Factors Associated With 

School Meal Participation and 

the Relationship Between 

Different Participation 

Measures 

Contractor and 

Cooperator 

Report No. 53

June 2009 

Quinn Moore 

Lara Hulsey 

Michael Ponza 

This study was conducted by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., under 

Contract number 59-5000-7-0114. The views expressed are those of the 

authors and not necessarily those of ERS or USDA.
Contract Number: 

59-5000-7-0114 

MPR Reference Number: 

6418-302 

Submitted to: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Economic Research Service 

Food Assistance Branch 

1800 M Street NW. room S2077 

Washington, DC 20036-5831 

Contracting Officer’s Representative: 

Constance Newman 

Submitted by: 

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. 

P.O. Box 2393 

Princeton, NJ 08543-2393 

Telephone: (609) 799-3535 

Facsimile: (609) 799-0005 

Principal Investigators: Michael Ponza 

 Quinn Moore 

Factors Associated With 

School Meal Participation and 

the Relationship Between 

Different Participation 

Measures 

Contractor and 

Cooperator 

Report No. 53

June 2009 

Quinn Moore 

Lara Hulsey 

Michael Ponza 
Abstract

This study investigated factors that infl uence students’ participation in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) 

and School Breakfast Program (SBP). The analysis used recently collected data on a large, nationally representative sample of students certifi ed for free and reduced-price meals during the 2005–06 school year. Results show 

that, although eligible students are very likely to participate in the programs (i.e. pick up the meal offered that day), 

eligible elementary school students are more likely to participate than are middle or high school students. Likewise, 

students who like the taste of the meals are more likely to participate than are students who do not like the taste. In 

addition, if students now eligible for reduced-price lunches were instead given free lunches, they would participate 

more than they do now. The same was not strictly the case, however, for breakfast. Finally, the study suggests that 

analysts should use caution in relying on parents’ reports of a student’s participation to estimate yearly school meal 

participation. Parental reports of the previous day’s or previous week’s participation tend to overstate participation, 

which results in higher reported annual participation rates than is true according to administrative data.

By Quinn Moore, Lara Hulsey, and Michael Ponza, Mathematica Policy 

Research, Inc.

Factors Associated With School Meal 

Participation and the Relationship Between 

Different Participation Measures

Contractor and Cooperator Report No. 53

June 2009

This study was conducted by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., , under a 

cooperative research contract with USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) 

Food and Nutrition Assistance Research Program (FANRP): contract number 

59-5000-7-0114 (ERS project representative: Constance Newman). The views 

expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of ERS or USDA.
vi 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

We would like to thank several people who contributed to the study design, analysis, and 

preparation of the final report. Constance Newman, David Smallwood, Joanne Guthrie, and other 

staff at the Economic Research Service (ERS) Food Economics Division reviewed the analysis 

plans, preliminary findings, and the draft final report and provided useful comments which 

improved methodology and the interpretation and presentation of findings. We would also like to 

thank participants at ERS’s FY 2009 Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Conference for 

providing insightful comments. We would also like to acknowledge the contributions of John 

Endahl and David Ribar, who reviewed and commented on a draft version of this report as a part 

of the ERS external review process. From Mathematica, Laura Guy constructed the analysis files 

and performed the statistical programming. Philip Gleason provided quality assurance review. 

Marjorie Mitchell, Jill Miller, and John Kennedy provided production and editorial support. 
















5 

those that did. In addition, using a district-level model, that study also found that the estimated 

effect of using an electronic point-of-sale (POS) system was not statistically significant. 

B. RESEARCH QUESTIONS 

The goal of this project is to explore issues related to participation in the school meal 

programs. We begin investigating the factors associated with school meal participation by 

addressing three broad, largely descriptive sets of questions related to school meal participation: 

• What are the school meal participation rates for students certified for free or reducedprice meals? Do these rates vary for key subgroups? Do school meal program 

implementation characteristics play an important role in participation? 

• Which child, family, and school characteristics are associated most strongly with 

school meal participation when controlling for a variety of factors? 

• Do the factors associated with school meal participation differ for elementary, 

middle, and high school students? 

In addition to these three questions, we make use of a natural experiment to try to investigate 

one specific factor that may be related to school meal participation: 

• What is the effect of school meal certification status on school meal participation 

based on evidence using erroneous certification as a natural experiment? 

Finally, we explore three related sets of questions concerning the comparison of administrative 

data to parent reports on participation. 

• How do parent reports of student participation in the NSLP and SBP compare with 

administrative records data on the student’s actual participation for the month? Do 

participation rates based on parent reports for a target week more accurately estimate 

monthly or annual participation than those based on parent reports for a single day? 

Does the relationship between parent reports and administrative records data vary by 

student, family, or school characteristics? 

• Are parent reports generalizable to annual participation rates? How do parent reports 

based on a day and week compare with administrative records of the student’s 


8 

TABLE I.1 

CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDENTS CERTIFIED FOR FREE AND REDUCED PRICE MEALS IN THE APEC 

SAMPLE, BY WHETHER SCHOOL MEAL ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS ARE AVAILABLE 

(Percentages Unless Noted Otherwise) 

Administrative 

Records Are 

Available 

Administrative 

Records Are Not 

Available 

Student Characteristics 

Certified for Free Meals 82.0 83.1 

Female 52.5 51.0 

African American or Hispanic 69.7 65.9 

Family Characteristics 

Parental Educational Attainment 

Less than high school degree 32.1 35.8 

High school degree 44.5 37.2 

More than high school degree 23.4 27.1 

In Poverty 54.1 56.4 

Monthly Household Income (dollars) 1,824 1,814 

Employed Household Member 74.5 74.5 

Number of Children (number) 2.83 2.68 

Experienced Food Insecurity Outcome 70.5 72.3 

Attitudes Toward School Meals 

Student’s Satisfaction with School Meal Taste 

Very satisfied 39.2 34.2 

Somewhat satisfied 42.7 39.4 

Somewhat or very dissatisfied 18.1 26.4 

School Characteristics 

School Type 

Elementary school 67.4 70.2 

Middle school 19.0 18.5 

High school 13.6 11.3 

Percentage of Student Body Certified Free/Reduced- Price 62.5 64.6 

Enrollment (number of students) 893 862 

Located in an Urban Area 41.0 68.3** 

School Meal Program Implementation Characteristics 

Uses Direct Certification 91.6 84.0 

Uses Electronic Point-of-Sale Technology 94.2 45.2*** 

Sample Size 2,186 763 

Source: APEC study data. 

Note: All figures are weighted. Standard errors account for clustering in the survey design. Differences between the 

samples in means of continuous variables were tested for using two-tailed t-tests; differences between the 

samples in the distributions of categorical variables were tested for using chi-squared tests. 

Differences in means of continuous variables is: 

 *Significantly different from zero at the .10 level, two-tailed test. 

 **Significantly different from zero at the .05 level, two-tailed test. 

***Significantly different from zero at the .01 level, two-tailed test. 






15 

In addition to the measure of school meal participation based on student administrative 

records, we examined participation using data based on SFA reports. These data provide the 

number of SBP and NSLP meals served in sample schools during October 2005, by meal 

certification category (free, reduced-price, and not certified). We use these data to construct 

school-level measures of NSLP/SBP meal participation that represent the number of meals 

received per eating opportunity, so that they are in the same units as our student-level measures 

of participation. Unlike the measure based on student administrative records, we are able to 

construct the measure based on SFA reports for all students, including those not certified for 

meal benefits. However, because the SFA report data are collected at the school level, they do 

not allow us to investigate the relationship between school meal participation and student-level 

characteristics, such as attitudes toward school meals. 

2. Analysis 

We use a multivariate regression approach to estimate the relationship between school meal 

participation and student demographics, family characteristics, attitudes toward school meals, 

school characteristics, and school meal program characteristics.1

 The models for NSLP 

participation can be represented as 

(1)

Participation Student Family Attitude School is is is is s s is 1 2 3 4 5 Meal 

where 

Participationis is a measure of NSLP participation for student i in school s 

 

1

 As discussed in Chapter I, we use sample weights in our analyses to ensure that the results are not biased. We 

account for the multistaged, clustered sample design in the APEC study when estimating standard errors in this 

model. The OLS regression specification does not account for the fact that participation rates cannot be less than 0. 

Results from Tobit regression analysis, which do account for the censored dependent variable, are qualitatively 

similar to those presented here. 
16 

Studentis is a vector of demographic characteristics for student i, including gender and 

race/ethnicity 

Familyis is a vector describing the characteristics of the student’s family, including parental 

educational attainment, household income, whether anyone in the household is employed, number 

of children, and whether the household experienced any food insecurity outcomes during the 

summer prior to the school year2

 

Attitudeis is a vector describing the student’s satisfaction with school meal taste

Schools is a vector of characteristics for school s, including the percentage of the student body 

certified for free or reduced-price meals, enrollment, and whether the school is located in an 

urban area 

Meals is a vector of school meal program implementation characteristics, including whether the 

school uses direct certification and whether it uses electronic POS technology 

Models of SBP participation are of analogous form. We also estimate models for students 

certified for free and reduced-price meals and separately by certification category (free certified 

or reduced-price certified). However, we find few substantive differences between the factors 

associated with participation among students certified for free meals and the factors associated 

with participation among students certified for reduced-price meals. Accordingly, we focus our 

discussion on models estimated for the sample of students certified for free and reduced-price 

meals. 

In addition to estimating student-level models of participation, we estimate models using the 

school-level measures of participation as dependent variables. However, our school-level models 

cannot control for any student- or family-level factors. The school-level models can be 

represented as 

(2)

Participation School Meal

s s s s 1 2

 

 

2

 These food insecurity outcomes include whether the family used a food pantry or food bank, asked relatives 

for help with food, bought less-expensive types of food, used summer food service programs, or used public food 

assistance programs during the summer prior to the school year.
17 

 

where Participations is a measure of the school meal participation rate for students in school s, 

Schools is a vector of school characteristics, and Meals is a vector of school meal program 

implementation characteristics. These school-level models provide a robustness check on our 

student-level results, and enable us to examine factors related to participation rates for all 

students, including those not certified for free or reduced-price meals. In addition, the schoollevel analysis is based on nationally representative data whereas the student-level analysis is not. 

B. SCHOOL MEAL PARTICIPATION RATES 

According to student-level school administrative records, students certified to receive free 

and reduced-price meals eat school lunch at about 7 in 10 eating occasions and eat school 

breakfasts at about one in 3 eating occasions during the school year (Table II.1).3

 Participation is 

somewhat higher for students certified for free meals than for those certified for reduced-price 

meals (70 versus 67 percent in the NSLP and 33 versus 26 percent in the SBP). Participation 

rates for students who applied for and were denied school meal benefits were lower than for 

those certified for meal benefits, at 57 percent in the NSLP and 18 percent in the SBP. 

The participation rates based on student-level administrative records are slightly lower than 

participation rates based on school-level meal counts as reported by SFA directors. School-level 

participation rates for students certified free and reduced-price meals are 77 percent for the 

NSLP and 37 percent for the SBP (Table II.1). This difference may be because student-level 

participation rates are based on the full school year whereas school-level participation rates are 

based on a single month early in the school year (October) when participation may be higher. 

3

 SBP participation rates apply only to students in schools that offer the SBP. 

19 

 

Student-level participation rates are also slightly lower than those reported in the third 

School Nutrition Dietary Assessment (SNDA-III) study based on Food and Nutrition Service 

(FNS) national data (78 percent of NSLP meals and 34 percent of SBP meals) (Gordon et al. 

2007a). These differences may be because the APEC administrative records data is not nationally 

representative, whereas these other participation rates are.4

 Another possibility is that 

administrative records systematically undercount participation for some reason, for example if 

meal transactions are not consistently linked to individual students. 

C. FACTORS RELATED TO SCHOOL MEAL PARTICIPATION 

This section describes findings from the multivariate analysis. For both school lunch and 

school breakfast participation, school type and student attitudes toward school meals emerged as 

factors with particularly strong relationships among students certified for free or reduced-price 

meals. Other factors also emerged as important but differed for lunch and breakfast participation. 

1. School Lunch Participation Results Based on Student-Level Analyses 

School Type. The factor most strongly associated with school lunch participation for 

students certified for school meal benefits is school type. Controlling for other factors, middle 

school students are 5 percentage points less likely to get a school lunch than elementary school 

students, while high school students are 28 percentage points less likely (Table II.2). These 

differences are quite large given the overall mean lunch participation rate of 69 percent. Potential 

explanations for this relationship include increased autonomy for older students, differences in

4

 As will be discussed in the next chapter, parent reports of student participation are higher in schools that 

provided administrative records compared to those that did not. Thus, parent reports are not consistent with SFA 

reports of meals served, which indicates that participation is lower at schools that provided administrative records 

than at those that did not. 




24 

 

school enrollment, are significantly associated with participation in bivariate analysis, but are no 

longer statistically significant after controlling for other factors (Appendix A, Table A.1).7

2. School Breakfast Participation Results Based on Student-Level Analyses 

School Type. As with lunch participation, the factor most strongly associated with school 

breakfast participation for students certified for free and reduced-price meals is school type. 

Middle school students obtain meals 7 percentage points less often than otherwise similar 

elementary school students, while high school students obtain meals 11 percentage points less 

often (Table II.2). These differences are quite large given the overall mean school breakfast 

participation rate of 33 percent. 

Attitudes Toward School Meals. A student’s satisfaction with the taste of school meals is 

also significantly associated with school breakfast participation, controlling for other factors. 

Low-income students who report being very satisfied with the taste of school meals and those 

who report being somewhat satisfied are five percentage points more likely to eat school 

breakfast than otherwise similar students who are not satisfied with school meal taste. 

Number of Children in Household. Students certified for free and reduced-price meals 

who come from households with more children are more likely to eat school breakfasts than 

those from families with fewer children. Controlling for other factors, each additional child in the 

household increases breakfast participation by 1.8 percentage points (so a student from a family 

with three children would obtain meals 3.7 percentage points more frequently than a student 

7

 Another notable result from the bivariate analysis is that participation rates in Provision 2 or 3 base year 

schools are substantially lower than those in non-Provision 2 or 3 schools. A potential explanation of this finding 

may be that Provision 2 or 3 base year schools have an incentive to encourage all low-income students to become 

certified for school meal benefits, regardless of whether they are interested in participating. Non-Provision 2 or 3 

schools do not have this incentive. This set of incentives could lead to lower participation rates among students 

certified for free and reduced-price meals in Provision 2 or 3 base year schools compared to their counterparts in 

non-Provision 2 or 3 schools (and higher participation rates among all students). 


27 

TABLE II.3 

DIFFERENCES IN SCHOOL-LEVEL NSLP AND SBP SCHOOL MEAL 

PARTICIPATION RATES ASSOCIATED WITH VARIOUS FACTORS, 

BY CERTIFICATION STATUS 

(Percentages of Eating Occasions) 

NSLP SBP 

All Students 

Free and 

Reduced-Price 

Students All Students 

Free and 

Reduced-Price 

Students 

School Characteristics 

School Type 

Middle school -2.12 -0.47 -8.33*** -10.78*** 

(2.28) (2.09) (2.35) (2.91) 

High school -20.18*** -20.68*** -5.63* -9.76*** 

(6.25) (5.56) (2.93) (3.63) 

Percentage of Student Body 

Certified Free/Reduced-Price 0.28*** -0.05*** 0.36*** 0.10 

(0.05) (0.06) (0.08) (0.09) 

Enrollment 

801 to 1,200 1.05 3.83 -5.77** -6.42* 

(2.75) (2.48) (2.86) (3.82) 

Greater than 1,200 -16.60*** -14.56*** -8.96*** -14.02*** 

(4.95) (3.45) (2.60) (3.40) 

Located in Urban Area 1.14 5.38** -3.63 -1.27 

(2.61) (2.63) (3.24) (3.76) 

School Meal Program 

Implementation 

Characteristics 

Uses Direct Certification 1.60 5.62 4.77 9.19* 

(3.71) (3.77) (4.38) (5.36) 

Uses Electronic POS 

Technology 5.23* 1.62 7.16** 7.00* 

(3.01) (2.64) (3.05) (3.72) 

Constant 49.62*** 74.77*** 2.11*** 23.83*** 

(2.99) (4.67) (5.27) (6.51) 

Sample Size 237 237 211 211 

Source: APEC study data. 

Notes: Figures are coefficient estimates from OLS regressions in which the relevant participation rate is the 

dependent variable. Participation rates represent the percentage of meals received per eating opportunity 

during the full school year, based on administrative records. All figures are weighted. Standard errors, 

presented in parentheses, account for clustering in the survey design. 

 *Significantly different from zero at the .10 level, two-tailed test. 

 **Significantly different from zero at the .05 level, two-tailed test. 

***Significantly different from zero at the .01 level, two-tailed test. 

APEC = Access, Participation, Eligibility, and Certification; NSLP = National School Lunch Program; 

POS = Point of Sale; SBP = School Breakfast Program. 







35 

III. ASSESSING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CERTIFICATION STATUS AND 

SCHOOL MEAL PARTICIPATION BASED ON CERTIFICATION ERROR 

The primary objective of the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School 

Breakfast Program (SBP) is to ensure that children have access to nutritious meals. In assessing 

the success of school meal programs in achieving this goal, it is important to determine whether 

certification for school meal benefits induces students to consume more school meals. The extent 

to which school meal programs can affect student nutrition depends directly on the extent to 

which these programs increase school meal consumption. 

This chapter describes a natural experiment that provides insight into this important 

relationship. In particular, we make inferences about the causal effect of school meal 

certification status on school meal receipt by exploiting the fact that students who are eligible for 

a certain certification status (for example, free meals) are sometimes misclassified into another 

certification status (for example, reduced-price meals). The results of this analysis have several 

important policy implications. Most fundamentally, they enable us to assess how successful 

school meal programs are at increasing receipt of school meals, which is necessary for the 

programs’ success in improving nutrition among disadvantaged school-aged children. 

Additionally, our findings have implications for the debate on the effects of eliminating the 

reduced-price certification category because we can assess the increase in school meal receipt 

that would result from providing free meals to students eligible for reduced-price benefits under 

current program rules. 

 
Key Findings: 

• For students eligible for free meals, those who were erroneously denied benefits 

were much less likely to obtain school meals than those who were properly 

certified. This finding, combined with similar findings for students certified for 

reduced-price meals and for those not eligible for school meal benefits, suggests 

that the school meal programs are successful at increasing receipt of school meals. 

• Reduced-price-eligible students who are certified for free meals because of 

administrative error receive significantly more school lunches than otherwise 

similar reduced-price-eligible students who are properly certified, but they do not 

obtain more school breakfasts. 

• These findings suggest that eliminating the reduced-price certification category 

would increase lunch participation among students eligible for reduced-price 

meals under the current program rules, but that it would not increase breakfast 

participation. 

A. BACKGROUND 

Evaluating the effect of school meal certification status on school meal consumption is 

difficult. The descriptive analysis presented in the previous chapter shows that students certified 

for free meals obtain meals at higher rates than those certified for reduced-price meals, and that 

both of these groups obtain school meals at much higher rates than do students who applied and 

were not certified for school meal benefits (Table II.1). However, this pattern does not imply that 

school meal benefit certification causes students to consume more school meals. Because school 

meal benefits are means tested, students’ eligibility status is directly related to their economic 

circumstances. This is important because economically disadvantaged students might be more 

likely to consume school meals than other students regardless of certification category. For 

example, it might be that students eligible for free meals have less access to nutritious food at 

home than do those eligible for reduced-price meals, leading them to obtain more school meals. 

 Multivariate analyses can control for some of the characteristics that vary for different 

certification status groups, such as household income, parental education level, and food 

36 
37 

 

insecurity. However, it would not be possible to control for all factors that are associated with 

both school meal certification status and school meal participation rates. These unobserved 

factors (that is, those that are not possible to include in the analysis) interfere with our ability to 

make causal inferences about the relationship between school meal certification status and school 

meal participation rates without an experimental research design. We implement this type of 

research design based on the natural experiment provided by misclassification error in the school 

meal certification process. 

There are two reasons a student may receive the wrong school meal certification status: 

reporting error and administrative error.1

 Reporting error occurs when parents do not report 

correct information about their household circumstances on their application. This might be 

intentional, for example, when they knowingly misreport their income or household composition 

in order to become certified for a higher level of benefits than they are eligible, or it can be 

unintentional, if they do not understand they should report income for all members of the 

household unit or make mistakes on the amount or frequency of receipt. Administrative error can 

occur for a number of reasons, including: (1) local education authority (LEA) staff assessing 

eligibility do not sum the number of household members from the application correctly, (2) they 

fail to sum household income correctly, (3) they do not correctly convert income from the units 

in which it is reported (such as dollars per week) into the units used in the guidelines (such as 

dollars per month), (4) they make an error in translating the household size and monthly income 

into an eligibility status, or (5) they make an error in determining categorical eligibility.2

1

 Reporting and administrative error do not always result in the student receiving the incorrect certification 

status. For the purposes of this study, we consider only cases in which the error affected certification status. 

2

 We do not include administrative error related to certification of applications that are not complete (usually 

because they are missing either a signature or a Social Security number), because in these cases certification status 

matches eligibility status as determined by household size, income, and benefit receipt. This approach is consistent 
38 

 

In the case of administrative error, we can consider the application process as a natural 

experiment in which some students who would otherwise be eligible for a particular certification 

status are assigned to a different certification status. In other words, the reason that a student who 

was eligible for a particular certification status was not certified for that status is fairly random 

from the student’s perspective. As a result, the certification status is not related to the student’s 

likelihood of participating through any indirect means. Any differences in participation between, 

say, free-eligible students who were correctly certified and free-eligible students who were 

certified for reduced-price meals can be attributed directly to differences in certification status. 

B. METHODOLOGY 

The Access, Participation, Eligibility, and Certification (APEC) study was designed to 

measure erroneous payments in the NSLP and SBP. As a result, we have information on which 

students in our sample are erroneously certified and the reason for the misclassification error. 

Making use of misclassification error is fairly straightforward. For example, when 

evaluating the effect of certification status on students eligible for free meals, we first construct a 

sample of students who were eligible for free meals (based on their household circumstances 

according to APEC household survey and meal benefits application), regardless of their actual

certification status. This sample includes free-eligible students who were certified for free meals, 

as well as those free-eligible students who were certified for reduced-price meals and those who 

were denied benefits. We exclude from this sample students who were misclassified because of 

reporting error. We make this exclusion because reporting error is not likely to be random. That 

(continued) 

with treatment of this type of administrative error in the calculation of administrative error rates in Ponza et al. 

(2008). 
is, it is likely to be associated with factors that are also correlated with school meal participation. 

Thus, including students with reporting error could bias the results. 

