Nutrition Assistance Program Report Series 

The Office of Analysis, Nutrition, and Evaluation 

Special Nutrition Programs Report No. CN-04-SFSP14

Evaluation Of The 14 State Summer 

Food Service Program Pilot Project 

United States Food and 

Department of Nutrition 

Agriculture Service 

April 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 14 State Summer 

Food Service Program Pilot Project

Authors: Anita Singh, Ph.D. and John Endahl, Ph.D. 

Submitted by: 

Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation 

USDA, Food and Nutrition Service 

3101 Park Center Drive, Room 1014 

Alexandria, VA 22302-1500

This study is an in-house analysis by Food and Nutrition Service Staff. 

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

Suggested Citation:

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

“Evaluation Of The 14 State Summer Food Service Program Pilot Project,” Nutrition Assistance Program 

Report Series, No. CN-04-SFSP14. By Anita Singh, Ph.D. and John Endahl Ph.D. Alexandria, VA: 2004. 

United States Food and 

Department of Nutrition 

Agriculture Service 

April 2004

Special Nutrition Programs

Report No. CN-04-SFSP14
i

Acknowledgements 

Data were collected and analyzed by Anita Singh from the Office of Analysis, Nutrition, and 

Evaluation (OANE). John Endahl (OANE) provided technical guidance and valuable input 

throughout the analysis and writing of this report. Jay Hirschman (OANE) provided thoughtful 

reviews and comments on the drafts. 

OANE staff would like to thank Linda Jupin and Susan Fouts from the Child Nutrition Division 

(CND) for reviewing the survey instruments and drafts of this report from a program perspective. 

Their comments and insights were most helpful. We would also like to thank Joan Tressler and 

Ron Ulibarri from CND for providing program-related information. 

OANE thanks the 14 Pilot State Agencies for fulfilling all our data requests and for completing 

the questionnaires for this evaluation. We are grateful to the sponsors and former sponsors who 

completed their questionnaires. 
ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background 

The Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) was created to ensure that children in low-income 

areas could have access to nutritious meals during the summer months when school is not in 

session. During the school year about 15 million low-income children depend on the National 

School Lunch Program (NSLP) and/or School Breakfast Program (SBP) for nutritious free or 

reduced-price meals. However, during the summer months, only about 2 million children in 

low-income areas receive free meals provided by the SFSP. 

In December 2000, the Secretary of Agriculture was authorized, through the Food and Nutrition 

Service (FNS), to conduct a Pilot to increase SFSP participation in a number of States with low 

rates of feeding low-income children in the summer. States were eligible to participate in the 

Pilot if the proportion of low-income children they served in July 1999 through SFSP and the 

National School Lunch Program (NSLP) relative to March 1999 NSLP participation was below 

50 percent of the national average. Fourteen States, including Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, 

Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, 

Texas, and Wyoming, met the criteria and are participating in the Pilot. For the purpose of this 

Pilot, Puerto Rico is defined as a State. This 3-year Pilot began in fiscal year 2001 and has been 

extended until June 30, 2004. Under the Pilot, meals served by eligible sponsors in the 14 States 

are reimbursed at the maximum allowable rate. In addition, administrative record keeping for 

the Pilot sponsors was reduced since they were no longer required to record administrative and 

operating costs separately and they did not have to report costs to State Agencies. 

As part of the current Child Nutrition Programs Reauthorization process, there is a proposal to 

extend the duration of the Pilot and expand it to include additional States by broadening the State 

eligibility criteria. This proposal would also expand the sponsor-eligibility to include all private 

non-profit sponsors. Under the 14 State Pilot, “eligible” sponsors include government sponsors, 

public and private nonprofit school food authority sponsors, public and private National Youth 

Sports Program sponsors, and public and private nonprofit residential camp sponsors. The 

current law specifically excludes all other private nonprofit organizations from participating in 

the Pilot. 

Study Objectives 

The authorizing legislation required FNS to conduct an evaluation of the Pilot projects. The 

three main objectives of the evaluation are to describe the effects of the Pilot on: (1) 

participation by children and service institutions in the SFSP in the Pilot States; (2) the quality of 

meals and supplements served in the Pilot States; and (3) program integrity. 

Study Design and Methodology 

Data for the evaluation were collected through a number of survey questionnaires administered 

in summer/fall 2002. Respondents included: 14 State Agencies responsible for the 
iii

administration of the SFSP in the pilot States; 128 continuing SFSP sponsors that had 

participated in the SFSP prior to 2001; 111 SFSP sponsors new to the program in 2001 and 2002; 

and 77 former SFSP sponsors who had participated in SFSP prior to 2002 but were not 

participating in 2002. The survey data was augmented by administrative data obtained from the 

FNS National Data Bank. Analyses are descriptive in nature. 

Of the three study objectives, FNS was able to examine, in detail, issues related to SFSP 

participation from the questionnaires completed by the State Agencies, and current and former 

sponsors in 2002 and from administrative data in the FNS National Data Bank. Findings 

related to meal quality and program integrity are based solely on the perceptions of the State 

Agencies and the sponsors who were surveyed in the 14 Pilot States. 

Study Findings 

Key findings from the evaluation of the 14 Pilot States include: 

Participation 

The evaluation of the impact of the “Pilot” on participation has been confounded by the 

availability of the Seamless Summer Feeding Waiver (SSFW) for school districts participating in 

summer feeding. Under SSFW, which began operating nationwide in 2002, participating school 

districts claim meals under the National School Lunch Program and not SFSP. Four of the 14 

Pilot States also operated SSFW in 2003. In addition in 2002, FNS began a major national-level 

SFSP promotion initiative to increase SFSP access in 2003 and beyond. The impact of these 

other initiatives on participation and the impact of the Pilot on participation cannot be separated. 

 

• Total SFSP participation by sponsors and children increased during each of the first three 

years in the Pilot States. For the 14 States, combined SFSP sponsors increased by 18 

percent and the Average Daily Attendance (ADA) by children increased by 43 percent 

from July 2000 to July 2003.

• The impact on participation varied across the 14 States, with substantial increases found 

in some States, moderate increases in other States, and decreases found in a few States.

• While the gap between the percentage of low-income children served by the 14 Pilot 

States and the percentage served by the other States decreased by 2 percentage points (12 

percent) from 16.9 percentage points in 2000 to 14.9 percentage points in 2003, many of 

the 14 Pilot States continue to be among the lowest in the nation in terms of the 

percentage of low-income children served during the summer.

Program Expansion and Outreach 

• At least 80 percent of the 14 Pilot State Agencies felt that the pilot’s reimbursement 

system helped to bring in new sponsors, retain current sponsors and increase the number 

of children served.
iv

• More than half of the 14 Pilot State Agencies reported in 2002 (2nd year of the Pilot) that 

they could support a 10 percent or more increase in SFSP sponsors with their existing 

staffing levels. 

• Most sponsors indicated an unwillingness to increase their number of SFSP sites in the 

future citing cost of operating sites and a perceived lack of demand for SFSP as reasons 

for not expanding. 

• Only a quarter of all sponsors indicated a willingness to increase their SFSP operating 

days. 

Barriers to Program Growth 

• Simplifying the cost accounting and application procedures does not appear to be the sole 

answer to increasing SFSP participation. There are other perceived barriers to SFSP 

expansion. 

• Both State Agencies and sponsors cited lack of transportation as a major barrier to 

increasing SFSP participation. State Agencies also cited not having enough sponsors, 

inadequate program publicity, and lack of community involvement as important reasons 

for low SFSP participation while sponsors cited lack of community involvement and 

insufficient funding as important barriers to increasing participation. 

• Former sponsors also considered lack of transportation to be a major barrier to increasing 

SFSP participation. 

Meal Quality 

• A recent national study of the Summer Food Service Program indicated that on average 

SFSP meals are comparable to meals served in the National School Lunch Program. 

Most SFSP lunches typically served all the components needed to meet the SFSP meal 

pattern requirement. 

• No sponsor perceived a decline in meal quality or food safety as a result of the Pilot, 

while 21 percent believed that meal quality had improved and 25 percent believed food 

safety had improved. 

Program Integrity 

• State Agencies conduct sponsor and site monitoring visits and note any program 

deficiencies ranging from improper meal counting, to food safety to civil rights. 

Sponsors also monitor food service operations at their sites and take corrective actions as 

needed. 

• Based on perceptions of the State Agencies and sponsors, there was no indication that the 

Pilot had any adverse effect on program integrity. 
v

THE SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM IN 2003: 

States Operating The 14 State Pilot and 

The Seamless Summer Feeding Waiver (SSFW)

Operated The 14 State Pilot; Puerto 

Rico Also Operated The Pilot 

Operated SSFW And 

The 14 State Pilot 

Operated SSFW 

 Did Not Operate Any Pilot 
vi

Table of Contents 

 Page 

Executive Summary ii 

List of Tables vii 

List of Figures ix 

1. Introduction 1 

2. Methodology 3 

3. Participation 5 

4. Survey Findings 

A: Characteristics of the Survey Sample 

B: Program Expansion and Outreach Efforts 

C: Barriers to Program Growth 

D: Reasons For Discontinuing Sponsorship 

E: Meal Quality 

F: Program Integrity 

18 

18 

18 

25 

30 

32 

33 

5. Conclusions 37 

6. Selected References 39 

Appendices 

A. Supplementary Tables 

B. Glossary and Acronyms 

 C. Survey Instruments 

40 

50 

51 
vii

List of Tables 

Page

Table 1: Types Of Organization That Sponsored SFSP In The 14 States In 2000, 2001, 

2002 And 2003: Totals For The 14 States 

5 

Table 2: Total Number (Range Across The 14 States) Of Sponsors In 2000, 2001, 2002 

And 2003 In The 14 States 

6 

Table 3: Total Number Of SFSP Sponsors, Food Sites, Average Daily Attendance 

(ADA) And Total SFSP Meals In July 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 And 2003 In The 14 

States 

7 

Table 4: Yearly Changes In The Total Number Of SFSP Sponsors, Food Sites, Average 

Daily Attendance And Total SFSP Meals In July In The 14 States 

7 

Table 5: Percent Of Low-Income Children Served: July Summer Food Service Program 

And The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) Participation1 Compared To The 

March NSLP Participation 

13 

Table 6: The Total Number Of SFSP Lunches And The Total Number Of National 

School Lunch Program Free And Reduced Price Lunches Served In July 2000 And July 

2003 By Pilot Participation Status 

15 

Table 7: Pilot States’ Perceptions Of How The Pilot’s Reimbursement System Was 

Promoting SFSP Expansion In Their States 

19 

Table 8: The Amount Of Program Growth That The State Agencies In The 14 Pilot 

States Could Support With Existing Staffing Levels 

20 

Table 9: Ways In Which The 14 Pilot State Agencies Work To Retain Sponsors 21 

Table 10: Likelihood That Sponsors In The 14 Pilot States Would Expand The Number 

Of SFSP Sites In The Future 

21 

Table 11: Reasons Cited By Sponsors In The 14 Pilot States For Not Being Likely To 

Expand The Number Of Sites That They Currently Operate 

22 

Table 12: Comparison Of The Number Of SFSP Sites Operated In 2002 With 2001 In 

The 14 Pilot States 

22 

Table 13: Willingness By Sponsors In The 14 Pilot States To Increase Their Length Of 

Summer Session (Number Of Weeks SFSP Operates) 

23 

Table 14: Changes In The Length Of Operating SFSP Over The Past Few Years In The 

14 Pilot States 

24 
viii

Page

Table15: Criteria Considered Important By Sponsors In The 14 Pilot States When 

Opening A New Site 

24 

Table 16: Methods Used By Sponsors In The 14 Pilot States For Identifying Areas For 

New Sites 

24 

Table 17: Organizations That Sponsors In The 14 Pilot States Worked With To Promote 

SFSP In 2001 And/Or 2002 

25 

Table 18: The Pilot States’ Perceptions On Why Fewer Children Participate In SFSP As 

Compared To The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) In Their States 

26 

Table 19: Three Most Important Reasons Cited By The 14 State Pilot State Agencies For 

Lower Participation In SFSP Compared To NSLP 

27 

Table 20: Sponsors (Continuing And New) Perceptions Of Barriers To Increasing 

Participation In The SFSP (N=238) In The 14 Pilot States 

28 

Table 21: Three Main Barriers To Participation As Perceived By Sponsors In The 14 

Pilot States 

29 

Table 22: Main Barriers To Increased Participation In The SFSP As Perceived By 

Former Sponsors In The 14 Pilot States 

30 

Table 23: Reasons That Sponsors Discontinued Sponsoring The SFSP In The 14 Pilot 

States 

31 

Table 24: The Main Reason Given By Former Sponsors In The 14 Pilot States For 

Discontinuing Sponsorship 

32 

Table 25: Sponsor Perception Of The Impact Of The Pilot On The Quality Of SFSP 

Meals In The 14 Pilot States 

33 

Table 26: Sponsor Perception Of Why Meal Quality Improved In The 14 Pilot States 33 

Table 27: Sponsor Perception Of Impact Of The Pilot On Food Safety In The 14 Pilot 

States 

33 

Table 28: Deficiencies Noted By State Agency Staff Reviewing Pilot Sponsors/Sites 34 

Table 29: Problems Noted By The Sponsor’s Staff When Conducting Site Reviews In 

The 14 Pilot States 

35 
ix

List of Figures 

 

Page 

Figure 1: Proportion Of Types Of 2003 SFSP Sponsors 6 

Figure 2: Yearly Changes In The Total Number Of SFSP Sponsors, Food Sites, 

Average Daily Attendance And Total SFSP Meals In July In The 14 States 

8 

Figure 3: Summer Food Service Program School-Based Sponsors In 2000, 2001, 

2002, And 2003 – Data For The 10 Of The 14 Pilot States That Did Not Participate 

In The Seamless Summer Feeding Waiver 

10 

Figure 4: Summer Food Service Program School-Based Sponsors In 2000, 2001, 

2002, And 2003 – Data For 4 Pilot States That Also Participated In The Seamless 

Summer Feeding Waiver In 2003 

10 

Figure 5: Low-Income Children Served By The Summer Food Service Program 

(SFSP) And The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) In July Relative To 

Those Served By NSLP In March: Mean Percent Served In 2000, 2002 And 2003 

12 

Figure 6: Changes Between July 2000 And July 2003 In The Summer Food Service 

Program Average Daily Attendance (ADA) And The National School Lunch 

Program (NSLP) Average Daily Free And Reduced Price Lunched Served 

12 

Figure 7: Percentage Contribution Of States (Grouped By Pilot Participation 

Status) To The Total Number of SFSP Lunches Served in July 2000 and July 2003 

16 

Figure 8: Percentage Contribution Of States (Grouped By Pilot Participation 

Status) To The Total Number of Free and Reduced Price NSLP Lunches Served in 

July 2000 and July 2003 

16 

Figure 9: Pilot States’ Perceptions Of How The Pilot’s Reimbursement System 

Was Promoting SFSP Expansion In Their States (N=11) 

20 

Figure 10: The Pilot States’ Perceptions On Why Fewer Children Participate In 

SFSP As Compared To The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) In Their 

States 

26 

Figure 11: Three Most Important Reasons Cited By The 14 State Pilot State 

Agencies For Lower Participation In SFSP Compared To NSLP 

27 
1

Chapter 1. Introduction 

Background

Children in low-income communities are eligible to receive free or reduced-price meals during 

the school year through the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast 

Program (SBP). The Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) was created to ensure that children 

in low-income areas could continue to receive nutritious meals during long school vacations 

when they do not have access to school lunch or breakfast. Although about 15 million children 

receive nutritious free and reduced-price meals at school for 9 months out of the year, only about 

2 million receive free meals provided by the SFSP during the summer months. Some children 

also have access to NSLP meals through summer school and year-round school programs. 

However, only about 3.4 million low-income children were served meals through SFSP and 

NSLP in July 2003 (FNS National Data Bank). 

Subsection 18 (f) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (NSLA) (42 U.S.C. 1769 

(f)), added by section 1(a)(4) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-

554, December 21, 2000), authorized the Secretary of Agriculture, through the Administrator of 

the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), to conduct a Pilot in each eligible State to increase the 

number of children participating in the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) in that State. 

Definition of “eligible State” that is a State which has low participation, was provided in the 

authorizing legislation. Fourteen States, specifically Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, 

Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, Texas 

and Wyoming, met the eligibility criteria and are participating in the pilot, which began in fiscal 

year (FY) 2001, and will continue through June 30, 2004. For SFSP purposes, Puerto Rico is 

defined as a “State” in section 13(a)(1) of the NSLA, 42 U.S.C. 1761(a)(1). Thus, all references 

to the 14 Pilot States in this report include Puerto Rico. Under the Pilot, meals served by 

“eligible”1

 sponsors in the 14 States are being reimbursed at the maximum allowable rate; they 

earn “meals times rates.” Additionally, Pilot sponsors are not required to record administrative 

and operating cost separately nor do they have to report costs to the State Agency. However, 

they are required to maintain records of expenditures, and any cost savings must be maintained 

in a non-profit food service account to be used only to support non-profit food service. Neither 

the SFSP benefits to children nor the quality of program administration should be compromised 

to achieve cost savings. 

Evaluation Objectives 

The authorizing legislation required that FNS conduct an evaluation of the Pilot project to 

describe 1) any effect on participation by children and service institutions in the SFSP in the 

Pilot States; 2) any effect of the Pilot on the quality of meals and supplements served in the Pilot 

States; and 3) any effect of the Pilot on program integrity. 

Organization of the Report 

An overview of the methodology, including the limitations of the evaluation, is presented in 

Chapter 2. Findings on the impact of the Pilot on participation are described in Chapter 3. 

 

1

 “Eligible” sponsors include government sponsors, public and private nonprofit school food authority sponsors, 

public and private National Youth Sports Program sponsors, and public and private nonprofit residential camp 

sponsors. The law specifically excludes all other private nonprofit organizations from participating in the Pilot. 
2

Chapter 4 presents survey findings on issues related to program expansion, outreach as well as 

barriers to participation. This chapter also describes survey findings on meal quality and program 

integrity. Conclusions are presented in Chapter 5. 
3

Chapter 2. Methodology 

FNS staff collected and analyzed the data for this evaluation. This is not a nationally 

representative study as it is focusing on the 14 Pilot States. A nationally representative study of 

the SFSP was conducted in the Summer of 2001 by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., (MPR) 

under contract to the Economic Research Service (ERS) of the USDA. The national study is a 

descriptive study of the operations of the SFSP at the State and local levels (Gordon et. al. 2003). 

The national study was designed by MPR prior to the Pilot and as such the study design did not 

account for the Pilot (Briefel et. al. 2000). A limited number of sponsors from 4 of the 14 States 

were sampled in the national study, which precluded drawing conclusions about the Pilot during 

the first year of its operation (personal communications: A. Gordon). FNS collected data from 

the 14 States and sponsors in 2002, which was the second year of the Pilot, and supplemented it 

with administrative data (2000 to 2003) from the FNS National Data Bank (Version 7.0). An 

overview of the data collection activity, the sampling plan, and analyses is provided below. 

Survey Instruments 

For this evaluation FNS built upon the State Agency, sponsor, and former sponsor questionnaires 

that were prepared and used by MPR for collecting data for the 2001 SFSP study (Gordon et. al. 

