Summary of Findings

August 1998

Evaluation of the 

Nutrient Standard 

Menu Planning Demonstration

Un i te d St at e s

D e p a rt m e nt o f

A g ri c u l t u re

F o o d a n d Nu t ri t i o n

S e rv i c e

O f f i ce o f A n a l ys i s &

E va l u at i o n

C o nt ra ct N o .

5 3 - 3 1 9 8 - 4 - 0 0 1
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in its programs on the basis of race, color,national origin, sex, religion,age,disability,political beliefs and

marital or familial 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, write the Secretary of Agriculture,U.S. Department of Agriculture,Washington,D.C. 20250,or call 1-800-245-6340 (voice) or (202) 720-1127 (TDD).USDA is an equal

employment opportunity employer.
Summary of Findings

August 1998

Evaluation of the 

Nutrient Standard 

Menu Planning Demonstration

Un i te d St at e s

D e p a rt m e nt o f

A g ri c u l t u re

F o o d a n d Nu t ri t i o n

S e rv i c e

O f f i ce o f A n a l ys i s &

E v a l u at i o n

Co nt ra ct N o .

5 3 - 3 1 9 8 - 4 - 0 0 1

Submitted by:

Abt Associates, Inc.

55 Wheeler Street

Cambridge, MA 02138

Project Director:

Mary Kay Fox

Submitted to:

Office of Analysis and Evaluation

USDA Food and Nutrition Service

3101 Park Center Drive, Room 208

Alexandria, VA 22302

Project Officer:

John Endahl
C o n t e n t s

I n t rod u c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Implementation of NSMP in Demonstration SFA s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

F o ods Off e red Before and After NSMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Nutrient Content of Lunches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Nutrient Content of Bre a k f a s t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 2

Weighted and Unweighted Nutrient Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 6

P rogram Operations Before and After NSMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 0

P rogram Costs Before and After NSMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 2

Evaluation of the Nutrient Standard Menu Planning Demonstration 1

I n t r o d u c t i o n

The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program (SBP) are

a d m i n i s t e red by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA). The NSLP operates in over 94,000 schools and institutions. More than 26 million childre n

receive meals through the program on any given day; about half of these meals are provided free of

c h a rge. The SBP operates in approximately two-thirds of the schools and institutions that offer the

N S L P, most commonly in schools that serve large numbers of economically disadvantaged childre n .

On an average day, roughly seven million children receive breakfast through the SBP. The vast

majority of these meals are provided free of charge. School Food Authorities (SFAs) participating in

the NSLP and SBP receive two types of federal assistance: donated surplus commodities and cash

reimbursements. 

Meals served in the NSLP and SBP meet defined nutrition standards in order to be eligible for Federal

subsidies. Program regulations for the NSLP stipulate that lunches must provide, on average,

a p p roximately one-third of students’ Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs). To ensure that these

s t a n d a rds are met, program regulations have historically included food-based menu planning

guidelines which define specific types of food to be off e red as well as minimum portion sizes. The

authorizing legislation for the SBP did not include a specific RDA goal, but a meal pattern was

developed to ensure that breakfasts would provide approximately one-fourth of the RDA.

While historically the NSLP and SBP have been successful in meeting these nutrition standards, a

1993 USDA study found that school meals were not consistent with goals for total fat and saturated

fat intake specified in the D i e t a ry Guidelines for Americans. At the time, programs were not re q u i red to

meet these guidelines. 

Since this problem was identified, FNS has worked to enhance this aspect of the nutritional quality of

meals off e red in the NSLP and SBP. As part of this ongoing initiative, FNS sponsored a demonstration

p roject to evaluate the acceptability and impact of an alternative system for planning lunch and

b reakfast menus. This system, known as Nutrient Standard Menu Planning (NSMP), uses

computerized nutrient analysis to assess the nutrient content of planned menus. 

Abt Associates Inc. of Cambridge, Massachusetts was awarded a contract to conduct an independent

evaluation of the three-year demonstration project. This publication summarizes major findings fro m

that evaluation. While re g u l a t o ry changes that have taken place since the inception of the NSMP

demonstration have already incorporated NSMP into NSLP and SBP operations, findings from the

evaluation are important in providing information about re q u i rements of the current NSMP system

and the potential need for training, technical assistance, and monitoring. 

