

78.3%

81.5%

1.7%

-0.3%

MIDWAY ISDHENRIETTA

51.4%

37.4%

30.5%

55.8%

35.7%

5.2%

45.7%

49.2%

40.0%

-5.6%

11.8%

PETROLIA ISD

52.9%

79.6%

81.0%

51.5%

82.4%

25.3%

47.8%

70.9%

69.4%

-5.1%

-8.6%

COCHRAN

67.9%

68.0%

63.8%

67.2%

66.3%

61.6%

68.6%

69.4%

66.1%

0.7%

1.4%

MORTON ISD

75.8%

87.7%

84.2%

74.5%

81.6%

25.3%

77.6%

85.6%

84.5%

1.8%

-2.1%

WHITEFACE CONS ISD

54.7%

36.6%

36.4%

54.3%

40.7%

34.9%

54.2%

44.5%

43.6%

-0.6%

7.9%

COKE

54.6%

51.0%

42.9%

54.4%

49.8%

44.2%

57.3%

50.9%

46.3%

2.8%

-0.1%

BRONTE ISD

51.1%

56.9%

49.6%

49.3%

54.9%

25.4%

49.1%

60.7%

55.6%

-2.0%

3.8%

ROBERT LEE ISD

59.0%

44.9%

34.5%

60.6%

45.1%

22.6%

67.6%

42.2%

35.0%

8.6%

-2.7%

COLEMAN

67.0%

60.3%

55.6%

65.9%

58.0%

54.1%

65.6%

57.2%

52.6%

-1.4%

-3.0%

COLEMAN ISD

59.7%

68.1%

62.4%

61.0%

64.6%

24.4%

59.4%

67.0%

61.2%

-0.3%

-1.1%

NOVICE ISD

94.1%

38.8%

37.0%

90.3%

48.8%

49.6%

89.9%

38.5%

25.7%

-4.2%

-0.3%

Counties are represented in gray

37


2009-2010

2010-2011

% Total Participation in SBP

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

2011-2012

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

% Total Participation in SBP

% Change in FRP Eligible Students

% Change in FRP Eligbile Students Participating in SBP

County and District

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

PANTHER CREEK CONS ISD

69.9%

57.9%

48.6%

69.8%

58.5%

22.6%

71.3%

58.5%

51.7%

1.4%

0.7%

SANTA ANNA ISD

81.4%

50.6%

42.6%

71.3%

44.0%

37.3%

75.3%

44.5%

35.9%

-6.1%

-6.2%

COLLIN

23.4%

25.2%

17.9%

24.9%

24.5%

17.5%

21.2%

25.3%

17.8%

-2.2%

0.0%

ALLEN ISD

17.1%

17.4%

12.2%

17.0%

18.2%

24.4%

17.5%

16.2%

11.4%

0.4%

-1.2%

ANNA ISD

41.5%

33.7%

25.4%

44.7%

33.3%

10.8%

45.8%

31.8%

23.8%

4.4%

-1.9%

BLUE RIDGE ISD

49.5%

43.1%

32.0%

51.6%

48.5%

5.2%

51.9%

46.0%

35.2%

2.4%

2.8%

CELINA ISD

32.8%

32.0%

22.5%

32.1%

37.4%

24.8%

31.5%

37.0%

26.4%

-1.4%

5.1%

COMMUNITY ISD

36.8%

32.4%

24.4%

35.4%

35.5%

22.6%

38.3%

28.4%

21.3%

1.5%

-4.0%

FARMERSVILLE ISD

47.7%

41.9%

32.0%

49.7%

41.8%

22.6%

2.7%

40.1%

26.9%

-45.1%

-1.7%

FRISCO ISD

13.6%

15.0%

10.8%

14.4%

14.3%

33.5%

13.2%

15.2%

10.8%

-0.4%

0.3%

LOVEJOY ISD

2.6%

6.6%

5.2%

2.3%

2.6%

22.2%

2.6%

9.2%

6.8%

0.0%

2.6%

MCKINNEY ISD

32.0%

24.7%

18.2%

33.8%

22.0%

31.3%

30.5%

34.0%

24.3%

-1.4%

9.3%

MELISSA ISD

23.2%

36.3%

25.3%

26.4%

33.4%

34.9%

23.6%

34.4%

24.2%

0.4%

-1.9%

PLANO ISD

23.5%

25.7%

17.9%

26.8%

26.6%

28.4%

29.1%

23.2%

16.8%

5.6%

-2.6%

PRINCETON ISD

58.5%

32.2%

24.8%

61.3%

34.0%

89.5%

58.6%

33.0%

24.4%

0.1%

0.8%

PROSPER ISD

15.3%

30.9%

22.6%

14.6%

24.2%

25.8%

14.3%

23.0%

16.7%

-0.9%

-8.0%

WYLIE ISD-WYLIE

26.6%

29.1%

21.3%

27.7%

25.5%

18.8%

27.6%

24.4%

17.6%

0.9%

-4.7%

COLLINGSWORTH

66.6%

27.0%

20.2%

65.3%

25.8%

19.5%

66.7%

21.3%

16.4%

0.1%

-5.7%

SAMNORWOOD ISD

77.0%

52.7%

49.6%

75.0%

52.8%

16.5%

51.9%

70.8%

60.0%

-25.1%

18.1%

WELLINGTON ISD

64.7%

20.1%

14.1%

64.2%

21.3%

38.6%

67.4%

19.5%

14.5%

2.7%

-0.6%

COLORADO

58.6%

36.5%

26.8%

58.9%

36.4%

26.8%

60.1%

34.0%

25.0%

1.6%

-2.5%

COLUMBUS ISD

56.7%

30.0%

22.6%

56.3%

34.2%

31.3%

57.5%

33.3%

24.7%

0.8%

3.3%

RICE CONS ISD

73.3%

44.6%

33.5%

75.5%

42.4%

43.6%

77.6%

38.0%

29.2%

4.4%

-6.6%

ST ANTHONY'S SCHOOL

6.9%

0.0%

0.0%

7.0%

0.0%

41.2%

3.4%

0.0%

0.0%

-3.5%

0.0%

ST MICHAEL'S CATHOLIC SCHOOL

8.6%

0.0%

0.0%

7.7%

0.0%

68.2%

5.6%

0.0%

0.0%

-2.9%

0.0%

WEIMAR ISD

57.4%

32.0%

24.1%

56.8%

28.4%

43.0%

56.1%

25.6%

19.8%

-1.3%

-6.4%

COMAL

37.3%

31.4%

23.3%

38.6%

30.0%

22.2%

36.2%

32.1%

23.6%

-1.0%

0.7%

COMAL ISD

34.5%

33.0%

24.7%

35.9%

32.7%

27.2%

33.4%

36.8%

27.0%

-1.2%

3.7%

NEW BRAUNFELS ISD

42.7%

28.0%

20.4%

44.0%

24.8%

62.1%

42.1%

23.5%

16.9%

-0.6%

-4.5%

ST JUDE'S RANCH FOR CHILDREN -TEXAS REGION, INC.

