Nutrition Assistance Program Report Series

The Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation

Special Nutrition Programs Report No. CN-01-SNDAIIFR

School Nutrition Dietary Assessment

Study-II

Final Report

United States Food and

Department of Nutrition

Agriculture Service

April 2001
Non-Discrimination Policy

“The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on

the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation,

or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs) Persons with disabilities who

require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.)

should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD)”

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten

Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice

and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
School Nutrition Dietary

Assessment Study-II

Final Report

Authors:

Mary Kay Fox

Mary Kay Crepinsek

Patty Connor

Michael Battaglia

Submitted by: Submitted to:

Abt Associates, Inc. Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation

55 Wheeler Street USDA, Food and Nutrition Service

Cambridge, MA 02138 3101 Park Center Drive

Alexandria, VA 22302-1500

Project Director: Mary Kay Fox Project Officer: Patricia McKinney

This study was conducted under Contract number 53-3198-05-032 with the Food and Nutrition Service.

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

Suggested Citation:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation,

School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study-II Final Report. Mary Kay Fox, Mary Kay Crepinsek, Patty

Connor, Michael Battaglia. Project Officer, Patricia McKinney. Alexandria, VA: 2001.

United States Food and

Department of Nutrition

Agriculture Service

April 2001

Special Nutrition Programs

Report No. CN-01-SNDAIIFR
Blank Page
Table of Contents i

Table of Contents

List of Exhibits ................................................................. vi

Acknowledgments .............................................................. xiii

Chapter One: Introduction .................................................... 1

The National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs .............. 1

Nutrition Standards for School Meals ........................... 2

The School Meals Initiative for Healthy Children .................. 3

Current Menu Planning Options ................................ 4

Weighted and Unweighted Nutrient Analyses (Meals as Served

versus Meals as Offered) ................................... 5

Overview of the SNDA-II Study ..................................... 6

Respondents and Data Collection Instruments ..................... 7

Standards Used to Evaluate Nutrient Content ..................... 9

Comparison with SNDA-I Data ................................ 10

Organization of this Report ........................................ 11

Chapter Two: Characteristics of Food Service Programs in Public NSLP Schools ..... 13

School-Level Participation in the SBP ................................ 13

Percentage of Students Approved for Meal Benefits ..................... 13

Participation in the NSLP and SBP .................................. 15

Distribution of Free, Reduced-Price and Paid Meals ................ 15

Meal Prices ..................................................... 19

NSLP Meal Prices ........................................... 19

Relationship Between Meal Price and Participation Rates Among

Full-Price Students .......................................... 22

SBP Meal Prices ............................................ 25

Menu Planning Practices ........................................... 25

Responsibility for Menu Planning .............................. 25

Availability and Use of Menu Planning Resources ................. 27

Menu Planning Options Selected by Schools ...................... 27

Nutrient Analysis Procedures in Schools Using NSMP and ANSMP ... 34

Incorporating the Dietary Guidelines for Americans into School Meals and

Perceived Effects on Acceptability and Food Waste ..................... 37

Breakfast Menus ............................................ 44

Types of Meal Service Offered ...................................... 44

Breakfast Menus ............................................ 48

Alternatives to NSLP and SBP Meals ................................ 48

Options Other than USDA-Reimbursable Meals ................... 50

Foods Offered a la Carte ..................................... 50

Average Weekly a la Carte Revenue ............................ 55

Pricing Methods Used for a la Carte Foods ...................... 55

Use of Foods from Commercial Vendors .............................. 59

Use of Food Service Management Companies .......................... 59
Table of Contents

(continued)

Table of Contents ii

Chapter Three: Characteristics of Lunches Served in Public NSLP Schools ............ 65

Overview of the Analysis .......................................... 65

Number and Types of Food Offered and Served to Students ............... 66

Number of Options Offered Within NSLP Meal Component 

Categories ................................................. 66

Foods Most Frequently Included in NSLP Menus .................. 69

Characteristics of Lunches Actually Served to Students ............. 74

Average Nutrient Content of Lunches Served to Students ................. 74

Mean Nutrient Content Relative to RDAs ........................ 76

Percentage of Calories from Total Fat and Saturated Fat ............ 79

Cholesterol, Sodium and Carbohydrate Content ................... 79

Average Nutrient Content of Lunches Served to Students, by Menu

 Planning Method ........................................... 83

Characteristics of Low-Fat and Higher-Fat Lunches ..................... 85

Average Nutrient Content of Lunches by Relative Fat Content ....... 87

Foods Most Commonly Offered ................................ 87

Sources of Calories and Nutrients in NSLP Lunches as Served ............ 92

Calories ................................................... 97

Carbohydrate ............................................... 97

Total Fat .................................................. 97

Saturated Fat ............................................... 97

Sodium ................................................... 97

Cholesterol ................................................ 98

Vitamin A ................................................. 98

Vitamin C ................................................. 98

Calcium ................................................... 98

Iron ...................................................... 98

Chapter Four: Characteristics of Breakfasts Served in Public SBP Schools ........... 99

Number and Types of Food Offered and Served to Students ............... 99

Number of Options Offered Within SBP Meal Component Categories . 99

Foods Most Frequently Included in SBP Menus ................... 102

Characteristics of Breakfasts Actually Served to Students ........... 105

Average Nutrient Content of Breakfasts Served to Students ............... 106

Mean Nutrient Content Relative to RDAs ........................ 108

Percentage of Calories from Total Fat and Saturated Fat ............ 111

Cholesterol, Sodium and Carbohydrate Content ................... 111

Average Nutrient Content of Breakfasts Served to Students, by Menu 

Planning Method ................................................. 115

Characteristics of Low-Fat and Higher-Fat Breakfasts ................... 118

Average Nutrient Content ..................................... 119

Foods Most Commonly Offered ................................ 119
Table of Contents

(continued)

Table of Contents iii

Chapter Four (continued):

Sources of Calories and Nutrients in SBP Breakfasts as Selected ........... 123

Calories ................................................... 123

Carbohydrate ............................................... 123

Total Fat .................................................. 123

Saturated Fat ............................................... 128

Sodium ................................................... 128

Cholesterol ................................................ 128

Vitamin A ................................................. 128

Vitamin C ................................................. 128

Calcium ................................................... 128

Iron ...................................................... 128

Chapter Five: Comparison of Weighted and Unweighted Nutrient Analyses .......... 129

School Lunches .................................................. 130

Mean Nutrient Content Relative to RDAs ........................ 130

Mean Percentage of Calories from Total Fat and Saturated Fat ....... 132

Cholesterol, Sodium and Carbohydrate Content ................... 132

Percentage of Schools That Met Nutrient Standards and 

Recommendations ........................................... 132

Factors Influencing Estimates of Relative Fat Content .............. 136

School Breakfasts ................................................ 139

Mean Nutrient Content Relative to RDAs ........................ 139

Percentage of Calories from Total Fat and Saturated Fat ............ 139

Cholesterol, Sodium and Carbohydrate Content ................... 142

Percentage of Schools That Met Nutrient Standards and 

Recommendations ........................................... 142

Factors Influencing Estimates of Relative Fat Content .............. 146

Chapter Six: Changes in Nutrient Content of School Meals Offered Since

SY 1991-92 ..................................................... 147

Overview of the Analysis .......................................... 147

Average Nutrient Content of Lunches Offered in Public Schools:

SY 1998-99 and SY 1991-92 ....................................... 148

Mean Calorie and Nutrient Content Relative to Minimum Nutrition

Standards .................................................. 149

Percentage of Calories from Total Fat and Saturated Fat ............ 149

Cholesterol, Sodium and Carbohydrate Content ................... 152

Distribution of Fat, Carbohydrate, Cholesterol and Sodium Content ... 155
Table of Contents

(continued)

Table of Contents iv

Chapter Six (continued):

Availability and Nutrient Content of Low-Fat Lunch Options ............. 155

Availability of Low-Fat Lunch Options .......................... 158

Mean Nutrient Content of Low-Fat Lunch Options ................. 158

Average Nutrient Content of Breakfasts Offered in Public Schools:

SY 1998-99 and SY 1991-92 ....................................... 163

Mean Calorie and Nutrient Content Relative to Minimum Nutrition

Standards .................................................. 163

Percentage of Calories from Total Fat and Saturated Fat ............ 165

Cholesterol, Sodium and Carbohydrate Content ................... 165

References ..................................................................... 171

Appendix A Supplementary Exhibits: Nutrient Content of NSLP Lunches .......... A-1

Appendix B Supplementary Exhibits: Nutrient Content of SBP Breakfasts ......... B-1

Appendix C Study Implementation ........................................... C-1

Data Collection Schedule and Instruments ............................. C-1

Telephone Interview of SFA Directors ........................... C-1

Mail Survey of Cafeteria Managers ............................. C-2

Procedures Used to Implement the Menu Survey ................... C-4

Sample Data Collection Instruments

SFA Director Interview

Everyday Reimbursable Foods Form

Daily Menu Form

Recipe Form

Nutrition Information Form

Daily Meal Counts Form

A la Carte Foods Checklist

Meal Service Questionnaire

Appendix D Sample Design and Calculation of Sample Weights ................... D-1

Sample Design .................................................. D-1

Sample Recruitment .............................................. D-2

Completion Rates for Data Collection Components ..................... D-2

Development of Sample Weights .................................... D-6

SFA Weight ............................................... D-6

School-Level Weights ........................................ D-6

School Reclassifications ........................................... D-7
Table of Contents

(continued)

Table of Contents v

Appendix E Determining Nutrient Content of School Meals ...................... E-1

Review and Processing of Completed Menu Surveys .................... E-1

Entering Data into the Computerized Nutrient Analysis System ............ E-1

Entry Procedures ............................................ E-2

Quality Control Procedures ................................... E-8

Computing the Average Nutrient Content of School Meals ................ E-9

Weighted Nutrient Analysis ................................... E-10

Unweighted Nutrient Analysis ................................. E-11

Food Group Codes ............................................... E-14
List of Exhibits vi

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 1.1 Nutrition Standards Defined in Current NSLP and SBP Regulations .......... 3

Exhibit 1.2 Nutrition Standards Used in Evaluating School Meals ..................... 10

Exhibit 1.3 Minimum Nutrition Standards Defined in Current NSLP and SBP Regulations . 12

Exhibit 2.1 Types of Breakfast Programs Offered by Public NSLP Schools ............. 14

Exhibit 2.2 Approval for NSLP and SBP Meal Benefits ............................ 16

Exhibit 2.3 Student Participation in the NSLP and SBP During the Target Week ......... 17

Exhibit 2.4 Distribution of Free, Reduced-Price and Full-Price Meals During the

Target Week ...................................................... 18

Exhibit 2.5 Methods Used to Set Prices for USDA-Reimbursable Meals ................ 20

Exhibit 2.6 Average Prices for Reduced-Price and Full-Price Lunches .................. 21

Exhibit 2.7 Use of Multiple Prices for Full-Price Lunches ............................ 23

Exhibit 2.8 Relationship Between Meal Price and Student Participation Rates

for Full-Price Lunches .............................................. 24

Exhibit 2.9 SBP Meal Prices ................................................... 26

Exhibit 2.10 Responsibility for Menu Planning ..................................... 28

Exhibit 2.11 Availability and Use of Menu Planning Resources ........................ 29

Exhibit 2.12 Menu Planning Options Used for NSLP Menus .......................... 31

Exhibit 2.13 Menu Planning Options by Selected School Characteristics ................. 32

Exhibit 2.14 Menu Analysis Procedures Adopted by Schools Using NSMP or ANSMP ..... 35

Exhibit 2.15 Grade/Age Groupings Used by NSMP and ANSMP Schools

in Conducting Nutrient Analyses ...................................... 38

Exhibit 2.16 Percentage of Schools Reporting Changes in Lunch Menus to Incorporate

the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and Perceived Effect on Meal

Acceptability ...................................................... 41

Exhibit 2.17 Percentage of Schools Reporting Changes in Lunch Menus to Incorporate

the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, by Menu Planning Option,

and Perceived Effect on Meal Acceptability ............................. 42

Exhibit 2.18 Perceived Effect of Changes in Lunch Menus on Levels of Food Waste ....... 43

Exhibit 2.19 Percentage of Schools Reporting Changes in Breakfast Menus to Incorporate

the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and Perceived Effect on Meal

Acceptability ...................................................... 45

Exhibit 2.20 Perceived Effect of Changes in Breakfast Menus on Levels of Food Waste .... 46

Exhibit 2.21 Types of Meal Service Offered at Lunch ................................ 47

Exhibit 2.22 Types of Meal Service Available at Breakfast ............................ 49

Exhibit 2.23 Non-USDA Food Options Available During School Hours ................. 51

Exhibit 2.24 Availability of a la Carte Food Items at Breakfast and/or Lunch ............. 52

Exhibit 2.25 Average a la Carte Sales by Selected School Characteristics ................ 56

Exhibit 2.26 NSLP Student Participation Rate and Weekly a la Carte Sales .............. 57

Exhibit 2.27 Methods Used to Set Prices for a la Carte Foods ......................... 58

Exhibit 2.28 Use of Foods from Commercial Vendors ............................... 60

Exhibit 2.29 Division of Responsibility in SFAs that Use Food Service Management

Companies ....................................................... 61
List of Exhibits

(continued)

List of Exhibits vii

Exhibit 3.1 Choice and Variety in Lunch Menus ................................... 67

Exhibit 3.2 Foods Most Commonly Offered in Lunch Menus ......................... 70

Exhibit 3.3 Characteristics of Lunches Served to Students ........................... 75

Exhibit 3.4 Lunches Served to Students in SY 1998-99 Provided More than One-Third of

the RDA, with the Exception of Calories in Secondary Schools .............. 77

Exhibit 3.5 Percentage of Schools in Which the Average Lunch Served to Students

Provided One-Third or More of the RDA ............................... 78

Exhibit 3.6 Lunches Served to Students in SY 1998-99 Did Not Meet NSLP Standards

for Calories from Fat and Saturated Fat ................................. 80

Exhibit 3.7 Distribution of the Percentage of Calories from Total Fat, Saturated Fat

and Carbohydrate in Average Lunches Served to Students .................. 81

Exhibit 3.8 Lunches Served to Students Met the NRC Recommendation for Cholesterol

but Did Not Meet Recommendations for Sodium or Calories from 

Carbohydrate ..................................................... 82

Exhibit 3.9 Mean Nutrient Profile of Lunches Served, by Menu Planning System,

Compared to Nutrition Standards for NSLP Lunches and NRC

Recommendations: Elementary Schools ................................ 84

Exhibit 3.10 Mean Nutrient Profile of Lunches Served, by Menu Planning System,

Compared to Nutrition Standards for NSLP Lunches and NRC

Recommendations: Secondary Schools ................................. 86

Exhibit 3.11 In Comparison to Higher-Fat Lunches, Low-Fat Lunches Provided

Comparable Amounts of Calories and Key Nutrients ...................... 88

Exhibit 3.12 Schools that Served Low-Fat Lunches Tended to Offer Certain Foods

More Often than Schools that Served the Highest-Fat Lunches .............. 89

Exhibit 3.13 Sources of Calories and Nutrients in NSLP Lunches as Served .............. 93

Exhibit 4.1 Choice and Variety in Breakfast Menus ................................ 100

Exhibit 4.2 Foods Most Commonly Offered in Breakfast Menus ...................... 103

Exhibit 4.3 Characteristics of Breakfasts Served to Students ......................... 107

Exhibit 4.4 Breakfasts Served to Students in SY 1998-99 Provided at Least One-Fourth

of the RDA, with the Exception of Calories ............................. 109

Exhibit 4.5 Percentage of Schools in Which the Average Breakfast Served to Students

Provided One-Fourth or More of the RDA .............................. 110

Exhibit 4.6 Breakfasts Served to Students in SY 1998-99 Met the SBP Standard for

Calories from Fat and Almost Met the Standard for Calories from 

Saturated Fat ...................................................... 112

Exhibit 4.7 Distribution of the Percentage of Calories from Total Fat, Saturated Fat, 

and Carbohydrate in Average Breakfasts Served to Students ................ 113

Exhibit 4.8 Breakfasts Served to Students Met NRC Recommendations for Cholesterol

and Calories from Carbohydrate but Did Not Consistently Meet the

Recommendation for Sodium ......................................... 114
List of Exhibits

(continued)

List of Exhibits viii

Exhibit 4.9 Mean Nutrient Profile of Breakfasts Served, By Menu Planning System,

Compared to Nutrition Standards for SBP Breakfasts and NRC

Recommendations: Elementary Schools ............................... 116

Exhibit 4.10 Mean Nutrient Profile of Breakfasts Served, By Menu Planning System,

Compared to Nutrition Standards for SBP Breakfasts and NRC

Recommendations: Secondary Schools ................................ 117

Exhibit 4.11 Compared to Higher-Fat Breakfasts, Low-Fat Breakfasts Provided

Comparable Amounts of Calories and Key Nutrients ...................... 120

Exhibit 4.12 Schools That Served Low-Fat Breakfasts Tended to Offer Certain Foods

More Often than Schools That Served Higher-Fat Breakfasts ............... 121

Exhibit 4.13 Sources of Calories and Nutrients in SBP Breakfasts as Served .............. 124

Exhibit 5.1 Estimates of Calorie and Nutrient Content of the Average Lunch Were

Different for Weighted and Unweighted Analyses but Conclusions About

the One-Third RDA Standard Were Similar ............................. 131

Exhibit 5.2 Estimates of the Percentage of Calories from Fat and Saturated Fat in Lunches

Were Similar for Weighted and Unweighted Analyses ..................... 133

Exhibit 5.3 Estimates of Cholesterol and Sodium Content Were Different for Weighted and

Unweighted Analyses but Conclusions About Whether Lunches Met NRC

Recommendations Were Identical ..................................... 134

Exhibit 5.4 Percentage of Schools That Satisfied NSLP Standards and NRC

Recommendations for Lunch Based on Weighted and Unweighted Analyses: 

Elementary Schools ................................................ 135

Exhibit 5.5 Percentage of Schools That Satisfied NSLP Standards and NRC

Recommendations for Lunch Based on Weighted and Unweighted Analyses: 

Secondary Schools ................................................. 137

Exhibit 5.6 Estimates of Calorie and Nutrient Content of the Average Breakfast Were

Different for Weighted and Unweighted Analyses but Conclusions About

the One-Fourth RDA Standard Were Similar ............................ 140

Exhibit 5.7 Estimates of the Percentage of Calories from Fat and Saturated Fat in

Breakfasts Were Similar for Weighted and Unweighted Analyses ............ 141

Exhibit 5.8 Estimates of Cholesterol and Sodium Content Were Different for Weighted and

Unweighted Analyses but Conclusions About Whether Breakfasts Met NRC

Recommendations Were Generally Similar .............................. 143

Exhibit 5.9 Percentage of Schools That Satisfied SBP Standards and NRC

Recommendations for Breakfast Based on Weighted and Unweighted

Analyses: Elementary Schools ....................................... 144

Exhibit 5.10 Percentage of Schools That Satisfied SBP Standards and NRC 

Recommendations for Breakfast Based on Weighted and Unweighted

Analyses: Secondary Schools ........................................ 145
List of Exhibits

(continued)

List of Exhibits ix

Exhibit 6.1 Mean Calorie and Nutrient Content of Lunches Offered in SY 1991-92 and

SY 1998-99 Compared to Current NSLP Standards ...................... 150

Exhibit 6.2 Between SY 1991-92 and SY 1998-99 There Was a Significant Trend Toward

Lower Levels of Fat and Saturated Fat in School Lunches, as Offered ........ 151

Exhibit 6.3 For Lunches as Offered, the Percentage of Schools That Met Standards for

Total Fat and Saturated Fat Has Increased Substantially Since SY 1991-92 .... 153

Exhibit 6.4 Lunches Offered in SY 1998-99 Were Significantly Lower in Cholesterol and

Sodium and Higher in Calories from Carbohydrate than Lunches Offered

in SY 1991-92 .................................................... 154

Exhibit 6.5 Distribution of Fat, Carbohydrate, Cholesterol and Sodium in Lunches

Offered in SY 1991-92 and SY 1998-99: Elementary Schools .............. 156

Exhibit 6.6 Distribution of Fat, Carbohydrate, Cholesterol and Sodium in Lunches

Offered in SY 1991-92 and SY 1998-99: Secondary Schools .............. 157

Exhibit 6.7 Distribution of Fat, Carbohydrate, Cholesterol and Sodium in

Lowest-Percent-Fat Lunches Offered in SY 1991-92 and SY 1998-99:

Elementary Schools ................................................ 159

Exhibit 6.8 Distribution of Fat, Carbohydrate, Cholesterol and Sodium in

Lowest-Percent-Fat Lunches Offered in SY 1991-92 and SY 1998-99:

Secondary Schools ................................................. 160

Exhibit 6.9 Mean Nutrient Profile of Lowest-Percent-Fat Lunches Offered in SY 1991-92

and SY 1998-99 Compared to Minimum NSLP Standards and NRC

Recommendations: Elementary Schools ............................... 161

Exhibit 6.10 Mean Nutrient Profile of Lowest-Percent-Fat Lunches Offered in SY 1991-92

and SY 1998-99 Compared to Minimum NSLP Standards and NRC

Recommendations: Secondary Schools ................................ 162

Exhibit 6.11 Mean Calorie and Nutrient Content of Breakfasts Offered in SY 1991-92 and

SY 1998-99 Compared to Current SBP Standards ....................... 164

Exhibit 6.12 Between SY 1991-92 and SY 1998-99 There Was a Significant Decrease in

the Relative Fat and Saturated Fat Content of School Breakfasts, as Offered ... 166

Exhibit 6.13 For Breakfasts as Offered, the Percentage of Schools That Met Standards for

Total Fat and Saturated Fat Has Increased Substantially Since SY 1991-92 .... 167

Exhibit 6.14 Breakfasts Offered in SY 1998-99 Were Significantly Lower in Cholesterol

and Sodium and Higher in Calories from Carbohydrate than Breakfasts

Offered in SY 1991-92 .............................................. 168

Exhibit A.1 Mean Calorie and Nutrient Content of Average Lunches Served to

Students in SY 1998-99 ............................................. A-1

Exhibit A.2 Mean Percentage of Recommended Dietary Allowances Provided in Average

Lunches Served to Students in SY 1998-99 ............................. A-2

Exhibit A.3 Percentage of Schools in Which the Average Lunch Served to Students Met

the Minimum Nutrition Standards Defined in Current NSLP Regulations ...... A-3
List of Exhibits

(continued)

List of Exhibits x

Exhibit A.4 Distribution of Cholesterol and Sodium in Average Lunches Served to

Students in SY 1998-99 ............................................. A-4

Exhibit A.5 Percentage of Schools That Satisfied NSLP Standards and NRC

Recommendations for Lunch, by Menu Planning System:

Elementary Schools ................................................ A-5

Exhibit A.6 Percentage of Schools That Satisfied NSLP Standards and NRC

Recommendations for Lunch, by Menu Planning System:

Secondary Schools ................................................. A-6

Exhibit A.7 Mean Nutrient Profile of Average Lunches Served in SY 1998-99,

by Menu Planning System, Compared to NSLP Standards and NRC

Recommendations: All Schools ....................................... A-7

Exhibit A.8 Percentage of Schools That Satisfied NSLP Standards and NRC

Recommendations for Lunch, by Menu Planning System: All Schools ........ A-8

Exhibit A.9 Mean Nutrient Profile of Average Lunches Served in SY 1998-99, by Menu

Planning System, Compared to NSLP Standards and NRC Recommendations:

Middle Schools .................................................... A-9

Exhibit A.10 Percentage of Schools That Satisfied NSLP Standards and NRC

Recommendations for Lunch, by Menu Planning System:

Middle Schools .................................................... A-10

Exhibit A.11 Mean Nutrient Profile of Average Lunches Served in SY 1998-99, by Menu

Planning System, Compared to NSLP Standards and NRC Recommendations:

High Schools ..................................................... A-11

Exhibit A.12 Percentage of Schools That Satisfied NSLP Standards and NRC

Recommendations for Lunch, by Menu Planning System:

High Schools ..................................................... A-12

Exhibit A.13 Percentage of Schools That Satisfied NSLP Standards and NRC

Recommendations for Lunch, by Relative Fat Content of Average

Lunch Served ..................................................... A-13

Exhibit A.14 Mean Nutrient and Calorie Content of Lunches, Using Alternative

Methodology for Unweighted Analysis: Elementary Schools ............... A-14

Exhibit A.15 Percentage of Schools That Satisfied NSLP Standards and NRC Recommendation

for Lunch Based on Weighted and Unweighted Analyses, Using Alternative

Methodology for Unweighted Analysis: Elementary Schools ............... A-15

Exhibit A.16 Mean Nutrient and Calorie Content of Lunches, Using Alternative

Methodology for Unweighted Analysis: Secondary Schools ................ A-16

Exhibit A.17 Percentage of Schools That Satisfied NSLP Standards and NRC Recommendation

for Lunch Based on Weighted and Unweighted Analyses, Using Alternative

Methodology for Unweighted Analysis: Secondary Schools ................ A-17

Exhibit B.1 Mean Calorie and Nutrient Content of Average Breakfasts Served to

Students in SY 1998-99 ............................................. B-1

Exhibit B.2 Mean Percentage of Recommended Dietary Allowances in Average Breakfasts

Served to Students in SY 1998-99 ..................................... B-2
List of Exhibits

(continued)

List of Exhibits xi

Exhibit B.3 Percentage of Schools in Which the Average Breakfast Served to Students Met

the Nutrition Standards Defined in Current SBP Regulations ................ B-3 

Exhibit B.4 Distribution of Cholesterol and Sodium in Average Breakfasts Served to

Students in SY 1998-99 ............................................. B-4

Exhibit B.5 Percentage of Schools That Satisfied SBP Standards and NRC

Recommendations for Breakfast, by Menu Planning System:

Elementary Schools ................................................ B-5

Exhibit B.6 Percentage of Schools That Satisfied SBP Standards and NRC

Recommendations for Breakfast, by Menu Planning System:

Secondary Schools ................................................. B-6

Exhibit B.7 Mean Nutrient Profile of the Average Breakfast Served, by Menu Planning

System, Compared to SBP Standards and NRC Recommendations:

All Schools ....................................................... B-7

Exhibit B.8 Percentage of Schools That Satisfied SBP Standards and NRC

Recommendations for Breakfast, by Menu Planning System: All Schools ..... B-8

Exhibit B.9 Mean Nutrient Profile of the Average Breakfast Served, by Menu Planning

System, Compared to SBP Standards and NRC Recommendations:

Middle Schools .................................................... B-9

Exhibit B.10 Percentage of Schools That Satisfied SBP Standards and NRC

Recommendations for Breakfast, by Menu Planning System: Middle Schools . . B-10

Exhibit B.11 Mean Nutrient Profile of the Average Breakfast Served, by Menu Planning

System, Compared to SBP Standards and NRC Recommendations:

High Schools ..................................................... B-11

Exhibit B.12 Percentage of Schools That Satisfied SBP Standards and NRC

Recommendations for Breakfast, by Menu Planning System: High Schools ... B-12

Exhibit B.13 Percentage of Schools That Satisfied SBP Standards and NRC

Recommendations for Breakfast, by Relative Fat Content of

Breakfasts Served .................................................. B-13

Exhibit B.14 Mean Nutrient and Calorie Content of Breakfasts Using Alternative

Methodology for Unweighted Analysis: Elementary Schools ............... B-14

Exhibit B.15 Percentage of Schools That Satisfied SBP Standards and NRC

Recommendations for Breakfast Based on Weighted and Unweighted Analyses,

Using Alternative Methodology for Unweighted Analysis: Elementary Schools . B-15

Exhibit B.16 Mean Nutrient and Calorie Content of Breakfasts Using Alternative

Methodology for Unweighted Analysis: Secondary Schools ................ B-16

Exhibit B.17 Percentage of Schools That Satisfied NSLP Standards and NRC Recommendations

for Breakfast Based on Weighted and Unweighted Analyses, Using Alternative

Methodology for Unweighted Analysis: Secondary Schools ................ B-17

Exhibit D.1 SFA and School-Level Cooperation at the Time of Recruitment ............. D-3

Exhibit D.2 Completion Rate for the SFA Director Interview Among Cooperating SFAs ... D-4

Exhibit D.3 Completion Rate for the School-Level Data Component of the SFA

Director Interview Among Cooperating Schools .......................... D-4
List of Exhibits

(continued)

List of Exhibits xii

Exhibit D.4 Completion Rate for the Menu Survey Among Cooperating Schools .......... D-5

Exhibit D.5 Completion Rate for the Meal Service Questionnaire and A la Carte

Checklist Among Cooperating Schools ................................. D-5

Exhibit E.1 Default Portion Sizes for Foods Items Not Included in Salad Bars or

Other Self-Serve Food Bars, Lunch Menus .............................. E-3

Exhibit E.2 Default Portion Sizes for Food Items Not Included in Salad Bars or

Other Self-Serve Food Bars, Breakfast Menus ........................... E-4

Exhibit E.3 Default Portion Sizes for Accompaniments .............................. E-5

Exhibit E.4 Coding Rules for Salad Bars ......................................... E-7

Exhibit E.5 Comparison of Assumptions for Weighted and Unweighted Nutrient Analyses . E-13

Exhibit E.6 Major and Minor Food Groups ....................................... E-15
Acknowledgments xiii

Acknowledgments

The second School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study (SNDA-II) is indebted to school food service

professionals in the 430 School Food Authorities (SFAs) and more than 1,000 schools who participated

in the study. Without their cooperation and hard work, the study could not have been completed.

Staff at the Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture provided oversight for the study. Three different Project Officers were involved. Marie

Mitchell oversaw the initial start-up phases, including sampling, instrument development, and pretesting. 

John Endahl assumed responsibility for the project during recruitment and data collection as well as

through much of the data processing phase. Patricia McKinney provided oversight and guidance during

the final stages of data processing and while the data were being analyzed. Pat also guided development

of the study’s final report.

Several staff members at Abt Associates played important roles on the project. Mary Kay Fox served as

Project Director. Other key Abt staff include Patty Connor and Mary Kay Crepinsek (senior nutritionists

and analysts), Diane Green (survey director), Lisa Litin (senior analyst/programmer), Nancy Burstein

(technical reviewer), Michael Battaglia (sampling statistician), Melissa Giamanco, Ellen Janay, Brandi

Szegda, and Margaret Loeper (senior nutrition coders), and Eileen Fahey (contract secretary).

Finally, staff at LunchByte Systems, Inc., particularly Paul Moriarity and Lisa Plescia, worked tirelessly

to adapt the NUTRIKIDS software to meet the demands of this study. This was no minor undertaking

and Paul and Lisa were unfailingly pleasant and responsive in dealing with the many challenges and

complications encountered along the way. 
Introduction 1

Chapter One

Introduction

The National School Lunch Program (NSLP), administered by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of

the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), has been providing meals to the Nation’s school children

since 1946. The School Breakfast Program (SBP) has been in full operation since the early 1970s. Over

the years, research has shown that meals offered in both the NSLP and SBP have provided children with

the calories, vitamins, and minerals needed to sustain health and promote normal growth. However, in

the early 1990s, the first School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study (SNDA-I) found that the amount of

fat, saturated fat, and sodium provided in school lunches was not consistent with current public health

recommendations. 

Since the time the SNDA-I study revealed that school lunches were not consistent with the Dietary

Guidelines, FNS and its State and local partners in the school meals programs have been working on

many fronts to address this problem. These efforts have included changes in menu planning

requirements, enhanced training and technical assistance for school food service managers and personnel,

and changes in the types and amounts of commodity foods offered to schools. In school year (SY)

1998–99, FNS sponsored the second School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study (SNDA-II) to provide

an updated picture of the nutrient profile of NSLP and SBP meals. The study also provides current

information about menu planning practices used in the school meals programs and about related program

operations issues. The SNDA-II study was completed by Abt Associates Inc. under contract to FNS. 

This report summarizes study findings. 

The National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs

The National School Lunch Act of 1946 established the NSLP “to safeguard the health and well-being of

the Nation’s children and to encourage the domestic consumption of nutritious agricultural commodities

and other foods” (P.L. 79-396). All public and private nonprofit schools are eligible to participate in

both the NSLP and the SBP, as are public or licensed residential child care institutions. Currently, the

NSLP operates in more than 84,000 public schools and 12,000 private nonprofit schools and residential

child care institutions (USDA, FNS 2000). 

Any child in a participating school is eligible to obtain a school lunch. Students from low-income

families are eligible to purchase lunch at a reduced price or to receive a free lunch. In SY 1998–99, more

than 4.5 billion school lunches were served (USDA, FNS 2000). On an average day, more than 27

million children received an NSLP lunch; more than half of these lunches were provided free or at a

reduced price to children from low-income families. 

The SBP began in the mid-1960s when the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-642) established a pilot

project to support the provision of breakfast to children living in “poor areas and areas where children

[had] to travel a great distance to school.” The SBP was officially authorized as a permanent program in
Introduction 2

1975, and the target population was expanded to include “all schools where [the program] is needed to

provide adequate nutrition for all children in attendance” (P.L. 94-105). 

Currently, the SBP operates in approximately three-quarters of the public schools that offer the NSLP, 

most commonly in schools that serve large numbers of economically disadvantaged children. In SY

1998–99, more than 1.2 billion breakfasts were served (USDA, FNS 2000). On any given day, roughly

seven million children received an SBP breakfast. More than three-quarters of these meals were provided

free of charge. 

School Food Authorities (SFAs) that participate in the NSLP and SBP receive two types of Federal

assistance: donated commodities (tied to the NSLP) and cash reimbursements (received for both the

NSLP and SBP). Entitlement to commodities is based on an established per-meal flat rate applied to the

number of reimbursable lunches served the previous year. Subject to availability, SFAs are also eligible

to receive bonus commodities in amounts that can be used without waste. The type and amount of bonus

commodities available vary from year to year depending on purchasing decisions made by USDA.

Cash reimbursements for NSLP and SBP meals are based on the number of meals served to students,

established per-meal reimbursement rates, and the poverty level of participating students. SFAs receive a

base payment for each meal served, with substantially higher rates paid for meals served free or at a

reduced price to income-eligible students. Schools may receive additional reimbursements if more than

60 percent of the meals they serve are provided free or at a reduced price. Children's household size and

income determine eligibility for free and reduced-price meal benefits. Currently, students eligible for free

meals are those from families with incomes at or below 130 percent of poverty. Students from families

with incomes between 130 and 185 percent of poverty are eligible for reduced-price meals. These

students may be required to contribute an additional amount of their own money for school meals, but

Federal regulations set a maximum price ($0.40 for lunch and $0.30 for breakfast in SY 1998–99) that is

well below the rate paid by students who are not eligible for reduced-price meal benefits. 

Nutrition Standards for School Meals

To be eligible for Federal subsidies, meals served in the NSLP and SBP must meet defined nutrition

standards. For many years, the goal of the NSLP has been to provide approximately one-third of

children’s daily nutritional needs, as defined by the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs)

(National Research Council 1989b). To ensure that this goal is met, NSLP regulations have always

included food-based menu planning guidelines. These guidelines, originally known as the “Type A meal

pattern,” define specific types of food that must be included in planned meals as well as minimum

acceptable portion sizes. Specific nutrition standards for SBP breakfasts were defined only recently,

although program regulations have always included a meal pattern. The meal pattern was designed to

ensure that breakfasts would provide approximately 20 to 25 percent of children’s daily nutritional needs. 

Most prior research has shown that, with few exceptions, the NSLP and SBP have been successful in

meeting these nutrition goals (Wellisch 1983; St. Pierre 1992; and Burghardt 1993). However, the most

recent nationally representative study of school meals — the first School Nutrition Dietary Assessment

Study (SNDA-I), which was published in 1993 — focused attention on another aspect of nutritional

quality (Burghardt 1993). SNDA-I found that, in SY 1991-92, NSLP meals were not consistent with

goals for fat and saturated fat intake specified in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (U.S. Depart-
1 FNS had previously examined the sodium and fat content of school meals using data from the National Evaluation of

School Nutrition Programs (NESNP), which was completed in 1980 (Fraker 1988). The analysis used data on students’

dietary intake over a 24-hour period and compared NSLP participants with students who skipped lunch and students who

ate alternative lunches. 

Introduction 3

ments of Health and Human Services and Agriculture 1990). At the time the SNDA-I study was 1

conducted, schools were not required to offer meals that were consistent with the Dietary Guidelines. 

The School Meals Initiative for Healthy Children

Shortly after SNDA-I revealed that school lunches were not consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for

fat and saturated fat intake, USDA began developing an initiative to address this problem. A series of

public hearings was held and interested parties were invited to submit written comments. In 1995, the

Department launched the School Meals Initiative for Healthy Children (SMI). SMI is designed to

improve the nutritional quality of school meals by providing schools with educational and technical

resources that can be used to assist food service personnel in preparing nutritious and appealing meals

and to encourage children to eat more healthful meals. 

Key components of SMI include new nutrition standards for school meals and added flexibility in the

procedures used to plan and monitor school menus. The new nutrition standards maintain the longstanding goals of providing, on average, one-third of students’ daily nutrition needs at lunch and onefourth at breakfast. In addition, the standards include goals for fat and saturated fat content that are

consistent with Dietary Guidelines recommendations (Exhibit 1.1).

Exhibit 1.1

Nutrition Standards Defined in Current NSLP and SBP Regulations

Nutrient Standard

Calories and nutrients with established Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs):

1

Calories, protein, vitamin A, vitamin C,

 calcium and iron

Breakfast: One-fourth of the RDA

Lunch: One-third of the RDA

Nutrients included in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans:

2

Breakfast and Lunch: 

Total fat < 30% of total calories

Saturated fat < 10% of total calories

National Research Council (1989). Recommended Dietary Allowances, 10th edition. Washington, DC: National 1

Academy Press.

U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services and Agriculture (1990). Nutrition and Your Health: Dietary 2

Guidelines for Americans, 3rd edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. [Standards are based on

the 1990 version of the Dietary Guidelines].

 
Introduction 4

The initial SMI proposal, issued in June 1994, replaced the traditional food-based menu planning

guidelines (meal pattern) with an alternative computer-based menu planning system known as Nutrient

Standard Menu Planning (NSMP) or Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning (ANSMP). The

proposal also required that school meals be consistent with the Dietary Guidelines no later than the

beginning of SY 1998–99. An extended time line was built into the proposed regulation because

comments received during public hearings and in response to an initial Federal Register notice indicated

that some SFAs would need a considerable amount of time to implement NSMP or ANSMP and to

develop menus consistent with the Dietary Guidelines.

In November 1994, as part of the reauthorization of the Child Nutrition programs, Congress enacted The

Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans Act (P.L. 103-448). This law was important for two reasons. 

First, it was the first time that legislation required that school meals be consistent with the Dietary

Guidelines. Second, the law precipitated two important changes in USDA's initial SMI proposal. It

required that USDA develop a food-based menu planning system, similar to the traditional meal pattern,

that schools could use in lieu of NSMP or ANSMP. The law also shortened the time line for

incorporating the Dietary Guidelines, requiring that all SFAs be in compliance by the first day of SY

1996-97 (two years earlier than USDA had suggested), unless a waiver was granted by the cognizant

State agency. Finally, the law permitted schools, under certain circumstances, to no longer offer whole

milk (prior to this legislation, schools were required to offer whole milk).

Menu planning options were further expanded in May 1996, when The Healthy Meals for Children Act

mandated that USDA allow SFAs to continue to use the traditional NSLP and SBP menu planning

systems (i.e., the meal patterns that were in effect prior to the SMI rule), or to use “any reasonable

approach” in planning menus that satisfy the nutrient standards defined under SMI. 

The regulatory requirement that school meals be consistent with the Dietary Guidelines has been

incorporated into FNS’ strategic plan. The current goal is that all schools will satisfy these standards by

2005. 

Current Menu Planning Options

As summarized in the preceding discussion, current program regulations provide schools with five

different menu planning options: (1) the traditional food-based menu planning system; (2) an enhanced

food-based menu planning system; (3) NSMP; (4) ANSMP; and (5) any other reasonable approach. 

The traditional food-based menu planning system requires that lunches offered to students include five

food items: fluid milk (as a beverage), one serving of meat or meat alternate, a minimum of one serving

of a bread or grain product, and two servings of fruit and/or vegetables. The system also defines

minimum required portion sizes for children in different grades. The enhanced food-based menu

planning system is very similar to the traditional food-based system but requires more servings of bread

and grain products over the course of a week and larger servings of fruits and vegetables. 

NSMP and ANSMP require use of a computerized nutrient analysis system to plan menus. SFAs must

select one of several USDA-approved NSMP software programs. ANSMP allows SFAs to arrange or

contract for NSMP implementation (i.e., menu development and nutrient analysis) through an external

source such as a State agency, a consortium of SFAs, or a consultant. The only food-based menu
2 The CN Reauthorization Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-336) waived the weighted analysis requirement through September 2003

for school districts that obtain a waiver from their State agency.

Introduction 5

planning requirements imposed under NSMP or ANSMP, for lunch, are that milk be offered as a

beverage and that at least one entree and one side dish be offered. Within these broad guidelines, menu

planners are free to use whatever portions and combinations of food they wish to meet the nutrition

standards. Thus, in theory, NSMP and ANSMP provide more flexibility in menu planning than the two

food-based systems while, at the same time, providing a greater degree of assurance that meals served to

students meet nutrition standards. 

Finally, schools may use any other reasonable approach to menu planning, which may include specific

modifications to the food-based menu planning guidelines (outlined in program regulations) as well as

more major modifications to any of the available menu planning systems. State agencies may establish

guidelines for using a modified approach to menu planning and may require that SFAs receive prior

approval before implementing such a system. 

SFAs that elect to use either of the food-based systems (the traditional food-based menu planning system

or the enhanced food-based system defined in the final SMI rule) or an alternative approach to menu

planning are not required to analyze the nutrient content of planned menus. They are, however, expected

to meet the nutrition standards defined under SMI. All school districts must undergo a mandatory SMI

review every five years. As part of this process, State agency staff must analyze a representative weekly

menu and compare results of the analysis to the nutrition standards.

Weighted and Unweighted Nutrient Analyses (Meals as Served versus Meals as Offered)

Current NSLP and SBP menu planning requirements and monitoring standards are built around use of a

weighted nutrient analysis of meals served over the course of a week. A weighted nutrient analysis 2

incorporates information about student selection patterns and does not assume that every student takes

one serving of every type of food offered. In the analysis, greater weight is given to the foods that are

served/selected more frequently. This approach provides a picture of the average meal served to or

selected by students. The nutrient analysis software systems approved by FNS for use in implementing

NSMP or ANSMP (or for use by States in monitoring SFAs using other menu planning options) perform

weighted nutrient analyses. To complete an analysis, users must specify not only the types of foods

offered and the associated portion sizes, but the total number of reimbursable meals served and the

number of servings of each food served in those meals. 

In contrast, an unweighted nutrient analysis does not consider the relative frequency with which different

types of food are served/selected. The analysis constitutes a simple average of all foods offered. An 

unweighted nutrient analysis provides a picture of the average meal offered to students. The principal

difference between the two analytic approaches is that a weighted analysis reflects student choices, a

factor which school food service programs may influence but can not control. 

Prior to SMI, assessments of the nutrient content of school meals were typically based on an unweighted

analysis. The SNDA-I study used an unweighted nutrient analysis. In this study, both weighted and

unweighted analyses were conducted. To permit comparisons between the SNDA-I and SNDA-II
Introduction 6

studies, the methodology used in this study for the unweighted analysis was modeled after the approach

used in SNDA-I. 

Overview of the SNDA-II Study

The primary goal of the SNDA-II study was to provide information on how schools are progressing, in

the early stages of SMI, toward meeting SMI standards. The study also provides current information

about menu planning practices used in school food service programs and about related program

operations issues.

The study produced national cross-sectional estimates of the nutrient composition of USDA meals served

in elementary and secondary schools in SY 1998-99. The study focused exclusively on public schools,

which account for roughly 90 percent of all institutional NSLP participants. The study design included

separate nationally representative probability samples of public SFAs, public elementary schools, public

middle schools, and public high schools participating in the NSLP. Study results are generalizable to

public SFAs and public schools nationwide but not to the entire NSLP. For ease of presentation, the

unrestricted terms “school” and “SFA” are used throughout this report in exhibit titles and most text

discussions. Chapter titles and selected section titles, exhibit footnotes and discussions remind the reader

that the study focused on public schools.

FNS defined nine research objectives for the SNDA-II study: 

• Determine the average nutrient composition of USDA meals currently served to students

during a typical school week in elementary and secondary schools. 

• Determine whether the average nutrient composition of meals differs depending on the menu

planning option used. 

• Determine the current availability and nutrient content of low-fat meals (meals that provide

no more than 30 percent of calories from fat). 

• Determine the major food sources of calories and key nutrients in breakfast and lunch meals.

• Examine the number of food choices offered to students participating in the NSLP and/or

SBP on a daily basis. 

• Examine the variety of foods offered in NSLP lunches and SBP breakfasts and identify

foods that are offered most frequently. 

• Determine the type of alternative food sources available to students who do not eat the

NSLP lunch or SBP breakfast or bring food from home, and the types of food offered

through these channels.

• Determine the changes in the nutrient composition of NSLP and SBP meals since SY

1991–92, when the SNDA-I study was conducted.
3 To obtain a reasonable assessment of nutrient content, it is necessary to examine meals offered over a period of time rather

than a single meal. The National Research Council (NRC) recommends that group feeding programs plan menus so that

nutrient standards are met over a five- to 10-day period. A sample five-day period, equivalent to a full week in most school

districts, is routinely used in USDA-sponsored evaluations of Child Nutrition programs. SMI requirements specify that

analyses be based on a typical school week, ranging from three to seven days.

Introduction 7

• Determine whether conclusions about the nutrient composition of school meals differs 

depending on whether the nutrient analysis is weighted or unweighted. 

The data collection approach specified by FNS was a mail survey of cafeteria managers and a telephone

survey of SFA directors. The mail survey of cafeteria managers was the primary data collection vehicle

and is the source of most of the data included in this report. The telephone survey of SFA directors

provided supplementary information on district characteristics and selected school-level characteristics

(e.g., enrollment, number of students approved for free and reduced-price meals, and menu planning

practices). 

The following paragraphs provide a brief overview of the study’s design and data collection approach. 

Appendix D provides detailed information on the design of the study sample, recruitment of SFAs and

schools, data collection activities and the final disposition of the various samples. 

Respondents and Data Collection Instruments

Data were collected from cafeteria managers in sampled schools (or other respondents designated by SFA

directors) and from SFA directors. Cafeteria managers were asked to complete a written menu survey

that provided information on the foods offered to students as well as the number of servings of each food

that was actually served to students. Cafeteria managers also provided information on local school food

service operations, including the availability of a la carte foods and other non-USDA meal options. SFA

directors were interviewed by telephone and provided information on menu planning practices,

enrollment, numbers of students approved for free and reduced-price meals and district-level food service

operations.

A total of 1,075 cafeteria managers completed the menu survey and 430 SFA directors completed the

telephone interview. Response rates among cafeteria managers and SFA directors who agreed to

participate in the study were 87.8 percent for the menu survey and 90.1 percent for the SFA director

interview. Detailed information on sample design, response rates and calculation of sample weights is

provided in Appendix D.

Mail Survey of Cafeteria Managers

Cafeteria managers were asked to complete a menu survey which requested detailed information on all

foods offered during a specified five-day period (referred to as the target week). Target weeks were 3

initially spread between late September and mid-December 1998. However, because some schools were

unable to complete the survey during that time period, data collection was extended through May 1999

for schools that needed additional time. All respondents provided data for lunches served during a single

week. Respondents whose schools participated in the SBP were also asked to provide information for

breakfasts served during the same week. 
4 In SNDA-I approximately 40 percent of participating schools provided information through a mail survey. Data for the

remaining 60 percent of schools were collected by field staff using the same forms used in the mail survey. 

Introduction 8

Respondents were asked to list all reimbursable menu items offered and to provide a complete

description of each item, including manufacturer and brand names and, where available, product codes. 

For items not included in the nutrient data base used in the analysis, respondents were asked to provide

labels, summaries of product nutrition information and/or manufacturers’ names and addresses. 

Complete recipes were requested for all items that were prepared by combining two or more foods or

ingredients.

In addition to item descriptions and recipes, respondents were asked to describe the portions served

including, if applicable, different portions for different grade/age groups. Finally, respondents were

asked to report, for each menu item, the total number of portions served in reimbursable meals (i.e.,

exclusive of portions sold a la carte and portions sold to teachers or other adults). 

Because SNDA-II data were to be compared to data from SNDA-I, every effort was made to make the

data collection approach as comparable as possible to the approach used in SNDA-I. With the exception

of meal production information (i.e., information on the number of portions served), the data elements

collected in the two studies were identical. The format of menu survey materials was enhanced, however,

to address difficulties encountered during SNDA-I. The menu survey was presented in an easy-to-use 4

booklet format with a separate section for each day of the week and separate sections for breakfast and

lunch. Respondents also received a user-friendly instruction manual and several supporting response aids

that offered guidance on describing foods and providing food package labels. Survey materials were

designed with colored paper, colored ink, tabs and lamination so that materials were attractive, organized

and easy to understand. In addition to response aids, a toll-free technical assistance number was provided

and respondents were encouraged to call with any questions. 

Survey materials were mailed to respondents at least two weeks prior to the start of the target week. SFA

directors were encouraged to bring all school-level respondents together to review materials, plan for the

data collection and avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. Each cafeteria manager received at least two

follow-up contacts — one the week before the target week and one early in the target week — to ensure

receipt and completion of survey materials and to provide technical assistance as needed. 

In addition to the menu survey, respondents were asked to complete three other brief instruments, all of

which were bound into the same data collection booklet as the menu survey and were addressed in the

accompanying instruction manual. These instruments included: 

• Daily Meal Counts Form: A form used to record the number of reimbursable meals served

each day during the target week, by reimbursement category (free, reduced-price, paid).

• Meal Service Questionnaire: A brief survey that obtained information about local school

food service operations, including prices charged for reduced- and full-price meals, types of

meal service offered (e.g., hot meals, salad bars, etc.) and availability of vending machines

and other alternative sources of food.
5 The RDAs are currently being replaced with new standards — Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs). These standards were not

used in this analysis because they have not yet been incorporated into NSLP or SBP regulations.

6 NSMP software also analyzes fiber. These data were not included in this report, however, because neither the Dietary

Guidelines nor the NRC’s Diet and Health report provide a quantitative recommendation for fiber intake. 

Introduction 9

• A la Carte Foods Checklist: A simple checklist of items potentially offered on an a la carte

basis. Respondents were asked to complete the checklist one day (randomly assigned)

during the target week. The form used was provided by FNS and was identical to the one

used in SNDA-I.

Because some respondents completed only the menu survey or only some of these additional instruments,

the number of respondents for each instrument varied and response rates were somewhat lower than for

the menu survey (see Appendix D). 

Telephone Interview of SFA Directors

SFA directors were interviewed by telephone between September 1998 and March 1999. A few directors

who proved to be extremely difficult to reach completed the interview by mail during the summer or fall

of 1999. The interview took approximately 20 minutes to complete and collected information for

sampled schools in the SFA as well as for the district as a whole. Topics covered for the sampled schools

included enrollment, number of students approved for free and reduced-price meals, menu planning

practices, access to and use of a computer for nutrient analysis, use of USDA technical assistance

materials, and use of foods from commercial vendors (e.g., McDonald’s, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut and

others). Topics addressed at the district level included use of food service management companies

(FSMCs) and food purchasing cooperatives and methods used to set prices for reimbursable meals and 

a la carte foods. 

Standards Used to Evaluate Nutrient Content

Two sets of standards were used to evaluate the nutrient content of NSLP and SBP meals (Exhibit 1.2). 

The first set is comprised of SMI nutrition standards, as defined in current NSLP and SBP regulations. 

These include standards for calories and target nutrients for which RDAs have been established (protein,

vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium, and iron) as well as for the percentage of calories from fat and saturated

fat. 

5

A second set of standards, based on recommendations in the National Research Council’s (NRC) Diet

and Health report, was defined for nutrients and food components that are analyzed by NSMP software

but are not quantified in SMI nutrition standards (National Research Council 1989a). These include the

percentage of calories from carbohydrate as well as total cholesterol and sodium content. NRC 6

recommendations for sodium and cholesterol define suggested maximums for daily intake. For this

report, these daily standards were adapted to create meal-specific recommendations. Recommendations

for lunch reflect one-third of the suggested daily maximum and recommendations for breakfast reflect

one-fourth of the daily maximum. It is important to recognize that schools are not required to meet

these additional standards. They are used in this report solely to facilitate understanding of the data. 
Introduction 10

Exhibit 1.2

Nutrition Standards Used in Evaluating School Meals

Nutrient Standard

Nutrition Standards Defined in NSLP and SBP Regulations

Calories and nutrients with established Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs) :

1

Calories, protein, vitamin A, vitamin C, 

 calcium and iron

Breakfast: One-fourth of the RDA

Lunch: One-third of the RDA

Nutrients included in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans :

2

Breakfast and Lunch:

Total fat < 30% of total calories

Saturated fat < 10% of total calories

National Research Council Diet and Health Recommendations3

Carbohydrate Breakfast and Lunch: > 55% of total calories

Cholesterol Breakfast: < 75 mg

Lunch: < 100 mg

Sodium Breakfast: < 600 mg

Lunch: < 800 mg

National Research Council (1989). Recommended Dietary Allowances, 10th edition. Washington, DC: National 1

Academy Press.

U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services and Agriculture (1990). Nutrition and Your Health: Dietary 2

Guidelines for Americans, 3rd edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

National Research Council (1989). Diet and Health. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Standards used for 3

cholesterol and sodium are adapted from recommendations for maximum daily intake. 

Comparison with SNDA-I Data

The SNDA-I study collected data in SY 1991–92. SNDA-II provides an updated picture of the nutrient

content of school meals offered in SY 1998–99. It was not possible, however, to directly compare

SNDA-I and SNDA-II data for several reasons. First, SNDA-I was based on an unweighted nutrient

analysis (reflecting the average meal offered to students) and SNDA-II used a weighted analysis

(reflecting the average meal served to students). Second, SNDA-I included both public and private

schools while SNDA-II was limited to public schools. Third, because recent changes in program

regulations had to be incorporated into the SNDA-II analysis, SNDA-I and SNDA-II handled

comparisons to RDA standards in different ways. SNDA-I compared mean nutrient values for meals

offered in each school type to all age- and gender-appropriate RDAs. Current regulations define

minimum nutrition standards for meals served to children in various grade groups and encourage schools
7 Program regulations define slightly different grade groups for the traditional food-based menu planning system (K-3 and 4-

12), based on the groupings used in that system’s meal pattern. However, schools are permitted to use the nutrition

standards defined for grades K-6 and 7-12. 

Introduction 11

to plan menus based on the ages/grades of the enrolled students. SNDA-II used RDA standards based on

the grade configuration of each school.

To permit a comparison of SNDA-I and SNDA-II data, both data sets had to be reanalyzed. SNDA-I

data were reanalyzed limiting the sample to public schools. SNDA-II data were reanalyzed using an

unweighted nutrient analysis modeled after the analysis completed in SNDA-I. (Data that would be

needed to complete a weighted analysis of the SNDA-I data are not available.) The methodology used in

the unweighted analysis of SNDA-II data was comparable to the methodology used in SNDA-I, with the

exception of slight modifications made to reflect current program emphasis on increased use of breads,

grains, and fruits and vegetables. The methodology used in both weighted and unweighted nutrient

analyses is described in detail in Appendix E.

Finally, to obtain a uniform basis of comparison for calories and RDA nutrients, both SNDA-I and

SNDA-II data were compared to minimum standards defined for elementary schools (grades

Kindergarten (K)-6) and secondary schools (grades 7-12) in current program regulations (Exhibit 1.3). 

Minimum standards for breakfast are defined for grades K-12 and cover all types of schools. An optional

set of breakfast standards has also been defined for grades 7-12. 

7

Differences noted between SNDA-I (SY 1991–92) and SNDA-II (SY 1998–99) can not be attributed to

any one factor. Factors that may contribute to observed differences include changes in the food supply

over time (e.g., the introduction of new products and changes in product formulations in both USDA

commodity foods and foods available in the quantity food service market), as well as changes in menu

planning, food purchasing and food preparation practices of school food service personnel. Differences

in data collection methodology (data for all schools in SNDA-II were collected via a mail survey while

data for more than half of the SNDA-I schools were collected on site) and/or in the nutrient data bases

used in the two studies may also contribute to observed differences. 

Organization of this Report

The remaining chapters in this report present the following information:

• Chapter Two describes characteristics of school food service program operations. 

• Chapters Three and Four describe, respectively, the average nutrient content of lunches and

breakfasts served in school meals programs in SY 1998-99.

• Chapter Five compares results of weighted and unweighted analyses.

