Clark County School District (CCSD) Breakfast Program Survey Final Report

7/28/2019 Clark County School District (CCSD) Breakfast Program Survey Final Report

1/74

Breakfast PowersAcademic Performance and Health

Clark County School DistrictSchool Food Service Breakfast Study

Project Conducted byThe Center for Business and Economic Research

University of Nevada Las Vegas


2/74


3/74

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

Listing of Tables and Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

The School Breakfast Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5History of the School Breakfast Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Operation of the School Breakfast Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5The Importance of the School Breakfast Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Factors Impacting Participation in the School Breakfast Program . . . . . . . . . . . 7

The Clark County School District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Concerns Regarding School Breakfast Program Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Purpose of This Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

How the Project Was Conducted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Findings Regarding the School Breakfast Program in the Clark CountySchool District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

The Participating Childrens Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Parent Participant Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Where the Children Are Eating Breakfast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

How Often the Children Are Eating Breakfast at School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Why Children Are Not Eating Breakfast at Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Why the Children Eat Breakfast at School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Why the Children Do Not Eat Breakfast at School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29What Children Are Eating for Breakfast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Beverages Children Prefer to Drink with Their Breakfast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Ways in Which the Breakfast Program Might Be Improved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Would School Breakfast Program Participation Change if Program

Improvements Were Made . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Insufficient Time to Eat Breakfast at School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43The Nutritional Value and Quality of the Food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46School Breakfast Program Participation in Higher Income School . . . . . . . . . . 48School Breakfast Program Participation in Low-Income Schools with a High

Proportion of Hispanic and/or African American Children . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Marketing the School Breakfast Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53


4/74

iii

Appendix A: Copies of Survey Forms Used in the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Appendix B: Sample Parent Permission Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67


5/74

iv

LISTING OF TABLES AND FIGURES

TABLESTable 1: Proposed Changes in the School Breakfast Program Nutritional

Requirements: Implementation of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids

Act of 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Table 2: Racial and Ethnic Composition of Children Participating in School Mealsand the Number Eligible for Free and Reduced-Price Meals Duringthe 2009 2010 School Year in Schools Selected for the Project . . . . . 15

Table 3: Ages and Grade Levels of Children Participating in the Project . . . . . . . . . . 18Table 4: Reasons Children Indicated for Eating Breakfast at School . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Table 5: Reasons Children Gave for Not Usually Eating Breakfast at School . . . . . . .30Table 6: Foods That Children Might Like for Breakfast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Table 7: Ways in Which Parents Reporting Different Household Income Levels

Believe the School Breakfast Program Might be Improved (% ofParents in Household Income Range Who Made Selections and

Selected Possible Changes as a Way to Improve the SchoolBreakfast Program) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

FIGURESFigure 1: Racial and Ethnic Composition of Children Enrolled in the Clark

County School District, 2009- 2010 School Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Figure 2: Racial/Ethnic Composition and Income Level of Children Attending

Schools Selected for the Project Compared to the DistrictRacial/Ethnic Composition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Figure 3: Parents Racial and Ethnic Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Figure 4: Parents Reported Household Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Figure 5: Parents Reported Household Income Within Racial/Ethnic Groups . . . . . 20Figure 6: Where the Children Ate Breakfast the Day of the Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Figure 7: Impact of Parents Household Income on Where Their Children

Eat Breakfast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Figure 8: Number of Days Parents Report Their Children Eating Breakfast at

School by Parents Race and Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Figure 9: Number of Days Parents Indicating Different Household Incomes

Reported Their Children Ate Breakfast at School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Figure 10: Reasons Parents Gave for Their Children Not Eating Breakfast at

Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Figure 11: Reasons Children Indicated as Most Important for Not EatingBreakfast at School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Figure 12: Reasons Parents Gave for Why Their Children Did Not Eat Breakfastat School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Figure 13: Foods Which 3rd, 4th, and 5th Grade Children Most FrequentlyReported Eating for Breakfast . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Figure 14: Beverages Children Drink and Would Like to Drink for Breakfast . . . . . . . .34


6/74

v

Figure 15: Ways in Which the Children Think the School Breakfasts Might beImproved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Figure 16: Actions Presented to Parents to Consider as Possible Ways inWhich the School Breakfast Program Might be Improved . . . . . . . . . . . .36

Figure 17: Percent of All Parents Who Think These Actions Might Improve

the School Breakfast Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Figure 18: Percent of Parents in the Different Racial/Ethnic Groups Who IndicatedThat a Listed Change Would Improve the School BreakfastProgram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Figure 19: Comparison of the Responses of All Hispanic Household toResponses of Households Reporting English, Spanish, andOther Languages as the Primary Language Spoken at Home . . . . . . . . 40

Figure 20: Percentage of Parents in Household Income Groups who IndicatedTheir Children Would Participate More in the SBP if ProgramChanges Were Made . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41


7/74

1



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Studies have shown that children who eat breakfast increase their math andreading scores and improve their speed and memory on cognitive tests. The SchoolBreakfast Program (SBP), administered by the United States Department of Agriculture(USDA), focuses on improving the nutritional well-being of children from low-incomefamilies. School districts that participate in the SBP receive cash subsidies from theUSDA for each meal that they serve. However, to qualify for reimbursement, thebreakfasts must meet Federal nutrition requirements, and the schools must offer free

and/or reduced-price breakfasts to eligible children. Research has shown that the SBPhas improved the nutritional status of program participants, particularly low-income,nutritionally vulnerable children.

Although the Clark County School District (CCSD) is a very racially and ethnicallydiverse district that has a large percentage of students in low-income families, the SBPparticipation rate is low relative to other large U.S. school districts. This lowparticipation rate, potentially detrimental to many childrens nutritional status, is costly tothe District in terms of lost operating revenue that could have been received from theUnited States government as reimbursement for the breakfast meals, had more childrenparticipated. The purpose of this project was to determine factors influencing children's

participation in the CCSD's SBP and to offer recommendations for how the FoodService Department might increase participation rates.

The University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV) Institutional Review Board, theCCSD Research Review Committee, and the Paradise Professional School ResearchReview Committee approved the study. Surveys were developed using previouslyadministered national SBP focused surveys. The students were from 13 schools, andtheir racial and ethnic makeup and family income levels closely mirrored thedemographics of the CCSDs overall student population. A total of 260 elementarystudents and 460 parents completed the surveys. Almost 60 percent of the parentsreported an income of less than $40,000; thus, their children were likely eligible for free

and/or reduced-price breakfasts. Over 90 percent of the children reported that they hadeaten breakfast that morning and about two-thirds of those ate at home. If even half ofthe children who are not eating any breakfast at all could be encouraged to eatbreakfast at school, SBP participation could be increased significantly from 4,000 to5,000 students per day.

About 75 percent of the parents reported that their children ate breakfast athome; however, 43 percent of the parents also said that their children ate breakfast at


8/74

2

school. Thus, it is likely that some children eat breakfast at home on some days and atschool on other days. As household income increased, more parents indicated theirchildren ate breakfast at home. Almost 30 percent of parents reported their childrenwere not hungry in the morning and thus do not eat breakfast at home. These childrenare likely hungry by the time they arrive at school and thus might be encouraged to

participate in the SBP if the breakfasts were easily available to them and could be eatenquickly before classes start.

Reasons more frequently cited by the children for not eating the schoolbreakfasts were that the line is too long and they did not get to school in time. About 58percent of the children thought that having their breakfast served in the classroominstead of the cafeteria would improve the program. There was also a high frequencywith which problems with the foods served for the breakfast meals were cited. Theyounger children, particularly, indicated that the foods are not what their family eats forbreakfast. Thus, an opportunity to increase SBP participation may lie in studying servicemethods and times to determine alternative methods, and using the childrens preferred

foods identified in the survey to modify the menu. Examples of such preferred foods thatalso have good nutritional value are eggs, fresh fruit, pizza (depending on theingredients), fruit yogurt, cold cereal (depending on the cereal chosen), and burritos(depending on the ingredients). How the children pay for the breakfast meal - whetherby cash or by being on the free and reduced-price meal list or by a "debit" card wasnot a factor influencing the childrens participation in the SBP.

