Economic

Research

Service

Electronic Publications from the Food Assistance & Nutrition Research Program

Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family

Child Care Providers—Effects of

Lower Meal Reimbursements

A Report to Congress on the Family

Child Care Homes Legislative 

Changes Study

By Mary Kay Crepinsek, Nancy R. Burstein, Ellen B. Lee, Stephen

D. Kennedy, and William L. Hamilton of Abt Associates Inc.

ERS contact: Linda Ghelfi

Abstract

The introduction of tiered reimbursement rates in 1997 did not substantially affect the food

and nutrient composition of meals offered by Tier 2 providers in the Child and Adult Care

Food Program (CACFP). The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation

Act (PRWORA) of 1996 mandated a tiered reimbursement structure designed to target benefits more narrowly to low-income children and called for a study of its effects on program participation and child nutrition. PRWORA reduced reimbursement rates for Tier 2 providers

(providers who are not low-income themselves and do not live in low-income areas).

According to our 1999 study, Tier 2 providers neither cut back on meals and snacks served

nor offered less nutritious foods, despite initial concerns about how Tier 2 providers would

react to the reduced rates. Tier 2 meals have not compromised the overall goal of the CACFP

meal component requirements: to provide a mix of foods that make an important contribution

to a child’s major nutritional needs.

E-FAN-02-006

March 2002
ii / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

Acknowledgements

The authors are indebted to the many CACFP child care providers who completed our surveys and

allowed meal observers into their homes. We also thank the parents who consented to the

observations. Other Abt Associates contributors to the report include K. P. Srinath, who designed

the sampling and weighting procedures; Diane Stoner, who directed the surveys of providers; Patty

Connor, the nutritionist who coordinated coding and data entry for the menu survey; Shao-hsun Keng

and Patrick Johnson, who assisted with the modeling applications; Eileen Fahey and Jan Nicholson,

who led the production effort; Mary Kay Fox, our internal technical reviewer; and Joan McLaughlin,

Abt project director for the initial phase of the study. ERS and FNS reviewers provided extremely

valuable comments, especially on econometric and nutrition issues. Linda Ghelfi, serving as the ERS

technical officer, provided invaluable guidance, support, and feedback throughout the study.

Contact for further information

ERS’ contract representative on this study is Linda Ghelfi. For further information, e-mail her at

lghelfi@ers.usda.gov; write to her at ERS-FRED-Room 2081, 1800 M Street NW, Washington, DC

20036-5831; or call her at (202) 694-5437.
Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / iii

Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................. v

Introduction .................................................................... 1

Description of the Child and Adult Care Food Program ............................... 2

The Legislative Changes Implemented in 1997 ...................................... 3

The Family Child Care Homes Legislative Changes Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Analysis Approach and Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Meals and Snacks Offered by Tier 2 Providers ....................................... 9

Proportion of Tier 2 Providers Offering Specific Meals and Snacks ...................... 9

Meal Combinations Commonly Offered by Tier 2 Providers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Compliance with CACFP Requirements and Variety of Foods Offered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Compliance with Meal Component Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Variety of Foods Offered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Food and Nutrient Composition of CACFP Tier 2 Breakfasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Benchmarks Used to Evaluate Nutrient Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Foods Offered in CACFP Breakfasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Nutrient Content of CACFP Breakfasts Relative to RDAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Percent of Providers Offering at Least One-Fourth of the RDA at Breakfast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Nutrient Content of CACFP Breakfasts Relative to Dietary Guidelines and NRC

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Percent of Providers Meeting the Dietary Guidelines and NRC Recommendations

at Breakfast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Food and Nutrient Composition of CACFP Tier 2 Lunches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Foods Offered in CACFP Lunches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Nutrient Content of CACFP Lunches Relative to RDAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Percent of Providers Offering at Least One-Third of the RDA at Lunch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Nutrient Content of CACFP Lunches Relative to Dietary Guidelines and 

NRC Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Percent of Providers Meeting the Dietary Guidelines and NRC Recommendations 

for Lunch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Food and Nutrient Composition of CACFP Tier 2 Snacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Foods Offered in CACFP Snacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Nutrient Content of Snacks Offered Relative to RDAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Nutrient Content of Snacks Relative to Dietary Guidelines and NRC Recommendations . . . . 43

Nutrient Composition of Two Combinations of CACFP Tier 2 Meals and Snacks . . . . . . . . . 45

Nutrient Content of Meal and Snack Combinations Relative to RDAs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Nutrient Content of Meal and Snack Combinations Relative to Dietary Guidelines

and NRC Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

[continued]
iv / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

Contents (continued)

Nutritional Aspects of Meals Offered by Former CACFP Providers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Appendix A: Sampling and Weighting Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Weighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Nonresponse Bias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Appendix B: Menu Survey and Meal Observation Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Appendix C: Analytic Approach Used in Determining the Nutrient Content of Meals and

Snacks Offered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Menu and Meal Observation Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Estimating Portion Sizes from Meal Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Calculation of Nutrient Measures from Menu Data and Portion Size Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Appendix D: Estimating Impacts of Tiering on Nutrient Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Two Illustrative Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Results for the Actual Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Further Results for the Actual Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Appendix E: Effect on Nutrient Estimates of Using Different Nutrient Databases . . . . . . . . 107

Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Appendix F: Survey of Former CACFP Providers: Meals and Snacks Offered and Their

Nutrient Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Sample Design and Nonresponse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

Nutritional Aspects of Meals Offered by Former CACFP Providers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / v

Executive Summary

The introduction of tiered reimbursement rates in 1997 did not substantially affect the food and

nutrient composition of meals offered by Tier 2 family child care providers in the Child and Adult

Care Food Program (CACFP). The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation

Act (PRWORA) of 1996 mandated a tiered reimbursement structure—designed to target benefits

more narrowly to low-income children—and called for a study of its effects on program participation

and on meals offered to children. The PRWORA reduced reimbursement rates for Tier 2 providers

(providers who are not low-income themselves and do not live in low-income areas). According to

our 1999 study, Tier 2 providers neither cut back on meals and snacks served nor offered less

nutritious foods, despite initial concerns about how Tier 2 providers would react to the reduced rates. 

Tier 2 meals have not compromised the overall goal of the CACFP meal component requirements: to

provide a mix of foods that make an important contribution to a child’s major nutritional needs.

In accord with the PRWORA mandate, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) contracted with

Abt Associates Inc. to conduct the Family Child Care Homes Legislative Changes Study. This

report, one of several prepared as part of the study, presents findings pertaining to the effect of the

legislative changes on the number and nutritional quality of meals and snacks offered to children

participating in CACFP family child care homes. It is based on menu records and on-site meal

observation of a nationally representative sample of 542 Tier 2 CACFP homes in 1999, together with

comparable data from a 1995 study.

The CACFP and Tiering

The CACFP is a Federal program, administered by USDA, that helps provide meals and snacks in

participating child care and adult day care facilities. Providers of care are reimbursed at fixed rates

for the qualifying meals they serve.

Seeking to focus CACFP benefits more narrowly on low-income children, the PRWORA established

a two-tier structure of meal reimbursement rates for family child care homes. Homes that are located

in low-income areas or operated by persons with incomes at or below 185 percent of the Federal

poverty guidelines are designated as Tier 1. Meal reimbursement rates for Tier 1 homes are

comparable with the rates that existed for all CACFP homes before PRWORA. Family child care

homes that do not meet the low-income criteria are designated as Tier 2. Tier 2 homes receive lower

reimbursements, although they can be reimbursed at Tier 1 rates for children whose household

income is at or below 185 percent of the poverty guideline. 

Tiering cut meal reimbursements almost in half for those providers classified as Tier 2. In fiscal year

1999, Tier 2 homes received meal reimbursements averaging $177 per month (including some meals

reimbursed at the Tier 1 rates). Had they been reimbursed at the Tier 1 rates for all meals, their

monthly reimbursements would have averaged $326.
1 The CACFP reimburses providers for only three of these four eating occasions per child per day. 

However, at virtually all meals and almost 90 percent of snacks at least one child is present whose meal is

eligible for reimbursement.

2 The 1999 study includes only Tier 2 providers, while the 1995 study was representative of all CACFP

family child care providers at the time. To separate the effect of tiering from the effect of the different

study populations in 1995 and 1999, the analysis controls for two factors used in assigning tier status: the

provider’s income and the proportion of children in the provider’s census block group who live in lowincome households.

vi / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

It was unknown how Tier 2 providers would respond to the lower reimbursement rates. One

possibility was that providers would reduce their food expenditures by offering fewer meals and

snacks, or by serving smaller portion sizes, less costly foods, or a less varied menu. Such strategies

might in turn reduce the quantity or quality of the foods and nutrients provided to children.

To address these hypotheses, the study examined meals and snacks offered by Tier 2 family child

care home providers in 1999. It considered the frequency with which meals and snacks are offered,

the extent to which they comply with CACFP requirements regarding the types of food to be served,

and their nutritional content.

Overall, based on comparisons with a group of family child care homes from a 1995 study, and

controlling for those characteristics that determine tier, we find that reimbursement tiering did not

have a substantial effect on the quantity or nutritional quality of meals offered in the CACFP. 

Although some patterns suggest minor menu adjustments that could reflect an attempt to control

costs, these have little impact on the overall nutrient profile of meals and snacks offered.

Meals Offered

Virtually all Tier 2 CACFP providers offer lunch, and around 95 percent offer breakfast and an

afternoon snack. Over half offer a morning snack, but relatively few offer supper (14 percent) or an

evening snack (5 percent). Two meal-snack combinations are particularly common: breakfast,

lunch, and one snack, usually in the afternoon; and breakfast, lunch, and both the morning and

afternoon snacks.1

 More than 80 percent of providers offer one of these two combinations.

Each type of meal and snack was offered by about the same proportion of Tier 2 providers in 1999 as

by providers in 1995, controlling for factors used in determining providers’ tier status.2

 Estimated

differences between the years were small and no meal or snack was served significantly less often in

1999.

Compliance with CACFP Meal Component Requirements

To qualify for CACFP reimbursement, meals and snacks must contain specified minimum amounts

of some or all of four major meal components included in the CACFP meal pattern: milk; fruits,

vegetables, and juices; bread and bread alternates such as cereal; and meat and acceptable meat

alternates. Lunches must include all four components, breakfasts must include all but meat, and

snacks must include any two of the four.

The vast majority of Tier 2 meals and snacks in 1999 met the meal pattern requirements. More than

90 percent of all breakfasts, lunches, and morning and afternoon snacks complied. Over 80 percent
3 Benchmarks for fat, saturated fat, carbohydrate, cholesterol, and sodium are applied only to meals offered

to children ages 3-12.

Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / vii

of suppers and evening snacks did so. Compliance rates were generally not significantly different for

Tier 2 meals in 1999 than for meals offered by providers in 1995, controlling for tier-related

characteristics. The exception was the compliance rate for the morning snack, which was

significantly higher in 1999.

Variety of Foods Served

CACFP meals seldom offer more than a single food item within a meal component (except that

lunches, as required by program regulations, nearly always include two foods within the fruitvegetable-juice category). Substantial variety occurs across days of the week, however. The average

Tier 2 provider’s weekly lunch menu, for example, features nine different fruits or vegetables, five

different meats or meat alternates, and three different bread or bread alternates.

Most measures of variety show little difference between Tier 2 providers in 1999 and similar

providers in 1995. Nonetheless, a few small but statistically significant differences in the particular

meal components offered could represent menu adjustments made in an effort to control costs. Tier

2 providers less frequently offered meat and meat alternates at breakfast, and smaller proportions of

snacks included more than a single kind of fruit, vegetable, or juice. These differences may reflect

responses to the lower Tier 2 reimbursement rates, although that interpretation cannot be proven. In

any event, the differences in the overall menu pattern are quite small and do not appear to have

created any substantial reductions or improvements in the nutritional benefits of the CACFP.

Food and Nutrient Composition of Meals Offered

CACFP regulations do not establish nutrient-based standards for meals or snacks. The required meal

components, however, are aimed at contributing substantively to children’s major nutritional needs. 

The nutrients and food components examined in this study were selected on the basis of previous

CACFP research, priorities established for the National School Lunch and School Breakfast

Programs, and national nutrition guidance. We examine nutrient quantities as a percent of the

Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs) for food energy and five key nutrients: protein, vitamin

A, vitamin C, calcium, and iron. Useful benchmarks for these nutrient measures come from the

school-based programs, which call for breakfast to provide at least one-fourth of the RDA, and for

lunch to provide at least one-third of the RDA. We compare the total fat and saturated fat content of

the meals with the current Dietary Guidelines for Americans goals of no more than 30 percent of

food energy from total fat and less than 10 percent of energy from saturated fat. The study also

examines the percent of energy from carbohydrate and the total amounts of sodium and cholesterol in

the meals. Benchmarks for these measures of nutritional quality come from the National Research

Council’s Diet and Health report. Recommendations are for at least 55 percent of total food energy

from carbohydrate, no more than 2,400 milligrams (mg.) of sodium per day, and no more than 300

mg. of cholesterol per day.

The analyses summarized below assess the nutrients supplied by breakfasts, lunches, morning

snacks, and afternoon snacks offered to children 1-12 years of age in CACFP homes.3

 They also

examine the total nutrient contributions from the two predominant combinations of meals and snacks: 
4 While Dietary Guidelines and NRC recommendations are intended to apply to average total daily food

intake rather than specific meals, it is common practice in child nutrition research to examine the

contributions of particular meals, such as breakfast and lunch, to daily goals. For example, nutrition

standards for the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program include the quantitative

Dietary Guidelines recommendations for fat and saturated fat. And USDA-sponsored research on these

programs usually includes comparisons with NRC recommendations for carbohydrate, sodium, and

cholesterol.

viii / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

breakfast, lunch, and either the morning or afternoon snack; and breakfast, lunch, and both the

morning and afternoon snacks. Other meals and combinations occur too seldom to be analyzed.

Breakfast. Most Tier 2 providers in 1999 offered breakfasts that supplied at least one-fourth of the

RDA for the key nutrient measures; they also were consistent with the Dietary Guidelines and

National Research Council’s (NRC) recommendations for other measures of nutritional quality.4

There are two exceptions. Food energy was typically provided at less than one-fourth of the RDA. 

And about half of the providers offered breakfasts with more than 10 percent of energy from

saturated fat, while the recommendation is for less than 10 percent. 

The breakfasts offered by Tier 2 providers in 1999 differed little in nutrient content from those

offered by similar providers in 1995, controlling for provider income and location. The only

statistically significant increases seen were in the mean percentage of the RDA and the percentage of

providers offering at least one-fourth of the RDA for food energy. Despite somewhat less frequent

offerings of meat and meat alternates at breakfast, there was no reduction in the total or saturated fat

content, but most providers met the Dietary Guidelines recommendation for total fat in both 1999

and 1995.

Lunch. Comparisons against the benchmarks for lunch yield mixed results. Large majorities of Tier

2 providers in 1999 offered lunches with at least one-third of the RDA for protein, vitamins A and C,

and calcium, and that were consistent with the Diet and Health report’s recommendation for

cholesterol. However, most providers’ lunches supplied less than one-third of the RDA for food

energy and iron, and most lunches were above the recommended ranges for fat and saturated fat as a

percent of food energy and for sodium. Lunches generally fell short of the goal for more than 55

percent of energy from carbohydrate.

The lunches offered by Tier 2 providers in 1999 were more likely to meet the RDA benchmarks for

food energy and vitamin C than lunches offered by similar providers in 1995. More Tier 2 menus in

1999 included high sodium condiments (such as ketchup), hot dogs, processed cheese (primarily

American cheese), and breaded fried foods (such as chicken nuggets). 

Snacks. Morning and afternoon snacks were quite similar in terms of the foods commonly offered

and their nutrient profile. Both contributed around one-third of the RDA for protein and vitamin C,

on average, and 10 to 20 percent of the RDA for food energy and other key nutrients. Although

recommendations for the various macronutrients as a percent of food energy are meant to apply to a 
5 Young children may have limited capacity for food consumption at meals and need to rely on snacks to

meet their nutrient requirements. For some children snacks may just contribute to overconsumption. No

specific proportions of recommended daily levels of nutrients have been suggested as goals for child

nutrition programs serving snacks. The analysis describes the contribution of these eating occasions to

total daily nutrient recommendations. It is important to be able to evaluate the potential for CACFP snacks

to enhance or detract from the mostly positive nutrient profile based on breakfast and lunch.

Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / ix

24-hour period rather than small eating occasions like snacks, the average observed values fall within

the daily recommended ranges for all but saturated fat.5

Snacks offered by Tier 2 providers in 1999 show several statistically significant differences from

those offered by providers in 1995. Some differences reflect larger portions, such as increases in

food energy in both morning and afternoon snacks. In the opposite direction, Tier 2 providers in

1999, relative to similar providers in 1995, supplied significantly less vitamin A in afternoon snacks. 

This reflects reductions in the frequency with which milk and fresh vegetables are offered in the

afternoon snack. 

Meal and Snack Combinations. Tier 2 providers offering breakfast, lunch, and either morning or

afternoon snack provided a nutrient package that includes, on average, more than 100 percent of the

RDA for protein, vitamin A, and vitamin C, and more than two-thirds of the RDA for food energy,

calcium, and iron. Providers offering the other common combination—breakfast, lunch, and both

morning and afternoon snacks—supplied somewhat larger quantities of all nutrients, including more

than 100 percent of the RDA for calcium. 

Less positively, the average percentage of food energy from saturated fat is about 13 percent for both

meal combinations, while average daily recommendations call for less than 10 percent. Total sodium

levels also seem high relative to food energy. For the combination of breakfast, lunch, and morning

and afternoon snacks, average sodium levels amount to more than 85 percent of the recommended

daily limit of 2400 mg.

For the combination of breakfast, lunch, and two snacks, food energy was the only measure

significantly higher for Tier 2 providers in 1999 than for similar providers in 1995. The one-snack

combination showed no 1995-99 differences for any of the nutrient measures. 

Nutritional Aspects of Meals Offered by Former CACFP Providers

Another question raised as part of the Family Child Care Homes Legislative Changes Study concerns

the nutrition provided in meals and snacks offered by family child care providers who left the

CACFP around the time tiering was implemented, but continued to provide child care. This group is

estimated to amount to about 5,500 providers nationwide in 1999. The study examined the frequency

with which these providers offer meals and snacks and selected nutritional characteristics of the

meals and snacks.

Compared with Tier 2 providers still participating in the CACFP in 1999, the former providers show

few differences that could be attributed to participation in the CACFP (or to reimbursement tiering). 

Former providers were somewhat less likely to offer breakfast and snacks than Tier 2 homes,

although it is not clear whether this is related to CACFP participation or to differences in operating

hours. The data suggest that while the foods offered by former CACFP providers differ somewhat

from Tier 2 providers’ offerings, the nutritional quality of the meals is basically the same. Because
x / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

the study sample of former providers was quite small (59 providers), the evidence on this group is not

as strong as for the rest of the findings in this report and should be interpreted with caution.
1 Other reports in the series include a summary report (Hamilton et al., FANRR-22) and examinations of the

effect of tiering on sponsors (Bernstein and Hamilton, E-FAN-02-003), participating providers (Zotov et

al., E-FAN-02-004), households with children in CACFP family child care (Crepinsek et al., E-FAN-02-

005), and trends in the number of providers participating in the CACFP (Hamilton et al., E-FAN-02-002).

Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 1

Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP 

Family Child Care Providers:

Effects of Lower Meal Reimbursements

Introduction

The Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) is a Federal program supporting nutritious meals

and snacks in participating child care and adult day care facilities. It is administered by the Food and

Nutrition Service (FNS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Under CACFP, care

providers receive a fixed reimbursement per meal served, with different reimbursement rates for

different types of meals, such as breakfasts and lunches. 

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) changed

the meal reimbursement structure for family child care homes. The law established two tiers of

reimbursement rates, with higher rates applying to homes in low-income areas or operated by lowincome persons. The intent of these changes to the CACFP was to target program benefits mainly to

low-income children.

The law also called for a study of how the new meal reimbursement structure affected CACFP family

child care homes, their sponsoring organizations, and the families of children participating in the

program. This report describes the food and nutrient content of meals and snacks offered to children

in CACFP family child care homes receiving the lower rates of reimbursement and the effect of

reimbursement tiering on these measures of nutritional quality. The report is one in a series of

reports on the Family Child Care Homes Legislative Changes Study, which was carried out by Abt

Associates Inc. under contract to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.1
2 Prior to enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L.

104-193), CACFP centers were allowed to claim reimbursement for an additional meal or snack for

children in care eight or more hours per day. 

3 As of July 1999, the CACFP also provides reimbursements for meals and snacks served to eligible children

in homeless shelters. Eligibility for the child care portion of the CACFP is limited to children age 12 and

under.

4 Three categories of reimbursement were established for participating homes, corresponding to family

incomes of participating children of: 125 percent or less of the applicable Federal poverty guideline for

households of a given size; 126 to 195 percent of the poverty guideline; and more than 195 percent of the

poverty guideline.

5 Meal reimbursements generated by participating homes were paid directly to the sponsoring agency. The

sponsor was permitted to deduct administrative costs before passing the remaining reimbursement on to the

providers.

2 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

Description of the Child and Adult Care Food Program

The CACFP reimburses child care providers for qualifying meals served. Reimbursement is limited

to a maximum of two meals and one snack or one meal and two snacks per day.2 The program

operates in nonresidential day care facilities including child care centers, after-school-hours child

care centers, family and group child care homes, and some adult day care centers.3

 In fiscal year

1999, the child care component of the program served an average of 2.5 million children daily at an

annual cost of $1.6 billion. Thirty-six percent of these children (959,181) were served through

family child care homes at a cost of $668 million or 42 percent of total program expenditures. The

CACFP is administered at the Federal level by FNS, an agency of USDA. State agencies generally

oversee the program at the local level.

When the program was first established by Congress in 1968 under Section 17 of the National School

Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1766), participation was limited to center-based child care in areas where poor

economic conditions existed. Beginning in 1976, family child care homes became eligible to

participate provided that they meet existing State licensing requirements where these are imposed, or

obtain approval from a State or local agency. In addition, homes must be sponsored by a nonprofit

organization that assumes responsibility for ensuring compliance with Federal and State regulations

and that acts as a conduit for meal reimbursements. 

Initially, reimbursement rates for meals and snacks served in homes, like those served in centers,

were based on a means test of the family incomes of individual children.4

 Providers complained that

the means test was overly burdensome and too invasive for their relationship with the families for

whom they provided child care. In addition, sponsors claimed that meal reimbursements were

insufficient to cover their administrative costs and allow for adequate reimbursement to the homes.5

As a consequence, very few homes participated in the program—fewer than 12,000 in December

1978.

The 1978 Child Nutrition Amendments (P.L. 95-627) incorporated wide-ranging changes to the

program with the purpose of expanding participation, particularly among family child care homes.

Most significantly, the 1978 Amendments eliminated the means test for family child care homes. In
6 Other changes included the establishment of alternative procedures for approving homes and the provision

of startup and expansion funds for family child care sponsors. Also, income eligibility thresholds for child

care centers were changed from 125 and 195 percent of the poverty guideline to 130 and 185 percent.

7 Glantz et al., 1997.

8 Regulations refer to mid-morning, mid-afternoon, and evening (nonsupper) eating occasions as

“supplements.” For simplicity, this report uses the more common term of “snacks.”

9 USDA also specifies a meal pattern for infants (birth-12 months). 7 CFR Ch. II, Part 226.20.

Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 3

addition, the Amendments separated the reimbursement of sponsors’ administrative costs from the

meal reimbursement for family child care homes.6

In the years following the elimination of the means test, the family child care component of the

CACFP grew tremendously. At the same time, it increasingly became a program serving higherincome children. The Early Childhood and Child Care Study, conducted in 1995, reported that over

190,000 homes were participating in the program, and more than 75 percent of the children served in

these homes were from families with incomes above 185 percent of the Federal poverty guideline.7

CACFP Meal-Pattern Requirements

From its inception, the goal of the CACFP has been to support the provision of nutritious meals to

children while in child care. To this end, USDA established minimum requirements for the meals

and snacks8

 offered by participating child care providers. The CACFP meal-pattern requirements are

designed to ensure that meals and snacks are nutritionally well-balanced and supply the kinds and

amounts of food required to make a reasonable contribution to children’s daily energy and nutrient

needs. The meal pattern specifies foods (meal components) to be offered at each meal and snack as

well as minimum portion sizes for children of different ages: 1-2 years; 3-5 years; and 6-12 years.9

The CACFP meal-pattern requirements for children age 1-12 years are summarized in Exhibit 1. In

addition to the meal pattern, USDA makes available to CACFP providers a variety of guidance

materials to assist in planning meals that are appealing, age-appropriate, and nutritious.

The Legislative Changes Implemented in 1997

As part of the PRWORA, Congress acted to refocus the family child care component of the CACFP

toward low-income children. PRWORA changed the reimbursement structure for the family child

care component of the program to target benefits more specifically to homes serving low-income

children. The new rate structure for family child care homes took effect July 1, 1997. 

Under the new reimbursement structure, family child care homes located in low-income areas have

reimbursement rates that are similar to the rates that existed for all family child care homes before

PRWORA. A low-income area is defined operationally as either an elementary school attendance

area in which at least half of the enrolled children are eligible for free or reduced-price school meals,

or a 1990 census block group where at least half of the children lived in families with incomes at or

below 185 percent of the poverty guideline. Homes where the provider’s own income is at or below

185 percent of the poverty guideline have the same reimbursement structure as homes located in lowincome areas. Homes meeting any one of these criteria are referred to as Tier 1 homes. 
4 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

Exhibit 1

Child Care Meal Pattern for Children

Meal Components Ages 1-2 Ages 3-5 Ages 6-12

Breakfast – Select all 3 components

Milk, Fluid 1⁄2 cup 3⁄4 cup 1 cup

Fruit, Vegetable, or 

Fruit or Vegetable Juice1 1⁄4 cup 1⁄2 cup 1⁄2 cup

Bread/Bread Alternate2

Bread or

Cornbread, biscuits, rolls, muffins3

 or

Cereal: Cold dry4

 or

Hot cooked or

Cooked pasta or noodles or grains

1⁄2 slice

1⁄2 serving

1⁄4 cup or  oz

1⁄4 cup

1⁄4 cup

1⁄2 slice

1⁄2 serving

 cup or 1⁄2 oz

1⁄4 cup

1⁄4 cup

1 slice

1 serving

3⁄4 cup or 1 oz

1⁄2 cup

1⁄2 cup

Lunch and Supper – Select all 4 components

Milk, Fluid 1⁄2 cup 3⁄4 cup 1 cup

Vegetable(s) and/or Fruit(s)5 1⁄4 cup total 1⁄2 cup total 3⁄4 cup total

Bread/Bread Alternate2

Bread or

Cornbread, biscuits, rolls, muffins3

 or

Cooked pasta or noodles or grains

1⁄2 slice

1⁄2 serving

1⁄4 cup

1⁄2 slice

1⁄2 serving

1⁄4 cup

1 slice

1 serving

1⁄2 cup

Meat/Meat Alternate

Meat, poultry, fish,6

 or cheese or

Eggs (large) or

Cooked dry beans or peas or

Peanut/other nut or seed butters or

Nuts and/or seeds7

 or

Yogurt8

1 oz

1

1⁄4 cup

2 tbsp

1⁄2 oz=50%

4 oz or 1⁄2 cup

11⁄2 oz 

1

cup

3 tbsp

3⁄4 oz=50%

6 oz or 3⁄4 cup

2 oz 

1

1⁄2 cup

4 tbsp

1 oz=50%

8 oz or 1 cup

Supplement – Select 2 of the 4 components

Milk, Fluid 1⁄2 cup 1⁄2 cup 1 cup

Fruit, Vegetable or 

Fruit or Vegetable Juice1,9

1⁄2 cup 1⁄2 cup 3⁄4 cup

Bread/Bread Alternate2

Bread or

Cornbread, biscuits, rolls, muffins3

 or

Cereal: Cold dry4

 or

Hot cooked or

Cooked pasta or noodles or grains

1⁄2 slice

1⁄2 serving

1⁄4 cup or  oz.

1⁄4 cup

1⁄4 cup

1⁄2 slice

1⁄2 serving

 cup or 1⁄2 oz

1⁄4 cup

1⁄4 cup

1 slice

1 serving

3⁄4 cup or 1 oz

1⁄2 cup

1⁄2 cup

Meat/Meat Alternate

Meat, poultry, fish6

 or cheese or

Eggs (large) or

Cooked dry beans or peas or

Peanut/other nut or seed butters or

Nuts and/or seeds or

Yogurt8

1⁄2 oz

1⁄2

 cup

1 tbsp

1⁄2 oz

2 oz or 1⁄4 cup

1⁄2 oz 

1⁄2

 cup

1 tbsp

1⁄2 oz

2 oz or 1⁄4 cup

1 oz

1

1⁄4 cup

2 tbsp

1 oz

4 oz or 1⁄2 cup 1 Fruit or vegetable juice must be full-strength. 2 Bread, pasta or noodle products, and cereal grains shall be whole-grain or enriched. Cornbread, biscuits, rolls, muffins, etc., must

be made from whole-grain or enriched meal or flour. Cereal must be whole-grain or enriched or fortified. 3 Serving sizes for specific bread/bread alternates are published separately in FNS guidance materials for providers. 4 Either volume (cup) or weight (ounce), whichever is less. 5 Two servings of fruits and/or vegetables fulfill the lunch or supper requirement. Full-strength fruit or vegetable juice may be

counted to meet up to one half of this requirement. 6 A serving consists of the edible portion of cooked lean meat or poultry or fish. 7 No more than one-half of the total meat/meat alternate requirement may be met with nuts or seeds. Nuts or seeds must be combined

with another meat/meat alternate to fulfill the lunch or supper requirement. One ounce of nuts or seeds is equal to 1 ounce of the

edible portion of cooked lean meat or poultry or fish. 8 Yogurt may be plain or flavored, unsweetened or sweetened. 9 Juice may not be served to fulfill the supplement requirement when milk is served as the only other component.
Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 5

All other homes are reimbursed at substantially lower rates. This latter group of homes, referred to

as Tier 2 homes, includes those that are neither located in a low-income area nor operated by a lowincome provider. Tier 2 homes can receive the higher Tier 1 reimbursement rates for meals served to

children from families with incomes at or below 185 percent of the poverty guideline. 

The new reimbursement structure cut CACFP reimbursements almost in half for Tier 2 family child

care homes. The applicable rates in 1999, when the data were collected for this study, are shown in

Exhibit 2. In fiscal year 1999, Tier 2 homes received meal reimbursements averaging $177 per

month (including some meals reimbursed at the Tier 1 rates). Had they been reimbursed at the Tier 1

rates for all meals, their monthly reimbursements would have averaged $326.

The new CACFP meal reimbursement structure changed the economics of family child care for those

homes classified as Tier 2. Unless the providers could raise fees or reduce expenses, the reduced

reimbursement revenue would translate into a lower net income from the business. Higher fees,

longer hours, and taking on more children have all been suggested as possible responses of providers;

these are addressed in a separate report (Zotov et al., E-FAN-02-004). Another possible provider

response would be to reduce meal costs by serving fewer meals, reducing the amount of food served

at a meal, or adjusting menus to emphasize less costly food. The question of whether the reduction

in reimbursements for Tier 2 providers has affected the types and nutritional adequacy or quality of

meals served to children in Tier 2 family child care homes is the subject of this report. 

The Family Child Care Homes Legislative Changes Study

After mandating changes in the CACFP reimbursement structure, the PRWORA also called for a

study of the effects of those changes. A number of questions were posed about effects on CACFP

sponsors, participating family child care homes, and the families served by those homes. USDA

accordingly designed, and contracted with Abt Associates Inc. to implement, the Family Child Care

Homes Legislative Changes Study. 

Exhibit 2

Meal Reimbursement Rates by Tiera

July 1, 1998 - June 30, 1999

Meal Tier 1

Rate

Tier 2

Rate

Difference between Tier 2 and Tier 1 1

Amount Percentage

Breakfast $0.90 $0.34 -$0.56 -62.2%

Lunch/Supper 1.65 1.00 -0.65 -39.4

Supplement (snack) 0.49 0.13 -0.36 -73.5

a Reimbursement rates are higher in Alaska and Hawaii.
10 The menu survey did not request information on foods and formula offered to infants less than 1 year. 

Previous research suggested that this was too infrequent to provide a sample size large enough for separate

analyses, and the types of foods offered to infants are too different to warrant combining them with other

age groups.

6 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

The Family Child Care Homes Legislative Changes Study involved extensive data collection with

nationally representative samples of family child care homes, their sponsors, and the parents of

children they serve. A multistage probability sampling approach was used. Twenty States were

selected in the first stage. A sample of sponsors was drawn within each of the selected States, and

the sampled sponsors provided lists of the family child care homes they sponsor. A sample of family

child care homes was then drawn from each sponsor’s list. In the final sampling stage, a subsample

of the family child care homes was used to draw a sample of households whose children were in the

care of those providers. The sample design is described in more detail in Appendix A.

Conducted in January-August 1999, the data collection included two elements that are the principal

data sources for this report:

• A sample of Tier 2 providers completed a menu survey, in which they recorded

information on all food items included in meals and snacks offered to children age 1-1210

during a five-day period. The survey sample included 741 Tier 2 providers eligible for

the study, of whom 542 provided a complete menu survey for 3 to 5 days.

• For a subsample of 97 Tier 2 providers, meal observations conducted by field

interviewers measured the portion sizes of food items served to children on 2 of the 5

days covered by the menu survey. Information from this subsample of providers was

used to validate items recorded in the menu surveys for these homes and to impute

portion sizes for items recorded in all of the menu surveys. 

Appendix B contains sample pages of the menu survey and meal observation instruments.

