Evaluation of the Summer Food Service 

Program Enhancement Demonstrations 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 

Nutrition Assistance Program Report November 2014 

Food and Nutrition Service Office of Policy Support 
USDA is an Equal Opportunity Provider 
Evaluation of the Impact of the Summer Food 

Service Program Enhancement 

Demonstrations 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 

Authors: 

Lynn Elinson 

James Bethel 

Mary Ann Deak 

Sue Li 

Teresa Koenig 

Katy Caperna 

Submitted by: 

Westat 

1600 Research Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20850 

Project Director: 

Lynn Elinson 

Submitted to: 

 Office of Policy Support 

 Food and Nutrition Service 

 U.S. Department of Agriculture 

 3101 Park Center Drive 

 Alexandria, VA 22302 

Project Officer: 

 Chan Chanhatasilpa 

This study was conducted under Contract No. GS-23F-8144H with the Food and Nutrition 

Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 

This report is available on the Food and Nutrition Service website: http://www.fns.usda.gov

Suggested Citation:

Elinson, L., Bethel, J., Deak, M. A., Li, S., Koenig, T., Caperna, K., Palan, M. (2014). 

Evaluation of the Summer Food Service Program Enhancement Demonstrations. 2012 

Demonstration Evaluation Report. Prepared by Westat under GSA Contract No. GS-23F-8144H. 

Project Officer: Chan Chanhatasilpa. Alexandria VA: United States Department of Agriculture, 

Food and Nutrition Service. 

Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support November 2014
Acknowledgements 

We would like to express our gratitude to those individuals who assisted us in conducting this study 

in 2012 and producing this report. As we did last year, we wish to thank the State grantees and 

sponsors of the demonstration projects who provided in-depth information about their projects, 

assisted in developing the sampling frame and following up non-respondents, and provided data on 

the costs of their projects. We also appreciate the time taken by parents and caregivers of 

demonstration project participants to answer questions in our telephone questionnaire. 

We are also grateful to the members of the Food and Nutrition Service for reviewing and 

commenting on drafts of this report – particularly Chan Chanhatsilpa, Marisa Kirk-Epstein, and 

Melissa Abelev for their very useful comments and suggestions. Mark Nord of the Economic 

Research Service, USDA also provided helpful suggestions and assistance on the food security 

analysis. 

Many thanks to our own Westat staff, including the site visit team (Roline Milfort, Teresa Koenig, 

Martha Palan, Katy Caperna, Sarita Hicks, and Ayanna Williams) and analysis team (James Bethel, 

Mary Ann Deak, and Sue Li), as well as Westat’s Telephone Research Center (TRC) for conducting 

telephone interviews with parents and caregivers of demonstration project participants. We would 

also like to thank Jennifer Huang for her review of an early draft of this report. 

Finally, we greatly appreciate the comments and suggestions offered by Dr. Kathleen Yadrick of the 

University of Southern Mississippi who reviewed several chapters of this report, including 

methodology and findings. ‘ 
This page intentionally blank. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report v 

Table of Contents 

Chapter Page

 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................ iii 

 Executive Summary ............................................................................................ xiii 

E1. Introduction ........................................................................................... xiii 

E2. Design and Methodology ..................................................................... xv 

E3. Summary of Key Findings ................................................................... xvi 

E3.1 Household Questionnaire Data Collection and 

Analysis .................................................................................. xvi 

E3.2 Implementation ..................................................................... xxii 

E4. Study Strengths and Limitations ......................................................... xxvii 

E5. Conclusions ............................................................................................ xxviii 

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1-1 

1.1 Purpose of Demonstration Projects ................................................... 1-1 

1.2 Background ............................................................................................ 1-2 

1.3 Overview of Demonstration Projects ................................................ 1-6 

1.4 Research Questions .............................................................................. 1-8 

1.5 Contents of Report ............................................................................... 1-12 

2 Methods ............................................................................................................... 2-1 

2.1 Overview ................................................................................................ 2-1 

2.2 Household Questionnaire Data Collection and Analysis ................ 2-1 

2.2.1 Developing the Sampling Frame ........................................ 2-1 

2.2.2 Power Considerations .......................................................... 2-3 

2.2.3 Data Cleaning ........................................................................ 2-4 

2.2.4 Description of Study Outcomes and Covariates: 

Household Questionnaire ................................................... 2-4 

2.2.5 Analytic Methods: Household Questionnaire .................. 2-7 

2.3 Recruitment Results .............................................................................. 2-11 

2.3.1 Sampling Frame Development ........................................... 2-11 

2.3.2 Sample Sizes Achieved ......................................................... 2-13 

2.4 Completion Rates .................................................................................. 2-16 

2.4.1 Calculation Formula ............................................................. 2-16 

2.4.2 Completion Rate Results ..................................................... 2-18 
Contents (continued) 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report vi 

Chapter Page

2.5 Analytic Samples ................................................................................... 2-19 

2.6 Key Informant Interviews ................................................................... 2-20 

3 Characteristics of Demonstration Sites and Sample .................................... 3-1 

3.1 Site Characteristics ................................................................................ 3-1 

3.2 Participant Characteristics.................................................................... 3-2 

4 Participation, Food Consumption, and Food Security ................................ 4-1 

4.1 Overview of Data Analysis .................................................................. 4-1 

4.2 Participation in Demonstration Projects ........................................... 4-1 

4.2.1 Participation in Meal Delivery Demonstration ................ 4-2 

4.2.2 Participation in Backpack Demonstration ........................ 4-3 

4.2.3 Association of Demonstration Participation with 

Covariates............................................................................... 4-5 

4.2.4 Overall Participation in the Demonstration 

Projects ................................................................................... 4-5 

4.3 Perception of Food Expenditures ...................................................... 4-5 

4.4 Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy .................................... 4-6 

4.4.1 Food Consumption and Sharing ........................................ 4-10 

4.4.2 Leftover Food and Spoilage ................................................ 4-15 

4.4.3 Food Consumption and Sharing by Covariates ............... 4-18 

4.5 Food Security ......................................................................................... 4-19 

4.5.1 Overview ................................................................................ 4-19 

4.5.2 Comparisons between Summer and Fall ........................... 4-21 

4.5.3 Comparisons between Meal Delivery and 

Backpack Demonstration Projects ..................................... 4-22 

4.5.4 Food Security by Covariates ............................................... 4-23 

4.5.5 Food Security – Adjusted Analysis .................................... 4-24 

4.5.6 Comparisons with National Benchmarks ......................... 4-30 

4.5.7 Summary of Food Security Findings ................................. 4-34 

4.6 Satisfaction with Demonstration Projects ......................................... 4-35 

5 Implementation of Demonstration Projects .................................................. 5-1 

5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 5-1 

 
Contents (continued) 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report vii 

Chapter Page

5.2 Demonstration Project Overview ...................................................... 5-2 

5.2.1 Meal Delivery Demonstration Project ............................... 5-2 

5.2.2 Backpack Demonstration Project ...................................... 5-5 

5.3 Demonstration Project Sponsors ....................................................... 5-6 

5.3.1 Meal Delivery Demonstration Project Sponsors ............. 5-6 

5.3.2 Backpack Demonstration Project Sponsors ..................... 5-8 

5.4 Demonstration Project Sites................................................................ 5-11 

5.4.1 Meal Delivery Demonstration Project ............................... 5-13 

5.4.2 Backpack Demonstration Project ...................................... 5-16 

5.5 Roles and Responsibilities ................................................................... 5-18 

5.5.1 Meal Delivery Demonstration Project Staffing ................ 5-19 

5.5.2 Backpack Demonstration Project Staffing ........................ 5-22 

5.6 Outreach and Recruitment .................................................................. 5-33 

5.6.1 Meal Delivery Demonstration Project ............................... 5-33 

5.6.2 Backpack Demonstration Project ...................................... 5-36 

5.7 Provision of Demonstration Benefits ................................................ 5-38 

5.7.1 Meal Delivery Demonstration Project ............................... 5-39 

5.7.2 Backpack Demonstration Project ...................................... 5-44 

5.8 Oversight and Monitoring ................................................................... 5-47 

5.8.1 Meal Delivery Demonstration Project ............................... 5-47 

5.8.2 Backpack Demonstration Project ...................................... 5-51 

5.9 Training, Technical Assistance, and Family Education ................... 5-54 

5.9.1 Training and Technical Assistance to Sponsors 

Provided by State Agencies ................................................. 5-54 

5.9.2 Training and Technical Assistance to Sites 

Provided by Sponsors .......................................................... 5-56 

5.9.3 Family Education .................................................................. 5-57 

 
Contents (continued) 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report viii 

Chapter Page

5.10 Strengths, Challenges, and Resolutions to Challenges..................... 5-57 

5.10.1 Strengths ................................................................................ 5-58 

5.10.2 Challenges and Resolutions to Challenges ........................ 5-62 

6 Synthesis and Discussion ................................................................................... 6-1 

6.1 Research Questions and Key Evaluation Findings .......................... 6-1 

6.1.1 Participation ........................................................................... 6-2 

6.1.2 Food Consumption/Targeting Accuracy .......................... 6-4 

6.1.3 Food Security Status ............................................................. 6-6 

6.1.4 Implementation ..................................................................... 6-11 

6.2 Study Strengths and Limitation ........................................................... 6-16 

6.2.1 Strengths ................................................................................ 6-17 

6.2.2 Limitations ............................................................................. 6-17 

6.3 Comparisons between 2011 and 2012 ............................................... 6-21 

6.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................ 6-26 

 References ............................................................................................................ R-1 

Appendixes

A Household Questionnaires 

A-1 Meal Delivery Questionnaire (Summer 2012) .................................. A-1-1 

A-2 Backpack Questionnaire (Summer 2012) .......................................... A-2-1 

A-3 Fall 2012 Questionnaire ....................................................................... A-3-1 

B Demonstration Projects: State, Type of Demonstration, Sponsor, 

Site, and Start and End Date ............................................................................. B-1 

C Food Security CATI Error ................................................................................ C-1 

D Description of Key Disposition Codes Contained in Completion 

Rate Formulas ..................................................................................................... D-1 

E Definition and Formula for Telephone Interview Outcome Rates ............ E-1 

 
Contents (continued) 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report ix 

Appendixes Page

F Evaluation of SFSP Enhancement Demonstrations Interview 

Guides .................................................................................................................. F-1 

G Site Visit Observations ....................................................................................... G-1 

H Sample Site Visit Agenda ................................................................................... H-1 

I Demonstration Project Materials Checklist .................................................... I-1 

J Characteristics of Fall 2012 Sample ................................................................. J-1 

K Participation by Covariate 

K-1 Participation in Meal Delivery Demonstration Project by 

Covariate ................................................................................................. K-1-1 

K-2 Participation in Backpack Demonstration Project by 

Covariate ................................................................................................. K-2-1 

L Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration 

Project Participants by Covariate ..................................................................... L-1 

M Both Demonstrations: Food Security in Summer 2012 Compared 

to Fall 2012 .......................................................................................................... M-1 

N-1 Food Security: Summer Versus Fall 2012 ....................................................... N-1-1 

N-2 Food Security: Comparisons by Demonstration Project and 

Summer Versus Fall 2012 .................................................................................. N-2-1 

O Food Security by Covariates: Summer and Fall 2012, Meal 

Delivery and Backpacks 

O-1 Adult ....................................................................................................... O-1-1 

O-2 Child ........................................................................................................ O-2-1 

O-3 Household .............................................................................................. O-3-1 

P Overview of Demonstration Project Sponsors and Sites ............................. P-1 

Q Who Did What? .................................................................................................. Q-1 

R Examples of Outreach and Recruitment Materials ....................................... R-1 

S Examples of Educational Materials ................................................................. S-1 
Contents (continued) 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report x 

Tables Page

1-1 Overview description of demonstration projects .......................................... 1-7 

1-2 Research questions ............................................................................................. 1-10 

2-1 Number of calendar days of site operation, summer 2012 .......................... 2-5 

2-2 Covariates contained in household questionnaire for each study 

outcome ............................................................................................................... 2-7 

2-3 Sample sizes achieved for summer and fall 2011 and 2012 data 

collection .............................................................................................................. 2-14

2-4a Number of cases (parents/caregivers) sent to TRC, percent 

interviewed and percent of sample by sponsor – Meal Delivery 

demonstration; summer 2012 ........................................................................... 2-14 

2-4b Number of cases (parents/caregivers) sent to TRC, percent 

interviewed and percent of sample by sponsor – Meal Delivery 

demonstration; summer 2012 ........................................................................... 2-15 

2-5 Results of summer 2012 data collection .......................................................... 2-17 

2-6 Results of Fall 2012 data collection ................................................................. 2-17 

2-7 Number of completed and partially completed interviews by 

language and type of demonstration project, summer and fall 

2012 ...................................................................................................................... 2-18 

2-8 Completion rates by demonstration type – summer and fall 2012 

data collection ..................................................................................................... 2-19 

2-9 Description of analytic samples, 2012 data collection ................................... 2-20 

2-10 Key variables ....................................................................................................... 2-21 

3-1 Demonstration site characteristics ................................................................... 3-2 

3-2 Characteristics of demonstration project participants, 

respondents, and households ............................................................................ 3-3 

4-1 Respondent description of Meal Delivery demonstration projects............. 4-2 

4-2a Participation rates for meal deliveries calculated for individual 

participants and households – by drop-off, home delivery, and 

both delivery methods ....................................................................................... 4-4 
Contents (continued) 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report xi 

Tables Page

4-2b Participation rates for the backpack demonstration project 

calculated for individual participants and households ................................... 4-4 

4-3 Perception of food expenditures ...................................................................... 4-7 

4-4 Food consumption and targeting accuracy of demonstration 

project participants ............................................................................................. 4-8 

4-5a Recipient of shared food: Meal Delivery and Backpack combined ............ 4-12 

4-5b Recipient of shared food: Meal Delivery only ................................................ 4-13 

4-5c Recipient of shared food: Backpack only ........................................................ 4-14 

4-6 Food left over and spoiled as reported by respondents ................................ 4-16 

4-7 Reasons food was left over ............................................................................... 4-16 

4-8 Reasons food was left over by food type ........................................................ 4-17 

4-9a Meal Delivery: Food security in summer 2012 compared to fall 

2012 ...................................................................................................................... 4-21 

4-9b Backpack: Food security in summer 2012 compared to fall 2012 ............... 4-22 

4-10a Summer 2012: Meal Delivery vs. Backpack .................................................... 4-22 

4-10b Fall 2012: Meal Delivery vs. Backpack ............................................................ 4-23 

4-11a Adults: Logistic regression of food security ................................................... 4-26 

4-11b Children: Logistic regression of food security ................................................ 4-27 

4-11c Household: Logistic regression of food security ........................................... 4-28 

4-12a Household food security in summer 2012: Comparison between 

demonstration project participants and national benchmarks ..................... 4-32 

4-12b Household food security in fall 2012: Comparison between 

demonstration project participants and national benchmarks ..................... 4-33 

4-13 Parent satisfaction with demonstration projects ............................................ 4-36 

5-1 Key informant interviews by type of demonstration and 

respondent ........................................................................................................... 5-2
Contents (continued) 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report xii 

Tables Page

5-2 Demonstration project awardees, sponsors, administration, and 

coordination ........................................................................................................ 5-3 

5-3 Overview of Backpack demonstration project site visits .............................. 5-9 

5-4 Number of sites/delivery locations in 2011 and 2012 .................................. 5-12 

5-5 Overview of Meal Delivery site visits .............................................................. 5-13 

5-6a Meal Delivery demonstration project staffing ................................................ 5-20 

5-6b Arizona Backpack demonstration project staffing ........................................ 5-23 

5-6c Kansas Backpack demonstration project staffing .......................................... 5-25 

5-6d Ohio Backpack demonstration project staffing ............................................. 5-31 

5-7 Summary of outreach efforts by Meal Delivery sponsors ............................ 5-34 

5-8 Summary of outreach activities for the Backpack demonstration 

project ................................................................................................................... 5-36 

5-9 Operational details for the Meal Delivery demonstration 

program, summer 2012 ...................................................................................... 5-40 

5-10 Responses to questions on Meal Delivery implementation ......................... 5-40 

5-11 Children’s favorite foods reported by sponsors ............................................. 5-43 

5-12 Operational details for the Backpack demonstration project, 

summer 2012 ....................................................................................................... 5-45 

6-1 Comparisons between 2011 and 2012 ............................................................. 6-22 

Figure

2-1 Flow of cases from frame development through end of summer 

2012: Telephone interview data collection ...................................................... 2-12 

Exhibit

4-1 Questions on food expenditures ...................................................................... 4-6 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report xiii 

Executive Summary 

 E1. Introduction 

Background. When school is out and summer begins, low income students who receive free or 

reduced price lunches and breakfasts under the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the 

School Breakfast Program (SBP) still need to eat. To address this need, the Summer Food Service 

Program (SFSP), administered by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) in the United States 

Department of Agriculture (USDA), provides nutrition assistance during the summer to children 

living in low-income areas. The SFSP, like the school meal programs, uses a congregate feeding 

model, subsidizing meals served at camps, recreation centers, and other locations where children can 

be found over the summer. However, the program does not reach everyone who needs its 

assistance. Despite aggressive efforts, data reveal that the SFSP reaches a fraction of the eligible 

child population and substantially less than the number of students receiving free meals through the 

National School Lunch Program during the school year (USDA, 2010; Nord & Romig, 2006). 

The 2010 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-80, 749[g]) enabled FNS to initiate a series of demonstration projects 

to develop and test methods of providing access to food for low-income children in urban and rural 

areas during the summer when school is not in session. From a policy perspective the 

demonstrations had two different, but complementary goals. The first – addressed under the 

Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children (SEBTC) demonstration – was to test an 

alternative to the SFSP congregate feeding model by providing nutrition benefits directly to the 

households of children certified for free or reduced price school meals with the use of the 

technologies of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Special Supplemental 

Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). This demonstration was recently 

evaluated by FNS (USDA, 2013b). 

The second goal – addressed through the Enhanced Summer Food Service Program (eSFSP) 

demonstrations – was to supplement the existing SFSP. Four initiatives were included under eSFSP 

– the Extending Length of Operation Incentive, Activity Incentive, Meal Delivery, and Backpack. 

The USDA’s FNS engaged Westat to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of all four eSFSP 

demonstrations. Westat produced an evaluation report to cover the four eSFSP demonstrations in 

2011 (Elinson et al., 2012). The Extending Length of Operation and Activity Incentive 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report xiv 

Executive Summary 

demonstrations ended in 2011. Thus, this report describes findings from the second year of the two 

remaining eSFSP demonstrations – the Meal Delivery and Backpack demonstrations. 

The Meal Delivery demonstration project was implemented in Delaware, Massachusetts, and New 

York beginning in 2011 and was operational again in 2012. It offered food delivery to the homes or 

drop-off sites near homes of eligible children in rural areas. Only children identified by school 

districts as eligible for free or reduced price school meals could participate. The Backpack 

demonstration project was implemented in 2011 and again in 2012. It provided weekend and holiday 

meals to children who were already participating in the SFSP. This demonstration project was 

implemented in Arizona, Kansas, and Ohio. Children age 18 and younger, normally eligible to 

receive meals at SFSP sites, were eligible to receive meals under the Backpack demonstration 

project. Although sponsors of both the Meal Delivery and Backpack demonstrations were expected 

to participate in the SFSP, the meals provided to children participating in these demonstrations were 

consumed offsite and not at SFSP feeding sites. 

Evaluation Goals. The specific goals of the eSFSP evaluation were to assess the following: 

1. The impact of each SFSP enhancement demonstration model on participation and meal 

service; 

2. The food security status among recipients of home delivered meals and backpacks; 

3. The targeting accuracy1 in the Meal Delivery and Backpack demonstrations; 

4. The process of project implementation in each SFSP enhancement demonstration; and 

5. The total and component specific costs of implementing and operating SFSP 

demonstrations. 

As was the case in 2011, the first evaluation goal on participation and meal service is being addressed 

by another contractor through the analysis of administrative data on participation and meal counts, 

while the other four goals are addressed in this report. However, meal count data were needed from 

the other contractor to standardize cost across demonstration projects and sub-groups but were not 

available at the writing of this report. Thus, costs of the demonstration projects (Evaluation Goal 5) 

are not presented in this report. 

 

1

 Whether those for whom the demonstration project food was intended actually consumed the food. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report xv 

Executive Summary 

E2. Design and Methodology 

This study used a mixed-method research design to meet FNS evaluation goals. The design had 

three primary components: (1) a household questionnaire data collection (administered to parents or 

caregivers of Meal Delivery and Backpack demonstration project participants) and analysis, (2) site 

visits to Meal Delivery and Backpack demonstration projects and key informant interviews, and (3) 

cost data collection and analysis for both types of demonstration projects.2 

As we did in 2011, development of the sampling frame for household questionnaire data collection 

consisted of obtaining names and contact information of parents or caregivers of participants in the 

two demonstrations. Three out of four Meal Delivery sponsors provided a list of names to Westat. 

The remaining 17 sponsors (one Meal Delivery sponsor and 16 Backpack sponsors) distributed 

forms to demonstration project participants to bring home to their parents or caregivers. The forms 

described the study and asked for contact information so parents or caregivers could be recruited for 

a telephone interview. Sponsors sent the completed forms and lists to Westat, and Westat staff 

entered parent/caregiver name and contact information into an Access database. Names and contact 

information were then forwarded to Westat’s Telephone Research Center (TRC). 

Interviewers from the TRC then administered a 30-minute telephone questionnaire to parents or 

caregivers of Meal Delivery and Backpack demonstration project participants in English or Spanish 

using computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI). The questionnaire included questions on 

frequency in which children received meal deliveries and backpacks; food consumption, sharing, and 

spoilage; and food security. The Economic Research Service (ERS) of the USDA reports yearly on 

household food security based on data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau using a supplemental 

questionnaire to the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS). The food security section of the 

questionnaire contained the same 18-item/30-day reference period food security module used in the 

December Supplement of the CPS. 

The analysis of household questionnaire data consisted of a comparison of household food security 

(including food security for adults, children, and the entire household) between summer and fall 

2012. The expectation was that, if the Meal Delivery and Backpack demonstration projects were 

successful, food security in the summer would be about the same as in the fall when children again 

were participating in free and reduced price breakfast and lunch programs. The design had no 

 

2

 As noted above, costs of the demonstration projects are not presented in this report because administrative data were 

not yet available. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report xvi 

Executive Summary 

baseline comparison (i.e., ascertainment of food security prior to demonstration project 

implementation) and no comparison group. This study had about 80 percent power to detect 

differences of about 15 percentage points or greater in food security between summer and fall for 

Meal Delivery participants, and about 80 percent power to detect differences of about 10 percentage 

points or greater in food security between summer and fall in Backpack participants. When both 

demonstration projects were combined (e.g., in the adjusted analyses), the study had about 80 

percent power to detect differences of about 8 percentage points or greater. The study had about 80 

percent power for detecting differences in food security between demonstration projects of 12 

percentage points or greater for summer interviews and of 14 percentage points or greater for fall 

interviews. Finally, there was about 80 percent power for detecting differences of 9 percentage 

points or greater in food security between Meal Delivery and Backpack demonstration project 

participants when both interviews were combined. 

To examine implementation of the demonstration projects, Westat conducted site visits and key 

informant interviews using semi-structured interview guides. In summer 2012 project costs were also 

collected for both types of demonstration projects, although, as noted, these costs are not included 

in this report. Westat obtained sponsor level cost data directly from Meal Delivery and Backpack 

demonstration project sponsors and also obtained State level costs of administering the grant from 

State grantees. 

E3. Summary of Key Findings 

E3.1 Household Questionnaire Data Collection and Analysis 

In summer 2012 Westat completed 743 interviews (188 Meal Delivery and 555 Backpack). Ninetytwo percent were conducted in English and 8 percent in Spanish. In fall 2012, a total of 522 

interviews were completed (136 Meal Delivery and 386 Backpack), with the same English/Spanish 

distribution as in the summer (92 percent in English and 8 percent in Spanish). 

Cooperation rates3 in the summer and fall were over 85 percent for both types of demonstration 

projects combined. In the summer, the overall response rate4 among those for whom we had contact 

information was 70.0 percent. Fall data collection consisted of re-contacting those respondents who 

 

3

 The proportion of all cases interviewed of all eligible units ever contacted. 4

 The number of complete interviews with reporting units divided by the estimated number of eligible reporting units in 

the sample. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report xvii 

Executive Summary 

were interviewed or partially interviewed in the summer.5 The re-contact rate6 was 91.0 percent for 

both demonstrations combined. The response rate in fall 2012 was 74.8 percent for the Meal 

Delivery respondents and 73.4 percent for the Backpack respondents. 

It should be noted that there was no way to estimate the precise number of children in families who 

returned a form with contact information as a percentage of the number who participated in the 

demonstration projects since we did not have administrative data to do so. However, we assume that 

coverage in the Backpack demonstration was considerably lower than in the Meal Delivery 

demonstration (as was found to be the case in 2011). If so, non-respondent bias could potentially 

exist. If all or most Backpack participants had been covered in the survey, findings might have been 

different.7

Demonstration project participants. According to survey data, slightly more females than males 

participated in the demonstration projects in 2012 and were predominantly age 11 or younger. The 

racial/ethnic distribution had somewhat more Hispanics and substantially more non-Hispanic 

Blacks and fewer non-Hispanic Whites than in the US general population (AECF, 2011), likely 

accounted for by the States in which the demonstrations were located. Nearly 60 percent of 

participants were from households where the primary caretaker was married or unmarried but living 

with a partner. About 87 percent of households participated in at least one other nutrition assistance 

program. Over 80 percent of households of participants had incomes of $35,000 or less, 

substantially more than the general US population where only about 36 percent of households had 

income below this level in 2010. 

Participation. Participation in this evaluation is the extent to which children participated in the 

demonstrations compared to the number of meal deliveries or backpacks available over the course 

of the summer.8 A substantial number of participants failed to take full advantage of the meals 

5

 A partial interview was one in which at least the food security section was completed. 6

 The estimated proportion of all eligible cases in which some responsible housing unit member was reached. An eligible 

case was one in which at least one child in the household participated in the Meal Delivery or Backpack demonstration. 7 In 2011 we attempted to gauge the approximate coverage for the Backpack demonstration project, by asking sponsors and site 

coordinators to estimate the number of children who received a backpack or bag at least once over the course of the summer. From 

this number, we estimated coverage for the Backpack demonstration (the number of families who returned a form with contact 

information as a percentage of the number who were estimated to have participated in the Backpack demonstration project). Not only 

were these numbers less reliable due to the nature of the eligibility requirements, but we also found much lower coverage in the 

Backpack demonstration (29 percent) compared to the Meal Delivery demonstration (84 percent). 8

 Participation in the Meal Delivery demonstration was defined as the number of meal deliveries that households were reported to

have received, divided by the number of children in the household who participated in the demonstration project and again by the 

number of weeks that the demonstration project operated (up to the time of the interview if that was prior to the end of the 

demonstration). Backpack participation was the number of backpacks that households were reported to have received divided by 

the number of children in the household who participated in the demonstration project and again by the number of weeks that the

demonstration project operated (up to the time of the interview if that was prior to the end of the demonstration). 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report xviii 

Executive Summary 

offered by the two demonstration projects, although participation was better in the Meal Delivery 

than Backpack demonstration (i.e., 73 percent versus 58 percent, respectively, received more than 75 

percent of possible meal 

deliveries or backpacks). Since 

Backpack sites were tied to SFSP 

sites, and SFSP sites were often 

located in parks and summer 

recreational programs, it is 

possible that lower participation 

in the Backpack demonstration 

was related to sporadic 

attendance at site locations. 

In a comparison between Meal 

Delivery and Backpack 

participants, participants in the 

two demonstration projects in 

2012 were similar with respect to 

gender and race/ethnicity (in 

2011, there were more Hispanics 

among Backpack respondents compared to Meal Delivery respondents). However, as in 2011, 

participants in the Backpack demonstration resided in households with higher income, less poverty, 

and less participation in nutrition assistance programs and had higher education levels (42 percent 

had some college or technical school versus 28 percent for Meal Delivery). 

The proportion of respondents occupied as homemakers was higher among Backpack respondents 

compared to Meal Delivery respondents in 2011 and 2012, possibly related to the higher income of 

that group and the slightly younger age of Backpack participants. 

Participation in the Meal Delivery demonstration was related to language spoken at home (higher 

participation for Spanish or other non-English languages spoken at home), education (highest 

participation for college graduates and non-high school graduates), and race/ethnicity (highest 

participation for Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black). Except for poverty threshold, participation in 

the Backpack demonstration project was not associated with any of the covariates analyzed. In 2011, 

participation in the Backpack demonstration was associated with annual household income, poverty 

Participation in Demonstration Projects 

 Participation in the Meal Delivery demonstration was driven by the 

need for food. Nearly one-fourth of participants said that the 

demonstration was their only option for obtaining food. 

 The majority of meals in the Meal Delivery demonstration were 

delivered to and picked up at drop-off centers. 

 Meals delivered to drop-off centers were not always picked up by 

recipients. 

 For both demonstration projects, a substantial number of 

participants failed to take full advantage of the meals offered by 

the demonstration project. While most participants received threefourths or more of the delivered meals, a significant minority of 

participants received less than half. 

 Participation appears to have been higher in the Meal Delivery 

demonstration, compared to the Backpack demonstration (i.e., 73 

percent versus 58 percent, respectively, received more than 75 

percent of possible meal deliveries or backpacks). 

 Participation in the Meal Delivery demonstration was related to 

language spoken at home, education and race/ethnicity. 

 Participation in the Backpack demonstration project was 

associated with poverty status (p = 0.0228), with higher 

participation among households at less than 100 percent of the 

poverty level. In 2011, poverty status was also related to 

participation in the Backpack demonstration. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report xix 

Executive Summary 

threshold, satisfaction with the healthiness, variety and convenience of the food, and the fact that 

people in the household liked the food. 

Food consumption and sharing. We examined the extent to which children who participated in 

the demonstrations were eating the food that was provided offsite by analyzing data on food 

consumption, sharing and food spoilage. We asked the respondent to list each item included in the 

last meal or backpack for each child participating in the demonstration in the household. If the food 

was reported as being shared, the questionnaire inquired about those with whom the food was 

shared. Food consumption was determined for each food item reported by the respondent in the 

most recent meal or backpack and was found to vary substantially by type of food. 

About 84 percent of all reported food items were reported as consumed completely, and 14 percent 

of items were reported as shared with others. The percentage of food items that were eaten varied 

by type of food, with juice having the highest percent for “drank or ate all” (93.6 percent) and 

vegetables having the lowest (68.5 percent). The percentage of food items reported as shared ranged 

from 8.4 percent to 29.9 percent, with vegetables being shared the most and juice the least. When 

food was reported to have been shared with others, it was most often shared with another child, 

more frequently with a child in the demonstration project than not. 

Overall, 7.1 percent of food was reported as left over,9 ranging from 1.7 percent for juice to 17.5 

percent for meat alternatives.10 The most common reason that food was left over was that the child 

did not like or want it (52.0 percent) or planned to eat it later (34.2 percent). These numbers are 

significantly lower than national averages, which indicate that a typical American family may waste as 

much as 25 percent (Bloom, 2011). 

Consumption was generally higher for the Meal Delivery demonstration, particularly for “meat 

alternatives” foods. Only juice consumption was higher for the Backpack demonstration. Moreover, 

some items were shared more by Backpack participants (vegetables and meat) and others shared 

more by Meal Delivery participants (milk, juice, and bread/grain). 

 

9

 For each food named, the questionnaire asked about food left over in each meal delivered or child’s backpack. 10Examples of meet alternative foods are cheese, eggs, nuts, and legumes. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report xx 

Executive Summary 

In addition to variation by type of demonstration project for specific food items, food consumption 

varied by participation in food nutrition assistance programs (e.g., WIC, SNAP, National School 

Lunch Program), parent satisfaction with the food, and respondent marital status, education, and 

income. More foods were fully consumed by participants of the Meal Delivery than the Backpack 

demonstration, with the exception being juice11. Consumption was higher when families participated 

in more nutrition assistance programs, had lower education, or had lower income.12 

Food sharing was generally related to participant gender (more sharing of vegetables when 

participants were male), languages spoken at home (most sharing of milk, vegetables, and meat 

alternatives when Spanish was spoken at home), household income (most sharing of vegetables for 

household incomes of $35,000 or more; progressively lower sharing for lower income levels), and 

parent satisfaction with the 

food provided (highest 

sharing of milk for 

“household members like the 

food”; highest sharing of 

fruit for satisfaction with 

convenience; highest sharing 

of vegetables for satisfaction 

with healthiness). 

Food Security. Food 

security was examined by 

comparing food security 

during summer 2012 and fall 

2012, and comparing food security between Meal Delivery and Backpack demonstration 

participants. We also identified predictors of food secure adults, children, and households. Due to 

small sample size and lack of baseline data and a comparison group, all results of these analyses 

should be considered exploratory. Moreover, non-respondent bias potentially exists if the Backpack 

demonstration coverage in 2012 was as low as it was in 2011. If all or most Backpack participants 

had been covered, findings might have been different. 

 

11 Except for juice, all food items were reported to have higher consumption in the Meal Delivery demonstration. Differences 

were statistically significant for milk, vegetables, meat alternative, and mixed foods (p < 0.003). See Chapter 4. 12 The association of consumption of vegetables, meat alternatives, and meat with education, income, and participation in certain

nutrition assistance programs was statistically significant. See Chapter 4 and Appendix L. 

Food Consumption and Sharing 

 Overall, about 84 percent of all reported food items were reported 

as consumed completely, and 14 percent of food items were 

reported as shared with others. 

 The percentage of food items that were eaten varied by type of 

food, with juice having the highest percent for “drank or ate all” 

(93.6 percent) and vegetables having the lowest (68.5 percent). 

 Patterns of food consumption and food sharing were different 

between the two demonstration types. Backpack participants were 

far more likely than Meal Delivery participants to share food with 

another child not in the demonstration project, while Meal Delivery 

participants were more likely to share food with adults. 

 Despite food consumption and sharing with others, about 7 percent 

of demonstration food was left over, and 2 percent became spoiled. 

These figures are substantially lower than estimates of food 

wastage by the typical American family which may approach 25 

percent (Bloom, 2011). 

 The primary reasons why demonstration food was left over were (1) 

that the child did not like or want it, or (2) that the child planned to 

eat it later. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report xxi 

Executive Summary 

No significant differences were detected between summer and fall food security at any level (adult, 

child, or household). In direct comparisons by season, child food security was slightly greater in 

summer than fall. However, in the adjusted logistic regression analysis there was no difference by 

season in food security for adults, children, or households. 

In an adjusted analysis of adult food security it was found that food secure adults were more likely 

for college educated respondents and among respondents reporting higher income and satisfaction 

with the healthiness of the food. Food security was less likely among those who agreed with the 

statement that food expenditures were less in the summer due to the summer food program and 

disagreed or had no opinion about the variety of food in packages. 

The adjusted analysis for 

child food security did not 

show a difference between 

summer and fall or by type 

of demonstration project. 

Household income above 

$35,000 was a strong 

predictor of child food 

security (versus less than 

$10,000). Child food security 

was more likely when the 

participant age was younger 

(particularly 5 or younger) as 

compared with ages 18 or 

older and when respondents 

reported that their food 

expenditures were the same 

in the summer compared to those who said they were less in the summer (borderline significance). 

Being a food secure child was less likely when respondents agreed that food expenditures in the 

summer were reduced because of the demonstration program or when Spanish or another nonEnglish language was spoken exclusively at home. 

The adjusted analysis for household food security did not detect any difference between summer 

and fall or by type of demonstration project. Household income was significantly and positively 

associated with household food security ($35,000 or greater versus less than $10,000). Household 

Food Security

 For both demonstrations, analysis was unable to detect any 

difference in the level of food security during the demonstration 

period compared to food security during the school year. 

 No significant differences in food security were detected for adults, 

children or households between demonstration projects during 

either summer or fall, 2012. 

 The key predictors for food secure children were high annual 

household income (≥ $35,000 versus < $10,000) and participant 

age (age 5 or younger versus age 18 or older). 

 Although comparisons to national data are not exact (e.g., ERS data 

collection took place in December), they suggest that the 

demonstration project participants were more food insecure than 

national benchmarks. 

 In all comparisons between nationwide data on food security and 

demonstration project households, higher percentages of food 

secure households were found nationwide, both in the summer and 

fall. 

 Comparisons among households with children less than age 18 

and comparable families receiving WIC and SNAP benefits in the 

previous 30 days revealed that there was more low food security 

and very low food security among demonstration project 

participants compared to national data. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report xxii 

Executive Summary 

food security was more likely for college graduates. Food secure households were less likely when 

respondents agreed or strongly agreed that food expenditures in the summer were reduced because 

of the demonstration program; and when Spanish or another non-English language was spoken 

exclusively at home. 

Findings on food security during summer 2012 were compared to the national food security 

measures developed from data collected in December 2011 using a 30-day reference period in an 18-

item food security module (the same module used in this study) (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2011). Like 

last year, in all comparisons, food security was higher nationwide compared to households of 

participants in the two demonstration projects, perhaps illustrating the pains taken by project 

sponsors to identify SFSP site locations where nutrition assistance need was high. Comparisons were 

also made between National benchmarks and household survey data in fall 2012 when the children 

were back in school and participating in the school lunch and breakfast programs. Differences in 

food security between demonstration project participants followed up in fall 2012 and food security 

nationwide were consistent with all comparisons with summer data. Food security was considerably 

lower in the Meal Delivery and Backpack demonstration projects than all U.S. households, 

households with children younger than age 18, and comparable families receiving WIC and SNAP 

benefits. Although the level of food insecurity in all demonstration project participants was higher 

than national levels, food insecurity among demonstration participants was noted to be consistent 

with food insecurity among controls in the SEBTC evaluation (USDA, 2013b) which found about 

45 percent food insecurity.13 

E3.2 Implementation 

Site visits and key informant interviews provided information on demonstration project 

implementation in summer 2012. 

Differences in implementation. Implementation in 2012 for States and sponsors in both types of 

demonstrations were similar to implementation in 2011. Both demonstrations required management 

oversight, community outreach, identification of staff or volunteers, training, payment and expense 

processing, quality control monitoring, provision of data to FNS, and provision of assistance to 

Westat in data collection. However, staff in the Meal Delivery demonstration provided different 

 

13Controls in the SEBTC evaluation were households that had been randomly assigned not to use the study treatment (i.e., the 

electronic benefits transfer system). Members of the control group were income eligible for free or reduced price meals. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report xxiii 

Executive Summary 

types of meals (hot and cold meals in the case of the Meal Delivery demonstration and mostly shelfstable food in the case of the Backpack Demonstration), requiring different meal preparation and 

packaging. 

Meals were delivered in different ways in the two types of demonstrations. In the Meal Delivery 

demonstration, meals were delivered by dropping off meals at a central drop-off location so they 

could be picked up by parents, caregivers, or proxies; and home delivery. For the Backpack 

demonstration, backpacks or bags were distributed to children participating at an SFSP site on the 

last day of each week of SFSP site operation. These differences in implementation necessitated 

different types of staff, including van drivers to deliver meals for the Meal Delivery projects and 

volunteers to assist in packing and distributing backpacks and bags to children at SFSP sites. 

There were also differences in 

outreach and recruitment between 

the two types of demonstrations. 

Initial recruitment for the Meal 

Delivery continued to be schoolbased due to the requirement that 

participants had to be identified by 

school districts as eligible for free or 

reduced price school meals. Once 

children were identified by the 

schools, outreach and recruitment 

could be targeted to families of eligible children. Backpack demonstrations operated primarily as part 

of an SFSP open site where at least 50 percent of children live in households with incomes at or 

below 185 percent of the poverty line and meals are served to all children at the open site. Thus, 

there was no need to check income level of children participating in the Backpack demonstration, 

and outreach and recruitment was a less targeted process. 

Demonstrations also offered different types of food. Meal Delivery sponsors were able to offer both 

hot and cold meals. Based on FNS requirements that the sponsors focus on food safety when 

selecting items to go into backpacks, Backpack sponsors attempted to offer shelf-stable items that 

would appeal to the children. Nevertheless, Backpack sponsors in Arizona were able to fill bags with 

food items that could be prepared using enclosed menus, and some Backpack sponsors also made a 

concerted effort to offer fresh fruit and produce. 

Implementation Changes in 2012 

 Sponsors paid greater attention to outreach and 

recruitment in 2012 compared to 2011. 

 The number of drop-off sites in the Meal Delivery 

demonstration increased from 18 in 2011 to 36 in 2012. 

 The number of home delivery sites increased from 9 in 

2011 to 107 in 2012. 

 There was more use of home delivery in the Meal Delivery 

demonstration in 2012 compared to 2011. 

 The number of Backpack sites increased from 82 to 92 in 

the Backpack demonstration in 2012. 

 Less training took place in 2012 compared to 2011. 

 Oversight and monitoring was, for the most part, informal 

but appeared to be more rigorous when consultants were 

used. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report xxiv 

Executive Summary 

Oversight and monitoring varied somewhat across sponsors but was not related to the type of 

demonstration project. Those that used consultants instead of usual staff (e.g., Delaware Meal 

Delivery demonstration, Kansas and Ohio Backpack demonstrations) appeared to have more 

processes in place for oversight and monitoring and provided a higher level of monitoring than 

those that relied on staff from the SFSP demonstration. As was the case in 2011, training and 

technical assistance in both demonstration projects were provided by State agencies to sponsors and 

by sponsors to site staff and volunteers. In both cases, training was mostly informal and less intense 

in 2012 than 2011. Sponsors from both types of demonstration projects also provided food safety 

and nutritional information to families and project participants through handouts, games, 

newsletters, and recipes. 

Efficient and Effective Implementation. Factors that appear to be most associated with effective 

implementation14 were the ability to coordinate with community partners, the availability of staff to 

focus on the demonstration, the amount of attention sponsors were willing and able to provide, and 

previous experience in nutrition assistance programs. 

State agency personnel and sponsors that were highly familiar with the SFSP and other FNS 

programs were already familiar with procedures for food acquisition and safe distribution. Thus, 

they were able to concentrate on meeting the specific objectives and requirements of each type of 

demonstration – for example, working with the schools to identify eligible participants for the Meal 

Delivery demonstration project; developing a process for filling and storing backpacks and bags for 

the Backpack demonstration project; 

and providing intensive outreach to 

recruit additional sites and children at 

both types of demonstrations. 

Community partnerships were helpful 

at all stages of the demonstration. 

Partner staff and volunteers assisted in 

distributing outreach information on 

the demonstrations, packing and 

distributing meals and backpacks/bags, 

keeping track of meals and bags 

 

14 We define effective implementation as implementation that met the goals and objectives of the demonstration project (e.g., to 

develop and test new and innovative methods of improving food access during summer months). 

Effective implementation

 Use of State and sponsor personnel familiar with SFSP 

and other FNS programs ensured that demonstration 

project staff was familiar with acquisition of large 

amounts of food and healthy and safe food distribution 

procedures. 

 Community partners helped with outreach, provision of 

volunteers, funds and/or in kind items (e.g., backpacks, 

games, activities). 

 Volunteers packed and distributed meals and kept track 

of meals and backpacks distributed. 

 Paid consultants focused intensely on outreach, 

monitoring, and oversight. 

 Innovative approaches included activities to make the 

projects family friendly (e.g., provision of menus so family 

could prepare meals together), a focus on healthful 

eating, and careful use of resources (efficiency). 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report xxv 

Executive Summary 

distributed for FNS statistics, and providing funds or in kind items for backpacks/bags, games, and 

other activities that attracted the children and their families to the project. 

Some of the demonstration projects hired consultants to focus intensely on outreach and 

recruitment and monitoring and oversight. For example, with the help of a consultant hired for the 

demonstration, Delaware was able to obtain an additional 17 drop-off sites for its Meal Delivery 

demonstration in 2012 and also provide intensive monitoring and oversight. Ohio also hired 

regional consultants to provide oversight and monitoring of project sponsors. These consultants 

were hired for the SFSP and extended their activities to the demonstration project. 

Like last year, the use of volunteers was an important component of these demonstrations, with 

volunteers filling such diverse roles as van driver, meal packer, and distributor of food at Meal 

Delivery pick-up and SFSP meal sites. Some of the more innovative approaches taken by sponsors 

consisted of those activities that strived to make the demonstration projects family friendly (e.g., 

including menus and separate food items in meal packaging and backpacks so family members could 

participate together in preparing the meals). Other innovative approaches centered around a focus 

on healthful eating (e.g., supplying fresh fruits and vegetables and educating children and families 

about healthy eating). 

Implementation Challenges. A number of Meal Delivery staff noted (as they did in 2011), that 

they were uncomfortable providing meals only to children identified by the school as eligible for free 

or reduced-price meals, knowing that other children in the household (e.g., younger children or 

those visiting for the summer) were also in need of nutrition assistance. Some Meal Delivery 

sponsors also reported transportation as a challenge for project participants, and almost 25 percent 

of household survey respondents reported that they did not always pick up meals because there was 

no transportation or it took them too long to get to the pick-up site. Nevertheless, sponsors 

continued to use drop-off sites as a means of reducing costs of fuel, vehicles, and staff. They 

attempted to overcome the transportation challenge by selecting meal drop-off locations that were 

in or near other resources to which families might already be going (e.g., churches, agencies, schools, 

shopping centers). 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report xxvi 

Executive Summary 

In the Backpack demonstrations, some of the sponsors had difficulty obtaining nutritious, palatable, 

shelf-stable food to include in backpacks, and, in fact, food consumption was lower in the Backpack 

than the Meal Delivery demonstration. Interviews with parents/caregivers also showed uneven 

participation as a problem, with large numbers of 

children coming out for the SFSP on backpack 

days as reported by one sponsor, and generally low 

participation in some rural areas of Kansas. 

Improvements to Implementation. The inability 

to include younger children in the Meal Delivery 

demonstration is an eligibility issue that can only 

be resolved by FNS. Since food was eaten offsite 

and likely shared with other children and adults in the family, this means that project participants 

were consuming less than the full meals provided for them in the demonstration. FNS may wish to 

consider eligibility requirements that will include other children in the family as participants so all 

participants will be able to consume the full meals intended for them and all children in the 

household who need nutrition assistance will receive it. 

Transportation problems that existed in the demonstrations may have resulted from site location. 

For example, some of the Kansas Backpack sites located in highly rural areas might have been better 

positioned as part of a Meal Delivery demonstration using a home delivery process. Two of the 

Kansas sponsors were attached to SFSPs that were in their second and third year of operation, but 

the ones in rural areas were operating only through the demonstration. Sponsors reported that 

participation was very low in the demonstration sites administered by those sponsors, partially 

because of a small population of children in the surrounding locale. However, it might have been 

possible to include more children from a wider area if meals could have been delivered to the home. 

Travel was also a problem in the Meal Delivery demonstration, where the original intent of these 

demonstrations was to overcome this barrier. However, the large majority of Meal Delivery 

respondents (81 percent) received meals at a drop-off site,15 and 46 percent reported that meals were 

sometimes not picked up. Lack of transportation and distance were reported by 24 percent as the 

reasons meals were not picked up. We were not able to ascertain the relative costs of pick-up versus 

home delivery in the Meal Delivery demonstration project because we did not have the 

 

15 Interviews with sponsors indicated that cost was the major factor in using a drop-off site model. 

Implementation Challenges

 The requirement to identify children eligible 

for free and reduced price meals through the 

schools under-identified children in need of 

nutrition assistance (e.g., younger family 

members, children visiting for the summer). 

 Transportation in the Meal Delivery 

demonstration often posed problems when 

the delivery method was at a drop-off site. 

 There was some difficulty obtaining nutritious 

palatable, shelf-stable food for backpacks. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report xxvii 

Executive Summary 

administrative data to do so. However, at face value, home delivery seems a better option to alleviate 

the transportation issue. 

Like last year, food content was mentioned as a problem, particularly in the Backpack demonstration 

project where sponsors made a great effort to find shelf-stable food at reasonable prices that 

children would want to eat. Nevertheless, some sponsors reported that they worked hard to find out 

what the children liked so they could provide variety in their menus each week of operation. We 

believe demonstrations could learn from one another in this regard, and the organization of 

something like an information exchange among Backpack implementers might facilitate such sharing 

of information. In addition, FNS could take a more centralized role (or require a more hands-on role 

of state administrators) to provide sample menus and lists of vendors. 

E4. Study Strengths and Limitations 

The study strengths were its mixed-method research design and excellent sponsor cooperation. The 

mixed-method research design – comprised of using a household telephone interview survey, site 

visits and key informant interviews – facilitated addressing the FNS evaluation goals on targeting 

accuracy, food security, and implementation. Moreover, demonstration project sponsors and site 

coordinators were extremely committed to providing assistance to Westat by identifying potential 

participants in the evaluation, following up with non-respondents, organizing and being available for 

site visits and key informant interviews, and providing a variety of types of data, including data on 

costs and site operation dates. Other strengths of this evaluation include the ability to document a 

high level of satisfaction with the healthiness, variety, and convenience of the food; the depth of 

data collected on food consumption and sharing; as well as the demographic profile provided of this 

special group of children and their families. 

Study limitations included: 

 Lack of traditional baseline data and a control group; 

 Difficulty in defining the eligible population (especially in the Backpack demonstration 

where many participants attended open SFSP sites, and it was not necessary to keep 

track of the children who attended); 

 Coverage or representativeness of the sample; 

 Difficulty ascertaining coverage (or the number of children in families who returned a 

form with contact information as a percentage of the number who were estimated to 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report xxviii 

Executive Summary 

have participated in the demonstration projects), particularly in the Backpack 

demonstration project where the full universe of eligible participants was unknown; 

 The inability to make meaningful comparisons between the Meal Delivery and 

Backpack demonstration projects because they were implemented in different States 

with different external environments – any differences that were found between 

demonstration projects are likely to be related to the demographic and other 

characteristics of the States in which they are located and not necessarily related to the 

demonstration model; and 

 Lack of availability of administrative data to make sense of demonstration project costs 

and put the implementation activities into perspective. 

E5. Conclusions 

This report covers the data collection and analysis for 2012 on two types of demonstration projects - 

Meal Delivery and Backpack. The Meal Delivery and Backpack demonstration projects provided 

nutrition assistance to children who needed it. However, these demonstrations may also have 

provided meals to some in less need of nutrition assistance or failed to provide nutrition assistance 

to some who needed it. For example, in the Backpack demonstrations all children at an SFSP open 

site could receive a backpack without meeting a requirement of low-income status. Our findings also 

showed that more than 20 percent of Backpack parents or caregivers lived in a household with an 

annual income of $35,000 or more. On the other hand, the Meal Delivery demonstrations were only 

open to school age children who were eligible for free or reduced price meals. Thus, the Meal 

Delivery demonstration may have eliminated non-school age children in the same household who 

also may have needed nutrition assistance. Lack of transportation to drop-off sites in the Meal 

Delivery demonstration may also have eliminated some children in rural areas who needed nutrition 

assistance. 

Although somewhat equivocal due to the limitations of the study design and methodology, no 

difference in food security among children, adults, and households was detected during the summer 

compared to the fall when the children were back at school. 

Most States and sponsors appeared to use efficient processes to provide meals and food in 

backpacks to children, taking advantage of their SFSP experience. Like last year, some States took a 

more centralized and strong role to ensure a high level of consistency, food safety, nutritious and 

palatable menus, and training and oversight. Those that used consultants (some paying for the 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report xxix 

Executive Summary 

consultants with demonstration funds, and others using SFSP consultants) were able to pay special 

attention to outreach and recruitment, and monitoring and oversight. 

Transportation to pick up meals in the Meal Delivery demonstration project was reported as a 

problem in both 2011 and 2012, with better participation in home delivery than meal pick-up in 

2012. 

Costs per meal could not be ascertained due to unavailability of administrative data on meal costs. 

Such an indicator would have added further to interpretation of study findings, particularly with 

regard to implementation efficiencies. 
This page intentionally blank. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 1-1 

1.1 Purpose of Demonstration Projects 

When school lets out and summer begins, low income students who receive free or reduced price 

lunches and breakfasts under the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast 

Program (SBP) still need to eat. To address this need, the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), 

administered by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) in the United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), provides nutrition benefits during the summer to children living in low-income 

areas. The SFSP, like the school meal programs, uses a congregate feeding model, subsidizing meals 

served at camps, recreation centers, and similar places where children can be found over the 

summer. However, the program does not reach everyone who needs its assistance. Despite 

aggressive efforts, data reveal that the SFSP reaches a fraction of the eligible child population and 

substantially less than the number of students receiving free meals through the National School 

Lunch Program during the school year (USDA, 2010; Nord & Romig, 2006). 

The 2010 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-80, 749[g]) enabled FNS to initiate a series of demonstration projects 

to develop and test methods of providing access to food for low-income children in urban and rural 

areas during the summer when school is not in session. From a policy perspective the 

demonstrations had two different, but complementary goals. The first – addressed under the 

Summer Electronic Benefits for Children (SEBTC) demonstration – was to test an alternative to the 

SFSP congregate feeding model by providing nutrition benefits directly to the households of 

children certified for free or reduced price school meals with the use of the technologies of the 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Special Supplemental Nutrition Program 

for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). These demonstrations were recently evaluated by FNS 

(USDA, 2013b). 

The second goal – addressed through the Enhanced Summer Food Service Program (eSFSP) 

demonstrations – was to improve the existing program. Four specific initiatives were included under 

eSFSP, and the FNS engaged Westat to evaluate them. These were: 

Introduction 1 
Introduction 1 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 1-2 

1. Demonstration of Extending Length of Operation Incentives – Recognizing that one 

issue limiting participation in the SFSP was that many sites are not open for the entire 

summer, this demonstration provided incentives to sites that stayed open longer. 

2. Activity Incentive demonstration projects – Another factor limiting participation in the 

SFSP is that meal service, by itself, does not always draw participation; parents want their 

children to attend sites where there are appropriate activities. This demonstration 

provided incentives to sites that added summer activities attractive to children and their 

parents. 

3. Demonstration of Meal Delivery in Rural Areas – Unlike the school meal programs, 

where children are already present to receive the meals, children that would benefit from 

and would use SFSP meals cannot always get to SFSP feeding sites. This is especially true 

in poor rural areas which may not have the concentration of eligible children needed to 

make an SFSP site viable. Thus, Meal Delivery demonstrations tested the feasibility, cost 

and effectiveness of bringing food directly to homes or to drop-off sites relatively near 

to eligible children. 

4. Food Backpack demonstrations16 – Children who benefit from the SFSP need assistance 

not just when SFSP congregate feeding sites are operating but also on weekends, 

holidays and other times when sites are closed. These demonstrations provided sacks or 

bags of food that children already participating in the SFSP could take home to cover the 

period when the SFSP site was closed. 

Initiatives 1 and 2 have been completed and evaluated by FNS (Elinson et al., 2012).17 The third and 

fourth initiatives under eSFSP are the subject of this report. Whereas the policy goals of the first two 

eSFSP demonstrations were to expand participation in the SFSP, these final two demonstrations 

seek to explore non-congregate summer feeding methods. 

1.2 Background 

Although the United States is one of the largest food producing countries in the world, there is a 

substantial proportion of food insecure children (20.6 percent of households with children under 

age 18 were food insecure in 2011) (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2012a). Moreover, within those food 

insecure households, 9.0 percent of children were categorized as having low food security and 1.0 

percent (representing 374,000 households) as having very low food security. Food security was not 

 

16 Referred to in this report as “Backpack demonstration” 17 See also Peterson et al., 2012 by Insight Policy Research. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 1-3 

Introduction 1 

simply a transitory condition. Households classified as having very low food security experienced the 

condition during seven months of the year, for a few days in each of those months (Coleman-Jensen 

et al., 2012a). 

Food insecurity is defined as “limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate and safe 

foods or limited or uncertain ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways” (USDA, 

2011). The term implies lack of consistent access to adequate food affecting food intake of one or 

more household members. Many low-income households do not have sufficient income or 

resources to meet all basic needs and must make choices about their budgets. Whereas the average 

family in the United States spends about 7 percent of its income on food at home (and about 5 to 6 

percent on food away from home), those at the poverty line would have to spend about one-third of 

their income on food to obtain a minimally adequate diet (Weill, 2008). Moreover, among children, 

food insecurity has been associated with adverse emotional, behavioral, academic, and cognitive 

performance, along with poor mental and physical quality of life (Cook et al., 2006). 

Food and Nutrition Service Programs. To meet the FNS goals of ensuring that children and lowincome families have access to food and a more healthful diet, FNS administers nutrition assistance 

programs for children and needy families, as well as programs that provide comprehensive nutrition 

education. Examples of FNS nutrition programs are the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

(SNAP), the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), the 

Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), the 

School Breakfast Program (SBP), and the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP). 

The NSLP and SBP offer balanced meals at school at no cost or reduced cost to children living in 

households with limited resources. To address school-age children’s greater susceptibility to food 

insecurity during the summer when they do not have access to meals provided at school, FNS began 

delivery of the SFSP in 1968 as a three-year pilot project (USDA, 2012) Through this program, 

approved sponsors provide free meals to children in areas with significant concentrations of lowincome households. Eligible sponsoring organizations include schools; camps; units of Federal, 

State, or local government; and other community- or faith-based organizations. SFSP sponsors 

provide participating children with two meals a day or one meal and one snack, which is similar to 

what children receive during the school year. Camps or sites that primarily serve migrant workers 

can be approved to serve more meals. Sponsors receive Federal reimbursement from the USDA 

through their State administering agency to assist with the costs of preparing and serving meals at 

feeding sites. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 1-4 

Introduction 1 

The SFSP sites are classified into one of the following three categories: 

1. Open sites: Operate in areas in which at least 50 percent of children live in households 

with incomes at or below 185 percent of the poverty line. Meals are served to all 

children at the open site. 

2. Enrolled sites: Provide meals to children enrolled in an activity program at the site 

where at least half of the children are eligible for free and reduced price meals. Sponsors 

establish eligibility either using area eligibility like in the above open sites or by 

documenting that at least 50 percent of enrolled children live in households with 

incomes at or below 185 percent of the poverty line. 

3. Residential camp sites: Sponsors operating residential camp sites are reimbursed only 

for meals served to children from households at or below 185 percent of the poverty 

line. 

Children who were eligible to receive meals at open or enrolled sites participated in the Backpack 

demonstration projects. Children eligible to receive free or reduced price meals in the NSLP were 

eligible for the Meal Delivery demonstration project. 

Food Program Success. In 2012, more than 21 million children received free or reduced priced 

lunches through the FNS National School Lunch Program, and more than 10 million children 

received free and reduced price breakfasts through the FNS National Breakfast Program (USDA, 

2013a). These programs offer at least one-third of the recommended daily allowance (RDA) for 

selected nutrients (Burghardt & Devaney, 1993; Gordon et al., 1995) and have positive effects on 

dietary and calorie intake (Gleason & Suitor, 2003; Nord & Romig, 2006). School meal programs 

also appear to improve the purchasing power of participating households (Long, 1991; Wellisch et 

al., 1983; West & Price, 1976). The additional dollars appear to be contributing to the purchase of 

food for the rest of the family instead of going toward nonfood expenses. There is also some 

evidence, although mixed, that the NSLP and SBP have a positive effect on participants’ 

achievement test scores and a mitigating effect on school absence and lateness to school (Meyers et 

al., 1989; Dunifon & Kowaleski-Jones, 2003). 

Evidence is still limited on the effect of school meal programs on the food security of those who 

receive free or reduced price meals, primarily because of the self-selection of more food-needy 

households into the NSLP and NSBP. In a natural experiment to address this self-selection issue, 

Nord and Romig (2006) used data from the Current Population Survey (CPS) Supplement 

administered in early spring (April) and summer (August/September) during 1995 to 2001. They 

tested the hypothesis that “seasonal differences in food insecurity resulted in part from ameliorative 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 1-5 

Introduction 1 

effects of the NSLP during the school year and the reduction of these effects during the summer, 

and that the differences associated with effects of the NSLP were partially offset by effects of meals 

served by the SFSP.” These investigators found that: 

 Food insecurity was higher in the summer than during the regular school year. 

 Among low-income households (below 185 percent of the poverty line), the seasonal 

difference in the prevalence of food insecurity with hunger was substantially greater in 

households with school-age children than in other households. 

 Among households with school-age children, the seasonal difference was substantially 

smaller in States that provided a large number of free and reduced price NSLP and 

SFSP lunches in the summer relative to the number of free and reduced price NSLP 

lunches served during the school year. This association was weak and not statistically 

significant for low-income households without school-age children and for higherincome households with school-age children. 

A number of factors have been suggested to account for the differences in participation rates 

between the NSLP and SFSP. For example, children living in rural areas, where there are high rates 

of poverty and food insecurity (US Bureau of the Census, 2007), are able to obtain access to free and 

reduced priced meals in their schools, where attendance is mandatory and children have easy access 

to meals at their school. During the summer, however, parents may not be aware of the program 

and may lack transportation to take advantage of the SFSP. Moreover, during the summer, parents’ 

work hours may conflict with the hours of operation of the SFSP, whereas, their work schedule 

would not be a factor during the school year. In a study sponsored by FNS on SFSP and the needs 

of nonparticipating children in SFSP (USDA, 200618), it was noted that more than half of parents 

whose children were eligible did not participate because of lack of awareness of the site locations in 

their area. Among those who were aware, seven percent named transportation as the primary reason 

for non-participation (USDA, 2006). When asked what would have to happen for parents or 

guardians to send their child to an SFSP program, about 17 out of 73 respondents said that the 

convenience of being close to home would be very important. An additional 10 respondents wanted 

the SFSP to have enrichment and other activities. 

Another explanation of the dramatic differences between program participation during the school 

year and summer is the shortage of SFSP sites. In a 2003 study on the SFSP, about 8 percent of 

sponsors left the SFSP between 2000 and 2001, with former sponsors consisting disproportionately 

 

18Conducted by Felton & Harley Associates, Inc. and Westat 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 1-6 

Introduction 1 

of small, new or nonprofit organizations. (USDA, 2003). In 2010, there were 34 summer food sites 

for every 100 school lunch programs (Boteach & Milam, 2010). 

1.3 Overview of Demonstration Projects 

The Meal Delivery and Backpack demonstration projects began in the summer of 2011 and 

continued through the summer of 201319 (Table 1-1). The Meal Delivery demonstration project 

offered breakfast and lunch delivery to the homes or drop-off sites near homes of eligible children 

in rural areas. Meal Delivery funding was awarded to State agencies in Delaware, Massachusetts, and 

New York, and only children identified by school districts as eligible for free or reduced price school 

meals were eligible to participate. 

FNS awarded funds to State agencies in Arizona, Kansas, and Ohio to implement the Backpack 

demonstration project (Table 1-1). This project provided weekend and holiday meals to children 

who were already participating in the SFSP. Children, age 18 and younger, normally eligible to 

receive meals at SFSP sites, were eligible to receive meals under the Backpack demonstration 

project. Each site operated the SFSP for varying lengths of time and had varying start and end dates. 

Similarly, eligible children could choose to participate for the entire duration or a part of the 

duration the SFSP was offered. Although sponsors of both the Meal Delivery and Backpack 

demonstrations were expected to participate in the SFSP, the meals that were provided to children 

were consumed offsite and not at SFSP feeding sites. 

Sponsors in the Meal Delivery and Backpack demonstration projects were selected by the States and 

approved by FNS. In the Meal Delivery demonstration project, parents of eligible children were 

required to return a signed consent form so their children could participate in the Meal Delivery 

demonstration project. The Backpack demonstration project did not require a signed consent. 

However, sponsors were required to notify parents about the Backpack demonstration project and 

describe the meals that would be provided. 

 

 

19 The original end date of the demonstrations was 2012, but FNS provided additional funding to the demonstration projects to 

stay open a third year. The evaluation covered the first two years of operation – 2011 and 2012. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 1-7 

Introduction 1 

Table 1-1. Overview description of demonstration projects 

Characteristics Meal Delivery Backpack 

Summers of operation* 2011 – 2013 2011 - 2013

Locations (State) Delaware, Massachusetts, New 

York 

Arizona, Kansas, Ohio 

Number of sponsors 4 16

Purpose To determine whether noncongregate meal service will 

increase summer meal 

participation and ensure a more 

consistent level of food security 

among rural, low income children at 

a sustainable cost 

To evaluate if providing a supply of 

nutritionally-balanced foods on the 

days that children do not receive 

meals through the congregate SFSP 

will help maintain the nutritional 

status children gain from 

participating in the NSLP during the 

year 

Intervention Approved sponsors developed ways 

to deliver summer meals to eligible 

children in rural areas 

Funding provided to approved 

sponsors to provide food backpacks 

to take home with meals to cover 

the days that SFSP meals are not 

available, typically on weekends 

Eligibility of sponsors  State agencies that administer 

the SFSP 

 Sponsors approved by FNS 

 Commitment to participate in 

SFSP and operation of 

demonstration project through 

summer 2012 

 State agencies that administer 

the SFSP 

 Sponsors approved by FNS 

 Commitment to participate in 

SFSP and operation of 

demonstration project through 

summer 2012 

 Successful sponsor operation of 

SFSP site in 2010 

Sponsor requirements  No more than 2 meals per child 

per day; no more than 4 days at 

one time 

 Compliance with SFSP meal 

patterns or equivalent 

 Provision of project data 

 Compliance with evaluation 

 Provision of backpacks or 

packages to carry food home 

 Contents of backpacks - the 

same meal types (i.e. breakfast, 

lunch and/or dinner) served at 

SFSP site 

 Compliance with SFSP meal 

patterns or equivalent 

 Provision of project data 

 Compliance with evaluation 

Eligibility of demonstration 

participant 

 Children identified by school 

districts as eligible for free or 

reduced price school meals 

 Parent or guardian consent 

required 

 Same as SFSP 

 Consent not required 

 Sponsors required to notify 

parents or guardians of SFSP 

participants about program 

* The original end date of the demonstrations was 2012, but FNS provided additional funding to the demonstration 

projects to stay open a third year. The evaluation covered the first two years of operation – 2011 and 2012. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 1-8 

Introduction 1 

1.4 Research Questions 

The 2010 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act gave FNS the authority to demonstrate and rigorously evaluate methods of 

reducing or preventing food insecurity and hunger among children in the summer months. The 

specific goals of this evaluation were to assess: 

1. The impact of each eSFSP enhancement demonstration model on participation and 

meal service; 

2. The food security status among recipients of delivered meals and backpacks; 

3. The “targeting accuracy”20 in the Meal Delivery and Backpack demonstration projects; 

4. The process of project implementation in each demonstration project; and 

5. The total and component costs of implementing and operating demonstrations. 

This study used a mixed-method research design to meet FNS evaluation goals. The design had 

three primary components: (1) a household questionnaire data collection (administered to parents or 

caregivers of Meal Delivery and Backpack demonstration project participants) and analysis, (2) site 

visits to demonstration projects and key informant interviews, and (3) cost data collection and 

analysis. The first evaluation goal on participation and meal service, while addressed by Westat, was 

also addressed in a separate report by another contractor in 2011 and will again be addressed by the 

same contractor using FNS administrative data (e.g., meal count data) for 2012. Goal five on costs 

requires meal count data to standardize costs across comparison groups (e.g., by demonstration type 

and sponsor) in order to have a common metric of comparison. Since the meal count data are not 

yet available from this contractor, this report does not address goal five on total and component 

costs of implementing and operating demonstrations. 

The primary analysis of household questionnaire data consisted of a comparison of household food 

security (including food security for adults, children, and the entire household) between summer and 

fall 2011 and, again, between summer and fall 2012. The expectation was that, if the Meal Delivery 

and Backpack demonstration projects were successful, food security in the summer would be about 

the same as in the fall when children again were participating in free and reduced price breakfast and 

lunch programs. Therefore, the design focused on the difference between the summer and the 

 

20 Targeting accuracy is defined as the extent to which a targeting scheme correctly selects those who should benefit from 

the program (according to the selection criteria), and correctly excludes those who should not benefit (USAID, 2008). 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 1-9 

Introduction 1 

school year. Given this, a baseline comparison (i.e., ascertainment of food security in the spring 

prior to demonstration summer implementation) was not used. There is no comparison group of 

students who did not receive nutrition assistance over the summer; however, national data on food 

security is available as a comparison. Repeating the same analysis in 2012 enabled the study to 

examine consistency of results between the two years of data collection. 

The evaluation goals translate into research questions on participation in the demonstration projects, 

food consumption, including the issue of targeting accuracy, food security status, implementation of 

the demonstrations, and costs21 (Table 1-2). 

Participation. To examine the impact of the demonstration projects on participation, FNS engaged 

one contractor22 to analyze administrative data on meal counts and average daily attendance (ADA) 

and also engaged Westat to gather survey-based data on participation. Using data from a telephone 

interview survey, Westat defined participation as the frequency in which demonstration project 

participants were delivered meals or received backpacks.23 The research questions on participation in 

2012 sought an understanding of those who participated in the demonstrations, whether their 

characteristics were different in the Meal Delivery and Backpack demonstrations, and the factors 

that were related to participation (e.g., demographic characteristics, participation in other nutrition 

assistance programs, perception of change in food expenditure, and parent satisfaction with the 

food). 

 

 

21 As noted, answers to research questions on cost are not included in this report. 

22 Insight Policy Research 

23 Demonstration projects distributed backpacks, bags, or sacks. For the purpose of simplicity, we will use the 

term “backpacks” in this report. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 1-10 

Introduction 1 

Table 1-2. Research questions 

Participation – frequency of receiving food (meals/backpacks) 

1. What are the characteristics of those who participated in the demonstration projects? 

2. Do the demonstration projects differ by these characteristics? 

3. What factors are related to participation in the demonstration projects – Meal Delivery, 

Backpack, and both combined? 

Food consumption/targeting accuracy 

4. What did participants in the demonstration projects consume/not consume (food package 

content; foods consumed; food shared and left over; food spoilage)? 

5. Does consumption/targeting accuracy differ by type of demonstration project? 

6. What factors are related to food consumption/targeting accuracy? 

Food security status

7. Is level of household food security among demonstration participants at least as high in the 

summer as it is in the fall? 

8. What factors are related to household food security in the summer/in the fall? 

9. What factors are related to differences in household food security between the summer and 

fall? 

10. How does household food security among demonstration project participants in the 

summer/fall compare with the household food security of the US population? 

Implementation 

11. How does implementation differ among the demonstration projects? 

12. What factors appear to be associated with efficient and innovative implementation? 

13. What factors are associated with problems with implementation? 

14. How can implementation be improved? 

Costs 

15. What are the costs of starting up each type of demonstration project? 

16. What are the ongoing costs? 

Food Consumption/Targeting Accuracy. Because meals distributed through the Meal Delivery 

and Backpack demonstration projects were consumed offsite (unlike the regular SFSP), participation 

in these demonstration projects did not necessarily mean that the food provided was consumed nor 

that it was wholly or partially consumed by the intended recipients. Thus, an essential outcome in 

this study was food consumption, and related to that, targeting accuracy.24 Our research questions 

address the characteristics of participants who do and do not fully consume the foods provided, 

whether consumption/targeting accuracy differs by type of demonstration project, and whether 

other factors may be related to food consumption/targeting accuracy (e.g., demographic 

characteristics of demonstration project participants and respondents and participation in other 

nutrition assistance programs). 

 

24 The indicators we used to address food consumption/targeting accuracy in the 2011 evaluation report (Elinson et al., 2012) 

were food consumption, storage, sharing, and leftover food. Food storage was included to assess whether the food may have 

been spoiled due to improper storage. For data collection in 2012, we deleted the question on food storage and asked more 

directly whether any of the food was spoiled.
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 1-11 

Introduction 1 

Food Security. Food security status was the key outcome for the Meal Delivery and Backpack 

demonstrations. The concept of food security status was addressed with a telephone interview that 

determined food security status in households of children who participated in the Meal Delivery and 

Backpack demonstration projects. The primary research question was whether the level of 

household food security among demonstration participants was at least as high in the summer as it 

was in the fall (Question 7). We also examined the factors related to household food security in the 

summer and in the fall (Question 8), as well as the factors related to the differences in household 

food security between the summer and fall (Question 9). 

To collect food security data from telephone interview respondents, we used the same 18-item 30-

day reference period module of questions used by the U.S. Census Bureau (in a supplement to the 

Current Population Survey) to collect yearly household food security data for USDA’s Economic 

Research Service (ERS). Thus, we were able to use the ERS data as a benchmark estimate for the 

food security of the U.S. population of low-income households (Question 10). 

Research questions 1-10 in Table 1-2 relate to the evaluation of outcomes for the Meal Delivery 

and Backpack demonstration projects. Questions 11 through 14 address the implementation of 

these demonstration projects by State agencies and sponsors. Using a qualitative approach to 

assessing the implementation of these demonstration projects, we addressed questions on how 

implementation differed among demonstration projects (Question 11), the factors that may have 

been associated with efficient and innovative implementation (Question 12), the factors that may 

have been associated with implementation challenges (Question 13), and ways in which 

implementation could have been improved (Question 14). 

Finally, questions on the cost of demonstration projects were addressed, including the costs of 

starting up each type of demonstration project and ongoing costs (Questions 15 and 16). The 

analysis of cost data requires administrative data (meal counts) to derive a standard metric across all 

sponsors. As noted above, because we did not receive the meal count data in time to produce this 

report, we do not include an analysis of costs. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 1-12 

Introduction 1 

1.5 Contents of Report 

This report begins with a description of the evaluation design and the methods used for each 

evaluation component—the household questionnaire analysis and site visits and key informant 

interviews (Chapter 2). Chapter 2 also describes the recruitment results for the household 

questionnaire component and includes a description of completion rates, comparing 2011 and 2012. 

Chapter 3 summarizes the characteristics of demonstration sites and project participants at baseline 

(summer 2012). The outcomes of the demonstrations on participation and food security are 

presented in Chapter 4. Demonstration implementation is the topic of Chapter 5. We end the report 

with a synthesis and discussion related to the original research questions that were posed in 2011 

and repeated in 2012, a discussion of the strengths and limitations of the study, and a comparison of 

key findings in 2011 and 2012 (Chapter 6). 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 2-1 

2.1 Overview 

As noted in Chapter 1, this study used a mixed-method research design to answer the research 

questions posed in Chapter 1. The design had three primary components: (1) a household 

questionnaire data collection and analysis (Questions 1 – 10, Table 1-2) covering households of 

participants in the Meal Delivery and Backpack demonstration projects, (2) site visits and key 

informant interviews that focus on the Meal Delivery and Backpack demonstration projects 

(Questions 11 – 14, Table 1-2), and (3) cost analysis (also targeted at the Meal Delivery and 

Backpack demonstration projects) (Questions 15 – 16, Table 1-2). This chapter describes the 

methods used for each component. 

2.2 Household Questionnaire Data Collection and Analysis 

The design for the household questionnaire data collection called for the administration of 

telephone interviews at four points in time – summer and fall 2011 and summer and fall 2012. The 

findings in this report cover data collected in summer and fall 2012. Methods in 2012 were very 

similar to those in 2011. As in 2011, in summer 2012 we developed a sampling frame with assistance 

from demonstration project sponsors and site coordinators. Names and telephone numbers of 

potential respondents (parents or caregivers of children participating in the Meal Delivery and 

Backpack demonstration projects) were provided to Westat’s Telephone Research Center (TRC) for 

recruitment and interview. This section describes the method for developing the sampling frame, 

power considerations, and results of TRC efforts in achieving those goals. We also describe the 

study outcomes and covariates ascertained by the household questionnaire and the methods used for 

cleaning data and analyzing household questionnaire data. 

2.2.1 Developing the Sampling Frame 

Sampling Frame and Target Population. Development of the sampling frame consisted of 

obtaining the names of participating children and parents/caregivers from demonstration project 

Methods 2 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 2-2 

Methods 2 

sponsors and site coordinators and then entering parent/caregiver and participant names into an 

Access database. The names and contact information were then turned over to Westat statisticians 

for processing. 

For the Meal Delivery demonstration, the target study population consisted of all children who 

participated in the summer Meal Delivery demonstration in the demonstration areas. Initially, it was 

intended that random sampling would be used to select participants for the survey; in practice, there 

were fewer than expected children who participated in the Meal Delivery demonstration and, thus, 

parents/caregivers of all available children were asked to participate in the survey. As will be 

discussed below, lists of participating households were available from three of the four sponsors to 

serve as the basis for recruitment for survey participation. 

Similarly, the target population for the Backpack demonstration consisted of all children who 

participated by receiving one or more backpacks. In this case, no lists were available, since any child 

present when backpacks were being distributed could participate. The recruitment process for this 

demonstration is discussed further in the paragraphs that follow. 

Obtaining Contact Information for Potential Study Participants. The process for obtaining 

names was different for each type of demonstration project. Meal Delivery sponsors were required 

to obtain advance consent for participation in the Meal Delivery demonstration project. Three out 

of four sponsors sent Westat names and contact information of those who consented to participate 

in the demonstration project. 

The fourth Meal Delivery sponsor distributed a form about its demonstration project and the 

evaluation study and provided completed forms (containing names and contact information) to 

Westat. These forms contained the following information: 

 There is a summer food project (Meal Delivery demonstration); 

 There will be a study on the project to help improve it for next year; 

 If your child participates in the food project and you fill out a form, you may be 

contacted for an interview; 

 If you are interviewed, you will receive $20 for each interview (up to 4 interviews); 

 You do not need to participate in the study for your child to receive the food; and 

 All information you provide is confidential. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 2-3 

Methods 2 

Sponsors and site staff were asked to describe the demonstration project and the study to potential 

participants; urge children to give the form to their parent(s) and return the completed form; and 

send completed forms to Westat. 

All Backpack demonstration sponsors followed a forms procedure similar to the one described 

above. As children received backpacks, they received a form with the information shown above. 

Forms were included in backpacks several times during the early weeks of operation. The parent or 

guardian was then asked to return the form, which would provide contact information and consent 

for survey participation. 

2.2.2 Power Considerations 

The original power calculations for this evaluation were based on sample sizes in the range of 200 to 

400 in each of the summer and fall survey periods. Furthermore, power calculations were based on 

an assumed level of food security of 5 to 25 percent. Based on these assumptions, the minimum 

detectable differences in food security were expected to be in the range of 4 to 9 percent, depending 

on the particular comparison being made. 

While the Backpack demonstration achieved sample sizes in this range, the number of children 

participating in the Meal Delivery demonstration was not large enough to achieve these sample sizes 

in the Meal Delivery demonstration. Moreover, food security was substantially greater than expected 

among children and households who participated in the surveys. Specifically, as will be discussed in 

Chapter 4, approximately 65 percent of children and 50 percent of households were food secure. 

Based on these updated numbers, the current study has about 80 percent power to detect 

differences of about 15 percentage points or greater in food security between summer and fall for 

Meal Delivery participants, and about 80 percent power to detect differences of about 10 percentage 

points or greater in food security between summer and fall in Backpack participants. When both 

demonstration projects are combined (e.g., in the adjusted analyses), the study has about 80 percent 

power to detect differences of about 8 percentage points or greater. The study has about 80 percent 

power for detecting differences in food security between demonstration projects of 12 percentage 

points or greater for summer interviews and of 14 percentage points or greater for fall interviews. 

Finally, there is about 80 percent power for detecting differences of 9 percentage points or greater in 

food security between Meal Delivery and Backpack demonstration project participants when both 

interviews are combined. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 2-4 

Methods 2 

To put this in perspective, consider the following example. As will be discussed in Chapter 4, about 

66 percent of children in these demonstration projects were food secure. For comparing summer to 

fall for both programs combined, the study has 80 percent power to detect differences in 8 

percentage points, or (to give a hypothetical example) 62 percent versus 70 percent. 

2.2.3 Data Cleaning 

The data was regularly reviewed for data quality and completeness. Errors were reconciled by 

contacting the TRC staff, re-programming, as necessary, re-calling some respondents, as necessary, 

and re-training interviewers. Updates to the data were entered when corrections were available. 

Throughout the data collection process, edit checks on the data were run (including range and logic 

checks). The data was converted to SAS files for interim and final analysis. 

2.2.4 Description of Study Outcomes and Covariates: Household 

Questionnaire 

Westat’s TRC administered a 30-minute questionnaire (Appendix A) to parents or caregivers of 

demonstration project participants in English or Spanish. Household food security was the primary 

outcome of interest in the household questionnaire data. However, based on the literature and 

discussions with FNS, participation in the demonstration projects and the amount of food 

consumed (food consumption and targeting accuracy) were expected to have an association with 

food security. There were a number of covariates in the household questionnaire that were tested for 

their relationship with the three outcomes of participation, food consumption/targeting accuracy, 

and household food security. This section describes the study outcomes of participation, food 

consumption/targeting accuracy, household food security, and their potentially associated 

covariates. 

Participation. We expected there to be variation in the extent to which children participated in the 

demonstration projects throughout the summer. First, the demonstration projects themselves varied 

in when and how long they were open and providing food (Appendix B). Since site operations often 

were linked to other summer programs (e.g., Summer Bible Week, summer school), site operation 

ranged from as few as 7 days to as many as 79 days. In 2012, most provided food for about 1.5 – 2.5 

months (45 to 75 days). More than 80 percent of Backpack sites were open 1.5 months or longer. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 2-5 

Methods 2 

Compared to the summer before, both Meal Delivery and Backpack demonstration sites stayed open 

longer. None of the Meal Delivery demonstrations was open for less than a month, and most were 

open more than two months (Table 2-1). 

Table 2-1. Number of calendar days of site operation, summer 2012 

Meal delivery Backpack Both demonstrations

< 30 days 0 5 5 

30-44 days 1 12 13 

45 - 59 days 7 48 55 

60-79 28 27 55 

Total 36 92 128 

Notes: Start and end dates obtained from demonstration project sponsors; these could not be verified with administrative 

data. This table excludes homes to which meal deliveries were made in Massachusetts. All other analyses on the Meal 

Delivery demonstration include home deliveries. 

In addition to the number of days each site was open, children varied in the extent to which they 

received meals from the Meal Delivery demonstration project or picked up backpacks or bags of 

food. We calculated a participation variable for each Meal Delivery and Backpack household based 

on the number of meal deliveries or backpacks reported by the parent or caregiver or the number of 

children in the household participating in the Meal Delivery or Backpack demonstration project, and 

the number of weeks of demonstration project operation (described in Section 2.2.5).25 Participation 

in the demonstration project was defined as receiving at least one meal delivery or bringing home at 

least one backpack. 

Food Consumption/Targeting Accuracy. One of the most important differences between the 

SFSP and the Meal Delivery and Backpack demonstration projects is that food is eaten onsite at an 

SFSP feeding site, while the two eSFSP demonstration projects provided children with meals to be 

eaten at home. Thus, in the case of these demonstration projects it could not be assumed that the 

food provided by Meal Delivery and Backpack projects was entirely consumed or entirely consumed 

by the child participating in the demonstration project. 

To address these offsite issues, we constructed variables on food consumption and targeting 

accuracy. Food consumption took into account the food and drinks the children were reported to 

have received in their most recent meal or backpack as recalled by parents/caregivers and whether 

 

25 In 2011, the Meal Delivery questionnaire did not ascertain the number of times meals were picked up or delivered but 

did ask about the frequency of meal delivery for home delivered meals and whether meals were not picked up on one or more 

occasions for meals delivered to a drop-off site. In 2012, the questionnaire was changed slightly to ask the number of days and

weeks each Meal Delivery participant received a meal. Thus, Meal Delivery participation was calculated in 2012 but not 2011. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 2-6 

Methods 2 

or not each food item was eaten or spoiled26. Targeting accuracy was based on whether the food was 

shared, and, if shared, with whom. Sharing inside the household was not expected to have an effect 

on household food security. Sharing outside the household could have either a negative or neutral 

effect depending on the food security status of the household.

Household Food Security. The Economic Research Service (ERS) of the USDA reports yearly on 

household food security based on data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau using a supplemental 

questionnaire to the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS). The eSFSP Demonstration 

Evaluation collected data on household food security during summer 2012 using the same standard 

18-item, 30-day reference period questionnaire used by the Census Bureau (see Appendix A, 

sections on “HH FOOD SECURITY” in the Household Questionnaires). 

Covariates. Based on the literature and discussions with FNS, there were a number of variables 

thought to be related to participation, food consumption/targeting accuracy and household food 

security (Table 2-2). Thus, in addition to obtaining frequencies of the three study outcomes, such 

associations were tested and included in regression analyses as appropriate. These were the same 

covariates used in the 2011 report. 

 

26 In 2011, the questionnaire ascertained how each food item was stored. To be more direct about 

consumption, the 2012 questionnaire contained a question on food spoilage. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 2-7 

Methods 2 

Table 2-2. Covariates contained in household questionnaire for each study outcome Participation 

 Type of demonstration 

 Participation in other nutrition assistance 

programs in summer 

 Perception of change in food expenditure 

 Participant characteristics (age, gender) 

 Respondent characteristics (gender, race, 

Hispanic or Latino, languages spoken, 

marital status, education, age, 

employment status) 

 Languages spoken at home 

 Household characteristics (age of 

household members, employment status 

of adults in household, annual household 

income, household member with difficulty 

in daily activity) 

 Parent satisfaction (with healthiness of 

food, variety, convenience) 

 Perception that household members liked 

food 

Food consumption/ targeting 

accuracy 

 Type of demonstration 

 Participation in other nutrition assistance 

programs 

 Perception of difference in food 

expenditure – summer versus fall 

 Perception of food expenditure – spent 

less on food due to summer food 

demonstration project 

 Participant characteristics (age, gender) 

 Respondent characteristics (marital status, 

education , employment status) 

 Languages spoken at home 

 Household characteristics (age distribution, 

household size, poverty threshold, 

household member with difficulty in daily 

activity, employment status, annual 

household income) 

 Parent satisfaction (balanced and healthy 

foods, quantity, variety, amounts of fruits 

and vegetables, amount of meat, amount 

of milk and milk products, ate regular 

meals, ate fast food) 

Household food 

security 

 Type of demonstration 

 Perception of change in food expenditure 

(summer versus fall; less due to summer 

food demonstration project) 

 Participant characteristics (age, gender) 

 Respondent characteristics (marital status, 

education, employment status) 

 Languages spoken at home 

 Participation in other nutrition assistance 

programs 

 Annual household income 

 Parent satisfaction with food (healthiness, 

variety, convenience) 

 Perception that household members liked 

food 

 Summer versus fall 

2.2.5 Analytic Methods: Household Questionnaire 

Analytic method varied by the type of data collected. Key informant data analysis was qualitative and 

consisted of the production of summaries of all key informant interviews and synthesis across key 

topic areas (e.g., outreach, provision of benefits, training and technical assistance). The analytic 

methods used for the telephone interview data were more complex. The key components are 

described below. 

Frequency of Use for Backpack Demonstration Project. In order to evaluate the frequency of 

use for the Backpack demonstration project (an indicator of participation), we calculated the number 

of backpacks that households were reported to have received and divided this by the number of 

children in the household who participated in the demonstration project and again by the number of 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 2-8 

Methods 2 

weeks that the demonstration project operated (up to the time of the interview, if that was prior to 

the end of the demonstration): 

Backpack frequency = ୒୳୫ୠୣ୰	୭୤	ୠୟୡ୩୮ୟୡ୩ୱ	୰ୣ୮୭୰୲ୣୢ/୬୳୫ୠୣ୰	୭୤	୮ୟ୰୲୧ୡ୧୮ୟ୬୲ୱ	୧୬	ୌୌ

୛ୣୣ୩ୱ	୭୤	ୢୣ୫୭୬୲୰ୟ୲୧୭୬	୭୮ୣ୰ୟ୲୧୭୬ . 

Some households were reported to have received more than 1 backpack per child per week of 

operation. This may have occurred because some sponsors gave out separate backpacks for 

breakfast and lunch; alternatively, since these counts were based on self-reported data, the 

respondents may have made errors in reporting the number of backpacks received. The backpack 

frequency was also calculated by household by omitting the division by number of children in the 

numerator of the formula above. 

Frequency of Use for Meal Delivery Demonstration Project. The frequency of use calculation 

for the Meal Delivery project was similar to the calculation for the Backpack demonstration. For the 

Meal Delivery demonstration, these calculations were done separately for participants who received 

meals at home and for those who picked up meals from a drop-off site. Both calculations used the 

same formula, which was based on the number of meal deliveries that households were reported to 

have received, divided by the number of children in the household who participated in the 

demonstration project and again by the number of weeks that the demonstration project operated 

(up to the time of the interview, if that was prior to the end of the demonstration): 

Meal delivery frequency = ୒୳୫ୠୣ୰	୭୤	୫ୣୟ୪	ୢୣ୪୧୴ୣ୰୧ୣୱ	୰ୣ୮୭୰୲ୣୢ	୰ୣୡୣ୧୴ୣୢ/୬୳୫ୠୣ୰	୭୤	୮ୟ୰୲୧ୡ୧୮ୟ୬୲ୱ	୧୬	ୌୌ

୛ୣୣ୩ୱ	୭୤	ୢୣ୫୭୬ୱ୲୰ୟ୲୧୭୬	୭୮ୣ୰ୟ୲୧୭୬ . 

We also calculated this frequency by household, omitting the division by number of children in the 

numerator of the formula for meal delivery frequency. 

Some households were reported to have received more than one meal delivery per child per week of 

operation, resulting in greater than 100 percent participation. This may have occurred because 

sponsors delivered meals more than once per week and families may have received meals through 

participation in other programs besides this demonstration. In addition, since these counts are based 

on self-reported data, the respondents may have made errors in reporting the number of meals 

received. 

Statistical Methods for p-values and Confidence Intervals. Most data were categorical in nature, 

so that chi-square tests were the primary method for computing significance tests (p-values). With 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 2-9 

Methods 2 

several exceptions, standard Pearson chi-square tests were used. One exception was that exact tests 

were used in some instances due to small cell sizes. Another exception was that McNemar’s test was 

used for data matched between summer and fall 2012; this test was used on matched data from two 

time points to evaluate whether any differences observed between the two times were significantly 

different. 

In cases where data were clustered within households, calculation methods were used that allowed 

intra-class correlation between observations. These cases included data collected from more than 

one child per household (participant age or gender), and other situations where data were collected 

on all household occupants (ages of all persons in household). Another important example was the 

analysis of food consumption, where multiple reports of foods were given by each household (see 

below for further discussion). In all these situations, SAS PROC SURVERYFREQ was used to 

compute p-values and (where relevant) confidence intervals. 

“All That Apply” Responses. In some cases, respondents were asked to indicate all responses that 

were valid. For example, respondents were asked to report on why the meals were sometimes not 

picked up (e.g., it takes too long to get to the drop-off site, lack of transportation, timing). These 

data were “dichotomized” into separate groups, each one consisting of a “yes” or “no” response. 

Separate significance tests were then carried out for each item, using chi-square tests as discussed 

above. 

Food Consumption Data. A major part of the survey consisted of reporting what foods had been 

received, how they had been stored, whether they had been consumed or shared, and shared by 

whom. We asked the respondent to list each item included in the last meal or backpack for each 

child participating in the demonstration in the household. In analyzing these data, individual food 

items were taken as the analysis unit. 

Thus, for example, “milk” was reported for all children participating in the demonstration projects 

1,672 times. Each report was further classified as to whether it spoiled, whether it was consumed 

entirely or shared, and, if shared, with whom. These reports, along with the accompanying data 

about consumption and spoilage, were aggregated from different backpacks, children, and 

households and then analyzed across categories of consumption and spoilage. Because there were 

multiple reports per household, these data are correlated and thus were analyzed using PROC 

SURVEYFREQ as described earlier. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 2-10 

Methods 2 

Food Security Calculation Method. Food security in households of demonstration project 

participants was determined using the cross-tabulation of findings for adults and children to 

categorize household food security (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2011). The cross-tabulation methodology 

consists of categorizing food security for adults and children separately and then obtaining a 

household food security measure by determining the number of households which contained both 

children and adults who were food secure and the number of households with either a child or adult 

who is food insecure. Households with food insecure children and/or adults were categorized as 

food insecure.27

Analysis of Food Security Data. Food security data was primarily compared between 

demonstration projects and between the summer and fall time periods. Since participants in the 

demonstration projects comprise two independent samples, comparisons between demonstration 

projects used standard Pearson chi-square tests, as discussed earlier. 

However, participants from the summer period were re-interviewed in the following fall, so that 

summer versus fall comparisons do not use completely independent data. When comparing food 

security between summer and fall, most subjects had been interviewed at both times. For these 

comparisons, we used generalized estimating equations (GEE) to obtain p-values. GEE allows data 

to be matched (and therefore dependent) while evaluating differences between the two time periods. 

Comparison of Food Security to National Benchmarks. To place household food security into 

perspective, we compared the household food security of demonstration project participants to data 

contained in the yearly ERS report on household food security (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2012a and 

2012b). Categories of food security consisted of food secure (comprised of high food security and 

marginal food security), low food security, and very low food security. ERS does not currently use a 

cross-tabulation methodology to ascertain household food security. Instead, a food secure 

household is one in which there are fewer than three food insecure responses to all 18 questions in 

the ERS survey. Thus, food security analyses that compared demonstration project participants and 

national data used the ERS methodology to calculate food security status. 

