Evaluation of the USDA Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program: Report to Congress.

By Jean C. Buzby, Joanne F. Guthrie, and Linda S. Kantor. Food Assistance and

Nutrition Research Program, Food and Rural Economics Division, Economic Research

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Abstract

Almost all schools participating in USDA’s Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program (FVPP)

consider the program to be very successful and would like the pilot to continue. The

Nutrition Title of the 2002 Farm Act provided $6 million to the FVPP for the 2002-03

school year to improve fruit and vegetable consumption among the Nation’s schoolchildren. The FVPP provided fresh and dried fruits and fresh vegetables free to children in 107 elementary and secondary schools—100 schools in 4 States (25 schools

each in Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, and Ohio) and 7 schools in the Zuni Indian Tribal

Organization (ITO) in New Mexico. The intent of the pilot is to determine the feasibility of such a program and its success as assessed by the students’ interest in participating. Of the 105 schools reporting on feasibility, 100 believe that it is feasible to continue the pilot if funding were made available. The pilot provided ample funding that

averaged about $94 per student. Schools believed that 80 percent of students were very

interested in the pilot, and 71 percent reported that students’ interest had increased during the pilot period. Many schools reported that the 10-percent cap on nonfood (for

example, labor) costs out of each grant was too restrictive. This report provides an

early review of the pilot.

The current Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program is administered by USDA's Food and

Nutrition Service (FNS). For information about child nutrition program participation,

contact the State agencies that administer the program.

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to David Smallwood, Deputy Director for Food Assistance Research at

ERS, for his helpful feedback and support, and to Julie Skolmowski, who interned during the early stages of the evaluation and provided assistance on a wide range of tasks.

Erika Gordon at ORC Macro and Shirley Pareo and John Booker at the University of

New Mexico provided valuable help in collecting and analyzing data. Thanks also to

Linda Fischer (ARS), who was the Contracting Officer for the evaluation, Nicole

Ballenger (ERS), and Stanley Garnett, Rosemary O’Connell, John Endahl, and Fred

Lesnett (FNS) for their assistance. Thanks to Linda Hatcher and Victor B. Phillips, Jr.,

for editing and design assistance. Thanks to all pilot schools, State Directors, and State

offices for their assistance with the pilot and its evaluation. Thanks also to partners

Barry Sackin at the American School Food Service Association, Lorelei Disogra and

others at the National Cancer Institute’s 5 A Day For Better Health Program, and all

others involved in this cooperative endeavor.

Washington, DC 20036-5831 May 2003
ii ✥ Evaluation of the USDA Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program: Report to Congress Economic Research Service/USDA

Contents

Page

Summary......................................................................................................................iii

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

Overview of the Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program ................................................1

Evaluation Plan ............................................................................................................1

Evaluation Findings .....................................................................................................5

Pilot Management and Implementation.....................................................................5

Time of Delivery.....................................................................................................7

Delivery Method.....................................................................................................8

Fruits and Vegetables Served .................................................................................8

FVPP Nutrition Education and Promotion Activities...........................................10

Perceived Value and Effects of the Pilot .................................................................10

Data on Food and Beverage Sales ...........................................................................11

Key Factors in Pilot Implementation.......................................................................11

Feasibility of Continuing the FVPP or Similar Program.........................................12

Cost Considerations .................................................................................................12

Acceptability of the Pilot .........................................................................................15

Suggestions To Improve the Program......................................................................16

Bibliography................................................................................................................17

Appendix A: Legislative Language for the FVPP...................................................18

Appendix B: FVPP Schools.......................................................................................20

Appendix C: FVPP Data—Kinds and Amounts of Fruits, 

Vegetables, and Value-Added Items Provided Through 

the FVPP, November-December 2002 ......................................................................23
Economic Research Service/USDA Evaluation of the USDA Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program: Report to Congress ✥ iii

Summary

To promote fresh fruit and vegetable consumption among the Nation’s schoolchildren,

the Nutrition Title of the 2002 Farm Act provided $6 million for USDA to award to

schools through a Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program (FVPP) for the 2002-03 school

year. The FVPP provided fresh and dried fruits and fresh vegetables free to children in

107 elementary and secondary schools—100 schools in 4 States (25 each in Indiana,

Iowa, Michigan, and Ohio) and 7 schools in the Zuni Indian Tribal Organization (ITO)

in New Mexico. Pilot funds were allocated to each school on a per student basis, that

amounted to $94 per student. The intent of the pilot is to determine the feasibility of

such a program and its success as determined by the students’ interest in participating.

Most participating schools consider the pilot program to be very successful and feel

strongly that the pilot should continue. The pilot included only schools that volunteered and applied to participate. Consequently, they may not be representative of nonpilot schools. Pilot sites were, however, chosen to represent a mix of large and small,

rural, suburban, and urban elementary, middle, and high schools. The participating

schools also included students from diverse ethnic backgrounds and family income

levels, as assessed by the proportion of students certified as eligible for free and

reduced-price lunches.

USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) is responsible for evaluating the pilot.

This report provides the results of ERS’s review, based on analyses of administrative

school records, December reports, February reports, site visits to schools, focus

groups, interviews, and a conference of pilot program managers, other pilot staff, and

policy stakeholders.

Acceptability of the Pilot

The FVPP was popular among most students, parents, State representatives, teachers,

principals, pilot managers, and foodservice staff. Almost all schools were interested in

continuing the program, provided funding was available. Students took advantage of

the pilot: Schools reported that children consumed 93 percent of servings offered during November 18-22, 2002, and 92 percent of servings offered during December 9-13,

2002. Schools reported that 80 percent of students were very interested in the pilot and

that 18 percent were somewhat interested, and 71 percent of the schools believed that

students’ interest had increased during the pilot period.

Pilot Management and Implementation

Three main delivery methods were used to distribute FVPP foods to students: classroom service, kiosks, and free vending machines. Classroom service alone was used by

41 percent of schools, and 16 percent used kiosks alone. Many schools used mixed

approaches, with 36 percent using both classroom delivery and kiosks and 3 percent

using classroom service and free vending machines. Elementary schools were more

likely to use classroom service, while middle schools were largely split between classroom service and a combination of classroom delivery and kiosks. Half of all high

schools used a combination of classroom and kiosks. A few high schools and middle

schools incorporated free vending machines with other delivery methods.

Of 105 schools, 83 had multiple distribution times. Overall, 85 schools served during

morning school sessions, 66 during afternoon school sessions, 62 after school, and 29

before school.
iv ✥ Evaluation of the USDA Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program: Report to Congress Economic Research Service/USDA

Of 105 schools, 87 bought FVPP foods from a wholesaler or broker, 55 from retailers

(e.g., local grocers), 16 from the Department of Defense Fresh Fruit and Vegetable

Program (DOD Fresh), and 13 from other sources, such as farmers’ markets, an organic grower, and local orchards and growers.

Nearly all schools (93 percent) provided some nutrition education and promotion activities, but the extent and type varied widely among schools and grade levels:

• 65 percent provided nutrition education and promotion as part of school classes, such as by 

making it a part of health classes or by adapting lesson plans,

• 34 percent provided nutrition education and promotion in school but outside of regular classes,

such as at school assemblies, health fairs, and pilot kickoff events,

• 63 percent offered informational materials, such as fliers, pamphlets, and 5 A Day materials, and

• 60 percent provided other materials, such as T-shirts, posters, banners, and buttons or made public

address announcements.

Perceived Value and Effects of the Pilot

Nearly everyone recognized some health benefit or other value from the pilot. School staff

believed that the pilot lessened the risk of obesity, increased attention in class, reduced

consumption of less healthy food, reduced number of unhealthy snacks brought from

home, increased students’ awareness and preference for a variety of fruits and vegetables

(particularly less familiar kinds, such as kiwis and fresh pears), helped children who

would otherwise be hungry get more food, and increased students’ consumption of

fruits and vegetables at lunch.

Some of the reasons that children liked the pilot were that they got to eat favorite fruits

and vegetables more often, they liked the health benefits of eating these foods, it was a

welcome break from normal classroom activity, and they could eat the foods as a breakfast substitute. Many students described improvement in their eating habits, greater

willingness to try different fruits and vegetables, or, at the very least, a greater consciousness about eating too much of what they call “junk” foods.

Data on Food and Beverage Sales

Twenty-three schools offered fruits and vegetables from the pilot program during

school meals. Almost one in three schools felt that the FVPP increased the likelihood

that children would participate in school meals, and 79 schools reported that the

FVPP increased children’s acceptance of fruits and vegetables offered as part of

school meals.

Quantitative data on the effects of the pilot are limited due to the constraints of the

study. The following figures, therefore, are rough proxies of changes in school meals

served or in a la carte purchases. Many factors affect sales, and the extent of any influence from the pilot is unknown. These estimates provide some insight into changes in

the school environment but are not intended to show causality one way or the other.

Between January 2002 (before the pilot) and January 2003 (during the pilot), the total

number of free breakfasts remained constant, reduced-price breakfasts fell by 1 percent, and full-price breakfasts rose by roughly 3 percent. The total number of free

lunches rose by 7 percent, reduced-price lunches fell by less than 1 percent, and fullprice lunches fell by 2 percent. The total number of after-school snacks served through 
Economic Research Service/USDA Evaluation of the USDA Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program: Report to Congress ✥ v

USDA’s Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) and/or National School Lunch

Program (NSLP) fell by 7 percent. The value of total cafeteria a la carte food and beverage sales fell by 3 percent.

