Part 1 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 1 of 2 | Next |
|
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
Full Size
Full Resolution
|
This page
All
|
ffl»hfl-N fjUtfX ^h fc/¥ Nutrition Assistance Program Report Series The Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation Special Nutrition Programs Report No. CN-01-SNDAHFR School Nutrition DietaryAssessment Study-II FinalReport tt* USDA SH2K, IS? »>'»" Agriculture Service d0ktQ53to 45). _.. _ «MJ fmct—il—l MnimM■i■lH!■I■M IHM^IDJIvBlIl ^WJVMUKwJ "The U.S. Department cf Agrtcukure (USDA) prohibits discrimination in si its programs ths bssis of rscs, color, notion si origin, gsndor, reogion, sgs, dteabMty or msftsi or fsmly status. (Not al promoted bases apply to si programs) •squire sfeemetrve i<ieens for communication of program iofoimabon (BraMs, should contact USDA's TARGET Cantar at (202) 720-2800 (voice and TOO)" on wNh prW, •*> To fas a complaint of dicriminalion, write USDA, Director, Office of Ctvl Rights, Room 320-W, Whtton Bulding, 14" and Indapandencs Avenue, 3W. Washington, DC 20250-0410 or cal (202) 720-50*4 (voles andTDD). U8DA Is en oquaicpporturflypfovloer end emperor. P USDA United States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service July 2001 Special Nutrition Programs Report No. CN-01-SNDAIIFR School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study-II Final Report Authors: Mary Kay Fox Mary Kay Crepinsek Patty Connor Michael Battaglia Submitted by: Abt Associates, Inc. 55 Wheeler Street Cambridge, MA 02138 Project Director: Mary Kay Fox Submitted to: Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation USDA, Food and Nutrition Service 3101 Park Center Drive Alexandria, VA 22302-150C Project Officer: Patricia McKinney This study was conducted under Contract number 53-3198-05-032 with the Food and Nutrition Service. This report is available on the Food and Nutrition Service web site: http://mm.fns.usda.gov/oane. Suggested Citation: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation, School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study-n Final Report Mary Kay Fox, Mary Kay Crepinsek, Patty Connor, Michael Battaglia. Project Officer, Patricia McKinney. Alexandria, VA: 2001. IT Table of Contents Lift of Exhibit* vi Acknowledgments xiii Chapter One: Introduction 1 The National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs 1 Nutrition Standards for School Meals 2 The School Meals Initiative for Healthy Children 3 Current Menu Planning Options 4 Weighted and Unweighted Nutrient Analyses (Meals as Served versus Meals as Offered) 5 Overview ofthe SNDA-II Study 6 Respondents and Data Collection Instruments 7 Standards Used to Evaluate Nutrient Content 9 Comparison with SNDA-I Data 10 Organization of this Report 11 Chapter Two: Characteristics of Food Service Programs in Public NSLP Schools 13 School-Level Participation in the SBP 13 Percentage of Students Approved for Meal Benefits 13 Participation in the NSLP and SBP 15 Distribution of Free, Reduced-Price and Paid Meals IS Meal Price* 19 NSLP Meal Prices 19 Relationship Between Meal Price and Participation Rates Among Full-Price Students 22 SBP Meal Prices 25 Menu Planning Practbss 25 Responsibility fix Menu Planning 25 Availability and Use of Menu Planning Resources 27 Menu Planning Options Selected by Schools 27 Nutrient Analysis Procedures in Schools Using NSMP and ANSMP ... 34 Incorporating the Dietary Guidelinesfor Americans into School Meals and Perceived Effects on Acceptability and Food Waste 37 Breakfast Menus 44 Types of Meai Service Offered 44 Breakfast Menus 48 Alternatives to NSLP and SBP Meals 48 Options Other than USDA-Reimbursable Meals 50 Foods Offered a la Carte 50 Average Weekly a la Cartt Revenue 55 Pricing Methods Used for la Carte Foods 55 Use ofFoods from Commercial Vendors 59 Use of Food Service Management Companies 59 in Tabte of Contents Table of Contents (continued) Chapter Three: Characteristics of Lunches Served in Public NSLP Schools 65 Overview of die Analysis 65 Number and Types of Food Offered and Served to Students 66 Number of Options Offered Within NSLP Meal Component Categories 66 Foods Most Frequently Included in NSLP Meuus 69 Characteristics of Lunches Actually Served to Students 74 Average Nutrient Content of Lunches Served to Students 74 Mean Nutrient Content Relative to RDAs 76 Percentage of Calories from Total Fat and Saturated Fat 79 Cholesterol, Sodium and Carbohydrate Content 79 Average Nutrient Content of Lunches Served to Students, by Menu Planning Method 83 Characteristics of Low-Fat and Higher-Fat Lunches 85 Average Nutrient Content of Lunches by Relative Fat Content 87 Foods Most Commonly Offered 87 Sources of Calories and Nutrients in NSLP Lunches as Served 92 Calories 97 Carbohydrate 97 TotalFat 97 Saturated Fat 97 Sodium 97 Cholesterol 98 Vitamin A 98 Vitamin C 98 Calcium 98 Iron 98 Chapter Four: Characteristics of Breakfasts Served in Public SBP Schools 99 Number and Types ofFood Offered and Served to Students 99 Number of Options Offered Within SBP Meal Component Categories . 99 Foods Most Frequently Included in SBP Menus 102 Characteristics of Breakfasts Actually Served to Students 105 Average Nutrient Content of Breakfasts Served to Students 106 Mean Nutrient Content Relative to RDAs 108 Percentage ofCalories from Total Fat and Saturated Fat HI Cholesterol Sodium and Carbohydrate Content Ill Average Nutrient Content of Breakfasts Served to Students, by Menu Planning Method 115 Characteristics of Low-Fat and Higher-Fat Breakfasts 118 Average Nutrient Content 119 Foods Most Oammcnry Offered 119 17 Tabte of Contents Table of Contents (continued) Chapter Four (continued): Sources of Calories and Nutrients in SBP Breakfasts as Selected 123 Calories 123 Carbohydrate 123 Total Fat 123 Saturated Fat 128 Sodium 128 Cholesterol 128 VitaminA 128 Vitamin C 128 Calcium 128 Iron 128 Chapter Five: Comparison of Weighted and Unweighted Nutrient Analyses 129 School Lunches 130 Mean Nutrient Content Relative to RDAs 130 Mean Percentage of Calories from Total Fat and Saturated Fat 132 Cholesterol, Sodium and Carbohydrate Content 132 Percentage of Schools That Met Nutrient Standards and Recommendations 132 Factors Influencing Estimates of Relative Fat Content 136 School Breakfasts 139 Mean Nutrient Content Relative to RDAs 139 Percentage of Calories from Total Fat and Saturated Fat 139 Cholesterol, Sodium and Carbohydrate Content 142 Percentage of Schools That Met Nutrient Standards and Recommendations 142 Factors Influencing Estimates of Relative Fat Content 146 Chapter Six: Changes in Nutrient Content of School Meals Offered Since SY1991-92 147 Overview ofthe Analysis 147 Average Nutrient Content of Lunches Offered in Public Schools: SY 1998-99andSY 1991-92 148 Mean Calorie and Nutrient Content Relative to Minimum Nutrition Standards 149 Percentage of Calories from Total Fat and Saturated Fat 149 Cholesterol, Sodium and Carbohydrate Content 152 Distribution of Fat, Carbohydrate, Cholesterol and Sodium Content ... 155 1/ Tabte of Contents Table of Contents (continued) Chapter Six (continued): Availability and Nutrient Content of Low-Fat Lunch Options 155 Availability of Low-Fat Lunch Options 158 Mean Nutrient Content of Low-Fat Lunch Options 158 Average Nutrient Content of Breakfasts Offered in Public Schools: SY 1998-99andSY 1991-92 163 Mean Calorie and Nutrient Content Relative to Minimum Nutrition Standards 163 Percentage of Calories from Total Fat and Saturated Fat 165 Cholesterol, Sodium and Carbohydrate Content 165 References 171 Appendix A Supplementary Exhibits: Nutrient Content ofNSLP Lunches A-l Appendix B Supplementary Exhibits: Nutrient Content of SBP Breakfasts B-l Appendix C Study Implementation C-l Data Collection Schedule and Instruments C-l Telephone Interview of SFA Directors C-l Mail Survey of Cafeteria Managers C-2 Procedures Used to Implenjent the Menu Survey C-4 Sample Data Collection Instruments SFA Director Interview Everyday Reimbursable Foods Form Daily Menu Form Recipe Form Nutrition Information Form Daily Meal Counts Form A la Carte Foods Checklist Meal Service Questionnaire Appendix D Sample Design and Calculation of Sample Weights D-l Sample Design D-l Sample Recruitment D-2 Completion Rates for Data Collection Components D-2 Development of Sample Weights D-6 SFA Weight D-6 School-Level Weights D-6 School Reclassifications D-7 // Tabte of Contents Table of Contents (continued) Appendix E Determining Nutrient Content of School Meals E-l Review and Processing of Completed Menu Surveys E-l Entering Data into the Computerized Nutrient Analysis System E-l Entry Procedures E-2 Quality Control Procedures E-8 Computing the Average Nutrient Content of School Meals E-9 Weighted Nutrient Analysis E-10 Unweighted Nutrient Analysis E-l 1 Food Group Codes E-14 /// Tabte of Contents List of Exhibits Exhibit 1.1 Nutrition Standards Defined in Current NSLP and SBP Regulations 3 Exhibit 1.2 Nutrition Standards Used in Evaluating School Meals 10 Exhibit 1.3 Minimum Nutrition Standards Defined in Current NSLP and SBP Regulations . 12 Exhibit 2.1 Types of Breakfast Programs Offered by Public NSLP Schools 14 Exhibit2.2 Approval for NSLP and SBP Meal Benefits 16 Exhibit 2.3 Student Participation in the NSLP and SBP During the Target Week 17 Exhibit2.4 Distribution of Free, Reduced-Price and Full-Price Meals During the Target Week 18 Exhibit2.5 Methods Used to Set Prices for USDA-Reimbursable Meals 20 Exhibit 2.6 Average Prices for Reduced-Price and Full-Price Lunches 21 Exhibit2.7 Useof Multiple Prices for Full-Price Lunches 23 Exhibit2.8 Relationship Between Meal Price and Student Participation Rates for Full-Price Lunches 24 Exbibit2.9 SBP Meal Prices 26 Exhibit 2.10 Responsibility for Menu Planning 28 Exhibit2.11 Availability and Use of Menu Planning Resources 29 Exhibit2.12 Menu Planning Options Used for NSLP Menus 31 Exbibit2.13 Menu Planning Options by Selected School Characteristicj 32 Exhibit2.14 Menu Analysis Procedures Adopted by Schools UsingNSMP oi ANSMP 35 Exhibit 2.15 Grade/Age Groupings Used by NSMP and ANSMP Schools in Conducting Nutrient Analyses 38 Exhibit 2.16 Percentage of Schools Reporting Changes in Lunch Menus to Incorporate the Dietary Guidelinesfor Americans and Perceived Effect on Meal Acceptability 41 Exhibit 2.17 Percentage ofSchools Reporting Changes in Lunch Menus to Incorporate the Dietary GuidelinesforAmericans, by Menu Planning Option, and Perceived Effect on Meal Acceptability 42 Exbibit2.18 Perceived Effect of Changes in Lunch Menuson Levels of Food Waste 43 Exhibit 2.19 Percentage of Schools Reporting Changes in Breakfast Menus to Incorporate the Dietary Guidelinesfar Americans and Perceived Effect on Meal Acceptability 45 Exhibit2.20 Perceived Effect of Changes in Breakfast Menus on Levels of Food Waste .... 46 Exhibit2.21 Types of Meal Service Offered at Lunch 47 Exhibit2.22 Types of Meal Service Available at Breakfast 49 Exhibit2.23 Non-USDA Food Gjitions Available During School Hours 51 Exhibit2.24 Availability of a la Carte Food Items at Breakfast and/or Lunch 52 Exinbit2.25 Average a la Carte Sales by Selected School Characteristics 56 Exhibit2.26 NSLP Student Participation Rate and Weekly a la Carte Sales 57 Exhibit2.27 Methods Used to Set Prices for a la Carte Foods 58 Exhibit 2 28 Use of Foods from Commercial Vendors 60 Exhibit2.29 Diviswnof Responsibility in SFAs that Use Food Service Management Companies 61 I//// List of Exhibits List of Exhibits (continued) Exhibit 3.1 . Choice and Variety in Lunch Menus 67 Exhibit:.?. Foods Most Commonly Offered in Lunch Menus 70 Exhibit3.3 Characteristics ofLunches Served to Students 75 Exbibit3.4 Lunches Served to Students inSY 1998-99 Provided More than One-Third of the RDA, with the Exception of Calories in Secondary Schools 77 Exhibit 3.5 Percentage of Schools in Which the Average Lunch Served to Students Provided Orie-Third or More of the RDA 78 Exhibit 3.6 Lunches Served to Students in SY 1998-99 Did Not Meet NSLP Standards for Calories from Fat and Saturated Fat 80 Exhibit 3.7 Distribution ofdie Percentage of Calories from Total Fat, Saturated Fat and Carbohydrate in Average Lunches Served to Students 81 Exhibit3.8 Lunches Served to Students Met the NRC Recommendation for Cholesterol but Did Not Meet Recommendations for Sodium or Calories from Carbohydrate 82 Exhibit 3.9 Mean Nutrient Profile of Lunches Served, by Menu Planning System, Compared to Nutrition Standards for NSLP Lunches and NRC Recommendations: Elementary Schools 84 Exbibit3.10 Mean Nutrient Profile of Lunches Served, by Menu Planning System, Compared to Nutrition Standards for NSLP Lunches and NRC Recommendations: Secondary Schools 86 Exhibit 3.11 In Comparison to Higher-Fat Lunches, Low-Fat Lunches Provided Comparable Amounts of Calories and Key Nutrients 88 Exhibit 3.12 Schools that Served Low-Fat Lunches Tended to Offer Certain Foods More Often man Schools that Served the Highest-Fat Lunches 89 Exhibit3.13 Sources of Caloric and Nutrientsin NSLP Lunches as Served 93 Exhibit4.1 Choice and Variety in Breakfast Menus 100 Exhibit 4.2 Foods Most Commonly Offered in Breakfast Menus 103 Exhibit 4.3 Characteristics of Breakfasts Served to Students 107 Exhibit 4.4 Breakfasts Served to Students in SY 1998-99 Provided at Least One-Fourth of the RDA, with the Exception of Calories 109 Exhibit 4.5 Percentage of Schools in Which the Average Breakfast Served to Students Provided One-Fourth or More of the RDA 110 Exhibit 4.6 Breakfasts Served to Students inSY 1998-99 Met iheSBP Standard for Calories from Fat and Almost Met the Standard for Calories from Saturated Fat 112 Exhibit 4.7 Distribution of the Percentage of Calories from Total Fat, Saturated Fat, and Carbohydrate in Average Breakfasts Served to Students 113 Exhibit 4.8 Breakfasts Served to Students Met NRC Recornmendatioas for Cholesterol and Calories from Carbohydrate but Did Not Consistently Meet the Recommendation for Sodium 114 A List of Exhibits vi List of Exhibits (continued) Exhibit 4.9 Mean Nutrient Profile of Breakfasts Served, By Menu Planning System, Compared to Nutrition Standards tor SBP Breakfasts and NRC Recommendations: Elementary Schools 116 Exhibit4.10 Mean Nutrient Profile of Breakfasts Served, By Menu Planning System, Compared to Nutrition Standards for SBP Breakfasts andNRC Recommendations: Secondary Schools 117 Exhibit 4.11 Compared to Higher-Fat Breakfasts, Low-Fat Breakfasts Provided Comparable Amounts of Calories and Key Nutrients 120 Exhibit 4.12 Schools That Served Low-Fat Breakfasts Tended to Offer CertainFoods More Often than Schools That Served Higher-Fat Breakfasts 121 Exhibit4.13 Sources of Calories and Nutrients in SBP Breakfasts as Served 124 Exhibit5.1 Estimates of Calorie and Nutrient Content of the Average Lunch Were Different for Weighted and Unweighted Analyses but Conclusions About the One-Thud RDA Standard Were Similar 131 Exhibit 5.2 Estimate* of the Percentage of Calories from Fat and Saturated Fat in Lunches Were Similar for Weighted and Unweighted Analyses 133 ExbibitS.3 Estimates of Cholesterol and Sodium Content Were Different for Weighted and Unweighted Analyses but Contusions About Whether Lunches Met NRC Recommendations Were Identical 134 Exhibit 5.4 Percentage of Schools That Satisfied NSLP Standards and NRC Recommendations for Lunch Based on Weighted and Unweighted Analyses: Elementary Schools 135 Exhibit 5.5 Percentage of Schools That Satisfied NSLP Standards and NRC Recommendations for Lunch Based on Weighted and Unweighted Analyses: Secondary Schools 137 Exhibit 5.6 Estimates of Calorie and Nutrient Content of the Average Breakfast Were Different for Weighted and Unweighted Analyses but Conclusions About the One-Fourth RDA Standard Were Similar 140 Exhibit5.7 Estimates of the Percentage ofCakmes from Fat and Saturated Fat m Breakfasts Were Similar for Weighted and Unweighted Analyses 141 Exhibit 5.8 Estimates of Cholesterol end Sodium Content Were Different