EATING BREAKFAST:

EFFECTS OF THE SCHOOL

BREAKFAST PROGRAM

August 1998

Authors:

Barbara Devaney

Elizabeth Stuart

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Office of Analysis and Evaluation Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

USDA Food and Nutrition Service P.O. Box 2393

3101 Park Center Dr. Princeton, NJ 08543-2393

Alexandria, VA 22302 (609) 799-3535

Project Officer:

Patricia McKinney Project Director:

John Czajka

This study was conducted under Contract No. 53-3198-7-006 with the Food and Nutrition Service,

United States Department of Agriculture. Points of view or opinions stated in this report do not

necessarily represent the official position of the Food and Nutrition Service.
ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report reflects the efforts of many individuals. We especially appreciate the effort of

Patricia McKinney of the Food and Nutrition Service, who provided technical guidance over the

analysis and served as a technical reviewer of several drafts of the report. Her comments and

suggestions improved the report tremendously. Special thanks also go to Jay Hirschman of the Food

and Nutrition Service for his insights and to Anne Gordon of Mathematica Policy Research, who

provided valuable comments in her role as the quality assurance reviewer. Patricia Ciaccio

supervised the editing of the report, and Marjorie Mitchell produced the report. The authors

gratefully acknowledge the contributions of these individuals but accept full responsibility for any

errors that remain.

USDA NON-DISCRIMINATION STATEMENT

“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, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-

5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.”
iii

CONTENTS

Chapter Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................... vi

I INTRODUCTION ............................................... 1

A. OVERVIEW OF THE SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM ........... 2

B. THE SCHOOL NUTRITION DIETARY ASSESSMENT 

(SNDA-1) STUDY ........................................... 3

C. REANALYSIS OF THE SNDA-1 DATA .......................... 4

II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON BREAKFAST CONSUMPTION ..... 6

A. PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON BREAKFAST CONSUMPTION ......... 6

B. DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF SNDA-1 DATA .................... 9

C. ALTERNATE DEFINITIONS OF EATING 

BREAKFAST: RECOMMENDATION .......................... 14

III EFFECTS OF THE SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM ON

THE LIKELIHOOD OF EATING BREAKFAST ...................... 14

A. DATA AND METHODOLOGY ................................ 14

B. EMPIRICAL RESULTS ...................................... 15

C. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION ............................... 18

REFERENCES ................................................ 22

APPENDIX A: STUDY METHODOLOGY AND DETAILED

PROBIT ANALYSIS RESULTS ................... 24
iv

TABLES

Table Page

II.1 REVIEW OF STUDIES USING ALTERNATE DEFINITIONS 

OF BREAKFAST .................................................. 7

II.2 PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS EATING BREAKFAST: 

ALTERNATE DEFINITIONS ....................................... 10

III.1 STUDENT AND FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS: MEAN VALUES ......... 16
v

FIGURES

Figure Page

III.1 PREDICTED PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS EATING 

BREAKFAST: TOTAL SAMPLE AND LOW-INCOME SAMPLE ........... 17

III.2 PREDICTED PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS EATING 

BREAKFAST: ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS ................... 19

III.3 PREDICTED PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS EATING 

BREAKFAST: MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS ............... 20
vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Started as a pilot in 1966, the School Breakfast Program (SBP) was designed to provide funding

for meals served to children in poor areas and areas where children had to travel a great distance to

school. On small farms in rural communities, many young children ate an early breakfast, performed

their chores, and, after a lengthy school bus trip, arrived at school hungry. In 1975, Congress made

the SBP permanent, with the stated objective that the program be made “available in all schools

where it is needed to provide adequate nutrition for children in attendance.”

In recent years, researchers have become interested in the question of whether the availability

of SBP at school increased the likelihood of a child eating breakfast.

The answer to that question depends on how breakfast is defined and also upon family income.

The 1992 School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study (SNDA-1) defined breakfast as eating any

food containing at least 50 calories. Using this very broad definition of breakfast, the SNDA-1 study

found that the availability of a SBP at school did not increase the likelihood of a child eating

breakfast. Commentors on this finding have expressed an interest in whether the finding would be

the same if breakfast was defined more substantively, for example, as providing more than a

minimum level of food energy. This study is a reanalysis of data from SNDA-1 and examines this

and related questions.

A review of the literature on breakfast consumption shows that breakfast is defined in a variety

of ways. Studies that examine the prevalence of eating (or skipping) breakfast typically use a

simplistic definition of breakfast, based either on reports of whether breakfast was eaten or on dietary

recall data on whether any food or beverage was consumed. In contrast, studies that assess the

effects of eating breakfast on various performance measures usually define breakfast more

substantively, (for example, providing some minimum level of food energy). The analysis conducted

in this study builds on these two strands of the literature and uses three alternate definitions of

breakfast:

1. Consumption of any food or beverage

2. Breakfast intake of food energy greater than 10 percent of the Recommended Dietary

Allowance (RDA)

3. Consumption of foods from at least two of five main food groups and intake of food

energy greater than 10 percent of the RDA

As the definition of breakfast becomes more robust, the percentage of students who eat breakfast

declines. Almost 9 of 10 students consumed any food or beverage, but only 6 of 10 students

consumed food from at least two of the main food groups and had breakfast intake of food energy

greater than 10 percent of the RDA.
vii

Three important findings from the analysis of the effects of the SBP are the following:

1. If breakfast is defined as any food or beverage consumed, the SBP is not associated with

an increased likelihood of eating breakfast. These results are consistent with previous

studies that found that the SPB had no effect on the likelihood of eating any food or food

with a minimum number of calories. 

2. For low-income students, as the definition of breakfast becomes more robust, the SBP

is associated with an increased likelihood of eating breakfast. 

- When breakfast is defined as intake of food energy greater than 10 percent of the

RDA, the likelihood of eating breakfast is significantly higher for low-income

students attending schools with the SBP than for similar students attending

schools without it (74 percent versus 63 percent). 

- When breakfast is defined as consumption of food from two or more food groups

and intake of food energy greater than 10 percent of the RDA, the likelihood of

eating breakfast is significantly higher for low-income students attending schools

with the SBP than for similar students attending schools without it (67 percent

versus 55 percent).

3. The estimated effects of SBP availability on the likelihood of eating breakfast are largest

for low-income elementary students. 

- When breakfast is defined as intake of food energy greater than 10 percent of the

RDA, the likelihood of eating breakfast is significantly higher for low-income

elementary students attending schools with the SBP than for similar elementary

students attending schools without it (82 percent versus 66 percent). 

- When breakfast is defined as consumption of food from two or more food groups

and intake of food energy greater than 10 percent of the RDA, the likelihood of

eating breakfast is significantly higher for low-income elementary students

attending schools with the SBP than for similar elementary students attending

schools without it (77 percent versus 62 percent).
1

I. INTRODUCTION

Authorized by the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, the School Breakfast Program (SBP) started as

a pilot program to provide funding for breakfast in poor areas and areas where children had to travel

a great distance to school. The intent was to provide a nutritious breakfast to children who might

otherwise not receive one. The importance of breakfast is supported by several studies that have

linked it to improved diet and enhanced school performance. To the extent that the SBP increases

the percentage of children who eat breakfast, the program can be expected to improve their diet and

school performance.