As is often the case in analysis of survey data, nonresponse and the potential for nonresponse bias

call for caution in interpreting the results. The response rates for the menu survey and meal

observation survey were 73 percent and 42 percent, respectively. Compound response rates, which

take into account the 96-percent response rate of CACFP sponsors in providing lists of providers for

sampling, are somewhat lower. Nonresponse analyses, presented in Appendix A, did not reveal any

meaningful patterns of nonresponse bias. Nonetheless, the possibility of bias cannot be completely

ruled out.

The report also uses some data from an operations survey of family child care providers, which was

administered to the Tier 2 providers who completed the menu survey and also to a sample of 576 Tier

1 providers. A more detailed analysis of this survey, which covers numerous aspects of the

providers’ experience in the CACFP, is presented in a separate report (Zotov et al., E-FAN-02-004).

Because of the complex structure of the samples, survey responses must be weighted in order to

portray distributions in the overall population appropriately. All percentages, means, and other

distributional statistics presented in this report have been weighted using procedures described in

Appendix A. Tables also show the unweighted number of observations on which the statistics are

based. Standard errors and significance tests are estimated with correction for the complex sample

design.
11 The third criterion used in tier classification, the percent of children in the elementary school serving the

provider’s location that are certified to receive free or reduced-price meals, was not available for a

sufficient number of providers in the sample.

Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 7

Additional elements of the Family Child Care Homes Legislative Changes Study include a selfadministered survey of family child care sponsors, a telephone household survey of parents of

children in Tier 1 and Tier 2 homes, and an operations survey of former CACFP providers. 

Analyses of these data sets are presented in the following reports: Bernstein and Hamilton, E-FAN02-003; Crepinsek et al., E-FAN-02-005; and Zotov et al., E-FAN-02-004.

Analysis Approach and Limitations

The analysis presented in this report has two principal objectives:

• Describe characteristics of the meals and snacks offered in Tier 2 CACFP family child

care homes in 1999.

• Determine, to the extent possible, how tiering affected these meals and snacks.

To learn about the effect of tiering, we compare data on the Tier 2 meals and snacks offered in 1999

with the meals and snacks offered by CACFP providers in 1995, as measured in the Early Childhood

and Child Care Study. The data collection strategy for the present study was essentially identical to

that used in the earlier study, which makes it possible to compare the data for the two time periods. 

Two factors make it difficult to draw inferences about the effect of tiering, however. First, the menu

survey and meal observations in 1999 were conducted only for Tier 2 providers, while the 1995 study

represented all CACFP providers participating at that time. Second, it is not possible to identify

clearly that subset of the 1995 providers who would have been classified as Tier 2 had tiering

existed. Data are available for two of the three criteria used in tier classification: the provider’s

income relative to the poverty guideline, and the percent of children in the provider’s census block

group living in low-income households. These two factors are strongly but not perfectly correlated

with providers’ tier status in 1999.11 By including these factors as covariates in regression analyses,

we can examine the differences between meals and snacks offered by Tier 2 providers in 1999 and

those offered by reasonably similar providers in 1995. (The statistical approach is described in more

detail in Appendix D.)

We did not attempt to limit the 1995 sample to those providers who would have been Tier 2 had they

been classified in 1995, for two reasons. First, as described above, we were doubtful of our ability to

identify those providers. Second, the gains in statistical power from using the entire sample of 1995

providers, rather than just those that were higher income and served higher-income children, were

considerable. These gains were obtained in the portion-size models by assuming that the same

general relationships held between portion sizes and characteristics of foods, menus, etc. for the

entire 1995 sample and the 1999 sample, with tiering-related variables (provider and neighborhood

income) simply shifting the relationship. In the nutrition outcomes models, we obtained the gains by

assuming that the tiering-related variables were related in a smooth fashion to measures (such as

percent of Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA) for food energy in lunches offered), rather than

that there was a sharp break in these relationships for Tier 1 versus Tier 2 households.
8 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

A two-stage modeling approach was used in estimating tiering effects on nutrient quantities. The

first stage used the subsample of providers for whom meal observations were conducted to estimate a

model of portion sizes. This model was used to impute portion sizes to all foods recorded on the

menus of the full sample of providers who responded to the menu survey. Nutrient quantities, which

were determined by both what was offered and how much was offered, were analyzed in the secondstage model. The standard errors in the second-stage model were adjusted to take into account the

prediction error inherent in the imputed portion size values. This adjustment resulted in larger

standard errors, and hence fewer statistically significant differences, than would be estimated from

the second-stage model alone. The adjustment had no qualitative effect on the findings, however. 

With or without the adjustment, most of the significant differences are in the direction of larger

nutrient quantities in 1999 rather than in 1995.

Differences between groups are reported in the text as statistically significant if they have a less than

5-percent probability of arising by chance. Some disciplines conventionally consider differences to

be significant if their probability of arising by chance is less than 10 percent. Accordingly,

differences that would be significant at the 10-percent level but not the 5-percent level are noted, but

indicated as (p < 0.10). Differences that are significant at the 5-percent level or better are simply

reported as statistically significant. In the tables, three levels of statistical significance are noted, 1-

percent, 5-percent, and 10-percent.

It is important to note that tiering is not the only logically possible cause of differences observed

between Tier 2 providers in 1999 and similar providers in 1995. Such differences could be caused

by:

• Changes over time in the preferences and behaviors of CACFP providers, parents, and

children.

• Changes in the composition of providers participating in the CACFP. Compositional

changes could occur as a result of tiering—for example, low-margin providers classified

as Tier 2 might leave the child care business—or could be caused by demographic or

economic changes unrelated to tiering.

• The lower reimbursement rates introduced by tiering.

Given these multiple possible causes, any differences (or lack of difference) between meals and

snacks offered by Tier 2 providers in 1999 and similar providers in 1995 must be interpreted with

caution.
12 Providers were asked to record their menus for a complete 5-day week. Some providers operate fewer than

5 days a week, and some failed to complete the menu for some days. Only providers who submitted menus

for at least 3 days were included in the analysis. A total of two Tier 2 providers in 1999 and seven

providers in 1995 were excluded.

13 In both 1999 and 1995, some providers who responded to the operations questionnaire did not respond to

the menu survey. Thus the questionnaire sample of 1999 Tier 2 homes includes 595 providers, while the

1995 questionnaire sample consists of 532 providers.

14 Analyses are based on all CACFP age groups combined (1-2, 3-5, and 6-12). 

Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 9

Meals and Snacks Offered by Tier 2 Providers

One concern raised about tiering was the possibility that Tier 2 providers would respond to the

reduction in reimbursement rates by cutting back on the number of meals and snacks they offer. This

section reviews information pertinent to that hypothesis and finds no evidence of such cutbacks.

The analysis uses two data sources. The first is the menu survey, which was carried out with

nationally representative samples of 542 Tier 2 family child care homes in 1999 and 501 family child

care homes in 1995.12 The second source is provider operations questionnaires administered in 1995

and 1999 to essentially the same samples plus, in 1999, a sample of 576 Tier 1 homes.13 The menu

survey is generally our preferred data source on nutritional issues, because it provides more detailed

information on the meals offered during the week in which food and nutrient content was measured. 

Because the menu survey does not provide information for Tier 1 providers, data from the

questionnaire are used when available to make comparisons of meals offered and hours of operation

between Tier 1 and Tier 2 homes.

Proportion of Tier 2 Providers Offering Specific Meals and Snacks

Nearly all Tier 2 homes in the 1999 sample offered lunch, afternoon snack, and breakfast on all or

some of the days for which menus were recorded.14 Lunch was virtually universal, with 96 percent

of providers offering it on all days and another 2 percent on some days (Exhibit 3). Breakfast and

afternoon snack were each recorded by about 90 percent of providers every day and by another 5-6

percent on some days.

Among the other meals and snacks, only the morning snack was common. About half of the

providers offered a morning snack. Only 14 percent of providers recorded any instances of offering

supper, and just 5 percent offered any evening snacks.

The multivariate analysis does not suggest that Tier 2 providers responded to the lower

reimbursement rate by offering fewer meals. The proportion of Tier 2 providers in 1999 offering

each meal did not differ significantly from the proportion of similar providers (resembling them in

tier-related characteristics) offering the same meal in 1995. The estimated differences between 1999

and 1995 are not significant at the 5-percent level, are relatively small (5 percentage points or less),

and include a mixture of increases and decreases in the proportion of providers offering a meal. 
10 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

Exhibit 3

Percentage of Providers Offering Specified Meals and Snacks During a Sample Week Based

on Recorded Menus

Tier 2

1999

Difference

1999-95a

Breakfast offered 94.6% 5.2%

 All days 89.3 3.6

 Some days 5.3 0.4

Breakfast not offered 5.4 -5.2

Morning snack offered 56.4 4.5

 All days 49.2 2.6

 Some days 7.2 2.0

Morning snack not offered 43.6 -4.5

Lunch offered 98.6 -0.9

 All days 96.2 0.6

 Some days 2.4 -1.0

Lunch not offered 1.4 0.9

Afternoon snack offered 95.6 -0.7

 All days 89.5 -1.5

 Some days 6.2 0.8

Afternoon snack not offered 4.4 0.7

Supper offered 13.6 -4.4

 All days 9.8 -5.0

 Some days 3.8 0.5

Supper not offered 86.4 4.4

Evening snack offered 5.1 4.4*

 All days 3.3 3.2*

 Some days 1.8 1.0

Evening snack not offered 94.9 -4.4*

Unweighted sample 542 1,043

a Differences between values for Tier 2 providers in 1999 and estimated values for similar providers in 1995 were calculated using

regression. The technique is described in Appendix D. Each category’s difference was calculated separately, so differences for "all

days" and "some days" do not necessarily add to differences in the meal/snack "ever offered."

Significance levels:

 * = .10

 ** = .05

 *** = .01
Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 11

This conclusion is supported by a second source of data on the meals offered by providers. In

addition to recording their menus, providers were asked to fill out a questionnaire that included the

question: “Which meals and snacks are you now serving?” This question provides a somewhat

different perspective than the menu, as the provider is expected to identify the meals she customarily

offered. Moreover, unlike the menu, the questionnaire was completed by Tier 1 as well as Tier 2

providers in 1999. Thus we have a direct comparison between the two tiers as well as a comparison

with the population of 1995 providers.

The proportion of Tier 1 and Tier 2 providers reporting that they offer particular meals and snacks is

quite comparable for all of the daytime eating occasions: breakfast, morning snack, lunch, and

afternoon snacks (Exhibit 4). Substantially more Tier 1 than Tier 2 providers reported offering

supper and evening snacks, but this principally reflects a difference in operating hours. When the

shorter operating schedules of many Tier 2 homes were taken into account, comparable proportions

of Tier 1 and Tier 2 providers that have later operating hours offered supper and evening snacks.

The comparison of Tier 1 and Tier 2 responses shows no sign that Tier 2 providers are offering fewer

meals, and the same is true for the comparison of 1999 with 1995. The proportions of providers

offering the daytime meals are practically identical, and the evening snack is offered by significantly

more providers in 1999.

Exhibit 4

Proportion of CACFP Providers Offering Specified Meals and Snacks in 1995 and 1999 Based

on Provider Responses to Questionnaire

1999 Difference

Tier 2-

Tier 1a

All Providers

Difference

1999-95a Meals/Snacks Tier 1 Tier 2 1995 1999

Percentage of Providers

Breakfast 91.1% 96.1% 5.0%* 90.8% 92.8% 2.0%

Morning Snack 58.0 58.6 0.8 56.4 58.2 1.8

Lunch 96.9 99.0 2.1* 98.1 97.6 -0.5

Afternoon Snack 95.8 96.6 0.8 96.6 96.0 0.6

Supper 49.9 20.5 -29.4*** 31.7 40.3 8.6

Evening Snack 21.2 7.6 -13.6*** 9.3 16.8 7.5**

Unweighted sample 575 594 482 1,169

a

Regression estimate. See Appendix D.

Significance levels:

 * = .10

 ** = .05

 *** = .01
15 One percent of providers (unweighted n=5) did not record the same meal combination on at least 3 days.

16 Based on regression analysis, as described in Appendix D. Only the two common meal combinations were

tested for 1995-99 difference.

12 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

Meal Combinations Commonly Offered by Tier 2 Providers

Exhibit 5 shows the most common combinations of meals and snacks that Tier 2 providers offered in

1999, based on their recorded menus. For this analysis, each provider is considered to offer only one

meal combination, with the assigned combination being the one that is offered on at least 3 of the

recorded days.15

Four-fifths of all Tier 2 providers offered one of two common meal combinations. About 43 percent

offered breakfast, lunch, and either the morning or (usually) the afternoon snack, and 39 percent

offered breakfast, lunch, and both the morning and afternoon snacks. Supper was most commonly

offered by providers who were also offering breakfast and lunch, but these combinations were

relatively rare. A total of 9 percent of providers offer breakfast, lunch, supper, and one or more

snacks. All other combinations were rare, recorded by no more than 5 percent of the providers.

There were no statistically significant differences in the proportions of Tier 2 providers in 1999

offering the combination of breakfast, lunch, and morning and afternoon snacks or breakfast, lunch,

and morning or afternoon snack compared with similar providers in the 1995 sample.16

Exhibit 5

Proportion of Tier 2 Providers Offering Various Meal and Snack Combinations in 1999

Meal and Snack Combination Percentage of Providers

Breakfast, lunch, 1 snacka 42.6%

Breakfast, lunch, 2 snacksa 38.0

Breakfast, lunch, supper, 2 snacks 4.5

Lunch, 2 snacks 3.6

Breakfast, lunch, supper, 3 snacks 2.4

Breakfast, lunch, supper, 1 snack 1.8

Lunch, 1 snack 1.2

Breakfast, lunch 1.0

Supper, 1 snack 0.2

Other combinations 3.6

No single combination offered for 3 days 1.2

Unweighted sample 542

a

Morning and afternoon snacks only.
17 Full-strength juice is a fruit or vegetable juice containing 100 percent juice. Bread alternates include

whole-grain or enriched pasta, noodle products, and cereal grains, and biscuits, rolls, muffins, cornbread,

etc. made with whole-grain or enriched or fortified flour. Meat alternates are defined in the CACFP

regulations as poultry, fish, cheese, eggs, dry beans or peas, peanut butter, nuts, seeds, and yogurt.

18 This analysis does not include a determination of whether the amount offered was in compliance with the

requirement. The amount offered was measured in meal observations, which were conducted for only a

subsample of providers. 

Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 13

Compliance with CACFP Requirements and Variety

of Foods Offered

Although Tier 2 providers apparently did not respond to lower meal reimbursement rates by reducing

the number of meals they offered, they might take other actions to control their meal costs. One

possibility is that they would offer fewer types of food. Because CACFP regulations call for certain

classes of food to be offered at each meal, cutting back on the number of foods offered could mean

that some meals would fail to meet the meal-pattern requirements. Or, even if they meet the

requirements, the meals might offer less variety to the children who receive care in CACFP family

child care homes.

The analysis finds no indication that the proportion of meals meeting CACFP meal-pattern

requirements was affected by tiering. Compliance rates for Tier 2 meals in 1999 were very high and

not statistically different from compliance rates of providers in 1995, controlling for characteristics

that determine tier. The analysis also reveals very little difference in the variety of foods offered. 

Nonetheless, a few differences in the items offered in particular meals could reflect minor menu

adjustments by providers interested in controlling costs.

Compliance with Meal Component Requirements

CACFP regulations pose minimum requirements for the types and amounts of food that must be

included in each meal and snack qualifying for reimbursement, as described in the Introduction to

this report. The requirements are specified, by CACFP age group, in terms of four meal components: 

fluid milk; fruits, vegetables, and full-strength juices; bread and bread alternates; and meat and meat

alternates.17 A qualifying lunch or supper must include all four components with two servings from

the fruit-vegetable-juice group. Breakfast must include servings of all components except meat or

meat alternates (a meat or meat alternate is recommended but not required). Qualifying snacks must

include at least two of the four components.

To determine providers’ compliance with the requirements, the analysis identified the meal

components that were included in each meal. For example, the 542 Tier 2 providers who completed

menu surveys in 1999 recorded a total of nearly 2,100 breakfasts. Each of these breakfasts was later

coded as complying or not complying with the meal component requirements for the appropriate

CACFP age group. (Providers sometimes offered a different breakfast to children of different ages.) 

A breakfast was considered compliant if the provider offered all three of the required components

(milk; a fruit, vegetable, or full-strength juice; and a bread or bread alternate).18

The vast majority of meals offered in Tier 2 homes in 1999 complied with the meal component

requirements, as shown in Exhibit 6. Over 90 percent of all breakfasts, lunches, and morning and
19 Although the numbers of sampled providers offering supper and evening snack are relatively small, these

high rates are supported by examination of the 95-percent confidence intervals of the estimates. The lower

bounds of the intervals were 70 percent for all evening snacks offered, and 76 to 77 percent for all suppers

offered and for suppers and evening snacks offered to 3-5-year-olds.

20 Some children’s meals and snacks were not observed because their parents did not give consent, however

this was a very small proportion of the total number of children cared for by providers on the observation

days.

14 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

afternoon snacks were found to be in compliance. Supper and evening snack showed compliance

rates of over 80 percent.19 These compliance rates are quite consistent across CACFP age groups, as

indicated in Exhibit 6 by the similarity of the pattern for meals offered to children aged 3-5, the

largest group served, and the pattern for all age groups served by the provider.

Providers were asked to record all meals and snacks offered to children in their care, regardless of

whether or not they submitted a reimbursement claim. Since the CACFP reimburses providers for up

to three eating occasions per child per day, theoretically meals or snacks served to children who are

in care all day are not all reimbursed. This raises the question of whether some meals and snacks,

particularly those served later in the day, should be held to the CACFP meal-pattern standard. To

address this issue, analyses were conducted on the subsample of 1999 Tier 2 providers for whom the

number of children served each meal and snack (meal observation sample) was known.20

Exhibit 6

Percentage of Meals Complying with CACFP Meal-Pattern Requirements

Meals Offered to Children Aged 3-5 All Meals Offered

Unweighted

samplea

Tier 2

1999

Difference

1999-95b

Tier 2

1999

Difference

1999-95b

Breakfast 3,975 97.3% 1.1% 97.3% 2.3%*

Morning snack 2,192 96.5 4.7* 96.8 5.4**

Lunch 4,483 91.9 3.2 91.5 3.4

Afternoon snack 4,148 95.3 -0.4 95.3 -0.1

Supper 746 82.3 4.1 82.3 3.2

Evening snack 158 90.9 1.3 85.5 12.5

a

 Sample for the number of meals offered to 3-5-year-olds, 1999 and 1995 combined.

b

 Regression estimate. See Appendix D.

Significance levels:

 * = .10

 ** = .05

 *** = .01
21 This analysis does not consider compliance with meal-pattern requirements as a criteria for being

“reimbursable,” only whether or not the meals and snacks fall within the three-meal/snack-per-day limit for

CACFP reimbursement.

22 See discussion of creditable and noncreditable foods and minimum required portion sizes in 1995 versus

1999 in Appendix C.

Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 15

The proportion of child meals/snacks served that are reimbursable and the proportion of provider

meals/snacks served that involve one or more reimbursable child meals were estimated. The

assumptions involved were (1) providers always claim reimbursement for the maximum number of

eligible meals and snacks for all children in care, and (2) when children are in care for more than

three meals/snacks, the meals or snacks reimbursed are those where the reimbursement rate is the

highest (e.g., lunch/supper rates are higher than breakfast rates, and breakfast rates are higher than

snack rates). Since it was not possible to know which of the three possible snacks were likely to be

claimed for reimbursement, morning, afternoon, and evening snacks were pooled.

The analysis suggests that providers should be aiming to meet the CACFP meal-pattern requirements

at all meals and snacks offered. It is relatively rare that providers would be serving a meal or snack

for which they do not receive any reimbursement. Virtually all breakfasts, lunches, and suppers

served to children by Tier 2 providers were reimbursable, as indicated in Exhibit 7.21 A surprisingly

large proportion of snacks (83 percent) were also reimbursable. On average, all breakfasts, lunches,

and suppers and nearly 90 percent of snacks are served to at least one child whose meal/snack would

have been reimbursable. While it is possible the assumption that providers always claim every

eligible meal they serve may be incorrect, it seems likely that this would be common practice. 

The analysis provides no evidence that lower reimbursement rates made Tier 2 providers less likely

to offer compliant meals or snacks. Compliance rates are similar to the rates for similar providers in

1995 (Exhibit 6). In fact, the analysis indicates that morning snacks offered by Tier 2 providers in

1999 had a significantly higher compliance rate, for all age groups served by the provider, than those

offered by similar providers in 1995. This difference does not appear to be related to changes in the

meal-pattern requirements between the two time periods.22

Exhibit 7

Proportion of Tier 2 Meals and Snacks Likely to be Reimbursed

Unweighted

samplea

Proportion of Child

Meals Reimbursable

Unweighted

samplea

Proportion of

Provider Meals

Reimbursable

Breakfast 628 97.3% 169 99.6%

Lunch 742 100.0 183 100.0

Supper 69 100.0 21 100.0

All snacks 1,069 82.9 270 89.5

a Sample for number of meals offered to all age groups combined (1-2, 3-5, and 6-12-year-olds).
23 Supper and evening snack are omitted from this analysis. Because only a small proportion of providers

offer them, the sample sizes are small.

16 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

Meal Components Offered

The influence of the CACFP meal-pattern requirements on the composition of meals offered can be

seen clearly in Exhibit 8.23 Nearly all meals include at least one food item from each of the required

meal components at breakfast and lunch. At lunch, where two items from the fruit-vegetable-juice

category are required, nearly all meals meet this requirement. Providers may offer any two of the

four components at snacks, and the proportion of snacks including each component ranges from 83-

90 percent for bread and bread alternates to 21-27 percent for meat and meat alternates. Meat and

meat alternates are not required at breakfast and are comparatively rare, appearing in just 11 percent

of breakfasts.

Tier 2 meals in 1999 included largely the same meal components as those offered by similar

providers in 1995, but a few statistically significant differences exist. Somewhat fewer afternoon

snacks in 1999 included meat or meat alternates, and somewhat more breakfasts and snacks

contained bread or bread alternates. For both of these meals, fewer Tier 2 providers offered any meat

or meat alternates over the course of a week than similar providers in 1995.

These effects, though not large, could conceivably reflect a response to tiering. Some providers may

have attempted to control costs by cutting back on meats and meat alternates (e.g., sausage, cheese,

eggs, peanut butter) at breakfast, since these are not required by the CACFP meal pattern. Similarly,

some providers may have substituted bread and bread alternates at snack for the potentially more

expensive meat and meat alternates.

The 1999-95 differences in meal components offered at breakfast and afternoon snack may also

reflect general trends in the American diet, regardless of tiering. Unfortunately, there are no national

data yet available on children’s diets in 1995 and 1999. Although U.S. dietary guidance places

greater emphasis on grains and less on meat (e.g., Food Guide Pyramid, Dietary Guidelines for

Americans), these messages did not change between 1995 and 1999.

Variety of Foods Offered

Because the CACFP meal-pattern requirements are designed to ensure adequate nutrition, the high

compliance rates indicate that CACFP providers were offering children a good mix of the major

classes of foods. Although CACFP regulations pose no further requirements for variety, providers

may offer multiple items within a particular component category and are encouraged to vary the

menus for particular components over the course of the week. 

Relatively few providers offer more than a single food item within a given meal component, except

to meet the requirement for two fruits or vegetables at lunch (Exhibit 8). The greatest amount of

variety within particular meal components occurs at lunch, when, for each component, about a fifth

of all meals include more than one item (and more than two for fruits and vegetables). In addition,

11 percent of breakfasts and 5-7 percent of snacks include more than one item in the fruit-vegetablejuice group. Practically no meals include more than a single type of milk, so these data are not

shown for this meal component.
Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 17

Exhibit 8

Frequency with which Major Meal Components Are Offered and Variety Within Meal

Components

Meals Offered to Children Aged 3-5

Breakfast Lunch

Tier 2

1999

Difference

1999-95a

Tier 2 

1999

Difference

1999-95a

Milk

% of meals with milk offered 98.9% 0.1% 98.9% 2.1%

Fruit, Vegetables, or Juice

% of meals with at least 1 offeredb 98.4 0.1 94.6 1.2

% with more than 1 offeredb 10.6 1.8 19.8 -0.7

% of providers offering any in weekb 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0

Mean different items offered in week

(if at least 1)b 3.8 0.0 8.6 -0.1

Bread and Bread Alternates

% of meals with at least 1 offered 100.0 1.2*** 98.4 0.5

% with more than 1 offered 10.9 -2.0 21.4 2.2

% of providers offering any in week 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0

Mean different items offered in week

(if at least 1) 3.4 0.0 3.2 0.1

Meat and Meat Alternates

% of meals with at least 1 offered 10.5 -4.4* 99.3 -0.3

% with more than 1 offered 1.1 0.3 20.9 2.7

% of providers offering any in week 34.2 -13.4** 100.0 0.0

Mean different items offered in week

(if at least 1) 1.3 0.0 5.0 0.1

Unweighted sample 180-2,093 370-3,975 483-2,305 919-4,483

a

 Regression estimate. See Appendix D.

b

 For lunch, read "at least 2" or "more than 2." The minimum requirement at lunch is two fruits or vegetables.

Significance levels:

 * = .10

 ** = .05

 *** = .01

continued...
18 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

Exhibit 8 (continued)

Frequency with which Major Meal Components Are Offered and Variety Within Meal

Components

Snacks Offered to Children Aged 3-5

Morning Snack Afternoon Snack

Tier 2 

1999

Difference

1999-95a

Tier 2 

1999

Difference

1999-95a

Milk

% of meals with milk offered 48.9% 8.2% 44.9% -4.2%

Fruit, Vegetables, or Juice

% of meals with at least 1 offeredb 64.3 -9.3 65.4 -1.2

% with more than 1 offeredb 4.5 -4.2** 6.5 -3.5**

% of providers offering any in weekb 94.5 -4.0* 96.5 1.2

Mean different items offered in week

(if at least 1)b 2.7 -0.2 2.6 -0.3**

Bread and Bread Alternates

% of meals with at least 1 offered 83.1 4.0 83.9 7.0***

% with more than 1 offered 0.3 -0.5 1.1 0.3

% of providers offering any in week 96.9 -0.7 99.3 -0.2

Mean different items offered in week

(if at least 1) 2.6 0.3* 2.6 0.2

Meat and Meat Alternates

% of meals with at least 1 offered 21.1 -4.6 27.0 -7.2***

% with more than 1 offered 1.1 1.1* 1.8 0.6

% of providers offering any in week 59.9 -9.9 71.2 -9.2**

Mean different items offered in week

(if at least 1) 1.4 0.0 1.7 0.0

Unweighted sample 153-1,158 302-2,192 331-2,153 650-4,148

a

 Regression estimate. See Appendix D.

b

 For lunch, read "at least 2" or "more than 2." The minimum requirement at lunch is two fruits or vegetables.

Significance levels:

 * = .10

 ** = .05

 *** = .01
Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 19

CACFP meals do offer substantial variety over the week, however. A week of lunch menus, for

example, features an average of nine different foods in the fruit-vegetable-juice category, five

different meats or meat alternates, and three different breads or bread alternates. The weekly

breakfast menu includes four different fruit-vegetable-juice items and three different breads or bread

alternates. Snacks average three different items in two components: fruit-vegetable-juice and bread

or bread alternate.

The variety in menus offered by 1999 Tier 2 providers differs little from that offered by similar

providers in 1995. The weekly number of different items within a meal component category shows

only one significant difference—a small reduction in the average number of different fruit-vegetablejuice items offered at afternoon snack. No significant differences were found in the number of items

per component at breakfast or lunch, nor for bread and bread alternates or meat and meat alternates at

snacks. However, the proportion of morning and afternoon snacks including more than a single fruit,

vegetable, or juice (likely an extra serving over and above the CACFP requirement) was somewhat

lower for Tier 2 providers in 1999 than for similar providers in 1995. Again the difference is small

but consistent with the hypothesis that some Tier 2 providers may have adjusted their menus in an

effort to control costs.
24 The only data available for the full sample of Tier 2 providers are contained in the menu survey, which

indicates what the provider made available but not how the children responded. For example, if a provider

records turnips on the menu, we consider turnips to be offered. Some children may refuse to have turnips

put on their plate or may not eat some or all of the turnips, but these behaviors are not known or estimated.

The amount “offered” is the average portion size served to or taken by the average child, based on meal

observations conducted in a subsample of Tier 2 homes. Appendix C describes the analytic approach used

in determining the nutrient content of meals and snacks offered.

25 While it is possible that second helpings are provided to only some children in a provider’s care, the meal

observation method used in the 1995 study did not identify “seconds” as such. To maintain comparability,

the same procedure was used for the meal observations conducted in 1999.

20 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

Food and Nutrient Composition of CACFP Tier 2

Breakfasts

This and subsequent sections examine in more detail the food and nutrient composition of meals and

snacks offered in Tier 2 family child care homes. The analysis is motivated by the hypothesis that

Tier 2 providers might adjust to their lower reimbursement rates by offering meals of lesser

nutritional quality than they would otherwise have offered.

Three kinds of information bearing on this issue are presented. First, foods most commonly offered

in each meal or snack by Tier 2 providers are examined. Second, the average food energy and

nutrient content of the meals and snacks offered are compared with nutrition standards established

for USDA’s school meal programs and additional dietary recommendations promulgated in Dietary

Guidelines for Americans and the National Research Council’s Diet and Health report. To the extent

that meals offered in Tier 2 homes deviate substantially from these benchmarks, this could be a

matter for concern even if reimbursement tiering played no role. Third, the extent to which the food

and nutrient composition of Tier 2 meals in 1999 differs from the composition of meals offered by

similar providers in 1995 is estimated, using the multivariate approach described in the Introduction

and Appendix D of this report.

All food and nutrient measures describe what is offered to children rather than what is actually

served or consumed.

24 Food served and consumed is typically less than food offered, as individual

children may not accept or eat everything they are offered. Some children may get second helpings

and, although these were considered in the estimates of portion size25, food consumption was not

measured in this study. Findings are therefore indicative of the potential contribution of CACFP

meals and snacks to children’s daily food and nutrient needs.

The analyses reported here show that Tier 2 breakfasts in 1999 largely met the nutrient-based 

benchmarks established for this study. Two exceptions are total food energy and the percent of

energy from saturated fat. Less than one-fifth of providers offered breakfasts that met one-fourth of

the RDA for food energy, and about half offered breakfasts that exceeded the Dietary Guidelines

recommended level of food energy from saturated fat.

Tier 2 providers in 1999 generally offered breakfasts that differed little from those offered by

providers in 1995, controlling for characteristics that determine tier status. The data do not suggest

that Tier 2 providers responded to lower reimbursement rates by reducing the nutritional quality of

the breakfasts they offered.
26 There are two exceptions. Dietary fiber was not included as there is no scientific consensus about optimal

fiber intake, therefore no standard for comparison. And, although included in the 1995 study, protein as a

percentage of food energy was omitted from the analyses presented here. The total protein content of the

menus is addressed.

27 The CACFP meal patterns are designed for planning meals and snacks that make a substantive contribution

to children’s major nutritional needs. 

28 The RDAs are currently being replaced with new standardsDietary Reference Intakes (DRIs). DRIs

were not available for all nutrients examined in this report when the analyses were run, and DRIs have not

yet been incorporated into nutrition standards for any of USDA’s Child Nutrition programs. Therefore, we

have not used DRIs as benchmarks for evaluating the nutrient composition of CACFP meals. The Institute

of Medicine (IOM, 2000) recommends using Estimated Average Requirements (EAR) instead of RDAs to

assess the prevalence of inadequate nutrient intakes among individuals in a group. This value is set lower

than the RDA which represents an intake level that exceeds the requirements of 97 to 98 percent of

individuals in a group. Using the EAR should reduce the chance of overestimating the prevalence of

nutrient inadequacy for groups. Using the EAR as the benchmark in the 1995-99 comparisons of nutrient

content of meals offered in child care homes would probably have shown larger proportions of providers

meeting the standard for any nutrient in both years. In any event, the study findings with respect to the

effect of tiering on the nutrient composition of Tier 2 provider meals are unlikely to change whether based

on DRIs or RDAs.

29 7CFR, parts 210 and 220.

Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 21

Benchmarks Used to Evaluate Nutrient Content

The nutrients selected for analysis in the remaining sections of this report were based on the analyses

presented in the Early Childhood and Child Care Study. They include the nutrient and food

components identified as priorities for public health monitoring by the Joint Nutrition Monitoring

Evaluation Committee (JNMEC) of the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services and

Agriculture (1995) and those targeted by USDA in ongoing efforts to improve the nutritional quality

of meals offered in all Child Nutrition programs.26 CACFP regulations and guidance materials

provide general menu planning and nutrition guidelines for meals and snacks offered under the

program, but specific nutrition standards have not been established.27 For the purposes of this study,

it was therefore necessary to define a set of nutrient-based benchmarks that could be used to evaluate

the relative nutritional quality of meals and snacks offered in CACFP family child care homes. 

