Food Assistance & Nutrition

Research Program

Feeding Low-Income

Children When School Is

Out—The Summer Food

Service Program

Executive Summary

Anne Gordon

Ronette Briefel

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Economic 

Research 

Service

Food Assistance

and Nutrition

Research Report

Number 30
Feeding Low-Income Children When School Is Out—The Summer Food Service

Program: Executive Summary. By Anne Gordon and Ronette Briefel, Mathematica

Policy Research, Inc., for the Food and Rural Economics Division, Economic Research

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Food Assistance and Nutrition Research

Report No. 30.

Abstract

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, through the Summer Food Service Program

(SFSP), funds meals for children in low-income areas when school is not in session.

The first comprehensive study of the SFSP since 1986 found that, in fiscal year 2001,

more than 4,000 local sponsors provided about 130 million meals at more than 35,000

feeding sites. The number of children served in July 2001 (2.1 million per day) was

about 14 percent of the number who received free or reduced-price school meals each

day during the previous school year. On average, SFSP meals provided the levels of

key nutrients recommended for school meals. However, breakfasts were slightly lower

in food energy than recommended, and lunches were higher in fat. Half the SFSP

sponsors were school districts, which operated about half the sites and served about

half the meals. Other sponsors included government agencies, private nonprofit organizations, and residential camps. The nationally representative study, which was sponsored by USDA’s Economic Research Service, surveyed State administrators, sponsor

staff, and site staff on program operations and on factors that affect participation. 

This report summarizes the study results. For more details and study methodology, 

see Feeding Low-Income Children When School Is Out—The Summer Food Service

Program: Final Report, E-FAN-03-001 (electronic only), available at:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/efan03001.

Keywords: Summer Food Service Program, SFSP, child nutrition programs, nutrient

content, plate waste.

Acknowledgments 

The authors gratefully acknowledge our coauthors on the full study report: Karen

Needels, Nancy Wemmerus, Teresa Zavitsky, Randy Rosso, Tania Tasse, Laura 

Kalb, Anne Peterson, and Darryl Creel. We also received valuable input from 

Jane Allshouse, Betsy Frazao, David Smallwood, and others at the Economic

Research Service, and from Linda Jupin, Anita Singh, and others at the Food and

Nutrition Service.

This report was prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., under a research 

contract with the Economic Research Service. 

Washington, DC 20036-5831 April 2003
ii ✥ Feeding Low-Income Children When School Is Out/FANRR-30 Economic Research Service/USDA

Contents

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

Data Sources .................................................................................................................2

Program Characteristics..............................................................................................2

State Agencies............................................................................................................3

Sponsors .....................................................................................................................3

Sites............................................................................................................................4

Participant Characteristics .........................................................................................5

Changes Since 1986...................................................................................................6

Program Administration..............................................................................................6

State Agencies’ Administration of Sponsors..............................................................6

Sponsors’ Administration of Their Sites....................................................................8

Outreach and Participation.........................................................................................8

Staffs’ Views on Barriers and Outreach.....................................................................9

Sponsor Entry and Exit..............................................................................................9

Meal Service................................................................................................................10

Meal Service Arrangements.....................................................................................10

SFSP Meal Pattern Requirements............................................................................10

Nutritional Standards Used To Assess Meals ..........................................................11

Nutrient Content of Meals .......................................................................................12

Plate Waste...............................................................................................................13

Conclusions .................................................................................................................14

Simplifying Program Administration.......................................................................14

Expanding Participation...........................................................................................15

Improving Meals and Reducing Waste....................................................................15

References ...................................................................................................................16
Introduction

The Summer Food Service Program (SFSP) provides

meals to children when school is not in session. To be

eligible to offer the program, feeding sites generally

must be located in low-income areas or must serve

primarily low-income children. Because SFSP meals

usually are provided in conjunction with activities for

children, the program also helps to sustain summer

programs that promote physical activity, and that 

foster children’s social and educational development.

The SFSP is funded through the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture (USDA) and is supervised by State

administrative agencies and USDA’s Food and

Nutrition Service (FNS). The program had expenditures of $272 million in fiscal year 2001. More than

4,000 local agencies (sponsors) provided meals at

more than 35,000 feeding sites. In July 2001, about

2.1 million children per day received SFSP meals.

This report summarizes the results of the SFSP

Implementation Study, a descriptive study of the operations of the SFSP at the State and local levels.

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., under contract to

USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS), collected

nationally representative data during summer 2001 

to describe how the program works, and how SFSP

staff think it could be improved. The study’s major

research questions are as follows:

• How does the SFSP operate at the State, sponsor,

and site levels?

• What factors affect participation by sponsors and

children? What barriers to participation do program

staff believe are the most important? What efforts

are program staff making to expand participation?

What factors are associated with sponsors’ entry 

and exit?

• What is the nutritional quality of meals served, 

and what is the extent of plate waste? How are

SFSP meals prepared and served, and what types of

foods do they contain? How well do the meals meet

USDA requirements and other nutrition standards?

What factors are associated with more nutritious

meals and less waste?