2003). The questionnaires were reviewed and approved by the Food and Nutrition 

Subcommittee of the Education Information Advisory Committee (EIAC) within the Council of 

Chief State School Officers. This subcommittee is composed of State Child Nutrition Directors 

from all seven FNS regions who administer Child Nutrition Programs including SFSP. The 

information collection package was then submitted to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for approval. Per OMB, open-ended questions were reduced to a minimum to enable 

quantification of responses. The study questionnaires are provided in Appendix C. 

Sampling Plan 

In July 2002 State Agency SFSP staff in the 14 States were requested to provide lists of new and 

continuing sponsors and former sponsors. FNS staff used these lists to draw the sample for the 

evaluation. A random sample of 166 continuing sponsors, stratified by State, was selected for 

inclusion in the study. This represented about 25 percent of the total number of SFSP sponsors 

in the 14 States in 2000 (Source: FY2000 FNS 418). In addition, FNS attempted to sample up to 

150 new sponsors and 150 former sponsors. The sample sizes varied across States depending on 

the number of new and former sponsors that appeared on the State lists. The number of new 

sponsors randomly sampled ranged from two in a couple of States to over 20 in the three States 

with the larger programs. All former sponsors included in State lists (8 States) that had less than 

eight sponsors were included in the sample. About 14 to 20 former sponsors each were 

randomly selected from five States listing 20 to 50 former sponsors. For the State with the largest 

list of former sponsors, 30 former sponsors were randomly selected. A total of 14 State Agency 

surveys, 166 continuing sponsor surveys, 149 new sponsor surveys, and 145 former sponsor 

surveys were included in the final mailing. 

Data Collection 

Data for the evaluation were collected for the 14 Pilot States from questionnaires completed by: 

a) State government SFSP staff; b) continuing sponsors who were sponsoring SFSP before the 
4

pilot started; c) new sponsors who began sponsoring the program since the Pilot began; and d) 

former sponsors who did not participate in SFSP in 2002 but sponsored SFSP in 2001 or prior 

years. 

Questionnaires were mailed to the State Agencies, and new and continuing sponsors in August 

2002 and questionnaires were mailed to former sponsors between September 2002 and 

November 2002. In order to reduce non-response, there was a second mailing of questionnaires 

to sponsors and former sponsors who did not respond to the first mailing. All of the State 

Agency surveys were returned. FNS received 129 of the 166 continuing sponsor surveys (77 

percent), 113 of the 149 new sponsor surveys (76 percent), and 92 of the 145 former sponsor 

surveys (63 percent). Some of the “former” sponsors identified by their State Agencies had 

stopped sponsoring SFSP but were serving meals under the Seamless Summer Waiver2

; these 

“former” sponsors were excluded from the former sponsor sample. The final analytic sample 

based on “usable” questionnaires was 128 continuing sponsors, 111 new sponsors and 77 former 

sponsors. 

Data Analyses 

FNS staff entered the responses into Access databases (Microsoft Access 2000, Microsoft 

Corporation, Redmond, WA) and, after verifying the data in the database against the 

questionnaires, the Access databases were imported into SAS (Version 8.2, SAS Institute, Cary, 

NC). SAS statistical software was used for generating the descriptive statistics presented in this 

report. This evaluation report presents findings from the analyses of data collected from the 14 

State Agencies, 239 sponsors (111 new sponsors and 128 continuing sponsors) and 77 former 

sponsors and administrative data from the FNS National Data Bank. 

Limitations of the Evaluation 

Of the three main objectives of the evaluation, FNS was able to examine, in detail, issues related 

to SFSP participation from the questionnaires completed by the State Agencies, and current and 

former sponsors in 2002 and from administrative data in the FNS National Data Bank. 

Findings related to meal quality and program integrity are based solely on the perceptions of the 

State Agencies and the sponsors who were surveyed in the 14 Pilot States. States Agencies are 

required to monitor sponsors and their sites. Sponsors are required to monitor their sites. 

However, perceptions are subject to bias and due to resource constraints there was no 

independent assessment of meal quality or program integrity. 

 

2

 This waiver allows school districts to operate summer feeding using a combination of SFSP and the National 

School Lunch Program (NSLP) rules. SSFW meals and participation are not counted under SFSP. 
5

Chapter 3. Participation 

State Agencies provided a count of sponsors by type of sponsoring organization for the year 

before the Pilot (2000) and 3 Pilot years (2001, 2002 and 2003). Data for the 14 States combined 

are presented in Table 1. School food authorities were the primary sponsor of SFSP and 

accounted for 66 percent of all sponsors in 2003 (Figure 1). Other private non-profit sponsors 

accounted for 15 percent of the 2003 sponsors. Of the remaining sponsors for 2003, 6 percent 

were Government entities, 9 percent were residential camps, and 3 percent were National Youth 

Sports Programs (NYSP). The number of school sponsors increased by 10 percent from 2000 to 

2003. Other private non-profit sponsors continued to increase each year from 2000 to 2003 and 

increased by 58 percent from 2000 to 2003. 

Table 1: Types Of Organization That Sponsored SFSP In The 14 States In 2000, 2001, 

2002 And 2003: Totals For The 14 States 

Sponsor Type 2000 2001 2002 2003 

Schools 710 

(700 public 

10 private) 

740 

(724 public 

16 private) 

794 

(774 public 

20 private)

781 

(756 public 

27 private)

Local or Municipal Government 

Agencies 

42 43 41 51 

County or State Government Agencies 12 13 21 17 

Residential Camps 119 117 111 111 

National Youth Sports Programs 

(NYSP) 

29 28 31 31 

Other Private Non-profit organizations, 

excluding private schools, residential 

camps, and NYSPs 

111 127 148 175 

Indian Tribal Organizations 9 8 9 5 

Other 0 0 3 0 

Total 1032 1076 1158 1183 

Percentage change from 2000 for Total 

Sponsors 

- 4.3% 12.2% 14.6% 

 Data source: State Agency (N=14) 

The number of sponsors ranged from 9 in one Pilot State to 366 in the State with the largest 

SFSP program among the 14 Pilot States (Individual State-level data are presented in Appendix 

A, Table S1). Across the 14 States there were an additional 151 SFSP sponsors in 2003 as 

compared to 2000, which is a 15 percent increase (Table 2). The range of new sponsors that were 

added to SFSP varied widely across the States from 2 in one Pilot State to 38 in another Pilot 

state.
6

Figure 1: Proportion Of Types Of 2003 SFSP Sponsors 

14.8

9.4

5.8 2.6

66.0

0.4

Schools

Other Private Non-Profits

Residential Camps

Government Entities

National Youth Sports Programs

Indian Tribal Organizations

Table 2: Total Number (Range Across The 14 States) Of Sponsors In 2000, 2001, 2002 And 

2003 In The 14 States 

2000 2001 2002 2003 Change 

from 2000 

to 2003 

Number of Sponsors 1032 1076 

(6 to 392) 1

1158 

(7 to 380) 

1183 

(9 to 366) 

+151 (14.6% 

increase) 

Number of New 

Sponsors2

- 120 

(0 to 26) 

 184 

(2 to 38) 

- - 

Data Source: State Agencies (N=14) 1

 A total of 103 sponsors left SFSP after the summer of 2001. One State reported that 20 sponsors left SFSP after 

summer 2001 to participate in the Seamless Summer Feeding Waiver in 2002. 2

Information on number of new sponsors was not collected in 2000 and 2003. 

The FNS National Data Bank is a centralized database that serves as a repository for commonly 

used FNS program and financial data beginning with Fiscal Year 1989. It has yearly July SFSP 

participation information for sponsors and children. As shown in Table 3, the number of SFSP 

sponsors, food sites, average daily attendance (ADA) and total number of meals served for the 

14 Pilot States combined increased each since year 2000. Sponsor numbers in the FNS National 

Data Bank (Table 3) are lower than the numbers reported by State Agencies (Tables 1 and 2) 

since FNS National Data Bank data are limited to July sponsor participation and some sponsors 

who are open in other months are not open in July. In addition to examining change from 2000 

to 2003, year-to-year percent changes were also calculated and are presented in Table 4. 

Whereas there was a modest 5 percent increase in the overall number of SFSP July sponsors 

between the 2nd and 3rd year of the pilot, the ADA for the 14 pilot states increased by 24 percent, 

and this increase also outpaced the increase in the number of food sites and meals served (Table 

4, Figure 1).
7

Table 3: Total Number Of SFSP Sponsors, Food Sites, Average Daily Attendance (ADA) 

And Total SFSP Meals In July In 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 And 2003 In The 14 States 

1999 2000 2001 

(1st Year 

Of Pilot) 

2002 

(2nd Year 

Of Pilot)1 

2003 

(3rd Year 

Of Pilot)1

Change 

from 2000 

to 2003 

Sponsors 672 664 687 746 783 +119 

(17.9%)

Number of 

Food Sites 

3,576 3,328 3,559 3,805 4,519 +1191 

(35.8%)

ADA3 218,678 204,847 225,031 236,024 292,928 +88,081 

(43.0%)

Total 

Number of 

Meals Served 

5,835,662 5,180,104 6,117,040 7,045,7322 8,029,118 +2,849,014 

(55.0%)

Data Source: National Data Bank (NDB). The numbers are based on July participation as SFSP Sponsor, ADA and 

Food Site data are only collected for July. 

1

In summer 2002 the Seamless Summer Feeding Waiver (SSFW) pilot went nationwide. Three of the 14 States 

participated in the SSFW in 2002 and four in 2003. The data in the table excludes SSFW. 

2

An additional 359,108 meals (not added to this total) were served in July 2002 by the 3-pilot states that also 

participated in the SSFW (source: Child Nutrition Division, FNS) 3

The 2002 ADA is based on the ADA’s in the NDB on April 14, 2003. The 2003 ADA’s is based on the ADA’s in 

the NDB on February 24, 2004. NDB data are not final and may be subject to revision. 

 

Table 4: Yearly Changes In The Total Number Of SFSP Sponsors, Food Sites, Average 

Daily Attendance And Total SFSP Meals In July In The 14 States 

Numbers 

in 

2000 

Change 

from 2000 

to 2001 

Change 

from 2001 

to 2002 

Change 

from 2002 

to 2003 

Sponsors 664 +23

(3.5%)

+59 

(8.6%) 

+37

(5.0%)

Number of Food Sites 3,328 +231

(6.9%)

+446 

(13.2%) 

+714

(18.8%)

Average Daily Attendance (ADA) 204,847 +20,184

(9.9%)

+10,993 

(4.9%) 

+56,904

(24.1%)

Total Number of Meals Served1 5,180,104 +936,936

(18.0%)

+928,692 

(15.2%) 

+989,386

(14.0%)

Note: The analyses presented in this table use the numbers presented in Table 3. 1

Three of the 14 States also participated in the Seamless Summer Feeding Waiver (SSFW) in 2002 and four 

participated in 2003. Meals served under SSFW were claimed under NSLP meals and would not be reflected in 

these totals. 
8

Figure 2: Yearly Changes In The Total Number Of SFSP Sponsors, Food Sites, Average 

Daily Attendance And Total SFSP Meals In July In The 14 States 

600

650

700

750

800

Sponsors

2003

2002

2001

2000

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

Food Sites

2003

2002

2001

2000

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

Average Daily Attendance

2003

2002

2001

2000

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

9,000,000

Total Number of Meals Served

2003

2002

2001

2000

The changes observed varied across the 14 States in that the July 2003 ADA increased by 15 

percent or more in eight States and decreased by 15 percent or more in two States as compared to 

their July 2002 ADA. The ADA for three States increased by less than 10 percent and in one 

State the ADA decreased by about 2 percent (Appendix A, Table S2). The ADA for the U.S. as 

a whole increased by 8.75 percent in July 2003 as compared to July 2002, reversing the recent 

trend of declining national SFSP ADAs.

As previously stated, the goal of this Pilot was to increase SFSP participation by sponsors and by 

low-income children in States with low summer feeding (SFSP and NSLP) participation rates. 

The 14 States were selected for this Pilot based on a statutory formula that calculated July 1999 

SFSP and National School Lunch Program (NSLP) participation by low-income children as a 

percentage of March 1999 NSLP participation by low-income children. The percentage of lowincome children served in July 1999 by the 14 Pilot States fell below 50 percent (< 11.05 

percent) of the average for the United States (US average: 22.1 percent) as a whole (Table 5). 

The formula that was used to calculate participation by low-income children in July 1999 was 

also used to calculate July participation in 2000 (year before the pilot) and the 1st, 2nd and 3rd

years of the pilot, and the data are presented in Table 5. During the 3rd year of the pilot’s 

operation, the gap between the percentage of low-income children served by the 14 States and 
9

other States narrowed by 2 percentage points (12 percent), from 16.9 percentage points in 2000 

to 14.9 percentage points in 2003 (Table 5). Despite an increase in the mean percentage of lowincome children served in 2003 as compared to 2000, the 2003 mean for the 14 States (10.65 

percent) continues to be less than 50 percent of the national mean (22.12 percent). However, 

there were differences across the States, and in five of the 14 States this percentage was above 

the 50 percent mark, i.e. > 11.06 (Table 5). 

Although SFSP participation by children increased overall in the 14 States, nine of the 14 States 

are still ranked among the 10 States that served the lowest percentage of low-income children in 

July 2003 (Table 5). Furthermore, four Pilot States (Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas) 

served fewer low-income children in 2003 than in 1999 (Table 5). In contrast, two Pilot States 

doubled the percentage of low-come children they had served in 1999 in 2003 and were ranked 

19th (Kentucky) and 26th (Idaho) in the US in 2003. 

Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) presented an analysis of “The Lugar Pilots” (the 14 

State Pilot is often referred to as the “Lugar” Pilot as this Pilot was sponsored by Senator 

Richard Lugar) in their report “Hunger Doesn’t Take a Vacation: Summer Nutrition Status 

Report, June 2003.” Three of the 14 Pilot States were featured among FRAC’s ten best States 

for growth in July summer nutrition participation from 2001 to 2002 and one was listed among 

the 10 worst States (FRAC 2003: see page 15). FRAC also calculated the ratio of low-income 

children fed in July 2002 to free and reduced price NSLP participation during School Year (SY) 

2001-2002. Their findings show that none of the 14 Pilot States were among the 10 best States 

but that nine of the 10 worst States were Pilot States (FRAC 2003: see page 16). Although 

FRAC used a different denominator for the calculation of the ratio of low-income children 

served than that required by the legislation, FRAC ratios and performance rankings are similar to 

those presented in this report (Table 5 and Table S3 in Appendix A). For the July 2002 ratios, 

FRAC used free and reduced price NSLP participation throughout SY 2001-2002 whereas FNS 

has used March 2002 free and reduced price NSLP participation. March NSLP participation was 

used in the statutory formula for determining which States would qualify to participate in the 

Pilot. 

As per the Congressional mandate, this evaluation is intended to report on the 14 State Pilot. 

However, in Summer 2002 eligible school districts nationwide could apply to operate their 

summer feeding program under the “Seamless Summer Feeding Waiver (SSFW).” The SSFW 

is expected to encourage more school districts to serve meals to low-income children when 

school is not in session. This waiver allows school districts to operate summer feeding using a 

combination of SFSP and NSLP rules. The SFSP requirements are that feeding sites be in lowincome areas and that all children be fed free of charge. The NSLP rules replace many of the 

SFSP operating guidelines and paperwork requirements and thus reduce the administrative 

workload for the participating school districts. However, meals served under this waiver, are 

claimed at the free rate for NSLP for lunches and the free rate for the School Breakfast Program 

(SBP) for breakfasts. Reimbursement rates for school meals are less than the reimbursement 

rates for SFSP meals (see Appendix A, Table S6). 

Three of the 14 Pilot States (Arkansas, Indiana and Texas) were among the 31 States and Guam 

that participated in the SSFW in 2002 (see Table S7 in Appendix A for a list of SSFW States). 
10

The number of SFSP school-based sponsors increased in all but two Pilot States, Arkansas and 

Texas (Figures 3, 4) in 2002. Both States were participating in SSFW and lost sponsors to it. In 

2003, Kansas, Arkansas, Indiana and Texas, were among the 32 States that participated in the 

SSFW. Between 2002 and 2003, the number of school-based sponsors decreased by one in 

three Pilot States, by 15 in one State and by 19 in the Pilot State that was also participating in 

SSFW. However, the number of school-based sponsors in 3 of the 4 Pilot States that also 

participated in SSFW did not decrease in 2003 as compared to 2002 (Appendix A, Table S1). 

Figure 3: Summer Food Service Program School-Based Sponsors In 2000, 2001, 2002, And 

2003 – Data For The 10 Of The 14 Pilot States That Did Not Participate In The Seamless 

Summer Feeding Waiver 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2000 2001 2002 2003

Number of School-Based Sponsors

AK

ID

IA

KY

NE

NH

ND

OK

PR

WY

Figure 4: Summer Food Service Program School-Based Sponsors In 2000, 2001, 2002, And 

2003 – Data For Four Pilot States That Also Participated In The Seamless Summer Feeding 

Waiver In 2003 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2000 2001 2002 2003

Number of School-Based Sponsors

AR

IN

KS

TX
11

Low-income children also have access to NSLP meals through summer school, year-round 

school programs, and through the SSFW. Thus summer participation in NSLP must be 

considered with SFSP participation when examining the percentage of low-income children 

served summer meals when school is not in session (Table 5). Table 5 identifies States that 

participated in the SSFW in 2002 and 2003 and Figure 5 shows the mean percentage of lowincome children served based on States grouped by participation in summer feeding pilots. The 

four States that operated both the 14 State Pilot and SSFW in 2003 had the lowest average for 

percentage of low-income children served (9 percent served). Ten States that operated only the 

14 State Pilot showed the largest July 2002 to July 2003 increase in the percentage of lowincome children served by SFSP and NSLP (4.9 percentage point increase from 11.0 percent to 

15.9 percent). The 28 SSFW only States served the highest percentage in 2000 (26.6 percent) 

and continued to do so in 2002 and 2003. Their average exceeded the average for the US as a 

whole. Although the number of States that did not operate any pilot remained the same (N=11) 

in 2002 and 2003, the mix changed. Hawaii and New Jersey switched places. This would have 

little impact on the 2000 average but may have contributed to the decrease in 2003 as 

participation has increased in Hawaii but decreased slightly in New Jersey. Nonetheless, as a 

group, only States that did not operate a pilot showed a decrease in the average percentage lowincome children served in 2003 (Figure 5). 