The NSMP Demonstration

In January 1994, FNS selected 34 volunteer SFAs to participate in the NSMP demonstration. SFA s

w e re purposefully selected to provide diversity in geographic location, district size, student part i c i p a t i o n

rates, food service program characteristics, and staff experience with computerized nutrient analysis. 
2 Summary of Findings/August 1998

The demonstration spanned three school years (SY), from SY 1994-95 through SY 1996-97.

Participating SFAs were expected to implement NSMP for both lunch and breakfast in all schools.

Menus were to be planned using newly-developed software systems that evaluated the nutrient

content of planned menus using a weighted nutrient analysis. A weighted analysis incorporates

information about students’ food selection patterns and gives more weight to foods that are selected

more often. SFAs were expected to base weighted analyses on district-wide menu production data,

i.e., information on the actual food selection patterns of all students in the district. 

Menus planned under NSMP were expected to meet a defined set of nutrient standards. Lunches

were expected to provide one-third of the RDA for calories and key nutrients and breakfasts were

expected to provide one-fourth of the RDA. Both meals were expected to be consistent with Dietary

Guidelines goals for the percentage of calories from total fat and saturated fat.

The sequence and timing of major milestones in both the demonstration and its associated evaluation

are summarized in Exhibit 1. Baseline data were collected in Spring 1994 while traditional meal

patterns were still being used to plan menus and before SFA staff received training on NSMP. Key

staff from participating SFAs attended a three-day training session in June, 1994. Staff were expected

to begin serving meals planned using NSMP the following fall, with the goal of achieving full

implementation by Fall 1995.

Implementation was substantially delayed in most SFAs because of a significant lag in the approval of

NSMP software systems. Software vendors were slow to submit products for USDA review and

approval, and many of the software systems submitted did not satisfy the functional criteria defined by

USDA. By January 1995, only two software systems had been approved. Participating SFAs were

asked to select one of the two available systems and to continue to work toward full implementation

by Fall 1995. 
3

Exhibit 2 Nu t ri e nt St a n d a rds Used in the Eva l u at i o n

N U T R I E N T S TA N D A R D

St a n d a rds Defined for NSMP

Nu t ri e nts with established RDAs : Bre a k f a s t : O n e - fo u rth of the RDA

Ca l o ri e s,p ro te i n , vitamin A, vitamin C, Lu n c h : O n e - t h i rd of the RDA

ca l c i u m ,and iro n

Nu t ri e nts included in the Di e t a ry

Guidelines for Am e ri ca n s :

Total fat < 30% of total ca l o ri e s

Sat u rated fat < 10% of total ca l o ri e s

N RC Re co m m e n d at i o n s

Ca r bo hyd rate > 55% of total ca l o ri e s

Pro te i n < 15% of total ca l o ri e s

Ch o l e s te ro l Bre a k f a s t : < 75 mg

Lu n c h : < 100 mg

Sod i u m Bre a k f a s t : < 600 mg

Lu n c h : < 800 mg

The evaluation examined the process of NSMP implementation in demonstration SFAs and assessed

how well menus planned under NSMP complied with defined nutrient standards (Exhibit 2). For

purposes of the evaluation, menus were also compared to National Research Council (NRC)

recommendations for carbohydrate, protein, cholesterol, and sodium content. (SFAs were not

expected to meet the NRC recommendations.) In addition, the evaluation assessed diff e rences in

p rogram operations and costs between Spring 1994 (pre-NSMP or before NSMP) and Spring 1997

(NSMP or after NSMP).

The evaluation did not include a control group and sample sizes were small. For these reasons, the

reader is cautioned that diff e rences between pre-NSMP and NSMP measures can not necessarily

be ascribed to NSMP and are not necessarily re p resentative of what might happen in pro g r a m s

n a t i o n w i d e .

Evaluation of the Nutrient Standard Menu Planning Demonstration
4 Summary of Findings/August 1998

I m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f N S M P i n D e m o n s t r a t i o n S F A s

Less than half (16) of the original 34 SFAs fully implemented NSMP. Ten of these SFAs implemented

N SMP in full accordance with expectations. The other six SFAs used a modified approach to

weighted nutrient analysis. Modifications included basing data used in the weighted analysis on

p roduction data from a subset of schools rather than all schools in the district or on staff pre d i c t i o n s

rather than actual menu production data. 