Three sources of benchmarks for evaluating the nutrient content of meals and snacks offered in

family child care homes were identified (Exhibit 9). Since 1995, the National School Lunch Program

(NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program (SBP) have been required to provide, in meals offered

over a school week, one-third and one-fourth of the RDAs (National Research Council, 1989a),28

respectively, for total food energy (calories) and key nutrients (protein, vitamin A, vitamin C, iron,

and calcium) needed by growing children.29 Separate RDAs have been established for several child

age and gender groups: 1-3 years, 4-6 years, 7-10 years, and, separately for boys and girls 11-14

years of age. Since the 3-5 and 6-12 CACFP age groups are not contained within those age-specific
22 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

Exhibit 9

Benchmarks Used in Evaluating CACFP Meals and Snacks

Nutrient Benchmark

Nutrition Standards for the NSLP and SBPa

Food energy, protein, vitamin A, vitamin C,

calcium, and iron

Breakfast: One-fourth of the RDAb

Lunch: One-third of the RDAb

Nutrients included in the Dietary Guidelines for Americansc

Total fat < 30% of total calories

Saturated fat < 10% of total calories

National Research Council Diet and Health Recommendationsd

Carbohydrate > 55% of total calories

Sodiumd Breakfast: < 600 mg

Lunch: < 800 mg

Cholesterold Breakfast: < 75 mg

Lunch: < 100 mg

a 7 CFR, parts 210 and 220. Program regulations also include goals for breakfasts and lunches that are consistent with the 1990

Dietary Guidelines recommendations for fat and saturated fat. b National Research Council, 1989a. c U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services and Agriculture, 2000. d National Research Council, 1989b. Standards used for cholesterol and sodium are adapted from recommendations for maximum

daily intake.

RDA ranges, comparing the food energy and nutrient content of meals offered with RDAs required

the calculation of age-weighted RDA values. (See Appendix C for a discussion of these

calculations.)

In addition to the RDAs, NSLP and SBP meals must conform to the recommendations of the Dietary

Guidelines for Americans (U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services and Agriculture, 1990),

in particular, the limitations on the percentages of energy from total fat (no more than 30 percent of

food energy) and saturated fat (less than 10 percent of food energy). The National Research

Council’s Diet and Health report (1989b) (NRC recommendations) is the basis for recommendations

for cholesterol (no more than 300 mg. per day). It also recommends limiting total sodium levels to

2,400 mg. per day (equivalent to 6 grams of salt) and maintaining carbohydrate at more than 55

percent of total food energy.

Current recommendations for fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, sodium, and carbohydrate apply to all

healthy children age 2 and older. In keeping with these recommendations, quantitative benchmarks

for the percent of energy from energy-supplying macronutrients (total fat, saturated fat, and

carbohydrate) as well as cholesterol and sodium are applied only to the meals and snacks offered to

children in the 3-5 and 6-12 CACFP age groups. 

The Dietary Guidelines and NRC recommendations are intended to apply to average total daily food

intake. It is generally permissible in nutrition research to examine the nutrient contribution of major

meals such as breakfast and lunch, averaged over several days, to daily goals. The assumption made
30 There are no widely accepted standards for snacks because snacks are considered to be supplementary and,

on an individual basis, are not expected to make major contributions to children’s daily nutrient intake. For

this reason it was also not possible to define RDA-based benchmarks for snacks or for the total

complement or common combinations of meals and snacks offered.

31 Noncreditable foods are foods that do not contribute to satisfying the CACFP meal pattern for a particular

meal (e.g., condiments, meat or meat alternates at breakfast, juice drinks).

32 Menus were obtained for 3-5 days for each provider. A given provider might offer breakfast on none,

some, or all of the menu days. Five breakfasts were recorded for most providers, which means that most

providers contribute five observations to this analysis. The number of included breakfasts for a single

provider ranges from three to five. Breakfasts offered on 1 or 2 days are excluded from the analysis.

33 This criterion is applied separately to 1999 and 1995 data. Any food offered in at least 5 percent of

breakfasts in either period is included in the exhibit.

Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 23

is that meals that meet the goals increase the likelihood that total daily intake will meet the goals. In

this study we present the average nutrients in breakfasts, lunches, snacks, and common combinations

of meals and snacks offered over 3-5 days relative to all of the selected benchmarks of nutritional

quality. Where possible, daily nutrient recommendations are expressed as one-fourth of the goal at

breakfast and one-third of the goal at lunch, consistent with the school meal program nutrition

standards for these meals. Since no such proportions of daily goals have been suggested for Child

Nutrition programs serving snacks, it is not possible to examine the proportion of providers offering

snacks or common combinations of meals and snacks that are consistent with daily

recommendations.30 We do, however, present the mean nutrient content of snacks and common

combinations of meals snacks offered, so that their relative contribution to daily recommendations

can be evaluated.

Finally, it is important to recognize that CACFP family child care homes are not required to offer

meals or snacks that meet the school meal program nutrition standards or any other quantitative

nutrient recommendations. The benchmarks used in this report were selected solely to facilitate

interpretation of the data. 

Foods Offered in CACFP Breakfasts

Exhibit 10 summarizes the foods most commonly offered to children aged 3-5 at breakfast, including

foods in the three required meal component categories and other, noncreditable, foods.31 Breakfast

menus differ very little across the three age groups (1-2, 3-5, and 6-12). The 3-5 age group, which is

the largest, is used for illustrative purposes. Figures in the exhibit are the percent of all observed

breakfasts that included the food item or group.32 This may be interpreted as the percent of CACFP

breakfasts offered nationwide on any given day that include the specified food. Only food items or

groups offered in at least 5 percent of all breakfasts are listed.33
24 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

Exhibit 10

Share of Breakfasts Containing Foods Commonly Offered to Children Aged 3-5a

Meal Component/Food

Tier 2

1999

Difference

1999-95b

Percentage of Breakfasts in which Item is Offered

Milk 98.9% 0.1%

White, 2% 54.3 1.7

White, whole 34.2 10.7*

White, skim 5.6 -0.4

White, no further specificationc 0.7 -26.0***

Fruits and Juices 97.8 0.4

Any fresh, canned, or dried fruit 66.6 1.2

Any fresh fruit 49.7 1.2

Banana 25.0 0.2

Orange 7.2 0.6

Apple 7.1 0.7

Any canned fruit 13.6 0.9

Applesauce 5.6 0.5

Any juice 40.0 1.1

Orange/grapefruit juice 22.9 1.8

Apple juice 10.6 1.1

Breads and Bread Alternates 100.0 1.2***

Cold cereal 43.3 1.8

Pancakes, waffles, French toast 23.1 2.6

White bread, rolls 18.9 -3.3

Hot cereal 8.7 -2.5

Noncreditable Foodsd

Meat/meat alternates 10.5 -4.4*

Eggs 6.7 -1.5

Other noncreditable 52.0 -1.8

Syrup, honey 22.4 3.6**

Sugar 8.2 2.0

Jelly 4.7 -1.2

High-fat condimentse 29.6 -3.0

Unweighted sample 2,093 3,975

a Includes only foods offered in at least 5 percent of daily breakfast menus, in either 1995 or 1999.

b Regression estimate. See Appendix D. 

c Menu survey did not include information on the fat content of milk. 

d Foods that do not contribute to satisfying the CACFP meal pattern. 

e Butter, margarine, cream cheese, and other high-fat toppings.

Significance levels:

 * = .10

 ** = .05

 *** = .01
34 The increase in the estimate for whole milk (p < 0.10) appears to result from the fact that a substantial

proportion of milk observations in 1995 did not specify the type of milk, while less than 1 percent of milk

observations in 1999 had no further specification.

Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 25

One may roughly describe a “typical” CACFP breakfast as including the most commonly offered

food in each of the three required categories. The typical Tier 2 breakfast in 1999 would thus consist

of milk (white, 2-percent fat), a banana or orange juice, and cold cereal.

The analysis indicates that the foods that Tier 2 providers offered for breakfast in 1999 differed little

from the foods that similar providers offered in 1995, especially for the three required categories of

food.

Milk. Just over half of all breakfasts included white, 2-percent fat milk. White whole milk was next

most common, offered in about one-third of breakfasts. Skim milk was offered in only about 6

percent of breakfasts, and flavored milks were rarely offered at breakfast. Milk patterns do not differ

meaningfully from the patterns for similar providers in 1995.34

Fruits, Vegetables, and Juices. Two-thirds of breakfasts included some kind of fresh, canned, or

dried fruit. The most common example was bananas, which were offered in 25 percent of breakfasts. 

Fruit juice was offered at 40 percent of breakfasts, most commonly orange or grapefruit juice (23

percent) and apple juice (11 percent). None of these patterns changed significantly from 1995.

Bread and Bread Alternates. Cold cereal is the most frequently offered food in this group,

appearing in 43 percent of all breakfasts. Pancakes, waffles, and French toast are also common, as

are white bread and rolls (23 percent and 19 percent, respectively). No particular foods in this group

differ significantly in their serving frequency from those offered in 1995, but bread and bread

alternates as a group show a small but statistically significant increase in 1999.

Noncreditable Foods. About 11 percent of CACFP breakfasts included a food that would be

classified as a meat or meat alternate, most commonly eggs. Foods in this category may have been

offered less frequently by Tier 2 providers in 1999 than by similar providers in 1995 (p < 0.10). As

discussed in the section above on meal components, this may reflect an effort on the part of some

Tier 2 providers to reduce food costs without compromising compliance with CACFP regulations. 

Just over half of CACFP breakfasts included some other form of noncreditable food, most commonly

condiments. Syrup or honey, offered in 22 percent of breakfasts, were significantly more common in

1999 than in 1995.
35 In contrast to the RDAs for other nutrients, recommended energy allowances (REAs) represent the average

needs of individuals in a group rather than an upper level of requirement variability among individuals

(National Research Council, 1989a). For ease in presentation, we refer to the REAs as RDAs throughout

this report.

36 “All ages” refers to the overall mean percent of RDA across the particular age group(s) served by each

provider.

37 As age increases, there is a tendency for the percent RDA for calories, protein, and vitamin A to decrease

and the percent RDA for vitamin C, calcium, and iron to increase. This is because the magnitude of the

change in RDA for each age group differs among nutrients relative to the change in estimated portion sizes. 

For example, while the average increase in portion sizes is about 13 percent for both breakfast and lunch,

the RDA for vitamin A is 42 percent higher for children in the 6-12 group than children in the 3-5 group. 

Conversely, the RDA for vitamin C is only 6 percent higher for the 6-12 group than the 3-5 group.

38 The increase in total food energy does not appear to be due to the significant increase in whole milk in

1999. Differences in milk offerings in the two time periods account for only 0.2 of a percentage point of

the difference in food energy.

26 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

Nutrient Content of CACFP Breakfasts Relative to RDAs

Tier 2 providers in 1999 offered breakfasts that provide, on average, more than 25 percent of the

1989 RDA for all nutrients examined, with the exception of food energy (Exhibit 11).35 For all age

groups combined, the average breakfast supplies three-fourths of the RDA for vitamin C, over half of

the RDA for protein and vitamin A, and over one-third of the RDA for calcium and iron.36 Mean iron

content is strongly influenced by the frequency with which enriched or fortified cereals are offered;

for example, such cereals account for 65 percent of the iron in breakfasts offered to the 3-5 age group

(data not shown). For food energy, the average breakfast provides about one-fifth of the RDA. 

These patterns are roughly consistent across age groups.37

The analysis indicates that the Tier 2 breakfasts offered in 1999 provide significantly more food

energy than those offered by similar providers in 1995. Although the difference is small—less than 2

percent of the RDA—it is statistically significant for breakfasts offered to children aged 3-5, the

largest age group served, and for all age groups served by the provider.38 There were no significant

differences in the mean percentage of RDA for other key nutrients in breakfasts offered by Tier 2

1999 providers and similar providers in 1995.
Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 27

Exhibit 11

Mean Percentage of RDA Offered at Breakfast

Age 1-2 Age 3-5 Age 6-12 All Ages

Tier

2

1999

Difference

1999-

95a

Tier

2

1999

Difference

1999-

95a

Tier

2

1999

Difference

1999-

95a

Tier

2

1999

Difference

1999-

95a

Total energy 22.2% 0.9%* 21.2% 1.5%*** 19.8% 1.1%* 21.4% 1.5%***

Protein 62.9 -0.1 54.4 1.5 44.1 -1.5 56.4 1.8

Vitamin A 61.7 6.0 62.9 4.4 51.1 1.0 59.7 4.6

Vitamin C 69.3 -0.2 79.2 2.8 86.9 2.4 74.9 0.4

Calcium 34.4 0.1 37 0.7 37.5 -1.1 36.4 0.6

Iron 34.0 3.3 41.1 2.0 45.7 -2.8 39.1 1.1

Un-weighted

sample 412 759 441 830 231 458 499 929

a

 Regression estimate. See Appendix D.

Significance levels:

 * = .10

 ** = .05

*** = .01

Percent of Providers Offering at Least One-Fourth of the RDA at

Breakfast

Most Tier 2 providers in 1999 offered breakfasts with at least one-fourth of the RDA for all nutrients

except food energy (Exhibit 12). Over 97 percent offered breakfasts that supply at least one-fourth of

the RDA for protein, vitamin A, and calcium; over 90 percent offered breakfasts that met this

benchmark for vitamin C; and 77 percent offered breakfasts that met this benchmark for iron (for all

age groups combined). Far fewer providers—about 15 percent overall and just 6 percent for 6-12

year olds—offered one-fourth of the RDA for food energy at breakfast.

Despite the relatively low percentage of providers whose breakfasts contained one-fourth of the RDA

for food energy in 1999, significantly more Tier 2 providers in 1999 met this threshold for the 3-5

age group than did similar providers in 1995. The effect amounts to an additional 8 percent of

providers offering breakfasts with one-fourth of the RDA for energy for this age group. 
28 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

Exhibit 12

Percentage of Providers Offering at Least One-Fourth of the RDA at Breakfast

Age 1-2 Age 3-5 Age 6-12 All Ages

Tier

2

1999

Difference

1999-

95a

Tier

2

1999

Difference

1999-

95a

Tier

2

1999

Difference

1999-

95a

Tier

2

1999

Difference

1999-

95a

Total energy 18.5% 5.8% 13.0% 8.2%*** 6.3% 1.8% 14.7% 5.1%

Protein 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0

Vitamin A 99.2 1.3 99.3 0.3 97.0 3.1 98.6 2.5

Vitamin C 91.4 0.8 92.1 -2.0 94.9 0.4 91.6 -3.7

Calcium 97.1 -2.8 98.2 0.7 98.6 1.2 98.0 1.2

Iron 73.4 10.9 80.8 -2.3 82.5 -9.6 76.8 -2.6

Un-weighted

sample 412 759 441 830 231 458 499 929

a

 Regression estimate. See Appendix D. 

Significance levels:

 * = .10

 ** = .05

*** = .01

Nutrient Content of CACFP Breakfasts Relative to Dietary

Guidelines and NRC Recommendations

Tier 2 breakfasts offered to children aged 3-12 are largely consistent with the Dietary Guidelines and

NRC recommendation benchmarks applied in this study. The average provider offered breakfasts

that met these recommendations for the percent of energy from fat and carbohydrate, as well as

falling under the recommended maxima for cholesterol and sodium (Exhibit 13).

The partial exception to this pattern concerns the percent of energy from saturated fat for which the

recommended level is less than 10 percent. The estimates for the percent of energy from saturated

fat in breakfasts offered to 3-5 year olds and 6-12 year olds are 10.4 and 9.8 percent, respectively. 

Neither of these estimates are significantly different from 10 percent. (The 95-percent confidence

interval for this estimate falls across the 10-percent boundary for both groups.)

The Tier 2 providers in 1999 offered breakfasts with essentially the same levels of fat, saturated fat,

and carbohydrate, as a percentage of food energy, as breakfasts offered by similar providers in 1995.

The mean amounts of cholesterol and sodium offered did not differ significantly between the two

years.
Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 29

Exhibit 13

Mean Nutrient Levels Relative to Dietary Guidelines and NRC Recommendations Offered at

Breakfasta

Age 3-5 Age 6-12

RecommendationTier 2

1999

Difference

1999-95b

Tier 2

1999

Difference

1999-95b

Percent of food energy from:

Fat (%)  30% 22.0% 0.1% 21.6% 0.5%

Saturated fat (%) <10% 10.4 0.0 9.8 0.0

Carbohydrate (%) > 55% 66.5 0.5 67.4 0.2

Cholesterol (mg)  75 mg 52.9 8.5 57.9 8.9

Sodium (mg)  600 mg 460.1 45.1 538.3 44.1

Unweighted sample 441 830 231 458

a Note that the Dietary Guidelines and NRC recommendations are only applicable to children beginning at 2 years of age and older. This

analysis is limited to breakfasts offered to children 3-5 and 6-12, the only CACFP age groups for which the standards fully apply. b Regression estimate. See Appendix D.

Significance levels:

 * = .10

 ** = .05

 *** = .01

Percent of Providers Meeting the Dietary Guidelines and NRC

Recommendations at Breakfast 

A large majority of Tier 2 providers offered breakfasts that meet most of the Dietary Guidelines and

NRC recommendations, as shown in Exhibit 14. For children aged 3-5 and 6-12, at least 90 percent

of providers met the recommendations for the percentages of energy from fat and carbohydrate, and

around 80 percent offered breakfasts with cholesterol and sodium in the recommended range. A

lower proportion, but still at least half of all providers, offered breakfasts for which the percentage of

food energy from saturated fat was within the recommended range.

The percentages of Tier 2 providers meeting the Dietary Guidelines and NRC recommendations in

1999 vary little from the percentages for similar providers in 1995. This is true for children in both

the 3-5 and 6-12 age group. 
30 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

Exhibit 14

Percentage of Providers Meeting Dietary Guidelines and NRC Recommendations at Breakfasta

Age 3-5 Age 6-12

Tier 2

1999

Difference 

1999-95b

Tier 2

1999

Difference

1999-95b

Percent of food energy from:

Fat 90.4% -1.4 92.8 -0.4%

Saturated fat 50.7 6.4 57.7 5.1

Carbohydrate 94.6 -1.8 96.7 -0.1

Cholesterol 78.5 -5.9 79.2 -5.3

Sodium 87.4 -5.4 78.3 -6.5

Unweighted sample 441 830 231 458

a Note that the Dietary Guidelines and NRC recommendations are only applicable to children beginning at 2 years of age and older. This

analysis is limited to breakfasts offered to children 3-5 and 6-12, the only CACFP age groups for which the recommendations fully apply. b Regression estimate. See Appendix D.

Significance levels:

 * = .10

 ** = .05

 *** = .01
39 As Exhibit 14 indicates, the 1995 data contain many observations of milk whose exact type was not

specified. Such observations were rare in the 1999 data and the difference probably accounts for the

higher proportion of whole milk observations in 1999 (p < 0.10).

Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 31

Food and Nutrient Composition of CACFP Tier 2

Lunches

This section continues the examination of the nutritional characteristics of meals and snacks offered

to children in CACFP family child care homes. It examines the food and nutrient composition of

lunches in Tier 2 homes in 1999 and compares them with the composition of lunches offered by

similar providers (resembling them in tier-related characteristics) in 1995.

Tier 2 providers in 1999 generally offered lunches that supply at least one-third of the RDA for most

nutrient measures, the exceptions being food energy and iron. Relatively few providers, however,

offered lunches that met the Dietary Guidelines recommendations for fat and saturated fat or the

NRC recommendations for carbohydrate and sodium.

Comparison of the nutrient profile of Tier 2 1999 lunches with those offered by similar providers in

1995 revealed several significant differences, but none that appear to reflect an impact of the reduced

reimbursement rate. Most of the significant differences reflect increases in nutrient levels, which

result mainly from a general tendency toward larger portion sizes in 1999. In addition to the larger

portions, changes in the specific foods offered at lunch led to some changes in the nutrient profile. 

Foods Offered in CACFP Lunches

Lunches that qualify for CACFP reimbursement must include two or more servings of fruit,

vegetables, or full-strength juice, plus at least one serving of the other three major meal components: 

milk, bread or bread alternate, and meat or meat alternate. Practically all Tier 2 lunches in 1999 met

this broad requirement, as indicated earlier. Exhibit 15 contains a more detailed description of the

foods offered to children aged 3-5 within each meal component category.

Milk. As at breakfast, the most common type of milk offered is white, 2-percent fat milk. It is

offered in just over half of all lunches. Whole milk is offered in about one-third of the lunches, and

no other kind of milk makes up more than a small percent of the total. The 1999 Tier 2 pattern shows

no important difference from the pattern of similar providers in 1995.39

Fruits and Juices. Nearly 9 out of 10 lunches contained a fruit or, less frequently, a fruit juice. 

Fresh fruits and canned fruits appeared in 46 and 40 percent of the 1999 lunches, respectively. 

Apples, bananas, grapes, and oranges were the most common fresh fruits, while peaches, pears,

applesauce, and fruit cocktail led the list of canned fruits. The fruits in Tier 2 lunches in 1999 were

quite like those offered by similar providers in 1995, although applesauce was a bit less common and

fresh fruit (p < 0.10) slightly more common in 1999.
32 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

Exhibit 15

Share of Lunches Containing Foods Commonly Offered to Children Aged 3-5a

Tier 2

1999

Difference

1999-95b

Percentage of Lunches in which Item is Offered

Milk 98.9% 2.1%

White, 2% 52.9 -0.6

White, whole 33.1 9.9*

White, 1%,1.5% 7.1 3.0

White, skim 5.6 -0.3

White, no further specificationc 0.6 -28.7***

Fruits and Juices 87.0 4.1

Any fresh, canned, or dried fruit 86.4 3.8

Any fresh fruit 46.1 6.6*

Apple 14.1 -0.4

Banana 8.3 0.4

Grapes 7.3 1.2

Orange 5.7 -0.7

Any canned fruit 39.9 -3.2

Peaches 9.9 0.0

Pears 8.9 1.7

Applesauce 8.6 -4.1**

Fruit cocktail 6.8 -1.1

Vegetables 92.9 2.6

Potatoes, fried 14.6 2.7

Green beans, cooked 13.4 0.8

Corn 12.9 0.0

Tomatoes, cooked 12.5 3.0**

Peas 7.9 0.2

Broccoli, cooked 4.0 -1.1

Potatoes, mashed, scalloped 4.0 -1.1

Vegetables in mixed dishes 3.4 -1.5

Any raw vegetables 28.8 0.3

Carrots, raw 14.0 0.7

Lettuce, salad mix 6.7 0.3

Bread and Bread Alternates 98.4 0.5

White bread, rolls 60.0 -2.0

Pasta 19.9 1.2

Breading on nuggets, sticks 14.3 3.2**

Tortillas, taco shells, pizza crust 7.7 -0.4

Rice 4.3 -0.6

continued...
Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 33

Exhibit 15 (continued)

Share of Lunches Containing Foods Commonly Offered to Children Aged 3-5a

Tier 2

1999

Difference

1999-95b

Meat and Meat Alternates 99.3 -0.3

Cheese, not low-fat 20.4 1.8

Hot dogs 11.9 2.4**

Chicken-Turkey, fried 9.3 2.5**

Peanut butter, nuts 8.0 0.2

Chicken-Turkey, roasted 7.1 -1.9

Ham 6.6 1.5

Beef, ground 6.1 -2.6**

Fish, fried, processed 6.0 0.0

Fish, canned 4.5 -0.6

Cheese in mixed dishes 13.3 1.1

Beef in mixed dishes 10.8 1.2

Noncreditable Foodsd 57.5 5.1

High-fat condimentse 34.7 -1.7

Low-fat condimentsf 20.1 7.1***

Jelly 6.7 0.3

Unweighted sample 2,305 4,483

a Includes only foods offered in at least 5 percent of meals, in either 1995 or 1999. b Regression estimate. See Appendix D. c Menu survey did not include information on the fat content of milk. 

d Foods that do not contribute to satisfying the CACFP meal pattern. e Butter, margarine, salad dressing, mayonnaise, gravy, cream cheese, and other high-fat toppings.

f Low-fat salad dressing, low-fat mayonnaise, ketchup, mustard, pickles, and other low-fat toppings.

Significance levels:

 * = .10

 ** = .05

 *** = .01

Vegetables. Tier 2 providers in 1999 offered a vegetable in 93 percent of all lunches. The most

common vegetables were fried potatoes, raw carrots, green beans, corn, and cooked tomatoes (mainly

in the form of tomato sauce)—each offered in 13-15 percent of lunches. Raw vegetables appeared in

29 percent of lunches but were much less common than cooked vegetables. No striking differences

from 1995 are observed, although cooked tomatoes show a small but statistically significant increase.

Bread and Bread Alternates. By far the most common food item in this group is white bread or

rolls, appearing in 60 percent of Tier 2 lunch menus in 1999. Pasta is a distant second, at 20 percent,

and third is the breading found in dishes such as chicken nuggets and fish sticks (14 percent). The

latter category shows a small but statistically significant increase since 1995.

Meat and Meat Alternates. At least one meat or meat alternate was offered in virtually all lunches in

Tier 2 homes in 1999 (99 percent). Cheese, offered in 20 percent of lunches, was the most common

and hot dogs were second, at 12 percent. Differences from 1995 were not large, but statistically

significant increases occurred for hot dogs and fried chicken or turkey, while ground beef was

offered significantly less frequently. Each of these differences represented changes in only 2-3

percent of the lunches.
34 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

Noncreditable Foods. Over half of CACFP lunches include some noncreditable items, usually

condiments. High-fat condiments, such as bread spreads (mayonnaise, butter, and margarine), salad

dressings, and gravy, are offered in more than one-third of lunches. Low-fat condiments, such as

ketchup, are in one-fifth of the menus. A significantly larger proportion of Tier 2 providers in 1999

offered low-fat condiments than similar providers in 1995—in fact, this was the largest estimated

difference between the 2 years for any single food category. Because many of the low-fat

condiments are high in sodium, this turns out to be one source of the increase in sodium levels

discussed below.

Nutrient Content of CACFP Lunches Relative to RDAs

The average Tier 2 lunch in 1999 provided more than one-third of the RDA for protein, vitamin A,

vitamin C, and calcium (Exhibit 16). For food energy and iron, the average falls somewhat short of

one-third of the RDA (29 percent and 26 percent, respectively, when averaged across all age groups). 

Protein and vitamin A levels are far above the one-third of RDA benchmark, at more than 100

percent and 75 percent, respectively. 

This pattern is roughly consistent across age groups, but some variations can be seen. Levels of total

food energy, protein, and vitamin A in Tier 2 lunches represent a somewhat smaller proportion of the

RDA for older children than for younger children. The pattern is reversed for vitamin C, calcium,

and iron, with older children offered lunches with slightly higher proportions of the RDA than

younger children. As noted for the breakfast analysis, the main reason for this finding is the

disproportionate change in the RDA values relative to the change in portion sizes with increasing

Exhibit 16

Mean Percentage of RDA Offered at Lunch

Age 1-2 Age 3-5 Age 6-12 All Ages

Tier 

2 

1999

Difference

1999-

95

Tier 

2 

1999

Difference

1999-

95

Tier

2

 1999

Difference

1999-

95

Tier

2

1999

Difference

1999-

95

Food energy 30.8% 1.7%** 28.8% 2.1%*** 27.2% 1.6%** 29.4% 2.1%***

Protein 114.5 2.8 100.1 4.5 85.2 1.2 104.5 4.9

Vitamin A 78.6 1.6 74.5 -0.9 61.2 -4.0 74.7 1.0

Vitamin C 45.2 5.0 48.4 6.6** 53.4 6.9 47.3 5.1*

Calcium 39.2 1.1 42.5 1.4 44.0 0.3 41.4 1.1

Iron 22.8 1.0 26.6 1.5* 31.4 1.7 25.5 0.9

Un-weighted

sample 446 842 483 931 165 358 527 1,013

a

 Regression estimate. See Appendix D. 

Significance levels:

 * = .10

 ** = .05

 *** = .01
40 An analysis conducted for the 1995 study, however, indicated that the mean percentage of RDA for iron in

CACFP lunches was lower for each age group when the CACFP minimum portion sizes were used in place

of estimated portion sizes. The differences ranged from 4 percent for the 6-10 age group to 10 percent for

1-2 year olds (Abt Associates Inc., unpublished data).

41 For more information on the meal observations and portion size analysis methodology, see Appendix C.

Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 35

age. (There is over 90 percent agreement in the foods offered to each age group when more than one

group is served.) 

The finding for iron warrants further discussion. The major sources of iron in Tier 2 lunches are

enriched breads and grains and mixed dishes that contain enriched grains (e.g., macaroni and cheese,

pizza, and burritos). Meats (ground beef, in particular) and vegetables (including legumes)

contribute two-thirds to three-quarters as much iron as grain-based items. The smaller contribution

of iron from lunches relative to breakfasts is due entirely to the frequent offering of enriched and

fortified cereals at breakfast. It is unclear whether Tier 2 lunches should be considered “low” in iron

content. As reported previously, Tier 2 providers in 1999 were meeting meal-pattern requirements

for the major types of foods offered at lunch. It is possible that a one-third RDA benchmark for this

nutrient at lunch is inappropriate given the suggested portion sizes, but the analysis required to

confirm this hypothesis would be beyond the scope of this study.40 Recall that CACFP providers are

not required to offer lunches that provide one-third of the RDA. 

Tier 2 providers in 1999 offered lunches with significantly larger amounts of food energy than the

lunches offered by similar providers in 1995. A significant increase in the mean percent of RDA for

vitamin C was observed for children aged 3-5, but not for children aged 1-2 or 6-12. Other than a

small increase in the mean percentage of the RDA for iron in lunches offered to 3-5-year-olds (p <

0.10), no other 1999-95 differences were found.

The 1999-95 differences stem in large part from a general tendency to serve larger portions of food in

1999 than 1995. Portion sizes were measured by on-site observers who visited a subsample of the

family child care homes included in the menu survey.41 Multivariate analyses were then used to

estimate portion sizes for all menus for each kind of food, controlling for factors such as the number

of children and meals offered, provider income, and characteristics of the provider’s location (region,

urban/rural, and proportion of low-income children).

The portion size analyses found that Tier 2 providers in 1999 offered significantly larger portions

than similar providers in 1995 for three of ten major types of food (meats, breads, and nonmilk

beverages). The estimated effects were not statistically significant for most other types of food. 

A further analysis was conducted to separate the influence of portion sizes from that of menu choices

and other factors in creating the 1995-99 differences in nutrient quantities offered. This analysis

indicates, for all nutrient measures, that the 1995-99 differences are less positive (and mostly

nonsignificant) when the effects of portion size are removed.
42 As discussed for all nutrients in footnote 28, if the new EAR benchmarks for iron had been used, a much

larger proportion of providers would have been found to be offering lunches that meet that lower

benchmark for iron. The iron values in the RDAs are 10 mg. for both 1-3-year-olds and 4-8-year-olds

while those values in the EARs are 3 mg. for 1-3-year-olds and 4.1 mg. for 4-8-year-olds.

36 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

Percent of Providers Offering at Least One-Third of the RDA at

Lunch

Over three-quarters of Tier 2 providers in 1999 offered lunches that supplied, on average, at least

one-third of the RDA for protein, vitamin A, calcium, and vitamin C (Exhibit 17). Only 20 percent

met this benchmark for food energy, and just 9 percent offered lunches with one-third of the RDA for

iron. As discussed above, these goals may not be appropriate for CACFP lunches. Still the small

proportion of providers offering one-third of the RDA for iron at lunch, especially to preschool

children, is potentially worrisome.42 Iron deficiency is the single most prevalent nutrient deficiency

in the United States, and young children are considered to be one of the groups most at risk. In the

1994-96, 1998 CSFII, less than half of 1-2-year-olds and two-thirds of 3-5-year-olds met their RDA

for iron in all meals and snacks combined (USDA, 1999).

Significantly more Tier 2 providers in 1999 met the one-third of RDA benchmark for food energy in

lunches offered to 3-5-year-olds and for all age groups served than did similar providers in 1995. 

This result is consistent with the significant increase in the average amount of energy in lunches

offered as shown in Exhibit 16. Across all age groups the increase in the percentage of providers

offering lunches with one-third of the RDA for energy is about 10 percent.

Exhibit 17

Percentage of Providers Offering at Least One-Third of the RDA at Lunch

Age 1-2 Age 3-5 Age 6-12 All Ages

Tier

2

1999

Difference

1999-

95a

Tier

2

1999

Difference

1999-

95a

Tier

2

1999

Difference

1999-

95a

Tier

2

1999

Difference

1999-

95a

Total energy 29.3% 13.1%* 12.8% 7.3%** 6.3% -1.4% 19.1% 9.6%**

Protein 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0

Vitamin A 98.7 3.6 94.7 -4.4 89.5 3.5 96.0 6.8

Vitamin C 73.3 12.3 77.4 15.3 85.3 14.0 76.0 10.7

Calcium 88.1 2.3 93.8 0.2 93.8 -4.5 91.8 2.0

Iron 3.6 2.0 7.8 3.2 33.3 13.0 8.5 3.2

Un-weighted

sample 446 842 483 931 165 358 527 1,013

a

 Regression estimate. See Appendix D. 

Significance levels:

 * = .10

 ** = .05

*** = .01
Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 37

Nutrient Content of CACFP Lunches Relative to Dietary Guidelines

and NRC Recommendations

The average lunch offered by Tier 2 providers in 1999 did not meet the Dietary Guidelines or NRC

recommendations for any of the nutrient measures except cholesterol, as shown in Exhibit 18. The

average values for lunches offered to children aged 3-5 and 6-12 were similar and well above the

recommendations for the percent of energy from fat and saturated fat, and below the recommendation

for the percent of energy from carbohydrate. The average amount of sodium was also above the

recommended maximum for both age groups.

The situation with regard to these recommendations appears to have worsened somewhat between

1995 and 1999. Average values for the percent of energy from saturated fat in lunches offered for

the 3-5 and 6-12 age groups are significantly higher for Tier 2 providers in 1999 than for similar

providers in 1995. The mean percent of energy from fat was also slightly higher for the 3-5 age

group (p < 0.10). Both of these increases were small (1 percentage point or less). Average sodium

levels increased by almost 20 percent, climbing well above the NRC benchmark, although this result

was not statistically significant. 

Because the increase in sodium levels was substantial and consistent across age groups, additional

analyses were conducted. The increased sodium levels result partly from the general increase in

portion sizes described earlier, but menu choices also played a role. No single food appears to

account for the difference, but contributions came from increases in the proportion of lunches

including ketchup, hot dogs, processed cheese, and fried breaded meats.