 

• Chapter Six compares results of the current study with findings from the SNDA-I study.
Introduction 12

Exhibit 1.3

Minimum Nutrition Standards Defined in Current NSLP and SBP Regulations 

Grade Groupings

Lunch Grades K-6 Grades 7-12

Calories 664 825

Protein (gm) 10 16

Vitamin A (mcg RE) 224 300

Vitamin C (mg) 15 18

Calcium (mg) 286 400

Iron (mg) 3.5 4.5

Breakfast (minimum) (optional)

Grades K-12 Grades 7-12

Calories 554 618

Protein (gm) 10 12

Vitamin A (mcg RE) 197 225

Vitamin C (mg) 13 14

Calcium (mg) 257 300

Iron (mg) 3.0 3.4

Note: Standards used for other nutrients are identical for both SNDA-I and SNDA-II and are based on NSLP/SBP standards

(percent of calories from fat and saturated fat) and NRC recommendations (percent of calories from carbohydrate, total

cholesterol and total sodium). 

Appendices provide supplementary exhibits (Appendices A and B) as well as detailed information on

study implementation (Appendix C); study design, response rates and sample weights (Appendix D); and

methodologies used in analyzing the menu survey data (Appendix E).
 Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 13

Chapter Two

Characteristics of Food Service Programs in Public

NSLP Schools

This chapter describes selected characteristics of school food service programs in public schools that

offered the NSLP in SY 1998–99. Topics covered include the availability of the SBP and other breakfast

programs, the percentage of students approved for free and reduced-price meal benefits, student

participation rates, meal prices, menu planning practices, types of meals offered and alternative sources

of food available to students who do not eat NSLP or SBP meals. 

The data summarized in this chapter come from two different sources: the telephone interview of SFA

directors — which provided information on both SFA- and school-level characteristics — and non-menusurvey portions of the mail survey of cafeteria managers (see Appendix C). A total of 430 SFA directors

completed the telephone interview. These completed interviews provided information for a total of 1,109

schools. In addition, non-menu-survey portions of the mail survey were completed by 1,036 cafeteria

managers. Both of these data sets were weighted to produce estimates that are nationally representative

for public elementary schools, middle schools and high schools that participated in the NSLP in 

SY 1998–99 (see Appendix D). Unweighted sample sizes vary depending on the data source(s) used in

the exhibit; footnotes at the bottom of each exhibit clearly identify the data source(s). 

School-Level Participation in the SBP

According to FNS administrative data, approximately 54 percent of public NSLP schools offered the

SBP in SY 1991–92 — the time at which data were collected for the first SNDA study (USDA, FNS

1992). In the intervening years, school participation in the SBP has increased dramatically. Data from

the present study indicate that more than three-quarters of all public NSLP schools offered the SBP in 

SY 1998–99 (Exhibit 2.1). Participation was slightly higher among elementary schools than middle

schools or high schools (78% versus 75% and 73%, respectively). 

Ten percent of schools offered a non-USDA breakfast program or a morning snack program. These nonUSDA programs were more common in high schools (19%) than in middle schools (11%) or elementary

schools (7%). Overall, 20 percent of public NSLP schools offered neither the SBP nor any other

breakfast or morning snack program.

Percentage of Students Approved for Meal Benefits

Participation in the NSLP and SBP is open to all students in participating schools. Students from lowincome families are eligible to receive meals free of charge or at a reduced price. In SY 1998–99, 
Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 14

Exhibit 2.1

Types of Breakfast Programs Offered by Public NSLP Schools

Elementary Middle High All 

Schools Schools Schools Schools

Type of Breakfast Program Percentage of Schools

USDA School Breakfast Program 78% 75% 73% 76%

Non-USDA program 7 11 19 10 1

No breakfast program 21 21 19 20

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 385 325 326 1,036

Includes morning snack programs or any non-USDA programs that provide food to students in the morning after they 1

arrive at school.

Note: Percentages do not sum to 100 because some schools reported offering both the SBP and a morning snack program.

Source: Weighted tabulations of data from a mail survey of public school cafeteria managers, Fall 1998 - Spring 1999.
 Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 15

one-third of students enrolled in public NSLP schools were approved for free meal benefits (Exhibit 2.2). 

Another eight percent were approved for reduced-price meals. The percentage of students approved for

free and reduced-price meal benefits was higher in elementary schools (45%) than in middle schools

(38%) or high schools (30%).

Among schools that offered the SBP, the percentage of students approved for free meal benefits was

consistently greater than for NSLP schools overall. In SBP schools, 38 percent of students were

approved for free meal benefits. The percentage of students approved for reduced-price benefits — nine

percent — was comparable to the rate for all NSLP schools. As noted for all NSLP schools, the relative

rate of approval for free or reduced-price meal benefits in SBP schools was greater in elementary schools

(50%) than in middle schools (43%) or high schools (35%). 

Participation in the NSLP and SBP

On an average day during the target week for the study, approximately 60 percent of all students in NSLP

schools received an NSLP lunch (Exhibit 2.3). Participation varied by type of school, with participation

being highest in elementary schools — 67 percent, on average — and lowest in high schools (39%). 

Participation also varied by receipt of meal benefits. Students approved to receive free lunches

participated at a higher rate (80% overall) than either students approved to receive reduced-price lunches

(69%) or students who paid full price (48%). Within each meal benefit category, elementary school

students participated at higher rates than middle school or high school students. 

Overall rates of student participation were notably lower for the SBP; however, the patterns of

participation — the highest rates being in elementary schools and among students approved for free meal

benefits and lowest rates being in high schools and among students who pay full price — were similar to

the NSLP. In schools offering the SBP, 22 percent of all students received an SBP breakfast on an

average day during the target week. Participation was considerably higher (39%) among students

approved for free meals. This was especially true in elementary schools where, on average, 44 percent of

students approved for free meals received an SBP breakfast.

Distribution of Free, Reduced-Price and Paid Meals 

During a typical week in SY 1998–99, 42 percent of reimbursable lunches served in public NSLP

schools were served free of charge (Exhibit 2.4). Nine percent were served to students approved for

reduced-price meals and the remaining 49 percent were served to students who paid full price. The

distribution of meals served in the SBP was substantially different. The vast majority of breakfasts (71%

overall) were served free of charge and only one in five breakfasts was served at full price.
Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 16

Exhibit 2.2

Approval for NSLP and SBP Meal Benefits 

Elementary Middle High All

Schools Schools Schools Schools

Program/Type of Meal Benefit Average Percentage of Students

NSLP

Approved for free meals 36% 30% 24% 33%

Approved for reduced-price meals 9 8 6 8

Not approved for meal benefits 55 62 70 59 1

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 409 349 351 1,109

SBP

Approved for free meals 41% 35% 29% 38%

Approved for reduced-price meals 9 8 6 9

Not approved for meal benefits 49 57 65 53 1

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 332 258 263 853 

Students pay full price for NSLP or SBP meals. 1

Source: Weighted tabulations of data from a telephone interview with public SFA directors, Fall 1998 - Spring 1999.
Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 17

Exhibit 2.3

Student Participation in the NSLP and SBP During the Target Week 

Program/Benefit Eligibility Category Average Student Participation Rates

Elementary Middle High All

Schools Schools Schools Schools

NSLP

All students 67% 52% 39% 60%

Students approved for free lunches 86 75 62 80

Students approved for reduced-price lunches 76 63 52 69

Students not approved for meal benefits 56 39 31 48 1

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 375 316 319 1,010

SBP

All students 26% 16% 11% 22%

Students approved for free breakfasts 44 32 25 39

Students approved for reduced-price breakfasts 24 14 12 20

Students not approved for meal benefits 10 5 4 8

1

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 309 236 241 786

Students pay full price for NSLP or SBP meals. 1

Notes: Student participation rates reflect the average percentage of students in each category who actually received an NSLP

or SBP meal during the target week. Calculations are based on the average number of meals served during the target

week, enrollment, and the number of students approved for free or reduced-price meals.

Source: Weighted tabulations of data from telephone interviews with public SFA directors (enrollment and number of students

approved for meal benefits) and a mail survey of public school cafeteria managers (number and type of meals served

during the target week), Fall 1998 - Spring 1999. Exhibit includes only schools that appeared in both data sets.
Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 18

Exhibit 2.4

Distribution of Free, Reduced-Price and Full-Price Meals During the Target Week

Elementary Middle High All

Schools Schools Schools Schools

Program/Type of Meal Average Percentage of Daily Meals

NSLP

Free lunches 42% 44% 39% 42%

Reduced-price lunches 10 10 7 9

Full-price lunches 49 47 53 49

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 385 325 326 1,036

SBP

Free breakfasts 71% 74% 68% 71%

Reduced-price breakfasts 9 8 8 9

Full-price breakfasts 20 17 25 20

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 317 245 246 808

Note: Due to rounding, percentages may not sum to 100.

Source: Weighted tabulations of data from a mail survey of public school cafeteria managers, Fall 1998 - Spring 1999.
1 A small number of SFA directors were able to definitively answer no to the question about use of a percentage markup, but

were not sure about use of an actual pricing method.

2 Under a special assistance certification and reimbursement provision (provision 2) (7CFR245.9), schools serve meals free

of charge to all students provided that non-Federal resources are used to cover the difference between the cost of meals

served and the Federal reimbursement earned. Schools operating under this provision are not required to certify students for

meal benefits for up to three years after an initial assessment and claim reimbursement based on approved claiming

percentages. 

3 When zeros are excluded from calculation of average prices, means are roughly $0.01 higher. 

 Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 19

Meal Prices

SFA directors were asked about strategies used to set prices for USDA-reimbursable meals. Two

specific strategies — actual pricing method and food cost percentage markup — were asked about

directly. SFA directors were also asked to describe any other pricing methods they used. Sixty percent of

SFA directors reported using an actual pricing method to determine prices charged for reimbursable

meals (Exhibit 2.5). Actual pricing involves determination of all costs incurred in preparing meals,

including both food costs and labor costs. Use of a food cost percentage markup was much less common,

reported by only 16 percent of SFA directors. 

Five percent of SFA directors reported using other pricing methods. The only single method reported by

more than one percent of respondents (2%), however, was a market comparison, or setting prices based

on what schools in surrounding districts are charging. Roughly 15 percent of SFA directors were unable

to answer questions about meal pricing strategies. Reasons for lack of knowledge included lack of 1

involvement (e.g., prices are set by school board or food service management company) and being new to

the job. 

SFA directors were also asked whether meal price adjustments were implemented only when needed to

offset financial losses. Responses indicate that about half of the SFAs offering the NSLP followed such

a policy in SY 1998–99. Another 40 percent of SFAs did not limit price adjustments in this way. The

policy for resetting meal prices was unclear in 10 percent of SFAs. 

NSLP Meal Prices

Federal regulations stipulate that schools may charge no more than $0.40 for a reduced-price lunch. No

limitations are set on prices for full-price meals. In SY 1998–99, the average price for a reduced-price

lunch was $0.38, with no variation by type of school (Exhibit 2.6). A small number of schools (a total

of 18 in the unweighted sample) served lunches free of charge to students approved for reduced-price

meals. Among schools that charged for reduced-price lunches, the minimum price was $0.18 and the 2

maximum was the federally set maximum of $0.40. Because the federally set maximum for a reduced- 3

price lunch has not changed over the years, the average price charged for a reduced-price lunch has

remained essentially constant since the SNDA-I study. 

The average price charged for a standard full-price lunch in SY 1998–99, across all school types, was

$1.35. Average prices were $0.14 higher in middle schools and high schools than in elementary schools

($1.44 versus $1.30). A few schools (three in the unweighted sample) served lunches free of charge to all 
Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 20

Exhibit 2.5 

Methods Used to Set Prices for USDA-Reimbursable Meals

Methods of SFAs

Percentage

Actual pricing method1

Yes 60%

No 26

Don’t know 15

Food cost percentage markup2

Yes 16

No 70

Don’t know 13

Reset prices only to offset financial loss

Yes 51

No 40

Don’t know 10

Number of SFAs (Unweighted) 430

Prices are determined by considering all costs of buying, producing, and serving meals. 1

Prices are determined by adding the same percentage markup to every food item. 2

Notes: One percent of SFAs provide all meals free of charge.

Sections may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.

Source: Weighted tabulations of data from a telephone interview with public SFA directors, Fall 1998 - Spring 1999.
Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 21

Exhibit 2.6 

Average Prices for Reduced-Price and Full-Price Lunches

Type of Lunch Schools Schools Schools Schools

Elementary Middle High All 

Price for Reduced-Price Lunches

Mean $0.38 $0.38 $0.38 $0.38

Minimum (excluding zeroes) 0.18 0.20 0.18 0.18

Maximum 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40

Price for Standard Full-Price Lunch

Mean $1.30 $1.44 $1.44 $1.35

Minimum (excluding zeroes) 0.50 0.65 0.50 0.50

Maximum 2.10 2.35 2.35 2.35

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 369 317 320 1,006

Notes: Date based on schools that reported serving reduced-price or paid lunches (some schools served only free lunches) and

provided information on meal prices. 

Two percent of schools served lunches free of charge to students who were approved for reduced-price meal benefits. 

Less than one percent of schools served lunches free of charge to all students. Such meals were reported as reducedprice or full-price, in keeping with program regulations, but the price charged to students was reported as zero.

Source: Weighted tabulations of data from a mail survey of public school cafeteria managers, Fall 1998 - Spring 1999.
4 Under a special assistance certification and reimbursement provision (provision 2) (7CFR245.9), schools serve meals free

of charge to all students provided that non-Federal resources are used to cover the difference between the cost of meals

served and the Federal reimbursement earned. Schools operating under this provision are not required to certify students for

meal benefits for up to three years after an initial assessment and claim reimbursement based on approved claiming

percentages.

5 When zeros are excluded from calculation of average prices, means are roughly $0.01 higher. 

 Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 22

students, including students who were not eligible for free or reduced-price meal benefits. Excluding 4

these schools, the minimum price for a standard full-price lunch was $0.50 and the maximum was $2.35.5

Overall, prices charged for full-price lunches have increased about 18 percent since SY 1991–92 ($1.35

versus $1.14). 

A large majority of cafeteria managers (87%) reported use of a single price for full-price lunches (Exhibit

2.7). However, eight percent of cafeteria managers reported offering some full-price lunches at a price

higher than the standard price and six percent reported offering some full-price lunches at a price lower

than the standard price. Use of alternative prices for full-price lunches was most common in high

schools. 

 

Among schools that reported use of higher prices for some full-price lunches, the most common reason

was use of a higher price for older students; however, this policy was largely limited to elementary

schools. Among high schools, higher prices were most commonly used for special entrees, special

sandwiches or pizza. In addition, some high schools and middle schools charged higher prices for salad

bars or other food bars and for larger portions. Relative to the basic or standard full-price lunch, the

average price increment for higher-priced lunches was $0.17 for elementary schools, $0.39 for middle

schools and $0.56 for high schools. 

The principal reason for use of a lower price for some full-price lunches was, in all types of schools, use

of weekly or monthly discounts. On average, lower-priced lunches cost $0.13 less than a standard fullprice lunch. The size of the price differential varied by school type and ranged from -$0.11 for

elementary schools to -$0.18 for high schools. 

Relationship Between Meal Price and Participation Rates Among Full-Price Students

Exhibit 2.8 shows NSLP participation rates among students not approved for free or reduced-price meal

benefits (i.e., students who pay full price) based on the standard price charged for a full-price lunch. As

shown, participation rates in all types of schools were inversely related to meal price. The decrease in

participation with increase in meal price was most pronounced in elementary schools, where there was a

23-percentage-point difference in average full-price participation in schools with the lowest and highest

meal prices. The differences for middle schools and high schools were 14 and 18 percentage points,

respectively. 

While these data document a negative relationship between meal price and student participation, they do

not prove that higher meal prices, in and of themselves, cause lower rates of participation among

students who pay full price for NSLP meals. Many other factors, including the type of community (rural,

urban, suburban), geographic location, the relative wealth of the community, student acceptance of NSLP

meals and the availability of a la carte foods may affect both student participation rates and meal prices. 
Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 23

Exhibit 2.7 

Use of Multiple Prices for Full-Price Lunches 

Elementary Middle High All 

Schools Schools Schools Schools

Percentage of Schools

Use of Multiple Prices for Full-Price Lunches

Use one price for all full-price lunches 87% 91% 81% 87%

Use one or more higher prices 8 5 10 8

Use one or more lower prices 5 4 9 6

Reasons for Higher Prices1

Special entree, sandwich, or pizza 1 29 42 14

Salad bar or other food bar 7 31 26 14

Larger portions 13 34 21 17

Higher prices for higher grades 59 21 0 40

Other 21 5 23 19

Mean difference in price +$0.17 +$0.39 +$0.56 +$0.29

Reasons for Lower Prices1

Monthly/weekly discounts 75 93 63 74

Lower prices for lower grades 9 2 19 11

Other 16 5 25 17

Mean difference in price -$0.11 -$0.08 -$0.18 -$0.13

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 369 317 320 1,006

Base sample includes only schools that reported using higher (or lower) meal prices. Due to small sample sizes, results must 1

be interpreted with caution.

Notes: Exhibit includes only schools that reported serving full-price meals and provided information on meal prices.

Column sections may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding and because respondents could provide more than

one reason for higher/lower prices.

Source: Weighted tabulations of data from a mail survey of public school cafeteria managers, Fall 1998 - Spring 1999. 
Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 24

Exhibit 2.8

Relationship Between Meal Price and Student Participation Rates

for Full-Price Lunches

School Level/Price of Full-Price Lunch Participation Rate

Average Full-Price Student

Elementary Schools

$1.05 or less 65%

$1.10 - $1.25 64

$1.30 - $1.45 57

$1.50 - $2.10 42

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 343

Middle Schools

$1.20 or less 46%

$1.25 - $1.45 48

$1.50 - $1.55 33

$1.60 - $2.35 32

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 288

High Schools

$1.20 or less 39%

$1.25 - $1.45 34

$1.50 - $1.55 30

$1.60 - $2.35 21

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 300

All Schools

$1.20 or less 61%

$1.25 - $1.45 53

$1.50 - $1.55 40

$1.60 - $2.35 32

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 931

Source: Weighted tabulations of data from a telephone interview with public SFA directors (participation rates) and a mail

survey of public school cafeteria managers (meal prices), Fall 1998 - Spring 1999. Exhibit includes only schools that

appeared in both data sets.
6 Under a special assistance certification and reimbursement provision (provision 2) (7CFR245.9), schools may elect to serve

meals free of charge to all students provided that non-Federal resources are used to cover the cost of meals served to

ineligible children. Schools operating under this provision are not required to certify students for meal benefits for up to

three years after an initial assessment and claim reimbursement based on approved claiming percentages. 

 Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 25

SBP Meal Prices

Federal regulations set the maximum price for a reduced-price breakfast at $0.30. In SY 1998–99, the

average price charged for a reduced-price breakfast was $0.28, with little variation across school types

(Exhibit 2.9). Four percent of SBP schools (24 schools in the unweighted sample) reportedly served

breakfasts free of charge to students approved for reduced-price meals. Among schools that charged for 6

reduced-price breakfasts, the minimum price was $0.05 and the maximum was $0.30. The average price

charged for a reduced-price breakfast has remained virtually unchanged since SY 1991–92. 

The average price charged for a full-price breakfast was $0.72 overall, with the average for elementary

schools being somewhat lower ($0.70) and the average for middle and high schools somewhat higher

($0.75-$0.76). One percent of SBP schools (eight schools in the unweighted sample) served breakfasts

free of charge to all students, including those not eligible for meal benefits. Excluding these schools, the 6

minimum charge for a full-price breakfast was $0.25 and the maximum was $1.55. 

In comparison to prices charged in SY 1991–92, the average price for a full-price breakfast in SY

1998–99 was about 20 percent higher ($0.72 versus $0.60). The relative size of the increase was

greatest for middle schools and high schools (27%-32%) and lowest for elementary schools (15%).

Use of multiple prices for full-price breakfasts was rare, reported by less than one percent of all schools.

Menu Planning Practices

As discussed in Chapter One, USDA has focused considerable attention in recent years on the nutritional

quality of meals served in the NSLP and SBP. The Department’s commitment to incorporating the

Dietary Guidelines for Americans has been accompanied by a concerted effort to expand menu planning

options and to provide schools with technical assistance and needed resources. The SNDA-II study

included a series of questions designed to provide Department officials with an up-to-date picture (SY

1998–99) of menu planning practices in NSLP schools. This section summarizes findings from these

questions. 

Responsibility for Menu Planning

In almost two-thirds (64%) of all NSLP schools, lunch menus were planned entirely at the district level

(Exhibit 2.10). In another 20 percent of schools, school-level staff members were solely responsible for

planning their own lunch menus. Lunch menus for the remaining 16 percent of schools were planned at

an associated off-site kitchen (i.e., a base or central kitchen that services the school [6%]; a combination

of SFA, school and/or off-site kitchen staff [7%]; or some other source, including, but not limited to,

food service management companies [FSMCs] [3%]).
Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 26

Exhibit 2.9

SBP Meal Prices

Type of Breakfast Schools Schools Schools Schools

Elementary Middle High All 

Price for Reduced-Price Breakfast

Mean $0.28 $0.27 $0.27 $0.28

Minimum (excluding zeros) 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

Maximum 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30

Price for Full-Price Breakfast

Mean $0.70 $0.76 $0.75 $0.72

Minimum (excluding zeros) 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25

Maximum 1.54 1.55 1.55 1.55

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 293 232 234 759

Notes: Exhibit includes only schools that reported serving reduced-price or full-price breakfasts (some schools served only

free breakfasts) and that provided data on meal prices. 

Four percent of schools served breakfasts free of charge to students who are certified for reduced-price meal benefits. 

One percent served breakfasts free of charge to all students, including those who are not certified for free meal

benefits. Such meals were reported as reduced-price or full-price, in keeping with program regulations, but the price

charged to students was zero.

Approximately one percent of schools reported using more than one price for full-price breakfasts. 

Source: Weighted tabulations of data from a mail survey of public school cafeteria managers, Fall 1998 - Spring 1999.
 Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 27

The prevalence of fully centralized district-level menu planning varied slightly by type of school. 

Specifically, the proportion of high schools in which lunch menus were planned entirely at the district

level was somewhat lower than for middle schools or elementary schools (60% versus 64% and 69%,

respectively). In more than a quarter of NSLP high schools (29%), lunch menus were planned entirely at

the school level. The same was true for only 19 percent of elementary schools and 14 percent of middle

schools. The general pattern of menu planning responsibility was similar for breakfast menus.

Availability and Use of Menu Planning Resources

SFA directors were asked about the use of specific menu planning resources available from USDA and

about the availability and use of other resources at the State and local level. USDA has provided all

SFAs with two sets of recipes that are specifically designed to promote consistency with the Dietary

Guidelines for Americans. This includes an updated version of a long-standing resource — USDA’s

Quantity Recipes for School Food Service — as well as USDA’s New School Lunch and Breakfast

Recipes . . . A Tool Kit for Healthy School Meals, a resource developed under USDA’s Team Nutrition

initiative. The data indicate that schools are using both of these resources (Exhibit 2.11). According to

SFA directors, SY 1998–99 menus planned for roughly nine out of 10 NSLP schools used the updated

Quantity Recipes for School Food Service. In addition, menus for more than three-quarters of all

schools were planned using the Tool Kit for Healthy School Meals. There was little variation in reported

use of these resources across school types. 

Menus planned in more than 90 percent of all schools used nutrition information provided by State Child

Nutrition (CN) agencies (Exhibit 2.11). SFA directors for the six percent of schools where such

information was not utilized indicated that the State CN office had not provided nutrition information. 

Menu planners in two-thirds of all schools had access to a computer-based system for menu planning

(Exhibit 2.11). Menu planners in about half of all schools actually used a computerized system to

analyze the nutrient content of menus. As discussed in a subsequent section, use of a computerized

system to analyze nutrient content of planned menus was not limited to schools where NSMP or ANSMP

were in use. Menu planners for non-NSMP/ANSMP schools may be using nutrient analysis software to

monitor the nutrient content of menus planned using one of the food-based menu planning options (menu

planning options used in NSLP schools are discussed in the next section). 

Finally, 58 percent of all NSLP schools used a nutrition specialist to plan menus in SY 1998–99. Thirtyone percent of schools reported using a nutritionist who was not a registered dietitian; 15 percent used a

registered dietitian; and 12 percent reported using both a nutritionist and a registered dietitian. 

Menu Planning Options Selected by Schools

As described in Chapter One, five different menu planning options are available to schools participating

in the NSLP: the traditional food-based menu planning system, the enhanced food-based system, NSMP,

ANSMP and “any reasonable approach.” 
Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 28

Exhibit 2.10

Responsibility for Menu Planning 

Elementary Middle High All 

Schools Schools Schools Schools

Menu Type/Locus of Responsibility Percentage of Schools

Lunch Menus

SFA 64% 69% 60% 64%

School 19 14 29 20

Off-site kitchen 8 6 1 6

Combination of above 6 10 8 7

Other/food service management company 3 2 2 3

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 409 349 351 1,109

Breakfast Menus

SFA 65% 71% 58% 65%

School 20 13 31 21

Off-site kitchen 6 4 1 5

Combination of above 8 10 8 8

Other/food service management company 2 2 1 2

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 332 258 263 853

Note: Columns may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.

Source: Weighted tabulations of data from a telephone interview with public SFA directors, Fall 1998 - Spring 1999.
Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 29

Exhibit 2.11

Availability and Use of Menu Planning Resources

Elementary Middle High All 

Schools Schools Schools Schools

Menu Planning Resource Percentage of Schools 

USDA Recipes

Updated Quantity Recipes for School Food 89% 89% 91% 89%

Service

New School Lunch and Breakfast Recipes 76 77 79 77

from A Tool Kit for Healthy School Meals

Nutrition Information Provided by State

Child Nutrition Agency

Available and used for menu planning 95 93 92 94

Not available 5 7 8 6

Computer-Based Menu Planning System

Available 65 69 68 66

Used for nutrient analysis 51 52 48 51

Nutrition Specialist Employed to Plan

Menus

None 43 41 43 42

Nutritionist (not R.D.) 30 32 31 31

Registered dietitian (R.D.) 15 15 17 15

Both nutritionist and R.D. 13 12 9 12

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 409 349 351 1,109

Note: Column sections may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.

Source: Weighted tabulations of data from a telephone interview with public SFA directors, Fall 1998 - Spring 1999.
7 Because another USDA-sponsored study was collecting data on SMI implementation at the time the SNDA-II data were

being collected, SNDA-II instruments did not include detailed questions about the process of NSMP/ANSMP

implementation. 

 Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 30

In SY 1998–99, the food-based menu planning systems were, by far, more common than any of the other

menu planning options. Of these, the traditional food-based system — used by 41 percent of all schools

— was the leading choice (Exhibit 2.12). Another 28 percent of schools used the enhanced food-based

system, bringing the total percentage of schools that used a food-based menu planning approach to 69

percent.

The nutrient-based menu planning options were used by 27 percent of all schools. Most of these schools

used NSMP. Use of ANSMP was rare — only three percent of all schools reported this option. A small

proportion of schools (4%) reported using some other approach to menu planning. These included statedesigned systems (Mississippi, West Virginia, California) or some variation on one of the food-based

meal patterns. 

It is important to note that reported use of NSMP or ANSMP does not necessarily imply that the

computer-based menu planning system was fully implemented at the time data were collected. Previous

research has indicated that implementation of NSMP can be a lengthy and challenging process. In a

USDA-sponsored demonstration of NSMP, 16 SFAs took anywhere from three to 33 months to

implement NSMP, with an average time line of 19 months (Fox 1998).7

To gain some insight into characteristics that might influence the choice of menu planning system, data

on menu planning options were cross-tabulated with data on selected school characteristics (Exhibit

2.13). In reviewing these data, it is important to recognize several limitations. First, unweighted sample

sizes for some cells are small (less than 50 cases). Because of the extremely small sample of ANSMP

schools (23 schools in the entire sample), NSMP and ANSMP schools were combined for this analysis. 

Data for the schools that used “other reasonable approaches” are reported separately, for the sake of

completeness, but should be interpreted with extreme caution because of the small sample size (38

schools). Second, several of the tabulated characteristics are highly correlated with one another. For

example, urban schools tend to have a higher percentage of low-income students than either rural or

suburban schools. Thus, the available data do not permit an analysis of causal relationships. 

Despite these limitations, the data reveal some interesting patterns regarding use of the various menu

planning options, as summarized below.

• Choice of menu planning system varied by region. Compared to the national distribution of

menu planning systems, use of NSMP/ANSMP was disproportionately higher and use of the

traditional food-based menu planning system was disproportionately lower in the Mountain

Plains and Western regions. In contrast, schools in the Southwest region overwhelmingly

used the traditional food-based system. These trends were noted in a majority of states in

each region. 

• Use of alternative menu planning approaches was most common in the Western region. 

Many of these schools were in California and may have been using the state-developed 

SHAPE program, an early version of NSMP. 
Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 31

Exhibit 2.12 

Menu Planning Options Used for NSLP Menus

Elementary Middle High All 

Schools Schools Schools Schools

Menu Planning Option Percentage of Schools

Traditional food-based meal pattern 41% 41% 40% 41%

Enhanced food-based menu system 28 30 29 28

Nutrient Standard Menu Planning (NSMP) 25 24 24 24

Assisted Nutrient Standard Menu Planning

(ANSMP) 3 2 3 3

Other approach 4 3 5 4

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 409 349 351 1,109

Note: Columns may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.

Source: Weighted tabulations of data from a telephone interview with public SFA directors, Fall 1998 - Spring 1999.
Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 32

Exhibit 2.13 

Menu Planning Options by Selected School Characteristics

Characteristic

NSMP/ Enhanced Traditional All 

ANSMP Food-Based Food-Based Other Options

Percentage of Schools

All Schools 27% 28% 41% 4% 100%

FNS Region

Mid-Atlantic 17 34 49 <1 100

Mountain Plains 49 35 14 2 100

Midwest 20 35 41 4 100

Northeast 35 20 44 1 100

Southeast 19 34 41 6 100

Southwest 20 6 74 0 100

Western 37 29 23 11 100

Community Type

Urban 33 26 40 2 100

Suburban 23 32 41 4 100

Rural 30 23 41 6 100

Percent of Students Approved for Free Meals

25 percent or less 29 34 36 1 100

26-50 percent 28 20 45 7 100

51-74 percent 22 28 44 7 100

75 percent or more 20 25 50 5 100

Mean percentage 30 30 36 42 33

Menu Planner Has Access to a Computer-Based System

Yes 37 25 34 4 100

No 9 34 53 4 100 1

Registered Dietitian or Nutritionist Plans Menus

Yes 27 29 40 4 100

No 27 27 41 4 100
Exhibit 2.13

(continued)

Characteristic

NSMP/ Enhanced Traditional All 

ANSMP Food-Based Food-Based Other Options

Percentage of Schools

Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 33

Uses Food Service Management Company

Yes 51 15 34 1 100

No 24 30 42 5 100

Number of Schools

(Unweighted) 294 333 444 38 1,109

The nine percent of NSMP/ANSMP schools that reported that menu planners did not have access to a computer were either 1

using ANSMP or were schools in districts that use decentralized menu planning and centralized nutrient analysis. SFA

directors who provided information indicated that these menu planners did not have access to a computer at the local level and

that nutrient analysis was done at the district level. 

Note: No statistical tests were performed to assess the significance of observed differences.

Rows may not sum to exactly 100 percent because of rounding.

Source: Weighted tabulations of data from a telephone interview with public SFA directors and a mail survey of public school

cafeteria managers (data on meal counts needed to calculate participation rates), Fall 1998 - Spring 1999.
 Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 34

• Choice of menu planning system varied somewhat by type of community. Among urban

schools, use of NSMP and ANSMP was notably higher than the national average. The same

is true for the enhanced food-based system among suburban schools. Use of the enhanced

food-based system was disproportionately lower among rural schools. 

• Choice of menu planning system varied by relative level of affluence. Use of the traditional

menu planning system was disproportionately higher and use of NSMP/ANSMP was

disproportionately lower among the lowest-income schools — those with 75 percent or more

of students approved for free or reduced-price meals. The most affluent schools — those

with no more than 25 percent of students approved for free-meal benefits — used the

enhanced food-based menu system more frequently than schools with greater concentration

of low-income students. 

• Use of NSMP/ANSMP was notably greater among schools that had access to a computer

system (at the time data were collected) than among schools that did not have such access. 

However, access to a computer system did not guarantee use of NSMP/ANSMP. More than

60 percent of schools with reported access to a computerized menu planning system were

not using NSMP/ANSMP.

• The use of a registered dietitian or nutritionist to plan menus had no apparent association

with menu planning option.

• Schools that used FSMCs (12 percent of all schools) used NSMP/ANSMP more often than

schools that did not use FSMCs.

Nutrient Analysis Procedures In Schools Using NSMP and ANSMP 

For schools in which menus were planned using NSMP or ANSMP, SFA directors provided additional

information on selected aspects of the procedures used in conducting nutrient analyses. Information was

obtained on the use of combined analyses for breakfast and lunch menus, use of weighted nutrient

analyses, the source of data for weighted nutrient analyses and the age/grade groupings used in defining

reference nutrient standards. 

Analysis of Breakfast and Lunch Menus

Federal regulations permit schools implementing NSMP or ANSMP to analyze the nutrient content of

lunch and breakfast menus separately or to combine them. The rationale for allowing a combined

analysis is that the Dietary Guidelines are intended to apply to total daily consumption rather than to

individual meals. Regardless, schools are required to weight the nutrient contribution from each meal

according to levels of participation in each program.

In SY 1998–99, schools that conducted analyses of both breakfast and lunch menus were more likely to

analyze each meal separately than to complete a combined analysis (Exhibit 2.14). Among schools using

NSMP or ANSMP, 44 percent completed separate analyses for breakfast and lunch menus and 28

percent completed a combined analysis (Exhibit 2.14). The combined analysis was most common in

middle schools (42%) and least common in elementary schools (25%). 
Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 35

Exhibit 2.14 

Menu Analysis Procedures Adopted by Schools Using NSMP or ANSMP

Menu Analysis Procedure Percentage of NSMP/ANSMP Schools

Elementary Middle High All 

Schools Schools Schools Schools

Analysis of Breakfast and Lunch Menus

Analyze breakfast and lunch separately 43% 44% 50% 44%

Complete one combined analysis for 25 42 30 28

 breakfast and lunch 

Analyze lunch only 25 13 18 22

Analyze breakfast only 7 1 1 5

Use Weighted Nutrient Analysis

Yes 72% 75% 78% 74%

No 28 25 22 26

Source of Data Used for Weighted

Nutrient Analysis1

Projected servings 67% 64% 69% 67%

Both actual and projected servings 31 21 19 27

Actual servings 3 15 11 6

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 113 92 89 294

Base sample includes only schools that perform a weighted nutrient analysis. 1

Notes: Exhibit includes only schools that use NSMP or ANSMP.

Column sections may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.

Source: Weighted tabulations of data from telephone interviews with public SFA directors, Fall 1998 - Spring 1999.
 Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 36

Use of Weighted Nutrient Analysis

NSMP and ANSMP are designed around use of a weighted nutrient analysis. A weighted analysis takes

into account the number and types of foods actually served to students, giving greater weight to the foods

that are served more frequently. As such, results of a weighted nutrient analysis provide a picture of the

average meal served to or selected by students. Regulations require that all schools maintain meal

production records to provide the information on food selection patterns needed for a weighted analysis. 

An unweighted analysis does not consider student selection patterns. The analysis constitutes a simple

average of all foods offered to students. An unweighted nutrient analysis provides an assessment of the

average meal offered to students. Prior to SMI, assessments of the nutrient content of school meals were

typically based on unweighted analyses.

During the time data were being collected for this study, regulations were changed to permit use of an

unweighted analysis, through SY 2003, for SFAs or schools that obtain a waiver from their State agency

(P.L. 105-336). Because this change was implemented after the study was underway, data on the use of

waivers were not collected.

In SY 1998–99, roughly three-quarters of the schools reporting use of NSMP or ANSMP were using

weighted analyses (Exhibit 2.14). The remainder were conducting unweighted analyses, presumably

under a waiver from their State agency. Schools may have been using unweighted rather than weighted

analyses because they were still in early stages of NSMP/ANSMP implementation. 

Schools reported using a variety of approaches to incorporate information on student food selection

patterns into their weighted nutrient analyses. Two-thirds of the NSMP/ANSMP schools that performed

weighted analysis reported that their analyses were based on projections of the numbers of servings of

each food to be served. Another 27 percent of schools reported using projections as well as actual

production information (i.e., records of the number of portions actually served). This practice was more

common in elementary schools (31%) than in either middle schools (21%) or high schools (19%). 

Finally, a relatively small percentage of schools (6% overall) indicated that their weighted analyses were

based entirely on actual meal production data. This approach was largely used by middle schools and

high schools and was rarely used in elementary schools.

Age/Grade Grouping Used in Nutrient Analysis

Schools using NSMP or ANSMP are afforded several options for developing lunch and breakfast menus

that meet nutrient requirements for students of different ages. The nutrition standards against which

planned menus are compared (nutrient content averaged over a week) may be based on one of the

following:

• USDA-defined age groups: 3-6 years; 7-10 years; 11-13 years; and 14 years and older.

• USDA-defined grade groups: preschool; kindergarten (K) to grade 6; and grades 7-12. 

• Customized age or grade groups that match the configuration of the school. USDA

guidance suggests that elementary schools with large age/grade spans perform more than one

analysis, breaking the analysis at or around grade 6. 
 Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 37

The age or grade group defined by a school dictates the calorie and nutrition standards for meals served

in that school (Appendix E describes how NSMP software calculates customized RDAs). 

Based on SFA director reports, more than three-quarters of all schools using NSMP or ANSMP in SY

1998–99 used grade groups rather than age groups to define nutrition standards (Exhibit 2.15). 

Moreover, most schools used customized grade or age groups rather than one of the USDA-defined

groups. This was true for elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools. 

Among elementary schools using NSMP or ANSMP, one-fifth used the USDA-defined grade group of

grades K-6 to define nutrition standards. Another seven percent used the USDA-defined age group of

ages 7-10. The remaining elementary schools used a customized grade or age group. The most common

was the slightly narrower grade group of K-5 (29%). Twenty percent of elementary schools used some

other grade span that more closely matched their own grade configuration and nine percent used a

customized age span. A total of three percent of elementary schools reported analyzing menus using

more than one age or grade group to accurately reflect differing nutritional needs of older and younger

students.

The most common age/grade grouping used in analyzing middle school menus was the customized 

grouping of grades 6-8 (52%). This is consistent with the most common middle school grade

configuration. The customized grouping of grades 7 and 8 was a distant second, reported by 16 percent

of all middle schools using NSMP or ANSMP. None of the middle schools in the sample reported using

the USDA-defined grade grouping of grades 7-12. Eleven percent of middle schools used the USDAdefined age group of ages 11-13.

Finally, among high schools using NSMP or ANSMP, the most common age/grade group used in

analyzing menus was the customized grouping of grades 9-12. This grouping, used by roughly six out of

10 NSMP/ANSMP high schools, is consistent with the most common grade configuration for high

schools. The USDA-defined group of grades 7-12 was used in 15 percent of high schools. Twelve

percent of high schools used the USDA-defined age group of 14 years and older.

Incorporating the Dietary Guidelines for Americans into School

Meals and Perceived Effects on Acceptability and Food Waste 

Since 1995 and the launch of SMI, all SFAs have been expected to make changes, as needed, in menu

planning, food purchasing and food preparation practices to promote consistency with the Dietary

Guidelines. Cafeteria managers have varying levels of responsibility for designing and implementing

these changes, depending on how an SFA is organized, i.e., the level of local versus centralized planning

and decision making. Regardless of their level of direct involvement in planning, cafeteria managers are

on the front lines in implementing change and thereby have a unique perspective on how well any given

change is accepted by students. 

According to cafeteria managers, 87 percent of all NSLP schools had made some changes in lunch menus

prior to or during SY 1998–99 in order to incorporate the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (Exhibit 
Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 38

Exhibit 2.15

Grade/Age Groupings Used by NSMP and ANSMP Schools

 in Conducting Nutrient Analyses

School Level/Groupings Used NSMP/ANSMP Schools

Percentage of

Elementary Schools

Type of Grouping Used

Grade groups 82%

Age groups 18

Specific Grade/Age Groups Used

Grades K - 5 29

Grades K - 6 20 1

Other grade span 20

Other age span 9

Ages 7 - 10 7

1

Grades 1 - 6 6

Two different age groups 2

2

Two different grade groups 1

2

One analysis for grades K-8, K-12, or other large grade span 8

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 113

Middle Schools

Type of Grouping Used

Grade groups 76%

Age groups 24

Specific Grade/Age Groups Used

Grades 6 - 8 52

Grades 7 - 8 16

Ages 11 - 13 11 1

Other grade span 8
Exhibit 2.15

(continued)

School Level/Groupings Used NSMP/ANSMP Schools

Percentage of

Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 39

Middle Schools (con’t)

Ages 11 - 14 6

Other age span 5

Ages 14 and above 2

1

Grades 7 - 12 0

1

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 92

High Schools

Type of Grouping Used

Grade groups 84%

Age groups 16

Specific Grade/Age Groups Used

Grades 9 - 12 59

Grades 7 - 12 15 1

Ages 14 and above 12 1

Other grade span 5

Grades 10 - 12 4

Other age span 4

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 89

USDA-defined grade/age grouping. 1

School completes two separate analyses for younger and older elementary school children. 2

Notes: Exhibit includes only schools that used NSMP or ANSMP to plan menus.

Column sections may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.

Source: Weighted tabulations of data from telephone interviews with public SFA directors, Fall 1998 - Spring 1999.
 Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 40

2.16). Managers in schools where such changes had been made were asked whether the changes had

influenced the acceptability of school lunches. 

Results indicate that, in more than eight out of 10 schools, attempts to incorporate the Dietary

Guidelines into lunch menus had neutral or positive effects on meal acceptability. Forty-three percent of

managers in schools where changes had been made to incorporate the Dietary Guidelines reported that

students liked the new lunches about the same as the old lunches. A roughly equivalent proportion

(38%) indicated that students liked the new lunches somewhat better or much better than the old lunches. 

A much smaller percentage of managers (14%) believed that incorporation of the Dietary Guidelines

reduced meal acceptability.

The general pattern of responses was comparable across school types. However, compared to elementary

school and middle school managers, fewer high school managers reported a positive effect (35% versus

39-40%) and a greater percentage reported no effect or a negative effect (61% versus 55-56%). 

Exhibit 2.17 tabulates responses by menu planning option. Results were generally comparable to those

reported above and indicate a neutral to positive effect in most schools regardless of the menu planning

method used. However, managers in schools using the traditional food-based menu planning system

were more likely than other managers to report that the Dietary Guidelines had reduced the acceptability

of school lunches. Twenty percent of managers in schools using the traditional food-based system

believed that students liked the new lunches somewhat less or much less than the old lunches, compared

to 11 percent of managers in schools using the enhanced food-based system or one of the two nutrientbased menu planning options. This result may indicate that it is more difficult to incorporate the Dietary

Guidelines successfully using the traditional food-based menu planning system. It may also reflect a

somewhat more negative attitude toward change among managers who are continuing to use the

traditional system. 

Cafeteria managers were also asked specifically about the impact of Dietary Guidelines changes on the

amount of food wasted at lunch. With the exception of cooked vegetables (other than French fries),

neutral or positive effects (i.e., that students were wasting less food than they had before menus were

changed to incorporate the Dietary Guidelines) were reported by roughly 85 to 90 percent of managers

(Exhibit 2.18). Moreover, for every food group queried, 25 to 40 percent of cafeteria managers, overall,

reported reduced food waste. 

In general, fewer than 10 percent of cafeteria managers reported that students were wasting more food

than they had wasted prior to implementation of Dietary Guidelines changes. An exception to this rule

was noted for cooked vegetables (other than French fries). Nineteen percent of managers reported

increased waste of cooked vegetables.

For some food groups, perceptions about the impact of Dietary Guidelines changes on food waste at

lunch varied by type of school. Middle school and high school managers reported an increase in the

amount of milk wasted more often than elementary school managers. In contrast, elementary school

managers reported increased waste of main dishes and breads and decreased waste of desserts more often

than middle school managers or high school managers. 
Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 41

Exhibit 2.16

Percentage of Schools Reporting Changes in Lunch Menus to Incorporate 

the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and Perceived Effect on Meal Acceptability

Elementary Middle High All 

Schools Schools Schools Schools

Percentage of Schools

Changes Made in Lunch Menus to Incorporate the Dietary Guidelines for Americans

Yes 86% 87% 87% 87%

No 14 13 13 14

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 385 325 326 1,036

Perceived Effect of Changes on Acceptability of Lunches1

Students like new lunches much better 

than old lunches 16% 14% 13% 15%

Students like new lunches somewhat 

better than old lunches 23 26 22 23

Students like new lunches about the same

 as old lunches 42 42 44 43

Students like new lunches somewhat less

 than old lunches 13 11 14 13

Students like new lunches much less than

 old lunches 1 2 3 1

Don’t know 5 5 4 5

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 330 280 285 895

Base sample includes only schools where the respondent indicated that changes had been made in lunch menus to incorporate 1

the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

Note: Columns may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.

Source: Weighted tabulations of data from a mail survey of public school cafeteria managers, Fall 1998 - Spring 1999.
Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 42

Exhibit 2.17 

Percentage of Schools Reporting Changes in Lunch Menus to Incorporate

 the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, by Menu Planning Option,

and Perceived Effect on Meal Acceptability

NSMP/ Enhanced Traditional All 

ANSMP Food-Based Food-Based Schools

Percentage of Schools

Changes Made in Lunch Menus to Incorporate the Dietary Guidelines for Americans

Yes 86% 90% 83% 87%

No 14 10 17 14

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 268 314 418 1,036

Perceived Effect of Changes on Acceptability of Lunches1

Students like new lunches much better

 than old lunches 19% 18% 7% 15%

Students like new lunches somewhat better

 than old lunches 24 22 26 24

Students like new lunches about the same

 as old lunches 42 45 40 43

Students like new lunches somewhat less

 than old lunches 10 9 18 13

Students like new lunches much less than

 old lunches 1 2 2 1

Don’t know 4 4 7 5

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 238 279 345 895

Base sample includes only schools in which changes had been made in lunch menus to incorporate the Dietary Guidelines for 1

Americans.

Note: Columns may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.

Source: Weighted tabulations of data from a mail survey of public school cafeteria managers, Fall 1998 - Spring 1999.
Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 43

Exhibit 2.18

Perceived Effect of Changes in Lunch Menus on Levels of Food Waste

Elementary Middle High All 

Schools Schools Schools Schools

Food/Perception of Change in Waste Percentage of Schools

Milk

Students waste more 2% 7% 5% 3%

Students waste less 24 28 24 25

No change 68 58 66 66

Don’t know 6 7 5 6

Main Dish/Entree

Students waste more 10 6 5 8

Students waste less 37 39 33 36

No change 50 48 57 51

Don’t know 4 8 6 5

Bread or Bread Alternate

Students waste more 9 5 5 7

Students waste less 38 40 31 37

No change 51 49 53 52

Don’t know 3 6 5 4

Salad/Raw Vegetables

Students waste more 12 11 7 11

Students waste less 36 36 35 36

No change 48 46 54 49

Don’t know 5 7 4 5

Cooked Vegetables

 (other than French fries)

Students waste more 18 19 20 19

Students waste less 25 28 23 25

No change 53 47 52 52

Don’t know 4 6 4 4

Fruit

Students waste more 6 7 7 7

Students waste less 42 41 32 40

No change 49 46 58 50

Don’t know 2 7 4 3

Desserts

Students waste more 3 2 1 2

Students waste less 38 30 34 36

No change 54 55 56 54

Don’t know 6 13 9 8

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 330 280 285 895

Notes: Exhibit includes only schools in which changes had been made in lunch menus to incorporate the Dietary Guidelines

for Americans.

Column sections may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.

Source: Weighted tabulations of data from a mail survey of public school cafeteria managers, Fall 1998 - Spring 1999.
 Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 44

Breakfast Menus

A comparable series of questions was asked in relation to breakfast menus. Two-thirds of cafeteria

managers in SBP schools reported that changes had been made in breakfast menus to incorporate the

Dietary Guidelines (Exhibit 2.19). The fact that the prevalence of menu change was lower for breakfast

menus than for lunch menus (66% versus 87% [Exhibit 2.17]) is not surprising. The first SNDA study

found that breakfasts offered in SY 1991–92 were substantially more consistent with Dietary Guidelines

recommendations than lunches. 

According to cafeteria managers, Dietary Guidelines changes in breakfast menus were even less likely to

have a negative effect on meal acceptability than changes in lunch menus (Exhibit 2.19). Fewer than six

percent of managers in schools with revised breakfast menus reported a negative effect, compared to 14

percent of managers in schools with revised lunch menus. The perception that modified breakfasts were

somewhat less acceptable or much less acceptable than previous breakfasts was largely concentrated

among high school managers (12% versus 3-4%). 

In addition, a marked positive effect (i.e., the perception that students liked new breakfasts much better

than old breakfasts) was more commonly reported for modified breakfast menus (25%) than for modified

lunch menus (15%). This response was most common among elementary school managers.

Cafeteria managers’ perceptions about the impact of changes in breakfast menus on levels of food waste

are tabulated in Exhibit 2.20. Results are consistent with findings reported in the previous discussion of

changes in lunch menus. For every food group queried, 31 to 45 percent of cafeteria managers reported

that students were wasting less food than they had before menus were changed to incorporate the Dietary

Guidelines. Reports of increased waste were rare. 

There were some variations in perceptions about the effect of Dietary Guidelines changes on food waste

at breakfast across school types. These were largely consistent with those described in the preceding

discussion of perceived effects on food waste at lunch. 

Types of Meal Service Offered 

Schools participating in the NSLP offered students a variety of different types of lunch meals in SY

1998–99 (Exhibit 2.21). Virtually all schools offered a hot meal at least once per week and 88 percent of

schools offered a hot meal every day. Cold meals, such as sandwiches and salad plates, were offered at

least once per week in more than two-thirds of all schools. Almost half of all schools (47%) offered a

cold meal every day of the week. More than three-quarters of all schools offered hot sandwiches, such as

hamburgers or hot dogs, or pizza at least once per week. Roughly one-third of all schools offered a hot

sandwich or pizza every day of the week. Salad bars and other food bars were notably less common,

offered in only 27 percent of all schools. Schools that did offer such bars tended to offer one every day of

the week. Finally, more than half of all schools (59%) offered at least some items that were not part of

the USDA reimbursable meal on an a la carte basis. Again, schools that offered such a la carte foods

almost always offered them every day of the week.
Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 45

Exhibit 2.19

Percentage of Schools Reporting Changes in Breakfast Menus to Incorporate the Dietary

Guidelines for Americans and Perceived Effect on Meal Acceptability

Elementary Middle High All 

Schools Schools Schools Schools

Percentage of Schools

Changes Made in Breakfast Menus to Incorporate the Dietary Guidelines

 for Americans

Yes 67% 71% 60% 66%

No 34 30 41 34

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 317 245 246 808

Perceived Effect of Changes on Acceptability of Breakfasts1

Students like new breakfasts much better

 than old breakfasts 27% 21% 19% 25%

Students like new breakfasts somewhat

 better than old breakfasts 13 26 20 16

Students like new breakfasts about the

 same as old breakfasts 49 48 47 49

Students like new breakfasts somewhat

 less than old breakfasts 4 3 10 5

Students like new breakfasts much less

 than old breakfasts 0 <1 2 <1

Don’t know 7 2 2 5

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 199 160 151 510

Base sample includes only schools where the SBP is offered and the respondent indicated that changes had been made in 1

breakfast menus to incorporate the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

Note: Columns may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.

Source: Weighted tabulations of data from a mail survey of public school cafeteria managers, Fall 1998 - Spring 1999.
Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 46

Exhibit 2.20

Perceived Effect of Changes in Breakfast Menus on Levels of Food Waste

Elementary Middle High All 

Schools Schools Schools Schools

Food/Perception of Change in Waste Percentage of Schools

Milk

Students waste more 3% 12% 8% 5%

Students waste less 29 32 35 31

No change 66 53 52 61

Don’t know 2 4 5 3

Main Dish/Entree

Students waste more 3 3 3 3

Students waste less 43 52 43 45

No change 52 41 48 49

Don’t know 2 4 6 3

Bread or Bread Alternate

Students waste more 5 3 4 5

Students waste less 43 46 34 42

No change 50 47 57 50

Don’t know 2 4 5 3

Fruit

Students waste more 8 5 4 7

Students waste less 36 29 30 34

No change 50 52 60 52

Don’t know 6 14 6 7

Juice

Students waste more 3 2 3 3

Students waste less 42 47 33 41

No change 54 47 60 54

Don’t know 2 4 5 3

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 199 160 151 510

Notes: Exhibit includes only schools where the SBP is offered and changes were made in breakfast menus to comply with 

the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

Column sections may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.

Source: Weighted tabulations of a mail survey of public school cafeteria managers, Fall 1998 - Spring 1999.
Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 47

Exhibit 2.21

Types of Meal Service Offered at Lunch

Elementary Middle High All 

Schools Schools Schools Schools

Type of Meal Service/Frequency Percentage of Schools

Hot Meal

Every day 87% 92% 89% 88%

3-4 times per week 8 2 8 7

1-2 times per week 4 2 2 3

Not offered 1 4 1 1

Cold Meal, Such as Sandwich or Salad

Plate

Every day 39 52 68 47

3-4 times per week 4 9 5 5

1-2 times per week 20 17 9 17

Not offered 38 21 17 31

Hot Sandwich, Such as Hamburger, Hot

Dog, or Pizza

Every day 20 53 63 34

3-4 times per week 17 16 13 16

1-2 times per week 32 17 12 26

Not offered 31 14 12 24

Salad Bar or Other Food Bar

Every day 12 27 49 21

3-4 times per week 3 2 4 3

1-2 times per week 2 5 5 3

Not offered 83 66 42 73

A la Carte Items Not Part of USDA

Reimbursable Lunch1

Every day 41 77 73 53

3-4 times per week 1 0 2 1

1-2 times per week 5 1 1 4

Not offered 52 22 23 41

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 385 325 326 1,036

Percentages reported for a la carte sales in this exhibit are not consistent with those reported in Exhibit 2.23 because this 1

exhibit reports only availability of a la carte items that are not part of USDA-reimbursable lunch. Exhibit 2.23 reports on all

a la carte sales (i. e., sales associated with the purchase of foods that are offered strictly a la carte as well as the purchase of

one or more foods offered in USDA-reimbursable meals a la carte. 

Note: Column sections may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.

Source: Weighted tabulations of a mail survey of public school cafeteria managers, Fall 1998 - Spring 1999.
8 Chapter Three provides detailed information on the number and types of food offered in NSLP meals during a typical

school week. 

9 Chapter Four provides detailed information on the number and types of food offered in SBP meals during a typical school

week. 

 Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 48

The availability and frequency of various meal service options varied across school types. Options other 8

than a traditional hot meal were notably more common in middle schools and high schools than in

elementary schools. In addition, middle schools and high schools were more likely to offer these

alternative meal options every day of the week. This was especially true for a la carte items not included

in reimbursable meals. In more than half of all elementary schools, such items were never offered. In

contrast, roughly three-quarters of middle schools and high schools offered some items on a strictly a la

carte basis every day of the week.

Breakfast Menus

Almost all schools participating in the SBP offered both hot and cold breakfasts (Exhibit 2.22). Ninetyone percent of SBP schools offered a cold breakfast one or more days per week and the same percentage

offered a hot breakfast one or more days per week. More than half of all schools (56%) offered a cold

breakfast every day. A somewhat lower percentage (50%) offered a hot breakfast every day, such as hot

cereal, pancakes or waffles, eggs or a breakfast sandwich. 

A la carte foods were much less common at breakfast than at lunch. Only about a quarter of all schools

offered breakfast foods on a strictly a la carte basis (i.e., foods that were not offered as part of the

reimbursable breakfast and had to be purchased separately). (Roughly 60 percent of all schools offered

items on a strictly a la carte basis at lunch.) 

There were some differences in breakfast offerings in different types of schools. Middle schools and high

schools offered hot breakfasts more often than elementary schools and were also more likely to offer hot

and cold breakfasts every day of the week. Middle schools and high schools were also more likely to

offer a la carte breakfast items. A la carte breakfast items were most commonly offered in high

schools.9

Alternatives to NSLP and SBP Meals

Students who do not purchase or receive NSLP or SBP meals have several alternatives for obtaining a

lunch or breakfast from other sources. In addition to bringing food from home or, in the case of

breakfast, eating a meal before coming to school, possible options include:

• purchasing components of the USDA-reimbursable meal (but not enough to qualify as a

meal) or a la carte items from the cafeteria;

• buying food from a school store, snack bar or vending machine; and 

• leaving school to buy food or go home for lunch.
Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 49

Exhibit 2.22

Types of Meal Service Available at Breakfast

Elementary Middle High All 

Schools Schools Schools Schools

Type of Meal Service/Frequency Percentage of Schools

Cold Breakfast

Every day 52% 62% 67% 56%

3-4 times per week 14 9 6 11

1-2 times per week 29 18 12 24

Not offered 6 12 15 9

Hot Breakfast

Every day 43 64 65 50

3-4 times per week 31 20 18 27

1-2 times per week 15 12 10 14

Not offered 11 5 7 9

A la Carte Items not Part of USDA

Reimbursable Breakfasts1

Every day 14 34 58 25

3-4 times per week 0 0 2 0

1-2 times per week 1 1 2 1

Not offered 85 64 39 74

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 317 245 246 808

Percentages reported for a la carte sales in this exhibit are not consistent with those reported in Exhibit 2.23 because this 1

exhibit reports only availability of a la carte items that are not part of USDA-reimbursable breakfast. Exhibit 2.23 reports on

all a la carte sales (i. e., sales associated with the purchase of foods that are offered strictly a la carte as well as the purchase

of one or more foods offered in USDA-reimbursable meals a la carte).