Four SFAs achieved only partial implementation and three SFAs never implemented NSMP. D i rectors in

the four partially implemented SFAs re p o rted that they did not achieve full implementation because

they were unable to dedicate the number of staff labor hours re q u i red. One of the three nonimplemented SFAs attempted to implement NSMP according to the protocol, but never got beyond

the process of entering data and analyzing initial menus. The other two non-implemented SFA s

deviated substantially from the NSMP protocol. Both of these SFAs perf o rmed unweighted analyses

and one SFA used unapproved software. 

A majority of eleven SFAs that withdrew from the demonstration did so because of concern about

the use of weighted nutrient analysis. Most often, the concern centered around the amount of staff

labor re q u i red to obtain district-wide menu production data. Some SFA directors were also

c o n c e rned that use of weighted nutrient analysis would limit flexibility in menu planning and

d e c rease the ability of individual schools to cater to students’ pre f e rences. A few directors were

w o rried that a weighted analysis could only meet nutrient standards if popular high-fat food items

w e re eliminated or off e red much less fre q u e n t l y. These directors believed that such changes would

have a negative impact on lunch participation in middle and high schools. 

Other factors contributing to SFA withdrawal included problems with NSMP software

(unavailability, incompatibility, frequent problems with initial releases); the short implementation

time line; a change in SFA directors; and SFA directors’ responses to pending program regulations

not directly related to the demonstration. 

Most SFAs r e q u i r ed substantially more time to implement NSMP than anticipated. Among the 16

S FAs that fully implemented NSMP, an average of 19 months elapsed between the time SFA staff

s t a rted working on NSMP implementation and the time NSMP menus were served in all schools.

The range was very broad, with a minimum of three months and a maximum of 33 months.

Ve ry large SFAs and, to a lesser extent, small SFAs were less likely to implement NSMP than

medium or large SF A s . Most of the very large SFAs (enrollment of 25,000 or more) that did not

implement NSMP withdrew from the demonstration. The primary reason for termination was

c o n c e rn about the use of weighted analysis, specifically the level of eff o rt involved in collecting and

o rganizing district-wide menu production data. The burden associated with complying with this

re q u i rement clearly escalates as district size increases, unless a district is fully computerized or has

highly centralized food production. 

T h ree of four small SFAs (enrollment of less than 2,500) that did not implement NSMP also dro p p e d

out of the demonstration. The major issue for small SFAs was the amount of work involved in NSMP

implementation given limited staff i n g .
S FAs that had some centralized food production prior to NSMP were more likely to achieve full

implementation, without modification, than SFAs with little or no centralized pr o d u c t i o n . T h e

p resence of centralized food production may benefit NSMP implementation by reducing the amount of

work re q u i red to document district-wide food usage. In addition, a more centralized program is likely to

face fewer problems in identifying standardized recipes and ensuring that these recipes are used in all

f o od production locations.

S FAs that had fully centralized menu planning prior to NSMP were more likely to achieve full

implementation, without modification, than SFAs with decentralized menu planning. In order to

implement NSMP in situations where schools have limited or total autonomy in menu planning, SFA s

must either reduce the level of local control—i.e., move to centralized menu planning—or analyze

menus for individual schools. 

The number of staff hours devoted to NSMP implementation varied widely. The total number of

hours devoted to NSMP implementation ranged from 334 hours, for a small district that had centralized

menu planning prior to the initiation of NSMP and some centralized food production, to 3,830 hours,

for a very large district that maintained partially decentralized menu planning for middle and high

schools even after NSMP implementation. The median was 1,139 hours. Based on re p o rted staff

salaries, exclusive of fringe benefits, total costs for start-up labor ranged from $4,272 to $41,434, in 1997

dollars, with a median of $16,139. 

Evaluation of the Nutrient Standard Menu Planning Demonstration 5
6 Summary of Findings/August 1998

Data entry and staff training together accounted for more than half of all labor hours spent on

NSMP implementation (Exhibit 3). Less than ten percent of all re p o rted labor was associated with

planning and analyzing menus. Thus, nine out of every ten hours spent on NSMP implementation

was devoted, essentially, to building the system infrastru c t u re. Only one of every ten hours was spent

using the system to assess status of current and interim menus. 

A majority of SFAs r e p o rted that one or more NSMP tasks imposed a significant burden on SFA

s t a ff (Exhibit 4). Only six of the 23 directors who continued in the demonstration through Spring

1997 re p o rted that NSMP implementation did not impose an undue burden on SFA staff. The specific

task most often cited as a significant burden was obtaining menu production data to support use of

weighted nutrient analysis. 

