Special milk program evaluation and national school lunch program survey /

              •
SPECIAL MILK PROGRAM EVALUATION
and
National School Lunch Program Survey
by John S. Robinson
Food and Nutrition Service
u.s. Department of Agriculture
The Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
appreciates the cooperation of the 768 randomly' selected schools
which supplied data for this study and the local school districts
and State educational agencies which made data collection
possible.
The Food and Nutrition Service also acknowledges the cooperation
of the staff of the Statistical Reporting Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, in developing the survey plan and
collecting and processing the survey data.
SUMMARY
I
II
III
SPECIAL MILK PROGRAM EVALUATION
and
National School Lunch Program Survey
CONTENTS
................. •, ................................. .
BACKGROtJND • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
OBJEC'riVES • •••••.•••••••..••.••••••.•••.••.•••.•.•••
METHODOI..C>GY • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
1
11
14
15
IV IMPACT OF THE FREE MILK PROVISION ON THE
SPECIAL MILK PROGRAM. • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • 22
v IMPACT OF THE SPECIAL MILK PROGRAM ON THE
NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM ••.•••.••••••••.••••• 27
VI STUDENT MILK AND FOOD CONSUMPTION ••••••••••••••••••• 30
VII MILK WASTE • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 52
VIII GENERA.L PROGRAM DATA • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 58
IX SPECIAL MILK PROGRAM OPERATIONS ••••••••••.•.•••••••• 60
X NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM OPERATIONS •••••••••.•• 78
XI SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM OPERATIONS ••••••••••.•••••• 93
XII MILK AND MEAL SERVICE NOT UNDER USDA SPONSORSHIP ••.• 96
XIII SUMMARY OF NARRATIVE COMMENTS ••••••••••••••••••••••• 101
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY. • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 106
APPENDICES:
A. GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS....................... 108
B. SCHOOL QUESTIONNAIRE •.••••••••••••••••••••••• • • • 109
C. STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE........................... 122
D. MILK WASTE TALLY SHEET •. •........................ 123
SPECIAL MILK PROGRAM EVALUATION
and
National School Lunch Program Survey •
SUMMARY
Background and Scope of the Special Milk Program
The Special Milk Program (SMP) was established in 1954 to support dairy
prices by providing for increased fluid milk consumption by children in
nonprofit schools of high school grade and under. The program was
extended 2 years later to include children in nonprofit child care
institutions. Schools constitute the principal outlet for SMP milk: in
fiscal year 1975, over 95 percent of the milk served through the program
was served in schools.
The program has historically operated by providing a Federal reimburse­ment
for each half-pint of milk served to students in participating
schools and institutions. In fiscal 1975, this reimbursement was 5 cents
per half-pint served. The only milk served to students which does not
qualify for this reimbursement is that which is served as part of the
meal requirement of National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School
Breakfast Program (SBP) meals. Beginning with fiscal 1975, all schools
participating in the milk program were required to serve free SMP milk
to needy children, and program reimbursement was extended to pay the
full cost of this free milk.
Participation in the SMP grew from 41,094 schools in fiscal 1955 to a
peak of 92,016 schools and 6, 739 child care institutions· in fiscal 1973.
In fiscal 1975, 83,732 schools participated in the program. Milk served
through the program increased from under 0.5 billion half-pints in
fiscal 1955 to a peak of 3.1 billion half-pints in fiscal 1966.
In fiscal 1975 over 2.1 billion half-pints were served through the SMP,
with about 0.1 billion of these served in child care institutions. On
an average day 11.4 million half-pints were served through the program
in schools, reaching about 9. 2 million childrein·. ·
The following table shows the volume· of milk served in schools ·in 1975,
by program, as a percentage of the total school milk market, and as a
percentage of total fluid milk consumption in the United States.
1
Percentage of Percentage of
all milk total fluid
Milk served Volume of milk served in milk consumption
in schools (mil. of lbs.) schools in United States
Special Milk Program 1,019 30.4 1.8
National School Lunch 2,032 60.7 3.6
Program
School Breakfast 148 4.4 0.3
Program
Milk not served under 150 4.5 0.3
any USDA Child
Nutrition Program
Total-- 3,349 100.0 6.0
Study Objectives and Methodology
This evaluation was undertaken to assess the impact of the free milk
provision on the SMP and to assess the impact of the SMP, in general,
and the free milk provision, in particular, on the NSLP and on student
milk consumption. Other objectives of the study included (1) assessing
milk waste in schools and factors affecting this waste, (2) updating
data from previous surveys on school food and milk service operations,
and (3) determining the impact of the SMP on the demand for milk in
schools. Findings on this last objective (impact of the SMP on demand
for milk) will be presented in a forthcoming report by the Economic
Research Service, USDA.
To accomplish these objectives, enumerators of the Statistical Reporting
Service, USDA, visited 768 schools in the 48 coterminous States and the
District of Columbia in March and April 1975. In addition to collecting
data on food and milk service operations in each of the schools visited,
enumerators collected information on milk and food consumption from a
total of approximately 20,000 students in these schools. Enumerators also
conducted a milk waste study in survey schools which participated in a
USDA child nutrition program.
2
Impact of the Free Milk Provision on the Special Milk Program
Survey data show that the free milk provision of Public Law 93-1~ had a
marked impact on the SMP. The free milk provision changed the SMP from
a simple subsidization program with a minimum of administrative burden
to a relatively complex and administratively difficult program. The
number of schools participating in the Special Milk Program dropped from
a peak of 92,016 in fiscal 1973 to 83,732 in fiscal 1975··-a drop of 8,300
schools. A substantial number of these schools dropped the program
because of the free milk provision of Public Law 93-150.
Determining the precise number of schools that dropped the program
because of the free milk provision is difficult, because this was not
the only change that occurred in the SMP between fiscal 1973 and fiscal
1975. At the beginning of fiscal 1974, USDA restricted the SMP to
schools without food service. This action was reversed by Congress
quickly, through passage of Public Law 93-135 in October 1973. Very
shortly thereafter Congress enacted Public Law 93-150 (in November 1973)
which included the free milk provision. The free milk provision became
effective in fiscal 1975.
Several thousand schools that were cut from the SMP by USDA's action at
the beginning of the fiscal year had not reinstated the program by
January 1974. It is not known how many of these schools failed to rein­state
the program because they did not want to implement free milk service.
It is likely this was a significant factor. Of those that did reinstate
the program, 4,300 schools, enrolling 2.3 million children, dropped the
program between January 1974 and January 1975. Over 90 percent of these
4,300 schools discontinued the program rather than implement free milk
service. Administrative burdens, including cost, and anticipated
difficulty in avoiding overt identification of free milk recipients
were the reasons most frequently given for discontinuing the program.
The number of schools that dropped the program due to unwillingness to
implement the free milk provision thus appears to fall in the 4,000-
8,000 range. In examining schools that dropped the S~~. this study
focuses on the 4,300 schools that dropped the program between January
1974 and January 1975.
In those schools dropping the program over this 12 month period, the
average charge to students for a half-pint of milk increased from 7.5
cents to 10.7 cents after the program was dropped, while per capita
sales of a la carte milk (milk not served as part of the Type A lunch
or SBP breakfast) decreased by 35 percent.
3
Among schools which continued to operate the SMP, implementation of the
free milk provision varied widely. Almost 32 percent of all SMP schools
served no free milk through the milk program in January 1975. Many
respondents in SMP schools which served no free milk indicated they
either thought that free milk service was optional or had chosen not t0
implement it. Although the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) has made
concerted efforts to ensure implementation of free milk service in
schools not in compliance with this provision, a fundamental dilemma
facing free milk service has yet to be resolved--how to maintain reason­able
administrative costs without overtly identifying recipients. Among
schools which were serving free milk in January 1975, none reported a
service system which appeared to resolve this dilemma and had large scale
applicability.
Free milk served under the SMP does appear to help in putting needy
children on a par with nonneedy children in terms of total milk
consumption. In SMP schools children eligible for free milk consumed
approximately the same amount of milk on a 24-hour basis as nonneedy
children. Children eligible for free milk, however, received on the
average 43 percent more milk at school and 22 percent less milk away
from school than noneligibles. Forty-one percent of children eligible
for free milk reported consuming more than one carton of milk at school,
compared to 16 percent of noneligibles who reported drinking more than
one carton of milk. Because the SMP accounts for only 23 percent of all
milk served free in SMP s·chools (the remainder being served via the NSLP
and SBP), free milk eligibles would still consume more milk at school
than noneligibles if free SMP milk service were discontinued.
4
Im~act of the SEecial Milk Program on the National School Lunch Program ..
The impact of the SMP, in general, and the free milk provision, in
particular, on the NSLP was seen to be negligible. Survey responses
indicate that the availability of the SMP does not serve as a deterrent to
a school's inaugurating either the NSLP or the SBP. More important, in
schools with both the NSLP and the SMP the availability of low-cost milk
through the milk program does not appear to serve as a significant
disincentive to a student's participating in the lunch program. The
survey data suggest that while the availability of a la carte milk may
contribute to lo\'rer student participation in the NSLP, the S~-1P has no
greater effect in this regard than does service of unsubsidized, higher
priced milk.
The availability of free milk to needy students through the milk program
does not appear to serve as a disincentive to a needy student's participa­ting
in the NSLP. Although the rate of participation in the NSLP by
students approved for free meals was expected to decrease after free milk
through the SMP became available, survey data show that the expected
decrease did not occur.
Student Milk and Food Consumption
Students in schools with the SMP consumed almost 42 percent more milk
at school and 10 percent more milk on a 24-hour basis than did students
in schools without the SMP. Since 90% of schools with the SMP also have
the NSLP, this higher level of milk consumption may owe more to the NSLP
than to the SMP. Survey data show, however, that both programs effect
increased levels of student milk consumption.
Another factor associated with increased milk consumption was availability
of flavored milk: students in schools with flavored milk consumed about
16 percent more milk at school and 7 percent more milk on a 24-hour basis
than did students in schools which did not make flavored milk available.
Soft drink availability at school, on the other hand, was associated with
slightly decreased milk consumption.
Students eating lunch at school, regardless of food or milk program
availability consumed on the average 20 percent more milk in a 24-hour
period than did students eating lunch away from school. Students eating
the Type A lunch in NSLP schools consumed more milk both at school and
on a 24-hour bas.is than did students eating any other type of lunch.
Analysis of the survey data suggests that the distribution of SMP milk
served, according to type of lunch taken, is as follows:
5
30 percent of SMP milk is consumed by students who eat Type A 1 unches
12 percent of SMP milk is consumed by students who eat a la carte lunches
43 percent of SMP milk is consumed by students who eat bag lunches
9 percent of SMP milk is consumed by students who eat lunch away from school
6 percent of SMP milk is consumed by students who report eating no lunch
In schools with the NSLP, 19 percent of students in attendance on the
day of the survey reported eating a bag lunch brought from home and
8 percent reported eating lunch away from school. In non-NSLP schools,
52 percent of students in attendance reported eating a bag lunch from
home, and 23 percent reported eating lunch away from school.
Participation in the NSLP showed a marked decrease with increasing grade
levels: 69 percent of elementary students, compared to 51 percent of
junior high school students and 40 percent of senior high students,
reported eating the Type A lunch in NSLP schools.
In both NSLP and non-NSLP schools, the percentages of students who
reported eating bag lunches brought from home decreased with increasing
grade levels, while the percentages of students who reported eating a la
carte items for lunch and those who reported eating no lunch increased
with increasing grade levels. One percent of all elementary students
reported eating no lunch on the day of the survey, while 16 percent of
senior high schools students reported eating no lunch.
Milk Waste
Milk waste was measured at lunchtime in schools operating one or more
of the USDA child nutrition programs. For all USDA program schools,
milk waste averaged 11.5 percent. Waste in elementary schools averaged
14.8 percent and in secondary schools 6.1 percent.
The SMP does not appear to contribute significantly toward milk waste.
In schools with the SMP and without the NSLP, milk waste averaged only
3.5 percent. Moreover, milk waste measured the same (11.9 percent) in
NSLP schools with the SMP as in NSLP schools without the SMP.
Availability of flavored milk was associated with significantly reduced
levels of milk waste. For all USDA program schools offering flavored
milk at lunchtime, milk waste averaged 8 percent, compared to 14
percent waste in schools not offering flavored milk. The possibility
that the decreased level of milk waste in schools offering flavored
milk may be accompanied by increased levels of waste of other food
products was not examined in this study.
6
Program gperations
t
Survey data show that 88 percent of all schools, enrolling 90 percent of
the u.s. school population, participated in at least one of the USDA
child nutrition programs in January 1975. Only 4 percent of all schools,
enrolling 2 percent of the U.S. school population, did not offer any
food or milk service in January 1975. Over the 1972-1975 period there
was a slight increase both in the number of schools with a USDA program
and in the number of schools with food and/or milk service outside of
USDA auspices.
Special Milk Program Operations
Montly program data show that almost 82,000 schools in the 48 coterminous
States and the District of Columbia participated in the SMP in January
1975. Of the 230 million half-pints of milk served through the SMP
in these schools during this month, about 42 million, 18 percent of
the total, were served free to needy students. Survey data show that
8.2 million students had approved applications on file to receive SMP
milk free during this month. About 29 percent of these students
received free SMP milk on a given day, roughly the same percentage as
that of students not approved for free milk who bought SMP milk on a
given day.
In schools with the SMP, 36 percent of all milk served was served through
the milk program. Of all milk served in these schools (including milk
served through the NSLP and SBP) , 4 percent was served at breakfast, 84
percent at lunchtime, and 12 percent at nonmealtimes. Of milk served
through the SMP in these schools, 2 percent was served at breakfast,
66 percent at lunchtime, and 32 percent at nonmealtimes.
The average cost to an SMP school for ~ half+pint of milk in January 1975
was 9.5 cents, while the average charge to paying students for this milk
was 6.1 cents. The margin on milk--the difference between the cost of the
milk to the school and the charge to students plus SMP reimbursement for
this milk--averaged 1.6 cents per half-pint in January 1975, or double
the 0.8 cent margin recorded for January 1974. Federal regulations
limiting this margin to 1.0 cents (1.5 cents in exceptional circumstances)
were in effect in January 1974 but had been rescinded by January 1975.