Feeding Low-Income Children 

When School Is Out

The Summer Food Service Program

Executive Summary

Anne Gordon 

Ronette Briefel

Economic Research Service/USDA Feeding Low-Income Children When School Is Out/FANRR-30 ✥ 1
Data Sources

Study interviewers collected nationally representative

data at the State, sponsor, and site levels, as well as

from former sponsors. All SFSP State administrators

were interviewed by telephone. Samples of sponsors

and samples of sites were selected from lists of sponsors provided by State agencies and from lists of sites

provided by sampled sponsors, respectively. Study

staff then conducted a mail survey with telephone 

followup of 126 SFSP sponsors and a telephone survey

of 131 former sponsors (organizations that had participated as sponsors in 2000 but not in 2001). In addition,

study interviewers visited 162 sites operated by sampled

sponsors. While on site, the interviewers conducted 

in-person interviews with site supervisors; completed

structured observations of site operations (including

the site’s setting and activities offered, characteristics

of participants, and food service facilities); recorded

detailed descriptions of the types and amounts of 

foods served on 5 or 10 randomly selected plates; and

recorded detailed descriptions of the types and amounts

of food left on 10 randomly selected plates. During the

site visits, interviewers always observed lunch and, if

multiple meals were served at a site, observed either

breakfast or supper in addition to lunch. (They did not

observe snacks.) The survey response rates ranged

from 89 percent (for the survey of former sponsors) to

100 percent (for the survey of State administrators). In

the analysis, data from each survey have been weighted

to be nationally representative.

The study also compiled a database of basic characteristics of all 2001 SFSP sponsors and sites, based on

lists provided by the State agencies. Key sponsor 

characteristics were tabulated from this census database.

Program Characteristics

The SFSP began in 1968 as a pilot program to provide

meals to low-income children during the summer. 

In 1975, it was authorized as a permanent program,

and participation (measured by reported average daily

attendance in July) increased dramatically (fig. 1).

However, findings of fraud and abuse (particularly

among nonprofit sponsors) during the late 1970s led to

greater administrative oversight of sponsors, and to

2 ✥ Feeding Low-Income Children When School Is Out/FANRR-30 Economic Research Service/USDA
Economic Research Service/USDA Feeding Low-Income Children When School Is Out/FANRR-30 ✥ 3

restrictions on nonprofit sponsors. The Omnibus

Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 went further, prohibiting private nonprofit groups (except private

schools and residential camps) from serving as sponsors. It also set a more restrictive income threshold 

for site eligibility. Participation declined from the 

mid-1970s through the mid-1980s but then began to

increase as USDA and advocates worked to publicize

and expand the program. In 1989, nonprofit sponsors

were readmitted, but with restrictions. The program

continued to expand throughout the early 1990s.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity

Reconciliation Act of 1996 reduced reimbursement

rates, reduced the number of reimbursable meals 

per day, and eliminated startup and expansion grants 

to sponsors. However, other legislative changes 

implemented in 1998 eased restrictions on nonprofit

sponsors and streamlined paperwork requirements for 

experienced sponsors. Average daily attendance has

changed little since the mid-1990s.

State Agencies

The SFSP operates in all 50 States, Puerto Rico, the

Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia (all of

which are referred to as “States” in this report). In

most States, a State government agency— usually the

State education agency that administers the school

meal programs — administers the SFSP. In 2001, State

education agencies administered the entire SFSP

program in 41 States; in New York, the State education

agency administered the program for school and 

government sponsors. In nine States, a State agency

other than the education agency administered the 

program. (Departments of agriculture, health, and

social services were among the other agencies.) In two

States in which the State governments did not operate

the program —Virginia and Michigan — FNS regional

offices performed the functions of the State agency.

FNS also administered nonprofit and camp sponsors 

in New York.1

Sponsors

SFSP sponsors are extremely diverse in terms of the

nature of their organizations, the size of their programs, and the way they prepare and serve meals. 

The nature of SFSP sponsor organizations affects the

activities they offer with the program, their administrative capacities, and the fit between the SFSP and the

sponsors’ missions. The five major types of SFSP

sponsors are (1) School Food Authorities (SFAs —

the entities that administer the National School Lunch

Program (NSLP) in schools or school districts), 

(2) government agencies, (3) residential camps, 

(4) National Youth Sports Programs (NYSPs —

federally funded sports camps for low-income children

run by colleges or universities), and (5) other nonprofit 

organizations (fig. 2).

(1) SFAs made up roughly half (48 percent) of all 

sponsors in 2001, ran about half (49 percent) of 

all sites, and served about half (51 percent) of all 

meals. SFAs generally are well-suited to serve as 

sponsors, as they are experienced in preparing 

meals for children and often have school buildings

and staff available for sites. To increase access, 

some SFAs sponsor sites at other locations in the 

community in addition to schools.

(2) Government agencies (usually municipal recreation or social services departments) constituted 

14 percent of sponsors but were the largest 

sponsors, on average, operating 36 percent of sites 

and serving 31 percent of meals. Government 

sponsors often lack the facilities and expertise 

needed to prepare meals at their sites and therefore

are the most likely sponsor type to use vendors.

1 FNS regional office staff who administered State programs were 

included in the State administrator survey. For New York, staff from

both the State education agency and the FNS regional office were

interviewed, essentially counting New York as two States.
4 ✥ Feeding Low-Income Children When School Is Out/FANRR-30 Economic Research Service/USDA

(3) Residential camps made up about 16 percent of 

all sponsors. Camps operated few sites relative to 

other sponsors but served three meals daily so 

that, overall, they ran 3 percent of sites and served 

7 percent of meals. Although food service is an 

essential part of their programs, camps focus

primarily on other activities. Camps almost always

have staff and facilities on site to prepare meals.

(4) NYSPs constituted fewer than 4 percent of sponsors and served fewer than 1 percent of meals. 

Like camps, NYSPs focus on offering activities to 

participants. NYSPs may use college facilities or 

may contract with vendors for preparation of meals.

