I haven’t had the time to read all 118(!) pages of this report, but I wanted to share it before it gets swallowed by the paper monster that is my desk right now.  The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System published Putting Data to Work: Data-Driven Approaches to Strengthening Neighborhoods. 

The report looks at how communities are building and using data systems to target resources.  Individual sections are written by authors from The Urban Institute, LISC, Brookings, The Reinvestment Fund, and other organizations.  The report is part of a broader effort from the Federal Reserve, Urban Institute, The Reinvestment Fund, and LISC to “help communities develop the infrastructure and data sources they need to make strategic policy decisions with respect to neighborhood stabilization.”

The first  Policy Basics: Introduction to SNAP provides an overview of what SNAP is, who is eligible for SNAP, program costs, special features, effectiveness and efficiency, the application process, and the amount of money for which families are eligible.  And as always the fact sheet makes great use of visuals like this one:

 The second, SNAP is Effective and Efficient, is aimed at the inner policy wonk inside all of us.  (Okay, maybe just me) It takes the reader through why SNAP is such an important safety net for low-income Americans.  To make a long story short, it is important because it works!  One reason it works is because we are getting better at providing the service efficiently, as evidenced by the chart below that shows the decrease in overpayment and underpayment in SNAP.

Thank you CBPP for making this policy wonk a more informed advocate!

At Community Action Project (CAP) we provide direct services to Tulsa’s low-income families through high-quality early learning programs and programs that provide families with career, health, and financial supports. Through this work we’ve increasingly appreciated that public benefit programs are an essential support for Oklahoma’s low-income families. As a result, CAP has launched Better Benefits for Oklahoma Families, a series of assessments of Oklahoma public benefit programs.

Our first issue, released in November, looks at the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF). CCDF  is a federal-state program to provide child care subsidies to low-income families with parents who work or are in school. CCDF gives families vouchers to pay for some or all of the child care for children up to age 13. Many families pay some of the cost of care as a co-pay that depends on their income and the number of children in care. In Oklahoma, CCDF is run by the Department of Human Services (OKDHS) and is known as child care subsidy.

There’s good news about CCDF in Oklahoma but bad news as well. Considering all aspects of program design, Oklahoma operates one of the three “best” child care subsidy programs in the nation. Compared to most states, Oklahoma pays a higher premium to higher quality child care providers and has a high maximum income level to qualify for benefits. We also don’t have a waiting list, unlike over 30 states. However, we fall short by requiring families at the poverty level to pay high co-pays and by limiting child care for parents who are searching for work. Fortunately, Oklahoma did not implement an ill-advised OKDHS recommendation to increase family co-pays and reduce family eligibility. 

While Oklahoma’s CCDF system is among the more effective in the nation, service to families could be  improved with minor changes. To that end, Better Benefits for Oklahoma Families recommends that OKDHS:

• increase job search eligibility provisions so families can keep their children with the same provider as their job circumstances change,
• reduce economic and bureaucratic burdens on families by reducing co-payments for families at poverty level, requirements to report changes in income and work hours, and restrictions on the hours that families can use their subsidies.
• tie family co-payments to the quality level of care so families have a financial incentive to seek out the best possible care, 
• reduce barriers to blending with other federal and state funds for early education in order so that our high quality programs like Head Start and prekindergarten can serve more children for more hours and more of the year.

Beyond these simple and achievable improvements, Oklahoma also needs to be more aggressive in converting its CCDF program into one that drives quality early learning across the state.  Our unsuccessful  Early Learning Challenge grant application was faulted for not having clear priorities, for not having a clear plan to change the path for high-needs children, and for not laying out a clear path to school readiness. Fortunately, an enhanced CCDF program can be the first step to addressing these weaknesses. Doing so will require time and commitment from state agencies, child care providers, and early childhood educators. Better Benefits for Oklahoma Families offers some ideas for starting that discussion. Specifically, CAP recommends that Oklahoma:

• focus CCDF resources on high-quality care for the most at-risk children, even if fewer families can be served,
• increase CCDF subsidies to be competitive with the cost of truly quality early care (typical subsidies are just over $5,000 per year for 8-10 hour days all year, compared to the nearly $8,000 cost of prekindergarten for 6-hour days and nine months of the year),
• redesign the  quality rating system to apply higher standards across all providers, including child care, Head Start, and prekindergarten; incorporate outcome measures (such as school readiness) in assessing provider quality, and recognize and reward providers that successfully serve and retain a high proportion of low-income and other at-risk children. 