100.0%

33.3%

22.2%

100.0%

34.2%

43.0%

100.0%

50.0%

33.3%

0.0%

16.7%

ST JUDE'S RANCH FOR CHILDREN, A TEXAS NONPROFIT CORP

100.0%

47.0%

31.3%

100.0%

44.4%

51.2%

100.0%

42.9%

28.6%

0.0%

-4.1%

COMANCHE

67.7%

42.0%

35.8%

67.0%

45.7%

37.5%

66.4%

38.3%

31.1%

-1.3%

-3.7%

COMANCHE ISD

69.5%

43.0%

34.9%

68.9%

46.8%

62.9%

67.1%

40.1%

33.2%

-2.4%

-2.8%

DE LEON ISD

61.7%

39.5%

37.3%

56.6%

45.7%

15.0%

57.6%

29.5%

22.9%

-4.1%

-10.0%

38

% Total Participation in SBP

Change from 2009-2012

Counties are represented in gray


2009-2010

2010-2011

% Total Participation in SBP

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

2011-2012

% Total Participation in SBP

Change from 2009-2012

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

% Total Participation in SBP

% Change in FRP Eligible Students

% Change in FRP Eligbile Students Participating in SBP

County and District

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

GUSTINE ISD

81.8%

45.4%

35.8%

86.1%

45.6%

20.3%

85.1%

47.5%

42.8%

3.3%

2.2%

SIDNEY ISD

58.5%

36.3%

28.4%

74.3%

37.4%

17.8%

68.5%

36.7%

33.1%

9.9%

0.4%

CONCHO

65.5%

60.4%

50.2%

66.1%

56.3%

46.1%

65.7%

58.6%

53.3%

0.2%

-1.8%

EDEN CONS ISD

59.2%

34.7%

27.2%

59.5%

31.8%

16.5%

62.8%

22.8%

19.6%

3.6%

-11.9%

PAINT ROCK ISD

77.1%

90.6%

89.5%

77.8%

88.7%

68.2%

68.6%

87.2%

84.2%

-8.5%

-3.4%

COOKE

54.3%

49.7%

38.4%

57.4%

42.9%

34.3%

57.8%

46.9%

36.9%

3.5%

-2.9%

CALLISBURG ISD

56.9%

32.6%

25.8%

59.4%

30.3%

62.1%

57.1%

30.7%

24.0%

0.2%

-1.9%

ERA ISD

35.1%

17.3%

14.4%

53.0%

16.6%

19.6%

42.2%

25.8%

19.7%

7.1%

8.5%

GAINESVILLE ISD

80.1%

68.9%

62.9%

81.3%

63.1%

27.3%

78.3%

65.2%

58.9%

-1.9%

-3.7%

LINDSAY ISD

8.3%

33.0%

25.7%

8.4%

19.5%

83.9%

12.3%

20.0%

16.2%

4.0%

-13.0%

MUENSTER ISD

20.2%

20.0%

15.0%

18.0%

17.9%

43.0%

17.9%

15.2%

11.0%

-2.3%

-4.7%

SIVELLS BEND ISD

52.1%

49.2%

43.6%

47.8%

52.6%

15.8%

62.5%

41.0%

41.6%

10.4%

-8.2%

ST MARY SCHOOL

17.7%

0.0%

0.0%

18.5%

0.0%

22.2%

29.7%

0.0%

0.0%

12.1%

0.0%

VALLEY VIEW ISDVALLEY VIEW

43.3%

22.2%

16.5%

46.4%

17.6%

37.8%

45.3%

19.0%

14.7%

2.0%

-3.2%

WALNUT BEND ISD

77.9%

73.1%

62.1%

77.8%

53.6%

26.4%

69.2%

72.9%

73.6%

-8.7%

-0.3%

CORYELL

50.7%

26.7%

20.7%

49.7%

27.8%

21.5%

50.8%

28.0%

21.7%

0.1%

1.4%

COPPERAS COVE ISD

50.5%

26.2%

20.3%

49.7%

28.1%

68.2%

50.4%

28.5%

22.1%

-0.1%

2.3%

EVANT ISD

71.1%

36.3%

33.3%

62.8%

40.3%

84.9%

57.4%

41.2%

34.1%

-13.7%

4.9%

GATESVILLE ISD

49.2%

26.0%

19.6%

48.2%

25.0%

40.3%

50.7%

22.7%

16.9%

1.5%

-3.3%

JONESBORO ISD

40.9%

36.7%

33.0%

43.9%

34.9%

16.8%

47.8%

64.0%

61.5%

6.9%

27.4%

OGLESBY ISD

67.4%

34.7%

27.3%

63.9%

31.5%

47.8%

69.6%

35.0%

26.6%

2.2%

0.2%

COTTLE

61.7%

33.8%

26.6%

69.3%

30.8%

24.4%

54.3%

40.0%

28.7%

-7.4%

6.2%

PADUCAH ISD

61.7%

33.8%

26.6%

69.3%

30.8%

37.4%

54.3%

40.0%

28.7%

-7.4%

6.2%

CRANE

48.3%

41.5%

41.2%

47.8%

38.7%

39.3%

46.2%

16.5%

12.2%

-2.1%

-24.9%

CRANE ISD

48.3%

41.5%

41.2%

47.8%

38.7%

40.3%

46.2%

16.5%

12.2%

-2.1%

-24.9%

CROCKETT

61.9%

44.9%

38.6%

60.9%

49.6%

47.2%

59.6%

30.3%

29.6%

-2.3%

-14.6%

CROCKETT CO CONS ISD

61.9%

44.9%

38.6%

60.9%

49.6%

17.8%

59.6%

30.3%

29.6%

-2.3%

-14.6%

CROSBY

77.9%

81.0%

79.5%

79.4%

81.1%

76.9%

77.5%

80.0%

78.6%

-0.4%

-1.0%

CROSBYTON ISD

75.1%

70.7%

68.2%

77.5%

70.0%

16.6%

74.6%

66.7%

64.2%

-0.4%

-4.0%

LORENZO ISD

80.1%

82.5%

87.3%

80.5%

80.9%

21.0%

77.8%

84.1%

86.0%

-2.3%

1.7%

RALLS ISD

78.8%

87.6%

83.9%

80.0%

89.4%

37.8%

79.5%

85.4%

84.2%

0.7%

-2.1%

CULBERSON

78.8%

85.2%

84.9%

78.9%

87.2%

90.1%

77.3%

82.3%

86.3%

-1.6%

-2.9%

CULBERSON COUNTY-ALLAMORE ISD

78.8%

85.2%

84.9%

78.9%

87.2%

13.7%

77.3%

82.3%

86.3%

-1.6%

-2.9%

DALLAM

60.2%

51.2%

43.6%

60.9%

52.9%

44.8%

60.8%

50.1%

42.6%

0.6%

-1.1%

DALHART ISD

60.4%

50.1%

43.0%

60.4%

53.5%

47.8%

60.2%

49.8%

42.2%

-0.2%

-0.3%

TEXLINE ISD

58.3%

64.0%

51.2%

65.7%

46.8%

15.5%

68.2%

55.1%

48.5%

9.9%

-8.9%

DALLAS

71.6%

28.9%

21.9%

73.1%

28.5%

21.7%

73.5%

30.0%

23.1%

1.9%

1.1%

A.W. BROWNFELLOWSHIP

89.2%

37.0%

40.3%

83.7%

40.2%

16.8%

91.7%

39.0%

44.4%

2.5%

2.0%

39


2009-2010

2010-2011

% Total Participation in SBP

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

2011-2012

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

% Total Participation in SBP

% Change in FRP Eligible Students

% Change in FRP Eligbile Students Participating in SBP

County and District

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

ACADEMY OF AMERICA DBA ACADEMY OF DALLAS

97.2%

23.3%

17.8%

98.8%

19.5%

38.6%

90.6%

18.3%

13.5%

-6.6%

-5.0%

ADVANTAGE ACADEMY

59.4%

23.4%

16.6%

60.0%

22.7%

13.7%

61.2%

18.5%

13.1%

1.8%

-4.8%

ALPHA CHARTER SCHOOL

50.5%

17.3%

12.4%

47.7%

22.3%

47.8%

69.6%

19.2%

15.0%

19.1%

1.9%

CARROLLTONFARMERS BRANCH

60.1%

23.1%

16.8%

60.9%

20.7%

22.2%

62.5%

20.1%

14.5%

2.5%

-3.0%

CEDAR HILL ISD

56.2%

46.9%

38.6%

61.3%

42.1%

34.0%

63.8%

47.1%

42.9%

7.6%

0.3%

COPPELL ISD

12.0%

19.5%

13.7%

12.4%

20.7%

31.2%

12.3%

17.7%

12.4%

0.3%

-1.8%

DALLAS CAN! ACADEMY CHART SCH

93.3%

46.4%

47.8%

93.6%

73.7%

64.6%

94.4%

29.6%

42.1%

1.2%

-16.8%

DALLAS CENTER, INC

72.8%

0.0%

0.0%

74.0%

0.0%

26.4%

78.2%

0.0%

0.0%

5.4%

0.0%

DALLAS COMMUNITY CHARTER SCHOOL

58.5%

46.2%

37.4%

60.9%

41.0%

17.2%

61.8%

45.8%

37.6%

3.4%

-0.4%

DALLAS COUNTY JUVENILE DEPARTMENT

100.0%

23.8%

15.8%

100.0%

23.2%

25.1%

100.0%

26.1%

17.4%

0.0%

2.3%

DALLAS ISD

85.6%

27.5%

21.0%

87.1%

25.0%

16.1%

87.0%

30.4%

24.7%

1.4%

2.9%

DESOTO ISD

65.1%

29.0%

22.2%

66.5%

30.5%

17.2%

68.4%

31.9%

24.7%

3.3%

2.9%

DUNCANVILLE ISD

72.9%

40.0%

34.0%

75.1%

37.2%

6.9%

72.8%

36.2%

30.4%

-0.1%

-3.8%

EVOLUTION ACADEMY CHARTER

23.6%

44.3%

31.2%

40.4%

21.6%

39.1%

53.6%

3.0%

2.9%

30.0%

-41.2%

EXCELLENCE 2000 INC.

98.8%

56.8%

37.8%

91.0%

59.9%

50.4%

98.8%

47.0%

46.5%

0.0%

-9.7%

FAITH FAMILY KIDS INC DBA FAITH FAMILY ACADEMY OF OAK CLIFF

96.4%

60.2%

64.6%

97.8%

63.7%

23.6%

96.5%

83.3%

77.4%

0.1%

23.1%

FOCUS LEARNING ACADEMY

82.5%

31.5%

26.4%

79.2%

34.3%

11.1%

66.2%

33.4%

27.9%

-16.3%

1.9%

GARLAND ISD

56.6%

23.8%

17.2%

58.5%

24.0%

15.5%

62.6%

21.4%

15.6%

6.0%

-2.3%

GATEWAY CHARTER ACADEMY

91.2%

33.4%

25.1%

88.6%

30.5%

0.9%

90.1%

29.4%

20.8%

-1.1%

-4.0%

GOLDEN RULE CHARTER SCHOOL

96.4%

22.3%

16.1%

74.5%

40.1%

38.6%

99.2%

21.1%

18.2%

2.8%

-1.2%

GRAND PRAIRIE ISD

69.4%

22.7%

17.2%

71.4%

28.4%

34.6%

76.2%

29.0%

24.0%

6.8%

6.3%

HAMPTON PREPARATORY

81.4%

9.2%

6.9%

70.3%

13.3%

34.9%

71.9%

13.0%

10.4%

-9.6%

3.8%

HONORS ACADEMY

70.7%

22.9%

17.8%

73.0%

22.2%

15.7%

76.1%

33.0%

23.6%

5.4%

10.1%

IRVING ISD

78.3%

44.9%

39.1%

80.6%

46.3%

14.3%

80.5%

46.0%

39.8%

2.3%

1.1%

KIPP TRUTH ACADEMY

88.6%

66.8%

52.3%

88.6%

64.8%

31.3%

91.3%

67.3%

56.3%

2.6%

0.4%

LA ACADEMIA DE ESTRELLAS

87.3%

57.8%

50.4%

96.0%

49.3%

55.8%

93.8%

47.6%

39.5%

6.5%

-10.2%

40

% Total Participation in SBP

Change from 2009-2012


2009-2010

2010-2011

% Total Participation in SBP

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

2011-2012

% Total Participation in SBP

Change from 2009-2012

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

% Total Participation in SBP

% Change in FRP Eligible Students

% Change in FRP Eligbile Students Participating in SBP

County and District

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

LANCASTER ISD

81.3%

30.7%

23.6%

79.0%

36.6%

11.4%

80.3%

43.6%

38.3%

-1.0%

12.9%

LIFE SCHOOL

48.1%

15.8%

11.1%

49.0%

16.7%

0.0%

51.7%

18.4%

12.9%

3.6%

2.6%

MANARA ACADEMY

39.2%

41.9%

29.7%

42.7%

64.8%

0.0%

52.8%

60.2%

41.4%

13.6%

18.3%

MESQUITE ISD

65.8%

20.2%

15.5%

68.8%

19.6%

0.0%

69.1%

20.2%

15.4%

3.2%

0.1%

NEXUS RECOVERY CENTER, INC.

100.0%

1.3%

0.9%

100.0%

1.6%

0.0%

100.0%

31.8%

21.2%

0.0%

30.5%

NOVA CHARTER SCHOOL (SOUTHEAST)

91.8%

37.9%

39.8%

91.6%

39.8%

17.6%

90.4%

25.8%

23.4%

-1.5%

-12.1%

NOVA SCHOOLS, WEST OAK CLIFF

96.8%

32.8%

38.6%

93.2%

33.2%

83.7%

96.3%

24.7%

27.6%

-0.5%

-8.1%

OUR LADY OF PERPETUAL HELP CATHOLIC SCHOOL

78.7%

42.7%

34.6%

84.1%

49.3%

9.9%

87.9%

35.8%

27.8%

9.3%

-7.0%

PEAK PREPARATORY SCHOOL

91.2%

42.3%

34.9%

92.5%

48.4%

62.6%

25.0%

46.8%

31.5%

-66.2%

4.6%

PEGASUS SCHOOL OF LIBERAL ARTS AND SCIENCES

72.0%

12.1%

15.7%

78.2%

22.0%

44.7%

77.0%

21.0%

20.3%

5.0%

8.9%

PHOENIX HOUSES OF TEXAS, INC.