Tasks that were least often perceived as imposing a significant burden were those re q u i red for any

menu planning option: planning menus, marketing healthy food choices, developing specifications for

p u rchased foods, and monitoring purchased food s .

All SFAs made errors in their nutrient analyses. The most common errors were omission of a

planned menu item and inaccurate serving projections. In a weekly analysis, about half of the SFA s

omitted five or more menu items. Condiments, including salad dressing, tartar sauce, mayonnaise, and

other high-fat items, were the most frequent omissions. Major menu items omitted from an analysis

w e re generally alternative entree choices (e.g., salad bars, other specialty bars, or sandwiches) or one or

m o re types of milk. In general, such omissions were made consistently in each daily analysis. Errors in

s e rving projections generally resulted from failure to separate out a la cart e and adult servings fro m

menu production figures. 

F o o d s O f f e r e d B e f o r e a n d A f t e r N S M P

Changes in the types of food off e red in NSMP menus were consistent with recommendations made in

NSMP training. Compared to pre-NSMP menus, NSMP lunch menus included m o re of the following

f o ods: skim milk and flavored lowfat milk; fresh fruit; raw vegetables and salads; extra bread and grain

choices; pasta-based entrees; rice; and desserts. NSMP lunch menus also included l e s s of the following

f o ods: whole milk; f rench fries and similar potato products; entrees that tend to be high in fat, such as

b readed meat, poultry and fish, burgers, nachos, and hot dogs; and snack chips. Secondary school

menus showed more change than elementary school menus.

NSMP breakfast menus included m o re skim milk and flavored lowfat milk; canned and fresh fruit; fru i t

juice; breakfast potatoes; yogurt; cold cereals; and pancakes, and less whole milk; sausages; muffins; and

F rench toast.

NSMP menus included approximately the same number of daily options as pre-NSMP menus.

T h e re were no significant diff e rences between pre-NSMP and NSMP menus in the average number of

choices off e red to students, within menu item category, each day. 

The variety of foods of f e r ed over the course of a week was comparable before and after NSMP. T h e re

w e re no significant diff e rences between pre-NSMP and NSMP menus in the number of diff e rent types of

f o od off e red over the course of a week within major food categories, e.g., fruits, vegetables, entrees. 
Evaluation of the Nutrient Standard Menu Planning Demonstration 7
8 Summary of Findings/August 1998

N u t r i e n t C o n t e n t o f L u n c h e s 

This analysis is based on data from 19 SFAs that implemented NSMP, either district-wide or for

e l e m e n t a ry lunches only. All findings are based on weighted nutrient analyses. 

Lunches served both before and after implementation of NSMP provided one-third or more of the

RDA for calories and key nutrients (Exhibit 5). Lunches served at both points in time pro v i d e d

m o re than one-third of the RDA, with the exception of calories in secondary school lunches.

E l e m e n t a ry school lunches served after NSMP provided significantly fewer calories and less pro t e i n

than lunches served prior to NSMP. Secondary school lunches served after NSMP pro v i d e d

significantly more vitamin A than lunches served before NSMP. These diff e rences have little

substantive importance, however, because lunches served at both points in time exceeded the NSMP

s t a n d a rd of one-third of the RDA.

Lunches served after NSMP were significantly lower in fat than pre-NSMP lunches, but continued

to exceed the D i e t a ry Guidelines goal of no more than 30 percent of calories from fat (Exhibit 6).

NSMP lunches derived significantly fewer calories from fat than lunches served before NSMP (31%

for elementary NSMP lunches and 33% for secondary NSMP lunches versus 36% for both elementary

and secondary pre-NSMP lunches). The five percentage point drop in the percent of calories from fat

in elementary school lunches re p resents an overall decrease in actual fat calories of 19 percent. For

s e c o n d a ry school lunches, the three percentage point drop in percent of calories from fat re p resents an

12 percent decrease in actual fat calories.

Lunches served after NSMP provided significantly fewer calories from saturated fat than pr e -

NSMP lunches, but continued to exceed the D i e t a ry Guidelines goal of less than 10 percent of

calories from saturated fat (Exhibit 6). The percentage of calories from saturated fat in elementary

school lunches dropped three percentage points over the course of the demonstration (14% versus

11%). This diff e rence re p resents a decline of 25 percent in actual saturated fat calories. The

p e rcentage of calories from saturated fat in secondary school lunches dropped one percentage point

(13% versus 12%), equivalent to a 16 percent decrease in actual saturated fat calories. 