Oklahoma’s CCDF program is among the nation’s best; we are fortunate to have it as a platfom for building the nation’s best early learning system. We are poised to start building that system today and truly offer Better Benefits for Oklahoma families.

In her post, she summarized a new CBPP report analyzing the demographic characteristics and labor force attachment of voucher recipients.  The analysis shows:

Voucher recipients who do work make around $17,000 per year, which is not enough to afford decent housing in most places.

The analysis also shows:

Of those that weren’t attached to the workforce, many households included a pre-school aged child or a person that has a disability that can make it very difficult work without the aid of child care subsidies and other assistance.  The 129,000 or so recipients who are not attached to the workforce, disabled, or caring for a child under 6 or disabled person tend to get assistance for a shorter time and are geographically spread across the system. 

To me this says that many of the myths surrounding Section 8 recipients are just that myths.  Whether created/used for political means or out of ignorance of the data, they could have a serious impact on this country’s safety net.

Until recently, it was difficult to demonstrate the effects of government assistance programs on poverty, because the official measure of poverty does not take into account the value of what families receive through these programs.  This is critical because policies are under increasing pressure (rightfully so, I would argue) to show successful performance.  But it’s been too easy to watch a rising poverty rate and conclude, incorrectly, that government assistance had failed.

The “official” poverty measure, in use since the 1960’s, was established based on the cost of a minimum diet at that time multiplied by three.  It varies depending on family size, and has increased a bit each year.  The new measure, the less-than-creatively named Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), makes several important corrections to more accurately reflect today’s realities.  It includes certain benefits and tax credits and excludes taxes, certain work expenses, and certain medical expenses.  It considers the cost of not only food, but also clothing, shelter and utilities.  It considers geography and housing status, and defines a “family” slightly differently than the official poverty measure. 

Earlier this month the Census Bureau released a report that explains the new measure in detail and shows that according to the SPM, some 2.5 million more people are considered poor than under the official poverty measure.  Fewer children, however, fall under the SPM than the official measure, which indicates assistance programs have indeed helped the nation’s children stay out of poverty.  The Center for Law and Social Policy  finds that the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) reduced poverty among children by 4.2 percentage points, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamps) by 3 percentage points, and housing subsidies by 1.3 percentage points.    The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities uses the new measure to dig even deeper and conclude that six temporary initiatives affecting the EITC, the Child Tax Credit, the Making Work Pay Credit, and expanding unemployment insurance and SNAP benefits kept nearly 7 million Americans out of poverty in 2010.  For 32 million more still considered poor, these programs lessened the severity of their poverty.  The Center shows that without government assistance, and especially without the six initiatives, the poverty rate would have risen nearly five times faster than it actually did.

What does all this mean?  For one thing, anti-poverty advocates now have the tools to demonstrate that government policies can and do improve the economic situation for poor families.  This is a significant step forward.  For real families, however, the news may be more mixed.  A family of four may be considered impoverished under one measure and not the other, but that fact doesn’t make it easier for the family to pay the bills.  At the same time, the added resources at a family’s disposal as a result of government programs can mean the difference between their children eating three meals a day versus two.  It can mean the difference between turning the heat on and keeping it off.  Policymakers should have access to data that make the point clear.

—

This post was written by Monica Barczak, Director of the Innovation Lab at CAP.