Modeling Methods. A generalized linear model that adjusts for within-cluster correlation was used 

to fit logistic models for food security. Variables that were significantly associated with food security 

 

27 Due to a programming error, some respondents to the summer Meal Delivery questionnaire were not asked the full set 

of questions regarding child food security. As a result, estimates of child food security have a slight downward bias. After much 

examination of this issue, Dr. Mark Nord of ERS recommended against modifying estimates to adjust for this bias, due to its 

negligible order of magnitude. For further discussion of the issue see Appendix C. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 2-11 

Methods 2 

in simple chi-square tests were modeled using the logistic regression. Separate models were 

developed for adult, child, and household food security. In these models, data were combined from 

both summer and fall interviews, as well as from both demonstration projects. This approach 

allowed us to evaluate differences between demonstration projects and between summer and fall 

interviews while adjusting for covariates that affect food security. The modeling approach used also 

adjusted for correlation between responses from a single individual at two points in time (i.e., 

summer and fall). 

Timing of Interview. The study design called for conducting surveys with households of 

demonstration project participants within 7 days of site closure, since questions on food security 

were intended to relate to the time during which the child received food from the project. In 2011, a 

substantial number of interviews took place outside this window; as a result, timing of interview was 

used as a covariate in analysis of food security in 2011. However, in 2012, only 7.5 percent of Meal 

Delivery respondents and 11.5 percent of Backpack respondents were interviewed greater than 

seven days after the end of the demonstration. Thus, timing of interview was not considered as a 

potential factor in our analysis of the survey results. 

2.3 Recruitment Results 

2.3.1 Sampling Frame Development 

Figure 2-1 summarizes the sampling frame development for summer 2012 interviews. The four Meal 

Delivery demonstration project sponsors in Delaware, Massachusetts, and New York provided 664 

records (either by list or from forms) with contact information representing 302 families. Similarly, 

the 16 Backpack sponsors across three states provided 2,122 records with contact information 

representing 919 families. We have no information from sponsors on how many children they 

estimated actually participated in the demonstrations. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 2-12 

  

Figure 2-1. Flow of cases from frame development through end of summer 2012: Telephone interview data coll

3 Meal Delivery demonstration states

(DE, MA, NY)

Received 2,122 records with conta

representing 919 families (cases); 1 ca

missing data; 

3 Backpack demonstratio

(AZ, KS, OH)

3 state grantees

16 sponsors 

92 demonstration sit

3 state grantees

4 sponsors 

43 drop-off sites

Received 664 records with contact information representing 

302 families (cases); 5 cases dropped due to missing or 

uncertain data (e.g., site or contact information)

Sample frame developed from sponsor-provided information and sent to Westat telephone int

1,089 cases: 297 Meal Delivery and 792 Backpack (126 Backpack cases excluded from data c

A 

Complete and 

partially complete 

Meal Delivery: 188 

Backpack: 555 

B 

Refusal 

Meal Delivery: 9 

Backpack: 30 

C

No Contact 

Meal Delivery: 33 

Backpack: 84 

D

Ineligible 

Meal Delivery: 11 

Backpack: 15 

E

Other 

Meal Delivery: 14 

Backpack: 78 

Terminology Key: A. Partial complete: Completed the introduction and at least one more section of questionnaire C. No contact: Interviewers never reached a human; reached answering machine, ring no answer, busy signal; may have been ineligible b

not ascertain D. Ineligible: Household never received a meal/backpack, was a duplicate case, or child did not meet age requirement E. Other: Non-interview because of language/literacy problem or unable to complete despite numerous call attempts F. Undetermined: no

working number or respondent not found 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 2-13 

Methods 2 

This information was used for identifying potential study participants for telephone interviews. All 

households with readable contact information were grouped by demonstration project and sorted at 

random into smaller replicates, or “release” groups, for the Telephone Research Center (TRC). All 

replicates were released in the course of sample enrollment and data collection. 

A handful of the Meal Delivery cases were excluded from data collection due to problems with the 

submitted forms, such as lack of contact information or missing site information, both of which 

were required for processing through the telephone data collection. All 297 of the remaining cases 

were included in data collection. 

Among the 919 Backpack cases identified for potential interview, one was excluded because of a 

missing telephone number. With the receipt of 126 cases, the target sample size of 200-400 cases 

was greatly exceeded. Thus, on July 25, 2012, the decision was made to exclude further submitted 

forms from data collection, both for budgetary reasons and the fact that the target sample size had 

been exceeded. All 792 cases with the required contact information that had been received up to that 

point were included in data collection. 

All Meal Delivery sponsors and all but one Backpack sponsor provided names and contact 

information for potential participants. Since we did not know the number of demonstration 

participants by sponsor or site, we were not able to ascertain possible bias due to unequal 

representation. Nevertheless, among a total of 36 Meal Delivery drop-off sites,28 34 (94.4 percent) 

submitted at least one form or name. Among 92 Backpack sites, 79 (85.9 percent) submitted at least 

one form. The percentage of sites submitting at least one form or name overall was 88.3 percent. 

2.3.2 Sample Sizes Achieved 

In fall 2011, Westat had contacted and interviewed 102 parents or caregivers from the Meal Delivery 

demonstration project and 369 from the Backpack demonstration (Table 2-3). A new sample was 

derived in summer 2012 consisting of 1,089 parents or caregivers (297 Meal Delivery and 792 

Backpack). Completed interviews in summer 2012 totaled 743. These respondents were brought 

forward for the fall 2012 interviews, of which 522 were interviewed.29

 

28 Because home delivery sites were not yet arranged, excludes individual home drop-off sites. 

29 410 participated only in Rounds 1 and 2 of data collection (i.e., summer and fall, 2011); 61 participated in Rounds 1, 2, and 3 

(summer and fall, 2011 and summer, 2012); 53 participated in Rounds 1 – 4 (summer and fall, 2011 and summer and fall, 2012). 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 2-14 

Methods 2 

Table 2-3. Sample sizes achieved for summer and fall 2011 and 2012 data collection 

a. Demonstr

ation project 

b.

umber 

sampled 

c.

umber 

eligible 

d.

umber 

responding

* 

e.

umber 

followed 

f.

umber 

eligible 

g.

umber 

responding

* 

h. Summer 2011 i. Fall 2011

j.

eal Delivery 

k. 23

6 

l. 224 m. 14

3 

n. 13

4 

o. 13

1 

p. 10

2 

q.

ackpack 

r. 76

6 

s. 747 t. 52

5 

u. 51

4 

v. 48

9 

w. 36

9 

x.

oth projects 

y. 1,0

22 

z. 971 aa. 66

8 

bb. 64

8 

cc. 62

0 

dd. 47

1 

ee. ff. Summer 2012 gg. Fall 2012

hh.

eal Delivery 

ii. 29

7 

jj. 286 kk. 18

8 

ll. 18

8 

mm. 18

2 

nn. 13

6 

oo.

ackpack 

pp. 79

2 

qq. 777 rr. 55

5 

ss. 55

5 

tt. 52

7 

uu. 38

6 

vv.

oth projects 

ww. 1,0

89 

xx. 1,06

3 

yy. 74

3 

zz. 74

3 

aaa. 70

9 

bbb. 52

2 

*Includes partial completes; a partial interview was one in which at least the food security section was completed. 

In the Meal Delivery demonstration project, Delaware’s Food Bank of Delaware supplied the 

greatest number of cases for interview (122). The highest percentage interviewed among those sent 

to the TRC was North Rose-Wolcott Central School District in New York (79.1 percent) (Table 2-

4a). 

Table 2-4a. Number of cases (parents/caregivers) sent to TRC, percent interviewed and percent 

of sample by sponsor – Meal Delivery demonstration; summer 2012 

State State agency recipient Sponsor(s) 

No. cases 

sent to 

TRCa

No. cases 

interviewed 

Percent 

interviewed 

Percent 

of Meal 

Delivery 

Sample 

DE Delaware Department 

of Education (Dover, 

DE) 

Food Bank of 

Delaware; Newark, DE 

122 71 58.2 37.8

MA MA Department of 

Elementary and 

Secondary Education 

(Malden, MA) 

YMCA of Cape Cod; 

West Barnstable, MA 

64 37 57.8 19.7

NY New York State 

Education Department 

(Albany, NY) 

Food Bank of the 

Southern Tier; Elmira, 

NY 

67 45 67.2 24.5

 North Rose-Wolcott 

Central School 

District; Wolcott, NY 

43 34 79.1 18.1

All Meal Delivery 297 188 63.3 100.1b 

a TRC = Telephone Research Center 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 2-15 

Methods 2 

b Does not equal 100.0 percent due to rounding. 

There was no way to ascertain the completeness of the sample that was sent to the TRC since we 

did not receive a master list of approved families from Meal Delivery sponsors. 

 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 2-16 

Methods 2 

In the Backpack demonstration (Table 2-4b), the greatest number of cases was provided by the 

Litchfield Elementary School District in Arizona (176 cases) and the Community Action 

Organization of Scioto County in Ohio (116 cases). The percentage of interviews among those sent 

to TRC ranged from 58.2 percent (Ashtabula County Children Services) to 86.2 percent (Gardner 

Edgerton Unified School District), excluding Chandler Unified School District which achieved 100 

percent interviewed but represented only one case or 0.2 percent of the Backpack sample. 

Table 2-4b. Number of cases (parents/caregivers) sent to TRC, percent interviewed and percent 

of sample by sponsor – Meal Delivery demonstration; summer 2012 

State State agency recipient Sponsor(s) 

No. cases 

sent to 

TRCa

No. cases 

interviewe

d 

Percent 

interviewed 

Percent of 

Backpack 

Sample 

AZ Arizona Department of 

Education (Phoenix, AZ) 

Chandler Unified School 

District 

1 1 100.0 0.2

 Litchfield Elementary 

School District 

176 114 64.8 20.5

 Mesa Public Schools 32 23 71.9 4.1

KS Kansas State 

Department of 

Education (Topeka, KS) 

Arkansas City Unified 

School District 470 

67 51 76.1 9.2

 Central Unified School 

District 462 

7 5 71.4 0.9

 East Central Kansas 

Economic Opportunity 

Corp 

5 3 60.0 0.5

 Gardner Edgerton Unified 

School District 

29 25 86.2 4.5

 Lawrence Public Schools 

USD 497 

25 21 84.0 3.8

 Topeka Public Schools 33 24 72.7 4.3

 United Methodist Church 0 0 0.0 0.0

OH Ohio Department of 

Education (Columbus, OH)

Andrews House, Inc. 18 13 72.2 2.3

 Ashtabula County 

Children Services 

122 71 58.2 12.8

 Community Action 

Organization of Scioto 

County 

116 83 71.6 15.0

 Hamilton Living Water 

Ministry, Inc. 

0 0 0.0 0.0

 Hocking Athens Perry 

Community Action 

Agency 

35 25 71.4 4.5

 Whole Again International 126 96 76.2 17.3

All Backpack 792 555 70.1 99.9b 

a TRC = Telephone Research Center 

b Does not equal 100.0 percent due to rounding 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 2-17 

Methods 2 

2.4 Completion Rates 

2.4.1 Calculation Formula 

Westat disposition codes for telephone interview surveys (Appendix D) and calculation of 

completion rates (Appendix E) are consistent with the guidance provided by the American 

Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) (AAPOR, 2011). 

Using the number of completed and partially completed interviews in summer 2012 and fall 2012, 

respectively (Table 2-5 and 2-6), we calculated five completion rates for data collection for each type 

of demonstration project: (1) contact rate, (2) cooperation rate, (3) refusal rate, (4) ineligibility rate, 

and (5) response rate. Contact rates are the estimated proportion of all eligible cases in which some 

responsible housing unit member was reached. Cooperation rates are the proportion of all cases 

interviewed of all eligible units ever contacted. Refusal rates are the proportion of all cases in which 

a housing unit or the respondent refuses to be interviewed, or breaks off of an interview, of all 

potentially eligible cases. Ineligibility rates are the proportion of contacted cases found to be 

ineligible. Response rates are the number of complete interviews with reporting units divided by the 

number of eligible reporting units in the sample. All definitions and formulas in this study include 

partial completes in the numerator. Formulas for the contact, refusal and response rates include the 

estimated number of eligible cases among the unknown cases (1-D%) and also include no contacts, 

ineligibles, other disposition codes, and undetermined. 

The greatest nonresponse in the summer (10.7 percent) was from telephone numbers in which 

human contact was never reached (Table 2-5). In the fall (Table 2-6), telephone interviewers had 

made human contact but were unable to reach the appropriate person to interview in 11.6 percent of 

the sample. 

 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 2-18 

Methods 2 

Table 2-5. Results of summer 2012 data collection 

Final results of interviews 

Meal delivery Backpack Total 

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

A Completed interview 183 61.6 553 69.8 736 67.6

A Partial Complete (completed the food 

security section) a 5 1.7 2 0.3 7 0.6 

B Refused to participate 9 3.0 30 3.8 39 3.6

C No Contact (never reached a human) 33 11.1 84 10.6 117 10.7

D Ineligibleb 11 3.7 15 1.9 26 2.4

E Maximum Call Attempts: Languagec 3 1.0 35 4.4 38 3.5

E Maximum Call Attempts: Otherd 10 3.4 43 5.4 53 4.9

F Non-Working Number 37 12.5 25 3.2 62 5.7

F Respondent not found at number 

dialed 6 2.0 5 0.6 11 1.0 

 Total 297 100.0 792 100.0 1,089 100.0

a Only respondents who completed the food security module in summer 2011 were included in fall 2011 data collection. b Not eligible because child did not participate in demonstration, duplicate household, or child did not meet age criterion. c Made numerous attempts but unable to complete because of a language/literacy problem. d Made numerous attempts, reached a human in the household, but field period closed before able to conduct the 

interview. 

Table 2-6. Results of Fall 2012 data collection 

Final results of interviews 

Meal delivery Backpack Total 

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

A Completed interview 136 72.3 385 69.4 521 70.1 

A Partial complete (at least one section 

beyond introduction) 0 0.0 1 0.2 1 0.1 

B Refused to participate 7 3.7 23 4.1 30 4.0

C No contact (never reached a human) 14 7.4 14 2.5 28 3.8

D Ineligiblea 6 3.2 28 5.0 34 4.6 

E Maximum call attempts: Languageb 1 0.5 5 0.9 6 0.8 

E Maximum call attempts: Otherc 16 8.5 70 12.6 86 11.6 

F Non-working number 8 4.3 29 5.2 37 5.0

F Respondent not found at number 

dialed 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 

 Total 188 100.0 555 100.0 743 100.0 a Not eligible because of duplicate interview or changes to household (e.g., no children participated in demonstration, met 

age criterion, or were in school) 

b Made numerous attempts but unable to complete because of a language/literacy problem. c Made numerous attempts, reached a human in the household, but field period closed before able to conduct the 

interview. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 2-19 

Methods 2 

2.4.2 Completion Rate Results 

Westat completed summer 2012 interviews on September 9, 2012. There were 188 completed Meal 

Delivery interviews (including partial completes), 174 in English, and 14 in Spanish (Table 2-7). 

There were a total of 555 completed and partially completed interviews for the Backpack 

demonstration project – 509 (or 91.9 percent) in English and 46 (or 8.3 percent) in Spanish (Table 2-

7). Combining the two demonstrations, almost 8 percent were completed in Spanish. In 2011, the 

percentage in Spanish was about 18 percent in summer and fall. 

Table 2-7. Number of completed and partially completed interviews by language and type of 

demonstration project, summer and fall 2012 

Interview 

language 

Meal Delivery Backpack Both demonstrations 

No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent 

Summer 2012 

English 174 92.6 509 91.7 683 91.9 

Spanish 14 7.4 46 8.3 60 8.1 

Total 188 100.0 555 100.0 743 100.0 

Fall 2012 

English 129 94.9 352 91.2 481 92.1 

Spanish 7 5.1 34 8.8 41 7.9 

Total 136 100.0 386 100.0 522 100.0 

The cooperation rate in the summer was 88 percent for both types of demonstration projects 

combined (Table 2-8). Like last year, the cooperation rate was over 90 percent for the Meal Delivery 

demonstration project in summer 2012. The cooperation rate was also high for the Backpack 

demonstration (86 percent in the summer and fall, 2012). The overall response rate for both 

demonstrations reached 70 percent in the summer, 2012, with Meal Delivery response at 

66.1 percent and Backpack response reaching 71.5 percent. 

Fall data collection consisted of re-contacting those respondents who were interviewed in the 

summer and had completed at least the food security module. The re-contact rate was 88 percent for 

Meal Delivery and 92 percent for Backpack (Table 2-8). Among those who were re-contacted, 

cooperation was over 86 percent. Refusal rates were low – less than 5 percent. The response rate for 

the Meal Delivery sample in fall 2012 was 74.8 percent, 73.4 percent for the Backpack sample, and 

73.8 percent for both demonstration projects combined. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 2-20 

Methods 2 

Table 2-8. Completion rates by demonstration type – summer and fall 2012 data collection 

Completion rate Meal Delivery (%) Backpack (%) Both demonstrations (%)

Summer 2012

Contact rate 74.2 85.4 82.4 

Cooperation rate 94.3 86.0 88.0 

Refusal rate 3.2 3.9 3.7 

Ineligibility rate 5.0 2.2 2.9 

Response rate 66.1 71.5 70.0 

Fall 2012

Contact rate 88.0 92.1 91.0 

Cooperation rate 88.8 85.5 86.3 

Ineligibility rate 3.6 5.5 5.0 

Refusal rate 3.9 4.4 4.2 

Response rate 74.8 73.4 73.8 

2.5 Analytic Samples 

Like last year, parents or caregivers who were respondents to the household questionnaire reported 

for the entire household, including all individuals living in the household and/or participating in the 

demonstration projects, in addition to reporting information on themselves. Some data analyses 

presented in this report include information on respondents (e.g., demographic characteristics and 

their satisfaction with and perceptions of the demonstration project), while other analyses target 

project participants (often more than one per household). Finally, in a few cases, data are reported 

for all household members. Thus, the number of individuals contained in each analysis varies, 

depending upon the variable of interest and nature of the analysis. 

Table 2-9 shows the number of households and participants included in the various analyses 

presented in this report. In summer 2012, there were 743 completed and partially completed 

interviews representing 743 households and 1,743 demonstration participants. Similarly, there were 

522 household interviews in Fall 2012, representing 1,208 participants. 

 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 2-21 

Methods 2 

Table 2-9. Description of analytic samples, 2012 data collection 

Summer Fall 

Households 

Project 

participants Households 

Project

participants 

Complete and partially complete interviews 743 1,743 522 1,208

Interviews eliminated because no person in 

the household received a meal or 

backpack in summer 2012 41 101 28 37 

Interviews used 702 1,642 494 1,171 

Participant data eliminated because the 

individual did not receive at least one 

meal or backpack in summer 2012 

(other household member did) 43 32 

Participant data used 1,599 1,139

However, 41 households contained no person who brought home a meal or backpack; these 

households (representing 101 individuals) were eliminated from the analytic sample. In the fall, 28 

households representing 37 individuals were eliminated for the same reason. 

The remaining 702 household interviews from summer 2012 were included in all household-level 

data analysis, as were the 494 household interviews from Fall 2012. However, some participants in 

these households never brought home a meal or backpack (the meal/backpack received by the 

household was brought home by a different household member). Data for these participants (43 in 

summer and 32 in fall) were excluded from data analyses for participants (e.g., food consumption). 

Thus, 1,599 summer demonstration project participants were included in participant-level data 

analysis; 1,139 of these participants had fall interviews and were included in data analysis. 

2.6 Key Informant Interviews 

In addition to telephone interviews, the evaluation consisted of site visits to demonstration projects 

and key informant interviews. 

Methodology. We used semi-structured interview guides for key informant interviews (Appendix F) 

and a site observation checklist (Appendix G) to ensure all interviewers observed the same items. 

Interview guides addressed the measurement of several types of implementation processes, including 

selection of sponsors and sites, outreach or recruitment, delivery of benefits, training and technical 

assistance, and oversight and monitoring. We also asked key informants about the challenges to 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 2-22 

Methods 2 

implementing the demonstration projects and how they tried to resolve these challenges. Interview 

guides contained general headings and open-ended questions and probes. 

Like last year, site visit interviewers received one day of training. The agenda included a review of 

the FNS and SFSP and background on the demonstration projects; an overview of the evaluation 

purpose, design, and methodology; procedures for the key informant interviews; interviewing tips; 

mock interviews; site visit logistics (e.g., planning the site visit, recording interviews, writing up 

findings); and post-interview tasks (e.g., thank you notes, first impressions). Interviewers were 

trained to move through the interview guide to obtain all required information, but not necessarily in 

the same order or using the exact question wording. The training for use of the interview guides 

included interviewing techniques, such as redirecting strategies, as well as mock interview sessions. 

We also talked about the use of the site visit observation checklist. 

Key Variables. Key informants were State grantees, sponsors, and site staff and volunteers. Each 

type of key informant served a different function and provided a different perspective on each 

interview item (Table 2-10). State grantees provided a high level overview of demonstration project 

operations from the grantee perspective. Sponsors were asked to provide their perspective on 

project operations, staffing and volunteer roles and responsibilities, participant outreach efforts, 

training and technical assistance, and project monitoring. Sites reported on process information 

from the perspective of those delivering food to demonstration participants (e.g., their roles and 

responsibilities, the procedures they used, training they received, descriptions of challenges they 

encountered, and ways in which they resolved those challenges). The site visit observation checklist 

captured information on look of the site, type of location, how distribution is handled, availability of 

informational materials, food storage and distribution, where children eat, and leftover versus too 

few meals or backpacks/bags.

Table 2-10. Key variables 

Dates of operation 

Outreach 

Selection of sponsors and sites 

Processes for providing demonstration benefits 

Administrative controls 

Oversight and monitoring

Training and technical assistance 

Demonstration innovations 

Challenges and resolution of challenges 

Procedures. Procedures in 2012 were basically the same as in 2011. A two-person team was 

deployed to demonstration projects in July and August, 2012. The process for developing the agenda 

began with the interview team contacting the State grantee to determine the week of the site visit. 

The options were presented, and the State grantee selected the week that was most practical for both 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 2-23 

Methods 2 

the State and sponsors. Once the week was determined, the interview team scheduled the State 

grantee for the first interview on the agenda. The interview team then mapped out the location of 

each sponsor, including its distance and direction from the State agency. Using online navigation, the 

interview team proposed sponsor and site interviews taking into consideration driving time and the 

length of the interviews. The agenda allotted 2 hours for the State interview, 1 hour and 30 minutes 

for each sponsor interview and one hour for each site interview. The interviewers scheduled the 

agenda with an extra hour for additional driving time and transition from each interview (e.g., in case 

an interview started or ended late). In some cases, the distance between locations was up to 3 hours. 

All State grantees and sponsors were interviewed. The number of sites visited was based on 

geographic location and sites’ schedule, and an effort was made to observe food distribution for at 

least one site per sponsor. 

Once the proposed agenda was drafted, the interview team shared the agenda with the State and 

sponsor staff for their review and feedback. Modifications to the agenda were made based on their 

schedules and recommendations (e.g., feedback on travel time between sponsors and/or sites). The 

interview team sent the finalized agenda and interview guides to the State and sponsors prior to the 

site visit (see Appendix H for a sample agenda). In preparation for the site visit, the interview team 

reviewed last year’s interview summaries, the final report, and other information about each State, 

sponsor, and site (e.g., original grant application, websites, program information provided). 

The interview team requested permission to record each interview. While both interviewers guided 

the discussions and took notes, one person took the lead on the interview while the second person 

focused on taking notes. The interview team alternated the lead roles through the site visit. During 

each interview, the interview team requested copies of materials that could provide further details on 

program operation and implementation (see Appendix I for a list of materials requested). 

After the site visit, interviewers immediately sent a thank you email to the State grantee, sponsors, 

and site staff, and within one week, completed a summary of “first impressions” of the visit. The 

summary included details such as dates, sites visited, interview respondents, and a brief summary of 

each interview. 

The final task was the completion of the site visit summary report. The interview team worked 

together to complete the report, and referred back to the audio recordings as needed. The summary 

report included a narrative summary for each section of the interview guide. The report focused on 

findings only and referenced materials received from the State, sponsor, and/or site. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 3-1 

Household questionnaire data were collected during summer 2012 when the Meal Delivery and 

Backpack demonstration projects were underway and in fall 2012 when children had returned to 

school and, in many cases, were participating in the breakfast and lunch programs offered at their 

school. This chapter describes the characteristics of the demonstration sites, demonstration project 

participants, questionnaire respondents, and participants’ households. 

3.1 Site Characteristics 

The Requests for Applications for the two demonstration projects required that demonstrations be 

operated at least through summer 2012. However, there were no specific requirements for the 

duration of operation for each type of project. According to the parents/caregivers who were 

interviewed, the majority of sites (65.9 percent) operated for more than eight weeks, with 24 percent 

operating for more than six weeks or up to eight weeks, and about 10 percent for six weeks or less 

(Table 3-1). Sites in the Meal Delivery demonstration project tended to operate for longer periods 

(p=0.0154), with 83.9 percent operating for more than eight weeks, while 56.7 percent of Backpack 

demonstration sites operated for more than eight weeks.30

Meal delivery sites operated in Massachusetts, New York and Delaware, while the Backpack 

demonstration sites operated in Kansas, Ohio and Arizona (Table 3-7). As we will discuss in the 

next section, this geographic distribution results in contrasting demographic characteristics between 

the two types of demonstration projects. The majority of Meal Delivery sites (about 54.8 percent) 

operated in Delaware, while a majority of Backpack sites (58.3 percent) operated in Ohio. 

 

30 When we examined the duration of operation among all sites (not only those connected to the parents/caregivers who 

participated in the telephone survey) we found that 83.8 percent of the Meal Delivery sites were open for 8 weeks or more during 

the summer (compared to 83.9 percent among those interviewed), and that 50 percent of the Backpack sites were open 8 weeks or 

more during the summer (compared to 56.7 percent among those interviewed). Since forms were distributed in backpacks only 

during the early weeks of the demonstration only, it does not appear that Backpack sites that stayed open longer would heavily 

bias the sample. 

Characteristics of 

Demonstration Sites and Sample 3 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 3-2 

Characteristics of Demonstration Sites and Sample 3 

Table 3-1. Demonstration site characteristics 

ccc. Characteristics 

ddd. M

eal Delivery 

eee. fff. ggg. p

-value of 

difference 

between MDa

hhh. a

nd BPb

iii. B

ackpack 

jjj. To

tal 

kkk. lll.

ct 

mmm. nnn.

ct 

ooo. ppp.

ct 

qqq. Dur

ation of site operation 

rrr. sss. ttt. uuu. vvv. www. xxx.

yyy. 6 

weeks or less 

zzz. aaaa.

.0 

bbbb. cccc.

5.0 

dddd. eeee.

.9 

ffff. 0.0154

gggg. Mor

e than 6 weeks up to 8 weeks 

hhhh. iiii. 1

6.1 

jjjj. 1

7 

kkkk.

8.3 

llll. 2

2 

mmmm

4.2 

nnnn.

oooo. Mor

e than 8 weeks up to 10 weeks 

pppp.

2 

qqqq.

1.0 

rrrr.

4 

ssss.

0.0 

tttt.4

6 

uuuu.

0.5 

vvvv.

wwww. Mor

e than 10 weeks 

xxxx. yyyy.

2.9 

zzzz.

0 

aaaaa.

6.7 

bbbbb.

4 

ccccc.

5.4 

ddddd.

eeeee. Tot

al 

fffff.

1 

ggggg.

00.0 

hhhhh.

0 

iiiii.1

00.0 

jjjjj.9

1 

kkkkk.

00.0 

lllll.

mmmmm. Loc

ation of demonstration site 

nnnnn. ooooo. ppppp. qqqqq. rrrrr. sssss. ttttt.

uuuuu. Ariz

ona 

vvvvv. wwwwwxxxxx.

3 

yyyyy.

1.7 

zzzzz.

3 

aaaaaa.

4.3 

bbbbbb.

cccccc. Del

aware 

dddddd

7 

eeeeee.

4.8 

ffffff. gggggg. hhhhhh

7 

iiiiii.

8.7 

jjjjjj.

kkkkkk. Kan

sas 

llllll. mmmm nnnnnn

2 

oooooo

0.0 

pppppp

2 

qqqqqq

3.2 

rrrrrr.

ssssss. Ma

ssachusetts 

tttttt. uuuuuu

.7 

vvvvvv wwwwwxxxxxx. yyyyyy.

.3 

zzzzzz.

aaaaaaa. Ne

w York 

bbbbbb

1 

ccccccc

5.5 

dddddd eeeeeee fffffff.

1 

ggggggg

2.1 

hhhhhhh.

iiiiiii. Ohi

o 

jjjjjjj. kkkkkkklllllll.

5 

mmmm

8.3 

nnnnnn

5 

oooooo

8.5 

ppppppp.

qqqqqqq. Tot

al 

rrrrrrr.

1 

sssssss.

00.0 

ttttttt.

0 

uuuuuu

00.0 

vvvvvvv

1 

wwwww

00.0 

xxxxxxx.

Note: Pertains only to sites of parents/caregivers who were interviewed 

a MD = Meal Delivery 

b BP = Backpack 

3.2 Participant Characteristics 

In this section we describe and compare the participant, respondent, and household characteristics 

of the Meal Delivery and Backpack sample that completed interviews in summer 2012. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 3-3 

Characteristics of Demonstration Sites and Sample 3 

Table 3-2 reports demographic characteristics of participants in the two demonstration projects, 

respondents, and households. Characteristics of the sample that completed interviews in fall 2012 

are contained in Appendix J. 

 Consistent with the nature of the demonstrations, most participants were between 5 and 

17 years of age and over two-thirds of households were below 100 percent of the 

Federal poverty threshold. 

Table 3-2. Characteristics of demonstration project participants, respondents, and households 

yyyyyyy. Characteristics 

zzzzzzz. aaaaaaaa. bbbbbbbb. cccccccc. p

-value of 

difference 

between MDa

dddddddd. a

nd BPb

eeeeeeee. ffffffff. gggggggg.

hhhhhhhh. Me

al Delivery 

iiiiiiii. Ba

ckpack 

jjjjjjjj. Tot

al 

kkkkkkkllllllll.

ct 

mmmm nnnnnn

ct 

oooooo pppppp

ct 

qqqqqqqq. Parti

cipant gender 

rrrrrrrr. ssssssss. tttttttt. uuuuuuuvvvvvvvwwwwwxxxxxxxx.

yyyyyyyy. Fem

ale 

zzzzzzz

38 

aaaaaaaa

6.9 

bbbbbb

34 

cccccccc

3.7 

dddddd

72 

eeeeeeee

4.5 

fffffffff.

.2445 

ggggggggg. Male hhhhhh

80 

iiiiiiiii.

3.1 

jjjjjjjjj.

47 

kkkkkkk

6.3 

lllllllll.

27 

mmmm

5.5 

nnnnnnnnn.

ooooooooo. Total pppppp

18 

qqqqqqq

00.0 

rrrrrrrrr

181 

sssssssss

00.0 

ttttttttt.

599 

uuuuuuu

00.0 

vvvvvvvvv.

wwwwwwwww. Parti

cipant age distribution 

xxxxxxxyyyyyyyyzzzzzzz aaaaaaaabbbbbb ccccccccdddddddddd.

eeeeeeeeee. 18 

years or older 

ffffffffff

1 

ggggggg

.6 

hhhhhh

1 

iiiiiiiiii.

.8 

jjjjjjjjjj.

2 

kkkkkkk

.0 

llllllllll.

0.0001 

mmmmmmmmmm. 12-

17 years old 

nnnnnn

27 

oooooo

0.4 

pppppp

03 

qqqqqqq

7.2 

rrrrrrrrr

30 

sssssssss

0.6 

tttttttttt.

uuuuuuuuuu. 8-11 

years old 

vvvvvvv

40 

wwwww

3.5 

xxxxxxx

04 

yyyyyyyy

4.2 

zzzzzzz

44 

aaaaaaaa

4.0 

bbbbbbbbbbb

ccccccccccc. 5-7 

years old 

dddddd

07 

eeeeeeee

5.6 

ffffffffff

50 

ggggggg

9.6 

hhhhhh

57 

iiiiiiiiiii.

8.6 

jjjjjjjjjjj.

kkkkkkkkkkk. Und

er 5 years old 

lllllllllll.

3 

mmmm

.9 

nnnnnn

03 

oooooo

7.2 

pppppp

36 

qqqqqqq

4.8 

rrrrrrrrrrr.

sssssssssss. Total ttttttttttt

18 

uuuuuuu

00.0 

vvvvvvv

181 

wwwww

00.0 

xxxxxxx

599 

yyyyyyyy

00.0 

zzzzzzzzzzz.

aaaaaaaaaaaa. Res

pondent age bbbbbb ccccccccdddddd eeeeeeeeffffffffffggggggg hhhhhhhhhhh

iiiiiiiiiiii. 20-

25 years old 

jjjjjjjjjjjj.

0 

kkkkkkk

0.6 

llllllllllll.

7 

mmmm

.1 

nnnnnn

7 

oooooo

.5 

ppppppppppp

.8909 

qqqqqqqqqqqq. 26-

30 years old 

rrrrrrrrr

1 

sssssssss

1.8 

ttttttttttt

01 

uuuuuuu

9.6 

vvvvvvv

42 

wwwww

0.2 xxxxxxxxxxxx

yyyyyyyyyyyy. 31-

35 years old 

zzzzzzz

6 

aaaaaaaa

4.5 

bbbbbb

35 

cccccccc

6.3 

dddddd

78 

eeeeeeee

5.4 fffffffffffff.

ggggggggggggg. 36- hhhhhh iiiiiiiiiiiii jjjjjjjjjjjjj kkkkkkklllllllllllll mmmm nnnnnnnnnnn
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 3-4 

Characteristics of Demonstration Sites and Sample 3 

40 years old 0 6.0 8 7.1 21 7.2 

ooooooooooooo. 41-

50 years old 

pppppp

6 

qqqqqqq

9.1 

rrrrrrrrr

4 

sssssssss

8.3 

ttttttttttt

30 

uuuuuuu

8.5 vvvvvvvvvvvv

wwwwwwwwwwwww. 51-

80 years old 

xxxxxxx

5 

yyyyyyyy

.0 

zzzzzzz

9 

aaaaaaaa

.5 

bbbbbb

4 

cccccccc

.1 ddddddddddd

eeeeeeeeeeeeee. Total ffffffffff

88 

ggggggg

00.0 

hhhhhh

14 

iiiiiiiiiiiiii

00.0 

jjjjjjjjjjjjjj

02 

kkkkkkk

00.0 llllllllllllll.

mmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Res

pondent employment status nnnnnn oooooo pppppp qqqqqqqrrrrrrrrr ssssssssstttttttttttttt.

uuuuuuuuuuuuuu. Emp

loyed 

vvvvvvv

3 

wwwww

3.7 

xxxxxxx

58 

yyyyyyyy

0.9 

zzzzzzz

21 

aaaaaaaa

1.7 

bbbbbbbbbbb

.0139 

ccccccccccccccc. Selfemployed dddddd

1 

eeeeeeee

.9 

ffffffffff

9 

ggggggg

.7 

hhhhhh

0 

iiiiiiiiiiiiii

.7 jjjjjjjjjjjjjjj.

kkkkkkkkkkkkkkk. Out 

of work for more than 1 year 

lllllllllllll

3 

mmmm

2.3 

nnnnnn

5 

oooooo

0.8 

pppppp

8 

qqqqqqq

1.2 rrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

sssssssssssssss. Out 

of work for less than 1 year 

ttttttttttt

6 

uuuuuuu

3.9 

vvvvvvv

0 

wwwww

.8 

xxxxxxx

6 

yyyyyyyy

.5 zzzzzzzzzzzzz

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Hom

emaker 

bbbbbb

6 

cccccccc

3.9 

dddddd

21 

eeeeeeee

3.7 

ffffffffff

47 

ggggggg

1.1 hhhhhhhhhhh

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii. Stud

ent jjjjjjjjjjjjj

kkkkkkk

.1 

llllllllllllll

0 

mmmm

.9 

nnnnnn

4 

oooooo

.9 ppppppppppp

qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq. Retir

ed rrrrrrrrr

sssssssss

.6 ttttttttttt

uuuuuuu

.4 

vvvvvvv

0 

wwwww

.4 xxxxxxxxxxxx

yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy. Una

ble to work 

zzzzzzz

1 

aaaaaaaa

6.6 

bbbbbb

1 

cccccccc

3.9 

dddddd

02 

eeeeeeee

4.6 fffffffffffffffff

ggggggggggggggggg. Total hhhhhh

87 

iiiiiiiiiiiiii

00.0 

jjjjjjjjjjjjj

11 

kkkkkkk

00.0 

llllllllllllll

98 

mmmm

00.0 nnnnnnnnnnn

a MD = Meal Delivery 

b BP = Backpack 

 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 3-5 

Characteristics of Demonstration Sites and Sample 3 

Table 3-2. Characteristics of demonstration project participants, respondents, and households 

(continued) 

ooooooooooooooooo. Charac

teristics 

ppppppppppppp

eal Delivery 

qqqqqqqqqqqqq

ackpack 

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

otal 

sssssssssssssss

-value of 

difference 

between MDa

ttttttttttttttttt.

uuuuuuu nd BPb

vvvvvvv

ct wwwww

xxxxxxx

ct yyyyyyyy

zzzzzzz

ct 

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Respo

ndent race/ethnicity 

bbbbbb ccccccccdddddd eeeeeeeeffffffffffggggggg hhhhhhhhhhh

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii. Hispan

ic 

jjjjjjjjjjjjj

6 

kkkkkkk

4.0 

llllllllllllll

12 

mmmm

1.9 

nnnnnn

38 

oooooo

9.8 

ppppppppppp

.0850 

qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq. NonHispanic Black rrrrrrrrr

3 

sssssssss

3.1 

ttttttttttt

3 

uuuuuuu

8.2 

vvvvvvv

36 

wwwww

9.5 

xxxxxxxxxxxx

yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy. NonHispanic White zzzzzzz

06 

aaaaaaaa

7.0 

bbbbbb

73 

cccccccc

3.3 

dddddd

79 

eeeeeeee

4.3 

fffffffffffffffff

ggggggggggggggggggg. Other 

Race/Ethnicity 

hhhhhh

1 

iiiiiiiiiiiiii

.9 

jjjjjjjjjjjjj

4 

kkkkkkk

.6 

llllllllllllll

5 

mmmm

.4 

nnnnnnnnnnn

ooooooooooooooooooo. Total pppppp

86 

qqqqqqq

00.0 

rrrrrrrrr

12 

sssssssss

00.0 

ttttttttttt

98 

uuuuuuu

00.0 

vvvvvvvvvvvv

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.

espondent--languages spoken at home 

xxxxxxxyyyyyyyyzzzzzzz aaaaaaaabbbbbb ccccccccddddddddddd

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. English 

only 

ffffffffff

58 

ggggggg

4.0 

hhhhhh

07 

iiiiiiiiiiiiii

9.3 

jjjjjjjjjjjjjj

65 

kkkkkkk

0.6 

llllllllllllllllllll.

.0801 

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

panish only 

nnnnnn

0 

oooooo

.3 

pppppp

2 

qqqqqqq

.2 

rrrrrrrrr

2 

sssssssss

.0 

ttttttttttttttttttt

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu. Some 

other language only 

vvvvvvvwwwww

.6 

xxxxxxxyyyyyyyy

.8 

zzzzzzz aaaaaaaa

.0 

bbbbbbbbbbb

ccccccccccccccccccccc. English 

and Spanish 

dddddd eeeeeeee

.8 

ffffffffff

6 

ggggggg

0.9 

hhhhhh

5 

iiiiiiiiiiiiii

.3 

jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj.

kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk. English 

and some other language 

lllllllllllll mmmm

.2 

nnnnnn oooooo

.8 

pppppp

5 

qqqqqqq

.1 

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

sssssssssssssssssssss. English

, Spanish, and some other language 

tttttttttttuuuuuuu

.1 

vvvvvvvwwwww

.0 

xxxxxxxyyyyyyyy

.0 

zzzzzzzzzzzzz

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Total bbbbbb

88 

cccccccc

00.0 

dddddd

13 

eeeeeeee

00.0 

ffffffffff

01 

ggggggg

00.0 

hhhhhhhhhhh

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii. Respo

ndent--marital status 

jjjjjjjjjjjjj kkkkkkkllllllllllllllmmmm nnnnnn oooooo ppppppppppp

qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq.Marrie

d 

rrrrrrrrr

4 

sssssssss

4.2 

ttttttttttt

59 

uuuuuuu

0.5 

vvvvvvv

23 

wwwww

6.1 

xxxxxxxxxxxx

.0001 

yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy. Not 

married but living with a partner 

zzzzzzz

7 

aaaaaaaa

4.4 

bbbbbb

5 

cccccccc

0.7 

dddddd

2 

eeeeeeee

1.7 

fffffffffffffffff

ggggggggggggggggggggggg. Widow

ed 

hhhhhh iiiiiiiiiiiiii

.1 

jjjjjjjjjjjjj

4 

kkkkkkk

.7 

llllllllllllll

6 

mmmm

.3 

nnnnnnnnnnn

ooooooooooooooooooooooo.

ivorced 

pppppp

9 

qqqqqqq

0.2 

rrrrrrrrr

0 

sssssssss

1.7 

ttttttttttt

9 

uuuuuuu

1.3 

vvvvvvvvvvvv

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

eparated 

xxxxxxx

7 

yyyyyyyy

.1 

zzzzzzz

7 

aaaaaaaa

.3 

bbbbbb

4 

cccccccc

.3 

ddddddddddd

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. Never 

married 

ffffffffff

8 

ggggggg

1.0 

hhhhhh

1 

iiiiiiiiiiiiii

7.7 

jjjjjjjjjjjjjj

49 

kkkkkkk

1.3 

llllllllllllllllllllllll

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmnnnnnn oooooo pppppp qqqqqqqrrrrrrrrr sssssssssttttttttttttttttttt
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 3-6 

Characteristics of Demonstration Sites and Sample 3 

ther .4 .0 

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu.

otal 

vvvvvvv

87 

wwwww

00.0 

xxxxxxx

13 

yyyyyyyy

00.0 

zzzzzzz

00 

aaaaaaaa

00.0 

bbbbbbbbbbb

ccccccccccccccccccccccccc. Respo

ndent—education dddddd eeeeeeeeffffffffffggggggg hhhhhh iiiiiiiiiiiiiijjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj

kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk.

ever attended/kindergarten only lllllllllllll

mmmm

.5 nnnnnn

oooooo

.4 pppppp

qqqqqqq

.4 

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

.0100 

sssssssssssssssssssssssss. Eleme

ntary/Middle school 

(Grades 1-8) 

ttttttttttt

0 

uuuuuuu

.3 

vvvvvvv

9 

wwwww

.7 

xxxxxxx

9 

yyyyyyyy

.2 zzzzzzzzzzzzz

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Some 

high school 

(Grades 9 through 11) 

bbbbbb

5 

cccccccc

8.7 

dddddd

9 

eeeeeeee

5.5 

ffffffffff

14 

ggggggg

6.3 hhhhhhhhhhh

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii. High 

school graduate 

(Grade 12 or GED) 

jjjjjjjjjjjjj

8 

kkkkkkk

7.1 

llllllllllllll

95 

mmmm

8.2 

nnnnnn

83 

oooooo

0.5 ppppppppppp

qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq.

ome college or technical school 

(College 1 to 3 years) 

rrrrrrrrr

2 

sssssssss

2.5 

ttttttttttt

47 

uuuuuuu

8.8 

vvvvvvv

89 

wwwww

7.1 xxxxxxxxxxxx

yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.Colleg

e graduate 

(College 4 years or more) 

zzzzzzz

1 

aaaaaaaa

.9 

bbbbbb

9 

cccccccc

3.5 

dddddd

0 

eeeeeeee

1.5 fffffffffffffffff

ggggggggggggggggggggggggggg.

otal 

hhhhhh

87 

iiiiiiiiiiiiii

00.0 

jjjjjjjjjjjjj

11 

kkkkkkk

00.0 

llllllllllllll

98 

mmmm

00.0 nnnnnnnnnnn

a MD = Meal Delivery 

b BP = Backpack 

 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 3-7 

Characteristics of Demonstration Sites and Sample 3 

Table 3-2. Characteristics of demonstration project participants, respondents, and households 

(continued) 

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

haracteristics 

ppppppppppppp

eal Delivery 

qqqqqqqqqqqqq

ackpack 

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

otal 

ssssssssssssssss

-value of 

difference 

between MDa

tttttttttttttttttttt

uuuuuuu nd BPb

vvvvvvv

ct wwwww

xxxxxxx

ct yyyyyyyy

zzzzzzz

ct 

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Hou

seholds by location of demonstration 

site bbbbbb ccccccc dddddd eeeeeee fffffffff ggggggg hhhhhhhhhhh

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii. Ariz

ona jjjjjjjjjjjjj kkkkkkk

lllllllllllll

19 

mmmm

3.2 

nnnnnn

19 

oooooo

7.0 ppppppppppp

qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq

elaware 

rrrrrrrrr

1 

ssssssss

7.8 tttttttttt uuuuuu

vvvvvvv

1 

wwwww

0.1 xxxxxxxxxxxx

yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.

ansas zzzzzzz aaaaaaa

bbbbbb

25 

ccccccc

4.3 

dddddd

25 

eeeeeee

7.8 fffffffffffffffff

ggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg

assachusetts 

hhhhhh

7 

iiiiiiiiiiiii

9.7 jjjjjjjjjjjjj kkkkkk

lllllllllllll

7 

mmmm

.3 nnnnnnnnnnn

oooooooooooooooooooooooooo

ew York 

pppppp

0 

qqqqqq

2.6 rrrrrrrrr ssssssss

tttttttttt

0 

uuuuuu

1.4 vvvvvvvvvvvv

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

hio xxxxxxxyyyyyyy

zzzzzzz

70 

aaaaaaa

2.5 

bbbbbb

70 

ccccccc

8.5 ddddddddddd

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

otal 

fffffffff

88 

ggggggg

00.0 

hhhhhh

14 

iiiiiiiiiiiii

00.0 

jjjjjjjjjjjjj

02 

kkkkkkk

00.0 lllllllllllllllllllllll

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

ousehold participation in other 

nutrition assistance programsc nnnnnn oooooo pppppp qqqqqq rrrrrrrrr ssssssss tttttttttttttttttt

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

id not participate in any 

programs vvvvvvv

wwwww

.7 

xxxxxxx

5 

yyyyyyy

6.5 

zzzzzzz

0 

a. 1

2.8 

b. <0.000

1 

c. Participated in only one 

program 

d. 2

8 

e. 1

4.9 

f. 1

91 

g. 3

7.2 

h. 2

19 

i. 3

1.2 j.

k. Participated in two programs l. 8

6 

m. 4

5.7 

n. 1

62 

o. 3

1.5 

p. 2

48 

q. 3

5.3 r.

s. Participated in three or more 

programs 

t. 6

9 

u. 3

6.7 

v. 7

6 

w. 1

4.8 

x. 1

45 

y. 2

0.7 z.

aa. Tot

al 

bb. 1

88 

cc. 1

00.0 

dd. 5

14 

ee. 1

00.0 

ff. 7

02 

gg. 1

00.0 hh.

ii. Hou

sehold size jj. kk. ll. mm. nn. oo. pp.

qq. 1 to 

3 persons 

rr. 6

0 

ss. 3

1.9 

tt. 1

26 

uu. 2

4.5 

vv. 1

86 

ww. 2

6.5 xx. 0.2349 

yy. 4 

persons 

zz. 4

9 

aaa. 2

6.1 

bbb. 1

49 

ccc. 2

9.0 

ddd. 1

98 

eee. 2

8.2 fff.

ggg. 5 

persons 

hhh. 4

3 

iii. 2

2.9 

jjj. 1

19 

kkk. 2

3.2 

lll. 1

62 

mmm.

3.1 nnn.

ooo. 6 or 

more persons 

ppp. 3

6 

qqq.1

9.1 

rrr. 1

20 

sss. 2

3.3 

ttt. 1

56 

uuu.2

2.2 vvv.

www. Tot

al 

xxx. 1

88 

yyy. 1

00.0 

zzz. 5

14 

aaaa.

00.0 

bbbb.

02 

cccc.

00.0 dddd.
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 3-8 

Characteristics of Demonstration Sites and Sample 3 

eeee. Age 

distribution of household members 

(including respondent) ffff. gggg. hhhh. iiii. jjjj. kkkk. llll.

mmmm. 65 

years or older 

nnnn.

2 

oooo.

.5 

pppp.

8 

qqqq.

.2 

rrrr. 4

0 

ssss.1

.3 tttt. 0.6374 

uuuu. 18-

64 years old 

vvvv.

16 

wwww.

9.2 

xxxx.

60 

yyyy.

0.6 

zzzz.1

276 

aaaaa.

0.3 bbbbb.

ccccc. 5-

17 years old 

ddddd.

86 

eeeee.

7.9 

fffff. 1

085 

ggggg.

5.9 

hhhhh.

471 

iiiii. 4

6.4 jjjjj.

kkkkk. Und

er 5 years old 

lllll. 9

2 

mmmm

1.4 

nnnnn.

90 

ooooo.

2.3 

ppppp.

82 

qqqqq.

2.1 rrrrr.

sssss. Tot

al 

ttttt. 8

06 

uuuuu.

00.0 

vvvvv.

363 

wwwww

00.0 

xxxxx.

169 

yyyyy.

00.0 zzzzz.

a MD = Meal Delivery 

b BP = Backpack 

c Programs counted as ‘Other nutrition assistance’ include SNAP, WIC, Meals on Wheels, School Lunch Program, Head 

Start, and other summer food programs where a member of the household ate meals on site. 

 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 3-9 

Characteristics of Demonstration Sites and Sample 3 

Table 3-2. Characteristics of demonstration project participants, respondents, and households 

(continued) 

aaaaaa. Cha

racteristics 

bbbbbb. M

eal Delivery 

cccccc. B

ackpack 

dddddd. To

tal 

eeeeee. p

-value of 

difference 

between MDa

ffffff.

gggggg nd BPb .

hhhhhh

ct iiiiii.

jjjjjj.

ct kkkkkk

llllll.

ct 

mmmmmm. Hou

sehold members with difficulty in 

daily activities nnnnnn oooooo pppppp qqqqqq rrrrrr. ssssss. tttttt.

uuuuuu. Yes vvvvvv

9 

wwwww

6.3 

xxxxxx.

17 

yyyyyy.

2.9 

zzzzzz.

66 

aaaaaaa

3.8 

bbbbbbb.

.3657 

ccccccc. No dddddd

37 

eeeeeee

3.7 

fffffff.

95 

ggggggg

7.1 

hhhhhh

32 

iiiiiii.

6.2 jjjjjjj.

kkkkkkk. Tot

al 

lllllll. 1

86 

mmmm

00.0 

nnnnnn

12 

oooooo

00.0 

pppppp

98 

qqqqqq

00.0 rrrrrrr.

sssssss. Dist

ribution of employment status among 

persons in household other than 

respondent 

ttttttt. uuuuuu vvvvvvvwwwwwxxxxxxxyyyyyyy zzzzzzz.

aaaaaaaa. Fulltime bbbbbb

2 

ccccccc

4.0 

dddddd

53 

eeeeeee

1.7 

ffffffff.

15 

ggggggg

0.0 

hhhhhhhh.

.1585 

iiiiiiii. Par

t-time 

jjjjjjjj.

7 

kkkkkkk

9.1 

llllllll.

7 

mmmm

3.7 

nnnnnn

4 

oooooo

4.9 

pppppppp.

qqqqqqqq. Not 

employed 

rrrrrrrr.

2 

ssssssss

6.9 

tttttttt.

69 

uuuuuu

4.6 

vvvvvvv

21 

wwwww

5.1 

xxxxxxxx.

yyyyyyyy. Tot

al 

zzzzzzz

41 

aaaaaaa

00.0 

bbbbbb

89 

ccccccc

00.0 

dddddd

30 

eeeeeee

00.0 

fffffffff.

ggggggggg. Ann

ual household income 

hhhhhh iiiiiiiii. jjjjjjjjj. kkkkkkklllllllll. mmmm nnnnnnnnn.

ooooooooo. Les

s than $10,000 

pppppp

1 

qqqqqq

2.0 

rrrrrrrrr

7 

ssssssss

9.4 

ttttttttt.

38 

uuuuuu

0.1 

vvvvvvvvv.

0.0001 

wwwwwwwww. $10

,000 up to $15,000 

xxxxxxx

2 

yyyyyyy

2.6 

zzzzzzz

0 

aaaaaaa

2.0 

bbbbbb

02 

ccccccc

4.8 

dddddddddd.

eeeeeeeeee. $15

,000 up to $20,000 

fffffffff

3 

ggggggg

7.7 

hhhhhh

7 

iiiiiiiiii.

5.4 

jjjjjjjjjj.

10 

kkkkkkk

6.0 

llllllllll.

mmmmmmmmmm. $20

,000 up to $25,000 

nnnnnn

8 

oooooo

5.1 

pppppp

3 

qqqqqq

6.6 

rrrrrrrrr

11 

ssssssss

6.2 

tttttttttt.

uuuuuuuuuu. $25

,000 up to $35,000 

vvvvvvv

7 

wwwww

4.5 

xxxxxxx

3 

yyyyyyy

4.6 

zzzzzzz

00 

aaaaaaa

4.6 

bbbbbbbbbbb

ccccccccccc. $35

,000 or more 

dddddd

5 

eeeeeee

.1 

fffffffff

11 

ggggggg

2.2 

hhhhhh

26 

iiiiiiiiiii.

8.3 

jjjjjjjjjjj.

kkkkkkkkkkk. Tot

al 

lllllllllll.

86 

mmmm

00.0 

nnnnnn

01 

oooooo

00.0 

pppppp

87 

qqqqqq

00.0 

rrrrrrrrrrr.

sssssssssss. Hou

seholds by poverty thresholdd

tttttttttt uuuuuu vvvvvvvwwwwwxxxxxxxyyyyyyy zzzzzzzzzzz.

aaaaaaaaaaaa. Les

s than 100% poverty threshold 

bbbbbb

39 

ccccccc

4.7 

dddddd

17 

eeeeeee

3.3 

fffffffff

56 

ggggggg

6.4 

hhhhhhhhhhh

.0004 

iiiiiiiiiiii. 100

% up to 130% poverty threshold 

jjjjjjjjjjjj.

6 

kkkkkkk

.6 

llllllllllll.

5 

mmmm

.0 

nnnnnn

1 

oooooo

.9 

ppppppppppp
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 3-10 

Characteristics of Demonstration Sites and Sample 3 

qqqqqqqqqqqq. 130

% up to 185% poverty threshold 

rrrrrrrrr

2 

ssssssss

1.8 

tttttttttt

5 

uuuuuu

1.0 

vvvvvvv

7 

wwwww

1.2 

xxxxxxxxxxxx

yyyyyyyyyyyy. Gre

ater than or equal to 185% poverty 

threshold 

zzzzzzz aaaaaaa

.8 

bbbbbb

4 

ccccccc

6.8 

dddddd

3 

eeeeeee

3.5 

fffffffffffff.

ggggggggggggg. Tot

al 

hhhhhh

86 

iiiiiiiiiiiii

00.0 

jjjjjjjjjjjjj

01 

kkkkkkk

00.0 

lllllllllllll

87 

mmmm

00.0 

nnnnnnnnnnn

a MD = Meal Delivery 

b BP = Backpack 

d Households by poverty threshold were calculated by looking up the number of adults and children in the household 

reported by the respondent in the table of “Poverty thresholds by Size of Family and Number of Children” from the U.S. 

Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html) to find the 100% poverty 

threshold for that household. That value was multiplied by 1.3 and 1.85 to find the other two thresholds. Then the 

midpoint of the household income range reported by the respondent was compared to each of those values to 

determine the category into which it fell in the table. 

 Compared to the nation, Hispanics were underrepresented among demonstration 

participants. Although nationally about one-third of children in poverty are Hispanic 

(AECF, 2011), among demonstration participants 20 percent of the respondents were 

Hispanic, while 20 percent were non-Hispanic Black and 54 percent non-Hispanic 

White. 

 Compared to the nation, more demonstration participants were from married 

households. About one-third of all poor children reside in married couple households 

(CDF, 2011), whereas among demonstration participants, the most frequent marital 

status was married (46 percent), with 12 percent unmarried but living with partners, 21 

percent never married, and the remaining 21 percent of various other unmarried status. 

Because married families tend to have higher incomes and more stability, it could be 

that the higher percentage of married respondents is attributable to response bias – that 

is, married women were likelier to return contact forms to sponsors than unmarried 

women. 

 Over half of the households participated in two or more other nutrition assistance 

programs, and about one-fourth had household members with difficulty in daily 

activities. 

 Households of demonstration participants were slightly more educated than expected. 

Nationally, 31 percent of children in households where at least one parent has some 

college or more education live in poverty (Addy et al., 2013). Among demonstration 

participants 12 percent were in households where the respondent was a college graduate 

and 27 percent in households that had some college or technical school. 

 Comparing the two demonstrations, there were striking differences in socio-economic 

characteristics. Participants in the Backpack demonstration came from households with 

higher income, less poverty, and less participation in nutrition assistance programs. 

Furthermore, despite the similarity in age between respondents for the two 

demonstrations, Backpack respondents had higher education levels (29 percent had 

some college or technical school versus 23 percent for Meal Delivery). The proportion 

of respondents occupied as homemakers was higher among Backpack respondents, 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 3-11 

Characteristics of Demonstration Sites and Sample 3 

possibly related to the higher income of that group and the slightly younger age of 

Backpack participants. 

In 2011 there were significant differences in race/ethnicity and languages spoken at home between 

Meal Delivery and Backpack respondents, with greater numbers of Hispanics and more with 

Spanish spoken at home in the Backpack demonstration project. In 2012, the number of Spanish 

language interviews declined, and thus, these two demographic characteristics were similar for both 

demonstration projects. 

It is important to note these differences in demographics. As we will see in later chapters, food 

security and other study outcomes are strongly associated with socio-economic characteristics such 

as income and education. Demographic differences between the study participants make it difficult 

to interpret differences between the two types of demonstration projects. 
This page intentionally blank. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-1 

4.1 Overview of Data Analysis 

Analysis of the household questionnaire consisted of an examination of demonstration project site 

characteristics and description of the sample (described in Chapter 3), participation in the 

demonstration projects and other summer nutrition assistance programs, perception of food 

expenditures, food consumption and targeting accuracy, and household food security. We also 

examined a variety of indicators on satisfaction with the demonstration projects. Findings from this 

analysis are described below. 

4.2 Participation in Demonstration Projects 

Like last year, there was variation in the extent to which children participated in the demonstration 

projects throughout the summer for a number of reasons. First, the demonstration projects 

themselves varied in when and how long they were open and providing food. Since site operation 

was often linked to the length of summer programs in the surrounding community (e.g., vacation 

Bible School Week or summer school operation), site operation ranged from as little as seven days 

in the case of one Backpack demonstration site in Ohio to 79 days in the case of a Backpack site in 

Kansas (See Section 3.1 and Appendix B for details.) 

In addition to the number of days each site was open, children varied in the extent to which they 

received food from the demonstration projects. We calculated a participation variable based on the 

number of meal deliveries or backpacks reported to have been received, the number of children in 

the household participating in the demonstration, and the number of weeks of demonstration 

project operation (up to the date of the interview). For the Meal Delivery demonstration project, we 

counted meal deliveries either at a drop-off site (to be picked up by a parent/caregiver) or received 

through home delivery; for the Backpack demonstration, meals were defined as backpacks. 

Participation, Food Consumption, and 

Food Security 4 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-2 

Participation, Food Consumption and Food Security 4 

4.2.1 Participation in Meal Delivery Demonstration 

Participation in the meal delivery demonstration was driven by the need for food. Reasons for 

demonstration project participation indicate that the Meal Delivery demonstration met a need for 

participating households. Almost 74 percent of respondents reported that the child participants 

needed the food, while 8.3 percent indicated that the program helped financially (Table 4-1). Nearly 

one-fourth of respondents said that the demonstration was their only option for obtaining food. 

The majority of meals were delivered to and picked up at drop-off centers. Based on responses to 

the Meal Delivery questionnaire, it was found that 18.6 percent of project participants received their 

meals at home, whereas meals were picked up at a drop-off center by 81.3 percent (Table 4-1). 

Meals delivered to drop-off centers were not always picked up by recipients. Of those who picked 

up meals, nearly half (46.1 percent) reported that the meals were not picked up at some time. 

Reasons provided most often were that the timing of pickup was not convenient (30.0 percent), 

there was no transportation (24.3 percent), they forgot (20.0 percent), and they were on vacation or 

out of town (15.7 percent) (Table 4-1). 

Table 4-1. Respondent description of Meal Delivery demonstration projects 

ooooooooooooo. Descriptive 

characteristics 

ppppppppppppp.

umber 

qqqqqqqqqqqqq.

ct 

rrrrrrrrrrrrr. Type of meal delivery sssssssssssss. ttttttttttttt.

uuuuuuuuuuuuu. At home vvvvvvvvvvvvv.

5 

wwwwwwwwwwwww

8.6 

xxxxxxxxxxxxx. Drop-off site yyyyyyyyyyyyy.

53 

zzzzzzzzzzzzz.

1.4 

aaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Total bbbbbbbbbbbbbb.

88 

cccccccccccccc.

00.0 

dddddddddddddd. Reason for 

enrollment* 

eeeeeeeeeeeeee. ffffffffffffff.

gggggggggggggg. Needed food--most 

convenient option 

hhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

02 

iiiiiiiiiiiiii. 49.0

jjjjjjjjjjjjjj. Needed food--no 

other option 

kkkkkkkkkkkkkk.

02 

llllllllllllll. 24.8

mmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Helps 

financially 

nnnnnnnnnnnnnn.

4 

oooooooooooooo.

.3 

pppppppppppppp. Eligible/program 

available 

qqqqqqqqqqqqqq.

1 

rrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

.1 

ssssssssssssss. Child likes 

it/program is child-friendly 

tttttttttttttt. 13 uuuuuuuuuuuuuu.

.2 

vvvvvvvvvvvvvv. Other wwwwwwwwwwwww

2 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

.9 

yyyyyyyyyyyyyy. Healthy option zzzzzzzzzzzzzz. aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-3 

Participation, Food Consumption and Food Security 4 

.2 

bbbbbbbbbbbbbbb. Ease ccccccccccccccc. ddddddddddddddd.

.9 

eeeeeeeeeeeeeee. Helps when parent 

at work 

fffffffffffffff. ggggggggggggggg.

.7 

hhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Pilot program; may 

help others 

iiiiiiiiiiiiiii. 4 jjjjjjjjjjjjjjj. 1.0 

kkkkkkkkkkkkkkk. Meals ever not 

picked up? 

lllllllllllllll. mmmmmmmmmmmm

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnn. Yes ooooooooooooooo.

0 

ppppppppppppppp.

6.1 

qqqqqqqqqqqqqqq. No rrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

2 

sssssssssssssss.

3.9 

ttttttttttttttt. Total uuuuuuuuuuuuuuu.

52 

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv.

00.0 

*Multiple responses allowed 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-4 

Participation, Food Consumption and Food Security 4 

Table 4-1. Respondent description of meal delivery demonstration projects (continued) 

wwwwwwwwwwwwwww. Descriptive 

characteristics 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

umber 

yyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.

ct 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Reason meals ever 

not picked up* 

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb.

cccccccccccccccc. Timing of pickup not 

convenient 

dddddddddddddddd.

1 

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

0.0 

ffffffffffffffff. No 

transportation/Too long to get to site 

gggggggggggggggg.

7 

hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

4.3 

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii. Forgot jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj. 14 kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk.

0.0 

llllllllllllllll. On vacation or outof-town mmmmmmmmmmmm

1 

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.

5.7 

oooooooooooooooo. Medical 

emergency/hospitalized/sick/doctor appointment 

pppppppppppppppp. qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq.

1.4 

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Family issues ssssssssssssssss. tttttttttttttttt.

.7 

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu. Other reasons vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv. wwwwwwwwwwwww

.3 

*Multiple responses allowed 

While most participants received three-fourths or more of the delivered meals, a significant minority 

of participants received less than half. Table 4-2a shows participation rates for the Meal Delivery 

program – broken out by drop-off, home delivery, and both types of delivery method combined.31

Overall, about 73 percent of participants received 75 percent or more of the available meals. About 

15 percent of participants in drop-off centers received less than half the meals. As might be 

expected, receipt of 75 percent or more of available meals was higher for home delivery (about 85 

percent) than for participants whose meals were picked up at a drop-off site (about 70 percent). 

4.2.2 Participation in Backpack Demonstration 

A majority of participants in the backpack demonstrations (60 percent) reported receiving 75 

percent or more of the backpacks per child per week brought home, but over 20 percent of 

participants received less than half. Table 4-2b shows the frequency of receiving backpacks for 

demonstration project participants.32 At the household level, 57.6 percent reported 75 percent or 

 

31 These rates were calculated for participants and households, but the two calculations give similar results. It was 

necessary to calculate meal deliveries per household per week of operation for analyses based on households (e.g., the covariate 

analysis reported in Appendix K). 

32 This measure was calculated by dividing the number of backpacks reported to have been brought home by the number 

of children in the household and the number of weeks the demonstration project was in operation (see methods in Chapter 2 for 

further detail). We also calculated the number of backpacks per household per week of operation (Table 4-2b). The two measures 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-5 

Participation, Food Consumption and Food Security 4 

better participation. These rates are substantially lower than the rates reported for Meal Delivery 

participants. 

Table 4-2a. Participation rates for meal deliveries calculated for individual participants and 

households – by drop-off, home delivery, and both delivery methods 

Participantsa Householdsb

Rate of receiving meal deliveries N pct N pct

By drop-off 

25% or less 15 4.5 7 4.6

More than 25% up to 50% 34 10.1 14 9.3

More than 50% up to 75% 50 14.9 24 15.9

More than 75% up to 100% 131 39.1 57 37.7

More than 100% 105 31.3 49 32.5

Total 335 100.0 151 100.0

By home delivery 

More than 25% up to 50% 2 2.5 1 2.9

More than 50% up to 75% 10 12.7 4 11.8

More than 75% up to 100% 16 20.3 8 23.5

More than 100% 51 64.6 21 61.8

Total 79 100.0 34 100.0

By both delivery methods 

25% or less 15 3.6 7 3.8

More than 25% up to 50% 36 8.7 15 8.1

More than 50% up to 75% 60 14.5 28 15.1

More than 75% up to 100% 147 35.5 65 35.1

More than 100% 156 37.7 70 37.8

Total 414 100.0 185 100.0

a Average participation rate of meal deliveries by drop-off per child per week of demonstration project operation (up to 

date of interview). 

b Average participation rate of meal deliveries by drop-off per child per household per week of demonstration project 

operation (up to date of interview). 

Table 4-2b. Participation rates for the backpack demonstration project calculated for individual 

participants and households 

Participantsa Householdsb

Rate of receiving backpacks N pct n pct

25 percent or less 100 8.5 37 7.2

More than 25% up to 50% 147 12.5 75 14.6

More than 50% up to 75% 218 18.5 105 20.5

More than 75% up to 100% 519 44.1 209 40.8

More than 100% 192 16.3 86 16.8

Total 1,176 100.0 512 100.0

a Average participation rate of receiving backpacks per child per week of demonstration project operation (up to date of 

interview). 

 

give similar results. Like the Meal Delivery calculation for participation, it was necessary to calculate backpacks per household 

per week of operation for analyses based on households (such as the covariate analysis reported in Appendix K). 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-6 

Participation, Food Consumption and Food Security 4 

b Average participation rate of receiving backpacks per child per household per week of demonstration project operation 

(up to date of interview). 

 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-7 

Participation, Food Consumption and Food Security 4 

4.2.3 Association of Demonstration Participation with Covariates 

Participation in the Meal Delivery demonstration was related to language spoken at home, education 

and race/ethnicity. Appendices K1 and K2 show how program participation varies with 

demographic characteristics of participants and respondents. Participation was higher for Spanish or 

other languages spoken at home, for college graduates and non-high school graduates, and for 

Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black participants. 

Participation in the Backpack demonstration project was associated with poverty status (p = 0.0228), 

with higher participation among households at less than 100 percent of poverty. Participation was 

not strongly associated with any of the other covariates analyzed. An association with perception of 

change in food expenditure--summer versus fall was almost statistically significant (p = 0.0558), but 

there was no clear pattern (see Exhibit 4-1 for question wording). 

4.2.4 Overall Participation in the Demonstration Projects 

For both demonstration projects, a substantial number of participants failed to take full advantage of 

the meals offered by the program. However, the proportion was smaller for Meal Delivery 

participants than Backpack participants (27 percent versus 40 percent, respectively, receiving less 

than 75 percent of possible meal or backpack deliveries). 

Although it is difficult to make precise comparisons of participation in the demonstration projects 

due to differences between projects and somewhat different approaches used to determine meals 

received by participants in each demonstration, participation rates appear to have been higher in the 

Meal Delivery demonstration, based on the measure of meal deliveries per child (or per household) 

per week of demonstration project operation. About 73 percent of Meal Delivery households 

received more than 75 percent of meal deliveries available, compared to about 58 percent of 

Backpack households that received more than 75 percent of backpacks available. 

4.3 Perception of Food Expenditures 

Families at the poverty line are known to spend a substantial portion of their income on food (Weill, 

2008). Thus, the household questionnaire included two questions on the respondent’s perception of 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-8 

Participation, Food Consumption and Food Security 4 

the amount of money spent on food (Exhibit 4-1). First, respondents were asked to compare the 

amount spent on food during the school year and in the summer. Next they were asked to indicate 

Exhibit 4-1. Questions on food expenditures 

Compared with the amount of money you spend on food each month during the school year, would you say 

you spend: 

 The same amount on food in the summer months 

 More on food in the summer months 

 Less on food in the summer months 

 REFUSED 

 DON’T KNOW 

Because the people in my household participated in the summer food program, I spent less money on food 

during the summer months than if s/he/they had not particpated in the program. Do you 

 Agree strongly 

 Agree 

 Neither agree nor disagree 

 Disagree 

 Disagree strongly 

 REFUSED 

 DON’T KNOW

the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with a statement that they spent less money on food 

during the summer months than if they had not participated in the summer program. 

More than 67.6 percent of households in both demonstration projects agreed or strongly agreed that 

summer food expenditures were reduced because of the demonstration projects (Table 4-3). This 

percentage was higher among Meal Delivery participants compared to Backpack participants (74.8 

percent versus 64.9 percent, p = 0.0545). For both demonstration projects combined, 54.2 percent 

of respondents reported perceptions of higher food expenditures in the summer compared to the 

fall (Table 4-3). This is similar to findings in 2011, when the percentage that perceived food 

expenditures to be higher in the summer than fall was 52.7 percent. 

4.4 Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy 

Food consumption and targeting accuracy are related concepts. The amount children are eating of 

the food they receive from the demonstration projects may be associated with where it is stored or 

whether it was spoiled. Moreover, how much is consumed can be related to the extent to which it is 

shared with others. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-9 

Participation, Food Consumption and Food Security 4 

Table 4-3. Perception of food expenditures 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

eal Delivery 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

ackpack 

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

otal 

bbbbbbbbb

-value of 

difference 

between 

MDb and 

BPc

ccccccccccccccccc. P

erception of food expenditure 

dddddd eeeeeeee

cta

ffffffffff ggggggg

cta

hhhhhh iiiiiiiiiiiiii

cta

jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj. P

erception of change in food 

expenditure--summer vs. fall 

kkkkkkk llllllllllllll mmmm nnnnnn oooooo pppppp qqqqqqqqqq

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. S

ame in summer as fall 

sssssssss

5 

ttttttttttt

3.9 

uuuuuuu

35 

vvvvvvv

6.3 

wwwww

80 

xxxxxxx

5.7 

yyyyyyyyyyy

.3769 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. M

ore in summer 

aaaaaaaa

10 

bbbbbb

8.5 

cccccccc

70 

dddddd

2.6 

eeeeeeee

80 

ffffffffff

4.2 

ggggggggggg

hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. L

ess in summer 

iiiiiiiiiiiiii

3 

jjjjjjjjjjjjjj

7.6 

kkkkkkk

08 

llllllllllllll

1.1 

mmmm

41 

nnnnnn

0.1 

ooooooooo

pppppppppppppppppp. T

otal 

qqqqqqq

88 

rrrrrrrrr

00.0 

sssssssss

13 

ttttttttttt

00.0 

uuuuuuu

01 

vvvvvvv

00.0 

wwwwwww

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. P

erception of change in food 

expenditure--less due to summer 

yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy. fo

od program 

zzzzzzz aaaaaaaa bbbbbb cccccccc dddddd eeeeeeee ffffffffffffff

ggggggggggggggggggg. A

gree strongly 

hhhhhh

7 

iiiiiiiiiiiiii

5.8 

jjjjjjjjjjjjjj

38 

kkkkkkk

6.9 

llllllllllllll

05 

mmmm

9.3 

nnnnnnnnn

.0545 

ooooooooooooooooooo. A

gree 

pppppp

3 

qqqqqqq

9.0 

rrrrrrrrr

95 

sssssssss

8.0 

ttttttttttt

68 

uuuuuuu

8.3 

vvvvvvvvvv

wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

either agree nor disagree 

xxxxxxx

3 

yyyyyyyy

2.3 

zzzzzzz

4 

aaaaaaaa

4.4 

bbbbbb

7 

cccccccc

3.9 

dddddddddd

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. Di

sagree 

ffffffffff

0 

ggggggg

0.7 

hhhhhh

4 

iiiiiiiiiiiiii

8.3 

jjjjjjjjjjjjjj

14 

kkkkkkk

6.3 

llllllllllllllllllll

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

isagree strongly 

nnnnnn oooooo

.1 

pppppp

2 

qqqqqqq

.3 

rrrrrrrrr

6 

sssssssss

.3 

tttttttttttttttt

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu. T

otal 

vvvvvvv

87 

wwwww

9.9 

xxxxxxx

13 

yyyyyyyy

9.9 

zzzzzzz

00 

aaaaaaaa

00.1 

bbbbbbbbb

a Some percentages may not sum to 100.0 due to rounding. 

b MD = Meal Delivery 

c BP = Backpack 

A major part of the survey consisted of reporting on foods that had been received as part of the 

demonstration projects. We asked respondents to list the food items contained in the most recent 

meal delivery or backpack provided by the demonstration project to each child in the household 

who was participating, and then to indicate where each food item was stored, the extent to which it 

was eaten or shared, and, if shared, with whom. In 2012, we also asked whether any of the food was 

spoiled. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-10 

Participation, Food Consumption and Food Security 4 

Note that all foods in the last backpack or delivered meal were reported for the 1,599 participants 

with usable data (see Table 2-9). A given meal could contain multiple food items of the same type. 

Thus, for example, “milk” was reported 1,672 times, fruit was reported 1,883 times, and so forth 

(Table 4-4). The analysis unit for the data reported in this section (the “n” given in the tables) 

consists of the individual reports of food, such as reports of milk, fruit, or vegetable food items. See 

Chapter 2 for more discussion. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-11 

 

Table 4-4. Food consumption and targeting accuracy of demonstration project participants ccccccccccccccccccddddddd eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. Drank or ate all of the food fffffffffffffffffffff. gggggggggggggggg hhhhhhh

otal 

reported 

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii.

eal Delivery 

jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj.

ackpack 

kkkkkkkkkkkk

otal 

llllllllllllllll mmmmmmm

eal Delivery 

nnnnnnnnnnn

ackpack 

oo

qqqqqqqqqqqqqqq

ood item 

rrrrrrrr sssssss

ct 

ttttttttt uuuuu

ct 

vvvvvvwwww

ct 

xxxxxxxx

-valuea

yyyyyy zzzzzz

ct 

aaaaaa bbbbb

ct 

cc

ffffffffffffffffffffffilk 

gggggggg,672 

hhhhh45 

iiiiiiiiiii9.7 

jjjjjjjjjjj73 

kkkkkk3.1 

lllllllllll,418 

mmmm5.1 

nnnnnnn.0004 

ooooo6 

ppppp9.4 

qqqqq52 

rrrrrrrr3.0 

sss48 

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvruit 

wwwwww,883 

xxxxxx96 

yyyyyy8.7 

zzzzzz,126 

aaaaaa5.7 

bbbbb,622 

cccccc6.6 

dddddddd.0880 

eeeeee1 

ffffffff6.3 

gggggg79 

hhhhh3.6 

iiii70 

lllllllllllllllllllllll.uice 

mmmmm,007 

nnnnn49 

ooooo0.9 

ppppp90 

qqqqq4.2 

rrrrrrrr39 

sssssss3.6 

ttttttttttttt.1171 

uuuuu5 

vvvvvv1.3 

wwww9 

xxxxxx.8 

yy4 

bbbbbbbbbbbbbbegetables 

ccccccccc04 

ddddd71 

eeeeee3.6 

ffffffff09 

gggggg2.8 

hhhhh80 

iiiiiiiiiii8.5 

jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj.0026 

kkkkkk8 

lllllllllll3.8 

mmmm21 

nnnnn6.7 

oo09 

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrread/grain 

ssssssssss,391 

ttttttttt47 

uuuuu1.6 

vvvvvv04 

wwww9.4 

xxxxxx,251 

yyyyyy0.2 

zzzzzzzzz.2192 

aaaaaa7 

bbbbb3.7 

cccccc8 

ddddd.8 

ee55 

hhhhhhhhhhhhhheat 

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii95 

jjjjjjjjjjj11 

kkkkkk2.8 

lllllllllll00 

mmmm6.9 

nnnnn11 

ooooo8.9 

ppppppp.1934 

qqqqq rrrrrrrr

.7 

sssssss4 

ttttttttt6.9 

uu3 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxeat alternativeb

yyyyyyyyy,008 

zzzzzz48 

aaaaaa7.6 

bbbbb80 

cccccc9.2 

ddddd28 

eeeeee2.3 

fffffffffff0.0001 

gggggg6 

hhhhh5.5 

iiiiiiiiiii45 

jjjjjjjjjjj7.3 

kk71 

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnixed foods 

ooooooo,483 

ppppp56 

qqqqq8.8 

rrrrrrrr,423 

sssssss2.0 

ttttttttt,079 

uuuuu4.0 

vvvvvvvv0.0001 

wwww04 

xxxxxx4.1 

yyyyyy04 

zzzzzz1.8 

aa08 

dddddddddddddddotal 

eeeeeeeee0,543 

ffffffff,723 

gggggg hhhhh

,105 

iiiiiiiiiii jjjjjjjjjjj

,828 

kkkkkkllllllllllllllll mmmm

16 

nnnnn ooooo

82 

ppppp qq

,49

ttttttttttttttttttttttttttt. Detailed breakdown of mixed foods into mutually exclusive groups

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuruit, milk, juice, bread/grainc

vvvvvvvv2 

wwww1 

xxxxxx00.0 

yyyyyy5 

zzzzzz5.4 

aaaaaa6 

bbbbb0.3 ccccccccc ddddd eeeeee ffffffff

gggggg.5 hh

kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkread/grain, meat alternatived

llllllllllllllll13 

mmmm26 

nnnnn2.6 

ooooo51 

ppppp6.3 

qqqqq77 

rrrrrrrr9.1 ssssssssss

ttttttttt3 

uuuuu6.9 

vvvvvv3 

wwww9.0 

xx6 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-12 

 

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaeat, meat alternativee

bbbbbbb93 cccccc

ddddd3.3 

eeeeee27 

ffffffff8.3 

gggggg32 

hhhhh8.8 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii jjjjjjjjjjj

kkkkkk3.3 

lllllllllll3 

mmmm2.4 

nn5 

qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqread/grain, meatf

rrrrrrrrrrr00 

sssssss8 

ttttttttt7.5 

uuuuu0 

vvvvvv9.5 

wwww68 

xxxxxx4.0 yyyyyyyyy

zzzzzz0 

aaaaaa.9 

bbbbb3 

cccccc4.9 

dd3 

ggggggggggggggggread/grain, meat, meat alternativeg

hhhhhhh07 

iiiiiiiiiii7 

jjjjjjjjjjj1.7 

kkkkkk0 

lllllllllll0.0 

mmmm7 

nnnnn1.3 ooooooo

ppppp

0 

qqqqq2.2 rrrrrrrr

sssssss6.0 

ttt4 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-13 

 

Table 4-4. Food consumption and targeting accuracy of demonstration project participants (continued)  * Notes: (1) The calculation of percentages excludes missing cases where consumption was not reported. For example, there were 1,672 rep

not all were accompanied by a response about consumption/sharing of the item. Cases where consumption or sharing was missing were ex

calculation of percentages. For example, only 1,666 of 1,672 cases of reported milk also had reported consumption. Thus, 1,666 was used 

calculating percent consumption of milk. 

 (2) In some cases, respondents answered that they ate all the food AND shared the food. Since these data are self-reported, such data coul

reporting or interpretation of the question. Furthermore, the food could be shared simultaneously with more than one person. Thus, the perc

percent. In addition, because of the nature of the question, it is possible that a friend outside the household could also be an adult or a part

demonstration project. 

a p-values reflect differences in consumption and food sharing between Backpack and Meal Delivery demonstrations for the specific food item

calculated only for major food types, because there are too many small or empty cells in the ‘mixed foods’ categories. 

b Meat alternatives’ include cheese, eggs, nuts, and legumes c Breakfast bars and breakfast meals, including milk wwwwwwwwwww xxxxxxxx

yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy. Drank or ate all of 

the food zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

a. b.

otal 

reported 

c. M

eal Delivery 

d. B

ackpack 

e. T

otal 

f. g. M

eal Delivery 

h. B

ackpack 

i. 

k. Food 

item 

l. m.

ct 

n. o.

ct 

p. q.

ct 

r.

-valuea

s. t.

ct 

u. v.

ct 

w. 

z.egetables, bread/grain, meat, meat alternativeh

aa. 40

1 

bb. 1

81 

cc. 9

1.9 

dd. 1

49 

ee. 7

3.0 

ff. 3

30 

gg. 8

2.3 hh.

ii. 2

6 

jj. 1

3.2 

kk. 2

4 

ll. 1

1.8 

mm0 

pp.egetables, meat, bread/graini qq. 16 3 rr. 1 3 ss. 9 2.9 tt. 1 18 uu.8 0.3 vv. 1 31 ww. 1.4 xx. yy. 0 zz. 0. 0 aaa. 0 bbb. .8 cc

0 

fff.

egetables, meat, meat alternativej ggg. 89 hhh.

iii. 0.

0 

jjj. 6

8 

kkk.8.2 

lll. 6

8 

mmm.8.2 nnn. ooo.

ppp.

.0 

qqq.1 

rrr.1

2.6 

sss

1 

vvv.

ruit/juice dessert/snackk

www.22 

xxx.2

0 

yyy.0.9 

zzz. 1

74 

aaaa.7.0 

bbbb.94 

cccc.7.4 dddd. eeee.

ffff.

3.6 

gggg.2 

hhhh.1.1 

iiii

5 

llll.

essert or snackl

mmmm.33 

nnnn.25 

oooo.3.9 

pppp.11 

qqqq.7.8 

rrrr.6

36 

ssss.7.0 tttt.

uuuu.

0 

vvvv.0.1 

wwww1 

xxxx.0.5 

yy1 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-14 

 

d Bagels and cheese, cheese and crackers, cheese crackers, mac & cheese, other pasta and cheese, pizza; Burritos, beans & rice, bean tosta

sandwiches (with or without jelly), peanut butter and celery

e Baked beans, pork and beans, hot dogs and beans; Beef jerky with cheese, cheese and sausage, chicken salad 

f Sandwiches with meat, chicken and pasta soup, tuna and crackers g Sandwiches with meat and cheese h Canned meals with cheese (e.g., Chef-Boy-ar-dee, Beef-a-roni), lasagna, ravioli, sandwiches and wraps with meat, cheese, and vegetables, taI Canned meals without cheese (e.g., Spaghettio’s, spaghetti and meatballs, beef stew, soup, pasta bowls); beef stew, chicken dinner, shrimp j Chili (with or without beans) k Sweet desserts with fruit (e.g., fruit pies, fruit cakes, fruit muffins, fruit bars), granola, trail mix l Cookies, sweet crackers, candy, chocolate, muffins, pudding, sweet rolls, jelly, chips, pretzels, crackers 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-15 

Participation, Food Consumption and Food Security 4 

4.4.1 Food Consumption and Sharing 

Table 4-4 shows food consumption and sharing for both Meal Delivery and Backpack 

demonstrations. The left hand column of the table shows the food items received by study 

participants, as reported by a parent or caregiver. There are eight major categories: milk, fruit, juice, 

vegetables, bread/grain, meat, meat alternative (e.g., cheese, eggs, nuts, legumes), and mixed foods. 

Altogether, there were 10,543 reports of food items, of which the most common were: 

 “Mixed” (2,483/10,543 = 23.6 percent), 

 Fruit (1,883/10,543 = 17.9 percent), 

 Milk (1,672/10,543 = 15.9 percent), and 

 Bread/grain (1,391/10,543 = 13.2 percent). 

The “mixed” foods are items that contain more than one primary type, such as packaged foods that 

contain vegetables, cheese, and pasta. The “mixed” food category is further broken down into 10 

mutually exclusive groups, such as “fruit, milk, juice, and bread/grain.” See Table 4-4 and the 

accompanying footnotes for details. 

The percentage of food items that were eaten varied by type of food, with juice having the highest 

percent for “drank or ate all” (93.6 percent) and vegetables having the lowest (68.5 percent). Table 

4-4 shows the percentage of each food item that was completely consumed as well as the percentage 

shared with others. 

Overall, about 83.7 percent of all reported food items were reported as consumed completely and 

14.2 percent of items were reported as shared with others (see Table 4-4). The percentage of food 

items reported as shared ranged from 8.4 percent to 29.9 percent, with vegetables being shared the 

most and juice the least. 

Patterns of food consumption and food sharing were different between the two demonstration 

types. Consumption was generally higher for the Meal Delivery demonstration, particularly for 

“meat alternative” foods. Only juice consumption was higher for the Backpack demonstration. 

There were striking differences in food sharing by type of demonstration project, with some items 

shared more by Backpack participants (vegetables and meat) and others shared more by meal 

delivery participants (milk, juice, and bread/grain). 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-16 

Participation, Food Consumption and Food Security 4 

Tables 4-5a-c show how food was shared when reported to have been shared with others. Note that 

since food could be shared simultaneously with more than one person, the percentages in these 

tables do not sum to 100 percent. 33 In addition, the calculation of percentages does not include 

missing values. Moreover, because of the nature of the question, it is possible that a friend outside 

the household could also be an adult or a participant in the demonstration project. 

Like last year, food was most frequently shared with another child or with an adult in the household, 

and less frequently with friends outside the household or pets (Table 4-5a). In most cases, the 

ordering for food sharing was (1) a child in the demonstration, (2) adults in the household, (3) a 

child not in the demonstration, (4) friends and/or pets. For example, 56.9 percent of shared milk 

items were shared with a child in the demonstration; 28.6 percent with an adult; 22.2 percent with a 

child not in the demonstration; 5.6 percent with friends; and 5.2 percent with a pet. The most 

striking exception to this pattern was for shared meat, which was shared most often with adults, 

with substantial sharing with pets (13.2 percent); however, these percentages are based on small 

numbers. 

Food sharing is shown separately for the Meal Delivery and Backpack demonstration projects (Table 

4-5b and 4-5c). Backpack participants were far more likely than Meal Delivery participants to share 

food with another child not in the demonstration project, while Meal Delivery participants were 

more likely to share food with adults. 

 

33 Respondents were asked who the meal or backpack was shared with. Respondents could answer all that applied – 

children in the household who also get a meal or backpack, children in the household who don’t get a meal or backpack, adults in 

the household, friends, pet, or someone else. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-17 

 

Table 4-5a. Recipient of shared food: Meal Delivery and Backpack combined 

 Shared with whom? 

Total items 

reported as 

shared 

Other child in the household

In demonstration 

project 

Not in 

demonstration 

project 

Adults in the 

household Friends 

Food item n pct n pct n pct n pct 

Milk 248 141 56.9 55 22.2 71 28.6 14 5.6 Fruit 270 146 54.1 57 21.1 73 27.0 16 5.9 Juice 84 46 54.8 21 25.0 30 35.7

4 4.8

Vegetables 209 110 52.9 29 13.9 117 56.3

4 1.9

Bread/grain 155 76 49.0 42 27.1 41 26.5

5 3.2 

Meat 53 15 28.3

7 13.2 25 47.2

2 3.8

Meat alternativeb 171 82 48.0 24 14.0 59 34.5 10 5.8Mixed foods 308 160 52.3 51 16.7 91 29.7 13 4.2 p-valuea 0.1306 0.0221 <0.0001 0.6187 

a p-values are only calculated for major food types, because there are too many small or empty cells in the ‘mixed foods’ categories. b Meat alternatives include cheese, eggs, nuts, and legumes 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-18 

 

Table 4-5b. Recipient of shared food: Meal Delivery only 

Shared with whom?

Total items 

reported as 

shared 

Other child in the household

In demonstration 

project 

Not in 

demonstration 

project 

Adults in the 

household Friends 

Food item n pct n pct n pct n pct 

Milk 96 62 64.6 12 12.5 46 47.9 5 5.2 Fruit 91 45 49.5 12 13.2 35 38.5 7 7.7 Juice 35 21 60.0 4 11.4 24 68.6 1 2.9 Vegetables 88 42 48.3 11 12.6 45 51.7 2 2.3 Bread/grain 67 37 55.2 11 16.4 27 40.3 0 - Meat 9 1 11.1 0 - 4 44.4 1 11.1 Meat alternativeb 26 10 38.5 3 11.5 11 42.3 3 11.5 Mixed foods 104 50 48.1 13 12.5 49 47.1 3 2.9 p-valuea 0.1306 -- <0.0001 - 

a P-values are only calculated for major food types, because there are too many small or empty cells in the ‘mixed foods’ categories. b Meat alternatives’ include cheese, eggs, nuts, and legumes 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-19 

 

Table 4-5c. Recipient of shared food: Backpack only 

Shared with whom?

Total items 

reported as 

shared 

Other child in the household

In demonstration 

project 

Not in 

demonstration 

project 

Adults in the 

household Friends 

Food item n pct n pct n pct n pct 

Milk 152 79 52.0 43 28.3 25 16.4

9 5.9

Fruit 179 101 56.4 45 25.1 38 21.2

9 5.0

Juice 49 25 51.0 17 34.7 6 12.2

3 6.1

Vegetables 121 68 56.2 18 14.9 72 59.5

2 1.7

Bread/grain 88 39 44.3 31 35.2 14 15.9

5 5.7

Meat 44 14 31.8

7 15.9 21 47.7

1 2.3

Meat alternativeb 145 72 49.7 21 14.5 48 33.1

7 4.8

Mixed foods 204 110 54.5 38 18.8 42 20.8 10 5.0 p-valuea 0.2895 0.0019 <0.0001 0.8174 

a P-values are only calculated for major food types, because there are too many small or empty cells in the ‘mixed foods’ categories. b Meat alternatives’ include cheese, eggs, nuts, and legumes 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-20 

Participation, Food Consumption and Food Security 4 

4.4.2 Leftover Food and Spoilage 

The questionnaire asked about food spoilage and food left over for each food named in each child’s 

backpack or meal delivered. For each food reported to have been left over, the respondent was 

asked why it was left over. 

Despite food consumption and sharing with others, about 7 percent of demonstration food was left 

over and 2 percent became spoiled. These figures are substantially lower than estimates of food 

wastage by the typical American family which may approach 25 percent (Bloom, 2011). Altogether, 

of 10,543 food items, 750 food items were reported as left over and 191 were reported as becoming 

spoiled (Table 4-6). The meat alternative foods had the greatest percentage left over (17.5 percent), 

while vegetables had the highest percentage spoiled (6.9 percent). 

Table 4-7 shows the reported reasons that food was left over. The primary reasons were that (1) the 

child did not like or want it (53.1 percent), and (2) the child planned to eat it later (34.9 percent). A 

small number of other reasons were reported, including 6.3 percent that the food was bruised or 

spoiled. There was little variation in reasons by type of food (Table 4-8); in all cases “child did not 

like” or “plan to eat later” were the primary reasons for food being left over, with the former 

generally occurring more often. 