(5) Other nonprofit organizations (including religious 

organizations, youth organizations, and community

agencies) represented 18 percent of sponsors. 

However, program regulations generally restricted 

them to no more than 25 sites. They operated 12 

percent of sites and served 10 percent of all meals.

Nonprofit sponsors offer a diverse range of activities and approaches to meal service.

Most SFSP sponsors operated small programs, but a

few sponsors that operated large numbers of sites served

a large proportion of program meals (fig. 3). Half of all

sponsors ran only one site; these sponsors together

served just 11 percent of all meals. Another 36 percent

of sponsors ran 2 to 10 sites and served 20 percent of

all meals. In contrast, 1 percent of sponsors operated

more than 100 sites; they served 35 percent of all meals.

Most sponsors prepared meals themselves, most 

frequently at the serving site. Sixty-three percent 

prepared meals on site; however, many of these 

sponsors were small, serving only 26 percent of all

SFSP meals (fig. 4). Other sponsors, including many

large ones, prepared at least some meals at a central

kitchen and delivered them to their sites; 19 percent

of sponsors used central kitchens, but they prepared 

44 percent of meals.2 About 18 percent of sponsors

(providing 30 percent of meals) purchased meals from 

vendors —12 percent contracted with private food

service management companies, and 6 percent 

contracted with their local SFAs.

Sites

Most SFSP sites are in low-income neighborhoods and

are open to all children. Sites qualify as SFSP sites in

three major ways (fig. 5):

(1) Open sites (83 percent of sites) are eligible 

because they are located in neighborhoods in 

which at least 50 percent of children live in households with incomes at or below 185 percent of 

the poverty line. These sites must be open to all 

children who wish to attend.3 They are reimbursed 

for all meals served to children.

(2) Enrolled sites (14 percent) establish eligibility by 

documenting that at least 50 percent of enrolled 

children live in households with incomes at or 

below 185 percent of the poverty line. A site that 

has demonstrated eligibility is reimbursed for all 

2 Sponsors that used onsite preparation at some sites but delivered to others from a central kitchen are included in the “central

kitchen” category here. A distinction is made in Feeding LowIncome Children When School Is Out–The Summer Food Service

Program: Final Report between these sponsors and sponsors that

only used a central kitchen.

3 Some open sites may restrict attendance for safety, security, or

control reasons. The study did not assess how common these

“restricted open” sites were.
Economic Research Service/USDA Feeding Low-Income Children When School Is Out/FANRR-30 ✥ 5

meals served to enrolled children, regardless of the

household income.4

(3) Residential camp sites (3 percent) are reimbursed 

only for meals served to children from households 

with incomes at or below 185 percent of the 

poverty line.

Most SFSP sites can be reimbursed for only two meals

or snacks served per day. Camp sites and sites that

serve primarily migrant children can be reimbursed for

as many as three meals or snacks per day. Almost all

sites served lunch in 2001, and about half served

breakfast (fig. 6).5 Considerably fewer sites served

supper (5 percent) or a snack (19 percent).

Nearly all sites (93 percent) offered activities. More

than three-quarters offered each of the following 

activities: educational activities, supervised free play,

organized games or sports, and arts and crafts. About

two-thirds offered field trips, and half offered swimming. Smaller percentages of sites offered a wide

range of other activities, such as cooking, job training,

and religious activities. The activities that open sites

offered sometimes required enrollment, even though 

the meals were available to all children.6 For example,

SFAs that offer the SFSP in conjunction with

summer school must open their sites to children who

are not attending summer school. Some open sites

made activities available on a “drop-in” basis. About 

one-third of sites provided some or all children with

transportation.

On average, SFSP sites were open for slightly longer

than 7 weeks. Sixty-two percent of sites were open 

for 6 weeks or longer, and 32 percent were open for 

8 weeks or longer (fig. 7). Only 10 percent of sites

were open for fewer than 4 weeks. Almost all sites 

(93 percent) were open at least 5 days per week.

Participant Characteristics

Based on site supervisors’ estimates, the SFSP served

primarily elementary-age children in 2001 (58 percent

of children attending), although it also served preschoolers (17 percent) and older children (25 percent)

(table 1). Boys and girls attended in equal numbers.

Children who attended were of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds — 39 percent were African American,

29 percent were White (non-Hispanic), 27 percent

were Hispanic, and 5 percent were Asian, American

Indian, or members of other racial and ethnic groups.

4 NYSP sites (fewer than 1 percent of sites) are subject to special 

eligibility rules, but they are most similar to enrolled sites.

5 All sites in the sample served lunch. Administrative data suggest that about 2 percent of sites did not serve lunch.

6 The interviewers did not collect quantitative information on

how often the activities were not open, but they observed that

enrollment for activities was required at multiple sites.
Changes Since 1986

The last major study of the SFSP was conducted in

1986 (Ohls et al., 1988). At the time, the program was

just beginning to grow after a period of decline. From

1986 to 2001, the number of sponsors nearly doubled,

and average daily attendance in July grew 40 percent,

from 1.5 million to 2.1 million. SFA sponsors and nonprofit sponsors accounted for nearly all of the growth

in the number of sponsors and in participation. The

number of SFA sponsors nearly tripled, and nonprofit

sponsors, which were not part of the program in the

late 1980s, comprised nearly one-fifth of sponsors

in 2001. Partly as a reflection of the changes in the

types of sponsors, SFSP sites were more likely to

serve breakfast in 2001 than in 1986 and were more

likely to be open for longer than 6 weeks. However,

the proportion of sites that established eligibility as

open sites did not change, nor did the proportion of

children served who were of elementary-school age.