Key Factors in Pilot Implementation

Four key factors contributed most positively to the pilot. First, the level of cooperation,

communication, and commitment among principals, teachers, foodservice directors, and

other staff was high. Second, the level of support and partnerships with States and other

nonschool partners was also high. Third, the flexibility of the FVPP allowed each school

to develop its own implementation plan, work out problems, have broad involvement

among teachers and other school staff, and reach its own solutions. Schools could choose

when, where, and how they wanted to implement the pilot and could select the mix and

quantities of pilot foods to offer students. Fourth, there was ample funding for the pilot.

Cost Considerations

Many schools said that the 10-percent cap on paying nonfood costs out of grant money

was too restrictive. Nonfood costs include administrative costs necessary to implement

the pilot, such as extra labor, storage, and equipment. Many schools bought higher cost

foods for the pilot, such as prepared trays of presliced fruits and vegetables, to keep

labor costs within the 10-percent cap or asked States to grant waivers on the cap.

Some schools were not spending all money granted to them, largely due to the time

needed to start and implement the pilot. Roughly half of the schools initiated the pilot

in October 2002, with additional schools starting in November and December 2002

and two schools starting in January 2003. Given the range in school size, grants ranged

from $10,000 to $185,000, with an average of around $56,000 per school or $94 per

student. Schools with more limited serving schedules and distribution were more likely

to have unspent funds. At the end of February, schools in four pilot States had spent

26, 26, 36, and 51 percent, respectively, of the total FVPP funds awarded to each.

However, based on February spending rates in four States, an estimated 94 percent of

the grant ($88 per student) would have been used if the pilot schools had spent at that

rate for 9 months. Therefore, funding appears ample for operating a full school year.

Nationwide expansion of the program at a level comparable to that of the pilot would

cost an estimated $4.5 billion, based on an average cost of $94 per student and a count

of 48.2 million children in public schools in 2001. Costs would be somewhat higher if

private schools also participated. These estimates do not include the costs and burden

for USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS)—the agency responsible for implementing the pilot—or for State departments of education and health to administer and support an expanded program. Costs could be lower if fruits and vegetables were offered

only once a day.

Lessons Learned

Some challenges could be overcome if the program were continued. First, the 10-percent cap on nonfood costs could be raised. Some schools said that a nonfood cap of

12-40 percent, rather than the 10-percent cap on nonfood costs, would be more feasible

and would increase flexibility and efficiency in using pilot funds. Second, the experience of the pilot schools could help schools new to the program speed up implementation time, allowing more efficient and effective use of program funds. Third, if nutrition

education and promotion efforts were part of an expanded program, some schools would 
vi ✥ Evaluation of the USDA Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program: Report to Congress Economic Research Service/USDA

need more preplanning time to develop and implement the activities. Fourth, new ways

to motivate students to eat more vegetables could be identified that do not rely on

high-fat dips and condiments. A wider variety of fresh fruits was served than fresh vegetables, and fresh fruits were more appealing to students. The use of condiments, such

as dips (some low-fat) and peanut butter, improved vegetable consumption.

Feasibility of Continuing the FVPP or Similar Program

Most schools were very interested in continuing the program, provided that funding

were available. Out of 103 schools reporting on pilot success, 95 percent felt that the

FVPP was very successful, 4 percent rated it as somewhat successful, and 1 percent

rated it as not successful. Of the 105 schools reporting on feasibility, 100 schools

thought that it would be feasible to continue the program beyond the pilot if funding

were continued.
Introduction

The Nutrition Title of the 2002 Farm Act provided $6

million (Section 32) for USDA’s Fruit and Vegetable

Pilot Program (FVPP) for the 2002-03 school year.

The “intent of the pilot program is to determine the

feasibility of carrying out such a program and its success as determined by the students’ interest in participating in the program” (see FVPP legislative language

in Appendix A). USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service

(FNS) is responsible for administering the FVPP.

The Farm Bill required that the Secretary of Agriculture

“...make available to students in 25 elementary or secondary schools in each of 4 States, and in elementary or

secondary schools on 1 Indian Reservation, free fresh

and dried fruits and fresh vegetables...” during the 2002-

03 school year. The Conference Report from the Farm

Bill recommended Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, and Ohio

as the four States. The Zuni Indian Tribal Organization

(ITO) in New Mexico was selected to participate as the

Indian reservation and had seven participating schools.

Overview of the Fruit and

Vegetable Pilot Program

USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS), the agency

responsible for evaluating the pilot, reviewed more

than 830 applications from schools in Indiana, Iowa,

Michigan, and Ohio. ERS made recommendations to

FNS for the sample of 100 non-Zuni schools for participation in the pilot, and FNS made the final selections.

As directed by Congress, an effort was made to select a

diverse blend of schools for the pilot project, in terms

not only of school characteristics but also of implementation strategies (table 1). Pilot sites were chosen to represent a mix of large and small, rural, suburban, and

urban elementary, middle, and high schools. The participating schools also included students from diverse ethnic

backgrounds and family income levels, as assessed by

the proportion of students certified as eligible for free

and reduced-price lunches. Figures 1-5 show the distribution of participating elementary, middle, and high

schools by State. The average enrollment per pilot school

was 607 children, ranging from 66 to 2,000 students.

Pilot sites also represented various strategies for distributing the fruits and vegetables, including:

• Service Delivery Mechanism. Some sites distributed fruits and vegetables from centrally located

kiosks (stationary tables, stands, carts, or baskets in

hallways or other central areas), some served fruit

and vegetable snacks in the classroom, and others

used some combination of delivery mechanisms

(e.g., kiosks and free vending machines).

• Timing of Service Delivery. Schools could provide

pilot fruits and vegetables during the morning or

afternoon, before or after school, or throughout the

entire school day.

• Educational or Promotional Activities. Schools varied in the extent and type of these activities, ranging

from having no stated plans for additional activities

to having extensive plans for integrating nutrition education and promotion programs with school activities and events as well as daily classroom schedules.

Evaluation Plan

The evaluation comprised four primary components:

• Analysis of administrative records of fruit and vegetable purchases, submitted monthly by each participating school to State administrative agencies,

Economic Research Service/USDA Evaluation of the USDA Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program: Report to Congress ✥ 1

Evaluation of the USDA Fruit and

Vegetable Pilot Program

Report to Congress

Jean C. Buzby

Joanne F. Guthrie

Linda S. Kantor
• Review of pilot project reports describing how the

FVPP was implemented and received, submitted by

each participating school in December 2002 and

February 2003,

• Site visits to participating schools, focus groups,

and interviews with selected school stakeholders

(e.g., principals, teachers, pilot staff, parents, and

students), and

• A March 2003 conference that brought together

FVPP program managers, other pilot staff, and

policy stakeholders (e.g., State agency staff,

USDA, and our pilot partners) to discuss the findings of the evaluation and lessons learned from the

pilot project.

The legislation specified that the pilot operate in

schools during the 2002-03 school year , which ends

on June 30, 2003. The ERS evaluation, however, had a

shorter timeframe in order to meet the Congressional

reporting deadline of May 1, 2003. Only limited data

were available for this early review of the pilot. ERS

2 ✥ Evaluation of the USDA Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program: Report to Congress Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 1—Characteristics of participating FVPP schools by State

Zuni ITO, Five-State

Characteristics Indiana Iowa Michigan Ohio New Mexico total

Number

Schools 25 25 25 25 7 107

Public 24 24 24 24 6 102

Private 1 1 1 1 1 5

Enrollment, all schools, 

as of October 2001 15,059 13,824 16,607 16,990 1,897 64,377

Schools by grade level:1,2

Elementary 10 10 10 10 33 43

Middle 8 8 8 8 33 35

High 6 6 6 6 2 26

Schools by location:

Urban 9 9 8 8 0 34

Rural 8 9 8 9 7 41

Suburban 8 7 9 8 0 32

Team Nutrition Schools4 15 10 14 11 0 50

Schools with National School 

Lunch Program (NSLP) 25 24 25 24 7 105

Schools with School 

Breakfast Program (SBP) 20 21 22 12 7 82

Schools by share of students 

certified to receive free and 

reduced-price school meals

High (>30% of students) 10 11 12 9 7 49

Low (#30% of students) 15 14 13 16 0 58

ITO = Indian Tribal Organization.

1For non-Zuni schools, only public schools are tabulated here. Private schools include one school, grades PK-8; two schools, grades K-8; and

one school, grades K-12.

2Schools were classified as elementary, middle, or high based on the level code used in National Center for Education Statistics’ Common

Core of Data Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey: School Year 2000-01 as follows:

Primary (low grade = PK through 03; high grade = PK through 08)

Middle (low grade = 04 through 07; high grade = 04 through 09)

High (low grade = 07 through 12; high grade = 12 only) 3One of the seven Zuni schools was a combination of elementary and middle schools so this school is listed here under both grade levels. 4Since 1995, over 30,000 local schools throughout the country have adopted Team Nutrition, a USDA initiative that promotes food choices for

healthful diets for children through schools, homes, and communities by developing and providing nutrition education materials, recipes, and

other information to assist foodservice professionals.

Source: ERS tabulations of applicant information as of September 19, 2002.
contracted with the consulting firm ORC Macro for

conducting site visits in 12 of the 100 non-Zuni schools

participating in the pilot and analysis of administrative

records, December reports, and February reports for all

107 pilot schools. A separate assistance-type cooperative agreement with the University of New Mexico

provided the site visit data collection and analysis for

the seven Zuni pilot schools in New Mexico.

In addition to the purchasing reports submitted monthly by participating schools to their States, other important dates include:

• May 13, 2002—Farm Bill signed into law.

• June 4, 2002—Initial partnership planning meeting

(USDA, American School Food Service Association,

National Cancer Institute 5 A Day for Better Health

Program).

• August 22, 2002—Application deadline.

