Post on 30-May-2018
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
1/133
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
2/133
University of WashingtonDepartment of Urban Design and Planning
This is to certify that I have examined this copy of a professional project by
Donald Jerome Kramer
and have found that it is complete and satisfactory in all respects,and that any and all revisions required by the final
examining committee have been made.
Committee Members:
__________________________________________________Branden Born Ph.D.
__________________________________________________Joaquin Herranz Jr., Ph.D.
___________________________________________________Erin MacDougall Ph.D.
Date:___________________________
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
3/133
In presenting this professional project in partial fulfillment of the requirements for amasters degree at the University of Washington, I agree that the Library shall make itscopies freely available for inspection. I further agree that extensive copying of thisprofessional project is allowable only for scholarly purposes, consistent with fair use asprescribed in the U.S. Copyright Law. Any other reproduction for any purposes or by any
means shall not be allowed without my written permission.
Signature ____________________________________________
Date ________________________________________________
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
4/133
If you have questions or comments about this paper, please contact Don Kramer at
djk5@u.washington.edu.
For more information about the King County Food and Fitness Initiative, visit
www.kcffi.org.
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
5/133
University of Washington
ABSTRACT
ASSESSING THE FOOD AND FITNESS ENVIRONMENTS OF
NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOLS IN DELRIDGE AND WHITE CENTER
By Donald Jerome Kramer, 2009, 85 pages.
Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Branden Born Ph.D., Assistant Professor of UrbanDesign and Planning.
The King County Food and Fitness Initiative (KCFFI) is a collaborative of local and
regional organizations and public agencies in King County, Washington, organized to
implement the Food and Fitness Initiative, a multi-year grant from the W.K. Kellogg
Foundation. The Initiative is intended to generate systems-level changes that improve the
food and fitness environments of entire communities. The focus communities of the
KCFFI are Delridge and White Center, adjacent neighborhoods in southwest Seattle and
in unincorporated King County, respectively.
The KCFFI received a two-and-a-half year planning grant from the Kellogg Foundation
in 2006 and must submit a Community Action Plan to the Foundation in September 2009that outlines how the KCFFI will use the five-year implementation grant. During summer
2008, the author was one of six students from the University of Washington who
participated in a ten-week applied urban planning course in collaboration with the
KCFFI. The final product of the course was a neighborhood-level community food
system assessment and built environment assessment. The course did not focus
specifically on schools.
One purpose of this professional project is to present a survey methodology and survey
tool the KCFFI can use to gather baseline information about food and fitness in schools.
For the purposes of this paper, the food environment includes foods available to students
in schools and nutrition education. Fitness environments include physical education and
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
6/133
physical activity in school and active transportation to and from school. This paper
includes the authors methodology and a copy of the survey. Another purpose of this
project is to give the KCFFI a compendium of relevant policies and programs that federal
and state governments and school districts develop, fund and/or regulate that affect food
and fitness at schools. This information provides context about the larger policy
environment within which schools operate.
Based on the authors research and analysis of these policies and programs, several
potential opportunities may exist for the KCFFI to influence food and fitness in schools
through collaboration with schools or through advocacy for policy changes. This paper
does not, however, make specific recommendations for action. KCFFI leadership will
decide how to plan and implement the initiative. Understanding where these policies and
programs originate, knowing about existing programs at schools in the focus
communities that could be replicated or serve as a resource, and collecting the survey
results can help the KCFFI leaders as they decide what to include in the Community
Action Plan.
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
7/133
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ iv
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................... v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 4
KCFFI Background ...................................................................................................................... 4
The KCFFI Focus Communities .................................................................................................. 6
Public Agency Health Data and Indicators About the Focus Communities .............................. 11
Schools in the Focus Communities ............................................................................................ 11
Purpose ....................................................................................................................................... 17
Audience .................................................................................................................................... 18
Professional Planning Context ................................................................................................... 19
How To Use This Document ..................................................................................................... 21
METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................ 22
Developing the Survey ............................................................................................................... 22
Testing the Survey ..................................................................................................................... 25Training Others to Conduct Survey ........................................................................................... 25
Collecting Survey Results .......................................................................................................... 26
Policy and Program Research Methodology .............................................................................. 28
UW Human Subjects Division Approval of Protocol ................................................................ 29
DISCUSSION OF SURVEY AND POLICY RESEARCH PROCESS ........................................ 30
Reflections on Methodology ...................................................................................................... 30
Initial Observations .................................................................................................................... 35
Survey Questions and Related Policy and Program Sources ..................................................... 37
POLICIES AND PROGRAMS THAT AFFECT SCHOOLS ....................................................... 39
School District Wellness Policies .............................................................................................. 40
Foods Available in Schools ....................................................................................................... 43
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
8/133
ii
Federal School Food Programs............................................................................................. 45
National School Lunch, School Breakfast and Afterschool Snacks Programs ...................... 46
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program...................................................................................... 48
Summer Food Service Program ............................................................................................. 50
Competitive Foods ................................................................................................................. 51
Pricing ................................................................................................................................... 53
Drinking Water...................................................................................................................... 54
Food Environment Near Schools ............................................................................................... 55
Nutrition Education .................................................................................................................... 56
School Gardens ...................................................................................................................... 58
Physical Education ..................................................................................................................... 60Recess ........................................................................................................................................ 62
Community Access to School Recreation Facilities .................................................................. 64
Active Transportation ................................................................................................................ 65
Safe Routes to School Program ............................................................................................. 67
Safe Walking Route Maps for Focus Community Schools ..................................................... 71
Summary of Potential Opportunities for KCFFI ........................................................................ 75
CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 81
Lessons Learned......................................................................................................................... 81
Potential Opportunities .............................................................................................................. 84
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 87
APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................... 93
KCFFI Collaborative Partners, as of May 12, 2008 .................................................................. 94
KCFFI Leadership Council Members, as of May 11, 2008 ....................................................... 95
KCFFI Assessment Team Members, Affiliation and Focus, as of January 2009 ...................... 96
KCFFI School Survey Interviewer Instructions ......................................................................... 97
KCFFI School Survey ................................................................................................................ 99
Oral Consent Statement for Interviewees ................................................................................ 108
School District Contact Information ........................................................................................ 109
State and Other Agency Contact Information .......................................................................... 110
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
9/133
iii
Safe Routes to School/Active Transportation Resources......................................................... 111
Highline Public Schools nutrition standards ............................................................................ 112
Seattle Public Schools distribution and sales of competitive foods procedure ........................ 114
Seattle Public Schools nutrition education procedure .............................................................. 118
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
10/133
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. Map of KCFFI focus communities. ................................................................................ 10
Figure 2. Map of schools in KCFFI focus communities. ............................................................... 14
Figure 3. Detail of survey results collection file ............................................................................ 27
Figure 4. Safe walking route map, Roxhill Elementary School. .................................................... 74
Figure 5. Safe walking route map, Mount View Elementary School. ........................................... 75
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
11/133
v
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1. Public schools in KCFFI focus communities. .................................................................. 12
Table 2. Student demographics. ..................................................................................................... 15
Table 3. Student demographics: ethnicity. ..................................................................................... 16
Table 4. Student demographics: special programs. ........................................................................ 17
Table 6. Survey questions and related policy and program sources. ............................................. 37
Table 7. Activities to encourage biking and walking at three focus community schools. ............. 69
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
12/133
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Prepared for:King County Food & Fitness Initiative.