Hard Times Generation (Video)

• State poverty data and statistics: A compilation of data, including poverty, unemployment and asset poverty rates, and information on housing. Each data point links to its source.
• State policies: A listing of key state tax, asset-building and work support policies that help support low-income families; includes links to state or national organizations that track the issue.
• Research: A compilation of relevant state research reports on issues related to poverty and opportunity.
• News: A news feed of articles about poverty in a given state.

From the brief time I spent looking at the data for Oklahoma, I found the map really useful.  I like that I can quickly compare Oklahoma with surrounding states on data points such as food insecurity and participation in federal programs like SNAP, TANF, and EITC.

As someone whose job it is to work to revitalize neighborhoods and to bring about systemic change, I am intrigued by the idea of a man named Robert Lupton, PhD. He developed an idea he calls, “Gentrification with Justice.” He starts with the belief that the deterioration of our nation’s urban landscape came as mobility and the capacity for independence paved the way for a mass exodus of resources from urban areas to the suburbs. In his book, Return Flight, he describes a neighborhood in his home of Atlanta, called Summerhill as this shift to the suburbs occurred following the Civil Rights Movement:

It happened so subtly, the changes were almost imperceptible. The merchants of Summerhill gradually shifted their businesses to the greener pastures of Atlanta’s broader economy. Professional and trades people found better jobs in higher paying areas. Those who could afford it pursued the American dream and bought larger homes in suburban communities. Everyone in Summerhill who was able took full advantage of the historic opportunities for better education, new careers, and advancement into public leadership.

Everyone who was able, that is. In all the excitement, those who were able overlooked those who were less able to capitalize on the new opportunities. The elderly, those in broken families, the closer to the poverty line whose energies were consumed by the toil of surviving – those people were left behind. Owner-occupied homes became rental properties and began to deteriorate. Stable families left, while fragmented families remained. The business district declined and eventually was boarded up. Churches closed. As the leaders withdrew, darker forces filled the void. Desperate people began to prey upon the vulnerable. The fabric of the community grew weaker as each strand was removed. And in the end, it came apart. In the end, the once proud neighborhood of Summerhill lay desolate and ruined in the shadow of the capitol’s golden dome.

It is not difficult to create a ghetto: simply remove the more capable neighbors. It is quite easy to produce a substandard school system: just withdraw the children of achieving parents. We can create a culture of chronically dependent people merely by extracting the upwardly mobile role models for the community. See how effortlessly all this has been accomplished in Summerhill? And in the thousands of other Summerhills of our cities? All it takes is for us to pursue our own dreams and concentrate only on what seems best for our own families and leave the job of being a good neighbor – neighboring – to agencies. … Programs do not restore communities. Only neighbors can do that.

Dr. Lupton goes on to describe his belief that part of the solution to our challenged neighborhoods is for those of us with means to consider intentionally relocating to areas of need and to “re-neighbor” our neighborhoods. This idea requires a sense of purpose and intentionality that is challenging but clearly seems vital to the task of revitalization. He suggests that “re-neighboring”, in turn, brings about a healthier community – one in which neighbors are diverse and interdependent upon one another. Further, it could bring about the stability and resources needed for a neighborhood to be revived.

–

This post was written by Kirk Wester, Director of  Neighborhood Revitalization Initiatives.

Based on statistics reported by MyBankTracker.com, 61% of Americans are living from paycheck to paycheck.  In an annual survey conducted by the American Payroll Association, 71% of workers would find it somewhat difficult to very difficult to meet current financial obligations if their next paycheck were delayed for a week.

How do we overcome this?  Depending on individual situations, the path will vary, however, the basic starting place is budgeting.

We hear people like Suze Orman, Clark Howard, Dave Ramsey and so many others give financial information and advice.  They’re on the radio, on television, in the newspapers and online.   It can be confusing because they don’t all agree on the same approaches.  But, I like to take pieces of what each of them advocates that work for me.  My opinion is that we all have different priorities and situations in life and what works for me will not necessarily work for you or my neighbor or my sister.

How do you get started and how would you like to keep track of your budget?  These days, there are so many options.