Lunches served after NSMP provided significantly more calories from carbohydrate than pr e -

NSMP lunches (Exhibit 6). NSMP lunches derived significantly more calories from carbohydrate

than lunches served before NSMP (54% for elementary NSMP lunches and 52% for secondary NSMP

lunched versus 49% for both elementary and secondary pre-NSMP lunches). Despite these incre a s e s ,

lunches served in both types of schools continued to fall short of the NRC recommendation of more

than 55 percent of calories from carbohydrate.

Lunches served after NSMP provided significantly less cholesterol then pre-NSMP lunches.

Amounts of sodium and fiber were similar (Exhibit 7). NSMP lunches served in both elementary

schools and secondary schools were significantly lower in cholesterol than lunches served prior to

N S M P. These diff e rences are of limited importance, however, because lunches served at both points in

time met the NRC recommendation for cholesterol. Sodium content was essentially the same in pre -

NSMP and NSMP lunches and, at both points in time, exceeded the NRC recommendation by a

substantial margin. Fiber content of pre-NSMP and NSMP lunches was not significantly diff e rent. 
Evaluation of the Nutrient Standard Menu Planning Demonstration 9
Summary of Findings/August 1998
Evaluation of the Nutrient Standard Menu Planning Demonstration 11
12 Summary of Findings/August 1998

N u t r i e n t C o n t e n t o f B r e a k f a s t s

This analysis is based on data from 12 SFAs that implemented NSMP for breakfast menus. All findings

a re based on weighted nutrient analyses.

With the exception of calories, breakfasts served both before and after NSMP provided one-four t h

of the RDA (Exhibit 8). This finding is consistent with SFA director re p o rts that the calorie

s t a n d a rd for breakfast was one of the most difficult to meet.

NSMP breakfasts served in secondary schools provided significantly greater amounts of vitamin A

and iron than pre-NSMP breakfasts (Exhibit 8). Although, on average, pre-NSMP breakfasts serv e d

in secondary schools provided more than one-fourth of the RDA for vitamin A and iron, the average

amount of both nutrients was significantly higher in NSMP breakfasts. Both of these increases are

attributable to an increase in the use of cold cereals, most of which were fortified with vitamin A and

i ron, in NSMP breakfasts. 

Breakfasts served before and after NSMP satisfied the Dietary Guidelines goal for calories 

from fat (Exhibit 9). While both pre-NSMP and NSMP breakfasts were consistent with the

Dietary Guidelines goal of no more than 30 percent of calories from fat, the percentage of calories

from fat in NSMP breakfasts served in secondary schools was significantly lower than pre-NSMP

breakfasts (24% versus 29%). 

B r eakfasts served after NSMP provided significantly fewer calories from saturated fat than

b reakfasts served before NSMP, and satisfied the D i e t a ry Guidelines goal for saturated fat (Exhibit

9 ) . NSMP breakfasts served in both elementary and secondary schools provided less than ten perc e n t

of calories from saturated fat (actual values of 9.5% and 9.7%, rounded to 10% in Exhibit 9),

c o m p a red to 13% and 14%, re s p e c t i v e l y, for pre-NSMP breakfasts. 

B r eakfasts served before and after NSMP satisfied the NRC recommendation for calories fr o m

carbohydrate (Exhibit 9). While both pre-NSMP and NSMP breakfasts were consistent with the

NRC recommendation of more than 55 percent of calories from carbohydrate, NSMP bre a k f a s t s

s e rved in both elementary and secondary schools provided significantly more calories fro m

carbohydrate than pre-NSMP breakfasts. 

B r eakfasts served before and after NSMP provided comparable amounts of cholesterol and sodium

(Exhibit 10). B reakfasts served both before and after NSMP satisfied the NRC recommendation for

c h o l e s t e rol. The same is true for sodium in elementary school breakfasts, however, secondary school

b reakfasts exceeded the recommendation for sodium at both points in time. Fiber content was higher

in breakfasts served after NSMP and this diff e rence was statistically significant for secondary school

b re a k f a s t s .
Evaluation of the Nutrient Standard Menu Planning Demonstration 13
14 Summary of Findings/August 1998
Evaluation of the Nutrient Standard Menu Planning Demonstration 15
16 Summary of Findings/August 1998

W e i g h t e d a n d U n w e i g h t e d N u t r i e n t A n a l y s e s

A key component of NSMP is use of a weighted nutrient analysis to determine nutrient content of

planned menus. A weighted analysis incorporates information about student selection patterns and

does not assume that every student takes one serving of every type of food off e red (e.g., milk, entre e ,

f ruits, vegetables). This approach provides a picture of the average lunch serv e d to students. In

contrast, an unweighted nutrient analysis re p resents a simple average of all foods off e red, providing a

p i c t u re of the average lunch off e re d to students. 