As noted, 191 food items were reported as becoming spoiled (Table 4-6). This amounts to 1.8 

percent of all food items, or 25.5 percent of the food items reported as left over. The most frequent 

items that spoiled were fruit, vegetables, and milk (Table 4-6). Of the 35 reports of milk spoilage, 20 

were from the Meal Delivery demonstration and 15 from the Backpack demonstration. Fruit 

spoilage broke down as 22 from the Meal Delivery demonstration and 45 from the Backpack 

demonstration. For the 48 reports of spoiled vegetables, 43 were in the Meal Delivery 

demonstration and 5 were from the Backpack demonstration. 

 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-21 

Participation, Food Consumption and Food Security 4 

Table 4-6. Food left over and spoiled as reported by respondents 

Food item 

Total items 

reported 

Food items left over Food items that became spoiled

n pct n pct

Milk 1,672 100 6.0 35 2.1 

Fruit 1,883 94 5.0 67 3.6 

Juice 1,007 17 1.7 6 0.6 

Vegetables 704 62 8.8 48 6.9 

Bread/grain 1,391 56 4.0 16 1.2 

Meat 395 40 10.1 3 0.8 

Meat alternativea 1,008 176 17.5 4 0.4 

Mixed foods 2,483 205 8.3 12 0.5 

Total 10,543 750 7.1 191 1.8 

a Meat alternatives’ include cheese, eggs, nuts, and legumes 

Table 4-7. Reasons food was left over 

Reason n pcta

Child did not like/want food 398 53.1 

Planned to eat it later 262 34.9 

Other 64 8.5 

Food was spoiled, bruised, or ruinedb 47 6.3 

a Percentages are based on a denominator of 750 foods reported as ‘left over’; because more than one reason could be 

given for each food, the counts here will sum to more than 750. 

b Spoilage here is distinct from “becoming spoiled” in Table 4-6. In Table 4-7 spoilage is reported as a reason food was 

left over. In Table 4-6, spoilage was reported to have occurred in food subsequent to being left over. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-22 

 

Table 4-8. Reasons food was left over by food type 

bbbbb. 

ccccc. T

otal items 

reported 

ddddd. Child did not 

like 

eeeee. Plan to eat 

later 

fffff. Food was 

spoiled ggg

hhhhh. F

ood item 

iiiii. a

s leftover 

jjjjj. kkkkk.

ct 

lllll. mmmmm.

ct 

nnnnn. ooooo.

ct 

ppppp

rrrrr.ilk 

sssss. 100 ttttt. 47 uuuuu.

7.0 

vvvvv.7 

wwwww.7.0 

xxxxx. yyyyy.

.0 

zzzzz. 

bbbbbb.ruit 

cccccc. 94 dddddd.

0 

eeeeee.3.0 

ffffff. 29 gggggg.

1.2 

hhhhhh.7 

iiiiii. 18.3 jjjjjj. 

llllll.uice 

mmmmmm.7 

nnnnnn. oooooo.

7.1 

pppppp. qqqqqq.

5.3 

rrrrrr. 0 ssssss.

.0 

tttttt. 

vvvvvv.egetables 

wwwwww.2 

xxxxxx.2 

yyyyyy.1.6 

zzzzzz.8 

aaaaaaa.9.0 

bbbbbbb. ccccccc.

4.5 

ddddd

fffffff.read/grain 

ggggggg.6 

hhhhhhh.2 

iiiiiii. 40.7 jjjjjjj. 26 kkkkkkk.

8.1 

lllllll. 1 mmmmmmm

.9 

nnnnn

ppppppp.eat 

qqqqqqq.0 

rrrrrrr.1 

sssssss.2.5 

ttttttt. 19 uuuuuuu.

7.5 

vvvvvvv. wwwwwww

.5 

xxxxxx

zzzzzzz.eat alternativeb

aaaaaaaa.76 

bbbbbbbb.07 

cccccccc.0.8 

dddddddd.2 

eeeeeeee.9.5 

ffffffff. gggggggg.

.8 

hhhhh8 

jjjjjjjj.ixed foods 

kkkkkkkk.05 

llllllll. 109 mmmmmmm

4.0 

nnnnnnnn.2 

oooooooo.5.6 

pppppppp. qqqqqqqq.

.0 

rrrrrrrr6 

a ‘Other’ includes reasons like ‘Went out to eat,’ ‘Food was age inappropriate,’ and ‘Allergic to food.’ b ‘Meat alternative’ includes cheese, eggs, nuts, and legumes. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-23 

Participation, Food Consumption and Food Security 4 

4.4.3 Food Consumption and Sharing by Covariates 

Appendix L contains a table that shows how food consumption and targeting accuracy vary by 

demographic or other characteristics. These data are shown for whether food was entirely consumed 

and whether it was shared for each food type. In order to simplify the description of findings, we 

will focus on the three food types that were fully consumed less than 80 percent of the time: 

vegetables (68.5 percent), meat alternative (72.3 percent), and meat (78.9 percent). 

For these items, food consumption varied by the following characteristics:34 

 Demonstration project type: More vegetable and meat alternative consumption in the 

Meal Delivery demonstration; 

 Participation in nutrition assistance programs: More consumption of all three items for 

school lunch/meals on-site participants; more consumption of meat for SNAP 

participants; 

 Perception of change in food expenditure: Higher vegetable consumption when 

agreeing that expenditures were lowered by participation in the summer food program; 

 Age of participant: Highest consumption for 12-17 year olds (all three food items); 

 Gender of participant: Lower consumption of vegetables and meat when participants 

were male; 

 Respondent marital status: Highest meat and meat alternative consumption for not 

married but living with a partner; 

 Respondent education: Lowest consumption for college graduate (all three food items); 

 Household income: Lowest consumption for $35,000 or more (all three food items); 

consumption of meat and meat alternatives (but not vegetables) tended to be higher for 

lower income levels; 

 Parent satisfaction with the food provided: Highest consumption for “household 

members like the food” (all three items), satisfaction with variety of meat and meat 

alternative foods, and convenience of meat alternatives. 

 

34 All relationships reported were statistically significant. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-24 

Participation, Food Consumption and Food Security 4 

Food sharing also varied according to demographic and other characteristics. For this analysis, we 

focus on the four foods shared most often: vegetables, meat alternatives, milk and fruit:35

 Demonstration project: More sharing of milk in the Meal Delivery demonstration, and 

more sharing of vegetables in the Backpack demonstration; 

 Demonstration participation: More sharing of vegetables for school lunch participants; 

 Age of participant: Most sharing of milk and fruit for 8-11 and 12-17 year olds, but no 

clear pattern for vegetables and meat alternatives; 

 Gender of participant: Most sharing of vegetables when participants were male only; 

 Languages spoken at home: Most sharing of milk, vegetables, and meat alternatives 

when Spanish was spoken at home; 

 Respondent marital status: Least sharing of fruit and meat alternative for not married 

but living with a partner; least sharing of vegetables for never married; 

 Respondent education: Lowest consumption for college graduate (all three items); 

 Household income: Most sharing of vegetables for $35,000 or more; progressively lower 

sharing for lower income levels; 

 Parent satisfaction with the food provided: Highest sharing of milk for “household 

members like the food”; highest sharing of fruit for satisfaction with convenience; 

highest sharing of vegetables for satisfaction with healthiness. 

4.5 Food Security 

4.5.1 Overview 

Food security was examined in a number of ways. First, we compared food security of 

demonstration project participants between summer and fall 2012, separately for Meal Delivery and 

Backpack demonstration projects.36 In these comparisons, it was hypothesized that food security in 

summer would be similar to that in fall, since the purpose of the demonstrations was to replace food 

sources provided by school lunches and other school-year programs. Next, we compared food 

security between Meal Delivery and Backpack demonstration projects, separately for summer 2012 and 

fall 2012.37

 

35 All relationships were statistically significant. 36 Findings for both demonstrations combined are contained in Appendix M. 

37 More detailed tables are contained in Appendix N. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-25 

Participation, Food Consumption and Food Security 4 

As noted earlier in Section 2.2.4, the methodology for categorizing a household into food secure or 

food insecure was first to determine food security for adults and children in the household 

separately and then obtain a household food security measure by determining the number of 

households which contain both children and adults who are food secure and the number of 

households with either a child or adult who is food insecure (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2011). 

Households with food insecure children and/or adults were categorized as food insecure. Findings 

on food security are reported separately for adults, children, and the household. 

We then examined the association between adult, child, and household food security and a variety of 

covariates (e.g., participation in other nutrition assistance programs; perception of change in food 

expenditure; participant age and gender; socio-demographic characteristics of the respondent and 

household; and parent satisfaction with the food in the demonstration project). The results of this 

analysis are described briefly, with detailed results shown in Appendix O. We then performed an 

analysis to evaluate food security status while adjusting for the covariates that were significantly 

associated. Finally, we compared food security in our study with National benchmarks published 

annually by USDA. 

 

Note that due to small sample sizes for some subgroups (particularly for the Meal Delivery 

demonstration), lack of baseline data, and lack of a comparison group, all results of the analyses 

presented here should be considered exploratory. Furthermore, while the overall response rate for 

the study was high (73.8 percent) for those participants who provided contact information, there 

were many participants in both demonstrations who did not provide contact information. In the 

Meal Delivery demonstration in 2011, about 16 percent of participants did not provide contact 

information. It is not known how many Backpack participants failed to provide contact information; 

however, based on data provided by sites during the 2011 data collection, as many as 70 percent may 

have declined to provide contact information. Since no data are available for these participants, the 

food security and other characteristics of these persons is unknown. If all persons who participated 

in the demonstrations had been interviewed in the survey, findings might have been different. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-26 

Participation, Food Consumption and Food Security 4 

4.5.2 Comparisons between Summer and Fall 

For both demonstrations, no differences in food security were detected between summer and fall.38

For the Meal Delivery demonstration project, the percent of food secure adults, children, and 

households was about the same in summer 2012 as in fall 2012 (Table 4-9a). In the Backpack 

demonstration project (Table 4-9b), the percent of food secure adults and households was about the 

same in summer and fall, but child food security was slightly greater in the summer (68.8 versus 63.7 

percent, p = 0.0382). When the demonstrations were combined (shown in Appendix M), the food 

security did not differ significantly between summer and fall for any of the three measures. 

Table 4-9a. Meal Delivery: Food security in summer 2012 compared to fall 20121, 2 

tttttttt. uuuuuuuu. Summer 2012 vvvvvvvv. Fall 2012 wwwwwwww.

xxxxxxxx. Food 

security 

yyyyyyyy. n zzzzzzzz. P

ct 

aaaaaaaaa. n bbbbbbbbb.

ct 

ccccccccc. p

-value 

ddddddddd.

dult 

eeeeeeeee. fffffffff. ggggggggg. hhhhhhhhh. iiiiiiiii.

jjjjjjjjj.

ecure 

kkkkkkkkk.

06 

lllllllll. 56.4 mmmmmmmm

5 

nnnnnnnnn.

5.1 

ooooooooo.

.7596 

ppppppppp.

nsecure 

qqqqqqqqq.

2 

rrrrrrrrr.

3.6 

sssssssss.

1 

ttttttttt.

4.9 

uuuuuuuuu.

vvvvvvvvv.

otal 

wwwwwwwww

88 

xxxxxxxxx.

00.0 

yyyyyyyyy.

36 

zzzzzzzzz.

00.0 

aaaaaaaaaa.

bbbbbbbbbb.

hild 

cccccccccc. dddddddddd. eeeeeeeeee. ffffffffff. gggggggggg.

hhhhhhhhhh.

ecure 

iiiiiiiiii. 120 jjjjjjjjjj.64.2 kkkkkkkkkk.

1 

llllllllll.66.9 mmmmmmmm

.4835 

nnnnnnnnnn.

nsecure 

oooooooooo.

7 

pppppppppp.

5.8 

qqqqqqqqqq.

5 

rrrrrrrrrr.

3.1 

ssssssssss.

tttttttttt.

otal 

uuuuuuuuuu.

87 

vvvvvvvvvv.

00.0 

wwwwwwwww

36 

xxxxxxxxxx.

00.0 

yyyyyyyyyy.

zzzzzzzzzz.

ousehold 

aaaaaaaaaaa. bbbbbbbbbbb. ccccccccccc. ddddddddddd. eeeeeeeeeee.

fffffffffff.

ecure 

ggggggggggg.

2 

hhhhhhhhhhh.

9.2 

iiiiiiiiiii. 71 jjjjjjjjjjj.

2.2 

kkkkkkkkkkk.

.4572 

lllllllllll.

nsecure 

mmmmmmmm

5 

nnnnnnnnnnn.

0.8 

ooooooooooo.

5 

ppppppppppp.

7.8 

qqqqqqqqqqq.

rrrrrrrrrrr.

otal 

sssssssssss.

87 

ttttttttttt.

00.0 

uuuuuuuuuuu.

36 

vvvvvvvvvvv.

00.0 

wwwwwwwww

1 The numbers shown above reflect all interviews done with demonstration project respondents in summer 2012 and fall 

2012, respectively. Some participants were interviewed at both times. P-values were calculated adjusting for 

dependence between data collected at two time points from a single individual. See Section 2.2.5. 

2 Minimum detectable differences for these comparisons are 15 percentage points for the Meal Delivery demonstration 

and 10 percentage points for the Backpack demonstration. See Section 2.2.2. 

 

38 Interviews in the fall occurred at least 30 days after receipt of the last meal delivery or backpack in the summer. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-27 

Participation, Food Consumption and Food Security 4 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-28 

Participation, Food Consumption and Food Security 4 

Table 4-9b. Backpack: Food security in summer 2012 compared to fall 20121, 2

xxxxxxxxxxx.

ood security 

yyyyyyyyyyy.

ummer 2012 

zzzzzzzzzzz.

all 2012 aaaaaaaaaaaa.

bbbbbbbbbbbbcccccccccccc.

ct 

dddddddddddd eeeeeeeeeeee.

ct 

ffffffffffff. p

-value 

gggggggggggg.

dult 

hhhhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiii. jjjjjjjjjjjj. kkkkkkkkkkkk. llllllllllll.

mmmmmmmmmm

ecure 

nnnnnnnnnnnn

16 

oooooooooooo

1.5 

pppppppppppp

15 

qqqqqqqqqqqq

0.1 

rrrrrrrrrrrr.

.5575 

ssssssssssss.

nsecure 

tttttttttttt.

98 

uuuuuuuuuuuu

8.5 

vvvvvvvvvvvv.

43 

wwwwwwwww

9.9 

xxxxxxxxxxxx.

yyyyyyyyyyyy.

otal 

zzzzzzzzzzzz.

14 

aaaaaaaaaaaaa.

00.0 

bbbbbbbbbbbb

58 

ccccccccccccc.

00.0 

dddddddddddd

eeeeeeeeeeeee.

hild 

fffffffffffff. ggggggggggggg hhhhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiii. jjjjjjjjjjjjj.

kkkkkkkkkkkkk.

ecure 

lllllllllllll.

53 

mmmmmmmm

8.8 

nnnnnnnnnnnn

28 

oooooooooooo

3.7 

pppppppppppp

.0382 

qqqqqqqqqqqqq.

nsecure 

rrrrrrrrrrrrr.

60 

sssssssssssss.

1.2 

ttttttttttttt.

30 

uuuuuuuuuuuu

6.3 

vvvvvvvvvvvvv

wwwwwwwwwwww

otal 

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

13 

yyyyyyyyyyyyy.

00.0 

zzzzzzzzzzzzz.

58 

aaaaaaaaaaaaaa

00.0 

bbbbbbbbbbbb

cccccccccccccc.

ousehold 

dddddddddddd eeeeeeeeeeeeee ffffffffffffff. ggggggggggggg hhhhhhhhhhhh

iiiiiiiiiiiiii.

ecure 

jjjjjjjjjjjjjj.

87 

kkkkkkkkkkkkk

5.9 

llllllllllllll.

95 

mmmmmmmm

4.5 

nnnnnnnnnnnn

.5451 

oooooooooooooo.

nsecure 

pppppppppppp

26 

qqqqqqqqqqqq

4.1 

rrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

63 

ssssssssssssss.

5.5 

tttttttttttttt.

uuuuuuuuuuuuuu.

otal 

vvvvvvvvvvvvv

13 

wwwwwwwww

00.0 

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

58 

yyyyyyyyyyyyyy

00.0 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

1 The numbers shown above reflect all interviews done with demonstration project respondents in summer 2012 and fall 

2012, respectively. Some participants were interviewed at both times. P-values were calculated adjusting for 

dependence between data collected at two time points from a single individual. See Section 2.2.5. 

2 Minimum detectable differences for these comparisons are 15 percentage points for the Meal Delivery demonstration 

and 10 percentage points for the Backpack demonstration. See Section 2.2.2. 

 

4.5.3 Comparisons between Meal Delivery and Backpack Demonstration 

Projects 

Comparisons between food security of Meal Delivery and Backpack participants are shown in 

Tables 4-10a and 4-10b. No significant differences were detected in food security for adults, children 

or households between demonstration projects during either summer or fall, 2012. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-29 

Participation, Food Consumption and Food Security 4 

Table 4-10a. Summer 2012: Meal Delivery vs. Backpack1

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

ood security 

bbbbbbbbbbbbbbb.

eal Delivery 

ccccccccccccccc.

ackpack dddddddddddd

eeeeeeeeeeeeee fffffffffffffff.

ct 

ggggggggggggg hhhhhhhhhhhh

ct 

iiiiiiiiiiiiiii. p

-value 

jjjjjjjjjjjjjjj.

dult 

kkkkkkkkkkkkklllllllllllllll. mmmmmmmmnnnnnnnnnnnnoooooooooooo

ppppppppppppppp.

ecure 

qqqqqqqqqqqq

06 

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

6.4 

sssssssssssssss.

16 

ttttttttttttttt.

1.5 

uuuuuuuuuuuu

.2245 

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv.

nsecure 

wwwwwwwww

2 

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

3.6 

yyyyyyyyyyyyyy

98 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

8.5 

aaaaaaaaaaaaaa

bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb

otal 

cccccccccccccc

88 

dddddddddddd

00.0 

eeeeeeeeeeeeee

14 

ffffffffffffffff.

00.0 

ggggggggggggg

hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

hild 

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii. jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj. kkkkkkkkkkkkkllllllllllllllll. mmmmmmmm

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

ecure 

oooooooooooo

20 

pppppppppppp

4.2 

qqqqqqqqqqqq

53 

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

8.8 

ssssssssssssssss

.2736 

tttttttttttttttt.

nsecure 

uuuuuuuuuuuu

7 

vvvvvvvvvvvvv

5.8 

wwwwwwwww

60 

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

1.2 

yyyyyyyyyyyyyy

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

otal 

aaaaaaaaaaaaaa

87 

bbbbbbbbbbbb

00.0 

cccccccccccccc

13 

dddddddddddd

00.0 

eeeeeeeeeeeeee

fffffffffffffffff.

ousehold 

ggggggggggggg hhhhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii. jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj. kkkkkkkkkkkkk

lllllllllllllllll.

ecure 

mmmmmmmm

2 

nnnnnnnnnnnn

9.2 

oooooooooooo

87 

pppppppppppp

5.9 

qqqqqqqqqqqq

.1231 

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

nsecure 

ssssssssssssssss

5 

ttttttttttttttttt.

0.8 

uuuuuuuuuuuu

26 

vvvvvvvvvvvvv

4.1 

wwwwwwwww

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

otal 

yyyyyyyyyyyyyy

87 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

00.0 

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

13 

bbbbbbbbbbbb

00.0 

cccccccccccccc

1Minimum detectable differences for these comparisons are 12 percentage points. See Section 2.2.2. 

Table 4-10b. Fall 2012: Meal Delivery vs. Backpack1 

dddddddddddddddddd

ood security 

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

eal Delivery 

ffffffffffffffffff.

ackpack ggggggggggggg

hhhhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii. P

ct 

jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj. n kkkkkkkkkkkkk

ct 

llllllllllllllllll. p

-value 

mmmmmmmmmmmm

dult 

nnnnnnnnnnnnooooooooooooppppppppppppqqqqqqqqqqqq rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

ssssssssssssssssss.

ecure 

tttttttttttttttttt.7

5 

uuuuuuuuuuuu

5.1 

vvvvvvvvvvvvv

15 

wwwwwwwww

0.1 

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

.3574 

yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

nsecure 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

1 

aaaaaaaaaaaaaa

4.9 

bbbbbbbbbbbb

43 

cccccccccccccc

9.9 

dddddddddddd

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

otal 

ffffffffffffffffff

36 

ggggggggggggg

00.0 

hhhhhhhhhhhh

58 

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii.1

00.0 

jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj.

kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

hild 

lllllllllllllllllll. mmmmmmmmnnnnnnnnnnnnoooooooooooopppppppppppp

qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq

ecure 

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

1 

ssssssssssssssss

6.9 

ttttttttttttttttttt.

28 

uuuuuuuuuuuu

3.7 

vvvvvvvvvvvvv

.5289 

wwwwwwwwwwww

nsecure 

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

5 

yyyyyyyyyyyyyy

3.1 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

30 

aaaaaaaaaaaaaa

6.3 

bbbbbbbbbbbb
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-30 

Participation, Food Consumption and Food Security 4 

cccccccccccccccccc

otal 

dddddddddddd

36 

eeeeeeeeeeeeee

00.0 

ffffffffffffffffff

58 

ggggggggggggg

00.0 

hhhhhhhhhhhh

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii.

ousehold 

jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj. kkkkkkkkkkkkkllllllllllllllllllll. mmmmmmmmnnnnnnnnnnnn

ooooooooooooooo

ecure 

pppppppppppp

1 

qqqqqqqqqqqq

2.2 

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

95 

ssssssssssssssss

4.5 

tttttttttttttttttttt

.6866 

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

nsecure 

vvvvvvvvvvvvv

5 

wwwwwwwww

7.8 

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

63 

yyyyyyyyyyyyyy

5.5 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

otal 

bbbbbbbbbbbb

36 

cccccccccccccc

00.0 

dddddddddddd

58 

eeeeeeeeeeeeee

00.0 

ffffffffffffffffff

1 Minimum detectable differences for these comparisons are 14 percentage points. See Section 2.2.2. 

4.5.4 Food Security by Covariates 

In addition to season and type of demonstration project, we evaluated whether food security varied 

by demographics and other characteristics. This evaluation was done separately for summer and fall, 

and separately for adults, children, and households. Meal Delivery and Backpack demonstrations are 

combined. In this section, we present a brief summary; detailed tables are provided in Appendix O. 

Though patterns and statistical significance vary by the group being considered (i.e., adult, child, or 

household), there are a number of general patterns: 

 Food secure status in adults, children and households was less likely to be among 

households reporting participation in SNAP or free or reduced price school meals in the 

summer;39

 Food secure status in children and households was more likely among younger 

demonstration project participants in the summer and fall; 

 Food secure status in adults and households was more likely for college graduates in the 

summer and fall. In children, food secure status was more likely for college graduates in 

the fall only; 

 Food secure status in children, adults, and households was less likely when Spanish or 

another non-English language was spoken exclusively at home; this was the case in 

summer only for food secure status in adults and households, and food secure status in 

children in both summer and fall; 

 Food secure status in adults, children, and households was more likely in households 

reported to have higher income (summer and fall); 

 

39 Note, this relationship did not hold in the adjusted analysis in section 4.5.5. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-31 

Participation, Food Consumption and Food Security 4 

 Food secure status in adults and households was more likely when respondents reported 

being either married or never married (in the summer); 

 Unlike national patterns, child food security was not associated with respondent marital 

status among demonstration participants (Nord, 2009). This most likely reflects the 

limited scope of the demonstrations and the selection process, which was not nationally 

representative.

 Food secure status in adults, children, and households was more likely when 

respondents were satisfied with the healthiness of the food (question only asked in the 

summer). 

 Food secure status in adults and children was more likely when respondents perceived 

that expenditure for food was more in the summer than fall; this was true for adult food 

security in the summer and child food security in the fall. 

 Food secure status in households was more likely when respondents perceived that 

expenditure for food was the same in the summer as fall or less in the summer (in the 

summer); and 

 Food secure status in children and households was more likely where respondents 

disagreed with the statement that food expenditures were less in the summer due to the 

summer food program (in summer only); 

These patterns were further evaluated in the adjusted model discussed in the next section. Note that 

food security was not associated with participant gender, respondent employment status, and parent 

satisfaction with variety, convenience, and whether household members liked the food. 

4.5.5 Food Security – Adjusted Analysis 

 Overview 

In this section, we discuss an analysis conducted to further assess the effects of the covariates 

described in Section 4.5.4. In this analysis, all data are combined from both demonstrations and both 

summer and fall data collection periods. The specific analytic tool is logistic regression analysis. 

Combining all the data into one model allows us to see differences in food security between summer 

and fall and between demonstration projects after adjusting for other covariates that affect food 

security, such as education or income. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-32 

Participation, Food Consumption and Food Security 4 

Tables 4-11a through 4-11c show the results of this analysis for adults, children, and household, 

respectively. Each of these tables provides the following column headings and data: 

 Predictor: the predictors are the characteristics that are being used in the model to 

predict the food security status (food secure versus food insecure); 

 Coefficient: this indicates how the predictor is related to food security. If the coefficient 

is positive the predictor indicates greater likelihood of being food secure, for those who 

have the predictor characteristic. If the coefficient is negative it indicates lower 

likelihood of being food secure, given possession of the characteristic; 

 Standard (Std.) error: the standard error measures the variability of the estimated 

coefficient; 

 Odds ratio (OR): the OR is another indication of the relationship between the predictor 

and food security. An OR greater than 1 indicates greater likelihood of being food 

secure for those with the predictor characteristic. An OR of less than 1 indicates less 

likelihood of being food secure for those with the predictor characteristic; 

 95 percent lower and upper confidence interval (CI) around the odds ratio: the 95 

percent CI of the OR provides an estimate of the reliability of the OR by giving an 

upper and lower bound on the estimated OR; 

 P-value: this value indicates whether the relationship between the predictor and being 

food secure is statistically significant. A p-value of less than 0.05 is usually considered to 

be statistically significant. 

The predictors in Tables 4-11a through 4-11c include respondent education, languages spoken at 

home, household income, age of participant, perception of food expenditures, marital status, parent 

satisfaction, demonstration project, and summer versus fall survey period. 

Participants in each type of demonstration project and both interview periods were combined. The 

model coefficients for “Meal Delivery versus Backpack” reflect the association of food security with 

demonstration project after adjusting for the covariates in the model. The coefficient for “summer 

program versus fall” similarly shows the association between food security and summer versus fall 

season, after adjusting for other covariates. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-33 

 

Table 4-11a. Adults: Logistic regression of food security 

Predictor Coefficient Std error Odds ratio 

95% lower CI 

odds ratio 

95% 

odd

Summer vs. fall 0.0135 0.0973 1.014 0.838 1Meal Delivery vs. Backpack 0.0571 0.1730 1.059 0.754 1Education of respondent: Not high school graduate vs. college graduate 

-0.7005 0.3272 0.496 0.261 0

Education of respondent: High school graduate vs. college graduate 

-0.6201 0.3091 0.538 0.293 0

Education of respondent: Some college or technical school vs. college graduate 

-0.7674 0.3085 0.464 0.254 0

Income between $10k ≤ $15k vs. < $10k -0.2411 0.2348 0.786 0.496 1Income between $15k ≤ 20k vs. < $10k -0.1352 0.2268 0.874 0.560 1Income between $20 ≤ $25K vs. < $10k -0.0359 0.2258 0.965 0.620 1Income between $25 ≤ $35K vs. < $10k -0.0357 0.2355 0.965 0.608 1Income ≥ $35k vs. < $10k 0.9534 0.2842 2.594 1.486 4Less food expenditure due to summer program: Strongly agree vs. disagree 

-0.5625 0.2113 0.570 0.377 0

Less food expenditure due to summer program: Agree vs. disagree 

-0.3226 0.1957 0.724 0.494 1

Less food expenditure due to summer program,: Neither agree nor disagree vs. disagree 

-0.0514 0.2542 0.950 0.577 1

Parent satisfaction with healthiness of food: Somewhat healthy/Not healthy vs. very healthy 

0.4060 0.1881 1.501 1.038 2

Parent satisfaction with variety of food: Agree vs. strongly agree 

-0.2991 0.1556 0.742 0.547 1

Parent satisfaction with variety of food: disagree/neither agree nor disagree vs. strongly agree 

-0.9921 0.3487 0.371 0.187 0
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-34 

 

Table 4-11b. Children: Logistic regression of food security 

Predictor Coefficient Std error Odds ratio 

95% lower CI 

odds ratio 

95

o

Summer vs. fall 0.1105 0.1048 1.117 0.910 Meal Delivery vs. Backpack 0.2698 0.1809 1.310 0.919 Change in food expenditure: Same vs. less in summer 0.4678 0.2248 1.596 1.027 Change in food expenditure: More vs. less in summer 0.1181 0.1864 1.125 0.781 Income between $10k ≤ $15k vs. < $10k -0.4380 0.2378 0.645 0.405 Income between $15k ≤ 20k vs. < $10k -0.0865 0.2344 0.917 0.579 Income between $20 ≤ $25K vs. < $10k 0.0790 0.2327 1.082 0.686 Income between $25 ≤ $35K vs. < $10k -0.1243 0.2446 0.883 0.547 Income ≥ $35k vs. < $10k 1.0825 0.2748 2.952 1.723 Languages spoken at home: Spanish only or other language only vs. English only 

-0.9316 0.2887 0.394 0.224 

Languages spoken at home: Other language vs. English only 

-0.0999 0.2406 0.905 0.565 

Less food expenditure due to summer program: Strongly agree vs. disagree 

-0.5167 0.2297 0.597 0.380 

Less food expenditure due to summer program: Agree vs. disagree 

-0.2474 0.2169 0.781 0.510 

Less food expenditure due to summer program: Neither agree nor disagree vs. disagree 

-0.0944 0.2632 0.910 0.543 

Participant age: 12-17 years old vs. 18 years or older 1.3846 1.0315 3.993 0.529 Participant age: 8-11 years old vs. 18 years or older 1.4628 1.0231 4.318 0.581 Participant age: 5-7 years old vs. 18 years or older 1.8585 1.0270 6.414 0.857 Participant age: Under 5 years old vs. 18 years or older 2.1741 1.0545 8.794 1.113 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-35 

 

Table 4-11c. Household: Logistic regression of food security 

Predictor Coefficient Std error Odds ratio

95% lower CI

odds ratio 

95% 

o

Summer vs. fall -0.0323 0.0954 0.968 0.803 Meal Delivery vs. Backpack 0.0253 0.1697 1.026 0.735 Education of respondent: Not high school graduate vs. college graduate 

-0.5642 0.3099 0.569 0.310 

Education of respondent: High school graduate vs. college graduate 

-0.6490 0.2859 0.523 0.298 

Education of respondent:, Some college or technical school vs. college graduate 

-0.7458 0.2857 0.474 0.271 

Income between $10k ≤ $15k vs. < $10k -0.1916 0.2306 0.826 0.525 Income between $15k ≤ 20k vs. < $10k -0.0154 0.2269 0.985 0.631 Income between $20 ≤ $25K vs. < $10k 0.0415 0.2226 1.042 0.674 Income between $25 ≤ $35K vs. < $10k -0.1016 0.2372 0.903 0.567 Income ≥ $35k vs. < $10k 1.1000 0.2731 3.004 1.759 Languages spoken at home: Spanish only or other language only vs. English only 

-0.6606 0.3141 0.517 0.279 

Languages spoken at home: Other vs. English only 0.1114 0.2166 1.118 0.731 Less food expenditure due to summer program: Strongly agree vs. disagree 

-0.6008 0.2092 0.548 0.364 

Less food expenditure due to summer program: Agree vs. disagree 

-0.2727 0.1944 0.761 0.520 

Less food expenditure due to summer program: Neither agree nor disagree vs. disagree 

-0.1807 0.2429 0.835 0.519 

Participant gender: Male only participants vs. both male and female 

0.2675 0.1885 1.307 0.903 

Participant gender: female only participants vs. both male and female 

0.3803 0.1773 1.463 1.033 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-36 

Participation, Food Consumption and Food Security 4 

The predictors shown in each table were selected through a stepwise process. We started with the 

covariates discussed in Section 4.5.4. These variables were evaluated sequentially and those that 

remained significant (at p < 0.10) are shown in Tables 4-11a through 4-11c. In addition, type of 

demonstration project (Meal Delivery versus Backpack) and summer versus fall season were 

included in all models. 

 Adult Food Security 

This analysis shows adult food security when adjusted for demographic and other factors, as 

discussed above. No differences were detected in adult food security between summer and fall 

survey periods using the model in Table 4-11a. This is indicated by the small coefficient of (0.0135) 

and the odds ratio of 1.014 (not significantly different from 1.0), as well as the p-value of 0.8893. 

Similarly, there was no difference in adult food security by type of demonstration project (p = 

0.7412). 

To a great extent, the results mirror those discussed in the previous section: 

 Food secure status in adults was more likely when the respondent reported $35,000 or 

higher income (versus less than $10,000, p=0.0008). 

 Food secure status in adults was more likely when the respondent was college educated 

(p=0.0323, p=0.0448, p=0.0129). 

 Food secure status in adults was less likely when the respondent agreed or strongly 

agreed with the statement that food expenditures were less in the summer due to the 

summer food program (p=0.0078); 

 Food secure status in adults was more likely when the respondent perceived the food as 

somewhat healthy or not healthy, compared to those who perceived the food as very 

healthy (p=0.0309). 

 Food secure status in adults was less likely when the respondent disagreed or had no 

opinion on whether the food packages included a variety of food, compared to those 

who strongly agreed (p=0.0044). 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-37 

Participation, Food Consumption and Food Security 4 

 Child Food Security 

The adjusted analysis for child food security (Table 4-11g) did not show a difference between 

summer and fall or by type of demonstration project. Household income of $35,000 or more was a 

strong predictor of child food security (greater the likelihood of being food secure as compared with 

less than $10,000) (p=0.0001). Child food security was more likely when the participant age was 

younger (particularly 5 or younger) as compared with ages 18 or older (p=0.0392) and when 

respondents reported that their food expenditures were the same in the summer compared to those 

who said they were less in the summer (95% CI lower limit was 1.027 [borderline]; p=0.0375). Being 

a food secure child was less likely when respondents agreed that food expenditures in the summer 

were reduced because of the demonstration project (p=0.0245) or when Spanish or another 

language was spoken exclusively at home (p=0.0013). 

 Household Food Security 

In an adjusted analysis, no significant difference was detected for household food security (Table 4-

11c) between summer and fall or by type of demonstration project. Household income above 

$35,000 was significantly and positively associated with household food security (as compared with 

less than $10,000, p=0.0001). Food secure households were less likely when respondents agreed that 

food expenditures in the summer were reduced because of the demonstration project (p=0.0041) 

and when Spanish or another language was spoken exclusively at home (p=0.0354). 

4.5.6 Comparisons with National Benchmarks 

In this evaluation, the purpose of benchmarking food security data among demonstration project 

participants to national data was to put our findings into perspective in the national arena, examine 

the credibility of our findings, and – because the study design did not include a comparison group -- 

determine how food security of demonstration participants compared to food security among 

similar groups in the United States. 

The data we selected against which to benchmark were the data collected for the Economic 

Research Service (ERS) by the Bureau of Labor Statistics as part of its yearly survey on food 

security, collected in December 2011 (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2012a; Coleman-Jensen et al., 2012b). 

Questions in the ERS module on food security have a 12-month reference period (e.g., “In the last 12 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-38 

Participation, Food Consumption and Food Security 4 

months, did you/you or other adults in your household ever cut the size of your meals or skip meals because there 

wasn’t enough money for food?”) and a 30-day reference period (e.g., “Now think about the last 30 days. 

During that time did you/you or other adults in your household ever cut the size of your meals or skip meals because 

there wasn’t enough money for food?”). Questions in the Westat telephone questionnaire to parents or 

caregivers of demonstration project participants asked for a 30-day reference period. Thus, only 

national benchmarks pertaining to a 30-day reference period are included in this analysis (ColemanJensen et al., 2012b) (Table 4-12a and 4-12b). 

The categories of food security we included consisted of food secure (comprised of high food 

security and marginal food security), low food security, and very low food security. ERS does not 

currently use a cross-tabulation methodology (similar to the methodology used in this study) to 

ascertain household food security. Instead, a food secure household is one in which there are fewer 

than three food insecure responses to all 18 questions in the ERS survey. Thus, the categorization of 

food security in Tables 4-9 through 4-11 and Appendices M, N, and O differ slightly from 

demonstration project values in Tables 4-12a and 4-12b. 

Although comparisons to national data are not exact, they suggest that the demonstration 

population was more food insecure than national benchmarks. This is expected given that sites were 

selected precisely because of the level of their need. National food security data collected in 

December 2011 were compared to food security during summer 2012 (Table 4-12a) and fall 2012 

(Table 4-12b). About 92 percent of all U.S. households in 2011 were food secure, compared to 46.8 

percent of Meal Delivery households, 54.9 percent of Backpack households, and 52.7 percent of all 

households of demonstration project participants in summer 2011 (Table 4-12a). 

Among households with children less than 18 years of age nationwide, 8 percent had low food 

security, and 3 percent had very low food security. All but four demonstration project participant 

households had children less than age 18. Low food security and very low food security in Meal 

Delivery households were 31.4 percent and 21.8 percent, respectively. In Backpack households low 

and very low food security were 27.4 and 17.7 percent, respectively. In all demonstration project 

households, low and very low food security was 28.5 and 18.8 percent, respectively or 47.3 percent 

food insecure. 

Although the level of food insecurity in all demonstration project participants in the summer was 

higher than national levels, food insecurity among demonstration participants was noted to be 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-39 

Participation, Food Consumption and Food Security 4 

consistent with food insecurity among controls in the Summer Electronics Benefits Transfer for 

Children (SEBTC) evaluation (USDA, 2013b) which found about 45 percent food insecurity.40 

 

40Controls in the SEBTC evaluation were households that had been randomly assigned not to use the study treatment (i.e., the 

electronic benefits transfer system). Members of the control group were income eligible for free or reduced price meals. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-40 

 

Table 4-12a. Household food security in summer 2012: Comparison between demonstration project participants 

benchmarks 

ggggggggggggggggg

hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Demonstration project participants* 

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii. 

benchmark

jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj.

eal delivery 

kkkkkkkkkkkk

ackpack 

lllllllllllllllllllll.

ll participants 

mmmmmmm

eceived WIC***

benefits in 

previous 30 

days 

nnnnnnnnnnn

eceived 

ooooooooooo

NAP† 

ppppppppppp

enefits in 

previous 30 

days 

qqqqqqqqqq

ll U.S. 

households 

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

ousehold with 

sssssssssssss

hildren 

ttttttttttttttttt

 age 18 

uu

b

p

wwwwwwwwwww

ood security 

xxxxxxyyyyyyy

ct 

zzzzzzzaaaaaaa

ct 

bbbbbbccccccc

ct 

ddddddeeeeeee

ct 

fffffffffgggggg

ct 

hhhhhhhhhh

ct 

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

ct 

jjjj

llllllllllllllllllllll.ood secure††† 

mmmm8 

nnnnnn6.8 

oooooo82 

pppppp4.9 

qqqqqq70 

rrrrrrrrr2.7 

ssssssss9 

tttttttttt3.0 

uuuuuu50 

vvvvvv9.7 

wwwwwwww1.6 

xxxxxxxxxxx8.7 

yyy2.6 

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaigh food security 

bbbbbb6 

ccccccc9.8 

dddddd59 

eeeeeee0.9 

fffffffff15 

gggggg0.6 

hhhhhh4 

iiiiiiiiiiii6.2 

jjjjjjjjjjjj8 

kkkkkk5.8 lllllllllllllllllllllmmmmmmmnn

ppppppppppppparginal food security

qqqqqq2 

rrrrrrrrr7.0 

ssssssss23 

tttttttttt3.9 

uuuuuu55 

vvvvvv2.1 

wwwww5 

xxxxxx6.8 

yyyyyyy2 

zzzzzzz3.8 aaaaaaaaaaaabbbbbbbbbbccc

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeow food security 

fffffffff9 

gggggg1.4 

hhhhhh41 

iiiiiiiiiiii7.4 

jjjjjjjjjjjj00 

kkkkkk8.5 

llllllllllll0 

mmmm9.8 

nnnnnn5 

oooooo8.1 

pppppppppp.0 

qqqqqqqqqq.0 

rrr9.0 

tttttttttttttttttttttttt.ery low food security 

uuuuuu1 

vvvvvv1.8 

wwwww1 

xxxxxx7.7 

yyyyyyy32 

zzzzzzz8.8 

aaaaaaa9 

bbbbbb7.3 

ccccccc7 

dddddd2.2 

eeeeeeeeeeee.4 

fffffffffffffff.3 

gg.4 

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii.otal 

jjjjjjjjjjjj88 

kkkkkk00.0 

llllllllllll14 

mmmm00.0 

nnnnnn02 

oooooo00.0 

pppppp68 

qqqqqq00.0 

rrrrrrrrr02 

ssssssss00.0 

ttttttttttttttttt00.0 

uuuuuuuuuu00.0 

vv00

* Determination of food security categories was based on the methodology used by ERS in yearly reports. **Data calculated by ERS using data from the December 2011 CPS Supplement of Food Security (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2012); uses 30-day 

***WIC: Special Supplement Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants, and Children; analysis conducted among households with inc

of poverty line and children under age 5 in household. 

†SNAP: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; analysis conducted among households with income less than 130 percent of poverty lin

question ‘Did your family receive SNAP or food stamps in the past 30 days?’ 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-41 

 

††Among income less than 130 percent of poverty line. †††Some totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-42 

 

Table 4-12b. Household food security in fall 2012: Comparison between demonstration project participants and n

Demonstration project participants* National bench

Meal Delivery Backpack All participants

Received 

WIC*** 

benefits in 

previous 30 

days 

Received 

SNAP† 

benefits in 

previous 30 

days 

All U.S. 

households 

Household 

with children 

< age 18 

b

p

Food security N pct n pct N pct N pct n pct pct pct 

Food secure††† 65 47.8 187 52.2 252 51.0 62 52.5 129 49.4 91.6 88.7 

High food security 40 29.4 120 33.5 160 32.4 38 32.2 83 31.8 Marginal food security 25 18.4 67 18.7 92 18.6 24 20.3 46 17.6 

Low food security 36 26.5 100 27.9 136 27.5 29 24.6 74 28.4 5.0 8.0 Very low food security 35 25.7 71 19.8 106 21.5 27 22.9 58 22.2 3.4 3.3 Total 136 100.0 358 100.0 494 100.0 118 100.0 261 100.0 100.0 100.0 * Determination of food security categories was based on the methodology used by ERS in yearly reports. ** Data calculated by ERS using data from the December 2011 CPS Supplement of Food Security (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2012); uses 30-d*** WIC: Special Supplement Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants, and Children; analysis conducted among households with i

percent of poverty line and children under age 5 in household. 

† SNAP: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; analysis conducted among households with income less than 130 percent of poverty l

the question ‘Did your family receive SNAP or food stamps in the past 30 days?’ 

†† Among income less than 130 percent of poverty line. ††† Some totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-43 

Participation, Food Consumption and Food Security 4 

Since those participating in demonstration projects were, for the most part, from low income 

families, we used the receipt of WIC benefits in the previous 30 days and receipt of SNAP benefits 

in the previous 30 days as indicators of low income. In summer 2012, about 53 percent of project 

participant households that received WIC benefits in the previous 30 days were food secure, 

compared to 72.6 percent reported nationwide. Low food security was 29.8 percent in 

demonstration participant WIC households, compared to 19 percent nationwide. About 17.3 

percent of WIC households of demonstration project participants had very low food security, 

compared to 8.4 percent throughout the United States. 

Among those receiving SNAP benefits in the previous 30 days nationwide, 70.1 percent were food 

secure, compared to 49.7 percent of those in the demonstration project sample in households that 

received SNAP benefits in the previous 30 days in summer 2012. Nationwide, low and very low 

food security among households receiving SNAP benefits within the past 30 days was 16.1 percent 

and 13.8 percent, respectively, compared to 28.1 percent and 22.2 percent among demonstration 

project households that received SNAP benefits in the previous 30 days. 

Comparisons were also made between national benchmarks and household survey data in fall 2012 

among all demonstration project respondents (Table 4-12b) to examine food security status in 

demonstration project participants once they returned to school. Differences between 

demonstration project food security in fall 2012 and food security nationwide were consistent in all 

categories with those described above for summer 2012. Food security was considerably lower in the 

Meal Delivery and Backpack demonstration projects than all U.S. households and households with 

children younger than age 18. WIC and SNAP families nationwide also had higher household food 

security compared to WIC and SNAP demonstration project households in fall 2012, and families 

receiving WIC benefits among demonstration project participants had higher food insecurity than 

WIC and SNAP families nationwide. Among those demonstration households receiving WIC 

benefits, low food security and very low food security were 24.6 percent and 22.9 percent 

respectively, compared to 19.0 percent and 8.4 percent nationwide. Among those demonstration 

households that received SNAP benefits, low food security and very low food security was 28.4 

percent and 22.2 percent, respectively, compared to 16.1 percent and 8.4 percent nationwide. 

4.5.7 Summary of Food Security Findings 

We compared food security status between summer and fall 2011 for Meal Delivery and Backpack 

demonstration projects separately and between Meal Delivery and Backpack demonstration projects 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-44 

Participation, Food Consumption and Food Security 4 

in summer 2011 and in fall 2011. We then examined the association between adult, child, and 

household food security and covariates (e.g., participation in other nutrition assistance programs, 

socio-demographic characteristics of respondents and households). Using the statistically significant 

results from the covariate analysis, we then conducted an adjusted analysis to further assess the 

effects of one variable while adjusting for others. Finally, we compared food security status among 

demonstration project households to national benchmarks. 

We found that among demonstration participants the summer season was not associated with higher 

or lower food security for adults, children or the household as a whole. Higher household income 

was a significant predictor of improved food security in all three models. There were no differences 

between type of demonstration project. 

In all comparisons between nationwide data on food security and demonstration project households, 

higher percentages of food secure households were found nationwide. This includes comparisons 

among households with children less than age 18 and comparable families receiving WIC and SNAP 

benefits. 

4.6 Satisfaction with Demonstration Projects 

Parents and caregivers were very satisfied with the demonstrations. Table 4-13 shows the results of a 

series of questions about parent/caregiver satisfaction with the demonstration projects. Parents 

overwhelmingly agreed that the food was healthy (99.6 percent), had good variety (95.0 percent), was 

convenient (98.0 percent), and that household members liked the food (93.5 percent). When asked 

what their children liked about the demonstration projects, most named “food provided,” while 

almost 40 percent said they liked the activities or that their friends also attended (Table 4-13). 

More parents and caregivers in the Meal Delivery demonstrations were satisfied with the healthiness 

of the food than were parents and caregivers in the Backpack demonstrations (Table 4-13). There 

was no significant difference between demonstration projects with respect to variety, convenience, 

or liking the food, but 83.6 percent of parents in the Meal Delivery demonstrations thought the food 

was very healthy compared to 69.6 percent of parents in the Backpack demonstration (p = 0.0001). 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-45 

Participation, Food Consumption and Food Security 4 

Table 4-13. Parent satisfaction with demonstration projects 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Satisf

action indicators 

yyyyyyyyyyyyyyy zzzzzzzzzzzzzz aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaabbbbbbbbbb

-value of 

difference 

between 

MDa and BPb

ccccccccccccccc

eal Delivery 

dddddddddddd

ackpack 

eeeeeeeeeeeeeee

otal 

fffffffff gggggg

ct 

hhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiii

ct 

jjjjjjjjjjjj kkkkkkk

ct 

llllllllllllllllllllllllll. Paren

t satisfaction with healthiness of food 

mmmm nnnnnnooooooppppppqqqqqq rrrrrrrrr ssssssssssssss

tttttttttttttttttttttttttt. Very 

healthy 

uuuuuu

53 

vvvvvv

3.6 

wwwww

57 

xxxxxx

9.6 

yyyyyyy

10 

zzzzzzz

3.3 

aaaaaaaaaaaaa

0.0001 

bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb

omewhat healthy 

ccccccc

9 

dddddd

5.8 

eeeeeee

54 

ffffffff

0.0 

ggggggg

83 

hhhhhh

6.3 

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj. Not at 

all healthy 

kkkkkkkllllllllllll

.5 

mmmmnnnnnn

.4 

oooooo pppppp

.4 

qqqqqqqqqqq

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Total ssssssss

83 

tttttttttt

00.0 

uuuuuu

13 

vvvvvv

00.0 

wwwww

96 

xxxxxxx

00.0 

yyyyyyyyyyyyy

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Paren

t satisfaction with variety of food 

aaaaaaa bbbbbbccccccc ddddddeeeeeee ffffffffff gggggggggggg

hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

gree strongly 

iiiiiiiiiiiii

0 

jjjjjjjjjjjj

8.9 

kkkkkk

52 

llllllllllll

9.1 

mmmm

42 

nnnnnn

9.1 

oooooooooo

.9041 

ppppppppppppppppppppppppppp

gree 

qqqqqq

6 

rrrrrrrr

6.7 

ssssssss

34 

ttttttttt

5.6 

uuuuuu

20 

vvvvvvv

5.9 

wwwwwwww

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

either agree nor disagree 

yyyyyyy zzzzzzz

.6 

aaaaaaa

1 

bbbbbb

.1 

ccccccc

4 

dddddd

.0 

eeeeeeeeeeeee

fffffffffffffffffffffffffffff. Disag

ree 

ggggggg hhhhhh

.7 

iiiiiiiiiiii

2 

jjjjjjjjjjjj

.3 

kkkkkk

7 

lllllllllllll

.4 

mmmmmmm

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

isagree strongly 

oooooo ppppppqqqqqq rrrrrrrr

.8 

ssssssss ttttttttttt

.6 

uuuuuuuuuuu

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv.

otal 

wwwww

84 

xxxxxx

00.0 

yyyyyyy

13 

zzzzzzz

00.0 

aaaaaaa

97 

bbbbbb

00.0 

ccccccccccccc

dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd

arent satisfaction with convenience of 

food 

eeeeeee fffffffff ggggggghhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiii jjjjjjjjjjjjj kkkkkkkkkkk

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll. Agree 

strongly 

mmmm

13 

nnnnnn

1.4 

oooooo

13 

pppppp

1.1 

qqqqqq

26 

rrrrrrrrr

1.2 

ssssssssssssss

.6951 

tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt. Agree uuuuuu

0 

vvvvvv

8.0 

wwwww

86 

xxxxxx

6.3 

yyyyyyy

56 

zzzzzzz

6.8 

a.

b. Neith

er agree nor disagree 

c. d. e. 5 f. 1.

0 

g. 5 h. 0.

7 

i.

j. Disag

ree 

k. 1 l. 0.

5 

m. 7 n. 1.

4 

o. 8 p. 1.

1 

q.

r. Disag

ree strongly 

s. t. u. 1 v. 0.

2 

w. 1 x. 0.

1 

y.

z. Total aa. 1

84 

bb. 1

00.0 

cc. 5

12 

dd. 1

00.0 

ee. 6

96 

ff. 10

0.0 

gg.

hh. Paren

t satisfaction that household members 

like food 

ii. jj. kk. ll. mm. nn. oo.

pp. Agree qq. 7 rr. 3 ss. 2 tt. 4 uu. 2 vv. 42 ww.
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-46 

Participation, Food Consumption and Food Security 4 

strongly 1 8.8 25 3.9 96 .5 .3539

xx. Agree yy. 9

7 

zz. 5

3.0 

aaa. 2

58 

bbb.

0.3 

ccc. 3

55 

ddd.

1.0 

eee.

fff. Neith

er agree nor disagree 

ggg. 8 hhh.

.4 

iii. 1

8 

jjj. 3.

5 

kkk. 2

6 

lll. 3.

7 

mmm.

nnn. Disag

ree 

ooo.5 ppp.

.7 

qqq. 1

1 

rrr. 2.

1 

sss. 1

6 

ttt. 2.

3 

uuu.

vvv. Disag

ree strongly 

www. xxx.

.1 

yyy. 1 zzz.

.2 

aaaa. bbbb.

.4 

cccc.

dddd. Total eeee.

83 

ffff.

00.0 

gggg.

13 

hhhh.

00.0 

iiii. 6

96 

jjjj. 10

0.0 

kkkk.

llll. What 

participants liked about the program 

mmmm nnnn. oooo. pppp. qqqq. rrrr. ssss.

tttt. Food 

provided 

uuuu. vvvv. wwww.

34 

xxxx.

5.7 

yyyy.

34 

zzzz.

5.7 

aaaaa.

bbbbb. All of 

their friends attend this program 

ccccc. ddddd. eeeee.

89 

fffff.

7.2 

ggggg.

89 

hhhhh.

7.2 

iiiii.

jjjjj. Activit

ies offered 

kkkkk. lllll. mmmm

85 

nnnnn.

6.4 

ooooo.

85 

ppppp.

6.4 

qqqqq.

rrrrr. Back

pack for the weekend 

sssss. ttttt. uuuuu.

6 

vvvvv.

6.9 

wwwww

6 

xxxxx.

6.9 

yyyyy.

zzzzz. Progr

am staff 

aaaaaa. bbbbbbcccccc.

1 

dddddd

2.0 

eeeeee.

1 

ffffff.

2.0 

gggggg.

hhhhhh. Other iiiiii. jjjjjj. kkkkkk

1 

llllll.

.1 

mmmm

1 

nnnnnn

.1 

oooooo.

pppppp. Social 

elements 

qqqqqq rrrrrr. ssssss.

9 

tttttt.

6.0 

uuuuuu

9 

vvvvvv.

6.0 

wwwwww.

xxxxxx. Educa

tional elements 

yyyyyy. zzzzzz. aaaaaaa

5 

bbbbbb

.1 

ccccccc

5 

dddddd

.4 

eeeeeee.

fffffff. Locati

on 

ggggggg hhhhhhiiiiiii.

0 

jjjjjjj.

.0 

kkkkkk

0 

lllllll.

.0 

mmmmmmm

nnnnnnn. Timin

g 

oooooo ppppppqqqqqq rrrrrrr.

.4 

sssssss. ttttttt.

.4 

uuuuuuu.

* MD = Meal Delivery; BP = Backpack 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-1 

Participation, Food Consumption and Food Security 4 

5.1 Introduction 

As a means of understanding evaluation outcomes such as participation, targeting accuracy, and 

food security, it is critical to examine the way in which demonstration projects were implemented. 

Moreover, such information will be useful to the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) when 

developing policy on summer food programs in the future. The methodology for examining 

demonstration project implementation in 2011 and 2012 consisted of the conduct of site visits to 

each demonstration project. In summer, 2011, Westat conducted site visits to four types of 

demonstration projects – Extending Length of Operation, Activity Incentive, Meal Delivery and 

Backpack. In summer 2012, Westat conducted site visits to Meal Delivery and Backpack 

demonstration projects only. 

Like the previous year, Westat staff documented the project infrastructure at the State, sponsor and 

site level; the processes put in place to implement the demonstration project (e.g., recruitment and 

outreach, preparation and distribution of food, monitoring, training and technical assistance); and 

the result of those processes (e.g., meals delivered and backpacks distributed). As in 2011, 

interviewers in 2012 obtained the perspective of three different types of key informants – State 

agency grantees, sponsors, and site staff and volunteers – on project implementation. 

Westat conducted interviews in person during site visits to six States in which the Meal Delivery and 

Backpack demonstrations were funded (Table 5-1). A total of 42 key informant interviews were 

conducted in July and August 2012. In addition, Westat completed site observation forms on 18 

sites. 

Chapter 1 contains a brief description of all demonstration projects. In this chapter we present a 

more detailed description of the Meal Delivery and Backpack demonstration projects and then 

summarize the key characteristics of sponsors and sites. As we did in 2011, we describe site selection 

(all sponsors remained the same, so there was no sponsor selection in 2012); the roles and 

responsibilities of project sponsors and site staff and volunteers; outreach used by each type of 

demonstration project; the different ways in which demonstration benefits were provided; oversight 

and monitoring used in the projects; and training and technical assistance provided to sponsors, 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-2 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

Table 5-1. Key informant interviews by type of demonstration and respondent 

Type of Demonstration State 

Type of respondent 

Total 

State 

officials Sponsors Sites 

Meal Delivery Delaware 1 1 2 4

 Massachusetts 1 1 1 3

 New York 1* 2 1 4

Backpack Arizona 1 3 2 6

 Kansas 1 7 7 15

 Ohio 1 6 3 10

Total 6 20 16 42

* Interview conducted by telephone 

site staff and volunteers and the nutritional family education provided to parents and caregivers. 

Special consideration is given to changes made in 2012 compared to 2011 and the reasons for such 

changes. We end Chapter 5 with a description of the strengths and challenges encountered by the 

Meal Delivery and Backpack demonstration projects and how these challenges were addressed. 

Appendix P contains a summary of the characteristics of each sponsor, including sponsor name and 

location, sponsor background, dates of demonstration project operation, description of drop-off 

locations and Backpack distribution sites, and characteristics of the participant population. 

5.2 Demonstration Project Overview 

As noted in Chapter 1, Meal Delivery demonstration projects were implemented in three states by 

four sponsors (two sponsors in New York and one each in Delaware and Massachusetts (Table 5-2). 

Sixteen sponsors implemented the Backpack demonstrations – three in Arizona, seven in Kansas, 

and six in Ohio. Although sponsors of both the Meal Delivery and Backpack demonstrations were 

expected to participate in the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), the meals that were provided 

to children as part of these demonstrations were consumed offsite and not at SFSP feeding sites. 

5.2.1 Meal Delivery Demonstration Project 

All State awardees and sponsors for the Meal Delivery demonstration project were the same in 2011 

and 2012. All Meal Delivery grants were awarded to a State department of education and 

administrated by a division or department in which the SFSP was housed. In all cases but Delaware, 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-3 

Table 5-2. Demonstration project awardees, sponsors, administration, and coordination 

Demonstration 

project State 

State agency awardee/ 

project administrator Project coordination Sponsor

Meal Delivery Delaware Delaware Department of 

Education/School Support Services Workgroup 

PMG Consultants Food Bank of Delaware

 Massachusetts Massachusetts Department of 

Elementary and Secondary Education (ESE)/Center for Student Support and Secondary Education Services 

School Nutrition Programs Review and Outreach Coordinator (ESE) 

YMCA of Cape Cod

 New York New York State Education 

Department/NY State Child Nutrition Program 

Coordinator, New York State Child Nutrition Program (NYED) 

Food Bank of the Southern Ti

North Rose-Wolcott Central S

Backpack Arizona Arizona Department of 

Education/Health and Nutrition Services Division 

3-person coordination: 

Health and Nutrition Services 

Chandler Unified School Distr

Litchfield Elementary School Mesa Public Schools 

 Kansas Kansas State Department of 

Education/ Child Nutrition and Wellness Division 

School Nutrition Program Coordinator 

Arkansas City Unified School 

Central Unified School DistricEast Central Kansas EconomiCorporation Gardner Edgerton Unified SchLawrence Public Schools UnifTopeka Public SchoolsUnited Methodist Church

 Ohio Ohio Department of 

Education/Office of Child Nutrition

Staff from Office of Child Nutrition 

Andrews House, Inc.

Ashtabula County Children SeCommunity Action OrganizatiHamilton Living Water MinistHocking Athens and Perry CoWhole Again International 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-4 

which hired an external consultant with demonstration funds for outreach, recruitment, oversight, 

and monitoring, all states used internal staff to administer and coordinate the Meal Delivery 

demonstration project. 

In Delaware, the Meal Delivery grant was awarded to the Delaware Department of Education 

(Table 5-2), which manages all child nutrition programs in that State, including national breakfast 

and lunch programs, fruit and vegetable programs, SFSP, and the Child and Adult Care Food 

Program (CACFP). Administration of the demonstration project (known as “Grab-n-Go”) took 

place through the School Support Services Workgroup, a group within the Accountability and 

Assessment Branch of the Delaware Department of Education. The Workgroup oversees all school 

support services for learning that are not directly related to instruction or curriculum, including child 

nutrition programs, counseling services, school discipline, and school nursing services. PMG 

Consulting was hired both years to coordinate all aspects of the project, including recruitment, site 

monitoring, technical support and trainings, inspection of meal sites, and day-to-day operations.

Delaware’s two largest local stakeholders for child nutrition programs are the Food Bank of 

Delaware (FBDE) and the City of Wilmington. The FBDE applied for and was awarded grant 

funding under this demonstration project as a sponsor. 

The Meal Delivery demonstration project in Massachusetts was implemented in Barnstable 

County, Massachusetts. In 2011, the project was limited to food distribution in the town of 

Barnstable only. In 2012, the project added on Bourne and Mashpee. The Massachusetts Meal 

Delivery demonstration project was administered through the Nutrition, Health and Safety Program 

of the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (ESE). The 

demonstration project had one sponsor, the YMCA of Cape Cod, which delivered meals to drop-off 

sites and children’s homes in rural Barnstable County three days a week. 

The Meal Delivery demonstration project in New York was administered through the New York 

State Child Nutrition Program in the New York State Education Department in Albany. This 

department oversees the operations and management of all child nutrition programs that are 

implemented for New York youth in grades K-12. The demonstration project was overseen and 

administered by the Coordinator of the New York State Child Nutrition Program Administration 

and her staff. These staff served as the primary contact point for the State’s two sponsors and made 

sure projects operated in compliance with State and Federal requirements. The two sponsors in 2011 

and 2012 were the Food Bank of the Southern Tier and the North Rose-Wolcott Central School 

District (Table 5-2). 
5 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

5.2.2 Backpack Demonstration Project 

All Backpack demonstration projects were awarded to State departments of education in three 

states—Arizona, Kansas and Ohio. In Arizona, the Backpack demonstration project was 

administered by the Arizona Department of Education, Health and Nutrition Services Division. 

This department operates the National School Lunch and Breakfast programs, the SFSP, and all 

child nutrition programs for the State, including the CACFP. The demonstration grant was 

administered by the School Nutrition Programs Director who works with the School Nutrition 

Program and the SFSP. 

Three sponsor organizations, all school food authorities, participated in the demonstration project – 

Chandler Unified School District, Litchfield Elementary School District, and Mesa Public Schools 

(Table 5-2). All were located in the Phoenix metropolitan area and were regular participants in SFSP. 

Two out of three sponsors used different staff to coordinate the Backpack demonstration in 2012, 

but these staff were shared with the SFSP. 

The Backpack demonstration project in Kansas was administered through the Kansas State 

Department of Education (KSDE), Child Nutrition and Wellness Division. Sponsor staff were the 

same in 2011 and 2012. Sponsors in Kansas represented summer feeding programs from five school 

districts (Arkansas City Unified School District 470, Central Unified School District 462, Gardner 

Edgerton Unified School District, Lawrence Public Schools Unified School District 497, and 

Topeka Public Schools), a community action organization serving low-income individuals in several 

Kansas counties (East Central Kansas Economic Opportunity Corporation), and a church (United 

Methodist Church) (Table 5-2). 

The Ohio Department of Education, Office of Child Nutrition, administered the Backpack 

demonstration project in Ohio. Selected sponsors (Andrews’ House, Ashtabula County Children 

Services, Community Action Organization of Scioto County, Hamilton Living Water Ministry, 

Hocking Athens and Perry Community Action, and Whole Again International) (Table 5-2) were 

located in geographically dispersed and economically depressed areas of the State and represented 

community and faith-based organizations. All senior sponsor staff remained the same except for 

Whole Again International which had different coordinators in 2011 and 2012. 
6 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

5.3 Demonstration Project Sponsors 

Sponsors for the SFSP Meal Delivery and Backpack demonstrations were responsible for locating 

and recruiting eligible sites; hiring, training and supervising staff and volunteers; arranging for meals 

to be prepared or delivered; monitoring sites; preparing claims for reimbursement; and ensuring that 

sites were sustainable through community partnerships, fundraising, and volunteer recruitment. It 

was required that SFSP sponsors be approved by the State agency, and State agencies listed selected 

sponsors as part of their application to FNS. However, FNS made the final decision on sponsors for 

the Meal Delivery and Backpack demonstration projects. Sponsors in 2011 and 2012 were the same. 

5.3.1 Meal Delivery Demonstration Project Sponsors 

Site visits for this evaluation were conducted to Meal Delivery demonstration project sponsors in 

Delaware, Massachusetts and New York in August, 2012. As was the case in 2011, Delaware and 

Massachusetts each operated the Meal Delivery demonstration project with one sponsor -- FBDE 

and the YMCA of Cape Cod, respectively. New York had two sponsor organizations – the Food 

Bank of the Southern Tier (FBST) and the North Rose-Wolcott Central School District (CSD). All 

four sponsors had established Meal Delivery sites where parents/guardians came to pick up their 

children’s meals for off-site consumption. In both 2011 and 2012, Massachusetts was the only Meal 

Delivery sponsor that also organized delivery routes in which staff dropped off children’s meals at 

individual homes. 

Food Bank of Delaware. Westat met with staff at the FBDE, the sole sponsor in this state, to learn 

about their experiences implementing the second year of the Meal Delivery demonstration. FBDE is 

the only food bank in the State and serves all three Delaware counties. It has two facilities - one in 

Newark and one in Milford. FBDE offers a variety of food security programs including the 

traditional SFSP, the CACFP, Statewide partnerships with hunger relief programs (shelters, food 

pantries, soup kitchens), a backpack program (not USDA-funded), a volunteer program, 

Commodities Supplemental Food Program (CSFP, which provides food supplements to senior 

citizens), and SNAP-Ed classes throughout the State. A community kitchen in the Newark facility 

offers a trade school for culinary arts, incorporates life skills, and enables students to earn a culinary 

certificate. 
7 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

YMCA of Cape Cod - Massachusetts. The YMCA of Cape Cod, the sole sponsor for the Meal 

Delivery demonstration project in Massachusetts in 2011 and 2012, is a human service agency with 

strong ties to the community through families and community organizations. Demonstration project 

staff reported that the organization’s reputation and network within the community significantly 

impacted their ability to serve the community beyond the resources that the demonstration grant 

provided. For example, the YMCA of Cape Cod has a strong network of volunteers, in-kind 

donations, and monetary donations that enabled it to generate revenue (e.g., from renting 

campgrounds for special events) to help support various programs and initiatives. It serves children 

and families with a variety of programs for preschoolers through high school age, and offer 

programs for young adults. Health and nutrition programs include an afterschool snack program for 

at-risk youth and childcare snack programs. The YMCA has been partnering with the Diabetes 

Education Center of Cape Cod and Activate America to facilitate programs geared toward 

preventing obesity and increasing activity. According to staff we interviewed, implementation of the 

Meal Delivery demonstration program focused strongly on providing healthy and nutritious meals 

during both project years. 

Food Bank of the Southern Tier - New York. The “Summer Food Demonstration Project” (this 

sponsor’s name for the demonstration) was administered by the Youth Programs Manager at the 

Food Bank of the Southern Tier (FBST) in Elmira, NY during both project years. The FBST’s 

parent organization is “Feeding America,” a national hunger relief network that connects with local 

and national growers and the commercial food industry to distribute food locally through 

organizations like the FBST. The FBST is the central food pantry/warehouse in this region of 

upstate NY. It serves six New York counties (Broome, Chemung, Schuyler, Steuben, Tioga, and 

Tompkins) and has partnerships with over 160 member agencies that include food pantries, soup 

kitchens, shelters, after-school programs and non-profit organizations. The FBST sponsors a variety 

of meal programs for children and adults. School year meal programs for children include a 

backpack program that runs from October through June. This program is funded by Feeding 

America, with funds acquired through grants and fundraisers. The FBST also operates the “Kids 

Café”, which is an after school program that offers free meals and educational activities. Kids Café is 

also sponsored by Feeding America and administered through six community programs (e.g., 

Salvation Army, community centers). 

Meal Delivery efforts for the demonstration project focused on Schuyler County, New York, where 

the poverty rate is among the highest of the six counties served by the FBST. Many families in the 

county have experienced unemployment (often due to loss of farms and related jobs in the area) and 
8 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

homelessness. Nearly half the children living in Schuyler County are qualified to receive free or 

reduced school lunches. 

North Rose-Wolcott Central School District. In 2011 and 2012, the “SFSP Home Delivery 

Project” was administered by the Food Services Director for the North Rose-Wolcott Central 

School District (CSD). The CSD covers about 160 square miles in rural Wayne County, NY, which 

is close to Lake Ontario and between Rochester and Syracuse. The Food Services Director 

structured the Meal Delivery demonstration so it would reach children living in remote regions 

around all four corners of the school district. In addition to her involvement in childhood nutrition 

programs through her work at the CSD, the Food Services Director conducts outreach in this region 

of New York throughout the year to a variety of local groups and programs (e.g., church groups, 

Rotary Club, Lions Club, etc.) to maintain public awareness about child food insufficiency. 

According to the Director, such outreach was instrumental in helping her get the word out to local 

families about the availability of the SFSP Meal Delivery and other meal programs. 

The CSD offers free and reduced school breakfasts and lunches, traditional SFSP and CACFP. It 

provides meals to over 500 children a day at two sites through regular SFSP. This past year the Food 

Services Director added an outreach program through the CSD for migrant families (mostly Haitian 

and Mexican) who work seasonally on local farms. 

As was the case in 2011, North Rose-Wolcott CSD targeted school-aged children (up to age 18) 

living in rural Wayne County, NY who are eligible for free or reduced school lunches. In 2011, 104 

children were enrolled in the Meal Delivery program through the CSD, and this increased to 115 

children in 2012. The Food Services Director attributed the increase in number to community 

outreach that she, members of the Methodist churches and other local organizations (e.g. a local 

food pantry) conducted, and to parents/guardians who participated in last year’s demonstration 

telling other families about the demonstration project. The Food Services Director distributed a 

Spanish translation of the enrollment letter and form but did not receive any of those back this 

summer. 

5.3.2 Backpack Demonstration Project Sponsors 

Site visits were conducted in June and July 2012 in the three states participating in the Backpack 

demonstration project - Arizona, Kansas, and Ohio. There were 16 sponsors representing school 
9 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

districts, non-profit agencies, a church, a faith-based organization, a food bank, and a county 

government agency (Table 5-3). 

Table 5-3. Overview of Backpack demonstration project site visits 

State 

No. 

sponsors Type of sponsors 

Arizona 3  3 school districts

Kansas 7 

 5 school districts

 1 church 

 1 non-profit agency 

Ohio 6 

 Non-profit social service agency

 Faith-based organization 

 Non-profit founded by a church to provide after school help to local 

children 

 Non-profit agency that provides services to county residents 

 Food bank and non-profit agency 

 County government agency 

Total 16 

In June 2012, Westat conducted in-person interviews with staff from the three sponsor 

organizations in Arizona—Chandler Unified School District, Litchfield Elementary School District, 

and Mesa Public Schools. 

Chandler Unified School District – Arizona. The Chandler Unified School District Food and 

Nutrition Department administers all child nutrition programs for the Chandler school system, 

which serves youth living in the southeast portion of the Phoenix metropolitan area. Programming 

in 2012 included the administration of the National School Lunch Program at 40 schools and SFSP 

at 33 sites. The School District has been sponsoring SFSP for over 15 years. 

Litchfield Elementary School District – Arizona. The Litchfield Elementary School District is a 

K-8 school system on the northwest side of Phoenix, Arizona that serves approximately 12,000 

children. The Backpack demonstration project was again sponsored by the school district’s food 

service program, which has offered the SFSP for over 15 years and runs the FNS breakfast and 

lunch program during the school year. 

The sponsor estimated that about half of the youth attending school in this district is eligible for free 

or reduced price meals. The average age of children that participated in the 2012 Backpack 

demonstration was 8-10 years. 
10 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

Mesa Public Schools - Arizona. Mesa Public Schools is a unified school district located on the 

east side of Phoenix, Arizona. It is one of the largest school districts in Arizona. During the 2012-

2013 school year, the school district offered the National School Lunch Program at 80 sites. It has 

been sponsoring SFSP for about 20 years. The Backpack demonstration project was sponsored by 

the district’s Department for Food and Nutrition during both demonstration project years. The 

same two sites - an elementary school and a community center – provided backpacks in 2011 and 

2012. Both offered meals through SFSP, and both serve a largely Hispanic population in urban 

regions of Phoenix. 

Kansas Sponsors. Westat met with staff at the seven sponsor organizations and eight feeding sites 

in Kansas in July, 2012. The seven sponsor organizations were: 

 Arkansas City Public School District 470 

 Central Unified School District 462 

 East Central Kansas Economic Opportunity Corporation 

 Gardner Edgerton Unified School District 

 Lawrence Public Schools Unified School District 497 

 Topeka Public Schools 

 United Methodist Church 

Most sponsors represented public school systems, one was a community services program, and one 

was a church. All offered SFSP, and many offered other FNS programs throughout the year. There 

was some variability among the sponsor organizations in terms of demonstration program start and 

stop dates. Many had timed the Backpack demonstration to correspond with SFSP and other 

summer programming at the meal sites, so timing varied from sponsor to sponsor and site to site 

(see Appendix B). 

Ohio Sponsors. Westat met with staff at the six sponsor organizations in Ohio in July, 2012. The 

Ohio sponsors were: 

 Andrews’ House 

 Ashtabula County Children Services 

 Community Action Organization of Scioto County 
11 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

 Hamilton Living Water Ministry, Inc. 

 Hocking Athens and Perry Community Action 

 Whole Again International 

All Ohio sponsors provided meals through the Backpack demonstration project between June and 

August, 2012. Sponsor organizations represented non-profit community programs, faith-based 

organizations, and public social services programs. 

Backpacks were available to Ohio youth between the ages of 1 and 18 years, but most of the 

children that were served were between elementary and middle school age. A few sponsors 

commented that some of the older teens were reluctant to receive backpacks because they did not 

want to be seen receiving free meals. It was reported that some of the younger youth in one of the 

urban locations were being harassed and their backpacks and meals were being stolen by older 

children and teenagers as they walked home from the meal sites. 

5.4 Demonstration Project Sites 

Although sponsors were the same in 2011 and 2012, some sponsors made an effort to expand their 

demonstration project participation by increasing the number of sites to which food was delivered. 

Thus, compared to 2011, there were 98 more meal delivery sites to homes in 2012 and 18 more 

drop-off sites. For the Backpack demonstration, sponsors increased the number of Backpack sites 

from 82 in 2011 to 92 in 2012. 

The YMCA of Cape Cod in Massachusetts was especially successful by adding individual home 

delivery in two more towns and a substantial number of children (Table 5-4). Sites were also 

expanded in Delaware for the Meal Delivery demonstration project. Backpack sites were increased 

in the Litchfield Elementary School District in Arizona, Lawrence Public Schools in Kansas, 

Community Action Organization of Scioto County in Ohio, Hamilton Living Water Ministry in 

Ohio, and Whole Again International in Ohio. Due to over-spending in 2011, Hocking Athens Perry 

Community Action reduced the number of sites in 2012 (Table 5-4). 
12 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

Table 5-4. Number of sites/delivery locations in 2011 and 2012* 

vvvvvvv. State 

wwwwwww. Spo

nsor xxxxxxx. 2011 yyyyyyy. 2012 

zzzzzzz. Meal Delivery aaaaaaaa. bbbbbbbb.

cccccccc.

E 

dddddddd. F

ood Bank of Delaware 

eeeeeeee. ffffffff. 22 

gggggggg.

A 

hhhhhhhh. Y

MCA of Cape Cod - drop-off sites 

iiiiiiii. 2 jjjjjjjj. 3 

kkkkkkkk.

A 

llllllll. Y

MCA of Cape Cod- individual 

homes 

mmmmmmmm. nnnnnnnn.

07 

oooooooo.

Y 

pppppppp. F

ood Bank of the Southern Tier 

qqqqqqqq. rrrrrrrr.6 

ssssssss.

Y 

tttttttt. N

orth Rose-Wolcott Central School 

District 

uuuuuuuu. vvvvvvvv.

wwwwwwww. xxxxxxxx. yyyyyyyy.

7 

zzzzzzzz.

43 

aaaaaaaaa. Backpack bbbbbbbbb. ccccccccc.

ddddddddd.

Z 

eeeeeeeee. C

handler Unified School District 

fffffffff. ggggggggg.

hhhhhhhhh.

Z 

iiiiiiiii. L

itchfield Elementary School 

District 

jjjjjjjjj. 9 kkkkkkkkk.

5 

lllllllll.

Z 

mmmmmmmmm. M

esa Public Schools 

nnnnnnnnn. ooooooooo.

ppppppppp.

S 

qqqqqqqqq. A

rkansas City Unified School 

District 470 

rrrrrrrrr. sssssssss.

ttttttttt.

S 

uuuuuuuuu. C

entral Unified School District 462 

vvvvvvvvv. wwwwwwwww.

xxxxxxxxx.

S 

yyyyyyyyy. E

ast Central Kansas Economic 

Opportunity Corporation 

zzzzzzzzz. aaaaaaaaaa.

bbbbbbbbbb.

S 

cccccccccc. G

ardner Edgerton Unified School 

District 

dddddddddd. eeeeeeeeee.

ffffffffff.

S 

gggggggggg. L

awrence Public Schools USD 497 

hhhhhhhhhh. iiiiiiiiii. 6 

jjjjjjjjjj.

S 

kkkkkkkkkk. T

opeka Public Schools 

llllllllll. 1 mmmmmmmmmm.

nnnnnnnnnn.

S 

oooooooooo. U

nited Methodist Church 

pppppppppp. qqqqqqqqqq.

rrrrrrrrrr.

H 

ssssssssss. A

ndrews House, Inc. 

tttttttttt. uuuuuuuuuu.
13 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

vvvvvvvvvv.

H 

wwwwwwwwww. A

shtabula County Children 

Services 

xxxxxxxxxx. yyyyyyyyyy.

zzzzzzzzzz.

H 

aaaaaaaaaaa. C

ommunity Action Organization of 

Scioto County 

bbbbbbbbbbb.

3 

ccccccccccc.

5 

ddddddddddd.

H 

eeeeeeeeeee. H

amilton Living Water Ministry, 

Inc. 

fffffffffff. ggggggggggg.

hhhhhhhhhhh.

H 

iiiiiiiiiii. H

ocking Athens Perry Community 

Action Agency 

jjjjjjjjjjj. 16 kkkkkkkkkkk.

3 

lllllllllll.

H 

mmmmmmmmmmm. W

hole Again International 

nnnnnnnnnnn. ooooooooooo.

ppppppppppp. qqqqqqqqqqq. rrrrrrrrrrr.

2 

sssssssssss.

2 

ttttttttttt. Both Demonstrations uuuuuuuuuuu.

09 

vvvvvvvvvvv.

35 

*Information on number of sites obtained from demonstration project sponsors. 

 
14 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

5.4.1 Meal Delivery Demonstration Project 

The four Meal Delivery sponsor organizations across the three states delivered meals to 143 

locations (including 107 to individual homes in Massachusetts) (Table 5-5). Drop-off sites consisted 

of apartment/housing complexes, elementary schools, community centers, churches, a women’s 

shelter, town hall, fire hall, housing authority, and individual homes. 

Table 5-5. Overview of Meal Delivery site visits 

State No. sponsors No. drop-off sites Type of drop-off site

Delaware 1 22  Apartment/housing complexes

 Elementary school 

 Family/community centers 

 Church 

Massachusetts 1 110*  Apartment complexes 

 Individual homes in 3 towns 

 Women’s shelter 

New York 2 11  Elementary schools 

 Town hall 

 Fire hall 

 5 churches 

 Housing authority 

Total 4 143

* Includes 107 deliveries to individual homes 

Delaware. FBDE sought to increase the number of meal delivery locations that were offered in 

2012 in underserved regions of the two rural counties of New Castle and Sussex that were targeted 

for the demonstration project. The food bank incorporated a mixture of outreach strategies in 

preparation for the second project year, including reaching out to another Meal Delivery sponsor in 

New York State to share lessons learned from 2011 project implementation. FBDE successfully 

added 17 more meal delivery sites for the 2012 demonstration. Site locations in 2012 included 

apartment/ housing complexes, elementary schools, community centers, and churches. 

All meal sites in operation for the 2012 demonstration implementation were located in rural regions 

of New Castle and Sussex counties. As was the case in 2011, some were former SFSP sites that did 

not have the staff and/or proper facilities to serve meals on site to multiple children but were able to 

accommodate a meal pick-up model at the site, and some were new sites brought on specifically for 

the demonstration project. 
15 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

Participating youth who received meal deliveries through Grab-n-Go Summer Meals across the 

different sites were mainly between the ages of 5 and 13, although children as young as 441 and as old 

as 17 participated in 2012. Sites served a mixture of race and ethnicity, including Caucasian, AfricanAmerican, and Hispanic children, with a higher population of Hispanic children in the Sussex 

County locations. 

Some of the Meal Delivery sites that were added for the 2012 demonstration project had once 

served as traditional SFSP meal sites. Thus, FBDE already had an established affiliation with those 

sites. Some of those sites no longer offered traditional SFSP because of space limitations. As noted 

above, former SFSP sites that switched to Meal Delivery in Delaware did so because they did not 

have the staff and/or proper facilities to serve meals on site to multiple children. However, staff at 

those locations was willing to offer meal delivery for the demonstration since children would 

consume the meals offsite. 

Massachusetts. The YMCA of Cape Cod organized meal delivery sites in 2011 that were 

comprised of individual home deliveries in two towns in the Cape Cod region and bulk meal dropoff at two apartment complexes and a women’s shelter. The YMCA’s outreach coordinator made 

the connections to bring in the new meal sites and increase the number of children served. 

Children who received meal deliveries in 2012 in the Massachusetts Meal Delivery demonstration 

were school-age up to age 18. Their race and ethnicity was African-American, Caucasian, Asian, 

Portuguese, and Wampanoag Indian. The sponsor reported that about 25 percent of participating 

children were from families that had immigrated to the United States. Languages spoken by the 

children included English, Spanish, and Portuguese, but all children were English-speaking. 

New York. The two Meal Delivery sponsors in New York both sought to increase the number of 

children that they served in 2012 through recruiting additional meal sites and/or conducting 

outreach to families. Both New York sponsors were committed to reaching as many children as they 

could with the program. However, limitations in time and resources led them to shift focus from 

adding sites to adding the number of enrolled children served at existing sites. FBST switched one of 

its delivery locations to a site just up the street from the original pick-up location in that town when 

it realized that parents were already dropping off and picking up children for a summer activities 

 

41 In Delaware, if the family was able to document that the 4-year-old was eligible and enrolled in Head Start, the child could 

receive meals through the demonstration. 
16 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

program at the new location. Thus, it was more convenient for families to pick up their meals there 

as well. 

Prior to 2012 implementation, the FBST reached out to its community partners, including schools 

and fire stations, to arrange locations around Schuyler County where the FBST could park one of its 

refrigerated trucks so families could pick up their child(ren)’s meals for the summer demonstration 

project. In 2012, delivery site locations included three elementary schools, one fire hall, one town 

hall and a church (Table 5-5). Except for changes described below, these were the same sites that 

were used in 2011. 

To select drop-off sites for the demonstration project, Youth Programs Manager of FBST met with 

local food pantries and schools to identify areas around Schuyler County, NY (the county targeted 

for the demonstration) that would be accessible to families. FBST staff reported that they tried to 

locate the meal delivery sites in areas where families would be likely to already be visiting during the 

week (e.g., near local shopping and services) so they would be in convenient locations that would 

not require families to drive far or to have to make a special trip to pick up their children’s meals. 

FBST sponsored six Meal Delivery sites in 2012, one more than the 542 it sponsored in 2011. The 

sites were actually parking lots at schools, fire stations and churches around the county where the 

FBST could park one of its refrigerated trucks so families could pick up their children’s meals at a 

designated date and time. A fire hall that had served as a delivery site in 2011 was replaced in 2012 

with a nearby town hall after FBST staff learned that parents would already be at the town hall to 

drop off/pick up children for a summer recreation program. A church was brought on as a sixth 

Meal Delivery site for 2012 to make the drive to pick up summer meals a little easier for families 

living in that part of the county. 

The North Rose-Wolcott Central School District (CSD) used the same five locations as meal 

delivery sites in 2011 and 2012 - four churches and a housing authority apartment complex. The 

CSD’s Food Services Director originally identified the sites with the help of pastors and other 

members of regional Methodist churches. These sites were willing to offer space and volunteers 

again in 2012. The sites were situated in rural areas around the school district and served families in 

need of summer food service. 

 

42 FBST had started with six sites in 2011, but closed one a few weeks into the 2011 implementation due to 

low participation. Families that had been coming to the sixth delivery site were reassigned to another nearby meal 

delivery site. 
17 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

5.4.2 Backpack Demonstration Project 

There were also several site changes in the Backpack Demonstration project in 2012. 

Arizona. Six elementary schools and one Boys and Girls Club served as sites for the Chandler 

Unified School District in 2012. In 2012, one of the elementary school sites was under renovation so 

the Boys and Girls Club took the place of that elementary school as a Backpack demonstration site. 

This enabled the project to reach a geographic area that had not previously been served. 

The Litchfield school district sponsored 15 sites for the Backpack demonstration in 2012, six more 

than were in operation in 2011. Backpacks were distributed between May 29 and July 27, 2012. Sites 

represented schools, community centers and apartment complexes. Two sites were mobile feeding 

units (two buses that made stops at locations in the area for SFSP) called the “Nutrition Express.” 

The buses enabled children who lived more than a mile from school to receive SFSP and Backpack 

meals. Seventy-five percent of the new sites had been traditional SFSP sites in 2011 and wanted to 

help increase the draw to their sites by offering the Backpack program in 2012. 

Mesa Public Schools operated the same two Backpack sites in 2011 and 2012 at an elementary 

school and a community center. Children who received backpacks through the community center 

attend nearby Mesa schools and lived in the area. The community center is a Head Start site and is 

located in an underserved area where transportation is a problem for some families. 

Kansas. The same seven Kansas sponsors participated both project years and represented five 

public school systems, one church and a community center. Kansas sponsors selected Backpack 

sites based on the number of eligible children the site could access. Like 2011, sponsors looked for 

sites that had a history with SFSP, were centrally located, and had access to high numbers of 

children eligible for free or reduced price meals. Among the 15 meal sites where these sponsors 

provided backpacks for the demonstration, many were elementary schools. Sites also included 

churches, and parks and recreation centers and were located in urban, suburban and rural regions of 

the State. 

The State grantee reported that she had seen a 10 to 25 percent increase in participation in SFSP 

since the Backpack demonstration program was introduced. However, only Lawrence Public schools 

added a site for a total of six sites in 2012. The rest of the sites remained the same at other sponsors. 
18 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

Ohio. In both 2011 and 2012, Ohio sponsors considered an organization’s experience with SFSP 

when selecting sites for the Backpack demonstration. Other selection criteria included sites with 

higher than average numbers of children participating in SFSP and access to a diverse population of 

children in low income households. 

Sponsors in Ohio oversaw between one and 25 meal sites for the second year of the demonstration 

project. As was the case in 2011, sites were located in impoverished urban and rural areas around the 

State that were known to have great need for summer meals for children. Meal sites were in schools, 

churches, community centers, mental health programs, libraries, parks and recreation sites, and 

public housing complexes. 

There was variation in race and ethnicity of the children that were served by sponsors with multiple 

meal sites. A few sites primarily served African-American and Hispanic youth. Some sites primarily 

served Caucasian Appalachian children, some of whom came from families that had experienced 

intergenerational poverty. Other sites served a mixture of race and ethnicity. Transportation to the 

meal sites continued to be an issue in some locations, especially for families in rural regions who 

lived too far from the sites to walk. Youth who either could walk to the meal site or who had reliable 

transportation were able to more regularly attend SFSP meals and receive backpacks than those who 

lived far from the site and did not have transportation. 

A few changes were made to the Ohio project sites between 2011 and 2012: 

 Ashtabula County Children Services organized six Backpack sites during both 

demonstration project years. In 2011, one Backpack site was located in an old 

elementary school. When the school was purchased by GEO Ministries, the sponsor 

moved the SFSP and demonstration site to a church. However, when GEO Ministries 

moved into the school building and began sponsoring activities for children, the 

sponsor moved the SFSP and the Backpack demonstration back to the original school 

location. 

 Community Action Organization of Scioto County ran 25 sites in 2012, 2 more than in 

2011. 

 Hamilton Living Waters Ministry added one site in 2012 for a total of two sites. 

 Whole Again International had six sites in 2012, which is three more than they had in 

2011. 

Only Andrews House remained the same, with the same site at an elementary school, and HockingAthens Perry Community Action Agency had three fewer sites in 2012. Despite three fewer sites, 
19 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

Hocking Athens Perry reported that it increased the number of backpacks in the second year due to 

high demand. 

5.5 Roles and Responsibilities 

Staff roles and responsibilities for the 2012 implementation of the Meal Delivery and Backpack 

demonstration projects were basically the same as in 2011. Prior to launching the 2011 program, 

State grantees had identified sponsors, received their approval from FNS, and conducted sponsor 

training. For the 2012 implementation, State grantees were again expected to offer training to 

sponsors (if needed), monitor demonstration project operations, and process payments, just as they 

had done during the first project year. 

Sponsors were expected to attend State training if it was offered for the second project year; confirm 

the continued participation of sites from the 2011 demonstration program and recruit additional 

sites and participation (if needed) for the 2012 implementation; hire, train and supervise staff and 

volunteers; arrange for meals to be prepared and/or delivered; monitor sites; prepare claims for 

reimbursement; and ensure that the demonstration project they were sponsoring remained viable 

through community partnerships, fundraising, and volunteer recruitment. 

As was the case during the first project year, it was the responsibility of all meal sites to manage food 

distribution and ensure that eligible children received their meals or backpacks/bags through the 

demonstration project. Some of the Backpack sponsors also served as meal sites in 2012. These 

included the Central Unified School District and the United Methodist Church in Kansas and 

Hamilton Living Water Ministry, Inc. in Ohio. In such cases, the sponsor staff fulfilled the roles and 

responsibilities for both sponsor and site. 

Although general responsibilities were given to State grantees, sponsors, and site staff and volunteers 

participating in both types of demonstration projects, specific roles and responsibilities were geared 

to the specific components of the two types of demonstration projects (e.g., delivering meals to 

drop-off sites or individual homes in the Meal Delivery demonstration; filling backpacks or bags 

with food and distributing them at the SFSP sites in the Backpack demonstration). Moreover, each 

demonstration project implemented its project with a different staff complement and used different 

types of staff to carry out each implementation function (Appendix Q). There were few paid staff 

members that worked solely on the Meal Delivery or Backpack demonstrations. Instead, most staff 
20 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

incorporated their roles and responsibilities for the demonstration project into existing positions, 

usually those for the SFSP. 

5.5.1 Meal Delivery Demonstration Project Staffing 

In the Meal Delivery demonstration project, the number of staff that supported a demonstration in 

2012 varied across sponsors, and staffing remained relatively unchanged between 2011 and 2012. 

Notable staffing changes are described in the individual sponsor summaries in this section. Staffing 

across the four Meal Delivery sponsors tended to correspond with the number of days a week that 

deliveries were made and the number of sites that were served (Table 5-6a). 

The Food Bank of Delaware (FBDE) delivered summer meals to 22 sites five days a week, and 

this necessitated support from over 50 FBDE paid staff and volunteers. The FBDE Program 

Director estimated that she spent about 10 hours a week working on the demonstration, varying 

according to the phase of the demonstration. More hours were spent conducting outreach and other 

activities in preparation to launch the program for the summer and again for activities related to 

closing out the demonstration operations. Meal preparation and delivery activities for the 

demonstration were conducted by paid staff and volunteers in conjunction with those for the 

traditional SFSP, and the combined activities often worked out to an 8-hour day for some of those 

staff. Two SFSP staff monitored and conducted quality control activities at the 29 Meal Delivery 

sites and trained Meal Delivery site staff. FBDE conducted cross-training so staff could take over or 

fill in for each other as needed for demonstration activities. 

 
21 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

Table 5-6a. Meal Delivery demonstration project staffing 

wwwwwwwwwww

ponsor/State 

xxxxxxxxxxx.

umber of sites 

yyyyyyyyyyy.

umber of 

zzzzzzzzzzz.

ull-time staff* 

aaaaaaaaaaaa.

umber of 

bbbbbbbbbbbb

art-time staff* 

cccccccccccc.

umber of 

dddddddddddd.

olunteer staff 

eeeeeeeeeeee.

ob titles 

ffffffffffff.

ood Bank of 

Delaware 

gggggggggggg.

Delaware) 

hhhhhhhhhhhh

2 

iiiiiiiiiiii.

0 

jjjjjjjjjjjj. kkkkkkkkkkkk.

0+ 

 Program 

Director 

 Outreach 

Coordinat

or** 

 Site 

monitors 

 Truck and 

van 

drivers 

 Chefs 

and 

kitchen 

staff 

 Volunteer 

coordinat

or 

 Administr

ative 

support 

staff 

 Finance/

accountin

g staff 

llllllllllll.

