Child nutrition program operations study second year report

              COMPLETED t)~7¥,~-d/ /f 'f/../: e .f.J
G E~~~~:~~o:, Child Nutrition
~~r~~~d Program Operations
Office of St d Analysis and u y Evaluation
First Year Report:
Executive Summary
( ~ I
Abt Associates Inc.
ss Wheeler Street • Cambridge • Masslcbuscas 02132-1168
'Jelepbooe: (617) 492-7100
Fax: (617) 492-5219
Prepared by:
Abt Associates Inc.
55 Wheeler Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
Prepared for:
John Endahl
Office of Analysis and Evaluation
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
CIDLD NUTRITION PROGRAM
OPERATIONS STUDY: First
Year Report Executive Summary
Contract No. FNs-53-3198-7-32
Authors:
Robert St.Pierre
Mary Kay Fox
Michael Puma
FreJeric Glantz
Marc Moss
August 1991
An Equal ~ty Employer
l
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S11JDY BACKGROUND
Under contract to the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Abt Associates Inc. (AAI) of Cambridge, MA is
conducting a multi-year study of the Child Nutrition Programs. This report
presents fiOOings from the first year of the study.
11IE CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS
The school-based Child Nutrition programs operate in every State in the
Nation. They include the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), the
School Breakfast Program (SBP), the Food Donation Program (FOP), the
Special Milk Program (SMP), and the Nutrition Education and Training
Program (NET). State Administrative Expense (SAE) funding is provided for
the NSLP, SBP, and SMP as well as for the Child and Adult Care Food
Program (CACFP).
Administered by FNS, these programs represent an annual investment of over
$4 billion of Federal funds to establish, maintain, and operate non-profit
school lunch and breakfast programs for the benefit of the Nation's school
children.
PURPOSE OF 11IE STUDY
To manage the Child Nutrition programs effectively, FNS collects ar.d
analyzes information from annual State-level management reports. However,
because these State-level reports vary considerably in both format and content,
FNS is unable to rely on this source for all of its ongoing information needs.
FNS also bas many one-time information needs, in order to address current
policy issues.
Consequently, FNS contracted with AAI to collect information from School
Food Authorities (SF As) through annual surveys to obtain information on
issues that are of interest to FNS. Compared with the alternative of
conducting several special-purpose studies, the implementation of an ongoing
data collection capability reduces FNS' information collection costs, lessens
overall respondent burden, and reduces the length of time required to obtain
the needed data.
The first year report describes the Child Nutrition programs and provides
details about the methods used in carrying out the study. It presents fmdings
in several areas including progr2JJ1 participation, meal prices and meal costs,
issues related to the Food Donation Program and the School Breakfast
Program, claims reimbursement, use of Food Service Management
1
Companies, SFA food service proaram characteristics, and SF A training and
technical usistance.
RESEARCH APPROACH
The Child Nutrition Program Operations Study is designed to collect data
from States and participatinr, SF As through annual telephone surveys during
School Years (SY) 1988-89. 1989-90, and 1990-91 and through on-site visits
during SY 1989-90 and 1991-92, with specific information needs for each data
collection effort defined by FNS staff. The surveys provide a "snapshot" of
administrative structure and, for selected research items that are included in
each multiple surveys, an assessment of year-to-ytar changes in program
operatioDS.
In the first year of the study (SY 1988-89) two data collection components
were desi~ and implemented during the spring of 1989: (1) a survey of all
State Agencies and (2) mail and ~ephone surveys of a nationally­representative
sample of 1,740 SFA managers. Data collected from the SPA
survey is used to produce national estimates u well u estimates for the
fo!lowing wtgroups of SF As:
• public SF As,
• private SFAs,
• SF As that participate in both the NSLP and SBP,
• SF As that participate only in the NSLP,
• high-poverty SF As, and
• low-poverty SF As.
Surveys were successfully completed for 44 States, fhr a response rate of 88
percent. The telephone survey of SPA managers yielded 1,4{11 completed
interviews for an 81 percent response rate, while the mail survey of SFA
managers yielded 1,113 oompleted interviews for a 64 percent response rate.
