School food purchase study final report

              0014- A-oi A fg.z Sc«6/7IFIUAL.
USDA School Food Purchase
! Study: Final Report
October 1998
ft-°?M
USDA Unit
Dcpsrtacatof
Agricahtare
Nntritioa
Service
Office of
Analysis aad
Evaluation
School Food Purchase Study:
Final Report
September 1998
Authors:
LyaaDaft
Alyssa Arcos
AM Haflawefl
CherieRoot
Doaald W. WestfaM
Submitted by:
POMAK International
1825 PriBce Street, Suite 280
Alexandria, VA 22314
Project Director: Lyaa Daft
Office of Analysis aad Evalaatioa
USDA Food aad Notritioa Service
3101 Park Center Drive, Rooat 288
Alexandria, VA 22382
Project Officer: Jo ha R. Endahl
This stady was conducted aader Contract No. 53-3198-5-824 with the Food aad Nntritioa Service,
United States Departmeat of Agriculture.
BEST COPY AVARABI/
*
SCHOOL FOOD FLKCHASE STUDY
FINAL MEFOKT
CONTENTS
Paee
List of Tables v
Ackucwkdgments x
Executive Summary xiii
I. Introduction and Purpose of The Study 1-1
A. School Food Programs I-1
B. Purpose and Objectives ofthe Study 1-2
C. Report O Jine 1-3
IL Methodology H-l
A Sample Design and Selection 11-1
1. Sample Design II-l
2. Sampling Procedure 11-4
3. Derivation of Final Weights II-5
B. Recruitment and Training 11-6
L Recruitment 11-6
2. Training H-7
C. Data Collection and Processing 11-7
1. Food Purchases and Donations H-7
1.1 Valuing Donated Commodities 11-8
\2 Food Procurement Variables II-9
1.3 Transcription and Processing of Raw Data II-II
2. District Characteristics and Procurement Practices 11-12
2.1 Survey Collection Procedures 11-12
2.2 District Characteristics and Procurement Practices Variables 11-13
2.3 Edit Checks 11-16
D Standard Errors H-17
m. Characteristics of Public Inifkd NSLP School Districts Ill-1
A. Overall School District Characteristics III-l
PROMAR
X
SCHOOL FOOD FUMCHASE STUDY
FWALREFOMT
1. Number of Districts and Student Enrollment IH-1
2. Year-Round Operations m-7
B. Characteristics ofSchool Feeing Programs IH-10
1. Participation in NSLP and SBP ffl-10
2. Number of Lunches and Brcakiasts Served AM!
3. Meal Prices IH-13
4. The Role of a la Carte Food Saks HI-15
5. Programs Served other than NSLP and SBP m-22
6. Food Service Management Companies m-24
7. Menu Planning Systems Dl-27
8. Meal Preparation Facilities m-30
9. Miscellaneous Program Features BI-32
10. Participation in Reimbursable Lunch Programs Hl-34
IV. Market and Policy Setting IV-1
A. Market Conditions IV-2
1. The Supply/Demand Situation in SY 1996797 IV-2
2. Comparison to the Supply/Demand Situation in SY 1984/85 IV-2
B. The Policy Setting IV-4
1. The Commodity Donation Program, SY 1996797 IV-4
2. Comparison ofCommodity Donations, SYs 1984/85 and 1996797 IV-7
3. Implementation of the School Meals Initiative IV-12
4. Other Policy Changes Since 1984/85 IV-13
V. Food Acquisitions by Publk Unified School Districts V-l
A. Introduction V-l
B. Methodological Considerations V-l
C. School Food Acquisitions, SY 1996/97 V-2
1. Diversity of Foods V-10
2. Universal Appeal of Selected Foods V-10
3. Importance of Donated Commodities V-13
D. Comparison of Acquisitions in SY 1984/85 and SY 1996797 V-16
1. Overall Changes in the Composition of the School Food Market Basket . V-l7
2. Price Effect on Acquisitions V-20
3. Changes in Beverage Use V-24
PROMAR
///
SCHOOL FOOD PUMCHASE STUDY
FIHALMEFOMT
4. tocreased Acquisition of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables V-25
5. Changing Role ofDonated Commodities V-27
E. Comparison of the Mean Number ofFood Items Acquired in SY 1984/85
And SY 1996797 V-28
VI. SchMl F—d IE—1Practices VI-1
A. Food Service Decision Making VI-1
1. Vendor Selection VI-1
1.1 Responsibility for Decision VI-1
\2 Selection Criteria VI-3
2. Food Selection VI-4
2.1 Responsibility for Decision VI-4
12 Use ofProduct Specifications VI-5
B. Use ofBranded Foods VI-6
C. - ood Delivery Practices VI-9
I. Receiving Locations VI-9
D. School Food Vendors VM3
1. Number ofVendors Used VM3
2. Services Provided by Vendors VM5
E. Procurement and Pricing Methods VI-18
1. Procurement Methods VI-18
2. Pricing Methods VI-21
F. Cooperative Buying VI-24
VII. The Relationship Between School District CluracterisrJcs,
Practices, and Food Acquisitions VTI-1
A. Effect ofSchool District Characteristics on Food Costs VTI-1
1. Size of Enrollment VD-1
2. Degree of Procurement Centralization VTI-6
B. The Effect ofProcurement Practices on Food Costs VT1-8
1. The Relationship Between Food Cost and Responsibility for
Vendor Selection VTJ-8
2. The ReUtionship Between Cost Per Pound and Decision-Maker
Responsible for Food Selection VD-11
3. The Relationship Between Cost Per Pound and Procmement Method ... VU-13
PROMAR
/
SCHOOL FOODMOMSTUDY
nNALHEFOMT
4. Tlie Relatmi n Between Cost Per Pound and Pricing Method VII-16
5. The Relationship Between Cost Per Pound and PaiUcipafion in
Cooperative Buying and Use ofFood Service Management Company .. VII-20
6. The Relationship ofNumber of Food Items Procured and Food Costs
Per 1,000 Students VTI-23
Appendix A Methodology A-l
Appendix B Procurement Practices Survey B-l
AppendixC Table C-l: Top Fifty Foods by Volume and Value C-l
Appendix D Table D-l: Classification System Used in Coding D-!
Appendix E Table E-l: Top Fifty Foods by Assigned Product Category E-l
PROMAR
/
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STUDY
FINAL REPORT
List of Tables
Table 1-1 Federal Government Reimbursement Rates for the National School Lunch
Program and the School Brcakfest Pr>gr2m. SY 1996/97 1-3
Table II -1 Number of School Districts in the Sample by Region and by State II-3
Table 0-2 Allocation of Sample by Region and by Quarter II-6
Table II-3 Standard Error of Estimate for Selected Variables 11-18
Table III-1 Total Student Enrollment and Number of Public Unified NSLP School
Districts by Size of District, SY 1996797 01-2
Table III-2 Number of Schools in Public Unified NSLP School Districts by Size of
District and by Grade Category, SY 1996797 EO-3
Table III-3 Student Enrollment of Public Unified NSLP School Districts by Size of
District and Grade Category, SY 1996/97 m-4
Table m-4 Student Enrollment, Average Daily Attendance, and Average Number of
Attendees With Access to the Lunch Program in Public Unified NSLP
School Districts by Size of District and Grade Category, SY 1996/97 IU-5
Table LTJ-5 Estimated Enrollment in Public Unified NSLP School Districts by Size of
District Enrollment and by Grade Category, SYs 1983/84 and 1996/97 01-6
Table III-6 Number of Public Unified NSLP School Districts Operating Partial-Year
and Year-Round by Size of School District, SY 1996/97 ffl-8
Table III-7 Number of Schools in Public Unified NSLP School Districts Operating
Year-Round Programs, by Grade Category and by School District
Enrollment, SY 1996/97 ffl-9
Table III-8 Number of Schools in Public Unified NSLP School Districts, by Grade
Category and by Participation in School Meals Programs, SY '996/97 QI-10
Table ID-9 Number ofNSLP Lunches Served in Public Unified NSLP School Districts
by Type ofMeal and Size of School District, SY 1996/97 01-11
Table HI-10 Number of SBP Breakfests Served in Public Unified NSLP School Districts
by Type of Meal and Size of School District, SY 1996797 01-12
Table HI-11 Mean, Median, and Range of Student Lunch Prices, Full-Price and
Reduced-Price, by Size of Public Unified School District, SY 1996/97 01-14
Table 01-12 Mean, Median, and Range of Student Breakfast Prices, Full-Price and
Reduced-Price, by Size of Public Unified School District, SY 1996797 01-15
Table m-13 Use ofA La Carte Sales Among Public Unified NSLP School Districts by
Size of District, SY 1996797 01-17
PROMAR International
l/l
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STUDY
FINAL REPORT
Table ID-14 Percent of Public Unified NSLP Schools Offering A La Carte Foods at
Lunch and Breakfast, by Size of District and Grade Category. SY 1996/97 . Ill-17
Table IE-15 Number of Students in Public Unified NSLP School Districts With Access
to A La Carte Sales, by Size of School District, SY 1996797 IH-18
Table IE-16 Comparison of Sources of District Revenue in Public Unified NSLP School
Districts by Size of District, SY 1996/97 111-20
Table HI-17 Number of Public Unified NSLP School Districts Identifying Specified
Foods as One of Ten Top Selling A La Carte Food Items, by Elementary
and Middle/Secondary, SY 1996/97 111-22
Table III-18 Share of Public Unified NSLP School Districts Serving Other Programs, by
Size of District and Type of Program, SY 1996/97 111-24
Table HI-19 Food Service Management Companies Serving Public Unified NSLP
School Districts, by Size of District, SY 1996/97 ffl-25
Table IH-20 Comparison of Public Unified NSLP School Districts Under FSMC
Operation and Not Under FSMC Operation, by District Income and
Urbamcity, SY 1996/97 IU-26
Table III-21 Number of Public Unified NSLP School Districts by Type ofMenu
Planning System, SY 1996/97 IH-28
Table 111-22 Number of Schools in Public Unified NSLP School Districts by Type of
Menu Planning System and Grade Category, SY 1996/97 HI-29
Table rq-2i Number of Public Unified NSLP School District Kitchens by Type of
Kiichen and Size of School District, SY 1996/97 ID-31
Table ffl-24 Food Service Options Offered by Public Unified NSLP Schools by Size of
District, SY 1996/97 m-33
Table HI-25 Food Service Options Offered by Public Unified NSLP School Districts, by
Grade Category, SY 1996/97 ffl-33
Table 111-26 Mean Rates of Participation in the Reimbursable Lunch Programs of Public
Unified NSLP School Districts, by Meal Type and Size of School District,
SY 1996/97 m-34
Table IV-1 Comparison of Changes in Selected Components of the Producer Price
Index, SYs 1984/85 and 1996/97 IV-3
Table IV-2 Commodity Donations Through School Food Programs, FY 1980 - FY
1997 rV-5
Table IV-3 Comparison of Donated Commodities Delivered to Child Nutrition
Programs, SY 1984/85 and SY 1996/97 IV-8
PROMAR International
n
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STUDY
FINAL REPORT
Table V-1 Summary of Dollar Value ofFood Acquisitions by Public Unified NSLP
School Districts, SY 1996797 V-4
Table V-2 Summary of Volume of Food Acquisitions by Public Unified NSLP School
Districts, SY 1996/97 V-7
Table V-3 Share of the Total Value of Acquisitions for the Ten Leading Food
Categories Acquired by Public Umfitd NSLP School Districts, SY 1996797 .. V-10
Table V-4 Individual Food Items by Frr mcy of Acquisition by Public Unified
NSLP School Districts, SY 1996797 V-13
Table V-5 Share of the Total Value of Acquisitions by Public Unified NSLP School
Districts that is Accounted for by LSDA Donated Commodities and
Processed Foods Containing Donated Commodities, SY 1996797 V-14
Table V-6 Share of School Districts Acquiring Food Item that Received It as a
Donated Commodity, Selected Food Items, SY 1996/97 V-15
Table V-7 Comparison of Summary Volume of Food Acquisitions by Public Unified
NSLP School Districts, SYs 1984/85 and 1996797 V-21
Table V-8 Comparison of the Volume of Acquisitions for Mivjor Beverage Categories
in Public Unified NSLP School Districts, SYs 1984/85 and 1996/97 V-24
Table V-9 Comparison of "resh Fruit and Vegetable Acquisitions in SY 1984/85 and
SY 1996/97 V-25
Table V-10 Comparison of the Mean Number of Individual Food Items Acquired by
Public Unified NSLP School Districts, SYs 1984/85 and 1996/97, by
School District Enrollment V-29
Table VI-1 Number of Public Unified NSLP School Districts by Decision-Maker with
Primary Responsibility for Vendor Selection, by Size of School District,
SY 1996/97 VI-2
Table VI-2 Criteria Considered by Public Unified NSLP School Districts in Selecting
Vendors, SY 1996/97, by Size of School District VI-3
Table VI-3 Number of Public Unified NSLP School Districts by Decisionmaker with
Primary Responsibility for Food Selection, by Size of School District, SY
1996/97 VI-4
Table VI-4 Comparison of Public Unified NSLP School District Decisionmaker
Responsible for Selecting Food Items, SYs 1983/84 and 1996/97 VI-5
Table VI-5 Product Specifications Used by Public Unified NSLP School Districts in
the Procurement of Food, SY 1996/97 VI-6
VI PROMAR International
M\
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STUDY
FINAL REPORT
Table VI-6 Share of Public Unified NSLP Schools that Feature Branded Product, by
Size of District and Grade Category, SY 1996/97 VI-8
Table VI-7 Share of Public Unified NSLP School Districts by Form in Which They
Receive Branded Products and Size of District, SY 1996/97 VI-8
Table VI-8 Share of Public Unified NSLP School Districts that Feature Individual
Branded Foods, by Size of District, SY 1996/97 VI-9
Table VI-9 Delivery Points for Food Shipments to Public Unified NSLP School
Districts, by Food Group, SY 1996/97 VI-11
Table VI-10 Comparison of Receiving Locations of Public Unified NSLP School
Districts, SYs 1983/84 and 1996/97, by Food Group VI-12
Table VI-11 Mean Number of Vendors Used by Public Unified NSLP School Districts,
in SY 1996/97, by Food Group and by Size of School District VI-14
Table VI-12 Comparison of the Mean and Total Number of Vendors Used by Public
Unified NSLP School Districts, SYs 1983/84 and 1996/97, by Food Group VI-15
Table VI-13 Services Provided by Vendors to Public Unified NSLP School Districts, SY
1996/97 V*-16
Table VI-14 Comparison of Types of Service Provided by Food Vendors to Public
Unified NSLP School Districts in SYs 1983/84 and 1996/97 VI-17
Table VI-15 Food Procurement Methods Used by Public Unified NSLP School Districts
in SY 1996/97, by Food Group V1"19
Table VI-1 o C^nouiaau of Percent of Public Unified NSLP School Districts Using
Alternative Food Procurement Methods, SYs 1983/84 and 1996/97, by
FoodGr ip V1"20
Table VI-17 Pricing Methods Used by Public Unified NSLP School Districts in Food
Procurement, SY 1996/97, by Food Group VI-22
Table VI-18 Comparison of Percent of Public Unified NSLP School Districts Using
Alternative Methods of Product Pricing, SYs 1983/84 and 1996/97, by
FoodGroup yi'23
Table VI-19 Participation in Cooperative Buying by Public Unified NSLP School
Districts by Size of District, SY 1996/97 VI-25
Table VI-20 Comparison of Public Unified NSLP School District Participation in
Purchasing Cooperatives, SYs 1983/84 and 1996/97, by Food Group VI-25
Table VTI-1 Mean Cost Per Pound Paid by Public Unified NSLP School Districts for
Purchased Fooo-. by Food Subgroups and by Size of School District, SY
1996/97 WU'2
VH PROMAR international
/i
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STUDY
FINAL REPORT
Table VII-2 Mean Cost Per Pound of the Top Fifty Items Purchased by Public Unified
NSLP School Districts, by Size of District, SY 1996/97 VII-5
Table VII-3 Mean Cost Per Pound for the Top Fifty Foods Purchased by Public Unified
NSLP School Districts, SY 1996797, by Extent I jch Procurement is
Centralized VII-7
Table VTJ-4 Mean Cost Per Pound for the Top Fifty Foods Purchased by Public Unified
NSLP School Districts, SY 1996'97, by Decisionmaker Responsible for
Vendor Selection VII-10
Table VII-5 Cost Per pound for Foods Frequently Purchased by Public Unified NSLP
School Districts, SY 1996/97, by Decisionmaker Responsible for Food
Selection VII-12
Table VTI-6 Mean Cost Per Pound for the Top Fifty Foods Purchased by Public Unified
NSLP School Districts, SY 1996/97, by Procurement Method Used VII-15
Table VII-7 Mean Cost Per Pound for the Top Fifty Foods Purchased by Public Unified
NSLP School Districts, by Product Pricing Method Used, SY 1996/97 .... VII-18
Table VTJ-8 Percentage of Selected List of Food Items that Averaged Lowest Price ^id
Highest Price, by Method of Product Pricing. Sys 1984/85 and 1996/97 ... VII-20
Table VII-9 Cost Per Pound of Foods Frequently Acquired by Public Unified NSLP
School Districts, by Participation in Cooperative Buying and Involvement
of Food Service Management Company, SY 1996/97 VII-22
Table VII-10 Mean Cost Per Thousand Enrolled Students in Public Unified NSLP School
Districts by Number of Individual Food items Procured and by Size of
School District, SY 1996/97 VII-24
Appendices Tables
Table A-l Response Rates by Source of Data and by Quarter A-8
Table C-1 Top Fifty Foods Purchased by Public Unified NSLP School Districts in SY
1996/97, Estimated Value and Volume of National Purchases C-l
Table D-l Classification System Used in Coding A La Carte Food Items D-l
Table E-1 Top Fifty Foods Purchased by Public Unified NSLP School Districts in SY
1996/97, by Assigned Product Category E-l
viii PROMAR International
X
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STUDY
FINAL REPORT
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The success of any study of this scope is critically dependent on the voluntaiy cooperation of
study participants. The requirements of this study made this dependence all the greater and the
cooperation ofparticipants all the more crucial. Special thanks are therefor due the Directors and
staff of the participating School Food Authorities, the State Child Nutrition Agencies, and the
State Distributing Agencies.