• September 26, 2002—Agriculture Secretary Ann M.

Veneman announced selections.

• Early October 2002—Funds distributed to States.

• December 20, 2002—December report due.

• February 7, 2003—February report due.

• March 25-26, 2003—FVPP conference held in

Indianapolis.

• May 1, 2003—Report to Congress due.

• June 30, 2003—Pilot concludes.

To facilitate the pilot and its evaluation, ERS developed an extranet for use by pilot schools. This secure,

private website was available for schools to obtain

more information on the pilot, download evaluation

forms, and interact with other schools through discussion threads. FNS hosted monthly conference calls

with policy stakeholders to help administer the pilot.

Economic Research Service/USDA Evaluation of the USDA Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program: Report to Congress ✥ 3

Figure 1

Indiana schools selected for the Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program by grade level

Aylesworth 

Elementary

Munster High School

Kahler Middle School

Lincoln Elementary

Walkerton Elementary School

Bloomingdale Elementary School

Ponage Middle School

Pioneer Jr. Sr. High School

Blackhawk Middle School

John I. Meister 

Elementary

Wayne High School

Joseph F. Tuttle Middle School

Crawfordsville High School Hasten Hebrew Academy

McFarland 

Middle School Union County Middle School

West Middle 

School

William F. Loper Elementary

Hendricks Franklin County High School

Elementary Paragon Elementary

Salem High School

Jaspar Middle School

Perry Central Elementary

Jonathan Jennings

Gary

Granger

Fort Wayne

Logansport

Kokomo

Lafayette

Crawfordsville

Muncie

Anderson

Indianapolis

Richmond

Terre Haute

Bloomington

Jaspar

New Albany

Evansville

School level

 Elementary school

 Middle school

 High school

 Other

 Cities

 Interstates

 Urbanized areas

80

65

69

70

65

74

64
The evaluation included both quantitative and qualitative information to address the major concerns of

Congress: the feasibility of continuing the FVPP permanently and the interest of students in participating in

such a program.

Quantitative data were derived primarily from the

monthly administrative records of fruit and vegetable

purchases of each participating school and the December

and February reports from each pilot school.

Qualitative data were obtained through direct observations during site visits to selected schools, focus group

discussions with students, and structured interviews with

various FVPP stakeholders, including FVPP program

managers, teachers, school foodservice directors and

operators, and principals or other school administrators.

In addition, telephone interviews with State agencies

and their representatives administering the FVPP for

FNS provided information on the State agency’s role

in implementing and managing the pilot and working

with schools to promote the FVPP. Community leaders

from the Zuni ITO and a small sample of parents also

provided information, and each school submitted qualitative data in the February reports.

Site visits were made to three schools each in Indiana,

Iowa, Michigan, and Ohio. These 12 schools provided

a distribution of elementary, middle, and high schools

with diverse urban and rural characteristics, delivery

mechanisms, and proportion of students certified for

free and reduced-price lunches. One private school

was included in the sample. All seven Zuni schools

participating in the pilot were visited at the request of

the Zuni Public School Food Service Director. 

Due to the quick startup, the short duration of the

pilot, and evolving nature of the initial implementation, the evaluation was not designed to determine:

• Effects on overall diet quality and children’s 

dietary patterns,

• Fruit and vegetable intakes of individuals,

• Displacement of less nutritious foods,

• Effects on long-term food consumption patterns,

4 ✥ Evaluation of the USDA Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program: Report to Congress Economic Research Service/USDA

Figure 2

Iowa schools selected for the Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program by grade level

35

West Bend-Mallard 

High School

North High School

Van Buren Jr. Sr. High School

West Elementary School

Walnut Grove Elementary

East Elementary

Hiawatha Elementary

King Elementary School

Emerson Elementary School

Urbana-Center Point Middle School

Anson Middle School

Johnston Middle School Harding Middle School

St. Michael School McKinstry

Hoover

McKinley School

Indianola High School

Spencer Mason City

Sioux City

Fort Dodge

Cedar Falls

Boone Marshalltown Cedar Rapids

Des Moines

Council Bluffs

Indianola Oskaloosa

Ottumwa

Muscatine High School

Comanche High School

Neil Armstrong Elementary School

Jefferson Elementary

Central Middle School

North Scott 

Junior High

Williams Intermediate School

Dubuque

Bettendorf

Burlington

Keokuk

380

80

School level

 Elementary school

 Middle school

 High school

 Other

 Cities

 Interstates

 Urbanized areas
• Effects of nutrition education, independent of 

free food,

• Experience of pilot schools versus all typical

schools, and

• Existence of more cost-effective alternatives 

to increasing children’s fruit and vegetable 

consumption.

In order to address these issues, additional research

would be needed that uses a nationally representative,

random sample, tracks children in participating

schools over time, and has well defined measures to be

evaluated. Such a study would be costly and require

careful design due to the varied modes of delivery and

age ranges of students.

Evaluation Findings

The findings highlight the main issues identified during

the evaluation concerning (1) pilot management and

implementation, (2) perceived value and effects of the

pilot, (3) data on food and beverage sales, (4) key factors in pilot implementation, (5) feasibility of continuing this or a similar program, (6) cost considerations,

and (7) acceptability of the pilot to students and others. Suggestions from schools to improve this type of

program are provided in the last section of this report.

Pilot Management and Implementation 

Once the schools were selected for participation, FNS

distributed the pilot funds based on enrollment

(Appendix B). The schools received roughly $94 per

Economic Research Service/USDA Evaluation of the USDA Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program: Report to Congress ✥ 5

Figure 3

Michigan schools selected for the Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program by grade level

Lincoln Elementary

Whittier Middle 

School

Linden 

Middle School

Lakeview 

Middle School

Linden High 

School

Dolsen 

Elementary 

Lakeview High School

School

Lansing

Battle Creek

Ann Arbor

Jackson

Benton Harbor

Carmen Park

Washington Middle School

Marquette

Sault Ste. Marie

Alpena Sunset Elementary School

Alcona Elementary School

Traverse City

Bay City

Francis Reh 

Public School Academy

Lincoln Heights Elementary

Saginaw

Marlette Middle School

Pine Knob Elementary

Jefferson Elementary School

O.E. Dunckel Middle School

Allen Park Middle School

Brown City High School

West Bloomfield High School

Yeshiva Beth Yehudah School

Redford Union High School

Port Huron

Cory Elementary

Detroit

Henry H. North 

Elementary

Everett High 

School

Flint Muskegon Heights Grand Rapids

75

96

94

69

School level

 Elementary school

 Middle school

 High school

 Other

 Cities

 Interstates

 Urbanized areas

Holland

Kalamazoo
student. Under the pilot program agreement, schools

must offer fresh or dried fruit and fresh vegetables to

children before, during, or after school. Schools may

purchase value-added or enhanced products, such as

pre-sliced items or individually packaged products,

with a portion of the funds. However, no more than 10

percent of pilot funds for each school could be used

for nonfood costs—i.e., administrative costs necessary

to operate the pilot (e.g., extra labor, storage, equipment, and serving implements). Schools were encouraged to develop a variety of innovative methods to distribute the fruits and vegetables to students and were

given flexibility in selecting fruits and vegetables

offered in the pilot.

Many schools found it difficult to pay for additional

labor for the pilot while staying under the 10-percent cap

for nonfood costs. As a result, schools often switched

to higher cost produce items, such as prepared trays, or

sought additional assistance to help school staff with

the foods. Of 105 schools reporting in February, 90

had nonteaching staff prepare and serve FVPP foods,

while 63 had teachers help, 71 had students help, and

18 had parents help. Others, paid and unpaid, such as

foodservice supervisors and local orchards and producers, helped serve and prepare foods. A small minority

of schools did not prepare any pilot foods on site (e.g.,

satellite schools without certified kitchens and some

schools constrained by storage space or funds).

Half of the schools initiated the pilot as early as

October 2002. Most of the remaining schools initiated

the pilot in November and December. The pilot was

largely operational by January 2003, with only two

schools starting in January 2003. Schools made

numerous adjustments during this startup phase.

6 ✥ Evaluation of the USDA Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program: Report to Congress Economic Research Service/USDA

Figure 4

Ohio schools selected for the Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program by grade level

Liberty Center Elementary

Toledo

Townsend 

Elementary School Firelands 

Elementary 

School

Durling 

Elementary

Seacrest Elementary

Prospect Elementary and 

Intermediate School

Mill Valley Elementary

Nevin Coppock Elementary

West Elementary School

Salem-Liberty Elementary

Napoleon Middle School

South Amherst 

Middle School

Ridge Junior High

Wickliffe Middle School

Orchard Elementary 

School of Science

Pleasant Views School for the Arts

Oak Harbor 

High School

Westland 

High School

Stebbins High School

Scarlet Oaks Career 

Development Campus

Princeton High School Robert E. Lucas Intermediate School

Summit Country School

Scioto County Joint 

Vocation School

Cleveland

Warren

Defiance

Fremont Youngstown

Canton

Mansfield

Steubenville Lima

Newark Cambridge

Columbus

Vandalia Springfield Lancaster

Marietta

Chillicothe

Cincinnati

Portsmouth

Akron

Black Lane

90

80

77

75

70

71

School level

 Elementary school

 Middle school

 High school

 Other

 Cities

 Interstates

 Urbanized areas
All but two schools reported little to no food waste.