Potential nonresponse biu wu counteracted by weighting the responding
sample so that the number of lunches served nationally matdles FNS' known
universe counts for all SF As and separately for high-and low-poverty SF As.
Most of the findings from the fint year survey are referenced to SY 1988-89.
However, some of the findings rely on end-of-year data, and hence reference
the previous year (SY 1987-88).
FINDINGS
The major findings for the fint year of the study are grouped into the
following areas: participation in the NSLP and SBP, meal prices and meal
costs, Food Donation Progr JID operations, School Breakfaat Program
operations, meal counting systems, food service management companies, food
service program characteristics, md training and technical usistance.
2
PARTICIPATION IN 11IE NSLP AND SBP
FNS hu an ongoing interest in measuring and understanding participation in
the Child Nutrition Programs because Federal subsidies are tied to the number
of meals actually served. This study acquired data on the num~r of meals
served in the NSLP and SBP during SY 1987-88 and used these data to
compute National estimates of the number of meals served in each program,
u well u to calculate student-level participation rates.
Estimated NSLP and SIP Pvtjdgalion. An estimated 4.0 billion lunches
and 604 million hreakfuts were served to school children in SY 1989-88.
Almost all of the lunches and breakfuts were served in public schools (98 and
99 percent, respectively). Exhibit l shows the proportion of lunches and
breakfuts served to children who qualified for free, reduced-price, and paid
meals. Approximately 39.7 percent of all lunches were served free of charge
to children from low income families, 6.6 percent were served at a reduced
price, and 53.7 percent were served to children who paid full price for their
lunch. Exhibit 1 also shows that almost all breakfuts (83.3 percent) were
served free of charge, while 5.2 percent were served at a reduced price, and
11 .5 percent were served at full price.
Student ~. Student participation rates are defined u the
ratio of the number of meals served to eligible students during the year to the
number of meals that could have been provided. Exhibit 2 shows that overall
student p:uticipation in the NSLP wu estimated to be 59.1 percent for SY
1987-88. That is, on an average day, 59.1 percent of the students who had
the NSLP available to them actually participated in the program. This
estimate is very close to the figure reported by the first National Evaluation of
School Nutrition Program~ (NESNP-1) of 61.4 percent•, and to the estimate
of 59.4 percent which can be calculated from FNS' administrative data2
•
NSLP participation rates are also estimated for children in each income­eligibility
category: 89.7 percent for children who qualified for free meals,
73.0 percent for children who qualified for reduced-price meals, and 45.6
percent for children who paid full price.
Overall NSLP participation rates were higher in SF As offering the SBP (63.1
percent), in small SF As (68.8 percent), and in high-poverty SF As (66.5
percent) than were participation rates in SF As without the SBP (54.1 percent),
in larger SF As (57 .5 percent), and in low-poverty SF As (56.0 percent).
Participation rates were also higher in elementary schools (71.6 percent) than
in secondary schools (48.7 percent).
1Wellisch, J.B. et al,. The National Evaluation of School Nutrition
Proerams: Fina1 Rem>rt. Santa Monica, CA: Systems Development
Corporation, 1983.
2 Annual Historical Review of FNS Proerams: Fiscal Year 1988. USDA,
Food and Nutrition Service, 1989.
3
Exhlblt1
Total NSLP and SBP Participation
(SY 1987 • 88)
National School Lunch Program
RdJced.Prlce Looches 6.6%
(262mRion)
Paid Lunches 53.JOk
(2,149mlllon) ~
Free Breakfasts 83.3%
(503mllon)
Free Lunches 39.7%
(1,590 mlllon)
School Breakfast Program
Paid Breakfasts 11.5%
(70mlllon)
4
Reduced • Price Breakfasts 5.2%
(31 mlllon)
100% r-
90% ~
80% ~
I 70% r-a:
.8 60% ~
I 50%
~ 40% ~ t.
30% ~
20% ~
10% ~
0%
100%.