Members of the Food and Nutrition Service Subcommittee of the Education Information
Advisory Committee (EIAC) ofthe Council of Chief State School Officers reviewed the study
instruments and methodology and made useful suggestions. This included John Perkins ofthe
Texas Education Agency, Betty Marcelynas of the Washington Office of Public Instruction,
Kathy Kuser ofthe New Jersey Department ofEducation, and Daniel McMillian ofthe Colorado
Department of Education.
The Board of Directors of the American School Food Service Association (ASFSA) provided
important support early in the study in the form of a letter of endorsement addressed to
prospective participants.
The Project Officer was John Endahl of the Office of Analysis and Evaluation of the Food and
Nutrition Service. He provided his customary insightful advice and professional direction
throughout the project As Contract Administrator, Tonia Bloss made complying with the
administrative requirements a pleasure. At several points in the study, FNS Regional Office staff
offered helpful advice and support.
The collection, transcription, and processing ofthe tens ofthousands of school food acquisition
records required by the study was expertly managed by Ann Hallowell and Cherie Root of Ender
York, Inc. They were ably assisted by Maryann Carr and by a dedicated staffofdata transcribers
that included Patricia Avery, Madeline C. Bednar, Tim Comfort, Mary E. Fisher, Melissa A.
Fisher, Sheiby Jean Frisby, Rebecca McDonald, Patricia R. Milton, Mary F. Monk, Edith Ness,
Betty A. Rotenberger, and Lucille M. Turman.
Janet McCown, an experienced food service professional, led the recruitment of study
participants. Asa M. Janncy, III ofApplied Statistical Associates, Inc. provided valued assistance
in development of the sample and other statistical tasks.
PROMAR International
x7
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STUDY
FINAL REPORT
Staff members of PROMAR International who made key contributions to the conduct of this
study were Lynn M. Daft, Alyssa Arcos, Donald W. Westfall, Donna Plamondon, and Polly A.
Rowe.
PROMAR International
in
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STUDY
FINAL REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study provides national estimates ofthe food acquisitions of public unified school districts
participating in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program
(SBP). It describes the type, quantity, and value offoods purchased by public school districts and
the relative importance of foods donated to these school districts by the US Department of
Agriculture (USDA). The study also examines procurement practices and operating
characteristics ofthese school districts and the relationship ofthese characteristics to food costs.
Data were collected from a nationally representative sample of324 unified public school districts
during School Year (SY) 1996/97. Findings are compared to the results of a similar study
conducted in SY 1984/85.
School Food Acquisitions
Food acquisitions by school districts participating in these programs were classified in one of
three categories: commercial purchases, USDA-donated commodities, or processed products
containing donated commodities. The type, volume, and frequency of USDA-donated
commodities can have an important effect on what school districts purchase locally. In addition,
variations in food purchasing behavior among public school districts can reflect many influences
including differences in local food preferences, the availability of a breakfast program, the
relative importance ofa la carte foods, as well as operating characteristics such as district size,
rates of participation, access to wholesale markets, availability of vendors, and food storage
capacity. Key findings related to the acquisition offood by NSLP school districts in SY 1996/97
are as follows:
• Unified public school districts acquired food valued at more than $4.6 billion in SY
1996/97. Of the total value of school food acquisitions, 83 percent were purchased
commercially, 13 percent were donated by USDA, and 4 percent were processed foods
containing donated commodities.
• Milk and other dairy products accounted for almost one-fourth of the total value of foods
acquired. Bakery products, red meats, poultry, fruits and fruit juices, vegetables, and
prepared foods each accounted for about 10 percent of the total value.
• School districts acquired a great diversity of food items as evidenced by the 842 different
food items obtained by the sample districts. However, ten food categories representing
less than 7 percent of the individual food items accounted for nearly half the value ofall
in PROMAR International
XIII
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STUDY
FINAL MEPOMT
school acquisitions. Fluid milk, pizza, ground beef, cheese, and potato products (frozen
and chips) were the five leading food categories by share of total value.
• For certain roods, USDA donations are the primary source of supply. USDA donations
accounted for at least halfofthe total value ot all acquisitions ofpeanuts and peanut butter,
turkey products, beef products, vegetable oils and shortening, cheese, flour, and eggs.
Comparison of SY 1984/85 and SY 199*77 Fowl Acquisitions
The last study conducted by the Food and Nutrition Se; vice to collect detailed information about
school food purchases occurred during School Year 1984/85. Since then the Department has
made a concerted effort to improve the nutritional content ofschool meals. Recent legislation
requires that school meals meet the Dietary Guidelines for Americans that call for diets lower in
fat and containing more fruits, vegetables, and grains. While it was not the intent of this study
to make an assessment of the nutritional values of foods acquired by schools, the study did
examine shifts in the type and mix offoods acquired since the previous study. A comparison of
results of the two studies reveals the following:
• There have been striking changes in the composition of die school food market basket.
Foods that experienced sharply higher rates of use include breakfast cereals, prepared
foods, yogurt, f. uit drinks, and margarine. There were significant reductions in the use of
fluid milk, butter, salad dressing and mayonnaise, vegetable oils and shortening, and lard
arid other animal fats.
• There was a dramatic change in beverage use, with the reduction in fluid milk partially
offset by large gains in the use of fruit juices, fruit drinks, carbonated beverages, and
bottled water.
• The acquisition of fresh fruits and vegetables increased with the share of total volume
rising from 5.6 percent to 12 percent A much larger variety of fresh fruits and vegetables
are now being made available through the donation program.
• The role of donated commodities has been substantially reduced over this period While
donated commodities accounted ft <r about 30 percent ofthe total value of food acquisitions
in SY 1984/85, in SY 1996/97 they accounted for less than 13 percent
PKOMAR International
XI /
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STUDY
FTNALMEPOMT
The analysis ofschool district food purchase practices provides an up-to-date profile on several
dimensions of school food procurement The purchase and acquisition of food is a complex
process that is affected by many influences including the type of food acquired and the size of
the school district Purchasing practices that are effective in one set of circumstances might not
be effective in a different set ofcircumstances. Study findings indicate the following with regard
to school food procurement practices:
• On average, public unified school districts used eight vendors to satisfy their food purchase
requirements. Large school districts with higher volume needs and access to more vendors
used three times the number of vendors than smaller districts (17 vendors to S vendors).
While price was the key consideration in vendor selection, vendor dependability and food
quality were also very important
• Methods offood procurement varied among school districts as well as by food type. With
the exception of the purchase of fresh produce, fresh meats, and snack items, a majority
of school districts used formal bidding procedures in buying their food in SY 1996/97. Of
the two formal approaches, line item bids were used by more school districts than rump
sum bids.
• The share of school districts participating in cooperative buying programs has grown
dramatically since the earlier study. In SY 1996797 over one-third of all public unified
school districts participated in cooperative buying compared to less than 10 percent in SY
1984/85. Although small school districts are the most frequent participants in cooperative
buying, almost one-fourth of the large districts took part as well. Participating districts
reported buying over 60 percent of their food purchases through cooperatives.
• The number of food service management companies (FSMCs) operating school food
programs continues to grow, accounting for almost 10 percent ofall public unified school
districts. FSMCs have concentrated their operations among mid-size school districts but
are found in districts of all sizes.
• Branded foods were offered in almost 40 percent ofall public school distncts with national
brands offered about twice as frequently as house brands (38 percent and 18 percent).
Pizza and tacos/burritos were the most prornineut national branded products while pizza
and subs/sandwiches were the most prevalent house brands.
PROMAR International
&
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STUDY
FFSAL REPORT
Relationship of School District Characteristics
and Procurement Practices to Food Costs
School feeding programs have been under continuing pressure in recent years to hold die line on
the prices they charge students, while confronted with escalating labor and food costs. When
attempting to identify purchasing practices that could possibly provide cost savings to school
districts, it is necessary to examine these relationships with caution. Observed relationships
between purchasing practices and food costs can be greatly influenced by district size or some
other variables.
Large school districts tend to pay lower per unit prices for their food. However, it is unclear if
this relationship reflects an economy of scale based on die volume of food they are purchasing,
the use of highly centralized procurement systems or formal procurement and pricing methods
typically found in large school districts, the accessibility to more vendors leading to a more
competitive marketplace, or a combination of factors. No one method produced the best cost per
^ound for all food items. It is therefore not possible to say that adopting certain purchasing
practices would necessarily lead to a reduction in food costs.
PROMAR huernaoomil
X/i
SCHOOL FOOD PVMCHASE STUDY
FINAL REPORT
L INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
A. School Food Programs
The Federal Government helps support die provision of meals to elementary and secondary
school students through two programs: the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the
School Breakfast Program (SBP). The NSLP, the larger ofthe two programs, reached an average
of 26.3 million school children each day in FY 1997; an average of 6.9 million children were
served each day by the SBP during the same period Both programs operate through public and
nonprofit private schools as well as residential child care institutions. Nearly all public schools
(about 99 percent in FY 1995) and many private schools participate in the School Lunch
Program. Fewer schools participate in the SBP than in the NSLP - 63,000 compared to 88.800
in FY 1997.
Federal support to the participating schools is made available in two forms: (1) cash assistance
and (2) donated commodities. In FY 1997, cash assistance of $6.1 billion and donated
commodities valued at $620 million were provided to the participating school systems. The level
of assistance is based on the number of reimbursable meals served in the individual schools and
on the eligibility status of children receiving meals. Any child at a participating school may
purchase a meal through the National School Lunch Program or School Breakfast Program.
Children from families with incomes at or below 130 percent ofthe poverty level are eligible for
free meals. Those between 130 percent and 185 percent of the poverty level are eligible for
reduced-price meals, for which students can be rhMgrd no more than 40 cents for lunch and 30
cents for breakfast Children from families with incomes over 185 percent of poverty pay full-price
for the meal as set by the local school food authonty (SFA),' though their meals are still
subsidized to some extent The Federal government reimbursement rates per meal in school year
1996/97 are shown in Table I-1 betow.
i the NSLP md the SBP In th« report. *e terei a «aed
1-1 PROMAR
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STIDY
FINALMEFOKT
. I MHrM uOVfinfllvfll KMnOurSMIwfil
Lunch Program and tho School
for tna National School
Program, SY 1996/97
Lunch Breakfast
Regular Average
Total
Regular
reimbursement Severe-need
Type of meal rate oribMomerit subsidy rate reimbursement2
v_ ..
Free 1.8375 .1450 19625 1.0175 1.2125
Reduced-price 1.4375 .1450 1.5825 .7175 .9125
RJ-price .1775 .1450 .3225 .1975 .1975
Raimdureamants are nighar In Alaska and Hawaii. Also. dtoncts that sarvad mom iron 60 peccant of thar Hinehas
or at a raducad pnV» In I* aacond pnor schod yaar racarre an aii^^
'Schooki ttat aarvad 40 parcant or mora of Bat lunchac to cMdran batowlSSperter* of the poverty level two
to BH school yaar may request to rocarve aaoere-need reinstatements tar tea and raducad-prtca
prior
Sources: USOA, FNS.