Exhibit 18

Mean Nutrient Levels Relative to Dietary Guidelines and NRC Recommendations Offered at

Luncha

Age 3-5 Age 6-12

RecommendationTier 2 

1999

Difference

1999-95a

Tier 2 

1999

Difference

1999-95a

Percent of food energy from:

Fat (%)  30% 37.0 1.0* 37.3 0.9

Saturated fat (%) <10% 15.4 0.7** 15.2 0.8**

Carbohydrate (%) > 55% 46.2 -0.3 45.9 -0.5

Cholesterol (mg)  100 mg 59.4 4 71.4 11.2

Sodium (mg)  800 mg 936.4 131.8 1,132.6 183.5

Unweighted sample 483 931 165 358

a Note that the Dietary Guidelines and NRC recommendations are only applicable to children beginning at 2 years of age and older. This

analysis is limited to lunches offered to children 3-5 and 6-12, the only CACFP age groups for which the recommendations fully apply. b Regression estimate. See Appendix D.

Significance levels:

 * = .10

 ** = .05

 *** = .01
38 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

Percent of Providers Meeting the Dietary Guidelines and NRC

Recommendations for Lunch

As would be expected from the above patterns, few Tier 2 providers meet any of the benchmarks

based on the Dietary Guidelines and NRC recommendations, with the exception of the

recommendation for cholesterol. A large majority meet the recommended maximum for cholesterol

(86 percent for children aged 6-12 and 93 percent for ages 3-5), as shown in Exhibit 19. Fewer than

10 percent of providers meet any of the other recommendations, except that 23 percent of providers

offer 3-5-year-olds lunches that are within the recommended range for sodium.

There were no significant differences in the proportion of Tier 2 providers in 1999 offering lunches

meeting the Dietary Guidelines and NRC recommendations for fat, saturated fat, carbohydrate,

cholesterol, and sodium compared with similar providers in 1995. This pattern would not be

unexpected given the very small and/or nonsignificant increases in average levels for these nutrients,

as described earlier.

Exhibit 19

Percentage of Providers Meeting Dietary Guidelines and NRC Recommendations at Luncha

Age 3-5 Age 6-12

Tier 2 

1999

Difference

 1999-95a

Tier 2 

1999

Difference

1999-95a

Percent of food energy from:

Fat 7.1% -2.0% 5.4% -5.1%

Saturated fat 1.5 -2.4 4.17 1.2

Carbohydrate 2.6 1.1 5.0 2.6

Cholesterol 93.0 -5 86.3 -7.5

Sodium 23.4 -36.3 7.1 -22.4

Unweighted sample 483 931 165 358

a Note that the Dietary Guidelines and NRC recommendations are only applicable to children beginning at 2 years of age and older. This

analysis is limited to lunches offered to children 3-5 and 6-12, the only CACFP age groups for which the recommendations fully apply. b Regression estimate. See Appendix D.

Significance levels:

 * = .10

 ** = .05

 *** = .01
Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 39

Food and Nutrient Composition of CACFP Tier 2

Snacks

CACFP family child care providers may offer three different types of snacks: morning, afternoon,

and evening. (For any one child, however, providers may receive reimbursement for only two meals

and one snack or one meal and two snacks in a given day.) The afternoon and morning snacks,

offered in 96 percent and 56 percent of Tier 2 homes, respectively, in 1999, are by far the most

common. Because only 5 percent of homes offer an evening snack, the present analysis is limited to

morning and afternoon snacks.

Snacks are not expected to contribute any specific proportion of the RDA. The analyses presented

below therefore describe the average percent of RDA without comparing providers with any specific

benchmark. Similarly, the nutrition benchmarks drawn from the Dietary Guidelines and NRC

recommendations are not typically applied to small eating occasions, such as snacks, which may

consist of only one or two foods. For this reason, the analysis presents only mean nutrient levels, for

descriptive purposes, on these aspects of the nutrient profile. Information on the nutrient content of

snacks is needed to help gauge the extent to which the snacks are likely to contribute to or detract

from the recommended patterns over the full day.

The analysis shows that morning and afternoon snacks are quite similar in terms of the foods

commonly offered and in their nutrient profile. Both morning and afternoon snacks offer, on

average, nearly one-third of the RDA for protein and vitamin C, and 10 to 20 percent of the RDA for

food energy, vitamin A, calcium, and iron. The average snack provides a level of total fat that is

likely to contribute positively to achievement of the Dietary Guidelines overall average daily

recommendation, but, like lunch, contributes more than the recommended percent of food energy

from saturated fat. The average Tier 2 snacks are consistent with NRC recommendations for the

percent of food energy from carbohydrate. Snacks contribute very little cholesterol, on average, and

sodium levels do not exceed the relative contribution to daily recommendations from energy and

other nutrients.

Snacks offered by Tier 2 providers in 1999 show several statistically significant differences from

those offered by similar providers (resembling them in characteristics that determine tier) in 1995. 

Most notably, the afternoon snack provided less vitamin A in 1999. Both snacks contributed slightly

more food energy than in 1995.

Foods Offered in CACFP Snacks

Snacks qualifying for CACFP reimbursement must include food items in any two of the four meal

components: milk; fruit, vegetables, or full-strength juice; bread or bread alternate; and meat or meat

alternate. Exhibit 20 shows the specific foods offered to children aged 3-5 in at least 5 percent of all

morning or afternoon snacks.
40 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

Exhibit 20

Share of Snacks Containing Foods Commonly Offered to Children Aged 3-5a

Morning Snack Afternoon Snack

Tier 2 

1999

Difference

1999-95b

Tier 2 

1999

Difference

1999-95b

Percentage of Snacks in which Item Is Offered

Milk 48.9% 8.2% 44.9% -4.2%

White, 2% 25.2 4.7 25.5 -1.9

White, whole 18.5 7.4 13.9 6.5**

White, not further specifiedc 0.1 -18.4*** 0.1 -23.5***

Fruits and Juices 61.8 -10.2 62.9 0.8

Any fresh, canned, or dried fruit 30.8 -0.5 27.7 -3.9

Any fresh fruit 24.4 1.2 20.4 -3.8

Banana 8.1 2.0 4.4 -0.7

Apple 7.6 -0.2 8.6 -2.2

Any canned fruit 4.8 0.4 (d) (d)

Any juice 34.8 -10.2 39.8 4.6

Apple juice 15.2 -9.3** 18.1 -0.8

Grape juice 7.4 3.6 8.4 4.3**

Orange/grapefruit juice 6.9 -2.9 5.7 -0.2

Juice blends, noncitrus 4.8 -1.4 7.3 0.6

Vegetables (d) (d) 3.4 -3.0**

Any raw vegetables (d) (d) 2.5 -3.6***

Bread and Bread Alternates 83.1 4.0 83.9 7.0***

Crackers 38.6 -2.9 42.6 2.7

White bread, rolls 13.0 0.6 10.2 -0.2

Cookie 7.6 3.3** 13.7 2.2

Muffins, sweet bread 6.3 1.1 4.6 -1.0

Cold cereal 5.2 -0.3 (d) (d)

Meat and Meat Alternates 21.1 -4.6 27.0 -7.2***

Peanut butter, nuts 7.0 -1.8 10.7 -5.4***

Cheese, not low-fat 6.3 -5.0** 9.9 -3.3**

Yogurt 5.5 2.6 (d) (d)

Noncreditable Foodse 17.4 1.5 14.8 -1.2

High-fat condimentsf 12.8 2.6* 6.6 -0.1

Unweighted sample 1,158 2,192 2,153 4,148

a Includes only foods offered in 5 percent of snacks, in either 1995 or 1999 (computed separately for morning and afternoon snacks). b Regression estimate. See Appendix D. c Menu survey did not include information on the fat content of milk. d Fewer than 5 percent of snacks contain this food. e Foods that do not contribute to satisfying the CACFP meal pattern. f Butter, margarine, cream cheese, and other high-fat toppings.

Significance levels:

 * = .10

 ** = .05

 *** = .01
43 As with breakfast and lunch, the 1995 menu survey had numerous observations of milk whose

characteristics were not further specified. The 1999 survey had far fewer such observations, which

accounts for the observed difference in whole milk in the afternoon snack.

Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 41

Milk. Slightly less than half of both morning and afternoon snacks include milk. White, 2-percent

fat milk is most common for snacks, as it is for breakfast and lunch. No important difference is seen

between Tier 2 providers in 1999 and similar providers in 1995.43

Fruit, Juice, and Vegetables. Just under two-thirds of both morning and afternoon snacks include a

fruit, vegetable, or juice. Most snacks offer either a fruit juice or a fruit, with juice being slightly

more common. Apple juice is the most frequently offered juice, while bananas and apples lead the

list of fruits. Patterns for Tier 2 providers in 1999 paralleled those for similar providers in 1995, with

three exceptions. The 1999 snacks were less likely to offer apple juice in morning snack, more likely

to offer grape juice in afternoon snack, and less likely to offer raw vegetables in afternoon snack.

Bread and Bread Alternates. Over 80 percent of Tier 2 morning and afternoon snacks in 1999

included bread or bread alternates. Crackers, by far the most common type of food in this category,

were offered in 39 percent of morning snacks and 43 percent of afternoon snacks. Tier 2 afternoon

snacks in 1999 were significantly more likely to include a bread or bread alternate than were snacks

offered by similar providers in 1995. The specific foods offered within the category, however,

differed little between the two years for either the morning or the afternoon snack.

Meat and Meat Alternates. This was the least common of the four creditable meal components in

both morning and afternoon snacks, included in 21 percent and 27 percent of snacks, respectively. 

Typical foods in this group were peanut butter, cheese, and yogurt. Meats and meat alternates of any

kind—and specifically peanut butter and cheese—were significantly less likely to be part of the

afternoon snack offered by Tier 2 providers in 1999 than by similar providers in 1995. The same

pattern exists for morning snacks, but the difference for peanut butter is not statistically significant.

Noncreditable Foods. Relatively few morning or afternoon snacks—less than one fifth—included

noncreditable foods. High-fat condiments, such as cream cheese, butter, and margarine were the

most common types of food in this category, and were offered somewhat more often in 1999 than in

1995 with the morning snack (p < 0.10).

Nutrient Content of Snacks Offered Relative to RDAs

The nutrient profiles for morning and afternoon snacks are quite similar, as might be expected from

the similarities in the types of foods offered. Both morning and afternoon snacks contribute about 15

percent of the RDA for food energy and at least 10 percent of the RDA for the five nutrients

considered here, as shown in Exhibit 21. The percentages are considerably higher for protein and

vitamin C; morning and afternoon snacks each supply close to one-third of the RDA for these two

nutrients. 

A few nutrient measures show statistically significant differences between the Tier 2 1999 snacks

and those offered by similar providers in 1995. The most striking difference is a reduction in vitamin

A for all age groups in the afternoon snack and for 6-12-year-olds in the morning snack. Other

effects include a small increase in iron for afternoon snacks offered to all ages (p < 0.10) and a small

but statistically significant increase in food energy for all age groups in both snacks. 
42 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

The reduction of vitamin A in the afternoon snack in 1999 probably stems from the reduced

frequency with which that snack included milk and vegetables, such as fresh carrots. The increase in

food energy in both morning and afternoon snacks probably reflects larger portion sizes in 1999

relative to 1995.

Exhibit 21

Mean Percentage of RDA Offered at Snacks

Age 1-2 Age 3-5 Age 6-12 All ages

Tier

2

1999

Difference

1999-

95 a

Tier

2

1999

Difference

1999-

95 a

Tier

2

1999

Difference

1999-

95 a

Tier

2

1999

Difference

1999-

95 a

Morning Snack

Total energy 14.6% 1.2%** 13.5% 1.1%** 13.8% 1.4%** 14.0% 1.2%**

Protein 34.9 2.8 30.1 2.5 26.5 0.7 32.0 3.3

Vitamin A 20.3 -0.9 18.6 -2.6 14.4 -9.3** 19.6 -1.6

Vitamin C 29.3 -9.5 30.9 -7.3 33.7 -5.1 31.6 -7.5

Calcium 17.8 2.3 19.4 2.3 20.7 1.2 18.9 2.4

Iron 12.5 0.7 14.0 0.4 16.2 -0.5 13.7 0.2

Un-weighted

sample 240 429 244 460 78 154 275 511

Afternoon Snack

Total energy 15.5% 1.1%** 14.6% 1.2%*** 14.6% 0.9%** 15.0% 1.2%***

Protein 36.3 -1.5 31.7 -0.2 27.8 -2.6 33.0 -0.1

Vitamin A 17.0 -7.3* 17.9 -5.5** 14.7 -7.7** 17.1 -6.0**

Vitamin C 28.3 -0.7 28.8 -1.0 32.2 -4.4 29.9 -2.1

Calcium 16.9 -1.6 18.8 -0.7 20.9 -2.3 19.0 -0.9

Iron 11.1 0.8 13.4 0.9 16.0 1.1 13.2 0.9*

Un-weighted 

sample 409 774 455 874 273 554 496 955

a Regression estimate. See Appendix D.

Significance levels:

 * = .10

 ** = .05

 *** = .01
Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 43

Nutrient Content of Snacks Relative to Dietary Guidelines and NRC

Recommendations

The average nutrient makeup of snacks offered to children age 3-12 is consistent with the Dietary

Guidelines and NRC recommendations for the percent of food energy from fat and carbohydrate,

respectively (Exhibit 22) An average of 11-12 percent of food energy comes from saturated fat,

however, which exceeds the daily recommendation for less than 10 percent. Cholesterol ranges from

5 to 7 percent of the recommended daily limit of 300 mg., with slightly higher levels in the morning

than the afternoon snack. The average sodium content of snacks offered amounts to 10-14 percent of

the recommended daily limit (2,400 mg.).

Exhibit 22

Mean Nutrient Levels Relative to Dietary Guidelines and NRC Recommendations Offered in

Snacksa

Daily Age 3-5 Age 6-12

 RecommendationTier 2 

1999

Difference

1999-95a

Tier 2

 1999

Difference 

1999-95a

Morning Snack

Percent of food energy from:

Fat (%)  30% 27.1 2.3** 28.2 2.2

Saturated fat (%) <10% 11.2 1.0 11.6 1.0

Carbohydrate (%) > 55% 63.7 -2.4 62.7 -1.7

Cholesterol (mg)  300 mg 17.6 1.6 21.9 -1.2

Sodium (mg)  2,400 mg 237.5 23.2 305.3 35.1

Unweighted sample 244 460 78 154

Afternoon Snack

Percent of food energy from:

Fat (%)  30% 28.7 -1.3 29.2 -1.5

Saturated fat (%) <10% 11.4 -0.6 11.4 -0.7

Carbohydrate (%) > 55% 62.1 2.0* 61.9 2.8*

Cholesterol (mg)  300 mg 15.5 0.9 17.6 -0.7

Sodium (mg)  2,400 mg 267.2 21.6 337.5 28.6

Unweighted sample 455 874 273 554

a Note that the Dietary Guidelines and NRC recommendations are only applicable to children beginning at 2 years of age and older. This

analysis is limited to snacks offered to children 3-5 and 6-12, the only CACFP age groups for which the recommendations fully apply. b Regression estimate. See Appendix D.

Significance levels:

 * = .10

 ** = .05

 *** = .01
44 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

The differences between Tier 2 snacks in 1999 and snacks offered by similar providers in 1995 are

mostly small and mixed in direction. Morning snacks offered to children aged 3-5 in 1999, relative

to those offered in 1995, supply a significantly higher percentage of food energy from fat. Afternoon

snacks show almost the opposite pattern, although the difference is not statistically significant. 

Afternoon snacks offered by Tier 2 providers in 1999 supply a slightly higher percentage of food

energy from carbohydrate (p < 0.10 for children aged 3-5 and 6-12). Tier 2 providers in 1999

offered, on average, 10 percent more sodium than similar providers in 1995 in both snacks for both

age groups, but this result was not statistically significant.
44 Providers can be reimbursed for two meals and one snack or two snacks and one meal per child per day. 

Given that over three-quarters of children under age 6 in CACFP homes are in care for 8 hours or more per

day (Crepinsek et al., E-FAN-02-005), it is likely that a substantial proportion of children are consuming

all meals and snacks offered under this combination and the provider is not being reimbursed for one of

them.

45 A provider may offer different combinations to different age groups during the same day. This most often

occurs when older children are not present for morning snack.

46 Only 1 percent of providers did not offer the same combination for at least 3 days to at least one age group.

Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 45

Nutrient Composition of Two Combinations of

CACFP Tier 2 Meals and Snacks

Although CACFP family child care homes offer many different combinations of meals and snacks,

two combinations are the most common by far. About 43 percent of providers offer breakfast, lunch,

and either the morning or afternoon snack, most often the afternoon snack. Another 38 percent offer

breakfast, lunch, and both the morning and afternoon snacks.44 (These are referred to as the “onesnack combination” and the “two-snack combination,” respectively.) All other combinations are

offered by fewer than 5 percent of providers.

This section describes the total food energy and nutrient contribution of these two combinations of

meals and snacks. Note that one cannot simply assume that the total nutrient values for a

combination of meals and snacks will be equal to the sum of the average nutrient values shown

previously for the individual meals and snacks. For example, a provider who is offering breakfast,

lunch, and afternoon snack may offer a larger breakfast than a provider who offers both morning and

afternoon snacks as well as the two main meals.

For this analysis, each provider was coded according to the combination of meals and snacks offered

each day to children in each of the three CACFP age categories.45 For each age group, only providers

who offered the same combination for at least 3 days of the menu survey were included in the

analysis.46 Total daily nutrients were then averaged across all the days on which the provider offered

that combination of meals and snacks. The resulting figures represent the average total nutrients that

would be offered to a child in the provider’s care for the full operating day for that age group.

As discussed earlier, no guidelines exist as to how much of each nutrient measure should be provided

in a full CACFP operating day, nor how much should be in either combination of meals and snacks. 

Therefore, as in the previous section, data for the cumulative energy and nutrient content of the meal

combinations are presented as a percent of the RDA or relative to the daily limits expressed in

Dietary Guidelines and NRC recommendations, but individual providers are not compared with any

specific nutrient benchmarks. 

The analysis indicates that both meal combinations offer at least two-thirds of the RDA for all dietary

components measured here and over 100 percent for most components. The nutrient composition of

the meal combinations is within or near most of the daily thresholds specified in the Dietary

Guidelines and NRC recommendations, but exceeds the recommended percent of food energy from

saturated fat. 
47 As noted for the breakfast and lunch analyses, the large age group differences in the mean percentage of

RDA for iron, for example, are related to disproportionate differences in the RDA values relative to

estimated portion sizes.

46 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

Tier 2 providers offering the two-snack combination in 1999 supplied significantly more food energy

than providers with similar tier-related characteristics offering the same combination in 1995. Point

estimates for both combinations consistently showed more sodium in 1999 than 1995, but the

increase was not statistically significant.

Nutrient Content of Meal and Snack Combinations Relative to

RDAs

Both of the most common meal and snack combinations provide—for all three age groups—a very

substantial portion of the RDA for food energy and all of the nutrients examined (Exhibit 23). More

than 100 percent of the RDA for protein, vitamin A, and vitamin C is supplied by both combinations. 

The two-snack combination offers more than 100 percent of the RDA for calcium as well. At least

two-thirds of the RDA is provided for all other nutrients.47 The two-snack combination offers more

of each nutrient than the one-snack option, which would be the expected result of having one

additional eating occasion.

It is interesting to note that the total nutrient content of each meal and snack combination is nearly

equal to the sum of the previously reported averages for individual meals. For children aged 3-5, for

example, the combination with breakfast, lunch, and two snacks (morning and afternoon) provides 80

percent of the RDA for food energy, while adding together the averages for the individual averages

for breakfast, lunch, and morning and afternoon snack would yield a total of 78 percent. Thus it

appears that the nutrients supplied in any one meal or snack are not strongly influenced by the

combination of other meals that the provider offers during the day, at least for these two major

groups of providers.

Comparing Tier 2 providers in 1999 with similar providers in 1995 yields slightly different results

for the two meal combinations. For providers offering the one-snack combination there is virtually

no difference between 1999 and 1995. For the two-snack combination, however, Tier 2 providers in

1999 supplied significantly more food energy for children aged 1-2 and for all age groups combined. 

Apparently the food energy increases seen earlier for the individual meals tend to be concentrated

among providers who offer breakfast, lunch, and both morning and afternoon snacks. 
Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 47

Exhibit 23

Mean Percentage of RDA Offered by Two Meal and Snack Combinations

Age 1-2 Age 3-5 Age 6-12 All Ages

Tier

2

1999

Difference

1999-

95a

Tier 

2

1999

Difference

1999-

95a

Tier

2

1999

Difference

1999-

95a

Tier 

2

1999

Difference

1999-

95a

Breakfast, Lunch, and One Snackb

Total energy 67.7% 0.7% 63.9% 2.0% 63.4% 1.5% 65.5% 1.9%

Protein 214.7 -4.2 185.4 -1.2 161.1 -9.4 194.3 -0.6

Vitamin A 157.1 -3.0 155.1 -0.9 127.0 -11.7 151.5 -2.0

Vitamin C 132.2 -5.4 143.1 -1.3 198.1 47.7 144.2 -0.8

Calcium 90.5 -3.1 99.1 -1.1 106.7 -6.4 96.4 -2.2

Iron 66.3 2.2 78.0 0.0 97.0 -1.9 75.8 0.2

Un-weighted

sample 209 396 224 426 66 138 257 488

Breakfast, Lunch, and Two Snacksb

Total energy 84.8% 9.9%** 79.6% 10.1%* 77.1% 9.9% 81.8% 10.3%**

Protein 247.8 16.8 216.5 18.6 182.0 9.2 230.3 21.3

Vitamin A 174.2 6.0 170.8 -5.8 140.4 -20.0 169.8 -3.4

Vitamin C 181.7 5.8 196.3 6.6 190.6 -24.3 191.5 1.2

Calcium 109.8 10.3 119.3 12.4 124.3 11.2 116.1 10.5

Iron 81.8 9.6 97.9 8.1 109.0 4.7 90.8 5.2

Un-weighted

 sample 147 245 142 254 45 71 168 300

a Regression estimate. See Appendix D. b Morning and afternoon snacks only.

Significance levels:

 * = .10

 ** = .05

 *** = .01

Nutrient Content of Meal and Snack Combinations Relative to

Dietary Guidelines and NRC Recommendations

Both of the most common meal and snack combinations offer a nutrient profile that approximates the

Dietary Guidelines goal for the percent of food energy from total fat and the NRC recommendation

for percent of energy from carbohydrate (Exhibit 24). In both of these cases, the average for children

aged 3-5 and aged 6-12 is within the recommended range or fairly close to the recommended level for

that nutrient.

The picture is less favorable for saturated fat. The percent of energy from saturated fat, at about 13

percent in both meal combinations, exceeds the daily recommendation of less than 10 percent. This

result is particularly driven by the nutrient composition of lunch, the largest meal in the

combinations, which averaged over 15 percent of food energy from saturated fat.
48 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

Exhibit 24

Mean Nutrient Levels Relative to Dietary Guidelines and NRC Recommendations Offered by Two

Meal and Snack Combinationsa

Age 3-5 Age 6-12

Daily 

Recommendation Tier 2 1999Difference

1999-95b Tier 2 1999

Difference

1999-95b

Breakfast, Lunch, and One Snackc

Percent of Food Energy from:

Fat (%)  30% 30.8 0.6 32.0 1.4

Saturated fat (%) <10% 13.0 0.4 13.0 0.6

Carbohydrate (%) > 55% 55.7 -0.1 55.1 -0.6

Cholesterol (mg)  300 mg 119.4 2.9 174.2 37.6

Sodium (mg)  2,400 mg 1,644.1 124.9 2,108.6 212.3

Unweighted sample 224 428 66 143

Breakfast, Lunch, and Two Snacksc

Percent of Food Energy from:

Fat (%)  30% 30.7 0.8 30.9 -0.9

Saturated fat (%) <10% 12.8 0.4 12.7 0.0

Carbohydrate (%) > 55% 56.9 -0.1 57.2 1.2

Cholesterol (mg)  300 mg 157.9 29.9 171.7 25.9

Sodium (mg)  2,400 mg 1,962.0 346.2 2,299.2 427.7

Unweighted sample 142 255 45 73

a Note that the Dietary Guidelines and NRC recommendations are only applicable to children beginning at 2 years of age and older. This

analysis is limited to meals offered to children 3-5 and 6-12, the only CACFP age groups for which the recommendations fully apply. b Regression estimate. See Appendix D. c Morning and afternoon snacks only.

Significance levels:

 * = .10

 ** = .05

 *** = .01

Cholesterol and sodium, which are measured in absolute amounts, are naturally greater for the twosnack than the one-snack combination. The only exception is the amount of cholesterol in the meal

combinations offered to children aged 6-12, which varies little. 

Compared with the daily recommendation of 300 mg. of cholesterol, the combinations provide

between 40 and 60 percent for children in the 3-5 and 6-12 age groups. For sodium, with a

recommended daily limit of 2,400 mg., the percentages are higher. For children aged 6-12, the onesnack and two-snack combinations provide 88 percent and 96 percent of the suggested daily amount

of sodium, respectively.
Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 49

There were no statistically significant 1999-95 differences in nutrient measures relative to the

Dietary Guidelines and NRC recommendations for either the one-snack or the two-snack

combination. For both meal combinations, however, Tier 2 providers in 1999 offered foods

containing 10-20 percent more sodium relative to foods offered by similar providers in 1995. This

would be expected from the results for individual meals and snacks as increases in sodium were seen

consistently and for all age groups. As noted previously, the increased sodium reflects a general

increase in portion sizes as well as some menu shifts that have emphasized higher sodium foods,

especially at lunch.
50 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

Nutritional Aspects of Meals Offered by Former

CACFP Providers

One mandate of the Family Child Care Homes Legislative Changes Study was to examine nutritional

aspects of the meals offered by providers who left the CACFP close to the time that tiering was

implemented, but who continued to operate a child care business. It was hypothesized that some

providers, particularly those who would be classified as Tier 2, might drop out of the CACFP

because of reimbursement tiering. But it was not known whether providers operating these homes

might offer fewer or less nutritious meals and snacks to children in their care without the economic

and educational benefits of CACFP participation. The analyses presented in Appendix F provide

some information bearing on the issue, but several caveats are important to consider in interpreting

the results.

• First, the sample size for this analysis was unexpectedly small. This resulted from the

rarity of continuing to provide child care by those who left the CACFP, the difficulty of

finding those who left, and the unwillingness to participate in the study by many of those

who were found. In another report in this series by Hamilton and colleagues (E-FAN-02-

002), it is estimated that about 5,500 providers nationwide who left the CACFP during

1997 were still in the child care business and not participating in the CACFP at the time

of our 1999 study. Even though there was no evidence of response bias, the small size of

the sample and the low response rate pose more than the usual amount of uncertainty as

to the generalizability of the findings. 

• Second, although some of the providers who left the CACFP would have been classified

as Tier 2, a substantial proportion meet the income and area poverty criteria for Tier 1

status. It is possible that any differences found between the former provider and 1999

Tier 2 samples reflect differences in characteristics of the provider groups rather than

differences that relate to receiving CACFP meal reimbursements. (The sample was too

small to further limit it to "Tier 2-like" providers.) Analysis of the operations survey

reported in Zotov et al. (E-FAN-02-004) indicates that, at the time of the survey, the

former CACFP providers tended to serve smaller numbers of children, to operate for

fewer hours per day and days per week, and to offer fewer meals than the active CACFP

providers. The former providers were also less likely to depend on child care as their

primary source of income.

• In addition, screening data suggest that some providers who left the CACFP while

continuing to operate their child care business took this action in response to the lower

Tier 2 reimbursement rates. But many providers who dropped out of the program in

1997-98—and perhaps a majority of them—were not responding to tiering (Hamilton, et

al., E-FAN-02-002). Therefore, the findings of this analysis should not be interpreted as

indicative of an effect of reimbursement tiering. 

Despite the sample limitations, the analyses in Appendix F offer a valuable picture of the meals and

snacks offered by former CACFP providers and their nutrient composition. The majority of former

providers offered lunch and an afternoon snack. Most also offered breakfast, but fewer former

providers offered this meal than current Tier 2 providers do. Former providers offered snacks

somewhat less often during the week than current Tier 2 providers. This might reflect adjustments to

the absence of CACFP reimbursements, but it is equally plausible that the providers who serve fewer

meals are the most likely to leave the CACFP.
Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 51

Most meals and snacks offered by former CACFP providers complied with CACFP meal-pattern

requirements and offered substantial variety over a week, even though former providers no longer

face CACFP requirements. This may reflect a continuing effect of the CACFP training and

monitoring that providers received while still participating in the program. Compliance rates were

somewhat lower for fruits and vegetables at breakfast and lunch, although a large proportion of

former providers did offer fruits and vegetables in snacks. The former providers offered meat or

meat alternates at breakfast more frequently than current Tier 2 providers. In general, these patterns

seem to reflect the preferences of individual providers and children rather than any systematic cutting

back on food costs to compensate for the loss of meal reimbursements. 

The data suggest that while former CACFP providers offered somewhat different foods than Tier 2

providers, the nutritional quality of the meals is very similar. Analyses are based on a comparison of

the foods in menus offered by the two groups of providers, but do not reflect any difference in

portion sizes. No independent observations were made of portion sizes in meals offered by former

CACFP providers, so food quantities were computed assuming they would be the same as in

comparable Tier 2 homes. 

Meals and snacks offered by former CACFP providers in 1999 largely met the RDA benchmarks and

NRC recommendations used for this study, the exceptions being food energy and iron (lunches only). 

Few of the meals and snacks offered, however, were consistent with the Dietary Guidelines

recommendations for saturated fat.

Based on recorded menus and comparisons with current Tier 2 providers, we cannot conclude that

this group of former CACFP providers is offering nutritionally inferior meals or snacks. There is

room for improvement in the meals provided in both Tier 2 and former CACFP homes, especially in

the level of saturated fat. But there is no indication that tiering per se led to a decline in the nutrient

content of meals offered to children in the care of providers who left the CACFP.
52 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

Conclusion

In an effort to focus the family child care component of the CACFP more closely on low-income

children, the PRWORA reduced the level of meal reimbursement for Tier 2 providers. It was

unknown how Tier 2 providers that remained in the program would respond to the reduced revenue

from meal reimbursements. One possibility was that providers would cut back on food expenditures

by offering fewer meals or snacks, or by serving smaller portions, less costly foods, or a less varied

menu. If such adjustments occurred, they might in turn reduce the quantity or quality of the nutrition

provided to children served by the program. 

The analyses presented in this report make it clear that PRWORA had no substantial impact on the

food and nutrient composition of meals offered in Tier 2 homes. Comparisons are between a

nationally representative group of Tier 2 providers surveyed in 1999 and a sample of providers in

1995 surveyed using the same methods. Regression analyses were used to control for known tierrelated differences between the two groups of providers. However, it is not possible to differentiate

between the effects of lower reimbursement rates and trends over time in factors unrelated to tiering. 

Therefore, the differences (or lack of difference) found between meals offered by Tier 2 providers in

1999 and meals offered by similar providers in 1995 cannot be attributed entirely to tiering.

There is no evidence that Tier 2 providers responded to the reduced reimbursement rates by cutting

back on the meals and snacks they served or by offering less nutritious foods. Most Tier 2 providers

offered breakfast, lunch, and at least one snack, and no meal or snack was served less often in 1999

than by similar providers in 1995. Nine out of 10 of these meals are in compliance with CACFP

meal component requirements, and Tier 2 meals meet or exceed the compliance rates and degree of

variety achieved by providers in 1995. This is not particularly surprising as most providers who

answered the operations survey said that following the meal pattern is not particularly burdensome. 

While some small differences in the particular components offered may represent an effort on the

part of Tier 2 providers to control costs, these affect only foods offered above and beyond the

required servings. Thus it is clear that Tier 2 meals have not compromised the overall goal of the

CACFP meal component requirements—to provide a mix of foods that make an important

contribution to children's major nutritional needs.

Because the CACFP does not impose nutrient-based standards or goals for meals and snacks, we

could not directly assess the adequacy or appropriateness of the nutrient levels in the meals offered. 

Instead, benchmarks based on standards for the school meal programs and expert recommendations

for health promotion that apply to children were used in describing the nutrient composition of Tier 2

meals and snacks. The new DRIs might have been appropriate benchmarks for this study, but they

are not yet available for most of the nutrient measures examined here. 

The nutrient analysis does not find that average meals and snacks offered by Tier 2 providers are of

inferior nutritional quality because of tiering. Nonetheless, there is some room for improvement, as

was the case before tiering. 

Overall, Tier 2 providers offer a substantial proportion of children's RDAs for food energy, protein,

vitamins A and C, calcium, and iron; only snacks showed any reductions relative to providers in

1995, and these were few. If DRIs had been available, results would likely have been even more

positive, as the recommended standards for assessing groups are set lower than the RDAs. 

Less positively, the average lunch provides more than the Dietary Guidelines and NRC’s

recommended maxima for total fat, saturated fat, and sodium. The average percentage of food
48 The prevalence of overweight children (ages 6-11) has almost doubled in the past 20 years (CDC, 2000).

Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 53

energy from saturated fat exceeds the Dietary Guidelines recommendation for all meals and snacks

offered, although this did not change with tiering. 

Tier 2 providers offered a nutrient package with more food energy and sodium than providers in

1995, a result of serving larger portions and more high sodium foods, respectively. Offering larger

quantities of food would not logically be a consequence of tiering, and may represent a general trend

unrelated to the CACFP. Unfortunately, no national data are yet available to determine whether

typical portion sizes outside the CACFP have also increased between 1995 and 1999, although this

type of analysis could be done with the 1994-96 and 1998 CSFII data.

