Nutrition Assistance Program Report Series 

The Office of Analysis, Nutrition, and Evaluation 

Special Nutrition Programs Report No. CN-04-SBP 

Evaluation of the School Breakfast 

Program Pilot Project: 

Final Report 

United States Food and 

Department of Nutrition 

Agriculture Service 

December 2004
Non-Discrimination Policy 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political 

beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all 

programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program 

information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at 

(202)720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, 

Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call 

(202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 
Evaluation of the School Breakfast Program 

Pilot Project: Final Report 

Authors:

From Abt Associates Inc.: 

Lawrence S. Bernstein 

Joan E. McLaughlin 

Mary Kay Crepinsek 

From Promar International: 

Lynn M. Daft 

Submitted by: Submitted to:

Abt Associates Inc. Office of Analysis, Nutrition, and Evaluation 

55 Wheeler Street USDA, Food and Nutrition Service 

Cambridge, MA 02138 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1014 

 Alexandria, VA 22302-1500 

Project Directors: Project Officer: 

Joan E. McLaughlin Anita Singh 

Lawrence S. Bernstein 

This study was conducted under Contract number 53-3198-0-002 with the Food and Nutrition Service. 

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

Suggested Citation:

Bernstein LS, JE McLaughlin, MK Crepinsek, LM Daft.“ Evaluation of the School Breakfast Program Pilot 

Project: Final Report,” Nutrition Assistance Program Report Series, No. CN-04-SBP, Project Officer: Anita 

Singh. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition, and 

Evaluation, Alexandria, VA: 2004. 

United States Food and 

Department of Nutrition 

Agriculture Service 

December 2004

Special Nutrition Programs

Report No. CN-04-SBP

Acknowledgments 

The Evaluation of the School Breakfast Program Pilot Project is a multi-year research study that 

gathered information from participating schools and school districts during School Years 2000-2001 

through 2002-2003. We greatly appreciate the efforts of the many school and school district staff that 

made possible the collection of information in their sites, including principals, cafeteria managers, 

teachers, custodians, district administrators, and staff that helped facilitate data collection. Special 

thanks go to the SFA Directors who serve as district liaisons to the evaluation team: David Caldwell, 

Sharon Carlson, Elena Dibble, Linda Godfrey, Vicki Hoffman, Cathy Luellen-Aflague, Kay Norris, 

and Wanda Salley. They answered our many questions and helped facilitate our informationgathering in their districts. We are also indebted to the children and parents who agreed to participate 

in the study and who taught us a great deal about school breakfast. 

Staff from three organizations worked collaboratively on the tasks leading to this final report. Abt 

Associates Inc. oversaw the evaluation and took the lead on the Impact Study. Key staff include 

Joanna Golding, Ellie Lee, Nancy McGarry, Lindsay Page, Amanda Parsad, Cristofer Price and Chris 

Weiland. Promar International conducted the Implementation Study. Key Promar staff include 

George Baker, Elizabeth Florez, Anna Murphy, and Brooke Wilbraham. The CDM Group 

coordinated the work of school and district liaisons and collected record data in each district over the 

course of three years. Bob O’Brien, Nancy Brown, and Candice Grayton are key CDM staff. J. 

Michael Murphy of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School read a draft of this 

report and provided helpful comments. Larry Orr from Abt Associates served as Abt’s technical 

reviewer, and Eileen Fahey capably produced the report. 

Anita Singh served as the Federal Project Officer for the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). Her 

technical guidance was invaluable throughout the evaluation, and her willingness to go the extra mile 

was appreciated by the entire project team. Other FNS staff also provided significant input along the 

way, including John Endahl and Jay Hirschman of the Office of the Analysis, Nutrition and 

Evaluation and Susan Fouts of the Child Nutrition Division. Robert Meyer of the University of 

Wisconsin-Madison served as FNS’ external reviewer of this report, and his thoughtful comments are 

much appreciated. 

Table of Contents i 

Table of Contents 

Chapter One: Introduction.......................................................................................................... 1 

 The School Breakfast Program....................................................................................... 2 

 Research on the Relationship Between Breakfast and Student Outcomes..................... 3 

 Universal-Free School Breakfast Initiatives................................................................... 4 

 The School Breakfast Pilot Project................................................................................. 5 

 Evaluation of the School Breakfast Pilot Project ........................................................... 6 

 Conceptual Model................................................................................................. 7 

 Purpose and Organization of the Report ........................................................................ 11 

Chapter Two: Implementation Study Design and Methodology................................................ 13 

 Objectives and Research Questions................................................................................ 13 

 Design............................................................................................................................. 13 

 Data Collection............................................................................................................... 17 

 Sample .................................................................................................................. 17 

 Schedule ............................................................................................................... 17 

 Analytic Approach ......................................................................................................... 17 

Chapter Three: Implementation of the School Breakfast Pilot Project ...................................... 19 

 Summary of the First Year Findings .............................................................................. 19 

 Document the various ways in which schools chose to implement universal- 

 free school breakfast........................................................................................... 19 

 Assess the effect that universal-free school breakfast has on paperwork, costs 

 and other administrative requirements................................................................ 19 

 Reporting the Second and Third Year Findings............................................................. 20 

 Summary of the Findings from the Second and Third Years......................................... 21 

 Description of District and School Characteristics ........................................................ 22 

 Size and Structure................................................................................................. 22 

 Free and Reduced-Price Meal Eligibility ............................................................. 22 

 Changes in the Sample ......................................................................................... 23 

 Implementing Universal-Free School Breakfast ............................................................ 23 

 District-Level Changes......................................................................................... 24 

 School-Level Changes.......................................................................................... 24 

 Program Promotion............................................................................................... 25 

 Breakfast Setting................................................................................................... 25 

 Cafeteria Operations............................................................................................. 27 

 Breakfast Composition ......................................................................................... 30 

 Impact of Implementing Universal-Free School Breakfast on School Operations ........ 31 

 Program Participation........................................................................................... 31 

 Eating Breakfast in the Classroom ....................................................................... 32 

 Administrative Requirements ............................................................................... 34 

 Staffing and Workload Impacts............................................................................ 36 

 Impact on Costs and Revenues............................................................................. 38 

 Plate Waste ........................................................................................................... 39 

 Impact on Students and Teachers ......................................................................... 39 

 School Discipline.................................................................................................. 40 
ii Table of Contents 

Contents (continued)

 Stakeholder Attitudes...................................................................................................... 43

 First Year Results.................................................................................................. 43 

 SFA Directors ....................................................................................................... 44 

 Cafeteria Managers ............................................................................................... 44 

 Principals............................................................................................................... 45 

 Post-SBPP Plans ............................................................................................................. 45 

Chapter Four: Impact Study Design and Methodology .............................................................. 47 

 Objectives and Research Questions ................................................................................ 47 

 Sampling Design............................................................................................................. 48 

 Data Collection Measures and Methodology.................................................................. 49 

 Analytic Approach.......................................................................................................... 51

 Analytic Models to Estimate the Overall Impacts of the Availability of 

 Universal-Free School Breakfast ........................................................................ 52 

 Analytic Approaches to Measuring Effects of Participation in School 

 Breakfast and Consumption of Breakfast............................................................ 53 

Chapter Five: Impact of the Availability of Universal-Free School Breakfast on Students 

 in Years 2 and 3 ............................................................................................................ 55 

 Summary of Year 1 Impact Findings on the Availability of Universal-Free 

 School Breakfast ........................................................................................................... 55 

 Assess the effects of the availability of universal-free school breakfast on 

 student participation............................................................................................ 55 

 Assess the effects of the availability of universal-free school breakfast on 

 student outcomes................................................................................................. 56 

 Description of Sample at Baseline.................................................................................. 57 

 Sample Characteristics.......................................................................................... 57 

 Impacts on School Breakfast Participation ..................................................................... 57 

 Measures and Analytic Variables.......................................................................... 58 

 Findings................................................................................................................. 58 

 Impacts on Student Behavior⎯Disciplinary Incidents................................................... 63 

 Impacts on Academic Achievement ............................................................................... 64 

 Measures and Analytic Variables.......................................................................... 64 

 Findings................................................................................................................. 66 

 Impacts on Attendance and Tardiness ............................................................................ 67 

 Measures and Analytic Variables.......................................................................... 69 

 Findings................................................................................................................. 69 

 Impacts on Student Health⎯School Nurse Visits .......................................................... 70 

 Findings................................................................................................................. 70 

 Summary of Impact Findings in Years 2 and 3 .............................................................. 71 
Table of Contents iii 

Contents (continued)

Chapter Six: Results of Non-Experimental Analyses................................................................. 77 

 Summary of the First Year Findings of Supplementary Analyses ................................. 78 

 Impacts on Students Who Increased Their School Breakfast Participation ......... 78 

 Effects of Classroom Breakfast ............................................................................ 79 

 Relationship Between Consumption of Breakfast and Cognitive Functioning .... 79 

 Analyses of Nutrition Outcomes for Substantive versus Non-Substantive 

 Breakfast Eaters............................................................................................................ 80 

 Measures and Analytic Variables ......................................................................... 80 

 Sample Characteristics ......................................................................................... 82 

 Findings ................................................................................................................ 83 

 Analyses of Outcomes for Breakfast Skippers versus Breakfast Non-Skippers ............ 90 

 Measures and Analytic Variables ......................................................................... 91 

 Sample Characteristics ......................................................................................... 93 

 Findings ................................................................................................................ 93 

 Analyses of Nutrition Outcomes by Source of Breakfast: Home versus School ........... 101 

 Measures and Analytic Variables ......................................................................... 103 

 Findings ................................................................................................................ 103 

 Analyses of Nutrition Outcomes by Availability of Breakfast at School....................... 108 

 Measures and Analytic Variables ......................................................................... 110 

 Findings ................................................................................................................ 110 

 Analyses of Nutrition Outcomes by Household Income................................................ 115 

 Measures and Analytic Variables ......................................................................... 115 

 Findings ................................................................................................................ 116 

 Household Characteristics of Food Secure and Food Insecure Households .................. 119 

 Measure and Analytic Variables........................................................................... 121 

 Findings ................................................................................................................ 121 

 School Breakfast Participation Patterns in Treatment Schools and Their 

 Relationship to Student Demographic Characteristics ................................................. 123 

 Measures and Analytic Variables ......................................................................... 123 

 Findings ................................................................................................................ 123 

Chapter Seven: Discussion of Findings...................................................................................... 127 

 Implementation Study Findings ..................................................................................... 128 

 Impact Study Findings.................................................................................................... 129 

 Findings from Supplementary Analyses ........................................................................ 131 

 Substantive Breakfast Eaters ................................................................................ 133 

 Breakfast Skippers................................................................................................ 134 

 Breakfast Source................................................................................................... 135 

 Location of School Breakfast ............................................................................... 135 

 Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 137 

References ................................................................................................................................... 139 
iv Table of Contents 

Contents (continued)

Appendices: 

Appendix A Supplementary Exhibits: Implementation Study 

Appendix B Summary of Achievement Test Score Data 

Appendix C Statistical Models Used to Assess the Impacts of the Availability of Universal-Free 

 School Breakfast 

Appendix D Supplementary Exhibits: Impact Study Findings for Years 2 and 3 

Appendix E Supplementary Exhibits: Impact Study Longitudinal Findings 

Appendix F Summary of the First Year Findings of the Impacts on School Breakfast Participants 

Appendix G Supplementary Exhibits: Non-Experimental Analyses 

Appendix H Assessing the Potential for Selection Bias 
Introduction 1 

Chapter One 

Introduction 

In 1998, Congress authorized the School Breakfast Program Pilot Project (SBPP) to study the 

implementation and effects of providing universal free school breakfast in six school districts across 

the United States. The six school districts chosen from among the 386 that applied for the pilot are: 

• Boise, Idaho: Independent School District of Boise City; 

• Columbiana, Alabama: Shelby County Board of Education; 

• Gulfport, Mississippi: Harrison County School District; 

• Phoenix, Arizona: Washington Elementary School District; 

• Santa Rosa, California: Santa Rosa City Schools; and 

• Wichita, Kansas: Wichita Public Schools. 

For three years, from School Year (SY) 2000-2001 through SY 2002-2003, these six school districts 

received federal funds to offer school breakfasts free of charge, regardless of family income, to 

students in a number of elementary schools that were matched on a number of characteristics, then 

randomly assigned to either treatment or control status. The control schools continued to offer the 

regular School Breakfast Program (SBP), which provides free or reduced-price breakfasts to eligible 

students from low-income families. Over the course of the three years of the pilot project, data were 

collected from all participating schools for an evaluation of the implementation and impact of 

providing universal-free school breakfast. In the fall of 2002, the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) 

released a report of the findings after the first year of the pilot project. That report, entitled 

Evaluation of the School Breakfast Program Pilot Project: Findings from the First Year of 

Implementation, is available on the FNS website 

(http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/Published/CNP/CNP.HTM). 

The current report serves as the final report of findings from the SBPP. It provides impact estimates 

for a smaller set of outcomes, based on data collected over the remaining two years of the pilot, and 

integrates the findings from all three years of the SBPP. This report also presents findings from an 

additional set of analyses undertaken to address a set of questions that have been raised by policy 

makers and other stakeholders since the release of the first year report. These include analyses 

focused on students who do not eat breakfast (“breakfast skippers”) and those who eat a nutritionally 

robust or “substantive breakfast”; variations in the breakfast setting (i.e., school versus home, 

classroom versus other school location); characteristics of students in food insecure households; and 

differences in student outcomes by household income level. 

The remaining sections of this chapter provide background information about the SBP; a brief 

summary of research on the relationship between breakfast and student outcomes; an overview of the 

SBPP, including a review of the conceptual model for understanding the pilot project; a summary of 

the findings in the interim report on Year 1 findings, and a description of the purpose and contents of 

this final report. 
2 Introduction 

The School Breakfast Program 

Congress established the SBP in 1966 as a pilot program, aimed at schools serving low-income 

children or located in areas where children had to travel great distances to get to school. Under SBP, 

USDA provides reimbursements for breakfasts served to children in public and non-profit private 

schools and residential care institutions. The SBP became a permanently authorized program in 1975 

(Public Law 94-105), with Congress directing that it “be made available in all schools where it is 

needed to provide adequate nutrition for children in attendance (FNS, 2004a).” Congress emphasized 

the importance of the program for students in low-income areas by offering higher federal 

reimbursements for meals served in schools identified as having “severe need.” The severe need 

reimbursements are intended to offset the higher operational costs often found in low-income areas. 

The SBP operates much like the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). Schools and institutions 

that choose to participate in the program must serve breakfasts that meet federal nutrition standards 

and provide free and reduced-price meals for those students determined eligible. With regard to the 

nutrition requirements, schools that participate in the SBP must serve breakfasts that provide, on 

average, at least 25 percent of the 1989 Recommended Daily Allowances (RDA) for food energy 

(calories), protein, iron, calcium, and vitamins A and C. Breakfasts served must also adhere to the 

Dietary Guidelines for Americans, specifically, the recommendations that no more than 30 percent of 

calories (food energy) come from fat, and less than 10 percent come from saturated fat (U.S. 

Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services, 2000). 

In terms of eligibility, children from families with incomes at or below 130 percent of the federal 

poverty guidelines are eligible for free meals; those with incomes between 130 and 185 percent of 

poverty level are eligible for reduced-price meals; and those above 185 percent must pay full price, 

although their meals are still nominally subsidized by USDA. Children are determined eligible for 

free or reduced-price school meals if their family applies to participate and they meet these household 

income criteria.1

 For SY 2002-2003, the last year of the SBPP, the maximum reduced-price eligible 

income for a family of four was $33,485; the maximum eligible income for free meals for a family of 

four was $23,530. Children are automatically eligible for free school meals if they are members of a 

household that receives food stamps, or benefits under the Food Distribution Program on Indian 

Reservations, or, in most cases, benefits under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) 

Program. 

USDA provides cash reimbursements to school districts that meet the requirements of the SBP. For 

SY 2002-2003, the reimbursement per breakfast served was as follows: $1.17 for free, $0.87 for 

reduced-price, and $0.22 for paid breakfasts. These reimbursements are higher in severe need areas 

(i.e., $0.23 higher per breakfast served for free and reduced-price breakfasts) and in Alaska and 

Hawaii. Of the 8.2 million children/students served each day in SY 2002-2003, about 6.7 million (79 

percent) received free or reduced-price breakfasts (FNS, 2004b). According to FNS (2004b), about 

 

1

 In an effort to reduce the paperwork burden for schools and school districts, Congress allows three 

alternative provisions to the normal requirements for determining eligibility for free and reduced price 

school meals and daily meal counts by school foodservice staff. Of particular interest to this study is 

Provision 2, which allows schools to serve school breakfast and/or lunch at no charge for three years, based 

on eligibility determinations and meal type counts (e.g., free, reduced price) established in a base year. 

Provision 3 also allows for providing universal-free school breakfast, by providing the same cash and 

commodity support paid to schools in a base year for three additional years. 
Introduction 3 

65 percent of the breakfasts served in the SBP are reimbursed at the severe need rate. In fiscal year 

2003, Congress appropriated $1.68 billion for the SBP. About 78,000 schools and institutions now 

participate in the SBP. 

While the SBP has grown considerably since its inception, it has continued to lag behind its 

counterpart, the NSLP. Over the years, policy makers and program administrators have worked to 

expand the availability of breakfast in schools and promote participation in the program. For 

example, Congress amended the Child Nutrition Act in 1989 to include start-up grants to a number of 

States to be utilized by schools for the non-recurring costs of starting the SBP. Three million dollars 

was allocated to these grants in 1990; and while the grant program was eliminated through the 

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193), the 

number of schools and institutions offering the SBP has grown considerably. Since 1990, the number 

of children served by the SBP has doubled (FNS, 2004b). 

Despite this progress, the SBP still serves fewer students in fewer schools than the NSLP, which 

currently operates in approximately 100,000 schools and residential child care institutions, and serves 

26 million students each day (FNS, 2004c). Recent reports suggest that many who are eligible for 

free and reduced-price breakfasts do not participate. In a recent analysis, the Food Research and 

Action Center (2003) compared participation in the SBP and NSLP. The authors report that 

nationally only about 42 students received free or reduced-price breakfast for every 100 receiving free 

or reduced-price lunch. Rossi (1998) analyzed data collected in 1992 from the first School Nutrition 

Dietary Assessment Study (SNDA-I) and concluded that only 29 percent of the children eligible for 

free and reduced-price breakfasts were actually eating them. 

Many reasons have been cited in recent years for this underutilization of the SBP, including a 

perceived stigma that program participation is associated with being poor, bus and cafeteria 

schedules, and school districts’ perceived costs of running the SBP (Food Research and Action 

Center, 2003). Some advocates and policy makers have argued the need to make SBP more attractive 

and accessible. In particular, advocates have been calling for provision of universal-free school 

breakfast, which they believe reduces administrative burdens on the school and school districts; 

reduces the perceived stigma, since breakfasts are made available at no charge to students from 

households of all incomes; and increases participation (Food Research and Action Center, 2003). 

Research on the Relationship Between Breakfast and Student 

Outcomes 

The report on the first year of findings from the SBPP (McLaughlin et al., 2002) provides a brief 

overview of the research linking breakfast and nutrition, cognitive functioning, academic performance 

and behavior. This will not be repeated here. In addition, two USDA-funded reviews released in 

1999 (Briefel et al.) and 2001 (Jacobson et al.) provide a more in-depth assessment of the literature on 

these links, and include studies done in the United States as well as developing countries under a 

variety of circumstances. Jacobson and his colleagues provide a useful summary of the status of the 

research: 

 The literature suggests a relationship between eating breakfast, improved dietary status, and 

enhanced cognitive performance. Although the literature is suggestive of positive 

educational benefits, no study has been able to definitively conclude that eating a school 
4 Introduction 

 breakfast results in improvements in long-term or short-term cognition or learning and 

academic achievement. The inconclusive findings reflect limitations of the studies...(page 

3). 

Among the problems with the research cited are differences in the breakfast interventions studied, 

small sample sizes, samples that are not nationally representative, the use of non-experimental 

designs that are subject to selection bias, limited attention to any one outcome across studies, and 

tests of significance that do not adequately account for the small sample size of schools. 

Universal-Free School Breakfast Initiatives 

The report of the first year findings also describes several state and school district initiatives to 

implement and evaluate universal-free school breakfast. While there have been no newly initiated 

evaluations of universal-free school breakfast since the first report, a large number of states are 

reporting the availability of universal-free school breakfast. In its most recent publication reviewing 

the status of the federal SBP, the Food Research and Action Center (2003) stated that at least 40 states 

have schools or school districts with universal-free school breakfast programs. At least some of these 

programs take advantage of Provision 2 and/or 3 of the National School Lunch Act, which allows 

schools to provide free breakfasts for all students based on eligibility determinations and meal counts 

from a baseline year. 

New York City, Cleveland, and Kansas City, Missouri are three of the largest school districts 

reporting universal-free school breakfast. Some states provide or have provided funding for 

universal-free school breakfast in certain schools or grades. Illinois provides funds for a universalfree school breakfast program for schools with 80 percent or more students eligible for free or 

reduced-price meals. Massachusetts provided $5.3 million towards universal-free school breakfast in 

fiscal year 2003. In North Carolina, the state provides funding for free breakfasts to kindergarten 

students. 

Two of the state universal-free school breakfast initiatives are of particular relevance, as they 

included evaluations with outcome measures similar to those studied in the SBPP evaluation. 

Maryland provides funding for “Maryland Meals for Achievement,” which allocates about $1.9 

million for universal-free school breakfast for schools in which 40 percent or more of the students are 

eligible for free and reduced-price meals. Of the 22 school systems in Maryland, 18 applied for the 

program and at least one school in each was selected (Maryland State Department of Education, 

2002). The state mandated evaluation component of Meals for Achievement has been dropped, 

although there has been some attempt to track participation trends.2

 The latest evaluation findings 

from this effort after the third year of the program were reported in Murphy and Pagano (2001). 

These authors report a 45-percentage point increase in breakfast participation when schools served 

breakfast in the classroom. In-classroom breakfast was also associated with improvements in staff 

perceptions of student behavior and the school learning environment. Rates of tardiness and 

suspensions for disciplinary incidents were significantly lower than those in demographically similar 

schools. Standardized test scores were significantly higher for universal-free schools, although the 

sample size was small (i.e., 10 treatment and 10 comparison schools). No differences were found for 

attendance, visits to the school nurse, or referrals to the principal’s office for discipline. 

 

2

 Personal communication with Kimberly Kerry, Maryland State Department of Education, March 19, 2004. 
Introduction 5 

Minnesota funded “The Fast Break to Learning,” a universal-free school breakfast program, from 

1999 until 2003, when the state legislature repealed funding. In SY 2001-2002, 422 out of 500 

schools that were eligible chose to participate. Researchers from the University of Minnesota have 

evaluated Fast Break, comparing students in elementary schools that chose to participate in Fast 

Break to those that were eligible but chose not to (i.e., controls), and have separately published the 

results of each year’s findings. In a recent evaluation of Fast Break (Peterson et al., 2003), 

researchers found that participation steadily increased for the Fast Break schools over the course of 

the evaluation. Participation in Fast Break schools increased 17 percentage points, from 39 percent in 

1998-1999 to 56 percent in 2001-2002, compared to a 4 percentage point increase for control schools 

(an increase from 17 to 21 percent). Notably, they found greater increases when they focused on 

students who were eligible for free lunch. These students increased participation by 37 percentage 

points, from 28 percent in 1998-1999 to 65 percent in 2001-2002. The Minnesota researchers also 

found that schools that served breakfast after the start of the school day had higher participation rates 

than schools that served breakfast before the school day started (87 percent compared with 51 

percent, respectively). 

When researchers compared academic outcomes for Fast Break and control school students, they 

found no significant differences between the two groups on achievement test scores (reading and 

math) or attendance. Note that this evaluation did not use a randomized experimental design. The 

schools decided whether or not to participate in Fast Break. Thus, there are likely to be differences 

between the Fast Break and control schools that might influence the outcomes over and above the 

provision of universal-free school breakfast. The researchers do report that the schools differed on 

some measured characteristics: control schools tended to be more suburban and have fewer students 

eligible for free and reduced-price meals than Fast Break schools. Attempts to control for these 

measured differences between the two groups, such as comparing only Title I schools3

 in each group, 

also failed to uncover any improvements in academic achievement associated with universal-free 

school breakfast. 

The Minnesota researchers also looked at incidences of visits to the school nurse and to the principal 

for disciplinary problems. Baseline data were obtained in SY 2000-2001 from a sample of 

elementary schools that were eligible to participate in Fast Break, but did not do so until 2001-2002. 

The second round of data, collected in Spring 2002, was thus after one year of program 

implementation. In this pre/post analysis, there were no significant differences in either the average 

number of school nurse visits or disciplinary incidents reported. 

The School Breakfast Pilot Project 

In an effort to determine the effects of offering free breakfast to all students, regardless of income, in 

1998 Congress authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a pilot project in six school districts 

(Public Law 105-336, section 109). In addition to stipulating the number of demonstration sites, the 

legislation specified that the pilot project should last three years, and include urban and rural 

elementary schools that had families with varying income levels. The legislation also called for an 

evaluation of the pilot project that would provide valid results. 

 

3

 Title I is the federal education program providing funding for schools to improve learning for students at 

risk of educational failure, particularly schools serving large concentrations of children in poverty. 
6 Introduction 

FNS conducted a competitive grant process for school district participation in the SBPP, and chose 

the six school districts listed at the beginning of the chapter from the 386 districts that applied to 

participate in the demonstration. 

Each of the chosen school districts committed to taking part in the pilot project and evaluation for 

three years. Participating elementary schools in the six districts were randomly assigned either to the 

treatment group, which offered universal-free school breakfast, regardless of household income, or to 

the control group, which continued to provide the regular SBP. While the federal nutrition standards 

for breakfast needed to be maintained in all schools, school districts were given wide latitude to 

implement universal-free school breakfast in the treatment schools in a way that worked best in their 

local community (e.g., timing and location of breakfasts). The school districts were reimbursed for 

all breakfasts served in treatment schools at the federal reimbursement rate for free breakfasts. 

Requirements for the evaluation included providing school record data for the baseline year prior to 

SBPP implementation and for the three years of the SBPP, taking part in interviews, and facilitating 

data collection from students and staff. In addition, the school districts were required to maintain the 

integrity of random assignment of their schools to treatment or control status over the three years of 

the pilot. 

Evaluation of the School Breakfast Pilot Project 

The legislation authorizing the SBPP required that the evaluation address the following objectives: 

 1. Document the methods used by schools to implement universal-free school breakfast. 

 2. Assess the effect that universal-free school breakfast has on paperwork, costs, and other 

administrative requirements placed on schools. 

 3. Assess the effects of universal-free school breakfast on student participation. 

 4. Assess the effects of universal-free school breakfast on student outcomes, including 

dietary intake, school attendance and tardiness, classroom behavior and discipline, and 

academic achievement.4

As a first step in responding to this legislative mandate, FNS funded an effort to develop a 

comprehensive and rigorous design for studying the SBPP. The evaluation design chosen through 

this process, an experimental design with random assignment, is described more fully in UniversalFree School Breakfast Program Evaluation Design Project: Final Evaluation Design (Ponza et al., 

1999), available on the FNS website.5

 This design document served as the framework for the current 

evaluation. 

Seventy-nine elementary schools participating in the evaluation were randomly assigned to provide 

universal-free school breakfast (treatment), and 74 elementary schools were assigned to continue with 

 

4

 The legislation combines the first two and second two objectives. They are separated here to in order to 

parallel the structure of the discussion of the results in later sections of the report. 

5

 http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/Published/CNP/CNP.HTM 
Introduction 7 

the regular SBP (control).6 Separate studies of SBPP implementation and impact were included in the 

evaluation to address objectives 1 and 2, and objectives 3 and 4, respectively. In Spring 2001, near 

the end of the first year of the SBPP (SY 2000-2001), about 4,300 students across the treatment and 

control schools were measured on dietary intake, cognitive function, and height and weight. Data 

were also collected from parents, teachers, and school records, including those on student health 

status, behavior and discipline, social/emotional functioning, school breakfast participation, academic 

achievement, and school attendance and tardiness. In Spring 2001, site visits were also made to each 

of the six school districts and telephone interviews were completed with key stakeholders in the 

SBPP, including district administrators, School Food Authority (SFA) directors, principals, cafeteria 

managers, teachers, and custodians. The results of the first year of data collection for both studies are 

reported in McLaughlin et al. (2002). 

In subsequent years of the SBPP, SYs 2001-2002 and 2002-2003, a more limited set of data was 

collected on the original sample of students and schools from school records. These data included 

school breakfast participation, academic achievement, school attendance and tardiness, and schoollevel incidents of visits to the school nurse for health reasons and to the principal for disciplinary 

reasons. A second set of site visits and telephone interviews with stakeholders was completed in 

Spring 2003. Respondents for this set of interviews included school district administrators, SFA 

directors, principals, and cafeteria managers. The results of these subsequent data collections are the 

focus of this report. 

Conceptual Model 

Two conceptual models were developed for this evaluation. One focused on understanding the 

pathways involved in implementation of universal-free school breakfast and the second on its 

expected impacts. These models were presented in the report on the findings on the first year of 

implementation (McLaughlin et al., 2002), but are repeated here because they are equally useful in 

thinking about the data collection and findings in the subsequent two years of the pilot. Note that 

there is some overlap in the components of the two models, including student participation in 

universal-free school breakfast, as these components are important in thinking about implementation 

and impacts. 

Implementation Model 

Exhibit 1.1 depicts the pathways involved in the application and selection of the six districts for the 

SBPP demonstration, the implementation of the SBPP, and expected outcomes associated with 

implementation. FNS announced the demonstration in the Federal Register (A); and then the district 

(D) and the SFA (B), which runs the school meal programs in the district, decided to apply for the 

SBPP (C). FNS chose six districts (F), and meetings were held in Washington, D.C. and in each site 

in the summer of 2000 (E). Briefings were also provided to the school districts after the report on the 

first year findings (McLaughlin et al., 2002) were released in Fall 2002, and the report was made 

available to the districts. These results, included in (E), could influence SBPP implementation in 

subsequent years. School districts also learned about universal-free school breakfast programs being 

implemented in other locales (e.g., Maryland, Minnesota) through other sources, such as reports, and 

 

6

 In some districts, schools with different grade configurations (e.g., K-2, 3-5) were combined to form one 

school unit for sampling. In addition, in three school districts, two treatment school units were paired with 

one control group unit. Thus, there were a total of 79 schools in the treatment group and 74 in the control 

group. 
8 Introduction 

telephone conversations (G). The implementation of universal-free school breakfast (I)⎯such as 

where breakfast was served, what was served, how much the program was promoted, what training 

was needed⎯was influenced by the characteristics of the school (H), including such things as the 

physical space available for serving breakfast to a greater number of students, transportation and class 

schedules, and principal support for this new effort. Providing universal-free school breakfast was 

expected to affect a host of outcomes, including the costs of providing school breakfasts (J); school 

operations (K); program participation (L); menu composition (M); and stakeholder attitudes about 

school breakfast (N). 

Impact Model 

Exhibit 1.2 presents the model for studying the pathways by which the SBPP would be expected to 

affect school and student outcomes. This model depicts the implementation of universal-free school 

breakfast (A) with other “fixed” or given factors, such as characteristics of the student, family, and 

school (B and C).7

 The critical role of the Implementation Study in the impact evaluation was to 

define the way that the SBPP was developed in each site and assess whether differences in 

implementation across sites may have affected the desired school and student outcomes. 

Attitudes of the students and their parents (D) are influenced by the students’ background, but can 

also be influenced by their experience with universal-free school breakfast. The implementation of 

the program as well as student and school factors are believed to influence student participation in 

school breakfast (E), which in turn is hypothesized to have immediate effects following consumption 

of school breakfast on a given day (F), as well as more long-term effects based on consistent school 

breakfast participation (G). The more immediate pathway for the effects of breakfast to influence 

student outcomes is through metabolic changes, such as an increase in blood glucose, that affect 

student attention and cognitive functions important for completing schoolwork (H), including the 

ability to store information in memory and process visual-spatial information. Consistent 

participation in school breakfast is hypothesized to improve a child’s overall diet and nutritional 

status (G). This would positively influence a student’s health (J) by improving overall health, 

reducing the number of illnesses, improving body mass index, and reducing visits to the school nurse 

for illnesses. Potential longer-term outcomes include improved behavior (I) (e.g., increased selfregulation, emotional control, and improved social relationships), improved attendance and tardiness 

(L), and improved academic achievement outcomes (K). 

Note also that the school environment is expected to change as a result of the implementation of 

universal-free school breakfast (M). This change, reported in other studies of universal-free school 

breakfast, would be expected to include such characteristics as the school’s sense of community, 

number of disciplinary problems, and overall attitudes toward school breakfast. 

It should be noted that the main policy question addressed in this evaluation was whether or not the 

availability of universal-free school breakfast in elementary schools increased participation and 

improved other student and school outcomes relative to students in schools participating in the 

regular SBP. The question was not how students in universal-free schools do relative to students that 

 

7

 Some of the student background characteristics, such as previous academic achievement, have a direct 

effect on academic achievement outcomes. To keep the model focused on the pathways of universal-free 

school breakfast, however, this link is not depicted. 
Introduction 9 A. Announcement of SBPP C. School District Application to be in the Demonstration F. Selection by FNS and Random Assignment of Schools B. SFA Characteristics

• number of schools• SBP participation• percent of students

eligible for free/reducedprice meals

• meal production facilities• staffing• SFA director

D.

School District

Characteristics

• administrative

structure

• administrative

support

• geography• decision-makers

E.

Evaluation

Team

Briefings

H. School

Characteristics

• space• staff• SBP participation• class schedule• bus schedule• teacher attitudes• principal support

I.

SBPP

Implementation

• training/orientation• breakfast setting• program promotion• cafeteria operations• breakfast supervision 

O

O

Pa

O

Sta

A

• ad• sc• pa• stu

K

O

• s• p• l• c

G.

Information fromOther Sources

(e.g., from the Maryland and Minnesota universal-freebreakfast programs)

Exhibit 1.1: Pathways to SBPP and Implementation Outcomes

A.

Announcement

of SBPP 

C.

School District

Application to

be in the

Demonstration 

F.

Selection by FNS 

and Random 

Assignment of Schools

B. 

SFA Characteristics

• number of schools• SBP participation• percent of students

eligible for free/reducedprice meals

• meal production facilities• staffing• SFA director

D.

School District

Characteristics

• administrative

structure

• administrative

support

• geography• decision-makers

D.

School District

Characteristics

• administrative

structure

• administrative

support

• geography• decision-makers

E.

Evaluation

Team

Briefings

H. School

Characteristics

• space• staff• SBP participation• class schedule• bus schedule• teacher attitudes• principal support

H. School

Characteristics

• space• staff• SBP participation• class schedule• bus schedule• teacher attitudes• principal support

I.

SBPP

Implementation

• training/orientation• breakfast setting• program promotion• cafeteria operations• breakfast supervision

I.

SBPP

Implementation

• training/orientation• breakfast setting• program promotion• cafeteria operations• breakfast supervision 

O

O

Pa

O

Sta

A

• ad• sc• pa• stu

Sta

A

• ad• sc• pa• stu

K

O

• s• p• l• c

K

O

• s• p• l• c

G.

Information fromOther Sources

(e.g., from the Maryland and Minnesota universal-freebreakfast programs)

G.

Information fromOther Sources

(e.g., from the Maryland and Minnesota universal-freebreakfast programs)

Exhibit 1.1: Pathways to SBPP and Implementation Outcomes
10 Introduction C. School Fac

• socio-economic status• previous achievement• size• racial/ethnic composition• percent of students from lang• urban, rural, or suburban set

Time 

since

eating

breakfast

Immediate

effect of 

breakfast

Effect of

consistent

breakfast

Exhibit 1.2: Pathways of Universal-Free School Breakfast to School and Student Ou

A. 

UniversalFree

School 

Breakfast

Implementation 

of SBPP

E. Student

Participation 

in School 

Breakfast

• frequency of 

participation

• foods selected• nutrient intake at 

breakfast

D. Student and 

Parent Attitudes

•acceptance of free breakfast•previous participation in SBP•food security•nutrition awareness

F. 

Metabolic 

Changes

• increase in 

blood glucose

H. Cognitive

Functioning

•attention•memory•visual-spatial •processing

I. Behavioral

Outcomes

•self-regulation•emotional control•task regulation•social relationships

G. 

Improved

Overall 

Diet/

Nutritional 

Status

•reduced hunger

J. Health/

Physical 

Growth

•illnesses•nurse visits•body mass index•overall health status

M. School Environment

•Attitudes toward free breakfast – # students participating, acceptability

•School climate – sense of community, security, discipline/orderliness

B. Student Background

• age• gender• ethnicity• free/reduced-price lunch status

• family socio-economic status• family structure• past academic performance• previous SBP participation• parental involvement

C. School Fac

• socio-economic status• previous achievement• size• racial/ethnic composition• percent of students from lang• urban, rural, or suburban set

Time 

since

eating

breakfast

Immediate

effect of 

breakfast

Effect of

consistent

breakfast

Exhibit 1.2: Pathways of Universal-Free School Breakfast to School and Student Ou

A. 

UniversalFree

School 

Breakfast

Implementation 

of SBPP

E. Student

Participation 

in School 

Breakfast

• frequency of 

participation

• foods selected• nutrient intake at 

breakfast

E. Student

Participation 

in School 

Breakfast

• frequency of 

participation

• foods selected• nutrient intake at 

breakfast

D. Student and 

Parent Attitudes

•acceptance of free breakfast•previous participation in SBP•food security•nutrition awareness

D. Student and 

Parent Attitudes

•acceptance of free breakfast•previous participation in SBP•food security•nutrition awareness

F. 

Metabolic 

Changes

• increase in 

blood glucose

H. Cognitive

Functioning

•attention•memory•visual-spatial •processing

H. Cognitive

Functioning

•attention•memory•visual-spatial •processing

I. Behavioral

Outcomes

•self-regulation•emotional control•task regulation•social relationships

I. Behavioral

Outcomes

•self-regulation•emotional control•task regulation•social relationships

G. 

Improved

Overall 

Diet/

Nutritional 

Status

•reduced hunger

G. 

Improved

Overall 

Diet/

Nutritional 

Status

•reduced hunger

J. Health/

Physical 

Growth

•illnesses•nurse visits•body mass index•overall health status

M. School Environment

•Attitudes toward free breakfast – # students participating, acceptability

•School climate – sense of community, security, discipline/orderliness

B. Student Background

• age• gender• ethnicity• free/reduced-price lunch status

• family socio-economic status• family structure• past academic performance• previous SBP participation• parental involvement
Introduction 11 

do not eat breakfast. Thus, it was not an evaluation of how important breakfast is to the student 

outcomes measured. Instead the primary question asked was whether or not the outcomes for 

students in elementary schools with universal-free school breakfast are more positive than those of 

similar students in schools offering the regular SBP. 

Purpose and Organization of the Report 

As noted above, the primary purpose of this final report from the SBPP is to present the results of the 

implementation and impact of universal-free school breakfast during the final two years of the pilot 

project. This document also reports on analyses looking across all three years of the pilot and the 

year before the pilot (i.e., the baseline year). This longitudinal view is relevant, for example, when 

looking at the effects of SBPP on school district operations or at its impact on outcomes such as 

school-level participation. Finally, this document also reports on additional analyses conducted in 

response to questions raised by the findings in the first report. 

The report is divided into two parts. Part I describes the Implementation Study, including the study 

design and methodology (Chapter Two), and the results of the implementation data collection in the 

second and third year of the SBPP (Chapter Three). Part II presents the Impact Study: Chapter Four 

describes the design and methodology; Chapter Five presents the findings from the second and third 

years of impact data collection; and Chapter Six provides the results from analyses conducted in 

response to questions from policymakers and stakeholders on the report of the first year of findings 

(McLaughlin et al., 2002). These include analyses of outcomes for students who ate robust or 

substantive breakfasts, students who skipped breakfast, students who ate breakfast at school versus 

home or in the classroom at school, and for students in households with different income levels. 

Demographic characteristics of students with varying patterns of school breakfast participation and 

food insecurity status are described in Chapter Six as well. Chapter Seven discusses the overall 

findings and conclusions from the evaluation. 
12 Introduction 
Implementation Study Design and Methodology 13 

Chapter Two 

Implementation Study Design and Methodology 

This chapter describes the design and methodology used in assessing implementation during the third 

and final year of the School Breakfast Program Pilot Project (SBPP). The objectives and research 

questions, the universes that were surveyed, data collection methodology, and the analytic approach 

are described. 

Objectives and Research Questions 

As described in Chapter One, the objectives of the Implementation Study were to (1) document the 

methods used by schools to implement a universal-free school breakfast; and (2) to assess the effect 

that universal-free school breakfast has on paperwork, costs, and other administrative requirements 

placed on schools. To help address these objectives in the third and final year of data collection, the 

evaluation set out to: 

• Review how the schools implemented universal-free school breakfast in Years 2 and 3 of the 

pilot (School Years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003); 

• Identify any changes in implementation that occurred following the first year of the pilot; and 

• Assess the effect of implementation on program operations and performance. 

A summary of the research questions addressed in the Implementation Study appears in Exhibit 2.1. 

Questions are grouped under the major topics that were the focus of study. The source (or sources) of 

information used in addressing each question is also identified. 

Design 

The findings reported here follow an earlier assessment conducted near the end of the first year of 

implementation of the SBPP. In that assessment, information was collected through interviews with 

key stakeholders, a self-administered teacher survey, a breakfast menu survey of cafeteria managers, 

focus groups with students, and school records. Results of that assessment can be found in the report 

of the first year of findings (McLaughlin et al., 2002). The information gathered for this report was 

collected from a more restricted universe than the earlier study. As indicated, the primary purpose of 

this analysis was to describe the implementation process and to assess its impacts. Information on 

implementation during the final year of the pilot was collected using the methods listed below. 

• In-person interviews with school district administrators focusing on the involvement of 

district administrators in the pilot and its perceived district-level impacts. 

• In-person interviews with School Food Authority (SFA) directors discussing SBPP 

implementation in the second and third years and perceived impacts. 

• Interviews with school principals, in person or by telephone, regarding implementation in 

the second and third years, perceived impacts, and school discipline. 
14 Implementation Study Design and Methodology 

Exhibit 2.1 

Implementation Research Questions 

Topic/Question 

Respondent/ 

Data Source 

Institutional Changes/Unusual Events

• Were there any changes in the curriculum or methods of instruction over 

the past two years that might have affected achievement test scores? 

District Administrators, 

Principals 

• Were there any unusual events over the past two years that might have 

affected the school meal programs? 

SFA Directors, 

Cafeteria Managers 

• Were there any major events or program changes within individual schools 

over the past two years that might have affected school operations or 

academic achievement? 

Principals 

Program Promotion 

• Were any special efforts made to promote school breakfast over the past 

two years? 

SFA Directors, 

Principals 

• Was the level of effort used in promoting universal-free school breakfast 

about right? 

SFA Directors 

Breakfast Setting 

• How many schools taking part in the SBPP in each district have students 

eating breakfast in each of the major location options? 

SFA Directors 

• Who determines where breakfast is eaten? SFA Directors 

• Has there been a change in where breakfast is eaten since the first year of 

the SBPP? 

SFA Directors, 

Cafeteria Managers 

• Have there been any particular problems associated with eating breakfast 

in the classroom? 

SFA Directors, 

Cafeteria Managers 

• How do teachers whose students eat breakfast in the classroom feel about 

the program? 

