School lunch eligible non-participants final report

              COMPLETED
fiqz<a:*c^ T^T
^
W
United States
Department of
) Agriculture
Food and
Consumer
Service
Office of
Analysis and
Evaluation
School Lunch Eligible
Non-Participants
Final Report
December 1994
United St3tes
Department of
Agriculture
Food and
Nutrition
Service
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
FE3 1~'■'•
Enclosed for your information is the Final Report on School
Lunch Eligible Nonparticipants. Public Law 101-624 required the
Secretary of Agriculture to determine why children eligible to
participate for free and reduced-price meals do not apply or
participate in school meal programs. The Food and Consumer
Service examined this issue by conducting focus groups with
parents and children who do not apply for and/or do not
participate in the National School Lunch Program or the School
Breakfast Program. In addition, the study included an analysis
of nationally-representative survey data on reasons for non-participation
collected in the School Nutrition Dietary
Assessment.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please
contact Frank Ippolito, Director of the Office of Governme ital
Affairs, (703) 305-2010.
School Lunch Eligible
Non-Participants
Final Report
December, 1994
Contract No. 53-3198-1-018
Submitted to: Submitted by:
Cindy Long Frederic B. Glamz
Office of Analysis and Evaluation Regina Berg
Food and Nutrition Service Diane Porcari
United States Department of Agriculture Ellen Sackoff
3101 Park Center Drive Shelley Pazer
Alexandria, VA 22302
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
Chapter One
Chapter Two
Chapter Three
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION 1-1
Overview of the National School Lunch Program and the
School Breakfast program 1-1
Overview of the Study Design 1-4
DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY SITES 2-1
Profile of Site A 2-1
Profile of Site B 2-5
Profile of Site C 2-8
Profile of Site D 2-10
FINDINGS 3-1
Factors Affecting Non-Application 3-3
Factors Affecting Non-Participation 3-26
National Context 3-40
Summary and Conclusions 3-44
PARTICIPATION MODELS A-l
FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANT PROFILES B-l
STUDY INSTRUMENTS C-l
TabU of Contents
n
Chapter One
Introduction
The School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study, conducted for USDA's Food and Nutrition Service
(FNS), was designed to determine "why children eligible to participate for free and reduced-price meals
do not apply or participate" in school nutrition programs (P.L. 101-624). The study therefore revolved
around the two groups that are not taking full advantage of the benefits offered by the school nutrition
programs:
• families which are potentially eligible for meal benefits, but do not apply; and
• children approved for meal benefits, but who do not always take the school
meals.
This chapter provides brief descriptions of the two programs that are the focus of the study - the National
School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program (SBP) - and presents an overview of
the study design.
OVERVIEW OF THE NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM AND THE SCHOOL
BREAKFAST PROGRAM
The NSLP and the SBP are two of the "Child Nutrition Programs" administered by FNS that operate in
every State in the nation. Each program is briefly described below.
The National School Lunch Program
The NSLP is the largest and oldest Child Nutrition Program. The Federal contribution for School Year
(SY) 1992-93 was about $4.7 billion, including donated commodities.
The NSLP provides Federal subsidies for school lunches served to children at all income levels. Eligible
institutions include public schools, private non-profit schools, and public or licensed residential child care
institutions. Nationally, about 99 percent of all public schools and 20 percent of all private schools
Chapter One: Introduction 1-1
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
participate in the NSLP. Any child in a participating school is eligible to purchase a school lunch. About
half of all children in schools regularly participate in the program on a given day.1
Federal assistance takes two forms: cash and commodities. To be eligible for Federal subsidy, lunches
served must meet nutritional guidelines set forth by the Secretary of Agriculture designed to ensure that
the meal provides, on average, one-third of a student's daily nutritional requirements. Federal assistance
is performance-based—i.e., reimbursement is provided to States only for meals actually served to
students. Two kinds of cash assistance are prcided. Under Section 4 of the National School Lunch Act,
a uniform cash subsidy is provided for every lunch served, regardless of the income of the child's family.
Under Section 11 of the National School Lunch Act, additional cash subsidies are provided for children
qualifying for free or reduced-price lunches. Currently, students eligible for a free lunch are those from
families with incomes at or below 130 percent of poverty. Reduced-price lunches may be served to
students from families whose incomes fall between 130 and 185 percent of poverty. These students may
be required to contribute an additional amount of their own money for the lunch—up to $0.40 per lunch.
An additional $0.02 per lunch is reimbursed for each meal served in schools in which 60 percent or more
of the lunches in the second preceding year were claimed as free or reduced-price meals. Total cash
reimbursements received by schools during Fiscal Year (FY) 1993 amounted to approximately $4.1
billion.
The NSLP is the only Child Nutrition Program that requires a matching contribution by States. States
are required to provide matching funds equal to up to 30 percent of the amount of Section 4 assistance
they received during SY 1980. The actual percentage depends on the average per capita income in the
State as compared with the national average. States with average per capita incomes lower than the
national average are required to contribute less than 30 percent.
Under Sections 6 and 14 of the National School Lunch Act, schools also receive agricultural commodities
for use in school lunches. Entitlement commodity assistance, provided regardless of family income, is
available for each meal served (about $0.14 per lunch for SY 1992-93) and is provided to States based
on the estimated number of lunches to be served in the school year. In addition, the school lunch
'U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. The School Nutrition Dietary
Assessment Study (Washington, DC; 1993).
Chapter One: Introduction 1-2
School Lunch Eligible Son-Participants Study
program may receive "bonus commodities"—commodities that do not count against the State's entitlement
and which vary from year to year both in amount and the types of commodities provided.
In FY 1992, about 24.6 million lunches were served daily in the NSLP. The per meal lunch
reimbursement rates in effect for SY 1993-94 are as follows:
Paid
Reduced-price
Free
Regular
Reimbursement
Rates
$0.1675
1.3450
1.7450
Average
Entitlement
Commodities
$0.1400
0.1400
0.1400
Total
Subsidy
$0.3075
1.4850
1.8850
Federal law prohibits schools from charging students who qualify for free lunches, but allows them to
charge up to $0.40 for reduced-price lunches. There is no limit placed on what paying students may be
charged for lunch.
The School Breakfast Program
The SBP provides Federal funds for non-profit breakfast programs in eligible schools (i.e., public or
private non-profit) and other approved child care institutions. Initiated in 1967, the program is aimed
at "nutritionally needy" children2. Throughout its early history, legislation stressed the need to reach
children in poor areas, especially rural areas where children might have to travel great distances to
school, and children of working mothers.
The current cost of the breakfast program (FY 1993) is about $868 million. As with the NSLP, Federal
SBP reimbursement is based on the number of meals served. Per-meal reimbursement rates vary in two
ways. First, as in the NSLP, three categories of reimbursement are established according to family
income: paid reimbursement is provided for breakfasts served to those from families with incomes above
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, U.S. Senate, 1983.
Chapter One: Introduction 1-3
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
185 percent of poverty; reduced-price rates are established for breakfasts served to children from families
with incomes between 130 and 185 percent of poverty; and free rates are established for breakfast served
to children from families with incomes below 130 percent of poverty. Second, a "severe need" rate is
established for free and reduced-price breakfasts in schools that served 40 percent or more of their
lunches to children below 185 percent of poverty two years prior to the school year for which the rate
:s claimed.3 Schools must also demonstrate that unusually high preparation costs exceed the regular
reimbursement. The per meal breakfast reimbursement rates in effect for SY 1993-94 are as follows:
Regular Severe Need
Reimbursement Rates Reimbursement
Paid $0.1925 $0.1925
Reduced-price 0.6700 0.8525
Free 0.9700 1.1525
Federal law prohibit* schools from charging students who qualify for free breakfasts, but allows them
to charge up to $0.30 for reduced-price breakfasts. There is no 'imit placed on what paying students may
be charged for breakfast.
Most subsidies are for meals served in elementary schools; not only do more elementary schools
participate in the program, but student participation is much greater in these schools. The great majority
of children who participate in the program receive free breakfasts (i.e., have incomes below 130 percent
of poverty). In FY 1993, 83 percent of all breakfasts were served free or at a reduced-price rate.
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY DESIGN
School Food Authorities "FAs) that participate in the NSLP or SBP are provided with cash
reimbursements and donated commodities for each meal that meets USDA's guidelines. As discussed
above, the amount of the reimbursement depends on whether the meal is served free, at a reduced price.
'Prior to the 1981 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA), schools could be designated as severe
need if state law required them to operate a breakfast program.
Chapter One: Introduction 1-4
School Lunch Eligible I Participants Study
or at full price. Thus, the program is designed to encourage children from poor families to eat school
meals, by offer..-/g those meals free or at a reduced price.
In order to obtain free or reduced-price meals, a family must file an application with the SFA. The
application requires a listing of each of the wage earners in the family and the income received by each
person. If the income declared on the application does not exceed the established eligibility guidelines
(185 percent of the federal poverty guidelines), the family qualifies and all children in the family can
i ceivc free or reduced-price meals. But, some families that are eligible for free or reduced-price meals
do not apply. Available data indicate that between 16 percent and 25 percent of potentially-eligible
families do not apply for school meal benefits.4
Moreover, some children who are approved to receive free or reduced-price meals do not always obtain
the meals. Previous studies have shown that student participation rates (the percentage of children in a
given group who purchase a meal on a typical day) are about 80 percent for children approved for free
meals, about 70 percent for children approved for reduced-price meals, and about 45 percent for children
who pay full price. Participation rates decline considerably as children get older.1 This non-participation
by income-eligible families is much less common in elementary schools than in middle or high schools.
The School Lunch Eligible Non-Participant Study was an effort to examine and clarify the attitudes and
behaviors of potentially eligible non-applicant families and approved but non-participating children and
to suggest possible barriers to their participation in the school nutrition programs. The design for the
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study included case studies in four school districts to identify the
barriers to application/participation in the school nutrition programs. Each of the case studies included
an interview with an SFA director, interviews with school principals, and a series of focus groups
conducted with parents and students. Three types of focus groups were conducted in each of the four
sites participating in the study:
'Burghard:, J. et al., The School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study: School Food Service,
Meals Offered, and Dietary Intakes (Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 1993).
'Burghardt, J. et al., 1993.
Chapter One: Introduction 1-5
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
• non-applicant parents of elementary and secondary school students;
• non-applicant secondary school students; and
• non-participant elementary and secondary school students.
A total of 24 focus groups were conducted across the four sites included in the study. In each school
district, focus groups were conducted in three schools - one elementary school, one middle school and
one high school. Six focus groups were conducted at each site:
• 3 non-participant student groups
- 1 elementary
- 1 middle
1 high school
• 2 non-applicant parent groups
- 1 elementary
1 middle/high school
• 1 non-applicant student group
1 high school
The composition of the focus groups reflects the analysis of data from the School Nutrition Dietary
Assessment Study which suggested that:
• income-eligible students are less likely to participate in the NSLP and SBP as
grade increases;
• parents of elementary school students are more likely to apply than those of
middle or high school students;
• income-eligible high school students may have some influence in the parents'
application decision.
A two-person team spent three days at each site. Each site visit began with a team interview of the SFA
director. Prior to any focus groups being conducted in any school, the team also conducted a joint
interview with the school principal. Responsibilities for conducting the focus groups were divided
between the team members. While both team members conducted parent and high school student groups,
Chapter One: Introduction 1-6
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
one team member who was experienced in conducting focus groups with young children was responsible
for conducting the groups with elementary and middle school children. An exit interview with the SFA
director was conducted on the last day of each -ite visit. Exhibit 1.1 presents a summary of the study
design.
Focus Group Methodology
Focus groups are a cornerstone of marketing research. At its core, a focus group is an interactive group
interview with a small sample (eight to ten) o* purposely selected participants. The participants are
selected based on one or more homogeneous factors, such as age, gender, and in this study, eligibility
but non-application for or participation in the school meal programs. The reason for the homogeneity
of the group composition is that the one to two-hour discussion is focused—it is intended to address
several specific issues that the participants, by nature of their experience (e.j., participation), or lack of
it (e.g., non-participation), would be considered "experts." The interaction among participants under the
direction of the focus group moderator is capable of producing information that would otherwise be
considerably more expensive to obtain with other research techniques, such as individual interviews.