for Weighted and Unweighted Analyses but Conclusions About Whether Breakfasts Met NRC Recommendations Were Generally Similar 143 Exhibit5.9 Percentage of Schools That Satisfied SBP Standards and NRC Recommendations for Breakfast Based on Weighted and Unweighted Analyses: Elementary Schools 144 Exhibit 5.10 Percentage of Schools That Satisfied SBP Standards and NRC Reconaiiendations for Breakfast Based on Weighted and Unweighted Analyses: Secondary Schools 145 X U»to»Exhibto vW List of Exhibits (continued) Exhibit 6.1 Mean Calorie and Nutrient Content of Lunches Offered in SY 1991-92 and SY 1998-99 Compared to Current NSLP Standards 150 Exhibit 6.2 Between SY 1991-92 and SY 1998-99 There Was a Significant Trend Toward Lower Levels of Fat and Saturated Fat in School Lunches, as Offered 151 Exhibit6.3 For Lunches as Offered, the Percentage of Schools That Met Standards for Total Fat and Saturated Fat Has Increased Substantially Since SY 1991-92 153 Exhibit 6.4 Lunches Offered in SY 1998-99 Were Significantly Lowerin Cholesterol and Sodium and Higher in Calories from Carbohydrate than Lunches Offered in SY 1991-92 154 Exhibit 6.5 Distribution ofFat, Carbohydrate, Cholesterol and Sodium in Lunches Offered m SY 1991-92 and SY 1998-99: Elementary Schools 156 Exhibit 6.6 Distribution of Fat, Carbohydrate, Cholesterol and Sodium in Lunches Offered in SY 1991-92 and SY 1998-99: Secondary Schools 157 Exhibit6.7 Distribution of Fat, Carbohydrate, Oiolesterol and Sodium in Lowest-Percent-Fat Lunches Offered in SY 1991-92 and SY 1998-99: Elementary Schools 159 Exhibit6.8 Distribution of Fat, Carbohydrate, Cholesterol and Sodiumm Lowest-Percent-Fat Lunches Offered in SY 1991-92 and SY 1998-99: Secondary Schools 160 Exhibit 6.9 Mean Nutrient Profile of Lowest-Percent-Fat Lunches Offered in SY 1991-92 and SY 1998-99 Compared to Minimum NSLP Standards andNRC Recorrrncndations: Elementary Schools 161 Exhibit 6.10 Mean Nutrient Profile of Lowest-Percent-Fat Lunches Offered m SY 1991-92 and SY 1998-99 Compared to Minimum NSLP Standards andNRC Recommendations: Secondary Schools 162 Exhibit 6.11 Mean Calorie and Nutrient Content of Breakfasts Offend in SY 1991-92 and SY1998-99 Compared to Current SBP Standards 164 Exhibit 6 12 Between SY 1991-92 andSY 1998-99 There Was a Significant Decrease in the Relative Fat and Saturated Fat Content of School Breakfasts, asOffered 166 Exhibit6.13 For Breakfasts as Offered, the Percentage of Schools That Met Total Fat and Saturated Fat Has Increased Substantially Since SY 1991-92 .... 167 Exhibit 6.14 Breakfasts Offered m SY 1998-99 Were Significantly Ixroo ra Cholesterol and Sodium and Higher in Calorics from Carbohydrate than Breakfasts Offered in SY 1991-92 168 Exhibit A. 1 Mean Calorie and Nutrient Content of Average Lunches Served to Students in SY 1998-99 A-l ExhibitA.2 Mean Percentage of Recommended Dietary Allowances Provided in Average Lunches Served to Students in SY 1998-99 A-2 Exhibit A.3 Percentage of Schools m Which the Average Lunch Served to StudentsMet the Minimum Nutrition Standards Defined in Current NSLP Regulations A-3 Xl List of Exhibits List of Exhibits (continued) ExhibitA.4 Distribution of Cholesterol and Sodium in Average Lunches Served to StudentsinSY 1998-99 A-4 Exhibit A.5 Percentage of Schools That Satisfied NSLP Standards and NRC Recommendations for Lunch, by Menu Planning System: Elementary Schools A-5 ExbibilA.6 Percentage of Schools That Satisfied NSLP Standards and NRC Recommendations fir Lunch, by Menu Pinning System: Secondary Schools A-6 Exhibit A. 7 Mean Nutrient Profile of Average Lunches Served mSY 1998-99, by Menu Planning System, Compared to NSLP Standards and NRC Recommendations: All Schools A-7 ExhibitA.8 Percentage of Schools That Satisfied NSLP Standards and NRC Recommendations for Lunch, by Menu Planning System: All Schools A-8 Exhibit A.9 Mean Nutrient Profile of Average Lunches Served mSY 1998-99, by Menu Planning System, Compared to NSLP Standards and NRC Recctmnendations: Middle Schools A-9 Exhibit A. 10 Percentage of Schools That Satisfied NSLP Standards and NRC Recommendations fir Lunch, by Menu Planning System Middle Schools A-10 ExhibitA.ll Mean Nutrient Profile of Average Lunches Served inSY 1998-99, by Menu Pinning System Compared to NSLP Standards and NRC Recommendations. High Schools A-ll Exhibit A.12 Percentage of Schools That Satisfied NSLP Standards and NRC Recommendations fir Lunch, by Menu Planning System: High Schools A-12 ExbibitA.13 Percentage of Schools That Satisfied NSLP Standards and NRC Recommendations for Lunch, by Relative Fat Content of Average Lunch Served A-13 Exhibit A. 14 Mean Nutrient and Calorie Content of Lunches, Using Alternative Methodology for Unweighted Analysis: Elementary Schools A-14 Exhibit A. IS Percentage of Schools That Satisfied NSLP Standards and NRC Recommendation fir Lunch Based on Weighted and Unweighted Analyses, Using Alternative Methodology for Unweighted Analysis: Elementary Schools A-15 ExhibitA.16 Mean Nutrient and Calorie Content of Lunches, Using Alternative Methodology fir Unweighted Analysis: Secondary Schools A-16 Exhibit A. 17 Percentage of Schools That Satisfied NSLP Standards and NRC Recommendation for Lunch Based on Weighted and Unweighted Analyses, Using Alternative Methodology for Unweighted Analysis: Secondary Schools A-17 ExhibitB.l Mean Calorie and Nutrient Content of Average Breakfasts Served to StudentsinSY 1998-99 B-l ExhibitB.2 Mean Percentage of Recommended Dietary Allowances in Average Breakfasts Served to StudentsinSY 1998-99 B-2 in Us* of Exhibits List of Exhibits (continued) ExhibitB.3 Percentage of Schools in Which the Average Breakfast Served to Students Met the Nutrition Standards Defined in Current SBP Regulations B-3 Exhibit B 4 Distribution of Cholesterol and Sodium in Average Breakfasts Served to Students in SY1998-99 B-4 Exhibit B.5 Percentage of Schools That Satisfied SBP Standards and NRC Recommendations for Breakfast, by Menu Planning System: Elementary Schools B-5 Exhibit B.6 Percentage of Schools That Satisfied SBP Standards and NRC Recommendations for Breakfast, by Menu Planning System: Secondary Schools B-6 ExhibitB.7 Mean Nutrient Profile of the Average Breakfast Served, by Menu Planning System, Compared to SBP Standards and NRC Recornmendations: All Schools B-7 Exhibit B.8 Percentage of Schools That Satisfied SBP Standards and NRC Recommendations for Breakfast, by Menu Planning System: All Schools B-8 ExhibitB.9 Mean Nutrient Profile of the Average Breakfast Served, by Menu Planning System, Compared to SBP Standards and NRC Recommendations: Middle Schools B-9 ExhibitB.10 Percentage of SchoolsThat Satisfied SBP Standards and NRC Recommendations for Breakfast, by Menu Planning System: Middle Schools .. B-10 E-diibitB.il Mean Nutrient Profile of the Average Breakfast Served, by Menu Planning System, Compared to SBP Standards and NRC Recornmendations: High Schools B-ll ExhibitB.12 Percentage of Schools That Satisfied SBP Standards and NRC Recommendations for Breakfast, by Menu Planning System: High Schools ... B-12 ExhibilB.13 Percentage of Schools That Satisfied SBP Standards and NRC Recommendations for Breakfast, by Relative Fat Content of Breakfasts Served B-13 Exhibit B.14 Mean Nutrient and Calorie Content of Breakfasts Using Alternative Methodology for Unweighted Analysis: Elementary Schools B-14 Exhibit B.15 Percentage of Schools That Satisfied SBP Standards and NRC Recommendations for Breakfast Based on Weighted and Unweighted Analyses, Using Alternative Methodology for Unweighted Analysis: Elementary Schools. B-15 ExhibitB.16 Mean Nutrient and Calorie Content of breakfasts Using Alternative Methodology for Unweighted Analysis: Secondary Schools B-16 Exhibit B. 17 Percentage of SchoolsThat Satisfied NSLP Standards and NRC Rcccmmendations for Breakfast Based on Weighted and Unweighted Analyses, Using Alternative Methodology for Unweighted Analysis: Secondary Schools B-17 ExhibitDl SFA and School-Level Cooperation at the Time of Recruitment .. D-3 ExhibitD.2 Completion Rate for the SFA Director Interview Among Cooperating SFAs ... D-4 Exhibit D.3 Completion Rate for the School-Level Data Component ofthe SFA Director Interview Among Cooperating Schools D-4 X/'l List o< Exhibits List of Exhibits (continued) Exhibit D.4 Completion Rate for the Menu Survey Among Cooperating Schools D-5 Exhibit D.5 Completion Rate for the Meal Service Questionnaire and A la Carte Checklist Among Cooperating Schools D-5 ExhibitE.l Default Portion Sizes for Foods Items Not Included in Salad Bars or Other Self-Serve Food Bars, Lunch Menus E-3 ExhibitE.2 Default Portion Sizes for Food Items Not Included in Salad Bar? or Other Self-Serve Food Bars, Breakfast Menus E-4 Exhibit E.3 Default Portion Sizes for Accompaniments E-5 ExhibitE.4 Coding Rules for Salad Bars E-7 ExhibitE.5 Comparison of Assumptions for Weighted and Unweighted Nutrient Analyses . E-13 Exhibit E.6 Major and Minor Food Groups E-15 x!7 List of Exhibits Acknowledgments The second School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study (SNDA-II) a indebted to school food service professionals in the 430 School Food Authorities (SFAs) arid UK« than 1,000 ^r^ who participated inthestudy Without their cooperation and hard work, the study could not have been completed Staffs! the Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evabatkx^fooda^lhtiiikDSenk^XJS.DepmtnsaA^ Agriculture provided oversight for the study. Three different Project Officers were involved Marie Mitchell oversaw die initial start-up phases, including sampling, instrument development, and pretesting. John Endahl assurned responsibility for the project during recrmtment and data collection as well as through much of the data processing phase. Patricia McKirmey provided oversight and guidance during the final stages of data processing and while the data were bemg analyzed Pat also guided development of the study's final report Several staff members at Abt Associates played important roles on the project Mary Kay Fox served as Project Director. Other key Abt staff include Patty Connor and Maxy Kay Crepmsek (senior mitritioihsts and analysts), Diane Green (survey director), Liu Utm(senicrsnalyst^)rcfrstnmefX Nancy Burstein (technical reviewer), Michael Battaglia (sampling staristirian), Melissa Giamanco, EDen Janay, Brandi Szegda, and Margaret Loeper (senior nutrition coders), and Eileen Fahey (ccrtract secretary). Finally, staff at LunchByte Systems, Inc., pmtkdafy?mdMoriafytril&?)ne±vicMtmkmity to adapt the NUTRDODS software to meet die demands cf this study. This was no minor undertaking and Paul and Lisa were imfailingiy pleasant and responsive in dealing with the many challenges and complications encountered along the way. *• ACKnowiecigments Chapter One Introduction The National School Lunch Program (NSLP), administered by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), has been providing meals to the Nation's school children since 1946. The School Breakfast Program (SBP) has been in full operation smce the early 1970s. Over the years, research has shown that meals offered in bcith th<; NSU» and SBP have provided cbikfren with the calories, vitamins, and minerals needed to sustain health and promote rwrmal growth. However, in the early 1990s, the first School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Sh^ (SNDA4) found that the amount of fat, saturated fat, and sodium provided in school lunches was not consistent wim currem public health recommflndations. Since the tune the SNDA-I study revealed that school lunches were not consistent with the £)7>/ary Guidelines, FNS and its State and local partners in the school meals programs have been working on many fronts to address this problem. These efforts have included changes in menu planning requirements, enhanced training and technical assistance fcr schod food service and changes in the types and amounts of commodity fewds offered to schools. In school year (SY) 1998-99, FNS sponsored the second School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study (SNDA-H) to provide an updated picture ofthe nutrient profileofNSLP and SBP meals. The study also provides current information about menu planning practices used in the school ineaU progranu and about related program operations issues. The SNDA-II study was completed by Abt Associates Inc under contract to FNS This report summarizes study fcJhBI The National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs The Nabonal School Lunch Act of 1946 established the NSLP 1o safegiiard the healm and weU-being of the Nation's children and to encourage the4am*bmmm^to§tw*&BmaglaMm&1Bama&lm and other foods" (PL. 79-396). All public and private nonprofit schools are eligible to participate in both the NSLP and the SBP, as are public or licensed residential child care institutions Currently, the NSLP operates in more than 84,000 public schools and 12,000 private nctmrofitschcob and residential child care mstmaions (USDA, FNS 2000). Any child in a participating school is eligible to obtain a school lunch. Students from low-income families are eligible to purchase lunch at a reduced price or to receive a free lunch In SY 1998-99, more than 4.5 billion school lunches were served (USDA FNr 2000) On an average day, more than 27 million children received an NSLP lunch; more than halt of these lunches were provided free or at a reduced price to children from low-income families The SBP began in the mid-1960s when the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (PL. 89-642) established a pilot project to support the provision ofbreakfast to children living in "poor areas and areas where children (had] to travel a great distance to school." The SBP was officially authorized as a permanent program in introduction 1975, and die target population was expanded to include "all schools where [the program] is needed to provide adequate nutrition for all children in attendance" (PL. 94-105). Currently, the SBP operates in approximately three-quarters ofthepublk schools that offer the NSLP, most commonly in schools that serve large rrumbersofecoiKracallydisadvantJ^chJldTea InSY 1998-99, more than 1.2 billion breakfasts were served (USDA, FNS 2000). On any given day, roughly seven million children received an SBP breakfast More than three-quarters of these meals were provided free ofcharge. School Food Authorities (SFAs) that participate in the NSLP arid SBP recdve two types of Federal assistance: donated commodities (tied to the NSLP) and cash rdmburseniente (recdved fcr both the NSLP and SBP) B*Mkm**omm0&mbbm&mmm&tokri9m4md1l*i&qiMail9lm number of reimbursable lunches served the previous year. Subject to availability, SFAs are also eligible to receive bonus commodities in amounts that can be used without waste. The type and amount of bonus commodities available vary from year to year depending on purchasing dedsions luade by USDA Cash reimbursements for NSLP and SBP meals are bated on the number ofmeals served to students, established per-meal reimbursement rates, and the poverty levd of participating snidents. SFAsrecdvea base payment for each meal served, with substantially higher rates paid for nieab served free or at a reduced price to income-eligible students. WkmltW^fHdMiMlkrtl&dHnUKKlittwonQtR 60 percent of the meals they serve are provided free or at a reduced price. Children's household size and income determine eligibility for free and reduced-price ineal benefits. Currently, students eligible for free meals are those from families with incomes at or bekw 130 percent of poverty. Students from families with incomes between 130 and 185 percent of poverty are ehgibkfcr reduced-price meals. These students may be required to contribute an adMootitxaoajAoiti^crmimoo^krKiiOolmeih,\3Ut Federal regulations set a maximum pric- ($0.40 for hmch and $0.30 for breakfast mSY 1998-99) that is well below the rate paid by students who are not eligible for reduced-price meal