SFA Directors 

• Where in the school is breakfast served and eaten? Cafeteria Managers 

• If breakfast is eaten in the classroom, what are the mechanics of delivery, 

serving, trash removal, and record keeping and who is responsible for 

each task? 

Cafeteria Managers 

Breakfast Composition 

• Who determines the composition of the breakfast that is served? SFA Directors 

• Was the same breakfast menu offered in all schools taking part in the 

SBPP? 

SFA Directors 

• Were there any changes in the composition of the breakfast menus over 

the past two years? 

SFA Directors, 

Cafeteria Managers 

• Is an identical breakfast served to all students? Cafeteria Managers 

Cafeteria Operations 

• What menu planning system does the district use? SFA Directors 

• Is serving space and/or serving time an important constraint to an effective 

breakfast program? 

SFA Directors, 

Principals 

• How much time is provided for students to eat breakfast? Cafeteria Managers 

• Is offer versus serve available? Cafeteria Managers 

• Is à la carte available? Cafeteria Managers 

• Are foods available from other on-campus sources during breakfast? Cafeteria Managers 
Implementation Study Design and Methodology 15 

Exhibit 2.1 

Implementation Research Questions 

Topic/Question 

Respondent/ 

Data Source 

Changes in Breakfast Operations 

• What, if any, changes were made in how the SBPP was implemented over 

the past two years? 

SFA Directors 

• Were there any changes in the price of paid or reduced-priced breakfasts 

in control schools over the past two years? 

SFA Directors 

• Over the past two years, have there been any changes in: 

-- time of breakfast service? 

 -- length of time breakfast served? 

 -- breakfast service staffing? 

 -- breakfast supervision? 

 -- location breakfast served? 

 -- location breakfast eaten? 

 -- related expenditures? 

Principals 

Program Impacts 

• At the district level, were there any parent/community issues regarding 

implementation of the SBPP? 

District Administrators 

• What impact did the SBPP have on paperwork or administrative 

requirements? 

District Administrators, 

Principals, SFA 

Directors, 

Cafeteria Managers 

• What impact did the SBPP have on the District’s educational program? District Administrators 

• Did school staff bring any issues regarding the SBPP to the attention of 

district administrators? 

District Administrators 

• Were any further changes in foodservice staffing required over the past 

two years due to the SBPP? 

SFA Directors, 

Principals, 

Cafeteria Managers 

• How did the availability of universal-free school breakfast affect the rate of 

participation in school breakfast in the second and third years of the pilot 

and how does this compare to participation in the first year? 

• How do the breakfast setting, the share of students eligible for free and 

reduced-price meals, and the district affect the rate of participation in the 

school breakfast program? 

SFA Directors 

District Records 

District Records 

• To the extent rates of participation in school breakfast vary among 

treatment and control schools, what are the principal reasons? 

SFA Directors 

• Is offering universal-free school breakfast in elementary schools perceived 

to have contributed to increased breakfast participation in middle schools 

or secondary schools or to increased school lunch participation in 

elementary schools? 

SFA Directors 

• How did the rate of participation for the district in the school lunch program 

change over the past two years? 

SFA Directors, 

District Records 

• Have there been any problems with the accuracy or integrity of record 

keeping with universal-free school breakfast? 

SFA Directors, 

Principals 

• How difficult was it to implement universal-free school breakfast? What 

were the greatest challenges? 

SFA Directors 
16 Implementation Study Design and Methodology 

Exhibit 2.1 

Implementation Research Questions 

Topic/Question 

Respondent/ 

Data Source 

• What effect did universal-free school breakfast have on costs and 

revenues over the past two years? 

SFA Directors, 

Principals 

• Have any changes in the amount of individual plate waste at breakfast 

been perceived over the past three years? 

Cafeteria Managers 

School Discipline 

• Are elementary school principals provided guidelines prescribing 

disciplinary actions to be taken? 

District Administrators 

• How does the rate of disciplinary actions in this school compare with that 

of other elementary schools? 

Principals 

• To the extent the rate of disciplinary actions vary among schools, what is 

responsible for this variation? 

Principals 

• How many students are sent to the school office for disciplinary reasons in 

a typical week? 

Principals 

• Do disciplinary incidents typically occur more in one part of the day than 

another? 

Principals 

• What are the principal reasons for disciplinary visits to the school office? Principals 

• In which school settings are disciplinary incidents most likely to occur? Principals 

• Has there been any change in the incidence of disciplinary actions over the 

past three years? 

Principals 

• Does the school have a written policy on discipline? Principals 

Stakeholder Attitudes 

• What is the attitude of cafeteria staff toward the School Breakfast 

Program? 

Cafeteria Managers 

• How has the availability of universal-free school breakfast affected the 

attitude of key stakeholders toward the School Breakfast Program? 

SFA Director 

• Has the attitude of school staff and/or students toward school breakfast 

changed over the period that universal-free school breakfast was offered? 

Principals, 

Cafeteria Managers 

Future Plans 

• With the SBPP coming to an end, what, if any, concerns are there relative 

to returning to the traditional School Breakfast Program? 

Principals, 

Cafeteria Managers 

• Does the district plan any changes in its School Breakfast Program 

following conclusion of the SBPP? 

District Administrators, 

SFA Directors 
Implementation Study Design and Methodology 17 

• Interviews with cafeteria managers, in person or by telephone, regarding breakfast service, 

operational issues, nature of the meals offered, and perceived impacts. 

• School records used to calculate school lunch and breakfast participation rates, including 

enrollment, number of breakfasts and lunches served for the school year, and number of 

breakfast and lunch serving days for school years (SY’s) 2001-2002 and 2002-2003, the 

second and third years of implementation. 

Data Collection 

Sample 

Interviews were conducted with the entire universe of school district administrators (six), SFA 

directors (six), school principals (153), and cafeteria managers (154) from elementary schools taking 

part in the study.1

 On-site visits were made to 24 schools (four per school district, three treatment 

schools and one control school). Three of the four schools in each district had also been visited 

during data collection in the first year of implementation. The schools visited were selected primarily 

on the basis of their representativeness of other schools in the district. A few treatment schools using 

innovative techniques, such as serving breakfast in the classroom, were among the schools receiving 

on-site visits. 

Schedule 

The on-site interviews were conducted over a period of two days in each district in April 2003. 

Following completion of the on-site data collection, telephone interviews were conducted with the 

principals and cafeteria managers of the remaining schools during May and early June 2003. Staff 

who had participated in data collection during the first year of SBPP implementation and who had 

conducted on-site interviews supervised the telephone interviews. 

Analytic Approach 

Key stakeholders within each participating school district and school were interviewed to determine 

selected parameters of the setting within which the pilot was implemented; how it was implemented; 

if any changes were made in the school meals program during implementation and, if so, why; and 

stakeholder perceptions of program impact. Where appropriate, results of these interviews are 

compared with the results of interviews conducted during the first year of the pilot (SY 2000-2001). 

Implementation and performance measures for control and treatment schools are compared. Within 

the treatment school category, these measures are also compared on the basis of whether breakfast 

was eaten in the classroom or elsewhere, usually the cafeteria. Aggregate measures for all 

participating schools (control and treatment) in each district are also compared across districts. 

Statistically significant differences are noted throughout these comparisons. While the comparisons 

between treatment and control schools were made within the experimental design framework, 

treatment schools were not randomly assigned to breakfast location, classroom or non-classroom, and 

thus these comparisons are non-experimental. Schools with classroom breakfast may be 

 

1

 There were 153 schools in the original sample. In one district, some grades were reassigned to a newly 

constructed school, which was added to the study, bringing the total in Year 3 to 154. 
18 Implementation Study Design and Methodology 

fundamentally different from those with non-classroom breakfast and the results from these analyses 

reflect a combination of the effects of universal-free school breakfast and these pre-existing 

differences. 

Implementation Study findings are presented in the next chapter. Detailed tables appear in Appendix 

A. The instruments used in the Implementation Study data collection are found in Appendix I. 
Implementation of the School Breakfast Pilot Project 19 

Chapter Three 

Implementation of the School Breakfast Pilot Project 

Implementation of the SBPP during its initial year of operation was evaluated in an earlier report 

(McLaughlin et al., 2002). This chapter focuses on implementation during the second and third years 

of the pilot, SY 2001-2002 and SY 2002-2003. It builds on findings of the first year of this 

evaluation, assessing changes in how universal-free school breakfast was implemented and the 

implications of the treatment for the participating elementary schools. Results of the Impact Study 

are presented in Part II of this report. Before examining the second and third years of the pilot, we 

briefly review the major findings of the first year. 

Summary of the First Year Findings 

Information on implementation was collected in Spring 2001 through interviews with school district 

and school staff from the 79 treatment and 74 control schools. Key findings from the first year, 

organized by objective, are as follows: 

Document the various ways in which schools chose to implement universal-free school 

breakfast. 

• Overall, the implementation of the SBPP went smoothly. Despite a short start-up schedule, 

most schools were able to implement universal-free school breakfast in a matter of weeks 

without major problems. 

• Determining where breakfast should be eaten, notably in the classroom or some other 

location, turned out to be a key decision, as participation was much higher in schools where 

breakfast was eaten in the classroom. In these schools, average breakfast participation was 

66 percent, compared with 28 percent in schools where breakfast was eaten in other locations. 

• The adoption of universal-free school breakfast was viewed favorably by most key 

stakeholders, including administrators, school staff, parents, and students. 

• On the basis of interviews with principals and teachers and focus groups of students, there 

was little evidence found of a stigma that associated school breakfast participation with lowincome status in the elementary schools in this study. 

• While the possible loss of teacher preparation time or instruction time was a concern for 

schools considering serving breakfast in the classroom, interviews with principals and 

teachers in schools with classroom breakfast revealed that it had relatively little effect on 

teacher preparation or instruction time. 

Assess the effect that universal-free school breakfast has on paperwork, costs and other 

administrative requirements. 

• The effect of universal-free school breakfast on paperwork was unclear after the first year 

since most of the paperwork in that first year was required by the evaluation rather than by 
20 Implementation of the School Breakfast Pilot Project 

implementation of universal-free school breakfast. This topic was therefore revisited in Year 

3 (see below). 

• There was no evidence from the review of school breakfast menus that the implementation of 

universal-free school breakfast had an effect on schools’ compliance with the SBP nutrition 

standards or the degree to which breakfasts met other dietary recommendations. 

• Schools offering universal-free school breakfast required increased staffing due to higher 

rates of school breakfast participation and the increased workload for cafeteria staff and those 

supervising students during breakfast. 

• Despite increased staffing, higher rates of school breakfast participation resulted in lower permeal labor costs in treatment schools as the increased scale resulted in more efficient 

utilization of labor. The combined food and labor costs per breakfast were about 11 percent 

lower in treatment than control schools ($0.80 and $0.90, respectively), and even lower in 

treatment schools where breakfast was eaten in the classroom compared to control schools 

($0.74 compared with $0.90, or 18 percent lower). 

Reporting the Second and Third Year Findings 

Findings in this chapter are reported separately for control and treatment schools and within the 

treatment school category, by whether breakfast was eaten in the classroom or elsewhere (usually, but 

not always, the cafeteria). Findings are also reported by school district. The empirical basis for the 

analysis can be found in the tables appearing in Appendix A. References to these tables appear in 

parentheses throughout the text. Where appropriate, findings from the first year evaluation are 

compared with those from the interviews conducted in SY 2002-2003, the third and final year of the 

pilot. 

This chapter is divided into six sections. In it, we: 

• Describe the schools and districts that participated in the SBPP; 

• Review key features of implementation during the second and third years of the pilot; 

• Assess the impact of universal-free school breakfast on school operations in the second and 

third years; 

• Describe school discipline as applied in the SBPP elementary schools; 

• Evaluate stakeholder attitudes toward universal-free school breakfast; and 

• Describe the plans and concerns of the participating schools as they look to the future. 

Each section is subdivided into topics of relevance to this evaluation. Most topics are introduced by a 

brief description of the context. For those topics that were treated in the survey conducted in SY 

2000-2001, earlier findings are briefly reviewed as a basis of comparison for the information 

collected in SY 2002-2003. Where appropriate, results for control and treatment schools are 

compared and their differences, if any, are evaluated for statistical significance. Since one of the 

principal objectives of this chapter is to document how universal-free school breakfast was 

implemented, much of the focus is on the treatment schools, including differences between treatment 

schools where breakfast was eaten in the classroom and those where it was eaten in the cafeteria. As 
Implementation of the School Breakfast Pilot Project 21 

noted in Chapter Two, the analyses comparing treatment classroom and cafeteria breakfast settings 

are non-experimental in nature and are thus not as definitive as analyses between treatment and 

control schools conducted within the experimental design framework. 

Summary of the Findings from the Second and Third Years 

The key findings of this chapter are as follows: 

• All 153 elementary schools in the original study remained in the study throughout the three 

years it was conducted with few changes or disruptions. 

• Treatment schools experienced significantly higher rates of school breakfast participation 

than control schools in the first year of the pilot and maintained these higher rates in the 

second and third years. 

• Treatment schools where breakfast was eaten in the classroom experienced the highest rate of 

participation throughout the study, though the number of schools where breakfast was eaten 

in this location fell from 18 (23 percent of the treatment group schools) in the first year to 14 

(18 percent) in the third year. 

• There was comparatively little evidence that implementation of universal-free school 

breakfast had any measurable impact on administrative paperwork, not surprisingly, or that it 

materially affected individual plate waste at breakfast. 

• Promotion of the SBP was somewhat more prominent in the second and third years of the 

pilot than in the first year. 

• Use of offer versus serve declined substantially over the period of study in both control and 

treatment schools, falling from 75 percent of all schools in the first year to 51 percent in the 

third year. Nearly all of this decline was attributable to changes in one school district. 

• The share of control schools offering à la carte items at breakfast fell from 50 percent in the 

first year of the pilot to 27 percent in the third year, while the share of treatment schools 

offering à la carte was nearly unchanged (33 percent versus 30 percent). A declining share of 

schools offering à la carte was evident in five of the six school districts. 

• Staffing requirements in treatment schools, after rising in the initial year of the pilot in 

response to increased participation, stabilized during the second and third years. 

• While principals reported that the incidence of disciplinary problems was higher for treatment 

schools than for control schools, and was significantly higher in treatment schools serving 

breakfast in the classroom, their perceptions of the timing, location, circumstances, and trends 

over time in these incidents appeared to be unrelated to the availability of universal-free 

school breakfast. 

• Universal-free school breakfast was implemented with relative ease. It was given high marks 

by most of those affected, particularly students, administrators, and cafeteria personnel. 

Some teachers and custodians, particularly those in schools serving breakfast in the 

classroom, were less supportive. 

• With the pilot nearing its end and treatment schools about to return to the traditional SBP, 

many principals and cafeteria managers voiced concerns that participation in the school 
22 Implementation of the School Breakfast Pilot Project 

breakfast program would fall to pre-pilot levels and that some students would now go without 

breakfast. 

Description of District and School Characteristics 

As noted in Chapter One, the six school districts that participated in this pilot were selected by FNS 

from 386 applications. The number of districts participating in the pilot was specified in the 

authorizing legislation. Districts were selected to be broadly representative of the universe of all 

districts participating in the SBP, with special attention to their economic and demographic make-up, 

urbanicity, and regional location. The study was limited to elementary schools participating in 

the SBP. Schools operating under “Provision 2” or “Provision 3” of FNS regulations were excluded 

from the project.1

 Selected characteristics of the elementary schools participating in the project for 

each district are shown in Exhibit 3.1. 

Size and Structure 

Relative to the size of other school districts, the six districts taking part in the SBPP are of moderate 

size.2

 The total district enrollment of their elementary schools ranged from around 4,000 to more 

than 23,000 in SY 2002-2003. Four of the districts are primarily urban in character (Boise, Santa 

Rosa, Phoenix, and Wichita) while the other two include a combination of urban, suburban, and rural 

(Harrison County and Shelby County). The Harrison County and Shelby County school districts 

serve substantially larger geographic areas than the other school districts and their schools are 

therefore more widely scattered. 

The six districts experienced varying trends in the size of enrollment of their elementary schools 

during the period of study. In two districts (Shelby County and Phoenix), enrollment grew by 6 

percent and 9 percent, respectively. The other four districts (Boise, Harrison County, Santa Rosa, and 

Wichita) saw declining enrollments of 4 percent to 12 percent. 

Free and Reduced-Price Meal Eligibility 

The district-wide share of students eligible for free and reduced-price meals ranged from a low of 26 

percent to a high of 61 percent in SY 2002-2003. The share of students qualifying for free and 

reduced-price meals changed more in some districts than in others. In four districts, the share moved 

higher while in the other two it fell. 

At the school level, the share of students qualifying for free and reduced-price meals varied 

substantially in all six school districts, ranging from as low as 5 percent to as high as 92 percent. The 

magnitude of variation is suggestive of the widely varying level of household income found among 

schools within each of these districts.

 

1

 As indicated in Chapter One, schools operating under Provision 2 or Provision 3 serve school breakfast 

and/or lunch at no charge to all students in return for less burdensome recordkeeping requirements. 

2

 Due to budgetary and design constraints of the pilot authorization, none of the school districts taking part in 

the pilot were large urban, high poverty districts. As indicated in Exhibit 3.1, however, there were schools 

within the six districts that were high poverty, indicated by a high percentage of students eligible for free 

and reduced-price meals. 
Implementation of the School Breakfast Pilot Project 23 

Exhibit 3.1 

Selected Characteristics of Elementary Schools Participating in the School Breakfast Pilot 

Project, by District 

Characteristic Boise 

Shelby 

County1 

Harrison 

County Phoenix 

Santa 

Rosa Wichita 

Number of Schools in the Evaluation 

 Treatment 17 8 5 12 5 32 

 Control 17 9 5 12 5 27

 Total 34 17 10 24 10 59 

Total Enrollment 

 SY 1999-2000 14,362 9,739 7,899 15,586 4,364 24,508 

 SY 2002-2003 13,556 10,341 6,981 16,963 3,938 23,627 

 Percent Change -6% 6% -12% 9% -10% -4% 

Percent of Elementary School Students 

Approved for Free and Reduced-Price 

Meals2

 

 SY 1999-2000 32% 24% 62% 48% 70% 59% 

 SY 2002-2003 37% 26% 60% 49% 60% 61% 

Range in Free and Reduced-Price 

Eligibility Among Elementary Schools 

in the District, SY 2002-2003 5-80% 6-65% 33-80% 13-86% 16-86% 22-92% 

SBP Participation Rate2

 

 SY 1999-2000 9% 21% 33% 21% 25% 24% 

 SY 2002-2003 16% 32% 49% 29% 35% 31% 

District Area (square miles) 46 795 581 44 34 136 

1

 Two schools were new and did not have data in school district files for SY 1999-2000. At the start of SY 2001-2002 a 

control school split into two separate schools. 

2

 Percent is weighted for enrollment in each school. 

Sources: Impact Study⎯ School District Files, SY 1999-2000; and U.S. Census Bureau: County and City Data Book, 1990; 

and State and County Quick Facts, 2000 (district area data).

Changes in the Sample 

The only change in the composition of schools taking part in the pilot occurred after Year 1 in the 

Shelby County school district where a new school absorbed some of the grades that had been part of 

one of the control schools. The new school was added to the list of control schools, increasing the 

total number of control schools from 74 to 75. 

Implementing Universal-Free School Breakfast 

The focus of this section is the implementation process in the second and third years of the pilot. The 

section begins with a brief review of some changes that occurred over the period of study, first at the 

district level and then at the school level. Following this review, particular features of 

implementation are examined, including program promotion, the breakfast setting, cafeteria 

operations, and the composition of breakfast menus. 

District-Level Changes 

Some degree of change in the larger setting within which the SBPP was conducted over a three-year 

period was to be expected. Within broad limits, districts participating in the pilot were free to make 
24 Implementation of the School Breakfast Pilot Project 

changes in their breakfast programs as long as they preserved the integrity of the paired sample of 

schools offering universal-free school breakfast matched to schools offering the traditional SBP. 

Changes in the instructional programs, staffing, and physical facilities are ongoing in most districts. 

The foodservice programs in these districts experienced relatively few operational changes over the 

period of study, as reported by the SFA directors. The most notable changes in how the pilot was 

implemented were changes in the location where breakfast was eaten in a few schools. These 

changes are described in greater detail below. 

Two other changes warrant mention. Of the six SFA directors who had managed the foodservice 

operations of these districts and overseen implementation of the pilot since it began, two left their 

posts during this period. Both departures occurred in SY 2002-2003, the final year of the pilot. In 

one district, a planned transition occurred before the beginning of the school year. The other 

departure was unanticipated and occurred late in the school year, shortly before the end of the pilot. 

Another unanticipated change occurred in SY 2001-2002 when two control schools in one district 

were converted to “Provision 2” status. Under terms of Provision 2, these schools stopped charging 

students for school meals, thereby lessening the schools’ relevance as control schools for the SBPP.3

District-level changes in curricula and methods of instruction were prevalent during this period. The 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2001, referred to as the “No Child Left Behind Act,” 

became law in the second year of the pilot. With its emphasis on measuring student achievement, the 

new law requires annual reading and math tests for all students in grades 3 through 8, though the 

requirement does not become mandatory until SY 2005-2006. 

Five of the six school district administrators interviewed said that their districts had made important 

changes in the curricula and methods of instruction in their elementary schools since the new law was 

enacted. The changes included new programs in language arts, science, and math, and the 

introduction of new achievement tests. For the most part, these changes were implemented on a 

district-wide basis. In one district, a new instructional program was being implemented 

incrementally, beginning with six Title I schools (four control/two treatment) in SY 2002-2003. 

School-Level Changes 

Principals and cafeteria managers were interviewed in each of the participating schools. Both 

positions experienced a relatively high rate of turnover. The median tenure of cafeteria managers in 

all SBPP schools in SY 2002-2003 was four years (Exhibit A-28); the median tenure of principals 

was three years (Exhibit A-6). Nearly half of all principals (46 percent) and one-third of all cafeteria 

managers (33 percent) had been in their present positions less than three years. No significant 

differences were found between control and treatment schools in this regard. Respondents new to 

their positions during the past two or three years were sometimes unable to answer questions 

regarding changes that had occurred, resulting in a higher incidence of “don’t know” responses. 

Cafeteria managers and principals were both asked if there had been any unusual events or major 

program changes during the last two years of the pilot. Very few cafeteria managers (7 percent in SY 

 

3

 A comparison of results with and without these schools indicated that their exclusion from the analysis had 

no material effect on the findings. To maintain the integrity of random assignment, these schools were kept 

in the study and are represented among the control schools in the tables appearing in Appendix A. 
Implementation of the School Breakfast Pilot Project 25 

2002-2003) reported unusual events (Exhibit A-29). Most of these events were associated with 

school building repair or renovation. 

The share of principals reporting unusual events or program changes increased somewhat during the 

last two years of the pilot (Exhibit A-7). Among the events or changes most frequently identified 

were those associated with construction, staffing changes, budget reductions, re-districting, and 

adoption of new academic/enrichment programs. There was no evidence that these changes had 

impeded implementation of the pilot or affected its outcome. 

Program Promotion 

Findings from the evaluation conducted during the first year of implementation indicated that there 

were several disincentives to aggressive promotion of the universal-free program. Among other 

reasons given were concerns that parents of children in control schools would feel slighted by their 

child not having access to free breakfasts, that promoting universal-free school breakfast would be 

viewed as contributing to childhood obesity, and that some parents might view offering free breakfast 

as infringing on parental responsibility. As a result, some administrators did little or nothing to 

promote the pilot beyond informing parents and students of its availability. 

To determine if there had been any changes in promotional activity, SFA directors were asked if they 

had conducted follow-up promotion of universal-free school breakfast during the last two years of the 

pilot. Three of the six directors reported that they had (Exhibit A-48). When asked for their opinion 

of the level of effort that had been devoted to promoting universal-free school breakfast, four of the 

six directors said that there should have been additional promotion while two thought that the level of 

effort was about right. 

The share of school principals reporting that a special effort had been made to promote the School 

Breakfast Program (SBP) during the second and third years of the pilot was up substantially from the 

level reported during the first year for both treatment and control schools (Exhibit A-26). During the 

first year, SY 2000-2001, 44.3 percent of treatment school principals and 12.3 percent of control 

school principals said that they had made a special effort to promote the SBP. The comparable shares 

during the last two years were 75.9 percent of treatment school principals and 47.3 percent of control 

school principals, a significant difference at the .01 level. A comparison among districts indicates 

that the increased promotional effort occurred in all six districts. 

Breakfast Setting 

School breakfast is typically served and eaten in the same location as lunch. While this is usually the 

school cafeteria, some schools use other parts of the school building for this purpose. Multi-purpose 

rooms, gymnasiums, kitchens, and even hallways are used in some schools to serve school meals. In 

the first year of the SBPP, 36 percent of all schools, control and treatment, reported serving breakfast 

somewhere other than the cafeteria. 

Also, some schools serve their meals in one location while they are eaten in another location. For 

example, in some schools breakfast might be served in the kitchen and eaten in the cafeteria. While 

information was collected on both where breakfasts were served and where they were eaten, it is 

principally the latter that is of greatest interest to this evaluation. 
26 Implementation of the School Breakfast Pilot Project 

One approach that appealed to some treatment schools was to permit students to eat breakfast in the 

classroom. This approach had been used in earlier demonstrations of universal-free school breakfast 

and had been found to result in substantially higher rates of participation in the breakfast program 

(Murphy and Pagano, 2001). During the initial year of the SBPP, 18 of the 79 treatment schools 

offered their students an opportunity to eat school breakfast in the classroom. Treatment schools that 

elected to offer breakfast in the classroom had a higher share of enrollment approved for free and 

reduced-price meals in SY 2000-2001 than did those that served breakfast in the cafeteria (53 percent 

versus 40 percent), though the difference was not statistically significant. In SY 2002-2003, the share 

of students approved for free and reduced-price meals in treatment schools serving breakfast in the 

classroom and those serving in the cafeteria had risen to 60 percent and 47 percent, respectively. 

Again, the difference between treatment and control schools was not statistically significant. Two 

control sites also provided breakfast in the classroom due to unique circumstances in these schools. 

Most schools participating in the pilot provided breakfast in the same setting throughout the period of 

study. Of the 154 cafeteria managers responding to the survey administered in the final year, 142 said 

that they had provided breakfast in the same location for the entire period (Exhibit A-31). 

To the extent there were changes in location, there was increased use of cafeterias for both serving 

and eating school breakfast and a corresponding decrease in the use of other locations. In control 

schools, the share of schools serving breakfast in the cafeteria rose from 66 percent in the initial year 

of the pilot to 84 percent in SY 2002-2003 (Exhibit A-30). 

Use of cafeterias by treatment schools for breakfast also increased over the period; some schools that 

had been offering breakfast in the classroom either returned to the cafeteria or adopted a combined 

classroom/cafeteria approach. Of the 18 schools where breakfast was eaten in the classroom in the 

first year of the pilot, five went to serving breakfast in the cafeteria, two at the beginning of the 

second year and three at the beginning of the third year (Exhibit A-32). One school adopted 

classroom feeding the first year, returned to the cafeteria the second year, and back to classroom 

feeding the third year. Another school gradually added classrooms to its breakfast serving, thereby 

shifting from cafeteria to a combination classroom/cafeteria status by the end of the pilot. The net 

effect of these changes was that the number of schools where breakfast was eaten in the classroom 

fell from 18 to 14 (from 23 percent to 18 percent of treatment schools) over the three years of the 

study (Exhibit 3.2). 

Various reasons were given for the shift from classroom to cafeteria. In three of the schools, teachers 

objected to the “mess” that resulted from serving breakfast in the classroom. The decision to make a 

change in the other two schools was made by the same principal while serving in each school in 

consecutive years. In one school where this principal had served, an infestation of insects was cited 

as the reason for going back to the cafeteria; in the other school, the addition of a new multi-purpose 

room prompted the change. 

School principals were asked if they considered the availability of space as a constraint in 

determining where breakfast was to be served in the school. A somewhat higher share of treatment 

than control schools responded affirmatively (15 percent versus 4 percent), though the difference was 

not statistically significant (Exhibit A-25). Among treatment schools, those that offered breakfast in 

the classroom were substantially more likely to consider the availability of space a constraint (29 

percent versus 12 percent). However, the direction of causality is not clear. While the absence of 
Implementation of the School Breakfast Pilot Project 27 

Exhibit 3.2 

Treatment Schools by Location Breakfast Eaten, SY 2000-2001 and SY 2002-2003

SY 2000-2001 SY 2002-2003

N = 79 for each school year. 

Source: Implementation Study⎯Cafeteria Manager Interview, Spring 2001 and Spring 2003

suitable space could have been instrumental in the decision of these schools to serve breakfast in the 

classroom, it is also conceivable that the surge in school breakfast participation that resulted from 

classroom feeding made these principals aware of the need for additional space. 

Principals of control schools who responded that the availability of space was not a constraint in 

deciding where breakfast would be served were asked if they would respond differently should the 

rate of participation in school breakfast double or triple. Of those responding, 20 percent said that 

space would be constraining under those circumstances. 

Cafeteria Operations 

To participate in the School Breakfast Program, schools must meet specified operational 

requirements. Within these regulatory parameters, however, schools have substantial latitude in how 

they implement their programs. In this section, we compare the cafeteria operations of control and 

treatment schools on some of these discretionary features. 

Offer Versus Serve 

To qualify as a reimbursable meal, students must accept a specified number of menu items, with the 

number dependent on the menu planning system that is being used. To avoid requiring students to 

take food they do not want and probably will not eat, schools may allow students to refuse a limited 

number of foods offered and have the meal still qualify as reimbursable. The approach is called 

“offer versus serve” and is implemented in elementary schools at the discretion of the SFA. 

In SY 2002-2003, about half (51 percent) of all (control and treatment) schools in the pilot were 

following the offer versus serve approach at breakfast (Exhibit A-37). This is down from 75 percent 

of all pilot schools two years earlier. Exhibit 3.3 shows the share of treatment and control schools 

using offer versus serve in the first and third year of the SBPP. In the first year that universal-free 

school breakfast was offered, the use of offer versus serve was lower among treatment schools 

serving breakfast in the classroom than among treatment schools serving breakfast in the cafeteria, 

Cafeteria 

77.2% 

Classroom

22.8% Cafeteria

82.1% 

Classroom

17.9% 
28 Implementation of the School Breakfast Pilot Project 

Exhibit 3.3 

Share of Schools Using Offer Versus Serve, SY 2000-2001 and SY 2002-2003

82.4

78.7

33.3

53.3

49.2

42.9

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Control Treatment/Cafeteria Treatment/Classroom

Percent

2000-2001 2002-2003

N = 153 for SY 2000-2001, 154 for SY 2002-2003 

Source: Implementation Study⎯Cafeteria Manager Interview, Spring 2001 and Spring 2003.

though the difference was not statistically significant. However, as use of offer versus serve has 

declined among all schools, particularly control schools, differences among school types have 

become much smaller. Most of the decline in use of offer versus serve over this period was due to its 

discontinued use in one of the larger school districts. The district had discontinued use of offer versus 

serve at lunch several years earlier. It was discontinued at breakfast due to the district’s inability to 

meet the nutritional standards of Nutrient Standard Menu Planning when students were declining 

items. 

Availability of À La Carte Items 

Some schools also offer their students an opportunity to buy individual food items à la carte, either in 

addition to or instead of a reimbursable breakfast. Exhibit 3.4 presents the share of treatment and 

control schools offering à la carte in the first and third years of the evaluation. In SY 2000-2001, the 

first year of the pilot, 41 percent of all schools offered breakfast items à la carte. The share of 

treatment schools offering à la carte in the first year was significantly lower than the share of control 

schools (33 percent versus 50 percent), due primarily to the absence of à la carte offerings by 

treatment schools with classroom breakfast. 

Results of the SY 2002-2003 survey indicate that the share of control schools offering à la carte had 

been cut nearly in half, falling from 50 percent to 27 percent, (Exhibit A-37). As a result, there was 

no longer a statistically significant difference between control and treatment schools in whether they 

offered à la carte. While the share of schools within each district offering à la carte at breakfast 
Implementation of the School Breakfast Pilot Project 29 

Exhibit 3.4 

Share of Schools Offering À La Carte, SY 2000-2001 and SY 2002-2003

50.0

39.3

11.1

26.7

32.3

21.4

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

Control Treatment/Cafeteria Treatment/Classroom

Percent

2000-2001 2002-2003

N = 153 for SY 2000-2001, 154 for SY 2002-2003 

Source: Implementation Study⎯Cafeteria Manager Interview, Spring 2001 and Spring 2003.

varied greatly among the six districts, from a low of 3 percent to a high of 65 percent, in five of the 

six school districts the share fell over this period. 

Of the schools offering à la carte in SY 2002-2003, most limited availability to the breakfast period 

though about one-third made their offerings available after breakfast as well. A majority of the 

schools offering à la carte offered milk (84 percent), juice (75 percent), and/or an entrée (64 percent). 

There were no significant differences between control and treatment schools, either in when à la carte 

was available or which foods were offered. 

Other On-Campus Sources 

In some schools, foods are offered for sale through other on-campus sources, such as school stores 

and vending machines. The share of schools where foods are available from these sources during 

breakfast service was small in the first year of the pilot and had become smaller still by the third year. 

There were no significant differences between control and treatment schools in either year. In SY 

2002-2003, foods could be purchased from other sources in 10 percent of all schools in the pilot, 

compared to 14 percent in the first year (Exhibit A-38). Most of these schools were in one district, as 

in the first year of the pilot. In four of the six districts, there were no schools where food was 

available from other on-campus sources. Of the relatively few schools where food was available 

from other sources, the types of food most frequently available were juice (87 percent), 

candy/chips/cookies (53 percent), and soda (27 percent). None of the schools offered milk through 

these sources. 
30 Implementation of the School Breakfast Pilot Project 

Accessibility of Breakfast 

The median length of time allotted for breakfast service in SY 2002-2003 was 30 minutes in both 

control and treatment schools, the same as in SY 2000-2001 (Exhibit A-33). A comparison of 

responses to the two surveys indicates that two-thirds of the schools reported a different length of 

time allotted for breakfast service in the two survey years. While the share indicating a longer period 

of service (38 percent) exceeded the share indicating a shorter period (29 percent), the median 

remained unchanged (Exhibit A-34). Most schools do not treat breakfast as part of the school day. 

The most significant exception is among treatment schools serving breakfast in the classroom. Of 

these schools, 29 percent treated breakfast as part of the school day in SY 2002-2003, about the same 

share as in the first year of the pilot (Exhibit A-33). Again, there were no significant differences 

between control and treatment schools. 

In schools where breakfast is not treated as part of the school day, cafeteria managers were asked for 

their opinion on how much initiative was required by students to eat a school breakfast. In the first 

year of the pilot, 26 percent of all cafeteria managers (59 percent in one district) reported that 

“moderate” to “significant” initiative was required in their schools. Most other cafeteria managers 

(69 percent) said that “little” or “no” initiative was required. No significant differences between 

control and treatment schools were observed in the earlier evaluation. In SY 2002-2003, the share of 

all cafeteria managers responding that “moderate” to “significant” initiative was required was only 

about half as large (14 percent) as in the first year (Exhibit A-33). 

Breakfast Composition 

Cafeteria managers were asked if there had been any changes in the composition of the breakfasts 

they served during the second and third years of the pilot and if there had been changes, to describe 

them and their impact. 

Across all schools, only 14 percent of all respondents indicated that there had been a change in the 

composition of breakfast over this period, with no significant difference between control and 

treatment schools (Exhibit A-39). This could underestimate the extent of change for a couple of 

reasons. First, given the relatively high rate of turnover among cafeteria managers, some respondents 

might not have known if there had been a change in the composition of breakfast over the period. 

Second, slight product changes occur almost continuously in school foodservice. Given that such 

changes are commonplace, they might have been under-reported. 

Of the relatively small share of cafeteria managers who indicated that there had been a change in the 

composition of breakfast in their schools, 32 percent said that it had been occasioned by the increased 

use of prepared foods resulting in a decline in preparation time. For many of these schools, the 

changes were occasioned by the increased use of pre-packaged foods. In other schools, the changes 

were prompted by a decision to improve the quality or variety of the foods offered. Half of those 

reporting a change in composition said that the change had the effect of increasing the variety of 

foods offered. 

Impact of Implementing Universal-Free School Breakfast on School 

Operations 

Having considered how universal-free school breakfast was implemented in the second and third 

years, we now turn to an assessment of how it affected school operations. We begin by examining 
Implementation of the School Breakfast Pilot Project 31 

the impact on program participation. This is followed by an assessment of the implications of eating 

breakfast in the classroom and by the impact of universal-free school breakfast on program 

administration, staffing, cost and revenue, plate waste, and on the attitude of key stakeholders. 

Analyses conducted after the first year of implementation found a substantial increase in breakfast 

participation in treatment schools. The question to be answered here is, did this impact continue 

throughout the three years of the pilot or was there a decline in participation rates once the novelty 

wore off? In the first year of the pilot, 18 schools permitted their students to eat their universal-free 

school breakfast in the classroom, resulting in sharply higher rates of participation in these schools. 

In this analysis, we will determine if any other schools were attracted to this approach in the second 

and third years of the pilot. In the first year of implementation, there was also some indication that 

the pilot (including implementation as well as evaluation activities) had increased the administrative 

workload and paperwork rather than reduce it, as had been hoped, and that it also added to 

foodservice labor requirements. Now that the requirements of project evaluation had largely been 

satisfied and cafeteria staffs had an opportunity to adapt to the increased number of students eating 

school breakfast, had these demands changed? And, to the extent school administrators observed a 

change in paperwork during the pilot, was it associated with implementation of universal-free school 

breakfast or with the evaluation that accompanied it? These and other impacts are examined in this 

section. 

Program Participation 

Nationally, participation in the SBP has always lagged far behind participation in the National School 

Lunch Program (NSLP). Some school districts do not participate in the SBP. However, the main 

reason for lower participation is that far fewer students who have access to the SBP choose to 

participate. While an estimated 4.7 billion NSLP lunches were served in FY 2003 in all schools 

(public and private) and in all grades (K through 12), only about 1.4 billion breakfasts were served. 

An average of 8.4 million students participated each day in the SBP in FY 2003 for a national SBP 

participation rate of 22 percent. Participation in the NSLP, in comparison, was 63 percent in FY 2003 

(USDA, 2003). 

Schools offering universal-free school breakfast experienced a sizable increase in participation during 

the initial year of the pilot (Exhibits 3.5 and 3.6). In treatment schools where breakfast was eaten in 

the cafeteria, the rate of participation (adjusted for enrollment) rose from 17 percent in the base year, 

SY 1999-2000, to 28 percent in SY 2000-2001. In treatment schools where breakfast was eaten in the 

classroom, the rate of participation rose even more sharply, climbing from 27 percent to 66 percent. 

Over the same period, the rate of participation in control schools was nearly constant, going from 20 

percent in SY 1999-2000 to 21 percent in SY 2000-2001. Differences between control and treatment 

schools and between treatment classroom and treatment non-classroom were statistically significant. 

Rates of participation in the SBP in the second and third years of the pilot were not much different 

from rates in the start-up year. Rates for both control and treatment schools rose slightly in the 

second year, while in the third year control schools remained at an average participation rate of 22 

percent and the average rate for treatment schools declined by one percentage point to 38 percent. As 

noted earlier, the number of treatment schools serving breakfast in the classroom fell from 18 to 14 

between the first and third years of the pilot. 
32 Implementation of the School Breakfast Pilot Project 

Exhibit 3.5 

Comparisons of the Rate of Participation in the School Breakfast Program, by School Type and District, SY 

1999-2000 – SY 2002-20031 

School Type/District SY 1999-2000 SY 2000-2001 SY 2001-2002 SY 2002-2003 

 N Percent N Percent N Percent N Percent 

 

School Type 

Treatment 79 19 79 38* 79 39* 79 38* 

 Non-classroom 61 17 61 28** 63 29** 65 29 

 Classroom 18 27 18 66 16 64 14 71 

Control 74 20 74 21 75 22 75 22 

District 

 A 16 21 16 34 17 34 17 32 

 B 24 21 24 27 24 31 24 29 

 C 10 25 10 32 10 34 10 35 

 D 34 9 34 12 34 16 34 16 

 E 59 24 59 31 59 31 59 31 

 F 10 33 10 47 10 49 10 49 

 

All schools 153 19 153 29 154 30 154 30 

1 Participation rates have been adjusted for student enrollment. 

* Difference in proportions is statistically significant at the .05 level. Comparison is between control and treatment schools. 

** Difference in proportions is statistically significant at the .01 level. Comparison is between classroom and non-classroom 

treatment schools. 

Source: Impact Study⎯School-Level Data, SY 1999-2000⎯SY 2002-2003 

Exhibit 3.6 

Comparison of SBP Participation Rates, by School Type, SY 1999-2000 and SY 2002-2003

20.0 21.0 22.0 22.0

17.0

28.0 29.0 29.0 27.0

66.0 64.0

71.0

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

SY 1999-2000 SY 2000-2001 SY 2001-2002 SY 2002-2003

Percent

Control Treatment - cafeteria Treatment - classroom

N for SY 1999-2000 and SY 2000-2001 = 153. N for SY 2001-2002 and SY 2002-2004 = 154. 

Source: Impact Study⎯School Level Data, SY 1999-2000⎯SY 2002-2003.
Implementation of the School Breakfast Pilot Project 33 

The rate of participation in treatment schools remained significantly above the rate in control schools 

in both Year 2 and Year 3. In SY 2002-2003, all treatment schools experienced a rate of 38 percent 

compared to control schools’ 22 percent. In SY 2000-2001, the first year of the pilot, the rate of 

participation was 38 percent in treatment schools and 21 percent in control schools. Participation 

among schools serving breakfast in the classroom continued to rise slowly over the period of study, 

increasing from 66 percent in the first year of the pilot to 71 percent the last year, though the 

differences between participation in these schools and in treatment schools not serving in the 

classroom was no longer statistically significant, due in large measure to the smaller sample size. 

Eating Breakfast in the Classroom 

Of the relatively few decisions that administrators had to make in implementing universal-free school 

breakfast, deciding where breakfast was to be eaten was potentially one of the most important. It was 

important for two reasons. First, as noted above, it affected the rate of participation in school 

breakfast. The rate in treatment schools where breakfast was eaten in the classroom was significantly 

higher than the rate in treatment schools where breakfast was eaten in the cafeteria. Although this 

outcome had been documented in other studies where universal-free school breakfast had been 

offered in the classroom (e.g., Murphy and Pagano, 2001), it was confirmed by the results from the 

first year of SBPP implementation. 

Second, allowing students to eat breakfast in the classroom affected not just the cafeteria staff but the 

instructional and custodial staff as well. Teachers became involved in overseeing breakfast service in 

classrooms. Custodians were confronted with multiple points of refuse collection, rather than one, 

and the possibility of additional classroom clean up. As the number of stakeholders increased, so too 

did the opportunity for problems and conflicts. The attraction of higher participation rates was 

therefore set against the drawback of increasing the workload of teachers, custodians, and cafeteria 

workers. Perceptions of this tradeoff were markedly different among schools. 

To the extent school administrators gave further attention to the issue in the second and third years of 

the pilot, they appear to have been conflicted by the attraction of achieving increased participation 

and the drawbacks of adding to the workload of the staff. The opposition of some teachers appears to 

have been particularly telling in the decisions of some principals. 