The parents also expressed concerns about the SBP with about one-third of theparents indicating that the program could be improved if the children were given moretime to eat; given more choice in the foods offered to them; and if more nutritious foodswere served. About one-fourth of the parents wanted to see more fruits and vegetables

and more fresh (less processed) foods on the menu. The cost of the breakfast mealwas a concern for parents with household incomes in the range from $40,000 - $99,999,ranges just above the income level which would enable families to qualify for free and/orreduced-price meals.

Hispanic heritage parents were less concerned about the nutritional value of thebreakfast meals, where as the Asian heritage parents were especially concerned abouthaving more fruits and vegetables and fresh foods (less processed foods) on thebreakfast menus. The White, non-Hispanic parents were especially concerned aboutmore choices and variety in choices on the menu, where as the African Americanparents wanted fewer fatty foods and had concerns about the service environment.

There were variances in the perspective of the Hispanic heritage parents whenthe primary language spoken at home was considered. Relative to other Hispanicheritage parents, parents from homes where English is not the primary language aremore concerned about having more fruits and vegetables, more fresh (less processed)food, and a greater variety of foods (ethnic foods) on the breakfast menus. About 90percent of the parents who indicated that Spanish was the primary language spoken intheir homes were also concerned about the cost of the breakfast meals. Similar to the


9/74

3

White, non-Hispanic families concerns, when English was the primary language spokenin Hispanic heritage parents homes, the primary concerns expressed were the need togive the children more time to eat and to have more nutritious foods on the menus.

The majority of the parents indicated that their children would participate in the

SBP more if program changes which they felt were needed were made. However, thiswillingness to increase participation declined as household income increased. About 90percent of the parents reporting household incomes of less than $14,000 indicated theirchildren would participate more if changes were made, a proportion which declined toonly about 40 percent of the parents reporting a household income of $100,000 ormore. Racial and ethnic heritage also impacted the parents response with about 88percent of the parents reporting either Hispanic or African American heritage indicatingincreased participation if changes were made compared to about 63 percent of theAsian heritage parents and 58 percent of the White, non-Hispanic parents. Further,more than 90 percent of the parents reporting that a language other than English wasthe primary language spoken in the home indicated increased participation if changes

were made, but only 72 percent of the Hispanic heritage parents reporting that Englishwas the primary language in the home indicated increased participation.

Given the extent to which the parents indicated that their children wouldparticipate more in the SBP if desired changes were made to the program, the targetpopulation for the program would be lower-income Hispanic and African Americanfamilies, especially families who do not speak English as the primary language in theirhomes. Addressing the most important concerns of these families and tailoringchanges and supporting educational and marketing programs to meet those needs inschools where their children are enrolled could potentially increase improvedparticipation in the SBP.


10/74

4



INTRODUCTION

Our children are our future. Yet, there is much concern today about thenutritional well-being of children as malnourished children do not learn well in schooland encounter many physical problems. The need for children to be well nourished ifthey are to be able to learn in school has been recognized for many years as indicatedby a 1917 statement by the United States (U.S.) Surgeon General: "This is expensivestupidity . . . trying to educate children with half starved bodies" (Brown et al., 2008, p.12). Yet, there are still many malnourished children in schools throughout the UnitedStates today. Not only are there malnourished children in schools, there are also

increasing numbers of children who are becoming obese. Overweight and obesechildren will be facing potential life-long health problems. They will also suffer from acompromised childhood and the negative consequences that impact their learningenvironment.

Many efforts are now being made to control the childhood obesity epidemicwithin a generation (DeNoon, 2010). There is increasing evidence of a relationshipbetween food insecurity and obesity among children. Children from food insecurefamilies are becoming obese with increasing frequency as the foods available to themare often low cost, high calorie, high fat food with limited nutritional value. As a result,these children are malnourished from both an excess of calories and a deficiency of

nutrients vitamins, minerals and other naturally healthy compounds found in wholefoods (Briefel et al., 2009; Casey et al., 2006; Story, 2009).

While there has always been hunger among many populations in the U.S., thecurrent economic recession is impacting the ability of many families to provide adequatefood for their children (FRAC, November 2009; Nord et al., 2010). Food insecurity canbe defined as a condition in which a household, for economic or social reasons, haslimited or uncertain access to adequate food. In 2007, 12.4 million children lived inhouseholds that were food insecure at some point during the year (Guthrie et al, 2009),and that number has grown since that time. Since children spend much of their time inschool, schools and school food service programs are the focus of many of the currentefforts to address children's nutritional problems. The School Breakfast Program (SBP),administered by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), is one suchprogram that has always focused on children from low-income families. SBPparticipation rates, nation-wide, have continuously been low since the inception of theSBP. Today, Michele Obama and others at the federal level have recognized the needto address food insecurity and nutritional health among children. This recognition hasfocused even more attention on school food service programs, such as the SBP, andtheir contribution to children's nutritional status.


11/74

5

THE SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM

History of the School Breakfast Program

The SBP is a federally assisted program that makes it potentially possible for all

school children in the United States to receive a nutritious breakfast every school day.The SBP was established in 1966 as a pilot project designed to help schools servebreakfast to "nutritionally needy" children. Although "nutritionally needy" was notspecifically defined, the first priority was for support to schools located in low-incomeareas or in areas where children had to travel a great distance to school. In 1971,priority consideration was extended to include schools in which there was a specialneed to improve the nutritional intake of children of working mothers and children fromlow-income families. The program received permanent authorization in 1975. At thattime Congress mandated that the program be made available in all schools where itwas needed to provide adequate nutrition for children in attendance. However,emphasis was still placed on participation by schools in severe need.

Operation of the School Breakfast Program

The SBP operates in the same manner as the National School Lunch Program(NSLP). It is administered at the federal level by the United States Department ofAgriculture's Food and Nutrition Service (USDA FNS). At the state level, the program isusually administered by state education agencies which operate the program throughagreements with local school food authorities. School districts that participate in theSBP receive cash subsidies from the USDA for each meal that they serve. However, toqualify for reimbursement, the breakfasts must meet federal requirements, and the

schools must offer free and/or reduced-price breakfasts to eligible children. Schoolbreakfasts must meet the applicable recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines forAmericans which recommend that no more than 30 percent of an individuals caloriescome from fat, and less than 10 percent from saturated fat. In addition, breakfasts mustprovide onefourth of the Recommended Dietary Allowance for protein, calcium, iron,Vitamin A, Vitamin C, and calories. Local school authorities make the decisions aboutwhat specific food to serve and how they are prepared (USDA FNS, 2010).

Any child at a participating school may purchase a meal through the SBP.Children from families with incomes at or below 130 percent of the Federal poverty levelare eligible for free meals. Children from families with incomes between 130 percentand 185 percent of the poverty level are eligible for reduced-price meals. For the periodof J uly 1, 2010 through J une 30, 2011, 130 percent of the poverty level is $28,665 for afamily of four; 185 percent of the poverty level is $40,793 for a family of four. Childrenfrom families with incomes over 185 percent of poverty for their family size pay full price,though their meals are still subsidized to a limited extent. The USDA reimbursementrates for J uly 1, 2010 through J une 30, 2011 are $1.48 for free breakfasts, $1.18 forreduced-price breakfasts, and $0.26 for paid breakfasts. Schools may qualify for higher"severe need" reimbursements if 40 percent of their lunches are served free or at a


12/74

6

reduced price in the second preceding year. Severe need payments are up to $0.28higher than the normal reimbursements for free and reduced-price breakfasts.Nationwide, about 74 percent of the breakfasts served in the SBP receive severe needpayments (Kennedy & Davis, 1998; USDA FNS, 2009, 2010).

Provision 2 is another option for schools. Provision 2 enables schools to providefree meals to all of their children while reducing paperwork and administrative costs.Generally, schools with high percentages of low-income children (75 percent or more)are best able to utilize this option as Provision 2 schools pay the difference between thecost of serving meals at no charge to all children and the federal reimbursement rate forthe meals. Under this provision, all children receive free meals, regardless of income,and schools collect applications for free and reduced-price meals only once every fouryears, at most. Also, these schools do not have to track and record the differentcategories of meals served for at least three out of every four years. Especially for low-income schools, the savings in administrative costs will frequently exceed the cost ofproviding free meals to all of the children attending that school (FRAC 2010).

