Key Findings Bexley School Lunch Parent Survey

Survey Details 4/5/2012 Bexley Lunch Survey, Preliminary Results 2 Survey created with input from Health and Wellness Committee, School administration & foodservice staff, OSU researchers, Bexley parents Administered online from late February through April completed surveys representing 472 K-12 students About 1 in 4 Bexley households with children enrolled in K-8 All schools represented Cass/Maryl/Mont) 15% respondents marked <$75,000 Income vs. 42.5% of Bexley Households from 2009 data 6% respondents identified as racial minority vs. 16% of students 86% said healthiness of school lunches better than 2 years ago 53% were aware of Ohio Senate Bill % where child never buys lunch; 29% buy several times a week

Drivers of Lunch and Food Choice Respondents were given several opportunities to assess the relative importance of factors driving food choice at home and for their children’s school lunches. General, the order of importance was: 1. Taste/will my child eat the food 2. Health 3. Price (sensitive to income, frequency of lunch purchases) 4. Convenience/logistics Situations included: Importance of home prepared meals Drivers of whether child currently purchases school lunch Aspects the would make child more likely to buy school lunch Response to hypothetical lunch menu purchase decisions

Current Lunch Purchase Factors (Q2) Importance of factors for buying school lunch Mean Rating on 4- point scale Whether my child likes/will eat school lunch3.66 A* Healthiness3.42 B Other (52 gave open ended responses)3.19 B, C My ability to determine what is eaten via packing2.72 C Convenience of not having to pack lunch2.58 D The time it takes for child to stand in lunch line2.57 D Cost of buying school lunch2.45 D Lunch choices of my child’s friends1.64 E Whether I can be home to serve lunch1.41 F *Numbers that share the same letter are not statistically distinct 4/5/ Bexley Lunch Survey, Preliminary Results

If the following were altered, how would your willingness to buy school lunch change? (Q10) Mean Rating* Offer more fresh, whole foods4.34 A** Offer more entrees made from scratch4.32 A Improve taste4.26 A Tie child’s nutrition learning to items being served3.91 B Improve visual appeal3.89 B Reduce refined carbohydrate content3.86 B Reduce sugar content3.85 B Offer more organic food3.84 B Reduce wait time3.80 B Reduce fat content3.69 C Reduce salt content3.66 C Reduce cost3.54 D Reduce calorie content3.52 D * Mean rating on 5-point scale where 1=much less willing and 5=much more willing **Numbers that share the same letter are not statistically distinct 4/5/2012 5

Hypothetical Lunch Purchases Lunch FactorChange in Probability of Purchase † PriceAllIncome < $75k $ %** +24%** $ %**+3% $3.00 (base price)-- $ % -21%** $ %-8% † Holds constant the respondent’s rating of healthiness of meal, perceived palatability of meal and current school lunch purchasing frequency **, denotes that this number is statistically distinct from the base category 4/5/ Bexley Lunch Survey, Preliminary Results

Hypothetical Lunch Purchases Lunch FactorChange in Probability of Purchase † Health RatingAllIncome < $75k 1 (base: very unhealthy)-- 2 (somewhat unhealthy)+20%**-37%** 3 (somewhat healthy)+32% **-41%** 4 (very healthy)+36%**-30%** † Holds constant the respondent’s rating of healthiness of meal, perceived palatability of meal and current school lunch purchasing frequency **, denotes that this number is statistically distinct from the base category 4/5/ Bexley Lunch Survey, Preliminary Results

Hypothetical Lunch Purchases Lunch FactorChange in Probability of Purchase † ‘Child Will Eat’ RatingAllIncome < $75k 1 (base: very unlikely)-- 2 (somewhat unlikely)+40%**+17% 3 (somewhat likely)+72% ** +70%** 4 (very likely)+78%** +80%** † Holds constant the respondent’s rating of healthiness of meal, perceived palatability of meal and current school lunch purchasing frequency **, denotes that this number is statistically distinct from the base category 4/5/ Bexley Lunch Survey, Preliminary Results