Using this sample, we estimate the following OLS regression equation: 

39 

i (3) Participation RP NC Control ii i i 1 2 =+ + + γ γ β ε

where Participationi is the school meal participation rate of student i, RP indicates that the 

student was eligible for free meals but certified for reduced-price meals, NC indicates that the 

student was eligible for free meals but not certified for free or reduced-price meals despite 

applying for benefits, and the omitted category would indicate that the student is both eligible 

and certified for free meals.3 The vector Controli includes the set of student, family, and school 

characteristics that were specified in the multivariate analysis described in Chapter II. Among the 

variables included as covariates in this specification are the number of children in the household 

and monthly household income. These variables are directly related to the information that 

would be entered on a school meal benefit application.4 Thus, the estimated effects from this 

natural experiment are conditional on comparing students whose applications (and other 

observed characteristics) are similar. 

The coefficients of interest are those associated with RPi and NCi; 1 γ represents the change 

in school meal participation that results from a free-eligible student being certified for reducedprice meals rather than free meals, while 2 γ represents the change in school meal participation 

 3

 We also estimated this relationship using Tobit regressions, which account for the fact that the participation 

rates cannot be less than zero. Results from this analysis are qualitatively similar to those presented here. 

4 In addition to the specification described in equation (3), we also estimated a model for the free-eligible 

sample that controlled for whether the student was categorically eligible for free meals. Results from this 

specification were similar to those described below. Because categorical eligibility only applies to free-eligible 

students, there are no categorically eligible students in the samples of reduced-price eligible students and students 

not eligible for free or reduced-price meals. 
40 

that results from a free-eligible student not being certified for free or reduced-price meal benefits 

rather than being certified for free meals. Similar analysis is conducted using a sample of 

reduced-price-eligible students and a sample of students not eligible for free or reduced-price 

meals. 

Each of these samples enables us to address different aspects of three main research 

questions: 

• What is the effect of certification for free meals relative to certification for reduced-price 

meals?

- From the perspective of free-eligible students 

- From the perspective of reduced-price-eligible students 

• What is the effect of certification for free meals relative to no certification for free or 

reduced-price meals?

- From the perspective of free-eligible students 

- From the perspective of students not eligible for free or reduced-price meals 

• What is the effect of certification for reduced-price meals relative to no certification for 

free or reduced-price meals?

- From the perspective of reduced-price-eligible students 

- From the perspective of students not eligible for free or reduced-price meals 

We do not expect effects measured from the perspective of students in different eligibility 

categories (i.e. for different analysis samples) necessarily to be the same. For example, the effect 

of certification for free-meals relative to certification for reduced-price meals is unlikely to be 

the same for free-eligible students and reduced-price eligible students. This is because having 

different eligibility statuses implies that the groups have different economic circumstances and 

may have different participation responses to receiving free meals rather than reduced-price 

meals. 
41 

 

In considering the analyses from the perspective of students not eligible for school meal 

benefits, it is important to remember that these students all applied for school meal benefits. 

Students who are not eligible and not certified are denied applicants, that is, students who 

applied for and were denied school meal benefits. Ineligible students who are certified for free or 

reduced-price meals had to have applied for meals in order to have become certified. Thus, 

analysis of the sample of ineligible students does not generalize to all students who were not 

eligible for free or reduced-price meals.5

 Accordingly, the coefficients from this analysis do not 

represent the increase in meal participation rates that would result from universal certification. 

Rather, they reflect changes in behavior among ineligible students with sufficient interest in 

receiving school meal benefits to submit an application. 

Although analysis of this natural experiment provides evidence on the effect of meal 

certification status on NSLP/SBP meal participation, it does have limitations. First, if 

administrative error is related to participation in a systematic way, the appealing properties of the 

natural experiment are not preserved. For example, if free-eligible students who are near the 

income threshold (that is, those who are less disadvantaged) are more likely to be subject to 

administrative error, then differences in meal participation may be the result of differences in 

student characteristics rather than of differences in meal certification category. Including a 

comprehensive set of controls may partially address this concern; however, there may be 

unobserved differences in those students subject to administrative error and those who are not. 

An additional limitation lies in the small sample size of students who were erroneously 

classified; erroneously classified students comprise 2 percent of the free-eligible sample, 16 

 5 Students in the free-eligible and reduced-price-eligible samples who are not certified also must have applied 

for benefits. Thus, the free-eligible sample represents all free-eligible students who applied for benefits, while the 

reduced-price-eligible sample represents all reduced-price-eligible students who applied for benefits. 
42 

percent of the reduced-price-eligible sample, and 18 percent of the ineligible sample. This limits 

our power to detect statistically significant differences in meal participation between the groups. 

Indeed, standard errors on the coefficients of interest tend to be quite large, so we find statistical 

significance only for very large effects. 

C. SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS 

In this section, we examine whether students with a given eligibility status who were 

misclassified due to administrative error have similar characteristics to students with the same 

eligibility status who were correctly certified. For example, we compare the characteristics of 

students who were eligible for free meals but certified for reduced-price meals due to 

administrative error to the characteristics of students who were eligible for free meals and 

correctly certified for free meals. The more similar these groups are, the more comfortable we 

can be that any differences in participation that we observe are the result of differences in 

certification status, rather than the result of other differences between the two groups. 

Table III.1 presents student characteristics for the three analysis samples by certification 

status. We find some evidence of differences by certification status for free-eligible and 

ineligible students. In particular, student characteristics suggest that correctly certified freeeligible students may be more disadvantaged than other free-eligible students, while ineligible 

students correctly denied benefits may be less disadvantaged than other ineligible students not 

correctly certified. However, we find less evidence of systematic differences by certification 

status among students eligible for reduced-price meals. 

 


45 

Although differences by certification status provide valuable context for the analysis, our 

estimates control for a variety of factors, including the number of children in the household and 

household income, which are key pieces of information that are used to determine eligibility by 

SFA administrators. Any non-random variation in the assignment of certification status should 

be related to these variables because this is the information that LEA administrators are using to 

determine eligibility. Since we explicitly control for the factors that are most likely to influence 

the certification category to which a student is assigned, our estimates should reflect the 

relationship between participation and certification status. 

Free-Eligible Sample. There is some evidence that free-eligible students who were correctly 

certified are more disadvantaged than free-eligible students who were incorrectly certified due to 

administrative error. Among free-eligible students, students certified for free meals are 

significantly less likely than either students certified for reduced-price meals or those not 

certified for meal benefits to have an employed household member. Students certified for free 

meals are also significantly more likely than students certified for reduced-price meals to have 

experienced a food insecurity outcome in the summer prior to the school year. Correctly certified 

students also have lower household incomes on average than incorrectly certified students, 

although these differences are not statistically significant. 

There is likely more error surrounding income eligibility for free benefits than categorical 

eligibility, which is eligibility based on receipt of welfare benefits, Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the food stamp program) benefits, or other benefits. This is 

partly because income is much more difficult to measure than benefit receipt. In addition, to 

determine income eligibility, LEAs have to make mathematical calculations based on income 

and numbers of household members in the former situation. In contrast, categorical eligibility is 

determined based on a benefit program case number—in the case of direct certification SFAs do 
46 

not have to review an application at all to determine categorical eligibility. Accordingly, 

incorrectly certified free-eligible students may be more likely to be income eligible and less 

likely to be categorically eligible compared to correctly certified free-eligible students. 

Categorically eligible students are likely more disadvantaged than those eligible based on 

income, which could result in free-eligible students certified for free meals being more 

disadvantaged as a group than free-eligible students not certified for free meals. 

Reduced-Price Eligible Sample. Overall, there is less evidence of systematic differences by 

certification status in the reduced-price eligible sample than in the free-eligible sample. 

Compared to correctly certified reduced-price eligible students, students certified for free meals 

but eligible for reduced-price meals are significantly more likely to be African American or 

Hispanic. They also come from schools that have higher percentages of students certified for free 

or reduced-price meals and that are more likely to use electronic point of sale (POS) technology. 

Differences in other characteristics, such as monthly household income and experiencing a food 

insecurity outcome in the summer before the school year, are small and not statistically 

significant. 

Reduced-price eligible students who were incorrectly denied school benefits, compared to 

correctly certified reduced-price eligible students, come from households that had significantly 

fewer children, that were more likely to have experienced a food insecurity outcome, and that 

were more likely to located in an urban area. 

Ineligible Sample. There is evidence that ineligible applicants for school meal benefits who 

were correctly certified are less disadvantaged those who were certified for free and reducedprice meal benefits. In particular, compared to students who were incorrectly granted benefits, 

students who were correctly denied benefits have parents with higher education levels and have 

substantially higher household income levels. 
47 

D. OBSERVED ASSOCIATION BETWEEN CERTIFICATION AND PARTICIPATION 

The association between certification status and school meal participation estimated using a 

simple, nonexperimental multivariate framework provides useful context for the analysis based 

on the miscertification natural experiment. We estimated the relationship between school meal 

participation rates and certification status using an OLS regression model that controls for a set 

of student, family, and school characteristics. The results from this analysis, presented in Table 

III.2, show a pattern similar to that of the unadjusted mean participation rates. Compared to 

students certified for free meals, students certified for reduced-price lunches receive meals at 

approximately 4 percentage points fewer eating occasions controlling for other factors, while 

those who applied for and were denied certification for free or reduced-price meals receive meals 

at 15 percentage points fewer eating occasions. Both of these differences are statistically 

significant at the 5 percent level. Differences in SBP participation between students who were 

free certified, reduced-price certified, or not certified were of similar magnitude and were also 

statistically significant. 

Although these figures control for a wide range of student, family, and school 

characteristics, there might be unobserved factors that are associated with both school meal 

certification status and school meal participation rates. If this is the case, we would expect for 

there to be important differences between the findings presented here and the experimental 

findings. 

E. EFFECTS OF CERTIFICATION STATUS ON SCHOOL MEAL PARTICIPATION 

1. School Lunch Participation 

Results from analyses related to lunch participation, presented in Table III.3, indicate that 

there is a large effect on participation when students are given a more generous certification 

status than the one for which they are eligible, that is when they are overcertified. For example, 
48 

TABLE III.2 

DIFFERENCES IN SCHOOL LUNCH PARTICIPATION RATES ASSOCIATED WITH CERTIFICATION 

STATUS, BY MEAL PROGRAM 

(Percentages of Eating Occasions) 

NSLP SBP 

Certification Status 

Reduced-Price -3.81** -4.86** 

(1.66) (2.12) 

Not Certified -15.10*** -13.32*** 

(3.11) (2.71) 

Sample Size 2,440 2,240 

Source: APEC study data. 

Notes: Figures are coefficient estimates from OLS regressions in which the lunch participation rate is the dependent 

variable. Independent variables include sex, race/ethnicity, parental educational attainment, monthly household 

income, household employment, number of children in the household, food insecurity, satisfaction with school 

meal taste, school type, school percentage certified for free or reduced-price meals, school enrollment, school 

location in an urban area, school use of direct certification, and school use of electronic POS technology. 

Participation rates represent percentage of meals received per eating occasion during the full school year, 

determined based on administrative records. All figures are weighted. Standard errors, presented in parentheses, 

account for clustering in the survey design. 

 *Significantly different from zero at the .10 level, two-tailed test. 

 **Significantly different from zero at the .05 level, two-tailed test. 

***Significantly different from zero at the .01 level, two-tailed test. 

APEC = Access, Participation, Eligibility, and Certification; POS = Point of Sale. 
49 

TABLE III.3 

EFFECT OF CERTIFICATION STATUS ON SCHOOL LUNCH PARTICIPATION RATES, 

BY ELIGIBILITY STATUS 

(Percentages of Eating Occasions) 

Free-Eligible 

Students 

Reduced-PriceEligible Students Ineligible 

Students 

Certification Status 

Free -- 12.84** 24.08*** 

(5.14) (5.74) 

Reduced-Price -1.45 -- 16.22** 

(7.62) (7.43) 

Not Certified -10.16 -3.18 -- 

(12.25) (7.68) 

Student Characteristics 

Male 0.51 -3.71 6.43* 

(1.47) (3.11) (3.45) 

African American or Hispanic 3.13 11.46*** -5.26 

(2.06) (3.60) (5.22) 

Family Characteristics 

Parental Educational Attainment 

High school degree 1.89 6.35 -5.32 

(1.86) (3.93) (6.33) 

More than high school degree 2.70 4.30 -0.90 

(2.29) (4.74) (6.32) 

Household Income 0.22 1.77 0.53 

(0.94) (3.75) (0.51) 

Employed Household Member 6.53*** -4.28 11.37* 

(1.85) (4.53) (5.72) 

Number of Children 0.17 0.15 2.44 

(0.39) (2.08) (2.57) 

Experienced Food Insecurity Outcome 3.44 4.44 3.44 

(2.12) (3.12) (3.90) 

Attitudes Toward School Meals 

Student’s Satisfaction with School Meal 

Taste 

Very satisfied 4.62* 13.51* 16.26** 

(2.59) (6.95) (7.13) 

Somewhat satisfied 1.35 15.15** 18.87*** 

(2.24) (6.73) (5.76) 

School Characteristics 

School Type 

Middle school -5.39** -12.70*** -6.93 

(2.50) (4.07) (5.55) 

High school -31.03*** -24.47*** -24.03*** 

(4.20) (9.02) (8.46) 

Percentage of Student Body Certified for 

Free/Reduced-Price Meals -0.06 -0.10 0.11 

(0.08) (0.09) (0.13) 
TABLE III.3 (continued) 

50 

 Free-Eligible 

Students 

Reduced-PriceEligible Students Ineligible 

Students 

Enrollment 

801 to 1,200 -2.23 -9.93* 7.36 

(2.85) (5.37) (6.20) 

Greater than 1,200 -4.82 -6.50 -1.91 

(4.26) (7.50) (8.77) 

Located in Urban Area -2.50 -5.43 -3.92 

(3.47) (4.45) (6.55) 

School Meal Program Implementation 

Characteristics 

Uses Direct Certification -2.17 -0.08 -0.09 

(2.99) (6.30) (8.32) 

Uses Electronic POS Technology 9.74** 2.09 20.77*** 

(3.97) (5.69) (6.55) 

Constant 59.71*** 57.55*** 3.74 

(7.43) (15.19) (12.33) 

Sample Size 1,498 220 259 

Source: APEC study data. 

Notes: Figures are coefficient estimates from OLS regressions in which the lunch participation rate is the dependent 

variable. Participation rates represent percentage of meals received per eating occasion during the full school 

year, determined based on administrative records. All figures are weighted. Standard errors, presented in 

parentheses, account for clustering in the survey design. 

 *Significantly different from zero at the .10 level, two-tailed test. 

 **Significantly different from zero at the .05 level, two-tailed test. 

***Significantly different from zero at the .01 level, two-tailed test. 

APEC = Access, Participation, Eligibility, and Certification; POS = Point of Sale. 
51 

reduced-price-eligible students who were erroneously certified for free meals due to 

administrative error obtained meals 13 percentage points more frequently than reduced-priceeligible students who were properly certified. Effects are even larger for ineligible students who 

applied for school meal benefits. Ineligible students who were certified for free meals obtained 

lunches 24 percentage points more frequently than properly certified ineligible students, while 

ineligible students who were certified for reduced-price meals obtained school lunches 16 

percentage points more frequently. 

Evidence of impacts on lunch participation from undercertification is not as strong. Freeeligible students who were erroneously denied benefits (that is, were not certified for free or 

reduced-price meals) had a much lower lunch participation rate than otherwise similar freeeligible students who were correctly certified (Table III.3). However, this difference was not 

precisely estimated and is not statistically significant. The other two undercertification effects 

also have the expected sign; however, they are not large nor are they statistically significant. 

2. School Breakfast Participation 

In contrast to results from the lunch participation analysis, we do not find evidence of 

increased school breakfast participation for reduced-price-eligible students who are certified for 

free meals; the coefficient on free certification for the sample of reduced-price-eligible students 

is positive, but it is small and not statistically significant (Table III.4). We do find large increases 

in school breakfast participation for overcertified students who were not eligible for school meal 

benefits. Ineligible students who were certified for free meals were 20 percentage points more 

likely to obtain school breakfasts than properly certified ineligible students, while ineligible 

students who were certified for reduced-price meal obtained school breakfasts 17 percentage 

points more frequently than properly certified ineligible students. 

 


54 

We find some evidence of undercertification effects for school breakfast participation. 

Among free-eligible students, those who were improperly denied benefits were 13 percentage 

points less likely to obtain school breakfast on a given eating occasion than properly certified 

students. The other two undercertification effects also have the expected sign; however, they are 

not large nor are they statistically significant. 

F. IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS 

Findings from this natural experiment provide evidence that certification for school meal 

benefits does increase school meal consumption. Among students eligible for free meals, those 

who were erroneously denied benefits were much less likely to obtain school meals than those 

who were properly certified (though this effect is not precisely estimated for school lunches). 

Furthermore, students eligible for reduced-price meals and erroneously certified for free meals 

were more likely to obtain school lunches than those who were properly certified. Students who 

were not eligible for school meal benefits and who were overcertified were also more likely to 

obtain school meals than their properly certified counterparts. Each of these findings suggests 

that the school meal programs are successful at increasing receipt of school meals. The fact that 

students respond in the intended way to the incentives of the school meal programs is consistent 

with the programs improving nutrition among disadvantaged school-aged children. 

The results of this analysis also have important implications for the debate over eliminating 

the reduced-price certification category. In addition to increasing access to nutritious meals for 

children from low-income families, some policymakers and observers have argued that 

eliminating the reduced-price category would simplify the program, leading to reduced 

administrative costs and reduced erroneous payments. However, opponents of this change are 

concerned with increased cost. 
55 

 

Our impact estimates related to students who were eligible for reduced-price meals but who 

were erroneously certified for free meals speak directly to this debate. The difference between 

the school meal participation of this group and those who were correctly certified for reducedprice meals is likely to approximate the change in participation that would result from providing 

free meals to students who are certified for reduced-price meals under the current program.6

 We 

find that students who are eligible for reduced-price meals but certified for free meals obtain 

school lunches 13 percentage points more often than students correctly certified for reducedprice meals. However, we do not find significant differences in the school breakfast participation 

rates of these two groups.7

 These findings suggest that eliminating the reduced-price category 

would increase school lunch participation, but would not change school breakfast participation. 

The conclusions drawn from the natural experiment analysis are quite different from those 

drawn from nonexperimental analysis of participation rates. As discussed in an earlier section, 

the regression-adjusted differences in the school lunch and school breakfast participation rates of 

students certified for free and reduced-price meals are approximately 4 percentage points. If 

these differences were interpreted as causal effects, the conclusion would be that eliminating the 

reduced-price category would lead to 4 percentage point increases in school lunch and school 

breakfast participation. The differing conclusions of the observational and natural experiment 

approaches confirm the value of the natural experiment approach. 

Impact estimates from the natural experiment can be translated into the expected change in 

the number of meals served that would result from providing free meals to all students certified 

6

 Eliminating the reduced-price category might also increase applications for school meal benefits. Estimates 

from this analysis cannot account for potential changes in application behavior. 

7

 The lack of significant differences for the school breakfast program could be related to the increased 

complexity of the school breakfast participation decision relative to the school lunch participation decision. School 

breakfast participation is more difficult than lunch participation because it requires arriving at school early. 

Breakfast participation is also often considered more stigmatized because participants tend to be disadvantaged. 
56 

 

for reduced-price meals under the current system keeping free meal reimbursement rates at their 

current levels. Given the national total of 488.2 million reduced-price lunches served during SY 

2005-2006, our estimates imply an estimated increase of 89.7 million lunches from this policy 

change.8

 The 95 percent confidence interval around this estimate, which reflects the statistical 

variability in the estimate, is 17.8 million to 161.5 million lunches. This increase in participation 

can be considered a benefit of eliminating the reduced-price category, because it reflects 

students’ increased access to nutritious meals. With 154.2 million reduced-price breakfasts 

served during SY 2005-2006, the point estimate for the change in meals served for the SBP is 6.4 

million breakfasts, with a confidence interval of -106.1 million to 118.8 million breakfasts. 

There are two ways that costs would increase as a result of eliminating the reduced price 

category. First, all meals served to students certified for reduced price meals under the current 

program rules would be reimbursed at a higher rate. Second, reimbursements would increase 

because students certified for reduced price meals under current program rules would elect to 

receive more meals if they were instead certified for free meals. Estimates of the cost of 

eliminating the reduced-price category can also be derived from our estimated changes in meals 

served. 

Under the current program rules, reduced-price lunches are reimbursed at $0.40 less than 

free lunches. Applying this amount to the 488.2 million lunches received by students certified for 

reduced price meal under current program rules would cost $195.3 million. The average free 

school lunch is reimbursed at $2.33, plus a $0.1927 per meal reimbursement for the value of 

8

 Estimates of the number of reduced-price meals served come from the FNS national data file (Version 8.2 

Public Use). 
57 

 

commodities.9

 Applying these amounts to the estimated 89.7 million increase in the number of 

lunches served associated with eliminating the reduced price category yields an increase in 

reimbursements of $226.2 million, with a 95 percent confidence interval of $44.9 million to 

$407.3 million. Thus, the total cost of eliminating the reduced price category for the NSLP 

would be $421.5 million, with a 95 percent confidence interval of $240.2 million to $602.6 

million. 

Reduced-price breakfasts are reimbursed at $0.30 less than free breakfasts. Applying this 

amount to the 154.3 million breakfasts served to students certified for reduced price meals under 

the current program rules would cost $46.3 million. The average free breakfast is reimbursed at 

$1.42.10 Applying this amount to the estimated 6.4 million breakfast increase associated with 

eliminating the reduced price category leads to a cost increase of $9.1 million, with a 95 percent 

confidence interval of -$150.9 to $169.0 million. The total cost of eliminating the reduced price 

category for the SBP is then $55.3 million, with a 95 percent confidence interval of -$104.67 

million to $215.3 million. Based on these figures, the overall estimated cost of this policy change 

across the NSLP and SBP is $476.8 million. When deciding whether to eliminate the reducedprice meal category, policymakers should weigh these cost estimates against the benefits of 

increased access discussed above, along with other benefits that are beyond the scope of this 

study, such as reduced administrative costs. 

9

 The regular NSLP reimbursement rate is $2.32, while the rate is $2.34 in schools with more than 60 percent 

of students certified for free or reduced price meals. The average reimbursement rate is based on 51 percent of 

reimbursed meals receiving the additional two cent reimbursement (FNS national data file). 

10 The regular SBP reimbursement is $1.27, while the rate is $1.51 in severe needs schools. The average 

reimbursement rate is based on 64 percent of reimbursed meals being served in severe needs schools (FNS national 

data file). 

59 

IV. COMPARISONS OF PARENT-REPORTED PARTICIPATION 

AND ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS 

A reliable measure of school meal program participation is critical for any study examining 

student participation in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) or School Breakfast 

Program (SBP). However, the data available to researchers on school meal program participation 

is often limited or incomplete. Researchers have often relied on parent- or student-reported data 

to measure student participation in the NSLP and SBP, but these measures are typically based on 

data collected at a single point in time, either referring to a single day or summarizing usual 

participation for a longer period, and are subject to recall error. 