The Importance of the School Breakfast Program

Many children do not eat a nutritious breakfast before starting their school day.Sometimes their families are living on very tight budgets and cannot afford to providetheir children with good breakfasts at home every day or pay for their childrensbreakfasts at school. Other families, regardless of their income level, lead very busylives and may find it difficult to prepare and sit down and eat a nutritious breakfastbefore heading out the door to school and to work. Sometimes children need to get upvery early to get to school and simply are not hungry or able to eat a breakfast before

leaving for school. Others may have a long commute to their school or may leave homeearly and have a long time period between when they eat breakfast at home and whenthey eat lunch at school. All of these reasons make the SBP an important option formany children. Participation in the SBP appears to increase the likelihood that childrenwill eat breakfast and that the breakfast eaten will be more substantial as it will meet thefederal nutrition standards (FRAC, 2010, Guthrie, et al., 2009).

There have been many reports indicating a direct link between nutrition andchildren's cognitive development and a relationship between school breakfast andchildren's dietary status, school behavior, school performance, and achievement. It hasbeen shown that children who eat a school breakfast increase their math and readingscores and improve their speed and memory on cognitive tests. It is important forchildren to eat breakfast close to the time school starts as research has shown thatchildren who eat breakfast at school do better on standardized tests than those whoskip breakfast or eat breakfast at home earlier in the morning. Further research hasshown that children who participate in the SBP and eat breakfast at school eat morefruits and a wider variety of foods and drink more milk than do children who do not eatbreakfast anywhere or eat breakfast at home. There have also been reports regardingdecreases in discipline, psychological problems, visits to school nurses, and tardiness,


13/74

7

and increases in student attentiveness and attendance and generally improved learningenvironments among schools that provide universal breakfast in the classroom.Schools providing a universal school breakfast offer breakfast at no charge to allchildren, regardless of income (Briefel et al., 1999; Brown et al., 2008; Center onHunger, 1998; FRAC, 2010; Kennedy & Davis, 1998; McLaughlin et al., 2002).

Research has also shown that the SBP has improved the nutritional status ofprogram participants, particularly low-income, nutritionally vulnerable children. While noone study provides a definitive assessment of the nutritional impact of the SBP,consistent trends have emerged throughout multiple studies. These trends, nationally,include:

Children who eat breakfast of any kind, whether at home or at school or both,have a total nutrient intake that is, on average, better than that of children whodo not eat any breakfast.

While the intake of some, but not all, nutrients appears to be higher in SBP

participants than in non-participants, the nutrients that are more consistentlyhigher in breakfast consumers are those targeted by the SBP. Participation in the SBP enhances children's scores on the Healthy Eating Index

and decreases caloric intake from fat. Participation in the SBP reduces the probability of children having an improved

intake of fiber, folate, iron, and potassium. Generally, SBP participants show a significantly higher intake of vitamins A, C,

and E, riboflavin, and calcium; this pattern is consistent with the fact that schoolbreakfasts usually include milk, a fruit rich in vitamin C, and an enriched grainproduct, such as cereal.

A relationship has been identified between children's participation (especially

girls' participation) in the SBP and a lower body mass index (BMI), a measure ofweight status. (Bhattacharya et al., 2004; Clark & Fox, 2009; Crepinsek et al.,2006; Gordon et al., 2007, 2009; Guthrie et al., 2009; Kennedy & Davis, 1998;Kleinman et al., 2002; McLaughlin et al., 2002; Murphy, 2007).

Factors Impacting Participation in the School Breakfast Program

As SBP participation rates are lower than desired nationwide, studies havelooked at factors that may possibly impact participation rates. Some of the factors thatvarious research studies have shown to impact SBP participation include the followingfactors.

Participation in the NSLP. Most SBP participants are also participants inthe NSLP. However, even among the NSLP participants, SBPparticipation is low with less than half of the NSLP participants also eatingbreakfast at school.


14/74

8

Family income. Participation in the SBP is skewed toward families atgreatest risk for food insecurity with participation declining steadily asfamily income levels move from low to high.

Parental education level. SBP participation is highest among childrenwhose parents have less than a high school education and declines as the

children's parents have an increased level of education. Parentaleducation level is much more influential as a factor regarding children'sparticipation in the SBP than it is relative to the NSLP.

Number of children in the family. Participation rates increase as thenumber of children in the family increases.

Children's food insecurity. Children who are food insecure are almosttwice as likely to participate in the SBP as are children who are foodsecure.

Rural-urban geographical areas. SBP participation rates are highest inrural areas located outside of metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), lowerin central city areas, still lower in suburban areas, and lowest in rural

areas that are part of MSAs. Parents' employment status. Participation rates tend to be higher amongchildren when both their parents are employed.

Racial heriage and ethnicity. African American children are more likely tobe participants in the SBP than are Caucasian children.

Children's BMI level. Higher levels of participation in the SBP are foundamong children with lower BMI measures. This association is particularlyapplicable to White, non-Hispanic children and is not present amongHispanic children.

SBP participation is correlated with lower weight; SBP participation has anegative effect on children's weight status, acting as a protective factor

against childhood obesity. Children's perceptions of the value of eating breakfast for their schoolperformance versus their perception of eating breakfast making them fat.Children who recognize that they do better in schools when they eatbreakfast and perceive that eating breakfast does not make them fatparticipate more in the SBP.

Children's hunger level. Children who are not hungry at the time thebreakfast is served do not generally participate in the SBP.

Where breakfast is served. Participation increases significantly whenbreakfast is served in the classroom instead of the cafeteria.

Length of time that breakfast is served. As the length of the breakfastservice period increases, participation increases.

Length of time between when children arrive at school and classes start.This factor is particularly application to children who arrive on schoolbuses. The more time they have available at school before classes start,the higher the likelihood that they will participate in the SBP (Bartfeld etal., 2009; Gleason & Dodd, 2009; Gordon et al., 2007; Guinn et al., 2002;Guthrie et al., 2009; Millimet et al., 2010; Rampersaud et al., 2005;Reddan et al., 2002).


15/74

9

THE CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Clark County School District (CCSD) is the fifth largest school district in theUnited States, exceeded in size by only the New York City Public Schools, the LosAngeles Unified School District, the City of Chicago School District, and the Miami-Dade

School District. The sheer size of the district, encompassing almost 310,000 children,or about 71percent of all of the elementary and secondary children in the entire state ofNevada, makes the provision of school meals a major challenge for the district. Notonly is the large number of children a challenge, but that challenge is compounded bythe wide diversity among the children in racial and ethnic heritage, family income level,and nutritional status.

In the 2009-2010 school year about one-third of the district's children wereCaucasian (34.6 percent), 41 percent were Hispanic, 14.1 percent were Black/AfricanAmerican, 9.6 percent were Asian/Pacific Islander, and 0.7 percent were AmericanIndian/Alaskan Native. More than 135,000 (43.7 percent) of these children qualified for

free or reduced-price meals under the USDA school foodservice program regulations(Clark County, 2010). Thus economically, at least about 44 percent of the CCSD'schildren should ideally be participating in the SBP as these children represent the SBP'starget population. However, trying to provide a breakfast meal in the schools that willattract such a diverse student population, meet their individual nutritional needs, and stillbe feasible to prepare and serve within the logistical and cost constraints faced by adistrict of this size is a difficult task. As a result, the CCSD Food Service Departmentfaces many challenges in their effort to provide a breakfast to children that is incompliance with the USDAs SBP nutritional requirements.

Concerns Regarding School Breakfast Program Participation

As noted previously, the SBP was implemented by the USDA in 1966 as a pilotprogram designed to assist schools serving breakfasts to nutritionally needy children. In1975 the SBP received permanent authorization with the congressional intent that theprogram be made available in all schools where it is needed to provide adequatenutrition for children in attendance (USDA FNS, 2009). In fiscal year 2009, 11.1 millionchildren participated in the SBP, nationwide (USDA FNS, 2010).