The availability of NSLP meals during summer school programs, and operation of SSFW in 32 

States are important reasons to examine SFSP participation in conjunction with NSLP 

participation as declines in SFSP participation may reflect a redistribution of children accessing 

other meal programs. As shown in Figure 6, the SFSP ADA declined by 5 percent between July 

2000 and 2003 for the 28 SSFW States combined. However, their July NSLP participation by 

low-income children increased by 28 percent during the same time period and this group of 28 

States continued to serve the highest percentage of low-income children in July (Figure 5). The 

largest percent change in SFSP ADAs (67 percent increase) was seen for the 10 States that 

participated in the 14 State Pilot alone. This group of 10 States had a 4 percent drop in July 2003 

NSLP participation as compared to July 2000. Four of the 14 Pilot States that also operated 

SSFW in 2003 showed increases in NSLP (7 percent) and SFSP (25 percent) participation 

between July 2000 and July 2003. (Figure 6). For the US as a whole (N=53), SFSP July ADAs 

in 2003 were similar to July 2000 ADAs, but NSLP participation had increased by about 24 

percent indicating, that overall, nationwide the number of children participating in summer 

feeding programs has increased. However, the proportion of low-income children served when 

school was out as compared to during the School Year has remained almost constant (around 22 

percent) over the last 5 years (Figure 5, Table 5). As previously stated “March” free and reduced 

price NSLP participation is being used as a proxy for school year participation and this compared 

well with FRACs calculations using school year data (see Table S3 in Appendix A). 
12

Figure 5: Low-Income Children Served By The Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) 

And The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) In July Relative To Those Served By 

NSLP In March: Mean Percent Served In 2000, 2002 And 2003 

7.9

21.7

9.0

21.9

19.3

8.6

26.6

18.9

11.0

26.4

18.1

22.1

9.0

15.9

26.9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

14 State Only SSFW & 14

State

SSFW Only No Pilot U.S. Average

Percent

July/March 00

July/March 02

July/March 03

 SSFW=Seamless Summer Feeding Waiver Pilot 

 For 2000 & 2002: 14 State Only (N=11); SSFW+14 State N=(3); SSFW only (N=28); No Pilot (N=11); 

 US (N=53)

 For 2003: 14 State Only (N=10); SSFW+14 State (N=4); SSFW only (N=28); No Pilot (N=11); US (N=53) 

 For names of States in each group see Table S7 in Appendix A 

Figure 6: Changes Between July 2000 And July 2003 In The Summer Food Service 

Program Average Daily Attendance (ADA) And The National School Lunch Program 

(NSLP) Average Daily Free And Reduced Price Lunched Served 

6.8

27.8 23.8

67.3

24.8

-3.6 -5.3 -9.1 -6.5 -0.4

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

14 State

Only

SSFW +

14 State

SSFW

Only

No Pilot US

Average

Percent Change 

NSLP SFSP

SSFW=Seamless Summer Feeding Waiver Pilot 

14 State Only (N=10); SSFW+14 State (N=4); SSFW only (N=28); No Pilot (N=11); US (N=53)

For names of States in each group see Table S7 in Appendix A 

This analysis is based on accessing the National Data Bank on April 5, 2004 
13

Table 5: Percent Of Low-Income Children Served: July Summer Food Service Program And The 

National School Lunch Program (NSLP) Participation1 Compared To The March NSLP Participation 

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

State/Territory Percent 

Served2 

Rank Percent

Served2

Rank Percent

Served2

Rank Percent 

Served2,3

Rank Percent 

Served2,4

Rank 

District of 

ColumbiaA 

52.67 1 48.63 1 47.50 2 64.97 1 85.59 1 

Virgin Islands 48.82 2 35.89 6 59.83 1 56.56 2 57.08 2 

NevadaA 44.87 3 42.54 2 42.97 3 34.13 6 32.74 9 

CaliforniaA 41.74 4 41.18 3 41.45 4 43.27 3 37.06 4 

New MexicoA 37.16 5 36.64 5 37.79 5 36.68 4 36.88 5 

Delaware 36.62 6 40.30 4 31.29 9 32.95 8 27.43 12 

New YorkA 35.09 7 35.22 7 34.70 6 32.52 9 47.94 3 

Rhode Island 34.58 8 32.31 8 30.26 12 24.70 16 24.06 14 

PennsylvaniaA 31.69 9 25.63 15 31.32 8 33.43 7 36.39 7 

UtahA 29.83 10 29.16 11 30.75 10 28.05 11 34.15 8 

South CarolinaA 28.98 11 32.01 9 29.82 13 28.60 10 29.70 10 

FloridaA 28.29 12 26.33 12 25.06 16 21.45 21 17.80 28 

Massachusetts 27.35 13 29.34 10 33.88 7 26.85 13 23.81 17 

ConnecticutA 27.20 14 26.11 13 27.03 14 26.78 14 27.23 13 

IllinoisA 26.29 15 23.69 17 22.96 19 22.99 18 20.32 24 

HawaiiA03 24.54 16 25.77 14 30.46 11 34.74 5 36.45 6 

New JerseyA02 24.04 17 23.01 18 24.53 18 21.85 19 22.00 20 

MarylandA 21.24 18 24.99 16 25.66 15 27.58 12 22.85 18 

WisconsinA 21.20 19 18.91 22 18.12 25 16.49 29 16.38 30 

GeorgiaA 19.33 20 21.96 19 20.76 20 21.63 20 19.16 25 

VermontA 17.59 21 20.59 20 17.61 26 19.99 22 24.02 15 

TennesseeA 17.29 22 15.66 32 14.16 36 14.42 36 15.38 38 

South DakotaA 17.18 23 16.74 27 18.40 22 18.76 24 18.25 27 

North CarolinaA 17.14 24 17.58 25 15.37 32 18.39 26 20.81 21 

ColoradoA 17.03 25 14.17 35 11.96 41 10.96 44 12.02 42 

AlabamaA 16.90 26 18.51 23 18.37 24 19.65 23 20.46 23 

Minnesota 16.77 27 19.14 21 19.85 21 18.37 27 17.11 29 

Virginia 16.53 28 17.32 26 18.40 22 18.43 25 20.61 22 

West VirginiaA 16.48 29 16.38 28 15.09 34 16.23 30 16.15 32 

Michigan 16.30 30 17.75 24 17.33 27 15.01 35 13.11 41 

WashingtonA 15.80 31 15.66 31 15.10 33 17.03 28 15.62 37 

MissouriA 15.56 32 15.63 33 16.18 30 23.87 17 23.81 16 

Maine 14.34 33 13.64 37 13.73 38 14.25 37 15.67 36 

OregonA 14.20 34 16.36 29 16.88 28 15.97 32 14.30 39 

LouisianaA 13.52 35 13.84 36 12.54 40 12.58 41 14.13 40 

Montana 13.18 36 15.68 30 24.55 17 26.40 15 27.53 11 

OhioA 12.60 37 12.88 39 13.76 37 12.63 40 11.46 43 

Mississippi 12.47 38 11.07 41 11.09 42 11.67 43 10.63 44 

ArizonaA 11.11 39 14.42 34 16.47 29 14.15 38 16.12 33 
14

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

State/Territory Percent 

Served2

Rank Percent

Served2

Rank Percent

Served2

Rank Percent 

Served2,3

Rank Percent 

Served2,4

Rank 

KentuckyP 10.81 40 12.02 40 15.63 31 15.90 33 22.85 19 

KansasP,A03 10.75 41 7.90 48 7.58 49 7.68 49 9.27 46 

NebraskaP 10.61 42 8.87 45 8.60 46 8.48 47 8.53 48 

New 

HampshireP

10.03 43 12.92 38 14.54 35 15.97 31 16.32 31 

TexasA,P 9.69 44 8.47 47 8.34 48 7.46 51 7.79 52 

IndianaA,P 9.67 45 10.30 42 10.90 43 10.46 45 15.94 35 

IdahoP 8.91 46 9.37 43 13.49 39 15.61 34 18.38 26 

Puerto RicoP 8.66 47 9.20 44 10.30 44 12.93 39 16.02 34 

North DakotaP 8.20 48 8.87 46 9.34 45 11.73 42 9.23 47 

ArkansasA,P 7.94 49 7.45 49 8.42 47 8.79 46 10.01 45 

IowaP 7.45 50 6.98 51 7.58 49 6.50 52 8.37 49 

OklahomaP 7.19 51 7.05 50 6.34 51 6.39 53 5.13 53 

WyomingP 5.59 52 5.48 52 5.80 52 7.96 48 8.20 50 

AlaskaP 2.89 53 4.97 53 5.19 53 7.55 50 7.95 51 

United States 

Mean 

Median (midpoint) 

22.14 

16.77 27 

21.87 

16.74 27 

22.00 

17.33 27 

21.70 

18.37 27 

22.12 

18.25 27 

14 Pilot States: 

Mean 9.26 8.75 9.23 9.65 10.65 

Other States: 

Mean 25.76 

 

25.63 

 

25.66 

 

25.36 25.50 

Gap5 16.50 16.88 16.43 15.71 14.85 

Data Source: National Data Bank (NDB) 1

NSLP Participation = Average daily free and reduced price (F/RP) lunches. 2

Percent served is calculated as follows: 

(July SFSP Average Daily Attendance + July NSLP Average Daily F/RP Lunches Served) X 100 

 March NSLP Average Daily F/RP Lunches Served 

For example, the percent of low-income children served in the District of Columbia in 1999 = (21,159+379)/40,893 X 100 = 52.67% 3

 2002 calculations were updated using SFSP and NSLP data posted in the NDB on April 12, 2004. NDB numbers are subject to 

revision. 

4 This calculation is based on the 2003 SFSP and NSLP data that were posted in the NDB on April 12, 2004. NDB numbers are 

subject to revision and cannot be considered as final numbers for 2003. Most NDB revisions for individual State data are minor and 

should not result in major changes to percent of low-income children served in July or the State rankings. 5

Gap is the difference between the mean for States not participating in the 14 State Pilot (Other States) and the 14 Pilot States. AStates and the District of Columbia that participated in the Seamless Summer Feeding Waiver in Summer 2002 and 2003. In 

Summer 2003, Kansas (A03) and Hawaii (A03) also participated in the Seamless Summer Feeding Waiver but New Jersey did not 

(A02). 

P

The14 States. The 14 States were selected for the Pilot because the percent of low-income children they served was below 50 percent 

of the mean (22.14 percent) for 1999 i.e. each of their 1999 percentages fell below 11.07. 

Note: States ranked 40 to 53 are the 14 States with the lowest participation by low-income children in July for that Year.
15

The total number of lunches served to low-income children in the U.S. in July through SFSP and 

NSLP combined has increased by 2.6 percent from 61,594,482 in July 2000 to 63,179,029 in 

July 2003. Nationally there was a decrease in SFSP lunches served (-10.3 percent) but an 

increase in NSLP lunches served (28.7 percent). However when Pilot participation was 

considered, only the group of States that were operating the SSFW showed a decrease in the 

number SFSP lunches served (-18.8 percent) (Table 6). Their number for NSLP lunches served 

increased by 31.2 percent. The 10 States that were operating only the 14 State Pilot showed a 

slight decline in the total number of NSLP lunches served (-0.6 percent) to low-income children 

in July 2003 as compared to July 2000. However, their number of SFSP lunches (74.7 percent) 

and the number of overall (SFSP and NSLP) lunches combined (56.7 percent) increased in July 

2003 as compared to July 2000. Four States that operated both Pilots showed increases in both 

SFSP (34.5 percent) and NSLP (54.6 percent) lunches served. Eleven States did not operate any 

Pilot in 2003 and this group had an increase in July 2003 SFSP lunches served (4.4 percent) but a 

decrease in NSLP lunches served (-8.9 percent) relative to July 2000. The only group of States to 

show a decrease (-1.3 percent) in overall (NSLP and SFSP) July lunches served was the group 

that operated the SSFW in 2003. 

Table 6: The Total Number Of SFSP Lunches And The Total Number Of National School 

Lunch Program Free And Reduced Price Lunches Served In July 2000 And July 2003 By 

Pilot Participation Status 

Pilot SFSP NSLP 

 2000 2003 

SFSP 

Percent 

Change 

(%)

2000 2003 

NSLP 

Percent 

Change 

(%)

Overall 

Percent 

Change 

(%)

14 State 

Only 

(N=10) 

1,298,953 2,269,702 74.7 408,522 405,978 -0.6 56.7 

14 State + 

SSFW 

(N=4) 

2,061,921 2,772,390 34.5 847,032 1,309,491 54.6 28.9 

SSFW 

(N=28) 

32,730,529 26,583,989 -18.8 17,614,958 23,106,767 31.2 -1.3 

No Pilot 

(N=11)

5,199,267 5,425,675 4.4 1,432,300 1,305,037 -8.9 1.5 

U.S. 

(N=53)

41,290,670 37,051,756 -10.3 20,303,812 26,127,273 28.7 2.6 

Data Source: National Data Bank. These analyses are based on accessing the National Data Bank on April 7, 2004 

The percentage contribution by States (grouped by Pilot participation status) to the total number 

of July 2000 and 2003 SFSP and NSLP lunches served nationally is shown in Figures 7 and 8. 

Ten of the 14 Pilot States that operated only the 14 State Pilot served 3 percent of all SFSP 

lunches in July 2000 and 6 percent in July 2003. Four of the 14 Pilot States that also operated 

the SSFW served 5 percent of all SFSP lunches in July 2000 and 7 percent in July 2003. Thus, 

overall the 14 Pilot States served less than 14 percent of SFSP and less than 7 percent of NSLP 

July lunches in 2000 and 2003. In contrast the 28 SSFW States that include many of the larger 

States served more than 70 percent of SFSP and 80 percent of NSLP July lunches (names of 

States by Pilot participation are provided in Appendix A, Table S7). 
16

Figure 7: Percentage Contribution Of States (Grouped By Pilot Participation Status) To 

The Total Number of SFSP Lunches Served in July 2000 and July 2003 

 July 2000 July 2003 

 14 State Only (N=10) 14 State & SSFW (N=4) SSFW (N=28) No Pilot (N=11) 

Figure 8: Percentage Contribution Of States (Grouped By Pilot Participation Status) To 

The Total Number of Free and Reduced Price NSLP Lunches Served in July 2000 

and July 2003 

2%

4%

87%

7%

 

2%

4% 5%

88%

 July 2000 July 2003 

 14 State Only (N=10) 14 State & SSFW (N=4) SSFW (N=28) No Pilot (N=11) 

A recent evaluation of the SSFW by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., which was funded by 

The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, (Tasse et. al. 2003) and FRAC’s latest analysis of 

“summer nutrition” (FRAC 2003) have shown that in 2002 SSFW had little impact overall on 

increasing the number of low-income children served. SSFW primarily served to shift meals 

3% 5%

79%

13% 6%

7%

72%

15%
17

from SFSP to NSLP. One way for SSFW to increase participation is to recruit schools that have 

not been participating in summer meal programs to begin operating NSLP (FRAC 03). 

Clearly factors other than the availability of the 14 State Pilot and SSFW are influencing 

participation at the sponsor and child level. One of FNS’ priorities is to increase SFSP access 

nationwide. To this end, in 2002, FNS formed primary partnerships with the American School 

Food Service Association, FRAC and America’s Second Harvest to develop strategies for 

program expansion in 2003 and beyond. FNS has also developed national-level and regional 

office-level SFSP expansion action plans. Regional offices implemented actions from their 

SFSP expansion and outreach plans within the States in their Region (FNS FY 2003 PrioritiesYear-End Report). Therefore, there are a number of confounding factors, including 

implementation of SSFW and the major national-level SFSP promotion initiative to increase 

SFSP access, which make the evaluation of the impact of 14 State Pilot complicated. It is 

difficult to sort out the impact of the “Pilot” versus the impact of the major SFSP promotion 

effort. For example, there has also been a growth in the number of private non-profit sponsors in 

the 14 Pilot States. Most private non-profits were not eligible to participate in the Pilot in 2002 

and 2003. They could, however, operate the SFSP without the simplified cost accounting 

associated with Pilot participation. 

FNS collected data on SFSP expansion and outreach efforts from the State Agencies and from 

SFSP sponsors and former sponsors in the 14 Pilot States in 2002. Data on barriers to 

participation were also collected in 2002 from State Agencies, SFSP sponsors and former 

sponsors in the 14 Pilot States. These findings are discussed in the Chapter 4. 
18

Chapter 4. Survey Findings 

In this chapter, survey findings from the State Agency, sponsors and former sponsors in the 14 

Pilot States are presented. First the characteristics of the sponsors and former sponsors that 

completed the questionnaires are presented. This is followed by findings from the State 

Agencies, sponsors and former sponsors on program outreach and expansion, and barriers to 

program growth. Next former sponsors’ reasons for discontinuing sponsorship are provided. 

Finally, findings from the State Agency and sponsor questionnaires on meal quality and program 

integrity are presented. 

A. Characteristics of the Survey Sample 

Sponsors: The sponsor sample consists of 128 continuing sponsors and 111 new sponsors from 

the 14 Pilot States. The new sponsors began sponsoring SFSP after the Pilot started. Majority of 

the responding sponsors (63 percent) were school districts (59 percent public and 4 percent 

private). About 9 percent of sponsors reported being residential camps, and 2 percent were 

National Youth Sports Programs. About 5 percent of sponsors were government entities and 21 

percent indicated that they were other private non-profit organizations. 

Sponsors were queried about the characteristics of their SFSP sites. The number of sites 

operated per sponsor ranged from 1 to 76 sites for continuing sponsors and from one to 38 for 

new sponsors. The overall average number of sites was four. Most (82 percent) of the sites were 

open sites. Open sites are those where meals are available to all children in an area where at least 

50 percent of the households are eligible for free and reduced price school meals. About 97 

percent of SFSP sites served lunches and 76 percent served breakfast. 

Former Sponsors: Sixty percent of the former sponsors from the 14 Pilot State who completed 

the survey were public school districts and 20 percent were private non-profit agencies. About a 

third of the sample (32%) sponsored the SFSP for only one summer and 44 percent reported 

sponsoring between two to five summers. Only 13 percent of the sample reported sponsoring 6 

or more summers and 8 percent did not know. Of the former sponsor sample, 42 percent had 

sponsored SFSP in 2001 and 57 percent had sponsored it in 2000 or earlier. Seventy seven 

percent reported operating one site and only 2 percent reported operating five or more sites when 

they sponsored the program. Most reported operating open sites (70 percent). Only 4 percent 

reported operating rural sites. A majority (82 percent) of former sponsors reported serving 100 

or less children per day. Finally, 9 percent of sponsors reported that other sponsors picked up 

some or all of their sites but 65 percent indicated that to the best of their knowledge none of their 

sites were picked up; 22 percent did not know. 

B. Program Expansion and Outreach Efforts 

(i) State Agency: Staff were asked about the impact of the Pilot’s reimbursement procedures on 

SFSP expansion in their States. Staff from 11 Pilot states (79 percent) indicated that allowing 

meals served by “eligible sponsors” to be reimbursed at the maximum allowable rate was helping 

with their State’s SFSP expansion efforts. Staff from the remaining States either said 

“no”(N=1), “no effect”(N=1) or “didn’t know” (N=1). Those reporting a positive impact of the 

Pilot’s reimbursement system were asked where they perceived these impacts were being seen. 
19

As shown below, almost all (91 percent) noted that Pilot’s new reimbursement system had 

helped a lot with simplifying the claiming process (Table 7, Figure 9). Further, 73 percent had 

ranked “simplifying the claiming process” as the item that was impacted the most by the Pilot’s 

reimbursement system. Eighteen percent ranked “bringing in new sponsors” and 9 percent 

ranked adding “more sites”, respectively as the item most impacted by the reimbursement 

system. 

Table 7: Pilot States’ Perceptions Of How The Pilot’s Reimbursement System Was 

Promoting SFSP Expansion In Their States 

Have Not 

Helped 

(%) 

Helped A 

Little (%) 

Helped Some 

(%) 

Helped A 

Lot (%) 

Item 

Impacted 

Most 

By Pilot (%) 

Simplifying the 

claiming process 0 0 9 91 73 

Bringing in new 

sponsors 0 9 45 45 18 

Adding more sites 

from current 

sponsors 18 27 27 27 9 

Retaining more 

current sponsors

 0 18 36 45 

- 

Increasing the 

number of 

children served

 10 10 40 40 

- 

Improving the 

quality of meals 

served 9 36 27 27 

- 

Increasing the 

length (number of 

weeks) of service 27 27 27 18 

- 

Source: State Agency Staff Questionnaire. N=11; Those indicating a positive impact are included in this analysis. 
20

Figure 9: Pilot States’ Perceptions Of How The Pilot’s Reimbursement System Was 

Promoting SFSP Expansion In Their States (N=11) 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Increasing the length (# of wks) of

service

Adding more sites from current

sponsors

Improving the quality of meals

served

Increasing the number of children

served

Retaining more current sponsors

Bringing in new sponsors

Simplifying the claiming process

State Perceptions

Percentage

Have Not Helped Helped a Little Helped Some Helped a Lot

More than half (8 of the 14 Pilot States) of the State Agencies indicated that they could support a 

10 percent or more increase in SFSP sponsors with their existing staffing levels (Table 8). 

