School Lunch Program: Cafeteria Managers' Views on Food Wasted by Students
Released: 1996-07-26T00:00:00

Letter

Background

The NSLP is designed to provide school children with nutritionally balanced and affordable lunches to safeguard their health and well-being. The program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Consumer Service, is available in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories.

The schools participating in the NSLP receive a cash reimbursement for each lunch served. In turn, the schools must serve lunches that meet federal nutritional requirements and offer lunches free or at a reduced price to children from families whose income falls at or below certain levels. For school year 1995-96, the schools were reimbursed $1.795 for each free lunch, $1.395 for each reduced-price lunch, and $0.1725 for each full-price lunch.

Furthermore, for each lunch served, the schools receive commodity foods—14.25 cents’ worth in school year 1995-96. The Department provides a billion pounds of commodity foods annually to states for use in the NSLP. States select commodity foods from a list of more than 60 different kinds of food, including fresh, canned, and frozen fruits and vegetables; meats; fruit juices; vegetable shortening and oil; and flour and other grain products. The variety of commodities depends on the quantities available and market prices. According to the Department, federal commodities account for about 20 percent of the food in the school lunch program.

Through school year 1995-96, the schools were required to offer lunches that met a “meal pattern” established by the Department. The meal pattern specified that a lunch must include five items—a serving of meat or meat alternate; two or more servings of vegetables and/or fruits; a serving of bread or bread alternate; and a serving of milk. The meal pattern was designed to provide nutrients sufficient to approximate one-third of the National Academy of Sciences’ Recommended Dietary Allowances.

Effective school year 1996-97, the schools participating in the program will be required to offer lunches that meet the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Among other things, these guidelines, which represent the official nutritional policy of the U.S. government, recommend diets that are low in fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol. In meeting these guidelines, the schools may use any reasonable approach, within guidelines established by the Secretary of Agriculture, including using the school meal pattern that was in effect for the 1994-95 school year.

All students attending the schools that participate in the NSLP are eligible to receive an NSLP lunch. In fiscal year 1995, about 58 percent of the eligible students participated in the program. About 49 percent of the participating students received free lunches, 7 percent received reduced-price lunches, and 44 percent received full-price lunches. The students who do not participate in the program include those who bring lunch from home, eat off-campus, buy lunch a la carte at school or from a school canteen or vending machine, or do not eat at all.

Concerns about plate waste prompted the introduction into the NSLP of the offer versus serve (OVS) option more than a decade ago. Under this option, a school must offer all five food items in the NSLP meal pattern, but a student may decline one or two of them. In a school that does not use this option, a student must take all five items. All high schools must use the OVS option, and middle and elementary schools may offer it at the discretion of local officials. According to a 1993 Department report, 71 percent of the elementary schools and 90 percent of the middle schools use the OVS option.

Extent to Which Cafeteria Managers Perceived Plate Waste as a Problem

Cafeteria managers varied in the extent to which they perceived plate waste as a problem in their school during the 1995-96 school year. Ninety percent of the managers provided an opinion on plate waste. The majority of those with an opinion did not perceive it as a problem. However, 23 percent of those with an opinion reported that it was at least a moderate problem. Figure 1 presents cafeteria managers’ perceptions of the extent to which plate waste was a problem in their school.

By school level, we found some variation in cafeteria managers’ perceptions of plate waste. As figure 2 shows, managers at elementary schools were more likely than those at middle or high schools to report that plate waste from school lunches was at least a moderate problem during the 1995-96 school year.

By school location and by schools serving different proportions of free and reduced-price lunches, we found no statistically significant differences in cafeteria managers’ perceptions of plate waste.

We also considered the extent to which cafeteria managers perceived plate waste as a problem by asking them to compare the amount of waste from school lunches with the amount of waste from packed lunches from home. Sixty-three percent of the managers were able to make this comparison. Of these, 79 percent believed that the amount from school lunches was less than or the same as the amount from packed lunches. (See fig. 3.)