In September of 2010, 56,455 children participated in the Program in Nevada fora state-wide participation rate of 13 percent if all children are considered and aparticipation rate of 30.9 percent if only the children eligible for free and reduced-pricemeals are considered. In a study conducted by the Food Research and Action Center(FRAC) regarding school breakfasts in 19 of the largest cities in the United States, theaverage daily SBP participation rates of children eligible for free and reduced-pricedmeals ranged from a high of 88.4 children per 100 participating in the National SchoolLunch Program (NSLP) to a low of 28.7 children per 100 participating in the NSLP. Inthat study, the CCCSD ranked 14th out of the 19 districts studied with a SBP


16/74

10

participation rate of 38.2 children per 100 participating in the NSLP (FRAC, J anuary2009).

FRAC is currently in the process of developing a new report, updating their 2009publication. This report is expected to be published in J anuary 2011. In the new report,CCSD has fallen even lower in terms of children' participation in the SBP as CCSD now

has the lowest participation rate of any of the large cities considered in these reports.The CCSD rate to be discussed in the J anuary 2011 report is 29.4 children per 100children participating in the NSLP in the CCSD. While there is no national averageparticipation rate, CCSD's participation rate might be compared to comparably sizeddistricts with a mixed racial and ethnic population, such as Chicago with 34 SBPparticipants per 100 NSLP participants or Los Angeles with 42 per 100. There are nowsix large city school districts in the United States that have a SBP participation rate ofmore than 60 children per 100 NSLP participants (telephone interview, Madeleine Levin,Senior Policy Analyst, FRAC, December 14, 2010).

Although the economic conditions in Clark County have deteriorated significantly

since 2007 as the City of Las Vegas has been one of the areas hardest hit by the recenteconomic recession, the participation rate has not significantly improved since the 2007FRAC study. In March 2010, the CCSD dish-up elementary schools participation ratefor the SBP was 19.6 percent of all enrolled children down 5.4 percent from March2009. Only 17.1 percent of the children eligible for free or reduced-priced mealsparticipated in the SBP in March 2010. The situation improved slightly by October 2010when the SBP participation in the dish-up elementary schools was 20.6 percent for allenrolled children, an increase of 1.3 percent compared to October 2009 and anincrease of 0.9 percent compared to March 2010. This small increase was alsoapparent for children eligible for free and reduced-priced meals. The participation ratefor these children was 17.9 percent in October 2010, up 2.1 percent from October 2009,

but up only 0.9 percent from March 2010 (Food Service Department, 2010a & 2010b).The very low participation rate among elementary school children eligible for free andreduced-priced meals is of particular concern as many of these children may come fromfamilies with limited resources for food, and these children may not have an adequatesupply of food available to them in their homes.

The low SBP participation rates among the children in the CCSD, particularlyamong the elementary school children, is especially challenging for the District. TheCCSD's first priority, of course, is trying to ensure that all children have breakfast beforestarting their day in the classroom. Not only, as previously discussed, have studiesshown that children who eat breakfast do better in school, but the current economicconditions in Clark County are likely to have resulted in many children facing hunger athome as their families face increasing economic difficulties and become increasinglyfood insecure.

A significant challenge for the District is the loss of revenue from the low SBPparticipation rates. The CCSD Food Service Department is a self-sustaining operationwhich does not rely on funding from education tax dollars. The Department must earnsufficient revenue to pay all operating expenses. Thus, the economic pressures facing


17/74

11

the CCSD Foodservice Department are very similar to the pressures facing anybusiness. The loss of revenue from the low participation rate impacts funds available tocover the Department's operating overhead and contributes to lower efficiency in theuse of operating resources. For example, FRAC (J anuary 2009) reported that if theCCSD had had a SBP participation rate of 70 low-income children per 100 children

participating in the National School Lunch Program instead of the actual rate of 38.2children, the District would have realized an additional $6,223,592 in operating revenueas a result of the additional Federal reimbursement for those additional meals. Thisestimate of lost revenue will rise to more than $7,000,000 in the new report that FRACwill be publishing in 2011.

Another economic factor, which CCSD and the CCSD Foodservice Departmentmust consider, is the extent to which schools should be placed in the Provision 2program. In the 2009 - 2010 school year, eight elementary schools in the CCSD wereoperated as Provision 2 schools. The percent of children eligible for free and reduced-priced meals in these schools ranged from a low of 89.5 percent (Hewetson Elementary

School) to a high of 97.7 percent (Herron Elementary School). However, although theSBP participation rate in these schools increased, there were concerns about theeconomic viability of continuing to operate these schools as Provision 2 schools ascosts were higher than anticipated relative to reimbursement revenue received.

For the 2010 - 2011 school year, of the eight Provision 2 schools for 2009 - 2010,five schools are continuing to be operated as Provision 2 schools; however, three of theschools are on a provision 2 base year for the purpose of collecting completed free andreduced-priced meal applications which would be used to determine the percentages offree and reduced-priced meals that would be used for these schools for the next threeyears if they were to remain Provision 2 schools for that time period. If the lowest 2009-

2010 percent of enrollment for free and reduced-price meal eligibility (89.45) was usedas the cut-off to identify potential Provision 2 schools within CCSD's 216 elementaryschools, another 23 schools could potentially qualify for Provision 2 status. Classifyingthese additional schools as Provision 2 schools could potentially increase SBPparticipation significantly in those schools. However, the local cut-off percentage, asdetermined by the CCSD Food Service Department director, is currently 95 percent andpossibly being increased to 97 percent. If this percentage increase becomes policy,Provision 2 schools will be virtually eliminated from the CCSD.

In considering the cost of the SBP, the perspective needs to be broad and notjust focused on the cost of the food and staff time required to provide the program.Many costs associated with the program are fixed costs of the Department (i.e., theprovision of food preparation facilities in the schools, some food service personnelcosts, and the transportation of foods to the schools, for example). Full utilization of theSBP in all of the schools in the District increases the cost efficiency in the utilization ofexisting resources and the fixed costs associated with operating meal programs in theschools. Further, when schools do not provide breakfast to children, particularlychildren eligible for free and reduced-priced meals, the District (and the local communityand the state, as a whole) faces a hidden tax in the form of the loss of estimated funding


18/74

12

reimbursement from the federal government. As previously mentioned, FRAC isreporting a potential loss of $7,000,000 in federal reimbursement funds for CCSDresulting from low SBP participation rates among children eligible for free and reduced-priced breakfasts (FRAC, J anuary 2009; personal interview with Madeleine Levin,December 2010), an amount that could have been well utilized to help cover the CCSD

Food Service Department's fixed costs. A second hidden tax when children who are noteating breakfast at home are not provided with a school breakfast comes in the form ofpoorer educational outcomes. When children are hungry and malnourished, theyencounter higher illness rates, are lethargic in school, and, as has been noted,educational outcomes are poorer. These outcomes of child hunger translate to greaterabsenteeism from school, more grade retention, overall poorer health that followschildren into adulthood, and psychosocial dysfunction -- all problems which cost acommunity (and the state, as a whole) real dollars for health care support and othersocial programs. These "hidden tax" costs, in terms of real dollars, more than outweighthe costs of providing breakfast to children in schools (Brown et al., 2008).

The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010

The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, signed into law on December 13,2010, may add a new dimension to the CCSD Food Service Department'simplementation of the SBP throughout the District. This bill reauthorizes child nutritionprograms for five years, and it includes $4.5 billion in new funding for these programsover ten years. Among the many provisions of this bill are provisions designed toincrease the number of eligible children enrolled in school meal programs and allowmore universal meal access for eligible children in high poverty communities. Schoolsthat meet the updated nutritional standards for federally subsidized lunches will also

realize an increase in funding as a result of an increase in the reimbursement rate,potentially providing the CCSD Food Service Department with increased revenue toboth improve the nutritional value of the meals served as well as to expand mealservices to increased numbers of children (Child Nutrition Reauthorization, 2010;Harmon, 2010). The proposed rules for the implementation of the Healthy, Hunger-FreeKids Act of 2010 were published in the Federal Register, J anuary 13, 2011. Thechanges proposed for the SBP nutritional requirements are indicated in Table 1.

Table 1: Proposed Changes in the School Breakfast Program Nutritional Requirements:Implementation of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act o f 2010

Menu Component Current Requirement Proposed RequirementFruit 1/2 cup per day 1 cup per dayGrains and Meat/Meat

Alternate2 grains or 2 meat/meat alternatesor 1 of each per day

1.4 2 grains per day plus: 1-2 meat/meatalternates per day (Range reflects differenceby grade group)

Whole Grains Encouraged At least half of the grains to be whole grain-richMilk 1 cup 1 cup, fat content of milk to be 1% or lessFrom: Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, (2011, January 13, Thursday). 7CFR Parts 210 and 220. Nutrition Standards in the

National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs; Proposed Rule. Federal Register, 76(9), p. 2499.