To help determine the impact of eating breakfast in the classroom, beyond its impact on participation, 

SFA directors and cafeteria managers in schools where breakfast was eaten in the classroom were 

asked if they experienced any particular problems and, if so, what they were. Four of the six SFA 

directors said that these schools had encountered problems (Exhibit A-50). They included problems 

of insect infestations, spillage, refuse collection, meal accountability, teacher resistance, and the 

difficulty of procuring breakfast foods in forms more conducive to serving in the classroom. SFA 

directors were also asked for their perception of how teachers in these schools viewed serving 

breakfast in the classroom. Their responses suggest a range of views that make it difficult to 

generalize. Two SFA directors said that teacher attitude varied greatly, both among schools and 

among teachers within the same school. Another director characterized the reaction of teachers as 

“strong support” while still another described them as in “slight opposition”. Two directors said they 

“didn’t know”. 

Of the 14 schools serving breakfast in the classroom in the final pilot year, the cafeteria managers of 

nine of the schools said that they had experienced a variety of problems (Exhibit A-36). Among the 
34 Implementation of the School Breakfast Pilot Project 

problems cited by these cafeteria managers were spillage, poor record keeping, teacher resistance, 

difficulties in delivering food to the classrooms, and increased plate waste. 

Administrative Requirements 

One objective of the evaluation that was expressly noted in the legislation authorizing the pilot project 

was to assess the impact of universal-free school breakfast on “the paperwork required to be 

completed by the schools” (Public Law 105-336, section 109). Lessening the administrative 

workload of the SBP in ways that do not undermine the attainment of other program goals is a 

continuing objective of FNS. Past FNS research has found that elimination of all or part of the 

application and meal counting and claiming processes can result in substantial labor savings (FNS, 

1994). 

It should be noted that the design of the pilot, as specified in the authorizing legislation, was not well 

suited for assessing the impact on paperwork. One of the most burdensome features of the existing 

programs is the need to collect and process applications for eligibility for free and reduced-price 

meals. Since school lunch was unaffected by the pilot, this information was still required and 

therefore collected throughout the period of study. 

Of the treatment school principals interviewed during the first year of the SBPP in SY 2000-2001, 60 

percent reported an increase in administrative reporting requirements while 28 percent said that 

meeting these requirements had required additional staff time. Since implementation of the universalfree school breakfast required little, if any, additional paperwork, it was suspected that the increased 

administrative workload was associated with the evaluation protocol rather than with implementation. 

Ten-person data collection teams had spent a full day in each school during Spring 2001 conducting 

interviews of students and parents and retrieving records. In addition, a liaison selected from the 

school staff assisted in scheduling evaluation interviews in the first and third years of the pilot and in 

collecting information from school records throughout the study. All of these activities were 

associated with the evaluation rather than with implementation of the program itself. There were no 

special administrative requirements associated with implementation of universal-free school 

breakfast. 

This issue of administrative workload was revisited during the interviews conducted in SY 2002-

2003. Five of the six SFA directors reported that offering universal-free school breakfast had no 

impact on paperwork or administrative requirements, either at the district level or in the schools 

(Exhibit A-52). The only exception noted by one SFA director occurred when records had to be 

retrieved from archives for purposes of obtaining baseline data for the evaluation, a task unrelated to 

implementation. 

At the school level, cafeteria managers were asked if they had observed any change in paperwork or 

administrative reporting over the past two school years. Of the cafeteria managers interviewed, only 

8 percent reported a change with no significant difference between the responses of cafeteria 

managers in control and treatment schools (Exhibit A-41). 

To the extent offering universal-free school breakfast resulted in an increased administrative burden, 

treatment school principals were probably in the best position to observe it. School paperwork, 

including that associated with administering school food programs, is commonly managed by the 

“front office” under the supervision of the principal or the principal’s designee. Principals in 
Implementation of the School Breakfast Pilot Project 35 

treatment schools were therefore asked if they thought the pilot had any effect on paperwork or 

administrative requirements and if it had increased, to estimate what share of the increase was 

associated with the evaluation and what share with implementation. 

Of the principals interviewed, 71 percent felt that offering universal-free school breakfast had no 

effect on administrative requirements (Exhibit A-24). Of the remaining 29 percent, most believed 

that the pilot had resulted in increased administrative requirements and that more than half of the 

increased paperwork was associated with evaluation activities rather than implementation. Thus, 

while a majority of all respondents observed no change in administrative workload as a result of 

universal-free school breakfast, a minority (27 percent) felt that there had been an increase in 

workload, most of whom thought that at least a majority of the increase was associated with 

evaluation activities. The share of principals reporting an increased workload was higher among 

those schools serving breakfast in the cafeteria than among those with classroom breakfast in both 

years in which interviews were conducted (Exhibit 3.7). However, the difference in SY 2002-2003 

was no longer statistically significant, as it had been in SY 2000-2001. 

Satisfying the record-keeping requirements of the SBPP can be a demanding task for school 

foodservice. A daily count of all breakfasts qualifying for reimbursement is required and under the 

traditional SBP, the count has to be broken down by the number of meals qualifying as free, reducedprice, or full-price. In those systems where students move through a common checkpoint in the 

cafeteria, record-keeping can be relatively straightforward. However, in treatment schools where 

breakfast was served in the classroom, the responsibility for record-keeping was more dispersed and 

therefore more difficult to monitor and supervise. Further complicating record- keeping in at least 

two-thirds of these schools was the fact that teachers were assigned at least partial responsibility for a 

task that was new to them (Exhibit A-35). 

Treatment school principals were asked if they thought that the SBPP had any effect on the accuracy 

or integrity of school breakfast record-keeping. While 87 percent of all treatment school principals 

said that offering universal-free school breakfast had not affected the accuracy of record-keeping, 

principals of schools serving breakfast in the classroom were more divided in their responses (Exhibit 

A-24). Of these principals, five of fourteen (36 percent) said that they thought it had affected 

accuracy. Of the five, three thought that the increased prominence of the program had resulted in 

improved accuracy, despite having more people involved. The other two principals felt otherwise, 

indicating that the added complexity of involving so many people in record-keeping had a negative 

effect on accuracy. 

Staffing and Workload Impacts 

One of the more widespread impacts observed in the initial year of the pilot was the increased use of 

foodservice labor in treatment schools. The increase in staff workload was directly associated with 

the increased number of breakfasts that were being served. To handle the increased number of 

students, many schools either increased the number of hours worked by existing staff or added 

additional staff, or some combination of the two. Findings from the first year study also indicated 

that the number of breakfasts increased proportionately more than did the number of staff hours, 

reflecting an improvement in labor efficiency when operating on a larger scale. 
36 Implementation of the School Breakfast Pilot Project 

Exhibit 3.7 

Share of Treatment Schools Reporting Increase in Administrative Reporting Requirements, 

SY 2000-2001 and SY 2002-2003

65.6

38.9

27.7

21.4

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

Cafeteria Classroom

Location Where Breakfast Eaten

Percent

2000-2001 2002-2003

N = 79 for each school year. 

Source: Implementation Study⎯Principal Interview, Spring 2001 and Spring 2003.

It was anticipated that labor requirements in treatment schools would stabilize during the second and 

third years of the pilot, as the rate of participation plateaued. There was also the possibility that, with 

the experience of the first year behind them, some schools might have devised more labor-efficient 

practices, thereby reducing their labor requirements. 

SFA directors, principals, and cafeteria managers were asked about staffing requirements in SY 2001-

2002 and SY 2002-2003. Two of the six SFA directors felt that the workload of existing staff had 

been reduced over this period as a result of the increased use of pre-wrapped foods and improved 

efficiency (Exhibit A-47). Two other SFA directors identified particular schools, one in each district, 

that had added staff due to increased breakfast participation, while a third director reported an overall 

increase in staffing. The sixth SFA director reported no change in workload or staffing during this 

period. 

When principals were asked about the trend in staffing for breakfast service in their schools in the 

second and third years of the pilot, most said there had been “no change” with no significant 

difference between the responses of control and treatment school principals (Exhibit A-16). A similar 

view was expressed by cafeteria managers (Exhibit A-40). When the principals of treatment schools 

were asked about the overall impact of the SBPP on staffing requirements over the entire three-year 

period, 71 percent said that it had “no effect” while 28 percent reported a “slight increase” (Exhibit 

A-20). 
Implementation of the School Breakfast Pilot Project 37 

When treatment school principals were asked more pointedly about the impact of the SBPP on 

custodians and cafeteria workers, the staffing categories most directly affected, only about half 

responded that there had been “no effect” on these workers (Exhibit A-19). And, among those 

schools where breakfast had been eaten in the classroom, 70 percent or more said that both cafeteria 

workers and custodians had been affected by the SBPP. In the case of custodians, there was no 

consensus on whether the net impact had been positive or negative. At least as many principals 

judged the impact on custodians to have been positive (24 percent) as negative (22 percent). With 

regard to cafeteria workers, a substantially larger share perceived the impact to have been positive 

rather than negative (42 percent versus 10 percent). 

The share of cafeteria managers in treatment schools reporting a change in cafeteria staff workload 

dropped sharply between SY 2000-2001 and SY 2002-2003 (Exhibit 3.8). Differences by location of 

where breakfast was eaten were not significant in either year. 

Impact on Costs and Revenues 

As part of the evaluation conducted during the first year of the SBPP, estimates were made of food 

and labor costs and revenue from meal reimbursements and paid meals for each school taking part in 

the study. In brief, the results indicated that the higher rates of participation in the treatment schools 

made it possible for them to achieve substantial economies in their use of cafeteria labor. As a result, 

the average labor cost per breakfast in treatment schools was only 71 percent of the average cost in 

Exhibit 3.8 

Share of Treatment Schools Reporting Change in Cafeteria Staff Workload, SY 2000-2001 and 

SY 2002-2003

51

89

9

14

0

20

40

60

80

100

Cafeteria Classroom

Location Where Breakfast Eaten

Percent

2000-2001 2002-2003

N = 79 for each school year. 

Source: Implementation Study⎯Cafeteria Manager Interview, Spring 2001 and Spring 2003.
38 Implementation of the School Breakfast Pilot Project 

control schools. This advantage, combined with reimbursement at the highest rate for all breakfasts 

served in treatment schools, worked to the financial benefit of these schools. Total breakfast revenue 

was estimated to equal or exceed food and labor costs for 95 percent of all treatment schools 

compared to 80 percent of all control schools. While this was a partial analysis limited to the two 

principal components of meal cost, food and labor, it is suggestive of the financial advantage enjoyed 

by the treatment schools under terms of the study.4

Detailed cost and revenue data were not collected for the second and third years of the pilot. Instead, 

SFA directors and school principals were asked for their perceptions of the effect of universal-free 

school breakfast on costs and revenues over this period. SFA directors were asked about the impact 

during the second and third years of the pilot, relative to the first year. Since the growth in 

participation rates had substantially slowed by the second year in most schools, labor requirements for 

breakfast service should have leveled-off as well. 

Three of the six directors reported their operations had incurred some additional costs associated with 

the SBPP in the second and/or third years of the pilot (Exhibit A-57). In one district, this resulted 

from the adoption of more expensive, pre-packaged foods. In another district, refrigerators were 

purchased and installed in classrooms where breakfast was served and eaten. The third district had 

added staff in a school that had converted to classroom service gradually, class-by-class, over the 

three-year period. 

Of the four SFA directors who had observed the pilot from beginning to end, all agreed that the 

additional revenues associated with universal-free school breakfast exceeded any additional costs 

incurred during the second and third years of the pilot. 

Most school principals in both control and treatment schools reported that there had been no change 

in expenditures related to school breakfast in either of the last two years of the pilot. In SY 2001-

2002, 80 percent reported “no change” and in SY 2002-2003, 90 percent reported “no change” 

(Exhibits A-15 and A-17). While there was no significant difference between control and treatment 

schools, principals of treatment schools serving breakfast in the classroom were somewhat more 

likely to have reported an increase in expenditures. When viewed across the entire three-year period 

 

4

 A nationally representative study of the cost of producing school meals conducted on behalf of the Food 

and Nutrition Service in SY 1992-1993 found that the mean per meal cost of food was $0.49 per breakfast 

while the mean per meal cost of labor was $0.51 per breakfast (Glantz, et. al. 1994). The reimbursement 

rate for a free breakfast in SY 1992-1993 was $0. 95 per meal, $0.05 less per meal than the combined cost 

of food and labor. 

In comparison, the SBPP evaluation (McLaughlin et al., 2002) found that the mean per meal cost of food 

was about 14 percent higher than the earlier study ($0.55 in treatment schools and $0.56 in control schools) 

while the per meal labor costs were much lower ($0.25 in treatment schools and $0.35 in control schools). 

With a reimbursement of $1.12 for a free breakfast in SY 2000-2001 ($1.33 for severe need schools), 

reimbursements for treatment schools exceed the combined cost of food and labor by an estimated $0.32 

per meal, on average. It should be noted that the SBPP evaluation did not evaluate costs other than food 

and labor. These other costs were found in the SY 1992-1993 study to have added an additional 12 percent 

to the “reported” cost. Beyond this, the earlier study also identified “unreported” costs (costs that were not 

charged to the SFA budget) that averaged 17 percent of total reported cost. Adding these additional costs, 

assuming their relative size has not changed, narrows the financial advantage enjoyed by treatment schools 

taking part in the SBPP. 
Implementation of the School Breakfast Pilot Project 39 

of the pilot, 91 percent of principals in treatment schools serving breakfast in locations other than the 

classroom said that the pilot had “no effect” on operating expenses (Exhibit A-21). In comparison, 

principals of treatment schools where breakfast was served in the classroom were evenly divided 

between a “slight increase” in expenses and “no effect.” 

Plate Waste 

As part of the first year evaluation, cafeteria managers were asked for their perceptions of any 

changes in the relative magnitude of plate waste during the first year of the pilot, compared to the 

previous year (McLaughlin et al., 2002). While a majority of all cafeteria managers said that there 

had been no change, the share of control school cafeteria managers indicating no change was 

significantly higher than the share of treatment school cafeteria managers (87 percent versus 67 

percent (McLaughlin et al., 2002). For treatment schools with classroom breakfast, the share of 

cafeteria managers reporting increased plate waste was nearly twice as high as for non-classroom 

breakfast treatment schools (28 percent versus 15 percent). Thus, while plate waste was not 

considered a problem universally, to the extent it had increased it was far more likely to have 

occurred in treatment schools during the first year of the pilot. 

In conducting interviews in the third year, cafeteria managers were asked if they had detected any 

difference in the amount of individual plate waste at breakfast over the previous three years. A 

majority (62 percent) responded that the amount of plate waste hadn’t changed over the period, with 

no significant difference between control and treatment schools (Exhibit A-43). Not surprisingly, 

given the relatively high turnover rate of cafeteria managers, 24 percent of the respondents indicated 

that they did not know if there had been a change. As in the first year, the share of cafeteria managers 

reporting increased plate waste is small but higher among treatment schools (10 percent versus 1 

percent) and within that group, highest among classroom breakfast schools (14 percent versus 9 

percent for non-classroom breakfast treatment schools). 

All of the treatment schools that reported a decline in plate waste in SY 2002-2003 were nonclassroom breakfast schools. The most frequently mentioned reason for the decline in plate waste 

was the improved acceptance of the menu by students, helped by the adoption of new menu items. 

The most frequently mentioned reason for increased plate waste, not surprisingly, was the reverse, i.e. 

students were being served food they did not like. Two cafeteria managers attributed the increased 

plate waste to the difficulty of planning for breakfasts served in the classroom. 

Impact on Students and Teachers 

Treatment school principals were asked to evaluate the overall impact of universal-free school 

breakfast on students and teachers. School principals are in a good position to judge the impact on 

these two important stakeholders, though many will not have had an opportunity to observe the 

impact at the same school over the entire period of study. A five-category scale ranging from “very 

positive” to “very negative” was used. All of the principals in treatment schools serving breakfast in 

the classroom characterized the impact on their students as “positive” (57 percent) or “very positive” 

(43 percent) (Exhibit A-18). The impact was nearly as favorable among principals in the other 

treatment schools with 51 percent reporting a “positive” impact and 37 percent “very positive.” 

The impact of universal-free school breakfast on teachers, according to the principals, was less clearcut, particularly among teachers in those schools where breakfast was eaten in the classroom. Of the 
40 Implementation of the School Breakfast Pilot Project 

latter (n=14), 21 percent described universal-free school breakfast as having had a “negative” impact 

on their teachers. At the same time, more than three times as many principals in these schools 

described the impact on teachers as either “positive” (43 percent) or “very positive” (29 percent). 

The principals’ perceptions of the impact of universal-free school breakfast on teachers in schools 

where breakfast was not eaten in the classroom was less dichotomous. While a majority of these 

principals viewed the impact on teachers as either “positive” (43 percent) or “very positive” (20 

percent), most of the remaining principals (34 percent) said that it had “no effect” on teachers. 

School Discipline 

To assist in evaluating the impact of universal-free school breakfast on student behavior, record logs 

for the number of disciplinary incidents requiring a visit to the principal’s office were collected from 

each SBPP school over a 20-week period during the first year of the pilot. Earlier evaluations of 

schools in Maryland (Murphy and Pagano, 2001) and Boston (Murphy et al., 2000) concluded that 

students were better behaved following implementation of universal-free school breakfast. However, 

findings from the first year of the SBPP indicated that the average number of daily disciplinary visits, 

adjusted by enrollment, was somewhat higher in treatment schools (1.13 per 100 students) than in 

control schools (0.86 per 100 students), and that the difference was statistically significant. Analysis 

of these data also indicated that the impact was primarily due to a higher incidence of disciplinary 

actions occurring in the morning in treatment schools. These results suggested that rather than 

contributing to improved behavior, access to universal-free school breakfast might be having the 

opposite effect. 

Analysis of disciplinary records collected in SY 2001-2002 and SY 2002-2003, the second and third 

years of the pilot, continued to show a higher average incidence among treatment schools than control 

schools, although the difference was not statistically significant. In the second year, there was a 

significant difference between control and treatment schools in the number of incidents in the 

afternoon, as opposed to the morning, as found in the first year. In the third year, there was no effect 

by time of day. These results are reported in greater detail in Chapter Five. 

Given the unexpected results in the first year and the inconclusiveness of the second and third year 

results, school discipline was added to the list of topics addressed in the implementation interviews 

conducted in SY 2002-2003. School principals were asked several questions about the incidence and 

circumstances of disciplinary incidents in their schools. It should be emphasized that the findings 

reported below are based on the perceptions of school principals as opposed to the written records 

that served as the basis of the analysis described above and in Chapter Five. 

Disciplinary Policies 

Most schools (85 percent) have written policies on school discipline (Exhibit A-13). In some 

districts, the policy is developed at the district level for implementation among schools. In other 

districts, development of a policy on school discipline is left to each school. Administrators in four of 

the six districts reported that disciplinary guidelines were centrally developed. 

Incidence of Disciplinary Actions 

Across all schools, the median number of daily visits to the school office for disciplinary reasons per 

100 students, as estimated by school principals, was 0.31 (Exhibit A-9). The incidence per day was 

somewhat higher in treatment schools than in control schools (0.33 versus 0.25). The daily number of
Implementation of the School Breakfast Pilot Project 41 

perceived incidents was highest (0.74) in those treatment schools serving breakfast in the classroom. 

While the difference between the principals’ estimates of the mean number of visits in control and 

treatment schools was not significantly different; differences between classroom and non-classroom 

treatment school estimates were statistically significant at the .05 level. 

When school principals (control and treatment) were asked how the rate of disciplinary action in their 

school compared with that of other elementary schools, 77 percent said that it was about the same, 

lower, or much lower in their school (Exhibit A-8). Only 14 percent indicated a higher rate in their 

school. There were no significant differences between control and treatment schools in these 

responses. 

Searching for trends in the incidence of disciplinary problems over the period during which the SBPP 

had been implemented, the responding principals (control and treatment) were about equally divided 

between those who thought there had been a change (46 percent) and those who felt it had remained 

about the same (43 percent) (Exhibit A-13). Of those principals who thought that they had detected a 

change in the incidence of disciplinary problems over the period, 77 percent said they thought it had 

decreased while only 16 percent perceived an increase. Again, there was no significant difference in 

the responses of control and treatment school principals. 

Characteristics of Disciplinary Incidents 

The three most common reasons given by principals for taking disciplinary actions were disrespect 

towards teachers and staff (50 percent), fighting (46 percent), and aggressive behavior (29 percent) 

(Exhibit A-10). Most principals (95 percent) indicated that there were more disciplinary incidents 

during certain periods of the day. Of these, 49 percent reported a higher incidence during recess 

(Exhibit A-9). Principals’ perceptions on the time of day most disciplinary incidents occurred are 

presented in Exhibit 3.9. Substantially more of the principals believed that there were more 

disciplinary incidents in the afternoon than in the morning (36 percent versus 3 percent), with no 

significant difference between control and treatment schools in this regard. 

Principals’ perceptions of where disciplinary incidents were most likely to occur are presented in 

Exhibit 3.10. Playgrounds were identified as the location where disciplinary incidents were most 

likely to occur (88 percent) (Exhibit A-12). School buses were a distant second (18 percent), with the 

frequency of mention varying greatly, depending on the geographic size of the district and its 

dependence on busing. In general, principals reported that disciplinary incidents occurred with 

greatest frequency when students were less closely supervised, such as on the playground or on 

school buses. 

On the basis of these findings, we conclude that there is no direct link between the number of 

disciplinary visits to the principal’s office and offering universal-free school breakfast. While the 

perceived number of visits was found to be higher among treatment schools serving breakfast in the 

classroom than in other treatment schools, all other evidence (location, time of day, and reasons for 

the incidents, as well as principals’ perceptions of the trend in incidents) suggests that this is not 

associated with the availability of universal-free school breakfast. 

Stakeholder Attitudes 

Several stakeholder groups are affected, directly or indirectly, by the School Breakfast Program and 

by any changes that might be made in it. They include district and school administrators who are 
42 Implementation of the School Breakfast Pilot Project 

Exhibit 3.9 

Principals’ Perceptions of the Time of Day of Most Disciplinary Visits, SY 2002-2003

2.8

35.9

22.1

49.0

2.8 1.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Morning Afternoon All Day Recess Lunch Other

Percent

N = 145; 76 Treatment and 69 Control. 

Note: Percentages sum to more than 100.0% due to multiple responses. 

Source: Implementation Study⎯Principal Interview, Spring 2003.

Exhibit 3.10 

Principal’s Perceptions of Locations Where Disciplinary Incidents Are More Likely to Occur, 

SY 2002-2003

87.5

18.4

11.0 9.6 8.8

2.9 6.6

0

20

40

60

80

100

Playground School Bus Classroom Cafeteria Hallways Bathrooms Other

Percent

N = 136; 69 Treatment and 67 Control 

Note: Percentages sum to more than 100.0% due to multiple responses. 

Source: Implementation Study⎯Principal Interview, Spring 2003.
Implementation of the School Breakfast Pilot Project 43 

responsible for integrating the feeding programs with the educational mission of their institutions, 

foodservice personnel at both district and school levels, teachers, custodians, parents, and, perhaps 

most important of all, the program’s student customers. In the Spring 2001 data collection, each of 

these groups was surveyed. Principals and cafeteria managers in all participating schools, as well as a 

random sample of teachers, custodians, parents, and students were interviewed. In addition, student 

attitudes were explored during a series of 12 focus groups held with students. 

First Year Results 

The results of the 2001 interviews, presented in the report of the first year findings (McLaughlin et 

al., 2002), revealed a positive attitude toward the SBP in general and universal-free school breakfast 

in particular across all stakeholders. A majority of school principals characterized the attitude of 

administrators as “positive” or “extremely positive,” with nearly identical findings for treatment 

schools (85 percent) and control schools (86 percent) (Exhibits A-34 and A-36 in McLaughlin et al., 

2002). Foodservice staff was similarly supportive with 82 percent of all cafeteria managers 

describing staff attitude toward the SBP as “positive” or “very positive,” again with no significant 

differences between control and treatment schools (Exhibit A-59 in the report cited above). 

Student attitude toward universal-free school breakfast in its initial year was also positive. Nearly 

three times as many cafeteria managers in treatment schools as in control schools (60 percent versus 

22 percent) believed that student attitudes had become more positive in the first year of 

implementation of the SBPP (Exhibits A-57 and A-62 in McLaughlin et al., 2002). This finding was 

corroborated in the student focus groups. Students in the focus groups were particularly enthusiastic 

about eating breakfast in the classroom. It had been hypothesized prior to the study that the SBP 

might be viewed by students as a program designed primarily for students from low-income families. 

However, findings from interviews of principals and teachers as well as conversations with students 

in the focus groups failed to reveal evidence of a stigma associated with participation in the SBP 

among these elementary school students. 

Two stakeholder groups who could have been negatively affected by universal-free school breakfast 

are teachers and custodians. Both were potentially affected by the need to supervise additional 

students during breakfast service. For those schools serving breakfast in the classroom, teachers were 

required to play an expanded supervisory role. For custodians, the increased trash associated with 

higher program participation meant additional work, particularly if it had to be collected from 

individual classrooms rather than from a single location. 

Despite these potentially negative implications, a strong majority of both stakeholder groups, 

teachers, and custodians, were described by school principals as having a positive attitude toward the 

program with no significant differences between control and treatment schools. The one feature of 

the SBPP over which opinion was divided was teacher attitude toward eating in the classroom. 

Though based on a small sample, teachers who had not had breakfast served in their classroom were 

generally opposed to this approach while teachers who had experienced classroom feeding were much 

more supportive. 

As noted earlier, interviews conducted in the final year of the pilot were limited to district and school 

administrators, SFA directors, and cafeteria managers. Their perceptions of the attitude of key 

stakeholders are described below. 
44 Implementation of the School Breakfast Pilot Project 

SFA Directors 

Given their positions as head of the school district foodservice operation, SFA directors have a “big 

picture” view of foodservice in their district. This is qualified by the fact that only four of the six 

SFA directors had been in their positions throughout the three years of the pilot. As noted earlier, one 

director was new to the position within the past year while another had less than three months 

experience as director in the school district. 

SFA directors were asked for their perceptions of the predominant attitude of key stakeholders toward 

the SBP, differentiating between control and treatment schools. They were asked to rate each 

stakeholder’s attitude on a five-point scale ranging from “extremely positive” to “extremely 

negative.” In the view of SFA directors, both students and foodservice staff were characterized as 

having a “positive” or “extremely positive” attitude toward school breakfast in both treatment and 

control schools (Exhibits A-59 and A-60). Most SFA directors viewed administrators, school board 

members, and parents as having a neutral to positive attitude toward the program, whether in control 

schools or treatment schools. Teachers and custodians were seen as having a more neutral attitude 

toward school breakfast. The attitudes of teachers, particularly those in treatment schools, were 

difficult to categorize and were seen by some SFA directors as ranging from extremely positive to 

extremely negative. Half of the SFA directors described the attitude of teachers in control schools as 

“neutral.” 

Cafeteria Managers 

School cafeteria managers were asked how their staffs viewed school breakfast and if they perceived 

any change in attitude over the three years of SBPP implementation. In SY 2002-2003, a strong 

majority of cafeteria managers reported either a “positive” or “very positive” attitude toward the SBP, 

with similar results for control schools (87 percent) and treatment schools (84 percent) (Exhibit A44). Although they were in a distinct minority, cafeteria managers in two of the 79 treatment schools 

said that their staff was “negative” or “very negative toward the SBP.” Breakfast was served in the 

cafeteria in one school and in the classroom in the other. 

A comparison of findings from the first and third year interviews shows very little change in attitude. 

Most notable was the more positive attitude of cafeteria managers in treatment schools serving 

breakfast in the cafeteria in the final year. The share of managers in these schools who described staff 

attitude as “very positive” rose from 33 percent in the first year to 54 percent in the third year. 

When cafeteria managers were asked if they perceived any change in staff attitude toward school 

breakfast over the period of the study, a significantly higher share of those in treatment schools said 

that they had detected a change (28 percent versus 11 percent) (Exhibit A-45). The share of cafeteria 

managers detecting a change in staff attitude was especially high (43 percent) among managers in 

treatment schools where breakfast was eaten in the classroom. Overall, most of those cafeteria 

managers who perceived a change in attitude (87 percent), described the change as “more positive” or 

“much more positive.” 

Cafeteria managers were also asked if they perceived any change in student attitude toward school 

breakfast over the period of the SBPP. A significantly higher share of cafeteria managers in control 

schools than in treatment schools (60 percent versus 33 percent) detected no change in attitude 

(Exhibit A-42), while a significantly higher share of all treatment school cafeteria managers reported 

that students’ attitudes had become “more positive” (43 percent versus 24 percent). 
Implementation of the School Breakfast Pilot Project 45 

Principals 

Principals of treatment schools were asked both for their own overall assessment of the impact of 

universal-free school breakfast and for their perception of changes in staff and student attitude toward 

school breakfast as a result of the SBPP. A strong majority of all treatment school principals said that 

the overall impact of universal-free school breakfast had been either “positive” (43 percent) or “very 

positive” (43 percent) (Exhibit A-22). 

About half of all treatment school principals (52 percent) felt that staff attitude toward school 

breakfast had become more favorable during the period of the pilot (Exhibit A-23). Most remaining 

principals (42 percent) perceived no change in staff attitude. A majority of treatment school 

principals (60 percent) also perceived that student attitude toward school breakfast had become more 

favorable during the pilot, while the share of principals in schools where breakfast was eaten in the 

classroom reporting a more favorable student attitude was even higher (71 percent). 

Treatment school principals were also asked to assess the impact of their school’s participation in the 

pilot on key stakeholders using a five-part ranking from very positive to very negative (Exhibit A-18). 

The results are summarized in Exhibit 3.11 below. Students were seen to have benefited most with 

90 percent of the principals indicating that the impact was positive or very positive. In schools where 

breakfast was eaten in the classroom, every principal (100 percent) viewed the impact on students as 

positive or very positive. Nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of the principals judged the impact on 

teachers as positive or very positive while only 5 percent perceived a negative impact (nearly all in 

classroom breakfast schools). Cafeteria workers and custodians were less positively affected by the 

pilot, in the view of principals (Exhibit A-19). This was particularly evident in schools where 

breakfast was eaten in the classroom and 29 percent of the principals described the impact on 

cafeteria workers as negative or very negative and 43 percent had the same assessment of the impact 

on custodians. For treatment schools where breakfast was not eaten in the classroom, 6 percent of 

principals reported a negative impact on cafeteria workers and 17 percent reported a negative impact 

on custodians. 

Post-SBPP Plans 

At the time of the SY 2002-2003 interviews, the SBPP was nearing its June 30, 2003 termination, 

after which the treatment schools in the participating school districts would revert to their former 

status as participants in the SBP and to the standard schedule of meal reimbursement. 

In the interviews conducted at the district level, respondents were asked if the participating treatment 

schools would be returning to the traditional school breakfast program and, if not, what changes were 

planned. Four districts reported that they planned to return to the traditional program. The SFA 

director in one of the districts indicated that the district was undecided as to whether it would make 

changes in the program. The remaining district reported that it planned to use Provision 2 authority to 

allow these schools serving free breakfast in the classroom under the pilot to continue doing so after 

the end of the SBPP, if they wanted.5

 

5

 Under Provision 2 authority, meal reimbursements for a 3-year period are based on eligibility 

determinations made in a base period. In return for this simplified administrative procedure, Provision 2 

schools are required to serve all meals at no charge. Provision 2 may be applied exclusively to meals 

served at breakfast or lunch, or both breakfast and lunch. In SY 1999-2000, an estimated 4.1 percent of all 

elementary schools were operating under Provision 2 authority (Daft, et al., 2002). 
46 Implementation of the School Breakfast Pilot Project 

Exhibit 3.11 

Treatment School Principals’ Perceptions of the Impact of Universal-Free School Breakfast 

on Key Stakeholders, SY 2002-2003

0

20

40

60

80

100

Students Teachers Cafeteria

Workers

Custodians

Percent

Don't know/other Very negative Negative No effect Positive Very positive

N = 79 

Source: Implementation Study⎯Principal Interview, Spring 2003.

School principals and cafeteria managers in treatment schools were asked if they had any concerns 

about returning to the regular SBP when the pilot ended at the end of the school year. About twothirds of both the principals and the cafeteria managers responded affirmatively (Exhibits A-27 and 

A-46). In schools where breakfast was eaten in the classroom, 93 percent of the cafeteria managers 

voiced concerns over returning to the traditional SBP. Among principals, the responses for classroom 

and non-classroom breakfast schools were nearly identical. The most prominent concerns among 

principals were that some students would no longer eat school breakfast (51 percent), in part because 

they could not afford it, and that participation in the SBP would fall (18 percent). The reasons cited 

with greatest frequency by cafeteria managers in those treatment schools expressing concern were an 

anticipated decrease in program participation (37 percent), a concern that some students would go 

hungry (28 percent), and the likelihood of student/parental confusion over the need to pay (20 

percent). 
Impact Study Design and Methodology 47 

Chapter Four 

Impact Study Design and Methodology 

This chapter focuses on the Impact Study design and methodology, originally described in detail in 

the report of findings from the first year of SBPP implementation (McLaughlin et al., 2002). The 

original design for the study was developed by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., as part of a 

contract with FNS (Ponza et al., 1999). Here we summarize the basic features of the overall 

evaluation design: study objectives, research questions, sampling design, data collection 

methodology, and analytic approach. We also address the specific aspects of the study that were 

conducted in the final two years of the SBPP (SY 2001-2002 and SY 2002-2003). 

Objectives and Research Questions 

The primary objective of the Impact Study was to assess the effects of universal-free school breakfast 

on student outcomes. The Impact Study included a broad range of outcomes that may be immediately 

affected by school breakfast, such as cognitive functioning in the morning after breakfast, and more 

distal outcomes, such as performance on a standardized academic achievement test. Toward the end 

of the first year of implementation, an extensive set of these outcomes was gathered directly from 

students, including dietary intake at breakfast and over 24 hours, attitudes about school breakfast, 

cognitive functioning, and height and weight. Data were also collected from parents, teachers, and 

school records, and included information on breakfast consumption patterns, food security status, 

child health, student behavior, school breakfast participation, school attendance, tardiness, and 

academic achievement. Data were gathered at the school-level only for incidents of visits to the 

school nurse and disciplinary visits to the principal. In this report, we focus primarily on a more 

limited set of outcomes, gathered from school records in Years 2 and 3 of SBPP implementation, that 

measure further trends in school breakfast participation, academic achievement, and attendance, both 

at the student and school level. In addition, we report school-level findings on school nurse visits and 

disciplinary incidents. 

The Impact Study addresses three categories of research questions listed below. 

(1) Impacts of the availability of universal-free school breakfast on the overall sample 

The overall impact of the availability of universal-free school breakfast in the treatment schools was 

addressed in the report of the first year of SBPP findings. The following research questions guided 

data collection with students, parents, and teachers conducted only in the first year. These questions 

focus on whether, when compared with students without access to universal-free school breakfast, 

treatment school students: 

• Are more likely to consume breakfast, 

• Are more likely to improve their dietary intake at breakfast and over 24 hours, 

• Achieve higher scores on cognitive tests of attentiveness and memory, 

• Exhibit better classroom behavior, and/or 

• Enjoy better health and a higher sense of food security. 
48 Impact Study Design and Methodology 

In addition, the first year report also looked at a series of research questions using data collected from 

student records, again comparing students with and without access to universal-free school breakfast. 

Specifically, they ask whether students with access to universal-free school breakfast: 

• Have higher rates of participation in school breakfast, 

• Demonstrate greater gains on standardized academic achievement tests, 

• Attend school at higher rates and are tardy less often, 

• Exhibit better health, as indicated by parent report and the number of visits to the school 

nurse’s office, and/or 

• Exhibit better behavior in school, as measured by the number of disciplinary incidents. 

Student record data to analyze these questions continued to be collected in Years 2 and 3 of the SBPP, 

SY 2001-2002 and SY 2002-2003. This latter set of questions is thus analyzed further in this report. 

In addition to cross-sectional analyses focused on separate comparisons of baseline to Year 2 and to 

Year 3 data, impacts are estimated within the context of a longitudinal growth curve analysis. This 

analysis can answer questions focusing on development and change in students over time, by taking 

full advantage of the multiple observation points over time that are a feature of this evaluation. A full 

description of the growth modeling procedure used to conduct these analyses is provided in Appendix 

C. 

(2) Subgroup and district-level impacts of the availability of universal-free school breakfast 

The experimental model used in this evaluation also provides valid estimates of variations in impacts 

across subgroups of students, thereby answering the question of whether there is a differential impact 

of universal-free school breakfast on two groups of students who differ only on a baseline 

characteristic, such as minority status or gender. In addition, district-level impacts are estimated in 

the event of a treatment by district interaction, i.e., if the effect of universal-free school breakfast 

varies significantly across school districts. 

(3) Effects of participation in school breakfast and consumption of breakfast in general 

Although the above research questions focus on the availability of universal-free school breakfast, 

this study also addresses a number of questions dealing with the effects of participating in school 

breakfast and eating breakfast in general. These questions focus on variations in the effects of 

participation in school breakfast both across and within school districts, and on the effects of eating 

any or a substantial breakfast on student outcomes. For this set of research questions, nonexperimental methods were used to derive impact estimates. The results of these analyses are 

presented in Chapter Six. In addition, a summary of the experimental results of the SBPP impacts on 

students who actually participated is provided in Appendix F. 

Sampling Design 

As described earlier, the evaluation of the SBPP is based on an experimental design, with school 

treated as the experimental unit. The sample for the Impact Study is comprised of students in grades 

2 through 6, in a total of 138 elementary school units, grouped into 69 matched pairs across the six 
Impact Study Design and Methodology 49 

participating school districts.1 Within each matched pair, one school unit was randomly assigned to 

the treatment group (universal-free school breakfast) and the other to the control group (SBP). 

Within each treatment and control school unit, a total of six classrooms were randomly selected, with 

at least one classroom per grade for grades 2 through 6. An initial sample of 48 students was selected 

within each school, allowing for sample loss due to refusal, mobility, and absenteeism, to reach a 

target sample of 30 students per school unit and a total student sample of 4,290 (2,190 treatment and 

2,100 control). The sample for the SBPP study was derived by stratifying the students in the selected 

classrooms according to school meal eligibility status and prior participation in school breakfast, 

when this information was available. This procedure resulted in a stratified random sample of 

students from the six participating school districts. For further details on the sampling methodology 

used in this study, please refer to the report on the first year of SBPP findings (McLaughlin et al., 

2002). 

In Years 2 and 3 of the SBPP evaluation, we continued to gather data from the sample of schools and 

students. The student sample declined over the course of the evaluation, however, as students moved 

from the elementary schools in the sample to middle and junior high schools, or to other elementary 

schools. Students who changed elementary schools were kept in the sample if they moved from one 

treatment school to another or from one control school to another in the same district. They were 

dropped from the sample if they crossed from a treatment school to control (or vice versa), moved out 

of the school district, or graduated from elementary school. 

Data Collection Measures and Methodology 

The Impact Study is based on data collected directly from students, parents, and teachers, as well as 

from school records. Exhibit 4.1 summarizes the Impact Study data collection across the baseline and 

three years of the SBPP evaluation. As stated earlier, the report on first year findings (McLaughlin et 

al., 2002) described extensively the various measures used to collect these data. This volume of the 

report follows up with further findings based on information gathered from student records only, 

describing students’ school breakfast participation, attendance, tardiness, academic achievement test 

scores, school nurse visits, and disciplinary incidents. Data on school breakfast participation, 

attendance, tardiness, and academic test scores were collected at both the student and school level. 

Data on school nurse visits and disciplinary incidents were collected at the school level only. These 

data were all collected in Year 2 (SY 2001-2002) and Year 3 (SY 2002-2003) of the pilot. 

Exhibit 4.2 displays response rates across all students for a variety of data collection measures in 

Years 2 and 3 of the SBPP. Response rates presented for student-level measures (breakfast 

participation, attendance, and achievement test scores) were based on the number of eligible students 

in the study enrolled in SY 2001-2002 (n=3,221) and SY 20002-2003 (n=2,182). As Exhibit 4.2 

indicates, these response rates ranged from 71 to 100 percent, depending upon the outcome and year 

 

1

 The original sample consisted of 153 schools. Schools with different grade configurations, however (e.g., 

K-2, 3-5), were combined for sampling purposes. In addition, in three school districts, two treatment 

school units were paired with one control group. After the first year of SBPP, a newly constructed school 

in one district took some of the grades from a control school. Thus, the final sample for the study consists 

of 154 schools. One treatment school and its matched control could not be included in the Impact Study 

analysis. The final school sample was thus grouped into 138 school units, 69 treatment and 69 control. 
50 Impact Study Design and Methodology 

in which data were collected.2 Response rates for these outcomes (breakfast participation, attendance, 

and achievement test scores) at the school level were 100 percent. Response rates for the nurse and 

disciplinary logs (school-level outcomes) were based on the total number of schools in the sample 

times the number of weeks of data collection (n=20). Response rates for these outcomes were 92 to 

93 percent across the two years. 

Exhibit 4.1 

Summary of Impact Study Data Collection 

Source Outcomes 

Baseline 

SY 

1999-

2000 

Year 1 

SY 

2000-

2001 

Year 2 

SY 

2001-

2002 

Year 3 

SY 

2002-

2003 

Students • Dietary intake at breakfast and over 24 

hours 

9 

 • Source of breakfast 9 

 • SBP participation 9 

 • Attitudes about breakfast 9 

 • Plate waste 9 

 • Cognitive functioning 9 

 • Height and weight 9 

 • School breakfast participation 9 

 • Dietary intake at breakfast and over 24 

hours (repeat assessment) 

9 

Parents • Student’s dietary intake 9 

 • Food security status 9 

 • Student’s usual breakfast patterns 9 

 • Child health 9 

 • Parent/guardian attitudes toward 

breakfast and school breakfast 

9 

 • Socioeconomic characteristics of 

household 

9 

Teachers • School climate 9 

 • Student behavior 9 

School 

Records3

• School breakfast participation 9 9 9 9

 • Attendance 9 9 9 9

 • Tardiness 9 9 9 9

 • Achievement test scores 9 9 9 9

 • School nurse visits 9 9 9

 • Disciplinary incidents 9 9 9

 

2

 Response rates for school attendance were based on whether attendance or tardiness data were available for 

study students. The response rates for student-level tardiness data, however, were far below those for 

student attendance (47 percent in SY 2001-2002 and 45 percent in SY 2002-2003). Tardiness data were 

not available at the student-level in two districts and at the school-level in four districts. 

3

 School records of attendance, tardiness, achievement test scores, and school breakfast participation were 

obtained for both sample students and the entire school. Disciplinary incidents and school nurse visits were 

obtained at the school level only. 
Impact Study Design and Methodology 51 

Exhibit 4.2 

Impact Study: Data Collection Response Rates Across All Districts

100 100

72

92 92

97 100

71

93 92

0

20

40

60

80

100

Breakfast

Participation

Attendance Achievement

Test Scores

Nurse Logs Discipline Logs

Percent

SY 2001-2002 SY 2002-2003

Note: Response rates for school breakfast participation, attendance, and test scores are for the student sample. Schoollevel response rates for school breakfast participation, attendance, and test scores were 100 percent. Response rates for 

nurse and disciplinary logs were based on the total number of schools in the sample times 20, the number of weeks of 

data collection. Sample sizes used in analyses may vary, however, due to unreliable or missing data. 

N=3,221 for SY 2001-2002 student-level breakfast participation, attendance, and achievement test scores. 

N=2,182 for SY 2002-2003 student-level breakfast participation, attendance, and achievement test scores. 

N= 2,814 for the number of nurse visit logs and 2,801 for the number of disciplinary logs for SY 2001-2002. 

N= 2,858 for the number of nurse visit logs and 2,838 for the number of disciplinary logs for SY 2002-2003. 