This chapter examines how well parent reports of NSLP and SBP participation during a 

short time period among students certified to receive free and reduced-price meals represent 

actual school meal consumption by certified students over a longer period, as determined from 

school administrative records. Section A provides background on measures of participation used 

by researchers; Section B describes the measures and methodologies used in this chapter. Section 

C presents findings related to comparisons of aggregate participation rates; Section D presents 

findings related to individual-level comparisons, including whether there is variation by student 

and household characteristics in how well parent reports for a day or week capture usual annual 

or monthly participation. Section E discusses how the factors found to be associated with 

participation differ depending on which measure of participation is used. Supplemental tables 

related to comparisons of parent-reported and administrative records data are included in the 

appendixes.
Key Findings: 

• Measures of NSLP and SBP participation based on parent reports for a short time period 

overstate actual participation over longer periods among students certified to receive free or 

reduced-price meals. These differences might be due to differences in the data source or the 

time period of the measures. 

• Parent reports are better estimates of longer-term participation in the NSLP than in the SBP. 

• Parent reports on school meal program participation for a day or week provide better 

estimates of participation during the relevant month than of annual participation. 

• Compared to parents of middle and high school students, parents of elementary school 

students report NSLP participation rates for a week that are closer to their children’s actual 

annual participation. 

A. BACKGROUND 

A reliable measure of participation is necessary for any study examining rates of student 

participation in school meal programs, factors associated with participation, or other related 

issues. Some studies use certification to receive free or reduced-price meals as a proxy for 

participation in the NSLP or SBP, but such measures do not capture any information on whether, 

and how often, students actually obtain school meals. In addition, such measures entirely ignore 

participation by students who pay full price for NSLP and SBP meals. As explained in Chapter I, 

this report focuses on actual participation, defined as receipt of a reimbursable school meal. 

Having detailed student-level data on actual daily participation over the course of the school 

year would be ideal, but collecting such data can be prohibitively expensive. Although districts 

are required by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) to track student participation in the NSLP 

and SBP, they do not necessarily do so at the student level.1

 Among those that do keep such 

student-level data, each district uses its own formats and storage procedures, making collecting 

and combining such data across districts extremely burdensome. Although many school districts 

60 

 1

 Although most districts keep student-level data on daily participation, maintaining counts of participants by 

certification status is sufficient to meet FNS requirements. 
61 

 

use electronic systems for tracking school meal counts, these systems cannot always produce 

data files that are useful to researchers. The recent Access, Participation, Eligibility, and 

Certification (APEC) study found that only about a third of the 87 school food authorities (SFAs) 

in a nationally representative sample were able to provide student-level participation data 

electronically, although many of the remaining districts submitted printouts from electronic 

systems. Even the data submitted electronically required considerable processing to convert the 

data to a useful format and render it comparable across districts. 

Thus, researchers have often relied on parent- or student-reported data to measure student 

participation in the NSLP and SBP. This information can be collected with relative ease, 

particularly in studies that require interviews of parents or students to collect data on related 

issues. However, as noted by Gleason et al. (2004), these types of measures of participation are 

likely subject to greater error than are measures based on administrative data. Both parent and 

student reports are subject to recall error when reporting on participation on a certain day, and 

asking them to report “usual” participation requires them to summarize behavior over the entire 

school year, which could lead to inaccuracies. Also, parents might simply not know whether 

their children actually participated or not—for example, they might not clearly distinguish à la 

carte purchases from purchases counted as reimbursable school meals, or children might actively 

mislead their parents about getting school lunches.2

 However, collecting data from students 

themselves can be more difficult, because parent consent is often required before interviewing 

minors and very young children are not likely to be reliable survey respondents. 

In addition, student- or parent-reported measures typically focus either on “usual” program 

participation or on participation during a single school day or week, because collecting data on 

2

 Parent reports on the participation of older students might be particularly prone to error, as older students 

typically have more autonomy in their school meal participation decisions. 
62 

longer periods would be overly burdensome to the respondents. For example, the 2004 Panel 

Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) asked students ages 15 and older and parents 

of younger children if the students usually get NSLP and SBP meals 

(http://www.census.gov/sipp/). The 2007-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination 

Survey (NHANES) (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm) and the Evaluation of the NSLP 

Application/Verification Pilot Projects (Gleason et al. 2004) both collected data from parents on 

the number of times in a week their children usually had school meals. The Early Childhood 

Longitudinal Study Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K) asked parents both whether their children 

usually received school meals and how many school meals the student received during a 

particular week (http://nces.ed.gov/ecls/kindergarten.asp). The 1994-1996/1998 Continuing 

Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) (http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/

docs.htm?docid=14392) and the School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study (SNDA-III) 

(Gordon et al. 2007b) asked how many times per week children usually received school 

breakfasts/lunches; it also collected dietary intake data that could be used to construct a measure 

of participation on a target day. As described earlier in this report, the APEC study asked parents 

whether their children participated on a target day and on each day during a target week (in 

addition to collecting administrative records data). The series of questions on participation in the 

APEC household survey was more detailed than the questions asked in many other surveys. It 

asked first whether the child attended school each day, then whether the child ate breakfast or 

lunch on each day he or she attended, and whether it was a school meal or something else.3

 

 3

 The instrument provided a definition of what a school meal is, such as “By school lunch we mean the meal 

received from the School Lunch Program which consists of a set of food items from the menu that were either free 

or, if paid for, was purchased for a single price, as opposed to individual foods that are priced and bought 

separately.” 
63 

Given the prevalence of parent reports as the basis for research on school meal participation, 

it is important to understand how closely estimates of participation developed from parentreported data collected at one point in time match actual participation over a longer period. Past 

studies have acknowledged the limitations of parent-reported measures of participation, and 

some have examined their reliability by comparing them to other measures. This previous 

research indicates that parents typically overestimate their children’s true levels of participation. 

For example, the Evaluation of the NSLP Application/Verification Pilot Projects compared 

district-level participation rates based on administrative data on the number of reimbursable 

meals claimed by SFAs to aggregated rates of NSLP participation based on parents’ reports and 

found that the parent-reported measures indicated higher levels of participation than did 

measures based on administrative records (Gleason et al. 2004). Two other studies found 

substantially higher rates of participation when estimates were based on parental reports of usual 

participation than when based on foods consumed from the school cafeteria on a given day 

(Burghardt et al. 1993; Gleason and Suitor 2001). The SNDA-III study asked both children and 

their parents about participation in the NSLP and SBP and found that parents’ reports were 

consistently higher than their children’s (Gordon et al. 2007b). 

However, none of these studies have been able to compare individual-level data from both 

administrative records and parent reports. Some compared parental reports to student reports 

(sometimes derived from food intake diaries, potentially introducing another type of 

measurement error), rather than to administrative records. Although Gleason et al. (2004) used 

administrative records data on participation, those data were aggregated to the district level. 

Thus, that study could not explore how parent-reported measures compared to administrative 

records at the individual level, nor could it examine which student-level characteristics were 

related to how well measures based on parent reports captured usual participation. 
64 

 

The current report does both, using nationally representative data collected in the APEC 

study, which includes detailed administrative data on the participation of most sample members 

in the NSLP and SBP for the entire school year, along with information from parent surveys. 

This data set provides a unique opportunity to test the reliability of parent-reported participation 

data at the individual level. In addition, it enables us to assess how closely measures based on 

parent reports correspond to usual participation over a longer time period varies according to 

student or family attributes. 

Unfortunately, the administrative data measures of participation used in the APEC study 

cover different lengths of time than the parent reports, so differences between the two types of 

measures could be due to either the data source or the time period.4

 However, if researchers are 

using parent reports for short time periods as a proxy for actual participation over the school 

year, it is important to understand how closely those measures match, regardless of the cause of 

the differences. The analyses in this chapter should not be considered simple comparisons of 

parent reports to administrative records, but comparisons of one estimate of participation—based 

on parent-reported data on a short time period—to actual participation over a longer period. 

B. METHODOLOGY 

1. Measures 

To address the set of research questions (described in Chapter I) related to the comparison of 

administrative data to parent reports, we created (1) estimates of student-level participation rates 

4

 The raw administrative records data collected for the APEC study were disaggregated by day as well as by 

student, but the data were aggregated across days during the processing. As mentioned previously, individual-level 

data from districts were burdensome to process, and aggregated monthly measures were adequate to meet the goals 

of the APEC study. With additional resources and effort, it would be possible to go back to the disaggregated raw 

data and compute measures of participation based on administrative data for the day and week of parent reports. 

However, that effort is beyond the scope of the current project. 
65 

 

from the APEC household survey data and (2) actual student-level participation rates from the 

administrative records data. 

Participation Based on Parent Reports. The APEC household survey asked parents a 

series of questions, as described above, about whether their children obtained a school breakfast 

and/or lunch on the most recent school day, and on each day during the most recently completed 

week.5 From their responses to these questions, we created two different estimates of studentlevel participation rates from the APEC household survey data—one based on parent reports for 

the most-recent school day and one based on parent reports for each day of the most recent full 

week of school. 

• Parent Reports for a Target Day. The estimated participation rate based on a single 

school day is a binary measure, indicating that the student either participated (that is, 

a participation rate of 100 percent) or did not (that is, a participation rate of zero 

percent). Thus, participation rate estimates for a day are necessarily concentrated in 

the tails of the distribution. As shown in Table IV.1, 78 percent of students certified 

to receive free and reduced-price meals ate a school lunch that day, according to their 

parents, and the remaining 22 percent did not; 43 percent of students ate a school 

breakfast, while 57 percent did not. 

• Parent Reports for a Target Week. The participation rate based on parent reports for 

a week captures somewhat more variation.6 However, estimates based on a week still 

exhibit clustering in the tails, because many students have a usual plan for a given 

meal—either they have the school meal almost every day (75 percent do this for 

lunch and 41 percent for breakfast), or they almost never have a school meal (5 

percent do this for lunch and 41 percent for breakfast).7 Because the week measure 

requires parents to report on participation several days in the past, it might be more 

susceptible to recall error than the day measure. 

5

 For days parents reported that their children did not attend school, the students were counted as not 

participating in the NSLP and SBP. Treating absences this way is consistent with the administrative records, which 

do not distinguish between nonparticipation due to absence and nonparticipation for other reasons. 

6

 For most students, the week measure is based on five days, and thus indicates participation rates of 0, 20, 40, 

60, 80, or 100 percent. In cases in which parent-reported data were missing for one or more days during the week, 

this measure was computed based on the number of days of nonmissing data. 7

 Throughout this chapter, “almost every day” is used to mean more than 80 percent of the school days during 

the reporting period; “almost never” is used to mean fewer than 20 percent of school days.
66 

TABLE IV.1 

COMPARISON OF AGGREGATE NSLP AND SBP PARTICIPATION AMONG FREE AND REDUCED-PRICE 

CERTIFIED STUDENTS, BASED ON PARENT REPORTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS 

Parent-Reported 

Data 

Administrative Records 

Data 

Based on 

Previous 

Day 

Based on 

Previous 

Week 

For the Month 

Covered by 

Parent Reports 

For the 

Year 

Percentage of School Days Participated in the NSLP 

(n = 2,139) 

0 22.18 

(2.17) 

4.45 

(0.93) 

 7.86 

(2.65) 

 1.81 

(0.56) 

1 to 20 -- 0.91 

(0.26) 

3.47 

(0.77) 

4.90 

(0.85) 

21 to 40 -- 2.91 

(0.48) 

3.32 

(0.70) 

7.22 

(0.94) 

41 to 60 -- 4.12 

 (0.49) 

5.64 

(0.58) 

15.08 

(2.52) 

61 to 80 -- 12.89 

(1.98) 

16.15 

(1.68) 

24.66 

(2.08) 

81 to 100 77.82 

(2.17) 

74.73 

(2.04) 

63.56 

(2.69) 

46.33 

(3.44) 

Mean Percentage of School Days Participated in the 

NSLP 77.82 88.79 74.65 69.81 

(2.17) (1.00) (2.53) (1.68) 

Percentage of School Days Participated in the SBP 

(n = 1,840) 

0 57.11 

(2.42) 

37.80 

(2.02) 

35.88 

(0.03) 

18.46 

(2.07) 

1 to 20 -- 3.45 

(0.53) 

13.12 

(1.71) 

26.50 

(1.60) 

21 to 40 -- 4.00 

(0.55) 

10.08 

(1.27) 

15.32 

(0.96) 

41 to 60 -- 4.50 

(0.61) 

 8.76 

(0.86) 

14.91 

(1.46) 

61 to 80 -- 8.90 

(1.36) 

12.77 

(1.69) 

14.25 

(1.37) 

81 to 100 42.89 

(2.42) 

41.35 

(1.99) 

19.38 

(2.15) 

10.56 

(1.85) 

Mean Percentage of School Days Participated in the 

SBP 42.89 53.38 35.60 33.25 

(2.42) (2.01) (2.15) (1.88) 

Source: APEC study data. 

Note: All figures are weighted. Standard errors, presented in parentheses, account for clustering in the survey design. 

APEC = Access, Participation, Eligibility, and Certification; NSLP = National School Lunch Program; SBP = School 

Breakfast Program. 
67 

 

Most students who are reported to have obtained a school meal on the previous day are also 

reported to have obtained a meal almost every day during the most-recently completed week. 

However, many of those reported to have not had the school meal on the previous day are still 

reported to have obtained school meals on multiple days during the previous week. Thus, parent 

reports for a day yield lower estimated participation rates on average (78 percent for lunch and 

43 percent for breakfast) than do those for a week (89 percent for lunch and 53 percent for 

breakfast). 

Participation Based on Administrative Records. The student-level administrative records 

data discussed in earlier chapters provide our measures of actual NSLP and SBP participation. 

The APEC study collected detailed administrative records data from SFAs on the number of 

school breakfasts and lunches obtained by each student during each month of the 2005–2006 

school year. From this data, we constructed measures of each student’s typical number of meals 

obtained per eating opportunity, both for the entire school year and for a target month.8

• Administrative Records for a Target Month. This measure relies on information 

from administrative records on the student’s participation during the month that 

includes the day and week about which the parent reported in the household survey. 

It was constructed by dividing the number of reimbursable meals recorded for the 

student during the month by the number of serving days in the month. 

• Administrative Records for the Year. This measure of actual school meal program 

participation relies on administrative records data for the entire school year. It was 

created by dividing the number of reimbursable meals recorded for the student over 

the school year by the number of serving days in the year. 

Researchers using parent-reported data on NSLP and SBP participation are often attempting 

to estimate usual participation over the entire school year, rather than for a shorter period. 

8

 For students who were enrolled in the district for only part of the year, participation rates are computed based 

on the time during which they were enrolled. 
68 

 

However, as parent-reported data are most often collected at a single point in time, comparisons 

to annual participation rates might suffer due to variation in participation over the course of the 

school year. Data from the APEC study show that parent reports on their children’s participation 

are fairly consistent over the year, as are aggregate actual participation rates, but that actual 

monthly participation for individuals, as captured by administrative records data, can vary 

widely. (Additional detail on how our measures of participation vary over the year can be found 

in Appendix C.) 

Despite the consistency of aggregate monthly participation rates over the course of the 

school year, the administrative records data indicate higher aggregate rates of participation 

during the target month, on average, compared to annual participation rates (Table IV.1). This 

coincidence that participation tended to be higher in the month in which the parent was surveyed 

should be kept in mind when comparing the two administrative records measures to the parentreported measures (see Section C). 

As noted above, because both administrative records measures cover a longer time period 

than either of the parent-reported measures, comparing parent reports to administrative records 

confounds two possible sources of differences: (1) reporting error and (2) actual participation 

differences between time periods.9

 The administrative data measures from the APEC study are 

not sufficiently detailed to enable comparisons of parent reports to administrative data for the 

same time period, which would be necessary to determine whether the report of participation on 

the previous day (or week) for a given child is accurate for that day (or week). Thus, discussions 

of how closely estimates of participation based on parent reports for a day or week match actual 

9

 One might expect the latter type of difference to be greater for the measure based on a single day, because the 

day measure is binary and thus cannot capture any variation in a student’s participation over time. 
69 

participation for the month or year should not be misinterpreted as the accuracy of parent reports 

for the specific time period for which they were reporting. 

2. Analysis Methods 

To address the set of questions related to how closely parent-reported participation for a 

short period matches actual participation over a longer period, we compare estimates of 

participation based on parent reports for a day and week to actual participation for a month and 

year based on administrative records data. In particular, we conduct three types of comparisons, 

each of which is the focus of one of the subsections in this chapter: (1) comparisons of different 

measures of aggregate participation rates, (2) comparisons of different measures for individual 

students, (3) comparisons of factors associated with different measures of participation. 

As in the earlier chapters of this report, all analyses presented here are restricted to students 

certified to receive free and reduced-price meals. In addition, as all analyses in this chapter 

involve comparisons of household survey to administrative records data, the sample is further 

restricted to only those students for whom data is available from both sources. This reduces the 

sample size to 2,139 for analyses related to the NSLP and to 1,840 for analyses related to the 

SBP. As in the preceding chapters, all analyses presented here are weighted to account for 

oversampling and nonresponse, and the estimation of standard errors accounts for the multistage, 

clustered sample design in the APEC study. 

Aggregate Participation Rates. To explore the effect that using parent-reported data for a 

short time period has on estimates of aggregate participation rates for a longer period, we 

compute the aggregate participation rates using each of the four measures of participation 

described above (parent reports for a day, parent reports for a week, administrative records for a 

month, and administrative records for a year), then compare those based on parent reports to 

those based on administrative records data. We examine both the distribution (to see, for 
70 

example, what proportion of students never participated in the NSLP and SBP and what 

proportion almost always did) and the mean percentage of school days a student participated 

during the relevant time period for each data source. 

Participation of Individual Students. In comparisons of aggregate rates, under-reports by 

some parents might offset over-reports by others. To determine how well individual parents’ 

reports for a given day or week match their children’s participation for the month or year, we 

compare the parent-reported and actual participation rates for each individual student, then create 

a variable indicating how much the parent-reported measure overestimated or underestimated 

participation. 

In addition, comparisons of the participation rate measures for individual students enable us 

to explore whether the parent-reported short-term measures are closer to the longer-term 

administrative records measures for some subgroups than for others. To do this, we first conduct 

univariate analyses, examining how well the different participation measures match for 

individuals within particular subgroups, defined by student or school characteristics. We then run 

ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions in which the dependent variable is the number of 

percentage points difference between the measures. Independent variables include student 

demographic and socioeconomic characteristics and characteristics of the schools and meal 

programs. 

Factors Associated with Participation. To examine the effect that using different 

participation measures would have on which school and student characteristics are found to be 

associated with participation in the NSLP and SBP, we run versions of the main regression 

model presented in Chapter II using each of our parent-reported participation measures as the 

dependent variable. We then compare those results to the results from similar regressions that 

used measures of participation based on administrative records data as the dependent variable. 
71 

C. COMPARISONS OF ESTIMATES BASED ON PARENT REPORTS TO 

AGGREGATE ACTUAL PARTICIPATION RATES 

This section presents findings related to comparisons of aggregate participation rates. We 

first compare estimated NSLP and SBP participation rates based on parent reports for a day and 

for a week to monthly rates based on administrative records, then we compare those same 

estimates to annual participation rates. 

1. Monthly Rates 

Parent reports for a day or week yield higher estimates of the number of usual participants in 

the NSLP and SBP than do the administrative records for the month. For example, administrative 

records data indicate that 64 percent of students certified to receive free and reduced-price meals 

ate a school lunch almost every day (that is, more than 80 percent of school days) during the 

month for which parents reported on their children’s participation, while parents reported that 75 

percent ate a school lunch almost every day during a week and 78 percent ate a school lunch on 

the prior day (Table IV.1). The difference is even greater for the SBP—parent reports indicate 

that 43 percent of certified students had a school breakfast on the prior school day and 41 percent 

had a school breakfast almost every day during the prior week, while administrative records 

indicate that slightly fewer than 20 percent ate school breakfast almost every day during the 

month. It is possible that the higher parent-reported rates are due to parents mistakenly assuming 

that their children’s usual behavior happens every day of the week, and not remembering—or 

perhaps being unaware of—exceptions to the general pattern. 

At the aggregate level, as shown in Figure IV.1, although parent-reported measures 

consistently yield at least somewhat higher estimates of mean participation rates than 
77.82

42.89

88.79

74.65

69.81

0

20406080

100

NSLP 

Parent-reported data for a day Parent-reported data Administrative records data for the month Administrative record

FIGURE IV.1 

COMPARISON OF AGGREGATE NSLP AND SBP PARTICIPATION RATES 

STUDENTS BASED ON PARENT REPORTS AND ADMINISTRATI

Source: APEC study data. Note: All figures are weighted. 

Mean Percentage of School Days Participated

72
73 

 

administrative records indicate, reports for a single day are closer to the actual monthly rates than 

are parent reports for an entire week. According to administrative records data, the average 

NSLP participation rate among certified student is 75 percent during the month covered by 

parent reports. At 78 percent, the estimated participation rate based on parent reports for a day is 

only slightly higher, while the estimated rate based on parent reports for a week is considerably 

higher, at 89 percent. The average SBP participation rate based on administrative records data for 

the month is 36 percent, while the estimate based on parent reports for a week is 53 percent and 

the estimate based on a day is 43 percent. 

2. Annual Rates 

Aggregate annual NSLP and SBP participation rates are somewhat lower than those rates for 

the month covered by the parent survey.10 Thus, because parent reports tend to overestimate 

monthly participation rates, they overestimate participation rates for the year by a larger amount. 

For example, the annual NSLP participation rate based on administrative records for students 

certified to receive free and reduced-price meals is 70 percent overall, compared to 75 percent 

for the month based on administrative records, 89 percent based on parent reports for a week, 

and 78 percent based on parent reports for a day (Figure IV.1). Administrative records data 

indicate an average annual SBP participation rate of 33 percent, compared to a monthly rate of 

36 percent, and parent-reported estimates of 53 percent based on a week and 43 percent based on 

a single day. 

The differences are even greater when examining usual participation rather than mean 

participation rates (Table IV.1). Administrative records data indicate that 46 percent of certified 

10 As noted in Section A, the difference between the month and year measures is merely an artifact of the 

APEC data, because participation coincidentally tended to be higher during the month in which a parent was 

surveyed. 
74 

students had a school lunch almost every day over the course of the year, while 64 percent did so 

during the target month. Parent reports suggest that 75 percent had a school lunch almost every 

day during the target week, and 78 percent had a school lunch on the prior day. For breakfast, the 

annual data indicate 11 percent of students participated in the SBP almost every day, while the 

monthly data show 19 percent did, and estimates from parent reports suggest 41 percent 

participated almost every day during the target week and 43 percent did on the prior day. This 

progression is not surprising, because longer time periods allow more opportunity for variation in 

participation.