Whole white milk constituted 68 percent of all milk served in SMP schools
on the day of the survey. Whole flavored milk constituted 21 percent,
lowfat or nonfat flavored milk constituted 9 percent, lowfat (unflavored)
milk constituted under 3 percent, and skim milk and buttermilk both
constituted well under 1 percent of all milk served. Whole white milk
was the only type of milk offered in 60 percent of all SMP schools.
In the 38 percent of SMP schools which served flavored milk on the day
of the survey, flavored milk constituted 70 percent of all milk served.
7
In January 1975, 45 percent of all SMP schools made milk available once
per day, 27 percent made it available twice per day, and 28 percent made
it available three or more times per day. Nonmealtime milk service was
more prevalent in elementary schools than in secondary schools. A la
carte milk sales (SMP milk) showed a direct relationship to the number
of milk service periods: as the number of service periods increased,
so did per capita sales of SMP milk.
In 65 percent of all SMP schools, milk was the only beverage (other
than water) available to students. Sixteen percent of SMP schools made
soft drinks available to students, while 26 percent made "other"
beverages (fruit juice or other flavored drinks for example) available.
Soft drinks and other beverages were available far more commonly in
secondary schools than in elementary schools. Per capita consumption
of SMP milk was substantially lower in schools offering soft drinks and
slightly lower in schools offering "other" beverages than in schools
in which milk was the only beverage available to students.
National School Lunch Program Operations
Monthly program data show that about 85,000 schools in the 48 coterminous
States and the District of Columbia participated in the NSLP in January
1975. Of the 23 million lunches served daily through the program, over
40 percent were served free or at a reduced price of 20 cents or less.
Survey data indicate that 10.6 million students in NSLP schools had
approved applications on file to receive free lunches in January 1975.
On an average day 82 percent of these students received a free Type A
lunch at school. Just over 1.0 million students had approved
applications on file to receive reduced-priced lunches. On an average day
68 percent of these students bought a reduced-price lunch. About 42 per­cent
of the 32.6 million students not approved for free or reduced-price
meals bought a full-price lunch on an average day in January 1975.
The average price paid by students for a full-price Type A lunch was
45.7 cents in January 1975. In NSLP elementary schools the average price
paid was 43.6 cents and in secondary schools it was 49.1 cents. Student
participation in the NSLP decreased as the price charged for the Type A
lunch increased.
Reduced-price lunches were offered in schools containing over 64 percent
of total NSLP enrollment in January 1975. This was a substantial increase
in reduced-price availability over January 1974, when only 39 percent of
total NSLP enrollment had access to reduced-price lunches. The average
price paid for_a reduced-price lunch was 17.2 cents in January 1975.
(Public Law 94-105, enacted subsequent to this survey, mandated that
reduced-price lunches be madP. available in all NSLP schools.)
8
Survey data indicate that while onsi~e preparation of Type A lunches
remains the dominant mode, a slow but significant trend toward central
preparation and satelliting of Type A lunches is occurring. In
January 1975, 22 percent of NSLP schools received the bulk of their food
from offsi te preparation sources, up notably from the 17 percent fisure
recorded in the 1972 NSLP Survey. Among students paying the full price
for lunch, participation in the NSLP was substantially higher in schools
preparing food onsite than in schools receiving food prepared .offsite.
Participation in the program by free and reduced-price eligibles, how­ever,
~id not vary significantly by type of food delivery system used.
The number of NSLP schools offering a la carte items in addition to the
Type A lunch has grown considerably since enactment in 1972 of Public
Law 92-433, which eased previous restrictions on food service in
competition with the NSLP. In January 1975 "complete" (traditional)
a la carte service was offered in 15 percent of all NSLP schools, up
from the 10 percent figure recorded in the 1972 NSLP Survey. "Limited"
a la carte (only Type A lunch items and/or dessert items sold separately)
was available in an additional 33.5 percent of all NSLP schools in
January 1975. Most of the recent growth in a la carte availability has
been at the secondary level. Student participation in the NSLP was
significantly lower in schools with a la carte service than in schools
with no a la carte. Students approved for free, reduced-price, and
full-price meals all showed their highest NSLP participation rates in
schools without a la carte service and their lowest rates in schools
with "complete" a la carte.
Survey data show that in January 1975, 77 percent of all NSLP schools
never offered choices on the Type A menu, 68 percent operated on a
closed-campus basis (students could not leave the school grounds at
lunchtime), and 89 percent publicized their Type A menus in advance.
Over 32 percent of all NSLP schools scheduled 25 minutes or less for
students to each lunch in January 1975, while only 23 percent scheduled
more than 35 minutes. As time allowed students for lunch increased,
student participation in the program decreased (perhaps because more
time may make it more possible to eat lunch outside of the school).
Other Milk and Meal Service
Almost 18,000 schools which did not participate in the SMP made milk
available to students on an a la carte basis in January 1975. Per capita
sales of a la carte milk in these schools were 38 percent lower than
sales in SMP schools the same month. The average charge to students for
a half-pint of milk in these schools was 13.0 cents in January 1975, more
than double the average charge of 6.1 cents found in SMP schools.
Approximately 6,400 schools which did not participate in the NSLP in
January 1975 did offer food service at lunchtime. Over 6,000 schools
which did not participate in the SBP made food available to students
at breakfast.
Respondent Comments
Comments on the child nutrition programs by school principals and food
service personnel in response to open-ended questions covered the gamut
of concerns surrounding the programs at the local level. Changes in
commodities supplied by USDA to schools, institution of a universal
free lunch program, increased flexibility in the Type A pattern,
elimination of the free milk provision of the SMP, and quantity of
paperwork were the major areas of concern. Several respondents
complained that the frequency of Federal legislative and regulatory
changes to the programs imposed severe hardships on localoperations.
10
I. Background
The Special Milk Program (SMP) was established in 1954 to support dairy
prices by providing for increased fluid milk consumption by children in
nonprofit schools of high school grade and under. The program was
extended 2 years later to include children in nonprofit child care
institutions. In 1958 Congress recognized specifically the need for
improved nutrition an~ng children and directed that the amounts expended
under the program should not be considered as amounts expended for price­support
programs. The Child Nutrition Act of 1966 continued this
program emphasis.
The program has historically operated by providing a Federal reimburse­ment
for each half-pint of milk served to students in participating
schools and institutions. The only milk served to students which does
not qualify for this reimbursement is that which is served as part of
the meal requirement of USDA's National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and
School Breakfast Program (SBP) meals.
Prior to fiscal 1975, milk served under the SMP was reimbursed at rates
of 2, 3, or 4 cents per half-pint, the actual rate for an individual
school depending on whether it participated in the NSLP and whether it
served milk as a separately price item. !( Public Law 93-347, enacted
July 1974, raised and standardized the reimbursement rate for milk at
5 cents per half-pint for fiscal 1975 and provided for an annual
adjustment in this rate based on changes in the Consumer Price Index
series for food away from home.
Participation in the SMP grew from 41,084 schools in 1955 to 92,016
schools and 6,739 child care institutions in fiscal 1973. Concomitant
with this growth in SMP size was a growth in SMP favor in the Congress
and with the general public. At the beginning of fiscal 1974, in an
attempt to eliminate duplication of child nutrition program benefits,
USDA restricted the milk program to schools without food service. This
restriction was rescinded by the Congress in Public Law 93-135, enacted
October 1973. The number of outlets participating in the program, how­ever,
did not return to its former level and fiscal 1974 closed with
84,959 schools and 5,800 institutions participating in the program.
!/ Schools operating as nonpricing outlets (that is, serving
milk at no separate charge to students but covering this
expense through tuition, etc.) received 2 cents for each
half-pint of milk served through the SMP. Schools making
a separate charge for milk (pricing outlets) and participat­ing
in the NSLP received 4 cents for each half-pint of
milk. Schools operating as pricing outlets and not
participating in the NSLP received 3 cents for each half­pint
of SMP milk.
11
In fiscal 1975, over 2.1 billion half-pints were served through the pro­pram
with about 0.1 billion of these served in child care institutions.
In schools, over 11. 4 million half-pints were served on an average day,
reaching about 9.2 million children. 31
Percentage of Percentage of
all milk total fluid
Milk served
in schools
Volume of milk served in milk consumption
Special Milk Program
National School Lunch
Program
School Breakfast
Program
Milk not served under
any USDA Child
Nutrition Program
Total--
(mil. of lbs.)
1,019
2,032
148
150
3,349
schools in United States
30.4 1.8
60.7 3.6
4.4 0.3
4.5 0.3
100.0 6.0
No major evaluation of the SMP has ever been made. Previous studies,
which went into the program in limited detail, reported findings which
suggest that in some cases SMP milk may duplicate nutritional benefits
of NSLP meals and in other cases may serve to limit student participation
in the NSLP.
In November 1973 Congress passed Public Law 93-150 which provides free
milk for children eligible for free meals in all SMP schools and
institutions. Prior to this time free milk had been available to
eligible children under the Special Assistance component of the SMP.
This Special Assistance component, however, operated on a very small
scale: in the peak month of fiscal 1973, only 119,000 children were
served free milk through the program.
31 Some students take more than one half-pint of SMP milk.
Survey day indicate that for every 100 half-pints served
through the program on a given day, about 81 different
students are reached.
12
The possibility that the widespread availability of free SMP milk under
the new legislation would intensify the supected negative effects of the
milk program on student participation in the NSLP was of concern to the
Department as the first year of free milk implementation, fiscal 1975,
approached. Also.: :·of concern were preliminary data which indicated
several thousand schools had dropped the milk proqrarn because of
administrative burdens associated with free milk s.ervice. In addition,
there we-re indications that many of the schools that were continuing the
SMP had plans to curtail the times and reduce the accessibility of the
place of milk service.
It was in large part because of these concerns that the Food and
Nutrition Service established as one of its major objectives for
fiscal 1975 a comprehensive evaluation of the SMP.
II. Objectives
This study was undertaken with the following five major objectives:
1. Assess the impact of the free milk provision of Public
Law 93-150 on the SMP.
2. Assess the impact of the SMP, in general, and the free
milk provision, in particular, on the NSLP.
3. Assess student milk and food consumption by determining:
(a) the sources and amounts of milk and food children
consume and factors affecting this consumption.
(b) which children utilize the SMP, and
(c) when children prefer to have milk made available
and whether schools are meeting these preferences.
4. Determine the extent of milk waste in schools with USDA
programs and identify factors associated with this waste.
5. Assess the impact of the SMP on the demand for milk in
schools. A report of this assessment will be issued by
the Economic Research Service, USDA, in the near future.
In addition to meeting these five specific objectives, the study was
undertaken to bring to date information obtained in previous surveys
on school food and school milk service operations and to assess changes
in these operations. Prior to this study the most recent comprehensive
study of school foodservice was the "1972 National School Lunch Program
Survey," conducted by the Food and Nutrition Service and the
Statistical Reporting Service, USDA. The most recent comprehensive
study of milk service was Marketing Research Report, No. 716, "Milk
and Milk Products in the Nation's Schools," prepared by the Economic
Research Service, USDA, in 1965. Other related literature is cited in
the Bibliography.
14
III. Methodology
A. Description
The sampling frame for this survey was the magnetic tape listing compiled
by the Office of Education, DHEW, of the universe of the Nation's public
and private schools. Date on the public school universe were current to
school year 1972-1973 and on the private school universe to school year
1969-1970.
Sample schools were selected in two stages. Approximately 4,000 schools
were chosen for the first stage by simple random selection from the
universe. T?ese 4,000 schools were screened at the State Agencies in
January 1975 to determine which programs had been in operation in each
of these schools during January of 1973, 1974, and 1975. Based on this
screening information, the 4,000 schools were then stratified by program
history and by program combination. The following five strata were
constructed to yield statistically reliable data relating to the main
survey objectives (the numbers in parentheses indicate the number of
schools in the final sample with the specified characteristics; stratum
1 overlaps with strata 4 and 5):
1. schools which participated in the SMP in January 1974
but had dropped the program by January 1975 (96)
2. schools which participated in both the SMP and NSLP in
January 1975 (320)
3. schools which participated in the SMP but not in the
NSLP in January 1975 (105)
4. schools which participated in the NSLP but not in the
SMP in January 1975, and (204)
5. schools which did not participate in a USDA program in
January 1975. (137)
Based on this stratification, the second stage consisted of selecting a
subsample of 768 schools in the 48 coterminous States and the District
of Columbia for enumeration. A school questionnaire was administered to
the school administrator and food service supervisor (where applicable)
of each selected school.
Within the primary sampling unit, the
tions were sampled using the ultimate
cluster being the school) • The first
students. Using random number tables
selected two classes in each school.
school, two separate subpopula­cluster
technique (the ultimate
subpopulation sampled was
and class listings, enumerators
In classes randomly selected at
the fourth grade level and below, enumerators administered a Student
Questionnaire on a one-to-one basis to five students, selected by use of
random number tables and class rosters. A total of approximately
20,000 Student Questionnaires were collected.
The second subpopulation sampled was that of milk containers dispensed
during lunchtime. This subpopulation was sampled only in schools
participating in a USDA program. In schools with a lunch period of 60
minutes or less, two samples of 20 milk containers each (total sample =
40 containers) were collected. In schools with a lunch period of over
60 minutes duration, 4 samples of 20 containers each (total sample = 80
containers) were collected. Start times for collection of containers
were determined by use of random number tables. Samples were taken by
collecting 20 milk cartons in consecutive sequence as they were brought
to the waste disposal area. Following collection, milk containers were
separated and counted according to:
1. completely empty containers
2. partially empty containers
3. unopened containers.
The. contents of the partially empty and unopened containers·were then
measured volumetrically and the measurements recorded on a Milk Waste
Tally Sheet.
Sample schools were contacted initially by a presurvey letter, outlining
data to be collected. Enumerators from USDA's Statistical Reporting
Service made school visits beginning in mid-March 1975. Data collection
was completed in 1 mbnth.
The sample was designed to provide reliable national estimates (excluding
Alaska, Hawaii, and the outlying Territories).