Note: Column sections may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.

Source: Weighted tabulations of data from a mail survey of public school cafeteria managers, Fall 1998 - Spring 1999.
10 Students always have the option to bring food from home. This study did not collect information on food from home;

however, the SNDA-I study found that 18% of students brought food from home. 

11 The checklist used to gather information on a la carte offerings (see Appendix C) did not differentiate between foods

offered at breakfast and foods offered at lunch.

 Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 50

This section presents data on the incidence of these alternatives at schools participating in the NSLP. It

also describes the types of foods available a la carte and the specific items offered. Finally, it describes

the weekly a la carte revenue generated by NSLP schools.

Options Other than USDA-Reimbursable Meals

The most common option available for students who do not purchase a USDA-reimbursable meal is

purchase of items a la carte. This option, which includes items offered strictly a la carte as well as a

10

la carte purchase of individual components of the USDA-reimbursable meal, was available at lunch in

more than nine out of 10 NSLP schools (Exhibit 2.23). As discussed in a subsequent section, this option

is sometimes limited to a la carte purchase of milk, juice and/or dessert to accompany a meal brought

from home.

Students were much less likely to have the option to purchase a la carte foods at breakfast. This is

especially true at the elementary school level, where only 27 percent of schools offered foods a la carte at

breakfast. Availability of a la carte breakfast foods was greater at the middle and high school levels —

48 percent and 60 percent, respectively — but was still substantially lower than lunch.

Vending machines that were available to students during school hours provided an alternative source of

food or beverages in one-third of all NSLP schools. Roughly a quarter of all schools reported vending

machines located in or near the cafeteria. Nineteen percent of schools offered food or beverages through

school stores, snack bars or canteens, and student fundraisers provided an alternative source of food in a

small percentage (3%) of schools. Eleven percent of NSLP schools provided maximum access to

alternative sources of food by permitting students to leave school grounds for lunch.

Vending machines were much more common in middle schools (55%) and high schools (76%) than in

elementary schools (15%). The same is true of school stores and canteens. Vending machines were most

prevalent at the high school level. In addition, the ability to leave school for lunch was largely limited to

high schools (29% versus 6% (middle schools) - 8% (elementary schools)). 

Foods Offered a la Carte

As noted above, more than nine out of 10 NSLP schools offered a la carte foods at lunch and 36 percent

of schools offered a la carte foods at breakfast. Beverages, most often milk, were sold in all schools that

offered a la carte foods (Exhibit 2.24). With the exception of milk, virtually all a la carte items were 11

more commonly offered at the middle and high school levels. This reflects the fact that a la carte sales in

some elementary schools were limited to milk or other items (juice, dessert items) to accompany a meal

brought from home. Thirty-nine percent of elementary schools reported a la carte programs that were

limited to these items. The same was true for only eight percent of middle schools and six percent of high

schools.
Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 51

Exhibit 2.23 

Non-USDA Food Options Available During School Hours

Elementary Middle High All 

Schools Schools Schools Schools

Non-USDA Food Option Percentage of Schools

A la carte foods at lunch 90% 98% 94% 92%

A la carte foods at breakfast 27 48 60 36 1

Vending machines anywhere in school 15 55 76 33

Vending machines in or near cafeteria 7 38 63 23 2

Vending machines in different part of school 11 37 54 23

School store, snack bar, or canteen 9 35 41 19

Morning snack program/other non-USDA

breakfast 7 11 19 10

Opportunity to leave school grounds for 8 6 29 11

lunch

Student sales/fundraisers 2 5 7 3

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 385 325 326 1,036

Base sample includes only schools that offer the SBP. 1

Among schools that have vending machines anywhere in the school, 49 percent of elementary schools, 69 percent of middle 2

schools, and 83 percent of high schools have machines that are located in or near the cafeteria.

Notes: Schools may have vending machines in both locations.

Percentages reported for a la carte foods at breakfast and lunch include all a la carte sales (i. e., the option to purchase

one or more foods offered in USDA-reimbursable meals a la carte as well as foods that are offered strictly a la carte). 

Percentages are not consistent with those shown in Exhibits 2.21 and 2.22 because those exhibits report only

availability of a la carte items that are not part of USDA-reimbursable meals.

Source: Weighted tabulations of a mail survey of public school cafeteria managers, Fall 1998 - Spring 1999.
Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 52

Exhibit 2.24

Availability of a la Carte Food Items at Breakfast and/or Lunch

Elementary Middle High All 

Schools Schools Schools Schools

Food Group/Food Percentage of Schools

Any a la carte Food 90% 98% 94% 92%

Limited a la carte Offerings

Milk only 28 6 4 20

Milk and juice and/or dessert only 11 2 2 8

Beverages 90 98 94 92

Milk 90 98 94 92

Juice (50-100%) 34 59 67 44

Juice drinks 16 53 61 30

Mineral water or other bottled water 12 38 51 23

Tea 9 19 37 16

Milkshake or malt 1 15 13 6

Carbonated soft drinks 1 8 16 5

Coffee 3 3 15 5

Hot chocolate 2 5 19 5

Non-carbonated soft drinks 2 8 4 3

Baked Goods/Desserts 35 72 76 49

Cookies 28 62 68 41

Cakes, cupcakes, brownies 15 42 58 27

Pastries (pies, turnovers) 3 14 25 9

Other baked goods/desserts 11 30 38 19

Bread or Grain Products 29 65 77 44

Crackers, granola bars, pretzels, and similar 21 48 64 33

grain products

Bread, rolls, bagels 15 42 58 27

Biscuits, croissants, hot pretzels 9 25 39 17

Muffins 2 16 25 8

Tortillas 4 7 14 6

Cereal (ready-to-eat) 1 1 1 1

Rice or pasta 1 < 1 2 1

Candy 2 15 24 8

Frozen Desserts 30 58 62 41

Ice cream bars, scoops, sundaes 26 53 57 36

Frozen fruit juice bars, popsicles 8 23 24 13

Lowfat frozen yogurt, ice milk, sherbet 10 18 19 13

Fruit 25 53 70 38

Fresh fruit 20 45 63 32

Canned/cooked fruit 14 28 40 21

Fruit salad 1 4 8 3
Exhibit 2.24

(continued)

Elementary Middle High All 

Schools Schools Schools Schools

Food Group/Food Percentage of Schools

Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 53

Meat and Meat Alternates/Entrees 34 78 80 50

Beef

Hamburgers or cheeseburgers

Other beef

Chili or burritos

11 42 59 25

4 28 42 15

6 14 25 11

3 17 25 9

Poultry

Chicken patty

Other chicken

Turkey

8 34 52 20

3 17 33 11

2 17 27 9

3 13 20 8

Other Meat

Cold cuts

Sausage or pork

Hot dog, corn dog, franks and beans

13 35 50 23

7 21 35 14

3 13 21 8

3 13 17 7

Meat Alternates

Cheese (not in sandwich)

Peanut butter, peanuts, sunflower seeds,

other nuts

Eggs

Fish

Cheese sandwich

Beans or peas (legumes)

14 42 50 26

4 24 28 12

7 17 21 11

4 7 15 7

5 7 11 6

2 8 16 6

1 4 13 4

Mixed Dishes

Pizza (with meat)

Chef salad or other salad plate

Pizza (without meat)

Mexican food

Soup with meat or beans

Macaroni and cheese

Spaghetti, lasagna, ravioli, stuffed shells

Other sandwiches

Chinese food

Other mixed dishes

22 67 73 39

7 45 46 20

10 21 32 15

4 24 35 13

2 17 28 9

5 12 20 9

3 8 4 4

3 11 11 5

1 4 7 3

< 1 2 5 1

1 < 1 1 1

Vegetables 23 60 72 38

Fried potatoes (pre-fried, oven baked, 13 40 61 27

French fries)

Salads 11 35 50 22

Vegetables, other cooked 11 26 36 18

Vegetable soup 4 6 14 6

Pickles 1 3 1 1
Exhibit 2.24

(continued)

Elementary Middle High All 

Schools Schools Schools Schools

Food Group/Food Percentage of Schools

Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 54

Snacks 24 63 71 39

Chips 16 57 69 32

Other snacks 15 37 42 24

Popcorn 9 20 29 14

Nuts and seeds, trail mix 3 10 14 6

Yogurt 9 24 40 17

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 385 325 326 1,036

Note: Some foods, such as carbonated drinks, certain candies and water ices, are considered foods of “Minimal Nutritional

Value” and regulations prohibit their sale in food service areas during meals unless they are specifically excepted

because of naturally occurring nutritional value.

Source: Weighted tabulations of data from a mail survey of public school cafeteria managers, Fall 1998 - Spring 1999. Based

on A la Carte Checklist; see Appendix C.
12 Cafeteria managers reported their total a la carte food sales for a typical week (the target week for the menu survey). 

Responses were standardized per 1,000 students based on SFA directors’ reports of total student enrollment in the sampled

schools.

 Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 55

Aside from milk, the most common a la carte offerings were juice (44% of schools); cookies (41%);

mixed dishes (including pizza) (39%); ice cream (36%); grain products such as crackers, granola bars,

and pretzels (33%); fresh fruit and snack chips (32% each); juice drinks (30%); bread, rolls, and bagels

(27%); baked desserts such as cakes, cupcakes and brownies (27%); and French fries and other potato

products (27%). 

 

Average Weekly a la Carte Revenue

On average, a la carte sales in NSLP schools generated $913 per 1,000 students during a typical week in

SY 1998–99 (Exhibit 2.25). There was considerable variation in a la carte revenue across school 12

types. Average weekly sales for elementary schools ($375) was roughly one-fifth that of middle schools

($1,760) and high schools ($1,985).

A la carte revenue was also affected by the nature of the a la carte sales in the school. Schools that sold

non-USDA foods strictly a la carte took in roughly four times more a la carte revenue per week than

schools in which a la carte sales were limited to purchase of individual components of the USDAreimbursable meal ($1,276 per 1,000 students versus $325 per 1,000 students). 

In addition, the relative poverty level of the student population, measured by the percentage of students

approved for free and reduced-price meals, was inversely related to weekly a la carte revenue. Weekly a

la carte revenue in schools with relatively few low-income students (25 percent or less) was more than

four times that of schools with high concentrations (75 percent or more) of low-income students ($1,282

versus $300). This pattern is also reflected in the variation in a la carte revenue seen in schools that did

and did not offer the SBP and, to a lesser extent, in schools that did and did not serve suburban

populations. Schools that offered the SBP and urban and rural schools tended to have higher

concentrations of low-income students than schools that did not offer the SBP and suburban schools.

Weekly a la carte revenue was inversely related to overall NSLP participation rates (Exhibit 2.26). A

comparison of average weekly a la carte sales for quartiles of overall NSLP participation shows that

revenue ranged from a low of $383 among schools where mean daily NSLP participation was 73 percent

or more to $2,135 among schools where participation rates were less than 36 percent. This negative

relationship was consistent across all school types. 

Pricing Methods Used for a la Carte Foods

SFA directors were asked about strategies used to set prices for a la carte foods. Three specific

strategies — group pricing, actual pricing, and food cost percentage markup — were asked about

directly. According to SFA directors, the method most often used to price a la carte foods was group

pricing or the practice of assigning a standard price to all similar foods (e.g., all snack chips, all

beverages or all cookies). (See Exhibit 2.27.) Almost three-quarters of directors in SFAs where a la

carte sales were reported indicated that this pricing method was used. A roughly equivalent percentage

of SFA directors (71%) reported use of an actual pricing method. Actual pricing may be used to 
Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 56

Exhibit 2.25

Average a la Carte Sales by Selected School Characteristics

Elementary Middle High All 

Schools Schools Schools Schools

Characteristic Weekly a la Carte Sales per 1,000 Students

All Schools $375 $1,760 $1,985 $913

Type of a la Carte Program

Non-USDA items available $554 $1,939 $2,164 $1,276

USDA-reimbursable items only 217 861 922 325

Percent of Students Approved for Free

Lunches

25 percent or less $475 $2,150 $2,387 $1,282

26-50 percent 297 1,123 1,422 612

51-74 percent 371 2,547 818 682

75 percent or more 234 655 444 300

USDA Programs Offered

NSLP only $521 $2,094 $2,503 $1,261

NSLP and SBP 338 1,663 $1,789 815

Community Type

Urban $225 $1,933 $1,895 $822

Suburban 437 1,832 2,139 1,036

Rural 404 1,187 1,760 756

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 323 288 290 901

Note: Exhibit includes only schools for which the cafeteria manager provided information on weekly a la carte revenue 

and the SFA director completed his/her interview. 

Source: Weighted tabulations of data from a mail survey of public school cafeteria managers (weekly a la carte revenue) and a

telephone interview with public SFA directors, Fall 1998 - Spring 1999.
Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 57

Exhibit 2.26

NSLP Student Participation Rate and Weekly a la Carte Sales

Overall NSLP Participation Rate Sales per 1,000 Students

Average Weekly a la Carte

Elementary Schools

Less than 57% $456

57 - 70% 491

71 - 81% 280

82 - 100% 367

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 305

Middle Schools

Less than 38% $2,894

38 - 55% 1,929

56 - 71% 1,150

72 - 100% 826

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 285

High Schools

Less than 21% $2,422

21 - 35% 2,346

36 - 54% 2,218

55 - 100% 1,031

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 284

All Schools

Less than 36% $2,135

36 - 55% 1,141

56 - 72% 682

73 - 100% 383

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 874

Notes: Based on distribution of participation rates, by quartile, for each school type.

Exhibit includes only schools that offered a la carte foods and for which information on both participation rates and

weekly a la carte revenue was available. 

Source: Weighted tabulations of data from a mail survey of public school cafeteria managers (weekly a la carte revenue and

meal counts needed to calculate participation rates) and telephone interviews with public SFA directors (enrollment

and numbers of students approved for free and reduced-price meal benefits), Fall 1998 - Spring 1999.
Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 58

Exhibit 2.27

Methods Used to Set Prices for a la Carte Foods

Methods SFAs

Percentage of

Group pricing 73% 1

Actual pricing method 71 2

Food cost percentage markup 44 3

Other 8

Number of SFAs (Unweighted) 370

The same price is assigned to all similar foods, for example, all vegetables are sold at the same price per portion and all similar- 1

sized cookies are sold at the same price.

Prices are determined by considering all costs of buying, producing and serving the food. 2

Prices are determined by adding the same percentage markup to every food item. 3

Notes: Exhibit includes only SFAs that reported use of a la carte foods in one or more schools.

SFAs may use more than one pricing method for a la carte foods.

Source: Weighted tabulations of data from a telephone interview with public SFA directors, Fall 1998 - Spring 1999.
13 This percentage is somewhat higher than but consistent with results obtained in a nationally representative survey of

cafeteria managers conducted by the GAO in SY 1995-96. That study found that 13 percent of schools offered branded

foods. The recent School Food Purchase Study reported that 40 percent of school districts used branded foods in SY 1996-

97. Because SNDA-II data were collected at the school level and SFPS data were collected at the district level, direct

comparisons of the two studies cannot be made. 

 Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 59

determine the most appropriate group price. Use of a standard markup was much less common, used in

fewer than half of the SFAs in which a la carte sales were reported. 

Use of Foods from Commercial Vendors 

NSLP schools may offer foods from national fast-food vendors such as McDonald’s, Pizza Hut,

Domino’s, Subway and Taco Bell, or from similar local vendors. These commercial or “branded” foods

may be served as part of a USDA-reimbursable meal, as an a la carte item or both. Foods are generally

delivered to schools prepared and ready to serve. 

In SY 1998–99, fewer than two of every 10 NSLP schools used foods from commercial vendors at lunch

(Exhibit 2.28). Middle schools and high schools used branded foods more often than elementary 13

schools (30-31% of middle schools and high schools versus 13% of elementary schools). Schools that

did use branded foods were somewhat more likely to include these foods in reimbursable meals 

than to restrict them to a la carte purchases. The general pattern of use of commercially vended foods

was similar for breakfast and lunch. No differences were detected in the use of branded foods among

schools using different menu planning options or between schools that did and did not use FSMCs.

SFA directors for almost half of the schools that served branded foods as part of a reimbursable lunch

reported that one or more of the food items required a modification or reformulation to meet USDA’s

requirements for reimbursement (data not shown). 

Use of Food Service Management Companies

In SY 1998–99, school food service programs in most SFAs (88 percent) were managed by the local

school district (data not shown). The remaining 12 percent of SFAs contracted with a food service

management company (FSMC) to operate one or more aspects of the food service program in one or

more schools. 

Functions contracted to FSMCs may be performed solely by the FSMC or be shared between the FSMC

and the SFA. In addition, SFAs may retain sole responsibility for selected aspects of the food service

operation. Directors in SFAs where FSMCs were used were asked to delineate the division of labor

between SFA and FSMC staff for a variety of food service tasks. Results are tabulated in Exhibit 2.29.

In SY 1998–99, FSMCs were most often assigned full responsibility for menu planning and food

purchasing. Approximately 70 percent of SFAs that contracted with FSMCs fully delegated these 
Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 60

Exhibit 2.28

Use of Foods from Commercial Vendors1

Elementary Middle High All 

Schools Schools Schools Schools

Meal/Use of Food From Commercial Vendors Percentage of Schools

Lunch

Not used 87% 70% 69% 81%

Used for both reimbursable and a la carte

 lunches 2 11 14 6

Used for a la carte lunches only 1 13 12 5

Used for reimbursable lunches; a la carte lunches

not offered 5 2 3 4

Used for reimbursable lunches but not for a la

carte lunches 3 4 1 3

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 409 349 351 1,109

Breakfast

Not used 88% 71% 71% 83%

Used for both reimbursable and a la carte

breakfasts 1 11 11 5

Used for a la carte breakfasts only 1 15 13 5

Used for reimbursable breakfasts; a la carte 

breakfasts not offered 6 2 3 5

Used for reimbursable breakfasts but not for a la 

carte breakfasts 2 2 1 2

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 332 258 263 853

Includes vendors such as McDonald’s, Pizza Hut, Domino’s, Subway, Taco Bell, and similar local vendors. 1

Note: Columns may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.

Source: Weighted tabulations of data from telephone interviews with public SFA directors, Fall 1998 - Spring 1999.
Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 61

Exhibit 2.29

Division of Responsibility in SFAs that Use Food Service Management Companies

Locus of Responsibility for Major Food Service Tasks of SFAs

Percentage

Preparing reimbursement claims

SFA 35%

FSMC 21

Shared 44

Accounting and financial recordkeeping

SFA 18

FSMC 22

Shared 59

Planning menus

SFA 21

FSMC 71

Shared 8

Preparing USDA-reimbursable breakfasts

SFA 22

FSMC 39

Shared 6

Not applicable 33 2

Serving USDA-reimbursable breakfasts

SFA 29

FSMC 32

Shared 7

Not applicable 33 1

Preparing USDA-reimbursable lunches

SFA 39

FSMC 47

Shared 14

Serving USDA-reimbursable lunches

SFA 52

FSMC 36

Shared 12

Providing a la carte service

SFA 35

FSMC 40

Shared 20

Not applicable 5

2
Exhibit 2.29

(continued)

Locus of Responsibility for Major Food Service Tasks of SFAs

Percentage

Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 62

Providing equipment for food preparation

SFA 55%

FSMC 9

Shared 36

Cafeteria cleanup

SFA 63

FSMC 10

Shared 27

Purchasing food

SFA 22

FSMC 69

Shared 9

Making arrangements for using donated commodities

SFA 20

FSMC 54

Shared 26

Selling lunch tickets and collecting lunch money

SFA 47

FSMC 37

Shared 16

Number of SFAs (Unweighted) 51

Includes SFAs that use a food service management company but do not serve USDA-reimbursable breakfasts. 1

Includes SFAs that use a food service management company but do not offer a la carte meal service. 2

Note: Exhibit includes only SFAs that use a food service management company—12 percent of all SFAs.

Column sections may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.

Source: Weighted tabulations of data from a telephone interview with public SFA directors, Fall 1998 - Spring 1999.
 Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 63

functions. A related function that was commonly contracted to FSMCs was dealing with the commodity

donation program. In more than half of SFAs with FSMCs, contractors were solely responsible for

making arrangements for using donated commodity foods in NSLP and SBP meals. 

Functions over which SFAs were most likely to retain full responsibility included after-meal cafeteria

cleanup and providing the equipment required for food preparation. FSMCs were involved in accounting

and financial recordkeeping; however, in close to 60 percent of SFAs that used a management company,

this function was shared. Most SFAs also remained involved in the preparation of reimbursement claims

for the NSLP and SBP. Forty-four percent of SFAs that used FSMCs shared responsibility for this task

and 35 percent maintained sole responsibility.
 Characteristics of Food Service Programs in NSLP Public Schools 64
1 Results for middle schools and high schools were comparable, so data were combined to facilitate presentation and

discussion. Major exhibits summarizing information on nutrient content of meals are presented separately for middle

schools and high schools in Appendix A. 

2 The CN Reauthorization Act of 1998 waived this requirement through September 2003, for school districts that obtain a

waiver from their State agency. 

3 Errors identified in the CN-3 database after its release were corrected in the version of the database used in this analysis. 

Characteristics of Lunches Served in Public NSLP Schools 65

Chapter Three

Characteristics of Lunches Served in Public NSLP

Schools

This chapter presents information on the average nutrient content of lunches served in public NSLP

schools during SY 1998–99. Information is also provided on the types of food offered, the number of

options available to students selecting a lunch, and the characteristics of meals served to students. Data

are presented separately for elementary schools and secondary schools. In addition, information is 1

provided on differences in the average nutrient content of lunches — by menu planning option and by

relative fat content of meals served. 

It is important to note that the data presented in this chapter are not directly comparable to data from the

SNDA-I study. As described below, the results presented in this chapter are based on a weighted nutrient

analysis. The SNDA-I study used an unweighted analysis. A comparison of SNDA-I and SNDA-II data,

incorporating comparable analysis of SNDA-II data, is presented in Chapter Six. 

Overview of the Analysis

The data presented in this chapter are based on a weighted nutrient analysis of lunch menus and meal

production data. A weighted analysis differs from an unweighted analysis in that it takes into

consideration not only the foods offered to students but the number and types of foods that students

actually include in the meals they select. As such, a weighted analysis provides a picture of the average

meal served to or selected by participating students and, short of tracking food waste and actual food

consumption, the best available measure of the nutritional quality of actual school meals. Program

regulations require use of a weighted nutrient analysis in monitoring lunch menus and, for schools using a

computer-based menu planning system, in planning lunch menus. 

2

All analyses were completed using a customized version of NUTRIKIDS software (LunchByte Systems

Inc.) and the third release of USDA’s Child Nutrition nutrient database (CN-3). For each daily menu, a 3

weighted average was computed for calories and all target nutrients. Daily averages were then totaled
4 Nutrient standards set forth in program regulations are defined as benchmarks for average nutrient content figured across a

week, rather than for each daily menu. Eleven percent of schools provided fewer than five days of menu data, primarily

because of scheduled or unscheduled closings. Ten percent provided data for four days, and one percent provided data for

three days. The denominator used in determining the weekly average for a given school was the number of days of data

provided. 

5 The menu item categories used to describe NSLP menus throughout this chapter are built around the meal component

categories used in the food-based menu planning systems. Although schools using NSMP and ANSMP are not required to

offer the same meal components specified in food-based menu planning systems, menus offered in these schools are

generally consistent with the basic elements of the food-based meal patterns. Thus, the basic meal components still provide

a useful framework for describing NSLP menus.

Characteristics of Lunches Served in Public NSLP Schools 66

and the weekly average was determined. Weekly averages were compared to two sets of nutrition 4

standards (see Chapter One):

• Nutrient standards defined in NSLP regulations: the percentage of the RDA provided

for calories, protein, vitamins A and C, calcium, iron and the percentage of calories from

total fat and saturated fat.

• National Research Council (NRC) recommendations: nutrients for which NSLP

standards have not been defined — the percentage of calories from carbohydrate and total

cholesterol and sodium content.

Number and Types of Food Offered and Served to Students

Nutrient content of NSLP meals is driven by the mix of foods offered and served to students. Therefore,

before considering data on the average nutrient content of school lunches, it is useful to have some

background information on the characteristics of the menus offered to students as well as on students’

general food selection patterns.

Number of Options Offered Within NSLP Meal Component Categories

Exhibit 3.1 provides information on the relative level of choice offered to students electing to eat an

NSLP meal. The exhibit shows the percentage of daily NSLP menus that offered various numbers of

options within major menu item categories. As shown, nearly all NSLP menus provided students with 5

the opportunity to select a specific type of milk: more than 95 percent of all daily NSLP menus included

two or more types of milk. The median number of milk options, both on a daily basis and across a week,

was three. This pattern was generally consistent for elementary and secondary schools, however,

secondary schools offered somewhat more choice than elementary schools. 

With regard to entrees, including combination entrees as well as meats/meat alternates offered separately,

there was a notable difference between menus offered in elementary schools and those offered in

secondary schools. More than one-third of elementary school menus included only one entree. Such

fixed menus were much less common in secondary schools: only 15 percent of secondary school menus

were limited to one entree. At the other end of the spectrum, only five percent of elementary school

menus included six or more entree choices, compared to 32 percent of secondary school menus. 
Characteristics of Lunches Served in Public NSLP Schools 67

Exhibit 3.1

Choice and Variety in Lunch Menus

Elementary Secondary All

Schools Schools Schools

Percentage of Daily Lunch Menus

Number of Types of Milk Offered per Day

1 4% 2% 4%

2 35 30 34

3 36 38 36

4 or more 25 30 27

Median items per day 3 3 3

Median number of different items per week1 3 3 3

Number of Entrees Offered per Day2

1 35% 15% 28%

2-3 44 34 40

4-5 17 19 18

6 or more 5 32 14

Median items per day 2 4 3

Median number of different items per week1 8 10 10

Number of Fruits/Juices/Vegetables Offered per Day3

No more than 2 43% 25% 37%

3-4 38 36 37

5-7 17 26 21

8 or more 2 13 6

Median items per day 3 4 3

Median number of different items per week1 12 12 12

Number of Separate Grains/Breads Offered per Day4

None 45% 41% 44%

1 42 40 41

2 11 15 13

3 or more 1 5 3

Median items per day 1 1 1

Median number of different items per week1 3 3 3
Exhibit 3.1

(continued)

Elementary Secondary All

Schools Schools Schools

Percentage of Daily Lunch Menus

Characteristics of Lunches Served in Public NSLP Schools 68

Number of Desserts Offered per Day

None 66% 62% 64%

1 30 33 31

2 or more 4 5 5

Median items per day 0 0 0

Median number of different items per week1 2 2 2

Number of Daily Menus (Unweighted) 1,948 3,304 5,252

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 398 677 1,075

Includes only schools that provided menu information for five days. 1

Includes meats and meat alternates as well as combination entrees. 2

Fruits and vegetables not included in combination entrees. 3

Grains or breads not included in combination entrees. 4

Note: Column sections may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.

Source: Weighted tabulations of menu data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Characteristics of Lunches Served in Public NSLP Schools 69

The median number of daily entree choices in elementary school menus was two, compared to four for 

secondary schools. The median number of different entrees offered over the course of a week was eight

for elementary schools and 10 for secondary schools. These data indicate that schools tended to repeat

some entrees during the week. 

A similar pattern was noted for fruit and vegetable choices. Roughly two-thirds of all NSLP menus

offered more than the two fruit and/or vegetable choices required under the food-based menu planning

systems. More than one-quarter of all menus included five or more fruit and/or vegetable choices. The

availability of choice among fruits and vegetables and the number of options offered were both greater in

secondary school menus than in elementary school menus.

Overall, the median number of different fruit and vegetable choices offered was three per day and 12 per

week, indicating that both elementary schools and secondary schools offered some fruits and vegetables

more than once during a typical school week.

In both elementary schools and secondary schools, roughly forty percent of daily menus offered breads or

grains only in combination entrees (e.g., bread in sandwiches, crusts on pizza, pasta in spaghetti or

lasagna). Roughly the same percentage of schools offered one separate bread/grain item. A more

extensive array of choices in this group was relatively rare. Only 16 percent of all daily menus included

two or more separate bread/grain choices.

Finally, desserts were offered in 36 percent of all daily menus. Desserts were offered with about the

same frequency in elementary and secondary school menus.

Foods Most Frequently Included in NSLP Menus

To obtain more detailed information on the types of food offered in NSLP meals, menu items were

classified into one of seven major food groups — milk; fruit and juice; vegetables; combination entrees;

separate meats/meat alternates (not part of a combination entree); separate grains/breads (not part of a

combination entree); and other menu items (foods not “counted” toward any of the requirements in the

food-based meal patterns). Foods were further classified into one of 81 different minor food groups. 

(The full food classification scheme is shown in Exhibit E.6.) Exhibit 3.2 shows the percentage of daily

menus in which each minor food group appeared. For ease of presentation, the exhibit is limited to minor

food groups that were offered in at least five percent of daily menus, overall, or for either type of school.

Noteworthy findings are summarized below:

• The type of milk most frequently offered in NSLP menus was flavored 1% milk. More than

two-thirds of all daily lunch menus included flavored 1% milk. The next most commonly

offered milks were 1%, whole and 2%, all unflavored. 

• Almost ninety percent of all NSLP menus included at least one fruit or juice. Canned fruit

was offered more often than either fresh fruit or juice. Canned fruit was offered in more than

half of all daily menus in both elementary and secondary schools. Fresh fruit was offered in

41 percent of all menus. Secondary school menus included fresh fruit more often than

elementary school menus (50% versus 36%).
Characteristics of Lunches Served in Public NSLP Schools 70

Exhibit 3.2

Foods Most Commonly Offered in Lunch Menus

Elementary Secondary All

Schools Schools Schools

Percentage of Daily Menus in Which Item Was Offered

Milk 100% 100% 100%

1% flavored 65 71 67

1% unflavored 52 54 53

Whole unflavored 50 50 50

2% unflavored 49 50 49

Skim unflavored 35 42 37 1

Skim flavored 16 20 17 1

2% flavored 14 7 11

Fruits and Juices 87% 88% 88%

Canned fruit 56 54 56

Fresh fruit 36 50 41

Full-strength citrus juice 13 17 14

Full-strength non-citrus juice 13 15 14

Frozen fruit or juice 7 5 6

Vegetables 94% 98% 95%

Cooked vegetables (other than 41 49 44

potatoes and French fries)

Green salads (other than entree salads) 28 44 33

Oven-fried French fries/potato products 18 30 22

Potatoes other than French fries or 21 26 22

similar potato products

Raw vegetables other than green 14 18 16

salads or lettuce and/or tomato

Lettuce and/or tomato 7 13 9

2

Legumes 8 9 8

Deep-fried French fries/potato products 3 15 7

Other (non-green) salads 6 8 7

Other vegetable items (soups, mixed 4 8 5

casseroles)

Combination Entrees 90% 96% 92%

Sandwiches made with cheese and/or 20 38 26

cold cuts

Hamburgers and similar beef/pork sandwiches 16 32 22

Peanut butter sandwiches 25 14 21

Mexican-style entrees 15 26 19
Exhibit 3.2

(continued)

Elementary Secondary All

Schools Schools Schools

Percentage of Daily Menus in Which Item Was Offered

Characteristics of Lunches Served in Public NSLP Schools 71

Combination Entrees

(continued)

Pizza with meat 11% 33% 19%

Chef’s salad and other salad plates 16 24 19

Pizza without meat 12 24 16

Hot dogs/corn dogs/similar sausage products 15 18 16

Cheeseburgers and similar beef/pork 8 29 15

sandwiches

Pasta-based dishes 13 16 14

Sandwiches made with lean meat or 8 22 13

poultry (no cheese)

Sandwiches made with breaded and/or fried 8 21 12

 meat/poultry/fish (no cheese)

Salad bars 5 21 11

Other mixed dishes/combinations 9 12 10

Sandwiches made with mayonnaise- 7 11 8

based salads (no cheese)

Other food bars/bag lunches 6 10 8

Meats/Meat Alternates (not part of a 31% 37% 33%

combination entree)

Breaded chicken nuggets/patties/similar 11 16 13

products

Other breaded or fried meat/poultry/fish 8 10 9

Plain (not breaded or fried) meat/poultry/fish 7 9 8

Grains/Breads (not part of a combination 55% 60% 56%

entree)

Bread, rolls, bagels, other plain breads 29 35 31

Crackers/hard pretzels 11 14 12

Rice 6 9 7

Biscuits, cornbread, croissants, other 8 10 9

higher-fat breads/bread alternates

Pasta 4 5 4
Exhibit 3.2

(continued)

Elementary Secondary All

Schools Schools Schools

Percentage of Daily Menus in Which Item Was Offered

Characteristics of Lunches Served in Public NSLP Schools 72

Other Menu Items342% 48% 44%

Baked desserts 19 19 19

Other desserts (non-fruited gelatin, 12 13 12

pudding, ice cream)

Fruit drinks/ades 7 10 8

Dessert items that include fruit or juice 5 9 7

Snack chips 5 5 5

Number of Daily Menus (Unweighted) 1,948 3,304 5,252

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 398 677 1,075

Includes 1⁄2 percent milk. 1

Lettuce and/or tomato offered as a vegetable choice for all students. Excludes lettuce and tomato included in prepared sandwiches 2

or offered with other prepared entrees.

Foods that do not contribute to satisfying the meal patterns for the traditional or enhanced food-based menu planning systems. 3

Notes: Exhibit is limited to items that appeared in at least five percent of menus for at least one type of school.

See Exhibit E.6 for a detailed listing of items included in each group.

Source: Weighted tabulations of menu data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Characteristics of Lunches Served in Public NSLP Schools 73

• Almost all NSLP menus included one or more vegetables. The most common offerings were

cooked vegetables, excluding French fries and other types of potatoes (44% of all daily

menus); followed by green salads (33%); oven-fried French fries (22%); potatoes other than

French fries or similar potato products (22%); and raw vegetables (excluding green salads

and lettuce and tomato) (16%). Green salads were offered more often in secondary school

menus than in elementary school menus (44% versus 28%). 

• Deep-fried French fries were rare, overall, appearing in only seven percent of all daily

menus. Use of deep-fried French fries was concentrated in secondary schools (15% versus

3%).

• There were notable differences between elementary and secondary school menus in the

frequency with which various entrees were offered. In elementary schools, the most

frequently offered entrees were peanut butter sandwiches (25%); sandwiches made with

cheese and/or cold cuts (20%); hamburgers and similar beef/pork sandwiches (excluding

cheeseburgers) (16%); Chef’s salad and other salad plates (16%); Mexican-style entrees

such as tacos, burritos and nachos (15%); and hot dogs, corn dogs and similar sausage

products (15%). In secondary schools, the leading entree offerings were sandwiches made

with cheese and/or cold cuts (38%); pizza with meat (33%); hamburgers and similar

beef/pork sandwiches (32%); cheeseburgers and similar sandwiches with cheese (29%); and

Mexican-style entrees (26%).

• About one in every four elementary school lunch menus included a peanut butter sandwich

and about one in every three secondary school lunch menus included a sandwich made with

cheese and/or cold cuts, pizza with meat or a hamburger or similar beef/pork sandwich

(without cheese).

• Menus in both elementary and secondary schools most often offered combination entrees as

opposed to separate meats/meat alternates. Only a third of all daily NSLP menus included

separate meats or meat alternates. The most common items in this group were breaded

chicken nuggets, patties and similar products and other types of breaded or fried meat,

poultry or fish.

• More than half of all daily NSLP menus offered grains or bread that were not included in a

combination entree. These were most often plain bread or rolls.

• More than 40 percent of all daily lunch menus offered items other than those included in the

basic meal component categories. Roughly one in five lunch menus included a baked dessert

such as cookies, cake or brownies. Twelve percent included other desserts such as ice cream,

gelatin (without fruit) or pudding. Eight percent of daily lunch menus included fruit drinks

(not 100% juice) and five percent included snack chips.
Characteristics of Lunches Served in Public NSLP Schools 74

Characteristics of Lunches Actually Served to Students 

In addition to having the ability to select specific foods within a general menu item category, students

participating in the NSLP have varying levels of flexibility regarding the minimum number of foods or

items they are required to take when selecting a meal. A program rule known as “Offer versus Serve”

(OVS) is mandated for students in senior high schools and optional, at the discretion of the local school

district, for students below the senior high level. Under OVS, students in schools that are using either the

traditional or enhanced food-based systems to plan menus have the option to refuse up to two of the five

food items that must be offered for lunch — milk, meat/meat alternate, bread or grain, and two servings

of fruit, vegetables or full-strength juice. Students in schools operating under NSMP or ANSMP must

select an entree and may decline additional item(s), depending on the total number of items offered.

The fact that students have more than a little latitude in determining what is included in their NSLP meals

is a key driver in the recent movement toward use of weighted nutrient analyses. As Exhibit 3.3

illustrates, students do employ these freedoms. While milk was offered in every NSLP menu, nine

percent of the lunches served to students did not include a milk. Milk was more commonly omitted in

lunches served in secondary schools (16%) than in lunches served in elementary schools (6%). 

More than 20 percent of NSLP meals served to students did not include the minimum two servings of

fruit, vegetables or full-strength juice suggested in both the traditional and enhanced food-based menu

planning systems. Selection of lunches that included two or more servings of fruit, vegetables or juice

occurred with somewhat greater frequency in elementary schools than in secondary schools (80% versus

74%). Finally, when an additional grain or bread product was available (other than those included in

combination entrees or served with specific menu items), these items were omitted in about a quarter of

the lunches served in elementary schools and more than a third of the lunches served in secondary

schools. 

Average Nutrient Content of Lunches Served to Students

This section presents data on the average nutrient content of lunches served to students in SY 1998–99. 

The nutrient content of the average lunch, as served, is compared to the NSLP nutrition standards and

NRC recommendations described in Chapter One: 

• Nutrient Content Relative to RDAs. Mean contribution to RDAs for calories, protein,

vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium and iron is evaluated in light of the standard defined for lunch

(33% of the RDA).

• Percentage of Calories from Total Fat and Saturated Fat. The mean percentage of

calories provided by each type of fat is compared to defined NSLP standards for total fat 

(< 30%) and saturated fat (< 10%). 

• Cholesterol, Sodium and Carbohydrate Content. Mean cholesterol and sodium content

are compared to NRC recommendations. The standards used reflect one-third of the NRC’s

recommended maximum daily intake. The mean percentage of calories from carbohydrate is

compared to the NRC recommendation (> 55%). 
Characteristics of Lunches Served in Public NSLP Schools 75

Exhibit 3.3

Characteristics of Lunches Served to Students

Elementary Secondary All

Schools Schools Schools

Characteristic Served to Students

Average Percentage of Lunches 

All Lunches

Included milk 94% 84% 91%

Included combination entree or meat alternate 100 100 100

Included two or more fruits and/or vegetables 80 74 78 1

Included separate grain/bread (when offered) 76 65 72 2

Included dessert (when offered) 83 63 76

Number of Daily Menus (Unweighted) 1,948 3,304 5,252

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 398 677 1,075

Fruits and vegetables not included in combination entrees. 1

Grains or breads not included in combination entrees or offered with specific menu item.

2

Source: Weighted tabulations of menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
6 Data on actual mean calorie and nutrient content of lunches, as served, are presented in Exhibit A.1. 

7 This is in keeping with characteristics of the American diet, which typically provides several times the RDA for protein. 

Characteristics of Lunches Served in Public NSLP Schools 76

Mean Nutrient Content Relative to RDAs

With the exception of calories in secondary school lunches, NSLP lunches served to students in SY

1998–99 met or exceeded the standard of one-third of the RDA for calories and all target nutrients

(Exhibit 3.4).6

On average, lunches served to students were nutrient-dense. Elementary school lunches, for example,

provided an average of 35 percent of the RDA for calories while providing more than 100 percent of the

RDA for protein, more than 50 percent of the RDAs for vitamin A, vitamin C, and calcium and 44

percent of the RDA for iron. 

The pattern was similar for secondary school lunches; however, the relative contribution to students’

daily nutrient needs — always above the 33 percent RDA benchmark — was consistently lower. The

only RDA standard that the average secondary school lunch did not satisfy was the standard for calories. 

Lunches served to students in secondary schools provided, on average, 30 percent of the RDA for

calories, compared to the standard of 33 percent. 

Percentage of Schools Meeting RDA Standards

In addition to examining the mean nutrient content of lunches served to students, in comparison to the

one-third RDA standard, the analysis assessed the percentage of individual schools that met standards for

calories and key nutrients. The data indicate that satisfying the calorie standard, for secondary schools

especially, poses the greatest challenge to schools. More than two-thirds (68%) of elementary schools

met the one-third RDA standard for calories; however, the same was true for only 20 percent of

secondary schools (Exhibit 3.5). The dramatic difference between elementary schools and secondary

schools is likely attributable to both the greater calorie needs of older students and the fact, as discussed

above, that secondary school students were more likely than elementary school students to omit

components of the offered NSLP meal (see Exhibit 3.3).

Lunches served to students in all schools met the one-third RDA benchmark for protein, which, as shown

in Exhibit 3.4, was provided at levels above 100 percent of the full RDA in the average elementary

school lunch and close to two-thirds of the RDA in the average secondary school lunch. Lunches served 7

in all or nearly all elementary schools satisfied the RDA standards for vitamin A, calcium and iron. The

only nutrient for which an appreciable number of elementary schools fell short of the one-third RDA

benchmark was vitamin C. The average lunch served in about 15 percent of elementary schools provided

less than one-third of the RDA for vitamin C.

With the exception of protein, secondary schools were less likely than elementary schools to serve

lunches that, on average, provided one-third or more of the RDA (Exhibit 3.5). As noted above, factors

that may contribute to this pattern include greater nutrient needs of older students coupled with an

increased tendency to omit components of the offered NSLP lunch. The average lunch served in roughly

15 to 20 percent of secondary schools provided less than one-third of the RDAs for vitamin C and/or 
Exhibit 3.4 Lunches Served to Students in SY 1998-99 Provided More

than One-Third of the RDA, With the Exception of Calories in

Secondary Schools

Characteristics of Lunches Served in Public NSLP Schools 77

Elementary School Lunches

35%

105%

67%

59% 58%

44%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Calories Protein Vitamin A Vitamin C Calcium Iron

Percent of RDA

33%

Secondary School Lunches

64%

43%

54%

40%

30% 35%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Calories Protein Vitamin A Vitamin C Calcium Iron

Percent of RDA

33%
Characteristics of Lunches Served in Public NSLP Schools 78

Exhibit 3.5

Percentage of Schools in Which the Average Lunch

Served to Students Provided One-Third or More of the RDA

Elementary Secondary All

Schools Schools Schools

Percentage of Schools

Calories 68% 20% 51%

Protein 100 100 100

Vitamin A 98 65 87

Vitamin C 86 79 84

Calcium 100 86 95

Iron 93 60 82

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 398 677 1,075

Source: Weighted nutrient analysis of menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Characteristics of Lunches Served in Public NSLP Schools 79

calcium. The most limited nutrients in secondary school lunches were vitamin A and iron. On average,

lunches served in about a third of all secondary schools fell short of the NSLP standard for vitamin A. 

Lunches served in 40 percent of secondary schools fell short of the standard for iron.

Percentage of Calories from Total Fat and Saturated Fat

On average, lunches served to students in SY 1998–99 did not meet defined NSLP standards for the

percentage of calories from total fat or saturated fat (Exhibit 3.6). Lunches served in elementary schools

came somewhat closer to meeting the standard for calories from total fat than lunches served in secondary

schools. On average, lunches served in elementary schools provided 33 percent of calories from fat

(compared to the standard of no more than 30%). Lunches served in secondary schools provided

approximately 35 percent of calories from fat. 

Lunches served in both elementary and secondary schools exceeded the NSLP standard for calories from

saturated fat. The average lunch served in both types of schools provided about 12 percent of calories

from saturated fat, compared to the standard of less than 10 percent. 

Percentage of Schools Meeting Standards for Fat and Saturated Fat

Although overall means for calories from fat and saturated fat exceeded established NSLP standards, the

lunches served in some individual schools did meet these standards. Lunches served in 21 percent of all

elementary schools provided no more than 30 percent of calories from fat (Exhibit 3.7). The percentage

was 33 percent lower for secondary schools, at 14 percent. Lunches served in 15 percent of elementary

schools and 13 percent of secondary schools met the standard for calories from saturated fat (less than

10%). 

Cholesterol, Sodium and Carbohydrate Content

On average, lunches served in SY 1998–99 in both elementary schools and secondary schools satisfied

the NRC recommendation of no more than 100 mg of cholesterol (equivalent to one-third of the NRC’s

recommended daily maximum). (See Exhibit 3.8.) Indeed, lunches served in 98 percent of all schools

met this standard (Exhibit A.4).

In contrast, the mean sodium content of lunches served in both elementary schools and secondary schools

exceeded the NRC recommendation (no more than 800 mg) by a substantial margin. The mean sodium

content of lunches served in elementary schools was approximately 57 percent higher than the

recommended level (1,259 mg versus < 800 mg). Lunches served in secondary schools exceeded the

recommended level by 73 percent (1,382 mg versus < 800 mg). As the mean values suggest, lack of

conformity with the NRC recommendation for sodium content was widespread. Overall, lunches served

in only about one percent of all schools were consistent with this recommendation (Exhibit A.4). Almost

all of the schools that met this recommendation were elementary schools.

In comparison to the NRC recommendation that more than 55 percent of all calories come from

carbohydrate, lunches served in both elementary schools and secondary schools were low in carbohydrate

calories (Exhibit 3.8). Lunches served in both types of schools provided, on average, roughly 50 percent

of calories from carbohydrate. This is not unexpected, given the percentage of calories from fat — it is

difficult to meet the recommendation for calories from carbohydrate without meeting the standard for
Exhibit 3.6 Lunches Served to Students in SY1998-99 Did Not Meet NSLP

Standards for Calories From Fat and Saturated Fat

Elementary School Lunches

10%

33.1%

11.9%

30%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Total Fat Saturated Fat

Percent of Calories From...

NSLP Standard

Elementary Schools

30%

10%

34.5%

12.1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Total Fat Saturated Fat

Percent of Calories From...

NSLP Standard

Secondary Schools

≤

<

≤

<

Secondary School Lunches

Characteristics of Lunches Served in Public NSLP Schools 80
Characteristics of Lunches Served in Public NSLP Schools 81

Exhibit 3.7

Distribution of the Percentage of Calories from Total Fat, Saturated Fat 

and Carbohydrate in Average Lunches Served to Students

Elementary Secondary All

Schools Schools Schools

Percentage of Schools

Percentage of Calories from Fat

No more than 30% 21% 14% 19%

30.1-34.0% 41 34 39

34.1-36.0% 16 18 16

36.1-38.0% 12 15 13

38.1-40.0% 6 10 7

More than 40.0% 5 9 6

Percentage of Calories from Saturated Fat

Less than 10% 15% 13% 15%

10.1-12.0% 38 36 37

12.1-14.0% 31 36 33

14.1-16.0% 13 13 13

More than 16.0% 2 2 2

Percentage of Calories from Carbohydrate

Less than 45% 7% 12% 9%

45-55% 76 74 75

More than 55% 18 14 17

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 398 677 1,075

Notes: Highlighted rows show NSLP standard (fat and saturated fat) or NRC recommendation (carbohydrate). 

Column sections may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: Weighted nutrient analysis of menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Characteristics of Lunches Served in Public NSLP Schools 82

Elementary School Lunches

 Cholesterol Sodium Carbohydrate

Secondary School Lunches

>55%

51.4

0%

55%Percent of Calories From ...

>55%

50.0

0%

55%Percent of Calories From ...

 Cholesterol Sodium Carbohydrate

65

0

100Milligrams

≤100

0

1,259

1,600Milligrams

≤800

68

0

100Milligrams

≤100

0

1,600Milligrams

1,382

≤800

Secondary Schools

NRC Recommendation

Exhibit 3.8 Lunches Served to Students Met the NRC Recommendation for

Cholesterol but Did Not Meet Recommendations for Sodium or

Calories From Carbohydrate

Elementary Schools

NRC Recommendation
8 Results for all schools combined and for middle schools and high schools separately are shown in Appendix A.

Characteristics of Lunches Served in Public NSLP Schools 83

calories from fat. Only 18 percent of elementary schools and 14 percent of secondary schools served

lunches that were consistent with this recommendation (Exhibit 3.7).

Average Nutrient Content of Lunches Served to Students, by Menu

Planning Method

As described in previous chapters, schools have a variety of menu planning options from which to

choose: the traditional food-based menu planning system, the enhanced food-based menu planning

system, NSMP, ANSMP and “any reasonable approach.” To determine whether the choice of menu

planning system influenced the nutrient content of lunches served to students, the mean nutrient content

of lunches served in SY 1998–99 were compared on the basis of the menu planning system used. 

Because ANSMP was used in very few schools (a total of 20 schools in the unweighted sample), NSMP

and ANSMP schools were combined for purposes of this analysis. Schools that reported using an

alternative menu planning system (i.e., “any reasonable approach” — 36 schools in the unweighted

sample) were not included in the comparisons. 

Statistical significance of differences between menu planning systems was tested using two-tailed

t-tests. Two comparisons were made: lunches served in schools using the traditional food-based menu

planning system were compared to lunches served in schools using NSMP or ANSMP and to lunches

served in schools using the enhanced food-based menu planning system. Because of the large number of

t-tests that were conducted simultaneously, a conservative cutoff was used to define statistical

significance, thereby decreasing the likelihood of reporting chance findings. Only differences that were

statistically significant at the one percent level (p < .01) or better are reported. 

With regard to meals served in schools that reported using NSMP or ANSMP, it is important to

recognize that these computer-based menu planning systems may not have been fully implemented at the

time data were collected. Previous research has indicated that implementation of NSMP can be a lengthy

and challenging process. In a USDA-sponsored demonstration of NSMP, 16 SFAs took anywhere from

three to 33 months to implement NSMP, with an average time line of 19 months (Fox 1998). Because no

information is available on the status of NSMP/ANSMP implementation at the time data were collected,

the comparisons discussed in the following paragraphs should be interpreted as lower-bound estimates of

differences between NSMP/ANSMP and the traditional food-based menu planning system. Moreover,

the absence of differences cannot be interpreted as indicative of no effect in fully implemented

NSMP/ANSMP schools.

The data revealed relatively few differences in the average nutrient content of meals served in schools

using the various menu planning options. Among elementary schools, lunches served in NSMP/ 8

ANSMP schools provided 34 percent of the RDA for calories compared to 36 percent of the RDA for

schools that used the traditional food-based menu planning system (Exhibit 3.9). Lunches served in both

types of schools satisfied the one-third RDA standard for calories. In addition, lunches served in

elementary schools that used the enhanced food-based menu planning system provided, on a percentage
Characteristics of Lunches Served in Public NSLP Schools 84

Exhibit 3.9

Mean Nutrient Profile of Lunches Served, by Menu Planning System,

Compared to Nutrition Standards for NSLP Lunches and NRC Recommendations

Elementary Schools

Menu Planning System

Standard/ Traditional NSMP/ Enhanced All

Recommendation Food-Based ANSMP Food-Based Systems

Mean Percentage of RDA

Total Calories 33% 36% 34%* 36% 35%

Protein 33% 107 102 106 105

Vitamin A 33% 67 63 72 67

Vitamin C 33% 61 56 60 59

Calcium 33% 58 57 58 58

Iron 33% 45 42 44 44

Mean Percentage of Calories

Total Fat < 30% 33.8% 32.5% 32.6% 33.1%

Saturated Fat < 10% 12.4 11.7 11.5† 11.9

Carbohydrate > 55% 50.8 51.9 51.8 51.4 1

Mean Amount

Cholesterol (mg) < 100 67 63 63 65 1

Sodium (mg) < 800 1,294 1,228 1,255 1,259 1

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 155 108 122 398

NRC recommendation, not NSLP standard. 1

Notes: Data for NSMP and ANSMP were combined because of small sample size for ANSMP (7 schools).

Data for 13 schools that reported use of some other menu-planning system are not presented separately because of small sample

size. These schools are included in the “All Systems” column.

* Difference between means for traditional food-based system and NSMP/ANSMP is statistically significant at the .01 level.

† Difference between means for traditional and enhanced food-based systems is statistically significant at the .01 level.

Source: Weighted nutrient analysis of meal and menu production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Characteristics of Lunches Served in Public NSLP Schools 85

basis, fewer calories from saturated fat than lunches served in schools that used the traditional foodbased system. However, because both estimates rounded to 12 percent, lunches served in both types of

schools failed to meet the NSLP standard of less than 10 percent of calories from saturated fat. 

Among secondary schools, lunches served in schools that used the traditional food-based menu planning

system provided, on a percentage basis, more calories from fat (35% versus 34%) and saturated fat (13%

versus 12%) and fewer calories from carbohydrate (49% versus 51%), than lunches served in schools

that used the enhanced food-based system (Exhibit 3.10). Although none of these differences affect

conclusions about whether the average lunch met specific standards, the differences in means for the

percentage of calories from fat, saturated fat and carbohydrate are worth noting because they moved

schools in the enhanced food-based system group closer to each of the respective standards.

The percentage of schools deemed to have met the various NSLP standards and NRC recommendations

used in this analysis was also compared on the basis of menu planning method (Exhibits A.5 and A.6). 

The only significant difference detected was for calories among elementary schools. Elementary schools

that used the traditional food-based menu planning system were more likely than elementary schools that

used NSMP/ANSMP to meet the one-third RDA standard for calories (78% versus 55%). None of the

differences for other nutrition standards were significant for elementary schools and no significant

differences were noted for secondary schools. Thus, the type of menu planning system used did not

significantly affect the likelihood that an individual school would meet the various nutrition standards.

Characteristics of Low-Fat and Higher-Fat Lunches

USDA is committed to lowering the fat content of school meals without reducing the amounts of other

key nutrients provided to students. To address this concern, an analysis was undertaken to examine the

impact of lower levels of fat on the overall nutrient profile of lunches served to students. The analysis

also examined, in a general way, variations in menu offerings among schools in which the lunches served

to students provided different levels of fat. 

Schools were stratified into one of four groups based on the average percentage of calories from fat in

lunches served to students:

• Schools with low-fat lunches: Mean percentage of calories from fat was less than or equal

to 30 percent (the NSLP standard);

• Schools with moderate-fat lunches: Mean percentage of calories from fat ranged from

more than 30 percent to 34 percent;

• Schools with high-fat lunches: Mean percentage of calories from fat ranged from more

than 34 percent to 38 percent;

• Schools with highest-fat lunches: Mean percentage of calories from fat was more than 38

percent.
Characteristics of Lunches Served in Public NSLP Schools 86

Exhibit 3.10

Mean Nutrient Profile of Lunches Served, by Menu Planning System,

Compared to Nutrition Standards for NSLP Lunches and NRC Recommendations

Secondary Schools

Menu Planning System

Standard/ Traditional NSMP/ Enhanced All

Recommendation Food-Based ANSMP Food-Based Systems

Mean Percentage of RDA

Total Calories 33% 30% 30% 30% 30%

Protein 33% 64 63 64 64

Vitamin A 33% 42 41 48 43

Vitamin C 33% 52 56 55 54

Calcium 33% 40 40 40 40

Iron 33% 35 35 34 35

Mean Percentage of Calories

Total Fat < 30% 35.3% 34.2% 33.5%† 34.5%

Saturated Fat < 10% 12.5 12.0 11.7 † 12.1

Carbohydrate > 55% 49.0 50.3 51.1 †† 50.0 1

Mean Amount

Cholesterol (mg) < 100 71 65 67 68 1

Sodium (mg) < 800 1,374 1,392 1,392 1,382 1

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 282 175 197 677

NRC recommendation, not NSLP standard. 1

Notes: Data for NSMP and ANSMP were combined because of small sample size for ANSMP (13 schools).

Data for 23 schools that reported use of some other menu planning system are not presented separately because of small sample

size. These schools are included in the “All Systems” column.

† Difference between the traditional and enhanced food-based systems is statistically significant at the .01 level.

†† Difference between the traditional and enhanced food-based systems is statistically significant at the .001 level.

Source: Weighted nutrient analysis of menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Characteristics of Lunches Served in Public NSLP Schools 87

Nineteen percent of all schools satisfied the NSLP standard of providing no more than 30 percent of

calories from fat (Exhibit 3.7) and were thus included in the low-fat group. The largest group, the

moderate-fat group, included 39 percent of all schools. Another 29 percent of schools fell into the highfat group and 13 percent of schools were in the highest-fat group.

Average Nutrient Content of Lunches by Relative Fat Content

With regard to calories and the key RDA nutrients, nutrient profiles for the average lunch offered in each

type of school were very consistent. In virtually all cases, means for calories and key nutrients met or

exceeded the one-third RDA standard defined for NSLP meals (Exhibit 3.11). The mean calorie level for

schools in the high-fat group (32.4%) fell just short of this standard. These data indicate that decreased

levels of fat in school lunches was not associated with notable decreases in the availability of calories or

key nutrients. 

