56
Sara Olson, ScM, RDN Kelley Scanlon, PhD, RDN Food and Nutrition Service US Department of Agriculture By the Numbers: Improve Your Program with USDA Research
Sara Olson, ScM, RDNKelley Scanlon, PhD, RDN
Food and Nutrition Service
US Department of Agriculture
By the Numbers: Improve Your Program with USDA Research
• The Who/What/Why of Child Nutrition Research
• Improvements in Communication
• Study Updates: What’s New and What’s Next
• We want to hear from YOU!
AGENDA
THANK YOU
for your partnership!
First things First…
• Solving for X: What are the key Program successes and challenges?
• We depend on YOU to help get the most accurate information possible
• Using new and existing data and literature to reduce need for new data collection
• School breakfast analyses
• Teens and participation in NSLP
We need YOU!
Why is USDA always bugging me for data??
The key question…
• Measure things in a systematic, nationally representative way
• Supports feedback we receive in other ways
• Ensures all voices/perspectives heard
• Examples:
• School Nutrition and Meal Cost Study (formerly known as SNDA)
• APEC
First Things First: Why We Do Studies
• Take a snapshot/evaluate program operations
• Sometimes, case studies are enough
• Examples:• CN Program Operations study (annual)
• Procurement practices
• Technology use
• SAE Study
• Independent review of applications
First Things First: Why We Do Studies
• Respond to congressional requirements and/or audit recommendations
• Examples:
• Direct certification Report to Congress (annual)
• CN Burden study
• CEP evaluation
• Study of Nutrition and Wellness Quality in Child Care Settings (SNAQCS)
First Things First: Why We Do Studies
• Using existing data to build evidence to support programs
• The importance of breakfast eating
• Learn more about our populations of interest
• Teen students and the NSLP
First Things First: Why We Do Studies
• Inform policy decisions• Create new policies
• Did the policy work? Unintended consequences?
• Estimate impacts of proposed changes
• Evidence for requesting more $$$
• Products/tools/processes and effectiveness
• Educate stakeholders
But What Do We Do With That Data?
Why do some SFAs always get selected for FNS studies?
• Sampling by size• Number of schools
• Meals served
• Single or multi-district SFAs
• Big SFAs = big impact on national results
• Case studies are different
Didn’t I Just Tell You That?
• Sometimes we do need to ask similar questions for different studies
• We can’t link what you report in one study to another
• Let us know!
Do I Have To?
• Technically…
• But we are working to reduce burden where we can
• Please continue to provide input!
• At least two years for large studies for data to be collected, checked, analyzed and written up
• Many levels of clearance before publication
• FNS looking for ways to do more small, fast turn-around studies
• Also exploring new ways of packaging results into shorter documents
Why Do Studies Take So Long to Publish?
• You asked…and we are responding
• Releasing study findings in new/innovative ways
• Directly sharing these results with you and other participants
Improving our Communications
Sample Graphics
Sample Products
Suggestions, Please!
• Come see us in USDA Lane (Booth 2551)
USDA Study Updates
Child Nutrition Reducing Burden Study
Recommendaio
20
What Was the Purpose?
Legislative requirement to identify the best means of efficiently consolidating program reporting requirements for State agencies and School food authorities to improve administrative burden associated with the Child Nutrition Programs.
✓ USDA guidance documents and policy memos
✓ Program standards and requirements
✓ Management evaluations, financial management reviews, and administrative reviews
What Topics were Discussed?
✓ Procurement standards and requirements
✓ Reporting requirements
✓ Research and evaluation studies
What Topics were Discussed?
✓ All State Agencies
✓ Representative sample of 1000 SFA Directors
✓ Workgroups with State-level and SFA-level stakeholders
Thank you!!
Who Provided Information and Input?
✓ Identified needs for more tailored guidance and templates, particularly for SFA procurement activities
✓ Provided suggestions for areas to streamline operations and reduce administrative burden in program review
✓ Established a strong desire to utilize technology to improve the process for retrieving and reporting program information
What Did We Learn?
Successful Strategies to Reduce Sodium in School Meals
Recommendatios
26
✓ Availability of foods that meet sodium standards
✓ Strategies used by schools to meet sodium targets
✓ Technical assistance needs of schools and districts to develop lower sodium menus
What Was Evaluated?
✓ 16 food industry representatives from 13 companies
✓ 118 SFA directors, school employees, local food suppliers, and community-based stakeholders from 36 SFAs that: ✓ met sodium target 1
✓ met or were close to meeting sodium target 2
Thank you!!