The survey was conducted prior to realignment of states into seven FNS
Regions. Because the survey. methodolog.y called. for estimates with
national validity only, Regional data have .been tabulated and .anaLyzed
but are not presented in tabula-r forr.l&t--i-n-thi..s .. report. Where reference
is made to Regions in the narrative of this repq~, the five FNS
Regions existing prior to realignment are at reference.
Individual data items and totals have been rounded· indepen-dently in
this report. Percentages are based on tmrounded. numbers •.
Copies of the School Questionnaire, ·the - Student--Questionnai-re; anti
the Milk Waste Tally Sheet may be found in the appendix. Due to its
bulk (60 pages) a copy of the Interviewer's Manual is not included in
this report.
16
Due to limitations of space, only a fraction of the output tables pro­duced
for this study are presented in this report. With few exceptions
tabulations of data by elementary and secondary breakdowns are not
included, although attention is paid in the narrative to differences
between elementary and secondary data. Persons desiring to see available
tabulations not presented in this report should contact the Child
Nutrition Division, Food and Nutrition Service, U. S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D. c. 20250.
B. Discussion
Survey Restrictions
Although the SMP operates in child care institutions and summer camps as
well as in schools, the only SMP outlets surveyed in this evaluation were
schools. This was done to minimize survey problems, such as compiling
a universe listing of child care institutions and summer camps, and in
recognition of the fact that over 95 percent of the milk served through
the SMP is served in schools. To lower costs, schools in Alaska and
Hawaii were excluded from the sampling frame. Schools in these States
account for only one-tenth of one percent of SMP activity (total half­pints)
and seven-tenths of one percent of NSLP activity (total lunches).
All findings in this report relate only to the 48 coterminous States
and the District of Columbia.
The original design for this evaluation called for determining the
impact of the SMP on the SBP. This would have necessitated enumeration
of a large number of SBP schools and, consequently, a substantially
larger sample size than the one actually employed. To minimize
respondent burden and survey expense, and in consideration of the like­lihood
that any impact of the SMP on a feeding program would be greater
on the NSLP than on the SBP, the objective of determining the impact of
the SMP on the SBP was eliminated. A relatively small number of SBP
schools fell into the sample, however, and a short section of this
report concerns operations of the SBP.
To restrict the methodol9gical problems to manageable proportions and
for reasons of expense, several areas of potential interest in examining
the SMP were not studied. Chief among these is the role milk plays in
the total dietary intake of students: e.g., whether students drinking
smaller than average amounts of milk receive adequate amounts of milk­related
nutrients through consumption of greater than average amounts
of other foods. Given the current state of the art of measuring
nutrition, such a study is probably not possible at present; without
this nutritional information, however, one cannot determine whether the
increased levels of milk consumption effected by the SMP and the other
child nutrition programs do, in fact, lead to improved nutrition.
Moreover, without this information, a complete cost-benefit analysis
of these programs cannot be made.
17
Also of interest but not examined was the relationship of milk consump­tion
to food waste. For instance, while flavored milk was discovered to
be associated with decreased milk waste and increased milk consumption,
no determination was made of the level of food waste associated with
flavored milk service. Some anecdotal information suggests that service
of flavored milk may lead to increased food waste.
Elementary-Secondary Classification
Schools with prekindergarten through sixth grades were classified as
elementary and those with seventh through twelfth grades as secondary.
Schools with grades on both sides of the sixth-seventh grade breakpoint
were classified as elementary or secondary according to the level at
which the majority of students were enrolled. This method of classifying
elementary and secondary yielded data which show 70.9 percent of all
schools with 55.7 percent of total enrollment were at the elementary
level in January 1975. Data from the Office of Education, DHEW, show
52.9 percent of enrollment in school year 1974-1975 was at the sixth
grade level or below.
Data from the Student Questionnaire were aggregated into elementary and
secondary categories according to the actual grade of the student
respondent, using a sixth-seventh grade breakpoint.
Milk Consumption_Questions on the Student Questionnaire
On the Student Questionnaire students were asked to report the number of
"cartons or glasses" of milk they drank (a) at school and (b) away from
school. No standard measure of the volume of a carton or glass was
provided. The objective was not to measure in absolute terms milk
consumption by children but rather to measure relative differences in
student milk consumption. Thus, the discussion in this report focuses
on percentage differences rather than absolute differences in student
milk consumption. It is worth noting, however, that if the "carton or
glass" referred to in the survey question is assumed to be of a standard
8 ounce size, then the average daily milk consumption figure recorded
in this survey for students in SMP schools (3.07 cartons or glasses =
24.6 ounces) is very close to the 26.1 ounce daily consumption figure
recorded for students in SMP schools in a 1960 USDA study [4], l( which
used a considerably more detailed recall method to measure student m1~k
consumption.
~ Numbers in brackets refer to items in references at the end
of this report.
18
No attempt was made in analyzing the survey data to reconcile at-school
milk consumption by .students as recorded on the Administrative
Questionnaire with at-school consumption reported on the Student
Questionnaire. Because no definition of the size of a "carton or glass"
of milk was provided on the Student Questionnaire, such a reconciliation
was not possible. Moreover, at-school consumption of milk as reported
on the Student Questionnaire included milk brought from home to school,
and no data on the volume of this milk was collected. While bias could
have been introduced into the Student Questionnaire results by students'
differing perceptions of the size of a "carton or glass" of milk and by
the tendency of students to overreport milk consumption, analysis of the
student Questionnaire data assumed that the large number of students
sampled would tend to ro~nimize any such bias and that any such bias would
not be specific to the variables of interest.
Because a positive value is placed on children's milk drinking in our
society, children have a tendency to overstate their actual milk
consumption. To circumvent this as much as possible, two questions
relating to milk consumption were asked on the Student Questionnaire.
The first asked for the student's milk consumption "most of the time."
The second asked for the student's consumption "yesterday." It was
hoped that the first question on daily consumption "most of the time"
would absorb much of the tendency to overstate consumption and the
response to "yesterday's" consumption would be a better reflection of
the true level of consumption.
Survey data show that for all schools milk consumption at school
measured 11 percent greater on the "most of the time" question than on
the "yesterday" question. Milk consumption away from school measured
18 percent greater and total daily consumption 16 percent greater on the
"most of the time" question than on the "yesterday" question. Interest­ingly,
a direct relationship was seen between overreporting "·most ot
the time" consumption and grade. level of students: that is, as grade
level increased so did the discrepancy between "most of the t 'ime"
consuwi?tion and "yesterday" consumption.
In tabulating the survey data for this report, consumption cf milk was
taken from the responses to the "yesterday" question only.
19
Sampling Frame Problems
The DHEW magnetic tape listings of the u.s. public and private school
universe, the frame for this survey, presented several problems. For
one, the tape listings were 2 years old for public schools and 5 years
old for private schools. This excluded from the sample any schools
which had opened during the intervening years. Moreover, due to school
consolidations, school name changes, and school address changes during
the intervening years, difficulty was encountered in many cases in
locating the sample school selected from the DHEW tapes.
Another problem presented by the DHEW listings involved the Office of
Education (OE) method of classifying a school. The OE method considers
as two schools a building which, say, houses 100 students grades 1-12
and in which one person is responsible for administration of grades
1-6 and another administrator is responsible for grades 7-12. Thus,
this hypothetical building would be recorded on the OE listing as two
schools, one elementary and one secondary. Other than enrollment data
for these "two" schools, however, no other survey data, such as meal
counts, were available by grades 1-6 and grades 7-12 breakouts. In
instances where one of these "two" schools fell into the survey sample,
information was collected for both the elementary and secondary units
and the expansion factor for the school was halved. ~
Record Problems
A total or partial lack of food service records was encountered in a
sizable number of schools. Data elements on the administrative
questionnaire for which records were most frequently lacking were (a)
the number of students with approved applications on file for free and
reduced-price meals in January 1974 and January 1975 and (b) meal and
milk counts for January 1974. Where records could not be located
estimates were made using day-of-survey or January 1975 data. This
procedure may have led to a misstatement, probably an understatement
of changes which occurred between January 1974 and January 1975.
In addition to these data problems, an extremely low level of awareness
of the SMP by school-level personnel was encountered. This first
became evident in a quality-assurance review of completed question­naires
early in the data collection period. Five questionnaires from
schools which screening showed to have dropped the milk program between
January 1974 and January 1975 were among those reviewed.
~ A current U.S. school universe listing, compiled by a private
contractor, was obtained by FNS after this survey. This new
listing is frequently updated and does not employ the OE
method of counting twice single-building schools with separate
administrators for differing grade levels. This new listing
will serve as the sampling frame for future FNS studies in
schools.
20
of those five schools, four reported n ver h ving been in the milk
program. Other data on these questionn ires (e.g., ash rp rise in the
charge to students for milk) indicated and subsequent followup confirmed
that these schools had, in fact, participated in the SMP in January 1974.
Despite immediate measures taken to ensure th t this information was
being correctly reported, in the entire sample less than SO percent of
the schools which had dropped the milk program between January 1974 and
January 1975 reported at the enumerator visit that they had participated
in the program in January 1974. It was only through extensive followup,
generally at the district level, that these schools' participation in
the program in January 1974 could be established.
A similar problem occurred in schools which the screening showed to be
milk program pa-ticipants for the past 3 years. Many of these schools
reported that they had initiated the program in the survey year. In
these schools it was evident that the school-level personnel identified
the SMP with free milk service.
The unexpectedly low profile of the SMP among school-level personnel
caused a considerable burden on the Statistical Reporting Service 's
field editors and supervisors and, to a lesser degree, on the Food and
Nutrition Service's Regional Office personnel. Their excellent response
to the problem was critical in ensuring quality of the survey results.
In followup on those schools with discrepancies between program status
as reported in the State Agency records during the January screening
and as reported at the school in the survey visit, it became apparent
that knowledge of a particular school's participation in the SMP prior
to fiscal 1975 had frequently not passed down to the school but stopped
at the district-level. While a handful of schools in which localities
provided a subsidy for milk were vis1ted, a somewhat larger number
erroneously reported that the SMP reimbursement was not a Federal but
entirely a local subsidy. The introduction of free milk service under
the SMP and the concomitant certification and reporting paperwork , how­ever,
appear to have raised considerably the profile of the SMP at
the local school level.
IV. Im£act of the Free Milk Provision on the Special Milk Program
Changes in Program Status
Survey data indicate over 4,300 schools with a total enrollment of over
2.3 million students discontinued participation in the SMP between
January 1974 and January 1975. Almost 80 percent of these schools were
at the elementary level. Over 85 percent of the schools discontinuing
th.P- SMP participated in the NSLP. Just under 10 percent of schools
dropping the program were schools without food service. Schools
dropping the program were clustered in a handful of States, the
Southeast Region having the highest number of dropouts with the Midwest
and Western Regions having the least number of dropouts.
Open-ended questions were asked school administrators and cafeteria
managers to obtain reasons for dropping the milk program. Due to the
previously discussed problem (Section III) of school officials being
unaware of their schools' previous participation in the program, reasons
for dropping the program were furnished in only about two-thirds of the
sample schools which did discontinue participation in the SMP between
January 1974 and January 1975.
In schools in which reasons were furnished, in over 90 pe~cent concerns
over or anticipated problems with the free milk provision were cited as
responsible for the decision to drop the program. Administrators in the
few schools which did not cite the free milk provision indicated that
concerns such as erratic or sharply 'increasing milk prices from suppliers,
long delays in receiving reimbursement checks, and lack of student
demand for milk were behind their discontinuing the program.
In those schools in which problems associated with the free milk provision
were cited as responsible for the decision to drop the program, the
expressions used most often to describe these problems were "too much
red tape" and "too much time spent for what we would get back." In
these schools, administrators and cafeteria managers indicated that
"excessive regulations," an "unrealistic amount of paperwork," and the
"accountability problem" of separating the number of half-pints of milk
served by "free" and "paid" caused them to leave the program.
A number of respondents stated that the cost to the school of administer­ing
the free milk provision was too high to allow for continuation of the
program. Costs cited as associated with free milk service included those
for printing milk tickets, keeping a count of milk served by type of
recipient, and--in schools without the NSLP or SSP--printing, mailing,
and processing free milk applications. Several officials reported they
would have had to add personnel to their staff in order to implement
free SMP milk service.
22
The second most frequently cited reason for discontinuing the milk program
was that of problems in protecting the identity of free milk recipients.
About one-third of the respondents cited this problem, stating they could
find no effective way to serve free milk without overtly identifying
recipients. Due to the costs involved, many administrators ruled out the
use of separate milk ticket systems. Several of these administrators
stated that the logistics of free milk service were simply impossible
if reasonable administrative costs were to be maintained and overt
identification of free milk recipients avoided.
Various other reasons for dropping the program, associated with free
milk service, were cited by small numbers of respondents. Chief among
these were:
service of a second (free) half-pint of milk is
nutritionally unsound--it would cause children to
pass up lunch nutrients not supplied by milk
potential resentment of free milk recipients by
paying children
insufficient lead time given to implement free milk
service
In those schools which dropped the milk program between January 1974 and
January 1975, the average cost to the school from suppliers for a half­pint
of milk (all types, weighted) increased from 9.2 cents to 9.4 cents,
a 2 percent increase. The average charge to students for a half-pint
of milk (all types, weighted) in these schools increased over the same
period from 7.5 cents to 10.7 cents, a 41 percent increase. Per capita
sales of ala carte milk (i.e., milk not served as part of the Type A
lunch or SBP breakfast) decreased by 35 percent.
Of the 4,300 schools which dropped the SMP between January 1974 and
January 1975, about 640 expected at the time of the survey to renew
participation in the program by April 1977.
Implementation of the Free Milk Provision and Changes in Program
O£erations
Contrary to early reports that schools were planning to reduce milk
availability in response to the free milk provision, survey data show
that availability of milk remained very stable. between January 1974
and January 1975 in SMP schools. These early reports suggested that
milk availability would be reduced by a curtailment in the times of
milk service and a reduction in the accessibility of the place of milk
service. In fact, a very slight change in the times of milk service is
discernible in the survey data, this change being in the direction of
increased milk availability. No change in the place of milk service
between the two time periods is indicated by the survey data.