Previous studies of the impact of the SBP on the likelihood of eating breakfast, however, do not

provide strong evidence that children attending schools with the SBP are more likely than other

children to eat breakfast. Older studies of data from the first National Evaluation of School Nutrition

Programs (NESNP-1) had mixed results. One study reported that children attending schools with

the SBP were more likely to eat breakfast, although the statistical basis for this conclusion is not

presented (Wellisch et al. 1983). In addition, a reanalysis of those data indicated that the availability

of the SBP was not associated with the likelihood of eating breakfast on a given school day (Devaney

and Fraker 1986 and 1989). Data from the 1992 School Nutrition Dietary Assessment study (SNDA1) also suggest that the availability of the SBP does not affect whether a student eats breakfast: the

percentage of students eating breakfast was the same in schools that participated in the SBP as in

those that did not, even after controlling for other demographic and socioeconomic characteristics

(Burghardt et al. 1993; and Gleason 1995).

An important issue to consider in these analyses is the definition of breakfast. Both NESNP-1

and SNDA-1 use 24-hour dietary recall data to define breakfast consumption. The reanalysis of the
2

NESNP-1 data defined breakfast as any breakfast and prebreakfast foods, based on self-reported

meals consumed. Thus, the consumption of any calories at either prebreakfast or breakfast meals

constituted having had breakfast. The analysis of data from SNDA-1 defined breakfast as the

consumption of at least 50 calories between the time of waking and 45 minutes after the start of

school.

Recently, what constitutes an adequate or substantive breakfast has been debated. Specifically,

questions have arisen about the 50-calorie cutoff and whether “eating breakfast” ought to encompass

a higher calorie cutoff or be based on foods or food groups. This report presents findings from a

reanalysis of the SNDA-1 data that used alternate definitions of breakfast. For each of the alternate

definitions of breakfast selected, the report presents findings from descriptive and multivariate

analyses of the percentage of students eating breakfast and the effect of the availability of the SBP

on the likelihood of eating breakfast.

The rest of this chapter provides brief background material on the SBP, presents an overview

of SNDA-1, and describes the objective of the research. Chapter II examines previous research on

breakfast consumption patterns and, based on this literature review, provides three alternate

definitions of breakfast. Chapter III describes the SNDA-1 data and study methodology and presents

findings from the analysis of the likelihood of eating breakfast.

A. OVERVIEW OF THE SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM

The SBP was originally a pilot program that targeted children from low-income school districts

and was intended to provide a nutritious breakfast to children who might not otherwise receive one.

With the 1975 amendments to the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, the SBP became permanent, with the

objective of making the program “available in all schools where it is needed to provide adequate

nutrition for children in attendance.” To expand the availability of the program, the Child Nutrition
3

Act of 1989 required that the Secretary of Agriculture provide funds to states to support the costs of

starting breakfast programs in schools in low-income areas.

All public and private elementary and secondary schools in the United States are eligible to

participate in the SBP. To participate, schools must make breakfast available to all students. The

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reimburses schools for each breakfast served that meets

nutritional standards. The cash reimbursements vary according to whether students qualify for free,

reduced-price, or full-price meals. To be eligible for free meals, students must have family income

less than or equal to 130 percent of the poverty level. To be eligible for reduced-price meals,

students must have family income between 130 and 185 percent of the poverty level. For the 1997-98

school year, the reimbursement was $1.045 for free breakfasts, $0.745 for reduced-price breakfasts,

and $0.20 for full-price breakfasts. For schools with a large proportion of needy individuals (“severe

needs” schools), reimbursements were $0.20 higher for free and reduced-price breakfasts.

SBP breakfasts are required to provide approximately one-fourth of the Recommended Dietary

Allowance (RDA) for important nutrients over a period of time. At the time of SNDA-1, program

regulations specified that each reimbursable breakfast include a serving of fluid milk, a serving of

fruit or vegetable or a full-strength fruit or vegetable juice, and two servings of either bread or meat

or their equivalent. In addition, recent legislation requires that schools offer meals that limit fat and

saturated fats as recommended in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. To achieve both the RDA

and Dietary Guidelines standards, schools may use several methods for planning menus.

B. THE SCHOOL NUTRITION DIETARY ASSESSMENT (SNDA-1) STUDY

Conducted from 1990 through 1993, SNDA-1 addressed three key sets of questions: (1) What

is the nutrient content of school meals as offered to children in schools? (2) What are the nutrient

intakes of program participants? and (3) What are the dietary effects of the NSLP and SBP? The
The three main project reports include one on school food service, meals offered, and dietary 1

intakes (Burghardt et al. 1993); one on dietary intakes of program participants and nonparticipants

(Devaney et al. 1993); and one on sampling and data collection operations for SNDA-1 (Burghardt,

Ensor, et al. 1993). 

4

detailed findings of SNDA-1 are presented in three major reports, as well as in several subsequent

reports and publications. The SNDA-1 data set consists of a nationally representative sample of

1

3,350 students in grades 1 through 12 from 329 schools. During a one-week period between

February and May 1992, experienced interviewers administered a student survey, a student 24-hour

recall of foods eaten, a parent survey, surveys of key school and food service officials, and an

instrument to obtain information on foods offered for school breakfasts and lunches.

The data used in this analysis are the student characteristics data from the parent and student

surveys and the dietary intake data from the student 24-hour recall. The data set contains

information on the characteristics of students and their families; foods eaten at breakfast, at lunch,

and over a 24-hour period; and information on the schools attended and meal service characteristics

at the schools.

C. REANALYSIS OF THE SNDA-1 DATA

This study, a reanalysis of SNDA-1 data on the likelihood of eating breakfast, includes two main

components:

1. Review of the literature on breakfast consumption patterns to identify alternate

definitions of eating breakfast and, based on this review, recommend alternate

definitions

2. Reanalysis of the data from SNDA-1 using the alternate definitions of breakfast

The literature review is a critical first component of the analysis. The objective is to identify

studies of breakfast consumption, especially those using 24-hour dietary recall data, and summarize
5

the different ways in which breakfast has been defined and examined. For example, the definition

of “eating breakfast” may range on a continuum from a loose definition, such as whether any food

item is consumed in the morning, to a strict definition, such as whether foods with some specified

amount of calories and/or from specific food groups are consumed.

The reanalysis of the SNDA-1 data includes the following:

C Descriptive Analysis. Descriptive tabulations are presented on the percentage of

students eating breakfast, under alternate definitions, by school level and SBP

availability. These tabulations are presented for all students and for students from lowincome households.

C Multivariate Analysis. To investigate further the decision to eat breakfast, probit

analysis is used to estimate the relationship between the availability of the SBP and the

likelihood of eating breakfast for each alternate definition of breakfast.

Comparing the results for the alternate definitions of breakfast will indicate whether the findings

regarding the availability of the SBP are sensitive to the definition of what constitutes breakfast and,

if so, how.
6

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON BREAKFAST CONSUMPTION

Previous studies of the effects of the SBP provide little evidence that it increases the likelihood

that schoolchildren will eat breakfast. None of the previous studies, however, includes a careful and

thorough discussion of what constitutes “eating breakfast.” Both NESNP-1 and SNDA-1 define

breakfast consumption simplistically: as either eating any breakfast food in the morning, or eating

any prebreakfast or breakfast food, or eating any food or foods with more than 50 calories from the

time of waking until 45 minutes after the start of school.

As discussed previously, questions have arisen about what constitutes an adequate breakfast.

Should breakfast be defined as consuming any food item in the morning? Does a breakfast that

includes only 50 calories meet the nutritional requirements of breakfast? In addition, do the findings

on the lack of a relationship between the availability of the SBP and the likelihood of eating

breakfast change under alternate definitions of breakfast?