Some sources of budgeting help include:

• Credit Counseling Centers of Oklahoma
• MyBankTracker.com offers a simple three-step budgeting process
• LifeHacker has ranked their top five personal money management websites
• Dave Ramsey includes budgeting forms on his website
• Many churches and community organizations also offer budgeting classes

Find a budget tracking method that works for you and stick with it.  It may take a while to develop good budgeting habits, but we can all benefit from budgeting.  It helps us reduce debt, limit financial stress, and reach our financial goals.

—–

This post was written by Pat Douthitt, Financial Analyst in CAP’s Accounting Department.

As you all know the data has been given a thorough review on various blogs, in newspapers and magazines, and on television.  I think they do a great job of covering the major trends like median income has declined since 2009, but I think they miss the details sometimes.  To me the details of this kind of data are important, so in my posts I will be pointing out the details that struck me in this data.  Today’s post will focus on income data.  Specifically:

Differences between Female-headed Households and Male-headed Households

I think it is generally understood that median household income for married households is higher than single-parent households.  But, what struck me was the difference in estimated median household income between single mother households and single father households.  The estimated median household income for a single mother household was $32,031 in 2010 compared to $49,718 for a single father household.  The estimated median income for single father households actually increased by 1.7% between 2009 and 2010, while single mother households saw a decrease of 3.3%.

Differences between Living Inside the Principal City and Living Outside the Principal City

When a person lives in a metropolitan area, they either live inside the principal city (Tulsa is our principal city) or outside the principal city (Broken Arrow, Bixby, or Owasso are examples).  Those living inside the principal city had an estimated median income of $44,049 in 2010 while those living outside the principal city had an estimated median income of $59,140.  The estimated median income of those living inside the principal city dropped 3.4% compared to 2.4% for those living outside the principal city.

Age of Householder

The 2010 Census reveals that householders under the age of 25 saw their estimated median income decrease 9.3% from 2009 to 2010.  The group’s estimated median income dropped to $28,322 in 2010.  Households with householders between 25 and 34 saw their income drop 1.9% to $50,059.  This stuck out to me because the majority of children served by CAP have mother’s under age of 30. 

To view the entire report, click here.

The first, “Making Sense of Next Week’s Poverty Data,”  lists five points to keep in mind when looking through the new data:

• Poverty may increase.
• “Deep poverty” could hit a record high
• Poverty is unlikely to improve in 2011, and it might remain high for a while
• Cutbacks at the state level and the expiration recession benefits in conjunction with the coming cuts to discretionary spending at the federal level are placing a drag on the economy
• Government assistance (unemployment insurance and SNAP) have kept the poverty rate from climbing higher.

This graphic from the second brief, “Why the Upcoming Poverty Numbers Matter,” shows what living below the poverty line means to families with children. 

More to come on 2010 poverty data later this week.

To read the corresponding article, click here.

In the first lecture of the Fall 2011 series, will feature Lisa G. Klein, Executive Director of the Birth to Five Policy Alliance, presenting “Why Early Childhood Matters: Brain Development Birth to Five.”  The lecture will be August 17, 2011 in the Chesapeake Room of the Oklahoma History Center.

Other lectures in the Fall 2011 Lecture Series include:  

October 12, 2011

 Diane Horm, Director of the Early Childhood Education Institute at OU-Tulsa, and Annie van Hanken, Senior Program Officer at the George Kaiser Family Foundation, will present on early childhood issues.

November 8, 2011

Michael Korenblit, President and Co-founder of the Respect Diversity Foundation, will present “Respecting Diversity: Stories from the Holocaust.”

December 13, 2011

Paul Amato, Profess at Pennsylvania State University, will present “A Generation at Risk: Impact of Divorce on Children.”

For more information about the Fall 2011 OKDHS Practice and Policy Lecture Series, click here. 

Today, I read a statistic that made me stop in my tracks:

In 33 States and the District of Columbia the annual cost of center-based child care for a 4-year old is more than the annual in-state tuition at a public four-year college.