Source: Impact Study Data Collection, SY2001-2002 and SY2002-2003

Analytic Approach 

This section briefly reviews the Impact Study analytic approach, previously described in detail in the 

report of findings from the first year of SBPP implementation (McLaughlin et al., 2002). The 

discussion distinguishes between two types of research questions. One type explicitly addresses the 

impact of availability of universal-free school breakfast on the overall sample; the randomized 

experiment underlying the SBPP evaluation was designed to answer these questions with a high level 

of confidence. The second type of question addresses the effects of participation in school breakfast, 

or eating breakfast in general, not just the availability of universal-free school breakfast. The 

experimental design was not constructed to answer these questions. That is, because neither schools 

nor students were randomly assigned to various levels of participation in school breakfast or amounts 

of breakfast eaten, tests of differences cannot be conducted with the same degree of confidence. 
52 Impact Study Design and Methodology 

Analytic Models to Estimate the Overall Impacts of the Availability of Universal-Free School 

Breakfast 

The Impact Study focuses primarily on the effects of universal-free school breakfast on student 

outcomes. These impact analyses follow up on those conducted in the report covering the first year 

of implementation, by computing gain scores between the baseline year (SY 1999-2000) and Years 2 

and 3 of implementation (SY 2001-2002 and SY 2002-2003, respectively). These analyses rest on the 

assumption that the treatment-control differences on the amounts of gain on a given outcome measure 

best indicates the impact of universal-free school breakfast. A full description of the methodology 

underlying these analyses can be found in Appendix C. This appendix also includes a discussion of 

statistical power in the study analyses. 

Student outcomes were analyzed using a hierarchical mixed-model approach, providing for estimates 

of the overall as well as district-level impacts. A separate multivariate analysis was conducted for 

each outcome variable using a set of baseline covariates to increase the precision of the analytic 

estimates by adjusting for any initial differences between the treatment and control groups. The 

covariates used in the student-level models are: 

• Age of student in months and years, 

• School meal eligibility status (free and reduced-price versus paid), 

• Gender, and 

• Minority status (white versus non-white). 

These same covariates were used in all of the student-level models. In addition, a baseline measure of 

the outcome (e.g., academic achievement test score) was included in the model. Missing data for any 

of the student-level demographic variables were imputed using the school-level mean. Missing data 

for baseline measures of outcomes (e.g., attendance) were not imputed given that the baseline value 

was used in estimating the gain score for each student. Consequently, the gain score analyses only 

included students with data at two time points. 

Given that record data were also available at the school level, impact analyses were also conducted on 

school-level outcomes, namely, school breakfast participation, attendance and tardiness, academic 

achievement, school nurse visits, and disciplinary incidents. These school-level data were also 

analyzed to determine if there were impacts of universal-free school breakfast on the school as a 

whole. 

Parallel to the approach to assessing overall impact using school-level means, variations in impacts 

for subgroups were assessed by examining the interaction between student-level characteristics and 

the treatment status of the school. Subgroup analysis was conducted on all four student-level 

covariates: school meal eligibility status, minority status, gender, and age. Age was defined here as 

“younger,” in grades 1 or 2, and “older,” grade 3 and above. 

With the addition of two years of follow-up data, it was possible to conduct longitudinal growth curve 

analyses to examine change in student outcomes over time, taking advantage of all four years of 

data—baseline through the third year of implementation. These analyses are able to identify growth 

patterns in the data that are not readily apparent in the impact analyses comparing the change from 

baseline to each year of implementation. Longitudinal growth curves were plotted for student- and 

school-level outcomes, including participation, attendance, tardiness, and academic achievement test 
Impact Study Design and Methodology 53 

scores. Based on the results of these plots, a decision was made to utilize hierarchical linear modeling 

techniques to analyze the growth curves of student- and school-level participation outcomes. 

Analytic Approaches to Measuring Effects of Participation in School Breakfast and 

Consumption of Breakfast 

As noted at the outset, the estimates described above measure the average impact of the availability of 

SBPP on all students. These analyses, however, do not address important questions, such as the 

effects of eating no breakfast or a substantive breakfast on student outcomes. Several different 

approaches were used to derive estimates for answering these questions. These analyses depend on 

assumptions that make the attribution of observed differences in outcomes somewhat less certain than 

the level of reliability associated with impacts derived directly from the experimental design. 

The research questions addressed in these analyses are: 

• What is the relationship between breakfast consumption and nutrition and academic 

outcomes for all students? Specifically, what are the outcomes for those who consume a 

robust or substantive breakfast and for those who skip breakfast? 

• Do students who only eat breakfast at school have different nutrition outcomes than 

students who only eat breakfast at home or at home and school? 

• Do treatment group students who eat breakfast in the classroom have different nutrition 

outcomes than treatment group students who eat breakfast in other locations (e.g., 

cafeteria, hallway) or from control group students who eat in the cafeteria? 

• Do students from families below 130 percent of the federal poverty level have different 

nutrition outcomes than students in higher income families? 

• Do students who are classified as food insecure differ in their household characteristics 

from students who are food secure? 

• How does school breakfast participation change over the course of the SBPP? Do 

students with certain demographic characteristics follow a particular participation 

pattern? 

A variety of analytic approaches were employed to deal with the research questions listed above that, 

because of the design, must be analyzed in a non-experimental framework. Specifically, these 

questions ask about the effects of eating no breakfast or a substantive breakfast, and variations in the 

effects of universal-free school breakfast by source (e.g., home, school), school location (e.g., 

classroom, cafeteria), as well as household income on a host of student outcomes. The results of 

these analyses, and the limitations of the nonexperimental analyses, are discussed further in Chapter 

Six and Appendix H. Because students were not randomly assigned to where they ate breakfast, the 

results will need to be interpreted with caution. 

One set of analyses looks at the effect of breakfast consumption on student outcomes, independent of 

treatment status. That is, do students who eat a substantive breakfast have better outcomes compared 

to students who eat a less substantive breakfast? Alternatively, do students who eat any breakfast fare 

better than those who skip breakfast? 
54 Impact Study Design and Methodology 

Another set of analyses looks at the effects of school breakfast location on students’ nutrition 

outcomes. Of particular interest is whether or not students in treatment schools that eat breakfast in 

the classroom have better nutrition outcomes than students in treatment schools that eat breakfast 

elsewhere. Alternatively, do students who eat breakfast only at school have better nutrition outcomes 

than those eating at home only or those eating at home and school? 

To look at the relationship between household characteristics and food security status, descriptive 

analyses were run for each level of food security on the Household Food Security Scale. 

To address the last question regarding school breakfast participation over the course of the SBPP, 

data were analyzed to determine if there were any distinctive patterns, and, if so, how many students 

followed a particular pattern. To assess whether students with certain characteristics were associated 

with particular patterns, analyses of demographic variables, including minority status, gender, school 

meal eligibility status, and age were run for each pattern. 
Impact of Availability of Universal-free School Breakfast 55 

Chapter Five 

Impact of the Availability of Universal-Free School 

Breakfast on Students in Years 2 and 3 

This chapter presents results from the analyses conducted to assess the impact of the availability of 

universal-free school breakfast on student outcomes in Years 2 and 3 of the SBPP implementation. 

These analyses utilize the rigor of the experimental design in addressing the main question 

concerning program impact: Do students in elementary schools where universal-free school 

breakfasts are available do better across a number of outcomes than they would have in the absence of 

universal-free school breakfast? 

This chapter begins with a summary of the key findings from the Year 1 report (McLaughlin et al., 

2002), followed by a description of the sample of students in the Impact Study at baseline, before the 

SBPP was implemented. The discussion then moves to the presentation of findings on the student 

outcomes for Years 2 and 3. The main findings discussed in this chapter represent the average impact 

across all school districts. A summary of all the main impact findings discussed in this chapter is 

presented in Exhibits 5.9 to 5.12. If there is a significant variation among districts, this is also 

presented and the relative magnitude of treatment effects among districts is discussed. To aid the 

reader in interpreting the magnitude of results, effect sizes for outcomes are shown, which provide a 

standard comparison scale in all the exhibits.1

 Results that are not significant are not discussed in 

depth, but readers can find detailed tables of the combined and individual district results in Appendix 

D. Finally, the analysis of subgroup impacts is presented (see Appendix D for exhibits).2

Summary of Year 1 Impact Findings on the Availability of 

Universal-Free School Breakfast 

Key findings from the Year 1 analyses are presented below by study objective. 

Assess the effects of the availability of universal-free school breakfast on student 

participation. 

• Students in schools where universal-free school breakfasts are available showed 

significant gains in participation in school breakfast compared with students in control 

 

1

 An effect size expresses the impact in terms of standard deviation units, and by doing so allows you to 

more easily compare results from different scales (e.g., achievement tests). 

2

 Given that a joint set of hypothesis tests are performed on the same outcome (i.e., by district and subgroup), 

it is important to note the increased risk of finding significant differences when they do not really exist (i.e., 

Type I errors). For example, with a statistical significance cutoff of .05, one estimate out of 20 is likely to 

be significant by chance alone. If 10 statistical tests are performed on the same set of data, each of which 

has a 1 in 20 chance of yielding a false positive result (p = .05) the probability of not committing a Type I 

error is only (.95)10 or 60 percent. In light of this, this report focuses on consistent patterns of findings, 

while scattered significant results from several tests are treated as possibly due to chance. 
56 Impact of Availability of Universal-free School Breakfast 

schools with the regular breakfast program (16 versus 1 percentage point, respectively). 

This effect varied significantly from district to district, and was greater for paid students. 

Assess the effects of the availability of universal-free school breakfast on student outcomes. 

• Most students in both treatment and control schools ate something for breakfast and did 

so all five days of a typical school week. The likelihood of consuming breakfast on a 

given day was slightly higher among students in treatment schools when breakfast was 

defined as providing a minimum level of food energy and at least two foods (80 versus 

76 percent for control students), representing a significant finding.3

• The availability of universal-free school breakfast was associated with a higher likelihood 

of eating more than one nutritionally substantive breakfast (7 percent for treatment versus 

4 percent for control students), typically at home and at school, although few students 

had adopted this eating pattern. This finding was also significant. 

• There was little effect of the availability of universal-free school breakfast on students’ 

food or nutrient intake, either at breakfast or over 24 hours. The handful of significant 

differences in food and nutrient intake were generally in a positive direction but very 

small. The great majority of students overall consumed a usual diet that was adequate in 

food energy, vitamins, and minerals. On the other hand, few met recommendations for 

total fat, saturated fat, and sodium. 

• There were no significant effects of the availability of universal-free school breakfast on 

measures of academic achievement (reading and math); cognitive or social/emotional 

functioning; attendance; tardiness; food insecurity; or children’s health, including parent 

reports of health and visits to the school nurse. 

• The availability of universal-free school breakfast resulted in treatment schools reporting 

significantly higher rates of disciplinary incidents overall than control schools, and these 

differences were due to incidents that took place in the morning. 

• With respect to overweight and obesity, there was no evidence that the availability of 

universal-free school breakfast was related to excessive intakes of total food energy or to 

increased risk of overweight as measured by body mass index (BMI). 

Further details of these results are presented in the report of the first year of evaluation findings 

(McLaughlin et al., 2002). 

The findings for Years 2 and 3 for outcomes measured in all three years mirrored those of Year 1. 

That is, we did not find any consistent pattern of effects favoring the treatment group schools and 

students on any of the outcome variables reported on here. Furthermore, there was no consistent 

pattern of significant effects by subgroup or school district. 

 

3

 All references in this chapter to “significant” findings refer to statistically significant findings at the .05 

level. 
Impact of Availability of Universal-free School Breakfast 57 

Description of Sample at Baseline 

Sample Characteristics 

Baseline data on sample children were gathered from both school records and parent interviews. 

Some key characteristics of the study sample are listed below. 

• Race/Ethnicity: The student sample at baseline was predominantly White (64 percent), 

with an additional 17 percent Hispanic and 11 percent Black, fairly similar to national 

percentages. According to the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for 

Educational Statistics (2001), the ethnic makeup of the national elementary and 

secondary student population was 62 percent White, 16 percent Hispanic, and 17 percent 

Black. 

• Gender: The student sample at baseline was fairly evenly split in terms of gender⎯52 

percent girls and 48 percent boys. 

• Age: The average age of the students at baseline was a little under 10 years old (9.8 

years). Slightly more than half the sample (54 percent) was in grades 2 and 3. 

• School Meal Eligibility Status: A little more than half of the student sample (54 

percent) across all schools at baseline were certified as eligible for free or reduced-price 

meals. This number was somewhat higher than the percent of the student population 

certified in these categories in the six participating school districts in the study (49 

percent). 

• Parent’s Education Level: Only 11 percent of the parents/guardians interviewed at 

baseline indicated that they did not graduate from high school. Almost a quarter (24 

percent) had a college degree. 

• Household Income: Only 18 percent of the parents/guardians interviewed at baseline 

indicated that their household income was less than $20,000 annually. Nearly one third 

(30 percent) of the sampled parents reported household incomes of $60,000 or more. 

• Family Structure: One quarter of the students lived in a single parent family, as 

reported by parents at baseline. 

Impacts on School Breakfast Participation 

School breakfast participation plays a critical role in the evaluation of the SBPP. Increasing the 

historically low level of school breakfast participation is one of the key goals of the demonstration 

and serves as the pathway through which short- and long-term outcomes may be realized. In Chapter 

Three, changes in participation at the school level due to the implementation of the SBPP were 

reported for descriptive purposes. In this section, the impact of the SBPP on changes in participation 

at the student level, i.e., for those students in the Impact Study sample, as well as changes in 

participation at the school level, are analyzed. 
58 Impact of Availability of Universal-free School Breakfast 

Increased participation has been shown to be a result of the implementation of universal-free school 

breakfast programs across the country, although the magnitude of the increase has varied. In 

Minnesota’s Fast Break to Learning Program, the universal-free schools saw a significant increase 

over control schools, with participation increasing in treatment schools from 39 to 56 percent 

(Peterson et al., 2003). Participation was highest (65 percent) among those students eligible for free 

meals. Other studies based on universal-free school breakfast programs serving breakfast in the 

classroom have reported increases in participation of about 45 to 65 percentage points (Murphy et al., 

2001; Murphy and Pagano, 2001). These findings refer to programs that have served breakfast in the 

classroom in Baltimore and throughout Maryland. 

Measures and Analytic Variables 

For five of the six districts, the participation data came from the same electronic point-of-sale 

accountability system. The Student Nutrition Accountability Program (SNAP) tracks individual 

student participation in the SBP on a daily basis. The five districts using SNAP provided school-level 

and student-level participation electronically from the SNAP files for SY 2001-2002 and 2002-2003.4

 

Our analysis is based on these data. In these analyses, SBP participation is defined as the number of 

meals received divided by the number of days a school is in session, calculated in most cases across 

the entire school year. 

Findings 

Similar to the reported findings in Year 1, implementation of universal-free school breakfast lead to 

significant increases in participation over baseline in treatment schools in both Years 2 (Exhibit 5.1) 

and 3 (Exhibit 5.2).5

 Overall, when compared to the baseline year, participation in the treatment 

schools increased by 19 percentage points (from 19 to 38 percent) in Year 2 and by 17 percentage 

points (from 19 to 36 percent) in Year 3. Students in the control schools slightly increased their 

participation over baseline by about 2 percentage points in Years 2 (from 19 to 21 percent) and 3 

(from 19 to 21 percent). The overall net gain attributable to the implementation of universal-free 

school breakfast is thus 17 percentage points in Year 2 and 15 percentage points in Year 3, which are 

both significant at the .01 level. Over both years, each district also showed net increases relative to 

baseline participation in treatment school breakfast participation, ranging from about 11 percentage 

points in Years 2 and 3 for schools in District D to 30 percentage points in Year 2 for schools in 

District F, the district where students in treatment schools ate breakfast primarily in the classroom 

(see Exhibit D-2a and D-2b in Appendix D). 

The first year of findings also showed significant increases in participation among sampled students 

relative to the baseline year. In Year 1, the overall net gain attributable to the implementation of 

universal-free school breakfast was 19 percentage points, significant at the .01 level. These gains 

were maintained over time, with a 21 percentage point net gain in Year 2 and a 19 percentage point 

net gain in Year 3 relative to baseline participation, both significant at the .01 level. 

 

4

 In the sixth district (District C), breakfasts are recorded on hardcopy forms that cover a two-week period. 

None of the control schools and only four of the treatment schools in this site could provide student-level 

data on participation. Thus, student-level analyses could not be conducted for this district. 

5

 School-level participation results presented here vary slightly from those presented in Chapter Three due to 

the use of the analytic models in the impact analyses. 
Exhibit 5.1 

School-Level School Breakfast Participation in SYs 1999-2000 and 2001-2002, Overall and by District

29.7 30.3

20.9 21.8

8.8 9.1

18.4 18.7

26.4 23.8

18.9 19.1

30.01

52.5

24.0

10.1

22.8

26.0 21.4

37.9

20.8

41.2

54.1

37.9**

0

10203040506070

Treatment

Control

Treatment

Control

Treatment

Control

Treatment

Control

Treatment

Control

Treatment

Control

Treatm

Percent

Participation rate in SY 1999-2000 Participation rate in SY 2001-2002

N=151 for all districts, 78 Treatment and 73 Control. 1 Participation rate decreased from SY 1999-2000 (baseline) to SY 2001-2002 (Year 2). 

** Difference in participation gain from SY 1999-2000 to SY 2001-2002 between treatment and control students is statistically significant at the .01 lev

Sources: Impact Study

⎯School-Level School Breakfast Participation Data, 1999-2000 and 2001-2002

All Districts District A District B District C District D District E 

Impact of Availability of Universal-free School Breakfast 59
Exhibit 5.2 

School-Level School Breakfast Participation in SYs 1999-2000 and 2002-2003, Overall and by District

29.7 30.3

20.9 21.8

8.8 9.1

18.4 18.7

26.4 23.8

18.9 19.1

28.31

54.4

24.5

10.5

19.3

25.5 21.1

35.1

21.0

40.8

51.4

36.4**

0

10203040506070

Treatment

Control

Treatment

Control

Treatment

Control

Treatment

Control

Treatment

Control

Treatment

Control

Treatm

Percent

Participation rate in SY 1999-2000 Participation rate in SY 2002-2003

N=151 for all districts, 78 for Treatment and 73 for Control. 1 Participation rate decreased from SY 1999-2000 (baseline) to SY 2002-2003 (Year 3). 

** Difference in participation gain from SY 1999-2000 to SY 2002-2003 between treatment and control students is statistically significant at the .01 lev

Sources: Impact Study

⎯School-Level School Breakfast Participation Data, 1999-2000 and 2002-2003

60 Impact of Availability of Universal-free School Breakfast All Districts District A District B District C District D District E 
Impact of Availability of Universal-free School Breakfast 61 

Exhibit 5.3 

Plot of Treatment and Control Group School-Level School Breakfast Participation Over Time

36.4 37.9

35.4

19.1

19.9 21.4 21.1

18.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Baseline Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Percent Participation

Treatment

Control

N=151 for all districts, 78 for Treatment and 73 for Control. 

Sources: Impact Study⎯School-Level School Breakfast Participation Data, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, and 

2002-2003 

However, when looking at both school and student-level gains over time, we see that participation 

essentially remained flat for both treatment and control group schools during implementation Years 2 

and 3, both overall and at the district level, indicating that participation did not show any further net 

increases over what was reached during Year 1 (see Exhibit 5.3). Appendix C contains a complete 

description of the longitudinal growth curve models used to analyze both student and school-level 

participation outcomes. 

Significant differences also emerged in Year 2 when changes in participation relative to the baseline 

year are broken down by school meal eligibility status (Exhibit 5.4).6

 Specifically, relative to 

baseline participation, paid students in the treatment schools show a significantly greater increase in 

participation (25 percentage points) compared to their control counterparts than free or reduced-price 

students (15 percentage points). In Year 3, paid treatment school students also showed a greater net 

increase in participation relative to the baseline year compared to free or reduced-price students (21 

percentage points versus 14 percentage points). This difference, however, was not statistically 

significant at the .05 level. 

 

6

 Differences reported here and shown in Exhibit 5.4 are slightly different, as the statistical models used to 

calculate the impacts are made more precise by including demographic variables (e.g., minority status). 

Time Period: 

School Year: 

Treat/Control N: 

1999-2000 

78/73 

2000-2001

78/73 

2001-2002

78/73 

2002-2003 

78/73 
Exhibit 5.4 

Overall Gains in School Breakfast Participation of Sampled Students from SY 1999-2000 to SY 2001-2002, by School M

9.1 9.6

24.7 

49.7**

11.2

36.0**

0

10203040506070

Treatment Control Treatment 

Percent

Participation rate in SY 1999-2000 Participation rate in SY 2001-2002

N=2,459 

1 District C could not provide student-level data for this analysis. 

** Difference between gains in participation for paid and free/reduced-price students is statistically significant at the .01 level.

Sources: Impact Study⎯Student-Level School Breakfast Participation Data, 1999-2000 and 2001-2002

Paid Free/Reduced-

62 Impact of Availability of Universal-free School Breakfast
Impact of Availability of Universal-free School Breakfast 63 

Impacts on Student Behavior⎯Disciplinary Incidents 

Universal-free school breakfast could also potentially have an effect on student behavior in school. 

Children who are adequately nourished and ready to learn might be expected to be cooperative, 

attentive, able to complete tasks, and exhibit more control over their impulses. A number of studies 

have looked at the effect of universal-free school breakfast on the incidence of disciplinary actions 

serious enough to warrant a visit to the principal or assistant principal. Student behavior is typically 

measured in these studies through the use of record logs of the number of disciplinary visits made to 

the principal’s office during the day. Studies conducted by Murphy and his colleagues have found 

associations between regular participation in school breakfast programs and improved student 

behavior (see Murphy et al., 1998; Murphy et al., 2000; Murphy and Pagano, 2001). Peterson and her 

colleagues used a similar methodology in their evaluations of Minnesota’s Fast Break to Learning 

School Breakfast Program (Peterson et al., 2001). These researchers report that after one year of Fast 

Break, the number of disciplinary infractions in study schools was higher when compared to a 

baseline year, although the difference was not statistically significant. The greatest number of these 

incidents took place in the classroom. 

In this study, student behavior was based on the number of disciplinary incidents recorded as visits by 

students to the principal’s office over the course of a day. Record logs for the number of disciplinary 

incidents were collected from each SBPP school over a 20-week period divided among Fall and 

Spring during both SY 2001-2002 and SY 2002-2003.7

 The incidents represented repeated offenses 

or those of a more serious nature that required the principal’s intervention. The principal’s office 

provided totals of reported incidences by location (classroom, playground, hallway/cafeteria, or bus) 

and whether or not the incident took place in the morning or afternoon. The logs document the 

disciplinary incidents for all students in the school, and therefore the results are presented as schoollevel outcomes. The mean number of daily incidents per 100 students remained low across all 

schools in Years 2 and 3, indicating that behavioral problems requiring the principal’s intervention 

were relatively rare in these elementary schools. The results for Year 1 indicated a statistically 

significant negative effect of universal-free school breakfast on disciplinary incidents, with treatment 

schools reporting a significantly higher average number of daily disciplinary incidents than controls 

(1.13 versus 0.86, p<.05) (McLaughlin et al., 2002). However, the differences between treatment and 

control schools were not statistically significant in the two subsequent years. Exhibit 5.5 displays the 

average number of daily incidents per 100 students for all treatment and control group schools over 

the three years of data collection. 

When the incidents were broken down by time of day, the overall results indicated a significant 

impact in the morning in Year 1 (treatment school mean of 0.52, compared to control school mean of 

0.39, p< .05). In Year 2, on the other hand, there was a significant impact in the afternoon (treatment 

school mean of 0.58, compared to control school mean of 0.40, p< .05). However, in Year 3, there 

was no effect by time of day. In terms of location of incident, the only significant finding was in 

Year 3, where treatment schools had a higher number of incidents in the playground (0.33) than 

control group schools (0.23), p< .05. 

 

7

 In Year 1 (SY 2000-2001), all logs were collected during a 20-week contiguous period from January 

through May. 
64 Impact of Availability of Universal-free School Breakfast 

Exhibit 5.5 

School-Level Mean Number of Daily Disciplinary Incidents Over Time1 

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Number of Incidents

Treatment

Control

1 Baseline data on disciplinary incidents were not available for SY 1999-2000. In SY 2000-2001, the data were 

collected for 20 weeks from January to May. In subsequent two school years, the data were collected for 10 weeks 

each in Fall and Spring, for a total of 20 weeks each year. 

Sources: Impact Study⎯ Logs of Visits by Students to the School Office for Disciplinary Reasons, 2000-2001, 2001-

2002, and 2002-2003 

Impacts on Academic Achievement 

Of particular interest in the study is the hypothesized long-term effect of the SBPP on student 

academic achievement test scores. Given the increased scrutiny paid to student testing, previous 

research has focused on relationships between student participation in school breakfast and student 

performance on academic tests. While previous studies have suggested a link between school 

breakfast participation and an increase in standardized test scores (see Meyers et al., 1989; Wahlstrom 

et al., 1997), in general they have suffered from weak designs and inconsistent findings. 

This study, on the other hand, allows for a rigorous test of the hypothesis of whether or not the 

availability of universal-free school breakfast leads to improvement in academic test scores when 

compared to schools offering the regular SBP. The experimental design represents a considerable 

improvement over previous research in ensuring a high level of internal validity. 

Measures and Analytic Variables 

The school districts selected for the SBPP posed several challenges to the evaluation of achievement 

gains associated with universal-free school breakfast. While all of the school districts administered 

norm-referenced standardized tests in at least three consecutive grade levels, they were not the same 

tests across all districts. In addition, as shown in Exhibit 5.6, they varied in terms of the grades in 

which the tests are administered, and with respect to the timing of administration (Fall versus Spring).

Time Period: 

School Year: 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003
Impact of Availability of Universal-free School Breakfast 65 

An additional complication is that with the advent of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public 

Law 107-110),8

 some school districts abandoned their norm-referenced testing program in Years 2 

and 3, in order to comply with the testing requirements of the new legislation. (See Appendix B for 

details on changes in test administration during Years 2 and 3.)9

Exhibit 5.6 

Standardized Achievement Tests Used in the SBPP1

School District 

Number of 

Schools Standardized Test 

Grade Levels 

Tested Test Schedule 

Boise 34 ITBS 3-6 Fall 

 NWEA 2-6 Spring 

Shelby 16 SAT-9/SAT-10 3-6 Spring 

Harrison2

 10 CTBS 2-6 Spring 

Phoenix 24 SAT-9 2-6 Spring 

Santa Rosa 10 SAT-9 2-6 Spring 

Wichita 59 MAT-7 3-6 Fall 

 State 4-5 Spring 

 Local 2,5 Spring 

ITBS: Iowa Test of Basic Skills 

SAT-9: Stanford Achievement Test, Ninth Edition 

SAT-10: Stanford Achievement Test, Tenth Edition 

CTBS: Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills, Terra Nova 

MAT-7: Metropolitan Achievement Test, Seventh Edition 

NWEA: Northwest Educational Association – Idaho State Assessment 

State: Kansas State Assessment Test 

Local: Local Benchmark Test 

1 A more detailed summary of achievement test score data collected for each district in SBPP Years 2 and 3 is presented in 

Appendix B. 

2

 Harrison County began using the Mississippi Curriculum Test during the course of the study. It is a performance-based 

test that cannot be linked to the SAT-9, so it was not included in the analyses reported here.

In estimating impacts on achievement scores, we used traditional methods of combining data from 

different tests, grade levels, and/or timing of administration, based on equating or linking 

procedures.10 The goal of these procedures is to link the various tests to the scaled score metric of the 

most frequently employed test. Scale scores, or developmental scores, are scores that provide a 

common scale for different forms of a test or for different tests. Test linking is a method of 

converting scores on one test to the same scale as scores on a second test, when scores on the two 

tests are highly correlated and when the two tests cover the same general content domain (i.e. both are 

reading tests or both are math tests). While test linking may involve some error due to the differences 

in content across tests, these errors are minimized to the extent that within each district, the same 

standardized test is used. Moreover, the randomized design within each district ensures that any 

measurement errors are evenly distributed across both treatment and control schools. Thus, linking 

errors do not affect the comparisons between treatment and comparison schools within districts that 

are the basis of our impact estimates. Therefore, the analysis of achievement data is not adversely 

 

8

 The No Child Left Behind Act was signed into law in January 2002. Among the requirements of the Act, 

states were required to put in place annual, standards-based assessments in reading and math for grades 3 

through 8 by SY 2005-2006. The Department of Education website offers more information at 

http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html. 

9

 The variations in tests and grades tested in each district affected the statistical power for the achievement 

analyses, as there were small samples sizes for some analyses (e.g., second grade reading scores). 

10 See Kolen and Brennan, 1995; Linn, 1993; and Mislevy, 1992 for detailed discussions of these methods. 
66 Impact of Availability of Universal-free School Breakfast 

affected by linking errors. To obtain greater statistical power, estimates are aggregated across school 

districts, resulting in an estimate of the average within-district effect. While errors in linking different 

tests may reduce the precision of the estimate of the true impact somewhat, the weighted average 

across districts is still an unbiased estimate of impact. 

The linking approach used involved picking one standardized test to serve as the "standard metric." 

All other tests were then linked to the scale score metric of the standard test. The SAT-9 used by 

three districts with a combined total of 50 schools was chosen as the standard test. Scores on the 

other tests, the CTBS, the ITBS, and the MAT-7, were then linked to the scale score metric of the 

SAT-9.11

Similarly, linking procedures were employed to conduct pooled analyses of school-level effects on 

academic achievement. Each school in the study provided average national percentile rank scores by 

grade level for their respective test. These scores were subsequently converted to normal curve 

equivalent scores (NCEs). These are normalized scores with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 

21.06, and are amenable to algebraic manipulation when averaging scores across groups. 

Findings 

Gains in academic achievement test scores were measured at both the student and school levels. At 

the student level, gain scores were measured on the same students as they moved from one grade to 

the next. For example, scores on students in third grade in 1999-2000 were compared to their fifth 

grade scores in 2001-2002. On the other hand, gains at the school level were measured on different 

cohorts of students at the same grade, two or three years apart (e.g., third graders in 1999-2000 versus 

third graders in 2001-2002). Findings for all analyses are presented in Appendix D. 

Student Gain Scores 

Gain scores were measured by grade for both reading and math. Overall, for student-level test scores, 

there were no significant differences favoring the treatment schools in either Year 2 or 3.12 There was 

also no consistent set of results for any of the six school districts. We also conducted an analysis in 

which student-level test score results for each grade cohort were combined to form one estimate 

within each school. These analyses, which yielded an average scale score per school, did not show 

any significant differences between treatment and control school students on either math or reading in 

Years 2 or 3. Finally, the analyses measuring differences in impacts on test scores among free or 

reduced-price versus paid students did not display a consistent pattern of results either overall or 

 

11 This linking process was based on the assumption that the norm groups from the different tests are 

representative samples from the same population. The equipercentile method was used to link the two 

tests, whereby each possible score on the MAT-7 was assigned a SAT-9 scale score equivalent. The SAT-9 

score equivalent to score X on the MAT-7 is the SAT-9 scale score with the same percentile rank (in the 

SAT-9 national norm group) as score X has in the MAT-7 norm group. That is, if score X on the MAT-7 

has a percentile rank of 54 (in the MAT-7 national norm group) and a SAT-9 scale score of 450 

corresponds to a percentile rank of 54 (in the SAT-9 national norm group), then score X on the MAT-7 was 

assigned a SAT-9 equivalent score of 450. Similar linking procedures were used to equate test scores on 

the ITBS and the CTBS to the SAT-9. 

12 On a measure of second to fourth grade math gain, control group students performed significantly better 

than treatment group students (p < .05). 
Impact of Availability of Universal-free School Breakfast 67 

across school districts. Impacts for other subgroups did not show any consistent pattern in terms of 

significant differences.13 

In addition to looking at differences in gain scores in Years 2 and 3, we also examined patterns of 

growth in academic achievement test scores over time. Appendix E contains a series of plots of 

treatment versus control group student performance on both reading and math for each grade cohort. 

When looking at the growth trajectories for both groups across all six school districts, the patterns are 

strikingly similar. That is, both groups make approximately the same amount of progress over time 

regardless of test measure or grade cohort. However, when comparing these standardized scores to 

the scores for the national normative sample, the plots show that SBPP students in both the treatment 

and control groups outperform students nationally in both reading and math over time, by roughly 10 

to 25 percentage points. (Differences range from 6 to 28 percentage points). This does not reflect 

any impacts of universal-free school breakfast, but rather the fact that study schools, on average, 

happen to perform above the national average in terms of student academic achievement. 

School Gain Scores 

Gains at the school level, on the other hand, showed some scattered significant effects. Specifically, 

there were significant differences in gain scores favoring the treatment schools on sixth-grade math in 

Year 3 (p < .05) and second grade reading in Year 2 (p < .05). In addition, there were scattered 

significant effects at the district level, indicating that treatment effects varied across districts. 

However, in examining the district-level data, none of the school districts showed any discernible 

pattern of results at the school level. School-level results by grade were also aggregated within 

school to yield school-level average Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) scores. On both math (Years 2 

and 3) and reading (Year 2), there was significant variation in impacts across districts. These 

analyses, however, did not show any significant effects at the school district level, with the exception 

of math in Year 3, where there was an increase of 1.39 in treatment school NCE scores that was 

significantly different from a decline of –0.26 in control school NCE scores in District B (p < .05). 

Exhibits 5.7 and 5.8 show the average school-level NCE scores in reading and math across treatment 

and control schools in all six districts over the time of the study. 

Impacts on Attendance and Tardiness 

Children must consistently come to school and be on time for the instruction to begin to take full 

advantage of the learning opportunities provided by school. Providing free school breakfast might 

serve as an incentive for students to increase their attendance and cut down on their tardiness. 

Previous research and anecdotal evidence from ongoing universal-free school breakfast programs 

suggest that breakfast may offer these benefits. Increased attendance and decreased tardiness have 

been associated with free breakfast programs across several research reports and reviews (e.g., 

Meyers et al., 1989; Murphy et al., 2000; Briefel et al., 1999; Pollitt and Matthews, 1998; Food 

Research and Action Center, 2001). Positive changes in these two outcomes have not always 

 

13 In terms of subgroup findings, we only found a scattering of effects. For example, there was a larger 

impact on female students in terms of a math score gain across all grades (p < .05). In addition, there was a 

larger impact for white students in terms of a math score gain from second to fifth grade (p < .01). Given 

the large number of non-significant results for all other subgroup tests, we must treat these findings with 

caution. In total, 56 subgroup analyses were conducted with only 2 statistically significant. By chance 

alone, we would expect to find three of these differences significant. 
68 Impact of Availability of Universal-free School Breakfast 

Exhibit 5.7 

Average Normal Curve Equivalent Scores in Math for Treatment and Control Schools Over Time1

48

50

52

54

56

58

Baseline Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Normal Curve Equivalent

Treatment

Control

1

 Data were not available for District E in Year 2. Results did not greatly vary, however, when these analyses were conducted 

excluding District E from all years. 

Sources: Impact Study⎯School-Level Academic Achievement Test Scores, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, and 2002-2003. 

Exhibit 5.8 

Average Normal Curve Equivalent Scores in Reading for Treatment and Control Schools Over 

Time1

48

50

52

54

56

58

Baseline Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Normal Curve Equivalent

Treatment

Control

1

 Data were not available for District E in Year 2. Results did not greatly vary, however, when these analyses were conducted 

excluding District E from all years. 

Sources: Impact Study⎯School-Level Academic Achievement Test Scores, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, and 2002-2003. 

1999-2000 

76 / 74 

2000-2001

68 / 68 

2001-2002

41 / 41 

2002-2003 

68 / 68 

1999-2000 

76 / 74 

2000-2001

68 / 68 

2001-2002

41 / 41 

2002-2003 

68 / 68 

Time Period: 

School Year: 

Treat/Control N: 

Time Period: 

School Year: 

Treat/Control N: 
Impact of Availability of Universal-free School Breakfast 69 

emerged. In Minnesota’s Fast Break to Learning Program, for example, universal-free school 

breakfast did not increase attendance for treatment versus control schools (Peterson et al., 2003). 

Given that average attendance rates in this state are already quite high (95 to 96 percent), there may 

not be much room for significant gains. In the most recent report for the Maryland Meals for 

Achievement Program, tardiness decreased while attendance showed no change (Murphy & Pagano, 

2001). Thus, while some precedent exists for changes in attendance and tardiness as a result of 

providing free school breakfasts, no definitive pattern has been found across research studies. 

Measures and Analytic Variables 

Computerized attendance records at the district level were used for this analysis. Data were obtained 

at both the student and school levels for the second and third years of SBPP implementation (SYs 

2001-2002 and 2002-2003), in addition to the baseline data previously collected.14 Attendance is 

defined as the number of days present at school divided by the total number of enrolled school days. 

The mean percentage of days present was compared for both treatment and control students and 

schools. 

Tardiness is defined as the number of days the student was late as a percent of the number of enrolled 

school days. Data on tardiness were not consistently available at the student and school levels. In 

only two of the Districts (C and D), were data on tardiness available at both levels. District E could 

not provide data at either level. District B could not provide school-level data or student-level data at 

baseline (and thus no gains could be assessed over the years). While the other Districts (A and F) had 

student-level data available, District F data collection was inconsistent across schools. Given the 

inclusion of this measure in the legislatively mandated request for the evaluation, the analysis was 

conducted. The amount of missing information is important to consider, however, when interpreting 

the results. 

Findings 

For both Years 2 and 3, no effects of the availability of universal-free school breakfast were found on 

either attendance or tardiness for any of the main or subgroup analyses conducted. However, the 

rates of attendance were generally high and rates of tardiness were low across all schools, thus 

leaving little room for improvement on these outcomes. The amount of missing tardiness data should 

also be recognized when assessing the results. 

In Year 3, although the overall treatment effect on attendance was not significant, there was a 

significant district-by-treatment interaction (p< .05; Exhibit D-26b). There were no significant 

treatment effects at the district level, however. The levels of attendance were quite high across all 

schools in the study. For students in the impact sample, attendance ranged from 95 to 96 percent 

across treatment and control schools. At the school level, overall attendance ranged from 91 to 96 

percent. 

In Year 3, although the overall treatment effect on tardiness was not significant, there was a 

significant district-by-treatment interaction at the student level (p < .05). However, there were no 

significant treatment effects for tardiness in any of the four districts included in the analysis. The 

 

14 Data at the student level were only for students in the SBPP study sample, in contrast to school-level means 

for all students in the school. 
70 Impact of Availability of Universal-free School Breakfast 

mean number of student days tardy as a percent of enrolled school days ranged from 0 to 2.5 percent 

across treatment and control students. At the school level, tardiness ranged from 1.6 to 2.3 percent of 

days enrolled in the two districts reporting these data. 

Impacts on Student Health⎯School Nurse Visits 

Participation in school breakfast was also hypothesized to lead to improvements in student health. 

Eating school breakfast should make a difference in how students were feeling that day, and 

consistent participation might lead to improved nutrition and longer-term improvement in health 

status. 

While the link between breakfast and health status has been established (Jacobson et al., 2001), very 

few of the studies of universal-free school breakfast programs report on health outcomes. One 

exception is a 1997 study of a pilot breakfast program in Minnesota by Dr. Kyla Wahlstrom and her 

colleagues, who questioned school staff, parents, and students about the benefits of universal-free 

school breakfast. Among the positive benefits reported were reductions in health and stress problems, 

including a decrease in the number of visits students made to the school nurse for headaches and 

stomachaches (Peterson et al., 2001). In the latest evaluation of the Maryland universal-free school 

breakfast program, there were slightly fewer reported visits to the school nurse associated with 

participation, but this was not significant (Murphy and Pagano, 2001). 

Student health was measured by the number of visits made to the school nurse’s office during the 

course of a day. Logs of school nurse visits were obtained from each SBPP school over a 20-week 

period divided among Fall and Spring during both SY 2001-2002 and SY 2002-2003.15 School 

nurses or health clinic staff provided totals of reported incidents for contagious illnesses, injuries, and 

minor and acute illnesses broken down by whether the visit came in the morning or afternoon. Visits 

to the nurse’s office for medications were not included in the counts. It was not possible for schools 

to provide logs identifying individual students from the study sample. The logs were kept for all 

students visiting the nurse’s office and the measure is thus a school-level rather than a student-level 

outcome. The mean number of daily visits recorded over a 20-week period was calculated for each 

district and averaged across all districts. The data were also analyzed by time of day of nurse visit, as 

it was expected that school breakfast might have more of an impact on morning than afternoon visits. 

Findings 

The school-level mean for the number of daily visits to the nurse’s office or health clinic did not 

differ significantly between treatment and control schools in the first year of the SBPP (McLaughlin 

et al., 2002). In Year 2, there was a significantly higher average number of daily visits to the school 

nurse for students in control schools, 4.0 compared to 3.3 for students in treatment schools, p<.05. 

When analyzed by time of day in Year 2, there were more visits to the school nurse in the morning in 

control schools, 2.2 compared with 1.8 for students in treatment schools, p<.01. There were no 

significant differences for Year 3, overall or by time of day. 

 

15 In Year 1 (SY 2000-2001), all logs were collected during a contiguous 20-week period from January 

through May. 
Impact of Availability of Universal-free School Breakfast 71 

Summary of Impact Findings in Years 2 and 3 

Exhibits 5.9 through 5.12 summarize the Impact Study findings presented in this chapter. Detailed 

tables are presented in Appendix D. 
Exhibit 5.9 

Student-Level Outcome Gains, SY 1999-2000 (baseline) to 2001-2002 (Year 2) and SY 1999-2000 (baseline) to 20

 Unadjusted Means (Standard Errors)  Treatment Schools Control Schools 

Outcome N Pre Gain N Pre Gain School Breakfast Participation (Year 2) 1272 16.27 (0.68) 25.99 1187 16.19 (0.72) 4.78 School Breakfast Participation (Year 3) 879 15.19 (0.82) 22.70 800 15.52 (0.86) 3.88 Math Achievement1 (Year 2) 762 604.61 (1.40) 40.33 759 601.41 (1.37) 43.02 Math Achievement1 (Year 3) 614 600.72 (1.52) 64.28 651 599.63 (1.46) 66.70 Reading Achievement1 (Year 2) 678 619.12 (1.77) 40.73 673 619.59 (1.78) 39.34 Reading Achievement1 (Year 3) 610 616.71 (1.90) 54.58 642 617.96 (1.80) 51.56 Attendance2 (Year 2) 1368 95.93 (0.12) -0.20 1328 95.74 (0.11) -0.19 Attendance2 (Year 3) 931 96.04 (0.12) -0.31 896 95.64 (0.13) -0.12 Days Tardy as a Percent of School Days Enrolled (Year 2) 

541 1.52 (0.13) -0.26 535 1.80 (0.15) -0.53 

Days Tardy as a Percent of School Days Enrolled (Year 3) 327 1.68 (0.19) -0.02 349 1.83 (0.19) 0.03 1 All test scores have been converted to Stanford-9 scale scores using the equipercentile equating method. 2 Based on average percent of days student present. 