Twelve of the 14 Pilot States indicated that they would be willing to support a 10 percent or 

more increase in the number of sites. Whereas sponsor growth increases the burden on State 

Agencies, site growth has a smaller impact at the State level. Increases in the number of food 

sites increases the staffing and monitoring responsibilities of sponsors of those sites. 

Table 8: The Amount Of Program Growth That The State Agencies In The 14 Pilot States 

Could Support With Existing Staffing Levels 

Percentage of 14 Pilot States Able to Support 

Growth Of: No increase Less than 10% 

increase 

10 % or more 

increase 

Sponsors 7 36 57 

Sites 7 7 86 

Data Source: State Agency Questionnaire (N=14) 

State Agencies in the 14 Pilot States were asked about sponsor retention. Respondents from all 

but one State reported providing a lot of training and technical assistance on request to sponsors 

in order to retain them (Table 9). A majority of the States Agencies (71 percent) reported 

reaching out early, before the start of the application process, to their sponsors to encourage 

retention. 
21

Table 9: Ways In Which The 14 Pilot State Agencies Work To Retain Sponsors 

None 

(%) 

Very 

Little 

(%) 

Some 

(%) 

A lot 

(%) 

Provides training and technical assistance on 

request - - 7 93 

Contacts sponsors in Spring (prior to the 

start of the application process) - 7 21 71 

Assists in Community Outreach - 21 50 29 

Commends/ recognizes sponsors at State 

events, in Newsletters, publications etc. - 29 71 - 

Source: State Agency Questionnaire (N=14) 

Most State Agencies (86 percent; n=12) also reported having worked with other organizations in 

2002 to find new sponsors or for SFSP outreach activities. State Agencies reported working with 

community-based organizations, the Federal Government, other State Agencies, advocacy 

groups and food banks, and the media on outreach activities for the Pilot in 2002. One State 

Agency also reported working with religious organizations in 2002 for SFSP outreach. 

(ii) Sponsors: When asked about increasing the number of SFSP sites they sponsored, most 

sponsors indicated an unwillingness to increase their number of SFSP sites in the future. Cost of 

operating the site and a perceived lack of demand for SFSP including the perception that there is 

already adequate coverage for the area were cited by sponsors as major reasons for not 

expanding their number of SFSP sites (Tables 10 and 11). 

Table 10: Likelihood That Sponsors In The 14 Pilot States Would Expand The Number Of 

SFSP Sites In The Future 

Type of Sponsor 

Likelihood of 

Expansion 

All 

N=236 

(%)

New 

N=111 

(%)

Continuing 

N=125 

(%) 

Very likely 15 21 10 

Somewhat likely 19 14 25 

Not too likely 31 31 31 

Not at all likely 35 35 34 

 Data Source: Sponsor Questionnaire 
22

Table 11: Reasons Cited By Sponsors In The 14 Pilot States For Not Being Likely To 

Expand The Number Of Sites That They Currently Operate 

 Type of Sponsor 

Reasons for Not Expanding the Number of Sites All 

N=239 

(%)

New 

N=111

(%)

 Cont 

 N=128 

(%)

Cost of operating the site 38 32 42 

Lack of demand or area is well covered 31 27 34 

Lack of available locations for sites 26 23 29 

Insufficient staff within your organization 23 23 23 

School food service is not interested or able to provide summer staff 12 13 11 

Inability to find a partner to help in community outreach 10 9 12 

Schools offering school lunch or being open year round 3 3 2 

Other reasons 26 27 24 

Data Source: Sponsor questionnaire. Respondents were asked to check all that apply. Percentages are based on 

the number checked. Non-responders are not excluded. 

 Cont=continuing sponsors

This survey also found that a majority of sponsors reported operating the same number of SFSP 

sites in 2001 and 2002 (Table 12). 

Table 12: Comparison Of The Number Of SFSP Sites Operated In 2002 With 2001 In The 

14 Pilot States 

Type of Sponsor 

2001 Versus 2002 

All 

N=154 

(%) 

New 

N=28 

(%) 

Continuing 

N=126 

(%) 

The same number of sites in 2002 and 

2001 

71 64 72 

More sites in 2002 23 36 21 

Fewer sites in 2002 5 - 6 

Data Source: Sponsor Questionnaire 

Excludes sponsors that began sponsoring in 2002 and one non-responder. The column for All doesn’t sum to 100 

due to rounding. 

There is concern by some that on average the number of SFSP operating days during the summer 

does not provide adequate meal coverage for low-income students when school is not in session. 

Sponsors were asked to provide their start and end dates of SFSP operations for Summer of 

2002. Overall 19 percent of this study’s sponsor sample didn’t sponsor SFSP beyond June 30. 

Most of these sponsors (96 percent) were school sponsors. A closer examination of the data by 
23

State showed that in one Pilot State (Oklahoma), 63 percent of the sponsor sample ceased SFSP 

operations by 28 June, and all but one of these sponsors was a school sponsor. Only 20 percent 

of the Oklahoma sponsors that were sampled reported sponsoring SFSP until the end of July. 

Schools account for about 85 percent of all sponsors in Oklahoma, which is greater than the 

average (66 percent) for all 14 Pilot States combined (Table S1 in Appendix A). This suggests 

that if many Oklahoma schools do not operate in July, then the percentage of low-income 

children served by SFSP and NSLP in July in Oklahoma will continue to be low (Table 5). 

When asked about increasing the length of their SFSP operations, only about a quarter of 

sponsors reported a willingness to increase the length (number of days) of their SFSP operations, 

while about half were disinclined to do so (Table 13). New sponsors indicated a greater 

willingness than continuing sponsors to increase their length of SFSP operations (33 percent 

versus 19 percent). About a quarter of all sponsors (23 percent) indicated that their program 

already ran all summer. A comparison of school versus non-school sponsors shows that more 

school sponsors (56 percent) than non-school sponsors (45 percent) were unwilling to increase 

the weeks that they operate SFSP. About one- third (31 percent) of non-school sponsors 

reported running all summer, but only about one-fifth (19 percent) of school sponsors indicated 

that they operated all summer (Table 13). 

Table 13: Willingness By Sponsors In The 14 Pilot States To Increase Their Length Of 

Summer Session (Number Of Weeks SFSP Operates) 

Increase 

length of 

session 

All Sponsors 

N=229 

(%)

New 

Sponsors 

N=104 

(%)

Continuing 

Sponsors 

N=125 

(%)

School 

Sponsors 

N=144 

(%) 

Non-School 

Sponsors 

N=85 

(%) 

Yes 25 33 19 26 25 

No 52 47 55 56 45 

Not Applicable 

- Runs All 

Summer 

23 20 26 19 31 

Data Source: Sponsor Questionnaire. Non-responders to this question are excluded.

Overall about a fifth (19 percent) of sponsors reported increasing the number of days that they 

operated the SFSP during the past few years (Table 14). However, nearly two-thirds (63 

percent) reported that length of their SFSP operations did not change. 
24

Table 14: Changes In The Length Of Operating SFSP Over The Past Few Years In The 14 Pilot 

States

Type of Sponsor 

Length of Operation 

All 

N=155 (%) 

New 

N=29 (%) 

Continuing 

N=126 (%) 

Increased 19 28 17 

Decreased 6 3 7 

Stayed about the same 63 55 65 

Fluctuated up and down 10 10 10 

Data Source: Sponsor Questionnaire. New excludes sponsors that began sponsoring in 2002. 

Site accessibility was an important consideration for sponsors, and 60 percent reported taking it 

into consideration when opening a new site (Table 15). Seventy percent of sponsors reported 

using school lunch certification information when looking for areas that would meet site 

eligibility requirements (Table 16). The State Agency was consulted (30 percent), but the use of 

computer-mapping software by sponsors was rare (6 percent). 

Table15: Criteria Considered Important By Sponsors In The 14 Pilot States When 

Opening A New Site 

Site Criteria Percent of Sponsors1

Site is accessible to children (e.g. transportation is not an issue) 60 

No added cost for leasing/ renting and operating the facility. 50 

Community involvement (e.g. volunteers) 41 

Availability of activities 40 

Secure and safe/Low crime area 25 

Source: Sponsor Questionnaire. (N=239) 1Respondent were asked to check all that apply. Sample does not exclude 

non-responders. 

Table 16: Methods Used By Sponsors In The 14 Pilot States For Identifying Areas For 

New Sites 

Method Percent Reported Using 

Obtained free and reduced-price school lunch information 70 

Contacted the State Agency 30 

Obtained census data 24 

Used information from advocacy groups or other organizations 18 

Used computer-mapping software 6 

Source: Sponsor Questionnaire. (N=239). Respondents were asked to check Yes or No for each item. Sample does 

not exclude non-responders. 
25

Almost half of the sponsor sample (49 percent) reported working with other organization to 

promote SFSP. Sponsors reported working most often with educational agencies, followed by 

community based organizations and the media (Table 17). 

Table 17: Organizations That Sponsors In The 14 Pilot States Worked With To Promote 

SFSP In 2001 And/Or 2002

Organization Percent1

Educational Agencies (Schools, Colleges and Universities) 36 

Community Based Organizations 26 

Media 26 

Government Agencies (State, Local and Federal) 24 

Religious Organizations 20 

Advocacy Groups 2 

Source: Sponsor survey (N=238) 

 1Calculation is based on adding all responses (up to 6) for each sponsor and dividing by the total number of 

sponsors in the sample (238). 

 

(iii) Former Sponsors: Of the 77 former sponsors surveyed in the 14 Pilot States, 47 percent 

responded “yes” to the question that asked if they did anything to increase participation the last 

year that they sponsored the SFSP; 40 percent responded “no.” Of sponsors who responded “no”, 

61 percent indicated that there was no need to increase participation and 21 percent cited a lack 

of resources. 

When asked if their organization had worked with any other organization to publicize and 

promote the SFSP when they were a sponsor, 42 percent (n=32) responded that they had and 48 

percent (n=37) had not; 10 percent (n=8) of respondents did not know. Those former sponsors 

that had worked with other organizations for outreach purposes indicated that they had worked 

with religious organizations (n=14), schools (n=13), media (n=12) and community based 

organizations (n=11) most often. These organizations primarily served to publicize the 

availability of the program. 

C. Barriers to Program Growth 

(i) State Agency: The 14 Pilot State Agencies perceived lack of transportation and lack of 

community involvement as major barriers to increasing SFSP participation (Table 18, 19, and 

Figures 10 and 11). Not having enough sponsors was also considered a major barrier to 

expanding SFSP (Table 19). In contrast poor quality of meals was never cited as one of the top 

three reasons for lower participation in SFSP as compared to NSLP. 
26

Table 18: The Pilot States’ Perceptions On Why Fewer Children Participate In SFSP As 

Compared To The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) In Their States 

REASONS FOR LOWER 

PARTICIPATION IN SFSP 

COMPARED TO NSLP 

NOT A 

REASON 

(%) 

RARELY 

A REASON

(%) 

SOMETIMES 

A REASON 

(%) 

ALMOST 

ALWAYS A 

REASON 

(%) 

Lack of community involvement - 7 36 57 

Lack of transportation - - 62 39 

Inadequate Program Publicity 7 7 57 29 

Lack of activities for the children 7 7 57 29 

Not enough sites in needy areas - 7 71 21 

Not enough sponsors 7 7 71 14 

Poor quality of meals 43 50 7 - 

Short length of session 21 7 64 7 

 Data Source: State Agency Questionnaire (N=14)

Figure 10: The Pilot States’ Perceptions On Why Fewer Children Participate In SFSP As 

Compared To The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) In Their States

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Poor Meal Quality

Short Length of

Session

Not Enough Sponsors

Not Enough Sites in

Needy Areas

Lack of Activities for

the Children

Inadequate Program

Publicity

Lack of Transportation

Lack of Community

Involvement

Reasons for Lower SFSP Participation

Percentage of States

Not a Reason Rarely a Reason Sometimes a Reason Almost Always a Reason
27

Table 19: Three Most Important Reasons Cited By The 14 State Pilot State Agencies For 

Lower Participation In SFSP Compared To NSLP 

REASONS FOR LOWER 

PARTICIPATION IN SFSP 

COMPARED TO NSLP 

First (Most 

Important) 

Reason (%) 

Second 

Reason 

(%) 

Third 

Reason 

(%) 

Cited as One 

of Top 3 

Reasons (%) 

Lack of transportation 36 15 7 57 

Lack of community involvement 7 23 29 57 

Not enough sponsors 29 23 - 50 

Inadequate Program Publicity 21 - 7 29 

Not enough sites in needy areas - 23 14 36 

Lack of activities for the children - 15 21 36 

Short length of session 7 - 7 14 

Poor quality of meals - - - - 

Other - - 14 14 

Data Source: State Agency Questionnaire (N=14)

Figure 11: Three Most Important Reasons Cited By The 14 State Pilot State Agencies For 

Lower Participation In SFSP Compared To NSLP 

14

0

7

21

14

7

29

0

7

0

0

0

15

23

0

23

23

15

0

0

7

0

0

21

7

29

36

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Other

Poor Quality of Meals

Short Length of Session

Lack of Activities for the Children

Not Enough Sites in Needy Areas

Inadequate Program Publicity

Lack of Community Involvement

Not Enough Sponsors

Lack of Transportation

Reasons for Lower SFSP 

Participation

Percentage of States

 

 1st (Primary Reason); 2nd Reason; 3rd Reason 
28

(ii) Sponsors: Similar to the State Agency response, sponsors in the 14 Pilot States cited lack of 

transportation as a major barrier to increasing SFSP participation by children (Tables 18,19 20, 

21). These sponsors also cited lack of community involvement and insufficient reimbursement 

or funding as other important barriers to increasing SFSP participation (Tables 20, 21). More 

than a third (38 percent) perceived insufficient reimbursement as a barrier to SFSP expansion 

(Table 21). Both new and continuing sponsors identified lack of transportation, lack of 

community involvement and insufficient reimbursement or funding as top three barriers to 

participation (see Appendix A, Tables S4, S5). 

Table 20: Sponsors (Continuing And New) Perceptions Of Barriers To Increasing 

Participation In The SFSP In The 14 Pilot States 

Barriers* NOT A BARRIER 

(%) 

MINOR BARRIER 

(%) 

MAJOR BARRIER 

(%) 

Lack of transportation 46 30 22 

Insufficient reimbursement 

or funding 

57 23 14 

Lack of community 

involvement 

46 39 12 

Not enough support from 

local or municipal 

governments 

65 22 11 

Lack of activities for 

children 

69 19 8 

Inadequate program 

publicity 69 21 6 

Not enough staff to 

supervise sites 

77 14 5 

Not enough support from 

the state agency 

81 13 3 

Quality of meals 93 3 1 

Data Source: Sponsor Questionnaire (N=238) 

*Sponsors were asked to check one response for each item. Percentages are based on number of sponsors in the 

sample that checked the item. Non-responders were not excluded from this analysis. 
Table 21: Three Main Barriers To Participation As Perceived By Sponsors In The 14 Pilot States 

PERCEIVED BARRIERS1 MAIN BARRIER 

(%) 

N= 167 

SECOND 

BARRIER (%) 

N=142 

THIRD 

BARRIER (%) 

N=98 

ON

THRE

Lack of transportation 33 25 11 Lack of community involvement 16 21 19 Insufficient reimbursement or funding 22 9 14 Lack of activities for children 5 12 10 Inadequate program publicity 6 8 12 Not enough support from local or municipal governments 2 8 12 Not enough staff to supervise sites 5 7 8 Not enough support from the state agency 1 4 6 Quality of meals 2 3 2 Other 9 3 4 

Data Source: Sponsor Questionnaire Cont =continuing sponsors. 1For each item, the percentage of sponsors ranking it is as a main, second or third barrier is provided. 2Calculation is based on adding all responses (main, second and third) for each sponsor type and dividing by the total number that respo
30

(iii) Former Sponsors: FNS also surveyed former sponsors in the 14 Pilot States as former 

sponsors provide a unique insight into what they perceived as barriers to increasing participation 

when they sponsored the program. It is also important to know what led them to discontinue 

SFSP sponsorship. 

Former sponsors were asked to identify what they saw as major barriers to increasing SFSP 

participation. As shown in the table below, the highest number of respondents (34 percent) 

checked a “lack of transportation”, which was followed by “other” barriers (Table 22). These 

other barriers ranged from “a closed project that was not open to outreach” to “no summer 

school” to “lack of state funding.” A quarter of former sponsors also cited “ lack of community 

involvement” as a barrier to increasing SFSP participation. 

Table 22: Main Barriers To Increased Participation In The SFSP As Perceived By Former 

Sponsors In The 14 Pilot States 

Barriers 

Number of 

Sponsors That 

Checked 

Percent 

Lack of transportation 26 34 

Lack of community involvement 19 25 

No barriers 13 17 

Not enough staff to supervise sites 12 16 

Inadequate program publicity 10 13 

Not enough support from local or State Governments 7 9 

Lack of activities for children 6 8 

Poor quality of meals 1 1 

Other barriers (specify) 22 29 

Note: Respondents (n=77) were asked to check all that apply. 

 

As previously discussed “lack of transportation” and “lack of community involvement” were 

also considered main barriers to participation by 2002 SFSP new and continuing sponsors 

(Tables 20, 21). State Agencies also considered “lack of transportation” and “lack of community 

involvement” along with “not enough sponsors” as major reasons for lower participation in SFSP 

as compared to NSLP (Tables 18,19). Thus factors other than cost accounting and simplified 

application procedures also have an impact on increasing SFSP participation. 

D. Reasons for Discontinuing Sponsorship 

Former Sponsors: As shown in Table 23, over one-third (36 percent) of former sponsors in the 

14 Pilot States cited lack of participation as a very important reason for discontinuing their SFSP 

sponsorship. Thirty six percent also cited a reason other than listed in the table as being very 

important. Twenty three percent of former sponsors cited inadequate reimbursement rates and 

21 percent cited lack of eligible children as very important reasons for discontinuing their SFSP 

sponsorship. 
Table 23: Reasons That Sponsors Discontinued Sponsoring The SFSP In The 14 Pilot States

Reason 

Not A 

Reason (%)

Minor Reason 

(%) 

Somewhat Important Reason (%) Very Im

Reaso

Lack of participation 34 10 5 3Inadequate reimbursement rates 35 9 13 23 Not enough eligible children to be worthwhile 43 6 6 2Paperwork too difficult or time-consuming 31 16 18 1Application process too difficult or time consuming 34 16 13 14 Lack of administrative support within your organization 53 10 5 9 Inadequate technical assistance from State 55 9 3 8 Program manager retired or left 61 1 3 5 Inadequate staff available 44 17 8 4 No longer eligible 66 1 3 4 Too many meals disqualified 66 5 1 2 Poor relationships with State office 64 6 4 1 Health and sanitation requirements 71 - 1 1 Dropped by state 73 - - 1 Difficulty separating various food programs 62 5 3 - Problems with vendors 64 6 1 - Became a site 70 1 - - Other reasons 10 - - 3

Source: Former Sponsor Questionnaire Respondents were asked to check one response for each item. N=77 
32

When former sponsors were asked to provide the main reason for discontinuing sponsorship, 36 

percent (N=26) cited “other,” 15 percent (N=11) cited “lack of participation”, and 10 percent 

(N= 7) cited “inadequate reimbursement rate” (Table 24). A variety of reasons were provided 

under the “other” category. Some were related to space and construction issues and some were 

lack of summer school programs. Lack of transportation for children and lack of transport for 

distributing food from the central kitchen to food sites were also noted. Other reasons also 

included: went year-round to Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), lost funding for 

program, illness of manager/supervisor, contract manager very unhelpful, not enough volunteers, 

working parents will not bring children, misunderstanding with treasurer, going to half-day 

migrant program, lack of funds for other expenses, and local board would not reimburse food 

service for loss. 