B. Purpose and Objectives of the Stady
The central purpose of this study was to derive statistically valid national estimates of food
acquisitions made in SY 1996/97 by public unified school districts participating in the NSLPV
Food acquisitions include both purchases made from commercial sources and donations fix>m the
US Department of Agriculture. In addition, the study collected information on the procurement
practices ofthese school districts and assessed the relationship oftheir procurement practices to
school district characteristics.
A similar study was conducted under FNS sponsorship in SY 1984/85. Another purpose ofthis
study, therefore, was to compare results for SY 1996/97 with those from the earlier study to
determine what changes have occurred, both in die composition of school food acquisitions and
m procurement practices.
V Tar year a on a Jury/June
Most commonly the
Unified school
from
1-2
noddle, and
twelfth
PROMAR Inttrnaaimal
X
SCHOOL FOOD PIRCHASE STUDY
FINALHEPOKT
More specifically, the study has been designed around achievement of the following five
objectives:
• To develop .lationa! estimates of the types, volume, and dollar value of food acquired
(commercially and through USDA donations) by unified public school districts
participating in the NSLP
• To compare the composition and value offoods acquiredby school districts in SY1984/85
and SY 1996797 and describe changes in the extent to which acquired foods arrive at the
district in a prepared or processed form.
• T3 describe current school food purchase practices and identify relabonships between food
purchase practices and school district characteristics and the cost of foods to schools.
• To compare school food purchase practices in SY 1984/85 and SY 1996797 and describe
changes in die relationships between these practices and SFA characteristics and food
costs.
• To describe the extent to which a la carte foods are available to students enrolled in these
schools and the types and volumes of a la carte foods that are acquired.
C. Report Outline
The remainder ofthis report details the approach taken In conducting this study and describes its
major findings. It is divided into seven chapters, including ti.e Introduction, which is Chapter I.
Chapter II is devoted to a description ofthe methodology used in conducting the study. This
includes a description ofthe sample design and sample selection and how the data were collected
and processed. Chapter III is the first one to report on study findings. As in all ofthe findings
chapters, it discusses methodological considerations uniq :«e to the topic and compares the results
of this study to the one conducted in SY 1984/85, when such comparisons are relevant In
Chapter III, the principal characteristics of public unified school districts participating in the
NSLP and the SBP in SY 1996797 are described.
Chapter IV sets the stage for interpretation of the major food acquisition findings by briefly
reviewing the economic and policy setting of the period within which the study was conducted.
This description provides a general backdrop to understanding how both market factors and
policy factors might have influenced study results. National estimates of food acquisitions by
public unified NSLP school districts are described and interpreted in die following chapter,
1-3 PROMAR International
5
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STUDY
FINAL MEFOMT
ChapterV. Summary estimates of the volume and value of major food categories arc examined.
Major shifts in the composition ofschool food purchases since SY 1984/85 are also discussed.
This is followed in Chapter VI by a description of the current procurement practices ofpublic
school districts and the changes that have occurred over the past dozen years. Finally, the
relationships between and among school district characteristics and procurement practices and
school food acquisitions are examined in Chapter VII.
In addition to this report, a Statistical Report containing the detailed statistical tables that served
as a basis for the findings reported here is available.
1-4 PROMAR International
i
SCHOOL FOOD FVMCHASE STUDY
FINAL KEFOMT
D. METHODOLOGY1
The universe studied here consists ofall public unified NSLP school districts in the continental
United States. These districts are a subset ofthe total number of school districts in the nation
since not all districts participate in the NSLP. They are also a subset within the universe of
districts that participate in the NSLP since the program also serves private schoolsand nonuni fied
school systems, bothofwhich were excluded from the study. Private school enrollment accounts
for approxi nately 3.5 percent oftotal NSLP enrollment and nonunified enrollment is estimated
to account for about 4.2 percent ofNSLP enrollment2 NSLP districts in Alaska, Hawaii, and the
US possessions: were excluded from the sample as well. In FY 1995, these jurisdictions
accounted for 2.7 percent ofNSLP participation. Given these exclusions, the estimates provided
here will differ somewhat from other sources. For example, most FNS data series include
nonunified schools and all SO states and US possessions. Private schools are included in some
series and not in others.
The sample frame used in the study was based on a database purchased from Quality Education
Data, Inc. (QEL). The database contained information for 13,222 public school districts in all
SO states and the District ofColumbia and was current as of February 1996. Ofthe total number
of school districts in die database, 11,177 were identified as unified school districts.
A national sample of480 school districts was drawn from the universe of unified public school
districts. The sample was stratified by the same ten farm production regions used by the US
Department ofAgriculture in publishing data on agricultural production. This particular set of
regions was used fortwo reasons. First, it is the same set used in the 1984/85 study and therefore
provided continuity with the methodology used in that study Second, these regions are generally
coterminous with regional systems of food production and distribution.
1/ ^mmm^a^Uaalfimtiltmmtfa^l^m^imtmm^t§tmmimMtfmtttA
V The share of NSLP enrollment that it in private school* is from unpublished administrative data collected by the
USDA. The share of enrollment attributable to nonunified public schools is baaed on two sources. One source is ihc
Q£D Super 2000 iatabast from which the sample was drawn. The nonunified school districts that were eliminated
from the universe prior to drawing the sample accounted for 4.2 percent of total enrollment. The other source is the
USna>«aiiialofBcW»<ic«-sCoiiaTwoCoreofData<CCD)forSY 1992/93 which indicated that districts other than
ir 4.3 percent of total public school enrollment that year
II-l PROMAR
f
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STUDY
FINALMM
The boundaries ofthese regions correspond to state boundaries with each region including from
two to ten states. The distribution ofthe sample school districts among the regions and states are
displayed in Table II-1. The sample was stratified regionally to help ensure that sample districts
were selected from throughout the country. It should be noted that these strata were not used as
domains of study and that only national estimates have been developed.
There are about 350 school districts nationwide that participate in the NSLP but do not receive
donated commodities. This includes all school districts in Kansas (over 300) as well as those
districts that continue to receive cash or commodity letters ofcredit (CLOC) as a result ofpast
demonstration studies of alternatives to commodity donation. These districts were kept in the
database for purposes ofdrawing the sample. Ofthe 480 school districts in the sample, two were
in Kansas and five were former demonstration sites that were receiving cash or letters ofcredit
instead ofdonated commodities.
To derive a national estimate of school food procurement, it is necessary to collect data for an
entire school year. There is a significant seasonal influence in die patterns of school food
procurement and use. Since most school systems are not in session year-round, food procurement
typically diminishes in the spring, ceases altogether through much ofthe summer, and begins
again with the approach of the start of school in the early SU1. In addition, there are seasonal
influences associated with changes in the weather and the availability of foods as well as the
traditional holidays.
To help lessen the burden of assembling and copying food procurement records for the
participating school districts - which can be substantial, depending on the size ofthe district and
the nature of their procurement records - each district was asked to provide records for a
specified 3-month period during SY 1996/97. The quarterly periods were defined as follows:
1* quarter -Jury -September, 1996
2" quarter - October - December, 1996
3* quarter - January - March, 1997
4* quarter - April - June, 1997
The sample of 480 school districts was evenly divided among the four quarters.
H-2 PROMAR International
Jo
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STUDY
FINAL MBFOMT
Tabls U-1: NumlMr off School Districts in tht Ssmpls by Region and by Stats
Number of Number of
Region/state school districts Region/state school districts
IWHMHI Southeast
Massachusetts 12 South Carolina 9
Nasa 4 Georgia 16
Connecticut 6 Florida 16
Naw Jersey 14 Alabama tf
New York 29 ToW m
Maryland 1 Delta
Delaware 1 Mmililppl 7
Pennsylvania 23 l.ouWans 11
Vermont _1 Arkansas _a
Total 91 ToW 21
Lake States Southern Plains
Michigan 22 Oklahoma 7
Wisconsin 10 Texas m
Minnesota -S ToW 49
ToW 38 Mountain
Wdwoat Montana
Ohio 21 Colorado
Indiana 13 Wyoming
k»wa 6 Idaho
IWnois 16 Utah
Missouri m Arizona
ToW 66 Naw Mexico _a
Northern Plains ToW 32
South Dakota 2 Pacific
North Dakota 2 California 61
Kansas 2 Oregon 5
Nebraska .5 WVilBfrutnhiiiiiyjitKrLmi L -5
ToW 11 TOW 71
Appaiachia
Virginia 13 Grand ToW 480
West Virginia 4
North Carolina 13
Tennessee 7
Kentucky m
ToW 47
Source: Schooi Food Purchase Study, 1998.
n-3 PROMAR International
7
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STUDY
FINAL REPORT
The size distribution ofpublic school districts is highly skewed. While 47.9 percent ofall public
school districts have an enrollment ofless than 1,000, they account for only 5.9 percent oftotal
enrollment At the other extreme, districts with an enrollmentof25,000 or more account for only
1.6 percentofthe total numberofdistricts but 31.0 percent oftotal enrollment' While the school
district is the basic unit ofobservation that is to be represented in the sample, it is also important
that student enrollment be given prominent consideration given that food procurement and
utilization is the principal focus of the study.
To insure mat larger school districts were appropriately represented, we used a variant of the
probability proportional to size (PPS) technique in drawing the sample. As its name implies, use
ofPPS results in more ofthe larger districts (and therefore more students) being included in the
sample. However, since standard PPS sampling can sometimes shift the sample "too far" toward
the larger units and leave the smaller units under-represented, a variant ofthe standard technique
was used.
Under the sampling technique used here, the sample was drawn with probability proportional to
a power ofenrollment rather than enrollment alone. The power was set at a level (slightly below
one) that would yield a sampling probability for the largest district in each stratum sufficient to
allow for non-responses.
The first step in the sampling procedure was to allocate the 480 sample districts to the ten
geographic strata. Each stratum was assigned a fraction of the 480 districts equal to that
stratum's share oftotal enrollment
Within each stratum, an ordered, systematic selection procedure was used to select school
districts for the sample. The steps followed for each stratum were as follows:
• inappropriate value for the power of enrollment for that stratum was developed.
• The measure of size for each school district was raised by the power of
enrollment
1/ Quality Education Dm,;
n-4
J22L2LP 10
PROMAR International
t
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STUDY
FINAL REPORT
A slop interval was developed equal to die sum of all of the size measures of
districts in the region divided by the sample size for the region.
School districts within die region were ordered by their measure of size and a
cumulative size distribution was established.
A random start number was selected between zero and the skip interval.
Using the cumulative size distribution ofthe ordered set ofdistricts in the region,
die first district in the sample was determined by the random start number.
The remainder ofthe sample for the region was drawn by repeatedly adding the
strip value to the random numberand finding the district whose value falls within
that range.
The remaining allocation was the assignment of sample districts to quarters. A fourth of the
selected districts in each geographic stratum were allocated to each quarter so that the enrollment
of the districts in each quarter was as close to equal as possible. In addition, the seven school
districts included in the sample that did not receive donated commodities were allocated among
quarters so as to keep their distribution as even as possible.
3. Derivation of Final Weights
Final sample weights were developed to produce national estimates for the universe of public
unified school district- participating in the NSLP. Because response rates differed for the survey
and for die submission of food acquisition data and because we were collecting a combination
ofstock measures (e.g. school district enrollment as ofa specified time) andflow measures (e.g.
quarterly purchases of individual food items), two sets ofweights were derived. These weights
consist of three parts: a basic sampling weight equal to the reciprocal of the districts initial
selection probability, post-stratification adjustments to account forknown population totals, and
adjustments to compensate for nonresponse. Once derived, these weights were applied to the
observations collected from the participating school districts to derive national estimates. A more
detailed description of the weighting methodology appears in Appendix A
D-5 PROMAR International
1
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STUDY
FINAL REPORT
B. Recruitment and Training
1. Recruitment
Recruitment began with the collection ofbasic information for each of the 480 school districts
from the Child Nutrition (CN) Programs Directors in the 45 states with school districts in the
sample. In collecting this information it was determined that five of the school districts in the
sample were not participating in the NSLP in March 1996, leaving 475 prospective participants
in the sample.
Table 11-2: Allocation of Sample by Region and by Quarter
EnroUmenl School DUtrictSamDiebvQuarter
Number Percent
of of
Region students total 1 2 3 4 Total
nOIUHNIl 7.677.407 19.1 22 23 23 23 91
Late State* 3.174.178 7.9 10 9 9 10 38
MKlWOon 5,577.520 13.8 16 17 17 16 66
Northern Plains 950.500 2.4 3 3 2 3 11
Appaiacnta 3.916.084 9.7 12 11 12 12 47
Southeast 4.537,866 11.3 13 14 14 13 54
Date 1.723,619 4.3 6 5 5 5 21
Southern Plains 4.117.205 10.2 13 12 12 12 49
Mountain 2.686.560 6.7 8 8 8 8 32
PadAc 5.932.237 14.7 17 18
120
18
120
18
120
71
Total 40.302.196 100.0 120 460
Source. School Food Purdmse Study. 1998.
The school food director ofeach school district in the sample was initially notified of the study
by mail and told that they would be contacted by telephone and invited to participate. At the time
li-6 PROMAR International
ft
SCHOOL FOOD PVRCH/SE STUDY
FINAL REPORT
of the telephone call, details of the study and the role they were being asked to play were
discussed.
School districts were recruited on a quarterly basis, beginning with those assigned to the first
quarter. Recruiting got underway in May 1996 and vas largely completed by the end ofFebruary
1997. Ofthe V75 school districts recruited, 381 (80.2 percent) initially agreed to take part in the
study.
2. Training
The collection of food procurement records, which are found in different forms and levels of
detail among school districts, made it necessary to conduct brief training telephone calls with a
representative of each participating district. In addition to the training call, each SFA was
provided with a training document that reviewed major elements of their participation in the
study. Most training calls were conducted within two weeks ofthe SFA agreeing to participate
in the study.
C. Data Collection and Processing
Two types ofdata were collected, each using a different collection technique. Food purchase and
donation records for a specified three month period were copied by SFA staff and mailed to the
study data collection center. School district characteristics and procurement practices
information were collected through a self-administered survey completed by the food service
director. The procedures used in collecting and processing these data are described below.
1. Food Purchases and Donations
Food acquisitions by school districts taking part in the study were assigned to one of three
categories: (1) purchased foods not containing donated commodities, (2) purchased foods
containing donated commodities, or (3) donated commodities. Foods were considered to have
been acquired at the point in time when the school district assumed ownership. This generally
coincides with the time of delivery to the district.