Who Provided the Information?
Key Findings
✓ Variety of products available to meet Target 1
✓ Adequate lead time supported successful development and reformulation of foods to meet Target 1
✓ Food industry representatives reported it would be challenging to achieve levels beyond Target 2
Availability of Lower Sodium Foods
Top Five Strategies Used by SFAs to Achieve Sodium Target 2
✓ Effective menu planning
✓ Food procurement
✓ Changes in food preparation methods
✓ Involvement of stakeholders to gain acceptance
✓ Interactions with food suppliers
31
✓ Training and technical assistance from USDA, State agencies, and other organizations helpful in lowering sodium in meals.
✓ Food suppliers also a major source of technical assistance.
Technical Assistance
✓ Districts seek additional guidance on:
✓ safety, functionality and health benefits of lower sodium
✓ planning and communication with stakeholders
✓ communication materials for diverse audiences
✓ lower sodium recipes and modification
✓ funding for equipment and skilled labor.
Technical Assistance
School Nutrition School Nutrition and Meal Cost Study
rition and Meal Cost StudySchool Nutrition and Meal Cost Study
Merging of School Nutrition Dietary Assessment and Cost StudiesSchool Lunch and Breakfast Cost
Studies (SLBCS)
School Nutrition and Meal Cost
Study (SNMCS)-I (SY 2014-2015)
SNMCS-II (SY 2019-2020)
• SNDA-I: SY 1991-1992• SNDA-II: SY 1998-1999• SNDA-III: SY 2004-2005• SNDA-IV: SY 2009-2010
• SLBCS-I: SY 1992-1993• SLBCS-II: SY 2005-2006
✓ Progress with updated nutrition standards
✓ Challenges encountered with implementation
✓ Cost of meals prepared
✓ Nutritional quality of school meals
✓ Student satisfaction with school meals
✓ Dietary intake of students
What Was Evaluated?
✓ 518 School Food Authorities ✓ 1207 Public Schools
o School Nutrition Managers completed 5701 National School Lunch Program (NSLP) menu surveys!
✓ 2165 Students ✓ 1850 Parents✓ Representative of 48 Contiguous States plus Washington DC
Thank you for your participation and patience!!
Who Provided the Information?
Key Findings
INSERT VIDEO
Percentage of NSLP Lunch Menus that Met Daily Meal Pattern Requirements
Source: SNMCS Final Report Volume 2, Figure 3.1.
10095
91 91
81 80
Milk Quantity Fruits Quantity Allowed Milk Types Meats/MeatAlternates Quantity
Vegetables Quantity Grains Quantity
Per
cen
tage
of
dai
ly lu
nch
men
us
Source: SNMCS Final Report Volume 1
Percentage of NSLP Lunch Menus that Met Weekly Meal Pattern Requirements
Source: SNMCS Final Report Volume 2, Figures 3.2 and 3.4.
>9792
79
58
49
27
87
MilkQuantity
FruitsQuantity
VegetablesQuantity
Meats/MeatAlternatesQuantity
Grains Quantity All GrainsWhole Grain-
Rich
At Least Half ofGrains Whole
Grain-Rich
Per
cen
tage
of
wee
kly
lun
ch m
enu
s
Source: SNMCS Final Report Volume 1
Percent of Menus Meeting Minimum and Maximum Calorie Standards
Source: SNMCS Final Report Volume 2, Figure 3.5. *Difference between elementary and middle schools is significantly different from zero at the 0.05 level.†Difference between middle and high schools is significantly different from zero at the 0.05 level.#Difference between elementary and high schools is significantly different from zero at the 0.05 level.
13*24†
66#47
42†
21#40
34†
14#
0
20
40
60
80
100
Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools
Perc
enta
ge o
f w
eekl
y lu
nch
men
us
Fell Below Minimum Met Both Minimum and Maximum Exceeded Maximum
In Range
Source: SNMCS Final Report Volume 1
SFA Director Reported Challenges Implementing or Maintaining Updated Standards
2.5
2.7
2.7
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.8
1 2 3 4 5
Understanding Updated Standards
Need for Kitchen Remodel/Upgrade
Needing Additional Equipment
Offering Different Portion Sizes by Grade
Need for Additional Staff Hours
Staff Training
Availability of Appropriate Foods
Cost of Foods
Mean RatingNot a
ChallengeSignificant Challenge
Source: SNMCS Final Report Volume 1
Inflation Adjusted Cost per NSLP Lunch in 2014-2015 Compared to Prior Years
$2.93* $3.03*
$3.81
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
$3.50
$4.00
$4.50
$5.00
SY 1992−1993 SY 2005−2006 SY 2014−2015
Ave
rag
e C
os
t p
er
NS
LP
Lu
nc
h
Source: SNMCS Final Report Volume 3
School Food Authority Revenues as a Percentage of Costs
Source: SNMCS Final Report Volume 3, Tables 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, and 4.15. Note: Differences were not tested for statistical significance.