Table 24: The Main Reason Given By Former Sponsors In The 14 Pilot States For 

Discontinuing Sponsorship 

Main Reason1 Percent2 

Other reason 40 

Lack of participation 19 

Inadequate reimbursement rates 14 

Not enough eligible children to be worthwhile 10 

Paperwork too difficult or time consuming 8 

Source: Former Sponsor Questionnaire; (N=72) 

 1Only reasons that were cited by 5 percent or more are listed in the table 2Includes combination of reasons: A few respondents provided 2 “main” reasons.

E: Meal Quality 

Sponsors: A recent national study of the Summer Food Service Program indicated that on 

average SFSP meals are comparable to meals served in the National School Lunch Program 

(Gordon et. al 2003). Most SFSP lunches typically served all the components needed to meet the 

SFSP meal pattern requirement. Unlike the national study, this evaluation did not collect onsite 

data but relies on sponsor perceptions.

Sponsors were asked about their perceptions on the impact of the Pilot on the quality of SFSP 

meals. A majority of the respondents indicated that they did not perceive any impact of the Pilot 

on meal quality (41 percent) or food safety (38 percent) (Tables 25, 27). About a third indicated 

that were unable to make the comparison. Importantly, none perceived a decline in either meal 

quality or food safety as a result of the Pilot. Those perceiving improved meal quality attributed 

it to higher reimbursement rates, which allowed them to purchase better quality foods, and to the 

awareness that better quality meals attract more participants (Table 26).
33

Table 25: Sponsor Perception Of The Impact Of The Pilot On The Quality Of SFSP Meals 

In The 14 Pilot States

Impact on Meal Quality Percent 

Has had no effect – meal quality same as before 2001 41 

Improved meal quality 21 

Meal quality has declined 0 

Don’t know – did not sponsor SFSP before 2001 34 

Source: Sponsor Questionnaire. (N=239) Does not exclude 9 sponsors who did not respond. 

Note: Meal quality was defined as the taste, acceptability and nutritional quality. 

Table 26: Sponsor Perception Of Why Meal Quality Improved In The 14 Pilot States 

Reason For Improved Meal Quality Percent 

There is greater awareness that high quality meals draw children to the sites 67 

More funds are available to purchase better quality foods 65 

More funds are available to train staff on meal preparation, food safety, and sanitation 25 

More funds are available to hire additional staff 22 

Other reasons 12 

Sponsor Questionnaire: (N=51). Sponsors were asked to check all that apply. 

Only sponsors who indicated a positive impact of the Pilot on Meal Quality (see Table 25) are included in this 

analysis. 

 

Table 27: Sponsor Perception Of Impact Of Pilot On Food Safety In The 14 Pilot States

Impact on Food Safety Percent1

Has had no effect – food safety is same as before 2001 38 

Improved food safety 25 

Food safety has declined 0 

Don’t know – did not sponsor SFSP before 2001 32 

Sponsor Questionnaire: (N=239). 15 percent did not respond 

Note: Food safety was explained as the proper, handling, storage and preparation of the meals served to children. 

For example: Are hot and cold foods kept at proper temperatures? Are raw fruits and vegetables thoroughly washed 

before cooking or serving? 

F: Program Integrity 

State Agencies were queried about their monitoring activities and deficiencies they had noted 

when reviewing sponsors and their sites. Sponsors were asked about program deficiencies their 
34

staff noted during site reviews and about their perceptions of the impact of the Pilot on program 

violations. 

(i) State Agency: State Agencies (n=14) were asked if they could determine whether sponsors 

maintained a non-profit food service account. Respondents for most of the Pilot States (86.7 

percent; n=12) reported that they were able to make this determination “almost always.” 

However, two State Agencies were less successful and responded to the questions with “almost 

never” and “sometimes.” State Agencies were also asked whether management of non-profit 

food service accounts by sponsors had an impact on meal quality. Most (12 of the 14) reported 

no impact and two reported that it had a positive impact. One indicated that meal quality 

improved because sponsors knew the amount they would be reimbursed. The other stated that 

some sponsors were earning “more reimbursement that could be used for improving meal 

quality.” 

State Agencies were asked to compare operations in 2000 and earlier (before the pilot began) to 

those in 2001 and 2002 (first 2 years of the pilot) and indicate whether the pilot had an impact on 

program deficiencies. Of the 13 State Agencies who responded, 38.5 percent (n=5) felt that 

deficiencies had decreased, 38.5 percent (n=5) thought there was no impact and 23.1 percent 

(n=3) indicated that they did not know. State Agencies were also asked to indicate deficiencies 

they had noted during sponsor/site reviews (Table 28). At least half of the State Agencies had 

not noted deficiencies related to training, meal preparation, sanitation and civil rights. However, 

only a third of them had not seen deficiencies in meal counting and claiming and site monitoring 

activities by sponsors participating in Pilot. Improper meal counting and claiming has a direct 

impact on program integrity. 

Table 28: Deficiencies Noted By State Agency Staff Reviewing Pilot Sponsors/Sites 

Deficiencies No Deficiency 

Noted 

(%) 

Noted 

During a Few

(%) 

Noted 

During Some 

(%) 

Noted in 

Almost All 

(%) 

Training 50 42 8 - 

Monitoring sites 33 50 17 - 

Meal preparation 58 25 17 - 

Meal counting and claiming 33 58 8 - 

Sanitation 83 17 - - 

Civil rights 75 25 - - 

Other 58 41 - - 

Source: State Agency Questionnaire. (N=12). Respondents were asked to a check response for each item. 

Under the Pilot, State Agencies were required to review all new sponsors. Based on their 

response to the questionnaire, 11 of the 14 reviewed all their new sponsors in 2002. Two State 

Agencies reported reviewing 90 and 94 percent of new sponsors respectively. However, one 

State Agency reported reviewing only 28 percent of their new 2002 SFSP sponsors. 
35

(ii) Sponsors: Sponsors are required to have their staff monitor and review the sites that they 

operate. FNS has a guide available for SFSP monitors to use when they monitor SFSP sites for 

their sponsors (USDA, FNS, SFSP for Children. 2001 Monitor’s Guide. Food that Is In When 

School Is Out! ). This guide is periodically updated by FNS to reflect changes in monitoring 

requirements. Site monitors are required to observe food service operations and note problems 

related to meal service and any other pertinent issues on site review forms that are specific to the 

type of site being monitored. There is a separate site review form for SFSP sites that prepare 

their meals on site and a separate review form for SFSP sites that serve vended meals. Sponsors 

from the 14 Pilot states were asked to comment on the frequency with which their site monitors 

noted problems such as inadequate food service supervision (Table 29) during site monitoring 

visits. The items that sponsors were queried on (Table 29) are among those items that their site 

monitors are expected to observe when monitoring site operations. 

Overall the percentage of incidents reported was low (Table 29) and most deficiencies were 

reported as noted “sometimes.” Nearly one-third (30 percent) indicated that their staff noted that 

there was too much food wasted sometimes; 3 percent observed this often. The reasons for the 

wasted food cannot be determined from this survey. The 2001 nationally representative study of 

the SFSP did examine reasons for food waste (Gordon et al 2003, see page 215). The main 

reasons for food waste, based on interviewing site supervisors in the 2001 study, included 

children didn’t like the food and fluctuations in attendance. 

 

Sponsors from the 14 Pilot States reported noting problems with adjusting meal orders and with 

serving too many second meals. Whether these two problems are related cannot be determined 

from this data. Deficiencies in meal counting and recording were also noted, which could have 

an impact on the program costs/payments. 

Table 29: Problems Noted By Sponsor’s Staff When Conducting Site Reviews In The 14 

Pilot States 

Problems 

Never 

(%) 

Sometimes 

(%) 

Often 

(%) 

Almost 

Always 

(%) 

Inadequate food service supervision 87 8 <1 0 

Meal counts for children not properly recorded 78 17 1 0 

Claiming meals for ineligible adults 90 5 <1 <1 

Too much of the food served is wasted 61 30 3 1 

Too many seconds served 78 15 1 1 

Meals not served at appropriate times 84 10 <1 <1 

Meal orders were not adjusted 77 16 <1 0 

Meals did not meet SFSP meal pattern 

requirements 

89 5 0 1 

Full meals were being taken off site 90 5 0 0 

Source: Sponsor Questionnaire: (N=239) 

Respondent were asked to check on response for each item in the table. Row percentages do not add to a 100 

percent, as some respondents did not check a response. Few, (<5 percent) reported noting problems other than those 

listed in the table. 
36

Finally, sponsors were asked to comment on the impact of the Pilot in the incidence of program 

violations. Thirty six percent indicated that the incidence of program violations was the same as 

before the Pilot, 16 percent felt it had decreased and only one sponsor reported an increase. The 

remaining sponsors either didn’t know (42 percent) or did not respond (5 percent). 

Thus, the Pilot in itself may not have had an impact (positive or negative) on the incidences of 

SFSP deficiencies and problems. Findings from the State Agencies indicate the need for 

improvement in site monitoring by sponsors. Over half of the State Agencies noted deficiencies 

in site monitoring and meal counting (Table 28) on at least a few occasions when they reviewed 

Pilot sponsors/sites. In addition, nearly 20 percent of sponsors reported that their staff had noted 

problems with meal counting (Table 29).
37

Chapter 5. Conclusions 

In December 2000, the Secretary of Agriculture was authorized, through the Food and Nutrition 

Service (FNS), to conduct a Pilot to increase SFSP participation in 14 States with low rates of 

feeding low-income children in the summer. This 3-year Pilot began in fiscal year 2001 and has 

been extended until June 30, 2004. In order to evaluate the Pilot, FNS surveyed State Agencies, 

sponsors and former sponsors in 2002 (2nd year of the Pilot) and augmented the survey data with 

administrative data (1999 to 2003) obtained from the FNS National Data Bank. Evaluation of 

the impact of this Pilot on participation has been confounded by the Seamless Summer Feeding 

Waiver, which has been operating nationwide since 2002 and other FNS initiatives designed to 

increase summer feeding participation across the nation. 

Findings on Participation Including SFSP Outreach Efforts and Barriers To Expansion 

• Overall in the 14 Pilot States, SFSP participation by sponsors (18 percent) and children (43 

percent) increased, as did the number of food sites (36 percent) and the total number of meals 

served (55 percent) in July 2003 as compared to July 2000. 

• The impact on July SFSP and National School Lunch Program (NSLP) participation by lowincome children as a function of their March NSLP participation varied across the States. 

o Four of the 14 Pilot States served fewer low-income children in July 2003 than in 

July 1999; two of these four States also operated the SSFW in 2003. In contrast, two 

Pilot States doubled the percentage of low-income children served in July 2003 as 

compared to 1999. 

o For the 10 States that operated only the 14 State Pilot, the total number of SFSP and 

NSLP lunches served increased by 57 percent in July 2003 as compared to July 2000. 

The four States that operated both the 14 State Pilot and SSFW in 2003 had a 29 

percent increase in total lunches served in July 2003 as compared to July 2000. 

• The Pilot States, with a few exceptions, continue to have the lowest rates of feeding lowincome children, an indication of the large past deficit that these States are trying to 

overcome. Nine of the 14 Pilot States are still among the 10 States with the lowest 

percentages for low-income children served in July. 

• Overall the 14 Pilot States were serving 10.7 percent of low-income children in July 2003 as 

compared to the national average of 22.1 percent. 

• The gap between the percentage of low-income children served by in July by SFSP and 

NSLP in the 14 States and the percentage served by the other States decreased by 2 

percentage points (12 percent) from 16.9 percentage points in July 2000 to 14.9 percentage 

points in July 2003. 

• The impact on SFSP participation in summer months other than July was not determined in 

this study as the FNS National Data Bank only has information on July average daily 

attendance in the SFSP. Findings from the sponsor survey indicate that about 19 percent of 

sponsors did not operate SFSP beyond June. Thus various factors such as summer school, 

the school calendar, year-round schooling could affect the period of SFSP operation. 

• At least 80 percent of the 14 Pilot State Agencies felt that the Pilot reimbursement system 

helped to bring new sponsors, retain current sponsors, and increase the number of children 

served. 
38

• Nonetheless, factors other than modifying SFSP claim procedures (14 State Pilot) or 

operating under the Seamless Summer Feeding Waiver affect July SFSP participation. 

• State Agencies, current and former SFSP sponsors in the 14 Pilot States cite lack of 

transportation as a major barrier to increasing SFSP participation. Whether this applies only 

to rural areas cannot be determined from the data. 

• State Agencies also cited not having enough sponsors, inadequate program publicity, and 

lack of community involvement as important reasons for low SFSP participation while 

sponsors cited lack of community involvement and insufficient funding as important barriers 

to increasing participation. 

Findings On Meal Quality 

Findings are based on the perceptions of the 14 State Pilot sponsor sample. Due to resource 

constraints, on-site data were not collected for this evaluation. 

• SFSP meal quality was assessed in 2001 in the recent national study that collected on-site 

data. That study found that on average SFSP meals were comparable to NSLP meals. 

• A majority of the sponsors in the 14 Pilot States indicated that the Pilot impacted neither 

meal quality or food safety. None perceived a decline in meal quality or food safety as a 

result of the Pilot. 

 

Findings On Program Integrity 

These findings are based on State Agency and sponsor perceptions and are therefore subject to 

bias. 

• Based on querying State Agencies and sponsors in the 14 Pilot States, there was no indication 

that the Pilot had any adverse effect on program integrity. 

• Findings from the State Agency and sponsor surveys indicate the need for improvement in 

program monitoring at the sponsor and the site level. Over half of the State Agencies noted 

deficiencies in site monitoring and meal counting on at least a few occasions when they 

reviewed Pilot sponsors/sites. Nearly 20 percent of sponsors reported that their staff had 

noted problems with meal counting. The magnitude of meal counting problems cannot be 

determined from these surveys, which asked about the frequency of problems. 
39

Chapter 6. Selected References 

1. Briefel et. al. Summer Feeding Design Study. Final Report. Mathematica Policy 

Research, Inc. October 2000. 

2. Gordon A. et. al. Feeding Low-income Children When School Is Out - The Summer 

Food Service Program. Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. March 2003. 

3. FRAC. Hunger Doesn’t Take a Vacation: Summer Nutrition Status Report. June 2003 

4. Tasse et. al. The Seamless Summer Feeding Waiver: Survey Report. Final Report. 

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. March 2003. 

5. USDA, Food and Nutrition Service. Summer Food Service Program for Children. 2001 

Monitor’s Guide. Food that is In When School Is Out! 

6. USDA, Food and Nutrition Service. FY 2003 Priority Plans – Year-End Report. 

November 2003 (see page 7) 
40

Appendix A: Supplementary Tables 

Table S1: Sponsors By Type For The 14 States: 2000, 2001, 2002, And 2003 

Table S2: SFSP Average Daily Attendance: Change From 2002 To 2003

Table S3: Percent Of Low-Income Children Served By SFSP And NSLP In July In 2002 

Compared To March 2002 (FNS) Or SY2001-2002 (FRAC) Free And Reduced Price NSLP 

Participation 

Table S4: Sponsor Perceptions Of Barriers To Increasing Participation In The SFSP: 

Responses Are Based On Sampling All Sponsors (N=238), New Sponsors (N= 111) And 

Continuing Sponsors (N=127) In The 14 Pilot States 

Table S5: Three Main Barriers To Participation As Perceived By Sponsors In The 14 Pilot States 

Table S6: Reimbursement Rates For NSLP And SBP Meals For School Year 2002-2003 And For 

SFSP Meals In July 2003 

Table S7: Alphabetized List Of States By Pilot Participation Status In 2003 
Table S1: Sponsors By Type For The 14 States: 2000, 2001, 2002, And 2003 

2000 2001 

State Total 

2000 

All Schools 

Pub. Pvt. Loc Co. Camps NYSP OPNP ITO Other Total 

2001 

All Schools 

Pub. Pvt. Loc Co

AK 9 2 2 0 0 2 1 0 4 0 0 10 3 3 0 0 AR 103 68 68 0 7 0 10 3 15 0 0 90 58 58 0 5 ID 51 42 41 1 0 0 4 1 4 0 0 58 49 48 1 0 IN 65 23 21 2 2 0 17 2 21 0 0 79 30 26 4 2 IA 29 11 11 0 0 0 14 1 3 0 0 32 13 13 0 0 KS 54 31 31 0 1 1 9 4 8 0 0 53 30 30 0 1 KY 146 93 93 0 8 5 24 3 13 0 0 151 103 103 0 5 NE 32 20 19 1 2 4 2 2 1 1 0 35 21 20 1 3 NH 22 7 7 0 4 0 10 0 1 0 0 26 9 9 0 3 ND 20 12 12 0 0 0 2 1 4 1 0 25 19 19 0 0 OK 100 78 78 0 0 0 10 2 6 4 0 104 78 78 0 2 PR 14 7 2 5 0 0 1 0 6 0 0 15 8 1 7 1 TX 381 314 313 1 18 0 14 10 24 1 0 392 317 314 3 21 WY 6 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 6 2 2 0 0 Total 1032 710 700 10 42 12 119 29 111 9 0 1076 740 724 16 43 

2002 2003 

State Total 

2002 

All Schools 

Pub. Pvt. Loc Co. Camps NYSP OPNP ITO Other Total 

2003 

All Schools 

Pub. Pvt. Loc Co

AK 19 10 10 0 0 2 2 0 3 1 1 17 9 9 0 0 ARA 93 56 56 0 7 0 11 3 16 0 0 93 58 58 0 8 ID 63 53 52 1 0 1 4 1 4 0 0 72 60 59 1 0 IN

A 88 33 30 3 2 0 16 4 33 0 0 111 39 35 4 2 

IA 37 17 17 0 1 0 14 1 4 0 0 40 20 19 1 1 KSA03 54 34 34 0 1 1 9 4 5 0 0 57 36 36 0 1 KY 158 111 111 0 4 3 20 2 18 0 0 163 110 109 1 6 NE 38 25 24 1 2 6 1 2 1 1 0 38 25 25 1 0 NH 25 10 10 0 1 3 7 0 4 0 0 29 9 9 0 2 ND 29 20 18 2 0 0 1 1 5 1 1 31 23 23 0 0 OK 132 111 111 0 0 0 11 2 6 2 0 113 96 96 0 0 PR 35 12 1 11 6 0 3 0 14 0 0 44 12 1 11 10 TX

A 380 298 296 2 17 5 11 11 35 2 1 366 279 271 8 21 

WY 7 4 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 9 6 6 0 0 Total 1158 794 774 20 41 21 111 31 148 9 3 1183 782 756 27 51 Pub.=Public School; Pvt.=Private School; Loc=Local Government; Co =County Government; Camps=Residential Camps; NYSP=National Youth Sports Program; OPNP=Other PriA=Participated in Seamless Summer Feeding Waiver in 2002 and 2003. A03= Participated in Seamless Summer Feeding Waiver in 2003.
42