One obvious concern with the program offering an increasing amount of food energy is the

implication for the growing problem of obesity among children.48 However, when children’s

consumption habits are taken into account, it appears that the level of energy provided is within the

recommended range. For example, the two most commonly offered combinations of CACFP meals

and snacks provide, on average, between 63 and 85 percent of children’s recommended energy

allowance. Most children are in CACFP family child care enough hours that they receive all of the

meals and snacks provided under one of these combinations. Data on foods and amounts actually

consumed were not collected in 1999, but the 1995 Early Childhood and Child Care Study found that

children typically consume only three-quarters to 80 percent of the energy in the meals and snacks

offered to them by CACFP family child care providers. Applying this to the amounts of food energy

offered in 1999, children in Tier 2 homes would be likely to consume about half of their daily energy

requirements from the breakfast-lunch-one snack meal combination and two-thirds from the

breakfast-lunch-two snack combination. Making the assumptions that children are offered roughly

the same amount of food energy at supper as lunch (30 percent of RDA), and that the .75-.80 factor

for consumption also applies to meals consumed outside of CACFP care, the total proportion of

energy RDA likely to be consumed by children in Tier 2 homes ranges from 74 to 90 percent. This

leaves reasonable leeway for any additional snacks, especially for the one-snack combination. 

Although energy intake is just one of the contributors to the obesity problem, the analysis presented

here does not suggest any disproportionate contribution of food energy from CACFP meals, on

average. Of course, some children may consume too much and some too little relative to their energy

needs. Additional research would be needed to obtain the necessary information on children’s food

consumption and activity levels, both in and outside of Tier 2 CACFP care, in order to determine if

they were at greater risk of obesity.

 

As mentioned above, this analysis did not address tiering's effect on the dietary intake of children

participating in the CACFP, as the study collected no data on food consumption. No conclusions can

be drawn about total daily intakes, which would include meals consumed outside of CACFP child

care. If the relationships between nutrients offered and nutrients consumed that were found in the

1995 study still apply, the proportion of energy derived from saturated fat in meals consumed in

CACFP care is likely to exceed recommendations. The level of iron provided in lunches may also

need to be monitored. Family child care providers may need additional guidance on the types of food

needed to provide adequate levels of iron, especially in lunches, while lowering the saturated fat

content of all meals and snacks offered.

Although we conclude that tiering had little effect on nutritional aspects of Tier 2 CACFP meals,

many questions about the CACFP remain unanswered: 
54 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

• How do meals and snacks offered by Tier 2 providers compare with homes receiving

higher level of meal reimbursements during the same time period (i.e., Tier 1 homes)?

• How do portion sizes offered in former CACFP homes compare with those observed in

Tier 2 homes?

• Is the CACFP meal pattern designed to provide a similar level of nutrients relative to the

RDAs at breakfast and lunch as the nutrition guidelines for school meals, or are these

unrealistic goals? 

• Should providers be trained to serve different foods to younger and older children

because of different nutrient requirements?

Further research would be needed to address these issues.
Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 55

References

Other Reports in this Series

Bernstein, Lawrence S. and William L. Hamilton, Sponsoring Organizations in the CACFP: 

Administrative Effects of Reimbursement Tiering, USDA-ERS, E-FAN-02-003, March 2002.

[http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/efan02003/]

Crepinsek, Mary Kay, Linda M. Ghelfi, and William L. Hamilton, Households with Children in

CACFP Child Care Homes: Effects of Meal Reimbursement Tiering, USDA-ERS, E-FAN02-005, March 2002. [http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/efan02005/]

Hamilton, William L., Nancy R. Burstein, and Mary Kay Crepinsek, Reimbursement Tiering in the

CACFP: Summary of the Family Child Care Homes Legislative Changes Study, USDAERS, FANRR-22, March 2002. [http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/fanrr22/]

Hamilton, William L., Eric M. Stickney, Nancy R. Burstein, and Lawrence S. Bernstein, Family

Child Care Home Participation in the CACFP: Effects of Reimbursement Tiering, USDAERS, E-FAN-02-002, March 2002. [http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/efan02002/]

Zotov, Natasha, Shao-hsun Keng, and William L. Hamilton, Family Child Care Providers in the

CACFP: Operational Effects of Reimbursement Tiering. USDA-ERS, E-FAN-02-004,

March 2002. [http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/efan02004/]

Additional References

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. “Overweight

Children and Adolescents 6-17 years of age, According to Age, Race, Sex, and Hispanic

Origin, Selected Periods, 1963-65 through 1988-94,” online table at http://www.cdc.gov/

nchs/fastats/overwt.htm, 2000. 

Fox, Mary Kay, Frederic B. Glantz, Lynn Geitz, and Nancy Burstein, Early Childhood and Child

Care Study: Nutritional Assessment of the CACFP, Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Food and Consumer Service, 1997. 

Glantz, Frederic B., David T. Rodda, Mary Jo Cutler, William Rhodes, and Marion Wrobel. Early

Childhood and Child Care Study: Profile of Participants in the CACFP, Final Report, Vol.1,

Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Consumer Service, 1997. 

Institute of Medicine, Food and Nutrition Board, Dietary Reference Intakes: Applications in Dietary

Assessment, Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000. 

National Research Council, Recommended Dietary Allowances, 10th edition, Washington, DC:

National Academy Press, 1989a..

National Research Council, Diet and Health: Implications for Reducing Chronic Disease Risk. 

Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1989b.
56 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Food and Nutrient Intakes by

Children 1994-96, 1998, online at http://www.barc.usda.gov/bhnrc/foodsurveypdf/scsall.pdf, 1999.

U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services and Agriculture, Nutrition and Your Health:

Dietary Guidelines for Americans, Fifth edition, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office, 2000.
1 Four States were included with certainty (California, Michigan, Minnesota, and Texas).

2 Sponsors were sampled with replacement, meaning that a sponsor could be selected more than once.

3 Homes received tier designations only when tiering was implemented in July 1997.

4 The number selected depended on the number of times the sponsor was selected (i.e., if the sponsor was

selected twice, double the base number would be selected from the sponsor’s list).

Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 57

Appendix A

Sampling and Weighting Procedures

The Family Child Care Homes Legislative Changes Study involved several surveys, including

surveys of sponsors, current CACFP providers, former CACFP providers, and parents of children

currently served by CACFP providers. For current Tier 2 and former CACFP providers, the study

included an operations survey and a menu survey. A meal observation data collection was conducted

in a random subsample of current Tier 2 homes. Most of the analyses presented in this report focus

on nutritional aspects of meals offered as measured in the menu survey, with portion sizes imputed

from the more limited meal observations. The sample design for these surveys and the weighting

procedures used in the analysis are described below. The sampling and weighting for other surveys

are discussed in other reports in this series. Appendix F, which examines the menu survey of former

CACFP providers, describes the sample for that survey.

Sample

The sample universe for the Family Child Care Homes Legislative Changes Study consisted of

family child care sponsors, family child care homes, and families of children participating in the

CACFP. A nationally representative sample of 20 States was selected, with probability proportional

to the size of each State’s share of CACFP family child care home reimbursements.1

 All selected

State agencies agreed to participate in the study and provided lists of the CACFP sponsors in their

State. Sponsors were also selected within States with probability proportional to size, based on the

number of homes sponsored.2

Each selected sponsor was asked for a list of the family child care homes sponsored, including three

groups of homes: Tier 1 homes active (i.e., receiving CACFP reimbursement) in January 1998; Tier 2

homes active in January 1998; and all homes active in January 1997.3

 Sample frames for current Tier

1 and Tier 2 providers were defined to include all homes active in January 1998. Within each

sponsor’s list of homes in each tier, a random sample was drawn. The base number of providers to

be selected from each sponsor’s list was constant across sponsors within each tier (four for Tier 1, six

for Tier 2); if the total on the sponsor’s list was equal to or less than the base number, all were

selected.4
5 A total of 311 were selected, but 11 were not eligible because they had left the CACFP.

6 This calculation assumes that all nonrespondents not known to be ineligible for participation in the study

were eligible. If five providers who supplied fewer than 3 menus and were dropped from the analysis are

included, the response rate increases to 73.3 percent.

58 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

A sample of 300 sponsors was selected within the 20 States, comprising a representative sample of

the 1,165 sponsors active in the country.5 Of the selected sponsors, 289 supplied lists of 

current and former providers, for a response rate of 96.3 percent. From these lists, 1,134 Tier 2

providers were selected for menu survey participation, of whom 393 were found to be ineligible for

study. The primary reasons for ineligibility were that the provider left the CACFP or changed tier

status; a few providers were deceased by the time of the survey. The menu survey was completed by

542 Tier 2 providers, for an estimated response rate among eligibles of 73.1 percent.6

Of the 387 providers selected for meal observation (one-third of the Tier 2 sample), 159 were found

to be ineligible. Providers were ineligible if they no longer participated in the CACFP, changed tier,

were deceased, or cared only for infants less than 1 year old. The 97 participating providers who

allowed meal observations represented an estimated response rate of 42.5 percent. 

In multistage sampling, it is sometimes useful to consider the compound response rate, which is the

product of the response rates at each sampling stage. In the present instance, the compound response

rates are 70.4 percent for providers completing the menu survey and 40.9 percent for completed meal

observations.

Weighting

For producing population-based estimates of means and proportions of characteristics relating to

providers, each respondent provider received a sampling weight. These weights combined the basic

weight reflecting the probability of selection of the provider with an adjustment for unit nonresponse. 

The resulting weighted data yield estimates for all providers in the population. 

The overall provider weight was obtained as the product of the State weight, the conditional sponsor

weight (adjusted for nonresponse), and the conditional provider weight (adjusted for nonresponse),

which is based on the conditional probability of selecting a provider given that the sponsor and the

State have been selected. 

Basic Sponsor Weights

A preliminary first step in determining provider weights was calculation of sponsor weights. As

described above, a sample of sponsors was selected in each of the 20 States selected in the first stage. 

Therefore, the overall probability of inclusion of a sponsor is the inclusion probability of the State in

which the sponsor is located multiplied by the probability of including the sponsor in the sample,

given that the State was selected.

Sponsor weights were computed as follows:

1. Let represent the weight for the W ith selected State. 1, 2, 3, 4, ............19, 20. 1 i i Wi



for States selected with certainty. For the 16 noncertainty States, is the inverse of the Wi

State’s probability of selection. The probability of selection was proportional to the size of

the State, with total CACFP reimbursements for family child care homes being the measure

of size.
Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 59

WijWi Wj/i

Wj/i1.

Wj/i

 rij Pi

ni Pij

WijWi Wj/i.

2. Let be the weight for the W jth selected sponsor in the ith State. We have ij

where is the conditional weight of the W jth sponsor given that the ith State has been j/i

selected.

We now determine Let the number of sponsors in the W ith State be . Let the number selected j/i

. Si

in the sample be Let the number of providers belonging to the s jth sponsor in the ith State be . i. Pij

 In 12 States, all sponsors in the State were included in the sample with certainty. In

these States, we have 

Therefore, the overall sponsor weight in these States is Wij Wi

.

 The sponsors in the other eight States were selected with probability proportional to

the number of providers and with replacement. Therefore, the same sponsor can

get selected more than once. Let be the number of times ("hits") the r jth sponsor ij

gets selected in the ith State. The conditional weight for these sponsors is 

 where is the total number of sponsor hits in the n ith State and is the i Pi

Si

j1

Pij

total number of providers. 

The overall basic sampling weight for the jth sponsor in the ith State is given by:

Adjustment for Nonresponse at the State and Sponsor Levels

There is no nonresponse at the State level. 

For sponsor nonresponse adjustment, assume that s sponsors respond to the survey out of the 

i si

sponsors selected in the ith State. Then the nonresponse adjustment to the weights of the responding

sponsors is 
60 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

Ai



si

j1

Wij



s 

i

j1

Wij

.

W a

j/i

Wj/i Ai.

W a

ijWi W aj/i

.

W p

j/i

 Pi

Pij

.

The nonresponse adjusted conditional weight is given by

The overall nonresponse adjusted basic sampling weight is given by 

This weight was used in sponsor tabulations.

Basic Provider Weights

In calculating provider weights, two changes were made to the conditional sponsor weight that was

determined above for sponsor tabulations. Since we selected a sample of providers for each “hit” of

the sponsor, for computing the conditional weight of the sponsor for getting the provider weights, we

did not include the number of hits. Also, th r e adjustment for nonresponse of the sponsor was ij

different than done for the sponsor weights used for sponsor characteristics. This was because the

number of sponsors giving the list of providers for selection was slightly different from the number

of sponsors responding to the survey. The number of providers in the responding group and the

number in the nonresponding group were also different.

We first describe the nonresponse adjustment to the sponsor weight.

The conditional sponsor weight for provider tabulations is 
Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 61

A 

i





si

j1

Wij Pij



s i

j1

Wij Pij

W b

j/i

W p

j/i A i

.

W b

ijWi W bj/i

.

Wl/ijk

Pijk

pijk

.

Let the number of sponsors submitting provider lists be out of the selected. Then the s 

i si

nonresponse adjustment to the sponsor weight is 

and the adjusted sponsor weight is 

The overall sponsor weight is given by

This sponsor weight was used for all provider tabulations. 

For the selection of providers from a selected sponsor, we stratified the providers by Tier 1, Tier 2,

and dropout (former providers). Let P denote the number of providers in the kth stratum ( ijk k

1,2,3).

 Let be the number of providers selecte p d. Then the basic conditional weight for the lth ijk

selected provider in the kth stratum belonging to the jth sponsor in the ith State is 

Adjustment for Provider Nonresponse

If out of providers in the sample, onl p y respond, the nonresponse-adjusted conditional ijk p 

ijk

provider sampling weight is

W a

l/ijk  pijk

p 

ijk

Wl/ijk.
62 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

The overall provider weight is

W a

ijklWi W bj/i W al/ijk.

This weight was used for all provider tabulations in the report. To take account of the complex

sampling structure, weighted regressions and all variances were estimated using SUDAAN software. 

The analysis of portion sizes, which controlled for a large number of provider characteristics, used

unweighted regressions.

Other multivariate analyses reported here use weighted (linear or nonlinear) regressions to estimate

tiering effects, weighting each observation in inverse proportion to its probability of being included

in the sample. Unweighted regressions use sample variances and covariances to estimate the

regression parameters for the sample (and for the hypothetical population for which it is a random

sample). In sampling-weighted regression, the weights are used to estimate the population values of

these variances and covariances, and the population parameter estimates are derived from these. 

Because sampling weights normally increase the error of estimate (unlike weighting associated with

generalized least squares), unweighted estimates are preferred when they can be assumed to be

unbiased. For example, if the population regression is correctly specified and the sampling

probabilities are completely determined by the included variables, then the unweighted regression

will yield unbiased estimates of the regression coefficients. When these conditions cannot be

satisfied, as is the present case, sampling weights are commonly used to correct for differences in

sampling rates, despite the associated increase in errors of estimate. Sometimes, for example,

sampling rates are defined in terms of sparsely sampled categories, with category samples too small

to allow them to be represented by dummy variables. In other cases, sampling rates are functions of

measured characteristics, which may be added to the regression; however, the estimates then depend

on correct specification of the functional form for these added characteristics. Finally, the

requirement concerning the correctness of the original specification is quite stringent. In our case,

for example, a regression may be misspecified in ways that make it quite sensitive to differences in

sampling rates but still offer adequate controls for characteristics associated with tier when applied to

a common population. 

Nonresponse Bias

The possibility of nonresponse bias—that is, important differences between sample members who

respond to the survey and those who do not—deserves consideration in any sample survey. With

compound response rates in the range of 41 to 70 percent, the potential for bias is significant. A

series of analyses was therefore performed to assess the extent of any bias.

The analyses are necessarily based on those few items of information that are known for the

nonresponding as well as the responding providers. These are the number of children enrolled in the

home (as reported on the sponsor list) and the provider's location. The latter is represented in the

analysis as the percent of homes in each census region (Northeast, South, Midwest, and West).

The analysis compared the mean or percent for all selected sample members and the mean or percent

for those responding to the survey. The difference can be viewed as the extent to which the

respondents over- or under-represent the specified characteristics of the original sample. As a guide

to the importance of the difference, we use a one-sample t-test; that is, we compare the mean of the

respondents with the mean of the total sample, taking into account the standard error of the mean of

the respondents (but treating the full-sample mean as a constant). The data are unweighted in this
Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 63

analysis because sampling weights were not computed for nonrespondents. The analysis was carried

out separately for the menu survey and meal observation samples. Both samples include only Tier 2

providers. 

The results, shown in Exhibits A.1 and A.2 , generally show small differences between the

responding providers and the sample frame from which they were drawn. In both samples, the

responding Tier 2 providers had somewhat more enrolled children, on average, than the sample

selected, although the difference approaches statistical significance only for the menu survey 

(p < 0.10). There is also some tendency for the Northeast region to be over-represented, the West

region to be under-represented among menu survey respondents, and the Midwest to be

under-represented among meal observation respondents. None of these regional differences are

statistically significant, however. 

Exhibit A.1

Comparison of Tier 2 Providers Responding to the Menu Survey to Sample Selected 

Respondents

Original

Sample

Difference

RespondentOriginalRespondent

Standard Error p-value

Mean number of

children enrolled 8.9 8.5 0.4 0.24 0.08

Percent of providers that are in region:

Northeast 25.4% 22.8% 2.6 1.91 0.16

South 21.4 21.8 -0.4 1.8 0.84

Midwest 25.2 24.6 0.6 1.9 0.73

West 27.9 30.9 -3.0 1.96 0.13
64 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

Exhibit A.2

Comparison of Tier 2 Providers with Completed Meal Observations to Sample Selected 

Respondents

Original

Sample

Difference

RespondentOriginalRespondent

Standard Error p-value

Mean number of

children enrolled

9.3 8.5 0.8 0.62 0.19

Percent of providers that are in region:

Northeast 28.1% 22.7% 5.4 4.61 0.24

South 21.9 21.4 0.5 2.42 0.91

Midwest 19.8 24.6 -4.8 4.09 0.24

West 30.2 31.3 -1.1 4.71 0.82
Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 65

Appendix B

Menu Survey and Meal Observation Record

Included in this appendix are:

• The instructions for completing the Menu Survey and completed samples of the

menu recording forms for one day (Monday) of the survey week. A separate Menu

form was provided for each meal (breakfast, lunch, supper). Morning, afternoon,

and evening snacks were recorded on a single form. 

• The instructions for the Food You Prepared form and a sample completed form. 

Providers were asked to complete this form for each food item made from scratch or

assembled from two or more ingredients.

• A sample of the meal observer’s data recording forms. The Serving Size

Measurement Form was used to determine the average weight or volume of a

reference serving (portion) of each menu item offered by the provider. One menu

item measurement form is shown. The observers actually had forms that could record

four menu item measurements on a page, and the observers could use as many pages

as were necessary to measure all items served at the specified meal or snack. The

Meal Observation Form was then used during the meal service to tally the number of

reference servings of each item served to or taken by each child. The observer

entered a '1' in the “served” column for each full portion the child was served or

took and entered a fraction, such as '1⁄2', for each partial serving of a full portion the

child was served or took. After the meal service, the observer summed the entries in

the ‘served’ column and entered the sum in the ‘total’ column.

Note: The sample completed forms were handwritten when given to the providers along with the

blank forms because they would be filling their forms out by hand. The samples are typewritten in

this report for ease of printing. Some of the forms have been reformatted to fit this report’s format.
Form Approved 

OMB No. 0536-0045 

Exp. Date: 9/30/2001

66 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

	



	


MENU SURVEY

For Meals and Snacks Served:

Monday ______/______/______

 month day year

through

Friday ______/______/______

 month day year

Abt toll-free number: 1-800-244-4135

[Attach ID Label]

Public reporting burden of this collection of information is estimated to average 162 minutes per response,

including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the

data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. An agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently

valid OMB control number. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Department Clearance Officer,

OIRM, AG Box 7630, Washington, DC 20250.
Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 67

MENU SURVEY

Use this booklet to describe all the foods and drinks you serve to children in your

care during the week noted on the front cover.

Please do not be alarmed by the size of the booklet. You will use the booklet for five

days, filling in a few pages each day as you prepare and serve meals and snacks. You will

probably not need to use all of the pages in the booklet, but there are extra pages for

people who might need them. 

This booklet has been divided into six sections. The first five sections are for menus

for each day of the week. Each daily section includes menu pages for breakfast, lunch,

supper, and snacks. The last section of the booklet contains pages for foods you prepare

from a recipe. General guidelines for completing this survey are given below. There are

more detailed instructions and examples of completed pages at the beginning of each

section. The yellow pamphlet, called the FOOD DESCRIPTION GUIDE, will also help you with

the survey. 

If you have any questions or need assistance in completing the survey, now or

at any time, you may call our toll-free number: 1-800-244-4135. We would be happy to

answer your questions and to help you in any way we can. 

Someone from Abt Associates will be calling you soon to make sure you received

the survey and to answer any questions you may have before you begin filling it out.

Thank you very much for your help with this important study.

How to Complete this Survey

1. Before you begin, read all of the instructions and look over the sample menu pages

in the MONDAY section of the booklet.

2. Each day, fill out the Menu pages in the section of the booklet marked with the name

of that day: Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday. Use these pages

to write down all the foods and drinks you serve to children for each meal and

snack.

3. Use the Food You Prepared pages to tell us more about foods you prepare from a

recipe when the recipe is readily available. 

4. Remember to follow the instructions at the beginning of each section and on each

page of the booklet.

5. When the week is over and you have completed the survey, please check your very

important work. Then mail the completed Menu Survey to Abt Associates Inc. in the

postage-paid envelope provided.
68 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

MENUS FOR MONDAY

Use the pages in this section to write down all the foods and drinks you served to children in your

care on Monday. A sample of a completed Menu page can be found on the back of these

instructions. 

How to Fill in the Menu Pages

1. Each page asks about one meal or snacks. If you do not serve that meal or snack, check ()

the "Do not serve..." box in the upper right corner. Leave that page or part of the page blank.

2. For every meal and snack that you do serve, please fill in the chart to tell us what you served on

Monday. Follow the instructions at the top of each column:

What Did You Serve?

• Write the names of all the foods and drinks you served for that meal or snack.

• Use a separate line for each food, and skip a line or two between each food.

• If you served a hot or cold sandwich, write the name of the sandwich on one line, then

list each part of the sandwich on the lines below.

Please Describe Each Food

• Describe each food and drink in detail. Include the brand name whenever possible. 

The FOOD DESCRIPTION GUIDE shows the kinds of information we need you to write in

this column.

• Be sure to note the cooking method, salt, and the types of fat used in preparation or

added before serving the food.

• Use as many lines as you need to describe each food.

Did You Prepare the Food or Was it Ready-to-Eat (or Drink)?

• Check () one box for each food and drink you list to tell us whether you prepared the

food yourself or whether the food was ready-to-eat (or drink).

PREPARED MYSELF: Foods you make from scratch by combining two or more foods or

ingredients. For example: cookies you made, rice you cooked, or a sandwich you made.

• If you have a recipe, or can easily tell us what ingredients you used in foods you

prepared yourself, please fill out a page in the Food You Prepared section located at

the back of the booklet behind Friday's menus.

READY-TO-EAT: Foods and drinks that need little or no preparation on your part or can

be eaten as is. For example: hot dogs, frozen dinners, apple juice made from frozen

concentrate, or packaged cookies.

To Which Age Groups Did You Serve this Food?

• Check the boxes to tell us the ages of the children served each food or drink.
SAMPLE



 Check this box if you 

Today’s date: ___

6__/___1__/__98__

MENU FOR 

BREAKFAST do not serve Breakfast. 

 month day year

Abt Staff

Use Only

Please do not

write in this

column.

What Did You Serve?

List all foods and drinks.

Please Describe Each Food

 Include brand name, cooking

method, salt, and type of fat used, ifapplicable. 

 Check the 

FOOD 

DESCRIPTION 

GUIDE

pamphlet for additional instructions.

Did you Prepare the

Food or was it Ready-ToEat?

Check one box for each food. 

Follow instructions in the Food

You Prepared section.

To Which Age Groups Did

You Serve the 

Food or Drink?

Check the box(es) for each age

group served this food.

Prepared OR ReadyMyself to-Eat 1-2 Years 3-5 Years 6-12 Years

BREAKFAST

cereal Cherrios, General Mills  sugar white  milk 2%, white, Hood  juice orange, Minute-Maid, made from  

 frozen concentrate

banana fresh, sliced  

Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 69
SAMPLE



 Check this box if you 

Today’s date: ___

6__ /__1__/__98__

MENU FOR 

LUNCH do not serve Lunch. 

 month day year

Abt Staff

Use Only

Please do

not write in

this column.

What Did You Serve?

List all foods and drinks.

Please Describe Each Food

 Include brand name, cooking

method, salt, and type of fat used, ifapplicable. 

 Check the 

FOOD 

DESCRIPTION 

GUIDE

pamphlet for additional instructions.

Did you Prepare the

Food or was it Ready-ToEat?

Check one box for each food. 

Follow instructions in the Food

You Prepared section.

To Which Age Groups Did

You Serve the 

Food or Drink?

Check the box(es) for each age

group served this food.

Prepared OR ReadyMyself to-Eat 1-2 Years 3-5 Years 6-12 Years

LUNCH

Sandwich Peanut butter & jelly   Peanut butter Skippy, smooth Jelly Welch’s grape Bread Wonder, whiteCarrot sticks Raw, plain  Pears Del Monte, diced, canned in  

 light syrup

Milk 2%, white, Hood  

Peas and carrots Del Monte, canned, heated  

70 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006
SAMPLE



 Check this box if you 

Today’s date: 6 / 1 / 68 

MENU FOR 

SUPPER do not serve Supper. 

 month day year

Abt Staff

Use Only

Please do not

write in this

column.

What Did You Serve?

List all foods and drinks.

Please Describe Each Food

 Include brand name, cooking

method, salt, and type of fat used, ifapplicable. 

 Check the 

FOOD 

DESCRIPTION 

GUIDE

pamphlet for additional instructions.

Did you Prepare the

Food or was it Ready-To-Eat?

Check one box for each food. 

Follow instructions in the Food

You Prepared section.

To Which Age Groups Did

You Serve the 

Food or Drink?

Check the box(es) for each age

group served this food.

Prepared OR ReadyMyself to-Eat 1-2 Years 3-5 Years 6-12 Years

SUPPER

Meatloaf Homemade, plain  Mashed potatoes Made with 2% milk, margarine,  

 salt and pepper

Corn Canned, Del Monte, boiled  

Milk 2%, white, Hood  Pudding Jello Pudding Cup, chocolate  Bread Pepperidge Farm, 100% whole wheat   w/ margarine Shedd’s, whipped, soft  

Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 71


 Check this box if you do not

serve Morning Snack. 

SAMPLE



 Check this box if you do not

Today’s date: 

6 / 1 / 98

MENUS FOR 

SNACKS serve Afternoon Snack. 

 month day year

 Check this box if you do not serve Evening Snack. 

Abt Staff

Use Only

Please do not

write in this

column.

What Did You Serve?

List all foods and drinks.

Please Describe Each Food

 Include brand name, cooking

method, salt, and type of fatused, if applicable. 

 Check the 

FOOD 

DESCRIPTION

GUIDE pamphlet for additional

instructions.

Did you Prepare the Food

or was it Ready-To-Eat?

Check one box for each food. 

Follow instructions in the Food

You Prepared section.

To Which Age Groups Did

You Serve the Food or

Drink?

Check the box(es) for each age

group served this food.

Prepared OR ReadyMyself | to-Eat 1-2 Years 3-5 Years 6-12 Years

MORNING 

SNACK

Banana Bread Homemade   w/ butter Land O’ Lakes, salted

  

Juice Apple, Veryfine, w/ added vitamin C

  

AFTERNOON 

SNACK

Yogurt Trix, lowfat, banana-strawberry flavored

  

Juice Orange, Minute-Maid, made from

  

 frozen concentrate

EVENING 

SNACK

72 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006
Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 73

FOOD YOU PREPARED

Use a Food You Prepared page for any food you checked as "Prepared Myself" on the 

Menu pages and for which you can easily tell us the recipe. This includes food you made 

from scratch or by combining two or more foods or ingredients. (The exception is 

sandwiches which can be fully described on the Menu pages.) A sample of a completed Food

You Prepared page is shown on the back of these instructions.

How to Fill in the Food You Prepared Pages

1. Name of food. Write the name of the food in the space provided at the top of the page. 

Please use the same name you used on the Menu page.

2. Number of servings prepared. Write the number of servings you made on this line.

3. Size of each serving. Write the size of one serving in this space. For example: 1/2 cup, 

4 oz, or 1 brownie.

4. When was food served? Check the box () beside the meal or meals at which the food

was served. Write in the dates the food was served during the survey week.

5. Fill in the chart following the instructions at the top of each column:

What Ingredients or Foods Did You Use?

• List all ingredients and foods by name on separate lines. Include everything you

used—salt, pepper and other spices, added fats like butter, margarine, mayonnaise,

and oil, pan drippings, water, and stock.

How Much Did You Use?

• Show the amount of each ingredient or food you used. Be sure to write both the

number and the type of measurement.

Examples: 2 Tbsp (mayonnaise) 2 pounds (lb) (ground beef)

2 tsp (salt) 3⁄4 cup (cooked rice)

4 oz (shredded cheese) 1 quart (qt) (milk)

• If you use an ingredient that is not measured, write down how much or how many

you used. If possible, tell us whether the item was small, regular (medium), or large.

Examples: 1 large (carrot) 3 small (bananas)

1/2 large (green pepper) 2 regular slices (bread)

15 (crackers) (saltine size) 8 squares (graham crackers)

Please Describe Each Ingredient or Food

• Use this column to describe each ingredient or food in detail. Look for the ingredient

or food in the FOOD DESCRIPTION GUIDE to see the kinds of information to write. We

also need to know whether it was: raw or cooked? shredded, chopped, sliced,

grated, crushed, or whole?

Preparation and Cooking Method

• Answer questions 1 and 2 if they apply to the food you prepared.
74 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

FOOD YOU PREPARED

SAMPLE

Please fill in one of these pages for any food you made from scratch or by combining

two or more foods or ingredients, for example, chili, tuna salad, mashed potatoes,

salads, pancakes, and homemade cookies.

Name of food Banana Bread When was food served?

 Please use same name you used on the Menu page. Check all that apply and

indicate date(s) served.

Number of servings prepared 12 

Date(s) served:

Size of each serving 1 slice  Breakfast ___________

Examples: 1/2 cup, 4 oz, 1 cup, 3 Tbsp  Lunch ___________

  Supper ___________

Snack 6/1/98 

What Ingredients or

Foods Did You Use?

List all ingredients and

foods.

How Much Did

You Use?

Examples: 2 tsp,

1/2 cup, 1 lb, 4 oz

Please Describe Each 

Ingredient or Food

 Was it raw or cooked? shredded,

chopped, sliced, crushed, or whole? 

 Check the FOOD DESCRIPTION GUIDE

pamphlet for additional instructions.

Butter 1⁄2 cup regular, salted

Sugar 1 cup white

Eggs 2 large, whole, fresh

Bananas 3 mashed

Flour 2 cups white, all purpose

Baking Soda 1 tsp.

Salt 1 tsp. regular

Walnuts 1/4 cup chopped

PREPARATION AND COOKING METHOD

1. If cooked, what cooking method did you use? (Check one)

Bake/roast  Stir fry  Pan fry/sauté

 Broil/grill  Deep fry  Other (specify):_______________________

2. If you prepared meat (beef, pork, chicken, turkey, etc.), did you: (Check all that apply)

a. Trim the visible fat?  Yes  No  No visible fat to trim

b. Drain fat after cooking?  Yes  No  No fat to drain

c. Remove bone before serving?  Yes  No  No bone to remove

d. Remove skin before serving?  Yes  No  No skin to remove
Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 75

	



	


MEAL OBSERVATION RECORD

For Meals and Snacks Served:

______/______/______

month day year

and

______/______/______

month day year

Collected by:_______________________________________________

Provider ID: __ __ __ __ - __ __ __ - __
76 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

SERVING SIZE MEASUREMENTS FORM

DAY: (circle one) MON TUE WED THU FRI

CHILD CARE NAME: _________________________________________

DATE: ___ ___/___ ___/___ ___

 Month Day Year

MEAL: (circle one)

BREAKFAST MORNING SNACK

LUNCH AFTERNOON SNACK

SUPPER EVENING SNACK

Menu item or component:

__________________________________________________________

Reference Serving:

__________________________________________________________

Weights or volumes #1 ________ grams/foz

of samples:

#2 ________

#3 ________

#4 ________

#5 ________

Total weights/volumes ________ grams/foz

Divide by 5 =

Average weight/volume ________ grams/foz

of full portion
Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 77

MEAL OBSERVATION FORM

CHILD CARE NAME: ____________________________________ 

ID: ____________________________________

MEAL: (circle one)

Breakfast Lunch Dinner 

Morning Snack Afternoon Snack Evening Snack

DAY: (circle one) MON TUE WED THU FRI

AGE RANGE: ____________________

DATE OF MEAL: ___ ___/___ ___/___ ___

Foods Served

grams/

FOZ

 Reference

Serving

 ID: 

 Child 1

 ID: 

 Child 2

 ID:

 Child 3

 Served Total Served Total Served Total

Foods Served

grams/

FOZ

Reference

Serving

ID: 

 Child 4

ID: 

 Child 5

ID: 

Child 6

 Served Total Served Total Served Total
1 The same version of the FIAS was used for coding and nutrient analysis to ensure that comparisons of

1999 and 1995 menu data would not be affected by technical differences in nutrient databases. A

limitation of this approach is that using FIAS 2.3 may not yield the most accurate nutrient estimates for the

1999 menus since a newer version of the nutrient database was available (FIAS 3.98). For this reason, an

analysis was conducted to compare the two versions of the database. Findings are reported in Appendix E.