H-7 PROMAR liuenuutowl
/I
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STUDY
FINALnEPOKT
u
The valuation ofdonated commodities required special treatment. Foods that are commercially
based and contain no donated commodities are assigned a value by the vendor. For these
food items mere is no ambiguity with regard to their market value. The valuation ofdonated
commodities and processed mods containing donated commodities is less straightforward.
Commodities donated by the USDA arc assigned dollai values by the Department based on what
they pay, phis transportation charges. However, this value excludes some cost elements
associated with the procurement, storage, and delivery of these foods to school districts and
therefore generally underestimates their delivered market value.
In addition, some donated commodities are used as ingredients in foods that are processed
expressly for schools participating in the NSLP. This is the second category identified above.
There arc three major types ofarrangements under which these products are processed. Tbeyare:
State Processing. Some State agencies negotiate processing agreements for their
recipient agencies and have commodities shipped directly from the USDA
supplier to these processors. These processors then sell the processed food
directly to SFAs, discounted or rebated by an amount equal to the value of the
donated commodities used. Around 39 states currently have state processing
contracts.
SFA Processing. Largo SFAs often regotiate processing contracts on their own
When this is done, the donated commodities can be routed either directly to the
processor from the USDA or through the SFA before moving to the processor
and back again as a finished product
SOC Processing. Some SFAs can also receive processed products in lieu of
donated commodities as part oftheir commodity deliveries. These State Option
Contract (SOC) products include such foods as chicken nuggets and parties, beef
patties, and pork ribettes. The contracts for processing these products are
negotiated by USDA. However, SOC products are processed using the
manufacturer's ingredients unlike state processing and SFA processing which use
USDA purchased ingredients. The States participating in these contracts
reimburse USDA for the cost of the processing and added ingredients, usually by
charging the recipient SFAs. The cost of the commodity component is charged
D-t PROMAR International
ll~
SCHOOL FOOD PUDCHASE STUDY
FBiALMEPOrr
to the State's entitlement Nine states are currently participating in the SOC
program.
Recognition tiiaU product isa(fcnatedcotnm Commodities
that are delivered directly to SFAs from State warehouses are easily recognized, but those that
are delivered by commercial vendors in combination with commercial purchases might not be
recognized unless delivery slips make this clear Similarly, processed products obtained through
SOC contracts, and commodities converted into processed products by State processing or local
processing agreements are sometimes difficult to identify. In addition to asking SFAs to identify
these foods in the records they submitted, die State Distnliuting Agencies (SDAs) were asked to
provide information on commodity deliveries to the SFAs in their states for the relevant quarter
and on foods processed under state processing agreements. Most SDAs responded to this request,
thereby providing a useful check against the information provided by the SFAs.
Given that neither USDA-assigned values nor processor prices for products containing
commodityingredients were considered reliable measures of market price, commercial prices of
comparable foods were used in valuing these foods.
U Food Procurement Variables
The following variables were used in developing national estimates ofthe types, volumes, and
value offoods acquired by NSLP school districts in SY 1996797 and in comparing these estimates
to those for SY 1984785:
• Name of the individual food Hem. This is the generic name ofeach food item
for which quantity and value information was reported. It is the most detailed
level at which information for individual foods is being analyzed in this study.
A total of 842 unique food items were identified. This compares to
approximately 1,150 separate food items identified in the study conducted in SY
1984/85. The system used in assigning 6-digit codes to individual food items is
described in the Statistical Appendix Report
Form in which the food b acquired. Form refers to whether the food is in a
fresh, frozen, canned, dried, or fluid form at the time ofprocurement Categories
representing more than one category (e.g., fresh or frozen) were used when the
form could not be determined with certainty.
D-9 PROMAR
13
SCHOOL FOOD FVMCHASE STUDY
FINALMEFOMT
Votaane of acquUtiou. The net weight of acquisitions measured in pounds.
Total volume was determined by multiplying per unit weight by the number of
units acquired. To derive this weight when the unit ofacquisition was another
measure (e.g., cases of "number 10" cans), standard conversion factors for the
individual food items were used
Mesa cast per pound of food item. This is the mean delivered cost ofa food
tern per pound (net weight) measured in dollars. For foods purchased
commercially (and not containing USDA donated foods), this is the invoke cost
For donated commodities and processed foods containing donated commodities,
it is the invoice coat ofcomparable foods purchased commercially. When the
same food item was acquired at more than one price by a given SFA during die
period ofstudy, the mean cost was determined by weighting prices on the basis
ofvolume. The many different units represented in the raw data (e.g cases of
#10 cans, dozens, gallons, esc.) were converted to pounds.
Total c xt ef food item acquisition. As the term implies, this was derived by
multiplying the mean per unit food item cost by die number ofpounds ofthe item
acquired. It represents the total acquisition coat of a given food item.
Coat per thousand students of food Mean acquisition. This variable was
derived by dividing the total dollar cost of die food item by die student
enrollment with access to the food program ofthe school district they attended
An adjustment for those having access to die program is made necessary by the
fact that some enrolled students (e.g. kindergarten students attending half-day
sessions) are included in overall enrollment numbers but do not have access to
the program. To the extent this adjustment is required it is usually small.
USDA donated commodities. These are food items donated by the USDA and
received by SFAs in die same form in which they were purchased and shipped
by the USDA (as distinguished from donated commodities that have been further
processed following purchase by die USDA or processed foods obtained under
SOC contracts). While these Hems frequently share the same generic name as
commercially purchased food hems, quantity and value measures for donated
commodities are treated separately.
n-io
ff
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STUDY
FESAL MEFOMT
■CWMItUSDA
food items will alao frequently share die same generic name as other
purchased food items. Quantity and value measures for these items are treated
separately, both from commercially purchased foods that contain no USDA
donated commodities and from USDA donated commodities. The valuation of
these items is as described above. This variable also includes products processed
SOC contracts.
Period of purchase. Food items were considered to have been acquired on the
dale at which the SFA accepted delivery The site of delivery varied and
included individual schools sites, central kitchens, and central warehouses,
among other locations. The period of study was divided into four quarterly
periods ofpurchase: July-September, 1996; October-December, 1996; January-
March, 1997; April-June, 1997. The date of delivery within the quarter was not
recorded, except as required for internal record-keeping.
Food item used inalacmle offerings. SFAs were asked to identify those foods
in general terms (e.g. hamburgers, ice cream, cookies, etc.) that were used in a
la carte offerings and to estimate the share of total volume of each food so
identified that was used in a la carte offerings.
Change in volume of acquisition and share of t«4al volume-This variable was
derived from national estimates for those individual food items for which
information was available both in SY 1984/85 and SY 1996/97 and for
aggregations offood items.
U Transcription and Processing of Raw Data
On the basis ofthe telephone interviews with the principal contact for each participating SFA,
the least burdensome, most cost-effective means of retrieving copies of existing procurement
records from the archives ofeach school district were identified. The principal sources of this
information were vendor summaries, copies ofinvoices, tally sheets prepared by district staff, and
bid specifications.
Since data collection procedures were tailored to the particular situation ofeach school district,
data arrived in a variety offorms. Data were transcribed, in most cases, by vendor, by month for
a given SFA. Relevant data elements were copied from the SFA-provided document to a
nil PROMAR Intemaaomal
IS
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STUDY
FINAL MEPOn
standard transcription form. If necessary, telephone calls were made to the SFA contact or the
vendor (with SFA approval) to capture missing data elements. As a further source of
information. State Distributing Agencies (SOAs) provided records on deliveries of USDA
donated commodities to the SFAs in their states that were participating in the study.
Given the large volume ofhighly detailed data, it was necessary to conduct several edit checks
to help ensure the highest possible degree ofaccuracy. Adescription ofthese edit checks appears
in Appendix A.
2. District Characteristics and Procurement Practices
2.1 Survey Collection Procedures
A pre-test of the initial draft of the survey instrument was conducted in January 1996. Five
school districts took part: one each in Arkansas, Maryland, and Virginia and two in Pennsylvania
Student enrollment in the pre-test districts ranged from 1,248 to 116,859. Respondents were
debriefed, two by telephone and three during on-site visits. The average length oftime required
to complete the instrument was 1 to 1 Vi hours. Results ofthe pie-test were helpful in identifying
ambiguities in terminologyand question structure. They also pointed toward potential difficulties
in collecting detailed information on a la carte food sales.
Procurement practices surveys, accompanied by a cover letter and reimbursement check,1 were
mailed to participating school districts following receipt of their food procurement records for
the quarter of their participation. Since some of the survey questions requested information for
this quarter, (e.g., numberofreimbursable meals served and food expenditures), it was necessary
to delay sending the survey until the quarter was over and SFA personnel had an opportunity to
tabulate their numbers. The first surveys were mailed in November 1996. Respondents were
asked to return the completed survey by a specified data, generally within two to three weeks of
receipt
SFAs late in responding were contacted, first by letter and then by telephone, if necessary.
Returned surveys were reviewed for completeness, consistency, and accuracy at time ofreceipt.
Missing, incomplete, or incorrect information was handled by telephone with the SFA contact.
A payment of between $70 md $270 WH mk to each parfjcipatiitg school district to compensate for the time
ad out-of-pocket fipniar associated win assembling, copying and mailing of their food procurement records
The amount of the payment was baaed on the iswHDfi of reimbursable lunches served w October 1995.
0-12 PROMAR Inttmaaomal
H
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STUDY
FINALMEFOMT
Follow-up telephone calls were required for nearly e\cry SFA, repeat telephone calls were often
12 District Characteristics tad PmvMcit Practices
SFA characteristic variables were used both to document and describe key features of the public
unified school food universe and to assess and interpret food purchase practices. Moat of these
earlier results. In genera/, these are the dimensions of the school districts and their
lunch/breakfast programs that most influence the types and amounts of foods purchased and/or
their procurement practices. The following SFA characteristic variables were used:
School distrki enrollment School district enrollment as of October 31. 19%
is used as an indicator ofdistrict size. There is no entirely satisfactory measure
of the patronage of a school reeding program. Reimbursable meal counts are
partial in that they exclude students that choose their lunches from a la carte
options or don't participate in the program at all. Enrollment numbers alone
overstate the potential patronage by the extent of daily absences and by the
number (ifany) who do not have access to the program, (e.g., enrolled students
attending half-day kindergarten.) Thus, student enrollment adjusted for absences
and for those lacking access provides an upper limit on the average number of
students who could participate in a school feeding program.
Number of schools and ifdcnt claimant by grade category. Both the
luantity and types of food utilized by a school food program are influenced by
the age distribution of the student population. This is represented by using the
following grade categories: elementary, middle/secondary, and others.
Elementary schools were defined as a school that had a kindergarten or grade 1,
2, or 3 aw/no grade higher than grade 6. Middle/secondary schools were defined
as schools with no grade lower than grade 6. AH other schools were assigned to
the "other" category. Thus, a school with grades K through 12, for example, fell
in the "other'* category.
Program participation by meal category. This variable is expressed as the
total number ofmeals served, both in SY 1995/96 and in the relevant quarter of
SY 1996/97. In both periods, the numbers are disaggregated by meal category
11-13 PKOMAR International
II
SCHOOL FOOD PVMCHASE STUDY
FINALREFOMT
(school lunch and school breakfast) and by category of participation (tree,
reduced-price, full-price.)
Meal price*. This variable (expressed in dollars) is disaggregated by elementary
and middle/secondary schools, by full and reduced-price meals, and by lunch and
breakfast If more than one price was charged for full-price meals, a weighted
avenge price was calculated.
Naa»b^el'apfM>vnfi^a«dred»Liida«ksatyfcBtteMa«IBe. Thisisthe
total number of students as of October 31,19% approved to receive free meals
and the number approved to receive reduced-price meals. These approvals set
an upper boundary on the number of meals served m these categories. These
totals are also disaggregated by elementary, middle/secondary, and other grade
categories.
Receipts from ether food program sales. Some SFAs prepare and serve meals
for purposes other than student and staff meals. This can include foods served
through USDA food assistance programs (e.g., Child and Adult Care, Summer
Food Service, and the Nutrition Program for the Elderly) or through locally
sponsored programs. To the extent these programs utilize food that is included
as part of a district's overall food procurement, this variable provides an
approximation of the scale of these activities relative to the receipts from
reimbursable meals and from a la carte sales.
Regional location of school district. To some extent, the availability and cost
offoods can be influenced by the district's proximity to sources ofsupply. This
effect is most pronounced for perishable foods such as fresh fruits and vegetables
but it applies to other foods as well. For this analysis, regional location serves
as a proxy for this influence, using the USDA's ten agricultural production
regions.
Urbaafcity. Urbamcity can influence the cost of food to a school district as a
result ofits proximity to central points offood distribution and/or to competitive
vendor markets. A seven-category urbamcity measure included in the QED
dataNty was used. It ranges from metropolitan areas with a population of
400,000 or more to places of less than 2,500.
iTiaar The income level of households within a school district directly
influences eligibility for free and reduced-price meals and can indirectly
0-14 PROMAR Inttrnatiomal
-;*• //
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STUDY
FINAL REPORT
influence participation in school feeding piogtams. Income was represented by
a variable included in the QED database that measures the share of students
within a school district that come from households with incomes below the
Federal poverty guidelines. QED derives its measure from data found in the
National Center for Education Statistics' Common Core of Data which is based
on the 1990 census.
Several different dimensions ofSFA food procurement, preparation, and serving are represented
by variables in the analysis that follows. They include:
Indicators ofa la carte activity. This includes an indication as to whether a la
carte is used and if it is used, total a la carte receipts for SY 1995/96 and for the
relevant quarter inSY 1996/97, its availability among schools in the district, and
the identification of foods most prominently offered a la carte.
•■at ail avainhfllty. This includes the number ofvendors
serving school districts for each of eight product categories and the total number
of vendors serving the market in which the school district is located for each
product line.
This variable represents the following range of
procurement options, disaggregated by major food category: formal line item
bids, formal lump sum bids, telephone bids/quotes, salesman visits, and other
methods.
Frodnct pricing. For the principal vendors for each of the major food
categories, tins variable indicates which of the several alternative methods of
product pricing were used by the district
Use offood service management company. This variable indicates whether the
school district was under the direction of a private food service management
company in SY 1996/97 and, if so, the period oftime this arrangement had been
in effect (measured in years) and whether the management company is
responsible for both vendor selection and food selection.
Cooperative buying. This variable indicates school (tistr t participation in a
cooperative food buying program inSY 1996/97. For participants in cooperative
buying, the period ofparticipation, involvement of other school districts, share
II-15 PROMAR International
If
SCHOOL FOOD PVMCHASE STUDY
FINALMEFOMT
oftotal food purchases made cooperatively, and types offoods purchased were
also reported.
: spadflcattaaa. School districts' use of alternative means of product
specifications such as quality/grade standards, brand name, fat content, use of
Child Nutrition (CN) labels, etc. is represented by this variable.