Menus planned before and after NSMP were analyzed using both weighted and unweighted analysis

techniques and the results of the two analyses were compared. Findings for weighted and unweighted

analyses of Spring 1997 lunch menus are summarized below. The reader is cautioned that the pattern s

re p o rted here are not necessarily re p resentative of what can be expected for programs nationwide.

The sample of SFAs included in this analysis was very small and was self-selected. More o v e r, some of

the SFAs did not complete NSMP implementation and those that did planned Spring 1997 menus

using weighted analysis. It is possible that the results presented here may have been diff e rent if all

S FAs had been included or if SFAs had planned Spring 1997 menus using unweighted analysis.

Unweighted analysis of NSMP lunch menus resulted in greater estimated contributions to RDAs

for calories and key nutrients (Exhibit 11). The disparity between weighted and unweighted

estimates is g reatest for vitamins A and C, and tends to be larger for secondary school lunches.

R e g a rdless of which analysis is used, however, NSMP lunch menus in both elementary and secondary

schools provided one-third or more of the RDA for calories and key nutrients with the exception of

calories in secondary schools. Using weighted analysis, secondary school lunch menus, on average, fell

just short of the one-third RDA target for calories.

Weighted and unweighted estimates of the percentage of calories from fat, saturated fat, carbohydrate,

and protein in NSMP lunch menus were very similar (Exhibit 12). R e g a rdless of which analysis is

used, NSMP lunch menus did not meet D i e t a ry Guidelines goals for calories from fat or saturated fat.

Unweighted analysis of NSMP lunch menus resulted in somewhat greater estimates of cholester o l ,

sodium, and fiber content (Exhibit 13). Although some of these diff e rences are statistically

significant, they do not affect conclusions about whether NSMP lunch menus met NRC

re c o m m e n d a t i o n s .
Evaluation of the Nutrient Standard Menu Planning Demonstration 17
18 Summary of Findings/August 1998
Evaluation of the Nutrient Standard Menu Planning Demonstration 19
20 Summary of Findings/August 1998

P r o g r a m O p e r a t i o n s B e f o r e a n d A f t e r N S M P 

Use of NSMP did not influence NSLP participation rates (Exhibit 14). The overall rate of

student participation in the NSLP was essentially constant over the course of the demonstration. 

SBP participation rates increased significantly over time, however, the sizeable increase that was

observed (a 26% increase in overall participation, from 6.5% to 8.2%) probably can not be

attributed to NSMP. Each of the SFAs that showed a substantial increase in breakfast

participation over time had made a concerted effort to increase SBP participation, particularly

among middle and high school students, as part of an ongoing national initiative.

The vast majority of kitchen managers did not believe that NSMP had an impact on levels of

plate waste. More than two-thirds of kitchen managers reported that the level of plate waste

observed after NSMP, for a variety of different food items, was no different than what was

observed prior to NSMP. 

Moreover, with the exception of cooked vegetables and, to a lesser extent, entrees in elementary

and middle schools, changes that were reported were largely positive, i.e., managers indicated that

students were wasting less food since the implementation of NSMP. Fifteen to 25 percent of

kitchen managers reported that students wasted more cooked vegetables after implementation of

NSMP than before NSMP. Fourteen to 18 percent of managers in elementary and middle schools

reported an increase in waste of lunch entrees. 
21

More SFAs used centralized menu planning and cycle menus after implementing NSMP

than before NSMP. Four of six fully implemented SFAs that entered the demonstration with a

decentralized menu planning system switched to a fully centralized system. Eight of eleven fully

implemented SFAs that did not use a cycle menu prior to NSMP had adopted one by the end of

the demonstration. 

Most SFA directors spend the same amount of time on NSMP maintenance as they spent on

traditional menu planning activities prior to NSMP. Directors in nine of the 16 SFAs that

achieved full implementation reported that NSMP maintenance requires about the same

amount of their time as routine menu planning activities required before NSMP. Three

directors reported that NSMP maintenance requires less of their time than previous menu

planning. Only four directors reported that NSMP maintenance takes more of their time than

previous menu planning practices. 