Of 105 schools, 29 schools had problems with availability of pilot fruits and vegetables, 15 with quality, 7

with perishability, 2 with leftovers, and 2 with food

waste. Students took advantage of the pilot: Schools

reported that children consumed 93 percent of servings

offered during November 18-22, 2002, and 92 percent

of servings offered during December 9-13, 2002.1

During both of these weeks, leftovers were used for

other purposes, primarily subsequent pilot servings or as

part of meals served under the National School Lunch

or School Breakfast Programs, distribution to students

and staff during the day, or distribution after school, such

as during school-sponsored events. The pilot project was

targeted to students. However, teachers and other school

staff were encouraged to eat the produce since they serve

as models for behavior. One school donated leftovers

to charity each of the 2 weeks, and 11 schools donated

leftovers to charity (e.g., food pantries) at least once

over the course of the pilot. According to the pilot

guidelines, leftovers not easily used in the pilot could

be used in meal programs or transferred to charity in

accordance with board of health requirements.

Time of Delivery

Pilot fruits and vegetables could be made available at

any time during the school day, but offering them during established meal service periods was not encouraged. Fruits and vegetables offered during meal services in the cafeteria could not be used to replace similar

items that were part of reimbursable school meals.

When asked at what time(s) of day pilot fruits and

vegetables were distributed, 83 schools had multiple

distribution times, but overall, 85 schools served during morning school sessions, 66 served during afternoon school sessions, 62 served after school, and 29

served before school (fig. 6).

The original distribution times were changed by 44

schools. The reasons included adding more distribution

times (18 schools) or making them more convenient

(15 schools). About one in every four schools offered

pilot foods during school meal service times at hallway kiosks or through some other delivery method.

Economic Research Service/USDA Evaluation of the USDA Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program: Report to Congress ✥ 7

Figure 5

New Mexico schools selected for the Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program by grade level

Participating Zuni schools:

 A:shiwi Elementary

 Dowa Yalanne Elementary

 Saint Anthony's

 Twin Buttes High School

 Zuni High School

 Zuni Intermediate School

 Zuni Middle School

 Urban areas

 Zuni Pueblo (Indian Reservation)

Zuni Pueblo Schools

1

During November 18-22, 2002, schools reported that 245,831 servings

were offered to children in pilot schools and 229,101 servings were consumed. During December 9-13, 2002, 266,533 servings were offered to

children in pilot schools and 243,766 servings were consumed.
Delivery Method

Delivery of pilot foods varied widely. Schools offered

pilot foods in classrooms, hallways, nurse’s and school

offices, and foodservice areas, including the cafeteria,

and on buses or as part of classroom activities, such as

nutrition education, or school-sponsored events, such as

club meetings or athletic programs. Schools selected

their own distribution techniques, partly to fit the grade

level and maturity of students, and could change techniques during the course of the pilot. Kiosks and inclassroom service were the two main delivery methods

(fig. 7). Over half of elementary schools used classroom

service, and 29 percent used a combination of classroom

service and kiosks. Middle schools were largely split

between classroom service and a combination of classroom delivery and kiosks. Half of all high schools used a

combination of classroom service and kiosk, and high

schools and middle schools were more likely to incorporate free vending machines with other delivery methods.

The majority of schools rated their distribution strategy

as working very well. Over the course of the pilot, 38

schools changed or adjusted their delivery methods: 14

schools could not maintain the original approach, 11

schools wanted to reach more students, 3 wanted to

eliminate mess, and 2 wanted to increase participation.

Eight schools had other reasons for changing, such as

to reduce time to eat food and improve food hygiene.

The most common change was switching to classroom

delivery to reduce or contain mess and to maximize

classroom time. Kiosks provided students more choice

and variety of food and better access for more students. Drawbacks of kiosks included complaints about

bruised items, running out of a favorite fruit or vegetable, and having to push to get the FVPP offerings.

The downside of vending machines was that they

sometimes jammed, had narrower selection of suitable

foods, and had limited capacity, requiring time-consuming restocking.

Fruits and Vegetables Served

A wider variety of fruits were offered than vegetables.

The selection depended on the distribution method (e.g.,

some foods are not suitable for vending machines) and

the decisions schools had to make to operate within

the 10-percent nonfood cost guidelines (e.g., to buy

more precut foods to save labor costs). Principals and

teachers at a majority of schools decided which fruits

and vegetables could not be served.

Figure 8 shows the types of fruit that schools purchased

at least once during November and December 2002.

Apples and bananas were the highest on school shopping lists. Students were exposed to different varieties

within types of fruit (e.g., Granny Smith, Delicious,

and Gala apples). Kiwis were purchased by 31 percent

of schools and ready-to-eat fruit trays by 39 percent.

Schools often bought pre-prepared trays to control

8 ✥ Evaluation of the USDA Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program: Report to Congress Economic Research Service/USDA

Figure 6

Number of schools by time of delivery

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

29

62

66

85 Morning

school sessions

Afternoon

school sessions

After school

Before school

Number

Source: February 2003 reports.

Figure 7

Share of schools by delivery method used

Classroom

only

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

1

3

3

15

36

41

1

Classroom

 and kiosk

Kiosk

only

Classroom

and vending

Unspecified

Kiosk

and vending

Classroom,

kiosk, and

vending

Percent

Source: February 2003 reports.
labor costs and handle storage limitations. Juice was

served by 22 percent of schools.2

Less than half of schools served dried fruit of any

kind, with the highest percentage serving raisins and

mixed dried fruit (fig. 9). According to site visit observations, dried fruits seemed to be less popular with

children than fresh fruits and vegetables, and dried

cherries seemed to be the most popular dried fruit. For

most schools, carrots (94 percent) and celery (77 percent) seemed to be the vegetable of choice (fig. 10).

Two student favorites were carrots and strawberries.

Most schools (96 percent) bought precut or pre-prepared

items (e.g., presliced apples) or served dips, nuts, or

small side condiments to compliment pilot foods. When

asked if serving these items influenced acceptance, 82

of the 84 schools that responded felt that it did. More

schools purchased precut carrots and celery than other

precut products and more salad dressing or vegetable

dips (67 percent of schools purchasing item) and

peanut butter (36 percent) than other dips and condiments. Appendix C provides more detail on the kinds

and amounts of fruits, vegetables, and value-added

items provided through the pilot in November and

December 2002.

Flexibility in the source of acquisition was important.

Almost three-fourths of schools made special arrangements to buy fruits and vegetables for the pilot (e.g.,

contracts with companies to prepare trays). Reasons

included the need for greater variety and quantity of

fresh produce, new vendors for dried fruit, more direct

Economic Research Service/USDA Evaluation of the USDA Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program: Report to Congress ✥ 9

Figure 8

Share of schools by fresh fruit purchases in 

November and/or December 2002

Percent

Other

Juice

Fruit trays

Berries

Kiwi

Pineapple

Melon

Grapes

Pears

Oranges

Bananas

Apples

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

47

22

39

29

31

35

36

75

83

88

96

97

Source: November and December 2002 monthly 

administrative reports.

Figure 9

Share of schools by dried fruit purchases in 

November and/or December 2002

Percent

Other

Mixed

Bananas

Apricots

Apple chips

Berries

Raisins

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Source: November and December 2002 monthly 

administrative reports.

45

30

20

12

11

32

29

Figure 10

Share of schools by fresh vegetable purchases in 

November and/or December 2002

Percent

Other

Mixed/trays

Salad

Lettuce

Peppers

Tomatoes

Cucumbers

Cauliflower

Broccoli

Celery

Carrots

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Source: November and December 2002 monthly 

administrative reports.

94

77

50

42

34

34

17

11

4

18

24

2

According to FVPP guidelines, schools may serve fresh fruit smoothies

and freshly squeezed juice no more than one time per week, must ensure

that all food safety precautions are taken, and that fresh-squeezed juice

must be locally produced.
or frequent deliveries, and more precut or prepared

foods. Some 87 of 105 schools indicated that they

bought FVPP foods from a wholesaler/broker, 55 bought

from retailers (e.g., local grocers), 16 from the Department of Defense Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program

(DOD Fresh), and 14 from other sources, such as

farmers’ markets, an organic grower, and local

orchards and growers. Three schools bought dried fruit

directly from producers.

FVPP Nutrition Education and 

Promotion Activities

Nutrition education and promotion activities were

strongly encouraged but not required. Participating

schools were given complete flexibility on the type

and extent of the activities and materials they used.

Nearly all schools (93 percent) offered some nutrition

education and promotion activities, but these varied

widely among schools and grade levels:

• 65 percent provided nutrition education and promotion as part of school classes, such as making them

part of health classes or adapting lesson plans,

• 34 percent provided nutrition education and promotion in school but outside of regular classes, such as

at school assemblies, health fairs, and pilot kickoff

events,

• 63 percent offered informational materials, such as

fliers, pamphlets, and 5 A Day materials, and

• 60 percent provided other materials, such as T-shirts,

posters, banners, and buttons or made public

address announcements.

Elementary schools were the most likely to incorporate

these activities and materials in teaching situations.

Elementary and middle schools tended to post more

fliers compared with high schools. Some schools were

invited by local newspapers, radio, and television stations to produce news items on the pilot.

Of 98 schools, 91 reported that teachers participated in

nutrition education and promotion activities, 34 said that

school nurses participated, 65 said other school staff did,

and 22 said parents did. Outside partners helping with

the activities included the American Heart Association,

County and State Health Departments, dietitians and

dietetic interns, Extension specialists, 5 A Day, hospitals,

local grocers and stores, vocational clubs, and other

health and produce associations and partnerships. Onefourth of schools used nonpilot funds or resources for

implementing promotional and nutrition activities for

the pilot.

Teachers were most involved in promoting the pilot by

“modeling” healthy eating—that is, by eating the

foods in front of the children—by monitoring or

directing the distribution of FVPP foods, and by initiating generalized discussions about hygiene and manners when eating pilot foods.