Amount of Plate Waste by Food Type

Cafeteria managers reported large variations in the amount of waste from eight different types of food that may be included as part of the school lunch. For each food type, managers reported how much of the portions served, on average, was wasted. On the basis of the managers’ responses, we estimate that the average amount wasted ranged from a high of 42 percent for cooked vegetables to a low of 11 percent for milk. Figure 4 shows our estimate of the average percent of waste for each of the eight food types.

By school level, the amount of waste varied for all food types except canned or processed fruits. In general, the waste reported for each food type was highest in the elementary schools and lowest in the high schools. (See fig. 5.)

By school location, the amount of waste varied for three food types—cooked vegetables, raw vegetables/salads, and milk. For example, for each of these food types, the urban schools reported more waste than the rural schools. (See fig. 6.)

By schools serving different proportions of free and reduced-price lunches, the average amount of waste varied for four food types—raw vegetables/salads, fresh fruits, canned or processed fruits, and milk. (See fig. 7.)

Reasons for and Ways to Reduce Plate Waste

When responding to a list of possible reasons for plate waste at their school, the cafeteria managers most frequently selected a nonfood reason—“student attention is more on recess, free time or socializing than eating.” When responding to a list of possible ways to reduce plate waste, the managers most often viewed actions that would involve students, such as letting students select only what they want, as more likely to reduce plate waste than other actions.

Reasons for Plate Waste

Seventy-eight percent of the cafeteria managers cited a nonfood reason—students’ attention on recess, free time, or socializing—when asked why students at their school did not eat all of their school lunch. Figure 8 shows the percent of managers who identified each of the nine reasons listed in our survey as either a minor, moderate, or major reason for plate waste in their school.

By school level, the percent of managers selecting a reason for plate waste varied for four of the reasons provided in our survey. (See fig. 9.) For example, elementary school managers were much more likely than middle or high school managers to report “amount served is too much for age or gender” as a reason for plate waste.

By school location, the percent of cafeteria managers selecting a reason for plate waste varied for four of the reasons provided in our survey. (See fig. 10.) For example, managers at urban schools were more likely than those at suburban and rural schools to report that students “do not like that food” as a reason for plate waste.

By schools serving different proportions of free and reduced-price lunches, cafeteria managers’ perceptions differed somewhat for three reasons. For example, managers in schools serving under 30 percent free and reduced-price lunches were more likely than managers in schools serving over 70 percent free and reduced-price lunches to cite “take more than they can eat” as a reason for plate waste. (See fig. 11.)

In addition to asking cafeteria managers to respond to a list of possible reasons for plate waste, we asked them to identify the effect on plate waste of the NSLP’s requirements for types of food and serving sizes that were in effect at the time of our survey. The managers believed that, overall, the minimum federal serving sizes provided about the right amount of food for the students at their school. (See fig. 12.)

Furthermore, for each of four minimum serving size requirements that were in effect at the time of our survey, most cafeteria managers reported that each requirement did not result in more plate waste at their school. However, two requirements—serving at least three-fourths of a cup of fruits/vegetables daily and serving at least eight servings of breads/grains weekly—were viewed as resulting in more plate waste by about one-third and one-quarter of the managers, respectively. Figure 13 shows the percent of cafeteria managers who reported that the minimum serving sizes for the four requirements resulted in more waste.

In addition, we asked cafeteria managers about the potential effect on plate waste of increasing the minimum serving sizes for fruits/vegetables and breads/grains. For fruits/vegetables, 62 percent of the middle and high school managers said that increasing the amount from three-fourths of a cup to one cup daily would cause more waste. For breads/grains, 53 percent of the middle and high school managers said that increasing the number of weekly servings from 8 to 15 would increase plate waste; and 69 percent of the elementary school managers reported that increasing the number of servings of breads/grains from 8 to 12 weekly would cause more plate waste.

Ways to Reduce Plate Waste

Of 11 possible actions listed in the survey to reduce plate waste, cafeteria managers viewed actions involving students in the choice of food, such as letting students select only what they want and seeking students’ opinions regularly about menus, as more likely to reduce plate waste than other actions. (See fig. 14.)