The number oflritchcns by type, including base, central,
receiving/satellite, combination, and on-site kitchens is indicated by this variable.
Storage and dsMnry af food. For each of the major food categories, this
variable indicates the principal point ofreceipt within the SFA and the frequency
ofvendor delivery. It also indicates whether deliveries initially go to a central
warehouse, how frequently deliveries within the district are made to schools,
whose vehicles are used, and the cost oftransporting food within the district in
SY 1995/96.
Mean prawning This variable represents the number of schools using
alternative menu planning methods in SY 1996/97, including NuMenu, Assisted
NuMenu, food based, and traditional meal patterns.
This includes indicatorsofthe level within the
school district organization at which decisions are made regarding choice of
vendors, identification offoods to be purchased, and food orders.
• Branded food products. This variable identifies the use of branded food
products - in-house and national brands - in SY 1996/97. For those districts
using branded products, this variable indicates the number of schools within the
district that feature brands, principal types of products sold under brand, and
principal forms in which the product (or its ingredients) are supplied.
2J EditChecks
As the surveys were received, they were reviewed for completeness and legibility. Responses
that were missing, unclear, or contradictory were resolved through telephone contact with the
SFA. Once all questions were resolved, the survey was entered into the database. A standard
verification process was used to verify, on a question-by-question basis the answers provided.
SFA responses were verified in relation to other answers given on the survey and were compared
to those given by other SFAs to test their reasonableness. For numeric entries, acceptable ranges
11-16 PROMAR International
J?0
SCHOOL FOOD FVKCHASE STUDY
FINAL MEFOMT
and relationships were incorporated into the edit check process. Survey responses were also
checked against procurement data submitted by the SFA for consistency.
D. Standard Errors
The standard errors of population means and totals were estimated using a bootstrap or
resampling technique that L; commonly used in survey data analysis. The major steps in this
estimation procedure are described in Appendix A.
Standard errors for a selected list ofprominent food items and key SFA characteristic estimates
appear in Table II-3. Confidence intervals calculated on the basis of a 90 percent confidence
level (plus or minus the point estimate) are also shown.
11-17 PROMAR International
Al
Table 11-3: Standard Error of Estimate for Selected Variables
Variable
Unit of
measure Estimate
Standard
enor
uomioeoce
interval
Confidence interval
as%of<
00
All acquired foods
Purchased ground beef
Donated ground beef
Purchased 2% fluid milk
Purchased 1 % flavored milk
Purchased formed frozen potatoes
Purchased formed frozen potatoes
Total enrollment, SY 1996/97
Number of lunches served. SY 1996/97
Number of free lunches served. SY 1996/97
School districts managed by x>d service management companies
Number of public unified NSLP schools
thousand dollars 4.642.667 166.996 274.708
dollars 15.511.523 1.918.827 3.156.470
dollars 83.717.742 6.631.022 10.908.031
dollars 97.266.128 8.576.973 14.109.120
pounds 770.347.867 18,844,210 30.998.725
pounds 67.830.866 2,135.367 3.512.679
dollars 29.530.001 1.981.542 3.250,837
number 41.806.303 1.796.619 2.958.728
thousands 3,888.257 173.848 285.980
thousands 1,985,208 133.816 220.127
number 975 164 270
number 75,696 2,714 4.465
5.9
20.3
13.0
14.5
4.0
5.2
11.0
7.1
7.4
11.2
2T7
5.9
" 90 percent confidence level.
Source: School Food Purchase Study, 1998.
J!^
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STUDY
FINAL REPORT
III. CHARACTERISTICS OF PUBLIC UNIFIED NSLP SCHOOL DISTRICTS
This chapter is devoted to a description ofsome of the more prominent characteristics of public
unified school districts that participated in the NSLP in SY 1996/97. Since the universe for this
study was restricted to those school districts that are both public and unified (kindergarten
through twelfth grade), as described in Chapter II, the resulting estimates are not strictly
comparable with those from other sources. The reasons for mis and the expected magnitude of
difference from other universes are also discussed in Chapter II.
This chapter is divided into two major sections. The first section describes overall characteristics
of the districts, e.g. number and size ofdistricts, numberofschools, and attendance. The second
section focusesmore narrowlyon characteristics ofthe feeding programs ofthese school districts.
In this final section, we examine a variety of dimensions of these programs including eligibility
and participation, meal prices, menu planning methods, the role of a la carte food sales, and the
use of food service management companies.
A Overall School District Characteristics
1. Number of Districts and Student Enrollment
An estimated 10,083 public unified school districts provided meals through the NSLP in SY
1996/97. These school districts were attended by an estimated 41.8 million students.1 The
distribution of school districts is skewed strongly in the direction of smaller school districts; the
distribution of students is skewed almost as strongly in the opposite direction. Thus, the bottom
one-third of all school districts in terms of enrollment accounted for only 5.0 percent of all
students while the largest 2.S percent of the districts accounted for one-third of all students.
1/ This compares to USDA's estimate of the total enrollment in NSLP public schools in PY 1997 of 44.4 million
students. The USDA estimate includes unified and nonunified public school district* in all SO states, the District of
Columbia, and US possessions.
m-1 PROMAR International
£3
SCHOOL FOOD PVFCHASE STUDY
FINAL MEFOMT
Table MM: Total Student Enrollment and Numbar of Public Unified NSLP
School Districts by 31M of District, SY 1986797
-JottJiuQ^mrotntnt
Number of Percent of Number of Percent of
School district enrollment students total school districts tofai
Less than 1.000 2.094.593 5.0 3.411 33.8
1.000-4,999 12.024.975 28.8 5.009 49.7
5.000-24.999 13.292.858 31.8 1.410 14.0
25.000 or more 14.393.878 34.4 253 2.5
AH districts 41,806.303 100.0 10.083 100.0
Note: Percentages might not add to 100.0 due to rounding.
Source: School Food Purchase Study, <998.
These school districts included 75,696 schools within their systems in SY 1996/97 (1 able III-2).'
Ofthis number, S4.4 percent were elementary schools, 31.5 percent were middle/secondary, and
the remaining 14.1 percent fell in the "other" category. Since larger school districts tend to
operate schools with larger enrollments, the number of schools is not as highly skewed toward
the larger systems as is the number ofstudents. Not surprisingly, the number of"other" schools,
many ofwhich are kindergarten through twelfth grade, are found with greatest frequency among
the smaller school districts.
1/ This compares to USDA's estimate of 82,437 NSLP public schools in FY 1997. including unified and nonumficd
public schools in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the US possessions.
1II-2 PROMAR International
/f
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STUDY
FINAL KEFOK1
TaWsMI-2: Numbsr of Schools in Public Unified NSLP School Districts
by Sin of District and by Grada Category, SY1998/97
tUM
School datnet anroMmant Bamantary saoondary CXhar ToM
Lass than 1.000 2.372 2.953 2.458 7.783
row pareant 305 9?J 31.8 100.0
UHii pareart. 54 12.4 23.0 104
1.000 to 4.800 13437 9.082 3.782 26.682
rowpareanl 514 34.0 14.1 1004
column para vt 33.6 38.1 354 354
5,000 to 24,900 12,737 ijm 2.160 21.167
604 29.6 10.2 1004
column pareant 911 283 20.2 284
25.000 or mora 12.205 5.562 2.298 20.065
row pareant 80.8 27.7 114 1004
column pareant 29.7 213 214 284
AlcSstocts 41.152 23.866 1047b 75498
row pareant 54.4 31.5 14.1 100.0
coaaan pareant 100.0 100.0 1004 1000
Source School Food Pitches* Study, 1998
Enrollment by grade category is more equally divided between elementary »nd middle secondary
than is the number of schools since elementary schools are generally smaller and in closer
proximity to the neighborhoods they serve. Of the students enrolled in public unified NSLP
school districts in SY 1996/97, an estimated 19.7 million (47.2 percent) were in elementary
schools, 18.6 million (44.5 percent) in middle/secondary schools, and 3.5 million (8.3 percent)
in "other" schools (see Table III-3).
in-3 PKOMAR fnternaaomal
zr
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STUDY
FINALMEPOMT
Studsnt Enrollment of Public Unrfisd NSLP School Districts
by Sfes of District Mid Qradt Category, SY199097
Grade catoaorv
School drtict SMSSMBI Elementary Middta/SeconrJery Other Total
LMSttvn 1.000 719.451 782.950 592.192 2.094.593
row percent au 37.4 283 100.0
column percent u «J 17.1 53
1.000-4.909 5.183.315 5.650.823 1.190336 12.024.975
row percent 43.1 47.0 9.9 100.0
column percent 26.3 ma 343 283
5.000-24.999 6,412^34 5.887,464 993.160 13.292.858
row percent 48.2 44.3 73 100.0
column percent Ml 31.6 28.6 313
25.000 or more 7.404.26S 6.298,557 691.036 14.393.878
raw percent 51.4 ma 43 100.0
column percent 37.5 au 19.9 34.4
Al districts 19.719.265 18.619,795 3.467.223 41306303
raw percent 47.2 443 83 100.0
column percent 100.0 1003 100.0 100.0
Source: School Food Puntose Stuffy. 1998
To more accurately determine the number of students who could potentially participate in the
NSLP, survey respondents were asked to report average dairy attendance as well as the number
of students included in enrollment who did not have access to the lunch program for one reason
or another. Some school districts have schools in their systems that do not participate in the
NSLP. Likewise, students attending half-day kindergarten classes frequently do not have access
to school meals.
National estimates ofthese measures appear in Table ITJ-4. They indicate that, on average, 6.6
percent of the students enrolled in public unified NSLP school districts in SY 1996797 were
absent and another 1.5 percent of those enrolled students in attendance lacked access to the
program. Rates of absence were found to rise with increasing size of district, going from S.O
percent for the smallest districts to 8.1 percent for the largest The share ofenrollment mat was
in attendance but lacked access was highest among districts with less than 1,000 enrollment (3.0
percent) and smallest among districts with an enrollment of 25,000 or more (0.6 percent).
PROMAR International
u
SCHOOL FOOD PUECHASE STUDY
F1NALREFORT
Despite this, the relationship with size is not very strong given that the next to the largest district
category has a rate of attendees lacking access that is nearly as large as the smallest size
Table HM: Student Enrollment, Average Daily
Number of Attendees With Access to the Lunch
NSLP School Districts by Size of District and Grade
and Average
in Public Unified
Category, SY 1996/97
Grade cateoorv
School dwtnet enroament Etentenaey Mddtes secondary Otter Total
Let. then 1.000
Enrolment 719.451 782.950 592.192 2.094.593
Darfyaitendtnce 683.891 743.531 582.826 1.990.050
Attendance with access 671.422 708.960 545,864 1.926.236
1.000 to 4 flea
Enroament 5.183.315 5.650.823 1.190436 12,024.975
Daiy attendance 4.935.802 5.306.397 1.130.013 11.371.212
Attendance w«h access 4.813.775 53H.614 1.119.495 11.237.884
5.000 <P2«.»9
Enroernent 6,412.234 5,887.464 993.180 13.292.858
Dairy attendance 5.981,824 5.531.097 961.674 12.464.595
Attendance with access 5.810.033 5.361.026 938,317 12.109,376
25.000 or more
CfWOawTaaVvt 7,404.285 6.298,557 691.036 14.393,878
Da*y attendance 6,844.674 5.752^30 624,538 13.221.442
Attendance w*i access 6.806.881 5.713.959 623.891 13.146.731
AldteWcte
Enrolment 19.719.285 18,619.796 3467,223 41,806.303
Daiy attendance 18.445.991 17.332.255 3.269.054 39.047.300
Attendance witn access 18.104,112 17.088.548 3,227.567 38.420.227
Source: Schocrf Food Purchase Study, 1998.
Compared to remits of the study conducted in SY 1984785, there are now fewer districts and
more students. The number of school districts fell 7.2 percent while the estimated number of
students enrolled in these districts rose 20.9 percent over the i2-year period. The distribution of
students continued to shift toward the larger districts. While districts of 25,000 or more
accounted for 19.6 percent oftotal enrollment in SY 1983/84, bySY 1996/97, this share bad risen
to 34.4 percent. This growth in share is due to a combination of smaller districts growing into
this size class and increased enrollment in districts that were already in mis size class in SY
1983/84.
m-5 PROMAR huermiaomaJ
tl
1
BLANK
PAGE
Tabtolll-5: Estimate Enrollrrwnt in Public Unifi^l NSLP School Districts
by Stes of District EmoUmsnt and by On* Category. SY» 1983*4 and«W
School year
AM iMafch l«
Enrolment Percent
1.00010 4 999 5 00010 24.999 ».W9T more
Grade category
aj t—wj»
Enrolment Percent Ertroament Percent Enrolment ft,,,, mm-* Enrolment rarceni
Elementary 1963/84 17.217.203 100.0 807.431 4.7 6.245.298 38.3 6.646.796 38.6 3.517.678 20.4
1986797 19.719,285 100.0 719.451 3.6 5.183,315 26.3 6,412,234 32.5 7.404,265 37.5
MhJJa/aacondary 1963*4 17.359.187 100.0 1.120.094 6.5 6.594.451 38.0 6.388.875 36.8 3JZ55.767 18.8
1996/97 18.619.796 100.0 782.950 42 5.650.823 30.3 5.887.464 31.6 6.298.557 338
Other 1963*4 n/a n/a iVa n/a n/a n/a n/a nra n/a n/a
1996/97 3.467.223 100.0 592.192 17.1 1.190.836 34.3 993.160 26.6 691.036 19.9
Total 1963*4 34.576.390 100.0 1.927.525 5.6 12.839.749 37.1 13.035.671 37.7 6.773.445 19.6
1996*7 41.806.303 100.0 2.094.593 5.0 12024.975 28.8 13.292.858 31.8 14.393.878 34.4
No*: Tr» 1967and 1986SWdafmlh*^^
and it dU not alow lor an •other* category.
Source: School Food Purctms* Study. 1987 and Scftoo//^ Purchase SM* 1986.
<&
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STUDY
FINALREFOMT
Some school districts now operate at least a portion oftheir systems throughout the calendar year
in lieu ofthe traditional 3-month summer break. Three different forms of year-round education
are currently in use: single-track, multi-track, and extended year. Each of these forms results in
a reconfiguration ofthe school year. As a result, year-round operations can affect the pattern of
food acquisition and use as well as the utilization of physical facilities.
The single-track approach is used largely for the educational value ofavoiding a three-month
interruption in the instructional program. It does not result in more efficient use ofthe facility
or the instructional staff; rather, it evens out the same 180 days ofinstruction across the school
year. The multi-track approach, in contrast, makes it possible to extend the capacity ofthe school
by about one-third ifa four-track system is used. The extended year form, which is infrequently
used, lengthens the school year up to 240 days of instruction.