In fact, decreased levels of fat appear to be associated with other positive changes in school meals,

namely, a smaller percentage of calories from saturated fat and a greater percentage of calories from

carbohydrate. Among schools in the low-fat group, the overall mean for the percentage of calories from

saturated fat (10%) was very close to the NSLP standard of less than 10 percent. 

Foods Most Commonly Offered

Exhibit 3.12 shows the relative frequency with which various food items were included in the menus

offered by schools in the four relative-fat-content groups. The tabulations reflect the percentage of

schools that offered the specific food or food group at least once per week. This analysis is meant to be

descriptive — no statistical tests have been performed on the data. Because of small sample sizes for

some of the individual cells, readers should be cautious not to over-interpret the data. Patterns observed

in the data provide some insight into menu planning practices that may influence the level of fat in school

lunches but should not be interpreted as fully predictive. The percentage of calories from fat in the

average meal served to students is influenced by the full array of menu offerings, and by students’ food

selection patterns, rather than by the availability of a single item or group of items.

Below, notable differences between menu offerings in schools in the low-fat and highest-fat groups are

summarized. Patterns observed for the moderate- and high-fat groups may or may not follow suit. 

Disparities reflect the fact that the relationship between menu offerings and relative fat content is not a

simple linear relationship. The more consistent the relationship between a specific menu characteristic

and relative fat content, the more important the characteristic is likely to be in determining the ultimate

percentage of calories provided by fat. 

• Milk: Schools in the low-fat group offered flavored milk that was made from 1% milk more

often than schools in the highest-fat group. In addition, schools in the low-fat group offered

whole milk and flavored milk made from 2% milk less often than schools in the highest-fat

group. Schools in the low-fat group also offered flavored milk made with skim milk more

often than schools in the highest-fat group.

• Fruit and Juice: Schools in the low-fat group offered fresh fruit more often than schools in

the highest-fat group.
Characteristics of Lunches Served in Public NSLP Schools 88

Exhibit 3.11

In Comparison to Higher-Fat Lunches, Low-Fat Lunches Provided

Comparable Amounts of Calories and Key Nutrients

Relative Amount of Fat in Average 

Lunch, as Served1

Standard/

Recommendation Low Moderate High Highest

Mean Percentage of RDA

Total Calories 33% 34% 34% 32% 33%

Protein 33% 94 93 86 83

Vitamin A 33% 65 60 56 52

Vitamin C 33% 70 57 54 48

Calcium 33% 53 52 50 49

Iron 33% 43 42 38 36

Mean Percentage of Calories

from...

Total Fat < 30% 28.2% 32.7% 36.4% 40.5%

Saturated Fat < 10% 10.0 11.8 13.0 14.4

Carbohydrate > 55% 56.4 51.7 47.9 44.4 2

Mean Amount

Cholesterol (mg) < 100 57 66 68 76 2

Sodium (mg) < 800 1,275 1,300 1,293 1,363 2

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 206 527 200 142

Low-fat is defined as no more than 30 percent of calories from fat; moderate-fat as more than 30 percent up to 34 percent; high-fat as 1

more than 34 percent up to 38 percent; and highest-fat as more than 38 percent. Schools in the low-fat group met the NSLP standard

for the percentage of calories from fat. 

NRC recommendation, not NSLP standard. 2

Source: Weighted nutrient analysis of menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Characteristics of Lunches Served in Public NSLP Schools 89

Exhibit 3.12

Schools that Served Low-Fat Lunches Tended to Offer Certain Foods More

Often than Schools that Served the Highest-Fat Lunches

Relative Amount of Fat in

Average Lunch, as Served1

Low Moderate High Highest

Percentage of Schools Offering Item at 

Least Once per Week

Milk

1% flavored 77% 70% 62% 65%

1% unflavored 55 49 59 58

2% unflavored 47 56 40 45

Whole unflavored 37 52 53 61

Skim unflavored 32 39 47 26 2

Skim flavored 24 19 17 14 2

2% flavored <1 12 21 14

Fruits and Juices

Canned fruit 94 92 89 88

Fresh fruit 80 76 76 55

Full-strength citrus juice 24 23 18 22

Full-strength non-citrus juice 21 24 21 25

Frozen fruit or juice 20 23 21 19

Vegetables

Cooked vegetables (other than potatoes and 96 89 84 83

 French fries)

Potatoes other than French fries or similar 71 67 71 70

potato products

Oven-fried French fries/potato products 63 58 63 63

Green salads (other than entree salads) 54 75 75 75

Raw vegetables other than green salads or 44 47 45 41

lettuce and/or tomato

Legumes 21 38 25 37

Other vegetable items (soups, mixed 21 17 21 18

casseroles)

Lettuce and/or tomato 14 23 22 29 3

Other (non-green) salads 14 25 27 22

Deep-fried French fries/potato products 8 12 20 28

Combination Entrees

Sandwiches made with cheese and/or 60 55 77 59

cold cuts

Pasta-based dishes 59 60 46 45

Hamburgers and similar beef/pork sandwiches 55 57 61 50
Exhibit 3.12

(continued)

Relative Amount of Fat in

Average Lunch, as Served1

Low Moderate High Highest

Characteristics of Lunches Served in Public NSLP Schools 90

Combination Entrees (continued)

Mexican-style entrees 52% 53% 58% 71%

Pizza without meat 46 47 44 28

Pizza with meat 43 47 53 61

Hot dogs/corn dogs/similar sausage products 42 51 53 72

Sandwiches made with breaded and/or fried 38 40 49 28

meat/poultry/fish (no cheese)

Sandwiches made with lean meat or 35 32 36 26

poultry (no cheese)

Other mixed dishes/combinations 31 35 34 29

Peanut butter sandwiches 30 25 47 24

Food bars (other than salad bars)/bag lunches 22 9 11 9

Cheeseburgers and similar beef/pork 21 32 56 46

 sandwiches

Chef’s salad or other salad plate 19 27 36 19

Sandwiches made with mayonnaise- 12 17 27 14

based salads (no cheese)

Salad bars 7 10 21 18

Breakfast sandwiches 6 5 3 6

Meats/Meat Alternates (not part of a combination entree)

Breaded chicken nuggets/patties/similar 43 43 49 55

products

Other breaded or fried meat/poultry/fish 24 31 47 43

Plain (not breaded or fried) meat/poultry/fish 36 29 25 32

Meat/poultry/fish with mayonnaise or gravy 13 11 15 11

Yogurt 3 5 4 4

Sausage 1 3 5 10

Grains/Breads (not part of a combination entree)

Bread, rolls, bagels, other plain breads 75 71 67 65

Crackers/hard pretzels 41 32 24 27

Pre-buttered bread/rolls 13 20 11 10

Rice 25 28 26 25

Biscuits, cornbread, croissants, other 30 37 23 33

higher-fat breads/bread alternates

Pastries/muffins 14 15 9 4

Pasta 9 17 16 22

Pancakes/waffles/French toast 7 2 0 1
Exhibit 3.12

(continued)

Relative Amount of Fat in

Average Lunch, as Served1

Low Moderate High Highest

Characteristics of Lunches Served in Public NSLP Schools 91

Desserts

Baked desserts 57% 61% 49% 52%

Other desserts (non-fruited gelatin, pudding, 45 45 22 26

ice cream)

Dessert items that include fruit or juice 30 26 15 21

Other Menu Items4

Snack chips 14 9 16 14

Soups 13 10 4 7

Fruit drinks/ades 11 6 14 7

Condiments, Salad Dressings, and Spreads4

Nonfat/lowfat condiments 92 93 98 94

Nonfat/lowfat salad dressings 38 38 36 17

Higher-fat condiments 33 50 62 53

Higher-fat spreads 31 24 37 24

Nonfat/lowfat spreads 29 16 14 5

Regular salad dressings 26 58 61 68

Number of Daily Menus (Unweighted) 1,010 2,585 966 691

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 206 527 200 142

Low-fat is defined as 30 percent or less of total calories from fat; moderate-fat as more than 30 percent up to 34 percent; high-fat as 1

more than 34 percent up to 38 percent; and highest-fat as more than 38 percent. Schools in the low-fat group met the NSLP standard

for the percentage of calories from fat. 

Includes 1/2 percent milk. 2

Lettuce and/or tomato offered as a vegetable choice for all students. Excludes lettuce and tomato included in prepared sandwiches or 3

offered with other prepared entrees.

Foods that do not contribute to satisfying the meal patterns for the traditional or enhanced food-based menu planning systems. 4

Note: See Exhibit E.6 for a detailed listing of items included in each group.

Source: Weighted tabulations of menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Characteristics of Lunches Served in Public NSLP Schools 92

• Vegetables: Schools in the highest-fat group offered cooked vegetables other than potatoes

and French fries less often than schools in the low-fat group. Schools in the highest-fat

group also offered deep-fried French fries much more often than schools in the low-fat

group. Schools in the low-fat group offered legumes (most often baked beans or refried

beans) and green salads (most often accompanied by dressings) less often than schools in the

highest-fat group.

• Combination Entrees and Separate Meats/Meat Alternates: In comparison to schools in

the highest-fat group, schools in the low-fat group offered the following items less often —

Mexican-style entrees; pizza with meat; hot dogs, corn dogs and similar sausage products;

cheeseburgers; salad bars; and all types of breaded or fried meat, fish and poultry. At the

same time, schools in the low-fat group offered pasta-based dishes; pizza without meat; and

food bars and bag lunches more often than schools in the highest-fat group.

• Separate Breads/Grains: In comparison to the highest-fat group, schools in the low-fat

group tended to offer bread/bread alternates outside of combination entrees more often. 

These items may have been available to all students or offered with a particular combination

entree or meat/meat alternate and were most often lower-fat bread options, e.g., plain bread

and rolls and crackers or hard pretzels. Schools in the highest-fat group offered pasta-based

side dishes (most often macaroni and cheese) more often than schools in the low-fat group. 

• Desserts: Schools in the low-fat group offered all types of dessert more often than schools

in the highest-fat group. This finding may seem counterintuitive but, depending on the

characteristics of the menu and the dessert, desserts can decrease the percentage of calories

provided by fat by increasing carbohydrate calories.

• Condiments, Salad Dressings and Spreads: Schools in the low-fat group offered nonfat

and lowfat salad dressings and spreads more often than schools in the highest-fat group. At

the same time, schools in the highest-fat group offered regular salad dressings and higher-fat

condiments more often than schools in the low-fat group.

Sources of Calories and Nutrients in NSLP Lunches as Served 

To provide information on the food sources of calories and key nutrients in NSLP lunches, menu items

were classified into one of six major food groups — milk; fruit, juice and vegetables; combination

entrees; separate meats/meat alternates (not part of a combination entree); separate grains/breads (not

part of a combination entree); and other menu items. These major food groups were expanded to 26

minor food groups. The percentage contribution of each major and minor food group to the calorie and

nutrient content of the average lunch (as served) was then computed. Results are shown in Exhibit 3.13

and major findings are summarized below.
Characteristics of Lunches Served in Public NSLP Schools 93

Exhibit 3.13

Sources of Calories and Nutrients in NSLP Lunches as Served

Food Group/Food(s) Percentage Contribution to Average Amount Served

Calories Protein Carbohydrate Fat Saturated Fat Sodium

Milk 17.8% 24.0% 20.7% 10.4% 18.2% 9.1%

Whole milk 1.6 2.0 1.0 2.3 4.0 0.7

Lowfat/nonfat milks 16.2 22.0 19.7 8.1 14.1 8.5

Fruits, Juices, Vegetables 16.6 7.2 25.0 10.5 8.0 11.8

Fruit/juice 6.0 1.1 11.9 0.7 0.5 0.3

Vegetables 10.6 6.1 13.1 9.8 7.5 11.5

Combination Entrees 39.8 50.5 29.4 48.4 51.5 48.7

Hamburgers, 7.2 10.2 4.6 9.3 10.6 6.9

cheeseburgers, similar

sandwiches

Hot dogs, corn dogs, 2.7 2.5 1.9 4.0 3.7 4.3

sausage products

Pizza 9.6 11.7 7.6 11.3 13.2 12.2

Other sandwiches 8.8 11.2 6.7 10.4 10.1 12.5

Chef’s salad, salad bars,

 other food bars 2.6 3.2 1.9 3.3 3.3 3.4

Mixed dishes1

8.8 11.7 6.7 10.2 10.7 9.5

Meat/Meat Alternates (not 5.4 8.9 1.9 8.5 6.6 6.2

part of a combination entree)

Breaded/fried meat,

poultry, fish2 4.2 6.2 1.6 6.7 5.0 4.4

Other meats/meat 1.2 2.7 0.3 1.7 1.6 1.9

alternates

Grains/Breads (not part of a 8.2 5.1 10.6 5.8 3.9 7.7

combination entree)

Bread, rolls, bagels, 3.9 2.7 5.4 2.1 1.2 3.3

other plain breads

Biscuits, cornbread, 1.9 1.1 2.1 1.9 1.2 2.0

croissants, other

higher-fat breads

Crackers/hard pretzels 0.6 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.8

Pastries/muffins 0.6 0.3 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.4

Pasta/rice 1.1 0.7 1.3 0.9 0.8 1.3

Pancakes, waffles, 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1

French toast
Exhibit 3.13

(continued)

Characteristics of Lunches Served in Public NSLP Schools 94

Food Group/Food(s) Percentage Contribution to Average Amount Served

Calories Protein Carbohydrate Fat Saturated Fat Sodium

Other Menu Items 12.3 4.3 12.5 16.4 11.8 16.4 3

Desserts 5.8 2.0 7.4 5.4 5.0 2.7

Snack Chips 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.3

Fruit drinks/ades 0.5 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

Miscellaneous 1.1 1.2 0.7 1.5 2.1 2.8

Nonfat/lowfat condiments 1.5 0.6 2.5 0.9 0.3 7.9

and spreads

Nonfat/lowfat salad 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.3 1.0

dressings

Higher-fat condiments and 1.5 0.2 0.1 4.4 2.2 0.7

 spreads

Regular salad dressings 1.1 0.0 0.2 2.9 1.4 1.0
Exhibit 3.13

(continued)

Characteristics of Lunches Served in Public NSLP Schools 95

Food Group/Food(s) Percentage Contribution to Average Amount Served

Cholesterol Vitamin A Vitamin C Calcium Iron

Milk 14.6% 30.0% 7.2% 53.9% 8.6%

Whole milk 3.7 1.4 0.6 4.6 0.2

Lowfat/nonfat milk 10.8 28.6 6.6 49.3 8.4

Fruits, Juices, Vegetables 2.1 41.4 66.8 5.6 16.8

Fruit/juice 0.1 2.6 37.4 1.6 4.3

Vegetables 2.0 38.8 29.5 4.0 12.5

Combination Entrees 57.6 20.0 13.1 31.9 49.5

Hamburgers, 12.1 1.5 0.8 4.2 10.4

cheeseburgers, similar

sandwiches

Hot dogs, corn dogs, 4.2 0.2 0.2 0.9 3.2

sausage products

Pizza 8.8 5.6 1.4 13.0 11.1

Other sandwiches 13.4 2.5 0.7 6.1 10.1

Chef’s salad, salad bars, 5.2 4.9 3.4 2.1 2.9

 other food bars

Mixed dishes 13.9 5.2 6.4 5.6 11.9 1

Meat/Meat Alternates (not 14.2 0.8 0.4 1.0 4.9

part of a combination entree)

Breaded/fried meat, 10.2 0.5 0.2 0.7 3.6

poultry, fish2

Other meats/meat 4.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.4

alternates

Grains/Breads (not part of a 2.3 1.4 0.9 3.4 12.1

combination entree)

Bread, rolls, bagels, 0.2 0.1 0.0 1.6 6.6

other plain breads

Biscuits, cornbread, 0.9 0.5 0.1 0.9 2.4

croissants, other

higher-fat breads

Crackers/hard pretzels 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0

Pastries/muffins 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.8

Pasta/rice 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 1.3

Pancakes, waffles, 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

French toast
Exhibit 3.13

(continued)

Characteristics of Lunches Served in Public NSLP Schools 96

Food Group/Food(s) Percentage Contribution to Average Amount Served

Cholesterol Vitamin A Vitamin C Calcium Iron

Other Menu Items 9.2 6.4 11.6 4.3 8.1 3

Desserts 4.2 2.5 2.2 1.9 4.0

Snack chips 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.2

Fruit drinks/ades 0.0 0.1 4.8 0.2 0.2

Miscellaneous 1.8 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.1

Nonfat/lowfat condiments 0.2 1.5 3.0 0.6 2.2

and spreads

Nonfat/lowfat salad 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0

dressings

Higher-fat condiments and 1.4 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.2

spreads

Regular salad dressings 1.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1

Includes Mexican-style entrees, pasta-based entrees and other mixtures (e.g., Shepherd’s pie, chili, quiche). 1

Includes meat/fish/poultry that is breaded, fried and/or prepared with gravy or mayonnaise. 2

Foods that do not contribute to satisfying the meal patterns for the traditional or enhanced food-based menu planning systems. 3

Notes: See Exhibit E.6 for a detailed listing of items included in each group. 

Columns may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
Characteristics of Lunches Served in Public NSLP Schools 97

Calories

The major source of calories in NSLP lunches served in SY1998-99 was combination entrees, which

provided about 40 percent of total calories. Major contributors included pizza; sandwiches; mixed

dishes; and hamburgers, cheeseburgers and similar beef/pork sandwiches. Milk, primarily in the form of

lowfat milks, made the second largest contribution to total calories (18%). Fruit, juice and vegetables

contributed 17 percent of total calories; and other menu items, including desserts, salad dressings,

condiments, spreads and other extras contributed more than 10 percent of total calories. Most of the

calories in the latter group came from desserts (6%) and high-fat salad dressings, condiments and spreads

(3%).

Carbohydrate

Combination entrees were also the leading source of carbohydrate in school lunches (29%). Leading

carbohydrate contributors in this group included pizza, sandwiches and mixed dishes. Fruit, juice and

vegetables were the second leading source of carbohydrate in school lunches (25%). Roughly equivalent

proportions of the total were contributed by fruit and juice and by vegetables. The third major

contributor of carbohydrate in school lunches was milk (21%). 

Total Fat

Almost half of the fat in school lunches served in SY1998-99 came from combination entrees. Major

contributors included pizza, sandwiches and mixed dishes. Other menu items (items that don’t contribute

to meeting meal pattern requirements) contributed roughly 16 percent of the fat in the average school

lunch. Most of this fat was concentrated in high-fat salad dressings, condiments and spreads (7%) and in

desserts (5%). Fruit, vegetables and juice — as a group — contributed about 11 percent of total fat. 

Virtually all of this fat came from vegetables. Additional analyses (not shown) documented that most of

this fat was contributed by French fries and other processed potato products.

Saturated Fat

More than two-thirds of the saturated fat in school lunches was contributed by combination entrees

(52%) and by milk (18%). Other menu items contributed 12 percent of the saturated fat. Major

contributors included high-fat salad dressings, condiments and spreads (4%) and desserts (5%). Separate

meats and meat alternates, which were offered relatively infrequently (see Exhibit 3.2), contributed about

seven percent of the saturated fat. 

Sodium

Together, combination entrees (49%) and other menu items (16%) accounted for 65 percent of the

sodium in the average school lunch. Condiments, spreads and salad dressings alone (all types)

contributed 11 percent of the total sodium. Fruit, juice and vegetables were the third major source of

sodium, contributing about 12 percent of the total. Virtually all of the sodium from this group came from

vegetables.
Characteristics of Lunches Served in Public NSLP Schools 98

Cholesterol

The leading source of cholesterol in NSLP lunches served in SY 1998-99 was combination entrees,

which contributed close to 60 percent of the cholesterol in the average lunch. Major contributors

included mixed dishes; sandwiches; and hamburgers, cheeseburgers and similar beef/pork sandwiches. 

Milk and meats and meat alternates (primarily breaded or fried meat, poultry or fish) each contributed

about 14 percent of the cholesterol in the average lunch. 

Vitamin A

Fruit, juice and vegetables were the major contributors of vitamin A in school lunches (41%). The

majority of this vitamin A came from vegetables. Milk was the second leading contributor of vitamin A,

supplying 30 percent of the total. Combination entrees contributed 20 percent of the vitamin A. Major

contributors in this group included pizza; mixed dishes; and Chef’s salads, salad bars and other food

bars.

Vitamin C

Fruit, juice and vegetables were also the primary source of vitamin C in school lunches, contributing

more than two-thirds of the vitamin C in the average lunch. Thirty-seven percent of the vitamin C was

contributed by fruit and juice and 30 percent was contributed by vegetables. Fruit drinks and ades

contributed about five percent of the vitamin C.

Calcium

Milk provided more than half of the calcium in the average school lunch. Combination entrees provided

almost a third of the calcium, primarily from pizza, sandwiches and mixed dishes. 

Iron

Half of the iron in the average school lunch was contributed by combination entrees. Fruit, vegetables

and juice contributed another 17 percent of the total iron, with the majority (13%) coming from

vegetables. Separate grains and breads contributed 12 percent of the total iron. 
1 Schools that are not using the traditional or enhanced food-based menu planning systems are not required to offer specific

food items. Menus offered in these schools are generally consistent with the basic elements of the food-based meal pattern,

however, so the basic meal component categories still provide a useful framework for describing SBP menus. 

Characteristics of Breakfasts Served in Public SBP Schools 99

Chapter Four

Characteristics of Breakfasts Served in Public SBP

Schools

This chapter presents information on the average nutrient content of breakfasts served in public SBP

schools during SY 1998–99. Information is also provided on the types of food offered, the number of

options available to students selecting a breakfast and the characteristics of breakfasts served to students. 

In addition, information is provided on variation in nutrient content by menu planning system and by

relative fat content. 

The general approach to data analysis and reporting in this chapter is identical to that used in the

preceding chapter on the characteristics of school lunches. The data presented are based on a weighted

nutrient analysis and are therefore not directly comparable to data from the SNDA-I study (which are

based on an unweighted analysis). A comparison of SNDA-I and SNDA-II data, completed using

comparable analytic techniques for the two data sets, is presented in Chapter Six. 

Number and Types of Food Offered and Served to Students

This section provides background information on the characteristics of the breakfast menus offered to

students as well as on students’ general food selection patterns. 

Number of Options Offered Within SBP Meal Component Categories

Information on the relative amount of choice available to students selecting an SBP breakfast is

summarized in Exhibit 4.1. The exhibit shows the percentage of daily SBP menus that offered various

numbers of options within major menu item categories. More than eight out of 10 daily SBP menus 1

provided students with the opportunity to select a specific type of milk; the remainder offered only one

type of milk. This pattern is noticeably different from that observed for NSLP lunches, where 96 percent

of all daily menus offered at least two milk choices (see Chapter Three). The primary reason for this

difference is that fewer schools offered flavored milk at breakfast.

More than half of all SBP menus offered a choice of fruit, juice or vegetable (more than one). Secondary

school menus tended to have more options in this category than elementary school menus. Sixteen

percent of daily secondary school menus included four or more fruit, juice or vegetable options, compared

to 10 percent of elementary school menus. Almost half of all elementary school menus were limited to
Characteristics of Breakfasts Served in Public SBP Schools 100

Exhibit 4.1

Choice and Variety in Breakfast Menus

Elementary Secondary All

Schools Schools Schools

Percentage of Daily Breakfast Menus

Number of Types of Milk Offered per Day

1 18% 17% 18%

2 42 32 38

3 30 32 31

4 or more 10 19 13

Median items per day 2 3 3

Median number of different items per week1 2 3 3

Number of Fruits/Juices/Vegetables Offered per Day

1 49% 40% 46%

2 21 23 21

3 20 21 20

4 or more 10 16 12

Median items per day 2 2 2

Median number of different items per week1 3 3 3

Number of Combination Entrees Offered per Day

None 71% 55% 66%

1 27 33 29

2 or more 3 12 6

Median items per day 0 0 0

Median number of different items per week1 1 1 1

Number of Separate Breads/Grains Offered per Day2

None 7% 7% 7%

1 26 22 25

2 37 26 33

3 22 21 21

4-5 7 16 10

6 or more 2 8 4

Median items per day 2 2 2

Median number of different items per week1 6 6 6
Exhibit 4.1

(continued)

Elementary Secondary All

Schools Schools Schools

Percentage of Daily Breakfast Menus

Characteristics of Breakfasts Served in Public SBP Schools 101

Number of Separate Meat/Meat Alternates Offered per Day2

None 74% 68% 72%

1 24 25 24

2 or more 3 7 4

Median items per day 0 0 0

Median number of different items per week1 1 1 1

Number of Daily Menus (Unweighted) 1,551 2,371 3,922

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 317 487 804

Includes only schools that provided menu information for five days. 1

Not included in combination entrees. All cold cereals counted as one choice. 2

Source: Weighted tabulations of menu data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Characteristics of Breakfasts Served in Public SBP Schools 102

one fruit, juice or vegetable offering, compared to 40 percent of secondary school menus. For all schools,

the median number of fruit, juice or vegetable choices offered per day was two. Across a week, schools

offered a median of three different items in this category, indicating that some items were offered more

than once per week. 

Breakfast menus differed from lunch menus in that combination entrees were not the norm. As shown in

Exhibit 4.1, more than 70 percent of all elementary school menus and more than half of all secondary

school menus included no combination entrees. When entrees were offered, there was generally only one

such item available. However, 12 percent of secondary school menus did offer two or more combination

entrees. 

The main focal point of most breakfast menus was breads and bread alternates (e.g., toast, bagels, cereal,

pastries, muffins, pancakes or waffles). More than two-thirds of all daily breakfast menus included two

or more bread or grain products (all types of cold cereal were considered one choice). More than a third

of all menus included three or more choices. Secondary school menus offered the greatest number of

options in this category; 24 percent of all daily breakfast menus in secondary schools included four or

more breads or bread alternates.

Across all schools, the median number of daily bread/bread alternate choices was two and the median

number of different items offered across the week was six. In considering these data, it is important to

bear in mind that students were often expected to select two bread or grain items (e.g., cereal and toast) to

satisfy requirements for a reimbursable meal. 

Seventy-two percent of all daily breakfast menus included no meat or meat alternate items (other than

those that might have been included in a combination entree). When such items were offered, there was

generally only one option available.

Foods Most Frequently Included in SBP Menus

To obtain more detailed information on the types of food offered in SBP meals, menu items were

classified into one of six major food groups — milk; fruit, juice and vegetables; grains and breads;

meats/meat alternates; combination entrees; and other menu items (foods not “counted” toward

component requirements in food-based meal patterns). Foods were further classified into 29 minor food

groups. 

Exhibit 4.2 shows the percentage of daily menus in which each major and minor food group was offered. 

The exhibit is limited to minor food groups that were offered in at least five percent of daily menus,

overall, or for either type of school. Major findings are summarized below:

• The type of milk most frequently offered in SBP menus, in both elementary schools and

secondary schools, was unflavored 1% milk. (The leading milk option in lunch menus was

flavored 1% milk). The next most commonly offered milks were whole milk, 2% 

(unflavored) milk and flavored 1% milk. 
Characteristics of Breakfasts Served in Public SBP Schools 103

Exhibit 4.2

Foods Most Commonly Offered in Breakfast Menus

Elementary Secondary All

Schools Schools Schools

Percentage of Daily Menus in Which Item Was Offered

Milk 100% 100% 100%

1% unflavored 55 56 56

Whole unflavored 49 48 49

2% unflavored 46 45 46

1% flavored 42 53 46

Skim unflavored 23 29 25 1

Skim flavored 8 16 11 1

2% flavored 8 4 7

Fruits, Juices and Vegetables 99% 99% 99%

Full-strength citrus juices 65 81 71

Full-strength non-citrus juices 56 56 56

Fresh fruit 16 19 17

Canned fruit 17 11 15

Potatoes (all types) 3 6 4

Grains/Breads

(not part of a combination entree) 93% 93% 93%

Cold cereal 70 71 70

Bread, rolls, bagels, other plain 18 30 22

breads

Donuts, Danish, other pastry 28 37 31

Pancakes, waffles, French toast 19 22 20

Muffins, sweet/quick breads, cereal 16 19 17

 bars

Buttered toast, bagels with cream 22 17 20

cheese

Biscuits, cornbread, croissants 8 14 10

Crackers 10 7 9

2

Meats/Meat Alternates

(not part of a combination entree) 26% 32% 28%

Sausage 10 15 12

Eggs 5 6 6

Yogurt 4 7 5

Cheese 5 2 4
Exhibit 4.2

(continued)

Elementary Secondary All

Schools Schools Schools

Percentage of Daily Menus in Which Item Was Offered

Characteristics of Breakfasts Served in Public SBP Schools 104

Combination Entrees 29% 45% 34%

Breakfast sandwiches 14 26 18

Pizza (all types) 8 13 10

Sausage with pancake and similar 4 6 5

products

Mexican-style entree 2 7 4

Other Menu Items32% 6% 4%

Fruit drinks/ades 1 5 2

Number of Daily Menus (Unweighted) 1,551 2,311 3,922

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 317 487 804

Notes: Exhibit is limited to items that appeared in at least five percent of menus for at least one type of school.

See Exhibit E.6 for a detailed listing of items included in each group.

Includes 1⁄2 percent milk. 1

Generally graham crackers or saltines that could be coupled with peanut butter or cheese. 2

Foods that do not contribute to satisfying the meal patterns for the traditional or enhanced food-based menu planning systems. 3

Source: Weighted tabulations of menu data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
2 Reported percentages were derived by summing figures for all types of flavored milk. Although percentages for individual

minor food groups are generally not mutually exclusive, in this case they are because schools rarely offer more than one

type of flavored milk. 

Characteristics of Breakfasts Served in Public SBP Schools 105

Flavored milks were offered more often in secondary schools than in elementary schools. 

Fifty-eight percent of breakfast menus in elementary schools included one or more types of

flavored milk compared to about 73 percent of secondary school menus. 

2

• The most common offering in the fruit, juice and vegetable category was juice. Citrus juice

was offered more frequently than non-citrus juice. Sixty-five percent of all elementary

school menus and 81 percent of all secondary school menus included one or more citrus

juices. Just over half of all menus included non-citrus juice. 

• Fruit was offered in breakfast menus much less frequently than juice. Fresh fruit was

offered in fewer than 20 percent of all menus. The same is true for canned fruit. Potatoes

were offered in fewer than five percent of all menus, most commonly at the secondary school

level.

• Cold breakfast cereals were a mainstay of breakfast menus, appearing in roughly seven out

of 10 menus in both elementary and secondary schools. Other breads and grains were

offered with much less frequency. More than one in five breakfast menus included bread/

toast, bagels, English muffins or other plain breads. About 30 percent included pastries

such as Danish, doughnuts, sweet rolls and the like. Pancakes, waffles or French toast were

used in one out of five breakfast menus. 

• Meats and meat alternates were infrequently offered as a discrete menu item (rather than as

part of a combination entree). Separate meats or meat alternates were included in only 28

percent of all breakfast menus. Secondary school menus included meats and meat alternates

more often than elementary school menus. Sausage was the item offered most frequently.

• Combination entrees were more common in secondary school menus than in elementary

school menus (45% versus 29%). In all cases, the most common type of entree offered was

a breakfast sandwich similar to those served in fast food restaurants (e.g., eggs with some

combination of cheese and/or bacon, sausage or ham on an English muffin, bagel or biscuit). 

Other combination entrees that appeared in at least five percent of daily menus included

pizza (10%) and pancake-wrapped sausages or similar products (5%).

• The only non-creditable menu item used with any frequency in breakfast menus was fruit

drinks. These were used primarily in secondary schools and appeared in only five percent of

those menus. 

Characteristics of Breakfasts Actually Served to Students 

In addition to having the ability to select specific foods within a meal component category, students

participating in the SBP have varying levels of flexibility regarding the minimum number of foods or

items they are required to take when selecting a meal. In general, however, students have fewer options

in this regard at breakfast than they do at lunch. In the SBP, unlike the NSLP, the “Offer-versus-Serve”

(OVS) option (see Chapter Three) is not mandatory for secondary schools. OVS is optional, at the

discretion of the local school district, at all school levels. 
Characteristics of Breakfasts Served in Public SBP Schools 106

When OVS is implemented in schools using the traditional or enhanced food-based menu planning

systems, students may refuse one of the four food items that must be offered (milk; fruit, juice or

vegetable; two servings of grain/bread or meat/meat alternate or one of each). In schools using NSMP or

ANSMP, which are required to offer at least three menu items (one of which must be milk), students may

decline a maximum of one of the offered menu items. 

As Exhibit 4.3 illustrates, the makeup of breakfasts served to students did vary from the full complement

of foods included in the traditional and enhanced meal patterns. While milk was offered in every SBP

menu, about 10 percent of the breakfasts served to students on an average day did not include milk. Milk

was more commonly omitted in breakfasts served in secondary schools than in breakfasts served in

elementary schools (14% versus 8%). This pattern is essentially identical to that observed for lunches

(see Chapter Three). 

On average, 88 percent of students who had an opportunity to include a serving of fruit, juice or

vegetable in their SBP breakfast did so. The vast majority of breakfasts served to students included two

or more servings of bread or grain and/or meat/meat alternate. However, a small percentage of

breakfasts did not. It is important to note that students do not necessarily have to select two menu items

to obtain two servings of bread/grain and/or meat/meat alternate. Many bread products are of sufficient

size or weight to qualify for two servings of bread/grain, e.g., a full bagel or a full English muffin. The

same is true for most breakfast sandwiches and other combination entrees. 

Average Nutrient Content of Breakfasts Served to Students

This section presents data on the average nutrient content of breakfasts served to students in SY 1998–99

in comparison to defined SBP nutrition standards and NRC recommendations. The discussion is divided

into three sections as outlined below.

• Nutrient Content Relative to RDAs. Mean contribution to RDAs for calories, protein,

vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium and iron is evaluated in light of the defined nutrient standard

for breakfast (25% of the RDA).

• Percentage of Calories from Total Fat and Saturated Fat. The mean percentage of

calories provided by each type of fat is compared to defined SBP standards for total fat

(< 30%) and saturated fat (< 10%). 

• Cholesterol, Sodium, and Carbohydrate Content. Mean cholesterol and sodium content

are compared to NRC recommendations. The standards used reflect one-fourth of the

NRC’s recommended maximum daily intake. The mean percentage of calories from

carbohydrate is compared to the NRC recommendation (> 55%). 
Characteristics of Breakfasts Served in Public SBP Schools 107

Exhibit 4.3

Characteristics of Breakfasts Served to Students

Elementary Secondary All

Schools Schools Schools

Characteristic Served to Students

Average Percentage of Breakfasts 

All Breakfasts

Included milk 92% 86% 90%

Included at least one fruit, juice, or 89 86 88

vegetable (when offered)

Included two servings of bread, two

servings of meat, or one of each 97 99 98

Number of Daily Menus (Unweighted) 1,551 2,311 3,922

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 317 487 804

Source: Weighted tabulations of menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
3 Data on actual energy and nutrient content of breakfasts served are presented in Exhibit B.1. 

Characteristics of Breakfasts Served in Public SBP Schools 108

Mean Nutrient Content Relative to RDAs

SBP breakfasts served in SY 1998–99 met or exceeded the SBP standard of one-fourth of the RDA for

all target nutrients (Exhibit 4.4). Average calorie levels fell below the one-fourth RDA benchmark, 3

however, ranging from 20 percent of the RDA for secondary school breakfasts to 23 percent for

elementary school breakfasts. 

Breakfasts were nutrient-dense, although not quite as dense as lunches. This is not unexpected given the

more limited array of foods offered in breakfast menus. Elementary school breakfasts provided an

average of 23 percent of the RDA for calories while providing more than 35 percent of the RDAs for all

key nutrients. Breakfasts served to secondary school students provided 20 percent of the RDA for

calories and 25 percent or more of the RDA for all key nutrients. SBP breakfasts were especially rich in

Vitamin C, providing 81 percent of the RDA for elementary school students and 72 percent of the RDA

for secondary school students.

Percentage of Schools Meeting RDA Standards

Data on the percentage of schools that satisfied the one-fourth RDA standard for calories and targeted 

nutrients underscore the fact that the calorie standard was difficult to meet. Overall, the average

breakfast served in more than 80 percent of all schools provided less than one-fourth of students’ daily

energy needs (i.e., fewer than 20 percent of all schools met the SBP standard for calories). (See Exhibit

4.5.) The difficulty was most pronounced in secondary schools, where students’ calorie needs are

greatest. The percentage of secondary schools in which the average breakfast served to students satisfied

the SBP standard for calories (8%) was about a third that of elementary schools (22%). 

Breakfasts served in almost all schools (more than 90%) met the one-fourth RDA benchmark for protein,

vitamin C, and calcium. However, fewer secondary schools than elementary schools met the standard for

calcium (78% versus 99%). This is consistent with the finding, noted in Exhibit 4.3, that secondary

school students were more likely to select a breakfast that did not include milk. 

A smaller percentage of schools (about 80%) satisfied the SBP standards for vitamin A and iron, both of

which tend to occur in concentrated amounts in a relatively limited number of foods. Again, 

the percentage of secondary schools that satisfied these standards was substantially lower than the

percentage of elementary schools (Exhibit 4.5). Mean levels of these nutrients were roughly comparable

across all school types (Exhibit B.1); however, the RDAs for middle school and high school students are

greater.

It should also be noted that the RDA-based standards used in this analysis are based on the grade span of

the children enrolled in each school (see Appendix E), a standard that provides the most accurate

assessment of how well the meals served meet students’ nutritional needs. Under the regulations,

secondary schools are permitted to serve breakfasts that meet less-stringent criteria (i.e., minimum

nutrition standards defined for all children in grades K-12). When minimum SBP nutrition standards are

used as a benchmark, the percentage of secondary schools deemed to have met the various RDA 
Exhibit 4.4 Breakfasts Served to Students in SY 1998-99 Provided at

Least One-Fourth of the RDA, With the Exception of Calories

Characteristics of Breakfasts Served in Public SBP Schools 109

Elementary School Breakfasts

52%

39%

81%

43%

37%

23%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Calories Protein Vitamin A Vitamin C Calcium Iron

Percent of RDA

25%

Secondary School Breakfasts

34%

25%

72%

29% 28%

20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Calories Protein Vitamin A Vitamin C Calcium Iron

Percent of RDA

25%
Characteristics of Breakfasts Served in Public SBP Schools 110

Exhibit 4.5

Percentage of Schools in Which the Average Breakfast

Served to Students Provided One-Fourth or More of the RDA

Elementary Secondary All

Schools Schools Schools

Percentage of Schools

Total calories 22% 8% 17%

Protein 100 95 98

Vitamin A 95 48 79

Vitamin C 98 95 97

Calcium 99 78 92

Iron 93 57 81

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 317 487 804

Source: Weighted nutrient analysis of menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Characteristics of Breakfasts Served in Public SBP Schools 111

standards is greater and, for some nutrients, the percentage of elementary schools is lower (see Exhibit

B.3). 

Percentage of Calories from Total Fat and Saturated Fat

On average, breakfasts served in SY 1998–99 in both elementary and secondary schools met the SBP

standard for the percentage of calories from total fat (Exhibit 4.6). In addition, average breakfasts came

close to meeting the SBP standard for calories from saturated fat. The average breakfast served to SBP

participants provided between 27 percent (elementary schools) and 28 percent (secondary schools) of

calories from fat (compared to the standard of no more than 30%). Breakfasts provided roughly 10

percent of calories from saturated fat (compared to the standard of less than 10%). 

Percentage of Schools Meeting Standards for Fat and Saturated Fat

On average, breakfasts served in 71 percent of all schools met the SBP standard for the percentage of

calories from fat (Exhibit 4.7). Elementary schools met the standard more often than secondary schools

(75% versus 64%). The average percentage of calories from fat exceeded 34 percent in about 10 percent

of elementary schools and 15 percent of secondary schools. 

Although overall means exceeded the SBP standard for the percentage of calories from saturated fat

(Exhibit 4.6), some individual schools did meet this standard. This was true, in fact, for more than half

of all schools. Breakfasts served in elementary schools met the standard for calories from saturated fat

more often than breakfasts served in secondary schools (54% versus 46%). 

Cholesterol, Sodium and Carbohydrate Content

On average, breakfasts served in SY 1998–99 in both elementary schools and secondary schools

provided less than 75 mg of cholesterol, a level that is consistent with the NRC recommendation of no

more than 75 mg (or no more than one-quarter of the suggested maximum daily intake). (See Exhibit

4.8.) Eighty-five percent of all schools met this standard (Exhibit B.4). 

The average breakfast served in elementary schools also satisfied the NRC recommendation for sodium

(574 mg versus no more than 600 mg). Breakfasts served in secondary schools came close to meeting

the NRC recommendation for sodium (672 mg). Only 42 percent of secondary schools met the NRC

recommendation for sodium content, compared to 63 percent of elementary schools (Exhibit B.4). 

Finally, breakfasts provided, on average, 59 percent (secondary schools) to 62 percent (elementary

schools) of calories from carbohydrate. This compares favorably to the NRC recommendations of more

than 55 percent of calories. Roughly eight out of 10 SBP schools met the NRC recommendation for

calories from carbohydrate (Exhibit 4.7). Again, elementary schools met the recommendation more often

than secondary schools (82% versus 72%).
Exhibit 4.6 Breakfasts Served to Students in SY 1998-99 Met the SBP

Standard for Calories From Fat and Almost Met the Standard

for Calories From Saturated Fat

Characteristics of Breakfasts Served in Public SBP Schools 112

Elementary School Breakfasts

30%

10%

26.5%

10.1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Total Fat Saturated Fat

Percent of Calories From...

SBP Standard

Elementary Schools

≤

<

Secondary School Breakfasts

30%

10%

28.3%

10.5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Total Fat Saturated Fat

Percent of Calories From...

SBP Standard

Secondary Schools

≤

<
Characteristics of Breakfasts Served in Public SBP Schools 113

Exhibit 4.7

Distribution of the Percentage of Calories from Total Fat, Saturated Fat, and

Carbohydrate in Average Breakfasts Served to Students

Elementary Secondary All

Schools Schools Schools

Percentage of Schools

Percentage of Calories from Fat

No more than 30% 75% 64% 71%

30.1-34.0% 15 21 17

34.1-36.0% 4 3 4

36.1-38.0% 4 5 4

38.1-40.0% 1 3 2

More than 40% <1 4 2

Percentage of Calories from Saturated Fat

Less than 10% 54% 46% 52%

10.1-12.0% 26 30 27

12.1-14.0% 12 14 13

14.1-16.0% 4 8 5

More than 16% 4 3 3

Percentage of Calories from Carbohydrate

Less than 45% 1 2 1

45.0-55.0% 18 25 20

More than 55% 82 72 79

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 317 487 804

Note: Highlighted rows show SBP standard (fat and saturated fat) or NRC recommendation (carbohydrate). 

Source: Weighted nutrient analysis of menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Characteristics of Breakfasts Served in Public SBP Schools 114

Elementary School Breakfasts

 Cholesterol Sodium Carbohydrate

Secondary School Breakfasts

 Cholesterol Sodium Carbohydrate

Elementary Schools

NRC Recommendation

0

574

600 

800Milligrams

>55

61.5

0%

70%Percent of Calories From ...

≤ 75

43 

0

75Milligrams

0

672 800Milligrams

>55

59.2

0%

70%Percent of Calories From ...

≤ 75

55 

0

75Milligrams

≤

≤ 600

Secondary Schools

NRC Recommendation

Exhibit 4.8 Breakfasts Served to Students Met NRC Recommendations for

Cholesterol and Calories from Carbohydrate but Did Not

Consistently Meet the Recommendation for Sodium
4 Because another USDA-sponsored study was collecting detailed information on SMI implementation at the same time as

SNDA-II data were collected, detailed questions about implementation of the various menu planning options were not

collected in this study.

Characteristics of Breakfasts Served in Public SBP Schools 115

Average Nutrient Content of Breakfasts Served to Students, by

Menu Planning Method

To determine whether the choice of menu planning system influences the nutritional quality of breakfasts

served to students, mean nutrient content of breakfasts served in SY 1998–99 was compared on the basis

of the menu planning system used. Because ANSMP was used in very few schools (a total of 15 schools

in the unweighted sample), NSMP and ANSMP schools were combined for purposes of this analysis. 

Schools that reported using an alternative menu planning system (31 schools in the unweighted sample)

were not included in the comparisons. Statistical significance of differences between menu planning

systems was tested using two-tailed t-tests. Two comparisons were made: breakfasts served in schools

using the traditional food-based menu planning system were compared to (a) breakfasts served in schools

using NSMP or ANSMP and (b) breakfasts served in schools using the enhanced food-based menu

planning system.

As noted in Chapter Three, readers are cautioned to recognize that NSMP/ANSMP systems may not have

been fully operational at the time data were collected. Previous research has shown that implementing 4

NSMP can be a lengthy and complicated process, taking anywhere from three to 33 months (Fox 1998). 

Thus, differences observed between the traditional food-based menu planning system and

NSMP/ANSMP should be interpreted as lower-bound estimates. Moreover, the absence of differences

cannot be interpreted as indicative of no effect in fully implemented NSMP/ANSMP schools. 

Exhibits 4.9 and 4.10 present information on the mean nutrient content of breakfasts served in schools

using the various menu planning options. Breakfasts served in schools that used NSMP/ANSMP derived

significantly fewer calories from saturated fat than breakfasts served in schools that used the traditional

food-based menu planning system. This was true for both elementary schools and secondary schools.

Breakfasts served in schools that used NSMP/ANSMP were consistent with the SBP standard of less

than 10 percent of calories from saturated fat. In contrast, breakfasts served in schools that used the

traditional food-based menu planning system derived roughly 11 percent of calories from saturated fat, a

level which exceeds the SBP standard.

In comparison to breakfasts served in schools that used the traditional food-based menu planning system,

NSMP/ANSMP schools also provided a smaller percentage of the RDA for calories (elementary schools

only), a smaller percentage of calories from fat, a greater percentage of calories from carbohydrate

(secondary schools only), and less sodium (elementary schools only). 

On average, breakfasts served in both NSMP/ANSMP and traditional food-based system schools met

most of the relevant standards. However, neither group of schools met the one-fourth RDA standard for

calories. Of the statistically significant differences between NSMP/ANSMP schools and traditional

food-based system schools reported above, two differences affected conclusions about the extent to

which breakfasts satisfied SBP nutrient standards or NRC recommendations. Specifically, breakfasts 
Characteristics of Breakfasts Served in Public SBP Schools 116

Exhibit 4.9

Mean Nutrient Profile of Breakfasts Served, by Menu Planning System,

Compared to Nutrition Standards for SBP Breakfasts and NRC Recommendations

Elementary Schools

Menu Planning System

Standard/ Traditional NSMP/ Enhanced All

Recommendation Food-Based ANSMP Food-Based Systems

Mean Percentage of RDA

Total Calories 25% 23% 21%** 23% 23%

Protein 25% 54 49 54 52

Vitamin A 25% 38 40 38 39

Vitamin C 25% 81 81 84 81

Calcium 25% 43 41 44 43

Iron 25% 37 38 38 37

Mean Percentage of Calories

from...

Total Fat < 30% 27.6% 24.4%* 26.8% 26.5%

Saturated Fat < 10% 10.7 9.1** 10.2 10.1

Carbohydrate > 55% 60.3 63.6 61.1 61.5 1

Mean Amount

Cholesterol (mg) < 75 51 36 38 43 1

Sodium (mg) < 600 605 528* 578 574 1

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 128 83 93 317

NRC recommendation, not SBP standard. 1

Notes: Data for NSMP and ANSMP were combined because of extremely small sample size for ANSMP (5 schools).

Data for 13 schools that reported use of some other menu-planning system are not presented separately because of small sample

size. These schools are included in the “All Systems” column.

 * Difference between the traditional food-based system and NSMP/ANSMP is statistically significant at the .01 level.

 ** Difference between the traditional food-based system and NSMP/ANSMP is statistically significant at the .001 level.

Source: Weighted nutrient analysis of meal and menu production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Characteristics of Breakfasts Served in Public SBP Schools 117

Exhibit 4.10

Mean Nutrient Profile of Breakfasts Served, by Menu Planning System,

Compared to Nutrition Standards for SBP Breakfasts and NRC Recommendations

Secondary Schools

Menu Planning System

Standard/ Traditional NSMP/ Enhanced All

Recommendation Food-Based ANSMP Food-Based Systems

Mean Percentage of RDA

Total Calories 25% 20% 20% 19% 20%

Protein 25% 35 34 33 34

Vitamin A 25% 25 27 24 25

Vitamin C 25% 73 69 74 72

Calcium 25% 30 29 29 29

Iron 25% 28 31 25 28

Mean Percentage of Calories

from...

Total Fat < 30% 29.8% 26.6%* 27.6% 28.3%

Saturated Fat < 10% 11.2 9.7* 9.9 10.5

Carbohydrate > 55% 57.4 61.1* 59.9 59.2 1

Mean Amount

Cholesterol (mg) < 75 59 53 52 55 1

Sodium (mg) < 600 696 679 636 672 1

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 220 121 128 487

NRC recommendation, not SBP standard. 1

Notes: Data for NSMP and ANSMP were combined because of extremely small sample size for ANSMP (10 schools).

Data for 18 schools that reported use of some other menu planning system are not presented separately because of small sample

size. These schools are included in the “All Systems” column.

* Difference between the traditional food-based system and NSMP/ANSMP is statistically significant at the .01 level.

Source: Weighted nutrient analysis of menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Characteristics of Breakfasts Served in Public SBP Schools 118

served in NSMP/ANSMP schools met the SBP standard for the percentage of calories from saturated fat

while breakfasts served in traditional food-based system schools did not. This was true for both

elementary and secondary schools. In addition, at the elementary school level, difference in mean sodium

content affected conclusions about the relevant NRC recommendation. The average sodium content of

breakfasts served in elementary schools that used NSMP/ANSMP (528 mg) met the NRC

recommendation of no more than 600 mg, while the average for elementary schools that used the

traditional food-based menu planning system (605 mg) was slightly higher than the recommended level.

Data on the percentage of schools that met the various standards and recommendations suggest that

schools using NSMP or ANSMP have a distinct advantage over schools using the traditional food-based

system in meeting the SBP standard for calories from saturated fat. Among elementary schools, the

percentage of NSMP/ANSMP schools that met the SBP standard for calories from saturated fat was

significantly greater than the percentage of traditional food-based system schools (Exhibit B.5). The

same trend was noted among secondary schools; however, the difference did not reach statistical

significance (Exhibit B.6). In addition, among secondary schools, the percentage of NSMP/ANSMP

schools that met the SBP standard for iron was significantly greater than the percentage of traditional

food-based system schools (Exhibit B.6).

Characteristics of Low-Fat and Higher-Fat Breakfasts

USDA is committed to lowering the fat content of school meals without adversely affecting the amounts

of other key nutrients offered to students. To determine whether this objective is being met, an analysis

was undertaken to examine the effect of lower fat levels on the overall nutrient profile of breakfasts

served to students.

Schools were stratified into two groups based on the average percentage of calories from fat in breakfasts

served to students:

• Schools with low-fat breakfasts: Mean percentage of calories from fat was less than or

equal to 30 percent (the SBP standard);

• Schools with higher-fat breakfasts: Mean percentage of calories from fat was more than

30 percent.

As discussed previously, breakfasts served to students in 71 percent of all schools provided, on average,

no more than 30 percent of calories from fat. Thus, 71 percent of all schools were included in the low-fat

group. The remaining 29 percent of schools were included in the higher-fat group. Creation of additional

categories did not make sense because the number of schools was so small and the sample was clustered

between just over 30 percent and 34 percent of calories from fat (see Exhibit 4.7). 

The discussion that follows describes the average nutrient content of breakfasts served in schools that did

and did not meet the SBP standard for the percentage of calories from fat. Information is also provided

on general differences in the types of food offered in the two types of schools.
Characteristics of Breakfasts Served in Public SBP Schools 119

Average Nutrient Content

With regard to calories and the target RDA nutrients, nutrient profiles for the two groups of schools were

very similar (Exhibit 4.11). For all key nutrients, the average breakfast served in schools in both the lowfat and higher-fat breakfast groups exceeded the one-fourth RDA standard defined for SBP meals. 

However, in keeping with the pattern reported previously, the mean calorie content of breakfasts served

in both groups of schools fell short of the one-fourth RDA benchmark. These data indicate that

decreased levels of fat in school breakfasts did not lead to notable decreases in the availability of calories

or key nutrients. 

Moreover, the data indicate that decreased levels of fat led to other positive changes in school breakfasts

without compromising the overall nutrient profile. The average breakfast served in schools in the low-fat

group provided a smaller percentage of calories from saturated fat and a greater percentage of calories

from carbohydrate than the average breakfast served in schools in the higher-fat group. In fact, the

average breakfast served in schools in the low-fat group met the SBP standard for calories from saturated

fat as well as NRC recommendations for calories from carbohydrate and total sodium content. The

average breakfast served in schools that offered higher-fat breakfasts met none of these standards. 

Foods Most Commonly Offered

Exhibit 4.12 shows the relative frequency with which various food items were included in the menus

offered by schools that served low-fat and higher-fat breakfasts. The exhibit shows the percentage of

schools that offered each item at least once per week. Notable differences are summarized below. As

noted in the introduction to the comparable analysis for NSLP meals (see Chapter Three), this analysis is

meant to be descriptive and no statistical tests have been performed on the data. Because of small

sample sizes for some of the individual cells, readers should be cautious not to over-interpret the data. 

Patterns observed in the data provide some insight into menu planning practices that may influence the

level of fat in school breakfasts but should not be interpreted as fully predictive. The percentage of

calories from fat in the average meal served to students is influenced by the full array of menu offerings,

as well as by students’ selection patterns, rather than by a single item or group of items.

Notable differences between menus offered in the low-fat and higher-fat groups are summarized below:

• Milk: Schools in the low-fat group offered whole milk less often and 1% milk (both

flavored and unflavored) more often than schools in the higher-fat group. 

• Fruit, Juice and Vegetables: Schools in the low-fat group offered fresh fruit, canned fruit

and potatoes more often than schools in the higher-fat group.

• Breads/Bread Alternates: Schools in the low-fat group offered pancakes and waffles,

plain bread and rolls, muffins and crackers more often than schools in the higher-fat group.

In contrast, schools in the higher-fat group offered higher-fat breads such as biscuits,

cornbread and croissants more often than schools in the low-fat group. 
Characteristics of Breakfasts Served in Public SBP Schools 120

Exhibit 4.11

Compared to Higher-Fat Breakfasts, Low-Fat Breakfasts Provided

Comparable Amounts of Calories and Key Nutrients

Relative Amount of Fat in Average

Breakfast, as Served1

Standard/

Recommendation Low Higher

Mean Percentage of RDA

Total Calories 25% 21% 22%

Protein 25% 45 49

Vitamin A 25% 35 33

Vitamin C 25% 80 74

Calcium 25% 38 39

Iron 25% 35 32

Mean Percentage of Calories from...

Total Fat < 30% 24.2% 34.1%

Saturated Fat < 10% 9.1 12.9

Carbohydrate > 55% 63.9 52.8 2

Mean Amount

Cholesterol (mg) < 75 41 62 2

Sodium (mg) < 600 569 700 2

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 549 255

Low-fat is defined as no more than 30 percent of total calories from fat. Schools in this group met the SBP standard for percentage of 1

calories from fat. All schools not included in the low-fat group are included in the higher-fat group.

NRC recommendation, not SBP standard. 2

Source: Weighted nutrient analysis of menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Characteristics of Breakfasts Served in Public SBP Schools 121

Exhibit 4.12

Schools That Served Low-Fat Breakfasts Tended to Offer Certain Foods More

Often than Schools That Served Higher-Fat Breakfasts

Relative Amount of Fat in Average Breakfast, as Served1

Low Higher

Percentage of Schools Offering Item at Least Once per Week

Milk

1% unflavored 58% 53%

1% flavored 49 44

2% unflavored 47 47

Whole unflavored 46 59

Skim unflavored 26 30 1

Skim flavored 11 11 1

2% flavored 6 10

Fruits, Juices, Vegetables

Full-strength citrus juices 86 86

Full-strength non-citrus juices 70 75

Fresh fruit 33 24

Canned fruit 32 25

Potatoes (all types) 12 8

Grains/Breads (not part of a combination entree)

Cold cereal 94 93

Pancakes, waffles, French toast 69 47

Donuts, Danish, other pastry 64 69

Bread, rolls, bagels, other plain breads 42 34

Muffins, sweet/quick breads, cereal bars 46 35

Buttered toast, bagels with cream cheese 36 40

Biscuits, cornbread, croissants 25 37

Crackers 20 8

2

Hot cereal 12 19

Meats/Meat Alternates (not part of a combination entree)

Sausage 31 43

Eggs 23 29

Yogurt 12 7

Lean meat/poultry/fish 11 13

Cheese 7 12

Peanut Butter 5 5
Exhibit 4.12

(continued)

Relative Amount of Fat in Average Breakfast, as Served1

Low Higher

Percentage of Schools Offering Item at Least Once per Week

Characteristics of Breakfasts Served in Public SBP Schools 122

Combination Entrees

Breakfast sandwiches 45 49

Pizza (all types) 30 38

Sausage with pancake and similar 19 22

products

Mexican-style entree 15 9

Condiments and Spreads3

Nonfat/lowfat spreads 74 64

Higher-fat spreads 29 30

Nonfat/lowfat condiments 9 11

Number of Daily Menus (Unweighted) 2,683 1,239

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 549 255

Low-fat is defined as no more than 30 percent of total calories from fat. Schools in this group met the SBP standard for percentage of 1

calories from fat. All schools not included in the low-fat group are included in the higher-fat group.