Furthermore, a group discussion is often more comfortable for respondents than one-on-one interviews.
While care must be taken to overcome inhibitions about talking about sensitive issues—such as
stigma—with a group of people, participants generally tend to be more honest and candid in a group
situation than in a face-to-face interview The dynamics of the focus group discussion, as participants
react and interact with one another, often generates issues and considerations that would go undetected
in individual interviews or quantitative questionnaire methodologies. The homogeneity of the group also
encourages a comfort level, especially when talking about sensitive issues. Because many differing
opinions can often be expressed during a focus group discussion, participants have opportunities to more
easily relate to comments made by others in the group and express their own thoughts and feelings.
Focus groups, therefore, provide an opportunity to obtain more in-depth information from a target group
of individuals.
The focus group methodology is not intended to produce statistically generalizable findings, nor is it
designed to produce individual-level data. Rather, the focus group methodology is used to explore group
level—in this case, parents and students—attitudes and perceptions about some topic—the school lunch
and breakfast program. The analysis of the focus group findings from these four sites are very useful
Chapter Ont: Introduction J-7
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
in providing exploratory, yet directional, and in some instances confirmatory information about reasons
for non-application and non-participation among parents and students in four study sites.
The chapter that follows describes the four school districts that participated in the study and the criteria
that were used to select those districts. Chapter Three presents the study findings. It examines the
factors affecting non-application among potentially-eligible families; non-participation among students
approved for meal benefits; and compares the focus group findings to nationally-representative survey
data from the School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study.
Chapter One: Introduction 1-8
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
Exhibit 1.1
SUMMARY OF STUDY DESIGN
Design Element
Urban (N=2)(*) Suburban (N=2)(*)
Each District Total Each District TOTAL (N=4) Total
Non-Participant
Student Focus
Groups
! elementary school
1 middle school
1 high school
2
2
2
1 elementary school
1 middle school
1 high school
2
2
2
4 elementary schools
4 middle schools
Non-Applicant
Parent Focus
Groups
1 elementary school
1 middle/high school
2
2
1 elementary school
1 middle/high school
2
2
4 elementary schools
4 middle/high schools
Non-Applicant
Student Focus
Groups
1 high school 2 1 high school 2 4 high schools
Total 12 12 24 focus groups
(*) As noted in Chapter Two, the four sites also varied by racial/ethnic mix.
Chapter One: Introduction 1-9
Chapter Two
Description of the Study Sites
This chapter describes the criteria used to select the school districts included in the study and presents
a brief profile of each of the study sites.
The School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study was conducted in a sample of four school districts.
Each of the four sites was a low-income school district which was believed to have a significant degree
of non-participation in the NSLP.' The sample is not intended to be a nationally-representative sample
of school districts participating in the school lunch and breakfast programs. Rather, the sample was
selected so that it included variation along several dimensions that were hypothesized to affect
participation and application rates:
• urban and suburban school districts;
• racially mixed, predominantly black, predominantly white, and districts with a
significant Hispanic enrollment; and
• school districts that have open campuses and significant a la cane sales.
Schools within the selected district were selected on the basis of recommendations by the School Food
Authority (SFA) director. Exhibit 2.1 presents a summary of the four sites that participated in this study.
Profiles of each of the study sites are presented below.
PROFILE OF SITE A
Description of the School District
Demographic Description of the School District. Site A is a suburban school district located in the
Southwest, about 40 miles from a major city. The public school district covers a wide geographic area
'Low-income school districts were defined as districts in which at least 10% of the children enrolled
were iiving in households with incomes below the poverty threshold (as measured by the 1980 Orshansky
Index). Three of the four SFAs had participation rates in the NSLP that were at least 0.5 standard
deviations below the national mean in School Year 1989-90. The fourth SFA had a participation rate
approximately equal to the national average. Participation rate data were obtained from the Child
Nutrition Program Operations Study conducted by Abt Associates for USDA.
Chapter Two: Description ofthe Study Sites 2-1
10
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
EXHIBIT 2.1
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FOUR STUDY SITES
School
District
FNS
Region
Number of
Schools
Size Free
Participation
%
Paid
Participation
%
Orshansky
(Poverty)
Index
Racial/Ethnic
Composition
Metro
Status
Site A Southwest 8 Medium 74 36 23 75% White
25% Native-American
Suburb
SiteB West 45 Large 77 31 19 90% Hispanic
10% African-American,
White, and Asian
Urban
SiteC Southwest 4 Small 72 36 11 90% White
10% Hispanic, African-
American, and Native-
American
Suburb
Site 0 Southeast 78 Large 85 23 30 72% African-American
28% White
Urban
Chapter Two: Description of At Study Silts V 2-2
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
and includes students living outside of the jurisdictional boundaries of the district. About three-quarters
of the student population is white, less than one-quarter Native American, and the balance African-
American and Asian. Economically, the area is described as being clearly split into the "haves and have-nots,"
with a large upper class, a large lower class, and a very small middle class. School district
officials report that there is strong peer pressure to fit in with more affluent students and that low-income
parents (and high school students) often work two or three jobs in order to buy clothes and have spending
money to look like and fit in with other students.
The school district consists of eight schools: five elementary schools (including an early childhood
center), one middle school, and two high schools (including one alternative school). The total enrollment
in Site A is just under 4,000 students.
Demographic Description of the Schools Studied. The elementary school included in the study is the
largest in the district, with enrollment over 400 students in grades one through five. The middle school
is the only one in the district and has an enrollment of approximately 900 students in grades six through
eight. The high school included in the study has an enrollment of just under 1,200 students in grades
nine through 12. The demographics of the study schools are comparable to the district as a whole.
Lunch and Breakfast Programs
Availability. All schools in Site A have both a lunch and breakfast program. However, at the high
schools, breakfast is no longer served in the morning before classes. Instead, students get a 15-minute
"nutrition break" between 9:00-9: IS AM. Students can get a reimbursable breakfast during the nutrition
break. All schools in the district have offer vs. serve (OVS).2
Patterns of Participation. Exhibit 2.2 presents the participation rates for the lunch and breakfast
programs at each of the three study schools. These data were provided by the SFA director and reflect
activity averaged for the first six weeks of SY 1993-94.
2Under OVS a student may refuse as many as two items offered as pan of the reimbursable lunch and
still have the meal counted as a reimbursable lunch. Students may refuse one item offered as part of the
reimbursable breakfast and still have the meal count as a reimbursable breakfast.
Chapter Two: Description of the Study Sites 2-3
12-
School Lunch FMgible Non-Participants Study
Application Process. Separate applications must be submitted for each child in the household. The
application forms are distributed to parents by each school individually, and this is accomplished
differently in each school. In the elementary school included in the study, parents are given a school
enrollment package which includes the application. In the middle school, parents are asked at enrollment
if they want an application. In the high school, applications are given to the students at enrollment.
Exhibit 2.2
PARTICIPATION RATES IN SITE A STUDY SCHOOLS
(Reported by SFA Director)
Participation Rates in Study Schools
Grade Level
Percent
Approved
for Free and
Reduced Price
Meals
Students Approved for
Free and Reduced
Price Meals
Students Not Approved for
Free and Reduced Price
Meals
Breakfast Lunch Breakfast Lunch
Elementary School 40% 45% 95% 6% 50%
Middle School 47 25 72 2 46
High School 18 2 40 1 6
While applications are distributed by each school, completed forms must be returned to the school food
service central office. Parents can receive assistance in completing the application from the food service
central office. Assistance is not typically available at individual schools. Approval of applications is
done centrally by food service personnel. Site A does not currently have direct certification.3
Ticketing Systems. All students in the school district have a pre-paid food service account and are issued
a "smart card "--a plastic debit card, which is used for both breakfast and lunch. Students can also use
'Direct Certification is the process by which students are certified to receive free school meals without
application, by virtue of their eligibility for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) or Food
Stamps. School districts are allowed to waive the application process for eligible students provided
documentation has been received from the agency responsible for administration of AFDC or Food
Stamps.
Chapter Two: Description of the Study Sites 2-4
13
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
cash to pay for reimbursable meals and a la carte items. While every student has a food service account,
not all accounts may be activated. Elementary school students are required to open an account and
reduced- and full-price students must maintain a balance in their accounts. Middle and high school
students are not required to open their food service accounts or maintain a balance in open accounts.
Operating Characteristics of the Lunch and breakfast Programs. While food selection and purchasing
decisions are totally centralized at the district food service level, Site A practices site-based management
with regard to meal schedules and times, with each principal making decisions for his or her school.
In the elementary school, the only alternatives to the lunch program are bringing lunch from home, going
home for lunch, or not eating. The campus is closed; there are no vending machines, and no a la cane
items are available. The middle school has a closed campus, but the high school an open campus. A
la carte items and vending machines are available to students at the both the middle and high school
levels.
PROFILE OF SITE B
Description of the School District
Demographic Description of the School District. Site B is an urban school district located in the West.
The school district has 45 schools: 30 elementary schools; seven middle schools; four high schools; three
special education schools; and, one continuing education school. The ethnic/racial composition of the
student population across the district is approximately 90 percent Hispanic, with smaller representations
of African American, Caucasian and Asian. Family incomes across the district are reported to be low
with many families living on minimum wage incomes. Additionally, family size is often large with up
to 12 people living in one family setting.
Demographic Description of the Schools Studied. The elementary school has a year-round cycle with
a total enrollment of 885 students in pre-kindergarten through grade five. The middle school also has
a year-round cycle with a total enrollment of 1,780 students in grades six through eight. The high school
has a total school enrollment of 3,060 students in grades nine through 12. The ethnic/racial composition
of each of the three schools included in the study is similar to that of the district as a whole, with
Hispanics accounting for 85-92 percent of the students enrolled.
Chapter Two: Description of the Study Sites 2-5
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
Lunch and Breakfast Programs
Availability. The SFA operates both breakfast and lunch programs in all but five elementary schools
which are located in outlying areas of the school district.
Patterns of Participation. Exhibit 2.3 presents the participation rates for the lunch and breakfast
programs at each of the three study schools. The data provided by the SFA Director reflect activity
averaged over a typical one-month period.
Exhibit 2.3
PARTICIPATION RATES IN SITE B STUDY SCHOOLS
(Reported by SFA Director)
1 Participation Rates in Study Schools
Grade Level
Percent
Approved
for Free and
Reduced Price
Meals
Students Approved for
Free and Reduced
Price Meals
Students Not Approved for
Free and Reduced Price
Meals
Breakfast Lunch Breakfast Lunch
Elementary School 90% 36% 88% 3% 66%
Middle School 70 24 61 1 6
High School 53 18 39 2 9
Application Process. Families are required to submit one application for each child in the family. In
the elementary and middle schools, teachers distribute applications to every student at the beginning of
the school year. In these schools, the students act as couriers in bringing the applications to and from
home. In the high school, applications are included in the registration package mailed out to students one
week prior to registration. Students return the applications in person during registration week.
Applications are available in both English and Spanish. In addition, applications are computer generated
to include much of the required information for applicants.
In each of the three study schools, assistance is available to all families filling out the applications. In
the elementary school, the cafeteria staff and the principal follow up with children to ensure that
Chapter Two: Dticription of At Study Sites
b
2-6
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
applications are returned. In the middle school, English and Spanish reminders are printed in the student
bulletin and oral announcements are made in school. The high school supplies the least amount of
individual attention to applications due to the large number of students. While assistance is offered to
parents, no follow-up is done on applications that have not been returned.
Eligibility determination is conducted centrally by food service personnel. Site B uses direct certification
(where families receiving food stamps and/or AFDC are directly certified fo school meal benefits and
are not required to submit an application) and Provision One (which allows the SFA to approve students
for meal benefits for a two-year period).