MCA of Cape Cod 

(Massachusetts) 

mmmmmmmm

 drop-off and 

107 individual 

homes 

nnnnnnnnnnnn

1 

oooooooooooo pppppppppppp.  Operation

s Director 

 Program 

Coordinat

or 

 Outreach 

Coordinat

or 

 Kitchen 

superviso

rs 

 Kitchen 

workers 

 Van 

driver 

and 

assistant

s 

 Site 

superviso

r 

qqqqqqqqqqqq.

ood Bank of the 

ssssssssssss. tttttttttttt. uuuuuuuuuuuu. vvvvvvvvvvvv.  Youth 

Programs 
22 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

Southern Tier 

rrrrrrrrrrrr.

New York) 

Manager

 AmeriCor

ps 

volunteer 

 FBST 

volunteer 

 FBST 

driver 

 School 

district 

kitchen 

staff 

wwwwwwwwwww

orth Rose-Wolcott 

Central School 

District (CSD) 

xxxxxxxxxxxx.

New York) 

yyyyyyyyyyyy. zzzzzzzzzzzz. aaaaaaaaaaaaa. bbbbbbbbbbbbb

+ 

 CSD Food 

Services 

Director 

 Kitchen 

superviso

r 

 Hourly 

kitchen 

staff 

 Volunteer 

meal 

packers*

* 

 Delivery 

driver 

 CSD 

Treasurer 

 Site 

volunteer

s** 

*Refers to paid staff employment status with sponsor agency or affiliated agency 

**Worked specifically on the Meal Delivery demonstration 

The YMCA of Cape Cod delivered meals for the demonstration five days a week to three drop-off 

sites and 107 individual homes, and this was supported by 12 staff members, one of which was a 

volunteer. Deliveries were made in one town three days a week and to the other two towns two days 

a week. The YMCA’s Operations Director spent an estimated five hours a week conducting 

activities related to operational and financial oversight for the demonstration. The Program 

Coordinator spent about 20 hours a week on activities related to the demonstration program’s dayto-day operations. The Outreach Coordinator for the demonstration spent an estimated 20 hours a 

month conducting activities to prepare for the program’s launch in the summer, and about 10 hours 

a month conducting outreach during the weeks the meal deliveries were underway. Two kitchen 

supervisors worked on the demonstration a combined 200 hours a month, and kitchen workers 

spent about 100 hours each a month helping to prepare the meals for the demonstration. A van 
23 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

driver spent about 20 hours a week delivering the meals to the various sites in the Cape Cod region, 

including home deliveries. 

The Food Bank of the Southern Tier (FBST) in New York delivered summer meals to six sites 

one day a week was supported by seven paid and volunteer staff. FBST’s Youth Programs Manager 

was the grant administrator and conducted all operational planning. She spent an estimated five to 

six hours a week in April and May on preparing for the summer Meal Delivery demonstration, and 

much of that work was reported to be related to enrolling children in the demonstration. Once the 

project was underway for the summer, she spent about six to seven hours a week to monitor project 

operations. FBST had the help of an AmeriCorps volunteer for 2012 implementation. This 

volunteer spent eight to nine hours a week helping the Youth Programs Manager to conduct 

outreach to regional mobile food pantries to pass on the word about the demonstration. A paid 

driver and an FBST volunteer each spent 6 hours a week (all in one day) picking up the prepared 

meals in an FBST refrigerated truck and distributing them to families in the six parking lots which 

served as the delivery sites. Three kitchen staff from a local school district food authority were paid 

under a contract with the FBST to prepare and package the meals for the demonstration each week. 

Each kitchen staff member spent two to three hours a week conducting those activities. 

The North-Rose Wolcott Central School District (CSD) in New York delivered summer meals 

to five sites two days a week (two sites one day, three sites the other day). All activities related to 

project administration and management and operations oversight were conducted by the CSD Food 

Services Director, who reported spending an estimated 20-30 hours a week conducting these 

activities for the demonstration. Three kitchen volunteers each spent two hours one day a week 

prepacking non-perishable meal items. A paid CSD kitchen supervisor spent about two hours, five 

days a week, on the demonstration to supervise and assist with meal preparations. Two paid CSD 

kitchen staff each spent three to four hours a week preparing and packaging perishable meal items. 

A paid CSD van driver spent about 6 hours a week delivering the meals to the sites. Meals were 

handed out by on-site volunteers that varied in number by site. All CSD staff incorporated their 

other work activities with time spent working on the demonstration. This included the CSD 

Treasurer, who was responsible for processing expenditure claims and vendor payments for the 

demonstration. 
24 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

5.5.2 Backpack Demonstration Project Staffing 

Sponsors participating in the 2012 Backpack demonstration linked the distribution of backpacks 

under the demonstration to the same dates and times that their sites offered meals through the 

traditional SFSP. Staffing structures across sponsors and states typically fell into three categories: (1) 

program management and oversight; (2) preparation of meals and backpacks; and, (3) backpack 

distribution. This section describes how each of the sponsors in Arizona, Kansas and Ohio 

delegated these duties among their staff and the average amount of time that was spent conducting 

activities for the demonstration. Staffing across the various Backpack sponsors was largely 

unchanged for the 2012 implementation, compared to 2011. Any staffing changes are noted in the 

individual sponsor summaries in this section. 

5.5.2.1 Arizona 

Almost 20 staff members supported the Chandler Unified School District Backpack 

demonstration in 2012 (Table 5-6b). This sponsor offered backpacks through the demonstration at 

seven traditional SFSP meal sites that it operated in elementary schools and Boys’ and Girls’ Clubs. 

Among the staff that managed the demonstration for the school district was a new Program 

Supervisor who spent about 15 hours a week on various activities related to the general management 

and oversight of the demonstration project. Two staff members that monitored the School District’s 

20 traditional SFSP meal sites added monitoring to their duties of the seven sites that offered 

backpacks through the demonstration. The monitors visited all SFSP sites on the first and third 

week of operation and spent three hours at each site. Therefore, a total of 21 hours were spent 

monitoring for the demonstration. A buyer spent about two hours a week placing orders for the 

backpack meals and coordinating with the warehouse foreman, who spent about three hours a week 

coordinating inventory and distribution of meal items for each site. Four drivers spent a combined 

20-25 hours a week delivering meals to the seven sites. Each site had an SFSP manager, and those 

staff coordinated the assembly of meal packages for the demonstration, which took about 20 

percent of their time (including their existing SFSP duties). Usually, volunteers at each site spent 

three hours a week (per volunteer, per site) packing the tote bags (the “backpacks” at this site) with 

meals. Occasionally site managers also helped to assemble the tote bags. One site with a cafeteria 

used its Cafeteria Manager to oversee the assembly of the backpacks by two cafeteria staff, who each 

spent two hours a week on these duties. A custodian spent an hour a week at each site (seven hours 

a week total) to clean up after the SFSP meals and backpacks that were distributed. 

 
25 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

Table 5-6b. Arizona Backpack demonstration project staffing 

ccccccccccccc.

ponsor/State 

dddddddddddd

o. Sites 

eeeeeeeeeeeee.

umber of 

fffffffffffff. full

-time staff* 

ggggggggggggg.

umber of 

hhhhhhhhhhhhh

art-time staff* 

iiiiiiiiiiiii. N

umber of 

jjjjjjjjjjjjj. v

olunteer staff 

kkkkkkkkkkkkk

ob titles 

lllllllllllll.

handler Unified 

mmmmmmmmmm

chool District 

nnnnnnnnnnnnooooooooooooo

1 

ppppppppppppp qqqqqqqqqqqq 

 Program 

Supervisor 

 Buyer 

 Warehous

e foreman 

 Drivers 

 Program 

monitors 

 Volunteer 

Coordinat

or 

 Site 

Managers 

 Site 

volunteers 

 Cafeteria 

Manager 

 Cafeteria 

staff 

 Custodian 

rrrrrrrrrrrrr.

itchfield 

Elementary 

sssssssssssss.

chool District 

ttttttttttttt.

5 

uuuuuuuuuuuuu. vvvvvvvvvvvvv. wwwwwwwww Food 

Director 

 Nutrition 

Supervisor 

 Program 

Supervisor 

 Cook/Pre

p 

Supervisor 

 Clerk 

 Monitors 

xxxxxxxxxxxxx.

esa Public Schools 

yyyyyyyyyyyyy. zzzzzzzzzzzzz. aaaaaaaaaaaaaa. bbbbbbbbbbb  Director/S

FSP 

Coordinat

or 

 Dietician 

 Food and 

Nutrition 

employee 

 SFSP Site 

Coordinat

or 

 Food 

Services 

Manager 

 Food 

Services 
26 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

staff

 Buyer 

 School 

district 

warehous

e staff 

 Grants 

Manager 

* Refers to paid staff employment status with sponsor agency or affiliated agency 

The Litchfield Elementary School District provided backpacks at 15 of its traditional SFSP meal 

sites, which were comprised of schools, community centers, apartment complexes and mobile 

feeding units. Seven school district staff members were dedicated to the Backpack demonstration. 

Additionally, staff working at the sites for the traditional SFSP supported demonstration activities. 

The School District Food Services Director spent an hour a week (eight to ten hours total) for 

overall management of the demonstration in the summer months and six to eight hours total to 

conduct start-up activities in the spring, such as meeting with the State grantee. The School 

Nutrition Supervisor determined the meals that would be distributed each week, managed four of 

the Backpack locations, and conducted outreach. Combined, these activities took about seven hours 

weekly. A Program Supervisor spent about 20 hours in the spring arranging the distribution of meals 

for the 2012 demonstration, including selection and coordination of vendors for meal items. During 

the summer, she managed the other 11 Backpack distribution sites, coordinated weekly meal 

planning with the school district cook, and supervised monitors. It took a total of two hours each 

month to conduct these activities in the summer. A clerk spent four hours a month keeping track of 

the backpack meal counts. Two monitors each spent two hours a week picking up the meal bags 

from the middle school kitchen where they had been prepared, and inspected them before they 

delivered the bags to each of the demonstration sites. The backpacks were distributed by SFSP site 

staff and managers. 

Mesa Public Schools, with two sites, provided backpacks in conjunction with traditional SFSP 

meals that were offered at an elementary school and a community center. Six staff were dedicated to 

the demonstration through this sponsor. Staff working at the meal sites for traditional SFSP also 

contributed to the demonstration. The demonstration was under the direction of the Mesa Public 

Schools Director of School Nutrition and Auxiliary Services, who also oversees administration of 

the traditional SFSP. Administrative preparations (e.g., meetings with the State grantee) for the 2012 

demonstration took one and on-half hours a week between April and June, as did other 

administrative duties (e.g., forms completion) conducted between April and mid-summer. A 

dietician spent one and one-half to two hours a week between April and June conducting meal 
27 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

planning, training and outreach activities to prepare for the demonstration. The dietician worked in 

conjunction with a representative from the school system’s Grants Management Department to 

input data into their grants management system, and the Grants Manager spent about five hours 

across the spring and summer in 2012 to conduct those activities. A buyer submitted food orders to 

vendors, which delivered them to a school district warehouse. The meal items were then delivered to 

the two sites, where backpacks were assembled by on-site staff. A staff member who worked at the 

community center site was paid by the sponsor to assemble and distribute the backpacks, and these 

activities took two hours a week to conduct in June and July. Backpacks at the elementary school site 

were assembled and distributed by food service staff that supported the traditional SFSP program. 

An SFSP site coordinator at the school spent four to five hours a week monitoring overall 

operations, backpack assembly and meal counts. The coordinator realized during the 2011 

implementation that she needed another staff member to support the demonstration, so in 2012 two 

school food service staff each spent three hours a week assisting with backpack assembly and 

distribution in conjunction with their regular duties for SFSP. An SFSP site supervisor occasionally 

spent an hour a week to assist with backpack distribution, as needed. 

5.5.2.2 Kansas 

The Arkansas City Public School District sponsored one site for the Backpack demonstration 

and was supported by six paid staff and two volunteers (Table 5-6c). The distribution site was 

located in an elementary school that offered the traditional SFSP. The Program Director for the 

demonstration spent four hours a week conducting administrative activities, including training staff 

and quality control monitoring. Two of the Director’s support staff spent two hours a week 

completing paperwork, including financial tasks and data reporting. The school social worker, who 

assisted with a school-year backpack program, conducted outreach, managed the storage of food for 

the meals (all pre-packaged), helped with backpack distribution, and conducted quality control 

monitoring for the demonstration. These activities took eight to nine hours of her time a week. A 

Food Distribution Manager spent one to two hours a week conducting outreach, quality control 

monitoring and helping with distribution of the backpacks. This sponsor hired one additional staff 

member for the 2012 demonstration to translate materials into Spanish and to help with translation 

needs during backpack distribution. The translator spent a total of seven hours on these activities. 

The need for a translator was identified after the 2011 implementation since there is a large Hispanic 

population in this area. Volunteers spent a total of five hours helping paid staff with distribution of 

the backpacks. 
28 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

Table 5-6c. Kansas Backpack demonstration project staffing 

cccccccccccccc.

ponsor/State 

dddddddddddd

o. Sites 

eeeeeeeeeeeeee.

umber of 

ffffffffffffff.full

-time staff* 

gggggggggggggg.

umber of 

hhhhhhhhhhhhh

art-time staff* 

iiiiiiiiiiiiii. N

umber of 

jjjjjjjjjjjjjj. v

olunteer staff 

kkkkkkkkkkkkk

ob titles 

llllllllllllll.

rkansas City 

Unified School 

District (USD) 470 

mmmmmmmmnnnnnnnnnnnnn ooooooooooooo pppppppppppp Program 

Director 

 Administrat

ive support 

staff 

 School 

social 

worker 

 Food 

Distribution 

Manager 

 Translator*

* 

 Distribution 

volunteers 

qqqqqqqqqqqqqq.

entral Unified 

School District 

(USD) 462 

rrrrrrrrrrrrrr. ssssssssssssss. tttttttttttttt. uuuuuuuuuuuu

+ 

 Project 

Manager 

 Site 

coordinator

s 

 Clerical 

staff 

 Van driver 

 Head 

Volunteer 

 Site 

volunteers 

 
29 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

Table 5-6c. Kansas Backpack demonstration project staffing (continued)

vvvvvvvvvvvvvv

ponsor/State 

wwwwwwwww

o. Sites 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

umber of 

yyyyyyyyyyyyyy.

ull-time staff* 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

umber of 

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

art-time staff* 

bbbbbbbbbbbbb

umber of 

ccccccccccccccc.

olunteer staff 

dddddddddddd

ob titles 

eeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

ast Central Kansas 

Economic 

Opportunity 

Corporation 

(ECKAN) 

fffffffffffffff. gggggggggggggg hhhhhhhhhhhhh iiiiiiiiiiiiiii.

 to 6 

 Program 

Manager 

 ECKAN 

CEO 

 Warehou

se 

manager 

 SFSP 

staff 

 Volunteer 

Coordina

tor 

 Volunteer

s 

jjjjjjjjjjjjjjj.

ardner Edgerton 

Unified School 

District 

kkkkkkkkkkkkk lllllllllllllll. mmmmmmmmmnnnnnnnnnnnnn Program 

Director 

 Site 

lead/hig

h school 

kitchen 

manager 

 Bookkee

per 

 Custodia

ns 

 Translato

r 

(Spanish 

teacher) 

 Volunteer

s 

ooooooooooooooo

awrence Public 

Schools Unified 

School District 

(USD) 497 

pppppppppppp qqqqqqqqqqqqq

1 

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. sssssssssssssss.  Director 

of Food 

Services 

 Administr

ative 

support 

staff 

 Food 

services 

staff 

 Site 

manager

s 

 SFSP 

staff 
30 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

 Volunteer

s 

 Drivers 

ttttttttttttttt.

opeka Public 

Schools 

uuuuuuuuuuuu vvvvvvvvvvvvvv wwwwwwwwwwxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Project 

Manager 

 School 

District 

administrati

ve oversight 

staff 

 School Food 

Service 

employees 

yyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.

nited Methodist 

Church 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa bbbbbbbbbbbbb cccccccccccccccc  Project 

Director 

 Backup to 

Project 

Director 

 School year 

Backpack 

Program 

Manager 

 Administrati

ve support 

staff 

 Bag 

packers/m

eal 

distributors 

 Driver 

* Refers to paid staff employment status with sponsor agency or affiliated agency 

**Worked specifically on the Backpack demonstration 

 
31 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

The Central Unified School District (USD) 462 distributed backpacks in conjunction with SFSP 

meals at an elementary school and three churches (four sites). Staffing was a combination of four 

paid school district staff and volunteers at the church sites. The role of demonstration Project 

Manager was fulfilled by the School District Superintendent, who is also the school district’s Food 

Service Director and the Principal of the elementary school where the SFSP meals were offered. The 

Project Manager spent about 12 hours a month conducting start-up activities for the demonstration 

during the two months prior to summer operation. Once backpack distribution was underway, the 

Project Manager spent about two hours a month on activities related to the demonstration, including 

serving as the sponsor lead, overall management, hiring/staffing, quality control monitoring, 

training, outreach, and site coordination. There were three site coordinators (one coordinator 

covered two sites) who each spent between one to four hours each week conducting activities for 

the demonstration. Two of the three were paid, and their responsibilities included putting the meal 

bags together, delivering them to the sites, distributing the backpacks, tracking the numbers of 

meals, and cleanup. The volunteer site coordinator managed the volunteers at her location, 

distributed backpacks, used a data form to keep track of meal counts, and helped with clean up. A 

clerical staff member at the school district office spent about 30 minutes a week to collect and report 

data to FNS and Westat and handle purchase orders and expense claim forms. A van driver was 

added to the staff for the 2012 implementation to deliver meals for the backpacks to two of the sites 

and to help with distribution of backpacks in one of those sites. He spent two hours a week on these 

tasks. Volunteers at the church sites spent an hour a week helping to hand out backpacks. 

The East Central Economic Opportunity Corporation (ECKAN) (Table 5-6c) provided 

backpacks through the demonstration to youth receiving SFSP meals at a local community center 

and used the same staffing plan for the 2011 and 2012 implementation. Most of the demonstration 

work was carried out by five paid staff members with support from four to six volunteers. Paid staff 

typically each spent about two hours a week on demonstration activities. The Program Manager 

handled administrative tasks such as financial and project data reporting and occasionally helped 

monitor the meal distribution. He spent 10 hours conducting activities to gear up for the 2012 

demonstration, and then two hours a week once backpack delivery was underway. ECKAN’s Chief 

Executive Officer (CEO) was present on most meal distribution days, helped conduct site 

monitoring, and ran the volunteer training in 2012. The Warehouse Manager coordinated delivery of 

meals to the warehouse and to the site and monitored food quality. Paid SFSP staff on site at the 

community center distributed the meal bags. Meal bags were packed each week by four to six 

volunteers who each spent about 30 minutes on this task. A volunteer coordinator spent 10 hours 

across the project conducting training and organizing the site volunteers. 
32 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

The Gardner Edgerton Unified School District (Table 5-6c) offered backpacks at an elementary 

school that provided SFSP meals in this district. Five paid staff and five volunteers supported 2012 

implementation. The Program Director spent 10 hours a week between January and April 

conducting activities to prepare for the 2012 backpack distribution and one hour a week while 

distribution was underway between June and August. A high school kitchen manager was added to 

the staffing for 2012 and took over the Director’s prior role as site lead, providing oversight of 

packing and distribution of the meal bags. The site lead also coordinated student volunteers and 

spent three hours a week on all demonstration tasks. A bookkeeper spent three hours a month 

processing expense claims and vendor invoices. School custodians spent two hours a month 

transporting the food for the meals to the room where they would be assembled into the meal bags. 

Five student volunteers assembled the meals bags and helped distribute them, which took a total of 

two hours a week. A Spanish teacher in the district was paid for four hours of work in June to 

translate materials and help conduct outreach with Spanish speaking families. 

At least 14 staff supported the Lawrence Public Schools Unified School District to provide 

backpacks to youth at six SFSP meal sites in 2012 (Table 5-6c). Staff members were a mixture of 

paid school district staff and volunteers. The Director of Food Services was in charge of general 

program management, meal planning and staff training. Her duties required that she spend two 

hours a month on preparation activities for the 2012 demonstration and then an hour a week once 

the backpack distribution was underway. The Director was in charge of the day-to-day program 

management in 2011 but transferred these duties to another school district Food Services staff 

member in 2012. This new staff member oversaw all weekly meal procurement, preparation and 

packing, which took seven hours a week to perform. Meal bags were packed by three volunteers and 

paid SFSP staff. Volunteers each spent four hours a week setting up meal items and packing meal 

bags, and SFSP staff spent nine hours total each week packing the meal bags. Each of the six sites 

had a Site Manager, who distributed the backpacks and tracked the number of bags given out each 

week - tasks that took about 15 minutes a week for each Site Manager. Two drivers each spent two 

hours a week picking up the food for the meals from local grocers and delivering the backpacks to 

the sites. 

Topeka Public Schools (Table 5-6c) provided backpacks through the demonstration to youth 

receiving SFSP meals at one of its magnet schools. The Project Manager was the lead at the sponsor 

level, and spent four to five hours a month conducting weekly site visits and quality control 

monitoring, tracking expenses and maintaining communication with the site staff. She also provided 

data to FNS and Westat and conducted training for site staff. The Project Manager’s supervisor at 

Topeka Public Schools was responsible for high-level program oversight and spent about an hour a 
33 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

month on tasks such as completion of financial claims and data forms. At the site level, two School 

Food Service employees worked together to assemble and distribute meal bags, track/count the 

meals distributed, and collect information for the sponsor. Both School Food Service employees 

were paid for their services; one spent 16 hours and the other eight hours total working on the 

demonstration. 

Finally, the United Methodist Church (UMC) in Kansas had the support of six staff in providing 

backpacks through the demonstration to children receiving SFSP meals at the single sponsor 

location (Table 5-6c). The Project Director was the sponsor lead, and was responsible for overall 

management of the demonstration, data collection for FNS and Westat, hiring and training staff, and 

completing expense claims. These duties took 12 to 15 hours a week for the first two weeks of 

operation, and then eight hours a week after that. The Project Director had a back-up lead that 

attended the State training and filled in for the Project Director when necessary. This typically took 

about four hours of her time a week. Both the Project Director and her back-up lead volunteered 

their time to work on the demonstration but submitted claims to the grant for mileage 

reimbursement on longer trips. The UMC’s School Year Backpack Program Manager also 

volunteered her time to help with food ordering, backpack distribution, and hiring project staff. 

These duties took her 12 to 15 hours a week to conduct during the first two weeks of operation and 

then eight hours a week after meal distribution was underway. An additional two paid staff at the 

meal site spent about five hours filling the meal bags with food and distributing them. An 

administrative support staff member spent five hours a week maintaining meal distribution data and 

helping to pack the bags and distribute them, as needed. The meals were packed and stored at a local 

high school, and a paid driver spent two hours a week transporting the meals to the site. 

5.5.2.3 Ohio 

Andrew’s House provided backpacks to youth who received meals through the traditional SFSP at 

a local elementary school (one site). Four paid staff and five volunteers supported the demonstration 

in 2012 (Table 5-6d). The Director of Andrew’s House spent eight to ten hours each month 

conducting project management duties, such as recordkeeping and budgetary tasks. A staff member 

who conducted the administrative tasks for Andrews House incorporated six hours of related duties 

for the Backpack demonstration into his workload. Two cafeteria staff that functioned as SFSP Site 

Coordinators integrated food ordering, preparation, packaging and other activities for the Backpack 

demonstration into their duties for the traditional SFSP meal site. These women spent two to four 

hours a week preparing the meals for the backpacks and one hour a week distributing backpacks to 
34 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

the children after the SFSP meal. Five site volunteers for the traditional SFSP helped the Site 

Coordinators hand out the backpacks on distribution days. 

Ten staff supported Ashtabula County Children Services to provide backpacks to youth at six 

open SFSP meal sites around the county (Table 5-6d). The Project Director, who managed the 

traditional SFSP program for this agency, oversaw all management, administrative and operational 

tasks for the demonstration, including ordering food for the backpack meals. The Project Director 

estimated that she spent 10-12 hours a week working on tasks specifically for the Backpack 

demonstration. For about a week and half toward the end of the demonstration, the Project 

Director worked with the agency’s Finance Director to prepare claims, which took about two hours 

a day. The eight site coordinators were from Youth Opportunity Works and AmeriCorps and 

worked across the six SFSP meal sites. Two worked at each meal site (some covered more than one 

site) and were responsible for packing the meals into backpacks at the sponsor location, transporting 

them to the meal sites, and distributing the backpacks. Each site coordinator spent eight to ten 

hours a week working on the demonstration. 

The Community Action Organization of Scioto County (CAO) provided backpacks to children 

that received SFSP meals at 25 feeding sites around the county. 43 In 2012, the CAO had the support 

of 35 paid staff to support the demonstration, all of which worked on the traditional SFSP. Staff 

members were a combination of CAO administrative staff (an Operations Director and two 

Program Specialists) and SFSP site staff (local union workers and youth from work experience 

programs). Meals for the backpacks were prepared at a central kitchen and were delivered to the 

meal sites by SFSP site staff along with the traditional SFSP meals. Some of the meal sites were 

assisted by SFSP volunteers to hand out the backpacks after the SFSP meal; otherwise this was done 

by the SFSP site staff. 

 

 

43 The number of meal sites that offered backpacks through this sponsor changed throughout the summer, as 

some were closed and others opened. 
35 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

Table 5-6d. Ohio Backpack demonstration project staffing 

Sponsor/State No. Sites 

Number 

of 

full-time 

staff* 

Number of 

part-time 

staff* 

Number of 

volunteer 

staff Job titles 

Andrews House 1 4 0 5  Project Director 

 Administrative support 

staff 

 SFSP site 

supervisors/cafeteria staff 

 SFSP site volunteers 

Ashtabula County 

Children Services 

6 2 8 0  Project Director 

 SFSP Site Coordinators 

 Finance Director 

Community Action 

Organization of Scioto 

County 

27 35 0 Varied by 

site 

 Operations Director

 Program Specialists 

 SFSP site staff 

 SFSP site volunteers 

Hamilton Living Water 

Ministry, Inc. 

2 2 5 4+  Project Manager

 Administrative support 

staff 

 Youth Center staff 

 SFSP staff 

 SFSP volunteers 

Hocking Athens Perry 

Community Action 

Agency 

13 35 0 50  Food and Nutrition 

Operations Specialist** 

 Administrative support 

staff** 

 Food bank Manager 

 Kitchen staff 

 SFSP Site Managers 

 SFSP staff 

 Delivery drivers 

 Volunteers 

Whole Again 

International 

5 3 Varied by 

site 

Varied by 

site 

 Pastor/Project Manager

 Coordinator** 

 Director of Programming 

and Financing 

 Caterer 

 Site Managers 

 Food supervisors 

 Delivery drivers 

 Site staff 

 Volunteers 

* Refers to paid staff employment status with sponsor agency or affiliated agency 

**Worked specifically on the Backpack demonstration 

 
36 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

The Hamilton Living Water Ministry provided backpacks at two of the seven SFSP meal sites 

that it sponsored in 2012 -- at the sponsor agency and a local youth center. The demonstration was 

supported by seven paid staff, four AmeriCorps volunteers, and various site volunteers (e.g., older 

teens) throughout the summer. The Program Manager was responsible for all management, program 

administration and data reporting. Administrative support staff at the sponsor agency conducted the 

billing, program documentation and data tracking tasks. Four paid SFSP staff served as lead staff for 

the meal sites, and they were supported by four AmeriCorps volunteers. Additional volunteers 

helped at the sites over the summer weeks and represented churches, people from the 

neighborhood, students from colleges, and older teens. Paid staff and volunteers helped assemble 

the meals for the backpacks and distributed them as the youth left in the afternoon. During the site 

interview the Program Manager reported that it was hard to specify the amount of time spent on 

tasks for the demonstration because there was so much overlap with the traditional SFSP; 

“...everyone does a little bit of everything from unloading food to assembling the backpacks.” 

The Hocking, Athens and Perry Community Action Agency (CAA) distributed backpacks for 

the demonstration at 13 traditional SFSP meal sites located in libraries, churches, community centers 

and schools in Hocking, Athens, and Perry counties. Thirty-five paid staff and 50 volunteers 

supported the Backpack demonstration over the summer weeks that the project was in operation. 

Two paid staff at the sponsor agency were dedicated specifically to the demonstration project - the 

Food and Nutrition Operations Specialist and her assistant. The Food and Nutrition Operations 

Specialist spent three to four hours a week on project management and oversight activities and 

project administration duties. Her assistant maintained meal count data and conducted quality 

control and monitoring, activities that took two to three hours a week to complete. The CAA is the 

regional food bank for this part of the state, and packaging and assembly of the backpack meals by 

kitchen staff was coordinated by the Food Bank Manager. Four food bank delivery drivers 

transported the meals to the sites where they were distributed by SFSP Site Managers, staff and 

volunteers. At one site, a Medicaid transportation driver distributed backpacks to the children as he 

dropped the children at their home. 

Whole Again International (WAI) provided backpacks to youth that received SFSP meals at six of 

its 26 SFSP meal sites. About sixteen paid staff and several volunteers at each site supported the 

demonstration. There were three staff members at the sponsor level that were dedicated to the 

Backpack demonstration project. The pastor and founder of WAI served as the Program Manager 

for both project years and spent about an hour a week conducting overall management and 

oversight of the project. Day-to-day operations were handled by the Project Coordinator, who spent 

4 hours a day working on the demonstration. The staff member that held this position in 2012 had 
37 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

replaced the person who served as the Coordinator in 2011. WAI’s Director of Programming and 

Financing spent an hour a week tracking program expenditures, two hours a week conducting 

trainings, and about an hour helping to pack and distribute backpacks when needed. Staffing at the 

site level was increased in 2012 to help sites manage operations of the Backpack demonstration in 

conjunction with traditional SFSP duties. Both paid part-time and volunteer staff worked at the 

meals sites. Many were retired teachers, social workers, and volunteers that traveled from different 

parts of the county to help out with the summer programs. AmeriCorps also provided 15 volunteers 

to help out at the sites over the summer. For 2012, the sponsor hired a local food vendor/caterer, to 

prepare, package and deliver all the SFSP meals to the sites, including the backpack meals. Two paid 

drivers delivered the backpack meals to the five sites, and this took four to five hours per week total. 

Each of the five sites had a Site Manager and Food Supervisor that helped the paid part-time staff 

and volunteers to distribute the backpacks when needed. 

5.6 Outreach and Recruitment 

In the second year of operation, both Meal Delivery and Backpack demonstration project sponsors 

conducted outreach and recruitment to inform the public about the project and recruit eligible 

participants. Several sponsors made a special effort to increase the number of delivery locations and 

SFSP sites that distributed meals and backpacks in order to increase participation. Approaches to 

outreach and recruitment used by each of the six states implementing the two types of 

demonstration projects are summarized below. 

5.6.1 Meal Delivery Demonstration Project 

Meal delivery demonstration project sponsors, rather than the State agencies, were primarily 

responsible for outreach and recruitment activities in 2012, as they were in 2011. Because eligibility 

for the Meal Delivery project was tied to eligibility for school meal programs, the sponsors again 

worked closely with the school districts to identify eligible participants for their projects. In addition 

to working with the schools, sponsors in the three Meal Delivery demonstration project states used a 

variety of outreach methods (Table 5-7). 
38 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

Table 5-7. Summary of outreach efforts by Meal Delivery sponsors 

Outreach activities 

Sponsors 

Food Bank 

of 

Delaware 

(DE) 

YMCA of 

Cape Cod 

(MA) 

Food Bank 

of Southern 

Tier (NY) 

North RoseWolcott 

Central 

School 

District (NY)

Mailing to families (via school or public aid 

agency)   

Food pantry postings/announcements  

Distribution/posting of flyers    

Distribution of materials by community 

organizations and churches    

Press release, public service announcement (PSA)   

Collaboration with churches 

Community kickoff event  

Word of mouth by families   

Door to door solicitation  

In Delaware, two consultants were hired with demonstration funds to conduct many of the 

implementation tasks, including outreach and recruitment. These consultants increased outreach 

efforts to reach more families. To prepare for implementation of the 2012 program, the Food Bank 

of Delaware also positioned a volunteer staff member as Outreach Coordinator for the project and 

ensured that staff had ample time to conduct more vigorous outreach methods to recruit new meal 

sites. Outreach activities included flyer distribution through community partners (e.g., food pantries, 

the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program [SNAP]), mailings to parents of school-age children 

who were eligible to receive reduced price meals, door to door solicitation, and use of mailing lists 

from housing developments, such as trailer parks. The consultants and State agency staff reported 

that outreach and recruitment efforts were improved and increased in 2012, and the consultants 

suggested that hiring someone to focus solely on outreach and recruitment would be a good idea for 

future implementation of the demonstration. Sponsor staff also identified potential meal delivery 

sites by driving through areas of the underserved regions. 

In Massachusetts, sponsor staff reported that outreach efforts in 2012 were increased and also 

more targeted, which was, reportedly, a successful approach for Massachusetts. The sponsor hired 

an Outreach Coordinator who conducted the outreach and recruitment for the project. The 

Outreach Coordinator worked with the schools to identify eligible families for the project, and then 

called and sent targeted mailings. School guidance counselors also helped the Outreach Coordinator 

identify and communicate with eligible families. In addition, flyers about the project went home in 
39 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

the backpacks of students in May and June, and the schools implemented robocalls (automated 

telephone calls) to families about the project. Flyers were distributed by project partners, including 

Project Bread; the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program; Transitional Assistance; and the 

UMASS Extension. Flyers were also placed in churches, food pantries, and other community 

organizations. Lastly, the Outreach Coordinator helped organize community outreach events, such 

as “Make Your Own Smoothie,” which was held in one of the apartment complexes and advertised 

as a “fun and free” event. Families were given the ingredients to make a smoothie on site and also 

learned about the “free, home-delivered breakfast and lunch for kids age 1-18 during the summer.” 

Recruitment at the two additional towns in Barnstable County consisted of outreach at public events 

in those towns during April and May 2012. The Outreach Coordinator also met with school 

guidance counselors in the two towns, who, in turn, helped coordinate the printing of promotional 

information about the demonstration on the back of the May and June school lunch menus. 

Outreach to families was also conducted by YMCA staff knocking on doors, and working with WIC 

and other community organizations to identify children in need of summer food. 

In New York, the two sponsors worked closely with schools and community groups to identify and 

recruit eligible participants for the demonstration. Community partners involved in outreach 

included churches, food banks/pantries, advocacy groups, Rotary Clubs, Lions Clubs, mobile food 

pantries, and other social services agencies, such as the local SNAP (food stamp) offices. The 

schools systems advertised the project on its websites, and sponsor staff worked closely with school 

staff to identify and communicate with eligible families. Lastly, the sponsors issued press releases 

through various media outlets, including television, newspaper and radio. 

The North Rose-Wolcott Central School District in New York conducted outreach in a variety of 

ways to increase the numbers of children that would be served at each of the five sites in 2012, 

including: 

 Sending letters about the demonstration to parents/guardians of all children in the 

school district that were eligible to receive free or reduced school lunches; 

 Sending letters to all families that had been enrolled in the 2011 Meal Delivery program; 

 Having meal site volunteers pass the word about the program around their 

communities; 

 Promoting the demonstration during community presentations about child nutrition; and, 

 Posting information about the program on the CSD website. 
40 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

Additionally, staff at the housing authority apartment complex promoted the project by telling all 

new residents about it, passing the word about it around the complex, and including the 2012 

enrollment form in the monthly newsletter. 

5.6.2 Backpack Demonstration Project 

The Backpack demonstration project sponsors were also responsible for outreach and recruitment 

for the projects. The sponsors in Arizona, Kansas, and Ohio implemented a range of outreach 

activities in order to inform parents about the Backpack demonstration project (Table 5-8). 

Most sponsors sent some form of flyer or letter home to parents with students (see Appendix R for 

examples). 

Table 5-8. Summary of outreach activities for the Backpack demonstration project 

Outreach activities Number of sponsors 

Distribution/posting of flyers 16 

Letter/flyer to families (via school) 11 

Website of school or sponsor 9 

Media release (newspaper, newsletters, radio) 8 

Word of mouth by families 8 

Announcements at community events/churches 5 

Digital/lawn signs 3 

Social media (Facebook) 2 

In Arizona, the sponsors sent flyers home with students during the last couple of weeks of school, 

informing parents of the Backpack demonstration project. Information was also posted on the 

school district’s website as well as a Facebook page. Outreach materials in Arizona were translated 

into Spanish and distributed in grocery stores and school offices. One of the sponsors engaged the 

media for outreach, resulting in a small article in the local newspaper highlighting the project. The 

other two sponsors indicated a reluctance to engage the media due to concerns about attracting too 

many eligible participants. It was reported that word-of-mouth also was an effective method of 

outreach in Arizona. Another method used by one sponsor was to advertise the project on the 

school marquees and electronic road signs on the highways. 

Outreach methods used in Kansas differed among sponsors. A sponsor like Lawrence, which has a 

well-established feeding program in a highly populated area, reported that it did not need to expend 
41 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

many resources for outreach. The sponsor sent flyers home with students in the schools and 

advertised on the school website. In the Central Unified School District 462, which encompasses 

rural parts of Kansas, outreach appeared to be taken more seriously because the project was 

struggling to attract participants. The sponsor sent home flyers with each student’s report card, 

issued a press release in the local newspaper, advertised the project on the school website, and 

posted flyers in all of the post offices, restaurants, churches, and gas stations in the four towns 

where there were Backpack sites that participated in the demonstration project (Burden, Grenola, 

Cambridge, and Atlanta). 

In Gardner, Kansas, which has a large Spanish-speaking population, the sponsor engaged the 

Spanish teacher at the local school to assist with outreach. The sponsor reported that the Spanish 

teacher was able to build trust between the families who did not speak English to facilitate 

participation in the project among Spanish-speaking families. The sponsor in Arkansas City also 

used a school social worker, to assist with communicating with eligible families, which the sponsor 

believed was responsible for increased participation. Some of the sponsors in Kansas increased 

outreach efforts in 2012 and some pared them down. In 2011, Gardner was reluctant to conduct 

outreach to the whole community for fear of attracting too many participants and only sent flyers to 

those students already receiving free or reduced price lunch at school. In 2012, however, the 

Gardner sponsor changed approaches and opened outreach to all students. According to the 

sponsor, 33 additional participants were added to the demonstration in 2012, which was not too 

many to accommodate. 

In 2011, the East Central Kansas Economic Opportunity Corporation sponsor promoted the 

project in the local newspaper, radio, and television. Because they thought the radio and newspaper 

ads were not worth the cost, in 2012, the sponsor opted for a more targeted approach, using less 

media and more direct outreach to students in the schools. According to the sponsor, the direct 

approach yielded them a marked increase in participation. 

In Ohio, the sponsors used both the school system and churches to conduct a large part of the 

outreach and recruitment. Sponsors sent letters home with students at the end of the school year, 

posted flyers on the school websites, placed flyers in the backpacks from the year-round back 

program, supplied teachers with flyers to distribute, and attended teachers’ union meetings. In 

addition, most of the sponsors in Ohio engaged church leaders to help advertise the project, 

resulting in flyer distribution and posting on church bulletin boards. All sponsors in Ohio indicated 

that word of mouth was another effective outreach method. In addition, many of the sponsors in 

Ohio advertised the demonstration project through the press, placing stories in the local newspapers 
42 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

and on local radio and television stations. One sponsor included the project flyers in residents’ utility 

bills; another posted project details on Facebook; another piggybacked on other community events 

(e.g., a multicultural festival); and another mailed packets to community organizations asking them 

to conduct door-to-door outreach for the project. 

5.7 Provision of Demonstration Benefits 

The main purpose of each demonstration project was to increase access to food in the summer in 

order to stabilize food security for children in need. Every key informant we interviewed stressed 

that feeding the children was why they worked so hard and knew these projects were such a valuable 

resource for their communities. Many stated that parents had told them that they never could have 

provided a comparable quality of food for their children just with their SNAP benefits. A handful of 

sponsors even reported that local pediatricians and teachers had noted the positive impact that the 

summer food had on participants’ health and success in the classroom over the past year. Most 

sponsors reported taking pride in their menus and making a concerted effort to provide food that 

was healthy, yet still appealing to the children. Since this was the second year these demonstration 

projects were in operation, the sponsors had the benefit of learning from what the children liked and 

did not like in summer 2011, allowing them to run higher quality programs in 2012.44 Additionally, 

since this was the second year, sponsors were able to keep vendors they were pleased with in 2011, 

or change to new vendors if they thought it was necessary. 

An important similarity regarding the food provided by all demonstration projects was that they all 

followed USDA meal patterns, which are required for SFSP reimbursement. A reimbursable 

breakfast includes one serving of milk, one serving of fruit/vegetable, and one serving of 

grains/bread, while a reimbursable lunch includes one serving of milk, two servings of 

fruit/vegetable, one serving of grains/bread, and one serving of meat/meat alternative. Every 

sponsor developed menus that met the same Federal regulations, although some States have their 

own regulations that go above and beyond those mandated by USDA. Although everyone was 

working within a similar framework, there was much diversity among the foods provided, often due 

to cultural preferences, local food availability in different parts of the country, and the way food 

needed to be distributed in each type of demonstration project. 

 

44 Parents’ satisfaction with the healthiness, variety, and convenience of food was high in 2011 and remained high in 2012. Their 

perception that the children liked the food provided increased slightly in 2012 (65.7 percent said the food was what their children 

liked about the program in 2011 and 69.6 percent gave that response in 2012). 
43 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

All sponsors reported that effort was made to accommodate allergies or special requests if they were 

made. Some sponsors played it safe by serving no peanut products, while others waited to see if a 

peanut allergy was noted. A few indicated that they had a handful of children with lactose 

intolerance for whom they provided soy milk, or children who were allergic to certain kinds of 

juices. The majority of sponsors indicated that no special requests for vegetarian options or allergies 

were reported. 

5.7.1 Meal Delivery Demonstration Project 

The Meal Delivery and Backpack demonstration projects both had to provide foods that would be 

able to be packaged up for future consumption. The main difference between the demonstrations 

was that the Meal Delivery demonstration did not need to prepare shelf-stable meals, whereas the 

Backpack demonstration did. Some Meal Delivery sponsors opted to provide only cold meals, while 

others chose a combination of cold meals and hot meals intended to be heated at meal time. Both 

Delaware and Massachusetts reported that they used State nutrition guidelines that went above and 

beyond what is required by USDA. Delaware did not allow any fried foods, only provided whole 

grain breads, and all foods had to have fewer than six grams of sugar. Massachusetts used Project 

Bread’s Better Summer Meals Initiative, which includes requirements such as no trans fats, only skim or 

1 percent milk, no fried foods, and no use of condiments that are not low in saturated fats. 

In all three Meal Delivery States, meals were prepared in one central location and then delivered to 

the sites and individual homes (Table 5-9). In Delaware and New York, all food was delivered to 

sites where the food was picked up by the child, parent, or proxy. Massachusetts delivered directly to 

pick-up sites where food was picked by a child, parent, or proxy as well as to private homes where 

the food was received at the front door of the home. All sponsors maintained rosters with all the 

registered children, and specific names were checked off as meals were picked up or received for 

delivery. 
44 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

Table 5-9. Operational details for the Meal Delivery demonstration program, summer 2012 

State 

Delivery 

location Days in operation Meals provided

Delaware Pick-up site  Deliveries Monday through Friday

 On Fridays, all deliveries contained food for three days 

Breakfast and 

Lunch 

Massachusetts Pick-up site 

and 

individual 

homes 

 Deliveries on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays in 

Barnstable 

 Deliveries on Tuesdays and Thursdays in Bourne and 

Mashpee 

 On Mondays-Thursdays food provided for two days; on 

Fridays, food provided for three days 

Breakfast and 

Lunch 

New York Pick-up site  For the Food Bank of the Southern Tier, delivery only on 

Wednesdays; food provided for four days 

 For the North Rose-Wolcott Central School District, 

delivery on Mondays for three sites, delivery on Friday 

for two sites; all deliveries contained food for 4 days 

Breakfast and 

Lunch 

Additional information on Meal Delivery implementation was obtained from household surveys of 

parents or caregivers of project participants (Table 5-10). 

Table 5-10. Responses to questions on Meal Delivery implementation* 

Question Response No. Percent

Meal delivery at home: 

Did you or someone else have to be home at 

the time of meal delivery? 

Yes 29 82.9

Did you have to sign your name or show an 

ID each time you received the meal delivery? 

No 32 91.4

Meal delivery at drop-off site: 

How far did you have to travel to pick up 

the meals from (name of program)? 

One mile or less 101 66.5

 More than one mile 51 33.6

Did you have to sign your name or show an 

ID each time you received the meal delivery? 

Yes 90 60.4

* Information obtained only from those parents/caregivers who participated in the telephone survey 

Among those whose meals were delivered at home (only in Massachusetts), 29 or 83 percent 

indicated that someone had to be home at the time of meal delivery to receive the food. More than 

91 percent reported that they did not have to sign their name or show an ID for each meal delivery. 

Most meal deliveries took place at a drop-off site where parents, caregivers or a proxy picked up the 

meals at a central location. About one-third of those who picked up meals at a drop-off site 

indicated that they had to travel more than a mile to pick up the meals. About sixty percent were 

required to sign their name or show an ID each time they received the meals. 
45 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

Delaware. The Food Bank of Delaware reported that operational details were the same in 2012 as 

they were in 2011. All food either came pre-packaged from vendors or was prepared in one central 

location. Meals were delivered in wax bags which had a sticker to inform the child or parent that the 

bag should be placed in the refrigerator until eaten. All bags were kept in coolers at the site until they 

were picked up. All meals were cold. At the beginning of the demonstration, the sponsor provided 

all participants with insulated bags that were large enough to carry several meals at one time. 

Additionally, the participants were also provided with ice packs to keep the meals cold during 

transport. 

A typical breakfast from the Delaware sponsor consisted of milk, fruit (fresh or pre-packaged) and a 

bagel, muffin, or cereal. A typical lunch consisted of milk, fruit (fresh, pre-packaged, or raisins), and 

a sandwich on wheat bread. Peanut butter and jelly crackers, fresh fruit, tuna cups, and “submarine” 

sandwiches were the most popular foods, according to key informants. The sponsor also reported 

that some children were introduced to fresh fruit for the first time with this project. For example, 

some of them did not previously know what a whole apple or pear looked like. Favorite foods 

reported by sponsors included fresh fruit, salads, chicken breast sandwiches, and tuna cups 

(Table 5-11). 

Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, the meals were all prepared in the kitchen of Sandwich High 

School (a location change from 2011). The sponsor procured food from two different vendors and 

also received produce from the South Shore YMCA’s community garden. Meals were delivered in a 

cooler bag with an ice pack, and the families were expected to return the bags so that they could be 

reused. Although all meals were delivered cold, Massachusetts also provided some hot meals that 

were intended to be re-heated. The Massachusetts sponsor appeared to provide more variety in its 

menus than the other two Meal Delivery States. Breakfast items included the standard milk and fruit 

but also included items such as bagels, hard boiled eggs, yogurt, sausages, pancakes, and pigs in a 

blanket, in addition to cereal and muffins. There was also more variation in lunch items. Fresh fruit 

and vegetables went beyond raisins and carrot sticks and included cucumber wedges, steamed 

summer squash, steamed broccoli, zucchini, and raw green pepper slices. Entrees included 

turkey/ham/roast beef and cheese sandwiches, meatball subs, chef salads with ranch dressing, 

herbed baked chicken, mozzarella and pita bread, hot dogs, chicken patties, veggie burgers, baked 

sweet potatoes, and chicken parmesan. 

The Massachusetts sponsor reported that hot meals like the baked chicken and meatballs were the 

most popular, as well as cups with hummus and pretzels, kiwis, and veggie burgers (Table 5-11). At 
46 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

the time of the interview, the sponsor was trying to figure out how to incorporate fish into the 

menu. Additions to the menu for 2012 included Greek yogurt, cottage cheese, and hummus. Food 

was packaged into reusable plastic containers that the families can then reuse on their own. 

New York. Like Delaware, New York’s Food Bank of the Southern Tier (FBST) provided all cold 

meals, which were delivered out of a refrigerated truck. Operational details were the same as they 

were in 2011. Deliveries in paper grocery bags were made to six sites - parking lots in elementary 

schools, fire stations, and churches – between 3:00 pm and 6:30 pm. The FBST truck carried all 

meals to be delivered for that day, so a family could pick up its meals from another site if it could 

not get to a regular pickup site on time. 

Foods were specifically chosen by the sponsor to have high shelf-stability and a low potential for 

food-borne illness. Breakfasts typically consisted of milk, cereal, juice, yogurt, and graham crackers. 

Lunches were typically milk, sandwiches with meat, peanut butter and jelly Uncrustables®, and fresh 

fruit or cut vegetables. After the 2011 program ended, the sponsor sent out a survey to all 

parents/guardians to obtain their feedback on various components of the program. Feedback from 

the survey was similar to what they had received verbally and confirmed that the favorite foods were 

microwavable macaroni and cheese, yogurt, and peanut butter and jelly Uncrustables® (Table 5-11) 

At the North Rose-Wolcott CSD, food was purchased from the same vendors that were used for 

SFSP and during the school year. One of the pick-up sites had a community garden in summer 2012, 

and volunteers at that site added bags of fresh produce to meals. Menu-planning focused on single 

servings of foods that did not require much preparation. Meals were packaged in one central 

location and then delivered to sites on Mondays and Fridays (one delivery day assigned per site) in a 

North Rose-Wolcott CSD van equipped with coolers and refrigerated mats for perishables. On 

delivery days, volunteers at each site received the meal packages and handed them out to parents or 

guardians of enrolled children. Each child received bags that contained four days’ worth of 

breakfasts and lunches. All operational details were the same as in 2011, except that the site of 

central meal packaging changed from the middle school kitchen to the high school kitchen. 

For meal planning, the North Rose-Wolcott sponsor designed meals to be nutritious but also 

convenient for families to prepare. Both hot and cold foods were included. Breakfasts included 

cereal bars, microwavable breakfast sandwiches, milk, and juices. Lunch items included 

microwavable meals (such as Beef-a-Roni and macaroni and cheese), peanut butter and jelly 

Uncrustables®, hamburgers, vegetables, juices, and milk. This sponsor chose to provide the milk in 
47 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

Table 5-11. Children’s favorite foods reported by sponsors 

State Sponsor Favorite food items reported 

Meal Delivery

DE Food Bank of Delaware Fresh fruit, salads, chicken breast sandwiches, tuna 

cups 

MA YMCA of Cape Cod Hummus cups with pretzel chips, kiwis, veggie 

burgers, hot meals like roasted chicken or 

meatballs 

NY Food Bank of the Southern Tier Microwavable macaroni and cheese, PB&J 

Uncrustables® 

NY North Rose-Wolcott Central School District String cheese, yogurt, PB&J Uncrustables®, 

sandwiches 

Backpack

AZ Chandler Unified School District Not reported

AZ Litchfield Elementary School District Not reported

AZ Mesa Public Schools Macaroni and cheese, pop tarts 

KS Arkansas City Unified School District 470 Milk, sun butter, cheese, sunflower seeds

KS Central Unified School District 462 Beef sticks, cheese

KS East Central Kansas Economic Opportunity 

Corporation 

Not reported

KS Gardner Edgerton Unified School District Not reported

KS Lawrence Public Schools USD 497 Not reported

KS Topeka Public Schools Cereal bars, sun flower seeds, trail mix 

KS United Methodist Church Cheese sticks, cheese wiz, sun butter 

OH Andrews House, Inc. Not reported

OH Ashtabula County Children Services Cereal bars

OH Community Action Organization of Scioto 

County 

Juice, bananas, graham crackers, chili 

OH Hamilton Living Water Ministry, Inc. Baked Cheetos®, Juicy Juice 

OH Hocking Athens Perry Community Action 

Agency 

Chocolate milk, macaroni and cheese 

OH Whole Again International Chocolate milk, fresh fruit 

a one-half gallon container of one percent milk for each child. The sponsor reported not receiving 

much feedback on the foods in 2012, but in 2011 she had received positive feedback about the 

microwavable macaroni and cheese, Hot Pockets, and the Uncrustables® (Table 5-11). 
48 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

5.7.2 Backpack Demonstration Project 

Similar to the Meal Delivery demonstration, Backpack sponsors also provided children with food to 

be eaten offsite. However, Backpack sponsors had to approach food distribution slightly differently 

than Meal Delivery sponsors because all the food was required to be shelf-stable. In 2011, many 

sponsors reported difficulties and frustrations in procuring shelf-stable foods within their budget, 

especially the shelf-stable milk. However, in the second year of the demonstration, many had learned 

from their previous experience and were able to arrange better and more economical food and dairy 

vendors. 

Operationally, even across multiple States, most of the Backpack demonstration projects ran in the 

same general manner. The children would be at the site for their regular SFSP meal, and then on a 

pre-determined backpack distribution day (the last day the site was in operation for the week) (Table 

5-12) they would be able to pick up backpacks or bags of food to take home with them to supply 

them with meals on days the site was not open. As the children each took a backpack or bag, staff or 

volunteers checked off meal count forms. Some sponsors in Ohio and Kansas actually used real 

backpacks, while others used either reusable grocery bags or plastic disposable grocery bags (Table 

5-11). 

In order to ensure that the children returned their backpacks each week, some sponsors kept lists 

with the children’s names and checked off the name both when the backpack was picked up and 

returned. However, if a child did not return a backpack, he or she was still able to receive food the 

following week. Sponsors who did not use backpacks also kept lists with the children’s names, often 

as a result of this evaluation’s desire to contact parents for the household survey. However, this was 

not a requirement. 

Approaches to food distribution were more similar in the Backpack demonstration because generally 

all the sponsors built menus around pre-packaged foods that were procured from one or multiple 

vendors. Many used the same vendors they used during the regular school year or for SFSP, while 

some used someone specifically for the demonstration project. Some vendors included food banks. 

Many sponsors made it a priority to include fresh produce in the bags (the only non-shelf-stable 

items in the bags) while others did not have the funds or the ability to include any fresh fruits or 

vegetables because they packed their bags in advance and the fresh produce might spoil by the time 

distribution day arrived. 
49 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

Table 5-12. Operational details for the Backpack demonstration project, summer 2012 

Sponsor 

Backpack 

distribution day Meals provided Bag type 

Arizona

Chandler Unified School 

District 

Friday Breakfast (2) and lunch (2) Reusable grocery bags

Litchfield Elementary 

School District 

Friday (13 sites)

Saturday (2 sites) 

Breakfast (2) and lunch (2) for 

Friday sites 

Plastic grocery bags

Mesa Public Schools Thursday (1 site)

Friday (1 site) 

Breakfast (3) and lunch (3) for 

Thursday site, Breakfast (2) 

and lunch (2) for Friday site 

Reusable grocery bags

Kansas

Arkansas City Unified 

School District 

Thursday Lunch (3) Backpack 

Central Unified School 

District 462 

Thursday Lunch (3) Backpack 

East Central Kansas 

Economic Opportunity 

Corp 

Thursday Lunch (2) Reusable grocery bags

Gardner Edgerton Unified 

School District 

Friday Breakfast (2) and lunch (2) Reusable grocery bags

Lawrence Public Schools 

USD 497 

Friday 4 sites Breakfast (2) and lunch 

(2), 2 sites Lunch (2) 

Reusable grocery bags

Topeka Public Schools Friday Breakfast (2) and lunch (2) Sealed clear plastic bags

United Methodist Church Thursday Lunch (3) Plastic grocery bags

Ohio

Andrews House, Inc. Friday Lunch (2) Backpack 

Ashtabula County 

Children Services 

Friday Breakfast (2) and lunch (2) Backpack 

Community Action 

Association of Scioto 

County 

Friday Lunch (2) Zip top bags 

Hamilton Living Water 

Ministry, Inc. 

Thursday (3 sites)

Friday (10 site) 

Lunch (3) and snack (3) at

Thursday sites, Lunch (2) and 

snack (2) at Friday site 

Backpack 

Hocking Athens Perry 

Community Action 

Agency 

Friday 

Thursday (1 site) 

Breakfast (1) and lunch (1) Plastic grocery bags, 

children received 

backpack to keep on the 

last distribution day 

Whole Again 

International 

Friday Breakfast (2) and lunch (2) Backpack 
50 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

Backpacks were either assembled at the sites or in one central location. They were then distributed 

to the sites. In Arizona, two of the three sponsors assembled the bags on site, while one assembled 

at a central location. In Kansas, five of the seven sponsors only had one site, resulting in all 

operations taking place in one location. The two sponsors who had multiple sites made use of a 

central location to assemble backpacks. In Ohio, five sponsors used a central location to pack the 

bags, while the one sponsor with only one site did everything there. 

Arizona’s three sponsors appeared to take a lot of pride in their menus, and all three provided fresh 

produce. One remarked that their school district was dedicated to promoting health and wellness 

and that their goal was to bring families together through food preparation. This sponsor often 

included the individual ingredients to make a meal, instead of all pre-made foods. For example, to 

make vegetable tortilla soup, the sponsor provided cans of refried beans, chicken broth, tomatoes, 

and mixed vegetables, as well as chopped zucchini and sliced avocado. Another said she wanted to 

target the entire family so she intentionally provided whole vegetables that an adult would need to 

prepare. One sponsor noted that a lot of the pre-packaged foods contained high amounts of 

sodium, so she tried to avoid including them in the backpacks. Common menu items included 

cereal, cereal bars, baby carrots and celery sticks, fresh fruit or fruit cups, applesauce, macaroni and 

cheese, and tuna cracker kits. 

Of all three Backpack States, Kansas approached food in the most uniform manner. Six of the seven 

sponsors ordered food from one of two local food banks, and the foods themselves were not only 

prepackaged, but the meals already came together in prepackaged bags. The sponsors reported that 

the children liked the bags, with one child commenting that it was like “always eating a picnic.” 

These six sponsors contributed little to the content of the bags since menu planning was handled 

almost exclusively by the State Coordinator working together with the vendors. Sponsors sometimes 

had a few options among which to choose, but for the most part they were minimally involved in 

the details of menu planning and appeared happy to rely on the nutritional expertise of the State 

officials. Only one sponsor in Kansas (Lawrence Public Schools USD 497) ordered her own foods 

and put together her own bags. This sponsor served the largest number of children and was simply 

not able to afford, given the number of children participating, to use one of the food banks. Typical 

foods from the food banks included beef sticks, cheese sticks, canned chicken, sun butter, cereal, 

cereal bars, canned vegetables, fruit cups, fruit juice, and nachos. Some sponsors added in produce 

while others did not. The sponsor that packed her own bags used two outside vendors, a local 

grocery store and the regular school year vendor. Examples of their foods included spaghetti and 

meatballs, macaroni and cheese, fruit cups, fruit tubes, breakfast bars, pretzels, and crackers. 
51 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

In Ohio, each sponsor operationalized his or her demonstration project in a way that worked best 

for the specific location. Some used food banks, while others procured foods from commercial 

vendors. Some created their own menus, while others left this task mostly up to the vendor. Some 

sponsors provided fresh produce while others did not. Breakfasts typically included cereal, cereal 

bars, or pop tarts, while lunches typically included peanut butter and jelly Uncrustables®, carrots 

and ranch dressing, meat and cheese sticks, peanut butter crackers, sunflower seeds, beef stew, 

Spaghetti O’s with meatballs, chili, ravioli, lasagna, and beanie weenies, as well as fresh fruit as 

available. One sponsor used an outside vendor to do everything: prepare and package the bags and 

deliver them to the sites. Common breakfast items from this vendor included cereal, graham 

crackers, goldfish crackers, juice and milk, while common lunch items included applesauce, beef 

vegetable soup, beef ravioli, chicken with rice or noodles, oyster crackers, and juice. Fresh apples, 

oranges, and bananas were also components of both meals. 

5.8 Oversight and Monitoring 

Oversight and monitoring of demonstration projects cascaded from State agencies to sponsors and 

sponsors to project sites. Like last year, key aspects of project implementation that were monitored 

included compliance with USDA meal requirements; food safety and facility cleanliness; food 

nutrient content; appeal of food to the children; documentation of food being served; and how 

money was spent. Each State’s approach to oversight and monitoring is discussed below. 

5.8.1 Meal Delivery Demonstration Project 

For Meal Delivery projects, the primary mode of oversight and monitoring was the conduct of site 

visits. All three State agencies overseeing the Meal Delivery demonstration project conducted at least 

one site visit with sponsors; and the sponsors also conducted periodic site visits with the sites. 

Additional modes of oversight and monitoring included regular telephone calls and email 

communication. 

Delaware. The State agency in Delaware provided all fiscal oversight to the project. The Project 

Director was in charge of approving all distributions of funds and reimbursement claims. In 

addition, the State agency made arrangements with the Delaware Department of Health to conduct 

an inspection to ensure the enforcement of food safety standards at the sponsor level. The State was 
52 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

also charged with overseeing the development of menus that met USDA standards and were within 

appropriate limits of portions. In Delaware, the menus approved for the demonstration followed the 

“Dela-care” guidelines, which are the State-wide food and nutritional guidelines. As noted, these 

were more stringent than USDA guidelines. 

The Delaware State agency hired two consultants for the demonstration project to manage most of 

the oversight and monitoring of the sponsor and sites. The consultants began with site visits before 

meal delivery began. They worked with the sponsor and site staff to oversee the operations involved 

in delivering the meals to the sites. These early site visits served as an informal needs assessment, 

providing the consultants with the opportunity to identify any needs prior to startup. 

Once operation was underway, the consultants were in daily telephone contact with the sponsor to 

keep track of what was happening and to assist with trouble shooting on an as-needed basis. The 

consultants conducted regular, unannounced site visits to monitor the physical aspects of the sites 

and the safety of the food (e.g., measuring temperatures of coolers, checking temperature of meals 

being delivered, checking expiration dates on food items) as well as the content of the meals (e.g., 

comparing the food included in the meals to what was approved on the menu, ensuring that all 

instruction labels for food were attached in both English and Spanish, making sure nutritional 

information was included with the meals). These site visits also provided the consultants with the 

opportunity to oversee the meal delivery process and the methods used for tracking the meals (i.e., 

meal counts) and speak with site supervisors about what was and was not working. They also spoke 

with the children and parents about the appeal of the food. In addition, the consultants used the site 

visits as an opportunity to ensure that leftovers were stored properly and that food preparation met 

food safety standards. Following the site visits, the consultants provided a written report to the State 

agency detailing any challenges identified along with the recommended solutions to the challenges. 

According to the State agency, the oversight and monitoring increased in Delaware in 2012 as 

compared to 2011. In an effort to identify needs before they became problems at the sponsor and 

site level, the State agency increased the frequency of site visits conducted by the consultants, 

including the site visit prior to start up. Also, the consultants increased the frequency of regular 

communication with the sponsors/sites to daily telephone calls. 

Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, the Meal Delivery demonstration project did not report many 

changes to the oversight and monitoring of the project in 2012, as compared to 2011. The State 

agency maintained a close working relationship with the sponsor and, therefore, State and sponsor 

were in frequent communication. The State conducted multiple site visits to the sponsor during 
53 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

summer, 2012 and often was present during meal delivery to observe. Both the State and sponsor 

reported that there was no “formal monitoring” plan in place; yet, according to each, significant 

oversight and monitoring took place. 

Fiscal oversight was mostly conducted by the State agency. Project staff at the State agency 

monitored the budget, how money was being spent, and reimbursement claims. The State agency 

had in place a procurement and budget approval process that was followed for this project. The 

State agency developed and approved the menus. The menus were reviewed by a nutritionist to 

ensure compliance with USDA standards and to ensure that portions were appropriate. The sponsor 

received menus that were already in compliance with USDA standards and, therefore, maintained 

that a process for monitoring menus was not required. The sponsor always had a production menu 

onsite, which was referred to during food preparation in order to ensure compliance with the Stateapproved menus. In addition, the State conducted site visits to the sponsor in order to observe meal 

production. 

To understand the number of meals that were needed and meet grant requirements, the sponsor 

kept daily records of the meal counts, which were forwarded to the State regularly and as requested. 

The sponsor prepared meals at a local school cafeteria, which was continually monitored by the 

Massachusetts Department of Health for food safety violations. As such, the Massachusetts 

demonstration project did not need to provide additional monitoring for facility and food safety. 

However, the project did ensure that staff all had received food safety training. Although nutrition 

assistance programs typically need to monitor the safety of leftovers, we were told that there were 

no leftovers in the Massachusetts Meal Delivery demonstration project. To ensure food safety, the 

sponsor in Massachusetts took temperature readings in the delivery vans every 30 minutes during 

deliveries. 

Massachusetts made a genuine effort to monitor the appeal of the food to the children and parents. 

During meal delivery, sponsor staff would question parents and children about the food, asking 

them to identify greatest and least favorites. When possible and appropriate, the sponsor worked 

with the State to “tweak” the menus to incorporate more of the favorites. At the end of the summer, 

Massachusetts conducted a brief survey among participant families, collecting information about the 

food appeal. The most popular items, according to findings, were the hummus and pretzel chips, 

kiwis, veggie burgers, salads, and hot meals, such as roast chicken or meatballs. The least popular 

item was the ham and cheese sandwiches. 
54 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

New York. The grant manager in the New York State agency monitored sponsors through email 

communication, telephone calls and site visits. Site visits were typically scheduled ahead of time and 

took place once a summer because the sponsors were four hours away from the State office in 

Albany. Email and telephone communications were much more frequent. The processes in place for 

monitoring and oversight in New York for 2012 were similar to those implemented in 2011. The 

sponsors monitored the site staff through site visits, telephone calls and emails as well. 

Fiscal monitoring was conducted at the State level. The grant manager reviewed the budgets for 

both New York sponsors and also processed the reimbursement claims from the sponsors. At the 

sponsor level, the project managers at each of the two sponsors tracked spending, monitored the 

budget, and submitted all reimbursement requests to the State. 

Food and facility safety was monitored in a variety of ways. The grant manager from the State 

agency conducted site visits to both sponsors. During these site visits, she toured the kitchens as 

well as some of the Meal Delivery drop-off sites. At the sponsor level, the project managers worked 

with kitchen staff to ensure that food safety guidelines were following during meal preparation, 

packing and delivery. Project managers reported conducting impromptu inspections of the kitchens 

for cleanliness and proper handling of food. Sponsor staff reportedly checked and recorded meal 

temperatures. The kitchens used for meal production by both sponsors in New York were in 

schools. School kitchens are required by New York State to maintain current inspections by the 

State Department of Health. Thus, the kitchens were regularly inspected for cleanliness and food 

safety. 

The two New York sponsors developed their own menus under the advisement of nutrition experts. 

Project staff used the USDA standards as a guide in creating the menus. Once complete, the menus 

were sent to the State agency. The State grant manager reviewed the menus for compliance with 

USDA standards and attention to portion control. Approved menus were sent back to the sponsor 

for implementation. To monitor compliance with the menus, the sponsors worked with the kitchen 

staff to ensure that the food provided to the children were consistent with the written menus, 

without improvisation or substitutions. Feedback on the menus from 2011 was used in developing 

the menus for 2012 with special attention to what the children reportedly liked and did not like. This 

information was collected anecdotally in 2011 and 2012. 

Meal counts and documentation of the food prepared and served was monitored at the State level. 

Sponsors collected the data and sent weekly counts to the State. A monthly and final report with this 

information were also sent to the State. 
55 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

To assess “targeting accuracy,” Westat interviewers attempted to ascertain from the State agency and 

sponsors whether the food was consumed by the children participating in the Meal Delivery 

demonstration. However, we were told that because meals were consumed offsite, there was no way 

for the demonstration projects to monitor this aspect of the project. 

5.8.2 Backpack Demonstration Project 

The primary method of providing oversight and monitoring among the Backpack demonstration 

projects was to conduct site visits and informally observe the processes in place for project 

implementation. 

Arizona. The Arizona State grantee reported that there was essentially no monitoring or oversight 

of the sponsors in place because the sponsors ran their organizations smoothly and efficiently and 

did not need assistance from the State agency. The State offered trainings and provided online 

implementation manuals to the sponsors, but there was no active oversight or monitoring from the 

State other than collecting information from the sponsors for quarterly reports. The State indicated 

that staff was available to sponsor staff if needed, but there had not been a need. According to the 

State agency respondents, the oversight and monitoring in 2012 was the same as it was in 2011. 

Menu planning and monitoring of the nutritional content of the menus was done by the sponsors. 

The sponsors monitored the ordering and use of food to ensure the items needed each week were 

always available. One sponsor reported that it had the school district review order forms and 

invoices with vendors for the Backpack demonstration project. Because the three sponsors operated 

at regular SFSP sites, food and facility safety and cleanliness were monitored regularly by SFSP 

monitors. Each of the three sponsors had monitors who kept track of the number of bags 

distributed and children fed and reported the numbers weekly to the sponsor lead. In addition, these 

monitors conducted spot checks of the bags as they were prepared for distribution to ensure that the 

meals were put together correctly and the food was placed in the bags such that nothing was 

damaged. 

Kansas. The State agency in Kansas conducted one site visit to each of the seven sponsors 

(according to the State grantee, the geographic distribution of the sponsors in Kansas was such that 

only one visit during the summer was realistic). In 2011, these site visits were conducted by State 

agency staff. However, the staff found that oversight and monitoring was burdensome, so in 2012, 
56 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

the State agency hired an outside consultant to conduct the site visits and report back to the State 

agency. These consultants were hired solely for the demonstration project. 

During the 2012 site visits, the consultant monitored the food nutrient content by collecting menus 

from the sponsors and reviewing them for compliance with USDA standards; oversaw how 

leftovers were being handled at sponsor sites that had leftovers; monitored the use of meal count 

forms by each sponsor; and was able to provide some assistance in “tweaking” menus to 

accommodate for special diets (e.g., gluten-free). In addition to the site visits, the State agency 

conducted monthly conference calls with the sponsors during startup and was in regular contact 

with the sponsors through email. The number of conference calls decreased, and then conference 

calls were eliminated during full implementation. 

Fiscal monitoring and oversight was mostly conducted by the State agency. Each of the seven 

sponsors had the opportunity to revise the 2011 budget, and five sponsors worked with the State 

agency to do so. In order to monitor budgets and spending, the sponsors sent receipts with requests 

for funds to the State agency, and the State would match requests with the approved budget. The 

State contracted with a nutritionist and a dietician who provided guidance in developing menus for 

the sponsors. Sponsors also provided the State agency with food order forms, which served as 

another way of monitoring the food being provided to the children. Since the sites used for 

backpack distribution were SFSP feeding sites, the sites already had some level of oversight and 

monitoring of food safety and facility cleanliness. 

Each of the sponsors had a process for monitoring spending and their budgets. Staff reported 

tracking hours spent working on the project and tracking expenses and comparing them to the 

approved budget. In addition, the sponsors monitored invoices received from the food banks and 

compared them to order forms. Menu compliance with the USDA guidelines was monitored by the 

State (the State developed the menus) but sponsor staff periodically conducted checks of the meal 

packs to make sure they reflected the meals on the menus. 

Sponsors provided oversight and monitoring to the sites through regular site visits, phone calls, 

emails and reports collected from the sites. Sponsors provided the sites with meal count sheets that 

were used during backpack distribution and returned to the sponsor as a way to monitor how many 

meals were going out each week. During site visits, sponsor staff was sometimes able to speak with 

the children about the types of foods they liked and did not like. In a few instances, changes were 

made to menus accordingly. The site visits also provided the sponsors the opportunity to monitor 

cleanliness of the sites. Sites also received inspections from the State Department of Health. It is 
57 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

noteworthy that all of the food in Kansas was considered shelf-stable and prepackaged and therefore 

had fewer food safety risks. At the sites that were held in schools, the cafeterias and kitchens were 

already monitored for cleanliness and safety by the school system. 

When asked whether there was a way to monitor who was eating the meals and whether the children 

who were participating in the Backpack demonstration project were eating the meals, all sponsors 

and sites indicated that it was impossible. Overall, there were no changes reported in oversight and 

monitoring from the sponsors or sites. Two sites reported making two minor changes; the site in 

Ottawa (from the United Methodist Church) used a new meal tracking form, and the site in Wilson 

(East Central Kansas economic Opportunity Corporation) implemented a new system for 

identifying meals for children with certain allergies (putting generic stickers, like a smiley face sticker, 

on the bags so the children could identify their bag but not draw attention to the fact that they had 

an allergy). 

Ohio. The State agency in Ohio assigned five regional consultants to take responsibility for 

oversight and monitoring of the sponsors. These consultants were hired for oversight and 

monitoring of both the SFSP and the demonstration. The regional consultants conducted site visits 

during which they monitored overall quality control, food safety, and facility cleanliness. In addition, 

the site visits provided the consultants with the opportunity to observe meal distribution and the use 

of the meal count tracking forms, as well as to interact with the parents and children to determine 

food preferences. The regional consultants reported all information back to the State agency. 

The State agency provided fiscal oversight and monitoring by monitoring the budget and tracking 

expenses. All reimbursement claims were sent to the State agency, reviewed, and processed. 

At the sponsor level, the sponsors provided oversight and management by conducting site visits and 

through regular telephone and email communication. Sponsors reported using the site visits as an 

opportunity to observe the process of project implementation. Specifically, sponsor staff would 

monitor and oversee meal preparation, meal distribution, quality of the food being placed in the 

backpack, compliance with the approved menus (that met USDA standards), processes in place to 

provide meals to children with food allergies, and portions of food being distributed. In addition, 

sponsor staff ensured that meal count tracking forms were used regularly and correctly and that food 

ordering was efficient and effective. Food safety and facility cleanliness were also monitored by the 

sponsors, which arranged for each site to receive an inspection from the State department of health. 

In addition, the sponsors ensured that all site staff were trained in food safety (either through the 

SFSP or the school system). 
58 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

Overall, sponsors in Ohio did not report any changes in the way oversight and monitoring was 

conducted. One of the sponsors (Whole Again in Cincinnati) indicated that, in 2012, the sponsor 

shifted most of the monitoring to the sites. According to the sponsor, this change was made because 

the burden on the sponsor to monitor all of the sites was too much. 

Findings from Ohio suggest that the some of the sponsors were taking a much more “hands-on” 

approach to project monitoring than others. In Hamilton Living Water Ministry (which had one site) 

and Ashtabula County Children Services (which had six sites), the Project Directors reported doing 

all of the monitoring tasks themselves, personally monitoring every aspect of the projects, working 

directly with site staff to ensure everything was implemented effectively, and visiting the sites almost 

daily. In Cincinnati (Whole Again International) (three sites) and Delaware (Andrews House) (one 

site), Project Directors reported shifting monitoring responsibilities to the site managers, requiring 

them to conduct monitoring tasks and report back to the project directors. Thus, for the most part, 

the hands-on monitoring did not appear to be related to a small number of sites. 

5.9 Training, Technical Assistance, and Family Education 

It is the responsibility of the State grantee of an SFSP to train sponsors who, in turn, provide 

training to feeding site staff and volunteers. For the Meal Delivery and Backpack demonstration 

projects, there were three target audiences for training and technical assistance: (1) sponsors who 

were provided with training and technical assistance from State agencies, (2) sites who were 

provided with training and technical assistance from sponsors, and in some cases, (3) families of 

participants who were provided with information on nutrition and healthy eating. Since this was the 

second year for these demonstration projects and all of the sponsors remained the same, we were 

told by State grantees and sponsors, that there was generally less need for training in 2012 compared 

to 2011. 

5.9.1 Training and Technical Assistance to Sponsors Provided by State 

Agencies 

Formal training for grantees provided by State agencies is an integral part of the SFSP but not 

necessarily for the sponsors running these demonstration projects in 2012. 
59 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

For the Meal Delivery demonstrations, only one State – Massachusetts – had its sponsor attend the 

regular SFSP training. The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education also 

required a State agency staff member, who was heavily involved with technical assistance, to attend 

the SFSP training. This was the same as it was in 2011. Conversely, in both Delaware and New 

York, the State agencies did not have a formal training for their demonstration project sponsors. All 

three sponsors (one in Delaware and two in New York) reported good communication with the 

State grantee and reported receiving technical assistance as it was needed. This reflects a decrease in 

training from what was done in 2011, but as one State employee noted, “they were ready to go - they 

knew what they were doing.” 

The Food Bank of Delaware also noted that staff communicated with one of the sponsors in New 

York to learn ways they could make their demonstration project even more successful for 2012. 

Delaware also made use of two consultants. The two consultants conducted pre-demonstration 

activities which consisted of meetings with the State and sponsor, trainings with the sponsor and 

sites, preparation of timelines and reports to the State, work with the sponsor to prepare for 

operations of the demonstration, and conduct of pre-site visits. During implementation of the 

demonstration they again conducted site visits and monitored food preparation and delivery 

(including recording temperatures of the food). The State agency reported that the consultants had a 

much larger role in training than State staff. 

For the Backpack demonstration project, Kansas and Ohio hosted formal trainings for their 

sponsors, whereas Arizona did not. The Arizona Department of Education communicated with its 

sponsors primarily via email but reported that it believed their sponsors would have liked more 

training and guidance from them since the sponsors organized their own conference call and then 

invited the State to be a part of it. The State reported that it would have provided more assistance 

and training to its sponsors if it had received more guidance from FNS. The three sponsors reported 

that there was not much communication among sponsors but that this would have been helpful. 

This marks a change from 2011 when the State mandated attendance at the SFSP training and 

offered one-on-one informal demonstration training to each sponsor. 

Kansas provided the most comprehensive training for its seven sponsors. The Kansas State 

Department of Education hosted a one-day formal training for its sponsors, just as it had done in 

2011. All seven sponsors were in attendance, as well as the two food banks that were supplying food 

for the project and the State allergy specialist. This training provided many opportunities for the 

sponsors to talk and share experiences about what did and did not work the previous summer. All 
60 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

sponsors reported being satisfied with the training, but the sponsor in Lawrence (the only sponsor 

not procuring food from one of the food banks) reported that she could have used more guidance 

from the State on what the meals should consist of. Since the Lawrence sponsor was doing 

something completely different from all the other sponsors (i.e., ordering its own food and putting 

together the bags on its own), there were many operational details it had to work out on its own. 

Ohio hosted a formal training called the FY2012 Ohio Summer Food Service Summit in January 

2012. The agenda included both the regular SFSP, as well as a panel discussion about the Backpack 

demonstration project. The State also used regional consultants to provide technical assistance to the 

sponsors while they conducted on-site monitoring. However, the sponsors reported that they would 

have appreciated additional training and guidance from the State, and one reported being 

“disappointed” with the level of assistance from the State. One sponsor noted that she had little 

information and no place to go when they were working through their own internal staff transitions. 

These reactions are similar to what was found in 2011 where Ohio sponsors reported receiving 

limited to no training or technical assistance from the State. 

5.9.2 Training and Technical Assistance to Sites Provided by Sponsors 

Sponsors trained site staff and volunteers in a variety of ways, but most chose to conduct informal, 

in-person meetings. There was no commonality in training strategy by demonstration type. Instead, 

the level of training was dependent on the experience level of the staff and the number of sites for 

which the sponsor was responsible. Regardless of demonstration project type, all sponsors with staff 

experienced in the SFSP or who had already run the demonstration project the summer before 

claimed success with very minimal training in preparation for summer 2012. Some sponsors 

reported that their trainings were not a one-time session, but rather consisted of ongoing training 

and technical assistance throughout the summer as issues arose and site monitoring was conducted. 

All sponsors reported some level of training to their site staff. Informal trainings were conducted in 

New York, Kansas, and Ohio. Generally these trainings were informal meetings that summarized 

procedures and expectations. Alternatively, The Food Bank of Delaware conducted a formal training 

with each of its sites. These trainings were two hours long and included PowerPoint presentations. 

The Delaware consultants, mentioned above, were also involved with this training. Massachusetts 

also conducted a formal training for all food service staff. This was a four-hour training that 

included hand washing, temperature requirements, and how to do things the “Y Way” which, 

according to the YMCA’s website, includes standards “to put Christian principles into practice 
61 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

through programs that build healthy spirit, mind, and body for all.” In Arizona, two of the sponsors 

took the more informal approach, while the third, Mesa Public Schools, had a more formal training 

with an agenda that included meal counts, meal patterns, keeping records, and filling out timesheets. 

5.9.3 Family Education 

Some sponsors used their projects as a way to incorporate food safety and nutritional information 

and provide educational materials to participating children and families. Four of the six States 

(Delaware, Massachusetts, Arizona, and Kansas) provided informational materials with the meals 

throughout the summer. In New York, Food Bank of the Southern Tier included information about 

food safety in the enrollment letter, while North Rose-Wolcott Central School District included with 

the menus instructions for safe handling and preparation of the food. In Arizona, Litchfield 

Elementary School District provided the nutritional content of the meals as well as information 

about the length of shelf-stable life for food items. 

Massachusetts, Kansas, and Delaware provided the most information to their families. 

Massachusetts provided both instructions for preparing the meals and “fun” nutritional materials 

such as the new USDA MyPlate, a magazine called ChopChop (“the fun cooking magazine for 

families”), and educational coloring books (see Appendix R). They also gave away treats on “Fun 

Fridays” such as beach balls and passes to the YMCA pool. In Kansas, the State grantee made up 

informational flyers that all seven sponsors reported that they included in the bags each week. The 

sheets had educational games to teach children about the importance of healthy eating as well as 

information on topics such as the importance of breakfast, healthy snacking, fun ways to exercise, 

and how to pack a family picnic. Delaware included weekly newsletters called The Grab and Go 

Weekly with meals (Appendix S). These newsletters provided parents and children with information 

about nutrition and educational games. Each week’s newsletter focused on one of the food groups 

in the new USDA MyPlate and included information, games, and recipes. 

5.10 Strengths, Challenges, and Resolutions to Challenges 

Site visit interviews included questions on perceived strengths of each demonstration project and the 

challenges encountered, as well as how challenges were dealt with and resolved. The first section in 

this chapter discusses the strengths of the demonstration projects that were identified during the site 
62 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

visits. The second section summarizes some of the challenges the demonstration projects struggled 

with during implementation and resolution of those challenges. 

5.10.1 Strengths 

Many strengths were reported by the interview respondents at each of the six demonstration 

projects. Overwhelmingly, the most commonly reported strength among demonstration projects 

was the perception that the project was meeting a real need in the community and the children 

participating in the project were gaining access to nutritious food when they might not be eating 

otherwise. The very existence of the project in these communities was considered a strength. 

 Meal Delivery Demonstration Projects 

Delaware. When asked about project strengths, respondents in Delaware seemed focused on 

operational and organizational strengths. At the end of the first year of the demonstration, the State 

grantee held a meeting that included the sponsor to determine how they needed to prepare for the 

second year. As a follow-up to that meeting, the State and sponsor established a written timeline 

based on lessons learned from Year 1 of what and when things were expected to be done by the 

sponsor across different phases of the demonstration. Monitoring of the sponsor by the State was 

increased for Year 2 to ensure that the sponsor was meeting goals established in the timeline as well 

as demonstration project guidelines. 

The State agency hired two consultants tasked with monitoring and technical assistance for the 

sponsor and sites. Respondents reported that they observed a direct correlation between the 

presence of monitors (the consultants) and compliance with USDA food guidelines. Overall, 

respondents reported an increase in effectiveness and rigor of the monitoring of the project as a 

result of hiring of the consultants. 

In addition, in the second year of operation, Delaware was able to increase the number of project 

sites from 7 to 22, notably increasing the reach of the project. Sites were situated in both urban and 

rural areas and served a more racially and ethnically diverse population in year 2. 

Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, respondents indicated that a strength of the project was its 

commitment to high quality, healthy, fresh foods. The sponsor made it a priority to include fresh 
63 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

fruits and vegetables in meals each day, often using produce from local farms or vendors. The 

sponsor indicated that some participants were eating foods they had never eaten before and were 

learning how to prepare new food items, thus encouraging healthy eating at home. The sponsor was 

also proud of the fact that the meals were provided in reusable containers. 

Massachusetts also made a commitment to engaging the whole family in this project. The sponsor 

instituted “Fun Fridays” and distributed give-aways for family friendly events, such as passes to the 

local pool and distribution of concert tickets and beach balls. In addition, the sponsor felt the Meal 

Delivery demonstration project served as an outreach and referral system. The YMCA of Cape Cod 

sponsor relied on the van driver, who visited each house and met household members during 

delivery to make assessments about the needs of some households and to connect household 

members with resources. 

Massachusetts also indicated that a strength of its project was the commitment to provide services to 

the community. This year, Massachusetts expanded into two additional parts of Barnstable County. 

These areas do not have open feeding sites, so adding more families to the Meal Delivery 

demonstration was seen as a strength of the project. In addition, the project provided food to 

participants from the last day of school until the first day of school, essentially eliminating the gap in 

feeding programs for many families. Massachusetts also successfully engaged in targeted outreach to 

identify and enroll families that were in need. Lastly, respondents in Massachusetts felt that the 

dedication of the project staff and strong collaboration with other community organizations 

benefitted the project. For example, staff worked with local farms to bring in local, farm-grown 

produce to the participants. In addition, project staff made a point of engaging with families during 

meal delivery, allowing them to get a feel for any other needs a family might have and potentially 

connecting them with resources to meet those needs. 

New York. In New York, the State indicated that a strength of the project was the selection of 

strong sponsors with extensive previous experience with food service programs. The sponsors knew 

how to identify areas of need in the community and tap into available resources. Sponsors partnered 

with community organizations to help identify potential participants and felt that community buy-in 

and support for the project were instrumental in their successful project. Sponsors in New York also 

indicated they made good use of available resources and were able to limit waste effectively. 

Tracking and monitoring systems allowed sponsors to decrease food waste and keep staff time and 

labor costs to a minimum. Using one van to deliver four days’ worth of food was also considered to 

be a good use of resources. 
64 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

 Backpack Demonstration Projects 

Arizona. In Arizona, respondents reported several strengths of the demonstration project, most of 

which focused on providing quality services for families. The sponsors reported that they made an 

effort to provide foods that children could take home and prepare by themselves, thereby 

promoting healthy food preparation, eating at home, independence, and making healthy food 

choices by the children. Encouraging food preparation at home was also intended to increase family 

member compatibility within participant families. One sponsor in Arizona changed food vendors 

and selected a vendor that allowed the sites to provide better quality food and more variety of food, 

which was appealing to the participants. Moreover, sites in Arizona made the provision of fresh fruit 

a high priority. 

Sites in Arizona tried to engage the whole family by providing family-friendly incentives, such as 

food giveaways, family activities, such as movies and games, animal projects sponsored by the zoo, 

and other fun summer activities. These activities allowed for increased outreach opportunities and 

participation. Overall, the number of sites increased in Arizona significantly, allowing for a larger, 

more diverse participant population. 

Kansas. Respondents in Kansas felt that their project was strong in the variety and diversity of the 

sponsors and the increased participation among diverse populations. Kansas sponsors were located 

in urban, suburban, and extremely rural areas and served individuals from a range of racial and 

ethnic backgrounds. Two sponsors indicated that they partnered with the school Spanish teacher to 

help engage Spanish-speaking families by explaining the project to them and arranging for them to 

be present on the first few days of meal distribution. Reportedly, this made a big difference in the 

number of Spanish-speaking families that participated in the project. A sponsor in a very rural area 

of Kansas explained that its sites operated in a “food desert” which, according the USDA, is defined 

as urban neighborhoods and rural towns without ready access to fresh, healthy, and affordable food. 

Instead of supermarkets and grocery stores, these communities may have no food access or are 

served only by fast food restaurants and convenience stores that offer few healthy, affordable food 

options. For the children at these sites, the backpacks were considered “life savers,” providing 

nutritious food when the children might not otherwise be eating or only eating non-nutritious food. 

Respondents in Kansas felt a strength of their implementation was a commitment to promoting 

healthy development of children. Many of the sponsors made it a priority to include fresh fruits and 

vegetables in the backpacks, often giving children the opportunity to try foods they had never tried 
65 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

before. Kansas also reported an emphasis on the importance of physical activity, which they 

indicated was a strength of their project. Activity sheets encouraging participants to try new sports 

or activities were included in the backpacks. One sponsor obtained a grant for a health education 

program called, “Organ Wise,” offered during meal distribution. The program taught the children 

about the different organs in the human body and the importance of being healthy inside and out. 

In terms of project operations, Kansas reported that using two large food banks to provide and 

package the meals for six of the seven sponsors was a strength, removing the burden of continuous 

food ordering, preparation, and packaging from the sponsors. Sponsors reported that distribution 

was efficient and well organized and that families felt they could depend on the demonstration 

projects. In two areas, the sponsors added weeks to their duration of operation to make sure food 

was available all or most of the summer. 

Ohio. Ohio Backpack respondents reported an increased need for food service projects in the 

summer of 2012 and indicated that the need was being met by increased outreach to diverse 

populations. The sponsors in Ohio intentionally selected sites that were located in both rural and 

urban areas and schools that many children could walk to so as to increase the number of 

participants. One sponsor was able to increase participation by partnering with a pizza delivery 

restaurant, which provided pizza on Fridays for Backpack participants. 

In Ohio, sponsors also reportedly worked to educate children about healthy eating. The participants 

learned about new (for them) types of foods, including fresh fruits and vegetables. In addition, some 

sponsors promoted activities that taught participants how to prepare food at home using some of 

these new foods. At one sponsor, the idea was to help children take ownership of what they eat. 

Partnerships were also reported to be a strength in Ohio. The relationships with the school systems 

were what made the project possible, according to one respondent, and Ohio sponsors worked 

diligently to create a positive relationship with the school systems. For one sponsor with a site in a 

dangerous area, partnering with the local police department allowed volunteers to feel safe about 

working at the site. Another sponsor thought that hiring a vendor to prepare, package and deliver all 

of the food was a strength of her project. 
66 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

5.10.2 Challenges and Resolutions to Challenges 

Respondents were less likely to report challenges to our interviewers than strengths. Moreover, in 

2012, demonstration projects reported far fewer challenges than were reported in 2011. Most 

indicated that having more start-up time for planning made a huge difference when it came time to 

implement the projects. Having systems in place from the previous year also made implementation 

easier. Nevertheless, a variety of challenges, and how they were resolved, were reported. These are 

summarized below by type of demonstration project and State. 

 Meal Delivery Demonstration Project 

Delaware. In Delaware, respondents were challenged by the need to ensure that all sites were 

operating within the parameters of demonstration project guidelines. In 2011, things apparently “fell 

through the cracks.” For example, sponsors experienced issues with delivering food at the 

appropriate temperature, discovering outdated milk, and purchasing bags that fell apart quickly. 

However, hiring the consultants in 2012 helped to correct these issues, as their job was to provide 

close monitoring of the sponsor and sites. As an example, in 2011 the sponsor was experiencing 

difficulty making sure the meals were being delivered at the appropriate temperature. The 

consultants were able to ensure that the delivery vans had working air conditioning. 

Respondents in Delaware indicated that recruitment was time consuming and required a dedicated 

staff person. Determination of participant eligibility through the school system was considered a 

lengthy process, which slowed the rate at which participants were recruited. Respondents in 

Delaware also were challenged by the fact that, during recruitment, they were not able to include all 

members of the household but only the eligible children. Additionally, in Delaware, there were 

children who wanted to participate who had come from out-of-State to visit a family member for 

the summer. These children were unable to participate because local school eligibility requirements 

were not met. 

Massachusetts. Respondents in Massachusetts concurred among one another that they truly did 

not face any real challenges during the second year of project implementation. Two minor obstacles 

were mentioned but were addressed by the project. Last year, food preparation and organization was 

conducted at the YMCA. This year, the sponsor wanted to use a kitchen in a school because of the 

increased volume. The sponsor secured the use of one school but, at the last minute, lost the school. 

Fortuitously, the sponsor was able to come to an agreement with another school and used its 
67 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

kitchen for the summer project. The other issue came up when delivery began. Last year, one of the 

apartment buildings allowed the project to use the community room as a drop-off site, where meals 

could be distributed. This year, new management did not allow that to occur, so the project 

delivered the meals directly to each apartment. 

New York. In New York, respondents also indicated that they experienced minimal challenges in 

2012. However, respondents wondered if lack of transportation kept some families from 

participating. One sponsor expressed frustration that they were not allowed to feed the young 

children, younger than school-age, in the household. And another sponsor indicated a desire to 

expand the area of eligibility to include other counties in New York but reported that she was unable 

to do so because of restrictions to specific counties in her demonstration grant. 

 Backpack Demonstration Project 

Arizona. In Arizona, sponsors had difficulty determining how much outreach was enough to attract 

the number of participants for which they had budgeted. Sponsors did not want to run out of food 

and, therefore, did not want to conduct extensive outreach and attract too many participants. Along 

those same lines, one sponsor in Arizona had difficulty planning for the regular summer food 

service on backpack days. On backpack distribution days, summer food service meals would 

experience an increase in participation that was difficult to gauge and accommodate. One sponsor 

reported that the cost of food was high this year, essentially eliminating their budget for labor. The 

sponsor partially resolved this issue by using volunteers for bag assembly. Another challenge 

reported by all sponsors in Arizona was trying to get people to come out for backpacks in the high 

heat. For this challenge, there was no resolution. 