Table S2: SFSP Average Daily Attendance: Change From 2002 To 2003 

 July 2002 July 2003 % Change 

July 2002 - July 2003 

AlabamaA 38,156 38,264 0.28% 

AlaskaP 971 1,552 59.84% 

ArizonaA 8,577 5,749 -32.97% 

ArkansasP,A 10,657 12,559 17.85% 

CaliforniaA 130,385 117,983 -9.51% 

ColoradoA 6,002 10,150 69.11% 

ConnecticutA 10,346 10,561 2.08% 

DelawareA 8,868 8,126 -8.37% 

District of ColumbiaA 24,068 31,658 31.54% 

FloridaA 145,486 115,535 -20.59% 

GeorgiaA 96,964 78,695 -18.84% 

HawaiiA03 5,426 5,866 8.11% 

IdahoP 9,297 12,193 31.15% 

IllinoisA 69,924 60,637 -13.28% 

IndianaP,A 20,000 33,447 67.24% 

IowaP 3,734 6,109 63.60% 

KansasP,A03 8,226 10,707 30.16% 

KentuckyP 32,152 55,646 73.07% 

LouisianaA 41,345 46,668 12.87% 

Maine 5,925 6,547 10.50% 

MarylandA 47,590 41,276 -13.27% 

Massachusetts 48,470 43,086 -11.11% 

Michigan 34,749 34,906 0.45% 

Minnesota 29,539 28,242 -4.39% 

Mississippi 30,279 27,623 -8.77% 

MissouriA 34,510 39,179 13.53% 

Montana 8,528 8,888 4.22% 

NebraskaP 4,969 5,444 9.56% 

NevadaA 3,816 3,237 -15.17% 

New HampshireP 3,325 3,537 6.38% 

New JerseyA02 50,619 54,020 6.72% 

New MexicoA 44,938 39,056 -13.09% 

New YorkA 285,720 451,696 58.09% 

North CarolinaA 49,619 67,085 35.20% 

North DakotaP 2,605 1,916 -26.45% 

OhioA 43,583 43,192 -0.90% 

OklahomaP 11,138 9,370 -15.87% 

OregonA 9,465 10,021 5.87% 

PennsylvaniaA 125,526 115,503 -7.98% 

Puerto RicoP 42,658 51,028 19.62% 

Rhode IslandA 7,570 8,906 17.65% 

South CarolinaA 62,941 66,755 6.06% 

South Dakota 3,677 3,347 -8.97% 

TennesseeA 38,327 38,802 1.24% 

TexasP,A 83,309 88,676 6.44% 

UtahA 21,986 16,771 -23.72% 

VermontA 2,675 3,042 13.72% 

Virgin Islands 6,583 6,516 -1.02% 

Virginia 41,091 45,251 10.12% 

WashingtonA 27,285 24,909 -8.71% 
43

 Jul 2002 Jul 2003 % Change 

Jul 2002 - Jul 2003 

West VirginiaA 14,077 14,504 3.03% 

WisconsinA 27,561 29,372 6.57% 

WyomingP 1,029 1,012 -1.65% 

US 1,926,266 2,094,820 8.75% 

Source: National Data Bank Version 7.0 PRODUCTION: Date Accessed: 3/18/2004 

P=”14 State Pilot” State 

A=States that participated in Seamless Summer Feeding Waiver (SSFW) in 2002 and 2003; 

A02=SSFW participant in 2002; A03= SSFW participant in 2003. 
44

Table S3: Percent Of Low-Income Children Served By SFSP And NSLP In July In 2002 

Compared To March 2002 (FNS) Or SY2001-2002 (FRAC) Free And Reduced Price NSLP 

Participation 

FNS FRAC 

State/Territory Percent 

Served 

Rank Percent 

Served 

Rank 

District of Columbia 64.97 1 33.6 5 

Virgin Islands 56.56 2

Nevada 34.13 6 33.9 4 

California 43.27 3 42.3 1 

New Mexico 36.68 4 35.1 3 

Delaware 32.95 8 36.1 2 

New York 32.52 9 30.6 8 

Rhode Island 24.70 16 24.0 14 

Pennsylvania 33.43 7 31.2 7 

Utah 28.05 11 26.7 9 

South Carolina 28.60 10 26.5 11 

Florida 21.45 21 20.9 18 

Massachusetts 26.85 13 25.4 12 

Connecticut 26.78 14 26.5 10 

Illinois 22.99 18 22.9 15 

Hawaii 34.74 5 33.5 6 

New Jersey 21.85 19 21.1 17 

Maryland 27.58 12 25.0 13 

Wisconsin 16.49 29 15.8 28 

Georgia 21.63 20 20.3 19 

Vermont 19.99 22 19.1 20 

Tennessee 14.42 36 13.6 35 

South Dakota 18.76 24 17.2 24 

North Carolina 18.39 26 17.6 22 

Colorado 10.96 44 10.5 42 

Alabama 19.65 23 18.9 21 

Minnesota 18.37 27 15.7 29 

Virginia 18.43 25 17.5 23 

West Virginia 16.23 30 15.0 32 

Michigan 15.01 35 14.5 34 

Washington 17.03 28 16.1 26 

Missouri 23.87 17 21.7 16 

Maine 14.25 37 13.4 36 

Oregon 15.97 32 17.0 25 

Louisiana 12.58 41 11.8 39 

Montana 26.40 15 15.6 30 

Ohio 12.63 40 12.2 38 

Mississippi 11.67 43 10.9 41 

Arizona 14.15 38 13.2 37 
45

FNS FRAC 

State/Territory Percent 

Served

Rank Percent 

Served

Rank 

KentuckyP 15.90 33 14.8 33 

KansasP 7.68 49 7.2 49 

NebraskaP 8.48 47 9.6 44 

New HampshireP 15.97 31 15.5 31 

TexasP 7.46 51 7.1 50 

IndianaP 10.46 45 10.2 43 

IdahoP 15.61 34 16.0 27 

Puerto RicoP 12.93 39

North DakotaP 11.73 42 11.1 40 

ArkansasP 8.79 46 8.4 45 

IowaP 6.50 52 7.5 48 

OklahomaP 6.39 53 6.1 51 

WyomingP 7.96 48 7.6 47 

AlaskaP 7.55 50 7.8 46 

United States Mean 21.70 

(N=53) 

20.9 

(N=51)

Notes: 

P=One of the 14 Pilot States. 

Shaded cells indicates that the State participated in the Seamless Summer Feeding Waiver in 2002. 

For details on FNS calculation see Footnotes to Table 5.

For additional information on FRAC’s analyses see Table 1 of their report “Hunger Doesn’t Take A Vacation: 

Summer Nutrition Status Report’; June 2003. 

Although Puerto Rico is one of the 14 Pilot States, FRAC did not include them in their analyses of the “Lugar” Pilot. 
46

Table S4: Sponsor Perceptions Of Barriers To Increasing Participation In The SFSP: 

Responses Are Based On Sampling All Sponsors (N=238), New Sponsors (N= 111) And 

Continuing Sponsors (N=127) In The 14 Pilot States 

Barriers* NOT A BARRIER 

(%) 

ALL NEW CONT 

MINOR BARRIER 

(%) 

ALL NEW CONT 

MAJOR BARRIER 

(%) 

ALL NEW CONT 

Inadequate program 

publicity 69 64 73 21 24 19 6 7 5 

Lack of transportation 46 46 46 30 26 33 22 25 19 

Not enough staff to 

supervise sites 

77 70 83 14 18 11 5 6 3 

Lack of community 

involvement 

46 44 47 39 39 39 12 13 12 

Lack of activities for 

children 

69 68 70 19 19 19 8 8 9 

Quality of meals 93 92 94 3 3 4 1 1 1 

Not enough support from 

local or municipal 

governments 

65 64 65 22 20 24 11 13 9 

Not enough support from 

the state agency 

81 78 83 13 15 10 3 3 4 

Insufficient reimbursement 

or funding 

57 56 57 23 20 26 14 17 11 

Data Source: Sponsor Questionnaire 

*Sponsors were asked to check one response for each item. Percentages are based on number of sponsors in the 

sample that checked the item. Non-responders were not excluded from this analysis. 
Table S5: Three Main Barriers To Participation As Perceived By Sponsors In The 14 Pilot States 

PERCEIVED BARRIERS1 MAIN BARRIER 

(%) 

ALL NEW CONT N=167 N=79 N=88 

SECOND BARRIER 

(%) 

ALL NEW CONT N=142 N= 68 N=74 

THIRD BARRIER 

(%) 

ALL NEW CONN=98 N=45 N=53 

Inadequate program publicity 6 6 6 8 7 8 12 16 9 Lack of transportation 33 33 33 25 24 27 11 9 13 Not enough staff to supervise sites 5 8 2 7 7 7 8 9 8 Lack of community involvement 16 14 18 21 18 24 19 27 13 Lack of activities for children 5 5 5 12 12 12 10 4 15 Quality of meals 2 3 1 3 1 4 2 4 - Not enough support from local or municipal governments 2 1 3 8 9 8 12 20 6 Not enough support from the state agency 1 - 2 4 6 1 6 - 11 Insufficient reimbursement or funding 22 24 19 9 13 5 14 11 17 Other 9 6 10 3 3 3 4 - 8 

Data Source: Sponsor Questionnaire Cont =continuing sponsors. 1For each item, the percentage of sponsors ranking it is as a main, second or third barrier is provided. 2Calculation is based on adding all responses (main, second and third) for each sponsor type and dividing by the total number that responded to 
48

Table S6: Reimbursement Rates For NSLP And SBP Meals In School Year 2002-2003 And 

For SFSP Meals In July 2003 

 Maximum Per Meal Reimbursement1

Meal SFSP2

Self-Prep or 

Rural Sites 

SFSP2

Other Types of 

Sites 

NSLP3 SBP4

Breakfast $1.49 $1.46 - $1.40 

Lunch $2.59 $2.56 $2.16 - 

Sources: FNS Child Nutrition Division. Rates were also published as Federal Register Notices. 

Information on Commodities is available under Food Distribution Programs on the FNS web 

site. 

Notes: 

1

SFSP and NSLP reimbursement rates do not include Alaska or Hawaii – rates for Alaska and 

Hawaii are higher. 

2

Operating and administrative costs have been combined. In addition, for meals prepared on 

site, certain types of sponsor (schools, National Youth Sports Programs, non-profit summer 

camps for migrant children, and centers for homeless children) receive 1.5 cents per meal in 

commodity entitlements. 

3

NSLP rate is for “free” lunch when 60 percent or more students are eligible for free and reduced 

price meals. In addition in School Year 2002-2003, schools were entitled to receive 15.50 cents 

worth of entitlement commodity foods per meal. The entitlement amount varies from year-toyear based on an annual adjustment to reflect changes in the Price Index of Food Used in 

Schools and Institutions. In School Year 2003-2004 this benefit was 15.25 cents. 

4

SBP rate is for severe need for “free” breakfast. There is no commodity benefit for SBP. 
49

Table S7: Alphabetized List Of States By Pilot Participation Status In 2003 

14 State Pilot Only SSFW1 + 14 State Pilot SSFW1 No Pilot 

Alaska Arkansas Alabama Delaware 

Idaho Indiana Arizona Maine 

Iowa Kansas California Massachusetts 

Kentucky Texas Colorado Michigan 

Nebraska Connecticut Minnesota 

New Hampshire District of Columbia Mississippi 

North Dakota Florida Montana 

Oklahoma Georgia New Jersey 

Puerto Rico Hawaii Rhode Island 

Wyoming Illinois Virgin Islands 

 Louisiana Virginia 

 Maryland 

 Missouri 

 Nevada 

 New Mexico 

 New York 

 North Carolina 

 Ohio 

 Oregon 

 Pennsylvania 

 South Carolina 

 South Dakota 

 Tennessee 

 Utah 

 Vermont 

 Washington 

 West Virginia 

 Wisconsin 

1

SSFW=Seamless Summer Feeding Waiver 

Note: In 2002 Kansas operated only the 14 State Pilot, Hawaii did not operate the SSFW and 

New Jersey operated the SSFW. 

 

 
50

Appendix B: Glossary And Acronyms 

ADA Average Daily Attendance. The July ADA for SFSP is the total number of children 

participating in the SFSP operated by all sponsor organizations. 

FRAC Food Research Action Center 

MPR Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 

NSLP National School Lunch Program. 

NYSP National Youth Sports Programs. 

SFSP Summer Food Service Program. 

SSFW Seamless Summer Feeding Waiver. Also know as the “Alisal Waivers”. 
51

Appendix C: Survey Instruments 

1. State Program Administrator Questionnaire 

2. Sponsor Questionnaire (New or Continuing Sponsors) 

3. Former Sponsor Questionnaire 
1

14 STATE SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM 

PILOT PROJECT 

State Program Administrator Questionnaire

STATE:____________________________________________________________________ 

TODAY’S DATE: |___|___| / |___|___| / |___|___|___|___| 

 Month Day Year 

RESPONDENT’S NAME:______________________________________________________ 

JOB TITLE:_________________________________________________________________ 

ADDRESS:_________________________________________________________________ 

PHONE NUMBER: |___|___|___| - |___|___|___| - |___|___|___|___| 

FAX NUMBER: |___|___|___| - |___|___|___| - |___|___|___|___| 

E-MAIL ADDRESS:___________________________________________________________ 

 

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person 

is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. 

The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0584-0513. The time required to complete 

this information collection is estimated to average 120 minutes, including the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing 

and reviewing the collection of information. 

PLEASE RETURN THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE BY SEPTEMBER 30, 2002

OMB NO.: 0584-0513 

Expiration Date: 6/30/03
2

INTRODUCTION:

This Congressionally-mandated evaluation of the 14 State Summer Food Service Program Pilot 

Project is being conducted by the US. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service. 

The main objective of the evaluation is to describe the characteristics of service providers and 

Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) operations including program integrity and meal quality. 

The purpose of this questionnaire is to obtain information about the operation of the program at 

the State level for the summer of 2002. You are being asked about various aspects of the 

program, including your administrative procedures, monitoring practices, technical assistance 

and training, staffing patterns, and outreach efforts. You may need the assistance of other 

Program Staff in your office to answer some of the questions. We estimate that it will take no 

more than 40 minutes for you to complete the questionnaire, including the time to read the 

questions, and look up materials and consult other staff. 

Your input is invaluable to the success of this evaluation. If you have any questions, please call 

Anita Singh at 703-305-2128. We may be calling you for clarification after we review your 

responses to the questionnaire. Please mail the completed questionnaire by September 30, 

2002 to: 

Anita Singh 

OANE, Room 1014 

Food and Nutrition Service 

US Department of Agriculture 

3101 Park Center Drive 

Alexandria, VA 22302 

FAX: 703-305-2576 

Thank you very much for your time and cooperation. 
3

PROGRAM INFORMATION 

P.1 What are the start and end dates for the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) in 

your State in 2002? 

 START DATE: |___|___|/|___|___| END DATE: |___|___|/|___|___| 

 Month Day Month Day 

P.2 How many SFSP sponsors did you have in 2002? 

 NUMBER: |___|___|___|___|___| 

P.3 SPONSOR TYPES

 NUMBER 

Schools (Total) 

 (Provide breakdown by type of school below) |__|__|__|__|__| 

 Public schools ................................................................ |__|__|__|__|__| 

 Private schools............................................................... |__|__|__|__|__| 

 Local or Municipal Government agencies............................ |__|__|__|__|__| 

County or State Government agencies |__|__|__|__|__| 

 Residential camps ............................................................... |__|__|__|__|__| 

National Youth Sports Programs (NYSPs) .......................... |__|__|__|__|__| 

 Other private non-profit organizations, excluding private schools, 

residential camps, and NYSPs ............................................ |__|__|__|__|__| 

Indian Tribal Organization |__|__|__|__|__| 

 Other (Specify) ________________________________ |__|__|__|__|__| 

P.4 How many SFSP sponsors did you have in 2001? 

 NUMBER: |___|___|___|___|___| 

P.5 How many school districts in your State operate on a year-round calendar? 

 NUMBER: |___|___|___|___|___| 
4

MODULE 1: ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND PROCEDURES 

1.1 Do you feel you have an adequate or inadequate amount of staff to handle...... 

 CHECK ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH ITEM

Adequate Inadequate 

DON’T 

DO 

DON’T 

KNOW 

a. Outreach ......................................................    d 

b. Formal training .............................................    d 

c. Monitoring both sponsors and sites..............    d 

d. Technical assistance for new sponsors........    d 

e. Technical assistance for experienced 

sponsors.......................................................    d 

f. Application process ......................................    d 

g. Claims review and processing......................    d 

h. Vendor management....................................    d 

i. Health inspections and food safety issues ...    d 

j. Overall SFSP needs.....................................    d 

1.2 Comparing the SFSP staffing in your State office in 2000 and earlier (before the pilot 

began) to what it is in 2002, has the staffing in your State office ... 

 INCREASED ............................................................01 

 DECREASED ...........................................................02 

 STAYED SAME........................................................03 ---- GO TO 1.4

 

 

1.3 What is the main reason for the (increase/decrease) in staffing? 

 ______________________________________________________________________ 

 ______________________________________________________________________ 

 ______________________________________________________________________ 

 DON’T KNOW ..........................................................d
5

1.4a What percentage increase in sponsors could your agency support at existing staffing 

levels? . . . 

 CIRCLE ONE 

 No increase ..............................................................01 

 Less than 10% increase ...........................................02 

 10% or more increase ..............................................03 

1.4b What percentage increase in number of sites could your agency support at existing

staffing levels? . . . 

 CIRCLE ONE 

 No increase ..............................................................01 

 Less than 10% increase ...........................................02 

 10% or more increase ..............................................03 

1.4c How many additional FTEs would your agency need to support a 10% increase in 

sponsors and/or sites? (If no additional staff needed write zero.) 

 

 Number of FTEs Needed ___________ 

1.5 What effect has the claims procedure for the pilot, which allows eligible sponsors to 

receive the maximum allowable reimbursement rate, had on the SFSP sponsor 

application process? 

 CIRCLE ONE AND EXPLAIN IF ASKED 

 POSITIVE (explain how) ..........................................01 

 ________________________________________________________ 

 

 NEGATIVE (explain how).........................................02 

 _________________________________________________________ 

NO EFFECT 03 

1.6 Did your State Agency provide any advance funding to sponsors in 2002? 

 CIRCLE ONE 

 YES ..........................................................................01 

 NO ............................................................................00 

 DON’T KNOW ..........................................................d 
6

MODULE 2: SPONSORSHIP AND OUTREACH 

2.1a In your opinion, why do fewer children participate in SFSP as compared to the National 

School Lunch program in your State? 

 CHECK ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH ITEM

NOT A 

REASON 

RARELY 

A 

REASON 

SOMETIMES 

A REASON 

ALMOST 

ALWAYS 

A 

REASON 

a. Inadequate Program Publicity .................    

b. Lack of transportation..............................    

c. Not enough sponsors ..............................    

d. Not enough sites in needy areas.............    

e. Lack of activities for the children .............    

f. Lack of community involvement ..............    

g. Poor quality of meals...............................    

h. Short length of session    

Other reasons: (please specify) 

 

2.1b. Of the items checked in 2.1a, what are the 3 major reasons for lower SFSP participation in 

their order of importance (Number 1 being the most important reason). 