Generally graham crackers or saltines that could be coupled with peanut butter or cheese. 2

Foods that do not contribute to satisfying the meal patterns for the traditional or enhanced food-based menu planning systems. 3

Note: See Exhibit E.6 for a detailed listing of items included in each group.

Source: Weighted tabulations of menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Characteristics of Breakfasts Served in Public SBP Schools 123

• Meats/Meat Alternates: Schools in the higher-fat group offered sausage, eggs and cheese

more often than schools in the low-fat group. Schools in the low-fat group offered yogurt

more often than schools in the higher-fat group.

• Combination Entrees: Compared to schools in the low-fat group, schools in the higher-fat

group offered most types of combination entrees somewhat more frequently.

 

Sources of Calories and Nutrients in SBP Breakfasts as Selected

To provide information on the food sources of calories and key nutrients in SBP breakfasts, the

percentage contribution to the calorie and nutrient content of the average breakfast was computed for six

major food groups: milk; fruit, vegetables and juice; grains and breads (not part of a combination

entree); meat and meat alternates (not part of a combination entree); combination entrees; and other menu

items (items not “counted” toward food-based meal patterns). These major food groups were expanded

to 25 minor food groups. Results are shown in Exhibit 4.13 and major findings are summarized below. 

Calories

The major source of calories in SBP breakfasts served in SY 1998-99 was grain and bread products,

which provided 37 percent of total calories. Major contributors included donuts, Danish and other

pastries; cold cereals; and pancakes, waffles and French toast. Milk was the second leading source of

calories in school breakfasts, providing about one-quarter of the calories in an average breakfast. Fruit,

juice and vegetables contributed 12 percent of breakfast calories and combination entrees contributed

another 13 percent. 

Carbohydrate

Grains and breads were also the leading source of carbohydrate in school breakfasts (41%). Leading

carbohydrate contributors in this group included cold cereals and donuts, Danish and other pastries. Milk 

and, as a group, fruit, juice and vegetables each contributed about 20 percent of the carbohydrate in the

average school breakfast. Within the category of fruit, juice and vegetables, most of the carbohydrate

came from juice.

Total Fat

More than 35 percent of the fat in school breakfasts came from grain and bread products. Donuts,

Danish and other pastries were the major contributors in this group (13%). Pancakes, waffles, and

French toast; buttered bread and rolls; biscuits, cornbread and croissants; and muffins and sweet breads

contributed smaller amounts of fat (4-5% each). Milk contributed 26 percent of the fat in the average

breakfast and combination entrees contributed another 21 percent. 
Characteristics of Breakfasts Served in Public SBP Schools 124

Exhibit 4.13

Sources of Calories and Nutrients in SBP Breakfasts As Served

Food Group/Food(s) Percentage Contribution to Average Amount Served

Calories Protein Carbohydrate Fat Fat Sodium

Saturated

Milk 25.9% 47.9% 21.1% 25.5% 42.4% 19.3%

Whole milk 5.1 8.1 2.5 9.0 15.0 3.0

Lowfat/nonfat milk 20.9 39.8 18.6 16.5 27.4 16.3 1

Fruits, Juices, Vegetables 12.0 3.5 19.5 0.8 0.4 0.6

Fruits or vegetables 2.6 0.6 4.4 0.3 0.2 0.1

Juice 9.4 2.8 15.1 0.5 0.2 0.4

Grains/Breads (not part of a 37.1 22.3 41.1 35.6 21.5 44.4

combination entree)

Bread, rolls, bagels, 3.2 3.3 4.0 1.0 0.6 4.5

other plain breads

Buttered toast, bagels 3.0 2.1 2.7 4.3 2.9 4.0

with cream cheese

Biscuits, cornbread, 2.9 1.8 2.6 4.1 2.6 5.9

croissants

Cold cereal 8.3 3.8 12.3 2.3 1.3 11.1

Hot cereal 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.7

Crackers 0.9 0.5 1.1 0.8 0.5 0.9

Donuts, Danish, other 9.9 4.9 9.4 12.9 8.0 7.4

pastries

Muffins, sweet/quick 3.3 1.5 3.3 4.0 2.2 2.6

breads

Pancakes, waffles, 5.1 4.1 5.1 5.2 3.2 7.4

French toast

Meat/Meat Alternates (not part 4.8 9.0 1.0 10.8 10.7 8.2

of a combination entree)

Eggs 1.0 2.1 0.1 2.2 1.8 1.3

Yogurt 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.2

Peanut butter 0.4 0.5 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.2

Sausage 1.9 3.6 0.1 5.1 5.1 3.3

Cheese 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.3 2.1 1.3

Other 0.5 1.3 0.1 1.1 0.9 2.0
Exhibit 4.13

(continued)

Characteristics of Breakfasts Served in Public SBP Schools 125

Food Group/Food(s) Percentage Contribution to Average Amount Served

Calories Protein Carbohydrate Fat Fat Sodium

Saturated

Combination Entrees 12.8% 16.0% 8.0% 21.2% 19.5% 23.1%

Breakfast sandwiches 6.8 8.8 3.9 11.9 11.5 13.2

Other combination entrees 6.0 7.2 4.1 9.4 8.0 9.9

Other Menu Items 7.4 1.4 9.3 6.6 5.5 4.4 2

Fruit drinks/ades 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

Lowfat/nonfat condiments and 4.7 0.1 8.1 0.2 0.1 1.2

 spreads

Higher-fat condiments and 1.2 0.5 0.1 4.2 3.6 1.0

spreads

Other 1.3 0.7 0.9 2.3 1.8 2.1
Exhibit 4.13

(continued)

Characteristics of Breakfasts Served in Public SBP Schools 126

Food Group/Food(s) Percentage Contribution to Average Amount Served

Cholesterol Vitamin A Vitamin C Calcium Iron

Milk 28.8% 48.9% 5.6% 75.4% 6.5%

Whole milk 11.0 4.8 0.9 12.8 0.5

Low-fat milk 17.9 44.1 4.7 62.6 6.0 1

Fruits, Juices, Vegetables 0.0 3.1 76.8 3.0 5.4

Fruits or vegetables 0.0 1.2 6.0 0.6 1.4

Juice 0.0 1.9 70.8 2.4 4.1

Grains/Breads (not part of a 16.3 38.3 14.7 10.9 73.1

combination entree)

Bread, rolls, bagels, 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 5.9

other plain breads

Buttered toast, bagels 0.7 1.9 0.0 1.1 3.1

with cream cheese

Biscuits, cornbread, 0.2 0.4 0.1 1.3 2.9

croissants

Cold cereal 0.0 27.7 12.0 1.6 37.9

Hot cereal 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.7

Crackers 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 1.0

Donuts, Danish, other 3.5 5.9 2.4 3.2 13.0

pastries

Muffins, sweet/quick 3.7 0.5 0.1 0.6 3.5

breads

Pancakes, waffles, 8.2 1.4 0.0 1.8 5.2

French toast

Meat/Meat Alternates 28.9 2.7 0.4 3.0 2.6

(not part of a combination entree)

Eggs 20.0 1.9 0.0 0.7 0.9

Yogurt 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.1

Peanut butter 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2

Sausage 5.6 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.9

Cheese 1.1 0.7 0.0 1.2 0.1

Other 1.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4
Exhibit 4.13

(continued)

Characteristics of Breakfasts Served in Public SBP Schools 127

Food Group/Food(s) Percentage Contribution to Average Amount Served

Cholesterol Vitamin A Vitamin C Calcium Iron

Combination Entrees 24.4% 4.6% 0.6% 7.2% 10.9%

Breakfast sandwiches 15.0 2.4 0.1 3.7 5.5

Other combination 9.4 2.3 0.5 3.5 5.3

entrees

Other Menu Items 1.8 2.4 2.0 0.6 1.5 2

Fruit drinks/ades 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.1

Lowfat/nonfat condiments and 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.5

spreads

Higher-fat condiments and 1.2 2.0 0.0 0.2 0.2

spreads

Other 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.7

Number of Daily Menus (Unweighted) 3,922 

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 804 

Includes 1% and 2% milks. 1

Foods that do not contribute to satisfying the meal patterns for the traditional or enhanced food-based menu planning systems. 2

Notes: See Exhibit E.6 for a detailed listing of items included in each group. 

Columns may not sum to 100 percent because of rounding.
Characteristics of Breakfasts Served in Public SBP Schools 128

Saturated Fat

Forty-two percent of the saturated fat in school breakfasts came from milk. Grain and bread products

contributed 22 percent of the saturated fat, primarily from donuts, Danish and other pastries. 

Combination entrees contributed 20 percent of the saturated fat in the average breakfast. 

Sodium

Grain and bread products contributed more than 40 percent of the sodium in school breakfasts. Major

contributors within this group included cold cereals; pancakes, waffles and French toast; and donuts,

Danish and other pastries. Combination entrees contributed almost a quarter of the sodium in the

average breakfast and milk contributed another 19 percent. 

Cholesterol

Leading sources of cholesterol in the average breakfast, as served, included milk (29%), meat/meat

alternates (29%), and combination entrees (24%). Breakfast sandwiches — which generally included

eggs — and eggs offered on their own, contributed, respectively, 15 percent and 20 percent of the

cholesterol in the average breakfast. 

Vitamin A

Milk provided almost half of the vitamin A in the average school breakfast. Grain and bread products,

primarily cold cereals, contributed 38 percent of the vitamin A. 

Vitamin C

Fruit, juice and vegetables were the major source of vitamin C in school breakfasts (77%). The majority

of this vitamin C was contributed by juice. Grain and bread products contributed 15 percent of the

vitamin C in the average breakfast. Virtually all of the vitamin C from this group was contributed by

cold cereals.

Calcium

Milk provided about three-quarters of the calcium in the average school breakfast, as served. Grain and

bread products provided 11 percent of the calcium, with contributions widely dispersed across the various

minor food groups in this category. 

Iron

Almost three-quarters of the iron in the average breakfast came from grain and bread products. Cold

cereals were the major contributor (38%); followed by donuts, Danish and other pastries (13%); plain

bread, rolls and bagels (6%); and pancakes, waffles and French toast (5%). Combination entrees

provided 11 percent of the iron in school breakfasts. Milk and the fruit/juice/vegetable groups each

contributed about six percent of the total iron.
Characteristics of Breakfasts Served in Public SBP Schools 128

Sodium

Grain and bread products contributed more than 40 percent of the sodium in school breakfasts. Major

contributors within this group included cold cereals; pancakes, waffles, and French toast; and donuts,

Danish, and other pastries. Combination entrees contributed almost a quarter of the sodium in the

average breakfast and milk contributed another 19 percent. 

Cholesterol

Leading sources of cholesterol in the average breakfast, as served, included milk (29%), meat/meat

alternates (29%), and combination entrees (24%). Breakfast sandwiches, which generally included eggs,

and eggs offered on their own, contributed, respectively, 15 percent and 20 percent of the cholesterol in

the average breakfast. 

Vitamin A

Milk provided almost half of the vitamin A in school breakfasts. Grain and bread products, primarily

cold cereals, contributed 28 percent of the vitamin A. 

Vitamin C

Fruits, juice and vegetables were the major source of vitamin C in school breakfasts (77%). The majority

of this vitamin C was contributed by juice. Grain and bread products contributed 15 percent of the

vitamin C in the average breakfast. Virtually all of the vitamin C from this group was contributed by

cold cereals.

Calcium

Milk provided about three-quarters of the calcium in the average school breakfast, as served. Grain and

bread products provided 11 percent of the calcium, with contributions widely dispersed across the various

minor food groups in this category. 

Iron

Almost three-quarters of the iron in the average breakfast came from grain and bread products. Cold

cereals contributed the majority of this iron (38%), followed by donuts, Danish and other pastries (13%);

plain bread, rolls, and bagels (6%); and pancakes, waffles, and French toast (5%). Combination entrees

provided 11 percent of the iron in school breakfasts. Milk and the fruit/juice/vegetable groups each

contributed about six percent of the total iron.
1 The meal production data are used only in the weighted analysis.

Comparison of Weighted and Unweighted Nutrient Analyses 129

Chapter Five

Comparison of Weighted and Unweighted Nutrient

Analyses

Current NSLP and SBP menu planning requirements and monitoring standards are built around use of a

weighted nutrient analysis (although the CN Reauthorization Act of 1998 waived the requirement

through SY 2003 for school districts that obtain a waiver). This chapter presents comparisons of

weighted and unweighted analyses of the menu and meal production information provided by schools that

participated in the SNDA-II study. Data for school lunches are presented first, followed by data for 1

school breakfasts.

There is a great deal of interest among both policy makers and school food service professionals in

differences between the two approaches to analyzing the nutrient content of school meals. To reiterate, a

weighted nutrient analysis incorporates information about student selection patterns and does not assume

that every student takes one serving of every type of food offered. This approach provides a picture of

the average meal served to or selected by students. In contrast, an unweighted nutrient analysis

represents a simple average of all foods offered to students, assuming that students take a serving of each

type of food offered to them. For schools using the food-based menu planning systems, this would

include, for lunch, an average serving of: milk, entree, separate grain/bread (if offered), dessert or other

additional item (if offered), and condiments, as well as two average servings of fruit, juice and/or

vegetables. For schools using NSMP or ANSMP, this would include one average serving of milk, an

average entree, and one or more average servings of side dishes, depending on how the daily menu is

structured. An unweighted nutrient analysis provides a picture of the average meal offered to students. 

The methodology used in the unweighted nutrient analysis was based on the approach used in the 

SNDA-I study and earlier studies of the NSLP and SBP. The basic algorithm is built around the foodbased meal patterns, as described above (a detailed description of the methodology is included in

Appendix E). To permit comparisons with data from SNDA-I (summarized in the next chapter), this

methodology had to be used. Because the assumptions included in the methodology do not reflect how

NSMP/ANSMP menus are structured and marketed to students, a separate analysis was completed in

which the unweighted analysis for NSMP/ANSMP schools was modified to reflect the basic differences

in menu structure discussed above. Incorporation of the revised unweighted analysis for NSMP/ANSMP

schools had no material effect on the results.

Because the use of a modified approach to the unweighted analysis for NSMP/ANSMP schools had no

effect on the findings but had a substantial potential for causing confusion for readers of this report

(different unweighted analysis results would be presented in this chapter and the next (SNDA-I versus

SNDA-II) chapter), a decision was made to use only one version of the unweighted analysis — the

version that essentially replicated the SNDA-I methodology — in this report. The interested reader may
Comparison of Weighted and Unweighted Nutrient Analyses 130

find supplementary exhibits that present results of the analyses that incorporated a modified unweighted

analysis for NSMP/ANSMP schools in Appendices A (Exhibits A.14 – A.17) and B (Exhibits B.14 –

B.17).

School Lunches

This section compares results of weighted and unweighted analyses of school lunches along two

dimensions: overall means compared to NSLP standards and NRC recommendations and the percentage

of schools considered to have met the various standards and recommendations. 

Mean Nutrient Content Relative to RDAs

For both elementary and secondary school lunches, the unweighted nutrient analysis resulted in greater

estimated RDA contributions than the weighted nutrient analysis (Exhibit 5.1). The size of the disparity

between weighted and unweighted means was consistently greater for secondary school lunches. For

both types of schools, differences between weighted and unweighted means were greatest for vitamins A

and C and smallest for iron and protein. All of the differences noted were statistically significant.

The finding that unweighted estimates of calorie and nutrient content tend to be greater than weighted

estimates is consistent with differences between the two analytic methodologies. By definition, an

unweighted analysis includes an average serving of every type of menu item offered, whereas a weighted

analysis includes only foods actually served to students. Therefore, one would expect an unweighted

analysis to produce greater mean estimates of calories and nutrients unless students consistently took at

least one serving of each type of food offered to them. As reported in Chapter Three, the meal production

data provided by cafeteria managers (and used in the weighted analysis) indicate that many students did

not take a serving of each type of food offered to them at lunch.

In addition, the fact that differences between weighted and unweighted estimates were greater for

secondary school lunches than elementary school lunches suggests that secondary school students were

more likely than elementary school students to omit one or more of the items offered. This is also

consistent with data reported in Chapter Three. 

While acknowledging numerical differences in results of the two analytic approaches, and the statistical

significance of these differences, it is important to recognize that both methods led to virtually identical

conclusions about whether school lunches, on average, met defined standards for calories and RDA

nutrients. The conclusion differs only for calories in secondary school lunches. When a weighted

analysis was used, the average secondary school lunch provided 30 percent of the RDA for calories. 

When an unweighted analysis was used, the average secondary school lunch met the NSLP standard of

providing 33 percent of the RDA for calories.

Thus, whether the analysis is based on the average lunch served to/selected by students (weighted

analysis) or the average lunch offered to students (unweighted analysis), the data indicate that, in SY

1998–99, the average school lunch met all of the established RDA standards except, when a weighted

analysis is used, calories in secondary school lunches.
Exhibit 5.1 Estimates of Calorie and Nutrient Content of the Average Lunch

Were Different for Weighted and Unweighted Analyses but

Conclusions About the One-Third RDA Standard Were Similar

Comparison of Weighted and Unweighted Nutrient Analyses 131

 * Difference is statistically significant at the .01 level.

** Difference is statistically significant at the .001 level.

Secondary School Lunches

64%

43%

54%

40%

30% 35%38%**

45%**

79%**

58%**

69%**

33%**

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Calories Protein Vitamin A Vitamin C Calcium Iron

Percent of RDA

Weighted (Served)

Unweighted (Offered)

33%

Elementary School Lunches

105%

67%

59% 58%

44%

35%

45%*

61%**

81%** 76%**

109%**

38%**

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Calories Protein Vitamin A Vitamin C Calcium Iron

Percent of RDA

Weighted (Served)

Unweighted (Offered)

33%
Comparison of Weighted and Unweighted Nutrient Analyses 132

Mean Percentage of Calories from Total Fat and Saturated Fat

For elementary school lunches, the two analyses resulted in virtually identical estimates of the percentage

of calories provided by fat (Exhibit 5.2). Among secondary schools, the weighted analysis resulted in a

slightly greater estimate of the percentage of calories from fat than the unweighted analysis (35% versus

34%). The difference between these two estimates was statistically significant.

Weighted and unweighted estimates of the percentage of calories provided by saturated fat were identical

for elementary school lunches. For secondary school lunches, the estimate from the weighted analysis

was slightly greater than the estimate from the unweighted analysis, however, both estimates rounded to

12 percent. This difference was also statistically significant.

Despite the statistical significance of the differences cited above, conclusions about whether school

lunches met defined NSLP standards for fat and saturated fat were identical for the two analysis methods. 

Whether the analysis was based on the average lunch served to students (weighted analysis) or the

average lunch offered to students (unweighted analysis), the data indicate that, in SY 1998–99, the

average school lunch did not meet established NSLP standards for the percentage of calories from fat or

saturated fat. 

Cholesterol, Sodium, and Carbohydrate Content

For both elementary and secondary school lunches, the unweighted analysis produced somewhat greater

mean estimates of cholesterol and sodium content than the weighted analysis (Exhibit 5.3). In addition,

the unweighted analysis of secondary school lunches produced a greater mean estimate of the percentage

of calories from carbohydrate than the weighted analysis. For elementary school lunches, differences

were statistically significant for cholesterol and sodium. For secondary school lunches, differences were

statistically significant for all three measures. 

Again, however, differences did not affect overall conclusions about whether the average school

lunch offered (unweighted analysis) or served (weighted analysis) in SY 1998–99 met NRC

recommendations. Both weighted and unweighted analyses found that school lunches met the NRC

recommendation for cholesterol but did not meet NRC recommendations for sodium or the percentage of

calories from carbohydrate.

Percentage of Schools That Met Nutrient Standards and Recommendations

Another way of assessing differences between the two analysis methods is to compare the percentage of

schools that each method would classify as having met the various NSLP standards and NRC

recommendations. Looking at the data this way reveals that the choice of analytic approach can have a

significant impact on whether or not an individual school meets a specific nutrition standard. This is

particularly true for secondary schools. 

NSLP Standards for Calories and Key Nutrients

Among elementary schools, the only measures for which the two analytic approaches yielded results that

were significantly different (with regard to the percentage of schools classified as having met NSLP

standards) were calories and vitamin C (Exhibit 5.4). When a weighted analysis was used, the percentage 
Exhibit 5.2 Estimates of the Percentage of Calories from Fat and

Saturated Fat in Lunches Were Similar for Weighted and

Unweighted Analyses

Comparison of Weighted and Unweighted Nutrient Analyses 133

Secondary School Lunches

30%

10%

34.5%

12.1% 11.8%**

33.7%**

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Total Fat Saturated Fat

Percent of Calories From...

NSLP Standard

Weighted (Served)

Unweighted (Offered)

** Difference is statistically significant at the .001 level.

≤

<

≤

<

Elementary School Lunches

30%

10%

33.1%

11.9% 11.9%

33.5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Total Fat Saturated Fat

Percent of Calories From...

NSLP Standard

Weighted (Served)

Unweighted (Offered)
Secondary School Lunches

* Difference is statistically significant at the .01 level

** Difference is statistically significant at the .001 level.

Elementary School Lunches

≤100

65 68**

0

100Milligrams

1,259

#800

1,285*

0

1600Milligrams

 Cholesterol Sodium Carbohydrate

0

1600Milligrams

<800

1,382

1,502**

≤100

68

75**

0

100Milligrams

>55%

50.0

51.3**

0%

55%Percent of Calories From ...

 Cholesterol Sodium Carbohydrate

NRC Recommendation

Weighted (Served)

Unweighted (Offered)

NRC Recommendation

Weighted (Served)

Unweighted (Offered)

Comparison of Weighted and Unweighted Nutrient Analyses 134 

Exhibit 5.3 Estimates of Cholesterol and Sodium Content Were Different for

Weighted and Unweighted Analyses but Conclusions About Whether

Lunches Met NRC Recommendations Were Identical

>55%

51.4 51.6

0%

70%Percent of Calories From ...
Comparison of Weighted and Unweighted Nutrient Analyses 135

Exhibit 5.4

Percentage of Schools That Satisfied NSLP Standards and NRC Recommendations

 for Lunch Based on Weighted and Unweighted Analyses

Elementary Schools

Weighted Unweighted

(Served) (Offered) Percent Difference

(Weighted vs.

Standard/Recommendation Percentage of Schools Unweighted)

Defined NSLP Standards

Calories 68% 82% -17%**

Protein 100 100 0

Vitamin A 98 99 -1

Vitamin C 86 94 -9**

Calcium 100 100 0

Iron 93 96 -3

Percentage of Calories from Fat 21 18 +17

Percentage of Calories from Saturated Fat 15 15 0

NRC Recommendations

Percentage of Calories from Carbohydrate 18 20 -10

Cholesterol 99 95 +4

Sodium 1 1 0

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 398

** Difference between weighted and unweighted analyses is statistically significant at the .001 level.

Source: Menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Comparison of Weighted and Unweighted Nutrient Analyses 136

of elementary schools that met the one-third RDA standard for calories was 17 percent lower than when a

weighted analysis was used (68% versus 82%). The percentage of elementary schools that met the RDA

standard for vitamin C was nine percent lower (86% versus 94%) when a weighted analysis was used.

The disparity between results of weighted and unweighted analyses was greater among secondary schools

(Exhibit 5.5). Statistically significant differences were noted for calories and all RDA nutrients except

protein. In all cases, the unweighted analysis classified a larger percentage of schools as having met the

standard than did the weighted analysis. The relative size of the differences for key nutrients ranged from

14 percent (calcium) to 28 percent (vitamin A). Results were most divergent for calories. Using an

unweighted analysis, 45 percent of secondary schools met the one-third RDA standard. Using a weighted

analysis, the percentage of schools meeting the standard was more than 50 percent lower, at 20 percent.

NSLP Standards for the Percentage of Calories from Fat and Saturated Fat

For elementary schools, there were no statistically significant differences between weighted and

unweighted analyses in conclusions about the percentage of schools that met NSLP standards for the

percentage of calories from fat or saturated fat (Exhibit 5.4). Among secondary schools, however,

differences between results of weighted and unweighted analyses were statistically significant for the

percentage of schools judged to have met the standard for calories from fat (Exhibit 5.5). The difference

favored the unweighted analysis. That is, the unweighted analysis was more likely than the weighted

analysis to classify a school as having met the standard of providing no more than 30 percent of calories

from fat. Using a weighted analysis, the percentage of secondary schools that met the NSLP standard for

calories from fat was 33 percent lower than when an unweighted analysis was used (14% versus 21%)

NRC Recommendations for Cholesterol, Sodium and Calories from Carbohydrate

For both elementary schools and secondary schools, results of the two analyses were identical for sodium

(Exhibit 5.4 and 5.5). Virtually no schools met the standard for sodium, regardless of the analytic

approach used. Among elementary schools, there were no significant differences between weighted and

unweighted analyses in the percentage of schools deemed to have met NRC recommendations for

cholesterol or the percentage of calories from carbohydrate. Among secondary schools, however,

differences were statistically significant for both of these measures. The result for calories from

carbohydrate followed expectations — more schools were judged to have met the recommendation when

an unweighted analysis was used. The result for cholesterol was different from the pattern noted for all

other nutrients, however. The percentage of schools deemed to have met the NRC recommendation for

cholesterol was greater (rather than smaller) when a weighted analysis was used.

Factors Influencing Estimates of Relative Fat Content

Exploratory analyses were carried out to identify factors that may contribute to differences in weighted 

and unweighted estimates of relative fat content — a key indicator of nutritional quality. Twenty-five

individual daily menus were selected at random from those with the most widely divergent results for

weighted and unweighted analyses. The menus and associated meal production data were examined to

determine whether specific types of situations (e.g., types of food offered or student selection patterns)

were associated with greater estimates of the percentage of calories provided by fat for either one analytic

approach or the other. 
Comparison of Weighted and Unweighted Nutrient Analyses 137

Exhibit 5.5

Percentage of Schools That Satisfied NSLP Standards and NRC Recommendations

 for Lunch Based on Weighted and Unweighted Analyses

Secondary Schools

Weighted Unweighted

(Served) (Offered) Percent Difference

(Weighted vs.

Standard/Recommendation Percentage of Schools Unweighted)

Defined NSLP Standards

Calories 20% 45% -56%**

Protein 100 100 0

Vitamin A 65 90 -28**

Vitamin C 79 94 -16**

Calcium 86 100 -14**

Iron 60 71 -15**

Percentage of Calories from Fat 14 21 -33**

Percentage of Calories from Saturated Fat 13 16 -19

NRC Recommendations

Percentage of Calories from Carbohydrate 14 22 -36**

Cholesterol 96 90 +7**

Sodium <1 <1 0

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 677

** Difference between weighted and unweighted analyses is statistically significant at the .001 level.

Source: Menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Comparison of Weighted and Unweighted Nutrient Analyses 138

Menus that resulted in greater estimates of the percentage of calories from fat when a weighted

analysis was used had one or more of the characteristics identified below. In the discussions that follow,

an attempt has been made to explain why these characteristics would tend to contribute to greater

estimates of the percentage of calories from fat when the nutrient analysis is weighted and lower

estimates when the analysis is unweighted.

• Availability of separate grain/bread items or other high-carbohydrate items (e.g., fruit

drinks) that the majority of students did not select . An unweighted analysis would assume

that all meals included an average of serving of these foods, thereby increasing calories from

carbohydrate and diluting the percentage of calories provided by fat. 

• A minority of students, often 50 percent or fewer, selected milk of any kind (secondary

school menus only). An unweighted analysis would assume that all meals included an

average of serving of milk. Milk, by virtue of its carbohydrate content, tends to increase

calories from carbohydrate and dilute the percentage of calories provided by fat.

• A majority of students selected the highest-fat entree options. The fat content of the

average entree included in an unweighted analysis would be diluted (tend to be lower than

the cumulative fat contribution of the entrees considered in the weighted analysis) because it

gives equal consideration to the high-fat and low-fat entrees, even though the latter were

actually selected by few students. 

• French fries were offered as one vegetable option and were selected by a majority of

students. In an unweighted analysis, the fat contribution of the French fries would be diluted

because the French fries would be averaged in with all other available fruits, juices and

vegetables which, on the whole, tend to be substantially lower in fat than French fries. 

In contrast, menus that resulted in greater estimates of the percentage of calories from fat when an

unweighted analysis was used had one or more of the following characteristics:

• Salad dressing was offered for a side salad and/or entree salad that was actually selected

by a minority of students. If few students select the salad, the fat contributed by the salad

dressing has very little effect on the results of a weighted nutrient analysis. In an unweighted

analysis, however, salads are averaged in with all other options (fruits and vegetables in the

case of side salads and entrees in the case of entree salads) and it is assumed that salad

dressing is served with each salad. 

• The highest-fat entree option(s) were selected by a minority of students. This is the

reverse of the entree selection issue discussed above (where students tended to select the

highest-fat entree options more (rather than less) often than lower-fat options). In this case,

the fat content of the average entree considered in the unweighted analysis will tend to be

greater than the cumulative fat contribution of the entrees considered in the weighted

analysis. 

• Higher-fat milk options were offered (e.g., whole milk or 2% milk), but were selected by a

minority of students. If higher-fat milks are offered but rarely selected, the average milk
Comparison of Weighted and Unweighted Nutrient Analyses 139

considered in the unweighted analysis will tend to be higher in fat (because all milks are

considered equally) than the cumulative contribution of milks considered in the weighted

analysis. 

• A high-fat condiment was offered with a non-entree menu item that was selected by a

minority of students (e.g., butter with a roll). The effect of this situation is similar to the

salad and salad dressing situation discussed above. The unweighted analysis will assume

that every meal included the roll, with butter (or, if more than one additional grain/bread

item is offered, an average of the roll with butter and all other options). In contrast, the

butter will contribute to the weighted analysis only in relation to the number of meals in

which it was included. 

• A high-fat item offered as an optional additional item (e.g., clam chowder, macaroni

salad) was actually selected by a minority of students. The effect of this situation is

similar to that described for salads with dressing and rolls with butter.

School Breakfasts

This section compares results of weighted and unweighted analyses of school breakfasts along the same

two dimensions used in the preceding analysis of school lunches: overall means compared to SBP

standards and NRC recommendations and the percentage of schools considered to have met the various

standards and recommendations. 

Mean Nutrient Content Relative to RDAs

For most nutrients, the unweighted nutrient analysis of breakfast menus resulted in significantly greater

estimated contributions to the RDAs than the weighted nutrient analysis (Exhibit 5.6). Differences

between weighted and unweighted means were greatest for vitamin A (with the weighted mean for

secondary schools just meeting the one-fourth RDA standard) and iron and smallest for protein and

calories. (The difference for calories was 22.6% [weighted] versus 23.4% [unweighted]).

With the exception of calories, where estimated means for both analyses fell short of the one-fourth RDA

standard, means for both weighted and unweighted analyses met or exceeded the SBP standard. Thus,

general conclusions about the importance of differences between the two analysis methods are similar to

those reached for the comparison of weighted and unweighted analyses of lunch menus. Whether the

analysis is based on the average breakfast served to students (weighted analysis) or the average breakfast

offered (unweighted analysis), the data indicate that, in SY 1998–99, the average school breakfast met all

of the established RDA standards except for calories. 

Percentage of Calories from Total Fat and Saturated Fat

For both elementary school and secondary school breakfasts, the weighted analysis resulted in a slightly

greater estimate of the percentage of calories provided by total fat and by saturated fat than the

unweighted analysis (Exhibit 5.7). However, the only difference that was statistically significant and 
Exhibit 5.6 Estimates of Calorie and Nutrient Content of the Average

Breakfast Were Different for Weighted and Unweighted

Analyses but Conclusions About the One-Fourth RDA

Standard Were Similar

Comparison of Weighted and Unweighted Nutrient Analyses 140

* Difference is statistically significant at the .01 level.

** Difference is statistically significant at the .001 level.

Secondary School Breakfasts

34%

25%

72%

29% 28%

34%

30%

79%

32% 31%

20% 20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Calories Protein Vitamin A Vitamin C Calcium Iron

Percent of RDA

Weighted (Served)

Unweighted (Offered)

25%

**

**

 

Elementary School Breakfasts

52%

39%

81%

43%

37%

54%

23%

41%** 

46%**

88%**

42%**

23%*

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Calories Protein Vitamin A Vitamin C Calcium Iron

Percent of RDA

Weighted (Served)

Unweighted (Offered)

25%
Exhibit 5.7 Estimates of the Percentage of Calories from Fat and

Saturated Fat in Breakfasts Were Similar for Weighted and

Unweighted Analyses

 Comparison of Weighted and Unweighted Nutrient Analyses 141

* Difference is statistically significant at the .01 level.

** Difference is statistically significant at the .001 level.

Secondary School Breakfasts

30%

10%

28.3%

10.5%

26.0%

9.8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Total Fat Saturated Fat

Percent of Calories From...

SBP Standard

Weighted (Served)

Unweighted (Offered)

≤

< **

**

Elementary School Breakfasts

30%

10%

26.5%

10.1%

25.8%*

9.8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Total Fat Saturated Fat

Percent of Calories From...

SBP Standard

Weighted (Served)

Unweighted (Offered)

≤

<
Comparison of Weighted and Unweighted Nutrient Analyses 142

affected conclusions about whether SBP meals met program standards was the difference in the

percentage of calories provided by saturated fat in secondary school breakfasts. When a weighted

analysis was used, the mean percentage of calories from saturated fat in secondary school breakfasts just

exceeded the program standard (10.5% of calories compared to the standard of less than 10%). When an

unweighted analysis was used, the mean was just below 10 percent (9.8%) and was therefore consistent

with the standard. 

Cholesterol, Sodium and Carbohydrate Content

The weighted analysis produced greater mean estimates of cholesterol and sodium content than the

unweighted analysis (Exhibit 5.8). In contrast, the unweighted analysis resulted in greater mean

estimates of the percentage of calories provided by carbohydrate. With the exception of cholesterol and

sodium for elementary school breakfasts, all of the differences were statistically significant. However,

most did not affect conclusions about whether the average school breakfast met NRC recommendations. 

Regardless of the analysis method used, the average school breakfast in SY 1998–99 met the NRC

recommendation for cholesterol (equivalent to one-fourth of the recommended maximum daily intake) as

well as the NRC recommendation for the percentage of calories from carbohydrate. With regard to

sodium content, both analyses found that breakfasts in elementary schools satisfied the NRC

recommendation. Secondary school breakfasts exceeded the recommendation when a weighted analysis

was used but essentially met the recommendation when an unweighted analysis was used.

Percentage of Schools That Met Nutrient Standards and Recommendations

Exhibits 5.9 and 5.10 summarize the percentage of elementary and secondary schools that met SBP

standards and NRC recommendations when weighted and unweighted analyses were used. The following

sections discuss results for the various nutrition standards and recommendations examined in this report. 

SBP Standards for Calories and Key Nutrients

Among elementary schools, differences between the two analysis methods in the percentage of schools

considered to have met SBP standards for calories and RDA nutrients were apparent but none were

statistically significant. Among secondary schools, differences were statistically significant for calories

and all RDA nutrients except Vitamin C. With the exception of calories, the unweighted analysis was

more likely than the weighted analysis to classify a school as having met the one-fourth RDA standard. 

SBP Standards for the Percentage of Calories from Fat and Saturated Fat

No significant differences were observed for elementary schools (Exhibit 5.9), but significant differences

were observed for secondary schools (Exhibit 5.10). Specifically, the unweighted analysis classified

significantly more secondary schools as having met SBP standards for calories from fat and calories from

saturated fat than did the weighted analysis. Compared to results of the unweighted analysis, the

weighted analysis considered 15-16 percent fewer secondary schools to be in line with the standards for

calories from fat and saturated fat. 

NRC Recommendations for Cholesterol, Sodium and Calories from Carbohydrate

In comparison to the unweighted analysis, the weighted analysis classified significantly fewer schools as

having met NRC recommendations for cholesterol and the percentage of calories from carbohydrate

(Exhibits 5.9 and 5.10). This was true for both elementary schools and secondary schools, but the 
Weighted (Served)

NRC Recommendation

Unweighted (Offered)

** Difference is statistically significant at the .001 level.

≤75

55 

45**

0

75 Milligrams

0

≤75

43

39

75 Milligrams

>55%

61.5 62.4**

0%

70%Percent of Calories From ...

0%

>55%

59.2

61.8** 70%Percent of Calories From ...

Elementary School Breakfasts

 Cholesterol Sodium Carbohydrate

Secondary School Breakfasts

 Cholesterol Sodium Carbohydrate

0

574

562

Milligrams

800

≤600

0

800 Milligrams

600

672

≤ 601**

Weighted (Served)

NRC Recommendation

Unweighted (Offered)

 Comparison of Weighted and Unweighted Nutrient Analyses 143 

Exhibit 5.8 Estimates of Cholesterol and Sodium Content Were Different for

Weighted and Unweighted Analyses but Conclusions About Whether

Breakfasts Met NRC Recommendations Were Generally Similar
Comparison of Weighted and Unweighted Nutrient Analyses 144

Exhibit 5.9

Percentage of Schools That Satisfied SBP Standards and NRC Recommendations

 for Breakfast Based on Weighted and Unweighted Analyses

Elementary Schools

Weighted Unweighted

(Served) (Offered) Percent Difference

(Weighted vs.

Standard/Recommendation Percentage of Schools Unweighted)

Defined SBP Standards

Calories 22% 24% -8%

Protein 100 100 0

Vitamin A 95 99 -4

Vitamin C 98 98 0

Calcium 99 100 -1

Iron 93 90 +3

Percentage of Calories from Fat 75 79 -5

Percentage of Calories from Saturated Fat 54 60 -10

NRC Recommendations

Percentage of Calories from Carbohydrate 82 90 -9*

Cholesterol 90 96 -6**

Sodium 63 69 -9

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 317

* Difference between weighted and unweighted analyses is statistically significant at the .01 level.

** Difference between weighted and unweighted analyses is statistically significant at the .001 level.

Source: Menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Comparison of Weighted and Unweighted Nutrient Analyses 145

Exhibit 5.10

Percentage of Schools That Satisfied SBP Standards and NRC Recommendations

 for Breakfast Based on Weighted and Unweighted Analyses

Secondary Schools

Weighted Unweighted

(Served) (Offered) Percent Difference

(Weighted vs.

Standard/Recommendation Percentage of Schools Unweighted)

Defined SBP Standards

Calories 8% 3% +167%**

Protein 95 100 -5**

Vitamin A 48 72 -33**

Vitamin C 95 99 -4

Calcium 78 100 -22**

Iron 57 68 -16*

Percentage of Calories from Fat 64 76 -16**

Percentage of Calories from Saturated Fat 46 54 -15*

NRC Recommendations

Percentage of Calories from Carbohydrate 72 88 -18**

Cholesterol 76 91 -16**

Sodium 42 57 -26**

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 487

* Difference between weighted and unweighted analyses is statistically significant at the .01 level.

** Difference between weighted and unweighted analyses is statistically significant at the .001 level.

Source: Menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Comparison of Weighted and Unweighted Nutrient Analyses 146

difference was most pronounced among secondary schools. In addition, among secondary schools,

significantly fewer schools met the NRC recommendation for sodium when a weighted analysis was used.

Factors Influencing Estimates of Relative Fat Content

Exploratory analyses were carried out to identify factors that may contribute to differences in conclusions

about relative fat content when weighted and unweighted analyses are used. Twenty-five individual daily

menus were selected at random from those with the most widely divergent results for weighted and

unweighted analyses and menus and meal production data were examined. Observations made during

this review and potential impacts on weighted and unweighted nutrient analyses are summarized below.

Menus that resulted in greater estimates of the percentage of calories from fat when a weighted

analysis was used had one or more of the following characteristics in common:

• Most students selected the highest-fat breakfast option(s). Most often the contrast between

options was stark (e.g., breakfast sausage or a breakfast sandwich versus cold cereals). The

impact of this stark a difference is obvious. If a majority of students select the highest-fat

breakfast option(s), the mean fat content is likely to be higher under a weighted analysis than

an unweighted analysis. This is especially true when the low-fat options are very low in fat

(e.g., hot or cold cereals, plain breads). 

• Whole milk was offered and selected by a majority of students. Given that the array of

foods offered for breakfast is limited in comparison to lunch, milk tends to have more

influence on breakfast analyses. If whole milk is available and selected most often, the

contribution of the fat in the whole milk to the overall nutrient average will be greater for the

weighted analysis than the unweighted analysis (which will consider, equally, all other —

and lower-fat — milk choices).

Menus that resulted in greater estimates of the percentage of calories from fat when an unweighted

analysis was used had one or more of the following characteristics: 

• A minority of students selected the highest-fat menu option(s) (e.g., cream cheese, peanut

butter, pastries). This is the converse of the situation described above, where a majority of

students selected the highest-fat options. Situations where students tend toward the lowerfat options lead to more favorable results under a weighted analysis. This is true because the

unweighted analysis weights all available options equally and assumes that all optional items

(e.g., cream cheese) are taken. 

• Whole milk was offered but was selected by a minority of students. This is the converse of

the milk situation described above. If whole milk is offered but not frequently selected, the

contribution of the fat in the whole milk to the nutrient analysis will always be greater in an

unweighted analysis. 
1 For nutrient analysis, both studies essentially used USDA’s standard reference nutrient database (the most current version

available at each point in time), supplemented with information on commercial products used in school food service. In

SNDA-I, the Nutrition Data System (NDS) software was used to enter data on foods and portions offered. However, for

purposes of the nutrient analysis, NDS entries were linked to items in USDA’s standard reference database. For

commercial products not in the database, a special NDS recipe calculation function was used, in conjunction with food

product nutrition information, to create nutrient values. The nutrient data base used in SNDA-II (the third release of the

Child Nutrition data base (CN-3) developed for NSMP software) was developed using USDA’s standard reference

database. Commercial products not included in the database were added using product nutrition information. 

2 Another potential source of differences between the two data sets is change over time in database values for the same

food(s) because of improved or enhanced analytic techniques (e.g., incorporation of updated data on nutrient X or nutrient

Y). Given the limited and basic set of nutrients examined in this analysis, however, it is unlikely that this source contributed

substantially to the differences observed. 

 Changes in Nurient Content of School Meals Since SY 1991-92 147

Chapter Six

Changes in Nutrient Content of School Meals

Offered Since SY 1991–92

This chapter compares the nutrient content of school meals offered in SY 1998–99 to those offered in SY

1991–92, when the last national study of school meals programs (the first School Nutrition Dietary

Assessment Study (SNDA-I)) was completed. Differences noted between SNDA-I (SY 1991–92) and

SNDA-II (SY 1998–99) can not be attributed to any one factor. Factors that may contribute to observed

differences include changes in the food supply over time (e.g., the introduction of new products and

changes in product formulations in both USDA commodity foods and foods available in the quantity food

service market); as well as changes in menu planning, food purchasing, and food preparation practices of

school food service personnel. Differences in data collection methodology (data for all schools in SNDAII were collected via a mail survey while data for more than half of the SNDA-I schools were collected on

site) and/or in the nutrient databases used in the two studies may also contribute to the observed

differences. Every precaution was taken to minimize the potential influence of differences in data 1,2

collection methodology and analysis. 

Overview of the Analysis

The data presented in this chapter are based on unweighted nutrient analyses of lunch and breakfast

menus. An unweighted analysis was used because SNDA-I was based on an unweighted nutrient analysis

and did not collect the information needed to complete a weighted analysis. Thus, the only way to

compare SNDA-I and SNDA-II data was to re-analyze the SNDA-II data using an unweighted analysis.

As noted in the preceding chapter, an unweighted analysis is based solely on the foods offered to

students. It does not take into consideration the number and types of foods actually included in the meals

served to students. As such, an unweighted analysis provides a picture of the average meal offered to

students. At the time the SNDA-I study was completed, this was the standard approach used to evaluate

the nutrient content of school meals. 
3 As described in Chapter Five and Appendix E, an alternative approach to the unweighted analysis was also implemented for

NSMP/ANSMP schools, which do not follow a food-based meal pattern. Because incorporation of these alternative data

had no material effect on the outcome of the analysis, a decision was made to use the unweighted analysis modeled after

SNDA-I for all schools. This not only simplifies presentation and discussion of the data, it maintains comparability between

the two studies. 

 Changes in Nurient Content of School Meals Since SY 1991-92 148

In SNDA-I, the traditional meal pattern provided the framework for the unweighted analysis. The

nutrient content of the average lunch offered in each school was determined by summing the nutrients in

an average serving of milk; two average servings of fruit/vegetables; an average entree; an average

additional grain/bread (if offered); an average dessert or other non-creditable menu item (if offered); and

an average serving of condiments. Non-creditable items did not “count” toward satisfying any of the

component requirements of the traditional meal pattern. 

To obtain a basis for comparison, SNDA-II data were reanalyzed, following the analytic approach

outlined above, to produce unweighted estimates of the average nutrient content of school meals. An

exception was made to account for the fact that, in SY 1998–99, many schools encouraged students to

take more than two fruit/vegetable servings. If the meal production data provided for the weighted

analysis indicated that, on average, students took more than two servings of fruit and/or vegetables, the

algorithm used to determine the nutrients in the average lunch was adjusted to include three or, in rare

cases, four servings of fruit/vegetables. A detailed description of the methodology used in the 3

unweighted analysis is included in Appendix E. 

Finally, because SNDA-II was limited to public schools, SNDA-I data were reanalyzed with the sample

restricted to public schools. Data for middle schools and high schools were combined to produce

estimates for secondary schools. 

 

Average Nutrient Content of Lunches Offered in Public Schools: 

SY 1998–99 and SY 1991–92

This section presents data on the average nutrient content of lunches offered at the two points in time. 

For calories and RDA nutrients, exhibits present actual means rather than the percentage of the RDA

provided. This is done because SNDA-I and SNDA-II used markedly different approaches to assess the

percentage of the RDA provided in school meals. SNDA-I compared the average calorie and nutrient

content of meals offered for a given school type to all potentially relevant RDAs. For example, the mean

nutrient content of elementary school meals was compared to RDAs for three different age/sex groups: 

7-10 year olds, 11-14 year old females and 11-14 year old males. In keeping with current program

regulations, the SNDA-II analysis compared weekly nutrient averages for each individual school to a

customized, weighted RDA that was based on the grade configuration of the school (see Appendix E). 

To overcome these differences in approach and to present information in a manner that is consistent with

the context in which school meal programs are operating today, both SNDA-I and SNDA-II data were

compared to minimum nutrition standards defined in current NSLP regulations. Thus, the mean nutrient

content of lunches offered in elementary schools was compared to minimum nutrition standards defined
 Changes in Nurient Content of School Meals Since SY 1991-92 149

for schools with grades K-6. Lunches offered in secondary schools (middle schools and high schools)

were compared to minimum nutrition standards defined for schools with grades 7 through 12.

Data on the mean percentage of calories from fat, saturated fat and carbohydrate, as well as mean

cholesterol and sodium content, were handled the same way in this chapter as in previous chapters. 

Indeed, SNDA-I and SNDA-II used identical standards and recommendations to assess these nutrients. 

The only difference is that at the time SNDA-I data were collected, standards for the percentage of

calories from fat and saturated fat had not been officially adopted as standards for the NSLP and SBP. 

The statistical significance of differences between meals offered in SY 1998–99 and SY 1991–92 was

assessed using two-tailed t-tests (independent samples). Because of the large number of t-tests that were

conducted simultaneously, a conservative cutoff was used to define statistical significance, thereby

decreasing the likelihood of reporting chance findings. Only differences that were statistically significant

at the .01 level or better are reported. 

Mean Calorie and Nutrient Content Relative to Minimum Nutrition Standards 

Exhibit 6.1 shows the mean calorie and nutrient content of elementary and secondary school lunches

offered in SY 1998–99 and SY 1991–92. As a point of reference, minimum standards defined for NSLP

meals served in schools with grades K through 6 (elementary schools) and 7-12 (secondary schools) are

shown in the shaded column.

As the data indicate, the average elementary school lunch offered in both SY 1991–92 and SY

1998–99 exceeded defined minimum standards for calories, protein, vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium and

iron. The average lunch offered in SY 1998–99 included significantly more of all targeted nutrients

except protein. 

With the exception of calories, findings were similar for lunches offered in secondary schools (Exhibit

6.1). In both SY 1991–92 and SY 1998–99, lunches offered in secondary schools fell below the defined

minimum calorie level but exceeded minimums for all RDA nutrients. The average secondary school

lunch offered in SY 1998–99 provided, with the exception of protein, significantly more of all target

nutrients than the average secondary school lunch offered in SY 1991–92.

Because lunches offered at both points in time exceeded the defined minimum standards, the relative

importance of the fact that lunches offered in SY 1998–99 provided significantly greater amounts of all

key nutrients appears to be minimal. However, as data presented in the following sections demonstrate,

the fact that the overall calorie and nutrient content of school lunches was maintained between SY

1991–92 and SY 1998–99, as several other characteristics of the lunches changed, is noteworthy. 

Percentage of Calories from Total Fat and Saturated Fat

On average, neither lunches offered in SY 1998–99 nor SY 1991–92 met NSLP standards for the

percentage of calories from fat or saturated fat (Exhibit 6.2). This was true for both elementary schools

and secondary schools. In both cases, however, lunches offered in SY 1998–99 derived a significantly

smaller percentage of calories from fat and saturated fat than lunches offered in SY 1991–92. 
Changes in Nutrient Content of School Meals Since SY 1991-92 150

Exhibit 6.1

Mean Calorie and Nutrient Content of Lunches Offered in SY 1991–92 and SY 1998–99

Compared to Current NSLP Standards

 NSLP SY 1998-99 SY 1991-92 (SY 1998-99 vs.

Standard (Offered) (Offered) SY 1991-92)

1 2

Percentage

Change

Elementary Schools

Mean Amount

Total Calories 664 738 715 +3%

Protein (gm) 10 30 30 0

Vitamin A (mcg RE) 224 491 397 +24**

Vitamin C (mg) 15 37 28 +32**

Calcium (mg) 286 505 483 +5**

Iron (mg) 3.5 4.6 4.1 +12**

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 398 260

Secondary Schools

Mean Amount

Total Calories 825 798 820 -3%

Protein (gm) 16 33 33 0

Vitamin A (mcg RE) 300 519 418 +24**

Vitamin C (mg) 18 42 34 +24**

Calcium (mg) 400 542 518 +5**

Iron (mg) 4.5 5.0 4.8 +4*

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 677 234

Data from the present study—the second School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study (SNDA-II). 1

Data for all public schools in the first School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study (SNDA-I). 2

Note: NSLP standards reflect minimums defined in current program regulations for grades K-6 (elementary schools) and 7-12

(secondary schools).

 * Difference between SY 1998-99 and SY 1991-92 is statistically significant at the .01 level.

** Difference between SY 1998-99 and SY 1991-92 is statistically significant at the .001 level.
Exhibit 6.2 Between SY 1991-92 and SY 1998-99 There Was a Significant

Trend Toward Lower Levels of Fat and Saturated Fat in School

Lunches, as Offered

Change in Nutrient Content of School Meals Since SY 1991-92 151

** Difference is statistically significant at the .001 level.

Note: NSLP standards for the percentage of calories from fat and saturated fat were not in effect

during SY 1991-92.

Secondary School Lunches

30%

10%

37.5%

14.6%

11.8%**

33.7%**

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Total Fat Saturated Fat

Percent of Calories From...

NSLP Standard

SY 1991-92 (Offered)

SY 1998-99 (Offered)

≤

<

Elementary School Lunches

30%

10%

37.5%

15.2%

33.5%**

11.9%**

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Total Fat Saturated Fat

Percent of Calories From...

NSLP Standard

SY 1991-92 (Offered)

SY 1998-99 (Offered)

≤

<
 Changes in Nurient Content of School Meals Since SY 1991-92 152

Specifically, the average percentage of calories from fat decreased from 38 percent in SY 1991–92 to 34

percent in SY 1998–99, a decrease of roughly 10 percent. The average percentage of calories from

saturated fat decreased from about 15 percent to about 12 percent, a decrease of roughly 20 percent. 

These differences demonstrate that between SY 1991–92 and SY 1998–99 there was a meaningful and

statistically significant trend toward lower levels of fat and saturated fat in school lunches, relative to

calorie content. 

Thus, the evidence suggests that public NSLP schools are making good progress toward meeting

USDA’s strategic goal of satisfying the SMI standards for calories from fat and saturated fat by the year

2005. While the available data indicate that there is more work to be done, it is important to realize that

concentrated efforts in this area did not begin until the implementation of the School Meals Initiative

(SMI) in 1995. Schools may not have begun implementing changes designed to lower the fat and

saturated fat content of school meals until SY1996-97 or later. Consequently, the available data should

be viewed as indicative of roughly two to three years of reform efforts (SY 1995-96 or SY 1996-97

through the beginning of SY 1998–99) rather than a full seven years of effort (the time elapsed since

SNDA-I).

Finally, as noted in the preceding discussion of RDA nutrients, it is important to note that these

improvements in fat and saturated fat content were achieved without a negative impact on either the

calorie or nutrient content of lunches offered to students. 

Percentage of Schools Meeting Standards for Fat and Saturated Fat

Although overall means for calories from fat and saturated fat in lunches offered in both SY 1991–92

and SY 1998–99 did not meet NSLP standards for these nutrients, lunches offered in some individual

schools in SY 1998–99 did meet these standards. This represents a dramatic departure from what was

observed in SY 1991–92. In SY 1991–92, only one percent of all schools offered lunches that provided

no more than 30 percent of calories from fat. In SY 1998–99, this figure was substantially higher — 18

percent of elementary schools and 21 percent of secondary schools (Exhibit 6.3). 

The increase in the number of schools meeting the standard for saturated fat is equally noteworthy. In

SY 1991–92, no schools satisfied this standard. In SY 1998–99, 15 percent of elementary schools and

16 percent of secondary schools met the standard

Cholesterol, Sodium and Carbohydrate Content

On average, lunches offered in SY 1991–92 and SY 1998–99 in both elementary schools and secondary

schools satisfied the NRC recommendation of providing no more than 100 mg of cholesterol (Exhibit

6.4). Means for SY 1998–99 were significantly lower; however, this difference has little substantive

importance because means for both years met the NRC recommendation. 

In contrast, the mean sodium content of lunches offered, in both years and in both types of schools,

exceeded the NRC recommendation for maximum sodium intake (no more than 800 mg, or one-third of

the suggested maximum daily intake of 2,400 mg) by a substantial margin. Mean sodium content of

elementary school lunches offered in SY 1991–92 and SY 1998–99 were 61 percent (SY 1998–99) to 75

percent (SY 1991–92) higher than the recommended maximum. Means for secondary school lunches

were substantially higher, approaching or exceeding double the recommended amount. Lunches offered 
Exhibit 6.3 For Lunches as Offered, the Percentage of Schools That Met

Standards for Total Fat and Saturated Fat Has Increased

Substantially Since SY 1991-92

Change in Nutrient Content of School Meals Since SY 1991-92 153

** Difference is statistically significant at the .001 level.

Note: NSLP standards for the percentage of calories from fat and saturated fat were not in effect

during SY 1991-92.

Secondary Schools

1% 0%

21%

16%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Standard for Calories from Fat Standard for Calories from Saturated Fat

Percent of Schools Meeting Standard

SY 1991-92 (Offered)

SY 1998-99 (Offered)

**

**

Elementary Schools

1% 0%

15%**

18%**

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Standard for Calories from Fat Standard for Calories from Saturated Fat

Percent of Schools Meeting Standard

SY 1991-92 (Offered)

SY 1998-99 (Offered)
** Difference is statistically significant at the .001 level.

 Change in Nutrient Content of School Meals Since SY 1991-92 154 

≤100

84 

68**

0

100Milligrams

SY 1998-99 (Offered)

NRC Recommendation 

SY 1991-92 (Offered) 

>55%

47.1

51.6**

0%

55%Percent of Calories From ...

>55%

47.7

51.3**

0%

55%Percent of Calories From ...

Elementary School Lunches

 Cholesterol Sodium Carbohydrate

Secondary School Lunches

 Cholesterol Sodium Carbohydrate

1,285**

0

1800Milligrams

1,399

≤800

0

1800Milligrams

800

1,641

1,502**

≤

95 

75**

0

100Milligrams

≤100

SY 1998-99 (Offered)

NRC Recommendation 

SY 1991-92 (Offered) 

Exhibit 6.4 Lunches Offered in SY 1998-99 Were Significantly Lower in Cholesterol

and Sodium and Higher in Calories from Carbohydrate than Lunches

Offered in SY 1991-92
 Changes in Nurient Content of School Meals Since SY 1991-92 155

in both elementary schools and secondary schools in SY 1998–99 were significantly lower in sodium

than lunches offered in SY 1991–92. The differences were relatively small, however, and did little to

bring the overall means within range of the recommended level.

Finally, lunches offered in both SY 1991-92 and SY 1998-99 provided fewer calories from carbohydrate,

on a percentage basis, than recommended by the NRC.