Several schools had no coordinated nutrition education

component or promotion effort to educate school staff,

parents, teachers, or the community as a whole about

the implementation and purpose of the FVPP. Some

schools did not use all the materials provided by State

agencies, 5 A Day, and others. Although the study did

not provide information on whether nutrition education

and promotion activities and materials affected consumption of fruits and vegetables, several schools felt

that the pilot program could be strengthened by providing guidelines for schools on effective use of the materials. A longer startup period could help with planning

for these activities. Other schools had nutrition education

programs that were already operating when the FVPP

began, including TRI-FIT, which is an overall health

promotion program that encourages good nutrition

along with physical activity, and the Iowa Nutrition

Education Network “Pick a Better Snack: Fruits and

Vegetables Program,” which operates in a number of

Iowa schools. In addition, 5 A Day and Team Nutrition

materials were widely available to pilot schools.

Perceived Value and Effects of the Pilot

The pilot was popular. School staff believed that the

pilot lessened the risk of obesity, encouraged children

to eat healthier food, increased children’s awareness of

a variety of fruits and vegetables, and helped children,

who would otherwise be hungry, get more food. Prior

to the pilot, many children had never been exposed to

some fairly common fruits and vegetables, such as

fresh pears and kiwis, or to some different varieties

within types of fruit, such as different types of pears

and apples.

Some principals and foodservice workers believed that

students were eating more of the fruits and vegetables

served at lunch since the FVPP program began. Some

principals and teachers observed a reduction in unhealthy

snacks that students bring from home. Many teachers

reported that students’ attention in class improved.

Some parents reported that their children arrived home

less hungry and that they were requesting more fruits

and vegetables at home. Other parents saw the pilot as

an opportunity for students to try unfamiliar fruits and

vegetables without pressure from them.

10 ✥ Evaluation of the USDA Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program: Report to Congress Economic Research Service/USDA
Some of the reasons children liked the pilot were that

they got to eat favorite fruits and vegetables more

often, they liked the health benefits of eating these

foods, and they could eat the foods as a breakfast substitute. Some children said they were hungry because

they came to school without breakfast, missed the

breakfast offered at school, or did not eat enough food

at lunch to fill them up (particularly at middle and

high schools). Many students identified vegetables like

broccoli or cauliflower that they were unwilling to eat

before, but now were willing to eat. Many students,

including high school and middle school students,

described positive changes in eating habits, greater

willingness to try fruits and vegetables, or, at the very

least, a greater consciousness about eating too much of

what they call “junk” food.

Data on Food and Beverage Sales

The appeal and taste of pilot foods was cited by a

majority of the students interviewed as the primary

motivation for their interest and for reconsidering their

other food choices. The free pilot food, compared with

the cost of school lunches or competitive foods, was

not the leading factor in students’ decisions to continue

buying or eating other foods. Some evidence suggests,

however, that pilot foods were used as substitutes for

snacks regularly purchased by older students. The free

pilot food was mentioned most by middle and high

school students but was still not the most important

factor in their decision to participate in the pilot.

Twenty-three schools offered FVPP fruits and vegetables during school meal services. Almost one in three

schools felt that the FVPP made it more likely that

children would participate in school meals, and 79

schools felt that the FVPP seemed to influence children’s acceptance of the fruits and vegetables offered

as part of school meals. Schools said that students

were eating more fruits and vegetables during school

meals or were at least willing to try them. Many students expressed a greater willingness to eat the fruits

offered with school meals.

Quantitative data on the effects of the pilot are limited

due to the constraints of the study. The following figures, therefore, are rough proxies of changes in school

meals served or in a la carte purchases. Many factors

affect sales, and the extent of any influence from the

pilot is unknown. These estimates provide some

insight into changes in the school environment but are

not intended to show causality one way or the other.

Between January 2002 (before the pilot) and January

2003 (during the pilot), the total number of free breakfasts remained constant, reduced-price breakfasts fell

by 1 percent, and full-price breakfasts rose by roughly

3 percent. The total number of free lunches rose by 7

percent, reduced-price lunches fell by less than 1 percent, and full-price lunches fell by 2 percent. The total

number of after-school snacks served through USDA’s

Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) and/or

National School Lunch Program (NSLP) fell by 7 percent. The value of total cafeteria a la carte food and

beverage sales fell by 3 percent.

Fifty-five schools indicated that children could purchase

foods or beverages at school from vending machines,

school stores, or some other location outside the cafeteria. Of these schools, 19 said that FVPP lowered

sales, 30 said there was no change in sales, and 6 were

not aware of changes.

Foodservice staff in one school said that they had sold

25 percent fewer doughnuts in the morning since the

pilot’s inception and 50 percent fewer lunch-time

desserts. In another school, middle school students

reported that the sale of candy through the school

booster activity had dramatically decreased since the

pilot’s beginning. While 850 pieces of candy had been

sold the week before the pilot started, only 300 had

been sold every week since.

Key Factors in Pilot Implementation

• Cooperation and commitment of school staff

The level of cooperation, communication, and commitment among principals, teachers, school nurses, operations or custodial staff, foodservice directors and

workers, and others was high. Pilot schools depended

on the support of the school administration (especially

the principal and vice principal) and their control over

the implementation. Some administrators helped deliver pilot foods and select appropriate pilot offerings.

Foodservice coordinators and staff overcame initial

challenges and implemented the pilot in addition to

their regular school nutrition work. This support was

particularly critical in schools unable to find or pay for

additional labor for the pilot. Although teachers were

the most likely to participate in nutrition education and

promotion activities, nurses in 34 schools and other

staff in 65 schools also participated. Parents and outside partners also assisted with these activities.

• Outside support and partnerships by State 

administration and others

Another positive contribution to the FVPP was the

support, partnerships, and collaboration among schools

and Federal, State, local, and private partners. State

Economic Research Service/USDA Evaluation of the USDA Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program: Report to Congress ✥ 11
health and/or education offices provided considerable

oversight and support in managing pilot funds and

other forms of assistance. The March conference was

sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, Produce

for Better Health Foundation, the American School

Food Service Association, and the United Fresh Fruit

and Vegetable Association with the cooperation of

USDA. Outside support for nutrition education and

promotion activities came from the American Heart

Association, county and State health departments,

dieticians and dietetic interns, Extension specialists, 5

A Day, hospitals, local grocers, vocational clubs, and

other health and produce associations and partnerships.

Partnerships between schools and food distributors

increased as the pilot evolved.

• Flexibility in implementing pilot

Flexibility was key to the success of the FVPP. Schools

could choose when, where, and how they wanted to

implement the pilot and could select the mix and quantities of pilot foods to offer students. Each school was

allowed to develop its own implementation plan, work

out problems, have broad involvement among teachers

and other school staff, and reach its own solutions. Initial

troubles with implementation, concerns about disruption

in the classroom, and possible messiness of the foods

were largely corrected through an evolving and flexible

pilot program. For example, teachers found ways to

balance FVPP eating with classroom activities. This

flexibility kept teacher interest high and allowed the pilot

to become a regular routine for students. Over time,

schools changed delivery methods to improve the pilot

and developed schedules and guidelines for FVPP eating, including limits to classroom consumption time and

designated places for students to eat FVPP foods. The

types of foods offered were also modified to address

student behavior and suitability for different delivery

methods, and to accommodate the lack of labor for daily

preparation. Some schools offered whole fruits on days

when staff could not prepare trays with pre-sliced items,

while other schools ordered more prepackaged items that

did not require as much labor. Staff was increasingly

able to find vendors or suppliers who could provide

selection and prepackaged items. Creative ways to

secure the labor for ordering, inventorying, washing,

cutting, and preparing pilot foods within the 10-percent

nonfood funds were also critical to pilot’s success.

As discussed more fully in the section on cost considerations, there was ample funding for purchasing

fruits and vegetables for the pilot. This was another

key factor in the success of the pilot. There were constraints, however, on nonfood costs.

In general, pilot implementation improved over time,

with initial challenges successfully handled through pilot

adjustments (table 2). Once the initial challenges were

addressed, schools reported that the pilot tended to run

smoothly. No food safety problems were reported. The

involvement of school foodservice staff was an important factor in the use of safe food-handling practices.

Feasibility of Continuing the 

FVPP or Similar Program

Most schools voiced very strong beliefs that this or a

similar program should continue. Since most of the

challenges of implementing the pilot were minor and

have been resolved, most participating schools are very

supportive and interested in continuing the program.

However, most also thought that they would not be able

to continue without continued Federal financial support.

Of the 105 schools reporting, 100 schools thought that

it would be feasible to continue beyond the pilot, provided funding were available. Two schools said it would

not be feasible without continued funding plus the hiring of a director for the pilot. One school said it was

not feasible due to teacher dissatisfaction, and another

provided no explanation. Another school felt that pilot

funds would be better used in providing free breakfasts

to all students and free meals to current reduced-price

households or in increasing meal subsidization.

Schools that questioned the feasibility of extending the

program suggested improvements to the program: continued funding (23 schools), increase the 10-percent

cap on nonfood funds (13 schools), buy more equipment

for storage/operation (11 schools), hire more staff (10

schools), increase preplanning time (3 schools), and

expand the program to breakfast or lunch (3 schools).

