1. USDA FNS Child Nutrition Research Melissa Abelev, PhD John Endahl, PhD Evaluation Branch Chief Senior Analyst Office of Policy Support

2. Current and Future Data Collection for Child Nutrition Studies StudyCongressionally Mandated ContractorNo. of SitesYearFinal Report School Meals CEP EvaluationYesAbt1,000 SFAs 51 SEAs SY 12-13 SY 13-14 Feb. 2013 Feb. 2014 School Foodservice Indirect Cost YesAbt2,000 SFAs 51 SEAs SY 12-13March 2014 Direct Cert. w/ Medicaid YesMPR675 SFAs* 6 SEAs* SY 12-13 SY 13-14 Jan. 2015 APEC-IIIPERAMPR175 SFAsSY 12-132015 NSLP State IP ratesIPERAMSGfeasibility study n/a2015 RORAIPERAWestat56 SFAsSY 12-13Aug. 2014 Special Nutrition Program Operations Westat 2M 1,500 SFAs 51 SEAs SY 11-12 SY 12-13 SY 13-14 March 2014 2015

3. StudyCongressional ly Mandated Contract or No. of SitesYearFinal Report Direct Certification Improvement MPR5,000 SFAs 56 SEAs SY 2012- 13 August 2014 Dec. 2014 School Nutrition and Meal Cost MPRTBDSY 2014- 15 TBD CACFP Study on Nutrition and Wellness Quality in Child Care Settings (SNAQCS) HHFKAAbtTbd20152019 CACFP Assessment of Sponsor Tiering Determinations IPERAWestat14 States 55 Sponsors 660 FDCHs Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Annual (Fall release) Erroneous Payments in Child Care Settings (EPICCS) IPERAWestatTbd20152019 CACFP Provider Characteristics KokopelliTbdSpring ’152017

4. StudyCongressionally Mandated ContractorNo. of SitesYearFinal Report Summer Meals Enhanced SFSP 2010 Approps Insight Westat AR, MI, DE,MA, NY, AZ, KS, OH Summer 2010-2013 Fall 2014 SEBTC2010 Approps Abt, MPR14 sitesSummer 2011-2014 Nov. 2014 June 2015 SFSP Provider Characteristics Optimal20152016 FFVP FFVP CFD Pilot ‘14 Farm Bill MPRAK, ME, KS, DE SY 14-152016 USDA Foods Cost Dynamics Agralytican/a2015 Nutrient Analysis Westatn/a2015

5. Gain a better understanding of: Acceptability of the CEP to school districts The perceived benefits and barriers for school districts/schools adopting the CEP Operational issues encountered by States in administering the CEP Impacts on: – NSLP/SBP participation and revenues – District and school administrative costs and staffing – Program integrity including certification error and meal counting and claiming – Meal quality and choices Community Eligibility Provision Evaluation Objectives Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) Evaluation Objectives

6. Take-up rates for CEP was wide-spread despite uncertainties. NSLP and SBP participation increased in CEP schools as did the associated Federal reimbursement. CEP schools more likely to serve breakfast in the classroom Total administrative time and costs for most functions were lower in CEP schools. CEP reduced the overall rate of certification errors and had little or no impact on meal counting/claiming No significant impact on a broad range of meal quality outcomes. CEP Evaluation Results

7. Do school districts have indirect cost rates? If so, do they calculate the indirect costs that are attributable to foodservice? If so, do they charge any, or all, of these costs to the foodservice account? If so, do they actually recover these charges? School Foodservice Indirect Cost Study Principal Study - Research Questions

8. Percent of All LEAs that Charged and Recovered Indirect Costs from School Foodservice, SY 2011-12, by LEA Size

9. Multi-year study designed to provide FNS with a snapshot of current State and SFA policies and practices a baseline for observing the improvements resulting from the implementation of various Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act provisions information to address policy needs, develop informed regulations and guidance, and identify areas in need of technical assistance CEP Evaluation Results Special Nutrition Program Operations Study - Objectives