100.0%

31.7%

21.1%

100.0%

32.3%

49.3%

100.0%

32.8%

21.8%

0.0%

1.1%

RECONCILIATION SCHOLAR'S ACADEMY

94.4%

21.4%

14.3%

95.5%

14.3%

54.9%

94.7%

9.8%

6.5%

0.3%

-11.6%

RICHARDSON ISD

55.0%

32.9%

23.4%

56.0%

30.7%

53.0%

56.8%

31.2%

22.2%

1.8%

-1.7%

RYLIE FAMILY FAITH ACADEMY DBA A + ACADEMY

81.2%

18.2%

19.5%

70.1%

24.8%

0.0%

70.0%

29.9%

27.6%

-11.2%

11.7%

RYLIE FAMILY FAITH ACADEMY DBA INSPIRED VISION ACADEMY

91.1%

28.5%

31.3%

88.7%

41.2%

97.3%

89.4%

40.3%

43.2%

-1.7%

11.8%

SALESMANSHIP CLUB YOUTH AND FAMILY CENTERS, INC

75.9%

64.1%

55.8%

76.9%

50.9%

17.5%

75.8%

55.0%

55.7%

-0.1%

-9.1%

ST ANTHONY ACADEMY

64.9%

14.0%

11.4%

60.5%

22.0%

20.7%

67.5%

21.2%

15.9%

2.7%

7.2%

ST AUGUSTINE SCHOOL

55.8%

0.0%

0.0%

58.9%

8.1%

29.3%

74.5%

0.0%

0.0%

18.6%

0.0%

ST BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX SCHOOL

5.3%

0.0%

0.0%

10.3%

0.0%

22.6%

11.1%

0.0%

0.0%

5.9%

0.0%

ST CECILIA SCHOOL

50.3%

0.0%

0.0%

45.8%

0.0%

29.3%

44.2%

37.2%

29.7%

-6.0%

37.2%

ST MARY OF CARMEL SCHOOL

48.2%

0.0%

0.0%

51.0%

0.0%

25.6%

55.9%

0.0%

0.0%

7.7%

0.0%

ST PIUS X CHURCH

11.2%

0.0%

0.0%

9.8%

0.0%

27.4%

14.8%

0.0%

0.0%

3.6%

0.0%

SUNNYVALE ISD

12.4%

23.4%

17.6%

11.3%

21.8%

37.6%

11.5%

18.1%

13.4%

-0.9%

-5.3%

THE LIFE ACADEMY

84.6%

85.5%

83.7%

85.9%

84.6%

69.9%

100.0%

100.0%

66.7%

15.4%

14.5%

Counties are represented in gray

41


2009-2010

2010-2011

% Total Participation in SBP

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

2011-2012

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

% Total Participation in SBP

% Change in FRP Eligible Students

% Change in FRP Eligbile Students Participating in SBP

County and District

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

TRINITY BASIN PREPARATORY

90.8%

13.9%

9.9%

94.3%

13.4%

38.8%

92.8%

14.6%

10.8%

2.1%

0.7%

UNIVERSAL ACADEMY

87.8%

42.6%

30.3%

91.0%

31.4%

20.9%

91.7%

34.2%

24.0%

3.9%

-8.3%

UTD/CALLIER CENTER FOR COMMUNICATION DISORDERS

24.7%

65.5%

62.6%

22.4%

49.0%

47.1%

12.7%

53.9%

52.0%

-12.0%

-11.5%

WEST DALLAS INITIATIVE

79.6%

42.6%

44.7%

75.9%

45.9%

60.2%

74.3%

34.1%

34.7%

-5.3%

-8.6%

WILLIAMS PREPARATORY

93.6%

57.2%

49.3%

95.3%

40.1%

29.9%

92.6%

33.5%

25.9%

-1.0%

-23.7%

DAWSON

70.6%

57.1%

52.2%

71.4%

48.3%

47.6%

67.1%

51.0%

45.3%

-3.5%

-6.1%

DAWSON ISDWELCH

47.0%

44.1%

41.0%

47.6%

40.3%

19.4%

47.7%

40.9%

37.8%

0.7%

-3.2%

KLONDIKE ISD

57.7%

60.2%

54.9%

58.4%

58.2%

22.6%

60.5%

59.5%

56.0%

2.8%

-0.7%

LAMESA ISD

75.8%

58.4%

53.0%

77.9%

46.4%

29.3%

70.9%

48.3%

41.4%

-4.8%

-10.1%

SANDS ISD

55.1%

51.3%

50.2%

49.6%

54.0%

60.2%

54.5%

63.7%

61.5%

-0.5%

12.4%

DEAF SMITH

79.1%

34.1%

27.7%

80.5%

35.0%

27.4%

78.4%

37.0%

28.4%

-0.7%

2.9%

HEREFORD ISD

81.2%

31.9%

24.9%

82.4%

34.1%

22.6%

80.1%

35.7%

26.8%

-1.1%

3.9%

ST ANTHONY'S CATHOLIC CHURCH

21.4%

0.0%

0.0%

19.6%

0.0%

58.3%

22.2%

0.0%

0.0%

0.9%

0.0%

WALCOTT ISD

65.2%

96.9%

97.3%

61.9%

81.0%

21.3%

62.2%

91.0%

84.8%

-3.0%

-5.9%

DELTA

66.1%

53.1%

44.2%

72.4%

42.3%

36.6%

54.3%

36.4%

26.9%

-11.8%

-16.6%

COOPER ISD

61.1%

53.6%

43.9%

68.2%

39.1%

20.7%

46.4%

34.2%

25.0%

-14.7%

-19.3%

FANNINDEL ISD

86.3%

51.2%

50.2%

90.6%

53.0%

24.9%

93.0%

45.6%

48.0%

6.7%

-5.6%

DENTON

33.7%

28.9%

21.1%

35.4%

29.7%

21.6%

17.6%

30.8%

21.2%

-16.1%

1.8%

ARGYLE ISD

11.1%

27.7%

19.4%

12.8%

21.2%

24.5%

12.5%

25.8%

18.2%

1.5%

-1.8%

AUBREY ISD

30.3%

24.3%

17.5%

30.2%

36.3%

20.7%

29.7%

36.5%

26.1%

-0.5%

12.2%

DENTON COUNTY JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER

88.7%

13.8%

9.2%

91.3%

14.9%

25.6%

87.1%

17.3%

11.6%

-1.7%

3.5%

DENTON ISD

44.2%

23.2%

16.9%

42.4%

25.7%

22.3%

42.0%

26.0%

18.5%

-2.1%

2.8%

KRUM ISD

34.7%

36.0%

27.5%

35.3%

37.5%

57.4%

35.8%

34.0%

26.2%

1.1%

-2.0%

LAKE DALLAS ISD

32.0%

32.7%

24.5%

37.2%

32.7%

60.2%

38.4%

30.7%

22.7%

6.4%

-2.0%

LEWISVILLE ISD

29.0%

28.7%

20.7%

33.3%

30.3%

18.1%

29.6%

34.2%

24.4%

0.6%

5.5%

LITTLE ELM ISD

43.9%

39.7%

29.3%

46.0%

38.8%

37.1%

2.6%

36.2%

24.2%

-41.4%

-3.5%

NORTHWEST ISD

26.8%

30.2%

22.6%

25.6%

24.2%

20.4%

25.4%

23.1%

16.9%

-1.4%

-7.1%

PILOT POINT ISD

52.7%

39.4%

29.3%

53.4%

36.0%

40.4%

53.8%

37.0%

27.1%

1.1%

-2.4%

PONDER ISD

38.7%

33.4%

24.9%

38.1%

36.7%

32.5%

37.7%

34.9%

25.2%

-1.0%

1.4%

SANGER ISD

40.0%

35.1%

25.6%

41.2%

33.4%

17.2%

41.0%

33.1%

23.6%

1.0%

-2.0%

THE EDUCATION CENTER

51.9%

31.0%

22.3%

56.2%

31.8%

21.0%

58.7%

27.1%

20.0%

6.8%

-3.9%

DEWITT

63.8%

39.7%

32.2%

62.3%

41.3%

32.7%

63.5%

41.3%

32.8%

-0.2%

1.6%

CUERO ISD

64.4%

34.7%

27.4%

59.5%

38.5%

18.1%

60.0%

36.8%

28.4%

-4.4%

2.1%

MEYERSVILLE ISD

31.9%

59.4%

47.9%

37.4%

57.4%

53.7%

39.5%

43.7%

39.3%

7.5%

-15.7%

42

% Total Participation in SBP

Change from 2009-2012

Counties are represented in gray


2009-2010

2010-2011

% Total Participation in SBP

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

2011-2012

% Total Participation in SBP

Change from 2009-2012

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

% Total Participation in SBP

% Change in FRP Eligible Students

% Change in FRP Eligbile Students Participating in SBP

County and District

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

NORDHEIM ISD

65.6%

39.8%

37.6%

62.8%

36.3%

37.5%

57.4%

59.2%

45.9%

-8.3%

19.4%

WESTHOFF ISD

64.3%

78.2%

69.9%

75.7%

93.8%

16.4%

76.6%

60.9%

60.6%

12.3%

-17.3%

YOAKUM ISD

69.9%

45.2%

38.8%

69.0%

45.9%

37.9%

71.8%

47.3%

38.9%

1.9%

2.1%

YORKTOWN ISD

53.6%

29.1%

20.9%

58.7%

25.0%

18.8%

58.9%

23.0%

18.1%

5.3%

-6.1%

DICKENS

65.1%

58.2%

54.0%

65.5%

56.1%

51.9%

69.9%

52.4%

52.3%

4.8%

-5.8%

PATTON SPRINGS ISD

90.2%

50.7%

47.1%

92.0%

57.7%

92.7%

89.7%

65.8%

63.8%

-0.5%

15.1%

SPUR ISD

56.8%

63.2%

57.4%

56.9%

55.4%

16.4%

63.4%

46.0%

47.8%

6.6%

-17.2%

DIMMIT

80.5%

60.6%

60.2%

81.0%

57.2%

57.6%

78.1%

53.4%

51.1%

-2.4%

-7.2%

CARRIZO SPRINGS CONS ISD

80.5%

60.6%

60.2%

81.0%

57.2%

21.3%

78.1%

53.4%

51.1%

-2.4%

-7.2%

DONLEY

60.2%

29.3%

21.9%

59.5%

32.6%

24.1%

57.5%

32.5%

23.9%

-2.7%

3.2%

CLARENDON ISD

59.9%

25.1%

18.1%

57.8%

25.5%

15.4%

58.1%

30.5%

22.2%

-1.7%

5.4%

HEDLEY ISD

61.5%

46.1%

37.1%

65.9%

46.8%

34.0%

54.9%

39.2%

29.8%

-6.6%

-6.9%

DUVAL

83.0%

50.2%

52.5%

80.4%

52.5%

49.5%

77.8%

43.6%

42.3%

-5.2%

-6.5%

BENAVIDES ISD

92.9%

59.9%

58.3%

80.9%

52.4%

21.3%

83.3%

69.0%

55.3%

-9.6%

9.1%

DUVAL COUNTY

100.0%

30.6%

20.4%

100.0%

50.0%

23.3%

100.0%

41.9%

28.0%

0.0%

11.3%

FREER ISD

72.0%

71.4%

74.7%

69.3%

74.9%

92.7%

63.0%

67.1%

63.8%

-9.0%

-4.3%

RAMIREZ CSD

97.3%

60.6%

40.4%

100.0%

66.7%

8.3%

81.6%

62.9%

51.5%

-15.7%

2.3%

SAN DIEGO ISD

85.7%

34.2%

32.5%

85.9%

39.4%

0.0%

85.7%

28.7%

23.3%

0.0%

-5.5%

EASTLAND

63.7%

34.2%

26.3%

66.4%

29.7%

22.6%

64.5%

31.0%

23.5%

0.7%

-3.2%

CISCO ISD

58.5%

29.7%

21.3%

66.9%

23.4%

92.7%

59.6%

29.6%

21.8%

1.0%

-0.2%

EASTLAND ISD

57.2%

21.7%

15.4%

55.9%

23.2%

40.3%

59.6%

20.8%

15.2%

2.4%

-0.8%

GORMAN ISD

71.8%

54.7%

53.7%

76.2%

34.8%

27.8%

70.3%

40.4%

32.3%

-1.5%

-14.3%

RANGER ISD

80.0%

43.4%

37.5%

80.3%

42.1%

13.9%

76.9%

41.4%

35.0%

-3.1%

-2.0%

ECTOR

61.6%

56.3%

51.0%

63.6%

55.1%

52.4%

61.2%

52.9%

51.4%

-0.4%

-3.5%

ECTOR COUNTY ISD

61.5%

56.3%

51.0%

63.5%

55.1%

14.7%

61.1%

52.8%

51.4%

-0.3%

-3.5%

ECTOR COUNTY JUVENILE PROBATION

100.0%

34.9%

23.3%

100.0%

46.6%

21.0%

100.0%

44.2%

29.5%

0.0%

9.3%

EDWARDS

75.0%

66.3%

69.1%

72.3%

52.6%

52.3%

75.7%

63.3%

56.1%

0.7%

-3.0%

NUECES CANYON CONS ISD

70.4%

99.7%

99.8%

72.4%

79.5%

50.1%

76.5%

78.7%

70.9%

6.1%

-21.0%

ROCKSPRINGS ISD

80.4%

35.9%

34.0%

72.2%

33.5%

46.5%

75.0%

49.1%

42.5%

-5.4%

13.3%

EL PASO

76.5%

36.3%

29.5%

76.7%

41.8%

35.6%

76.6%

47.2%

40.5%

0.1%

10.8%

ANTHONY ISD

92.1%

91.4%

92.7%

92.1%

92.9%

14.7%

91.6%

90.4%

89.4%

-0.5%

-1.0%

BURNHAM WOOD CHARTER SCHOOL DISTRICT

53.3%

24.9%

17.2%

51.0%

19.6%

8.3%

46.3%

16.3%

11.9%

-7.0%

-8.6%

CANUTILLO ISD

84.6%

55.3%

40.3%

88.5%

62.0%

61.1%

92.9%

55.9%

46.6%

8.3%

0.6%

CHILD CRISIS CENTER OF EL PASO

100.0%

8.1%

5.4%

100.0%

9.2%

16.4%

100.0%

7.9%

5.2%

0.0%

-0.2%

CLINT ISD

87.2%

73.5%

71.5%

86.5%

77.1%

7.3%

86.5%

81.9%

78.5%

-0.7%

8.4%

43


2009-2010

2010-2011

% Total Participation in SBP

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

2011-2012

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

% Total Participation in SBP

% Change in FRP Eligible Students

% Change in FRP Eligbile Students Participating in SBP

County and District

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

EL PASO COUNTY JUVENILE PROBATION CENTER

100.0%

22.1%

14.7%

100.0%

19.1%

13.9%

100.0%

20.7%

13.8%

0.0%

-1.3%

EL PASO ISD

69.2%

27.7%

21.0%

70.0%

29.6%

50.1%

71.5%

28.4%

21.6%

2.3%

0.6%

FABENS ISD

91.1%

30.0%

27.8%

92.5%

40.9%

0.0%

89.3%

31.2%

28.4%

-1.8%

1.1%

FATHER YERMO SCHOOLS

90.7%

46.8%

47.1%

86.7%

47.0%

23.6%

85.8%

45.4%

38.9%

-4.9%

-1.4%

HARMONY SCIENCE ACAD (EL PASO)

