Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives 

Demonstrations on Participation in the 

Summer Food Service Program (SFSP): FY 

2012 

Nutrition Assistance Program Report November 2014 

Food and Nutrition Service Office of Policy Support 
USDA is an Equal Opportunity Provider 
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives 

Demonstrations on Participation in the 

Summer Food Service Program (SFSP): FY 

2012 

Authors: 

Stéphane Baldi 

Alexandra Suchman 

Betsy Thorn 

Chrystine Tadler 

Submitted by: 

Insight Policy Research, Inc. 

1901 N. Moore Street 

Suite 204 

Arlington, VA 22209 

Project Director: 

Stéphane Baldi 

Submitted to: 

 Office of Policy Support 

 Food and Nutrition Service 

 U.S. Department of Agriculture 

 3101 Park Center Drive 

 Alexandria, VA 22302 

Project Officer: 

 Chan Chanhatasilpa 

This study was conducted under Contract No. AG-3198-K-12-0019 with the Food and Nutrition 

Service, United States Department of Agriculture. 

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

 

Suggested Citation:

Baldi, S., Suchman, A., Thorn, B., & Tadler, C. (2014). Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 

Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP): FY 

2012. Prepared by Insight Policy Research under Contract No. AG-3198-K-12-0019. Project 

Officer: Chan Chanhatasilpa. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service.

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

This report was prepared by Insight Policy Research, Inc. (Insight) under Contract 

Number AG-3198-K-12-0019 from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition 

Service. It represents a team effort in which many individuals made key contributions in 

addition to the authors. We gratefully acknowledge their assistance. In particular, we would like 

to recognize the sustained contributions of Chan Chanhatasilpa, Social Science Analyst, and 

Marisa Kirk-Epstein, Project Coordinator, Summer Demonstration Projects, Policy and Program 

Development Branch. Their insightful comments on the interim deliverables and throughout the 

study greatly improved this research. 

The authors would also like to express our appreciation to the representatives in each of 

the six States that participated in the demonstrations. Through the efforts of many dedicated 

individuals in Arizona, Delaware, Kansas, Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio, we obtained 

detailed files regarding the operations and the outcomes of the demonstrations. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Chapter Page 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ i

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1

A. SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM PARTICIPATION.....................................................................................2

B. BACKGROUND ON THE WAVE 2 DEMONSTRATIONS ......................................................................................6

C. STUDY OBJECTIVES, RESEARCH QUESTIONS, AND METHODOLOGY .............................................................10

D. DATA LIMITATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS..................................................................................................14

CHAPTER II: FINDINGS FROM THE  2011 MEAL DELIVERY DEMONSTRATION..................................................17

A. DEMONSTRATION DESCRIPTION...................................................................................................................17

B. DELAWARE IMPLEMENTATION AND RESULTS ..............................................................................................18

C. MASSACHUSETTS IMPLEMENTATION AND RESULTS ....................................................................................22

D. NEW YORK IMPLEMENTATION AND RESULTS...............................................................................................25

E. CONCLUSIONS ...............................................................................................................................................30

CHAPTER III: FINDINGS FROM THE  2012 FOOD BACKPACK DEMONSTRATION................................................33

A. DEMONSTRATION DESCRIPTION...................................................................................................................33

B. ARIZONA IMPLEMENTATION AND RESULTS..................................................................................................34

C. KANSAS IMPLEMENTATION AND RESULTS....................................................................................................39

D. OHIO IMPLEMENTATION AND RESULTS........................................................................................................45

E. SEAMLESS SUMMER MEASURES ...................................................................................................................51

F. CONCLUSIONS ...............................................................................................................................................52

CHAPTER IV: WAVE 2 CROSS‐PROJECT SUMMARY AND OVERALL CONCLUSIONS ............................................55

REFERENCES  .....................................................................................................................................................57

APPENDIX A:  MEAL DELIVERY DEMONSTRATION DETAILED TABLES ................................................................ A‐1

APPENDIX B:  FOOD BACKPACK DEMONSTRATION DETAILED TABLES .............................................................. B‐1

APPENDIX C:  WAVE 2 DEMONSTRATIONS COMPARISON GROUP SELECTION METHODOLOGY......................... C‐1

LIST OF TABLES 

Chapter I 

Table I.1. Side-by-Side Demonstration Comparison ......................................................................................... 9 

Table I.2. Research Questions ......................................................................................................................... 10 

Table I.3. Number of Wave 2 Demonstration Sponsors and Sites .................................................................. 11 

Chapter II 

Table II.1. Meal Delivery Demonstration Sponsors ......................................................................................... 17 

Table II.2. Delaware: Number of Children Served Through the Demonstration .............................................. 21 

Table II.3. Delaware: Percent Change in Average Daily Attendance for Existing Comparison Sites .............. 21 

Table II.4. Massachusetts: Number of Children Served Through the Demonstration ...................................... 24 

Table II.5. Massachusetts: Percent Change in Average Daily Attendance for Existing Comparison Sites ...... 25 

Table II.6. New York: Demonstration Sponsors............................................................................................... 28 

Table II.7. New York: Number of Children Served Through the Demonstration ............................................ 29 

Table II.8. New York: Percent Change in Average Daily Attendance for Existing Comparison Sites: Meal 

Delivery Demonstration .................................................................................................................. 30 

Table II.9. Total Meals Delivered .................................................................................................................... .31 

Chapter III 

Table III.1. Food Backpack Demonstration Sponsors ....................................................................................... 34 

Table III.2. Arizona: Demonstration Sponsors .................................................................................................. 37 

Table III.3. Arizona: Backpack Demonstration Sites vs. Comparison Sites ...................................................... 39 

Table III.4. Kansas: Demonstration Sponsors .................................................................................................... 43 

Table III.5. Kansas: Backpack Demonstration Sites vs. Comparison Sites ....................................................... 45 

Table III.6. Ohio: Demonstration Sponsors ....................................................................................................... 49 

Table III.7. Ohio: Backpack Demonstration Sites vs. Comparison Sites ........................................................... 51 

Table III.8. Seamless Summer: Backpack Demonstration States (Statewide) ................................................... 52

Table III.9. Total Meals Delivered .................................................................................................................... .53 

 
LIST OF FIGURES 

Chapter I 

Figure I.1. SFSP Participation, SFSP/NSLP Summer Participation, and Free and Reduced-Price NSLP 

Participation, 1989–2012 .................................................................................................................. 4 

Figure I.2. Ratio of SFSP/NSLP Summer Participation to Free and Reduced-Price NSLP Participation, 

1989–2012......................................................................................................................................... 5 

Figure I.3. Delaware, Massachusetts, New York, and the Nation: July SFSP and NSLP ADA as a Percentage 

of School-Year NSLP ADA, 2008–2012 .......................................................................................... 7

Figure I.4. Arizona, Kansas, Ohio, and the Nation: July SFSP and NSLP ADA as a Percentage of SchoolYear NSLP ADA, 2008–2012 ........................................................................................................... 8 

Chapter II 

Figure II.1. Delaware: SFSP and NSLP Average Daily Attendance, 2008–2012 .............................................. 18 

Figure II.2. Delaware: Total SFSP Meals Served, 2008–2012 .......................................................................... 19 

Figure II.3. Delaware: Number of Meals Delivered by Month, 2011–2012 ...................................................... 20

Figure II.4. Massachusetts: SFSP and NSLP Average Daily Attendance, 2008–2012 ...................................... 22 

Figure II.5. Massachusetts: Total SFSP Meals Served, 2008–2012 ................................................................... 23 

Figure II.6. Massachusetts: Number of Meals Delivered by Month, 2011–2012 .............................................. 24 

Figure II.7. New York: SFSP and NSLP Average Daily Attendance, 2008–2012 ............................................ 26 

Figure II.8. New York: Total SFSP Meals Served, 2008–2012 ......................................................................... 27 

Figure II.9. New York: Number of Meals Delivered by Month, 2011–2012 ..................................................... 29 

Chapter III 

Figure III.1. Arizona: SFSP and NSLP Average Daily Attendance, 2008–2012 ................................................ 35 

Figure III.2. Arizona: Total SFSP Meals Served, 2008–2012 ............................................................................. 36 

Figure III.3. Arizona: Number of Meals Provided in Backpacks by Month, 2011–2012 .................................... 38 

Figure III.4. Kansas: SFSP and NSLP Average Daily Attendance, 2008–2012 ................................................. 40 

Figure III.5. Kansas: Total SFSP Meals Served, 2008–2012 .............................................................................. 41 

Figure III.6. Kansas: Number of Meals Provided in Backpacks by Month, 2011–2012 ..................................... 44 

Figure III.7. Ohio: SFSP and NSLP Average Daily Attendance, 2008–2012 ..................................................... 46
Figure III.8. Ohio: Total SFSP Meals Served, 2008–2012 .................................................................................. 47 

Figure III.9. Ohio: Number of Meals Provided in Backpacks by Month, 2011–2012 ........................................ 50 

Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), administered by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture’s (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), is a key component of the safety net 

for the Nation’s low-income children, offering nutritious meals to needy children during the 

summer months when school is not in session. While the number of children participating in the 

National School Lunch Program (NSLP) has increased significantly over the past 20 years, 

participation in the SFSP has remained relatively constant, making the reach of the program 

increasingly limited 

Pursuant to the 2010 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration 

and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-80, 749(g)), FNS initiated and carried out a 

series of demonstration projects aimed at preventing food insecurity and hunger among children 

during the summer months, collectively entitled the Summer Food for Children demonstrations. 

The demonstrations include two efforts: the Enhanced Summer Food Service Program 

demonstrations (eSFSP), which are assessed in this report, and the Summer Electronic Benefits 

Transfer for Children (SEBTC) demonstrations, which are addressed in a separate report. The 

eSFSP demonstrations encompassed four separate initiatives, two of which were implemented in 

the summers of 2010 and 2011 (Wave 1) and discussed in previous reports, and two of which 

were implemented in the summers of 2011 and 2012 (Wave 2) and are the focus of this report. 

The Wave 2 demonstrations consisted of a meal delivery project and food backpack 

distribution project. Three States were selected by FNS to implement each demonstration. All 

States were eligible to apply for these demonstrations, although States applying for the meal 

delivery project were required to do so for rural areas only. Each demonstration is described 

briefly below. 

Demonstration Name States Description

Meal Delivery Project Delaware,

Massachusetts,

and New York

This demonstration delivered meals to children in rural areas

that, due to long distances and lack of transportation options,

have limited access to congregate SFSP sites.

Food Backpack Project Arizona, Kansas,

and Ohio

This demonstration allowed sites to provide children with

backpacks containing meals to take home for the days that SFSP

sites were closed, typically on weekends and holidays.

 

This report presents final findings from the Wave 2 demonstrations using administrative 

data reported to FNS by SFSP sites and sponsors. Key outcome measures include the total 

number of meals served and the total number of children served (as measured by average daily 

attendance, or ADA). Additional outcome measures are illustrated as appropriate to the 

demonstration including the number of backpacks or meals delivered. This report also presents 

findings from a sample of non-demonstration sites that served as comparison sites to examine the 

effectiveness of the demonstrations. Key results for the Wave 2 demonstrations follow. 

Meal Delivery Demonstration: Overall, this demonstration took place in 4 sponsors and 

31 sites (21 of these sites were in Delaware). A total of 192,960 meals were delivered through 

the meal delivery demonstration to children in rural areas across the three States over the 2-year 

period (121,962 in Delaware, 40,368 in Massachusetts, and 30,630 in New York). Since the 
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page ii

demonstration was not designed to attract new children to the congregate sites (where meals 

were intended to be consumed in one place at a particular time), the effect of the demonstration 

was to reach new children. A selected group of nearby comparison sites also was examined to 

confirm that the demonstration did not draw children away from “nearby” congregate sites. 

Overall, no State showed consistent evidence that the demonstration shifted participants away 

from congregate sites to meal delivery sites. This seems to indicate that the delivery 

demonstration reached children that had no or limited access to traditional SFSP sites. 

Food Backpack Demonstration: This demonstration took place in 16 sponsors with 97 

congregate sites (over half of these sites, 55 sites, were in Ohio). A total of 296,796 meals were 

delivered through the backpack demonstration across the three States over the 2-year period 

(122,414 in Arizona, 56,401 in Kansas, and 117,981 in Ohio). To assess whether increases in 

participation were achieved at congregate sites, key outcomes (i.e., ADA and percent change in 

meals served) among demonstration sites were compared to the outcomes among nearby and/or 

similar comparison sites. Overall, results were mixed and we could not detect any major 

differences as a result of this demonstration. This is in contrast to the overall positive results of 

the demonstration seen at the end of the first year of the evaluation. However, Ohio (the State 

where the largest number of demonstration States was located) did show increases in both the 

meals served and ADA in demonstration sites as compared to comparison sites. 

Conclusions. Overall, close to half a million meals were served through the two Wave 2 

demonstrations; as such, the demonstrations can be viewed with some measure of success. 

However, the backpack demonstration, when examining key outcomes between participating and 

comparison sites, did not provide evidence that the demonstration increased the number of 

children attending congregate SFSP sites. 
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 1

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 

Authorized under the 2010 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 

Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-80, 749(g)), the Summer 

Food for Children demonstration projects were initiated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 

(USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) to develop and test methods of providing access to 

nutritious meals for low-income children when school is not in session. The purpose of these 

demonstration projects was to reduce or eliminate food insecurity and hunger of children during 

the summer. There are two components to the Summer Food for Children demonstration 

projects: the Enhanced Summer Food Service Program (eSFSP) demonstrations and the Summer 

Electronic Benefits Transfer for Children (SEBTC) demonstrations.1 This report focuses on the 

eSFSP demonstration projects, which included four separate projects to test new, innovative 

strategies to increase participation in the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP). This report is 

the third and final in a series of annual reports designed to assess the progress of these eSFSP 

projects in meeting their objectives and to provide FNS with critical information about the 

potential effectiveness of these demonstrations in increasing SFSP participation. 

Since 1975, FNS has administered the SFSP, which provides free, nutritious meals to 

help children in low-income areas obtain the nutrition that they need throughout the summer 

months when school is not in session. FNS is the primary Federal agency responsible for 

providing a nutrition safety net to low-income populations across the United States. In addition 

to the SFSP, FNS administers 14 other nutrition assistance programs, including two that 

specifically target school-age children during the school year: the National School Lunch 

Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program (SBP). School food authorities (SFAs) that 

participate in the NSLP and the SBP also may provide meals during summer school or through 

the Seamless Summer Option (SSO). Despite ongoing 

efforts to increase participation, however, the SFSP 

only reaches a fraction of all eligible children, and 

substantially fewer children participate in the SFSP 

during the summer compared to the NSLP during the 

school year. In July 2012, SFSP/NSLP summer 

participation was only 16 percent of NSLP 

participation during the previous school year (USDA 

FNS National Data Bank [NDB]2

), at 3.4 million 

children (USDA, 2013a). 

 In 2010 and 2011, FNS solicited grant 

applications from States to implement four eSFSP 

demonstrations. The demonstrations were designed to 

encourage attendance at SFSP sites over the summer by mitigating barriers such as a lack of 

transportation options and limited operating times to provide meals. The projects were 

1

 The SEBTC demonstrations take advantage of existing Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Special Supplemental Nutrition 

Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) infrastructure to deliver food benefits electronically that are equivalent to what a child 

qualifying for the NSLP would receive each month during the school year. 

2

 The USDA FNS National Data Bank provides a single official repository to support the analysis and public release of FNS program 

information. Through the Food Programs Reporting System (FPRS), data from various FNS programs are extracted and imported into the NDB 

database. 

“Our efforts to combat hunger

cannot end when the school bell

rings on the last day of the school

year, which is why these

demonstrations will test new and

innovative ways to reduce hunger

and improve nutrition among

children when school is not in

session.”

   

– Tom Vilsack,  

Secretary of Agriculture
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 2

implemented in two waves; Wave 1 took place in the summers of 2010 and 2011 and Wave 2 

took place in the summers of 2011 and 2012. The Wave 1 demonstrations were discussed in the 

first and second annual reports assessing the progress of these eSFSP projects (Peterson, Geller, 

Moulton, Suchman, & Haddix, 2011; Peterson, Geller, Suchman, Moulton, & Haddix, 2013). 

The purpose of this report is to present final results from the two Wave 2 

demonstrations.3 The Wave 2 demonstrations were initially funded in 2011 for a total of 2 years. 

FNS selected three States to implement each demonstration: the first of these demonstrations—

the Meal Delivery Project—was awarded to sponsors in Delaware, Massachusetts, and New 

York, and the second—the Food Backpack Project—was awarded to sponsors in Arizona, 

Kansas, and Ohio. These two demonstrations are briefly described below. 

 Meal Delivery Project. This demonstration was designed to develop ways to provide 

meals to eligible children in rural areas that, due to low population density, long 

distances, and lack of transportation options, could not financially sustain SFSP sites 

during the summer months. 

 Food Backpack Project. This demonstration allowed SFSP sites to provide eligible 

children with backpacks containing meals to take home to eat on the days that SFSP 

meals were not available, typically on the weekends. 

The remainder of Chapter I provides some additional background on the SFSP and the 

demonstrations and includes a discussion of the study methodology and data limitations. 

Chapters II and III provide findings from each of the Wave 2 demonstrations, and Chapter IV 

provides cross-demonstration conclusions. Appendices A and B contain the detailed SFSP 

tabulations for each demonstration upon which the findings are based. Finally, Appendix C 

contains a detailed description of the methodology for selecting the comparison groups for the 

Wave 2 demonstrations. 

A. SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM PARTICIPATION 

For more than 30 years, the SFSP has provided a critical safety net for the Nation’s lowincome children, offering nutritious meals to sites in low-income areas to help needy children 

learn, play, and grow during the summer months when they are not in school.4

 Families with 

children who participate in the SFSP consider the program an important source of nutritious food 

for their children (Felton & Harley Associates, 2006). 

 

3

 A separate report will address changes in food security in the Wave 2 demonstrations and provide an assessment of implementation costs. 

4 Although SFSP sponsors primarily serve elementary school-age children (58 percent of all participants), they also serve preschoolers (17 

percent) and middle school-/junior high school-age or high school-age children (25 percent; Mathematica Policy Research [MPR], 2003). For the 

SFSP, children are defined as 1) persons 18 years of age and younger and 2) persons 18 years of age and older who are mentally or physically 

handicapped and who also participate in a public or nonprofit private school program established for the mentally or physically handicapped. 
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 3

One purpose of the SFSP is to prevent hunger among school-age children during the 

summer months when these children may no longer have access to school meals, which are 

important to maintaining food security when school is in session. With participation in the SFSP 

far lower than free and reduced-price school meal participation, the reach of the SFSP is limited. 

Efforts to increase SFSP participation, and thus increase the number of meals served to children 

during the summer months, may forestall a decline in food security during the summer months. 

Locally, the SFSP is run by approved sponsors, including school districts, local 

government agencies, camps, or private nonprofit organizations. Sponsors provide free meals to 

a group of children at a central site, such as a school, a park, or a community center. In July 

2012, nearly 4,750 local agencies (sponsors) served an average of nearly 2.35 million children 

per day at close to 39,000 meal sites nationwide (USDA, 2013a; USDA, 2012). From May 

through September of 2012, more than 143.8 million meals (including breakfast, lunch, supper, 

and snack) were provided through SFSP sites across the country (USDA, 2013a). Exact dates of 

program operation vary across locations in accordance 

with the local school calendar, but the SFSP is 

typically operational between May and September. 

Despite the many changes that the program has 

undergone with respect to eligibility criteria, 

administrative procedures, and funding levels, the 

SFSP has been unable to attain the same level of 

program participation that the NSLP achieves during 

the school year. The differences in levels of program 

participation are to some extent structural, as discussed 

briefly below. Participation in the combined summer 

programs (SFSP and NSLP summer school and SSO) 

has rarely exceeded 10–15 percent of the average 

participation in the free and reduced-price NSLP 

(USDA, 2013b). In 2012, while about 21.4 million children nationwide received free or 

reduced-price meals through the NSLP daily,5

 only about 3.4 million children received meals 

through the combined summer programs daily (nearly 16 percent of NSLP children; USDA, 

2013b; USDA, 2013c; USDA, 2013d).6 

While the number of children eligible for free or reduced-price school meals has 

increased over the past 10 years, the number of children participating in the SFSP has remained 

within the range of 1.9 million (in 2005) to more than 2.3 million (in 2012; USDA, 2013a; see 

Figure I.1). Similarly, the number of children participating in the SFSP and NSLP summer 

option combined has remained within the range of 2.2 million (in 1989) to 3.6 million (in 2003; 

see Figure I.1). 

 

 

5

 The NSLP average daily attendance (ADA) figures used to calculate this number include children served in U.S. territories and on military 

bases. 