19/74

13

PURPOSE OF THIS PROJECT

The CCSD Food Service Department is concerned with the low participation ratein the District's School Breakfast Program (SBP) and is seeking information which mightbe utilized by the Department to improve the SBP's participation rate. The combined

childhood obesity and nutritional issues, along with the current economic conditionswithin Clark County, have led to increasing pressure on the Department to take actionswhich will result in more children accessing and eating a nutritious breakfast before thestart of their school day. With a current unemployment rate of 14.1 percent (Bureau ofLabor Statistics, 2010), more families are having to rely on various support programs,including the school meal programs, to have food for their children, and the CCSD FoodService Department is expected to help meet this need. The economic recession hasalso had a severe impact on the overall revenue for both the State of Nevada and ClarkCounty. As a result, significant cuts have been made in all aspects of the State andCounty budgets, including the funding for education and other social support programsfor low-income families and unemployed persons. Although the Food Service

Department must operate as a financially independent unit, the Department must stillachieve increased revenue flow if it is to expand SBP and NSLP services to meet theincreased need to provide more children with nutritious meals.

The purpose of this project was to determine factors influencing children'sparticipation in the CCSD's SBP and to identify recommendations for actions which theFood Service Department might consider in their efforts to improve participation. Tothat end, the following questions were considered in this project.

Why are elementary children not participating in the CCSD SBP and eatingbreakfast at school?

What foods do elementary children like to eat for breakfast? What factors impact children's participation in the CCSD SBP? What are parental attitudes toward their children participating in the CCSD SBP? What actions might the CCSD Food Service Department take that would

encourage children's participation in the CCSD SBP?


20/74

HOW T

one thrwere pr

for thereflect tStudy -childrenaccomThe quas the pperspecwhat misurveyprepare

in Engli

status athroughincomethe Dist2009-2

Figure 1

E PROJE

his projectugh five apared; on

arents. Te questioIII (Gordonwas similaodate thestions addurpose of ttives with tght be donorm was pd only in E

h. Copies

lthough thnd food intut the CC

levels reprrict. The r10 school

: Racial an

CT WAS

was accod the elefor grade

e questions and findiet al., 200r, the phrareading anressed to the parentshose of th

to improepared inglish as al

of the thre

priority foke of low-D, a concsented incial and etyear is sho

Ethnic Co

White,

Hispa

35%

ONDUCT

plished thentary chilone and

s incorporngs of the). Althouging and focompreh

e parents' survey wchildren a

e their chiloth Englis

l activities

e survey f

cus of theincome chiern was tothe projecthnic represwn in Figu

position of2009 - 2

His

4

on

ic

D

rough survdren's parwo, one fo

ted into thSDA's Sch the basicrmatting onsion skill

varied sos both tos well as tren's parti

h and Spain the CCS

rms are in

BP is on tldren, as thave childproportionentation oe 1.

hildren Enr010 School

frican

merican

14%

Na

Am

1

anic

%

ys of elents. Threr grades th

survey fohool Nutriticontent ofthe questilevels of tewhat froe able to cgain insig

cipation inish. The

D school c

luded in A

he improve programren of all etely to thechildren i

olled in theear

tive

rican

%

Asian

9%

entary chilseparate

ree throug

rms wereon Dietarythe two fons was vae differentthe childr

ompare thhts from ththe SBP.children' folassrooms

ppendix A

ment of this availablhnic heritastudent cthe CCS

lark County

AfricanAmeri

NativeAmeric

Asian

Hispanic

White,NonHi

dren in graurvey forfive, and

eveloped tAssessmems for theried tograde leven's questiparents'parents ahe parent

rms wereare condu

of this rep

nutritionato all chiles and

mpositionduring th

School Dist

can

an

spanic

14

dessne

ont

ls.ons

s to'

ted

rt.

lren

f

rict,


21/74

15

During the 2009 - 2010 school year, the student population was about equallydivided between children who were eligible for free and reduced-priced meals and thosechildren who were not. The percentage of children who were eligible for free andreduced-price meals was 50.4 percent, and the percentage of children required to pay

for their meals was 49.6 percent. To achieve a sample of the school children that wasreflective of the racial, ethnic and income composition of the CCSD elementary children,14 elementary schools were selected for this project. The principals for all of theseschools were contacted and all but one agreed to have their schools participate in thisproject. Table 2 indicates the selected schools that agreed to participate and the studentdemographics for those schools.

Table 2: Ethnic Composition of Children Participating in School Meals and the Number Eligible for Free andReduced-Price Meals During the 2009-2010 School Year in Schools Selected fo r the Project

SCHOOL Total #Stu-

dents

# Free-Red

AfricanAmer.

# PaidAfr ican

Amer .

# Free-Red

NativeAmer.

# PaidNative

Amer.

# Free-Red

Asian

# PaidAsian

# Free-Red

Hispanic

# PaidHispanic

# Free-Red

Cauca-sion

#Paid

Cauca

sion

Jeffers 849 38 3 2 0 3 0 576 0 19 0

Lunt 726 30 1 4 0 5 6 475 6 22 3

Ronnow 854 22 1 4 0 3 2 563 22 17 17

Tartan 858 186 41 0 6 31 40 148 54 54 118

Manch 760 187 11 0 0 20 1 321 11 50 7

Fitzgerald 429 179 12 1 0 4 1 111 5 12 1

Wright 1032 43 50 2 4 45 183 63 94 43 271

Forbuss 930 50 42 0 3 55 156 37 84 55 247

Lamping 1039 12 14 0 3 12 86 13 87 31 590

Ward 1178 50 49 1 7 12 71 47 74 77 554

McCaw 697 28 6 4 1 11 13 96 35 188 140

Gray 551 46 11 0 3 18 21 176 26 43 97

Eisenberg 641 69 31 3 0 15 24 69 48 98 183

TOTALS 940 272 21 27 234 604 2695 546 709 2214

Figure 2 indicates the racial/ethnic composition and income levels, as reflected inthe proportion of free and reduced-priced meals and paid meals, of the selectedschools' total population compared to the population of the District. With the assistanceof the principal at each school, one class of either the first or second grade and eitherone or two classes of the third, fourth, or fifth grade (depending on the number ofchildren needed from the racial and ethnic composition of the school) were selectedfrom each of these schools.

Following obtaining project approval by the University of Nevada Las Vegas(UNLV) Institutional Review Board (IRB), the CCSD Research Review Committee, andthe Paradise Professional School Research Review Committee, the survey forms werepre-tested with second and fourth grade children at Paradise Professional School and


22/74

16

with second and fifth grade children at Wallin Elementary School. The children at thesetwo schools were representative of predominate racial, ethnic and income groups withinthe District.

The survey was implemented with the assistance of the teachers in the selectedclasses. Prior to the scheduled survey day, the project personnel delivered copies ofthe forms for the parents to give permission for their child to participate in the project

and copies of the parent survey form to the schools. At each school, the teachers forthe classes selected for the project sent the materials home with the children. Thecompleted permission forms and the completed parent survey forms were returned tothe teachers in sealed envelopes prior to project personnel returning to the school toconduct the survey with the children.