The National Association for Year-Round Education reports that in SY 1996797, some form of
year-round education was used in 2,400 schools in 460 public school distncts with an enrollment
of 1.8 million students.1 This level ofenrollment reportedly represents a nearly 4-fold increase
since SY 1986/87. According to Association records, more than halfof all year-round program
schools and 40 percent ofthe school districts are in California. Other leading states in terms of
number ofyear-round schools are Texas, North Carolina, and Arizona.
Results of this study estimate that 431 public unified NSLP school districts, 4.3 percent of the
total, were engaged in year-round education in SY 1996/97, as shown in Table II1-6. It would
appear from these findings that year-round instruction has substantially greater appeal for larger
school districts. Nearly half (46.3 percent) of all districts with 25,000 or more enrollment were
found to be applying the concept in some form in at least a portion oftheir schools.
1/ Nation! Aaocntkn for Year-Round Education, YearRound Education Fact Sheet. December S. 1997.
UI-7 PROMAR International
W
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STUDY
FINAL REPORT
of Public Uniflsd NSLP School Districts Operating
Ytsr-Round by Sin off School District, SY1996/97
; might not add to 100.0 due to rounding.
Sourc*: School Food Purctmm Study, 1908.
Districts that are engaged in year-round operations account for 17.2 percent ofall public unified
NSLP schools and report that, on average, 19.1 percent of their schools are year-round As can
be seen in Table UI-7, the smaller school districts that have year-round schools are operating on
this basis in a large share of their schools. For those districts of 1,000 to 4,999, nearly half of
their schools (46.1 percent) were being operated on a year-round basis in SY 1996/97. It would
also appear from these findings that the year-round approach is being used somewhat more in
elementary than in middle/secondary schools, at least among the larger districts.
III-8 PROMAR International
3d
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STUDY
FINAL *EPORT
TabtelH-7: Numbar of Schools in Public Unrfiod NSLP School
Districts Operating Year-Round Programs, by Grads Category and
by School District Enrollment, SY 1986797
GradacaiiQOfY
HJddra/
School district snrolnwrt Damantsry sscondary Other ToM
Lees than 1.Q0Q
Total number of schools 0 0 0 0
Numbar of schools year-round 0 0 0 0
Percent year-round aft n/a n/a na
i.gwto4.m
Total numbar of schools 903 261 65 646
Numbar of schools year-round 219 136 36 391
Parcant year-round 43.5 52.2 42.6 46.1
5.000 to 24.999
Total number of schools 2.034 1.066 506 3.596
Numbar of schools year-round 540 126 101 770
Percent year-round 26.5 122 20.0 21.4
25.000 or more
Total number of schools 5.204 2.248 1.120 8.572
Numbar of schools year-round 1.100 201 18 1.319
Percent year-round 21.1 8.9 1.6 15.4
£LdJakj&
Total number of schools 7.741 3.566 1.710 13.016
Number of schools year-round 1.859 466 156 2.480
Percent year-round 24.0 13.1 9.1 19.1
Source: SchocV Food Purchese Study, 1998.
While the number of schools on a year-round schedule accounted for only 3.3 percent of all
public unified NSLP schools in SY 1996797, die fact that this approach is being tried in so many
school districts, particularly larger districts, suggests the potential for considerable expansion in
the future.
PROMAR International
31
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STUDY
FINAL REPORT
B. Characteristics of School Feedinf Proframs
1. Participation hi NSLP and SBP
School district participation in die NSLP was a requirement tor inclusion in the sample for this
study. Thus, participation in NSLP, at least at the level of the school district, was assured.
Participation in the SBP was not required tor inclusion in the study. Nor was there a requirement
that all schools within the district participate in the NSLP.
On the basis of study results, it is estimated that there were 75,696 schools operated by 10,083
public unified NSLP school districts in SY 1996797. Ofthe total number ofschools, over three-quarters
(76.1 percent) participated in both the NSLP and the SBP. Another 22.0 percent
participated exclusively in the NSLP. In a small number of school districts taking part in the
study, a portion of the districts' schools did not participate in either program. Nationally, it is
estimated that 1.9 percent of all schools in this universe did not participate in the NSLP or the
SBP.
Participation in the SBP is somewhat higher in elementary schools (79.1 percent) than in either
ofthe other two grade categories, 73.7 percent in middle/secondary and 70.4 percent in the other
category. Ofall schools participating in the SBP, S3.8 percent qualify as severe need schools.1
Tabto 111-8: Number of Schools in Public Unrfiad NSLP School Districts, by
Grade Category and by Participation in School Meals Programs, SY 1998/97
Middle/
Participation in NSLP/SBP Elementary Secondary Other Total
im. % TflM 3k Total Jit Total %
Participating in NSLP and
SBP 32.542 79.1 17.578 73.7 7.515 70.4 57.635 76.1
Participating in NSLP only 8.528 20.7 5.954 24.9 2.143 20.1 16.625 22.0
Participating in SBP only 0 0.0 8 0.0 0 0.0 8 0.0
Not Participating in NSLP
or SBP 82 0.2 326 1.4 1.020 9.6 1.428 1.9
"SBP severe-need is a subset of SBP
Note: Percentages might not add to 100.0 due to rounding.
Source: School Food Purchase Study, 1998.
1/ Severe need school* receive larger cash reimbursements on free and reduced-pnee breakfasts. All other
reimbursements are unaffected. To be a severe need school, a school must document that its meal preparation costs
exceed the regular reimbursements and that it served more than 40 percent of its NSLP lunches free or at a reduced-price
in the second pnor school year.
01-10 PROMAR International
3X
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STUDY
FINAL MEFOMT
2. Number of Lunches and Breakfasts Served
Public unified NSLP school districts served nearly 3.9 billion lunches in SY 1996/97, as indicated
in Table IU-9.' Just over half (50.5 percent) of these lunches were provided at no charge while
another 8.1 percentwereprovided at a reduced-price. The remaining 41.3 percent were full-pnce
meals.
A somewhat larger share of all lunches served in larger districts are free or reduced-price
compared to smaller districts. Nearly three-quarters of all lunches served in districts with an
enrollment of25,000 or more were free or reduced-price in SY 1996/97 compared to slightly less
than half in school districts with an enrollment ofless than 1,000. In addition, ofthe number of
free and reduced-price meals served, the share that are free increases with district size, rising
from 77.8 percent in the smallest district size category to 89.0 percent in districts with 25,000 or
more students.
TabfalH-9: Number of NSLP Luncha* Served in Public Unified NSLP School
District* by Typa cf Meal and Size of School District, SY 1996/97
Number of Number of Number Total number
fuS- price reduced-price of free of NSLP
*o%c—n* oo■i C -»M!-R*■■nc.i •,nnf,u,-nw„n|w- n,| lunches lunches lunchee lunches
Leas than 1.000 122.202.144 24.033.360 83.861.077 230.178.581
(•jafsnant 53.1 104 38.4 100.0
enfeaSa passant 74 74 44 54
1.000-4,999 597.267,479 80.888.369 448.271.913 1.135.437.762
saa^osvoent 52.8 74 394 1004
oafcann paroant 374 28.4 224 294
5.000-24.900 547.304.760 92.081.746 539.914.874 1.179.301.390
nw paroant 46.4 74 484 100.0
oaaaaa paroant 34.1 20.1 274 304
25.000 of more 339.838.102 110.533.193 893.170.338 1.343.341.633
anweareaat 254 84 884 100.0
aaaaaaaBMaat 21.1 344 454 344
AlaeuKts 1.606.502.495 318.54S.9U i565.20fl.2u2 3.886.257,366
aaajaaaajst 41.3 8.1 804 100.0
100.0 Wr9 1«,0
Note: Percentages might not add to 100.0 due to rounding.
Source: School Food Purchase Study, 1998.
1/ This aa*jsan to USDA'i estimate of 4.4 billion lunches served in SY 1996/97 for all participating schools,
public and private, unified and nonunified, in all SO states, the District of Columbia, and US poastnioni.
m-n PROMAR International
33
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STUDY
FINAL REPORT
Comparison fthese results with those ofthe 1984/85 study reveals two major differences. First,
compared to die earlier period, a larger share of NSLP meals are now served in the largest
districts. Ofcourse, some ofthis is due to the continuing consolidation ofsmaller school districts
as well as to the "graduation" of districts to larger size categories due to growth in enrollment.
The differences are greatest for the two middle-size districts (1,000 to 4,999 and 5,000 to 24,999)
which in combination went from accounting for 73.9 percent ofall NSLP lunches in SY 1983/84
to 59.5 percent in SY 1996797 while districts with 25,000 or more students went from 19.7
percent to 34.5 percent
A second difference is the increased share of all lunches that are free and reduced-price in the
more recent period. The earlier study found that, overall, free and reduced-price meals accounted
for 45.2 percent ofall meals in SY 1983/84. That contrasts with an estimate in this study of 58.6
percent in SY 1996/97. This shift toward free and reduced-price meals and away from full-price
meals is common to all size classes of districts.
Public unified districts participating in the SBP served more than 1.1 billion breakfasts in SY
1996/97. Over four out of five (81.1 percent) were provided at no charge to the student and
another 6.0 percent were reduced-price. Nationally, only 12.8 percent were charged full-price.
TLbto 111-10: Number of SBP Breakfasts Served in Public Unified NSLP
School Districts by Type of Meal and Size of School District SY 1996/97
School district
enrollment
Number of
full-price
breakfasts
Number of
reduced price
breakfast
Number of
free
breakfasts
Total number
of SBP
breakfasts
Number of
severe need
breakfasts
Leu than 1.000 14.640,965 5.208.513 34,841.390 54.888.867 25.875.128
1,000-4.999
! »
48.183.207 ! s
«*
22.282.735
7*
32.8
21,084.592
72
«aft
19.422.426
57,990|-
to
100.0
M
211.589.187
3
282.05G.I29
4».3
M
144,318.197
SSmt
223.062.240
mi
•ft*
21.5
5.000-24,999 47.747.542
) Z 33.701.867
291.894.374 153.302.141
eS5ns» 2 442,318.170
"5TTTO987
« ! S 25.000 or more 495.442,463
tajftjS:
349.027.238
«W*B».. { M
mo
7M
ma
All districts 1.124.080J33
Note: Percentac 38 might not add to 100.0 due to rounding.
Source: School Food Purchase Study, 1998.
Ill-12 PROMAR International
3f
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STUDY
FINAL REPORT
As with school lunches, the share of breakfasts that are free or reduced-price increases as the
enrollment size of the district increases. In districts with an enrollment of25,000 or more, 93.2
percent of all breakfasts served were free or reduced-price while in the smallest districts (less
than 1,000 enrollment), 73.2 percent were free or reduced-price. A similar relationship holds
between district size and the share of all breakfasts reimbursed at severe need rates. Among the
largest districts, 70.4 percent of breakfasts were estimated to be severe need while among the
smallest districts, the severe need share was 47.3 percent Nationally, the number ofsevere need
breakfasts served in SY 1996/97 was the equivalentof68.6 percent ofthe number served free and
reduced-price.
The SBP has grown dramatically since the earlier study. The estimated number of breakfasts
served in public unified school districts has nearly tripled. The distribution ofbreakfasts among
free, reduced-price, and full-price has not changed much nationally although, interestingly, the
full-price share of breakfasts served in the smallest districts increased rather sharply, offset by
a drop in the share that was served at no charge.
3. Meal Prices
Lunch. The mean full-price elementary school lunch was $1.21 in SY 1996797 while the mean
middle/secondary lunch was $1.38. The median prices were $1.25 and $1.35, respectively. The
mean reduced-price lunch was $.36 for bom elementary and middle/eiementary students while
the median level was $.40 for both. As the zero entries in some price ranges in Table III-11
indicate, some school districts do not charge students who are eligible for reduced-price lunches.
And, a smaller numberofdistricts do not charge their students for lunch, even those students who
are not eligible for free or reduced-price meals.
Differences in mean and median lunch pricesamong school districts ofdifferent sizes were found
to be relatively small. School districts with enrollments of less than 1,000 charged the least for
full-price lunches in both elementary and middle/secondary schools. The mean price ofreduced-price
lunches was lowest among school districts with the largest enrollment, though the
magnitude ofthe difference was very small and median prices were uniform throughout all sizes.
The uniformity of the upper bound on the range of reduced-price lunches is dictated by the
Federal requirement that they not exceed $.40.
m-13 PROMAR International
2>r
SCHOOL FOOD PVkCHASE STUDY
FINAL REPORT
Prices of schooi lunches have risen at a slightly faster rate than the Consumer Price Index (CPI)
for food in the period since the earlier study wa? conducted in SY 1984/85. The mean price of
full-price lunches rose 55.1 percent in elementary schools and 52.2 percent in middle/secondary
schools, while the CPI for all food and beverages rose 48.9 percent and the CPI for food away-from-
home grew by 46.5 percent between 1984 and 1996.
Tabla 111-11: Moan, Median, and Rang* of Student Lunch Prim, Full-Prica
and Raducad-Prica, by Size of Public Unlflad School Diatrict, SY 1996797
Fun-price lunch Reduced-price lunch
School district enrollment Mean Median Range Mean Median Range
rinsam
Lees then 1,000
Elementary 1.14 1.10 .80-1.75 0.39 0.40 .25-40
MkkHe/secondery 1.26 1.25 .80-2.50 0.38 0.40 .20-40
1.000-4,999
Elementary 1.21 1.25 0.00-2.25 0.38 0.40 0.00-40
MMdIe/seoondary 1.37 1.35 0.00-2.75 0.37 0.40 0.00-40
5.000 - 24.999
Elementary 1.22 1.25 .80-1.75 0.37 0.40 0.00 - .40
Middle/secondary 1.40 1.45 .70-2.25 0.37 0.40 0.00-40
25,000 or more
Elementary 1.21 1.25 0.00-1.80 0.35 0.40 0.00-.40
Middle/secondary 1.39 1.40 0.00-1.94 0.35 0.40 0.00 - .40
AM districts
Elementary 1.21 1.25 0.00-2.25 0.38 0.40 0.00 - .40
Middle/secondary 1.38 1.35 0.00 - 2.75 0.36 0.40 0.00 - .40
Source: School Food Purchase Study, 1998.
Breakfast The mean full-price breakfast among these school districts in SY 1996797 was $.59
in elementary schools and $.63 in middle/secondary schools. The median prices were $.65 and
$.70, respectively. As with lunch prices, the mean values for full-price breakfasts were lowest
for the smallest school districts and rose with increasing size. However, the median prices for
a full-price breakfast were nearly the same for the smallest school districts as for the largest.