63.8%

10.6%

8.3%

73.5%

10.5%

16.9%

64.0%

12.4%

9.3%

0.1%

1.8%

LA FE PREPARATORY SCHOOL

87.2%

76.7%

61.1%

86.3%

72.8%

21.1%

86.2%

59.3%

52.9%

-1.0%

-17.4%

LYDIA PATTERSON INSTITUTE

96.8%

20.7%

16.4%

96.4%

28.3%

17.6%

96.9%

26.7%

23.0%

0.1%

6.0%

MOST HOLY TRINITY SCHOOL

39.8%

6.3%

7.3%

43.8%

15.2%

29.9%

45.3%

10.9%

9.6%

5.5%

4.7%

OUR LADY OF ASSUMPTION SCHOOL

38.3%

0.0%

0.0%

44.0%

0.0%

22.2%

33.6%

0.0%

0.0%

-4.7%

0.0%

OUR LADY OF THE VALLEY PARISH

74.2%

20.8%

13.9%

77.3%

24.4%

20.0%

78.9%

25.7%

18.4%

4.7%

4.9%

SAN ELIZARIO ISD

95.1%

52.0%

50.1%

95.4%

54.2%

37.0%

95.0%

53.6%

51.0%

-0.1%

1.6%

SOCORRO ISD

75.1%

21.0%

16.1%

74.1%

30.6%

25.0%

72.1%

53.1%

48.6%

-3.0%

32.1%

ST PIUS X SCHOOLEL PASO

31.3%

18.1%

13.9%

39.2%

18.5%

31.9%

42.4%

15.9%

11.7%

11.1%

-2.2%

ST RAPHAEL'S SCHOOL

11.3%

0.0%

0.0%

12.9%

0.0%

46.7%

12.8%

10.7%

8.9%

1.6%

10.7%

TORNILLO ISD

95.0%

30.1%

23.6%

93.8%

28.1%

29.9%

96.9%

28.4%

24.4%

1.8%

-1.7%

YSLETA ISD

82.8%

48.9%

46.5%

82.7%

55.3%

59.2%

82.1%

56.8%

53.7%

-0.7%

7.9%

ELLIS

48.8%

28.9%

21.1%

49.5%

30.8%

22.4%

51.6%

31.6%

23.3%

2.8%

2.7%

AVALON ISD

68.1%

41.1%

32.8%

78.0%

31.0%

21.1%

68.1%

30.2%

23.6%

0.0%

-10.8%

ENNIS ISD

67.0%

22.8%

16.9%

67.7%

29.8%

24.9%

67.8%

34.5%

26.9%

0.8%

11.7%

FAITH FAMILY KIDS INC DBA WAXAHACHIE FAITH FAMILY ACADEMY

67.6%

30.2%

21.3%

61.9%

26.2%

32.2%

68.4%

80.0%

77.1%

0.8%

49.8%

FERRIS ISD

75.2%

43.1%

38.6%

78.4%

44.6%

21.2%

80.0%

43.5%

38.4%

4.9%

0.4%

ITALY ISD

60.6%

29.5%

20.3%

67.5%

23.1%

30.8%

79.1%

22.0%

17.2%

18.5%

-7.5%

MAYPEARL ISD

36.7%

29.3%

21.1%

38.5%

34.9%

37.0%

39.3%

33.7%

23.9%

2.5%

4.4%

MIDLOTHIAN ISD

24.9%

24.7%

17.6%

24.5%

30.3%

25.0%

28.8%

24.4%

17.5%

3.9%

-0.3%

MILFORD ISD

75.6%

41.6%

33.6%

76.9%

49.3%

44.5%

78.1%

49.1%

39.7%

2.5%

7.5%

PALMER ISD

49.3%

41.8%

29.9%

53.9%

38.7%

31.9%

55.7%

41.7%

31.4%

6.4%

-0.1%

RED OAK ISD

40.9%

30.1%

22.2%

41.8%

27.3%

32.6%

41.7%

28.7%

21.0%

0.8%

-1.4%

WAXAHACHIE ISD

52.1%

27.7%

20.0%

53.8%

26.5%

84.4%

56.5%

25.4%

18.4%

4.4%

-2.3%

ERATH

56.1%

30.7%

22.7%

57.3%

31.9%

25.0%

57.0%

31.8%

24.8%

0.9%

1.1%

BLUFF DALE ISD

31.0%

29.3%

24.9%

36.8%

38.0%

19.1%

29.8%

37.4%

29.9%

-1.2%

8.0%

DUBLIN ISD

74.7%

29.8%

22.2%

70.6%

32.5%

37.0%

64.3%

72.7%

69.3%

-10.3%

43.0%

HUCKABAY ISD

49.2%

43.1%

32.2%

50.5%

34.9%

46.7%

43.9%

22.2%

16.0%

-5.3%

-20.9%

44

% Total Participation in SBP

Change from 2009-2012


2009-2010

2010-2011

% Total Participation in SBP

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

2011-2012

% Total Participation in SBP

Change from 2009-2012

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

% Total Participation in SBP

% Change in FRP Eligible Students

% Change in FRP Eligbile Students Participating in SBP

County and District

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

LINGLEVILLE ISD

59.7%

26.4%

21.2%

59.2%

37.2%

32.9%

61.3%

26.5%

20.5%

1.7%

0.1%

MORGAN MILL ISD

47.5%

38.2%

31.8%

47.0%

29.5%

38.3%

46.7%

35.8%

28.1%

-0.9%

-2.4%

PREMIER HIGH SCHOOL

71.0%

21.6%

19.1%

71.3%

34.8%

28.2%

62.6%

14.4%

9.9%

-8.4%

-7.2%

STEPHENVILLE ISD

49.2%

31.0%

22.5%

52.8%

31.0%

40.2%

50.0%

34.4%

24.8%

0.8%

3.4%

THREE WAY ISD

82.5%

41.3%

30.8%

77.9%

36.0%

30.3%

77.0%

41.4%

32.4%

-5.4%

0.2%

FALLS

76.8%

46.0%

35.0%

77.2%

49.8%

39.5%

81.1%

48.2%

42.0%

4.3%

2.2%

CHILTON ISD

82.4%

36.4%

28.9%

85.0%

43.5%

46.7%

82.4%

48.0%

38.3%

0.0%

11.6%

MARLIN ISD

91.2%

49.3%

41.3%

88.5%

50.0%

55.3%

91.2%

49.9%

42.0%

-0.1%

0.7%

ROSEBUD-LOTT ISD

62.2%

50.0%

37.0%

65.1%

60.7%

84.4%

77.1%

48.4%

49.0%

14.9%

-1.6%

WESTPHALIA ISD

29.9%

9.7%

8.4%

30.5%

16.3%

26.0%

24.0%

12.5%

11.2%

-5.9%

2.8%

FANNIN

54.6%

42.4%

33.1%

57.3%

43.7%

34.4%

56.8%

42.1%

32.6%

2.2%

-0.3%

BONHAM ISD

63.7%

34.1%

25.0%

65.7%

34.6%

29.9%

65.9%

33.4%

23.8%

2.2%

-0.7%

DODD CITY ISD

43.1%

50.2%

44.5%

46.8%

50.0%

13.1%

49.1%

47.8%

40.5%

6.0%

-2.4%

ECTOR ISD

45.2%

45.2%

38.2%

50.7%

41.2%

28.2%

51.3%

38.3%

35.4%

6.1%

-6.9%

HONEY GROVE ISD

63.5%

40.0%

31.9%

65.6%

42.7%

71.3%

63.6%

43.3%

33.3%

0.2%

3.4%

LEONARD ISD

50.9%

60.4%

46.7%

54.5%

63.7%

15.2%

58.7%

61.0%

47.7%

7.8%

0.6%

SAM RAYBURN ISD

43.8%

40.8%

32.6%

47.2%

39.5%

27.7%

39.4%

44.4%

34.2%

-4.4%

3.5%

SAVOY ISD

55.3%

37.9%

29.9%

51.6%

39.4%

45.6%

46.0%

44.7%

34.0%

-9.2%

6.8%

TRENTON ISD

38.2%

43.8%

32.9%

45.1%

45.2%

9.5%

41.1%

34.0%

27.1%

2.9%

-9.7%

FAYETTE

49.0%

31.0%

25.2%

50.3%

32.8%

26.3%

48.6%

29.3%

23.5%

-0.4%

-1.7%

FAYETTEVILLE ISD

21.1%

31.3%

25.0%

26.0%

30.5%

84.4%

26.1%

28.9%

24.8%

5.0%

-2.4%

FLATONIA ISD

63.4%

41.4%

38.3%

62.2%

54.5%

15.2%

61.2%

46.7%

39.6%

-2.2%

5.3%

LA GRANGE ISD

54.4%

18.0%

13.1%

55.7%

21.2%

30.3%

53.3%

20.1%

14.9%

-1.1%

2.1%

ROUND TOP-CARMINE ISD

41.0%

32.7%

28.2%

39.0%

32.5%

49.1%

31.9%

27.0%

26.1%

-9.1%

-5.7%

SACRED HEART SCHOOL-LA GRANGE

1.9%

0.0%

0.0%

0.7%

0.0%

33.1%

1.9%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

SCHULENBURG ISD

55.6%

61.9%

55.3%

57.1%

52.3%

51.6%

55.2%

45.5%

39.0%

-0.4%

-16.4%

ST ROSE OF LIMA SCHOOL

16.8%

0.0%

0.0%

12.7%

0.0%

18.5%

16.0%

0.0%

0.0%

-0.7%

0.0%

FISHER

62.3%

77.9%

74.7%

64.2%

67.9%

64.0%

63.1%

62.8%

59.0%

0.7%

-15.2%

ROBY CONS ISD

59.6%

79.0%

78.4%

54.8%

64.3%

20.0%

59.5%

50.7%

50.9%

-0.1%

-28.4%

ROTAN ISD

64.7%

77.2%

71.3%

73.0%

70.6%

29.2%

66.2%

72.6%

65.7%

1.4%

-4.5%

FLOYD

70.8%

33.0%

27.1%

73.8%

33.0%

28.3%

71.0%

31.6%

25.9%

0.2%

-1.4%

FLOYDADA ISD

72.4%

31.4%

27.4%

73.4%

34.1%

24.4%

70.7%

34.2%

28.3%

-1.6%

2.8%

LOCKNEY ISD

68.3%

35.0%

26.8%

74.4%

31.6%

27.1%

71.4%

29.5%

23.5%

3.1%

-5.5%

FOARD

62.7%

87.0%

84.4%

64.3%

79.2%

79.5%

67.4%

83.8%

84.0%

4.8%

-3.2%

CROWELL ISD

62.7%

87.0%

84.4%

64.3%

79.2%

24.4%

67.4%

83.8%

84.0%

4.8%

-3.2%

FORT BEND

38.6%

26.6%

19.8%

39.5%

27.6%

20.3%

16.3%

26.5%

18.2%

-22.3%

0.0%

Counties are represented in gray

45


2009-2010

2010-2011

% Total Participation in SBP

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

2011-2012

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

% Total Participation in SBP

% Change in FRP Eligible Students

% Change in FRP Eligbile Students Participating in SBP

County and District

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

FORT BEND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COURT

100.0%

22.8%

15.2%

100.0%

28.0%

26.0%

100.0%

23.6%

15.7%

0.0%

0.8%

FORT BEND ISD

34.7%

21.0%

15.5%

35.0%

21.6%

49.1%

37.4%

20.9%

15.1%

2.7%

-0.1%

LAMAR CONSOLIDATED ISD

47.7%

33.9%

26.2%

48.5%

35.5%

9.5%

49.0%

34.3%

26.2%

1.3%

0.4%

NEEDVILLE ISD

34.3%

38.8%

28.4%

38.7%

31.5%

51.6%

38.0%

34.5%

25.1%

3.7%

-4.4%

STAFFORD MSD

57.6%

49.1%

40.2%

66.5%

50.5%

34.0%

1.4%

49.7%

33.2%

-56.2%

0.6%

FRANKLIN

48.4%

44.7%

38.8%

53.4%

48.4%

38.8%

57.7%

38.0%

30.6%

9.3%

-6.7%

MOUNT VERNON ISD

48.4%

44.7%

38.8%

53.4%

48.4%

40.3%

57.7%

38.0%

30.6%

9.3%

-6.7%

FREESTONE

48.9%

36.7%

27.2%

50.5%

38.4%

28.8%

50.7%

37.3%

27.6%

1.8%

0.6%

DEW ISD

32.9%

34.5%

30.3%

38.7%

26.5%

33.1%

46.5%

27.3%

25.0%

13.6%

-7.2%

FAIRFIELD ISD

51.6%

38.4%

27.6%

52.6%

37.5%

9.5%

50.9%

38.2%

27.2%

-0.7%

-0.2%

TEAGUE ISD

47.3%

32.7%

24.4%

49.2%

38.9%

86.4%

50.3%

40.4%

30.2%

3.0%

7.7%

WORTHAM ISD

47.9%

36.4%

27.7%

50.3%

44.0%

33.8%

52.4%

30.4%

23.6%

4.4%

-6.0%

FRIO

79.7%

24.3%

20.6%

83.6%

29.6%

26.7%

81.6%

45.7%

43.5%

1.9%

21.5%

DILLEY ISD

77.4%

11.1%

9.0%

79.1%

30.1%

13.7%

77.7%

76.6%

76.5%

0.3%

65.5%

PEARSALL ISD

80.7%

30.5%

26.0%

85.4%

29.2%

28.7%

83.4%

31.3%

26.6%

2.7%

0.8%

GAINES

60.3%

37.6%

31.4%

58.2%

40.2%

34.1%

57.2%

43.1%

36.6%

-3.1%

5.5%

LOOP ISD

55.4%

56.0%

49.1%

54.8%

60.1%

22.9%

55.0%

66.7%

59.1%

-0.4%

10.7%

SEAGRAVES ISD

75.4%

45.2%

45.6%

64.0%

51.6%

46.7%

59.0%

58.1%

52.6%

-16.4%

12.9%

SEMINOLE ISD

56.7%

33.6%

27.1%

56.8%

35.7%

54.0%

56.7%

37.9%

31.3%

0.0%

4.2%

GALVESTON

42.1%

36.0%

26.8%

43.8%

35.9%

26.8%

44.6%

36.1%

26.7%

2.5%

0.1%

AMBASSADORS PREPARATORY ACADEMY

92.9%

34.3%

33.1%

94.0%

32.0%

13.7%

92.5%

41.7%

30.7%

-0.4%

7.4%

CLEAR CREEK ISD

23.0%

27.4%

20.0%

27.2%

25.1%

18.5%

28.7%

24.9%

18.2%

5.7%

-2.5%

DICKINSON ISD

63.8%

35.5%

29.2%

64.4%

35.2%

23.3%

63.5%

38.4%

29.8%

-0.3%

2.9%

FRIENDSWOOD ISD

8.3%

13.2%

9.5%

10.0%

10.9%

28.7%

12.3%

8.6%

6.1%

4.1%

-4.6%

GALVESTON COUNTY JUVENILE BOARD

67.8%

15.1%

13.7%

91.9%

12.7%

12.5%

80.0%

17.4%

15.9%

12.2%

2.3%

GALVESTON ISD

90.5%

45.6%

51.6%

73.4%

56.4%

64.7%

72.2%

53.8%

44.0%

-18.3%

8.3%

HIGH ISLAND ISD

74.9%

46.6%

41.6%

64.8%

48.4%

34.0%

66.1%

53.2%

48.1%

-8.7%

6.7%

HITCHCOCK ISD

63.8%

53.9%

40.3%

83.6%

56.7%

0.0%

85.0%

47.3%

41.5%

21.1%

-6.6%

LA MARQUE ISD

74.3%

63.5%

55.8%

77.1%

53.0%

86.4%

73.6%

67.5%

59.3%

-0.6%

4.0%

MAINLAND PREPARATORY ACADEMY

69.0%

26.4%

18.5%

71.6%

22.2%

46.7%

74.7%

20.2%

13.8%

5.7%

-6.2%

ODYSSEY ACADEMY

82.4%

57.1%

48.9%

78.6%

66.0%

45.9%

84.3%

55.6%

43.3%

1.9%

-1.5%

SANTA FE ISD

32.7%

31.1%

23.3%

36.9%

28.0%

36.6%

40.0%

28.0%

21.1%

7.3%

-3.1%

TEXAS CITY ISD

65.9%

33.2%

27.8%

68.1%

40.7%

29.0%

65.3%

38.6%

31.7%

-0.6%

5.3%

THE CHILDREN'S CENTER, INC.