D. COMPARISONS OF ESTIMATES BASED ON PARENT REPORTS TO ACTUAL 

PARTICIPATION FOR INDIVIDUAL STUDENTS 

The previous section focused on aggregated participation data; this section presents findings 

related to how well measures based on parent reports for a day or week capture usual annual or 

monthly participation at the individual level, including how the similarity of the measures varies 

by student and household characteristics. Understanding this issue is important for researchers 

conducting individual-level analyses that involve participation, such as exploring child or family 

characteristics associated with participation. As noted above, because each of the comparisons 

we make involves differences in both data source (parent report or administrative records) and 

time period (day, week, month, or year), we are assessing the strength of a particular parentreported participation measure as a proxy for actual participation over a longer time period, not 

simply the ability of parents to report without error. 

1. Key Overall Findings 

Individual-level comparisons, like those of aggregate participation rates, show sizeable 

differences between parent-reported measures for short periods and actual participation over 

longer periods. As shown in Figure IV.2, measures that cover more similar time periods are 
29.89

31.83

20.63

33.65 

25.23

0

1020304050

NSLP 

Monthly rate compared to parent report for a day Monthly rate compareAnnual rate compared to parent report for a day Annual rate compared 

FIGURE IV.2 

INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MONTHLY AND ANNUAL NS

RATES FOR CERTIFIED STUDENTS, AND ESTIMATES BASED ON PAREN

CHILDREN’S PARTICIPATION FOR A TARGET DAY AND 

Mean Percentage Point Difference

Source: APEC study data. Note: All figures are weighted. 

75
76 

found to be closer to each other: individual-level estimates based on parent-reported data for a 

week are closer to administrative records measures for the month or year than are estimates 

based on parent reports for a single day, and administrative records for the month are closer to 

parent-reported data for a day or week than are the entire year’s data. For example, comparisons 

of parent reports to administrative records for individuals found that, on average, rates based on 

parent reports for a week differ from their certified child’s NSLP participation rate during the 

month by 21 percentage points, while parent reports for a day differ from their child’s annual 

participation rate by an average of 34 percentage points. Individual comparisons of parent reports 

for a day to actual monthly participation and of parent reports for a week to actual annual 

participation yielded mean differences in between these two extremes. 

It might seem intuitive that comparisons of measures based on more-similar time periods 

would show more-similar results. However, this intuition did not always hold true when 

examining measures of aggregate participation rates. For example, although Figure IV.2 shows 

that parent reports for a week provide a better estimate (compared to reports for a single day) of 

their child’s usual participation during the month, Section C noted that parent reports for a day 

are a better indicator of aggregate participation rates for the month. This apparent inconsistency 

is due to the fact that the measure based on a single day includes a much larger proportion of 

extreme underestimates—that is, cases in which the student participated almost every day during 

the month, but is not reported by his or her parent to have participated on the specific day asked 

about in the survey and thus has an estimated participation rate of zero percent by that measure. 

Because the prevalence of extreme overestimates is similar in the day and week measures, these 

extreme underestimates outweigh the overestimates in the day measure to result in a lower 

overall estimate of the participation rate, which is thus closer to the actual participation rate. 
77 

However, the fact that the weekly measure comes closer than the daily measure to matching 

the monthly measure of individual participation does not necessarily imply that weekly reports 

are better measures of participation for the relevant week than the daily reports are for the 

relevant day. As explained previously, the finding might reflect differences in actual 

participation during the time periods used for each measure, rather than reporting error by 

parents. It is perhaps not surprising that a measure based on data for a week comes closer to a 

monthly measure than a measure based on a single day does, because the one-day measure 

cannot capture any variation in participation over time. 

Each type of comparison indicates that parent reports for a day or week yield estimates that 

are closer to actual participation over longer time periods for the SBP than for the NSLP. 

However, the patterns of relative similarity across measures are similar for both school meal 

programs. Parent reports for a week provide estimates of their certified child’s SBP participation 

rate that differ from the child’s actual participation rate for the month by an average of 28 

percentage points, and parent reports for a day differ from actual monthly participation by 32 

percentage points (Figure IV.2). Parents reported SBP participation rates for a week that differ 

by 31 percentage points from their child’s actual participation rate for the year, and reports for a 

day differ from the annual rate by 34 percentage points, on average. 

Overestimates are considerably more common than underestimates in both the NSLP and 

the SBP (Table IV.2). For example, 40 percent of parent reports for a week overestimate their 

certified child’s annual NSLP participation by more than 20 percentage points, while only 6 

percent underestimate it by that margin. Parent reports for a day overestimate annual NSLP 

participation for 36 percent of children and underestimate it for 19 percent. For the SBP, parent 

reports for a week overestimate their child’s participation for the year in 43 percent of cases and 
78

TABLE IV.2 

INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MONTHLY AND ANNUAL NSLP AND SBP 

PARTICIPATION RATES FOR FREE AND REDUCED-PRICE CERTIFIED STUDENTS, AND 

 ESTIMATES BASED ON PARENTS’ REPORTS OF THEIR CHILDREN’S PARTICIPATION 

FOR A TARGET DAY AND WEEK 

Estimate of Monthly 

Participation Rate 

Estimate of Annual 

Participation Rate 

Based on 

Parent 

Report for 

Target Day 

Based on 

Parent 

Report for 

Target Week 

Based on 

Parent 

Report for 

Target Day 

Based on 

Parent 

Report for 

Target Week 

NSLP 

Mean absolute value of percentage point 

difference between estimate and actual 

participation rate 

29.89 

(2.05) 

20.63 

(2.16) 

33.65 

(1.37) 

25.23 

(1.10) 

Overestimates 25.76 

(2.76) 

25.23 

(2.88) 

26.77 

(1.48) 

25.81 

(1.34) 

Underestimates 71.87 

(2.41) 

21.69 

(2.17) 

60.76 

(2.30) 

23.09 

(1.64) 

Percentage of parent reports that: 

Overestimate monthly participation rate: 

By more than 60 percentage points 7.92 

(2.17) 

8.55 

(2.61) 

7.72 

(1.02) 

7.02 

(1.04) 

By 21 to 60 percentage points 15.13 

(1.36) 

15.85 

(1.09) 

28.57 

(2.49) 

33.04 

(3.27) 

Within 20 percentage points 59.86 

(2.56) 

70.62 

(2.46) 

44.75 

(3.13) 

54.16 

(3.15) 

Underestimate monthly participation rate: 

By 21 to 60 percentage points 3.25 

(0.54) 

4.04 

(0.57) 

6.08 

(1.03) 

4.57 

(0.72) 

By more than 60 percentage points 13.84 

(2.13) 

0.94 

(0.36) 

12.89 

(1.58) 

1.22 

(0.29) 

SBP 

Mean absolute value of percentage point 

difference between estimate and actual 

participation rate 

31.83 

(1.17) 

28.31 

(1.33) 

34.33 

(0.99) 

31.31 

(1.18) 

Overestimates 48.23 

(2.60) 

43.59 

(2.19) 

51.06 

(2.43) 

45.65 

(1.86) 

Underestimates 42.86 

(2.15) 

27.31 

(1.80) 

29.80 

(1.78) 

18.48 

(1.32) 

Percentage of parent reports that: 

Overestimate annual participation rate: 

By more than 60 percentage points 15.13 

(1.37) 

16.24 

(1.61) 

16.80 

(1.29) 

17.12 

(1.48) 

By 21 to 60 percentage points 12.68 

(1.33) 

19.52 

(1.70) 

17.89 

(1.61) 

25.48 

(1.75) 

Within 20 percentage points 53.32 

(1.61) 

56.14 

(1.96) 

42.72 

(1.75) 

46.71 

(2.18) 
TABLE IV.2 (continued)

79 

Estimate of Monthly 

Participation Rate 

 Estimate of Annual 

Participation Rate 

Based on 

Parent 

Report for 

Target Day 

Based on 

Parent 

Report for 

Target Week 

Based on 

Parent 

Report for 

Target Day 

Based on 

Parent 

Report for 

Target Week 

Underestimate annual participation rate: 

By 21 to 60 percentage points 9.19 

(1.12) 

5.44 

(0.79) 

15.46 

(2.18) 

9.11 

(1.38) 

By more than 60 percentage points 9.69 

(1.83) 

2.67 

(0.61) 

7.13 

(1.03) 

1.58 

(0.43) 

Source: APEC study data. 

Note: All figures are weighted. Standard errors, presented in parentheses, account for clustering in the survey 

design. 

APEC = Access, Participation, Eligibility, and Certification; NSLP = National School Lunch Program; SBP = 

School Breakfast Program. 
80 

underestimate their participation in 11 percent of cases, and parent reports for a day are 

overestimates for 35 percent of cases and underestimates for 23 percent. 

2. Key Subgroup Findings 

How well parent-reported measures of participation for a day or week capture usual annual 

or monthly participation can vary for different subgroups of students. In this subsection, we 

present findings from both univariate and multivariate analyses. Appendix D includes additional 

results of univariate analyses of individual-level data for subgroups. 

Because our measures combine differences between data sources and differences in time 

periods, our parent-reported measures might be found to be better estimates of participation for 

subgroups that participate more consistently. This should not be interpreted to imply that parents 

in those subgroups are necessarily more often correct about their child’s participation during the 

specific time period about which they are reporting; rather, it implies that the measure as a whole 

comes closer to actual participation over a longer period for those subgroups. 

Univariate analyses suggest that measures based on parent reports for a day or week provide 

better estimates of NSLP participation over a longer time period for some subgroups while 

providing better estimates of SBP participation for different subgroups. For example, parent 

reports on NSLP participation for a week are closer to their certified child’s actual participation 

for the year for schools serving younger students (Figure IV.3). In particular, parents of high 

school students reported information for a week that differed from their child’s annual NSLP 

participation rate by 39 percentage points, on average. In comparison, parent reports for a week 

differed from actual annual participation rates by an average of 29 percentage points for middle 
21.48

31.08

28.89

38.59

0

1020304050

NSLP 

Elementary school Middle school High scho

FIGURE IV.3 

INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ANNUAL NSLP AND SBP P

CERTIFIED STUDENTS, AND ESTIMATES BASED ON PARENTS’ REPORT

PARTICIPATION FOR A TARGET WEEK, BY SCHOOL 

Mean Percentage Point Difference

Source: APEC study data. Note: All figures are weighted. 

81
82 

 

school students and 21 percentage points for elementary school students.11 Besides schools 

serving younger children, parent reports of their child’s NSLP participation for a week are also 

better estimates of annual participation for students in smaller schools (see Table D.4 in 

Appendix D). 

For the SBP, univariate analyses indicate that parent reports for a week provide better 

estimates of their child’s annual participation for those certified to receive reduced-price meals 

(compared to free meals) and for those in schools in which fewer than half of all students are 

certified to receive either free or reduced-price meals (see Table D.4). Participation in the SBP 

tends to be lowest among these groups, and parent reports on a week’s SBP participation are 

closest to actual annual participation for those who never have a school breakfast. 

Multivariate analyses also indicate that measures of certified children’s NSLP participation 

based on parent reports for a week provide estimates closer to actual annual participation in 

schools serving younger students. In particular, parent reports for middle school students differ 

from annual participation rates by 7 percentage points more (controlling for other differences) 

than do parent reports for elementary school students, and parent reports for high school students 

differ by 10 percentage points more (Table IV.3). In schools that use electronic point-of-sale 

(POS) technology, parents report weekly participation rates that are 13 percentage points closer 

to annual participation than in other schools. One possible explanation for this finding is that 

parents in schools with POS technology pay in advance for meals and might be able to view POS 

data for their child online or receive other updates of participation; thus, they might have more 

information about how often their child participates than do parents in other schools. In addition, 

11 One possible explanation for this finding is that school cafeterias serving students in higher grades often 

offer more choices at lunch, including à la carte items, and parents might not be able to differentiate between those 

foods obtained at school and reimbursable NSLP meals. Older students might also have more autonomy in their 

school meal participation decision, so their parents do not know what they have for lunch. 
83 

FACTORS ASSOCIATED W ES OF STUDENT-LEVEL 

NSLP AND SBP PARTICIPA T-REPORTS FOR A WEEK 

AND ACTUAL ANNUAL PARTICIPATION 

(Percentages of Eating Occasions) 

TABLE IV.3 

ITH THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEASUR

TION RATES BASED ON PAREN

NSLP SBP

Student Characteristics 

Male 0.63 

(1 71) 

1.02 

. (3 27) .

African American or Hispanic 2 2 

Fa s 

Pa

hool degree 

 Member 

1 2 

A School Meals 

St ith School Meal Taste 

-1.70 

(

-2 0 

Sc istics 

Sc

l 

udent Body Certified for Free/Reduced-Price Meals 

En

-1 * 

School Meal Program Implementation Characteristics 

Uses Direct Certification -0.19 0.55 

 (2.88) (4.97) 

.80

(2.66) 

.41

(2.71) 

mily Characteristic

rental Educational Attainment 

High school degree -1.25 -0.73 

(1.69) (2.55) 

More than high sc -1.07 1.11 

Household Income 

(1.83) (2.86)

-0.21 

( 

0.51 

Employed Household

0.50) (0.78) 

-0.01 

( 

-2.57 

( 

umber of Children 

1.74) 4.39)

N 0.17 

(0 55) 

-1.82**

. (0 81) .

Experienced Food Insecurity Outcome .22 .40

(1.55) (1.87) 

ttitudes Toward

udent’s Satisfaction w

Very satisfied -0.51 

(2 48) 

3.53 

(3 50) 

satisfied 

. .

Somewhat 

2.41) 

.5

(2.91) 

hool Character

hool Type 

Middle schoo 6.58** -0.25 

(2.81) (3.01) 

High school 10.48* 

(5 79) 

3.27 

(3 88) 

Pe

. .

rcentage of St 0.06 0.07 

(0.06) 0.11 

rollment 

801 to 1,200 0.45 -9.50***

(3.07) (2.81) 

Greater than 1,200 2.32 0.37*

(6.00) (4.30) 

Located in Urban Area 1.52 4.39 

(2.80) (4.09) 
TABLE IV.3 (continued)

84 

NSLP SBP 

Uses Electronic Point-of-Sale Technology -13.01** 1.02 

(5.36) (4.44) 

Constant 22.98*** 

(7.39) 

17.84* 

(9.33) 

Sample Size 2,029 1,773 

Source: APEC study data. 

Notes: Figures are coefficient estimates from OLS regressions in which the dependent variable is the difference 

between measures of participation based on parent reports and on actual annual participation based on 

administrative records. Both participation rates are expressed as the percentage of meals received per eating 

occasion. All figures are weighted. Standard errors, presented in parentheses, account for clustering in the 

survey design. 

 *Significantly different from zero at the .10 level, two-tailed test. 

 **Significantly different from zero at the .05 level, two-tailed test. 

***Significantly different from zero at the .01 level, two-tailed test. 

APEC = Access, Participation, Eligibility, and Certification; NSLP = National School Lunch Program; OLS = 

ordinary least squares; SBP = School Breakfast Program.
85 

 

when a parent puts money into a POS account directly, children cannot spend the money 

elsewhere.12 Of course, these factors would not affect those certified to receive free meals. 

Multivariate analyses of SBP participation found that parents who have more children in 

their household tend to provide reports for a week that more closely match annual rates of SBP 

participation than do parents with fewer children, controlling for other differences. In addition, 

parents whose children attend larger schools report a week’s SBP participation that is closer to 

their children’s actual annual participation than those at smaller schools. 

E. FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH PARTICIPATION 

Given the concerns about how well parent-reported NSLP and SBP participation data for a 

day or week estimate actual participation for a longer time period, relying on measures based on 

parent reports on a short time period to explore factors associated with participation over a 

longer period could potentially lead researchers to miss some interesting relationships, or to find 

spurious ones. This section summarizes key findings about how the student and institutional 

characteristics found to be associated with participation differ depending on which measure of 

participation is used. Additional details regarding factors associated with parent-reported and 

actual participation can be found in Appendix E. Because the measures of participation differ 

both in terms of data source and time period, differences in the factors associated with each 

measure could be due to either the time period or the data source. 

Comparing the results of multivariate analyses using different measures of participation 

yields somewhat mixed results. Students’ satisfaction with school meals is found to be positively 

associated with actual participation in the NSLP and SBP and with both measures of 

participation based on parent reports. For example, according to parent reports for a week, 

12 In some schools, children might be able to spend these funds on à la carte foods sold in the school cafeteria. 
86 

certified students who are very satisfied with the taste of school meals are 16 percentage points 

more likely to obtain an NSLP lunch than those who are not satisfied; according to 

administrative records for the year, they are 8 percentage points more likely to obtain a school 

lunch. School level also is associated with the administrative records and both parent-reported 

measures of participation in the NSLP, and with the administrative records and the parentreported measure of participation based on a day—but not parent reports for a week—for the 

SBP. 

However, several other factors found to be associated with actual participation are not 

associated with parent reports, and vice versa. For example, food insecurity outcomes (such as 

using a food pantry or a public food assistance program) are found to be positively associated 

with one measure of parent-reported participation in the NSLP and SBP, but not associated with 

the other parent-reported measure or with participation measures based on administrative data. 

Parent reports for a week indicate that students in households that have experienced food 

insecurity outcomes are 9 percentage points more likely to obtain an SBP breakfast than other 

students, but neither parent reports for a day nor administrative records for the year show a 

statistically significant association between food insecurity and SBP participation. 

Appendix E includes tables presenting the complete results of these regressions, along with 

additional discussion of which factors were found to be associated with both actual participation 

over the school year and parent-reported participation for shorter time periods, and which 

relationships were inconsistent across measures. 
87 

REFERENCES 

Akin, John S., David K. Guilkey, Barry M. Popkin, and James H. Wyckoff. “The Demand for 

School Lunches: An Analysis of Individual Participation in the School Lunch Program.” 

Journal of Human Resources, vol. 18, no. 2, spring 1983, pp. 213-230. 

Barnes, Roberta O. “Modeling Student Participation in School Nutrition Programs.” Washington, 

DC: The Urban Institute, 1988. 

Bernstein, Lawrence S., Joan E. McLaughlin, Mary Kay Crepinsek, and Lynn M. Daft. 

“Evaluation of the School Breakfast Program Pilot Project: Final Report.” Nutrition 

Assistance Program Report Series, No. CN-04-SBP. Washington, DC: USDA, FNS, 2004. 

Burghardt, John, Anne Gordon, Nancy Chapman, Philip Gleason, and Thomas Fraker. “The 

School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study: School Food Service, Meals Offered, and 

Dietary Intakes.” Final report submitted to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and 

Nutrition Service. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., October 1993. 

Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. “Program Data.” Available at 

[www.fns.usda.gov/pd/cnpmain.htm]. Accessed August 2008. 

Gleason, Philip. “Participation in the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast 

Program.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 61, no. 1 (S), January 1995, pp. 213s220s. 

Gleason, Philip, Lara Hulsey, and John Burghardt. “Evaluation of the National School Lunch 

Program Application/ Verification Pilot Projects: Volume III: Impacts on Participation.” 

Special Nutrition Program Report Series, No. CN-04-AV5. Alexandria, VA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition and 

Evaluation, 2004. Available at 

(http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/menu/published/CNP/FILES/NSLPPilotVolIII.pdf). 

Gleason, Philip, Tania Tasse, Kenneth Jackson, and Patricia Nemeth. “Direct Certification in the 

National School Lunch Program: Impacts on Program Access and Integrity.” Final report 

submitted to the USDA, ERS. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., October 

2003. 

Gleason, Philip, and Carol Suitor. “Children’s Diets in the Mid-1990s: Dietary Intake and Its 

Relationship with School Meal Participation.” Final report submitted to the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, 

January 2001. Available at 

(http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/Published/CNP/FILES/ChilDiet.pdf). 

Gordon, Anne, Mary Kay Fox, Melissa Clark, Renée Nogales, Elizabeth Condon, Philip 

Gleason, and Ankur Sarin. “School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study-III: Volume II: 
88 

Student Participation and Dietary Intakes.” Final report. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy 

Research, Inc., November 2007a. Available at 

(http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/Published/CNP/FILES/SNDAIII-Vol2.pdf) 

Gordon, Anne, John Hall, Eric Zeidman, Mary Kay Crepinsek, Melissa Clark, and Elizabeth 

Condon. “School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study-III: Volume III: Sampling and Data 

Collection.” Final report. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., November 

2007b. Available at (http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/Published/CNP/FILES/SNDAIIIVol3.pdf) 

Maurer, Kenneth. “The National Evaluation of School Nutrition Programs: Factors Affecting 

Student Participation.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 40, no. 2 (S), August 

1984, pp. 425-447. 

Newman, Constance, and Katherine Ralston. “Profiles of Participants in the National School 

Lunch Program: Data from Two National Surveys.” Economic Information Bulletin Number 

17. Alexandria, VA: USDA, ERS, August 2006. 

Ponza, Michael, Philip Gleason, Lara Hulsey, and Quinn Moore. “NSLP/SBP Access, 

Participation, Eligibility, and Certification Study: Erroneous Payments in the NSLP and SBP, 

Volume I: Study Findings.” Final report submitted to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition, and Evaluation. Princeton, NJ: 

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., October 2007a. 

Ponza, Michael, Philip Gleason, Eric Grau, John Hall, Lara Hulsey, and Quinn Moore. 

“NSLP/SBP Access, Participation, Eligibility, and Certification Study: Erroneous Payments 

in the NSLP and SBP, Volume II: Sampling and Data Analysis Appendices.” Final report 

submitted to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of 

Analysis, Nutrition, and Evaluation. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 

October 2007b. 
APPENDIX A 

SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES FOR THE ANALYSIS OF FACTORS RELATED TO 

SCHOOL MEAL PARTICIPATION

A.3 

This appendix presents supplemental tables for the analyses presented in Chapter II that 

assess factors related to school meal participation. Table A.1 provides mean student-level NSLP 

participation rates for different subgroups, by certification category. Table A.2 provides 

analogous information for student-level SBP participation rates. Tables A.3 and A.4 present 

school-level NSLP and SBP participation rates for different subgroups, by certification category. 

Relevant findings from these tables are discussed in Chapter II. 