6 The combined summer program participation is calculated in July, the peak month of attendance. 

“The Summer Food Service Program

is a vital nutrition resource during

the months students are not in

school.  We know that there are

many children who need nutritious

food but don't have access to a

program in their area.”  

– Kevin Concannon,  

USDA Under Secretary of  

Food, Nutrition, and  

Consumer Services
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 4

Source: NDB. 

Note: NSLP figures represent free and reduced-price meals (not full price). 

Data reflect July participation in the SFSP and 9-month participation averages (excluding the summer months) for free and reduced-price 

NSLP lunches. 

SFSP+NSLP summer data includes SFSP in addition to other USDA summer nutrition programs. 

Overall, the ratio of combined summer program participation to free and reduced-price 

NSLP participation has decreased from a high of 22.8 percent in 1994 to a low of 15.7 percent in 

2011, increasing slightly to 15.9 percent in 2012 (the second year of the demonstrations), as 

depicted in Figure I.2. 

 

0

5

10

15

20

25

Average Daily Attendance

(Number of Children Participating)

(in millions)

Year

FIGURE I.1

SFSP PARTICIPATION, SFSP/NSLP SUMMER PARTICIPATION, AND

FREE AND REDUCED‐PRICE NSLP PARTICIPATION,

1989–2012

NSLP

SFSP+NSLP

Summer

SFSP
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 5

Source: NDB. 

Data reflect July participation in the SFSP and 9-month participation averages (excluding the summer months) for free and reduced-price 

NSLP lunches. 

Among the combined summer programs, participation in the SFSP is lower than free and 

reduced-price NSLP participation for a number of reasons. SFSP sites are located primarily in 

low-income neighborhoods (due to a requirement that 50 percent of children in the area be 

eligible for free or reduced-price school meals for open sites), whereas the NSLP is available 

everywhere. In addition, attendance at SFSP sites is voluntary, whereas attendance at school, 

where children can benefit from the NSLP, is mandatory. Additional barriers that may explain 

why SFSP attendance is so much lower than school-year-based programs include lack of 

transportation, lack of publicity about the program, limited hours of operation that do not 

coincide with parent work schedules, children’s dislike of the food, insufficient enrichment 

activities, and parents’ concerns about neighborhood safety (Mathematica Policy Research 

[MPR], 2003). Other factors such as weather, availability of program activities, and length of 

operation also influence the number of children served (MPR, 2003). 

Participation in the SFSP varies by State. The participation rate (number of children 

participating in SFSP in 2012 per 100 children participating in NSLP during the 2010–2011 

school year) ranged from 2.1 in Hawaii to 22.5 in Vermont (note that these participation rates 

include SFSP participation in the numerator only, and exclude participation in other summer 

programs; Food Research and Action Center [FRAC], 2013).7 When looking at the programs 

combined, participation in SFSP and the other summer nutrition programs (SFSP and summer 

 

7 The District of Columbia had a higher SFSP participation rate in 2012, at 56.4 percent; however, the District was excluded from this analysis 

because it contains only a single urban area and is qualitatively different from the States. 

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

Participation Rate

Year

FIGURE I.2

RATIO OF SFSP/NSLP SUMMER PARTICIPATION TO

FREE AND REDUCED‐PRICE NSLP PARTICIPATION,

1989–2012

SFSP+NSLP to

NSLP

Participation
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 6

NSLP) still only accounts for a small percentage of school-year NSLP participation,8 ranging 

from a low of 4.7 percent in Oklahoma to a high of 30.2 percent in New Mexico (based on data 

from July 2012 and the 2011–2012 school year; FRAC, 2013).9

 

B. BACKGROUND ON THE WAVE 2 DEMONSTRATIONS 

The goal of the two Wave 2 SFSP demonstrations was to reduce or eliminate food 

insecurity and hunger among children during the summer months when school is not in session. 

Each of the States was required to implement these demonstration projects for a minimum of 2 

years (i.e., through the summer of 2012). Each State was invited to submit an application to FNS 

that included a management plan describing how the demonstration would be implemented and 

how the incentive funds would be dispersed, how outreach to and oversight of sponsors would be 

conducted, and how sponsor applications would be solicited and reviewed. Additionally, Wave 

2 States were required to promote the demonstration statewide prior to submitting their 

applications, and sponsors were selected by FNS during the competitive process. States were 

required to 1) manage sponsors; 2) help them recruit eligible children; and 3) implement a 

tracking system for maintaining required data. In addition, the States agreed to submit moredetailed SFSP program data to FNS for the evaluation (i.e., at the site level, rather than at the 

State level, as is typically required). 

Since both of the Wave 2 demonstrations include the distribution of food intended for 

consumption outside of an SFSP site, FNS specified guidelines for food safety, preparation, 

assembly, and delivery that were not applicable to the Wave 1 demonstrations. FNS grant funds 

were used to pay for food, costs associated with contracting and augmenting delivery vehicles, 

and appropriate packaging materials and supplies (including backpacks for the Food Backpack 

demonstration10). States were required to verify that sponsors met these guidelines prior to 

submitting their applications to FNS. To do this, States solicited applications from interested 

sponsors, screened the sponsors to ensure FNS criteria were met, and verified that each sponsor 

had an implementation plan. FNS retained the authority to select not only which States would 

receive funding to participate in the demonstration, but also which sponsors within the selected 

States could participate. 

Unlike the Wave 1 demonstrations, all States were eligible to apply for participation in 

the Meal Delivery and Food Backpack demonstrations,11 the only stipulation being that the Meal 

Delivery demonstration could only be implemented in rural areas. Initially, FNS anticipated 

awarding funding to one or two States for each demonstration. Ultimately, six States were 

awarded funds, a total of three States for each demonstration. 

 

8 NSLP participation is calculated as the ratio of children participating in the SFSP and free and reduced-price NSLP meals in the summer divided 

by the number of children participating in the free and reduced-price NSLP meals during the school year. See Chapter I, pages 12–13 for a 

discussion of how this participation rate is calculated. 

9

 The District of Columbia had a higher combined summer nutrition participation rate in 2012, at 59.8 percent; however, the District was 

excluded from this analysis because it contains only a single urban area and is qualitatively different from the States. 

10 Although the term backpack is used, in many cases another type of bag was provided containing the take-home meals. The term backpack in 

this report refers to a variety of different bag types. 

11 In the Wave 1 demonstrations, eligibility for participation was limited to States with the highest rates of childhood food insecurity combined 

with the lowest rates of SFSP participation. 
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 7

The three States selected by FNS to implement the Meal Delivery demonstration were 

Delaware, Massachusetts, and New York. All three States show higher participation rates (the 

percent of children eligible for free and reduced-price NSLP meals who received summer 

nutrition assistance through NSLP or SFSP) than the national average for the 3 years prior to the 

start of the demonstration, as illustrated in Figure I.3. However, in each State, the demonstration 

delivered meals to children living in rural areas where there were few SFSP sites and less 

nutrition assistance coverage availability than there was in other areas of the State. 

Source: NDB. 

Note: The percentages were calculated by dividing the average daily attendance (ADA) for the SFSP and NSLP in July by the ADA 

for the NSLP from the immediately preceding school year (9-month average). The U.S. NSLP ADA figures include children served 

in U.S. territories and on military bases. 

Supporting data for Figure I.3 can be found in Appendix A, Tables 1.a, 1.b, and 1.c. 

The three States selected by FNS to implement the Food Backpack demonstration were 

Arizona, Kansas, and Ohio. All three States show lower participation rates than the national 

average. Prior to the start of the demonstration, in Arizona, only 6.9 percent of children eligible 

for free and reduced-price NSLP meals received summer nutrition assistance through NSLP or 

SFSP in 2010, compared to the national average of 16.1 percent. In Kansas, only 5.3 percent of 

eligible children received summer nutrition assistance in 2010. In Ohio, 11.1 percent of eligible 

children did so (NDB; see Figure I.4). 

28.2%

27.6% 26.3% 26.3% 25.6%

20.9% 23.7% 22.2% 21.0% 18.8%

19.0% 18.5% 18.0% 18.4% 18.0%

17.8% 16.9% 16.1% 15.7% 15.9%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Participation Rate

Year

FIGURE I.3

DELAWARE, MASSACHUSETTS, NEW YORK, AND THE NATION:

JULY SFSP AND NSLP ADA AS A PERCENTAGE OF SCHOOL‐YEAR NSLP ADA,

2008–2012

New York

Delaware

Massachusetts

U.S. (national average)
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 8

Source: NDB. 

Note: The percentages were calculated by dividing the average daily attendance (ADA) for the SFSP and NSLP in July by the ADA 

for the NSLP from the immediately preceding school year (9-month average). The U.S. NSLP ADA figures include children served 

in U.S. territories and on military bases. 

Supporting data for Figure I.4 can be found in Appendix B, Table 1.a, 1.b, and 1.c. 

 

17.8% 16.9%

16.1% 15.7% 15.9%

10.8% 11.4% 11.1%

9.9% 9.5%

6.4% 5.8% 6.9% 7.9% 9.3%

6.3% 5.9% 5.3%

6.4% 5.9%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Participation Rate

Year

FIGURE I.4

ARIZONA, KANSAS, OHIO, AND THE NATION:

JULY SFSP AND NSLP ADA AS A PERCENTAGE OF SCHOOL‐YEAR NSLP ADA,

2008–2012

U.S. (national average)

Ohio

Arizona

Kansas
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 9

Table I.1 below provides a side-by-side comparison of the two Wave 2 demonstrations. 

Table I.1

Side‐By‐Side Demonstration Comparison

MEAL DELIVERY PROJECT:

Delaware, Massachusetts, New York

FOOD BACKPACK PROJECT:

Arizona, Kansas, Ohio

Purpose To provide meals to children in rural areas

where low population density, long

distances, and transportation issues make

it difficult for children to get to SFSP sites,

making site and sponsor operation

financially unsustainable.

To provide meals to children on non‐SFSP

operating days (weekends and holidays)

during the summer.

Incentive Funding for sponsors to develop ways of

delivering meals to children in rural areas

at a sustainable cost.

Funding for sponsors to provide children

with backpacks of food to take home for

meals on non‐SFSP operating days.

Total 2012

Demonstration Funding

$429,162 $533,152

Sponsor Eligibility Any sponsor in the State could apply. Only existing SFSP sponsors (those with

previous SFSP experience) could apply.

Sponsor Requirements Up to 4 days of meals could be delivered

at a given time.  Additionally, no more

than 2 meals per day could be delivered

to a particular child.

Backpacks could be provided only during

weeks when the sponsor was open for

normal SFSP operations, and for meals

not otherwise provided by the site.

SFSP sites must remain open during the

majority of the week.

Participant Eligibility

Requirements

Children who were eligible for free and

reduced‐price lunches during the

preceding school year were eligible to

receive meals.

All children age 18 and younger who were

eligible for SFSP meals could receive

backpacks.

Sponsor Selection Sponsors were selected by FNS based on

merit of project design; organizational

experience and management; budget

appropriateness; and economic efficiency.

Sponsors were selected by FNS based on

merit of project design; organizational

experience and management; budget

appropriateness; and economic efficiency.

Target

Areas

Rural areas No specific target areas

Data

Requirements

Demonstration sponsors were required to

submit data to the State on each delivery

route, including number and location of

stops on the route; parent or guardian

name, address, and phone number for

households consenting to participate in

meal delivery; frequency of meal delivery;

content of meals delivered; daily number

of meals delivered; and number of days

for which meals are intended to provide

food.

Demonstration sponsors were required to

submit data on number of backpacks and

meals provided, including total

participation on distribution days by site

each month; number of children given

backpacks by site each month; and

content of food backpacks.
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 10

C. STUDY OBJECTIVES, RESEARCH QUESTIONS, AND METHODOLOGY 

The goal of this study is to assess the key outcomes of the SFSP demonstrations. 

Together, these projects provided a means of assessing various methods of improving access to 

and participation in the SFSP, with the ultimate intent of increasing food security among lowincome children. The research questions addressed in the study are presented in Table I.2. 

Table I.2

Research Questions

Objective: Determine the outcome of the demonstrations on participation and on the number of meals

served for both the Meal Delivery (MD) and Backpack (BP) demonstrations.

a. Participating Sites*

i. How many sites participated in 2012?

ii. How many sites were new in 2012?  How many sites were continuing from 2011 (BP only)?

b. Operating Days (days meals were provided)*

i. How many operating days were sites open in 2011 (BP only)?  In 2012?

ii. How did operating days compare between 2011 and 2012 for sites that were open both years (BP

only)?

iii. How did operating days compare for the whole demonstration and by State?

iv. For BP only—On how many operating days was the site open and on how many of those days were

backpacks distributed (e.g.., the site was open Monday through Friday/5 days a week and backpacks

were distributed on Friday/1 day a week)?

c. Total Meals Served

i. How many meals were served, by total and by category (breakfast, lunch, supplemental/snack), in

2011 and 2012?

ii. What was the average number of meals served per unit (per MD per child; per BP per child)?

iii. What was the average and median number of meals per MD (e.g., each delivery consisted of 2

meals per day for each of 7 days, for a total of 14 meals per deliver per child); for BP (e.g., each

backpack contained 2 breakfasts and 3 lunches for a total of 5 meals per backpack).

d. Total Children Served (as measured by average daily attendance (ADA) 12 for BP and actual number of

children for MD)

i. What was the unduplicated count of children served at each site?

ii. What was the distribution (mean, median) of children served for all MD sites in 2012?

e. Comparison Site Outcomes

i. How did the ADA at the geographically closest traditional SFSP sites (i.e. “non‐demonstration”)

compare to each demonstration site?

ii. How did the number of meals served for 2011 compare to 2012 in these comparison sites?

* For the 2011 evaluation, no site-level analyses were conducted for delivery demonstration States. As a result, we are unable to answer the 

research questions that require 2011 data for the delivery demonstration. 

Data for this study were obtained primarily from State agency databases and combined 

with State-level information from the NDB.13 The data were obtained for 2008 through 2012 for 

the Wave 2 demonstrations. The administrative data were cleaned, edited, and tabulated, and a 

 

12 The SFSP average daily attendance (ADA) produced by the NDB is calculated by summing the total number of first meals served during a 

sponsor’s primary meal service (usually lunch) during July, and dividing that by the number of operating or meal service days for July. Although 

FNS provides this definition as guidance, each State is responsible for the calculation and submission of its ADA and there is variation in the 

application of the definition. As a result, it is difficult to compare the State-reported ADA numbers in the NDB, both to each other and to 

estimates from other sources. 

13 This includes data from forms FNS-418 and FNS-143. 
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 11

comprehensive sponsor-site SFSP database was assembled, along with a supporting codebook 

and documentation. Table I.3 illustrates the number of sponsors and sites participating for each 

year of the demonstrations. 

Table I.3

Number of Wave 2 Demonstration Sponsors and Sites  

2011 2012

Sponsors Sites Sponsors Sites

State Meal Delivery *

Delaware 1 N/A 1 21

Massachusetts 1 N/A 1 2

New York 2 N/A 2 8

State Food Backpack

Arizona 3 18 3 26

Kansas 7 14 7 16

Ohio 6 50 6 55

*Detailed site-level data were not available for the Meal Delivery demonstration in 2011, but these 

data were available in 2012. All outcomes were examined only at the demonstration sponsor level for 

2011.

Demonstration Outcome Measures. This report examines a number of outcome 

measures as described briefly below. 

 Total Meals Served. The total number of SFSP meals served is defined as the sum of 

the number of "first” breakfasts, lunches, suppers, and snacks served14 in all operating 

months (up to five—May, June, July, August, and September). This measure indicates 

whether the total number of SFSP meals served is increasing or decreasing for the 

summer as a whole. For the Wave 2 demonstrations, this measure looks at the number of 

meals that were provided via meal delivery or take-home backpacks in addition to the 

total number of meals served at congregate meal sites. 

 Average Daily Attendance (ADA). FNS measures the number of children served per 

day by calculating the ADA as an approximate measure of participation in the program. 

This report includes two approaches to calculating this measure: July ADA and Operating 

Days ADA. 

o July ADA. This method yields the number of children receiving SFSP meals on an 

average day in July. July ADA is a commonly used measure for comparing daily 

attendance across States because for many States, July is the peak month of SFSP 

enrollment. For the State, the total number of SFSP “first” lunches served in July is 

divided by the number of operating days in July (assumed to be the number of nonholiday weekdays in July, either 20, 21, or 22 depending upon the year). July ADA 

does not include demonstration meals. 

Note: Ideally, July ADA uses the actual number of operating days at the site level. 

However, since this varies by site, statewide measures make adjustments to the 

 

14 SFSP participants can have second and third servings, but only the number of first servings is included in calculating the ADA. SFSP 

reimburses for a limited number of second meals. 
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 12

operating days by using the average or median number of days across sites. Others 

use an assumed number of operating days, such as the number of non-holiday 

weekdays in July. The latter tends to lower the July ADA, as the number of assumed 

days tends to be greater than the actual days.15 However, it also serves as a consistent 

measure for comparison across States. In this report, we have used the assumed 

number of operating days when referring to July ADA, as it can be applied across 

States. 

o Operating Days ADA. This method yields the average number of SFSP meals served 

to children per day. For each SFSP site, the operating days ADA is computed by 

dividing the number of “first” meals served for the largest sitting across the 

summer—breakfast, lunch, or supper16—by the total number of operating days over 

the summer. ADA is then summed across all SFSP sites in the State. This approach 

has been used in previous research and tends to yield a result that is higher than the 

result produced by using July ADA, as the number of actual operating days per month 

tends to be lower than the number of estimated operating days used for July ADA. 

Operating days ADA includes demonstration meals for the backpack demonstration 

States, but not for the delivery demonstration States. 

 Summer ADA as a Percent of School-Year ADA (Participation). This measure 

reflects the relative coverage of meal service provided by USDA’s summer nutrition 

programs for low-income children during the summer versus the school year. The 

measure is calculated as the ratio of the estimated number of children receiving a summer 

lunch (either SFSP or NSLP summer school or SSO) divided by the estimated number of 

children receiving free or reduced-price NSLP lunches during the school year. There are 

two methods by which FNS calculates this measure: July ADA over NSLP ADA in 

March and July ADA over NSLP School-Year ADA.17 For this report, we used the 

second of these measures. 

The July ADA over NSLP ADA throughout the school year method of estimating SFSP 

participation yields the ratio of the number of children receiving SFSP or NSLP meals on 

an average day in July over the number of children receiving NSLP free and reducedprice meals on an average day in the preceding school year.18 This measure is calculated 

as the July ADA divided by the school-year ADA. 

 

15 The Food Research Action Center (FRAC) has popularized the use of July ADA and uses the assumed operating days in its calculations. 

16 For example, if there were 2,000 first meals for lunch and 1,000 first meals for breakfast, then the largest sitting would be lunch. 

17 These methods have long been used by FNS to calculate NSLP free and reduced-price participation from NDB data. Additionally, the methods 

have been detailed in previous USDA Reports to Congress. For more information, please see Appendix C of the 2007 report entitled “Report to 

Congress: USDA’s Simplified Summer Food Program: 2001–2006” (USDA, 2007). 

18 The school year includes 9-month averages for October-May and September of the following year. September of the following year is used in 

order to produce a measure for the full October–September fiscal year. Summer months (June–August) are excluded. 
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 13

ሾሺSFSP	lunches	for	July ൅ NSLP F RP ⁄ 	lunches	for	Julyሻ

ൊ the	number	of	operating	days	in	Julyሿ

ሾNSLP	 F RP ⁄ lunches	for	the	school	year

ൊ the	number	of	operating	days	in	the	school	yearሿ

[Numerator of the ratio]: The average number of lunches served, per day, in July. Note: The number of 

operating days in July is assumed to be the number of non-holiday weekdays in July. 

[Denominator of the ratio]: The average number of lunches served, per day, during the school year. The 

methodology for calculating this denominator is illustrated in Appendix G. 

This method combines all SFSP lunches with NSLP free or reduced-price lunches in 

order to calculate the July ADA.19 There are two reasons why the measure is computed using the 

meal counts of both programs in the numerator. First, NSLP summer meals are part of FNS’s 

overall support for low-income children in the summer; second, this ensures that the measure of 

change does not count lunches provided by school sponsors who switched from providing 

summer nutrition through the NSLP to providing it through the SFSP (or vice versa).20 

 Number of Unique Children Participating (e.g., Given Backpacks/Meals). The 

demonstrations keep records of the number of meals served each day, but not which 

children are served each day. In order to estimate the number of children served by an 

individual site, we assume that first serving of the largest meal of the day represents the 

number of individual children served that day. To calculate an estimate of the number of 

children served by demonstrations across the summer at the State level, we sum the 

number of children from the highest attended day at each site. However, because some 

sites may never have 100% of the children they serve attending on the same day, the 

actual number of unique children served is likely higher than the estimate produced 

through this method. 