90%
80%
• 70% ·~
a1&: 60% ·~ .8 50% l • Sl 40% •
t: t. 30% ·~
20%
10% ·~
0%
89.7%
Frtt
Exhlblt2
NSLP and SBP Student Participation Ratas
(SY 1987 • 88)
National School Lli1Ch Propn
73.0%
59.1%
45.6%
• •
R8Ckad- Plld Overal
Price
Income Ellgtillty category
School Breakfast Program
43.2%
20.8%
14.9%
I I I, 4.3%
I I I
Free Reduced- Pilei OYnl
Prtce
Income EEgtillty Category
s
I
I
Exhibit 2 also shows that the overall student participation rate in the SBP wu
estimated to be 20.8 percent for SY 1987-88, almost identical to the estimate
of 20.7 percent derived from FNS admmistrllive data. Examined by income­eligibility
category, SBP participation rates were 43.2 percent for children
who received free meals, 14.9 percent for children who qualified for reduced­price
meals, and 4.3 percent for children who paid full price.
MEAL PRICES AND MEAL COSTS
Previous research hu shown that the price charged for an NSLP meal is a
primary determinant of student participation decisions. This study acquired
data on meal prices for SY 1988-89 u well u available historical data on
meal prices for the prior five years. The study also examined the cost of
producing an NSLP meal, u reported by SPAs.
Meal Prices. The average price for a full-price NSLP meal during SY 1988-
89 wu $.93 in elementary schools and $1 .03 in secondary schools (Exhibit
3). SPAs that participated in the SBP charged lower prices than SPAs that
participated only in the NSLP ($.91 vs. $1.00), and high-poverty SFAs
charged lower prices than l;)w-po"erty SPAs ($.88 vs. $.99). There wu
su6stantial variation in the price of a full-price lunch, with about a quarter of
all SF As charging less than $.8S, over half charging between $.85 and $1.05,
and the remainder charging over $1.05.
Reduced-price lunches averaged $.38 with very little variation across types of
SF As or across grade levels. In large part this is due to the Federally-set
ceiling of $.40 on the price of a reduced-price lunch. The average price for a
lunch served to adults in SY 1988-89 wu $1.55 in elementary schools and
$1.60 in secondary schools. As wu the case with full-price lunches, there
wu substantial variation in the price of adult lunches from SFA to SFA.
The price charged for a paid SBP breakfut in SY 1988-89 wu $.48 in
elementary schools and $.50 in secondary schools (Exhibit 3). SBP prices
were lower in small SF As than in large SF As ($.44 va. $.53) and in high­poverty
SF As than in low-poverty SF As ($.45 vs. $.51). The average price
of a reduced-price SBP breakfut wu $.26 with little variation across typeA of
SF As or across grade 1\Wels. Finally, adult breakfut prices averaged $.75
and were higher in private SF As than in public SF As ($.93 vs. $.74).
C .... es in Lugda Priem. Most SF As held the price of a paid NSLP meal
constant between SY 1987-88 aod SY 1988-89. Elementary !Cbool prices
were increased in 24 percent of SF As, by an average of S .11, while prices in
secondary schools were increased in 32 percent of SF As, also by an average
of $.11. Only two percent of all SF As raised the price of a reduced-price
lunch between SY 1987-88 and SY 1988-89. This is not surprisiq since 8S
percent of all SF As charged the Federally-set maximum. Finally, the price of
an adult lunch w&~ more likely to chan1e than the price of a student lunch.
Forty--two percent of all SF As increased the price of an adult IUDch in
6
$1.60
$1.40
$1.20
$1.00
I $0.80
$0.60
$0.40
$0.20
$0.00
0 Elementary Schools
0 Middle/Secondary Schools
$0.80
$0.70
$0.60
$0.50 .s $0.40 B $0.30
$0.20
$0.10
$0.00
0 Elementary Schools
0 Middle/Secondary Schools
Exhlblt3
NSLP and SBP Meal Prices
(SY 1988-89)
National School Lunch Program
$1 .03
Fuii·Prlct
$1 .55 $1 .60
Adult
School Bre&kta$! !Jrogram $0.74 $0.76
$0.50
$0.25 $0.25
=:~
Full-Price Aeduced-Prtct Adult
7
elementary schools (by an average of $.17} and 46 percent increased prices in
secondary schools (by an average of $.16).