This chapter summarizes findings from a review of the literature on breakfast consumption to

identify alternate definitions of breakfast. In addition, descriptive tabulations from the SNDA-1 data

provide important information on the percentage of children eating breakfast, using a wide range of

alternate definitions. Based on the literature review and on the descriptive tabulations, the final

section of the chapter provides three alternate definitions for the reanalysis of the decision to eat

breakfast.

A. PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON BREAKFAST CONSUMPTION

The large body of literature on breakfast consumption encompasses a broad range of definitions.

As Table II.1 shows, the studies examining breakfast consumption fall into two primary groups: (1)

those that focus on whether or not breakfast is eaten; and (2) those that examine the effects of eating
7

TABLE II.1

REVIEW OF STUDIES USING ALTERNATE DEFINITIONS OF BREAKFAST

Authors Study Design Definitions of Breakfast Comments/Findings

Studies That Examine Breakfast Consumption and Breakfast Skipping

Siega-Riz, Popkin, and Carson (1998) Secondary data analysis to examine breakfast Any food or beverage consumed between 5 A.M. and 10 A.M. Breakfast consumption declined over time,

Haines, Guilkey, and Popkin (1996) children and adults in the United States adults.

consumption patterns between 1965 and 1991 for for children and between 5 A.M. and 9 A.M. for adults especially among older adolescents and

Used 1965 NFCS, 1977-78 NFCS, and 1989-91

CSFII

McIntyre and Horbul (1995) Breakfast survey of 4,079 children in grades 1 to 3 No breakfast: answered no to a question about whether they About 6 percent of children in grades 1 to

McIntyre (1993) Ontario during the fall of 1993 drinking anything.

in 50 public and separate schools in northeastern had anything to eat or drink before coming to school 3 came to school without eating or

Adequate breakfast: consumption of foods from at least 2 food

groups, one of which contains protein of high biologic value 84 percent consumed an adequate

Vigorous breakfast: consumption of foods from at least 3 food food groups.

groups, one of which contains protein of high biologic value

breakfast, consuming foods from at least 2

Morgan, Zabik, and Leveille (1981) 7-day food diaries from 657 American children ages Breakfast eaters: consumed at least 3 breakfasts during the 7- There is no explanation of how eating at

5 to 12 in 1977 day period. Nonbreakfast eaters: consumed fewer than 3 least 3 breakfasts per week is defined.

breakfasts during 7-day period

5 groups: (1) 3 or more breakfasts containing presweetened breakfast eaters consisted of only 10

ready-to-eat (RTE) cereal; (2) 3 or more breakfasts containing children, or 1.5 percent of the sample.

nonsweetened RTE cereal; (3) three or more breakfasts

containing any RTE cereal; (4) consuming breakfasts with

ready-to-eat cereal less than 3 times; and (5) no RTE cereal

consumed 

Few children skipped breakfast; nonNicklas, Weihang, Webber, and 24-hour recall for 6 cohorts of children 10 years of 3 groups: (1) breakfast at home, (2) breakfast at school, and After the School Breakfast Program was

Berenson (1993) age (1973-1974 through 1987-1988) from the (3) no breakfast eaten. Breakfast skipping refers to no foods introduced, the percentage of students who

Bogalusa Heart Study, n=464 or liquids consumed. skipped breakfast declined.

Sampson, Dixit, Meyers, and Houser 4-day eating behavior survey and 24-hour recall of Eating behavior survey: Did you have anything to eat before On any given day, 12 to 26 percent of

(1995) 1,151 children in grades 2 though 5 in East Orange, coming to school? Did you eat a snack on the way to school? children attended school without having

New Jersey eaten anything.

24-hour recall: reported all foods eaten from the time of

waking up to the time of the interview. 

4 groups: (1) breakfast eaters, (2) breakfast and snack eaters,

(3) snack-only eaters, and (4) neither breakfast nor snack

eaters.
TABLE II.1 (continued)

Authors Study Design Definitions of Breakfast Comments/Findings

8

Studies That Examine the Effects of Eating Breakfast

Lopez, de Andraca, Perales, Heresi, Study of 279 children in Chile who were 8 to 11 Breakfast included 2 cakes and 200 ml flavored milk; total No consistent association appears between

Castillo, and Colombo (1993) years of age to determine the effects of breakfast calories were 394 Kcal eating breakfast and cognitive performance

skipping on cognitive performance for children with a low socioeconomic

Students were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 study

conditions: breakfast or fasting

background from Santiago, Chile

Wyon, Abrahamsson, Jartelius, and Experimental design to determine the effects of Standard breakfast with low energy content For boys, average energy intake was 25

Fletcher (1997) energy intake at breakfast on test performance of 10- - 147 Kcal for girls percent and 8 percent of the RDA for the

year-old children in school - 197 Kcal for boys high and low energy breakfasts

Standard breakfast with high energy content For girls, average energy intake was 22

- 567 Kcal for girls percent and 6 percent of the RDA for the

- 832 Kcal for boys high and low energy breakfasts,

respectively

Dickie and Bender (1982a) Literature review on the effects of breakfast on Skipping breakfast defined as eating nothing more than a cup Literature review suggests mixed evidence

performance: summarizes studies with different of tea or coffee on whether skipping breakfast is

definitions of breakfast detrimental for school performance

Four breakfast classifications for adults: (1) heavy (800 Kcal),

(2) light (400 Kcal), (3) no breakfast ( no food between 18.3

and 12.00 the next day) and (4) coffee with 28 g of cream and

no sugar (60 Kcal)

Dickie and Bender (1982b) 2 studies of the effects on mental performance of Four breakfast classifications: (1) breakfast and midmorning Breakfast typically eaten was substantial,

omitting breakfast among schoolchildren in London, snack; (2) breakfast, no midmorning snack; (3) no breakfast usually providing more than 2.1 MJ.

average age 12.5 years but midmorning snack; and (4) no breakfast and no

midmorning snack Neither study found differences in mental

Breakfast: any solid food taken on the morning before arriving skipping breakfast

at school

Midmorning snack: any food or drink taken at break time

performance associated with eating or

Michaud et al. (1991) Clinical study to examine the effects of breakfast Normal breakfast were supplemented by varying amounts: (1) High energy intake had a beneficial effect

size on short-term memory, mood, and blood glucose 0-99 Kcal, (2) 100-199 Kcal, (3) 200-299 Kcal, (4) 300-399 on short-term memory. However,

319 adolescents 13 to 20 years of age in 4 counties calorie breakfast.

of Lorraine, France

Kcal, and (5) more than 400 Kcal concentration was impaired by a high
9

breakfast on various performance measures. In general, studies that examine whether or not

breakfast is eaten define breakfast through either self-reports of breakfast consumption or whether

any food or beverage was consumed after waking in the morning. These studies typically do not use

a definition that reflects any minimum calorie content or attempts to define an adequate breakfast.

The exception is the analysis of SNDA-1 data, in which breakfast had to include at least 50 calories,

but even this cutoff value still allows someone to be classified as a breakfast eater with only a

minimal intake of food energy.

In contrast, studies that focus on the effects of eating breakfast on cognitive tests and

performance measures typically define breakfast with some minimum calorie content. As Table II.1

shows, these calorie contents exceed the 50 Kcal cutoff value used in SNDA-1. For example, in the

experimental study Wyon et al. (1997) conducted to determine the effects of energy intake at

breakfast on test performance, a breakfast with low energy content was defined as 147 Kcal for girls

10 years of age and 197 Kcal for boys 10 years of age, and a breakfast with high energy content was

defined as 567 Kcal for girls and 832 Kcal for boys.

B. DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF SNDA-1 DATA

Table II.2 provides tabulations on the percentage of students eating breakfast under several

alternative definitions of breakfast, which include the following general categories:

C Whether any food or beverage is consumed between waking up and 45 minutes after the

start of school

C Breakfast intake of food energy greater than various cutoffs

- 50 Kcal, 100 Kcal, 150 Kcal, and 200 Kcal

- 10 percent and 15 percent of the RDA
10

TABLE II.2

PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS EATING BREAKFAST: 

ALTERNATE DEFINITIONS

Alternate Definition

Percentage Eating Breakfast

Total Sample Students Students

Elementary Middle and

School High School

Any Food Item Consumed 88 93 84

Breakfast Intake of Food Energy > 50 Kcal 87 92 83

Breakfast Intake of Food Energy > 100 Kcal 84 90 79

Breakfast Intake of Food Energy > 150 Kcal 78 83 74

Breakfast Intake of Food Energy > 200 Kcal 72 77 68

Breakfast Intake of Food Energy > 10 Percent of the 69 76 62

RDA

Breakfast Intake of Food Energy > 15 Percent of the 50 54 45

RDA

Consuming Food from at Least 2 of the Main Food 71 81 62

Groups a

Consuming Food from at Least 2 of the Main Food 61 71 53

Groups and Breakfast Intake > 10 Percent of the RDA

Consuming Food from at Least 2 of the Main Food 45 51 40

Groups and Breakfast Intake > 15 Percent of the RDA

Consuming Food from at Least 3 of the 4 SBP Food 17 20 14

Groups and Breakfast Intake > 20 Percent of the RDAb

Consuming Food from at Least 3 of the 4 SBP Food 11 12 9

Groups and Breakfast Intake > 25 Percent of the RDAb

Sample Size (Unweighted) 3,381 1,611 1,770

SOURCE: School Nutrition Dietary Assessment (SNDA-1) data, weighted.

The main food groups are (1) milk and milk products, (2) meat and meat alternate, (3) grain products, (4) fruits and a

fruit juices, and (5) vegetable and vegetable juice.

The SBP food groups are (1) milk and milk products, (2) meat and meat alternate, (3) grain products, and (4) fruits and b

vegetables or full-strength fruit or vegetable juices.
11

C Consuming food items from different food groups

- At least two of the main food groups

- At least two food groups and breakfast intake of food energy greater than either

10 percent or 15 percent of the RDA

- Consuming food from at least three of the four SBP food groups and breakfast

intake of food energy greater than either 20 percent or 25 percent of the RDA

As the definition of eating breakfast becomes more stringent, the percentage of students who

eat breakfast declines. To illustrate, 88 percent of students consumed some food or beverage, but

only 45 percent of students ate a breakfast that included food from at least two of the main food

groups and had breakfast intake of food energy greater than 15 percent of the RDA (see Table II.2).

About 11 percent of students had a breakfast that was equal to or exceeded what SBP breakfasts are

designed to offer at breakfast: food from at least three of the four SBP food groups and breakfast

intake of food energy greater than 25 percent of the RDA.

The likelihood of eating any breakfast, regardless of how defined, declines with age. Overall,

about 88 percent of students consume some food or beverage in the morning, and 12 percent do not.

For elementary school students, about 93 percent consume some food or beverage in the morning,

compared with 84 percent of middle and high school students (Table II.2). As the definition of

breakfast becomes more robust, the percentage of students eating it declines, but elementary students

are more likely than middle and high school students to eat each type of breakfast.

The percentage of students eating the most robust breakfast--greater than or equal to the SBP

meal pattern--is quite low. Only about one in 10 students consumed a breakfast with foods from at

least three of the SBP food groups and had breakfast intake of food energy greater than 25 percent

of the RDA. This result is not surprising nor does it imply that the SBP is not achieving its goal of

providing one-fourth of the RDA, on average, for important nutrients. Using a cutoff of consuming
12

at least 20 or 25 percent of the RDA for food energy as a definition of breakfast does not have any

support in the nutrition literature. In fact, there is a major problem with using this strict a definition

of breakfast. If breakfast is defined such that an individual must have at least 25 percent of the RDA

for food energy, then the average intake of breakfast eaters will far exceed the goal of 25 percent of

the RDA. Put another way, the breakfast eaters will be a group of students who are, on average,

consuming much more than either 25 percent of the RDA for food energy at breakfast and, most

likely, more than 100 percent of the RDA for food energy over 24 hours. 

Tabulations from the SNDA-1 data show that, among students who consumed three of four SBP

food groups and had breakfast intake of food energy greater than 25 percent of the RDA, the mean

breakfast intake of food energy is 39 percent of the RDA and the mean daily intake of food energy

is 150 percent of the RDA. These intakes of food energy are significantly higher than recommended

levels. Adopting such a strict rule for defining breakfast would implicitly be recommending food

consumption levels that would contribute to the growing problem of obesity. For these reasons, the

two most robust definitions of breakfast are not recommended as alternate definitions of breakfast.

C. ALTERNATE DEFINITIONS OF EATING BREAKFAST: RECOMMENDATION

As discussed above, the existing literature on breakfast consumption uses two very different

approaches to defining breakfast: (1) a simple yes/no approach; and (2) more robust definitions that

specify substantial calorie content. For the reanalysis of the SNDA-1 data on the likelihood of eating

breakfast, it is useful to consider incorporating both approaches and including a series of alternate

definitions in the multivariate analysis.

Based on the alternate definitions provided in Table II.2, three alternative definitions of

breakfast are:
13

1. Consumption of any food or beverage

2. Breakfast intake of food energy greater than 10 percent of the RDA

3. Consumption of foods from at least two of the main food groups and breakfast intake

of food energy greater than 10 percent of the RDA

There are two main advantages to using all three alternate definitions (or some other similar

combination). First, using definitions that range from minimal to robust allows us to assess the

effects of the program on the likelihood of eating any breakfast versus the effects on eating a

substantial breakfast. Second, using the three alternate definitions allows us to synthesize and even

reconcile the different approaches used in the existing literature. To date, the literature on breakfast

consumption has generally not even recognized that studies of whether breakfast is eaten have taken

approaches vastly different from those of studies of the effects of breakfast consumption.

Presumably, however, these studies should be interrelated: studies of whether breakfast is eaten are

likely to be motivated by evidence that breakfast is important, while studies that focus on the effects

of eating breakfast are likely to be informed by evidence on breakfast consumption patterns.

The second and third alternate definitions discussed above use 10 percent of the RDA rather

than 15 percent. The primary reason for this suggestion is that the intake data collected in SNDA-1

are based on 24-hour recall data, and it is widely known that single-day intake distributions are more

dispersed than usual intake distributions (Nusser et al. 1996). Thus, the percentage of students with

breakfast intakes of food energy less than a given percentage of the RDA on a certain day is higher

than the percentage of students with usual breakfast intake of food energy less than the given

percentages. To account for this, the recommendation includes the lower cutoff of 10 percent of the

RDA.
These five food groups are derived from the SBP food groups but separate fruits and fruit juices 1

from vegetables and vegetable juices.

14

III. EFFECTS OF THE SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM ON

THE LIKELIHOOD OF EATING BREAKFAST

This chapter provides estimates of the effects of the availability of the SBP on the likelihood of

eating breakfast, using data from the SNDA-1 study. It begins with a brief description of the data

and methodology and continues with a presentation and discussion of the analysis results.

A. DATA AND METHODOLOGY

The SNDA-1 data set is a nationally representative sample of 3,350 students in grades 1 through

12 in 1992. The analysis reported here is based on student characteristics data from the parent and

student surveys and dietary intake data of students from the 24-hour food recall. The main outcome

measure is whether or not the student ate breakfast, based on students’ dietary recall data on foods

and beverages consumed. 