 Number of No-Shows/Meals Prepared but Not Distributed. These measures provide 

estimates of the number of children who did not pick up meals intended for them at meal 

delivery sites, and the number of backpack meals that were prepared but not distributed. 

These data are reported per site per meal distribution and summed across each State. 

Comparison Groups. The methodology for the selection of comparison groups 

differed for each of the two demonstrations, as is described below. Additional details on the 

comparison group selection methodologies are provided in Appendix C. 

 Meal Delivery Comparison: Comparison sites selected for this analysis were existing 

non-demonstration sites that were geographically closest to a demonstration location. 

These “nearby” comparison sites were examined to confirm that the demonstration 

reached additional children rather than drawing children away from “nearby” sites. No 

change in these nearby sites would be anticipated as the target population of the meal 

deliveries would be expected to live relatively far distances from these SFSP sites. 

 

19 All NSLP ADA figures used in these calculations come from FNS’s NDB. 

20 For all participating sites, any person 18 years of age and younger may attend the site. As a result, the SFSP data contained in this report may 

include preschool-age children. 
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 14

 Food Backpack Comparison: Comparison sites were selected within the same county, if 

possible, or one or more counties statistically most similar based on five measures 

associated with food security: population density, median household income, percent 

with incomes below the Federal poverty level, unemployment rate, and percent eligible 

for free and reduced-price lunches. The number of such sites composing the comparison 

group included all existing non-demonstration sites in the same county (that operated in 

both 2011 and 2012) or, if the sites were in similar counties, a sufficient number of sites 

so that the total meals served in comparison sites are comparable to or more than those in 

total demonstration sites. These comparison sites were examined to determine if their 

changes were different from the changes shown in the similar demonstration sites.21 

Relationship With Seamless Summer Option. This report also examined the 

effect of the SFSP demonstrations on the SSO. The SSO is another child nutrition 

reimbursement alternative that allows SFAs to provide meals during the summer and over school 

breaks of longer than 10 days in areas where at least 50 percent of the students are approved for 

free or reduced-price school meals. The SSO offers SFAs streamlined administration procedures 

and reimburses meals at the NSLP/SBP rates; the meals are free to children.22 For the most part, 

the SSO is offered at school sites, but State agencies may approve its operation at non-school 

sites. 

One exploratory component of the analysis was to assess whether there was any evidence 

of SFAs shifting from the SFSP to the SSO or vice versa. If that were the case, the number of 

children served under the SFSP may have increased, for example, but without any real gain in 

the total number of children served through both programs. To examine this possibility, States 

participating in the SFSP demonstrations were asked to provide data for SSO sponsors and sites. 

Only the three backpack delivery States (Arizona, Kansas, and Ohio) have SFAs that participated 

in the SSO in 2012.23 There were no SFAs in any of the delivery demonstration States 

(Delaware, Massachusetts, and New York) that participated in the SSO during 2012. The 

relevant section in the later chapters of this report examines SSO outcomes to see if there is any 

evidence that SFSP participation affected SSO participation in communities that implemented 

both programs. 

D. DATA LIMITATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS 

Many factors could influence the estimates shown throughout the report. A brief 

summary of these factors is provided below. 

 

21 There were an insufficient number of SFSP sites that were selected as comparison sites in 2011 still in operation in 2012. New sites were 

selected for the comparison groups in 2012 using similar procedures as those developed for the 2011 evaluation. Due to this need to select new 

comparison sites for 2012, the report will not be able to compare 2011 and 2012 outcomes for the backpack demonstration States.

22 The reimbursement rate for NSLP meals for School Year 2012–2013 is lower than the reimbursement rate for SFSP meals for Calendar Year 

2012. For example, SFSP lunches are reimbursed at either $3.3250 (for urban or vended sites) or $3.38 (at self-prep or rural sites), while SSO 

lunches are reimbursed at the NSLP rate of $2.46 (reduced-price meals) or $2.86 (free meals). See http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/02-

02-12_CND.pdf and http://www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/governance/notices/naps/NAPs12-13.pdf. 

23 A number of sponsors/sites in Chandler and Litchfield counties in Arizona that operated SFSP and participated in the backpack demonstration 

in 2011 dropped out of the SFSP and operated their programs through the SSO in 2012. Because these sites could still participate in the backpack 

demonstration while operating under the SSO, they were included in the analysis as SFSP demonstration sites for 2012. They were excluded 

from the analysis of SSO sites in 2012. 
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 15

1. Participation in the demonstration intervention was not randomly assigned at the State, 

sponsor, site, or individual participant level. For Wave 2, all States were invited to apply 

for the demonstration, and FNS selected States for award based on viability and merit of 

the grant applications. FNS also selected the sponsors based on the quality of the 

program design specified in the sponsors’ applications. Therefore, differences seen in 

this report may be due to outside factors. 

2. In some States, existing initiatives or other funding sources were leveraged in 

implementing the SFSP demonstration, making it difficult to separate the effects of these 

various inputs on the SFSP measures. It is difficult to disaggregate the effects of the 

demonstration from competing factors that affect demand for the SFSP, such as strong 

outreach efforts by the State, financial constraints on the sponsors, local communities’ 

initiatives, local economic factors, and population shifts. For example, for the backpack 

demonstration, Kansas built on the existing infrastructure for a similar initiative it 

operates in certain school districts during the school year, called the “backsnacks” 

program. Since many of the SFSP sponsors operated the school-year “backsnacks” 

program, the infrastructure for the demonstration was already somewhat in place to 

extend the program into the summer, allowing them to deliver more backpack meals to 

children in the first year than they would have been able to otherwise. 

3. The Wave 2 demonstrations were restricted to a small number of sites and sponsors in 

limited geographic areas; therefore, these demonstrations are only expected to affect 

these small, localized areas. It is unlikely that the impact of these demonstrations can be 

fully appreciated when analyzing the impact at the State level. Furthermore, it may not 

be possible to determine the source of any changes noted at the State level. To mitigate 

this challenge, this report also compares results from demonstration sites to a small group 

of similar sites within the State. 

4. As described earlier in this report, this study reports and interprets two measures of ADA: 

July ADA and operating days ADA. July ADA is the ratio of the number of lunch meals 

served in July divided by the number of non-holiday weekdays in July, while operating 

days ADA is the number of meals served at the largest sitting divided by the number of 

days the site operates across the summer. As such, July ADA is likely to be lower than 

operating days ADA, especially in States where sites do not operate for the full month of 

July or where SFSP participation may peak in a month other than July (for example, June 

in some southern States). 

5. New York did not provide overall monthly operating days. Instead, each month, it 

provided four variables for each site indicating “days of service,” one for each of the four 

meals, which may vary by meal. The largest value of the "days of service" measures 

served as a proxy for operating days for a month. 

6. In some cases in Arizona and Ohio, children received separate backpacks for each meal 

type and the numbers of backpacks distributed per meal type differed. While the States 

confirmed that the “number of backpacks delivered” equals the number of children, the 

higher of the counts for any delivery date was used as the number of children served. 
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 16

 
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 17

CHAPTER II: FINDINGS FROM THE 

2011 MEAL DELIVERY DEMONSTRATION 

In many rural areas, there are few or no SFSP sites, and those that do operate are often 

too difficult for children to access due to either distance or lack of transportation options during 

the summer months. The goal of this demonstration was to develop effective and creative ways 

to deliver meals to these rural children. Acceptable methods included home delivery and 

delivery to a central site accessible by multiple children. The emphasis, however, was on “noncongregate” meal service: meals not intended to be consumed in one place by multiple children 

at a particular time. 

This chapter provides information on both the 

activities and outcomes of the Meal Delivery 

demonstration conducted in three States; the results 

presented represent the findings from the complete 2-

year demonstration. Section A provides an overview 

of the demonstration across the three States. Section B 

provides results for Delaware. Sections C and D 

provide results for Massachusetts and New York, 

respectively. Supporting tables for this section are included in Appendix A. Additional 

information about the methodology for comparison group selection is provided in Appendix C. 

A. DEMONSTRATION DESCRIPTION 

The demonstration was implemented in three States: Delaware, Massachusetts, and New 

York. In both years, the demonstration was implemented through the same four sponsors. Meal 

deliveries were made at 31 locations or routes in 2012 (Table II.1). Deliveries were made to 19 

locations in 2011. Although not a requirement, all demonstration sponsors had operated as SFSP 

sponsors prior to offering meals through the demonstration. 

Table II.1

Meal Delivery Demonstration Sponsors

State Sponsor

Number of Delivery

Locations

2011 2012

Delaware Food Bank of Delaware 5 21

Massachusetts YMCA of Cape Cod 3 2

New York Catholic Charities Food Bank of the Southern Tier

North Rose‐Wolcott Central School District  

11 8

Each of the States worked with the sponsors to identify ways to conduct outreach to 

parents in the targeted rural areas to recruit children for participation. The sponsors were 

responsible for identifying and recruiting children, identifying dropoff sites and routes, and 

collecting all program and participant data. The sponsors employed two delivery options: doorto-door meal delivery and a distribution center model (where delivery is to a central or 

conveniently located dropoff point). In total, the three States spent $429,162 for the 

The SFSP Meal Delivery

demonstration delivered SFSP meals

to eligible children in rural areas for

at‐home consumption, rather than

providing meals for consumption in

a congregate location.
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 18

demonstration in 2012: Delaware spent $225,077, Massachusetts spent $131,426, and New York 

spent $72,659. 

B. DELAWARE IMPLEMENTATION AND RESULTS 

This section describes the results of the demonstration implementation in Delaware. 

Section 1 provides an overview of the implementation of the demonstration in Delaware. 

Section 2 presents data on SFSP meals delivered, and Section 3 examines the number of children 

served by the demonstration. Section 4 provides data on ADA at sites located near delivery 

locations in order to assess any changes in SFSP outcomes that might be linked to the 

implementation of the demonstration. 

In its application to participate in the demonstration, Delaware cited that nearly half of 

the students in the State were eligible for free or reduced-price school breakfasts and lunches; in 

addition, the State reported having a high child-poverty rate (14.6 percent) and high childhoodobesity rate (39.7 percent). While NSLP school-year ADA has increased annually from 2008 to 

2012, SFSP July ADA has decreased since 2010 (Figure II.1). 

Source: SFSP data from the Delaware State Database, NSLP data from the NDB. 

 

Note: NSLP figures represent free and reduced-price NSLP participation over the school year. SFSP figures reflect the 

SFSP only, and do not include figures from other USDA summer nutrition programs. The NSLP July ADA for the years 

shown in Figure II.1 was 1,306 in 2008; 1,401 in 2009; 1,296 in 2010; 2,034 in 2011; and 2,037 in 2012. 

Supporting data for Figure II.1 can be found in Appendix A, Table 1.a. 

The total number of SFSP meals served across the State (including breakfasts, lunches, 

snacks, and suppers at both congregate and delivery sites) increased by 9.7 percent between 2011 

and 2012. This reversed the decline experienced between 2010 and 2011 (Figure II.2). 

44,013

47,646

52,516 55,534 58,619

7,675 9,804 10,280 9,646 9,390

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Average Daily Attendance

Year

FIGURE II.1

DELAWARE: SFSP AND NSLP AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE,

2008–2012

NSLP ‐ School Year

SFSP ‐ July
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 19

Note: The total meal counts in Figure II.2 include both congregate and delivered breakfasts, lunches, suppers, and 

snacks. 

Supporting data for Figure II.2 can be found in Appendix A, Table 1.a. 

1. Delaware Implementation 

The demonstration was administered by the Delaware Department of Education, and was 

implemented through one sponsor, the Food Bank of Delaware. The department assumed full 

responsibility for all oversight and coordination of the demonstration. A brief description of the 

sponsor is provided below (based on information provided in the sponsor application). 

Food Bank of Delaware. The Food Bank of Delaware has been an SFSP sponsor since 

2001, implementing the program at nearly 50 sites throughout the State. Many of these 

congregate meal sites consist of low-income housing and apartment complexes that house many 

of the students that qualify for free and reduced-price meals. However, some of these sites had 

faced significant challenges in remaining operational. For example, the sites had to rely on 

volunteers to operate and oversee the congregate meal sites, and it was difficult to ensure 

consistent and adequate staffing during the fixed meal times. The requirement for fixed mealdistribution times was also a barrier to participation, as children were often not available to 

attend meals at the same designated time every day. As a result, many of the complexes were 

unable to continue to operate as SFSP sites, making it difficult for resident and neighborhood 

children to access meals during the summer. By allowing children to pick up the meals at central 

delivery locations, the demonstration provided an opportunity for meals to be provided without 

the same requirements that had previously been barriers to operation and participation. 

In order to encourage participation, the Food Bank of Delaware developed and sent a 

letter to each of the rural school districts to inform the schools about the demonstration. After 

identifying eligible children, the sponsor then reached out to parents, obtained parental consent, 

and enrolled children. 

674,685

833,833

938,801

791,873

868,435

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Meals Served

Year

FIGURE II.2

DELAWARE: TOTAL SFSP MEALS SERVED,

2008–2012
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 20

The Food Bank of Delaware implemented the demonstration by delivering meals to 21 

low-income apartment and housing complexes and other locations that served as mealdistribution sites in rural parts of all three of the State’s counties (New Castle, Kent, and Sussex). 

Each location served multiple children who picked up their meals at that central point, an 

approach the sponsor found to be more cost effective than door-to-door meal delivery. The 

program delivered one breakfast and one lunch per participating child every day. Sites 

participated between 4 and 11 weeks during 2012, with most operating for at least 9 weeks 

during the summer. The average number of operating days per demonstration site was 72.1. 

2. Change in Total Number of SFSP Meals Served 

Across the 2 years, Delaware provided a total of 121,962 meals via the demonstration. 

The number of meals delivered through the demonstration in Delaware increased from 32,418 in 

2011 to 89,544 in 2012. In 2011, delivery meals accounted for 4.1 percent of all SFSP meals in 

Delaware; in 2012, this figure increased to 10.3 percent. The increase in delivered meals was 

spread across the summer months of June, July, and August, but unlike in 2011, a substantial 

portion of delivery meals was distributed during the month of June (Figure II.3). 

Note: The delivered meal counts in Figure II.3 include breakfasts and lunches. No other meal types were included in 

the deliveries. 

Supporting data for Figure II.3 can be found in Appendix A, Table 1.a. 

In both 2011 and 2012, delivered meals were evenly divided between breakfasts and 

lunches; no snacks or suppers were delivered. This is in contrast to overall SFSP meals, where 

most meals were lunches. In 2012, 49.6 percent of all SFSP meals were lunches, 31.4 percent 

were breakfasts, 17.4 percent were snacks, and just 1.5 percent were suppers. 

416

17,164

14,838

17,994

39,958

31,592

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

June July August

Number of Meals Delivered

Month

FIGURE II.3

DELAWARE: NUMBER OF MEALS DELIVERED BY MONTH,

2011–2012

Meals

delivered

2011

Meals

delivered

2012
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 21

3. Number of Children Served 

Meals were delivered to at least 620 unique children in 2012, as calculated by summing 

the highest daily attendance at each of the 21 delivery sites (Table II.2). On average, 29.5 

children picked up meals at each delivery site. Approximately 3.1 children, on average, were 

absent per distribution, leaving little leftover food. 

Table II.2

Delaware: Number of Children Served Through the Demonstration

2012

Total Number of Unique Children Given Meals* 620

Average Number of Children Served per Site 29.5

Average Number of Children Absent for Pickup per Delivery 3.1

*Definition provided on page 13. 

4. Changes in Comparison Sites: 2008 to 2012 

 A total of 6 comparison sites were examined; these sites were closest to the 21 delivery 

sites. Only 2 of these 6 sites showed any decline in average daily attendance, and only one of 

these showed a decline each year of the demonstration (Table II.3). Distance from the 

comparison sites to the nearest meal delivery site varied, with four of the comparison sites within 

3 miles of the nearest delivery site, one site within 5 miles, and one site within 15 miles. Over 

the 2-year period, the percent change (not shown in the table) ranged from a 44.2-percent 

decrease at Greater Newark Boys and Girls Club to a 66.5-percent increase at Claymont Boys 

and Girls Club. 

 As such, there is no evidence of any consistent impact of the meal deliveries on ADA at 

nearby congregate sites, even when distance is considered. 

Table II.3

Delaware: Percent Change in Average Daily Attendance for Existing Comparison Sites

Distance

From  

Nearest Meal

Delivery Site  

(miles)

Existing Comparison Sites

Operating Days ADA Percent Change

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2008–

2009

2009–

2010

2010–

2011

2011–

2012

Claymont B&G Club 2.0 37.3 40.9 38.5 53.9 64.1 9.7% ‐5.9% 40.0% 18.9%

Greater Newark B&G

Club

1.1 96.0 98.7 144.9 104.6 80.9 2.8% 46.8%  ‐27.8%  ‐22.7%

Laurel B&G Club 0.9 45.2 71.6 51.4 59.6 66.4 58.4%  ‐28.2% 16.0% 11.4%

Smith Elementary 4.7 127.0 68.5 182.5 198.5 198.8  ‐46.1% 166.4% 8.8% 0.2%

Smyrna Clayton B&G

Club

14.6 75.9 57.3 58.5 65.0 70.7  ‐24.5% 2.1% 11.1% 8.8%

Wagstaff Daycare 2.7 38.3 22.5 25.7 21.3 23.9  ‐41.3% 14.2%  ‐17.1% 12.2%

Total ADA –  

Comparison Sites

419.7 359.5 501.5 502.9 504.8  ‐14.3% 39.5% 0.3% 0.4%
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 22

 C. MASSACHUSETTS IMPLEMENTATION AND RESULTS 

This section describes the findings of the evaluation of the Meal Delivery demonstration 

in Massachusetts. Section 1 provides an overview of the implementation of the demonstration in 

Massachusetts. Section 2 presents data on meals delivered. Section 3 examines the number of 

children served by the demonstration. Section 4 examines ADA at sites located near the delivery 

locations to assess any changes in SFSP outcomes that might be due to the demonstration. 

Several rural areas in Massachusetts tend to experience higher levels of poverty and food 

insecurity than the State as a whole.24 The demonstration was implemented in Barnstable 

County, a rural county on Cape Cod with a limited number of existing SFSP sites and a low 

SFSP participation rate despite a large number of eligible children. According to Massachusetts’ 

application to participate in the demonstration, while the statewide SFSP participation rate was 

18.5 percent in July 2009, the participation rate for Barnstable County was only 3.8 percent. The 

State attributed this difference in participation rate to the challenges associated with providing 

SFSP meals in rural areas. Statewide, between 2008 and 2012, ADA for the NSLP during the 

school year increased by 17.5 percent, while July ADA for the SFSP increased by 13.8 percent. 

This indicates that the percent of eligible children who actually participate in SFSP has 

decreased, despite increases in participation (Figure II.4). 

Source: SFSP data from the Massachusetts State Database, NSLP data from the NDB. 

Note: NSLP figures represent free and reduced-price NSLP participation over the school year. SFSP figures reflect the 

SFSP only, and do not include figures from other USDA summer nutrition programs. The NSLP July ADA for the years 

shown in Figure II.4 was 6,478 in 2008; 4,912 in 2009; 6,365 in 2010; 6,632 in 2011, and 5,791 in 2012. 

Supporting data for Figure II.4 can be found in Appendix A, Table 1.b. 

 

24 According to FRAC, Massachusetts also ranks in the top 10 States for the highest NSLP-to-SFSP participation rates: 17.3 percent of children in 

the 2011–2012 school-year NSLP also participated in the summer 2012 SFSP (FRAC, 2013). The rate is slightly higher (19.4 percent) for the 

number of children who participated in NSLP during the school year and who also participated in the SFSP, NSLP, and SSO combined during the 

summer (FRAC, 2013). 

249,036 259,147

275,911 282,495 292,620

40,917 42,488 43,009 44,650 46,583

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Average Daily Attendance

Year

FIGURE II.4

MASSACHUSETTS: SFSP AND NSLP AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE,

2008–2012

NSLP ‐ School Year

SFSP ‐ July
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 23

Across the State, the total number of SFSP meals served (including both congregate and 

delivered meals) in Massachusetts increased by 4.2 percent in 2012, continuing a steady increase 

in meals served since 2008 (Figure II.5). 

Note: The total meal counts in Figure II.5 include breakfasts, lunches, suppers, and snacks. 

Supporting data for Figure II.5 can be found in Appendix A, Table 1.b. 

1. Massachusetts Implementation 

The demonstration was administered by the State’s Department of Elementary and 

Secondary Education and was implemented through one sponsor, the Cape Cod YMCA. The 

department assumed all responsibility for the demonstration, and worked with the Cape Cod 

YMCA to coordinate activities and ensure the program was operating in a manner consistent 

with the project goals and objectives. 

