.
Feedback

CCUSD Free and Reduced-Price Meals for the 2012-2013 School Year

The Culver City Unified School District releases its policy for providing free and reduced-priced meals for children served under the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program.

The following is a breakdown of household size and income criteria for children in the Culver City Unified School District eligible for free and reduced-price meals for both the School Breakfast Program and the National School Lunch Program.

The price of breakfast at all elementary schools is $1.75 and $2.00 at secondary school; Lunch prices are $2.75 at elementary schools and $3.00 at secondary schools.

According to a release issued by The Culver City Unified School District Food Services Department, household size and income criteria identified in the table below will be used to determine eligibility for free, reduced-price, or full-price meal benefits. 

Children from households whose income is at or below the levels shown in the table are eligible for free or reduced-price meals.  Children who receive CalFRESH, California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs), Kinship Guardianship Assistance Payments (Kin-GAP), or Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) benefits are automatically eligible for free meals regardless of the income of the household in which they reside. 

In addition, a foster care child who is the legal responsibility of the welfare agency or ward of the court is eligible to receive free meals regardless of income. Foster children may be on the same application as the other children in a family’s household, however the foster child’s eligibility is based on their “Personal Use Income.”

INCOME ELIGIBILITY GUIDELINES FOR FREE AND REDUCED-PRICE MEALS PROGRAM

Participants from households with incomes at or below the following levels may be eligible for free or reduced-price meals or free milk.

 

free eligibility scale lunch, breakfast, milk reduced-price eligibility scale LUNCH, BREAKFAST

household size

year

month

twice per

month

every two

weeks

week

year

month

twice per

month

every two

weeks

week

1

$ 14,521

$ 1,211

$   606

$  559

$  280

$ 20,665

$ 1,723

$   862

$   795

$  398

2

19,669

1,640

820

757

379

27,991

2,333

1,167

1,077

539

3

24,817

2,069

1,035

955

478

35,317

2,944

1,472

1,359

680

4

29,965

2,498

1,249

1,153

577

42,643

3,554

1,777

1,641

821

5

35,113

2,927

1,464

1,351

676

49,969

4,165

2,083

1,922

961

6

40,261

3,356

1,678

1,549

775

57,295

4,775

2,388

2,204

1,102

7

45,409

3,785

1,893

1,747

874

64,621

5,386

2,693

2,486

1,243

8

50,557

4,214

2,107

1,945

973

71,947

5,996

2,998

2,768

1,384

For each additional family member, add:

 

$  5,148

$    429

$    215

$   198

$    99

$  7,326

$    611

$    306

$   282

$   141

Be sure to like Culver City Patch on Facebook and follow us on Twitter

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Culver City Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Ken Jones May 10, 2013 at 05:21 pm
Maybe more to the point, where does the methane (way more powerful than CO2 as a greenhouse gas)Read More release go from the fracking process, where do the "secret"and other cancer causing chemicals go, and who pays for clean-up costs, increased healthcare costs of residents nearby, possible increased earthquake damage, etc. and where does this oil go (we can't use it--too dirty--so probably China)?
Theodora Crawford May 10, 2013 at 03:09 pm
As I understand it, fracking wells "dry up" fairly quickly, which is why pressure to keepRead More drilling so urgent. Where do the jobs go after a year or so? Just a thought....
Adam Rakunas April 8, 2013 at 06:45 pm
This non-apology is a joke. Still not going spend money in Culver City, dude.
Marco Anderson April 8, 2013 at 01:51 pm
Steve Rose writes "I'm a responsible car driver and I look for the same from bike riders."Read More However I challenge him to spend his next long drive staying at exactly the posted speed limit. I tried this once driving from the Long Beach Airport to Irvine. And I was astounded at how slow this felt. I also noticed that in all contexts (Freeway, Arterial, and local road) I was the only one doing so. I didn't pass or pace a single other car for the full 30 minutes. So somehow I doubt that although he may be "responsible" driving he is a fully law-abiding driver.
Yosi Sergant April 8, 2013 at 09:30 am
(....continued) Mr. Rose, your heart might have been in the right place, but you asked the wrongRead More questions and alienated bike riders in the process. More important, the approach was simply confrontational and not reflective of the changing perspective (read: progress) of the broader city on bicycle riding nor of the amazing new life blood of the those who are revitalizing the very Culver City you love and have worked so very hard for. Again, I urge you to apologize (not clarify) and perhaps come speak to some bike commuters/riders and join us in making Culver City's road's, less territorial and safer...