Special thanks to:
Branden Born Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Urban Design and Planning, College ofBuilt Environments, University of Washington.
Joaquin Herranz, Jr. Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Public Affairs, Evans School ofPublic Affairs, University of Washington.
Erin MacDougall Ph.D., Healthy Eating and Active Living Program Manager, KCFFIProject Director, Public Health Seattle King County.
Thanks also to staff from Delridge Neighborhoods Development Association, WhiteCenter Community Development Association, Youngstown Cultural Arts Center,Highline Public Schools, and Seattle Public Schools who helped with this project.
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
13/133
1EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This professional project paper presents my policy research and the school survey Ideveloped for the King County Food and Fitness Initiative (KCFFI) in winter and spring
2009. The KCFFI is a collaborative of community organizations, citywide and regional
organizations and public agencies organized for the purpose of implementing the Food
and Fitness Initiative, a multi-year grant from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. The Food
and Fitness Initiative is intended to generate systems-level changes that improve the food
and fitness environments of entire communities.
The KCFFI focus communities are Delridge and White Center, two adjacent
neighborhoods. Delridge is in southwest Seattle and White Center is in unincorporated
King County. The KCFFI Co-conveners used a Request for Qualifications process to
select these two neighborhoods based on three criteria: a history of food and fitness
efforts, a history of collaboration and evidence of community outreach experience.
The KCFFI received a two-and-a-half year planning grant from the Kellogg Foundation
in 2006 and must submit a Community Action Plan to the Foundation in September 2009
that outlines how the KCFFI will use the five-year implementation grant. During summer
2008, I was one of six students from the University of Washington (UW) Department of
Urban Design and Planning (UDP) who participated in a ten-week applied urban
planning studio course in collaboration with the KCFFI. The final product of the studio
was a document titled Food For Thought: Groundwork for the King County Food and
Fitness Initiative, which included our neighborhood-level community food system
assessment and built environment assessment for the KCFFI (University of Washington
2008). Our assessments did not focus specifically on the food and fitness environments
within neighborhood schools.
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
14/133
2One purpose of this professional project is to provide the KCFFI a school survey and
methodology Initiative participants can use to gather site-specific information about the
food and fitness environments at schools in the focus communities that they can considerwhile developing the Community Action Plan summer. For the purposes of this paper,
the food environment includes foods available to students in schools and nutrition
education. Fitness environments include physical education, physical activity and active
transportation to and from school. The other purpose of this project is to give the
Initiative information about policies and programs developed by entities outside the
schools that affect the food and fitness environments within schools.
This paper includes the methodology I used to develop and test the school survey, how I
trained community members to use the survey and a compendium of relevant policies and
programs that affect food and fitness in schools. The scope of my professional project
included developing and testing the survey, training community members to conduct the
survey and compiling and analyzing relevant school-related policies and programs. Due
to the timing of this project, only survey results from the three schools I surveyed in April
and May 2009 were available at the time I prepared this paper. I have included in the
paper a method KCFFI participants can use to compile and evaluate the survey results
they collect this summer. The paper also includes a thorough reference list and appendix
that provide additional sources of information for the KCFFI.
I was unable to find a similar document that includes a compendium of federal, state and
Seattle and Highline school district policies that affect the schools in the KCFFI focus
communities. Nor did a survey tool exist that specifically addresses the range of topics of
interest to the KCFFI. In short, this document and the survey are unique in their relevance
to this particular Initiative, but I believe the methodology I used could be replicated
elsewhere to produce a similar paper about school food and fitness environments in other
focus communities.
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
15/133
3The primary audiences for this paper include the following groups involved in the
KCFFI: Leadership Council, focus community lead organizations, Co-conveners,
assessment team and evaluators, and the youth agency coordinator. Each of these groupswill be described in the Introduction. Other potential audiences include the KCFFI
Collaborative Partners, which include representatives of 60 community-based groups and
other organizations from throughout the county who are concerned about food and
fitness. An additional potential audience may be the eight other Food and Fitness
collaboratives around the U.S. that received funding from the Kellogg Foundation.
This paper includes the following sections:
Executive Summary. Introduction. Description of the methodology I used to develop and test the survey and evaluate
the survey results.
Description of the methodology I used to collect and analyze the policyinformation.
Policies and programs that affect school food and fitness environments. Conclusion. References. Appendix.
In addition to this paper, I will give the KCFFI Co-conveners an electronic copy of the
survey, consent statement, survey instructions, and an Excel file for the survey results.
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
16/133
4INTRODUCTION
This section provides background information about the KCFFI, a description of thegeographic area and demographics of the KCFFI focus communities, the purpose and
intended audience of this professional project, a description of the planning context of
this professional project, and a brief note about how to use this document.
KCFFI Background
The King County Food and Fitness Initiative (KCFFI) is a collaborative formed in 2006
to plan for and implement a five-year Food and Fitness Initiative grant from the W.K.
Kellogg Foundation. The Foundation selected nine sites across the United States to
participate in this Initiative. The Food and Fitness Initiative is one of several W.K.
Kellogg Foundation programs and is consistent with the Foundations overall mission:
The W.K. Kellogg Foundation supports children, families, and communities as they
strengthen and create conditions that propel vulnerable children to achieve success as
individuals and as contributors to the larger community and society (W.K. Kellogg
Foundation n.d.).
The Kellogg Foundations focus for the Food & Fitness Initiative is systems-level
changes that improve the food and fitness environments of entire communities (W.K.
Kellogg Foundation n.d.). Locally, the KCFFI vision follows this systems-level focus by
looking at the whole community: Creating vibrant communities that support access to
locally grown, healthy, affordable food and safe and inviting places for physical activity
and playfor everyone (KCFFI 2008) The KCFFI mission is "to foster collaborative
leadership among diverse community partners to co-create long-term, innovative
strategies to realize our vision of equitable access to resources and choices that promote
health. To achieve our goals, we actively engage with communities and youth in
planning, decision making, and fun activities" (KCFFI 2008)
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
17/133
5The KCFFI is currently in the two-and-a-half year planning phase of the Initiative.
Initiative leaders are preparing a Community Action Plan to submit to the Kellogg
Foundation this summer in preparation for the eight-year implementation and evaluationphase of the Initiative. If the Kellogg Foundation approves the KCFFI Community
Action Plan, between two and four million dollars will be available from the Kellogg
Foundation to implement and evaluate the plan.
The KCFFI leadership is structured as several groups: the Leadership Council, two focus
community lead organizations, Co-conveners, an assessment team and evaluators, and a
youth agency coordinator.
The 18-member Leadership Council includes residents of Delridge and White Center and
representatives from organizations focused on food and fitness (see Appendix for a
member list). The role of the Leadership Council is to offer guidance and leadership in
the planning phase of the Initiative (KCFFI 2008).