To review, the analysis uses three alternate definitions of breakfast, ranging from a simple

yes/no approach for whether any food or beverage is consumed to more robust definitions based on

foods and food energy consumed at breakfast. The three alternate definitions are:

1. Consumption of any food or beverage from the time of waking until 45 minutes after the

start of school

2. Breakfast intake of food energy greater than 10 percent of the RDA

3. Consumption of foods from at least two of five main food groups and breakfast intake

of food energy greater than 10 percent of the RDA. The five food groups used are (1)

milk and milk products, (2) meat and meat equivalents, (3) grain products, (4) fruits and

fruit juices, and (5) vegetables and vegetable juices.1
An appendix to this report includes a rigorous description of the methodology and presents the 2

detailed analysis results from the probit analysis.

15

The explanatory variables used in the analysis include the availability of the SBP (or another

breakfast program) in school and a variety of student and family characteristics. Student and family

characteristics assumed to influence the likelihood of eating breakfast include the following: age,

gender, race and ethnicity, whether the child is income-eligible for free or reduced-price school

meals, family size and composition, mother’s employment status, and residential location.

Table III.1 presents descriptive data on the explanatory variables used in the analysis. Of particular

importance is the fact that the SBP is available to slightly more than half of all students and to about

two-thirds of all low-income students.

Because the decision to eat breakfast is a binary variable, probit analysis is used to examine the

effect of the SBP on the likelihood of eating breakfast, while controlling for the student and family

characteristics just discussed. To facilitate the interpretation of the empirical results, the analysis

presents regression-adjusted or predicted values of the likelihood of eating breakfast under two

conditions: (1) students attend schools with the SBP, and (2) students attend schools without the

SBP. These predicted values are based upon the estimated coefficients from the probit analysis.2

B. EMPIRICAL RESULTS

The principal finding from the analysis of the likelihood of eating breakfast is that the

availability of the SBP in schools is associated with a higher likelihood of eating a more robust

breakfast for students from low-income households. As the definition of breakfast becomes more

stringent, the difference in the predicted values of eating that breakfast between low-income students

with and without the SBP available becomes larger and statistically significant (Figure III.1). Using

the definition of breakfast as any food or beverage consumed, the difference in the predicted
16

TABLE III.1

STUDENT AND FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS: MEAN VALUES

Characteristic Total Sample Low-Income Sample

School Has SBP 0.51 0.66

School Has Other Breakfast Program 0.05 0.03

Age 11.61 11.13

Female 0.50 0.50

Black 0.16 0.29

Hispanic 0.13 0.20

Other Race 0.03 0.03

Income-Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price 0.42 1.00

Meal

Eligibility Data Missing 0.12 0.00

Mother in Household 0.92 0.90

Mother Employed 0.62 0.52

Family Size 3 or 4 0.53 0.43

Family Size 5 to 7 0.38 0.43

Family Size Larger than 7 0.03 0.06

Urban 0.39 0.46

Suburban 0.37 0.24

Mid-Atlantic 0.12 0.11

Southeast 0.21 0.27

Midwest 0.19 0.16

Southwest 0.15 0.18

Mountain Plains 0.09 0.11

West 0.15 0.12

Sample Size 3,381 1,441

SOURCE: School Nutrition Dietary Assessment (SNDA-1) data.

NOTE: Means are based upon weighted data. 

18

percentage of students eating breakfast with and without the SBP available is small and not

statistically significant either for the total sample or for students from low-income households.

These results are consistent with previous studies that found no effect of the SBP on the likelihood

of eating any food or food containing a minium number of calories. However, when breakfast is

defined as intake of food energy greater than 10 percent of the RDA, the likelihood of eating

breakfast is significantly higher for low-income students attending schools with the SBP available

than for comparable students attending schools without it (74 percent versus 63 percent). Similarly,

when breakfast is defined as consumption of food from two or more food groups and intake of food

energy greater than 10 percent of the RDA, the predicted percentage of students is significantly

higher for low-income students attending schools with the SBP available than for comparable

students attending schools without it (67 percent versus 55 percent).

The estimated effects of SBP availability on the likelihood of eating breakfast are largest for

low-income elementary students (Figure III.2). For the two more robust definitions of breakfast, the

predicted percentages of low-income elementary students with the SBP available are significantly

higher for students than for students without it. In fact, for both of the more robust breakfast

definitions, low-income elementary students with the SBP available are 23 percent more likely than

similar students without the SBP to consume breakfast. Even for low-income middle and high

school students, a group that is less likely than younger students to eat any kind of breakfast, the SBP

is associated with a higher likelihood of eating the breakfast meeting the most robust definition

(Figure III.3).

C. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

A primary goal of the SBP is to provide a nutritious breakfast to students who might otherwise

not eat one. Previous studies of the SBP, however, provide little evidence that this goal is achieved


21

for any subgroup of students (Devaney and Fraker 1986 and 1989; Burghardt et al. 1993; and

Gleason 1995). The reanalysis of data from SNDA-1 undertaken for this study suggests that the

effect of the SBP on the likelihood of eating breakfast depends both on how breakfast is defined and

on family income.

If breakfast is defined as any food or beverage consumed, the SBP is not associated with an

increased likelihood of eating breakfast. About 12 percent of students do not consume any food or

beverage for breakfast. This percentage is the same for students in schools with the SBP as without

it, even after controlling for student and family characteristics. This percentage is roughly the same

for the low-income sample as well. These results are consistent with previous studies that found that

the SBP had no effect on the likelihood of eating any food or foods containing at least 50 calories.

When the definition of breakfast is more robust, the SBP is associated with an increased

likelihood of eating breakfast among low-income students, especially those in elementary school.

Low-income elementary students attending schools with the SBP available are significantly more

likely than similar students attending schools without the SBP to consume a more robust breakfast.

For the total sample, there are no significant differences associated with the SBP in the likelihood

of eating any breakfast, suggesting that program effects vary by family income.

Expansion of the SBP is a policy issue currently being debated. The findings from this study

suggest that expanding the program to low-income students would be associated with an increased

likelihood of consuming a breakfast that included at least 10 percent of the RDA for food energy.

At the time of SNDA-1, approximately two-thirds of low-income students attended schools with the

SBP, suggesting that a significant proportion of low-income students would be affected by an

expansion of the SBP.
22

REFERENCES

Burghardt, John, Anne Gordon, Nancy Chapman, Philip Gleason, and Thomas Fraker. 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, Office of

Analysis and Evaluation, October 1993.

Burghardt, John, Todd Ensor, Gayle Hutchinson, Charlene Weiss, and Bruce Spencer. The School

Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study: Data Collection and Sampling. Alexandria, VA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis and Evaluation,

October 1993.

Devaney, Barbara, Anne Gordon, and John Burghardt. The School Nutrition Dietary Assessment

Study: Dietary Intakes of Program Participants and Nonparticipants. Alexandria, VA: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis and Evaluation,

October 1993.

Devaney, Barbara, and Thomas Fraker. “The Dietary Impacts of the School Breakfast Program.”

American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 71, no. 4, November 1989, pp. 932-948.

Devaney, Barbara, and Thomas Fraker. “The Dietary Impacts of the School Breakfast Program.”

Report submitted to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Princeton,

NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., October 1986.

Gleason, Philip M. “Participation in the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast

Program.” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 61, no. 1(s), January 1995, pp.

2135-2205.

Dickie, N.H., and A.E. Bender. “Breakfast and Performance.” Human Nutrition: Applied Nutrition,

1982a, vol. 36A, pp. 46-56.