By school level, there was some variation in the views of cafeteria managers for two of the actions to reduce plate waste listed in our survey. (See fig. 15.) For example, elementary school managers were more likely than high school managers to identify “reduce federally required portion sizes” as an action that would cause a little or a lot less plate waste.

By school location, there was some variation in the views of cafeteria managers for four of the actions listed in our survey. For example, managers in urban schools were more likely than managers in rural schools to cite “seek student opinions regularly about menus” as an action that would cause less plate waste. (See fig. 16.)

By schools serving different proportions of free and reduced-price lunches, there was no variation in cafeteria managers’ views on ways to reduce plate waste. Managers in each group—schools serving under 30 percent free and reduced-price lunches, schools serving between 30 and 70 percent free and reduced-price lunches, and schools serving over 70 percent free and reduced-price lunches—had similar opinions about the general level of effectiveness for the 11 potential actions to reduce waste that were listed in the survey.

In addition, most managers reported that two approaches already in place in most schools result in less plate waste. Eighty percent of the managers said that the OVS option results in less waste, and 55 percent said that offering more than one main dish or entree daily results in less waste.

Cafeteria Managers’ Level of Satisfaction With Federal Commodities

Most cafeteria managers reported satisfaction with various aspects of the federal commodities received at their school for use in school lunches. The managers’ level of satisfaction was highest for the taste and packaging of the commodities and lowest for the variety of foods available and the quantity of individual commodities. Figure 17 shows the percent of cafeteria managers who were satisfied, and the percent who were dissatisfied, with the federal commodities provided for school lunches.

Over 70 percent of the managers reported that they wanted all or almost all of the different commodities received. However, about 10 percent reported that they would prefer not to receive about half or more of the different commodities they were sent. (See fig. 18.)

Agency Comments

We provided copies of a draft of this report to the Department’s Food and Consumer Service for its review and comment. We met with agency officials, including the Deputy Administrator, Special Nutrition Programs.

Agency officials questioned why our survey results generalize to 80 percent, rather than 100 percent, of all the public schools that participated in the NSLP in the 1993-94 school year. Relatedly, agency officials asked if we had analyzed the characteristics of nonrespondents. We generalized our results to 80 percent of the public schools because we used a conservative statistical approach that required us to generalize our results only to the overall level reflected by our response rate, in this case 80 percent. We did not analyze the characteristics of nonrespondents because we believe that such an analysis alone would not allow us to generalize our survey results to 100 percent of the public schools that participated in the NSLP in the 1993-94 school year. To generalize to 100 percent of the public schools, we believe it would also be necessary to analyze information about perceptions of plate waste from a subsample of cafeteria managers who did not respond to our survey. This analysis would allow us to assess whether the opinions of these managers differed significantly from those of the managers who completed and returned a survey.

Further, the Department commented that our survey’s list of possible reasons for plate waste did not permit cafeteria managers to select other possible reasons, including meal quality and palatability. We agree that these reasons may affect plate waste. However, we included two related reasons for plate waste—“they do not like that food” and “they do not like the way the food looks or tastes.” We believe these two reasons address, in part, meal quality and palatability. In addition, respondents had the opportunity to identify other reasons contributing to plate waste. Less than 5 percent of the respondents specified other reasons that they considered to be at least a minor reason for plate waste.

The Department also commented that we did not solicit the views of children or their parents/caretakers. We agree that the views of cafeteria managers present only one perspective on the extent of, and reasons for, plate waste and that valuable information could be obtained from a comprehensive, nationwide study of the views of children and their parents/caretakers. The time and resources associated with such a study could be substantial.

In addition, the Department commented that our study did not address whether there was more or less plate waste in the NSLP than in other lunch settings—such as at home or in restaurants. While identifying the amount of waste in different lunch settings was not an objective of our study, our survey asked cafeteria managers if they perceived the amount of waste from school lunches as more, less, or about the same as the amount of waste from lunches brought from home. Our survey results found that, of those cafeteria managers who were able to assess differences in the amount of plate waste, 79 percent believed that the amount from school lunches was less than or the same as the amount from lunches brought from home.

Finally, agency officials provided some technical and clarifying comments that we incorporated into the report as appropriate.