The focus community lead organizations are the Delridge Neighborhoods Development
Association (DNDA) and the White Center Community Development Association
(WCCDA). The youth coordinator is the Youngstown Cultural Arts Center, an
independently operated branch of the DNDA. These organizations conduct outreach to
the two focus communities.
The Co-conveners of the KCFFI are staff members from Public Health Seattle King
County and WSU King County Extension. The role of the Co-conveners is to coordinate
the overall management of the Initiative and Kellogg Foundation grant, interactions with
the foundation, and the Initiative planning and implementation process. My primary
contact for this project is Erin MacDougall, Project Director for KCFFI at Public Health
Seattle King County.
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
18/133
6The ten member assessment team is comprised of faculty, researchers and staff from UW,
WSU, Public Health Seattle King County, and WSU King County Extension (see
Appendix for a member list).
Other organizations that are part of the KCFFI are Collaborative Partners. KCFFI
describes this group of 60 organizations as a cross section of organizations and
leadership including grassroots groups, community-based organizations and institutions
representing the local food system and physical activity constituencies, public health and
health care, education, recreation, economic development, transportation, urban and rural
planning groups, faith-based organizations, corporate sector, and employer groups. (see
Appendix for an organization list). The role of this group is to help guide and set the
Initiative agenda (KCFFI 2008)
The KCFFI Focus Communities
The KCFFI site selection committee selected Delridge and White Center based on a
Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process. The RFQ document states that one community
will be in Seattle and the other in South King County (KCFFI 2007 2). The RFQ includes
three criteria on which applicants were judged (KCFFI 2007 3):
History of food and fitness-related efforts - evidence of past work related toKCFFI goals of promoting access to healthy, affordable food and creating safe
and convenient places for physical activity.
History of collaboration - evidence of community partners and residents workingwell together including how long and how effective the partnerships and resulting
accomplishments were.
Community engagement - evidence of effectively involving diverse residents andcommunity members in past projects, and quality and feasibility of plans to
engage residents in KCFFI.
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
19/133
7During summer 2008, I was one of six students from the University of Washington (UW)
Department of Urban Design and Planning (UDP) who participated in a ten-week applied
urban planning studio course in collaboration with the KCFFI. The final product of thestudio was a report titled Food for Thought: Groundwork for the King County Food and
Fitness Initiative, that includes our neighborhood-level community food system
assessment and built environment assessment for the KCFFI (University of Washington
2008). The Food for Thoughtreport includes a detailed description of the KCFFI focus
communities that is excerpted below (University of Washington 2008 6):
Delridge: A Birds Eye View
The Delridge neighborhood is located on the southern edge of Seattle andis adjacent to and north of White Center. The greater Delridge areaincludes 36,585 residents (University of Washington 2006, App. 5.2). Theneighborhood boundary, as defined by the Delridge NeighborhoodsDevelopment Association (DNDA), is the area south of SouthwestSpokane Street and the West Seattle Bridge, east of 35th AvenueSouthwest, west of 1st Avenue South and West Marginal Way, and northof Southwest Roxbury Street (Delridge Neighborhoods DevelopmentAssociation n.d.). A 2006 UW Planning Studio report (University ofWashington 2006 2-3) notes:
Delridge is an ethnically diverse community; minoritygroups comprise about half the population. Incomes alsovary extensively, with the average household income inDelridge just slightly lower than state and county figures. . ..Delridge is most strongly characterized by residentialneighborhoods, but it is also home to a variety of large andsmall businesses. While single-family homes are mostcommon, townhomes and apartment buildings also have anotable and growing presence. Amongst the homes andbusinesses is extensive green space, including uniquenatural amenities such as Longfellow Creek and the LegacyTrail. . . A significant asset of the Delridge neighborhood isits extensive network of open space, trails and staircases. . .The current housing market in Delridge is in a rapid state oftransition, with older single-family homes and apartmentbuildings being demolished and replaced with townhousesand four-plexes. This transition is threatening theavailability of rental units and producing new housing thatis outside of the price range of the average Delridge
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
20/133
8resident. With the recent growth and development alongDelridge Way, business owners and community membersare increasingly optimistic about business growth.
The Seattle Times also described the changes occurring in Delridge ashousing becomes increasingly unaffordable for many residents of aneighborhood that has traditionally been home to blue-collar workers andimmigrants (Young 2007).
White Center: A Birds Eye ViewWhite Center is located immediately south of Delridge, between Seattleand the city of Burien (Figure 1). The population of the neighborhood is20,975 (Public Health Seattle King County n.d.). White Center includesapproximately 3.67 square miles of unincorporated area in King County.Public Health Seattle King County identifies White Center as the areawest of State Route 509 and north of Southwest Roxbury Street, north ofSouthwest 126th Street and extending west to 30th Avenue Southwest. A2007 UW Planning Studio report (University of Washington 2007 2)notes:
The population of White Center includes an extremelydiverse working class, with people of color making upnearly 50% of the community. In addition, over a quarter ofthe residents in the area are people under the age of 18.This vibrant character and unique diversity is WhiteCenters greatest asset, but the community faces substantialchallenges as well. Income, employment, and educationlevels in White Center are lower on average than those inthe rest of King County, and crime and health problemstend to be higher than elsewhere in the county.Compounding these problems is the fact that White Centeris an unincorporated area of King County and does nothave the resources to address many of these issues.White Center is a neighborhood in transition due toinherent pressures from population growth, poverty,annexation discussions, and the threat of gentrification.Maintaining the diversity and character of theneighborhood in the midst of change will be a challenge,yet the community has clearly indicated that preserving theunique character of the neighborhood is vitally important.
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
21/133
9Neighborhood Boundaries
1For the purposes of this report, the class used the Health Planning Area(HPA) boundaries defined by Public Health Seattle King County, as
some of the health data is collected at that level of analysis and HPAs canserve as rough approximations of the formal neighborhoods. However, thestreets used to define neighborhood areas for the HPA may differ from theformal boundaries.
1 This report uses the same boundaries that the class used in summer 2008.
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
22/133
10
Figure 1. Map of KCFFI focus communities.
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
23/133
11Public Agency Health Data and Indicators About the Focus Communities
The Washington Department of Health, Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction,
Department of Social and Health Services/Division of Alcohol and Substance Abuse,Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, Family Policy Council,
and Liquor Control Board collaborate on the Healthy Youth Survey (HYS), which covers
several topics, including diet and physical activity (Washington Dept. of Health n.d.).
Students in the sixth, eighth, tenth, and twelfth grades completed the survey in 2002,
2004 and 2006. State and county-level data are available online. School district-level and
school-level data are available at the request of the district superintendent (Beck 2009).2
Public Health Seattle King County publishes community health indicators for the
county, but most indicators are about the adult population, not school-age children and
youth. A summary of these indicators for the KCFFI focus communities is included in the
2008 Food for Thoughtdocument (University of Washington 2008).
Schools in the Focus Communities
The focus communities include a total of 15 public schools: 11 elementary schools (ES),
two middle schools (MS) and two high schools (HS) (see Table 1). In addition to the
schools in the KCFFI focus communities, I added a 16th school, West Seattle High
School, to the schools list for the purposes of this paper and the school survey based on
input from youth at Youngstown Cultural Arts Center who attend the school. The schools
are in two schools districts: Delridge schools are in the Seattle Public Schools district,
and White Center schools are in the Highline Public Schools district. Figure 2 below
shows the geographic distribution of the 16 schools.