10. Paid Lunch Equity – SFAs will need to raise price 30-50 cents over time; price gap narrowed by 6 percent in first year Professional Standards – Most SFA Directors have considerable experience, but education and certification requirements vary Food Safety – Nearly all SFAs have a written food safety plan based on HACCP principles and most schools had 2 or more safety inspections Alternative Meals – practices vary for providing meals to students that can’t pay CEP Evaluation Results Special Nutrition Program Operations Study – Results related to HHFKA

11. New Meal Pattern Requirements – Changes made by SFAs; initial and ongoing challenges to implementation Local School Wellness Policies – Elements included; stakeholders involved; assessment of the policy; dissemination to the public Farm to School Activities – participation and future participation; type of activities; purchase of local sourced foods; evaluation of activities CEP Evaluation Results Special Nutrition Program Operations Study – Year 2 Topics Related to HHFKA

12. Describe school environment, food service operating policies/practices, characteristics of NSLP/SBP schools and districts. Describe the food and nutrient content of USDA meals offered/served and how successful SFAs are in meeting new meal standards Determine the cost to produce NSLP and SBP meals Describe student characteristics, participation, satisfaction and dietary intake. Examine the extent of plate waste in school meals CEP Evaluation Results Special Nutrition and Meal Cost Study (SNDA-V+) Objectives

13. Nationally representative sample of about 500 SFAs, 1,200 schools, 2,400 students and a large sample of meals Primary data collection to occur in SY 2014-15 and includes web-based surveys, in-person interviews, observations, 24-hour dietary recalls, height/weight measures and administrative data 5 Separate Reports summarizing study findings expected in 2017. CEP Evaluation Results Special Nutrition and Meal Cost Study (SNDA-V+)

14. Census of State Educ. Agencies and Local- matching LEAs Case studies in 7 States Findings: – 38 States use Central (State-level) matching; 4 more are moving to Central matching – Combined State match with local checking – States often do not monitor frequency or accuracy of LEAs DC systems – Probabalistic matching software increases matches CEP Evaluation Results Direct Certification Improvement Study

15. Required by 2014 Farm Bill Four States (ME, AK, DE, KS) Impacts: – Consumption – Cost – Implementation Dietary recall, on-site observation, survey and interview of operations National survey to examine why States did/n’t apply CEP Evaluation Results Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, Canned, Frozen, Dried Pilot

16. Nationally representative sample of CACFP Centers and FDCHs, along with a subsample of non-CACFP Centers Primary data collection to occur in CY 2016 and includes web-based surveys, in-person interviews, observations, 24-hour dietary recalls, height/weight measures and administrative data Separate Reports summarizing study findings expected in 2018. CEP Evaluation Results Study of Nutrition and Wellness Quality in Child Care Settings (SNAQCS)

17. CEP Evaluation Results Summer Electronics Benefit Transfer for Children During the summer, SEBTC provides ~$60 per child per month; in 2013 we tested $30 against $60 Children eligible for FRPL meals during school year Using SNAP or WIC benefit delivery system Demonstration Summer 2011: 5 sites (3 SNAP model, 2 WIC model) Summer 2012: 14 sites (8 SNAP model, 6 WIC model) Summer 2013: 6 sites (2 SNAP model, 4 WIC model) Children Served: 2011: 12,500 2012: 66,800 2013: 99,000 (51,000 in demonstration)

18. SEBTC SNAP: $60 per child, per month WIC: A food prescription worth ~$60 – Milk (3 gallons) – Dry or Canned Beans or Peanut Butter (2 units) – Cheese (1 lb) – Fish (canned, 18 oz) – Eggs (1 dozen) – Grains, Whole Wheat Bread or Tortillas (3 lbs) – Juice (64 oz) – Fruits and Vegetables ($16 cash voucher) – Cereal (36 oz)

19. Finding: SEBTC reduced the most severe form of childhood food insecurity by a third. It also had impressive results for all groups, including households and adults. Both the SNAP and WIC models performed equally well. Indicator Treatment (%) Control (%) Impact (%) Percentage Change S.E. Child Very Low Food Security 6.49.5-3.1*** 33% 0.38 Food Insecure 36.244.6-8.4*** 19% 0.72 Household Very Low Food Security 19.528.7-9.2*** 32% 0.61 Food Insecure 48.557.3-8.8*** 15% 0.74 *p<.10 **p<0.05 ***p<0.01 2012

20. Thank you! CEP Evaluation Results