 
A.4 

TABLE A.1 

STUDENT-LEVEL NSLP PARTICIPATION RATES BASED ON ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS, 

BY STUDENT MEAL PROGRAM CERTIFICATION CATEGORY 

(Meals Per Eating Occasion For Full School Year) 

 All Free and ReducedPrice Certified Free Certified Reduced-Price 

Certified 

Denied 

Applicant 

Overall 69.37 69.91 66.95 56.56 

(1.70) (1.75) (2.04) (4.02) 

Student Characteristics 

Gender 

Female 67.83 68.62 63.89 53.42 

 (2.14) (2.22) (2.91) (4.63) 

Male 70.77* 71.10 69.38 58.39 

 (1.60) (1.68) (2.30) (4.61) 

African American or Hispanic 

No 67.26 68.51 63.45 55.29 

 (1.94) (2.10) (2.60) (5.73) 

Yes 70.28 70.44 69.38* 57.51 

 (1.98) (2.00) (2.68) (4.51) 

Grade 

Pre-K or kindergarten 70.82 70.98 70.23 54.08 

 (3.41) (3.64) (4.55) (7.98) 

Grades 1 through 3 75.93 76.65* 72.15 68.15* 

 (1.42) (1.46) (2.39) (4.29) 

Grades 4 through 5 75.01 75.30 73.84 69.56** 

 (2.67) (2.93) (3.09) (4.67) 

Grades 6 through 8 70.50 70.75 69.12 52.98 

 (2.03) (1.99) (3.63) (4.41) 

Grades 9 through 12 47.69*** 47.75*** 47.47*** 27.79** 

 (4.70) (4.57) (6.04) (8.69) 

Family Characteristics 

Parental Educational Attainment 

No high school degree 67.92 68.48 63.36 54.24 

 (2.07) (2.14) (4.21) (7.48) 

High school degree 70.85* 71.81* 67.04 54.60 

 (1.62) (1.70) (2.36) (4.78) 

More than high school degree 68.60 68.45 69.08 59.37 

 (3.21) (3.66) (2.77) (5.04) 

In Poverty 

No 68.37 69.02 67.05 56.93 

 (2.04) (2.33) (2.05) (3.86) 

Yes 70.22 70.44 66.42 52.14 

 (1.78) (1.74) (5.73) (13.18) 

Monthly Household Income 

Less than $1,000 68.76 68.94 59.85 29.13 

 (1.85) (1.82) (11.11) (16.99) 

At least $1,000, less than $2,000 71.65** 72.00** 69.23 70.54** 

 (1.91) (1.97) (4.13) (6.27) 

At least $2,000, less than $3,000 66.92 68.31 63.56 64.21* 

 (2.44) (2.61) (3.01) (4.94) 

At least $3,000 72.07 73.67* 69.98 52.50 
TABLE A.1 (continued)

A.5 

All Free and ReducedPrice Certified Free Certified Reduced-Price 

Certified 

Denied 

Applicant 

 (2.67) (3.00) (3.29) (4.13) 

Employed Household Member 

No 64.23 64.63 53.05 48.52 

 (2.02) (1.94) (8.43) (5.39) 

Yes 71.12*** 72.17*** 67.62* 56.81 

 (1.76) (1.91) (2.01) (4.15) 

Receipt of TANF 

No 69.78 70.50 66.84 56.50 

 (1.66) (1.70) (2.06) (4.04) 

Yes 64.70 64.54* 87.61** 77.78*** 

 (3.58) (3.59) (7.34) (0.00) 

Receipt of Food Stamps 

No 69.19 70.03 66.96 56.65 

 (1.80) (1.90) (2.03) (4.16) 

Yes 69.64 69.69 63.69 53.52 

 (1.95) (1.95) (16.96) (6.40) 

Number of Children 

1 66.54 67.54 62.69 50.93 

 (2.60) (2.59) (3.54) (6.56) 

2 67.62 68.00 66.17 56.29 

 (1.87) (2.22) (2.52) (4.54) 

3 70.94** 71.68* 67.70 64.87* 

 (1.91) (1.94) (2.90) (4.34) 

4 or more 71.35** 71.31* 71.59** 46.13 

 (1.96) (2.03) (3.61) (11.28) 

Single Parent Household 

No 69.76 70.21 68.16 54.80 

 (1.91) (2.02) (2.12) (4.24) 

Yes 68.99 69.67 64.51 60.94 

 (1.82) (1.91) (3.07) (5.53) 

English Is Primary Language 

No 68.15 70.37 56.66 60.90 

 (2.46) (2.55) (3.18) (6.04) 

Yes 69.89 69.70 70.71*** 55.18 

 (1.72) (1.83) (2.12) (4.37) 

U.S. Citizen 

No 70.02 71.28 62.67 59.69 

 (2.70) (2.63) (4.23) (6.92) 

Yes 69.15 69.43 67.94 56.06 

 (1.66) (1.76) (2.14) (4.23) 

Attitudes Toward School Meals 

Student’s Satisfaction with School 

Meal Taste 

Very satisfied 72.90 73.37 70.78 64.59 

 (1.74) (1.87) (2.61) (4.58) 

Somewhat satisfied 69.84** 70.02** 69.03 61.76 

 (1.61) (1.67) (2.51) (5.16) 

Somewhat or very dissatisfied 60.64*** 62.20*** 52.90*** 37.45*** 

 (3.32) (3.43) (3.80) (5.58) 

Student’s Satisfaction with School 

Meal Portions 

 
TABLE A.1 (continued)

A.6 

All Free and ReducedPrice Certified Free Certified Reduced-Price 

Certified 

Denied 

Applicant 

Very satisfied 70.72 71.40 67.76 62.50 

 (1.75) (1.95) (2.55) (4.39) 

Somewhat satisfied 70.13 70.73 67.41 60.11 

 (1.80) (1.93) (3.39) (6.00) 

Somewhat or very dissatisfied 68.06 67.68 70.14 53.91 

 (2.50) (2.81) (3.57) (4.92) 

Student’s Overall Satisfaction with 

School Meal Quality 

 

Very satisfied 72.00 72.50 69.69 60.41 

 (1.69) (1.79) (2.76) (4.46) 

Somewhat satisfied 69.59 69.83 68.37 64.32 

 (1.96) (2.11) (2.30) (4.98) 

Somewhat or very dissatisfied 64.12*** 64.83*** 61.12 43.11** 

 (2.81) (2.90) (5.37) (7.06) 

Parent’s Satisfaction with School 

Meal Healthfulness 

 

Very satisfied 71.53 71.79 70.31 66.98 

 (1.50) (1.60) (2.27) (4.05) 

Somewhat satisfied 68.14** 68.52* 66.42 57.07* 

 (1.94) (2.19) (2.86) (5.43) 

Somewhat or very dissatisfied 68.90 69.95 64.51 42.36*** 

 (2.95) (3.24) (5.18) (5.30) 

Parent’s Overall Satisfaction with 

School Meal Quality 

 

Very satisfied 70.87 70.78 71.33 64.57 

 (1.65) (1.73) (2.32) (4.29) 

Somewhat satisfied 67.93 69.59 61.17*** 58.65 

 (2.20) (2.34) (2.85) (6.02) 

Somewhat or very dissatisfied 68.96 69.30 67.40 48.39** 

 (2.58) (2.89) (5.44) (5.75) 

Food Insecurity 

Used a Food Pantry or Food Bank 

Last Summer 

No 69.69 70.31 66.97 57.13 

 (1.75) (1.81) (1.97) (4.06) 

Yes 66.47 66.44* 66.67 46.02 

 (2.19) (2.28) (7.39) (9.09) 

Asked Relatives for Help with Food 

Last Summer 

 

No 69.40 70.07 66.36 56.95 

 (1.76) (1.83) (2.09) (4.17) 

Yes 69.16 68.71 71.24 53.34 

 (1.93) (2.08) (3.68) (11.54) 

Bought Less-Expensive Types of 

Food Last Summer 

 

No 69.92 70.49 67.63 56.75 

 (1.92) (2.00) (2.30) (4.76) 

Yes 68.63 69.18 65.64 56.26 

 (1.81) (1.85) (3.23) (5.19) 

Used Summer Food Service 

Program Last Summer 

 
TABLE A.1 (continued)

A.7 

All Free and ReducedPrice Certified Free Certified Reduced-Price 

Certified 

Denied 

Applicant 

No 68.95 69.32 67.34 55.90 

 (1.79) (1.87) (2.07) (4.14) 

Yes 71.85 73.04* 63.77 60.54 

 (2.11) (2.16) (4.66) (8.68) 

Used Public Food Assistance 

Programs Last Summer 

 

No 67.52 67.62 67.29 56.35 

 (2.34) (2.54) (2.58) (4.87) 

Yes 70.15 70.69 66.54 56.76 

 (1.63) (1.68) (2.82) (4.85) 

Any Food Insecurity Outcome 

No 69.21 69.98 67.10 56.70 

 (1.88) (2.01) (2.02) (4.17) 

Yes 69.80 69.91 57.84 52.57 

 (1.73) (1.73) (15.85) (5.02) 

School Characteristics 

School Type 

Elementary school 74.75 75.09 73.08 66.50 

 (1.54) (1.60) (2.02) (3.59) 

Middle school 68.49** 69.09** 65.94* 43.22*** 

 (2.66) (2.71) (3.69) (5.33) 

High school 44.04*** 44.13*** 43.71*** 31.87*** 

 (4.50) (4.31) (6.82) (9.09) 

Private School 

No 69.24 69.79 66.71 56.77 

 (1.72) (1.77) (2.09) (4.07) 

Yes 79.12*** 83.72*** 74.55** 50.85 

 (1.74) (2.08) (2.68) (10.44) 

Enrollment 

400 or fewer 72.78 72.80 72.70 54.69 

 (3.43) (3.63) (4.21) (7.91) 

401 to 800 73.15 73.44 71.47 62.52 

 (1.67) (1.77) (2.21) (4.62) 

801 to 1,200 69.52 71.14 62.51 64.11 

 (3.14) (2.90) (5.35) (4.97) 

Greater than 1,200 54.89*** 53.81*** 58.30* 31.22** 

 (6.03) (5.87) (6.54) (7.34) 

Percentage of Student Body 

Certified Free/Reduced-Price 

 

0 to 25 percent 61.41 65.12 49.82 40.85 

 (8.23) (8.25) (9.88) (10.51) 

26 to 50 percent 66.53 66.06 68.30* 53.40 

 (3.54) (3.63) (4.11) (7.14) 

51 to 75 percent 68.99 69.64 66.44 57.79 

 (2.08) (2.29) (2.35) (4.99) 

76 to 100 percent 72.93 73.27 70.68* 60.65 

 (2.73) (2.77) (4.10) (7.48) 
TABLE A.1 (continued)

A.8 

All Free and ReducedPrice Certified Free Certified Reduced-Price 

Certified 

Denied 

Applicant 

Percentage of Student Body 

Certified Free 

 

0 to 25 percent 70.10 70.85 67.69 57.20 

 (3.13) (3.18) (4.52) (6.67) 

26 to 50 percent 63.81 64.17 62.44 49.16 

 (3.18) (3.32) (3.48) (5.86) 

51 to 75 percent 73.66 74.11 71.36 67.07 

 (2.33) (2.65) (3.37) (4.66) 

76 to 100 percent 72.24 72.47 70.66 58.35 

 (3.24) (3.20) (4.96) (9.37) 

Percentage of Student Body 

Certified Reduced-Price 

 

0 to 25 percent 69.25 69.81 66.67 55.53 

 (1.70) (1.75) (2.04) (3.93) 

26 to 50 percent 93.70*** 95.21*** 91.44*** 96.58*** 

 (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) 

Region 

Northeast 69.36 70.51 64.46 49.40 

 (3.09) (3.29) (4.07) (8.59) 

Southeast 75.41 76.06 72.48 60.11 

 (3.10) (3.19) (3.72) (7.01) 

Central 68.57 68.61 68.34 65.02 

 (2.51) (2.44) (3.51) (5.23) 

West 62.21 62.73 59.94 50.22 

 (4.10) (4.34) (4.80) (11.68) 

Urban 

No 69.69 70.23 67.60 57.18 

 (2.04) (2.22) (2.23) (4.55) 

Yes 68.91 69.47 65.65 55.19 

 (2.95) (2.88) (4.24) (7.22) 

Uses Food Management Company 

No 70.11 70.75 67.27 58.27 

 (1.94) (1.99) (2.32) (4.63) 

Yes 65.75 65.86 65.21 47.62* 

 (2.91) (3.05) (3.79) (3.87) 

School Meal Program 

Implementation Characteristics 

 

Uses Direct Certification 

No 73.25 75.96 62.97 64.60 

 (2.89) (2.23) (6.36) (3.02) 

Yes 69.02 69.37** 67.38 55.81 

 (1.82) (1.87) (2.12) (4.38) 

Direct Certification Method 

None 73.25 75.96 62.97 64.60 

 (2.89) (2.23) (6.36) (3.02) 

Nonmatching, active 65.88* 66.27** 63.83 56.70 

 (3.20) (3.32) (5.23) (8.31) 

District-level matching, passive 70.71 71.40 66.59 52.68* 

 (2.79) (2.72) (3.99) (6.22) 
TABLE A.1 (continued)

A.9 

All Free and ReducedPrice Certified Free Certified Reduced-Price 

Certified 

Denied 

Applicant 

State-level matching, passive 66.34 66.30** 66.46 50.79 

 (3.50) (3.65) (3.65) (8.37) 

Other methods 70.86 70.99 70.36 68.91 

 (4.48) (4.92) (3.23) (6.01) 

Provision 2 or 3 Base Year 

No 69.63 70.23 66.88 55.65 

 (1.75) (1.80) (2.12) (4.01) 

Yes 64.13 61.67 73.09*** 72.81*** 

 (4.00) (5.72) (0.56) (3.37) 

Uses Electronic POS Technology 

No 59.97 58.87 64.60 28.26 

 (5.63) (6.32) (5.45) (11.85) 

Yes 69.90* 70.51* 67.10 58.65** 

 (1.70) (1.73) (2.14) (3.76) 

Sample Size 1,966 1,632 334 218 

Source: APEC study data. 

Notes: All figures are weighted. Standard errors, presented in parentheses, account for clustering in the survey design. 

Denied applicants are students who applied for and were denied school meal benefits; this sample is not 

generalizable to all students not certified for school meal benefits. 

 *Significantly different from zero at the .10 level, two-tailed test. Italics indicate the reference group for significance 

tests. 

 **Significantly different from zero at the .05 level, two-tailed test. 

***Significantly different from zero at the .01 level, two-tailed test. 

APEC = Access, Participation, Eligibility, and Certification; NSLP = National School Lunch Program; 

POS = Point of Sale; TANF = Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. 
A.10 

TABLE A.2 

STUDENT-LEVEL SBP PARTICIPATION RATES BASED ON ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS, BY STUDENT 

MEAL PROGRAM CERTIFICATION CATEGORY 

(Meals Per Eating Occasion For Full School Year) 

All Free and 

Reduced-Price 

Certified Free Certified 

Reduced-Price 

Certified 

Denied 

Applicant 

Overall 32.12 33.43 26.05 18.25 

(1.83) (1.94) (2.32) (3.52) 

Student Characteristics 

Gender 

Female 29.87 30.78 25.22 16.92 

(2.15) (2.17) (3.55) (3.14) 

Male 34.11*** 35.87*** 26.68 19.01 

(1.88) (2.05) (2.45) (4.75) 

African American or Hispanic 

No 30.63 31.60 27.56 12.85 

(2.35) (2.57) (3.57) (2.29) 

Yes 32.77 34.19 24.71 22.41 

(2.28) (2.27) (3.42) (5.77) 

Grade 

Pre-K or kindergarten 32.72 33.93 28.17 17.12 

(3.29) (3.23) (6.32) (6.30) 

Grades 1 through 3 38.71** 40.83** 27.61 28.24* 

(2.51) (2.63) (3.16) (5.75) 

Grades 4 through 5 36.47 38.37 28.26 23.98 

(3.07) (3.25) (5.14) (6.69) 

Grades 6 through 8 27.10 27.78 23.45 9.52 

(3.35) (3.36) (4.39) (2.47) 

Grades 9 through 12 19.01*** 18.47*** 21.01 6.12 

(1.93) (1.64) (5.80) (3.19) 

Family Characteristics 

Parental Educational Attainment 

No high school degree 34.53 35.59 25.76 19.04 

(2.46) (2.52) (5.01) (6.16) 

High school degree 31.54 32.18 29.00 19.45 

(1.88) (1.97) (2.88) (6.02) 

More than high school degree 29.93* 32.54 21.30 16.70 

(2.54) (2.90) (3.41) (3.25) 

In Poverty 

No 30.14 32.03 26.21 19.07 

(1.73) (1.91) (2.29) (3.65) 

Yes 33.82** 34.29 25.22 7.52*** 

(2.26) (2.20) (6.15) (1.99) 

Monthly Household Income 

Less than $1,000 34.52 34.77 20.79 2.74 

 (2.40) (2.35) (10.46) (0.49) 

At least $1,000, less than 31.93 33.45 21.56 20.84* 

$2,000 (2.60) (2.49) (4.87) (10.36) 
TABLE A.2 (continued)

A.11 

All Free and 

Reduced-Price 

Certified Free Certified 

Reduced-Price 

Certified 

Denied 

Applicant 

At least $2,000, less than 29.41** 30.17* 27.54 23.55*** 

$3,000 (1.92) (1.99) (3.39) (5.85) 

At least $3,000 33.88 37.91 28.47 16.07*** 

(2.64) (3.59) (2.96) (2.84) 

Employed Household Member 

No 32.97 33.41 20.31 10.33 

(2.24) (2.21) (5.94) (5.24) 

Yes 31.84 33.45 26.31 18.52 

(2.02) (2.19) (2.33) (3.61) 

Receipt of TANF 

No 32.22 33.75 25.80 18.30 

(1.88) (1.99) (2.24) (3.53) 

Yes 30.92 30.43 89.33*** 0.00*** 

(3.48) (3.33) (9.57) (0.00) 

Receipt of Food Stamps 

No 29.89 31.48 25.58 18.28 

(2.06) (2.35) (2.19) (3.64) 

Yes 36.43*** 36.25** 69.74*** 17.19 

 (1.99) (1.97) (16.68) (4.37) 

Number of Children 

1 25.58 27.19 19.42 19.91 

(2.43) (2.46) (5.07) (5.33) 

2 28.53 31.22 18.24 16.38 

(2.29) (2.49) (3.17) (4.55) 

3 35.47*** 34.76*** 38.60*** 21.36 

(2.09) (2.36) (3.49) (4.91) 

4 or more 36.12*** 37.53*** 25.76 13.98 

(2.51) (2.52) (5.74) (5.13) 

Single Parent Household 

No 31.38 32.84 26.10 16.08 

(2.16) (2.30) (2.75) (2.62) 

Yes 33.18 34.28 25.95 23.44 

(2.02) (2.07) (3.62) (8.05) 

English Is Primary Language 

No 28.30 29.89 19.90 12.44 

(3.25) (3.25) (4.86) (4.64) 

Yes 33.65 34.91 28.15 19.96 

(1.87) (1.97) (2.47) (4.05) 

U.S. Citizen 

No 28.52 30.21 18.77 9.38 

(2.86) (3.08) (4.23) (4.86) 

Yes 33.10* 34.35 27.69* 19.59* 

(1.89) (1.96) (2.55) (3.68) 
TABLE A.2 (continued)

A.12 

All Free and 

Reduced-Price 

Certified Free Certified 

Reduced-Price 

Certified 

Denied 

Applicant 

Attitudes Toward School Meals 

Student’s Satisfaction with 

School Meal Taste 

Very satisfied 34.23 36.60 23.35 23.52 

 (2.35) (2.65) (3.30) (4.96) 

Somewhat satisfied 32.90 33.56 29.88 17.66 

 (1.82) (1.81) (3.70) (5.34) 

Somewhat or very dissatisfied 25.53*** 26.03*** 23.20 11.23** 

 (2.87) (3.01) (5.12) (2.59) 

Student’s Satisfaction with 

School Meal Portions 

Very satisfied 33.54 35.45 24.82 22.52 

 (2.37) (2.62) (3.05) (4.14) 

Somewhat satisfied 30.66 31.97 24.77 19.64 

 (2.04) (2.03) (4.32) (5.27) 

Somewhat or very dissatisfied 32.47 32.10 34.41 14.90 

 (2.51) (2.52) (5.69) (5.39) 

Student’s Overall Satisfaction 

with School Meal Quality 

Very satisfied 33.97 35.90 24.64 22.84 

 (2.20) (2.47) (3.62) (4.11) 

Somewhat satisfied 32.45 33.69 26.17 18.45 

 (2.13) (2.09) (4.27) (6.97) 

Somewhat or very dissatisfied 26.87*** 26.29*** 29.14 12.15** 

 (2.33) (2.32) (6.31) (2.97) 

Parent’s Satisfaction with School 

Meal Healthfulness 

Very satisfied 34.71 36.38 26.28 23.43 

 (2.03) (2.16) (3.10) (4.92) 

Somewhat satisfied 30.77* 31.49** 27.35 19.42 

 (2.19) (2.16) (4.17) (5.99) 

Somewhat or very dissatisfied 26.49*** 27.63*** 22.10 9.00** 

 (2.59) (3.46) (5.78) (2.71) 

Parent’s Overall Satisfaction with 

School Meal Quality 

Very satisfied 32.45 33.75 25.79 22.86 

 (2.11) (2.27) (3.05) (3.99) 

Somewhat satisfied 32.77 34.61 25.37 18.57 

 (1.87) (1.75) (3.90) (5.98) 

Somewhat or very dissatisfied 30.53 30.27 31.65 12.41 

 (2.81) (3.41) (7.38) (5.18) 

Food Insecurity 

Used a Food Pantry or Food Bank 

Last Summer 

No 31.85 33.45 24.73 18.25 

 (1.91) (1.98) (2.32) (3.69) 

Yes 33.96 32.73 41.60** 18.17 

 (3.04) (2.97) (7.33) (7.23) 
TABLE A.2 (continued)

A.13 

All Free and 

Reduced-Price 

Certified Free Certified 

Reduced-Price 

Certified 

Denied 

Applicant 

Asked Relatives for Help with 

Food Last Summer 

No 31.98 33.71 23.90 18.53 

 (1.99) (2.09) (2.50) (3.84) 

Yes 33.30 31.69 40.07** 15.49 

 (2.91) (2.84) (6.54) (4.68) 

Bought Less-Expensive Types of 

Food Last Summer 

No 32.46 33.86 26.85 19.02 

 (2.03) (2.16) (2.75) (5.02) 

Yes 31.79 33.01 25.00 17.01 

 (2.08) (2.11) (3.43) (3.39) 

Used Summer Food Service 

Program Last Summer 

No 31.70 32.78 27.00 18.59 

 (1.90) (2.01) (2.46) (3.68) 

Yes 34.46 36.94 18.88 16.64 

 (3.33) (3.16) (4.98) (5.19) 

Used Public Food Assistance 

Programs Last Summer 

No 29.76 31.15 25.88 18.35 

 (2.11) (2.41) (2.22) (3.68) 

Yes 36.92*** 36.91** 38.23 15.77 

 (1.97) (1.96) (18.18) (4.89) 

Any Food Insecurity Outcome 

No 29.40 30.78 26.10 19.10 

 (2.38) (2.77) (2.81) (5.19) 

Yes 33.24** 34.31 26.11 17.25 

 (1.87) (1.92) (2.57) (3.06) 

School Characteristics 

School Type 

Elementary school 36.52 38.15 28.56 24.34 

 (2.29) (2.26) (3.25) (4.81) 

Middle school 26.09*** 26.71*** 23.62 5.92*** 

 (3.15) (3.56) (5.18) (2.11) 

High school 17.73*** 17.57*** 18.41* 4.55*** 

 (1.98) (2.01) (4.96) (2.61) 

Private School 

No 32.14 33.46 26.05 18.48 

 (1.88) (1.96) (2.35) (3.57) 

Yes 20.53*** 12.28*** 31.49* 0.00*** 

 (1.12) (0.65) (1.79) (0.00) 