Kansas. Overall, the demonstration project in Kansas did not report many challenges. The State 

indicated that it was a challenge to find cost effective, nutritious, shelf-stable food. Ultimately, the 

Kansas State agency contracted with two food banks that were able to provide the food, but it was a 

challenge to find food that met all USDA requirements and guidelines. A few of the sponsors found 

that, in year two, they were unable to secure bag donations, which meant they had to purchase the 

bags themselves, a cost for which they had not budgeted. Two sponsors reported challenges with 

low participation. At one site, participation dipped when summer school ended. This site tried 

incentives, such as giveaways like Frisbees and nerf balls, to increase participation. The other 

sponsor noted that part of the population in the area was comprised of transient families due to 
68 

Implementation of Demonstration Projects 5 

seasonal work. These families participated in the project in early summer and then moved away in 

mid-summer. 

Ohio. Ohio seemed to be challenged by the amount of paperwork and administrative effort that was 

required to implement the demonstration project. Sponsors indicated that the amount of paperwork 

they were expected to complete was a burden for them (e.g., recordkeeping, documentation, 

budget). One sponsor reportedly attempted to revise its budget with the State agency and 

encountered many obstacles to doing so.45 Another sponsor found that the time it took to be 

reimbursed for expenses was too long, causing the sponsor to be in the red for most of the summer. 

Another common challenge in Ohio was low participation rates. One sponsor had a site that did not 

have any participants at all and eventually closed down. The sponsor wrote a media/news release to 

let participants know that meals would be at the site, sent 50 meals there for 3 days based on the site 

manager’s request, but no children showed up. Also, the site had no visible signage so children 

would know where to go for the meals. 

Other sponsors had difficulty encouraging teenagers to participate because of the apparent stigma of 

receiving free meals and being involved in a project perceived as only for children. One sponsor 

reported a decrease in participation due to harassment of the participants by older youths in the area. 

Participating children were apparently targeted by teenagers, and their bags were taken away from 

them. 

Sponsors in Ohio experienced some challenges related to supplies necessary for project 

implementation. Shelf-stable milk was difficult to procure for some sponsors. Ultimately, a vendor 

in California was identified, but the cost was higher than expected. Another sponsor reported having 

difficulty finding food that met the USDA guidelines and requirements and was also appealing to the 

children. Storage of the food was a challenge for some of the sponsors. One sponsor ended up 

having to store food in rooms in the school originally intended for student activities. 

 

45 The sponsor went through several iterations of submitting and resubmitting the budget in order to carry over a surplus from the 

first year to the next. 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-1 

In 2011, Westat reported on four demonstration projects as part of the evaluation of the Enhanced 

Summer Food Service Program (eSFSP) – Extending Length of Operation Incentive, Activity 

Incentive, Meal Delivery, and Backpack. With the closeout of Extending Length of Operation 

Incentive and Activity Incentive in 2011, this report focuses on the two remaining eSFSP 

demonstration projects – Meal Delivery and Backpack demonstrations. 

The Meal Delivery demonstration project, which operated in rural areas of Delaware, Massachusetts, 

and New York where the SFSP was typically not accessible to children, was intended to increase 

children’s access to food by delivering meals to their homes or to a drop-off site near their home. 

Such access was expected to stabilize food security during the summer months for those children 

participating in the demonstration project. The Backpack demonstration projects in Arizona, Kansas 

and Ohio were expected to provide access to nutritious meals on the days that SFSP feeding sites 

were not open – weekends and holidays. Moreover, like the Meal Delivery demonstration project, 

the goal of the Backpack demonstration project was to stabilize food security during the summer 

when children from low income households were unable to obtain free or reduced price meals 

through a school breakfast and lunch program. 

The purpose of this chapter is to summarize the 2012 key findings of the evaluation of the Meal 

Delivery and Backpack demonstration projects with regard to the 14 research questions posed in 

Chapter 1.46 We also address the important strengths and limitations of this evaluation, compare key 

findings between 2011 and 2012, and draw final conclusions. 

6.1 Research Questions and Key Evaluation Findings 

This section is organized by the 14 research questions posed in Chapter 1, grouped as relating to 

participation, food consumption/targeting accuracy, food security status, and implementation. 

 

46 Answers to research questions on cost are not included in this report. 

Synthesis and Discussion

6 
2 

Synthesis and Discussion 6 

6.1.1 Participation 

Question 1: What are the characteristics of those who participated in the demonstration 

projects? 

Slightly more females than males participated in the programs, predominantly age 11 or younger. 

The race/ethnic distribution had somewhat more Hispanics and substantially more non-Hispanic 

Blacks and fewer non-Hispanic Whites than in the US general population. Nearly 60 percent of 

participants were from households where the primary caretaker was married or unmarried but living 

with a partner. About 87 percent of households participated in at least one other nutrition assistance 

program. Over 80 percent of households of participants had incomes of $35,000 or less, 

substantially more than the general US population where only about 36 percent of households had 

income below this level in 2010. Thus, participants in the demonstrations appeared to be in need of 

nutrition assistance that was offered. 

Question 2: Do the demonstration projects differ by these characteristics? 

Participants in the two demonstration projects were similar with respect to gender and 

race/ethnicity. However, there were striking differences in socio-economic characteristics: 

participants in the Backpack demonstration resided in households with higher income, less poverty, 

and less participation in nutrition assistance programs. Furthermore, despite the similarity in age 

between respondents for the two demonstrations, Backpack respondents had higher education levels 

(42 percent had some college or technical school versus 28 percent for Meal Delivery). The 

proportion of respondents occupied as homemakers was higher among Backpack respondents, 

possibly related to the higher income of that group and the slightly younger age of Backpack 

participants. 

Question 3: What factors are related to participation in the demonstration projects – 

Meal Delivery, Backpack, and both combined? 

We defined participation according to the frequency in which meals were received (picked up or 

home delivered) in the Meal Delivery demonstration and the frequency in which backpacks/bags 

were received in the Backpack demonstration. 
3 

Synthesis and Discussion 6 

 Meal Delivery Demonstration 

Of those who picked up meals, nearly half (46.1 percent) reported that the meals were not picked up 

at some time. Since 81.3 percent of Meal Delivery participants picked up their meals at a drop-off 

center, this indicates that 37 percent of Meal Delivery participants did not receive meal deliveries at 

some point during the program. Reasons provided most often were that the timing of pickup was 

not convenient (30.0 percent), there was no transportation (24.3 percent), they forgot (20.0 percent), 

and they were on vacation or out of town (15.7 percent). On the other hand, about 73 percent of 

participants received 75 percent or more of the available meal deliveries. As might be expected, this 

rate was higher for home delivery (about 85 percent) than for Meal Delivery participants whose 

meals were picked up at a drop-off site (70 percent). 

Participation in the Meal Delivery demonstration was related to language spoken at home (higher 

participation for Spanish or other non-English languages spoken at home), education (highest 

participation for college graduates and non-high school graduates), and race/ethnicity (highest 

participation for Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black). 

 Backpack Demonstration 

About 60 percent of households participating in the Backpack demonstration reported 75 percent or 

better participation in terms of the number of backpacks per child per week brought home. At the 

household level, 57.6 percent reported 75 percent or better participation. These rates are 

substantially lower than the rates reported for Meal Delivery participants. 

Participation in the Backpack demonstration project was not strongly associated with any of the 

covariates analyzed. There was a weak association with perception of change in food expenditure--

summer versus fall, but without a clear pattern. There was also some association between 

participation and poverty status, with higher participation among households at less than 100 

percent of poverty. 

 Both Demonstrations 

For both demonstration projects, a substantial number of participants failed to take full advantage of 

the meals offered by the program. However, the proportion was smaller for Meal Delivery 
4 

Synthesis and Discussion 6 

participants than Backpack participants (27 percent versus 42 percent, respectively, receiving less 

than 75 percent of possible meals). Since Backpack sites were tied to SFSP sites, and SFSP sites were 

often located in parks and summer recreational programs, it is possible that lower participation in 

the Backpack demonstration was related to sporadic attendance at site locations. 

6.1.2 Food Consumption/Targeting Accuracy 

Question 4: What did participants in the demonstration projects consume/not consume 

(food package content; foods consumed; storage; food shared and left over; food 

spoilage)? 

Overall, about 84 percent of all reported food items were reported as consumed completely, and 14 

percent of items were reported as shared with others. The percentage of food items that were eaten 

varied from 68.5 to 93.6 percent by type of food, with juice having the highest percent for “drank or 

ate all” (93.6 percent) and vegetables having the lowest (68.5 percent). The percentage of food items 

reported as shared ranged from 8.4 percent to 29.9 percent, with vegetables being shared the most 

and juice the least. 

When food was reported to have been shared with others, it was most often shared with another 

child, more frequently with a child in the demonstration project than not. The third most common 

person with whom food was shared was an adult in the household. 

Overall, 7.1 percent of food was reported as left over, but this ranged from 1.7 percent for juice to 

17.5 percent for meat alternatives. About 2 percent of food items were reported to have spoiled, 

with vegetables reported to have had the highest spoilage. These figures are substantially lower than 

estimates of food wastage by the typical American family which may approach 25 percent (Bloom, 

2011). The most common reason that food was left over was that the child did not like or want it 

(52.0 percent), or planned to eat it later (34.2 percent). 

Question 5: Does consumption/targeting accuracy differ by type of demonstration 

project? 

Consumption was generally higher for the Meal Delivery demonstration, particularly for “meat 

alternative” foods. Only juice consumption was higher for the Backpack demonstration. 
5 

Synthesis and Discussion 6 

There were striking differences by type of demonstration project, with some items shared more by 

Backpack participants (vegetables and meat) and others shared more by Meal Delivery participants 

(milk, juice, and bread/grain). 

Question 6: What factors are related to food consumption/targeting accuracy? 

Food consumption varied by type of demonstration project, participation in other nutrition 

assistance programs (e.g., WIC, SNAP, National School Lunch Program), parent satisfaction with 

the food, and respondent marital status, education, and income. More foods were fully consumed by 

participants of the Meal Delivery than the Backpack demonstration. Consumption was higher when 

families participated in more nutrition assistance, had lower education, or lower income. These 

results may indicate that recruitment into the Meal Delivery demonstration project was more 

focused on children who indeed were in need of nutrition assistance, whereas the Backpack 

demonstration may also have attracted children in great need of nutrition assistance, but also a 

number who were not. . 

There were only a few general patterns for food sharing, an indicator of targeting accuracy: 

 Most sharing of vegetables took place among male participants; 

 Sharing of milk, vegetables, and meat alternatives was highest when Spanish was spoken 

at home; 

 Sharing was highest for vegetables when the household incomes were $35,000 or more; 

sharing was progressively lower for lower income levels; and 

 The highest sharing of milk occurred when respondents reported that “household 

members like the food”; the highest sharing of fruit occurred when respondents 

reported satisfaction with convenience of the food; and the highest sharing of 

vegetables occurred when respondents reported satisfaction with the healthiness of the 

food. 

 
6 

Synthesis and Discussion 6 

6.1.3 Food Security Status 

Question 7: Is level of household food security among demonstration participants at 

least as high in the summer as it is in the fall? 

For the two demonstration projects to be considered successful, they needed to maintain food 

security over the summer months. Although we were unable to establish a baseline for food security 

in the spring in order to ascertain a difference between spring and summer, we did measure food 

security in the fall when children were back at school and able to participate in school breakfast and 

lunch programs. Thus, we hypothesized that food security for Meal Delivery and Backpack 

demonstration project participants would be about the same in the summer and the following fall. 

We ascertained food security for adults in the households of demonstration project participants, 

children in those same households, and the households as a whole. 

No differences were detected in food security between summer 2012 and fall 2012 for adults, 

children, and households. In the Backpack demonstration project, the percent of food secure adults 

and households was about the same in summer and fall, but child food security was slightly greater 

in the summer. When the demonstrations were combined, the food security did not differ 

significantly between summer and fall for any of the three measures. 

Question 8: What factors are related to household food security in the summer/in the 

fall? 

Bivariate Analysis. Though patterns and statistical significance vary by the group being considered 

(i.e., adult, child, or household), there are a number of general patterns that were uncovered in a 

bivariate analysis of food security:47 

 Food secure status in adults, children and households was less likely to be from 

households reporting participation in SNAP or free or reduced price school meals in the 

summer48; 

 Food secure status in children and households was more likely among younger 

demonstration project participants in the summer and fall; 

 

47 All relationships were statistically significant. 

48 Note, this relationship did not hold in the adjusted analysis in section 4.5.5. 
7 

Synthesis and Discussion 6 

 Food secure status in adults and households was more likely for college graduates in the 

summer and fall. In children, food secure status was more likely for college graduates in 

the fall only; 

 Food secure status in children, adults, and households was less likely when Spanish or 

another Non-English language was spoken exclusively at home; this was the case in 

summer only for food secure status in adults and households, and food secure status in 

children in both summer and fall; 

 Food secure status in adults, children, and households was more likely in households 

reported to have higher income (summer and fall); 

 Food secure status in adults and households was more likely when respondents reported 

being either married or never married (in the summer); 

 Unlike national patterns, child food security was not associated with respondent marital 

status among demonstration participants (Nord, 2009). This most likely reflects the 

limited scope of the demonstrations and the selection process, which was not nationally 

representative. 

 Food secure status in adults, children, and households was more likely when 

respondents were satisfied with the healthiness of the food (question only asked in the 

summer). 

 Food secure status in adults and children was more likely when respondents perceived 

that expenditure for food was more in the summer than fall; this was true for adult food 

security in the summer and child food security in the fall. 

 Food secure status in households was more likely when respondents perceived that 

expenditure for food was the same in the summer as fall or less in the summer (in the 

summer); and 

 Food secure status in children and households was more likely where respondents 

disagreed with the statement that food expenditures were less in the summer due to the 

summer food program (in summer only); 

Adjusted Analysis. In an adjusted analysis of food security for adults, children, and households, 

some of the relationships above did not carry over, while others were sustained. 

 Adult Food Security 

When adjusted for demographic and other factors: 

 Food secure status in adults was more likely when the respondent reported an income of 

$35,000 or higher (p=0.0008). 
8 

Synthesis and Discussion 6 

 Food secure status in adults was more likely when the respondent was college educated 

(p=0.0323, p=0.0448, p=0.0129). 

 Food secure status in adults was less likely when the respondent agreed or strongly 

agreed with the statement that food expenditures were less in the summer due to the 

summer food program (p=0.0078); 

 Food secure status in adults was more likely when the respondent perceived the food as 

somewhat healthy or not healthy, compared to those who perceived the food as very 

healthy (p=0.0309). 

 Food secure status in adults was less likely when the respondent disagreed or had no 

opinion on whether the food packages included a variety of food, compared to those 

who strongly agreed (p=0.0044). 

In an adjusted analysis, no differences in adult food security were detected between summer and fall 

survey periods. Similarly, no differences were detected in adult food security by type of 

demonstration project. 

 Child Food Security 

In an adjusted analysis, no differences in child food security were detected between summer and fall 

or by type of demonstration project. Household income above $35,000 was a strong predictor of 

child food security (p=0.0001). Child food security was found to be more likely when the participant 

age was younger (particularly 5 or younger) as compared with ages 18 or older (p=0.0392), and when 

respondents reported that their food expenditures were the same in the summer compared to those 

who said they were less in the summer (p=0.0375). Being a food secure child was found to be less 

likely when respondents agreed that food expenditures in the summer were reduced because of the 

demonstration project (p=0.0245) or when Spanish or another non-English language was spoken 

exclusively at home (p=0.0013). 

 Household Food Security 

In the adjusted analysis for household food security, no differences were detected between summer 

and fall or by type of demonstration project. Household income of $35,000 or more was 

significantly and positively associated with household food security (p=0.0001). Food secure 

households were found to be less likely when respondents agreed that food expenditures in the 
9 

Synthesis and Discussion 6 

summer were reduced because of the demonstration project (p=0.0041) and when Spanish or 

another Non-English language was spoken exclusively at home (p=0.0354). 

Question 9: What factors are related to differences in household food security between 

the summer and fall? 

We found no significant differences between summer and fall food security at any level (adult, child, 

or household). In direct comparisons by season, child food security was slightly greater in summer 

than fall. However, in the adjusted logistic regression analysis no difference was detected by season 

in food security for adults, children, or households. 

Question 10: How does household food security among demonstration project participants 

in the summer/fall compare with the household food security of the US population? 

The Economic Research Service (ERS) of the USDA reports yearly on household food security 

based on data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics using a supplemental questionnaire to the 

monthly Current Population Survey (CPS). Data from the most recent ERS report on food security 

(Coleman-Jensen et al., 2012a; Coleman-Jensen et al., 2012b) were used to compare food security 

among demonstration project participants to National benchmarks. Although comparisons to 

National data are not exact (e.g., ERS data took place in December), they suggest that the 

demonstration project participants were even more food insecure than National benchmarks. This is 

not surprising given that sites were selected based on their level of need. 

In every group from the two demonstrations we compared with National data, food insecurity was 

higher among demonstration project households. Specifically, comparisons of household survey data 

in summer 2012 with National benchmarks indicate that: 

 

 About 92 percent of all U.S. households were food secure, compared to 47 percent of 

Meal Delivery households, 55 percent of Backpack households, and 53 percent of all 

households of demonstration project participants. 

 Among households with children less than 18 years of age nationwide (the target age for 

these demonstration projects), 8 percent had low food security, and 3 percent had very 

low food security. Low food security and very low food security in Meal Delivery 

households were 31 and 22 percent, respectively. In Backpack households low and very 
10 

Synthesis and Discussion 6 

low food security were 27 and 28 percent, respectively. In all demonstration project 

households, low and very low food security were 29 and 19 percent, respectively.49 

 About 53 percent of project participant households interviewed and that received WIC 

benefits in the previous 30 days were food secure, compared to 73 percent of WIC 

recipients reported nationwide.50 

 Low food security was 29 percent in demonstration participant WIC households, 

compared to 19 percent nationwide. About 17 percent of WIC households of 

demonstration project participants had very low food security, compared to 8 percent 

throughout the United States. 

 Among those receiving SNAP benefits in the previous 30 days nationwide, 70 percent 

were food secure, compared to 50 percent of those in the demonstration project sample 

in households that received SNAP benefits in the previous 30 days.51 

 Nationwide, low and very low food security among households receiving SNAP 

benefits within the past 30 days was 16 percent and 14 percent respectively, compared 

to 28 percent and 22 percent among demonstration project households that received 

SNAP benefits in the previous 30 days. 

Although the level of food insecurity in all demonstration project participants was higher than 

national levels, food insecurity among demonstration participants was noted to be consistent with 

food insecurity among controls in the SEBTC evaluation (USDA, 2013b) which found about 45 

percent food insecurity.52 

Comparisons were also made between National benchmarks and household survey data in fall 2012 

among all demonstration project respondents (Table 4-12b) to compare food security status among 

demonstration project participants with National data during the school year. Food security was 

considerably lower in the Meal Delivery and Backpack demonstration projects than all U.S. 

households and households with children younger than age 18. WIC and SNAP families nationwide 

also had higher household food security compared to WIC and SNAP demonstration project 

households in fall 2012, and families receiving WIC benefits among demonstration project 

participants had higher food insecurity than WIC and SNAP families nationwide. Among those 

 

49 Only four demonstration project households had no children less than age 18 at the time the respondent was 

interviewed. 

50 WIC: Special Supplement Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants, and Children; analysis was 

conducted among respondent households with income less than 185 percent of poverty line and children under age 

5. 

51 SNAP: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits previous 12 months; analysis was 

conducted among respondent households with income less than 130 percent of poverty line. 

52 Controls in the SEBTC evaluation were households that had been randomly assigned not to use the study 

treatment (i.e., the electronic benefits transfer system) and were eligible for free or reduced price meals. 
11 

Synthesis and Discussion 6 

demonstration project participants receiving WIC benefits, low food security and very low food 

security was 24.6 percent and 22.9 percent respectively, compared to 19.0 percent and 8.4 percent 

nationwide. Among those with SNAP benefits, low food security and very low food security was 

28.4 percent and 22.2 percent, respectively, compared to 16.1 percent and 8.4 percent nationwide. 

6.1.4 Implementation 

Site visits and key informant interviews provided information on how the two types of 

demonstration projects were implemented in summer 2012. In addition to confirming and helping 

to explain some of the information collected by telephone household interview for the Meal 

Delivery and Backpack demonstration projects, site visits and interviews were also able to provide 

an in-depth examination of what it was like to implement each of these projects from the 

perspective of the State grantee, sponsor, and site. Thus, we learned about recruitment of sites, 

outreach to parents and caregivers, delivery of food, monitoring and oversight, and training and 

technical assistance. 

Question 11: How does implementation differ among the two types of demonstration 

projects? 

Implementation in 2012 for States and sponsors in both types of demonstrations took advantage of 

systems that had been set up in 2011 and lessons learned from the previous year. Since the timing of 

the notification from FNS in 2011 required all States to get started quickly, all State and sponsor 

personnel appreciated the extra time they were able to use in the spring 2012 for planning for the 

second year of implementation. Basic roles, responsibilities, and implementation processes (e.g., 

food acquisition, food distribution, determination of meal content, and training and technical 

assistance) remained the same between 2011 and 2012. The biggest differences for both types of 

demonstrations were in outreach and recruitment since there was time for more outreach and 

recruitment and a desire to increase participation. In fact, there were 126 more sites overall 

(including individual homes in the Meal Delivery demonstration) in 2012 compared to 2011. One of 

the selling points in obtaining site level cooperation was that the Meal Delivery demonstration, 

which allowed meals to be eaten offsite, did not require as much space as the SFSP sites. 

Although roles and responsibilities were basically the same between 2011 and 2012, they differed 

slightly by demonstration type. Staff in the Meal Delivery demonstration provided different types of 

meals (hot and cold meals in the case of the Meal Delivery demonstration and mostly shelf-stable 
12 

Synthesis and Discussion 6 

food in the case of the Backpack demonstration), requiring different meal preparation and packing. 

Meals were delivered in different ways in the two types of demonstrations. In the Meal Delivery 

demonstration, meals were delivered by dropping off meals at a central drop-off location so they 

could be picked up by parents, caregivers, or proxies and to individual homes. For the Backpack 

demonstration, backpacks or bags were distributed to children participating at an SFSP site on the 

last day of each week of SFSP site operation. These differences in implementation necessitated 

different types of staff, including van drivers to deliver meals for the Meal Delivery projects and 

volunteers to assist in packing and distributing backpacks and bags to children at SFSP sites. 

Outreach and recruitment remained basically the same in 2011 and 2012, but, as noted, the intensity 

increased in both types of demonstrations. Initial recruitment for the Meal Delivery continued to be 

school-based due to the eligibility requirement that participants were required to be identified by 

school districts as eligible for free or reduced price school meals. Once children were identified by 

the schools, outreach and recruitment could be targeted to families of eligible children. On the other 

hand, Backpack demonstrations operated as part of an SFSP open site where at least 50 percent of 

children live in households with incomes at or below 185 percent of the poverty line and meals are 

served to all children at the open site. Thus, there was no need to check income level of children 

participating in the Backpack demonstration, and outreach and recruitment was a less targeted 

process. As confirmed in the household questionnaire survey, this resulted in a higher income level 

and less participation in other assistance programs among Backpack participants compared to Meal 

Delivery participants. 

Apart from the targeted outreach, general outreach was related more to the creativity and willingness 

to persevere of individual sponsors than the type of demonstration. Sponsors from both types of 

demonstrations distributed posters and flyers and used their community partners to assist in 

distribution. Media releases and word of mouth were used for both types of demonstrations. Other 

types of outreach (e.g., door to door solicitation and a community kickoff event) were used by Meal 

Delivery sponsors, while Backpack sponsors used digital/lawn signs and Facebook to advertise the 

demonstration. 

As noted above, differences in the types of food provided to demonstration project participants 

were related to type of demonstration, with Backpack sponsors often attempting to offer shelf-stable 

items that would appeal to the children. Meal Delivery sponsors were able to offer both hot and 

cold meals. Moreover, two Meal Delivery sponsors reported that the State nutritional guidelines they 

used went beyond USDA guidelines. Nevertheless, Backpack sponsors in Arizona were able to fill 
13 

Synthesis and Discussion 6 

bags with food items that could be prepared using enclosed menus. Many of the Backpack sponsors 

also made a concerted effort to offer fresh fruit and produce. 

Oversight and monitoring varied somewhat across sponsors but was not related to the type of 

demonstration project. Instead, intensive oversight and monitoring was related more to the 

availability of staff to keep a close eye on project implementation and safety requirements. Those 

with consultants (e.g., Delaware Meal Delivery demonstration, Kansas and Ohio Backpack 

demonstrations) appeared to have more processes in place for oversight and monitoring and may 

have provided a higher level of monitoring than those that relied on staff from the SFSP 

demonstration. The number of sites also did not appear to be a factor in the intensity of monitoring. 

Those with few demonstration sites provided no more oversight than those with many more sites to 

oversee. 

As it was in 2011, training and technical assistance in both demonstration projects were provided by 

State agencies to sponsors and by sponsors to site staff and volunteers. In both cases, it was mostly 

informal and less intense in 2012 than 2011. Sponsors from both types of demonstration projects 

also provided food safety and nutritional information to families and project participants through 

handouts, games, newsletters, and recipes. 

Question 12: What factors appear to be associated with efficient and innovative 

implementation? 

Based on inquiries to project staff at the State and sponsor level, as well as our own observations, it 

appears that the factors most associated with effective implementation were the ability to coordinate 

with community partners, the availability of staff to focus on the demonstrations, the amount of 

attention sponsors were willing and able to provide, and previous experience in nutrition assistance 

programs. 

For example, all State agency personnel and sponsors were highly familiar with the SFSP and other 

FNS programs. This familiarity provided them with a strong knowledge and experience base for 

implementing the demonstration projects, including the implementation components of menu 

planning, food acquisition, and safe food distribution. Thus, the demonstration projects were then 

able to concentrate on other components that were tied to the specific objectives and requirements 

of each type of demonstration – for example, working with the schools to identify eligible 

participants for the Meal Delivery demonstration project; developing a process for filling and storing 
14 

Synthesis and Discussion 6 

backpacks and bags for the Backpack demonstration project, and providing intensive outreach to 

recruit additional sites and children at both types of demonstrations. 

Community partnerships were also very helpful at all stages of the demonstration. Partner staff and 

volunteers were able to assist in distributing outreach information on the demonstrations, packing 

and distributing meals and backpacks/bags, keeping track of meals and bags distributed for FNS 

statistics, and providing funds or in kind items for backpacks/bags, games, and other activities that 

attracted the children and their families to the project. 

Whereas all projects used existing State and sponsor staff to implement most project activities (e.g., 

management and oversight, payment and expense processing, provision of data, menu planning), 

some of the demonstration projects hired consultants to focus intensely on outreach and 

recruitment and monitoring and oversight. For example, with the help of a consultant, Delaware was 

able to obtain an additional 17 drop-off sites for its Meal Delivery demonstration in 2012 and also 

provide intensive monitoring and oversight. Ohio also hired regional consultants to provide 

oversight and monitoring of project sponsors. 

Like last year, the use of volunteers was an important component of these demonstrations, with 

volunteers filling such diverse roles as van driver, meal packers, and distributors of food at Meal 

Delivery pick-up and SFSP meal sites. 

Some of the more innovative approaches taken by sponsors consisted of those activities that strived 

to make the demonstration projects family friendly. Such activities included the provision of menus 

and separate food items as part of meals (Massachusetts) and backpacks (Arizona) so family 

members could participate together in preparing the meals. Other innovative approaches centered 

around a focus on healthful eating, with Delaware and Massachusetts taking special pains to provide 

nutritious meals beyond the USDA guidelines, Kansas making it a priority to include fresh fruits and 

vegetables in backpacks, and Ohio educating children about healthy eating. Despite the extra effort 

to include fresh fruits and vegetables in backpacks, we did notice that vegetables had the highest 

spoilage of all types of food and sometimes were not eaten (Table 4-6). 

Sponsors in New York stressed efficiency by making good use of available resources and limiting 

waste. They reported using one van to deliver four days’ worth of food, which was considered to be 

an efficient use of resources. 
15 

Synthesis and Discussion 6 

Question 13: What factors are associated with problems with implementation? 

Challenges identified by demonstration project staff were often related to type of demonstration 

project. Some Meal Delivery sponsors considered the work with schools to identify eligible children 

to be a cumbersome process. Moreover, a number of staff noted (as they did in 2011), that they 

were uncomfortable providing meals only to children identified by the school as eligible for free or 

reduced-price meals, knowing that other children in the household (e.g., younger children or those 

visiting for the summer) were also in need of nutrition assistance. This issue seems a double-edged 

sword. The process of identifying children eligible for free or reduced price meals in the schools 

focused the target group on those truly in need. However, by meeting such a requirement, it may 

have left out other children who also may have had a similar need for nutrition assistance. 

Transportation was another problem reported by some Meal Delivery sponsors as being a challenge 

for project participants, and, indeed, almost 25 percent of household survey respondents reported 

that they did not always pick up meals because there was no transportation or it took them too long 

to get to the pick-up site (Table 4-1). This issue too is a double-edged sword. Meal Delivery sites 

were implemented by personnel who were highly experienced and connected to an SFSP site. Yet 

one of the reasons for the Meal Delivery demonstration was to provide food to children in need in 

rural areas where SFSP sites are scarce and lack of transportation reduces the likelihood of 

participation in sites that are farther away. 

In the Backpack demonstrations, some of the sponsors had difficulty obtaining nutritious, palatable, 

shelf-stable food to include in backpacks, and, in fact, food consumption was lower in the Backpack 

than the Meal Delivery demonstration. Interviews with parents/caregivers also showed uneven 

participation as a problem, with large numbers of children coming out for the SFSP on backpack 

days, and generally low participation in some rural areas. 

Question 14: How can implementation be improved? 

Ideally, implementation improvements for the Meal Delivery and Backpack demonstrations should 

be focused on those areas that appeared to cause the greatest problem. For Meal Delivery it was the 

inability to include more children in need in the demonstration. Transportation was a problem for 

both the Meal Delivery and Backpack demonstration, and food content appeared to be a problem 

primarily for the Backpack demonstration. 
16 

Synthesis and Discussion 6 

The inability to include younger children in the Meal Delivery demonstration is an eligibility issue 

that can only be resolved by FNS. Since food was eaten offsite and likely shared with other children 

and adults in the family (see Tables 4-5a-c), this means that project participants were consuming less 

than the full meals provided for them in the demonstration. FNS may wish to consider eligibility 

requirements that will include other children in the families as participants so all children in need will 

be provided with nutrition assistance and all participants will be able to consume the full meals 

intended for them. 

We believe the transportation problems that existed in the demonstrations resulted from site 

location. For example, some of the Kansas Backpack sites located in highly rural areas might have 

been better positioned as part of a Meal Delivery demonstration using a home delivery process to 

distribute meals. Participation was reported to be very low in those demonstrations, partially because 

of a small child population in the area. However, it might have been possible to include more 

children from a wider area if meals could have been delivered to the home. 

Travel was also a problem in the Meal Delivery demonstration, where the original intent of these 

demonstrations was to overcome this barrier. However, 81 percent of parents/caregivers who were 

interviewed reported that they participated in a drop-off site meal delivery; 46 percent reported that 

meals were sometimes not picked up; and 24 percent reported that the reason the meals were not 

picked up was due to lack of transportation or distance (Table 4-1). We also noted that participation 

rates were better in the home delivery method compared to pick-up at a drop-off site (Table 4-2a). 

We were not able to ascertain the relative costs of pick-up versus home delivery in the Meal Delivery 

demonstration project because we did not have the administrative data to do so. However, at face 

value, home delivery seems a better option to alleviate the transportation issue. 

Like last year, food content was mentioned as a problem, particularly in the Backpack demonstration 

project where sponsors tried very hard to find shelf-stable food at reasonable prices that children 

would want to eat. Nevertheless, some sponsors appeared to be doing an excellent job of finding 

out what the children liked and providing variety in their menus each week of operation. We believe 

demonstrations could learn from one another in this regard, and the organization of something like 

an information exchange among Backpack programs might facilitate such sharing of information. In 

addition, FNS could take a more centralized role (or require a more hands on role of State 

administrators) to provide sample menus and lists of vendors. 
17 

Synthesis and Discussion 6 

6.2 Study Strengths and Limitation 

The design and methodology in 2011 and 2012 were similar, so the strengths and limitations in 2012 

are also similar to those in 2011. 

6.2.1 Strengths 

The study strengths include its mixed-method research design and excellent sponsor cooperation. 

For example, the mixed-method research design – comprised of using a household telephone 

interview survey, site visits and key informant interviews, and a cost analysis – facilitated addressing 

the FNS evaluation goals on targeting accuracy, food security, implementation, and cost (although 

cost is not included in this report). A mixed-method research design also enabled us, as researchers, 

to confirm and explain results in one method with results coming from a different method of data 

collection. Thus, not only did the key informant interviews provide an in-depth examination of 

demonstration project implementation, but we were also able to assess satisfaction and confirm 

some of the information reported by parents/caregivers in the household survey (e.g., foods 

provided, targeting accuracy, and demonstration project challenges). 

In addition, we continued to receive the same message from all State grantees and sponsors about 

their commitment to helping children from low income families. This commitment to the children 

was reflected in their efforts to overcome many of the challenges in initial setup and continued 

implementation. It also translated into a strong commitment to assist in the evaluation. Sponsors 

and State grantees were convinced that these demonstration projects were filling a critical need, and 

they were again extremely helpful in identifying potential participants in the evaluation, following up 

with non-respondents, organizing and being available for site visits and key informant interviews, 

and providing a variety of types of data, including data on costs and site operation dates. 

Other strengths of this evaluation include the ability to document a high level of satisfaction with 

the healthiness, variety, and convenience of the food; the depth of data collected on food 

consumption and sharing; as well as the demographic profile provided of this special group of 

children and their families. 
18 

Synthesis and Discussion 6 

6.2.2 Limitations 

Limitations in 2012 included the lack of traditional baseline data and a comparison group; the 

difficulty in defining the eligible population (especially in the Backpack demonstration); coverage or 

representativeness of the sample; the inability to make meaningful comparisons between the Meal 

Delivery and Backpack demonstration projects; difficulties contacting parents/caregivers using 

contact information they had provided; and lack of availability of administrative data to make sense 

of demonstration project costs and put the implementation activities into perspective. 

Lack of Traditional Baseline Data and a Comparison Group. In order to directly examine the 

impact of the two summer demonstration projects on food security, it is necessary to understand 

food security before and after implementation of the demonstration interventions. In addition, to 

rule out the effects of other circumstances on the outcome variables (e.g., food security), one would 

want to have a comparison group as similar to the demonstration project groups as possible. The 

design of this study had neither a baseline nor control group comparison (although we were able to 

compare food security among demonstration project participants to National benchmarks). 

Consequently, the design does not allow conclusions to be drawn regarding the impact of the 

summer demonstration projects on food security per se, only on whether participation in the 

summer demonstration projects led to at least the same level of food security as in the subsequent 

fall. 

Defining the Eligible Population. Interpretation of any survey requires an understanding of the 

population from which survey participants are sampled. For the Meal Delivery demonstration 

project, the population was clear-cut – participants in the demonstration project were children who 

attended school and were eligible for free or reduced price lunches. In the case of the Backpack 

demonstration project, however, children at all sites could pick up a bag or backpack filled with food 

if they had attended the SFSP on the day backpacks were distributed. In both 2011 and 2012, it was 

not necessary to sign up beforehand to receive a backpack or attend the SFSP on previous days of 

the week at most sites, and because all sites were open sites,53 the description of the population was 

ill-defined, and the characteristics of those eligible to receive a backpack could not be clearly 

identified. This makes it harder to interpret the findings for the Backpack demonstration project 

compared to the interpretation for the Meal Delivery demonstration project. 

 

53 Open sites operate in areas in which at least 50 percent of children live in households with incomes at or below 185 

percent of the poverty line. Meals are served to all children at the open site. 
19 

Synthesis and Discussion 6 

Coverage or Representativeness of the Sample. Related to the issue of defining the eligible 

population is the extent to which the people participating in a survey are representative of the larger 

population. Meal Delivery sponsors knew exactly who and how many were participating in their 

demonstration project, and we were provided with the names and contact information from their 

lists of participants. In 2011, when Meal Delivery parents provided spreadsheets or forms with 

contact information, we were confident that we knew the precise percentage of households that 

were covered in the telephone household survey. 

On the other hand, Backpack demonstration project sponsors distributed forms that contained 

information on the evaluation study and a request for contact information. Completed forms were 

then sent to Westat to conduct the survey. Since most Backpack sites did not keep track of the 

names of children receiving a backpack or bag, and forms were distributed more than once to 

parents and SFSP participants, it was not possible to know the actual number of children 

participating in the Backpack demonstration project. In 2011 we attempted to gauge the 

approximate coverage for the Backpack demonstration project, by asking sponsors and site 

coordinators to estimate the number of children who received a backpack or bag at least once over 

the course of the summer. From this number, we estimated coverage for the Backpack 

demonstration (the number of families who returned a form with contact information as a 

percentage of the number who were estimated to have participated in the Backpack demonstration 

project). Not only were these numbers less reliable due to the nature of the eligibility requirements, 

but we also found much lower coverage in the Backpack demonstration (29 percent) compared to 

the Meal Delivery demonstration (84 percent). 

In 2012, to reduce the burden for demonstration project sponsors, we did not ask sponsors to 

provide us with information on the approximate number of demonstration project participants. 

Instead, we anticipated using the administrative data estimate of average daily attendance (ADA). 

Because we did not receive the administrative data in time for this report, we do not have an 

estimate for coverage by demonstration project in 2012. Nevertheless, we have no reason to assume 

that coverage would have changed substantially from what we estimated in 2011. We therefore 

assume coverage in both demonstrations was about what we found in 2011 and that coverage in the 

Backpack project was lower than in Meal Delivery. 

Difficulties Contacting Parents and Caregivers. For the most part, we obtained good response 

to our telephone survey in the summer and fall 2012 with few refusals once the appropriate person 

was reached. Nevertheless, there were large numbers of individuals who could not be reached. 

Initially we assumed that there would be a substantial proportion of households that did not have a 
20 

Synthesis and Discussion 6 

telephone and that we would overcome this challenge by providing cell phones to non-respondents. 

However, we learned from sponsors that many parents/caregivers had a disposable cell phone but 

they either did not want to use their own minutes, or more frequently they traded in their old cell 

phone (the one for which we had a telephone number) for new phones with new numbers. Thus, 

response rates were somewhat distorted by our inability to reach about 16.4 percent of the sample in 

the summer and 8.8 percent in the fall. Fortunately, the percentage of non-reachable respondents 

was lower in 2012 than 2011. 

Making Meaningful Comparisons between the Meal Delivery and Backpack Demonstration 

Projects. Meal Delivery grants were awarded to three States – Delaware, Massachusetts, and New 

York, all located in the eastern part of the United States and two of them located in the northeast. 

On the other hand, Backpack demonstrations took place in Arizona, Kansas, and Ohio, which are 

Midwestern and western States much larger than the Meal Delivery States. Each of these States has 

an entirely different demographic composition, including differences in languages spoken and 

race/ethnicity, as well as different sets of economic circumstances (e.g., unemployment rates). 

Although we have made comparisons by demonstration type for just about every analysis, it is 

important to note that any differences that are found are as likely (or more likely) to be related not 

to the type of demonstration but to the demographic and other differences among the States. 

Lack of Administrative Data. In 2011, there was wide variability in the cost data provided by each 

sponsor -- in the method that we received the data, the nature of the data provided, as well as in 

format and completeness of reporting. Better sponsor training and followup took place for 2012 

data collection in order to make the cost data more reliable and valid. 

Nevertheless, without a context within which to place the cost data, costs on their own are 

meaningless. Thus, for the 2012 report, we planned to use meal counts as the denominator for all 

cost values in order to calculate a cost per meal metric by demonstration project and for other 

meaningful sub-groups (e.g., home delivery versus pick-up at a drop-off site for the Meal Delivery 

demonstration). 

Unfortunately, administrative data were unavailable at the writing of this report, which results in a 

number of important gaps that would have helped to interpret some of the findings in this report. 

For example, as noted above, we were unable to calculate a coverage rate for Meal Delivery and 

Backpack demonstrations and do not have a chapter that describes the costs of the demonstration 

projects. Moreover, without a cost metric, it is not possible to interpret the efficiency of staffing 

each demonstration (see Chapter 5). We know how many staff worked on each project and what 
21 

Synthesis and Discussion 6 

they did, but we do not know the number of meals and backpacks distributed by each sponsor at 

each site to examine the relative efficiency of staffing. 

6.3 Comparisons between 2011 and 2012 

This evaluation consisted of four rounds of data collection: summer, 2011; fall, 2011; summer, 2012; 

and fall, 2012. Comparisons were made between summer and fall of each year, as well as between 

each type of demonstration (Meal Delivery and Backpack). Table 6-1 summarizes the key findings 

from each year of the evaluation. 

These comparisons demonstrate a fair amount of consistency over the two years, with some 

conspicuous differences. While the number of sites increased in 2012 compared to 2011 (as a result 

of more time for planning and a concerted effort on the part of sponsors to increase participation), 

it was not possible to tell whether this increase resulted in increased participation without 

administrative data on meal counts and average daily attendance. Nevertheless, with the exception of 

Hispanic participation, which declined in 2012, participants and their households were remarkably 

similar demographically in 2011 and 2012. The extent of participation (as measured by the number 

of meal deliveries or backpacks per child/household per week received over the course of the 

demonstration) improved slightly in 2012 for the Backpack demonstration from 58.0 percent to 60.5 

percent. The extent of participation was not measured for Meal Delivery in 2011, but the percentage 

that failed to pick up meals in the Meal Delivery demonstration declined (50.4 percent in 2011 

compared to 46.1 percent in 2012). 

The percentage of reported food items consumed completely was approximately the same, although 

sharing food declined in 2012. In 2012, juice was still the most popular food item with 94 percent 

complete consumption (compared to 95 percent in 2011). Food continued to be shared most often 

with another child in the demonstration in 2012, with Backpack participants in both years more 

likely to share vegetables with another child in the demonstration and adults in the household and 

more likely to share juice with children in the household in the demonstration. 

Noting that there was minor overlap of respondents participating in the telephone surveys over the 

four data collections,54 child food security status was relatively stable over the two years. Income was 

 

54 410 participated only in Rounds 1 and 2 of data collection (i.e., summer and fall, 2011); 61 participated in Rounds 1, 2, and 3 

(summer and fall, 2011 and summer, 2012); 53 participated in Rounds 1 – 4 (summer and fall, 2011 and summer and fall, 2012). 
22 

Synthesis and Discussion 6 

a key predictor of child food security in an adjusted analysis in both years. Moreover, in the adjusted 

analysis in 2011 and 2012, no difference were detected between summer and fall or demonstration 

type after adjusting for other variables. Comparisons to national data also yielded similar findings – 
23 

Synthesis and Discussion 6 

Table 6-1. Comparisons between 2011 and 2012 

Comparisons 2011 2012 

Study sample

Number interviewed (Meal 

Delivery)  Summer: 143 

 Fall: 102 

 Summer: 188 

 Fall: 136 

Response rate (%)  Summer (Meal Delivery: 64.6 

 Summer (Backpack): 70.6 

 Fall (Meal Delivery): 78.0 

 Fall (Backpack): 76.0 

 Summer (Meal Delivery: 66.1 

 Summer (Backpack): 71.5 

 Fall (Meal Delivery): 74.8 

 Fall (Backpack): 73.4 

Number interviewed 

(Backpack)  Summer: 525 

 Fall: 369 

 Summer: 555 

 Fall: 386 

Number of sites  9 Meal Delivery drop-off sites 

(at homes) 

 18 Meal Delivery pick-up sites 

 82 Backpack sites 

 107 Meal Delivery drop-off sites 

(at homes) 

 36 Meal Delivery pick-up sites 

 92 Backpack sites 

Participant, respondent, and 

household characteristics  Most participants (81%) were 

between age 5 and 17 

 Backpack participants were 

younger than Meal Delivery 

participants 

 About 64% were below 100 

percent of Federal poverty 

threshold 

 28% of respondents were 

Hispanic, 13% non-Hispanic 

Black, and 52% were nonHispanic White 

 Most frequent marital status 

was married (51%) or not 

married but living with a 

partner (13.4%) 

 About 60% of households 

participated in two or more 

nutrition assistance programs 

 About 14% of respondents 

graduated college 

 Most participants (83%) were 

between age 5 and 17 

 Backpack participants were 

younger than Meal Delivery 

participants 

 About 66% of households were 

below 100 percent of Federal 

poverty threshold 

 20% of respondents were 

Hispanic, 20% non-Hispanic 

Black, and 54% were nonHispanic White 

 Most frequent marital status 

was married (46%), 12 percent 

unmarried but living with 

partners, 21% never married 

 About 56% of households 

participated in two or more 

nutrition assistance programs 

 About 12% of respondents 

graduated college 

Participant, respondent, and 

household characteristics: 

comparison with Meal 

Delivery 

 Backpack participants 

demonstration came from 

households with higher 

income, less poverty, and less 

participation in other nutrition 

assistance programs 

 Backpack respondents had a 

higher education level 

 Backpack demonstration 

participants came from 

households with higher income, 

less poverty, more full-time 

employment, and less 

participation in other nutrition 

assistance programs 

 Backpack respondents had a 

higher education level. 
Synthesis and Discussion 6 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-24 

Table 6-1. Comparisons between 2011 and 2012 (continued) 

Comparisons 2011 2012 

Participation 

Failed to pick up meals at least 

once (Meal Delivery) (%) 

50.4 46.1

Reasons meals not picked up in 

Meal Delivery demonstration  Timing of pickup not 

convenient: 29.0% 

 No transportation: 16.1% 

 Timing of pickup not 

convenient: 30.0% 

 No transportation: 24.3% 

Participation rate (Meal 

Delivery): Percent received 

>75% of meal deliveries 

Not ascertained in 2011  84.9 (home delivery) 

 70.4 (drop-off) 

Participation rate (Backpack): 

percent received >75% of 

backpacks 

 58.0  60.5 

Relationship of participation to 

covariates  Backpack: Annual household 

income, poverty status, 

respondent satisfaction with 

healthiness of food, fact that 

members of the household 

liked the food, household 

participation in another 

nutrition assistance 

program, and employment 

status 

 Meal Delivery: Language 

spoken at home, education, 

and race/ethnicity 

 Backpack: Poverty status 

Perception of food expenditures 

Spend more money in summer 

on food in the summer than in 

the fall (%) 

 52.7  54.2 

Agreed or strongly agreed that 

they spent less money on food 

during the summer due to the 

summer program (%) 

 76.8  67.6 

Food consumption and sharing 

Food items consumed 

completely (%)  86  84 

Food items shared (%)55  26  14.2 

 

55 In some cases, respondents answered that they ate all the food AND shared the food. Since these data are selfreported, such data could be due to errors in reporting or interpretation of the question. Furthermore, the food could be 

shared simultaneously with more than one person. Thus, the percentages do not sum to 100 percent. In addition, 

because of the nature of the question, it is possible that a friend outside the household could also be an adult or a 

participant in the demonstration project. 
Synthesis and Discussion 6 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-25 

Table 6-1. Comparisons between 2011 and 2012 (continued) 

Comparisons 2011 2012 

Food consumption and sharing 

Food items consumed 

completely  Juice had the highest 

percent for complete 

consumption (95%) 

 Vegetables and meat had 

the lowest percent of 

complete consumption (77% 

and 78%, respectively) 

 Consumption of milk higher 

for Meal Delivery (p=0.0400) 

 Consumption of juice higher 

for Backpack (p=0.0548) 

 Juice had the highest percent 

for complete consumption 

(94%) 

 Vegetables had the lowest 

percent of complete 

consumption (68.5%) 

 Consumption generally higher 

for Meal Delivery 

demonstration, particularly 

“meat alternative” foods 

(p<0.0001) 

Food items shared  More sharing by Backpack 

participants compared to 

Meal Delivery participants 

for fruit, vegetables, 

bread/grain, and mixed 

foods (p < 0.0001) 

 Vegetables and meat shared 

more by Backpack participants 

(p=0.0003 and p=0.0048, 

respectively). 

 Milk, juice, and bread/grain 

shared more by Meal Delivery 

participants (p=0.0012, 

p<0.0001, p=0.0319, 

respectively) 

With whom the food was shared  Food more frequently shared 

with another child or adult in 

household, less frequently 

with friends outside the 

household or pets 

 Order of sharing: child in the 

demonstration, adults in 

household, a child not in 

demonstration, friends 

and/or pets 

 Backpack participants more 

likely to share vegetables 

with another child in the 

demonstration and adults in 

the household 

 Backpack participants were 

more likely to share juice 

with children in the 

household in the 

demonstration 

 Food more frequently shared 

with another child or adult in 

household, less frequently with 

friends outside the household or 

pets 

 Order of sharing: child in the 

demonstration, adults in 

household, a child not in 

demonstration, friends and/or 

pets 

 Backpack participants more 

likely to share with another 

child than Meal Delivery 

 Meal Delivery participants more 

likely to share with adults 

Food left over (%) Not ascertained in 2011  7 

Food spoiled (%) Not ascertained in 2011  2 

Child Food security 

Meal Delivery: Food secure (%)  Summer: 78.0 

 Fall: 67.6 

 Summer: 64.2 

 Fall: 66.9 

Backpack: Food secure (%)  Summer: 63.6  Summer: 68.8 
26 

Synthesis and Discussion 6 

Comparisons 2011 2012 

 Fall: 63.5  Fall: 63.7 
Synthesis and Discussion 6 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report 4-27 

Table 6-1. Comparisons between 2011 and 2012 (continued) 

Comparisons 2011 2012 

Child food security 

Difference between summer 

and fall  Meal Delivery: More children 

food secure in summer vs. 

fall (p=0.0251) 

 Backpack: No difference 

 Meal Delivery: No difference 

 Backpack: More child secure in 

summer (p=0.0382) 

Difference between Meal 

Delivery and Backpack  Summer: Meal Delivery 

children more food secure 

(p=0.0012) 

 Fall: No difference 

 Summer: No difference 

 Fall: No difference 

Key predictors of child food 

security (adjusted analysis)  No difference between 

summer and fall or 

demonstration project type 

 Higher household income, 

greater likelihood of being 

food secure 

 Being food secure was more 

likely when respondents 

reported perceiving that they 

had the same food 

expenditures in the summer 

as in the fall compared to a 

perception that food 

expenditure was not the 

same 

 No difference between summer 

and fall or demonstration 

project type 

 Higher household income, 

greater likelihood of being food 

secure 

 Child food security more likely 

when participant age was 

younger 

 Being food secure less likely 

when respondents agreed that 

food expenditures in summer 

were reduced because of 

demonstration project or when 

Spanish or another non-English 

language was spoken 

exclusively at home. 

Comparisons to national data in 

summer 

Demonstration population more 

food insecure than national 

benchmarks: 

 all households 

 households with children 

younger than age 18 

 received WIC 

 received SNAP benefits in 

previous 30 days 

Demonstration population more 

food insecure than national 

benchmarks: 

 all households 

 households with children 

younger than age 18 

 received WIC 

 received SNAP benefits in 

previous 30 days 

Comparisons to national data in 

fall 

Same as in summer Same as in summer 

Satisfaction 

Satisfied with healthiness of 

food (%)  Meal Delivery: 81.7 

 Backpack: 73.3 

 Meal Delivery: 83.6 

 Backpack 69.6 

Satisfied with variety of food (%)  94  95 

Satisfaction with convenience of 

food (%)  97  98 

Agreed or strongly agreed that 

family liked the food (%)  94  94 
28 

Synthesis and Discussion 6 

Comparisons 2011 2012 

What participants liked about 

the program  Food (69.6%) 

 Activities offered (39.5%) 

 Social elements (41.9%) 

 Food (65.7%) 

 Activities offered (36.5%) 

 Social elements (26.0%) 

higher food insecurity in households from the demonstration project compared to all national 

benchmarks. 

Finally, the telephone survey found high satisfaction with the demonstration projects in both years. 

Moreover, in both years, what respondents liked best about the program were the food, activities 

offered, and social elements. 

6.4 Conclusions 

This report covers the data collection and analysis for 2012 on two types of demonstration projects - 

Meal Delivery and Backpack. The Meal Delivery and Backpack demonstration projects provided 

nutrition assistance to children who needed it. However, these demonstrations may also have 

provided meals to some in less need of nutrition assistance (e.g., in the Backpack demonstrations) 

and failed to provide to others who may have needed the food (e.g., in the Meal Delivery 

demonstrations due to eligibility requirements eliminating children in the household who also may 

have been needy and lack of transportation). 

Although somewhat equivocal due to the limitations of the study design and methodology, no 

differences in food security were detected among children, adults, and households during the 

summer compared to the fall when the children were back at school. 

Most States and sponsors appeared to use efficient processes to provide meals and food in 

backpacks to children, taking advantage of their SFSP experience. Some States took a more 

centralized and strong role to ensure a high level of consistency, food safety, nutritious and palatable 

menus, and training and oversight. 

Transportation to pick up meals in the Meal Delivery demonstration project was reported as a 

problem in both 2011 and 2012, with better participation in home delivery than meal pick-up. 

Costs per meal could not be ascertained, although such an indicator would have added further to 

interpretation of study findings, particularly with regard to implementation efficiencies. 
References 

 Addy, S., Engelhardt, W., Skinner, C. (2013). Basic Facts About Low-income Children. National 

Center for Children in Poverty (NCCP). Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia 

University. Retrieved on August 21, 2013 at: 

http://www.nccp.org/publications/pub_1074.html. 

The American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR). (2011). Standard Definitions: Final 

Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. 7th edition. AAPOR. 

The Annie E. Casey Foundation (AECF). (2011). Kids Count Data Center. Children in Poverty by 

Race and Ethnicity. Retrieved on August 21, 2013 at: 

http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/44-children-in-poverty-by-race-andethnicity?loc=1&loct=1#detailed/1/any/false/867/10,11,9,12,1,185,13/324,323. 

Bloom, J. (2011). American Wasteland. Da Capo Lifelong Books, 2011, page 187; cited in Gunders, 

D. (2012). National Resources Defense Council, “Wasted: How America Is Losing Up to 40 

Percent of Its Food from Farm to Fork to Landfill.” Retrieved on August 28, 2013 at: 

http://www.nrdc.org/food/files/wasted-food-ip.pdf. 

Boteach M., and Milam S. (2010). As school ends, hunger beings. Children Need Access to 

Subsidized Meals in Summer Too. Center for American Progress, June 9, 2010. 

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/06/summer_hunger.html. Accessed 

November 12, 2010. 

Burghardt J., and Devaney B. (1993). The school nutrition dietary assessment study: Summary of 

findings. Report submitted to the US Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. 

Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research. 

Children’s Defense Fund (CDF). (2011). Child Poverty in America: 2011. Retrieved on August 21, 

2013 at: http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/2011-childpoverty-in-america.pdf. 

Coleman-Jensen, A, Nord, M., Andrews, M., and Carlson, S. (2011). Household Food Security in the 

United States in 2010. ERR-125, U.S. Department of agriculture, Econ. Res. Serv. September 

2011. 

Coleman-Jensen, A, Nord, M., Andrews, M., and Carlson, S. (2012a). Household Food Security in the 

United States in 2011. ERR-125, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Econ. Res. Serv. September 

2012. 

Coleman-Jensen, A., Nord, M., Andrews, M., and Carlson, S. (2012b). Statistical Supplement to 

Household Food Security in the United States in 2011, AP-057. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Econ. 

Res. Serv. September 2012. Retrieved at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/884603/apn058.pdf 
Cook, J, Frank, D., Levenson, S., Neault, N., Heeren, T., Black, M., Berkowitz, C., Casey, P., Meyers, 

A., Cutts, D. and Chilton, M. (2006). Child Food Insecurity Risks Posed by Household Food 

Insecurity to Young Children’s Health. Presented as part of the symposium “Food Assistance 

Programs and the Well-Being of Low-Income Families” at the 2005 Experimental Biology 

meeting sponsored by the American Society for Nutrition. Dunifon, R., and Kowaleski-Jones 

L. (2003). Associations between participation in the National School Lunch Program, food 

insecurity, and child well-being. Social Service Review 77(1), 72-92. 

Dunifon, R., and Kowaleski-Jones L. (2003). Associations between participation in the National 

School Lunch Program, food insecurity, and child well-being. Social Service Review 77(1), 72-

92. 

Elinson, L., Bethel, J., Deak, M., Li, S., Karakus, M., Borger, C., Milfort, R. (2012). Evaluation of the 

Summer Food Service Program Enhancement Demonstrations: 2011 Demonstration Evaluation Report. 

Prepared by Westat under GSA Contract No. GS-23F-8144H. Project Officer: Hoke Wilson. 

Alexandria VA: United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. 

Gleason, P.M., Suitor, C.W. (2003). Eating at school: How the National School Lunch Program 

affects children’s diets. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85 (4), 1047-61. 

Gordon, A.R., Devaney, B.L., Burghardt, J.A. (1995). Dietary effects of the National School Lunch 

Program and the School Breakfast Program. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 

(Supplement): S 61, 221S-31. 

Kirkpatrick, S.I., Tarasuk, V. (2010). Assessing the relevance of neighborhood characteristics to the 

household food security of low-income Toronto families. Public Health Nutrition; 

Jul;13(7):1139-48. 

Long, S.K. (1991). Do the school nutrition programs supplement household food expenditures? The 

Journal of Human Resources 16(4), 654-78. 

Meyers, A., Sampson, A., Weitzman, M., and Kane H. (1989). School Breakfast Program and school 

performance. American Journal of Diseases of Children, 143 (1): 1234-39. 

Nord, M., and Romig, K. (2006). Hunger in the summer: seasonal food insecurity and the National 

School Lunch and Summer Food Service programs. Journal of Children and Poverty, 12(2), 

141-158. 

Nord, M. (2009). Food Insecurity in Households with Children: Prevalence, Severity, and 

Household Characteristics. EIB-56. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Econ. Res. Serv. 

September 2009. Retrieved on August 28, 2013 at: 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/155368/eib56_1_.pdf. 

Peterson, A., Geller, D., Suchman, A., Moulton, B. E., Haddix, D. (2012). Evaluation of the Impact of 

Enhancement Demonstrations on Participation in the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP): FY 2011. 

Prepared by Insight Policy Research under Contract No. AG-3198-B-10-0011. Project 

Officer: Chan Chanhatasilpa. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service. 
USAID. (2008). Emergencies in Urban Settings: A Technical Review of Food-Based Program 

Options, USAID Office of Food for Peace Occasional Paper 6. August 2008. At: 

http://www.aed.org/Publications/upload/ffpOP6.pdf 

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population survey, annual social and economic supplements 

(2007), available at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/ hstpov8.xls; U.S. 

department of agriculture, Household Food Security in the United States, economic research reports, 

no. 11 (2004), no. 29 (2005), no. 49 (2006), and no. 66 (2007) (Washington, DC: USDA, 

economic research service). 

USDA. (2003). Feeding Low-Income Children When School Is Out - The Summer Food Service 

Program: Anne Gordon and Ronette Briefel, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., for the Food 

and Rural Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Report No. 30, 2003. 

USDA. (2006). Analysis of Summer Food Program and Food Needs of Nonparticipating Children: 

Final Report, Special Nutrition Program Report Series, No. CN-06-SFSP, Project Officer: 

Fred Lesnett. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, 

Nutrition, and Evaluation, Alexandria, VA: 2006. 

USDA. (2010). Solicitation for State Agencies: Summer 2011 SFSP Home Delivery and Food 

Backpacks Demonstration Projects. Request for Applications. 

USDA (2011). Economic Research Service, Food Security in the United States: Measuring 

Household Food Security, retrieved at 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FoodSecurity/measurement.htm on October 11, 2011. 

USDA (2012). Summer Food Service Program. Program History. USDA, Food and Nutrition 

Service. Last modified on 5/8/2012, retrieved at 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/summer/about/program_history.html on June 26, 2013. 

USDA (2013a). Data and Statistics. USDA, Food and Nutrition Service. Retrieved at USDA, Food 

and Nutrition Service. Last modified on 5/8/2012, retrieved at 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/fns/data.htm on June 26, 2013. 

USDA (2013b). Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children (SEBTC) Demonstration: 

Evaluation Findings for the Full Implementation Year by Ann Collins et al. Project Officer: 

Hoke Wilson, Alexandria, VA, 2013. 

Weill, J. (2008). The Impact of Rising Food Prices on Hunger in America. Presentation at the House 

Hunger Caucus Briefing. Food Research and Action Center, CA. 16 April 2008. 

Wellisch, J.B., Hanees S.D., Jordan, L.A., et al. (1983). The national evaluation of school nutrition 

programs: Final report. Santa Monica, California: Systems Development Corporation. 

West, D.A., Price, D.W. (1976). The effects of income, assets, food programs, and household size 

on food consumption. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 58(4):725-30. 

Task #4: Evaluation of the Summer Food Service 

Program Enhancement Demonstrations – 

Subtask 7.5 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Final Report Appendices

Authors 

Lynn Elinson, Ph.D.

James Bethel, Ph.D.

Mary Ann Deak, M.A.

Sue Li, M.D., M.H.S.

Teresa Koenig, M.Ed.

Katy Caperna, M.P.H.

Martha Palan, M.S.

GSA Contract # GS-23F-8144H with the 

Food and Nutrition Service 

November, 2014 

Prepared for:

Food and Nutrition Service (FNS)

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Alexandria, Virginia 22302

Prepared by:

Westat

An Employee-Owned Research Corporation®

1600 Research Boulevard

Rockville, Maryland 20850-3129

(301) 251-1500
Appendix A

Household Questionnaires
Appendix A-1 

Meal Delivery Questionnaire (Summer 2012)
Appendix A-1 

 

OMB Control # 0584-0560NEW

Expiration Date: 7/31/2014

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 30 minutes per response, including the 

time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection of information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Send comments 

regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this

burden, to: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, Office of Research and Analysis, 3101 Park 

Center Drive, Room 1014, Alexandria, VA 22302 ATTN: PRA (0584-0560*). Do not return the completed form to this 

address. 

MEAL DELIVERY PROGRAM 

PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMER 2012 (ROUND 3) 

INTRODUCTION

NOTE: Interviews will be conducted with primary care giver or other adult who can answer questions 

about children in the household.

INTRO1: Hello, may I speak to [NAMED ADULT FROM SAMPLE FILE]?

Yes/speaking or available  Continue

No  INTRO4

INTRO2: My name is ______________ and I’m calling on behalf of the [PROGRAM]. Our records 

show that one or more children from your household is taking part in this program and we’d 

like to ask you some questions about this. Are you familiar with your child(ren)’s participation 

in this program?

Yes  START

No  Continue

INTRO3: May I speak to an adult in this household who is familiar with this program?

Knowledgeable adult available  INTRO2 [TO NEW ADULT]

Adult not available  Collect first name and schedule call-back

INTRO4: My name is ______________ and I’m calling on behalf of the [PROGRAM]. Our records 

show that one or more children from your household is taking part in this program and we’d 

like to ask you some questions about this. May I speak to an adult in this household who is 

familiar with this program?

Knowledgeable adult speaking or available  START

Adult not available  schedule call-back

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-1-1 

 
Appendix A-1 

 

START: The interview takes about 30 minutes to complete. Your participation in this survey is 

voluntary. You have the right to stop at any time or skip questions with no penalty. All your answers 

are private and the information you provide will not be identified by your name, except as otherwise 

required by law. You will receive (INCENTIVE) as a thank you for completing the survey. Your 

answers to our survey questions will provide important [PROGRAM] with important information to 

help improve its services. Any information you provide will remain private. 

ASK FIRST SURVEY QUESTION.

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-1-2 

 
Appendix A-1 

 

PARTICIPATION IN MEAL DELIVERY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT 

For this survey, when I say household I mean your family and other people who live in your 

household and with whom you share food and food expenses.

1. Thinking about your household please tell me the first name and age of all people in your 

household who received a meal delivery from (NAME OF MEAL DELIVERY PROGRAM). 

Name Age (years)

2. Was the meal delivery:

At Home ........................................... 1 

Drop-off Site ..................................... 2 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

FOR MEAL DELIVERY AT HOME

3. How many days a week do you receive meal delivery for (NAME OF PERSON)?

No. days per week ____|___|___| days

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

4. How many (weeks) did (NAME OF PERSON) receive a meal from the (NAME OF 

PROGRAM) at your home?

June: |___|___| weeks

July: |___|___| weeks

August: |___|___| weeks

5. Did you or someone else have to be home at the time of meal delivery?

Yes ................................................... 1 

No..................................................... 2 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-1-3 

 
Appendix A-1 

 

6. Did you have to sign a (FORM OR SLIP) each time you received the meal delivery?

Yes ................................................... 1 

No..................................................... 2 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

7. Were you satisfied with the schedule of meal delivery?

Yes ................................................... 1 

No..................................................... 2 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

FOR MEAL DELIVERY AT A DROP-OFF SITE

8. How many days a week do you receive meals at a drop-off site? 

No. days per week ____|___|___| days

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

9. How many weeks did (NAME OF PERSON) receive meals from (NAME OF PROGRAM)? 

June: |___|___| weeks

July: |___|___| weeks

August: |___|___| weeks

10. How far do you have to travel to pick up the meals from (name of program)?

One mile or less................................ 1 

More than one mile........................... 2 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

11. Who usually picks up the meals? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

Parent............................................... 1 

Sibling ............................................. 2 

Relative ........................................... 3 

Child himself/herself ........................ 4 

Other, specify: ________________.. 5 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-1-4 

 
Appendix A-1 

 

12. Did you have to sign a (FORM OR SLIP) each time you picked up the meal?

Yes ................................................... 1 

No..................................................... 2 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

13. Was there ever an occasion when the meal wasn’t picked up?

Yes ................................................... 1 GO TO #14 

No..................................................... 2 GO TO #15 

REFUSED ........................................ 77 GO TO #15 

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99 GO TO #15 

14. Please tell me if the meals were not picked up on one or more occasion because ...

INTERVIEWER: Check all that apply

It takes too long to get to the drop-off site............................ 1 

You did not have transportation to get to the drop-off site ... 2 

The timing of meal pick up is not convenient for you ........... 3 

There is a long wait to pick up a meal ................................. 4 

Other, specify:_________________________________ .... 5 

REFUSED........................................................................... 77

DON’T KNOW..................................................................... 99

MEALS ALWAYS PICKED UP, DOES NOT APPLY ........... 88

FOR MEAL DELIVERY AT HOME AND DROP-OFF SITE 

15. How did you find out about the meal delivery program?

Flyer ................................................. 1 

Brochure........................................... 2 

Newsletter ........................................ 3 

Word of mouth.................................. 4 

Other, specify:_______________..... 5 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

16. Where did you find out about the meal delivery program? 

 At child’s school...................................1

 At summer food program.....................2

 At another program signup..................3 

 At church..............................................4

 Some other advertising........................5 

 Other, specify.......................................6

 REFUSED..........................................77

 DON’T KNOW....................................99

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-1-5 

 
Appendix A-1 

 

17. Why did you enroll your children (or others) to receive a meal delivery from (NAME OF 

PROGRAM)?

Needed the food and no other option...1

Needed the food and more 

 convenient than other options .........2 

Other, specify........................................3

REFUSED...........................................77

DON’T KNOW.....................................99

SFSP MEAL DESCRIPTION, CONSUMPTION, SHARING AND WASTAGE 

Now I am going to ask you some questions about the meals that your children (or others) received 

through (NAME OF THE PROGRAM)

18. Now please think about the most recent meal delivery you received. What foods were 

provided?

INTERVIEWER: Do not read. Check all that apply. 

Name of Person Milk Fruit Juice Vegetable

Bread/

Grains Meat

Meat 

Alternate

19. For this question, please tell me how often your children (or others who received the meal 

delivery) drank or ate (NAME OF FOOD)?

How many... Always

Most of 

the Time Sometimes Rarely Never Refused DK

Drank Milk

Ate Fruit

Drank Fruit Juice 

Vegetable

Bread/Grains

Meat

Meat Alternate

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-1-6 

 
Appendix A-1 

 

20. Did any of the PEOPLE in your household share (NAME OF FOOD) from the meal delivery 

with each other, other children in the household who did not receive a meal delivery, adults in 

the household, friends, or others?

Share (NAME OF FOOD)

Food Yes No Refused DK

Milk

Fruit

Fruit Juice

Vegetable

Bread/Grains

Meat

Meat Alternate

21. If yes to #20 (for each food), who did they share (NAME OF FOOD) it with?

Who was (NAME OF FOOD) shared with?

Food

Children in 

the HH who 

also get a 

meal 

delivery

Children in 

the HH who 

don’t get a 

meal 

delivery

Adults 

in the 

household Friend Pet

Other, 

Specify Refused DK

Milk

Fruit

Fruit Juice

Vegetable

Bread/Grains

Meat

Meat Alternate

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-1-7 

 
Appendix A-1 

 

22. Thinking about all the food that was provided in the meal delivery package, can you tell me 

whether any of the food became spoiled? 

Food

Yes, became 

spoiled Don’t know Refused

Milk

Fruit

Fruit Juice

Vegetable

Bread/Grains

Meat

Meat Alternate

23. Were there any foods in the meal delivery package that were not eaten by anyone?

Yes ................................................... 1 GO TO #24 

No..................................................... 2 GO TO #25 

REFUSED ........................................ 77 GO TO #25 

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99 GO TO #25 

24. I am going to ask you about the foods that were left over. Which foods were left over? What 

was the reason for not eating these foods? What was done with the food?

Food Why was (food not eaten)*

What was 

done with food?**

Milk

Fruit

Fruit Juice

Vegetable

Bread/Grains

Meat

Meat Alternate

*Codes for Why Was (Food Not Eaten)

Child did not like it...................................1

Plan to eat it later....................................2

Didn’t know how to cook it......................3

We went out to eat..................................4

Child hasn’t been home..........................5

Food was spoiled....................................6

Other, specify..........................................7

REFUSED.............................................77

DON’T KNOW.......................................99

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-1-8 

 
Appendix A-1 

 

**Codes for what was done with food:

Thrown away .................................... 1 

Returned to Drop-off site .................. 2 

Given away to friend/neighbor .......... 3 

Saved for later .................................. 4 

Other, specify ................................... 5 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

PARENT SATISFACTION WITH SFSP DEMONSTRATION AND FOODS

Now I am going to ask you a few questions about your impression of the meals included in the meal 

delivery.

25. How would you describe the meals that are provided? Would you say the foods are healthy, 

somewhat healthy, or not at all healthy?

Very healthy ..................................... 1 

Somewhat healthy ............................ 2 

Not at all healthy............................... 3 

REFUSED ....................................... 77

DON'T KNOW ................................. 99

For the next few questions, please tell me if you agree strongly, agree, neither agree nor disagree, 

disagree, or disagree strongly with these statements.

26. The delivery packages generally include a variety of foods. Would you say you ...

Agree strongly .................................. 1 

Agree................................................ 2 

Neither agree nor disagree ............... 3 

Disagree........................................... 4 

Disagree strongly.............................. 5 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON'T KNOW .................................. 99

27. The delivery package foods are convenient to eat. Would you say you ...

Agree strongly .................................. 1 

Agree................................................ 2 

Neither agree nor disagree ............... 3 

Disagree........................................... 4 

Disagree strongly.............................. 5 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON'T KNOW .................................. 99

28. People who get the meal delivery in my household like the foods provided in the package. 

Would you say you ...

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-1-9 

 
Appendix A-1 

 

Agree strongly .................................. 1 

Agree................................................ 2 

Neither agree nor disagree ............... 3 

Disagree........................................... 4 

Disagree strongly.............................. 5 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON'T KNOW .................................. 99

HH FOOD SECURITY

The next questions are about the food eaten in your household in the last 30 days, which is (REFER 

TO START AND END DATE).

29. Which of these statements best describes the food eaten in your household in the last 30 

days: —enough of the kinds of food (I/we) want to eat; —enough, but not always the kinds of 

food (I/we) want; —sometimes not enough to eat; or, —often not enough to eat?

Enough of the kinds of food we want to eat......................... 1 

Enough but not always the kinds of food we want ............... 2 

Sometimes not enough to eat.............................................. 3 

Often not enough to eat....................................................... 4 

REFUSED........................................................................... 77

DON'T KNOW ..................................................................... 99

Now I’m going to read you several statements that people have made about their food situation. For 

these statements, please tell me whether the statement was often true, sometimes true, or never

true for (you/your household) in the last 30 days—that is, since last (name of current month).

30. The first statement is “(I/We) worried whether (my/our) food would run out before (I/we) got 

money to buy more.” Was that often true, sometimes true, or never true for (you/your 

household) in the last 30 days?

Often true ......................................... 1 

Sometimes true ................................ 2 

Never true......................................... 3 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON'T KNOW .................................. 99

31. “The food that (I/we) bought just didn’t last, and (I/we) didn’t have money to get more.” Was 

that often, sometimes, or never true for (you/your household) in the last 30 days?

Often true ......................................... 1 

Sometimes true ................................ 2 

Never true......................................... 3 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON'T KNOW .................................. 99

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-1-10 

 
Appendix A-1 

 

32. “(I/we) couldn’t afford to eat balanced meals.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for 

(you/your household) in the last 30 days?

Often true ......................................... 1 

Sometimes true ................................ 2 

Never true......................................... 3 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON'T KNOW .................................. 99

Screener for Stage 2 Adult-Referenced Questions: If affirmative response (i.e., "often true" or 

"sometimes true") to one or more of Questions 30-32, OR, response [3] or [4] to question 29, then 

continue to Adult Stage 2; otherwise, skip to Child Stage 1.

ADULT STAGE 2

33. In the last 30 days, since last (name of current month), did (you/you or other adults in your 

household) ever cut the size of your meals or skip meals because there wasn't enough 

money for food?

Yes ................................................... 1 

No..................................................... 2 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

34. [IF YES ABOVE, ASK] In the last 30 days, how many days did this happen? 

INTERVIEWER: If needed, did that happen on 3 or more days? Y/N

|___|___| days

Enter Number

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

35. In the last 30 days, did you ever eat less than you felt you should because there wasn't 

enough money for food?

Yes ................................................... 1 

No..................................................... 2 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-1-11 

 
Appendix A-1 

 

36. In the last 30 days, were you every hungry but didn't eat because there wasn't enough 

money for food?

Yes ................................................... 1 

No..................................................... 2 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

37. In the last 30 days, did you lose weight because there wasn’t enough money for food?

Yes ................................................... 1 

No..................................................... 2 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

Screener for Stage 3 Adult-Referenced Questions: If affirmative response to one or more of 

questions 29 through 32, then continue to Adult Stage 3; otherwise skip to Child Stage 1.

ADULT STAGE 3

38. In the last 30 days, did (you/you or other adults in your household) ever not eat for a whole 

day because there wasn’t enough money for food?

Yes ................................................... 1 

No..................................................... 2 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

39. [IF YES ABOVE, ASK] In the last 30 days, how many days did this happen?

INTERVIEWER: If needed, did that happen on 3 or more days? Y/N

|___|___| days 

Enter Number 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-1-12 

 
Appendix A-1 

 

CHILD STAGE 1:

ADMINISTER TO ALL HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN UNDER 18

Now I'm going to read you several statements that people have made about the food situation of 

their children. For these statements, please tell me whether the statement was OFTEN true, 

SOMETIMES true, or NEVER true in the last 30 days for (your child/children living in the household 

who are under 18 years old).

40. “(I/we) relied on only a few kinds of low-cost food to feed (my/our) child/the children) because 

(I was/we were) running out of money to buy food.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true 

for (you/your household) in the last 30 days?

Often true ......................................... 1 

Sometimes true ................................ 2 

Never true......................................... 3 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON'T KNOW .................................. 99

41. “(I/We) couldn’t feed (my/our) child/the children) a balanced meal, because (I/we) couldn’t 

afford that.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for (you/your household) in the last 30 

days?

Often true ......................................... 1 

Sometimes true ................................ 2 

Never true......................................... 3 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

42. "(My/Our child was/The children were) not eating enough because (I/we) just couldn't afford 

enough food." Was that often, sometimes, or never true for (you/your household) in the last 

30 days?

Often true ......................................... 1 

Sometimes true ................................ 2 

Never true......................................... 3 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

Screener for Stage 2 Child Referenced Questions: If affirmative response (i.e., "often true" or 

"sometimes true") to one or more of questions 40-42, then continue to Child Stage 2; otherwise skip 

to #48. 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-1-13 

 
Appendix A-1 

 

CHILD STAGE 2

43. In the last 30 days, since (current day) of last month, did you ever cut the size of (your 

child’s/any of the children’s) meals because there wasn’t enough money for food?

Yes ................................................... 1 

No..................................................... 2 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

44. In the last 30 days, did (CHILD’S NAME/any of the children) ever skip meals because there 

wasn’t enough money for food?

Yes ................................................... 1 

No..................................................... 2 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

45. [IF YES ABOVE ASK] In the last 30 days, how many days did this happen?

INTERVIEWER: If needed, did that happen on 3 or more days? Y/N

|___|___| days 

Enter Number 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

46. In the last 30 days, (was your child/were the children) ever hungry but you just couldn’t afford 

more food?

Yes ................................................... 1 

No..................................................... 2 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

47. In the last 30 days, did (your child/any of the children) ever not eat for a whole day because 

there wasn’t enough money for food?

Yes ................................................... 1 

No..................................................... 2 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-1-14 

 
Appendix A-1 

 

48. Would you say that children in your household eat more balanced meals and healthy foods 

during the regular school year, during the summer, or about the same in the summer and the 

school year? 

Regular school year.......................... 1 

Summer............................................ 2 

Eats about the same......................... 77

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

49. Thinking about the food available to (NAME OF CHILD) during summer and comparing it to 

the school year ... (CHECK ONE BOX FOR EACH ROW)

More in the 

summer

About the 

same in 

summer and 

school year

Less in the 

summer DK Refused

Was the quantity of food available ...

Was the variety of food available...

Was the amount of fruits and 

vegetables available ...

Was the amount of meat available...

Was the amount of milk and milk 

products available ...

Children ate regular meals ...

Children ate fast food ...

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-1-15 

 
Appendix A-1 

 

PARTICIPATION IN OTHER NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

The next few questions are about your household’s participation in other nutrition assistance 

programs.

50. Have any children in your household participated this summer in a summer food program 

where they eat meals on site? 

Yes ................................................... 1 

No..................................................... 2 

REFUSED ........................................ 77 

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99 

51. Did any children in your household participate last summer in a summer food program where 

they ate meals on site? 

 

Yes ................................................... 1 

No..................................................... 2 

REFUSED ........................................ 77 

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99 

52. Did your household receive SNAP or food stamp benefits in the past 30 days?

Yes ................................................... 1 

No..................................................... 2 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

53. Did anyone in your household receive assistance from the Women, Infant, and Children 

program – also known as the WIC program in the past 30 days?

Yes ................................................... 1 GO TO #54

No..................................................... 2 GO TO #55 

REFUSED ....................................... 77 GO TO #55 

DON’T KNOW ................................. 99 GO TO #55 

54. How many women participated in WIC in the past 30 days?

|___|___| women

Enter Number

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-1-16 

 
Appendix A-1 

 

55. How many Infants and Children participated in WIC in the past 30 days? 

|___|___| infants and children

Enter Number

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

56. Did any children in your household attend the Head Start program or a preschool child care 

program where they get free meals in the past 30 days? 

Yes ................................................... 1 GO TO #57 

No..................................................... 2 GO TO #58 

REFUSED ....................................... 77 GO TO #58 

DON’T KNOW ................................. 55 GO TO #58 

57. How many children participated in Head Start or other preschool child care program in the 

past 30 days?

|___|___| children

Enter Number

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

58. Did any children in your household receive free or reduced price school lunches in the past 

school year (i.e., in the winter or spring 2012)? 

Yes ................................................... 1 GO TO #59 

No..................................................... 2 GO TO #60

REFUSED ....................................... 77 GO TO #60

DON’T KNOW ................................. 55 GO TO #60

59. How many children received free or reduced price lunch in the winter or spring 2012? 

|___|___| children

Enter Number

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

60. Did anyone in your household receive assistance from Meals on Wheels or the Senior 

Nutrition Progam in the past 30 days?

Yes ................................................... 1 

No..................................................... 2 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-1-17 

 
Appendix A-1 

 

PERCEPTION OF CHANGE IN FOOD EXPENDITURE

Now I am going to ask you a couple of questions about the money you spend on food during the 

school year and summer.

61. Compared with the amount of money you spend on food each month during the school year, 

would you say you spend:

The same amount on food in the summer months............... 1 

More on food in the summer months ................................... 2 

Less on food in the summer months.................................... 3 

REFUSED........................................................................... 77

DON’T KNOW..................................................................... 99

I’m going to read a statement to you. Please tell me how strongly you agree or disagree with the 

statement. 

62. Because the people in my household received meals from (NAME OF MEAL DELIVERY 

PROGRAM), I spent less money on food during the summer months than if s/he/they had not 

particpated in the program. Do you ...

Agree strongly .................................. 1 

Agree................................................ 2 

Neither agree nor disagree ............... 3 

Disagree........................................... 4 

Disagree strongly.............................. 5 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

HOUSEHOLD AND RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS

We are almost done. The last few questions are about you and the people who live in your 

household.

63. Thinking about your entire household, meaning family or other people living in your home, 

including family and other people who share food and food expenses, how many people 

currently live in your household, including yourself?

|___|___|

Enter Number

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-1-18 

 
Appendix A-1 

 

64. Of these, how many are adults age 65 or older?

|___|___|

Enter Number

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

65. How many are adults age 18 to 64?

|___|___|

Enter Number

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

66. How many are children age 5 to 17?

|___|___|

Enter Number

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

67. And, how many are children under five years of age?

|___|___|

Enter Number

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

68. Does anyone in your family have any difficulty in doing day to day activities because of a 

physical, mental or emotional (or other health) condition?

Yes ................................................... 1 

No..................................................... 2 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-1-19 

 
Appendix A-1 

 

The next set of questions ask about some basic information about you.

69. Are you male or female?

INTERVIEWER: If gender is obvious, enter item without asking; otherwise ask this 

question.

Male ................................................. 1 

Female ............................................. 2 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

70. Are you Hispanic or Latino?

Yes ................................................... 1 

No..................................................... 2 

Not Hispanic or Latino........................ 3 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

71. Which one or more of the following would you say is your race?

INTERVIEWER: Please read. Select all that apply.

American Indian or Alaskan Native...................................... 1 

Asian................................................................................... 2 

Black ................................................................................... 3 

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander ............................ 4 

White................................................................................... 5 

REFUSED........................................................................... 77

72. What language or languages do you usually speak at home? (DO NOT READ)

INTERVIEWER: Select all that apply.

English ............................................. 1 

Spanish ............................................ 2 

Other, specify:________________... 3 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-1-20 

 
Appendix A-1 

 

73. Are you ...?

Married ............................................. 1 

Divorced ........................................... 3 

Widowed........................................... 2 

Separated......................................... 4 

Never Married................................... 5 

Living With Partner ........................... 6 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

74. What is the highest grade or year of school you completed?

INTERVIEWER: Do not read

Never Attended/Kindergarten Only...................................... 0 

Grades 1 through 8 (elementary/middle school).................. 1 

Grades 8 through 11 (some high school)............................. 2 

Grade 12 or GED (high school graduate) ............................ 3 

College 1 to 3 years (some college or technical school)...... 4 

College 4 years or more (college graduate)......................... 5 

REFUSED........................................................................... 77

DON’T KNOW..................................................................... 99

75. What is your date of birth?

|___|___| / |___|___| / |___|___|___|___|

mm dd yyyy 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

76. Are you currently ...?

Employed for wages ......................... 1 

Self-employed................................... 2 

Out of work for more than 1 year ...... 3 

Out of work for less than 1 year........ 4 

A homemaker................................... 5 

A student .......................................... 6 

Retired.............................................. 7 

Unable to work.................................. 8 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-1-21 

 
Appendix A-1 

 

77. Not including yourself, how many adults in the household were employed full-time last week?

|___|___|

Enter Number

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

78. Not including yourself, how many adults in the household were employed part-time last 

week?

|___|___|

Enter Number

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

79. .Not including yourself, how many adults in the household were not employed last week?

|___|___|

Enter Number

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

80. Is your annual household income from all sources ...?

Less than $25,000 ............................ 1 

If yes, ask...

Less than $20,000 ............................ 2 

If yes, ask...

Less than $15,000 ............................ 3 

If yes, ask...

Less than $10,000 ............................ 4 

If NO to LESS THAN $25,000, ask...

Less than 35,000.............................. 5 

Less than 50,000.............................. 6 

Less than 75,000.............................. 7 

75,000 or more ................................. 8 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-1-22 

 
Appendix A-1 

 

END1: Thank you so much for completing this interview. The information you provided will help 

administrators better understand and improve the [PROGRAM]. Because it is important to learn 

about people’s experiences after they have been in this program for a longer period of time, we’d 

like to call you again in about 4 to 6 weeks to conduct a follow-up interview. Will this number [READ 

CURRENT PHONE NUMBER] be the best number to call?

Yes ..................................... END3

No ................... Continue to END2

END2: What is the best number to call next time?

(_____)_____-________

END3: In case we can’t reach you at this number, please tell me one or two other numbers where 

we might be able to contact you:

(_____)_____-________

(_____)_____-________

END4: Thank you again for your time. Goodbye.

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-1-23 

 
 
Appendix A-2 

Backpack Questionnaire (Summer 2012)
Appendix A-2 

 

OMB Control # 0584-0560NEW

Expiration Date: 7/31/2014

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 30 minutes per response, including the 

time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection of information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Send comments 

regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this 

burden, to: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, Office of Research and Analysis, 3101 Park 

Center Drive, Room 1014, Alexandria, VA 22302 ATTN: PRA (0584-0560*). Do not return the completed form to this 

address. 

BACKPACK PROGRAM

PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMER 2012 (ROUND 3) 

INTRODUCTION

NOTE: Interviews will be conducted with primary care giver or other adult who can answer questions 

about children in the household.

INTRO1: Hello, may I speak to [NAMED ADULT FROM SAMPLE FILE]?

Yes/speaking or available  Continue

No  INTRO4

INTRO2: My name is ______________ and I’m calling on behalf of the [PROGRAM]. Our records 

show that one or more children from your household is taking part in this program and we’d 

like to ask you some questions about this. Are you familiar with your child(ren)’s participation 

in this program?

Yes  START

No  Continue

INTRO3: May I speak to an adult in this household who is familiar with this program?

Knowledgeable adult available  INTRO2 [TO NEW ADULT]

Adult not available  Collect first name and schedule call-back

INTRO4: My name is ______________ and I’m calling on behalf of the [PROGRAM]. Our records 

show that one or more children from your household is taking part in this program and we’d 

like to ask you some questions about this. May I speak to an adult in this household who is 

familiar with this program?

Knowledgeable adult speaking or available  START

Adult not available  schedule call-back

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-2-1 

 
Appendix A-2 

 

START: Your participation in this survey is voluntary. You have the right to stop at any time or skip 

questions with no penalty. All your answers are private and the information you provide will not be 

identified by your name, except as otherwise required by law. You will receive (INCENTIVE) as a 

thank you for completing the survey. Your answers to our survey questions will provide important 

[PROGRAM] with important information to help improve its services. Any information you provide 

will remain private. 

ASK FIRST SURVEY QUESTION.

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-2-2 

 
Appendix A-2 

 

PARTICIPATION IN SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM AND DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

For this survey, when I say household I mean your family and other people who live in your 

household and with whom you share food and food expenses.

1. Thinking about your household please tell me the first name and age of all people in your 

household who participated in the (NAME OF PROGRAM). 

Name Age (years)

Now I am going to ask you a few questions about the summer program that (NAME/each of them) 

attended this summer (IF NEEDED, FROM DATE TO DATE).

For each person listed in #1, Cycle through #2a through #10c.

2. Please tell me if (NAME) is in the (NAME OF PROGRAM) now, has attended the program 

this summer but the program is over, if s/he attended for a while but dropped out?

Name of PERSON

Is 

currently 

attending

Attended but 

program over

Attended for 

a while but 

dropped out DK Refused

AUTO FILLED IN #3

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-2-3 

 
Appendix A-2 

 

3. How many weeks did the (NAME OF PERSON) attend the (NAME OF PROGRAM) in ...? 

Would you say (NAME OF PERSON) attended the program most weekdays, some 

weekdays, or only on (DAYS PROGRAM DISTRIBUTES BAGS/BACKPACKS)? 

Name of PERSON WHO ATTENDED 

PROGRAM (AUTO FILL FROM # 2) Number of weeks and frequency

June July August

# 

weeks

How 

often

# 

weeks

How 

often

# 

weeks

How 

often

*

Codes for How often:

Most weekdays................................. 1 

Some weekdays ............................... 2 

Only on (days program

distributes bags/backpacks).............. 3 

Other, specify _________________ 7 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

4. Did (NAME) ever bring home a bag or backpack with food for the weekend?

Name of PERSON WHO ATTENDED 

PROGRAM (AUTO FILL FROM # 2) YES NO REFUSED DK

GO TO #5 GO TO #6 GO TO #7 GO TO #7

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-2-4 

 
Appendix A-2 

 

5. How many times did (NAME OF PERSON) bring home a bag or backpack in <June, July, 

August>?

Name of PERSON WHO 

BROUGHT A BAG OR 

BACKPACK HOME (AUTOFILL 

FROM # 4, IF YES) June July August

Specify #; 77=Refused, 99=DK

6. Can you tell me why (NAME OF EACH PERSON) did not bring home a bag or backpack with 

food for the weekend? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

Name of PERSON 

WHO DID NOT 

BRING BAG OR 

BACKPACK HOME 

(AUTO FILL FROM 

# 4, IF NO)

Forgot to 

bring it/ 

left it at 

SFSP site

Doesn’t 

like food 

in bag or 

backpack

Friends 

tease 

him/her if 

s/he brings 

bag or 

backpack

home

Other, 

specify Refused DK

7. How did you find out that (NAME OF PROGRAM) has a weekend backpack program?

Flyer ................................................. 1 

Brochure........................................... 2 

Newsletter ........................................ 3 

Word of mouth.................................. 4 

Other, specify:________________... 5 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-2-5 

 
Appendix A-2 

 

8. Where did you find out about the Backpack program? 

 At child’s school....................................1

 At summer food program......................2

 At another program signup...................3

 At church...............................................4

 Some other advertising.........................5 

 Other, specify........................................6

 REFUSED...........................................77

 DON’T KNOW.....................................99

9. Why did you decide to send your household members to (NAME OF PROGRAM) this 

summer? 

Bag or backpack with food for the weekend ........................ 1 

Activities.............................................................................. 2 

Center timing....................................................................... 3 

Near home (or work) ........................................................... 4 

Always send them there for the summer ............................. 5 

Cost of the program............................................................. 6 

Other, specify:_________________________________ .... 7 

REFUSED .......................................................................... 77

DON’T KNOW..................................................................... 99

10. What do your children (or others in the summer program) like about the (NAME OF 

PROGRAM)? 

INTERVIEWER: Do not read, check all that apply 

Activities offered ................................................................. 1 

Foods provided ................................................................... 2 

Program staff....................................................................... 3 

Location .............................................................................. 4 

Timing ................................................................................. 5 

All of their friends attend this program ................................. 6 

Other, specify:___________________________ ................ 7 

REFUSED .......................................................................... 77

DON’T KNOW..................................................................... 99

SFSP BACKPACK FOOD DESCRIPTION, CONSUMPTION, SHARING AND WASTAGE 

Now I am going to ask you some questions about the bag or backpack that your children (or 

others in the backpack demonstration) received through (NAME OF THE PROGRAM)

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-2-6 

 
Appendix A-2 

 

11. Now please think about the most recent bag or backpack (NAME) received. What foods were 

provided in that backpack?

INTERVIEWER: DO NOT READ, CHECK ALL THAT APPLY

Name of 

Person Milk Fruit Juice Vegetables

Bread/

Grains Meat

Meat 

Alternate

12. For this question, please tell me how often your children (or others in the backpack 

demonstration) drank or ate (NAME OF FOOD)?

Food Always

Most of 

the time Sometimes Rarely Never Refused DK

Milk

Fruit

Fruit Juice

Vegetable

Bread/Grains

Meat

Meat Alternate

13. Did any of the PEOPLE in your household share (NAME OF FOOD) from the bag or 

backpack with each other, other children in the household who did not attend a summer 

program, adults in the household, friends, or others? 

Share (NAME OF FOOD)

Food Yes No Refused DK

Milk

Fruit

Fruit Juice

Vegetable

Bread/Grains

Meat

Meat Alternate

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-2-7 

 
Appendix A-2 

 

14. If yes to #13 (for each food), who did they share (NAME OF FOOD) it with?

Who was (NAME OF FOOD) shared with?

