|
School Meals Initiative
Implementation Study:
First Year Report
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Background
The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School
Breakfast Program (SBP) are central parts of a national policy designed to
safeguard the nutritional well-being of the Nation’s children. The
programs are administered by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), operating through State
agencies (SAs) that have agreements with the local school systems in their
States.
Despite the progress that has been achieved over the years
in enhancing the quality of school meals, results of research conducted in
the early 1990s indicated that school meals, on balance, were not meeting
certain key nutritional goals. In late 1993, the USDA launched a
far-reaching reform of the school meals programs, a reform aimed at
upgrading the nutritional content of school meals. The several elements of
this reform are collectively referred to as the School Meals Initiative
for Healthy Children (SMI), the principal subject of this report.
Purpose of the Study
In September 1996, FNS contracted with The Gallup
Organization, with the support of PROMAR International, to conduct a
three-year study of USDA’s school-based child nutrition programs. The
study has three over-riding objectives. They are to describe and evaluate:
-
overall implementation of the School Meals Initiative
for Healthy Children
-
key operational characteristics of the school meals
programs at both the school district and State agency level, and
-
training and technical assistance activities
associated with the school meals programs.
Since this is the first national study following the start
of the SMI, it serves as an initial progress report on implementation of
the reform.
Methodology
This report is the first in a series of reports to be
issued as part of a three-year study of the USDA’s school-based child
nutrition programs. The report findings are based on data collected from a
nationally representative sample of school food authorities (SFAs)
participating in the NSLP and from the 50 State child nutrition agencies
responsible for administration of the program. Data were collected during
School Year (SY) 1997/98 through use of self-administered mail surveys,
supplemented by telephone interviews where necessary.
The database of public school districts maintained by
Quality Education Data (QED) was used in drawing the sample. Two types of
school districts represented in the QED database were found to be
appropriate for inclusion in the study: (1) regular public school
districts and (2) school districts administered by supervisory unions.
While regular school districts are coterminous with SFAs, in the case of
supervisory unions it was found that more than one district was served by
an individual SFA. Given this difference, regular school districts and
school districts in supervisory unions were sampled separately. A sample
of 2,325 districts (2,225 regular school districts and 100 supervisory
union districts) was drawn.
The sample frame for the regular school districts was
stratified by two levels of poverty and by the seven FNS administrative
regions. The sample of 2,225 regular school districts was allocated to the
14 strata in proportion to the number of school districts in each stratum.
The frame for school districts in supervisory unions was stratified by
poverty level only; the sample of 100 districts was allocated
disproportionately to ensure sufficient representation of high poverty
districts. Within each stratum, the sample was drawn with probability
proportional to size (PPS), where size was defined as the square root of
the number of students enrolled in a district.
Of the 2,325 districts in the overall sample, 2,251 (97%)
qualified for inclusion in the study by their participation in the NSLP.
Completed surveys were collected from 2,038 respondents, a response rate
of 91%.
Findings
Key findings of the study are summarized here by the
following topics, which correspond to chapters in the report:
-
overall status of SMI implementation
-
procedures followed in implementing SMI
-
impact of the SMI
-
the role of training and technical assistance
-
the role of State child nutrition agencies
Overall Status of SMI
Implementation
The SMI identifies four menu planning options that schools
can use to meet the nutritional standards established by the USDA and the
US Department of Health and Human Services in their Dietary Guidelines for
Americans. The four menu planning options are Nutrient Standard Menu
Planning (NSMP), Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning (ANSMP),
Enhanced Food-Based Menu Planning, and Traditional Food-Based Menu
Planning. The purpose of this section is to determine how many school
districts are using each of the menu planning systems, how far along they
are in putting these systems in place, and their plans for completing the
task. It should be noted that although the SMI began in School Year
1996/97, States were allowed to grant two-year waivers, so the SMI was not
fully operational until School year 1998/99.