100.0%

34.4%

22.9%

100.0%

35.1%

40.6%

100.0%

29.0%

19.3%

0.0%

-5.4%

46

% Total Participation in SBP

Change from 2009-2012

Counties are represented in gray


2009-2010

2010-2011

% Total Participation in SBP

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

2011-2012

% Total Participation in SBP

Change from 2009-2012

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

% Total Participation in SBP

% Change in FRP Eligible Students

% Change in FRP Eligbile Students Participating in SBP

County and District

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

THE DEVEREUX FOUNDATION

100.0%

43.1%

28.7%

100.0%

43.1%

25.3%

100.0%

36.6%

24.4%

0.0%

-6.5%

GARZA

73.3%

30.1%

23.2%

72.5%

32.3%

24.5%

70.3%

32.3%

25.1%

-2.9%

2.2%

GARZA COUNTY

100.0%

40.6%

27.1%

100.0%

49.2%

45.9%

100.0%

44.6%

29.8%

0.0%

4.1%

POST ISD

68.5%

17.2%

12.5%

68.4%

21.8%

36.3%

65.9%

18.6%

14.1%

-2.6%

1.4%

SOUTHLAND ISD

84.2%

63.1%

64.7%

82.4%

54.7%

25.3%

82.7%

70.4%

69.5%

-1.5%

7.3%

GILLESPIE

46.4%

32.2%

24.1%

48.5%

30.3%

23.2%

50.8%

30.2%

23.2%

4.4%

-2.0%

FREDERICKSBURG ISD

51.0%

31.5%

22.7%

53.7%

26.8%

26.2%

55.9%

25.8%

18.6%

4.9%

-5.7%

HARPER ISD

42.9%

38.7%

34.0%

42.9%

49.2%

41.9%

42.8%

54.8%

47.8%

-0.1%

16.1%

ST MARY'S CATHOLIC CHURCH

8.5%

0.0%

0.0%

8.1%

0.0%

21.9%

12.3%

0.0%

0.0%

3.8%

0.0%

GLASSCOCK

55.5%

47.8%

37.6%

50.5%

51.0%

43.5%

50.2%

55.3%

45.9%

-5.3%

7.5%

GLASSCOCK ISD

55.5%

47.8%

37.6%

50.5%

51.0%

36.3%

50.2%

55.3%

45.9%

-5.3%

7.5%

GOLIAD

51.3%

28.8%

22.1%

54.1%

29.4%

23.1%

57.7%

28.6%

23.2%

6.4%

-0.2%

GOLIAD ISD

51.3%

28.8%

22.1%

54.1%

29.4%

24.8%

57.7%

28.6%

23.2%

6.4%

-0.2%

GONZALES

76.3%

64.9%

60.4%

77.0%

59.8%

55.7%

72.5%

61.3%

53.9%

-3.8%

-3.6%

GONZALES ISD

72.6%

56.9%

51.2%

72.9%

51.3%

48.4%

67.7%

51.6%

44.2%

-4.9%

-5.3%

NIXON-SMILEY CONS ISD

81.7%

83.6%

86.4%

83.6%

81.3%

24.4%

80.7%

78.6%

78.7%

-1.0%

-5.0%

WAELDER ISD

90.7%

46.3%

46.7%

92.1%

43.0%

19.1%

90.0%

60.4%

60.0%

-0.7%

14.1%

GRAY

61.7%

34.8%

27.2%

63.2%

39.2%

31.0%

61.9%

37.5%

29.6%

0.2%

2.8%

GRANDVIEWHOPKINS ISD

43.8%

39.3%

54.0%

51.1%

73.5%

72.5%

38.8%

36.7%

45.6%

-5.0%

-2.6%

LEFORS ISD

50.3%

53.5%

45.9%

66.9%

46.3%

29.0%

59.3%

51.6%

44.8%

9.0%

-1.9%

MCLEAN ISD

70.0%

27.7%

26.5%

59.7%

34.2%

40.6%

54.5%

29.4%

27.6%

-15.5%

1.7%

PAMPA ISD

61.8%

34.6%

26.2%

63.4%

38.6%

21.5%

62.7%

37.0%

28.3%

0.9%

2.4%

GRAYSON

52.6%

46.0%

37.6%

55.1%

44.1%

36.5%

54.6%

43.6%

35.5%

2.1%

-2.4%

BELLS ISD

34.7%

34.4%

25.9%

38.0%

38.8%

24.8%

43.7%

41.4%

32.0%

9.0%

7.1%

COLLINSVILLE ISD

29.8%

33.5%

24.4%

45.8%

30.0%

72.5%

42.3%

29.2%

23.1%

12.5%

-4.3%

DENISON ISD

64.4%

47.9%

41.9%

64.7%

47.2%

24.4%

61.6%

43.1%

35.7%

-2.8%

-4.8%

DEPT OF JUVENILE SRVS SERVING COOKE, FANNIN, GRAYSON COUNTIES

100.0%

33.5%

22.4%

100.0%

35.3%

50.9%

100.0%

31.9%

21.3%

0.0%

-1.6%

GUNTER ISD

35.7%

45.5%

36.3%

32.1%

50.6%

21.5%

35.3%

55.6%

44.0%

-0.4%

10.1%

HOWE ISD

39.2%

32.9%

24.8%

43.7%

32.0%

21.9%

42.9%

31.5%

23.0%

3.7%

-1.4%

POTTSBORO ISD

37.2%

57.9%

48.4%

39.6%

58.3%

38.1%

41.8%

56.2%

48.8%

4.6%

-1.7%

S AND S CISD

44.7%

60.6%

46.3%

44.7%

45.3%

34.8%

48.3%

47.6%

38.9%

3.6%

-13.0%

SHERMAN ISD

64.5%

44.5%

36.6%

68.1%

43.1%

31.3%

65.9%

45.2%

36.6%

1.4%

0.7%

TIOGA ISD

72.0%

63.3%

72.5%

67.7%

64.6%

16.5%

63.4%

44.4%

46.0%

-8.6%

-18.9%

TOM BEAN ISD

35.7%

39.4%

29.8%

36.7%

41.0%

90.2%

40.0%

41.2%

29.8%

4.4%

1.8%

VAN ALSTYNE ISD

24.9%

32.6%

24.4%

27.2%

33.1%

47.9%

27.5%

30.5%

23.3%

2.6%

-2.1%

WHITESBORO ISD

52.3%

53.5%

50.9%

56.0%

44.3%

27.7%

54.2%

45.9%

43.9%

1.9%

-7.7%

47


2009-2010

2010-2011

% Total Participation in SBP

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

2011-2012

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

% Total Participation in SBP

% Change in FRP Eligible Students

% Change in FRP Eligbile Students Participating in SBP

County and District

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

WHITEWRIGHT ISD

40.8%

36.7%

29.0%

40.3%

34.5%

16.5%

42.7%

38.8%

30.2%

1.8%

2.1%

GREGG

59.5%

37.2%

28.9%

61.5%

35.0%

27.9%

58.0%

34.3%

26.8%

-1.6%

-2.9%

GLADEWATER ISD

67.0%

48.7%

40.6%

67.8%

45.6%

19.1%

63.9%

57.7%

49.5%

-3.1%

9.0%

KILGORE ISD

60.3%

34.5%

25.3%

63.0%

32.2%

29.5%

63.6%

33.4%

24.7%

3.3%

-1.1%

LONGVIEW ISD

71.6%

41.9%

35.8%

73.7%

38.0%

17.6%

65.0%

34.4%

28.5%

-6.6%

-7.5%

PINE TREE ISD

56.1%

29.1%

21.5%

56.7%

28.7%

31.3%

56.8%

28.9%

21.6%

0.7%

-0.2%

SABINE ISD

48.7%

33.4%

24.9%

51.9%

31.9%

74.3%

46.8%

31.3%

23.4%

-1.9%

-2.0%

SPRING HILL ISD

29.6%

29.8%

21.9%

33.8%

38.4%

23.6%

33.8%

27.6%

20.0%

4.2%

-2.2%

WHITE OAK ISD

35.6%

33.3%

25.4%

37.6%

29.7%

6.9%

36.6%

30.4%

23.6%

1.0%

-2.8%

GRIMES

68.6%

37.9%

30.8%

69.0%

41.9%

34.3%

68.9%

39.6%

31.2%

0.3%

1.7%

ANDERSON-SHIRO CONS ISD

49.9%

48.1%

41.4%

49.9%

53.2%

24.4%

54.2%

45.7%

37.2%

4.3%

-2.3%

IOLA ISD

49.5%

34.6%

27.0%

53.3%

35.4%

35.3%

46.2%

42.5%

33.1%

-3.3%

7.9%

NAVASOTA ISD

76.2%

35.3%

27.8%

76.7%

40.0%

16.5%

76.4%

37.4%

28.6%

0.2%

2.1%

RICHARDS ISD

72.5%

50.6%

38.1%

63.4%

49.3%

22.5%

55.5%

50.7%

42.5%

-17.0%

0.1%

GUADALUPE

45.3%

34.2%

26.0%

44.7%

32.2%

24.5%

42.6%

31.9%

24.2%

-2.6%

-2.3%

MARION ISD

45.1%

31.1%

23.2%

47.6%

31.0%

90.2%

43.9%

28.6%

22.0%

-1.2%

-2.5%

NAVARRO ISD

39.5%

32.5%

24.4%

43.5%

33.7%

22.5%

44.2%

32.9%

25.0%

4.7%

0.4%

SCHERTZ-CIBOLOU CITY ISD

29.0%

24.8%

19.1%

29.3%

22.7%

11.9%

28.5%

22.5%

17.1%

-0.4%

-2.3%

SEGUIN ISD

71.8%

43.0%

34.8%

69.8%

40.8%

11.5%

68.5%

41.5%

33.8%

-3.3%

-1.6%

HALE

71.8%

60.0%

53.7%

71.1%

58.9%

51.3%

71.0%

60.5%

51.5%

-0.7%

0.5%

ABERNATHY ISD