Food

Children in 

the HH who 

also get bag 

or backpack

Children 

in the HH 

who don’t 

get bag or 

backpack

Adults 

in the 

household Friends PetOther, 

Specify Refused DK

Milk

Fruit

Fruit Juice

Vegetable

Bread/Grain

s 

Meat

Meat 

Alternate

15. Thinking about all the food that was provided in the bags or backpacks, can you tell me 

whether any of the food became spoiled? 

Food

Yes, became 

spoiled Don’t know Refused

Milk

Fruit

Fruit Juice

Vegetable

Bread/Grains

Meat

Meat Alternate

16. Were there any foods in the bag or backpack that were not eaten by anyone? 

Yes .................................................. 1 GO TO #17 

No .................................................... 2 GO TO #18 

REFUSED ........................................77 GO TO #18 

DON’T KNOW ..................................99 GO TO #18 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-2-8 

 
Appendix A-2 

 

17. I am going to ask you about the foods that were left over. Which foods were left over? What 

was the reason for not eating these foods over the weekend? What was done with the food? 

Food Why Was (Food Not Eaten)*

What was done 

with food?**

Milk

Fruit

Fruit Juice

Vegetable

Bread/Grains

Meat

Meat Alternate

*Codes for Why Was (Food Not Eaten)

Child did not like it...................................1

Plan to eat it later....................................2

Didn’t know how to cook it......................3

We went out to eat..................................4

Child hasn’t been home..........................5

Food was spoiled....................................6

Other, specify..........................................7

REFUSED.............................................77

DON’T KNOW.......................................99

**Codes for What was done with food:

Thrown away .................................... 1 

Returned to center............................ 2 

Given away to friend/neighbor .......... 3 

Saved for later .................................. 4 

Food was spoiled.............................. 5 

Other, specify _________________ 7 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

PARENT SATISFACTION WITH SFSP DEMONSTRATION AND FOODS

Now I am going to ask you a few questions about your impression of the foods included in the bag or 

backpacks. 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-2-9 

 
Appendix A-2 

 

18. How would you describe the food that is provided in the (NAME OF PROGRAM) bag or 

backpack? Would you say the food is healthy, somewhat healthy, or not at all healthy?

Very healthy ..................................... 1 

Somewhat healthy ............................ 2 

Not at all healthy............................... 3 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

For the next few questions, please tell me if you agree strongly, agree, neither agree nor disagree, 

disagree, or disagree strongly with these statements.

19. The bag or backpacks generally include a variety of foods. Would you say you ...

Agree strongly .................................. 1 

Agree................................................ 2 

Neither agree nor disagree ............... 3 

Disagree........................................... 4 

Disagree strongly.............................. 5 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

20. The foods in the bag or backpack are convenient to eat. Would you say you ...

Agree strongly .................................. 1 

Agree................................................ 2 

Neither agree nor disagree ............... 3 

Disagree........................................... 4 

Disagree strongly.............................. 5 

REFUSED ....................................... 77

DON’T KNOW ................................. 99

21. People who get the bag or backpack in my household like the foods that are provided. 

Would you say you ...

Agree strongly .................................. 1 

Agree................................................ 2 

Neither agree nor disagree ............... 3 

Disagree........................................... 4 

Disagree strongly.............................. 5 

REFUSED ....................................... 77

DON’T KNOW ................................. 99

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-2-10 

 
Appendix A-2 

 

HH FOOD SECURITY

The next questions are about the food eaten in your household in the last 30 days, which is (REFER 

TO START AND END DATE).

22. Which of these statements best describes the food eaten in your household in the last 30 

days: —enough of the kinds of food (I/we) want to eat; —enough, but not always the kinds of 

food (I/we) want; —sometimes not enough to eat; or, —often not enough to eat?

Enough of the kinds of food we want to eat......................... 1 

Enough but not always the kinds of food we want ............... 2 

Sometimes not enough to eat.............................................. 3 

Often not enough to eat....................................................... 4 

REFUSED........................................................................... 77

DON’T KNOW..................................................................... 99

Now I’m going to read you several statements that people have made about their food situation. For 

these statements, please tell me whether the statement was often true, sometimes true, or never

true for (you/your household) in the last 30 days—that is, since last (name of current month). 

23. The first statement is “(I/We) worried whether (my/our) food would run out before (I/we) got 

money to buy more.” Was that often true, sometimes true, or never true for (you/your 

household) in the last 30 days?

Often true ......................................... 1 

Sometimes true ................................ 2 

Never true......................................... 3 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

24. “The food that (I/we) bought just didn’t last, and (I/we) didn’t have money to get more.” Was 

that often, sometimes, or never true for (you/your household) in the last 30 days?

Often true ......................................... 1 

Sometimes true ................................ 2 

Never true......................................... 3 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-2-11 

 
Appendix A-2 

 

25. “(I/we) couldn’t afford to eat balanced meals.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for 

(you/your household) in the last 30 days?

Often true ......................................... 1 

Sometimes true ................................ 2 

Never true......................................... 3 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

Screener for Stage 2 Adult-Referenced Questions: If affirmative response (i.e., “often true” or 

“sometimes true”) to one or more of questions 23-25, OR, response [3] or [4] to question 22, then 

continue to Adult Stage 2; otherwise, skip to Child Stage 1.

ADULT STAGE 2

26. In the last 30 days, since last (name of current month), did (you/you or other adults in your 

household) ever cut the size of your meals or skip meals because there wasn’t enough 

money for food?

Yes ................................................... 1 

No..................................................... 2 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

27. [IF YES ABOVE, ASK] In the last 30 days, how many days did this happen?

INTERVIEWER: If needed, did that happen on 3 or more days? Y/N

|___|___| days

Enter Number

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

28. In the last 30 days, did you ever eat less than you felt you should because there wasn’t 

enough money for food?

Yes ................................................... 1 

No..................................................... 2 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-2-12 

 
Appendix A-2 

 

29. In the last 30 days, were you every hungry but didn’t eat because there wasn’t enough 

money for food?

Yes ................................................... 1 

No..................................................... 2 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

30. In the last 30 days, did you lose weight because there wasn’t enough money for food?

Yes ................................................... 1 

No..................................................... 2 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

Screener for Stage 3 Adult-Referenced Questions: If affirmative response to one or more of 

questions 26 through 30, then continue to Adult Stage 3; otherwise skip to Child Stage 1.

ADULT STAGE 3

31. In the last 30 days, did (you/you or other adults in your household) ever not eat for a whole 

day because there wasn’t enough money for food?

Yes ................................................... 1 

No..................................................... 2 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

32. [IF YES ABOVE, ASK] In the last 30 days, how many days did this happen?

INTERVIEWER: If needed, did that happen on 3 or more days? Y/N

|___|___| days

Enter Number

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-2-13 

 
Appendix A-2 

 

CHILD STAGE 1:

ADMINISTER TO ALL HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN UNDER 18

Now I’m going to read you several statements that people have made about the food situation of 

their children. For these statements, please tell me whether the statement was OFTEN true, 

SOMETIMES true, or NEVER true in the last 30 days for (your child/children living in the household 

who are under 18 years old).

33. “(I/we) relied on only a few kinds of low-cost food to feed (my/our) child/the children) because 

(I was/we were) running out of money to buy food.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true 

for (you/your household) in the last 30 days?

Often true ......................................... 1 

Sometimes true ................................ 2 

Never true......................................... 3 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

34. “(I/We) couldn’t feed (my/our) child/the children) a balanced meal, because (I/we) couldn’t 

afford that.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for (you/your household) in the last 30 

days?

Often true ......................................... 1 

Sometimes true ................................ 2 

Never true......................................... 3 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

35. “(My/Our child was/The children were) not eating enough because (I/we) just couldn’t afford 

enough food.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for (you/your household) in the last 

30 days?

Often true ......................................... 1 

Sometimes true ................................ 2 

Never true......................................... 3 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

INTERVIEWER for Stage 2 Child Referenced Questions: If affirmative response (i.e., “often true” 

or “sometimes true”) to one or more of questions 33-35, then continue to Child Stage 2; otherwise 

skip to #41. 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-2-14 

 
Appendix A-2 

 

CHILD STAGE 2

36. In the last 30 days, since (current day) of last month, did you ever cut the size of (your 

child’s/any of the children’s) meals because there wasn’t enough money for food?

Yes ................................................... 1 

No..................................................... 2 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

37. In the last 30 days, did (CHILD’S NAME/any of the children) ever skip meals because there 

wasn’t enough money for food?

Yes ................................................... 1 

No..................................................... 2 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

38. [IF YES ABOVE ASK] In the last 30 days, how many days did this happen?

INTERVIEWER: If needed, did that happen on 3 or more days? Y/N

|___|___| days

Enter Number

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

39. In the last 30 days, (was your child/were the children) ever hungry but you just couldn’t afford 

more food?

Yes ................................................... 1 

No..................................................... 2 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

40. In the last 30 days, did (your child/any of the children) ever not eat for a whole day because 

there wasn’t enough money for food?

Yes ................................................... 1 

No..................................................... 2 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-2-15 

 
Appendix A-2 

 

41. Would you say that children in your household eat more balanced meals and healthy foods 

during the regular school year, during the summer, or about the same in the summer and the 

school year? 

Regular school year.......................... 1 

Summer............................................ 2 

Eats about the same......................... 77

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

42. Thinking about the food available to the children in your household during summer and 

comparing it to the school year ... (CHECK ONE BOX FOR EACH ROW)

More in the 

summer

About the 

same in 

summer and 

school year

Less in the 

summer DK Refused

Was the quantity of food available ...

Was the variety of food available...

Was the amount of fruits and 

vegetables available ...

Was the amount of meat available...

Was the amount of milk and milk 

products available ...

Children ate regular meals ...

Children ate fast food ...

PARTICIPATION IN OTHER NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

The next few questions are about your household’s participation in other nutrition assistance 

programs.

43. Besides the (NAME OF PROGRAM) where (NAME OF CHILDREN) received a 

bag/backpack, did any of the children in your household participate in any other summer food 

program where they ate the meals on-site?

Yes ................................................... 1 GO TO #44

No..................................................... 2 GO TO #45

REFUSED ....................................... 77 GO TO #45

DON’T KNOW ................................. 99 GO TO #45

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-2-16 

 
Appendix A-2 

 

44. How many of the children in your household participated in another on-site summer feeding 

program besides the (NAME OF PROGRAM)? 

|___|___| children

Enter Number

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

45. Did your household receive SNAP or food stamp benefits in the past 30 days?

Yes ................................................... 1 

No..................................................... 2 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

46. Did anyone in your household receive assistance from the Women, Infant, and Children 

program – also known as the WIC program in the past 30 days?

Yes ................................................... 1 GO TO #47 

No..................................................... 2 GO TO #48 

REFUSED ....................................... 77 GO TO #48 

DON’T KNOW ................................. 99 GO TO #48 

47. How many women participated in WIC in the past 30 days? 

|___|___| women

Enter Number

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

48. How many Infants and Children participated in WIC in the past 30 days? 

|___|___| infants and children

Enter Number

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-2-17 

 
Appendix A-2 

 

49. Did any children in your household attend the Head Start program or a preschool child care 

program where they got free meals in the past 30 days?

Yes ................................................... 1 

No..................................................... 2 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

50. How many children participated in Head Start or other preschool child care program in the 

past 30 days?

|___|___| children

Enter Number

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

51. Did any children in your household receive free or reduced price school lunches in the past 

school year (i.e., in the winter or spring 2012)? 

Yes ................................................... 1 GO TO #52

No..................................................... 2 GO TO #53 

REFUSED ....................................... 77 GO TO #53 

DON’T KNOW ................................. 99 GO TO #53 

52. How many children received free or reduced price lunch in the winter or spring, 2012? 

|___|___| children

Enter Number

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

53. Did anyone in your household receive assistance from Meals on Wheels or the Senior 

Nutrition Progam in the past 30 days?

Yes ................................................... 1 

No..................................................... 2 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-2-18 

 
Appendix A-2 

 

PERCEPTION OF CHANGE IN FOOD EXPENDITURE

Now I am going to ask you a couple of questions about the money you spend on food during the 

school year and summer.

54. Compared with the amount of money you spend on food each month during the school year, 

would you say you spend:

The same amount on food in the summer months............... 1 

More on food in the summer months ................................... 2 

Less on food in the summer months.................................... 3 

REFUSED........................................................................... 77

DON’T KNOW..................................................................... 99

I’m going to read a statement to you. Please tell me how strongly you agree or disagree with the 

statement.

55. Because the people in my household received bags/backpacks from (NAME OF 

PROGRAM), I spent less money on food during the summer months than if s/he/they had not 

particpated in the program. Do you ...

Agree strongly .................................. 1 

Agree................................................ 2 

Neither agree nor disagree ............... 3 

Disagree........................................... 4 

Disagree strongly.............................. 5 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

HOUSEHOLD AND RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS

We are almost done. The last few questions are about you and the people who live in your 

household.

56. Thinking about your entire household, meaning family or other people living in your home, 

including family and other people who share food and food expenses, how many people 

currently live in your household, including yourself?

|___|___|

Enter Number

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-2-19 

 
Appendix A-2 

 

57. Of these, how many are adults age 65 or older?

|___|___|

Enter Number

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

58. How many are adults age 18 to 64?

|___|___|

Enter Number

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

59. How many are children age of 5 to 17?

|___|___|

Enter Number

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

60. And, how many are children under five years of age?

|___|___|

Enter Number

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

61. Does anyone in your family have any difficulty in doing day to day activities because of a 

physical, mental or emotional (or other health) condition?

Yes ................................................... 1 

No..................................................... 2 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

The next set of questions ask about some basic information about you.

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-2-20 

 
Appendix A-2 

 

62. Are you male or female?

INTERVIEWER: If gender is obvious, enter item without asking; otherwise ask this 

question. 

Male ................................................. 1 

Female ............................................. 2 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

63. Are you Hispanic or Latino?

Yes ................................................... 1 

No..................................................... 2 

Not Hispanic or Latino......................... 3 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

64 Which one or more of the following would you say is your race?

INTERVIEWER: Please read. Select all that apply.

American Indian or Alaskan Native...................................... 1 

Asian................................................................................... 2 

Black ................................................................................... 3 

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander ............................ 4 

White................................................................................... 5 

REFUSED........................................................................... 77

65. What language or languages do you usually speak at home? (DO NOT READ)

INTERVIEWER: Select all that apply.

English ............................................. 1 

Spanish ............................................ 2 

Other, specify:________________... 3 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-2-21 

 
Appendix A-2 

 

66. Are you ...?

Married ............................................. 1 

Divorced ........................................... 3 

Widowed........................................... 2 

Separated......................................... 4 

Never Married................................... 5 

Living With Partner ........................... 6 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

67. What is the highest grade or year of school you completed?

INTERVIEWER: Do not read

Never Attended/Kindergarten Only...................................... 0 

Grades 1 through 8 (elementary/middle school).................. 1 

Grades 8 through 11 (some high school)............................. 2 

Grade 12 or GED (high school graduate) ............................ 3 

College 1 to 3 years (some college or technical school)...... 4 

College 4 years or more (college graduate)......................... 5 

REFUSED........................................................................... 77

DON’T KNOW..................................................................... 99

68. What is your date of birth?

|___|___| / |___|___| / |___|___|___|___|

mm dd yyyy 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

69. Are you currently ...?

Employed for wages ......................... 1 

Self-employed................................... 2 

Out of work for more than 1 year ...... 3 

Out of work for less than 1 year........ 4 

A homemaker................................... 5 

A student .......................................... 6 

Retired.............................................. 7 

Unable to work.................................. 8 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-2-22 

 
Appendix A-2 

 

70. Not including yourself, how many adults in the household were employed full-time last week?

|___|___|

Enter Number

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

71. Not including yourself, how many adults in the household were employed part-time last 

week?

|___|___|

Enter Number

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

72. Not including yourself, how many adults in the household were not employed last week?

|___|___|

Enter Number

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

73. Is your annual household income from all sources ...?

Less than $25,000 ............................ 1 

If yes, ask:

Less than $20,000 ............................ 2 

If yes, ask:

Less than $15,000 ............................ 3 

If yes, ask:

Less than $10,000 ............................ 4 

If NO to LESS THAN $25,000, ask:

Less than 35,000.............................. 5 

Less than 50,000.............................. 6 

Less than 75,000.............................. 7 

75,000 or more ................................. 8 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW .................................. 99

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-2-23 

 
Appendix A-2 

 

END1: Thank you so much for completing this interview. The information you provided will help 

administrators better understand and improve the [PROGRAM]. Because it is important to learn 

about people’s experiences after they have been in this program for a longer period of time, we’d 

like to call you again in about 4 to 6 weeks to conduct a follow-up interview. Will this number [READ 

CURRENT PHONE NUMBER] be the best number to call?

Yes ..................................... END3

No ................... Continue to END2

END2: What is the best number to call next time?

(_____)_____-________

END3: In case we can’t reach you at this number, please tell me one or two other numbers where 

we might be able to contact you:

(_____)_____-________

(_____)_____-________

END4: Thank you again for your time. Goodbye.

 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-2-24 

 
Appendix A-3 

Fall 2012 Questionnaire
Appendix A-3 

 

OMB Control # 0584-0560NEW

Expiration Date: 7/31/2014

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average (insert time) hours [or minutes] per response, 

including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection of information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Send comments regarding this 

burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, Office of Research and Analysis, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1014, 

Alexandria, VA 22302 ATTN: PRA (0584-0560*). Do not return the completed form to this address. 

SCHOOL YEAR PARENT QUESTIONNAIRE FALL 2012 (Round 4) 

BACKPACK AND MEAL DELIVERY PROGRAM

INTRODUCTION

NOTE: Interviews will be conducted with primary care giver or other adult who can answer 

questions about children in the household.

INTRO1: Hello, may I speak to [NAME OF ADULT WHO COMPLETED ROUND 1]?

Yes/speaking or available  START

No  schedule call-back

START: My name is ____ and I’m calling on behalf of the [PROGRAM]. We contacted you on 

[R1 COMPLETION DATE] to ask you some questions about [PROGRAM]. Thank you so 

much for your earlier participation in our study. Now that your child or children has/have 

been participating in this program for a few weeks, we’d like to ask you some more 

questions to get some current information about your experiences. The interview takes 

about 30 minutes to complete. Your participation in this survey is voluntary. You have 

the right to stop at any time or skip questions. All your answers are private and the 

information you provide will not be identified by your name. You will receive 

(INCENTIVE) as a thank you for completing the survey.

Your answers to our survey questions will provide important [PROGRAM] with important 

information to help improve its services. Any information you provide will remain private. 

ASK FIRST SURVEY QUESTION.

For this survey, when I say household I mean your family and other people who live in your 

household and with whom you share food and food expenses.

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-3-1 

 
Appendix A-3 

 

PARTICIPATION IN NSLP, SBP, AND AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS

1. Thinking about your household please tell me the first name and age of all people in 

your household who are currently enrolled in school. 

Name Age (years)

Now I am going to ask you a few questions about their participation in the school lunch and 

breakfast programs this year (IF NEEDED, SINCE FALL 2011). 

2. Please tell me if (NAME) usually eats school lunch or brings a lunch from home? If 

person usually eats school lunch, ASK – And on how many days does (NAME) usually 

eat school lunch?

Name of CHILD Source of Lunch Number of days ate school 

lunch

School Home DK Refused # DAYS DK Refused

3. Please tell me if (NAME) usually eats breakfast at home or school? If person usually 

eats school breakfast, ASK – And on how many days does (NAME) usually eat school 

breakfast?

Name of CHILD Source of breakfast Number of days ate school 

breakfast

School Home DK Refused # DAYS DK Refused

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-3-2 

 
Appendix A-3 

 

4. Please tell me if (NAME) participates in any after school program? If yes, do they 

provide any food? If yes, ASK – and on how many days does (NAME) usually eat the 

food at the after school program? 

Name 

of 

CHILD

Participate in after 

school program

Do they provide snacks? If yes, number of days 

child eats snack at 

program?

YES NO DK Refused Yes NO DK Refused # DAYS DK Refused

5. Did the children (or others) in your household qualify to receive free or reduced price 

school lunches in the current year? 

Yes ............................................................................................. 1 GO TO Q. 6

No ............................................................................................... 2 GO TO Q. 7 

REFUSED ................................................................................. 77 GO TO Q. 7

DON'T KNOW ............................................................................ 99 GO TO Q. 7 

6. How many children (or others) received free or reduced price lunch? _____________

|___|___| children

ENTER NUMBER 

REFUSED ...................................................................................................... 77

DK .................................................................................................................. 99 

HH Food Security

The next questions are about the food eaten in your household in the last 30 days, which is 

(REFER TO START AND END DATE).

 

7. Which of these statements best describes the food eaten in your household in the last 

30 days: —enough of the kinds of food (I/we) want to eat; —enough, but not always the 

kinds of food (I/we) want; —sometimes not enough to eat; or, —often not enough to eat?

Enough of the kinds of food we want to eat......................... 1 

Enough but not always the kinds of food we want .............. 2 

Sometimes not enough to eat ............................................. 3 

Often not enough to eat ...................................................... 4 

REFUSED........................................................................... 77

DON’T KNOW..................................................................... 99

Now I’m going to read you several statements that people have made about their food situation. 

For these statements, please tell me whether the statement was often true, sometimes true, or 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-3-3 

 
Appendix A-3 

 

never true for (you/your household) in the last 30 days—that is, since last (name of current 

month). 

8. The first statement is “(I/We) worried whether (my/our) food would run out before (I/we) 

got money to buy more.” Was that often true, sometimes true, or never true for (you/your 

household) in the last 30 days?

Often true .............................................. ............................................. 1

Sometimes true ............................................................. ...................... 2

Never true ..................................................................................... 3

REFUSED ................................................................................................ 77

DK ............................................................................................................ 99 

9. “The food that (I/we) bought just didn’t last, and (I/we) didn’t have money to get more.” 

Was that often, sometimes, or never true for (you/your household) in the last 30 days?

Often true .............................................. ............................................. 1

Sometimes true ............................................................. ...................... 2

Never true ..................................................................................... 3

REFUSED ................................................................................................ 77

DK ............................................................................................................ 99 

10. “(I/we) couldn’t afford to eat balanced meals.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true 

for (you/your household) in the last 30 days?

Often true .............................................. ............................................. 1

Sometimes true ............................................................. ...................... 2

Never true ..................................................................................... 3

REFUSED ................................................................................................ 77

DK ............................................................................................................ 99 

Screener for Stage 2 Adult-Referenced Questions: If affirmative response (i.e., "often true" or 

"sometimes true") to one or more of Questions 8-10, OR, response [3] or [4] to question 7, then 

continue to Adult Stage 2; otherwise, skip to Child Stage 1.

Adult Stage 2

11. In the last 30 days, since last (name of current month), did (you/you or other adults in 

your household) ever cut the size of your meals or skip meals because there wasn't 

enough money for food?

Yes ............................................................................................................ 1 

No ............................................................................................................... 2 

REFUSED ................................................................................................ 77

DK ............................................................................................................ 99 

12. [IF YES ABOVE, ASK] In the last 30 days, how many days did this happen? 

|___|___| days 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-3-4 

 
Appendix A-3 

 

ENTER NUMBER 

INTERVIEWER: If needed, did that happen on 3 or more days? Y/N

REFUSED ............................................................................................... 77

DK ........................................................................................................... 99 

13. In the last 30 days, did you ever eat less than you felt you should because there wasn't 

enough money for food?

Yes ............................................................................................................ 1 

No ............................................................................................................... 2 

REFUSED ................................................................................................ 77

DON'T KNOW ........................................................................................... 99 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-3-5 

 
Appendix A-3 

 

14. In the last 30 days, were you every hungry but didn't eat because there wasn't enough 

money for food?

Yes ............................................................................................................ 1 

No ............................................................................................................... 2 

REFUSED ................................................................................................ 77

DON'T KNOW ........................................................................................... 99 

15. In the last 30 days, did you lose weight because there wasn't enough money for food?

Yes ........................................................................................................... 1 

No ............................................................................................................. 2 

REFUSED ............................................................................................... 77

DON'T KNOW ......................................................................................... 99 

Screener for Stage 3 Adult-Referenced Questions: If affirmative response to one or more of 

questions 11 through 15, then continue to Adult Stage 3; otherwise skip to Child Stage 1.

Adult Stage 3

16. In the last 30 days, did (you/you or other adults in your household) ever not eat for a 

whole day because there wasn't enough money for food?

Yes ........................................................................................................... 1 

No ............................................................................................................. 2 

REFUSED ............................................................................................... 77

DON'T KNOW ......................................................................................... 99 

17. [IF YES ABOVE, ASK] In the last 30 days, how many days did this happen?

|___|___| days Y/N

ENTER NUMBER 

INTERVIEWER: If needed, did that happen on 3 or more days? Y/N 

REFUSED ............................................................................................... 77

DK ........................................................................................................... 99 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-3-6 

 
Appendix A-3 

 

Child Stage 1: ADMINISTER TO ALL HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN UNDER 18

Now I'm going to read you several statements that people have made about the food situation of 

their children. For these statements, please tell me whether the statement was OFTEN true, 

SOMETIMES true, or NEVER true in the last 30 days for (your child/children living in the 

household who are under 18 years old).

18. “(I/we) relied on only a few kinds of low-cost food to feed (my/our) child/the children) 

because (I was/we were) running out of money to buy food.” Was that often, sometimes, 

or never true for (you/your household) in the last 30 days?

Often true......................................... 1 

Sometimes true ................................ 2 

Never true ........................................ 3 

REFUSED........................................ 77

DK.................................................... 99

19. “(I/We) couldn’t feed (my/our) child/the children) a balanced meal, because (I/we) 

couldn’t afford that.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for (you/your household) 

in the last 30 days?

Often true ......................................... 1 

Sometimes true ................................ 2 

Never true ........................................ 3 

REFUSED........................................ 77

DK.................................................... 99

20. "(My/Our child was/The children were) not eating enough because (I/we) just couldn't 

afford enough food." Was that often, sometimes, or never true for (you/your household) 

in the last 30 days?

Often true ......................................... 1 

Sometimes true ................................ 2 

Never true ........................................ 3 

REFUSED........................................ 77

DK.................................................... 99

Screener for Stage 2 Child Referenced Questions: If affirmative response (i.e., "often true" or 

"sometimes true") to one or more of questions 31-33, then continue to Child Stage 2; otherwise 

skip to Q.40

Child Stage 2

21. In the last 30 days, since (current day) of last month, did you ever cut the size of (your 

child's/any of the children's) meals because there wasn't enough money for food?

Yes ........................................................................................................... 1 

No ............................................................................................................. 2 

REFUSED ............................................................................................... 77

DON'T KNOW ......................................................................................... 99 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-3-7 

 
Appendix A-3 

 

22. In the last 30 days, did (CHILD’S NAME/any of the children) ever skip meals because 

there wasn't enough money for food?

Yes ........................................................................................................... 1 

No ............................................................................................................. 2 

REFUSED ............................................................................................... 77

DON'T KNOW ......................................................................................... 99 

23. [IF YES ABOVE ASK] In the last 30 days, how many days did this happen?

|___|___| days 

ENTER NUMBER 

INTERVIEWER: If needed, did that happen on 3 or more days? Y/N

REFUSED ........................................................................................... 77

DK ...................................................................................................... 99 

24. In the last 30 days, (was your child/were the children) ever hungry but you just couldn't 

afford more food?

Yes ........................................................................................................... 1 

No ............................................................................................................. 2 

REFUSED ............................................................................................... 77

DON'T KNOW ......................................................................................... 99 

25. In the last 30 days, did (your child/any of the children) ever not eat for a whole day 

because there wasn't enough money for food?

Yes ........................................................................................................... 1 

No ............................................................................................................. 2 

REFUSED ............................................................................................... 77

DON'T KNOW ......................................................................................... 99 

26. Would you say that children in your household eat more balanced meals and healthy 

foods during the regular school year, during the summer, or about the same in the 

summer and the school year? 

Regular school year ......................................................................................... 1 

Summer ............................................................................................................ 2 

Eats about the same ....................................................................................... 77 

REFUSED ....................................................................................................... 77 

DON'T KNOW ................................................................................................. 99 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-3-8 

 
Appendix A-3 

 

27. Thinking about the food available to (NAME OF PERSON) during summer and 

comparing it to the school year ... (CHECK ONE BOX FOR EACH ROW)

More in the 

summer

About the 

same in 

summer and 

school year

Less in 

the 

summer

DK Refused

Was the quantity of food available 

... 

Was the variety of food available...

Was the amount of fruits and 

vegetables available ... 

Was the amount of meat 

available... 

Was the amount of milk and milk 

products ... 

Children ate regular meals ...

Children ate fast food ...

PARTICIPATION IN OTHER NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

The next few questions are about your household’s participation in other nutrition assistance 

programs.

28. Did your household receive SNAP or food stamp benefits in the past 30 days?

Yes................................................... 1 

No .................................................... 2 

REFUSED........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW.................................. 99

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-3-9 

 
Appendix A-3 

 

29. Did anyone in your household receive assistance from the Women, Infant, and Children 

program – also known as the WIC program in the past 30 days?

Yes................................................... 1 GO TO #30

No .................................................... 2 GO TO #32

REFUSED ....................................... 77 GO TO #32

DON’T KNOW ................................. 99 GO TO #32

30. How many women participated in WIC in the past 30 days? 

|___|___| women

Enter Number

REFUSED........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW.................................. 99

31. How many Infants and Children participated in WIC in the past 30 days? 

|___|___| infants and children

Enter Number

REFUSED........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW.................................. 99

32. Did any children in your household attend the Head Start program or a preschool child 

care program where they got free meals in the past 30 days?

Yes................................................... 1 

No .................................................... 2 

REFUSED........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW.................................. 99

33. How many children participated in Head Start or other preschool child care program in 

the past 30 days?

|___|___| children

Enter Number

REFUSED........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW.................................. 99

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-3-10 

 
Appendix A-3 

 

34. Did anyone in your household receive assistance from Meals on Wheels or the Senior 

Nutrition Progam in the past 30 days?

Yes................................................... 1 

No .................................................... 2 

REFUSED........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW.................................. 99

PERCEPTION OF CHANGE IN FOOD EXPENDITURE

Now I am going to ask you a couple of questions about the money you spend on food during the 

school year and summer.

35. Compared with the amount of money you spend on food each month during the school 

year, would you say you spend:

The same amount on food in the summer months .............. 1 

More on food in the summer months................................... 2 

Less on food in the summer months ................................... 3 

REFUSED........................................................................... 77

DK ...................................................................................... 99

I’m going to read a statement to you. Please tell me how strongly you agree or disagree with the 

statement.

36. Because the people in my household participated in the summer food program, I spent 

less money on food during the summer months than if s/he/they had not particpated in 

the program. Do you ...

Agree strongly .................................. 1 

Agree ............................................... 2 

Neither agree nor disagree............... 3 

Disagree........................................... 4 

Disagree strongly ............................. 5 

REFUSED ........................................ 77

DK.................................................... 99

HOUSEHOLD AND RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS

We are almost done. The last few questions are about you and the people who live in your 

household.

37. Thinking about your entire household, meaning family or other people living in your 

home, including family and other people who share food and food expenses, how many 

people currently live in your household, including yourself?

|___|___|

Enter Number

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-3-11 

 
Appendix A-3 

 

REFUSED........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW.................................. 99

38. Of these, how many are adults age 65 or older?

|___|___|

Enter Number

REFUSED........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW.................................. 99

39. How many are adults age 18 to 64?

|___|___|

Enter Number

REFUSED........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW.................................. 99

40. How many are children age 5 to 17?

|___|___|

Enter Number

REFUSED........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW.................................. 99

41. And, how many are children under five years of age?

|___|___|

Enter Number

REFUSED........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW.................................. 99

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-3-12 

 
Appendix A-3 

 

42. Does anyone in your family have any difficulty in doing day to day activities because of a 

physical, mental or emotional (or other health) condition?

Yes................................................... 1 

No .................................................... 2 

REFUSED........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW.................................. 99

NOTE: THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WILL BE ASKED WHEN A NEW 

PARENT/CAREGIVER IS LOCATED. THESE QUESTIONS WILL NOT BE ASKED IF 

THE SAME PARENT/CAREGIVER IS INTERVIEWED FOR ROUND 2. 

43. Are you male or female?

INTERVIEWER: If gender is obvious, enter item without asking; otherwise ask this 

question.

Male ................................................. 1 

Female............................................. 2 

REFUSED........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW.................................. 99

44. Are you Hispanic or Latino?

Yes................................................... 1 

No .................................................... 2 

Not Hispanic or Latino........................ 3 

REFUSED........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW.................................. 99

45. Which one or more of the following would you say is your race?

INTERVIEWER: Please read. Select all that apply.

American Indian or Alaskan Native ..................................... 1 

Asian................................................................................... 2 

Black................................................................................... 3 

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander............................ 4 

White .................................................................................. 5 

REFUSED........................................................................... 77

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-3-13 

 
Appendix A-3 

 

46. What language or languages do you usually speak at home? (DO NOT READ)

INTERVIEWER: Select all that apply.

English ............................................. 1 

Spanish ............................................ 2 

Other, specify:________________... 3 

REFUSED........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW.................................. 99

47. Are you ...?

Married............................................. 1 

Divorced........................................... 3 

Widowed .......................................... 2 

Separated ........................................ 4 

Never Married .................................. 5 

Living With Partner........................... 6 

REFUSED........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW.................................. 99

48. What is the highest grade or year of school you completed?

INTERVIEWER: Do not read

Never Attended/Kindergarten Only ..................................... 0 

Grades 1 through 8 (elementary/middle school).................. 1 

Grades 8 through 11 (some high school) ............................ 2 

Grade 12 or GED (high school graduate)............................ 3 

College 1 to 3 years (some college or technical school)...... 4 

College 4 years or more (college graduate) ........................ 5 

REFUSED........................................................................... 77

DON’T KNOW..................................................................... 99

49. What is your date of birth?

|___|___| / |___|___| / |___|___|___|___|

mm dd yyyy

REFUSED........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW.................................. 99

50. Are you currently ...?

Employed for wages......................... 1 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-3-14 

 
Appendix A-3 

 

Self-employed .................................. 2 

Out of work for more than 1 year...... 3 

Out of work for less than 1 year........ 4 

A homemaker................................... 5 

A student.......................................... 6 

Retired ............................................. 7 

Unable to work ................................. 8 

REFUSED........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW.................................. 99

51. Not including yourself, how many adults in the household were employed full-time last 

week?

|___|___| 

Enter Number 

REFUSED........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW.................................. 99

52. Not including yourself, how many adults in the household were employed part-time last 

week?

|___|___| 

Enter Number

REFUSED........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW.................................. 99

53. Not including yourself, how many adults in the household were not employed last week?

|___|___|

Enter Number

REFUSED........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW.................................. 99

54. Is your annual household income from all sources...?

Less than $25,000............................ 1 

If yes, ask...

Less than 20,000.............................. 2 

If yes, ask...

Less than 15,000.............................. 3 

If yes, ask...

Less than 10,000.............................. 4 

If NO to LESS THAN $25,000, ask...

Less than 35,000.............................. 5 

Less than 50,000.............................. 6 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-3-15 

 
Appendix A-3 

 

Less than 75,000.............................. 7 

75,000 or more ................................ 8 

REFUSED........................................ 77

DON’T KNOW.................................. 99

END1: Thank you so much for completing this interview. The information you provided will help 

administrators better understand and improve the [PROGRAM]. Because it is important to learn 

about people’s experiences after they have been in this program for a longer period of time, 

we’d like to call you again. Will this number [READ CURRENT PHONE NUMBER] the best 

number to call?

Yes  END3

No  Continue to END2

END2: What is the best number to call next time?

END3: In case we can’t reach you at this number, please tell me one or two other numbers 

where we might be able to contact you:

END4: Thank you again for your time. Goodbye.

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report A-3-16 

 
Appendix B

Demonstration Projects: 

State, Type of Demonstration, 

Sponsor, Site, and Start and End Date
Appendix B 

 

Demonstration Projects: State, Type of Demonstration, Sponsor, Site, and Start and End Date 

State

Type of 

demo Sponsor(s) Site(s) Start Date End Date 

DE MD* Food Bank of Delaware

Adi North Village and Lakewood 

Apartments 06/11/12 08/24/12

DE MD Food Bank of Delaware Stoney Brook Apartments 06/11/12 08/17/12

DE MD Food Bank of Delaware Little Creek Apartments 06/11/12 08/24/12

DE MD Food Bank of Delaware Blades 06/11/12 08/17/12

DE MD Food Bank of Delaware Canterbury Apartments 06/11/12 08/24/12

DE MD Food Bank of Delaware Dunbarton Oaks 06/11/12 08/17/12

DE MD Food Bank of Delaware

Elizabeth Cornish Landing and 

Annex 06/11/12 08/24/12

DE MD Food Bank of Delaware Greenlawn Apartments 06/11/12 08/17/12

DE MD Food Bank of Delaware Greenside Manor 06/11/12 08/17/12

DE MD Food Bank of Delaware Hollybrook I and II 06/11/12 08/24/12

DE MD Food Bank of Delaware La Esperanza Community Center 06/11/12 08/24/12

DE MD Food Bank of Delaware Mispillion Apartments 06/11/12 08/24/12

DE MD Food Bank of Delaware Seaford Apartments 06/11/12 08/17/12

DE MD Food Bank of Delaware La Iglesia de Dios De Maranatha 06/11/12 08/17/12

DE MD Food Bank of Delaware

Child Inc. Family Resource 

Center/Sparrow Run 06/18/12 08/24/12

DE MD Food Bank of Delaware Melrose Place Apartments 06/18/12 08/17/12

DE MD Food Bank of Delaware

Child Inc. Family Resource 

Center/Cheltenham Village 06/18/12 08/24/12

DE MD Food Bank of Delaware

Richardson Park Cap/St. James 

Episcopal Church 06/18/12 08/24/12

DE MD Food Bank of Delaware Riverview Place Apartments 06/18/12 08/24/12

DE MD Food Bank of Delaware

Carvel Gardens and Carvel 

Gardens Annes 06/22/12 08/17/12

DE MD Food Bank of Delaware Wexford Village 06/22/12 08/17/12

DE MD Food Bank of Delaware Blades Elementary 07/09/12 08/17/12

MA MD YMCA of Cape Cod Cromwell Court Apartments 6/25/2012 8/31/2012

MA MD YMCA of Cape Cod Kimber Woods Apartments 6/25/2012 8/31/2012

MA MD YMCA of Cape Cod Individual Homes 6/25/2012 8/31/2012

MA MD YMCA of Cape Cod Safe Harbor 6/25/2012 8/31/2012

NY MD Food Bank of the Southern Tier Bradford Fire Hall 06/27/12 08/29/12

NY MD Food Bank of the Southern Tier BC Cate Elementary 06/27/12 08/29/12

NY MD Food Bank of the Southern Tier Hanlon Elementary 06/27/12 08/29/12

NY MD Food Bank of the Southern Tier Watkins Glen Elementary 06/27/12 08/29/12

NY MD Food Bank of the Southern Tier Orange Town Hall 06/27/12 08/29/12

NY MD Food Bank of the Southern Tier Burdett Presbyterian Church 06/27/12 08/29/12

NY MD

North Rose-Wolcott Central School 

District Butler United Methodist Church 6/25/2012 8/13/2012

*MD – Meal Delivery

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report B-1 

 
Appendix B 

 

Demonstration Projects: State, Type of Demonstration, Sponsor, Site, and Start and End Date (continued)

State

Type of 

demo Sponsor(s) Site (s) Start Date End Date 

NY MD

North Rose-Wolcott Central School 

District Rose Free Methodist Church 6/25/2012 8/13/2012

NY MD

North Rose-Wolcott Central School 

District

North Rose United Methodist 

Church 6/25/2012 8/13/2012

NY MD

North Rose-Wolcott Central School 

District Hope Village Housing Authority 6/29/2012 8/17/2012

NY MD

North Rose-Wolcott Central School

District North Wolcott Christian Church 6/29/2012 8/17/2012

AZ BP* Chandler Unified School District Galveston Elementary School 6/8/2012 7/13/2012

AZ BP Chandler Unified School District San Marcos Elementary School 6/8/2012 7/13/2012

AZ BP Chandler Unified School District Knox Elementary School 6/8/2012 7/13/2012

AZ BP Chandler Unified School District Hartford Sylvia Encinas Elementa 6/8/2012 7/13/2012

AZ BP Chandler Unified School District Frye Elementary 6/8/2012 7/13/2012

AZ BP Chandler Unified School District Bologna Elementary 6/8/2012 7/13/2012

AZ BP Chandler Unified School District Boys and Girls Club 6/8/2012 7/13/2012

AZ BP 

Litchfield Elementary School 

District Wigwam Creek 5/29/2012 7/27/2012

AZ BP 

Litchfield Elementary School 

District Barbara Robey Elementary 5/29/2012 7/27/2012

AZ BP 

Litchfield Elementary School 

District Nutrition Express 5/29/2012 7/27/2012

AZ BP 

Litchfield Elementary School 

District Hope International 5/29/2012 7/27/2012

AZ BP 

Litchfield Elementary School 

District Corte Sierra Elementary 5/29/2012 7/27/2012

AZ BP 

Litchfield Elementary School 

District Rancho Santa Fe Elementary 5/29/2012 7/27/2012

AZ BP 

Litchfield Elementary School 

District Primera Iglesia Bautista 5/29/2012 7/27/2012

AZ BP 

Litchfield Elementary School 

District Heritage Pre School Academy 5/29/2012 7/27/2012

AZ BP 

Litchfield Elementary School 

District Glendale Ave and Dysart Road 5/29/2012 7/27/2012

AZ BP 

Litchfield Elementary School 

District Vineyard Apartments 5/29/2012 7/27/2012

AZ BP 

Litchfield Elementary School 

District PLC Arts Academy 5/29/2012 7/27/2012

AZ BP 

Litchfield Elementary School 

District Norton Circle 5/29/2012 7/27/2012

AZ BP 

Litchfield Elementary School 

District All Faith Community Center 5/29/2012 7/27/2012

AZ BP 

Litchfield Elementary School 

District Ross Terrace 5/29/2012 7/27/2012

AZ BP 

Litchfield Elementary School 

District Salvation Army-Estrella 6/6/2012 7/27/2012

AZ BP Mesa Public Schools Washington Activity Center 5/29/2012 6/29/2012

AZ BP Mesa Public Schools Hawthorne Elementary 6/4/2012 6/28/2012

*BP = Backpack

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report B-2 

 
Appendix B 

 

Demonstration Projects: State, Type of Demonstration, Sponsor, Site, and Start and End Date (continued)

State

Type of 

demo Sponsor(s) Site (s) Start Date End Date 

KS BP 

Arkansas City Unified School 

District 470 Adams Elementary School 6/4/2012 6/28/2012

KS BP Central Unified School District 462 Atlanta Cornerstone 5/31/2012 7/27/2012

KS BP Central Unified School District 462 Cambridge Pres Church 5/31/2012 7/27/2012

KS BP Central Unified School District 462 Central J/S High 5/31/2012 7/27/2012

KS BP Central Unified School District 462 Grenola Christian Church 5/31/2012 7/27/2012

KS BP 

East Central Kansas Economic 

Opportunity Corp

Don Woodward Community 

Center 5/29/2012 7/27/2012

KS BP 

Gardner Edgerton Unified School 

District Gardner Elementary 6/8/2012 7/27/2012

KS BP Lawrence Public Schools USD 497

Boys and Girls Club at East 

Heights 6/4/2012 7/27/2012

KS BP Lawrence Public Schools USD 497 East Lawrence Center 6/4/2012 8/10/2012

KS BP Lawrence Public Schools USD 497 South Park 6/4/2012 8/10/2012

KS BP Lawrence Public Schools USD 497 Hillcrest 6/4/2012 7/27/2012

KS BP Lawrence Public Schools USD 497

Broken Arrow Elementary and 

Park 6/4/2012 8/10/2012

KS BP Lawrence Public Schools USD 497 Pinckney Elementary 6/4/2012 7/27/2012

KS BP Topeka Public Schools Scott Magnet School 6/4/2012 7/20/2012

KS BP United Methodist Church United Methodist Church 5/29/2012 8/16/2012

OH BP Andrews House, Inc. Woodward Elementary 6/8/2012 8/10/2012

OH BP 

Ashtabula County Children 

Services Geneva Eagle Street Park 6/11/2012 08/10/12

OH BP 

Ashtabula County Children 

Services Jefferson Community Center 6/11/2012 08/10/12

OH BP 

Ashtabula County Children 

Services Conneaut Resources Center 6/11/2012 08/10/12

OH BP 

Ashtabula County Children 

Services Bardmoor Housing Project 6/11/2012 08/10/12

OH BP 

Ashtabula County Children 

Services Bonniewood Housing Project 6/11/2012 08/10/12

OH BP 

Ashtabula County Children 

Services G.O. Ministries 6/11/2012 08/10/12

OH BP 

Community Action Organization of 

Scioto County Cape (Shudder School) 6/11/2012 7/20/2012

OH BP 

Community Action Organization of 

Scioto County Center Street Church 6/11/2012 8/3/2012

OH BP 

Community Action Organization of 

Scioto County Highland Headstart 6/11/2012 8/3/2012

OH BP 

Community Action Organization of 

Scioto County Lett Terrace 6/11/2012 8/3/2012

OH BP 

Community Action Organization of 

Scioto County McKinley Pool 6/11/2012 8/3/2012

OH BP 

Community Action Organization of 

Scioto County Miller Manor 6/11/2012 8/3/2012

OH BP 

Community Action Organization of 

Scioto County Glenwood H.S. 6/11/2012 8/3/2012

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report B-3 

 
Appendix B 

 

Demonstration Projects: State, Type of Demonstration, Sponsor, Site, and Start and End Date (continued)

State

Type of 

demo Sponsor(s) Site (s) Start Date End Date 

OH BP 

Community Action Organization of 

Scioto County New Boston Manor 6/11/2012 8/3/2012

OH BP 

Community Action Organization of 

Scioto County NW Elementary 6/11/2012 8/3/2012

OH BP 

Community Action Organization of 

Scioto County NW Public Library 6/11/2012 8/3/2012

OH BP 

Community Action Organization of 

Scioto County Oak St Elem 6/11/2012 8/3/2012

OH BP 

Community Action Organization of 

Scioto County Outreach (PIDC) 6/11/2012 8/3/2012

OH BP 

Community Action Organization of 

Scioto County Portsmouth City Schools 6/11/2012 8/3/2012

OH BP 

Community Action Organization of 

Scioto County Potter's House Ministries 6/11/2012 8/3/2012

OH BP 

Community Action Organization of 

Scioto County Scioto County Homeless Shelter 6/11/2012 8/3/2012

OH BP 

Community Action Organization of 

Scioto County Sciotoville Elem Aca 6/11/2012 8/3/2012

OH BP 

Community Action Organization of 

Scioto County Shawnee Mental Health Center 6/11/2012 8/3/2012

OH BP 

Community Action Organization of 

Scioto County Stepping Stone 6/11/2012 8/3/2012

OH BP 

Community Action Organization of 

Scioto County Wayne Hills 6/11/2012 8/3/2012

OH BP 

Community Action Organization of 

Scioto County Rarden Community Park 6/11/2012 8/3/2012

OH BP 

Community Action Organization of 

Scioto County Farley Square 6/11/2012 8/3/2012

OH BP 

Community Action Organization of 

Scioto County Green High School 6/11/2012 7/13/2012

OH BP 

Community Action Organization of 

Scioto County Carousel Center 6/19/2012 7/26/2012

OH BP 

Community Action Organization of 

Scioto County Bloom Vernon Elem 7/2/2012 7/20/2012

OH BP 

Community Action Organization of 

Scioto County Vern Riffe School 7/19/2012 7/26/2012

OH BP 

Hamilton Living Water Ministry, 

Inc. Hamilton Living Water Ministry 6/11/2012 8/3/2012

OH BP 

Hamilton Living Water Ministry, 

Inc. Boys and Girls Club 6/11/2012 8/3/2012

OH BP 

Hocking Athens Perry Community 

Action Agency

Nelsonville Pool (Nelsonville 

Rotary Club) 6/4/2012 8/17/2012

OH BP 

Hocking Athens Perry Community 

Action Agency Coolville Library 6/4/2012 8/17/2012

OH BP 

Hocking Athens Perry Community 

Action Agency Haydenville UM Church 6/4/2012 8/17/2012

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report B-4 

 
Appendix B 

 

Demonstration Projects: State, Type of Demonstration, Sponsor, Site, and Start and End Date (continued)

State

Type of 

demo Sponsor(s) Site (s) Start Date End Date 

OH BP 

Hocking Athens Perry Community 

Action Agency Health Recovery Services 6/4/2012 8/17/2012

OH BP 

Hocking Athens Perry Community 

Action Agency

Hocking Behavioral Health @ 

Kachelmacher Park 6/4/2012 8/17/2012

OH BP 

Hocking Athens Perry Community 

Action Agency Holland Center 6/4/2012 8/17/2012

OH BP 

Hocking Athens Perry Community 

Action Agency

New Straitsville Community 

Center 6/4/2012 8/17/2012

OH BP 

Hocking Athens Perry Community 

Action Agency Chauncy Library 6/4/2012 8/3/2012

OH BP 

Hocking Athens Perry Community 

Action Agency Glouster Library 6/4/2012 7/20/2012

OH BP 

Hocking Athens Perry Community 

Action Agency Tiny Tots 6/4/2012 8/17/2012

OH BP 

Hocking Athens Perry Community 

Action Agency Tri-County Mental Health 6/5/2012 8/9/2012

OH BP 

Hocking Athens Perry Community 

Action Agency

Paper Circles @ 1st Presbyterian 

Church 6/18/2012 7/20/2012

OH BP 

Hocking Athens Perry Community 

Action Agency Plains Elementary 7/30/2012 8/10/2012

OH BP Whole Again International Brightstar Church 06/04/12 08/14/12

OH BP Whole Again International Su Casa Community Center 06/04/12 08/14/12

OH BP Whole Again International Forest Ridge Apartments 06/04/12 08/14/12

OH BP Whole Again International Christ Temple 06/04/12 08/14/12

OH BP Whole Again International First Baptist Church 06/04/12 08/14/12

OH BP Whole Again International Reading Lockland Presbyterian 06/04/12 08/14/12

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report B-5 

 
 
Appendix C

Food Security CATI Error
Appendix C

Food Security CATI Error 

1. The Issue

The Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) Demonstration Evaluation contains food security 

questions in all surveys and rounds of data collection based on a food security module supplied by 

the Economic Research Service (ERS). The module includes three screener questions to identify 

children with potential food insecurity. For example, the first question in the food security screener 

for households that have children reads: 

“(I/we) relied on only a few kinds of low-cost food to feed (my/our) 

child/the children) because (I was/we were) running out of money to buy 

food.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for (you/your household) 

in the last 30 days?

(See Appendix A and Attachment 1 to this Appendix, items 37-39 and 40-44, for the complete list 

of food security questions for households that have children.) Respondents who answer “often” or 

“sometimes” to any of the first three screener questions (items 37, 38, and 39) are supposed to 

receive a series of additional questions (items 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44) to determine a level of food 

insecurity for each child, adult, and household. 

During summer, 2012 (Round 3 data collection1), we discovered a missing skip pattern for the Meal 

Delivery demonstration. The missing skip pattern affected only child reports by the respondent, not 

adults reporting on themselves. We proceeded to inspect data for both demonstrations and all data 

collection rounds and identified the same error in Round 1 of the Meal Delivery data collection. We 

verified, however, that the food security module was administered correctly in both Rounds 1 and 2 

of the Backpack demonstration and in Round 2 of the Meal Delivery demonstrations. 

We corrected the problem for the remainder of the Round 3 data collection and Round 4 and 

identified 86 already completed cases with the programming error. We attempted to re-contact the 

86 respondents affected by the error and successfully contacted 53 of the 86 respondents who filled 

in the missing data. The result is 33 respondents affected by the error in Round 3, and 47 

respondents affected in Round 1. The remainder of Appendix G discusses how we handled the data 

for the respondents affected in Round 3 since Round 3 pertains to this report. 

1 Round 1 – summer, 2011 data collection; Round 2 – fall, 2011 data collection; Round 3 – summer, 2012 data collection; Round 4 – fall, 2012 data 

collection

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report C-1 
Appendix C 

 

2. What Happened? 

We identified the source of the error as a CATI programming error in the initial Meal Delivery 

survey programming. We tested all CATI programming prior to each round of data collection but 

did not catch the error. Fortunately, we found that the error did not exist in the Round 2 survey. 

It is unclear to us why the error did not carry over to Round 2 but reappeared in Round 3. There 

are several plausible explanations, but we do not know the answer for certain. 

3. The Effect on Analysis of Food Security for Round 3 in the 

2012 Report 

3.1 Overview 

Respondents who answered “often true” to one or more of questions 37-39 followed the skip 

pattern to 40-44. However, respondents who answered “sometimes true” were not automatically 

skipped to the follow-up questions. Thus, respondents who answered “sometimes true” to one or 

more of questions 37-39 but did not answer “often true” to any of them would not have received 

questions 40-44. Because the skip pattern was not followed correctly, these respondents could have 

been counted as food secure when in fact they were food insecure.

To understand this, it is important to review how responses to these questions are used to determine 

food security. Respondents are scored “1” for each of questions 37-39 and 40-44 that was answered 

affirmatively (see Attachment 2 on scoring of food security). The respondents who should have 

been skipped forward, but were not, could have received additional points from questions 40-44, 

had they been asked, and thus represent potentially underestimated food insecurity for children. As 

noted earlier, adults were correctly skipped to the questions, so estimates of adult food security were 

not affected. However, estimates for household food security are based on both child and adult food 

security, so estimates for household food security were also affected.

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report C-2 

 
Appendix C 

 

3.2 Food Insecurity for Children 

Children were classified as “food insecure” if they received 2-8 total points from questions 37-39 

and 40-44 (Attachment 2). If a respondent answered “sometimes true” to two of questions 37-39, 

the child would receive 2 points (food insecure), so that responses made to questions 40-44 would 

not have been necessary to place a child in the food insecure category. Thus, only the cases where 

respondents answered “sometimes true” exactly once without answering “often true” to any of the 

questions were affected. These cases are classified as food secure in our data, but the additional 

responses to questions 40-44 might have provided the additional points to make the child food 

insecure. 

3.3 Household Food Insecurity – Cross-tabulation Method 

In the cross-tabulation method we used in this study (Coleman-Jensen et al., 2011), a household is 

considered food insecure if there is either adult food insecurity or child food insecurity. In any cases 

where children were misclassified as food secure due to the faulty computer algorithm, and where 

the adults were classified as food secure, the household would also be erroneously classified as food 

secure. 

3.4 Household Food Insecurity – Comparisons to National Benchmark 

Data 

A different classification scheme was used to compare household food security in the demonstration 

projects to national benchmarks. In particular, “low” and “very low” household food security was 

tabulated and compared to national benchmarks. The algorithm for determining “marginal,” “low,” 

or “very low” food security for households is complex and involves summing the scores for both 

children and adults in the household (Attachment 2). A score of 0 indicates high food security, 1-2 

indicates marginal food security, 3-7 low food security, and 8 or more very low food security. To 

properly place each household in one of four food security levels (high, marginal, low, and very low), 

we needed to be concerned with all 47 cases that should have been asked questions 40-44 (i.e., those 

cases with 1 or more “sometimes true” responses with no “often true” responses). Again, skipping 

the second set of food security items could have resulted in underestimating either low or very low 

food security. 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report C-3 

 
Appendix C 

 

4. Evaluation of Likely Effect of CATI Error 

To examine the likely effect of the CATI error on our findings on food security, FNS called upon 

Dr. Mark Nord of the Food Economics Division, Economic Research, for assistance. Dr. Nord is 

an international expert on food security and has been examining the issue and measuring food 

security in the US population for the past three decades. 

Dr. Nord conducted his own external review of the data and made recommendations for further 

analysis to be conducted by Westat. His results and recommendations are discussed in this section. 

4.1 External Review 

Dr. Nord reviewed the data resulting from the misclassification error. He concluded the following: 

 The misclassification due to the CATI error will have little effect on the identification 

of households with food-insecure children. 

 However, almost 1/3 of households with very low food security among children would 

be misclassified as having low food security or even being food secure. 

 Furthermore, no corrective measures were possible without causing a larger proportion 

of misidentification in the opposite direction. 

To arrive at these conclusions, Dr. Nord analyzed households in the CPS-FSS (2010 and 2011 data 

combined) with at least one child aged 5-17, and with income less than 185 percent of the poverty 

line. The sample was further restricted to those with no missing responses to food security 

questions, but missing data for this item is almost negligible in the CPS-FSS.

At the food-insecure threshold (i.e., raw count of at least 2 of the 8 child items), of all households 

food insecure on the full child measure, 95.65 percent had 2 or more affirmatives to the first 3 

questions, so would be classified correctly as food insecure even with the faulty screen. An 

additional 1.13 percent had raw score 1 but answered “often” to that item, so would be screened 

into the rest of the module even under the faulty screen. Thus, only about 3 percent of households 

with food-insecure children (0.7 percent of all households with children) will be misidentified (as 

having no food-insecure children). Any attempt to model the child food security status of the 

potentially misidentified cases produces a greater extent of misclassification than just classifying 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report C-4 

 
Appendix C 

them all as having only food-secure children. Bias on household food insecurity (either adults or 

children food insecure) was downward by 0.49 percent of the true value—practically negligible.

The situation is not as good at the very-low-food-security-among-children (VLFS-CH) threshold 

(raw count of at least 5 on the 8 child items). Of all households with VLFS-CH based on the full 

scale, 31.32 percent would be misclassified as NO VLFS-CH due to the faulty screen. Almost all of 

those (28.70 percent) had responses of “sometimes” to all of the first three items. However, a much 

larger number of households—about 6 times as many--with that same response pattern to the first 

three items were NOT VLFS-CH on the full measure. Modeling VLFS-CH for all hh with 

“sometimes” responses to the first three items (using raw score on the adult scale and age of oldest 

child) could not reduce misclassification. You could model to get the correct prevalence rate, but the 

extent of misclassification would be higher. Bias on household very low food security (either adults 

or children with very low food security) was downward by 1.07 percent of the true value. 

4.2 Recommendations for Further Analysis 

To further assess the implications of the programming error, Dr. Nord recommended that the data 

be re-edited so that cases with complete data would match the rounds of data collection that were 

subject to the misclassification error (i.e., by using the faulty algorithm for all data). This approach 

would bias the prevalence of food security downward in both periods by similar proportions and 

make the two periods directly comparable. 

Westat carried out these comparisons for summer versus fall and backpack versus meal delivery, 

obtaining the same results as in the analysis with the original data (Tables G-1a-d and G-2a-d). 

These analyses indicated the following:

 Tables G-1a versus G-2a: Notice that the numbers for adult food security are identical,

since the adult interviews were not affected by this issue. For Summer 2012, the

estimate of food secure children in the Meal Delivery demonstration increases from

64.2 percent in the original data to 70.1 percent for the edited data; for Fall 2012, the

increase is smaller (66.9 to 67.6 percent), but the difference between Summer and Fall is

non-significant in both tables. The change in household food security is small in both

seasons and the differences again are non-significant in both analyses.

 Tables G-1b versus G-2b: There were small changes in estimated food security for child

and household food security between the original and edited data for the Backpack

demonstration. The difference between summer and fall was moderately significant in

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report C-5 
Appendix C 

both analyses, with food security being greater in summer. There were no differences 

between season for household food security in either analysis.

 Table G-1c versus G-2c: The comparison of Meal Delivery versus Backpack

demonstrations for summer 2012 was not affected by the misclassification error. While

the estimate of food security increased for the Meal Delivery demonstration, the

difference between programs was non-significant in both original and edited data.

 Table G-d versus G-2d: The differences between the original and edited data were

negligible for fall data, and the results of the comparisons between demonstration

programs are nearly identical for both original and edited data.

Based on these findings, it was decided to leave the data in the report as originally collected.

Table C-1a. Faulty Algorithm: Meal Delivery: Food Security in Summer 2012 Compared to 

Fall 2012

Summer 2012 Fall 2012

Food security n pct n pct p-value

Adult

Secure 106 56.4 75 55.1 p=0.7596

Insecure 82 43.6 61 44.9

Total 188 100.0 136 100.0

Child

Secure 131 70.1 92 67.6 p=0.5418

Insecure 56 29.9 44 32.4

Total 187 100.0 136 100.0

Household

Secure 98 52.4 71 52.2 p=0.9610

Insecure 89 47.6 65 47.8

Total 187 100.0 136 100.0

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report C-6 
Appendix C 

 

Table C-1b. Faulty Algorithm: Backpack: Food Security in Summer 2012 Compared to Fall 2012

Summer 2012 Fall 2012

Food security n pct n pct p-value

Adult

Secure 316 61.5 215 60.1 p=0.5575

Insecure 198 38.5 143 39.9

Total 514 100.0 358 100.0

Child

Secure 361 70.4 231 64.5 p=0.0170

Insecure 152 29.6 127 35.5

Total 513 100.0 358 100.0

Household

Secure 288 56.1 195 54.5 p=0.4953

Insecure 225 43.9 163 45.5

Total 513 100.0 358 100.0

Table C-1c. Faulty Algorithm: Summer 2012: Meal Delivery vs. Backpack

Meal Delivery Backpack

Food security n pct n pct p-value

Adult

Secure 106 56.4 316 61.5 0.2245

Insecure 82 43.6 198 38.5

Total 188 100.0 514 100.0

Child

Secure 131 70.1 361 70.4 0.9258

Insecure 56 29.9 152 29.6

Total 187 100.0 513 100.0

Household

Secure 98 52.4 288 56.1 0.3914

Insecure 89 47.6 225 43.9

Total 187 100.0 513 100.0

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report C-7 

 
Appendix C 

Table C-1d. Faulty Algorithm: Fall 2012: Meal Delivery vs. Backpack

Meal Delivery Backpack

Food security n pct n pct p-value

Adult

Secure 75 55.1 215 60.1 0.3574

Insecure 61 44.9 143 39.9

Total 136 100.0 358 100.0

Child

Secure 92 67.6 231 64.5 0.5275

Insecure 44 32.4 127 35.5

Total 136 100.0 358 100.0

Household

Secure 71 52.2 195 54.5 0.6866

Insecure 65 47.8 163 45.5

Total 136 100.0 358 100.0

Table C-2a. Original: Meal Delivery: Food Security in Summer 2012 Compared to Fall 2012

Summer 2012 Fall 2012

Food security n pct n pct p-value

Adult

Secure 106 56.4 75 55.1 p=0.7596

Insecure 82 43.6 61 44.9

Total 188 100.0 136 100.0

Child

Secure 120 64.2 91 66.9 p=0.4835

Insecure 67 35.8 45 33.1

Total 187 100.0 136 100.0

Household

Secure 92 49.2 71 52.2 p=0.4572

Insecure 95 50.8 65 47.8

Total 187 100.0 136 100.0

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report C-8 
Appendix C 

Table C-2b. Original: Backpack: Food Security in Summer 2012 Compared to Fall 2012

Summer 2012 Fall 2012

Food security n pct n pct p-value

Adult

Secure 316 61.5 215 60.1 p=0.5575

Insecure 198 38.5 143 39.9

Total 514 100.0 358 100.0

Child

Secure 353 68.8 228 63.7 p=0.0382

Insecure 160 31.2 130 36.3

Total 513 100.0 358 100.0

Household

Secure 287 55.9 195 54.5 p=0.5451

Insecure 226 44.1 163 45.5

Total 513 100.0 358 100.0

Table C-2c. Original: Fall 2012: Meal Delivery vs. Backpack

Meal Delivery Backpack

Food security n pct n pct p-value

Adult

Secure 75 55.1 215 60.1 0.3574

Insecure 61 44.9 143 39.9

Total 136 100.0 358 100.0

Child

Secure 91 66.9 228 63.7 0.5289

Insecure 45 33.1 130 36.3

Total 136 100.0 358 100.0

Household

Secure 71 52.2 195 54.5 0.6866

Insecure 65 47.8 163 45.5

Total 136 100.0 358 100.0

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report C-9 
Appendix C 

Table G-2d. Original: Fall 2012: Meal Delivery vs. Backpack

Meal Delivery Backpack

Food security n pct n pct p-value

Adult

Secure 75 55.1 215 60.1 0.3574

Insecure 61 44.9 143 39.9

Total 136 100.0 358 100.0

Child

Secure 91 66.9 228 63.7 0.5289

Insecure 45 33.1 130 36.3

Total 136 100.0 358 100.0

Household

Secure 71 52.2 195 54.5 0.6866

Insecure 65 47.8 163 45.5

Total 136 100.0 358 100.0

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report C-10 
Appendix C 

 

Attachment 1

“Screener” Questions in Food Security Module

Child Stage 1:

ADMINISTER TO ALL HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN UNDER 18

Now I'm going to read you several statements that people have made about the food situation of 

their children. For these statements, please tell me whether the statement was OFTEN true, 

SOMETIMES true, or NEVER true in the last 30 days for (your child/children living in the 

household who are under 18 years old). 

37. “(I/we) relied on only a few kinds of low-cost food to feed (my/our) child/the children) 

because (I was/we were) running out of money to buy food.” Was that often, sometimes, or 

never true for (you/your household) in the last 30 days? 

Often true ................................................ 1 

Sometimes true........................................ 2 

Never true ................................................ 3 

REFUSED............................................... 77

DON'T KNOW ..................................... 99

38. “(I/We) couldn’t feed (my/our) child/the children) a balanced meal, because (I/we) couldn’t 

afford that.” Was that often, sometimes, or never true for (you/your household) in the last 

30 days?

Often true ................................................ 1 

Sometimes true........................................ 2 

Never true ................................................ 3 

REFUSED............................................... 77

DON’T KNOW..................................... 99

39. "(My/Our child was/The children were) not eating enough because (I/we) just couldn't 

afford enough food." Was that often, sometimes, or never true for (you/your household) in 

the last 30 days?

Often true ................................................ 1 

Sometimes true........................................ 2 

Never true ................................................ 3 

REFUSED............................................... 77

DON’T KNOW..................................... 99

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report C-11 

 
Appendix C 

Screener for Stage 2 Child Referenced Questions: If affirmative response (i.e., "often true" or 

"sometimes true") to one or more of questions 37-39, then continue to Child Stage 2; otherwise 

skip to #45.

Child Stage 2

40. In the last 30 days, since (current day) of last month, did you ever cut the size of (your

child’s/any of the children’s) meals because there wasn’t enough money for food?

Yes............................................................. 1 

No ............................................................. 2 

REFUSED............................................... 77

DON’T KNOW..................................... 99

41. In the last 30 days, did (CHILD’S NAME/any of the children) ever skip meals because there

wasn’t enough money for food?

Yes............................................................. 1 

No ............................................................. 2 

REFUSED............................................... 77

DON’T KNOW..................................... 99

42. [IF YES ABOVE ASK] In the last 30 days, how many days did this happen?

INTERVIEWER: If needed, did that happen on 3 or more days? Y/N

|___|___| days 

Enter Number 

REFUSED............................................... 77

DON’T KNOW..................................... 99

43. In the last 30 days, (was your child/were the children) ever hungry but you just couldn’t

afford more food?

Yes............................................................. 1 

No ............................................................. 2 

REFUSED............................................... 77

DON’T KNOW..................................... 99

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report C-12 
Appendix C 

44. In the last 30 days, did (your child/any of the children) ever not eat for a whole day because

there wasn’t enough money for food?

Yes............................................................. 1 

No ............................................................. 2 

REFUSED............................................... 77

DON’T KNOW..................................... 9 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report C-13 
Appendix C 

 

Attachment 2

Scoring Food Security

Scoring of Questions 37-39 and 40-44: 

Questions 37-39: each response of “often” or “sometimes” is scored as a “1” (score range = 0-3).

Questions 40-44: each response of “yes” is scored as a “1” (score range = 0-5).

Total score range = 0-8.

Food Security Scales No. points

ADULTS:

 2-point scale 

 Food Secure: 0-2 

 Food Insecure: 3-10

 4-point scale 

 High food security: 0 

Marginal food security: 1-2 

 Low food security: 3-5 

Very low food security: 6-10

CHILDREN:

 2-point scale 

 Food Secure: 0-1 

 Food Insecure: 2-8 

 3-point scale 

 High/marginal security: 0-1 

 Low food security: 2-4 

Very low food security: 5-8 

SCALE FOR HOUSEHOLD:

 2-point scale 

 Food Secure: Both Adult and Child are Secure 

 Food Insecure: Either Adult or Child or both are Insecure 

4-point scale (add together points for Adult and points for Child) – comparison to National 

benchmarks 

 High food security: 0 points 

Marginal food security: 1-2 points 

 Low food security: 3-7 points 

Very low food security: 8-18 points 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report C-14 

 
Appendix D

Description of Key Disposition Codes

Contained in Completion Rate Formulas
Appendix D 

Description of Key Disposition Codes Contained in Completion Rate Formulas*

A Complete and partially 

complete interviews

A partial complete is a questionnaire with at least one section complete 

beyond the introduction and deemed usable for analysis.

B Refusals Reached respondent but refused to be interviewed

C No contacts Interviewers never reached a human; reached answering machine, ring 

no answer, or busy signal

D Ineligibles Household never received a meal/backpack or was a duplicate case

E Others Non-interview because of language/literacy problem or unable to 

complete despite numerous call attempts

F Undetermined Non-working number or respondent not found

*Adapted from AAPOR, 2011.

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report D-1 
 
Appendix E

Definition and Formula for 

Telephone Interview Outcome Rates
Appendix E 

 

Definition and Formula for Telephone Interview Outcome Rates

Completion 

rate

Definition Formula

Contact rate

The estimated proportion of all eligible cases in 

which some responsible housing unit member was 

reached. (A + B + E)/[A + B + C + E + ((1-D%)*F)]

Cooperation 

rate

The proportion of all cases interviewed of all eligible 

units ever contacted. (A )/(A + B + E)

Refusal rate

The estimated proportion of all cases interviewed of 

all eligible units ever contacted. B/[A + (B + C + E) + ((1-D%)*F)]

Ineligibility 

rate

The proportion of contacted cases found to be 

ineligible D/(A+B+D+E)

Response 

rate

The number of complete interviews with reporting 

units divided by the estimated number of eligible 

reporting units in the sample. A/[A + B + C + E + ((1-D%)*F)] 

*Adapted from AAPOR, 2011.

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report E-1 

 
 
Appendix F

Evaluation of SFSP Enhancement Demonstrations

Interview Guides

State Agency Officials (Grantee)

Sponsors

Sites

2012 
OMB Control No.: 0584-0560-NEW 

 Expiration Date: 7/31/2014 

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 30 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of 

information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including 

suggestions for reducing this burden, to: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services, Office of Research and Analysis, 3101 Park 

Center Drive, Room 1014, Alexandria, VA 22302 ATTN: PRA (0584-0560*). Do not return the completed form to this address. 

EVALUATION OF SFSP ENHANCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS 

INTERVIEW GUIDES 

STATE AGENCY OFFICIALS (GRANTEE) 

SPONSORS 

SITES 

2012 

Appendix F

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report F-1 
OMB Control No.: 0584-0560-NEW 

 Expiration Date: 7/31/2014 

EVALUATION OF SFSP ENHANCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS 

INTERVIEW GUIDE 

STATE AGENCY OFFICIALS (GRANTEE) 

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 

Good morning/afternoon. Thank you again for taking the time to meet with us today. My name is 

[interviewer’s name] and this is [second interviewer’s name]. We both work for Westat, a private 

research company in Rockville, Maryland. 

As you know, the US Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is funding 

demonstration projects to test ideas for reaching greater numbers of children in the summer and 

making sure that they do not go hungry. FNS has asked Westat to conduct an evaluation of these 

demonstrations to understand how these ideas are working and how they are carried out. All of the 

information we collect is meant to provide FNS with valid and objective findings to help them with 

their policymaking on Federal summer programs. 

Like last year, the reason we’re here today is to find out about how you implement your project. I’ll 

be interviewing you, to give us a high level overview of the demonstration project and project 

operations from a grantee perspective. We’ll also be talking to 5 other State grantees, 20 sponsors 

and up to 15 site staff or volunteers to get their perspective. 

As the state agency that holds the FNS grant and you as the grant director, you are an important 

source of information regarding the implementation and operations of this demonstration. We have 

some specific questions to ask you about the functioning of your project – what is happening, what 

worked and didn’t work, and how things can be improved. The interview should last no more than 

an hour. 

Appendix F

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report F-2 
OMB Control No.: 0584-0560-NEW 

 Expiration Date: 7/31/2014 

EVALUATION OF SFSP ENHANCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS 

INTERVIEW GUIDE 

STATE AGENCY OFFICIALS (GRANTEE) 

Before we start, we would like to ask your permission to record this interview so that we do not miss 

any of your responses to our questions. The recording will be used by Westat; it will not be provided 

to FNS or anyone else, except as otherwise required by law. 

Do you have any questions before we start? 

INTERVIEW 

Let’s start with some background information about your agency/department and the project itself. 

Mainly, we’d like to confirm the information from last year to see if anything has changed. 

A. Background information on grantee and project 

NOTE TO INTERVIEWERS: CONFIRM INFORMATION FROM LAST YEAR OR 

INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM STATE GRANTEES/SPONSORS THIS YEAR. 

1. How would you describe your agency/department? Have there been any changes? If so,

what has changed?

Probe:

 Agency name 

 Mission 

 What agency/department does 

 Staffing 

 Key stakeholders 

 Experience with FNS and other food programs 

B. Overview of Project Operations in State 

Can you give us an overview of this demonstration project – tell us generally what it’s like and how 

things work. Also, is this a change from last summer? What specifically is different? 

2. Overall, how many sponsors did this demonstration project have in 2011 [does the project

currently have]?

NOTE TO INERVIEWER: REFER TO SPONSOR/SITE TABLE TO CONFIRM 

EACH SPONSOR AND SITE. REVISE AS REQUIRED. 

Appendix F

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report F-3 
OMB Control No.: 0584-0560-NEW 

 Expiration Date: 7/31/2014 

EVALUATION OF SFSP ENHANCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS 

INTERVIEW GUIDE 

STATE AGENCY OFFICIALS (GRANTEE) 

3. Where are the demonstration sites located? CONFIRM WITH OUR CURRENT

INFORMATION.

Probe:

 Counties 

 Part of the state (northeast, south) 

 Major cities/towns 

NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: YOU MAY HAVE TO GET THIS DETAIL FOR EACH SITE 

FROM THE SPONSOR. 

RECORD WHETHER OR NOT STATE GRANTEE HAS THIS INFORMATION. 

C. Project Staffing 

We’d like to get an idea of the staffing for this demonstration. 

4. How many staff at the State level are dedicated to the demonstration?

NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: OBTAIN FIRST NAME OF EACH STAFF 

MEMBER/VOLUNTEER AND WORK THROUGH THE INFORMATION ON 

TABLE BELOW. 

5. What does each one do (roles and responsibilities)?

Probe: 

 Overall management of implementation 

 Budget – distribution of pass through funds, processing grant expense claims 

 QC monitoring 

 Provision of data to FNS 

 Provision of data to evaluation contractor (Westat) 

 Provision of assistance to evaluation contractor in collecting data from sponsors 

 Other, please specify 

Appendix F

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report F-4 
OMB Control No.: 0584-0560-NEW 

 Expiration Date: 7/31/2014 

EVALUATION OF SFSP ENHANCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS 

INTERVIEW GUIDE 

STATE AGENCY OFFICIALS (GRANTEE) 

6. Could you tell us the amount of time spent on each type of responsibility?

Staff name Role Responsibilities Hours spent 

(monthly)

Comments

D. Partnerships 

We’d like to learn about any partnerships you have for this demonstration project. 

7. Have you partnered [are you partnering] with any other organizations or agencies? Please

describe. Is this a change since last summer?

Probe: 

 Organizations/agencies 

 Role – developing proposal, outreach for sponsors and sites, funding, other 

 Level of involvement 

8. What kind of communication do you have with your partners? Please describe.

Probe:

 Regular/ad hoc 

 Frequency 

 Nature of communication 

9. Have there been any issues related to partner involvement that has needed to be addressed?

Please describe.

A. What was the issue(s)? 

B. How were they addressed? 

C. How have they been resolved? 

Appendix F

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report F-5 
OMB Control No.: 0584-0560-NEW 

 Expiration Date: 7/31/2014 

EVALUATION OF SFSP ENHANCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS 

INTERVIEW GUIDE 

STATE AGENCY OFFICIALS (GRANTEE) 

E. Oversight and Monitoring 

Probably one of the most important functions of this agency with regard to the FNS demonstrations 

is providing oversight and monitoring to the work that gets done in the field, so we’d like to spend 

some time asking you a few questions on oversight and monitoring of the summer demonstration 

projects. NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: BE SPECIFIC TO THE DEMONSTRATION 

PROJECT, NOT THE SFSP. 

10. What kinds of things do you monitor and provide oversight on?

Probe: 

 How money is spent 

 Daily meal counts for each meal service offered 

 Food safety and facility inspection 

 Food nutrient content 

 Food appeal to children 

 Making sure the meal is eaten by the child participating in the project and no one else 

 Site approval – including plans for alternate service in case of inclement weather if 

meal drop-off site or backpack distribution location is outside (park, recreational 

areas). 

 Documentation of food prepared and served 

 How leftovers are used 

 Other, please specify 

What is monitored Monitoring systems/processes

How money is spent

Daily meal counts for each 

meal service offered

Food safety and facility 

inspection

Food nutrient content

Food appeal to children

Who eats the food

Site approval

Documentation of food 

prepared and served

How leftovers are used

Other

Other 

Appendix F

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report F-6 
OMB Control No.: 0584-0560-NEW 

 Expiration Date: 7/31/2014 

EVALUATION OF SFSP ENHANCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS 

INTERVIEW GUIDE 

STATE AGENCY OFFICIALS (GRANTEE) 

11. How do you monitor this demonstration? What systems and processes are in place for

oversight and monitoring? Please describe.

Probe: 

 Reporting requirements 

 Regular telephone calls 

 Site visits – by whom; to whom? 

 Performance evaluations (operational/staff) 

 Feedback from sponsors (solicited/unsolicited) 

 Feedback from site staff/volunteers (solicited/unsolicited) 

 Feedback from parents (solicited/unsolicited) 

 Other 

12. Have you had to change any of your monitoring/oversight procedures over the course of

the demonstration for any reason (e.g., site visits more often; establishment of regular

telephone meetings)? Please describe.

Probe:

 Which procedures 

 Reason 

 Changes made 

13. Are there any additional changes to monitoring/oversight you are intending to make this

year? Please describe.

Probe: 

 Nature of change 

 Reason for change 

 Timing of change 

 Process for making change 

F. Nutritional Integrity 

Let’s talk about the meals that are provided to children through the summer demonstration projects. 

14. In addition to required USDA meal patterns, have you provided any written guidance to

sponsors on the nutritional contents of meals/backpacks? Please describe.

Probe:

 Content of guidance (e.g., grown locally; no sweet desserts) 

Appendix F

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report F-7
OMB Control No.: 0584-0560-NEW 

 Expiration Date: 7/31/2014 

EVALUATION OF SFSP ENHANCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS 

INTERVIEW GUIDE 

STATE AGENCY OFFICIALS (GRANTEE) 

 Source (e.g., state policy, USDA policy, Food Research and Action Center [FRAC], 

other) 

 Format (e.g., brochures, emails, web-based) 

[OBTAIN COPIES OF POLICY DOCUMENTS IF AVAILABLE.]

15. Do you provide any other written requirements or guidelines to demonstration sponsors on:

Probe: 

 Contents of meals 

 Portion sizes for meal components 

 Second meals 

 Food variety 

 Accommodation for children with disabilities (specify if this is meal modification or 

facility design or both) 

 Accompanying activities 

 Site environment 

 Sharing food 

 Leftover food and food waste 

 Other, please specify 

Please describe. [OBTAIN COPIES OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS, IF 

AVAILABLE.]

16. Have you provided any guidance to demonstration sponsors on ways to ensure food safety?

Please describe.

Probe:

 Content of guidance 

 Source (e.g., USDA policy, Food Research and Action Center [FRAC], National 

Food Service Management Institute [NFSMI], other) 

 Format 

[OBTAIN COPIES OF DOCUMENTS IF AVAILABLE.]

G. Training and Technical Assistance 

This leads nicely into a discussion of training and technical assistance to make sure all sponsors and 

site staff/volunteers are following the same procedures. NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: BE 

SPECIFIC TO THE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT, NOT THE SFSP. 

Appendix F

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report F-8 
OMB Control No.: 0584-0560-NEW 

 Expiration Date: 7/31/2014 

EVALUATION OF SFSP ENHANCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS 

INTERVIEW GUIDE 

STATE AGENCY OFFICIALS (GRANTEE) 

17. What were the most common issues that required technical assistance from the state last

summer? Please list. What about this summer?

18. How do you provide technical assistance? Please describe.

Probe: 

 Formal/informal

 Active/passive

 Format

 Frequency

 Type of recipients (sponsors, site staff/volunteers)

 TA provider 

 Content 

 Opportunities for communication – with grantee and among sponsors 

19. Have there been any formal training activities associated with your demonstration this

summer? Please describe.

Probe:

 Format – webinars, in-person, workshops 

 Content 

 Recipients (sponsors, food banks, site staff/volunteers) 

 Number of recipients 

 Frequency (e.g., initial, refresher) 

 Attendance (optional, required) 

 Distribution of manuals/procedures/brochures [OBTAIN COPY.]

 Source -- who provides the training?

H. FNS Monitoring 

Now we’d like to talk to you about the monitoring FNS does for your demonstration and how you 

go about meeting FNS monitoring and oversight requirements. 

We understand that you are required to provide a variety of information on this demonstration: 

 Administrative data (e.g., daily meal counts by sponsor) to FNS 

 Information collected by Westat 

20. Is there any other information that you collect routinely for this summer demonstration

project? Please describe.

Appendix F

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report F-9 
OMB Control No.: 0584-0560-NEW 

 Expiration Date: 7/31/2014 

EVALUATION OF SFSP ENHANCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS 

INTERVIEW GUIDE 

STATE AGENCY OFFICIALS (GRANTEE) 

[IF STATE COLLECTS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, OBTAIN COPY OF 

TEMPLATE USED FOR DATA COLLECTION.]

21. How do you collect information from sponsors? Please describe.

Probe:

 Email reminders 

 Use of form or template 

 Web-based reports 

 Routine review of process 

 Onsite visits 

 Other, please specify 

22. What problems, if any, have you encountered in obtaining information required by FNS on

this demonstration? Please describe.

23. Is there anything you do differently this summer, compared to last summer, in collecting

information from sponsors on the demonstration? Please describe.

I. Demonstration Effectiveness 

24. What do you think you are doing well this summer?

Probe: 

 Design or model 

 Staffing 

 Outreach methods 

 Structures and/or systems that have been put in place 

 Other [use of resources, use of volunteers/in kind services], please specify 

25. Are these things specific to your agency/department, or do you think they could be

implemented by other agencies in other states? Please explain.

J. Challenges and Resolution of Challenges 

26. Last year, you mentioned _________ and __________ as challenges. Have those been

resolved? How?

NOTE TO INTERVIEWERS: INSERT CHALLENGES FROM LAST SUMMER. 

Appendix F

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report F-10 
OMB Control No.: 0584-0560-NEW 

 Expiration Date: 7/31/2014 

EVALUATION OF SFSP ENHANCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS 

INTERVIEW GUIDE 

STATE AGENCY OFFICIALS (GRANTEE) 

Probe: 

 Resolution 

 Facilitators to resolution 

 Barriers to resolution 

27. What are your challenges this year?

Probe:

 Nature of challenge (e.g., data collection, staffing, monitoring, quality control, 

nutritional integrity) 

 Method of identification 

 Timing (e.g., startup, implementation, winding down after the summer) 

28. Have the challenges been any different than in the usual summer programs or school year

feeding programs? Please explain.

29. Over the course of the demonstration, have you identified particular challenges sponsors

have had? Please describe.

 Nature of challenge (e.g., data collection, staffing/volunteers, monitoring, quality 

control, challenges specific to certain regions, counties, certain populations) 

 Method of identification 

 Timing (e.g., startup, implementation, winding down) 

30. How have these challenges been resolved?

Probe: 

 Resolution 

 Facilitators to resolution 

 Barriers to resolution 

31. Have the challenges been any different than in the usual summer or school year feeding

programs? Please explain.

32. Over the course of the demonstration, have you identified particular challenges sites have

had? Please describe.

 Nature of challenge (e.g., data collection, staffing/volunteers, monitoring, quality 

control) 

 Method of identification 

Appendix F

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report F-11 
OMB Control No.: 0584-0560-NEW 

 Expiration Date: 7/31/2014 

EVALUATION OF SFSP ENHANCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS 

INTERVIEW GUIDE 

STATE AGENCY OFFICIALS (GRANTEE) 

 Timing (e.g., startup, implementation, winding down) 

33. Have the challenges been any different than in the usual summer programs or school year

feeding programs? Please explain.

34. How have these challenges been resolved?

Probe:

 Resolution 

 Facilitators to resolution 

 Barriers to resolution 

K. Final Comments 

35. Overall, what do you think are the major strengths and limitations of your demonstration

project?

36. Do you think that the demonstration project helped participating children to eat better and

contributed to increased food security for the household? Please explain.

37. BACKPACK ONLY: In your opinion, do you think the Backpack demonstration project

had an impact on SFSP participation? Please explain.

38. Do you have any stories you’ve heard from children or parents about the success of the

demonstration project?

39. What do you perceive to be the greatest barriers to children participating in the summer

demonstration project?

40. What advice would you give FNS about this project?

41. Do you think this demonstration project should be implemented as a permanent program?

Why or why not?

42. Is there anything else about the demonstration that you’d like to tell us that we may have

missed asking you about?

Appendix F

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report F-12 
OMB Control No.: 0584-0560-NEW 

 Expiration Date: 7/31/2014 

EVALUATION OF SFSP ENHANCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS 

INTERVIEW GUIDE 

STATE AGENCY OFFICIALS (GRANTEE) 

Those are all the questions we have for you. Do you have any questions you 

would like to ask us? We’d like to thank you again for taking the time to 

answer our questions. 

Appendix F

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report F-13 
OMB Control No.: 0584-0560-NEW 

 Expiration Date: 7/31/2014 

EVALUATION OF SFSP ENHANCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS 

INTERVIEW GUIDE 

SPONSORS 

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 

Good morning/afternoon. Thank you again for taking the time to meet with us today. My name is 

[interviewer’s name] and this is [second interviewer’s name]. We both work for Westat, a private 

research company in Rockville, Maryland. 

As you know, the US Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is funding 

demonstration projects to test ideas for reaching greater numbers of children in the summer and 

making sure that they do not go hungry. FNS has asked Westat to conduct an evaluation of these 

demonstrations to understand how these ideas are working and how they are carried out. All of the 

information we collect is meant to provide FNS with valid and objective findings to help them with 

their policymaking on Federal summer programs. 

As one of the sponsors under this demonstration project, you are an important source of 

information on the operations of this demonstration. We have some specific questions to ask you 

about what you and your partners actually do, what innovations you’ve put in place, what the 

problems challenges have been, and what has been done or could be done to make the project even 

better. The interview should last approximately 45 minutes to an hour. 

Please be assured that the information you provide will be kept private, and your name will not be 

used in any report we provide to FNS. 

Before we start, we would like to ask your permission to record this interview so that we do not miss 

any of your responses to our questions. The recording will be used by Westat; it will not be provided 

to FNS or anyone else, except as otherwise required by law. 

Do you have any questions before we start? 

INTERVIEW 

Let’s start with some background information about your organization and the project itself.

Mainly, we’d like to confirm the information from last year to see if anything has changed. 

Appendix F

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report F-14 
OMB Control No.: 0584-0560-NEW 

 Expiration Date: 7/31/2014 

EVALUATION OF SFSP ENHANCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS 

INTERVIEW GUIDE 

SPONSORS 

A. Background information on sponsor 

NOTE TO INTERVIEWERS: CONFIRM INFORMATION FROM LAST YEAR AND 

INFORMATION OBTAINED THIS YEAR. 

1. How would you describe your organization? Has anything changed about your organization

since last year? Please describe.

Probe:

 Type of organization 

 What organization does 

 Staffing/volunteers 

 Key stakeholders 

 State and community partners 

 Experience with FNS food programs (e.g., number of years operating the SFSP) 

 Experience with other food programs 

B. Overview of Project Operations 

Can you give us an overview of this demonstration project – what the project is like and what it 

does. Is this a change from last summer? 

2. How would you describe the children being served in this demonstration? Is this a change

from last summer?

Probe:

 Age – average and range 

 Race/ethnicity 

 Immigrant/non-immigrant 

 Language(s) spoken (by child, at home) 

 Approximate percent urban/rural 

3. How many different sites do you organize under this demonstration project? [INCLUDE

MEAL DELIVERY DROP-OFF SITES] How would you describe them? Is this a change

from last summer?

NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: USE SPONSOR/SITE LIST TO CONFIRM RESPONSES. 

REVISE LIST AS NECESSARY. 

Probe:

 Number 

Appendix F

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report F-15 
OMB Control No.: 0584-0560-NEW 

 Expiration Date: 7/31/2014 

EVALUATION OF SFSP ENHANCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS 

INTERVIEW GUIDE 

SPONSORS 

 Affiliation with sponsor organization – yes/no 

 If not affiliated, type of organization -- Public/private, nonprofit/for profit, school, 

camp (residential, non-residential), church group 

 Location – urban, rural, close to one another, distant from one another 

4. What are the different ways food is prepared for the children under this demonstration?

Please describe. Is this a change from last year?

Probe:

 Sponsor meal preparation at a central kitchen 

 Self-prep at the individual site (APPLIES TO BACKPACK) 

 Obtain from a school food authority 

 Obtain from a food service management company 

 Other, please specify 

5. When would you say the most meals have been provided under this demonstration?

Probe:

 Month? 

 Week in month? 

 Days of the week? 

6. Do you have any thoughts about what influences attendance from day to day/week to

week/month to month?

7. How do you handle leftover meals/leftover backpacks?

8. What do you do when there are more children than meals on a given day?

9. What meals are provided under the demonstration?

Probe:

 Breakfast 

 Lunch 

 Snack 

 Supper (if a camp or migrant site only) 

 Combination 

 Varies by site 

10. MEAL DELIVERY ONLY: How does your project organize the delivery of meals? Please

describe.

Appendix F

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report F-16 
OMB Control No.: 0584-0560-NEW 

 Expiration Date: 7/31/2014 

EVALUATION OF SFSP ENHANCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS 

INTERVIEW GUIDE 

SPONSORS 

Probe: 

 Staff involved 

 Use of volunteers (e.g., parents, students) 

 Distribution sites 

 Number of deliveries per week 

11. IF DROP-OFF SITES USED, CONFIRM WHAT THEY ARE FROM SPONSOR/SITE

LIST. Is this a change from last year?

12. BACKPACK ONLY: How are backpacks distributed? Please describe.

Probe:

 Who distributes 

 When distributed 

 Where distributed 

 Method of distribution 

C. Community Partnerships 

We’d like to learn about any partnerships you have or had in implementing this demonstration 

project. 

13. Have you partnered [are you partnering] with any other organizations or agencies in your

community? Please describe. Is this a change from last summer?

Probe: 

 Organizations/agencies 

 Role 

o Developing proposal

o Outreach to sites

o Outreach to children/families

o Provision of space

o Provision of food

o Provision of volunteers

o Funding

o Other, please specify

 Level of involvement 

14. What kind of communication do you have with your community partners? Please describe.

Appendix F

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report F-17 
OMB Control No.: 0584-0560-NEW 

 Expiration Date: 7/31/2014 

EVALUATION OF SFSP ENHANCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS 

INTERVIEW GUIDE 

SPONSORS 

Probe: 

 Regular/ad hoc 

 Frequency 

 Nature of communication 

15. Have there been any issues related to community partner involvement that has needed to be

addressed? Please describe.

L. What was the issue(s)? 

M. How was the issue (s) addressed? 

N. How has the issue(s) been resolved? 

D. Staffing/Volunteers 

We’d like to get an idea of the people who work on this demonstration. 

16. How many staff/volunteers in your organization are dedicated to the demonstration? Is this

a change from last summer?

17. What experience do staff/volunteers on the demonstration project have with other food

programs? Please describe.

18. What does each staff member/volunteer do on the demonstration project (roles and

responsibilities)?

NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: OBTAIN FIRST NAME OF EACH STAFF MEMBER/ 

VOLUNTEER AND WORK THROUGH THE INFORMATION ON TABLE BELOW. 