2 I was unable to locate a copy of school-district-level or school-level reports from either district as of thetime of this writing.
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
24/133
12Table 1. Public schools in KCFFI focus communities.
School School District
Beverly Park Elementary School Highline
Cascade Middle School Highline
Cedarhurst Elementary School Highline
Evergreen High School Campus Highline
Hilltop Elementary Highline
Mount View Elementary School Highline
Southern Heights Elementary School Highline
White Center Heights Elementary School Highline
Cooper Elementary School3
Seattle
Denny Middle School Seattle
Highland Park Elementary School Seattle
Roxhill Elementary School SeattleSanislo Elementary School Seattle
Sealth High School Seattle
West Seattle Elementary School Seattle
West Seattle High School Seattle
The Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) is the state
education agency for Washington. OSPI publishes annual school and school district-level
demographics and academic performance data. The demographic data from OSPI in
Tables 2, 3 and 4 below are about students at schools in the KCFFI focus communities(Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction 2008). OSPI data reflect changes in
student demographics in both districts during the past five years. Increases or decreases
of five percent or more are highlighted in green in Table 2 to show the highest changes in
student demographics. In some cases, the change is greater than ten percent. Similarly,
increases or decreases of five percent or more in the percentage of students participating
in the free and reduced meal program are highlighted in table 3.4 In two cases, the
3 The Seattle Public Schools Board approved a Capacity Management Plan in January 2009 that will closeCooper Elementary School next fall and relocate students to other sites. For the purposes of thisprofessional project, Cooper Elementary remains on the list and map.4 I was unable to compare 2002-2003 and 2007-2008 data for percentage of students in special education,transitional bilingual programs or migrant status because the 2002-2003 data reports for all the schools inthe KCFFI focus communities list 0 for those three categories.
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
25/133
13percentage increased more than ten percent and in one case the percentage decreased
more than ten percent.
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
26/133
14
Figure 2. Map of schools in KCFFI focus communities.
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
27/133
15Table 2. Student demographics.
Student Demographics
(2002-2003 and 2007-2008)
School Students Male Female2002-03
2007-08
2002-03
2007-08
2002-03
2007-08
Highline School District 17,735 17,331 51.5% 51.4% 48.5% 48.6%
Beverly Park ES 537 455 48.8% 45.5% 51.2% 54.5%
Cascade MS 709 550 50.9% 54.5% 49.1% 45.5%
Cedarhurst ES 330 433 55.8% 53.3% 44.2% 46.7%
Evergreen HS Campus 1,183 4* 51.6% 25.0% 48.4% 75.0%
Hilltop ES 660 563 50.3% 51.2% 49.7% 48.8%
Mount View ES 475 595 54.3% 48.2% 45.7% 51.8%
Southern Heights ES 319 363 48.0% 52.9% 52.0% 47.1%
White Center Heights ES 404 456 50.0% 52.0% 50.0% 48.0%
Seattle Public Schools 47,853 45,581 51.3% 51.0% 48.7% 49.0%
Cooper ES 368 266 50.3% 48.5% 49.7% 51.5%
Denny MS 814 622 50.0% 50.5% 50.0% 49.5%
Highland Park ES 429 405 51.7% 52.3% 48.3% 47.7%
Roxhill ES 302 253 57.9% 57.7% 42.1% 42.3%
Sanislo ES 324 312 52.2% 47.1% 47.8% 52.9%
Sealth HS 978 913 50.0% 49.8% 50.0% 50.2%
West Seattle ES 282 271 50.0% 55.7% 50.0% 44.3%
West Seattle HS 1,053 1,240 54.3% 52.4% 45.7% 47.6%
Highlighted cells = >10% increase or decrease between 2002-2003 and 2007-2008
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
28/133
16Table 3. Student demographics: ethnicity.
Student Demographics Ethnicity, as percent of enrolled students
(2002-2003 and 2007-2008)
School Am.Indian/AK
Native
Asian Black Hispanic White
2002-03
2007-08
2002-03
2007-08
2002-03
2007-08
2002-03
2007-08
2002-03
2007-08
Highline
School
District
2.1 2.0 20.7 21.2 13.3 14.5 17.9 27.0 45.9 35.2
Beverly ParkES
2.0 1.3 28.9 16.0 11.5 23.5 33.3 38.0 24.2 21.1
Cascade MS 3.0 2.0 29.9 35.8 13.8 14.5 14.4 30.9 38.9 16.7
CedarhurstES
1.5 1.6 21.8 23.3 7.3 11.1 19.7 40.0 49.7 23.1
EvergreenHS Campus
2.1 25.0 34.3 50.0 12.5 ND 16.4 ND 34.7 25.0
Hilltop ES 3.9 1.6 24.5 25.4 17.0 13.7 20.9 42.6 33.6 16.7
Mount ViewES
3.6 2.4 36.8 35.8 9.7 14.6 26.3 31.3 23.6 15.6
SouthernHeights ES
0.6 0.6 22.3 31.4 9.4 9.9 24.1 34.2 43.6 23.1
White Center
Heights ES
0.5 1.5 45.0 43.0 21.5 20.0 19.3 23.9 13.6 11.6
Seattle
Public
Schools
2.0 2.1 23.3 22.1 23.0 21.3 11.0 11.6 40.1 42.8
Cooper ES 1.6 0.4 27.4 19.2 34.5 42.1 17.9 20.3 18.5 18.0
Denny MS 4.4 4.5 22.1 20.4 23.5 26.7 21.3 23.0 28.7 25.4
HighlandPark ES
3.3 2.5 35.2 30.9 15.6 18.3 27.3 31.9 18.6 16.5
Roxhill ES 2.0 2.8 21.2 22.5 22.5 23.7 33.1 37.2 21.2 13.8
Sanislo ES 3.1 1.9 34.9 27.6 19.1 16.0 15.1 11.9 27.8 42.6
Sealth HS 3.1 3.6 26.4 21.2 17.5 29.1 22.6 22.0 30.5 24.0
West SeattleES
2.8 4.1 30.5 21.8 39.0 33.6 19.1 23.2 8.5 17.3
West SeattleHS
3.3 2.5 23.2 22.2 14.6 16.0 11.2 15.5 47.7 43.8
ND = No dataHighlighted cells = >5% increase or decrease between 2002-2003 and 2007-2008
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
29/133
17Table 4. Student demographics: special programs.