In previous years, SFSP sites in rural Cape Cod areas have been unable to serve more 

than one meal per weekday due to barriers such as high operating costs, long travel distances for 

children, and low population density yielding low participation. Children enrolled in the 

demonstration were provided with two meals (breakfast and lunch) for all 7 days of the week for 

the entire summer. A brief description of the sponsor is provided below (based on information 

provided in the sponsor application). 

Cape Cod YMCA. The Cape Cod YMCA delivered meals along two routes. One of 

these routes operated on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, while the second operated on 

Tuesday and Thursdays. Both routes delivered meals to apartment complexes and individual 

homes, and both breakfasts and lunches were included in the deliveries. Monday, Tuesday, and 

Wednesday deliveries included 2 days’ worth of meals, Thursday deliveries included 5 days’ 

worth of meals, and Friday deliveries included 3 days’ worth of meals. These deliveries 

occurred, on average, 24.5 days per route in 2012. 

2,335,624 2,413,123 2,464,993 2,511,194 2,616,422

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Meals Served

Year

FIGURE II.5

MASSACHUSETTS: TOTAL SFSP MEALS SERVED,

2008–2012
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 24

2. Change in Total Number of SFSP Meals Served 

The number of delivered meals increased from 16,402 in 2011 to 23,966 in 2012. Across 

the 2 years, Massachusetts provided 40,368 meals via the demonstration. However, these 

delivered meals made up less than 1 percent of all SFSP meals served in Massachusetts. Both 

delivered meals and congregate meals were served in June, July, and August. However, in 2012, 

August was the month with the highest number of delivered meals (Figure II.6), while July was 

the month with the highest number of SFSP meals served overall. 

 Note: The delivered meal counts in Figure II.6 include breakfasts and lunches. No other meal types were included in 

the deliveries. 

Supporting data for Figure II.6 can be found in Appendix A, Table 1.b. 

In both 2011 and 2012, delivered meals were evenly divided between breakfasts and 

lunches. Statewide, SFSP meals were mostly lunch; 60.2 percent lunches, 30.3 percent 

breakfasts, 7.5 percent snacks, and 2.1 percent suppers. 

3. Number of Children Served 

Meals were delivered to at least 186 unique children, which is the total of the maximum 

participation summed across the two routes (Table II.4). On average, 93.0 children were served 

per route, and 4.0 children were absent from each delivery distribution. 

2,724

7,428

6,250

2,222

9,468

12,276

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

June July August

Number of Meals Delivered

Month

FIGURE II.6

MASSACHUSETTS: NUMBER OF MEALS DELIVERED BY MONTH,

2011–2012

Meals

delivered

2011

Meals

delivered

2012
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 25

Table II.4

Massachusetts: Number of Children Served Through the Demonstration

2012

Total Number of Unique Children Given Meals* 186

Average Number of Children Served per Route 93.0

Average Number of Children Absent for Pickup per Delivery 4.0

*Definition provided on page 13. 

4. Changes in Comparison Sites: 2008 to 2012 

We examined the change in operating days ADA at one relatively nearby comparison 

site, but at a distance of 11 miles from the delivery location, it is likely too far away to be 

considered a feasible site for attendance by demonstration participants. Operating days ADA at 

this comparison site increased by 15.1 percent from 2010 to 2012 (Table II.5), a higher rate of 

increase than the 9.5-percent statewide increase during the same timeframe. This comparison 

site provides no evidence that the delivery demonstration in Massachusetts reduced attendance at 

congregate meal sites. 

Table II.5

Massachusetts: Percent Change in Average Daily Attendance for Existing Comparison Sites

Distance From  

Nearest Meal

Delivery Site  

(miles)

Existing Comparison Sites

Operating Days ADA Percent Change

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2008–

2009

2009–

2010

2010–

2011

2011–

2012

Camp Mitton 11.2 65.5 68.2 63.7 67.5 73.3 4.1% ‐6.6% 6.0% 8.6%

D. NEW YORK IMPLEMENTATION AND RESULTS 

Results from the evaluation of the New York demonstration are presented in this section. 

The demonstration in New York was relatively small; it represents a very small fraction of the 

number of meals served in the State as a whole. Section 1 provides an overview of the 

implementation of the delivery demonstration in New York. Section 2 presents data on SFSP 

meals delivered, and Section 3 examines the number of children served by the demonstration. 

Section 4 provides data on ADA at sites located near delivery locations in order to assess any 

changes in SFSP outcomes that might be linked to the implementation of the demonstration. 

In its application to participate in the demonstration, New York cited the need for 

assistance in several rural areas in upstate New York that experience much higher levels of 

poverty and food insecurity compared to other areas in the State.25 Although New York has a 

relatively high participation rate in the SFSP program, July ADA for the SFSP steadily decreased 

between 2008 and 2012 (from 264,945 to 246,055), while NSLP school-year ADA increased 

(from 1,144,225 to 1,221,267; Figure II.7). 

 

25 According to FRAC, New York also ranks in the top five States for the highest NSLP-to-SFSP participation rates: 21.8 percent of children in 

the 2011–2012 school-year NSLP also participated in the summer 2012 SFSP (FRAC, 2013). The rate is even higher (27.6 percent) for the 

number of children who participated in NSLP during the school year and who also participated in the SFSP, NSLP, and SSO combined during the 

summer (FRAC, 2013). 
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 26

Source: SFSP data from the New York State Database, NSLP data from the NDB. 

Note: NSLP figures represent free and reduced-price NSLP participation over the school year. SFSP figures reflect the 

SFSP only, and do not include figures from other USDA summer nutrition programs. The NSLP July ADA for the years 

shown in Figure II.7 was 55,791 in 2008; 57,990 in 2009; 59,625 in 2010; 60,688 in 2011; and 66,112 in 2012. 

Supporting data for Figure II.7 can be found in Appendix A, Table 1.c. 

The total number of SFSP meals served (including both congregate and delivered meals) 

in New York increased between 2011 and 2012 after declining for each of the previous 3 years 

(Figure II.8). The total number of meals served in 2012—16,760,762—represents a 0.9-percent 

increase from 2011; however, it is still 3.3 percent lower than the number of meals served in 

2008.26

 

 

26 Total meals served include breakfasts, lunches, snacks, suppers, and, for the demonstration site, home delivery meals. Multiple meals delivered 

(to either homes or pickup sites) at the same time are counted separately. 

1,144,225 1,148,836 1,189,678 1,213,911 1,221,237

264,945 260,094 255,564 258,181 246,055

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Average Daily Attendance

Year

FIGURE II.7

NEW YORK: SFSP AND NSLP AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE,

2008–2012

NSLP ‐ School Year

SFSP ‐ July
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 27

Note: The total meal counts in Figure II.8 include congregate and delivered breakfasts, lunches, suppers, and snacks. 

Supporting data for Figure II.8 can be found in Appendix A, Table 1.c. 

1. New York Implementation 

The demonstration was administered by the New York State Education Department 

(NYSED) and implemented through two sponsors in rural areas in upstate New York. The 

NYSED assumed responsibility for overseeing the demonstration. 

Altogether, the two demonstration sponsors delivered meals at eight delivery sites. A 

brief description of the sponsors is provided below (based on information provided in the 

sponsor applications). 

Catholic Charities Food Bank of the Southern Tier. The Catholic Charities Food 

Bank of the Southern Tier (the Food Bank) worked with the three rural school districts to 

identify eligible children and well-situated delivery locations in two counties, Schuyler and 

Steuben, where NSLP-eligible children previously did not have access to SFSP sites. In its 

application, the Food Bank detailed the high percentages of children who qualify for NSLP 

meals (which range from 43.0 percent to 54.0 percent by district) and the high levels of 

economic instability of households in the districts. This sponsor delivered meals via six dropoff 

locations. Meals were delivered once a week, and each delivery included four breakfasts and 

four lunches per child. 

North Rose-Wolcott Central School District. The second sponsor, North Rose-Wolcott 

Central School District, is located in Wayne County. Historically, while 56.0 percent of children 

in the county qualify for free and reduced-price meals, only 25.0 percent of these children have 

participated in the SFSP. The sponsor sent letters directly to the families of children who were 

eligible for free and reduced-price meals to notify them of the program and recruit the children 

for participation. School district vans were used to deliver food to five distribution locations 

17,333,163 17,150,100 16,855,375 16,615,898 16,760,762

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

16,000,000

18,000,000

20,000,000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Meals Served

Year

FIGURE II.8

NEW YORK: TOTAL SFSP MEALS SERVED,

2008–2012
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 28

around the county. These locations consisted of four churches and one housing authority office. 

There was one delivery on Monday at three of these locations and Friday at the other two. For 

analytic purposes, the Monday locations are considered one site and the Friday locations are 

considered a second site. Deliveries took place once a week, and each delivery consisted of four 

breakfasts and four lunches per child. 

The two sponsors are summarized in Table II.6 below. 

Table II.6

New York: Demonstration Sponsors

Sponsor Name Demonstration Description

# of

Demonstration Sites

#  of Weeks in

Demonstration Period

Catholic

Charities Food

Bank of the

Southern Tier

Once‐weekly deliveries included

4 breakfasts and 4 lunches.

6 sites 10 weeks

North Rose‐

Wolcott Central

School District

Once‐weekly deliveries included

4 breakfasts and 4 lunches.

2 sites (1 with 3 delivery

locations, 1 with 2

delivery locations)

8 weeks

 

2. Change in Total Number of SFSP Meals Served 

During 2012, 17,896 meals were delivered, an increase of 40.5 percent over the 12,734 

meals that were delivered during 2011. In 2012, delivered meals represented 0.1 percent of the 

total number of meals served through the SFSP program. Across the 2 years, New York 

provided 30,630 meals via the demonstration. 

In New York, statewide SFSP programs operated June through September, but deliveries 

were restricted to June, July, and August. Between 2011 and 2012, the number of meals 

delivered increased in each month, but most meals were distributed in July and August (Figure 

II.9). 
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 29

Note: The delivered meal counts in Figure II.9 include breakfasts and lunches. No other meal types were included in 

the deliveries. 

Supporting data for Figure II.9 can be found in Appendix A, Table 1.c. 

In both 2011 and 2012, delivered meals were evenly divided between breakfasts and 

lunches. Statewide, SFSP meals were 53.4 percent lunches, 33.9 percent breakfasts, 2.8 percent 

snacks, and 11.1 percent suppers. 

3. Number of Children Served 

Meals were delivered to at least 249 unique children, which is the total of the maximum 

participation level summed across the 8 sites (Table II.7). On average, 31.1 children were served 

per route, and 7.2 children were absent from each delivery. 

Table II.7

New York: Number of Children Served Through the Demonstration

2012

Total Number of Unique Children Given Meals* 249

Average Number of Children Served per Site 31.1

Average Number of Children Absent for Pickup per Delivery 7.2

*Definition provided on page 13. 

4. Changes in Comparison Sites: 2010 to 2012 

The demonstration took place in two separate rural areas, and comparison groups for the 

two sponsors were developed separately. For one of these sponsors, the Food Bank, we 

examined changes at three comparison sites, each moderately distant from the delivery area (10–

14 miles) and unlikely to be a reasonable alternative for children in delivery areas to participate 

on site. Each of these had varying changes in operating days ADA from 2010 to 2012, with a 

852

5,764 6,118

1,880

8,280 7,736

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

June July August

Number of Meals Delivered

Month

FIGURE II.9

NEW YORK: NUMBER OF MEALS DELIVERED BY MONTH,

2011–2012

Meals

delivered

2011

Meals

delivered

2012
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 30

decrease one year and an increase the other (Table II.8). It seems likely that none of these 

changes in ADA were related to the demonstration. 

For the other sponsor, North Rose-Wolcott, we examined two non-demonstration sites. 

Both are probably too far from the delivery area (18 and 31 miles) to be feasible for onsite 

attendance for demonstration participants. The closer site had a decrease of 11.5 percent over 

the 2 demonstration years, but this is a decrease in ADA of less than three children since 2008. 

As with the Food Bank, it appears none of these changes were large enough to be related to the 

demonstration, and that the meal deliveries are reaching children not already served by the SFSP. 

Table II.8

New York: Percent Change in Average Daily Attendance for Existing Comparison Sites:  

Meal Delivery Demonstration

Distance

From  

Nearest

Meal

Delivery Site  

(miles)

Existing Comparison Sites

Operating Days ADA Percent Change

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2008–

2009

2009–

2010

2010–

2011

2011–

2012

Catholic Charities Food Bank of the Southern Tier

Coopers Education Center 9.7 44.3 54.5 54.4 44.5 47.0 23.0% ‐0.2% ‐18.2% 5.6%

Corning Area Youth Center 12.3 19.6 21.7 18.4 21.1 17.1 10.7%  ‐15.2% 14.7% ‐19.0%

Dundee Area Youth Center 13.4 56.1 62.3 47.8 43.5 52.9 11.1%  ‐23.3%  ‐9.0% 21.6%

Total ADA –

Comparison Sites

120.0 138.5 120.6 109.1 117.0 15.4%  ‐12.9%  ‐9.5% 7.2%

North Rose‐Wolcott Central School District

Michael A. Maroun

Elementary School

30.9 195.4 202.2 149.3 123.0 149.5 3.5%  ‐26.2%  ‐17.6% 21.5%

Camp Hollis   18.4 59.8 61.1 64.5 60.5 57.1 2.2% 5.6%  ‐6.2% ‐5.6%

Total ADA –  

Comparison Sites

255.2 263.3 213.8 183.5 206.6 3.2%  ‐18.8%  ‐14.2% 12.6%

E. CONCLUSIONS 

The Meal Delivery demonstration was designed to reach children who lived far enough 

away from traditional SFSP congregate meal sites to make attendance at those sites challenging, 

expanding the reach of the SFSP in rural areas where programs did not operate or where 

congregate sites were difficult for children to access. The three States in which the 

demonstration was implemented are all in the Northeast. In their applications, each of the States, 

though more urban than most, cited difficulties in reaching children in rural areas. 

Four sponsors, two in New York and one each in Delaware and Massachusetts, 

implemented the demonstration. Table II.9 below illustrates the number of meals delivered 

through the demonstration by State for each year and over the 2-year period. 
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 31

Table II.9

Total Meals Delivered

2011 2012 Total

Delaware 32,418 89,544 121,962

Massachusetts 16,402 23,966 40,368

New York 12,734 17,896 30,630

Total 61,554 131,406 192,960

Comparison Site Results 

To assess whether the demonstration was successful in reaching new children, or if 

children who previously participated in congregate meal service switched to receiving delivered 

meals, we examined trends in ADA at the traditional SFSP sites located nearest the 

demonstration areas. There did not seem to be any discernable effects of the demonstration on 

SFSP participation in these comparison sites across the three States. 

 We examined six congregate comparison sites in Delaware. Of these, two of the six had 

lower ADA in 2012 than they did in 2010 (before the demonstration was implemented), 

but the other four all experienced increases in ADA across the same period. There was 

no apparent relationship between distance of the comparison sites to the delivery area and 

change in ADA. 

 Only one comparison site was selected in Massachusetts. ADA at this site increased by 

15.1 percent between 2010 and 2012. 

 Two sponsors operated the delivery demonstration in New York, so separate comparison 

sites were selected for each sponsor. The three comparison sites for the Food Bank 

demonstration did not display consistent trends in ADA. Two saw decreases in ADA 

between 2010 and 2011, followed by increases between 2011 and 2012, while the third 

experienced the opposite pattern. There were two comparison sites for North RoseWolcott. One of these saw little or no changes in ADA, while the other saw a decrease in 

ADA of 11.5 percent. Because these five sites were located 10 or more miles from the 

delivery locations, it is unlikely that any of the changes in ADA are associated by the 

implementation of the delivery programs. 

Summary Conclusion 

Across the three States, 61,554 meals in 2011 and 131,406 meals in 2012 were delivered 

to locations at or near the homes of children participating in the demonstration who would 

probably not have otherwise been served by the SFSP. A total of 1,055 children were served 

through the delivery program in 2012. The demonstration was localized, operating in a small 

number of areas in each State, and was not expected to have statewide effects. There was no 

evidence that participation at rural congregate sites (as measured by ADA) was affected by meal 

deliveries in these rural areas, suggesting that the demonstration was able to reach new children 

that were not otherwise reached through the SFSP. 
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 32

 
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 33

CHAPTER III: FINDINGS FROM THE 

2012 FOOD BACKPACK DEMONSTRATION 

 The goal of the Food Backpack demonstration was to provide backpacks containing food 

already packaged or divided into meals (e.g., food that can be easily prepared as meals) for 

children to consume at home. The backpacks were meant to provide meals on days when the 

SFSP sites were not open, primarily weekends and holidays. Approved sponsors were required 

to provide congregate meals (meals to be consumed in one place by multiple children at a 

particular time) at SFSP sites during the majority of the week and provide the backpacks for 

meals on non-operating days. The backpacks were used to supplement meal service and ensure 

children were getting their necessary nutrition even if the SFSP sites were closed. 

This chapter provides information on both the 

activities and outcomes of the 2012 Food Backpack 

demonstration conducted in three States. Section A 

provides an overview of the demonstration across the 

three States. Section B provides results for Arizona. 

Sections C and D provide results for Kansas and Ohio, 

respectively. Section E provides results from the three 

States’ participation in the SSO to assess whether there 

was any evidence of SFAs shifting from the SFSP to 

the SSO or vice versa. Supporting tables for this section are included in Appendix B. Additional 

information about the methodology for comparison group selection is provided in Appendix C. 

Since the backpack demonstration was relatively small, discerning its effect at the State 

level was difficult. To address this, we compared demonstration sites to a selected group of 

comparison sites that were similar to the demonstration sites for the 2-year demonstration 

period.27 

A. DEMONSTRATION DESCRIPTION 

The backpack demonstration was implemented in three States: Arizona, Kansas, and 

Ohio. In 2012, the demonstration was implemented by 16 sponsors at 97 sites: 3 sponsors in 

Arizona, 7 sponsors in Kansas, and 6 sponsors in Ohio (Table III.1). In each State, the number 

of sites was higher in 2012 than in 2011, when there was a total of 82 sites. Only existing 

sponsors were eligible to apply for this demonstration. 

 

27 Note that these comparison groups were different from those reported in the interim findings report by Peterson, et. al. (2013). In 2012, it was 

found that many of the comparison sites used in the 2011 comparison were no longer in operation during 2012, therefore requiring a new group 

of comparison sites to be selected. 

The Food Backpack demonstration

delivered backpacks containing SFSP

meals for consumption on days

during which the meal sites were

not open.  
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 34

Table III.1

Food Backpack Demonstration Sponsors

State Sponsor

Number of Sites

2011 2012

Arizona Chandler Unified School District

Litchfield Elementary School District

Mesa Public Schools

18 26

Kansas Arkansas City Public School District

Central Unified School District (Burden)  

Gardner Edgerton School District

Lawrence Public Schools

Topeka Public Schools

United Methodist Church (at Wilson Elementary)

East Central Kansas Cooperative in Education

14 16

Ohio Andrew’s House

Ashtabula County Children Services

Community Action Organization of Scioto County

Hamilton Living Water Ministry

Hocking Athens Perry Community Action Agency

Whole Again International

50 55

Each of the States worked with the selected sponsors to identify ways to conduct outreach 

to parents in the targeted areas to recruit children for participation. The sponsors were 

responsible for identifying and recruiting children, distributing backpacks, and collecting all 

program and participant data. In total, the three States spent $533,152 for the demonstration in 

2012: Arizona spent $220,730, Kansas spent $93,571, and Ohio spent $218,851. Throughout 

this chapter, sites offering backpack meals to their participants are referred to as demonstration 

sites, while all sites that were not part of the backpack demonstration are referred to as traditional 

sites. 

B. ARIZONA IMPLEMENTATION AND RESULTS 

This section illustrates the findings of the 2012 demonstration in Arizona. Section 1 

provides an overview of the implementation of the demonstration in Arizona. Section 2 presents 

changes in SFSP backpack meals distributed. Section 3 presents the number of children served 

through the backpack demonstration. With only 26 sites participating in the demonstration, any 

immediate impact is likely to be obscured in statewide figures. In order to assess the effect of 

the demonstration upon participating sites compared to sites that did not participate in the 

demonstration, Section 4 compares results from demonstration sites to a group of similar sites. 

According to FRAC, Arizona had one of the lowest participation rates of children in the 

NSLP also participating in the SFSP—just 5.7 percent in 2012—ranking the State 44th in the 

Nation. (FRAC, 2013)28 This participation rate increases to 13.0 percent when children who 

participate in multiple FNS summer food programs are included (FRAC, 2013). NSLP schoolyear ADA and SFSP July ADA have both increased between 2008 and 2012. Between 2008 and 

 

28 One factor contributing to the number of SFSP meals served is the school calendar. Most of the school districts in Arizona follow a full 10-

month calendar, operating from early August through late May, with weeklong breaks between each quarter plus holidays. Thus, the SFSP 

operates almost exclusively in June and July. 
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 35

2012, SFSP July ADA has increased by 286.2 percent, a much larger change than the 16.8-

percent increase in NSLP ADA (Figure III.1). 