During the five-year period from SY 1983-84 to SY 1988-89, 7t percent of
all SF As raised the price of a paid lunch in elementary schools (by an average
of $.17} and 81 percent raised the price in secondary schools (by an average
of $.19). Over the same five-year period, more than three-quarters of all
SF As held the price of a reduced-price lunch constant both in their elementary
and secondary schools, while over 80 percent increased lunch prices for
adults.
Changes in the price of paid, reduced-price, and adult breakfasts between SY
1987-88 and SY 1988-89, and over the five-year period from SY 1983-84 to
SY 1988-89, were similar in direction to changes in lunch prices.
Rwrtecl Meal Costs. To determine the cost of producing an NSLP meal,
this study converted breakfasts, adult meals, and a Ia carte sales into NSLP
lunch equivalents (LEQs) using an econometric model of the joi!lt production
process used to produce these various cafeteria outputs.
Exhibit 4 shows tbat the average SFA incurred costs of $1.43 to produce an
LEQ in SY1987-88.' Production c:osts per LEQ were higher in large SF As
(average of S 1.65) than in small SF As (average of S 1.30) or medium-sized
SF As (average of $1.52).
However, the average cost of producing an LEQ in SY1987-88 was $1.62.•
This reflects the large number of meals produced in large SF As, where
reported costs per lunch are higher than in other SF As.
As one wou!d expect, food and labor costs accounted for the vast majority of
reported costs (Exhibit 4). Based on the costs incurred by tbe average SPA,
food costs, including the assigned value of donated commodities, accounted
for 48 percent of reported costs, ($.68 per LEQ in SY 1987-88). Labor costs
accounted for 40 percent of reported costs ($.57 per LEQ). All other costs
including supplies, contract services, capital expenditures, indirect charges by
the school district, and storage :md transportation, represented only 12 percent
of reported costs ($.18 per LEQ). Roughly the same distribution of costs is
observed when the LEQ is the unit of analysis.
'Calculated as the average cost per LEQ across all SF As in the Nation, i.e.,
the SFA is the unit of analysis. This analysis gives equal weight to each SFA,
regardless of size.
~culated as the average cost per LEQ across all LEQs served in the
Nation, i.e., the LEQ is the unit of analysis. This analysis gives equal weight
to each LEQ, and since most LEQs are produced in large SF As, the results are
dominated by the costs incurred in large SPAs.
8
Exhibit4
Cost of Lunch in an Average SFA
(SFA is the Unit of Analysis)
(SY 1987 ·88)
Other12%
($0.18)
Labor40%
($0.57)
Total Cost = $1.43
Food4:S%
($0. 731
Cost of an Average NSLP Lunch
(NSLP Meal is the Unit of Analysis)
(SY 1987·88)
Food48%
($0.6ll)
Llbor41%
($0.6&)
Totai Cost = $1.62
9
USDA subsidies to SF As for the NSLP and SBP include both cash
reimbursement and donated commodities. The reimbursement rate for free
lunches was $1 .405 in SY 1987-88. In addition, SF As were eligible to
receive $0.12 per NSLP lunch in entitlement commodities and, subject to
availability, all the bonus commodities that could be used without waste (about
$0.08 per NSLP lunch). Therefore, total USDA subsidy for free lunches
averaged $1.60 ($1.405 + $0.12 + $0.08). This is about the same as the
average reported cost of producing an LEQ ($1.62). It is, however,
somewhat greater than the reported cost of producing an LEQ for the average
SPA ($1.43).
FOOD DONATION PROGRAM
The Child Nutrition Programs have historically acquired large amounts of
surplus agricultural commodities through the PDP. This study obtained data
on several aspects of PDP operations in order to help PNS improve program
operations.
State-Le•d Qpentiom. Most (86 percent) of the 44 States that completed
the survey were involved in processing donated commodities into various end­products.