Cost Considerations

The most frequently cited challenge in administering the

FVPP was the 10-percent cap on nonfood spending from

total funds to each school. Nonfood spending includes

administrative costs necessary to operate the pilot, such

as additional wages for staff to prepare and serve pilot

foods and purchases of nutrition education materials and

durable and nondurable supplies (e.g., small equipment

to prepare and serve pilot foods, trash cans and bags, and

leased equipment for the duration of the project). During

site visits to 12 schools, 8 said that it was extremely

difficult to operate the FVPP with the allowable nonfood

funds, and some foodservice workers said that schools

could not afford to cover the additional costs. Forty-four

schools reported costs of delivering FVPP food that were

12 ✥ Evaluation of the USDA Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program: Report to Congress Economic Research Service/USDA
Economic Research Service/USDA Evaluation of the USDA Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program: Report to Congress ✥ 13

Table 2—Challenges reported and how they were overcome

Categories of 

reported challenges

Specific challenges

in some schools

Examples of how challenges were

overcome in some schools

Distribution method Kiosks reduced students’ access, were less

sanitary, took too much time, and caused 

confusion in hallways.

Vending machines had limited capacity.

Classroom service interrupted learning time.

Kiosks replaced with classroom delivery.

Kiosk distribution times modified or more 

heavily monitored.

Afternoon traveling kiosk added to 

supplement vending.

Teachers found ways to balance FVPP eating 

with classroom activities, such as having children

eat quietly while reading.

Storage and refrigeration Extra storage, preparation space, and 

refrigeration needed.

If nonfood funds were available, new refrigeration

units purchased.

Storage concerns solved by purchasing more 

precut or pre-prepared foods or having more 

frequent but smaller food deliveries.

One local dairy provided coolers.

Finding FVPP foods 

to serve

Difficulty finding vendors or suppliers 

who could meet needs of pilot (reliable 

supply and quantity and wider range of

pilot foods requested).

Used ERS extranet, professional networks, or recommendations from State agencies to find suitable vendors.

Made special arrangements.

Used local grocery stores.

An ongoing problem with one unreliable food

distributor was that the vendor delivered foods

late, disrupting planned distribution. Due to the

isolated locale, other suppliers were not available,

so staff at the two affected schools distributed

prepackaged items or borrowed and later 

replaced supplies ordered for school meals 

programs once the shipments came in.

Over time, some vendors found products not 

normally ordered (e.g., dried or prepackaged

food) and adjusted volume as needed.

Had more frequent deliveries.

Contacted dried fruit producers or 

distributors directly.

Selection of FVPP foods Children did not like certain food.

Preparation costs too high.

Kiosks ran out of personal favorites.

Vegetables generally less accepted than fruits,

though some vegetables worked better with dip 

or peanut butter.

Avoided labor-intensive foods or served 

whole fruits.

Bought pre-prepared foods (e.g., trays).

Increased foodservice hours.

Served more or had monitors remind students 

to take only one.

Continued—
14 ✥ Evaluation of the USDA Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program: Report to Congress Economic Research Service/USDA

Table 2—Challenges reported and how they were overcome—Continued

Categories of 

reported challenges

Specific challenges

in some schools

Examples of how challenges were

overcome in some schools

Student behavior A small number of children were unruly 

(e.g., pushing at kiosks), wasted food, 

or used food as weapons.

Served in classrooms or staggered times 

at kiosks.

Zuni students were taught that wasting food was

against Zuni tradition.

Avoided small items that tempt students (e.g.,

grapes, whole kiwis, cherry tomatoes, and raisins).

Developed guidelines on manners.

Extra cleanup and 

garbage caused by 

FVPP offerings

Mess and potential for food to be ground 

into carpeted areas.

Initial difficulties with getting students to 

dispose of food properly.

Avoided whole oranges.

Only served pre-prepared foods.

Avoided trail mix.

Included extra garbage bags for trash disposal in

food delivery bins or double bagged the regular

room trash, so the trash could be picked up easily.

Monitored during distribution times.

Staff checked distribution areas afterward to 

collect any trash.

Switched to classroom distribution.

Restricted eating areas.

Gave children guidelines for proper consumption

and disposal.

Leftovers given to sports teams and charity or

used in reimbursable meals.

Staffing issues Difficulty in finding staff to prepare food 

and administrative funds to pay them for 

their time.

Developed community partnerships with local 

grocery stores to order, prepare, package, and

deliver foods.

Relied on staff volunteering for extra hours.

Hired part-time person.

Limited offerings to pre-prepared foods.

Managing the demand 

for FVPP foods

Participation often higher than anticipated, 

leading to difficulties.

Supplemented prepackaged items with 

hand cut items.

Pursued waiver of 10-percent cap on nonfood

costs from State agency to cover additional labor.

Used reusable serving dishes to reduce 

environmental impact of disposable products.

Limited distribution to only one item.

Ordered less variety or less expensive foods to

reduce costs.
not reimbursed by USDA—specifically, 33 schools

mentioned extra personnel costs (serving/cleaning), 32

mentioned expendable supplies (wet wipes), and 25

mentioned durable supplies (e.g., serving cart). Of these

schools, 24 said that these costs were “minimal” and 20

thought they were “noteworthy.” Some schools said that

a nonfood cap of 12-40 percent, rather than the 10-

percent cap on nonfood costs, would be more feasible

and would increase flexibility and efficiency in using

pilot funds. Once the problem was identified, FNS permitted the State agencies, in consultation with their

FNS Regional Offices, to consider, on a case-by-case

basis, requests to waive the 10-percent limit on nonfood costs.

Pilot funds were allocated to schools based on enrollment, at approximately $94 per student per school

year. Given the range in school size, grants ranged

from $10,000 to $185,000, with an average of around

$56,000. Some schools were not spending all money

granted to them, largely due to the time needed to start

and implement the pilot. Roughly half of the schools

initiated the pilot in October 2002, with additional

schools starting in November and December 2002 and

two schools starting as late as January 2003. Schools

with more limited serving schedules and distribution

were more likely to have unspent funds. As of the end

of February, schools in four pilot States had spent 26,

26, 36, and 51 percent, respectively, of the FVPP funds

awarded to each. However, based on February spending rates in four States, an estimated 94 percent of the

grant ($88 per student) would have been spent if the

pilot schools had spent at that rate for 9 months.3

Therefore, funding appears ample for operating a full

school year.

The overwhelming response from principals and teachers during most of the site visits in the five States was

confidence in the feasibility of continuing the program,

provided that funding were available. Some of the

stipulations, however, were that continuation of this or

a similar program would need financial support from

USDA or another organization, and if nutrition education were a component of this program, some schools

would also need technical and preplanning assistance.

Nationwide expansion of the program at a level comparable to the pilot would cost an estimated $4.5 billion,

based on an average cost of $94 per student and a count

of 48.2 million children in public schools in 2001. Costs

would be somewhat higher if private schools also participated. These estimates do not include the costs and

burden for FNS and State departments of education

and health to administer and support the expanded program. State agencies in the pilot provided different levels

of support, including help with initial recruitment of

schools, finding nonpilot resources and partnerships,

monitoring promotional and educational activities,

assisting schools with paperwork and requirements

(e.g., 10-percent nonfood cap, acceptable value-added

produce items), processing monthly administrative

reports and other paperwork, and other technical assistance. Costs could be lower if fruits and vegetables

were offered only once a day.

Schools were requested to buy American produce to

the extent practical with the understanding that some

produce, such as bananas, may not be available from

domestic producers. Fourteen schools bought pilot

foods from farmers’ markets, an organic grower, and

local orchards and growers. Therefore, an expanded

program could create new markets for domestic fruits

and vegetables.

Acceptability of the Pilot 

With few exceptions, most participants in the pilot had

a high appreciation of the program. Table 3 shows the

perceptions of schools about the level of support among

different pilot participants and how interest in the

FVPP has changed since the pilot began. Schools

believed that 80 percent of students were very interested in the pilot, and 71 percent felt that students’ interest had increased during the pilot period. In all 19 site

visits, the students expressed a high level of interest in

participating in the FVPP. Most student concerns were

about the foods offered. Students who did not seem

initially interested in some of the fruits and vegetables

changed their minds over time.

Parents’ interest in the pilot was more moderate. The

FVPP appeared to have little effect on parents’ inclusion

of fruits and vegetables in brown bag lunches or on food

purchases or menu planning. Many of the interviewed

parents were aware of the pilot only because they had

recently been asked to sign a parent permission form

for a student focus group at their child’s school.

Teachers were perceived by 77 percent of schools to

be very interested in the pilot; 68 percent said that

teachers’ interest increased over time. Initially, some

teacher interest was slightly dampened because they

were not asked about their school participating in the

Economic Research Service/USDA Evaluation of the USDA Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program: Report to Congress ✥ 15

3

January spending was used for schools that had not yet submitted February

monthly administrative reports to States. Spending in subsequent months

could not be analyzed to meet the May 1, 2003, deadline for this report.
16 ✥ Evaluation of the USDA Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program: Report to Congress Economic Research Service/USDA

pilot and perceived themselves to be doing extra work

to ensure that it functioned properly. Providing information early to teachers about the pilot and how it

would be implemented could have addressed some of

these concerns. School nurses reported fewer visits by

students for stomachaches and headaches since pilot

implementation.

The majority of foodservice staff (64 percent) expressed

a strong interest in the pilot, and almost half became

more interested over time; only 4 percent of schools

said that foodservice staff’s interest had decreased

over the school year. Foodservice directors generally

expressed a high level of support for the pilot and did

not note any major changes in interest, despite the

extra burdens on foodservice staff. However, the foodservice director at one school expressed limited interest in the pilot due to her concern that it placed a large

burden on foodservice staff.

The interest levels of school principals seemed to

increase with the smooth operation of the pilot. Out of

105 schools, 83 percent perceived that principals were

very interested in the pilot and roughly half believed

this interest had increased over time.

Suggestions To Improve the Program 

One challenge is to increase vegetable consumption

without relying on high-fat dips and condiments. A

wider variety of fresh fruits were served than fresh vegetables, and fresh fruits were more appealing to students.