Student Demographics Special Programs, as percentage of students
(2002-2003 and 2007-2008)
School Free/ReducedPrice Meals
Special Ed TransitionalBilingual
Migrant
2002-03
2007-08
2002-03
2007-08
2002-03
2007-08
2002-03
2007-08
Highline School
District
50.5 56.7 11.4 12.6 10.7 18.6 0.0 0.0
Beverly Park ES 71.3 79.0 0.0 11.2 0.0 28.5 0.0 0.0
Cascade MS 59.2 72.8 0.0 15.3 0.0 18.3 0.0 0.0
Cedarhurst ES 56.0 71.0 0.0 11.8 0.0 33.7 0.0 0.0
Evergreen HSCampus
53.6 ND 0.0 ND 0.0 ND 0.0 ND
Hilltop ES 63.2 72.0 0.0 11.3 0.0 31.7 0.0 0.0
Mount View ES 72.1 71.1 0.0 14.8 0.0 31.8 0.0 0.0
Southern Heights ES 59.7 69.2 0.0 14.0 0.0 26.6 0.0 0.0
White Center HeightsES
88.1 85.5 0.0 11.7 0.0 35.5 0.0 0.0
Seattle Public
Schools
41.9 40.5 13.0 13.9 12.1 11.8 0.4 0.5
Cooper ES 78.3 79.5 0.0 21.2 0.0 33.2 0.0 1.5
Denny MS 65.3 64.1 0.0 16.7 0.0 12.2 0.0 0.5
Highland Park ES 66.7 74.0 0.0 11.7 0.0 25.7 0.0 1.2
Roxhill ES 84.7 77.4 0.0 29.6 0.0 34.3 0.0 1.5Sanislo ES 59.6 50.2 0.0 9.2 0.0 19.4 0.0 0.0
Sealth HS 52.3 60.9 0.0 13.4 0.0 17.9 0.0 3.1
West Seattle ES 97.1 78.9 0.0 25.9 0.0 32.3 0.0 0.0
West Seattle HS 34.3 34.2 0.0 11.8 0.0 7.6 0.0 0.2
ND = No dataHighlighted cells = >5% increase or decrease between 2002-2003 and 2007-2008
Purpose
The purpose of this professional project is to provide the Co-conveners, focus community
lead organizations, and the Leadership Council a survey tool that can be used at the 16
schools, a way to collect the survey results, training to individuals interested in
conducting the survey, and a compendium of the various policies set by agencies outside
the schools that affect the food and fitness environments in the schools. Like the survey,
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
30/133
18the policy section is intended to give the Initiative participants a snapshot of the existing
conditions and context within which schools operate with regard to food and fitness.
The information from the survey will give the KCFFI baseline information about a range
of topics related to food and fitness in the schools. This survey tool can then be used in
the future to assess changes in the school environments and progress toward the KCFFI
goals. The immediate goal is for the KCFFI leaders to have information about schools
they can use as they develop the KCFFI Community Action Plan during summer 2009.
The Kellogg Foundation recognizes the role schools can play in child health and
development: The school system domain, especially the institutional policies that govern
site selection, curriculum, and off-hours use of school facilities, can either encourage or
inhibit physical activity among children (W.K. Kellogg Foundation 2008 1). In addition,
the KCFFI values include meaningful youth participation(KCFFI 2008). Given this
focus on schools, children and youth, the KCFFI should understand the food and fitness
environment in the schools in Delridge and White Center as the leadership develops the
Community Action Plan and for future implementation and evaluation in the KCFFI
focus communities.
Audience
The primary audiences for this paper are the KCFFI Leadership Council, focus
community lead organizations, youth coordinator, Co-conveners, and assessment team. A
secondary audience is the KCFFI Collaborative Partners, which include representatives
of 60 community-based groups and other organizations from throughout King County
who are concerned about food and fitness. Other potential audiences may be the Food
and Fitness collaboratives at the other eight sites in the U.S.
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
31/133
19Professional Planning Context
This project is consistent with professional planning practice. This paper includes
analysis of existing policies and programs and a method for community members togather information about existing conditions in the focus community schools. Existing
conditions reports and state of the community reports provide a basis for planning
processes, community participation in planning and for future assessment of progress
(Berke, Godschalk et al. 2006). The information community members gather using the
survey in this paper can provide both a baseline or snapshot of existing conditions and a
way to assess changes in the school food and fitness environments in the future.
The policy and program section of this paper gives KCFFI leaders additional information
about policies and programs that affect food and fitness environments in schools, and
may offer potential areas for systems-level change. Gathering and analyzing information
about community characteristics are part of many planning processes (Hoch 2000),
In addition, I trained four community members during this project to conduct the school
surveys, rather than conducting surveys at all 16 schools myself. This is consistent with
planning norms that support public participation in the planning process and the KCFFI
mission to foster collaborative leadership among diverse community partners to co-
create long-term, innovative strategies to realize our vision of equitable access to
resources and choices that promote health. To achieve our goals, we actively engage with
communities and youth in planning, decision making, and fun activities (KCFFI 2008).
Public participation in planning is not new and strategies and purposes vary. Arnstein
(1969) describes a ladder of citizen participation, on which participation can move from
simply informing and consulting citizens to partnerships and citizen control of the
planning process. Kretzmann et al (1993) focus on including community members and
organizations as a way to build community visions and strategies based on existing
community assets. Berke et al (2006) describe collaborative planning in the context of
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
32/133
20consensus-building processes and that inclusive participation is one of the distinguishing
characteristics of consensus-building. Martz (1995), Burby (2003) and Sirianni (2007)
each describe the positive impact of public participation in local planning onimplementation of plans.
One form of public participation is participatory action research (PAR), a method by
which community members conduct planning, research or information gathering. PAR is
a way for professional researchers and community residents to collaborate on
investigations into issues - such as housing, healthcare, and environmental conservation -
with the goal of achieving positive social change. PAR values both scholarly and
community-based perspectives to address questions related to living conditions, services,
and policy, in order to make life better for people living in a given community, as defined
by that community (Center for Cultural Understanding and Change n.d.).
A study of the use of PAR in building healthy communities describes a distinctive aspect
of PAR as not the methods employed, which may be either quantitative or qualitative,
but the active involvement of the people whose lives are affected by the issue under study
in every phase of the process (Minkler 2000 192) and characterizes PAR as:
Participatory. Cooperative, engaging community members and researchers in a joint process in
which both contribute equally.
A co-learning process for researchers and community members. A method for systems development and local community capacity building. An empowering process through which participants can increase control over their
lives by nurturing community strengths and problem-solving abilities; and a way tobalance research and action.
The methodology I used to develop the survey included input and feedback from
community lead organizations. The survey implementation includes youth from
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
33/133
21Youngstown Cultural Arts Center. Representatives of the community lead organizations
will be responsible for collecting the survey results and working with the Co-conveners
to summarize the results for use in the Initiative planning process this summer. Thatplanning process includes the community lead organizations. These methods are
consistent with the descriptions of PAR and public participation described above.
How To Use This Document
This paper includes a detailed description of the methodology I used to develop the
school survey. Readers can find in the Appendix a copy of the survey instructions,
consent statement for interviewees and the survey itself. The policies and programs
section of the paper will give the reader background information on relevant policies and
programs that will be useful - along with the survey results - to get a better picture of the
overall environment within which schools operate. Sources are cited throughout the paper
and readers can use the Reference list to find more details about the sources. In addition
to the survey and related documents, the Appendix includes contact information for
relevant local and state agencies. The reader can use these contact lists to find additional
information about specific topics in the paper.
