Background

The Special Nutrition Program Operations Study (SNOPS) is a multiyear study designed to provide the 

USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) with a 

snapshot of current State and School Food Authority 

(SFA) policies and practices, including information on

school meal standards, competitive foods standards, 

professional standards, school lunch pricing and 

accounting, and standards for school wellness policies.

The information in this first year study will provide a 

baseline for observing the improvements resulting from 

the implementation of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids 

Act (HHFKA). 

Methods

The first year of SN-OPS was based on data collected 

during school year (SY) 2011-2012 through surveys of 

all State Child Nutrition (CN) directors and a stratified 

sample of SFA directors, which was weighted to 

represent the population of SFAs.

The initial round of data collection attempted to gain a 

full census of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and 

the five U.S. territories. The survey of SFA directors 

used a stratified sample of SFAs serving at least one 

school participating in National School Lunch Program 

(NSLP) from the entire list of 14,797 public school SFAs 

(as of 2010).

Findings

Participation

School participation in the NSLP was nearly universal 

and participation in the School Breakfast Program 

(SBP) was high among SFAs. Ninety-seven percent of 

SFAs had all of their schools participating in NSLP, and 

79 percent of SFAs had all of their schools participating 

in SBP (table 1).

Table 1. Percentage of SFAs with All Schools within each Grade 

Level Participating in NSLP and SBP, SY 2011-12

Program Elementary Middle High Other

All 

schools

NSLP 99.1% 99.7% 99.0% 92.7% 96.6%

SBP 85.9% 88.2% 88.1% 77.8% 78.8%

SFA = School Food Authority SY= School Year

NSLP = National School Lunch Program SBP = School Breakfast Program

SFA directors reported that, overall, 7 percent of students 

did not have access to the SBP, and 2 percent did not 

have access to the NSLP during SY 2011-12.

SFA directors reported that over half (51 percent) of 

their students were approved for either free or reduced 

price (F/RP) meals. Forty-four percent of students in all 

schools were approved to receive free meals during SY 

2011-12. Additionally, SFAs reported that 7 percent of 

students were approved for reduced-price meals. These 

percentages were fairly consistent across school levels. 

Operations

In general, SFA directors have a considerable amount 

of experience in the field of school-food service. Eightynine percent of SFA directors had more than 5 years of 

food service experience and nearly half (47 percent) had 

more than 20 years of total experience. 

SFAs have varying types of kitchen facilities and meal 

service systems available at their schools. Fifty-five 

percent of SFAs have only onsite kitchens at the 

individual schools, while 17 percent have only 

centralized (offsite) kitchens, and the remaining 29 

percent have a mixture. Similarly, 21 percent of SFAs 

used food service management companies (FSMCs) to 

manage the food service operations in at least some of 

their schools.

Nearly all SFAs (96 percent) reported that all schools 

in their district had a written food safety plan based on 

Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) 

principles by SY 2011-12. In addition, 84 percent of 

SFAs reported that all of their schools had two or more 

safety inspections during SY 2010-11.

Competitive foods are widely offered by most SFAs with 

80 percent of SFAs reporting that their schools 

provided at least one competitive food source. The most 

common competitive food source was offering à la carte 

items during breakfast (53 percent) and lunch (71 

percent). In addition, 29 percent of SFAs reported their 

schools had vending machines; 19 percent had snack 

bars; and 26 percent had other competitive food venues, 

including school stores.

SPECIAL NUTRITION PROGRAM OPERATIONS STUDY, SY 2011-12: SUMMARY

Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support March 2014
SFA Finances

On average, SFAs charged considerably more for paid 

meals purchased by secondary school students than by 

elementary school students (figure 1). In SY 2011-12, 

the average price for a paid lunch in secondary schools 

was about 11 percent higher than in elementary schools. 

This may reflect the differences in portion sizes, and 

hence food costs, between elementary and secondary 

schools.

SFA = School Food Authority

SY= School Year

The majority of SFAs raised prices after the 

implementation of the paid meal equity provision in 

2011; the typical increase was 10 cents. In elementary 

schools, only 16 percent of SFAs raised prices for 

SY 2010-11 (the year before the HHFKA paid meal 

equity provision became effective), whereas 55 percent 

raised prices for SY 2011-12. A similar pattern was 

observed for middle, high, and other schools. Under 

HHFKA regulations, the paid meal equity provision 

requires SFAs to either set the average price of a paid 

school lunch at no less than the difference between the 

reimbursement rate for free and paid meals or make up 

for the revenues lost to the SFA through the 

“underpricing” of paid lunches with funds from nonFederal sources.

SFAs have been providing meals to children who 

cannot pay for them. In SY 2010-11, 88 percent of SFAs

regularly provided either a reimbursable school meal or 

some form of alternative meal to children who were not

approved for a F/RP meal and who could not pay for a 

meal (Table 2). On average, for all SFAs that lost some 

revenue as a result of unpaid meals, the net revenue lost 

was less than 1 percent (0.51 percent) of total 

expenditure for the year.

Table 2. Among SFAs with Unpaid Meal Costs, the Percentage of 

SFAs with Various Practices for Providing a Meal to Students Who 

Cannot Pay, SY 2010-11

SFA practice Percentage of 

SFAs

Serve a reimbursable meal 50.4%

Serve an alternative meal 38.0%

Serve a reimbursable meal for a limited 

number of times and then serve an 

alternative meal

5.4%

Do not serve the child a reimbursable or 

alternative meal

1.3%

Other 4.9%

Total 100.0%

SFA = School Food Authority

State Policies and Support

Some States provided a subsidy to SFAs beyond the 

Federal reimbursement that SFAs received for the 

F/RP meals served to income eligible students. Fortytwo percent of States provided a subsidy for breakfast

and lunch; 9 percent provided a subsidy for breakfast 

only; 11 percent provided a subsidy for lunch only. Just 

over one-third of States did not provide subsidies to their 

SFAs.

A substantial number of States reported having SFAs 

that use Provisions 2 and 3 and direct verification to 

lessen the administrative burden associated with 

determining students’ program eligibility. Overall, 

many more States (77 percent) had at least some SFAs 

using Provision 2 as compared to Provision 3 (28 

percent), and just about half (48 percent) of the States 

reported having at least one SFA using direct 

verification.

Additional Information

The full report provides information on participation in 

NSLP, SBP and other nutrition programs, SFA staff 

credentials and responsibilities, kitchen facilities and 

meal service, food safety and training, food procurement, 

menu planning and nutritional analysis, meal counting 

and claiming procedures, availability of non-USDA meal 

alternatives, SFA financials, and State policies and 

administration of NSLP and SBP.

For More Information

L. May et al. (2013). Special Nutrition Program 

Operations Study, State and SFA Policies and Practices 

for School Meal Programs: SY 2011-12. Prepared by 

Westat. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Project Officer: 

John Endahl. Available online at: 

www.fns.usda.gov/research-and-analysis. 

$0.00 

$0.50 

$1.00 

$1.50 

$2.00 

$2.50 

Elementary Middle High Other

Figure 1. Average Price Charged by SFAs for a Paid 

Student Lunch, SY 2009-10 to SY 2011-12

2009/10

2010/11

2011/12

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

$2.00

$2.21 $2.21 $2.15