Enrollment 

400 or fewer 40.25 40.97 37.47 27.40 

 (2.90) (3.25) (3.63) (5.98) 

401 to 800 34.35* 35.86 25.36** 20.83 

 (2.66) (2.65) (4.14) (5.72) 

801 to 1,200 30.15** 31.98* 22.10** 16.89 

 (3.31) (3.59) (4.43) (3.42) 
TABLE A.2 (continued)

A.14 

All Free and 

Reduced-Price 

Certified Free Certified 

Reduced-Price 

Certified 

Denied 

Applicant 

Greater than 1,200 21.50*** 21.26*** 22.26** 4.35*** 

(3.55) (3.97) (4.63) (2.04) 

Percentage of Student Body 

Certified Free/Reduced-Price 

0 to 25 percent 18.21 20.93 6.59 2.77 

(6.70) (7.54) (2.39) (2.57) 

26 to 50 percent 24.97 25.15 24.29*** 10.41** 

(2.21) (2.51) (3.83) (2.98) 

51 to 75 percent 35.03** 37.35** 25.90*** 20.31*** 

(2.73) (2.75) (3.56) (4.20) 

76 to 100 percent 37.80** 38.41** 33.48*** 27.64** 

(3.40) (3.27) (5.64) (9.50) 

Percentage of Student Body 

Certified Free 

0 to 25 percent 24.13 23.56 26.11 9.09 

(3.49) (3.61) (4.90) (3.93) 

26 to 50 percent 28.15 30.06 20.90 15.14 

(2.48) (2.83) (3.07) (3.40) 

51 to 75 percent 42.79*** 43.85*** 36.82 20.67* 

(3.27) (3.14) (5.53) (4.28) 

76 to 100 percent 34.47** 35.48** 27.50 31.18 

 (3.45) (3.39) (5.10) (12.75) 

Percentage of Student Body 

Certified Reduced-Price 

0 to 25 percent 31.84 33.20 25.56 16.07 

(1.83) (1.92) (2.24) (2.31) 

26 to 50 percent 82.33*** 93.61*** 65.41*** 93.84*** 

(0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) 

Region 

Northeast 32.24 33.23 27.78 28.18 

 (5.28) (5.21) (6.81) (11.92) 

Southeast 35.87 37.65 27.94 19.94 

(3.76) (4.20) (2.62) (3.58) 

Central 30.55 31.87 23.98 14.79 

(2.01) (2.29) (3.90) (3.51) 

West 29.98 31.04 25.46 12.59 

(4.80) (4.70) (5.69) (4.83) 

Urban 

No 33.83 34.73 30.24 19.79 

(2.69) (2.85) (2.68) (4.78) 

Yes 29.54 31.62 17.56*** 14.10 

(2.22) (2.42) (3.47) (1.35) 

Uses Food Management 

Company 

No 33.47 34.92 26.94 20.39 

(2.14) (2.20) (2.70) (4.05) 
TABLE A.2 (continued)

A.15 

All Free and 

Reduced-Price 

Certified Free Certified 

Reduced-Price 

Certified 

Denied 

Applicant 

Yes 25.44** 26.27** 21.15 7.52*** 

(2.82) (3.02) (3.86) (1.99) 

School Meal Program 

Implementation Characteristics 

Uses Direct Certification 

No 28.96 30.14 23.65 15.36 

(6.78) (7.19) (5.97) (5.03) 

Yes 32.41 33.74 26.28 18.53 

(1.94) (2.02) (2.47) (3.84) 

Direct Certification Method 

None 28.96 30.14 23.65 15.36 

(6.78) (7.19) (5.97) (5.04) 

Nonmatching, active 31.55 33.75 19.50 15.29 

(3.20) (3.28) (4.07) (3.71) 

District-level matching, 

passive 32.63 33.63 26.72 18.61 

(3.06) (3.05) (3.44) (2.90) 

State-level matching, passive 30.48 31.76 25.50 19.45 

(2.62) (3.01) (3.84) (9.39) 

Other methods 35.09 37.36 26.71 16.12 

 (10.74) (10.43) (11.44) (8.85) 

Provision 2 or 3 Base Year 

No 33.89 35.25 27.56 19.83 

(1.83) (1.93) (2.39) (3.81) 

Yes 18.61** 18.60*** 18.68 7.51** 

(5.57) (5.82) (4.91) (2.88) 

Uses Electronic POS Technology 

No 29.27 29.40 28.59 7.89 

(4.16) (4.19) (6.22) (4.08) 

Yes 32.30 33.70 25.90 19.13** 

(1.98) (2.06) (2.47) (3.75) 

Sample Size 1,789 1,491 298 197 

Source: APEC study data. 

Notes: All figures are weighted. Standard errors, presented in parentheses, account for clustering in the survey design. 

Denied applicants are students who applied for and were denied school meal benefits; this sample is not 

generalizable to all students not certified for school meal benefits. 

 *Significantly different from zero at the .10 level, two-tailed test. Italics indicate the reference group for significance 

tests. 

 **Significantly different from zero at the .05 level, two-tailed test. 

***Significantly different from zero at the .01 level, two-tailed test. 

APEC = Access, Participation, Eligibility, and Certification; POS = Point of Sale; SBP = School Breakfast Program; 

TANF = Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. 
A.16 

TABLE A.3 

SCHOOL-LEVEL NSLP PARTICIPATION RATES BASED ON SFA SURVEY DATA, 

BY STUDY MEAL PROGRAM CERTIFICATION CATEGORY 

All Students Free Certified 

Reduced-Price 

Certified Not Certified 

Overall 65.71 77.16 72.16 52.73 

(1.54) (1.43) (1.67) (1.68) 

School Characteristics 

School Type 

Elementary school 69.65 79.91 74.69 55.86 

 (2.07) (1.67) (2.59) (2.41) 

Middle school 66.14 78.56 77.65 53.82 

 (2.36) (2.21) (2.29) (3.18) 

High school 38.62*** 56.78*** 48.29*** 30.82*** 

 (6.27) (4.93) (6.14) (7.11) 

Private School 

No 66.68 76.50 72.71 53.34 

 (1.83) (1.66) (2.01) (2.17) 

Yes 57.33 84.81* 70.55 52.27 

 (6.17) (4.22) (4.24) (4.01) 

Enrollment 

400 or fewer 67.11 79.70 73.28 53.00 

 (2.85) (2.49) (2.96) (3.70) 

401 to 800 68.40 77.07 74.46 56.07 

 (2.41) (2.44) (2.36) (2.48) 

801 to 1,200 67.38 81.71 73.46 55.19 

 (3.47) (3.32) (4.18) (3.51) 

Greater than 1,200 37.37*** 56.57*** 49.00*** 25.06*** 

 (4.27) (3.15) (3.88) (3.95) 

Percentage of Student 

Body Certified 

Free/Reduced-Price 

0 to 25 percent 49.51 72.52 65.35 45.98 

 (3.67) (5.06) (3.90) (4.08) 

26 to 50 percent 61.58*** 77.13 75.04** 52.62 

 (2.70) (2.05) (2.66) (3.38) 

51 to 75 percent 67.74*** 77.24 71.27 52.27 

 (3.42) (2.85) (5.04) (4.10) 

76 to 100 percent 80.47*** 80.30 73.61* 58.53** 

 (1.44) (2.23) (3.15) (3.93) 

Percentage of Student 

Body Certified Free 

0 to 25 percent 56.92 76.33 69.80 50.89 

 (2.94) (3.63) (3.57) (3.39) 

26 to 50 percent 60.97 74.90 71.66 49.03 

 (3.17) (2.96) (3.24) (3.58) 

51 to 75 percent 75.84*** 81.91 77.28 57.31 

 (2.22) (2.48) (2.93) (4.17) 

76 to 100 percent 80.41*** 77.90 71.80 59.17 

 (1.60) (2.43) (3.61) (4.08) 
TABLE A.3 (continued)

A.17 

All Students Free Certified 

Reduced-Price 

Certified Not Certified 

Percentage of Student 

Body Certified ReducedPrice 

0 to 25 percent 66.24 77.49 73.91 53.74 

 (1.71) (1.59) (1.53) (2.02) 

26 to 50 percent 47.22 65.84 13.28*** 18.61*** 

 (11.38) (10.25) (6.43) (4.83) 

Region 

Northeast 60.76 76.04 69.62 48.26 

 (2.24) (3.05) (3.92) (3.26) 

Southeast 79.73*** 84.23** 83.11*** 67.24*** 

 (2.38) (2.23) (1.78) (3.63) 

Central 69.23** 78.91 73.29 57.39** 

 (3.05) (2.08) (3.23) (3.14) 

West 57.03 68.51 65.28 39.63 

 (4.71) (3.44) (5.02) (4.26) 

Urban 

No 63.73 74.99 74.26 54.33 

 (2.19) (2.09) (2.04) (2.56) 

Yes 68.30 80.00 69.29 50.65 

 (2.99) (2.23) (4.07) (3.44) 

Uses Food Management 

Company 

No 65.97 77.23 72.11 53.36 

 (2.09) (1.74) (2.42) (2.49) 

Yes 64.34 76.80 72.43 49.47 

 (1.82) (2.94) (4.32) (2.17) 

School Meal Program 

Implementation 

Characteristics 

Uses Direct Certification 

No 58.90 71.71 69.57 53.09 

 (2.18) (2.28) (2.43) (2.87) 

Yes 67.43*** 78.54** 72.80 52.64 

 (2.08) (1.77) (2.53) (2.55) 

Direct Certification 

Method 

None 58.90 71.71 69.57 53.09 

 (2.18) (2.28) (2.43) (2.88) 

Nonmatching, active 58.53 77.58 66.14 45.45 

 (3.85) (4.27) (8.03) (4.44) 

District-level matching, 

passive 76.66*** 82.96*** 79.26** 61.17* 

 (2.44) (2.60) (2.79) (3.42) 

State-level matching, 

passive 63.70 77.14 70.23 46.93 

 (3.50) (2.95) (4.09) (4.34) 

Other methods 60.34 69.11 70.65 45.30 

 (3.99) (2.64) (3.08) (5.90) 
TABLE A.3 (continued)

A.18 

All Students Free Certified 

Reduced-Price 

Certified Not Certified 

Provision 2 or 3 Base 

Year 

No 65.81 77.58 72.51 52.89 

 (1.81) (1.64) (2.15) (2.13) 

Yes 72.18 68.78* 67.28 55.35 

 (3.53) (4.90) (4.95) (13.31) 

Uses Electronic POS 

Technology 

No 60.14 79.73 67.29 46.05 

 (3.52) (3.69) (4.69) (4.05) 

Yes 68.08** 77.36 74.56 55.40** 

 (1.77) (1.56) (1.44) (2.16) 

Sample Size 240 240 240 240 

Source: APEC study data. 

Notes: All figures are weighted. Standard errors, presented in parentheses, account for clustering in the survey design. 

 *Significantly different from zero at the .10 level, two-tailed test. Italics indicate the reference group for significance 

tests. 

 **Significantly different from zero at the .05 level, two-tailed test. 

***Significantly different from zero at the .01 level, two-tailed test. 

APEC = Access, Participation, Eligibility, and Certification; NSLP = National School Lunch Program; POS = Point of 

Sale; SFA = School Food Authority. 
A.19 

TABLE A.4 

SCHOOL-LEVEL SBP PARTICIPATION RATES BASED ON SFA SURVEY DATA, 

BY STUDY MEAL PROGRAM CERTIFICATION CATEGORY 

(Meals Per Eating Occasion For Full School Year) 

All Students Free Certified 

Reduced-Price 

Certified Not Certified 

Overall 27.48 40.28 25.09 15.15 

(1.34) (1.58) (1.40) (1.41) 

School Characteristics 

School Type 

Elementary school 30.75 44.08 27.31 16.84 

(2.15) (2.21) (2.20) (2.12) 

Middle school 21.89*** 32.33*** 22.97 13.44 

(2.50) (2.62) (2.46) (3.36) 

High school 13.22*** 25.56*** 13.44*** 6.51*** 

(2.93) (2.87) (3.85) (3.04) 

Private School 

No 27.52 39.85 25.44 15.53 

(1.88) (1.78) (1.87) (1.91) 

Yes 27.95 39.98 16.35** 8.61*** 

(5.09) (7.28) (2.98) (1.57) 

Enrollment 

400 or fewer 32.59 45.17 28.00 15.58 

(3.19) (3.59) (3.08) (2.67) 

401 to 800 28.29 40.65 26.24 17.83 

(2.14) (2.18) (2.22) (2.85) 

801 to 1,200 22.61*** 38.80 22.46 12.28 

(2.36) (4.39) (3.53) (2.24) 

Greater than 1,200 9.19*** 19.49*** 10.32*** 3.62*** 

(2.32) (2.99) (2.46) (1.13) 

Percentage of Student Body 

Certified Free/Reduced-Price 

0 to 25 percent 12.24 33.52 17.98 8.84 

(3.15) (7.72) (4.84) (2.59) 

26 to 50 percent 17.42 33.46 23.47 9.03 

(1.90) (2.14) (2.49) (1.99) 

51 to 75 percent 31.89*** 45.47 26.28 14.83 

(2.54) (2.64) (3.31) (2.62) 

76 to 100 percent 40.66*** 45.70 28.18* 26.56*** 

(2.67) (3.24) (3.03) (4.40) 

Percentage of Student Body 

Certified Free 

0 to 25 percent 16.89 37.64 20.55 10.44 

(3.08) (5.41) (4.17) (2.88) 

26 to 50 percent 20.67 34.68 24.39 10.14 

(1.84) (2.17) (2.15) (1.70) 

51 to 75 percent 40.28*** 51.27** 28.51 17.93 

(2.53) (3.02) (4.46) (3.61) 

76 to 100 percent 40.44*** 43.08 28.59 29.53*** 

(3.26) (3.65) (3.06) (5.36) 
TABLE A.4 (continued)

A.20 

All Students Free Certified 

Reduced-Price 

Certified Not Certified 

Percentage of Student Body 

Certified Reduced-Price 

0 to 25 percent 27.53 39.69 25.78 15.31 

 (1.82) (1.76) (1.82) (1.82) 

26 to 50 percent 25.97 57.75*** 5.11*** 10.66 

 (7.94) (3.77) (2.88) (9.86) 

Region 

Northeast 26.10 40.47 21.50 16.13 

 (3.38) (3.77) (3.45) (4.16) 

Southeast 36.42** 47.16 35.50*** 18.26 

 (3.19) (3.04) (3.53) (2.95) 

Central 25.78 39.57 23.15 13.09 

 (2.79) (2.11) (2.77) (2.27) 

West 22.68 32.47 25.08 13.05 

 (3.87) (3.59) (3.97) (3.89) 

Urban 

No 26.02 39.47 26.95 15.84 

 (2.54) (2.53) (2.48) (2.49) 

Yes 29.49 41.38 22.47 14.21 

 (2.34) (2.23) (2.59) (2.76) 

Uses Food Management 

Company 

No 28.88 41.89 26.56 15.84 

 (1.98) (1.95) (2.10) (1.94) 

Yes 20.52** 32.22*** 17.94** 11.79 

 (3.19) (2.50) (2.80) (5.05) 

School Meal Program 

Implementation 

Characteristics 

Uses Direct Certification 

No 19.11 33.67 21.80 15.96 

 (3.94) (3.92) (3.74) (6.15) 

Yes 28.92** 41.40* 25.67 15.01 

 (1.85) (1.85) (2.04) (1.90) 

Direct Certification Method 

None 19.11 33.67 21.80 15.96 

 (3.95) (3.92) (3.74) (6.15) 

Nonmatching, active 19.81 35.54 18.87 7.54 

 (2.42) (3.75) (3.67) (2.11) 

District-level matching, 

passive 35.07*** 44.96** 32.44** 20.85 

 (2.93) (3.13) (3.19) (2.74) 

State-level matching, passive 25.21 38.54 20.70 11.52 

 (3.14) (2.70) (2.98) (3.55) 

Other methods 32.63 46.24 27.22 16.28 

 (7.44) (8.98) (7.69) (8.22) 

Provision 2 or 3 Base Year 

No 26.97 40.70 25.35 14.28 

 (1.85) (1.84) (1.97) (1.90) 

Yes 30.83 38.51 29.43 25.34*** 

 (3.81) (7.53) (5.51) (2.08) 
TABLE A.4 (continued)

A.21 

All Students Free Certified 

Reduced-Price 

Certified Not Certified 

Uses Electronic POS 

Technology 

No 21.04 37.86 19.43 7.41 

 (2.89) (5.65) (3.54) (1.77) 

Yes 28.56** 41.11 27.02* 16.50*** 

 (2.03) (2.02) (2.08) (2.16) 

Sample Size 225 225 225 225 

Source: APEC study data. 

Notes: All figures are weighted. Standard errors, presented in parentheses, account for clustering in the survey design. 

 *Significantly different from zero at the .10 level, two-tailed test. Italics indicate the reference group for significance 

tests. 

 **Significantly different from zero at the .05 level, two-tailed test. 

***Significantly different from zero at the .01 level, two-tailed test. 

APEC = Access, Participation, Eligibility, and Certification; POS = Point of Sale; SFA = School Food Authority; 

SBP = School Breakfast Program. 

. 

APPENDIX B 

STIGMA AND THE GRADE STRUCTURE OF ELEMENTARY 

AND MIDDLE SCHOOLS

As a part of this project, we investigated whether we could make inferences about the effect 

of stigma on school meal participation using differences in the grade structure of elementary and 

middle schools as a natural experiment. The rationale of this investigation is as follows: If stigma 

is related to meal participation and if stigma is more strongly exhibited in the presence of older 

students, then we would expect otherwise similar fifth- and sixth–grade students in middle 

schools to have lower participation rates than those in elementary schools. In order to assess this 

question, we estimated the regression model described in Chapter II on a sample that consisted 

only of fifth- and sixth-grade students. The coefficient of interest is that on the binary variable 

associated with being in middle school. 

We found that fifth and sixth graders in middle schools do not have significantly lower lunch 

or breakfast participation rates than those in elementary schools (Appendix Tables B.1 and B.2). 

Although univariate analyses show significantly lower meal participation rates for fifth and sixth 

graders in middle schools compared to those in elementary schools, these differences are no 

longer significant when controls for other characteristics are included. Furthermore, robustness 

checks showed that sixth-grade middle school students have lower participation rates than 

seventh graders. Thus, districts that place sixth graders in middle schools may have unobserved 

characteristics that are associated with lower meal participation. Any negative relationship 

between meal participation and school type in our analysis of fifth- and sixth-grade students may 

be related to these unobserved characteristics rather than to stigma. Based on this evidence, we 

did not pursue this analysis further. 

B.3 
B.4 

TABLE B.1 

CHANGES IN STUDENT-LEVEL NSLP PARTICIPATION RATES ASSOCIATED WITH SCHOOL TYPE AND 

OTHER FACTORS, BY STUDENT MEAL PROGRAM CERTIFICATION CATEGORY FOR 5TH- AND 6THGRADE STUDENTS 

(Percentages of Eating Occasions) 

All Free and 

Reduced-Price 

Certified Free Certified 

Reduced-Price 

Certified 

Denied 

Applicant 

Student Characteristics 

Middle School -7.34 -7.87 -2.32 -12.34 

(4.79) (4.72) (9.87) (8.76) 

Male -2.02 -2.05 -2.78 17.16* 

(2.80) (3.42) (9.70) (9.24) 

African American or Hispanic -0.31 -2.75 10.77 -11.92 

(3.22) (3.50) (11.05) (9.56) 

Family Characteristics 

Parental Educational Attainment 

High school degree 2.17 4.34 0.25 -2.51 

(4.29) (4.73) (8.48) (11.34) 

More than high school degree 2.38 4.76 -7.08 -3.76 

(4.37) (4.85) (11.44) (12.88) 

Household Income -0.45 -0.70 1.08 -1.75 

(0.95) (1.26) (1.02) (2.25) 

Employed Household Member 6.73 

(4.24) 

8.27* 

(4.14) 

-24.27* 

(13.61) 

36.68*** 

(13.48) 

Number of Children 2.08* 2.55* -1.10 -5.97 

(1.13) (1.30) (2.46) (4.38) 

Experienced Food Insecurity Outcome -3.96 -2.22 -11.67 2.30 

(2.87) (3.11) (8.49) (7.56) 

Attitudes Toward School Meals 

Student’s Satisfaction with School Meal 

Taste 

Very satisfied 2.50 1.35 11.55* 16.12 

(3.67) (4.87) (6.57) (12.34) 

Somewhat satisfied 5.20 6.83 1.23 24.24** 

(3.93) (4.11) (8.40) (10.03) 

School Characteristics 

Percentage of Student Body Certified for 

Free/Reduced-Price Meals -0.19* -0.20 -0.45*** 0.11 

(0.12) (0.14) (0.13) (0.24) 

Enrollment 

801 to 1,200 4.36 5.59 -1.13 14.45 

(4.25) (4.28) (8.88) (9.54) 

Greater than 1,200 3.15 5.11 -4.68 11.69 

(5.34) (6.33) (12.74) (17.29) 

Located in Urban Area -0.43 -0.98 3.24 7.17 

(4.67) (5.52) (8.80) (9.94) 
TABLE B.1 (continued) 

B.5 

All Free and 

Reduced-Price 

Certified Free Certified 

Reduced-Price 

Certified 

Denied 

Applicant 

School Meal Program Implementation 

Characteristics 

Uses Direct Certification -1.99 0.59 -0.45 12.26 

(5.33) (5.33) (12.61) (17.83) 

Uses Electronic POS Technology 4.91 2.99 22.85 12.12 

(4.71) (6.39) (12.19)* (10.74) 

Constant 72.74*** 69.89*** 101.43*** -2.24 

(8.66) (10.24) (20.48) (36.38) 

Sample Size 350 278 72 61 

Source: APEC study data. 

Notes: Figures are coefficient estimates from OLS regressions in which the relevant participation rate is the dependent 

variable. Participation rates represent percentage of meals received per eating occasion during the full school 

year, determined based on administrative records. All figures are weighted. Standard errors, presented in 

parentheses, account for clustering in the survey design. Denied applicants are students who applied for and 

were denied school meal benefits; this sample is not generalizable to all students not certified for school meal 

benefits. 

 *Significantly different from zero at the .10 level, two-tailed test. 