Notes: Pre = pre-implementation or baseline year  Gain = second year of implementation⎯pre-implementation year 

 ** Difference is statistically significant at the .01 level. + District-by-treatment interaction is statistically significant at the .05 level. Source: Impact Study

⎯Student-Level School Breakfast Participation, Attendance and Academic Achievement Test Score Data, 1999-2000, 2001-

72 Impact of Availability of Universal-free School Breakfast
Exhibit 5.10 

School-Level Outcome Gains, SY 1999-2000 (baseline) to 2001-2002 (Year 2) and SY 1999-2000 (baseline) to 200

 Unadjusted Means (Standard Errors)  Treatment Schools Control Schools 

Outcome N Pre Gain N Pre Gain School Breakfast Participation (Year 2) 69 18.93 (1.19) 18.93 69 19.11 (1.24) 2.29 School Breakfast Participation (Year 3) 69 18.93 (1.19) 17.42 69 19.11 (1.24) 1.99 Math Score1 (Year 2) 1642 53.55 (0.80) -1.91 1642 53.33 (0.74) -1.91 Math Score1 (Year 3) 1782 53.56 (0.69) -1.20 1782 53.27 (0.67) -1.56 Reading Score1 (Year 2) 1642 55.76 (0.94) -4.98 1642 55.52 (0.87) -4.37 Reading Score1 (Year 3) 1782 55.08 (0.85) -5.18 1782 55.06 (0.80) -5.48 Average Daily Attendance (Year 2) 69 93.94 (0.43) -0.16 69 94.06 (0.36) -0.26 Average Daily Attendance (Year 3) 69 93.94 (0.43) -0.74 69 94.06 (0.36) -1.23 Days Tardy as a Percent of School Days Enrolled (Year 2) 20 1.89 (0.15) -0.09 20 1.89 (0.23) 0.45 Days Tardy as a Percent of School Days Enrolled (Year 3) 10 1.67 (0.22) -0.27 10 2.13 (0.44) -0.19 1 Based on normal curve equivalent scores. 2 The N is the sum of all grades across schools in the six districts. 

Notes: Pre = pre-implementation or baseline year  Gain = second year of implementation – pre-implementation year + District-by-treatment interaction is statistically significant at the .05 level. Source: Impact Study

⎯School-Level School Breakfast Participation, Attendance and Academic Achievement Test Score Data, 1999-2000, 2001-

Impact of Availability of Universal-free School Breakfast 73
Exhibit 5.11 

School-Level Disciplinary Incidents, SYs 2001-2002 (Year 2) and 2002-2003 (Year 3)

 Unadjusted Means (Standard Errors)  Treatment Schools Control Schools 

Outcome N Mean N Mean Overall Average Number of Daily Disciplinary Incidents1

(Year 2) 

1438 0.57 (0.03) 1285 0.42 (0.02) 

Average Number of Daily Disciplinary Incidents1

(Year 3) 1444 0.56 (0.03) 1329 0.41 (0.02) 

By Time of Day Average Number of Morning Disciplinary Incidents1 (Year 2) 1438 0.57 (0.03) 1285 0.42 (0.02) Average Number of Afternoon Disciplinary Incidents1 (Year 2) 1438 0.58 (0.03) 1285 0.40 (0.01) Average Number of Morning Disciplinary Incidents1 (Year 3) 1444 0.56 (0.03) 1329 0.41 (0.02) Average Number of Afternoon Disciplinary Incidents1 (Year 3) 1444 0.62 (0.02) 1329 0.49 (0.02) By Location2Average Number of Bus Incidents1 (Year 2) 1439 0.08 (0.01) 1283 0.08 (0.01) Average Number of Classroom Incidents1

(Year 2) 

1439 0.63 (0.03) 1285 0.40 (0.01) 

Average Number of Hallway Incidents1,2(Year 2) 1439 0.13 (0.02) 1285 0.09 (0.01) Average Number of Playground Incidents1

(Year 2) 

1439 0.29 (0.02) 1285 0.22 (0.01) 

Average Number of Incidents in Other Locations1

(Year 2) 

1439 0.02 (0.00) 1285 0.03 (0.00) 

Average Number of Bus Incidents1 (Year 3) 1444 0.07 (0.01) 1329 0.08 (0.01) Average Number of Classroom Incidents1

(Year 3) 1444 0.62 (0.03) 1329 0.44 (0.02) 

Average Number of Hallway Incidents1,2 (Year 3) 1444 0.13 (0.01) 1329 0.10 (0.01) Average Number of Playground Incidents1

(Year 3) 1444 0.33 (0.02) 1329 0.23 (0.01) 

Average Number of Incidents in Other Locations1

(Year 3) 1444 0.04 (0.01) 1329 0.04 (0.00) 

1 Logs of incidents represent the number of daily incidents per 100 students. Disciplinary incident logs were requested weekly from each study sc

the school year. The N represents the total number of weekly logs actually obtained from treatment and control schools during the data collection 

2 The logs for disciplinary incidents combines hallway and cafeteria. Principals were asked about hallway and cafeteria locations separately in the 

and the results are reported in Exhibit 3.11. *Difference is statistically significant at the .05 level. Source: Impact Study

⎯Logs of Visits by Students to the School Office for Disciplinary Reasons, 2001-2002, 2002-2003.

74 Impact of Availability of Universal-free School Breakfast
Exhibit 5.12 

School-Level Health Office/Nurse Visits, SYs 2001-2002 (Year 2) and 2002-2003 (Year 3)

 Unadjusted Means (Standard Errors)  Treatment Schools Control Schools 

Outcome N Mean N Mean Overall Average Number of Daily Health Office/Nurse Visits1 (Year 2) 

1454 3.31 (0.05) 1320 4.02 (0.07) 

Average Number of Daily Health Office/Nurse Visits1 (Year 3) 1500 3.53 (0.06) 1358 3.78 (0.07) By Time of Day Average Number of Morning Health Office/Nurse Visits1 (Year 2) 

1454 1.80 (0.03) 1320 2.22 (0.05) 

Average Number of Afternoon Health Office/Nurse Visits1 (Year 2) 

1454 1.50 (0.03) 1320 1.80 (0.04) 

Average Number of Morning Health Office/Nurse Visits1 (Year 3) 1461 1.85 (0.04) 1332 2.04 (0.04) Average Number of Afternoon Health Office/Nurse Visits1 (Year 3) 1461 1.68 (0.04) 1332 1.69 (0.04) 

1 Logs of visits represent the number of daily visits per 100 students. Logs of health office/nurse visits were requested weekly from each study sch

the school year. The N represents the total number of weekly logs actually obtained from treatment and control schools during the data collection 

 *Difference is statistically significant at the .05 level.**Difference is statistically significant at the .01 level. Source: Impact Study

⎯Logs of Visits to the Health Office/School Nurse, 2001-2002, 2002-2003. 

Impact of Availability of Universal-free School Breakfast 75
76 Impact of Availability of Universal-free school breakfast 
Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 77 

Chapter Six 

Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 

The body of the report on the first year of findings (McLaughlin et al., 2002) focused on questions 

addressing the implementation of the SBPP and on the impact of the availability of universal-free 

school breakfast on student and school outcomes. Since the release of the report, policy makers and 

key stakeholders have requested additional data analyses that focus on various aspects of the SBPP 

and on student breakfast consumption in general. This chapter focuses on these supplementary 

analyses. 

As discussed in Chapter One, we address six main questions in these analyses: 

• What is the relationship between breakfast consumption and nutrition and academic 

outcomes for all students? Specifically, what are the outcomes for those who consume a 

robust or substantive breakfast and for those who skip breakfast? 

• Do students who only eat breakfast at school have different nutrition outcomes than 

students who only eat breakfast at home or at home and school? 

• Do treatment group students in schools where breakfast is eaten in the classroom have 

different nutrition outcomes than treatment group students in schools where breakfast is 

eaten in other locations (e.g., cafeteria, hallway) or from control group students where 

school breakfast is eaten in non-classroom locations? 

• Do students from families below 130 percent of the federal poverty level have different 

nutrition outcomes than students in higher income families? 

• Do students who are classified as food insecure differ in their household characteristics 

from students who are food secure? 

• How does school breakfast participation change over the course of the SBPP? Do 

students with certain demographic characteristics follow a particular participation 

pattern? 

Each section of this chapter will address the analysis associated with one of these questions. Exhibits 

summarizing the findings for these analyses are presented either in this chapter or in Appendix G. All 

exhibits are accompanied by means (or percentages) and standard errors. Adjusted differences and 

effect sizes (or odds ratios) are also provided in Appendix G. Statistically significant differences 

between groups are reported at the p<.05 level. 

It is important to note that the supplementary analyses were performed outside the experimental 

framework of the study design. These analyses address questions that are more difficult to address 

given the original design of this study, and thus the results cannot be interpreted with the same degree 

of certainty. A particular concern for non-experimental comparisons is that they may be subject to 

selection bias. That is, the two groups being compared⎯those that skipped and did not skip 

breakfast, for example⎯may differ systematically in ways other than the fact that on a given day 

students did or did not eat breakfast. Observed differences in outcomes between the two groups 

would thus be a combination of the effects of skipping or not skipping breakfast and other preexisting differences. Although we control for student background characteristics wherever possible in 
78 Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 

these analyses, we cannot assume that groups are statistically comparable, as they are in the 

experimental impact analyses.1

 Appendix H presents the results of tests of selection bias conducted 

on the non-experimental analyses in this chapter. The results suggest that for two analyses, one 

comparing home and school breakfast eaters, and the other comparing classroom and non-classroom 

breakfast locations, selection bias is likely affecting the outcomes. For the other analyses included 

here, the results of the test are more reassuring, with selection bias less likely to influence student 

outcomes in these comparisons. Thus, while the analyses are helpful in further exploring some of the 

relationships within the SBPP data, caution is required in interpreting results from these nonexperimental comparisons. 

Before reporting the results of the supplementary analyses, we summarize a set of secondary analyses 

that were conducted for the first year report (McLaughlin et al., 2002). Like the supplementary 

analyses included in this report, these results were in response to questions that were important to ask 

of the data, but outside the main focus on SBPP implementation and on the impact of the availability 

of universal-free school breakfast on students. 

Summary of the First Year Findings of Supplementary Analyses 

Reported in Appendix F of McLaughlin et al. (2002), these analyses focused on: 

• The impact of universal-free school breakfast on students who actually participated in the 

program (as opposed to those to whom it was made available); 

• Impacts on students who increased their participation over the first year by two or more days 

a week; 

• The effects of the availability of school breakfast in the classroom; and, 

• The effects of breakfast consumption on cognitive functioning. 

The results of the SBPP impacts on students who actually participated are summarized in Appendix F 

of this volume. The results of the other analyses are summarized by topic below. 

Impacts on Students Who Increased Their School Breakfast Participation 

A second set of analyses focused on whether students who increased their participation in school 

breakfast relative to the baseline year had better outcomes than those whose participation level 

remained the same. This analysis was conducted in a non-experimental framework, as the students 

were not randomly assigned to different levels of participation. The analysis focused on those 

students from both treatment and control group schools that increased their participation by 40 

percent or more over the first year of implementation, the equivalent to an increase of two or more 

days per week. This group of students, referred to as “changers,” was compared with “non-changers” 

on measures of cognitive functioning, food insecurity, and measures of student health, behavior, and 

academic achievement, controlling for observable differences in their characteristics. 

 

1

 The supplementary analyses were conducted within the same regression model used for the impact 

analyses, controlling for student age, gender, minority status, and school meal eligibility. The model is 

described in Appendix C of the first year report (McLaughlin et al., 2002). 
Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 79 

• Statistically significant differences between changers and non-changers were in the negative 

direction, with poorer scores for changers on teacher ratings of hyperactivity and an index of 

an attention disorder, as well as their ability to focus and follow instructions. 

• Changers also had lower gains in reading achievement. 

• On the positive side, changers attended school more often and were tardy less often. 

• Attitudes towards school breakfast were more positive for parents of changers than for nonchangers. 

These analyses were repeated with a sample restricted to students from low-income families. For this 

group of low-income students, no statistically significant differences were found between school 

breakfast changers and non-changers on any of the tested outcomes, except in the case of parent 

attitudes. Mirroring the results for the entire changer sample, parents of low-income changers were 

generally more favorable toward school breakfast. Note however, that it is unclear how to interpret 

these findings, as the selection into each group (“changer” or “non-changer”) was not experimentally 

controlled. Other uncontrolled characteristics of the sample or experiences could have determined 

these outcomes. 

Effects of Classroom Breakfast 

As mentioned above, the choice of the classroom as the location of school breakfast was a key 

decision in implementing the SBPP. Participation in those schools was higher than in their nonclassroom counterparts. To determine if school breakfast participation translated into better schoollevel outcomes, the subsample of 18 schools where breakfast was eaten in the classroom was 

compared with their matched control schools on a number of measures. This too was a nonexperimental analysis, as schools were not randomly assigned to classroom eating status. Despite an 

almost 40 percentage point difference in the level of school breakfast participation between schools 

where breakfast was eaten in the classroom and their matched controls, no significant differences 

were found on attendance, achievement test scores, teacher ratings of school climate and student 

behavior, disciplinary incidents, or visits to the school nurse. 

Relationship Between Consumption of Breakfast and Cognitive Functioning 

The results from the experimental impact analyses and analysis of impacts on school breakfast 

participants indicated no differences between treatment and control school students in terms of 

cognitive functioning. Since previous research in this field has pointed to effects of nutrition on 

cognitive functioning, further analyses were conducted to explore whether a relationship could be 

found in the study sample between children’s food energy and nutrient intake at breakfast (either at 

school or at home) and how well they performed on the battery of cognitive tests. 

As a first step, correlations were run relating various indicators of nutrient intake and breakfast timing 

with scores on the cognitive measures. Little or no relationship was found between the amount of 

calories, protein, carbohydrate, or fat that students consumed and how well they performed. 

Moreover, in terms of timing, the results indicated a slight negative relationship. That is, the longer 

the interval between breakfast and testing, the better students did in terms of average trial and 

decision time on a test of stimulus discrimination. 
80 Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 

The next step was to assess whether students who ate a more substantive breakfast (defined in several 

ways) performed better on the cognitive measures. Parallel to the results found in the previous 

analysis, consumption of breakfast was not positively related to student performance. 

Analyses of Nutrition Outcomes for Substantive versus NonSubstantive Breakfast Eaters 

We now turn to the current analyses. As noted in Chapter One, the literature shows that eating 

breakfast is positively related to children’s intake of food energy and key vitamins and minerals over 

24 hours. The first year findings from the SBPP indicated that the availability of universal-free 

school breakfast had a small but significant impact on the likelihood of consuming a substantive

breakfast. In light of the widespread concern over the problem of childhood obesity, an important 

question is to what extent substantive breakfast consumption is positively related to children’s dietary 

intake. In particular, do children who consume a substantive breakfast have higher mean intakes of 

vitamins, minerals, and dietary fiber than children eating a less substantial breakfast? Do they 

consume more food energy, fat, added sugar, or sodium over the course of the day? 

This section presents results from a set of analyses examining the relationship between eating a 

substantive breakfast and students’ nutrition outcomes. The outcomes assessed are limited to 

measures of dietary intake on a given day.2

 Because we do not know from a single 24-hour dietary 

recall whether students who consumed a substantive breakfast do this on a typical basis, it is not 

possible to examine outcomes beyond that day (such as usual dietary intake, weight status, or 

academic achievement). As expected, comparisons of the dietary intakes of substantive breakfast 

eaters and non-substantive breakfast eaters yield a number of statistically significant findings. We 

find that eating a substantive breakfast is related to higher levels of food energy, nutrient, and food 

group intake, both at breakfast and over 24 hours. On average, students eating a substantive breakfast 

consumed more than the RDA for food energy over a 24-hour period, regardless of how substantive 

breakfast eating was defined. 

Measures and Analytic Variables 

All measures were based on data collected in parent-assisted 24-hour dietary recall interviews using a 

standard multiple-pass approach.3

 Breakfast eaters were defined on the basis of all foods and 

beverages reported consumed between 5:00 a.m. and 45 minutes after the start of school, and foods 

 

2

 Results of analyses conducted to assess the relationship between breakfast consumption and cognitive 

functioning are reported in McLaughlin et al., 2002 (Appendix F, pp. F-24–F-26) and briefly summarized 

in Appendix F of this report. 

3

 The data on intake at breakfast were derived from a dietary recall interview with the student at school. 

Measures of intake for the full day were based on the combination of data from the breakfast recall with 

data from a parent-assisted dietary recall interview covering the rest of the 24-hour period. A detailed 

description of the dietary data collection methodology used in the SBPP Impact Study can be found in 

McLaughlin et al., 2002 (Chapter Five, pp. 80-81 and 88). 
Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 81 

consumed up to 10:30 a.m. that were reported as being part of breakfast on the “target day”.4 For 

some students, this included more than one breakfast eating occasion or source of breakfast food (e.g., 

home and school). Four definitions of breakfast consumption were used: 

• Definition 1: Consumption of any food or beverage (except water) 

• Definition 2: Consumption of breakfast containing food from at least two of five main food 

groups5

 and greater than 10 percent of the RDA for food energy 

• Definition 3: Consumption of food from at least two of five main food groups and greater 

than 15 percent of the RDA for food energy 

• Definition 4: Consumption of food from at least three main food groups and greater than 25 

percent of the RDA for food energy 

Definition 1 identifies students who consumed any breakfast, i.e., they broke the overnight fast with 

something other than water during the breakfast period. This definition was not used in our analyses 

of substantive breakfast consumption. Definitions 2, 3, and 4 represent alternative measures of 

substantive breakfast consumption. Modeled after work done by Devaney and Stuart (1998), 

Definitions 2 and 3 were used in the SBPP to assess the impact of universal-free school breakfast on 

the likelihood of students’ consuming a substantive breakfast (McLaughlin et al., 2002). Definition 4 

approximates the current minimum requirement for food energy (25% of the RDA) in reimbursable 

breakfasts offered through the SBP. 

Definition 2 and Definition 3 substantive breakfast eaters and non-substantive breakfast eaters were 

compared on the following measures of breakfast consumption and dietary intake: 

• Consumption of more than one breakfast 

• Food energy and nutrient intake at breakfast and over 24 hours 

• Food group intake at breakfast and over 24 hours 

• Contribution of breakfast to food energy and nutrient intake over 24 hours 

A more limited set of analyses compared the food energy intakes of substantive and non-substantive 

breakfast eaters, based on Definition 4 above. 

The University of Minnesota’s Nutrition Data System for Research (NDS-R) was used to analyze the 

food energy and nutrient content of all foods and beverages reported in the 24-hour recalls. Vitamin 

 

4

 The term “target day” refers to the particular school day the breakfast portion of the dietary recall was 

conducted with students. About 67 percent of students completed the dietary recall interview with their 

parents for the target day; another 14 percent completed the recall for a later 24-hour period (“late recall”). 

The data used in analyses presented here are for the day the child and parent completed the full 24-hour 

recall, target day or late (n=3,347). 

5

 The five food groups are (1) milk and milk products, (2) meat and meat equivalents, (3) grain products, (4) 

fruits and fruit juices, and (5) vegetables and vegetable juices. These food groups are based on the required 

SBP meal components for food-based menu planning (7 CFR Ch. II, Sec. 220.8), but we separate the 

juice/fruit/vegetable component into two groups. 
82 Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 

and mineral intakes were assessed as percentages of the latest available Recommended Dietary 

Allowances (RDAs)6

 (Institute of Medicine (IOM), 2001, 2000b, 1998, and 1997; National Research 

Council (NRC), 1989a). The macronutrients total fat, saturated fat, carbohydrate, and protein were 

calculated as a percentage of total food energy, while sodium, cholesterol, and dietary fiber were 

measured in units representing the absolute amount of the dietary component. Fiber intake was also 

measured as a percentage of the American Health Foundation’s recommendation for children of 

“age-plus-five” grams per day (Williams, 1995). 

Food group servings were derived from the USDA Food Guide Pyramid servings database after 

linking foods and ingredients coded in the NDS-R database to USDA food codes from the 1994-96, 

1998 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes of Individuals (CSFII). Food group intake was measured as 

the number of servings of each of the five major food groups of the USDA Food Guide Pyramid, as 

well as the 22 subgroups (USDA/ARS, 2000). Intakes of discretionary fat, in grams, and teaspoons 

of added sugars were also measured.7

Sample Characteristics 

Exhibit 6.1 shows the percentages of sample students who were identified as having consumed a 

substantive breakfast on the target day. More than three quarters of the students (78 percent) had a 

substantive breakfast based on Definition 2. Using the slightly higher food energy criterion of 

Definition 3, about three fifths of the students (61 percent) were defined as substantive breakfast 

eaters. When breakfast is defined according to the most stringent criteria (Definition 4), less than one 

fifth (18 percent) of students consumed substantive breakfasts. Looking across the six districts that 

participated in the SBPP (Exhibit G-1), some variation existed in the rate of substantive breakfast 

consumption. For example, the largest proportion of Definition 3 breakfast eaters was found in 

District F (66 percent), whereas District A had a somewhat smaller share (56 percent). 

In terms of demographic characteristics, substantive and non-substantive breakfast eaters were similar 

with regard to household size, household income, and family structure (Exhibits G-2a and G-2b). 

Significant differences between the two groups of students were found for student’s school meal 

eligibility status, minority status, gender, age, and parent’s education. Substantive breakfast eaters, 

regardless of how breakfast was defined, were more likely than non-substantive breakfast eaters to be 

male and younger. More Definition 4 substantive breakfast eaters were eligible for free or reducedprice school meals and non-white, and their parents had lower levels of education than their nonsubstantive controls. 

 

6

 The RDA is an average intake level sufficient to meet the nutrient requirements of nearly all (97 to 98 

percent) healthy individuals in a particular age and gender group. In the case of calcium, where scientific 

evidence was not sufficient for determining a new RDA, two variables were constructed: (1) calcium as a 

percentage of the 1989 RDA and (2) calcium as a percentage of the DRI-based Adequate Intake (AI) value. 

The AI is a recommended intake value based on observed or experimentally determined estimates of 

nutrient intake by groups of healthy people that are assumed to be adequate (IOM, 2000a). 

7

 Discretionary fat includes all “excess” fat from the five major food groups beyond amounts that would be 

consumed if only the lowest fat forms were eaten, as well as fats added to foods in preparation or at the 

table (e.g., butter, oil, cream cheese). Added sugars include all forms of sugar used as ingredients in 

processed and prepared foods (e.g., cakes, soft drinks, jam, ice cream) and sugars added to foods at the 

table (USDA/ARS, 2000). 
Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 83 

Exhibit 6.1 

Percent of Students Who Consumed a Substantive Breakfast on a Typical School Day, by 

Breakfast Definition

Breakfast Definition1 N Percent SE 

Food from at least two main food groups2 

and >10% RDA for food energy (Definition 2) 

2627 78.49% (0.71) 

Food from at least two main food groups2 

and >15% RDA for food energy (Definition 3) 

2052 61.31 (0.84) 

Food from at least three main food groups2

 and 

> 25% of RDA for food energy (Definition 4) 

591 17.66 (0.66) 

RDA = Recommended Dietary Allowance 

1

All three definitions of breakfast include all food and beverages, excluding water, reported consumed between 5:00 a.m. and 

45 minutes after the start of school. and foods consumed up to 10:30 a.m. that the student/parent reported as being part of 

breakfast. 

2

The five main food groups are milk and milk products, meat and meat alternates, grain products, fruit and fruit juices, and 

vegetables and vegetable juices. 

Differences were not tested for statistical significance. 

Source: Impact Study⎯24-Hour Dietary Recall Interview, Spring 2001 

Findings 

The comparison of target day dietary intakes of substantive and non-substantive breakfast eaters 

indicates a wide range of statistically significant differences. Findings are generally similar for 

students categorized as substantive breakfast eaters based on Definition 2 or Definition 3. To 

simplify presentation of results, exhibits provided in this section show findings only for Definition 2. 

Results of all analyses for Definition 3 substantive breakfast eaters are found in Appendix G and are 

summarized below. 

Consumption of More than One Breakfast 

The majority of substantive breakfast eaters (approximately 80 percent) consumed a single Definition 

2 or Definition 3 breakfast, either from home or at school. Not surprisingly, however, substantive 

breakfast eaters were significantly more likely to have consumed two or more breakfasts on a given 

day than non-substantive breakfast eaters (18 percent versus 2 percent for Definition 2, 22 percent 

versus 3.5 percent for Definition 3; p<.05 for both comparisons). A student was identified as 

consuming more than one breakfast if breakfast food came from school and at least one other source 

(e.g., home or other). 

A further look at the Definition 2 substantive breakfast eaters with more than one breakfast finds that 

almost four fifths consumed their substantive breakfast from school. Of these students, 54 percent ate 

a non-substantive second breakfast from home, such as a glass of juice or milk, a plain waffle, or a 

Danish pastry. The remaining 46 percent of students ate two substantive breakfasts, one from school 

and one from home. For example, one student had a large glass of milk and a banana at home, 

followed by a school breakfast consisting of juice, cereal, milk, and a toaster pastry. Another had 

pancakes with butter and honey, milk, and juice at home, and a bagel with cream cheese and milk at 

school. Findings for Definition 3 eaters were comparable. 
84 Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 

Food and Nutrient Intake at Breakfast 

Mean intakes of food energy and nutrients at breakfast are provided in Exhibits 6.2 and G-3. 

Substantive breakfast eaters consumed close to two and one-half times as much food energy at 

breakfast as non-substantive eaters (24 and 27 percent of the RDA for food energy for Definitions 2 

and 3, respectively, compared with 9 and 11 percent for the non-substantive group). Their breakfasts 

also included substantially more protein, vitamins, and minerals (as a percent of RDA); more 

cholesterol, sodium, and dietary fiber; and higher levels of total fat and saturated fat (as a percent of 

total food energy). 

Substantive breakfast eaters consumed significantly more servings from each of the five main Food 

Guide Pyramid food groups than non-substantive breakfast eaters (Exhibit G-4). Differences for 

grain products were close to one serving, and approximately one half to three quarters of a serving for 

fruits and dairy products, for both Definition 2 and Definition 3 substantive/nonsubstantive 

comparisons. Substantive breakfast eaters also consumed two to three times more discretionary fat 

and added sugar at breakfast. 

While there are no specific standards for food energy, nutrients, or food group intake at individual 

meals, nutrition standards for the SBP specify that schools serve breakfasts that meet at least one 

fourth of the RDA for food energy, protein, and key vitamins and minerals. Breakfasts are also 

expected to conform to the Dietary Guidelines for total fat and saturated fat. Overall, the majority of 

the students in the SBPP sample consumed breakfasts that met these "standards" on a typical school

day, except for food energy and dietary fiber. Exhibit 6.3 provides a comparison of the share of 

Definition 2 substantive breakfast eaters and non-substantive breakfast eaters whose one-day

breakfast intakes met these levels.8

 Substantive breakfast eaters were significantly more likely

to meet the 25-percent-of-recommendation benchmark for food energy, protein, fiber, and

all vitamins and minerals assessed. On the other hand, they were less likely than students with

non-substantive breakfasts to meet the cutoffs for cholesterol and sodium, or to have 

breakfasts with less than 10 percent of food energy from saturated fat. 

Food and Nutrient Intake Over 24 Hours 

Exhibit 6.4 compares the 24-hour food energy and nutrient intakes of Definition 2 substantive and 

non-substantive breakfast eaters. (Results for Definition 3 breakfast eaters are shown in Exhibit G-6.) 

Substantive breakfast eaters consumed significantly more food energy over a 24-hour period than 

non-substantive breakfast eaters (104 and 108 percent of the RDA for Definition 2 and 3 substantive 

eaters versus 90 percent of the RDA for the non-substantive breakfast eaters). Similar to the results 

for breakfast, they also consumed more protein, vitamins, and minerals (as a percent of RDA), and 

more cholesterol, sodium, and dietary fiber over 24 hours. Differences for 24-hour intakes of total fat 

and saturated fat (as a percent of total food energy), however, were in the opposite direction (i.e., less 

for substantive eaters). 

 

8

 This analysis was also conducted within the context of the SBPP experimental model, comparing the 

proportions of treatment and control school students whose breakfast on a given school day met the 25-

percent-of-daily-recommendation cutoffs. Results are tabulated in Exhibit G-5. Students in the treatment 

group were significantly more likely to consume a breakfast containing at least 25 percent of the RDA for 

protein, vitamin B12, riboflavin, calcium, iron, phosphorous, and zinc; and more likely to meet the 

cholesterol recommendation of one fourth of the daily maximum of 300 mg. 
Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 85 

Exhibit 6.2 

Mean Food Energy and Nutrient Intake at Breakfast: Substantive vs. Non-Substantive 

Breakfast Eaters1 

Definition 2 

Substantive Non-substantive 

Dietary Component Mean SE Mean SE 

Food energy (as % 1989 RDA) 23.76* (0.23) 9.42 (0.33) 

Protein (as % 1989 RDA) 49.75* (0.56) 15.21 (0.53) 

Percent of Food Energy from: 

Total fat 24.29* (0.23) 22.42 (0.60) 

Saturated fat 9.71* (0.10) 8.60 (0.29) 

Carbohydrate 64.91* (0.27) 69.07 (0.78) 

Protein 12.57* (0.08) 10.62 (0.27) 

Vitamins (as percent of RDA)2 

Vitamin A 70.78* (1.03) 24.72 (1.23) 

Vitamin C 97.77* (2.26) 34.12 (2.50) 

Vitamin B6 90.87* (1.50) 28.09 (1.34) 

Vitamin B12 115.56* (2.13) 28.34 (1.72) 

Niacin 68.39* (1.06) 24.28 (1.06) 

Thiamin 89.54* (1.12) 32.11 (1.26) 

Riboflavin 127.09* (1.54) 41.12 (1.60) 

Folate 58.78* (0.83) 20.52 (0.81) 

Minerals (as percent of RDA)2

 

Calcium 43.27* (0.52) 12.41 (0.56) 

Calcium (as percent of AI) 41.10* (0.49) 11.85 (0.54) 

Iron 73.59* (1.19) 25.06 (1.08) 

Magnesium 37.26* (0.50) 12.35 (0.49) 

Phosphorous 44.30* (0.65) 14.07 (0.65) 

Zinc 60.00* (1.06) 18.24 (0.84) 

Other Dietary Components 

Cholesterol (mg) 55.35* (2.15) 15.22 (1.86) 

Sodium (mg) 631.90* (8.59) 230.60 (9.83) 

Fiber (gm) 2.92* (0.05) 1.17 (0.05) 

Fiber (as percent of age-plus-5 gm) 20.59* (0.34) 8.22 (0.36) 

Number of Students3 2627 720 

RDA = Recommended Dietary Allowance 

1

 Substantive breakfast eaters consumed a Definition 2 breakfast on a typical school day. 2

 Mean intakes of vitamins and minerals, except for calcium, are presented as a percent of the RDAs based on the Dietary 

Reference Intakes (DRIs), Recommended Intakes for Individuals. For calcium, mean intake is presented both as a percent 

of the 1989 RDA and the DRI-based Adequate Intake (AI). 

3

 Includes students who skipped breakfast. 

*Difference between substantive and non-substantive breakfast eaters is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

Source: Impact Study⎯24-Hour Dietary Recall Interview, Spring 2001 
86 Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 

Exhibit 6.3 

Percent of Students Whose Breakfast Intake on a Typical School Day Met Standard: Substantive 

vs. Non-Substantive Breakfast Eaters1

Definition 2 All Students 

 Substantive Non-Substantive 

Standard/Dietary Component Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE 

At least 25 percent of RDA2: 

Food Energy 35.06%* (0.93) 4.86% (0.80) 28.56% (0.78) 

Protein 84.43* (0.71) 17.50 (1.42) 70.03 (0.79) 

Vitamin A 82.22* (0.75) 37.08 (1.80) 72.51 (0.77) 

Vitamin C 69.20* (0.90) 32.50 (1.75) 61.31 (0.84) 

Vitamin B6 82.64* (0.74) 38.19 (1.81) 73.08 (0.77) 

Vitamin B12 87.29* (0.65) 33.89 (1.77) 75.80 (0.74) 

Niacin 83.10* (0.73) 37.78 (1.81) 73.35 (0.76) 

Thiamin 96.88* (0.34) 50.83 (1.86) 86.97 (0.58) 

Riboflavin 97.60* (0.30) 54.58 (1.86) 88.35 (0.55) 

Folate 81.42* (0.76) 35.28 (1.78) 71.50 (0.78) 

Calcium 75.03* (0.84) 16.25 (1.38) 62.38 (0.84) 

Iron 85.57* (0.69) 37.22 (1.80) 75.17 (0.75) 

Magnesium 64.22* (0.94) 10.14 (1.13) 52.58 (0.86) 

Phosphorous 68.29* (0.91) 16.67 (1.39) 57.19 (0.86) 

Zinc 72.40* (0.87) 25.28 (1.62) 62.26 (0.84) 

Percent of Food Energy: 

30% or less from total fat 73.01 (0.87) 72.68 (1.80) 72.95 (0.78) 

Less than 10% from saturated fat 59.12* (0.96) 65.53 (1.92) 60.33 (0.86) 

Other 

No more than 75 mg cholesterol 86.26* (0.67) 96.81 (0.66) 88.53 (0.55) 

No more than 600 mg sodium 61.32* (0.95) 92.64 (0.97) 68.06 (0.81) 

At least 25% Age plus 5 gm 

dietary fiber 

26.53* (0.86) 6.25 (0.90) 22.17 (0.72) 

Number of Students3 2627 720 3347 

RDA=Recommended Dietary Allowance 

1

 Substantive breakfast eaters consumed a Definition 2 breakfast on a typical school day. 2

 The RDAs, except for calcium, were based on Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs), Recommended Intakes for Individuals. 

For calcium, the 1989 RDA was used. 

2

 Includes students who skipped breakfast. 

* Difference between substantive and non-substantive breakfast eaters is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

Source: Impact Study⎯24-Hour Dietary Recall Interview, Spring 2001.
Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 87 

Exhibit 6.4 

Mean Food Energy and Nutrient Intake Over 24 Hours: Substantive vs. Non-Substantive 

Breakfast Eaters1 

Definition 2 

Substantive Non-substantive 

Dietary Component Mean SE Mean SE 

Food energy (as % 1989 RDA) 104.22* (0.57) 89.64 (1.06) 

Protein (as % 1989 RDA) 254.62* (1.83) 208.10 (3.22) 

Percent of Food Energy from: 

Total fat 31.57* (0.13) 32.78 (0.25) 

Saturated fat 11.74* (0.06) 12.20 (0.13) 

Carbohydrate 55.35* (0.15) 54.47 (0.30) 

Protein 14.52* (0.07) 14.16 (0.14) 

Vitamins (as percent of RDA)2 

Vitamin A 176.36* (1.90) 121.76 (3.22) 

Vitamin C 272.23* (4.31) 201.03 (6.85) 

Vitamin B6 234.62* (2.37) 166.46 (3.48) 

Vitamin B12 325.44* (4.48) 226.47 (6.15) 

Niacin 220.12* (1.90) 170.93 (3.11) 

Thiamin 257.73* (2.06) 194.69 (3.37) 

Riboflavin 331.45* (2.62) 235.16 (4.04) 

Folate 159.02* (1.46) 116.27 (2.11) 

Minerals (as percent of RDA)2 

Calcium 142.94* (1.24) 105.65 (2.08) 

Calcium (as percent of AI) 135.74* (1.19) 100.47 (2.03) 

Iron 192.58* (1.76) 140.98 (2.34) 

Magnesium 141.31* (1.25) 113.23 (2.10) 

Phosphorous 169.35* (1.89) 134.56 (3.23) 

Zinc 181.91* (1.74) 137.64 (2.60) 

Other Dietary Components 

Cholesterol (mg) 217.31* (3.07) 175.13 (4.51) 

Sodium (mg) 3344.52* (24.13) 2951.49 (43.94) 

Fiber (gm) 14.55* (0.12) 12.70 (0.23) 

Fiber (as percent of age-plus-5 gm) 102.81* (0.88) 88.94 (1.61) 

Number of Students3 2627 720 

RDA = Recommended Dietary Allowance 

1

 Substantive breakfast eaters consumed a Definition 2 breakfast on a typical school day. 2

 Mean intakes of vitamins and minerals, except for calcium, are presented as a percent of the RDAs based on the 

 Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs), Recommended Intakes for Individuals. For calcium, mean intake is presented 

both as a percent of the 1989 RDA and the DRI-based Adequate Intake (AI). 3

 Includes students who skipped breakfast. 

*Difference between substantive and non-substantive breakfast eaters is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

Source: Impact Study⎯24-Hour Dietary Recall Interview, Spring 2001 
88 Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 

Except for food energy, mean intakes of both substantive and non-substantive breakfast eaters met or 

exceeded the RDA benchmarks for all of the dietary components assessed. Additionally, both groups 

consumed fat, saturated fat, and sodium, on average, in amounts that exceed daily recommendations. 

Thus, the findings of most interest appear to be mean food energy intakes above the RDA among 

substantive breakfast eaters, and mean food energy and dietary fiber intakes among non-substantive 

breakfast eaters that fall short of daily recommended levels. 

As shown in Exhibit 6.5, Definition 2 substantive breakfast eaters consumed significantly more 

servings of grain products (including whole grains), fruits, and dairy products (primarily milk) over 

24 hours compared with non-substantive breakfast eaters. The differences were approximately one to 

one and one-half servings of grains, three quarters of a serving of milk, and one half of a serving of 

fruit for both Definition 2 and Definition 3 comparisons (Exhibit G-7). Relative to the recommended 

number of Food Guide Pyramid servings per day for the age/gender groups of children in the SBPP 

sample, substantive breakfast eaters were closer to meeting these goals (Kennedy et al., 1995; 

Bowman et al., 1998). On the other hand, substantive breakfast eaters consumed even more 

discretionary fat and added sugars over the full day than their non-substantive comparison group—

both groups had 24-hour intakes in excess of recommended maximums for these dietary components. 

Not surprisingly, breakfast made a more important contribution to 24-hour dietary intake for 

substantive breakfast eaters than for non-substantive breakfast eaters. The difference was statistically 

significant for food energy and all of the dietary components measured (Exhibit G-8). On average, 

for students who consumed a substantive breakfast, breakfast contributed from two to three times as 

much toward total daily food energy and nutrient intake as it did for their non-substantive breakfast 

controls. For example, breakfast contributed about one fourth of the RDA for food energy for 

Definition 2 and Definition 3 substantive breakfast eaters compared with only 10 to 12 percent for 

non-substantive eaters. 

Definition 4 Substantive Breakfast Eaters. Exhibit 6.6 shows that students who consumed a 

Definition 4 substantive breakfast had significantly greater mean 24-hour food energy intakes (as a 

percent of RDA)—almost 25 percent higher—than those who did not. As expected, the contribution 

of food energy from breakfast was also greater for Definition 4 substantive eaters than nonsubstantive breakfast eaters. These results suggest that students who consume a Definition 4 

substantive breakfast (minimum of 500 to 625 calories depending on age/gender) may be overconsuming food energy and at risk for overweight. 

As of the end of the first year of the SBPP, there were no significant differences in body mass index 

(BMI) percentile or the proportions of students who were overweight or at risk for overweight based 

on their consumption of a Definition 4 breakfast (Exhibit G-9). It should be noted, however, that a 

student’s weight status is more likely to be associated with long term patterns of food consumption 

rather than the single school day on which substantive breakfast eaters were identified for this 

analysis. 
Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 89 

Exhibit 6.5 

Mean Food Group Intake Over 24 Hours: Substantive vs. Non-Substantive Breakfast 

Eaters1 

Definition 2 

Substantive Non-substantive 

Food Group Mean SE Mean SE 

 Number of Servings2

Grain Products 7.8* (0.06) 6.7 (0.12) 

Whole grains 1.2* (0.03) 0.8 (0.04) 

Non-whole grains 6.6* (0.06) 5.9 (0.11) 

Vegetables 2.1 (0.03) 2.2 (0.07) 

Dark green vegetables 0.1 (0.01) 0.1 (0.01) 

Deep yellow vegetables 0.1 (0.01) 0.1 (0.01) 

White potatoes 0.9 (0.03) 1.0 (0.05) 

Other starchy vegetables 0.1 (0.01) 0.1 (0.02) 

Tomatoes 0.4 (0.01) 0.4 (0.02) 

Cooked dry beans and peas 0.1 (0.01) 0.1 (0.02) 

Other vegetables 0.5 (0.01) 0.5 (0.02) 

Fruits 1.8* (0.03) 1.3 (0.06) 

Citrus fruits, melons, and berries 0.8* (0.02) 0.5 (0.04) 

Other fruits 1.0* (0.02) 0.8 (0.04) 

Dairy Products 2.8* (0.03) 2.0 (0.05) 

Milk 2.2* (0.02) 1.4 (0.04) 

Yogurt 0.1* (0.00) 0.0 (0.01) 

Cheese 0.6 (0.01) 0.6 (0.02) 

Meat and Meat Substitutes 1.4* (0.02) 1.3 (0.04) 

Red meat (beef, pork, veal, lamb, game) 0.6 (0.01) 0.6 (0.03) 

Organ meats 0.0 (0.00) 0.0 (0.00) 

Frankfurters, sausage, luncheon meats 0.2 (0.01) 0.2 (0.01) 

Poultry (chicken, turkey, other) 0.3 (0.01) 0.3 (0.02) 

Fish and shellfish 0.1 (0.01) 0.1 (0.01) 

Eggs 0.1* (0.00) 0.0 (0.01) 

Soybean products (tofu, meat analogues) 0.0 (0.00) 0.0 (0.00) 

Nuts and seeds 0.1 (0.00) 0.1 (0.01) 

Other 

Discretionary fat (gm) 60.9* (0.50) 55.8 (0.92) 

Added sugars (tsp) 24.5* (0.25) 23.1 (0.50) 

Number of Students3 2627 720 

1

 Substantive breakfast eaters consumed a Definition 2 breakfast on a typical school day. 2

 Based mainly on the serving size definitions for the Food Guide Pyramid Servings Database for USDA Survey Food 

Codes, 2000; servings of meat/meat substitutes are based on the Healthy Eating Index definition of 2.5 ounces per 

serving (Kennedy et al., 1995). USDA food codes from the 1994-96, 1998 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by 

Individuals (CSFII) were assigned to food and ingredient/component codes from the Nutrition Data System (NDS-R) 

database before computing the number of servings for each food group. 3

 Includes students who skipped breakfast. 

Note: Means have been rounded. Differences of 0.0 represent less than 0.05 of a serving. 

*Difference between substantive and non-substantive breakfast eaters is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

Source: Impact Study⎯24-Hour Dietary Recall Interview, Spring 2001 
90 Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 

Exhibit 6.6 

Food Energy Intake Over 24 Hours: Substantive vs. Non-Substantive Breakfast Eaters1

Definition 4 

Substantive Non-substantive 

Value SE Value SE 

Mean food energy (as % 1989 RDA) 119.99* (1.27) 97.03 (0.53) 

Percent contribution of breakfast to 24-hour 

food energy intake 

31.38* (0.36) 18.11 (0.17) 

Number of Students2 591 2756 

RDA = Recommended Dietary Allowance 

1

 Substantive breakfast eaters consumed food from at least three major food groups and more than 25 percent of the 

RDA for food energy on a typical school day. 

2

 Includes students who skipped breakfast. 

* Difference between substantive and non-substantive breakfast eaters is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

Source: Impact Study–24-Hour Dietary Recall Interview, Spring 2001

Analyses of Outcomes for Breakfast Skippers versus Breakfast 

Non-Skippers 

Regular breakfast consumption is generally considered important for children’s nutrition, behavior, 

health, and school performance. McLaughlin and colleagues (2002) reviewed the evidence for this 

association in the first year report on the SBPP. Briefly, the research on the effects of breakfast 

consumption and cognitive functioning, behavior, and academic achievement has had mixed results. 

Breakfast skipping has been associated with poorer diets among schoolchildren, although most 

studies looked only at group mean nutrient intakes. Estimates of the prevalence of breakfast skipping 

among school-age children vary widely, in part due to the various ways of defining breakfast 

consumption. A recent study of the diets of school children found that breakfast skipping increases 

with age and is especially prevalent among female adolescents (Gleason and Suitor, 2001). 