The student survey was conducted in the classroom by project personnel. Ifthere were children for whom a permission form had not been returned or if the parentdid not want their child to participate, those children were given another activity by theclassroom teacher while the other children completed the survey under the guidance ofproject personnel. When the children had completed the survey, as time permitted, a

brief nutrition education program was presented to all of the children in the class(regardless of whether they had participated in the survey or not) by project personnel.All of the classroom surveys were completed over a four week period. Completedparent survey forms were picked up from the teachers by the project personnel at thetime they visited the classroom to work with the children to have them complete thestudent survey form.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Figure 2 : Racial/Ethnic Composition and Income Level of ChildrenAttending Schools Selected for the Project Compared tothe District Racial/Ethnic Composition

%inEthnicCategoryas%of

TotalNumberofChildrenin

Project

%ofChildrenEnrolledin

CCSDinEthnicCatetogy


23/74

17

FINDINGS REGARDING THE SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM IN THE CLARKCOUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT

The data from the completed survey forms were scanned into Excel files andwere analyzed using SPSS Version 17 (SPSS, 2008). Following verification of the data

scans, 93 first and second grade forms and 167 third through fifth grade forms wereusable resulting in a total of 260 usable student forms. The project goal was to obtain500 usable student survey forms. Thus, 52 percent of the project goal was achieved. Asignificant difficulty encountered in regard to acquiring usable student forms was thepoor return rate of the required corresponding parent permission forms for the assentingchildren along with the refusal of the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV) IRB, andthus the corresponding refusal of the Clark County School District (CCCSD) ResearchReview Committee, to allow the "opt out" approach to parent permissions for children'sproject participation as was expected when planning for this project. Under this "optout" approach, parental permission is assumed to be given unless the parents return thepermission form to say that they do not give permission. This approach is commonly

used in survey studies investigating children's food consumption and/or eating practicesthroughout the United States, including such research done in schools. Documentationof such practices was provided to the UNLV IRB in support of the project's request forapproval; however, the IRB still denied the opt out approach to parent permissions. Asample of a parent permission form used in previous studies in another state is includedas Appendix B.

The Participating Children'sDemographics

Of the 260 usable student responses, 35.8 percent were from first and second

grade children, and 64.2 percent were from third, fourth, and fifth grade children. Thechildren were almost equally divided between girls and boys as 54 percent of thechildren were girls and 46 percent were boys. A little more than half of the children(52.5 percent) indicated that they had at least one brother or sister who also went to thesame school. Thus, it might be concluded that the responses of the participatingchildren regarding their breakfast participation and attitudes toward the breakfastprogram might also apply to their siblings.

As is indicated in Table 3, the children were also relatively equally divided amongthe ages of children commonly found in grades one through five as well as among thefive grade levels. Although the proportion of children from the fifth grade was higherthan from the lower grades, this higher proportion reflects an effort to include more olderchildren in the study anticipating that the older children would be better able to offermore valid information about their breakfast participation.

The racial and ethnic distribution was relatively reflective of the racial and ethnicdistribution of the children throughout the CCSD (Table 3). The "other" categoryincluded on the children's survey form accounted for almost 20 percent of therespondents. There were many children who indicated that they were bi-racial. These


24/74

18

children were told to select the "other" category. There is no "other" option in the CCSDracial and ethnic data. Were these children required to select a racial or ethnic categorywhich they felt most represented their heritage, it is likely that the percentages of allcategories would be higher. Thus, student respondents were reasonably representativeof the total CCSD elementary school population.

Table 3: Ages and Grade Levels of Children Participating in the Project

Children'sAges

% of StudyParticipants

Children'sGrade Level


Children's RacialHeritage orEthnicity


% ofChildrenin CCSD

6 years 13.8 First 16.9 Af rican American 9.0 14.1

7 years 15.8 Second 18.8 Asian 6.7 9.6

8 years 22.1 Third 19.2 Hispanic 36.0 41.0

9 years 17.0 Fourth 18.4 White, non-Hispanic

29.2 34.6

10 years 25.7 Fifth 26.7 Other (IncludingBi-racial)

19.1 n/a

11 years 4.8

12 years 0.8

Parent Partic ipant Demographics

Interestingly, the parents, themselves, were reasonably willing to respond to the

survey, even if they did not return the permission forms for their children or did not wanttheir children to participate. A total of 460 usable parent survey forms were returned.Again, the project goal was to obtain 500 usable parent forms; thus 92 percent of thisgoal was achieved. Approximately 1,400 parent survey forms were distributed to theschools by project personnel. The schools were asked to send the forms home with thechildren in the classes selected for the study and at least one other class. Since theforms were given to the schools, but the schools were then responsible for distributingthem to parents, the number of forms that were actually sent home or actually reachedthe parents is unknown. The 460 usable forms represent a return rate of 32.9 percentrelative to the forms given to the schools. The 460 parents who returned the forms,though, represent more than 460 children currently enrolled in CCSD elementary

schools. Based on the parents response to the question as to how many children theyhad who were currently enrolled in the elementary schools participating in this project,the parents responses represent a total of 643 children. The distribution of thesechildren among the five elementary grades included in this project ranged from a low of17.7 percent of the children in grade four to a high of 21.9 percent in grade five.

Of the parents completing the survey form, 16.6 percent were male and 83.4percent were female. The parents survey form was prepared in both an English and a


25/74

19

Spanish version. The school and the teachers in the classrooms determined whichversion was sent home with a particular child, depending on their understanding of theprimary language spoken in the child's home. When the parents were asked whatlanguage was most commonly spoken in their home, 57.8 indicated English, 30.2percent indicated Spanish, and 9.1 indicated another language was spoken.

Figure 3 indicates the race and ethnicity of the parents who completed thesurvey. The race and ethnicity of the parents, just as for the children, reflects the raceand ethnicity of the children enrolled in CCSD schools reasonably well. J ust as for thechildren, the category of "other" was used to categorize parent bi-racial responses.Here again, it is likely that many of the bi-racial parents were at least partly AfricanAmerican and some partly White non-Hispanic, which would help account for thesomewhat lower percentages for the African American and White non-Hispanicpercentages here than for the overall CCSD student enrollments.

Figure 4 indicates the parents' reported household income level. It can be seenthat the majority of the parents participating in this project had limited incomes. Morethan one-third of the families reported household incomes of less than $20,000 and 63percent reported an income of less than $40,000. Only 12 percent had incomes of$100,000 or over. Given the size of these families at the reported household incomelevels, the majority would be at or below the poverty level and qualify for free and/orreduced-price meals for their children (maximum income of $40,793 for a family of fourto qualify for reduced-price meals). About half of the families indicated that there were

four or five persons in their household. About 15 percent had from seven to elevenpersons in their household and about 17 percent had either two or three persons in theirhousehold.

Not only did the majority of the parents participating in the project have limitedincomes, but there was also a relationship between the parents household income andtheir race and ethnicity. Figure 5 illustrates this relationship. Almost 90 percent of theparticipating African American households and almost 80 percent of the Hispanic

0

10

20

30

40

50Figure 3: Parents Racial and Ethnic Background

%ofParentsParticipatingin

theStudyinEthnicGroup


26/74

househwould ameals fHispaniother e

32 perccomparparents.groups,most likThus, cefforts t

lds reportlmost certar their chilparents r

d of the in

nt of thed to onlyConsider

it is apparly to benensideratioimprove

0102030405060708090100

Fi

d incomesinly qualifyren. In coported hoome scal

sian parenbout 5 pering the incnt that thefit from then of their childrens p

Figure

$

$

$40,000

$59,999

10%

$60,00

$79,9

9%

$

$

$100,000

$149,999

8%

ure 5: Paren

which wethese famitrast, onlysehold inc, almost 5

ts reportedcent of theme differeracial andSBP are tltural food

articipation

: Parents

0,000

39,999

10%

0

9

80,000

99,9996%

$200,000

ormore

1%

s' Reported

e less thalies for eliabout oneomes thatpercent o

householAfrican Antial amonethnic pope Africanpracticesin the SB

eported Ho


27/74

21

Where the Children Are Eating Breakfast

As has been noted, there is concern about children eating breakfast before theybegin their school day, given the strong evidence that children who eat breakfast beforeschool perform better academically, and have fewer behavior patterns as well. To

determine if they had eaten breakfast the day the survey was conducted in theirclassroom, the children participating in this project were asked if they had eatenbreakfast that morning. There was no attempt to define what constituted "breakfast.Rather if the children had eaten anything at all that morning, they were told to respond"yes" to the question. Over 90 percent of the children indicated that they had eatenbreakfast that morning (94.6 percent of the first and second grade children; 91.6 percentof the third through fifth grade children for an average of 92.7 percent).