Use of Menu Planning Systems
A large majority of all school districts (81%) and schools
(74%) were found to be using one of the food-based menu planning systems
with twice as many districts staying with the traditional system as with
the enhanced (55% vs. 27%). About 20% of all districts were using NSMP
while comparatively few districts (3%) were using ANSMP. About 6% of all
districts are using more than one menu planning system in their schools,
at least temporarily.
Although very large school districts (enrollment of 25,000 or more) are
more likely to use NSMP than are smaller districts, more than twice as
many of the very large districts use a food-based approach as use NSMP.
Implementation Status
With the SMI in only its second year of operation, an
impressive 35% of all districts reported that their chosen system of menu
planning had been fully implemented with another 26% indicating that they
were at least three-quarters implemented. On the basis of information
collected by the FNS Regional Offices in SY 1996/97, it was reported that
waivers had been granted to at least one-third of all SFAs. By the time of
this survey in SY 1997/98, only 7% of all districts said that they had not
yet started implementing their chosen method.
Future Intentions Regarding the
Adoption of NSMP
About half (51%) of those school districts using
food-based systems in SY 1997/98 said that they were either working toward
adoption of NSMP or planned to do so. This share was highest for
elementary schools in mid-size districts (55%) and lowest for
middle/secondary schools in the largest districts (32%).
Availability of Documentation
A variety of documentation is required for analyzing the
nutritional content of school meals. This analysis is required of all
schools, regardless of the menu planning system they use. While schools
using food-based menu planning systems are not required to conduct
nutrient analysis, the information is required by their State agencies
when they conduct this analysis. Two-thirds or more of all districts
report that a majority (11 of 17) of the documentation useful for purposes
of conducting nutritional assessments are routinely available. The
documentation that is most frequently not available is information on the
number of a la carte, adult, and special meals served, which are required
for conducting weighted analysis. While there is a statutory waiver for
weighting until 2003, when the information is available, districts are
encouraged to continue conducting weighted analysis.
Operational Procedures
Use of Grade/Age Categories
To help match menus to the nutritional requirements of
children of different ages, FNS has established different groupings for
use by school districts using the new menu planning systems. The span from
pre-kindergarten through 12th grade has been divided into four categories
with the grade boundaries dependent on the menu planning system.
Survey results indicate that, in practice, districts use a
far wider range of grade/age groupings than prescribed by USDA. It would
appear that the vast majority of districts use groupings that differ from
those specified in FNS guidelines, perhaps because most district schools
are organized by different grade groupings and therefore find it difficult
to use them for purposes of menu planning.
Nutritional Analysis
In addition to the ongoing nutritional analysis that is
required of NSMP/ANSMP schools, one-third of the districts that are using
food-based planning systems are conducting nutritional analysis. This
means that nearly half of all districts (47%) are subjecting their menus
to nutrient analysis. Of those districts conducting nutrient analysis,
over three fourths conduct a weighted analysis weighting foods on the
basis of their relative importance in reimbursable meals.
Most districts (83%) that are conducting nutritional
analysis have had to re-analyze their menus, usually on a monthly basis.
This has been necessary for a combination of reasons with
"achievement of nutritional targets" most frequently cited
followed by pursuit of an "incremental approach to accomplishing the
targets" as the next most important.
Of the 15 software systems approved by FNS at the time of
the survey, over 80% of all districts conducting computerized analysis
were using one system: the NUTRIKIDS package from Lunch Byte Systems.
A significant share (38%) of those food-based districts
that are conducting nutrient analysis are doing so by hand.
Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu
Planning
Comparatively few school districts (3.4%) are using the
ANSMP option. At the time of the survey, only 15 State agencies were
actively providing ANSMP support. For those districts that are using ANSMP,
the nutrient analysis is most frequently conducted by their State agency
(35%), with analytic support also provided by food service management
companies (18%), consultants (14%), and other school districts (14%).
