School nutrition dietary assessment study-II final report

              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