2 For a handful of providers—six in 1995, five in 1999—observation data were collected on 1 day only.

78 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

Appendix C

Analytic Approach Used in Determining the Nutrient

Content of Meals and Snacks Offered

This appendix describes three aspects of the approach used in analyzing the average nutrient content

of meals and snacks offered by CACFP family child care home providers:

• Relationship of menu survey and meal observation data;

• Method for estimating portion sizes from meal observation data; and

• Calculation of nutrient measures from menu data and portion size estimates.

The method for estimating the impacts of tiering on nutrient measures is described in Appendix D.

Menu and Meal Observation Data

As noted in the Introduction, a self-administered menu survey was used to collect detailed

information about the foods offered to children in CACFP family child care homes. A total of 501

providers in 1995 and 542 Tier 2 providers in 1999 supplied this information for at least 3 days

during a specified 5-day period. Providers were asked to record complete lists of the foods and

beverages offered at all meals and snacks, differentiated by the age groups defined by the CACFP

meal pattern (1-2-year-olds, 3-5-year-olds, 6-12-year-olds; see Exhibit 1). Each recorded food item

was then assigned a 7-digit food code from the USDA Survey Nutrient Database using the Food

Intake Analysis System (FIAS), version 2.3.1

 (For example, 6121001 represents “Orange juice,

freshly squeezed.”) A copy of the Menu forms for Monday of the menu recording week and a copy

of the Foods You Prepare form (which providers completed when they made foods from scratch) are

provided in Appendix B.

To determine the nutrient content of the meals and snacks offered over the course of the sample week

it was necessary to estimate the portion size of each menu item. On-site meal observations were

conducted by trained field staff in a limited number of settings (89 providers in 1995, 97 Tier 2

providers in 1999) over the course of 2 days.2

 Observations were conducted during the same week

covered by the menu survey. Prior to each meal and snack, observers weighed or measured five

reference portions of each food and beverage that would be offered to children between the ages of 1

and 12. Reference portions were defined as the smallest serving unit, determined by the provider,

that could be served to a child. For example, the reference portion for fresh apple slices might be 1

slice, for beef and macaroni casserole: 1 spoonful, for potato tots: 
3 Reference portions were also established for the components of a sandwich (e.g., the ham, cheese, bread,

and any added spread). This made it possible to record observed portions for individual children who

refused one or more components. 

4 For additional information on the visual estimation technique used, and the reliability of estimates, see Fox

et al., 1997.

Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 79

1 tot, and for a ham and cheese sandwich: 1 sandwich.

3

 Beverages were measured in fluid ounces. 

Five portions are weighed or measured to assure that an accurate average amount for the reference

portion is recorded. Using visual estimation techniques, observers then tallied the number of

reference portions of each menu item served to each child, including second helpings.4

 Children

were identified by CACFP age group. An example of the meal observer’s portion size recording and

observation forms are included in Appendix B.

To apply these observations to the much larger set of menus, an imputation procedure (described

below) was developed which related observed portion sizes to the known characteristics of the menu

and the provider. These relationships were assumed to hold for the menus for which no observation

data were collected.

Estimating Portion Sizes from Meal Observations

The nutrient measures analyzed in this report were constructed based on actual provider menus and

estimated portion sizes. The estimates of the portion sizes were obtained from a set of econometric

models, as described below.

Scope of the Models

A separate model of portion size was estimated for each of 10 major food groups, defined primarily

by their function in satisfying CACFP meal patterns:

• Milk

• Meat/meat alternates

• Bread/bread alternates

• Fruits (including fruit juice, fruit desserts)

• Vegetables

• Entrée mixtures

• Noncreditable beverages

• Noncreditable desserts

• Condiments (noncreditable)

• Miscellaneous noncreditable

A noncreditable item is one that does not contribute to satisfying the CACFP meal pattern. If a food

is creditable in some circumstances but not others (1995 vs. 1999, snack vs. lunch), then the observed

portions of that food may appear in both creditable and noncreditable food groups. For example,

eggs sometimes appear as miscellaneous noncreditable because meat/meat alternates are not

creditable at breakfast.

There were some changes in the types of foods that were creditable in 1995 and 1999. In general,

more items are creditable in 1999 than in 1995. The major changes for 1999, based on a comparison

of the CACFP meal patterns and FNS guidance materials available in each year, are:
5 The sources of information on creditable foods and serving sizes for data collected in 1995 and 1999 were

the FNS guidance materials available to CACFP participants at the time: What’s In a Meal? Crediting

Foods in the Child Care Food Program, Mountain Plains Region, Nutrition and Technical Services, Food

and Nutrition Service, USDA, 1995 and Crediting Foods in the Child and Adult Care Food Program,

MidAtlantic Region, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, Revised January 1998 and May 1998.

80 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

• yogurt was creditable (meat/meat alternate) for lunch and supper

• cereals were creditable (bread/bread alternate) for lunch and supper

• granola bars were creditable (bread/bread alternate) for breakfast

• cakes, cupcakes and brownies were creditable (bread/bread alternate) for snacks

• corn/taco chips, hard pretzels, and bagel chips were creditable (bread/bread alternate) at all

meals

Other changes in the items that were creditable for CACFP meals and snacks were not considered in

the model because the associated food items were not observed (e.g., pie crust for snacks). There

were also changes in the minimum required portion sizes for bread and bread alternates.5

The sources of the data used to estimate the models were the meal observations conducted in 1995

and 1999 (Tier 2 only). The unit of analysis was the observed portion of a menu item served to a

particular child by the provider at a given meal or snack. All portions are measured in grams. Each

of the models includes an indicator for whether the portion was observed in 1995 or 1999. 

Explanatory Variables: the Typical Amount Consumed

A key explanatory variable in all of the portion size models (except that for milk) was the amount of

a food typically eaten by children of a particular age at a specific meal. This amount was estimated

based on data from the 1994-96 Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII). Since it is

not known whether meals eaten in family child care homes are more like those eaten in the child’s

own home or away from home, all eating locations were included. For purposes of the estimation,

foods were categorized into minor food groups, each consisting of a set of specific foods for which

consumption and serving patterns were expected to be similar. For example, within the major food

group of “fruits,” the sample of menus included 190 specific foods (as defined by 7-digit USDA food

codes). These were aggregated into 52 minor food groups, such as “applesauce.” This particular

minor food group included the following four foods reported on menus:

6310111 Applesauce, stewed apples, not specified if sweetened

6310112 Applesauce, stewed apples, unsweetened

6310113 Applesauce, stewed apples, with sugar

6310115 Applesauce with other fruits

Also included in this minor food group was a food which did not appear on the menus, but occurred

in the CSFII:

6310114 Applesauce, stewed apples, with low-calorie sweetener.

After defining the minor food groups, an auxiliary model using the CSFII data was estimated for each

of the major food groups, with the following functional form:

TYPICALijk= exp (b0 + I

 b1i MINORi + jk b2jk (AGEGROUPj × MEALTYPEk)),
Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 81

where TYPICALijk= amount (in grams) of food in minor food group i eaten by a child in age

group j at meal type k;

MINORi

 = indicator that portion was in minor food group i;

AGEGROUPj = indicator that portion was eaten

by child in CACFP age group j

(j=1,2,3 corresponding to 1-2-

year-olds, 3-5-year-olds, 6-10-

year olds); and

MEALTYPEk = indicator that portion was eaten at meal type k (k=1,2,3)

corresponding to breakfast, lunch/dinner/supper, snack).

CSFII data on 11-12-year-olds were deleted before estimating the models. The 1994-96 CSFII is a

representative sample of children in the United States, and therefore contains approximately equal

numbers of children of each year of age. CACFP, in contrast, serves few 11-12-year-olds relative to

6-10-year-olds. It was therefore judged that a better estimate of typical amounts for 6-12-year-olds in

CACFP could be obtained by excluding the oldest children in this age group.

Variations on this approach were required for several of the major food groups. First, the typical

amount consumed by children was not used as an explanatory variable in the model for milk. The

milk group is unique in that (a) it comprises only a few different foods, (b) variations in amounts

offered are related much more strongly to children’s ages and meal type (e.g., meal vs. snack) than to

the specific food item, and (c) patterns of amounts offered in CACFP homes across age groups and

meal types differ significantly from patterns of consumption by children in the CSFII. In particular,

1-2-year-olds in CACFP tend to be offered similar amounts of milk as 3-5-year-olds, and children are

offered as much milk at breakfast as at other meals and snacks—neither of which pattern is seen in

the CSFII. Furthermore, over 96 percent of observed milk portions in CACFP homes were

unflavored types (i.e., whole, low-fat, skim, or “not further specified”), all of which tend to be

offered in similar amounts—in contrast with portions of fruit, where some foods are typically offered

in small portions (e.g., raisins) and others in much larger portions (e.g., watermelon). The approach

for milk was therefore to include explicitly in the model indicators for types of milk and for age

groups interacted with meal types rather than the “typical” amount consumed.

Two other food groups required modifications to the model because they comprised more than one

kind of food. First, an indicator for juice was added to the model for fruit. (Full-strength fruit juices

were included in this major food group because they fulfill the same CACFP requirement.) Second,

the “miscellaneous noncreditable” group, consisting of only 156 portion observations, comprised a

wide variety of food types: bacon, sausage, eggs, peanut butter, and cheese (which are noncreditable

at breakfast), and snack foods such as popcorn and potato chips. To avoid estimating separate

models for each tiny category, these foods were all grouped together and indicators were allowed in

the model for each type: breakfast meats, eggs, cheese, and peanut butter, with snack foods being the

excluded category.

The final food group for which the “typical” amount offered was not sufficient to distinguish among

portions was vegetables. Here the issue was that one highly popular subgroup of food, namely french

fries and potato tots, tended to be offered in substantially larger portions than would be predicted. 

We therefore included an indicator for french fries/potato tots in the vegetable portion size model.
6 If a provider offered two (or more) food items within a food group and, based on the observation data,

children were likely to take some of each food item, the menu may contain multiple courses in that food

group. For example, hot dog and macaroni and cheese were counted as two meat/meat alternate courses,

because children were usually served both as well as a bread/bread alternate. A menu with french fries,

broccoli, and peas counted as two vegetable courses, because the data suggested that while all children

were served the french fries, they tended to get either broccoli or peas but not both.

82 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

Explanatory Variables: the CACFP Standard

CACFP providers are expected to be guided by CACFP regulations regarding the minimum portion

sizes required for meals and snacks to qualify for reimbursement (Exhibit 1). The models for

creditable food groups therefore include as an explanatory variable a “CACFP standard” amount for

that specific food, based on the age of the child, the meal type, and the year in which the food was

offered (1995 vs. 1999). The standard amount can vary slightly within minor food groups, primarily

because the minimum amounts may be stated in cups in the regulations but expressed in grams in the

model, and the gram-to-cup ratio varies across foods within a minor group. Also, CACFP portion

size specifications changed in some cases between 1995 and 1999, mostly regarding the gram

amounts of breads and bread alternates. For example, the minimum serving size for a breakfast bar

for the 1-2 and 3-5 age groups was 18 grams in 1995 and 25 grams in 1999.

Explanatory Variables: Characteristics of the Menu

The models also contain some characteristics of the menu (i.e. the meal or snack of which the

observed portion constituted a part). These include:

• whether milk was offered (excluded from the milk model)

• number of meat/meat alternate courses offered6

• number of bread courses offered

• number of fruit courses offered

• number of vegetable courses offered

• number of noncreditable courses offered

• percent of a course constituted by the observed portion: usually 1.0, but 0.5 or 0.33 if several

distinct foods were offered as part of a course (e.g., carrots and celery sticks as a single

vegetable), or if children were given a choice of two items (e.g., chicken or fish nuggets)

If a food constituted only a fraction of a course, the portion size was expected to be smaller than if it

comprised the entire course. The portion size was also expected to be smaller if more courses of the

same type of food were offered (e.g., a provider who offered two vegetables at lunch would provide

less of each than one who offered only one vegetable). Other food groups could be either

complements or substitutes. For example, fruit portions tend to be smaller when (more) servings of

vegetables are on the menu, but noncreditable beverage portions (e.g., soft drinks) tend to be larger

when meat/meat alternates are on the menu.

Explanatory Variables: Provider and Neighborhood Characteristics

The models contain characteristics of the provider, taken from the provider operations survey: 

average daily attendance, number of eating opportunities that day relative to hours of operation (up to

12 hours), number of years the provider has been offering care, weekly full fee for a full-time

preschooler, and provider’s household income as a percent of the Federal poverty guideline.
7 This variable was usually 0 or 100 percent, but was occasionally an intermediate value because of the

aggregation of census blocks with different values into census block groups. We used “urban” to refer to

urbanized areas (as defined by the Census Bureau) that were within metropolitan areas. (The Census

documentation notes that there can be both urban and rural territory within both metropolitan and

nonmetropolitan areas.)

Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 83

Finally, the models contain characteristics of the locality. Some of these were taken directly from

1990 census block group data: percent urban7, percent black, and percent Hispanic. Regional

indicators are included as well: Northeast, South, Midwest, and West. A specially constructed 

measure of poverty was provided by USDA: percent of children up to age 12 in the census block

group living in low-income households; those at or under 185 percent of the poverty guideline.

Three of the major food groups (noncreditable beverages, noncreditable desserts, and miscellaneous

noncreditable) had markedly less data than the other groups—the number of observations of portion

sizes ranged from 100 to 200, and represented 25 to 50 providers, in contrast with condiments and

the creditable food groups, which had 1000 to 3000 observations of portion sizes, representing at

least 140 providers. The data for the three small groups would not support the full model; there were

not enough distinct providers to estimate the effects of characteristics that were constant across

providers. The following variables were therefore dropped from these three models: average

attendance, provider’s years of experience, weekly fee (and the corresponding missing data

indicator), provider income (and the corresponding missing data indicator), percent black in the

neighborhood, and percent Hispanic in the neighborhood. Retained in the models were the 1999 vs.

1995 indicator, the typical amounts eaten by children in the CSFII, all of the menu characteristics,

regional indicators, percent urban, and percent of low-income children in the census block group.

Missing Data

Two variables from the provider operations survey were sometimes missing: fee charged for

preschoolers (because some providers do not serve any full-fee, full-time preschoolers) and

household income (some providers declined to respond). Missing data indicators were included in

the models for these two variables.

Other variables were imputed, according to the following procedures:

• Neighborhood-level variables (percent urban, percent Hispanic, percent black, and percent

low-income children; missing for 14 providers for whom address information was

incomplete): Values were assigned equal to those of a randomly selected provider from the

same State.

• Provider-level variables (attendance, years of experience; missing for 76 providers): Values

were assigned equal to those of a randomly selected provider from the same State and in the

same “category” with regard to the four neighborhood-level variables. The categories were

defined as above/below 50 percent urban, above/below 10 percent black, above/below 10

percent Hispanic, and above/below 14 percent of low-income children. For three providers,

data donors were not an exact match on all of these variables, but in each case the value of

one or more of the neighborhood-level variables of the provider with missing survey data

was near the above-mentioned cutoffs so that a reasonable match could be found.

• Hours of operation: This variable was needed for each day of the week for which a provider

submitted a menu (a total of 5,369 menu days). When missing (199 menu days), hours were
84 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

generally assigned equal to those of a randomly selected provider from the same State

and in the same percent urban category for a day on which the first eating opportunity

and the last eating opportunity corresponded. For example, an urban provider in

Virginia who offered morning snack, lunch, and afternoon snack on a Tuesday might be

missing hours of operation for Tuesday. An appropriate donor value for hours of

operation would be those of another urban provider in Virginia on a day in which she

offered morning snack (but not breakfast), and afternoon snack (but not supper or

evening snack). For those providers for whom such a data donor was not available, the

search was extended to similar providers in the same region (Northeast, South, Midwest,

or West).

Functional Form and Estimation Technique

The functional form of the model is exponential. The “typical” amount and the CACFP standard are

therefore included in logarithmic form (so that a given percentage increase in one of these variables

corresponds to a given percentage increase in the dependent variable). Random provider effects are

assumed. The software used is the SAS GLIMMIX macro.

A backward stepwise procedure was used to select the final models, using the following criteria:

• In general, the cutoff for inclusion is a t-statistic of 1.0.

• Regardless of their t-statistics, the 1995 vs. 1999 indicator and the CACFP standard amount

(for creditable items) are always included in the model.

• If one of a “variable group” earns admission to the model, the remaining variables in its

group are also included. These groups are weekly fee/missing data indicator for weekly fee,

provider’s income as percent of poverty/missing data indicator for provider’s income as

percent of poverty, and regional indicators for Northeast/South/West (Midwest is the

excluded category).

• All other variables are subject to deletion.

Results

The estimated portion size models are reported in Exhibit C.1. The estimated impact of tiering is

shown in the second row of the table. Thus, portion sizes for meat/meat alternates were estimated to

be 14.5 percent larger among Tier 2 providers in 1999 than among providers in 1995, holding

constant the CACFP standard for the particular food item, age group, and meal type; the amount of

that food typically eaten by children of that age group at that meal type; the number of meat items

offered at that meal; the number of bread items offered at that meal; the number of vegetable items

offered at that meal; the fee charged by the provider; the racial composition of the neighborhood; the

region of the country; and the income level of the neighborhood.
Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 85

Exhibit C.1

Coefficients in Regression Models of Portion Size for Major Food Groups

Creditable Food Group

Milk

Meats and

Meat

Alternates

Breads and

Bread

Alternates Fruit Vegetables

Mixed

Entrées

Intercept 4.7361*** 0.6655*** -0.029 0.3588* 1.4351*** 1.8639***

1999 Tier 2 -0.0109 0.1450** 0.1170*** 0.0044 0.1092 0.037

Log of CACFP standard 0.0895*** 0.0770** 0.0393 0.0800*** -0.0549 0.1175**

Log of typical 

amount offered

0.7725*** 0.8032*** 0.6478*** 0.7406*** 0.5561***

Snack for 

1-2-year-olds

-0.1118***

Snack for 

3-5-year olds

-0.0891***

Whole milk 0.0639**

Skim milk 0.073

Flavored milk 0.1155*

Whole chocolate milk 0.1624

Other flavored milk 0.1331

Juice 0.4652***

French fries 0.1474***

Eggs

Cheese

Peanut butter

Percent of course

constituted by food

0.6942*** 0.7167***

Number of meat items

offered

-0.1699*** -0.0557 -0.1682**

Number of bread items

offered

-0.1316*** -0.1240*** -0.0666*** -0.0812**

Number of fruit

items offered

-0.0250* 0.0451** -0.0674*** -0.1703*** -0.1056**

Number of vegetable

items offered

-0.0313 -0.1134*** -0.0300* -0.1434***

continued...
86 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

Exhibit C.1 (continued)

Regression Models of Portion Size for Major Food Groups

Creditable Food Group (continued)

Milk

Meats and

Meat

Alternates

Breads and

Bread

Alternates Fruit Vegetables

Mixed

Entrées

Milk offered 0.0959***

Number of extra items

offered

-0.0473* 0.1403*** 0.048

Average attendance 0.0097

Number of eating

opportunities

-0.5541**

Caregiver’s years of

experience

-0.0034 0.004 0.0074

Weekly fee for fulltime

care

0.0004 0.0011** -0.001 -0.0021** -0.0021**

Weekly fee unknown/

NA

0.1331 0.2378*** -0.07 -0.033 -0.1509

Provider’s income as

percent of Federal

poverty level

Provider’s income

unknown

Urban 0.0589 0.1959***

Percent black in

neighborhood

-0.1354 0.3829* -0.2592

Percent Hispanic in

neighborhood

0.9391***

Northeast 0.086 -0.0809 -0.001 -0.039 0.087

South -0.0353 -0.1439*** -0.1208* -0.0501 -0.1588*

West -0.0863 -0.0375 -0.0525 -0.1549* -0.015

Percent low-income

children in

neighborhood

-0.2789 -0.2441** -0.3718** -0.2417

NA = Not applicable

Significance levels:

 * = .10

 ** = .05

 *** = .01

Continued...
Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 87

Exhibit C.1 (continued)

Coefficients in Regression Models of Portion Size for Major Food Groups

Noncreditable Food Group

Beverages Desserts Condiments

Other

Noncreditable

Intercept 4.8903*** -0.133 0.2313 0.2904

1999 Tier 2 0.3288** 0.1253 0.1028 0.2029

Log of CACFP standard

Log of typical amount offered 0.8434*** 0.8643*** 0.8187***

Snack for 1-2-year-olds

Snack for 3-5-year olds

Whole milk

Skim milk

Flavored milk

Whole chocolate milk

Other flavored milk

Juice

French fries

Eggs 0.4341***

Cheese -0.4126

Peanut butter -0.7268***

Percent of course constituted by food 0.2676

Number of meat items offered 0.1401** -0.0619 -0.3812**

Number of bread items offered -0.1926*** -0.1175**

Number of fruit items offered 0.097 -0.3247*** 0.2238*

Number of vegetable items offered -0.4130*** 0.1702*** 0.2238

continued...
88 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

Exhibit C.1 (continued)

Regression Models of Portion Size for Major Food Groups

Noncreditable Food Group (continued)

Beverages Desserts Condiments

Other

Noncreditable

Milk offered -0.4203*** 0.2673** -0.2151***

Number of extra items offered 0.2729**

Average attendance 0.0161

Number of eating opportunities -0.5736

Caregiver’s years of experience

Weekly fee for fulltime care 0.0021**

Weekly fee unknown/ NA 0.2875**

Provider’s income as percent of Federal

poverty level

0.0005 0.0004

Provider’s income unknown 0.6002 0.0369

Urban -0.5087** -0.1151 -0.3193**

Percent black in neighborhood 0.3225

Percent Hispanic in neighborhood

Northeast 0.0076 0.165 -0.1468 -0.1411

South 0.1076 0.7287** 0.0137 -0.1832

West -0.2487 0.5057** -0.0491 -0.1994

Percent low-income children in

neighborhood

NA = Not applicable

Significance levels:

 * = .10

 ** = .05

 *** = .01
Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 89

Coefficients on some of the other explanatory variables vary in sign across equations. In some cases,

the patterns indicate that some foods tend to be complements or substitutes for others. For example,

when additional meat items are offered, the portion sizes of meats and meat alternatives and of mixed

entrées are smaller, while the portion sizes of beverages are larger. Other coefficient patterns are

simply descriptions: providers in urban areas tend to serve larger portions of mixed entrées and

smaller portions of desserts, while providers who charge higher weekly fees tend to serve larger

portions of breads and condiments, but smaller portions of vegetables and mixed entrées.

Statistically significant coefficients on the Tier 2 variable were found for three major food groups,

indicating that Tier 2 providers in 1999 offered significantly larger portions than similar providers in

1995. The food groups and coefficients are:

• Meat: 14.5 percent

• Bread: 11.7 percent

• Beverages: 32.9 percent

The estimated increases in portion sizes from these models drive the findings on the nutrient content

of meals. We may therefore ask whether it is possible that these effects are a statistical artifact rather

than a real shift over time. Two possible explanations for the observed effects are differences in

portion size measurement and omitted variables in the regression models.

With regard to measurement, we note that identical protocols and training procedures were used in

1995 and 1999. In the same vein, the same data base, FIAS 2.3, was used for nutrient calculations,

even though a newer version was available. With regard to omitted variables, it is possible in

principle that some unmeasured characteristic of providers is correlated with Tier 2 membership and

associated with larger portion sizes. If so, the effect of this characteristic would be confounded with

the effects of tiering. While this possibility cannot be ruled out, we are unable to think of what such

a characteristic might be.

To give a concrete notion of the sorts of differences that exist in the data before regression

adjustment, examples are given in Exhibit C.2 below of specific food items in the meat and meat

alternate group that were offered to 3-5-year-olds at lunch or dinner/supper in both 1995 and 1999. 

The list below includes the dozen minor food groups (combinations of similar 7-digit FIAS codes)

that were observed at least twice in each year. Of the 12, 7 were offered in larger average portion

sizes in 1999; 3 were offered in larger average portion sizes in 1995; and the remaining 2 were

offered in portion sizes that differed by less than a gram between 1995 and 1999.

In 8 of the 10 models, the amount typically eaten by children was a powerful explanatory variable,

with an elasticity ranging from 0.56 (mixed entrées) to 0.86 (condiments). For example, if children

typically eat 10 percent larger portions of chicken salad than of tuna salad at meals, then servings of

chicken salad in CACFP homes would tend to be 5.6 percent greater than servings of tuna salad,

controlling for other factors. Other characteristics of the foods and menus that were important in

several models included the CACFP standard portion size (positive effect on portion sizes), percent

of course constituted by the food (positive effect), number of items that were offered in the same

food group (negative effect), and items offered in other food groups (usually negative effect, but

positive for some combinations such as milk with desserts and milk with bread and bread alternates,

including cereal).
90 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

Exhibit C.2

Mean Portion Sizes of Selected Meat/Meat Alternates in 1995 and 1999

Food Item

Weighted Mean Portion Size,

in Grams

Combined

Sample Size

1995

All Providers

1999

Tier 2

Providers

Cheese: Cheddar, Colby 13.6 24.6 14 

Cheese: Processed, American/Cheddar 26.3 25.5 34 

Chicken nuggets 56.5 57.2 51 

Chicken, breast, floured/breaded/batter-baked/

fried 78.3 30.0 7 

Chicken, part not specified, floured/breaded/

batter-baked/fried 18.0 88.6 7 

Fish stick/fillet, not further specified 32.5 51.8 44 

Hot dog 57.0 47.2 56 

Ground beef or patty (including pork patty) 32.9 48.5 11 

Ham, smoked or cured 41.0 30.0 10 

Meat loaf 49.1 68.8 9 

Peanut butter (including almond butter) 18.5 20.1 25 

Turkey, light meat (including not further specified

and wing) 32.2 44.6 14 

Calculation of Nutrient Measures from Menu Data and Portion Size

Estimates

The portion size models generate two types of output: (1) parameter coefficients for the fixed

effects, and (2) predicted values for the observation sample.

To impute portion sizes to the menu sample, the estimated parameters were applied to the

characteristics of the menu item (e.g., age group of child, meal type, minor food group, etc.) with two

exceptions. First, 1999 CACFP standards are used in all imputations. The imputed portion sizes

thus represent our best estimate of what we would have observed when these menus were offered, if

the 1999 portion size standards had been in effect. We acknowledge that compositional changes in

the menus associated with changes in the standards (e.g., yogurt creditable for lunch in 1999 but not

1995) are not captured. Second, for providers who were in the menu sample, we add in the estimated

random provider effect (obtained by comparing the within-sample predicted values with predicted

values based on fixed effects only).
Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 91



4

i1

(pi × RDAi),

Given the portion sizes for each food, FIAS (version 2.3) was used to calculate the corresponding

amounts of food energy and 10 micronutrients and macronutrients: protein, carbohydrate, fat,

saturated fat, vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium, iron, cholesterol, and sodium. 

The following nutrient summaries were calculated for each provider:

• Total nutrient content of each daily meal and snack offered, separately for each CACFP age

group served; and

• Average nutrient content of meals and snacks offered during the sample week, by age group.

The average nutrient content of each age-group-specific meal or snack offered was compared with

the nutrient benchmarks selected for the study, outlined in the breakfast section of this report. Next,

an overall average was computed for each provider by averaging across all age groups served.

Weighted RDAs for each CACFP age group were calculated separately for 1995 and 1999 based on

the age distribution of children as reported in the household survey. RDAs are defined for groups

that differ from the CACFP age groupings: children aged 1-3, 4-6, and 7-10; boys aged 11-14; and

girls aged 11-14. The weighted RDA for food energy or a given nutrient that was applied to menus

for 6- 12-year-olds in 1995, for example, was calculated as

where i=1 to 4 corresponding to the four RDA age/sex groups: 4-6-year-olds, 7-10-year-olds, 11-

12-year-old girls, and 11-12-year-old boys;

RDAi is the Recommended Dietary Allowance for age/sex group i;

p1 is the proportion of 6-12-year-olds in CACFP in 1995 who were 6 years old;

p2 is the proportion of 6-12-year-olds in CACFP in 1995 who were 7-10- years old; and

p3 and p4 are each one-half of the proportion of 6-12-year-olds in CACFP in 1995 who were 11-12-

years old.

Measures such as percent of calories from fat were calculated at the provider level averaged over the

week, counting each day’s menu equally. For example, if lunch on Monday comprised 250 calories

of which 100 were from fat, and lunch on Tuesday comprised 350 calories of which 100 were from

fat, then the average percentage of calories from fat for lunches would be calculated as

[1⁄2 × [(100/250) + (100/350)]] × 100 = 34.3%.
92 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

Eyx x ( ) ii i (1) = ′β

Appendix D

Estimating Impacts of Tiering on Nutrient Measures

The central purpose of the analysis was to estimate the effect of lower reimbursement for Tier 2

providers on the nutrient composition of the meals and snacks they offer. This analysis was carried

out within strata defined by the meal (breakfast, lunch, morning snack, and afternoon snack) and by

the age of the children to whom the meal is offered (1-2, 3-5, and 6-12). Within each stratum the unit

of analysis was the provider, with the provider’s value for any nutrient calculated as the amount of

the nutrient offered at the specified meal to children of the specified age, averaged over all of the

days on which the provider reported serving that meal to children of that age (typically 5 days). 

The sample comprised providers who completed the menu survey: Tier 2 providers in 1999 and all

providers in 1995. Regression models were estimated for all nutrients in all strata. Logistic

regression was used for dichotomous nutrient measures (e.g., whether a provider offered lunches to

3-5-year-olds that supplied at least one-third of the RDA for food energy). Sample weights were

incorporated using SAS-callable SUDAAN (PROC REGRESS and PROC RLOGIST). 

Estimation of tiering effects is complicated by the fact that the amount of any nutrient that the

provider offers—i.e., the dependent variable—is determined by what foods the provider places on the

menu and by what portion sizes the provider offers. The foods on the menu were recorded

independently by each provider. Portion sizes, however, were observed for only a subsample of

providers and were therefore imputed on the basis of the characteristics of the provider, the meal, the

provider’s location, and other factors described above (Appendix C). In estimating the standard error

of the tiering effect, it is necessary to take into account the variance associated with the portion size

estimation process as well as the variance in the model of nutrient measures itself. This appendix

describes the method used to estimate this combined variance.

The appendix contains four sections. The first describes the basic problem, the second uses two

simplified examples to illustrate the main features of our estimation approach, and the final two

sections describe the estimators that were actually used, their errors of estimate, and the way in

which these errors were estimated. 

Introduction

We set out to estimate models of the form:
Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 93

y

i wtjaitjditj j

m

t T

= 



 



 ∈ =

∑ ∑

0 1

(2)

where

yi = the amount of some specified nutrient included in the meals offered by the ith provider (e.g., the

percent of RDA for food energy in lunches for children aged 3-5), and 

xi = a vector of provider characteristics, including a dummy for the observation year, a measure of

the provider’s household income relative to the Federal poverty guideline, and the percent of

children in the provider’s census block group in 1990 living in households with incomes at or below

185 percent of the poverty guideline.

The coefficient of interest is the coefficient for the observation year, which is interpreted as

estimating the effect of the difference in reimbursement plus the effect of any general changes in

CACFP providers’ menus or portion sizes between 1995 and 1999. The other covariates represent

two of the three criteria used in assigning providers to Tier 1 or Tier 2. (The third factor, the lowincome status of the provider’s elementary school attendance area, was not measured in available

data.)

The value of yi

 is computed based on the nutrient content of various foods that were served by

providers. Nutrient content is measured relative to the nutrient being considered. It may be

expressed in either absolute or relative terms (e.g., grams of fat or percent of RDA for calcium). 

Total nutrient content reflects the nutrients per unit and the portion sizes of all of the foods offered

by a provider. We observe menus for several types of meals (breakfast, lunch, snacks) offered to

children of various ages on each of several days of the week. Portion sizes and relative nutrients per

unit of foods offered will differ depending on the age of the child and the type of meal. In addition,

nutrient content is sometimes analyzed in terms of subsets of meals—for example, lunches or meals

offered to children in a certain age range. 

The equation for yi

 is:

where 

t = an index running over the total set of meals, which is defined by all possible combinations of a

meal’s type (breakfast, lunch, snack), the day of the week on which it was served, and the age of the

child to whom it was served;

T0 = the set of meals included in the measure; 

m = the total number of foods;

wtj = the amount of the nutrient that is provided by a unit of the jth food when served in the tth meal;

ditj = a variable that indicates whether the ith provider included the jth food in its menu for the tth

meal; and 

aitj = the amount of the jth food offered by the ith provider if the jth food is included in the menu for

the tth meal.
94 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

y

i ai

mi (3) =

Estimation of Equation (1) was complicated by the fact that we observed menus for the entire

sample, but only obtained information on portion sizes, (and thus only observed y) for a subsample. 

We could have estimated using only the subsample for which we had complete information. We

increased the precision of our estimates by using a two-stage procedure. The first stage used the

subsample to estimate food amounts (including the effects of tier on amounts). These estimates,

combined with the observed menus, allowed us to create estimated y’s for the entire sample. The

second stage estimated overall effects for the entire sample based on the estimated y’s. 

This two-stage procedure reduces the errors of estimate by using the information on menus for the

entire sample. At the same time, it does require some additional steps to estimate standard errors,

described in this appendix. The overall effects estimated in the second stage reflect the observed

differences in menus weighted by the estimated portion amounts. The second stage regression

estimates the error associated with chance fluctuations in observed menus. The potential error

associated with errors in estimating portion amounts has to be estimated separately and added to the

second stage regression estimate. 

The estimators involved are discussed in the third and last sections of this appendix. These involve a

variety of nonlinear functions and are not always transparent. The next section uses two simpler

specifications to illustrate the basic structure of the procedure.