The analyses presented below explore relationships between skipping breakfast and a range of student 

outcomes assessed in the SBPP Impact Study. Breakfast skippers and breakfast non-skippers were 

contrasted on measures of dietary intake and cognitive functioning on a given day, as well as usual 

dietary intake, weight status, academic achievement, and other outcomes that might be related to a 

usual pattern of breakfast skipping. Findings for the nutrition outcomes are discussed in the context 

of prior research on breakfast skipping among school-age children.9

 The findings from this study 

suggest that children who skip breakfast consume less total food energy, vitamins, minerals, and other 

dietary components over a 24-hour period, on average, than non-skippers. However, comparisons 

based on usual 24-hour intake do not provide strong support for the notion that children who typically 

 

9

 We reviewed the reports from several recent national studies of the dietary intake of schoolchildren, as well 

as older studies and those more limited in geographic scope. None of the more recent studies reported 

conducting analyses to examine the overall dietary adequacy of children who skip breakfast, including the 

School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study-I (Devaney, Gordon, and Burghardt, 1995), the 1994-96 

Continuing Survey of Food Intakes of Individuals (Gleason and Suitor, 2001), and the National Health and 

Examination Survey (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm). The one exception was the analysis of 1994-

96 CSFII data reported by Basiotis, Lino and Anand (1999), which is discussed later in this section. 
Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 91 

skip breakfast are less likely to meet their daily nutrient requirements than those who eat breakfast. 

Skipping breakfast was not related to cognitive functioning, behavior, risk of overweight, food 

security, attendance, or gains in academic achievement. 

Measures and Analytic Variables 

Data sources for the analyses described below were collected as part of the SBPP Impact Study. 

They include the 24-hour dietary recall (and second recalls for a subsample of students), tests of 

cognitive functioning, teacher ratings, a parent interview, height and weight measurements, and 

school records. Breakfast skippers were defined two ways, using two different data sources, 

depending on the type of outcome we were analyzing: 

 1. For “target day” nutrition outcomes and cognitive outcomes (e.g., percent of the RDA for 

food energy over 24-hours, tests of verbal fluency), children who consumed less than 2.5 

percent of the RDA for food energy during the breakfast period were considered 

breakfast skippers.10 The target day for nutrition outcomes was defined as the day the 

child completed the full 24-hour dietary recall interview, including late recalls. For the 

cognitive outcomes, the target day was limited to the day the child was tested, since 

breakfast consumption is hypothesized to have an immediate effect on cognitive 

functioning. 

 2. For usual dietary intake, weight status, academic achievement, and other long-term 

outcomes, children whose parents reported on the Parent Survey that the sample child 

consumed breakfast 0, 1, or 2 days a week were considered “usual skippers.” A similar 

method of identifying children who skip breakfast was recently reported by Gross and 

colleagues (2004). 

In addition to the target day measures of dietary intake analyzed for substantive breakfast eaters11, the 

following additional variables were contrasted between breakfast skippers and breakfast nonskippers: 

• Usual dietary intake: 

o Percent of students whose usual 24-hour intake met dietary standards and 

recommendations 

o Means and distributions of usual intake for food energy, protein, and calcium 

 

10 The majority of breakfast skippers reported consuming nothing other than water for breakfast. The cutoff 

of 2.5 percent of the RDA for food energy (45 to 63 calories, depending on age/gender) was chosen after 

reviewing the foods and amounts reported eaten at the lowest end of distribution for food energy. It 

approximates the level of intake that distinguishes children who ate only a bite or sip of something (i.e., a 

nutritionally insignificant breakfast) from those who ate or drank a more substantial serving (e.g., 1⁄2 cup 

juice, 1⁄2 granola bar, 1 slice toast, 1 pancake). 

11 This set of analyses does not compare outcomes for breakfast (e.g., consumption of more than one 

breakfast, percent of RDA for food energy at breakfast), because results are essentially zeros for the 

breakfast skipper group. 
92 Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 

• Cognitive functioning 

o Stimulus Discrimination: number of trials completed, average decision time, and 

average trial time 

o Digit Span (WISC-III) scaled scores 

o Verbal Fluency: Animals, Things to Eat, and total scores 

• Classroom behavior and psychosocial functioning 

o Pediatric Symptom Checklist: Total score and percent of students psychosocially 

impaired 

o Conners’ Teacher Rating Scale: Opposition and ADHD indices, and cognitive 

problems/inattention and hyperactivity scores 

o Children’s Behavior Questionnaire, Effortful Control Scale: ability to focus and 

ability to follow instructions subscales 

• Child health and food security status 

o Weight status: body mass index (BMI) percentile for age, percent at risk of 

overweight and overweight 

o Health status: percent reported in good health 

o Food security: percent of food secure households, child and household food 

insecurity scale scores 

• Gains in other student outcomes during first year of SBPP 

o School breakfast participation: breakfasts taken as a percent of school days 

o Attendance: days present as a percent of school days enrolled 

o Tardiness: days late as a percent of school days enrolled 

o Math and reading achievement: as measured by Stanford-9 scale scores12

Descriptions of these outcome measures can be found in McLaughlin et al., 2002. 

In order to compare the nutrient adequacy of students’ diets, data from second dietary recalls were 

used to adjust for day-to-day variability and estimate usual intake.13 The methods developed by 

Nusser and colleagues (1996) were employed, both to estimate the distribution of students’ usual 24-

hour nutrient intake and the proportion of students whose usual intake was above or below dietary 

reference standard values and national dietary recommendations. The procedure was carried out 

using the Software for Intake Distribution Estimation (C-SIDE).14 

Usual intake distributions and the percentile values of the distribution were calculated for food energy 

and protein (as a percent of RDA), and 13 micronutrients.15 Where possible, the proportion of 

students whose usual intake equaled or exceeded the Estimated Average Requirement (EAR) was 

 

12 All student test scores were converted to a common metric using an equipercentile linking approach. See 

McLaughlin et al. (2002) for further details. 

13 A second 24-hour recall was collected for a random subsample of 12 percent of the students overall. 

14 Version 1.0, developed by Iowa State University, 1996. 

15 It was not possible to estimate the distribution of usual food intake using C-SIDE because the distribution 

of food intake tends to be highly skewed with a large proportion of zero values. 
Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 93 

estimated to assess adequacy of nutrient intake.16 To assess dietary adequacy for groups, the Institute 

of Medicine (IOM) recommends assessing the prevalence of inadequate nutrient intakes (Institute of 

Medicine, 2000a) by comparing usual intakes with the EAR. Since EARs for food energy, protein, 

and calcium were not available at the time of these analyses, average requirements were estimated for 

purposes of group comparison as 80 percent of 1989 RDA. To assess the percentages of students 

whose macronutrient intake was consistent with dietary recommendations, usual intake was compared 

with quantitative recommendations from the 2000 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (USDA and 

USDHHS, 2000) and the National Research Council’s (NRC) Diet and Health report (1989b), as well 

as the “age-plus-five” grams recommendation for fiber.17

Sample Characteristics 

Based on the definitions above, we identified samples of 122 and 177 breakfast skippers for the target 

day nutrition and cognitive outcomes analyses, respectively; the parent data yielded a maximum 

sample of 172 usual skippers.18 Usual breakfast skippers represented 5 percent of the sample overall 

(Exhibit G-10). Breakfast skipping was somewhat less prevalent in District E and District D than the 

other four districts (approximately 4 percent versus 7 to 8 percent of students in Districts A, B, C, and 

F). 

In terms of demographic characteristics, usual breakfast skippers and breakfast non-skippers were 

remarkably similar (Exhibit G-11). The only significant difference was with respect to ethnicity: 

breakfast skippers were more likely to be non-white compared to non-skippers (46 percent versus 37 

percent of students). This difference was accounted for in the statistical comparisons of outcomes 

discussed below. 

Findings 

Results of the analyses comparing breakfast skippers with non-skippers are summarized below. More 

of the significant results were found among the groups defined by their breakfast skipping behavior 

on the target day than those identified as usual skippers based on parent report. Significant results 

were found mainly for comparisons of students’ 24-hour nutrition outcomes, and also for changes in 

school breakfast participation over the first year of the SBPP. 

Food and Nutrient Intake Over 24 Hours 

Exhibit 6.7 below provides a comparison of the 24-hour food energy and nutrient intakes of breakfast 

skippers and non-skippers on the target day. Breakfast skippers consumed significantly less food 

energy over a 24-hour period, on average, than breakfast non-skippers (79 percent versus 102 percent 

of the RDA). They also consumed significantly less protein, total carbohydrate, vitamins, minerals, 

cholesterol, sodium, and dietary fiber. At the same time, target day breakfast skippers consumed 

more total fat and saturated fat as a percent of total food energy. 

 

16 The EAR is the usual intake level estimated to meet the requirement of half the healthy individuals in a 

particular age/gender group (Institute of Medicine, 2000a). 

17 Estimates of usual intake and values for the specific reference standards and dietary recommendations used 

in this analysis were discussed in McLaughlin et al., 2002 (Appendix E). 

18 Sample sizes for some outcomes are slightly smaller due to missing data. 
94 Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 

Exhibit 6.7 

Mean Food Energy and Nutrient Intake Over 24 Hours: Breakfast Skippers vs. Breakfast NonSkippers1 

 Breakfast Skippers 

Breakfast NonSkippers 

Dietary Component Mean SE Mean SE 

Food energy (as % 1989 RDA) 79.00* (2.27) 101.92 (0.52) 

Protein (as % 1989 RDA) 193.03* (7.85) 246.56 (1.65) 

Percent of Food Energy from: 

Total fat 34.28* (0.68) 31.74 (0.11) 

Saturated fat 12.43* (0.33) 11.81 (0.06) 

Carbohydrate 51.97* (0.81) 55.28 (0.14) 

Protein 14.96 (0.39) 14.43 (0.06) 

Vitamins (as percent of RDA)2 

Vitamin A 95.77* (6.56) 167.22 (1.72) 

Vitamin C 144.58* (10.51) 261.16 (3.82) 

Vitamin B6 131.36* (7.12) 223.31 (2.10) 

Vitamin B12 176.88* (10.75) 308.96 (3.92) 

Niacin 143.74* (7.97) 212.03 (1.69) 

Thiamin 157.34* (6.56) 247.46 (1.85) 

Riboflavin 186.12* (7.49) 315.45 (2.37) 

Folate 90.04* (4.45) 152.09 (1.29) 

Minerals (as percent of RDA)2 

Calcium 89.50* (4.79) 136.64 (1.12) 

Calcium (as percent of AI) 84.02* (4.52) 129.82 (1.08) 

Iron 121.50* (5.41) 183.75 (1.54) 

Magnesium 88.65* (3.70) 137.03 (1.12) 

Phosphorous 103.10* (5.44) 164.09 (1.70) 

Zinc 107.64* (4.50) 174.84 (1.54) 

Other Dietary Components 

Cholesterol (mg) 186.80* (13.29) 209.05 (2.66) 

Sodium (mg) 2877.37* (130.01) 3274.45 (21.56) 

Fiber (gm) 10.68* (0.43) 14.28 (0.11) 

Fiber (as percent of age-plus-5 gm) 72.59* (2.90) 100.86 (0.79) 

Number of Students 122 3225 

RDA = Recommended Dietary Allowance 

1

 Breakfast skippers include students who reported consuming little (less than 2.5 percent of the RDA for food energy) or 

nothing between 5:00 a.m. and 45 minutes after the start of school on a typical school day. 

2

 Mean intakes of vitamins and minerals, except for calcium, are presented as a percent of the RDAs based on the Dietary 

Reference Intakes (DRIs), Recommended Intakes for Individuals. For calcium, mean intake is presented both as a 

percent of the 1989 RDA and the DRI-based Adequate Intake (AI). 

*Difference between breakfast skippers and breakfast non-skippers is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

Source: Impact Study⎯24-Hour Dietary Recall Interview, Spring 2001 
Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 95 

Breakfast skippers had mean intakes of dietary components that did not meet the RDA benchmarks 

(for food energy, vitamin A, calcium and magnesium); they also consumed less dietary fiber than the 

age-plus-5 gram recommendation. Non-skippers met the RDA benchmarks and age-plus-5 

recommendation. 

With regard to Food Guide Pyramid food groups (Exhibit 6.8), target day breakfast skippers 

consumed significantly fewer servings of grain products, fruits, and dairy products (milk in particular) 

than breakfast non-skippers. The differences ranged from an average of one-half to one and a half 

servings. The skippers also consumed less discretionary fat and added sugar (about five and a half 

fewer teaspoons), but not enough less to differ with respect to meeting daily-recommended 

maximums. Consumption of vegetables and meat/meat substitutes was similar among breakfast 

skippers and non-skippers, with the exception of poultry. Breakfast skippers and non-breakfast 

skippers were equally likely to consume poultry (primarily chicken), although skippers ate larger 

amounts, on average (means of 1.14 versus 0.84 servings for non-skippers) and at the higher end of 

the distribution (75th percentile and above). 

These findings are roughly consistent with past studies that found that children who skipped breakfast 

had lower mean daily food energy and nutrient intakes than those who ate breakfast and, thus, did not 

make up the differences in dietary intake at other meals.19 In our analysis, target day breakfast 

skippers consumed more total fat and saturated fat (as a percent of food energy) over 24-hours than 

non-skippers. Findings from the few previous studies that examined dietary fat have been mixed 

(Morgan, Zabik, and Stampley, 1986; Nicklas et al., 1993). 

None of the past studies compared breakfast skippers and non-skippers on intakes of Food Guide 

Pyramid food groups, although Basiotis, Lino and Anand (1999) analyzed the relationship between 

eating breakfast and overall diet quality based on the Healthy Eating Index (HEI). Using data from 

the 1994-96 CSFII, they demonstrated that children in both low- and higher income households who 

consumed breakfast had higher overall HEI scores than children who did not consume breakfast. For 

all children, consuming breakfast was associated with higher grain, fruit, milk, and variety scores 

(based on the Food Guide Pyramid food groups and serving recommendations). Our analysis of 24-

hour food group intake is consistent with the findings of this study. 

Usual 24-Hour Dietary Intake 

Although usual breakfast skippers and non-skippers differed substantially in terms of their mean 

intakes of food energy, nutrients, and Food Guide Pyramid servings on the target day, these findings 

do not address the question of whether children who typically skip breakfast are less likely to meet 

their daily nutrition requirements than those who eat breakfast. Thus, analyses were conducted to 

compare the groups on usual 24-hour intake, using the latest dietary reference standards and 

methodology for assessing dietary adequacy. 

 

19 These studies include the Nationwide Food Consumption Survey (Morgan, Zabik, and Stampley, 1986), the National 

Evaluation of School Nutrition Programs (Devaney, Fraker, and Morgan, 1987), and the Bogalusa Heart Study 

(Nicklas, et al., 1993). 
96 Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 

Exhibit 6.8 

Mean Food Group Intake Over 24 Hours: Breakfast Skippers vs. Breakfast Non-Skippers1 

 Breakfast Skippers 

Breakfast NonSkippers 

Food Group Mean SE Mean SE 

Number of Servings2

Grain Products 6.0* (0.28) 7.6 (0.06) 

Whole grains 0.6* (0.08) 1.1 (0.02) 

Non-whole grains 5.4* (0.28) 6.5 (0.06) 

Vegetables 1.8 (0.13) 2.2 (0.03) 

Dark green vegetables 0.1 (0.02) 0.1 (0.01) 

Deep yellow vegetables 0.1 (0.04) 0.1 (0.01) 

White potatoes 0.7 (0.09) 0.9 (0.02) 

Other starchy vegetables 0.1 (0.03) 0.1 (0.01) 

Tomatoes 0.3 (0.04) 0.4 (0.01) 

Cooked dry beans and peas 0.1 (0.03) 0.1 (0.01) 

Other vegetables 0.4 (0.06) 0.5 (0.01) 

Fruits 1.1* (0.11) 1.7 (0.03) 

Citrus fruits, melons, and berries 0.5* (0.07) 0.7 (0.02) 

Other fruits 0.6* (0.07) 1.0 (0.02) 

Dairy Products 1.6* (0.11) 2.7 (0.03) 

Milk 1.0* (0.09) 2.0 (0.02) 

Yogurt 0.0 (0.01) 0.1 (0.00) 

Cheese 0.6 (0.06) 0.6 (0.01) 

Meat and Meat Substitutes 1.4 (0.11) 1.4 (0.02) 

Red meat (beef, pork, veal, lamb, game) 0.5 (0.07) 0.6 (0.01) 

Organ meats 0.0 (0.00) 0.0 (0.00) 

Frankfurters, sausage, luncheon meats 0.3 (0.04) 0.2 (0.01) 

Poultry (chicken, turkey, other) 0.4* (0.09) 0.3 (0.01) 

Fish and shellfish 0.0 (0.02) 0.1 (0.01) 

Eggs 0.1 (0.02) 0.1 (0.00) 

Soybean products (tofu, meat analogues) 0.0 (0.00) 0.0 (0.00) 

Nuts and seeds 0.1 (0.01) 0.1 (0.00) 

Other 

Discretionary fat (gm) 51.7* (2.10) 60.1 (0.45) 

Added sugars (tsp) 19.0* (1.06) 24.4 (0.23) 

Number of Students 122 3225 

1

 Breakfast skippers include students who reported consuming little (less than 2.5 percent of the RDA for food energy) or 

nothing between 5:00 a.m. and 45 minutes after the start of school on a typical school day. 2

 Based mainly on the serving size definitions for the Food Guide Pyramid Servings Database for USDA Survey Food 

Codes, 2000; servings of meat/meat substitutes are based on the Healthy Eating Index definition of 2.5 ounces per serving 

(Kennedy et al., 1995). USDA food codes from the 1994-96, 1998 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals 

(CSFII) were assigned to food and ingredient/component codes from the Nutrition Data System (NDS-R) database before 

computing the number of servings for each food group. 

Note: Means have been rounded. Differences of 0.0 represent less than 0.05 of a serving. 

*Difference between breakfast skippers and breakfast non-skippers is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

Source: Impact Study⎯24-Hour Dietary Recall Interview, Spring 2001 
Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 97 

Exhibit 6.9 shows results of the comparison of breakfast skippers and breakfast non-skippers whose 

usual 24-hour intake met the standards for dietary adequacy (based primarily on EARs). In both 

groups, all (or virtually all) students had adequate 24-hour intakes of protein and ten micronutrients. 

For the three remaining micronutrients assessed⎯vitamin A, folate, and phosphorous⎯usual 

breakfast skippers were significantly less likely to have adequate intakes than non-skippers. Between 

20 and 24 percent of breakfast skippers had inadequate usual intakes for these nutrients, compared 

with 1 to 6 percent of non-skippers. 

Findings for total food energy are interesting. Despite estimates of the percent of students with food 

energy intakes above 80 percent of the 1989 RDA of 76 percent for breakfast skippers and 96 percent 

for non-skippers, statistical significance was not achieved. This is due in large part to the greater 

dispersion of usual food energy values among skippers relative to non-skippers (Exhibit 6.10) 

compared with the distributions for the other nutrients examined. 

When means and the distributions of usual intake for food energy, protein, and calcium (as a percent 

of Adequate Intake) were compared, usual breakfast skippers were found to consume less of all three 

than breakfast non-skippers (Exhibit 6.10). The differences for both food energy and calcium were 

significant at the mean, median, and lower end (5th, 10th, and 25th percentiles) of the distribution; 

usual calcium intake was also lower at the 75th percentile. The difference for protein, which was 

consumed at very high levels relative to the RDA across the entire distribution of usual protein intake, 

was significant at the mean and median. 

There were no statistically significant differences between breakfast skippers and non-skippers in the 

share of students whose usual 24-hour intake met recommendations for total fat, saturated fat, 

carbohydrate, cholesterol, sodium or dietary fiber (Exhibit G-12). 

Cognitive Functioning 

Somewhat surprisingly, on all of the measures of cognitive functioning, students who skipped 

breakfast performed similarly to those who ate breakfast on the day of testing (Exhibit G-13). This is 

consistent with a well-known review of prior research (Pollitt and Mathews, 1998) that contends the 

negative effect of skipping breakfast on cognitive functioning is likely to be more pronounced in 

nutritionally at-risk children. Findings from the dietary intake analyses above suggest that, since the 

majority of children were meeting nutrient requirements over 24 hours (three quarters to almost all, 

depending on the nutrient), few were likely to be undernourished.20

Behavioral, Psychosocial, and Health Outcomes 

A series of analyses was conducted contrasting usual breakfast skippers with non-skippers on 

classroom behavior, psychosocial and general health, weight status, and food security, as shown in 

Exhibit 6.11. The two groups of students were similar across the entire set of outcomes, with the 

exception of mean BMI percentile. Breakfast skippers had significantly higher BMI percentiles than 

non-skippers (68th percentile versus 63rd percentile), although they were not more likely to be 

classified as overweight or at risk of overweight using CDC criteria. 

 

20 In addition, findings reported by McLaughlin et al. (2002) indicated that only 2 percent of the SBPP sample 

was “underweight”, based on a BMI at or below the 5th percentile for age and gender. 
98 Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 

Exhibit 6.9 

Percent of Students Whose Usual 24-Hour Food Energy and Nutrient Intakes Met Standard for 

Dietary Adequacy: Breakfast Skippers vs. Breakfast Non-Skippers1,2 

 Breakfast Skippers 

Breakfast NonSkippers 

Dietary Component Percent SE Percent SE 

Food energy 76.23 (10.28) 95.51 (3.46) 

Protein 100.00 (0.00) 100.00 (0.00) 

Vitamins 

Vitamin A 75.69* (5.98) 99.25 (1.22) 

Vitamin C 100.00 (0.00) 99.33 (1.34) 

Vitamin B6 97.94 (5.01) 99.93 (0.15) 

Vitamin B12 98.19 (3.12) 100.00 (0.00) 

Niacin 100.00 (0.00) 100.00 (0.00) 

Thiamin 100.00 (0.00) 100.00 (0.00) 

Riboflavin 99.40 (0.68) 100.00 (0.00) 

Folate 79.84* (9.35) 98.90 (1.75*) 

Minerals 

Calcium 82.84 (7.38) 95.65 (2.31) 

Iron 99.42 (2.01) 100.00 (0.00) 

Magnesium 77.28 (8.04) 94.12 (3.11) 

Phosphorous 77.36* (5.95) 94.32 (2.99*) 

Zinc 91.51 (8.64) 99.21 (1.19) 

Number of Students 169 3143 

1

 For vitamins and minerals, except calcium, the Estimated Average Requirements (EARs) based on DRIs are used as 

standards. There is no EAR for total food energy, protein, or calcium. For energy, protein, and calcium, 80 percent of the 

1989 RDA was used as an approximation of the estimated average requirements. 2

 Breakfast skippers include students whose parents reported their children eating breakfast fewer than three days a week. 

Note: Students’ usual intake distribution was determined based on two days of intake data for 12 percent of the sample, 

and one day of intake data for the remaining sample, using the Software for Intake Distribution Estimation, Iowa 

State University, 1996. 

*Difference between breakfast skippers and breakfast non-skippers is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

Source: Impact Study⎯24-Hour Dietary Recall Interview, Spring 2001 
Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 99 

Exhibit 6.10 

24-Hour Usual Intake Distributions for Food Energy, Protein, and Calcium: Breakfast 

Skippers vs. Breakfast Non-Skippers1 

 Breakfast Skippers 

Breakfast NonSkippers 

Dietary Component Value SE Value SE 

Food Energy (as percent of RDA) 

Mean 96* (1.72) 102 (0.25) 

Percentile: 

 5th 63* (6.75) 80 (2.23) 

 10th 69* (5.76) 85 (1.81) 

 25th 80* (3.86) 92 (1.06) 

 50th 94* (2.46) 101 (0.50) 

 75th 110 (4.80) 111 (1.24) 

 90th 125 (8.76) 120 (2.42) 

 95th 135 (11.60) 126 (3.23) 

Protein (as percent of RDA) 

Mean 225* (3.25) 246 (0.88) 

Percentile: 

 5th 160 (25.10) 173 (5.74) 

 10th 173 (20.80) 187 (4.74) 

 25th 195 (12.90) 212 (2.91) 

 50th 222* (6.66) 242 (1.49) 

 75th 252 (15.20) 276 (3.65) 

 90th 281 (28.20) 310 (7.30) 

 95th 299 (37.10) 333 (9.92) 

Calcium (as percent of AI) 

Mean 111* (2.82) 129 (0.54) 

Percentile: 

 5th 57* (8.92) 84 (3.79) 

 10th 67* (7.82) 92 (3.16) 

 25th 85* (5.49) 108 (1.97) 

 50th 107* (3.78) 127 (0.99) 

 75th 133* (7.16) 148 (2.46) 

 90th 160 (13.00) 169 (4.83) 

 95th 177 (17.20) 183 (6.51) 

Number of Students 169 3143 

RDA = Recommended Dietary Allowance 

AI = Adequate Intake 

1

 Breakfast skippers include students whose parents reported their children eating breakfast fewer than three days a week. 

Exhibit reads: “Percentile: 95 percent of breakfast skippers (i.e., students at the 5th percentile) have a usual food energy 

intake of at least 63 percent of the RDA. Similarly, 90 percent of breakfast skippers (i.e., students at the 

10th percentile) have a usual food energy intake of at least 69 percent of the RDA.” 

Note: Students’ usual intake distribution was determined based on two days of intake data for 12 percent of the sample, 

and one day of intake data for the remaining sample, using the Software for Intake Distribution Estimation, Iowa 

State University, 1996. 

* Difference between breakfast skippers and breakfast non-skippers is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

Source: Impact Study⎯24-Hour Dietary Recall Interview, Spring 2001 
100 Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 

Exhibit 6.11 

Behavioral, Psychosocial, and Health Outcomes: Breakfast Skippers vs. Breakfast NonSkippers1 

 Breakfast Skippers 

Breakfast NonSkippers 

Outcome Value SE Value SE 

Conners’ Teachers Rating Scale2 

Opposition index 52.31 (0.87) 51.37 (0.18) 

Cognitive problems/inattention score 53.84 (0.94) 52.42 (0.20) 

Hyperactivity 51.73 (0.78) 51.72 (0.18) 

ADHD index 52.38 (0.93) 52.17 (0.19) 

Effortful Control3

Ability to focus 5.03 (0.11) 5.15 (0.03) 

Ability to follow instructions 5.20 (0.11) 5.36 (0.03) 

Pediatric Symptom Checklist 

Total score2

 10.21 (0.39) 9.86 (0.09) 

Percent students reported to have 

psychosocial impairment 

20.93 (3.11) 19.00 (0.69) 

Weight Status 

BMI percentile 68.17* (2.05) 63.15 (0.51) 

Percent students at risk of overweight 36.26 (3.69) 32.13 (0.82) 

Percent students overweight 20.47 (3.09) 16.40 (0.65) 

Child Health Status 

Percent students reported to be in 

excellent health 

54.22 (3.88) 56.58 (0.87) 

Food Security 

Percent of food secure households 76.47 (3.26) 77.33 (0.74) 

Child food insecurity scale score4

 1.24 (0.17) 1.03 (0.03) 

Household food insecurity scale score4

 1.23 (0.15) 1.06 (0.03) 

Number of Students 172 3249 

ADHD = Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder 

BMI = Body Mass Index 

1

 Breakfast skippers include students whose parents reported their children eating breakfast fewer than three days a week. 2

 Higher scores indicate tendency to exhibit problem behavior/impairment. 3

 Scored on 7-point Likert scale. Higher scores indicate better effortful control. 4

 Scale is from 0 to 10, from food secure (score of 0) to food insecure with hunger (score of 10). 

*Difference between breakfast skippers and breakfast non-skippers is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

Source: Impact Study⎯Parent Survey, Child Behavioral Measures and Height and Weight Measurements, Spring 2001 
Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 101 

Other Student Outcomes 

Students who usually skipped breakfast had smaller gains in school breakfast participation over the 

school year than those who ate breakfast regularly (Exhibit 6.12). The changes in attendance and 

tardiness, and gains in academic achievement, did not differ between the two groups of students. 

These findings indicate little systematic relationship between students’ non-nutrition outcomes and 

breakfast skipping, as defined in our study. We must caution the reader, however, on the limitations 

of defining breakfast skippers based on parent report. For example, parents are not usually able to 

observe whether or not their child ate breakfast at school. 

Analyses of Nutrition Outcomes by Source of Breakfast: Home 

versus School 

There was interest in examining nutrition outcomes for students who obtain their breakfasts from 

different sources⎯in particular, from home food supplies versus the USDA school breakfast (or other 

school food venues). Research focusing specifically on the effects of participation in the SBP has 

shown that students consuming school breakfasts have higher intakes of food energy, protein, several 

vitamins and minerals, and dietary fiber at breakfast than nonparticipants (Devaney et al., 1995; 

Devaney and Fraker, 1989; Gleason and Suitor, 2001). SBP participants may also have higher 

breakfast intakes of sodium and saturated fat and lower intakes of carbohydrates, especially added 

sugars (Devaney et al., 1995; Gleason and Suitor, 2001). Some, but not all, of these differences 

persist over 24 hours. 

Analyses were performed with the SBPP sample to compare nutrition outcomes between children 

who ate breakfast exclusively from home versus exclusively from school. In addition, the analyses 

included a third group of students—those who ate breakfast from home and school on the same day. 

The results presented here are based only on target day outcomes and do not include estimates of the 

proportion of students with usual 24-hour intakes that meet dietary standards. The data available for 

estimating usual intake include students who ate breakfast from one source on the first day and a 

different source on the second day. Therefore, the results could not be viewed as usual 24-hour 

intakes of children who usually eat breakfast from a particular source (home or school).21

 

21 Analyses were conducted in an attempt to identify “usual home” and “usual school” breakfast eaters. 

Regression models were developed to predict the likelihood that a child ate breakfast only from home, only 

from school, from both home and school, or neither. These models were tested on children with two days 

of 24-hour recall data to determine whether or not the probability that a child consumed breakfast from 

home (or from school) on one day was significantly related to whether or not they ate any breakfast from 

home (or school) and the amount of food energy from that source consumed on another day. Although we 

could identify a reasonable proportion of children as 80 percent likely to consume breakfast only from 

home on a typical school day, none of the children met that criterion for breakfast from school. Thus, it 

was not possible to identify a subgroup that had an 80 percent chance or more of eating breakfast from 

school (exclusively) on a given day. 

 We repeated the analyses to see if we could predict the likelihood of children eating breakfast from school, 

even if they also consumed food from other sources. We found that only 6 percent (n=246) of the children 

were likely to consume any breakfast from school four out of five days (80 percent predicted likelihood). 

When this criterion was relaxed to 75 percent, we estimated that 19 percent (n=812), or less than one child 

out of five, were likely to consume any school breakfast on a typical school day. 
102 Results of Non-Experimental Analyses Exhibit 6.12 Gains in Student Level Outcomes: Breakfast Skippers vs. Breakfast Non-Skippers1 Breakfast Skippers Breakfast Non-S

Outcome Pre Gain SE Pre Gain School breakfast participation (as a percent of school days) 15.33 7.54* (2.06) 15.43 15.27 Attendance2 95.70 

−0.28 (0.29) 95.97 

−0.09 

Days tardy (as a percent of school days enrolled)3

1.59 0.79 (0.48) 1.69 0.52 

Math achievement4 622.27 23.29 (2.93) 633.87 22.36 

Reading achievement4 633.03 19.47 (3.36) 649.09 17.03 

Number of Students 170 170 3203 3203 

1 Breakfast skippers include students whose parents reported their children eating breakfast fewer than three days in a school week. 2 Based on average percent of days present. 

3 Data were not available for Districts B and E. 4 All test scores have been converted to Stanford-9 scale scores, using the equipercentile equating method. 

Notes: Pre = pre-implementation or baseline year of SBPP  Gain = change from pre-implementation (baseline) year to first year of SBPP implementation. *Difference between breakfast skippers and breakfast non-skippers is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

Source: Impact Study

⎯Parent Survey, Spring 2001, and Student-Level School Breakfast Participation Data, Attendance Data, Academic Achievement Test 

and 2000-2001. 
Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 103 

The findings indicate that students who ate breakfast exclusively from school were more likely to 

consume a substantive breakfast (Definition 2) than students who ate breakfast exclusively from 

home.22 At the same time, students who ate breakfast only from school had lower mean food energy, 

nutrient, and food group intakes than either of the other two groups, both at breakfast and over 24 

hours. School breakfasts contributed as much or more than home breakfasts to mean 24-hour intakes 

of several vitamins and minerals. Note that the results of comparisons based on consuming breakfast 

exclusively from home versus school should be viewed cautiously. Our tests for selection bias 

suggest that the estimates for these analyses should not be regarded as unbiased. 

Measures and Analytic Variables 

All measures were constructed from data collected in the 24-hour dietary recall interviews. The 

sample of students was divided into the three groups of interest, based on where breakfast foods23

were obtained: 

 1. Home breakfast only; 

 2. School breakfast only; and 

 3. School breakfast and home breakfast. 

Because it was possible that the source of breakfast differed on the target day and the day of a late 

recall, a student could be classified in a different group for breakfast and full day outcomes. Thus, the 

comparisons discussed below include only those students for whom we have a full 24-hour recall 

(target day or late). In these analyses, students who skipped breakfast or ate breakfast from a source 

(or sources) other than home or school were excluded.24

The following target day measures of breakfast consumption and dietary intake were analyzed for the 

three groups of students: 

• Consumption of a substantive breakfast 

• Food energy and nutrient intake at breakfast and over 24 hours 

• Food group intake at breakfast and over 24 hours 

• Contribution of breakfast to food energy and nutrient intake over 24 hours 

Findings 

The results of analyses comparing target day nutrition outcomes for children who ate breakfast from 

home, school, or both are summarized below. The three groups differed significantly with regard to 

 

22 More students who ate breakfast exclusively from school met the food component-based criterion for 

Definition 2 than the home breakfast eaters. Mean food energy intake at breakfast, however, was lower for 

the Definition 2 school breakfast group (19 percent of RDA compared with 23 percent of RDA for the 

Definition 2 home eaters). 

23 As described earlier in this chapter, “breakfast” included all foods and beverages consumed between 5:00 

a.m. and 45 minutes after the start of school, and foods consumed up to 10:30 a.m. that were reported as 

being part of breakfast on the target day. 

24 The resulting sample was a total of 3,055 students (60 percent had home breakfast only, 25 percent had 

school breakfast only, and 15 percent had a home and a school breakfast). 
104 Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 

almost all of the nutrients and dietary components assessed. Differences in food group intake were 

fewer but followed the same general pattern of lower intakes, on average, among students who 

consumed breakfast only from school. 

Consumption of a Substantive Breakfast 

Students who ate breakfast exclusively from school were significantly more likely to consume a 

Definition 2 (but not Definition 3) substantive breakfast than students who had breakfast only from 

home (85 percent versus 75 percent; Exhibit G-14). The great majority of students eating breakfast 

from both home and school consumed a Definition 2 or Definition 3 substantive breakfast (97 and 91 

percent, respectively). As expected, these students were significantly more likely to consume a 

substantive breakfast than students eating breakfast from either source alone. 

Food and Nutrient Intake at Breakfast 

Exhibit 6.13 shows that mean intakes of food energy and most nutrients at breakfast were higher 

among students who ate breakfast exclusively from home versus exclusively from school (but lower 

than students eating breakfast from both sources). Exceptions for which differences were not 

observed include total fat, carbohydrate, and calcium and phosphorous (as a percent of RDA). 

Differences in food group intake at breakfast were statistically significant across the three groups for 

grain products, fruits, and dairy products, as well as discretionary fat and added sugars (Exhibit 6.14). 

Except for fruits, students who ate breakfast exclusively from home ate more servings from these 

Food Guide Pyramid groups than those that had breakfast only from school. The differences, 

however, were relatively small (less than one-half serving, on average). With regard to added sugars, 

the average difference was approximately one and one-half teaspoons. Home breakfast eaters 

were somewhat more likely to consume sweetened beverages and cake, candy, or cookies, and to add 

sugar, jelly, or syrup to their breakfast foods than school breakfast eaters. Students who ate breakfast 

exclusively from home were less likely to eat cereal, but when they did, they ate a larger portion (26 

versus 15 grams, on average) with almost twice the added sugar content as cereals eaten from school. 

Consistent with findings for food energy/nutrients, students who ate breakfast from both home and 

school consumed about one additional serving of grains, and one-half serving more of fruits and dairy 

than other students; they also had the highest breakfast intakes of discretionary fat and added sugars. 

Food and Nutrient Intake Over 24 Hours 

Findings for 24-hour intakes of food energy and nutrients by source of breakfast tended to mirror the 

differences observed at breakfast (Exhibit 6.15). Students who ate breakfast exclusively from home 

consumed significantly more food energy and more of most vitamins and minerals (as a percent of 

RDA) over 24 hours than those who ate breakfast exclusively from school. They also consumed 

slightly but significantly more saturated fat (as a percent of food energy) and cholesterol. In spite of 

these differences, both groups had mean intakes of food energy, protein, vitamins, and minerals that 

approximate or exceed the RDA. Neither group met the Dietary Guidelines recommendations for 

total fat or saturated fat intake, nor the NRC-recommended maximum for daily sodium intake of 

2,400 mg per day. 
Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 105 

Exhibit 6.13 

Mean Food Energy and Nutrient Intake at Breakfast, by Source of Breakfast 

Home Only School Only 

Home and 

School 

Dietary Component Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE 

Significant 

Differences

Food energy (as % 1989 RDA) 20.31 (0.28) 17.04 (0.27) 30.39 (0.61) a,b,c 

Protein (as % 1989 RDA) 41.23 (0.68) 36.66 (0.71) 62.39 (1.54) a,b,c 

Percent of Food Energy from: 

Total fat 23.52 (0.30) 23.35 (0.41) 23.81 (0.48) 

Saturated fat 9.76 (0.14) 8.41 (0.16) 9.36 (0.21) a,c 

Carbohydrate 66.44 (0.38) 65.31 (0.47) 65.72 (0.55) 

Protein 12.07 (0.12) 12.84 (0.16) 12.19 (0.19) a 

Vitamins (as percent of RDA)1 

Vitamin A 61.72 (1.23) 52.32 (1.35) 87.74 (2.76) a,b,c 

Vitamin C 84.62 (2.76) 70.90 (2.41) 113.71 (5.26) a,b,c 

Vitamin B6 80.40 (1.82) 62.12 (1.77) 108.63 (3.91) a,b,c 

Vitamin B12 102.09 (2.67) 75.92 (2.45) 132.56 (5.21) a,b,c 

Niacin 62.00 (1.32) 46.74 (1.19) 79.28 (2.64) a,b,c 

Thiamin 79.20 (1.40) 63.05 (1.31) 107.08 (2.94) a,b,c 

Riboflavin 110.59 (1.92) 89.89 (1.78) 156.98 (4.25) a,b,c 

Folate 53.64 (1.05) 39.02 (0.88) 68.91 (2.13) a,b,c 

Minerals (as percent of RDA)1 

Calcium 35.52 (0.63) 32.95 (0.66) 55.84 (1.48) b,c 

Calcium (as percent of AI) 33.70 (0.60) 31.34 (0.64) 53.17 (1.41) b,c 

Iron 68.23 (1.53) 48.81 (1.16) 82.35 (2.87) a,b,c 

Magnesium 31.79 (0.62) 26.44 (0.53) 47.65 (1.31) a,b,c 

Phosphorous 35.97 (0.72) 34.15 (0.90) 57.88 (1.91) b,c 

Zinc 53.42 (1.33) 41.50 (1.07) 70.73 (2.72) a,b,c 

Other Dietary Components 

Cholesterol (mg) 53.30 (2.74) 26.42 (2.19) 56.14 (4.23) a,c 

Sodium (mg) 553.66 (10.84) 450.78 (10.19) 731.97 (20.48) a,b,c 

Fiber (gm) 2.65 (0.06) 1.94 (0.05) 3.58 (0.11) a,b,c 

Fiber (as percent of age-plus-5 

gm) 

18.62 (0.43) 13.63 (0.35) 25.39 (0.80) a,b,c 

Number of Students2 1835 768 452 

RDA = Recommended Dietary Allowance 

1

 Mean intakes of vitamins and minerals, except for calcium, are presented as a percent of the RDAs based on the Dietary Reference 

Intakes (DRIs), Recommended Intakes for Individuals. For calcium, mean intake is presented both as a percent of the 1989 RDA and 

the DRI-based Adequate Intake (AI). 2

 Excludes students who skipped breakfast or reported eating breakfast from a source other than home or school (e.g., restaurant). 

a Difference between Home Only and School Only is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

b Difference between Home Only and Home and School is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

c Difference between School Only and Home and School is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

Source: Impact Study⎯24-Hour Dietary Recall Interview, Spring 2001 
106 Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 

Exhibit 6.14 

Mean Food Group Intake at Breakfast, by Source of Breakfast 

Home Only School Only 

Home and 

School 

Food Group Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE 

Significant 

Differences 

Number of Servings1

Grain Products 1.8 (0.03) 1.5 (0.03) 2.5 (0.07) a,b,c 

Whole grains 0.5 (0.02) 0.4 (0.02) 0.7 (0.04) a,b,c 

Non-whole grains 1.2 (0.03) 1.1 (0.03) 1.8 (0.07) b,c 

Vegetables 0.0 (0.01) 0.0 (0.00) 0.0 (0.01) 

Dark green vegetables 0.0 (0.00) 0.0 (0.00) 0.0 (0.00) 

Deep yellow vegetables 0.0 (0.00) 0.0 (0.00) 0.0 (0.00) 

White potatoes 0.0 (0.00) 0.0 (0.00) 0.0 (0.01) 

Other starchy vegetables 0.0 (0.00) 0.0 (0.00) 0.0 (0.00) 

Tomatoes 0.0 (0.00) 0.0 (0.00) 0.0 (0.00) 

Cooked dry beans and peas 0.0 (0.00) 0.0 (0.00) 0.0 (0.00) 

Other vegetables 0.0 (0.00) 0.0 (0.00) 0.0 (0.00) 

Fruits 0.4 (0.02) 0.5 (0.01) 0.9 (0.04) a,b,c 

Citrus fruits, melons, and berries 0.3 (0.01) 0.2 (0.01) 0.4 (0.03) b,c 

Other fruits 0.2 (0.01) 0.3 (0.01) 0.5 (0.03) a,b,c 

Dairy Products 0.8 (0.02) 0.7 (0.02) 1.2 (0.04) a,b,c 

Milk 0.7 (0.02) 0.7 (0.01) 1.2 (0.04) a,b,c 

Yogurt 0.0 (0.00) 0.0 (0.00) 0.0 (0.01) b,c 

Cheese 0.0 (0.00) 0.0 (0.00) 0.0 (0.01) 

Meat and Meat Substitutes 0.1 (0.01) 0.1 (0.01) 0.1 (0.01) 

Red meat (beef, pork, veal, 

lamb, game) 

0.0 (0.00) 0.0 (0.00) 0.0 (0.00) 

Organ meats 0.0 (0.00) 0.0 (0.00) 0.0 (0.00) 

Frankfurters, sausage, luncheon 

meats 

0.0 (0.00) 0.0 (0.01) 0.0 (0.00) a 

Poultry (chicken, turkey, other) 0.0 (0.00) 0.0 (0.00) 0.0 (0.00) 

Fish and shellfish 0.0 (0.00) 0.0 (0.00) 0.0 (0.00) 

Eggs 0.1 (0.00) 0.0 (0.00) 0.0 (0.01) a 

Soybean products (tofu, meat 

analogues) 

0.0 (0.00) 0.0 (0.00) 0.0 (0.00) 

Nuts and seeds 0.0 (0.00) 0.0 (0.00) 0.0 (0.00) a,c 

Other 

Discretionary fat (gm) 9.3 (0.22) 7.2 (0.22) 13.8 (0.45) a,b,c 

Added sugars (tsp) 5.3 (0.12) 3.9 (0.11) 7.3 (0.25) a,b,c 

Number of Students2 1835 768 452 

1

 Based mainly on the serving size definitions for the Food Guide Pyramid Servings Database for USDA Survey Food Codes, 

2000; servings of meat/meat substitutes are based on the Healthy Eating Index definition of 2.5 ounces per serving (Kennedy et 

al., 1995). USDA food codes from the 1994-96, 1998 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) were assigned 

to food and ingredient/component codes from the Nutrition Data System (NDS-R) database before computing the number of 

servings for each food group. 