Nutritional Quality of School Meals Increased Between 2009-2010 and 2014-2015
Source: SNMCS Final Report Volume 2
*Difference between SY 2009–2010 and SY 2014–2015 significant
58
50
82*
71*
0
20
40
60
80
100
NSLP Lunches SBP Breakfasts
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f m
axim
um
sco
re
SY 2009-2010 SY 2014-2015
Mean Total Scores on the Healthy Eating Index-2010
Mean Scores for Lunches Increased for Adequacy and Moderation Components
Source: SNMCS Final Report Volume 2, Figures 9.2 and 9.3.*Difference between SY 2009–2010 and SY 2014–2015 is significantly
2521
77
46
73
10
95*
72*
95* 96* 96*
27*
0
20
40
60
80
100
Whole Grains Greens and Beans Total Fruit Refined Grains Empty Calories Sodium
Pe
rce
nta
ge o
f m
axim
um
sco
re
SY 2009-2010 SY 2014-2015
Adequacy components Moderation components
36
56
52
38
126
0
20
40
60
80
100
School LunchSchool Breakfast
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of
stu
de
nts
Like School Meal School Meal Is Only Okay Doesn't Like School Meal
Satisfaction with School Meals among Students Who Have Eaten a School Meal
Source: SNMCS Final Report Volume 4
Levels of Plate Waste in NSLP Lunches Were Highest for Vegetables and Milk
Source: SNMCS Final Report Volume 4
31 2926 23 20
16 14
0
20
40
60
80
100
Vegetables Milk Fruits and 100%Fruit Juices
SeparateGrains/Breads
Desserts/OtherMenu Items
CombinationEntrées
Meats/MeatAlternates
Me
an p
erc
en
tage
was
ted
Offer-versus-Serve in Elementary Schools Associated with Less Plate Waste
Source: SNMCS Final Report Volume 4
*Difference between schools that used and did not use OVS is significant
26 2432* 35*
0
20
40
60
80
100
Calories Fruits and Vegetables
Me
an
pe
rce
nta
ge
wa
ste
d
School uses Offer-Versus-Serve at lunch School does not use Offer-Versus-Serve at lunch
Elementary schools
80
65*
0
20
40
60
80
100
NSLP Participants Matched Nonparticipants
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of
ma
xim
um
s
co
re
Lunches Consumed by NSLP Participants Were More Nutritious
Source: SNMCS Final Report Volume 4
*Difference between participants and the matched comparison group of nonparticipants is significantly different
Mean Total Scores on the HEI-2010
Types of Food Consumed at Lunch
Source: SNMCS Final Report Volume 4
*Difference between participants and the matched comparison group of nonparticipants is significant
66
58
4348
23*
47*
21*
75*
0
20
40
60
80
100
Milk Fruits and100% Fruit Juices
Vegetables Desserts, Snacks,and
Other Beverages
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of
stu
de
nts
NSLP Participants Matched Nonparticipants
✓ Most daily and weekly lunch menus met updated quantity requirements.
✓ Challenges with specific weekly requirements (100% whole grains, calories)
✓ SFA Directors reported food costs, availability of certain foods; staff training, and varying portion sizes as greatest challenges to meeting standards.
✓ Meal costs higher and average SFA operated at small financial deficit
Summary of Key Findings, School Year 2014-2015
✓ Nutritional quality of school meals significantly higher than prior years
✓ Students who ate school lunch did not always eat all of the foods
✓ Waste highest for vegetables, milk, fruit, and lowest for desserts and entrees.
✓ Despite food waste, students who ate a school lunch consumed a more nutritious lunch than other students
✓ More likely to consume milk, fruit, and vegetables
✓ Consumed significantly less sodium and saturated fat, fewer calories, and fewer empty calories
Summary of Key Findings, School Year 2014-2015
Questions?