Actions of Food-based Districts
not Conducting Nutrient Analysis
For those school districts that do not have the benefit of
nutritional analysis to guide their menu planning, achievement of the SMI
nutritional objectives poses a special challenge. Survey results indicate
that over 90% of these districts are taking a combination of actions to
achieve the desired outcome. Among the actions taken are: the use of more
nutritious preparation techniques (81%), offering additional servings of
more nutritious foods (77%), and substituting more nutritious foods and
ingredients (77%).
Publicizing the Nutrient Content of MenusMost districts
(83%) do not publicize the nutrient content of their menus, though a
substantially larger share of NSMP/ANSMP districts do so compared to the
others (36% vs.12%). For those districts that publicize nutrient content,
the most frequently used methods are postings and handouts aimed at
students and parents.
Impact of the SMI
We begin by looking at the impacts of the SMI on only
those schools that are using nutrient standard menu planning. This is
followed by an appraisal of the impact of the SMI on all school districts,
regardless of the menu planning system in use.
Impact of Nutrient Standard Menu
Planning
Ease of Implementation
There are a number of tasks to be performed in
implementing nutrient standard menu planning. Most of the more demanding
tasks are associated with the start-up phase though some continue beyond
start-up. For 10 of the 14 tasks identified in the survey, a majority of
the survey respondents characterized them as a "minor burden."
The remaining four tasks were characterized by a majority of the school
foodservice directors as a "major burden." The latter include:
entering and analyzing recipes, obtaining missing nutrient information,
entering and analyzing menus, and obtaining information for weighted
analysis. It is noted that these tasks are core components of NSMP, though
most of the work associated with the first three occurs during initial
implementation. As noted above, the requirements for conducting weighted
analysis have been held in abeyance until 2003. Thus, it is expected that
the level of burden associated with nutrient standard menu planning will
decline for most districts as implementation is achieved.
Ease of Meeting Nutritional
Objectives
About half of all school districts using nutrient standard
menu planning report difficulty in meeting the total calories goal, both
for lunch and breakfast. In terms of nutritional challenge, this is
followed by about 45% of the districts reporting difficulty in meeting the
percent of calories from fat and saturated fat goals in their lunch menus.
A substantially smaller share (25%) of the districts report difficulty in
meeting these goals with their breakfast menus.
Comparatively few districts (16%) have gone the next step
in establishing standards for carbohydrates, sodium, and cholesterol. For
those that have, the standard for sodium is the most difficult to achieve
with 40% reporting difficulty meeting it in their lunch menus.
Other Impacts
For those districts using nutrient standard menu planning,
70 to 80% report that their menus are "somewhat different" than
before SMI. Two-thirds (66%) of the NSMP/ANSMP districts report spending
more time planning breakfast menus and over three-quarters (76%) spend
more time planning lunch menus than before SMI. Again, for many districts,
much of this additional time is thought to be associate d with program
start-up. Of course, to the extent districts change their menus, more menu
planning time could be required in the future too.
Most of the NSMP/ANSMP districts report "no
change" in a la carte sales, either in elementary schools (84%) or in
middle/secondary schools (63%). To the extent school districts report a
change in their a la carte sales, nearly all report increased sales. For
all middle/secondary schools, 35% reported an increase while nearly half
(49%) of all middle/secondary schools in the largest districts experienced
increased a la carte sales.
Overall Impact of SMI on all
School Districts
Ease of Performing Tasks
The vast majority of all school foodservice directors view
the tasks required by SMI as not posing any major difficulty. Of 10 key
tasks that all districts must execute, seven were viewed by a majority of
districts as posing "no difficulty." The remaining three –
adhering to standardized recipes, substituting nutritionally comparable
foods, and documenting last minute substitutions – were found to present
at least "some difficulty" to a majority of the districts. While
a slight majority of directors said that the task of maintaining food
production records provided "no difficulty," this was also the
task most frequently cited (by 11% of directors) as being of "major
difficulty."