Source: SFSP data from the Arizona State Database, NSLP data from the NDB. 

Note: NSLP figures represent free and reduced-price NSLP participation over the school year. SFSP figures reflect the 

SFSP only, and do not include figures from other USDA summer nutrition programs. The NSLP July ADA for the years 

shown in Figure III.1 was 34,621 in 2008; 28,419 in 2009; 39,875 in 2010; 30,073 in 2011; and 34,111in 2012. 

Supporting data for Figure III.1 can be found in Appendix B, Table 1.a. July ADA does not include backpack meals. 

Statewide, the total number of SFSP meals served (including both congregate and 

backpack meals) in Arizona increased from nearly 2.1 million in 2011 to 2.6 million in 2012 

(Figure III.2). However, there was also a substantial increase in meals served from 2009 through 

2010, which was prior to the implementation of the demonstration. Meals served increased by 

25.8 percent from 2011 to 2012, by 29.5 percent from 2010 to 2011, and by 25.8 percent from 

2009 to 2010. In 2012, 536,336 more meals were served than in 2011.29

 

29 Total meals served include breakfasts, lunches, snacks, suppers, and, for the demonstration site, backpack meals. If multiple meals were 

included in the same backpack, each one was counted separately. 

427,654 454,237

485,780 485,138 499,633

6,965 8,712 13,917 18,988 26,901

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Average Daily Attendance

Year

FIGURE III.1

ARIZONA: SFSP AND NSLP AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE,

2008–2012

NSLP ‐ School Year

SFSP ‐ July
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 36

Note: The total meal counts in Figure III.2 include congregate and backpack breakfasts, lunches, suppers, and snacks. 

Supporting data for Figure III.2 can be found in Appendix B, Table 1.a. 

1. Arizona Implementation 

The demonstration was administered by the Arizona Department of Education–Health 

and Nutrition Services Unit, which conducted all oversight, data collection, training and 

technical assistance to sponsors. In 2009, the department conducted an analysis of why SFSP 

program participation was so low in the State, and hired a market research consultant to try to 

understand and address some of the obstacles to SFSP participation. The department viewed the 

SFSP demonstration as one way to address some of the barriers to SFSP participation in Arizona. 

Three sponsors were selected by FNS to implement the demonstration, all in Maricopa 

County. On average, traditional sites were open for operation 33.2 days during the summer. 

Demonstration sites were open and operational for an average of 29.7 days during the summer, 

with 6.3 of those days utilized for backpack distribution. 

Each demonstration sponsor chose to implement the demonstration at sites that serve a 

large percentage of children who are eligible to receive free or reduced-price school meals. 

Altogether, the sponsors operated a total of 26 congregate meal sites (17 of which were operated 

by one sponsor). All sites used the backpacks to deliver breakfasts and lunches for both days of 

the weekend. A brief description of each sponsor is provided below, based on the information 

provided in the sponsor applications. 

Chandler Unified School District (CUSD). This sponsor operated the demonstration at 

seven congregate meal sites during 2012 that serve a population in which an average of 77 

percent of children receive NSLP meals. The sites served two congregate meals per day from 

Monday through Friday. On Fridays, the sites provided participating children with separate 

backpacks containing 2 days’ worth of meals to ensure food for both weekend days. One of the 

1,135,755 1,274,884

1,603,582

2,076,375

2,612,711

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Meals Served

Year

FIGURE III.2

ARIZONA: TOTAL SFSP MEALS SERVED,

2008–2012
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 37

sites provided only lunches while all six other sites provided both breakfasts and lunches. Meals 

were provided for 6 weeks during the summer. 

Litchfield Elementary School District (LESD). This sponsor operated the 

demonstration at 17 SFSP congregate meal sites with the highest percentages of children eligible 

for free or reduced-price meals. Two sites provided backpacks on Saturdays for one day’s worth 

of meals (two meals). All of the remaining 15 sites provided participating children with separate 

backpacks containing 2 days’ worth of breakfasts and 2 days’ worth of lunches on Fridays to 

ensure food for both weekend days. Meals were provided for 3–10 weeks during the summer, 

depending on the site. 

Mesa Public Schools (MPS). This sponsor selected two SFSP congregate meal sites to 

operate the demonstration. At the school site, plastic bags containing take-home meals were 

provided to children attending the site on the last operating day of the week (Thursdays) for 4 

weeks of the summer. Three breakfasts and three lunches were provided in two bags. At the 

activity center site, meals were provided in separate packs for breakfasts and lunches on Fridays; 

these contained 2 days’ worth of breakfasts and lunches to ensure food for both weekend days. 

These meals were provided for 5 weeks during the summer. 

Table III.2 provides a summary of each of the sponsors. 

Table III.2

Arizona: Demonstration Sponsors

Sponsor Name Demonstration Description

# of

Demonstration Sites

#  of Weeks in

Demonstration Period

Chandler Unified

School District

Backpacks contained 2 days’ worth

of both breakfasts and lunches to

take home on Fridays (one site had

only lunches).

7 sites 6 weeks

Litchfield

Elementary

School District

Backpacks contained 1 or 2 days’

worth of both breakfasts and

lunches to take home on Fridays or

Saturdays, depending on the site.

17 sites 3–10 weeks

Mesa Public

Schools

For school site, 3 breakfasts and 3

lunches were provided in each

take‐home bag on Thursday.  For

community site, 2 breakfasts and 2

lunches were provided in each

take‐home bag on Friday.

2 sites 4–5 weeks

2. Change in Total Number of SFSP Meals Served 

During the summer of 2012, a total of 42,619 meals were provided in take-home 

backpacks and bags. This total is less than the 79,795 backpack meals that were provided in the 

summer of 2011, despite the fact that more demonstration sites were in operation during 2012. 

Comparisons between site-level meal totals during 2011 and 2012 show that the sites that 

stopped offering backpack meals were large sites, while the new sites in 2012 were relatively 

small (data not shown). The 2012 demonstration meals represent 1.6 percent of total 2012 

summer meals. Figure III.3 depicts the number of meals provided in backpacks by month. In 
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 38

the peak month of June, nearly 31,000 meals were provided in backpacks, dropping to slightly 

more than 12,000 in July. No meals were provided in May, August, or September, which 

reflects the 2-month summer calendar typical in Arizona. Across the 2 years, Arizona provided 

122,414 meals via the demonstration. 

Note: The total meal counts in Figure III.3 include breakfasts and lunches. 

Supporting data for Figure III.3 can be found in Appendix B, Table 1.a. 

All three Arizona demonstration sponsors provided children with separate backpacks, 

each containing meals for either breakfast or lunch. Of the 26 demonstration sites, 8 served one 

type of meal—either breakfast or lunch— while 18 served both breakfast and lunch meals. Each 

backpack contained an average of 1.2 breakfast meals and 1.9 lunch meals. Children were 

provided with 3.1 meals per distribution on average. Due to preparations of backpacks prior to 

distribution, some meals were prepared but never distributed. In 2012, 3,289 meals were 

prepared but never distributed. Of these meals, 1,496 were breakfasts while 1,793 were lunches. 

3. Total Number of Children Served at Demonstration Sites 

The total number of unique children30 given backpack meals through the summer 

demonstration dropped from 2,556 children in 2011 to 1,774 children in 2012. An average of 

88.1 children were given meals during each backpack distribution in 2012. 

4. Changes in Demonstration Sites vs. Comparison Sites: 2010 to 2012 

In this section, we compare the number of meals served and ADA between preexisting 

demonstration sites and a special group of comparison sites that are similar to the demonstration 

sites. In Arizona, the 2012 comparison sites were all non-demonstration sites in the same county 

 

30 See the description of this measure on page 13. 

46,789

32,718

30,613

12,006

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

June July

Number of Meals Delivered

Month

FIGURE III.3

ARIZONA: NUMBER OF MEALS PROVIDED IN BACKPACKS BY MONTH,

2011–2012

Backpack

meals 2011

Backpack

meals 2012
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 39

as the demonstration sites (Maricopa County).31 All sites used in the comparison were open in 

both 2010 and 2012. 

For meals served and July ADA, the comparison sites showed remarkably higher 

increases from 2010 to 2012 than did demonstration sites. July ADA decreased 17.4 percent at 

demonstration sites compared to a slight increase of 2.4 percent at comparison sites. Total meals 

served decreased 4.9 percent (60,888 meals to 57,904 meals) from 2010 to 2012 at 

demonstration sites versus an increase of 7.9 percent (385,499 meals to 415,877 meals) at 

comparison sites. This occurred even though the median meals served per site increased at 

higher rate in the demonstration sites (Table III.3). 

Table III.3

Arizona: Backpack Demonstration Sites vs. Comparison Sites

Existing Demonstration Sites

(open 2010–2012)

Existing Comparison Sites

(open 2010–2012)

2010 2012

% Change

2010–

2012

2010 2012

% Change

2010–

2012

Total Meals 60,888 57,904 ‐4.9% 385,499 415,877 7.9%

Median Meals

per Site

3,469 4,095 18.0% 3,184 3,552 11.6%

July ADA 722.5 596.6 ‐17.4% 4,118 4,217 2.4%

Note: Total Meals and Median Meals per Site include backpack meals, but July ADA does not. 

C. KANSAS IMPLEMENTATION AND RESULTS 

This section illustrates the findings of the 2012 demonstration in Kansas. Section 1 

provides an overview of the implementation of the demonstration in Kansas. Section 2 presents 

changes in SFSP backpack meals distributed. Section 3 presents the number of children served 

through the backpack demonstration. In order to assess the effect of the demonstration upon 

participating sites compared to sites that did not participate in the demonstration, Section 4 

compares results from demonstration sites to a group of similar sites. 

According to FRAC, Kansas ranks 42nd in the Nation for its participation rate of children 

who participate in the NSLP and also participate in SFSP—just 5.8 percent (FRAC, 2013). This 

participation rate only increases to 6.3 percent when children who participate in all FNS summer 

food programs (SSO and NSLP summer school) are included, ranking Kansas 50th (FRAC, 

2013). Figure III.4 depicts the difference between the SFSP and the NSLP based on ADA from 

2008 through 2012. Both NSLP school-year ADA and SFSP July ADA showed increases in 

attendance from 2008 through 2012. However, NSLP ADA showed a slightly larger increase, 

21.8 percent, as compared to SFSP ADA, 17.4 percent. 

 

31 With more than 700,000 students in 58 school districts, Maricopa County enrolls 63 percent of all students in Arizona 

(http://www.maricopa.gov/Schools/about.aspx). 
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 40

Source: SFSP data from the Kansas State Database, NSLP data from the NDB. 

Note: NSLP figures represent free and reduced-price NSLP participation over the school year. SFSP figures reflect the 

SFSP only, and do not include figures from other USDA summer nutrition programs. The NSLP July ADA for the years 

shown in Figure III.4 was 1,831 in 2008; 1,525 in 2009; 1,994 in 2010; 1,073 in 2011; and 897 in 2012. 

Supporting data for Figure III.4 can be found in Appendix B, Table 1.b. July ADA does not include backpack meals. 

Statewide, the number of total meals served (including both congregate and backpack 

meals) in all of Kansas increased by 5.1 percent (43,773 meals) in the second year of the 

demonstration, from 861,102 in 2011 to 904,875 in 2012 (Figure III.5). This was a much smaller 

increase compared to the 18.9-percent increase (136,893 meals) between 2010 and 2011 when 

the demonstration began. Prior to the implementation of the demonstration, meals served 

declined by 3 percent between 2008 and 2009, and by another 5.6 percent between 2009 and 

2010.32

 

32 Total meals served include breakfasts, lunches, snacks, suppers, and, for the demonstration site, backpack meals. If multiple meals were 

included in the same backpack, each one was counted separately. 

166,121 176,197

189,756 196,429 202,380

8,533 8,650 8,415 10,615 10,016

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Average Daily Attendance

Year

FIGURE III.4

KANSAS: SFSP AND NSLP AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE,

2008–2012

NSLP ‐ School Year

SFSP ‐ July
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 41

Note: The total meal counts in Figure III.6 include congregate and backpack breakfasts, lunches, suppers, and snacks. 

Supporting data for Figure III.6 can be found in Appendix B, Table 1.b. 

1. Kansas Implementation 

The demonstration was administered by the Kansas State Department of Education, 

which conducted all oversight, data collection, training, and technical assistance to sponsors and 

sites. During the last several years, the State has been trying to address its high food-insecurity 

rates during the summer months. 

To deliver the backpacks, the State built on the existing infrastructure for a similar 

initiative it operates in certain school districts during the school year, called the “backsnacks” 

program. Through this program, children are provided food to take home on the weekends; 

usually, these packages are organized through local and regional food banks. Since many of the 

sponsors operated the school-year “backsnacks” program, the infrastructure, knowledge, and 

facilities for the SFSP demonstration were already partially in place to extend the program into 

the summer. 

Seven sponsors in Kansas were approved by FNS to participate in the demonstration. 

These sponsors include a mix of urban and rural locations, large and small organizations, and 

schools and private nonprofit entities. Each sponsor chose to implement the backpack 

demonstration in sites with the largest percentage of NSLP-eligible children. Together, these 

sponsors implemented the demonstration at 16 sites in 2012. Ten sites distributed backpacks 

with meals containing lunch only, while six sites distributed backpacks that contained both 

breakfast and lunch. Demonstration sites were open and operational for an average of 35.3 days 

during the summer with 8.0 of those days utilized for backpack distribution. On average, 

traditional sites were open for fewer days during the summer, with 29.4 operational days. 

790,530 766,969 724,209

861,102 904,875

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Meals Served

Year

FIGURE III.5

KANSAS: TOTAL SFSP MEALS SERVED,

2008–2012
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 42

A brief description of each sponsor is provided below (based on information provided in 

the sponsor applications), followed by a comparison table (Table III.4). 

Arkansas City Public School District. This sponsor operated the demonstration at one 

site that provided lunches to children Monday through Thursday during the summer months. For 

the demonstration, the site provided children with a backpack containing 3 days’ worth of 

lunches for the 3-day weekend (Friday–Sunday). The sponsor operated for 4 weeks during the 

month of June. 

Central Unified School District (Burden). This sponsor operated the demonstration at 

four sites that served four poor rural towns in which an average of 90 percent of the children 

receive free or reduced-price meals during the school year. The sites served lunches Monday 

through Thursday for 8 weeks during the summer. For the demonstration, the sites provided 

drawstring bags containing 3 days’ worth of lunches for the 3-day weekend (Friday–Sunday) to 

participating children on Thursdays. 

Gardner Edgerton School District. This sponsor served breakfast and lunch at one site 

for 8 weeks during the summer. Meals were served Monday through Friday, and children 

participating in the demonstration received a backpack each Friday containing two lunches. 

Lawrence Public Schools. This sponsor operated the demonstration at seven existing 

SFSP sites. Bags of take-home meals were provided during the lunch service on Fridays for 8 to 

10 weeks during the summer. Three sites provided bags containing only lunches for each 

weekend day, while four sites provided bags with two breakfasts and two lunches, one bag for 

each weekend day. 

Topeka Public Schools. This sponsor operated the demonstration at one site at which 

free and reduced-price school meal eligibility was more than 96 percent. This site has a history 

of high SFSP participation (including many walk-ins) during previous summers and high 

participation in the school-year “backsnacks” program. The site distributed backpacks that 

contained both breakfasts and lunches for each weekend day for a total of 8 weeks during the 

summer. 

The United Methodist Church. This sponsor operated the demonstration at one site that 

served SFSP lunches for 12 weeks during the summer. On Thursdays, the site provided bags 

with lunches for the 3-day weekend (Friday–Sunday) to each participating child. 

East Central Kansas Cooperative in Education. This sponsor operated the 

demonstration at one site. Bags of take-home meals were provided during lunch service on 

Thursdays for 10 weeks during the summer, with each bag containing two lunch meals for the 

weekend days. 

Table III.4 provides a description of each sponsor. 

   
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 43

Table III.4

Kansas: Demonstration Sponsors

Sponsor Name Demonstration Description

# of

Demonstration Sites

#  of Weeks in

Demonstration Period

Arkansas City

Public School

District

Backpack contained 3 days’ worth

of lunches for the weekend

(provided on Thursdays).

1 site 4 weeks

Central Unified

School District

(Burden)

Bags contained 3 days' worth of

lunches for the weekend (provided

on Thursdays).

4 sites 8 weeks

Gardner Edgerton

School District

Backpack or bag contained 2

lunches (provided on Fridays).

1 site 8 weeks

Lawrence Public

Schools

Backpack or bag contained 2

lunches, or 2 lunches and 2

breakfasts (provided on Fridays).

7 sites 8–10 weeks

Topeka Public

Schools

Backpack or bag contained 2

breakfasts and 2 lunches (provided

on Fridays).

1 site 8 weeks

United Methodist

Church (at Wilson

Elementary)

Bags contained 3 days’ worth of

lunches (provided on Thursdays).   

1 site 12 weeks

East Central Kansas

Cooperative in

Education

Backpack or bag contained 2

lunches (provided on Thursdays).   

1 site 10 weeks

2. Change in Total Number of SFSP Meals Served 

Kansas distributed 32,111 backpack meals, 3.5 percent of the total meals provided 

statewide in 2012. In 2011, Kansas distributed 24,290 backpack meals, which accounted for 2.8 

percent of the statewide total meals. Figure III.6 illustrates the number of backpack meals 

provided by month. Slightly more than half (17,007, or 53.0 percent) of the backpack meals 

were provided in June, with somewhat fewer (13,019, or 40.5 percent) provided in July, and only 

a small fraction (1,484, or 4.6 percent and 601, or 1.9 percent) provided in August and May, 

respectively. Across the 2 years, Kansas provided 56,401 meals via the demonstration. 
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 44

 Note: The total meal counts in Figure III.6 include breakfast and lunches. 

Supporting data for Figure III.6 can be found in Appendix B, Table 1.b. 

One out of seven Kansas demonstration sponsors provided children with separate 

backpacks, each containing meals for either breakfast or lunch. Across all demonstration sites, 

each backpack contained an average of 0.8 breakfast meals and 2.4 lunch meals. Children were 

provided with 3.2 meals per distribution on average. Due to preparations of backpacks prior to 

distribution, some meals were prepared but never distributed. In 2012, 3,702 meals were 

prepared but never distributed. Of these meals, 985 were breakfasts and 2,717 were lunches. 

3. Total Number of Children Served at Demonstration Sites 

The total number of unique children33 given backpack meals through the summer 

demonstration increased just slightly from 1,211 children in 2011 to 1,239 children in 2012. An 

average of 76.1 children were given backpack meals during each backpack distribution in 2012. 

4. Changes in Demonstration Sites vs. Comparison Sites: 2010 to 2012 

In Kansas, demonstration sites operated in six counties. Comparison sites were nondemonstration sites chosen from the same counties, if non-demonstration sites operated in those 

counties, or other counties that were similar to the demonstration counties on five factors: 

population density, per capita income, unemployment rate, percent of households with incomes 

below the Federal poverty level, and the proportion of children eligible for free and reducedprice meals. All comparison sites used came from four demonstration counties and three similar 

counties. All sites in this analysis were operational in 2010, 2011, and 2012. 

 

33 See the description of this measure on page 13. 

11,214 12,036

1,040 601

17,007

13,019

1,484

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

May June July August

Number of Meals Delivered

Month

FIGURE III.6

KANSAS: NUMBER OF MEALS PROVIDED IN BACKPACKS BY MONTH,

2011–2012

Backpack

meals 2011

Backpack

meals 2012
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 45

Table III.5 shows all measures compared between existing demonstration sites and 

comparison sites in Kansas from 2010 to 2012. For meals served and July ADA, Kansas showed 

mixed results. The demonstration sites showed remarkably greater increases from 2010 to 2012 

for the total number of meals served, although the increase in percent for July ADA was only 

slightly higher than comparison sites. Meals served at demonstration sites increased by 6.4 

percent (from 42,645 meals to 45,377 meals), while meals served at comparison sites decreased 

by 40.1 percent (from 94,120 meals to 56,331 meals). However, the demonstration and 

comparison sites showed similar increases in July ADA. July ADA increased 6.6 percent at 

demonstration sites while comparison sites showed an increase of 6.1 percent. The median 

meals served per site increased by 12.2 percent at demonstration sites compared to a decline of 

more than 50 percent at comparison sites. 

Table III.5

Kansas: Backpack Demonstration Sites vs. Comparison Sites  

Existing Demonstration Sites

(open 2010–2012)

Existing Comparison Sites

(open 2010–2012)

2010 2012

% Change

2010–

2012

2010 2012

% Change

2010–

2012

Total Meals 42,645 45,377 6.4% 94,120 56,331  ‐40.1%

Median Meals

per Site 3,108 3,488 12.2% 2,401 1,062  ‐55.8%

July ADA 756.6 806.8 6.6% 920.8 977.2 6.1%

Note: Total Meals and Median Meals per Site include backpack meals, but July ADA does not. 