benefits. Nutrition Standards for School MMIS To be eligible for Federal subsidies, meals served in the NSLP and SBP must nieet aefmed riutrition standards. For many years, the goal oi the NSLP has been to provide approximately one-third of children's dairy nutritional needs, as defined by the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs) (National Research Council 1989b). To ensure that this goal is met, NSLP regulations have always included food-based menu plaining guidelines These guidelines, originally known as the "Type A meal pattern," define specific types of food that must be induded m planned rneab as weU as minimum acceptable portion sizes. Specific nutrition standards for SBP breakfasts were defined ority recently, although program regulations have always induded a meal pattern. The meal pattern was designed to ensure that breakfasts would provide qjmHkB^lbtolSpm&tidtMtmrti^WfMmKkwmib. Most prior research has shown that, with few exceptions, the NSLP arid SBP have been successful in meeting these nutrition goals (Wellisch 1983; St. Pierre 1992; and Burghardt 1993). However, the most recent nationally representative study of school meals—the first School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study (SNDA-I), which was published in 1993—focused attention on another aspect of rrutritkmal quality (Burghardt 1993). SNDA-I found that, in SY 1991-92, NSLP meals were not consistent with goals for fat and saturated fat intake specified in the Dietary Guidelinesfor Americans (U.S. Depart- Introduction mcntsof Health and Human Services and Agriculture 1990)' At the time the SNDA-1 study was conducted, schools were not required to offer meals that wm consistent vnth the Dietary Guidelines. The School MMislnMativ* for Healthy Children Shortly after SNDA-1 revealed that school lunches were not consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for fat and saturated fat intake, USDA began developing an initiative to address this problem. A aeries of public hearings was held and interested parties were mvited to subrmt written cccoments. In 1995, the Department launched the School Meals Initiative for Healthy Children (SMI). SMI is designed to irnprove the nutritional quality of school meals \gfO*ll&%t6ad*lfcdm*tm&WHt1m1tkd resources that can be used to assist food service personnel in pieparing initririous and arjpeah^ meals and to encourage children to eat more LwajlaMal meals. Key components of SMI include new nutrition ttaadar6sfcrtdyxi metis tad ^idbifkxMihyia^ procedures used to plan and monitor school menus. The new nutrition standards maintain the long-standing goals of providing, on average, one-third of stuoents'daily nutrihon neeojs at hnich and one-fourth at breakfast In addition, the standards include goals for fat and saturated fat content that are consistent with Dietary Guidelines——JBJM (Exhibit 1.1). Exhibit 1.1 Nutrition Standards Defined in Current NSLP and SBP Regulations Nutrient Standard Calories and nutrients with established Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs) Calories, protein, vitamin A, vitarrin C, Breakfast: One-fourth of theRDA cakaum and iron Ctae-thirdoftheRDA •i Nutrients included in the Dietary Guidelinesfor Americans2 Breakfast and Lunch: Total fat < 30% of total calories Saturated fat < 10% oftotal calories 1 N*ioo>lRriB«chCoupdl(19S9). nuunmmtJiJDktaryAlhwmicu, MUsHs* Wariangton,DC: National Academy Prat i US. Dcpartmcnti ofHealth and Human Service* and Agriculture (1990). Nuribon andTour Htalth: Dittary Chud*lm€sforAm*ricwu,3tdaJitiaR. Waahmgton, DC: US Government Printing Office [Standards are baaed on the 1990 version of the Dittary GvuUtinu]. FNS had previouaty examined the tocfaurn and fat content of achool meal* uaingdaU from the ^aftowa/fva/uat»on o/ Sckool Nutrition Programs (NESNP), which waa compteled in 1980 (Praker 1988) The analysis uaed data on ttudenti' dietary intake over a 24-hour period and compared NSLP participants with students who skipped lunch and students who ale alternative lunches. Introduction The initial SMI proposal, issued in June 1994, replaced the traditional food-based menu planning guidelines (meal pattern) with an alternative computer-based menu planning system known at Nutrient Standard Menu Planning (NSMP) or Assisted Niitnent Standard Menu Planning (ANSMP). The proposal also required that school meals be cc^istaAwth the Dietary Guidelines oo latex tbm the beginning of SY 1998-99. An extended time line was built into the proposed regulation because comments received during public hearings and in resrxmsc to an initial Federal Register notkx indicated that some SFAs would need a considerable amount of time to implement NSMP or ANSMP and to develop menus consistent with the Dietary Guidelines. In November 1994, as part of the reauthorization of the Child Nutrition programs, Congress enacted The Healthy Mealsfor Healthy Americans Act (PL. 103-448). This law was important for two reasons. First, it was the first time mat legislation required that ichooimesJs be oonsistert with the Z>«fl>y Guidelines. Second, the law precipitated two important changes in USDA's initial SMI proposal. It required that USDA develop a rood-based menu jlHti^qyMHfcrfHtetotetnriMartflrtpNMb that schools could use in lieu ofNSMP or ANSMP. The law also shortened the time line for incorporating the Dietary Guidelines, requiring that aU SFAs be m compliance by the rnt day ofSY 1996-97 (two years earlier than USDA had suggested), unless a waiver was granted by the cognizant State agency Finally, die law permitted schools, under certain circumstances, to no longer offer whole miDr (prior to this legislation, schools were required to ofler whole milk). Menu planning options were further expanded in May 19%, when The Healthy Meals for Children Act pmtfdwtH that USDA allow SFAs to ff^t^f to use the traditional NSLP and SBP menu planning systems (i.e., the meal patterns that were in effect prior to the SMI ruk), or to use "any reasonable approach" in planning menus that satisfy the nutrient standards defined under SMI. The regulatory requirement that school meals be consistent with the Dietary Guidelines has been incorporated into FNS* strategic plan The current goal is that all schools will satisfy these standardsby 2005. Currant Manu Planning Options As summarized in the preceding discussion, cuiicut ptogiam regulations provide schools with five different menu planning options: (1) the traditional rood-based menu planning system; (2) an —Jfn^ rood-based menu planning system; (3) NSMP; (4) ANSMP; and (5) any other reasonable approach. The traditional food-based menu planning system requires that lundies offaed to students include five food items: fluid milk (as a beverage), one serving of meat or meat alternate, a minimum of one serving of a bread or grain product, and two servings of fruit and/or vegetables. The system also defines minimum required portion sizes for children in different grades. The enhanced rood-based menu planning system is very similar to the traditional food-based system but requires more servmgs of bread and grain products over the course of a week and larger servings of fruits and vegetables. NSMP and ANSMP require use ofa computerized nutrient analysis system to plan menus. SFAs must select one of several USDA-approved NSMP software programs. ANSMP allows SFAs to arrange or contract for NSMP implementation (i.e., menu development and nutrient analysis) through an external source such as a State agency, a consortium of SFAs, or a consultant The only food-based menu Introduction planning requirements imposed under NSMP or ANSMP, for lunch, are that milk be offered as a beverage and that at least one entree and one side dish be offered. Within these broad guidelines, menu planners are free to use whatever portions and combinations offood they wish to meet the nutrition standards. Thus, in theory, NSMP and ANSMP provide more flexibility in nienuplarming than the two food-based systems while, at the same time, providing a greater degree of assunmce that meals sen ed to students meet nutriti on standards. Finally, schools may use any other reasonable approach to rnenu planning, which may inchide specific modifications to the food-based menu planning guidelines (outlirxxi m pix>gram regulatkns) as well as more major modifications to any ofthe available menu planning systems. State agencies may establish guidelines for using a modified approach to menu plaimiiig and may lequire that SFAs receive pi** approval before implementing such a system. SFAs that elect to use either of die food-based tyUeaa(^tm^k^tood-bnodraanp\ain^syttem or the enhanced food-based system defined in the mial SMI ruk) or an altemadve approach to menu planning are not required to analyze the nutrient content ofplanned menus. They are, however, expected to meet the nutrition standards defined under SMI All school districts must undergo a mandatory SMI review every five years. As part of this process, State agency staff must analyze a representative weekly nxnu arjd compare results of the analysis to the nutrition standards. Weighted and Unweighted Nutrient Analyse* (MMto M 8«rv«<l versus MMIS as Offarad) Current NSLP and SBP menu planning requirements and BMBBIIPJBM stasnlBdl are built around use of a weighted nutrient analysis of meals served over the course ofaweek.2 A weighted nutrient analysis incorporates information about student selection patterns and does not assume that evo^ one serving of every type of food offered In the analysis, greater weight is given to ihe foods that are served/selected more frequently. This approach provides a picture of the average meal served to or selected by students. The nutrient analysis software systems approved ty FNS f» use m mptarientmg NSMP or ANSMP (or for use by States in monrtormg SFAs using other menu plannmg optiom) perform weighted nutrient analyses. To complete an analysis, users must specify not only the typesoffoods offered and the associated portion sizes, but the total number of rehnbursable meals served and the number of servings ofeach food served in those meals. In contrast, an unweighted nutrient analysis 4^W&§BMtkitot^titoiHKIttty^k%ll&4&HB types of food are served/selected. The analysis constitutes a simple average of all foods offered. An unwdghtcd nutrient analysis provides a picture of the average meal offered to students. Theprincrpal difference between the two analytic a factor which school food service programs may mfhience but can not control. Prior to SMI, assessments of the nutrient content of school meals were typically based on an unweighted analysis. The SNDA-I study used an unweighted nutrient analysis. In this study, both weighted and unweighted analyses were conducted To permit comparisons between the SNDA-I and SNDA-II TheCNReauthon^onActof 1998 (PL. 105-336) waived the weighted aiuOyab requiranent thnxigh September 2003 for achooi dutricti that obtain a waiver from their State agency. Introduction studies, the methodology used in this study for the unweighted analysis was modeled after the approach used in SNDA-I. Overview of the SNDA-ll Study The primary goal ofthe SNDA-II study was to provide mformation on how schools «e progressing, in the early stages of SMI, toward meeting SMI standards. The study also provides current information about menu planning practices used in school food service programs and about related program operations issues. The study produced national cross mitia&mtim^et1*WBtlal&Kgmilto*ct\MDkMKltmni& in elementary and secondary schools in SY1998-99. The study focused exclusively on public schools, which account for roughly 90 percent of all institutional NSLP participants. The study design included separate nationally representative ftckA^mmfk^oi^lMtVAMtP^Mt^mm^Mftt/Hl^pi^ middle schools, and public high schools participating in the NSLP. Study results are generalizable to public SFAs and public schools nationwide but not to the entire NSLP. For ease erfpresentation, the unrestricted terms "school" and "SFA" are used throughc^ this repect m exhibrt titles and most text discussions. Chapter titles and selected section titles, exhibit footnotes and discussions rernind the reader that the study focused on public schools. FNS defined nine research objectives for the SNDA-II study: • Determine the average nutrient amposition of USDA meals airrently served to students during a typical school week in elementary and secondary schools. DajBMBpB MJMriiar Hia iwrag^ mrtriwn* wwipmilinn flfWttM AMIm Hapwiri wj wi tim mwi planning option used. • Determine the current availability and nutrient content of krw-fatmeah (meals thMrjrovide no more than 30 percent of calories from fat). • Determine the major rood source* ofcalories and key nutrients m breakfast and lunch meals. • BMDaTni the number ofrood choices oflered to students participating in the NSLP and/or SBP on a daily basis. • Examine the variety of foods offered in NSLP lunches and SBP breakfasts and identify roods that are oflered most frequently. • Determine the type of alternative food sources available to students who do not eat the NSLP lunch or SBP breakfast or bring food from home, and the types of food offered through these channels. • Determine the changes in the nutrient composition ofNSLP and SBP meals since SY 1991-92, when the SNDA-I study was conducted Introduction depending on whether the nutrient analysis is weighted or unweighted. The data collection approach specified by FNS was a mail survey of cafeteria DianagOT and a telephone survey of SFA directors. The mail survey of cafeteria managers was the primary datt collection vehicle andisthesKwrceofrrwstoftrjea^UnKliidedmthisrqwrt^ The telephone survey of SFA directors provided supplementary information on 4MMcfeHMl^lte^lriHl>A>ARflMn^4MaMyMiM (e.g., enrollment, number of students approved for fr«^ and reduced-price meaJs, and menu planning practices). The following paragraphs provide a briefoverview ofthe study's design and data collection approach. Appendix D provides detailed information on the designofthestudysanmk,recrmtmentof SFAs and schools, data collection activities and the final cbsporition of trie various ssrnples RasporiiMnts and Data CoMCOOfi Instruments Data were collected from cafeteria managers in sampled schools (or other respondents dwrignatrd by SFA directors) at-! from SFA directors. Cafeteria managers were asked to complete a written menu survey that provided information on the foods offered to students as weU as tixnumba of servings of each food that was actually served to students Cafeteria managers also provided mfesmation on local school food service opa^tions, induhng the availability of a/a c^« foods and otha non-USD SFA WMBlsM were mterviewed by telephone and provided pafbrmahon on menu planning practices, enrollment, numbers of students approved forbtemidniaced^Kkemuhmid^attkx-iBvdfoodaaykc operations. A total of 1,075 cafeteria rnanagers completed the menu survey and 430 SFA directors rompleted the telephone interview. Response rates among cafeteria managers and SFA directors who agreed to participate in the study were 87.8 percent for the menu survey and 90 1 perccm fee trie SFA director interview. Detailed infonnation on sample design, response rates arid calcuhnion of sample weights is provided in Appendix D. MaUSurvey ofCafeteria Mongers Cafeteria managers were asked to complete a menu survey which requested detailed infennation on all foods offered during a specified five-day period (referred to as the target week).3 Target weeks were initially spread between late September and mid-December 1998. However, because some schools were unable to complete the survey during that tkmp^^4^^mMmlkmimwtm^A^tm^UMf\999 for schools that needed additional time. All respondents provided data for lunches served during a single week. Respondents whose schools participated in the SBP were also asked to provide infornation for breakfasts served during the same week