The use of condiments, such as dips (some low-fat)

and peanut butter, improved vegetable consumption.

Nutrition education and project promotion were not

mandatory components of the pilot, nor were they

funded by pilot grants. Materials and assistance, however, were made available by 5 A Day and other

sources. If nutrition education and promotion activities

were part of an expanded program, some schools

would need more preplanning time to develop and

implement them. Seven schools had no education and

promotion effort to accompany the FVPP, and several

others had little to no coordination between nutrition

education and program implementation. Nutrition education and promotion seemed to be a separate component from pilot implementation. For example, the

foodservice staff in the pilot schools focused primarily

on implementation, while nutrition education and promotion efforts were left up to teachers’ discretion.

If this or a similar program were continued, lessons

learned from other countries with similar programs

(e.g., Denmark, England, France, Norway, and the

Netherlands) could be incorporated. Individuals interviewed during the pilot gave the following suggestions to improve the program. Their suggestions are

general and may not be appropriate for individual

schools:

Distribution

• Have policies in place to address concerns about

trash—for example, provide classrooms with wipes

for clean up.

• Have policies for students about proper consumption and trash disposal (e.g., food cannot be taken

out of the distribution area). 

• If the kiosk delivery method is used, put the kiosks

in multiple locations accessible by all students and

away from carpeted areas.

• Consider an alternative to Styrofoam serving containers, as many of the teachers were concerned

about the environmental impact of the nonfood

waste generated from the program.

Table 3—Level of interest and change in level of interest in the FVPP over the pilot period

Level of interest Change in interest

Very Somewhat Little or Don’t Don’t

Individual or group interested interested no interest know No change Increase Decrease know

Percent

Students 80 18 1 1 24 71 3 2

Parents 45 39 11 5 41 53 0 6

Teachers 77 19 3 1 30 68 1 2

Foodservice staff 64 29 6 2 48 46 4 3

Principal 83 13 2 2 51 46 1 3

Notes: The number of schools included in this analysis was 105. Numbers may not total to 100 due to rounding. Schools submitted 

responses in February 2003, the midpoint of the pilot implementation period. In most schools, FVPP managers and/or foodservice directors provided the responses.

Source: FVPP February reports.
FVPP Foods

• Adjust selections to students’ preferences (e.g.,

serve less popular items infrequently) and to accommodate the level of available labor.

• Provide a greater variety of foods while taking into

account that some fruits and vegetables are fragile

and have a short shelf life and that others are not

feasible given some students’ behavior.

• Prepare foods before serving them to students to

make the foods easier and more appealing to eat and

to reduce mess.

• Use dips and other condiments to promote vegetable

consumption.

• Use prepackaged versions of dips and peanut butter

for condiments to reduce mess instead of using

bowls.

FVVP Administration

• Anticipate the need for extra staff time to prepare

and deliver the fruits and vegetables and have adequate funding to obtain any additional staff.

• Anticipate the need for extra staff time to process

reports and other paperwork at the district or State

levels.

• Coordinate efforts to communicate the purpose of

the program to principals, teachers, foodservice

staff, students, and parents.

• In order to obtain early support, pay attention to

logistics to make sure the staff understands the program and how it will be implemented.

• Respond to reports from the custodians about trash

and mess and take needed actions.

• Increase the 10-percent cap on nonfood, administrative costs.

• Provide schools with additional references and

resources to find FVPP foods and additional labor

sources.

Nutrition Education and Promotion

• Provide more guidance and assistance in the development and administration of a nutrition education

component (e.g., guidance on how to effectively

incorporate materials and activities).

• Provide more educational materials to be used in

connection with pilot foods.

Bibliography

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Fact

Sheet: Nutrition Services. From CDC’s School Health

Policies and Programs Study (SHPPS) 2000. Accessed

at: http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dash/shpps/factsheets/pdf00/nutrition.pdf, March 13, 2002.

ORC Macro. “Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program

(FVPP) Evaluation Analysis Report—Site Visit

Findings in Four Midwest States.” Report submitted to

USDA’s Economic Research Service under Contract

No. 53-3K06-0-1102, April 7, 2003.

Krebs-Smith S.M., and L.S. Kantor. “Choose a Variety

of Fruits and Vegetables Daily: Understanding the

Complexities,” Journal of Nutrition, 131(2001):487S501S.

Troiano, R.P., K.M. Flegal, R.J. Kuczmarski, S.M.

Campbel, and C.L. Johnson. “Overweight Prevalence

and Trends for Children and Adolescents: The

National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys,

1963 to 1991.” Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent

Medicine, 149,10(1995):1085-1091.

Pareo, Shirley L., and John M. Booker. “Zuni Fruit

and Vegetable Pilot Program Evaluation Results.”

Report submitted to USDA’s Economic Research

Service in fulfillment of an Assistance Type

Cooperative Agreement with the University of New

Mexico, March 10, 2003.

U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO). Fruits

and Vegetables: Enhanced Federal Efforts to Increase

Consumption Could Yield Health Benefits for

Americans. Washington, DC, July 2002. 

Economic Research Service/USDA Evaluation of the USDA Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program: Report to Congress ✥ 17
Appendix A: Legislative

Language for the FVPP

The section contains the evaluation report language

from the Farm Bill’s (Public Law 107-171 Farm

Security and Rural Investment Act 2002) Conference

Report H.R. 2646 and the accompanying Explanatory

Notes to the Conference Report.

Farm Bill Language

Title IV. Nutrition Programs

Subtitle C. Child Nutrition and Related Programs

SEC. 4305. FRUIT AND VEGETABLE 

PILOT PROGRAM.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 18 of the Richard B.

Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1769)

is amended by adding at the end the following:

(g) FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PILOT PROGRAM.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—In the school year beginning July

2002, the Secretary shall carry out a pilot program to

make available to students in 25 elementary or secondary schools in each of 4 States, and in elementary or

secondary schools on 1 Indian reservation, free fresh and

dried fruits and fresh vegetables throughout the school

day in 1 or more areas designated by the school.

(2) PUBLICITY.—A school that participates in the

pilot program shall widely publicize within the school

the availability of free fruits and vegetables under the

pilot program.

(3) REPORT.—Not later than May 1, 2003, the

Secretary, acting through the Administrator of the

Economic Research Service, shall report to the

Committee on Education and the Workforce of the

House of Representatives and the Committee on

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate on

the results of the pilot program.

(4) FUNDING.—The Secretary shall use not more

than $6,000,000 of funds made available under section

32 of the Act of August 24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c), to

carry out this subsection (other than paragraph (3)).

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.-The amendment made by

this section takes effect on the date of enactment of

this Act.

Joint Explanatory Statement of 

the Committee of Conference

The Managers on the part of the House and the Senate

at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two

Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill

(H.R. 2646) to provide for the continuation of agricultural programs through fiscal year 2011, submit the

following joint statement to the House and the Senate

in explanation of the effect of the action agreed upon

by the managers and recommended in the accompanying conference report:

Excerpts From Pages 124-125

(55) Fruit and vegetable pilot program 

The Senate amendment requires the Secretary to use

“Section 32” funds to conduct a pilot program to make

free fruits and vegetables available to students in 25

schools in each of four states and students in schools

on one Indian reservation, in the 2002-2003 school

year. It also requires an evaluation of the pilot to determine whether students take advantage, whether interest increased or lessened over time, and what effect the

pilot has on vending machine sales and sales of school

meals. The Secretary is required to use $200,000 in

“Section 32” funds to carry out the evaluation. The

evaluation is to be conducted through the Economic

Research Service and submitted to the House

Committee on Education and the Workforce and the

Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and

Forestry not later than one year after implementation

of the pilot program. (Section 461)

The House bill contains no comparable provision.

The Conference substitute adopts the Senate provision

with amendments: The pilot will begin in July 2002

and last one year; free fresh and dried fruits and fresh

vegetables will be made available throughout the

school day in one or more areas designated by the

school; not later than one year after the implementation of the pilot program, the Secretary (acting through

the Economic Research Service) shall report to the

Committee on Education and the Workforce of the

House of Representatives and the Committee on

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate, the

results of the pilot program; $6 million of Section 32

funds shall be made available to carry out this pilot

program.

The Managers agree that the intent of the pilot program

is to determine the feasibility of carrying out such a

program and its success as determined by the students’

interest in participating in the program. The Managers

encourage USDA to work with the schools to collect

information on the types of schools that ultimately participate in the program, how schools choose to implement the program (including information on whether

or not they incorporate nutrition education), and reasons

for different implementation approaches. The Depart18 ✥ Evaluation of the USDA Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program: Report to Congress Economic Research Service/USDA
ment is encouraged to find out from the schools about

lessons learned and whether or not (and why) they are

interested in continuing to participate in a similar program. To the extent practical, the Department is also

asked to find out from teachers and/or students about 

students’ attitudes and actual behavior over the course

of time. The Managers recommend the selection of the

following four states to participate in the pilot:

Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, and Ohio. The Secretary will

select the Indian reservation and the schools within

each of the states that will participate in the pilot.