The products most frequently processed or repackaged under State
agreements include cheese, flour and oil, chicken, and turkey. In disbursmg
processed products to SF As, States used fee-for-service (84 percent of States),
rebate (76 percent), and discount (66 percent) value pass-through systems.
In about half of the States, processing was solely a State-level function, in
another one-third of the States, processing occurred at both the State and SPA
level, and in the remaining States, processing was either an SPA function or
did not occur at all. SPA-level processing was more likely to occur in States
that did not have active processing programs, a finding which is consistent
with findings from the Study of State Commodity Distribution Systems'.
SFA-Lenl QmatioN. Ninety percent of all SF As received donated
commodities through the PDP. Of those that did participate, 84 percent
indicated their preference for the form in which USDA commodities are
received-either through direct ordering through States, State surveys, or
special meetings or committees. The remaining 16 percent responded that
they did not communicate their preferences to States.
Most SF As reported that USDA commodities were delivered in acceptable
condition. Only 17 percent of participating SF As reported receiving 111y off­condition
commodities during SY 1987-88. When problems did occur, the
most frequently cited commodities were dairy products, fruit, and poultry.
5 A Study of tbe State CoDliDOdil)' Distribution Systems, USDA, Food and
Nutrition Service, 1988.
10
About two-thirds of the SF As that participated in the FDP obtained some
donated commodities in a more usable form through the use of processing.
Of these SF As, 30 percent initiated at least one processing agreement
theUL~ves, using commodities such as cheese, beef, flour, chicken, ground
beef, and pork, while 68 percent purchued processed end-products under
State or National agreements.
SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM
For this study FNS requested information on the extent of institutional
participation in the SBP, on factors that affected SF As • and schools • decisions
to participate in the SBP, on the extent to which severe-need school
participated in the SBP, and on whether the typical breakfast offered in
severe-need schools was different from breakfasts provided in other (non­severe-
need) schools.
lnstitutioall Pvtiripatiop in the SIP. An estimated 27 percent of all SF As
in the Nation participakd in the SBP during SY 1988-89, meaning that they
offered the SBP in at least one of their schools. Public SF As, large SF As,
and high-poverty SPAs were more likely to offer the program than other types
of SFAs.
The fact that an SFA participated in the SBP is no guarantee that all of the
schools in that SFA offered the program. Almost half (49 percent) of the
SF As that participated in the SBP did not offer the program in all of their
schools. Public SF As, medium and large SF As, and low-poverty SF As were
most likely to have schools that did not participate in the SBP. FNS program
data indicate that the SBP was available in about 40 percent of all NSLP
schools and to approximately 38 percent of all school-age children in the
Nation.
Forty-three percent of the SF As that participated in the SBP cited the
nutritional needs of the students as a major reason for participation; 30 percent
cited the poverty level of students as an influential factor, and 28 percent felt
that eating breakfast was important for childrens' intellectual functioning.
The primary reasons that schools in participating SF As did not offer the
program were either logistical in nature or were related to a known or
anticipated ls.ck of interest. The most common reasons for non-participation
were that the school bad difficulty openina early (27 percent), the school
expected low student participation (21 perceot), there was a lack of
transportation (17 percent), and the school board lacked interest (14 percent).
Pprtldpde AP"W Smre=Nfled S, ...... Approximately half (48 percent)
of all SF As participating in the SBP durin& SY 1988-89 bad at least one
school that was eligible for severe-need reimbunemeut. While most of the
eligible schools received the inteoded severe-Deed reimbursement, 26 percent
of SF As had one or more eligible schools that did not-the survey results
estimate that 2,488 schools fell into this c:ateaory. Most of these schools (6S
percent) did not apply for the additional reimbunemeut because of the cost
11
accoanting requirements, because the school wu unable to offer the program,
or because the school "did not need the extra money."