Dickie, N.H., and A.E. Bender. “Breakfast and Performance in Schoolchildren.” British Journal

of Nutrition, 1982b, vol. 48, pp. 483-496.

Haines, Pamela S., David K. Guilkey, and Barry M. Popkin. “Trends in Breakfast Consumption of

U.S. Adults Between 1965 and 1991.” Journal of the American Dietetic Association, May

1996, vol. 96, no. 5. pp. 464-470.

Lopez, I., I. de Andraca, C.G. Perales, E. Heresi, M. Castillo, and M. Colombo. “Breakfast Omission

and Cognitive Performance of Normal, Wasted, and Stunted School Children.” European

Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1993, vol. 47, pp. 533-542.
23

McIntyre, Lynn, and Betty Ann Horbul. “A Survey of Breakfast-Eating Among Young

Schoolchildren in Northeastern Ontario.” Canadian Journal of Public Health, vol. 86,

September-October 1995, no. 5, pp. 305-308.

McIntyre, Lynn. “A Survey of Breakfast-Skipping and Inadequate Breakfast-Eating Among Young

Schoolchildren in Nova Scotia.” Canadian Journal of Public Health, November-December

1993, vol. 84, no. 6, pp. 410-414.

Michaud, Claude, Nadine Musee, Jean P. Nicholas, and Luc Mejean. “Effects of Breakfast-Size on

Short-Term Memory, Concentration, Mood and Blood Glucose.” Journal of Adolescent Health,

vol. 12, 1991, pp. 53-57.

Morgan, Karen J., Mary E. Zabik, and Gilbert A. Leveille. “The Role of Breakfast in Nutrient Intake

of 5- to 12-Year-Old Children.” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, July 1981, vol.

34, pp. 1418-1427.

Nicklas, Theresa, Weihang Bao, Larry S. Webber, and Gerald S. Berenson. “Breakfast Consumption

Affects Adequacy of Total Daily Intake in Children.” Journal of the American Dietetic

Association, August 1993, vol. 93, no. 8, pp. 886-891.

Nusser, S.M., A.L. Carriquiry, K.W. Dodd, and W.A. Fuller. “A Semiparametric Transformation

Approach to Estimating Usual Daily Intake Distributions.” Journal of the American Statistical

Association, vol. 91, 1996, pp. 1440-1449.

Sampson, Amy E., Sujata Dixit, Alan F. Meyers, and Robert Houser, Jr. “The Nutritional Impact

of Breakfast Consumption on the Diets of Inner-City African-American Elementary School

Children.” Journal of the National Medical Association, vol. 87, no. 3, pp. 195-202.

Siega-Riz, Anna Maria, Barry Popkin, and Terri Carson. “Trends in Breakfast Consumption for

Children in the United States from 1965 to 1991.” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,

vol. 67 (supplement), April 1998, pp. 7485-7565.

Wellisch, Jean B., Sally D. Hanes, Lawrence A. Jordan, Kenneth M. Mauer, and Joyce A.

Vermeerch. “The National Evaluation of School Nutrition Programs: Final Report, Volume 1--

Overview and Presentation of Findings.” Santa Monica, CA: System Development Corporation,

1983.

Wyon, David P., Lillemor Abrahamsson, Marja Järtelius, and Rej J. Fletcher. “An Experimental

Study of the Effects of Energy Intake at Breakfast on the Test Performance of 10-year-old

Children in School.” International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition, 1997, vol. 48, pp.

5-12.
APPENDIX A

STUDY METHODOLOGY AND DETAILED

PROBIT ANALYSIS RESULTS
25

The analysis presented in this report uses data from SNDA-1 to estimate the effects of the SBP

and other student and family characteristics on the likelihood of eating breakfast, as defined in three

different ways. The model underlying the statistical analysis assumes that the decision to eat

breakfast is a nonlinear function of both SBP availability and student and family characteristics.

Specifically, the model is depicted by the following:

B* = X$ + e

B = 1 if B* > 0

= 0 if B* < 0

where B* is the student’s propensity to eat breakfast and B is the student’s actual breakfast

consumption--equal to one if the student ate breakfast on the day interviewed and equal to zero if

the student did not. It is not possible to estimate B* directly; however, if a student eats breakfast,

then B* is greater than zero, while if a student does not eat breakfast, then B* is less than or equal

to zero. The vector X contains a set of variables hypothesized to influence the propensity to eat

breakfast, $ is a vector of coefficients relating the explanatory variables to the propensity of eating

breakfast, and e is a random error term that represents random factors that affect the decision to eat

breakfast. Because the observed dependent variable--the decision to eat breakfast (B)--is binary,

probit analysis is used to estimate the model.

The probit equation for the likelihood of eating breakfast is estimated for the following

subgroups: total sample, total low-income sample, elementary sample, low-income elementary

sample, middle and high school sample, and low-income middle and high school sample. The probit

models use unweighted data.
26

Tables A.1 through A.6 present the detailed results from the probit analyses. The coefficient

estimates presented in these tables underlie the analysis findings presented in the report.

Specifically, for each student, the predicted probability of eating breakfast is calculated given the

values of the student’s characteristics under two conditions: (1) the student attends a school with

the SBP, and (2) the student does not attend a school with the SBP. These predicted probabilities

are averaged across students. The difference between the average predicted probabilities of eating

breakfast with and without the SBP is the estimated effect of SBP availability on the probability of

eating breakfast.
27

TABLE A.1

PROBIT EQUATION FOR WHETHER A STUDENT CONSUMED ANY FOOD OR DRINK FOR

BREAKFAST

(Standard Errors in Parentheses)

Estimated Coefficients

Explanatory Variables Total Sample Students School Students

Elementary School Middle and High

Intercept 2.744 ** 1.336 ** 3.375 **

(0.250) (0.490) (0.391)

School Has SBP -0.042 0.082 -0.094

(0.069) (0.123) (0.086)

School Has Other Breakfast 0.169 -0.013 0.177

Program (0.144) (0.395) (0.159)

Age -0.100 ** -0.013 -0.123 **

(0.009) (0.034) (0.019)

Female -0.184 ** -0.044 -0.274 **

(0.059) (0.102) (0.075)

Black -0.010 0.138 -0.056

(0.088) (0.157) (0.110)

Hispanic -0.071 0.187 -0.183

(0.096) (0.171) (0.121)

Other Race 0.126 -0.233 0.335

(0.180) (0.282) (0.233)

Income Eligible for Free or -0.196 ** -0.238 * -0.171

Reduced Price Meal (0.072) (0.120) (0.091)

Eligibility Data Missing 0.114 0.108 0.120

(0.106) (0.229) (0.122)

Mother in Household 0.101 -0.038 0.185

(0.128) (0.230) (0.159)

Mother Employed -0.106 -0.015 -0.169

(0.069) (0.111) (0.089)

Family Size 3 or 4 -0.204 0.228 -0.357 *

(0.143) (0.238) (0.179)

Family Size 5 to 7 -0.229 0.394 -0.506 **

(0.146) (0.242) (0.184)

Family Size Larger than 7 0.061 0.388 -0.045

(0.228) (0.363) (0.294)

Urban -0.005 0.136 -0.083

(0.078) (0.132) (0.100)
TABLE A.1 (continued)

Estimated Coefficients

Explanatory Variables Total Sample Students School Students

Elementary School Middle and High

28

Suburban 0.029 0.193 -0.041

(0.082) (0.134) (0.105)

Mid-Atlantic 0.112 0.078 0.120

(0.136) (0.251) (0.167)

Southeast 0.050 -0.046 0.077

(0.118) (0.222) (0.143)

Midwest -0.004 -0.011 -0.034

(0.117) (0.223) (0.141)

Southwest 0.013 0.021 0.005

(0.124) (0.234) (0.150)

Mountain Plains 0.088 -0.073 0.160

(0.136) (0.242) (0.169)

West 0.050 0.037 0.061

(0.126) (0.238) (0.154)

Sample Size 3,381 1,611 1,770

SOURCE: School Nutrition Dietary Assessment (SNDA-1) data.