Implementation of the free milk provision was found to vary widely from
Region to Region and within Regions. Figure I, compiled from regular
monthly reports, shows the percentage of free milk of total milk served
in schools in· the SMP and the percentage of free lunches of total lunches
served in schools in the NSLP, by Region in April 1975. As can be seen,
only in the Southeast Region does the percentage of free SMP milk approach
the percentage of free NSLP lunches. The West-Central Region shows the
next closest relationship between the two, while the Northeast , Midwest,
and Western Regions each show a percentage of free milk of total SMP
milk less than half that of free lunches of total NSLP lunches.
The open-ended question "What method(s) does this school use to protect
the identity of free milk recipients?" was included in the survey
questionnaire in an attempt to catalog the various systems schools use
to serve free milk and to account for some of the Regional differences
in free milk implementation. The highly disparate quality of responses
to this question, however, rendered a statistical cataloging of these
methods impossible . It was apparent that use of a separate milk ticket
or token system was rare. The most frequently reported method of
serving free milk was that of offering a second half-pint of free milk
(in addition to the half-pint served with the Type A lunch) to free
lunch recipients as they passed through the lunch lines in schools with
both the NSLP and the SMP. No system was reported which appeared to be
especially successful: i.e., easy to implement and protective of the
identity of free milk recipients.
There was a high degree of confusion and apparent misinterpretation of
requirements for participation in the SMP. Nationally, survey data
indicate 31.8 percent of SMP schools did not serve any free milk in
January 1975. Regionally, the Southeast Region had the lowest percentage
of schools reporting no free milk served, which is consistent with the
program data showing this Region had the highest percentage of free milk
of total SMP milk.
A number of respondents indicated that they either thought the free milk
provision was optional or had chosen to ignore it. Several stated that
free SMP milk was being offered only in elementary schools or only in
selected grades in their districts, although all grades in the district
were receiving low-cost milk subsidized by the SMP. Respondents in a
handful of schools participating in both the SMP and NSLP stated that
free milk was not being offered under the milk program but that unopened
containers of milk left by children taking the Type A lunch were being
made available free to needy children at lunchtime. In some schools, the
leftover NSLP milk was redistributed at no charge to any child who had
taken the Type A lunch, and SMP milk was sold only to children bringing
bag lunches.
24
Figure 1
Comparison of Free Meals vs. Free Milk
Percentage of Total Meals/ Milk
50
40
30
20
10
0
Total
u.s.
Northeast Southeast Midwest West Western
Central
DSMP
(Milk)
NSLP
(Meals)
I)J
l11
Number of Schools
Enroilment (Millions)
Mean Enrollment
Number of Schools Continuing
to Make A La Carte Milk
Available in January 1975
Table 1 Number and Enrollment of Schools That Dropped the SMP
Total :
4,347
2.31
531
4,080
Schools Dropping The SMP Between
January 1974 And January 1975
·With : With No
NSLP .. Food Service : Elementar:y:
3,732 423 3,438
2.08 (J.l5 1.49
557 346 434
3,545 343 3,208
: Secondar:y:
909
0.82
897
872
Note: in this and subsequent tables, due to rounding individual items may not add to totals.
1\.)
0'
Table 2 Distribution Of SMP Schools By Percentage
Of SMP Milk Served Free In January 1975
Percentage of SMP.. Milk Served.. Free
: :
No Free : 0.1%- : 25.1%- : 50.1%- : 75.1%-
Milk : 25.0% : 50.0% : 75.0% : 99.9%
Number of Schools 25,347 33,268 8,373 6,147 3,907
- Percent of Schools 31.8% 41.7% 10.5% 7.7% 4.9%
Enrollment (Millions) 12.76 17.07 3.86 4.40 1.39
Mean Enrollment 503 513 461 716 355
Percentage of Enrollment With
Approved Applications on
File to Receive Free Milk 14% 13% 19% 37% 55%
ADH-P/ADA 0.23 0.34 0.31 0.38 0.29
: All Milk
: Free
2,762
3.5%
1.15
418
92%
0.40
v. Impact of the Special Milk Program on the National
School Lunch Program
Those interested in extending the nutritional benefits of the lunch and
breakfast programs have in the past expressed concern that the avail­ability
of milk under the SMP might dissuade some school officials from
initiating the NSLP or the SBP in SMP-only schools. School administrators'
responses to the survey questionnaire indicate that SMP availabiltty
rarely serves as a deterrent to a school's inaugurating either of these
two feeding programs. In only one sample school was participation in
the SMP citated as a reason for not initiating the SBP. On the other
hand, two sample schools cited ,inauguration of the SBP as a reason for
having discontinued the SMP.
A more frequently expressed conern has been that in schools with both
the milk and lunch programs the availability of SMP milk might serve as
a deterrent to student participation in the NSLP. The argument here has
been that for children accustomed to bringing bag lunches to school or
buying a la carte lunches, the availability of iow-cost milk under the.
SMP has the effect of increasing the appeal of these bag or a la carte
meals and diminishing the chance that these children will eat a Type A
lunch. While the survey data presented below are not entirely conclusive
on this point, they strongly suggest that the SMP exerts no significant
competitive effect on student participation in the NSLP. ~
Student participation in the NSLP measured 56 percent of average daily
attendance in January 1974 in schools participating in both the NSLP
and the SMP. In schools participating only in the NSLP in January 1974
lunch participation measured 60 percent. A difference-of-the-means
test showed no statistically significant difference here. Moreover,
in NSLP schools without the SMP but with other milk service in January
1974 the lunch participation rate waa 55 percent--! percent lower than
that in NSLP-with-SMP schools. This suggests that while the availability
of a la carte milk may contribute to lower participation in the NSLP,
the SMP, per se, has no greater effect in this regard than does service
of unsubsidized, higher-priced milk. §(
~ This tends to confi~ the findings of three previous studies,
[6], [9], and [lO~hich examined the impact of the avail­ability
of low-cost milk on student participation in the NSLP
and found either no impact or no statistically significant one.
§( The lunch participation rates for January 1975 in NSLP-with-SMP
versus NSLP-with-other-milk-service schools do suggest that the
SMP has a depressing effect on student participation in the NSLP.
However, these latter rates are biased as an indicator of SMP
impact on the NSLP by the fact that 35 percent of these NSLP-with­other-
milk-service schools in January 1975 were NSLP schools which
had dropped the SMP within the previous year and which, as a group,
had an average NSLP participation rate in both years some 20
percent higher than did NSLP schools which maintained the SMP in
both 1974 and 1975.
27
Data from NSLP schools which dropped the SMP between January 1974 and
January 1975 further suggest that the SMP does not lower student par­ticipation
in the NSLP. In these schools the student participation
rate in the lunch program increased after the SMP was discontinued by
1.5 percent (from 74.1 percent in January 1974 to 75.6 percent in
January 1975), a difference lacking in statistical significance at
accepted confidence levels. Participation in the lunch program in NSLP
schools with other-than-SMP milk service both years increased by about
the same percent (1.4) over this period of time; and in NSLP schools
which maintained the SMP in both January 1974 and January 1975 par­ticipation
increased by some 0.8 percent. Before drawing any final
conclusions from these data, however, it should be noted that the
already high NSLP participation rate (74.1 percent) in schools which
dropped the SMP did not provide an ideal base from which to measure a
participation change due to SMP discontinuance.
Another focus of this inquiry was on assessing the possible effects of
newly mandated free SMP milk on student participation by free eligibles
in the NSLP. There had been concern that students eligible for free
lunches in schools with both the SMP and the NSLP might participate less
frequently in the NSLP after free milk became available to them through
the SMP. Survey data show that there was no decrease in participation
by free eligibles in the NSLP in January 1975 (when free SMP milk was
available) compared to January 1974 (when there was no free SMP milk) •
In fact, in schools with both the SMP and the NSLP in January 1974 and
January 1975 participation in the lunch program by free eligibles (as
expressed by: average daily lunches served free/number of students
approved for free lunches) actually increased, from 80 percent in
January 1974 to 82 percent in January 1975. Poor recordkeeping on the
number of free eligibles in 1974, however, clouds the reliability of
this finding (see Section -III).
One further area of inquiry as to possible effects of the SMP on the
NSLP was that of milk waste. Detailed findings on this are presented
in Section VII of this report. To briefly summarize these findings
here: no additional lunchtime milk waste was found in NSLP schools
which participated in the SMP over that found in NSLP schools without
the SMP. Milk waste measured 11.9 percent in both types of schools.
This suggests that the presence of the SMP does not increase milk waste
over and above that associated with the NSLP. The possibility that the
additional milk consumption effected by the SMP increases food waste in
NSLP schools was not examined in this study.
28
Table 3 Student Participation in the NSLP, January 1974
and January 1975, As A Function of A La Carte Milk
Service Availability
NSLP Schools
With : With : Schools With SMP In January
SMP In : Other Milk : 1974 and Without SMP In
Both : Service In :~J=an=ua~ry~~l~9~7~5~~~~~~-----
January 1974 : Both January : : With Other Milk
And : 1974 And : : Service In
January 1975 : January 1975 : Total : January 1975
Number of Schools 68,455 5,896 3,732 3,545
ADA - January 1974 (Millions) 33.095 3.147 1.865 1.729
ADA - January 1975 (Millions) 33.125 3.163 1.911 1. 768
ADL - January 1974 (Millions) 18.103 1.696 1.382 1.281
ADL - January 1975 (Millions) 18.384 1. 749 1.445 1.331
ADL/ADA - January 1974 54.7% 53.9% 74.1% 74.1%
ADL/ADA - January 1975 55.5% 55.3% 75.6% 75.3%
VI. Student Milk and Food ConsumEtion
A. Student Milk ConsumEtion
Tables 4 through 11 present the survey data on student consumption of
milk. Student milk consumption was examined for its relationship to
program availability, grade of student, sex of student, soft drink
availability, flavored milk availability, eligibility of student for
free SMP milk, and type of lunch eaten. The following summarizes the
findings.
Pr29ram Availability
A very significant difference in student milk consumption was apparent
between students in schools participating in the SMP and students in
schools not participating in the milk program. Mean away-from-school
consumption was almost identical in both types of schools (2.06 certons
or glasses in SMP schools versus 2.08 in non-SMP schools), but students
in schools with the milk program consumed almost 42 percent more milk
at school than .students in schools without the program (1.02 versus 0.72
cartons or glasses). This relationship was seen at all grade levels, by
male and female breaks, and by Regional breaks. On a 24-hour basis
(at school and away-from-school consumption combined),.students in
schools with the SMP consumed almost 10 percent more milk than did
students in schools without the program (3.07 versus 2.81 cartons or
glasses).
The higher level of student milk consumption in SMP schools may owe more
to the NSLP than to the SMP (bearing in mind that almost 90 percent of
the schools whi.ch participated in the SMP also participated in the
NSLP). In schools which participated in the NSLP but not in the SMP,
student milk consumption at school was almost 30 percent higher than
student consumption in schools which participated in the SMP but not in
the NSLP (0.93 versus 0.72 cartons or glasses). However, away-from­school
consumption in these SMP-without-NSLP schools was almost 37
percent higher than that found in NSLP-only schools (2.56 versus 1.87
cartons or glasses).
The relatively greater contributory role of the NSLP in increasing at­school
milk consumption may also be seen in the fact that while at-school
consumption was approximately the same in schools with the NSLP as in
schools with the SMP (1.03 versus 1.02 cartons or glasses), in schools
without the NSLP at-school consumption was over 20 percent lower than
at-school consumption in schools without the SMP (0.57 versus 0.72
cartons or glasses). The fact that students in schools without either
program had the lowest rate of at-school milk consumption (0.47 cartons
or glasses) measured in this study is further evidence that both programs
increased levels of milk consumption at school.
30
Grade of Student
over all schools, student milk consumption at school was seen to peak in
the prekindergarten-3 grade break, then decline steadily through the
9-12 grade break. Consumption of milk away from school peaked in the
4-6 grade break, then declined through the higher grades. Total daily
consumption (at-school and away-from-school combined) by grade took
the form of a bell curve, rising through the early grades, peaking and
plateauing in the middle grade~, then declining from the ninth through
twelfth grades. Because no standard measure of a carton or glass was
provided, neither this curve nor any of the grade-related figures cited
here should be taken as a fully accurate reflection of students' absolute
milk consumption. Younger students may well drink milk from smaller
. containers or containers less filled than do older students, or they may
have a greater tendency to overreport their milk intake than do older
students.
Program availability showed a definite relationship to grade-related
milk consumption. While student milk consumption at school declined
steadily from the lowest major grade break (prekindergarten-3) to the
highest major grade break (9-12) in schools with and schools without the
SMP the decline was only 9 percent in SMP schools as opposed to the 28
percent decline seen in schools without the SMP.
Male-female differences in grade-related milk consumption were pronounced
and are discussed in the following paragraph.
Sex of Student
Over all schools, at-school consumption of milk by males increased
slightly from the elementary to the secondary grades, while away-from­school
consumption increased more sharply. At-school milk consumption
by females, on the other hand, declined steadily from a peak of 0.95
cartons or glasses in the prekindergarten-3 grade break to a low of
0.54 cartons or glasses in the 9-12 grade break. Away-from-school
consumption by females peaked in the late elementary grades then
declined sharply through the secondary grades. For all schools,
at-school consumption of milk by males averaged 33 percent greater than
that by females; away-from-school consumption by males was 23 percent
greater than that by females; and total daily consumption of milk by
males was some 26 percent greater than that by females. Program avail­ability
appeared to have almost no effect in altering this relationship
of male to female consumption of milk.
31
Soft Drink Availability
Availability of soft drinks at school was associated with slightly
decreased overall milk consumption, but with substantially decreased
consumption of SMP milk. Soft drinks did not appear to be affecting
participation in the school lunch program to any significant degree but
did affect the purchase of individual cartons of milk separate from the
school lunch. Soft drink availability was determined only in schools
with the SMP. In these schools, students with access to soft drinks at
school consumed 6 percent less milk overall (through both NSLP and SMP)
at school than did students in SMP schools which did not make soft
drinks available (1.03 versus 0.97 cartons or glasses). Away-from­school
consumption of milk was almost identical for both groups (2.06
versus 2.05 cartons or glasses). While the difference in at-school
consumption of milk was slight between students with access to soft
drinks and those without access, this difference was consistent across
Regions.