Clllndcrilliq of SIP Mu. A wide variety of breakfast foods were
available to students in the SBP during SY 1988-89. The typical SBP meal
included milt (not chocolate), citrus juice, and either iron-fortified cold cereal
or some type of bread or roll. The vast majority of SF As (86 percent) offered
some hot food, and more than half of the participating SF As offered some
choice in selecting breakfast foods.
Seventy-six percent of the SFA managers in districts with at least one severe.-.
need school reported that they provided "enhanced" breakfasts. Thirty-one
percent of SF As that provided enhanced breakfasts served those breakfasts in
all of their schools, regardless of whether the schools were eligible for severe­need
reimbursement.
Breakfasts served in SF As with severe--need schools were somewhat more
likely to include hot food~, especially hot cereal, pancakes and waffles, eggs,
bacon, ham, sausage, or cheese than breakfasts served in SF As with no
severe-need schools. However, breakfasts served in SF As with severe-need
schools were less likely to offer a choice of items to students.
MEAL COUNTING SYSTEMS
To ensure that reimbursement claims are accurate, all SF As are required to
have in place a mechanism for counting the number of meals served to
children in each meal reimbursement category. However, audits conducted by
the USDA Office of the Inspector General and administrative reviews
performed by FNS indicate that, while most schools and SF As operate in an
accountable manner, there are problems with the NSLP meal acc.ountability
and claiming procedures used in some schools and SF As 6•
Meal CountiJw Systems. Over two-thirds of SF As used two or more meal
counting systems during SY 1988-89. The most popular system, used in 54
percent of SF As, involved the use of coded tickets that indicate a child's
eligibility status. Forty-six percent of SF As had schools that provided lists to
cashiers which identified children by name along with their related eligibility
statu..41. Other less-common systems included classroom counts that may or
may not be verified at the point of service, attendance records, and ID card
scanners.
Moni~ Mnh for RcimhwphiUty. In order for a meal counting system
to be fully accurate, the system must ensure that only reimbursable meals are
counted. SF A managers reported that such a monitoring system was in place
6 Federal Review Final RQ?ort. USDA, Food and Nutrition Service, Office
of Analysis and Evaluation, February, 1990.
12
in virtually all (99 pen:ent) public schools. The recent Federal Review of this
issue found that the meal couDtinJ systems in IS percent of public schools did
not yield an adequate count of reimbursable meals. The discrepancy between
the two studies (I percent vs. IS percent) is probably due to the fact that the
Federal Review results were based on on-site observations while the data from
the present study reflect school pol icy u reported by the SF A manager, and
actual practice may vary from written policy.
Moait.orYw Mel Cowdl. The accuracy of meal counts wu monitored at
both the school and the SFA level during SY 1988-89. Meal count accuracy
was monitored in 94 percent of all schools, most often on a daily basis by
food service personnel. The most common approach was a simple comparison
of the number of meals claimed in each category with the number of students
approved for free and reduced-price meals.
At the SPA level, 85 percent of SF As monitored individual schools. The
most common monitoring approach, used by 96 percent of SF As, was to
compare meal counts against the number of approved applications for each
meal reimbursement category. Seventy-two percent of SF As compared meal
counts to attendance records, a method that probably provides a better cross­check
since reviewers are able to identify eligible-but-absent children.
Ampm ofllprtcd Mel <;mm. Data from FNS' Federal Review
showed that schools claim 80 free meals for every 100 applications on file
(claiming ratio - .80). In the present study, the average claiming ratio for
SY 1987-88 wu quite comparable, at .81. More than half (53 percent) of the
schools in this study had claiming ratios above .8S, 16 percent had claiming
ratios above .95, and 7 percent exceeded 1.0.
These claiming ratios do not consider llten1ance, .00 thus may underestimate
the likelihood of overclaiminJ. When attendance is taken into consideration,
41 percent of all schools had claiming ratios in excess of .9S and 26 percent
had ratios above 1.0. These percentqes are somewhat higher than those
found in the FNS Federal Review oitudy, probably because the present study
includes a laraer proportion of elementary schools, which do have higher
claiming ratios than secondary schools.