Distribution of Fat, Carbohydrate, Cholesterol and Sodium Content

Exhibits 6.5 and 6.6 show the distribution of fat, carbohydrate, cholesterol, and sodium in lunches

offered in SY 1998–99 and SY 1991–92 in, respectively, elementary schools and secondary schools. As

shown, not only has the percentage of schools meeting the various NSLP standards and recommendations

increased over time, the relevant distributions have shifted toward lower levels of fat and saturated fat,

relative to calorie content, as well as toward greater levels of carbohydrate. 

Change over time was most modest for sodium. In SY 1998–99, the percentage of schools meeting the

NRC recommendation for sodium content was only one percent for elementary schools and less than one

percent for secondary schools. It is important to recognize that, while schools are now required to meet

defined standards for calories from fat and saturated fat (which inevitably influences the percentage of

calories provided by carbohydrate), schools are not required to meet a specific standard for sodium

content. 

Availability and Nutrient Content of Low-Fat Lunch Options

Even when the average lunch offered exceeds the standard of providing no more than 30 percent of

calories from fat, it is possible that individual students could select meals that meet this standard if they

chose menu items that were low in fat. This section discusses the percentage of schools that offered

choices that, when averaged over a school week, provided no more than 30 percent of calories from fat

and how this percentage has changed over time. Data are also presented on the average nutrient content

of these low-fat lunch options.

The methodology used in this analysis replicates the methodology used in the SNDA-I study and is 

comparable to the methodology used in the basic unweighted nutrient analysis. However, rather than

summing the nutrients included in an average serving from each major meal component category, this

analysis included only the lowest-fat choices (based on the percentage of calories from fat). Thus, the

lowest-fat lunch consisted of the lowest-percent-fat milk option, the lowest-percent-fat entree option, and

the two lowest-percent-fat fruit/vegetable options. Desserts and other non-creditable items were not

included in the analysis because they are not required components of a reimbursable meal. Results of the

analysis provide an estimate of the nutrients students would receive, on average, if they consistently

selected the lowest-fat items available in each meal component category. 
Changes in Nutrient Content of School Meals Since SY 1991-92 156

Exhibit 6.5

Distribution of Fat, Carbohydrate, Cholesterol and Sodium

in Lunches Offered in SY 1991–92 and SY 1998–99

Elementary Schools

SY 1998-99 SY 1991-92 1

(Offered) (Offered)

2

Percentage of Calories from Fat

No more than 30% 18% 1%

30.1-34.0% 41 13

34.1-38.0% 31 43

More than 38.0 11 44

Percentage of Calories from Saturated Fat

Less than 10% 15 0

10.1-12.0% 39 5

12.1-14.0% 33 19

14.1-16.0% 10 42

More than 16.0% 3 34

Percentage of Calories from Carbohydrate

Less than 45% 6 21

45-55% 74 78

More than 55% 20 1

Cholesterol 

100 mg. or less 95 84

101-133 mg. 5 16

More than 133 mg. 1 <1

Sodium 

800 mg. or less 1 0

801-1,000 mg. 5 4

More than 1,000 mg. 94 96

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 398 260

Data from the present study—the second School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study (SNDA-II). 1

Data for all public elementary schools in the first School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study (SNDA-I). 2

Notes: Highlighted rows show NSLP standard (fat and saturated fat) or NRC recommendation (carbohydrate, cholesterol, and

sodium). 

NSLP standards for the percentage of calories from fat and saturated fat were not in effect during SY 1991-92.
Changes in Nutrient Content of School Meals Since SY 1991-92 157

Exhibit 6.6

Distribution of Fat, Carbohydrate, Cholesterol and Sodium

in Lunches Offered in SY 1991–92 and SY 1998–99

Secondary Schools

SY 1998-99 SY 1991-92 1

(Offered) (Offered)

2

Percentage of Calories from Fat

No more than 30% 21% 1%

30.1-34.0% 31 22

34.1-38.0% 32 34

More than 38.0 16 42

Percentage of Calories from Saturated Fat

Less than 10% 16 0

10.1-12.0% 41 4

12.1-14.0% 33 32

14.1-16.0% 8 46

More than 16% 3 17

Percentage of Calories from Carbohydrate

Less than 45% 10 28

45-55% 68 68

More than 55 Percent 22 4

Cholesterol 

100 mg. or less 90 65

101-133 mg. 10 29

More than 133 mg. 1 6

Sodium 

800 mg. or less <1 0

801-1,000 mg. 1 <1

More than 1,000 mg. 99 100

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 677 234

Data from the present study—the second School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study (SNDA-II). 1

Data for all public secondary (middle and high) schools in the first School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study (SNDA-I). 2

Notes: Highlighted rows show NSLP standard (fat and saturated fat) or NRC recommendation (carbohydrate, cholesterol, and

sodium). 

NSLP standards for the percentage of calories from fat and saturated fat were not in effect during SY 1991-92.
 Changes in Nurient Content of School Meals Since SY 1991-92 158

Availability of Low-Fat Lunch Options

In SY 1991–92, 34 percent of all elementary schools offered options for a complete meal that, when

averaged over a week, provided no more than 30 percent of calories from fat (Exhibit 6.7). In SY

1998–99, the percentage of elementary schools meeting this criterion was almost 2.5 times greater — 82

percent.

The percentage of secondary schools offering meal options that provided no more than 30 percent of

calories from fat over the course of the week also increased between SY 1991–92 and SY 1998–99. The

relative magnitude of the increase was substantially smaller, however, because more secondary schools

than elementary schools met the criterion in SY 1991–92 (Exhibit 6.8). In SY 1991–92, the percentage

of secondary schools offering meal options that provided, on average, no more than 30 percent of calories

from fat was 71 percent. The comparable figure for SY 1998–99 was 91 percent, a 28 percent increase. 

These data indicate that, even though overall means for the percentage of calories from fat in meals

offered to students continued to exceed the program goal in SY 1998–99, students in 82 percent of all

elementary schools and 91 percent of all secondary schools had the opportunity to select meals that met

this goal. We know from the data presented in Chapter Three that, on average, students did not select

such meals. Nonetheless, it is important to recognize that the options were available.

In addition to satisfying the NSLP goal for calories from saturated fat, the lowest-percent-fat meals offer

other nutritional benefits. For example, in SY 1998–99, the lowest-percent-fat meals offered in 65

percent of elementary schools and 79 percent of secondary schools were consistent with the NSLP

standard for calories from saturated fat (Exhibits 6.7 and 6.8). The lowest-percent-fat meals offered in

two-thirds of elementary schools and 79 percent of secondary schools satisfied the NRC recommendation

for calories from carbohydrate. In addition, the lowest-percent-fat lunches offered in 21 percent of

elementary schools and 14 percent of secondary schools satisfied the NRC recommendation for sodium. 

Mean Nutrient Content of Low-Fat Lunch Options

Lower levels of fat, saturated fat and sodium in the lowest-percent-fat meals were achieved without

compromising the overall nutrient contribution of school lunches. As Exhibit 6.9 illustrates, the lowestpercent-fat lunches offered in elementary schools in both SY 1991–92 and SY 1998–99 met the

minimum nutrition standards defined for lunches offered in grades K-6 for protein, vitamin A, vitamin C,

calcium and iron. With the exception of iron in SY 1998–99, which fell just short of the benchmark, the

same was true for the lowest-percent-fat meals offered in secondary schools (Exhibit 6.10). 

The lowest-percent-fat meals offered in both SY 1991–92 and SY 1998–99, in both elementary schools

and secondary schools, were, however, low in calories compared to the defined minimum standards. This

was especially true for the lowest-percent-fat meals offered in SY 1998–99, where the mean calorie

content was 11 percent (elementary schools) to 15 percent (secondary schools) lower than the lowestpercent-fat meals offered in SY 1991–92. The fact that the lowest-percent-fat meals were relatively low

in calories is not surprising. Often (but not always), the lowest-fat option is also the lowest in calories. 

In addition, the analysis intentionally excludes desserts, which can be high in fat. (As shown in Exhibit

3.13, desserts contributed five percent of the fat in the average school lunch, as served.) 
Changes in Nutrient Content of School Meals Since SY 1991-92 159

Exhibit 6.7

Distribution of Fat, Carbohydrate, Cholesterol and Sodium

in Lowest-Percent-Fat Lunches Offered in SY 1991–92 and SY 1998–99

Elementary Schools

SY 1998-99 SY 1991-92 1

(Offered) (Offered)

2

Percentage of Calories from Fat

No more than 30% 82% 34%

30.1-34.0% 14 32

34.1-38.0% 3 21

More than 38.0 1 13

Percentage of Calories from Saturated Fat

Less than 10% 65 16

10.1-12.0% 23 20

12.1-14.0% 8 31

14.1-16.0% 2 24

More than 16.0% 2 8

Percentage of Calories from Carbohydrate

Less than 45% 2 10

45-55% 33 72

More than 55% 66 18

Cholesterol 

100 mg. or less 100 97

101-133 mg. <1 3 

More than 133 mg. 0 0 

Sodium 

800 mg. or less 21 <1

801-1,000 mg. 38 7

More than 1,000 mg. 41 93

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 398 260

Data from the present study—the second School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study (SNDA-II). 1

Data for all public elementary schools in the first School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study (SNDA-I). 2

Notes: Highlighted rows show NSLP standard (fat and saturated fat) or NRC recommendation (carbohydrate, cholesterol, and

sodium). 

NSLP standards for the percentage of calories from fat and saturated fat were not in effect during SY 1991-92.
Changes in Nutrient Content of School Meals Since SY 1991-92 160

Exhibit 6.8

Distribution of Fat, Carbohydrate, Cholesterol and Sodium

in Lowest-Percent-Fat Lunches Offered in SY 1991–92 and SY 1998–99

Secondary Schools

SY 1998-99 SY 1991-92 1

(Offered) (Offered)

2

Percentage of Calories from Fat

No more than 30% 91% 71%

30.1-34.0% 6 15

34.1-38.0% 2 9

More than 38.0 1 5

Percentage of Calories from Saturated Fat

Less than 10% 79 47

10.1-12.0% 13 18

12.1-14.0% 5 25

14.1-16.0% 2 9

More than 16% 1 2

Percentage of Calories from Carbohydrate

Less than 45% 2 4

45-55% 20 40

More than 55 Percent 79 56

Cholesterol 

100 mg. or less 99 97

101-133 mg. 1 1 

More than 133 mg. <1 2 

Sodium 

800 mg. or less 14 1

801-1,000 mg. 29 4

More than 1,000 mg. 56 95

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 677 234

Data from the present study—the second School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study (SNDA-II). 1

Data for all public secondary (middle and high) schools in the first School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study (SNDA-I). 2

Notes: Highlighted rows show NSLP standard (fat and saturated fat) or NRC recommendation (carbohydrate, cholesterol and

sodium). 

NSLP standards for the percentage of calories from fat and saturated fat were not in effect during SY 1991-92.

 
Changes in Nutrient Content of School Meals Since SY 1991-92 161

Exhibit 6.9

Mean Nutrient Profile of Lowest-Percent-Fat Lunches Offered in SY 1991–92 and SY 1998–99

Compared to Minimum NSLP Standards and NRC Recommendations:

Elementary Schools

Standard/ SY 1998-99 SY 1991-92 (SY 1998-99 vs.

Recommendation (Offered) (Offered) (SY 1991-92)

1 2

Percent Change

Mean Amount

Total Calories 664 576 645 -11%** 

Protein (gm) 10 28 29 -3** 

Vitamin A (mcg RE) 224 458 388 +18

Vitamin C (mg) 15 35 29 +21

Calcium (mg) 286 460 466 -1

Iron (mg) 3.5 4.0 4.1 -2

Mean Percentage of Calories

from...

Fat (%) < 30% 25.0 31.8 -21** 

Saturated Fat (%) < 10% 9.2 12.6 -27** 

Carbohydrate (%) > 55% 57.3 51.3 +12** 3

Mean Amount

Cholesterol (mg) < 100 50 68 -26** 3

Sodium (mg) < 800 992 1,323 -25** 3

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 398 260

Data from the present study—the Second School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study (SNDA-II). 1

Data for all public elementary schools in the first School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study (SNDA-I). 2

NRC recommendation, not NSLP standard. 3

Note: NSLP nutrient standards are based on minimums defined in program regulations for grades K-6.

** Difference between SY 1998-99 and SY 1991-92 is statistically significant at the .001 level.
Changes in Nutrient Content of School Meals Since SY 1991-92 162

Exhibit 6.10

Mean Nutrient Profile of Lowest-Percent-Fat Lunches Offered in SY 1991–92 and SY 1998–99

Compared to Minimum NSLP Standards and NRC Recommendations:

Secondary Schools

Standard/ SY 1998-99 SY 1991-92 (SY 1998-99 vs. 

Recommendation (Offered) (Offered) SY 1991-92)

1 2

Percent Change

Mean Amount

Total Calories 825 591 693 -15%**

Protein (gm) 16 29 32 -9**

Vitamin A (mcg RE) 300 425 341 +25**

Vitamin C (mg) 18 44 39 +13

Calcium (mg) 400 474 476 <1

Iron (mg) 4.5 4.2 4.7 -11**

Mean Percentage of Calories

from...

Fat (%) < 30% 21.8 27.0 -19**

Saturated Fat (%) < 10% 8.1 10.5 -23**

Carbohydrate (%) > 55% 59.8 55.7 +7** 3

Mean Amount

Cholesterol (mg) < 100 49 65 -25** 3

Sodium (mg) < 800 1,071 1,436 -25** 3

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 677 234

Data from the present study—the second School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study (SNDA-II). 1

Data for all public secondary (middle and high) schools in the first School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study (SNDA-I). 2

NRC recommendation, not NSLP standard. 3

Note: NSLP nutrient standards are based on minimums defined in program regulations for grades 7-12.

** Difference between SY 1998-99 and SY 1991-92 is statistically significant at the .001 level.
 Changes in Nurient Content of School Meals Since SY 1991-92 163

The calorie content of the lowest-fat lunches could be increased by adding additional servings of fruit,

vegetables or breads, or by adding a low-fat, high-carbohydrate dessert choice (e.g., gelatin, animal

crackers, fruit dessert, low-fat baked good). 

 

Among elementary schools, the lowest-percent-fat lunches offered in SY 1998–99 satisfied NSLP

standards for calories from fat and saturated fat and well as calories from carbohydrate (Exhibit 6.9).

Comparable lunches offered in elementary schools in SY 1991–92 came close to some of these goals but

did not meet them. Among secondary schools (Exhibit 6.10), the lowest-percent-fat lunches offered at

both points in time satisfied NSLP standards for calories from fat as well as the NRC recommendation

for calories from carbohydrate. The lowest-percent-fat lunch offered in secondary schools SY 1998–99

also satisfied the NSLP standard for calories from saturated fat (less than 10%). The average lunch

offered in SY 1991–92 just exceeded this standard (10.5%). 

Finally, the lowest-percent-fat lunches offered at both points in time and in both elementary and

secondary schools were consistent with the NRC recommendation for cholesterol (Exhibits 6.9 and 6.10). 

Lunches offered at both points in time and in both types of schools exceeded the NRC recommendation

for sodium. The lowest-fat-lunches offered in SY 1998–99 were significantly lower in sodium than the

lunches offered in SY 1991–92. Nonetheless, on average, the lowest-percent-fat lunches offered in SY

1998-99 continued to exceed the NRC recommendation for sodium.

Average Nutrient Content of Breakfasts Offered in Public Schools:

SY 1998-99 and SY 1991-92

This section presents data on the average nutrient content of breakfasts offered in SY 1991–92 and SY

1998–99. In SNDA-I, the nutrient content of the average breakfast offered in each school was

determined by summing the nutrients in an average serving of milk; an average serving of fruit,

juice or vegetable; and two average servings of grains/breads and/or meats/meat alternates. The same

approach was used in generating unweighted averages for the SNDA-II data (see Appendix E). 

Mean Calorie and Nutrient Content Relative to Minimum Nutrition Standards 

Exhibit 6.11 shows the mean calorie and nutrient content of elementary school breakfasts offered in SY

1991–92 and SY 1998–99. Minimum nutrition standards defined for SBP breakfasts (which are

applicable to all schools, grades K-12), are shown in the shaded column. For secondary schools, optional

nutrition standards for grades 7-12 are also shown. 

The average breakfast offered in elementary schools in both SY 1999–92 and SY 1998–99 fell short of

the minimum calorie level defined in current program regulations. The relatively low calorie level did

not, however, have an adverse effect on the overall nutrient contribution of SBP breakfasts. In fact,

elementary school breakfasts offered at both points in time provided, on average, more than the minimum

required amounts of protein, vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium, and iron. 

Elementary school breakfasts offered in SY 1998–99 provided significantly more vitamin C and

significantly less protein and calcium than breakfasts offered in SY 1991–92. The observed differences 
Changes in Nutrient Content of School Meals Since SY 1991-92 164

Exhibit 6.11

Mean Calorie and Nutrient Content of Breakfasts Offered in SY 1991–92 and SY 1998–99

Compared to Current SBP Standards

SBP SY 1998-99 SY 1991-92 (SY 1998-99 vs.

Standard (Offered) (Offered) SY 1991-92)

1 2

Percentage

Change 

Elementary Schools

Grades K-12

(Minimum)

Mean Amount

Total Calories 554 462 480 -4%

Protein (gm) 10 15 16 -6**

Vitamin A (mcg RE) 197 278 290 -4

Vitamin C (mg) 13 40 33 +21**

Calcium (mg) 257 378 398 -5**

Iron (mg) 3.0 4.2 3.8 +11

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 317 166

Secondary Schools

Grades Grades

K-12 7-12

(Minimum) (Optional)

Mean Amount 

Total Calories 554 618 483 537 -10%**

Protein (gm) 10 12 16 17 -6*

Vitamin A (mcg RE) 197 225 265 293 -10

Vitamin C (mg) 13 14 42 37 +14

Calcium (mg) 257 300 386 409 -6**

Iron (mg) 3.0 3.4 4.1 4.1 0

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 487 121

Data from the present study — the second School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study (SNDA-II). 1

Data for all public schools in the first School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study (SNDA-I). 2

Note: SBP standards reflect minimums defined in current program regulations for grades K-12 and an optional set of standards

for grades 7-12.

 * Difference between SY 1998-99 and SY 1991-92 is statistically significant at the .01 level.

** Difference between SY 1998-99 and SY 1991-92 is statistically significant at the .001 level.
 Changes in Nurient Content of School Meals Since SY 1991-92 165

are inconsequential, however, because elementary school breakfasts offered at both points in time

provided, on average, more than the minimum required amount of all key nutrients.

Among secondary schools, breakfasts offered in both SY 1991–92 and SY 1998–99 provided fewer

calories than either the minimum defined for grades K-12 or the optional level suggested for grades 7-12

(Exhibit 6.11). This was especially true for breakfasts offered in SY 1998-99. The mean calorie content

of secondary school breakfasts offered in SY 1998–99 was about 10 percent lower than breakfasts

offered in SY 1991–92. In spite of lower-than-desired calorie levels, secondary school breakfasts offered

at both points in time more than satisfied the required minimum standards for all targeted nutrients as

well as the more stringent optional standards. 

Secondary school breakfasts offered in SY 1998–99 provided significantly less protein and calcium than

breakfasts offered in SY 1991–92. Again, however, the relative importance of differences in mean

nutrient content is inconsequential because breakfasts offered at both points in time more than satisfied

the suggested standards.

Percentage of Calories from Total Fat and Saturated Fat

On average, breakfasts offered in both elementary schools and secondary schools in SY 1991–92 came

close to meeting the standard for the percentage of calories from fat but exceeded the standard for the

percentage of calories from saturated fat by a substantial margin (Exhibit 6.12). Breakfasts offered in 

SY 1998–99 provided a significantly smaller percentage of calories from both total fat and saturated fat. 

As a consequence, the average breakfast offered in SY 1998-99, in both elementary schools and

secondary schools, was consistent with SBP standards for these nutrients.

Percentage of Schools Meeting Standards for Fat and Saturated Fat

There was a marked increase in the number of schools that met SBP standards for total fat and saturated

fat between SY 1991–92 and SY 1998–99 (Exhibit 6.13). In SY 1991–92, fewer than half of all public

schools offered breakfasts that provided no more than 30 percent of calories from fat. The picture in SY

1998–99 was dramatically different. In SY 1998–99, breakfasts offered in more than three-quarters of

elementary schools and secondary schools met the standard for calories from fat. This represents an

overall increase of 62 percent (secondary schools) to 84 percent (elementary schools) in the proportion of

schools meeting the SBP standard for calories from fat. 

The increase in the number of schools meeting the standard for saturated fat was even more dramatic. In

SY 1991–92, fewer than seven percent of schools satisfied this standard. In SY 1998–99, well over half

of all schools met the standard.

Cholesterol, Sodium and Carbohydrate Content

In both elementary schools and secondary schools, breakfasts offered in both SY 1991–92 and SY

1998–99 were consistent with NRC recommendations for cholesterol content and for the percentage of

calories from carbohydrate (Exhibit 6.14). Breakfasts offered in SY 1998–99 were significantly lower in

cholesterol and higher in calories from carbohydrate than breakfasts offered in SY 1991–92; however,

these differences did not affect conclusions about whether NRC recommendations were met. 
Exhibit 6.12 Between SY 1991-92 and SY 1998-99 There Was a Significant

Decrease in the Relative Fat and Saturated Fat Content of

School Breakfasts, as Offered

Change in Nutrient Content of School Meals Since SY 1991-92 166

** Difference is statistically significant at the .001 level.

Note: SBP standards for the percentage of calories from fat and saturated fat were not in effect

during SY 1991-92.

Secondary School Breakfasts

30%

10%

30.6%

13.6%

9.8%**

26.0%**

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Total Fat Saturated Fat

Percent of Calories From...

SBP Standard

SY 1991-92 (Offered)

SY 1998-99 (Offered)

≤

<

Elementary School Breakfasts

30%

10%

30.7%

13.8%

9.8%**

25.8%**

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Total Fat Saturated Fat

Percent of Calories From...

SBP Standard

SY 1991-92 (Offered)

SY 1998-99 (Offered)

≤

<
Exhibit 6.13 For Breakfasts as Offered, the Percentage of Schools That Met

Standards for Total Fat and Saturated Fat Has Increased

Substantially Since SY 1991-92

Change in Nutrient Content of School Meals Since SY 1991-92 167

** Difference is statistically significant at the .001 level.

Note: SBP standards for the percentage of calories from fat and saturated fat were not in effect

during SY 1991-92.

Elementary Schools

43%

3%

60%**

79%**

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Standard for Calories from Fat Standard for Calories from Saturated Fat

Percent of Schools Meeting Standard

SY 1991-92 (offered)

SY 1998-99 (offered)

Secondary Schools

47%

6%

54%**

76%**

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Standard for Calories from Fat Standard for Calories from Saturated Fat

Percent of Schools Meeting Standard

SY 1991-92 (offered)

SY 1998-99 (offered)
** Difference is statistically significant at the .001 level.

Change in Nutrient Content of School Meals Since SY 1991-92 168

SY 1991-92 (Offered)

SY 1998-99 (Offered)

NRC Recommendation 

>55% 57.1

62.4**

0%

70%Percent of Calories From ...

 Cholesterol Sodium Carbohydrate

Elementary School Breakfasts

Secondary School Breakfasts

>55%

57.9

61.8** 70%Percent of Calories From ...

0%

 Cholesterol Sodium Carbohydrate

0

73 

39**

75Milligrams

≤ 75

657

562**

0

800Milligrams

≤ 600

800Milligrams

723

601**

0

≤600

73 

45**

0

75Milligrams

≤ 75

SY 1991-92 (Offered)

SY 1998-99 (Offered)

NRC Recommendation 

Exhibit 6.14 Breakfasts Offered in SY 1998-99 Were Significantly Lower in

Cholesterol and Sodium and Higher in Calories from

Carbohydrate than Breakfasts Offered in SY 1991-92
 Changes in Nurient Content of School Meals Since SY 1991-92 169

In SY 1991–92, breakfasts offered in both elementary schools and secondary schools exceeded the

recommended level of sodium. In SY 1998–99, mean sodium content of breakfasts offered in both types

of schools was significantly lower. The average breakfast offered in elementary schools satisfied the

NRC recommendation for sodium and the average breakfast offered in secondary schools came very close

to meeting the recommendation.
 Changes in Nurient Content of School Meals Since SY 1991-92 170
References 171

References

Burghardt, J., A. Gordon, N. Chapman, et al. (1993). The School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study: 

School Food Service, Meals Offered, and Dietary Intakes. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service.

Fox, M.K., M.K. Crepinsek, N. Burstein, et al. (1998). Evaluation of the Nutrient Standard Menu

Planning Demonstration: Final Report. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Food and Nutrition Service.

Fraker, T. (1988). The Sodium and Macronutrient Content of USDA School Lunches: Final Report. 

Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service.

National Research Council (1989a). Diet and Health: Implications for Reducing Chronic Disease

Risk. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council (1989b). Recommended Dietary Allowances, 10th edition. Washington,

DC: National Academy Press.

St. Pierre, R., M.K. Fox, M. Puma, et al. (1992). Child Nutrition Operations Study: Second Year

Report. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service (1992). Administrative data.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service (1998). A Menu Planner for Healthy

School Meals. Alexandria, VA: Food and Nutrition Service (Appendix 4).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service (2000). Administrative data.

U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services and Agriculture (1990). Nutrition and Your Health: 

Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 3rd edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office.

Wellisch, J., S. Hanes, L. Jordon, et al. (1983). The National Evaluation of School Nutrition Programs:

Volumes 1 and 2. Santa Monica, CA: Systems Development Corporation.
References 172
Appendix A

Supplementary Exhibits: Nutrient Content of NSLP

Lunches

Supplementary Exhibits: Nutrient Content of NSLP Lunches A-1

Exhibit A.1

Mean Calorie and Nutrient Content of Average Lunches Served to Students in SY 1998–99

Elementary Secondary Middle High All

Schools Schools Schools Schools Schools

Mean Amount (S.E.)

Total Calories 695 (6.9) 724 (5.5) 712 (6.7) 735 (7.4) 705 (5.3)

Total Fat (gm) 26 (0.3) 28 (0.3) 27 (0.4) 28 (0.4) 26 (0.3)

Saturated Fat (gm) 9 (0.2) 10 (0.1) 10 (0.1) 10 (0.2) 9 (0.1)

Carbohydrate (gm) 89 (1.1) 91 (0.9) 90 (1.2) 92 (1.1) 90 (0.9)

Protein (gm) 29 (0.2) 30 (0.2) 30 (0.2) 31 (0.2) 30 (0.2)

Percentage of Calories from:

Fat (%) 33.1 (0.3) 34.5 (0.2) 34.3 (0.3) 34.6 (0.3) 33.6 (0.2)

Saturated Fat (%) 11.9 (0.1) 12.1 (0.1) 12.1 (0.1) 12.2 (0.1) 12.0 (0.1)

Carbohydrate (%) 51.4 (0.3) 50.0 (0.3) 50.3 (0.3) 49.7 (0.3) 50.9 (0.2)

Vitamin A (mcg RE) 437 (15.7) 390 (10.1) 391 (15.2) 388 (10.2) 420 (11.5)

Vitamin C (mg) 27 (1.3) 29 (0.8) 29 (1.1) 30 (1.0) 28 (1.0)

Calcium (mg) 478 (4.0) 475 (3.9) 472 (4.9) 478 (5.3) 477 (3.1)

Iron (mg) 4.4 (0.1) 4.7 (0.0) 4.6 (0.1) 4.8 (0.1) 4.5 (0.0)

Cholesterol (mg) 65 (0.9) 68 (1.0) 66 (1.3) 69 (1.0) 66 (0.8)

Sodium (mg) 1,259 (15.3) 1,382 (14.5) 1,346 (16.4) 1,418 (19.5) 1,303 (11.7)

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 398 677 339 338 1,075

Source: Weighted nutrient analysis of menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Supplementary Exhibits: Nutrient Content of NSLP Lunches A-2

Exhibit A.2

Mean Percentage of Recommended Dietary Allowances Provided in Average Lunches Served to Students in SY 1998–99

Elementary Secondary Middle High All

Schools Schools Schools Schools Schools

Mean (S.E.)

Total Calories 35% (0.3) 30% (0.2) 30% (0.3) 29% (0.3) 33% (0.3)

Protein 105 (0.9) 64 (0.4) 66 (0.5) 62 (0.5) 91 (0.9)

Vitamin A (mcg RE) 67 (2.5) 43 (1.1) 44 (1.7) 43 (1.1) 59 (1.8)

Vitamin C (mg) 59 (2.8) 54 (1.5) 57 (2.2) 52 (1.7) 58 (2.1)

Calcium (mg) 58 (0.5) 40 (0.3) 40 (0.4) 40 (0.4) 52 (0.5)

Iron (mg) 44 (0.6) 35 (0.3) 34 (0.4) 35 (0.4) 41 (0.5)

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 398 677 339 338 1,075

Source: Weighted nutrient analysis of menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Supplementary Exhibits: Nutrient Content of NSLP Lunches A-3

Exhibit A.3

Percentage of Schools in Which the Average Lunch Served to Students Met the 

Minimum Nutrition Standards Defined in Current NSLP Regulations 

Elementary Secondary All

Schools Schools Schools

Percentage of Schools

Calories 60% 15% 44%

Protein 100 100 100

Vitamin A 98 64 86

Vitamin C 86 78 83

Calcium 100 85 95

Iron 87 58 77

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 398 677 1,075

Source: Weighted nutrient analysis of menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Supplementary Exhibits: Nutrient Content of NSLP Lunches A-4

Exhibit A.4

Distribution of Cholesterol and Sodium in Average Lunches

Served to Students in SY 1998–99

Elementary Secondary All

Schools Schools Schools

Percentage of Schools

Cholesterol

#100.0 mg 99% 96% 98%

>100.0 mg 1 4 2

Sodium

#800.0 mg 1% <1% <1%

800.1-1,000.0 mg 8 3 6

>1,000.0 mg 92 97 94

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 398 677 1,075

Notes: Highlighted rows show NRC recommendations (equivalent to one-third of recommended maximum daily intake for

cholesterol and sodium).

Column sections may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: Weighted nutrient analysis of menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Supplementary Exhibits: Nutrient Content of NSLP Lunches A-5

Exhibit A.5

Percentage of Schools That Satisfied NSLP Standards and NRC Recommendations 

for Lunch, by Menu Planning System

Elementary Schools

Menu Planning System

Traditional NSMP/ Enhanced All

Food-Based ANSMP Food-Based Systems

Percentage of Schools

Defined NSLP Standards

Calories 78% 55%* 70% 68%

Protein 100 100 100 100

Vitamin A 98 100 97 98

Vitamin C 84 88 87 86

Calcium 100 100 100 100

Iron 95 96 90 93

Percentage of Calories from Total Fat 20 20 25 21

Percentage of Calories from Saturated Fat 13 18 17 15

NRC Recommendations

Percentage of Calories from Carbohydrate 16 24 16 18

Cholesterol 98 99 99 99

Sodium <1 <1 2 1

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 155 108 122 398

Notes: Data for NSMP and ANSMP were combined because of small sample size for ANSMP (7 schools).

Data for 13 schools that reported use of some other menu planning system are not presented separately because of small sample

size. These schools are included in the “All Systems” column.

* Difference between the traditional food-based system and NSMP/ANSMP is statistically significant at the .01 level.

Source: Weighted nutrient analysis of menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Supplementary Exhibits: Nutrient Content of NSLP Lunches A-6

Exhibit A.6

Percentage of Schools That Satisfied NSLP Standards and NRC Recommendations 

for Lunch, by Menu Planning System

Secondary Schools

Menu Planning System

Traditional NSMP/ Enhanced All

Food-Based ANSMP Food-Based Systems

Percentage of Schools

Defined NSLP Standards

Calories 17% 24% 18% 20%

Protein 100 100 100 100

Vitamin A 62 59 73 65

Vitamin C 72 84 82 79

Calcium 87 81 91 86

Iron 61 60 58 60

Percentage of Calories from Total Fat 11 15 18 14

Percentage of Calories from Saturated Fat 8 15 19 13

NRC Recommendations

Percentage of Calories from Carbohydrate 11 14 20 14

Cholesterol 93 100 97 96

Sodium <1 <1 0 <1

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 282 175 197 677

Notes: Data for NSMP and ANSMP were combined because of small sample size for ANSMP (13 schools).

Data for 23 schools that reported use of some other menu planning system are not presented separately because of small sample

size. These schools are included in the “All Systems” column.

None of the differences between the traditional food-based system and NSMP/ANSMP or between the traditional and enhanced

food-based systems is statistically significant.

Source: Weighted nutrient analysis of menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Supplementary Exhibits: Nutrient Content of NSLP Lunches A-7

Exhibit A.7

Mean Nutrient Profile of Average Lunches Served in SY 1998–99, by Menu Planning System,

Compared to NSLP Standards and NRC Recommendations

All Schools

Menu Planning System

Standard/ Traditional NSMP/ Enhanced All

Recommendation Food-Based ANSMP Food-Based Systems

Mean Percentage of RDA

Total Calories 33% 34% 33% 34% 33%

Protein 33% 92 88 91 91

Vitamin A 33% 59 55 63 59

Vitamin C 33% 58 56 58 58

Calcium 33% 52 51 52 52

Iron 33% 42 40 40 41

Mean Percentage of Calories

from...

Total Fat < 30% 34.3% 33.1% 32.9%† 33.6%

Saturated Fat < 10% 12.5 11.8 11.6 12.0 ††

Carbohydrate > 55% 50.2 51.3 51.5 50.9 1

Mean Amount

Cholesterol (mg) < 100 68 63 65 66 1

Sodium (mg) < 800 1,321 1,286 1,303 1,303 1

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 437 283 319 1,075

NRC recommendation, not NSLP standard. 1

Notes: Data for NSMP and ANSMP were combined because of small sample size for ANSMP (20 schools).

Data for 36 schools that reported use of some other menu planning system are not presented separately because of small sample

size. These schools are included in the “All Systems” column.

Difference between means for the traditional and enhanced food-based systems is statistically significant at the .01 level. †

Difference between means for the traditional and enhanced food-based systems is statistically significant at the .001 level. ††

Source: Weighted nutrient analysis of meal and menu production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Supplementary Exhibits: Nutrient Content of NSLP Lunches A-8

Exhibit A.8

Percentage of Schools That Satisfied NSLP Standards and NRC Recommendations 

for Lunch, by Menu Planning System

All Schools

Menu Planning System

Traditional NSMP/ Enhanced All

Food-Based ANSMP Food-Based Systems

Percentage of Schools

Defined NSLP Standards

Calories 57% 44% 52% 51%

Protein 100 100 100 100

Vitamin A 86 85 89 87

Vitamin C 80 87 85 84

Calcium 95 93 97 95

Iron 83 83 79 82

Percentage of Calories from Total Fat 17 18 23 19

Percentage of Calories from Saturated Fat 12 17 18 15

NRC Recommendations

Percentage of Calories from Carbohydrate 14 21 17 17

Cholesterol 97 100 98 98

Sodium <1 <1 1 1

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 437 283 319 1,075

Notes: Data for NSMP and ANSMP were combined because of small sample size for ANSMP (20 schools).

Data for 36 schools that reported use of some other menu planning system are not presented separately because of

small sample size. These schools are included in the “All Systems” column.

None of the differences between the traditional food-based system and NSMP/ANSMP or between the traditional and

enhanced food-based systems is statistically significant.

Source: Weighted nutrient analysis of menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Supplementary Exhibits: Nutrient Content of NSLP Lunches A-9

Exhibit A.9

Mean Nutrient Profile of Average Lunches Served in SY 1998–99, by Menu Planning System,

Compared to NSLP Standards and NRC Recommendations

Middle Schools

Menu Planning System

Standard/ Traditional NSMP/ Enhanced All

Recommendation Food-Based ANSMP Food-Based Systems

Mean Percentage of RDA

Total Calories 33% 31% 30% 31% 30%

Protein 33% 67 64 66 66

Vitamin A 33% 43 40 49 44

Vitamin C 33% 57 55 59 57

Calcium 33% 40 39 40 40

Iron 33% 35 34 34 34

Mean Percentage of Calories

from...

Total Fat < 30% 35.0% 34.3% 33.1% 34.3% † 

Saturated Fat < 10% 12.5 12.0 11.6 12.1 † 

Carbohydrate > 55% 49.3 50.3 51.7 50.3 1 †

Mean Amount

Cholesterol (mg) < 100 70 62 66 66 1

Sodium (mg) < 800 1,339 1,332 1,382 1,346 1

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 140 90 98 339 

NRC recommendation, not NSLP standard. 1

Notes: Data for NSMP and ANSMP were combined because of small sample size for ANSMP (6 schools).

Data for 11 schools that reported use of some other menu planning system are not presented separately because of small sample

size. These schools are included in the “All Systems” column.

Difference between traditional and enhanced food-based systems is statistically significant at the .01 level. †

Source: Weighted nutrient analysis of menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Supplementary Exhibits: Nutrient Content of NSLP Lunches A-10

Exhibit A.10

Percentage of Schools That Satisfied NSLP Standards and NRC Recommendations 

for Lunch, by Menu Planning System

Middle Schools

Menu Planning System

Traditional NSMP/ Enhanced All

Food-Based ANSMP Food-Based Systems

Percentage of Schools

Defined NSLP Standards

Calories 23% 23% 24% 23%

Protein 100 100 100 100

Vitamin A 65 48 72 62

Vitamin C 79 88 85 84

Calcium 86 82 91 87

Iron 58 56 55 56

Percentage of Calories from Total Fat 9 15 22 14

Percentage of Calories from Saturated Fat 7 12 21 13

NRC Recommendations

Percentage of Calories from Carbohydrate 11 11 25 15

Cholesterol 91 100 97 95

Sodium 0 0 0 0

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 140 90 98 339

Notes: Data for NSMP and ANSMP were combined because of small sample size for ANSMP (6 schools).

Data for 11 schools that reported use of some other menu planning system are not presented separately because of small sample

size. These schools are included in the “All Systems” column.

None of the differences between the traditional food-based system and NSMP/ANSMP or between the traditional and enhanced

food-based systems is statistically significant.

Source: Weighted nutrient analysis of menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Supplementary Exhibits: Nutrient Content of NSLP Lunches A-11

Exhibit A.11

Mean Nutrient Profile of Average Lunches Served in SY 1998–99, by Menu Planning System,

Compared to NSLP Standards and NRC Recommendations

High Schools

Menu Planning System

Standard/ Traditional NSMP/ Enhanced All

Recommendation Food-Based ANSMP Food-Based Systems

Mean Percentage of RDA

Total Calories 33% 29% 30% 29% 29%

Protein 33% 62 62 61 62

Vitamin A 33% 41 43 47 43

Vitamin C 33% 48 58 51 52

Calcium 33% 39 41 41 40

Iron 33% 36 36 35 35

Mean Percentage of Calories

from...

Total Fat < 30% 35.5% 34.1% 33.9% 34.6% 

Saturated Fat < 10% 12.5 12.0 11.9 12.2 

Carbohydrate > 55% 48.7 50.4 50.4 49.7 1

Mean Amount

Cholesterol (mg) < 100 72 67 67 69 1

Sodium (mg) < 800 1,407 1,449 1,403 1,418 1

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 142 85 99 338 

NRC recommendation, not NSLP standard. 1

Notes: Data for NSMP and ANSMP were combined because of small sample size for ANSMP (7 schools).

Data for 12 schools that reported use of some other menu planning system are not presented separately because of small sample

size. These schools are included in the “All Systems” column.

None of the differences between the traditional food-based system and NSMP/ANSMP or between the traditional and enhanced

food-based systems is statistically significant.

Source: Weighted nutrient analysis of menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Supplementary Exhibits: Nutrient Content of NSLP Lunches A-12

Exhibit A.12

Percentage of Schools That Satisfied NSLP Standards and NRC Recommendations 

for Lunch, by Menu Planning System

High Schools

Menu Planning System

Traditional NSMP/ Enhanced All

Food-Based ANSMP Food-Based Systems

Percentage of Schools

Defined NSLP Standards

Calories 11% 26% 13% 16%

Protein 100 100 100 100

Vitamin A 60 70 74 67

Vitamin C 65 81 78 74

Calcium 87 80 91 85

Iron 64 63 61 64

Percentage of Calories from Total Fat 13 16 14 14

Percentage of Calories from Saturated Fat 10 18 17 14

NRC Recommendations

Percentage of Calories from Carbohydrate 10 18 15 13

Cholesterol 96 99 97 97

Sodium <1 1 0 <1

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 142 85 99 338

Notes: Data for NSMP and ANSMP were combined because of small sample size for ANSMP (7 schools).

Data for 12 schools that reported use of some other menu planning system are not presented separately because of small sample

size. These schools are included in the “All Systems” column.

None of the differences between the traditional food-based system and NSMP/ANSMP or between the traditional and enhanced

food-based systems is statistically significant.

Source: Weighted nutrient analysis of menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Supplementary Exhibits: Nutrient Content of NSLP Lunches A-13

Exhibit A.13

Percentage of Schools That Satisfied NSLP Standards and NRC Recommendations

for Lunch, by Relative Fat Content of Average Lunch Served

Relative Amount of Fat in Average Lunch, as Served1

Standard/Recommendation Percentage of Schools

Low Moderate High Highest

Defined NSLP Standards 

Calories 52% 55% 39% 55%

Protein 100 100 100 100

Vitamin A 91 89 84 75

Vitamin C 89 88 74 74

Calcium 97 96 95 90

Iron 94 86 69 68

Percentage of Calories from Total Fat 100 0 0 0

Percentage of Calories from Saturated Fat 53 9 1 0

NRC Recommendations

Percentage of Calories from Carbohydrate 71 7 0 0

Cholesterol 100 99 97 93

Sodium 2 <1 0 <1

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 206 527 200 142

Low-fat is defined as no more than 30 percent of calories from fat; moderate-fat as more than 30 percent up to 34 percent; high-fat as 1

more than 34 percent up to 38 percent; and highest-fat as more than 38 percent. Schools in the low-fat group met the NSLP standard

for percentage of calories from fat. 

Source: Weighted nutrient analysis of menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Supplementary Exhibits: Nutrient Content of NSLP Lunches A-14

Exhibit A.14

Mean Nutrient and Calorie Content of Lunches, 

Using Alternative Methodology for Unweighted Analysis

Elementary Schools

Standard/

Recommendation Mean

Weighted Unweighted (Weighted vs.

(Served) (Offered) Unweighted)

Percent

Difference

Mean

Mean Percentage of RDA

Calories 33% 35% 38% -8%**

Protein 33% 105 109 -4**

Vitamin A 33% 67 75 -11**

Vitamin C 33% 59 80 -26**

Calcium 33% 58 61 -5**

Iron 33% 44 45 -2*

Mean Percentage of Calories

from...

Total Fat < 30% 33.1% 33.5% -1

Saturated Fat < 10% 11.9 11.9 0

Carbohydrate > 55% 51.4 51.5 0

1

Mean Amount

Cholesterol (mg) < 100 65 68 -4** 1

Sodium (mg) < 800 1,259 1,287 -2* 1

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 398 

NRC recommendation, not NSLP standard. 1

 * Difference between weighted and unweighted analyses is statistically significant at the .01 level.

** Difference between weighted and unweighted analyses is statistically significant at the .001 level.

Source: Weighted and unweighted nutrient analyses of menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May

1999.
Supplementary Exhibits: Nutrient Content of NSLP Lunches A-15

Exhibit A.15

Percentage of Schools That Satisfied NSLP Standards and NRC Recommendations

 for Lunch Based on Weighted and Unweighted Analyses, 

Using Alternative Methodology for Unweighted Analysis

Elementary Schools

Weighted Unweighted

(Served) (Offered) Percent Difference

(Weighted vs.

Standard/Recommendation Percentage of Schools Unweighted)

Defined NSLP Standards

Calories 68% 82% -17%**

Protein 100 100 0

Vitamin A 98 99 -1

Vitamin C 86 94 -9**

Calcium 100 100 0

Iron 93 96 -3

Percentage of Calories from Fat 21 16 +31

Percentage of Calories from Saturated Fat 15 14 +7

NRC Recommendations

Percentage of Calories from Carbohydrate 18 19 -5

Cholesterol 99 94 +5

Sodium 1 1 0

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 398

** Difference between weighted and unweighted analyses is statistically significant at the .001 level.

Source: Menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Supplementary Exhibits: Nutrient Content of NSLP Lunches A-16

Exhibit A.16

Mean Nutrient and Calorie Content of Lunches,

Using Alternative Methodology for Unweighted Analysis

Secondary Schools

Standard/

Recommendation

Weighted Unweighted (Weighted vs.

(Served) (Offered) Unweighted)

Percent

Difference

Mean Mean

Mean Percentage of RDA

Calories 33% 30% 33% -9**

Protein 33% 64 69 -7**

Vitamin A 33% 43 57 -25**

Vitamin C 33% 54 78 -31**

Calcium 33% 40 45 -11**

Iron 33% 35 37 -5**

Mean Percentage of Calories

from...

Total Fat < 30% 34.5% 33.9% +2**

Saturated Fat < 10% 12.1 11.9 +2**

Carbohydrate > 55% 50.0 51.1 -2** 1

Mean Amount

Cholesterol (mg) < 100 68 76 -11** 1

Sodium (mg) < 800 1,382 1,501 -8** 1

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 677 

NRC recommendation, not NSLP standard. 1

 * Difference between weighted and unweighted analyses is statistically significant at the .01 level.

 ** Difference between weighted and unweighted analyses is statistically significant at the .001 level.

Source: Weighted and unweighted nutrient analyses of menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May

1999.
Supplementary Exhibits: Nutrient Content of NSLP Lunches A-17

Exhibit A.17

Percentage of Schools That Satisfied NSLP Standards and NRC Recommendations

 for Lunch Based on Weighted and Unweighted Analyses,

Using Alternative Methodology for Unweighted Analysis

Secondary Schools

Weighted Unweighted

(Served) (Offered) Percent Difference

(Weighted vs.

Standard/Recommendation Percentage of Schools Unweighted)

Defined NSLP Standards

Calories 20% 45% -56%**

Protein 100 100 0

Vitamin A 65 90 -28**

Vitamin C 79 93 -15**

Calcium 86 100 -14**

Iron 60 70 -14**

Percentage of Calories from Fat 14 19 -26**

Percentage of Calories from Saturated Fat 13 15 -13

NRC Recommendations

Percentage of Calories from Carbohydrate 14 21 -33**

Cholesterol 96 90 +7**

Sodium <1 <1 0

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 677

** Difference between weighted and unweighted analyses is statistically significant at the .001 level.

Source: Menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Supplementary Exhibits: Nutrient Content of NSLP Lunches A-18
Appendix B

Supplementary Exhibits: Nutrient Content of SBP

Breakfasts

Supplementary Exhibits: Nutrient Content of SBP Breakfasts B-1

Exhibit B.1

Mean Calorie and Nutrient Content of Average Breakfasts Served to Students in SY 1998-99

Elementary Secondary Middle High All

Schools Schools Schools Schools Schools

Mean Amount (S.E.)

Total Calories 447 (5.7) 483 (6.3) 465 (7.4) 501 (7.6) 459 (4.9)

Total Fat (gm) 13 (0.3) 15 (0.3) 14 (0.4) 16 (0.4) 14 (0.3)

Saturated Fat (gm) 5 (0.1) 6 (0.1) 5 (0.1) 6 (0.2) 5 (0.1)

Carbohydrate (gm) 68 (1.0) 71 (1.1) 70 (1.3) 73 (1.3) 69 (0.8)

Protein (gm) 15 (0.2) 16 (0.2) 16 (0.2) 17 (0.3) 15 (0.2)

Percentage of Calories from:

Fat (%) 26.5 (0.4) 28.3 (0.4) 27.4 (0.5) 29.1 (0.5) 27.1 (0.3)

Saturated Fat (%) 10.1 (0.2) 10.5 (0.2) 10.1 (0.2) 10.8 (0.3) 10.2 (0.2)

Carbohydrate (%) 61.5 (0.5) 59.2 (0.5) 60.2 (0.6) 58.2 (0.6) 60.7 (0.4)

Vitamin A (mcg RE) 254 (4.4) 226 (4.9) 227 (6.0) 225 (5.7) 244 (3.9)

Vitamin C (mg) 37 (1.1) 39 (1.0) 39 (1.1) 38 (1.4) 38 (0.9)

Calcium (mg) 354 (4.5) 350 (5.3) 346 (6.0) 355 (6.6) 353 (3.9)

Iron (mg) 3.8 (0.1) 3.8 (0.1) 3.7 (0.1) 3.9 (0.1) 3.8 (0.1)

Cholesterol (mg) 43 (2.9) 55 (2.2) 50 (2.6) 59 (3.0) 47 (2.2)

Sodium (mg) 574 (10.5) 672 (12.8) 621 (12.7) 723 (17.9) 607 (9.5)

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 317 487 245 242 804

Source: Weighted nutrient analysis of menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Supplementary Exhibits: Nutrient Content of SBP Breakfasts B-2

Exhibit B.2

Mean Percentage of Recommended Dietary Allowances in Average Breakfasts Served to Students in SY 1998-99

Elementary Secondary Middle High All

Schools Schools Schools Schools Schools

Mean (S.E.)

Total Calories 23% (0.3) 20% (0.3) 20% (0.3) 20% (0.3) 22% (0.2)

Protein 52 (0.7) 34 (0.5) 35 (0.5) 34 (0.6) 46 (0.6)

Vitamin A 39 (0.7) 25 (0.5) 25 (0.7) 25 (0.6) 34 (0.6)

Vitamin C 81 (2.5) 72 (1.9) 78 (2.2) 67 (2.4) 78 (1.9)

Calcium 43 (0.6) 29 (0.4) 29 (0.5) 30 (0.5) 38 (0.5)

Iron 37 (0.7) 28 (0.7) 28 (0.9) 29 (0.8) 34 (0.6)

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 317 487 245 242 804

Source: Weighted nutrient analysis of menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Supplementary Exhibits: Nutrient Content of SBP Breakfasts B-3

Exhibit B.3

Percentage of Schools in Which the Average Breakfast Served to Students Met the 

Nutrition Standards Defined in Current SBP Regulations

Elementary Secondary All

Schools Schools Schools

Minimum Minimum Optional Minimum

Standard Standard Standard Standard

Percentage of Schools

Total calories 8% 20% 8% 12%

Protein 98 100 93 98

Vitamin A 85 60 47 77

Vitamin C 96 97 94 96

Calcium 94 90 78 93

Iron 78 72 57 76

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 317 487 804

Note: Minimum standards cover grades K-12. The optional standards cover grades 7-12.

Source: Weighted nutrient analysis of menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Supplementary Exhibits: Nutrient Content of SBP Breakfasts B-4

Exhibit B.4

Distribution of Cholesterol and Sodium in Average Breakfasts 

Served to Students in SY 1998–99

Elementary Secondary All

Schools Schools Schools

Percentage of Schools

Cholesterol

#75.0 mg 90% 76% 85%

75.1-100.0 mg 5 16 9

>100.0 mg 5 9 6

Sodium

#600.0 mg 63% 42% 56%

600.1-750.0 mg 28 31 29

>750.0 mg 9 28 15

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 317 487 804

Notes: Highlighted rows show NRC recommendations (equivalent to one-fourth of recommended maximum daily intake for cholesterol

and sodium).

Columns may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: Weighted nutrient analysis of menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Supplementary Exhibits: Nutrient Content of SBP Breakfasts B-5

Exhibit B.5 

Percentage of Schools That Satisfied SBP Standards and NRC Recommendations 

for Breakfast, by Menu Planning System

Elementary Schools

Menu Planning System

Traditional NSMP/ Enhanced All

Food-Based ANSMP Food-Based Systems

Percentage of Schools

Defined SBP Standards

Calories 23% 11% 30% 22%

Protein 100 100 100 100

Vitamin A 96 94 93 95

Vitamin C 97 98 100 98

Calcium 99 100 100 99

Iron 96 91 90 93

Percentage of Calories from Total Fat 70 82 72 75

Percentage of Calories from Saturated Fat 39 74** 59 54

NRC Recommendations

Percentage of Calories from Carbohydrate 77 85 83 82

Cholesterol 86 93 92 90

Sodium 59 73 61 63

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 128 83 93 317

Notes: Data for NSMP and ANSMP were combined because of small sample size for ANSMP (4 schools).

Data for 13 schools that reported use of some other menu planning system are not presented separately because of small sample

size. These schools are included in the “All Systems” column.

** Difference between the traditional food-based system and NSMP/ANSMP is statistically significant at the .001 level.

Source: Weighted nutrient analysis of menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Supplementary Exhibits: Nutrient Content of SBP Breakfasts B-6

Exhibit B.6

Percentage of Schools That Satisfied SBP Standards and NRC Recommendations 

for Breakfast, by Menu Planning System

Secondary Schools

Menu Planning System

Traditional NSMP/ Enhanced All

Food-Based ANSMP Food-Based Systems

Percentage of Schools

Defined SBP Standards

Calories 7% 12% 6% 8%

Protein 97 93 93 95

Vitamin A 45 55 40 48

Vitamin C 97 92 94 95

Calcium 83 70 76 78

Iron 53 73* 46 57

Percentage of Calories from Total Fat 55 69 71 64

Percentage of Calories from Saturated Fat 36 54 56 46

NRC Recommendations

Percentage of Calories from Carbohydrate 67 74 78 72

Cholesterol 71 79 78 76

Sodium 33 46 49 42

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 220 121 128 487

Notes: Data for NSMP and ANSMP were combined because of small sample size for ANSMP (10 schools).

Data for 18 schools that reported use of some other menu planning system are not presented separately because of small sample

size. These schools are included in the “All Systems” column.

* Difference between the traditional food-based system and NSMP/ANSMP is statistically significant at the .01 level.

Source: Weighted nutrient analysis of menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Supplementary Exhibits: Nutrient Content of SBP Breakfasts B-7

Exhibit B.7

Mean Nutrient Profile of Average Breakfasts Served in SY 1998-99, by Menu Planning System,

Compared to SBP Standards and NRC Recommendations

All Schools

Menu Planning System

Standard/ Traditional NSMP/ Enhanced All

Recommendation Food-Based ANSMP Food-Based Systems

Mean Percentage of RDA

Total Calories 25% 22% 21%* 22% 22%

Protein 25% 48 44 47 46

Vitamin A 25% 34 35 33 34

Vitamin C 25% 78 77 81 78

Calcium 25% 38 37 39 38

Iron 25% 34 36 33 34

Mean Percentage of Calories

from...

Total Fat < 30% 28.4% 25.2%** 27.1% 27.1%

Saturated Fat < 10% 10.9 9.3** 10.1 10.2

Carbohydrate > 55% 59.3 62.7* 60.7 60.7 1

Mean Amount

Cholesterol (mg) < 75 54 42 42 47 1

Sodium (mg) < 600 636 578 597 607 1

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 348 204 221 804

NRC recommendation, not SBP standard. 1

Notes: Data for NSMP and ANSMP were combined because of small sample size for ANSMP (15 schools).

Data for 31 schools that reported use of some other menu planning system are not presented separately because of small sample

size. These schools are included in the “All Systems” column.

** Difference between the traditional food-based system and NSMP/ANSMP is statistically significant at the .001 level.

 * Difference between the traditional food-based system and NSMP/ANSMP is statistically significant at the .01 level.

Source: Weighted nutrient analysis of meal and menu production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Supplementary Exhibits: Nutrient Content of SBP Breakfasts B-8

Exhibit B.8

Percentage of Schools That Satisfied SBP Standards and NRC Recommendations 

for Breakfast, by Menu Planning System

All Schools

Menu Planning System

Traditional NSMP/ Enhanced All

Food-Based ANSMP Food-Based Systems

Percentage of Schools

Defined SBP Standards

Calories 18% 12% 22% 17%

Protein 99 98 98 98

Vitamin A 79 81 75 79

Vitamin C 97 96 98 97

Calcium 93 90 92 92

Iron 82 85 75 81

Percentage of Calories from Total Fat 65 77 72 71

Percentage of Calories from Saturated Fat 38 67** 58 52 †

NRC Recommendations

Percentage of Calories from Carbohydrate 73 82 81 79

Cholesterol 81 88 87 85

Sodium 50 63 57 56

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 348 204 221 804

Notes: Data for NSMP and ANSMP were combined because of small sample size for ANSMP (13 schools).

Data for 31 schools that reported use of some other menu planning system are not presented separately because of small sample

size. These schools are included in the “All Systems” column.

** Difference between the traditional food-based system and NSMP/ANSMP is statistically significant at the .001 level.

 Difference between the traditional and enhanced food-based systems is statistically significant at the .01 level. †

Source: Weighted nutrient analysis of menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Supplementary Exhibits: Nutrient Content of SBP Breakfasts B-9

Exhibit B.9

Mean Nutrient Profile of Average Breakfasts Served in SY 1998-99, by Menu Planning System,

Compared to SBP Standards and NRC Recommendations

Middle Schools

Menu Planning System

Standard/ Traditional NSMP/ Enhanced All

Recommendation Food-Based ANSMP Food-Based Systems

Mean Percentage of RDA

Total Calories 25% 21% 20% 19% 20%

Protein 25% 36 34 33 35

Vitamin A 25% 25 27 24 25

Vitamin C 25% 79 77 78 78

Calcium 25% 30 29 28 29

Iron 25% 27 32 24 28

Mean Percentage of Calories

from...