1. _______________________________________________ 

2. _______________________________________________ 

3. _______________________________________________ 

2.2 How many new* sponsors were added to the SFSP in your State in 2001 and 2002? 

 # OF NEW SPONSORS In 2002 |___|___|___| 

 # OF NEW SPONSORS In 2001 |___|___|___| 

(*New sponsors include sponsors who may have left the program in prior years but decided to 

return) 

2.3 How many sponsors that participated in the program in 2001 were not part of the SFSP 

in 2002? 

 |___|___|___|___| # OF SPONSORS THAT LEFT 

 .................................................................................NONE
7

2.4 How many of last year’s sponsors left by their choice, how many changed their status from a 

sponsor to a site, and how many did you not approve or ask not to re-apply in 2002? 

NUMBERS RECORDED IN “a” THROUGH “c” SHOULD EQUAL NUMBER IN 2.3. 

 RECORD #

a. How many left by choice?..... |___|___|___|___|

b. How many changed from sponsor to site? |___|___|___|___|

c. How many were not approved or were asked not to apply? |___|___|___|___|

d. Organization no longer exists |___|___|___|___|

e. Other (Specify) ________________________________ |___|___|___|___|

2.5 Does your agency do any of the following to retain sponsors? 

 CHECK ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH ITEM

NONE 

VERY 

LITTLE SOME A LOT 

a. Commends/ recognizes sponsors at State 

events, in Newsletters, publications etc. ..........    

b. Contacts sponsors in Spring (prior to the 

start of the application process) .......................    

c. Provides training and technical assistance 

on request ........................................................    

d. Assists in Community Outreach.......................    

 

Other: (please specify) 

 

2.6. In 2002, did your State work with other organizations to find new sponsors or on 

outreach activities?

 YES ..........................................................................01

 NO ............................................................................00 GO TO 2.9
8

2.7 What organizations did your agency work with on outreach activities for the “Pilot”? 

 

NAME OF ORGANIZATION 

CODE 

(Select from 

list below) 

1. _______________________________________________________ ____________ 

2. _______________________________________________________ ____________ 

3. _______________________________________________________ ____________ 

4. _______________________________________________________ ____________ 

5. _______________________________________________________ ____________ 

ORGANIZATION CODES: 

01 Department of Education 

(Specify State or Federal Agency)

06 U.S. Department of Agriculture 

02 School 07 Medical organization 

03 College or University 08 Nutrition or Anti-hunger advocacy group 

04 Community-based organization 09 Media 

05 Business Organization 10 Religious Organization 

96 Other (SPECIFY--WRITE IN) 

2.8 What kinds of outreach, both in terms of finding new sponsors, increasing the number of 

sites and increasing participation at sites, have been most successful in your State? 

Describe outreach activities for each item listed below. If no outreach activities have 

been conducted write none. 

For New Sponsors: 

For New Sites: 

For Increasing Child Participation: 

2.9 Is the new system for reimbursement, which allows meals to be reimbursed at the 

maximum allowable rate, helping your State to expand SFSP? 

 CIRCLE ONE

 YES ..........................................................................01

 NO ............................................................................00 

 DON’T KNOW ..........................................................d GO TO 2.11
9

2.10a. Have the new reimbursement procedures of this Pilot helped in expanding the Program 

by... 

 CHECK ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH ITEM 

HAVE NOT 

HELPED 

HELPED 

A LITTLE 

HELPED 

SOME 

HELPED 

A LOT 

a. Bringing in new sponsors............................    

b. Retaining more current sponsors................    

c. Adding more sites from current sponsors ...    

d. Increasing the number of children served...    

e. Increasing the length (number of weeks) 

of service    

f. Improving the quality of meals served    

g. Simplifying the claiming process    

Other: (please specify) 

 

2.10b. Of the items checked in 2.10a, rank the 3 items that were impacted the most. 

 1.____________________________________________ (most important) 

 2.____________________________________________ 

 3.____________________________________________ 

2.11 In what ways, if any, did you change how you work with sponsors to address the new 

reimbursement rules? Please include any changes in outreach, technical assistance, 

training, or administrative reviews. 

 

 

 NO CHANGE............................................................96 

 DON’T KNOW ..........................................................d 
10

MODULE 3: MONITORING AND REVIEWING 

3.1 How many sponsors, new to SFSP in 2002, were reviewed by State staff? 

 |___|___|___|___| TOTAL # OF NEW SPONSOR REVIEWS 

3.2. Comparing SFSP operations in 2000 and earlier (before the pilot began) to those in 

2001 and 2002, would you say that program deficiencies since the pilot began have: 

 INCREASED ............................................................00 

 DECREASED ...........................................................01 GO TO 3.4 

 NOT CHANGED.......................................................96 GO TO 3.4 

 DON’T KNOW ..........................................................d GO TO 3.4 

3.3. Would you say this increase in program deficiencies since 2001 is mainly due to the Pilot 

sponsors and not other sponsors? 

 YES ..........................................................................00 

 NO ............................................................................01 

3.4 Focusing on Pilot sponsors, during sponsor/site reviews deficiencies were noted in .... 

 CHECK RESPONSE FOR EACH ITEM

No 

Deficiencies 

Noted 

Noted 

During a 

Few 

Noted 

During 

Some 

Noted 

in 

Almost 

All 

a. Training .............................................................    

b. Monitoring at Site Level.....................................    

c. Meal Preparation...............................................    

d. Meal Ordering ...................................................    

e. Meal Counting and Claiming .............................    

f. Sanitation ..........................................................    

g. Civil Rights    

h. Other    

 
11

3.5 Of the program areas checked as having deficiencies in 3.4, which areas do you 

consider as having the most problems and needing the most improvement? (EXPLAIN) 

 

 

3.6a. Could you determine whether sponsors maintained a non-profit food service account? 

 CIRCLE ONE 

 Almost Never............................................................01 

 Sometimes ...............................................................02 

 Almost Always ..................................................03 

3.6b. How did you go about determining whether they maintained a non-profit food service 

account? Please explain: 

________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________ 

3.6c. What problems did you find with sponsors’ management of their non-profit food service 

account? EXPLAIN: _______________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________ 
12

3.6d. Did the management of non-profit food service accounts impact meal quality? 

 CHECK ONE 

 YES ..........................................................................

 NO................................................................ 

If YES, how? ________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

Thank you for your help with this important, Congressionally-mandated study 
14 STATE SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM 

PILOT PROJECT 

Sponsor Questionnaire 

(New or Continuing Sponsors)

STATE:_____ SPONSOR ID:_______________ 

 (Leave Blank) 

NAME OF SPONSOR: _______________________________________________________ 

ADDRESS:_________________________________________________________________ 

YOUR NAME:_____________________________________________ 

PHONE NUMBER: |___|___|___| - |___|___|___| - |___|___|___|___| 

FAX NUMBER: |___|___|___| - |___|___|___| - |___|___|___|___| 

E-MAIL ADDRESS: __________________________________________________________ 

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a 

person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB 

control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0584-0513. The 

time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 30 minutes, including 

the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. 

PLEASE RETURN THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE BY SEPTEMBER 

16, 2002 

OMB NO.: 0584-0513 

Expiration Date:6/30/03 
1

INTRODUCTION 

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this Congressionally-mandated evaluation of the 14 State Summer Food 

Service Program (SFSP) Pilot Project for the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The main objective of the evaluation 

is to describe the characteristics of service providers and SFSP operations. 

The purpose of this survey is to obtain information about the operation of the program at the sponsor level. The 

survey asks about various aspects of the program, including your administrative procedures, monitoring practices, 

technical assistance and training, staffing patterns, meals provided, and outreach efforts. All of your answers to 

this study will be used in strict confidence and only for research purposes. 

GENERAL INFORMATION 

G.1 Did you sponsor or are you sponsoring the SFSP in 2002? 

1  Yes  PLEASE COMPLETE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE

0  No, not a sponsor in 2002  STOP PLEASE RETURN THE QUESTIONAIRE TO USDA IN THE 

ENVELOPE PROVIDED

G.2 What is the start date and end date for your SFSP this year? 

START DATE: | | | | | | 

 Month Day 

END DATE: | | | | | | 

 Month Day 

G.3 What type of organization are you? 

 CHECK ALL THAT APPLY 

a. Public school 1 

b. Private school 2 

c. Residential camp 3 

d. National Youth Sports Program 4 

e. Other private non-profit organization 5 

f. Local or municipal government agency 6 

g. County or state government agency 7 

h. Indian tribal organization 8 

i. Other (Specify) 96 

________________________________________________ 

G.4 What types of nutrition programs does your organization currently participate in? 

 CHECK ALL THAT APPLY

a. National School Lunch Program (NSLP) 1 

b. School Breakfast Program (SBP) 2 

c. Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) 3 

d. After School Snacks as a component of NSLP or CACFP 4 

e. Women, Infants, and Children program (WIC) 5 

f. Commodity Supplemental Food Program 6 

g. The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) 7 

h. Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) 8 

i. Other (specify) _____________________________________________ 96 
2

SITE INFORMATION FOR SFSP SITES 

S.1 What is the total number of SFSP sites that you are operating or have operated in Summer 2002? 

NUMBER: | | | | | 

S.2a How many of these are open sites. Open sites are those sites where meals are available to all children in 

an area in which at least 50% of the households are eligible for free and reduced price school meals. 

 NUMBER: | | | | |

S.2b How many of these are closed enrolled sites? Closed enrolled sites are sites that are open only to 

enrolled children, in which at least 50% of the enrolled children are eligible for free or reduced price school 

meals. 

NUMBER: | | | | |

S.2c Of the total number of SFSP sites operated by your organization, how many sites are ..... 

Number 

Migrant sites? ......................................... | | | | | 

National Youth Sports Program (NYSP) sites? | | | | | 

Residential Camps? ............................... | | | | | 

S.3 What is your estimated SFSP average daily attendance (ADA) for Summer 2002? This is the sum of the 

typical ADA for all your sites. For example, if a sponsor operated 3 SFSP sites and the typical average 

daily attendance in site 1 is 60, in site 2 it is 100 and in site 3 it is 25 then the estimated average daily 

attendance for that sponsor is 60+100+25=185. 

ESTIMATED SFSP AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE IN SUMMER 2002 ______________

S.4 How many of your organization’s SFSP sites serve each of the following types of meals? 

 NUMBER OF SITES

SERVING MEALS

a. Breakfast.............................. | | | | | 

b. Morning snack ..................... | | | | | 

c. Lunch................................... | | | | | 

d. Afternoon snack................... | | | | | 

e. Supper ................................. | | | | | 

f. Evening snack ..................... | | | | | 
3

S.5 On average, how many of the following SFSP meals do you serve on a typical day? Please combine the 

meal counts from all your SFSP sites? 

 NUMBER OF MEALS SERVED

a. Breakfast.................................. | | | | | | 

b. Morning snack.......................... | | | | | | 

c. Lunch ....................................... | | | | | | 

d. Afternoon snack ....................... | | | | | | 

e. Supper ..................................... | | | | | | 

f. Evening snack.......................... | | | | | | 

SECTION 1: SPONSORSHIP 

1.1 For how many summers, including the summer of 2002 has your organization sponsored the SFSP? 

1  1st year  GO TO Q1.4

2  2 to 5 years 

3  6 or more years 

1.2 Over the past few years, has the number of days that your organization serves SFSP meals increased, 

decreased, stayed about the same, or fluctuated up and down? 

1  Increased 

2  Decreased 

3  Stayed about the same 

4  Fluctuated—up and down 

1.3 How does the number of SFSP feeding sites in 2002 compare with 2001? There were .... 

1  More sites in 2002 ; How many more? _____________ (give number) 

2  Fewer sites in 2002; How many fewer? _____________(give number) 

3  The same number of sites in 2002 and 2001 

1.4 How many of your SFSP sites are rural as specified in SFSP regulations? A rural site is one that is in any 

area in a county, which is not part of a Metropolitan Statistical Area or is any “pocket” within a Metropolitan 

Statistical Area that is determined to be geographically isolated from urban area. 

 | | | | # OF RURAL SITES

00  None 

1.5 How many SFSP mobile feeding sites do you have? Mobile feeding sites are buses or other vehicles that 

transport meals to children at multiple locations in rural areas. The bus usually makes a number of stops 

and provides meals to children at each stop, with children eating on or near the bus. 

 | | | | # OF MOBILE FEEDING SITES

00  None 
4

1.6 How many of your SFSP sites offer activities other than serving meals to children? 

 | | | | | # OFFERING ACTIVITIES

00  None 

SECTION 2: ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND PROCEDURES 

2.1 What percentage of your organization’s total reported SFSP costs do you expect to recover from the State 

this year? 

 Your best estimate is fine. 

 | | | | % PROGRAM COST RECOVERED

 FROM SFSP REIMBURSEMENTS

2.2 What is the total dollar amount of costs for the SFSP that you think will not be reimbursed by the State this 

year? 

 $ | | |,| | | | TOTAL AMOUNT

 NOT REIMBURSED

 99999  ALL REIMBURSED  GO TO 2.4 

2.3 Which, if any, of the following sources will help cover the difference between your organization’s actual 

SFSP costs and what the State reimburses? CHECK “YES” OR “NO” FOR EACH

 Yes No 

a. Sponsor funds?.................................................................. 1  0 

b. Parent organization/affiliation funds?................................. 1  0 

c. Other non-federal funds?................................................... 1  0 

d. Other Federal funds? ......................................................... 1  0 

e. Non-SFSP State funds?..................................................... 1  0 

f. Local government funds?................................................... 1  0 

g. Any other sources? (Specify) ............................................. 1  0 

 ___________________________________________________________________________ 

2.4a Did the changes in how your organization is being reimbursed under this Pilot lead to an increase the 

number of SFSP sites that it is currently sponsoring? 

1  Yes ..... Number of Sites Added ___________ 

0  No 

2.4b Did the changes in how your organization is being reimbursed under this Pilot lead to an increase in the 

number of SFSP children it is currently serving? 

1  Yes* 

0  No 

*If yes, the number of children typically served per day increased by about: 

Less than 50 per day.........................................................................

50 to 100 per day ..............................................................................

Over 100 per day...............................................................................
5

 If this the first year your organization participated in the SFSP GO TO SECTION 3 

2.5 Please indicate if your organization has done any of the following since the pilot began in 2001 to control 

the costs of the SFSP. 

 CHECK “YES” OR “NO” FOR EACH

 Yes No 

a. Find less expensive vendors?.............................................................. 1  0 

b. Switch from on-site cooking to vended sites?...................................... 1  0 

c. Switch from vended sites to on-site cooking?...................................... 1  0 

d. Switch from mostly hot meals to mostly cold meals?........................... 1  0 

e. Secure additional funds?...................................................................... 1  0 

f. Cut back on site training?..................................................................... 1  0 

g. Cut back on site monitoring?................................................................ 1  0 

h. Cut back on publicity and promotion efforts?....................................... 1  0 

i. Limit the number of participants being served meals? ........................ 1  0 

j. Decrease the number of sites? ............................................................ 1  0 

k. Hire fewer people? ............................................................................... 1  0 

l. Let staff go?.......................................................................................... 1  0 

m. Reduce hourly pay? ............................................................................. 1  0 

n. Have staff work fewer hours?............................................................... 1  0 

o. Combine job functions?........................................................................ 1  0 

p. Have volunteers handle work usually done by paid staff?................... 1  0 

q. Anything else? (Specify)....................................................................... 1  0 

 ___________________________________________________________________________ 

2.6 Please indicate if participation in this Pilot has allowed your organization to do any of the following. 

 CHECK “YES” OR “NO” FOR EACH

 Yes No 

a. Find reliable vendors?.......................................................................... 1  0 

b. Switch from on-site cooking to vended sites?...................................... 1  0 

c. Switch from vended sites to on-site cooking?...................................... 1  0 

d. Switch from mostly cold meals to mostly hot meals? .......................... 1  0 

e. Serve better tasting meals? ................................................................. 1  0 

f. Serve foods that are liked by the children?.......................................... 1  0 

g. Improve food handling and insure food safety?................................... 1  0 

h. Increase publicity and promotion efforts?............................................ 1  0 

i. Increase the number of participants being served meals?.................. 1  0 

j. Increase the number of sites?.............................................................. 1  0 

k. Hire additional staff? ............................................................................ 1  0 

l. Anything else (Specify)? ...................................................................... 1  0 

 _______________________________________________________________________________ 
6

SECTION 3: OUTREACH AND EXPANSION EFFORTS 

This section is about outreach efforts to increase awareness of and participation in the SFSP. Please focus on 

outreach efforts in terms of both sites and participants. 

3.1a What does your organization consider to be barriers to increasing participation in the SFSP? 

 CHECK ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH ITEM 

NOT A 

BARRIER 

MINOR 

BARRIER 

MAJOR 

BARRIER 

a. Inadequate program publicity............. 1  1  1 

b. Lack of transportation......................... 2  2  2 

c. Not enough staff to supervise sites .... 3  3  3 

d. Lack of community involvement ......... 4  4  4 

e. Lack of activities for children .............. 5  5  5 

f. Quality of meals................................... 6  6  6 

g. Not enough support from local or municipal governments 7  7  7 

h. Not enough support from the state agency 8  8  8 

i. Insufficient reimbursement or funding . 9  9  9 

j. Other (Specify)..................................... 96  96  96 

 ______________________________________________________________________________________ 

 ______________________________________________________________________________________ 

3.1b. Of the items checked in 3.1a, list the 3 main barriers to participation in their order of importance. 

1. _________________________________________ (most important) 

2. _________________________________________ 

3. _________________________________________ 

3.2 What has your organization done, if anything, this year or last year to increase participation in the SFSP? 

 CHECK ALL THAT 

APPLY 

Opened more sites 1 

Contact eligible families living near sites 2 

Provided transportation to sites 3 

Added mobile sites 4 

Advertised the program 5 

Built additional community partnerships 6 

Increased the length (number of weeks) of service 7 

Other (Specify below) 96 

 

 ________________________________________________________________________ 

3.3 How likely is it that your organization will expand the number of SFSP sites it sponsors in the future? 

1  Very likely 

2  Somewhat likely 

3  Not too likely 

4  Not at all likely 

 
7

3.4 Please indicate if any of the following are reasons why your organization is not likely to expand the number 

of sites it runs. 

 CHECK ALL THAT APPLY

a. Insufficient staff within your organization 

b. Lack of available locations for sites 

c. Cost of operating the site 

d. Inability to find a partner to help in community outreach 

e. School food service is not interested or able to provide summer staff 

f. Schools offering school lunch or being open year round 

g. Lack of demand or area is well covered 

h. Other reasons (Specify below) 

 ________________________________________________________________________________ 

3.5 Which 3 of the reasons you checked in 3.4 are the main reasons why your organization is not interested in 

expanding the number of sites it runs? Write in order of importance 

1. ________________________________________(most important) 

2. ________________________________________ 

3. ________________________________________ 

3.6a. If your organization were considering a new site, what criteria would be important in its decision to open 

the site? 

 CHECK ALL THAT APPLY

a. No added cost for leasing/ renting and operating the facility......... 1 

b. Community involvement (e.g. volunteers)...................................... 2 

c. Site is accessible to children (e.g. transportation is not an issue) 3 

d. Availability of activities ......................................................... 4 

e. Secure and safe/Low crime area .......................................... 5 

f. Anything else? (Specify) ________________________________________

 __________________________________________________________ 

3.6b. Of the criteria checked in 3.6a, list the 3 most important criteria in their order of importance. 