Toobtan a reasonable sawamcut of nutrient content, < a n»08W^to enmmcme^ofiwBd over «paiod oftime rather than i angle meal The National Research Council (NRC) recommends that group feeding programs plan menus so that nutrient standards are met over a five- to 10-<tay period. A sample five-day period, equivalent to a full week in most school distnets, u routiiKfy used m USDA-sponsored evalua^ SMI requirements specify that analyses be based on a typical school week, ranting from three to seven days. i-i-. ■in»a>ii ■ HluTXIUCDOn Respondents were asked to list all reimbursable menu items offered and to provide a complete dceuiptica ofeach item, inch^ For items not included in the nutrient data base used in the analysis, respondents were asked to provide labels, summaries of product nutrition information aad/or miimfacnros names and addresses. Complete recipes were requested for all items that were prepared by combining two or more foods or In addition to item descriptions and recipes, respctxkfflts were asked to describe the portk»s served including, if applicable, different poTions for different grade/age groups. Finally, respondents wrre asked to report, for each menu item, the total number of portions served in reimbursable meals (i.e., exclusive of portions sold a la carte and portions sold to teachers or other adults). Because SNDA-D data were to be compared to data from SNDA-I, every effort was made to make the data collection approach as comparable as possible to the approach used in SNDA-L With the exception ofmeal production isfonnation (i.e., ImmWmlmMmlBWmimQtpaHlmWmm&to&MdmWmm' collected in the two studies were identical. The format of menu survey materials was enhanced, however, to address difficulties encountered during SNDA-I.4 The menu survey was presented in an easy-to-use booklet format with a separate section for each day of the week and separate sections for breakfast and lunch. Respondents also received I user-friendry instruction manual and several supporting response aids mat offered guidance on describing foods and providing toed package labels. Survey materials were designed with colored paper, colored ink, 1&mimWmmtimm^Wmm1&wmmmmm^1K9mimi and easy to understand, m addition to response aids, a toll-free techmcal assistance number was provided and respondents were encouraged to call Mas any questions. Survey materials were mailed to respondents at least two weesapitor to the start ofthe target week. SFA directors were encouraged to bring all school-level respondents together to review materials, plan for the data collection and avoid lawiecftssary duplication of effort Each cafeteria manager received at least two follow-up contacts—one the week before the target week and one carry in the target week —to ensure receipt and completion of survey materials and to provide technical askance as needed. hi addition to the menu survey, respondents Mnmmm\lD9*^jmml1mM<m^\*m1mWmWm%m%<i which were bound into the same data collection bookk^ as the menu survey and were addressed m the accompanying instruction manual. These instruments included: • Dairy Meal Counts Form: A form used to record the number of reimbursable meals served each day during the target week, by reimbursement category (free, reduced-price, paid). • Meal Service Questionnaire: A brief survey that obtrjied information about local school food service operations, including prices charged fee reduced-and fuU-price meals, types of meal service offered (e.g., hot meals, salad bars, etc.) and avaikbihty of vending machines and other alternative sources of food. 4 In SNDA-I approximately 40 percent ofparticipating ichoob provided information through a mail survey. Date for the remaining 60 percent of schools were collected by field staff using the same fomu used in the mail survey Introduction • A la Carte Foods Checklist: A simple checklist of items potentially offered on an a la carte bins. Respondent! were iked to complete the checklist one day (randomly assigned) during the target week. The form used wts provided by FNS and was identical to the one ateJnSNDA-L Because seme rasnondrra^ completed only the menu survey cccnly seine cf these additkwalmstnmients, the Dumbei of respondents for each instrument varied and response rates were somewhat lower than for the menu survey (see Appendix D). Telephone Interview ofSPA Directors SFA directors were interviewed by telephone between September 1998 and March 1999. A few directors who proved to be extremely diftVnlt to reach completed the interview by mail during die BsajjajB or fall of 1999. The interview took approximately 20 miaitutoooa^ktam^cxikcMadcxmBtioDfor sampled schools in the SFA as well as for the district as a whole. Topics covered for the sampled schools included enrollment, manhcr ofstudents approved for nee and reduced-price meals, menu piawing practices, access to and use of a computer fir aMtkAtaaty^vK<d\JSDAttdaac»lmmtmioc materials, and use of foods from Bpaaaaaaajaj vendors (e.g., McDonald's, Taco Bell, Pizza tint and others). Topics addressed at the district level included use of food service management companies (FSMCs) and food purchasing cooperatives and methods used to set prices fir rannbursabk meals and a la cart* finds. Standards Used to Evaluate Nimiant Content Two sets ofstandards were used to evaluate die nutriem wotentof^LP and SBPmeais (Exhibit 12). The first set is comprised of SMI MBBBsl standards, as defined in current NSLP and SBP regulations. These include standards fir calori» and target nutrients for which R vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium, and iron) as well as for the percentage of calories from fk and saturated fat5 A second set ofstandards, based onmmmmmMmmbtolMmmiWMm&CmmWlQDCbDl* andHealth report, was defined for nutrients and food components that are analyzed by NSMP software but are not c?ianufied in SMI nutrition staridaixb (Naboiial Research Coiaicil 1989a). These irxrude the percentage of calories from carbohydrate as well as total chdesterd and sodium content' NRC rrcoiiiiiifndatioiit for sodium and cholesterol define suggested maninaans for daily intake. For this report, these daily standards were adapted to create meal-specific recommendations. Retmnmffndalmis fix lunch reflect one-third ofthe "vm****** daily maniiiaau and icccsiiiiendationt for breakfast reflect one-fourth of the dairy maximum. It is important to recognize that schools are not required to meet these additional standards. They are used m this report solely tofacilitate understanding ojthe data 5 The RDA» ire currently being replaced with new standards — Dietary Reference Intake* (DRIs). The»e standards were not used in this analysis because they hive not yet ben incorporated ioto NSIP or SBP regulations. 6 NSMP software also analyzes fiber. These data were not included in this report, however, because neither the Dwttry QstawawjSMStelWC^I)^ Introduction 9 Exhibit 1.2 Natritioo Standards Used in Evahuitinf School Meak Nutrient Standard Ntrition Standards Defined inNSLP and SBPRewUtJoa* Caries and natrieiits with established Reco^ Calories, protein, vitamin A, vitamin C, Breakfast: One-fourth of the RDA cwcfuni sod IPQO Loach: One-third of the RDA Nntrienti included in the Dietary GmdeSnesforAmerica**': Breakfast and Lunch: Totalfat < 30% of total calories Saturated fat < 10% oftotal calories NttiooMi fJaetr^Cotm^ Diet andHemU,ftt:owmkmdatMmti Carbohydrate Breakfast and Lunch: > 55% of total calories Cholesterol Breakfast: < 75 mg Lunch: <100mg Sedan Breakfast: <600mg Lunch: <800mg 1 lMaiw\lMHHhC«mK*Q9t9). Pu mmimiMDitto) AtbimiMa,VKheMoiL WMPipg*on,DC:N«t>o«ri ActtCMny Pratt. 1 U.S.I>p«1menUofHcdfcMdHnmmS<n^ GuMmmsfarAmmicmu, 3rd editjoo. Wwhrngton, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office ■ fI ■—SjCOUMB(Ml DtttmiHmUk Wtihinflon, DC: Natkmi AcademyPre«. feMMandfcr ■ e - .. -■ i ■,„!;„,. - . - ■ » ■ fl-t,, ■ *-• <■_- -- -.. -■-?»-- • -.-!-- CnuuDHBEaul HQ BDQBUUI fTi*-* flflBDVvQ HIMII I\oAJiu KDQHUODS IOf D ■ iiOiii Q^HIY HIUHEE. Comparison with SNDA-I Data The SNDA-I study collected data in SY 1991-92. SNDA-II provides an updated picture of the nutrient content of school meals offered in SY 1998-99. It was not possible, however, to directly compare SNDA-I and SNDA-II data for several reasons. First, SNDA-I was bated on an unweighted nutrient analysts (reflecting die average meal offered to sr Jents) and SNDA-II used a weighted analysis (refkxtmg the average meal served to students). Second, SNDA-I included both public and private schools while SNDA-II was limited to public schools. Third, because recent changes in program regulations had to be incorporated into the SNDA-II analysis, SNDA-I and SNDA-II handled comparisons to RDA standards in different ways. SNDA-I compared mean nutrient values for meals offered in each school type to all age- and gender-appropriate RDAs. Current regulations define minimum nutrition standards for meals served to children in various grade groups and encourage schools Introductton 10 to plan menus based cm the ages/giades of the enrolled students. SNDA-II used RDA standards based on the grade tBMjpWOBI ofeach school Ytfm&tmmp&mitWMikAmiWtBiMlimtt&tmmmlaitohtmtmbmi. SNDA-I data were reanalyzed limiting the sample to public schools. SNDA-II data were reanalyzed using an unweighted nutrient analysis modeled after the analysis completed in SND/ -I. (Data that would be needed to complete a weighted analysis ofthe SNDA-I data are not available.) The niethodology used in the unweighted analysis of SNDA-II data was cauQm&tolbinetoodobgyvrimSttoA^mlixIbt exception of slight modifications made to reflect current program emphasis on increased use of breads, gnuns, and fruits and vegetables. TmtWttoUk^^WBMl^WtA^ltfl^tMWMWtHl^ft^wMttt analyses is described in detail in Appendix E. Finally, to obtain a uniform basis o(caaQminntoccdahc*midKDAm*ria&,bolhStfDA-lMid SNDA-II data were compared to iwiiiiiaiu standards defined for elementary schools (grades Kindergarten (K>-6) and secondary schools (grades 7-12) m oirTem program regulatxms (Exhibit 1.3). Minimum standards for breakfast are defined for grades K-12 and cover aU types of schools. An optional set of breakfast standards has also been defined for grades 7-12.7 Differences noted between SNDA-I (SY1991-92) and SNDA-II (SY 1998-99) can not be attributed to any one factor. Factors that may contribute to observed differences include changes in the food supply over tune (e.g., the introduction ofnew products and changes in product formulations in both USDA xinuodity foods and foods available in the quantity food service market), as well as changes in menu plarmngj food ttrvlkasing and food pttpsrshfln practices ofschool sood service pcrtviiMin Differences in data collection methodology (data for all schools in SNDA-D were collected vu a mail survey while data for more than half ofthe SNDA-I schools were collected on nte)arjd/crm the raaTiett data bases used in the two studies may also contribute to observed differences. Organization of this Report The remaining chapters in this report present the foUowjig information: • Chapter Two describes characteristics of sdiool food service program operations. * fTtapfwf TlMiftw SjSjJ F«wr qSJBjPPS^ IMpSSJlWajy, WSJ fvfrm^*W4T'f,l4 <y*#*w* Ol MsBMI Km breakfasts served in school meals programs in SY 1998-99. * Chapter Five compares result*; of weighted and unweighted analyses. • Chapter Six compares results ofthe current study wim findmgg from the SNDA-I study. 7 Program regulations define shghth/ different grade groups for the traditional food-baaed menu pluming system (K-3 and 4- 12), baaed on the groupings used in that system's meal pattern. However, schools are pqmined to use the nutrition (defined for gradesK-6 and 7-12. Introduction ExhibitU Minimum Nutrition Standards Defined in Carart NSLP *»d SBP Regulations Grades K-6 Grades 7-12 Calories 664 825 Proton (gm) 10 16 VitaminA (meg RE) 224 300 Vitamin C (rag) IS It Cakium(mg) 286 400 Irop(mg) 3J 4.5 Grades K-17, Grades 7-12 Breakfast (anai—) (optja—l) Calories S54 618 Protein (gm) 10 12 Vitamin A (meg RE) 197 225 Vitamin C (mg) 13 14 Cakium(mg) 257 300 Iron(mg) 3J> 3.4 Note: Standards uacd for other nutrienti are identical for both SNDA-I and SNDA-n tad «e b^cd on NSLP/SBP i (percent oi calories from fat and saturated fat) and NRC reoonunendanona (percent of calonea Don iMbuhydntev total cholesterol and total aodhmi). Appendices provide supplementaly exhibits (Appendices A and B) as well as detailed information on study implementation (Appendix C); study design, respoiise rates and sarrmte wrights (Appendix D), and methodologies used in analyzing the menu survey data (Appendix E). Introduction 12 Chapter Two Characteristics of Food Service Programs in Public NSLP Schools This chapter describes selected characteristics of school food service programs in public schor Is that offered the NSLP in SY 1998-99. Topics covered include the availability of the SBP and otha-breakfast programs, the percentage of students approved for free and reduced-price med benefits, student participation rates, meal pnees, menu planning practices, types of meals offered and alternative sources of food available to students who do not eat NSLP or SBP meals. The data summarized ai dns chapter come from two different sources: the telephone interview of SFA directors—which provided information on both SFA- and school-level characteristics—and nen-menu-survey portions ofthe mail survey of cafeteria managers (see Appendix C). A total of 430 SFA directors completed the telephone interview. These completed interviews provided information for a total of 1,109 schools. In ackhwi, non-menu-survey portions ofthe mail survey were completed by 1,036 cafeteria managers. Both ofthese data sets were weighted to produce estimates thM are nationally representative for public elementary schools, middle schools and high schcob that participated in the NSLP in SY 1998-99 (sec Appendix D). Unweighted sample sizes vary depending on the data source(s) used in the exhibit; footnotes at the bottom of each exhibit clearly identify the data sources). School-Level Participation in the SBP According to FNS administrative data, approximately 54 percent of public NSLP schools offered the SBP inSY 1991-92 — the time at which data were cdlccted fc>r the &st SNDA study (USDA, FNS 1992). In the intervening years, school participation in the SBP has increased draniatically. Data from the present study indicate that more than three-quarters ofallpublkNSlJschooboflered the SBP m SY 1998-99 (Exhibit 2.1). Participation was slightly higher among elementary schools than middle schools or high schools (78% versus 75% and 73%, respectively). Ten percent of schools offered a non-USDA breakfast program w a mccning snack program Thesenon- USDA programs were more common in high schools (19%) than in nuddlc schools (ll%)cr elementary schooLs(7%). Overall, 20 percent ofpublic WSLP schools offered neither the SBP nor any other breakfast or morning snack program. Percentage of Students Approved for Meal Benefits Participation in the NSLP and SBP is open to all students in participating schools. Students from low-income families are eligible to receive meals free of charge or at a reduced price. InSY 1998-99, Characteristic* of Food Sarvlc* Program* in NSLP Public School* 13 Exhibit 2.1 Types of Breakfast Programs Offered by Public NSLPScboob Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools AD Schools Type of Breakfast Program Percentage of Schools 78% 7 21 75% 11 21 73% 19 19 76% 10 20 Non-USDA program1 Number of Schools (Unweighted) 385 325 326 1,036 Includes morning mack programs or any non-USDA programs that provide food to students tn the morning after they arrive at school. Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because some schools reported offering bc<h the SBP and a rnoming snack program Source: Weighted tabulations of data from a mail survey of public school cafeteru managers. Fall 1998-Spring 1999. Characteristics of Food Sarvica Programs in NSLP Public Schools 14 one-third ofstudents enrolled in public NSLP schools were approved for fixe meal benefits (Exhibit 2.2). Another eight percent were approved for reduced-price meals The percentage of students approved for five and reduced-price meal benefits was higher in elementary schools (45%) than in middle schools (38%) or Ugh schools (30%). Among schools that offered the SBP, die percentage of students approved tor free meal benefits was consistently greater than for NSLP schools overall. In SBP schools, 38 percent of students were approved tor nee meal benefits. T)xpentau^ciithi^kMttppiov9dSKt9ivcodrftKt\)cacStt—-'ioot percent — was comparable to the rate for all NSLP schools. As noted for all NSLP schools, the relative rate of approval for free or reduced-price meal benefits m SBP schools was greater mdementary schools (50%) than in middle schools (43%) or high schools (35%). Participation in the NSLP and SBP On an average day during the target week for die study, approximately 60 percent cfaH students mNSLP schools received an NSLP lunch (Exhibit 2.3). Participation varied by type of schooL wim participation being highest in elementary schools —67 percent, on average—and lowest in high schools (39%). Participation also varied by receipt of meal benefits. Students approved to receive free lunches participated at a higher rate (80% overall) than either students approved to recdve reduced-price Punches (69%) or students who paid full price (48%). Within each meal benefit category, elementary school students participated at higher rates than middle school or high school students. Overall rates of student participation were rwtably tower fee the SBP; howeva, the patterns of participation—the highest rates being in elementary schools and among students approved for free meal benefits and lowest rates being in high schools and among students who pay full price—were similar to the NSLP. In schools offering the SBP, 22 percent of aUuudente received an SBP breakfast on an average day during the target week. Participation was considerably higher (39%) among students approved for free meals This was especially true in elementary schools where, on average, 44 percent of students approved for free roads received an SBP breakfast. Distribution of Fraa, Raducad-Prica and Paid Meals During a typical week in SY 1998-99,42 percent of reimbursabte rurichcs served in public NSLP schools were served free of charge (Exhibit 2.4). Nine Tercent were served to students approved for reduced-price meals and the remaining 49 percent were served to students who paid full price. The distribution of meals served in the SBP was substantially differenL The vast majority of breakfasts (71% overall) were served free ofcharge and only one in five breakfasts was served at full price. of FoodS«rvfc« Programs in NSLP PublicSchools 15 Exhibit 12 Approval for NSLP and SBP Meal Benefits PregraaVType ofMeal Benefit Schools Middle High All Schools Schools Schools Average Percentage of Students NSLP Approved for five meals Approved for reduced-price meals Not approved for meal benefits' 36% 30% 24% 33% 9 8 6 8 55 62 70 59 Number of Schools (Unweighted) 409 349 351 1,109 SBP Approved for free meals Approved for reduced-price meals Not approved for meal benefits1 41% 35% 29% 38% 9 8 6 9 49 57 65 53 Number of Schools (Unweighted) 332 258 263 853 1 StudenUfwy full price for NSLP or SBP meek Source: Weighted tabuktkni ofdata from • telephone interview with pubocSFA directory F«D 1998-Spring 1999. Charactariatic»ofFoodS«rvtea Programs in NSLP Public School* 16 Exhibit 23 Student Participation in the NSLP and SBP During the Target Week Elementary Schools Middle Schoob High Schoob AD Schools Program/Benefit Eligibility Category Average Student Participation Rates NSLP All students 67% 52% 39% 60% Students approved for free lunches 86 75 62 80 Students approved for reduced-price lunches 76 63 52 69 Students not approved for meal benefits1 56 39 31 48 Number of Schools (Unweighted) 375 316 319 1,010 SBP All students 26% 16% 11% 22% Students approved for free breakfasts 44 32 25 39 Students approved for reduced-price breakfasts 24 14 12 20 Students not approved for meal benefits1 10 5 4 8 Number of Schools (Unweighted) 309 236 241 786 1 Student! pay full price fix NSLP or SBP meals Notes: Student participation rates reflect the average percentage crfatuoratim each category who actualryrecerv^ or SBP meal during the target week. Calculations are based on the average number of meals served during the target week, enrollment, and the number of students approved fix free or reduced-pnee meals. Source: Weighted tabulations ofdata from tafcphooe 1^m^mm^^p^l^WAMmt^m(fm^mmttmtwmilm9t0t^mta approved for meal benefits) and a mail survey of publkscha^<^eterianuuu^en (number and type of nieals served during the target week). Fall 1998 -Spring 1999. Exhibit includes only schools that appeared in both data sets. Crwactsxtettcs of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public School* 17 MM14 Distribution of Free, Reduced-Price and Full-Price Meals During the Target Week Program/Type of Meal Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools All Schools Average Percentage of Daily Meals NSLP Free hatches Reduced-price lunches Full-price lunches 42% 44% 39% 42% 10 10 7 9 49 47 53 49 Number of Schools (Unweighted) 385 325 326 1,036 SBP Free breakfasts Reduced-price breakfasts Full-price breakfasts 71% 74% 68% 71% 9 t 8 9 20 17 25 20 Number of Schools (Unweighted) 317 245 246 808 Note: Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100. Source; Weighted tabulations of datafrom a mail survey of pubbescbodcafetenamanagera, Fall 1998-Spring 1999. Characteristics of rood Sarvica Programs In NSLP Public Schools 18 Meal Prices SFA director! were asked about strategies used to set prices for USDA-reimbursabk meals. Two specific strategies— actual pricing method and food cost percentage markup—were asked about directly. SFA directors were also asked to describe any other pricing methods they used Sixty percent of SFA directors reported using an actual pricing method to determine prices charged for reimbursable meals (Exhibit 2.5). Actual pricing invc^ves determination of all costs incurred m preparing meals, including both food costs and labor cost*. Useof a food cost percentage markup was much ksscommon, ieported by only 16 percent ofSFA directors. Five percent of SFA directors reported using other pricing methods. The only single method reported by more than one percent ofrespondents (2%), however, was a market conyarison, or settmgpricet bated on what schools in surrounding districts are charging. Roughly 15 percent of SFA directors were unable to answer questions about meal pricing strategies.1 Reasons for lack of knowledge included lack of involvement (e.g, prices are set by school board or food service management company) and being new to the job. SFA directors were also asked whether meal price adjustments were impkrnerited only when needed to offset financial losses. Responses indicate that about half of the SFAs offering the NSLP followed such a policy in SY 1998-99. Aiutter 40 percent of SFAs did not hmit prke adjustments m thu way. The policy for resetting meal prices was unclear in 10 percent of SFAs. N8IP Meal Prices Federal regulations stipulate that schools may charge no nxire than $0.40 for a rediiced-pnce lurch No limitations are set on prices for full-price meals InSY 1998-99, the average price for a reduced-price lunch was $0.38, with no variation by type of school (Exhibit 2.6). A small number of schools (a total of 18 in the unweighted sample) served ranches free of charge to students approved for reduced-price meals.2 Among schools that charged for reduced-price lunches, the minimum price was $0.18 and the maximum was the federally set maximum of $0.40.3 Because the federally set rnaxhnum for a reduced-price lunch has not changed over the years, the average price charged for a reduced-price runch has remained essentially constant since the SNDA-I study. The average price charged for a standard full-price lunch inSY 1998-99, across all school types, was $1.35. Average prices were $0.14 higherm middle schools and mgh schools than m elernentary schools ($1.44 versus $1.30). A few schools (three in the unweighted sample) served lunches free ofcharge to all 1 A mall number ofSFA directors were able to definitively answer no to the question about use of a percentage markup, but were not sure about use ofan actual pricing method. 2 Under a special assistance certification and reimbursement provu»on(provisicm2)(7CER245.9), scbxxalsservtfmeaUfree ofcharge to all students provided that non-Federal resources are used to cover the dincrcrxc between rhe cost of meals served and the Federal reimbursement earned. Schools operating under this provision are not required to certify students for meal benefits for up to three years after an initial assessment and claim reimbursement based on arirjroved cuorning percentages. 3 When zeros are excluded from calculation ofaverage prices, means are roughly $0.01 higher. Chankcssrtettc* of Food Sarvtoa Programs in tmP Pubte Schools 19 Exhibit 2.5 Methods U«ed to Set PrK» for USDA-Rdmburtabte Meals Percentage Method! ofSFAs Actual pritinf method1 Yes 60% No 26 Don't know IS Food cost percentage markup^ Yet 16 No 70 Don't know 13 Reset prices only to offset financial loss Yes SI No 40 Don't know 10 Nnmber ofSFAs (Unweighted) 430 Prices ire determined by considering ill costs ofbuying, producing, and serving incus. Prices sre detuuuiied by adding the same paceutagc markup to every food item. Notes; One percent of SFAs provide all meals free of charge. Sections may not aunt to 100 percent because of rounding. Source: Weighted tribulations ofi^b<m»Mk^M)i»ktBrriww^piib^SFA*mMn,¥^l99%'SfM^\999. Cruwacteriattes of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 20 Exhibit 2J6 Average Prices for Reduced-Price and Full-Price Lunches Type ofLunch Schools Middle High All Schools Schools Schools Price for Reduced-Price Lunches Mean n4iniinuni (cxcnioinff zeroes) Maximum Price for Standard Full-Price Laach Mean Minimum (excluding zeroes) Nl&XHHUfl} $0.38 $0.38 $0.38 $0.38 0.18 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 $1.30 $1.44 $1.44 $1.35 0.50 0.65 0.50 0.50 2.10 2.35 2.35 2.35 Number of Schools (Unweighted) 369 317 320 1,006 Note* Date based on schoobthat reported serving rtduoed-pnee or p^ loncha (totne Khoob served only &ee lunchw) and provided Huonnation on meal pneea. Two percent ofsshsth •erwd lunches free ofdm^tetbjiu^'iAio'imtivpimtdtotnduatiiaecmmibtotBtM. I*Mthanonepercertof»chooUieTvedrunche»freeofch«jgeto Such meals were reported as reduced-price cr full-price, m keeping wim progm Source: Weighted tabulabons ofdate from a mail survey ofpubfc school cafeteria FaB 1998-Spring 1999. Crnf«ct»rt»tJca of Food Swvico Program* In NSLP Public Schooto 21 students, including students who were not eligible for free or reduced-price meal benefits.4 Excluding these schools, the mmimum price for a standard full-price lunch was $0.50 and the maximum was S2.35.5 Overall, prices charged for full-price lunches have increased about 18 percent since SY 1991-92 ($1.35 versus $1.14). A large majority ofcafeteru managers (87%) report 2.7). However, agbl percent of cafcierU managers reported offering sorne full-price lunches at a price higher than the standard price and six percent reported offering scar* fuU-price hnxJies at a price/onvr than the standard price. Use of alternative prices for full-price lunches was nx>st common in high schools. Among schools that reported use of higher prices for sonie fuU-price lunches, the most ccaianco reason was use of a higher price for older students; however, this policy was largdy lirmted to cjlenKntary schools. Among high schools, higher prices were most commonly used for special entrees, special sandwiches or pizza. In addition, some high schools and middle schools charged higher prices for salad bars or other food bars and for larger portions. Relative to the basic or standard full-price lunch, the average price1—1for higher-priced haxhawas$017ibreienKntary schoois>$0.39formkkfle schools and $0 56 for high schools The principal reason for use ofalowrr price for sonx full-price lunches was, maJU types of schools, use of weekly or monthly discounts. On average, lower-priced lunches cost $0.13 less than a standard full-pricelunch. The size of the price differential varied by school type and ranged from-$0.' 1 for elementary schools to -$0.1K for high schools. RstlaTDMitJiip Osftwsaw Mead Exhibit 2.8 shows NSLP participation rates among students not approved fw free or reduced-price meal benefits (i.e., students who pay full price) based on the standard price charged for a friU-price tunch As shown, participation rates mall types of schools were inversery related to meal price. The decrease in participation with increase in meal price was most pronounced m elementary schools, where there was a 23-penxntage-j»h< difference m average fuU-p^ mealprices. The differences for middle schools and high schools were 14 and 18 rxscentage points, respectively. While these data document a negative rdationship between meal price and student par^^ not prove tluu rugher meal prices, in and of themselves, cowelcrwer rates of partiripation among students who pay full price for NSLP meals. Many other factors, including the type of community (rural, urban, suburban), geographic location, the relative wealth of tliecornmumty, student acceptance ofNSLP meals and the availability of a la carte foods may affect bom studem partidpatkm rates and meal prices. Under a special assistance uatifiuabuu and reimbursement piovaanu (provision 2) (7CFR24S.9X schooti serve meals five ofcharge to all students provided that non-Federal resources arc used to cover the duTeremxtetwecn the cc« ofmeals served and the Federal reimbursement earned. Schools operating under this provision are not required to certify students for meal benefits for up to three yean after an initial assessment and claim reimbursement based on approved chaining 5 When zeros are caoduded from calculation of average pnees, means arc roughry S0.01 higher. Chmma»H**a*OlFoo4»m*otPwgnmn1nHaiPPvMo9*to«* Exhibit 2.7 Use of Multiple Prices for FuU-Price Lunches Elementar] Schools r Middle Schools High Schools AH Schools Percentage of Schools U* of Multiple Prices for Full-Price U Use one price for all full-price lunches 87% 91% 81% 87% Use one or more higher prices 8 5 10 8 Use one or more lower prices 5 4 9 6 Reoons for Higher Prices' SpeosJ entice, sandwich, or pizza 1 29 42 14 Sslsd bar or other food bar 7 31 26 14 Larger portions 13 34 21 17 Higher prices for higher grades 59 21 0 40 Other 21 5 23 19 Mean difference in price +$0.17 450.39 +$0.56 +$0.29 Reasons for Lower Prices1 Monthly/weekly ditcowtt 75 93 63 74 Lowei prices for lower grades 9 2 19 11 Other 16 5 25 17 Mean difference in price •SOU -$0.08 $0.18 -$0.13 Number of Schools (Unweighted) 369 317 320 1,006 1 Timtma&taKk^oatytdbooktotnpoitt&mng high* (or lower) mail prim. DuetoamaU —r*—1 reauRsmu be nkrpreted with cannon. Note* Exhibit mdudca only acboob tiia* reported aervmg ful^m meal* and Column «ection* may not sura to 100 percent became of rounding and i for bigher/lower price*. Source: Weighted tabulations ofdata from a mail survey of pubbc scriooi cafeteria QUOCITMBuOfi OO HS€8M POOOBV respondent* could provide more than Fall 1998 -Spring 1999. of Food Sarvioa Proorinn m NSLP Public Schools *2J Relationship Between Meal Price and Student Participation Rites for Full-Price Lunches Average Full-Price Student SchodLcrd/Pire ofFusWke Lunch Participation Rate Elementary Schools $1.05 or less 65% $1.10 -$1.25 64 $1.30 -$1.45 57 $1.50-$2.10 42 Numbg of Scfaooh (Unweighted) 343 Middle Schools $1.20 or less 46% $1.25-$1.45 48 $1.50-$1.55 33 $1.60-$2.35 