64.1%

28.2%

22.6%

57.1%

31.2%

62.0%

57.4%

29.4%

21.9%

-6.7%

1.2%

COTTON CENTER ISD

71.1%

37.0%

29.5%

73.3%

44.7%

21.2%

72.9%

55.8%

44.8%

1.8%

18.8%

HALE CENTER ISD

78.4%

47.0%

42.7%

73.5%

45.5%

27.7%

72.0%

44.8%

35.8%

-6.4%

-2.1%

PETERSBURG ISD

74.9%

22.9%

17.6%

77.3%

36.1%

34.7%

77.1%

38.0%

27.9%

2.2%

15.1%

PLAINVIEW ISD

72.0%

68.5%

62.0%

72.3%

65.9%

24.8%

72.3%

68.4%

59.6%

0.4%

-0.1%

HALL

67.5%

70.2%

67.8%

65.3%

75.2%

70.5%

65.7%

75.6%

70.2%

-1.8%

5.4%

MEMPHIS ISD

70.3%

81.0%

83.5%

70.3%

89.3%

34.7%

69.7%

89.7%

88.3%

-0.6%

8.7%

TURKEY-QUITAQUE ISD

59.9%

40.9%

31.3%

52.5%

37.7%

26.9%

55.6%

30.0%

25.0%

-4.3%

-10.9%

HAMILTON

53.5%

43.2%

33.3%

55.2%

40.9%

31.6%

61.0%

41.0%

32.1%

7.5%

-2.1%

HAMILTON ISD

50.8%

46.4%

35.3%

52.7%

40.7%

28.1%

53.9%

38.9%

29.3%

3.1%

-7.5%

HICO ISD

57.1%

38.9%

30.6%

58.6%

41.5%

34.7%

70.8%

43.3%

36.5%

13.8%

4.5%

HANSFORD

60.5%

26.4%

22.6%

59.3%

22.5%

20.1%

58.4%

25.0%

22.0%

-2.1%

-1.3%

GRUVER ISD

59.6%

25.7%

21.2%

57.6%

21.9%

24.8%

58.2%

20.6%

18.2%

-1.4%

-5.0%

PRINGLE-MORSE CONS ISD

54.1%

74.1%

74.3%

53.7%

74.9%

26.4%

54.0%

68.8%

69.4%

-0.1%

-5.3%

SPEARMAN ISD

61.8%

21.4%

16.5%

60.9%

17.0%

23.9%

59.1%

21.8%

17.1%

-2.7%

0.4%

HARDEMAN

71.1%

65.6%

58.6%

73.0%

64.0%

57.3%

74.3%

51.7%

45.6%

3.3%

-13.9%

CHILLICOTHE ISD

77.9%

88.9%

90.2%

82.1%

88.0%

28.1%

76.7%

90.8%

89.3%

-1.2%

1.9%

QUANAH ISD

68.7%

55.5%

47.9%

69.7%

50.9%

25.6%

73.5%

34.4%

28.7%

4.8%

-21.2%

48

% Total Participation in SBP

Change from 2009-2012


2009-2010

2010-2011

% Total Participation in SBP

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

2011-2012

% Total Participation in SBP

Change from 2009-2012

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

% Total Participation in SBP

% Change in FRP Eligible Students

% Change in FRP Eligbile Students Participating in SBP

County and District

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

HARDIN

44.7%

27.9%

21.2%

44.2%

28.3%

21.3%

43.8%

31.7%

23.9%

-0.9%

3.8%

HARDIN-JEFFERSON ISD

39.2%

29.4%

22.5%

39.3%

32.0%

23.2%

37.5%

31.0%

23.2%

-1.8%

1.6%

KOUNTZE ISD

48.5%

35.7%

27.7%

51.5%

38.7%

38.5%

51.7%

38.1%

27.9%

3.1%

2.4%

LUMBERTON ISD

36.2%

21.2%

16.5%

33.6%

21.2%

25.6%

31.8%

20.8%

15.2%

-4.5%

-0.4%

SILSBEE ISD

55.9%

29.0%

21.6%

57.2%

26.5%

1.4%

61.1%

36.4%

30.9%

5.2%

7.5%

WEST HARDIN COUNTY CONS I

54.8%

32.6%

23.6%

52.1%

36.7%

33.0%

49.7%

40.3%

29.9%

-5.2%

7.7%

HARRIS

63.3%

36.4%

28.1%

64.6%

43.3%

33.8%

64.8%

39.1%

30.4%

1.5%

2.7%

ACADEMY OF ACCELERATED LEARNING INC

95.5%

33.4%

30.0%

97.6%

31.6%

6.9%

93.0%

37.0%

29.1%

-2.5%

3.6%

ACCELERATED INTERMEDIATE ACADEMY

97.4%

38.0%

28.1%

94.3%

72.3%

24.4%

96.5%

69.2%

49.8%

-0.8%

31.2%

ALDINE ISD

84.6%

41.1%

34.7%

82.5%

51.2%

11.9%

84.8%

52.8%

48.3%

0.2%

11.7%

ALIEF ISD

78.0%

30.2%

24.8%

78.4%

33.1%

11.5%

80.5%

35.4%

29.1%

2.6%

5.2%

ALIEF MONTESSORI COMMUNITY SCHOOL

85.7%

6.1%

6.9%

87.6%

6.8%

23.2%

84.7%

5.1%

3.4%

-1.0%

-1.0%

AMIGOS POR VIDA-"FRIENDS FOR LIFE"

98.4%

30.3%

24.4%

99.2%

41.8%

50.0%

99.2%

65.6%

60.4%

0.8%

35.3%

ARISTOI CLASSICAL ACADEMY

19.9%

16.6%

11.9%

25.3%

16.7%

11.1%

28.2%

14.8%

10.9%

8.3%

-1.8%

BAY AREA CHARTER SCHOOL

34.1%

16.6%

11.5%

33.9%

30.9%

38.5%

32.7%

30.1%

20.1%

-1.4%

13.5%

BEATRICE MAYES INSTITUTE

75.0%

28.0%

23.2%

80.0%

31.5%

25.6%

79.0%

30.7%

25.1%

4.0%

2.7%

BOYS AND GIRLS COUNTRY OF HOUSTON

100.0%

75.0%

50.0%

100.0%

41.4%

25.9%

100.0%

41.9%

27.9%

0.0%

-33.1%

BOYS AND GIRLS HARBOR INC

100.0%

39.7%

26.4%

100.0%

50.0%

26.3%

100.0%

26.5%

17.7%

0.0%

-13.1%

CALVIN NELMS CHARTER SCHOOLS

34.1%

15.8%

11.1%

33.8%

4.8%

13.3%

27.6%

5.4%

4.1%

-6.6%

-10.3%

CHANNELVIEW ISD

77.3%

42.5%

38.5%

79.5%

41.7%

23.9%

81.1%

36.5%

33.0%

3.8%

-6.0%

CROSBY ISD

49.0%

33.1%

25.6%

50.7%

33.3%

43.0%

50.6%

32.4%

24.8%

1.6%

-0.8%

CYPRESS-FAIRBANKS ISD

41.5%

38.8%

29.0%

45.0%

40.5%

4.0%

49.0%

38.7%

29.5%

7.5%

-0.2%

DEER PARK ISD

42.3%

35.0%

25.9%

46.8%

35.6%

6.6%

45.8%

37.5%

28.0%

3.5%

2.5%

DEPELCHIN CHILDREN'S CENTER

100.0%

39.5%

26.3%

100.0%

40.2%

29.7%

100.0%

37.3%

24.9%

0.0%

-2.2%

DRAW ACADEMY

97.2%

20.9%

18.1%

95.6%

26.9%

1.4%

96.0%

24.5%

22.2%

-1.2%

3.6%

GALENA PARK ISD

76.3%

32.4%

26.9%

79.3%

38.6%

11.8%

80.4%

36.1%

33.5%

4.2%

3.7%

GEORGE I. SANCHEZ CHARTER

80.1%

18.4%

13.3%

78.1%

18.6%

33.0%

95.1%

13.0%

8.7%

15.1%

-5.4%

GIRLS AND BOYS PREP ACADEMY

84.6%

33.7%

23.9%

84.4%

51.0%

26.1%

88.1%

41.6%

28.8%

3.5%

7.8%

Counties are represented in gray

49


2009-2010

2010-2011

% Total Participation in SBP

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

2011-2012

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

% Total Participation in SBP

% Change in FRP Eligible Students

% Change in FRP Eligbile Students Participating in SBP

County and District

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

GOOSE CREEK ISD

67.6%

48.0%

43.0%

68.4%

47.3%

20.4%

62.7%

47.7%

40.7%

-4.9%

-0.3%

HARMONY SCHOOL OF EXCELLENCE

15.7%

10.4%

7.1%

43.9%

16.6%

93.0%

44.1%

19.8%

14.6%

28.4%

9.4%

HARMONY SCHOOL OF SCIENCE - HOUSTON

51.2%

4.9%

4.0%

51.1%

9.1%

19.7%

47.4%

12.0%

9.4%

-3.9%

7.1%

HARMONY SCIENCE ACADEMY - HOUSTON

66.4%

9.1%

6.6%

62.7%

15.6%

51.6%

63.3%

19.7%

15.2%

-3.1%

10.6%

HARRIS COUNTY JUVENILE PROBATION DEPARTMENT

100.0%

44.5%

29.7%

100.0%

23.6%

34.5%

100.0%

26.4%

17.6%

0.0%

-18.1%

HARRIS COUNTY PROTECTIVE SERVICES FOR CHILDREN AND ADULTS

100.0%

2.1%

1.4%

100.0%

1.8%

19.2%

100.0%

2.5%

1.7%

0.0%

0.4%

HOUSTON CAN! ACADEMY CHARTER SCH

86.8%

56.7%

39.7%

84.8%

53.2%

29.1%

93.8%

26.7%

46.3%

7.0%

-29.9%

HOUSTON GATEWAY ACADEMY, INC.