Yes, you read that correctly.  In Oklahoma the cost is very similar, with only $66 separating the two.  While in the District of Columbia and Wyoming the cost of center-based child care for a 4-year old is more than double the cost of attending an in-state public four-year college.  For me this really puts into perspective the choices and tradeoffs working parents have to make when deciding the type of child care they chose for their children.  In some cases there really isn’t a choice at all.

Direct the Rider, Motivate the Elephant and Shape the Path—how can these be the core elements to effecting lasting change?  In their highly acclaimed book, “Switch,” authors Chip and Dan Heath make a compelling case for how to bring about change, be it at the individual , team,  organization or community level.  Harnessing both the rational side of the Rider and the emotional side of the Elephant, as well as clearing the way for success, are essential for making a Switch.  Their change management model is powerfully illuminated by success stories from many realms—individuals, non-profits, corporations, and even countries.

As I think about how to apply these principles to the work of CAP, I am struck by how simple, yet powerful, the model can be.  For example, as we looked at trying to change the behavior of parents to drive improved child attendance, perhaps we needed to Motivate the Elephant by making the change a matter of identity rather than a matter of consequences:  “Be a better parent!” vs. “Get your child to school or else be put on an Attendance Improvement Plan!”  And as we introduce requirements for parents to attend new parenting classes, once again we have to think about how best to Motivate the Elephant and gain buy in by helping parents ‘find the feeling’ and ‘shrink the change.’  One way is by setting smaller, attainable goals within immediate reach and by recognizing accomplishments along the path, instead of only rewarding completion at a culminating graduation ceremony.

I also thought about how best to apply the principles in the book to our nascent CAPwellness program, which is designed to induce change at the individual level.  As the authors of “Switch” state:  “The rational mind wants a great beach body; the emotional mind wants that Oreo cookie.”  As an organization, we must successfully deploy all three components of change in order to have a successful program.  And I personally discovered how difficult it is to earn wellness credits during the first year of the program—in spite of my deliberate efforts, I ended the program year with only 49 of the total possible 68 points!  So how do we Direct the Rider by investigating what’s working and clone it?  How did four CAP employees succeed in earning more than 60 points last year?  Perhaps we have some new CAPwellness Ambassadors in our midst…  And how do we Shrink the Change and enable employees to earn more points early to Motivate the Elephant?  One possibility is to plan for Community Events and Local Discretionary Events for employees early in the cycle to enable them to get those points banked early!  If we can help people see the change happening, it’s easier for them to stay on the Path.  And how about the Path we have shaped—perhaps we need to Tweak the Environment by taking a look at a more user-friendly system.  We need to explore all three components of change to allow us to reach our CAPwellness goals, and I firmly believe we are up for the challenge! 

I’m confident there are numerous examples of how the principles of change discussed in “Switch” apply to our agency, and invite others to comment on how to help our clients and our employees make the Switch!

—

Karen Kiely is Chief Operating Officer at Community Action Project of Tulsa County.

Smart Start is a public-private partnership led by a board of representatives of state agencies, advocates for young children, funders, and local Smart Start affiliates. Recommendations to the Governor are created by Smart Start’s working groups and then reviewed by a coordinating group. After public review and comment, recommendations will be approved by the board and forwarded to the Governor. Recommendations currently under consideration include:

•  supporting development of a longitudinal data system to help track young children’s education, health, and supports and to connect data about early experiences with school and other outcomes as children grow,
• supporting improvements in the state’s quality rating system, which helps parents identify quality early childhood education providers, and
• reaffirming Smart Start’s role in leading the process of setting standards for school readiness.

Specific wording of these and other recommendations will be available in early August on Smart Start’s website.

The hearing on recommendations will conclude the first annual Smart Start “Champions for Children” conference. This conference will bring together funders, advocates, and providers of services to young children to learn more from Lisa Klein,Executive Director of the Birth to Five Policy Alliance, as well as state business, legislative, and executive leaders. Here’s the conference agenda and information on registration, which is free, but space is limited. Registration is due by July 31. If you’re interested in commenting but cannot attend the conference, send written comments to patrick.brown@smartstartok.org by August 12.