Program Administration

The study examined the interactions between SFSP

State agencies and sponsors and between sponsor 

staff and site staff. These relationships are key to the

administration of the SFSP.

State Agencies’ Administration of Sponsors

State agencies play vital roles in the SFSP. These

agencies recruit new sponsors, process sponsors’

applications, provide training and technical assistance

to sponsors, monitor their operations, and process 

their claims.

Applications

In their applications, new sponsors must establish their

eligibility, describe how they will provide meals, and

provide a budget for administrative and operating costs

that meets program requirements. They also must provide detailed information on every site they intend to

operate, including site location, estimated attendance,

hours of meal service, and documentation of site eligibility. State staff also must visit the new sponsors’ facilities before approval is granted. Experienced sponsors

recently were allowed to omit some information from

their applications that remains the same from year to

year, but they still must provide a detailed budget.7

State administrators considered the application process

for SFSP sponsorship to be demanding for their 

agencies and sponsors. Thirty-nine percent of State

agencies reported that their staffing was inadequate for

the application process. This shortfall may reflect the

fact that most applications are processed in the spring.

Most State agencies (82 percent) reported that they

6 ✥ Feeding Low-Income Children When School Is Out/FANRR-30 Economic Research Service/USDA

7 Some of these requirements have been changed for sponsors

under current pilot or waiver projects; see the discussion in the

concluding section. The pilot projects affected 25 percent of 

sponsors in summer 2001, based on data from the Sponsor-Site

Database.
often (as opposed to sometimes or rarely) provided

technical assistance with the application process;

applications ranked higher than any other topic in

terms of frequency of technical assistance. According

to 46 percent of the State administrators, budget 

preparation for applications was the most difficult of

all the training topics for new sponsors both during

and after training. State agencies ultimately accepted

96 percent of applications.

The questionnaire asked sponsors to comment on 

the application process in an open-ended question;

only 25 percent volunteered any comments. Half the

sponsors who did comment stated that the paperwork

should be simplified; a few others suggested simplifying specific parts of the application.

Training and Technical Assistance

The State administrators reported that providing 

training and technical assistance to sponsors was one

of their major activities. Most sponsors reported that

the formal training sessions were helpful. States 

provided an average of 6 hours of sponsor training.

Training sessions were held during the late winter or

the spring, while sponsors were preparing applications.

Many States (69 percent) provided longer sessions 

for new sponsors. Eighty-eight percent of sponsors

reported that some of their staff attended the State

training. All the sponsors that did not send staff were

experienced sponsors.

Fifty-eight percent of sponsors reported receiving 

technical assistance (individualized help outside of a

formal training session) from a State agency, and they

were generally satisfied with the assistance they

received. However, two out of every five sponsors

would have liked additional technical assistance on 

at least one topic.

Monitoring

State administrators reported undertaking monitoring

activities that were largely consistent with the monitoring required by SFSP regulations. To ensure that sponsors follow program rules and correct any problems,

State agencies are required to conduct administrative

reviews of all sponsors at least once every 3 years, 

to review all new sponsors, and to review annually

sponsors with large programs or recent problems.

Administrative reviews consist of a detailed inspection

of all paperwork that sponsors must keep to document

their reimbursement claims, including meal count

sheets from sites, meal production or vendor delivery

records, and staff time sheets. State monitors also visit

some of the sponsors’ sites to ensure that meals meet

nutritional and safety requirements, and that they are

counted appropriately.

Table 1—Characteristics of SFSP participants

Most participants were of elementary-school age

Characteristic Meals served

Grade level/age: Percent

Preschool age 17

Elementary-school age 58

Middle-school or junior high-school age 20

High-school age 5

Sex:

Female 51

Male 49

Race/ethnicity:

African American, not Hispanic 39

White, not Hispanic 29

Hispanic 27

Other1 5

Sample size 162

Note: Data have been weighted to estimate the percent of SFSP 

meals served to children in each group.

1Other racial or ethnic groups include American Indian, Alaskan 

Native, Asian, Pacific Islander, and any others.

Source: ERS SFSP 2001 Site Supervisor Survey.

Economic Research Service/USDA Feeding Low-Income Children When School Is Out/FANRR-30 ✥ 7
8 ✥ Feeding Low-Income Children When School Is Out/FANRR-30 Economic Research Service/USDA

The State administrators reported that, on average,

State agencies reviewed about 94 percent of new sponsors and 58 percent of experienced sponsors; some of

these estimates were preliminary.8 State agencies 

visited 30 percent of all sites, on average. In 52 percent

of the States, all or most site visits were unannounced.

Unannounced visits are preferable for ensuring that 

the program is observed as it usually operates, but 

they may be impractical if monitors must travel long

distances.

Sponsors’ Administration of Their Sites

Sponsors are responsible for arranging for meal service

at their sites, providing training and technical assistance to site staff, monitoring their sites’ compliance

with program rules, and preparing claims for reimbursement. The complexity of these activities varies

considerably with the size and type of sponsor. In the

case of single-site sponsors, sponsor and site staff may

be the same. Larger sponsors may hire site staff 

directly, find other organizations to provide sites and

staff (often, organizations that provide activities for

children) and provide only the meals themselves

(along with appropriate training, monitoring, and

financial oversight), or operate some sites with their

own staff and provide meals to others.