92.8%

46.8%

38.7%

95.7%

43.6%

30.0%

94.8%

26.9%

21.6%

2.0%

-19.9%

HOUSTON HEIGHTS HIGH SCHOOL

77.7%

4.0%

2.7%

76.5%

6.2%

70.5%

79.6%

4.1%

2.7%

1.9%

0.1%

HOUSTON HEIGHTS LEARNING ACADEMY

100.0%

17.6%

11.8%

96.6%

32.0%

27.7%

96.2%

36.6%

31.0%

-3.8%

18.9%

HOUSTON ISD

81.8%

37.9%

33.0%

81.8%

54.8%

44.6%

78.0%

43.3%

35.8%

-3.8%

5.4%

HOUSTON SERENITY PLACE, INC.

100.0%

48.2%

32.1%

100.0%

49.3%

34.2%

100.0%

44.9%

30.0%

0.0%

-3.3%

HUFFMAN ISD

35.6%

34.1%

26.1%

36.7%

36.0%

28.9%

37.3%

38.4%

28.8%

1.6%

4.3%

HUMBLE ISD

32.3%

28.2%

20.4%

33.8%

30.5%

0.0%

34.9%

29.5%

21.3%

2.6%

1.3%

JAMIE'S HOUSE CHARTER SCHOOL

99.0%

89.5%

93.0%

92.3%

76.2%

23.2%

94.4%

42.4%

33.0%

-4.5%

-47.1%

KATY ISD

28.7%

26.9%

19.7%

29.8%

26.3%

17.3%

31.8%

22.6%

16.4%

3.1%

-4.3%

KIPP SOUTHEAST HOUSTON

79.8%

57.8%

51.6%

82.7%

55.2%

21.1%

84.3%

34.2%

27.2%

4.5%

-23.7%

KIPP, INC. CHARTER

93.6%

41.6%

34.5%

92.9%

48.2%

28.8%

92.3%

32.8%

26.5%

-1.3%

-8.8%

KLEIN ISD

35.7%

26.1%

19.2%

38.8%

29.4%

27.7%

42.6%

25.3%

18.9%

7.0%

-0.8%

LA AMISTAD LOVE & LEARNING ACADEMY

94.5%

66.9%

47.9%

98.5%

67.7%

25.5%

93.5%

75.9%

72.4%

-0.9%

9.1%

LA PORTE ISD

44.8%

36.8%

29.1%

47.4%

46.1%

0.0%

47.6%

41.7%

32.9%

2.8%

4.8%

LEADERS OF TEXAS FOUNDATION INC.

100.0%

45.0%

30.0%

100.0%

43.2%

24.1%

100.0%

32.0%

21.3%

0.0%

-13.0%

MEDICAL CENTER CHARTER SCH

88.7%

75.0%

70.5%

92.7%

68.0%

27.4%

89.3%

61.0%

60.2%

0.6%

-14.0%

MEYERPARK ELEMENTARY

82.9%

39.9%

27.7%

84.1%

46.0%

28.1%

83.1%

54.6%

45.6%

0.3%

14.7%

50

% Total Participation in SBP

Change from 2009-2012

Counties are represented in gray


2009-2010

2010-2011

% Total Participation in SBP

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

2011-2012

% Total Participation in SBP

Change from 2009-2012

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

% Total Participation in SBP

% Change in FRP Eligible Students

% Change in FRP Eligbile Students Participating in SBP

County and District

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

NORTH FOREST ISD

80.5%

58.3%

44.6%

80.7%

58.8%

15.0%

85.0%

54.2%

43.2%

4.5%

-4.2%

NORTHWEST PREPARATORY ACADEMY

96.9%

40.2%

34.2%

87.5%

57.4%

35.4%

93.9%

48.6%

36.5%

-3.0%

8.4%

PASADENA ISD

75.5%

35.4%

28.9%

78.4%

35.7%

22.2%

78.2%

34.5%

28.7%

2.7%

-0.9%

PILGRIM LUTHERAN SCHOOL

4.7%

0.0%

0.0%

6.2%

0.0%

47.6%

6.8%

0.0%

0.0%

2.1%

0.0%

PROMISE COMMUNITY SCHOOL

95.6%

40.6%

34.3%

94.0%

47.9%

22.3%

97.6%

42.8%

34.6%

2.0%

2.2%

RAUL YZAGUIRRE SUCCESS CH

96.8%

30.8%

23.2%

97.1%

30.1%

20.4%

97.0%

24.0%

19.5%

0.2%

-6.8%

SER-NINOS SCH.

96.1%

19.7%

17.3%

86.5%

20.2%

87.5%

95.7%

20.1%

15.2%

-0.5%

0.4%

SHELDON ISD

79.3%

47.4%

45.7%

79.8%

57.2%

18.8%

71.1%

57.4%

47.9%

-8.2%

10.0%

SOUTHWEST HIGH SCHOOL

94.2%

24.6%

21.1%

88.0%

31.2%

27.8%

93.9%

27.8%

22.2%

-0.2%

3.2%

SPRING BRANCH ISD

57.1%

39.7%

28.8%

57.0%

38.6%

37.9%

58.2%

34.6%

24.7%

1.1%

-5.2%

SPRING ISD

70.8%

33.9%

27.7%

74.2%

40.8%

24.6%

73.8%

45.9%

43.0%

2.9%

12.0%

ST FRANCIS OF ASSISI SCHOOL

68.8%

32.6%

25.5%

73.2%

32.9%

41.7%

71.6%

28.7%

25.7%

2.8%

-3.9%

ST MARK LUTHERAN SCHOOL

4.0%

0.0%

0.0%

5.6%

0.0%

18.1%

6.4%

0.0%

0.0%

2.4%

0.0%

STEPPING STONES CHARTER EL

90.6%

30.9%

24.1%

93.6%

24.5%

24.4%

88.5%

22.1%

17.1%

-2.1%

-8.8%

THE CHINQUAPIN SCHOOL

75.1%

32.0%

27.4%

82.0%

33.5%

21.9%

74.8%

35.0%

33.6%

-0.3%

3.0%

THE RHODES SCHOOL

72.8%

64.0%

62.3%

91.0%

63.5%

28.1%

88.7%

23.9%

21.4%

16.0%

-40.1%

THE VARNETT PUBLIC SCHOOL

97.3%

38.5%

28.1%

97.7%

28.8%

26.2%

98.9%

35.5%

23.7%

1.6%

-3.0%

TOMBALL ISD

27.8%

20.3%

15.0%

27.2%

22.7%

33.9%

26.4%

25.7%

18.6%

-1.4%

5.4%

TWO DIMENSIONS PREPARATORY ACADEMY

96.1%

41.3%

35.4%

100.0%

78.9%

33.4%

95.1%

78.7%

66.8%

-1.0%

37.5%

UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON CHARTER

19.4%

45.1%

32.6%

28.2%

60.7%

20.1%

35.6%

51.4%

38.6%

16.2%

6.3%

YES PREP PUBLIC SCHOOLS, INC.