32 Nimbg of Schooli (Unweighted) 2M High Schools $1.20 or less 39% $1.25 -$1.45 34 $1.50-$1.55 30 $1.60-$2.33 21 Number of Schools (Unweighted) 300 Al Schools $1.20 or lest 61% $1.25-$1.45 53 $1.50 -$1.55 40 $1.60 ,-$2.35 32 Number of Schools (Unweighted) 931 Source: Weighted tabulations of data from a telephone interview with pubbc SFA directors (participation rates) and a mail survey of pubbc school cafeteria managers (meal prices). Fall 1998- Spring 1999. Exhibit includes only schools that appeared in both date lots. Characteristics of Food Sorvica Programs in NSLP Public Schoois ~U Federal regulations act the maximum price for a reduced-price breakfast at SO.30. In 3Y 1998-99, the average price charged for a reduced-price breakfast was $0.28, with little vaiiatkm across school types (Exhibit2.9). Four percent of SBP schools (24 schools in the unwdghted sample) reportedly served brctkfatti nee ofcharge to students approved for reduced-price mob. Among tchoois that charged for mtmtfim twIw^H «*»» ■M—p™*m$^M -^ d* «anrimiim wf $fl *n The avenge price charged for tmJKHK§ftoto&BlmMadm&ifaK^WMBKR&4&Vf1t9fa& The average price charged for a full-price breakfast was $0.72 ovcralL wim the average fc* elementary schools being somewhat lower ($0.70) and the average for middk arid Mgh schcob soniewhat higher (S0.75-S0.76). One percent ofSBP schools (eight schools in the unweighted sample) served breakfasts free ofcharge to all students, including tboaencitehgibk fix meal benefits' Excluding these schools, the In comparison to prices charged inSY 1991-92, the aven^ prk« fee a fuU-price breakfast in SY 1998-99 was about 20 percent higher ($0.72 versus $0.60). The relative sizeofthe increase was greatest for middle schools and high sclK«b(27V32%) and lowest for efanentaryschcob (15%). Use of multiple prices for full-price breakfasts was rare, reported by less than coe percent ctf all schools. Menu Planning Practices As diacnised in Chapter One, USDA has focused considerable attention in recent years on the laSihiunal quality ofmcals served in the NSLP and SBP. The Department's commitment to incorporating the fllitn^ilntalnthtfjtr^ options and to provide schoob wim technical assistance and needed resources. The SNDA-II study included a series of questions designed tofMf&Dagttim*9&&ll&mwp4i4&fktmQff 1998-99) ofmenu planning practices in NSLP schoob. This section summarizes findings from these Responsibility for Manu Planning In almost two-thirds (64%) of all NSLP schoob, lunch nienm were planned entirely at the dist^ (Exhibit 2.10). In another 20 percent of schoob, school-level staff n^nibcrs were solely responsible for planning their own lunch menus. Lunch menus for the remaining 16 percent of schoob were planned at an associated off-she kitchen (i.e., a base or central kitchen that services u^ school [6%]; a combinatOT of SFA, school and/or off-site kitchen staff [7%]; or some other source, including, but not limited to, food service management companies [FSMCs] [3%]). Under a special assistance certification and retmbunemeot proviak«(i!rovi«on2)(7CFR245.9X*cbcwJ«ni«ycloctloien« meals free ofcharge to aO students provided that non-Federal resoun» are used to cover the cost of meals served to ineligible children. Schools operating under this provision are not required to certify studcnti for meal Iwmifili for up to three yean after an utial •■■ritiiwnt and claim rennbureement based on approved churning peroentagea. GhsvaoMagn of Food tamtoa Program* in NSLP Pubate Schoote Exhibit IS SBP Meal Prices Type of Breakfast Schoob Middle High Al Schoob Schoob Schoob Price for Reduced-Price Breakfast Mean Minimum (excluding zeros) Maximum Price for Foil-Price Breakfast Mean Minimum (CXClUumfi ZCTOS) NuxiiuucQ $0.28 $0.27 $0.27 $0.28 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 $0.70 $0.76 $0.75 $0.72 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 1.54 1.55 1.55 1.55 Number of Schools (Unweighted) 293 232 234 759 mass: rxnw BJCAMBS anty acnoon uw roponoa serving reuueeo-pnee or nin-pnoc orcauasn (acme araoosi served oruy fiw breakfasts) and that SWMBM data oo meal price*. FOOT pcrmst ot schools served breeJuMtB free or charge to students who we oertiDod for raduoed-|ykX meal I Oi»e percent served breaUrfastsfhx ofcharge benefits. Such asabwawpsjtsi SS WaaWaVfabi or Mi pooe, in awphaj with program regnhttoni, but the price charged to atiwtmti was zero. ApproxHiiatny one peiuent of schools reported uaing more than one price for fuu-pnee brcei fasti WtagtMedtabiilatnnstfaala from a mail survey of pubhc schoc4ciieft» managers, FaU 1998-Sprtog 1999. Characteristics of Food Service) Programs in NSLP Public Schools 26 The prevalence of fully centralized district-level menu planning varied slightly by type of school Specifically, die proportion of high schools in which lunch menus were planned entirely at the district level was somewhat lower than for middle schools or elementary schools (60% versus 64% and 69%, respectively), In more than a quarter ofNSLP high school-- (29%), lunch menus were planned entirely at the school level. The same was true for only 19 percent ofelementary schools and 14 percent ofmiddle schools. The general pattern ofmenu planning responsibility was similar for breakfast menus. Availability and Us* of Manu Planning Resources SFA directors were asked about the use of specific menu planning resources available from USDA and about the availability and use of other resources at the State and local level. USDA has provided all SFAs with two sets ofrecipes that are specifically designed to promote consistency with the Dietary Guidelinesfor Americans. This includes an updated version of a long-standing resource— USDA's Quantity Recipesfor SchoolFoodService—as well as USDA's New SchoolLunch and Breakfast Recipes ...A Tool Kitfor Healthy School Meals, a resource developed under USDA's Team Nutrition initiative. The data indicate mat schools are using both ofthese resources (Exhibit 2.11). A_cordingto SFA directors, SY 1998-99 menus planned for roughly nine out of 10 NSLP schools used the updated Quantity Recipesfor School FoodService. In addition, menus for more man three-quarters of all schools were planned using the Tool Kitfor Healthy School Meals. There was little variation in reported use of these resources across school types. Menus planned in more man 90 percent of all schools used nutrition information provided by State Child Nutrition (CN) agencies (Exhibit 2.11). SFA directors for the six percent of schools where such information was net utilized indicated that the State CN ofBa luki not rxovided nutrition infecmation. Menu planners in two-thirds of all schools had access to a computer-based system for menu planning (Exhibit 2.11). Menu planners in about half cf all schools actually used a awiputerized system to analyze the nutrient content of menus. As discussed ina subsequent section, use of a computerized system to analyze nutrient content of planned menus was not limited to schools where NSMP or ANSMP were in use. Menu plsiiners for non-NSMP/ANSMP schools may be using nutrient analysis softwareto monitor the nutrient cont i ofmenus planned using one of the fc>od-based menu planning options (menu pluming options used in NSLP schools are discussed in the next section). Finally, 58 percent of all NSLP schools used a nutrition specialist to plan menus in SY 1998-99. Thirty-one percent of schools reported using a nutritionist who was not a registered dietitian; 15 percent used a registered dietitian; and 12 percent reported using both a nutritionist and a registered dietitian. Manu Planning Options Selected by Schools As described in Chapter One, five different menu planning options are available to aaaOoai participating intbeNSLP: the traditional food-based menu planning system, the enhanced food-based system, NSMP, ANSMP and "any reasonable approach." Characteristic* of Food Service Program* in H81P Pubac Schools Exhibit 2.10 Responsibility for Menu Planning Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools All Schools Menu Type/Locus of Responsibility Percentage of Schools Lunch Menus SFA 64% 69% 60% 64% % School 19 14 29 20 Off-site kitchen 8 6 1 6 Combination of above 6 10 8 7 Other/food service management company 3 2 2 3 Number of Schools (Unweighted) 409 349 351 1,109 Breakfast Menus SFA 65% 71% 58% 65% School 20 13 31 21 Off-site kitchen 6 4 1 5 Combination of above 8 10 8 8 Other/food service management company 2 2 1 2 Number of Schools (Unweighted) 332 258 263 853 Note: Columns may not sum to 100 percent became of rounding. Source: Weighted tabulations of data fhm a tek^phore mterview whli pubbc SFA director Char»ctsfisrJcs of Food Sorvioi Programs in NSLP Public Schools 28 Exhibit 2.11 Avaliability and Uae of Menu Planning Resources Menu Planning Resource Elementary Middle High AH Schools Schools Schools Schools Percentage of Schools USDA Recipes Updated Quantity Recipesfor School Food Service New School Lunch and Breakfast Recipes from A Tool Kitfor Healthy SchoolMeals Nutrition Information Provided by State Child Nutrition Agency 89% 76 89% 77 91% 89% 79 77 Available and used for menu planning 95 93 92 94 Not available 5 7 8 6 Computer-Based Menu Planning System Available 65 69 68 66 Used for nutrient analysis 51 52 48 51 Nutrition Specialist Employed to Plan Menus None 43 41 43 42 Nutritionist (not R.D.) 30 32 31 31 Registered dietitian (R.D.) 15 15 17 15 Both nutritionist and R.D. 13 12 9 12 Number of Schools (Unweighted) 409 349 351 1,109 Note: Column •cctioosrmy not wmlo 100 percent became of rounding. Source: Weighted tabulation ofdad from a telephone mtervkw with publkSFAdn<ectc«>, Fail 1998-Spmg 1999. Characteristics of Food Sorrico Program* in NSLP PubHe School* In SY 1998-99, the food-based menu planning systems woe, by far, more common than any of the other menu planning options Ofthese, (be traditional food-based system —used by 41 percent of all schools —was the leading choice (Exhibit 2 12). Another 28 percent of schools used the enhanced food-based system, bringing the total percentage of schools that used a fool-based menu planning approach to 69 percent The nutrient-based menu planning options woe used by 27 percent of all schools. Most of these schools usedNSMP. Useof ANSMPwasrare—only three percent of all schools reported thisoption. Asmall proportion of schools (4%) reported using some other approach to menu planning. These included state-designed systems (Mississippi, West Virginia, California) or seme variatkn on one of the food-based meal patterns. It is important to note that reported use ofNSMP or ANSMP does not necessarily inroty that the computer-based menu planning system was fully JBspssBsBss*J it the tissi data were collected. Previous research has indicated that impkimentarion ofNSMP cm be a lengthy and challenging process. Ina USDA-sponsorcd demonstration ofNSMP, 16 SFAs took anywhere from three to 33 months to implement NSMP.with an average time line of 19 months (Fox 1998).7 To gain some insight into characteristics that might influenoe the chc4ce of menu planning system, data on menu planning options were cross-tabulated with data on selected school characteristics (Exhibit 2.13). In reviewing these data, it is important to recognize several limitations. First, unweighted sample sizes fee seme cells are small (less than 50 cases). Because of the extremely small sample ofANSMP schools (23 schools in the entire sample), NSMP and ANSMP scnools were combined for this analysis. Data for the schools that used "other reasonable approaches" are reported separately, for the sake of completeness, but should be interpreted with extreme caution because of the small sample size (38 schools). Second, several of the tabulated characteristics are Mghly ccftdated with one another. For example, urban schools tend to have a higher pWCWJMs of lOw^JaTPPsM ttBdWati man either rural or suburban schools. Thus, the available data do not permit an analysis of causal relationships. Despite these limitations, the data reveal some interestmg patterns regaromg use ofthe various menu planning options, as summarized below. • Choice of menu planning system varied by region. Compared to the national distribution of menu planning systems, use ofNSMP/ANSMP was disproportionately higher and use of the traditional food-based menu planning system was disproportionately lewer ra the Mountain Plains and Western regions. In contrast, schools in the Southwest region overwhelmingly used the traditional food-based system. These trends were noted in a majority of states in each region. • Use of alternative menu planning approaches was n»st common in the Western region Many ofthese schools were in California and may have been using the state-developed SHAPE program, an early version ofNSMP. 7 Became another USDA-eponiored itudy was collecting data on SMI implenKatatwn at the time the SNDA-B data were being collected, SNDA-D instruments did not kKluo^o>taile<iqiKatkma about the proceaa ofNSMP/ANSMP Ch«f«cteftatfc»aCFoodS«rvlc* Programs In NSLPPubWc School* Exhibit 2.12 Menu Planning Options Used for NSLP Menus Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools All Schools Menu PUnninf Option Percentage of Schools Traditional food-based meal pattern 41% 41% 40% 41% 28 30 29 2t Nutrient Standard Menu Planning (NSMP) 25 24 24 24 Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning (ANSMP) 3 2 3 3 Other approach 4 3 5 4 Number of Schools (Unweighted) 409 349 351 1,109 Mole: Columns m«y not turn to 100 percent became of rounding Source: Weighted tehtiletiont ofdate from a telephone mterview wrtfa pubbc SFA directora, F«ll 1998 - Sprinj 1999. Characteristic* of Food Sarvioa Programs in NSLP PuNfc Schools 31 ExM* 2.13 Menu PUmimg Options by Selected School Characteristics NSMPV Enhanced Traditional Al ANSMP Food-Based Food-Based Other Options Characteristic Percentage of Schools All Schools 27% 28% 41% 4% 100% FNS Region Mid-Atlantic 17 34 49 < 1 100 Mountain Plains 49 35 14 2 100 Midwest 20 35 41 4 100 Northeast 35 20 44 1 100 Southeast 19 34 41 6 100 Southwest 20 6 74 0 100 Western 37 29 23 1 1 100 Community Type Urban 33 26 40 2 100 Suburban 23 32 41 4 100 Rural 30 23 41 6 100 Percent of Students Approved for Free Meals 25 percent or less 29 34 36 1 100 26-50 percent 21 20 45 7 100 51-74 percent 22 2t 44 7 100 75 percent or more 20 25 50 5 100 Meanpercentage 30 30 36 42 33 Menu Planner Has Access to a Computer-Based System Yes 37 25 34 4 100 No* 9 34 53 4 100 Registered Dietitian or Nutritionist Plans Menus Yes 27 29 40 t 100 No 27 27 41 4 100 Characteristic* of Food Sarvica Program* in NSLPPublte Schools Exhibit 2.13 (continued) NSMP/ Enhanced Traditional All ANSMP Food-Bated Food-Baaed Other Options Characteristic Percentage of Schools Uses Food Service Management Company Yes 51 15 No 24 30 34 42 1 5 100 100 Number of Schools (Unweighted) 294 333 444 38 1,109 1 The nine percent ofNSMP/ANSMP ichooU that reported thai menu planncn oU IK4 have access to a using ANSMP or were schools in districts that use decentralized menu planniiuj ami centralized nutrient analysis. SFA aaaaataiwho provided uiibrroaDon jsasssatej that those menu planners did not have that nutneot analysis was done at the district level. to a computer at the local anal and Note: No steosuciJ teats were pcrxoiujcd to assess the sumiiicaiwc ofobserved differences. Rows may not sum to exactly 100 percent because of rounding. Source: Weighted tawilslions of data from a telephone interview with puboc SFA directors and a mad survey of puonc school cafeteria managers (data on meal counts needed to calculate partidpatwo rates), Fall 1998-Spring 1999. Characteristics of rood Sorvtco Programs in N8LP Public Schools • Oioice ofmenu planning system varied somewhat by type of community. Amongurban schools, use ofNSMP and ANSMP was notably higher than the national average. Thesame is true for the enhanced food-based system among suburban schools. Use ofthe enhanced