There was very little difference in die mean values for reduced-price breakfasts, regardless of
district size, and no difference at all in the median values which is a constant $.30 for all sizes.
As with lunch prices, this uniformity results from program requirements in SY 1996797 that set
the reduced-price breakfast at no more than $.30.
Ill-14 PROMAR International
34
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STUDY
FINAL REPORT
Tabtom-12: Moan, Median, and Rang* of Studant Braakfaat Pricaa, Full-Prica
and Raducad-Prica, by Siza of Public Unified School District, SY 1996/97
Fut-price breakfast Reduced-pnce breakfast
School (JKtnct enroCmont Mean Mecfian Rano* Mean Median Range
.«_■—
LMS than 1,000
Elementary 0.44 0.60 0.00-1.00 024 0.30 0.00 - 0 30
MWdto^econdary 0.44 0.70 0.00-1-25 0-24 0.30 0 00-030
1,000-4.999
Elementary 0.59 0.65 0 00-1.25 0.26 0.30 0.00 030
mtmtmmmtm 0.61 0.65 0 00 140 026 0.30 0.00 - 0.30
5.000-24.999
Dementary 0.81 0.70 0.00-1.15 0-23 0 30 0.00-0 30
MktdMsecondary 0.67 0.75 0.00-1.19 0-23 0.30 0.00 - 0.30
25.000 or more
Eleinentary 0.63 0.60 0 00-1.25 0.24 0.30 0.00 - 0.30
MkJda*econdary 0.68 0.73 0.00-1JO 024 0.30 0.00 - 0.30
AJlQlStnCtS
Elementary 0 59 0.65 0.00-1.25 024 0.30 0.00-0 30
Uddteriecondarv 0.63 0.70 0.00-1.40 024 0.30 0.00 - 0.30
Source: School Food Purchase Study. 1996
4. The Role of a la Carte Food Sales
In many schools, students are offered an opportunity to buy food items on an individual or a la
carte basis. A la carte foods thereby become an alternative to the reimbursable meal Whether
or not foods are available to students on an a la carte basis, they are generally made available to
adult staff members. Since most SFA records do net distinguish between student and adult a la
carte sales, the sales estimates that appear in this section include both and should be interpreted
accordingly.
As indicated in Table ID-13, an estimated 69.3 percent ofall public unified NSLP school districts
offer foods a la carte in at least some of their schools.' Only about one-third (36.6 percent) of the
smallest districts offer a la carte. However, the share in the next size class (1,000 to 4,999) rises
\i
dojothese
to consider mil at an «la cane Hem.tothe
kvefc.
m-15
faded to
PROMAR Intenaaomal
37
SCHOOL FOOD PCKCHASE STUDY
FIXALKEPOKT
sharply to 84.1 percent and is even higher in the two largest size classes, reaching 97.6 percent
in districts with 25,000 students or more.
A la carte foods are more frequently available in middle and high schools man in elementary
schools, as can be seen in Table 111-14. A la carte foods at lunch are offered in 74.6 of all
middle/secondary schools but in only 47.7 percent of all elementary schools. As a result, die
number of all schools offering a la carte items for lunch is a smaller share of the total than the
share of school districts. A comparable relationship exists for a la carte foods offered at
breakfast, though only about half as many schools offer a la carte foods at this meal.
For those school districts that offer foods a la carte, die revenue from these sales averaged
$181,456 per district in SY1996/97. Total a la carte sales for all districts arjproachedSl.3 bilbon
in SY 1996/97.
The smallest size class, districts with less than 1,000 students, average S628 in a la carte sales per
1,000 students although this size category is die least likely to offer a la carte with only 36.6
percent of the districts offering a la carte. This compares to $335 in a la carte sales per 1,000
students for the largest districts ofmore than 25,000 students. One reason for this might be die
increased number of students in larger districts that receive their meals free or reduced whereas
students in smaller districts who pay full-price for their meals have the option of choosing a
reimbursable meal or buying a la carte.
Of die 41.8 million students attending public unified NSLP school districts in SY 1996/97, as
many as nine out of every ten (89.7 percent) had access to a la carte sales (Table III-15).1 In
those districts with 1,000 or more students, 92 percent had access to a la carte sales. Only in die
smallest districts, those with enrollments of less than 1,000, did less than half (42.6 percent) the
students have access to a la carte sales.
1/ Since ail students within these districts might not have had access to a la carte sales, these percentages should be
considered upper bounds.
111-16 PROMAR International
J/
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASESTUDY
FINAL REPORT
Tabto IM-13: UM of A La Cart* Sates Among Public Uniffcd NSLP School
Districts, by Size of District SY 1996/97
Pjstncts ortertog a la carte.
Percent or
Number total
Ala cartB sales. SY 1996*7
adcilnlo11onil oiltishaiKnXl e■ nII rinoefcmae■n ncl ToM
Sates per
Mean par 1.000
dtothct students
(WOO) <*> 9)
Less than 1.000 1.249 36.6 55,866 44.734 628
1,000 to 4.999 4214 84.1 406.646 96.965 455
5.000 to 24.999 1278 90.6 400.734 313.644 383
25,000 <x more 247 976 402,660 1.632.811 335
Aldtetricts 6.988 69.3 1267.926 181.456 392
Source: School Food Purchase Stuuy. 1998
TablaM-14: Psrcsn! jf Public Unified NSLP Schools Offaring
A La Cart* Foods at Lunch and Breakfast by So* of
District and Qrada Catsgory. SY 1996/97
Grade category AldMricts Leas than 1.000 1,000 to 4.999 5.000 to 24.998 25.000 or more
r^aar^afaft raf i~hi-u-ieai
Elementary 47.7 235 302 53.6 56.7
MMSa/aaoondary 74.6 399 78.1 812 792
Other 33.3 92 33.0 452 48.1
B» Total 54.1 252 51.6 61.0 61.5
Elementary 20.3 6.6 132 232 27.7
Mktoto/secondary 45.6 23.4 37.7 60.0 54.0
Other 9.3 5.8 13.9 9.7 4.9
ToM 26.7 12.7 218 32.7 32.4
Source: School Food Purcnase Study. 1996.
IB-17 PROMAR International
3?
FOOD FUMCHASE STUDY
FTNALMEFOMT
-15: cfStudonts in PubUc United MSLP School
Wk ACCOM to A La Carat Sttos,
of Schoo District. SY 1996797
Numbarof
atudanaiwart iMudants watout
accaaatoaba accaaa Total numbar
School dkMrict enroament cart* toaiacarta ofaajdancs
Laaattan 1.000 882.980 1.201.673 2.094593
rawparcant 42.6 57.4 100.0
column paroant 2.4 27J 50
1.00010 4.960 10.297.959 1.727.016 12.024.975
aw paroant 85.6 M.4 100.0
soknn pofcsnt 27JS 40.1 26.8
5.000to24.908 12.256.892 1.035.966 13.292.658
rowparcant 92.2 7J 100.0
column paroant 32.7 24.1 31.8
25.000 or man 14.054.220 330.656 14,393.878
■Of—ml 97.6 2.4 100.9
column percent 37.5 7J 34.4
Mdttfc* 37.501.990 4.304.313 41.806.303
rowpanant 89.7 103 100.0
column parcant 100.0 100.0 100.0
Sourca: School Food Study, 1908
To help put a la carte sales in context, receipts from a la carte sales, as reported by the school
district, werecompared to our calculated estimate ofreceipts frcm the sak ofrembursabk meals
and Federal reimbursements and with the receipts, as reported by the district, from the sale of
food through other programs. Receipts from the sale of reimbursable meals were estimated on
the basis of the reported prices charged tor full-price and reduced-price meals and the number
ofeach of these meals served during the quarter in which the school district participated in die
study. Federal reimbursements were estimated on the basis ofthe number of free, reduced-pnee.
and full-price meals served and the standard reimbursement rates for SY 1996V97' Receipts from
1/ No
served ■ the second
severe need
for ate addibonM 2 ccatt per meal rranour
school veer were served free or at
m-i8
[ WflMfC 60 pCffCCaat Of mOfT Off
PROMAR
<fc
SCHOOL FOOD PVMCHAS£ STUDY
FINAL MEFOMT
other program sales and from a la carte sales were reported by participating school districts for
the quarter of their participation in the study.
The estimated revenue from these sources for SY 1996797 by size ofcustnet is displayed in Table
III-16. Receipts from a la carte sales for all school districts combined accounted for only 13.6
percent of total receipts from these four mam sources of SFA revenue. Federal reimbursements
accounted for the largest share (S5.9 percent), by far, followed by student meal receipts which
accounted for another 24.3 percent Other program sales were about half as important as a la
carte sales, accounting for an estimated 6.2 percent ofthe total.
As a share oftotal receipts, a la carte receipts were 'ugbest for medium-size school districts, those
with enrollments of 1,000 to 24,999 The relatively high incidence offull-price meals among the
smallest school districts (less than 1,000 students) results in student meal receipts equal to one-third
of total revenue while this source of revenue accounts for less than half this share (14.0
percent) among die largest districts where free and reduced-price meals are in the majority.
m-19 PROMAR iHUrwznomal
V
1
BLANK
PAGE
M-16: Comparison of Sources of District RtvsntM in Public Untflsd NSLP School Districts
by Sizs of District, SY 1996V97
cMof<aattctNM«nua
1.000 1.000 to 4 MB
$000 %0ftaM
MMMy
$000 %oftotJi
25.000 or mom
$000 %0ftoM $000 % of total $000 %o»to*
*-'—-*•
161.806 33.4 607.867 30.8 746.573 27.6 415.907 14.0 2.132.343 243
252.410 52.0 1367.455 48.4 1300.027 51.0 2.006.654 67.6 4.908.546 553
<»">•.«.~«* 14.964 3.1 148.333 5.7 188.967 70 102.009 63 546332 63
A la cm
'-■-*■
56.866 113 306.000 15.1 301325 14.5 353.387 11J 1.100300 13.8
ToM 469.136 100.0 2.010,803 100.0 2.707,862 100.0 2371.007 100.0 8.703.717 100.0
tat couM not PRWKJB a la
School Food Study, 1996.
HP
SCHOOL FOOD FLMCHASE STUDY
FINAL REPORT
Respondents for those school districts that offered foods a la carte were asked to identify the ten
top-selling (by dollar sales) a la carte food items for both elementary and middle/secondary
schools. Foods were described in general terms, e.g. cookies, ice cream, pizza, etc. A total of
61 foods were identified. They are listed in Table 111-17, together with the number of school
districts that identified the food as one ofits ten top-selling a la carte items, for elementary and
middle/secondary schools.
These results should be interpreted with care. The information was difficult to collect since most
SFAs do not maintain records on this basis. The responses were judgmental and should therefore
be treated as approximations of the leading a la carte foods. As indicated in Table III-17, milk,
fruit drinks, ice cream, and cookies were most frequently cited as leading a la carte sellers in
elementary schools. Among middle/secondary schools, fruit drinks, pizza, snack chips, ice
cream, cookies, and french fries topped the list in terms ofthe frequency with which foods were
identified.
01-21 PROMAR International
ft
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STUDY
FINAL REPORT
Table 111-17: Number of Public Unified NSLP School Districts Identifying
Specified Foods as Ons of Ton Top Selling A La Carts Food Items, by
Elementary and Middle/Secondary, SY 1996/97
Middle/ Middle/
Food description Elementary secondary Food description Elementary secondary
number of school districts number of school districts
MMSJ tnii r\ 2.690 2.014 Meat snacks 103 39
Fruit drinks 2.583 4.953 Yogurt 93 337
Pizza 1.274 4.212 Pudding 137 81
French fries 733 3.284 Snack crackers 506 665
Soft drinks 32 609 Egg rod n/a 152
Hamburgers 510 1.527 Granoiabars 148 448
Cheeseburgers 42 594 BreadsOcks/bread/rolls 96 687
Snack chips 1.290 3.719 Mashed potatoes 52 184
Burritos 55 973 Tea 44 532
Sandwiches 168 2.014 Com dog 29 218
Icecream 2.480 3.479 Milkshake 38 256
Hot dogs 110 473 String cheese 194 n/a
Cookies 2.019 3.328 Potato items 18 185
Pretzels 599 977 Baked potatoes 39 254
Snack cakes 816 2.337 Frozen fruit bars 23 13
Popcorn 163 11 Vegetables n/a 578
Bagels 81 349 Hot chocolate n/a 36
Soup 41 235 Cheese sticks 12 114
Fruit 386 880 Rice n/a 76
Tacos 73 412 Cottage cheese n/a 37
Nachos 218 1,111 Sunflower seeds 32 22
Water 251 1.336 Peanuts 18 n/a
Fruit roll-ups 1.348 635 Cereals 12 n/a
Candy 333 1.505 Fruit snacks/dried fruit 79 10
Donuts 159 548 Onion rings 20 187
Chicken nuggets 279 1.042 Desserts/baked goods 332 586
Chicken strips 16 282 Chicken fillet 48 64
Pickles 54 126 Miscellaneous pockets n/a 239
Salad 65 688 Chicken sandwiches 81 807
Entree items 456 1.063 Other n/a 15
Source: School Food Purcnase Study, 1998.
5. Programs Served other than NSLP and SBP
Many school food programs are used to prepare foods for purposes other than serving lunch
and/or breakfast to enrolled students. Historically, SFAs have provided meals to school staffand
have catered school events. In more recent years, they have extended their reach to include a
variety of other food assistance programs, some unique to the local community and some FNS-sponsored.
111-22 PROMAR International
ff
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STUDY
FINAL REPORT
School districts are not required to maintain separate records for foods acquired for these otl.
purposes if the revenues generated by the sale of these foods meets or exceed the cost.
Nonetheless, it is useful to know the general magnitude ofthese activities for purposes ofmaking
inferences with regard to foods used in preparing student meals. The measurements of food
acquisition that are described later in this report include acquisitions for these uses as well as for
school meals.
It is estimated that just over 80 percent ofall nublic unified NSLP school districts had sales in
addition to student meals in SY 1996797. Nationally, the sales from these programs in SY
1996/97 is estimated at $547 million.
Meal sales to adult staff in 80.7 percent ofall districts was the most frequently noted source of
other sales followed by S7.6 percent of all districts that provided food for school events. These
were the two most prominent sources of other food program sales, regardless ofschool district
size.
With increasing enrollment size, SFA involvement in other food programs increases. It is
noteworthy that halfor more ofall districts with an enrollment of25,000 or more were estimated
to have provided meals through the Head Start, Child and Adult Care Feeding, and Summer Food
Service Programs in SY 1996/97. This is also reflected in the somewhat greater share of total
revenue accounted for by receipts from these programs, as noted earlier.