Costs and Funding

Most sponsors (72 percent) expected that SFSP reimbursements would not cover all their costs. Previous

research also found that SFSP reimbursements did not

fully cover most sponsors’ costs (U.S. General

Accounting Office, 1998). Fifty-seven percent of 

sponsors that did not expect costs to be fully covered

planned to supplement SFSP resources with their own

funds. Others planned to use funds from other State 

or Federal sources or from their parent organizations.

About 75 percent of sponsors that had operated for

longer than 1 year reported using one or more 

strategies, such as reducing the number of staff or

sites, to control costs during the past few years.

Training and Technical Assistance

Sponsors generally provided the required training and

often provided technical assistance. However, site staff

reported varying amounts of contact with sponsors.

Most sponsors (93 percent) reported that they conducted training sessions for their site staff. Training

lasted an average of 3 hours. The sessions covered such

topics as meal count records, health regulations, and

site violations. The sponsors that did not train their site

staff were single-site sponsors with only a few staff;

they sent some staff to the State-run training sessions.

As of the time of data collection, 60 percent of site

supervisors reported receiving technical assistance

from sponsor staff. The most frequent technical assistance topics were record keeping (mentioned by 88

percent of those receiving assistance), meal order

adjustments (73 percent), and food safety (72 percent).

Site staff reported wide variation in the number of

sponsor visits and the frequency of discussions with

sponsors about menus.9 Some sites had received no

visits from sponsors at the time of data collection,

whereas some had received as many as three visits

daily. Twenty-five percent had frequently discussed

menus with sponsors, and 34 percent sometimes

discussed menus; 41 percent never had this discussion.

Monitoring

Sponsors reported monitoring their sites regularly, but

a few sites reported that the sponsor had not yet visited.

Sponsors are required to visit each of their sites at

least once during the first week of program operations,

and to conduct a more comprehensive review at least

once during the first 4 weeks of operations. Eightyfour percent of sponsors reported that they reviewed

all sites at least twice, and 73 percent reported that all

visits to sites were unannounced. At the same time,

about 10 percent of supervisors of sites that had been

open more than a week before data collection reported

that the sponsor had not yet visited.

Outreach and Participation

FNS has expressed its commitment to expanding the

availability of the SFSP to low-income children (Food

and Nutrition Service, 2002b). July SFSP participation

is approximately 14 percent of the number of lowincome children who received free or reduced-price

school lunches through the NSLP during the school

year. One reason participation is lower is that SFSP

open sites must be located in low-income neighborhoods, whereas the NSLP is available everywhere. In 8 State administrators provided estimates of new sponsors, new

sponsor reviews, and experienced sponsor reviews, as many 

agencies had not completed reviews or paperwork at the time of

the interview. Because these estimates were preliminary, it is not

possible to conclude that States were not meeting the regulation 

to review all new sponsors.

9 These questions were asked only of site supervisors for multisite 

sponsors.
Economic Research Service/USDA Feeding Low-Income Children When School Is Out/FANRR-30 ✥ 9

addition, attendance at SFSP sites is voluntary, while

children must attend school and, thus, are a “captive

audience” for the school meal programs.

The study explored each of the major approaches to

expanding participation in the SFSP: recruiting new

sponsors, expanding the number of sites that existing

sponsors operate, extending the duration of site programs, attracting more children to existing sites, and

reducing the number of sponsors that leave the program.

Staffs’ Views on Barriers and Outreach

Staff at the State, sponsor, and site levels provided

their views on the barriers to increasing participation

in the SFSP and on their outreach methods. Sponsor

and site staff also discussed their capacity for and

interest in expansion. Although staff’s views help 

identify issues or areas of concern, they should be

interpreted cautiously. For example, site supervisors 

or sponsors may believe that their programs meet 

local demand, when, in fact, family barriers or lack 

of awareness that sites exist keep additional children

from attending. In other cases, supervisors may be

concerned about barriers when, in fact, the area contains fewer unserved children than the supervisors

believe are there.

State Agencies’ Views on Outreach

State administrators believed that recruiting new 

sponsors was challenging. Although 41 percent of State

administrators reported having inadequate numbers of

staff for outreach, almost all State agencies (91 percent)

worked with other organizations on outreach or 

publicity for the SFSP; about half (52 percent) worked

with nutrition or antihunger advocacy groups. Help

from partner organizations may have compensated to

some extent for the shortage of staff resources.

Thirty-three percent of State administrators cited personal contact as the most successful approach used to

recruit new sponsors — a higher percentage than 

mentioned any other approach. One-on-one meetings

enabled State agencies to respond to sponsors’ concerns about the complexities of managing the SFSP, 

to present the positive aspects of the program, and 

to provide assurance of assistance from the State.

Twenty-four percent of State administrators mentioned

outreach to school districts as their most successful

approach. State agencies often identified school districts in low-income areas that did not participate and

targeted them for recruiting efforts.

Sponsors’ Interest in Expansion

Many sponsors were not interested in expanding the

number of sites or the duration of their operations.

More than half (59 percent) of sponsors stated that

they were not interested in expanding the number of

sites they operated. The reasons varied: 38 percent of

these sponsors felt that their geographic area had a 

sufficient number of sites, 19 percent were not interested because they were a camp or single-site sponsor,

11 percent mentioned lack of staff, 10 percent mentioned lack of available locations for sites, and smaller

percentages cited other reasons. More sponsors operating open sites than other sponsors were interested in

expansion (53 percent versus 17 percent). Nearly

three-quarters of sponsors of open sites who were not

interested in expansion believed that the number of

sites in their area was sufficient.