food-based system was disproportionately lower among rural schools. • Choice of menu planning system varied by relative level of affluence Use of the traditional menu planning system was disproportionately higher and use ofNSMP/ANSMP was disproportionately lower among the lowest-income schools—those with 75 percent or more ofstudents approved for free or reduced-price meals. The most affluent schools—those with no more than 25 percent of students approved for free-meal benefits—used the enhanced food-based menu system wantnqUKlfy&MldMbiilA$N&&t0UinlkM of low-income students. • Use ofNSMP/ANSMP was notably greater among schools that had access to a computer system (at the time data were collected) than among schools that did not have such access. However, access to a computer system did not guarantee use ofNSMP/ANSMP. More than 60 percent of schools with reported access to a computerized menu planning system were not using NSMP/ANSMP. • The use of a registered dietitian or nutritionist to plan menus had no apparent association with menu planning option • Schools that used FSMCs (12 percent of all schools) used NSMP/ANSMP more often than schools that did not use FSMCs. Nutrient Analysis Procedure* In Schools Using NSMP and ANSMP For schools in which menus were planned using NSMP or ANSMP, SFA directors provided additional information on selected aspects ofthe procedures used in conducting nutrient analyses. Information was obtained on the use ofcombined analyses for breakfast and lunch menus, use ofweighted nutrient analyses, the source of data for weighted nutrient analyses and UK age/grade groupings used m defining reference nutrient standards. Analysis ofBreakfast and tench Menu* Federal regulations permit schools inmlementing NSMP orANSMP to analyze the nutriemcontempt lunch and breakfast menus separately or to combine them. The rationale for allowing a combined analysis is that the Dietary Guidelines are intended to ar^ly to total daily consumption latherdian to individual meals. Regardless, schools are required to weight the nutrient cccuribution from each meal according to levels of participation in each program. In SY1998-99, schools that conducted analyses ofbom breakfast ii»d lunch menus were UMTC likely to analyze each meal separately than to complete a combined analysis (Exhibit 2.14). Among schools using NSMP or ANSMP, 44 percent completed separate analyses for breakfast and lunch menus and 28 percemconmtoedaambincdarialysis(Exhibit2.14). The Combined analysis was most common in middle schools (42%) and least common m elementary schools (25%). Characteristics of Food Ssrvfcs Program* In NSLP Public Schools IrtAfclM Menu Analysis Procedures Adopted by Schools Uiiiig NSMP or ANSMP Elementary Schoob Middle Schoob High Schools All Schoob Mfsiu Analysis Procedure Percenter of NSMP/ANSMP Schools Analysis of Breakfast and Lunch Menus Analyze bmsrfiwt and lunch separately 43% 44% 50% 44% Complete one combined analysis for breakfast and hmch 25 42 30 28 Analyze lunch only 25 13 It 22 Analyze breakfast only 7 1 1 5 Use Weighted Nutrient Analysis Yes 72% 75% 78% 74% No 28 25 22 26 Source of Date Used for Weighted Nutrient Analysis1 Projected servings 67% 64% 69% 67% Both actual and projected servings 31 21 19 27 Actual servings 3 15 11 6 Number of Schools (Unweighted) 113 92 89 294 Baaa aanyto BMandaa only schools that perform a weighted uubieutanarym. Note* Exhibit inchidea only •chooi» that uae NSMP or ANSMP. Cotamn lectioni may not nan to 100 percent became of rounding. Source: W«cb«ed tabulation* ofdata from telephone ffltomew» with pubhe SFA d«eton, F«D 199S - Spring 1999. Chmmj**&c* Food 9mvk»t*roQrmm* In N9LP Pubic Scttoo* Use of Weighted Nutrient Analysis NSMP and ANSMP are designed around use ofa weighted nutrient analysis. A weighted analysis takes into account the number and types of foods actually served to students, giving greater weight to the foods that are served more frequently. As such, results ofa weighted nutrient analysis provide a picture of the average meal served to or selectedby students. Regulations require that all schools maintain meal production records to provide the infonnation co food sekctk» patterns nee<led f« An unweighted analysis does not consider student selection patterns. The analysis constitutes a simple average of all foods offered to students. An unweighted nutrient analysis provides an assessment of the average meal offered to students. Prior to SMI, assessments of the nutrient content of school meals were typically based on unweighted analyses. During the time data were being collected for this study, regulations were changed to permit use of an unweighted analysis, through SY 2003, for SFAs or schools that ()btam a waiver frctn their State agency (PL. 105-336). Because this change was implemented after the study was underway, data on the use of waivers were not collected. In SY 1998-99, roughly three-quarters of the schools reporting use ofNSMP or ANSMP were using weighted analyses (Exhibit 2.14). The remainder were conducting unweighted analyses, presumably under a waiver from their State agency. Schools may have been using unweighted rather than weighted analyses because they were still in early stages ofNSMP/ANSMP implementation. Schools repotted using a variety of approaches to incorporate infuiiuauon OP student food iMMBBi patterns into their weighted nutrient analyses. Two-thirds of the NSMP/ANSMP schools that performed weighted analysis reported that their analyses were based on rxojections of the numbers of servings of each food to be served. Another 27 percent of schools reported using projections as well as actual production information (i.e., records of the number of portiora actually served). This practice was more common in elementary schools (31%) than m ertha middk sch«)b (2 l%)ccmgh schools (19%). Finally, a relatively small percentage of schools (6% overall) mdicated that then* weighted analyses were based entirely on actual meal production data. This approach was largely used by middle schools sad high schools and was rarely used in elementary schools. AgeSGrade Grouping Used in Nutrient Analysis Schools usingNSMP or ANSMP are afforded several options for devek)ping lunch and breakfast menus that rneet nutrient requirements for students of different ages. The nutrition standards against which planned menus are compared (nutrient content averagedovera week) may be based OT one of the following: • USDA-defined age groups: 3-6 years; 7-10 years; 11-13 yean; and 14 years and older. • USDA-defined grade groups: rjreschcwl; kindergarten (K) to grade 6; and grades 7-12. • Customized age or grade groups that match the configuration of the school. USDA guidance suggests mat elementary schools with large age/grade spans perform more man one analysis, breaking the analysis at or around grade 6. Characteristic* of FoodSorvies Programs in NSLPPuWte Schools The age or grade group defined by a school dictates the calorie and nutrition standards for meab served in that school (Appendix E describes how NSMP software calculates customized RDAs). Based on SFA director reports, more than three-quarters of ill schools using NSMP or ANSMP in SY 1998-99 used grade groups rather than age groups to define rntritkn standards (Exhibit 2.15). Moreover, most schools used fiistomimd grade or age groups rather than one ofthe USDA-defined groups. This was true for elementary schools, middle schools, and highschools. Among elementary schools using NSMP or ANSMP, orie-firm used the USDA-defined grade group of grades K-6 to define nutrition standards. Another seven percent used the USDA-defined age group of ages 7-10. The remaining elementary schools used a customized grade or age group. The most common was the slightly narrower grade group of K-5 (29%). Twenty percent of elementary schools used some other grade span that more closely matched then own grade configuration and nine percent used a distrained age span. A total ofthree percent oftksjjsjsjsjy schools reported analyzing menus using more than ooe age or grade group to accurately reflect differing mitriticfial needs of okkr and younger The most commonage/grade grouping used msnaryzingrmddk school menus WM the nistrmired grouping ofgrades 6-8(32%). This is consistent with the most common middle school grade configuration. The custraniiwd grouping ofgrades 7 and 8 was a distant second, reported by 16 percent of all middle schools using NSMP or ANSMP. None of the middle schools in the sample reported using the USDA-defined grade grouping of grades 7-12. Eleven percent of middle schools used the USDA-defined age group of ages 11-13. Finally, among high schools using NSMP or ANSMP, the most common age/grade group used in analyzing menus was the customized grouping of grades 9-12. This grouping, used by roughly six out of 10 NSMP/ANSMP high schools, is consistent with the most common grade configuration for ugh schools. The USDA-defined group of grades 7-12 was used in 15 percent of highschools. Twelve percent of high schools used the USDA-defined age group of 14 years and older. Incorporating the Dietary Guidelines forAmericans into School Meals and Perceived Effects on Acceptability and Food Waste Since 1995 and the launch of SMI, all SFAs have been expected to make changes, as needed, in menu planning, food purchasing and food preparation practices to promote consistency with the Dietary Guidelines. Cafeteria managers have varying levels of responsibility for designing and implementing these changes, depending on how an SFA is organized, i.e., the levd of k)cal versus centralized planning and decision making. Regardless of their level of direct involvement m planning, cafeteria managers are on the front lines in implementing change and thereby have a unique perspective on how well any given change is accepted by students. According to cafeteria managers, 87 percent of aU NSU> sclwols had made son* dianges m lunch menus prior to or during SY 1998-99 in order to incorporate the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (Exhibit Characlartsttcs of Food Swvtoa Programs in NSLP Pubajc Schools Exhibit 2.15 Grade/Age Groupings Used by NSMP and ANSMP Schools in Conducting Nutrient Analyses of School Urd/Gwwpiagi Used NSMP/ANSMP Schools Elementary Schools Type of Groaning Used Grade groups 82% Agegroups 18 Specific Grade/Age Groups Used GradesK-5 29 GradesK-61 20 Other grade span 20 Otheragespan 9 Aga7-l& 7 Grades 1-6 6 Two different age groups3 2 Two different grade groups3 1 One analysis for grades K-8.K-12, or other large grade span 8 hfanbgctf Schools (Unweighted) 113 Middfe Schools Type of Grouping Used Grade groups 76% Agegroups 24 Specific Grade/Age Groups Used Grades6-8 32 Grades7-8 16 Ages 11-13' 11 Other grade span 8 CharaOwboca of Food Srvtoa Program* In NSLPPubte Schools Exhibit 2.15 (continued) School Levd/Graspings Used of NSMP/ANSMP Schools .(con't) Age* 11-14 Other age span Ages 14 and above1 Grades7-12' 6 5 2 0 Number of Schools (Unweighted) 92 High Schools Type of Grouping Used Grade groups Age groups Specific Grade/Age Groups Used Grad«9-12 Giwks7-ir Ages 14 and above1 Other grade span Grades 10-12 Other age span 84% 16 59 15 12 5 4 4 Number of Schools (Unweighted) 89 1 USDA-defined graaVage grouping 1 School Note: Exttb* only achoob that and NSMPorANSMP ID pfen i may not mm to 100 ] SOWOC Wc^pjMBu of data uoiii telephone wife SCftBa SFA dmokm, M1991 - Spring 1999. of Food Bwvico Programs In N8LP PwoBc Schools 2.16). Managers in schools where such changes had been made were asked whether the changes b*d intf^HfEGffg toC ACCCDtaVHlltY 01 9Cu00i lUDCOCS-Reautomdkate that, mniore than eight out of 10 schools, atteu^ to incefporate the ftefary Guidelines into lunch menus had neutral or positive effects on meal acceptability. Forty-three percent of managers in schools where changes had boon made to incorporate the Dietary Guidelines reported that students liked the new lunches about the same as the old lunches. A roughly equivalent proportion (38%) indicated that students liked the newlm^ somewhat better or much better thmtbc old hmeba. Amuch smaller percentage of managers (14%) believed that incorporation ofthe Dietary Guidelines reduced meal acceptability. The general pattern of responses was comparable across school types. However, compared to elementary school and iraddle school managers, fewer high school managers reported a positive effect (35% versus 39-40%) and a greater percentage reported no effect or a negative effect (61% versus 55-56%). Exhibit 2.17 tabulates responses by menu planning option. Results were generally comparable to those reported above and indicate a neutral to positive effect mnK>st schools regardless of the menu planning sMaaOfl used. However, managers in schools using the traditional food-based menu planmng system were more likely than other managers to report mat the Dietary GuideUneshrimbutxdibcMxapA&tiity of school lunches. Twenty percent of managers in schools using the traditkxial food-based system believed that students liked the new lunches somewhat less or much less than the old lunches, compared to 11 percent ofmanagers m schools using the tKJKtt^§S/Akt^t0K^9WMJ^1nWWKtAK^' based menu planning options. This result may indicate mat it is more difficult to incorporate the Z>efary Guidelines successfully using the traditiciud food-based menu planning system. It may also reflect a somewhat more negative attitude toward change anwng managers wl» are continuing to use the traditional system. Cafeteria managers were also asked specifically about the inmact ofi>«a^ Giiide/mei chai>vs ca the amount of food wasted at lunch. With the exception of cooked vegetables (other than Frencii fries), neutral expositive effects (Le, that students were wasting tess fewi tlum they liad before irtinis were changed to incorporate the Dietary Guidelines) were reported by lougMy 85 to 90 percent of managers (Exhibit 2.18). Moreover, for every food group queried, 25 to 40 percent of cafeteria managers, overall, repotted reduced food waste. In general, fewer than 10 percent ofcafeteria managers reported that students w^^ waiting more fixKl than they had wasted prior to implementation of Dietary Guidelines changes. An exception to this rule was noted for cooked vegetables (other than French fries). Nineteen percent ofmanagers reported increased waste ofcooked vegetables. For some food groups, perceptions about u^ inq>act offtefflO'^^*/'^ changes on focd waste at lunch varied by type of school. Middle school and high school managers reported an increase in the amountofmilk wasted moreoften than elementary school managers. In contrast, ekmentary school managers teported increased waste ofmain dishes and breads and decreased waste of desserts more often man middle school managers or high school managers. Characteristics of Food Sstvlca Programs in NSLP Public Schools 40 Exhibit 2.16 Percentage of Schools Reporting Changes in Lunch Menus to Incorporate the Dietary GuidelinesforAmericans and Perceived Effect on Meal Acceptability Elementary Middle High AD Schools Schooli Schools Schools Percentage of Schools Changes Made in Lunch Menus to Incorporate the Dietary Guidelines forAmericans Yes 86% 87% 87% 87% _No 14 13 13 14 Number of Schools (Unweighted) 385 325 326 1,036 Perceived Effect of Changes on Acceptability of Lunches' Students like new lunches much better dun old lunches Students nice new lunches somewhat better than old lunches Students like new lunches about die same as old lunches Students like new lunches somewhat less than old lunches Students like new lunches much less than old lunches Don't know Number of Schools (Unweighted) 330 280 283 893 16% 14% 13% 15% 23 26 22 23 42 42 44 43 13 11 14 13 1 2 3 1 5 5 4 5 one sample mciuoei oniy IMWXHI wncre me rcsponoem iwncnoa DH cningri ima ooen maoc m luocn menu* to moorpofuc the Ottmy GukUkmfbrAmerican. Note: Osh—1not—> 100 percent became ofrounding. Source: Weighted t^uletknt ofdate &oma mail