About half of the SFA directors reported that other staff members spend more time on

NSMP maintenance than on previous menu planning practices. Required NSMP activities

that reportedly contribute to an increased level of staff effort include: reviewing and entering

data for purchased products; collecting and synthesizing menu production data; updating

nutrient analyses with new production data or early substitutions; and continuing to modify and

test recipes. 

State agencies plan to use a variety of approaches in scheduling SMI and CRE reviews. Of

12 State directors who had made decisions about how to incorporate SMI reviews, five States

were conducting combined SMI/CRE reviews. Four States were conducting SMI and CRE

reviews on separate schedules, requiring two visits to each SFA every five years. The remaining

three States planned to use both scheduling approaches, depending on the circumstances in

each SFA.

Almost all State directors using combined SMI/CRE reviews r e p o rted that these reviews took

m o re time than traditional CRE r e v i e w s . T h ree State directors estimated the increase to be

about four hours and two estimated it to be six to eight hours. 

Evaluation of the Nutrient Standard Menu Planning Demonstration
22 Summary of Findings/August 1998

P r o g r a m C o s t s B e f o r e a n d A f t e r N S M P

The cost of producing reimbursable meals under NSMP was comparable to or lower than the cost

b e f o r e NSMP (Exhibit 15). P re-NSMP and NSMP meal costs were similar for middle and high

school lunches. NSMP costs were significantly lower than pre-NSMP costs for lunches in elementary

schools ($1.23 per lunch versus $1.36, in 1997 dollars). While it is possible that NSMP contributed to

this decrease (three SFA directors re p o rted that costs declined after implementing NSMP), another

possible explanation is an increase in the number of meals produced over time, with a stable labor pool

and fixed other costs. (Although participation remained constant, enrollment — and the number of

lunches produced — increased in most districts.) Average costs for NSMP breakfasts were comparable

to pre-NSMP breakfasts. 

Annual a la cart e revenues were comparable before and after NSMP . Although average annual a la

c a rt e revenues increased about 1.5 percent per year, from $42.75 per student before NSMP (1997

dollars) to $44.74 per student after NSMP, this diff e rence was not statistically significant.

NSMP did not affect SFAs’ utilization of donated commodities . The average level of commod i t y

assistance received after implementation of NSMP, expressed on a per-meal basis, was lower than the

level of assistance received before NSMP ($0.149 versus $0.163, in 1997 dollars). This diff e rence was

not statistically significant and is attributable to both a decline in the entitlement over time and a
Evaluation of the Nutrient Standard Menu Planning Demonstration 23

l a rge disparity in the amount of bonus commodities available in the two school years. On a dollar- f o rdollar basis, the availability of bonus commodities in SY 1993-94 (before NSMP) was more than thre e

times as great as the availability in SY 1996-97.

Although all SFAs entered the demonstration with computer capabilities, about half of the SF A s

had to purchase computer har d w a r e in order to implement NSMP . The total cost of hard w a re

p u rchases ranged from $500 to $6,500, with a median of $2,867. The most common purchase was a

computer with increased processing power. Other purchases included computer work stations, needed

in order to provide staff working on NSMP with more immediate access to computer hard w a re. 

Eight SFAs had to purchase softwar e . S FAs that did not have to purchase software either owned

nutrient analysis software prior to the demonstration or received a complimentary copy because they

w e re participating in the demonstration. Costs for software purchases ranged from $475 to $4,600,

with a median of $555. The $4,600 expenditure was incurred for a nutrient analysis module of a

multi-faceted software package for food service program management. 

Seven SFAs had to purchase other goods or services in order to implement NSMP. The most

common purchase was gram scales needed for accurate measurement of ingredients and portions. The

l a rgest equipment purchase re p o rted by an SFA was $53,750 for 35 milk coolers needed to store an

expanded array of fruit juices off e red in NSMP lunches. 

Total costs for har d w a r e, software, and other goods and services ranged from zero to more than

$56,000, with a median of $210. Excluding the site with the milk cooler purchase, the maximum

cost for NSMP-related purchases was $11,100. Among SFAs that had at least one hard w a re, software ,

or other NSMP-related purchase, the minimum cost was $200 and the median cost was $3,900.