Ticketing Systems. All students have a laminated ticket containing a student I.D. and a code indicating
eligibility status. Site B does not charge reduced-price students for meals, only full-price students are
required to pay for pattern meals. Food service personnel manually record the student I.D.s and
eligibility codes of each student taking the pattern meal.
Operating Characteristics ofthe Lunch and Breakfast Programs. In the elementary and middle schools
all menus are planned centrally by the SFA Director with input from the cafeteria managers. All items
served are prepared centrally, pre-packaged, and sent to the schools where they are heated if necessary.
This is also the case in three of the four high schools in the district. The fourth high school (the study
school), which has a cook and a full kitchen, plans its own menus and prepares meals on-site.
Offer vs. serve is available at all schools for breakfast; it is available at middle and high schools for
lunch. Alternatives to the pattern meals vary between elementary, middle and high schools. In the
middle and high schools, a la carte foods are available. Vending machines and an off-campus option are
available to high school students only. However, the availability of off-campus lunch varies by high
school, and is not available at the high school included in this study. Additionally, vending machines are
supposed to be closed to students during meals. However, this agreement is not adhered to by all high
schools.
Chapter Two: Description of tht Study Silts 2-7
lb
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
PROFILE OF SITE C
Description of the School District
Site C is a small suburban school district located in the Southwest, about eight miles from a small city.
The district has four schools with a total enrollment of approximately 1,700 students. The elementary
school has an enrollment of 625 students in kindergarten through the third grade. The intermediate
school has a total enrollment of 250 students in grades four and five. The middle school serves 415
students in grades six through eight. The high school has 410 students in grades nine through 12. The
racial/ethnic composition of the district is primarily white. Approximately 90 percent of the student
population is Caucasian, with the remaining population consisting of Hispanic, African-American, and
Native-Indian students. School district officials report that family incomes throughout the district are
"mixed," spanning all economic levels.
Lunch and Breakfast Programs
Availability. The SFA operates both breakfast and lunch programs in each of the four schools in the
district.
Patterns of Participation. Exhibit 2.4 presents the participation rates for the lunch and breakfast
programs at each of the three study schools. The data provided by the SFA Director reflect activity
averaged over a typical one-month period.
Application Process. At Site C, SFA policy stipulates that families submit one application that covers
all children in the household. Application forms are distributed and collected by each school individually.
At the intermediate school, applications are sent home with the students on the first day of 'asses and
returned to the school by the students. At the middle and high schools, applications are available at
preregistration for classes. While middle school parents often attend preregistration and complete the
applications on-site, parents are less likely to attend preregistration at the high school, leaving the students
responsible for bringing the applications home and returning the completed applications to the school.
Most questions from parents are referred to the SFA central office, which also provides assistance in
completing the application to parents who request it. Approval of applications is done centrally by food
service personnel. Site C uses direct certification.
Chapter Two: Description of the Study Sites 2-8
n
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
Exhibit 2.4
PARTICIPATION RATES IN SITE C STUDY SCHOOLS
(Reported by SFA Director)
1 Participation Rates in Study Schools
Grade Level
Percent
Approved
for Free or Reduced
Price Meals
Students Approved for
Free or Reduced Price
Meals
Students Not Approved
for Free or Reduced
Price Meals
Breakfast Lunch Breakfast Lunch
Intermediate School 32% 32% 90% 1% 72%
Middle School 29 37 61 4 16
High School 17 63 63 10 28
Ticketing Systems. This SFA does not issue tickets to students approved for free and reduced-price
meals. Instead, the cashier at each cafeteria maintains a master list that indicates each student's payment
status. Students have the option of pre-paying for reduced and full-price meals or paying cash at the time
of purchase.
Operating Characteristics of the Lunch and Breakfast Programs. The daily menu for reimbursable
meals is the same at each school in the district. The SFA Director plans all menus with occasional input
from cafeteria managers at each school. All schools in the district are equipped with a complete kitchen.
Food preparation includes heat and serve items such as pizza, hamburgers, and some frozen vegetables,
as well as items prepared from scratch such as chili, spaghetti, meatloaf, breads, and desserts.
Reimbursable lunches are pre-plated. When there is a c'.oice of any single item in the reimbursable meal,
trays are prepared in various combinations. In addition to the reimbursable meals, students at all schools
in the district also have the option of bringing lunch from home, and purchasing drinks and snacks from
vending machines located in all cafeterias. At the middle and high schools, students may also purchase
a range of food items a la carte from snack bars. While all schools in the district have closed campuses,
high school students who are 18 years old are considered adults and are permitted to leave the school
premises.
Chapter Two: Description ofAt Study Sites 2-9
It
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
PROFILE OF SITE D
Description of the School District
Demographic Description of the School District. Site D is a large urban school district in the South.
The school district has 78 schools (52 elementary school, 16 middle schools and 10 high schools) with
a combined enrollment of approximately 45,000 students. The racial/ethnic composition of this district
is predominantly African-American. Approximately 72 percent of the student population is African-
American with the remaining population representing a combination of Caucasian and to a lesser degree,
Hispanic and Asian. School district officials describe the population of the district as primarily lower-middle
income. District officials noted that about half of the children in district are from families that
receive food stamps.
Demographic Description of the Schools Studied. The elementary school included in the study has a
total enrollment of 442 students in kindergarten through the fifth grade. The middle school has a total
enrollment of 573 students in grades six through eight. The high school included in the study is the
largest in the district, with 1,563 students in grades 9-12.
In each of the three study schools, the ethnic/racial composition is reportedly between 98 to 99 percent
African-American. The remaining one to two percent of the students are Caucasian, Hispanic or Asian.
District officials report that the economic status at each of the three study schools is similar to that of the
district as a whole-primarily lower-middle income.
Lunch and Breakfast Programs
Availability. The school breakfast and lunch programs are operated in each of the 78 schools in this
district.
Patterns of Participation. Exhibit 2.5 presents the participation rates for lunch and breakfast programs
at each cf the three study schools. These data provided by the SFA Director reflect activity averaged
over a typical one-month period.
Chapter Two: Description of the Study Sites 2-10
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
Exhibit 2.5
PARTICIPATION RATES IN SITE D STUDY SCHOOLS
(Reported by SFA Director)
Participation Rates in Study Schools
Percent
Approved
for Free and
Reduced Price Meals
Students Approved for
Free and Reduced
Price Meals
Students Not Approved
for Free and Reduced
Price Meals
Grade Level Breakfast Lunch Breakfast Lunch
| Elementary School 85% 43% 83% 0% 8%
1 Middle School 73 16 83 0 3
| High School 56 16 64 0 22 1
Application Process. SFA policy stipulates that an application must be submitted for each child applying
for meal benefits. Applications are distributed at registration at the beginning of the school year. At the
elementary and middle schools, parents must register their children in person. Forms are given directly
to the parents during pre-registration and parents are requested to complete the applications at the school.
The principals are on hand to assist parents who have questions. Parents who choose not to complete
the application at the school can take the application home. At the high school, obtaining the application
is primarily the student's responsibility. Relatively few parents attend registration as they are not
required to register their children in person. With the exception of those applications completed by
parents at the school, students are responsible for returning applications to the schools. Eligibility
determination is conducted centrally by food service personnel. Site D uses direct certification.
Ticketing Systems. A district-wide ticketing system is used to record meal payments. All tickets look
identical and payment status is indicated by a numerical code printed on the ticket. Students may pre-pay
for reduced- and full-price meal tickets from one to four weeks in advance. Students may also pay cash
for meals if they have not pre-paid or their pre-paid account is depleted.
Chapter Two: Description of the Study SiUs
It)
2-11
School Lunch FMgiblt Non-Participants Study
Operating Characteristics of the Lunch and Breakfast Programs. The same daily menu is served in
each of the schools. Although menu planning is centralized, cafeteria managers have the flexibility to
add items to their menu; however, they may not delete items.
With the exception of three schools, all of the schools in this district are equipped with complete kitchens.
Although food preparation includes heat and serve for items such as pizza and corn dogs, the majority
of the food is reportedly prepared from scratch. Alternatives to the breakfast and lunch programs include
bringing lunch from home and/or purchasing items from the a la carte selection. Vending machines and
eating off-campus are not options for any of the schools in this district.
Chapter Two: Description of the Study Sites 2-12
Chapter Three
Findings
This chapter presents the findings related to non-application and non-participation from a series of focus
groups in four sites. It synthesizes the focus group discussions with students and parents, and the
interviews conducted with SFA Directors and school principals. The study addressed two broad research
questions:
• Why don't potentially-eligible families apply for school meal benefits? and
• Why don't students approved for school meal benefits participate in the lunch
and/or breakfast programs?
It was anticipated that the factors affecting potentially-eligible parents' decisions not to apply for school
meal benefits would differ from the factors affecting approved students' decisions not to participate in
the lunch and breakfast programs. It was hypothesized that parents' decisions not to apply for meal
benefits would be related to such factors as lack of information, administrative constraints surrounding
the application and approval process, and the perceived stigma of receiving school meals. For students
approved for school meal benefits, it was hypothesized that the decision to participate in the lunch or
breakfast programs would be related to such factors as the quality and variety of the food, structural
barriers such as the school meal schedules, anc the perceived stigma of receiving meals.
A major, and unanticipated, finding is that the same factors that affect approved students' decisions to
participate or not participate in the lunch and breakfast programs also have a major influence in
potentially-eligible parents' decisions to apply or not to apply for school meal benefits. Quite simply,
parents tend not to apply for school meal benefits if they do not feel that their children will take the
school meals. In this context, the key findings with regard to non-application and non-participation
include:
• The perceived quality and variety offood served in the lunch and breakfast
programs is a key factor in approved students' participation decisions and
potentially-eligible parents' application decisions. Students of all ages in all sites
voiced complaints about the poor quality of food and the limited choices
available. Students inform their parents that they will not eat the food, and
consequently parents decide not to apply.
Chapter Three: Findings 3-1
XL
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
Perceived stigma is a major factor affecting application and participation
decisions for many parents and many older students. In three out of the four
study sites, perceived stigma is a substantial barrier to application for school meal
benefits. While perceived stigma is a also a barrier to participation among
approved students, stigma is a stronger issue for parents than for students.
Among students, perceived stigma is only an issue for older students, and was
considered a major issue in two of the four sites.
It is important to note, however, that for the study population, the concept of
stigma has many facets to it. Stigma as associated with application
to/participation in me SSLP and SBP goes beyond the negative perception of the
programs being only for the poor. Among the study participants, being
associated with -chool meal programs reflect negatively on them in general.
For instance, parents expressed stigma in terms of being embarrassed at not
being able to provide for their children financially; in terms of fears of being
criticized for not being "good" parents, or "abusing the system," or "taking a
government handout;" and in terms of resentment at being financially eligible for
a program associated with the poor, when they themselves are working and
earning what they consider to be a "middle-class income."
Students, on the other hand, in addition to perceiving the school meals programs
"for the poor," also perceive them as "uncool," regardless of payment status of
the student. This latter type of perception may or may not be explicitly related
to the income-eligibility aspect of the program.
Structural barriers related to the scheduling of meal times and the time available
to go through the lines and eat are a contributing factor to students' participation
decisions, and to a lesser extent parents' application decisions. School meals are
often scheduled at times that are not synchronized with students' appetites.
Students also complained about the limited amount of time available to eat lunch.
Lack of information does not appear to be a major factor in non-application for
school meal benefits. In all four study sites parents were aware of the lunch and
breakfast programs and the need to apply for free or reduced-price meals. In
three of the four study sites parents completely understood the applicatio
process. In the fourth study site parents' confusion about the application process
resulted in unintentional non-application, that is, they either thought they did not
have to reapply each year, or that they had already applied.
Administrative constraints do not appear to be a major factor in non-application
for school meal benefits. In general, parents did not feel that the application
process was burdensome and did not express serious concerns about income
verification. While some parents felt that income verification was an invasion
of privacy, it was not viewed as a barrier to applying for benefits.