The children were then asked if they had eaten their breakfast at home or atschool that day. Figure 6 indicates where the children said they had eaten breakfastthat day. Interestingly, about 1.5 times as many of the third through fifth grade children

reported eating breakfast at home than did the younger children in the first and secondgrade, and about twice as many of the younger children ate breakfast at schoolcompared to the older children. A few of the first and second grade children indicatedthat they ate elsewhere; commonly they said that "elsewhere" was a fast foodrestaurant, such as McDonald's. These statistics regarding the number of children whoate breakfast anywhere as well as those reporting that they ate breakfast at school aresimilar to these statistics reported by other studies (Bartfeld et al., 2009; Briefel et al.,1999; FRAC, J anuary 2009; FRAC, 2010; Gordon et al., 2007; Story, 2009). Youngerchildren consistently are more likely to eat breakfast at school than are older children(Guinn et al., 2002).

When about two-thirds of the children are reporting that they are eating breakfastat home before coming to school and more than 90 percent of the children are currentlyeating breakfast somewhere, it would appear that the options for improving participationin the School Breakfast Program must be carefully focused upon different segments ofthe schools' population. Although many parents feel that is their family responsibility toprovide breakfast for their children in their homes, it may be possible to encouragesome of the children who are currently eating breakfast at home to eat breakfast atschool at least occasionally. Another alternative is to encourage the children who arecurrently not eating any breakfast at all to eat breakfast at school, a desirable outcomesince, as has been noted, children do better in school when they have eaten breakfast.This alternative would be very beneficial for the SBP participation. If even half of thechildren who are not eating any breakfast at all would eat breakfast at school, at thecurrent elementary school enrollment, school breakfast participation could be increasedsignificantly from 4,000 to 5,000 students per day.

Since it was possible that the day of the survey in the children's classroom wasnot a typical day in regard to their breakfast pattern, the children were also asked wherethey usually ate breakfast. Figure 6 also shows where the children said they usually atebreakfast. Sometimes the children indicated both home and school in their response,


28/74

and the- not althe samhome acount fo

patternmore offirst andthe diffebreakfagrade cthey atethird thrhad indi

approxiStill aboAlthougcome toonly abBreakfaSBP (G

told the says at one day, thed school i

r the sites.

he usual bhat they rthe older csecond grrential wast at schooildren indiat schoolugh fifth g

cated they

ately equut 60 perch there areschool, thut 40 perc

st Programuinn et al.,

8

F

urvey staffplace or tate at bottheir res

reakfast paported forhildren in tades that iless. The

l was abouated thathe morninrade childrhad eaten

l numbernt of the cexceptiony will gen

ent of the s, a percent2002).

0

20

0

0

0

igure 6: Whe

that they se other.home an

onse, both

ttern reporhe day ofhe third thrdicated thnumber ofequal am

hey usuallof the su

en indicatiat school t

f childrenhildren sai, as a rule,rally not btudent poage simila

re the Childre

metimeslimited nuschool.

responses

ted by thehe surveyugh fiftht they usuchildren inng all theate break

vey. Thatg that thee mornin

who said tthat theyif childrenintereste

ulations arto that re

n Ate Breakfa

te at hommber of chhen the cwere cou

hildren isin their clarade thanally ate brdicating thgrades asfast at schchange, cusually atof the sur

ey usuallyusually ateeat breakfin eating

e potentialorted in ot

st the Day of

Does

Eats

Eats

Eats

and somildren alsohildren indited in the

relatively sisroom. The youngeakfast at ht they usuewer firstol than hambined wi

breakfasey, led to

ate breakfbreakfastst at hom

breakfast aparticipanter studies

the Survey

NotEatBrea

Elsewhere

atSchool

atHome

times at ssaid that,cated bothrequency

milar to there werer children iome, thoully atend second indicatedh more ofat schoolhe

st at schot home.before th

t school.in the Sc

regarding

fast

22

hooln

tillthe

h

hehan

ol.

yo,oolhe


29/74

parentsthere wparent's

surveyereasonabreakfaHowevschool.

childrenbreakfaCommebreakfa

childrenfor incrschool

childrenhousehhome aAs theof the pfew reppurposis orientthe proincome

s a checkwere askes no effortsurvey; a

d in order tbly similart before thr, 42.5 per

iven thesare eatingts in one

nts from tht at home

who somasing partiore frequ

he parentseat breakfld income,d the morarents' horents indirted that tof the SB

ed towardram at a h(Gordon

101214

o the childif their ch

to matchparent did

o completto that of tey left forent of the

responseboth at hoay, but rate children ion some d

times eatcipation inntly, even

' income least at homthe less frfrequentl

sehold incated that teir childreand natiohildren fr

igher rate tt al., 2007;

00000000

Figure 7: Imp

ren's respildren atearents to cot have to

the parene children.chool, andparents al

from theme and ater eating

n the classys and at

reakfast athe SBP wif they do

vel appearor at sch

equently ththey repo

ome appreir childre

n ate breanwide repm low-inchan do chilBartfeld e

act of ParentChildr

nse to whreakfast bhildren (thhave a chi

survey foAbout 75only abouo said tha

arents, it school. Tht school s

rooms alsschool on

home anduld be toot eat bre

s to be invol (see Fiey indicatrted that thached $10n ate theirfast at schrts regardime familiedren fromal., 2009)

' Householdn Eat Breakf

re they gefore they lt is, any pld in one o

m) the parpercent s25 percetheir child

eems likely are notme daysindicatedther days.

sometimentice thekfast ther

rsely relature 7). Thd that theieir childre0,000 or mbreakfastool. Thisng SBP pa, and thos

amilies wit.

Income on Wst

%Repo

Childre

School

%Repo

childre

Home

nerally ateeft for schrent couldthe class

nts' respoid their chit said theyen ate bre

that at leaecessarilynd at homthat someBecause

at schoolhildren toevery day

d to whete lower thchildren aate break

ore, moret home anattern reflrticipation.e childrenh higher h

ere Their

rtingTheir

nEatBreakfas

rtingTheir

EatBreakfast

breakfast,ol. Althoucompletes being

nse wasldren did edid not.kfast at

st someeating twoother da

hildren dithere are

an opportat breakfa.

er theirparents'e breakfasast at schhan 90 peonly a ve

cts theThe prograrticipateusehold

at

at

23

hehhe

t

s.eat

unityst at

t atol.centry

min


30/74

24

Corresponding with the relationship between race, ethnicity and income and therelationship between income and where parents report their children eat breakfast,parents from Hispanic and African American households report that their children eatbreakfast at home less frequently (64.7 percent and 72.2 percent, respectively) than doparents from Asian and White, non-Hispanic households (83.3 percent and 90.1

percent, respectively). This relationship would be expected as children from lowerincome household are eating breakfast at home less frequently and at school morefrequently than are children from higher income households. This relationship is alsoapparent when the parents are asked whether their children eat breakfast at school.Compared to 53.9 percent of the Hispanic household and 67.6 percent of the AfricanAmerican households reporting that their children eat breakfast at school, only 16.2percent of the Asian households and 24.4 percent of the White, non-Hispanichouseholds. Since a higher proportion of Hispanic and African American families reportlow household income levels, the children of these households would be expected toeat breakfast at home less frequently and at school more frequently than would childrenfrom other households.

Interestingly, this relationship also appears to be related to whether or notEnglish is the primary language spoken in the home among parents reporting Hispanicheritage households. When English is the primary language spoken at home, 82.5percent of the parents reported that their children ate breakfast at home and 41.2percent reported that their children ate breakfast at school. When parents reportedSpanish as the primary language spoken at home, only 61.1 percent reported that theirchildren ate breakfast at home and 55.4 percent reporting that they eat breakfast atschool. When parents reported another language, other than English or Spanish as theprimary language spoken at home, 57.1 percent reported their children ate breakfast athome and 64.3 percent reported their children ate breakfast at school. These

percentages exceed 100 percent as there are children who eat breakfast at home onsome days and at school on other days; thus they were counted in both categories.Although this relationship between language and where the children eat breakfast isapparent, it is possible that income is the factor that is actually driving this relationshipas persons with more limited English skills may only qualify for jobs with lower wagerates. This impact of racial and ethnic background on where children eat breakfastshould be considered in both the structure of the SBP and the foods offered on the SBPmenu at elementary schools with a high proportion of Hispanic children in the schoolsenrollments.