 **Significantly different from zero at the .05 level, two-tailed test. 

***Significantly different from zero at the .01 level, two-tailed test. 

APEC = Access, Participation, Eligibility, and Certification; NSLP = National School Lunch Program; 

POS = Point of Sale. 
B.6 

TABLE B.2 

CHANGES IN STUDENT-LEVEL SBP PARTICIPATION RATES ASSOCIATED WITH SCHOOL TYPE AND 

OTHER FACTORS, BY STUDENT MEAL PROGRAM CERTIFICATION CATEGORY FOR 5TH- AND 6THGRADE STUDENTS 

(Percentages of Eating Occasions) 

All Free and 

Reduced-Price 

Certified Free Certified 

Reduced-Price 

Certified Denied Applicant 

Student Characteristics 

Middle School -5.12 -6.34 -1.91 -13.98** 

(5.48) (5.33) (7.84) (6.73) 

Male 0.49 3.79 -19.01** 9.63 

(3.55) (4.22) (7.56) (7.33) 

African American or Hispanic 3.93 3.00 10.89 13.17** 

(5.91) (6.26) (10.70) (6.21) 

Family Characteristics 

Parental Educational Attainment 

High school degree -2.06 -0.29 2.37 33.75*** 

(4.49) (4.86) (14.87) (8.92) 

More than high school degree 1.19 6.67 -9.29 11.51 

(6.65) (7.79) (12.81) (9.29) 

Household Income -0.68 -0.61 0.88 -0.69 

(1.08) (2.02) (1.52) (1.40) 

Employed Household Member 3.59 4.51 -24.67 14.24 

(4.97) (5.69) (15.78) (10.43) 

Number of Children 2.82* 3.77** -3.87 5.49* 

(1.59) (1.84) (3.74) (2.90) 

Experienced Food Insecurity 

Outcome -0.98 -0.14 -7.09 -14.71** 

(4.70) (4.93) (7.01) (6.08) 

Attitudes Toward School Meals 

Student’s Satisfaction with School 

Meal Taste 

Very satisfied 3.91 5.63 -3.63 9.15 

(5.36) (7.11) (10.02) (9.55) 

Somewhat satisfied 1.25 2.39 -1.83 -1.45 

(6.03) (6.52) (8.32) (5.60) 

School Characteristics 

Percentage of Student Body 

Certified for Free/Reduced-Price 

Meals -0.10 -0.14 -0.26 0.26 

(0.17) (0.20) (0.18) (0.22) 

Enrollment 

801 to 1,200 -2.70 0.51 -16.69 -17.30 

(5.23) (5.39) (10.77) (11.81) 

Greater than 1,200 -4.68 1.41 -15.17* -28.10** 

(9.34) (9.65) (8.96) (11.09) 

Located in Urban Area -8.19 -6.36 -14.18 -28.18*** 

(6.27) (7.02) (9.23) (7.25) 
TABLE B.2 (continued) 

B.7 

All Free and 

Reduced-Price 

Certified Free Certified 

Reduced-Price 

Certified Denied Applicant 

School Meal Program 

Implementation Characteristics 

Uses Direct Certification 19.15 21.51 13.69 18.45 

(15.39) (18.42) (12.29) (11.12) 

Uses Electronic POS Technology 13.84** 10.00 51.12*** -9.81 

(5.98) (6.97) (7.53) (7.00) 

Constant 2.17 -3.75 37.79* -33.10* 

(20.02) (23.00) (19.48) (18.30) 

Sample Size 319 255 64 58 

Source: APEC study data. 

Notes: Figures are coefficient estimates from OLS regressions in which the relevant participation rate is the dependent 

variable. Participation rates represent percentage of meals received per eating occasion during the full school 

year, determined based on administrative records. All figures are weighted. Standard errors, presented in 

parentheses, account for clustering in the survey design. Denied applicants are students who applied for and 

were denied school meal benefits; this sample is not generalizable to all students not certified for school meal 

benefits. 

 *Significantly different from zero at the .10 level, two-tailed test. 

 **Significantly different from zero at the .05 level, two-tailed test. 

***Significantly different from zero at the .01 level, two-tailed test. 

APEC = Access, Participation, Eligibility, and Certification; POS = Point of Sale; SBP = School Breakfast Program. 

APPENDIX C 

VARIATION IN PARTICIPATION OVER THE SCHOOL YEAR

C.3 

This appendix presents information related to variation in actual and parent-reported 

participation over the year. Table C.1 shows actual participation rates, based on administrative 

records data, for each month during the school year. Table C.2 shows participation based on 

parent-reports at two different points in time, for households in the panel sample. Table C.3 

compares participation based on parent reports to actual participation during the relevant months, 

for households that have data from administrative records and two parent surveys. Each table 

includes a summary measure of the variation over time. While both actual participation rates and 

parent reports are fairly consistent over the year, actual monthly participation for individuals can 

vary widely. 

Both administrative records and parent reports reflect limited variation in overall 

participation rates across months. Monthly participation rates are fairly consistent over the 

school year, ranging from 67 to 72 percent for the NSLP and from 30 to 37 percent for the SBP 

across nonsummer months (Table C.1). Estimates of participation rates based on parent reports 

for the sample of households that completed surveys at two points during the year also are fairly 

consistent over time, ranging from 88 percent at the time of the initial survey to 92 percent later 

in the school year (Table C.2). 

Administrative records data show greater variation over time in the participation rates for 

individual students than is reported by parents. The participation rates of individual students can 

vary considerably from month to month. For example, the difference between the highest and 

lowest NSLP monthly participation rate for a given student is 47 percentage points, on average 

(Table C.1). However, individual parent reports of their child’s participation are more consistent 

over time. The average difference between the NSLP participation rates reported in the two 

household surveys (among those in the sample that completed both) for a given student is just 11 

percentage points, while the average difference between the participation rates based on 
C.4 

TABLE C.1 

VARIATION ACROSS THE SCHOOL YEAR IN MONTHLY NSLP AND SBP PARTICIPATION RATES 

AMONG FREE AND REDUCED-PRICE CERTIFIED STUDENTS, 

BASED ON ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS DATA 

NSLP SBP 

Percentage of School Days Participated in August 

 

0 to 20 31.11 

(3.80) 

67.43 

(3.32) 

21 to 80 26.57 

(2.02) 

23.91 

(2.69) 

81 to 100 42.32 

(3.24) 

8.65 

(1.52) 

Mean Percentage of School Days Participated in August 56.09 

(3.18) 

21.27 

(2.22) 

Percentage of school days participated in September 

 

0 to 20 17.98 

(3.16) 

56.29 

(3.27) 

21 to 80 25.19 

(1.97) 

27.74 

(2.16) 

81 to 100 56.83 

(3.09) 

15.97 

(1.92) 

Mean Percentage of School Days Participated in September 68.11 

(2.87) 

30.09 

(2.40) 

Percentage of School Days Participated in October 

 

0 to 20 14.96 

(2.87) 

53.69 

(2.83) 

21 to 80 27.72 

(2.23) 

28.32 

(2.32) 

81 to 100 57.31 

(2.90) 

17.99 

(1.87) 

Mean Percentage of School Days Participated in October 70.64 

(2.69) 

32.76 

(2.14) 

Percentage of School Days Participated in November 

 

0 to 20 13.19 

(2.61) 

51.11 

(2.78) 

21 to 80 27.65 

(2.33) 

30.98 

(2.04) 

81 to 100 59.17 

(3.12) 

17.92 

(2.03) 

Mean Percentage of School Days Participated in November 71.74 

(2.48) 

34.26 

(2.12) 
TABLE C.1 (continued)

C.5 

NSLP SBP 

Percentage of School Days Participated in December 

 

0 to 20 14.92 

(2.89) 

54.40 

(3.01) 

21 to 80 35.86 

(2.78) 

30.95 

(2.36) 

81 to 100 49.22 

(3.11) 

14.65 

(2.24) 

Mean Percentage of School Days Participated in December 67.37 

(2.73) 

31.33 

(2.31) 

Percentage of School Days Participated in January 

 

0 to 20 14.65 

(2.04) 

49.36 

(2.31) 

21 to 80 28.77 

(2.43) 

34.54 

(2.39) 

81 to 100 56.58 

(3.23) 

16.10 

(2.08) 

Mean Percentage of School Days Participated in January 71.02 

(2.04) 

34.32 

(1.95) 

Percentage of School Days Participated in February 

 

0 to 20 13.76 

(2.13) 

48.82 

(2.30) 

21 to 80 30.57 

(2.47) 

34.32 

(2.25) 

81 to 100 55.67 

(2.98) 

16.86 

(2.27) 

Mean Percentage of School Days Participated in February 71.64 

(2.12) 

35.38 

(1.89) 

Percentage of School Days Participated in March 

 

0 to 20 14.61 

(2.02) 

46.53 

(2.46) 

21 to 80 26.82 

(2.36) 

33.80 

(2.99) 

81 to 100 58.56 

(3.00) 

19.67 

(2.46) 

Mean Percentage of School Days Participated in March 71.45 

(2.04) 

37.19 

(1.92) 

Percentage of School Days Participated in April 

 

0 to 20 15.96 

(2.04) 

49.43 

(2.21) 

21 to 80 32.59 

(2.95) 

33.21 

(2.19) 

81 to 100 51.45 

(3.47) 

17.36 

(2.44) 
TABLE C.1 (continued)

C.6 

NSLP SBP 

Mean Percentage of School Days Participated in April 68.85 

(2.22) 

34.68 

(2.09) 

Percentage of School Days Participated in May 

 

0 to 20 16.36 

(1.98) 

50.34 

(2.39) 

21 to 80 33.02 

(2.77) 

34.52 

(2.14) 

81 to 100 50.62 

(3.04) 

15.14 

(2.29) 

Mean Percentage of School Days Participated in May 66.85 

(1.93) 

32.85 

(2.14) 

Percentage of School Days Participated in June 

 

0 to 20 32.82 

(5.52) 

66.75 

(4.26) 

21 to 80 36.73 

(5.46) 

20.41 

(2.75) 

81 to 100 30.44 

(5.01) 

12.84 

(4.19) 

Mean Percentage of School Days Participated in June 49.82 

(4.57) 

23.39 

(3.90) 

Percentage of School Days Participated in July 

 

0 to 20 45.57 

(11.69) 

73.68 

(10.55) 

21 to 80 20.36 

(1.89) 

22.35 

(7.06) 

81 to 100 34.06 

(13.56) 

3.97 

(3.60) 

Mean Percentage of School Days Participated in July 46.15 

(10.67) 

18.69 

(8.97) 

Number of Percentage Points Difference Between the Highest and Lowest 

Monthly Participation Rate for the Student Across Nonsummer Monthsa

(Percentage) 

 

0 2.43 

(0.58) 

21.13 

(2.51) 

1 to 20 21.77 

(2.58) 

16.83 

(1.40) 

21 to 40 27.65 

(2.04) 

18.41 

(1.52) 

41 to 60 15.61 

(1.47) 

17.13 

(1.32) 

61 to 80 9.63 

(1.57) 

14.37 

(1.67) 
TABLE C.1 (continued)

C.7 

NSLP SBP 

81 to 100 22.92 

(3.33) 

12.14 

(1.34) 

Mean Number of Percentage Points Difference Between the Highest and 

Lowest Monthly Participation Rate for the Student Across Non-summer 

Months 

47.17 

(2.56) 

37.45 

(1.77) 

Source: APEC study data. 

Note: All figures are weighted. Standard errors account for clustering in the survey design. 

a

This measure excludes June, July, and August, because many schools were not in session during those months (resulting 

in small sample sizes/missing data), and even those schools with nonmissing data were often in session for only a few 

days during the month. 

APEC = Access, Participation, Eligibility, and Certification; NSLP = National School Lunch Program; SBP = School 

Breakfast Program. 
C.8 

TABLE C.2 

VARIATION ACROSS THE SCHOOL YEAR IN REPORTED NSLP AND SBP PARTICIPATION RATES AMONG 

FREE AND REDUCED-PRICE CERTIFIED STUDENTS, BASED ON 

PARENT REPORTS FOR ONE OR TWO TARGET WEEKS 

NSLP SBP 

Percentage of School Days Participated in Target Week of the Initial Household 

Survey 

 

0 6.03 

(1.48) 

35.74 

(3.24) 

1 to 20 0.82 

(0.40) 

4.39 

(1.19) 

21 to 40 2.52 

(0.71) 

3.56 

(0.74) 

41 to 60 3.46 

(0.85) 

 3.43 

(0.67) 

61 to 80 12.14 

(2.16) 

10.29 

(2.10) 

81 to 100 75.04 

(2.53) 

42.58 

(2.89) 

Mean Percentage of School Days Participated in Target Week of the Initial 

Household Survey 

87.95 

(1.60) 

55.12 

(3.02) 

Percentage of School Days Participated in Target Week of the Panel Household 

Survey 

 

0 3.38 

(0.76) 

32.16 

(2.76) 

1 to 20 0.05 

(0.05) 

4.28 

(1.42) 

21 to 40 2.64 

(0.78) 

2.16 

(0.50) 

41 to 60 3.12 

(0.62) 

3.43 

(0.75) 

61 to 80 7.82 

(1.24) 

9.59 

(1.33) 

81 to 100 82.99 

(1.67) 

48.39 

(2.69) 

Mean Percentage of School Days Participated in Target Week of the Panel 

Household Survey 

91.92 

(0.96) 

59.47 

(2.68) 

Number of Percentage Points Difference Between Participation Rate from Initial 

Household Survey and That from Panel Survey for the Student 

 

0 68.13 

(2.51) 

57.08 

(2.21) 

1 to 20 15.87 

(2.19) 

17.34 

(2.12) 

21 to 40 6.19 

(1.02) 

5.74 

(0.90) 

41 to 60 3.35 

(0.83) 

5.11 

(1.10) 

61 to 80 1.43 

(0.45) 

5.61 

(1.10) 

81 to 100 5.03 

(1.37) 

9.11 

(1.30) 

Mean Number of Percentage Points Difference Between Participation Rate from 

Initial Household Survey and That from Panel Survey for the Student 

13.40 

(1.50) 

21.83 

(1.40) 
TABLE C.2 (continued)

C.9 

NSLP SBP 

Sample Size 780 715 

Source: APEC study data. 

Note: All figures are weighted. Standard errors account for clustering in the survey design. 

APEC = Access, Participation, Eligibility, and Certification; NSLP = National School Lunch Program; SBP = School Breakfast 

Program. 
C.10 

TABLE C.3 

VARIATION ACROSS THE SCHOOL YEAR IN NSLP AND SBP PARTICIPATION RATES 

AMONG FREE AND REDUCED-PRICE CERTIFIED STUDENTS, BASED ON 

PARENT REPORTS FOR ONE OR TWO TARGET WEEKS AND 

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS FOR THOSE MONTHS 

NSLP SBP 

Percentage of School Days Participated in Target Week of the Initial Household 

Survey 

 

0 4.30 

(1.49) 

36.84 

(3.82) 

1 to 20 0.76 

(0.38) 

4.59 

(1.82) 

21 to 40 2.04 

(0.66) 

3.07 

(0.87) 

41 to 60 3.59 

(1.01) 

3.24 

(0.87) 

61 to 80 10.22 

(2.81) 

10.43 

(3.22) 

81 to 100 79.09 

(2.90) 

41.82 

(3.12) 

Mean Percentage of School Days Participated in Target Week of the Initial 

Household Survey 

90.37 

(1.60) 

54.20 

3.46 

Percentage of School Days Participated in Target Week of the Panel Household 

Survey 

0 3.06 

(0.92) 

32.48 

(3.33) 

1 to 20 0.08 

(0.08) 

3.86 

(1.48) 

21 to 40 2.24 

(0.95) 

2.94 

(0.79) 

41 to 60 3.01 

(0.84) 

2.94 

(1.06) 

61 to 80 8.70 

(1.66) 

9.90 

(1.74) 

81 to 100 82.92 

(2.18) 

47.87 

(3.15) 

Mean Percentage of School Days Participated in Target Week of the Panel 

Household Survey 

92.30 

(1.03) 

59.19 

(3.19) 

Number of Percentage Points Difference Between Participation Rate from Initial 

Household Survey and That from Panel Survey for the Student 

0 69.98 

(3.12) 

57.59 

(2.92) 

1 to 20 16.53 

(3.22) 

15.49 

(2.91) 

21 to 40 6.60 

(1.35) 

6.00 

(1.17) 

41 to 60 3.41 

(1.11) 

4.63 

(1.77) 

61 to 80 0.58 

(0.29) 

7.27 

(1.72) 

81 to 100 2.89 

(1.04) 

9.00 

(1.61) 
TABLE C.3 (continued)

C.11 

NSLP SBP 

Mean Number of Percentage Points Difference Between Participation Rate from 

Initial Household Survey and That from Panel Survey for the Student 

10.84 

(1.24) 

22.52 

(1.92) 

Percentage of School Days Participated in Month Covered by the Initial Household 

Survey, According to Administrative Records Data 

 

0 8.28 

(4.00) 

35.91 

(4.73) 

1 to 20 3.80 

(1.33) 

14.04 

(3.04) 

21 to 40 4.21 

(1.21) 

8.76 

(2.19) 

41 to 60 5.75 

(1.49) 

11.18 

(2.26) 

61 to 80 12.64 

(2.05) 

8.90 

(2.09) 

81 to 100 65.33 

(4.19) 

21.21 

(3.07) 

Mean Percentage of School Days Participated in Month Covered by the Initial 

Household Survey, According to Administrative Records Data 

74.41 

(3.97) 

34.98 

(3.30) 

Percentage of School Days Participated in Month Covered by the Panel Household 

Survey, According to Administrative Records Data 

 

0 10.60 

(2.21) 

38.60 

(3.72) 

1 to 20 3.17 

(1.12) 

9.99 

(1.89) 

21 to 40 4.94 

(1.13) 

9.09 

(1.61) 

41 to 60 8.74 

(1.79) 

8.15 

(1.73) 

61 to 80 20.24 

(2.91) 

18.80 

(3.12) 

81 to 100 52.30 

(2.91) 

15.37 

(2.63) 

Mean Percentage of School Days Participated in Month Covered by the Panel 

Household Survey, According to Administrative Records Data 

69.34 

(2.28) 

35.42 

(2.92) 

Number of Percentage Points Difference Between Participation Rate in Month 

Covered by the Initial Household Survey and That in Month Covered by the Panel 

Survey, According to Administrative Records Data 

 

0 11.82 

(2.31) 

28.00 

(3.56) 

1 to 20 56.99 

(3.56) 

36.38 

(3.38) 

21 to 40 14.38 

(2.19) 

20.53 

(3.42) 

41 to 60 4.90 

(1.26) 

7.01 

(1.75) 

61 to 80 4.97 

(1.36) 

6.32 

(2.86) 

81 to 100 6.94 

(2.55) 

1.76 

(0.72) 
TABLE C.3 (continued)

C.12 

NSLP SBP 

Mean Number of Percentage Points Difference Between Participation Rate in 

Month Covered by the Initial Household Survey and That in Month Covered by the 

Panel Survey, According to Administrative Records Data 

20.89 

(2.10) 

18.71 

(1.70) 

Sample Size 466 391 

Source: APEC study data. 

Note: All figures are weighted. Standard errors account for clustering in the survey design. 

APEC = Access, Participation, Eligibility, and Certification; NSLP = National School Lunch Program; SBP = School Breakfast 

Program.
C.13 

administrative records for those two months is 21 percentage points (Table C.3). This finding 

may suggest that some parents report on their child’s usual participation rather than that for a 

specific week (due to recall error, perhaps), or it could be an artifact of the data, because less 

variation is possible during a week than a month. 

APPENDIX D 

SUBGROUP FINDINGS 

D.3 

This appendix contains additional findings related to subgroups. Table D.1 presents actual 

and parent-reported participation rates in the NSLP, by school and student characteristics. Table 

D.2 does the same for the SBP. Patterns of subgroup differences are generally similar for 

estimated participation rates based on parent reports for short periods of time and for actual 

participation rates during longer periods. 

Both parent reports and administrative records data indicate higher rates of NSLP and SBP 

participation in schools serving younger children (Tables D.1 and D.2). For example, parent 

reports based on a week indicate an NSLP participation rate of 73 percent among high school 

students, compared to 90 percent among middle school students and 91 percent among 

elementary school students (Table D.1). Administrative records data for the month show NSLP 

participation rates of 47 percent for those in high school, 75 percent for middle school students, 

and 80 percent for elementary school students. 

For the SBP, parent reports and administrative records data both show higher rates of 

participation in smaller schools and in schools with more students certified for free or reducedprice meals (Table D.2). For example, measures of participation rates in schools with more than 

1,200 students range from 21 percent (based on administrative data for a month) to 33 percent 

(based on parent reports for a week), while rates for schools with no more than 400 students are 

47 percent based on administrative data for a month and 64 percent based on parent reports for a 

week. SBP participation is also higher among students certified to receive free meals than it is 

among those certified for reduced-price meals. 

Parent reports indicate higher rates of NSLP and SBP participation among those whose 

parents also report greater student and parent satisfaction with the school meal program (Tables 

D.1 and D.2). For example, the SBP participation rate according to parent reports for a week is 

57 percent among students whose parents are very satisfied with the school meal program, but 
D.4 

TABLE D.1 

AVERAGE RATE OF NSLP PARTICIPATION AMONG FREE AND REDUCED-PRICE CERTIFIED 

STUDENTS, BASED ON PARENTS’ REPORTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS, 

BY SCHOOL AND STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS 

Parent-Reported Data Administrative Records Data 

Characteristics 

Based on 

Previous Day 

Based on 

Previous 

Week 

For the 

Month 

Covered by 

Parent 

Reports For the Year 

School Type 

Elementary school 80.03 

(2.52) 

91.24 

(0.84) 

79.51 

(3.61) 

75.34 

(1.79) 

Middle school 78.30 

(4.16) 

90.14 

(2.33) 

74.51 

(3.40) 

67.65*** 

(2.77) 

High school 62.81*** 

(3.80 

73.25*** 

(3.01) 

47.04 *** 

(4.80) 

44.51*** 

(4.48) 

School Enrollment (Number of Students) 

1 to 400 77.43 

(4.04) 

89.56 

(2.21) 

78.15 

(3.31) 

73.38 

(3.50) 

401 to 800 79.83 

(2.89) 

91.24 

(1.22) 

79.44 

(2.04) 

73.66 

(1.68) 

801 to 1,200 80.80 

(2.96) 

88.56 

 (1.13) 

69.96 

(6.72) 

69.60 

(3.12) 

More than 1,200 68.36 

(3.95) 

80.95** 

(3.55) 

62.32** 

(7.12) 

55.26*** 

(6.04) 

Percentage of Student Body Certified for 

Free/Reduced-Price Meals 

0 to 25 78.64 

(6.08) 

84.93 

 (3.34) 

67.71 

(7.86) 

63.42 

(7.95) 

26 to 50 74.39 

(3.22) 

86.71 

 (2.00) 

72.06 

(3.64) 

66.78 

(3.56) 

51 to 75 73.88 

(3.57) 

89.00 

(2.01) 

77.11 

(2.55) 

69.44 

(2.06) 

76 to 100 83.31 

(2.60) 

90.67 

 (1.19) 

75.46 

 (5.50) 

73.21 

(2.76) 

Student Certification Status 

Free 79.26 

(1.99) 

89.68 

 (0.97) 

75.49 

(2.66) 

70.25 

(1.76) 

Reduced-price 71.17 

(5.47) 

84.70*** 

(1.66) 

70.82** 

(2.50) 

67.81 

(1.97) 

Student’s Satisfaction with School Meal Program 

Very satisfied 83.26 

(1.93) 

92.95 

(0.73) 

76.77 

(3.26) 

72.29 

(1.67) 

Somewhat satisfied 78.34** 

(2.20) 

88.58*** 

(1.27) 

74.74 

(2.36) 

70.06 

(1.99) 
TABLE D.1 (continued)

D.5 

Parent-Reported Data Administrative Records Data 

Characteristics 

Based on 

Previous Day 

Based on 

Previous 

Week 

 For the 

Month 

Covered by 

Parent 

Reports For the Year 

Somewhat dissatisfied 66.78*** 

(5.48) 

85.19*** 

(2.78) 

72.85 

(3.59) 

64.94*** 

(2.68) 

Very dissatisfied 68.32** 

(6.70) 

76.27*** 

(6.25) 

65.79** 

(5.62) 

64.64 

(5.00) 

Parent’s Satisfaction with School Meal Program 

Very satisfied 82.77 

(1.98) 

91.73 

(0.81) 

75.69 

(2.81) 

71.21 

(1.64) 

Somewhat satisfied 73.72** 

(4.40) 

87.84*** 

(1.32) 

75.07 

(2.55) 

68.44 

(2.21) 

Somewhat dissatisfied 70.71*** 

(4.11) 

82.91*** 

2.82) 

74.91 

(2.72) 

70.75 

(2.72) 

Very dissatisfied 63.25*** 

(6.71) 

82.61 

 (5.62) 

66.73 

(6.59)* 

67.34 

(3.94) 

Source: APEC study data. 