Half the sponsors were not interested in extending 

the duration of their SFSP operations, 27 percent

reported that their program already ran all summer,

and 23 percent reported that they might be interested

in extending their program. Many sponsors were not

interested in staying open longer because their 

schedules were dictated by their activity programs 

(24 percent); external constraints (32 percent), such 

as having to vacate school sites so maintenance could 

be performed; staffing constraints (22 percent); or

financial constraints (20 percent).

Site Supervisors’ Views on Expansion

Site supervisors typically reported that they had the

capacity to serve additional children at their sites.

One-third estimated that they could serve more than 

50 additional children, and 48 percent estimated that

they could serve 1 to 50 additional children. Only 

18 percent reported that they were unable to serve

additional children. Site supervisors cited a range 

of barriers that might explain why children do not

attend, including lack of transportation (mentioned 

by 33 percent), lack of publicity about the program

(26 percent), limited hours (17 percent), children’s 

dislike of the food (16 percent), lack of or insufficient

numbers of activities (12 percent), and parents’

concerns about neighborhood safety (11 percent).

Sponsor Entry and Exit

For SFSP sponsorship to grow, it is important not only

to recruit new sponsors, but to minimize the exit of 

current sponsors. Some turnover unrelated to SFSP
10 ✥ Feeding Low-Income Children When School Is Out/FANRR-30 Economic Research Service/USDA

policies is inevitable, however, as staff or priorities

change and sponsors periodically renovate their facilities or perform other temporary activities. Furthermore, some sponsors, particularly new ones, leave after

realizing that they have overestimated demand for the

program or their administrative capacity to operate it.

The study interviewers collected data on turnover in 

the SFSP to inform discussions of these issues.

The percentages of sponsors entering and exiting 

the program in 2001 were similar, as estimated from

State agency administrative data. In summer 2001, 

10 percent of sponsors were new. Half the new sponsors

were SFAs, and one-third were nonprofit organizations. New sponsors were smaller than continuing

sponsors, and fewer new sponsors than continuing

sponsors offered breakfast and supper.

Between summer 2000 and summer 2001, 8 percent 

of SFSP sponsors left the program. Former sponsors

were disproportionately small, new, or nonprofit

organizations. Inadequate reimbursement rates and

time-consuming paperwork were the main reasons that

former sponsors gave for leaving the SFSP; each reason was cited by about 45 percent of former sponsors.

Forty percent reported that low participation levels

were a contributing factor. Thirty percent of former

sponsors reported that another SFSP sponsor had taken

over some or all of their sites.

Meal Service

SFSP sites serve food in a variety of settings and facilities, such as outdoor shelters at parks; recreation centers

that have refrigerators but no cooking facilities; and

cafeterias at schools, universities, and residential camps.

The study examined how SFSP meals were served,

their nutritional content, and the extent of plate waste.

Meal Service Arrangements

In 2001, 76 percent of all sites served meals indoors.

More than two-thirds (70 percent) of sites served

meals in a serving line or food pickup line, and 80 

percent had access to refrigerators.

Most sites (81 percent) served more than 90 percent 

of their available meals on the day of the observation.

In general, 29 percent of the sites that had leftover

meals discarded all of them (sometimes because of

health regulations), 22 percent stored all of them, and

39 percent discarded some meals or parts of meals and

stored others; smaller numbers used other approaches

to handling leftovers (fig. 8). About 22 percent of site

supervisors reported that their site had run out of food

or meals during SFSP meal service at some point 

during the summer.

SFSP Meal Pattern Requirements

To ensure that sites serve nutritious meals, SFSP regulations specify a meal pattern that all non-SFA sponsors

must follow. The meal pattern specifies that SFSP

lunches include foods from the following food groups:

(1) milk, (2) a bread or a bread alternate, (3) two fruits

or vegetables, and (4) a meat or a meat alternate. It

also specifies minimum serving sizes for foods from

each food group.10

Instead of using the SFSP meal pattern, SFA sponsors

have the option of using the same system that they use

for the NSLP. The system may be a food-componentbased system similar to the SFSP meal pattern or a

10 Compliance with the SFSP meal pattern at breakfast is discussed in Feeding Low-Income Children When School Is Out–The

Summer Food Service Program: Final Report (E-FAN-03-001).
Economic Research Service/USDA Feeding Low-Income Children When School Is Out/FANRR-30 ✥ 11

nutrient-based system, called “nutrient standard menu

planning,” which is based on nutritional analysis of

menus, rather than on specific food components. SFA

sponsors also may use “offer versus serve” (OVS),

which is intended to reduce waste by permitting children to refuse some items offered and still have the

meal count as meeting program requirements. Other

types of sponsors may not use OVS.

Because SFA sponsors may use other meal planning

approaches and/or OVS, compliance with the SFSP

meal pattern was assessed only for non-SFA sponsors.

Seventy-one percent of the SFSP lunches that non-SFA

sponsors served met all the meal pattern requirements

(fig. 9). Most lunches that fell short served all the

required components but did not meet the minimum

serving size for one of them. The meat/meat alternate

was the component most often served in an inadequate

amount; it was nearly always served, but 20 percent 

of lunches did not include it in the required minimum

serving size. Various factors, such as cooks’ measurement errors, food shrinkage during cooking, lack of

training on the requirements, or measurement errors

associated with the visual estimation and coding of

food portion sizes, may explain these findings.