D. OHIO IMPLEMENTATION AND RESULTS 

This section illustrates the findings of the 2012 demonstration in Ohio. Section 1 

provides an overview of the implementation of the demonstration in Ohio. Section 2 presents 

changes in SFSP backpack meals distributed. Section 3 presents the number of children served 

through the backpack demonstration. Section 4 compares results from demonstration sites to a 

group of similar sites. 

According to FRAC, only 8.8 percent of children who participate in the NSLP during the 

school year also participated in the SFSP in 2012, ranking Ohio 26th among the States in terms of 

SFSP participation (FRAC, 2013). This participation rate only increases to 10.2 percent when 

children who participate in all FNS summer food programs are included (FRAC, 2013), ranking 

Ohio 37th nationwide. The NSLP school-year ADA and SFSP July ADA have increased from 

2008 through 2012. NSLP ADA increased each year, exhibiting an overall increase of 18.7 

percent from 2008 to 2012. SFSP ADA increased every year except 2010 to 2011. Overall, 

SFSP ADA increased 10.4 percent from 2008 to 2012. Figure III.7 depicts the difference 

between the SFSP and the NSLP based on ADA from 2008 through 2012. Both NSLP schoolyear ADA and SFSP July ADA saw overall increases in attendance from 2008 through 2012. 
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 46

Source: SFSP data from the Ohio State Database, NSLP data from the NDB. 

Note: NSLP figures represent free and reduced-price NSLP participation over the school year. SFSP figures reflect the 

SFSP only, and do not include figures from other USDA summer nutrition programs. The NSLP July ADA for the years 

shown in Figure III.7was 11,229 in 2008; 12,784 in 2009; 13,105 in 2010; 13,503 in 2011; and 9,610 in 2012. 

 

Supporting data for Figure III.7 can be found in Appendix B, Table 1.c. July ADA does not include backpack meals. 

The total meals served (including both congregate and backpack meals) in Ohio increased 

by 2.6 percent (98,416 meals) during the second year of the demonstration from 2011 to 2012. 

During the first year of the demonstration, Ohio saw a decrease in meals served by 7.0 percent 

(280,114 meals), from about 4.0 million in 2010 to 3.7 million in 2011 (Figure III.8). Prior to 

that, meals served increased by 9.6 percent between 2008 and 2009 (from nearly 3.3 million to 

3.6 million), and 11.7 percent from 2009 to 2010 (from 3.6 million to 4.0 million).34 

 

34 Total meals served include breakfasts, lunches, snacks, suppers, and, for the demonstration site, backpack meals. If multiple meals were 

included in the same backpack, each one was counted separately. 

574,376

614,662

655,299 671,767 681,723

50,154 56,548 59,108 52,515 55,349

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Average Daily Attendance

Year

FIGURE III.7

OHIO: SFSP AND NSLP AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE,

2008–2012

NSLP ‐ School Year

SFSP ‐ July
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 47

Note: The total meal counts in Figure III.8 include congregate and backpack breakfasts, lunches, suppers, and snacks. 

Supporting data for Figure III.8 can be found in Appendix B, Table 1.c. 

1. Ohio Implementation 

The demonstration was administered by the Ohio Department of Education, which 

conducted all program oversight, data collection, training, technical assistance and financial 

reporting. Six sponsors were selected by FNS to participate in the Food Backpack demonstration 

in Ohio, operating a total of 55 sites (the highest number of sites among all of the demonstration 

States). Demonstration sites were open and operational for an average of 36.1 days during the 

summer with 7.4 of those days utilized for backpack distribution. On average, traditional sites 

were open for slightly more days during the summer with 35.5 operational days in 2012. A brief 

description of each sponsor is provided below (based on information provided in the sponsor 

applications), followed by a comparison table (Table III.6). 

Andrew’s House, Inc. This sponsor operated one site at an elementary school in an area 

in which nearly half of all children qualify for free or reduced-price meals. During the recent 

economic downturn, the area has seen increased unemployment and food insecurity among 

resident families. The sponsor served meals Monday through Friday for 10 weeks during the 

summer. Children participating in the demonstration received backpacks on Fridays that 

contained lunches for the following 2 weekend days. 

Ashtabula County Children Services. This sponsor operated six sites in subsidized 

housing projects and community centers in an area of the State with higher-than-average 

unemployment rates. The sites served breakfast and lunch Monday through Friday for 9 weeks 

during the summer months. Sites participating in the demonstration provided backpacks 

containing both breakfasts and lunches for the upcoming weekend to participating children on 

Fridays. 

3,286,678

3,601,201

4,022,857

3,742,743 3,841,159

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

4,500,000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Meals Served

Year

FIGURE III.8

OHIO: TOTAL SFSP MEALS SERVED,

2008–2012
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 48

Community Action Organization of Scioto County. This sponsor operated 30 sites 

through its Workforce Connections program, providing meals to young people for 2 to 11 weeks 

during the summer, depending on the site. Most of the sites provided lunches Monday through 

Friday, and most backpacks containing lunches for the weekend days were provided to 

participating children on Fridays. Eight of the sites provided the backpacks on Thursdays or 

Fridays, each containing lunches for the next 3 or 2 days, respectively. 

Hamilton Living Water Ministry. This sponsor operated two sites in a very poor area 

in which 90 percent of children receive free or reduced-price meals. The sponsor provided 

lunches Monday through Friday for 8 weeks during the summer. Since attendance at one of the 

sites was historically lower on Fridays compared to other weekdays, the site provided 

participating children with backpacks on Thursdays containing breakfasts and lunches for the 3-

day weekend. The other site provided children with backpacks on Fridays containing lunches 

and breakfasts for the 2-day weekend. 

Hocking Athens Perry Community Action Agency. This sponsor operated 11 

demonstration sites during the 2012 summer. All sites provided children with backpacks on 

Fridays or Mondays containing two lunches and two breakfasts. Every site provided children 

with backpacks on Mondays for two weeks in June while all subsequent backpack distributions 

were on Fridays. Backpacks were distributed for 5–9 weeks during the summer, depending on 

the site. 

Whole Again International. This sponsor operated the demonstration at five SFSP sites 

that serve low-income populations. On Fridays, the sites provided children who attended SFSP 

meals at least 3 days each week with backpacks containing breakfasts and lunches for the 

weekend days. These sites provided children with backpack meals for 10 weeks of the summer. 

Table III.6 illustrates a summary of each of the sponsors. 
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 49

Table III.6

Ohio: Demonstration Sponsors

Sponsor Name Demonstration Description

# of

Demonstration Sites

#  of Weeks in

Demonstration Period

Andrew’s House,

Inc.

Backpack or bag contained 2

lunches (provided on

Fridays).   

1 site 10 weeks

Ashtabula County

Children Services

Backpack or bag contained 2

breakfasts and lunches

(provided on Fridays).   

6 sites 9 weeks

Community Action

Organization of

Scioto County

Backpack or bag contained 2

lunches (provided on Fridays)

at 22 sites and 3 lunches

(provided on Thursdays) at 8

sites.   

30 sites 2–11 weeks

Hamilton Living

Water Ministry

Backpack or bag contained 3

lunches and breakfasts

(provided on Thursdays) at 1

site, and 2 lunches and

breakfasts (provided on

Fridays) at the other site.   

2 sites 8 weeks

Hocking Athens

Perry Community

Action Agency

Backpack or bag contained 2

breakfasts and 2 lunches

(provided on Fridays or

Mondays).   

11 sites 5–9 weeks

Whole Again

International

Backpack contained 2

breakfasts and lunches

(provided on Fridays).   

5 sites 10 weeks

2. Change in Total Number of SFSP Meals Served 

Across the 2 years, Ohio provided 117,981 meals via the demonstration. Ohio distributed 

59,279 meals in backpacks, 1.5 percent of the total meals provided statewide in 2012. Figure 

III.9 illustrates the number of backpack meals provided by month. 45.3 percent of the meals 

(26,851) were provided in July, with fewer provided in June (21,484, or 36.2 percent) and 

August (10,944, or 18.5 percent). 
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 50

Note: The total meal counts in Figure III.9 include breakfasts and lunches. 

Supporting data for Figure III.9 can be found in Appendix B, Table 1.c. 

One out of the six Ohio demonstration sponsors only provided lunches to children. All 

five other demonstration sponsors provided one backpack to children containing meals for both 

breakfast and lunch. Across all demonstration sites, each backpack contained an average of 1.0 

breakfast meals and 2.1 lunch meals. Children were provided with 3.2 meals per distribution on 

average. Due to preparations of backpacks prior to distribution, some meals were prepared but 

never distributed. In 2012, 681 meals were prepared but never distributed. All of these meals 

were lunches. 

3. Total Number of Children Served at Demonstration Sites 

The total number of unique children35 given backpack meals through the summer 

demonstration decreased by 35.1 percent from 2,920 children in 2011 to 1,894 children in 2012. 

On average, 41.8 children were given backpack meals during each backpack distribution in 2012. 

4. Changes in Demonstration Sites vs. Comparison Sites: 2010 to 2012 

In Ohio, demonstration sites operated in nine counties. Comparison sites were nondemonstration sites chosen from the same counties, if non-demonstration sites operated in those 

counties, or other counties that were similar to the demonstration counties on five factors: 

population density, per capita income, unemployment rate, the percent of households with 

incomes below the Federal poverty level, and the proportion of children eligible for free and 

reduced-price meals. Comparison sites were selected from six demonstration counties (that had 

non-demonstration sites) and three similar non-demonstration counties. 

 

35 See the description of this measure on page 13. 

17,498

30,720

10,484

21,484

26,851

10,944

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

June July August

Number of Meals Delivered

Month

FIGURE III.9

OHIO: NUMBER OF MEALS PROVIDED IN BACKPACKS BY MONTH,

2011–2012

Backpack

meals 2011

Backpack

meals 2012
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 51

For both total meals served and July ADA, the existing demonstration sites in Ohio 

showed greater increases from 2010 to 2012 than did comparison sites in the State (Table III.7). 

July ADA increased 14.3 percent among demonstration sites, compared to 5.6 percent at 

comparison sites. Total meals served increased 3.8 percent (from 73,895 meals to 76,710 meals) 

for demonstration sites, while comparison sites decreased by 5.2 percent (from 352,809 meals to 

334,618 meals). 

Table III.7

Ohio: Backpack Demonstration Sites vs. Comparison Sites  

Existing Demonstration Sites

(open 2010‐2012)

Existing Comparison Sites

(open 2010‐2012)

2010 2012

% Change

2010–

2012

2010 2012

% Change

2010–

2012

Total Meals 73,895 76,710 3.8% 352,809 334,618  ‐5.2%

Median Meals

per Site

1,407 1,355 ‐3.7% 1,752 1,712  ‐2.3%

July ADA 1,097.5 1,254.0 14.3% 4,712.8 4,974.9 5.6%

Note: Total Meals and Median Meals per Site include backpack meals, but July ADA does not. 

E. SEAMLESS SUMMER MEASURES 

The SSO enables SFAs to offer meals (usually at schools) during the summer and over 

longer school breaks in areas where at least 50 percent of the students are approved for free or 

reduced-price school meals. The program reimburses meals at NSLP/SBP rates, which are lower 

than SFSP reimbursement rates. One possible concern about the backpack demonstration was 

that school districts that provide summer meals at schools through the SSO might shift from the 

SSO to the SFSP demonstration if they perceived it to be more beneficial or vice versa. This 

would have resulted in skewed increases or decreases to SFSP meal counts independent of the 

demonstration project effects. Thus, we reviewed the data to determine if there was evidence 

that the increases or decreases in State outcomes were due to the SSO (Table III.8). 

In Arizona, the SSO showed increases within all measured outputs. The number of SSO 

sponsors and sites increased between 2011 and 2012. Similarly, total meals served through the 

SSO increased by 13.1 percent between 2011 and 2012 (from 1,650,669 meals to 1,866,561 

meals). The SSO operating days ADA increased by 15.3 percent from 44,848 children in 2011 

to 51,698 children in 2012. The year 2012 had the most SSO sponsors, sites, total meals served, 

and operating days ADA than any other year from 2008–2012. These increases suggest no 

evidence of a shift from the SSO to the SFSP in Arizona. 

In Kansas, the SSO has been declining over the past 4 years from 2008 to 2011. There 

has been a decrease from two sponsors operating four sites in 2008 to one sponsor operating one 

site in 2009 to none in 2010 (prior to the SFSP demonstration) and 2011. In 2012, one sponsor 

operated one site, serving a total of 593 meals with an operating days ADA of only 20 children. 

Since there were no SSO sponsors in 2011 and only one in 2012, there is no evidence of any shift 

from SSO to SFSP in 2012. 
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 52

In Ohio, the number of SSO sponsors and sites increased by 19 and 29, respectively, 

between 2011 and 2012 (following a slight decrease in numbers between 2010 and 2011). SSO 

meals increased by 14.1 percent and SSO ADA by 44.6 percent from 2011 to 2012. These 

increases indicate that there is no evidence of a shift from the SSO to the SFSP in Ohio. 

Table III.8

Seamless Summer: Backpack Demonstration States (Statewide)

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Arizona

# of Sponsors 84 83 71 98 117

# of Sites 394 390 383 363 441

Total Meals Served 1,533,513 1,710,721 1,603,865 1,650,669 1,866,561

Operating Days ADA 41,438 49,929 47,226 44,848 51,698

Kansas

# of Sponsors 2 1 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1

# of Sites 4 1 ‐‐ ‐‐ 1

Total Meals Served 18,450 1,708 ‐‐ ‐‐ 593

Operating Days ADA 599 81 ‐‐ ‐‐ 20

Ohio

# of Sponsors 19 17 60 59 78

# of Sites 58 55 113 110 139

Total Meals Served 83,461 82,060 221,338 191,713 218,650

Operating Days ADA 3,761 3,025 6,410 5,246 7,584

F. CONCLUSIONS 

The purpose of the Food Backpack demonstration was to provide food for consumption 

over the weekend and holidays—when SFSP sites do not operate—and to boost attendance at 

SFSP sites when they are open by providing meal backpacks as an encouragement to attend. The 

three States where the demonstration was implemented included Arizona, Kansas, and Ohio. 

Each of the States cited difficulties in reaching children through the SFSP during the summer 

months. In 2012, the demonstration was implemented by 16 sponsors and 97 sites: 3 sponsors in 

Arizona, 7 sponsors in Kansas, and 6 sponsors on Ohio. 

Table II.9 below illustrates the number of meals delivered through the demonstration by 

State for each year and over the 2-year period. 
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 53

Table III.9

Total Meals Delivered

2011 2012 Total

Arizona 79,795 42,619 122,414

Kansas 24,290 32,111 56,401

Ohio 58,702 59,279 117,981

Total 162,787 134,009 296,796

 

Comparison Site Results 

In each of these States, we compared key outcomes (percent change in meals served and 

ADA) in the demonstration sites to the same outcomes in the specially identified comparison 

sites. These comparison sites were either in the same county, if possible—as was the case in 

Arizona—or in other counties within the State that were most similar on each of five measures 

associated with food security, as was the case in Kansas and Ohio. 

The results varied in the three States and did not show a uniform trend in the number of 

meals served or ADA. In addition, the results in each State illustrated a mixture of results in the 

percentage of meals served and ADA at the demonstration sites compared with changes at the 

comparison sites. For example, Arizona showed decreases from 2010 to 2012 for demonstration 

sites in both the total meals served and July ADA (4.9 percent and 17.4 percent, respectively), 

while showing increases in both of these measures for comparison sites (7.9 percent and 2.4 

percent, respectively). In Kansas, total meals served increased at demonstration sites (6.4 

percent), but decreased at comparison sites (40.1 percent); July ADA increased by similar 

amounts at demonstration and comparison sites (6.6 percent and 6.1 percent, respectively). Ohio 

demonstration sites showed increases over comparison sites in both measures from 2010 to 2012. 

Demonstration sites increased 3.8 percent in total meals served and 14.3 percent in July ADA, 

while comparison sites decreased by 5.2 percent in total meals served and increased by 5.6 

percent in July ADA from 2010 to 2012. These results suggest that in Ohio, demonstration sites 

attracted additional children to the SFSP program; however, this conclusion is not consistent for 

Kansas and Arizona when comparing total meals served and July ADA from 2010 to 2012. With 

varying results when comparing demonstration sites to these comparison sites, it is not evident 

that the backpack demonstration was successful in attracting children to the Summer Food 

Service Program. 

Summary Conclusion 

In each State, children attending SFSP backpack demonstration sites brought home 

thousands of meals through backpacks/bags for consumption at home over the weekend and 

holidays. While the demonstration in each State was localized, was operated in a limited number 

of areas in each State, and was not expected to have statewide effects, it was theorized to have an 

impact on participating SFSP sites. The preliminary evaluation, conducted after the first year of 

the evaluation, presented results that suggested a substantial positive impact at the site level. In 

this final evaluation, however, results were more mixed. This is due in part to a difference in 

methodology, as July ADA calculations included backpack meals in the preliminary evaluation, 

but not in this evaluation. After 2 years, the demonstration sites out-performed comparison sites 

in Ohio, had very similar results to comparison sites in Kansas, and had smaller numbers of 
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 54

meals served and ADA in Arizona. Again, results should be interpreted with caution, as other 

potential confounding factors could not be controlled. 
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 55

CHAPTER IV: WAVE 2 CROSS-PROJECT SUMMARY AND 

OVERALL CONCLUSIONS 

In 2010 and 2011, FNS solicited grant applications from States to implement four eSFSP 

demonstrations. The demonstrations were designed to encourage attendance at SFSP sites over 

the summer by mitigating barriers such as a lack of transportation options and limited operating 

times to provide meals. The projects were implemented in two waves; Wave 1 took place in the 

summers of 2010 and 2011 and Wave 2 took place in the summers of 2011 and 2012. The Wave 

1 demonstrations were discussed in the first and second annual reports assessing the progress of 

these eSFSP projects (Peterson et al., 2011; Peterson et al., 2013). The purpose of this report 

was to present final results from the two Wave 2 demonstrations. 

The Wave 2 demonstrations were initially funded in 2011 for a total of 2 years. FNS 

selected three States to implement each demonstration: the first of these demonstrations—the 

Meal Delivery Project—was awarded to sponsors in Delaware, Massachusetts, and New York, 

and the second—the Food Backpack Project—was awarded to sponsors in Arizona, Kansas, and 

Ohio. 

While each demonstration project led to additional meals being delivered to children who 

might not have otherwise received them, it is important to note that there are many extraneous 

factors that could have influenced the findings presented in this report. It is difficult to 

disaggregate the effects of the demonstrations from confounding factors that may have impacted 

demand for the SFSP such as State outreach efforts, local economic factors, and other issues. 

Additionally, the scope of the demonstration was limited both in terms of resources 

($690,790 for the delivery demonstration and $776,714 for the backpack demonstration across 

the 2 years) and in terms of duration (only two summers). Therefore, the results of the 2011–

2012 demonstrations need to be carefully viewed in that context. Below is a brief summary of 

the demonstration outcomes. 

Meal Delivery. Over the 2-year period, a total of 192,960 meals were delivered in the 

three States. In 2012, a total of 131,406 meals were delivered to children living in rural areas of 

Delaware, Massachusetts, and New York, an increase of 113 percent over the 61,554 meals 

delivered in 2011. There was no consistent evidence from the closest traditional sites used as 

comparison sites to indicate that children who previously participated in congregate meal 

programs switched to deliveries once the demonstration was implemented. 

Food Backpacks. Over the 2-year period, a total of 296,796 meals were delivered via 

backpacks in the three States. A total of 134,009 meals were provided in SFSP backpacks in 

2012 across the 16 sponsors that implemented the demonstration. Using non-demonstration sites 

in similar communities, we compared the increases in meals served and ADA from the beginning 

of the demonstration in 2010 to the completion of the demonstration in 2012 at the 

demonstration sites to these similar non-demonstration sites. The results varied by State, with no 

consistent pattern. The data from Ohio showed increases in the meals served and ADA for the 

demonstration sites compared with much smaller increases or decreases for the nondemonstration sites. The meals served increased in Kansas at the demonstration sites while 

decreasing at non-demonstration sites; however, increases in ADA were similar at demonstration 
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 56

and non-demonstration sites. The data from Arizona showed decreases in both the meals served 

and ADA at demonstration sites while showing increases at the non-demonstration sites. The 

results of this demonstration do not provide strong evidence that the demonstration increased 

participation in the SFSP. 
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page 57

REFERENCES 

Felton & Harley Associates (2006). Analysis of Summer Food Program and food needs of nonparticipating children: Final report (Special Nutrition Program Report Series, Document No. 

CN-06-SFSP). Prepared by Felton & Harley Associates, Inc. and Westat under Contract No. 43-

3198-3-0098. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. 

Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/CNP/FILES/SFSPFoodNeeds.pdf. 

Food Research and Action Center. (2013). Hunger doesn’t take a vacation: Summer nutrition status 

report. [Series of reports on participation in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service summer nutrition programs.] Retrieved from http://frac.org. 

Mathematica Policy Research. (2003). Feeding low-income children when school is out: The Summer 

Food Service Program. Retrieved from 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/efan03001/efan03001.pdf. 

Peterson, A., Geller, D., Moulton, B.E., Suchman, A., Haddix, D. (2011). Evaluation of the impact of 

incentives demonstrations on participation in the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP): FY 

2010 Arkansas and Mississippi. Prepared by Insight Policy Research under Contract No. AG3198-B-10-0011. Alexandria, VA: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. 

Peterson, A., Geller, D., Suchman, A., Moulton, B.E., Haddix, D. (2013). Evaluation of the impact of 

enhancement demonstrations on participation in the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP): FY 

2011. Prepared by Insight Policy Research under Contract No. AG-3198-B-10-0011. Alexandria, 

VA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. (2007). Report to Congress: USDA’s 

Simplified Summer Food Program 2001–2006. Retrieved from 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/Published/CNP/FILES/SimplifiedSummerSummary.pdf. 

MM FOOD PROGRAM 2001—2006 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. (2012). Program Information Report (Key 

Data) – July 2012: Summer Food Service Program data. Retrieved from 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/datastatistics/June-2012.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. (2013a). Summer Food Service Program 

data, 1969–2011. Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/sfsummar.htm. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. (2013b). Annual summary of Food and 

Nutrition Service Programs: National School Lunch Program data. Retrieved from 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/annual.htm. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. (2013c). National School Lunch Program: 

Participation and lunches served. Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/slsummar.htm. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. (2013d). Summer Food Service Program: 

Average daily attendance. Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/04sffypart.htm. 

Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

   

APPENDICES 

Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

   

APPENDIX A 

MEAL DELIVERY DEMONSTRATION 

DETAILED TABLES 

Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page A‐1

APPENDIX A: MEAL DELIVERY DEMONSTRATION DETAILED TABLES 

Table A1.a

State‐Level SFSP Meals Served and Average Daily Attendance: Delaware

Number Percent Change

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2008–

2009

2009–

2010

2010–

2011

2011–

2012

Total Meals (congregate and delivered)

Total Meals

(Congregate and

Delivered)

674,685 833,833 938,801 791,873 868,435 23.6% 12.6%  ‐15.7% 9.7%

Total Meals by Meal Type (congregate and delivered)

Breakfast 229,675 265,253 292,112 243,132 272,684 15.5% 10.1%  ‐16.8% 12.2%

Lunch 322,540 411,568 453,728 400,789 431,044 27.6% 10.2%  ‐11.7% 7.6%

Snack 96,535 110,079 132,178 120,516 151,317 14.0% 20.1%  ‐8.8% 25.6%

Supper 25,935 46,933 60,783 27,436 13,390 81.0% 29.5%  ‐54.9%  ‐51.2%

Total Meals by Month (congregate and delivered)

May  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐ ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐ 

June 188,021 221,155 233,214 171,824 202,091 17.6% 5.5%  ‐26.3% 17.6%

July 358,943 437,981 450,541 394,366 433,996 22.0% 2.9%  ‐12.5% 10.1%

August 127,721 174,697 255,046 225,683 232,348 36.8% 46.0%  ‐11.5% 3.0%

September  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐ ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐ 

Operating Days (days meals were provided)

Demonstration

Sites 1,515

Traditional Sites 9,305 14,928 14,077 10,477 9,970 60.4% ‐5.7% ‐25.6% ‐4.8%

Avg. Days per

Site 34.1 41.4 39.1 30.5 32.5 21.4% ‐5.6% ‐22.0% 6.2%

Average Daily Attendance (congregate and delivered)

Operating Days

ADA* 12,781 13,485 21,253 22,098 13,822 5.5% 57.6% 4.0%  ‐37.5%

July ADA 7,675 9,804 10,280 9,646 9,390 27.7% 4.9%  ‐6.2%  ‐2.7%

Participation Rate

SFSP/NSLP

Participation Rate 20.9% 23.7% 22.2% 21.0% 18.8% 13.4%  ‐6.3%  ‐5.4%  ‐10.5%

*In the 2011 evaluation, Operating Days ADA was calculated at the sponsor level rather than at the site level for Delaware. 
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page A‐2

Table A1.b

State‐Level SFSP Meals Served and Average Daily Attendance: Massachusetts

Number Percent Change

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2008–

2009

2009–

2010

2010–

2011

2011–

2012

Total Meals (congregate and delivered)

Total Meals

(Congregate and

Delivered)

2,335,624 2,413,123 2,464,993 2,511,194 2,616,422 3.3% 2.2% 1.9% 4.2%

Total Meals by Meal Type (congregate and delivered)

Breakfast 676,210 689,456 702,635 742,712 792,378 2.0% 1.9% 5.7% 6.7%

Lunch 1,380,620 1,416,957 1,460,206 1,483,829 1,574,499 2.6% 3.1% 1.6% 6.1%

Snack 193,456 227,995 233,237 229,674 195,761 17.9% 2.3%  ‐1.5%  ‐14.8%

Supper 85,338 78,715 68,915 54,979 53,784 ‐7.8%  ‐12.5%  ‐20.2%  ‐2.2%

Total Meals by Month (congregate and delivered)

May  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐ ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐ 

June 120,396 79,421 115,479 99,926 198,849 ‐34.0% 45.4%  ‐13.5% 99.0%

July 1,518,412 1,593,396 1,533,548 1,515,176 1,636,633 4.9%  ‐3.8%  ‐1.2% 8.0%

August 696,816 740,306 815,966 896,092 780,940 6.2% 10.2% 9.8%  ‐12.9%

September  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐ ‐  ‐  ‐  ‐ 

Operating Days (days meals were provided)

Demonstration

Sites 49

Traditional Sites 24,912 25,924 25,492 25,198 26,073 4.1%  ‐1.7%  ‐1.2% 3.4%

Avg. Days per

Site 29.9 29.6 30.3 28.9 28.2 ‐1.0% 2.4%  ‐4.6%  ‐2.4%

Average Daily Attendance (congregate and delivered)

Operating Days

ADA 46,797 49,844 48,274 50,954 53,446 6.5%  ‐3.1% 5.6% 4.9%

July ADA 40,917 42,488 43,009 44,650 46,583 3.8% 1.2% 3.8% 4.3%

Participation Rate

SFSP/NSLP

Participation

Rate

19.0% 18.5% 18.0% 18.4% 18.0% ‐2.6%  ‐2.7% 2.2%  ‐2.2%

   
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page A‐3

Table A1.c

State‐Level SFSP Meals Served and Average Daily Attendance: New York

Number Percent Change

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

2008

–

2009

2009

–

2010

2010–

2011

2011

–

2012

Total Meals (congregate and delivered)

Total Meals

(Congregate and

Delivered)

17,333,16

3

17,150,10

0

16,855,37

5

16,615,89

8

16,760,76

2 ‐1.1%  ‐1.7%  ‐1.4% 0.9%

Total Meals by Meal Type (congregate and delivered)

Breakfast 5,589,585 5,625,609 5,539,549 5,439,183 5,490,395 0.6%  ‐1.5%  ‐1.8% 0.9%

Lunch 9,349,164 9,182,342 9,020,272 8,973,960 8,951,133 ‐1.8%  ‐1.8%  ‐0.5% ‐0.3%

Snack 476,661 399,413 380,789 438,259 465,544

‐

16.2

%

‐4.7% 15.1% 6.2%

Supper 1,917,753 1,942,736 1,914,765 1,764,496 1,853,690 1.3%  ‐1.4%  ‐7.8% 5.1%

Total Meals by Month (congregate and delivered)

May  ‐  ‐ 4,876 ‐ ‐ ‐  ‐  ‐ ‐

June 308,097 464,396 805,279 212,976 319,615 50.7

%

73.4

% ‐73.6% 50.1%

July 10,587,29

6

10,438,79

1 9,882,267 9,425,704 9,556,379 ‐1.4%  ‐5.3%  ‐4.6% 1.4%

August 6,423,467 6,235,388 6,153,649 6,832,168 6,840,800 ‐2.9%  ‐1.3% 11.0% 0.1%

September 14,303 11,525 9,304 145,050 43,968

‐

19.4

%

‐

19.3

%

1459.0

%

‐

69.7

%

Operating Days (days meals were provided)

Demonstration

Sites 76

Traditional Sites 78,901 77,576 75,683 73,955 74,397 ‐1.7%  ‐2.4%  ‐2.3% 0.6%

Avg.

Day

s

per

Site

31.

5 32.0 31.0 31.0 31.3 1.6%  ‐3.1% 0.0% 1.0%

Average Daily Attendance (congregate and delivered)

Operating Days

ADA* 259,162 251,993 250,365 249,526 247,151 ‐2.8%  ‐0.6%  ‐0.3% ‐1.0%

July ADA 264,945 260,094 255,564 258,181 246,055 ‐1.8%  ‐1.7% 1.0% ‐4.7%

Participation Rate

SFSP/NSLP

Participation Rate 28.2% 27.6% 26.3% 26.3% 25.6% ‐2.1%  ‐4.7% 0% ‐2.7%

*In the 2011 evaluation, Operating Days ADA was calculated at the sponsor level rather than at the site level for Delaware. 
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page A‐4

Table A2.a

Number of  Demonstration SFSP Sponsors and Meals:  

Delaware Meal Delivery Demonstration  

DELAWARE

2011 2012

Total Demonstration Sponsors

Total Sponsors 1 1

Demonstration Sites   

Total Sites 21

Avg. Operating Days Per Site (All Demonstration Sites) 72.1

Total Children Served for All Meal Delivery Sites

Total Unique Children Given Meals* 620

Average Children Per Site 29.5

Range of Children Per Site 117

Standard Deviation of Children Per Site 33.0

Median  of Children Per Site 17

Avg. Number of Meals Provided Per Child Per Delivery 2.0

Delivery Meals Provided

Total Delivered Meals Provided 32,418 89,544

Delivered Meals Provided per Delivery

Average 59.1

Range 294

Standard Deviation 64.9

Median 34

Delivered Meals Provided by Meal Type

Breakfasts 16,209 44,772

Lunches 16,209 44,772

Delivered Meals Provided by Month

May  ‐  ‐ 

June 416 17,994

July 17,164 39,958

August 14,838 31,592

September  ‐  ‐ 

Number of Children Absent for Pickup

Total Number of Children Absent for Pickup    4,638

Average Number of No‐Shows per Delivery Day 3.1

No‐Shows by Month

May   ‐ 

June 714

July 2,803

August 1,121

September   ‐ 

*Definition provided on page 13. 

   
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page A‐5

Table A2.b

Number of  Demonstration SFSP Sponsors and Meals:  

Massachusetts Meal Delivery Demonstration  

MASSACHUSETTS

2011 2012

Total Demonstration Sponsors

Total Sponsors 1 1

Demonstration Sites   

Total Sites 2

Avg. Operating Days Per Site (All Demonstration Sites) 24.5

Total Children Served for All Meal Delivery Sites

Total Unique Children Given Meals* 186

Average Children Per Site 93.0

Range of Children Per Site 50

Standard Deviation of Children Per Site 35.4

Median of Children Per Site 93

Avg. Number of Meals Provided Per Child Per Delivery 5.7

Delivery Meals Provided

Total Delivered Meals Provided 16,402 23,966

Delivered Meals Provided per Delivery

Average 489.1

Range 474

Standard Deviation 156.3

Median 472

Delivered Meals Provided by Meal Type

Breakfasts 8,201 11,983

Lunches 8,201 11,983

Delivered Meals Provided by Month

May  ‐  ‐ 

June 2,724 2,222

July 7,428 9,468

August 6,250 12,276

September  ‐  ‐ 

Number of Children Absent for Pickup

Total Number of Children Absent for Pickup 196

Average Number of No‐Shows per Delivery Day 4.0

No‐Shows by Month

May   ‐ 

June 19

July 69

August 108

September   ‐ 

*Definition provided on page 13. 
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page A‐6

Table A2.c

Number of  Demonstration SFSP Sponsors and Meals:  

New York Meal Delivery Demonstration  

NEW YORK

2011 2012

Total Demonstration Sponsors

Total Sponsors 2 2

Demonstration Sites   

Total Sites 8

Avg. Operating Days Per Site (All Demonstration Sites) 9.5

Total Children Served for All Meal Delivery Sites  

Total Unique Children Given Meals* 249

Average Children Per Site 31.1

Range of Children Per Site 52

Standard Deviation of Children Per Site 21.4

Median of Children Per Site 25.5

Avg. Number of Meals Provided Per Child Per Delivery 8

Delivery Meals Provided

Total Delivered Meals Provided 12,734 17,896

Delivered Meals Provided per Delivery

Average 235.5

Range 472

Standard Deviation 151.1

Median 184

Delivered Meals Provided by Meal Type

Breakfasts 6,367 8,948

Lunches 6,367 8,948

Delivered Meals Provided by Month

May  ‐  ‐ 

June 852 1,880

July 5,764 8,280

August 6,118 7,736

September  ‐  ‐ 

Number of Children Absent for Pickup

Total Number of Children Absent for Pickup 549

Average Number of No‐Shows per Delivery Day 7.2

No‐Shows by Month

May   ‐ 

June 41

July 218

August 290

September   ‐ 

*Definition provided on page 13. 

   
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page A‐7

Table A3.a

Percent Change in Average Daily Attendance for Existing Comparison Sites: Delaware

Distance From  

Nearest Meal

Delivery Site  

(miles)

Existing Comparison Sites

Operating Days ADA Percent Change

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2008–

2009

2009–

2010

2010–

2011

2011–

2012

Claymont B&G Club 2.0 37.3 40.9 38.5 53.9 64.1 9.7% ‐5.9% 40.0% 18.9%

Greater Newark B&G

Club 1.1 96.0 98.7 144.9 104.6 80.9 2.8% 46.8%  ‐27.8%  ‐22.7%

Laurel B&G Club 0.9 45.2 71.6 51.4 59.6 66.4 58.4%  ‐28.2% 16.0% 11.4%

Smith Elementary 4.7 127.0 68.5 182.5 198.5 198.8 ‐46.1% 166.4% 8.8% 0.2%

Smyrna Clayton B&G

Club 14.6 75.9 57.3 58.5 65.0 70.7  ‐24.5% 2.1% 11.1% 8.8%

Wagstaff Daycare 2.7 38.3 22.5 25.7 21.3 23.9 ‐41.3% 14.2%  ‐17.1% 12.2%

Total ADA –  

Comparison Sites 419.7 359.5 501.5 502.9 504.8  ‐14.3% 39.5% 0.3% 0.4%

Table A3.b

Percent Change in Average Daily Attendance for Existing Comparison Sites: Massachusetts

Distance From  

Nearest Meal

Delivery Site  

(miles)

Existing Comparison Sites

Operating Days ADA Percent Change

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2008–

2009

2009–

2010

2010–

2011

2011–

2012

Camp Mitton 11.2 65.5 68.2 63.7 67.5 73.3 4.1% ‐6.6% 6.0% 8.6%

Table A3.c

Percent Change in Average Daily Attendance for Existing Comparison Sites: New York

Distance From  

Nearest Meal

Delivery Site  

(miles)

Existing Comparison Sites

Operating Days ADA Percent Change

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2008–

2009

2009–

2010

2010–

2011

2011–

2012

Catholic Charities Food Bank of the Southern Tier

Coopers Education Center 9.7 44.3 54.5 54.4 44.5 47.0 23.0% ‐0.2% ‐18.2% 5.6%

Corning Area Youth Center 12.3 19.6 21.7 18.4 21.1 17.1 10.7%  ‐15.2% 14.7% ‐19.0%

Dundee Area Youth Center 13.4 56.1 62.3 47.8 43.5 52.9 11.1%  ‐23.3%  ‐9.0% 21.6%

Total ADA –  

Comparison Sites 120.0 138.5 120.6 109.1 117.0 15.4%  ‐12.9%  ‐9.5% 7.2%

North Rose‐Wolcott Central School District

Michael A. Maroun

Elementary School 30.9 195.4 202.2 149.3 123.0 149.5 3.5%  ‐26.2%  ‐17.6% 21.5%

Camp Hollis   18.4 59.8 61.1 64.5 60.5 57.1 2.2% 5.6%  ‐6.2% ‐5.6%

Total ADA –  

Comparison Sites 255.2 263.3 213.8 183.5 206.6 3.2%  ‐18.8%  ‐14.2% 12.6%

   
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page A‐8
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

APPENDIX B 

FOOD BACKPACK DEMONSTRATION 

DETAILED TABLES 

Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page B‐1

APPENDIX B: FOOD BACKPACK DEMONSTRATION DETAILED TABLES 

Table B1.a

State‐Level SFSP Meals Served and Average Daily Attendance: Arizona

Number Percent Change

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2008–

2009

2009–

2010

2010–

2011

2011–

2012

Total Meals (congregate and backpack)

Total Meals

(Congregate and

Backpack)

1,135,755 1,274,884 1,603,582 2,076,375 2,612,711 12.2% 25.8% 29.5% 25.8%

Total Meals by Meal Type (congregate and backpack)

Breakfast 365,629 404,422 496,757 626,935 863,290 10.6% 22.8% 26.2% 37.7%

Lunch 681,031 726,115 910,399 1,240,398 1,496,088 6.6% 25.4% 36.3% 20.6%

Snack 46,699 83,753 113,888 90,478 105,734 79.4% 36.0%  ‐20.6% 16.9%

Supper 42,396 60,594 82,538 118,564 147,599 42.9% 36.2% 43.7% 24.5%

Total Meals by Month (congregate and backpack)

May 34,311 12,298 22,784 7,195 33,993 ‐64.2% 85.3%  ‐68.4% 372.5%

June 820,842 876,892 1,020,946 1,340,497 1,498,986 6.8% 16.4% 31.3% 11.8%

July 253,919 351,081 526,160 680,247 1,012,958 38.3% 49.9% 29.3% 48.9%

August 26,683 34,613 33,692 48,436 66,774 29.7%  ‐2.7% 43.8% 37.9%

Operating Days (days meals were provided)

Demonstration       

Sites 539 869 61.2%

Traditional

Sites 8,252 10,019 12,409 16,137 19,900 21.4% 23.9% 30.0% 23.3%

Avg. Days per

Site 26.7 29.0 30.6 30.0 33.2 8.6% 5.5%  ‐2.0% 10.7%

Average Daily Attendance (congregate meals only)

Operating Days

ADA 26,856 28,699 33,860 48,907 51,610 6.9% 18.0% 44.4% 5.5%

July ADA* 6,965 8,712 13,917 18,988 26,901 25.1% 59.7% 36.4% 41.7%

Participation Rate

SFSP/NSLP

Participation

Rate

6.4% 5.8% 6.9% 7.9% 9.3% ‐9.4% 19.0% 14.5% 17.7%

*July ADA does not include backpack meals. 
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page B‐2

Table B1.b

State‐Level SFSP Meals Served and Average Daily Attendance: Kansas

Number Percent Change

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2008–

2009

2009–

2010

2010–

2011

2011–

2012

Total Meals (congregate and backpack)

Total Meals

(Congregate and

Backpack)

790,530 766,969 724,209 861,102 904,875 ‐3.0%  ‐5.6% 18.9% 5.1%

Total Meals by Meal Type (congregate and backpack)

Breakfast 219,711 205,929 186,393 216,506 233,583 ‐6.3%  ‐9.5% 16.2% 7.9%

Lunch 532,625 521,987 500,629 605,260 627,571 ‐2.0%  ‐4.1% 20.9% 3.7%

Snack 31,516 29,807 29,013 30,668 37,056 ‐5.4%  ‐2.7% 5.7% 20.8%

Supper 6,678 9,246 8,174 8,668 6,665 38.5%  ‐11.6% 6.0%  ‐23.1%

Total Meals by Month (congregate and backpack)

May 2,893 4,198 2,247 4,132 20,942 45.1%  ‐46.5% 83.9% 406.8%

June 507,064 483,767 465,722 539,332 568,869 ‐4.6%  ‐3.7% 15.8% 5.5%

July 277,436 273,120 245,643 306,528 304,326 ‐1.6%  ‐10.1% 24.8%  ‐0.7%

August 3,137 5,884 10,597 11,110 10,738 87.6% 80.1% 4.8%  ‐3.3%

Operating Days (days meals were provided)

Demonstration

Sites 520 564 8.5%

Traditional         

Sites 7,888 7,977 8,706 7,761 9,076 0.6% 7.8%  ‐6.9% 16.9%

Avg. Days per

Site 29.9 30.7 30.1 29.4 29.4 2.7%  ‐2.0%  ‐2.3% 0.0%

Average Daily Attendance (congregate meals only)

Operating Days

ADA 18,259 17,395 16,982 21,035 22,960 ‐4.7%  ‐2.4% 23.9% 9.2%

July ADA* 8,533 8,650 8,415 10,615 10,016 1.4%  ‐2.7% 26.1%  ‐5.6%

Participation Rate

SFSP/NSLP

Participation

Rate

6.3% 5.9% 5.3% 6.4% 5.9% ‐6.3%  ‐10.2% 20.1%  ‐7.8%

*July ADA does not include backpack meals. 
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page B‐3

Table B1.c

State‐Level SFSP Meals Served and Average Daily Attendance: Ohio

Number Percent Change

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2008–

2009

2009–

2010

2010–

2011

2011–

2012

Total Meals (congregate and backpack)

Total Meals

(Congregate

and Backpack)

3,286,678 3,601,201 4,022,857 3,742,743 3,841,159 9.6% 11.7%  ‐7.0% 2.6%

Total Meals by Meal Type (congregate and backpack)

Breakfast 699,667 751,599 996,466 922,414 981,883 7.4% 32.6%  ‐7.4% 6.4%

Lunch 2,197,909 2,406,130 2,548,146 2,401,829 2,448,002 9.5% 5.9%  ‐5.7% 1.9%

Snack 261,337 306,924 331,635 292,317 250,444 17.4% 8.1%  ‐11.9%  ‐14.3%

Supper 127,765 136,548 146,610 126,183 160,830 6.9% 7.4%  ‐13.9% 27.5%

Total Meals by Month (congregate and backpack)

May 843  ‐  ‐  214 1,996 ‐  ‐  ‐  832.7%

June 1,098,900 1,232,926 1,371,499 1,397,033 1,465,726 12.2% 11.2% 1.9% 4.9%

July 1,634,271 1,810,844 1,957,766 1,653,729 1,822,995 10.8% 8.1%  ‐15.5% 10.2%

August 552,664 557,431 693,592 691,767 550,442 0.9% 24.4%  ‐0.3%  ‐20.4%

Operating Days (days meals were provided)

Demonstration

Sites 1,645 1,985 20.7%

Traditional

Sites 51,017 55,797 58,262 53,467 57,007 9.4% 4.4%  ‐8.2% 6.6%

Avg. Days

per Site 34.0 34.2 34.5 35.1 35.5 0.6% 0.9% 1.7% 1.1%

Average Daily Attendance (congregate meals only)

Operating Days

ADA 68,757 77,124 79,336 75,292 75,487 12.2% 2.9%  ‐5.1% 0.3%

July ADA* 50,154 56,548 59,108 52,515 55,349 12.7% 4.5%  ‐11.2% 5.4%

Participation Rate

SFSP/NSLP

Participation

Rate

10.8% 11.4% 11.1% 9.9% 9.5% 5.6%  ‐2.6%  ‐10.8%  ‐4.0%

*July ADA does not include backpack meals. 