How Often the Children Are Eating Breakfast at School

The parents were asked about how many days per week their children atebreakfast at school. From the parents' responses, the children are eating breakfast atschool either almost all the time (18.4 percent reporting five days per week) or noteating breakfast at school at all (reported by 49.4 percent). A more limited number ofChildren are eating breakfast at school sometimes (about 9 percent reporting eitherone, two, or three days per week), but only a very few are eating breakfast at school


31/74

four daconsidetheir chi

Iparentsfive daychildrenHispanichildrenchildrenpercentonly 6.1per weebecamereportelanguaghome,their chi

percenteat anDepartthat migoccasiomean t

s per weered, thereldren are e

can be sethat mosts per weekeat breakfheritage

ate breakfate at schof the parpercent rek). When31.5 perctheir child

e, other th2.1 percenldren at br

bout 30 pof the Asiaccasionalent couldht attract tnally couldat about 2

0

50

100

150

(3.9 percre variancating brea

n from Firequently iwhile the

ast at homarents, th

ast at school. Whennts reportported theipanish wnt reportinren eatingn Englisht said theirakfast at s

rcent of thn and Whireakfast a

increase pese childrbe attractpercent o

Figure 8: NuBreakf

nt). Whens in the nfast at sch

ure 8 thatdicated thsian andabout 70language

ol at all, anEnglish wd that their child ens the primg their chilat school fior Spanishchildren nchool ever

African Ae, non-Hist school. Irticipationn. If the cd to eat evf all the en

ber of Daysst at School

the parenmber of d

ool. (See

it is the Afrat their chil

hite, non-percent orspoken atd if they dis the primchildren nating breary languaren never

ve days pe, was repover ate brday.

merican aanic pareis possiblin the SBPhildren when once molled elem

Parents Repoy Parents' R

s racial heys which tigure 8.)

ican Ameridren are eHispanic pmore of thhome was, the freqry langua

ever ate brfast at sce spokeneating at sr week. Sited as theakfast at

d Hispanicts indicatthat the Cwith modieat breakre per we

entary chil

rt Their Childce and Ethni

ritage andhe parents

an and Hiting break

arents reptime. A

related toency withe spoken

eakfast atool everyt home, t

chool, andmilarly, whlanguagechool, and

parents ad that theiCSD Foodications tofast at schk, that chren would

ren Eatingcity

DoesNotEat

FiveDays

FourDays

ThreeDays

Two

DaysOneDay

ethnicity isreport tha

panic herifast at schrted that tong thehether thhich thet home, 4chool, anay (five daose numb28.3 percen anotherpoken at32.1 repo

d about 1children diServicethe prograol onlynge couldeat one

tSchool

25

t

ageoleir

ir

.4

ysrsnt

ted

d


32/74

additionresult ingiven thAssumiqualifyi

reduceabout $very cowas not

breakfaparents'levels, tat all.third of

childrenthe nexat scholowest lschool.of $60,some ochildrenrelationhousehschools

0

50

100

150

al breakfasabout 29,e August 2g that halfg for eithe

-priced m1,000 of nservativeincluded i

hen lookit at schoohousehol

he majoritymore limithe parents

ate breakflowest levl every davels of hoIn contras00 or morthe parenoccasionahip of theld incomenationwid

Figure 9:Inco

t per week00 more b010 districof these afree or re

als, an adew reimbuigure sincthese cal

g at the nl, the relatiincome isof the chil

ed numberreporting

ast at schoel of hous. Only ab

usehold in, more thaindicated

s at theselly ate brearequencylevel of th(Bartfeld,

Number of Des Reported

. J ust thisreakfasts senrollmenditional bruced-pric

itional 29,rsement rethe higheulations.

mber of dnship betagain appren are eaare occasihe lowest

ol every dahold incout 20 to 3ome indicthree-fou

hat their chigher houkfast at scith which

ir parents i2009; Gor

ays Parents ITheir Childre

one additierved pert figures ofeakfast mmeals an

00 breakfenue pert reimburs

ys that paeen the crent. (Seting breakonally eatiousehold

y and aboe also reppercent

ted that thrths of theildren nevehold incool (onehildren pa

s typical oon et al.,

dicating Diffn Ate Breakfa

nal meal peek throu

147,130 elals wouldthe other

st meals pweek or arement rate

ents reporildren eatiFigure 9.)

ast at schg breakfa

income lev

t one-fourrted that tf the pareneir childrenparents reer ate breame levelsr two daysrticipate inthe relatio007).

erent Househst at School

DoesNot

AtSchool

FiveDays

FourDay

Three

Da

TwoDays

OneDay

er week cohout the t

ementarye eaten bhalf only q

er week cund $750,(the rate f

that theirg breakfaAt the lo

ol either et at schoolel indicate

h of the paeir childrets reportinnever ateorting houkfast at scid indicatper week).the SBP anship gen

old

EatBreakfast

s

uld potentital district,hildren.childrenalified for

uld lead to000 per yer free mea

hildren eat and thee -incomeery day or. About othat their

rents repon ate breathese tw

breakfastehold incool, althothat theirThisd the

rally found

26

lly

ot

ar, als)

note-

tingfast

tmesgh

in


33/74

27

Why Children Are Not Eating Breakfast at Home

If the children are not eating breakfast at home, it is important to know why theyare not doing so. This information may help the CCSD make modifications to their SBPthat will encourage more children to participate. Parents indicating that their children

did not eat breakfast at home before going to school were asked to indicate why theydid not do so. They had the option to indicate multiple reasons for their children noteating breakfast at home. Figure 10 lists the reasons and the percentage of the parentswho responded to this question who indicated that reason.

The most frequent reason given to the question why children do not eat at homewas that the parents know that the children can get breakfast at school, thusemphasizing the importance of publicizing the SBP. It is particularly important to helpthe low-income parents who do not speak English learn about the SBP as, based onnational studies (FRAC, J anuary 2009; Gordon et al., 2007), It is the children of theseparents who are most likely to benefit from the program.

Another reason cited by more than one-fourth of the parents is that the childrenare not hungry early in the morning -- at the time they would have to be eating breakfastin order to be ready to get to the school bus or otherwise leave for school. It is likelythat many of these children would be hungry by the time they get to school, especially ifthey are on a lengthy bus ride getting to school, and would be glad to eat a tastybreakfast once they arrive at school. Indeed, as will be noted later, one of the reasonsthe children frequently cited for eating breakfast at school was that they were hungrywhen they got to school (see Table 4). Many of these children may well be amongthose already participating in the SBP on a regular basis, but some may not be SBPparticipants but might be encouraged to participate if the breakfasts were easilyavailable to them and could be eaten quickly before classes start.

42.4

28.824.4

4.4

05101520

2530354045

IKnowTheyCan

GetBreakfastat

School

TheChildren

Aren'tHungryin

theMorning

ThereIsn'tTime

forThemtoEat

BreakfastBefore

TheyHaveto

LeaveforSchool

NoOneinOur

FamilyEats

BreakfastatHome

Figure 10: Reasons Parents Gave For Their child ren Not EatingBreakfast at Home


34/74

28

Why the Children Eat Breakfast at School

To encourage more children to participate in the SBP, it is important to know whythe children who are eating breakfast at school are doing so. The children in all fivegrades were given a list of possible reasons that they eat breakfast at school and were

asked to indicate which reasons were why they ate breakfast at school. The listedreasons were derived from those cited by children in other studies as reasons that theyate breakfast at school (Gordon et al., 2007; Reddan et al., 2002). The children weretold that they could indicate more than one reason for eating breakfast at school. If thechildren said that they did not eat breakfast at school at all, they were told to skip thisquestion. Table 4 indicates the reasons that the children gave for eating breakfast atschool.

All of the reasons the children were given as options to this question seem to bereasons why the children eat breakfast at school. However, more of the youngerchildren (in the first and second grade) seemed motivated to eat breakfast because they

were hungry, the food looked and tasted good, and they felt better when they did eat theschool breakfast. It was also important to them that it was convenient and easy to eatbreakfast at school. The older children (in the third, fourth, and fifth grades) were alsomotivated because it was easy and convenient to eat at school and because the foodlooked and tasted good, but they seemed to be less motivated because they werehungry than were the younger children. The older children also seemed to be aware ofthe cost of the bre

Documents

Clark County School District (CCSD) Breakfast Program Survey Final Report