2

 Excludes students who skipped breakfast or reported eating breakfast from a source other than home or school (e.g., restaurant). 

Note: Means have been rounded. Differences of 0.0 represent less than 0.05 of a serving. 

a Difference between Home Only and School Only is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

b Difference between Home Only and Home and School is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

c Difference between School Only and Home and School is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

Source: Impact Study⎯24-Hour Dietary Recall Interview, Spring 2001 
Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 107 

Exhibit 6.15 

Mean Food Energy and Nutrient Intake Over 24 Hours, by Source of Breakfast 

Home Only School Only 

Home and 

School 

Dietary Component Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE 

Significant 

Differences

Food energy (as % 1989 RDA) 101.35 (0.69) 96.83 (0.97) 110.22 (1.44) a,b,c 

Protein (as % 1989 RDA) 242.70 (2.21) 241.64 (3.09) 266.09 (4.68) b,c 

Percent of Food Energy from: 

Total fat 31.73 (0.15) 32.03 (0.23) 30.82 (0.28) b,c 

Saturated fat 11.96 (0.08) 11.61 (0.11) 11.39 (0.13) a,b 

Carbohydrate 55.45 (0.18) 54.43 (0.28) 56.34 (0.35) a,c 

Protein 14.34 (0.08) 14.83 (0.13) 14.28 (0.15) a,c 

Vitamins (as percent of RDA)1 

Vitamin A 166.92 (2.31) 154.12 (3.13) 194.13 (4.95) a,b,c 

Vitamin C 260.80 (5.18) 237.32 (6.61) 293.02 (10.77) a,b,c 

Vitamin B6 221.89 (2.72) 205.53 (3.93) 257.41 (6.46) a,b,c 

Vitamin B12 312.11 (5.90) 284.06 (6.08) 335.24 (8.64) a,c 

Niacin 212.91 (2.24) 197.37 (3.18) 232.53 (5.01) a,b,c 

Thiamin 245.22 (2.40) 230.44 (3.50) 279.83 (5.50) a,b,c 

Riboflavin 312.94 (3.08) 292.27 (4.36) 362.87 (7.13) a,b,c 

Folate 152.19 (1.66) 139.60 (2.37) 172.33 (4.11) a,b,c 

Minerals (as percent of RDA)1 

Calcium 134.05 (1.49) 130.55 (2.06) 155.80 (3.22) b,c 

Calcium (as percent of AI) 127.27 (1.43) 124.07 (2.00) 148.16 (3.07) b,c 

Iron 185.96 (2.18) 167.64 (2.35) 203.07 (4.40) a,b,c 

Magnesium 136.49 (1.47) 127.59 (2.11) 151.31 (3.12) a,b,c 

Phosphorous 160.82 (2.19) 157.74 (3.36) 183.08 (4.83) b,c 

Zinc 174.54 (2.09) 163.31 (2.57) 194.41 (4.66) a,b,c 

Other Dietary Components 

Cholesterol (mg) 213.10 (3.69) 191.15 (4.78) 215.66 (6.81) a,c 

Sodium (mg) 3260.34 (29.23) 3206.06 (41.66) 3364.26 (54.51) 

Fiber (gm) 14.39 (0.15) 13.29 (0.20) 15.17 (0.32) a,c 

Fiber (as percent of age-plus-5 

gm) 

101.32 (1.04) 93.87 (1.47) 107.77 (2.33) a,b,c 

Number of Students2 1835 768 452 

RDA = Recommended Dietary Allowance 

1

 Mean intakes of vitamins and minerals, except for calcium, are presented as a percent of the RDAs based on the Dietary Reference 

Intakes (DRIs), Recommended Intakes for Individuals. For calcium, mean intake is presented both as a percent of the 1989 RDA and 

the DRI-based Adequate Intake (AI). 2

 Excludes students who skipped breakfast or reported eating breakfast from a source other than home or school (e.g., restaurant). 

a Difference between Home Only and School Only is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

b Difference between Home Only and Home and School is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

c Difference between School Only and Home and School is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

Source: Impact Study⎯24-Hour Dietary Recall Interview, Spring 2001 
108 Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 

Interestingly, total fat as a percent of food energy was significantly lower among students eating breakfast 

from both home and school than either source alone. Students who consumed breakfast from both home and 

school consumed significantly more food energy (110 percent of RDA) and most other dietary components 

than students eating breakfast from only one source. 

Analyses of food group intake over 24 hours find that students who ate breakfast exclusively from home 

consumed significantly more servings of grain products (whole grains), some types of fruits, and milk, as well 

as higher amounts of discretionary fat and added sugars than students eating breakfast only from school 

(Exhibit 6.16). The differences were relatively small in magnitude (one-tenth to less than one-half serving for 

food groups), although the disparity for added sugars increased to a mean of about two and one-half 

teaspoons. Students who ate breakfast from both home and school had higher 24-hour intakes of the grain, 

fruit, and dairy Food Guide Pyramid groups than those with only one source of breakfast. A notable finding 

is that 24-hour discretionary fat and added sugar intakes did not differ significantly between students who ate 

breakfast only from home compared with those who ate at both home and school. 

Finally, the analysis of the percent contribution of breakfast to intake over 24 hours shows that breakfasts 

exclusively from home are somewhat more important to total daily intake of food energy, macronutrients, and 

some (but not all) vitamins and minerals than breakfasts exclusively from school. Results are shown in 

Exhibit G-15. Exceptions for which the source of breakfast does not seem to play a role include vitamin A, 

calcium, magnesium, and phosphorous. In addition, the contribution of vitamin C from school breakfasts is 

greater than for breakfasts from home (33 percent versus 29 percent, respectively). 

Analyses of Nutrition Outcomes by Availability of Breakfast at School 

In the SBPP, all students had access to a school breakfast program. It was expected that students in schools 

where universal-free school breakfast was available (treatment schools) would be more likely to eat breakfast 

than students with access to the regular SBP (control schools). It was also hypothesized that rates of breakfast 

consumption (and school breakfast participation, in particular) would be higher among students offered the 

opportunity to eat breakfast in the classroom, free of charge and as part of the school day. As noted in 

Chapter Three, during the initial year of the SBPP, 18 of the 79 treatment schools implemented this approach 

and had significantly higher school breakfast participation rates compared with their matched control schools. 

Results of additional non-experimental analyses, however, found that the effects of classroom breakfast on 

participation did not translate into differential gains in attendance or academic achievement (McLaughlin et 

al, 2002; Appendix F). 

This section presents results of analyses focused on the relationship between the school breakfast setting 

(classroom versus non-classroom) and students’ nutrition outcomes. The outcomes assessed include 

measures of breakfast consumption and dietary intake on a given day, and usual dietary intake. It is important 

to recognize that comparisons were based on the availability of school breakfast in the student’s school, not 

on their consumption of breakfast in the classroom or elsewhere.25 The controllable policy variable of interest 

is whether breakfast is offered in a particular location—not whether a child eats breakfast in a location. 

 

25 Non-classroom school breakfast settings were primarily the school cafeterias, although in a small share of schools, 

students were served or ate breakfast in multi-purpose rooms, gymnasiums, kitchens, and even hallways. 
Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 109 

Exhibit 6.16 

Mean Food Group Intake Over 24 Hours, by Source of Breakfast

Home Only School Only 

Home and 

School 

Food Group Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE 

Significant 

Differences 

Number of Servings1 

Grain Products 7.6 (0.08) 7.2 (0.11) 8.3 (0.15) a,b,c 

Whole grains 1.2 (0.03) 0.9 (0.04) 1.3 (0.07) a,c 

Non-whole grains 6.4 (0.08) 6.3 (0.11) 7.0 (0.15) b,c 

Vegetables 2.2 (0.04) 2.1 (0.06) 2.1 (0.08) 

Dark green vegetables 0.1 (0.01) 0.1 (0.01) 0.1 (0.02) 

Deep yellow vegetables 0.1 (0.01) 0.1 (0.01) 0.1 (0.02) 

White potatoes 0.9 (0.03) 0.9 (0.05) 0.8 (0.06) 

Other starchy vegetables 0.1 (0.01) 0.2 (0.02) 0.1 (0.02) 

Tomatoes 0.4 (0.01) 0.4 (0.02) 0.4 (0.02) 

Cooked dry beans and peas 0.1 (0.01) 0.1 (0.02) 0.1 (0.02) 

Other vegetables 0.5 (0.02) 0.5 (0.02) 0.5 (0.03) 

Fruits 1.7 (0.04) 1.7 (0.05) 2.2 (0.09) b,c 

Citrus fruits, melons, and berries 0.7 (0.03) 0.6 (0.03) 0.9 (0.05) a,c 

Other fruits 0.9 (0.03) 1.1 (0.04) 1.3 (0.07) a,b,c 

Dairy Products 2.7 (0.04) 2.5 (0.05) 3.1 (0.07) a,b,c 

Milk 2.0 (0.03) 1.9 (0.04) 2.4 (0.06) a,b,c 

Yogurt 0.1 (0.00) 0.0 (0.01) 0.1 (0.01) b,c 

Cheese 0.6 (0.02) 0.6 (0.03) 0.6 (0.03) 

Meat and Meat Substitutes 1.4 (0.02) 1.4 (0.04) 1.4 (0.04) 

Red meat (beef, pork, veal, lamb, 

game) 

0.6 (0.02) 0.6 (0.03) 0.5 (0.03) 

Organ meats 0.0 (0.00) 0.0 (0.00) 0.0 (0.00) 

Frankfurters, sausage, luncheon 

meats 

0.2 (0.01) 0.3 (0.02) 0.2 (0.02) 

Poultry (chicken, turkey, other) 0.3 (0.01) 0.4 (0.02) 0.4 (0.03) 

Fish and shellfish 0.1 (0.01) 0.1 (0.02) 0.1 (0.01) 

Eggs 0.1 (0.01) 0.1 (0.01) 0.1 (0.01) a 

Soybean products (tofu, meat 

analogues) 

0.0 (0.00) 0.0 (0.00) 0.0 (0.01) 

Nuts and seeds 0.1 (0.00) 0.1 (0.01) 0.1 (0.01) a 

Other 

Discretionary fat (gm) 60.1 (0.60) 57.0 (0.86) 63.0 (1.20) a,c 

Added sugars (tsp) 24.8 (0.31) 22.3 (0.44) 25.6 (0.66) a,c 

Number of Students2 1835 768 452 

1

 Based on the serving size definitions for the Food Guide Pyramid Servings Database for USDA Survey Food Codes, 2000; 

servings of meat/meat substitutes are based on the Healthy Eating Index definition of 2.5 ounces per serving (Kennedy et al., 

1995). USDA food codes from the 1994-96, 1998 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) were assigned to 

food and ingredient/component codes from the Nutrition Data System (NDS-R) database before computing the number of 

servings for each food group. 

2

 Excludes students who skipped breakfast or reported eating breakfast from a source other than home or school (e.g., restaurant). 

Note: Means have been rounded. Differences of 0.0 represent less than 0.05 of a serving. 

a Difference between Home Only and School Only is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

b Difference between Home Only and Home and School is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

c Difference between School Only and Home and School is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

Source: Impact Study⎯24-Hour Dietary Recall Interview, Spring 2001 
110 Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 

The analyses suggest that the availability of school breakfast in the classroom is related to eating a 

substantive breakfast, and the consumption of more than one breakfast (usually from school and 

home). Students in treatment classroom schools were also found to have higher breakfast intakes of 

food energy and some macronutrients, yet their intakes of vitamins and minerals were lower than 

other students, both at breakfast and over 24 hours. Again, these findings are based on a nonexperimental analysis, and our assessment of selection bias suggests that they not be viewed as 

unbiased. 

Measures and Analytic Variables 

Data sources for the analyses described here include the parent-assisted 24-hour dietary recall (plus 

second recalls for a subsample of students) and, to determine breakfast setting, interviews with 

cafeteria managers conducted as part of the SBPP Implementation Study. All students in the sample 

were categorized as: 

 1. Universal-free school breakfast available in the classroom (treatment classroom, 18 

schools); 

 2. Universal-free school breakfast available in the cafeteria (treatment non-classroom, 61 

schools); or 

 3. Universal-free/classroom school breakfast not available (control non-classroom, 73 

schools). 

The three groups of students were then compared on the full battery of measures of breakfast 

consumption, target day food and nutrient intake, and usual dietary intake: 

• Consumption of a substantive breakfast 

• Consumption of more than one breakfast 

• Food energy and nutrient intake at breakfast and over 24 hours 

• Food group intake at breakfast and over 24 hours 

• Contribution of breakfast to food energy and nutrient intake over 24 hours 

• Percent of students whose usual 24-hour intake met dietary standards and recommendations 

• Means and distributions of usual intake for food energy, protein, and calcium 

All “target day” analyses were based on data for the day the child completed the full 24-hour dietary 

recall interview (target day or late).26 Measures of usual intake and nutrition standards used for all 

analyses were the same as those described previously in this chapter. 

Findings 

Nutrition outcomes were compared for the three groups of students characterized by the availability 

of breakfast at school. Results are discussed in the sections that follow. Differences in breakfast 

consumption patterns were significant, but students’ food and nutrient intakes were not clearly related 

to the location of breakfast availability at school. 

 

26 The total sample for this analysis was 3,347 students (13 percent in treatment classroom schools, 38 percent 

in treatment non-classroom schools, and 49 percent in control non-classroom schools). 
Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 111 

Breakfast Consumption 

Exhibits 6.17 and 6.18 illustrate the relationships between the availability of breakfast at school and 

the prevalence of breakfast consumption, for three definitions of breakfast. Students in treatment 

schools with classroom breakfast were significantly more likely to eat a substantive breakfast (both 

Definition 2 and Definition 3) on a given day than students in non-classroom control (regular SBP) 

schools. They were also more likely to eat a Definition 3 breakfast than their counterparts in 

treatment non-classroom schools. 

With respect to the consumption of more than one breakfast, a significantly larger share of students in 

schools with classroom breakfast ate two or more breakfasts (substantive or not) than either group 

with non-classroom breakfast. 

Food and Nutrient Intake at Breakfast 

Results for food energy and nutrient intake at breakfast are mixed. For example, students in schools 

with classroom breakfast had significantly higher breakfast intakes of food energy, total fat (as a 

percent of food energy), and sodium, yet they consumed less of certain vitamins and minerals (e.g., 

vitamin B-6, folate, zinc) than one or both of the non-classroom groups (Exhibit G-16). 

Students in schools with classroom breakfast ate significantly more servings of grain products 

(primarily non-whole grains) at breakfast than those in either of the non-classroom groups (Exhibit G17).27 The mean difference of about one-half serving was statistically significant. None of the other 

differences in Food Guide Pyramid food group intake at breakfast were nutritionally important (mean 

differences of one-tenth serving or less). 

Food and Nutrient Intake Over 24 Hours 

As shown in Exhibit 6.19, no relationship was found between the school breakfast setting and 

students’ 24-hour intake of food energy or macronutrients (e.g., protein, fat, cholesterol, sodium, 

etc.). Students in treatment schools with classroom breakfast consumed significantly less of most 

vitamins and minerals (relative to the RDA) than students in either non-classroom group. The 

implications of this result are unclear, however, since 24-hour intakes for both groups exceed 100 

percent of the RDA by a wide margin (Exhibit 6.19). 

There were a handful of significant differences in students’ 24-hour intakes of Food Guide Pyramid 

food groups by location of school breakfast, but few were large enough to be nutritionally significant 

(Exhibit G-18). The finding of more servings of non-whole grains at breakfast among the classroom 

breakfast group was not replicated over 24-hours, although these students consumed slightly fewer 

servings of whole grains than the non-classroom groups (1 serving versus 1.1 to 1.2 servings) and 

were the least likely to meet the daily recommendation for dietary fiber (Exhibit 6.19). 

 

27 This finding is somewhat unexpected, given that (1) the SBPP Implementation Study found fewer 

grains/breads offered in treatment versus control school breakfasts overall, and (2) treatment classroom 

breakfasts included significantly fewer grain/bread items than non-classroom treatment breakfasts 

(McLaughlin et al., 2002). One reason for this apparent discrepancy is that factors other than the breakfast 

foods offered affected students choices and the amounts of grain products they actually consumed. 

Another is the difference in how servings of grains/breads were measured for the analysis of breakfast 

menus and breakfast intakes, the latter being Food Guide Pyramid servings which count the grain-based 

ingredients in almost all food items. 
112 Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 

Exhibit 6.17 

Percent of Students Eating Breakfast on a Typical Day, by Availability of Breakfast at School 

 Treatment Schools 

Control 

Schools 

Classroom 

Nonclassroom2 Non-classroom2

Breakfast Type1 Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE 

Significant 

Differences

Any food or beverage 

(Definition 1) 

98.33% (0.63) 96.72% (0.50) 96.60% (0.45) 

Food from at least two 

main food groups3

 and 

>10% RDA for food 

energy (Definition 2) 

85.24 (1.73) 80.38 (1.11) 75.30 (1.06) b,c 

Food from at least two 

main food groups3

 and 

>15% RDA for food 

energy (Definition 3) 

70.95 (2.22) 61.45 (1.36) 58.74 (1.21) a,b 

Number of Students4 420 1279 1648 

RDA = Recommended Dietary Allowance 

1

 All three definitions of breakfast include all food and beverages, excluding water, reported consumed between 5:00 a.m. and 45

minutes after the start of school, and foods consumed up to 10:30 a.m. that the student/parent reported as being part of 

breakfast. 

2

 Non-classroom locations are primarily school cafeterias. 3

 The five main food groups are milk and milk products, meat and meat alternates, grain products, fruit and fruit juices, and 

vegetables and vegetable juices. 4

 Includes students who skipped breakfast. 

a Difference between Treatment Classroom and Treatment Non-classroom is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

b Difference between Treatment Classroom and Control Non-classroom is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

c Difference between Treatment Non-classroom and Control Non-classroom is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

Source: Impact Study⎯24-Hour Dietary Recall Interview, Spring 2001 
Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 113 

Exhibit 6.18 

Percent of Students Eating More Than One Breakfast, by Availability of Breakfast at School 

 Treatment Schools 

Control 

Schools 

Classroom 

Nonclassroom2 Non-classroom2

Breakfast Type1 Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE 

Significant 

Differences

Any food or beverage 

(Definition 1) 

30.24% (2.24) 15.64% (1.02) 10.25% (0.75) a,b,c 

Food from at least two 

main food groups3

 and 

>10% RDA for food 

energy (Definition 2) 

12.14 (1.60) 5.08 (0.61) 3.52 (0.45) a,b 

Food from at least two 

main food groups3

 and 

>15% RDA for food 

energy (Definition 3) 

7.38 (1.40) 2.58 (0.48) 2.25 (0.37) a,b 

Number of Students4 420 1279 1648 

RDA = Recommended Dietary Allowance 

1

 All three definitions of breakfast include all food and beverages, excluding water, reported consumed between 5:00 a.m. and 45

minutes after the start of school, and foods consumed up to 10:30 a.m. that the student/parent reported as being part of 

breakfast. 

2

 Non-classroom locations are primarily school cafeterias. 3

 The five main food groups are milk and milk products, meat and meat alternates, grain products, fruit and fruit juices, and 

vegetables and vegetable juices. 4

 Includes students who skipped breakfast. 

Exhibit reads: “Of those students in treatment schools that offer classroom breakfast, 30 percent consumed a breakfast from 

school and at least one other source, both consisting of any food or beverage other than water.” 

Note: Percentages include only those students for whom one source of breakfast food was the school breakfast. Almost all of 

these students consumed additional breakfast foods at home versus some other source. 

a Difference between Treatment Classroom and Treatment Non-classroom is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

b Difference between Treatment Classroom and Control Non-classroom is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

c Difference between Treatment Non-classroom and Control Non-classroom is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

Source: Impact Study⎯24-Hour Dietary Recall Interview, Spring 2001 
114 Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 

Exhibit 6.19 

Mean Food Energy and Nutrient Intake Over 24 Hours, by Availability of Breakfast at School

Treatment Schools Control Schools 

Classroom Non-classroom1 Non-classroom1

Dietary Component Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE 

Significant 

Differences 

Food energy (as % 1989 RDA) 101.55 (1.39) 99.84 (0.82) 101.94 (0.74) 

Protein (as % 1989 RDA) 242.29 (4.61) 241.31 (2.53) 247.77 (2.39) 

Percent of Food Energy from: 

Total fat 32.31 (0.31) 31.42 (0.19) 32.03 (0.16) c 

Saturated fat 11.86 (0.15) 11.69 (0.09) 11.95 (0.08) 

Carbohydrate 54.62 (0.37) 55.59 (0.22) 54.97 (0.19) 

Protein 14.31 (0.18) 14.48 (0.10) 14.45 (0.09) 

Vitamins (as percent of RDA)2

Vitamin A 149.48 (4.48) 170.02 (2.73) 164.29 (2.43) a,b 

Vitamin C 219.82 (8.79) 265.81 (6.32) 259.46 (5.27) a,b 

Vitamin B6 204.48 (5.85) 223.21 (3.47) 221.37 (2.84) a,b 

Vitamin B12 277.01 (8.26) 303.49 (4.89) 311.57 (6.44) b 

Niacin 197.01 (4.55) 212.19 (2.81) 210.68 (2.33) a,b 

Thiamin 231.68 (5.07) 247.27 (2.97) 244.95 (2.59) a 

Riboflavin 291.11 (6.66) 316.10 (3.73) 311.58 (3.34) a,b 

Folate 137.44 (3.35) 154.24 (2.15) 149.56 (1.75) a,b 

Minerals (as percent of RDA)2

Calcium 127.87 (3.10) 136.30 (1.74) 135.65 (1.61) 

Calcium (as percent of AI) 120.84 (2.96) 129.73 (1.68) 128.78 (1.54) a,b 

Iron 173.17 (3.48) 183.05 (2.42) 182.38 (2.26) 

Magnesium 123.91 (2.79) 138.25 (1.88) 135.85 (1.52) a,b 

Phosphorous 151.17 (4.51) 164.94 (2.73) 162.21 (2.35) a,b 

Zinc 162.55 (4.22) 173.90 (2.43) 173.72 (2.16) a,b 

Other Dietary Components 

Cholesterol (mg) 204.50 (7.01) 201.63 (3.84) 214.32 (4.01) 

Sodium (mg) 3244.12 (54.46) 3235.32 (34.04) 3283.14 (31.46) 

Fiber (gm) 13.45 (0.26) 14.26 (0.18) 14.24 (0.16) 

Fiber (as percent of age-plus-5 

gm) 

93.85 (1.87) 101.04 (1.30) 100.41 (1.11) a,b 

Number of Students3 420 1279 1648 

RDA = Recommended Dietary Allowance 

1

 Non-classroom locations are primarily school cafeterias. 2

 Mean intakes of vitamins and minerals, except for calcium, are presented as a percent of the RDAs based on the Dietary 

Reference Intakes (DRIs), Recommended Intakes for Individuals. For calcium, mean intake is presented both as a percent of the 

1989 RDA and the DRI-based Adequate Intake (AI). 3

 Includes students who skipped breakfast. 

a Difference between Treatment Classroom and Treatment Non-classroom is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

b Difference between Treatment Classroom and Control Non-classroom is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

c Difference between Treatment Non-classroom and Control Non-classroom is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

Source: Impact Study⎯24-Hour Dietary Recall Interview, Spring 2001 
Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 115 

The availability of classroom breakfast was associated with a small but significantly greater breakfast 

contribution to total daily intakes of food energy, total fat and saturated fat (as a percent of food 

energy), and sodium for students in treatment schools compared with students in both of the nonclassroom groups. There were a handful of other significant differences between classroom and nonclassroom students, but no clear pattern was observed (see Exhibit G-19). 

Usual 24-Hour Dietary Intake 

Results of analyses of usual food energy and nutrient intake are provided in Appendix G (Exhibits G20 through G-22). No significant differences were observed across the three groups in the percent of 

students whose usual 24-hour intake met standards for nutrient adequacy (for food energy, protein, 

and vitamins and minerals). Similarly, no statistically significant relationship was found between the 

location of breakfast at school and the proportion of students’ whose usual intake met other dietary 

recommendations (e.g., Dietary Guidelines goals for total fat and saturated fat). 

Students offered universal-free school breakfast in the classroom had significantly lower mean usual 

intakes of calcium (as a percent of AI), and lower calcium intakes at the 5th and 50th percentile of the 

distribution than the non-classroom breakfast students. This finding is not particularly meaningful 

since most students in all three groups were consuming considerably more than the calcium AI level 

(Exhibit G-21). 

Analyses of Nutrition Outcomes by Household Income 

The first year report of findings from the SBPP provided some insights into the impacts of the 

availability of universal-free school breakfast as well as actual participation, among students from 

low-income families. There was no clear pattern in the observed effects on the nutrition and other 

outcomes assessed for students eligible for free or reduced-price school meals (household incomes at 

or below 185 percent of the federal poverty level) relative to students with higher household incomes 

(paid-eligible status). The higher income group (i.e., paid-eligible status) actually experienced the 

greatest gains in school breakfast participation as a result of the intervention (McLaughlin et al., 

2002). 

A series of analyses were conducted to compare nutrition outcomes across children with household 

incomes that would place them in one of the three school meals eligibility groups: free, reducedpriced, or paid. The type of school breakfast available or consumed (universal-free versus regular 

SBP) was not considered in these analyses. The nutrition outcomes examined include breakfast 

consumption and dietary intake on a given day, and usual dietary intake. Results suggest that 

household income is not strongly associated with these outcomes among students in the SBPP 

sample. 

Measures and Analytic Variables 

As for previous analyses described in this chapter, data from the 24-hour dietary recall were used to 

construct measures of dietary intake. Household income, in relation to the federal poverty level, was 
116 Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 

determined on the basis of Parent Survey responses to questions on household size and income.28 

Students were then classified into one of three groups: 

 1. Less than 130 percent of poverty: students who would be classified as eligible for free 

meals; 

 2. Between 130 and 185 percent of poverty: students who would be classified as eligible 

for reduced-price meals; or 

 3. Above 185% of poverty: students who would be classified as eligible for paid meals. 

The full set of nutrition outcome measures (breakfast consumption, target day food and nutrient 

intake, and usual dietary intake) were examined. All students for whom both dietary data and income 

information were available are included in the breakfast analyses (n = 3,270). Twenty-four-hour 

outcomes include only those students who completed a full 24-hour recall (n = 3,217).29

Findings 

Results of the analyses of nutrition outcomes by household income are discussed below. Very few 

significant differences between income groups were observed. Additional tabulations of results can 

be found in Appendix G. 

Breakfast Consumption 

Findings on the relationship between household income and the likelihood of consuming breakfast on 

a given day are presented in Exhibit G-23. The percent of students who ate any breakfast or a 

substantive breakfast (Definition 2 or 3) on the target day did not vary by income group/school meal 

eligibility status. 

A student was identified as eating more than one breakfast if breakfast food was obtained from school 

and at least one other source (e.g., home, other). Exhibit 6.20 shows that a significantly larger share 

of students in either of the two lower income groups ate more than one (non-substantive) breakfast 

than those with household incomes above 185 percent of poverty. There were no differences in the 

percent of students eating two or more substantive breakfasts (Definition 2) between the three income 

groups. 

Food and Nutrient Intake at Breakfast 

Findings for the comparisons of food energy and nutrient intake at breakfast are shown in Exhibit 

6.21. Mean food energy intake did not differ, but we observed lower mean intakes of a handful of 

other dietary components among students in the lowest income group (below 130 percent of poverty) 

 

28 Note that income data were collected for the year 2000, corresponding roughly with the baseline period for 

the SBPP. Household income may have changed for some students by the end of the first year of SBPP 

implementation when dietary data were collected (Spring 2001). 

29 The sample is distributed as follows: 27 percent with income less than 130 percent of poverty, 16 percent 

with income between 130 and 185 percent of poverty, and 57 percent with income above 185 percent of 

poverty. 
Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 117 

Exhibit 6.20 

Percent of Students Eating More Than One Breakfast, by Household Income, Relative to the 

Federal Poverty Level 

<130% 130-185% >185% 

Breakfast Type1

Percent SE Percent SE Percent SE 

Significant 

Differences 

Any food or beverage 

(Definition 1) 

20.49% (1.35) 18.59% (1.72) 12.65% (0.77) b,c 

Food from at least two main 

food groups2

 and >10% RDA 

for food energy (Definition 2) 

6.16 (0.80) 6.85 (1.12) 4.56 (0.48) 

Food from at least two main 

food groups2

 and >15% RDA 

for food energy (Definition 3) 

3.81 (0.64) 3.52 (0.82) 2.09 (0.33) b 

Number of Students3 893 511 1866 

RDA = Recommended Dietary Allowance 

1

 All three definitions of breakfast include all food and beverages, excluding water, reported consumed between 5:00 a.m. and 45

minutes after the start of school, and foods consumed up to 10:30 a.m. that the student/parent reported as being part of 

breakfast. 

2

 The five main food groups are milk and milk products, meat and meat alternates, grain products, fruit and fruit juices, and 

vegetables and vegetable juices. 3

 Includes students who skipped breakfast. 

Exhibit reads: “Of those students with household income below 130 percent of poverty, 20 percent consumed a breakfast from 

school and at least one other source, both consisting of any food or beverage other than water.” 

Note: Percentages include only those students for whom one source of breakfast food was the school breakfast. Almost all of 

these students consumed additional breakfast foods at home versus some other source. 

a Difference between <130% and 130-185% is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

b Difference between <130% and >185% is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

c Difference between 130-185% and >185% is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

Source: Impact Study⎯24-Hour Dietary Recall Interview, Spring 2001 
118 Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 

Exhibit 6.21 

Mean Food Energy and Nutrient Intake at Breakfast, by Household Income, Relative to the Federal 

Poverty Level 

<130% 130-185% >185% 

Dietary Component Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE 

Significant 

Differences 

Food energy (as % 1989 RDA) 20.81 (0.42) 21.57 (0.55) 20.86 (0.29) 

Protein (as % 1989 RDA) 41.97 (0.95) 44.87 (1.34) 42.76 (0.71) 

Percent of Food Energy from: 

Total fat 24.19 (0.42) 24.97 (0.57) 23.38 (0.29) c 

Saturated fat 9.70 (0.19) 9.98 (0.24) 9.27 (0.13) c 

Carbohydrate 65.43 (0.51) 64.38 (0.67) 66.33 (0.36) c 

Protein 12.14 (0.16) 12.39 (0.20) 12.20 (0.12) 

Vitamins (as percent of RDA)1 

Vitamin A 57.87 (1.66) 65.44 (2.46) 62.14 (1.25) a 

Vitamin C 85.71 (3.65) 86.71 (4.77) 84.78 (2.70) 

Vitamin B6 76.05 (2.48) 82.89 (3.49) 78.71 (1.81) 

Vitamin B12 92.43 (3.19) 104.61 (5.06) 98.85 (2.58) 

Niacin 57.12 (1.71) 61.86 (2.50) 60.83 (1.31) 

Thiamin 76.02 (1.97) 80.60 (2.72) 79.22 (1.40) 

Riboflavin 106.39 (2.74) 114.83 (3.78) 111.03 (1.95) 

Folate 48.30 (1.30) 52.18 (1.91) 52.36 (1.05) 

Minerals (as percent of RDA)1 

Calcium 36.64 (0.88) 38.00 (1.23) 37.29 (0.67) 

Calcium (as percent of AI) 34.84 (0.85) 36.10 (1.18) 35.44 (0.64) 

Iron 58.89 (1.78) 65.70 (2.59) 65.75 (1.48) b 

Magnesium 31.95 (0.85) 32.89 (1.07) 32.40 (0.63) 

Phosphorous 37.77 (1.12) 39.80 (1.48) 38.48 (0.79) 

Zinc 47.51 (1.55) 55.74 (2.57) 52.90 (1.30) a,b 

Other Dietary Components 

Cholesterol (mg) 41.05 (2.71) 54.73 (5.16) 44.46 (2.23) a 

Sodium (mg) 512.82 (13.06) 575.93 (19.14) 564.84 (10.50) a,b 

Fiber (gm) 2.50 (0.08) 2.61 (0.11) 2.60 (0.06) 

Fiber (as percent of age-plus-5 gm) 17.63 (0.56) 18.47 (0.77) 18.32 (0.40) 

Number of Students2 893 511 1866 

RDA = Recommended Dietary Allowance 

1

 Mean intakes of vitamins and minerals, except for calcium, are presented as a percent of the RDAs based on the Dietary Reference 

Intakes (DRIs), Recommended Intakes for Individuals. For calcium, mean intake is presented both as a percent of the 1989 RDA and 

the DRI-based Adequate Intake (AI). 

2

 Includes students who skipped breakfast. 

a Difference between <130% and 130-185% is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

b Difference between <130% and >185% is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

c Difference between 130-185% and >185% is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

Source: Impact Study⎯24-Hour Dietary Recall Interview, Spring 2001 
Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 119 

relative to one or both of the other two groups. Differences were significant for vitamin A, iron, zinc, 

cholesterol, and sodium.30

Students’ breakfast intakes of the Food Guide Pyramid food groups were similar, with one exception, 

regardless of household income. Those with household incomes below 130 percent of poverty 

consumed slightly more fruit at breakfast than students in either of the other two income groups 

(Exhibit G-25). Although statistically significant, this difference amounts to only one tenth of a 

serving, on average. 

Food and Nutrient Intake Over 24 Hours 

Virtually no differences in 24-hour food energy or nutrient intake were observed between income 

groups. With regard to food groups, students with household incomes below 130 percent of poverty 

consumed slightly but significantly fewer servings of whole grains and added sugars than those with 

incomes above 185 percent of poverty. Results of these analyses are provided as Exhibits G-26 and 

G-27. 

Exhibit 6.22 shows that breakfast contributed somewhat less toward the daily intake of selected 

vitamins and minerals (e.g., vitamin A, folate, iron, zinc) among students with incomes under 130 

percent of poverty compared with other students. The differences for zinc, iron, and possibly folate 

appear to be related to the consumption of smaller amounts of breakfast cereals among the lower 

income groups. 

Usual 24-Hour Dietary Intake 

Results of analyses of usual food energy and nutrient intake are provided in Exhibits G-28 through G30. No significant differences were observed across the three income groups in the percent of 

students whose usual 24-hour dietary intake met standards for nutrient adequacy or other dietary 

recommendations (e.g., Dietary Guidelines goals for total fat and saturated fat). 

The significant differences in mean usual intake of food energy and protein (as a percent of RDA), 

and for calcium (as a percent of AI) are small, especially in light of the high mean intakes of protein 

and calcium across all three groups (Exhibit G-29). 

Household Characteristics of Food Secure and Food Insecure 

Households 

Household food security was one of the outcome measures included in the Spring 2001 data 

collection for this evaluation. As reported in the first year findings (McLaughlin et al., 2002), neither 

the availability of nor participation in universal-free school breakfast had an impact on household 

food security. Because of the importance of the issue and the opportunity provided by this sample of 

 

30 Additional analyses were conducted to determine if the availability of universal-free school breakfast had a 

differential impact on breakfast intake for the three income groups. Results are presented in Appendix G, 

Exhibits G-24a-c. Notable findings include significantly higher mean intakes of several vitamins and 

minerals among treatment students with income below 130 percent of poverty compared with their controls 

(p < .01 to .05). 
120 Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 

Exhibit 6.22 

Percent Contribution of Breakfast to Nutrient Intake Over 24 Hours, by Household Income, 

Relative to the Federal Poverty Level 

<130% 130-185% >185% 

Dietary Component Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE 

Significant 

Differences 

Food energy 20.60% (0.37) 21.23% (0.46) 20.23% (0.23) 

Macronutrients: 

Protein 17.02 (0.36) 18.50 (0.49) 17.75 (0.25) 

Total fat 16.78 (0.44) 17.19 (0.57) 15.78 (0.27) 

Saturated fat 17.82 (0.47) 18.47 (0.61) 16.81 (0.30) 

Carbohydrate 24.00 (0.42) 24.51 (0.54) 23.55 (0.27) 

Vitamins 

Vitamin A 34.78 (0.73) 39.00 (1.04) 36.35 (0.54) a 

Vitamin C 30.70 (0.89) 33.35 (1.20) 29.96 (0.61) c 

Vitamin B6 31.05 (0.68) 34.47 (0.90) 32.31 (0.48) a 

Vitamin B12 28.37 (0.71) 31.33 (0.96) 29.99 (0.53) 

Niacin 25.87 (0.57) 28.53 (0.75) 27.05 (0.39) a 

Thiamin 30.01 (0.55) 32.01 (0.71) 30.78 (0.36) 

Riboflavin 32.68 (0.57) 34.96 (0.76) 33.29 (0.40) 

Folate 30.97 (0.62) 33.67 (0.83) 33.00 (0.42) a,b 

Minerals: 

Calcium 27.10 (0.57) 28.49 (0.76) 27.00 (0.40) 

Iron 30.50 (0.62) 33.31 (0.83) 32.61 (0.43) a,b 

Magnesium 23.00 (0.43) 23.94 (0.56) 23.07 (0.30) 

Phosphorous 22.43 (0.43) 24.07 (0.59) 22.98 (0.31) 

Zinc 25.71 (0.59) 28.63 (0.82) 27.71 (0.44) a,b 

Other Dietary Components 

Cholesterol 17.09 (0.62) 19.09 (0.94) 18.08 (0.46) 

Sodium 16.42 (0.38) 17.95 (0.55) 17.34 (0.26) 

Fiber 17.46 (0.44) 18.45 (0.59) 18.16 (0.31) 

Number of Students1 872 508 1837 

1

 Includes students who skipped breakfast. 

a Difference between <130% and 130-185% is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

b Difference between <130% and >185% is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

c Difference between 130-185% and >185% is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

Source: Impact Study⎯24-Hour Dietary Recall Interview, Spring 2001 
Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 121 

elementary school students, additional analyses on the food security measure were conducted. 

Specifically, analyses were run to examine the relationship between household food security and 

student and family characteristics. 

Measure and Analytic Variables 

As described in McLaughlin et al., (2002), the Household Food Security Scale is a continuous, linear 

scale that measures the degree of severity of food insecurity in a household in terms of a single 

numerical value. The 18 items on the scale have a 12-month reference period. The scale includes 

both qualitative and quantitative aspects of the household’s food supply (e.g., well-balanced meals, 

how often the money for food ran out), as well as psychological and behavioral responses by 

household members to the supply of food (e.g., worrying about the food supply, limiting the kinds of 

food purchased). The scale of food insecurity is expressed by numerical values from 0 to 10, and 

describes the stages of food insecurity from “food secure” (score of 0) to “food insecure with hunger” 

at its most severe (score of 10). 

Two characteristics of the Household Scale should be noted. First, the measure reflects the 

household’s experience over the previous 12 months. Thus, a household would be considered food 

insecure even if there had been only a short period of food insecurity over the course of the year. 

Second, it is a household measure, and not designed for assessing individual-level estimates of food 

insecurity. 

The set of analyses performed for this report included the following student and household 

characteristics: school meal eligibility status, minority status, body mass index of the student, 

household size, income level, status as single-parent household, and parent education. The analyses 

describe the characteristics for each level of food security, e.g., students from food secure households 

are more likely to be eligible for paid meals, be nonminority, etc.31 

Findings 

Exhibit 6.23 provides the results of the analyses of food security status by household characteristics. 

Except for household size, the results suggest a fairly linear relationship between food security status 

and the household characteristics used in the analysis. In general, the higher the level of food 

insecurity, the more likely it is that the household has that characteristic (or less likely in the case of 

“percent of incomes greater than 70,000 per year,” “percent two-income households,” or “percent 

college degree or above”). For example, 31 percent of those students from households who are food 

secure were at risk for overweight versus 37 percent for students from food insecure without hunger 

households. Similarly, 40 percent of food secure households were eligible for free and reduced-price 

meals. The likelihood of becoming eligible increases considerably as one becomes more food 

insecure: 86 percent for food insecure without hunger, and 92 percent for food insecure with 

moderate hunger. 

 

31 Another set of analyses was run to describe the proportion of students with specific characteristics for all 

four levels of food security, so that one could report, for example, that 95 percent of the students eligible 

for paid school meals were food secure, compared with 61 percent of those eligible for free and reduced 

price meals. A set of bar graphs (Exhibit G-34 through G-44) depicting the household characteristics of 

students at each level of food security appears in Appendix G. 
122 Results of Non-Experimental Analyses Exhibit 6.23 Food Security Status, by Household Characteristic Food Secure Food Insecure without Hunger Food Insecure with Moderate Hunger Food Ins

Severe 

Background Characteristics Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean School Meal Eligibility Status Percent free/reduced lunch 39.8 (1.0) 86.0 (1.5) 91.6 (2.1) 100.0 Ethnicity Percent minority 32.5 (0.9) 53.3 (2.2) 52.3 (3.7) 45.3 BMI Percent at risk for overweight 31.1 (0.9) 36.9 (2.1) 37.6 (3.6) 39.6 Percent overweight 15.5 (0.7) 20.2 (1.8) 20.2 (3.0) 24.5 Household Size Average number of people in household 4.4 (0.03) 4.9 (0.07) 4.9 (0.1) 5.0 Average number of children in household 2.5 (0.02) 2.8 (0.06) 3.1 (0.1) 3.2 Income Percent <$20,000 per year 10.7 (0.6) 37.8 (2.1) 47.8 (3.7) 60.4 Percent >$70,000 per year 26.3 (0.9) 1.9 (0.6) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 Percent two-income households 56.2 (1.0) 36.8 (2.1) 24.7 (3.2) 22.6 Family Structure Percent single-parent families 20.8 (0.8) 33.5 (2.0) 48.3 (3.8) 54.7 Education of Parent/Guardian Percent < high school degree 7.1 (0.5) 23.6 (1.8) 23.6 (3.2) 22.6 Percent college degree or above 36.4 (0.9) 13.6 (1.9) 10.1 (2.3) 15.1 Number of Students 2609 535 178 53 a = Difference between Food Secure and Food Insecure without Hunger is statistically significant at the .05 level. b = Difference between Food Secure and Food Insecure with Moderate Hunger is statistically significant at the .05 level. c = Difference between Food Secure and Food Insecure with Severe Hunger is statistically significant at the .05 level. d = Difference between Food Insecure without Hunger and Food Insecure with Moderate Hunger is statistically significant at the .05 level. e = Difference between Food Insecure without Hunger and Food Insecure with Severe Hunger is statistically significant at the .05 level. f = Difference between Food Insecure with Moderate Hunger and Food Insecure with Severe Hunger is statistically significant at the .05 level. Source: Impact Study

⎯Parent Survey and Height and Weight Measures, Spring 2001 
Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 123 

School Breakfast Participation Patterns in Treatment Schools and 

Their Relationship to Student Demographic Characteristics 

Participation in universal-free school breakfast was considered a key outcome measure in terms of 

determining impacts on students and schools. Additionally, as reported earlier, there was an overall 

moderate increase in participation, on the order of about 16 percentage points in the first year of the 

SBPP, which was maintained over the subsequent two years of the pilot. However, not all students 

followed this pattern, and some never participated. It was thus of interest to determine if there were 

particular patterns of school breakfast participation followed over the course of the SBPP, and 

whether or not there were students with certain demographic characteristics that followed a particular 

participation pattern 

Measures and Analytic Variables 

The participation data described in the “Impacts on School Breakfast Participation” section of 

Chapter Five were used in this analysis. The first step was to develop a set of plots (with frequencies) 

that identified participation patterns for treatment school students only. Another set of analyses was 

run to explore whether patterns of participation among treatment school students were related to 

demographic characteristics of students. Treatment school students with three or four data points 

(baseline and Year 1 were required, plus Year 2 and/or 3) were included in this analysis. 