Nutritional Standards Used To Assess Meals

The SFSP regulations do not specify nutritional goals

for the SFSP other than the meal pattern. This study

adapted the standards used in the school meals 

programs — the School Breakfast Program (SBP) 

and the NSLP— to evaluate SFSP meals. These

standards include the following:

• On average over a week, meeting one-fourth of 

the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) at

breakfast and one-third of the RDA at lunch for key

nutrients.11 Key nutrients specified in the SBP and

11 The RDA is the average daily nutrient intake level sufficient to meet

the nutrient requirements of nearly all healthy individuals in a particular

life stage and gender group (Institute of Medicine, National Academy of

Sciences, 2000). Standards for school meals are based on the 1989 RDAs.

Beginning in 1997, the Institute of Medicine gradually has been releasing

updated RDAs for specific nutrients based on the Dietary Reference

Intakes (DRIs). The DRIs include nutrient standards for RDAs and 

for Adequate Intakes (AIs), to be used when the available scientific 

evidence is insufficient to establish an RDA. In this study, the AI was

used as the nutrition standard for calcium, as an RDA for calcium is not

available. To evaluate whether SFSP meals met the RDA standard, the

mean nutrient content of meals served was compared with the RDA

standard for the two DRI age groups that most closely correspond to the

age range of most children in the SFSP (4 to 8 years and 9 to 13 years).

However, because DRIs for energy and protein were not available at the

time of the analysis, the means for these nutrients were compared with

the 1989 RDAs, which were defined for children aged 7 to 10 years.
12 ✥ Feeding Low-Income Children When School Is Out/FANRR-30 Economic Research Service/USDA

NSLP regulations are energy, protein, vitamin A, 

vitamin C, calcium, and iron.

• On average over a week, providing 30 percent of 

calories or less from total fat and less than 10 percent

of calories from saturated fat, as recommended by 

the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.12

The average nutrient content of SFSP breakfasts and

lunches was compared with these standards to assess

how well SFSP meals were meeting the nutritional

needs of children.

Nutrient Content of Meals

On average, SFSP meals provided at least one-quarter 

of the RDAs for most key nutrients at breakfast (fig. 10).

Breakfasts fell slightly below the standard for energy,

providing an average of 21 percent of the RDA. The

mean levels of most other nutrients were substantially

above the standard. The nutrient patterns of SFSP

breakfasts reflect the fact that many of the observed

meals consisted of ready-to-eat cereals, milk, and 

100-percent fruit juice. These foods provided children

with energy and other key nutrients — fortified cereals

and grains contributed iron and vitamin A; milk

contributed protein, calcium, and vitamin A; and juice

contributed vitamin C.

Nutrient patterns in SFA- and non-SFA-sponsored breakfasts generally were similar. Mean energy in both groups’

breakfasts was below the RDA standard of 25 percent

(21 percent of the RDA in SFA-sponsored breakfasts

and 22 percent in non-SFA-sponsored ones). Means for

other key nutrients were above the RDA standard for

both SFA- and non-SFA-sponsored breakfasts.

On average, SFSP lunches provided at least one-third 

of the RDA for energy and for other key nutrients 

(fig. 11). Lunches provided average energy just equal

12 Results for other vitamins and minerals, sodium, cholesterol,

and fiber are discussed in Feeding Low-Income Children When

School Is Out–The Summer Food Service Program: Final Report

(E-FAN-03-001).
Economic Research Service/USDA Feeding Low-Income Children When School Is Out/FANRR-30 ✥ 13

to the standard of 33 percent of the RDA. As at breakfast, other key nutrients were provided at levels above

the standard. More than 90 percent of lunch plates

included fruit, so it is not surprising that the meals’

vitamin C contributions were high. (For example, one

orange would provide both age groups with more than

100 percent of the RDA for vitamin C.) Milk and 

vegetables contributed vitamin A. Along with meats,

fortified breads and rolls provided significant amounts

of iron. Milk and dairy products helped the lunches 

to meet the standard for calcium for children in both

age groups. The average content of both SFA- and

non-SFA-sponsored lunches met the RDA standards

for energy and for other key nutrients.

On average, SFSP breakfasts exceeded the Dietary

Guidelines standard for saturated fat content, and

SFSP lunches exceeded the standard for fat and saturated fat (fig. 12). At the same time, the average fat

and saturated fat contents of SFSP meals were similar

to those reported for school breakfasts and school

lunches provided in elementary schools in 1998-99

(Fox et al., 2001).

Plate Waste

Plate waste is defined as foods that children select or

are served, but do not eat. It does not include either

leftover meals that are not served to children or food

wasted during meal preparation. In this study, it also

excludes foods left by children in a designated area,

known as a “share box,” which other children could

then take, but which were occasionally wasted. Share

boxes were available at 44 percent of the sites. The

extent of plate waste in the SFSP is important because

it affects the nutritional benefit that children obtain

from SFSP meals, as well as sponsors’ costs (and thus

their ability to operate the SFSP cost-effectively).

Although some wasted food on children’s plates is to

be expected, many factors may influence the extent of

plate waste: the children’s age, sex, and family background; their food preferences; the extent to which
14 ✥ Feeding Low-Income Children When School Is Out/FANRR-30 Economic Research Service/USDA

they can choose or refuse specific foods; the serving

temperature of the foods; specific forms of preparation

or presentation, such as whether fresh fruits are cut up;

the time available for children to eat; how hungry they

are at meal time; the environment (including cleanliness, comfort, and air or room temperature); and the

site staff’s interactions with the children during meals.