Two Illustrative Examples

Two examples illustrate the procedure used to estimate . The first illustrates the basic approach of

sequential estimation, using the subsample to estimate amounts and then the entire sample to estimate

. The second illustrates the use of auxiliary variables in estimating amounts.

Example 1: A Log-Linear Specification For A Multiplicative Model 

The definition of yi in Equation (2) is complicated by the fact that it involves sums over a large

number of possible menu items. We can, of course, rewrite Equation (2) as a simple product:

where

ai = the average portion size (measured in nutrient units) served by the ith provider, and 

mi = the number of menu items offered by the ith provider.

We did not use this specification, because we would expect ai

 to depend on the composition of the

menu: a sequential procedure that used the subsample to estimate ai

 and the entire sample to estimate

mi would throw away the information on the menu composition that is available for the entire sample. 

Even so, the specification of Equation (3) does provide a straightforward illustration of the

estimation process.

Say that we had adopted the specification of Equation (3) and, in addition, replaced the specification

of Equation (1) with a multiplicative model:
Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 95

{ } ( )

{ } ( )

{ } ( ) { } ( ) { } ( )

( )( )

ln

ln

ln ln ln

a X

m X

yam

X

X

i aa

i mm

iii

a m am

= +

= +

≡ +

= + ++

= +

β ε

β ε

ββ εε

β ε

(4)

( ) () { } [ ] ( )

( ) { } ( ) [ ] ( )

 ln  ~

 ln  ~

β β βσ

β β βσ

a i a aa

m i m mm

XX X a XX

XX X m XX

= ′′ ′

= ′′ ′

− −

− −

1 1

1

1

2

1 1

1

1 2 1

 , 

 , 

(5)

[ ] ( ) ( )   β β β βσ σ = + ~ ′ + ′ − −

am a m , X X XX 2

1 1

1 2 1

(6)

{ } ln( ) { } ~ ln( )  (7) y mX i ia = + β

( ) { } ( )  ln ~   β ββ = ′ ′ = + − XX X yi ma

1 (8)

where, as throughout this appendix, {} is used to indicate a column vector of the indicated elements,

so that

{ln(yi

)} = the column vector whose ith element is ln(yi).

We have information on mi

 for the entire sample and information on ai for only a subsample. Given

the specification of Equation (4), we could, of course, estimate each component of separately:

where the subscripted X indicates the matrix for the subsample of observations used in the first stage

estimation (those for which amounts are observed). Assuming that the two errors are independent,

our estimate of would then be distributed as follows:

Alternatively, we could obtain the same estimate of by using the subsample estimate of a from

Equation (5) to estimate ln(yi

) for the entire sample, and then regressing this estimated ln(yi) on x. 

Form :

and then regress {ln(yi

)} on x:

The two procedures yield the same estimates of . However, the regression of Equation (8)

underestimates the error of estimate. The estimated error term for the second stage regression of

ln(yi

) on xi only includes m:
96 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

( ) ( )   V XX  2 m

2 1 β σ = ′ −

(10)

{ } ( )

{ } ( ) ( )

ln

ln

m X

a XZ

i mm

i

x

z

a

= +

= 



 



 +

β ε

γ

γ

ε

(15)

[ ] ( ) { } ( ) [ ] ( )  ln ~ ε ε 2

1 1 = − ′ ′ = − ′ ′ − −

(9) I X XX X y I X XX X i m

V X X XX ( ) a m ( ) ( ) βσ σ = ′ + ′ 2 − −

1 1

1 2 1

(11)

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )          V V XX V V β βσ β β = + a a ′ = + −

2

2

1 1

1

2 (12)

( X X′≈ ′ ) ( ) n

n

1 1 X X 1 (13)

( ) [ ] ( ) ( )   

   V   n

n

V n

n

X X a

m

β m a

σ

σ

≈ + βσ σ 



 



 















= + 



 



 













 ′ − 1

1

2

2 2

2

1

2 1

(14)

Accordingly, the estimated variance from the second stage regression will be:

whereas the actual error from Equation (6) is:

We can estimate the actual variance by combining the regression estimate with the estimated error

variance from the first stage regression of ln(ai

) in Equation (5):

The size of the correction may be indicated by considering the case in which the subsample with

information on amounts is a random sample of the overall sample. In this case, we would expect that

so that we might approximate the variance of Equation (12) by:

Example 2: Adding Auxiliary Variables 

As described in the next section, the actual estimation procedure used auxiliary variables in the

prediction of amounts. Our illustrative specification is now:
E EE (η η ) = a ba [ ] | ( )

Var Var E E Var (ηηη ) = + a ba a ba [ ] | | ( ) [ ] ( )

1 In general, if we take the expectation of some variable, , over two sets of variables, a and b, then

and

Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 97

( ) ( ) ~ 

 ε γ γ

γ γ = ε γ −−





 

 X Z Z XG  ++− x x

z z

m z (20)

( ) { } ( )

[ ] ( ) ( ) ( )

 ln ~

 ~ ~

β

ββ ε

= ′ ′

′′ ′

−

− −

XX X y

X X X Var X X X

i

1

1 1 , 

(21)

(16) { } ln( y X i) = + β ε

(17) ββ γ γ = ++ = mx z G E Z X XG where ( )

{ } ln( ) { } ( ) ( ) ~ ln 

 y m XZ i i

x

z

= + 



 



 γ

γ

(18)

{ } ln( ) ~ ~ (19) y X i = + β ε

The z’s are endogenous. Thus, in the specification for ln(yi):

 reflects the combination of the direct effects of x and its effect in determining z:

The intermediate variable ln(y ) is now:

or, substituting from Equation (15) and Equation (17),

where

The estimator for from the regression of ln(y) on x is:

We can characterize the variance of in terms of the components from Equation (20)1

:
εε ε γ = ++− ma z (Z XG)

( ) [ ] ε γσ m z az + − Z XG I ~ 0 2 , 

2 The error term in Equation (1) is given by:

If a is assumed to be homoskedastic, then assuming that is homoskedastic implies that the remaining error

vector is also homoskedastic – that is, 

This assumption is not as remarkable as it may seem. Whether or not specification of a homoskedastic error for

Equation (16) seems reasonable is unlikely to depend on an assumption that there are no omitted variables. If a

homoskedastic error for the amount equation also seems reasonable, then homoskedasticity of [ m + (Z-XG) z]

is also reasonable. 

98 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

V XX X V V X XX ( ) ( ) [ ] ( ) ( ) ( )  ~ ~ β εε = ′ ′ + ′ − − 1

1 2

1

(22)

( ) ( ) [ ] ( ) ( )

( ) ( ) [ ] ( ) ( ) [ ] ( ( ) )

V Var E Var X XG

V E Var E Var Z XG

m

m m

z

x x

z z

z z m z

1

2

~ ~ 



~ ~

 , |  

 , |   , | 

ε ε γ γ

γ γ

ε ε εγ

γ ε γ γ

γ ε γ γ ε γ

= = −

−





 



 



 





= = +−

(23)

( ) ( )   V XX  2 2

2 1 β σ = ′ −

(24)

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

[ ] ( )

V X X X Var X XG X X X

I G Var

I

G

x x

z z

1

1 1  



, 

β 

γ γ

γ γ

γ

= γ ′ ′ −

−





 



 



 





















′

= ′





 





− −

(25)

where

The variance associated with the second component is estimated by the second stage ln(y) regression

(for which  is fixed)2

:

The variance associated with the first component is given by:
Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 99

(30) az J itj kitj k k i k ij k = ∈ exp ’ ( γ ηη )( 1 2 ) for j

[ ] ( ) ( ) ( )

( ) [ ] ( ) ( )

( )

 , 

, 



V I X X X Z Var

I

ZX XX

X X X X X Z Var

X X

Z X

X X

a X X

1 11

1

1 1

11 11

1

1 1

1

1 1 11

1 1

1 1

1 1

1

2

1 1

1

= ′ ′ ′ ′





 





= ′ ′′ ′

′





 



 ′

= ′

−

−

− −

−

γ

γ

σ

(27)

( ) ( ) ( )     V V XX  β βσ = + a ′ −

2

2

1 1

1

(28)

V( ) XX XZ

ZX ZZ a γ σ  = ′ ′

′ ′





 





−

2 1 1 11

1 1 11

1

(26)

( ) ( ( ) ) V X I Z ZZ Z X   

x a γ σ = ′ − ′ 



 



 − − 2

1 1 11

1

1 1

1

(29)

The subsample regression provides an estimate of Var ( ), and we could use either the full sample or yˆ

the subsample value of (XX)-1XZ to estimate G. Var ( ) is: yˆ

If we use the subsample to estimate G, then the estimate for Equation (25) becomes:

Our estimate for the variance of the estimated is like that of Equation (12):

Note, however, that unlike Equation (12), the second term in Equation (28) is not equal to the

estimate of Var( ): yˆ

x

This reflects the fact that the effects of the x’s includes their effects on the expected values of the z’s

for each provider. We either need to calculate (X1X1)

-1 or use the approximation of Equation (13).

Results for the Actual Specification

The actual estimation procedure parallels that described in the previous section. We specified the aitj

as a multiplicative function of provider, meal, and food characteristics. Estimation was carried out

separately for each of 10 groups of items. Thus the final specification for items in the kth group was:

where
100 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

(31) rw z J itj tj kitj k k = ∈ exp ’ ( γ ) for j

~y rd  ik itj itj

t T j Jk

= ∑ ∑ ∈ 0 ∈ (32)

aitj = the amount of the jth food offered by the ith provider if the jth food is included in the menu for

the tth meal;

zk = the vector of variables used in the portion size equation for the kth food group; 

zkitj = the value of the zk vector for the jth food served by the ith provider for the tth menu;

k1, k2 = provider level and item level multiplicative errors, respectively; and 

Jk = the set of foods included in the kth group.

The nature of the z’s is not essential to what follows. However, it may still be useful to note that the

zk vector includes provider characteristics (including tier), items relating to specific foods, such as

external values for both the standard and usual portion sizes for the item given the age of the child to

whom it was served, and items related to the type of meal, number of foods offered in the meal,

number of meals served in a day. Some of the variables in the zk vector have the same value for

every food and menu served by the ith provider; some have values that only depend on the food;

some have values that vary with food and the meal index.

It will simplify notation somewhat if we define an intermediate variable that combines estimated

amounts and per unit nutrient weights. Define

where

rijt = the expected nutrient yield obtained from the jth food if it is served by the ith provider as part of

the tth menu with characteristics zkitj;

wtj = the amount of the nutrient provided by a unit of the jth food when served in the tth meal; and

k and zkitj = as in Equation (30).

Note that the expectation represented by rijt is conditional on the food being served in the

circumstances represented by the z’s. The estimated nutritional content of foods from the kth group

served by the ith provider is given by:

where 

yik = the estimated nutritional content of foods from the kth group served by the ith provider;

T0 = the set of meals included in the measure (as discussed in connection with Equation (2); 

rijt = the estimated value of rijt, obtained from Equation (31), using the estimated values of k; and 
Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 101

y

i wtjaitjditj j

m

t T

= 



 

 ∑ ∑  ∈ 0 = 1

(35)

~ ~ y y i ik

k (33) = ∑

( ) ( ) ( )

( )

Eyx E E wa d

E rd

i i d zx ad z x tj itj itj

t T j

d zx itj itj

t T j

= ∑ ∑ 



 



 



 





= ∑ ∑ 



 





∈

∈

, ,,

,

0

0

(36)

VVV () () ()  βββ = + 1 2 (37)

( )  ~ β = ′ ′ − X PX X Py 1 (34)

ditj = a dummy variable indicating that the jth food was part of the tth meal offered by the ith

provider.

Likewise, the estimate of the amount supplied by the ith provider from all foods is:

Following the specification of Equation (1), is estimated from the weighted regression of y on a set

of provider characteristics, x:

where

P = a diagonal matrix of sampling weights.

Recall that yi

 is defined by

The expected value of yi

 given xi can be developed in terms of a sequence of conditional

expectations:

Given consistent estimates of k, rijt will be a consistent estimate of rijt, and yi

 will be a consistent

estimate of (rijtdijt)—the expected value of yi

 given xi, the ditj’s, and the zkitj’s (the bracketed

expression in the second line of Equation (36)). The regression of yi

 on xi will accordingly provide

consistent estimates of , and the estimated error of estimate from that regression will reflect random

fluctuations in the dijt’s and zkitj’s around their expected values given xi

. The variance of estimate of

 will consist of this variance plus the variance associated with the error of estimate of rijt:
3 Because rijt is a differentiable function of k, the behavior of yik is dominated by the first two terms of

Equation (38) when (k- k) is small (that is, as (k- k) goes to zero, the ratio, Rik/(k- k) also goes to zero). 

Because k is a consistent estimator of k, we know that for large enough samples, k will be arbitrarily close

to k with probability arbitrarily close to one.

102 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

V( )β

V1( )β

( ) ( ) ~ ~ ~

  



y y y

k k

k

k

≈ + k k















 − =

=

γ γ

γ γ

∂

∂γ (39) γ γ

( ) ( )

( )

~ ~ ~

 







y y y R

rd rz R

ik ik

ik

ik

k k ik

itj itj

t T j

itj kitj k k

t T j

ik

≈ +















 − +

= ∑ ∑ + ∑ ∑ ′ − +

=

=

∈ ∈

γ γ

γ γ

∂

∂γ γ γ

γ γ

0 0

(38)

( ) ( ) ( )  ~

  ~ V X PX X P y Var y PX X PX k

k

k

k

k k

1

1 1 = ′ ′ 



 



 



 





 ′



















′ − − ∑ ∂

∂ γ γ

∂

∂ γ (40)

where

= the variance of ;

= the variance associated with the error of estimate of the k’s; and

 = the variance given the value of the k’s, which is the variance estimated in the second stage

regression. 

The asymptotic error of estimate of that is associated with the error of estimate of rijt is obtained

from the asymptotic approximation to the yk’s. The first order approximation to yik is given by:

where Rik is a remainder term. Because rijt is a differentiable function of k, and k is a consistent

estimator of k, we can ignore the remainder term in deriving the asymptotic distribution3

. Dropping

the remainder term from Equation (38) and rewriting it in terms of the vector, yk = {yik} gives: 

The asymptotic variance component of the estimate of associated with the error of estimate for the

k’s is estimated by:

where

 = the variance-covariance matrix of the estimated k Var( ) ’s, and k γ

V2 ( )β



β
Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 103

~ ~

~ y y

y

i

Ai

Bi

(42) =

( ) rw z J  exp ’  (43) Aitj Atj kitj k k = ∈ γ for j

~y rd  Aik Aitj Aitj

t T j Jk

= ∑ ∑ ∈ 0 ∈ (44)

∂

∂γ

~

  y rd z k

k ih

itj itj kitjh

t T j k





 



 = ∑ ∑ ∈ 0 ∈

(41)

= an n by sk matrix of partial derivatives, where ∂

∂γ

~



yk

k





 





n = the number of providers (observations) in the second stage equation used to estimate ;

sk = the number of variables in the portion-size equations for the kth food group; and

the (i,h)th term for the matrix of partial derivatives is given by:

where

zkitjh = the value for the jth food served by the ith provider in the tth menu of the hth variable used to

predict portion size for foods in the kth group.

Further Results for the Actual Specification

The dependent variable, y, sometimes involved ratios such as food energy from fat as a proportion of

total food energy offered. In other cases, the dependent variable involved a dichotomous outcome,

such as did or did not provide adequate amounts of some nutrient, for which effects were estimated

using logits. Each of these is briefly discussed below.

Ratios. A ratio variable would be estimated as:

where the numerator and denominator followed the form of Equation (32) and Equation (33), but

with nutrient weights and food indicator variables appropriate to the nutrients included in A or B,

respectively. Thus, for example,

and 

Note that the same k’s are used for both yAik and yBik. This is likely to reduce the effect of errors in

estimating k. For regressions involving such ratio dependent variables, the first stage error term is
104 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

( )

∂

∂ γ

∂

∂ γ

∂

∂ γ

~

 ~

~



~

~

~



y

y

y y

y

y ik

k Bi

A ik

k

Ai

Bi

B ik

k

= +

1

(45) 2

~ ~

δi

i c y y =  ≥ 



1

0

 if 

 otherwise (48)

( ) ( ) ∂

∂ γ

~





~

~

~  y r d

y

y

y

rd z ik

k ih

Aitj Aitj

Bi

Ai

Bi

Bitj Bitj kitjh

t T j Jk





 



 = −





































∑ ∑ ∈ ∈ 2 0

(46)

(49) Prob(δ β ii i = =′ 1 x Fx ) ( )

~ ~ ~ ~ y yy y Ai Aik

k

Bi Bik

k (47) = ∑ and = ∑

( ) δ δ

γ γ i i

i c ydz y = = ≥ 







 =

~ ,



1

0

 if E

 otherwise

(50)

given by Equation (40), but the partial derivatives reflect the fact that yi is a ratio of terms involving

k:

so that :

where

Dichotomous Variables. Dichotomous variables were defined by expressions such as:

where

yi = as in Equation (33); and 

yc = some criterion value.

Weighted logits were then estimated based on the specification:

where F() is the logistic distribution function, and

The FOC for the weighted logits are:
Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 105

( ) XP F ′ − = ~  (51) δ 0

( ) ( ) ( )  ~

  ~ V XD X XD y Var y

PF PF D X XD X k

k

k

k

k

PF PF

k

1

1 1 = ′ ′ 



 



 



 



 ′ 



















− − ∑ ∂

∂ γ γ

∂

∂ γ (55)

( ) ( ) ( ( ))  ~ ββ δ β − ≈ ′ ′ − ′ − XD X XP F x PF i i

1

(52)

(53) D DIAG PF x F x PF i i i = { } ( ′β β )(1 − ( ′ ))

( ) ( )

( ) ( )

( ) ( )( ( )) ( )

Prob Prob

Prob

~ ~

, ~

 

~

 

δ

∂

∂ γ γ γ

ββ β ∂

∂ γ γ γ

i ic

i c

ik

k

k k

k

ii i

ik

k

k k

y y

Eyd z y y

Fx Fx Fx y

≥= ≥

≈ ≥− 



 



 − 



 



 































≈ ′ − ′ − ′ 



 



 − 



 



 















∑

∑

1

1

(54)

where

{ } ; and ~ ~ δ δ = i

. { } ( )   F Fx = i

′β

Using the first order approximation for F, the asymptotic expansion for the estimated is:

where

We want to estimate F(xi

 )—the probability that i = 1. We in fact estimate:

The additional error term is estimated by:

where
106 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

 = as in Equation (41). ∂

∂ γ

~



yk

k





 




1 It is important to note that neither the FIAS 2.3 nor the newer FIAS 3.98 database were completely

appropriate for comparing 1995 and 1999 results, because the two databases differ in two respects. First,

there are some time-independent differences that simply represent improvements in measurement and

would be equally applicable to 1995 and to 1999. An example would be adjustments to gram weights for

ingredients in particular ethnic foods based on better understanding of the foods (but not on changes in the

foods themselves). Second, some differences are time-sensitive, reflecting changes in common food

formulation practices between 1995 and 1999 (such as the reduction in fat content of many packaged

foods). Ideally, one would like to compare 1995 with 1999 nutrient values by holding the timeindependent elements of the database constant and allowing the time-sensitive ones to vary. Because this

option was not available, the second-best approach was to hold both the time-independent and the timesensitive elements constant, which was accomplished by using the FIAS 2.3 database for both periods.

Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 107

Appendix E

Effect on Nutrient Estimates of Using Different

Nutrient Databases

This report of the Family Child Care Homes Legislative Changes Study addresses the question of

whether the food and nutrient composition of meals offered to children in CACFP family child care

has changed since tiering was implemented. To ensure comparability of data for the two analysis

periods, 1999 meal data were collected using essentially the same instruments that were used in the

1995 Early Childhood and Child Care Study. In addition, the same version of the University of

Texas’ Food Intake and Analysis System (FIAS 2.3) was selected for coding and nutrient analysis as

was used for the earlier study. Despite the availability of a newer version (FIAS 3.98), it was felt

that using FIAS 2.3 would allow the cleanest comparisons of the 1999 Tier 2 menu data with the

1995 menu data—that is, the comparisons would not be affected by technical differences between the

old and new databases.1

 However, using FIAS 2.3 might not yield the best possible point-in-time

estimates of the food and nutrient content of the 1999 menus, a limitation that has been

acknowledged in Appendix C of this report. For this reason, a substudy was conducted to examine

the differences between the older and newer versions of the nutrient database and the implications for

nutrition-related findings of the study. 

The first section of this appendix describes the methodology used to estimate the effect of a change

in nutrient database on the nutrient composition of meals offered by a subsample of Tier 2 providers

in 1999. It includes a description of the sample and procedures for applying the new database and

analyzing the results. The subsequent sections include a summary of results and conclusions. 

Methodology

Nutrient databases are updated periodically to reflect real changes in the nutrient composition of

foods and to make improvements in the quality of the data. Real changes in food products most often

occur when manufacturers change their ingredient formulation, for example, to lower the fat content

or to increase iron content of a food. Many of the changes, however, are due to new foods in the

marketplace, improved analytic techniques, and a better understanding of common food practices. 

All of these changes hold the potential for influencing nutrient analysis results, although the direction

and magnitude of the differences for a particular research application cannot be predicted without

conducting analyses such as those described below. There does not seem to be a single, standard

method for determining whether differences in nutrient estimates derived from different nutrient

analysis systems are nutritionally important. Therefore, several methods were used here.
2 Database documentation from the University of Texas indicated the addition of approximately 700 new

foods. These included vegetables, margarines and spreads, fast-food sandwiches, home-prepared soups,

ethnic foods in many food groups, and foods modified to be lower in fat, sodium, or sugar. Some foods’

nutrient values and gram weights were updated, and standard recipes were revised to reflect current food

consumption and food preparation practices.

Prior to collecting the 1999 data, Abt nutritionists performed a simple database comparison of the nutrient

values for 67 of the most common foods in menus offered by 1995 family child care providers. We found

that nutrient values for 40 percent of the individual foods varied by 20 percent or more when calculated

with FIAS 2.3 vs. FIAS 3.98. Nutrient differences for a hypothetical menu, however, were much smaller

in magnitude.

108 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

The basic approach was to re-analyze a subsample of the Tier 2 1999 menu surveys with the newer

version of the FIAS database (FIAS 3.98) and compare results with the FIAS 2.3 estimates for the

same subsample. The analysis is based on calculating the mean nutrient content under both

databases for all providers in the subsample. It is limited to the nutrient composition of meals and

snacks offered; a change in nutrient database was not expected to have any effect on findings

regarding foods offered. Nutrient estimates were expected to differ, however, given the nature of the

changes to the FIAS system between versions 2.3 and 3.98 and preliminary evidence of differences

for some nutrients.2

Sample

A simple random sample of 200 Tier 2 providers who completed a menu survey in 1999 was

selected. Four cases were omitted from the analysis: one that was later determined to be ineligible

for the main study analysis; one because the menu survey was completed for fewer than 3 days; and

two because the providers served only supper and/or evening snack, meals which were not included

in the database comparison. The size of the sample was based on the statistical power necessary to

detect a difference of 2 percentage points or more in the mean percentage of calories from fat offered

at lunch (80-percent power at 5-percent level of significance). Exhibit E.1 shows the sample sizes

and percentage of providers in the subsample offering each type of meal and snack. The distribution

of meals and snacks offered by providers in the subsample is very similar to the distribution for all

1999 Tier 2 providers in the study.

Coding and Analysis

Senior nutritionists at Abt Associates reviewed the coding rules, default entries, and decision rules

used to enter the menu surveys in FIAS 2.3 and revised them as necessary for use with FIAS 3.98. 

Two nutrition coders were trained on the new features of the FIAS 3.98 system and new coding rules. 

The coders then entered the subsample of menu surveys using FIAS 3.98. Quality control procedures

were the same as for entry of menu surveys for the main study.
Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 109

Exhibit E.1

Percentage of Tier 2 Provider Subsample Offering Specified Meals and Snacks During a

Sample Week Based on Recorded Menus

Percentage of Providers Offering Meal/Snack to Children

Age 1-2 Age 3-5 Age 6-12 All Ages

Breakfast 92.7% 89.3% 77.1% 91.8%

Morning snack 52.1 47.2 21.1 49.5

Lunch 98.2 94.9 48.6 95.4

Afternoon snack 90.9 92.7 89.0 92.3

Supper 10.9 14.0 16.5 14.8

Evening snack 3.6 3.4 4.6 5.1

Unweighted sample 165 178 109 196 

Portion size estimates for the database comparison subsample of Tier 2 menus were derived in the

same manner as the menus analyzed with FIAS 2.3 (described in Appendix C). However, since the

new database consists of 8-digit rather than 7-digit food codes and also includes new foods, some

additional work was required. The appropriate portion sizes were remapped to the specific food

codes that appeared in the subsample of menus coded with FIAS 3.98. After portion sizes were

assigned to each menu, the mean energy and nutrient estimates for the observation days were

calculated using the new nutrient database.

Estimates were developed for total food energy plus all 10 nutrients included in the main analysis of

the menu survey. The mean energy and nutrient content was compared—for breakfasts, lunches, and

afternoon snacks for the 1999 subsample—with results obtained for the same Tier 2 homes using the

FIAS 2.3 database. Separate analyses were conducted for each CACFP age group for which

sufficient observations were available and for all ages combined. 

Results

Comparison of the Nutrient Content of Breakfasts, Lunches, and Afternoon Snacks Relative

to RDA

Exhibit E.2 shows, for each database, the mean percentage of RDA at breakfast, lunch, and afternoon

snack. There were few substantive differences in the values across the three CACFP age groups (1-2,

3-5, and 6-12 years), so results are shown for all age groups combined. The largest difference

between the FIAS 2.3 and 3.98 databases was a drop in the percentage of RDA for vitamin C at lunch

of approximately 7 percentage points. The next largest change was an increase of about 3 percentage

points in the percent of RDA for iron at breakfast. There were virtually no database-related

differences in the mean percentage of RDA at afternoon snack.
3 Personal communication with Dr. Juliet Howe at the Nutrient Data Laboratory, USDA, Agricultural

Research Service, Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, October, 2000.

110 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

Exhibit E.2

Mean Percentage of RDA Offered at Breakfast, Lunch, and Afternoon Snack: 1999 Tier 2

Subsamplea

Breakfast Lunch Afternoon Snack

FIAS 2.3 FIAS 3.98

Difference FIAS 2.3 FIAS 3.98Difference FIAS 2.3FIAS

3.98

Difference

Food energy 21.1% 21.3% 0.2% 28.8% 28.8% 0.0% 15.3% 15.5% 0.2%

Protein 55.4 53.5 -1.9 99.7 98.4 -1.3 33.3 32.8 -0.5

Vitamin A 58.5 59.8 1.3 68.5 66.4 -2.2 19.6 19.3 -0.3

Vitamin C 70.3 68.5 -1.8 48.1 41.5 -6.7 29.8 30.3 0.4

Calcium 35.7 34.1 -1.6 39.3 38.5 -0.8 19.7 19.2 -0.4

Iron 37.0 40.3 3.4 24.8 25.1 0.3 13.6 14.0 0.4

Un-weighted

sample 180 180 187 187 181 181

a

 All age groups combined (1-2, 3-5, and 6-12-year-olds).

With both databases, the percent of RDA exceeds the benchmark of one-third of the RDA for vitamin

C at lunch and one-fourth of the RDA for iron at breakfast. The small increases in the percent of

RDA for these nutrients translate to a decrease of 15 percent (range of 15-18 percent) of providers

meeting the RDA benchmark for vitamin C at lunch and an increase of about 9 percent (range of 5-13

percent across age groups) meeting the RDA benchmark for iron at breakfast (Exhibit E.3). 

Although the majority of providers still meet the lunch benchmark for vitamin C, this finding

suggests that the FIAS 2.3 estimates in this report probably overstate the true proportion of providers

meeting the RDA benchmark for vitamin C at lunch. Conversely, an even larger proportion of

providers meet the RDA benchmark for iron at breakfast than FIAS 2.3 estimates suggest.

To investigate the source of the vitamin C difference, an analysis was conducted to identify the foods

offered in lunch menus with the largest differences in vitamin C content between the two databases. 

Surprisingly, hot dogs, corn dogs, and prepackaged deli ham were the most important sources of the

different values. For example, 100 grams of hot dog contributed 20 milligrams (mg.) of vitamin C in

the FIAS 2.3 analysis and 0 mg. in the FIAS 3.98 analysis. The newer database reflects the discovery

that not all vitamin C measured in these foods is ascorbic acid, the active form of the vitamin. In the

older database, erythrobate, which is present in these foods as a preservative, was counted in the total

vitamin C value. Erythrobate, however, loses its vitamin C activity before the food is eaten.3

 
Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 111

Exhibit E.3

Percentage of Providers Offering At Least One-Fourth RDA at Breakfast and One-Third RDA at

Lunch: 1999 Tier 2 Subsamplea

Breakfast Lunch

FIAS

2.3

FIAS

3.98

Difference FIAS

2.3

FIAS

3.98

Difference

Food energy 14.3% 15.9% 1.6% 17.2% 16.3% -0.8%

Protein 100.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0

Vitamin A 98.1 98.7 0.6 88.2 86.7 -1.5

Vitamin C 90.3 90.3 0.0 75.9 61.0 -15.0

Calcium 99.6 94.1 -5.4 86.0 84.7 -1.4

Iron 75.2 84.2 9.1 8.0 7.8 -0.2

Unweighted sample 180 180 187 187

a

 All age groups combined (1-2, 3-5, and 6-12-year-olds).

A similar analysis of the increase in the iron content of breakfasts indicates that the difference is due

primarily to a change in the iron values for a single brand of corn flakes cereal, oatmeal, waffles, and

pancakes. The iron values for these foods are 2 to 5 times higher in the FIAS 3.98 database, most

likely reflecting changes in the level of iron fortification and/or the amount of enriched grain in the

product.

Comparison of the Nutrient Content of Breakfasts, Lunches, and Afternoon Snacks Relative

to Dietary Guidelines and NRC Recommendations

The mean percentage of food energy from fat, saturated fat, and carbohydrate and the mean sodium

and cholesterol values for breakfasts, lunches, and afternoon snacks offered by the subsample of

1999 Tier 2 providers were calculated, with both FIAS 2.3 and FIAS 3.98. The analysis is limited to

the 3-5 and 6-12 age groups since Dietary Guidelines and NRC recommendations are only intended

to apply to children age 2 and above. 

The findings presented in Exhibit E.4 show that there were no important differences between the two

nutrient databases for any of these nutrient measures for breakfast and lunch; results for afternoon

snack are not shown but also indicate no database-related differences. The percentage of energy

from fat, saturated fat, and carbohydrate varies by less than one percentage point for both the 3-5 and

6-12 age groups. Mean sodium values drop by 3-14 mg. at breakfast and lunch (2 percent or less)

with the newer database. Cholesterol values fall by an average of 5-7 mg. (10-12 percent) at

breakfast across both age groups. The change in cholesterol is the largest in magnitude and seems to

be related primarily to the lower cholesterol content of pancakes, waffles, and muffins in FIAS 3.98

compared with the FIAS 2.3 database. Since mean levels of the nutrient measures examined here

were all within the Dietary Guidelines and NRC recommended ranges with FIAS 2.3, the newer

database would likely have no effect on this finding for the 1999 Tier 2 meals and snacks.
4 The benchmark used in this study for sodium at breakfast is one-fourth of the recommended daily

maximum of 2,400 mg., or 600 mg.

112 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

Exhibit E.4

Mean Nutrient Levels Relative to Dietary Guidelines and NRC Recommendations Offered at

Breakfast and Lunch: 1999 Tier 2 Subsamplea

Breakfast Lunch

Daily

Recommendation

FIAS 

2.3

FIAS

3.98

Difference

FIAS 2.3 FIAS 3.98 Difference

Percent of food energy from: Meals Offered to Children Age 3-5

Fat  30% 22.3 23.1 0.8 35.5 35.5 0.0

Saturated fat <10% 10.4 9.7 -0.7 14.7 13.9 -0.8

Carbohydrate > 55% 66.1 66.4 0.3 48.2 48.3 0.1

Cholesterol  300 mg 53.8 48.5 -5.3 50.4 48.3 -2.1

Sodium  2,400 mg 477.2 467.6 -9.6 891.9 885.3 -6.5

Unweighted

sample

159 159 169 169

Percent of food energy from: Meals Offered to Children Age 6-12

Fat  30% 21.8 22.6 0.8 37.8 37.8 0.0

Saturated fat <10% 9.8 9.0 -0.8 15.8 15.0 -0.8

Carbohydrate > 55% 67.2 67.4 0.2 45.3 45.3 0.0

Cholesterol  300 mg 58.5 51.8 -6.7 69.5 66.8 -2.7

Sodium  2,400 mg 553.3 550.7 -2.6 1,103.0 1,089.0 -13.8

Unweighted

sample

84 84 53 53

a Note that the Dietary Guidelines and NRC recommendations are only applicable to children beginning at 2 years of age and older. This

analysis is limited to meals offered to children 3-5 and 6-12, the only CACFP age groups for which the recommendations fully apply.