Menu Changes
Many school foodservice directors report making numerous
changes in the menu-related features of their programs. This includes:
increased number of fruit and vegetables offered (76% of all districts),
increased number of new menu items (71%), increased portion sizes (54%),
increased variation in menu items (42%), and an increased number of menu
choices for reimbursable meals (36%).
Food Procurement and Preparation
Many school foodservice directors report making widespread
changes in procurement and preparation practices as a result of SMI. For
example, many report increased purchases of low-fat/reduced-fat foods
(81%) and fresh fruits and vegetables (75%). In addition, most districts
are requiring more information on nutrition from their vendors (84%) and
are increasing their use of product specifications (70%).
Program Costs
Over three-quarters (79%) of all districts report that
their overall program costs have increased since implementation of the SMI,
driven largely by increased food costs. Increased food costs are reported
by a large majority of districts in all size and menu planning categories.
Interestingly, a majority of districts in all menu
planning categories (including NSMP) reported no change in administrative
costs following implementation of the SMI, despite the fact that a
majority of NSMP districts also reported spending more time planning
menus.
Plate Waste
To the extent plate waste was affected by the SMI, it
appears to have been a positive impact. A majority of directors reported
no change in food waste. However, to the extent there was change in the
amount wasted, more respondents felt that there had been less waste rather
than more (with the exception of cooked vegetables). NSMP districts
performed slightly better than the others in terms of reducing waste.
Overall SMI Performance and
Acceptance
School foodservice directors report that the SMI has
generally had a neutral-to-positive impact on program performance. While a
majority of all directors report "no change" in performance,
about 30 % report a positive impact on such measures as: program
participation, student and adult acceptance, and the acceptability of menu
choices.
School foodservice directors report that major
stakeholders in the school meals program—students, parents,
administrators, cooks, cashiers, financial staff, and kitchen managers—have
a decidedly positive attitude toward the SMI. School foodservice directors
themselves are strongly supportive with nearly 70% indicating a
"somewhat positive" or "very positive" attitude toward
the program. For those directors using NSMP or ANSMP, nearly 80% had a
positive attitude toward the SMI.
The Role of Training and
Technical Assistance
Familiarity with USDA Training
and Technical Assistance Materials
School foodservice directors were asked about their
familiarity with USDA training and technical assistance materials and, for
the materials they were familiar with, their assessment of its value. At
least two-thirds of all directors reported familiarity with 4 of 9
references identified in the survey. Of the school foodservice directors
indicating familiarity with the materials, a large majority found them of
"some use" while a significant minority found them "very
useful".
Sources of Training and Technical
Assistance
While school districts receive training and technical
assistance related to their food program from several sources, the
principal source by a wide margin is the State child nutrition agency.
Nearly 80% of all districts reported receiving assistance related to the
SMI from this source. Other key sources include: the USDA Food and
Nutrition Information Center, professional associations, computer/software
vendors, and the National Food Service Management Institute. The
assistance provided through each of these sources was given relatively
high marks, with that provided by State agencies, consultants, and
computer/software vendors rated particularly high.
Training Provided and Remaining
Needs
A majority of all school districts have received training
on most key aspects of the SMI. Nearly all participants in the training
programs find them of at least "some use" and for many of the
topics treated in these programs a majority find them "very
useful". Despite the fact that 80% of all districts had received some
SMI training, 40% to 60% of all districts reported that they had not
received training on several key aspects of the SMI. As further evidence
of this need, when asked if their operations would benefit from additional
training on a list of 10 topics related to the SMI, a large majority
responded in the affirmative on all but one of the topics.
The Role of State Child Nutrition
Agencies
All 50 State child nutrition agencies (SAs) were surveyed.
Information was obtained regarding: the menu planning system used by
school districts within their States, SA involvement in training and
technical assistance, the status of nutrition compliance reviews, and any
problems encountered in implementation of the SMI.