FOOD SERVICE MANAGEMENT COMPANIES (F'SMCs)
The use of FSMCs is on the rise in apocies that administer the Olild
Nutrition Proarams. While FNS is aware of the approximate number of SF As
that contract with FSMCs, limited information is available on how SF As
actually use these for-profit companies, how SF As select contractors, and the
methods used to monitor performance.
An estimated 7 percent of SPAs (1,011 SF As) employed a FSMC during SY
1988-89. When FSMCs were used, they participated at some level in
virtually all major functions involved in administerin& school nutrition
proarams. Ninety percent or more of SF As that used FSMCs delegated the
13
responsibility for selecting vendon, determining prices aDd specifications,
setting delivery dates, and planning aod developing menus. The majority of
SFAs that used FSMCs in SY 1988-89 (63 percent) paid a flat administrative
fee. Thirty-five percent of SF As reported use of a per-meal rate to determine
or adjust the fee.
Decisions about FSMCs are almost always made by a local School Board, aod
FSMCs are almost always monitored. The ability to provide acceptable, high­quality
meals is the most important factor in evaluating the performance of
FSMCs.
FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS
Several topics related to food service operations were addressed in this study
including food purchasing procedures, kitcllen facilities and meal service
systems, use of SFA facilities for programs other than the NSLP aod SBP, use
of the offer vs. serve (OVS) option in elementary schools, and nutritional
analysis of menus.
f9od Purcbuin& Proceduns. Thirty-seven percent of SF As used a
competitive bid process in selecting all or most of their food vendon; 32
percent used competitive bids only for their largest orders, most often bread,
milk, and ice cream; and 25 percent of SF As never used competitive bids.
Only 23 percent of SF As participated in purchasing cooperatives in SY 1988-
89. Among those that did participate, the foods most frequently purchased
included canned goods, staple items, and frozen foods.
Kitdlen Facilities and Meal Scnice System. During SY 1988-89, SS
percent of SF As operated exclusively with on-site kitchens, 22 percent used
one or more base kitchens or a central kitcllen to prepare meals for satellite or
receiving kitchens, and combinations of two or more types of kitchen facilities
were used in 23 percent of SF As.
Most meals served in the NSLP and SBP were prepared aod served in bulk.
That is, foods were prepared in large quantities and served to individual
children as they passed through a cafeteria line. Sixty-four percent of SF As
relied exclusively on bulk meal service, 11 percent used bulk meal service in
combination with some type of pre-packaged meal service, and 10 percent
used pre-packaged meals exclusively.
Use of SFA FadUties for Other fro&nnw. During SY 1988-89, 28 percent
of SF As used their food service facilities for progrims other than the NSLP
and SBP: 15 percent prepared meals for elderly feeding sites, 12 percent
provided NSLP and SBP meals for other SF As, 11 percent served meals to
day care centers participating in the Olild and Adult Care Food Program, and
10 percent provided meals for the Summer Food Service Program.
14
An'"MiitY of Alfawlirc Footl So dew. Cbildren in middiHeCOndary
schools bad considerzbly more food alternatives available to them than
children in elementary schools. A Ia carte lunch items were available more
frequently in middle/secondary schools than in elementary schools (78 percent
vs. 32 perceot), u were a Ia carte breakfut items (41 percent vs. 18 percent).
Vending machines and snack bars were also more prevalent in
middle/secondary schools than in elementary schools. Forty-eight percent of
SPAs bad vending machines and 3S percent of SPAs had snack bars available
in secondary schools, while only S percent of SPAs bad either of these options
available in elementary schools. Finally, off-campus meal privileges were not
widespread either in elementary (20 percent) or in middle/secondary schools
(30 percent).
Offer D. Say in Elanegta[y Sc;bools. Approximately 64 percent of SF As
used the OVS option in elementary schools during SY 1988-89. Choice
among NSLP entrees was available to middle/secondary sch~l students ln 7S
percent of SF As and to elementary school students in 40 percent of SPAs.
NulritioMI AplJ+ of MCQUI. More than two-thirds of all SPAs analyzed
the nutritional content of their menus in SY 1988-89. While only 9 percent
used a computer-based system, S6 percent of all SF A managers indicated that
they would be interested in receiving information on compu~ programs that
facilitate nutritional analysis.
TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Training and technical assis~ are used in the Olild Nutrition Programs to
ensure that programs operate efficiently, that they comply with Federal
regulations and policies, and that nutrition, high-quality meals are served to
school children.
In'"'• agd Tcrbplgl ApWaacc ProDded by State Apndes. In SY
1988-89, all of FNS' State Agencies provided training or technical assistance
related to menu planning, recordkeeping, and program regulations and
procedures. Over 90 percent of all States also included food purchasing, food
sanitation and safety, food preparation, merchandising, and use of
commodities in their training and technical usistm:e programs. Technical
usistaDce related to contracting procedures was not u consistently available,
being offered by 70 percent of the States.
Over half (SS percent) of the States reported an increase in the level of
trainin& IDd t.eclmical assistance activities over the prior three years, while 36
perc:eut reported no change and 9 percent reported a decrease .
........ IDII In hekal A"W•• Recci!ed by SFAI. Over half (51
perc:eut) of all SPAs received some training or technical usistance during SY
1988-89. 1be topics most frequently covered were program regulations and
procedures, IDd food sanitation and safety.
15
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Food and
Nutrition
Service
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAM OPERATIONS STUDY
FIRST XEAR REPORT
August 1991
Enclosed for your information is the Child Nutrition Program
Operations First Year Report. This report provides a snapshot of
school-based Child Nutrition Programs during the 1988-89 School
Year. Research findings are presented for several areas
including program participation, meal prices and meal costs,
issues related to the Food Donation Program, the National School
Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program, claims reimbursement,
use of Food Service Management Companies, and training and
technical assistance.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact
Janice Lilja, Director of the Office of Analysis and Evaluation,
(703) 756-3017.
ILP
·~--------------------------~1--------------------~
ACQUISITION CLASSIFICATION AND SHIPMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM
12/01/94 PUBLICATION INQUIRY/RESEARCH HACS
11:41 :59 HACP7110
PUBLICATION 10: 93-044414 ENTRY DATE: 02/02/93 SOURCE: CUST. SERV.
PUB. SP
DISTRIBUTION TYPE: FOR DISTRIBUTION REASON:
DISTRIBUTION DATE: 02/02/93 PREV DIST?: N
TITLE: Child Nutrition Program Operations Study. Second Year Report.
AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service AG/BUR CODE: 001024
STOCK NUM(S):
CLASS NUMBER: A 98.2:C 43/4
CLASS DATE : 02/02/93 SOURCE: MAIL OFFICIAL?: Y PREV CLASS?: N
SERIES TITLE:
SERIES NO :
10 NUMBER(S):
VOL:
10 DATES(S): 06/01/92
ED/REV STMT: IES TYPE:
ACQUISITION CLASSIFICATION AND SHIPMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM
12/01/94
11 :41:19
PRODUCT INVENTORY INQUIRY HACS
PUB 10: 93-044414 INVENTORY TYPE: PAPER HACP7700
INVT STATUS: RECVD-COMPL STATUS REASON: FOR MICR STAT DATE:
02/02/93
ITEM NUMBER: 0074 A 01 ITEM COUNT: 545 STOCK NUM: 000 000
00000
BOX NUMBER: SHIP LIST NUM: SL DATE:
SHORT/OVER: 0
ORDERED LPS RECVD ORDERED LPS REC
DO ITEM: 1 1 Sll VER MST SET: 0
DO CLAIMS: 0 0 2ND SILVER SET: 0
DO TOTAL: 1 1 QTY lRANSFERED: 0
IES: 0 0 AREA OF ENTRY: CUST. SERV. PU
SALES: 0 0 TOT REQS PLACED: 1 PREV STATUS: N
DEPT QUAL: 0 0 TOT INV REQS PLACED: 1 PREV DIST: N
INSPECTION: 0 0 INV REQS OPEN: 0 SHORT PROC: N
NOTE: TO MF 2/2/93,El.