Chapter Thru: Findings 3-2
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
The following sections discuss these findings in greater detail and place these findings in the context of
a recently completed national survey that addressed non-application and non-participation. Before
proceeding, however, it is important to note the role of the focus group moderator in leading and
analyzing the discussions. It is not realistic to think that all participants in a focus group discussion will
be verbal and articulate, or that they will respond verbally to each issue being discussed. As in life,
communication can be either verbal or non-verbal—through body language, eye contact or lack of it, head
nodding, non-responsiveness, etc. Often times the moderator will interpret and utilize such
communication (e.g. tone of voice of verbal conversation, reluctance to talk about a topic) during the
group discussion and make note of its meaning. However, non-verbal communication, or certain nuances
of verbal conversation do not translate well into verbatims to support analytic findings. Therefore, while
the reader may wish for more concrete evidence to support certain findings, specific quotations from the
focus group participants may just not be available. However, this supposed lack of evidence does not,
in any way, negate the findings.
FACTORS AFFECTING NON-APPLICATION
This section discusses the factors affecting non-application for school meal benefits among potentially-eligible
families. The findings are grouped by the topics covered in each of the focus groups with non-applicant
parents and students: lack of information, administrative constraints, quality and variety of food,
structurakbarriers, and perceived stigma.1 Non-applicant parents and students frequently differed in their
perceptions of certain issues. Selected verbatims that support the focus group findings are identified by
[P] for parent or [S] for student.
1 The following questions were not directly asked as phrased in the focus group discussions. These
questions are the research objectives that were developed at the onset of the study and which the focus
groups discussions were designed to address. The answers to these questions came out of information
which the free-flowing discussion format is designed to elicit.
Chapter Three: Findings 3-3
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
Question: How large a factor is lack of information in potentially-eltgible families' decision
not to apply for school meal benefits?
Finding: Lack of information fata mot appear to be a majorfactor in nm-applicaAonfor
school meal benefits. In three of the four study sites, lack of information was not
perceived to be a substantial barrier to application for school meal benefits—both
among parents and Students. In the one site where lack of information was
problematic, the issue focused on the application process, rather than on
•warenna''<^^t|i^|ri^'|0ee^t or understaridability of the application form, or
knowledge of eligibility status. That is, parents did not understand that they had
to complete a separate application for each child in die household, and re-apply
for each child yearly.
Discussion:
Awareness of the School Meal Program
Across all four sites, awareness of both the breakfast and lunch programs is high for both parents and
students. In Site C, however, a few high school parents report a lack of awareness of the availability of
breakfast for all students, regardless of income. The key mechanism for informing families of the school
meal programs is the application that is distributed to parents and students. In addition, many parents
are aware of the school meal program through their own experiences receiving meal benefits as students.
Secondary school parents and children are also often aware of the meal programs through prior
experiences in elementary school. (Eighty-one percent of secondary school students in the non-applicant
student focus groups had participated in the NSLP in earlier years.)
7 assume everyone gets the sheet which has the income levels and prices listed. And
even the newspaper says you can contact the school. It's well publicized that ifyou need
help, it's there for you." [P]
"In this day and age, anybody who can 'tfeed their children is going somewhere to get
some kind of assistance and everybody knows that's something available somewhere...I
would really be surprised if there's somebody out there who does not have food and
doesn 't know about [the free meals]." [P]
7 remember the foodfrom when I was in school." [P]
7 qualifiedforfree lunches when I was younger and took them regularly." [S]
"I've never eaten it, but I know about it." [S]
Chapter Three: Findings . 3-4
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
Promotional Activities
Across all four sites, both the extent and awareness of promotional activities is low among both parents
and students. School district staff, parents and students alike confirm that there are limited promotional
activities for the school meal programs. None of the four sites employ any outreach activities. When
promotional activities do occur, they are most often directed at elementary school parents. In general,
school-level promotional activities include letters to parents, informational meetings at school, and
reminders by classroom teachers and school food service staff. District-level promotional initiatives
include press releases and menus in local papers, and posters in unemployment offices (Site B). State-level
promotional programs include "Let's Do Lunch" and "Crunchy Critter" (Site D), as well as posters,
handouts, and mailings to parents (Site C).
"Other than the application, the school has never sent anything home with the kids. But
they may have and Ijust never see them." [P]
"The teachers tell us to return the applications a couple of times, but no one really
enforces it." [S]
"There's no advertising. All there is is a billboard outside the cafeteria saying what
there is." [S]
Obtaining Application Forms
While non-receipt of applications does not appear to be a barrier to application for program benefits per
se, it is more problematic at the secondary level than at the elementary school level. Across all sites,
students in secondary schools are given increasing responsibility to courier application forms to their
parents and back to the school. This gives them increased influence in the decision-making process and
often results in parents' non-receipt of forms. However, parents report that if they wanted to apply for
benefits, they would know how to obtain the application forms.
"They tell you to contact the school office. They tell you about the lunch program and
that it's based on your income and they give you the chart breakdown." [P]
"When we enroll, they ask us if we want the forms and you can take the forms or not." [S]
"Teachers hand out applications. If they forget, the kids just ask for them." [S]
"They might throw it in a locker and then they just forget about it." [S]
"Some might put it in their pants pocket. Then it goes into the washing machine." [S]
Chapter Three: Findings 3-5
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
Understandability of the Application
The understandability of the application form varies across sites. In general, the application form is
perceived as more complicated among less educated parents. In Site D, the application form is perceived
as less understandable than in the other sites. It is perceived most favorably in Site B.
"It's simple and not too long." [P]
"There's no problem with filling out the forms. They are very clear in what they want
to know." [Pj
"People may not be able to understand the application andfigure their income." [P]
While parents are universally aware that eligibility is based on family income and size, many parents
(particularly in Site D) were confused about requirements to 1) submit one application for the household
vs. for each child, and (2) re-apply each year. Several of the sites have recently taken steps to attempt
to clarify these issues. Site A has color-coded forms for each year to prompt parents to re-apply. In Site
B, the applications are pre-printed with the child's name and other identifying information and are bi-lingual.
In addition, Site B has elected to use Provision 1 which allows SFAs to certify eligibility for two
years instead of one (7CFR245.9[a|). Site C also has bilingual applications.
"There should be only one application per family because it all goes to the same place." [P]
Understandability of the Application Process
Of more importance than the understandability of the form is the understandability of the application
process. While most parents and students understood the application process, some parents and students
clearly did not understand the process. This was especially true in Site D. Among those parents and
students who did not fully understand the application process, concerns were expressed about (1)
application requirements (discussed above), (2) not knowing the status of their applications or where to
get information to clarify their circumstances, and, (3) not understanding the meaning of letters from the
SFA.
"That's what I don't understand. He gotfree lunch last year and didn 't get it this year.
I said, OK, forget it." [P]
"That's what was confusing me. I thought the [notification] letter didn't apply to me
because I had already been approvedforfree lunch. When the cutoffday came I didn't
send any money because I was under the impression that I had already been approved." [P]
Chapter Three: Findings 3-6
JL1
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
While much more prevalent in Site D, across sites parents tend not to understand that students approved
the previous year have a grace period during which they can eat free or reduced-price meals, based on
last year's determination. Parents claim that they had not been notified and had therefore assumed that
they had been approved. Students in Site D echo their parents' concerns and confusions about the
application a id approval process.
7 don't know if I was turned down or not, but he was getting free lunch when school
started. But in the first part of October, he was told to pay." [P]
7 had a ticket at the beginning of the year, but my name's not on the chart anymore, so
I have to payfull price for my lunch. My parents are trying to straighten things out." [S]
One factor inhibiting follow-up on the status of an application and further complicating an understanding
of the root of these information problems, particularly in Site D, is the pervasive belief by parents that
school personnel are not concerned about the children. This feeling was reinforced when they learned,
with what they perceive as little or no notice, that their children would no longer receive free meals.
"They don't care, but until the paperwork is completed, they shouldfeed the fads." [P]
"That's not right. You shouldn 't have to have the child pay. I thought that was so mean
of them not to feed a child. You can 7 get no lower than that. Are you going to deny a
kid a meal...in elementary school? [P]
"You have to keep in mind the area where you are. We're in the projects, and there is
no concern or care. Those who are in charge of the meal program and nutrition don't
care about kids. You only hear about the program at the beginning of the school year." fP]
Across sites, parents report, and school food service personnel confirm, that only limited assistance is
provided to families in completing the application—and that parents must be proactive in asking for
assistance. There is also little follow-up activity, and this is usually for previously approved students
only. When more vigorous follow-up efforts art provided, they are aimed at elementary rather than
secondary school students. A very few parents suggest that there should be more follow-up because
parents may just forget to apply because the application may be overlooked in the extensive paperwork
requirements at the start of the school year.
"You get a packet and ifyou can 'tfill it out, tough." [P]
"At the beginning of the school year, you 're bombarded with so many papers." [P]
Chapter Three: Findings , 3-7
11>
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
Eligibility Status
Despite the above issues regarding approval status, the majority of parents across all sites are aware of
their eligibility status; however several in each site perceive that they are ineligible because their income
exceeds the limit.
"The last two years I'm not eligibleforfree or reduced meals. In the application form,
they show you the limits, so I had been on it and they questioned me this year, but I'm
not eligible." [P]
"Most of the teachers were aware of ourfinancial situation and they saw that I got the
application. They also give you the application at enrollment. The lady in the cafeteria
called me personallyjust to see ifI wanted to go ahead and send it in, but I knew we had
exceeded the income level. I appreciated the follow-up they did in calling." [P]
Regardless, uncertainty with respect to eligibility status is not a key consideration for parents, including
those who believed themselves to be currently eligible, in their decision not to apply for school meal
benefits. What is of more importance in their decision are concerns about the quality and variety of the
food served and issues regarding stigma. These will be discussed in detail in subsequent sections.
Question: How important are administrative constraints in potentiaHy-cUgibie families*
decision not to apply for school meal benefits?
Finding; Administrative constraints do not appear to be a majorfactor in non-application
for school meal benefits. Across all four sites, neither an unwillingness to comply
with the requirementsof the application process, concerns about income
verification, nor pasi application experience played a major role in the decision
not to apply for the school meal program. In the two <iitcs where income
verification played a very minor role in non-application, the issue was one of
perceived invasion of privacy. However, parents committed to receiving benefits
are willing to provide documentation.
Chapter Three: Findings p 3S
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
Discussion:
Income Verification
Across all sites, potentially-eligible non-applicant parents and students are generally aware that approval
for school meal benefits may require some kind of information regarding their income, and most do not
perceive this requirement negatively. However, many are unaware that some families get contacted to
provide verification of the income information they supplied at application. For families who have
received benefits of any kind in the past and/or intent on receiving school meal benefits in particular,
providing verification of income is not a barrier to application. What is important is having their childien
eat.
"I can t remember if they verified our income. I think I had to supply check stubs. I
think there was a placefor listing work information, and the Social Security number, so
if they wanted to check they could. But I don't remember anybody calling. I wasn 't
aware that they check on some people." [P]
"Someone reads it. Someone has to determine whether you need it. I don't think just
anybody can walk off the street and read it, just certain authorities. I never went to the
office and asked about this though." [S]
For a very few families in Sites A and C, having to provide any kind of information regarding income
is perceived as an invasion of privacy and potentially discourages families from applying.
"I'm pretty sure that we would qualify, but they ask so many questions. It's not worth
the trouble." [P]
In Site B in particular, verification of income may present a barrier to application due to immigration
issues. Of note is that this issue was not raised by the parents or students themselves, but by school food
service and school personnel.
Previous Application and Denial
Potentially-eligible non-applicants do not report being previously turned down for school meal benefits,
nor do they believe that such a situation would have any bearing on non-application. Some non-applicant
high school students, however, suggest that this may be an issue in non-application.2
"Maybe they tried before and didn 't get it, so they get tired of trying." [S]
2This sentiment was also voiced by parents in the pre-test site.
Chapter Three: Findings 3-9
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
Perceptions of the School Bureaucracy
Except in Site D as discussed in the previous section on lack of information, in general, non-applicants
do not have a negative view of the school bureaucracy.