Scope and Methodology

To develop the questions used in our survey of cafeteria managers, we reviewed the NSLP’s regulations and research addressing the issue of waste in the program. Furthermore, we spoke with representatives from school food authorities, the American School Food Service Association, and the Department’s Food and Consumer Service. We refined our questions by pretesting our survey with the cafeteria managers of 18 schools in Illinois, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.

We mailed our survey to a random sample of 2,450 cafeteria managers in public schools in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. We selected our sample from the 87,100 schools listed in the National Center for Education Statistics’ Common Core of Data Public School Universe, 1993-94, the latest year for which a comprehensive list of public schools was available. This document did not identify whether a school participated in the NSLP. Eighty percent (1,967) of those surveyed returned a survey. Of these, about 4 percent (80) reported that their school did not participate in the NSLP, while the remainder (1,887) reported that their school participated in the program. Our survey results generalize to 65,743 of the 81,911 public schools nationwide that participated in the NSLP in the 1993-94 school year. This number may vary for individual questions, depending on the response rate to the question.

As with all sample surveys, our results contain sampling error—potential error that arises from not collecting data from the cafeteria managers at all schools. Unless otherwise indicated in appendix I, the sampling error for the survey results presented in this report is plus or minus no more than 5 percentage points.

Sampling error must be considered when interpreting differences between subgroups, such as urban and rural schools. All differences we report are statistically significant unless otherwise noted. Statistical significance means that the difference we observed between subgroups is too large to be attributed to chance.

We conducted our review from July 1995 through June 1996 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We did not, however, independently verify the accuracy of the cafeteria managers’ responses to our survey.

Appendix II contains a more detailed description of our survey methodology. Appendix III contains a copy of our survey and summarizes the responses.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 7 days from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, interested Members of Congress, the Secretary of Agriculture, and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others on request.

If you have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-5138. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix IV.

Estimates With Sampling Errors That Exceed 5 Percent for Percents Presented in This Report

Middle school cafeteria managers reporting students “do not like that food” as reason for plate waste at their school (fig. 9)

High school cafeteria managers reporting students “do not like that food” as reason for plate waste at their school (fig. 9)

Middle school cafeteria managers reporting students “take more than they can eat” as reason for plate waste at their school (fig. 9)

High school cafeteria managers reporting students “take more than they can eat” as reason for plate waste at their school (fig. 9)

Middle school cafeteria managers reporting that “amount served is too much for age or gender” as reason for plate waste at their school (fig. 9)

High school cafeteria managers reporting “amount served is too much for age or gender” as reason for plate waste at their school (fig. 9)

Urban school cafeteria managers reporting “not hungry” as reason for plate waste at their school (fig. 10)

Suburban school cafeteria managers reporting “not hungry” as reason for plate waste at their school (fig. 10)

Urban school cafeteria managers reporting “take more than they can eat” as reason for plate waste at their school (fig. 10)

Cafeteria managers at schools serving over 70 percent free and reduced-price lunches reporting students “take more than they can eat” as reason for plate waste at their school (fig. 11)

Middle school cafeteria managers reporting “reduce federally required portion sizes” as a way to reduce plate waste (fig. 15)

High school cafeteria managers reporting “reduce federally required portion sizes” as a way to reduce plate waste (fig. 15)

Middle school cafeteria managers reporting “replace federal commodities with cash” as a way to reduce plate waste (fig. 15)

High school cafeteria managers reporting “replace federal commodities with cash” as a way to reduce plate waste (fig. 15)

Urban school cafeteria managers reporting “replace federal commodities with cash” as a way to reduce plate waste (fig. 16)

Suburban school cafeteria managers reporting “replace federal commodities with cash” as a way to reduce plate waste (fig. 16)

Scope and Methodology

The Chairman of the House Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities asked us to study plate waste in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). Specifically, we agreed to survey cafeteria managers in public schools nationwide that participate in the NSLP to obtain their perceptions on the (1) extent to which plate waste is a problem, (2) amount of plate waste by type of food, and (3) reasons for and ways to reduce plate waste. We agreed to determine whether the perceptions of managers differed by their school’s level (elementary, middle, or high school), their school’s location (urban, suburban, or rural), and the proportion of their school’s lunches served free and at a reduced price (under 30 percent free and reduced price, 30 to 70 percent free and reduced price, or over 70 percent free and reduced price). In addition, we agreed to ask cafeteria managers about their level of satisfaction with federal commodities used in the program.