Probe: 

 Overall management of implementation (e.g., conducts site visits, provides 

documentation forms to site, keeps records, ensures correction of site violations, 

monitors personnel, reviews records for accuracy) 

 Hires staff or finds volunteers 

 Payments (e.g., distribution of pass through funds, processing grant expense claims, 

tracking funds to account for all funds received and expended) 

 QC monitoring 

 Provides data to FNS 

 Provides data to evaluation contractor (Westat) 

 Provides assistance to evaluation contractor in collecting data 

 Training 

 Other, please specify 

Appendix F

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report F-18 
OMB Control No.: 0584-0560-NEW 

 Expiration Date: 7/31/2014 

EVALUATION OF SFSP ENHANCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS 

INTERVIEW GUIDE 

SPONSORS 

19. Could you tell us the total amount of time spent monthly on each role?

Staff/ 

volunteer name Role Responsibilities Hours spent (monthly) Comments

20. How do you go about replacing staff/volunteers that leave the demonstration project?

Please describe.

21. Have there been any particular problems with regard to staffing/volunteers (e.g.,

recruitment, retention, training)? Please describe.

22. What did you do to try to resolve these problems? Please describe.

23. Did you do anything differently this summer to make sure you have enough

staffing/volunteers for this demonstration project? Please describe.

E. Outreach Efforts 

Let’s talk some more about the sites in this project and how you selected them. We understand that 

there are [GIVE NUMBER] sites. NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: PROVIDE NUMBER. IF 

NUMBERS ARE DIFFERENT, REVISE SPONSOR/SITE LIST. 

24. How did you go about selecting sites for the demonstration? Is this a change from last year?

How did it change?

Probe: 

 Outreach methods 

 Selection criteria – space, number of children living in area that will participate 

 Selection process 

Appendix F

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report F-19 
OMB Control No.: 0584-0560-NEW 

 Expiration Date: 7/31/2014 

EVALUATION OF SFSP ENHANCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS 

INTERVIEW GUIDE 

SPONSORS 

25. Is there anything about your selection of sites that you changed from last summer? Please

describe. APPLIES TO BOTH MEAL DELIVERY AND BACKPACK.

Now let’s talk about the outreach efforts to attract children to the project. 

26. What kind of outreach was done to attract children to the demonstration project this

summer? Please describe. Is this different than last summer?

Probe: 

 Conducted outreach to local businesses and organizations, churches 

 Used interpersonal communication in target neighborhoods 

 Held a kickoff event 

 Used the media (radio, newspaper, community or church newsletter, TV) to promote 

project 

 Added sites 

 Other [e.g., coordination with local schools, mailing to parents, parent/community 

meetings) 

[OBTAIN ALL OUTREACH MATERIALS – LETTERS, MEDIA MESSAGES, FLYERS, 

OTHER.]

F. Demonstration Implementation 

I’d like to talk a little more specifically about the different ways meals are provided to the children.

27. How are the meals delivered or distributed to children participating in the demonstration

project? Please describe. Is this different than last summer?

Probe: 

 Line up

 Name checked off 

 Activities (if any) before and after food distribution 

 Method of distribution (e.g., serving line, filling own backpack) 

 Method used to ensure compliance with meal pattern requirements 

 Arrangements for shelter in inclement weather (for outdoor facilities) 

28. Does your demonstration project attempt in any way to maintain anonymity for the children

who receive meals/backpacks or bags? Please describe.

29. What are the meals/foods like that are provided as part of the demonstration project? Please

describe.

Appendix F

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report F-20 
OMB Control No.: 0584-0560-NEW 

 Expiration Date: 7/31/2014 

EVALUATION OF SFSP ENHANCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS 

INTERVIEW GUIDE 

SPONSORS 

. 

Probe: 

 Contents (specify meal components for each meal type) 

 Hot meals or cold meals 

 Preparation – self-prepared, vended, satellite, purchased from another source 

 Variety of fruits and vegetables 

 Whole grain foods 

 Low fat or skim 

 Vegetarian options 

 Choices offered 

[OBTAIN MENU FOR EACH WEEK OF OPERATION.]

30. What foods seem to be the most popular with the children participating in the

demonstration project? How can you tell?

31. What foods seem to be the least popular with the children participating in the demonstration

project? How can you tell?

32. What is done to make sure the food is nutritious and safe? Please describe. Is this a change

from last summer?

A. What procedures are in place to arrange for health department inspection and 

prompt trash removal? 

B. What procedures are in place to accommodate food allergies and other food 

restrictions? 

C. What is done to make sure the food is fresh? 

33. Is informational material (e.g., recipes, information on nutritious foods) made available or

given to children or their parents when distributing meals or backpacks/bags? Please

describe distribution process.

OBTAIN COPY OF ALL INFORMATIONAL MATERIAL (INCLUDING 

TRANSLATED MATERIALS, IF AVAILABLE).

G. Training and Technical Assistance 

Appendix F

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report F-21 
OMB Control No.: 0584-0560-NEW 

 Expiration Date: 7/31/2014 

EVALUATION OF SFSP ENHANCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS 

INTERVIEW GUIDE 

SPONSORS 

34. Have you or others in your organization received any training or technical assistance this

summer, specific to the demonstration project, from the state demonstration grantee?

Please describe.

Probe:

 Format – webinars, in-person 

 Content

 Attendance 

 Who provides it 

 Distribution of manuals/procedures 

 Satisfaction 

35. Are there opportunities for communication with the State grantee and other sponsors

throughout the state about the demonstration project? Please describe.

Probe: 

 Formal/informal

 Format

 Circumstances

 Who initiates communication 

 Satisfaction with number and type of opportunities for communication

36. How do you provide training or technical assistance for the demonstration project to the

sites? Please describe.

Probe: 

 Formal/informal

 Format

 Content

 Frequency

 Who provides it 

 Opportunities for communication – with sites 

H. Project Monitoring 

An important function of a sponsor is to provide oversight to the different sites under your 

jurisdiction. 

37. What kinds of things do you monitor and provide oversight on for this demonstration?

Probe:

Appendix F

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report F-22 
OMB Control No.: 0584-0560-NEW 

 Expiration Date: 7/31/2014 

EVALUATION OF SFSP ENHANCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS 

INTERVIEW GUIDE 

SPONSORS 

 Compliance with USDA meal pattern requirements 

 How money is spent 

 Food safety (sanitary conditions and health inspections) 

 Food nutrient content 

 Food appeal to children 

 Making sure food is eaten by the child and no one else 

 Portion control of food components 

 Making sure meals or backpacks/bags go to the right child 

 Other, please specify 

What is monitored Monitoring systems/processes

Compliance with USDA meal 

pattern requirements

How money is spent

Food safety (sanitary conditions and 

health inspections)

Food nutrient content

Food appeal to children

Making sure food is eaten by the 

child and no one else 

HOW? 

Portion control of food 

components

Making sure meals or 

backpacks/bags go to right child

Other

Other 

38. How do you do it? What systems and processes are in place for oversight and monitoring?

Please describe.

Probe: 

 Reporting requirements 

 Telephone calls 

 Emails 

 Site visits 

 Feedback from sites (solicited/unsolicited) 

 Feedback from parents (solicited/unsolicited) 

 Other, please specify 

Appendix F

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report F-23 
OMB Control No.: 0584-0560-NEW 

 Expiration Date: 7/31/2014 

EVALUATION OF SFSP ENHANCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS 

INTERVIEW GUIDE 

SPONSORS 

39. Have you had to change any of your monitoring/oversight procedures over the course of

the demonstration for any reason? Since last summer? Please describe.

Probe:

 Which processes 

 Reason 

 Changes made 

40. Are there any additional changes you are intending to make? Please describe.

Probe:

 Nature of change 

 Reason for change 

 Timing of change 

 Process for making change 

Appendix F

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report F-24 
OMB Control No.: 0584-0560-NEW 

 Expiration Date: 7/31/2014 

EVALUATION OF SFSP ENHANCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS 

INTERVIEW GUIDE 

SPONSORS 

I. Project Effectiveness 

41. In your opinion, what does your organization do in this demonstration that’s particularly

effective? Please describe.

Probe:

 Outreach methods 

 Staffing 

 Monitoring systems 

 Food content 

 Food variety 

 Accompanying activities 

 Facilities – serving areas 

 Other [use of resources, use of volunteers/in kind services, parent involvement], 

please specify 

42. Are these things specific to your particular organization, or do you think they could be

implemented by other organizations? Please explain.

J. Challenges and Resolution of Challenges 

43. Last year, you mentioned __________ and ___________ as particular challenges. Have

those challenges been resolved? How?

NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: INSERT CHALLENGES FROM LAST YEAR. 

44. What are you challenges this year? Please describe.

Probe:

 Nature of challenge (e.g., data collection, staffing, collection and provision of data, 

monitoring, quality control) 

 Method of identification of challenges 

 Timing (e.g., startup, implementation, winding down) 

45. Have the challenges been any different than in the usual summer programs or school year

feeding programs? Please explain.

Appendix F

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report F-25 
OMB Control No.: 0584-0560-NEW 

 Expiration Date: 7/31/2014 

EVALUATION OF SFSP ENHANCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS 

INTERVIEW GUIDE 

SPONSORS 

46. Over the course of the demonstration project, have you identified particular challenges sites

have had? Please describe.

 Nature of challenge (e.g., data collection, staffing/volunteers, monitoring, quality 

control) 

 Method of identification 

 Timing (e.g., startup, implementation, winding down) 

47. Have the challenges been any different than in the usual summer programs or school year

feeding programs? Please explain.

48. How were these challenges resolved? Please describe.

Probe: 

 Resolution 

 Facilitators to resolution 

 Barriers to resolution 

K. Final Comments 

49. Overall, what do you think are the major strengths and limitations of your project? Please

describe.

50. Do you think that the demonstration project helped participating children to eat better and

contributed to increased food security for the household? Please explain.

51. BACKPACK ONLY: In your opinion, do you think the Backpack demonstration project

had an impact on participation in the SFSP?

52. Do you have any stories you’ve heard from children or parents about the success of the

demonstration project?

53. Do you think this demonstration project should be implemented as a permanent program?

Why or why not?

54. What do you perceive to be the greatest barriers to children participating in the summer

demonstration project?

Appendix F

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report F-26
OMB Control No.: 0584-0560-NEW 

 Expiration Date: 7/31/2014 

EVALUATION OF SFSP ENHANCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS 

INTERVIEW GUIDE 

SPONSORS 

55. What advice would you give FNS about this project?

56. Is there anything else about the demonstration that you’d like to tell us that we may have

missed asking you about?

Those are all the questions we have for you. Do you have any questions you 

would like to ask us? We’d like to thank you again for taking the time to 

answer our questions. 

Appendix F

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report F-27 
EVALUATION OF SFSP ENHANCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS 

INTERVIEW GUIDE 

SITES 

NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: THESE QUESTIONS ARE ASKED TO SITE 

STAFF/VOLUNTEERS. 

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 

Good morning/afternoon. Thank you for taking the time to meet with us today. My name is 

[interviewer’s name] and this is [second interviewer’s name]. We both work for Westat, a private 

research company in Rockville, Maryland. 

As you may know, the US Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is funding 

demonstration projects to test ideas for reaching greater numbers of children in the summer and 

making sure that they do not go hungry. FNS has asked Westat to conduct an evaluation of these 

demonstrations to understand how these ideas are working and how they are carried out. All of the 

information we collect is meant to provide FNS with valid and objective findings to help them with 

their policymaking on Federal summer programs. 

As one of the sites under this demonstration project, you are an important source of information on 

the operations of this demonstration. We have some specific questions to ask you about what you 

do as a project site, what the challenges have been, and what has been done or could be done to 

make the project even better. The interview should last approximately 30-45 minutes. 

Please be assured that the information you provide will be kept private, and your name will not be 

used in any report we provide to FNS. 

Before we start, we would like to ask your permission to record this interview so that we do not miss 

any of your responses to our questions. The recording will be used by Westat; it will not be provided 

to FNS or anyone else. 

Do you have any questions before we start? 

INTERVIEW 

Let’s start with some background information on you and this site.

A. Background information on sites 

1. How did you become involved in working at this site? Please describe.

Probe:

 Experience with demonstration project last year 

 Experience with summer programs - # years offering SFSP 

Appendix F

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report F-28 
EVALUATION OF SFSP ENHANCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS 

INTERVIEW GUIDE 

SITES 

 Experience with school year feeding programs 

 Reason for choosing to be a part of demonstration 

 Other 

2. Do you represent or belong to a particular organization that is participating in this

demonstration? Please describe.

Probe:

 Type of organization- Public/private, nonprofit/for profit, school, camp (residential, 

non-residential) 

 What organization does 

 Organization’s experience with summer programs

 Organization’s experience with school year feeding programs 

B. Overview of Operations 

Can you give us an overview of this demonstration project – what the project is like and what it 

does. 

3. How would you describe the children you give meals to in the demonstration project?

IF INVOLVED LAST SUMMER, Is this different than last summer? 

Probe: 

 Age 

 Race/ethnicity 

 Immigrant/non-immigrant 

 Language(s) spoken 

 Place of residence 

 Urban/rural 

Appendix F

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report F-29 
EVALUATION OF SFSP ENHANCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS 

INTERVIEW GUIDE 

SITES 

4. How does this site provide meals to the children in the demonstration project? Please

describe.

Probe:

 Distribution procedures 

 Staffing 

5. During this summer, when dos your site operate?

IF INVOLVED LAST SUMMER, Is this different than last summer? 

Probe: 

 Months 

 Weeks 

 Days/week 

6. When would you say attendance has been the highest?

Probe:

 Month? 

 Week in month? 

 Days of the week? 

 Weekend?

7. Do you have any thoughts on what influences attendance from day to day/week to

week/month to month? Please explain.

8. How do you handle leftover meals/leftover backpacks or bags?

9. What do you do when there are more children than meals on a given day?

10. What meals do you provide at your site for this demonstration project?

Probe:

 Breakfast 

 Lunch 

 Snack 

 All 

 Varies 

C. Staffing/Volunteers 

Appendix F

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report F-30 
EVALUATION OF SFSP ENHANCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS 

INTERVIEW GUIDE 

SITES 

We’d also like to get an idea of the people who work on this project – and the different things they 

do. 

11. How many people work at this site to make sure children receive meals/backpacks or bags

under this demonstration?

[NOTE TO INTERVIEWER: OBTAIN INFORMATION ON STAFF, VOLUNTEERS, 

STUDENTS. OBTAIN FIRST NAME OF EACH STAFF MEMBER/VOLUNTEER/ 

STUDENT AND WORK THROUGH THE INFORMATION ON TABLE BELOW. 

12. What exactly does each one do? Please describe.

Probe:

 Manage overall operations 

 Monitor operations [e.g., make sure backpacks or meals go to children who are 

participating in demonstration) 

 Purchase food 

 Set up delivery site 

 Determine number of meals needed 

 Prepare meals 

 Give out meals to children 

 Verify that meals served/packed in backpacks meet meal pattern requirements 

 Food safety (e.g., record food temperatures; check for spoiled food) 

 Track and record meal counts 

 Record how leftover food is handled 

 Keep track of money spent 

 Interact with sponsors 

 Provide data to state or sponsors 

 Provide data to evaluation contractors 

 Assist evaluation contractors in collecting data 

 Attend training sessions on demonstration project provided by sponsor 

 Other, please specify 

Appendix F

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report F-31 
EVALUATION OF SFSP ENHANCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS 

INTERVIEW GUIDE 

SITES 

13. Could you tell us the total amount of time spent on each task?

Staff/volunteer 

name

Role Responsibilities Hours spent 

(monthly)

Comments

14. Have there been any particular problems with regard to staffing/volunteers for this

demonstration? Please describe.

15. Was there anything you tried to do to resolve these problems? Please describe.

16. Is there anything you try to do to make sure there is enough staff/volunteers to do all these

jobs – especially in the summer? Please describe.

17. Is there anything you would do differently to make sure your site is well staffed and all the

tasks can be carried out for this demonstration? Please describe.

D. Demonstration Implementation 

I’d like to talk a little more specifically about the way in which meals are provided to the children.

18. How do you distribute the meals? Please describe.

Probe: 

 Method of distribution 

 Activities (if any) before and after food distribution 

19. Does your project attempt in any way to maintain anonymity for the children? Please describe.

20. What are the meals like for the demonstration project? Please describe.

Appendix F

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report F-32 
EVALUATION OF SFSP ENHANCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS 

INTERVIEW GUIDE 

SITES 

. 

Probe: 

 Contents 

 Hot meals or cold meals 

 Preparation – self-prepared, vended, satellite 

 Variety of fruits and vegetables 

 Whole grain foods 

 Low fat or skim products 

 Vegetarian options 

 Shelf stable 

 Choices offered 

 Other 

21. What do you do to make sure the food nutritious, safe, and appealing to children? Please

describe.

A. How do you accommodate food allergies and other food restrictions? 

B. What do you do to make sure the food is kept fresh? 

C. Are any of these things different for the demonstration project than the regular 

summer program? Please explain. 

D. [IF INVOLVED LAST SUMMER] Are any of these things different than last 

summer? 

22. What foods seem to be the most popular with the children participating in the

demonstration project? How do you know?

23. What foods seem to be the least popular with the children participating in the demonstration

project? How do you know?

Appendix F

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report F-33 
EVALUATION OF SFSP ENHANCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS 

INTERVIEW GUIDE 

SITES 

E. Program Requirements and Guidelines 

24. Does your sponsor have specific rules and guidelines in place, specific to the demonstration

project, for running the site? Please describe.

 Financial rules 

 Food safety (e.g., recording food temperature, time scheduled for delivery of food 

prior to meal service, removal of waste from site) 

 Making sure the food goes to the child and no one else 

 Contents of meals (i.e., meal pattern components, portion sizes) 

 Food variety 

 Accommodation for children with disabilities (food modification or substitution) 

 Accompanying activities 

 Sharing/exchanging food 

 Serving second meals 

 Handling leftover food 

Please describe. 

25. How did you learn about these rules and guidelines? Please describe.

Probe:

 Format (e.g., written material, training) 

 Source 

 Frequency of receiving information about requirements or guidelines 

26. Do you feel you received enough information and the right type of information to help you

meet these requirements for the demonstration? Please explain.

27. Would you want anything to be done differently in the demonstration project to help you to

better understand your responsibilities? Please explain.

Appendix F

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report F-34 
EVALUATION OF SFSP ENHANCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS 

INTERVIEW GUIDE 

SITES 

F. Providing Information to Sponsors 

28. What kinds of information are you required to provide to the sponsors for the

demonstration project?

Probe: 

 How money is spent 

 Food safety 

 Number of meals/backpacks or bags 

 Number of children 

29. How do you keep track of these things? Do you use any systems, specific for the

demonstration project, for collecting this information? Please describe.

Probe: 

 Reporting requirements 

 Telephone calls 

 Site visits 

 Feedback from sponsors (solicited/unsolicited) 

 Feedback from parents (solicited/unsolicited) 

 Self-feedback 

 Other, please specify 

30. Have you had any problems in collecting this information for the demonstration project?

Please describe.

31. What did you do to resolve these problems? Please describe.

32. Is there anything you would do differently this year compared to last summer to collect this

information? Please describe.

33. Is there anything you would like the sponsor to do differently to make it easier for you to

provide information on the demonstration project?

Appendix F

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report F-35 
EVALUATION OF SFSP ENHANCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS 

INTERVIEW GUIDE 

SITES 

G. Challenges and Resolution of Challenges 

34. What would you say have been your biggest challenges in this demonstration? Please

describe.

Probe:

 Nature of challenge (e.g., data collection, staffing/volunteers, collection and 

provision of data, meals delivered to site late, poor quality or spoiled food, 

sanitation) 

 Timing (e.g., startup, implementation, winding down) 

35. [IF INVOLVED LAST SUMMER] Have the challenges been different than last summer?

36. Have the challenges been any different than in the usual summer programs or school year

feeding programs? Please explain.

37. How have you resolved these challenges? Please describe.

Probe: 

 Resolution 

 Facilitators to resolution 

 Barriers to resolution 

H. Final Comments 

38. Overall, what do you think are the major strengths and limitations of this demonstration

project? Please describe.

39. Do you think that what you did at your site helped children participating in the

demonstration to eat better and contributed to increased food security for the household?

Please explain.

40. BACKPACK ONLY: In your opinion, do you think the Backpack demonstration project

had an impact on participation in the SFSP?

41. Do you have any stories you’ve heard from children or parents about the success of this

demonstration project?

42. What do you see as the greatest barrier to children participating in the Summer Food Service

Program?

43. What advice would you give FNS about this project?

Appendix F

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report F-36 
EVALUATION OF SFSP ENHANCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS 

INTERVIEW GUIDE 

SITES 

44. Do you think this demonstration project should be implemented as permanent program?

45. Is there anything else about the demonstration that you’d like to tell us that we may have

missed asking you about?

Those are all the questions we have for you. Do you have any questions you 

would like to ask us? We’d like to thank you again for taking the time to 

answer our questions. 

Appendix F

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report F-37 
 
Appendix G

Site Visit Observations
Site Visit Observations 

State (circle one): Delaware, Massachusetts, New York, Arizona, Kansas, Ohio 

Sponsor: 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

Site: ________________________________________________________________________________

No.

Type of 

Demonstration Site Environment

Description

1

Meal Delivery and 

Backpack

What has been done to make 

the site appealing to children?

Examples: toys, books, drawing 

supplies available

2

Meal Delivery and 

Backpack

What kinds of accessibility 

measures have been taken?

3

Meal Delivery and 

Backpack

Is there any signage for the 

project or for the place where 

meals/bags are distributed?

4

Meal Delivery and 

Backpack

At what type of location are 

project sites located (e.g., 

school cafeteria, school 

classroom, activity room at 

park, community center, 

church hall)? 

5

Meal Delivery and 

Backpack

Is the space shared with 

another program or 

organization? 

6

Meal Delivery and 

Backpack

Is drop-off or distribution inside 

or outdoors? 

7

Meal Delivery and 

Backpack

If drop-off or distribution is 

outdoors, how is drop-off or 

distribution handled in case of 

inclement weather. 

8

Meal Delivery and 

Backpack

Is informational material 

available? 

Appendix G

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report G-1
Site Visit Observations 

State (circle one): Delaware, Massachusetts, New York, Arizona, Kansas, Ohio 

Sponsor: 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

Site: ________________________________________________________________________________

No.

Type of 

Demonstration Site Environment

Description

9

Meal Delivery and 

Backpack 

Is informational material 

available in appropriate 

translations? 

10

Meal Delivery and 

Backpack

If informational material 

available, how is it made 

available or distributed? 

Examples: left on table; placed 

in backpack or bag

11

Meal Delivery and 

Backpack

Who picks up the food/bags 

(children, adults, both)? 

12

Meal Delivery and 

Backpack

What is done if there are 

meals/backpacks (bags) left 

over? 

Examples: takes leftover food 

to local pantry; takes leftover 

food to the next drop-off 

location

13 Backpack only

How are backpacks/bags 

stored prior to distribution?

14 Backpack only

Do children eat any of the food 

onsite (e.g., do they open up 

bags to take out and eat any of 

the food)?

15 Backpack only

Do children share any of the 

food onsite? 

16 Backpack only

What is done if there are more 

children than backpacks or 

bags? 

Appendix G

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report G-2
Site Visit Observations 

State (circle one): Delaware, Massachusetts, New York, Arizona, Kansas, Ohio 

Sponsor: ______________________________________________________________________ 

Site: ________________________________________________________________________________ 

No. 

Type of 

Demonstration Site Environment 

Description 

1 

Meal Delivery and 

Backpack 

What has been done to make 

the site appealing to children? 

Examples: toys, books, drawing 

supplies available 

2 

Meal Delivery and 

Backpack 

What kinds of accessibility 

measures have been taken? 

3 

Meal Delivery and 

Backpack 

Is there any signage for the 

project or for the place where 

meals/bags are distributed? 

4 

Meal Delivery and 

Backpack 

At what type of location are 

project sites located (e.g., 

school cafeteria, school 

classroom, activity room at 

park, community center, 

church hall)? 

5 

Meal Delivery and 

Backpack 

Is the space shared with 

another program or 

organization? 

6 

Meal Delivery and 

Backpack 

Is drop-off or distribution inside 

or outdoors? 

7 

Meal Delivery and 

Backpack 

If drop-off or distribution is 

outdoors, how is drop-off or 

distribution handled in case of 

inclement weather. 

8 

Meal Delivery and 

Backpack 

Is informational material 

available? 

Appendix G

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report G-3
Site Visit Observations 

State (circle one): Delaware, Massachusetts, New York, Arizona, Kansas, Ohio 

Sponsor: ______________________________________________________________________ 

Site: ________________________________________________________________________________ 

No. 

Type of 

Demonstration Site Environment 

Description 

9 

Meal Delivery and 

Backpack 

Is informational material 

available in appropriate 

translations? 

10 

Meal Delivery and 

Backpack 

If informational material 

available, how is it made 

available or distributed? 

Examples: left on table; placed 

in backpack or bag 

11 

Meal Delivery and 

Backpack 

Who picks up the food/bags 

(children, adults, both)? 

12 

Meal Delivery and 

Backpack 

What is done if there are 

meals/backpacks (bags) left 

over? 

Examples: takes leftover food 

to local pantry; takes leftover 

food to the next drop-off 

location

13 Backpack only 

How are backpacks/bags 

stored prior to distribution? 

14 Backpack only 

Do children eat any of the food 

onsite (e.g., do they open up 

bags to take out and eat any of 

the food)? 

15 Backpack only 

Do children share any of the 

food onsite? 

16 Backpack only 

What is done if there are more 

children than backpacks or 

bags? 

Appendix G

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report G-4
Appendix H

Sample Site Visit Agenda
Backpack Demonstration Program Evaluation

Arizona Site Visit

June 20 – 22, 2012

Site Visitors:  

Roline Milfort, PhD (Cell: 301‐717‐9766)

Ayanna Williams (Cell: 301‐802‐8672)

AGENDA

Day 1 – Wednesday, June 20, 2012

9:00‐11:00 Courtney Braccio, Cara Peczkowski

Arizona Department of Education

2005 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85004  

Phone: (602) 542‐8714

*Drive time to Litchfield Elementary School District: 35 minutes

1:00‐2:30 David Schwake, Patricia Vasquez, Nancy Hagemeister

Litchfield Elementary School District

272 East Sagebrush Street, Litchfield Park, AZ 85340

Phone: 623‐535‐6056

Day 2 – Thursday, June 21, 2012

9:00‐10:30 Loretta Zulla

Mesa Public Schools

143 S. Alma School Road, Mesa, AZ 85210

Phone: 480‐472‐0910

*Drive time to Hawthorne Elementary: 15 minutes

11:00‐1:00 Backpack Site

Hawthorne Elementary  

630 North Hunt Drive Mesa, AZ 85203

Day 3 – Friday, June 22, 2012

9:00‐10:30 Patricia Narducci

Chandler Unified School District

555 S Pennington Drive, Chandler, AZ 85224

Phone: 480‐812‐7266  

*Drive time to Galveston: 15 minutes

11:00‐12:30   Backpack Site

Galveston Site

661 East Galveston, Chandler, AZ 85224  

Appendix H

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report H-1
 
Appendix I

Demonstration Project Materials Checklist
Appendix I 

 

Demonstration Project Materials Checklist

No. Materials

Source of Request - 

Question No.

Obtained 

(check)

From State Grantee

1 Written Guidance on nutritional contents of 

meals/backpacks State grantee - 14

2 

Other written guidance (e.g., on meal 

contents, portion size, food variety, sharing 

food)

State grantee - 15

3 Written guidance on ways to ensure food 

safety State grantee - 16

4 Training manuals, procedures, brochures State grantee - 19

5 Templates for collecting data (beyond what 

FNS or Westat requires) State grantee - 20

From Sponsor 

6 Outreach materials - letters, media 

messages, flyers, other Sponsor - 26

7 Menu for each week of operation Sponsor - 29

8 All informational materials (e.g., recipes, 

information on nutritious foods) Sponsor - 33

9 Translations of informational materials Sponsor - 33

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report I-1 

 
 
Appendix J

Characteristics of Fall 2012 Sample
Appendix J 

 

Characteristics of Fall 2012 Sample

Total

Characteristics n pct

Participant gender

Female 619 54.3

Male 520 45.7

Total 1139 100.0

Participant age distribution

18 years or older 23 2.0

12-17 years old 242 21.2

8-11 years old 382 33.5

5-7 years old 326 28.6

Under 5 years old 166 14.6

Total 1139 100.0

Respondent gender

Male 32 6.5

Female 461 93.5

Total 493 100.0

Respondent race/ethnicity

Hispanic 94 19.1

Non-Hispanic Black 82 16.7

Non-Hispanic White 281 57.2

Other Race/Ethnicity 34 6.9

Total 491 100.0

Respondent--languages spoken at home

English only 399 80.9

Spanish only 29 5.9

Some other language only 5 1.0

English and Spanish 44 8.9

English and some other language 11 2.2

English, Spanish, and some other language 5 1.0

Total 493 100.0

Respondent--marital status

Married 239 48.7

Not married but living with a partner 60 12.2

Widowed 12 2.4

Divorced 47 9.6

Separated 28 5.7

Never married 104 21.2

Other 1 0.2

Total 491 100.0

(table continues)

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report J-1 

 
Appendix J 

 

Characteristics of Fall 2012 Sample (continued)

Total

Characteristics n pct

Respondent--education

Never attended/kindergarten only 3 0.6

Elementary/Middle school (Grades 1-8) 18 3.7

Some high school (Grades 9 through 11) 85 17.3

High school graduate (Grade 12 or GED) 194 39.6

Some college or technical school (College 1 to 3 years) 138 28.2

College graduate (College 4 years or more) 52 10.6

Total 490 100.0

Respondent age

20-25 years old 39 7.9

26-30 years old 97 19.6

31-35 years old 123 24.9

36-40 years old 79 16.0

41-50 years old 106 21.5

51-80 years old 50 10.1

Total 494 100.0

Respondent employment status

Employed 168 34.1

Self-employed 27 5.5

Out of work for more than 1 year 45 9.1

Out of work for less than 1 year 28 5.7

Homemaker 117 23.8

Student 26 5.3

Retired 7 1.4

Unable to work 74 15.0

Total 492 100.0

Households by location of demonstration site

Arizona 85 17.2

Delaware 51 10.3

Kansas 86 17.4

Massachusetts 25 5.1

New York 60 12.1

Ohio 187 37.9

Total 494 100.0

Household participation in other nutrition assistance programs*

Did not participate in any programs 17 3.4

Participated in only one program 21 4.3

Participated in two programs 160 32.4

Participated in three or more programs 296 59.9

Total 494 100.0

(table continues)

* Programs counted as 'Other nutrition assistance' include SNAP, WIC, Meals on Wheels, School Lunch Program, 

School Breakfast Program, and Headstart.

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report J-2 

 
Appendix J 

 

Characteristics of Fall 2012 Sample (continued)

Total

Characteristics n pct

Household size

1 to 3 persons 133 26.9

4 persons 143 28.9

5 persons 113 22.9

6 or more persons 105 21.3

Total 494 100.0

Household age distribution among all household members

65 years or older 37 1.7

18-64 years old 887 40.4

5-17 years old 1010 46.0

Under 5 years old 260 11.9

Total 2194 100.0

Household members with difficulty in daily activities

Yes 136 27.5

No 358 72.5

Total 494 100.0

Distribution of employment status among persons in household other 

than respondent

Full-time 222 51.2

Part-time 52 12.0

Not employed 160 36.9

Total 434 100.0

Annual household income

Less than $10,000 84 17.5

$10,000 up to $15,000 60 12.5

$15,000 up to $20,000 73 15.2

$20,000 up to $25,000 104 21.6

$25,000 up to $35,000 73 15.2

$35,000 or more 87 18.1

Total 481 100.0

Households by poverty threshold**

Less than 100% poverty threshold 313 65.1

Less than 130% poverty threshold 50 10.4

Less than 185% poverty threshold 58 12.1

Greater than or equal to 185% poverty threshold 60 12.5

Total 481 100.0

** Households by poverty threshold were calculated by looking up the number of adults and children in the household 

reported by the respondent in the table of “Poverty thresholds by Size of Family and Number of Children” from the U.S. 

Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html) to find the 100% poverty 

threshold for that household. That value was multiplied by 1.3 and 1.85 to find the other two thresholds. Then the 

midpoint of the household income range reported by the respondent was compared to each of those values to 

determine the category into which it fell in the table.

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report J-3 

 
 
Appendix K

Participation by Covariate
Appendix K-1 

Participation in Meal Delivery 

Demonstration Project by Covariate
Appendix K-1 

Participation in Meal Delivery Demonstration Project by Covariate

Rate of receiving meal deliveries per child per week of demonstration 

project operation (up to interview date)*

p-value

25% or 

less

More than 

25% up to 

50%

More than 

50% up to 

75%

More than 

75% up to 

100%

More than 

100% Total

n pct n pct n pct n pct n pct n 

Overall 7 3.8 15 8.1 28 15.1 65 35.1 70 37.8 185 . 

Participation in other nutrition 

assistance programs**

Did not participate in any 

programs

0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 40.0 3 60.0 5 0.0663

Participated in only one 

program

0 0.0 3 10.7 10 35.7 11 39.3 4 14.3 28

Participated in two 

programs

2 2.4 7 8.3 12 14.3 29 34.5 34 40.5 84

Participated in three or 

more programs

5 7.4 5 7.4 6 8.8 23 33.8 29 42.6 68

Perception of change in food 

expenditure--summer vs. fall

Same in summer as fall 2 4.4 6 13.3 4 8.9 13 28.9 20 44.4 45 0.6572

More in summer 4 3.7 8 7.5 19 17.8 38 35.5 38 35.5 107

Less in summer 1 3.0 1 3.0 5 15.2 14 42.4 12 36.4 33

Perception of change in food 

expenditure--less due to 

summer food program

Agree strongly 2 3.1 4 6.2 12 18.5 27 41.5 20 30.8 65 0.4604

Agree 3 4.2 7 9.7 12 16.7 23 31.9 27 37.5 72

Neither agree nor disagree 0 0.0 2 8.7 3 13.0 10 43.5 8 34.8 23

Disagree/ Disagree strongly 2 8.3 2 8.3 1 4.2 5 20.8 14 58.3 24

Participant age

18 years or older 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 75.0 1 25.0 4 0.2133

12-17 years old 2 4.3 1 2.2 8 17.4 22 47.8 13 28.3 46

8-11 years old 2 2.8 7 9.7 11 15.3 21 29.2 31 43.1 72

5-7 years old 3 6.4 6 12.8 7 14.9 17 36.2 14 29.8 47

Under 5 years old 0 0.0 1 6.3 2 12.5 2 12.5 11 68.8 16

Participant gender

Male only 1 2.8 2 5.6 9 25.0 7 19.4 17 47.2 36 0.1939

Female only 3 4.5 6 9.0 12 17.9 23 34.3 23 34.3 67

Both male and female 3 3.7 7 8.5 7 8.5 35 42.7 30 36.6 82

Languages spoken at home

English only 4 2.6 12 7.7 26 16.8 61 39.4 52 33.5 155 0.0032

Spanish only or other 

language only

3 23.1 2 15.4 0 0.0 2 15.4 6 46.2 13

Others 0 0.0 1 5.9 2 11.8 2 11.8 12 70.6 17

*Rates of receiving meal deliveries per child were calculated at the household level for this analysis. (table continues)

** Programs counted as 'Other nutrition assistance' include SNAP, WIC, Meals on Wheels, School Lunch Program, Head Start, and 

other summer food programs where a member of the household ate meals on site.

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report K-1-1 
Participation in Meal Delivery Demonstration Project by Covariate (continued)

Rate of receiving meal deliveries per child per week of demonstration 

project operation (up to interview date)*

p-value

25% or 

less

More than 

25% up to 

50%

More than 

50% up to 

75%

More than 

75% up to 

100%

More than 

100% Total

n pct n pct n pct n pct n pct n 

Respondent--marital status

Married 2 3.1 7 10.9 10 15.6 27 42.2 18 28.1 64 0.1789

Not married but living with 

a partner

1 3.7 2 7.4 4 14.8 14 51.9 6 22.2 27

Never married 3 5.3 4 7.0 6 10.5 14 24.6 30 52.6 57

Widowed/ Divorced/ 

Separated/ Other

1 2.8 2 5.6 8 22.2 10 27.8 15 41.7 36

Respondent--education

Not a high school graduate 

(11th grade or less)

5 11.1 4 8.9 1 2.2 14 31.1 21 46.7 45 0.0147

High school graduate 

(Grade 12 or GED)

2 2.3 5 5.7 18 20.5 33 37.5 30 34.1 88

Some college or technical 

school (College 1 to 3 

years)

0 0.0 5 12.5 6 15.0 16 40.0 13 32.5 40

College graduate (College 4 

years or more)

0 0.0 1 9.1 3 27.3 1 9.1 6 54.5 11

Race/ethnicity

Hispanic 3 11.5 3 11.5 1 3.8 3 11.5 16 61.5 26 0.0001

Non-Hispanic Black 2 4.8 3 7.1 6 14.3 10 23.8 21 50.0 42

Non-Hispanic White 2 1.9 8 7.7 21 20.2 49 47.1 24 23.1 104

Other Race/Ethnicity 0 0.0 1 9.1 0 0.0 3 27.3 7 63.6 11

Respondent employment 

status

Employed/Self-employed 2 2.7 5 6.8 15 20.5 29 39.7 22 30.1 73 0.7130

Out of work 3 6.1 5 10.2 5 10.2 14 28.6 22 44.9 49

Homemaker 1 3.8 3 11.5 2 7.7 8 30.8 12 46.2 26

Student/Retired/Unable to 

work

1 2.8 2 5.6 6 16.7 13 36.1 14 38.9 36

Annual household income

Less than $10,000 4 10.3 5 12.8 3 7.7 10 25.6 17 43.6 39 0.0781

$10,000 up to $15,000 2 4.9 2 4.9 8 19.5 9 22.0 20 48.8 41

$15,000 up to $20,000 0 0.0 2 6.1 7 21.2 9 27.3 15 45.5 33

$20,000 up to $25,000 0 0.0 2 7.1 3 10.7 15 53.6 8 28.6 28

$25,000 up to $35,000 1 3.7 3 11.1 3 11.1 13 48.1 7 25.9 27

$35,000 or more 0 0.0 1 6.7 4 26.7 8 53.3 2 13.3 15

*Rates of receiving meal deliveries per child were calculated at the household level for this analysis.

(table continues)

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report K-1-2 
Participation in Meal Delivery Demonstration Project by Covariate (continued)

Rate of receiving meal deliveries per child per week of demonstration 

project operation (up to interview date)*

p-value

25% or 

less

More than 

25% up to 

50%

More than 

50% up to 

75%

More than 

75% up to 

100%

More than 

100% Total

n pct n pct n pct n pct n pct n 

Households by poverty 

threshold***

Less than 100% poverty 

threshold

6 4.4 11 8.1 18 13.2 44 32.4 57 41.9 136 0.2893

Less than 130% poverty 

threshold

1 6.3 1 6.3 5 31.3 5 31.3 4 25.0 16

Less than 185% poverty 

threshold

0 0.0 3 13.6 2 9.1 10 45.5 7 31.8 22

Greater than or equal to 

185% poverty threshold

0 0.0 0 0.0 3 33.3 5 55.6 1 11.1 9

Parent satisfaction with 

healthiness of food

Very healthy 7 4.6 12 7.9 22 14.5 55 36.2 56 36.8 152 0.8007

Somewhat healthy/Not at 

all healthy

0 0.0 3 10.3 3 10.3 10 34.5 13 44.8 29

Parent satisfaction with 

variety of food

Agree strongly 2 2.2 10 11.2 15 16.9 30 33.7 32 36.0 89 0.6227

Agree 5 5.9 5 5.9 11 12.9 30 35.3 34 40.0 85

Neither agree nor disagree/ 

Disagree/ Disagree strongly

0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 62.5 3 37.5 8

Parent satisfaction with 

convenience of food

Agree strongly 2 1.8 12 10.8 18 16.2 42 37.8 37 33.3 111 0.1328

Agree 5 7.1 3 4.3 8 11.4 22 31.4 32 45.7 70

Neither agree nor disagree/ 

Disagree/ Disagree strongly

0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 100.0 0 0.0 1

Parent satisfaction that 

household members like food

Agree strongly 1 1.4 3 4.2 14 19.7 27 38.0 26 36.6 71 0.4157

Agree 6 6.3 11 11.5 11 11.5 32 33.3 36 37.5 96

Neither agree nor disagree/ 

Disagree/ Disagree strongly

0 0.0 1 6.7 1 6.7 6 40.0 7 46.7 15

*Rates of receiving meal deliveries per child were calculated at the household level for this analysis.

*** Households by poverty threshold were calculated by looking up the number of adults and children in the household 

reported by the respondent in the table of “Poverty thresholds by Size of Family and Number of Children” from the U.S. 

Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html) to find the 100% poverty 

threshold for that household. That value was multiplied by 1.3 and 1.85 to find the other two thresholds. Then the 

midpoint of the household income range reported by the respondent was compared to each of those values to 

determine the category into which it fell in the table.

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report K-1-3 
 
Appendix K-2 

Participation in Backpack 

Demonstration Project by Covariate
Appendix K-2 

Participation in Backpack Demonstration Project by Covariate

Rate of receiving backpacks per child per week of demonstration 

project operation (up to interview date)*

p-value

25% or 

less

More than 

25% up to 

50%

More than 

50% up to 

75%

More than 

75% up to 

100%

More than 

100% Total

n pct n pct n pct n pct n pct n 

Overall 37 7.2 75 14.6 105 20.5 209 40.8 86 16.8 512 - 

Participation in other nutrition 

assistance programs**

Did not participate in any 

programs

7 8.3 15 17.9 17 20.2 35 41.7 10 11.9 84 0.9451

Participated in only one 

program

13 6.8 25 13.1 40 20.9 80 41.9 33 17.3 191

Participated in two 

programs

9 5.6 23 14.3 35 21.7 64 39.8 30 18.6 161

Participated in three or 

more programs

8 10.5 12 15.8 13 17.1 30 39.5 13 17.1 76

Perception of change in food 

expenditure--summer vs. fall

Same in summer as fall 7 5.2 26 19.4 20 14.9 50 37.3 31 23.1 134 0.0558

More in summer 23 8.6 36 13.4 66 24.5 109 40.5 35 13.0 269

Less in summer 7 6.5 13 12.0 19 17.6 49 45.4 20 18.5 108

Perception of change in food 

expenditure--less due to 

summer food program

Agree strongly 4 2.9 19 13.9 23 16.8 68 49.6 23 16.8 137 0.1345

Agree 19 9.7 31 15.9 43 22.1 68 34.9 34 17.4 195

Neither agree nor disagree 3 4.1 11 15.1 18 24.7 33 45.2 8 11.0 73

Disagree/ Disagree strongly 11 10.4 14 13.2 21 19.8 39 36.8 21 19.8 106

Participant age

18 years or older 0 0.0 . 0.0 1 33.3 2 66.7 . 0.0 3 0.3155

12-17 years old 0 0.0 9 14.3 14 22.2 25 39.7 15 23.8 63

8-11 years old 18 9.0 31 15.4 46 22.9 73 36.3 33 16.4 201

5-7 years old 12 6.8 25 14.1 31 17.5 84 47.5 25 14.1 177

Under 5 years old 7 10.3 10 14.7 13 19.1 25 36.8 13 19.1 68

Participant gender

Male only 13 10.5 18 14.5 28 22.6 50 40.3 15 12.1 124 0.6336

Female only 9 5.7 26 16.6 28 17.8 64 40.8 30 19.1 157

Both male and female 15 6.5 31 13.4 49 21.2 95 41.1 41 17.7 231

Languages spoken at home

English only 31 7.6 60 14.8 84 20.7 165 40.6 66 16.3 406 0.4429

Spanish only or Other 

language only

3 8.3 3 8.3 9 25.0 18 50.0 3 8.3 36

Others 3 4.3 12 17.4 12 17.4 25 36.2 17 24.6 69

*Rates of receiving backpacks per child were calculated at the household level for this analysis. (table continues)

** Programs counted as 'Other nutrition assistance' include SNAP, WIC, Meals on Wheels, School Lunch Program, Headstart, and 

other summer food programs where a member of the household ate meals on site.

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report K-2-1 
Participation in Backpack Program by Covariate (continued)

Rate of receiving backpacks per child per week of demonstration 

project operation (up to interview date)*

p-value

25% or 

less

More than 

25% up to 

50%

More than 

50% up to 

75%

More than 

75% up to 

100%

More than 

100% Total

n pct n pct n pct n pct n pct n 

Respondent--marital status

Married 21 8.2 41 16.0 51 19.8 107 41.6 37 14.4 257 0.5519

Not married but living with 

a partner

4 7.3 3 5.5 17 30.9 21 38.2 10 18.2 55

Never married 5 5.5 15 16.5 16 17.6 39 42.9 16 17.6 91

Widowed/ Divorced/ 

Separated/ Other

7 6.5 16 14.8 21 19.4 41 38.0 23 21.3 108

Respondent--education

Not a high school graduate 

(11th grade or less)

6 6.0 11 11.0 16 16.0 48 48.0 19 19.0 100 0.4916

High school graduate 

(Grade 12 or GED)

14 7.2 24 12.3 42 21.5 79 40.5 36 18.5 195

Some college or technical 

school (College 1 to 3 

years)

13 9.0 21 14.5 33 22.8 55 37.9 23 15.9 145

College graduate (College 4 

years or more)

4 5.8 17 24.6 14 20.3 26 37.7 8 11.6 69

Race/ethnicity

Hispanic 6 5.4 15 13.5 25 22.5 45 40.5 20 18.0 111 0.8266

Non-Hispanic Black 8 8.6 15 16.1 16 17.2 44 47.3 10 10.8 93

Non-Hispanic White 19 7.0 38 13.9 58 21.2 107 39.2 51 18.7 273

Other Race/Ethnicity 3 9.1 7 21.2 6 18.2 12 36.4 5 15.2 33

Respondent employment 

status

Employed/Self-employed 14 7.6 27 14.6 42 22.7 73 39.5 29 15.7 185 0.7889

Out of work 4 4.2 16 16.8 21 22.1 35 36.8 19 20.0 95

Homemaker 9 7.4 17 14.0 24 19.8 56 46.3 15 12.4 121

Student/Retired/Unable to 

work

10 9.3 15 13.9 18 16.7 43 39.8 22 20.4 108

Annual household income

Less than $10,000 8 8.2 19 19.6 17 17.5 33 34.0 20 20.6 97 0.0931

$10,000 up to $15,000 4 6.7 6 10.0 7 11.7 25 41.7 18 30.0 60

$15,000 up to $20,000 5 6.6 6 7.9 17 22.4 37 48.7 11 14.5 76

$20,000 up to $25,000 5 6.0 8 9.6 23 27.7 36 43.4 11 13.3 83

$25,000 up to $35,000 3 4.1 12 16.4 18 24.7 29 39.7 11 15.1 73

$35,000 or more 12 10.9 21 19.1 21 19.1 44 40.0 12 10.9 110

(table continues)

*Rates of receiving backpacks per child were calculated at the household level for this analysis.

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report K-2-2 

 
Participation in Backpack Program by Covariate (continued)

Rate of receiving backpacks per child per week of demonstration 

project operation (up to interview date)*

p-value

25% or 

less

More than 

25% up to 

50%

More than 

50% up to 

75%

More than 

75% up to 

100%

More than 

100% Total

n pct n pct n pct n pct n pct n 

Households by poverty 

threshold***

Less than 100% poverty 

threshold

23 7.3 39 12.3 64 20.3 126 39.9 64 20.3 316 0.0228

Less than 130% poverty 

threshold

2 4.4 5 11.1 11 24.4 23 51.1 4 8.9 45

Less than 185% poverty 

threshold

1 1.9 7 13.0 13 24.1 26 48.1 7 13.0 54

Greater than or equal to 

185% poverty threshold

11 13.1 21 25.0 15 17.9 29 34.5 8 9.5 84

Parent satisfaction with 

healthiness of food

Very healthy 24 6.7 46 12.9 69 19.4 154 43.3 63 17.7 356 0.2344

Somewhat healthy/Not at 

all healthy

12 7.7 29 18.7 36 23.2 55 35.5 23 14.8 155

Parent satisfaction with 

variety of food

Agree strongly 19 7.6 34 13.6 48 19.2 100 40.0 49 19.6 250 0.5892

Agree 17 7.3 35 15.0 52 22.2 98 41.9 32 13.7 234

Neither agree nor disagree/ 

Disagree/ Disagree strongly

0 0.0 6 22.2 5 18.5 11 40.7 5 18.5 27

Parent satisfaction with 

convenience of food

Agree strongly 18 5.8 42 13.5 59 19.0 139 44.7 53 17.0 311 0.3367

Agree 16 8.6 30 16.1 45 24.2 64 34.4 31 16.7 186

Neither agree nor disagree/ 

Disagree/ Disagree strongly

1 7.7 3 23.1 1 7.7 6 46.2 2 15.4 13

Parent satisfaction that 

household members like food

Agree strongly 15 6.7 25 11.2 41 18.4 99 44.4 43 19.3 223 0.1498

Agree 19 7.4 41 15.9 56 21.7 102 39.5 40 15.5 258

Neither agree nor disagree/ 

Disagree/ Disagree strongly

2 6.7 9 30.0 8 26.7 8 26.7 3 10.0 30

*Rates of receiving backpacks per child were calculated at the household level for this analysis.

*** Households by poverty threshold were calculated by looking up the number of adults and children in the household 

reported by the respondent in the table of “Poverty thresholds by Size of Family and Number of Children” from the U.S. 

Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/index.html) to find the 100% poverty 

threshold for that household. That value was multiplied by 1.3 and 1.85 to find the other two thresholds. Then the 

midpoint of the household income range reported by the respondent was compared to each of those values to 

determine the category into which it fell in the table.

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report K-2-3 
 
Appendix L

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of 

Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-1 

Appendix L 

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Milk 1672 1418 85.1 248 14.9

Program type

Meal Delivery 496 445 89.7 0.0004 96 19.4 0.0012

Backpack 1176 973 83.1 152 13.0

How found out about program

Flyer 557 469 84.2 84 15.1

Brochure or newsletter 196 154 79.0 42 21.5

Word of mouth 850 724 85.6 118 14.0

Received/filled out an application 35 29 82.9 7 20.0

Participated in prior year 111 98 89.9 12 11.2

Other 10 7 70.0 2 20.0

Where found out about program

At child's school 736 607 82.5 128 17.4

At summer food program 390 321 83.2 42 10.9

At another program signup 43 41 95.3 2 4.7

At church 166 144 86.7 28 16.9

At agency/food bank/or recreation center 65 59 90.8 6 9.2

Child brought food home 37 30 81.1 4 10.8

Other advertising 358 327 91.6 34 9.6

Program participation

SNAP 807 718 89.0 <0.0001 120 14.9 0.1697

WIC, HeadStart, or Meals on Wheels 526 455 86.7 0.2366 88 16.8 0.1592

School lunch program 1344 1163 86.7 0.0001 206 15.4 0.2894

Meals on-site this year (Meal Delivery) 63 59 93.7 0.3748 10 15.9 0.6069

Meals on-site last year (Meal Delivery) 69 62 89.9 1.0000 15 22.1 0.6208

Meals on-site (Backpack) 86 64 77.1 0.1308 12 14.5 0.7344

Perception of change in food 

expenditure--summer vs. fall

Same in summer as fall 381 325 86.0 0.6990 59 15.7 0.5860

More in summer 974 830 85.2 147 15.1

Less in summer 316 263 83.8 41 13.1

(table continues)

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate 
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-2 

Appendix L 

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Perception of change in food expenditure--less due 

to summer food program

Agree strongly 574 505 88.1 0.0507 71 12.5 0.1880

Agree 649 547 84.3 109 16.8

Neither agree nor disagree 172 139 81.8 27 15.9

Disagree/ Disagree strongly 270 221 82.5 40 15.0

Participant age

18 years or older 8 5 62.5 0.0792 4 50.0 0.0006

12-17 years old 280 245 87.5 47 16.8

8-11 years old 631 522 83.1 112 17.9

5-7 years old 589 509 86.7 67 11.5

Under 5 years old 164 137 83.5 18 11.0

Participant gender

Male only 233 192 82.4 0.4284 43 18.5 0.2645

Female only 397 337 84.9 55 13.9

Both male and female 1042 889 85.7 150 14.5

Languages spoken at home

English only 1370 1156 84.7 0.0338 187 13.8 0.0214

Spanish only or Other language only 105 98 93.3 20 19.0

Others 196 164 83.7 40 20.4

Respondent--marital status

Married 810 667 82.9 0.0005 129 16.1 0.1265

Not married but living with a partner 226 210 92.9 24 10.6

Never married 302 264 87.4 38 12.6

Widowed/ Divorced/ Separated/ Other 329 273 83.0 52 15.9

Respondent--education

Not a high school graduate (11th grade or less) 334 304 91.3 <0.0001 44 13.2 0.5316

High school graduate (Grade 12 or GED) 671 577 86.1 108 16.1

Some college or technical school (College 1 to 3 

years)

459 383 83.4 62 13.5 

College graduate (College 4 years or more) 195 144 75.0 29 15.3

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-3 

Appendix L 

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Respondent employment status

Employed/Self-employed 589 486 83.1 0.1656 106 18.2 0.0088

Out of work 353 301 85.5 50 14.2

Homemaker 390 331 84.9 52 13.3

Student/Retired/Unable to work 331 293 88.5 34 10.3

Annual household income

Less than $10,000 280 245 87.5 <0.0001 34 12.1 0.4371

$10,000 up to $15,000 218 191 87.6 31 14.2

$15,000 up to $20,000 272 236 86.8 46 16.9

$20,000 up to $25,000 280 251 89.6 46 16.4

$25,000 up to $35,000 277 244 88.4 36 13.1

$35,000 or more 313 227 73.0 52 16.9

Parent satisfaction with healthiness of food

Very healthy 1243 1090 87.8 <0.0001 187 15.1 0.7527

Somewhat healthy/Not at all healthy 427 326 76.9 61 14.4

Parent satisfaction with variety of food

Agree strongly 859 753 87.9 0.0011 114 13.4 0.1804

Agree 728 602 82.8 121 16.7

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

85 63 75.9 13 15.7 

Parent satisfaction with convenience of food

Agree strongly 1070 929 87.0 0.0094 157 14.8 0.7940

Agree 564 456 81.3 87 15.5

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

38 33 86.8 4 10.8 

Parent satisfaction that household members like 

food

Agree strongly 739 660 89.6 <0.0001 79 10.8 <0.0001

Agree 827 685 82.9 156 18.9

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

104 71 69.6 13 12.7 

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-4 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Fruit 1883 1622 86.6 270 14.4

Program type

Meal Delivery 559 496 88.7 0.0880 91 16.3 0.1504

Backpack 1324 1126 85.7 179 13.6

How found out about program

Flyer 675 587 87.2 103 15.3

Brochure or newsletter 200 170 85.0 39 19.7

Word of mouth 962 820 86.0 132 13.8

Received/filled out an application 38 36 94.7 2 5.3

Participated in prior year 119 105 90.5 10 8.6

Other 11 9 81.8 2 22.2

Where found out about program

At child's school 746 624 83.9 126 17.0

At summer food program 407 354 88.1 42 10.4

At another program signup 53 48 94.1 3 5.7

At church 235 204 86.8 30 12.8

At agency/food bank/or recreation center 56 42 75.0 9 16.1

Child brought food home 22 15 68.2 3 13.6

Other advertising 435 390 89.9 59 13.7

Program participation

SNAP 927 821 88.9 0.0001 122 13.2 0.0783

WIC, HeadStart, or Meals on Wheels 602 520 87.0 0.7717 78 13.0 0.2593

School lunch program 1534 1317 86.2 0.5360 234 15.3 0.0390

Meals on-site this year (Meal Delivery) 87 82 94.3 0.0955 14 16.1 1.0000

Meals on-site last year (Meal Delivery) 76 69 90.8 0.6974 16 21.1 0.2481

Meals on-site (Backpack) 88 70 81.4 0.2632 12 14.1 0.8704

Perception of change in food 

expenditure--summer vs. fall

Same in summer as fall 479 426 89.5 0.0797 65 13.7 0.5925

More in summer 1064 910 85.8 151 14.2

Less in summer 339 285 84.8 54 16.1

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-5 

 

Appendix L

  

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Perception of change in food expenditure--less due 

to summer food program

Agree strongly 610 516 85.6 0.5740 100 16.6 0.0827

Agree 737 648 87.9 101 13.7

Neither agree nor disagree 226 193 86.2 22 9.8

Disagree/ Disagree strongly 309 264 85.7 47 15.3

Participant age

18 years or older 8 6 75.0 0.0087 2 25.0 0.0273

12-17 years old 279 249 89.9 50 17.9

8-11 years old 744 619 83.4 118 16.0

5-7 years old 654 578 88.9 80 12.3

Under 5 years old 198 170 86.7 20 10.1

Participant gender

Male only 254 207 81.8 0.0200 46 18.1 0.2065

Female only 453 405 89.4 63 13.9

Both male and female 1176 1010 86.5 161 13.8

Languages spoken at home

English only 1478 1266 86.1 0.3877 195 13.3 0.0006

Spanish only or Other language only 157 136 86.6 40 25.5

Others 247 219 89.4 35 14.2

Respondent--marital status

Married 910 773 85.6 0.1239 151 16.8 0.0072

Not married but living with a partner 238 208 88.1 23 9.7

Never married 378 339 89.7 42 11.1

Widowed/ Divorced/ Separated/ Other 348 293 84.4 54 15.6

Respondent--education

Not a high school graduate (11th grade or less) 439 397 90.8 0.0006 60 13.7 0.6129

High school graduate (Grade 12 or GED) 669 583 87.3 86 12.9

Some college or technical school (College 1 to 3 

years)

539 453 84.5 78 14.5 

College graduate (College 4 years or more) 215 168 79.6 34 16.3

(table continues)

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-6 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Respondent employment status

Employed/Self-employed 636 532 84.2 0.0071 103 16.3 0.1178

Out of work 422 371 88.3 50 11.9

Homemaker 452 405 90.2 54 11.9

Student/Retired/Unable to work 352 293 83.5 51 14.6

Annual household income

Less than $10,000 346 309 89.3 0.0474 52 15.0 0.7935

$10,000 up to $15,000 279 243 87.4 33 12.0

$15,000 up to $20,000 323 284 87.9 48 14.9

$20,000 up to $25,000 359 310 86.8 58 16.2

$25,000 up to $35,000 234 201 86.3 33 14.1

$35,000 or more 310 247 80.7 44 14.4

Parent satisfaction with healthiness of food

Very healthy 1453 1276 88.1 0.0005 208 14.4 0.8753

Somewhat healthy/Not at all healthy 428 344 81.3 62 14.7

Parent satisfaction with variety of food

Agree strongly 961 828 86.7 0.0855 122 12.8 0.0968

Agree 848 738 87.2 136 16.1

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

74 56 77.8 12 16.9 

Parent satisfaction with convenience of food

Agree strongly 1145 987 86.7 0.1121 143 12.5 0.0189

Agree 687 599 87.4 118 17.3

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

49 36 76.6 7 14.6 

Parent satisfaction that household members like 

food

Agree strongly 784 689 88.3 0.0352 100 12.8 0.2328

Agree 995 852 85.9 155 15.6

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

100 77 79.4 15 15.8 

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-7 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Juice 1007 939 93.6 84 8.4

Program type

Meal Delivery 164 149 90.9 0.1171 35 21.3 <0.0001

Backpack 843 790 94.2 49 5.8

How found out about program

Flyer 357 327 91.9 40 11.2

Brochure or newsletter 107 98 91.6 11 10.3

Word of mouth 529 498 94.7 35 6.7

Received/filled out an application 24 24 100.0 0

Participated in prior year 55 50 92.6 4 7.4

Other 8 7 87.5 1 12.5

Where found out about program

At child's school 485 448 92.4 53 10.9

At summer food program 249 232 94.3 9 3.6

At another program signup 27 27 100.0 0

At church 105 98 93.3 7 6.7

At agency/food bank/or recreation center 32 31 96.9 0

Child brought food home 13 12 92.3 1 7.7

Other advertising 183 173 95.1 11 6.0

Program participation

SNAP 419 400 95.5 0.0006 36 8.6 0.0989

WIC, HeadStart, or Meals on Wheels 321 304 94.7 0.4063 30 9.3 0.4641

School lunch program 790 739 93.7 1.0000 73 9.3 0.0687

Meals on-site this year (Meal Delivery) 19 18 94.7 1.0000 2 10.5 0.3685

Meals on-site last year (Meal Delivery) 25 22 88.0 0.7041 5 20.0 1.0000

Meals on-site (Backpack) 69 63 94.0 1.0000 7 10.4 0.1013

Perception of change in food 

expenditure--summer vs. fall

Same in summer as fall 242 222 92.9 0.1733 20 8.4 0.9755

More in summer 570 540 94.7 47 8.2

Less in summer 194 176 91.2 17 8.8

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-8 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Perception of change in food expenditure--less due 

to summer food program

Agree strongly 299 278 93.3 0.0266 21 7.0 0.0769

Agree 431 412 95.6 32 7.4

Neither agree nor disagree 106 98 94.2 8 7.7

Disagree/ Disagree strongly 168 148 88.6 23 13.8

Participant age

18 years or older 5 4 80.0 0.0050 0 0.0 0.0275

12-17 years old 149 139 93.9 17 11.4

8-11 years old 378 341 90.7 41 10.9

5-7 years old 371 358 96.8 19 5.1

Under 5 years old 104 97 93.3 7 6.7

Participant gender

Male only 123 116 94.3 0.8885 15 12.2 0.2724

Female only 240 223 92.9 19 7.9

Both male and female 644 600 93.8 50 7.8

Languages spoken at home

English only 823 765 93.4 0.8205 65 7.9 0.2773

Spanish only or Other language only 59 55 93.2 8 13.6

Others 124 118 95.2 11 8.9

Respondent--marital status

Married 584 537 92.6 0.2913 47 8.1 0.6701

Not married but living with a partner 128 123 96.1 10 7.8

Never married 125 116 92.8 14 11.2

Widowed/ Divorced/ Separated/ Other 169 162 95.9 13 7.7

Respondent--education

Not a high school graduate (11th grade or less) 199 191 96.0 0.2778 19 9.5 0.3657

High school graduate (Grade 12 or GED) 413 387 93.7 40 9.7

Some college or technical school (College 1 to 3 

years)

271 251 93.0 17 6.3

College graduate (College 4 years or more) 121 107 90.7 8 6.8

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-9 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Respondent employment status

Employed/Self-employed 329 297 91.1 0.0132 36 11.0 0.0746

Out of work 195 183 93.8 19 9.7

Homemaker 283 264 93.6 17 6.0

Student/Retired/Unable to work 195 191 97.9 12 6.2

Annual household income

Less than $10,000 158 151 95.6 0.0008 7 4.4 0.2857

$10,000 up to $15,000 104 101 97.1 10 9.6

$15,000 up to $20,000 167 163 97.6 12 7.2

$20,000 up to $25,000 183 173 94.5 17 9.3

$25,000 up to $35,000 169 154 91.7 19 11.2

$35,000 or more 203 176 87.1 19 9.4

Parent satisfaction with healthiness of food

Very healthy 701 659 94.1 0.3240 67 9.6 0.0462

Somewhat healthy/Not at all healthy 304 278 92.4 17 5.6

Parent satisfaction with variety of food

Agree strongly 509 477 93.9 0.0661 46 9.1 0.6691

Agree 439 413 94.3 33 7.5

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

59 49 86.0 5 8.8

Parent satisfaction with convenience of food

Agree strongly 670 628 94.0 0.4743 54 8.1 0.1659

Agree 317 293 93.0 26 8.3

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

20 18 90.0 4 20.0 

Parent satisfaction that household members like 

food

Agree strongly 455 428 94.3 0.0222 26 5.7 0.0195

Agree 482 454 94.2 52 10.8

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

70 57 85.1 6 8.8

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-10 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Vegetables 704 480 68.5 209 29.9

Program type

Meal Delivery 369 271 73.6 0.0026 88 23.8 0.0003

Backpack 335 209 62.8 121 36.7

How found out about program

Flyer 289 191 66.1 112 38.9

Brochure or newsletter 103 60 58.8 27 26.2

Word of mouth 301 203 67.9 84 28.2

Received/filled out an application 15 13 86.7 0

Participated in prior year 63 41 66.1 22 35.5

Other 4 4 100.0 1 33.3

Where found out about program

At child's school 368 244 66.3 116 31.6

At summer food program 90 66 73.3 25 28.1

At another program signup 37 34 91.9 7 18.9

At church 16 12 75.0 4 25.0

At agency/food bank/or recreation center 20 15 75.0 3 15.0

Child brought food home 2 1 50.0 1 50.0

Other advertising 159 111 70.7 44 28.0

Program participation

SNAP 373 266 71.5 0.3388 105 28.2 0.1964

WIC, HeadStart, or Meals on Wheels 230 151 66.2 0.3864 76 33.3 0.1863

School lunch program 609 427 70.5 0.0042 170 28.1 0.0103

Meals on-site this year (Meal Delivery) 48 42 87.5 0.0319 9 18.8 0.4692

Meals on-site last year (Meal Delivery) 42 38 90.5 0.0084 13 31.0 0.2527

Meals on-site (Backpack) 23 13 56.5 0.5122 11 47.8 0.2676

Perception of change in food 

expenditure--summer vs. fall

Same in summer as fall 147 98 67.6 0.9706 34 23.4 0.0027

More in summer 450 308 68.6 129 28.8

Less in summer 107 74 69.2 46 43.4

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-11 

 

Appendix L

  

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Perception of change in food expenditure--less due 

to summer food program

Agree strongly 342 235 68.9 <0.0001 100 29.5 0.4500

Agree 209 163 78.4 60 28.7

Neither agree nor disagree 72 47 65.3 19 26.8

Disagree/ Disagree strongly 81 35 43.8 30 37.5

Participant age

18 years or older 14 8 57.1 0.0002 6 42.9 0.0005

12-17 years old 145 119 82.6 22 15.4

8-11 years old 274 176 64.2 89 32.5

5-7 years old 194 132 68.8 63 32.8

Under 5 years old 77 45 58.4 29 38.2

Participant gender

Male only 86 45 52.3 0.0027 43 50.6 <0.0001

Female only 166 113 68.1 51 30.9

Both male and female 452 322 71.7 115 25.6

Languages spoken at home

English only 545 370 68.3 0.8744 154 28.5 0.0520

Spanish only or Other language only 51 34 66.7 23 45.1

Others 108 76 70.4 32 29.6

Respondent--marital status

Married 355 231 65.4 0.1299 110 31.3 0.0103

Not married but living with a partner 100 77 77.8 28 28.3

Never married 95 65 68.4 16 16.8

Widowed/ Divorced/ Separated/ Other 154 107 69.5 55 35.7

Respondent--education

Not a high school graduate (11th grade or less) 139 88 63.3 0.0300 41 29.5 0.0689

High school graduate (Grade 12 or GED) 284 203 71.7 83 29.3

Some college or technical school (College 1 to 3 

years)

206 147 71.7 54 26.3 

College graduate (College 4 years or more) 75 42 56.8 31 43.1

(table continues)

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-12 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Respondent employment status

Employed/Self-employed 303 202 67.1 0.7194 104 34.6 0.1214

Out of work 122 87 71.9 30 24.8

Homemaker 167 116 69.5 43 25.9

Student/Retired/Unable to work 108 71 65.7 32 29.9

Annual household income

Less than $10,000 72 45 63.4 <0.0001 18 25.7 0.0121

$10,000 up to $15,000 148 114 77.0 31 21.1

$15,000 up to $20,000 126 97 77.0 38 30.2

$20,000 up to $25,000 101 69 68.3 35 34.7

$25,000 up to $35,000 103 71 69.6 32 31.1

$35,000 or more 135 67 50.0 54 40.6

Parent satisfaction with healthiness of food

Very healthy 581 402 69.4 0.1968 187 32.4 0.0021

Somewhat healthy/Not at all healthy 121 76 63.3 22 18.3

Parent satisfaction with variety of food

Agree strongly 416 283 68.5 0.7395 131 31.6 0.2253

Agree 276 190 68.8 73 26.7

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

12 7 58.3 5 41.7 

Parent satisfaction with convenience of food

Agree strongly 467 336 72.1 0.0165 125 26.9 0.1011

Agree 212 129 61.4 73 34.9

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

17 13 76.5 5 29.4 

Parent satisfaction that household members like 

food

Agree strongly 328 247 75.5 0.0003 90 27.6 0.3759

Agree 350 220 63.0 113 32.5

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

22 10 47.6 6 28.6 

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-13 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Bread/grain 1391 1251 90.2 155 11.2

Program type

Meal Delivery 488 447 91.6 0.2192 67 13.7 0.0319

Backpack 903 804 89.4 88 9.8

How found out about program

Flyer 444 412 92.8 59 13.3

Brochure or newsletter 165 140 84.8 15 9.1

Word of mouth 745 663 89.5 76 10.3

Received/filled out an application 33 33 100.0 1 3.0

Participated in prior year 81 75 94.9 7 9.0

Other 6 6 100.0 0

Where found out about program

At child's school 589 530 90.0 73 12.4

At summer food program 281 246 88.8 22 7.9

At another program signup 34 34 100.0 5 14.7

At church 165 151 91.5 17 10.3

At agency/food bank/or recreation center 38 32 84.2 5 13.2

Child brought food home 20 18 90.0 1 5.0

Other advertising 317 294 92.7 32 10.1

Program participation

SNAP 631 585 92.7 0.0005 62 9.8 0.0191

WIC, HeadStart, or Meals on Wheels 410 370 90.7 0.7664 52 12.7 0.2615

School lunch program 1108 1002 90.6 0.2078 120 10.9 0.3870

Meals on-site this year (Meal Delivery) 87 84 96.6 0.0861 8 9.2 0.2276

Meals on-site last year (Meal Delivery) 73 70 95.9 0.1758 11 15.1 0.7141

Meals on-site (Backpack) 61 54 91.5 0.8259 4 6.7 0.5047

Perception of change in food 

expenditure--summer vs. fall

Same in summer as fall 318 293 92.7 0.2165 30 9.5 0.4518

More in summer 751 672 89.5 91 12.1

Less in summer 322 286 89.4 34 10.6

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-14 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Perception of change in food expenditure--less due 

to summer food program

Agree strongly 512 456 89.4 0.7491 47 9.2 0.3005

Agree 525 479 91.2 64 12.2

Neither agree nor disagree 142 125 89.3 16 11.3

Disagree/ Disagree strongly 210 189 90.0 28 13.4

Participant age

18 years or older 11 8 72.7 0.0001 5 45.5 0.0404

12-17 years old 214 201 93.9 26 12.1

8-11 years old 551 490 89.3 61 11.1

5-7 years old 497 458 92.5 51 10.3

Under 5 years old 118 94 79.7 12 10.2

Participant gender

Male only 181 156 86.2 0.1227 28 15.5 0.0595

Female only 343 308 89.8 43 12.5

Both male and female 867 787 91.2 84 9.7

Languages spoken at home

English only 1147 1033 90.4 0.7522 107 9.4 <0.0001

Spanish only or Other language only 77 68 88.3 19 24.7

Others 167 150 89.8 29 17.4

Respondent--marital status

Married 697 621 89.6 0.1635 84 12.1 0.5482

Not married but living with a partner 134 127 94.8 15 11.2

Never married 268 245 91.4 30 11.2

Widowed/ Divorced/ Separated/ Other 292 258 88.4 26 8.9

Respondent--education

Not a high school graduate (11th grade or less) 274 256 94.1 0.0685 29 10.7 0.8574

High school graduate (Grade 12 or GED) 511 459 89.8 58 11.4

Some college or technical school (College 1 to 3 

years)

417 369 88.5 48 11.5 

College graduate (College 4 years or more) 177 155 88.6 16 9.1

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-15 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Respondent employment status

Employed/Self-employed 496 432 87.4 0.0153 73 14.8 0.0035

Out of work 295 267 91.1 30 10.2

Homemaker 325 292 89.8 29 8.9

Student/Retired/Unable to work 271 256 94.5 19 7.0

Annual household income

Less than $10,000 189 177 93.7 0.0425 15 7.9 0.6430

$10,000 up to $15,000 189 171 90.5 24 12.7

$15,000 up to $20,000 252 232 92.1 32 12.7

$20,000 up to $25,000 261 239 91.6 28 10.7

$25,000 up to $35,000 195 170 87.2 23 11.8

$35,000 or more 276 235 85.8 32 11.7

Parent satisfaction with healthiness of food

Very healthy 1042 948 91.2 0.0364 117 11.3 1.0000

Somewhat healthy/Not at all healthy 345 299 87.2 38 11.0

Parent satisfaction with variety of food

Agree strongly 735 661 90.2 0.0124 81 11.1 0.3833

Agree 587 537 91.5 63 10.7

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

69 53 79.1 11 16.2 

Parent satisfaction with convenience of food

Agree strongly 912 822 90.3 0.0677 91 10.0 0.1170

Agree 454 410 90.7 62 13.7

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

25 19 76.0 2 8.0

Parent satisfaction that household members like 

food

Agree strongly 650 591 91.2 0.0909 51 7.9 0.0010

Agree 644 580 90.1 88 13.7

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

95 78 83.9 16 17.0 

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-16 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Meat 395 311 78.9 53 13.4

Program type

Meal Delivery 134 111 82.8 0.1934 9 6.7 0.0048

Backpack 261 200 76.9 44 16.9

How found out about program

Flyer 150 115 77.2 21 14.0

Brochure or newsletter 43 31 72.1 4 9.3

Word of mouth 198 156 78.8 31 15.7

Received/filled out an application 4 4 100.0 0

Participated in prior year 12 9 75.0 4 33.3

Other 0 0 0

Where found out about program

At child's school 193 142 73.6 31 16.1

At summer food program 72 57 80.3 12 16.7

At another program signup 7 7 100.0 0

At church 3 2 66.7 0

At agency/food bank/or recreation center 19 16 84.2 2 10.5

Child brought food home 5 4 80.0 1 20.0

Other advertising 114 97 85.1 9 7.9

Program participation

SNAP 202 169 83.7 0.0635 23 11.4 0.4620

WIC, HeadStart, or Meals on Wheels 123 98 79.7 0.8941 18 14.6 0.6351

School lunch program 321 267 83.2 <0.0001 36 11.2 0.0122

Meals on-site this year (Meal Delivery) 17 14 82.4 1.0000 0 0.6026

Meals on-site last year (Meal Delivery) 14 10 71.4 0.2687 1 7.1 1.0000

Meals on-site (Backpack) 29 20 69.0 0.3483 8 27.6 0.1153

Perception of change in food 

expenditure--summer vs. fall

Same in summer as fall 94 79 84.0 0.3765 10 10.6 0.5819

More in summer 206 160 77.7 28 13.6

Less in summer 95 72 76.6 15 15.8

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-17 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Perception of change in food expenditure--less due 

to summer food program

Agree strongly 160 124 78.0 0.8946 20 12.5 0.8610

Agree 157 126 80.3 24 15.3

Neither agree nor disagree 32 26 81.3 4 12.5

Disagree/ Disagree strongly 46 35 76.1 5 10.9

Participant age

18 years or older 3 3 100.0 0.0070 1 33.3 0.0026

12-17 years old 53 49 94.2 2 3.8

8-11 years old 119 93 78.2 15 12.6

5-7 years old 169 132 78.1 20 11.8

Under 5 years old 51 34 66.7 15 29.4

Participant gender

Male only 53 32 60.4 0.0003 12 22.6 0.0018

Female only 84 61 72.6 18 21.4

Both male and female 258 218 84.8 23 8.9

Languages spoken at home

English only 296 231 78.3 0.7040 35 11.8 0.1571

Spanish only or Other language only 40 31 77.5 9 22.5

Others 59 49 83.1 9 15.3

Respondent--marital status

Married 213 162 76.4 0.0460 36 16.9 0.0247

Not married but living with a partner 31 30 96.8 0 0.0

Never married 85 67 78.8 8 9.4

Widowed/ Divorced/ Separated/ Other 62 48 77.4 9 14.5

Respondent--education

Not a high school graduate (11th grade or less) 89 81 91.0 <0.0001 11 12.4 0.0938

High school graduate (Grade 12 or GED) 143 116 81.1 16 11.2

Some college or technical school (College 1 to 3 

years)

127 98 77.8 16 12.6 

College graduate (College 4 years or more) 36 16 44.4 10 27.8

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-18 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Respondent employment status

Employed/Self-employed 140 108 77.1 0.5397 23 16.4 0.3737

Out of work 93 77 82.8 9 9.7

Homemaker 99 74 75.5 15 15.2

Student/Retired/Unable to work 63 52 82.5 6 9.5

Annual household income

Less than $10,000 82 70 85.4 0.0037 8 9.8 0.7261

$10,000 up to $15,000 55 46 83.6 8 14.5

$15,000 up to $20,000 60 53 88.3 9 15.0

$20,000 up to $25,000 39 29 74.4 8 20.5

$25,000 up to $35,000 56 44 80.0 7 12.5

$35,000 or more 91 58 63.7 13 14.3

Parent satisfaction with healthiness of food

Very healthy 294 236 80.3 0.2602 41 13.9 0.7353

Somewhat healthy/Not at all healthy 101 75 75.0 12 11.9

Parent satisfaction with variety of food

Agree strongly 197 171 86.8 0.0003 20 10.2 0.1450

Agree 175 123 70.7 30 17.1

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

23 17 73.9 3 13.0 

Parent satisfaction with convenience of food

Agree strongly 246 197 80.4 0.2894 32 13.0 0.8211

Agree 147 113 76.9 21 14.3

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

2 1 50.0 0 0.0

Parent satisfaction that household members like 

food

Agree strongly 182 160 87.9 <0.0001 19 10.4 0.0266

Agree 177 132 74.6 24 13.6

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

36 19 54.3 10 27.8 

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-19 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Meat alternative1 1008 728 72.3 171 17.0

Program type

Meal Delivery 169 148 87.6 <0.0001 26 15.5 0.6527

Backpack 839 580 69.2 145 17.3

How found out about program

Flyer 472 335 71.1 81 17.2

Brochure or newsletter 178 106 59.6 35 19.7

Word of mouth 451 326 72.3 70 15.6

Received/filled out an application 5 4 80.0 1 20.0

Participated in prior year 19 15 78.9 3 15.8

Other 9 6 66.7 0

Where found out about program

At child's school 606 421 69.5 96 15.9

At summer food program 175 128 73.6 23 13.1

At another program signup 22 21 95.5 2 9.5

At church 27 20 74.1 8 29.6

At agency/food bank/or recreation center 28 27 96.4 2 7.1

Child brought food home 23 18 78.3 7 30.4

Other advertising 176 136 77.3 36 20.6

Program participation

SNAP 446 342 76.7 0.0095 70 15.7 0.1879

WIC, HeadStart, or Meals on Wheels 327 237 72.5 0.9402 55 16.9 1.0000

School lunch program 788 584 74.1 0.0128 129 16.4 0.3589

Meals on-site this year (Meal Delivery) 7 7 100.0 0.5984 0 0.5971

Meals on-site last year (Meal Delivery) 25 21 84.0 0.5204 3 12.0 0.7694

Meals on-site (Backpack) 149 97 65.1 0.2409 26 17.4 1.0000

Perception of change in food 

expenditure--summer vs. fall

Same in summer as fall 225 155 68.9 <0.0001 42 18.7 0.0240

More in summer 554 432 78.0 79 14.3

Less in summer 229 141 61.8 50 22.0

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-20 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Perception of change in food expenditure--less due 

to summer food program

Agree strongly 352 262 74.6 0.0454 51 14.6 0.2609

Agree 464 320 69.0 87 18.8

Neither agree nor disagree 76 63 82.9 10 13.2

Disagree/ Disagree strongly 114 81 71.1 23 20.2

Participant age

18 years or older 2 0 0.0 0.0045 2 100.0 0.0008

12-17 years old 152 124 82.1 17 11.2

8-11 years old 392 282 71.9 78 19.9

5-7 years old 364 250 68.7 50 13.8

Under 5 years old 98 72 73.5 24 24.5

Participant gender

Male only 130 89 68.5 0.3699 32 24.6 0.0530

Female only 185 140 75.7 29 15.8

Both male and female 693 499 72.1 110 15.9

Languages spoken at home

English only 766 555 72.5 0.3651 116 15.2 0.0192

Spanish only or Other language only 53 42 79.2 14 26.4

Others 189 131 69.3 41 21.7

Respondent--marital status

Married 698 485 69.6 0.0004 109 15.7 0.0002

Not married but living with a partner 76 68 89.5 6 7.9

Never married 107 85 79.4 33 30.8

Widowed/ Divorced/ Separated/ Other 127 90 70.9 23 18.1

Respondent--education

Not a high school graduate (11th grade or less) 181 144 79.6 <0.0001 35 19.3 0.2852

High school graduate (Grade 12 or GED) 354 282 79.7 52 14.7

Some college or technical school (College 1 to 3 

years)

358 243 68.1 60 16.8 

College graduate (College 4 years or more) 111 57 51.4 24 21.6

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-21 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Respondent employment status

Employed/Self-employed 336 246 73.2 0.0516 73 21.8 0.0451

Out of work 212 158 74.5 34 16.1

Homemaker 304 202 66.7 43 14.1

Student/Retired/Unable to work 153 119 77.8 21 13.7

Annual household income

Less than $10,000 106 88 83.0 <0.0001 22 20.8 0.3996

$10,000 up to $15,000 132 94 71.2 20 15.2

$15,000 up to $20,000 168 136 81.0 22 13.1

$20,000 up to $25,000 150 112 74.7 24 16.0

$25,000 up to $35,000 160 119 74.8 29 18.1

$35,000 or more 260 155 59.6 52 20.2

Parent satisfaction with healthiness of food

Very healthy 702 537 76.5 <0.0001 114 16.3 0.3630

Somewhat healthy/Not at all healthy 306 191 62.6 57 18.6

Parent satisfaction with variety of food

Agree strongly 471 366 77.7 0.0012 75 15.9 0.0637

Agree 468 317 67.9 77 16.5

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

69 45 65.2 19 27.5 

Parent satisfaction with convenience of food

Agree strongly 604 449 74.5 0.0013 99 16.4 0.1227

Agree 362 259 71.5 69 19.1

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

42 20 47.6 3 7.1

Parent satisfaction that household members like 

food

Agree strongly 387 309 79.8 <0.0001 51 13.2 0.0235

Agree 538 372 69.1 101 18.8

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

83 47 57.3 19 22.9 

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-22 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Mixed foods 2483 2079 84.0 308 12.5

Program type

Meal Delivery 739 656 88.8 <0.0001 104 14.1 0.1261

Backpack 1744 1423 82.0 204 11.8

How found out about program

Flyer 912 780 85.7 111 12.3

Brochure or newsletter 279 234 83.9 40 14.3

Word of mouth 1233 1018 83.0 144 11.8

Received/filled out an application 60 55 91.7 6 10.0

Participated in prior year 137 120 88.9 10 7.5

Other 12 10 83.3 1 8.3

Where found out about program

At child's school 1178 998 84.8 168 14.3

At summer food program 613 495 81.8 63 10.4

At another program signup 64 53 82.8 6 9.4

At church 180 149 82.8 16 8.9

At agency/food bank/or recreation center 87 79 90.8 4 4.6

Child brought food home 46 35 76.1 7 15.2

Other advertising 478 407 85.3 54 11.4

Program participation

SNAP 1151 1009 87.7 <0.0001 135 11.7 0.2104

WIC, HeadStart, or Meals on Wheels 774 658 85.5 0.2132 102 13.2 0.4698

School lunch program 2056 1750 85.3 0.0004 251 12.3 0.4602

Meals on-site this year (Meal Delivery) 93 90 96.8 0.0072 7 7.5 0.0752

Meals on-site last year (Meal Delivery) 106 98 92.5 0.2445 14 13.2 0.8806

Meals on-site (Backpack) 118 89 78.1 0.2569 14 12.3 0.8804

Perception of change in food 

expenditure--summer vs. fall

Same in summer as fall 583 484 83.6 0.7995 54 9.4 0.0072

More in summer 1481 1248 84.4 187 12.7

Less in summer 417 345 83.3 66 15.9

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-23 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Perception of change in food expenditure--less due 

to summer food program

Agree strongly 868 728 84.1 0.2785 127 14.7 0.0102

Agree 896 765 85.7 103 11.5

Neither agree nor disagree 320 259 82.0 25 7.9

Disagree/ Disagree strongly 393 323 82.2 52 13.4

Participant age

18 years or older 7 5 71.4 <0.0001 2 28.6 <0.0001

12-17 years old 450 398 88.4 45 10.0

8-11 years old 1023 827 81.2 158 15.6

5-7 years old 773 679 88.2 64 8.3

Under 5 years old 230 170 74.2 39 17.0

Participant gender

Male only 313 242 77.6 0.0033 52 16.6 0.0302

Female only 598 501 83.8 79 13.3

Both male and female 1572 1336 85.4 177 11.3

Languages spoken at home

English only 2108 1765 84.0 0.9910 259 12.4 0.7415

Spanish only or Other language only 87 73 83.9 13 14.9

Others 286 239 83.9 35 12.3

Respondent--marital status

Married 1300 1063 82.2 <0.0001 150 11.7 0.2625

Not married but living with a partner 332 298 90.0 38 11.5

Never married 356 318 89.6 45 12.6

Widowed/ Divorced/ Separated/ Other 493 398 80.7 74 15.0

Respondent--education

Not a high school graduate (11th grade or less) 450 405 90.4 <0.0001 38 8.5 0.0025

High school graduate (Grade 12 or GED) 996 858 86.1 132 13.3

Some college or technical school (College 1 to 3 

years)

760 618 81.6 90 11.9 

College graduate (College 4 years or more) 269 194 73.2 47 17.9

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-24 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Respondent employment status

Employed/Self-employed 875 717 82.3 0.0489 141 16.3 0.0003

Out of work 530 460 87.1 62 11.8

Homemaker 552 454 82.5 49 8.9

Student/Retired/Unable to work 510 437 85.9 55 10.8

Annual household income

Less than $10,000 444 386 86.9 <0.0001 38 8.6 0.0001

$10,000 up to $15,000 348 298 85.9 36 10.3

$15,000 up to $20,000 407 358 88.2 48 11.9

$20,000 up to $25,000 390 334 85.9 64 16.5

$25,000 up to $35,000 372 321 86.3 37 9.9

$35,000 or more 477 344 72.4 80 17.0

Parent satisfaction with healthiness of food

Very healthy 1847 1601 86.9 <0.0001 227 12.3 0.6751

Somewhat healthy/Not at all healthy 632 474 75.6 81 13.0

Parent satisfaction with variety of food

Agree strongly 1369 1165 85.3 <0.0001 182 13.3 0.1702

Agree 1009 856 84.9 111 11.0

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

105 58 58.0 15 15.2 

Parent satisfaction with convenience of food

Agree strongly 1712 1463 85.7 0.0006 207 12.1 0.5926

Agree 704 568 81.3 91 13.0

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

67 48 71.6 10 15.4 

Parent satisfaction that household members like 

food

Agree strongly 1159 1036 89.7 <0.0001 121 10.5 0.0076

Agree 1190 963 81.0 174 14.7

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

132 79 61.7 13 10.2 

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-25 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Fruit, milk, juice, bread/grain2 62 56 90.3 3 4.9

Program type

Meal Delivery 21 21 100.0 0 0.0

Backpack 41 35 85.4 3 7.5

How found out about program

Flyer 25 24 96.0 1 4.2

Brochure or newsletter 6 5 83.3 1 16.7

Word of mouth 28 23 82.1 2 7.1

Received/filled out an application 6 6 100.0 0

Participated in prior year 1 1 100.0 0

Other 0 0 0

Where found out about program

At child's school 32 30 93.8 1 3.2

At summer food program 9 8 88.9 1 11.1

At another program signup 3 1 33.3 0

At church 9 6 66.7 1 11.1

At agency/food bank/or recreation center 2 2 100.0 0

Child brought food home 0 0 0

Other advertising 11 10 90.9 0

Program participation

SNAP 26 25 96.2 1 4.0

WIC, HeadStart, or Meals on Wheels 9 9 100.0 0

School lunch program 54 49 90.7 3 5.7

Meals on-site this year (Meal Delivery) 6 6 100.0 0

Meals on-site last year (Meal Delivery) 4 4 100.0 0

Meals on-site (Backpack) 0 0 0

Perception of change in food 

expenditure--summer vs. fall

Same in summer as fall 6 4 66.7 1 16.7

More in summer 45 41 91.1 2 4.5

Less in summer 11 11 100.0 0 0.0

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-26 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Perception of change in food expenditure--less due 

to summer food program

Agree strongly 18 18 100.0 0 0.0

Agree 22 21 95.5 1 4.5

Neither agree nor disagree 13 9 69.2 1 7.7

Disagree/ Disagree strongly 9 8 88.9 1 12.5

Participant age

18 years or older 2 2 100.0 0 0.0

12-17 years old 14 14 100.0 0 0.0

8-11 years old 25 23 92.0 2 8.0

5-7 years old 17 13 76.5 1 5.9

Under 5 years old 4 4 100.0 0 0.0

Participant gender

Male only 3 2 66.7 1 33.3

Female only 21 19 90.5 1 4.8

Both male and female 38 35 92.1 1 2.7

Languages spoken at home

English only 55 51 92.7 3 5.6

Spanish only or Other language only . 0 0

Others 7 5 71.4 0 0.0

Respondent--marital status

Married 29 25 86.2 1 3.6

Not married but living with a partner 11 10 90.9 1 9.1

Never married 5 5 100.0 0 0.0

Widowed/ Divorced/ Separated/ Other 17 16 94.1 1 5.9

Respondent--education

Not a high school graduate (11th grade or less) 10 10 100.0 0 0.0

High school graduate (Grade 12 or GED) 34 33 97.1 1 3.0

Some college or technical school (College 1 to 3 

years)

13 12 92.3 1 7.7

College graduate (College 4 years or more) 5 1 20.0 1 20.0

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-27 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Respondent employment status

Employed/Self-employed 21 18 85.7 0 0.0

Out of work 15 15 100.0 0 0.0

Homemaker 9 9 100.0 0 0.0

Student/Retired/Unable to work 17 14 82.4 3 17.6

Annual household income

Less than $10,000 15 14 93.3 1 6.7

$10,000 up to $15,000 1 1 100.0 0 0.0

$15,000 up to $20,000 16 16 100.0 0 0.0

$20,000 up to $25,000 12 11 91.7 1 8.3

$25,000 up to $35,000 10 8 80.0 1 10.0

$35,000 or more 8 6 75.0 0 0.0

Parent satisfaction with healthiness of food

Very healthy 43 41 95.3 2 4.7

Somewhat healthy/Not at all healthy 19 15 78.9 1 5.6

Parent satisfaction with variety of food

Agree strongly 34 33 97.1 1 2.9

Agree 22 17 77.3 2 9.1

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

6 6 100.0 0 0.0

Parent satisfaction with convenience of food

Agree strongly 51 47 92.2 1 2.0

Agree 8 6 75.0 2 25.0

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

3 3 100.0 0 0.0

Parent satisfaction that household members like 

food

Agree strongly 33 32 97.0 1 3.0

Agree 26 21 80.8 2 7.7

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

3 3 100.0 0 0.0

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-28 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Bread/grain, meat alternative3 313 277 89.1 56 18.1

Program type

Meal Delivery 136 126 92.6 23 16.9

Backpack 177 151 86.3 33 19.0

How found out about program

Flyer 100 89 89.0 23 23.0

Brochure or newsletter 35 32 91.4 8 22.9

Word of mouth 154 139 91.4 18 11.9

Received/filled out an application 1 1 100.0 0

Participated in prior year 24 22 91.7 3 13.0

Other 2 2 100.0 0

Where found out about program

At child's school 160 142 88.8 33 20.6

At summer food program 69 57 85.1 13 19.4

At another program signup 6 5 83.3 1 16.7

At church 7 7 100.0 0

At agency/food bank/or recreation center 14 14 100.0 0

Child brought food home 1 1 100.0 0

Other advertising 81 70 86.4 16 20.0

Program participation

SNAP 156 142 91.0 28 17.9

WIC, HeadStart, or Meals on Wheels 83 74 89.2 19 22.9

School lunch program 269 243 90.3 48 17.9

Meals on-site this year (Meal Delivery) 13 12 92.3 4 30.8

Meals on-site last year (Meal Delivery) 11 11 100.0 1 9.1

Meals on-site (Backpack) 6 4 100.0 0

Perception of change in food 

expenditure--summer vs. fall

Same in summer as fall 82 73 91.3 13 16.5

More in summer 199 178 89.4 32 16.1

Less in summer 31 25 80.6 11 35.5

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-29 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Perception of change in food expenditure--less due 

to summer food program

Agree strongly 136 118 86.8 30 22.1

Agree 98 85 86.7 19 19.4

Neither agree nor disagree 34 31 96.9 2 6.3

Disagree/ Disagree strongly 44 42 95.5 5 11.6

Participant age

18 years or older 2 2 100.0 0 0.0

12-17 years old 57 52 91.2 5 8.8

8-11 years old 138 123 90.4 27 19.9

5-7 years old 86 76 88.4 19 22.4

Under 5 years old 30 24 80.0 5 16.7

Participant gender

Male only 42 40 95.2 7 16.7

Female only 54 50 92.6 6 11.1

Both male and female 217 187 87.0 43 20.1

Languages spoken at home

English only 284 250 88.7 50 17.8

Spanish only or Other language only 10 10 100.0 2 20.0

Others 18 16 88.9 4 22.2

Respondent--marital status

Married 167 146 88.5 28 17.1

Not married but living with a partner 43 40 93.0 7 16.3

Never married 37 35 94.6 6 16.2

Widowed/ Divorced/ Separated/ Other 65 55 84.6 15 23.1

Respondent--education

Not a high school graduate (11th grade or less) 47 42 89.4 6 12.8

High school graduate (Grade 12 or GED) 155 142 91.6 28 18.1

Some college or technical school (College 1 to 3 

years)