Flavored Milk Availability
Flavored milk availability was associated with slightly increased stu­dent
milk consumption. Students in schools which offered flavored milk
consumed about 17 percent more milk at school than did students in schools
which did not make flavored milk available (1.04 versus 0.89 cartons or
glasses), and they consumed 7 percent more milk in a 24-hour period (3.13
versus 2.93 cartons or glasses). While the level of milk consumption
associated with flavored milk availability was only slightly higher than
the level associated with lack of access to flavored milk, this relation­ship
was seen in all program combinations and across all Regions.
Eligibility for Free SMP Milk
Eligibility for free SMP milk was determined in SMP schools for each stu­dent
respondent by cross-checking the name on the student questionnaire
against the school's list of approved free milk applicants. This deter­mination
of free milk eligibility was not tantamount to a determination
of free SMP milk reception, since almost 32 percent of SMP schools served
no free milk through the milk program in January 1975. Many free milk
eligibles received milk free through the lunch program (and some through
the breakfast program) but not through the milk program. Many of the
SMP schools which served no free SMP milk did report substantial numbers
of students with approved applications on file to receive free milk.
32
In schools participating in the SMP, children eligible (and approved)
for free milk consumed approximately the same amount of milk on a
24-hour basis as children not eligible (3.01 cartons or glasses for
free-eligibles versus 3.09 for non eligibles). However, children
eligible for free milk received 43 percent more milk at school and 22
percent less milk away from school than non-eligibles. Only 12 percent
of children eligible for free milk -.did not drink any milk at school, as
opposed to a 27 percent figure for non-eligibles. More significantly,
41 percent of children eligible for free SMP milk consumed more than one
carton of milk at school, in contrast to 16 percent of non-eligible
students who reported drinking more than one carton.
It is clear that the milk served free through the NSLP and SBP to
children eligible for free SMP milk plays a greater role in increasing
at-school milk consumption by these free-eligibles than does the milk
served free through the SMP. Almost 88 percent of children eligible
for free milk in SMP schools and in attendance on the day of the survey
received a Type A lunch (which included one half-pint of milk) on that
day. OVer all SMP schools, survey data show only 23 percent of all
half-pints served free were served via the SMP; 68 percent were served
via the NSLP and 9 percent via the SMP. Therefore, if service of free
milk through the SMP were discontinued and children currently receiving
free SMP milk bought no SMP milk, a 23 percent reduction in at-school
consumption by free-eligibles would be expected. In this case, at-school
consumption reported by these free-eligibles would stand at 1.03 cartons
or glasses--some 10 percent higher than at-school consumption by
children not eligible for free milk. Moreover, if free SMP milk were
eliminated, some of the children currently receiving this free milk
would be expected to purchase low-cost SMP milk, which would further
raise their average at-school consumption. In addition, some sub­stitution
of milk consumed away from school for milk formerly received
free at school would be likely.
The impact of the free milk provision of the SMP on student milk con­sumption
should be most clearly discernible in SMP schools not
participating in the NSLP or SBP. However, free milk eligibles (with
approved applications on file) constituted only 3 percent of enrollment
in these schools and, thus, provided a very small sample of respondents
to the student questionnaire. Nevertheless, student questionnaire
responses from these SMP-only schools indicate an at-school milk
consumption rate for free-eligibles 77 percent higher than the
corresponding rate for children not eligible for free milk. Away­from-
school consumption by free eligibles measured only 7 percent less
than consumption by non-eligibles in SMP-only schools. Over a 24-hour
period free-eligibles in SMP-only schools reported consuming 12 percent
more milk than non-eligibles. These findings must be tempered, however,
by reiterating that the number of free-eligibles surveyed in SMP-only
schools was small.
One further finding of interest in examining milk consumption by free­eligibles
is that while 13 percent of children not eligible for free
SMP milk report~d brining milk from home to school at some point during
the school year, only 3 percent of free milk eligibles reported bringing
milk to school.
33
Type of Lunch Eaten
Students eating the Type A lunch consumed more milk by far at school than
did students eating any other type of lunch and slightly more milk on a
total daily basis (at-school and away-from-school combined). Students
bringing bag lunches from home or buying a la carte items at school
consumed considerably less milk at school but almost as much milk on a
total daily basis as students taking the Type A lunch. This suggests that
the milk served with the Type A lunch acts to a significant extent as a
substitute or replacement for milk that would otherwise be consumed at
home.
The most significant difference in milk consumption was seen between
students eating lunch away from school and those eating lunch at school.
While at-school milk consumption was expected to be and was in fact much
greater for students eating lunch at school, total daily consumption was,
unexpectedly, also higher--about 20 percent higher--for students eating
lunch at school than for students eating lunch away from school. Higher
total daily milk consumption by students eating lunch at school, compared
to those eating away from school, was seen in schools with and without
USDA programs and at elementary, secondary, and Regional breaks.
B. Students' Lunchtime Food Consumption
Tables 12 through 14 present the survey findings on students' lunchtime
food consumption. The following summarizes these findings.
In schools with the NSLP, 59 percent 21 of students in attendance on
the day of the survey reported eating only the Type A lunch on that day,
6 percent reported eating only a la carte items for lunch, 19 percent
reported eating only a bag lunch brought from home, 3 percent reported
eating lunch from more than one of the above sources (e.g., bag lunch
and a la carte items), 8 percent reported eating lunch away from school,
and 5 percent reported eating no lunch.
21 This 59 percent figure is somewhat higher than the 57 percent ADL/
ADA figure derived from the Administrative Questionnaire but the
same as the lunch participation figure from the Administrative
Questionnaire, when students in organized programs which prevented
them from eating lunch at school are excluded from the denominator.
It is likely that many of these students in organized programs were
not available to respond to the Student Questionnaire. In addition,
pretests of the questionnaire indicated a slight tendency for
students to indicate they ate a "complete school lunch" (Type A)
when, in fact, their lunch was bag or a la carte.
34
Participation in the NSLP showed a marked decrease with increasing grade
levels: 69 percent of elementary students (grades prekindergarten - 6)
in NSLP schools reported eating only the Type A lunch; this figure fell
to 51 percent at the junior high school level (grades 7-9) and 40 percent
at the senior high school level. Similarly, bag lunches in NSLP schools
showed a significant decrease with increasing grade levels: 22 percent
of elementary school students reported eating only a bag lunch, compared
to 18 percent of junior high school students and 13 percent of senior
high school students. A la carte items, on the other hand, gained
prevalence with increasing grade levels, constituting only 1 percent
of elementary lunches but 1~ percent of secondary lunches in NSLP schools.
The percentage of students eating lunch at home remained steady across
grades in NSLP schools, measuring 6 percent at both the elementary and
secondary levels. In one of the most surprising findings, the percentage
of children in NSLP schools who reported eating no lunch increased
dramatically from only 1 percent at the elementary level to 8 percent
at the junior high school level to 17 percent at the senior high school
level.
Participation in the NSLP as reported on the Student Questionnaires was
about 10 percent higher in NSLP schools without the SMP than in those
with the SMP. This difference, about the same as recorded on the
Administrative Questionnaire, was almost entirely attributable to a
difference in the percentage of students bringing bag lunches to school
between these two types of schools: in NSLP-with-SMP schools bag lunches
accounted for 21 percent of all lunches on the day of the survey,
compared to 11 percent in NSLP-without-SMP schools. In NSLP-with-SMP
schools 89 percent of students eligible for free milk and in attendance
reported eating the Type A lunch on the day of the survey, compared to
50 percent of children not eligible for free milk who ate the Type A
lunch -in these schools.
In schools not participating in the NSLP, 5 percent of students in attend­ance
on the day of the survey reported eating only a complete school
lunch ~ that day, 10 percent reported eating only a la carte items, 52
percent reported eating only a bag lunch, 5 percent reported eating a
combination of a la carte items and bag lunch items, 23 percent reported
eating lunch away from school, and 5 percent reported eating no lunch.
As was seen in NSLP schools, the percentage of students eating bag
lunches declined as the grade level of the students increased, while the
percentages of students who reported eating a la carte lunches and those
eating no lunch increased from the elementary to the secondary level. Un-
~ Some non-NSLP schools do offer a complete school lunch, but it is
unlikely that 5 percent of total non-NSLP enrollment ate this type
of lunch. The tendency, noted in the previous footnote, for
students to mistakenly report this type of lunch probably accounts
for much of this 5 percent figure.
35
like NSLP schools, where the number of students eating lunch at home
remained a steady 6 percent at both the elementary and secondary levels,
in non-NSLP schools the number of students eating lunch at home decreased
sharply from 26 percent at the elementary level to 8 percent at the
secondary level.
The percentage of students eating lunch at a restaurant or carry-out
was 2 percent in non-NSLP schools and 1 percent in NSLP schools. Stu­dents
eating at some "other" place outside the school grounds constituted
3 percent of all students in non-NSLP schools and 1 percent in NSLP
schools. For many of these students in non-NSLP schools some "other"
place for lunch was some other school which participated in the NSLP.
C. Which Students Utilize the SMP
To determine which students, in terms of type of lunch eaten, utilize
the SMP, an analysis was made of responses to the Student Questionnaire
questions on type of lunch eaten and amount of milk consumed at school.
This method of aligning SMP milk with type of lunch eaten is considerably
more practicable than is a physical count of SMP half-pints dispensed
by type of lunch-taker receiving them. It is also, however, more prone
to error due to student overreporting of milk consumption and inability
to segregate those half-pints received under the SBP or brought from home
from those received through the SMP. Assuming, however~ that overreport­ing
of milk consumption is relatively uniform across all types of lunch­takers
and adjusting consumption figures for SBP half-pints, the
following estimate can be made for the distribution of SMP half-pints by
type of lunch-taker receiving them·:
30% of SMP milk is consumed by students who eat a Type A lunch
12% of SMP' milk is consumed by students who eat a la carte lunches
43% of SMP milk is consumed by students who eat :Pag lunches
9% of SMP milk is consumed by students who eat lunch away from
school
6% of SMP milk is consumed by students who report eating no lunch
A significant difference in this distribution is evident between elemen­tary
and secondary schools, reflecting primarily the larger percentage
of elementary students who eat bag lunches and the larger percentage
of secondary students who eat a la carte lunches or report eating no
lunch. The distr.ibutions of SMP milk by type of lunch-taker receiving
this milk for elementary and secondary schools are as follows:
36
Elementary
31%
3%
56%
9%
l%
Secondacy
27% • • of SMP milk is consumed by students who
eat Type A lunches
22% • • . • of SMP milk is consumed by students who
eat a la carte lunches
30% • • . . of SMP milk is consumed by students who
eat bag lunches
9% . . . . of SMP milk is consumed by students who
eat lunch away from school
12% . . . . of SMP milk is consumed by students who
report eating no lunch
These figures do not differentiate between SMP milk served at lunchtime
and that served between meals. Thus, a significant portion of the 30
percent of SMP milk consumed by students who eat the Type A lunch is
probably served at nonmealtimes. Also, since no adjustment was made to
account for milk brought from home and consumed at school, these
distributions may overstate the proportion of SMP milk consumed by
students who eat bag lunches (who would most likely account for the major
portion of children bringing milk to school). However, since only 11
percent of students in SMP schools reported ever bringing milk from home
to school, any such overstatement should be slight.
D. Student Preferences on Times of Milk Service
Lunchtime was by far the time of day most frequently cited by students
as desirable for milk service at school. Seventy-four percent of all
students expressed a desire for lunchtime milk service. "First thing
in the morning" was the time of day next most frequently cited as
desirable for milk service: 27 percent of all students expressed a
desire for milk service at this time. Midmorning, midafternoon, and end
of school were all about equally popular for milk service, each being
cited by roughly 20 percent of students. Sixteen percent of students
over all schools responded "don't care" when asked for their preference
on times of milk service.
The most significant difference between schools with the SMP and those
without the program, in terms of preference as to times of milk service,
was in the percentage of students without a preference: in SMP schools
15 percent of students responded "don't care" compared to 21 percent of
students with this response in non-SMP schools. A slightly greater
percentage of students in non-SMP schools expressed a preference for
milk service at school "first thing in the morning," and a smaller
percentage expressed a preference for lunchtime milk service than was
found in SMP schools.
37
Secondary students were more likely than elementary students to express
no preference as to times of milk service. They were also less likely
than elementary students to express a preference for midmorning, lunch­time,
or midafternoon milk service. Regionally, there were very few
differences in student preferences as to times of milk service.
For all schools nationwide, 49 percent of students approved of the times
of day milk was offered in their schools, 34 percent disapproved, and
17 percent responded "don't care when milk is served." Students in
schools with the SMP were more likely to approve of the times of milk
service in their schools than were students in schools without the
program: 51 percent of students in SMP schools approved of the times
of milk service in their schools compared to 43 percent in schools
without the SMP. Students at the elementary level were more likely than
those at the secondary level to approve of the times of milk service in
their schools, while secondary students were more likely to respond
"don't care" to the approval-disapprovai question.
The pattern of student preferences on times of milk service coincides
closely with the pattern of times at which milk is actually offered:
e.g., elementary students expressed a stronger preference for midmorning
and midafternoon milk service than did secondary students and milk
service at these times is considerably more common among elementary than
among secondary schools; secondary students expressed a slightly stronger
preference for milk service "first thing in the morning" and milk service
at this time is, in fact, about twice as common at the secondary level
as at the elementary level. Thus, either schools are currently doing a
good job of meeting student preferences on times of milk service or students
simply indicated preferences for milk service at the times they were
accustomed to receive milk. One exception to this is milk service at school
"first thing in the morning" which was the second most preferred time · of
service among students yet was the time at which the !e~~st number .of schools
actually served milk. Also of note is the fact that the proportion of
students who approved of the times of milk service in their schools was
larger in SMP schools than in schools without the milk program: in fact,
milk is served more frequently in SMP schools than in non-SMP schools.