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
34/133
22METHODOLOGY
This section describes the methods I used to develop the school survey, the training forcommunity members, and the policies section. Because survey results from several
schools will be available after I complete this professional project, I have also included a
method the KCFFI can use to compile survey results as additional data becomes available
this summer.
Developing the Survey
The survey included in this report (see Appendix) is based on several sources and on
feedback from KCFFI leaders who reviewed the draft survey during winter 2009. Sara
Coulter, a graduate student in the public health program at UW, compiled a draft list of
school-related questions and topics in spring 2008 based on her review of assessment
guidance from the Kellogg Foundation, information from KCFFI Project Director Erin
MacDougall and from research Ms. Coulter conducted with two other UW graduate
students, Kara Martin and Torence Powell, also in spring 2008 (Coulter 2008) under the
guidance of UW Assistant Professor Branden Born. That research was the groundwork
for some of the neighborhood-level food system and built environment assessments that
were the subject of the summer 2008 planning studio course, also overseen by Born,
described in the Executive Summary. As noted, that studio course did not focus
specifically on the food and fitness environment in schools.
My work on this survey used this previous research as a starting point. Based on
discussions with MacDougall and Born, I first separated the site-specific questions and
topics from those that are school district, state or federal government level issues. My
draft survey included all the topics on the initial list I received at the start of my work on
this project in winter 2009. At that point in the planning process for the Initiative, the
participants had not yet decided where to focus the Initiative in the Community Action
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
35/133
23Plan, and wanted information about a broad range of topics related to school food and
fitness environments. Future surveys may focus on fewer topics with greater depth.
I contacted KCFFI assessment team members in December 2008 and January 2009 to get
their input. The assessment team is comprised of individuals with professional and
academic research experience and assessment expertise. This input was necessary to
ensure the survey format, content and scope will generate information the Initiative needs
in a way that is also replicable at all 16 schools.
At the suggestion of several assessment team members, I also looked at existing surveys
and assessment tools to find possible questions or formats that might be useful for this
survey. I reviewed assessment tools on the National Cancer Institute Risk Factor
Monitoring and Methods web site, the Michigan State University Extension Team
Nutrition web site, the School Health Policies and Programs (SHPPS) questionnaires and
School Health Index (SHI) from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC), the Family Cook School Community Food Assessment toolkit, assessments the
John C. Stalker Institute of Food and Nutrition at Framingham State College (Mass.)
developed, a New Mexico Department of Transportation assessment tool for
neighborhood streets, and a Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) survey of
school vending machines.
I also looked at assessment guidance from the Kellogg Foundation and other questions
that were the result of research conducted by the three graduate students working with
Professor Born in spring 2008. The purpose of this additional research was to find
existing questions or formats that others have used to assess school environments that
may also be useful in this setting.
All of these other assessment tools and guidance provided some suggestions for specific
questions or ways to format questions and answers, but the time limitation to conduct the
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
36/133
24KCFFI survey and the breadth of topics in the KCFFI survey required a limited number
of questions for each topic. Many of these other assessment tools are very extensive but
only cover one topic, such as the CSPI survey about vending machines or the SHPPassessments which cover several topics. The CDC estimates each topic in the SHPP to
take approximately an hour. Other evaluation tools, such as the Michigan State
University Extension evaluation tools, are more subjective or qualitative evaluations.
Based on conversations with community leads and with Donna Johnson, an assessment
team member and UW faculty member who has conducted research at schools, I made
every effort to shorten the survey so that interviewers would need no more than 45-60
minutes to conduct the entire survey, which covers a range of topics about food and
fitness, school facilities for students, existing programs, and community access to school
facilities. I tried to minimize the number of open-ended questions because of the expected
time limitations and also tried to include more objective measures of the schools
characteristics so the results would be easier to compare with future survey results.
I drafted an initial set of questions in February 2009 that I sent to the assessment team
and Co-conveners to review. By March 2009, the KCFFI had also developed a detailed
list of potential strategies and tactics the Initiative may consider as it develops the
Community Action Plan (Krieger, MacDougall et al. 2009). That list includes, but is not
limited to, school-related strategies and tactics. I revised the draft survey in March 2009
to include questions based on specific school-related strategies and tactics in that
document to ensure the survey addresses issues of interest to the Initiative. While that
document is not the same thing as the Community Action Plan, it was an early effort by
the Initiative leaders to begin identifying potential strategies and tactics. All topics in the
potential school-related tactics are consistent with the topics I already covered in the draft
survey, but I added some new questions based specifically on the potential tactics.
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
37/133
25The review process continued for several drafts until April 2009. The KCFFI Project
Coordinator mailed and e-mailed a letter from me to the principal each of the 15 schools
in the focus communities in March 2009 to let the principals know about the upcomingKCFFI school survey.5 In April 2009, I contacted three schools in Delridge and White
Center to request meetings with the principals so that I could conduct the survey myself
to understand how the survey works and make adjustments to the survey as needed before
giving the final version to the community lead organizations. The community lead
organizations will then identify interested community members who will then conduct
the survey at the remaining 13 schools this summer.
Testing the Survey
I conducted the survey with the principal at Sanislo Elementary on April 10, 2009, the
principal at Roxhill Elementary on April 17, 2009 and the Physical Education instructor
at Southern Heights Elementary on May 12, 2009. I selected three schools so that I could
test the survey at schools in each of the two school districts. I chose three schools where,
based on feedback from the community lead organizations, the community leads did not
already have good contacts, so that the community leads could focus on schools where
they might be able to more quickly set up appointments and conduct the survey later
based on existing relationships with the school principals or other staff.
Training Others to Conduct Survey
I met with the Founding Director and staff from Youngstown Cultural Arts Center, and
the KCFFI Project Director on May 4, 2009 at the Youngstown Cultural Arts Center to
provide a brief overview for the community leads about the survey purpose, content,
instructions for conducting the survey, and to discuss which schools they would be
willing to survey. In addition, I met with Youngstown staff and four youth at the center
on May 13, 2009 to review the survey purpose, how to set up meetings with school
5 I added West Seattle High School to the schools list in May (see Introduction).
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
38/133
26administrators and answer any questions they had about survey questions or the
procedure for conducting the survey. Each of the community lead organizations is
responsible for community outreach for the Initiative and, therefore, will identify staff orvolunteers to conduct the survey at the 13 remaining schools in the focus communities.
Collecting Survey Results
I created a spreadsheet file in Microsoft Excel with two sheets: one for Seattle schools
and another for Highline schools. Within each sheet, I grouped schools by grade level
(elementary, middle or high schools) I grouped the schools this way for multiple reasons:
each district has separate policies that affect school operations, schools differ from the
elementary to high school levels, and including all 16 schools in one sheet would result in
a spreadsheet too wide to print. The file includes spaces for all 41 survey questions, space
for additional comments from the interviews that were not included in the survey answers
(e.g. additional comments following a question with a Yes/No answer), and space for the
interviewer observations of crosswalks and sidewalks around the school.
The individual(s) who summarize the data after it is in the file will need to manually
summarize the responses. Summarizing the responses in a narrative format should be
feasible since there are only 16 schools. In addition, I found no easy way to electronically
summarize the answers.