NOTE: The coefficient and standard error estimates are from an unweighted probit equation of whether a

student ate breakfast.

*Significantly different from zero at the .05 level, two-tailed test.

**Significantly different from zero at the .01 level, two-tailed test.
29

TABLE A.2

PROBIT EQUATION FOR WHETHER A STUDENT HAD BREAKFAST INTAKE OF FOOD ENERGY

GREATER THAN 10 PERCENT OF THE RDA

(Standard Errors in Parentheses)

Estimated Coefficients

Explanatory Variables Total Sample Students School Students

Elementary School Middle and High

Intercept 1.294 ** 0.352 1.788 **

(0.191) (0.353) (0.313)

School Has SBP 0.067 0.116 0.027

(0.054) (0.087) (0.072)

School Has Other Breakfast -0.033 -0.478 0.044

Program (0.109) (0.259) (0.124)

Age -0.071 ** 0.006 -0.094 **

(0.007) (0.024) (0.016)

Female -0.160 ** -0.096 -0.226 **

(0.046) (0.071) (0.062)

Black 0.031 -0.011 0.082

(0.071) (0.111) (0.094)

Hispanic -0.043 0.104 -0.137

(0.076) (0.115) (0.105)

Other Race 0.180 -0.086 0.357 *

(0.139) (0.219) (0.179)

Income Eligible for Free or -0.026 -0.049 -0.007

Reduced Price Meal (0.057) (0.086) (0.076)

Eligibility Data Missing 0.100 -0.204 0.233 *

(0.081) (0.139) (0.100)

Mother in Household 0.099 -0.046 0.174

(0.103) (0.169) (0.134)

Mother Employed -0.072 -0.093 -0.066

(0.053) (0.079) (0.073)

Family Size 3 or 4 -0.032 0.239 -0.156

(0.110) (0.182) (0.139)

Family Size 5 to 7 -0.056 0.282 -0.258

(0.112) (0.183) (0.143)

Family Size Larger than 7 0.006 0.300 -0.180

(0.169) (0.261) (0.224)

Urban 0.005 0.120 -0.088

(0.062) (0.095) (0.084)
TABLE A.2 (continued)

Estimated Coefficients

Explanatory Variables Total Sample Students School Students

Elementary School Middle and High

30

Suburban 0.054 0.179 -0.034

(0.064) (0.096) (0.087)

Mid-Atlantic 0.080 0.033 0.157

(0.106) (0.169) (0.138)

Southeast 0.065 0.085 0.069

(0.093) (0.153) (0.119)

Midwest 0.044 0.149 -0.035

(0.092) (0.154) (0.117)

Southwest 0.132 0.149 0.157

(0.099) (0.162) (0.128)

Mountain Plains 0.069 0.123 0.031

(0.105) (0.171) (0.137)

West 0.063 0.042 0.115

(0.098) (0.161) (0.127)

Sample Size 3,381 1,611 1,770

SOURCE: School Nutrition Dietary Assessment (SNDA-1) data.

NOTE: The coefficient and standard error estimates are from an unweighted probit equation of whether a

student ate breakfast.

*Significantly different from zero at the .05 level, two-tailed test.

**Significantly different from zero at the .01 level, two-tailed test.
31

TABLE A.3

PROBIT EQUATION FOR WHETHER A STUDENT CONSUMED FOOD FROM AT LEAST TWO FOOD

GROUPS AND BREAKFAST INTAKE OF FOOD ENERGY GREATER THAN 10 PERCENT OF THE RDA

(Standard Errors in Parentheses)

Estimated Coefficients

Explanatory Variables Total Sample Students School Students

Elementary School Middle and High

Intercept 1.214 ** 0.396 1.487 **

(0.187) (0.340) (0.306)

School Has SBP 0.073 0.078 0.050

(0.053) (0.083) (0.071)

School Has Other Breakfast 0.093 -0.451 0.180

Program (0.108) (0.255) (0.122)

Age -0.078 ** -0.007 -0.088 **

(0.007) (0.023) (0.015)

Female -0.220 ** -0.139 * -0.299 **

(0.045) (0.068) (0.061)

Black 0.033 0.045 0.065

(0.069) (0.107) (0.092)

Hispanic -0.032 0.048 -0.077

(0.074) (0.109) (0.104)

Other Race 0.150 -0.026 0.279

(0.133) (0.213) (0.170)

Income Eligible for Free or -0.008 0.015 -0.039

Reduced Price Meal (0.055) (0.082) (0.075)

Eligibility Data Missing 0.082 -0.232 0.212 *

(0.078) (0.133) (0.097)

Mother in Household 0.065 0.071 0.058

(0.100) (0.158) (0.133)

Mother Employed -0.049 -0.038 -0.060

(0.052) (0.075) (0.072)

Family Size 3 or 4 -0.004 0.099 -0.030

(0.107) (0.179) (0.135)

Family Size 5 to 7 0.010 0.141 -0.059

(0.110) (0.181) (0.140)

Family Size Larger than 7 0.148 0.222 0.132

(0.165) (0.255) (0.221)

Urban 0.060 0.155 -0.026

(0.061) (0.091) (0.082)
TABLE A.3 (continued)

Estimated Coefficients

Explanatory Variables Total Sample Students School Students

Elementary School Middle and High

32

Suburban 0.025 0.113 -0.045

(0.062) (0.091) (0.086)

Mid-Atlantic 0.029 -0.058 0.119

(0.103) (0.164) (0.136)

Southeast -0.038 0.008 -0.066

(0.091) (0.150) (0.118)

Midwest -0.038 0.004 -0.077

(0.091) (0.150) (0.116)

Southwest 0.035 0.030 0.065

(0.097) (0.157) (0.125)

Mountain Plains 0.002 -0.026 0.022

(0.103) (0.165) (0.135)

West -0.016 -0.071 0.057

(0.096) (0.157) (0.125)

Sample Size 3,381 1,611 1,770

SOURCE: School Nutrition Dietary Assessment (SNDA-1) data.

NOTE: The coefficient and standard error estimates are from an unweighted probit equation of whether a

student ate breakfast.

*Significantly different from zero at the .05 level, two-tailed test.