Exhibit E.5 shows the proportion of providers meeting the Dietary Guidelines and NRC

recommendation benchmarks for breakfasts and lunches offered to children 3-5 and 6-12, for the two

databases. Despite the very small differences between databases in the mean percentage of energy

from fat and saturated fat and the mean amount of sodium, there are some changes in the proportions

of providers that meet the benchmarks at breakfast and lunch. The findings vary somewhat by age

group. For meals offered to the 3-5 age group, 9 percent more Tier 2 providers are meeting the

recommendation for saturated fat and 6 percent more meet the recommendation for sodium at

breakfast when the newer database is used.4

 Although the majority of providers still meet the

benchmark for percent of energy from fat at breakfast, approximately 4 percent fewer meet the goal

when FIAS 3.98 is applied. While less fat and saturated fat are contributed by pancakes, waffles, and

some doughnuts
Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 113

Exhibit E.5

Percentage of Providers Meeting Dietary Guidelines and NRC Recommendations at Breakfast

and Lunch: 1999 Tier 2 Subsamplea

Breakfast Lunch

Daily

Recommendation FIAS 2.3FIAS

3.98

Difference FIAS 2.3FIAS

3.98

Difference

Meals Offered to Children Age 3-5

Percent of food energy from:

Fat  30% 87.8 84.0 -3.9 17.5 15.5 -2.1

Saturated fat <10% 52.1 61.1 9.0 6.4 7.8 1.4

Carbohydrate > 55% 92.0 92.6 0.6 8.7 9.2 0.5

Cholesterol  300 mg 72.8 74.7 2.0 98.0 98.6 0.6

Sodium  2,400 mg 77.2 82.9 5.7 31.4 32.9 1.5

Unweighted sample 159 159 169 169

Meals Offered to Children Age 6-12

Percent of Food Energy from:

Fat  30% 84.2 82.4 -1.9 3.2 2.6 -0.6

Saturated fat <10% 63.6 68.8 5.2 0.6 3.2 2.6

Carbohydrate > 55% 88.7 96.7 8.0 5.0 4.4 -0.6

Cholesterol  300 mg 67.8 71.4 3.6 96.3 96.3 0.0

Sodium  2,400 mg 70.6 70.6 0.1 8.1 13.0 4.9

Unweighted sample 84 84 53 53

a

 Note that the Dietary Guidelines and NRC recommendations are only applicable to children beginning at 2 years of age and older. This

analysis is limited to meals offered to children 3-5 and 6-12, the only CACFP age groups for which the recommendations fully apply.
114 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

served at breakfast when the newer database is used, 2-percent fat milk, oatmeal, and biscuits

contribute more fat than they did with FIAS 2.3. More providers meet the benchmark for sodium at

breakfast because of the lower sodium content of some cooked and ready-to-eat cereals in FIAS 3.98

relative to 2.3. The differences in the mean cholesterol content of breakfasts do not affect the

proportion of providers meeting the recommended level for this nutrient.

With the exception of percent of energy from saturated fat, nutrient differences due to the database

follow a somewhat different pattern for the analysis of meals offered to children 6-12 years of age

(Exhibit E.5). More providers (about 5 percent) offer lunches that meet the sodium benchmark with

FIAS 3.98 compared with FIAS 2.3, but this represents only a couple of providers as the number

offering lunch to this age group is small (unweighted n=53). Changes in the FIAS 3.98 databases are

also reflected in the proportion of providers that meet the recommendation for percent of energy from

carbohydrate (an increase of 8 percent) at breakfast. 

Most Tier 2 providers meet the Dietary Guidelines and NRC recommendation benchmarks for all

nutrient measures in breakfasts offered. If FIAS 3.98 had been used, even more Tier 2 providers

might be meeting the saturated fat recommendation for breakfasts offered to both the 3-5 and 6-12

age groups. It is difficult to make any inferences about the main analysis based on the difference in

the proportion of providers meeting sodium recommendations at lunch for 6-12 year olds given the

small sample; very few providers meet the benchmark with either database.

Conclusions

An analysis of the mean energy and nutrient content of breakfasts, lunches, and afternoon snacks

offered by a representative sample of 196 Tier 2 providers was conducted to compare the FIAS 2.3

nutrient database with the newer 3.98 version. It was expected that, if differences were large enough,

they could lead to substantively different conclusions regarding the nutrient composition of CACFP

Tier 2 meals in 1999 and possibly the estimated 1995-99 differences due to tiering. The analyses

presented in this appendix provide little evidence that differences between the databases affect the

conclusions drawn about the nutrient composition of CACFP Tier 2 meals in 1999. There are three

exceptions: (1) the FIAS 2.3 estimates in this report probably overstate the true proportion of

providers meeting the RDA benchmark for vitamin C at lunch, (2) they may understate the

percentage of providers meeting the RDA for iron at breakfast, and (3) the proportion of providers

meeting the Dietary Guidelines recommendation for saturated fat at breakfast is probably

understated. There are no database-related differences that affect 1999 Tier 2 results for afternoon

snacks. 

None of the observed differences would affect conclusions about the effect of tiering. Some might

lead to greater estimated differences between 1995 and 1999. However, this applies only to the

nutrients whose FIAS values changed because of new product formulation, as was the case for iron

and saturated fat. If we applied the FIAS 3.98 values to the 1999 data, and the FIAS 2.3 values for

1995, we would see larger proportions of the providers in 1999 than 1995 meeting the benchmark

levels of these nutrients. This would reflect the effect of manufacturers’ changes in food product

formulation, however, and not an effect of tiering.
Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 115

Appendix F

Survey of Former CACFP Providers: Meals and

Snacks Offered and Their Nutrient Content

One component of the Family Child Care Homes Legislative Changes Study was designed to

examine the experiences of CACFP providers who left the program shortly before or after tiering was

implemented. It was hypothesized that many providers who were (or who expected to be) classified

as Tier 2 might drop out of the CACFP but continue to operate a child care business. Policy-makers

were concerned about the possibility that, without the CACFP meal reimbursement and training,

providers operating these homes might offer fewer or less nutritious meals and snacks to children in

their care. 

The study was therefore designed to include a three-part survey of these former providers: (1) a selfadministered survey of their current operating characteristics and reasons for leaving the CACFP (the

operations survey), (2) a week-long record of foods and beverages the providers offered at each meal

and snack (the menu survey), and (3) on-site meal observations of actual portion sizes served by a

subsample of providers. The samples for these surveys would consist of providers who were active

in the CACFP in January 1997, who were not on the program roster in January 1998, and who were

providing care and still not participating in the CACFP at the time of the survey in the summer of

1999.

As it turned out, the number of providers who left the CACFP but remained in the child care business

was far less than anticipated. Of those providers who left the CACFP between January 1997 and

January 1998, only 10 percent were still in the child care business and not participating in the

CACFP at the time of the survey (spring-summer 1999). The majority (66 percent) had stopped

providing child care and 24 percent turned out to be “temporary exits” who were once again active in

the CACFP at the time of the survey. (These findings are discussed further in Hamilton et al., EFAN-02-002).

Because of the small percentage of former providers who were still operating a child care business

but not in the CACFP, the operations survey and the menu survey each obtained fewer than 100

respondents. (The meal observation survey, which was to be based on a subsample of the

respondents, was not implemented after it became clear that there would be too few responses for a

meaningful analysis.) We therefore consider the results of these surveys to have limited

generalizability and do not present a full analysis of the data.

Despite their limited sample size, the surveys provide a useful picture of a group of providers who

left the CACFP but continued to operate family child care businesses. This appendix therefore

summarizes data from the menu survey of former CACFP providers. Data from the former provider

operations survey are examined in Zotov et al., E-FAN-02-004.
1 A total of 311 were selected, but 11 were not eligible because they had left the CACFP.

2 The data submitted by sponsors do not always allow us to distinguish between a sponsor who had no

homes leave the CACFP between January 1997 and January 1998 and a sponsor who provided insufficient

data to identify these homes. For this calculation, we take the conservative approach of assuming that

these 11 sponsors are all nonrespondents with regard to the list of 1997 providers. If we assume that none

of them actually had any dropouts, the response rate would be 96.3 percent.

3 The number of dropouts selected depended on the number of times the sponsor was selected (i.e., if the

sponsor was selected twice, 10 dropouts rather than 5 would be selected from the sponsor’s list).

4 Eleven providers were considered eligible for the operations survey but not for the menu survey because

they did not serve any meals or snacks to children in their care.

116 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

Sample Design and Nonresponse

The sample design for the survey of former CACFP providers was parallel to that described in

Appendix A for the survey of active CACFP providers. The first two sampling stages (States and

sponsors) were identical for the active and former providers. 

When sponsors submitted their lists of Tier 1 and Tier 2 homes active in January 1998, which

became the sample frames for the active provider surveys, they were also asked to submit a list of all

providers active in January 1997. The 1997 and 1998 lists were compared to identify providers who

left the CACFP between January 1997 and January 1998. It was hypothesized that most providers

who left the CACFP because of tiering would do so during this period, which bracketed the tiering

implementation date of July 1, 1997.

A sample of 300 sponsors was selected within the 20 States.1

 Of the selected sponsors, 289 supplied

lists of 1998 and 1997 providers, and 280 of these had at least one 1997 provider meeting the

definition required for inclusion in the survey, for a response rate of 93.3 percent.2

 Within the list of

dropout homes constructed for each sponsor, a random sample of five was drawn (for sponsors with

five or fewer dropouts, all were drawn).3

 This process resulted in a sample of 1,971 former

providers.

Telephone “screening interviews” were attempted with these providers. The purpose of the

screening interview was to determine the current status of the provider and, for those still providing

care but not in the CACFP, to recruit them for the operations and menu surveys.

The former provider’s current status was determined for 1,275 providers, or 64.6 percent of the

sample, through the telephone screening survey. This includes five individuals who were not

actually interviewed, but who were determined to have moved or died. In-person screening was then

attempted for a subsample of 195 of the 701 providers who could not be reached by telephone. Of

these, current status was determined for 123, or 63.1 percent (including 16 who had either moved or

died). The remaining former providers could not be reached or definitively located.

Among the respondents reached in the telephone screener survey, 153 were determined to be eligible

for the operations and menu surveys.4

 Of those, 59 provided usable responses to the menu survey. 

This represents a response rate of 38.6 percent among those determined eligible. It represents a
5 Among all subsample members whose status was determined, 3.4 percent were still providing child care

and not in the CACFP. Applying this percentage to the 696 sample members whose status was not

determined by the telephone survey yields an estimate of 23 providers. This is added to the 153 determined

by the telephone survey to be still providing child care but not in the CACFP.

6 Responses for the telephone and in-person surveys are summed in this response rate.

Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 117

response rate of 33.5 percent among all members of the original sample estimated to be still

providing care but not in the CACFP.5 

It is sometimes useful in multistage samples to consider the compound response rate, which is the

product of the response rates at each stage. The compound response rate for the screening survey is

66.2 percent, based on the sponsor response rate of 93.3 percent and a 70.9 response rate within the

provider sample.6

 The menu survey compound response rate is 31.3 percent, based on the sponsor

response rate of 93.3 percent and the response rate of 33.5 percent within the former provider

sample.

Because the compound response rate is low enough to raise concerns about nonresponse bias, we

compared the responding former providers with nonrespondents on those dimensions that are known

for both groups. This analysis was necessarily limited because the only information available for

nonrespondents was their location and the characteristics of the sponsors upon whose list the former

providers appeared. The analysis showed that the responding providers were distributed across the

four census regions in almost exactly the same proportion as the overall sample that was drawn; the

percent of respondents in each region was within 2 percentage points of the percent of the sample. 

The sponsors of responding former providers tended to be slightly larger and to sponsor slightly

greater numbers of Tier 2 homes; the average number of homes sponsored was 4.5 percent greater for

the respondents’ sponsors, and the average percentage of sponsored homes that are Tier 2 was 8.3

percent greater for respondents. None of the differences were statistically significant in a one-sample

t-test comparing the mean of the respondents with the mean of the total sample, taking into account

the standard error of the mean of the respondents but treating the mean of the overall sample as a

constant. (The data are unweighted in this analysis because sampling weights were not computed for

nonrespondents.)

The sample weighting procedures, which are the same for former providers as active providers, are

described in Appendix A. All means, percentages, and other distributional statistics described below

use weighted data. Tables show the unweighted number of observations on which the statistics are

based. Significance tests and measures of variability are adjusted for the complex sample design

using SUDAAN software.

Nutritional Aspects of Meals Offered by Former CACFP Providers

This analysis describes the meals and snacks offered by a select group of former CACFP child care

homes—those active in CACFP in January 1997 but not in January 1998 and still not at the time of

the survey. These providers represent approximately 5,500 providers nationwide who were operating

child care homes without CACFP meal reimbursements in 1999 but presumably had some period of

CACFP training and monitoring prior to January 1998. The analysis provides little evidence that the

former providers offer meals and snacks of suboptimal nutritional quality. Some meals are offered

less frequently than in homes operated by Tier 2 providers, but it is unclear whether this is related to

the CACFP or to a difference in hours of operation between the two groups.
7 Data presented in a separate report show that not all providers that left the CACFP between January 1997

and January 1998 would have been classified as Tier 2 had tiering been in effect (Hamilton et al., E-FAN02-002). A more ideal comparison group might have been a sample of both Tier 1 and Tier 2 providers,

but the menu survey was not administered to active Tier 1 providers.

8 Based on all CACFP age groups combined (1-2, 3-5, and 6-12). 

118 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

The principal source of data for the analysis is the menu survey, completed by a sample of 59 former

CACFP providers. The menu survey asked for information on all food items included in meals and

snacks offered to children age 1-12 during a specified 5-day period. (This was the same instrument

that was administered to Tier 2 providers. See Appendix B.) Portion sizes were imputed from meal

observations conducted with a subsample of Tier 2 providers, as described in Appendix C. 

Comparisons are based on data from the menu survey of 542 Tier 2 CACFP providers, the subject of

the main report.7

Meals and Snacks Offered by Former CACFP Providers

One concern raised about providers leaving the CACFP was the possibility that they might cut back

on the number of meals and snacks they offer to children in care to offset the loss of meal

reimbursements. The sections below review data relevant to that hypothesis and find some reduction

in the proportion of former providers offering certain meals and snacks on a daily basis relative to

active Tier 2 providers during the same time period. It is unclear whether the differences are related

to leaving the CACFP or to a difference in the hours of operation between the two groups of

providers.

The vast majority of former CACFP providers in the 1999 sample offered lunch, with 90 percent of

providers offering it on all days (Exhibit F.1).8

 About three-fourths offered breakfast, and most (85

percent) offered an afternoon snack, on at least some of the days for which menus were recorded. 

Among the other meals and snacks, only the morning snack was common, offered in just over half of

the former CACFP homes. Very few providers recorded an instances of offering supper or an

evening snack (unweighted n=5 and 2 providers, respectively). 

Using Tier 2 CACFP participants during the same time period as a benchmark, the analysis suggests

that significantly fewer former CACFP providers in 1999 offered breakfast than Tier 2 providers. 

Almost 20 percent fewer former providers offered breakfast everyday compared with Tier 2

providers, and those who did offered it did so on fewer days during the week. This finding may well

be related to the shorter operating day for former CACFP homes relative to Tier 1 and Tier 2 homes

in 1999, which is discussed in detail in another report (Zotov et al., E-FAN-02-004). It seems

unlikely that providers would have children in care during early morning hours and not feed them,

although it is possible that providers ask parents to bring their children to child care after breakfast or

to send food with their child from home, perhaps to help reduce expenses. For some providers, not

offering breakfast may be a response to the loss of CACFP meal reimbursements, but we have no

way of testing this possibility.
Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 119

Exhibit F.1 

Proportion of Former CACFP Providers Offering Specified Meals and Snacks During the

Sample Week

Former Providers 

1999

Tier 2 

1999

Difference 

Former - Tier 2

Breakfast offered 75.3% 94.6% -19.3%**

 All days 70.4 89.3 -18.9**

 Some days 4.9 5.3 -0.4

Breakfast not offered 24.7 5.4 19.3**

Morning snack offered 54.1 56.4 -2.3

 All days 31.7 49.2 -17.5*

 Some days 22.4 7.2 15.2

Morning snack not offered 45.9 43.6 2.3

Lunch offered 92.2 98.6 -6.5*

 All days 90.0 96.2 -6.3

 Some days 2.2 2.4 -0.2

Lunch not offered 7.9 1.4 6.5*

Afternoon snack offered 84.9 95.6 -10.7

 All days 73.0 89.5 -16.5*

 Some days 12.0 6.2 5.8

Afternoon snack not offered 15.1 4.4 10.7

Supper offered 8.0 13.6 -5.6

 All days 4.5 9.8 -5.3*

 Some days 3.5 3.8 -0.3

Supper not offered 92.0 86.4 5.6

Evening snack offered 3.3 5.1 -1.8

 All days 0.7 3.3 -2.6**

 Some days 2.6 1.8 0.8

Evening snack not offered 96.7 94.9 1.8

Unweighted sample 59 542 601

Significance levels:

 * = .10

 ** = .05

 *** = .01
9 For this analysis, each provider is considered to offer only one meal combination, with the assigned

combination being the one that is offered on at least 3 of the recorded days. Only one provider did not

record the same meal combination on at least 3 days.

120 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

Lunch may have been offered by fewer former providers than Tier 2 providers (p < 0.10), but more

than 9 out of 10 former providers offered this meal. While there are no important differences in the

proportions of former and Tier 2 providers offering morning and afternoon snacks or supper, former

providers offered them somewhat less frequently over the course of a week (p < 0.10). The estimated

difference in the proportion of former and Tier 2 providers offering an evening snack everyday is

statistically significant, but represents only a handful of providers. 

Common Meal Combinations

Exhibit F.2 shows the most common combinations of meals and snacks offered by former CACFP

providers in 1999, based on their recorded menus.9

 The most common meal combination, offered by

nearly half of former providers, includes breakfast, lunch, and either the morning or the afternoon

snack. The breakfast-lunch-afternoon snack combination is most typical.

Two other meal and snack combinations were offered by a meaningful proportion of former CACFP

providers. About 15 percent offered lunch and either a morning or afternoon snack. Another 13

percent offered the combination of breakfast, lunch, and both morning and afternoon snacks. All

other combinations were rare, recorded by no more than 5 percent of the providers.

Former CACFP providers in 1999 were significantly less likely to offer the combination of breakfast,

lunch, and morning and afternoon snacks and more likely to offer lunch and just one snack than Tier

2 providers. These differences are consistent with shorter operating hours and might reflect an effort

to cut back on the expense of serving meals and snacks to help compensate for the loss of meal

reimbursements. Alternatively, these may simply be characteristics of the types of providers that

tend to leave CACFP while remaining in the child care business. 
10 CACFP meal-pattern requirements vary by age group and are described in the Introduction section of this

report.

11 The analysis does not include a determination of whether the amount offered was in compliance with the

CACFP requirement. The amount offered was measured in meal observations, which were conducted for

only a subsample of Tier 2 providers and none of the former CACFP providers.

Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 121

Exhibit F.2

Proportion of Former and Tier 2 Providers Offering Various Meal and Snack Combinations

in 1999 (All Age Groups)

Meal and Snack Combination

Former

Providers

1999

Tier

2

1999

Difference 

Former - Tier

2

Breakfast, lunch, 1 snacka 47.7 42.6 4.8%

Breakfast, lunch, 2 snacksa 12.8 38.1 -25.2***

Breakfast, lunch, supper, 2 snacks 2.2 4.5 -2.3

Lunch, 2 snacks 4.3 3.6 0.7

Breakfast, lunch, supper, 3 snacks 1.3 2.4 -1.0

Breakfast, lunch, supper, 1 snack 0.0 1.8 -1.8**

Lunch, 1 snack 14.9 1.2 13.7**

Breakfast, lunch 5.1 1.0 4.1

Supper, 1 snack 1.0 0.2 0.4

Other combinations 9.0 3.5 5.4

No combination served for 3 days 2.4 1.2 1.3

Unweighted sample 59 542 601

a

 Morning and afternoon snacks only.

Significance levels:

* = .10

** = .05

*** = .01

Compliance with CACFP Meal-Pattern Requirements

CACFP regulations pose minimum requirements for the types and amounts of food that must be

included in each meal and snack qualifying for reimbursement.10 While former CACFP participants

are no longer held to these standards, most would at one time have been trained and monitored for

compliance with the CACFP meal-pattern requirements. The analysis below uses the meal-pattern

requirements as a benchmark for evaluating the quality of meals offered by former CACFP providers

with respect to important categories of foods and the degree of variety of foods offered within those

categories.11 A comparison is also made with compliance rates achieved by Tier 2 providers

participating in the CACFP in 1999. While there is some evidence of noncompliance with CACFP
122 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

requirements for specific meal components, most former providers offered compliant meals with a

good mix of items within each meal component. 

The majority of snacks offered in former CACFP homes in 1999 complied with CACFP meal-pattern

requirements. Compliance rates were somewhat higher for snacks than for meals, as shown in

Exhibit F.3. Compliance rates varied little across age groups; data are shown for meals offered to all

age groups served. Approximately 90 percent of morning and afternoon snacks were found to be in

compliance. The rates for breakfast and lunch were 70 percent and 63 percent, respectively. Supper

and evening snack showed compliance rates of about 80 percent, although these are based on very

few meals.

Compared with Tier 2 providers in 1999, compliance rates for breakfasts and lunches offered by

former providers were significantly lower. These differences are fairly substantial (almost 30

percent lower than Tier 2 providers for each meal) but, as noted above, a majority of former

providers still offered breakfasts and lunches that were consistent with CACFP requirements. 

Morning snacks were also more likely to be noncompliant (p < 0.10), but the difference was much

smaller and, again, the vast majority of former CACFP providers offered compliant snacks. It is not

known whether leaving the CACFP increases the likelihood that family child care providers will

offer noncompliant meals or snacks or whether providers who offer noncompliant meals are more

likely to be among those who leave the program.

Exhibit F.3

Percentages of Former and Tier 2 CACFP Providers’ Meals Complying with CACFP MealPattern Requirements for All Age Groups

Former Providers Tier 2 Providers

Difference

Former - Tier 2

Un-weighted

samplea Percent

Un-weighted

samplea Percent

Breakfast 195 69.4% 2,393 97.3% -27.9%***

Morning snack 125 89.4 1,304 96.8 -7.4*

Lunch 233 62.8 2,535 91.5 -28.6***

Afternoon Snack 251 91.6 2,373 95.3 -3.7

Supper 28 79.3 417 82.3 -3.1

Evening snack 12 80.7 148 85.5 -4.8

a Number of meals/snacks. 

Significance levels:

* = .10

** = .05

*** = .01
12 Supper and evening snack are omitted from this analysis. Because only a few providers offer them, the

sample sizes are small.

13 Practically no meals include more than one type of milk, so these data are not shown for this meal

component.

Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 123

Meal Components Offered

Exhibit F.4 illustrates the particular CACFP meal components included in meals and snacks offered

by former providers.12 The primary source of noncompliance at breakfast and lunch is the fruitvegetable-juice component. Almost 30 percent of breakfasts omitted the required one serving from

this food category, and 10 percent of providers offered no fruit or vegetable at breakfast over the

course of a week. At lunch, where two items from the fruit-vegetable-juice category are required,

one-fourth of former provider meals failed to meet this requirement. On the other hand, former

providers offered fruit, vegetables, or juice in about two-thirds of snacks. This is essentially the

same frequency with which this component was included in snacks offered by Tier 2 providers, as

described in the main part of this report.

Nearly all breakfasts and most lunches (84 percent) offered in former CACFP homes include milk. 

In the absence of CACFP requirements, some providers may have offered an alternative beverage at

lunch in place of milk. This behavior could help control food costs, depending on the item

substituted (e.g., water, juice drinks). It might also reflect a desire to cater to children’s preferences. 

Milk was provided in about half of morning and afternoon snacks, but food items from the bread/

bread alternate component were the most common in both snacks and at breakfast and lunch. 

Interestingly, a substantial percentage of breakfasts (22 percent) included a meat or meat alternate—a

component that is not required by the CACFP meal pattern and is typically associated with higher

food costs. 

Variety of Foods Offered

Although CACFP regulations pose no requirements for variety, providers may offer multiple items

within a particular component category and are encouraged to vary the particular food items offered

over the course of the week. With the possible exception of fruit and vegetables at breakfast and

lunch, there is little evidence that former providers limited choice or variety over the week in the

meals or snacks offered relative to Tier 2 providers in 1999.

Relatively small proportions of former CACFP providers offered more than one food item within a

particular meal component, except for those who offered two fruits or vegetables at lunch (Exhibit

F.4).13 The greatest amount of variety within meal components occurred at lunch, especially for

bread and bread alternates where about one-fifth of all meals included more than one item. Another

13 percent of lunches included more than two servings of fruits and vegetables, and 17 percent

offered more than one meat or meat alternate. Ten percent or fewer breakfasts included more than

the required number of items in each meal component category. Fruit, vegetables, or juice were more

common at morning snacks, where more than 20 percent include more than one item from this

category. 
124 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

Exhibit F.4

Frequency of Major Meal Components and Variety within Meal Components in Meals Offered

by Former CACFP Providers

Breakfast Lunch

Morning

snack

Afternoon

snack

Milk

% of meals with milk offered 95.2 83.5 44.2 57.5

Fruit, Vegetables, or Juice

% of meals with at least 1 offereda 71.3 75.5 69.8 64.1

% with more than 1 offereda 9.7 13.2 21.7 4.5

% of providers offering any in weeka 89.2 100.0 100.0 97.1

Mean different items offered in week (if

at least 1)a

3.0 7.7 3.5 2.7

Bread and Bread Alternates

% of meals with at least 1 offered 99.6 94.4 73.4 73.5

% with more than 1 offered 6.9 19.7 0.6 0.0

% of providers offering any in week 100.0 100.0 99.1 100.0

Mean different items offered in week (if

at least 1) 3.4 3.5 2.4 2.5

Meat and Meat Alternates

% of meals with at least 1 offered 21.5 96.2 25.3 22.3

% with more than 1 offered 9.2 17.4 1.1 0.0

% of providers offering any in week 89.3 100.0 71.1 63.3

Mean different items offered in week (if

at least 1) 1.6 4.6 1.5 1.5

Unweighted sample 195 233 125 251

a

 For lunch, read "at least 2" or "more than 2." The minimum CACFP requirement at lunch is two fruits or vegetables.

Meals in former CACFP homes do show a substantial degree of variety over the course of a week. A

week of lunch menus features an average of eight different foods in the fruit-vegetable-juice

category, four from the bread/bread alternates, and five different meat/meat alternates. The weekly

breakfast menu includes three different fruit-vegetable-juice items and bread/bread alternates, and

two different items from the meat/meat alternate component. 

Compared with Tier 2 menus, former providers offered one fewer fruit-vegetable-juice item in a

week at both breakfast and lunch (data not shown). However, they may have offered a greater

variety of fruit-vegetable-juice items in morning snacks, over the week, relative to Tier 2 providers (p

< 0.10).

Nutrient Composition of Meals and Snacks Offered by Former CACFP Providers

This section examines the nutrient content of meals and snacks offered in former CACFP family

child care homes and compares them with the composition of meals offered by Tier 2 providers in

1999. The analysis is motivated by the hypothesis that providers who leave the CACFP might adjust

to the loss of meal reimbursements by serving less nutritious meals and snacks than they would have

under the program. As noted earlier, portion sizes were not measured directly for former providers,

but are estimated from data for active 1995 and 1999 providers.
14 Bacon and breakfast sausage (noncreditable items) were also offered more frequently by former CACFP

providers than Tier 2 providers and might have contributed to higher point estimates for the fat and

cholesterol content of the breakfasts, as well as the higher sodium levels.

Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 125

Results show that meals and snacks offered by former CACFP providers in 1999 generally met the

RDA benchmarks and NRC recommendations used for this study, the exceptions being food energy

and iron in lunches. Few of the meals and snacks offered, however, were consistent with the Dietary

Guidelines recommendations for saturated fat. The nutrient profile of former CACFP provider meals

and snacks is very similar to that of active Tier 2 providers. The data do not suggest that providers

who left the CACFP were serving meals and snacks of lesser nutritional quality than providers

receiving some meal reimbursements in the program or that providers changed their menus after

leaving the CACFP. 

Nutrient Content of Breakfasts Relative to RDAs, Dietary Guidelines, and NRC Recommendations

Former CACFP providers in 1999 offered breakfasts that provided, on average, substantially more

than the 25 percent of the RDA benchmark for all nutrients examined, with the exception of food

energy (Exhibit F.5). For children aged 3-5, the average breakfast supplied about 90 percent of the

RDA for vitamins A and C, over half of the RDA for protein and iron, and over one-third of the RDA

for calcium. For food energy, the average breakfast provided about one-fifth of the RDA. This is

essentially the level of food energy young children are consuming in breakfasts nationally (USDA,

1999). 

Breakfasts offered to children aged 3-5 in former CACFP homes were largely consistent with the

Dietary Guidelines and NRC recommendation benchmarks applied in this study. The average

provider offered breakfasts that met these recommendations for the percentage of energy from fat and

carbohydrate, as well as falling under one-fourth of the daily recommendation for cholesterol and

sodium. The exception to this pattern concerns the percent of energy from saturated fat for which the

average estimate exceeds the recommended level of less than 10 percent of energy from saturated fat

by almost 2 percentage points. 

In breakfasts offered by former CACFP providers, the mean percentage of RDA for vitamin A and

iron was greater (p < 0.10) than the comparable figures for Tier 2 providers. The differences may be

due to a somewhat higher frequency of offering fortified ready-to-eat cereal at breakfast (data not

shown).14 Breakfasts offered by former providers also included significantly more sodium and less

carbohydrate as a percentage of energy than Tier 2 providers. And although not statistically

different, the former providers’ breakfasts contained, on average, about 25 percent more cholesterol. 

Despite those differences, both groups of providers offered breakfasts in which all nutrient measures

were within the recommended ranges.
126 / ERS-USDA Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006

Nutrient Content of Lunches Relative to RDAs, Dietary Guidelines, and NRC Recommendations

The average lunch in former CACFP homes in 1999 provided more than one-third of the RDA for

protein, vitamin A, vitamin C, and calcium for children aged 3-5 (Exhibit F.5). The protein level is

far above the one-third of RDA benchmark, at more than 90 percent. For food energy and iron, the

average falls somewhat short of this benchmark at 28 percent and 25 percent of the RDA,

respectively. This finding is of some concern given the small proportions of providers meeting the

RDA benchmark for these nutrient measures (less than 10 percent; data not shown).

Lunches offered by former providers to children aged 3-5 did not meet the Dietary Guidelines or

NRC recommendations for any of the nutrient measures except cholesterol. The average values for

lunches offered were well above the recommended maxima for the percent of energy from fat and

saturated fat and below the recommended minimum for the percent of energy from carbohydrate. 

The average amount of sodium was also above one-third of the recommended daily level.

Exhibit F.5

Nutrient Composition of Meals and Snacks Offered by Former CACFP Providers to Children Ages

3-5

Breakfast Lunch Morning snack Afternoon snack

Daily

RecommendationFormer

providers

Difference

from

Tier 2

Former

providers

Difference

from 

Tier 2

Former

providers

Difference

from

Tier 2

Former

providers

Difference

from

Tier 2

% of RDA for:

Food energy 100% 21.4 0.2 27.9 -0.9 14.6 1.1 15.0 0.4

Protein 100% 59.9 5.5 92.6 -7.2 31.4 1.4 31.9 0.3

Vitamin A 100% 87.8 24.9* 64.2 -10.3 23.7 5.1 19.3 1.4

Vitamin C 100% 94.5 15.3 51.2 2.8 35.2 4.4 25.2 -3.6

Calcium 100% 37.6 0.6 39.8 -2.7 19.2 -0.2 21.1 2.3

Iron 100% 55.0 13.9* 25.1 -1.5 13.0 -1.0 11.5 -1.9

% of food energy from:

Fat 30% 25.1 3.0 35.7 -1.2 26.7 -0.4 29.5 0.8

Saturated fat <10% 11.6 1.0 14.9 -0.5 11.0 -0.2 12.6 1.2*

Carbohydrate >55% 62.1 -4.1** 48.3 2.1 65.4 1.8 61.6 -0.5

Milligrams of:

Choles-terol 300 73.4 20.6 52.0 -7.4 16.4 -1.2 19.1 3.6

Sodium  2,400 529.3 68.8** 873.4 -63.1 239.9 2.4 237.6 -29.6

Unweighted sample 31 42 25 45

Significance levels:

* = .10 

** = .05

*** = .01
Meals Offered by Tier 2 CACFP Family Child Care Providers / E-FAN-02-006 ERS-USDA / 127

The lunches offered by former providers were very similar in nutrient composition to those offered

by Tier 2 providers in 1999. The analysis found no statistically significant differences for food

energy or other key nutrients as a percentage of RDA. Former providers and current Tier 2 providers

were equally as likely to fall short of meeting the Dietary Guidelines and NRC recommendations at

lunch.

Nutrient Content of Snacks Relative to RDAs, Dietary Guidelines, and NRC Recommendations

Snacks are not expected to contribute any specific proportion of the RDA or Dietary Guidelines and

NRC recommendations. Information on the nutrient content of snacks is presented, however,

because it is useful to assess the extent to which snacks are likely to contribute to or detract from the

recommended patterns over the full day. Because only a few former CACFP homes in the sample

offered an evening snack, the present analysis is limited to morning and afternoon snacks.

The nutrient profiles for morning and afternoon snacks offered to children aged 3-5 in former

CACFP homes were quite similar. Both morning and afternoon snacks offered about 15 percent of

the RDA for food energy and from 12-35 percent of the RDA for the key nutrients considered here

(Exhibit F.5). The percentages are highest for protein and vitamin C; morning and afternoon snacks

each supplied between one-fourth and one-third of the RDA for these two nutrients. 

The average nutrient makeup of snacks offered is consistent with the Dietary Guidelines and NRC

recommendations for the percent of food energy from fat and carbohydrate, respectively. An average

of 11-13 percent of food energy comes from saturated fat, however, which exceeds the

recommendation for less than 10 percent for the day. Both morning and afternoon snacks supplied,

on average, 5-6 percent of the recommended daily limit of 300 mg. of cholesterol and 10 percent of

the recommended daily limit of 2,400 mg. of sodium.

There was only a single difference approaching statistical significance between the former CACFP

providers’ snacks and those offered by Tier 2 providers in 1999. Former providers offered afternoon

snacks with a slightly higher percentage of food energy from saturated fat than Tier 2 providers

(p < 0.10).