Figure 3 below is a detail view of the Excel file I created for the purpose of collecting and
storing the school survey results for all 16 schools. I will compile survey results in this
file in May and give an electronic copy of the file to the KCFFI Project Director in early
June 2009. Excel should be sufficient because I am using the program primarily as a
table. Excel is easy to use for this purpose and is a widely available program. A database
is unnecessary for the collection of this survey information because of the small number
of schools and difficulty finding a commonly used and easy to use database program.
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
39/133
27
Figure 3. Detail of survey results collection file
The KCFFI has developed a draft of potential strategies and tactics the Initiative may
focus on in the Community Action Plan, including several school-related tactics (KCFFI
2009). Many of the questions in the latest version of the survey are based on specific
tactics in that document so that the survey results will provide information that helps the
Initiative decide which strategies and tactics to include in the Community Action Plan
this summer. Readers can focus on the specific survey questions and results related to
school gardens, for example, and, based on the survey results for those particular
questions, decide how to prioritize the potential tactics related to school gardens that the
Initiative leaders developed in March 2009.
I did not develop a method of scoring or ranking answers that allows the Initiative to
calculate an overall score or rating of the school. The purpose of the survey data is toprovide baseline information about a range of school characteristics that, while related in
a broad sense, are difficult to score that still allows the reader to differentiate in a
meaningful way (e.g. Is a school with a garden but no Safe Routes to School program
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
40/133
28better than a school with a SRTS program but no garden? How would that score help
the KCFFI decide where to focus its resources?) Finding a way to produce an overall
score or evaluation of the food and fitness environment of a school would also bechallenging given the fact that the survey only looks at site-specific characteristics,
which, by definition, leaves out many elements (e.g. the school lunch program) that do
enhance the food and fitness environment of the schools. Finally, producing an overall
evaluation or score could distract from the Initiatives efforts to find specific areas to
focus the Initiatives resources within schools and other environments in the focus
communities in the coming years.
I will provide an electronic copy of the Excel file I created for compiling the survey
results to KCFFI Project Director by June 1, 2009 and will include instructions about
how to input survey results. Staff from either the Co-conveners or one of the community
leads will input the survey results after the remaining 13 surveys are completed.
Policy and Program Research Methodology
The purpose of this section of this paper is to provide the Initiative an overview and
analysis of policies and programs developed by entities outside the schools that affect the
food and fitness environments in schools. These entities may include school districts, the
state of Washington and the federal government, and programs such as Safe Routes to
School. I found much of the information for this section from online sources, including
school district web sites, state and federal government agency web sites, and nonprofit
organization web sites. I spoke on the telephone with school district nutrition services
staff from both districts and physical education staff from the Seattle district office (see
Appendix for district staff contacts), and individuals at organizations such as Feet First, a
local pedestrian advocacy organization, when I needed additional information or
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
41/133
29clarification of certain policies or programs.6 Based on conversations with Erin
MacDougall and Branden Born, I developed the following method to describe and
organize this information: I describe the policy, where it originated, what it does, andhow it affects schools in the focus communities. I have also noted whether questions
about the topics are included in the school survey. All sources are cited and contact
information, web site URLs and other resources are in the References section and/or
Appendix.
UW Human Subjects Division Approval of Protocol
As a graduate student at UW conducting surveys and gathering information from
individuals for the purposes of developing knowledge about the schools in the focus
communities, my work meets the UW Human Subjects Division (HSD) definition of
research (UW Human Subjects Division 2008). The UW HSD approved my project
protocol in February 2009 (Maman 2009). Consistent with HSD rules, I developed an
oral consent statement that I read to each person I interviewed at the three schools where
I tested the survey (see Appendix). Although UW required this statement only for
interviews conducted where the information will be included in this paper, much of the
background information in the statement would be useful for any interviewer to read
before starting the interview to explain the purpose of the research, how the information
will be used (i.e. the information is not confidential), and the rights of the interviewee.
6 I was unable to speak with nutrition education staff in either district or the PE manager for HighlinePublic Schools by the time of this writing.
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
42/133
30DISCUSSION OF SURVEY AND POLICY RESEARCH PROCESS
As noted in the Introduction, one purpose of this professional project is to provide the
KCFFI a survey tool Initiative participants can use to collect site-specific information
about school characteristics and a way to collect the survey results. The Methodology
section describes how I prepared the survey and conducted the survey at three schools
before handing off the survey to the community leads to use at the remaining schools.
This section of the paper includes my reflections on developing and testing the survey
and the policy research process. I also discuss ways the KCFFI might improve this
method in the future. This section also includes my observations of survey results from
three schools I surveyed in April and May 2009. I also connect the survey questions to
the relevant policies that I will describe in further detail in the next section of the paper.
In general, I think this document is unique but my methodology is transferrable to studies
of school food and fitness environments in other communities. I have compiled
information about federal, state and Seattle and Highline school district policies that
affect the schools in the KCFFI focus communities. I have also developed a survey tool
that specifically addresses the range of topics of interest to the KCFFI. While this
document and the survey are unique in their relevance to the KCFFI, the methodology I
used is transferrable to other communities interested in producing a similar paper about
school food and fitness environments.
Reflections on Methodology
The school survey I developed is intended to provide the KCFFI with baselineinformation about food and fitness environments in schools now and serve as a way to
measure changes in schools in the future as the Initiative implements its Community
Action Plan. One potential limitation of using questions based on assessment guidance
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
43/133
31from the Kellogg Foundation or other existing assessment tools is that they may not
provide information related to the specific areas of most interest to the local Initiative.
As noted in the Methodology section, when I began work on this project in winter 2009,
the KCFFI leaders had not yet decided where to focus the Initiative in the Community
Action Plan, and wanted information about a broad range of topics related to school food
and fitness environments. I addressed these potential problems by including questions
about school-related potential tactics the KCFFI identified in winter 2009 and by asking
for feedback about the draft survey from the KCFFI assessment team throughout the
survey development process. Working with multiple stakeholders to develop the survey,
including the KCFFI Co-conveners, assessment team and other Initiative participants,
provided a thorough review of the survey questions and overall methodology.
The survey I developed using this method will allow the Initiative to collect the
information about school characteristics, programs and policies that are of interest to the
Initiative at this point in the planning process. KCFFI leaders may decide to conduct
other quantitative or qualitative surveys of parents, teachers, students or other community
members now or as part of an evaluation later if they decide additional views on the same
topics would be helpful to the Initiative, but such surveys were beyond the scope of my
professional project.
I was able to cover the topics the KCFFI identified in a survey length that was acceptable
to the three individuals I surveyed. (i.e. none of the interviews was longer than 30
minutes and none ended before I asked all the survey questions.) I, therefore, did not have
to choose whether to limit the number of topics. Initiative leaders may face such a
tradeoff between including a broad range of topics or focusing on a narrower set of topics
either this summer as Initiative leaders decide on topics for the Community Action Plan
or in future evaluation surveys. While the survey I developed does gather information
about many topics, the Initiative may want to follow up with schools on specific areas of
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
44/133
32interest as those become clearer this summer. Choosing to focus on fewer topics with
greater depth in the future, however, may be appropriate and may provide the type of
information of interest to the Initiative for other surveys at that time.