Total Fat < 30% 29.0% 25.0%* 27.5% 27.4%

Saturated Fat < 10% 10.8 9.2* 10.0 10.1

Carbohydrate > 55% 58.5 62.8* 60.1 60.2 1

Mean Amount

Cholesterol (mg) < 75 55 49 45 50 1

Sodium (mg) < 600 655 595 596 621 1

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 111 62 63 245

NRC recommendation, not SBP standard. 1

Notes: Data for NSMP and ANSMP were combined because of small sample size for ANSMP (4 schools).

Data for 9 schools that reported use of some other menu planning system are not presented separately because of small sample

size. These schools are included in the “All Systems” column.

* Difference between the traditional food-based system and NSMP/ANSMP is statistically significant at the .01 level.

Source: Weighted nutrient analysis of meal and menu production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Supplementary Exhibits: Nutrient Content of SBP Breakfasts B-10

Exhibit B.10

Percentage of Schools That Satisfied SBP Standards and NRC Recommendations 

for Breakfast, by Menu Planning System

Middle Schools

Menu Planning System

Traditional NSMP/ Enhanced All

Food-Based ANSMP Food-Based Systems

Percentage of Schools

Defined SBP Standards

Total Calories 9% 7% 7% 8%

Protein 97 92 98 96

Vitamin A 48 53 37 48

Vitamin C 99 97 96 98

Calcium 82 73 70 77

Iron 53 72 38 54

Percentage of Calories from Total Fat 62 81 73 71

Percentage of Calories from Saturated Fat 41 69* 55 52

NRC Recommendations

Percentage of Calories from Carbohydrate 73 84 81 79

Cholesterol 75 85 86 81

Sodium 39 64 63 53

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 111 62 63 245

Notes: Data for NSMP and ANSMP were combined because of small sample size for ANSMP (4 schools).

Data for 9 schools that reported use of some other menu planning system are not presented separately because of small sample

size. These schools are included in the “All Systems” column.

* Difference between the traditional food-based system and NSMP/ANSMP is statistically significant at the .01 level.

Source: Weighted nutrient analysis of menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Supplementary Exhibits: Nutrient Content of SBP Breakfasts B-11

Exhibit B.11

Mean Nutrient Profile of Average Breakfasts Served in SY 1998-99, by Menu Planning System,

Compared to SBP Standards and NRC Recommendations

High Schools

Menu Planning System

Standard/ Traditional NSMP/ Enhanced All

Recommendation Food-Based ANSMP Food-Based Systems

Mean Percentage of RDA

Total Calories 25% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Protein 25% 35 34 33 34

Vitamin A 25% 24 26 24 25

Vitamin C 25% 67 61 70 67

Calcium 25% 30 29 30 30

Iron 25% 28 31 26 29

Mean Percentage of Calories

from...

Total Fat < 30% 30.7% 28.2% 27.7% 29.1%

Saturated Fat < 10% 11.7 10.3 9.9 10.8 ††

Carbohydrate > 55% 56.3 59.2 59.7 58.2 1

Mean Amount

Cholesterol (mg) < 75 62 57 58 59 1

Sodium (mg) < 600 736 767 675 723 1

Number of Schools 109 59 65 242

NRC recommendation, not SBP standard. 1

Notes: Data for NSMP and ANSMP were combined because of small sample size for ANSMP (5 schools).

Data for 9 schools that reported use of some other menu planning system are not presented separately because of small sample

size. These schools are included in the “All Systems” column.

Difference between the traditional and enhanced food-based systems is statistically significant at the .001 level. ††

Source: Weighted nutrient analysis of meal and menu production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Supplementary Exhibits: Nutrient Content of SBP Breakfasts B-12

Exhibit B.12

Percentage of Schools That Satisfied SBP Standards and NRC Recommendations 

for Breakfast, by Menu Planning System

High Schools

Menu Planning System

Traditional NSMP/ Enhanced All

Food-Based ANSMP Food-Based Systems

Percentage of Schools

Defined SBP Standards

Calories 5% 16% 5% 8%

Protein 97 95 88 94

Vitamin A 41 57 43 47

Vitamin C 95 86 91 92

Calcium 84 68 82 79

Iron 53 75 53 59

Percentage of Calories from Total Fat 47 55 69 57

Percentage of Calories from Saturated Fat 30 39 56 40

NRC Recommendations

Percentage of Calories from Carbohydrate 61 63 75 66

Cholesterol 67 73 69 70

Sodium 26 26 36 30

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 109 59 65 242

Notes: Data for NSMP and ANSMP were combined because of small sample size for ANSMP (5 schools).

Data for 9 schools that reported use of some other menu planning system are not presented separately because of small sample

size. These schools are included in the “All Systems” column.

None of the differences between the traditional food-based system and NSMP/ANSMP or between the traditional and enhanced

food-based systems is statistically significant.

Source: Weighted nutrient analysis of menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Supplementary Exhibits: Nutrient Content of SBP Breakfasts B-13

Exhibit B.13

Percentage of Schools That Satisfied SBP Standards and NRC Recommendations

for Breakfast, by Relative Fat Content of Average Breakfast Served

Relative Amount of Fat in Average

 Breakfast, as Served1

Standard/Recommendation Percentage of Schools

Low Higher

Defined SBP Standards 

Calories 15% 23%

Protein 98 99

Vitamin A 83 69

Vitamin C 97 96

Calcium 93 90

Iron 83 76

Percentage of Calories from Total Fat 100 0

Percentage of Calories from Saturated Fat 69 8

NRC Recommendations

Percentage of Calories from Carbohydrate 98 31

Cholesterol 91 72

Sodium 65 33

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 549 255

Low-fat is defined as no more than 30 percent of calories from fat. Schools in this group met the SBP standard for percentage of

1

calories from fat. All schools not included in the low-fat group are included in the higher-fat group.

Source: Weighted nutrient analysis of menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Supplementary Exhibits: Nutrient Content of SBP Breakfasts B-14

Exhibit B.14

Mean Nutrient and Calorie Content of Breakfasts,

Using Alternative Methodology for Unweighted Analysis

Elementary Schools

Standard/ (Weighted vs.

Recommendation Mean Unweighted)

Weighted Unweighted

(Served) (Offered)

Percent

Difference

Mean Percentage of RDA

Total Calories 25% 23% 23% 0%

Protein 25% 52 53 -2

Vitamin A 25% 39 41 -5**

Vitamin C 25% 81 86 -6**

Calcium 25% 43 45 -4**

Iron 25% 37 40 -8**

Mean Percentage of Calories

from

Total Fat < 30% 26.5% 26.0% +2

Saturated Fat <10% 10.1 10.0 +1

Carbohydrate > 55% 61.5 61.8 <1 1

Mean Amount

Cholesterol (mg) < 75 43 39 +10 1

Sodium (mg) < 600 574 561 +2 1

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 317

NRC recommendation, not SBP standard. 1

 * Difference between weighted and unweighted analyses is statistically significant at the .01 level. 

 ** Difference between weighted and unweighted analyses is statistically significant at the .001 level.

Source: Weighted and unweighted nutrient analyses of menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May

1999.
Supplementary Exhibits: Nutrient Content of SBP Breakfasts B-15

Exhibit B.15

Percentage of Schools That Satisfied SBP Standards and NRC Recommendations

 for Breakfast Based on Weighted and Unweighted Analyses, 

Using Alternative Methodology for Unweighted Analysis

Elementary Schools

Weighted Unweighted

(Served) (Offered)

Percent

Difference

(Weighted vs.

Standard/Recommendation Percentage of Schools Unweighted)

Defined SBP Standards

Calories 22% 19% +16%

Protein 100 100 0

Vitamin A 95 99 -4

Vitamin C 98 98 0

Calcium 99 100 -1

Iron 93 87 +7

Percentage of Calories from Fat 75 77 -3

Percentage of Calories from Saturated Fat 54 53 +2

NRC Recommendations

Percentage of Calories from Carbohydrate 82 90 -9*

Cholesterol 90 95 -5*

Sodium 63 69 -9

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 317

* Difference between weighted and unweighted analyses is statistically significant at the .01 level.

Source: Menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Supplementary Exhibits: Nutrient Content of SBP Breakfasts B-16

Exhibit B.16

Mean Nutrient and Calorie Content of Breakfasts,

Using Alternative Methodology for Unweighted Analysis

Secondary Schools

Standard/ (Weighted vs.

Recommendation Mean Unweighted)

Weighted Unweighted

(Served) (Offered)

Percent

Difference

Mean Percentage of RDA

Total Calories 25% 20% 20% 0%

Protein 25% 34 34 0

Vitamin A 25% 25 29 -14**

Vitamin C 25% 72 75 -4*

Calcium 25% 29 32 -9**

Iron 25% 28 30 -7*

Mean Percentage of Calories

from

Total Fat < 30% 28.3% 26.4% +7**

Saturated Fat <10% 10.5 10.0 +5**

Carbohydrate > 55% 59.2 61.0 -3** 1

Mean Amount

Cholesterol (mg) < 75 55 47 +17** 1

Sodium (mg) < 600 672 607 +11** 1

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 487

NRC recommendation, not SBP standard. 1

 * Difference between weighted and unweighted analyses is statistically significant at the .01 level. 

 ** Difference between weighted and unweighted analyses is statistically significant at the .001 level. 

Source: Weighted and unweighted nutrient analyses of menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May

1999.
Supplementary Exhibits: Nutrient Content of SBP Breakfasts B-17

Exhibit B.17

Percentage of Schools That Satisfied SBP Standards and NRC Recommendations

 for Breakfast Based on Weighted and Unweighted Analyses,

Using Alternative Methodology for Unweighted Analysis

Secondary Schools

Weighted Unweighted

(Served) (Offered)

Percent

Difference

(Weighted vs.

Standard/Recommendation Percentage of Schools Unweighted)

Defined SBP Standards

Calories 8% 4% +100%**

Protein 95 99 -4**

Vitamin A 48 69 -30**

Vitamin C 95 98 -3

Calcium 78 100 -22**

Iron 57 65 -12*

Percentage of Calories from Fat 64 75 -15**

Percentage of Calories from Saturated Fat 46 52 -12*

NRC Recommendations

Percentage of Calories from Carbohydrate 72 84 -14**

Cholesterol 76 89 -15**

Sodium 42 55 -24**

Number of Schools (Unweighted) 487

* Difference between weighted and unweighted analyses is statistically significant at the .01 level.

** Difference between weighted and unweighted analyses is statistically significant at the .001 level.

Source: Menu and meal production data for one week between September 1998 and May 1999.
Supplementary Exhibits: Nutrient Content of SBP Breakfasts B-18
Study Implementation C-1

Appendix C

Study Implementation

This appendix describes the protocols and instruments used to collect data for the SNDA-II study. Two

different survey efforts were used to collect data: a telephone interview of SFA directors and a mail

survey of cafeteria managers. The two surveys were implemented concurrently. The following

paragraphs describe the survey instruments, the data collection schedule, and the procedures used to

encourage participation and submission of complete data. Copies of all instruments are included at the

back of this appendix.

Data Collection Schedule and Instruments

Data collection began in September 1998. The initial plan called for data collection to be completed by

the end of December 1998. However, because many schools were unable to participate in the study or to

complete data collection requirements during this time frame, the data collection period was extended and

ran through May 1999.

Data collection instruments were carefully designed and went through two rounds of pretesting to ensure

that instruments and protocols facilitated the uniform reporting of data and minimized response burden. 

In addition, survey materials used to collect information on meals served in school food service programs

were designed to be comparable to those used in the first SNDA study (SNDA-I) so that nutrient analysis

results for the two studies could be compared. 

Telephone Interview of SFA Directors 

The SFA director interview was used to collect basic descriptive information about school food service

operations. Information was collected about operations at the SFA level as well as about selected

characteristics of the specific schools participating in the study. Items included in the interview covered

participation in the SBP and NSLP, enrollment, numbers of students approved for free and reduced-price

meal benefits, menu planning practices, selected food purchasing practices, strategies used in setting

prices for reimbursable meals and a la carte foods, use of foods from commercial vendors, and use of

food service management companies.

The interview included 26 questions, most of which were asked about each sampled school, and took an

average of 19 minutes to complete. Interviewers in Abt’s telephone survey center in Amherst,

Massachusetts conducted the interviews using computer-assisted personal interview (CAPI) technology.

Appointments for the interview were scheduled with SFA directors when they were contacted by phone,

approximately six weeks before data collection was to begin, to remind them about the study and the

upcoming data collection. This telephone contact was also used to schedule a target week for the mail

survey of cafeteria managers, as described in a subsequent section. As a followup, respondents received
Study Implementation C-2

a letter that confirmed the date and time of the appointment. The letter also included a hard copy of the

few survey items that required data from administrative records. SFA directors were encouraged to

record needed information on the hard copy form prior to the interview. This included, for each of the

selected schools in the district, information on enrollment, average daily attendance, numbers of students

not eligible to participate in breakfast or lunch programs, and numbers of students approved for free and

reduced-price meals. 

Respondents who missed the scheduled appointment or were not able to complete it at the appointed time

were recontacted until the interview was completed. Respondents who failed to complete the interview

after 30 or more contact attempts were referred to the project director for followup. No respondent was

considered a final refusal until the project director was unsuccessful in contacting him or her and/or in

securing participation.

Mail Survey of Cafeteria Managers

Cafeteria managers in sampled schools (or other respondents designated by the SFA director) were asked

to complete a self-administered survey that included a number of different data collection instruments and

forms. The primary focus of the survey was to collect detailed information on breakfasts and lunches

served during a specified five-day period, referred to as the target week. For this reason, all survey forms

were bound together into a booklet which was referred to as the menu survey. In turn, the menu survey

booklet was packaged with other materials and response aids designed to facilitate collection of uniform

data, reduce confusion, and minimize response burden.

 

Menu survey packets contained all materials needed by cafeteria managers to record required information

on the foods and beverages served to students during the target week. In addition to data collection

forms, the packet included an instruction manual that provided detailed guidelines for completing each

form as well as sample completed forms and three laminated reference guides. The reference guides

provided instructions on how to describe foods adequately and completely, how to collect package labels,

and how to organize data collection activities each day of the target week. Zip-loc bags were provided for

storing collected package labels. Each packet was presented in a large accordion folder with labeled

pockets designed to assist respondents in locating and organizing materials. Color-coded forms, color

printing, tabs, and other special formatting features were used to create an attractive, user-friendly

package. 

Menu Survey Forms

The menu survey booklet included several different forms designed to collect specific types of 

information about meals served during the target week. 

• The Everyday Reimbursable Foods Form was used to describe foods and beverages

offered to students as part of a USDA-reimbursable meal every day (i.e., each day of the

target week). This form alleviated the need for respondents to record these foods multiple

times on forms used to collect information on daily offerings (see below). Separate forms

were completed for breakfast and for lunch. 

The form was designed to collect detailed information needed to complete an accurate

nutrient analysis, including complete descriptions of each food item (e.g., full and brand

names, method of cooking, use of salt and/or added fat); the grades served; the portion size,
Study Implementation C-3

including, if applicable, different portions for different grades; and the number of portions

served in reimbursable meals. Respondents were cautioned to record only foods included in

USDA-reimbursable meals (i.e., to exclude foods offered only a la carte or served only to

adults) and, for foods served in both reimbursable meals and as an a la carte item, to

exclude a la carte servings when reporting the number of portions served.

• A Daily Menu Form was used, each day, to describe foods and beverages offered as part of

a reimbursable meal, with the exception of those items already recorded on the Everyday

Reimbursable Foods Form. A separate Daily Menu Form was completed each day. 

Separate forms were completed for breakfast and lunch. The information recorded on the

Daily Menu Form was identical to the Everyday Reimbursable Foods Form.

• The Recipe Form was used to list and describe ingredients, yield, and preparation

information for items identified as “recipes” on the Daily Menu Forms or the Everyday

Reimbursable Foods Form — that is, foods prepared from scratch or by combining two or

more foods or ingredients. To minimize burden and promote submission of complete data,

cafeteria managers were encouraged to attach copies of recipes in lieu of re-copying recipes

onto recipe forms.

• Respondents were asked to provide package labels for most foods and to ensure that the

label included nutrition information or, at a minimum, a list of ingredients and a portion size. 

The Nutrition Information Form was used to record product nutrition information or

manufacturer’s contact information when package labels with nutrition information could

not be provided (i.e., label did not include nutrition information, label was difficult to

remove, or label was not available).

Other Data Collection Forms Included in the Menu Survey Booklet

Three other data collection instruments were included in the menu survey booklet. These instruments

were clearly separated from the menu survey forms by labeled tabs. Instructions for completing each

form were provided in the instruction manual.

• The Daily Meal Counts Form was used to report the number of USDA-reimbursable

breakfasts and lunches served, by reimbursement category, each day of the target week. The

form also requested information on total a la carte sales (breakfast and lunch combined) for

the target week. 

• The A la Carte Foods Checklist was used to identify foods and beverages offered a la

carte. Respondents simply checked off foods and beverages that were available for a la

carte purchase on one specific day during the target week. Space was also provided for

respondents to write in items that did not appear on the checklist. Each school was randomly

assigned an “a la carte day” on which this form was to be completed. The form was

identical to the one used in SNDA-I. 

• The Meal Service Questionnaire was a separate self-administered questionnaire that

gathered descriptive information on characteristics of food service programs in each

participating school. Information was collected on the prices charged for full- and reducedprice meals, the types of meal service offered, alternative sources of food available to

students, implementation of menu changes to address the Dietary Guidelines for

Americans, and the perceived impact of these changes on meal acceptability. The
Study Implementation C-4

questionnaire included 19 items. Respondents were told they could complete the

questionnaire any time prior to or during the target week.

The estimated response burden for completing the entire menu survey booklet (including the Daily Meal

Counts Form, the Meal Service Questionnaire, and the A la Carte Foods Checklist) was approximately 8-

10 hours, depending on the complexity of the menu.

 

Procedures Used to Implement the Menu Survey 

A number of procedures were used to promote cooperation with the menu survey, to ensure that

respondents understood how to fill out survey forms, and to assist respondents, however necessary, in

completing all survey materials. 

As noted previously, each SFA was assigned a specific target week for the menu survey. All

participating schools in an SFA were expected to complete the menu survey during the same week. SFAs

were randomly assigned to a specific target week with two potential backups. Final decisions about

target week dates for each SFA were made with the SFA director.

Reminder calls were made to all SFA directors and cafeteria managers approximately three weeks before

the target week. Target week dates were confirmed and rescheduled if necessary. SFA directors were

advised about the expected delivery date of menu survey packets and were encouraged to review data

collection requirements with cafeteria managers prior to the target week (materials arrived at least two

weeks before the target week). Finally, both SFA directors and cafeteria managers were informed about

the availability of technical assistance and were provided with a toll-free number. (The toll-free number

was also prominently displayed in several places in the menu survey materials). 

After this initial reminder, several followup contacts were made with cafeteria managers and SFA

directors, as described below. 

• One week prior to the target week, specially trained technical assistance staff called SFA

directors to confirm receipt of survey materials, encourage review of materials with cafeteria

managers if this had not yet taken place, answer questions regarding the materials or the

study in general, and reconfirm the SFA’s commitment to participating in the study. 

• On Tuesday of the target week, technical assistance staff called cafeteria managers to

confirm that they had begun the menu survey and to provide clarification and guidance

as needed. Because this call was placed after cafeteria managers had completed one day

of the menu survey, technical assistance staff were able to provide valuable assistance. 

In addition to answering questions posed by cafeteria managers, technical assistance staff

reviewed general data collection requirements as well as specific issues identified as

particularly problematic during the pretests, such as how to handle milk counts, separating a

la carte servings from reimbursable servings, when to complete a Recipe Form, and when

and how to use Nutrition Information Forms. Additional review points were added as the

study progressed and knowledge accumulated about other potentially problematic issues. 
Study Implementation C-5

Cafeteria managers were encouraged to call the toll-free telephone number at any time

during or after the target week and were asked to return completed survey materials no later

than one week after the target week.

• Two weeks after the target week, project staff contacted cafeteria managers who had not

returned completed survey materials. If the survey had not been completed, a new target

week was assigned and, if necessary, another set of survey materials was shipped. 

Subsequent calls were made, approximately every other week or in other intervals

surrounding target dates for completion identified by respondents, to assess progress on

completion of survey materials. Because many schools needed a substantial amount of time

to complete the materials, considerable leeway was given to schools that appeared to be

sincerely interested in cooperating. SFA directors were asked to intervene after lengthy

delays in schools where managers appeared to be less interested in cooperating. 

• Cafeteria managers who were particularly reluctant were referred to the project director for

followup. These managers were contacted by phone and every attempt was made to

facilitate the school’s participation in the study. In some cases, cafeteria managers were

permitted to send local food production records, computer printouts, or SMI audit reports

that provided most of the information needed. Missing information was collected via

followup telephone calls. In other cases, intensive technical assistance was provided. This

intensive assistance ran the gamut from daily telephone support to situations where Abt staff

actually completed portions of the survey forms for respondents. In the latter case,

respondents sent copies of their menus to Abt and Abt returned partially completed menu

survey booklets along with a detailed list of questions to be answered and supporting

information to be provided. Respondents were free to provide outstanding information in

whatever format was most convenient; Abt staff integrated information and made call-backs

as needed.

No respondent was considered a final refusal until the project director was unsuccessful in securing his or

her participation or until it was clear that long-promised materials were never going to arrive.

After the data collection period was officially over, letters of thanks and personalized certificates of

appreciation from USDA were sent to all cafeteria managers who completed the menu survey and to

associated SFA directors. 

Detailed information on how menu survey materials were used to assess the nutrient content of school

meals is provided in Appendix E. 
Blank Page
SFA Director Interview
Blank Page
Form Approved

OMB Number-0584-0481

Expiration Date 5/31/2000 

School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study - II

Survey of Directors of

School Food Authorities (SFAs)

Telephone Questionnaire

SFA Name ______________________________________________________

SFA ID Number |____|____|____|

SFA Director’s Name ______________________________________________________

SFA Phone Number (______) ________ - _____________

 Time Phone Contacts (DD/MM/YY)

____:_____ / / / / / 

____:_____ / / / / / 

____:_____ / / / / / 

____:_____ / / / / / 

Interviewer 

Start Time ______:______ End Time ______:______

Public reporting burden of this collection of information is estimated to average 19 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: Department Clearance Officer, OIRM,

AG Box 7630, Washington, DC 20250.
Blank Page
SFA DIRECTOR SURVEY 2

Hello, this is ___________________ from Abt Associates. We are very pleased that NAME OF SCHOOL FOOD

AUTHORITY has agreed to participate in the second School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study, which is

sponsored by the US Department of Agriculture.

Our interview today will begin with a series of questions about the schools participating in this study: READ

SCHOOL NAMES. I will also ask you about food service operations in your district overall.

Before we begin, do you have any questions about the study? ANSWER QUESTIONS.

These first questions ask for some basic information about each school.

INTERVIEWER ASK QUESTIONS 1 THROUGH 9 INDIVIDUALLY FOR EACH SCHOOL. READ ACROSS.

NAME OF SCHOOL NAME OF SCHOOL NAME OF SCHOOL

1. What grades attend Preschool ....... 20

NAME OF SCHOOL? Kindergarten .... 21

CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY.

First ........... 01

Second ......... 02

Third ........... 03

Fourth .......... 04

Fifth ........... 05

Sixth ........... 06

Seventh ......... 07

Eighth .......... 08

Ninth .......... 09

Tenth .......... 10

Eleventh ........ 11

Twelfth ......... 12

Preschool ....... 20

Kindergarten .... 21

First .......... 01

Second ........ 02

Third ......... 03

Fourth ........ 04

Fifth .......... 05

Sixth ......... 06

Seventh ........ 07

Eighth ........ 08

Ninth ......... 09

Tenth ......... 10

Eleventh ....... 11

Twelfth ........ 12

Preschool ....... 20

Kindergarten .... 21

First .......... 01

Second ........ 02

Third ......... 03

Fourth ........ 04

Fifth .......... 05

Sixth ......... 06

Seventh ........ 07

Eighth ........ 08

Ninth ......... 09

Tenth ......... 10

Eleventh ....... 11

Twelfth ........ 12

2. As of October 1, 1998,

how many students

were enrolled in NAME

OF SCHOOL?

|__|, |__|__|__| STUDENTS |__|, |__|__|__| STUDENTS |__|, |__|__|__| STUDENTS

3. As of October 1, 1998,

what was the average

daily attendance at

NAME OF SCHOOL?

|__|__| % |__|__| % |__|__| %

OR OR OR

|__|, |__|__|__| STUDENTS |__|, |__|__|__| STUDENTS |__|, |__|__|__| STUDENTS
NAME OF SCHOOL NAME OF SCHOOL NAME OF SCHOOL

SFA DIRECTOR SURVEY 3

4. Are there any students

enrolled at NAME OF

SCHOOL who are not

eligible to receive

school lunches or

breakfasts, such as

kindergartners who are

not in session at meal

times?

Yes .............. 1

No ............... 2

IF YES, ASK Q4A AND 4B. IF YES, ASK Q4A AND 4B.

IF NO, GO TO NEXT SCHOOL. IF NO, GO TO NEXT SCHOOL.

Yes .............. 1

No ............... 2

Yes .............. 1

No ............... 2

IF YES, ASK Q4A AND 4B.

IF NO, GO TO Q5.

4A. How many students are

not eligible to receive

school lunches at NAME

OF SCHOOL?

|__|__|__| STUDENTS |__|__|__| STUDENTS |__|__|__| STUDENTS

4B. IF SCHOOL HAS

BREAKFAST PROGRAM. . .

How many students are

not eligible to receive

school breakfasts at

NAME OF SCHOOL.

|__|__|__| STUDENTS |__|__|__| STUDENTS |__|__|__| STUDENTS

Not applicable ..... 1 Not applicable ..... 1 Not applicable ..... 1

5. How many students are

certified eligible for a

free school lunch at

NAME OF SCHOOL?

|__|, |__|__|__| STUDENTS |__|, |__|__|__| STUDENTS |__|, |__|__|__| STUDENTS

6. How many students are

certified eligible for a

reduced-price lunch at

NAME OF SCHOOL?

|__|, |__|__|__| STUDENTS |__|, |__|__|__| STUDENTS |__|, |__|__|__| STUDENTS
SFA DIRECTOR SURVEY 4

The next questions focus on the National School Lunch Program. I will ask about menu planning, food

purchasing, and food preparation at each school.

NAME OF SCHOOL NAME OF SCHOOL NAME OF SCHOOL

7. Is the lunch menu for District level ...... 1

NAME OF SCHOOL planned Off-site kitchen ... 2

at the district level, at an This school ....... 3

off-site kitchen serving the Other SPECIFY ..... 6

school, or at the school? ________________ _______________ _______________

CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY.

________________ _______________ _______________

________________ _______________ _______________

District level ..... 1

Off-site kitchen . . 2

This school ...... 3

Other SPECIFY .... 6

District level ..... 1

Off-site kitchen . . 2

This school ...... 3

Other SPECIFY .... 6

INTERVIEWER IF MENU PLANNED AT DISTRICT LEVEL, ASK Q8. OTHERWISE, SKIP TO Q9.

8. Do you or your staff have access to a computer for use in menu planning?

Yes ...................................... 1

No ....................................... 2

9. IF MENU PLANNED AT ANY

OTHER LEVEL . . .

Do food service

professionals have access

to a computer for use in

menu planning at the

kitchen for NAME OF

SCHOOL?

Yes .............. 1

No ............... 2

Yes ............ 1

No ............. 2

Yes ............ 1

No ............. 2
SFA DIRECTOR SURVEY 5

INTERVIEWER ASK QUESTIONS 10 THROUGH 12 FOR EACH SCHOOL. READ ACROSS.

NAME OF SCHOOL NAME OF SCHOOL NAME OF SCHOOL

10. Which of the following NuMenus ........ 1

menu planning options is Assisted NuMenus . 2

currently used for NAME New Food Based New Food Based New Food Based

OF SCHOOL? Menus (Enhanced Food Menus (Enhanced Food Menus (Enhanced

READ LIST. CIRCLE ONE

ANSWER.

Based Menus) .... 3

Traditional Meal Traditional Meal Traditional Meal

Pattern .......... 4

Other approach Other approach Other approach

SPECIFY .......... 6

________________ ________________ ________________

________________ ________________ ________________

________________ ________________ ________________

IF USING NUMENUS OR IF USING NUMENUS OR IF USING NUMENUS OR

ASSISTED NUMENUS, ASSISTED NUMENUS, ASSISTED NUMENUS, SKIP

SKIP TO Q12. SKIP TO Q12. TO Q12. OTHERWISE,

OTHERWISE, ASK Q11. OTHERWISE, ASK Q11. ASK Q11.

NuMenus ......... 1

Assisted NuMenus . . 2

Based Menus) ..... 3

Pattern ........... 4

SPECIFY ........... 6

NuMenus ........ 1

Assisted NuMenus . 2

Food Based Menus) 3

Pattern .......... 4

SPECIFY .......... 6

11. Is a computer-based

system used to analyze

the nutritional content of

the menus at NAME OF

SCHOOL?

Yes .............. 1

No ............... 2

SKIP TO Q13. SKIP TO Q13. SKIP TO Q13.

Yes .............. 1

No ............... 2

Yes ............. 1

No .............. 2
NAME OF SCHOOL NAME OF SCHOOL NAME OF SCHOOL

SFA DIRECTOR SURVEY 6

12. IF USING NUMENUS OR

ASSISTED NUMENUS . . .

Do you or your staff

perform a weighted

nutrient analysis of the

menu for NAME OF

SCHOOL?

IF NECESSARY, PROBE: A

weighted analysis

involves basing the

nutrient contributions

of individual menu items

on how frequently

they are chosen.

Yes .............. 1

No ............... 2

IF YES, ASK Q12A-C.

IF NO, ASK Q12B,C.

Yes .............. 1

No ............... 2

IF YES, ASK Q12A-C. IF YES, ASK Q12A-C.

IF NO, ASK Q12B,C. IF NO, ASK Q12B,C.

Yes ............. 1

No .............. 2

12A. Are nutritional analyses

performed using

projected numbers of Projected ......... 1

servings, actual Actual ............ 2

numbers of servings, or Both ............. 3

both?

Projected ......... 1

Actual ............ 2

Both ............. 3

Projected ........ 1

Actual ........... 2

Both ............ 3

12B. IF SCHOOL HAS A

BREAKFAST PROGRAM . . .

Are breakfast and lunch Combined ......... 2

menus analyzed Analyze lunch only . 3

separately or combined Analyze breakfast Analyze breakfast Analyze breakfast

for analysis? only .............. 4

Separately ......... 1 Separately ......... 1

Combined ......... 2

Analyze lunch only . 3

only .............. 4

Separately ........ 1

Combined ........ 2

Analyze lunch only 3

only ............. 4

12C. What age or grade Grades: Grades: Grades:

groupings are used when Preschool ........ 01

performing nutrient K-3 ............. 02

analyses? K-6 ............. 03

7-12 ............ 04

Age: Age: Age:

3-6 ............. 05

7-10 ............ 06

11-13 ........... 07

14 and above ..... 08

Other SPECIFY .... 10

_________________ ________________ ________________

_________________ ________________ ________________

_________________ ________________ ________________

Preschool ........ 01

K-3 ............. 02

K-6 ............. 03

7-12 ............ 04

3-6 ............. 05

7-10 ............ 06

11-13 ........... 07

14 and above ..... 08

Other SPECIFY .... 10

Preschool ....... 01

K-3 ............ 02

K-6 ............ 03

7-12 ........... 04

3-6 ............ 05

7-10 ........... 06

11-13 .......... 07

14 and above .... 08

Other SPECIFY ... 10
SFA DIRECTOR SURVEY 7

13. INTERVIEWER SEE Q9. IS MENU PLANNING DONE AT THE DISTRICT LEVEL?

Yes ...................................... 1 ASK Q13A-D.

No ....................................... 2 ASK Q13E-H FOR EACH SCHOOL.

13A. In planning menus, does your district use information provided by the State Child Nutrition

Program about the nutritional content of foods served?

Yes ...................................... 1

No ....................................... 2

INTERVIEWER IF RESPONDENT SAYS “NO STATE INFORMATION AVAILABLE,” NOTE BELOW.

Information not available ..................... 3

13B. Does your district use USDA Quantity Recipes for School Food Service in menu planning?

 

Yes ...................................... 1

No ....................................... 2

13C. Does your district use USDA’s New School Lunch and Breakfast Recipes from “A Tool Kit for

Healthy School Meals” in menu planning?

 

Yes ...................................... 1

No ....................................... 2

13D. Does your school district use either of the following types of staff to plan menus?

YES NO

A registered dietitian ........................ 1 2

A trained nutritionist ........................ 1 2 GO TO Q14.
SFA DIRECTOR SURVEY 8

NAME OF SCHOOL NAME OF SCHOOL NAME OF SCHOOL

13E. Is information provided

by the State Child

Nutrition Program about Yes .............. 1

the nutritional content of No ............... 2

foods served used to plan

menus at NAME OF

SCHOOL?

IF RESPONDENT SAYS “NO

STATE INFORMATION

AVAILABLE,” NOTE THIS.

Information not Information not Information not

available .......... 3

Yes ............ 1

No ............. 2

available ........ 3

Yes ............ 1

No ............. 2

available ........ 3

13F. Are USDA Quantity

Recipes for School Food

Service used to plan Yes .............. 1

menus for NAME OF No ............... 2

SCHOOL?

Yes ............ 1

No ............. 2

Yes ............ 1

No ............. 2

13G. Are USDA’s New

School Lunch and

Breakfast Recipes from

“A Tool Kit for Healthy Yes .............. 1

School Meals” used to No ............... 2

plan menus for NAME OF

SCHOOL?

Yes ............ 1

No ............. 2

Yes ............ 1

No ............. 2

13H. At NAME OF SCHOOL 

does . . .

a registered dietitian plan Yes .............. 1

menus? No ............... 2

a trained nutritionist plan Yes .............. 1

menus? No ............... 2

Yes ............ 1

No ............. 2

Yes ............ 1

No ............. 2

Yes ............ 1

No ............. 2

Yes ............ 1

No ............. 2
SFA DIRECTOR SURVEY 9

INTERVIEWER ASK QUESTIONS 14-16 FOR EACH SCHOOL. READ ACROSS.

NAME OF SCHOOL NAME OF SCHOOL NAME OF SCHOOL

14. Is food purchasing for District level ...... 1

lunch at NAME OF SCHOOL

done at the district level, at Off-site kitchen ... 2

an off-site kitchen serving

the school, at the school, or This school ....... 3

primarily at the district

level with some items District level with District level with District level with

purchased locally? local purchasing ... 4

CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY. Other SPECIFY ..... 6

________________ _______________ _______________

________________ _______________ _______________

________________ _______________ _______________

District level ..... 1

Off-site kitchen . . 2

This school ...... 3

local purchasing . . 4

Other SPECIFY .... 6

District level ..... 1

Off-site kitchen . . 2

This school ...... 3

local purchasing . . 4

Other SPECIFY .... 6

15. Does NAME OF SCHOOL offer Yes .............. 1

a la carte at lunch? No ............... 2

IF YES, ASK Q16A,B. IF YES, ASK Q16A,B. IF YES, ASK Q16A,B.

IF NO, ASK Q16B. IF NO, ASK Q16B. IF NO, ASK Q16B.

Yes ............ 1

No ............. 2

Yes ............ 1

No ............. 2

16. Are foods from commercial

vendors such as

McDonald’s, Pizza Hut,

Domino’s, Subway, Taco

Bell, or local commercial

vendors used at NAME OF

SCHOOL . . .

A. for a la carte items? Yes .............. 1

B. for reimbursable Yes .............. 1

lunch? No ............... 2

No ............... 2

IF YES, ASK Q16C. IF YES, ASK Q16C.

IF NO, GO TO NEXT IF NO, GO TO Q17.

SCHOOL.

Yes ............ 1

No ............. 2

Yes ............ 1

No ............. 2

IF YES, ASK Q16C.

IF NO, GO TO NEXT

SCHOOL.

Yes ............ 1

No ............. 2

Yes ............ 1

No ............. 2
NAME OF SCHOOL NAME OF SCHOOL NAME OF SCHOOL

SFA DIRECTOR SURVEY 10

16C. IF YES FOR REIMBURSABLE

LUNCH . . .

Have the menu items

purchased from the

commercial vendor(s)

been modified or

reformulated to meet

requirements for

reimbursement?

Yes .............. 1

No ............... 2

Yes ............ 1

No ............. 2

Yes ............ 1

No ............. 2
SFA DIRECTOR SURVEY 11

The next questions focus on school breakfast. 

NAME OF SCHOOL NAME OF SCHOOL NAME OF SCHOOL

17. INTERVIEWER

SEE FACE SHEET.

DOES SCHOOL PARTICIPATE IN

THE SCHOOL BREAKFAST

PROGRAM?

Yes .............. 1

No ............... 2

IF NO, SKIP Q18 AND Q19 IF NO, SKIP Q18 AND

FOR THIS SCHOOL. Q19 FOR THIS SCHOOL.

Yes ............ 1

No ............. 2

Yes ............ 1

No ............. 2

IF NO, SKIP Q18 AND

Q19 FOR THIS SCHOOL.

18. Is the breakfast menu for District level ....... 1

NAME OF SCHOOL planned at Off-site kitchen .... 2

the district level, at an off- This school ........ 3

site kitchen serving the Other SPECIFY ..... 6

school, or at the school? _________________ ________________ ________________

CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY.

_________________ ________________ ________________

_________________ ________________ ________________

District level ..... 1

Off-site kitchen . . 2

This school ...... 3

Other SPECIFY ... 6

District level ..... 1

Off-site kitchen . . 2

This school ...... 3

Other SPECIFY ... 6

19. Is food purchasing for District level ....... 1

breakfast at NAME OF

SCHOOL done at the district Off-site kitchen .... 2

level, at an off-site kitchen

serving the school, at the This school ........ 3

school, or primarily at the

district level with some District level with District level with District level with

items purchased locally? local purchasing .... 4

CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY. Other SPECIFY ..... 6

________________ ________________ ________________

________________ ________________ ________________

________________ ________________ ________________

District level ..... 1

Off-site kitchen . . 2

This school ...... 3

local purchasing . . 4

Other SPECIFY ... 6

District level ..... 1

Off-site kitchen . . 2

This school ...... 3

local purchasing . . 4

Other SPECIFY ... 6
NAME OF SCHOOL NAME OF SCHOOL NAME OF SCHOOL

SFA DIRECTOR SURVEY 12

20. Does NAME OF SCHOOL offer Yes .............. 1

a la carte at breakfast? No ............... 2

IF YES, GO TO Q21A. IF YES, GO TO Q21A. IF YES, GO TO Q21A.

IF NO, GO TO Q21B. IF NO, GO TO Q21B. IF NO, GO TO Q21B.

Yes ............ 1

No ............. 2

Yes ............ 1

No ............. 2

21. Are foods from

commercial vendors such

as McDonald’s, Pizza Hut,

Domino’s, Subway, Taco

Bell, or local commercial

vendors used at NAME OF

SCHOOL . . .

A. for a la carte items at Yes .............. 1

breakfast? No ............... 2

B. for reimbursable Yes .............. 1

breakfast? No ............... 2

Not applicable ..... 3

IF YES, ASK Q21C. IF YES, ASK Q21C. IF YES, ASK Q21C.

IF NO, GO TO NEXT IF NO, GO TO NEXT IF NO, GO TO Q22.

SCHOOL. SCHOOL.

Yes ............ 1

No ............. 2

Yes ............ 1

No ............. 2

Not applicable ... 3

Yes ............ 1

No ............. 2

Yes ............ 1

No ............. 2

Not applicable ... 3

21C. IF YES FOR REIMBURSABLE

BREAKFAST . . .

Have the menu items

purchased from the

commercial vendor(s)

been modified or

reformulated to meet

requirements for

reimbursement?

Yes .............. 1

No ............... 2

Yes ............ 1

No ............. 2

Yes ............ 1

No ............. 2
SFA DIRECTOR SURVEY 13

Now, I’d like to ask you some general food service questions about your district.

22. Does your school district currently use a food service management company to perform any food service

functions?

Yes ...................................... 1

No ....................................... 2 GO TO Q23.

22A. I’m going to read a list of food service functions. Please tell me if each function is performed

by the school district or by the food service management company, or if the responsibility for

the function is shared.

DISTRICT COMPANY SHARED APPLICABL

MANAGEMENT NOT

E

Preparing reimbursement claims ........ 1 2 3 4

Accounting and financial recordkeeping . . 1 2 3 4

Planning menus ..................... 1 2 3 4

Preparing USDA-reimbursable breakfasts 1 2 3 4

Serving USDA-reimbursable breakfasts . . 1 2 3 4

Preparing USDA-reimbursable lunches . . 1 2 3 4

Serving USDA-reimbursable lunches .... 1 2 3 4

Providing a la carte service ............ 1 2 3 4

Providing equipment for food preparation 1 2 3 4

Cafeteria clean-up ................... 1 2 3 4

Purchasing food ..................... 1 2 3 4

Making arrangements for using donated

commodities ........................ 1 2 3 4

Selling lunch tickets and collecting lunch

money ............................. 1 2 3 4
SFA DIRECTOR SURVEY 14

23. Do you purchase all, some, or no food through a cooperative for schools in your district?

All ....................................... 1 ASK Q23A.

Some ..................................... 2 ASK Q23A.

None ..................................... 3 GO TO Q24.

23A. Does the use of a purchasing cooperative limit, expand, or have no effect on your ability to

purchase the food items you want?

Limit ..................................... 1

Expand ................................... 2

No effect .................................. 3

24. Which of the following methods are used to set unit prices for USDA-reimbursable meals in your school

district?

YES NO

An actual pricing method which considers all costs of

buying, producing, and serving the food ............ 1 2

Food-cost-percentage markup where the same markup

percentage is added to every item ................. 1 2

Unit prices are reset only to offset financial loss ..... 1 2

Is any other method used to set unit prices for

reimbursable meals? SPECIFY ....................

______________________________________

______________________________________

1 2

Don’t know .................................. 8 8
SFA DIRECTOR SURVEY 15

25. INTERVIEWER SEE Q15 (AND Q20, IF NECESSARY). DOES DISTRICT OFFER A LA CARTE AT ANY OF THE

SCHOOLS?

Yes ...................................... 1 GO TO Q26.

No ....................................... 2 ASK Q25A.

25A. Do any schools in your district offer a la carte?

Yes ...................................... 1 ASK Q26.

No ....................................... 2 SKIP TO Q27.

26. Which of the following methods are used to set unit prices for a la carte items in your school district?

YES NO

An actual pricing method which considers all costs of

buying, producing, and serving the food ............. 1 2

Food-cost-percentage markup where the same markup

percentage is added to every item .................. 1 2

Group pricing—for example, all vegetables at same price

per portion; all similar-size cookies at same

price .........................................

1 2

Is any other method used to set unit prices for a la carte

items? SPECIFY ................................

______________________________________

______________________________________

1 2

Don’t know ................................... 8 8

26A. IF YES TO FOOD-COST-PERCENTAGE MARKUP . . . You just told me your district uses the food-costpercentage method for pricing a la carte items. What percentage markup from wholesale cost

do you use to calculate the sales price for the following types of foods?

VERIFY THAT ANSWER IS EXPRESSED AS A PERCENTAGE.

Milk ______________% Not applicable............1

Items on reimbursable menu ______________% Not applicable............1

Other a la carte items ______________%
SFA DIRECTOR SURVEY 16

CLOSING Thank you very much for your time and for your help. I want to remind you that the target

week(s) for this study are READ TARGET DATES. We will send the menu survey materials for you

to distribute to your school cafeteria managers. Do you have any other questions about the

study and these materials? ANSWER QUESTIONS.

Thank you again for your help.

INTERVIEWER NOTES OR COMMENTS
Blank Page
Everyday Reimbursable Foods Form
Blank Page
Page _____ of _____

EVERYDAY REIMBURSABLE FOODS FORM

SCHOOL NAME________________________________________________ MEAL BREAKFAST LUNCH Circle one.

Shaded areas for Abt staff use only 

A B C D E

Menu Item with Complete Description

• Specify full name. Note the addition of fat and salt.

• For foods other than milk, fresh meats, and fresh produce, include

 manufacturer and brand names and product code (if available).

• Refer to FOOD DESCRIPTION GUIDE for necessary descriptions. Circle one number for

• If recipe, complete Recipe Form. each menu item. Include Units Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri

Menu Item Type

1 = Commodity

2 = Pre-prepared

3 = Recipe

4 = Other Size of 

Portion Served

Grades

Number of Portions Served

Reimbursable Only

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

NOTE: You do not need to list these foods again on the Daily Menu Forms.
Blank Page
Daily Menu Form
Blank Page
Page _____ of _____

DAILY MENU FORM

SCHOOL NAME______________________________________ DAY MON TUE WED THU FRI Circle one.

MEAL BREAKFAST LUNCH Circle one.

A B C D E

Menu Item with Complete Description

• Specify full name. Note the addition of fat and salt.

• For foods other than milk, fresh meats, and fresh produce, include

 manufacturer and brand names and product code (if available).

• Refer to FOOD DESCRIPTION GUIDE for necessary descriptions.

• If recipe, complete Recipe Form. 

Menu Item Type

1 = Commodity

2 = Pre-prepared

3 = Recipe

4 = Other Size of Number of 

Circle one number for Portion Served Portions Served Abt Staff

each menu item. Include Units Grades Reimbursable Only Use Only

 1 2 3 4

 1 2 3 4

 1 2 3 4

 1 2 3 4

 1 2 3 4

 1 2 3 4

 1 2 3 4

 1 2 3 4

 1 2 3 4

 1 2 3 4

 1 2 3 4

 1 2 3 4

 1 2 3 4

 1 2 3 4

 1 2 3 4
Blank Page
Recipe Form
Blank Page
Page _____ of _____

RECIPE FORM

(SIDE 1)

SCHOOL NAME__________________________________________________________________

NAME OF RECIPE/FOOD___________________________________________________________

Please use the same name that you used on the Everyday Reimbursable Foods Form

or Daily Menu Form. 

DAY ALL DAYS MON TUE WED THU FRI Circle all that apply.

MEAL BREAKFAST LUNCH Circle one.

Check (T) the box beside the option you selected for the recipe or food listed above.

~ Option 1 - Recipe Form Completed (SIDE 1 and SIDE 2)

~ Option 2 - Copy of Recipe Attached

Staple or clip recipe to this page. Turn to SIDE 2 to complete Preparation Information.

YIELD INFORMATION

Number of Servings Prepared ___________ Portion Size _________________________

 Examples: 1/2 cup, 4 fluid oz, #16 scoop

INGREDIENT INFORMATION

A B C

Ingredient with Complete Description

• Specify full name. 

• For foods other than milk, fresh meats, and fresh produce, include

manufacturer and brand names and product code (if available).

• Refer to FOOD DESCRIPTION GUIDE for necessary descriptions.

• If ingredient is prepared from a separate recipe, complete separate Circle one number Recipe

RECIPE FORM. for each ingredient. Include Units

Ingredient Type

1 = Commodity

2 = Pre-prepared

3 = Recipe

4 = Other Amount in

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

OVER !
RECIPE FORM

(SIDE 2)

PREPARATION INFORMATION

Please check (T) the boxes below to describe the procedures used in preparing this recipe.

1. If recipe was cooked, what cooking method did you use? 

~ Bake/roast ~ Broil/grill ~ Pan fry/saute ~ Boil

~ Oven heat ~ Braise ~ Deep fry ~ Steam

~ Flour and fry ~ Coat in batter and fry ~ Other SPECIFY

~ Does not apply to recipe _____________

2. If recipe contains meat, poultry, fish, or shellfish, was amount measured raw or cooked?

~ Raw ~ Cooked ~ Does not apply to recipe

3. If recipe contains meat or poultry did you . . . 

Check all that apply.

Trim the visible fat? ~ Yes ~ No ~ Does not apply to recipe

Drain fat after cooking? ~ Yes ~ No ~ Does not apply to recipe

Rinse with hot water, drain fat ~ Yes ~ No ~ Does not apply to recipe

 and rinse again?

Remove skin before cooking? ~ Yes ~ No ~ Does not apply to recipe

4. If recipe contains noodles/pasta, rice, or vegetables, did you add salt to the cooking water?

Noodles/pasta or rice ~ Yes ~ No ~ Does not apply to recipe

Vegetables ~ Yes ~ No ~ Does not apply to recipe

5. If recipe contains canned vegetables or canned fruit, did you drain off all of the liquid?

~ Yes ~ No ~ Does not apply to recipe

COMMENTS
Nutrition Information Form
Blank Page
NUTRITION INFORMATION FORM

SCHOOL NAME _____________________________________________________________

NAME OF FOOD_____________________________________________________________

Please use the same name that you used on the Daily Menu Form or any other

forms where this food is listed.

DAY ALL DAYS MON TUE WED THU FRI Circle all that apply.

MEAL BREAKFAST LUNCH Circle one.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Check (T) the box beside the option you selected for the food listed above. 

~ OPTION 1 - Nutrition information not available

Please provide manufacturer and product information below.

Complete name of food___________________________________________________________

 Include brand name and product code, if available

Manufacturer’s name_____________________________________________________________

Manufacturer’s address ___________________________________________________________

city state zip

Manufacturer’s telephone number___________________________________________________

area code number

Weight or measure (volume) of one serving ___________________________________________

 Examples: 5 oz. pizza, 11.6 fluid oz. Gatorade

~ OPTION 2 - Information sheet from manufacturer attached

Staple copy of nutrition information sheet provided by manufacturer or distributor.

~ OPTION 3- Information copied from label

Turn over form and fill in the requested information.

OVER !
OPTION 3 Continued

1. Please copy the following information from the package or label:

Complete name of food________________________________________________________

Include brand name and product code, if available

Manufacturer’s name__________________________________________________________

Manufacturer’s address ________________________________________________________

city state zip

Manufacturer’s telephone number________________________________________________

area code number

Weight or measure (volume) of one serving ________________________________________

 Examples: 5 oz. Pizza, 11.6 fluid oz. Gatorade

2. If the label has a Nutrition Facts or Nutrition Information section, please record the following

information per serving:

NUTRITION FACTS

 Serving Size ______________ ( __________ )

 Amount per Serving:

 Calories __________

 Total Fat __________ g

 Saturated Fat __________ g

 Cholesterol __________ mg

 Sodium __________ mg

 Total Carbohydrate __________ g

 Dietary Fiber __________ g

 Protein __________ g

 Vitamin A __________ %

 Vitamin C __________ %

 Calcium __________ %

 Iron __________ %

3. If the label does not have nutrition information, please list the first five ingredients.

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________
Daily Meal Counts Form
Blank Page
DAILY MEAL COUNTS FORM

SCHOOL NAME________________________________________________

 

 Refer to front cover of Menu Survey booklet

Please record the total number of USDA reimbursable meals served in your school each day of the target week.

Provide separate numbers for lunches and for breakfasts, if breakfasts are served. If your school offers full priced

meals at more than one price—for example, higher prices for larger portions or lower prices for weekly meal

ticket discounts, write the number of meals served at each price. Do not include meals for which you do not claim

reimbursement—for example, second lunches sold to students on an a la carte basis. However, please record your

total (breakfast and lunch) a la carte sales for the target week.

Number of Reimbursable Lunches Served 

Day of Week Free Price $_____ $_____ $_____ Total

Reduced Price Price 2 Price 3

Full Price

Standard

MONDAY

TUESDAY

WEDNESDAY

THURSDAY

FRIDAY

Number of Reimbursable Breakfasts Served

Day of Week Free Price $_____ $_____ $_____ Total

Reduced Price Price 2 Price 3

Full Price

Standard

MONDAY

TUESDAY

WEDNESDAY

THURSDAY

FRIDAY

Total a la carte sales for the target week $________________
Blank Page
A la Carte Foods Checklist
Blank Page
SCHOOL NUTRITION DIETARY ASSESSMENT STUDY - II

A LA CARTE FOODS CHECKLIST

Attach School ID Label

Instructions

1. Complete this form for the one day of the week specified on above label.

2. Place a check in the box next to each food your cafeteria sold on an a la carte basis - at

breakfast and/or at lunch - on the specified day. If you sometimes sell a food, but did not

sell it on the specified day, do not check the box.

3. If your cafeteria offered a la carte food or beverages that are not included in the list, please

write in the names of these foods and beverages on the last page of the checklist.

4. If you have any questions, call Abt’s toll-free number: 1-800-649-9560.
Blank Page
A LA CARTE FOODS CHECKLIST Page 1

Check (T) box if food was

offered a la carte on

A. Beverages specified day

1. Carbonated soft drinks 

(Cola-sweetened, cola-diet, non-cola-sweetened, diet) G

2. Coffee G

3. Hot chocolate G

4. Juice (100% juice) G

5. Juice (50% juice) G

6. Juice drinks (10% juice) G

(Cranberry drink, fruit blends, Hi-C,

lemonade, punch)

7. Milk shake or malt G

8. Mineral water G

9. Tea G

B. Baked Goods—Desserts

1. Cake-type G

(Cupcakes, brownies, Twinkies)

2. Cookies G

3. Pastries G

(Pies, turnovers)

4. Other baked goods—desserts G
A LA CARTE FOODS CHECKLIST Page 2

(continued)

Check (T) box if food was

offered a la carte on

C. Bread or Grain Products specified day

1. Regular bread G

(Bread, roll, bagel)

2. Other bread G

(Biscuits, croissants, hot pretzels)

3. Muffins G

4. Tortilla G

5. Other grain products G

(Crackers, granola bar, pretzels)

D. Candy

1. With chocolate G

2. Without chocolate G

E. Frozen Desserts

1. Frozen non-dairy G

(Frozen fruit bar, Jello Pop, Popsicle)

2. Ice cream G

(Bars, Fudgesicles, Scoop, sundaes)

3. Low-fat frozen desserts G

(Frozen yogurt, ice milk, sherbet)

F. Fruit

1. Canned, cooked fruit G

2. Fresh fruit G

3. Fruit salad G
A LA CARTE FOODS CHECKLIST Page 3

(continued)

Check (T) box if food was

offered a la carte on

G. Meat and Meat Alternate/Entrees specified day

Beef

1. Hamburger or cheeseburger G

2. Chili or burrito G

3. Other beef G

Poultry

4. Chicken patty (breaded) G

5. Chicken (other) G

6. Turkey G

Other Meat

7. Hot dog (Corn dog, franks and beans) G

8. Cold cuts (Bologna, salami, and similar cuts) G

9. Sausage or pork G

Meat Alternate

10. Cheese sandwich G

11. Other cheese G

12. Beans or peas (Chick peas, garbanzo beans,

kidney beans, refried beans) G

13. Eggs (Hard cooked, egg salad, scrambled, fried) G

14. Fish G

15. Nuts and seeds (Peanuts, peanut butter, sunflower

seeds, other nuts) G
A LA CARTE FOODS CHECKLIST Page 4

(continued)

Check (T) box if food was

offered a la carte on

Mixed Dishes specified day

16. Chef salad G

17. Lasagna G

18. Macaroni and cheese G

19. Pizza (No meat) G

20. Pizza (With meat) G

21. Spaghetti G

22. Soup with meat or beans

(Bean, chicken, clam chowder, minestrone) G

23. Mexican food (Other) G

24. Chinese food G

25. Other SPECIFY G

______________________________________________________

______________________________________________________

______________________________________________________

H. Vegetables

1. Fried potatoes

(Including pre-fried, oven baked, french fries, Tater Tots) G

2. Salad

 (Tossed salad, potato salad, three bean salad, raw vegetables) G

3. Vegetable (Other cooked) G

4. Vegetable (soup) G
A LA CARTE FOODS CHECKLIST Page 5

(continued)

Check (T) box if food was

offered a la carte on

I. Snacks specified day

1. Chips G

(Corn, potato, puffed cheese, tortilla)

2. Nuts and seeds G

(Almonds, peanuts, pistachios,

sunflower seeds, trail mix)

3. Popcorn G

4. Other snacks G

J. Yogurt

1. Yogurt G

On the next page, please list any food or beverage that is not listed on pages 1 through 5 of this checklist and

that your cafeteria offered a la carte on specified day.
A LA CARTE FOODS CHECKLIST Page 6

(continued)

K. Other A La Carte Items SPECIFY Abt

only

____________________________________________________________|__|__|

____________________________________________________________|__|__|

____________________________________________________________|__|__|

____________________________________________________________|__|__|

____________________________________________________________|__|__|

____________________________________________________________|__|__|

____________________________________________________________|__|__|

____________________________________________________________|__|__|

____________________________________________________________|__|__|

____________________________________________________________|__|__|

____________________________________________________________|__|__|

____________________________________________________________|__|__|

____________________________________________________________|__|__|

____________________________________________________________|__|__|

____________________________________________________________|__|__|

____________________________________________________________|__|__|

____________________________________________________________|__|__|

____________________________________________________________|__|__|

____________________________________________________________|__|__|

____________________________________________________________|__|__|

____________________________________________________________|__|__|

____________________________________________________________|__|__|
Meal Service Questionnaire
Blank Page
Form Approved

OMB Number - 0584-0481

Expiration Date - 5/31/2000

SCHOOL NUTRITION DIETARY ASSESSMENT STUDY - II

MEAL SERVICE QUESTIONNAIRE

ATTACH SCHOOL ID LABEL

If you have questions or need assistance, please call

Abt’s toll-free number: 1-800-649-9560

Public reporting burden of this collection of information is estimated to average 8.5 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: Department Clearance Officer, OIRM,

AG Box 7630, Washington, DC 20250.
Blank Page
MEAL SERVICE QUESTIONNAIRE 1

A. THE SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM

A1. What is the price of a USDA-reimbursable lunch for students who pay the reduced price?