73 62 84.9 13 17.8 

College graduate (College 4 years or more) 37 30 85.7 9 26.5

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-30 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Respondent employment status

Employed/Self-employed 123 112 92.6 24 20.0

Out of work 69 62 89.9 6 8.7

Homemaker 69 60 87.0 11 15.9

Student/Retired/Unable to work 50 41 82.0 15 30.0

Annual household income

Less than $10,000 44 38 86.4 5 11.4

$10,000 up to $15,000 46 42 91.3 8 17.4

$15,000 up to $20,000 67 62 92.5 11 16.4

$20,000 up to $25,000 57 50 87.7 14 24.6

$25,000 up to $35,000 38 34 89.5 4 10.5

$35,000 or more 52 44 84.6 13 25.5

Parent satisfaction with healthiness of food

Very healthy 246 222 90.2 45 18.4

Somewhat healthy/Not at all healthy 65 53 84.1 11 17.5

Parent satisfaction with variety of food

Agree strongly 201 177 88.1 38 19.0

Agree 108 99 91.7 16 14.8

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

4 1 50.0 2 100.0 

Parent satisfaction with convenience of food

Agree strongly 224 200 89.3 44 19.7

Agree 82 72 90.0 12 15.0

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

7 5 71.4 0 0.0

Parent satisfaction that household members like 

food

Agree strongly 171 152 88.9 29 17.1

Agree 132 117 88.6 27 20.5

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

10 8 100.0 0 0.0

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-31 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Meat, meat alternative4 193 132 68.8 25 13.0

Program type

Meal Delivery 6 5 83.3 2 33.3

Backpack 187 127 68.3 23 12.4

How found out about program

Flyer 68 41 60.3 9 13.2

Brochure or newsletter 22 17 77.3 6 27.3

Word of mouth 102 74 73.3 10 9.9

Received/filled out an application 5 4 80.0 1 20.0

Participated in prior year 18 17 100.0 0

Other 2 1 50.0 1 50.0

Where found out about program

At child's school 91 54 59.3 17 18.7

At summer food program 63 48 77.4 6 9.7

At another program signup 6 6 100.0 0

At church 10 7 70.0 0

At agency/food bank/or recreation center 10 9 90.0 0

Child brought food home 4 0 1 25.0

Other advertising 30 27 90.0 1 3.3

Program participation

SNAP 72 53 73.6 8 11.1

WIC, HeadStart, or Meals on Wheels 62 49 80.3 3 4.9

School lunch program 153 109 71.7 17 11.2

Meals on-site this year (Meal Delivery) 0 0 0

Meals on-site last year (Meal Delivery) 0 0 0

Meals on-site (Backpack) 8 4 50.0 2 25.0

Perception of change in food 

expenditure--summer vs. fall

Same in summer as fall 36 27 75.0 1 2.8

More in summer 112 75 67.0 19 17.0

Less in summer 45 30 68.2 5 11.4

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-32 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Perception of change in food expenditure--less due 

to summer food program

Agree strongly 74 53 72.6 10 13.7

Agree 58 39 67.2 11 19.0

Neither agree nor disagree 18 12 66.7 0 0.0

Disagree/ Disagree strongly 43 28 65.1 4 9.3

Participant age

18 years or older . 0 0

12-17 years old 38 27 71.1 8 21.1

8-11 years old 81 50 61.7 10 12.3

5-7 years old 58 48 84.2 4 7.0

Under 5 years old 16 7 43.8 3 18.8

Participant gender

Male only 22 10 45.5 9 40.9

Female only 39 25 64.1 5 12.8

Both male and female 132 97 74.0 11 8.4

Languages spoken at home

English only 172 119 69.6 25 14.6

Spanish only or Other language only 2 0 0.0 0 0.0

Others 19 13 68.4 0 0.0

Respondent--marital status

Married 113 70 62.5 16 14.3

Not married but living with a partner 21 21 100.0 1 4.8

Never married 15 13 86.7 1 6.7

Widowed/ Divorced/ Separated/ Other 44 28 63.6 7 15.9

Respondent--education

Not a high school graduate (11th grade or less) 24 17 73.9 2 8.7

High school graduate (Grade 12 or GED) 70 60 85.7 4 5.7

Some college or technical school (College 1 to 3 

years)

85 54 63.5 12 14.1 

College graduate (College 4 years or more) 14 1 7.1 7 50.0

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-33 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Respondent employment status

Employed/Self-employed 46 23 50.0 12 26.1

Out of work 49 44 91.7 4 8.3

Homemaker 44 24 54.5 5 11.4

Student/Retired/Unable to work 54 41 75.9 4 7.4

Annual household income

Less than $10,000 34 29 85.3 2 5.9

$10,000 up to $15,000 12 11 91.7 1 8.3

$15,000 up to $20,000 28 20 71.4 1 3.6

$20,000 up to $25,000 30 19 63.3 8 26.7

$25,000 up to $35,000 25 19 76.0 3 12.0

$35,000 or more 59 29 50.0 10 17.2

Parent satisfaction with healthiness of food

Very healthy 126 90 72.0 14 11.2

Somewhat healthy/Not at all healthy 67 42 62.7 11 16.4

Parent satisfaction with variety of food

Agree strongly 97 67 69.8 13 13.5

Agree 72 52 72.2 7 9.7

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

24 13 54.2 5 20.8 

Parent satisfaction with convenience of food

Agree strongly 133 99 75.0 20 15.2

Agree 53 29 54.7 5 9.4

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

7 4 57.1 0 0.0

Parent satisfaction that household members like 

food

Agree strongly 78 58 75.3 8 10.4

Agree 86 60 69.8 11 12.8

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

29 14 48.3 6 20.7 

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-34 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Bread/grain, meat5 200 168 84.0 23 11.6

Program type

Meal Delivery 112 98 87.5 10 8.9

Backpack 88 70 79.5 13 14.9

How found out about program

Flyer 72 66 91.7 6 8.5

Brochure or newsletter 16 15 93.8 1 6.3

Word of mouth 97 70 72.2 15 15.5

Received/filled out an application 4 4 100.0 0

Participated in prior year 8 8 100.0 1 12.5

Other 2 2 100.0 0

Where found out about program

At child's school 95 87 91.6 7 7.4

At summer food program 34 29 85.3 2 6.1

At another program signup 2 1 50.0 1 50.0

At church 18 14 77.8 4 22.2

At agency/food bank/or recreation center 6 4 66.7 0

Child brought food home 5 4 80.0 1 20.0

Other advertising 42 33 78.6 4 9.5

Program participation

SNAP 111 96 86.5 15 13.5

WIC, HeadStart, or Meals on Wheels 61 51 83.6 11 18.0

School lunch program 173 145 83.8 15 8.7

Meals on-site this year (Meal Delivery) 19 19 100.0 0

Meals on-site last year (Meal Delivery) 18 18 100.0 1 5.6

Meals on-site (Backpack) 3 3 100.0 0

Perception of change in food 

expenditure--summer vs. fall

Same in summer as fall 32 26 81.3 0 0.0

More in summer 142 123 86.6 17 12.1

Less in summer 26 19 73.1 6 23.1

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-35 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Perception of change in food expenditure--less due 

to summer food program

Agree strongly 73 53 72.6 9 12.5

Agree 70 67 95.7 6 8.6

Neither agree nor disagree 26 21 80.8 2 7.7

Disagree/ Disagree strongly 31 27 87.1 6 19.4

Participant age

18 years or older . 0 0

12-17 years old 44 37 84.1 5 11.4

8-11 years old 83 71 85.5 8 9.8

5-7 years old 52 46 88.5 6 11.5

Under 5 years old 21 14 66.7 4 19.0

Participant gender

Male only 21 12 57.1 2 9.5

Female only 62 55 88.7 8 13.1

Both male and female 117 101 86.3 13 11.1

Languages spoken at home

English only 164 138 84.1 19 11.7

Spanish only or Other language only 11 6 54.5 2 18.2

Others 25 24 96.0 2 8.0

Respondent--marital status

Married 68 54 79.4 5 7.5

Not married but living with a partner 38 34 89.5 7 18.4

Never married 36 31 86.1 6 16.7

Widowed/ Divorced/ Separated/ Other 58 49 84.5 5 8.6

Respondent--education

Not a high school graduate (11th grade or less) 40 35 87.5 5 12.5

High school graduate (Grade 12 or GED) 96 83 86.5 11 11.6

Some college or technical school (College 1 to 3 

years)

45 39 86.7 6 13.3 

College graduate (College 4 years or more) 15 11 73.3 1 6.7

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-36 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Respondent employment status

Employed/Self-employed 90 79 87.8 8 8.9

Out of work 42 35 83.3 8 19.5

Homemaker 28 23 82.1 4 14.3

Student/Retired/Unable to work 35 30 85.7 3 8.6

Annual household income

Less than $10,000 56 44 78.6 4 7.3

$10,000 up to $15,000 32 30 93.8 1 3.1

$15,000 up to $20,000 32 31 96.9 3 9.4

$20,000 up to $25,000 35 30 85.7 8 22.9

$25,000 up to $35,000 25 18 72.0 4 16.0

$35,000 or more 20 15 75.0 3 15.0

Parent satisfaction with healthiness of food

Very healthy 161 140 87.0 18 11.3

Somewhat healthy/Not at all healthy 39 28 71.8 5 12.8

Parent satisfaction with variety of food

Agree strongly 129 113 87.6 14 10.9

Agree 70 54 77.1 9 12.9

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

1 1 100.0 0 0.0

Parent satisfaction with convenience of food

Agree strongly 154 135 87.7 14 9.2

Agree 40 29 72.5 7 17.5

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

6 4 66.7 2 33.3 

Parent satisfaction that household members like 

food

Agree strongly 111 101 91.0 8 7.2

Agree 85 64 75.3 15 17.9

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

4 3 75.0 0 0.0

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-37 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Bread/grain, meat, meat alternative6 107 87 81.3 14 13.1

Program type

Meal Delivery 82 67 81.7 10 12.2

Backpack 25 20 80.0 4 16.0

How found out about program

Flyer 43 37 86.0 5 11.6

Brochure or newsletter 20 16 80.0 4 20.0

Word of mouth 43 37 86.0 5 11.6

Received/filled out an application 1 1 100.0 0

Participated in prior year 13 10 76.9 0

Other 0 0 0

Where found out about program

At child's school 57 45 78.9 12 21.1

At summer food program 22 16 72.7 1 4.5

At another program signup 2 2 100.0 0

At church 2 1 50.0 0

At agency/food bank/or recreation center 6 5 83.3 1 16.7

Child brought food home 0 0 0

Other advertising 16 15 93.8 1 6.3

Program participation

SNAP 76 64 84.2 8 10.5

WIC, HeadStart, or Meals on Wheels 30 25 83.3 3 10.0

School lunch program 100 81 81.0 13 13.0

Meals on-site this year (Meal Delivery) 6 6 100.0 0

Meals on-site last year (Meal Delivery) 11 10 90.9 0

Meals on-site (Backpack) 0 0 0

Perception of change in food 

expenditure--summer vs. fall

Same in summer as fall 32 29 90.6 2 6.3

More in summer 66 51 77.3 11 16.7

Less in summer 9 7 77.8 1 11.1

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-38 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Perception of change in food expenditure--less due 

to summer food program

Agree strongly 45 33 73.3 10 22.2

Agree 31 28 90.3 1 3.2

Neither agree nor disagree 13 12 92.3 1 7.7

Disagree/ Disagree strongly 16 14 87.5 2 12.5

Participant age

18 years or older . 0 0

12-17 years old 30 28 93.3 1 3.3

8-11 years old 48 37 77.1 9 18.8

5-7 years old 26 19 73.1 4 15.4

Under 5 years old 3 3 100.0 0 0.0

Participant gender

Male only 11 11 100.0 0 0.0

Female only 25 20 80.0 3 12.0

Both male and female 71 56 78.9 11 15.5

Languages spoken at home

English only 100 80 80.0 13 13.0

Spanish only or Other language only . 0 0

Others 7 7 100.0 1 14.3

Respondent--marital status

Married 49 38 77.6 6 12.2

Not married but living with a partner 16 13 81.3 0 0.0

Never married 25 23 92.0 2 8.0

Widowed/ Divorced/ Separated/ Other 17 13 76.5 6 35.3

Respondent--education

Not a high school graduate (11th grade or less) 13 11 84.6 1 7.7

High school graduate (Grade 12 or GED) 69 60 87.0 8 11.6

Some college or technical school (College 1 to 3 

years)

19 15 78.9 0 0.0

College graduate (College 4 years or more) 6 1 16.7 5 83.3

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-39 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Respondent employment status

Employed/Self-employed 39 33 84.6 7 17.9

Out of work 27 21 77.8 2 7.4

Homemaker 20 17 85.0 2 10.0

Student/Retired/Unable to work 19 14 73.7 3 15.8

Annual household income

Less than $10,000 18 16 88.9 1 5.6

$10,000 up to $15,000 21 16 76.2 1 4.8

$15,000 up to $20,000 29 26 89.7 6 20.7

$20,000 up to $25,000 5 2 40.0 1 20.0

$25,000 up to $35,000 23 21 91.3 1 4.3

$35,000 or more 9 4 44.4 4 44.4

Parent satisfaction with healthiness of food

Very healthy 90 75 83.3 9 10.0

Somewhat healthy/Not at all healthy 17 12 70.6 5 29.4

Parent satisfaction with variety of food

Agree strongly 64 54 84.4 6 9.4

Agree 38 28 73.7 8 21.1

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

5 5 100.0 0 0.0

Parent satisfaction with convenience of food

Agree strongly 71 54 76.1 11 15.5

Agree 36 33 91.7 3 8.3

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

. 0 0 

Parent satisfaction that household members like 

food

Agree strongly 45 42 93.3 3 6.7

Agree 56 39 69.6 11 19.6

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

6 6 100.0 0 0.0

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-40 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Vegetables, bread/grain, meat, meat altern.7 401 330 82.3 50 12.5

Program type

Meal Delivery 197 181 91.9 26 13.2

Backpack 204 149 73.0 24 11.8

How found out about program

Flyer 139 122 87.8 18 12.9

Brochure or newsletter 37 32 86.5 6 16.2

Word of mouth 210 169 80.5 24 11.5

Received/filled out an application 13 9 69.2 3 23.1

Participated in prior year 17 17 100.0 1 5.9

Other 0 0 0

Where found out about program

At child's school 153 136 88.9 26 17.0

At summer food program 105 74 70.5 12 11.5

At another program signup 15 15 100.0 0

At church 39 30 76.9 7 17.9

At agency/food bank/or recreation center 14 13 92.9 0

Child brought food home 1 0 1 100.0

Other advertising 86 75 87.2 5 5.8

Program participation

SNAP 207 180 87.0 25 12.1

WIC, HeadStart, or Meals on Wheels 122 95 77.9 25 20.5

School lunch program 355 297 83.7 46 13.0

Meals on-site this year (Meal Delivery) 30 28 93.3 3 10.0

Meals on-site last year (Meal Delivery) 31 30 96.8 2 6.5

Meals on-site (Backpack) 7 6 85.7 1 14.3

Perception of change in food 

expenditure--summer vs. fall

Same in summer as fall 94 75 79.8 6 6.5

More in summer 252 206 81.7 34 13.5

Less in summer 55 49 89.1 10 18.2

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-41 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Perception of change in food expenditure--less due 

to summer food program

Agree strongly 114 96 84.2 18 15.9

Agree 167 141 84.4 18 10.8

Neither agree nor disagree 42 30 71.4 7 16.7

Disagree/ Disagree strongly 78 63 80.8 7 9.0

Participant age

18 years or older 1 1 100.0 0 0.0

12-17 years old 92 85 92.4 8 8.7

8-11 years old 183 142 77.6 28 15.4

5-7 years old 98 85 86.7 12 12.2

Under 5 years old 27 17 63.0 2 7.4

Participant gender

Male only 53 41 77.4 6 11.3

Female only 108 85 78.7 18 16.7

Both male and female 240 204 85.0 26 10.9

Languages spoken at home

English only 341 281 82.4 41 12.1

Spanish only or Other language only 20 18 90.0 1 5.0

Others 40 31 77.5 8 20.0

Respondent--marital status

Married 171 137 80.1 22 12.9

Not married but living with a partner 77 69 89.6 5 6.5

Never married 66 58 87.9 9 13.6

Widowed/ Divorced/ Separated/ Other 87 66 75.9 14 16.1

Respondent--education

Not a high school graduate (11th grade or less) 96 86 89.6 5 5.2

High school graduate (Grade 12 or GED) 166 137 82.5 24 14.5

Some college or technical school (College 1 to 3 

years)

103 79 76.7 16 15.5 

College graduate (College 4 years or more) 36 28 77.8 5 14.3

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-42 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Respondent employment status

Employed/Self-employed 165 136 82.4 28 17.1

Out of work 78 63 80.8 13 16.7

Homemaker 72 55 76.4 2 2.8

Student/Retired/Unable to work 84 75 89.3 7 8.3

Annual household income

Less than $10,000 81 67 82.7 8 9.9

$10,000 up to $15,000 59 45 76.3 5 8.5

$15,000 up to $20,000 67 56 83.6 11 16.4

$20,000 up to $25,000 76 72 94.7 9 11.8

$25,000 up to $35,000 55 48 87.3 9 16.4

$35,000 or more 58 39 67.2 7 12.3

Parent satisfaction with healthiness of food

Very healthy 291 255 87.6 37 12.7

Somewhat healthy/Not at all healthy 108 73 67.6 13 12.1

Parent satisfaction with variety of food

Agree strongly 217 184 84.8 26 12.0

Agree 164 140 85.4 23 14.1

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

20 6 30.0 1 5.0

Parent satisfaction with convenience of food

Agree strongly 271 233 86.0 32 11.8

Agree 121 92 76.0 18 14.9

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

9 5 55.6 0 0.0

Parent satisfaction that household members like 

food

Agree strongly 178 159 89.3 18 10.1

Agree 192 158 82.3 29 15.2

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

29 12 41.4 3 10.3 

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-43 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Vegetables, meat, bread/grain8 163 131 81.4 10 6.2

Program type

Meal Delivery 14 13 92.9 0 0.0

Backpack 149 118 80.3 10 6.8

How found out about program

Flyer 24 19 79.2 2 8.3

Brochure or newsletter 13 9 69.2 2 15.4

Word of mouth 111 85 78.0 8 7.3

Received/filled out an application 6 6 100.0 0

Participated in prior year 0 0 0

Other 2 1 50.0 0

Where found out about program

At child's school 37 35 94.6 1 2.7

At summer food program 57 44 80.0 5 9.1

At another program signup 3 0 0

At church 44 35 79.5 1 2.3

At agency/food bank/or recreation center 3 3 100.0 0

Child brought food home 6 6 100.0 0

Other advertising 27 21 77.8 2 7.4

Program participation

SNAP 64 55 85.9 3 4.7

WIC, HeadStart, or Meals on Wheels 36 28 77.8 3 8.3

School lunch program 125 105 84.0 6 4.8

Meals on-site this year (Meal Delivery) 2 2 100.0 0

Meals on-site last year (Meal Delivery) 1 1 100.0 0

Meals on-site (Backpack) 14 7 58.3 2 16.7

Perception of change in food 

expenditure--summer vs. fall

Same in summer as fall 47 36 80.0 5 11.1

More in summer 87 68 78.2 5 5.7

Less in summer 29 27 93.1 0 0.0

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-44 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Perception of change in food expenditure--less due 

to summer food program

Agree strongly 27 24 88.9 0 0.0

Agree 54 42 77.8 4 7.4

Neither agree nor disagree 38 27 75.0 2 5.6

Disagree/ Disagree strongly 44 38 86.4 4 9.1

Participant age

18 years or older . 0 0

12-17 years old 21 19 90.5 0 0.0

8-11 years old 67 53 81.5 5 7.7

5-7 years old 61 50 82.0 1 1.6

Under 5 years old 14 9 64.3 4 28.6

Participant gender

Male only 28 22 78.6 1 3.6

Female only 54 43 79.6 5 9.3

Both male and female 81 66 83.5 4 5.1

Languages spoken at home

English only 148 120 82.2 8 5.5

Spanish only or Other language only 3 2 66.7 1 33.3

Others 12 9 75.0 1 8.3

Respondent--marital status

Married 71 54 78.3 4 5.8

Not married but living with a partner 17 15 88.2 1 5.9

Never married 31 24 77.4 3 9.7

Widowed/ Divorced/ Separated/ Other 44 38 86.4 2 4.5

Respondent--education

Not a high school graduate (11th grade or less) 33 31 93.9 2 6.1

High school graduate (Grade 12 or GED) 68 56 82.4 5 7.4

Some college or technical school (College 1 to 3 

years)

41 33 80.5 1 2.4

College graduate (College 4 years or more) 21 11 57.9 2 10.5

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-45 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Respondent employment status

Employed/Self-employed 42 28 70.0 2 5.0

Out of work 47 42 89.4 3 6.4

Homemaker 36 32 88.9 1 2.8

Student/Retired/Unable to work 37 28 75.7 4 10.8

Annual household income

Less than $10,000 43 39 90.7 1 2.3

$10,000 up to $15,000 22 16 72.7 4 18.2

$15,000 up to $20,000 20 18 90.0 1 5.0

$20,000 up to $25,000 26 22 84.6 1 3.8

$25,000 up to $35,000 26 25 96.2 1 3.8

$35,000 or more 24 11 45.8 2 8.3

Parent satisfaction with healthiness of food

Very healthy 108 95 88.0 4 3.7

Somewhat healthy/Not at all healthy 55 36 67.9 6 11.3

Parent satisfaction with variety of food

Agree strongly 90 79 87.8 5 5.6

Agree 69 52 75.4 5 7.2

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

4 0 0.0 0 0.0

Parent satisfaction with convenience of food

Agree strongly 116 96 82.8 6 5.2

Agree 45 35 81.4 2 4.7

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

2 0 0.0 2 100.0 

Parent satisfaction that household members like 

food

Agree strongly 89 83 93.3 3 3.4

Agree 68 48 70.6 7 10.3

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

6 0 0.0 0 0.0

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-46 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Vegetables, meat, meat alternative9 89 68 78.2 11 12.6

Program type

Meal Delivery . 0 0

Backpack 89 68 78.2 11 12.6

How found out about program

Flyer 27 17 68.0 5 20.0

Brochure or newsletter 9 6 66.7 0

Word of mouth 44 35 79.5 5 11.4

Received/filled out an application 0 0 0

Participated in prior year 6 3 50.0 0

Other 0 0 0

Where found out about program

At child's school 23 11 50.0 6 27.3

At summer food program 39 35 92.1 1 2.6

At another program signup 4 2 50.0 2 50.0

At church 4 4 100.0 1 25.0

At agency/food bank/or recreation center 7 7 100.0 0

Child brought food home 6 4 66.7 1 16.7

Other advertising 20 18 90.0 1 5.0

Program participation

SNAP 42 35 83.3 4 9.5

WIC, HeadStart, or Meals on Wheels 31 28 93.3 4 13.3

School lunch program 58 45 78.9 9 15.8

Meals on-site this year (Meal Delivery) 0 0 0

Meals on-site last year (Meal Delivery) 0 0 0

Meals on-site (Backpack) 1 1 100.0 0

Perception of change in food 

expenditure--summer vs. fall

Same in summer as fall 23 16 69.6 1 4.3

More in summer 52 42 84.0 4 8.0

Less in summer 14 10 71.4 6 42.9

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-47 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Perception of change in food expenditure--less due 

to summer food program

Agree strongly 26 22 84.6 7 26.9

Agree 32 24 80.0 3 10.0

Neither agree nor disagree 15 10 66.7 1 6.7

Disagree/ Disagree strongly 16 12 75.0 0 0.0

Participant age

18 years or older . 0 0

12-17 years old 8 8 100.0 0 0.0

8-11 years old 31 22 73.3 7 23.3

5-7 years old 34 29 87.9 0 0.0

Under 5 years old 16 9 56.3 4 25.0

Participant gender

Male only 10 5 50.0 0 0.0

Female only 19 17 89.5 2 10.5

Both male and female 60 46 79.3 9 15.5

Languages spoken at home

English only 73 55 76.4 8 11.1

Spanish only or Other language only . 0 0

Others 16 13 86.7 3 20.0

Respondent--marital status

Married 35 23 67.6 7 20.6

Not married but living with a partner 27 22 84.6 3 11.5

Never married 9 9 100.0 0 0.0

Widowed/ Divorced/ Separated/ Other 18 14 77.8 1 5.6

Respondent--education

Not a high school graduate (11th grade or less) 16 13 81.3 0 0.0

High school graduate (Grade 12 or GED) 30 23 76.7 2 6.7

Some college or technical school (College 1 to 3 

years)

34 25 78.1 9 28.1 

College graduate (College 4 years or more) 9 7 77.8 0 0.0

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-48 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Respondent employment status

Employed/Self-employed 11 8 72.7 0 0.0

Out of work 21 19 90.5 1 4.8

Homemaker 32 20 66.7 6 20.0

Student/Retired/Unable to work 25 21 84.0 4 16.0

Annual household income

Less than $10,000 27 25 92.6 1 3.7

$10,000 up to $15,000 4 4 100.0 0 0.0

$15,000 up to $20,000 24 18 78.3 4 17.4

$20,000 up to $25,000 26 17 68.0 5 20.0

$25,000 up to $35,000 1 0 0.0 0 0.0

$35,000 or more 7 4 57.1 1 14.3

Parent satisfaction with healthiness of food

Very healthy 69 56 82.4 8 11.8

Somewhat healthy/Not at all healthy 20 12 63.2 3 15.8

Parent satisfaction with variety of food

Agree strongly 60 50 83.3 10 16.7

Agree 27 18 69.2 0 0.0

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

2 0 0.0 1 100.0 

Parent satisfaction with convenience of food

Agree strongly 64 54 85.7 7 11.1

Agree 23 12 54.5 2 9.1

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

2 2 100.0 2 100.0 

Parent satisfaction that household members like 

food

Agree strongly 60 52 88.1 8 13.6

Agree 24 11 47.8 3 13.0

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

5 5 100.0 0 0.0

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-49 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Fruit/juice dessert/snack10 222 194 87.4 25 11.4

Program type

Meal Delivery 22 20 90.9 3 13.6

Backpack 200 174 87.0 22 11.1

How found out about program

Flyer 79 71 89.9 6 7.7

Brochure or newsletter 26 17 65.4 5 19.2

Word of mouth 111 97 87.4 14 12.7

Received/filled out an application 4 4 100.0 0

Participated in prior year 23 19 82.6 2 9.1

Other 2 2 100.0 0

Where found out about program

At child's school 109 94 86.2 15 13.9

At summer food program 47 38 80.9 4 8.5

At another program signup 6 6 100.0 0

At church 22 20 90.9 2 9.1

At agency/food bank/or recreation center 6 4 66.7 1 16.7

Child brought food home 6 6 100.0 0

Other advertising 43 39 90.7 5 11.9

Program participation

SNAP 97 84 86.6 11 11.5

WIC, HeadStart, or Meals on Wheels 71 53 74.6 9 12.7

School lunch program 173 150 86.7 20 11.7

Meals on-site this year (Meal Delivery) 4 4 100.0 0

Meals on-site last year (Meal Delivery) 4 4 100.0 0

Meals on-site (Backpack) 16 11 68.8 3 18.8

Perception of change in food 

expenditure--summer vs. fall

Same in summer as fall 50 42 84.0 6 12.2

More in summer 131 116 88.5 10 7.7

Less in summer 40 35 87.5 8 20.0

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-50 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Perception of change in food expenditure--less due 

to summer food program

Agree strongly 46 41 89.1 7 15.2

Agree 100 83 83.0 10 10.0

Neither agree nor disagree 37 33 89.2 2 5.4

Disagree/ Disagree strongly 38 36 94.7 5 13.9

Participant age

18 years or older 1 0 0.0 1 100.0

12-17 years old 30 28 93.3 2 6.7

8-11 years old 87 77 88.5 11 12.6

5-7 years old 82 70 85.4 8 9.9

Under 5 years old 22 19 86.4 3 14.3

Participant gender

Male only 26 22 84.6 4 15.4

Female only 51 46 90.2 9 18.0

Both male and female 145 126 86.9 12 8.3

Languages spoken at home

English only 177 159 89.8 19 10.8

Spanish only or Other language only 16 15 93.8 2 12.5

Others 28 19 67.9 3 11.1

Respondent--marital status

Married 139 121 87.1 14 10.2

Not married but living with a partner 23 19 82.6 3 13.0

Never married 28 25 89.3 4 14.3

Widowed/ Divorced/ Separated/ Other 31 28 90.3 3 9.7

Respondent--education

Not a high school graduate (11th grade or less) 40 37 92.5 5 12.5

High school graduate (Grade 12 or GED) 66 60 90.9 5 7.6

Some college or technical school (College 1 to 3 

years)

83 67 80.7 11 13.4 

College graduate (College 4 years or more) 30 27 90.0 3 10.3

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-51 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Respondent employment status

Employed/Self-employed 84 75 89.3 13 15.9

Out of work 48 40 83.3 5 10.4

Homemaker 54 47 87.0 2 3.7

Student/Retired/Unable to work 35 31 88.6 4 11.4

Annual household income

Less than $10,000 23 19 82.6 4 17.4

$10,000 up to $15,000 33 27 81.8 2 6.1

$15,000 up to $20,000 33 32 97.0 0 0.0

$20,000 up to $25,000 30 26 86.7 6 20.7

$25,000 up to $35,000 42 36 85.7 7 16.7

$35,000 or more 53 47 88.7 4 7.7

Parent satisfaction with healthiness of food

Very healthy 186 166 89.2 22 12.0

Somewhat healthy/Not at all healthy 36 28 77.8 3 8.3

Parent satisfaction with variety of food

Agree strongly 103 92 89.3 12 11.8

Agree 112 96 85.7 12 10.8

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

7 6 85.7 1 14.3 

Parent satisfaction with convenience of food

Agree strongly 129 113 87.6 12 9.4

Agree 84 76 90.5 11 13.3

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

9 5 55.6 2 22.2 

Parent satisfaction that household members like 

food

Agree strongly 86 80 93.0 10 11.9

Agree 131 110 84.0 14 10.7

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

5 4 80.0 1 20.0 

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-52 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Dessert or snack11 733 636 87.0 91 12.4

Program type

Meal Delivery 149 125 83.9 30 20.1

Backpack 584 511 87.8 61 10.5

How found out about program

Flyer 335 294 87.8 36 10.8

Brochure or newsletter 95 85 89.5 7 7.4

Word of mouth 333 289 87.0 43 13.0

Received/filled out an application 20 20 100.0 2 10.0

Participated in prior year 27 23 88.5 3 11.5

Other 2 2 100.0 0

Where found out about program

At child's school 421 364 86.5 50 11.9

At summer food program 168 146 88.0 18 10.8

At another program signup 17 15 88.2 2 11.8

At church 25 25 100.0 0

At agency/food bank/or recreation center 19 18 94.7 2 10.5

Child brought food home 17 14 82.4 3 17.6

Other advertising 122 99 81.8 19 15.7

Program participation

SNAP 300 275 91.7 32 10.7

WIC, HeadStart, or Meals on Wheels 269 246 92.1 25 9.3

School lunch program 596 526 88.6 74 12.4

Meals on-site this year (Meal Delivery) 13 13 100.0 0

Meals on-site last year (Meal Delivery) 26 20 76.9 10 38.5

Meals on-site (Backpack) 63 53 84.1 6 9.5

Perception of change in food 

expenditure--summer vs. fall

Same in summer as fall 181 156 86.2 19 10.5

More in summer 395 348 88.1 53 13.4

Less in summer 157 132 85.2 19 12.3

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-53 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Perception of change in food expenditure--less due 

to summer food program

Agree strongly 309 270 87.7 36 11.7

Agree 264 235 89.4 30 11.4

Neither agree nor disagree 84 74 88.1 7 8.3

Disagree/ Disagree strongly 74 55 74.3 18 24.3

Participant age

18 years or older 1 0 0.0 1 100.0

12-17 years old 116 100 86.2 16 13.8

8-11 years old 280 229 81.8 51 18.3

5-7 years old 259 243 94.2 9 3.5

Under 5 years old 77 64 84.2 14 18.2

Participant gender

Male only 97 77 80.2 22 22.7

Female only 165 141 85.5 22 13.4

Both male and female 471 418 88.9 47 10.0

Languages spoken at home

English only 594 512 86.5 73 12.3

Spanish only or Other language only 25 22 88.0 5 20.0

Others 114 102 89.5 13 11.4

Respondent--marital status

Married 458 395 86.4 47 10.3

Not married but living with a partner 59 55 93.2 10 16.9

Never married 104 95 92.2 14 13.5

Widowed/ Divorced/ Separated/ Other 112 91 81.3 20 17.9

Respondent--education

Not a high school graduate (11th grade or less) 131 123 94.6 12 9.2

High school graduate (Grade 12 or GED) 242 204 84.3 44 18.3

Some college or technical school (College 1 to 3 

years)

264 232 88.2 21 8.0

College graduate (College 4 years or more) 96 77 80.2 14 14.6

(table continues)
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-54 

 

Appendix L

  

Food Consumption and Targeting Accuracy of Demonstration Project Participants by Covariate (continued)

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

Respondent employment status

Employed/Self-employed 254 205 80.7 47 18.6

Out of work 134 119 89.5 20 15.0

Homemaker 188 167 88.8 16 8.5

Student/Retired/Unable to work 154 142 92.8 8 5.2

Annual household income

Less than $10,000 103 95 92.2 11 10.7

$10,000 up to $15,000 118 106 90.6 14 11.9

$15,000 up to $20,000 91 79 86.8 11 12.1

$20,000 up to $25,000 93 85 91.4 11 11.8

$25,000 up to $35,000 127 112 88.2 7 5.5

$35,000 or more 187 145 78.0 36 19.5

Parent satisfaction with healthiness of food

Very healthy 527 461 87.8 68 13.0

Somewhat healthy/Not at all healthy 206 175 85.0 23 11.2

Parent satisfaction with variety of food

Agree strongly 374 316 84.9 57 15.3

Agree 327 300 91.7 29 8.9

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

32 20 62.5 5 15.6 

Parent satisfaction with convenience of food

Agree strongly 499 432 86.9 60 12.1

Agree 212 184 86.8 29 13.7

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

22 20 90.9 2 9.1

Parent satisfaction that household members like 

food

Agree strongly 308 277 90.5 33 10.7

Agree 390 335 85.9 55 14.1

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

35 24 68.6 3 8.6
2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report L-55 

 

Appendix L

  

Drank or ate all of the food Shared the food

Food item by covariate Total reported n percent p-value* n percent p-value*

* P-values are only calculated for major food types, because there are too many small or empty cells in the 'mixed foods' categories. 1'Meat alternatives' include cheese, eggs, nuts, and legumes

2Breakfast bars and breakfast meals, including milk

3Bagels and cheese, cheese and crackers, cheese crackers, mac & cheese, other pasta and cheese, pizza; Burritos, beans & rice, bean tostada; Peanut butter 

sandwiches (with or without jelly), peanut butter and celery

4Baked beans, pork and beans, hot dogs and beans; Beef jerky with cheese, cheese and sausage, chicken salad 5Sandwiches with meat, chicken and pasta soup, tuna and crackers

6Sandwiches with meat and cheese

7Canned meals with cheese (e.g., Chef-Boy-ar-dee, Beef-a-roni), lasagna, ravioli, sandwiches and wraps with meat, cheese, and vegetables, tacos, chef salad 8Canned meals without cheese (e.g., Spaghettio's, spaghetti and meatballs, beef stew, soup, pasta bowls); beef stew, chicken dinner, shrimp cocktail 9Chili (with or without beans)

10Sweet desserts with fruit (e.g., fruit pies, fruit cakes, fruit muffins, fruit bars), granola, trail mix

11Cookies, sweet crackers, candy, chocolate, muffins, pudding, sweet rolls, jelly, chips, pretzels, crackers

Appendix M

Both Demonstrations: 

Food Security in Summer 2012 

Compared to Fall 2012
Appendix M 

 

Both Demonstrations: Food Security in Summer 2012 Compared to Fall 2012

Summer 2012 Fall 2012

Food security n pct n pct p-value

Adult

Secure 422 60.1 290 58.7 p=0.4979

Insecure 280 39.9 204 41.3

Total 702 100.0 494 100.0

Child

Secure 473 67.6 319 64.6 p=0.1523

Insecure 227 32.4 175 35.4

Total 700 100.0 494 100.0

Household

Secure 379 54.1 266 53.8 p=0.8872

Insecure 321 45.9 228 46.2

Total 700 100.0 494 100.0

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report M-1 

 
 
Appendix N-1 

Food Security: 

Summer Versus Fall 2012
Appendix N-1 

Food Security: Summer versus Fall 2012

Household food 

security

Summer 2012 Fall 2012

Meal Delivery Backpack Total Meal Delivery Backpack Total

p-value 

(MD 

summer 

vs. fall)b

n pct n pct n pct n pct n pct n pct

p-value 

(MD vs. 

BP)a

p-value 

(BP 

summer 

vs. fall)c

p-value 

(summer 

vs. fall)d

Adult

Secure 106 56.4 316 61.5 422 60.1 75 55.1 215 60.1 290 58.7 0.1274 0.7596 0.4979 

Insecure 82 43.6 198 38.5 280 39.9 61 44.9 143 39.9 204 41.3 0.5575 

Total 188 100.0 514 100.0 702 100.0 136 100.0 358 100.0 494 100.0 

Child

Secure 120 64.2 353 68.8 473 67.6 91 66.9 228 63.7 319 64.6 0.6793 0.4835 0.1523 

Insecure 67 35.8 160 31.2 227 32.4 45 33.1 130 36.3 175 35.4 0.0382 

Total 187 100.0 513 100.0 700 100.0 136 100.0 358 100.0 494 100.0 

Household

Secure 92 49.2 287 55.9 379 54.1 71 52.2 195 54.5 266 53.8 0.1504 0.4572 0.8872 

Insecure 95 50.8 226 44.1 321 45.9 65 47.8 163 45.5 228 46.2 0.5451 

Total 187 100.0 513 100.0 700 100.0 136 100.0 358 100.0 494 100.0 

*Household food security reported by all respondents interviewed in summer 2012.

aP-value compares household food security between Meal Delivery and Backpack demonstration project for fall 2012. bP-value compares household food security reported by summer 2012 respondents with household food security reported by fall 2012 respondents for Meal Delivery. cP-value compares household food security reported by summer 2012 respondents with household food security reported by fall 2012 respondents for Backpack. dP-value compares household food security reported by summer 2012 respondents with household food security reported by fall 2012 respondents in both programs

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report N-1-1 

Appendix N-2 

Food Security:

Comparisons by Demonstration Project and 

Summer Versus Fall 2012
Appendix N-2 

Meal Delivery Questionnaire 

Food Security: Comparisons by Demonstration Project and Summer vs. Fall 2012

Food security

Summer 2012 Fall 2012

Meal Delivery Backpack Total Meal Delivery Backpack Total

n pct n pct n pct p-valuea n pct n pct n pct p-valuea p-valueb

Adult

High 63 33.5 187 36.4 250 35.6 0.1566 48 35.3 138 38.5 186 37.7 0.0367 0.1053 

Marginal 43 22.9 129 25.1 172 24.5 27 19.9 77 21.5 104 21.1 

Low 42 22.3 106 20.6 148 21.1 23 16.9 69 19.3 92 18.6 

Very low 40 21.3 92 17.9 132 18.8 38 27.9 74 20.7 112 22.7 

Total 188 100.0 514 100.0 702 100.0 136 100.0 358 100.0 494 100.0 

Child

High 120 64.2 353 68.8 473 67.6 0.0008 91 66.9 228 63.7 319 64.6 0.7781 0.2598 

Low 62 33.2 144 28.1 206 29.4 40 29.4 113 31.6 153 31.0 

Very low 5 2.7 16 3.1 21 3.0 5 3.7 17 4.7 22 4.5

Total 187 100.0 513 100.0 700 100.0 136 100.0 358 100.0 494 100.0 

Household

High 56 29.8 159 30.9 215 30.6 0.0101 40 29.4 120 33.5 160 32.4 0.6240 0.8821 

Marginal 32 17.0 123 23.9 155 22.1 25 18.4 67 18.7 92 18.6 

Low 59 31.4 141 27.4 200 28.5 36 26.5 100 27.9 136 27.5 

Very low 41 21.8 91 17.7 132 18.8 35 25.7 71 19.8 106 21.5 

Total 188 100.0 514 100.0 702 100.0 136 100.0 358 100.0 494 100.0 

aP-value compares household food security between Meal Delivery and Backpack demonstration projects for each season. bP-value compares household food security reported by summer 2012 respondents with household food security reported by fall 2012 respondents in both programs.

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report N-2-1 

 

Appendix O

Food Security by Covariates:

Summer and Fall 2012,

Meal Delivery and Backpacks
Appendix O-1 

Adult 
Appendix O-1. Food Security by Covariates: Summer and Fall 2012, Meal Delivery and Backpack (Adult)

Summer 2012 Fall 2012

Food secure Food insecure Food secure Food insecure

Covariate n pct n pct p-value n pct n pct p-value

Program participation

Received SNAP benefits in previous 30 days 191 57.0 144 43.0 0.0203 165 57.5 122 42.5 0.5164

WIC/Head Start/Meals on Wheels 119 58.6 84 41.4 0.6110 99 60.7 64 39.3 0.5608

Received free or reduced-price school lunch1 307 56.7 234 43.3 0.0008 252 59.3 173 40.7 0.5129 

Perception of change in food expenditure--summer 

versus fall

Same in summer as fall 124 68.9 56 31.1 0.0008 87 64.9 47 35.1 0.2181

More in summer 204 53.7 176 46.3 126 55.5 101 44.5

Less in summer 93 66.0 48 34.0 76 58.5 54 41.5 

Perception of change in food expenditure--less due to 

summer food program

Agree strongly 117 57.1 88 42.9 0.1442 97 54.2 82 45.8 0.2700

Agree 153 57.1 115 42.9 103 58.5 73 41.5

Neither agree nor disagree 62 63.9 35 36.1 36 64.3 20 35.7

Disagree/ Disagree strongly 88 67.7 42 32.3 51 66.2 26 33.8 

Participant age

18 years or older 3 42.9 4 57.1 0.1146 2 50.0 2 50.0 0.0843

12-17 years old 57 52.3 52 47.7 40 48.2 43 51.8

8-11 years old 161 58.1 116 41.9 111 58.4 79 41.6

5-7 years old 147 65.3 78 34.7 99 60.4 65 39.6

Under 5 years old 54 64.3 30 35.7 38 71.7 15 28.3 

(table continues)

1The question in the summer was “Did your child receive free or reduced price school lunches in the past school year, that is, in the winter or spring 2012?” Questions 

in the fall were “Does [each child] usually eat school lunch?” and Does [each child] usually eat breakfast at school?” 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report O-1-1 
Appendix O-1. Food Security by Covariates: Summer and Fall 2012, Meal Delivery and Backpack (Adult) (continued)

Summer 2012 Fall 2012

Food secure Food insecure Food secure Food insecure

Covariate n pct n pct p-value n pct n pct p-value

Participant gender

Male only 97 60.2 64 39.8 0.1607 75 67.6 36 32.4 0.0939

Female only 146 64.9 79 35.1 88 57.1 66 42.9

Both male and female 179 56.6 137 43.4 127 55.5 102 44.5 

Languages spoken at home

English only 350 61.9 215 38.1 0.0289 238 59.6 161 40.4 0.7298

Spanish only or Other language only 21 42.9 28 57.1 19 55.9 15 44.1

Others 50 57.5 37 42.5 33 55.0 27 45.0 

Respondent--marital status

Married 204 63.2 119 36.8 0.0118 149 62.3 90 37.7 0.3795

Not married but living with a partner 43 52.4 39 47.6 34 56.7 26 43.3

Never married 99 66.4 50 33.6 59 56.7 45 43.3

Widowed/ Divorced/ Separated/ Other 74 50.7 72 49.3 46 52.3 42 47.7 

Respondent--education

Not a high school graduate (11th grade or less) 78 53.4 68 46.6 0.0002 60 56.6 46 43.4 0.0012

High school graduate (Grade 12 or GED) 171 60.4 112 39.6 105 54.1 89 45.9

Some college or technical school (College 1 to 3 

years)

105 55.6 84 44.4 80 58.0 58 42.0 

College graduate (College 4 years or more) 65 81.3 15 18.8 43 82.7 9 17.3 

Respondent employment status

Employed/Self-employed 169 64.8 92 35.2 0.1304 125 64.1 70 35.9 0.0620

Out of work 83 57.6 61 42.4 41 56.2 32 43.8

Homemaker 90 61.2 57 38.8 72 61.5 45 38.5

Student/Retired/Unable to work 78 53.4 68 46.6 52 48.6 55 51.4 

(table continues)

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report O-1-2 

 
Appendix O-1. Food Security by Covariates: Summer and Fall 2012, Meal Delivery and Backpack (Adult) (continued)

Summer 2012 Fall 2012

Food secure Food insecure Food secure Food insecure

Covariate n pct n pct p-value n pct n pct p-value

Annual household income

Less than $10,000 75 54.3 63 45.7 <0.0001 51 60.7 33 39.3 <0.0001

$10,000 up to $15,000 57 55.9 45 44.1 27 45.0 33 55.0

$15,000 up to $20,000 56 50.9 54 49.1 41 56.2 32 43.8

$20,000 up to $25,000 63 56.8 48 43.2 55 52.9 49 47.1

$25,000 up to $35,000 59 59.0 41 41.0 37 50.7 36 49.3

$35,000 or more 101 80.2 25 19.8 71 81.6 16 18.4 

Respondent satisfaction with healthiness of food2

Very healthy 292 57.3 218 42.7 0.0087 . . .

Somewhat healthy/Not at all healthy 127 68.3 59 31.7 . . . 

Respondent satisfaction with variety of food2 

Agree strongly 212 62.0 130 38.0 0.1706 . . .

Agree 191 59.7 129 40.3 . . .

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

16 45.7 19 54.3 . . . 

Respondent satisfaction with convenience of food2 

Agree strongly 255 59.9 171 40.1 0.7493 . . .

Agree 153 59.8 103 40.2 . . .

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

10 71.4 4 28.6 . . . 

Respondent satisfaction that household members like 

food2

Agree strongly 176 59.5 120 40.5 0.9720 . . .

Agree 215 60.6 140 39.4 . . .

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

27 60.0 18 40.0 . . . 

2Question not asked in fall, 2012.

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report O-1-3 

Appendix O-2 

Child 
Appendix O-2. Food Security by Covariates: Summer and Fall 2012, Meal Delivery and Backpack (Child)

Summer 2012 Fall 2012

Food secure Food insecure Food secure Food insecure

Covariate n pct n pct p-value n pct n pct p-value

Program participation

Received SNAP benefits in previous 30 days 213 63.6 122 36.4 0.0352 187 65.2 100 34.8 0.7748

WIC/Head Start/Meals on Wheels 140 69.0 63 31.0 0.6568 108 66.3 55 33.7 0.6173

Received free or reduced-price school lunch3 349 64.5 192 35.5 0.0013 279 65.6 146 34.4 0.2242 

Perception of change in food expenditure--summer 

versus fall

Same in summer as fall 129 71.7 51 28.3 0.3717 100 74.6 34 25.4 0.0128

More in summer 249 65.7 130 34.3 138 60.8 89 39.2

Less in summer 94 67.1 46 32.9 78 60.0 52 40.0 

Perception of change in food expenditure--less due to 

summer food program

Agree strongly 124 60.5 81 39.5 0.0239 109 60.9 70 39.1 0.2184

Agree 179 67.0 88 33.0 111 63.1 65 36.9

Neither agree nor disagree 70 72.9 26 27.1 38 67.9 18 32.1

Disagree/ Disagree strongly 98 75.4 32 24.6 57 74.0 20 26.0 

Participant age

18 years or older 2 33.3 4 66.7 0.0261 1 25.0 3 75.0 0.0090

12-17 years old 70 64.2 39 35.8 43 51.8 40 48.2

8-11 years old 175 63.2 102 36.8 123 64.7 67 35.3

5-7 years old 163 72.8 61 27.2 111 67.7 53 32.3

Under 5 years old 63 75.0 21 25.0 41 77.4 12 22.6 

(table continues)

3

The question in the summer was “Did your child receive free or reduced price school lunches in the past school year, that is, in the winter or spring 2012?” Questions 

in the fall were “Does [each child] usually eat school lunch?” and Does [each child] usually eat breakfast at school?” 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report O-2-1 
Appendix O-2. Food Security by Covariates: Summer and Fall 2012, Meal Delivery and Backpack (Child) (continued)

Summer 2012 Fall 2012

Food secure Food insecure Food secure Food insecure

Covariate n pct n pct p-value n pct n pct p-value

Participant gender

Male only 115 71.4 46 28.6 0.2102 77 69.4 34 30.6 0.2344

Female only 156 69.6 68 30.4 103 66.9 51 33.1

Both male and female 202 64.1 113 35.9 139 60.7 90 39.3 

Languages spoken at home

English only 389 69.0 175 31.0 0.0018 267 66.9 132 33.1 0.0395

Spanish only or Other language only 22 44.9 27 55.1 16 47.1 18 52.9

Others 61 70.9 25 29.1 35 58.3 25 41.7 

Respondent--marital status

Married 223 69.0 100 31.0 0.0910 155 64.9 84 35.1 0.7789

Not married but living with a partner 58 70.7 24 29.3 36 60.0 24 40.0

Never married 105 70.9 43 29.1 70 67.3 34 32.7

Widowed/ Divorced/ Separated/ Other 85 58.6 60 41.4 55 62.5 33 37.5 

Respondent--education

Not a high school graduate (11th grade or less) 89 61.4 56 38.6 0.0637 61 57.5 45 42.5 <0.0001

High school graduate (Grade 12 or GED) 191 67.7 91 32.3 120 61.9 74 38.1

Some college or technical school (College 1 to 3 

years)

127 67.2 62 32.8 88 63.8 50 36.2 

College graduate (College 4 years or more) 63 78.8 17 21.3 46 88.5 6 11.5 

Respondent employment status

Employed/Self-employed 183 70.4 77 29.6 0.6731 127 65.1 68 34.9 0.6323

Out of work 95 66.0 49 34.0 43 58.9 30 41.1

Homemaker 96 65.3 51 34.7 74 63.2 43 36.8

Student/Retired/Unable to work 97 66.9 48 33.1 73 68.2 34 31.8 

(table continues)

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report O-2-2 
Appendix O-2. Food Security by Covariates: Summer and Fall 2012, Meal Delivery and Backpack (Child) (continued)

Summer 2012 Fall 2012

Food secure Food insecure Food secure Food insecure

Covariate n pct n pct p-value n pct n pct p-value

Annual household income

Less than $10,000 88 63.8 50 36.2 <0.0001 62 73.8 22 26.2 0.0007

$10,000 up to $15,000 59 57.8 43 42.2 32 53.3 28 46.7

$15,000 up to $20,000 67 61.5 42 38.5 45 61.6 28 38.4

$20,000 up to $25,000 77 69.4 34 30.6 62 59.6 42 40.4

$25,000 up to $35,000 63 63.6 36 36.4 40 54.8 33 45.2

$35,000 or more 108 85.7 18 14.3 70 80.5 17 19.5 

Respondent satisfaction with healthiness of food4

Very healthy 330 65.0 178 35.0 0.0224 . . .

Somewhat healthy/Not at all healthy 138 74.2 48 25.8 . . . 

Respondent satisfaction with variety of food4 

Agree strongly 236 69.0 106 31.0 0.5801 . . .

Agree 210 66.0 108 34.0 . . .

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

22 62.9 13 37.1 . . . 

Respondent satisfaction with convenience of food4 

Agree strongly 291 68.5 134 31.5 0.6273 . . .

Agree 166 65.1 89 34.9 . . .

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

10 71.4 4 28.6 . . . 

Respondent satisfaction that household members like 

food4

Agree strongly 195 66.1 100 33.9 0.8522 . . .

Agree 241 68.1 113 31.9 . . .

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

31 68.9 14 31.1 . . . 

4Question not asked in fall, 2012.

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report O-2-3 

Appendix O-3 

Household
Appendix O-3. Food Security by Covariates: Summer and Fall 2012, Meal Delivery and Backpack (Household)

Summer 2012 Fall 2012

Food secure Food insecure Food secure Food insecure

Covariate n pct n pct p-value n pct n pct p-value

How found out about program5

Flyer 125 53.9 107 46.1 0.9358 . . .

Brochure/Newsletter 45 55.6 36 44.4 0.8135 . . .

Word of mouth 206 54.4 173 45.6 0.9393 . . .

Received/filled out an application 3 33.3 6 66.7 . . .

Participated in prior year 21 60.0 14 40.0 . . .

Other 2 40.0 3 60.0 0.6651 . . .

Where found out about program5 

At child's school 147 53.6 127 46.4 . . .

At summer food program 83 52.9 74 47.1 0.4431 . . .

At another program signup 9 64.3 5 35.7 0.5950 . . .

At church 57 67.9 27 32.1 0.0161 . . .

At agency, food bank, or recreation center 11 40.7 16 59.3 . . .

Child brought food home 7 50.0 7 50.0 . . .

Other advertising 80 51.0 77 49.0 . . .

Program participation

Received SNAP benefits in previous 30 days 169 50.4 166 49.6 0.0135 152 53.0 135 47.0 0.6471

WIC/Head Start/Meals on Wheels 111 54.7 92 45.3 0.8676 91 55.8 72 44.2 0.5660

Received free or reduced-price school lunch6 272 50.3 269 49.7 0.0002 232 54.6 193 45.4 0.4366

Perception of change in food expenditure--summer 

versus fall

Same in summer as fall 111 61.7 69 38.3 0.0176 83 61.9 51 38.1 0.0836

More in summer 187 49.3 192 50.7 113 49.8 114 50.2

Less in summer 80 57.1 60 42.9 69 53.1 61 46.9

Perception of change in food expenditure--less due to 

summer food program

Agree strongly 97 47.3 108 52.7 0.0316 88 49.2 91 50.8 0.1619

Agree 142 53.2 125 46.8 93 52.8 83 47.2

Neither agree nor disagree 56 58.3 40 41.7 33 58.9 23 41.1

Disagree/ Disagree strongly 82 63.1 48 36.9 49 63.6 28 36.4

(table continues)

5Question not asked in fall, 2012. 

6

The question in the summer was “Did your child receive free or reduced price school lunches in the past school year, that is, in the winter or spring 2012?” Questions in the fall were “Does 

[each child] usually eat school lunch?” and Does [each child] usually eat breakfast at school?” 

 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report O-3-1 

 
Appendix O-3. Food Security by Covariates: Summer and Fall 2012, Meal Delivery and Backpack (Household) (continued)

Summer 2012 Fall 2012

Food secure Food insecure Food secure Food insecure

Covariate n pct n pct p-value n pct n pct p-value

Participant age

18 years or older 1 16.7 5 83.3 0.0152 1 25.0 3 75.0 0.0122

12-17 years old 52 47.7 57 52.3 36 43.4 47 56.6

8-11 years old 139 50.2 138 49.8 100 52.6 90 47.4

5-7 years old 137 61.2 87 38.8 91 55.5 73 44.5

Under 5 years old 50 59.5 34 40.5 38 71.7 15 28.3

Participant gender

Male only 88 54.7 73 45.3 0.0512 70 63.1 41 36.9 0.0890

Female only 135 60.3 89 39.7 80 51.9 74 48.1

Both male and female 156 49.5 159 50.5 116 50.7 113 49.3 

Languages spoken at home

English only 313 55.5 251 44.5 0.0195 218 54.6 181 45.4 0.5237

Spanish only or Other language only 17 34.7 32 65.3 15 44.1 19 55.9

Others 48 55.8 38 44.2 33 55.0 27 45.0 

Respondent--marital status

Married 183 56.7 140 43.3 0.0051 136 56.9 103 43.1 0.4061

Not married but living with a partner 40 48.8 42 51.2 31 51.7 29 48.3

Never married 92 62.2 56 37.8 56 53.8 48 46.2

Widowed/ Divorced/ Separated/ Other 62 42.8 83 57.2 41 46.6 47 53.4 

Respondent--education

Not a high school graduate (11th grade or less) 72 49.7 73 50.3 0.0040 53 50.0 53 50.0 <0.0001

High school graduate (Grade 12 or GED) 151 53.5 131 46.5 97 50.0 97 50.0

Some college or technical school (College 1 to 3 

years)

95 50.3 94 49.7 71 51.4 67 48.6 

College graduate (College 4 years or more) 58 72.5 22 27.5 43 82.7 9 17.3 

(table continues)

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report O-3-2 
Appendix O-3. Food Security by Covariates: Summer and Fall 2012, Meal Delivery and Backpack (Household) (continued)

Summer 2012 Fall 2012

Food secure Food insecure Food secure Food insecure

Covariate n pct n pct p-value n pct n pct p-value

Respondent employment status

Employed/Self-employed 152 58.5 108 41.5 0.2933 114 58.5 81 41.5 0.0996

Out of work 75 52.1 69 47.9 35 47.9 38 52.1

Homemaker 79 53.7 68 46.3 68 58.1 49 41.9

Student/Retired/Unable to work 71 49.0 74 51.0 49 45.8 58 54.2

Annual household income

Less than $10,000 67 48.6 71 51.4 <0.0001 48 57.1 36 42.9 0.0001

$10,000 up to $15,000 49 48.0 53 52.0 25 41.7 35 58.3

$15,000 up to $20,000 51 46.8 58 53.2 36 49.3 37 50.7

$20,000 up to $25,000 57 51.4 54 48.6 51 49.0 53 51.0

$25,000 up to $35,000 48 48.5 51 51.5 33 45.2 40 54.8

$35,000 or more 98 77.8 28 22.2 66 75.9 21 24.1

Respondent satisfaction with healthiness of food7

Very healthy 259 51.0 249 49.0 0.0059 . . .

Somewhat healthy/Not at all healthy 117 62.9 69 37.1 . . . 

Respondent satisfaction with variety of food7 

Agree strongly 191 55.8 151 44.2 0.3242 . . .

Agree 170 53.5 148 46.5 . . .

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

15 42.9 20 57.1 . . . 

Respondent satisfaction with convenience of food7 

Agree strongly 226 53.2 199 46.8 0.4187 . . .

Agree 139 54.5 116 45.5 . . .

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

10 71.4 4 28.6 . . . 

Respondent satisfaction that household members like 

food7

Agree strongly 155 52.5 140 47.5 0.7753 . . .

Agree 196 55.4 158 44.6 . . .

Neither agree nor disagree/ Disagree/ Disagree 

strongly

24 53.3 21 46.7 . . .

7

Question not asked in fall, 2012.

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report O-3-3 

Appendix P

Overview of Demonstration

Project Sponsors and Sites
Appendix P

  

Table 1. Characteristics of Meal Delivery Demonstration Project Sponsors for 2012 Implementation

Sponsor name, 

location Sponsor background Dates of operation Drop-off sites 

Characteristics of participant 

population

Food Bank of 

Delaware

 Only food bank in state; serves 

all three Delaware counties

 Administers SFSP, CACFP, 

hunger relief programs nonUSDA funded backpack 

program, CFSP, and SNAP-Ed 

classes, culinary school

 June 11 – 

August 24, 

20121

 20 delivery sites

 16 apartment/housing 

complexes, 1 elementary 

school, 2 family/community 

centers, 1 church

 Some were former traditional 

SFSP sites

 Meals delivered to all sites 

every day Monday-Friday 

 Ages 4-17 

 Mix of Caucasian, AfricanAmerican, Hispanic

 Some Spanish-speaking 

youth, so materials were in 

English and Spanish

YMCA of Cape Cod

 Has supported SFSP for 7 years

 Healthy eating and activity 

included in programming

 June 25 – 

August 31, 

2012

 6 sites

 Bulk meal drop-off at 2 

apartment complexes and a 

women’s shelter on Mondays, 

Wednesdays and Fridays 

 Meal deliveries to individual 

homes in 3 towns on Tuesdays 

and Thursdays 

 School-aged up to age 18

 African-American, 

Caucasian, Asian, 

Portuguese, Wampanoag 

Indian

 25% of children from 

families that immigrated to 

US

Food Bank of the 

Southern Tier

 Part of national hunger relief 

network (Feeding America), 

serves 6 counties

 Sponsored SFSP since 2005

 Other feeding programs 

including non USDA backpack 

program, “Kids Café”, “Picnics in 

the Park”

 June 27 – 

August 29, 

2012

 6 drop-off sites

 3 elementary schools, 1 town 

hall, 1 fire hall, 1 church

 Refrigerated truck parked in 

lot of each site at designated 

dates/times

 Meals delivered on 

Wednesdays

 School-aged up to age 18 

from low income, rural 

households in Schuyler 

County, NY

 Most were elementary 

school age

 Predominantly Caucasian 

and English-speaking

North Rose-Wolcott 

Central School District

 Offers free/reduced lunch, SFSP 

and CACFP

 Meal outreach program for 

migrant families 

 Outreach to maintain public 

awareness of child food 

insufficiency

 June 25 – 

August 17, 

2012

 5 drop-off sites

 1 housing authority, 4 

churches 

 Meals delivered on Mondays 

at 3 sites and Fridays at 2 

sites

 Kindergarteners to high 

school seniors

 Mostly elementary school 

aged and Caucasian

 Some homeless children

1 Five sites started on 6/18/12. Eight sites closed on 8/17/12.

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report P-1 

 

 
Appendix P

  

Table 2. Characteristics of Arizona Backpack Demonstration Project Sponsors for 2012 Implementation 

Sponsor name, 

location Sponsor background Dates of operation Feeding sites 

Characteristics of participant 

population

Chandler Unified 

School District, 

Chandler, AZ

 Operates out of Food & Nutrition 

Dept. in public school system

located southeast of Phoenix

 Has sponsored SFSP for 16 

years

 June 8 – July 

13, 2012

 7 sites housed at 6 

elementary schools & a Boys 

& Girls Club

 Timed to be open during 

summer school

 Backpacks were distributed 

on Fridays after SFSP meals 

and contained 2 days’ worth of 

breakfasts and lunches

 Majority served were 

Hispanic or Caucasian

 Youth spoke English and 

Spanish, but some parents 

did not speak English. 

Materials in both languages.

 Sponsor estimated that 

almost 90% of children at 

the elementary schools are 

eligible for free/reduced 

school lunch program

Litchfield Elementary 

School District, 

Litchfield Park, AZ

 K-8 school system located 

northwest of Phoenix

 Has offered SFSP for 16 years

 May 29– July 

27, 2012

 15 sites

 Elementary schools, 

community 

centers/programs, apartment 

complexes

 Two were mobile feeding 

units (bus) (“Nutrition 

Express” 1 and 2)

 Backpacks were distributed 

Friday (most sites) after SFSP

meals and contained 2 

breakfasts and 2 

lunches/dinners

 Two sites distributed on 

Saturdays

 Sponsor estimated that 50% 

of children in school district 

were eligible for free and 

reduced school lunch 

program

 Majority of youth served 

were African American, 

Hispanic or Caucasian. 

Some Asian youth.

 Typically between ages 8-10

Mesa Public Schools, 

Mesa, AZ

 K-12 school district located east 

of Phoenix

 One of largest school districts in 

AZ

 SFSP sponsor for about 20 years

 One site ran 

May 29 – June 

29, 2012

 One site ran 

June 4 – June 

28, 2012

 Offered during 

summer school 

session

 2 sites (an elementary school 

and community center)

 Elementary school provided 

backpacks on Thursday with 

3 days’ worth of breakfasts 

and lunches

 Community center gave out 

backpacks on Fridays with 2 

days of lunches

 Children who received 

backpacks were in grades K8 

 Most children were Hispanic, 

also Caucasian

 Sponsor estimated that 

about 80% of children at the 

school (site) are eligible for 

free/reduced school lunch 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report P-2 

 
Appendix P

  

Table 3. Characteristics of Kansas Backpack Demonstration Project Sponsors for 2012 Implementation

Sponsor name, 

location Sponsor background Dates of operation Feeding sites 

Characteristics of participant 

population

Arkansas City Public 

School District 470, 

Arkansas City, KS

 Public school district in rural 

region of south-central Kansas

 Almost 60% of area youth are 

eligible for free/reduced lunches 

and District operates yearlong 

meal program (school year and 

SFSP)

 June 4 - June 

28, 2012 (timed 

in conjunction 

with summer 

school)

 One site at an elementary 

school

 Backpacks contained 3 days’ 

worth of lunches (FridaySunday) and were handed 

out Thursdays after SFSP 

meals

 Mostly Hispanic and 

Caucasian youth from lowincome families living in 

rural Kansas 

 Age range: Mostly 

elementary school, some 

middle school and high

school age

 Added translator to site staff 

since there is a large 

number of Spanish-speaking 

youth

Central Unified 

School District 462, 

Burden, KS

 School district in rural area of 

south central Kansas that covers 

400 square miles

 Has offered SFSP for 12 yrs

 All four feeding sites offer FNS 

programs to low income youth

 May 31– July 

27, 2012 

 4 feeding sites (elementary 

school where sponsor is 

located and three churches)

 Backpacks (actual backpacks 

donated by a Union at a local 

plant) contained 2 days of 

lunches and were distributed 

on Thursdays after SFSP 

meals 

 Most youth were Caucasian, 

English-speaking, from lowincome families living in 

small, rural towns in south 

central Kansas

 Age range: Elementary 

school (most youth) to high 

school age 

 Many youth receiving meals 

were on site to attend 

summer school at the 

elementary school and 

vacation bible school at the 

churches. 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report P-3 

 
Appendix P

  

Table 3. Characteristics of Kansas Backpack Demonstration Project Sponsors (continued)

Sponsor name, 

location Sponsor background Dates of operation Feeding sites 

Characteristics of participant 

population

East Central Kansas 

Economic 

Opportunity 

Corporation, Ottawa, 

KS

 Community action agency 

serving 9 counties in east 

central Kansas 

 Has offered SFSP for about 15 

years

 Operates in conjunction with 

recreation center so activities 

are available for participating 

children 

 May 29 –

July 27, 2012

 One feeding site in recreation 

center gym

 Backpacks contained 2 days 

of lunches and were 

distributed on Thursdays after 

SFSP meal. Youth received an 

SFSP lunch on site on Fridays.

 Mostly Caucasian youth 

(10% minorities) living in 

small, suburban town

 Age range: 1-18 welcome 

but most were elementary 

school aged. A few younger 

and older, but very few were 

high school aged. 

 All youth spoke English but 

materials were in English 

and Spanish since some 

parents didn’t speak English. 

Gardner Edgerton 

Unified School 

District, Gardner, KS

 School district with 9 schools in 

suburban region

 Third year offering SFSP, 

breakfast and lunch 

 June 8 –

July 27, 2012 

 One site at elementary school 

 Backpacks (reusable cloth 

bags) contained 2 breakfasts 

and 2 lunches, were handed 

out after SFSP meals on 

Fridays

 Mostly Caucasian and 

English-speaking; about 6% 

Hispanic

 Age range: K-8, mostly 

elementary school age 

 Many youth walked to site, 

some were driven by 

parents/guardians

 Materials were available in 

English & Spanish 

Lawrence Public 

Schools Unified 

School District 497, 

Lawrence, KS

 Public school district in eastern 

Kansas in proximity to St. Louis 

that offers SFSP and school year 

feeding programs

 Has offered SFSP for over 15 

years 

 All started on 

June 4, 2012

 3 ended on July 

27, 2012

 3 ended on 

August 10, 

2012

 6 sites

 3 schools (1 is a new site), 

one park, one recreation 

center and one Boys and Girls 

Club Center

 4 sites offer 2 breakfasts and 

2 lunches

 2 sites offer 2 lunches

 Backpacks distributed on 

Fridays after SFSP lunch

 Youth are from low income 

families living in suburban 

area near St. Louis (eastern 

Kansas)

 Age range: 1 – 18 years, 

mostly elementary and 

middle school aged

 English is first language for 

most youth but materials 

were also available in 

Spanish

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report P-4 

 
Appendix P

  

Table 3. Characteristics of Kansas Backpack Demonstration Project Sponsors (continued)

Sponsor name, 

location Sponsor background Dates of operation Feeding sites 

Characteristics of participant 

population

Topeka Public 

Schools, Topeka, KS

 Public school system in urban 

region that provides SFSP as an 

extension of the yearlong 

National School Lunch Food 

Program. 

 Sponsor and site both involved 

in FNS school programs

 June 4 –

July 20, 2012 

 One feeding site at magnet 

school 

 Site provided backpacks with 

2 breakfasts and 2 lunches 

each Friday to youth who 

were on site during SFSP 

lunch in cafeteria. 

 Introduced fresh fruit 

component in 2012. Youth 

could pick up a piece of fresh 

fruit with backpack.

 50% African American; 

others mostly Caucasian and 

Hispanic 

 Most youth were Englishspeaking, but some Spanishspeaking. Materials were 

available in English & 

Spanish

 Age range: Most were 

elementary school age, but 

youth 1-18 yrs were 

welcome.

 Many children and parents 

walked to the feeding site. 

United Methodist 

Church, Wilson, KS

 Church in rural, central Kansas 

 Has offered SFSP for 3 years, 

and offers meals through FNS 

and other programs during the 

year

 May 29 –

August 16, 

2012

 One site at sponsor location 

 Backpacks contained lunches 

for 3 days (Friday-Sunday) 

and were distributed after 

SFSP hot lunches on 

Thursdays

 Site is near parks, churches 

and neighborhoods where 

youth congregate in summer

 Most were Caucasian, some 

African American and 

American Indian 

 Age range: Ages 2 – 18 

years were welcome, but 

most were between 6 and 

10

 Girls aged up to 16. Most 

boys were under 14 since 

they typically work on farms 

in the summer after that age

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report P-5 

 
Appendix P

  

Table 4. Characteristics of Ohio Backpack Project Sponsors for 2012 Implementation

Sponsor name, 

location Sponsor background

Dates of 

operation Feeding sites

Characteristics of 

participant population

Andrews’ House, 

Delaware, OH

 Non-profit community services 

center in central Ohio that 

houses other non-profits like Big 

Brother/Big Sisters

 Supported by 16 partner 

churches that provide volunteers 

for a variety of support programs 

such as free legal clinic, free 

medical clinic, community meals 

(including SFSP), free tax 

preparation services

 Has offered SFSP for 4 years

 June 8 –

August 10, 

2012

 One feeding site at an 

elementary school that has 

an onsite family resource 

center

 Backpacks included 2 days of 

lunches (for Saturday & 

Sunday)

 Backpacks were distributed 

on Fridays after SFSP lunches

 Site also provided enrichment 

activities for kids as part of 

SFSP

 Mostly Caucasian children; 

about 20% African American

 A few Hispanic. Sponsor 

suspected low Hispanic 

turnout might have been 

related to families’ concerns 

about legal/immigration 

issues.

 All youth from low income 

families.

 Age range: Most were 

elementary to middle school 

age. A few teenagers, but 

older teens seemed 

embarrassed to be seen 

receiving meals.

Ashtabula County 

Children Services, 

Ashtabula, OH

 County children services agency 

located in an Appalachian region 

of northeast Ohio. 

 Funded at state and federal 

levels, its mission is to prevent 

harm to children (abuse, neglect, 

etc), and this includes ensuring 

child nutrition.

 Sponsor has offered SFSP 

among its nutrition 

programming for 6 years.

 Largest county in OH 

geographically with a mix of 

urban and rural areas

 June 11 –

August 10, 

2012 (all sites)

 6 sites (a park, 2 community 

centers, a church and 2 

housing projects) 

 Backpacks were handed out 

Fridays after SFSP meals and 

contained 2 days’ worth of 

breakfasts and lunches 

(sometimes a snack) 

 Sponsor had 35 SFSP sites in 

2012, these six sites were 

chosen for the demonstration 

because they had the highest 

SFSP participation

 Some sites offered activities

 County is primarily 

Caucasian, and so were 

participating youth

 Age range: Mostly school 

aged (elementary to middle 

school), but preschool to 18 

years were welcome

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report P-6 

 
Appendix P

  

Table 6. Characteristics of Ohio Backpack Project Sponsors (continued)

Sponsor name, 

location Sponsor background

Dates of 

operation Feeding sites

Characteristics of 

participant population

Community Action 

Organization of 

Scioto County, 

Portsmouth, OH

 501(c)(3) non-profit charitable 

organization located in southern 

Ohio near the Kentucky border

 Provides health, dental, home 

energy assistance, nutrition and 

employment services through 

local, State and Federal funding. 

 Has offered SFSP since 1991 

 June 11 –

August 3, 2012

 A few sites 

started later 

and ended 

earlier

 27 feeding sites representing 

schools, churches, parks and 

public pools, community 

mental health centers and 

housing authorities 

 Backpacks are distributed 

after SFSP lunches on 

Thursdays and Fridays 

(depending on site).

 Youth who received 

backpacks on Thursday got 3 

days’ worth of lunches. Those 

who got backpacks on Friday 

received 2 days’ worth of 

lunches since an SFSP lunch 

was served on site that day

 Caucasian, African American 

and Hispanic 

 Age range: 1 - 18 yrs were 

welcome

 Transportation continued to 

be a challenge for some 

children living farther out in 

the county and this affected 

their attendance. 

Hamilton Living 

Water Ministry, Inc., 

Hamilton, OH

 Faith-based, non-profit 

organization located in 

southwest Ohio, north of 

Cincinnati 

 Offers afterschool and summer 

programs for children aged 

preschool through grade 12.

 Programs and services are 

available for adults as well and 

there is no charge to family for 

services.

 Organization is supported by 2 

fulltime employees and 

hundreds of volunteers.

 Offers SFSP at 7 sites, 2 of these

provided backpacks in 2012 

 June 11 –

August 3, 2012 

(both sites)

 2 sites, one at sponsor 

location and one at local Boys 

and Girls Club 

 Backpacks contained 2 days 

of lunches and snacks

 Sponsor site handed out 

backpacks Thursday after 

SFSP meals. Boys and Girls 

Club handed bags out on 

Friday after SFSP lunch.

 Mostly Hispanic youth, 

remainder were African 

American and Appalachian 

Caucasian

 Age range: Most were 

Kindergarten to 6th grade, 

some teens 

 Families are low income, 

many experiencing 

intergenerational poverty

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report P-7 

 
Appendix P

  

Table 6. Characteristics of Ohio Backpack Project Sponsors (continued)

Sponsor name, 

location Sponsor background

Dates of 

operation Feeding sites

Characteristics of 

participant population

Hocking Athens and 

Perry Community 

Action, Logan, OH

 Non-profit organization that is 

the regional food center for 10 

counties in southeast Ohio. 

 Programs include a regional 

food bank, supplemental food 

programs, Meals on Wheels, 

congregate food programs, Head 

Start, public transit programs

and home energy assistance. 

 Sponsor partners with Second 

Harvest Food Bank, and Feeding 

America, and receives funding 

from grants, levees, donations 

and reimbursements.

 SFSP sponsor for 6 years

 June 4 –

August 17, 

2012

 A few sites 

began after and 

ended before 

these dates

 13 sites (11 sites from 2011 

plus 2 new locations) 

 7 sites from 2011 were 

dropped due to overspending 

and communication problems 

btw sponsor and sites

 2012 sites represented 

elementary schools, 

churches, community centers, 

public pools, parks and 

libraries

 Backpacks were given out on 

Thursday or Friday 

(depending on site) after 

SFSP meal

 Between June 4 and July 23, 

backpacks contained 1 

breakfast and 1 lunch due to 

low participation. After July 

23, backpacks contained 2 

breakfasts and 2 lunches

 Most youth were Caucasian, 

English-speaking, from lowincome families living in 

rural, Appalachian regions of 

the state (near West Virginia 

and Tennessee state lines)

 Age range: 2 - 18 years

 Transportation to meal sites 

continued to be a problem 

for youth who lived in 

remote areas.

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report P-8 

 
Appendix P

  

Table 6. Characteristics of Ohio Backpack Project Sponsors (continued)

Sponsor name, 

location Sponsor background

Dates of 

operation Feeding sites

Characteristics of 

participant population

Whole Again 

International, 

Cincinnati, OH

 Private, non-profit, faith-based 

organization in the Cincinnati 

region

 Focuses on academic 

enrichment and nutrition 

programs for children and their 

families

 Sponsor provided SFSP in 2012 

through 26 feeding site; 5 of 

those sites were Backpack sites.

June 4 – August 

14, 2011 (all sites)

 5 sites

 3 churches, a community 

center and an apartment 

complex

 All sites provided two days of 

breakfasts and lunches in 

backpack for weekend meals

 Backpacks were distributed 

on Fridays after SFSP meals

 Two sites served all African 

American youth

 One site served all Hispanic 

youth

 One served 50% Caucasian 

youth and 50% African 

American youth.

 One site served a mixture of 

races and ethnicities

 All youth were from low 

income families living in 

urban areas of Cincinnati

 Age range: Youth aged 1 – 

18 years were welcome, but 

most were around middle 

school age 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report P-9 

 

Appendix Q

Who Did What?
Appendix Q-1 

Meal Delivery: Who Did What? 

Functions

Sponsor/State

Food Bank of 

Delaware/Delawa

re

YMCA of Cape Cod 

– Massachusetts

Food Bank of the 

Southern Tier – 

New York

North Rose-Wolcott 

Central School DistrictNew York

Management, oversight  Program 

Director

 Outreach

Coordinator

 Operations

Director

 Program

Coordinator

 Youth Programs

Manager

 CSD Food Services

Director

Community Outreach  Outreach

Coordinator

 Outreach

Coordinator

 Youth Programs

Manager

 AmeriCorps

volunteer

 CSD Food Services

Director

Hired staff or volunteers  Program 

Director

 Outreach

Coordinator

 Operations

Director

 Program

Coordinator

 Youth Programs

Manager

 CSD Food Services

Director

Training  SFSP staff

 Outreach

Coordinator

 Program

Coordinator

 Youth Programs

Manager

 CSD Food Services

Director

Payment and expense 

processing  Finance Director

 Accounting

Clerk

 Operations

Director

 Youth Programs

Manager

 CSD Food Services

Director

 CSD Treasurer

Quality control

monitoring  Program

Director

 Outreach

Coordinator

 SFSP staff

 Operations

Director

 Program

Coordinator

 Youth Programs

Manager

 CSD Food Services

Director

Provided data to FNS  Program

Director

 Program

Coordinator

 Youth Programs

Manager

 CSD Food Services

Director

Provided data to 

evaluation contractor  Program

Director

 Program

Coordinator

 Youth Programs

Manager

 CSD Food Services

Director

Provided assistance to 

evaluation contractor in 

collecting data

 Program

Director

 Program

Coordinator

 Youth Programs

Manager

 CSD Food Services

Director

Meal preparation and

packing  Paid staff and

volunteers

 Kitchen

coordinators

 Kitchen

assistants

 School district

kitchen staff

 CSD Kitchen

supervisor

 Hourly CSD kitchen

staff

 Volunteer meal

packers

Delivered meals to sites  FBST SFSP 

Delivery Drivers

 YMCA Van drivers  FBST Driver

 Volunteer

 CSD Van driver

Distributed meals to 

families  Site

Coordinators

and staff

 Van drivers

 Site Supervisors

 Driver

 Volunteer

 Site volunteers

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report Q-1 
Appendix Q-2 

Backpack Demonstration Project in Arizona: Who Did What? 

Functions

Arizona sponsors

Chandler Litchfield Mesa

Management, 

oversight  Program Supervisor  Food Director

 Nutrition Supervisor

 Program Supervisor

 Director/SFSP

Coordinator

 Dietician

Community Outreach  Program Supervisor  Nutrition Supervisor  Director/SFSP

Coordinator

 Dietician

Hired staff or 

volunteers  Program Supervisor  Program Supervisor

 Nutrition Supervisor

 Director/SFSP

Coordinator

 Dietician

Training  Program Supervisor

 Volunteer

Coordinator

 Nutrition Supervisor

 Program Supervisor

 Dietician

Payment and expense 

processing  Program Supervisor  Nutrition Supervisor  Dietician

 Grants Manager

Quality control

monitoring  Program Monitors  Monitors

 Nutrition Supervisor

 Program Supervisor

 Food and Nutrition

Employee

 SFSP Site Coordinator

Provided data to FNS  Program Supervisor  Nutrition Supervisor  Director/SFSP

Coordinator

Provided data to 

evaluation contractor  Program Supervisor  Nutrition Supervisor  Director/SFSP

Coordinator

Provided assistance to 

evaluation contractor 

in collecting data

 Program Supervisor  Nutrition Supervisor  Director/SFSP

Coordinator

Prepared meals and 

backpacks  Site Managers

 Site Volunteers

 Cafeteria Managers

 Cafeteria Staff

 School kitchen staff  Food and Nutrition

Employee

 Food Services Manager

 Food Services staff

Delivered meals and 

backpacks to sites  School warehouse

staff (food only)

 Monitors  School District

Warehouse staff

Distributed backpacks  Site Managers

 Site Volunteers

 Cafeteria Staff

 SFSP site staff

 SFSP site managers

 Food and Nutrition

Employee

 Food Services Manager

 Food Services staff

 SFSP Site Coordinator

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report Q-2 
Appendix Q-3 

Backpack Demonstration Project in Kansas: Who Did What? 

Functions

Kansas sponsors

Arkansas City 

USD

Central USD 

462

East Central 

KS EO Corp

Gardner Edgerton 

USD

Lawrence 

Public Schools

Topeka 

Public 

Schools

United Methodist 

Church

Management, 

oversight  Program

Director

 School Social

Worker

 Food

distribution

manager

 Project

Manager

 Site

Coordinators

 Program

Manager

 Program Director

 Site Lead/high

school Kitchen

manager

 Director of

Food Services

 Food Services

Staff

 Site

Managers

 Project

Manager

 School

District

Administrati

ve Oversight

Staff

 Project Director

 Back up to

Project Director

Community 

Outreach  School Social

Worker

 Food

distribution

manager

 Project

Manager

N/A for 2012  Program Director

 Translator

 Director of

Food Services

 Project

Manager

 School

District

Administrati

ve Oversight

Staff

N/A for 2012

Hired staff or 

volunteers  Program

Director

 Project

Manager

 Site

Coordinators

 Program

Manager

 ECKAN CEO

 Volunteer

Coordinator

 Program Director

 Site lead/high

school kitchen

manager

 Director of

Food Services

 Project

Manager

 Project Director

 Back up to

Project Director

 School Year

Backpack

Program

Manager

Training  Program

Director

 Project

Manager

 ECKAN CEO

 Volunteer

Coordinator

 Program Director  Director of

Food Services

 Project

Manager

 Project Director

 Back up to

Project Director

Payment and 

expense 

processing

 Administrative support

staff

 Clerical staff  Program

Manager

 Program Director

 Bookkeeper

 Administrative Support

Staff

 School

District

Administrative

Oversight

Staff

 Project Director

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report Q-3
Appendix Q-3 

Functions

Kansas sponsors

Arkansas City 

USD

Central USD 

462

East Central 

KS EO Corp

Gardner Edgerton 

USD

Lawrence 

Public Schools

Topeka 

Public 

Schools

United Methodist 

Church

Quality control

monitoring

 Program

Director

 School Social

Worker

 Project

Manager

 Program

Manager

 ECKAN CEO  Warehouse

Manager

 Program Director  Site Lead/High

School Kitchen

Manager

 Director of

Food Services

 Food Services

Staff

 Site

Managers

 Project

Manager

 Project Director  Back up to

Project Director

 School Year

Backpack

Program

Manager

Provided data 

to FNS

 Administra-

tive support

staff

 Clerical staff Program

Manager

 Program Director Administrativ

e Support

Staff

 Project

Manager

 Project Director

Provided data 

to evaluation 

contractor

 Administra-

tive support

staff

 Project

Manager

 Clerical staff

 Program

Manager

 Program Director Director of

Food Services

 Administra-

tive Support

Staff

 Project

Manager

 Project Director

Provided 

assistance to 

evaluation 

contractor in 

collecting data

 Program

Director

 School Social

Worker

 Food

distribution

manager

 Project

Manager

 Clerical staff

 Program

Manager

 Program Director Director of

Food Services

 Project

Manager

 Project Director

Prepared 

meals and 

backpacks

 School Social

Worker

 Volunteers

 Site

Coordinators

 Site

volunteers

 Volunteer

Coordinator

 Volunteers

 Site Lead/high

school kitchen Manager

 Volunteers

 Food Services

Staff

 SFSP staff  Volunteers

 School food

service employees

 Bag packer

s/meal

distributors

Delivered

meals and 

backpacks to 

sites

N/A (meals 

prepackaged 

and stored on 

site)

 Site

Coordinators

 Van driver

 Warehouse

Manager

 Site Lead/high

school kitchen

Manager

 Custodians  Volunteers

 Drivers School food

service employees

 Driver

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report Q-4
Appendix Q-3 

Functions

Kansas sponsors

Arkansas City 

USD

Central USD 

462

East Central 

KS EO Corp

Gardner Edgerton 

USD

Lawrence 

Public Schools

Topeka 

Public 

Schools

United Methodist 

Church

Distributed 

backpacks  School Social

Worker

 Food

distribution

manager

 Translator

 Volunteers

 Site

Coordinators

 Van driver

 Site

volunteers

 Program

Manager

 SFSP staff

 Site Lead/high

school kitchen

manager

 Volunteers

 Site

Managers

 School Food

Service

Employees

 School Year

Backpack

Program

Manager

 Administrative

Support Staff

 Bag

Packers/Meal

Distributors

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report Q5
Appendix Q-4 

Backpack Demonstration Project in Ohio: Who Did What? 

Functions Andrews House Ashtabula Co. Children 

Services

Community Action 

Org. of Scioto 

County

Hamilton Living 

Water Ministry

Hocking Athens 

Perry Community 

Action

Whole Again 

International

Management, 

oversight  Project Director  Project

Director

 Operations

Director

 Program

Specialists

 Project

Manager

 Food and

Nutrition

Operations

Specialist

 Pastor/Project

Manager

 Coordinator

Hired staff or 

volunteers  Project Director  Project

Director

 Operations

Director

 Program

Specialists

 Project

Manager

 Food and

Nutrition

Operations

Specialist

 SFSP Site

Managers

 Pastor/Project

Manager

 Coordinator

 Site Managers

Training  SFSP Site

Supervisors/

Cafeteria staff

 Project

Director

 Operations

Director

 Program

Specialists

 Project

Manager

 Food and

Nutrition

Operations

Specialist

 SFSP Site

Managers

 Pastor/Project

Manager

 Coordinator

 Director of

Programming

and Financing

 Site Managers

Payment and expense 

processing  Project Director

 Administrative

Support Staff

 Project

Director

 Finance

Director

 Operations

Director

 Project

Manager

 Administrative

Support Staff

 Food and

Nutrition

Operations

Specialist

 Director of

Programming

and Financing

Quality control 

monitoring  Project Director

 SFSP Site

Supervisors/

cafeteria staff

 Project

Director

 Operations

Director

 Program

Specialists

 Project

Manager

 Food and

Nutrition

Operations

Specialist

 Administrative

Support Staff

 Coordinator

 Site Managers

Provided data to FNS  Project Director

 Administrative

Support Staff

 Project

Director

 Operations

Director

 Project

Manager

 Food and

Nutrition

Operations

Specialist

 Pastor/Project

Manager

 Coordinator

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report Q6
Appendix Q-4 

Functions Andrews House Ashtabula Co. Children 

Services

Community Action 

Org. of Scioto 

County

Hamilton Living 

Water Ministry

Hocking Athens 

Perry Community 

Action

Whole Again 

International

Provided data to 

evaluation contractor

 Project Director Project

Director

 Operations

Director

 Project

Manager

 Food and

Nutrition

Operations

Specialist

 Pastor/Project

Manager

 Coordinator  Director of

Programming

and Financing

Provided assistance 

to evaluation 

contractor in 

collecting data

 Project Director Project

Director

 Operations

Director

 Project

Manager

 Administrative

Support Staff

 Food and

Nutrition

Operations

Specialist

 Pastor/Project

Manager

Prepared meals and 

backpacks

 SFSP Site

Supervisors/

Cafeteria staff

 SFSP Site

Coordinators/

Youth staff

workers

 SFSP Site Staff Project

Manager

 SFSP Program

Staff

 SFSP

Volunteers

 Food Bank

Manager

 Kitchen Staff

 Caterer

Delivered meals and 

backpacks to sites

 SFSP Site

Supervisors/

Cafeteria staff

 SFSP Site

Coordinators/

Youth staff

workers

 SFSP Site Staff SFSP Program

Staff

 SFSP

Volunteers

 Delivery Drivers Delivery Drivers

Distributed backpacks

 SFSP Site 

Supervisors/

 Cafeteria staff  SFSP Site

Volunteers

 SFSP Site

Coordinators/

Youth staff

workers

 SFSP Site Staff  SFSP Site

Volunteers

 Project

Manager

 SFSP Program

Staff

 SFSP

Volunteers

 SFSP Site

Managers

 SFSP Staff  Delivery Driver  Volunteers

 Site Managers  Food

Supervisors

 Site Staff  Volunteers

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report Q-7 

Appendix R

Examples of Outreach and 

Recruitment Materials
Meal Delivery Demonstration Project 

 
Appendix R 

 

14 Garfield Way 

Newark, DE 19713 

 

Dear Property Manager,

Department of Education and the Food Bank of Delaware are partnered in a rural summer meal 

delivery demonstration program through USDA and will need your help to serve the children of 

your community. The Grab and Go program provides meals (both breakfast and lunch), to school 

aged children who receive free or reduced meals during the school year. 

We feel your site would be ideal. Please contact me either by phone at (302) 292-1305, ext. 217 

or email at outreach@fbd.org so that we can discuss this partnership in further detail. 

Thank you in advance for considering being a partner in this program to provide meals to 

children of your community. I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible. 

Sincerely,

Trevor Turner

Programs Outreach Coordinator 

In accordance with Federal law and U.S. Department of Agriculture policy, this institution is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, color, 

national origin, sex, age, or disability. To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, 

S.W., Washington D.C. 20250-9410 or call [800] 795-3272[voice] or [202] 720-6382 [TTY]. USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report R-1 

 
Appendix R 

 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report R-2 

 
Appendix R 

 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report R-3 

 
Appendix R 

 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report R-4 

 
Appendix R 

 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report R-5 

 
Appendix R 

 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report R-6 

 
Backpack Demonstration Project
Appendix R 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report R-7 
Appendix R 

“Calling All Children “

Wilson 2012 Summer Food Service Program

Wilson has again received the Summer Food Service program through 

USDA for all youth between 1-18 years of age. They will receive a free 

meal that is not based on any type of income eligibility. 

FREE lunches will be offered at the Methodist Education Building for 

children 1-18 years of age. Meals will be served Monday through 

Thursday and must be eaten at the facility. The first day to serve is 

May 29th., 2012 and the last day to serve is August 16th, 2012. Doors 

will open promptly at 11:30 and will be served till 12:30. Adults over 

18 years of age may purchase a meal for $3.50. Volunteers are needed 

to help in the dining room at 11:30. Volunteers are to be high school 

age or older. Volunteers 18 years of age or younger will be allowed to 

eat their meal at 11:15 so they are ready to help the younger children 

when they arrive. High school youth are not required to volunteer to 

receive a free meal. 

Each Thursday the program will be providing take home lunches for 3 

days (The Backpack Program), for the Friday, Saturday, & Sunday 

lunch meals.

If you would like to volunteer to help at the site please contact Theresa 

Heinrich at 658-3816 or Debbie Whitmer at 785-658-3573. 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report R-8 
Appendix R 

This institution is an equal opportunity provider. 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report R-9 
 
Appendix S

Examples of Educational Materials
Appendix S 

 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report S-1 

 
Appendix S 

 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report S-2 

 
Appendix S 

 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report S-3 

 
Appendix S 

 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report S-4 

 
Appendix S

  

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report S-5 

 
Appendix S 

 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report S-6 

 
Appendix S 

 

2012 Demonstration Evaluation Report S-7