Growth curve analyses were also run on the data for treatment school students, separately for each 

demographic subgroup (defined by school meal eligibility status, minority status, gender and age), to 

answer the question of whether the rates of change (or slopes) in school breakfast participation were 

different for males versus females, minority versus nonminority, etc., across the three years of SBPP 

implementation. 

Findings 

The most frequent patterns of participation for students with data for baseline and all three 

implementation years are presented in Appendix G (pages G-37 through G-40). Across the entire 

sample of treatment school students with four data points (n = 853), two patterns occurred most 

frequently. Thirty-three percent stayed at roughly the same level of participation that they had at 

baseline (i.e., increasing or decreasing participation by less than 20 percent). Eighteen percent 

increased participation between baseline and Year 1 by over 20 percent, and maintained this increased 

participation level for Years 2 and 3. 

Our analyses found little relationship between participation and demographic characteristics. 

Minority status and school meals eligibility were related to participation at baseline, but these 

demographic factors were not related to the amount of change from baseline to Year 1, Year 1 to Year 

2, or Year 2 to Year 3. 

Exhibit 6.24 shows the results of the growth curve analyses for breakfast participation for each of the 

four demographic characteristics. There were no significant differences in the growth curve analyses 

for gender, minority status, and school meal eligibility status, indicating that the rate of change did 

not differ for these variables (e.g., males had the same rates of change in participation as females for 

each of the years assessed). Only age (grades 1 and 2 versus grades 3 or above) was significant, 

mainly due to changes in participation among younger students (grades 1 and 2) from baseline to 
124 Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 

Exhibit 6.24 

Change in School Breakfast Participation in Treatment Schools, by Demographic 

Characteristics1

Change 

Percentage 

Points SE 

Percentage 

Points SE 

School Meal Eligibility Status Paid Free/Reduced 

Baseline to Year 1 

23.3 

n=861 (1.0) 23.8 

n=915 (1.0) 

Year 1 to Year 2 3.2 

n=624 (1.1) 0.8 

n=648 (1.1) 

Year 2 to Year 3 −4.3 

n=458 (1.3) −2.8 n=421 (1.4) 

Minority Status Non-white White 

Baseline to Year 1 

24.0 

n=657 (1.2) 23.3 

n=1119 (0.9) 

Year 1 to Year 2 1.6 

n=452 (1.3) 2.2 

n=820 (1.0) 

Year 2 to Year 3 −4.3 

n=323 (1.6) −3.1 n=556 (1.2) 

Gender Female Male 

Baseline to Year 1 

23.5 

n=938 (1.0) 23.6 

n=838 (1.0) 

Year 1 to Year 2 0.9 

n=693 (1.1) 3.3 

n=579 (1.2) 

Year 2 to Year 3 −3.7 

n=488 (1.3) −3.2 n=391 (1.4) 

Age Older2 Younger3

Baseline to Year 1 

22.2* 

n=813 (1.1) 24.7 

n=963 (1.0) 

Year 1 to Year 2 1.7 

n=457 (1.3) 2.0 

n=815 (1.0) 

Year 2 to Year 3 −3.1 

n=160 (2.1) −3.9 

n=719 (1.1) 

1

 Change is expressed in terms of the percentage point difference in school breakfast participation from year to year. For 

example, if baseline school breakfast participation is 7 percent and it increases to 30 percent in Year 1, the change is 

presented as 23 percentage points. 

2

 Older students: grades 3, 4, and 5 during SY 1999-2000. 

3

 Younger students: grades 1 and 2 during SY 1999-2000. 

*Difference between older and younger students is statistically significant at the .05 level. 

Source: Impact Study⎯ Student-Level School Breakfast Participation Data, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-

2003. 
Results of Non-Experimental Analyses 125 

Year 1 (Exhibit 6.25). They had the lowest level of school breakfast participation at baseline and the 

biggest jump to Year 1. The analyses of the change from Year 1 to Year 2 and from Year 2 to Year 3 

for these younger students, however, did not reveal any further significant change. Thus, this set of 

demographic variables does not seem to predict change in school breakfast participation from year to 

year, except in the case of the younger students at baseline. 
126 Results of Non-Experimental Analyses Abt Associates Inc. Exhibit 6.25 Plot of Treatment School Breakfast Participation Over Time, by Age

0

1020304050

Baseline Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Percent Participation 

Sources: Impact Study – School-Level School Breakfast Participation Data, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, and 2002-2003. 

Time Period: School Year: Young/Old N: 

1999-2000 

372 / 380 

2000-2001

353 / 366 

2001-2002

306 / 326 

2002-2003

250 / 276 
Discussion of Findings 127 

Chapter Seven 

Discussion of Findings 

The School Breakfast Program Pilot Project (SBPP) was a three-year effort to understand the 

implementation and impact of universal-free school breakfast in elementary schools across the 

United States. Six school districts participated in the SBPP, representing rural, suburban, and urban 

areas that served families with a range of incomes, and overall provided a racial and ethnic mix that 

represented the country as a whole. In about half of the elementary schools in each of the six 

districts, free breakfast was available to all students, regardless of income. The remaining elementary 

schools continued to offer students the regular School Breakfast Program (SBP). The school districts 

maintained this commitment for three school years, from 2000-2001 through 2002-2003. 

The evaluation of the SBPP is a Congressionally mandated study that gathered data from a baseline 

school year, the year before the SBPP was implemented, and for the three years of SBPP 

implementation. An experimental design was used, with the schools in each district first matched on 

a number of characteristics (e.g., average enrollment, school meal eligibility status) and then 

randomly assigned to either treatment (universal-free school breakfast) or control (regular SBP) 

status. The evaluation focused on both the implementation and impact of the SBPP. 

The Implementation Study gathered data primarily through site visits and telephone interviews in 

Spring 2001, toward the end of the first year, and in Spring 2003, toward the end of the pilot. 

The objectives of the Implementation Study were to document how universal-free school breakfast 

was implemented and to assess the effect of implementation on paperwork, costs, and other 

administrative requirements in participating schools. The objectives of the Impact Study were to 

determine the effects of universal-free school breakfast on school breakfast participation and on an 

array of student outcomes, including dietary intake, school attendance and tardiness, classroom 

behavior and discipline, and academic achievement. The Impact Study sample included about 4,300 

students attending grades 2 through 6 in the 153 schools in the study. Data were collected for this 

student-level sample and, for a more limited set of measures, for the entire school. In Spring 2001, 

toward the end of the first year of SBPP implementation, data were gathered from students, parents, 

and teachers, as well as from school records. In the baseline and final two years of the SBPP, school 

record data were collected again for the school and student sample. Response rates were generally 

high, ranging from 80 to 100 percent for the first year of data collection, and from 71 to 100 percent 

in subsequent years. 

The findings following the first year of SBPP implementation (SY 2000-2001) are presented fully in 

a separate report (McLaughlin et al., 2002). In the current report, these first year findings are 

summarized and presented along with findings from Years 2 and the 3 of SBPP implementation (SY 

2001-2002 and SY 2002-2003). 

Universal-free breakfast offered the promise of overcoming some of the perceived barriers to 

participation in school breakfast, in particular, the perceived stigma associated with participation 

(Food Research and Action Center, 2003). However, the cost for implementing universal-free school 

breakfast nationwide is considerable, estimated in 2000 by FNS to be between $1 billion and $3 

billion annually. There is thus a need to know whether providing free breakfast to students regardless 
128 Discussion of Findings 

of income has important benefits not realized through the regular SBP as it is currently implemented. 

Hence, this evaluation was not a study of the impacts of breakfast or of school breakfast. The key 

question asked was whether SBPP led to improved outcomes when compared to the status quo, the 

regular SBP. 

Implementation Study Findings 

The findings with respect to the two Implementation Study objectives are presented below. The 

findings are summarized for all three years of the pilot. 

• Document the various ways in which schools choose to implement universal-free 

school breakfast. 

The SBPP provided the six school districts in this evaluation a great amount of autonomy in how they 

implemented universal-free school breakfast in their treatment schools, and indeed each district 

tailored the pilot program to its local context. The decision to apply to be a part of the SBPP was 

made at the district level, but once the districts were chosen, most of the key program decisions were 

made at the school level. 

In general, SBPP implementation went smoothly. For the most part, schools were able to get the pilot 

up and running in a matter of weeks, despite the short interval between the selection of school 

districts and the start of school. Some schools implementing universal-free school breakfast had to 

adopt new procedures for delivering and serving food, collecting trash, and keeping records. In 

general, however, these issues did not cause major problems for SBPP implementation. 

Determining whether breakfast would or would not be eaten in the classroom turned out to be a key 

decision, as participation was much higher for students with the classroom breakfast option. Of the 

79 treatment schools, 14 served breakfasts that were eaten in the classroom in Year 3 of the SBPP, 

down from 18 in Year 1. For twelve schools, breakfast was consistently eaten in the classroom over 

the three pilot years. 

Classroom breakfast seemed to pose some particular challenges requiring extra effort by school staff, 

including teachers and custodians. School administrators appear to have been conflicted by the 

attraction of achieving increased rates of school breakfast participation by offering free breakfast in 

the classroom, and the drawbacks of adding to the workload of staff (e.g., teachers and custodians). 

Though based on a small sample, teachers who had not experienced breakfast in the classroom were 

generally opposed to the idea, while teachers who had had breakfast in the classroom were much 

more supportive. Notably, while a primary concern anticipated for classroom implementation was 

loss of teacher preparation time or instruction time, Year 1 interviews (Spring 2001) with teachers in 

schools with classroom breakfast reported little or no effect. 

Administrators, school staff, parents, and students were generally pleased with universal-free school 

breakfast. When interviewed near the end of the pilot in Spring 2003, principals said that the 

experience with universal-free school breakfast had been positive or very positive. Although 

administrators had expected negative reactions from parents, this never occurred. 
Discussion of Findings 129 

• Assess the effect of universal-free school breakfast on paperwork, costs, and other 

administrative requirements. 

There was little evidence that the implementation of universal-free school breakfast had any impact 

on administrative paperwork. The majority of SFA directors, cafeteria workers, and principals 

reported no effects on paperwork or administrative reporting. Eight-seven percent of treatment 

school principals reported that the SBPP had no effect on the accuracy and integrity of record 

keeping. A little over a third of the 14 principals in schools with classroom breakfast thought that the 

SBPP did, in fact, affect the accuracy or integrity of record keeping, but they were split on whether it 

improved or diminished accuracy. 

Furthermore, there was no evidence from the review of breakfast menus near the end of Year 1 that 

the implementation of universal-free school breakfast had an effect on schools’ compliance with the 

SBP nutrition standards or the degree to which the breakfasts served to students met other dietary 

recommendations. 

Cost data gathered for the first year of SBPP implementation showed that the treatment schools fared 

materially better than the control schools.1

 The analysis of costs found that increased participation 

led to lower per-meal labor costs in treatment schools, with the combined food and labor costs per 

breakfast about 11 percent lower in treatment than in control schools. This per-meal cost was 18 

percent lower than control schools for treatment schools with classroom breakfast. Overall, treatment 

schools, reimbursed at the free meal rate for all breakfasts served, had revenues about 40 percent 

higher than food and labor costs. Control schools, which continued to be reimbursed based on 

participants’ school meal eligibility, had revenues about 28 percent higher than these costs.2

Treatment schools also experienced an increased workload and some need for additional staff. The 

workload of cafeteria staff increased and additional assistance was needed to supervise the increased 

number of breakfast participants. However, these increases stabilized during the second and third 

years of the pilot. 

Impact Study Findings 

The objectives for the Impact Study and the related findings are presented below. 

• Assess the effects of universal-free school breakfast on student participation. 

 

1

 In the Spring 2003 data collection, Implementation Study interviews included questions on cost, but actual 

cost data were collected only in Spring 2001. 

2

 While food and labor costs make up the major share of breakfast costs, other costs, such as supplies, 

contract services, depreciation, and indirect charges by the school district, also would affect this estimate. 

In addition, other minimal sources of revenue, such as à la carte sales, were not included. A prior 

nationally representative study of meal costs (Glantz et al., 1994) found that costs other than food and labor 

added about 12 percent to reported costs in SY 1992-1993. Adding these additional costs, assuming their 

relative size has not changed, narrows the financial advantage enjoyed by treatment schools taking part in 

the SBPP. In the earlier study, food and labor costs exceeded the SY 1992-1993 reimbursement rate for 

free breakfasts. 
130 Discussion of Findings 

School Breakfast participation rose significantly in the first year of the SBPP, increasing by about 16 

percentage points for treatment school students over and above the 1 percentage point increase 

realized for control school students. Participation remained stable for both groups over the second 

and third year of the pilot, with no significant changes in the control group or treatment group over 

this period. 

Results from the first year indicated considerable variation in the participation increase experienced in 

each district. This ranged from 7 percentage points in one district to 34 percentage points in the 

district where school breakfast was eaten in the classroom in treatment schools. Similar to the 

reported findings from Year 1, implementation of universal-free school breakfast led to significant 

district-level increases in participation in treatment schools in both Years 2 and 3 relative to the 

baseline year. In Years 2 and 3, each district also showed net increases in treatment school breakfast 

participation, ranging from about 11 percentage points higher than baseline in Years 2 and 3 to 30 

percentage points higher than baseline in Year 2 for the district with classroom breakfast in most 

treatment schools. 

• Assess the effects of universal-free school breakfast on student outcomes. 

Over the three years of the SBPP, the results revealed no consistent pattern of positive effects on 

student outcomes associated with the availability of universal-free school breakfast. An important 

first step in looking at differences was to look at breakfast consumption and food and nutrient intake 

at breakfast and over 24 hours, since the consumption of a nutritious breakfast serves as a potential 

pathway for all other short- and long-term outcomes. Data collection toward the end of Year 1 found 

that the rate of skipping breakfast altogether was low overall—less than 4 percent for students in both 

treatment and control schools. The likelihood of consuming a substantive breakfast, defined as food 

from at least two food groups and more than 10 percent of the 1989 Recommended Dietary 

Allowance (RDA) for food energy, was significantly higher among students attending treatment 

schools (80 percent) than those attending control schools (76 percent). 

One potential but unintended effect of universal-free school breakfast is that some children would 

consume more than one breakfast on a given day, one at home and one at school. This study does not 

dispel that notion. Using the same definition of a substantive breakfast as above, treatment school 

students were more likely to consume more than one substantive breakfast (i.e., two or more) than 

their controls, by a difference of three percentage points. However, the incidence of consumption of 

more than one nutritionally substantive breakfast for both groups was low (seven percent for 

treatment school students, four percent for controls). Nonetheless, students who consumed the 

additional breakfasts had higher food energy intakes at both breakfast and over a 24-hour period than 

those who only ate one breakfast. These students consumed approximately double (40 percent) the RDA 

for food energy for breakfast compared to those who consumed only one breakfast (20 percent). In 

addition, students who consumed more than one breakfast had higher food energy intakes in terms of 

the percent of the RDA for food energy over 24 hours (122 percent versus 101 percent for onebreakfast eaters). 

Almost all students (93 to 100 percent) in both treatment and control schools had 24-hour dietary 

intakes that were adequate for vitamins and minerals, based on Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs); and 
Discussion of Findings 131 

they exceeded 80 percent of the RDA for food energy and protein.3 On the other hand, few students 

in either group met the Dietary Guidelines recommendations for total fat, saturated fat, or sodium. 

The availability of universal-free school breakfast was thus not related to students’ likelihood of 

meeting daily dietary requirements and other recommendations. 

Data from the first year of the SBPP showed a significantly higher number of daily disciplinary 

incidents requiring a trip to the principal’s office for treatment school students when compared to 

controls. The incidence was also significantly higher in the morning. In Year 2, there 

was a significant impact in the afternoon, with treatment schools reporting a higher average number 

of incidents than controls. In Year 3, there were no differences.

No pattern of significant results was found towards the end of the first year for the full array of other 

student outcomes, including cognitive and social/emotional functioning, food insecurity, body mass 

index, health status, attendance, tardiness, academic achievement, and incidence of school nurse 

visits. There were only scattered statistically significant differences between treatment and control 

school students on these measures. 

Record data continued to be collected in Years 2 and 3 on academic achievement, attendance, 

tardiness, and incidence of disciplinary visits to the principal and visits to the school nurse. While 

there are some scattered differences for a few outcomes, again, no pattern of differences was found in 

these subsequent data collections. 

Findings from Supplementary Analyses 

Additional analyses were performed to address other questions related to the provision of universalfree school breakfast and breakfast in general. These questions were not the main focus of the study, 

but are natural extensions of this focus, given the data collected and findings for the four primary 

objectives summarized above. Most of these analyses were done outside the experimental framework 

established for studying the impact of universal-free school breakfast. The results are therefore more 

exploratory in nature, and should not be considered definitive. 

One concern associated with non-experimental analyses is that the two groups being compared may 

differ systematically in ways unrelated to their grouping as, for example, breakfast skippers or nonskippers, substantive or non-substantive breakfast eaters. Observed differences in food and nutrient 

outcomes may be due to pre-existing differences in eating habits rather than the variable of interest 

(e.g., skipping breakfast). A test for selection bias was conducted for the non-experimental analyses 

presented in Chapter Six. The results, presented in Appendix H, were reassuring, except for the 

comparisons based on breakfast source (home only or school only) and breakfast location (classroom 

or non-classroom), where selection bias seemed to be an issue. Even so, with all non-experimental 

analyses one can never prove that the groups are comparable, and the results should be interpreted 

with caution. 

Summaries of the results of all additional analyses (experimental and non-experimental) are reported 

by question below. 

 

3

 DRIs were not available for food energy or protein at the time of these analyses. 
132 Discussion of Findings 

What are the effects of participation in universal-free school breakfast on student outcomes? 

The experimental design looked at the effects of the SBPP on those students that attended schools 

where universal-free school breakfast was available. Using a method designed to maintain the 

integrity of the experimental design (based on Bloom, 1984), analyses were conducted to look at the 

impacts on students who actually participated in universal-free school breakfast, not just those to 

whom it was available. This analytic method requires certain assumptions to be made about the 

impacts. The method and assumptions are described in Appendix C of the report on the first year of 

findings (McLaughlin et al., 2002). The results are described in Appendix F in McLaughlin et al. 

(2002). The magnitude of the impacts were much larger for those that actually participated, and 

included a larger percentage of treatment school participants eating a substantive breakfast (20 

percentage points higher) and eating more than one breakfast (16 percentage points higher) compared 

to their control counterparts.4

 Cholesterol intake at breakfast and over 24 hours was markedly less for 

participants (i.e., amounting to a reduction of about one sixth of the recommended daily intake at 

breakfast and 18 percent of the recommended daily maximum over 24 hours). Breakfast contributed 

more to the nutrient intake of participating students, relative to similar students in the control group, 

with the most notable difference of 11 percentage points for calcium. Student and parent attitudes 

about school breakfast were notably more positive for participating students, on the order of 60 to 65 

percentage points higher than their control counterparts. 

The negative behavior ratings reported in the main experimental analyses were higher for universalfree school breakfast participants than for their controls, with teachers rating students 4 points higher 

on oppositional behavior. 

 

What are the patterns of student participation that emerged from three years of providing 

universal-free school breakfast? Are student demographic characteristics related to particular 

patterns of participation? 

Across the entire sample of those students with four data points from baseline to Year 3 (n = 853), 

two patterns of participation occurred most frequently. Thirty-three percent stayed at roughly the 

same level of school breakfast participation that they had at baseline (i.e., increasing or decreasing 

participation by less than 20 percent). Eighteen percent increased participation between baseline and 

Year 1 by over 20 percent, and maintained this increased participation level for Years 2 and 3. The 

other 49 percent of the sample followed a variety of combinations of staying at the same level, 

increasing, or decreasing participation across the three years of SBPP. 

Our analyses found little relationship between student demographic characteristics and participation. 

Minority status and school meal eligibility were related to participation at baseline, but these 

demographic factors were not related to the amount of change from baseline to Year 1, Year 1 to Year 

2, or Year 2 to Year 3. 

Growth curve analyses performed separately on treatment student participation for gender, minority 

status, school meal eligibility, and age found only age was significant, due mainly to the jump of 

 

4

 In using the Bloom (1984) correction to estimate impacts on participants only, treatment school participants 

are compared to the subset of controls who would have participated had they been assigned to the treatment 

group, not to all controls. The term "control counterparts" is used to distinguish these students from all 

controls. 
Discussion of Findings 133 

younger students from baseline to Year 1. Thus, this set of demographic variables did not seem to 

predict the pattern a student would follow, except in the case of younger students (grades 1 and 2) at 

baseline to Year 1. 

Did students who increased their participation in school breakfast enjoy better outcomes than 

students who maintained the same level of participation at baseline? 

In the first report of findings (McLaughlin et al., 2002), a set of non-experimental analyses focused on 

students that increased their participation in school breakfast by two or more days per week compared 

to the previous year. The analyses compared these so called “changers” to “non-changers” on an 

array of outcomes, including measures of cognitive functioning, food insecurity, health, classroom 

behavior, and academic achievement. Statistically significant differences were in the negative 

direction, with changers scoring more poorly on teacher ratings of hyperactivity, an index of an 

attentional disorder, and their ability to focus and follow instructions. Changers also had lower gains 

in reading achievement than non-changers. Changers did attend school and were tardy less often 

than non-changers, and parental attitudes toward school breakfast were higher for this group. These 

analyses were repeated, restricting the sample to students from low-income families. Only the 

difference in parental attitudes (more positive for low-income changers) was significant. In these 

analyses, increased participation did not result in better outcomes. However, given the nonexperimental nature of this analysis, one cannot attribute any resulting differences to the consumption 

of school breakfast alone. 

Do outcomes vary depending on the dietary intake of students, that is, whether they had a more 

substantive breakfast or skipped breakfast altogether? 

A series of analyses was conducted to determine what relationships exist, if any, between student 

outcomes and the amount of breakfast consumed. Specifically, analyses addressed the effects on 

students of consuming a robust or substantive breakfast as well as the consumption of little or no 

breakfast (breakfast skipping). 

Substantive Breakfast Eaters 

Substantive eaters were defined in three different ways:5

• Definition 2: Consumption of breakfast containing food from at least two of five main food 

groups6

 and greater than 10 percent of the RDA for food energy 

• Definition 3: Consumption of food from at least two of five main food groups and greater 

than 15 percent of the RDA for food energy 

• Definition 4: Consumption of food from at least three main food groups and greater than 25 

percent of the RDA for food energy⎯this definition approximates the minimum requirement 

(25 percent of RDA) currently used for food energy in reimbursable breakfasts offered 

through the SBP. 

 

5

 Definition 1 identified students that consumed any food or beverage and was not used in this analysis. 

6

 The five food groups are (1) milk and milk products, (2) meat and meat equivalents, (3) grain products, (4) 

fruits and fruit juices, and (5) vegetables and vegetable juices. 
134 Discussion of Findings 

Seventy-eight percent of students were identified as having consumed a substantive breakfast on the 

target day based on Definition 2; 61 percent based on Definition 3; and 18 percent based on 

Definition 4. Substantive eaters were more likely than non-substantive eaters to be male and younger, 

regardless of how substantive breakfast was defined. 

Overall, comparisons of the dietary intakes of substantive and non-substantive breakfast eaters 

resulted in a number of statistical differences, with the substantive eaters generally consuming more 

food energy, nutrients, and Food Guide Pyramid servings (grains, fruits, dairy, discretionary fat, and 

added sugars) at breakfast and over 24 hours than non-substantive eaters. Substantive eaters were 

more likely to consume a breakfast from both home and school on the target day, with almost half of 

these students eating a Definition 2 substantive breakfast from both sources. 

Not surprisingly, breakfast made a more important contribution to the 24-hour dietary intake of 

substantive versus non-substantive breakfast eaters, in terms of food energy and all of the dietary 

components measured. However, mean 24-hour food energy intake exceeded the RDA for 

substantive breakfast eaters, based on all three definitions of substantive breakfast. 

Breakfast Skippers 

Breakfast “skipping” was defined in two different ways for the analyses conducted for this report. 

Students were defined as “target day skippers” if, on the day they were assessed, they had consumed 

less than 2.5 percent of the RDA for food energy. This definition was used to assess target day 

nutrition and cognitive outcomes (i.e., food and nutrient intake over 24 hours, tests of attention and 

memory). “Usual breakfast skippers” were defined using the Parent Survey, and included students 

who were reported by their parents to consume breakfast two times a week or less (out of the five 

school days). Usual breakfast skipping was used in the analysis of usual dietary intake, food security, 

body mass index (BMI), and behavioral and health measures. 

The number of breakfast skippers in the sample was relatively small, ranging from 122 to 177, 

depending on the analysis. An analysis of the demographic characteristics of skippers and nonskippers showed that the groups were similar except that breakfast skippers were significantly more 

likely to be non-white compared to non-skippers. 

The results for dietary intake are, for the most part, in line with expectations and findings from past 

studies. Breakfast skippers consumed significantly less food energy (as a percent of the RDA) over a 

24-hour period, on average, than non-breakfast skippers (79 percent versus 102 percent). They also 

consumed significantly less in the way of protein, total carbohydrate, vitamins, minerals, cholesterol, 

sodium, and dietary fiber. However, target day breakfast skippers consumed more total fat and 

saturated fat as a percent of total food energy. 

The results for Food Guide Pyramid food groups are in line with the findings on nutrient intake. 

Target day breakfast skippers consumed significantly fewer servings of grain products, fruits, and 

dairy products than breakfast non-skippers (on the order of one-half to one and a half servings). 

Analyses comparing usual breakfast skippers and non-skippers on dietary adequacy showed that 

virtually all students had usual 24-hour intakes that met standards for protein and most (10 out of 13) 

vitamins and minerals assessed. Usual breakfast skippers were significantly less likely than non-
Discussion of Findings 135 

skippers to have adequate intakes of vitamin A, folate, and phosphorous. Differences in the 

likelihood of meeting dietary recommendations for food energy and the macronutrients (fat, 

carbohydrate, cholesterol, sodium, and dietary fiber) did not reach statistical significance. 

Skipping breakfast was not related to performance on measures of cognitive functioning, classroom 

behavior ratings, food security, attendance, tardiness, or gains in achievement. Breakfast skippers 

had significantly higher BMI percentiles than non-skippers (68th versus 63rd percentile), although they 

were not more likely to be overweight or at risk for overweight. Usual skippers had smaller gains in 

school breakfast participation over the school year than non-skippers. Thus, while food and nutrient 

intake was generally less for breakfast skippers and there was evidence of inadequate intake on some 

micronutrients, breakfast skippers did not perform more poorly on these other student outcomes. 

Do nutrition outcomes differ by location of breakfast, either by source of breakfast (home 

versus school) or school location (classroom versus non-classroom)? 

Analysis by breakfast source and location provided a broad array of significant differences on 

nutrition outcomes, including breakfast consumption, food and nutrient intake at breakfast and over 

24 hours, and contribution of breakfast to intake over 24 hours. Note that in testing for selection bias 

in the non-experimental analyses presented in Chapter Six, the results for breakfast location suggest 

that this analysis is probably affected by selection bias. The findings from the location analysis are 

summarized below, but given the bias indicated in our testing, they should be interpreted with 

caution. 

Breakfast Source 

Analyses on source of breakfast were limited to whether or not students ate breakfast at home, school, 

or both home and school on the target day. The results suggest that students who ate breakfast 

exclusively from school were significantly more likely to consume a Definition 2 (but not Definition 

3) substantive breakfast than students who had breakfast only from home (85 compared with 75 

percent). Yet, while those who ate at school were more likely to meet the food-component-based 

criterion for Definition 2 (at least two foods from the five main food groups), their mean food energy 

and nutrient intake at breakfast was lower than for students who ate exclusively from home (or from 

both home and school). Students who ate exclusively from school also had a somewhat different food 

group intake than those who ate exclusively from home, including a smaller number of servings of 

grains and dairy products, and lower amounts of discretionary fat and added sugars. Findings for 24-

hour intakes of food energy and nutrients by breakfast source were similar to those found for 

breakfast. 

In general, students who ate breakfast from home exclusively had breakfasts that contributed more to 

total daily intake of food energy, macronutrients, and some vitamins and minerals than students who 

ate breakfast at school only. 

Location of School Breakfast 

Location analyses included three groups: treatment students who had breakfast available to them in 

the classroom, treatment students who had breakfast available to them in the cafeteria, and students 

who did not have universal-free school breakfast available to them (i.e., non-classroom control group 

students). Students in treatment schools with classroom breakfast were more likely to eat a 
136 Discussion of Findings 

substantive breakfast on the target day than either group of students with non-classroom breakfast. A 

larger share of treatment classroom students ate two or more breakfasts (substantive or not) than other 

students (treatment non-classroom or control). Students in treatment classroom schools had higher 

breakfast intakes of food energy, total fat, and sodium, yet they consumed less of certain vitamins and 

minerals than the other students. The only nutritionally important finding in the analysis of food 

group servings is that students in treatment classroom schools ate more servings of grain products 

than either of the other groups. 

There does not appear to be a relationship between location of school breakfast and intake over 24-

hours of food energy or macronutrients (e.g., protein, fat). Students in treatment classroom schools 

consumed significantly less of most vitamins and minerals, relative to the RDA, although the 24-hour 

intakes for classroom and non-classroom groups exceeded 100 percent of the RDA. There were also 

no significant differences among the groups in terms of nutrient adequacy or the likelihood of usual 

intake meeting other dietary recommendations. 

Do nutrition outcomes for students from low-income households differ from students from 

higher income households? 

A series of analyses comparing students in families with incomes in the following ranges—below 130 

percent of the federal poverty level (i.e., those eligible for free school meals); 130 to 185 percent (i.e., 

those eligible for reduced-price school meals); and above 185 percent—revealed few differences in 

nutrition outcomes. There was no difference between income groups in the likelihood of consuming 

breakfast regardless of how breakfast was defined. However, a significantly larger share of students 

with household incomes in the lower two groups (below 185 percent of poverty) ate something (nonsubstantive) for breakfast from both home and school. Other differences included a significantly 

lower intake at breakfast for students with household incomes less than 130 percent of poverty for a 

few dietary components (vitamin A, iron, zinc, cholesterol and sodium), and slightly but significantly 

more servings of fruits at breakfast for this same group. For the majority of outcomes included in the 

analyses, however, there were no differences based on the three income categories. Household 

income was not related to meeting standards for dietary adequacy or other recommendations based on 

usual intake. 

What are the characteristics of students in the sample based on their level of food insecurity? 

There was a strong relationship between food security and the majority of household characteristics 

assessed in this analyses, including school meal eligibility status, minority status, household income, 

status as single-parent family, and parent education. There was also a relationship found between the 

BMI of students and their household food security status. As one might expect, those students with 

households that are food secure were less likely to be eligible for free or reduced-price school meals, 

minority, low-income, from a one-income household, from a single-parent family, or have parents 

with only a high school education. Conversely, those students with food insecure households were 

more likely to be in households with these characteristics. Notably, there seems to be a linear 

relationship between household characteristics and food security status. Using risk of overweight as 

an example, 31 percent of those who were food secure are at risk for overweight. This risk increased 

as food insecurity worsened, to 37 percent for food insecure without hunger, 38 percent for food 

insecure with moderate hunger, and 40 percent for food insecure with severe hunger. 
Discussion of Findings 137 

Conclusions 

The results of this evaluation suggest that universal-free school breakfast can be fairly easily 

implemented and administered in elementary school settings that vary in terms of geographic region, 

racial/ethnic mix, and students’ household income. Key stakeholders, including administrators at the 

school district and school levels, school staff, parents, and students were generally supportive of the 

concept of universal-free school breakfast. Serving school breakfast in the classroom was linked to 

the greatest increases in student participation, but barriers continued to exist to more widespread 

implementation of breakfast in the classroom. Most notably, the increased workload for staff and the 

opposition of teachers in particular were expressed as deterrents. At the same time, however, the data 

from the first year of the evaluation suggest that the majority of teachers in schools with classroom 

breakfast had a positive experience, while those who had not experienced classroom breakfast were 

opposed to the idea. In a recent report on Minnesota’s Fast Break to Learning Initiative, researchers 

reported that participation rates were highest when there was a school-wide policy about breakfast 

that included teacher input, such as entire classes going to the cafeteria together to get breakfast 

(Peterson et al., 2003). 

The findings on SBPP impact suggest that when compared to elementary students in schools offering 

the regular SBP, there are few added benefits to students of offering universal-free school breakfast. 

Despite the increases in participation that were realized in the first year of the SBPP and sustained in 

the subsequent years, and the greater likelihood of consuming a nutritionally substantive breakfast, 

there were no noteworthy effects on students either positive or negative, on the wide array of 

outcomes measured over the course of the evaluation. These included short-term outcomes measured 

on the same day as a child was offered the opportunity to eat school breakfast, including cognitive 

functioning in the period after breakfast and dietary intake over the course of the day, and more longterm outcomes including performance on standardized achievement tests. 

These findings do not negate the importance of breakfast. As described earlier, there is an entire body 

of literature that suggests positive nutrition and cognitive benefits to eating breakfast. Nor do they 

negate the significance of the SBP, which provides an important meal to students who might not eat 

otherwise. What they do suggest is that simply offering school breakfast to all elementary school 

students free of charge should not be expected to increase academic outcomes beyond what occurs in 

schools already offering the SBP. 
138 Discussion of Findings 
References 139 

References 

Basiotis, P.P., Lino, M., and Anand, R.S. (1999). Eating breakfast greatly improves schoolchildren’s 

diet quality. Family Economics and Nutrition Review, 12, 81-83. 

Bloom, H. (1984). Accounting for no-shows in experimental evaluation designs. Evaluation Review, 

8(2), 225-246. 

Bowman, S.A., Lino, M., Gerrior, S.A., and Basiotis, P.P. (1998). The Healthy Eating Index: 1994-

96. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, CNPP-5. 

Briefel, R., Murphy, J.M., Kung, S., and Devaney, B. (1999). Universal-Free School Breakfast 

Program Evaluation Design Project: Review of Literature on Breakfast and Learning. Report 

prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Princeton, NJ: 

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 

Daft, L., Wilbraham, B., Abraham, S., Chattopadhyay, M., Montgomery, M., Steiger, D.M. (2002). 

The School Meals Initiative Implementation Study: Third Year Report. Report prepared for the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Alexandria, VA: Promar 

International and Washington, D.C.: The Gallup Organization. 

Devaney, B. and Fraker, T. (1989). The dietary impacts of the school breakfast program. American 

Journal of Agricultural Economies, 71, 932-948. 

Devaney, B., Fraker, T., and Morgan, K. (1987). The Dietary Impacts of the School Breakfast 

Program. Report prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. 

Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 

Devaney, B., Gordon, A.R., and Burghardt, J.A. (1995). Dietary intakes of students. American 

Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 61(1, suppl.), 205S-212S. 

Devaney, B. and Stuart, E. (1998). Eating Breakfast: Effects of the School Breakfast Program. 

Report prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Princeton, 

NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 

Food and Nutrition Service. (1994). Paperwork Reduction Pilot Project: Interim Report, 13-14. 

Food and Nutrition Service. (2004a). www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/AboutBfast/ProgHistory.htm. 

Accessed February 9, 2004. 

Food and Nutrition Service. (2004b). www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/AboutBfast/bfastfacts.htm. 

 Accessed February 9, 2004. 

Food and Nutrition Service. (2004c). www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/lunch/AboutLunch/NSLPFact 

Sheet.htm. Accessed February 9, 2004. 
140 References 

Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) (2001). School Breakfast Scorecard: 2001. Eleventh 

Annual Status Report on the School Breakfast Program. Washington, DC: FRAC Publications. 

Food Research and Action Center (FRAC). (2003). School Breakfast Scorecard: 2003. Thirteenth 

Annual Status Report on the School Breakfast Program. Washington, DC: FRAC Publications. 

Glantz, F.B., Logan, C., Weiner, H.M., Battaglia, M., and Gorowitz, G. (1994). School Lunch and 

Breakfast Cost Study. Report prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates Inc. 

Gleason, P. and Suitor, C. (2001). Children's Diets in the Mid-1990s: Dietary Intake and Its 

Relationship with School Meal Participation. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service. Special Nutrition Programs Report No. CN-01-CD1. 

Gross, S.M., Bronner, Y., Welch, C., Dewberry-Moore, N., and Paige, D.M. (2004). Breakfast and 

lunch meal skipping patterns among fourth-grade children from selected public schools in urban, 

suburban, and rural Maryland. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 104, 420-423. 

Institute of Medicine (IOM), Food and Nutrition Board. (1997). Dietary Reference Intakes for 

Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D, and Fluoride. Washington, DC: National 

Academy Press. 

Institute of Medicine (IOM), Food and Nutrition Board. (1998). Dietary Reference Intakes for 

Thiamin, Riboflavin, Niacin, Vitamin B6, Folate, Vitamin B12, Pantothenic acid, Biotin and 

Choline. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 

Institute of Medicine (IOM), Food and Nutrition Board. (2000a). Dietary Reference Intakes: 

Applications in Dietary Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 

Institute of Medicine (IOM), Food and Nutrition Board. (2000b). Dietary Reference Intakes for 

Vitamin C, Vitamin E, Selenium, and Carotenoids. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 

Institute of Medicine, Food and Nutrition Board. (2001). Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin A, 

Vitamin K, Arsenic, Boron, Chromium, Copper, Iodine, Iron, Manganese, Molybdenum, Nickel, 

Silicon, Vanadium, and Zinc. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 

Iowa State University. (1996). A User’s Guide to C-SIDE: Software for Intake Distribution 

Estimation Version 1.0. Technical report 96-TR 31. Iowa State University: Department of 

Statistics and Center for Agricultural and Rural Development. Dietary Assessment Research 

Series Report 8. 

Jacobson, J., Briefel, R., Gleason, P., and Sullivan, R. (2001). Designs for Measuring How the 

School Breakfast Program Affects Learning. Report prepared for USDA's Economic Research 

Service, E-FAN-01-013. 

Kennedy, E.T., Ohls, J., Carlson, S., and Fleming, K. (1995). The Healthy Eating Index: Design and 

applications. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 95(10), 1103-1108. 

Kolen, M. and Brennan, R. (1995). Test Equating: Methods and Practices. New York: Springer 

Press. 
References 141 

Linn, R. (1993). Linking results of distinct assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 6, 

 83-102. 

Maryland State Department of Education (2002). 102 Schools Share $1.9 Million For Classroom 

Breakfast Program Credited with Improving Academics, Behavior, Well-Being. 

www.msde.state.md.us/pressreleases/2002/july /2002_0701.htm. 

McLaughlin, J.E., Bernstein, L.S., Crepinsek, M.K., Daft, L.M., and Murphy, J.M. (2002). Evaluation 

of the School Breakfast Program Pilot Project: Findings from the First Year of Implementation. 

Nutrition Assistance Program Report Series, No. CN-02-SBP, Project Officer: Anita Singh. U.S. 

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

Evaluation, Alexandria, VA. http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/Published/CNP/CNP.htm. 

Meyers, A., Sampson, A., Weitzman, M., Rogers, B., and Kayne, H. (1989). School breakfast 

program and school performance. American Journal of Diseases in Children, 143, 1234-1239. 

Mislevy, R. (1992). Linking educational assessments: Concepts, issues, methods, and prospects. 

Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. 

Morgan, K., Zabik, M.E., and Stampley, G.L. (1986) Breakfast consumption patterns of U.S. children 

and adolescents. Nutrition Research, 6, 635-646. 

Murphy, J.M. and Pagano, M. (2001). Effects of a Universally Free, In-classroom School Breakfast 

Program: Final Report from the Third Year of the Maryland Meals for Achievement Evaluation. 

Boston, MA: Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School. 

Murphy, J.M., Pagano, M., and Bishop, S. (2001). Impact of a Universally Free, In-classroom 

School Breakfast Program on Performance. Results from the Abell Foundation's Baltimore 

breakfast challenge program evaluation. Boston, MA: Massachusetts General Hospital and 

Harvard Medical School. 

Murphy, J.M., Pagano, M., Patton, K., Hall, S., Marinaccio, J., and Kleinman, R. (2000). Boston 

Public Schools Universal Breakfast Program. Boston, MA: Massachusetts General Hospital and 

Harvard Medical School. 

Murphy, J.M., Wehler, C., Pagano, M., Little, M., Kleinman, R., and Jellinek, M. (1998). 

Relationship between hunger and psychosocial functioning in low-income American children. 

Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 37(2), 163-170. 

National Research Council. (1989a). Recommended Dietary Allowances, 10th edition. Washington, 

DC: National Academy Press. 

National Research Council. (1989b). Diet and Health: Implications for Reducing Chronic Disease 

Risk. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 
142 References 

Nicklas, T.A., Weihang, B., Webber, L.S., and Berenson, G.S. (1993). Breakfast consumption affects 

adequacy of total daily intake in children. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 93(8), 

886-891. 

Nusser, S.M., Carriquiry, A.L., Dodd, K.W., and Fuller, W.A. (1996). A semiparametric 

transformation approach to estimating usual daily intake distributions. Journal of the American 

Statistical Association, 91(436), 1440-1449. 

Peterson, K., Davison, M., Wahlstrom, K., Himes, J., Hjelseth, L., Ross, J., and Tucker, M. (2001). 

Fast Break to Learning School Breakfast Program: A Report of the First Year Results, 1999-

2000. University of Minnesota. 

Peterson, K., Davison, M., Wahlstrom, K., Himes, J., Seo, Y.S., Irish, M.L., and Harring, J. (2003). 

Fast Break to Learning School Breakfast Program: A Report of the Third Year Results, 2001-

2002. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. 

Pollitt, E. and Mathews, R. (1998). Breakfast and cognition: An integrative summary. American 

Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 67(suppl), 804S-813S. 

Ponza, M., Briefel, R., Corson, W., Devaney, B., Glazerman, S., Gleason, P., Heaviside, S., Kung, S., 

Meckstroth, A., Murphy, J.M., and Ohls, J. (1999). Universal-Free School Breakfast Program 

Evaluation Design Project: Final Evaluation Design. Report prepared for the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 

Rossi, P.H. (1998). Feeding the Poor: Assessing Federal Food Aid. Washington, DC: The AEI 

Press. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. (2000). Pyramid servings database 

for USDA survey food codes. ARS Community Nutrition Research Group. Available at 

http://www.barc.usda.gov/bhnrc/cnrg. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service (2003), National Data Bank, Version 

7.0, unpublished. 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data. 

(2001). Public elementary/secondary school universe survey data: 1999-2000, July 2001. 

U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services. (2000). Nutrition and Your 

Health: Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 5th edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office. 

Wahlstrom, K.L., Bemis, A., and Schneider, J. (1997). Minnesota Universal Breakfast Pilot Study: 

Final Report, Year Three, 1996 - 1997. Minneapolis, MN: Center for Applied Research and 

Educational Improvement, University of Minnesota. 

Williams, C.L. (1995). Importance of dietary fiber in childhood. Journal of the American Dietetic 

Association, 95, 1140-1149.