$|__|.|__| |__|

A2. What is the price of a USDA-reimbursable lunch for students who pay the full price? Record more than

one answer if your cafeteria offers lunch at different prices (for example, a higher price for larger

portions or a discount for a weekly meal ticket).

$|__|.|__| |__| Standard Full Price

$|__|.|__| |__| Other Full Price SPECIFY_________________

$|__|.|__| |__| Other Full Price SPECIFY_________________

A3. Which of the following types of meal service are offered at lunch?

CIRCLE YES OR NO FOR EACH.

IF YES: How

many days

per week?

YES NO DAYS PER WEEK

A hot meal which changes daily ........................ 1 2 |___|

A cold meal, such as a sandwich or salad plate ........... 1 2 |___|

A hot sandwich such as a hamburger, hot dog, or pizza ..... 1 2 |___|

A salad bar ........................................ 1 2 |___|

A la carte or supplemental sale items that are not part

of the USDA meal and are priced separately .............. 1 2 |___|

Other types of meal service SPECIFY .................... 1 2 |___|

___________________________________________

___________________________________________
MEAL SERVICE QUESTIONNAIRE 2

A4. Not including milk, do you usually sell food items from the USDA-reimbursable lunch on an a la carte

or supplemental sale basis? That is, do you sell individual food items priced separately?

Yes ...................................... 1

No ....................................... 2

A5. Which of the following options are available to students during school hours?

CIRCLE YES OR NO FOR EACH.

YES NO

Vending machines in or near the cafeteria ......... 1 2

Vending machines in a different part of the school . . 1 2

A school store, snack bar, or canteen ............. 1 2

Are there other ways that students may obtain food at

school every day? ............................ 1 2

IF YES, SPECIFY_________________________________

____________________________________________

A6. Are students permitted to leave school for lunch?

Yes ....................................... 1

No ........................................ 2

A7. Does your school routinely publicize or post information on the nutrient content of USDA-reimbursable

meals?

Yes ....................................... 1

No ........................................ 2

A8. Have you (or your school district) made any changes in the lunches offered to students in order to meet

the recent requirement that meals comply with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans? 

Yes ....................................... 1 o CONTINUE

No ........................................ 2 o PLEASE SKIP TO SECTION B 

(PAGE 4)
MEAL SERVICE QUESTIONNAIRE 3

A9. In comparison to how students ate before school lunches were required to comply with the Dietary

Guidelines for Americans, have you noticed any changes in the amount of food students throw away (do

not eat) at lunch time? (PLEASE CHECK ONE BOX FOR EACH FOOD.)

Students Students No Don’t 

waste more waste less change know

Milk 91 92 93 94

Main dish/entree 91 92 93 94

Bread or bread alternate 91 92 93 94

Salad/raw vegetables 91 92 93 94

Cooked vegetables (other than

French fries)

91 92 93 94

Fruit 91 92 93 94

Desserts 91 92 93 94

A10. In your opinion, how do students feel about the lunches offered since schools were required to comply

with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans compared to the lunches offered before this requirement?

(PLEASE CHECK ONE BOX.)

Students like these lunches much better than the old lunches ........... 91

Students like these lunches somewhat better than the old lunches ....... 92

Students like these lunches about the same as the old lunches .......... 93

Students like these lunches somewhat less than the old lunches ......... 94

Students like these lunches much less than the old lunches ............. 95

Don’t know ................................................... 98
MEAL SERVICE QUESTIONNAIRE 4

B. THE SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM

B1. Does your school participate in USDA’s School Breakfast Program? 

Yes ....................................... 1 o CONTINUE

No ....................................... 2 o PLEASE SKIP TO Q.B9

(PAGE 6)

B2. What is the price of a USDA-reimbursable breakfast for students who pay the reduced price?

$|__|.|__| |__|

B3. What is the price of a USDA-reimbursable breakfast for students who pay the full price? Record more

than one answer if your cafeteria offers breakfast at different prices (for example, a higher price for larger

portions or a discount for a weekly meal ticket).

$|__|.|__| |__| Standard Full Price

$|__|.|__| |__| Other Full Price SPECIFY_________________

B4. Which of the following types of meal service are offered at breakfast?

CIRCLE YES OR NO FOR EACH.

IF YES: How

many days

per week?

YES NO DAYS PER WEEK

A hot breakfast ..................................... 1 2 |___|

A cold breakfast .................................... 1 2 |___|

A la carte or supplemental sale items for breakfast that are not

part of the USDA meal and are priced separately .......... 1 2 |___|

B5. Not including milk, do you usually sell food items from the USDA-reimbursable breakfast on an a la

carte or supplemental sale basis?

Yes ...................................... 1

No ....................................... 2
MEAL SERVICE QUESTIONNAIRE 5

B6. Have you (or your school district) made any changes in the breakfasts offered to students in order to meet

the recent requirement that meals comply with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans? 

Yes ...................................... 1 oCONTINUE

No ....................................... 2 oPLEASE SKIP TO B9 

(PAGE 6)

B7. In comparison to how students ate before school breakfasts were required to comply with the Dietary

Guidelines for Americans, have you noticed any changes in the amount of food students throw away (do

not eat) at breakfast time? (PLEASE CHECK ONE BOX FOR EACH FOOD.)

Students Students No Don’t 

waste more waste less change know

Milk 91 92 93 94

Hot breakfast entrees 91 92 93 94

Cereal, toast, or bread

alternates

91 92 93 94

Fruit 91 92 93 94

Juice 91 92 93 94

B8. In your opinion, how do students feel about the breakfasts offered since schools were required to comply

with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans compared to the breakfasts offered before this requirement?

(PLEASE CHECK ONE BOX.)

Students like these breakfasts much better than the old breakfasts ............. 91

Students like these breakfasts somewhat better than the old breakfasts .......... 92

Students like these breakfasts about the same as the old breakfasts ............ 93

Students like these breakfasts somewhat less than the old breakfasts ............ 94

Students like these breakfasts much less than the old breakfasts ................ 95

Don’t know ......................................................... 98
MEAL SERVICE QUESTIONNAIRE 6

B9. Other than the School Breakfast Program, is there a morning snack program or some other program

providing food to students in the morning after they get to school? Please do not include vending

machines.

Yes ...................................... 1

No ....................................... 2

Thank you very much for your assistance!
1 Elementary schools: lowest grade less than fourth or lowest grade less than sixth and highest grade less than eighth. 

Middle schools: not elementary schools and lowest grade less than tenth. High schools: not elementary or middle schools

or highest grade equal twelfth.

Sample Design and Calculation of Sample Weights D-1

Appendix D

Sample Design and Calculation of Sample Weights

This appendix describes how SFAs and schools were sampled for the SNDA-II study and how SFAs

were recruited. Response rates, at the point of recruitment and following data collection, are also

reported. The final section of the appendix describes the methodology that was used in calculating

sample weights.

 

Sample Design

The primary objective of the sample design for the SNDA-II study was to provide national probability

samples of public elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools participating in the NSLP in the

48 contiguous states plus the District of Columbia. Although data were collected exclusively by mail and

telephone, Hawaii and Alaska were excluded from the sampling frame to maintain comparability with the

SNDA-I study. 

The sampling frame was obtained from Quality Education Data, Inc. (QED). The frame differed from

the one used in SNDA-I because it included only public schools. This variation was specified by FNS

because the number of non-public schools participating in the NSLP is so small. The frame was

assembled, and the sample was selected, in the spring of 1997. However, because FNS made a decision

to postpone the study for one year to allow schools more time to implement the Dietary Guidelines,

SFAs and schools were not recruited until the spring of 1998. 

Sample selection occurred in two stages. SFAs, considered to be analogous to school districts, were

selected first and then schools were selected within sampled SFAs. Before selecting SFAs, supervisory

unions and subdistricts were combined so that the combined group included elementary schools, middle

schools, and high schools. Next, very small districts (those with fewer than 10 children per grade) were

removed from the frame. Finally, each school was designated as an elementary school, middle school, or

high school using the classification rules used in SNDA-I.1

The resulting frame was sorted by FNS region, metropolitan status, and size (total enrollment) and a

stratified sample of 597 SFAs was selected using PPS sampling. Three schools were then selected for

each district “hit” (in PPS sampling, some districts may be selected more than once). To the extent

possible, one school of each type was randomly selected in each sampled SFA. If the SFA had fewer

than three schools, all schools were selected. This procedure yielded a sample of 602 elementary schools,

526 middle schools, and 576 high schools. 
Sample Design and Calculation of Sample Weights D-2

Because sampling goals were somewhat lower than these numbers (approximately 525 schools of each

type), a second sampling procedure was used to decrease the number of selected schools. A random

number was assigned to each school and the list of sampled schools was sorted by SFA and by school

type. Next, the first 525 elementary schools and the first 525 high schools were selected and all 526 of

the middle schools were selected. This resulted in a sample of 1,576 schools in 597 SFAs. 

Sample Recruitment

Sample recruitment began with the process of notifying FNS regional offices and State Child Nutrition

(CN) Agencies. FNS regional office liaisons were notified about the states and SFAs in their region that

had been selected for the study. Likewise, State CN Agencies were notified about the SFAs that had been

selected in their State. State directors were asked to provide contact information for SFAs in their State

and to encourage all sampled SFAs to participate. 

After contact information for sampled SFAs had been assembled, introductory letters and study

overviews were sent to directors of all sampled SFAs. Senior project staff made followup phone calls to

recruit districts, and the sampled schools within those districts, into the study. Direct contact was not

attempted with the sampled schools. The SFA director agreed or declined for each of the schools

sampled in his/her SFA. SFAs were permitted to agree to partial participation in the study (i.e., to agree

to have some, but not all, of the sampled schools participate in the study).

Project staff answered SFA directors’ questions about the study and responded to any concerns raised. 

Reluctant SFA directors were referred to the project director for additional followup. The project director

recontacted all of these SFA directors and attempted to secure cooperation.

Results of recruitment efforts are summarized in Exhibit D.1. A total of 478 SFAs (1,232 schools)

agreed to participate in the study. Most (450) of these SFAs agreed to have all sampled schools

participate. The remaining 28 SFAs declined participation for one or more of the sampled schools. 

Overall levels of cooperation (81.3% for SFAs and 79.5% for schools) and the sample sizes available for

data collection were consistent with expectations outlined in the study’s sampling plan and OMB

clearance package.

Completion Rates for Data Collection Components

All of the SFAs and schools that agreed to participate in the study in the spring of 1998 were recontacted

in late summer to initiate participation and to prepare for the fall data collection. As described in

Appendix C, numerous methods were used to encourage full cooperation in the study at both the SFA and

school level. Nonetheless, as evidenced by the protracted data collection period, many schools found it

difficult to complete the menu survey. In some cases, concerns about the menu survey component of the

study affected completion of the SFA director interview. 
Sample Design and Calculation of Sample Weights D-3

Exhibit D.1

SFA- and School-Level Cooperation at the Time of Recruitment

Sample

SFAs

Agreed to participate 478

Refused 110

Ineligible 9

Total 597

Percent Cooperating (excludes ineligibles) 81.3%

Schools Schools Schools Schools Schools

Elementary Middle High All

Agreed to participate 435 390 407 1,232

Refused (SFA director) 84 126 108 318

Ineligible 6 10 10 26

Total 525 526 525 1,576

Percent Cooperating (excludes ineligibles) 83.8% 75.6% 79.0% 79.5%

 

Note: Ineligible schools (and in some cases entire SFAs) included sampled schools that turned out to be residential facilities

or some other non-public schools, schools that did not offer the NSLP, and schools that were no longer in existence at

the time of recruitment due to closings, mergers, and reorganizations.

Exhibits D.2 - D.5 show completion rates for the various components of the data collection. Completion

rates for the non–menu survey components of the mail survey of cafeteria managers were slightly lower

than for the menu survey because some of the schools that were able to complete the menu survey by

providing local data forms or through receipt of intense technical assistance never completed the other

survey components.

For the menu survey, the vast majority of respondents (89%) provided lunch data for five days. Ten

percent provided four days of data, most often because there was a holiday or other school closing during

the target week. Less than one percent provided data for three days. 
Sample Design and Calculation of Sample Weights D-4

Exhibit D.2

Completion Rate for the SFA Director Interview Among Cooperating SFAs

Status

Completed 430

Refused 47

Ineligible 1

Total 478

Percent Completed (excludes ineligibles) 90.1% 

 

Note: The one ineligible SFA identified during data collection was a residential facility. 

Exhibit D.3

Completion Rate for the School-Level Data Component 

of the SFA Director Interview Among Cooperating Schools

Status Schools Schools Schools Schools

Elementary Middle High All

Completed 376 371 362 1,109

Refused 57 15 43 115

Ineligible 2 4 2 8

Total 435 390 407 1,232

Percent Completed (excludes ineligibles) 86.8% 96.1% 89.4% 90.6%

 

Note: Ineligible schools include two schools in the ineligible (residential) SFA and six schools that were either closed,

merged, or not offering the NSLP. 
Sample Design and Calculation of Sample Weights D-5

Exhibit D.4

Completion Rate for the Menu Survey Among Cooperating Schools

Status Schools Schools Schools Schools

Elementary Middle High All

Completed 365 360 350 1,075

Refused 68 26 55 149

Ineligible 2 4 2 8

Total 435 390 407 1,232

Percent Completed (excludes ineligibles) 84.3% 93.3% 86.4% 87.8%

 

Note: Ineligible schools include two schools in the ineligible (residential) SFA and six schools that were either closed,

merged, or not offering the NSLP. 

Exhibit D.5

Completion Rate for the Meal Service Questionnaire and 

A la Carte Checklist Among Cooperating Schools

Status Schools Schools Schools Schools

Elementary Middle High All

Completed 352 345 339 1,036

Refused 81 41 66 188

Ineligible 2 4 2 8

Total 435 390 407 1,232

Percent Completed (excludes ineligibles) 81.3% 89.4% 83.7% 84.6%

Note: Ineligible schools include two schools in the ineligible (residential) SFA and six schools that were either closed,

merged, or not offering the NSLP.
Sample Design and Calculation of Sample Weights D-6

Development of Sample Weights

Sample weights were developed to adjust survey data for differences between the analysis samples (SFAs

and schools that completed the various data collection components) and the reference population (sample

frame of public schools). Differences between the analysis sample and the reference population are

attributable to effects of the sample design as well as to differential rates of response among sampled

SFAs and schools. Sample weights were used to adjust survey data so they could be used to meet the

objective of the study — to produce nationally representative estimates of the characteristics of public

schools participating in the NSLP.

Four different weights were developed for use with the four principal sources of data: 

• SFA-level data obtained from the SFA director interview;

• school-level data obtained from the SFA director interview;

• menu survey data; and

• other school-level data (the non-menu survey instruments — Meal Service Questionnaire,

A la Carte Foods Checklist, and Daily Meal Counts Form).

SFA Weight

An SFA weight was developed for use in the analysis of the SFA-level responses from the SFA director

interview. The first step in calculating this weight was to obtain a base sampling weight for each unique

sampled school district. The base sampling weight equals the sum of the district measure of size for all

eligible districts in the population divided by 617 times the measure of size of the i-th district selection. 

617 is the number of district selections in the initial sample (a total of 597 districts were selected, but 20

districts were selected more than once). If a district was selected with certainty, it was assigned a base

sampling weight of one.

Each sampled district was assigned a final status code of ineligible, refusal, or completed. The next step

in the process was to use the initial sampling frame of 12,590 public school districts to produce

frequencies on metropolitan status, region, and district size, the variables that were used to stratify the

sample. These frequencies formed the control totals used in creating sampling weights. Both completed

and ineligible SFAs were included in the sampling weights to reflect the fact that the sampling frame

included some ineligible districts. A convergence criterion of 1.0 was used in creating a final weight

(SFA Weight).

School-Level Weights

Three different school-level weights were developed — one for each of the sources of school-level data:

• school-level data obtained from the SFA Director Interview: SFA_Sch Weight

• menu survey data: Nut Weight
Sample Design and Calculation of Sample Weights D-7

• non-menu survey instruments included in the mail survey of cafeteria managers (Daily Meal

Counts Form, A la Carte Foods Checklist, Meal Service Questionnaire): Menu Weight.

The same procedure was used in calculating each of these weights. The first step in the process was to

compute a base sampling weight. This is equivalent to the reciprocals of the multistage selection

probabilities of units in the selected sample. The calculation divides the total number of schools in a

district within a stratum (elementary, middle, and high) by the number of schools sampled from that same

stratum in that district. 

Control totals were obtained from the sampling frame of 76,339 public schools included in the 12,590

public school districts. Frequencies were generated for size, metropolitan area, school type, and region. 

These frequencies were used as control totals in creating sampling weights. Again, both completed and

ineligible schools were included to reflect the fact that the sampling frame included ineligible schools. A

convergence criterion of 1.0 was used in creating a separate weight for each of the three school-level

analysis files. Because the number of participating schools varies somewhat across the three school-level

analysis files, the sum of the final school-level weights varies slightly. However, the sum of the weights

of the participating and ineligible schools in each of the three files adds to 76,339.

School Reclassifications

As described in the section on sample design, schools in the sampling frame, and therefore all sampled

schools, were designated as elementary schools, middle schools, or high schools, using the classification

rules used in SNDA-I. During both the recruiting and data collection phases, situations were encountered

in which the actual grade configuration was inconsistent with the school type that had been assigned

during sampling. This may have been due to errors in the sampling frame or to changes in school

configuration between the time the sample was drawn and recruitment and data collection were

completed. 

For purposes of calculating response rates and sample weights, all schools needed to retain the status that

was assigned during the sampling process. For all analyses, however, schools were reassigned to the

correct school type. A total of 66 schools were reclassified. The most common reclassifications involved

middle schools and high schools that were reclassified to elementary schools. Thus, final analysis

samples were slightly lower for middle schools and high schools and higher for elementary schools.
Sample Design and Calculation of Sample Weights D-8
Determining Nutrient Content of School Meals E-1

Appendix E

Determining Nutrient Content of School Meals

This appendix describes methods used to determine the average nutrient content of NSLP and SBP

meals. Initial sections describe the procedures used to review and process the menu surveys that were

completed by cafeteria managers. Later sections detail how these data were analyzed to produce both

weighted and unweighted estimates of the nutrient content of average school meals. Information is also

provided on the food grouping scheme used in analyzing the types of food offered in school meals. 

Review and Processing of Completed Menu Surveys 

Completed menu surveys were logged into an ACCESS database as they were received at Abt

Associates’ data management center. The ACCESS database was used to track each step in the data

processing and entry procedure. All data processing and entry was done by nutrition coders who

completed a series of targeted training sessions that focused on specific aspects of the data processing

protocol. Most coders were completing undergraduate studies in nutrition. All training sessions were

conducted by senior project nutritionists and/or the project director.

The first step in the process was a detailed editing procedure. Each completed menu survey booklet was

systematically examined to identify instances where needed information was missing, ambiguous or not

internally consistent (e.g., the reported number of entree servings exceeded the reported number of

reimbursable meals). Coders completed comprehensive call-back forms that listed, by day and by meal,

all of the information that was missing or that needed clarification. In order to ensure that call-backs

were made as soon as possible after the menu survey was received, lead nutrition coders managed the

flow of menu surveys into the editing process on the basis of receipt date.

After call-back forms were complete, coders called cafeteria managers and, in some cases, other

individuals in the SFA (e.g., SFA directors, managers of central kitchens, or other central office staff) to

obtain needed information. Calls were also made to vendors or food manufacturers when the information

available to or provided by respondents was insufficient to allow for appropriate coding of a particular

item. 

Entering Data into the Computerized Nutrient Analysis System

The second stage of the data processing protocol was entry of menu survey information into the nutrient

analysis system. After all issues related to missing or unclear data were resolved, a case was considered

complete and ready for data entry. The nutrient analysis system used was NUTRIKIDS (LunchByte

Systems, Inc. — version 8.0), a USDA-approved NSMP software system that was selected by FNS. The

software included release 3 of the Child Nutrition Database (CN-3 Database), the version that was the

most up-to-date at the time data were being processed, as well as an expanded database of brand name

foods developed by LunchByte Systems. 
Determining Nutrient Content of School Meals E-2

Foods not available in the database were entered by LunchByte Systems staff or lead nutrition coders

using information provided on package labels or in nutrition information summaries provided by vendors

or manufacturers. Information obtained from these sources was reviewed for reasonableness prior to

entry into the database. When information for a particular product was not available from the school,

SFA, vendor or manufacturer, nutrition coders selected the most comparable item in the database, based

on the product description and, if available, a list of ingredients. When data were missing for a particular

nutrient, a value was imputed based on the most comparable product or, when several options were

available, a mean value.

The NUTRIKIDS software was modified by LunchByte Systems staff to meet the special needs of this

study. Numerous modifications were made to accommodate the number of schools involved in the study

and the need to create school-specific versions of the same recipe (e.g., the recipe used for mashed

potatoes varied from one school to the next). In addition, the software was modified to incorporate both

weighted and unweighted nutrient analyses. Finally, to permit more detailed food group analysis, an

expanded list of food groups was incorporated. The nutrient analysis and food group functions are

described later in this appendix. 

Entry Procedures

Nutrition coders entered the information required for nutrient analysis using prescribed entry procedures

and the screens included in the NUTRIKIDS software. Items described in the menu survey were matched

with the most appropriate food item in the database or with items specifically added to the database, as

described above. Coders entered complete recipes for traditional recipe items (e.g., cookies or soup made

from scratch), as well as for items prepared by combining two or more individual ingredients (e.g., peanut

butter sandwiches). Information on portion sizes and the number of portions served was also entered for

every menu item.

Self-Serve Foods and Missing Portion Sizes

When portion size information was missing or foods were offered self-serve (and the respondent was

unable or unwilling to provide information on the size of the standard serving utensil or some other

estimate of portion size), coders entered defined default portions. Default portions were based on those

used in the SNDA-I study but were modified slightly to reflect current program emphases on larger

portions of fruits and vegetables and more servings of breads and grains. Default portions for selected

breads and grains were also adjusted for breakfast menus. 

Default portions for lunch and breakfast menus are shown in Exhibits E.1 and E.2, respectively. Default

portions were also defined for four different types of accompaniments: condiments, spreads, toppings,

and salad dressings. These defaults, shown in Exhibit E.3, were based on those used in SNDA-I.

Salad Bars and Other Self-Serve Theme Bars

Respondents provided information on all foods offered on salad bars and other self-serve bars. For bars

that were served on multiple days, respondents were asked to provide information only for the first day

the bar was offered. The salad (or other) bar recipe created using this information was incorporated into

the daily menu for each day the bar was offered. 
Determining Nutrient Content of School Meals E-3

Exhibit E.1

Default Portion Sizes for Food Items Not Included 

in Salad Bars or Other Self-Serve Food Bars

LUNCH MENUS

Food Group/Food Elementary Secondary

Milk as Beverage 8 fl oz 8 fl oz

Meat/Meat Alternates

Meat, poultry, fish, cheese (edible portion) 2 oz 2 oz

Mixtures with meat, poultry, fish, egg 1/2 cup 1/2 cup

Egg 1 large 1 large

Cooked dry beans or peas 1/2 cup 1/2 cup

Peanut butter, almond butter, other nut or seed 4 Tbsp 4 Tbsp

butters

Peanuts, soynuts, tree nuts, or seeds (as 1/2 meat 1 oz 1 oz

alternate requirement)

Fruits and Vegetables

Fruit: fresh, dried, and cooked 3/8 cup or 1 medium 1/2 cup or 1 medium

Vegetables: raw and cooked 3/8 cup 1/2 cup

French fries 1/2 cup 1/2 cup

Fruit and vegetable juice (full-strength) 3/8 cup 1/2 cup

Pasta sauce; not as meat alternate 1/4 cup 1/4 cup

Salads composed primarily of fruit and/or 3/8 cup 1/2 cup

vegetables

Bread and Grain Products

Bread 1 slice 2 slices

Roll, biscuit, muffin 1 oz 2 oz

Cooked rice, grits, and other cereal grains 1/2 cup 1/2 cup

Spaghetti, noodles, macaroni 1 cup 1 cup

Other Menu Items 

Soup 1 cup 1 cup

Saltine crackers; not as bread alternate 2 crackers 2 pkg of 2 crackers each

Snack chips 1 oz 1 oz

Jello with or without fruit 1/2 cup 1/2 cup

Pudding 1/2 cup 1/2 cup
Determining Nutrient Content of School Meals E-4

Exhibit E.2

Default Portion Sizes for Food Items Not Included 

in Salad Bars or Other Self-Serve Food Bars

BREAKFAST MENUS

Food Group/Food Elementary Middle and High

Milk as Beverage, on Cereal, or Both 8 fl oz 8 fl oz

Meat/Meat Alternates

Meat, poultry, fish, cheese (edible portion) as 1 oz 1 oz

1/2 entree requirement

Egg as 1/2 entree requirement 1/2 large 1/2 large

Cooked dry beans or peas as meat alternate and 4 Tbsp 4 Tbsp

1/2 entree requirement 

Peanut butter, almond butter, other nut or seed 2 Tbsp 2 Tbsp

butters as meat alternate and 1/2 entree

requirement

Peanuts, soynuts, tree nuts, or seeds as meat 1 oz 1 oz

alternate and 1/2 entree requirement

Fruits/Vegetables/Fruit and Vegetable Juice

Vegetables: raw and cooked 1/2 cup 1/2 cup

Fruit: fresh, dried and cooked 1/2 cup or 1 medium 1/2 cup or 1 medium

Fruit and vegetable juice (full-strength) 1/2 cup 1/2 cup

Salads composed primarily of fruit and/or 1/2 cup 1/2 cup

vegetables

Bread and Grain Products

Bread as 1/2 entree requirement 1 slice 1 slice

Roll, biscuit, muffin, as 1/2 entree requirement 1 oz 1 oz

Cereal, hot and cold, as 1/2 entree requirement 3/4 cup or 1 oz 3/4 cup or 1 oz
Determining Nutrient Content of School Meals E-5

Exhibit E.3

Default Portion Sizes for Accompaniments

Condiments/Spreads Portion Size Toppings Portion Size

Barbecue sauce 1 Tbsp Bacon bits 3/4 Tbsp

Butter 1 pat (1 each) Cheese sauce* 2 Tbsp

Cranberry sauce 1 Tbsp Cheese, shredded* 3/4 Tbsp

Cream cheese 1 Tbsp Chili* 1/8 cup

Honey 1 Tbsp Croutons 3/4 Tbsp

Hot sauce 1 tsp Dates 3/4 Tbsp

Jam, jelly 1 Tbsp Eggs, chopped* 1 Tbsp

Ketchup/catsup 1 Tbsp Gravy 2 Tbsp (1 fl oz)

Margarine 1 pat (1 tsp) Lettuce and/or tomato 1/4 cup

Mayonnaise 1 Tbsp Nuts, seeds* 3/4 Tbsp

Mustard 2 tsp Onions, chopped 2 tsp

Olives, sliced 3/4 Tbsp Peppers (hot), pimentos 3/4 Tbsp

Pancake syrup 3 Tbsp Raisins 1 Tbsp

Peanut butter* 1 Tbsp Whipped cream/topping 2 Tbsp

Pickles 3 slices or 

1 spear

Relish 2 tsp Salad Dressings

Salsa/taco sauce 2 Tbsp All types 3/4 Tbsp

Sour cream 2 Tbsp Dips for raw vegetables 3/4 Tbsp

Sweet and sour sauce 1 Tbsp

Tartar sauce 1 Tbsp

 * Not as meat alternate.
Determining Nutrient Content of School Meals E-6

Although portions were available for some items (e.g., the average size of a potato used on a potato bar

or the portion of pasta served on a pasta bar where students were allowed only to self-serve sauces and

other toppings), portions were not specified for most self-serve bars. The procedures used to enter

information for salad bars and other self-serve theme bars — in order to define an average serving from

the bar — were based on the approach used in the SNDA-I study. This approach assumes that students

are offered everything on the bar and assigns default portions to individual items on the bar based on the

minimum portions required in food-based meal patterns or, for non-pattern items such as condiments,

defined default portions (as shown in Exhibit E.3).

SNDA-I defaults for self-serve theme bars were modified to reflect current program emphases on larger

portions of fruits and vegetables and smaller portions of meat and meat alternates for secondary school

students and more servings of grains and breads for all students. Coding rules are summarized in Exhibit

E.4. These general rules were also used for coding all other self-serve theme bars, with the exception of

potato bars. Self-serve bars did not necessarily include all the components defined in the coding rules.

Coding rules were applied to whichever foods were present on the bar.

Potato bars were handled essentially the same way they were handled in SNDA-I. Average toppings were

added to a potato depending on what was offered. All meat/meat alternate toppings were averaged

together to equal one serving of meat. All non-meat toppings were averaged together and one average

serving of non-meat toppings was added to the potato. This composite was used to determine the

nutrient content of one serving (entree) from the potato bar. 

To ensure consistency in approach and appropriate handling of complex situations, all salad and theme

bar recipes were entered by lead nutrition coders and checked by another lead coder or the project

director.

Linking Menu Items and Accompaniments 

For purposes of the unweighted nutrient analysis (described below), coders had to link some menu items

together after a menu had been entered. Rules for linking foods were based on the procedures used in the

SNDA-I study.

Accompaniments were classified into four groups — condiments, spreads, toppings, and salad dressings

(see Exhibit E.3). The following rules were used to link accompaniments to menu items:

• Salad dressings were always linked to salads. 

• Toppings that were not part of a salad/theme bar (e.g., shredded cheese or salsa for tacos)

were linked to the appropriate entree(s). When more than one topping was offered, the coder

indicated whether the linking should use an average topping (when students had the option

to select among toppings) or include multiple toppings (when more than one topping was

routinely served with a given food). 

• Condiments and spreads were only linked to specific menu items when the link between a

single condiment or spread and a single menu item was obvious and unambiguous. 
Determining Nutrient Content of School Meals E-7

Exhibit E.4

Coding Rules for Salad Bars

Elementary Schools Secondary Schools

Fruits/Vegetables

3/8 cup vegetable, half of which is lettuce, 1 cup vegetable, half of which is lettuce, 

plus 3/8 cup fruit plus 1⁄2 cup fruit

If no fruit, 3/4 cup vegetable, half of which If no fruit, 1 1⁄2 cup vegetable, half of which 

is lettuce is lettuce 

Bread/Grain Products

2 average servings 2 average servings

Meat/Meat Alternate

2 ounces 2 ounces

Toppings 

Up to 3 average servings Up to 3 average servings

Salad Dressing

1 average serving 1 average serving

Other (Soup, Dessert, Snack Item) 

1 average serving 1 average serving

The other group of menu items that sometimes had to be linked was separate bread or grain items such as

rice or particular types of bread/rolls. If the information provided by cafeteria managers indicated that a

bread/grain item was offered along with another menu item, as opposed to being available to all students,

the items were linked for purposes of the unweighted analysis. Examples of this situation include rice

served with stir-fried chicken and vegetables, a roll served with chicken nuggets, and garlic bread served

with spaghetti.

Breakfast Menus

Entry rules for breakfast menus were essentially the same as those for lunch menus; however, an

additional step was required to ensure that the unweighted nutrient analysis of breakfast menus was done

correctly. This extra step involved specifying the number of bread/grain and/or meat/meat alternate

servings included in breakfast menu items. The CN database included this information for individual

ingredients as well as for recipe items included in the master recipe file but it had to be added for all new

ingredients and all newly created recipes.
Determining Nutrient Content of School Meals E-8

In keeping with USDA guidance for food-based menu planning, a serving of bread/grain was equivalent

to one slice of bread or an equivalent portion of cereal or other grain products. USDA guidance was used

to define volume or weight of equivalent portions (USDA, FNS 1998). Cakes, pies, brownies, and

cookies were not counted as bread/grain equivalents.

Quality Control Procedures

During the initial phases of coding, each coder’s work was carefully reviewed by the senior project

nutritionist or a lead coder to ensure that coding rules were followed, that menu items were appropriately

matched to items in the nutrient database, and that portion sizes and other information were entered

correctly. Each coder received one-on-one feedback on his or her work for the first three menu surveys

entered. If problems were noted after three reviews, the coder continued to receive detailed review and

feedback until performance reached an acceptable level. 

In addition to this initial review, lead coders conducted quality review checks, reviewing entered records

for 20 percent of all menu surveys. “Coder Alert” bulletins were issued as needed to reinforce coding

rules or to clarify issues that appeared to be problematic. Coders were required to read and keep a copy

of all “Coder Alert” bulletins and to revisit their work as necessary to ensure that coding rules were

implemented appropriately. 

Lead nutrition coders were available at each shift to consult with coders about questions or issues that

arose during coding and entry. The senior project nutritionist and lead coders met with the project

director weekly to review progress on data entry and to discuss the need for additional/revised coding

guidelines. 

Entry Verification

As entry of menu surveys was winding down, a 100 percent manual verification process was instituted. 

This step was necessary because of numerous complications experienced with the software during data

entry. It was determined that some of these problems, which resulted from modifications made to the

software to accommodate the volume of data associated with the study, had introduced errors into

electronic menu records. For example, entered menu items were sometimes “lost” and the nutrients

associated with those items were not included in the analysis of nutrient content.

Nutrition coders completed line-by-line reviews comparing electronic menu records with hard copy menu

surveys. Coders verified that every menu item was present, that it had been entered correctly, and that a

complete nutrient record accompanied each item. To provide an opportunity for additional quality

control and cross-checking, coders did not review their own work. 

Data Cleaning

After all data were entered, SAS data files were created and a detailed series of cleaning runs was done to

check for coding errors. The first set of cleaning runs was meant to identify problems that could be

corrected in the NUTRIKIDS files and included the following types of checks: 

• Basic data integrity. Each daily menu record was checked to be sure that place holders for

incomplete or missing foods no longer existed. The record for each menu item was checked

to be sure it included a portion size, information on the number of portions served, an
Determining Nutrient Content of School Meals E-9

associated number of servings to be used in the unweighted nutrient analysis (entered

automatically by the modified NUTRIKIDS software, as described below), and complete

nutrient information.

• Over-reporting of portions served. Daily menu records were checked to be sure that the

total number of servings reported for any major food group (except for fruits and vegetables)

did not exceed the total number of meals. Instances where this did occur were checked

against hard copy menu surveys and editing and data retrieval logs to determine if a

correction was needed. (In rare cases, the number of milks or entrees did exceed the total

number of meals because schools allowed students to take seconds). 

 

• Out-of-range menu items. An extensive series of range checks was done, using the number

of calories per serving in more than 70 minor food groups (described in a subsequent

section), to identify menu items that exceeded the 95th percentile or fell below the 5th

percentile. All of these items were checked against hard copy menu surveys to ensure that

the data provided were reasonable and that items had been entered correctly. Corrections

were made as necessary. 

• Bread/grain and meat/meat alternate equivalents assigned to breakfast items. One

hundred percent of the bread/grain and meat/meat alternate items included in breakfast

menus were reviewed to ensure that serving equivalents were assigned appropriately. 

• Appropriate major and minor food group assignments. Complete listings of all menu

items assigned to each major and minor food group (see below) were generated. Lists were

manually reviewed to ensure that all foods had been assigned to appropriate groups. 

After this initial set of cleaning runs was completed and all necessary corrections were made, a second set

of runs was done to check for out-of-range menu items. In this pass, the focus was on calories, sodium,

and fat content per serving for all minor food groups within the major food groups of meat/meat

alternate, bread/grain, entree, and extras (the food group classification scheme is discussed later in this

appendix).

Finally, after all item-level cleaning runs were completed, a third set of cleaning runs was used to check

for out-of-range nutrient values at the menu level. Daily menus that exceeded the 95th or 5th percentile

for calories, fat, or sodium — for either the unweighted or weighted nutrient analysis (as described in the

next section) — were identified and checked.

Computing the Average Nutrient Content of School Meals

The modified NUTRIKIDS software used in this study computed the total nutrient content of each daily

menu as well as an average for the five-day (or, for some schools, four- or three-day ) menu. Breakfast

and lunch menus were analyzed separately. In addition to calories, the following nutrients and food

components were analyzed: protein, total fat, saturated fat, carbohydrate, vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium,

iron, cholesterol, and sodium. 
1 Some schools that included preschool or kindergarten reported serving meals only to students in first grade or higher. 

2 RDAs for 11–14-year-olds and 15–18-year-olds specify separate standards for males and females. The NSMP analysis uses

an average of the male and female standards. 

Determining Nutrient Content of School Meals E-10

For each menu, data on average calorie and nutrient content were compared to customized RDA

standards that reflected the range of grades participating in the NSLP and SBP. Weighted RDA 1

standards for grade groupings that covered more than one established RDA group (1-3 years; 4-6 years;

7-10 years; 11-14 years; and 15-18 years) were computed using the methodology developed by USDA

and incorporated into all NSMP software systems. This methodology gives equal weight to each age

group included in the customized grouping. For example, the weighted RDA standard for an elementary

school that encompasses kindergarten (5-year-olds) through grade 6 (11-year-olds) is a weighted average

that considers the RDA for each of the component age groups: 5-year-olds, 6- year-olds, 7-year-olds, 8-

year-olds, 9-year-olds, 10-year-olds, and 11-year-olds. The RDA standards for each nutrient would 2

therefore be derived as follows: [(4–6-year-olds RDA *.286) + (7–10-year-olds RDA *.571) + (11–14-

year-olds RDA *.143)] 

NSMP standards require schools that encompass a broad range of grades (e.g., K-8, K-12, or 6-12) to

complete separate analyses for younger and older children because their needs vary so widely. Because

each school could be included in the study data base only once, RDA standards for lunch analyses were

set equal to grades K-6 (or 1-6) for schools with K-8, K-12, or similar grade spans and to grades 7-12 for

schools with 5-12, 6-12 or similar grade spans. For breakfast analyses, the actual grade spans were used

because SBP nutrition standards are designed to cover grades K-12. 

As described elsewhere in this report, the average nutrient content of school meals was measured using

both weighted and unweighted nutrient analyses. The weighted analysis reflects current program

regulations for menus planned using NSMP or ANSMP as well as program monitoring requirements for

menus planned using the other menu planning options. The unweighted analysis was carried out

primarily to permit comparison of data from this study to data from the SNDA-I study (all nutrient

analyses in SNDA-I were unweighted). In addition, policy makers were interested in determining whether

the choice of nutrient analysis approach (weighted versus unweighted) influences conclusions about the

nutritional quality of school meals. 

Weighted Nutrient Analysis

A weighted nutrient analysis takes into account the number and type of foods actually served to students,

giving greater weight to the nutrient value of foods that are served more frequently. USDA-approved

computer software programs for NSMP, such as the NUTRIKIDS software used in this study, are

designed to compute the weighted average nutrient content of a meal (menu). For each menu item

offered on a given day, the analysis computes the total amount of calories and nutrients included in the

foods served to/selected by students (e.g., calories and nutrients in a portion of the food * number of

portions served). These values are totaled for all menu items offered. The resulting composite is then

divided by the total number of reimbursable meals served to determine the nutrient content of the average

meal served to/selected by students each day.
3 CN guidance, issued after the time the NUTRIKIDS software was modified for use in this study, suggests use of a base of

900 (which is divisible by all numbers up to 6, as well as by 8, 9, and 10) to minimize the need for rounding.

Determining Nutrient Content of School Meals E-11

Unweighted Nutrient Analysis

In contrast to a weighted nutrient analysis, an unweighted analysis does not incorporate information on

student selection patterns. Thus, rather than providing a picture of the nutrient content of the average

meal served to students, an unweighted analysis provides information on the nutrient content of the

average meal offered to students. An unweighted analysis includes an average serving of every type of

food offered. 

The methodology used in computing unweighted nutrient averages was based on the approach used in the

SNDA-I study and earlier studies of the NSLP and SBP. The basic algorithm is built around the foodbased meal patterns. So, for lunch, an unweighted average includes the following: 

• An average serving of milk 

• One average entree or meat/meat alternate

• Two average servings of vegetables and/or fruit

• An average serving of grain or bread, if offered separately from entrees

• An average serving of dessert or other extra items (if offered) 

• An average serving of unlinked condiments.

As noted previously, salad dressings were always linked to salads, toppings were linked to appropriate

food items, and breads/grains were linked to entrees or meat/meat alternates, as appropriate.

For breakfast, the unweighted average includes an average serving of milk; an average serving of fruit

and/or vegetable or juice; and two average servings of bread and/or meat equivalents.

These assumptions were largely replicated in the unweighted analysis of SNDA-II data. However,

because the data clearly indicated that some schools were offering more than two servings of fruits and

vegetables (in keeping with current program emphases), information from the weighted analysis was used

to define expectations for fruit and vegetable servings in the unweighted analysis. If the weighted

analysis indicated that students were allowed to select more than two servings of fruit and vegetables at

lunch, the unweighted analysis assumed the increased number of servings. 

To produce unweighted nutrient analyses for each daily menu, the software used a base of 1,000 for the

number or reimbursable meals served. Unweighted serving projections were assigned to each menu item,

assuming an equal distribution across comparable food items. For example, if four types of milk were

offered, 250 servings were assumed for each type of milk. Numbers that did not divide evenly into 1,000

were rounded (e.g., 334, 333, 333 for three choices). To avoid systematic bias, larger serving estimates 3

were randomly distributed across choices within a day and across days within the week. For example, if
Determining Nutrient Content of School Meals E-12

three milk choices were offered every day, the 334 servings were assigned to a different type of milk each

day. 

The content of salad bars, food bars, and other multi-component items was also taken into consideration

when serving projections were assigned. For example, if a food bar or sack lunch (entered into the

analysis as a recipe) included an entree, fruit/vegetables, and a dessert, the number of food bar servings

was subtracted from the base when unweighted servings were assigned to fruit/vegetables and desserts in

order to avoid double counting. 

Exhibit E.5 illustrates weighted and unweighted servings for a sample high school menu offered in a

school that did not use the traditional meal pattern. Unweighted serving assignments assume one serving

of milk (even though the information provided for the weighted analysis clearly indicates that many

children do not take milk) and one entree. Because the weighted projections suggest that students may

take more than two servings of fruits and vegetables (2.8 servings per reimbursable meal, excluding the

food bar), the unweighted serving assignments assume three servings of fruits and vegetables per meal.

The base of 1,000 meals is reduced by 167 because the food bar, a separate serving line, already includes

fruits and vegetables. Therefore, with a base of 833 meals * 3 servings, the total number of unweighted

fruit and vegetable servings is 2,499. To determine the number of unweighted servings to assign to each

fruit and vegetable, the modified base of 2,499 is divided by the total number of fruit and vegetable

choices (five). This translates into approximately 500 servings for each choice.

In addition, while an unweighted analysis normally assumes 1,000 servings for desserts and other extras

as well as for additional breads/grains, unweighted serving assumptions in this example are adjusted

downward to account for the fact that the brownie is already included in the food bar as well as the fact

that the garlic bread is served with the lasagna.

Finally, since the condiments are offered self-serve and not linked to specific entrees, an average serving

of condiments (500 servings of each) is included in the analysis. The salad dressing is linked to the

tossed salad.

The NUTRIKIDS software was modified to automatically assign most of the serving assumptions needed

for the unweighted analysis. This automated approach required that each individual food on the menu be

classified into a major food group (described below) so the 1,000 unweighted servings (2,000 or more

servings for fruits and vegetables) could be appropriately distributed across the available options. The

linking procedures described previously were used to account for situations where an accompaniment or a

grain/bread item was served only with a specific menu item. Finally, manual entries were made as needed

for menus that included theme bars or sack lunches that contained other menu items such as dessert.

Because assumptions included in the SNDA-I methodology do not reflect how NSMP/ANSMP menus

are structured and marketed to students, a separate analysis was completed in which the unweighted

analysis for NSMP/ANSMP sites was modified to reflect the basic differences in menu structure. This

analysis assumed an average serving of milk, an average entree, some number of average “sides” (all

menu items offered other than milk and entrees) and an average serving of condiments. The number of

side dishes included in the analysis was based on the meal production data. As noted in Chapter Five,
Determining Nutrient Content of School Meals E-13

Exhibit E.5

Comparison of Assumptions for Weighted and Unweighted Nutrient Analyses

Weighted Analysis Unweighted Analysis

Number of Reimbursable Meals 1,655 1,000

Menu Item Number of Portions Served Projected Servings

1% chocolate milk 695 250

Skim milk 25 250

2% milk (white) 300 250

Whole milk 150 250

Deli sandwich line 155 166

Chicken nuggets (w/BBQ sauce) 175 167

Cheeseburger 85 166

Lasagna 175 167

Pizza 965 167

Food bar (includes vegetables, fruit, and 100 167

brownie)

Tossed salad 900 500

French fries 1,575 500

Fruit cocktail 650 499

Orange juice 480 500

Canned peaches 675 500

Garlic bread 175 167

Chocolate chip cookie 750 833

Catsup (self-serve condiment bar) 1,625 500

Salad dressing 925 500

Mayonnaise (self-serve condiment bar) 228 500

Note: Information for weighted analysis provided by cafeteria manager. Projections for unweighted analysis

assigned by NUTRIKIDS software.
Determining Nutrient Content of School Meals E-14

incorporation of the revised unweighted analysis for NSMP/ANSMP sites had no material effect on the

results. Thus, a decision was made to use only one version of the unweighted analysis — the version that

essentially replicated SNDA-I — in this report.

Food Group Codes

Food codes in the CN-3 nutrient database do not include an imbedded food group classification system. 

The standard NUTRIKIDS software included only a simple classification system, built around the major

meal components used in the food-based NSLP and SBP meal patterns. This system was too limited to

meet the needs of the SNDA-II study. Therefore, an expanded set of food groups was developed, in

consultation with USDA, and incorporated into the modified NUTRIKIDS software. Nutrition coders

assigned major and minor food group codes to all menu items. 

The food group system was further expanded during the analysis phase of the contract. In the end, the

classification system used for food group analyses included seven major food groups and 81 minor food

groups. The first four major food groups are identical to the NSLP and SBP meal patterns. The latter

three major groups allowed for combination foods and additional items not considered in the meal

patterns. The food group classification system is summarized in Exhibit E.6. 
Determining Nutrient Content of School Meals E-15

Exhibit E.6

Major and Minor Food Groups 

Code Long Description Examples

MILK

MILK1 whole, unflavored whole milk with no added flavoring

MILK2 lowfat, unflavored (1%) 1% milk with no added flavoring

MILK3 skim and 1/2%, unflavored nonfat or skim milk with no added flavoring

MILK4 lowfat, flavored (1%) 1% chocolate milk, 1% strawberry milk, 1% coffee milk

MILK5 skim and 1/2%, flavored nonfat chocolate milk, nonfat strawberry milk, nonfat coffee milk

MILK6 whole, flavored chocolate whole milk, coffee whole milk, strawberry whole milk

MILK7 2% lowfat, unflavored 2% milk with no added flavoring

MILK8 2% lowfat, flavored 2% chocolate milk, 2% strawberry milk, 2% coffee milk

MILK9 milkshake milkshake or thick shake (any flavor)

FRUITS AND VEGETABLES

CNDFR canned fruit canned fruit of any kind, including canned fruit cocktail or fruit salad 

COMFR combination of fresh, canned, frozen, and/or dried fruits fruit salad made with both fresh and canned fruits

DRYFR dried fruit raisins, dates, figs, trail mix

FSHFR fresh fruit fresh fruit of any kind, including fruit salad made with only fresh fruits 

FRZFR frozen fruit frozen fruit of any kind, including frozen fruit mixtures, frozen juice bars

JUICC full-strength citrus juice, including juice blends w/ citrus (100% juice only) orange, grapefruit, pineapple-orange juice

JUICO full-strength non-citrus juice (100% juice only) including vegetable juice apple, grape, pineapple, non-citrus blends, V-8 juice, tomato juice

CKVEG cooked vegetables other than potatoes and French fries any vegetable that is served cooked, whether made from fresh, frozen, or canned

vegetables

DFPOT French fries and other processed potatoes (deep fried) French fries, shoestring fries, curly fries, tater tots, hash browns specified as deep-fried 

OFPOT French fries and other processed potatoes (oven fried) French fries, shoestring fries, curly fries, tater tots, hash browns specified as oven-fried or

not specified as either deep-fried or oven-fried
Code Long Description Examples

Determining Nutrient Content of School Meals E-16

FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, Cont’d

POTAT potatoes other than French fries or comparable processed potato products mashed or whipped potato, baked potato, boiled potatoes, baked sweet potatoes, 

(includes sweet potatoes) AuGratin, scalloped, or O’Brien potatoes

LETOM lettuce and/or tomato served as a vegetable choice for all students lettuce and/or tomato slices, chopped lettuce and/or tomato 

SALAD green salad, non-entree salad bars (no meat/meat alternates) tossed salad, garden salad, lettuce salad, side salad bars

OTHSA other types of non-entree salads carrot and raisin salad, cole slaw, Waldorf salad, 3-bean salad, potato salad

RWVEG fresh, raw vegetables, other than green salads, lettuce and tomato, or other raw vegetable sticks or pieces

salads 

LEGUM legumes (counted as vegetables) baked beans, refried beans, lima beans, any “non-green” beans or peas not counted as

meat alternate 

OTVEG vegetable soups and vegetable mixtures/casseroles tomato soup, minestrone soup, broccoli cheese casserole, creamed corn, green bean

casserole

MEAT/MEAT ALTERNATES (offered as entree, but not included in combination entree)

CHS cheese cottage cheese, slice of cheese (American, cheddar, mozzarella, etc.)

CHX breaded/fried chicken nuggets, patties, and similar products chicken cutlets, patties, filets, nuggets, similar products - with breading

EGGS eggs scrambled egg, hard-cooked egg, fried egg, omelet, egg salad

MPF plain (unbreaded and not fried) meat/poultry/fish chicken, fish, turkey, beef, ham that is unbreaded and not fried ( includes Canadian bacon,

meatballs, meatloaf) 

MPFBD breaded, processed and/or fried meat/poultry/fish other than chicken nuggets, fish sticks, pork fritters, fried fish, fried chicken parts, country fried steak, turkey fritters

patties, and similar products

MPFGM meat/poultry/fish with mayonnaise or gravy tuna salad, chicken salad, diced turkey and gravy, salisbury steak

MTLEG legume as meat alternate (including peanuts and peanut butter) peanuts, peanut butter, baked beans, refried beans, or other “non-green” beans or peas

NOTE: With the exception of peanuts and peanut butter, these items are

usually counted as vegetables

counted as a meat alternate

SAUS sausage, frankfurters, and cold cuts sausage pattie/links, Italian/Polish sausage, bologna, hot dog, salami

YOGRT yogurt fruited, flavored or plain yogurt (including nonfat or lowfat)
Code Long Description Examples

Determining Nutrient Content of School Meals E-17

BREAD/GRAINS

BREAD breads, rolls, bagels, and other plain breads (includes soft pretzels) sandwich bread, pita bread, English muffin, dinner rolls, French bread, sandwich

buns/rolls

CCER cold cereal any type of cold cereal: Cheerios, Rice Krispies, Golden Grahams, etc.

CRACK crackers and pretzels (hard) saltines, butter (Ritz), wheat, rye, oyster, or graham or animal crackers, hard pretzels, rice

cakes

BISC biscuits and other bread alternates that are higher in fat than plain bread biscuit, croissant, cornbread, corn (hard) taco shells, nacho/tortilla chips, corn chips, hush

puppies, seasoned bread sticks, stuffing

BRDFT breads or bread alternates with added fat garlic bread, pre-buttered rolls, buttered toast, bagels with cream cheese

HCER hot cereal any type of cooked, hot cereal such as oatmeal, Cream of Wheat, grits 

MUFF muffins (excludes English muffins), sweet/quick breads, cereal/granola bars blueberry muffin, banana bread, granola bars

PANC pancakes, waffles, French toast pancakes, waffles, French toast, French toast sticks, French toast bagels

PASTA pasta macaroni, noodles, spaghetti - not included in combination entree - or macaroni salad,

pasta salad, macaroni and cheese, ravioli as a side dish

PSTRY pastries and sweet rolls donut, Danish, cinnamon bun, sweet roll, turnovers, coffee cake, toaster pastries

RICE rice any type of rice not included in combination entree

ENTREES

BRKSW breakfast sandwich sausage, egg, and cheese on a biscuit; ham and cheese bagel sandwich; breakfast burrito;

cheese toast or other “sandwich” served at breakfast 

HAMB hamburger, similar beef/pork sandwiches hamburger on a bun, including double burgers or burgers with bacon or other additions,

Sloppy Joe sandwich, barbeque beef or pork on a bun, Rib-b-que sandwich, steak

sandwich, meatball sub

CHAMB cheeseburger, similar beef/pork sandwiches with cheese cheeseburger on a bun, steak and cheese

HOTDG hot dog, corn dog, similar sausage products any type of hot dog on a bun, corn dog, or sausage with wrapping (bun or pancake)

LNSW sandwich with lean meat, turkey, chicken, ham (includes turkey ham) sliced turkey sandwich, deli roast beef sandwich, ham sandwich, grilled chicken or turkey

(no cheese) sandwich

PBJSW peanut butter sandwich any sandwich with peanut butter, with or without jelly or fluff
Code Long Description Examples

Determining Nutrient Content of School Meals E-18

ENTREES, Cont’d

CHCCS sandwich with cheese and/or cold cuts cheese sandwich, grilled cheese, Italian or American subs, bologna and cheese, ham and

cheese, roast beef and cheese, any sandwich made with cheese (other than those included

in CHAMB)

MAYSW sandwich with mayonnaise-based meat salads egg salad sandwich, turkey salad sandwich, chicken salad sandwich, tuna salad sandwich

FRYSW sandwich with breaded/fried meat, poultry, or fish (no cheese) breaded chicken patty sandwich, fishwich, breaded veal or pork cutlet sandwich, chicken

fried steak sandwich

PIZZA pizza or calzone - without meat any slice, individual or pocket pizza that is plain cheese or vegetarian

PIZZM pizza or calzone - with meat any slice, individual or pocket pizza that includes sausage, pepperoni, hamburger, ham or

other meat

SPAG mixtures with a pasta or noodle base spaghetti w/ sauce and/or meat, lasagna, ravioli, macaroni and cheese, turkey tetrazzini

TACO Mexican-style entree taco, enchilada, burrito, nachos, tamale, fajitas, quesadillas

MIX other mixtures with meat, grain, and possibly vegetables beef or chicken stir fry, chop suey, beef stew, shepherd’s pie, chicken pot pie, quiche,

chili (with or without meat), baked potato with cheese

CHFSL Chef’s salad or other salad plate Chef’s salad, chicken Caesar salad, tuna salad plate, cottage cheese and fruit plate

SANBR sandwich bar/deli bar sandwich bar 

THMBR other entree theme bar potato bar, pasta bar, taco bar

SALBE entree salad bar - elementary school entree salad bar in elementary school

SALBS entree salad bar - secondary school entree salad bar in secondary school

BAGML bag or sack meals pre-packaged lunches or breakfasts 

EXTRAS

BKDES baked desserts (cakes, cookies, brownies) chocolate cake, oatmeal cookie, brownies, peanut butter bars

CHIPS snack chips (including popcorn, but not pretzels, corn chips or plain tortilla potato chips, Doritos, Funyons, cheese curls

chips)

DESFR dessert item containing fruit or juice fruited gelatin, fruit cobblers, fruit pies, fruit crisps

OTDES other desserts (non-fruited gelatin, ice cream, sherbet, pudding) jello w/topping, vanilla ice cream, butterscotch pudding

FTDRK fruit drinks (not 100% juice) fruit punch, orange drink, cranberry juice drink
Code Long Description Examples

Determining Nutrient Content of School Meals E-19

EXTRAS, Cont’d

SOUP non-vegetable/non-entree soups and cream soups chicken noodle soup, cream of mushroom soup, clam chowder 

OTHBV other beverages coffee, tea, iced tea

OTHER other miscellaneous menu items bacon, other miscellaneous side dishes

ACCOMPANIMENTS

LCOND fat-free/lowfat condiments barbecue sauce, honey, ketchup, mustard, pickles, relish, salsa

COND higher-fat condiments tartar sauce, mayonnaise

LSLDG fat-free/lowfat salad dressings any dressing or vegetable dip that is nonfat, lowfat, or low calorie

SLDRG regular salad dressings Italian dressing, ranch dressing, French dressing, all regular dressings and vegetable dips

LSPRD fat-free/lowfat spreads cranberry sauce, jam, jelly, syrup, sugar, fruit sauces, fat-free/lowfat cream cheese, fatfree/lowfat sour cream

SPRDS higher-fat spreads butter, regular cream cheese, margarine, regular sour cream

TOPPG toppings cheese sauce, gravies, chili, grated cheese, onions, olives, bacon, bacon bits, hot peppers,

other items used as toppings