To develop the questions used in our survey of cafeteria managers, we reviewed the NSLP’s regulations and research addressing the issue of waste in the program. Furthermore, we spoke with representatives from school food authorities, the American School Food Service Association, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Consumer Service. We refined our questions by pretesting our survey with the cafeteria managers of 18 schools in Illinois, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. Generally, the questions on our survey concerned the 1995-96 school year.

We mailed our survey to a random sample of 2,450 cafeteria managers in public schools in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. We selected our sample from the 87,100 schools listed in the National Center for Education Statistics’ Common Core of Data Public School Universe, 1993-94, the latest year for which a comprehensive list of public schools was available from the National Center for Education Statistics. This document did not identify whether a school participated in the NSLP. We sent as many as two followup mailings to each cafeteria manager to encourage response. Eighty percent (1,967) of those surveyed returned a survey. Of these, about 4 percent (80) reported that their school did not participate in the NSLP, while the remainder (1,887) reported that their school participated in the program. Our survey results generalize to 65,743 of the 81,911 public schools nationwide that participated in the NSLP in the 1993-94 school year. This number may be lower for individual questions, depending on the response rate for the question.

The results of our survey of cafeteria managers cannot be generalized to schools that opened after school year 1993-94; to private schools; to most residential child care institutions; to schools in the U.S. territories; and to schools represented by the survey nonrespondents.

We matched the 1,887 survey responses to information about each school in the Common Core of Data. We used the Common Core of Data to identify school location and to validate survey responses on student enrollment and school level. From this validation, we determined that a number of the surveys were completed for the surveyed school’s district rather than for the individual school. In those cases, we used information from the Common Core of Data to determine the surveyed school’s level (e.g., elementary) and student enrollment. We assumed that the school served the same proportion of free and reduced-price lunches as the district. Unless otherwise stated in the survey response, we also assumed that districtwide opinions about plate waste applied to the surveyed school.

Table II.1 shows the number of cafeteria managers responding to our survey, by school level.

Table II.2 shows the number of cafeteria managers responding, by school location.

Table II.3 shows the number of cafeteria managers responding, by schools serving different proportions of free and reduced-price lunches.

As with all sample surveys, our results contain sampling error—potential error that arises from not collecting data from cafeteria managers at all schools. We calculated the sampling error for each statistical estimate at the 95-percent confidence level. This means, for example, that if we repeatedly sampled schools from the same universe (i.e., Common Core of Data) and performed our analyses again, 95 percent of the samples would yield results within the ranges specified by our statistical estimates, plus or minus the sampling errors. In calculating the sampling errors, we used a conservative formula that did not correct for sampling from a finite population. The sampling error for most of the survey results presented in this report is plus or minus no more than 5 percentage points.

Sampling error must be considered when interpreting differences between subgroups, such as urban and rural schools. For each comparison of subgroups that we report, we calculated the statistical significance of any observed differences. Statistical significance means that the difference we observed between two subgroups is larger than would be expected from the sampling error. When this occurs, some phenomenon other than chance is likely to have caused the difference. Statistical significance is absent when an observed difference between two subgroups, plus or minus the sampling error, results in an interval that contains zero. The absence of a statistically significant difference does not mean that a difference does not exist. The sample size or the number of respondents to a question may not have been sufficient to allow us to detect a difference. We used the chi square test of association to test the significance of differences in percentages between two subgroups and the t-test for differences in means.

We conducted our review from July 1995 through June 1996 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We did not, however, independently verify the accuracy of the cafeteria managers’ responses to our survey.

Results of Survey of School Cafeteria Managers

Major Contributors to This Report

Thomas Slomba, Assistant Director Rosellen McCarthy, Project Leader Sonja Bensen Carolyn Boyce Jay Scott Carol Herrnstadt Shulman The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.

U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.