Note: All figures are weighted. Standard errors account for clustering in the survey design. 

 *Significantly different from zero at the .10 level, two-tailed test. 

 **Significantly different from zero at the .05 level, two-tailed test. 

***Significantly different from zero at the .01 level, two-tailed test. 

APEC = Access, Participation, Eligibility, and Certification; NSLP = National School Lunch Program. 

. 
D.6 

TABLE D.2 

AVERAGE RATE OF SBP PARTICIPATION AMONG FREE AND REDUCED-PRICE CERTIFIED STUDENTS, 

BASED ON PARENTS’ REPORTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS, 

BY SCHOOL AND STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS 

Parent-Reported Data Administrative Records Data 

Characteristics 

Based on 

Previous Day 

Based on 

Previous 

Week 

For the Month 

Covered by 

Parent Reports For the Year 

School Type 

Elementary school 47.72 

(2.84) 

59.42 

(2.15) 

40.72 

(3.10) 

37.99 

(2.54) 

Middle school 37.88** 

(4.67) 

45.14** 

(5.81) 

30.97** 

(3.74) 

28.28** 

(3.49) 

High school 22.65*** 

(2.88) 

32.71*** 

(3.10) 

15.89*** 

(2.09) 

17.59*** 

(1.99) 

School Enrollment (Number of Students) 

1 to 400 52.44 

(3.61) 

63.69 

(2.99) 

47.23 

(3.43) 

40.70 

(2.91) 

401 to 800 48.52 

(3.53) 

60.68 

(2.57) 

39.80 

(2.65)* 

36.21 

(2.63) 

801 to 1,200 35.28*** 

(3.10) 

45.55*** 

(3.26) 

29.29*** 

(4.68) 

30.81** 

(3.33) 

More than 1,200 27.55*** 

(3.21) 

33.42*** 

(4.02) 

21.05*** 

(3.52) 

21.72*** 

(3.72) 

Percentage of Student Body Certified for 

Free/Reduced-Price Meals 

0 to 25 31.81 

(7.16) 

40.70 

(7.31) 

23.77 

(7.01) 

25.14 

(6.50) 

26 to 50 32.73 

(3.00) 

40.98 

(2.99) 

28.93 

(2.79) 

26.59 

(2.28) 

51 to 75 42.80 

(3.24) 

56.76** 

(3.30) 

38.31* 

(2.94) 

35.20 

(2.83) 

76 to 100 52.64** 

(4.27) 

61.74** 

(3.41) 

39.67* 

(4.80) 

37.80* 

(3.45) 

Student Certification Status 

Free 45.31 

(2.57) 

56.44 

(1.97) 

37.49 

(2.24) 

34.55 

(1.95) 

Reduced-price 31.64*** 

(3.79) 

39.25*** 

(3.29) 

26.88*** 

(2.83) 

27.23*** 

(2.39) 

Student’s Satisfaction with School Meal 

Program 

Very satisfied 45.09 

(3.25) 

56.81 

(2.60) 

37.69 

(2.68) 

35.07 

(2.16) 

Somewhat satisfied 46.08 

(2.37) 

56.88 

(2.05) 

36.12 

(2.54) 

33.75 

(2.22) 

Somewhat dissatisfied 28.88*** 

(4.10) 

37.74*** 

(4.48) 

31.80 

(3.81) 

25.82*** 

 (2.80) 

Very dissatisfied 37.18 

(7.89) 

39.95*** 

(6.95) 

28.38* 

(5.10) 

32.35 

(4.80) 

Parent’s Satisfaction with School Meal 

Program 
TABLE D.2 (continued)

D.7 

Parent-Reported Data Administrative Records Data 

Characteristics 

Based on 

Previous Day 

Based on 

Previous 

Week 

 For the Month 

Covered by 

Parent Reports For the Year 

Very satisfied 46.76 

(2.58) 

57.36 

(2.32) 

36.03 

(2.47) 

33.59 

(2.11) 

Somewhat satisfied 38.34* 

(4.25) 

51.22** 

(2.31) 

36.84 

(2.19) 

33.83 

(1.94) 

Somewhat dissatisfied 42.08 

(5.09) 

43.16*** 

(4.60) 

34.18 

(3.96) 

31.65 

(3.06) 

Very dissatisfied 26.48*** 

(6.92) 

33.11*** 

(8.12) 

28.31 

(6.31) 

33.00 

(5.60) 

Source: APEC study data. 

Note: All figures are weighted. Standard errors account for clustering in the survey design. 

 *Significantly different from zero at the .10 level, two-tailed test. 

 **Significantly different from zero at the .05 level, two-tailed test. 

***Significantly different from zero at the .01 level, two-tailed test. 

APEC = Access, Participation, Eligibility, and Certification; SBP = School Breakfast Program. 
D.8 

only 40 among those whose parents are very dissatisfied (Table D.2). Administrative records 

data for longer time periods show similar patterns, but the differences are smaller and not as 

consistently statistically significant. 

The remaining tables in this appendix show the results of univariate analyses of how 

accurately individual-level parent reports for a week estimate their child’s actual participation 

over a longer time period for key subgroups. Table D.3 presents the differences between 

individual parent reports for a week and their children’s actual participation for the month, in the 

NSLP and SBP. Table D.4 shows the differences between individual-level parent-reported data 

for a week and actual individual-level participation for the year. 
D.9 

TABLE D.3 

INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MONTHLY NSLP AND SBP PARTICIPATION RATES 

FOR FREE AND REDUCED-PRICE CERTIFIED STUDENTS, AND ESTIMATES BASED ON PARENTS’ 

REPORTS OF THEIR CHILDREN’S PARTICIPATION FOR A TARGET WEEK, 

BY SCHOOL AND STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS

Mean Absolute Value of Percentage Point Difference Between 

Estimate Based on Parent Reports For a Week and 

 Actual Monthly Participation Rate 

Characteristics NSLP SBP 

School Type 

Elementary school 17.80 

(3.29) 

27.93 

(1.74) 

Middle school 23.44 

(3.25) 

31.00 

(2.10) 

High school 33.47 *** 

(2.93) 

27.33 

(1.60) 

School Enrollment (Number of 

Students) 

1 to 400 17.66 

(2.00) 

28.49 

(2.33) 

401 to 800 18. 30 

(1.92) 

29.74 

(2.20) 

801 to 1,200 25.29 

(6.02) 

25.90 

(2.97) 

More than 1,200 24.92* 

(3.87) 

26.81 

(1.38) 

Percentage of Student Body Certified 

for Free/Reduced-Price Meals 

0 to 25 21.08 

(3.86) 

19.30 

(4.79) 

26 to 50 21.29 

(2.16) 

25.79 

(2.32) 

51 to 75 18.66 

(2.28) 

29.14* 

(1.78) 

76 to 100 21.71 

(4.95) 

30.65** 

(2.00) 

Student Certification Status 

Free 20.47 

(2.25) 

29.83 

(1.44) 

Reduced-price 21.36 

(2.13) 

21.30*** 

(2.08) 

Student’s Satisfaction with School Meal 

Program 

Very satisfied 20.52 

(2.92) 

27.56 

(1.68) 

Somewhat satisfied 20.5 4 

(2.15) 

30.89* 

(1.86) 

Somewhat dissatisfied 21.10 

(2.27) 

24.70 

(3.81) 
TABLE D.3 (continued)

D.10

Mean Absolute Value of Percentage Point Difference Between 

Estimate Based on Parent Reports For a Week and 

 Actual Monthly Participation Rate 

Characteristics NSLP SBP 

Very dissatisfied 20.31 

(3.53) 

29.54 

(3.96) 

Parent’s Satisfaction with School Meal 

Program 

Very satisfied 20.94 

(2.45) 

29.22 

(1.63) 

Somewhat satisfied 20.13 

(2.55) 

28.54 

(2.09) 

Somewhat dissatisfied 16.46 

(1.86)* 

24.44 

(3.48) 

Very dissatisfied 26.29 

(6.24) 

24.64 

(4.67) 

Source: APEC study data. 

Note: All figures are weighted. Standard errors (shown in parentheses) account for clustering in the survey design. 

 *Significantly different from zero at the .10 level, two-tailed test. 

 **Significantly different from zero at the .05 level, two-tailed test. 

***Significantly different from zero at the .01 level, two-tailed test. 

APEC = Access, Participation, Eligibility, and Certification; NSLP = National School Lunch Program. 
D.11 

TABLE D.4 

INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ANNUAL NSLP AND SBP PARTICIPATION RATES 

FOR FREE AND REDUCED-PRICE CERTIFIED STUDENTS, AND ESTIMATES BASED ON 

PARENT REPORTS OF THEIR CHILDREN’S PARTICIPATION FOR A TARGET WEEK, 

BY SCHOOL AND STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS 

Mean Absolute Value of Percentage Point Difference Between 

Estimate Based on Parent Reports For a Week and 

Actual Annual Participation Rate 

Characteristics NSLP SBP 

School Type 

Elementary school 21.48 

(1.22) 

31.08 

(1.60) 

Middle school 28.89 *** 

(2.29) 

33.27 

(2.24) 

High school 38.59*** 

(2.72) 

29.20 

(1.60) 

School Enrollment (Number of 

Students) 

1 to 400 22.14 

(2.18) 

31.69 

(2.09) 

401 to 800 22.64 

(1.21) 

33.71 

(2.12) 

801 to 1,200 26.15 

(2.12) 

26.82* 

(1.79) 

More than 1,200 34.73*** 

(3.07) 

29.37 

(1.37) 

Percentage of Student Body Certified 

Free/Reduced-price 

0 to 25 25.38 

(4.65) 

21.84 

(3.70) 

26 to 50 27.83 

(2.12) 

28.93 

(2.17) 

51 to 75 25.53 

(1.41) 

33.36*** 

(1.58) 

76 to 100 23.15 

(2.02) 

32.51** 

(1.84) 

Student Certification Status 

Free 25.34 

(1.16) 

32.99 

(1.32) 

Reduced-price 24.72 

(1.48) 

23.54*** 

(1.64) 

Student’s Satisfaction with School Meal 

Program 

Very satisfied 24.07 

(1.33) 

31.38 

(1.43) 

Somewhat satisfied 25.56 

(1.36) 

33.36 

(1.75) 

Somewhat dissatisfied 28.03** 

(2.03) 

24.01*** 

(2.42) 
Table D.4 (continued)

D.12

Mean Absolute Value of Percentage Point Difference Between 

Estimate Based on Parent Reports For a Week and 

Actual Annual Participation Rate 

Characteristics NSLP SBP 

Very dissatisfied 24.64 

(3.17) 

33.82 

(3.54) 

Parent’s Satisfaction with School Meal 

Program 

Very satisfied 25.08 

(1.23) 

33.34 

(1.51) 

Somewhat satisfied 25.42 

(1.58) 

29.30** 

(1.68) 

Somewhat dissatisfied 23.73 

(1.94) 

26.65* 

(3.35) 

Very dissatisfied 27.35 

(3.00) 

29.26 

(4.19) 

Source: APEC study data. 

Note: All figures are weighted. Standard errors (shown in parentheses) account for clustering in the survey design. 

 *Significantly different from zero at the .10 level, two-tailed test. 

 **Significantly different from zero at the .05 level, two-tailed test. 

***Significantly different from zero at the .01 level, two-tailed test. 

APEC = Access, Participation, Eligibility, and Certification; NSLP = National School Lunch Program. 
APPENDIX E 

FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH PARTICIPATION 

E.3 

This appendix presents additional information related to factors associated with actual and 

parent-reported participation in the NSLP and SBP. Table E.1 provides complete regression 

results related to the NSLP, and Table E.2 does the same for the SBP. Some of the factors found 

to be associated with actual participation over the school year are also associated with parentreported participation for shorter periods of time, but others are not. 

NSLP 

• Factors associated with both administrative records and parent reports: Students’ 

satisfaction with school meals is positively associated with actual participation and 

both measures of parent-reported participation in the NSLP (Table E.1). For 

example, according to parent reports for a week, students who are very satisfied with 

the taste of school meals are 16 percentage points more likely to obtain an NSLP 

lunch than those who are not satisfied; according to administrative records, they are 

8 percentage points more likely to obtain a school lunch. School level also is 

associated with the administrative records and both parent-reported measures of 

participation in the NSLP. Both actual NSLP participation and parent reports for a 

week—but not parent reports for a day—are associated with student race/ethnicity. 

• Factors associated with administrative records but not with parent reports: The 

employment of a household member and the school’s use of electronic POS 

technology are both positively associated with actual participation in the NSLP over 

the school year, but not with parent reports for shorter periods of time (Table E.1). 

For example, according to administrative records, students at schools that use 

electronic POS technology are 9 percentage points more likely to obtain a NSLP 

lunch than those at other schools, but parent reports do not show this finding. 

• Factors associated with parent reports but not with administrative records: Food 

insecurity is found to be positively associated with one measure of parent-reported 

participation in the NSLP and SBP, but is not associated with the other parentreported measure nor with actual participation (Table E.1). In particular, parent 

reports for a day indicate that students in households that have experienced food 

insecurity outcomes are 5 percentage points more likely to obtain an NSLP breakfast 

than other students, but parent reports for a week and administrative records for the 

year do not show a statistically significant association between food insecurity and 

NSLP participation. 
E.4 

TABLE E.1 

FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH STUDENT-LEVEL NSLP PARTICIPATION RATES, 

BASED ON PARENT REPORTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS

Administrative 

Records, Year 

Parent Report, 

Previous Day 

Parent Report, 

Previous Week 

Student Characteristics 

Male 0.88 0.75 0.17

(1.12) (1.98) (1.27)

African American or Hispanic 3.37* 5.24 3.23**

(1.83) (3.24) (1.52)

Family Characteristics 

Parental Educational Attainment 

High school degree 1.33 -0.03 -1.01

(1.46) (2.52) (1.52)

More than high school degree 1.59 2.60 -0.80

(2.02) (2.33) (1.88)

Household Income 0.34 0.82 -0.01

(0.51) (0.77) (0.51)

Employed Household Member 5.48*** 0.45 1.42

(1.84) (2.76) (1.61)

Number of Children 0.27 0.07 0.55

(0.31) (0.72) (0.40)

Experienced Food Insecurity Outcome 2.31 5.49* -0.07

(1.54) (2.96) (2.00)

Attitudes Toward School Meals 

Student’s Satisfaction with School Meal Taste 

Very satisfied 7.89*** 16.94*** 16.23***

(2.43) (4.15) (3.03)

Somewhat satisfied 5.51** 14.76*** 14.24***

(2.19) (3.82) (2.92)

School Characteristics 

School Type 

Middle school -5.57** 0.42 0.16

(2.77) (3.92) (2.72)

High school -28.49*** -14.83*** -15.87***

(4.97) (5.21) (3.12)

Percentage of Student Body Certified Free/Reduced-Price -0.05 0.00 -0.01

(0.07) (0.08) (0.04)

Enrollment 

801 to 1,200 -3.43 3.78 -1.35

(3.16) (3.06) (1.67)

Greater than 1,200 -5.36 -2.83 -2.17

(4.65) (6.54) (2.90)

Located in Urban Area -3.37 5.77 0.42

(3.22) (3.80) (1.97)
TABLE E.1 (continued)

E.5 

Administrative 

Records, Year 

Parent Report, 

Previous Day 

Parent Report, 

Previous Week 

School Meal Program Implementation Characteristics 

Uses Direct Certification -0.02 -4.89 0.16

(2.52) (5.09) (2.31)

Uses Electronic Point-of-Sale Technology 8.87** -2.61 -3.81

(4.10) (5.75) (3.17)

Constant 56.70*** 61.34*** 78.82***

(6.98) (9.71) (6.57)

Sample Size 2,060 2,040 2,055

Source: APEC study data. 

Note: All figures are weighted. Standard errors account for clustering in the survey design. 

 *Significantly different from zero at the .10 level, two-tailed test. 

 **Significantly different from zero at the .05 level, two-tailed test. 

***Significantly different from zero at the .01 level, two-tailed test. 

APEC = Access, Participation, Eligibility, and Certification; NSLP = National School Lunch Program. 
E.6 

TABLE E.2 

FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH STUDENT-LEVEL SBP PARTICIPATION RATES, 

BASED ON PARENT REPORTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS 

Administrative 

Records, Year 

Parent Report, 

Previous Day 

Parent Report, 

Previous Week 

Student Characteristics 

Male 3.88** 4.19 0.46

(1.68) (3.20) (2.20)

African American or Hispanic 1.11 3.86 3.44

(2.39) (3.32) (3.14)

Family Characteristics 

Parental Educational Attainment 

High school degree -2.69 -9.90*** -7.67***

(1.92) (3.63) (2.72)

More than high school degree -2.85 -9.04* -9.43**

(2.79) (4.74) (3.70)

Household Income -0.45 -0.77 -1.32

(0.68) (0.98) (1.07)

Employed Household Member -2.13 -5.27 -6.48**

(2.35) (3.93) (2.85)

Number of Children 2.04*** 1.41 2.97***

(0.63) (1.14) (0.84)

Experienced Food Insecurity Outcome 2.11 4.75 8.83**

(1.76) (3.59) (3.88)

Attitudes Toward School Meals 

Student’s Satisfaction with School Meal Taste 

Very satisfied 5.22* 10.28** 16.78***

(3.01) (4.48) (4.12)

Somewhat satisfied 4.54 8.67* 14.36***

(2.81) (4.44) (3.78)

School Characteristics 

School Type 

Middle school -4.75 -3.24 -2.91

(3.30) (4.19) (4.03)

High school -12.87*** -15.83*** -8.44

(3.66) (5.53)** (5.62)

Percentage of Student Body Certified Free/ReducedPrice 0.14 0.20 0.25***

(0.12) (0.09) (0.09)

Enrollment 

801 to 1,200 -4.69 -11.12*** -12.26***

(3.86) (4.09) (3.99)

Greater than 1,200 -5.73 -8.46 -15.54***

(4.41) (5.22) (5.39)
TABLE E.2 (continued)

E.7 

Administrative 

Records, Year 

Parent Report, 

Previous Day 

Parent Report, 

Previous Week 

Located in Urban Area -11.22** -6.15 -7.30*

(5.08) (4.17) (4.26)

School Meal Program Implementation 

Characteristics 

Uses Direct Certification 0.81 -6.49 -1.43

(3.71) (8.09) (6.89)

Uses Electronic Point-of-Sale Technology 2.90 -1.10 -3.10

(3.78) (5.88) (3.81)

Constant 20.75** 38.84*** 34.19***

(9.05) (11.02) (10.45)

Sample Size 1,790 1,772 1,780

Source: APEC study data. 

Note: All figures are weighted. Standard errors account for clustering in the survey design. 

 *Significantly different from zero at the .10 level, two-tailed test. 

 **Significantly different from zero at the .05 level, two-tailed test. 

***Significantly different from zero at the .01 level, two-tailed test. 

APEC = Access, Participation, Eligibility, and Certification; SBP = School Breakfast Program. 
E.8 

SBP 

• Factors associated with both administrative records and parent reports: As in the 

NSLP, students’ satisfaction with school meals is positively associated with actual 

participation and both measures of parent-reported participation in the SBP (Table 

E.2). For example, according to parent reports for a week, students who are 

verysatisfied with the taste of school meals are 17 percentage points more likely 

to obtain an SBP breakfast than those who are not satisfied; according to 

administrative records, they are 5 percentage points more likely to obtain an SBP 

breakfast. School level is associated with the administrative records the parentreported measure of participation based on a day—but not parent reports for a 

week—for the SBP. The number of children in the household and urban location 

are both associated with actual SBP participation and estimated participation 

based on parent reports for a week, but not for a single day. 

• Factors associated with administrative records but not with parent reports:

Gender is associated with actual participation in the SBP over the school year, but 

not with parent reports for shorter periods of time (Table E.2). 

• Factors associated with parent reports but not with administrative records: Food 

insecurity is found to be positively associated with one measure of parentreported participation in the SBP (as in the NSLP), but is not associated with the 

other parent-reported measure nor with actual participation (Table E.2). For 

example, parent reports for a week indicate that students in households that have 

experienced food insecurity outcomes are 9 percentage points more likely to 

obtain an SBP breakfast than other students, but neither parent reports for a day 

nor administrative records for the year show a statistically significant association 

between food insecurity and SBP participation. Parents’ education, the proportion 

of students certified to receive free or reduced-price meals at the school, and 

school size are associated with both parent-reported measures of SBP 

participation during a short period of time, but not with actual participation over 

the year. A household member’s employment is found to be associated with one 

measure of parent-reported SBP participation, but not with the other parentreported measure nor with actual participation. 
Improving public well-being by conducting high-quality, objective research and surveys 

www.mathematica-mpr.com 

Princeton Office Washington Office Cambridge Office Ann Arbor Office Oakland Office 

P.O. Box 2393 600 Maryland Avenue, SW 955 Massachusetts Avenue 555 South Forest Avenue 505 14th Street 

Princeton, NJ 08453-2393 Suite 550 Suite 801 Suite 3 Suite 800 

(609) 799-3535 Washington, DC 20024-2512 Cambridge, MA 02139 Ann Arbor, MI 48104-2583 Oakland, CA 94612-1475 

Fax: (609) 799-0005 (202) 484-9220 (617) 491-7900 (734) 794-1120 (510) 830-3700 

 Fax: (202) 863-1763 Fax: (617) 491-8044 Fax: (734) 794-0241 Fax: (510) 830-3701 

To Find Out More: Communication Services • Phone: (609) 799-3535 • Fax: (609) 799-0005