   
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page B‐4

Table B2.a

Number of Demonstration SFSP Sponsors, Sites, and Meals:  

Arizona Food Backpack Demonstration

ARIZONA

2011 2012

Total Demonstration Sponsors  

Total Sponsors 3 3

Demonstration Sites  

Total Sites 18 26

Sites Continuing from 2011 12

New Sites in 2012 14

Avg. Operating Days Per Site (All Demonstration Sites) 29.9 33.4

Avg. Operating Days Per Site(for Continuing Sites) 28.9

Avg. Operating Days Backpacks were Distributed Per Site 6.3

Total Backpacks Distributed 17,439 21,869

Percent of Backpacks Distributed by Day of Week

Monday 34.3

Tuesday 4.6

Wednesday ‐ 

Thursday 8.0

Friday   42.9

Saturday 10.3

Children Served  

Total Unique Children Given Backpacks* 2,556 1,774

Avg. Number of Children Given Backpacks Per Delivery 88.1

Avg. Number Meals per Backpack Provided Per Single Meal

Type** 2.0

Avg. Number of Breakfasts Per Backpack 1.2

Avg. Number of Lunches per Backpack 1.9

Avg. Number Meals per Child per Distribution 3.1

Backpack Meals Distributed  

Total Backpack Meals Served 79,795 42,619

Backpack Meals Distributed per Backpack

Mean 1.9

Range 2

Standard Deviation 0.4

Median 2

Backpack Meals Distributed by Meal Type

Breakfasts 25,905 14,648

Lunches 53,890 27,971

Snacks  ‐ ‐ 

Backpack Meals Distributed by Month

May 288 ‐ 

June 46,789 30,613

July 32,718 12,006

August  ‐ ‐ 

Backpack Meals Prepared but Not Distributed

Total Backpack Meals Prepared But Not Distributed 3,289

Breakfasts 1,496

Lunches 1,793

Backpack Meals Prepared but Not Distributed by Meal Type

May ‐ 

June 1,906

July 1,383

August ‐ 

*Definition provided on page 13. 

**This measure assumes backpacks only contain either breakfast or lunch, but not both. 

   
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page B‐5

Table B2.b

Number of Demonstration SFSP Sponsors, Sites and Meals:  

Kansas Food Backpack Demonstration

KANSAS

2011 2012

Total Demonstration Sponsors

Total Sponsors 7 7

Total Demonstration Sponsors  

Total Sites 14 16

Sites Continuing from 2011 13

New Sites in 2012 3

Avg. Operating Days Per Site (All Demonstration Sites) 37.1 35.3

Avg. Operating Days Per Site (for Continuing Sites) 36.1

Avg. Operating Days Backpacks were Distributed Per Site 8.0

Total Backpacks Distributed 9,459 9,735

Percent of Backpacks Distributed by Day of Week

Monday ‐ 

Tuesday 3.0

Wednesday ‐ 

Thursday 25.3

Friday   69.8

Saturday 1.9

Children Served

Total Unique Children Given Backpacks* 1,211 1,239

Avg. Number of Children Given Backpacks Per Delivery 76.1

Avg. Number Meals per Backpack Provided Per Single Meal

Type** 2.0

Avg. Number of Breakfasts Per Backpack 0.8

Avg. Number of Lunches Per Backpack 2.4

Avg. Number Meals per Child per Distribution 3.2

Backpack Meals Distributed  

Total Backpack Meals Served 24,290 32,111

Backpack Meals Distributed per Backpack

Mean 3.2

Range 5

Standard Deviation 0.9

Median 3

Backpack Meals Distributed by Meal Type

Breakfasts 5,461 10,537

Lunches 18,829 21,574

Snacks  ‐ ‐ 

Backpack Meals Distributed by Month

May  ‐ 601

June 11,214 17,007

July 12,036 13,019

August 1,040 1,484

Backpack Meals Prepared but Not Distributed

Total Backpack Meals Prepared But Not Distributed 3,702

Breakfasts 985

Lunches 2,717

Backpack Meals Prepared but Not Distributed by Meal Type

May 82

June 1,355

July 2,079

August 186

*Definition provided on page 13. 

**This measure assumes backpacks only contain either breakfast or lunch, but not both. 

   
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page B‐6

Table B2.c

Number of Demonstration SFSP Sponsors, Sites and Meals:  

Ohio Food Backpack Demonstration

OHIO

2011 2012

Total Demonstration Sponsors  

Total Sponsors 6 6

Total Demonstration Sponsors

Total Sites 50 55

Sites Continuing from 2011 35

New Sites in 2012 20

Avg. Operating Days Per Site (All Demonstration Sites) 32.9 36.1

Avg, Operating Days Per Site (for Continuing Sites) 37.7

Avg. Operating Days Backpacks were Distributed Per Site 7.4

Total Backpacks Distributed 16,570 17,028

Percent of Backpacks Distributed by Day of Week

Monday 6.3

Tuesday ‐ 

Wednesday 0.8

Thursday 8.6

Friday   84.3

Children Served

Total Unique Children Given Backpacks* 2,920 1,894

Avg. Number of Children Given Backpacks Per Delivery 41.8

Avg. Number Meals per Backpack Provided Per Single Meal

Type** 2.0

Avg. Number of Breakfasts Per Backpack 1.0

Avg. Number of Lunches Per Backpack 2.1

Avg. Number Meals per Child per Distribution 3.2

Backpack Meals Distributed

Total Backpack Meals Served 58,702 59,279

Backpack Meals Distributed per Backpack

Mean 3.2

Range 7

Standard Deviation 1.1

Median 4

Backpack Meals Distributed by Meal Type

Breakfasts 22,114 23,488

Lunches 34,002 35,869

Snacks 2,586 ‐ 

Backpack Meals Distributed by Month

May  ‐ ‐ 

June 17,498 21,484

July 30,720 26,851

August 10,484 10,944

Backpack Meals Prepared but Not Distributedb

Total Backpack Meals Prepared But Not Distributed 681

Breakfasts ‐ 

Lunches 681

Backpack Meals Prepared but Not Distributed by Meal Type***

May ‐ 

June 265

July 392

August 24

*Definition provided on page 13. 

** This measure assumes backpacks only contain either breakfast or lunch, but not both. 

*** Sponsor Ashtabula Children’s Services did not provide information on the number of backpacks 

prepared and was therefore omitted from these calculations. 

   
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page B‐7

Table B3.a1:  2010–2012

Backpack Demonstration Sites vs. Comparison Sites: Arizona

Existing Demonstration Sites

(open 2010–2012)

Existing Comparison Sites

(open 2010–2012)

2010 2012

% Change

2010–

2012

2010 2012

% Change

2010–

2012

Total Meals 60,888 57,904 ‐4.9% 385,499 415,877 7.9%

Median Meals

per Site

3,469 4,095 18.0% 3,184 3,552 11.6%

July ADA* 722.5 596.6 ‐17.4% 4,118 4,217 2.4%

Note: Total Meals and Median Meals per Site include backpack meals, but July ADA does not. 

Table B3.a2:  2010–2011

Backpack Demonstration Sites vs. Comparison Sites: Arizona

Existing Demonstration Sites

(open 2010–2011)

Existing Comparison Sites

(open 2010–2011)

2010 2011

% Change

2010–

2011

2010 2011

% Change

2010–

2011

Total Meals 77,659 139,565 79.7% 950,579 968,152 1.8%

Median

Meals per

Site

2,780 9,361 236.7% 2,755 2,950 7.1%

July ADA 816 2,023 147.9% 8,479 9,234 8.9%

Note: These calculations from the 2011 report include backpack meals. 

   
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page B‐8

Table B3.b1:  2010–2012

Backpack Demonstration Sites vs. Comparison Sites: Kansas

Existing Demonstration Sites

(open 2010–2012)

Existing Comparison Sites

(open 2010–2012)

2010 2012

% Change

2010–

2012

2010 2012

% Change

2010–

2012

Total Meals 42,645 45,377 6.4% 94,120 56,331  ‐40.1%

Median Meals

per Site 3,108 3,488 12.2% 2,401 1,062  ‐55.8%

July ADA 756.6 806.8 6.6% 920.8 977.2 6.1%

Note: Total Meals and Median Meals per Site include backpack meals, but July ADA does not. 

Table B3.b2:  2010–2011

Backpack Demonstration Sites vs. Comparison Sites: Kansas

Existing Demonstration Sites

(open 2010 and 2011)

Existing Comparison Sites

(open 2010 and 2011)

2010 2011

% Change

2010–

2011

2010 2011

% Change

2010–

2011

Total Meals 45,136 73,479 62.8% 72,182 66,775  ‐7.5%

Median

Meals per

Site

2,901 5,196 79.1% 2,353 2,372 0.8%

July ADA 757 1,269 67.7% 634 615  ‐3.0%

Note: These calculations from the 2011 report include backpack meals. 
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page B‐9

Table B3.c1:  2010–2012

Backpack Demonstration Sites vs. Comparison Sites: Ohio

Existing Demonstration Sites

(open 2010–2012)

Existing Comparison Sites

(open 2010–2012)

2010 2012

% Change

2010–

2012

2010 2012

% Change

2010–

2012

Total Meals 73,895 76,710 3.8% 352,809 334,618  ‐5.2%

Median Meals

per Site

1,407 1,355 ‐3.7% 1,752 1,712  ‐2.3%

July ADA 1,097.5 1,254.0 14.3% 4,712.8 4,974.9 5.6%

Note: Total Meals and Median Meals per Site include backpack meals, but July ADA does not. 

Table B3.c2:  2010–2011

Backpack Demonstration Sites vs. Comparison Sites: Ohio

Existing Demonstration Sites

(open 2010–2011)

Existing Comparison Sites

(open 2010–2011)

2010 2011

% Change

2010–

2011

2010 2011

% Change

2010–

2011

Total Meals 78,777 107,017 35.8% 375,247 329,223  ‐12.3%

Median

Meals per

Site

1,580 2,628 66.3% 1,800 1,562  ‐13.2%

July ADA 1,279 1,707 33.5% 4,493 4,077  ‐9.3%

Note: These calculations from the 2011 report include backpack meals. 

   
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page B‐10

Table B4

2012 SFSP Demonstration Sponsors: Food Backpack Demonstration States

Sponsor Name

Number of

Sites

Total Number of

Backpacks

Total Unique

Children Given

Backpacks*

Average

Number of

Meals per

Backpack

ARIZONA

Chandler Unified

School District 7 10,361 650 2.0

Litchfield Elementary

School District 17 9,464 757 1.8

Mesa Public Schools 2 2,044 367 2.4

KANSAS

Arkansas City Public

School District 1 791 201 3.0

Central Unified

School District

(Burden)

4 550 80 3.3

Gardner Edgerton

School District 1 1,504 188 4.0

Lawrence Public

Schools 7 4,878 640 3.2

Topeka Public

Schools 1 692 32 4.3

United Methodist

Church (at Wilson

Elementary)

1 597 52 3.1

East Central Kansas

Cooperative in

Education

1 723 46 1.9

OHIO

Andrew’s House 1 797 80 2.0

Ashtabula County

Children Services 6 2,052 223 4.0

Community Action

Organization of

Scioto County

30 4,933 845 2.2

Hamilton Living

Water Ministry 2 1,436 103 5.0

Hocking Athens Perry

Community Action

Agency

11 4,207 488 3.9

Whole Again

International 5 3,603 155 4.0

*Definition provided on page 13. 
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page B‐11

Table B5

Seamless Summer: Food Backpack Demonstration States (Statewide)

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

ARIZONA

# of Sponsors 84 83 71 98 117

# of Sites 394 390 383 363 441

Total Meals Served 1,533,513 1,710,721 1,603,865 1,650,669 1,866,561

Operating Days ADA 41,438 49,929 47,226 44,848 51,698

KANSAS

# of Sponsors 2 1 ‐ ‐  1

# of Sites 4 1 ‐ ‐  1

Total Meals Served 18,450 1,708 ‐ ‐  593

Operating Days ADA 599 81 ‐ ‐  20

OHIO

# of Sponsors 19 17 60 59 78

# of Sites 58 55 113 110 139

Total Meals Served 83,461 82,060 221,338 191,713 218,650

Operating Days ADA 3,761 3,025 6,410 5,246 7,584

Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

APPENDIX C 

WAVE 2 DEMONSTRATIONS 

COMPARISON GROUP 

SELECTION METHODOLOGY 

Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page C‐1

APPENDIX C: WAVE 2 DEMONSTRATIONS COMPARISON GROUP SELECTION 

METHODOLOGY 

The Wave 2 demonstrations operated in targeted local areas and were designed to serve 

small populations. Even the most successful demonstrations are unlikely to have much effect at 

the statewide level. FNS and Insight explored using comparison groups at the Core Based 

Statistical Area (a term that describes areas around an urban cluster, including Metropolitan 

Statistical Areas and Micropolitan Statistical Areas) and the county levels, but these areas 

present the same issue of potentially masking any effects of the demonstrations in relatively 

small demonstration areas. We decided that the appropriate level of comparison for both Wave 2 

enhancement demonstrations is to examine changes at the SFSP site level. The method of 

comparison-site selection differed between the two types of demonstrations, as described below. 

Food Backpack. For the backpack demonstration, one research question asks whether 

providing backpacks leads to increased participation in the sites’ congregate meal service. The 

comparison sites serve as a quasi-control group. We compare the number of meals served and 

ADA before and after implementation of the demonstration at the demonstration sites and the 

comparison sites to see if there is any indication that providing backpacks is associated with such 

a change. The comparison groups for each State consist either of sites within the same county or 

counties as the demonstration sites, or demographically similar counties. 

The decision rules for selection of backpack demonstration comparison sites are as 

follows: 

1. Identify demonstration sites within each of three States (Arizona, Kansas, and Ohio) that 

also operated in 2010. 

2. To select comparison sites, identify non-demonstration sites within the same county as 

the demonstration site(s) that existed in both 2010 and 2012. 

3. If comparison sites did not exist within all or some demonstration counties, nondemonstration sites that operated in 2010 and 2012 would be selected from 

demographically similar counties within the same State, starting with those that are most 

similar (shortest distance statistically). These counties were ranked using the Distance 

procedure in SAS that computes the standardized measures of statistical distance or 

similarity between the observations (rows) of a dataset. The dataset contained county 

level measures that are often cited as being associated with household food security and 

to each other36—population density, median household income, percent with incomes 

below the Federal poverty level, unemployment rate (from U.S. Census Bureau’s 

American Community Survey and Population Estimates),37 and percent who are eligible 

for free and reduced-price lunches (from U.S. Department of Education’s Common Core 

 

36 Coleman-Jensen, A., Nord, M., Andrews, M., & Carlson, S. (2011). Household Food Security in the United States in 2010 (ERR-125). 

Alexandria, VA: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 

37 U.S. Census Bureau. (2012, February 16). American FactFinder. Retrieved 2.25.12 from 

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. 
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page C‐2

of Data).38 

4. In the case that similar counties are also demonstration counties, comparison sites will be 

selected from the next statistically similar county that is not a demonstration county. 

5. To determine how many sites to select from these similar counties, the following criteria 

are applied: 

 The sites should be within defined geographic units, in this case counties. 

 Select all comparison (non-demonstration) sites that were open in 2010 from the next 

demographically similar county. Compare 2010 meal counts; if total meals served in 

comparison sites are comparable to or are more than those in total demonstration 

sites, stop there. 

 If 2010 meal counts for the comparison group is less than in demonstration sites, 

expand to select from next similar county (two counties total) until meal counts are 

comparable to or exceed those in the demonstration site. 

6. Demonstration sites and comparison sites for each State were pooled together 

respectively to assess percent of change in ADA and meals served from the previous year 

(2010). 

Number of Demonstration and Comparison  

(Non‐Demonstration) Sites in Backpack States

States Demonstration Sites Comparison Sites

Arizona 10 91

Kansas 9 28

Ohio 33 149

Meal Delivery. For the delivery demonstration, one research question asked whether 

children who previously attended congregate meal sites switched to the delivery program. This 

would indicate that the demonstration was not reaching new children as it was intended to do. 

We examined ADA at the traditional sites that were closest to the delivery areas to see whether 

attendance at traditional sites changed in conjunction with the implementation of the 

demonstration. Listing the closest traditional sites also illustrates the distance that children 

participating in the delivery program would have to travel in order to attend a congregate meal. 

To select sites for this analysis, FNS mapped out all of the SFSP sites in the delivery 

States as well as the location of the dropoff sites and selected the SFSP sites that were nearest 

geographically to the demonstration area. Decision rules for selection of Meal Delivery 

demonstration comparison sites are as follows: 

1. Identify the “demonstration” locations within the State. These demonstration sites are 

not SFSP sites, but rather dropoff locations or actual residences. 

2. Map out all addresses (street number, street name, ZIP Code) of demonstration and non-

 

38 U.S. Department of Education. (2011, April). NCES Common Core of Data Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey: School 

Year 2009–10. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/pubschuniv.asp. 
Evaluation of the Impact of Wave 2 Incentives Demonstrations on Participation in the SFSP:  FY 2012

Page C‐3

demonstration sites in the State. 

3. Using the mapped results, select closest non-demonstration sites for each demonstration 

location within the State. To control for trends in ADA, the comparison site must have 

operated from 2008 to 2012. One comparison site that was selected for the 2011 interim 

analysis was included in this analysis, even though it stopped operating between 2011 

and 2012. The number of comparison sites to select depends on mapping results. 

Because the locations of meal-delivery dropoff sites will be in rural areas of the State, 

there should not be a great number of traditional SFSP sites in the same area. 

4. Examine each comparison site separately in assessing change in ADA from previous 

years. 

Number of Demonstration and Comparison  

(Non‐Demonstration) Sites in Meal Delivery States

States Delivery/Dropoff (Demo) Areas* Comparison Sites

Delaware 21 6

Massachusetts 2 1

New York 8 5

*Delivery locations and routes were typically clustered in certain rural areas based on the 

location of the sponsor; the exception is Delaware where one sponsor dropped off meals at 

six locations throughout the State.