Direct Certification
Direct certification is not currently used by Site A but it is used in the other three sites. School food
service personnel report that direct certification has increased application rates, as well as decreased
processing time.
Question:
Finding;
How important is the quality and variety oj'foodserved'in the decision not to
apply for school meal benefits?
The perceived quality and variety ofthefood served is a key factor injamiues'
decision not to apply for school meal benefits. Across all four sites, student
influence in the application decision-making process is primary with regard to the
food served is the pattern meal. Students present numerous complaints about the
food and report to parents that they wit] net eat it. The key complaints center
around two areas:
• food preparation, and
• food choices.
Consequently, parents decide not to apply.
Discussion:
Perceptions of the Food Served
Across all four sites, high school non-applicant students report that the preparation of the food and the
choices offered in the pattern meal are deterrents to their participation in the school meal program. And
lack of student participation is a key factor in all parents' decision not to apply for meal benefits. Parents
report that they do not want to apply and "waste money," if their children do not eat the food.
"My daughter doesn 't like thefood and won't eat it, so Ipack her lunch to make sure she
eats it." [P]
Chapter Three: Findings
T>\
3-10
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
The primary concerns about food quality include:
• poor taste,
• cold or undercooked,
• overcooked,
• too greasy,
• unfamiliar seasonings, and
• unappealing presentation.
"I don't like lunch—it's cold and greasy. It tastes likes it's been cooked, then frozen,
then recooked. Like it's been savedfrom day to day. The bread is stale." [S]
"Tue food is too greasy; it's cold; and the onions and pepper are cut in too big of
chunks. The potatoes don't taste good. And I worked in institutionalfood settings and
there's only one reason for that and that is they didn 't prepare it right." [P]
"The food doesn 't stay warm because they don't have any steam tables or warming lights
or anything." [P]
"I've eaten with my children at times. And their biggest complaint is about the
seasoning. I season differently. They tell me it tastes "yucky" and it was really bland.
It's just differentfrom the taste they 're used to at home. And when kids get used to one
taste at home, they just don't like others. It was the same when I went to school." [P]
Parents' issues about the quality of the food ranges from concerns that their children will not eat to fears
that by eating the food, their children may become sick.
"My daughter has a sensitive stomach and if there's something that looks like it will
disagree with her, she won't eat it. And if she's not eating lunch, there's no nutrition.
It's a real concern. She has often said she will buy lunch and when she gets there, it
doesn't look good, so she won't eat it." [P]
"My kids got sickfrom thefood. It is not cooked well, especially the hamburger—it's too
greasy. Also the seasoning was not right." [P]
In addition to concerns about the quality of the food, students and parents report that the variety and
choices offered play a part in whether students eat at school or avail themselves of other meal
alternatives. Parents, particularly those in Site B, perceive that students' taste in food is directly related
Chapter Three: Findings 3-11
3J.
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
to eating habits developed at home and that offering more choices would allow students to select and
customize their meals.
"My child goes through the calendar andpicks the things he likes. The ones he doesn 't
like, he crosses off. And that's OK with us, because he has pretty good eating habits." [P]
"When my son checks the menu and sees pizza for the next day, he says: 'Mama, no
Iwch box." [P]
"W« are accustomed to a food that is very differentfrom what they have in school. So,
eating at school is not a privilege. We raise our kids so that ifthey don't like something,
they can have something else, or ifthey are hungry, we make them what they want to eat.
The problem is that they can't choose what they want to eat in school." [P]
Of note, is that the quality and variety of the food served at breakfast is perceived to be superior to that
served at lunch.
"They like the breakfast choices much better than the lunch." [PJ
"The breakfast food is better—it's better prepared and there are lighter choices, like
cereal." [P]
"When they sell the things in the packages for breakfast—that's all right. But their stuff
looks gross. I don't know how it tastes. There's people in the line, so obviously
somebody likes it." [SJ
"I've eaten the breakfast and lunch myselfand the breakfast is a lot better. It was more
appetizing. At lunch, thefood doesn't taste good. Maybe because it sits around longer
than the breakfastfood." [P]
While a few high school students expressed concerns about the portion sizes, this does not appear to be
a barrier to application.
"The portions are real skimpy." [S]
"It's not worth $1.15. You 're still hungry after Latch." [S]
Comparison of Pattern Meals to Meal Alternatives
Across all four sites, as well as all grade levels, food alternatives to the pattern meal are perceived as
superior to the meal itself. This includes a la carte items, bringing lunch from home, or leaving campus
for lunch. Consequently, whenever possible, students tend to avail themselves of the meal alternatives.
Chapter Three: Finding! 3-12 S3
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
Parents, particularly those in Site B, who perceive the pattern meals potentially to be non-nutritious and
high in fat content, often prefer to feed their children themselves—either by packing their lunches or
feeding them meals at home.
"It's not like home. It don't taste the same. They just throw it [food] together." [S]
"I have five kids that have gone through the [Site A] system and they all say the same
thing. Going through the d la carte line is faster and they don't like the other food.
They say that food is more bland, it's not cooked the way mom cooks it. If they get a
basic item, like a hot dog or pizza, then they can't go real wrong—and that's the stuff
on the d la carte line. The stuff on the other line is a main dish is usually a casserole,
fruit, milk, a hot roll. I used to work in the school cafeteria and I ate lunch everyday,
and basically, it was OK. You aren 't supposed to season it that much or maybe they just
season it differently, or because ofbudgetary reasons, they may not have the kinds of cuts
of meats, or the vegetables may be canned instead offrozen. And people may just not
have acquired a taste for the kinds offoods they serve." [P]
Of note is that the concept of quality often has different meanings to parents and students. Where parents
perceive quality to mean nutritious, well-prepared or tasteful, or better cuts of meat or fresher vegetables,
students often perceive quality in terms of their preference for fast-food items.
"In the d la carte lines they have the popular foods like Joritos. Inside [the pattern
meal] it doesn 't look good or taste good." [S]
"Thefood in the lunch line doesn't look as good as the food in the snack lines." [S]
While not reported to be a barrier to participation, and hence application, some high school non-applicant
students in Site B perceive that the meals provided to teachers are superior to those available to the
students.
"The teachers get goodfood. Isaw them walking with mixed vegetables and chicken and
it looked good. Supposedly the students are supposed to get healthy food, but the
teachers get better food." [S]
Suggested Changes in the Foods Served
Not surprisingly, given the above comments by parents and students, a number of suggestions are
presented for improving the foods served in the school meal programs. These include:
Chapter Three: Findings 3-13
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
altering practices for preparing the food and handling food to ensure that it is
appropriately cooked and served warm, and appears appetizing;
"They need to improve the quality of thefood and the way it is prepared. That
might get more kids to eat it." [P]
serving preferred foods more often and in larger portions;
"Most of the kids like the chef salad. But they only have it on days that we like
the main meal, like when they have pizza. On Mondays, when we hate thefood,
they usually don't have chef salad." [S]
serving foods that are nutritious or have lower fat content, such as salad bars;
"I would eat if there was a salad bar and if the vegetables were fresh and not
leftovers. The salads in the cafeteria—the lettuce is old." [S]
"In the past were concerned about eating healthyfood, then injunior high school
wanted to eat junk food, now in high school want to eat healthy food again. If
I don't get my breakfast in the morning then I don't get to eat till 6:30 because
ofsports, so ifI don't eat something at lunch I get sick at practice. I go through
the lines—it's not all junkfood, there's pizzas, hamburgers out there." [S]
offering more variety; and
"I want more choices for my children to eat, because I'm concerned about the
fat content." [P]
"They only have one thing for lunch everyday. If you want to eat, you
have to take it." [S]
serving fewer pre-packaged and frozen foods and more that are "homecooked."
"To improve it, you could make the food yourself—put it together yourself,
instead of buying it pre-made and processed. Throw the left-overs away. The
hamburger patties sit in a bowl of water and soak it up. At a fast-foodplace, it
might be pre-prepared, but they cook it right then and there." [S]
Chapter Three: Findings . g- 3-14 Y~>
School Lunch Eligible Son-Participants Study
Question:
Finding:
"I How important are structural barriers in the decision not to apply for school meal
benefits?
While structural barriers—particularty the time allotted to eat lunch—contribute to
the decision not to apply for school meal benefits, they are not in and of
themselves akeya^vef^^non^^Ucatton decision. Insufficient time to go
through the line and cat, particularly at lunch, is another reason why students do
not participate in the pattern meal program and choose meal alternatives, when
available. Similar to findings regarding the quality arid variety of food served,
student non-participation directly influences parents' non-application decisions.
Discussion:
Meal Schedules and Time Allotments
Breakfast and lunch are served at all four sites in this study, however, the times the meals are scheduled
and the amount of time allotted to go through the lines and eat varied by site and within each site by
school and meal. Therefore, perceptions of the impact of time and schedule vary drastically. In general,
there were fewer concerns expressed about breakfast schedules and times than lunch schedules and times.
Only in Site A was the morning bus schedule perceived to be a deterrent to students' eating breakfast in
school. However, late arriving students are accommodated in all sites except Site B. For the most part,
across all sites, families' own schedules or eating patterns and preferences had more of an impact on
students not eating the school breakfast.
"The youngest one ate breakfast quite a lot, but the other didn 't get to school early
enough to eat breakfast because of the bus schedule—it got her there too late to eat." [P]
"At breakfast, we're all in a hurry and one child prefers not to eat anything. The other
one drinks milk and then ifshe eats anything else, I don't carejust as long as she drinks
her milk." [P]
"In the morning, they won t eat breakfast, because they won't get up until 15 minutes
before they have to leave. 1 take them to school, so they grab something and eat it in the
car." [P]
"My kids eat breakfast at home. It's a family time; we start the day off together." [P]
Chapter Three: Findings 3-15
36
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
Regarding lunch, students and parents generally report that across all four sites, the time of the day that
lunch is scheduled is satisfactory. However, there were numerous complaints about the length of time
available to go through the line and eat. The amount of time is often confounded by:
• the number of students that need to be served,
• the length of the lines in which students are to be served,
• the numoer of periods that are established to serve them,
• and the size of the space in which they can be served and eat.
Elementary and middle school parents in Site A have concerns about what they perceive to be insufficient
time to eat lunch. Elementary school students have 20 minutes, with students who bring their lunch from
home having the greater part of the 20 minutes since they are led into the cafeteria first and do not have
to go through the line. Another elementary school reportedly allots only seven minutes for students to
eat lunch. In the middle school, 30 minutes are allotted for each of three lunch periods. However,
because of the limited size of the lunch space, this 30-minute time period is divided into two 15-minute
segments-one for boys and one for girls, with each gender being dismissed to lunch first on alternating
weeks. Parents who are concerned about the length of the lunch period believe that being forced to eat
quickly leaves many children hungry, forces them to eat unbalanced meals, and also leads to bad eating
habits later in life. Increasing the length, however, is not perceived as sufficient to increase participation,
unless the meal choices are desired ones.
"We wanted to see if our kid had a justifiable reason—we didn 't believe she only had 20
minutes so I went to eat with her. She leaves her classroom at 11:35 and by 11:55
they 're on the playground." [P]
"The time they have to eat is a big problem. ... They end up dumping it. Even if you
pack it and they leave their classroom late, they don't have enough time to eat a packed
lunch. So they come home in the afternoon and their lunch becomes an afternoon
snack." [P]
"My childfinally suggested to me that she bring her lunch because she's a slow eater and
she wasn 't getting enough time." [P]
"Twenty minutes is too short, but if it were lengthened to 30 minutes, that would not
increase participation, unless there's something on the menu they like." [P]
Chapter Three: Findings 3-16
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
Long lines often drive students to the a la carte lines so they can assuage their hunger more quickly, have
more time to socialize with their friends, and be assured of the availability of the foods they like.