Economic Research Service/USDA Evaluation of the USDA Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program: Report to Congress ✥ 19
20 ✥ Evaluation of the USDA Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program: Report to Congress Economic Research Service/USDA

Appendix B: FVPP Schools

FVPP school, location, and enrollment

School name Town/city State Enrollment

Number

Westland High School Galloway OH 2,000

West Bloomfield High School West Bloomfield MI 1,876

Princeton High School Cincinnati OH 1,846

Muscatine High School Muscatine IA 1,733

Everett High School Lansing MI 1,717

Munster High School Munster IN 1,302

Redford Union High School Redford MI 1,249

North High School Des Moines IA 1,203

Summit Country School Cincinnati OH 1,175

Kahler Middle School Dyer IN 1,089

Lakeview High School Battle Creek MI 1,081

Stebbins High School Riverside OH 1,068

Indianola High School Indianola IA 988

Whittier Middle School Flint MI 987

Johnston Middle School Johnston IA 984

Wayne High School Fort Wayne IN 967

Franklin County High School Brookville IN 902

Scarlet Oaks Center Development Campus Cincinnati OH 897

Prospect Elementary and Intermediate School Girard OH 873

Linden High School Linden MI 856

Harding Middle School Des Moines IA 847

Allen Park Middle School Allen Park MI 847

Blackhawk Middle School Fort Wayne IN 832

Ridge Junior High School Mentor OH 785

Williams Intermediate School Davenport IA 781

Jasper Middle School Jasper IN 750

Firelands Elementary School Oberlin OH 733

South Amherst Middle School South Amherst OH 717

O.E. Dunckel Middle School Farmington Hills MI 713

Linden Middle School Linden MI 700

Hoover Middle School Waterloo IA 679

Henricks Elementary School Shelbyville IN 675

Crawfordsville High School Crawfordsville IN 672

Perry Central Elementary School Leopold IN 659

Oak Harbor High School Oak Harbor OH 634

West Middle School Martinsville IN 619

Joseph F. Tuttle Middle School Crawfordsville IN 611

William F. Loper Elementary School Shelbyville IN 578

Mill Valley Elementary School Marysville OH 571

Scioto County Joint Vocational School Lucasville OH 567

See note at end of table. Continued—
Economic Research Service/USDA Evaluation of the USDA Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program: Report to Congress ✥ 21

FVPP schools, location, and enrollment—Continued

School name Town/city State Enrollment

Number

Salem High School Salem IN 566

Lakeview Middle School Battle Creek MI 557

McKinstry Elementary School Waterloo IA 553

Robert E. Lucas Intermediate School Cincinnati OH 550

Anson Middle School Marshalltown IA 548

Portage Middle School Fort Wayne IN 548

Brown City High School Brown City MI 547

Liberty Center Elementary School Liberty Center OH 542

Aylesworth Elementary School Portage IN 527

Hiawatha Elementary School Hiawatha IA 524

Marlette Middle School Marlette MI 523

Napoleon Middle School Napoleon OH 504

Orchard Elementary School of Science Cleveland OH 500

Henry H. North Elementary School Lansing MI 497

North Scott Junior High School Eldridge IA 494

Emerson Elementary School Indianola IA 477

Dowa Yalanne Elementary Zuni ITO NM 467

Jonathan Jennings Elementary School Charlestown IN 466

Pine Knob Elementary School Clarkston MI 465

Lincoln Heights Elementary School Greenville MI 463

Walkerton Elementary School Walkerton IN 460

Pioneer Junior Senior High School Royal Center IN 448

A:shiwi Elementary Zuni ITO NM 447

Alcona Elementary School Lincoln MI 445

Wickliffe Middle School Wickliffe OH 443

Nevin Coppock Elementary School Tipp City OH 437

Walnut Grove Elementary School Council Bluffs IA 436

Washington Middle School Calumet MI 410

Union County Middle School Liberty IN 403

McFarland Middle School Indianapolis IN 391

Yeshiva Beth Yehudah School Southfield MI 391

Central Middle School DeWitt IA 388

Bloomingdale Elementary School Fort Wayne IN 385

West Elementary School Lancaster OH 385

Jefferson Elementary School Muscatine IA 384

Lincoln Elementary School South Haven MI 377

Urbana-Center Point Middle School Center Point IA 370

Pleasant View School for the Arts Canton OH 369

Zuni High School Zuni ITO NM 368

Dolsen Elementary School New Hudson MI 365

Black Lane School Fairborn OH 365

Townsend Elementary School Vickery OH 355

Jefferson Elementary School Redford MI 344

Zuni Middle Zuni ITO NM 344

Carman Park School Flint MI 342

Lincoln Elementary School Cedar Lake IN 341

King Elementary School Des Moines IA 337

Van Buren Junior Senior High School Keosauqua IA 335

Paragon Elementary School Paragon IN 334

Cory Elementary School Romulus MI 332

See note at end of table. Continued—
22 ✥ Evaluation of the USDA Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program: Report to Congress Economic Research Service/USDA

FVPP schools, location, and enrollment—Continued

School name Town/city State Enrollment

Number

Francis Reh Public School Academy Saginaw MI 316

Durling Elementary School Lorain OH 308

Neil Armstrong Elementary School Eldridge IA 286

Camanche High School Camanche IA 285

East Elementary School Independence IA 269

John I. Meister Elementary School Hobart IN 269

Hasten Hebrew Academy Indianapolis IN 265

McKinley Elementary School Sioux City IA 245

West Bend-Mallard High School West Bend IA 239

West Elementary School Storm Lake IA 229

St. Michael School Sioux City IA 210

Sunset Elementary School Alpena MI 207

Saint Anthony Zuni ITO NM 205

Seacrest Elementary School Warren OH 189

Salem-Liberty Elementary Lower Salem OH 177

Twin Buttes High School Zuni ITO NM 66

Total 64,377

Source: Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, February 27, 2003.
Economic Research Service/USDA Evaluation of the USDA Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program: Report to Congress ✥ 23

Appendix C: FVPP Data—Kinds and Amounts of Fruits,

Vegetables, and Value-Added Items Provided

Through the FVPP, November-December 2002

Kinds and amounts of fresh and dried fruits, fresh vegetables, and value-added items 

provided by FVPP schools in 1 or more months, November-December 2002

Number of Share of Average total

schools purchasing schools purchasing cost of the item Share of total

the item in 1 or the item in 1 or (among schools Total cost of cost for FVPP

FVPP food item more months more months that purchased it) FVPP offering food category

Number Percent ----------Dollars---------- Percent

Fresh fruits:

Apples 95 97 1,030 97,803 28.1

Bananas 94 96 236 22,224 6.3

Oranges 86 88 4101 34,8851 10.0

Pears 81 83 282 22,847 6.6

Grapes 73 75 247 17,996 5.2

Melons 35 36 360 12,593 3.6

Pineapples 34 35 342 11,633 3.3

Kiwis 30 31 233 6,984 2.0

Berries 28 29 466 13,062 3.7

Mixed fruit (e.g., precut

and served on trays) 38 39 1,720 65,344 18.8

Juice 22 22 253 5,570 1.6

Other fresh fruits2 46 47 815 37,472 10.8

Total fresh fruits 98 100 3,555 348,412 100.0

Dried fruits:

Raisins 44 45 184 8,075 11.8

Berries 29 30 7541 21,0981 30.9

Apple chips 20 20 330 6,597 9.6

Apricots 12 12 4481 4,9301 7.2

Banana chips 11 11 94 1,031 1.5

Dried fruit mixes 31 32 466 14,443 21.1

Other dried fruits3 28 29 436 12,214 17.9

Total dried fruits 81 83 8551 68,390 100.0

Total fruits 98 100 4,253 416,801 N/A

Fresh vegetables:

Carrots 92 94 5724 52,0134 49.4

Celery 75 77 224 16,805 16.0

Broccoli 49 50 102 5,003 4.8

Cauliflower 41 42 126 5,169 4.9

Cucumbers 33 34 94 3,118 2.9

Tomatoes 33 34 905 2,7975 2.7

Peppers 17 17 48 815 .8

Lettuce 11 11 50 548 .5

Salad 4 4 183 734 .7

Mixed vegetables 

(e.g., precut and served

on trays; not salad) 18 18 714 12,846 12.2

Other fresh vegetables6 23 24 235 5,402 5.1

Total fresh vegetables 98 100 1,0854 105,2484 100.0

See notes at end of table. Continued—
24 ✥ Evaluation of the USDA Fruit and Vegetable Pilot Program: Report to Congress Economic Research Service/USDA

Kinds and amounts of fresh and dried fruits, fresh vegetables, and value-added items 

provided by FVPP schools in 1 or more months, November-December 2002—Continued

Number of Share of Average total

schools purchasing schools purchasing cost of the item Share of total

the item in 1 or the item in 1 or (among schools Total cost of cost for FVPP

FVPP food item more months more months that purchased it) FVPP offering food category

Number Percent ----------Dollars---------- Percent

Dips and condiments:

Salad dressing or 

vegetable dips 66 67 1834 11,9264 62.1

Peanut butter 35 36 100 3,491 18.2

Other7 25 26 151 3,780 19.7

Total dips and condiments 72 74 267 19,197 100.0

Total fruits, vegetables, and

dips/condiments 98 100 5,523 541,246 N/A

N/A = Not applicable.

1One school with missing values.

2Other fresh fruits include papayas, cantaloupes, star fruits, tangerines, avocados, grapefruits, mangos, peaches, lemons, plums, persimmons,

pomegranates, and unspecified fruits.

3Other dried fruits include dates, fruit bars, fruit roll-ups, figs, plums, pineapple, and unspecified dried fruits.

4One school with missing values.

5Two schools with missing values.

6Other fresh vegetables include onions, spinach, cilantro, mushrooms, cabbage, squash, radishes, potatoes, turnip, asparagus, zucchini,

beans, and unspecified vegetables.

7Other dips and condiments include yogurt, pickles, coleslaw, vegetable pizza, caramel, cheese, margarine, and unspecified dips 

and condiments.

Source: Monthly pilot administrative reports for November and December 2002. Out of 107 schools, 85 filed reports for November and

December, 8 filed reports for December only, 5 filed reports for November only, and 8 did not file any reports. Numbers may not total 

due to rounding.