Oklahoma is fortunate to have a strong network of early childhood service providers, funders, and advocates. The Champions for Children conference will help connect interested Oklahomans with these great resources and will help elevate the needs of young children on Governor Fallin’s–and the state’s–agenda.

The first “The Long Reach of Early Childhood Poverty” by Greg J Duncan and Katherine Magnuson outlines recent research on how poverty during early childhood (0-5 years of age) seems to have more impact than poverty at other times during childhood and adolescence.  Specifically, they cite research using data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics.  The study is based on children born between 1968 and 1975.  Income measures were available every year during the child’s life from 0 to 15.  Adult outcome information was collected between the ages of 30 and 37.  The study found that poor children completed two years less schooling, earned less than half as much money, worked 451 fewer hours per year, received $826 per year more in food stamps, and are nearly 3 times more likely to report poor overall health.  Males were more than twice as likely to be arrested; females were 5 times more likely to have had a child out-of-wedlock before turning 21.  This same research found that for families  with incomes less than $25,000 and children under 5, a $3,000 boost in annual income resulted in a 17%increase in adult earnings and  increased hours of work per year after age 25.  In other words,  it changed the economic future of the young children in that family.

The second article “Building a Foundation for Prosperity on the Science of Early Childhood Development” by Jack P. Shonkoff, M.D. discusses how we can use our increased understanding of the complexities of early childhood development to improve our interventions.  Scientists have discovered that our the environment in which children live from conception to early childhood can actually affect a childs biology by creating what he calls biological memories.  Specifically he states that early experiences with threat, uncertainty, neglect, or abuse trigger the body’s stress management systems, which can become over-activated if these conditions occur frequently.  An over-active stress management system can cause disruptions in the development of brain circuitry.  In other words, it can alter they way the brain processes information.  Other biological responses to frequent stress in early childhood include increased risk of a compromised immune system, hypertension, heart disease, obesity, substance abuse, and mental illness.  Based on this research, Shonkoff suggests targeting three areas during early childhood.

• Healthy, stable relationships:  This includes both family and non-family relationships and includes a continuum of interventions from providing more nurturing, responsive care giving to protecting kids from abusive relationships
• Physical environments:  Includes protection from chemicals like lead, mercury, and pesticides; safety from injury such as using car seats properly and safe play areas and; safe neighborhoods
• Appropriate nutrition: Includes the availability and affordability of nutritious food; parent’s ability to plan age-appropriate meals; controlling the problem of excess caloric intake and childhood obesity.

Shonkoff also looks at some of the challenges policymakers and service providers face in trying to address the needs of young children.  He argues that we need to focus both of innovation and improving the quality of existing programs.  He lays out 4 major challenges to these approaches.

• Thinking across silos:  There is a need for coordinated, integrated, science-based interventions that are applied across agencies and sectors
• Understanding the cultural context: A broad range of child-rearing beliefs and practices must be considered before implementing interventions at scale
• Innovating as well as improving:  the author wonders if our definition of evidence is too narrow. 
• Formulating and testing new theories of change:  Policies and practices will evolve best in an open, diverse environment that values and promotes intellectual flexibility, creativity, risk-taking, and learning from failure. 

To read more from Pathways, click here.

Global Gardens teacher Symon (left); helps Ryan and Andrea (right) shape an earthen oven during a summer program at Rosa Parks Elementary School on Tuesday. MATT BARNARD/Tulsa World

   Today’s Tulsa World included a great article about the Global Gardens summer program at Rosa Parks Elementary School.  For those who don’t know Global Gardens uses gardening and hands-on science to empower low-income kids and communities.  Here in Tulsa it has done just that!  The program at Rosa Parks faced the challenge of providing meals to participants after the schools Summer Food Program closes at the end of June.  In previous years, program staff made meals on a single hot plate.  From my own college experience, I know it can be difficult to make a meal for one or two people on a hot plate, let alone 20 kids plus program staff.  While brainstorming what to do to solve this problem one of the kids in the program suggested an earthen oven like those his family in Mexico uses to cook enchiladas, tamales, and even bread.  The staff looked into the idea and put the plan into action.  Soon, they will have a fully functioning earthen oven in their communal garden.