Menu Planning Systems
Within most states, two or more menu planning systems are
being used. In only 3 States were all districts within the State reported
to be using the same approach to menu planning. There are several States
in which one or more of the menu planning options were not being used by
any of the State’s districts. This includes 28 states with no ANSMP
districts, 10 with no traditional food-based, 8 with no NSMP, and 7 with
no enhanced food-based. Fifteen SAs were providing or preparing to
provide an ANSMP system to school districts in their States. Of these, 9
were using outside expertise to develop the system; the other 6 were being
developed in-house.
For reasons that are not evident, there is a large
difference in the percentage of districts reported by SAs to be using the
enhanced food-based and traditional food-based systems, compared to the
estimates obtained from the survey of school districts. While the SAs
report a 57%/43% split between enhanced and traditional, results of the
district survey indicate a 33%/67% split.
Training and Technical Assistance
All 50 SAs reported that they were engaged in providing
training in support of the SMI in their respective States in SYs 1995/96
and 1996/97. In all but 5 States, as least half of all districts within
the State were represented in these sessions. Also, all but 5 SAs reported
that they had provided on-site technical assistance related to the SMI
during this period.
At least three-quarters of the SAs indicated that they had
covered all or nearly all of 19 key topics in their training sessions.
Nutrient analysis and marketing of the SMI were among the few topics that
were not universally covered.
The SAs generally gave high marks to the quality of USDA
training materials and technical assistance, though a significant minority
found the information "less than adequate". Their most frequent
criticism was that the information was not provided in a timely fashion,
was not current, and was not sufficiently relevant to their needs.
Compliance Reviews
SAs are required to conduct periodic reviews of school
districts to determine if they are complying with SMI nutrition standards.
Initially, these reviews were to be conducted on a 5-year cycle though the
USDA has recently proposed that the initial cycle be 7 years.
At the time of the SA survey, 14 of the 50 SAs had not
conducted any reviews. Of those that had started conducting reviews, 22
had conducted them for fewer than 20% of their school districts. This is
indicative of the fact that several SAs were still in a
"start-up" phase in terms of training State and district
personnel, combined with the uncertainty of the review schedule.
Of the compliance reviews conducted during the first 1½
to 2 years of the SMI, nearly half (47%) resulted in the issuance of
improvement plans. SAs reported widely varying outcomes in this regard.
Ten SAs reported that their reviews had resulted in no improvement plans
while 21 of the SAs reported that they had required improvement plans for
40% or more of all districts reviewed.
Results of the SA survey indicate that compliance reviews
are requiring widely varying amounts of time to conduct. The median number
of person-hours ranged between 14 and 24 per site, depending on the menu
planning system being reviewed and whether the school served lunch only or
both lunch and breakfast. Since a separate analysis of breakfast menus is
not required unless a different menu planning system is being used for
breakfast, it is not clear why these districts are requiring more time
unless it is due to the influence of those few districts that are using a
different planning system for their breakfasts.
Problems of SMI Implementation
SAs were asked to identify any problems they had
encountered in obtaining information required in monitoring SMI
implementation. They were also asked to identify any problems the school
districts in their States might be having in implementing the SMI. While
SAs reported that they encountered little trouble in obtaining most
information, a significant share of all SAs reported having a
"major" problem with the following: missing standardized recipes
(56%), missing nutritional information from the manufacturer (46%),
incomplete production records (42%), and lack of a la carte and adult
sales information (26%).
For most of the tasks that have to be performed by
districts in implementing the SMI, SAs reported there were few, if any,
problems. The three exceptions for which at least 20 SAs indicated there
was a "major problem" were: adhering to standardized recipes,
data entry for menu analysis for NSMP and ANSMP schools, and obtaining
nutrient information from manufacturers. These tasks are integral to the
success of SMI and therefore of particular importance.
Last modified:
05/22/2009
|