wrvey of pubik ■cbool cafeteria mm^era,F«ll 1998-Sprir; 1999. of rood Sarvioa Programs in NSLP PuMe Schools 41 Exhibit 2.17 Percentage ofSchoob Reporting Changes in Lunch Menus to Incorporate the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, by Menu Planning Option, and Perceived Effect on Meal Acceptability NSMP/ Enhanced Traditional All ANSMP Food-Based Food-Based Schoob Percentage ofSchools Changes Made in Lunch Menus to Incorporate the Dietary Guidelinesfor Americans Yes 86% 90% 83% 87% No 14 10 17 14_ hhimbcr of Schoob (Unweighted) 268 314 418 1,036 Perceived Effect ofChanges on Acceptability of Lunches' Students like new lunches much better than old lunches Students like new lunches somewhat better than old lunches Students like new lunches about the same as old lunches Students like new lunches somewhat less than old lunches Students like new lunches much less than old lunches Don't know hhjmberofSchccb(Unwe»gfatcd) 238 279 345 895 >kicludMoitfyichoohinwhkhchMia»h«dbOTiMdemhioch 19% 18% 7% 15% 24 22 26 24 42 45 40 43 10 9 18 13 1 2 2 1 4 4 7 5 Note: CotanasnwynotNnitolOOi Source: We%r*rf frbutawr* of<kt> fircrn • mil iin«yflrpat*«MhoolodMBmaiaaajm,Fall99t-Spriaf 1999. of Food Sorvtos Programs In NSLP PuMc Schools Exhibit 2.18 Perceived Effect of Changes in Lunch Menus on Levels of Food Waste Elementary Middle High AD Schools Schools Schools Schools Food/Perception ofChange in Waste Percentage of Schools Milk Students waste more 2% 7% 5% 3% Students waste less 24 28 24 25 No change 68 58 66 66 Don't know 6 7 5 6 Main Dish/Entree Students waste more 10 6 5 8 Students waste less 37 39 33 36 No change 50 48 57 51 Don't know 4 8 6 5 Bread or Bread Alternate Students waste more 9 5 5 7 Students waste less 38 40 31 37 No change 51 49 53 52 Don't know 3 6 5 4 Salad/Raw Vegetables Students waste more 12 11 7 11 Students waste less 36 36 35 36 No change 48 46 54 49 Don't know 5 7 4 5 Cooked Vegetables (other than French fries) Students waste more 18 19 20 19 Students waste lets 25 28 23 25 No change 53 47 52 52 Don't know 4 6 4 4 Ml Students waste more 6 7 7 7 Students watte leas 42 41 32 40 No change 49 46 58 50 Don't know 2 7 4 3 Desserts Students watte more 3 2 1 2 Students watte lets 38 30 34 36 Nochange 54 55 56 54 Don't know 6 13 9 8 Number of Schools (Unweighted) 330 280 285 895 Note* &dMttinelutaos4ysd»obinwliiehck««i■ StdttfStttttl hoc* Sstttt to incorporate t» Jstftg GmidttmM Jtrniirtum Column secboos may not aunt to 100 percent became of roundup Source: Wai*>tedtabukuorif tfctoftomamtil aurvey of pubbc acoooU »,Fani998SpnB«1999. %M rooa QBTVIOB kiNSLPPubtcSchoota A comparable scries of questions was asked in relation to breakfast menus. Two-thirds of cafeteria managers in SBP schools reported that changes had been made m breakfast menus to incorporate the Dietary Guidelines (Exhibit 2.19). The fact that the prevalence of menu change was lower for breakfast menus than for lunch menus (66% versus 87% [Exhibit 2.17]) is not surprising. The first SNDA study found that breakfasts offered inSY 1991-92 were substanfialry more consistart wim Z)»Wary Gu;df//n« recommendations than lunches. According to cafeteria managers, Dfetary Guidelines changes m breakfast inenus were even k^ likefy to have a negative effect on meal acceptability than changes in lunch menus (Exhibit 2.19). Fewer than six percent of managers in schools with revised breakfast menus reported a negative effect, compared to 14 percent ofmanagersin schools with revised lunch menus. The perception that modified breakfasts were somewhat less acceptable or much less acceptable than previous breakfasts was largely concentrated among high school managers (12% versus 3-4%). In addition, a marked positive effect (i.e., the perceptkn that students liked new breakfasts mucA Ferrer than old breakfasts) was more commonly reported for modified breakfast menus (25%) than for modified lunch menus (15%). This response was most common among elementary school managers. Cafeteria managers' perceptions about the impact of diangesmbreakfa^nicnus on levels of food waste are tabulated in Exhibit 2.20. Results are consistent with fmdings reported m the previous flenission of changes in lunch menus. For every food group queried, 31 to 45 percent of cafeteria managers reported that students were wasting less food than they had before rnenus were changed to incorporate die Z^erary Guidelines Reports of increased waste were rare. There were some variations m perceptions about the effect ofZ^etoo'(^'^/in« changes on food waste at breakfast across school types. These were largely consistent with those described in the preceding disfTtion ofperceived effects on food waste at lunch. Types of Meal Service Offered Schools participating in the NSLP offered students a variety of different types of lunch meals in SY 1998-99(Exbibit2 21). Virtually all schools offered a hot meal at least once per week and 88 percent of schools offered a hot meal every day Cold meals, such as sandwiches and salad plates, were offered at least once per week in more than two-thirds of all schools. Almost half of all schools (47%) offered a cold meal every day of the week More than three-quarters of all schools offered hot sandwiches, such as hamburgers or hot dogs, or pizzn at least once per week. Roughly cme-third of all schools offered a hot sandwich or pizza every day of the week Salad bars and other food bars were notably less common, offeredinonry 27 percent of al)schools Schools that did offer such bars tended to offer one every day of the week Finally, more than half of all schools (59%) offered at least some items that were «or/>arr 3/ the USDA reimbursable meal on ma la carte basis. Again, schools that offered such a la carte foods *****"** always offered then every day ofthe week. ol Food Swvtoa Programs in NSLP Public Schools Exhibit 2.19 Percentage of Schools Reporting Changes in Breakfast Menus to Incorporate the Dietary Guidelinesfor Americans and Perceived Effect on Meal Acceptability Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools An Schools Percentage of Schools Changes Made in Breakfast Menus to Incorporate the Dietary Guidelines forAmericans Yes 67% 71% 60% 66% No 34 30 41 34 Number of Schools (Unweighted) 317 245 246 808 Perceived Effect ofChanges on Acceptability of Breakfasts1 Students like new breakfasts much better than old breakfasts 27% 21% 19% 25% Student-, like new breakfasts somewhat 13 26 20 16 better than old breakfasts Students like new breakfasts about the same as old breakfasts 49 48 47 49 Students like new breakfasts somewhat 4 3 10 5 less than old breakfasts Students like new breakfasts much less 0 <1 2 <1 than old breakfasts Don't know 7 2 2 5 Number of Schools (Unweighted) 199 160 151 510 1 Base sample includes only Khoub where the SBP u offered and the respondent indicated that changes had been made in breakfast menus to incorporate the DiekuyGuidelmu/br Americans. Note: Columns may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding. Source: Weighted tabulations ofdata from a mail survey of pubbc schod cafeteria managers. Fall 1998 - Spring 1999. of Food Sorvioa Program* in NSLP Public School* Exhibit 2JO Perceived Effect of Changes in Breakfast Menus on Levels ofFood Waste Schools Middle Schools High Schools Food/Perception ofChange in Waste Percentage of Schools Schools Mfc Students waste more Students waste less No change Don't Iknow Main Dish/Entree Students waste more Students waste less No change Don't know Bread or Bread Alternate Students waste more Students waste leas No change Don't know Frs* Students waste more Students waste less No change Don't know Jake Students waste more Students waste less No change Don't know 3% 29 66 2 3 43 52 2 5 43 50 2 I 36 50 6 3 42 54 2 12% 8% 5% 32 35 31 53 52 61 4 5 3 3 3 3 52 43 45 41 41 49 4 6 3 3 4 5 46 34 42 47 57 50 4 5 3 5 4 7 29 30 34 52 60 52 14 6 7 2 3 3 47 33 41 47 60 54 4 5 3 Number of Schools (Unweighted) 199 160 151 510 Notes: ExfaiUncliMkaoalyicfaoobwbecetfaeSBPbcA^aodchuffn **Dt1myGwiHtHmsforAmihcmu. Column sections may not sum to 100 percent because Source: Weafbtod tabulations ofamail surveyof pubfccschool were made in breakfast menus to comply with Fall 1998 - Soring 1999 ofFood In NSLP PubOc 8cnoon Exhibit 22\ Types of Meal Service Offered at Lunch aviffHttiTM ry Middle High All Schools Schools Schools Schools Type of Meal Service/Frequency Percentage of Schools Hot Meal Everyday 87% 92% 89% 88% 3-4 times per week 8 2 8 7 1-2 times per week 4 2 2 3 Not offered 1 4 1 1 Cold Meal, Such as Sandwich or Salad Plate Everyday 39 52 68 47 3-4 times per week 4 9 5 5 1-2 times per week 20 17 9 17 Not offered 38 21 17 31 Hot Sandwich, Such as Hamburger, Hot Dog, or Pizza Everyday 20 53 63 34 3-4 times per week 17 16 13 16 1-2 times per week 32 17 12 26 Not offered 31 14 12 24 Salad Bar or Other Food Bar Everyday 12 27 49 21 3-4 times per week 3 2 4 3 1-2 times per week 2 5 5 3 Not offered 83 66 42 73 A la Carte Items Not Part of USDA Reimbursable Lunch1 Everyday 41 77 73 53 3-4 times per week 1 0 2 1 1-2 times per week 5 1 1 4 Not offered 52 22 23 41 Number of Schools (Vmwaabled) 385 325 326 1.036 1 Percentage* reported for a lacartimk* in thiaexhibit are IK* cormitent with ttoae reported m Exhibit 2.231 a*lfca»afroah>aialBTmVrf«fctwailmmi^ m la car* aatea (i. e , lakf mooted with the purchaac of fooda that are offered ■trictry a la can* ai well at the purohaec of ooeormorefoooao<&redinUSDA-reiniburiBbkii»ealialac«rlr. FaB 199S - Spring 1999 Note: Colaainiattkoa may iMliian to 100 poroantbaoaaaa ofrounding i ofa mail narvay ofpanic aobool > of Food inNSLPPubfc The availability and frequency ofvarious meal service optkm varied acrces school types.* Options other than a traditional hot meal were notably more common in nu^e schools and high schools than in elementary schools. In addition, middle schools and high schools were more likely to offer these alternative meal options every day of the week This was especially true for a la carte items not included in reimbursable meals. In more than half of all elementary schools, such items were never offered. In contrast, roughly three-quarters ofmiddle schools and high schools offered some items on a strictly a la carte basis every day of the week. Breakfast Menus Almost all schools participating in die SBP offered bom hot and coki breakfasts (Exhibit 2.22). Ninety-one percent of SBP schools offered a cold breakfast one or more days pa week and the same percentage offered a hot breakfast one or more days per week More than half of all schools (56%) offered a cold breakfast every day. A somewhat lower percentage (50%) offered a hot breakfast every day, such as hot cereal, pancakes or waffles, eggs or a breakfast sandwich. A la carte foods were much less common at breakfast than at lunch. Only about a quarter of all schools offered breakfast foods on a strictly a la carte basis (i.e., foods that were not offered as part ofdie reimbursable breakfast and had to be purchased separately). (Roughly 60 percent of all schools offered items on a strictly a la carte basis at lunch.) There were some differences in breakfast offerings in different types ofschools. Middle schools and high schools offered hot breakfasts more often than dementaiy schools and were also more like^ to offer hot and cold breakfasts every day of the week. Middle schools and high schools were also more likdy to offer a la cant breakfast items. A la carte breakfast items were most commonly offered in high schools.' Alternatives to NSLP and SBP Meals Students who do not purchase or receive NSLP or SBP meals have several alternatives fee obtaining a lunch or breakfast from other sources. In addition to bringing food from home or, in the case of breakfast, eating a meal before coming to school, possible options include: • purchasing components of the USDA-rcimbuisabk nieal (but not enough to qualify as a meal) or a la carte items fioiu the cafeteria; • buying food from a school store, snack bar or vending machine; and • leaving school to buy food or go home for lunch. mfcnmtion on the number and types offood offered in NSLP meals dura* a typical ^typaoffoodofltredBSBPrn-kdurmiityp^-AooJ Sewtoa) ProcjnMM n NSJLP Exhibit 2.22 Types of Meal Service Available at Breakfast Elementary Middle High AH Schools Schoob Schools Schools Type ofMeal Service/Freq«eacy Perceatate of Schools CMBreakfast Everyday 3-4 times per week 1-2 times per week Not offered Hot Breakfast Everyday 3-4 times per week 1-2 tunes per week Not offered A la Carte Items not Part of USDA Reimbursable Breakfasts' Everyday 3-4 times per week 1-21 Not offered 52% 62% 67% 56% 14 9 6 11 29 18 12 24 6 12 15 9 43 64 65 50 31 20 18 27 15 12 10 14 11 5 7 9 14 34 58 25 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 1 85 64 39 74 Number of Schools (Unweighted) 317 245 246 fahmmmk*lm^9+Mmw*maMlmmwmim*mr*0Mh*a»m23i\ sdattis|s*safc's«iallyef«fcas^i Bleb—»S*»0,Q,sM ni\*iAwiAtoVmxhm»o£iDodt1k*moa***ik^mkcm*m<**m1i»\ atomamonbobclkrimVSDAnmbimwHimmkMlmcar*). anyaotaemtolOOp—thw—sefssMawg ofs«ai from ■ edawpofpaHi whsal adhtth anasgmM WH- gpteg WtsX of Food Sarvtoo Promams in NSLP Pubte This section presents data on the incidence of these alternatives at schools participating in the NSLP. It also describes the types of foods available a la carte and the specific items offered. Finally, it describes the weekly a la carte revenue generated by NSLP schools. Options Other than USDA-Raenbursabte Meals The most common option available for students who do not purchase a USDA-reimbursable meal is purchase of items a la carte™ This option, which includes items offered strictly a/a carte as well as a la cam purchase of individual components of the USDA-reimbursable meal, was available at lunch in more than nine out of 10 NSLP schools (Exhibit 2.23). As discussed in a subsequent section, this option is sometimes limited to a la carte purchase of milk, juice and/or dessert to accompany a meal brought from
Object Description
Title | School nutrition dietary assessment study-II final report |
Date | 2001 |
Contributors (individual) | Fox, Mary Kay. |
Contributors (group) | Abt Associates.;United States Food and Nutrition Service Office of Analysis, Nutrition, and Evaluation. |
Subject headings | National school lunch program--Evaluation;School breakfast programs--United States--Evaluation;School children--Food--United States;Children--Nutrition--United States |
Type | Text |
Format | Pamphlets |
Physical description | 1 v. (various pagings) :ill. ;28 cm. |
Publisher | Alexandria, Va. : The Office |
Language | en |
Contributing institution | Martha Blakeney Hodges Special Collections and University Archives, UNCG University Libraries |
Source collection | Government Documents Collection (UNCG University Libraries) |
Rights statement | http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/ |
Additional rights information | NO COPYRIGHT - UNITED STATES. This item has been determined to be free of copyright restrictions in the United States. The user is responsible for determining actual copyright status for any reuse of the material. |
SUDOC number | A 98.2:SCH 6/8 |
Digital publisher | The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, University Libraries, PO Box 26170, Greensboro NC 27402-6170, 336.334.5304 |
OCLC number | 903978293 |
Page/Item Description
Title | Part 1 |
Full-text |
ffl»hfl-N fjUtfX ^h fc/¥
Nutrition Assistance Program Report Series
The Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation
Special Nutrition Programs Report No. CN-01-SNDAHFR
School Nutrition DietaryAssessment
Study-II
FinalReport
tt*
USDA SH2K, IS? »>'»"
Agriculture Service
d0ktQ53to 45). _.. _ «MJ
fmct—il—l MnimM■i■lH!■I■M IHM^IDJIvBlIl ^WJVMUKwJ
"The U.S. Department cf Agrtcukure (USDA) prohibits discrimination in si its programs
ths bssis of rscs, color, notion si origin, gsndor, reogion, sgs, dteabMty
or msftsi or fsmly status. (Not al promoted bases apply to si programs)
•squire sfeemetrve i |