   The one thing that really struck me about this story was how program staff included participants in the problem-solving process and also in the follow through.  This really highlights how programs like Global Gardens empower kids.  It teaches them how to face challenges head on and implement solutions, which is a valuable lesson for every person to learn, not just low-income children.  It also seems that the program is fostering a desire to improve their communities, which is demonstrated in two quotes from participants.

First, from Erendira a fifth grader:

“Since the free lunch program ends when summer school ends, I was that thinking maybe we should make a lot of food in the oven,” Erendira said.

“Then, we can gather all the food and take field trips around the neighborhoods and apartments and see if anybody wants food, because some people can’t afford it.”

And this one from Romaldo, the fifth grader who suggested the earthen oven idea:

“It’s not just about us planting plants, it’s … helping other people, learning about plants, and how to provide things to make the community better,” he said.

“We’re small, but we can do big things.”

Gosh, I just want to give those kids a great big high-five! 

From this little corner of Tulsa, congratulations to the Global Gardens participants at Rosa Parks, and I personally can’t wait to see the great things you all will be doing in the future!

To read more about this story in the Tulsa World, click here.

To read more about Global Gardens, click here.

Tulsa Public Schools’ summer food program has been rebranded this year as Summer Cafe.  In 2010, the Summer Café served over 53,332 breakfasts, 103,225 lunches and 25,526 afternoon snacks.  This year the program will be offered at more than 70 sites across Tulsa.  The sites are not just schools; they are churches, community centers, apartment complexes, and summer camps.  To find the site closest to you, click here.   

Tulsa Public Schools is not the only provider of the Summer Food Service in the area though.  Other Tulsa area summer food sites include:

• Beggs:
•  May 31-June 30.
• Mondays through Thursdays. Breakfast 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. Lunch 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
• Adults may purchase breakfast for $1.75 and lunch for $3.
• For information about where the meals are served and to get transportation, call Sandra Howell at 918-267-3643.
• Broken Arrow:
• Monday through July 21.
• Mondays through Thursdays. Breakfast 8 a.m. to 9 a.m.; lunch 12:30 p.m. to 1 p.m.
• Westwood Elementary, 1712 N. 18th St., Broken Arrow.
• Sand Springs:
• Monday through June 30.
• Mondays through Thursdays. Breakfast 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. Lunch 11 a.m. to 12 p.m.
• Central Fine Arts Academy, 11 W. Broadway St., Sand Springs.
• Union:
• Mondays through Thursdays.
• Monday through June 30:
• Briarglen Elementary, 3303 S. 121st East Ave. Breakfast 8:45 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. Lunch noon to 1 p.m.
• Roy Clark Elementary, 3656 S. 103 East Ave. Breakfast 8:00 a.m. to 9 a.m. Lunch 11:00 a.m. to 1 p.m.
• Rosa Parks Elementary, 13702 E. 46 Place South. Breakfast 8:30 a.m. to 9:15 a.m. Lunch 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m.
• Jefferson Elementary, 8418 S. 107 East Ave. Breakfast 8:30 a.m. to 9 a.m. Lunch 11:45 a.m. to 12:55 p.m.
• July 11 through July 28:
• Roy Clark Elementary, 3656 S. 103rd East Ave. Breakfast 8 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. Lunch noon to 12:30 p.m.
• Briarglen Elementary, 3303 S. 121st East Ave. Breakfast 8 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. Lunch noon to 12:30

To read more about summer food in Tulsa in the Tulsa World, click here.

To our previous post about the Summer Food Service, click here. 

To read more about food on our blog, click here.