111-23 PROMAR International
&
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STUDY
FINAL REPORT
Table IIM8: Share of Public Unified NSLP School Districts Serving Other
Programs, by Size of District and Type of Program, SY 1996797
Less than 1,000 to 5.000 to 25,000 All
Type of program 1.000 4,999 24.9999 or more districts
^olr. -«o
Adult staff 74.3 84.0 83.5 84.2 80.7
Head Start 5.8 36.7 33.0 58.5 26.3
Elderly feeding 0.0 3.1 6.2 11.1 2.7
Child and Adult Care feeding 0.0 7.1 16.8 50.6 7.2
Day care 3.0 7.4 23.8 20.2 8.5
Summer Food Service Program 14.6 21.4 40.9 54.2 22.7
Other schools 2.1 10.4 24.1 29.2 10.0
Disaster feeding 0.0 11.3 19.1 26.1 9.0
School events 33.5 69.7 67.5 88.1 57.6
Public Catering 2.5 24.5 29.6 24.1 17.8
Other 0.0 3.4 12.8 7.5 3.6
Source: School Food Purchase Study. 1998.
6. Food Service Management Companies
School districts have increasingly turned to food service management companies (FSMCs) to run
their food programs in recent years. The General Accounting Office estimated that about 8
percent of all SFAs participating in the NSLP in SY 1994/95 used FSMCs, up from around 4
percent in SY 1987/88.' An earlier study conducted for FNS found that approximately 5.6
percent of all school districts participating in the NSLP in SY 1990/91 were using FSMCs.2
1/ General Accounting Office, School Lunch Program: Role and Impacts of Private Food Service Companies. August
1996.
21 Price Waterhousc, Study of Food Service Management Companies in School Nutrition Programs. USDA, FNS,
OAE, June 1994.
111-24 PROMAR International
%
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STUDY
FINAL REPORT
The results ofthis survey are consistent with these earlier findings, indicating that 9.7 percent of
all public unified school districts participating in the NSLP were using FSMCs in SY 1996/97.
This suggests that FSMCs are continuing to make inroads into the school food market. A slightly
smaller share of national enrollment (9.2 percent) is represented by FSMCs, compared to the
share of districts where they operate.
It appears from the distribution of FSMCs by district size shown in Table III-19 that these
operations have concentrated among mid-size school districts, those in the 1,000 to 24,999 size
range. This is consistent with findings of the study conducted for FNS cited above. A
comparison of the mean number of years these districts have been under food service
management companies suggests that FSMCs have not been serving the largest districts quite as
long and that it has been even more recently that they have begun managing among the smallest
districts.
Table 111-19: Food Service Management Companies Serving
Public Unified NSLP School Districts, by Size off District SY 1996/97
All Less than 1.000 to 5.000 to 25.000
Item distiicts 1.000 4,999 24.999 or more
Number of districts with food service
management company 975 209 582 166 18
Share of all districts 9.7 6.1 11.6 11.8 7.1
Average number of years under food
service management company 9.5 4.0 10.3 14.0 8
Total enrollment of food service
management company districts 3.850.327 159.140 1.356.446 1.190.166 1.144,575
Share of total national enrollment 9.2 7.6 11.3 9.0 8.0
Average enrollment of food service
management company districts 3.949 761 2.331 7.170 83.588
Source: SchocV Food Purchase Study, 1998.
111-25 PROMAR international
V7
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STUDY
FINAL REPORT
As indicated by the estimate ofmean district enrollment, FSMCs are operating in school districts
of widely different size. The mean enrollment ranged from 761 in the smallest size class to
64,093 in the largest. C 'the 28 FSMC-operated SFAs in the sample, only one is known to have
split managerial responsibility within the district, with some schools FSMC-run and some schools
managed by the district's food service director. In this particular case, the division of
responsibility was viewed as temporary in that the district was moving toward an entirely FSMC-run
program.
A comparison of FSMC and non-FSMC districts indicates that a slightly higher share of FSMC
operations are in districts with less than 25 percent of their students from households below the
poverty level as well as in districts with more than 75 percent of their students from poor
households (Table 111-20).
Table 111-20: Comparison of Public Unified NSLP School Districts
Under FSMC Operation and Not Under FSMC Operation,
by District Income and Urbanicity, SY 1996/97
Operated by FSMft Mot ooeratedbv FSMCs
Number Number of
Item of districts Percent districts Percent
Share of students in poor households
Less than 25 percent 693 71 5.545 61
25 to 75 percent 253 26 3.465 38
Great'" than 75 percent _2S -2 _az 1
Ma! 975 100 9.108 100
Degree of urbanicity
Unclassified 19 2.0 33 0.4
Large central city 71 7.2 56 0.6
Mid-size central city 14 1.5 36- 4.0
Urban fringe of large city 172 17.7 682 7.5
Urban fringe of mid-size city 58 5.9 540 5.9
Large town 52 5.4 169 1.9
Smalltown 416 42.7 3.138 34.5
Rural 122 17.6 4.125 45.3
Total 975 100.0 9.108 100.0
A la carte sales per enrolled student $47 $34
Source: ScnocV Fi^od Purchase Study, 1998.
111-26 PROMAR International
W
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STUDY
FINAL REPORT
7. Menu Planning Systems
A key element of the reform of the school meals program that got underway in 1994 under the
banner of the School Meals Initiative (SMI) was the required adoption of one of four available
menu planning approaches. Regardless ofwhich approach or combination ofapproaches is used
by an SFA, foods served over a one week menu cycle are required to meet updated nutritional
requirements that satisfy the Dietary Guidelines for Americans developed jointly by the USDA
and the Department of Health and Human Services.
Two of the optional approaches, Nutrient Standard Menu Planning (NuMenus) and Assisted
Nutrient Standard Menu Planning (Assisted NuMenus), are computerized systems that in addition
to their flexibility make it possible to focus on the nutritional content ofthe weekly menu rather
than the nutritional content ofindividual foods. The Food-Based Menu Planning and Traditional
Vital Patterns systems focus on the food components of the menu. The latter approach most
closely approximates the system that was in use prior to the adoption of the new regulations.
In addition to granting SFAs additional flexibility in the implementation of these options,
legislation approved in 1996 authorized SFA's to use "any reasonable approach" in accordance
with Department Guidelines to meeting the requirements of the Dietary Guidelines. Thus, some
SFAs are following procedures other than the prescribed approaches described above.
School Year 1996/97 was the first year in which the new menu planning requirements were in
effect. However, States were allowed to issue waivers that allowed school districts to delay
implementation for up to two years. As a result, and because USDA encouraged SFAs to phase-in
the new approaches, some school districts were using more than one system in SY 1996/97.
As shown in Table 111-2!, the vast majority of school districts (81.6 percent) were using either
the food-based or traditional approaches to menu planning in SY 1996/97. While some of these
districts were also experimenting with other approaches, including the computerized systems,
most were not Only 3.0 percent of all districts were using a combination of approaches Nearly
one-fifth (19.6 percent) of all SFAs were using the NuMenu or Assisted NuMenu approaches in
SY 1996/97.
The use of alternative menu planning systems at the school level (Table 111-22) corresponds
closely with use at the district level. Nearly four ofevery five schools (79.6 percent) were using
either the food-based or traditional approaches in SY 1996/97, while 19.1 percent of all schools
111-27 PROMAR International
ii
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STUDY
FINAL MEPOKT
were using one of the computerized approaches. The rate of use of NuMenus and Assisted
NuMenus is somewhat greater among elementary schools (21.6 percent) than among
middle/secondary (! 7.0 percent) or schools falling in the "other" grade category (13.2 percent)
Table 111-21: Number of Public Unified NSLP School Districts by Type
of Menu Planning System, SY 1996/97
Assisted
Menu planning system NuMenu NuMemi Food-based Traditional Other Total
NuMenu 1.434 0 138 94 0 1.666
Assisted Nu Menu 0 278 0 32 0 310
Food-based 138 0 4iS7 21 0 4.856
Traditional 94 32 21 3.203 14 3.364
Other 0 0 0 14 171 185
Total 1.666 310 4.856 3.364 185 10.381
Note: Entries on the diagonal indicate the number of school districts that are using one rnenu planning system
throughout the district: al other entries indicate the number of school districts using the indicated
combinations. (To the extent school districts use more than one system, they are represented more
than once in this matrix. The total number of entries (10,381) exceeds the total number of distncts
(10.083) by the extant of this double-counting.)
Source: School Food Purchase Study. 1998
111-28 PROMAR International
fO
SCHOOL FOOD PURCHASE STUDY
FINAL MEFOMT
Tab* 111-22: Number of Schools in Public Unified NSLP School Districts by
Typ« off Manu Planning System and Grada Category, SY 1996/97
Menu planning system
Mddte/
lementary Secondary Other Total
8.049 3.572 989 12.610
mm mi ?J 1040
tea «t 103 170
823 433 290 1,537
at* 0T0 tea 1040
m *• aa 31
17.925 10.818 4.844 33.587
wu Ml 1*4 1040
400 400 583 442
13.898 8312 3.439 25.549
044 SL1 Oft 1040
348 940 3M
98
3*4
374 507 977
NuMenu
Assisted Nu Menu
Food-based
Traditional
Other
_
22 10 13
Total 41.070 23.532 9,658
130
1000
74260
1040
1040
Note: Only schools that participate in the NSLP are shown. Percentages might not add to 100 0 due to
roundtog.
Source: School Food Purchase Sluoy. 1998.
111-29 PROMAR International
SI
m
SCHOOL FOODMOMSTUDY
FINAL MEFOMT
»
Meal Preparation Facilities
Study respondents were asked to identify the bomber of kitchens they operated using the
following system of classification:
• Central Kitchens. Meals are prepared for serving at receiving or satellite schools.
No student meals are served on-site at a central kitchen.
• Base Kitchen. At this type ofkitchen, meals are prepared for serving on-site and
for shipment to other locations (including multiple locations within the same
school).
• Receiving or Satellite Kitchens. These kitchens obtain partially or fully prepared
meals from central kitchens or an outside vendor, but other than re-heating or
refrigeratiop, no food preparation occurs at a satellite kitchen.
• Combination Kitchens. Some food is prepared for on-site consumption and some
food is received fully or partially prepared from a central or base kitchen.
• On-sitc Kitchens. From these kitchens, all meals served are p.epared at the
facility in which the kitchen is located. No meals are shipped to other locations.
• Other. This kitchen type is described by the respondent.
Public unified NSLP school districts operated an estimated 72,150 kitchens of various types in
SY 1996797. This falls short of the estimated number of schools in this universe by about 4 7
percent.
Many school districts operate more than one type of kitchen within their systems. Not
surprisingly, larger school districts are more likely to do this than smaller districts. Cm average,
districts in the largest enrollment category operated three types of kitchens in SY 1996797 while
districts in the next smallest size class averaged just over two kitchen types while most of the
remaining districts operated only one type.
On-site kitchens are the most prevalent type, particularly among smaller districts where they were
found in 90.0 percent of all districts and accounted for 81.5 percent of the total number of
kitchens. While base kitchens are found in all but the smallest districts, central kitchens play a
more prominent role among the largest districts. Of the largest districts, 32.0 percent operate
central kitchens and 78.2 percent operate satellite kitchens, many ofwhich are presumably served
by then* associated central kitchens.
m-30 PROMAR International
sx
Table 111-23: Number of Public Unified NSLP School District Kitchens by Type of Kitchen end Size of School District, SY1998/97
School dtoaxt MouftiiMit
BBMJMBI
• of • of • of • of
kik*«ns
7lT"l'^l I
iof *of
SMee MdMiw
pomp. kH^aa
• of iof
districts kilctMns
pja^ajf
• of »of
eases HMHH
Otwrtwaa
• of •of
AIMcHana
• of •of
afeax* kMctttns
laasftan 1,000
1.000-4.998
column pGicont
5.000 - 24,998
column parcent
25,000 or mom
column percent
ANotsticts
column percent
0 0 413 413 218 363 265 265 3.071 4.681
66 ao 12.1 72 94 63 64 60 90.0 815
0.0 0.0 M 5.3 89 21 123 64 360 122
as 80 2.911 3.640 2.215 6040 1.455 3.144 3.525 12502
u 0.4 58.1 14.3 44.2 23.7 260 123 764 49.0
31.4 29.5 877 48.8 672 35.4 82.5 37.3 448 325
115 124 837 2.263 664 4.069 468 2.725 1.083 11.582
9.1 as 38.4 10.9 47.1 18.8 332 161 766 55.6
40.2 41.0 18.5 29.1 202 24.0 20.1 32.3 168 302
81 m 142 1.461 196 6565 118 2282 186 9.649
32.0 0.4 58.0 7.3 762 32.7 468 11.4 715 48.1
28.4 29.5 33 18.8 60 365 61 27.0 24 25.1
285 303 4.302 7.775 3295 17.058 2326 8.436 7,865 36423
26 0.4 42.7 10.8 32.7 236 231 11.7 760 533
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1060 100.0 1060 100.0 100.0
0
60
60
87
8J
468
44
32
327
25
160
165
136
1.4
100.0
0
60
60
86
63
S62
44
62
266
25
61
162
155
62
1060
3.411 5.742
1060 100.0
338 60
5.009 25.500
1068 100.0
467 363
1.410 20.837
1060 100.0
14.0 269
253 20.071
1060 1060
25 27.8
10.063 72150
1060 1060
1060 100.0
Note. If dbtticts us* mom than orta krtcnen typa. they ara counted wtti aacfi lutenen type. Numbar of distneo under all kitcnana MM be was than
Source: School Food Purchase Study. 1998.
tie lot* tor tna row
sj
SCHOOL FOODPUKHASE STVDY
FINAL
feeding programs m many different ways. A wide array of I
Some of the pBJ— features that are in current use are listed m TaMe
the percentages displayed here arc for schools and not school districts
features are made available for some schools within a given district but not
Ofthe features listed, offer versus serve was found to be the most widely used with an estimated
85.1 percent of all schools using it. And, though a higher share of schools in the very largest
school districts provided the option, 73.0 percent of all schools in the smallest districts did too.
For some ofthese program features, the share ofschools that offered the feature rose sharply with
increased district size. This includes the practice of offering more than one entree and offering
foods on an a la carte basis, whether for lunch or breakfast. For other features, however, the
relationship went in the opposite direction. This is most evident for schools featuring an open
campus. The share of schools with an open campus increases from only 3.4 percent among the
largest districts to 24.8 percent among the smallest.
The share ofschools operating vending machines and using electronic debit cards was also found
to be highest among schools in the smallest districts. Respondents were not asked to indicate
under whose control vending machines were operated within the school district. Since electronic
debit cards are primarily used to track the status of paying customers, the much higher incidence
of free and reduced-price meal