"If you arrive late to the lunchroom, the lines are so long that there's not enough time
to eat and visit with your friends." [S]
"My daughter says that the ones who eat first eat well, and the last ones eat food that is
not good anymore." [P]
"Juniors don't eat in the cafeteria, they go through the lines. It gets too crowded in the
cafeteria, the lines are too long. All the bestfood is gone, by the time you get to it. All
you get is the leftovers. The one time I went through the line, I was near the end and by
the time I got to the food, there was hardly anything left to choose from." [S]
"There is not enough time to eat your food. You have to eat it in a hurry before class
starts. 35 minutes is not enough time. You can go through the snack lines faster and
there are a lot of lines." [S]
"You 're hungry and your stomach is growling, so you make for the snack lines to get
something to eat quickly. And when you're hungry you can't concentrate in class and
you fall asleep." [S]
In general, for lunch, 45 minutes is perceived as an adequate amount of time to go through the line and
eat at the high school level, and 30 minutes at the middle and elementary school level. Of course, these
times assume that the four factors identified above are adequately addressed.
Space
As noted above, space often goes hand in hand with scheduling times to eat meals, with lunch in all sites
being served in shifts to accommodate the number of students and the size of the space available. In the
Site D high school, the small size of the cafeteria is perceived to produce hostility and fighting.
In Site B, all eating space at all school levels is outside and parents express concerns about the space,
especially in inclement weather.
"It's a big place and the children come in groups. When it's raining or when it's too
hot, the children can't eat outside." [P]
Chapter Three: Findings 3-17
32
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
In the Site A high school, however, students cite recent improvements in the space over the previous
year.
"There are more places to sit this year. This was a classroom last year." [S]
Question: How important is perceived stigma in the decision not to apply for school meal
benefits?
Finding: Perceived stigma is a majorfactor in non-applicationfor school meal benefits. In
three of the four sites, perceived stigma is a substantial barrier to application for
school meal benefits —both among students and parents. It is a stronger issue,
however, for parents than for students. And among students, perceived stigma is
clearly an issue for high school students, and clearly not an issue for elementary
school students. In die fourth site, which experienced homogeneity with regard to
receipt of other income-conditioned benefits, stigma is not an issue. Of note is
that while the importance of stigma in non-application varies across the four sites,
the variation did not appear to correspond directly to differences in the economic
profile of die sites, but rather to differing perceptions of the school meal
programs. Parents values and attitudes toward their own as well as governmental
responsibilities are important factors in their perceptions of die programs and are
not consistent across sites or income categories.
Discussion:
Perceptions of the School Meal Program
Parents' perceptions of the school meal programs are closely connected to their perceptions of themselves.
Parents in Site A, which is economically divided between the "haves" and the "have nots," perceive the
school meal program very positively in the abstract—it is a nutrition program. This is especially notable
in their perception of the breakfast program.
"They started the breakfast program because there were so many parents working outside
the home and it is a way that kids get a nutritious breakfast and it eases tensions in the
mornings in rushing around. And the schools are open in the mornings so the kids are
supervised and the parents can get off to work." [P]
7 think it also started along when mothers started working a lot. It used to be that
mothers would be home to provide the meal. There was never the problem about not
having the time to get up and do all the things that you needed to do. But as a working
mother and a single parent, there's not that much time. So the program is goodfor that
point to." [P]
Chapter Three: Findings
:)i
3-18
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
Site A parents' perceptions of the school meal program as a nutrition program extend'-, however, only
to those who can afford to pay for it or who do not purposely shirk their responsibility for taking care
of their children. Once people get it for free or at a reduced price, it .ccomes a financial assistance
program—one that is not for them, unless dire financial straights force them into accepting help.
"I think it is a nutrition program. The way I look at both me breakfast and lunch
program, for some kids, that's all they get. Some parents are so neglectful [emphasis
added] that the kids have tofendfor themselves. Some kids arefortunate enough to have
parents who take care of them, but for the others, if it weren 't for the school meal
program, they wouldn 't eat." [P]
"As an adult, I always thought of the program as providing a nutritional meal for kids
whose parents could not afford to feed them [emphasis added]. This was one way to
assure they got one properly balanced meal a day. [P]
"We were on it when we had extraordinary medical bills and were eligible." [P]
In Site C, which is economically heterogeneous, parents do not perceive the NSLP and SBP as positively
in the abstract as do those in Site A. To them, they are nutrition programs specifically designed to serve
lower income households. Some parents define the public perception of program recipients as "poor
people." While most parents view the free and reduced-price meals as both a welfare and a nutrition
program, some refer to it as a "handout."
"/ think most people think of those who are on it as poor people." [P]
"It provides meals for those who may not be eating otherwise—like children from low
income families." [P]
"If my kids were starving, I'd send them up here to get it, but as long as we can find
some way to pay it, well, they 're not going to be taking a handout." [P]
In Site B, which is homogenous with regard to ethnicity and income, parents refer to the "shame" in
taking the free lunch and not being able to feed their children. Furthermore, they feel strongly that it
is their responsibility to feed their children, not the schools—and, that they can do it much more
nutritiously. While not perceiving the school lunch program as a "welfare" program per se, they do
perceive that any program sponsored by the government should only be used when absolutely necessary,
as government programs are so commonly abused. They are against receiving welfare and food stamps
and see stigma in both.
Chapter Three: Findings 3-19
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
"If they are in charge of the school lunches, then they should also see to it that the food
they are providing isfood the kids will eat, so there won't be so much waste. If the kids
don't eat it, they 're not getting nutrition. So if they eat at home, i know the food will be
nutritious." [P]
"The responsibility of feeding my child is mine, but ifthe school is going to get involved,
then it is their responsibility to serve something better." [P]
"I'm against the government programs, because people abuse them." [P]
"It is in the conscience of each family as to whether they choose to ask for help. Some
people are really in need—like a poor widow with a lot of children and who is sick with
diabetes and cannot work. I see other families with jobs and only a few children who
have food stamps." [P]
"I was given some food stamps to pay for some tamales at a church carnival, and I
brought them home and put them on my dresser. When my sister saw them, she said:
"You get these? That's shameful." [P]
Parents, however, in Site D, which is racially and economically homogeneous, do not perceive stigma
to be an issue in non-application, primarily because so many children receive meal benefits. This site
is very similar to that of the pre-test, which also found similar results with regard to stigma.
"It's so popular. ... More people get it than don't. Now everybody gets it, so it's nothing
to be ashamed of." [P]
"It makes a difference in the area that you live in. In this area, I think about 80% get
it, so it's not that big of a ridicule kind of thing for my kids." [P]
Non-applicant high-school students' perceptions of the role stigma plays in the decision not to apply for
meal benefits mirrors that of their parents. Students in Sites A, B, and C, while aware that all students,
regardless of income, may participate in the NSLP and SBP, perceive that the school meal program is
for low income families. They talk about feelings of embarrassment and how these feelings can prevent
students from eating even if they're hungry.
"The ones who get it for free are the ones who are having a hard time. Their parents
don't make enough money, so they need help." [S]
"You could tell by looking who gets free and reduced by their appearance. They don't
have the best clothes." [SJ
Chapter Three: Findings H 3-20
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
"You keep it to yourself if you get it for free. So many people are embarrassed to tell
others that they get their lunch free. It's embarrassing because the people who are on
it are the ones who don't have that much money." [S]
"It doesn 7 matter what time breakfast is served. If you came early and you were by
yourself, you wouldn 't want to be seen eating by yourself. They make fun of you eating
breakfast if you 're by yourself." [S]
"Some people are just too resistant. They have too much pride to eat it. They would
rather not eat lunch and be hungry than be seen eating lunch." [S]
"Hunger never wins out over embarrassment, unless you 're really starving. A growling
stomach where you know you'll eat at dinner, you just won't eat lunch." [S]
"Nowadays, everybody is surrounded around money, and if you don't have it you might
feel left out." [S]
"Some kids look down on people who don't have a lot of money and think they 're
worthless." [S]
These students also agree that stigma was less of an issue in earlier grades, when everyone, regardless
of income participated in the program, and when "getting something for free" was perceived more
positively than paying.
Furthermore, in Site A, because of the extreme distinction between the "haves" and the "have nots" and
the intense pressure to fit in, students perceive that there is stigma directed to all students who participate
in the school meal program, regardless of income. Any student who takes the school lunch is perceived
as "not popular." Leaving campus for lunch is the thing to do.
"The kids that go out [to eat]—they 're part of the in-crowd. They 're smart, they dress
well, and they have lots offriends." [S]
"The kids that stay in [to eat]—well, they can be from a bad environment or get into
trouble, like selling drugs, or they can be studious and want to stay in and study, or they
may stay in because they don't have anybody to go out with." [S]
"Even if some kids are eligible, they may not want to take it because they think they 're
just too cool, or others may not want to be seen with those who do take it because they
want to fit in." [S]
Chapter Three: Findings 3-21
School bunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
Interestingly, some high school non-applicant students in each of tnese three sites do perceive that
students who do eat the school meals are those who have pride in themselves, do not care what others
think, or are part of a group in which it is socially acceptable to eat the school meal.
"The students that eat it have pride in themselves and don't care what anybody else
thinks." [S]
"Some of the kids who get the lunch are not ashamed to get it; maybe they 're smart
enough to know they 're saving money doing it." [S]
"If you 're in a group, you '11 eat it. Because you 're part of a group, you won't care if
people make fun of you because you have your own group to be with." [S]
Students in Site D, however, perceive free meals as more desirable than paying and do not report the
embarrassment of students in the other sites.
"Everybody wants free lunch." [S]
"Feel embarrassed? They're crazy if they do." [S]
Confidentiality of the Application
Confidentiality of the application is not a major issue for parents in Sites A and D. Most report that if
they are in a situation that necessitates asking for help, all they want is the help and they are less
concerned about who knows than about getting the help.
"Confidentiality wasn 't an issue. At that time, we needed help so bad that I didn 't care
if I had to publicize it. It might have caused my daughter embarrassment. But when
you 're in that position where you know that you can't provideforyour kids what they can
get at school, it's a big help, because that's just one less thing you have to worry about." [P]
Parents in Sites B and C, however, perceive confidentiality of the application to be an issue that may
discourage application and participation by eligible households.
"Now they know. It used to be 'hush-hush.' I don't know how they find out, but they
do."\?)
"This is a very small town and I guarantee you.. .you go to the [grocery store] and people
say 'Look at her. She's buying steaks and her kids get free lunch.' It's small. It's got
it's bitterness, its good and bad points, but it's small." [P]
Chapter Three: Findings 3-22
43
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
Anonymity of the Ticketing System
Anonymity of the ticketing system is of concern in Sites A, B and C, however the perception of
anonymity sometimes differs between parents and students. Additionally, anonymity of the ticketing
system does not appear to be an issue at the elementary school level, since practically all students
participate in the school lunch program at this level in the four sites visited.
While secondary school parents in Site A are concerned that their children will be identified as receiving
school meal benefits, and therefore face stigma from their peers, they do not perceive that the automated
meal card identifies free and reduced priced students. They especially cite how the current system is an
improvement over past systems in which students could easily identify the free and reduced-price students
by the color of the ticket.
"Now they just stick it into a machine, where before, it was a paper ticket." [P]
"Years ago, you used to know the kids who were getting free lunches. And I never
thought that was right. The tickets were different colors. Now they all have the same
computerized cards and no one knows ifyou 've sent money to school or not. So the kids
don't give the kids such a hard time about it and I think that's good because I think the
children, of anyboth, needs to eat the meals." [P]
"They always kind of kept it low-key and the schools were good about that too. So
according to the ticket, there really wasn't a way to identify which children were
receiving the free lunch or the discount lunch. I think when wefirst moved here, there
was a different ticket for each category and the kids could tell and then theyfinally picked
up on the idea that this was making the kids feel inferior or upset so they wouldn 't use
the ticket because the other kids would know they were gettingfree lunch. We have a lot
of very wealthy people in [Site A] and we have a lot ofpeople who are not wealthy and
so everybody wants to be together. But ifyou 're identified as one or the other, then how
are you going to fit in. That's what the kids think." [P]
"The best thing we did was to be discrete, so the kids didn 't have to let a lot ofpeople
know they were on it. When we first started on it, my kids would lose their tickets on
purpose, because the color would let other kids know they were on it." [P]
High school non-applicant students in Site A, however, report that just having a ticket, regardless of free,
reduced- or full-price status, stigmatizes students. If a student wants to eat the school lunch, paying cash
in the acceptable mechanism.