38
Table 4 Student Consumption of Milk by Grade Level, by Flavored Milk Availability,
and by Soft Drink Availability: Mean Number of Cartons or Glasses of Milk
Reported Consumed at School and Away From School in 24-Hour Period
Mean Number of Cartons or Glasses of Milk Consumed b~ Students In
All Schools .. SMP Schools : Schools Without SMP
Away : : . Away : . . . : Away
At : From . : At : From . . . : At : From
School : School : Total : School: School : Total : School : School : Total
:
Students in Grades:
Pre-K - 3 1.01 1.84 2.85 : 1.05 1.84 2.88 : 0.87 1.83 2.69
4 - 6 0.96 2.23 3.19 : 1.02 2.22 3.24 : 0.74 2.25 2.99
7 - 9 0.93 2.18 3.10 : 1.00 2.20 3.20 : 0.66 2.09 2.76
10 - 12 0.84 2.09 2.94 : 0.96 2.05 3.01 : 0.63 2.18 2.81
Elementary Subtotal 0.99 2.01 3.00 : 1.04 2.00 3.04 : 0.81 2.02 2.83
Secondary Subtotal 0.89 2.14 3.03 : 0.98 2.14 3.13 : 0.64 2.14 2.78
w Total 0.95 2.06 3.01 : 1.02 2.06 3.07 : o. 72 2.08 2.81 1.0
Students in Schools
Making Flavored Milk
Available 1.04 2.09 3.13 : 1.05 2.12 3.17 : 0.95 1.92 2.87
Students in Schools
Without Flavored Milk 0.89 2.04 2.93 : 1.00 2.02 3.01 : 0.49 2.24 2.75
Students in Schools
Making Soft Drinks
Available !/ - - - : 0.97 2.05 3.02
Students in Schools
Without Soft Drinks !/ - - - : 1.03 2.06 3.09
!/ Soft drink availability determined only in SMP schools.
~
0
Table 5
Students in Grades:
Pre-K - 3
4 - 6
7 - 9
10-12
Elementary Subtotal
Secondary Subtotal
Total
Male Students
Female Students
Student Consumption of Milk by Grade Level and by Sex of Student in Specified
Types of Schools: Mean Number of Cartons or Glasses of Milk Reported Consumed
At School and Away From School in 24-Hour Period
Mean Number of Cartons or Glasses of Milk Consumed by Students In
SMP With NSLP Schools : SMP Without NSLP Schools :NSLP Without SMP Schools
: Away : : : Away : : : Away
At .• From .• : At .• From .. ..A t .. From .•
School . School • Total : School . School • Total .School • School • Total
1.08
1.06
1.02
0.96
1.07
1.00
1.04
1.18
0.88
1. 79
2.15
2.17
2.05
1.94
2.12
2.01
2.23
1. 78
2.86
3.21
3.19
3.00
3.01
3.12
3.06
3.41
2.66
0. 72
0.68
0.72
0.96
0.70
0.79
0.72
0. 77
0.68
2.38
2.80
2.66
2.11
2.58
2.51
2.56
2. 77
2.36
3.10
3.48
3.38
3.07
3.28
3.29
3.29
3.54
3.04
:1.04
:1.02
:0.84
:0.76
:1.04
:0.80
:0.93
:1.02
:0.83
1.72
1.95
1.98
1.87
1.82
1.92
1.87
2.06
1.66
2.77
2.97
2.82
2.63
2.86
2.72
2.80
3.08
2.49
Table 6 Male vs. Female Consumption of Milk: Mean Number of Cartons
or Glasses of Milk Reported Consumed at School and Away
From School in 24-Hour Period
Mean Number of Cartons or Glasses of Milk Consumed by Students In
All Schools : SMP Schools .. Schools Without SMP
Away : : : Away : : : Away
At : From : .. At : From : : At : From
School : School : Total: School : School : Total: School : School : Total
: . .
Males in Grades:
Pre-K - 3 1.07 1.97 3.05 : 1.12 1.99 3.11 : 0.87 1.89 2.76
4 - 6 1.00 2.36. 3.36 : 1.06 2.37 3.43 : 0.76 2.30 3.06
7 - 9 1.13 2.44 3 •. 57 : 1.21 2.44 3.64 0.82 2.43 3.25
10 - 12 1.12 2.48 3.59 : 1.28 2.43 3.71 : 0.81 2.56 3.37
Elementary Subtotal 1.04 2.14 3.19 : 1.10 2.16 3.25 : 0.83 2.07 2.90
Secondary Subtotal 1.12 2.45 3.58 : 1.23 2.43 3.67 : 0.81 2.50 3.32
~ 1-' Total 1.08 2.27 3.35 : 1.15 2.27 3.42 : 0.82 2.29 3.11
: :
Females in Grades:
Pre-K - 3 0.95 1.69 2.63 : 0.97 1.67 2.64 : 0.86 1.77 2.62
4 - 6 0.91 2.08 3.00 : 0.97 2.05 3.02 : 0.72 2.20 2.91
7 - 9 o. 72 1.91 2.62 : 0.78 1.94 2.72 : 0.53 1. 79 2.32
10 - 12 0.54 1.67 2.22 : 0.60 1.63 2.23 : 0.43 1. 76 2.19
Elementary Subtotal 0.94 1.86 2.79 : 0.97 1.83 2.80 : 0.79 1.96 2.75
Secondary Subtotal 0.65 1.81 2.46 : 0.71 1.83 2.54 : 0.48 1. 78 2.25
Total 0.81 1.84 2.65 0.87 1.83 2.69 0.63 1.86 2.49
"(\".)'
Table 7 Milk Consumption of Students Approved For Free Milk and Students
Not Approved In SMP Schools: Mean Number of Cartons or Glasses of
Milk Reported Consumed At School and Away From School in 24-Hour Period
SMP Schools
With NSLP : Without
Total : Subtotal . With SBP . . . Without SBP : NSLP
Percentage of Enrollment Approved
for Free Milk !/ 19.2% 20.6% 43.7% 16.5% 2.8%
Percentage of Enrollment Not
Approved for Free Milk 80.8% 79.4% 56.3% 83.5% 97.2%
- mean number of cartons or glasses reported consumed -
ConsumEtion At School BI:
Students Approved For Free Milk 1.34 1.34 1.52 1.25
Students Not Approved 0.94 0.96 1.01 0.96
All Students 1.02 1.04 1.23 1.01
ConsumEtion Awal From School ·BI:
Students Approved For Free Milk 1.67 1.66 1.47 1. 75
Students Not Approved 2.15 2.11 1.69 2.16
All Students 2.06 2~01 1.59 2.09
Total Daili ConsumEtion BI:
Students Approved For Free Milk 3.01 3.00 2.99 3.01
Students Not Approved 3.09 3.07 2.70 3.12
All Students 3.07 3.06 2.82 3.10
!/ These data on percentage of enrollment approved for free milk are taken from the student
questionnaires and differ very slightly from the same data taken from the administrative
questionnaires. The difference is within the bounds of sampling variability.
1.26
0.71
0.72
2.40
2.57
2.56
3.66
3.27
3.29
Table 8 Percentage of Students Reporting Having Consumed Specified
Number of Cartons or Glasses of Milk At School in 24-Hour Period
Number of Half-Pints of Milk Consumed at School
More
Than
Zero : One : Two : Three : Four : Four : Total
- Percentage of Students -
All Schools
Elementary Students 20.3 62.5 15.0 1.5 0.2 0.2 100.0
Secondary Students 39.3 40.4 14.7 3.8 1.0 0.8 100.0
Total Students 28.5 53.1 14.9 2.5 0.5 0.5 100.0
SMP Schools
Elementary Students 17.3 64.2 16.4 1.7 0.2 0.1 100.0
Secondary Students 34.0 42.8 16.9 4.3 1.1 0.9 100.0
Total Students 24.1 55.5 16.6 2.8 0.5 0.5 100.0
"'"
SMP Schools-Students
w AEEroved for Free Milk
Elementary Students 9.8 50.5 36.5 2.8 0.3 0.0 100.0
Secondary Students 16.9 40.0 35.9 6·.1 0.9 0.2 100.0
Total Students 12.0 47.3 36.3 3.8 0.5 0.1 100.0
SMP Schools-Students
Not AEEroved for Free Milk
Elementary Students 19.5 68.2 10.6 1.4 0.2 0.1 100.0
Secondary Students 36.9 43.3 13.7 4.0 1.1 1.1 100.0
Total Students 27.0 57.4 11.9 2.5 0.6 0.5 100.0
Schools With Non-SMP
A La Carte Milk Service
Elementary Students 24.6 64.7 9.3 0.8 0.3 0.3 100.0
Secondary Students 52.9 34.5 9.0 2.3 0.7 0.6 100.0
Total Students 41.1 47.1 9.1 1.7 0.5 0.5 100.0
Schools Without A La
Carte Milk Service
Elementary Students 51.6 38.1 7.9 0.6 0.3 1.5 100.0
Secondary Students 59.4 29.0 8.1 1.8 1.8 0.0 100.0
Total Students 53.5 35.9 8.0 0.9 0.6 1.2 100.0
Table 9 Percentage of Students Reporting Having Consumed Specified
NUmber of Cartons or Glasses of Milk Away From School in 24-Hour Period
Number of Half-Pints of Milk Consumed Away From School
More
Than
Zero : One .. Two : Three : Four : Four : Total
- Percentage of Students -
All Schools
Elementary Students 15.7 24.6 26.5 17.4 8.4 7.4 100.0
Secondary Students 20.6 18.1 21.6 18.1 9.5 12.1 100.0
Total Students 17.8 21.8 24.4 17.7 8.9 9.4 100.0
SMP Schools
Elementary Students 15.1 24.9 27.2 17.5 8.2 7.1 100.0
Secondary Students 20.6 17.7 21.8 18.4 9.6 11.9 100.0
Total Students 17.3 22.0 25.0 17.9 8.8 9.1 100.0
SMP Schools-Students
""' AEEroved for Free Milk ""' Elementary Students 24.3 30.3 20.8 11.9 7.9 4.7 100.0
Secondary Students 28.7 20.0 19.7 17.3 6.7 7.6 100.0
Total Students 25.7 27.1 20.5 13.5 7.6 5.6 100.0
SMP Schools-Students
Not AEEroved for Free Milk
Elementary Students 12.4 23.4 29.0 19.1 8.3 7.8 100.0
Secondary Students 19.2 17.4 22.2 18.6 10.1 12.6 100.0
Total Students 15.4 20.8 26.0 18.9 9.0 9.9 100.0
Schools With Non-SMP
A La Carte Milk Service
Elementary Students 17.4 23.5 25.1 18.1 8.5 7.4 100.0
Secondary Students 20.2 19.2 21.2 17.6 9.3 12.5 100.0
Total Students 19.0 21.0 22.8 17.8 9.0 10.4 100.0
Schools Without A La
Carte Milk Service
Elementary Students 20.4 21.8 21.1 14.1 10.9 11.8 100.0
Secondary Students 23.9 18.0 18.7 15.2 10.6 13.7 100.0
Total Students 21.3 20.8 20.5 14.3 10.8 12.2 100.0
Tab.Le 10 Milk COnsumption at School by Students Eating
Specified Types of Lunches: Mean Number of
Cartons or Glasses of Milk Reported Consumed
at School in 24-Hour Period
Mean Number of Cartons or Glasses of Milk Consumed at School By Studentsh
Schools With NSLP : Schools Without NSLP
With SMP
Students : Students Not
All : Approved For : Approved For : Without : : With
Type of Lunch Eaten: Total : Students : Free Milk : Free Milk : SMP : Total : SMP
Complete School Lunch
(Type A in NSLP Schools) 1.23 1.25 1.42 1.18 1.11 : 1.22 1.47
A La Carte Items Bought
At School 0.80 0.86 0.66
Bag Lunch Brought From
0.87 0.52 : 0.70 0~80
Home 0.80 0.80 0.77 0.81 0.78 : 0.63 0.79
"0"1' Combination of Above 1.06 1.09 1.08 1.09 0.86 . 0.70 0.64 .
Subtotal of Students
Eating .Lunch At School 1.10 1.12 1.38 1.04 1.02 : 0.68 0.82
Lunch At Home 0.44 0.47 0.37 0.47 0.23 : 0.23 0.33
Lunch At a Restaurant 0.49 0.52 0.46 0.53 0.27 : 0.44 0.44
Lunch At Some Other Place 0.59 0.63 0.73 0.62 0.21 : 0.40 0.33
Subtotal of Students Eating
Lunch Away From School 0.48 0.50 0.41 0.51 0.23 : 0.27 0-33
No Lunch 0.55 0.60 0.70 0.59 0.29 : 0.25 0.59
Total 1.03 1.04 1.34 0.96 0.93 : 0.57 0. 72
Table 11 Total Daily Milk Consumption by Students Eating Specified Types
of Lunches: Mean Number of Cartons or Glasses of Milk Reported
Consumed at School and Away from School in 24-Hour Period
Mean Number of Cartons or Glasses of Milk Consumed hi Students In
Schools With NSLP :Schools Without NSLP
With SMP
Students : Students Not
All : Approved For : Approved For : Without : : With
Type of Lunch Eaten: Total : Students : Free Milk : Free Milk : SMP ..: Total : SMP
Complete School Lunch
(Type A in NSLP Schools) 3.12 3.17 3.07 3.22 2.86 : 3.40 3.77
A La Carte Items Bought
At School 3.02 3.07 2.34 3.10 2.79 : 3.03 3.32
,c:. Bag Lunch Brought From
0\ Home 3.05 3.02 2.62 3.04 3.00 : 3.10 3.37
Combination of Above 3.63 3.66 2.98 3.69 3.40 : 3.30 3.19
Subtotal of Students
Eating Lunch At School 3.11 3.14 3.04 3.17 2.88 : 3.12 3.38
Lunch At Home 2.43 2.42 1.84 2.47 2.50 : 2.78 2.93
Lunch At a Restaurant 2.55 2.58 1.93 2.61 2.33 : 2.47 3.04
Lunch At Some Other Place 2.89 3.00 2.54 3.02 1.92 : 2.75 2.57
Subtotal of Students Eating
Lunch Away From School 2.54 2.55 1.90 2.60 2.41 : 2.75 2.91
No Lunch 2.24 2.32 2.44 2.31 1;.86 : 2.20 3.14
Total 3.02 3.06 3.00 3.07 2.80 : 3~00 3.29
-".."..')