**Significantly different from zero at the .01 level, two-tailed test.
33

TABLE A.4

PROBIT EQUATION FOR WHETHER A STUDENT CONSUMED ANY FOOD OR DRINK FOR

BREAKFAST: LOW-INCOME SAMPLE

(Standard Errors in Parentheses)

Estimated Coefficients

Explanatory Variables Students School Students Students

Low-Income Elementary School Low-Income

Low- Income Middle and High

Intercept 2.458** 0.887 3.440**

(0.348) (0.640) (0.604)

School Has SBP 0.069 0.212 -0.004 

(0.107) (0.179) (0.140)

School Has Other Breakfast 0.049 -0.569 0.270 

Program (0.264) (0.501) (0.322)

Age -0.097** 0.014 -0.138**

(0.014) (0.046) (0.030)

Female -0.242** -0.143 -0.342**

(0.089) (0.142) (0.119)

Black 0.013 0.285 -0.101 

(0.112) (0.185) (0.151)

Hispanic -0.030 0.251 -0.152 

(0.130) (0.212) (0.178)

Other Race 0.018 -0.307 0.249 

(0.246) (0.355) (0.348)

Mother in Household 0.013 -0.129 0.151 

(0.169) (0.265) (0.226)

Mother Employed -0.018 0.244 -0.185 

(0.095) (0.149) (0.130)

Family Size 3 or 4 -0.205 0.422 -0.523 

(0.194) (0.289) (0.271)

Family Size 5 to 7 -0.137 0.614* -0.572*

(0.198) (0.293) (0.277)

Family Size Larger than 7 0.083 0.487 -0.121 

(0.269) (0.395) (0.373)

Urban -0.142 -0.091 -0.179 

(0.116) (0.181) (0.160)

Suburban -0.023 0.050 -0.024 

(0.127) (0.189) (0.178)
TABLE A.4 (continued)

Estimated Coefficients

Explanatory Variables Students School Students Students

Low-Income Elementary School Low-Income

Low- Income Middle and High

34

Mid-Atlantic 0.318 0.049 0.410 

(0.224) (0.396) (0.293)

Southeast 0.151 -0.260 0.302 

(0.189) (0.347) (0.244)

Midwest 0.060 -0.319 0.174 

(0.195) (0.352) (0.248)

Southwest -0.002 -0.290 0.073 

(0.202) (0.355) (0.268)

Mountain Plains 0.199 -0.175 0.283 

(0.220) (0.381) (0.287)

West 0.193 0.113 0.205 

(0.207) (0.384) (0.263)

Sample Size 1,441 777 664

SOURCE: School Nutrition Dietary Assessment (SNDA-1) data.

NOTE: The coefficient and standard error estimates are from an unweighted probit equation of whether a

student ate breakfast.

*Significantly different from zero at the .05 level, two-tailed test.

**Significantly different from zero at the .01 level, two-tailed test.
35

TABLE A.5

PROBIT EQUATION FOR WHETHER A STUDENT HAD BREAKFAST INTAKE OF FOOD ENERGY

GREATER THAN 10 PERCENT OF THE RDA: LOW-INCOME STUDENTS

(Standard Errors in Parentheses)

Estimated Coefficients

Explanatory Variables Students Students Students

Low-Income Elementary School School Low- Income

Low- Income Middle and High

Intercept 1.525** 0.649 2.465**

(0.284) (0.483) (0.510)

School Has SBP 0.295** 0.503** 0.153

(0.087) (0.133) (0.121)

School Has Other Breakfast 0.070 -0.372 0.322

Program (0.216) (0.426) (0.261)

Age -0.079** -0.046 -0.118**

(0.011) (0.034) (0.026)

Female -0.108 0.016 -0.260*

(0.072) (0.104) (0.103)

Black 0.041 0.014 0.148

(0.091) (0.132) (0.132)

Hispanic 0.010 0.161 -0.075

(0.106) (0.154) (0.156)

Other Race -0.027 -0.177 0.175

(0.200) (0.292) (0.280)

Mother in Household -0.028 -0.069 0.046

(0.138) (0.204) (0.194)

Mother Employed -0.019 0.073 -0.109

(0.077) (0.110) (0.112)

Family Size 3 or 4 -0.162 0.230 -0.402

(0.158) (0.236) (0.217)

Family Size 5 to 7 -0.057 0.422 -0.390

(0.161) (0.237) (0.223)

Family Size Larger than 7 -0.111 0.352 -0.447

(0.207) (0.302) (0.289)

Urban -0.126 -0.079 -0.197

(0.095) (0.136) (0.138)

Suburban -0.091 0.068 -0.256

(0.101) (0.142) (0.150)
TABLE A.5 (continued)

Estimated Coefficients

Explanatory Variables Students Students Students

Low-Income Elementary School School Low- Income

Low- Income Middle and High

36

Mid-Atlantic 0.019 -0.263 0.301

(0.183) (0.271) (0.260)

Southeast -0.034 -0.193 0.094

(0.162) (0.250) (0.221)

Midwest 0.001 0.065 -0.080

(0.168) (0.263) (0.225)

Southwest -0.021 -0.171 0.096

(0.174) (0.261) (0.245)

Mountain Plains -0.073 -0.160 -0.064

(0.183) (0.276) (0.252)

West -0.085 -0.164 0.015

(0.174) (0.267) (0.236)

Sample Size 1,441 777 664

SOURCE: School Nutrition Dietary Assessment (SNDA-1) data.

NOTE: The coefficient and standard error estimates are from an unweighted probit equation of whether a

student ate breakfast.

*Significantly different from zero at the .05 level, two-tailed test.

**Significantly different from zero at the .01 level, two-tailed test.
37

TABLE A.6

PROBIT EQUATION FOR WHETHER A STUDENT CONSUMED FOOD FROM AT LEAST TWO FOOD

GROUPS AND BREAKFAST INTAKE OF FOOD ENERGY GREATER THAN 10 PERCENT OF THE RDA:

LOW-INCOME SAMPLE

(Standard Errors in Parentheses)

Estimated Coefficients

Explanatory Variables Students Students Students

Low-Income Elementary School School Low-Income

Low-Income Middle and High

Intercept 1.489** 0.716 2.147**

(0.278) (0.469) (0.500)

School Has SBP 0.348** 0.425** 0.307**

(0.086) (0.128) (0.120)

School Has Other Breakfast 0.124 -0.565 0.467

Program (0.215) (0.429) (0.258)

Age -0.093** -0.058 -0.118**

(0.011) (0.033) (0.026)

Female -0.160* -0.055 -0.295**

(0.071) (0.100) (0.102)

Black 0.083 0.122 0.142

(0.089) (0.127) (0.130)

Hispanic 0.052 0.152 0.018

(0.104) (0.147) (0.155)

Other Race 0.111 0.033 0.269

(0.199) (0.294) (0.276)

Mother in Household 0.051 0.095 0.041

(0.135) (0.193) (0.191)

Mother Employed -0.065 0.017 -0.150

(0.076) (0.106) (0.110)

Family Size 3 or 4 -0.224 0.055 -0.336

(0.155) (0.234) (0.210)

Family Size 5 to 7 -0.093 0.250 -0.286

(0.157) (0.235) (0.216)

Family Size Larger than 7 -0.077 0.172 -0.190

(0.204) (0.297) (0.283)

Urban -0.116 -0.021 -0.250

(0.093) (0.130) (0.135)

Suburban -0.135 0.029 -0.331*

(0.099) (0.136) (0.149)
TABLE A.6 (continued)

Estimated Coefficients

Explanatory Variables Students Students Students

Low-Income Elementary School School Low-Income

Low-Income Middle and High

38

Mid-Atlantic -0.070 -0.313 0.167

(0.180) (0.264) (0.255)

Southeast -0.080 -0.195 -0.012

(0.159) (0.244) (0.219)

Midwest 0.002 0.031 -0.075

(0.165) (0.256) (0.224)

Southwest -0.052 -0.196 0.043

(0.171) (0.254) (0.243)

Mountain Plains -0.165 -0.358 -0.049

(0.179) (0.267) (0.251)

West -0.069 -0.150 -0.013

(0.171) (0.261) (0.235)

Sample Size 1,441 777 664

SOURCE: School Nutrition Dietary Assessment (SNDA-1) data.

NOTE: The coefficient and standard error estimates are from an unweighted probit equation of whether a

student ate breakfast.

*Significantly different from zero at the .05 level, two-tailed test.

**Significantly different from zero at the .01 level, two-tailed test.