Chapter Three: Findings 3-23
School Lunch Eligiblt Non-Participants Study
"My daughter thinks that if she takes advantage of the free or reduced meals and the
others know about it, she gets this peer pressure and they think less of her because she
cannot afford to pay the full price. Just by using the card, kids will think she's getting
the meals forfree. "[P]
Some secondary school parents in Site B perceive that the ticketing system does not maintain the
anonymity of students receiving free and reduced price meals. They perceive that there are different line
for free and reduced price students.
"There are different linesforfree and reduced price tickets. When I was a student, there
was a single line." [P]
Universal Free Meals
The concept of universal free meals met with mixed responses across sites and by parents and students.
Parents in Site A do not perceive that universal free meals will increase application/participation rates.
They cite lack of freedom of choice as being a deterrent to the success of universal free meals.
"Truthfully, it would not make a difference. You will always have those who will bring
somethingfrom home. The only way you could do that is ifyou had one lunch line, just
the hot meals, or don't give them too big of a choice and tell them they can't bring
anything from home. When I was in grade school, if you had to bring somethingfrom
home, it was almost like a disgrace. Now, it's the thing. I think it's because they think
it's their choice. They get to chose what they bring. Where the change came, I don V
know." [P]
Parents in Site C, however, perceive that universal free meals could potentially help alleviate stigma and
increase application/participation rates.
Interestingly, high school non-applicant students in Sites A, B and C perceive that universal free meals
could help counteract the negative impact of stigma and potentially increase participation. Howcer,
other factors, such as menu choices and amount of time to eat would be other important considerations
in a students decision to eat lunch on any given day.
"Students would take it. I would, so you could save the money so parents could spend
it on other things." [S]
"Yes, more people would eat it." [S]
Chapter Three: Findings
^
3-24 I
School lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
"If they raise the income level, then more people would qualify and those students who
are embarrassed wouldn 'tfeel singled out because a lot ofpeople would be on it." [SJ
Children's Role in Parents' Decision-Making Process
Across all sites, parents and students alike report that students play a major role in their parents' decision
to apply for school meal benefits, and that stigma, particularly at the secondary school level, is a key
factor in that decision.
"My son asked me not to apply because other students made fun of him. He still eat at
school, but we pay full price." [P]
"I've never done it because my kids say they don't want to eat at school. We get it once
in the beginning of the year in the packet and I ask them if they want to do it and they
say they want to take their lunch." [P]
7 look at the form, see if it applies and if it does apply I ask my kids and we go from
there." [P]
"When we received the applications at the beginning of the year, I asked my children if
they wanted lunch tickets and they said 'no, we won't eat it.' So we didn 't apply." [P]
However, many students report that they really do not talk to their parents much about the school meal
program—they just tell them outright not to apply because they will not eat.
7 said something to my parents about the construction when they redid the whole
cafeteria. But it's not something I talk to them about. I ate it last year and they asked
me if I liked it and I said no." [S]
"You tell your parents not to apply, even ifyou 're eligible, because you don't want to be
embarrassed." [S]
" You start telling your parents not to apply when you enter high school. You say you just
won't eat it." [S]
Aspects of Stigma
Interestingly, stigma has many facets to it. Some parents express it in terms of being embarrassed at not
being able to provide for their children financially.
My situation is just slightly different. We were two working parents and we were still
eligible forfree meals at one time. And we were hard working people and we were still
eligible. It's like my mother used to talk about the Depression all the time saying we
can't afford this or that and my kids were still saying that until just recently." [P]
Chapter Three: Findings 3-25
96
School Lunch EligibU Non-Participants Study
"I don't want my kids to look down on a kid that takes it, but I want to be proud that my
kids don't have to." [P]
"I'm thinking about people who could qualify for reduced, but didn 't take it. I wonder
if certain ones, who have never had welfare, and even though to some degree we may
qualify >. e don't want to take advantage of it. I think there's still a stigma attached to
it, and regardless of where you 're at and your tax dollars pay for it, to some degree it's
still a stigma." [P]
Others express it in terms of fears of being criticized for not being "good" parents and or "abusing the
system."
"Being on welfare, or partial welfare, I don't think I'd like that. You hate to categorize
and see how some people are always on welfare and abuse the system and we don't want
to abuse it or even be recipients of it, because we don't feel like we should." [P]
"Some people have children just so they can receive assistance and not work." [P]
Much of the discussions focused on parents' perceptions of the school meal benefits as being for the poor,
and that just applying for (or receiving meal benefits) is associated with being poor. Therefore, in the
lower cor,t-of-living Sites A and C, some parents express stigma in terms of surprise and resentment at
being financially eligible for a program associated with the poor, when they themselves are working and
earning what they consider to be a "middle-class income," and view themselves as being financially able
to feed their children.
"This year, the income levels were really high. It has over $30,000 for a 5-member
family. I was surprised you coiid make so much money and still quality." [P]
"We qualifiedfor the reduced rate, but didn't sign up for it. We had the money in our
budget to payfull price so we made the decision not to apply and let someone who really
needs it have it. The difference between full and reduced was so minimal anyway $. 10
or $.20. But we haven't looked at it in several years." [P]
"When my kids first started school we looked at it and qualifiedfor reduced, but we were
able to pay for it, so we didn't apply and I haven't checked since." [P]
"We qualified before I went back to work, I just felt there were children who needed it
i,.ore than mine did. I could afford to payfor my kids." [P]
FACTORS AFFECTING NON-PARTICIPATION
This section discusses the factors affecting non-participation in the NSLP and SBP among students who
are approved for school meal benefits. Students must decide on a daily basis whether or not to participate
Chapter Thru: Findings 3-26
Hi
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
in the lunch and breakfast programs. This study recruited focus group participants on the basis of their
participation in the lunch program. Students completed a brief questionnaire indicating the number of
days in the last full school week that they participated in the NSLP. Any student that did not participate
on all five days (excluding days absent) was classified as a non-participant for purposes of this study.
Among the focus group participants, 40 percent did not participate on any of the days that they were in
school during the reference week. At the other extreme, 28 percent participated in the NoLP on all but
one day (see Appendix B). This strategy enabled the study to identify the reasons wl some students
occasionally do not participate in the program, while at the same time identifying the reas >ns why some
students never participate in the program. It also enabled the study to identify the reasons why some
students participate in the lunch program, but not in the breakfast program. The findings are grouped
by the major topics discussed in the focus groups with nonparticipating students: quality and variety of
food, structural barriers, and perceived stigma. As noted in the previous section, non-application is
strongly related to nonparticipation. Therefore, many of the issues raised in nonparticipant focus groups
were similar to those discussed in student nonapplicant focus groups.
How important is the quality and variety of food served in the decision not to
participate in the school nutrition program?
Finding: The perceived quality and variety ofthe food served is a key factor in students'
decisions not to participate in the school nutrition program. Across all four sites
and grade levels, the perceived poor food preparation and lack of desirable food
choices drives students to select other meal alternatives. In general, although
participation in the breakfast program is lower than in the lunch program,
perceptions of the quality and variety of food served in the breakfast program are
more favorable.
Discussion:
Perceptions of the Food Served
Although the general consensus about the quality and variety of the food served is unfavorable across
sites, there is some variability with regard to the intensity of the unfavorable reviews. Other than the
perception in some sites that the food served at breakfast was better prepared and offered more desired
choices than that served at lunch, no other consistent conclusions can be drawn either across site or grade
level.
Chapter Three: Findings 3-27
H'6
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
In Site A, perceptions of the quality and selection of the food offered in the SBP and NSLP are primarily
unfavorable in all three schools, and was the foremost reason for non-participation among elementary
school students, who only had two choices for breakfast and lunch everyday.
In Site B, the key concerns are the quality of the food preparation rather than the variety of foods served.
However, elementary school students do complain about lack of choice at lunch, and middle school
students report the frequent unavailability of desired food items at lunch.
"Sometimes you want something, like a hot dog, but there's none left when you get your
turn."
In Site C, students in both elementary and secondary schools have mixed reactions to the quality and
variety of the food in the SBP and NSLP, with the key concerns being food preparation and unfamiliar
foods.
"For breakfast sometimes they have green stuff and red stuff and eggs. I don't know
what it is and kids don't want to eat it."
"They have something called 'mystery meat.' I'm not going to eat that. If I don't know
what it is, I won't eat it."
In Site D, perceptions of the quality and variety of foods served in the SBP/NSLP differ to some degree
between programs and grade levels. Middle school students tend to be most critical while elementary
school students were somewhat less critical. Reactions to the foods offered in SBP are mixed;
perceptions of the foods served in the NSLP are primarily unfavorable. Middle school students have the
least favorable reactions, and elementary school students have somewhat more positive reactions. Across
all grade levels, negative perceptions focus primarily on issues of preparation and lack of familiarity, and
secondarily on issues of choice.
Of note however, is that in Site D, middle and high school students translate perceptions of poor food
preparation into concerns about food safety and perceptions that the cafeteria staff is indifferent to their
work and uncaring about the students.
"The way the food is made makes you feel like the cafeteria staff takes no pride in what
they 're making. They don't care if we live or die."
Chapter Three: Findings , 3-28
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
"They just throw the food on the tray without even trying to separate it into the
compartments. Everything's all mixed up together."
"Sometimes they don't wear gloves and I've even found hair in myfood."
Also of note in Site D, complaints about portion sizes at lunch are an issue among high school students.
Based on perceptions of the portions as insufficient, these students believe that the price of the lunch,
whether full or reduced, is too high for the perceived value of the meal offered.
"We ain 't saying feed us no Sunday dinner. Just give us what we pay for."
As in non-application, the overall primary concerns about the food served are:
• food choices that are not reflective of the tastes or interests of children;
"Some of the stuff is not what kids like. It's more like adultfood."
"Ijust put the vegetable on my plate but I don't eat them, no matter how
good they make them. That's not the kind offood we like."
• limited choice, no variety;
"It's kind of like the army. You're always getting the same thing after
the same thing after the same thing."
"They only have one thing for lunch everyday. If you want to eat, you
have to take it."
• not freshly prepared/undercooked or cold;
"They shouldn 't prepare the food so far in advance. It doesn 't get
cooked right and doesn't lookfresh. Either it'sfrozen solid in the middle
or all soggy."
• greasy; and
"They should make thefoodfresh instead of sticking it in the microwave
where it comes out in its' cellophane wrap sitting in grease."
• unappealing taste and appearance.
"It doesn't look good and I'm not going to eat anything that doesn't look
good."
Chapter Three: Findings 3-29
5'*
School Lunch Eligible Non Participants Study
"Sometimes the food smells good and makes you hungry but it doesn 't
look good. They must spray the smell on because once you taste it you
know it can't be the food that's smelling that way."
Comparison of Pattern Meals to Meal Alternatives
As with non-application, food alternatives to the pattern meal are perceived as superior to the meal itself.
This includes, when available, k la carte items, vending machines, eating at home, bringing lunch from
home, leaviti] campus for lunch, or just not eating. However, these alternatives do not cause non-participation
per se. Rather, unappealing food and/or stigma associated with the school meal program
itself led students to prefer utilizing these other options. This generally held true across all four sites and
grade levels, with some variability noted.
7 can get the kinds of things I crave from the vending machines like cheetos or cookies
or a candy bar to get me going. They don't have these kinds of things or the kinds of
cookies and sweet things I like in the cafeteria. They just have nutri-grain bars orfruit."
Across all four sites and grade levels, food from home is perceived to be preferable to the food served
in the meal programs. Preference for eating at home is a key driver of non-participation in the breakfast
program.
"Tne only reason I don't eat breakfast in school is because I like the food better at home.
The food at school is more bad than good. I mean, they have pancakes and eggs in
school, but my father makes them at home for me and it tastes much better."