78.4%

27.7%

22.2%

79.1%

29.2%

23.9%

82.7%

17.1%

13.7%

4.3%

-10.6%

ZOE LEARNING ACADEMY

88.8%

56.0%

47.6%

95.6%

77.5%

69.7%

97.3%

47.8%

42.2%

8.6%

-8.2%

HARRISON

60.9%

36.1%

27.2%

61.1%

35.3%

26.4%

57.6%

37.9%

27.7%

-3.3%

1.8%

ELYSIAN FIELDS ISD

49.7%

32.7%

26.2%

47.8%

36.2%

81.1%

45.4%

34.6%

26.9%

-4.3%

2.0%

HALLSVILLE ISD

47.7%

29.8%

22.3%

44.5%

29.7%

27.8%

40.6%

30.3%

21.9%

-7.2%

0.5%

HARLETON ISD

42.0%

27.6%

20.4%

40.6%

29.8%

37.9%

44.5%

33.3%

24.4%

2.5%

5.6%

HARRISON COUNTY JUVENILE SERVICES

100.0%

14.8%

9.9%

100.0%

15.8%

24.6%

100.0%

21.0%

14.0%

0.0%

6.2%

KARNACK ISD

96.7%

50.7%

39.4%

95.8%

43.8%

18.1%

95.5%

47.9%

31.9%

-1.2%

-2.8%

51


2009-2010

2010-2011

% Total Participation in SBP

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

2011-2012

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

% Total Participation in SBP

% Change in FRP Eligible Students

% Change in FRP Eligbile Students Participating in SBP

County and District

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

MARSHALL ISD

73.3%

39.8%

30.3%

76.6%

37.3%

24.4%

73.7%

41.8%

30.9%

0.4%

2.0%

WASKOM ISD

61.3%

38.0%

30.1%

62.3%

41.4%

66.1%

58.9%

41.1%

31.2%

-2.4%

3.2%

HARTLEY

57.7%

54.7%

44.9%

56.2%

75.9%

65.6%

63.4%

59.3%

52.4%

5.8%

4.6%

CHANNING ISD

46.9%

57.8%

47.1%

41.8%

63.3%

37.9%

51.0%

63.7%

58.2%

4.1%

5.9%

HARTLEY ISD

65.7%

52.9%

43.6%

67.9%

82.8%

24.4%

73.9%

55.1%

45.2%

8.2%

2.2%

HASKELL

72.8%

74.5%

80.4%

70.4%

77.6%

78.6%

70.2%

50.6%

48.3%

-2.5%

-23.9%

HASKELL CISD

73.4%

72.6%

81.1%

70.3%

77.2%

21.7%

71.4%

36.9%

34.0%

-2.0%

-35.7%

PAINT CREEK ISD

74.4%

76.8%

79.0%

67.7%

74.1%

20.1%

64.8%

87.2%

84.4%

-9.6%

10.4%

RULE ISD

68.2%

91.5%

87.5%

74.3%

82.0%

84.1%

71.1%

82.0%

77.5%

2.9%

-9.5%

HAYS

54.5%

29.7%

23.0%

51.9%

32.1%

24.3%

37.5%

33.1%

23.7%

-17.0%

3.4%

DRIPPING SPRINGS ISD

15.2%

26.5%

18.8%

15.9%

26.2%

24.4%

14.7%

26.1%

18.2%

-0.5%

-0.4%

HAYS CONS ISD

58.4%

28.6%

23.2%

53.0%

33.0%

33.9%

48.5%

33.4%

25.4%

-9.9%

4.8%

HAYS COUNTY JUVENILE CENTER

100.0%

41.7%

27.8%

100.0%

42.0%

33.4%

1.2%

43.5%

29.0%

-98.8%

1.7%

KATHERINE ANNE PORTER SCHOOL

44.4%

43.8%

37.9%

48.2%

69.1%

73.2%

46.9%

49.4%

41.0%

2.6%

5.5%

SAN MARCOS CONS ISD

68.6%

31.9%

24.6%

69.4%

30.8%

87.4%

69.9%

32.7%

24.9%

1.3%

0.8%

TEXAS PREPARATORY SCHOOL

86.7%

37.5%

41.7%

85.5%

52.7%

63.5%

71.5%

64.3%

48.3%

-15.1%

26.8%

THE BURKE FOUNDATION

100.0%

37.5%

25.0%

100.0%

45.0%

33.2%

100.0%

47.5%

31.7%

0.0%

10.0%

WIMBERLEY ISD

30.0%

24.9%

18.1%

32.4%

22.1%

16.2%

29.8%

26.7%

18.9%

-0.2%

1.8%

HEMPHILL

39.9%

22.1%

17.6%

35.7%

18.1%

15.1%

39.4%

25.3%

19.6%

-0.5%

3.2%

CANADIAN ISD

39.9%

22.1%

17.6%

35.7%

18.1%

20.1%

39.4%

25.3%

19.6%

-0.5%

3.2%

HENDERSON

64.1%

34.3%

25.4%

64.0%

34.4%

25.6%

64.7%

35.2%

26.5%

0.6%

0.9%

ATHENS ISD

71.6%

33.7%

24.4%

70.1%

33.1%

33.9%

72.5%

32.9%

23.6%

0.9%

-0.8%

BROWNSBORO ISD

54.2%

29.9%

21.7%

56.0%

30.0%

76.6%

55.1%

32.6%

25.0%

0.9%

2.7%

CROSS ROADS ISD

54.7%

29.3%

21.9%

48.4%

33.7%

47.1%

48.7%

36.8%

29.4%

-5.9%

7.5%

EUSTACE ISD

72.0%

36.1%

28.1%

72.1%

36.1%

26.2%

70.8%

35.9%

27.5%

-1.3%

-0.2%

LA POYNOR ISD

55.2%

34.5%

26.2%

52.6%

33.8%

83.6%

46.7%

29.3%

21.3%

-8.5%

-5.2%

MALAKOFF ISD

65.1%

43.4%

33.9%

66.9%

44.4%

59.0%

70.8%

42.9%

33.2%

5.7%

-0.5%

MURCHISON ISD

63.1%

44.5%

33.4%

67.4%

53.2%

20.3%

78.8%

39.7%

32.7%

15.7%

-4.8%

TRINIDAD ISD

64.0%

27.9%

20.1%

68.8%

34.2%

45.0%

71.5%

45.7%

32.7%

7.5%

17.7%

HIDALGO

82.2%

60.1%

53.1%

82.5%

60.0%

54.0%

81.8%

59.1%

52.0%

-0.4%

-1.0%

DONNA ISD

87.0%

86.2%

76.6%

87.6%

81.8%

66.1%

89.1%

81.7%

76.2%

2.1%

-4.5%

EDCOUCH-ELSA ISD

91.2%

78.9%

73.2%

91.1%

78.3%

17.4%

91.1%

80.0%

74.0%

-0.1%

1.1%

EDINBURG ISD

82.4%

53.4%

47.1%

82.5%

52.6%

44.2%

84.4%

51.9%

47.3%

2.0%

-1.5%

HIDALGO ISD

91.3%

83.0%

84.1%

85.9%

63.2%

23.6%

91.3%

71.5%

71.2%

0.0%

-11.5%

IDEA ACADEMY

79.5%

47.5%

48.9%

79.8%

54.2%

34.6%

78.8%

64.0%

59.0%

-0.7%

16.5%

52

% Total Participation in SBP

Change from 2009-2012


2009-2010

2010-2011

% Total Participation in SBP

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

2011-2012

% Total Participation in SBP

Change from 2009-2012

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

% Total Participation in SBP

% Change in FRP Eligible Students

% Change in FRP Eligbile Students Participating in SBP

County and District

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

IGNITE PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY SERVICE CENTER

89.1%

34.5%

26.2%

98.7%

44.6%

63.5%

78.8%

31.2%

21.6%

-10.3%

-3.3%

LA JOYA ISD

88.0%

66.9%

66.8%

87.5%

67.1%

27.4%

87.9%

65.3%

65.1%

-0.1%

-1.6%

LA VILLA ISD

90.1%

64.1%

64.8%

89.3%

64.0%

26.7%

88.9%

61.8%

61.9%

-1.2%

-2.3%

MCALLEN ISD

65.1%

47.2%

42.9%

65.2%

59.6%

33.9%

65.2%

52.6%

47.9%

0.2%

5.4%

MERCEDES ISD

84.2%

83.2%

66.1%

86.5%

80.5%

20.4%

88.8%

80.1%

68.7%

4.6%

-3.1%

MID-VALLEY ACADEMY

83.4%

21.3%

17.4%

83.5%

21.2%

22.8%

86.5%

25.3%

21.2%

3.0%

4.0%

MISSION CONS ISD

80.8%

62.3%

44.2%

86.8%

55.9%

70.1%

89.1%

56.1%

41.9%

8.3%

-6.2%

MONTE ALTO ISD

89.8%

85.5%

83.6%

91.1%

79.2%

52.1%

89.8%

92.3%

90.3%

0.0%

6.8%

PHARR-SAN JUANALAMO ISD

89.4%

51.2%

59.0%

87.2%

48.8%

25.2%

87.6%

56.9%

61.0%

-1.8%

5.7%

PROGRESO ISD

91.2%

86.6%

87.4%

90.3%

80.5%

28.3%

91.1%

74.2%

74.2%

-0.1%

-12.4%

SHARYLAND ISD

56.5%

26.1%

20.3%

55.7%

27.0%

37.1%

53.3%

15.3%

11.5%

-3.1%

-10.8%

SOUTH TEXAS EDUCATIONAL TECH

71.7%

32.2%

23.6%

76.1%

26.4%

26.2%

73.8%

54.3%

48.0%

2.1%

22.1%

VALLEY VIEW ISDPHARR

90.3%

82.0%

59.9%

97.6%

87.8%

28.4%

97.6%

85.0%

79.9%

7.3%

3.0%

VANGUARD ACADEMY

84.1%

45.4%

34.6%

83.6%

36.5%

23.5%

83.4%

28.1%

21.0%

-0.7%

-17.2%

WESLACO ISD

87.7%

70.4%

63.5%

87.5%

65.2%

28.3%

87.5%

67.7%

60.4%

-0.2%

-2.7%

HILL

65.2%

36.0%

28.1%

66.6%

36.4%

28.3%

68.4%

37.9%

29.3%

3.2%

1.9%

ABBOTT ISD

38.3%

39.3%

33.2%

28.7%

43.1%

33.9%

35.7%

33.9%

28.7%

-2.6%

-5.3%

AQUILLA ISD

55.6%

42.0%

32.3%

57.6%

38.8%

43.1%

54.5%

43.3%

33.1%

-1.1%

1.3%

BLUM ISD

64.9%

34.4%

27.4%

65.7%

34.0%

22.8%

73.3%

31.2%

23.9%

8.4%

-3.2%

BYNUM ISD

49.8%

36.7%

26.7%

61.5%

37.8%

25.2%

56.3%

37.8%

28.2%

6.5%

1.1%

COVINGTON ISD

42.7%

44.5%

33.9%

54.5%

43.0%

20.1%

54.5%

50.0%

37.8%

11.8%

5.5%

HILLSBORO ISD

77.1%

28.0%

20.4%

77.7%

31.0%

26.3%

76.0%

31.3%

22.5%

-1.2%

3.3%

HUBBARD ISDHUBBARD

68.2%

55.2%

43.1%

69.7%

51.2%

30.6%

76.2%

58.0%

55.4%

8.0%

2.8%

ITASCA ISD

62.5%

27.7%

22.8%

63.4%

24.6%

12.8%

69.2%

30.1%

22.4%

6.7%

2.4%

MALONE ISD

84.6%

76.5%

70.1%

90.9%

82.6%

26.2%

92.2%

68.9%

66.8%

7.5%

-7.6%

MOUNT CALM ISD

65.6%

61.2%

52.1%

66.9%

55.3%

44.6%

76.4%

42.6%

38.1%

10.9%

-18.6%

PENELOPE ISD

74.5%

48.6%

45.0%

76.0%

53.5%

28.4%

76.6%

61.8%

55.0%

2.1%

13.3%

WHITNEY ISD

62.2%

33.5%

25.2%

62.7%

29.9%

45.6%

65.0%

34.1%

25.4%

2.7%

0.6%

HOCKLEY

62.1%

46.0%

41.2%

61.6%

47.4%

41.6%

62.4%

50.8%

43.5%

0.3%

4.8%

ANTON ISD

75.1%

25.7%

20.1%

85.4%

27.5%

37.5%

81.7%

25.2%

18.2%

6.6%

-0.5%

CHILDREN'S HOPE RESIDENTIAL SERVICES INC

100.0%

42.5%

28.3%

100.0%

45.0%

12.8%

100.0%

50.0%

33.3%

0.0%

7.5%

LEVELLAND ISD

69.0%

50.2%

46.0%

67.9%

51.3%

22.5%

67.4%

58.5%

49.9%

-1.7%

8.3%

ROPES ISD

50.9%

25.6%

18.8%

50.9%

23.4%

31.5%

48.9%

25.0%

18.3%

-2.0%

-0.6%

SMYER ISD

58.3%

59.5%

52.9%

59.9%

56.2%

32.6%

60.6%

57.6%

52.4%

2.4%

-1.8%

Counties are represented in gray

53


2009-2010

2010-2011

% Total Participation in SBP

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

2011-2012

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

% Total Participation in SBP

% Change in FRP Eligible Students

% Change in FRP Eligbile Students Participating in SBP

County and District

% FRP Eligible Students

% FRP Eligible Students Participating in SBP

SUNDOWN ISD

39.0%

38.6%

37.5%

36.2%

47.8%

28.2%

40.5%

41.9%

38.5%

1.5%

3.3%

WHITHARRAL ISD

40.0%

34.4%

26.3%

38.7%

28.5%

26.3%

46.8%

18.2%

16.6%

6.8%

-16.1%

HOOD

42.5%

36.4%

26.6%

45.6%

37.0%

27.4%

45.9%

36.6%

27.2%

3.3%

0.2%

GRANBURY ISD

44.1%

37.0%

27.2%

47.0%

37.3%

26.2%

47.3%

37.8%

28.2%

3.2%

0.7%

LIPAN ISD

47.7%

40.1%

30.6%

59.8%

40.4%

31.5%

51.3%

34.4%

26.6%

3.7%

-5.7%

TOLAR ISD

22.6%

18.5%

12.8%

24.6%

23.3%

20.4%

27.9%

21.9%

15.0%

5.3%

3.3%

HOPKINS

59.7%

43.5%

33.6%

61.9%

44.4%

34.9%

61.9%

42.8%

33.1%

2.2%

-0.7%

COMO-PICKTON ISD

73.2%

48.2%

37.1%

72.8%

50.1%

22.5%

70.5%

48.4%

38.9%

-2.8%

0.2%

CUMBY ISD

52.6%

46.5%

38.1%

52.1%

49.8%

26.2%

55.3%

45.3%

36.6%

2.7%

-1.2%

MILLER GROVE ISD

48.9%

34.8%

26.2%

52.8%

38.8%

21.9%

55.4%

30.7%

23.4%

6.5%

-4.1%

NORTH HOPKINS ISD

66.3%

66.2%

64.9%

70.7%

62.3%

33.1%

67.5%

58.6%

56.1%

1.2%

-7.6%

SALTILLO ISD

59.3%

57.6%

44.6%

60.2%

64.9%

26.3%

58.6%

52.0%

46.2%

-0.7%

-5.6%

SULPHUR BLUFF ISD

46.4%

38.8%

33.4%

48.0%

44.0%

65.5%

45.7%

30.3%

25.2%

-0.7%

-8.5%

SULPHUR SPRINGS ISD

58.5%

38.8%

28.4%

61.3%

38.5%

56.7%

61.7%

40.4%

29.5%

3.2%

1.6%

HOUSTON

64.1%

34.7%

25.6%

65.3%

35.6%

26.5%

66.8%

34.9%

26.2%

2.7%

0.3%

CROCKETT ISD

80.1%

32.9%

23.5%

85.1%

32.6%

90.4%

80.3%

35.3%

25.7%

0.3%

2.4%

GRAPELAND ISD

57.3%

30.7%

22.5%

59.1%

34.4%

45.6%

68.1%

25.3%

20.0%

10.8%

-5.4%

KENNARD ISD

70.5%

35.3%

28.3%

64.9%

31.7%

29.2%

70.3%

33.3%

25.2%

-0.2%

-2.0%

LATEXO ISD

46.4%

36.7%

26.2%

44.1%

33.1%

28.2%

47.3%

30.6%

22.8%

0.8%

-6.1%

LOVELADY ISD

38.1%

37.8%

28.4%

36.4%

43.3%

19.8%

43.7%

43.2%

32.7%

5.6%

5.4%

HOWARD

59.9%

67.5%

63.3%

61.0%

65.4%

61.2%

56.8%

61.5%

54.2%

-3.1%

-6.0%

BIG SPRING ISD

68.2%

74.5%

77.1%

69.6%

71.9%

37.3%

63.3%

67.6%

62.5%

-4.9%

-6.9%

COAHOMA ISD

40.0%

43.9%

35.2%

42.7%

43.3%

45.6%

41.1%

42.2%

34.5%

1.1%

-1.7%

FORSAN ISD

35.5%

38.3%

31.5%

33.1%

40.6%

8.2%

33.6%

41.8%

33.4%

-1.9%

3.5%

HUDSPETH

81.4%

75.5%

65.4%

78.8%

72.7%

60.4%

90.3%

75.6%

65.9%

8.9%

0.1%

DELL CITY ISD

76.2%

91.6%

90.4%

83.8%

82.4%

29.2%

80.8%

84.0%

89.3%

4.6%

-7.7%

FT HANCOCK ISD

86.7%

66.9%

49.5%

87.7%

68.0%

19.8%

91.7%

70.6%

56.6%

5.0%

3.6%

HUNT

58.5%