Ta£le 12 Percentage of Students Who Reported Eating
Specified Types of Lunches in Specified
Types of Schools
Schools With NSLP
With SMP
Students : Students Not
: Schools Without NSLP
Percentage of Students : All : Approve4 For : Approved For : Without : : With
Who Re2orted Eating: Total : Students : Free Milk : Free Milk : SMP : Total : SMP
Complete School Lunch
(Type A in NSLP Schools) 59.4
A La Carte Items Bought 57~8 89.0 49.7 68.2 . 4.9 4.1
At School 5.8
Bag Lunch Brought From
5.6 0.9 6.9 6.8 . 10.1 6.8
Home 19.3 20.7 4.5 24.9 11.4 . Combination of Above 52.3 63.6 2.7 2.9 0.7 3.4 1.8 : 5.1 4.6 Subtotal of Students
Eating Lunch At School 87.2 87.0 95.1 84.9 88.4 . Lunch At Home 72.4 79.1 5.7 5.9 2.1 6.9 4.4 : Lunch At a Restaurant 17.3 16.0 1.0 1.0 0.2 1.2 0.8 : 2.2 1.2 Lunch At Some Other Place 1.0 1.1 0.2 1.3 0.7 : 3.3 1.4 Subtotal of Students Eating
Lunch Away From School 7.8 8.'1 2.5 9.5 5.9 . No Lunch 22.9 18.7 5.0 4.9 2.4 5.6 5.7 : 4.7 2.2 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 : 100.0 100. 0
~
(X)
Table 13 Percentage of Elementary Students (Grades
Prekindergarten-6) Who Reported Eating
Specified Types of Lunches in Specified
Types of Schools
Schools With NSLP
Percentage of Elementary • With SMP
: : Students : Students Not
: Schools Without NSLP
Students Who Reported
Eating: : All : Approved For : Approved For : Without : : With
Total : Students : Free Milk : Free Milk : SMP : Total : SMP
Complete School Lunch
(Type A in NSLP Schools) 68.6
A La Carte Items Bought
67.0 92.6 58.6 78.6 : 2.2 2.1
At School 0.9 0.9 0.2 1.1 1.0 : 2.1 2.9
Bag Lunch Brought From
Home 21.6 23.0 4.7 29.0 13.1 : 64.7 69.7
Combination of Above 2.2 2.3 o.2 2.9 1.9 . . 1.6 2.9
Subtotal of Students
Eating Lunch At School 93.3 93.2 97.8 91.6 94.6 : 70.5 77.6
Lunch At Home 5.6 5.9 1.7 7.3 3.6 . . 25.9 19.7
Lunch At a Restaurant 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.4 : 1.0 1.0
Lunch At Some Other Place 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.1 : 2.1 1.1
Subtotal of Students Eating
Lunch Away From School 6.1 6.3 1.9 7.8 4.0 . . 29.0 21.8
No Lunch 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.6 1.4 : 0.5 0.6
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 : 100.0 100.0
~
10
Table 14 Percentage Of Secondary Students (Grades 7-12)
Who Reported Eating Specified Types of Lunches
In Specified Types of Schools
Schools With NSLP
Percentage of SecondaEI .: With SMP . : Students : Students Not
: Schools Without NSLP
Students Who ReEorted
Eating_: : All : Approved For : Approved For : Without : : With
Total : Students : Free Milk : Free Milk : SMP : Total : SMP
:
Complete School Lunch
(Type A in NSLP Schools) 46.7 45.1 80.8 38.7 55.1 . A La Carte Items Bought 7.8 8.9
At School 12.5 12.2 2.5 14.0 14.2 . Bag Lunch Brought From 18.6 16.3
Home 16.2 17.4 4.1 19.8 9.4 ; 39.1 48.4 Combination of Above 3.3 3.7 1.5 4.0 1.8 9.3 Subtotal of Students 8.8
Eating Lunch At School 78.7 78.4 89.0 76.5 80.6 : 74.3 82.9 Lunch At Home 5.9 5.9 3.1 6.4 5.5 . 8.3 6.8 Lunch At a Restaurant 2.2 2.4 0.4 2.8 1.3 . Lunch At Some Other Place . 3.6 1.7 2.1 2.2 0.5 2.5 1.5 . Subtotal of Students Eating 4.6 2.3
Lunch Away From School 10·3 10.6 4.0 11.8 8.3 ; 16.6 10.9 No Lunch 1LO 11.0 7.0 11.7 11.1 . 9.1 6.2 Total 110.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ·1oo.o 100.0
Ul
0
Table 15 Percentage of Students in SMP Schools, in Non-SMP Schools, and in All
Schools Who Expressed A Preference for Milk Service At Specified Times;
Percentage of Students Who Approved and Disapproved of Times Milk Was Served
In Their Schools
Percentage of Students Who Preferred Milk
Service At School 0 Percentage of Students Who 0
First
Thing 0 : 0 0 0 : Approved :Disapproved: Expressed 0 0 0 0
In The : Mid- 0 : Mid- : End Of: Don't: Of Times :Of Times : No 0
Morning: Morning: Lunchtime: Afternoon: School: Care : Served :Served : Opinion
0
0
SMP Schools
Elementary Students 25 21 79 23 20 12 : 55 32 13
Secondary Students 28 20 71 15 21 20 : 43 36 20
All Students 26 21 76 20 20 15 : 51 33 16
0
0
Schools Without SMP
Elementary Students 28 21 70 20 24 15 : 42 46 12
Secondary Students 28 16 63 12 20 25 : 44 29 27
All Students 28 19 67 16 22 21 : 43 37 20
0
0
All Schools
Elementary Students 26 21 77 22 21 13 : 53 34 13
Secondary Students 28 19 69 14 20 21 : 44 34 22
All Students 27 20 74 19 21 16 : 49 34 17
Elementary Student&
Secondary Students
All Students
' .....
:~t-
Table 16 Percentage of Students Who Never Bring Milk to School
in Specified Types of Schools
Percentage of Students Who Never Bring Milk to School In
Schools With SMP
Schools : : Students : Students Not
All : Without . All . . . Approved For : Approved For
Schools . . SMP : Students : Free Milk : Free Milk
82 81 82 97 78
98 97 l 98 98 98
89 89 89 97 87
. _,
"
..
-,..
-·
VII. Milk Waste f .
A description of the methodol,ogy utilized in the milk waste measurement
part of the study may be found in Section III of this report. Four
points on this methodology should be noted here:
1. Milk waste was measured only in sample schools which
participated in at least one of the USDA child nutrition
programs. The applicability of the findings presented
here to non-USDA proqram schools is unknown. In addition,
milk waste was measured in USDA program schools for all
milk served and not, for instance, for milk served under
the NSLP versus milk served under the SMP, or for flavored
half._pints versus unflavored half-pints. Inferences,
therefore, are drawn on the basis of school groupings-­e.
g., NSLP-with-SMP schools versus NSLP-only schools,
schools with flavored milk versus schools not offering
flavored milk.
2. Milk waste was measured only during lunch periods in these
schools. No data were collected on milk waste at service
periods other than lunchtime. Since survey data indicate,
however, that about 85 percent of all milk served in schools
is served at lunchtime, the findings presented here would
not change markedly if milk waste were measured across all
milk service periods.
3. Milk from unopened cartons was considered wasted milk.
Some schools (where permitted by local health laws) collect
and recycle unopened cartons of milk. Since collection
of milk cartons for the milk waste measurement took place
almost exclusively at the waste disposal receptacles,
however, little if any milk which would have been recycled
entered the · "unopened carton" count.
' 4. Findings may be biased by the "Hawthorne Effect." (The
presence of an observer alters the phenomenon being
observed.) Although the method used to collect milk cartons
in this survey minimized the exposure of the enumerators
to the students, the generally quick detection by students
of unusual activity in the lunchroom probably effected a
slight downward bias in the measure of milk waste obtained
here. While the levels of milk waste reported here are
generally on the same order as those reported in previous,
less extensive studies, they are be?t used in a relative,
not absolute, manner: i.e., in making comparisons among
levels of wa~te in differing situations.
52
Milk waste over all USDA program schools averaged 11.5 percent. Almost
75 percent of all half-pints served were completely consumed, 23 percent
were partially consumed, and just over 2 percent were brought to the waste
disposal area unopened. An average of 3.2 ounces of milk remained in
each of the partially consumed 8-ounce cartons. About 40 percent of these
USDA program schools had less than 5 percent milk waste, and over 17
percent of these schools had 20 percent or more milk waste. Milk waste
in elementary schools averaged 14.8 percent and in secondary schools
6.1 percent.
The Special Milk Program does not appear to contribute significantly
toward milk waste. In schools with the SMP and without the NSLP, milk
waste averaged only 3.5 percent. Moreover, milk waste measured the same
(11.9 percent) in NSLP schools with the SMP as in NSLP schools without
the SMP.
Availability of flavored milk was associated with significantly reduced
levels of milk waste. For all USDA program schools offering flavored
milk at lunchtime, milk waste averaged S.O percent, compared to 14.0
percent waste in schools not offering flavored milk. In schools offering
flavored milk, flavored milk accounted for 74 percent of all milk served
at lunch-time. Twenty-two percent of all schools not offering flavored
milk had milk waste in excess of 20 percent while only 11 percent of
schools offering flavored milk had this level of waste. The lower level
of milk waste in schools with flavored milk was due to both a higher
percentage of completely consumed half-pints (7~ percent in schools with
flavored milk versus 71 percent in schools not offering flavored milk)
and a 24 percent lower amount of milk waste per partially consumed
container (2.8 ounces per partially consumed half-pint in schools with
flavored milk versus 3.4 ounces in schools not offering flavored milk).
The lower level of milk waste associated with service of flavored milk
was seen in all USDA program combinations examined (NSLP with SMP,
NSLP without SMP, and SMP without NSLP) an~ at both the elementary and
secondary levels. It is all the more significant in view of the fact
that about 5 percent more milk per student enrolled was served at
lunchtime in schools offering flavored milk ~an in schools not offering
it.
Milk waste was also examined for its relationship to the number of
students eligible to receive free milk. A direct relationship was seen
to existJ that is, as the percentage of students eligible to receive
free milk increased, the percentage of milk •waste increased. Because
this finding relies on ecological data, it should1 not be construed as
definitive evidence that free milk causes increased milk waste or that
children who receive free milk waste more milk than children who do not
receive free milk.
53
U1
~
Table 17 Milk Waste at Lunchtime in.USDA Program Schools on
:t·;... '• ... ! ·-- the Day of the Survey .
All USDA .. .. : SMP With
Program : All SMP : All NSLP : NSLP
Schools : Schools : Schools . ... .. Schools ·~ .
r •·
: Number of Scb,o.ols 1/ 91,597 79,408 83,530 71,341
EnrolJ.ment, (Mlll.ions~ . 46.89 40.57 44.19 37.87
Mean Enrollment 512 511 529 531
Number of Half-Pints
Served at Lunch
(Millions) 31.11 26.86 29.78 25.53
- Percent Completely ' .
Consumed 74.8% 74.4% 74.2% 73.7%
- Percent Partially
Consumed . 22.8% 23.2% 23.3% 23.8%
- Percent Unopened 2.4% 2.4% .. 2.5% 2.5%
Mean Number of Ounces
Left in Partially
Consumed Half-Pints 3.19 3.13 , ... 3.21 3.16 Percent of Milk Left
Unconsumed '1:_/ 11.5% 11.5% 11.9% 11.9%
11 Excludes schools not operating at lunchtime on day of the survey.
'1:_/ Ounces of milk left in partially consumed and unopened containers
divided by total ounces served.
. . SMP Without :
: NSLP Schools:
8,067
2.71
336
1.33
),j
..... f
88.0%
11.7%
0.4%
2.18
3.5%
NSLP Without
SMP Schools
12,189
6.32
519
4.25
77.0%
20.2%
2.8%
3.58
11.9%
.,._
Table 18 Distribution of USDA Program Schools by Percentage
of Milk Left Unconsumed
--Percentage of Milk Left Unconsumed--
Less
Than . . 2.0 - : 5.0 - : 8.0 - : 11.0 - : 14.0 - : 20.0 - : 30.0%
2.0% . 4.9% : 7.9% . 10.9% : 13.9% . 19.9% . . . 29.9% : or More
All USDA Prosram Schools
Number of Schools 19,294 17,535 10,978 11,223 7,156 9,448 9,001 6,962
- Percentage of Schools 21% 19% 12% 12% 8% 10% 10% 8%
Mean Attendance 318 524 522 520 488 396 468 440
Per Capita Half-Pints 1/ 0.79 0.80 0.83 0.91 1.01 0.92 0.92 1.18
USDA Prosram Schools Serving
Flavored Milk
Number of Schools 7,930 9,062 4,945 6,092 1,670 2,855 2,439 1,447
- Percentage of Schools 22% 25% 14% 17% 5% 8% 7% 4%
Mean Attendance 419 518 603 496 601 387 288 588
Per Capita Half-Pints 1/ 0.73 0.83 0.83 1.03 0.92 0.90 1.03 1.47
USDA Prosram Schools Not
Servins Flavored Milk
Number of Schools 11,364 8,473 6,033 5,130 5,485 6,593 6,562 5,515
- Percent~8e of Schools 21% 15% 11% 9% 10% 12% 12% 10%
Mean Attendance 247 530 455 549 453 400 535 401
Per Capita Half-Pints !/ 0.87 0.77 0.82 0.79 1.05 0.93 0.89 1.07
1/ Number of half-pints served at lunchtime divided by number of students
in attendance.