Utilization of specific meal alternatives varies by school district and grade level. In Site A, a la carte
food is perceived to be superior to the food in the pattern meal. Other than in the elementary school,
bringing lunch from home is rarely utilized as a meal alternative option by secondary students who
perceive this option as "babyish" or "for girls." At the high school level, eating lunch off-campus is the
most popular option. In comparison to the food offered in the NSLP, the food available in the fast food
restaurants frequented by these students is perceived to provide the variety and selection of food students
this age prefer.
In Site B, k la carte food items and vending machines, which are available in the high school for breakfast
and in the middle and high schools for lunch, arc perceived to offer popular items not available in the
pattern meals. In the middle school, i la carte is perceived to have more availability of well-liked items
Chapter Three: Findings 3-30
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
and is less likely than the NSLP to run out of selections. In the high school, a la carte is perceived to
offer larger portion sizes than those in the pattern meal and to provide a greater variety of items daily.
"A cheeseburger costs $1.50 at the snack bar lines and it would only cost $1.15 inside
[the pattern meal]. But the one outside [snack bar] is double the size of the burger
inside, so I'd rather spend more."
In Site C, on days in which students found the pattern meals to be appealing, other options including a
la carte, vending machines, home cooked food and food purchased outside of school tend not to be
utilized. While off-campus meals are not an option in Site C, some students purchase breakfast or lunch
off-campus and bring it to school.
In Site D, a la carte is perceived to provide popular items the t are not available in the pattern meal.
More specifically, desserts, side dishes such as french fries and salads, and beverages often supplemented
or replaced the pattern meal. Bringing lunch from home is an option most frequently utilized by
elementary school students, particularly the girls. Among middle and high school students, bringing
lunch from home is most typically associated with girls or perceived as a behavior that is more
appropriate for younger and/or less popular students.
"Some kids carry lunch boxes but they look like little babies."
"Nerds and girls bring their lunch."
Also in Site D, purchasing breakfast on the way to school is another alternative to the SBP. Restaurants
such as McDonald's, Burger King and Hardees are perceived to offer students across the grade levels the
variety and selection of foods they prefer.
Suggested Changes in the Foods Served
Students across sites and grade levels offered suggestions for improving the daily and program menus,
and those in Site A specifically expressed interest in having the opportunity to recommend and vote on
preferred menu items. In general, students suggest that:
• food should be served hot and be freshly prepared;
• food should not be greasy;
• taste should be improved;
Chapter Three: Findings 3-31
School Lunch Eligible Non-Pariicipants Study
• food should have an appetizing appearance and smell;
• more variety of foods should be available; and
• the frequency with which more popular foods are served should be increased;
Specific suggestions for changes vary by site and grade level. However, it should be noted that across
all sites, many of the items the students want added are snack or fast food items and sugary, dessert-type
items—preferences which may conflict with the program's nutritional goals and present challenges for
parents and school meal program administrators.
In Site A, elementary school students who have very little variety and choice, want the following
breakfast and lunch items added to the menus or served with greater frequency: pancakes, cinnamon
toast, doughnuts, fish sticks, hamburgers, egg rolls, corn dogs, chicken nuggets, tacos, flavored milk,
and, juice. Middle and high school students focus on revising the lunch menu to include favored snack
items such as chips, cookies, cakes and sodas and, franchised foods such as McDonald's, Domino's
Pizza, and Taco Bell.
In Site B, elementary and intermediate school students suggest adding a greater variety of daily choices
for lunch pattern meals by including the following foods and/or increasing the frequency of offering the
following well-liked items: pizza, beef and chicken hamburgers, french fries, burritos and other Hispanic
foods, fried chicken and chicken nuggets, hot dogs, franchised fast food items, and a greater variety of
desserts including Jello and ice cream. High school students, however, report that participation would
not increase even if these and other improvements to the food are implemented.
In Site C, students in all schools suggest adding a greater variety of daily choices for both breakfast and
lunch pattern meals, by including the following foods and/or increasing in the frequency of the following
well-liked items: chef salad as a daily alternative, pizza, beef hamburgers, french fries, burritos, chicken
nuggets or strips, franchised fast food items such as those from McDonald's, Taco Bueno and Arby's,
and a greater variety of beverages including fresh milk and juice, soda, punch and iced tea.
"If they changed the food, all of us would eat lunch everyday. Other kids would
too...even kids who bring their lunch would eat the school lunch."
Chapter Three: Findings _- . 3-32
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
In Site D, students suggest the following as ways of improving the daily and program menus: increase
the frequency with which popular items such as grits, sausage, eggs, biscuits, fried chicken, pizza, chef
salad and chicken nuggets are served; introduce well-liked items from the a la carte menu into the daily
menu including french fries, pickles, cakes and cookies, cinnamon rolls, flavored milk and juice; add
popular franchisee! foods and beverages such as McDonald's cheeseburgers, milkshakes and apple pie.
and sodas to the menu; and offer a second daily entree.
Additionally, improving the daily menu is perceived to require eliminating or reducing the service of
unpopular items uch as vegetables, leftovers and breakfast foods perceived to have minimal nutritional
value, like fries.
" Whoever heard of having chicken fingers andfries for breakfast. That's junk food. I
want real breakfast food, something that will stick to my bones."
Finally, in Site D, middle and high school students recommended re-instituting self-service in place of
service by the cafeteria staff as a means of increasing participation. Self-service is expected to address
concerns related to hygiene and careless service by eliminating the need for the cafeteria staff io handle
the food. In addition to hygiene, self-service is expected to address concerns related to portion size by
allowing students, rather than the staff, to determine the amount of food taken. High school students
expect that larger portion sizes will improve the perceived value of the school lunch and encourage more
students to participate.
Question: How important are structured barriers in the decision not to participate in the
NSLP/SBP?
Finding: Unlike in non-application, structural barriers do contribute to the decision not to
participate in the school meal programs. The extent that structural barriers
influence non-participation varies across sites and grade levels. In some instances
the issue is insufficient time to go through the line and eat, and in others it is meal
schedules.
Chapter Three: Findings 3-33
SH
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
Discussion:
Awareness and Promotion of the Breakfast Program
In all four sites and across all grade levels, students are aware of the breakfast program. However, other
than the distribution of applications and menus, students report that there are no real promotional efforts
undertaken with regard to the breakfast program.
Meal Schedules and Time Allotments
Structural barriers had the greatest impact on non-participation in Site B and the least impact in Site A.
In Site B, structural barriers play a significant role in non-participation in both the breakfast and lunch
programs and across all grade levels. The early schedule for breakfast is the source of the obstacles to
participation; bus or transportation schedules and amount of time allotted for the breakfast period are not.
For some elementary school children, the time is too early to arrive in school; for many intermediate and
high school students, the time is incompatible with their appetites.
7 can't eat that early in the morning. 1 don't get hungry until 10:00 o 'clock."
The middle school has a mid-morning nutrition break schedule which is compatible with students'
breakfast appetites. However, in order to be a viable substitute for the SBP, students maintain that the
break needs to be longer and offer breakfast items.
"They open the lines at nutrition break, but there's not enough time to eat. It should be
longer than 10 minutes so that kids who don't eat breakfast can eat. Also, they should
have breakfastfood at nutrition."
Across all grade levels in Site B, students do not perceive the time a'lotted to go through the line and
purchase lunch to be sufficient. For elementary school boys, the 30-minute lunch period is reportedly
not sufficient »n accommodate long meal lines and play time. The recess bell rings five minutes after the
lunch period begins and, therefore, results in non-participation for many boys who opt to play rather than
wait in line for food.
Intermediate school students are critical of the small number of lunch lines which did not adequately
accommodate the number of students. However, this does not negatively impact on participation as much
as impede students' ability to finish all the food provided in the pattern meal.
Chapter Three: Findings 3-34
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
High school students report that the time required to go through the lunch line in the NSLP is an obstacle
to participation. The delays were reportedly due to long lines in conjunction with a time-consuming
payment verification system. In Site B's secondary schools, student I.D. numbers are recorded on a
master list by payment classification. As each student passes through the breakfast or lunch line, the
cashier crosses his/her number off the list. Structural barriers are also reported for the a la carte lunch
lines; however, these barriers do not negatively impact on widespread usage of a la carte as an option,
given its preference over the pattern meals regarding food quality and variety.
In Site D, the time schedule and length of the time allotted are barriers to participation in both the
breakfast and lunch program. Elementary and high school students perceive that a longer breakfast period
could increase participation for those students who arrive late due to bus and transportation schedules,
and on those days when long lines prevent students from purchasing and eating their breakfast prior to
the beginning of class.
High school students in Site D also complain that 10:40 a.m. is too early for lunch and that 25 minutes
is insufficient time to purchase and eat their lunch. They perceive that the plating of lunch by cafeteria
staff is inefficient and cause delays that slow down the movement of the lunch line.
"The lunch line can be like 40feet long and takeforever. By the time you get yourfood
the bell rings."
In Site C, structural barriers appear to play a substantial role in secondary school student non-participation
in the breakfast program only. Middle school students perceive the short duration of the
breakfast schedule encourages alternative options including purchase of items from the vending machines
and not eating at all. High school athletes involved in early morning athletic practice miss all but a few
minutes of the breakfast period. This limited time encourages them to purchase breakfast on the way to
school.
"It's too short...that's why I don't eat breakfast in school. Most kids end up getting
Cokes to keep them going until lunch."
"Freshman and sophomores have a hard time with the breakfast schedule because of
athletics practice. They get here too late. Instead they get a bacon sandwich or a
sausage and biscuitfrom the gas station and bring it in."
Chapter Three: Findings 3-35
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
In Site A, bus or transportation schedules are only a minimal impediment to participation in the breakfast
program, and only at the elementary school level. In the high school, a lS-minute nutrition break at 9: IS
a.m has replaced the before-school breakfast. Students particularly like this arrangement because it more
appropriately matches their own internal hunger clocks. In addition, school food service personnel report
that breakfast participation has increased. Regarding lunch, while middle school students express
concerns about the long cafeteria lines, they did not feel that lengthening the time allotted to go through
the line and eat lunch would increase participation without improvements to the quality and variety of the
food served.
Space
Only in Site D, and only in the middle school, is space perceived to be a barrier to participation in the
lunch program. Middle school students complain that overcrowding in the cafeteria results in fights and
disorderly behavior among students. Enlarging the cafeteria is expected to eliminate this problem by
reducing the tension among students. As a result, students believe that the cafeteria will be perceived
as a more appealing place to eat and more students will be motivated to participate.
Question: How important is perceived stigma in the decision not to participate in the school
breakfast and lunch programs?
Finding: Perceived stigma is a major factor in non-participation by older students in both
the school breakfast and school lunch programs in some sites. The impact on
non-participation of stigma vs. food quality and variety varies across sites and
grade levels. In two of the four sites, stigma is the major factor; in the other two
sites, food quality and variety are more important. Across ail sites, stigma is
much more an issue at the high school level than at the elementary school level,
with middle school students in a transition phase regarding stigma.
Discussion:
Perceptions of the School Meal Program
In Sites A and B, stigma plays a major role in non-participation in both the school breakfast and lunch
programs, primarily at the high school level. In both sites high school students do not perceive the school
meal program to be operated strictly for the poor; however, students are aware that free and reduced
price meals are provided to lower income families. What's more, high school students present a great
Chapter Three: Findings 3-36
School Lunch Eligible Non-Participants Study
need for privacy relative to their payment status, thus indicating the existence of stigma as a factor
influencing non-participation. Notably, many high school students in Sites A and B denied being ticket
holders themselves, although they were in fact certified eligible for free or reduced price meals. For
these students, eating off-campus or purchasing items from the vending machines is inextricably linked
to portraying a self image that is consistent with and emulates the behavior of their more popular higher
income peers.
"Quite a few kids are rude. It's not what they say it's more their attitude. They act like it's a
bad thing. I don't like anyone to know that I have free lunch. It's something you don't want to
reflect on your image."
"I don't think it's all having to do with the food. I think it's also having to do with the kind of
person you are and whether you want to stay here or go out with yourfriends off campus. Going
out makes you feel better."
"Only poor people eat inside the