1. ____________________________________ (most important) 

2. ____________________________________ 

3. ____________________________________ 

3.7 Which of the following methods has your organization used to identify areas that would qualify for SFSP 

sites? CHECK “YES” OR “NO” FOR EACH

 Yes No 

a. Used computer-mapping software? 1  0 

b. Obtained free and reduced-price school lunch information? 1  0 

c. Contacted the state agency? 1  0 

d. Used information from advocacy groups or other organizations? 1  0 

e. Obtained census data? 1  0 

f.. Anything else? (Specify below) 1  0 

 ______________________________________________________________________________ 

3.8 Does your organization work with any other organization to publicize and promote the SFSP? 

1  Yes 

0  No  GO TO 3.11
8

3.9 What organizations did your organization work with this year or last year? 

Name Code 

 (from list below) 

Name Code 

(from list below)

1. 4. 

2. 5. 

3. 6. 

ORGANIZATION CODES: 

01 Department of Education 

(Specify State or Federal Agency)

06 U.S. Department of Agriculture 

02 School 07 Medical organization 

03 College or University 08 Nutrition or Anti-hunger advocacy group 

04 Community-based organization 09 Media 

05 Business Organization 10 Religious Organization 

96 Other (SPECIFY--WRITE IN) 

3.10 Which of the following types of support were provided by those organizations? 

 CHECK “YES” OR “NO” FOR EACH

 Yes No 

a. Provided additional funds ........................................................................................ 1  0 

b. Placed SFSP advertisements or public service announcements............................ 1  0 

c. Informed residents about specific SFSP sites in the area....................................... 1  0 

d. Provided volunteer staff to help at sites................................................................... 1  0 

e. Helped identify areas in need of sites ..................................................................... 1  0 

f. Provided assistance in finding food service vendors .............................................. 1  0 

g. Provided assistance with forms and application requirements ............................... 1  0 

h. Provided activities for children at sites .................................................................... 1  0 

i. Provided special media events such as a kick-off................................................... 1  0 

j. Provided additional flyers, posters, give-away promotional materials or gifts?....... 1  0 

k. Any other type of support? (Specify below).................................. 1  0 

_ 

____________________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________________ 

3.11 Would your organization be willing to increase the length (number of weeks) of your summer session? 

 1  Yes  GO TO SECTION 4

 0  No 

-4  Not applicable—runs all summer  GO TO SECTION 4 

3.12 Why wouldn’t your organization be willing to increase the length of your summer session? 

 CHECK ALL THAT APPLY

a. Not enough staff ............. 

b. Children do not come ............ 

c. Cannot afford/ cost will not breakeven ............. 

 Other _____________________________________________________________________ 
9

SECTION 4: TRAINING AND MONITORING OF SITES 

4.1 Please indicate whether or not the following topics were covered in this year’s site personnel training 

session(s). CHECK “YES” OR “NO” FOR EACH

 Yes No 

a. Sponsor monitoring of sites?....................................................... 1  0 

b. State and USDA monitoring of sites?.......................................... 1  0 

c. Meal count records? .................................................................... 1  0 

d. Site violations and deficiencies?.................................................. 1  0 

e. Health regulations and food safety?............................................ 1  0 

f. Working with vendors? ................................................................ 1  0 

g. Any other topics? (Specify) 

___________________________ 1  0 

4.2 How does your organization train new site staff who come on during the course of the summer? 

 CHECK ALL THAT APPLY

a. Provide individual training ................................... 

b. Rely on the site supervisor to train ................................................... 

c. Other (specify) _______________________________________________ 

d. Not applicable, no new staff ........................ 

4.3 During site reviews conducted by your staff, which, if any, of the following problems were noted? 

 

 CHECK ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH ITEM

NEVER SOMETIMES OFTEN 

ALMOST 

ALWAYS 

a. Inadequate food service supervision    

b. Meal counts for children not properly recorded    

c. Claiming meals for ineligible adults    

d. Too much of the food served is wasted    

e. Too many seconds served    

f. Meals not served at appropriate times    

g. Meal orders were not adjusted    

h. Meals did not meet SFSP meal pattern requirements    

i. Full meals were being taken off site    

j. Other (specify)____________________________    

k. Other (specify)____________________________    

l. Other (specify)____________________________    

 
10

4.4 Since the SFSP Pilot began that is from 2001 onwards, would you say that the incidence of program 

 violations has .... 

 CHECK ONE 

a. Remained the same as before the Pilot 1

b. Decreased 2

c. Increased 3

d. Don’t know – did not sponsor SFSP before 2001 4

SECTION 5: MEAL SERVICE AND QUALITY 

5.1 How is your organization’s SFSP food preparation handled? 

 CHECK ALL THAT APPLY 

a. On site by sponsor................... 1

b. Central kitchen by sponsor ...... 2

c. School food authority vendor ... 3

d. Private vendor ......................... 4

e. Other (Specify below).............. 96

 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 

 ____________________________________________________________________________________ 

5.2 In your opinion, what effect has the Pilot had on the quality of SFSP meals served to children? By meal 

quality we mean the taste, acceptability and nutritional quality. 

 

 CHECK ONE 

a. Improved meal quality 1 GO TO 5.3

b. Has had no effect – meal quality same as before 2001 2 GO TO 5.5

c. Meal quality has declined 3 GO TO 5.4

d. Don’t know – did not sponsor SFSP before 2001 4 GO TO 5.5

 

5.3 Would you say SFSP meal quality has improved because.. 

 CHECK ALL THAT 

APPLY 

a. More funds are available to hire additional staff? 1

b. More funds are available to purchase better quality foods? 2

c. More funds are available to train staff on meal preparation, food safety and 

sanitation? 3

d. There is greater awareness that high quality meals draw children to the sites? 4

e. Other reasons (specify) ........... 96

 __________________________________________________________________ 

 
11

5.4 If you checked 5.2 c, then please specify why you feel that the Pilot has led to a decline in meal quality? 

 _________________________________________________________________________________ 

 __________________________________________________________________________________ 

5.5 In your opinion, what effect has the Pilot had on the safety of SFSP meals served to children? By food 

safety we mean the proper, handling, storage and preparation of the meals served to children. For 

example: Are hot and cold foods kept are proper temperatures? Are raw fruits and vegetables thoroughly 

washed before cooking or serving? 

 

 CHECK ONE 

a. Improved food safety 1  

b. Has had no effect – food safety is same as before 2001 2  

c. Food safety has declined 3  

d. Don’t know – did not sponsor SFSP before 2001 4 

Thank you for participating in this important, survey of the Summer Food Service Program. 

IMPORTANT: PLEASE MAIL BACK THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE 

USING THE POSTAGE-PAID ENVELOPE THAT WAS PROVIDED. 

Mail Questionnaire to: 

Anita Singh 

OANE, Room 1014 

USDA/FNS 

3101 Park Center Drive 

Alexandria, VA 22302 

Phone: 703-305-2128 

Fax: 703-305-2576

PLEASE RETURN THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE 

BY SEPTEMBER 16, 2002
1

14 STATE SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM 

PILOT PROJECT 

Former Sponsor Questionnaire

STATE:____________ 

SPONSOR ORGANIZATION NAME: ____________________________________________ 

ADDRESS:_________________________________________________________________ 

YOUR NAME:______________________________________________________ 

JOB TITLE:_________________________________________________________________ 

PHONE NUMBER: |___|___|___| - |___|___|___| - |___|___|___|___| 

FAX NUMBER: |___|___|___| - |___|___|___| - |___|___|___|___| 

E-MAIL ADDRESS: ___________________________________________________________ 

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person 

is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. 

The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0584-0513. The time required to complete 

this information collection is estimated to average 20 minutes, including the time for reviewing 

instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing 

and reviewing the collection of information. 

PLEASE RETURN THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE BY OCTOBER 4, 2002

OMB NO.: 0584-0513 

Expiration Date: 6/30/03 
2

INTRODUCTION: 

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this Congressionally-mandated evaluation of the 

Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) for the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The main 

objectives of the evaluation are to describe the characteristics of service providers and examine 

SFSP operations. 

The purpose of this survey is to obtain information about the operation of the program at the 

sponsor level, and, in particular, about why sponsors decide to leave the program. Questions 

are asked about various aspects of the program, including administrative procedures, staffing 

patterns, meals provided and publicity efforts. Please tell us about your sponsor experiences 

during the last year that you were a sponsor. All your answers to this study will be used in strict 

confidence and only for research purposes. 

S.1 Did you sponsor the SFSP in 2001 or prior years, but were not a sponsor in 2002? 

 1 .................... Yes, sponsor in 2001 but not in 2002 PLEASE CONTINUE 

 2 ............... Not sponsor in 2001, but was in prior year(s) PLEASE CONTINUE 

 0 ............................................. Sponsored SFSP in 2002 STOP see box below

 

S.2 The last year that you sponsored the SFSP was ..... 

 Circle one

 a. 2001 .................................................................... 01 

 b. 2000 .....................................................................02 

 c.1999.......................................................................03 

 d.1998 or earlier .......................................................04 

 

IF YOU WERE A SPONSOR IN 2002, YOU HAVE 

COMPLETED THE SURVEY. PLEASE RETURN 

THIS QUESTIONNAIRE TO THE FOOD AND 

NUTRITION SERVICE, USDA IN THE ENVELOPE 

PROVIDED. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. 
3

SECTION 1. SPONSORSHIP 

1.1 What type of organization are you? 

 CHECK ONE

 Public school, ........................................................... 1

 Private school,.......................................................... 2

 Residential camp,..................................................... 3

 National Youth Sports Program,............................... 4

 Other private non-profit organization,....................... 5

 Local or municipal government agency,................... 6

 County or State government agency,....................... 7

 Indian tribal organization, or ..................................... 8

 Other? (SPECIFY)................................................... 96

 

 DON’T KNOW ..........................................................d 

 

1.2 What types of nutrition programs does your organization currently participate in? 

 CHECK ALL THAT APPLY 

a. National School Lunch Program (NSLP).......................................... 1

b. School Breakfast Program (SBP)..................................................... 2

c. Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP)................................. 3

d. After School Snacks as a component of NSLP or CACFP............... 4

e. Women, Infants, and Children Program (WIC)................................. 5

f. Commodity Supplemental Food Program ........................................ 6

g. Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP).............................. 7

h. Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) ........... 8

i. Other (specify) ______________________________________ 96
4

1.3 For how many summers did you sponsor the SFSP? 

 CIRCLE ONE

 1 Summer.................................................................01 

 2 TO 5 Summers ......................................................02 

 6 OR MORE Summers.............................................03 

 DON’T KNOW ..........................................................d 

 

1.4 How many SFSP sites did your organization operate the last year that you were a 

sponsor? 

 |___|___|___|___| # OF SITES IN _____ (specify year) 

1.5 Of the total number of SFSP sites operated by your organization, how many SFSP sites 

were: Please provide your best estimate. 

TYPES OF SITES Number 

Open sites (An open site is one where meals were available to all children in an 

area in which at least 50% of the households were eligible for free or reduced price 

National School Lunch or School Breakfast Program meals)

Closed enrolled sites (This type of site is open only to enrolled children in 

which at least 50% of children are approved for free or reduced price National 

School Lunch or School Breakfast Program meals)

Rural sites (A rural site is any area in a county which is not part of a 

Metropolitan Statistical Area or any ‘pocket’ within a Metropolitan Statistical Area 

that is determined to be geographically isolated from urban areas).

Migrant sites 

National Youth Sports Program (NYSP) sites 

Residential Camps 

 

1.6 In addition to serving meals to children, did your SFSP sites offer activities such as 

sports, arts and crafts etc.? 

 YES, MORE THAN HALF OF ALL SITES 01 

 

 YES, BUT LESS THAN HALF OF ALL SITES 02 

 NO SITES OFFERED ACTIVITIES .........................00 

 

 DON’T KNOW ..........................................................d 
5

1.7 Again, thinking about all of the SFSP sites your organization sponsored, what was the 

average daily attendance at all your SFSP sites the last year that you were a sponsor? 

Daily attendance means the number of children attending the program, not the number 

of meals served. 

 CIRCLE ONE

 a. 100 or less children per day 01 

 b. 101 to 500 children per day............................................. 02 

 c. More than 500 children per day 03 

 d. DON’T KNOW d 

1.8 To the best of your knowledge, how many of your SFSP sites were picked up by 

another sponsor when you left the program? 

 CIRCLE ONE

 All .............................................................................01 

 Some or....................................................................02 

 None of them............................................................00 

 DON’T KNOW ..........................................................d 

SECTION 2. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND PROCEDURES 

2.1 What percentage of your reported SFSP administrative costs did you recover from the 

State the last year you were a sponsor? 

 Your best estimate is fine. 

 |___|___|___| % ADMINISTRATIVE COST REIMBURSED 

 

 DON’T KNOW ..........................................................d 

 

2.2 What percentage of your reported SFSP operating costs did you recover from the 

State the last year you were a sponsor? 

 Your best estimate is fine. 

 |___|___|___| % OPERATING COST REIMBURSED 

 DON’T KNOW ..........................................................d 
6

2.3 Had your organization heard about the Pilot Project before you decided not to continue 

being a SFSP sponsor? The Pilot allows sponsors to combine administrative and 

operating costs and meals are reimbursed at the maximum allowable rate.

 YES .........................................................................01 GO TO SECTION 3 

 NO ............................................................................00 

2.4 Would knowing this information about the Pilot have influenced your organization’s 

decision to participate? 

 YES ..........................................................................01 

 NO ............................................................................00 GO to SECTION 3

2.5 If yes, would your organization have decided to continue or reapply to sponsor? 

 YES, because _________________________________________ 

 NO, because __________________________________________ 

SECTION 3. OUTREACH EFFORTS 

This section is about outreach efforts that are efforts to increase awareness of and participation 

in the SFSP. Please focus on outreach efforts in terms of both sites and participants. 

 3.1 What did you consider to be the main barriers to increased participation in the SFSP? 

CHECK ALL 

THAT APPLY 

Inadequate program publicity 1 

Lack of transportation 2 

Not enough staff to supervise sites 3 

Lack of community involvement 4 

Lack of activities for children 5 

Poor quality of meals 6 

Not enough support from local or State governments 7 

Other barriers (specify) 

_________________________________________ 96

 _______________________________________________________________ 

 

 NONE/ THERE WERE NO BARRIERS  
7

3.2 Did your organization do anything to increase participation at your SFSP site(s) the last 

year you were a sponsor?

 .................................................................... CIRCLE ONE

 YES ...................................................................................01 GO TO 3.4

 NO.....................................................................................00 

 DON’T KNOW...................................................................d GO TO 3.4

 

3.3 Was that because there was no need to increase participation or because of lack of 

resources, such as staff, space or enrollment limits?

 CIRCLE ONE

 NO NEED..........................................................................01 

 LACK OF RESOURCES...................................................02 

 OTHER (SPECIFY)...........................................................96 

 

 DON’T KNOW...................................................................d 

3.4 Did your organization work with any other organizations to publicize and promote the 

SFSP when it was a sponsor? 

 CIRCLE ONE

 YES ...................................................................................01 

 NO.....................................................................................00 GO TO SECTION 4

 DON’T KNOW...................................................................d 

 

3.5 What organization(s) did your organization work with? Please provide the name(s) and 

organization codes (see table below) of these organizations: 

Name of Organization Code Name of Organization Code 

1 5 

2 6 

3 7 

4 8 

ORGANIZATION CODES: 

01 Department of Education (specify State or 

Federal Agency) 

06 U.S. Department of Agriculture 

02 School 07 Medical organization 

03 College or University 08 Nutrition or Anti-hunger advocacy group 

04 Community-based organization 09 Media 

05 Business organization 96 Other (SPECIFY--WRITE IN) 

10 Religious organization _________________________________ 

 GO TO SECTION 4
8

3.6 Which of the following types of support were provided by that/those organization(s)? Did 

that/those organization(s)..... 

 CHECK ONE RESPONSE (YES, NO OR DON’T KNOW) FOR EACH ITEM. 

 YES NO 

DON’T 

KNOW 

a. Provide additional funds?......................................................................... 1  d 

b. Place SFSP advertisements or public service announcements? ............ 2  d 

c. Inform residents about specific SFSP sites in the area? ......................... 3  d 

d. Provide volunteer staff to help at sites? ................................................... 4  d 

e. Help identify areas in need of sites? ........................................................ 5  d 

f. Provide assistance in finding food service vendors?............................... 6  d 

g. Provide assistance with forms and application requirements?................ 7  d 

h. Provide activities for children at sites?..................................................... 8  d 

i. Provide special media events such as a kick-off? ................................... 9  d 

j. Provide additional flyers, posters, give-away promotional materials or 

gifts?......................................................................................................... 10  d 

k. Any other type of support? (SPECIFY) ................................................... 96  d 

__________________________________________________ 

PLEASE GO TO SECTION 4 ON THE NEXT PAGE 
9

SECTION 4. DISCONTINUING SPONSORSHIP 

4.1 Which of the following are reasons that your organization decided to stop being a 

SFSP sponsor? 

 CHECK ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH ITEM

 

NOT A 

REASON 

MINOR 

REASON 

SOMEWHAT 

IMPORTANT 

VERY 

IMPORTANT 

REASON 

a. Lack of participation? ..........................................    

b. Problems with vendors?......................................    

c. Paperwork too difficult or time-consuming? ........    

d. No longer eligible?...............................................    

e. Dropped by state?...............................................    

f. Inadequate staff available? .................................    

g. Program manager retired or left? ........................    

h. Inadequate reimbursement rates? ......................    

i. Application process too difficult or time 

consuming?.........................................................    

j. Inadequate technical assistance from State?......    

k. Not enough eligible children to be worthwhile?...    

l. Health and sanitation requirements?...................    

m. Poor relationships with State office? ...................    

n. Difficulty separating various food programs? ......    

o. Became a site?....................................................    

p. Too many meals disqualified?.............................    

q. Lack of administrative support within your 

organization    

r. Any other reasons? (SPECIFY) .........................    

 _____________________________________ 

4.2 Which of the reasons you gave in 4.1 is the main reason that your organization 

decided to leave the SFSP? 

____________________________________________________________ 

 

 
10

4.3 What would need to happen or be changed about the current program for your 

organization to once again become a SFSP sponsor? 

 CHECK “YES”, “NO” OR “DON’T KNOW” FOR EACH ITEM

 

YES NO 

DON’T 

KNOW 

a. To be reimbursed at maximum allowable rate even after the 

Pilot is over. .................................................................................... 1  d 

b. Simplified application process ........................................................ 2  d 

c. Better technical assistance and or training from the State ............. 3  d 

d. Other reasons (specify below) ........................................................ 4  d 

Other reasons Include: 

______________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

 NOTHING--WOULD NEVER CONSIDER 

 BEING A SPONSOR AGAIN....................................00 

 DON’T KNOW ..........................................................d 

 

Thank you very much for your time in completing this important survey 

of the Summer Food Service Program. 

PLEASE RETURN THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE BY OCTOBER 4, 2002 

IMPORTANT: PLEASE MAIL BACK THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE 

USING THE POSTAGE-PAID ENVELOPE THAT WAS PROVIDED. 

MAIL THE QUESTIONNAIRE TO: 

Anita Singh 

OANE, Room 1014 

USDA/FNS 

3101 Park Center Drive 

Alexandria, VA 22302 

Phone: 703-305-2128 

Fax: 703-305-2576