Children wasted an average of about one-third of the

calories and nutrients they were served at both breakfast and lunch (fig. 13). However, this fraction varied

across sites and by foods. The children ate 11 percent

of meals completely, with no plate waste. Vitamin A

at lunch had the highest level of waste (53 percent),

which reflects a relatively high level of wasted vegetables (48 percent of serving weight wasted), particularly raw carrots (73 percent) and salads (66 percent). 

At lunch, 30 percent of milk served was wasted,

37 percent of fruit, and 39 percent of breads or bread

alternates not in mixed dishes. Waste was 32 percent

for mixed dishes and 36 percent for meats not part of

mixed dishes. The level of waste observed for specific

foods and food groups is similar to the level observed

in previous studies of children in the SFSP (Ohls et al.,

1988) and in the NSLP (Reger et al., 1996).

Conclusions

The study findings suggest several key SFSP challenges: (1) how to simplify the required paperwork

and the reimbursement structure without compromising program quality and integrity; (2) where to target

SFSP expansion efforts; and (3) how to increase meal

pattern compliance and improve the acceptance of

meals to reduce plate waste, yet maintain or improve

nutritional content.

Simplifying Program Administration

To safeguard program integrity and meal quality, SFSP

regulations require both careful documentation for

sponsor applications and claims and ongoing monitoring of site operations by State agencies and sponsors.

However, responses to a range of questions indicated

that many State and sponsor staff perceived the

detailed program rules and the complex reimbursement

procedures as burdensome, and some believed that

they could discourage program growth.

In 2001, FNS began experimenting with several

approaches to simplifying the reimbursement process.

A 14-State pilot project — targeted to States with low

SFSP participation rates — allows sponsors to combine

administrative and operating costs and to be reimbursed at a fixed reimbursement rate per meal, with

less paperwork. A second initiative, the “Seamless

Summer” waiver, allows SFAs to run communitybased summer feeding programs under the NSLP and

to receive the NSLP free rate (slightly lower than the

SFSP rate) for all meals served. Without the waiver,

SFAs have to follow SFSP rules if they serve children

during the summer in community-based programs.13

13 SFAs that serve only summer school students operate under

the NSLP and are reimbursed on the basis of the students’ mealprice eligibility status (free, reduced, or paid).
Economic Research Service/USDA Feeding Low-Income Children When School Is Out/FANRR-30 ✥ 15

Studies of these initiatives will help to assess whether

the approaches should be adopted more widely.

Expanding Participation

USDA is developing a Web-based geographic information systems tool, based partly on data collected in this

study on locations of sponsors and sites, to help State

agencies and local groups identify underserved areas.

This tool will make it possible to target outreach

efforts more effectively.

At the same time, the views of State agency staff,

sponsors, and former sponsors suggest that, by themselves, better targeting and outreach are not enough.

Simplifying program administration through initiatives

such as those just described may also be important to

expand participation and reduce sponsor attrition. New

sponsors, nonprofit sponsors, and smaller sponsors

seem to have the most difficulty administering the program. Reimbursement rates may also affect sponsor

participation. Nearly half of former sponsors mentioned reimbursement rates as reasons for leaving the

program, and 72 percent of current sponsors did not

expect SFSP reimbursements to cover all of their costs.

Improving Meals and Reducing Waste

The findings on meal pattern compliance and on the

food and nutrient content of SFSP meals may guide

USDA in determining which changes in program

requirements and which kinds of assistance might help

sponsors provide meals that meet program requirements and nutrition standards. The findings on plate

waste suggest that sponsors should be encouraged to

consider children’s preferences, present meals in an

appealing way, and offer children choices, whenever

possible. The study findings also suggest that nutrition

education for sponsors’ staff, site staff, and SFSP participants may help improve menus, promote healthy

eating, and reduce waste. For example, nutrition education may teach sponsor and site staff to offer lower

fat options, and to offer fruits and vegetables in forms

that appeal to children. Nutrition education could

encourage children to eat more fruits and vegetables.
16 ✥ Feeding Low-Income Children When School Is Out/FANRR-30 Economic Research Service/USDA

References

Fox, M.K., M.K. Crepinsek, P. Connor, and 

M. Battaglia. School Nutrition Dietary Assessment

Study—II (SNDA-II) Summary of Findings. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition

Service, April 2001.

Gordon, Anne, Ronette Briefel, Karen Needels, Nancy

Wemmerus, Teresa Zavitsky, Randy Russo, Tania

Tasse, Laura Kalb, Anne Peterson, and Darryl Creel.

Feeding Low-Income Children When School Is Out—

The Summer Food Service Program: Final Report.

E-FAN-03-001. U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Economic Research Service, February 2003. 

Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences.

Dietary Reference Intakes: Applications in Dietary

Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy

Press, 2000.

Ohls, J., E. Cavin, E. Kisker, N. Chapman, and J.

Homrighausen. An Evaluation of the Summer Food

Service Program: Final Report. Princeton, NJ:

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., July 1988.

Reger, Christina, Carol E. O’Neil, Theresa A. Nicklas,

Leann Myers, and Gerald S. Berenson. “Plate Waste 

of School Lunches Served to Children in a LowSocioeconomic Elementary School in South Louisiana.”

School Food Service Research Review, 20 (supplement

1996) 13-19.

U.S Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition

Service. “Summer Food Service Program.” Program

participation data. (www.fns.usda.gov/pd/sfsummar).

Accessed January 18, 2002a.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition

Service. “A Message from Eric M. Bost: Under

Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services.”

(www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Summer/States/message).

Accessed February 25, 2002b.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Welfare Reform:

Effects of Reduced Reimbursements on the Summer

Food Service Program. GAO/RCED-99-20. 

December 1998.