Table 19 Milk Waste in Schools Offering Flavored Milk
and in Schools not Offering Flavored Milk
Schools Offering Flavored Milk .. Schools Not Offering Flavored Milk
SMP : SMP : NSLP . : SMP . . . SMP : NSLP
All USDA: With : Without: Without: All USDA: With : Without: Without
Program : NSLP : NSLP : SMP : Program : NSLP : NSLP : SMP
Schools : Schools: Schools: Schools: Schools : Schools: Schools: Schools
:
Number of Schools 34,752 26,524 3,321 4,907 : 56,845 44,817 4,745 7,282
Enrollment (Millions) 18.91 15.23 0.92 2.76 .. 27.98 22.63 1. 79 3 •.5 6
Mean Enrollment 544 574 277 562 .. 492 504 376 490
Number of Half-Pints Served
at Lunch (Millions) 12.89 10.56 0.53 1.80 : 18.22 14.97 0.80 2.46
U1 - Percent Flavored Milk
m of Total Served at Lunch 74% 74% 76% 72%
Percent of Half-Pints
Completely Consumed 79.4% 78.4% 91.4% 82.6% . 71.4% 70.4% 85.7% 72.9%
Percent of Half-Pints
Partially Consumed 19.1% 20.0% 8.1+% 16.8% ! 25.4% 26.4% 13.9% 22.7%
Percent of Half-Pints
Unopened 1.4% 1.6% 0.3% 0.6% : 3.2% 3.1% 0.4% 4.4%
Mean Number of Ounces
Left in Partially
Consumed Half-Pints 2.76 2.75 1.95 3.00 .. 3.41 3.38 2.28 3.89
Percent of Milk Left
Unconsumed !/ 8.0% 8.5% 2.3% 6.9% : 14.0% 14.3% 4.4% 15.5%
l/ Ounces of milk left in partially consumed and unopened containers divided by
total ounces served.
Ul
-..I
Table 20 Milk Waste in SMP Schools by Percentage of Enrollment
With Approved Applications on File to Receive Free SMP Milk
SMP Schools--Percent of Enrollment Approved for Free Milk
Less Than 10% : 10% - 24.9% : 25% - 49.9% : 50% - 74.9% : 75% or More
Number of Schools 37,507 21,186 9,635 5,502 5,578
Mean Enrollment 528 456 555 532 507
Number of Half-Pints Served
at Lunch/Attendance 0.69 0.72 0.80 0.95 1.03
Percent of Half-Pints
Completely Consumed 76% 77% 73% 70% 66%
Percent of Half-Pints
Partially Consumed 22% 21% 24% 27% 28%
Percent of Half-Pints
Left Unopened 2% 2% 3% 3% 6%
Percent of Milk Left
Unconsumed 1/ 9.1% 1114% 13.5% 13.6% 17.6%
!/ Ounces of milk left in partially consumed and unopened containers divided
by total ounces served.
VIII. General Program Data
Table 21 presents the general program data. Because of the sampling
methodology, the total school count (105,505) is the same for January
for each of the 4 years listed (1972-1975). Office of Education, DHEW,
data show that the actual number of schools in the United States
declined slightly over this period.
Of the total school count, 88 percent, enrolling 90 percent of the
U. S. school population, participated in at least one of the USDA child
nutrition programs in January 1975; 8 percent of these schools, with
8 percent of total enrollment, did not participate in a USDA program but
did make food and/or milk available to students. Only 4 percent of all
schools, with 2 percent of total enrollment, had no food or milk service
in January 1975. A slightly higher percentage of elementary schools
than of secondary schools participated in a USDA program in January 1975
(89 percent versus 86 percent), but only 1 percent of secondary enroll­ment,
compared to 3 percent of elementary, did not have access to food
or milk at school.
The survey data show that over the 1972-1975 period there was a slight
increase both in the number of schools with a USDA program and in the
number of schools with food and/or milk service outside USDA auspices.
Just under 2 percent of all schools operated on a split-session basis
for all or most grades taught in January 1974 and in January 1975.
. .
1
58
U1
10
Table 21 General Program Data
Schools With :
All : One Or More :
Schools 1/ : USDA Programs :
January 1975
Number of Schools 105,505 92,622
Enrollment (Millions) 52.57 47.14
Mean Enrollment 498 509
Avg. Daily Attendance (ADA)
(millions) 48.57 43.64
Attendance Factor (ADA/
Enrollment) 92.4% 92.1%
Number of Split-Session
Schools 1876 1358
- Mean Enrollment in Split-
Session Schools 626 800
January 1974
Number of Schools 105,505 91,919
Enrollment (Millions) 52.75 47.23
January 1973
Number of Schools 105,505 92,071
Jartuary 1972
Number of Schools 105,505 91,378
1/ Due to sampling methodology total school count identical for
- all four years. Office of Education, DREW, data show number
of schools declined slightly over this period.
Schools With No USDA : Schools With
Programs But With Other : No Food Or
Food or Milk Service : Milk Service
8,167 4, 716
4.32 .. 1.11
529 235
4.09 I 1.04
94.7% 93.6%
96 422
130 181
8,074 5,512
4.08 1.43
7,814 5,619
7,681 6,446
IX. SMP Operations
Tables 22 through 32 present the survey data on operations of the SMP
in January 1975 and on the day of the survey. Data were also collected
on January 1974 operations of the SMP. Except where noted in the follow­ing
text, these 1974 data reveal no significant operational changes
from 1974 to 1975; they are therefore not presented in tabular format
in this report.
Survey data indicate 79,800 schools in the 48 coterminous States and the
District of Columbia participated in the SMP in January 1975. This was
down from 81,700 schools participating in the program the same month
the previous year. 'lhis decrease was the result of 4,300 schools
dropping the program during this period (see Section IV for reasons) and
2,400 schools adding it.
The number of half-pints served through the program measured 11.4 million
on an average daily basis in January 1975, up from 10.7 million in
January 1974, according to survey data. About 2.4 million average daily
half-pints or 20.9 percent of the total served through the program in
January 1975 were served free. (Actual program data show 19.2 percent
of all SMP milk was served free i n the last half of fiscall975.) Over
8.2 million students in SMP schools had approved applications on file
to receive free milk in January 1975. Approximately 29 percent of these
students actually received free milk through the SMP on a given day during
this month, roughly the same percentage as that of students enrolled and
not approved for free milk who actually bought SMP milk on a given day.
Average daily half-pints served through the SMP measured 30.4 percent of
average daily attendance in SMP schools in January 1975.
In schools with the' SMP, 36 percent of all milk on the day of the survey
was served through the milk program. Of all milk served in these schools
(including milk served through the NSLP and SBP), 4 percent was served
at breakfast, 84 percent was served at lunchtime, and 12 percent was
served at nonmealtimes. Of milk served through the SMP in these schools,
2 percent was served at breakfast, 66 percent was served at lunchtime,
and 32 percent was served at nonmealtimes.
The following summarizes the survey data on specific areas of importance
in the operation of the Special Milk Program.
60
Cost of Milk to the School and Ch~rge for Milk to the Student
The average cost nationwide to an SMP school for a half-pint of milk
(all types combined) 21 in January 1974 was 8.5 cents; the average cost
to the student for this milk was 5.8 cents. In January 1975 the average
cost to an SMP school for a half-pint of milk was 9.5 cents, an 11 percent
increase over January 1974; the average charge to the student for this
milk was 6.1 cents in January 1975, a 6 percent increase over January
1974. The difference in cost to the school for milk between elementary
and secondary schools was less than 1 percent in January 1975 (9.4 cents­elementary,
9.5 cents-secondary), but secondary SMP schools charged an
average of 5 percent more for each half-pint than did elementary SMP
schools (6.2 cents versus 5.9 cents). Regionally, there was considerable
variation in costs and charges for milk. Schools in the Midwest Region,
which includes the country's largest dairy States, had the lowest average
cost to the school and lowest average charge to the student for SMP milk.
Schools in the Western Region had the highest average cost to the school
and highest average charge to the student for SMP milk.
21 The figures cited here on average cost to the school and average
charge to the student for a half-pint of milk in SMP schools are
based on those schools which maintained the SMP in both January
1974 and January 1975. These comprise 95 percent of all schools
which participated in the SMP in January 1974 and 97 percent of
all schools which participated in the SMP in January 1975. The
weighting of costs and charges for the different types of milk
(whole, skim, etc.) to yield a combined figure was based on the
percentage of each type served on the day of the survey. This
may inject a slight bias into the resulting averages for January
1974; however, no data were collected on the distribution of milk
types in that earlier year, so no estimate as to the direction of
this possible bias can be made.
An additional bias may be introduced by the fact that the distri­bution
of milk types served on the day of the survey was determined
for all milk served in SMP schools, not just SMP milk. The assump­tion
implicit here is that the distribution of milk types for SMP
milk conforms to the distribution for all milk. In view of the
fact that whole white milk constitutes more than twice as much
of total milk over all SMP schools as all other milk types com­bined
and is the only type of milk served in 57 percent of SMP
schools, any bias here should be slight.
61
In January 1975, 12 percent of SMP schools nationwide charged students
less than 5 cents for a half-pint of whole white milk, 42 percent charged
exactly 5 cents, 32 percent charged 6 or 7 cents, 9 percent charged 8 or
9 cents, and 6 percent charged 10 cents or more. In January 1975, 47
percent of SMP schools charged students more than 5 cents for a half-pint
of milk, compared to just under 40 percent of these schools with charges
above 5 cents in January 1974. The price charged for a half-pint of
milk showed a direct relationship to enrollment size; that is, schools
with larger enrollments tended to charge more for a half-pint of milk.
This relationship was seen at both the elementary and secondary levels.
Margin on Milk
The margin on milk is the difference between (a) the price the school
pays for a half-pint of milk and (b) the price charged by the school to
the student for that milk plus the SMP reimbursement plus any other
subsidies the school received on milk. This margin is to be used to
defray within-school distribution costs on milk (refrigeration, straws,
handling, etc.) and, in view of the nonprofit nature of the program,
should be no greater than these costs. Prior to fiscal 1975 schools
were prohibited by Federal regulation from maintaining a margin on milk
in excess of 1.0 cents per half-pint; in exceptional circumstances (to
be determined by the States) this margin co~ld go up to but not exceed
1.5 cents. Regulatory controls on this margin were rescinded at the
beginning of fiscal 1975.
In January 1974--before standardization of SMP reimbursement rates--SMP
reimbursement averaged 3.5 cents per half-pint of milk (not including
free milk served under the diminutive Special Assistance Milk Program).
The average margin on milk in January 1974 in SMP schools was 0.8 cents.
In .January 1975 SMP reimbursement for a half-pint of milk was a standard
5.0 cents. The average margin on milk in January 1975--after regulations
limiting this margin were rescinded--was 1.6 cents. Survey data show
that in January 1974 56 percent of SMP schools had a margin on whole
white milk under 1.0 cents, 17 percent had a margin between 1.0 and
1.5 cents, and 27 percent had a margin over 1.5 cents (which suggests lax
monitoring of the regulatory limits). In January 1975, 31 percent of SMP
schools had a margin on whole white milk under 1.0 cents, 19 percent had
a margin between 1.0 and 1.5 cents, and 41 percent had a margin over 1.5
cents. No significant difference was seen between margins in elementary
schools and those in secondary schools.
62
The doubling of the average margin on milk in SMP schools across the ti~e
in which regulatory limits on this margin were removed is partially
attributable to the inception of free milk service through the SMP. Be­cause
free milk served through the SMP is Federally reimbursed at the
cost to the school for this milk, exclusive of within-school distribution
costs, these distribution costs for free milk must be covered by the
margin on milk served to students paying for SMP .milk. Also in explana­tion
of the margin doubling, it is likely that the previous limit of 1.0
cents (1.5 cents in exception circumstances) was no longer sufficient in
many schools to cover within-school distribution costs of milk served to
paying students. Survey data showing almost 10 percent of SMP schools
in January 1975 with a margin on milk in excess of 3 cents per half-pint
suggest that in some schools the margin on SMP milk in January 1975
exceeded the within-school distribution costs and the nonprofit nature
of the program was being violated. Where such violations occured, how­ever,
the profits made from SMP milk service were most likely used to
offset deficits incurred in other aspects of school foodservice
operations.
TYPes of Milk Served lQI
Whole white milk was by far the most prevalent type of milk served in
SMP schools in 1975. On the day of the survey almost 95 percent of SMP
schOQls offered whole white milk to students, and in .57 percent of SMP
schools whole white milk was the only type of milk served.
Whole flavored milk was served in over 28 percent of all SMP schools on
the day of the survey. In schools serving it, whole flavored milk
accounted for 69 percent of all milk served.
Lowfat or nonfat flavored milk was served in just over 10 percent of
all SMP schools on the day of the sU+vey. In these schools lowfat or
nonfat flavored milk accounted for 72 percent of all milk served. A
somewhat greater percentage of SMP schools reported offering flavored
milk in January 1975 (45 percent) that actually served flavored milk on
the day of the survey (38 percent). This discrepancy is due to the
fact that some schools do not make flavored milk available every school
day.
10/ The types of milk served in SMP schools were examined without
regard to the program through which they were served. It is,
practically speaking, almost impossible to distinguish between
milk served under the SMP versus that served under the NSLP in
a school operating both programs. (Imagine for instance, a
student who takes the Type A lunch and puts two milk cartons,
one of flavored milk and one of whole white milk, on the lunch
tray. Which carton was served via the NSLP and which via the
SMP?) The implicit assumption in the discussion in this section
is that the distribution of milk types served via the SMP
conforms to the distribution of all milk served in SMP schools.
63
Lowfat milk (unflavored) was served in almost 6 percent of SMP schools
on the day of the survey and constituted 42 percent of all milk served
in these schools. Lowfat white milk appeared to be offered more commonly
instead of and not in conjunction with whole white milk: only 29 per­cent
of those schools serving lowfat white milk on the day of the survey
served whole white milk also.
Skim milk (unflavored) was served in just under 4 percent of SMP schools
on the day of the survey and constituted only 8 percent of all milk
served in schools offering it. Buttermilk was served in less than 1
percent of SMP schools and represented less than 1 percent of all milk
served in schools offering it.
Over all SMP schools, whole white milk constituted 68 percent of all
milk served on the day of the survey, whole flavored milk constituted
21 percent, lowfat or nonfat flavored milk constituted 9 percent, low-fat
white milk constituted under 3 percent, and skim milk (unflavored)
and buttermilk both constituted well under 1 percent of all milk served.
Differences between elementary and secondary schools in this distribution
were very slight, while Regional differences were somewhat more pronounced.
Times of Milk Service
The time of milk service has always been a major focus in discussion
of the SMP. Experiments (13) in selected locales at the time of the
program's inc