Another limitation of this methodology is the potential for errors or inconsistent results if
multiple individuals conduct the survey. I addressed this by reducing jargon in the survey
questions and limiting open-ended questions so questions are easy for interviewers to
explain, easy for principals and others to understand, and responses are easy to record and
compile. As noted above, however, Initiative leaders may want to add more open-ended
questions in future surveys to gather more in-depth information about certain topics.
An additional limitation is the potential for variations in data as a result of revisions to the
survey following my initial test of the survey at three schools. I did not add new
questions as a result of testing the survey. I made minor changes to some questions to
make them easier to read and made minor changes to checklist answers for two questions
to better capture possible answers to those questions. Adding more questions, or more
open-ended questions, would require reducing the topics covered or require more time to
conduct the survey. Given the comments I heard from assessment team members about
the limited time I should expect with principals, extending the time needed to conduct the
survey did not seem like a good idea. One potential issue this presents is that I would
have had to conduct the survey or parts of the survey again at the first three schools
had I decided it was necessary to make substantive changes to the content of the survey,
so that the Initiative used the same survey at all 16 schools.
Based on my experience, I feel a separate food survey and fitness survey is unnecessary. I
would suggest in the future using a different survey for each school level, however, to
make the survey more clear for the interviewer. Some questions are only for elementary
schools, others for high schools. After talking with individuals who will conduct the
survey at middle schools and high schools, I realized that compiling all topics and
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
45/133
33questions in a single survey could be confusing to interviewers. I addressed this by noting
which questions are for elementary schools and which for high schools, but a separate
survey document for school grade level might be more helpful.
Conducting the survey at three schools in April and May 2009 gave me the opportunity to
both see how the survey worked and an opportunity to introduce school administrators to
the KCFFI. The KCFFI leadership can establish new relationships with local schools or
build on existing relationships through the process of conducting this survey.
One topic that came up during conversations with assessment team members and
community lead organizations was whether I would conduct the survey with teachers,
parents and students. Based on early conversations with the Project Director, we
determined the focus for this survey would be principals or other school administrators.
The reason for this was that this survey is intended to gather primarily quantitative
information about school characteristics, programs and policies rather than qualitative
information about school food and fitness. This should reduce some potential problems
associated with interviewing only one person or only interviewing the principal rather
than interviewing a large group of staff, parents or others at each school. A more
qualitative survey could generate useful information for the Initiative but was outside the
scope of my project.
A tradeoff I faced with this methodology is the potential limitation of conducting the
survey with one person at each school. While the two principals and one teacher I spoke
with when I tested the survey answered all the survey questions, this may not be the case
at all schools as the community leads conduct the survey at the other 13 schools, and may
require speaking with additional staff to obtain a response to each survey question. The
survey includes instructions for the interviewer to obtain names and contact information
for other staff if the primary interview subject does not know the answer to a question.
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
46/133
34In addition, limiting the survey to one or even a few staff members at a school limits the
information to that which the principal or other staff person can provide. While principals
likely know the answers to many of the questions about school facilities and programs,some questions are specific to the classroom and, therefore, principals may not know the
answer or have the same information a teacher might have. One example is the question
regarding which foods, if any, are used in classrooms as a reward or for celebrations. This
may be something that a teacher could answer more accurately. The Initiative needs to
bear this in mind when reviewing the survey results.
I found the survey to be easy to conduct but also feel that my effort to address so many
different topics in as brief a time as possible limited my ability to follow up on some
questions where additional information might be helpful. I heard from assessment team
members while revising the draft survey questions that I would probably have very
limited time to meet with school principals, so I made every effort to limit the number of
open-ended questions and the total number of questions.
While this survey will provide good baseline information this year, additional discussions
with assessment team members and individuals who conduct the survey this summer
would be helpful before conducting this survey as a follow up to the Initiative
implementation in future years. Their feedback and input will be useful to determine
whether the same format and same set of questions would still be useful or whether to
focus only on the topics that are the focus of the Initiative implementation.
While the survey addresses site-specific characteristics of schools, the survey topics are
related to policies and programs developed and administered outside schools. Some of
the policies I describe in the next section include specific requirements and expectations.
While the survey I developed is not intended to be a monitoring tool, the process of
conducting the survey does offer an opportunity to learn about the extent to which
policies are being implemented. This provides some measure of accountability because
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
47/133
35community members are asking questions related to the implementation of specific
policies and programs.
In addition, asking community members to conduct the surveys rather than conducting
the survey myself at all 16 schools is a way to engage community members in the
Initiative that can encourage their interest in what is happening in local schools and
benefit from their knowledge of the focus community schools. Actively engaging
community members in planning and decision-making is part of the KCFFI mission
(KCFFI 2008).
One limitation of the methodology for the policy section is the list of policies and
programs is not exhaustive and could be longer. As noted, I started with a list of topics
and questions that were the result of earlier research for the Initiative and limited my
work to the topics on that list based on discussions with the KCFFI Project Director.
Initial Observations
Conclusions about trends among all 16 schools would be premature since I surveyed only
three schools in April and May 2009, all three were elementary schools and they were
from each of the two districts. A few initial observations are worth noting based on my
experience at these three schools, however. KCFFI leaders may want to pay attention to
the following topics as additional survey results come in from other schools to see
whether these are trends.
All three schools I surveyed have gardens that they use for educational purposes. Thetype varies from a single garden to planter boxes. While the two districts do not have
specific school garden policies, this may be a potential opportunity for follow up if
the Initiative decides to focus on school gardens. Schools that already use gardens for
educational purposes may be a resource for other schools in the focus communities.
In addition, the Initiative may want to follow up to learn how these schools maintain
the gardens during the summer growing season and whether this is an area where the
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
48/133
36Initiative could be involved. The survey does not include a follow up question about
maintenance of the gardens during the summer.
Two of the three schools schedule recess before lunch. Both made the change thisschool year. As I have noted in the section of this paper about recess before lunch,
much of the evidence I found about the benefits of recess before lunch elsewhere in
the country is very recent and anecdotal, and Seattle Public Schools encourages but
does not require recess before lunch.7 Since this is a relatively new practice, KCFFI
may want to follow up with schools that have recess before lunch to understand the
barriers and get anecdotal information about the successes and challenges these
schools may have experienced during the transition to recess before lunch if the
Initiative decides to focus on this.
Only one of the three schools sells competitive foods in the cafeteria. That schoolsells yogurt in addition to the regular school lunch. If few other schools sell
competitive foods in the cafeteria, this may be an area the Initiative does not need to
focus on in terms of discouraging students from choosing unhealthy competitive
foods during meal times. Additional research would be needed to determine if schools
are interested in adding healthy competitive food items, particularly if they do not sell
any competitive foods now.
All three schools are interested in providing free fresh fruits and vegetables. Giventhe small size of the federal and state Fresh Fruit and Vegetable programs, however,
the KCFFI will need to explore how to help schools provide such snacks if additional
schools are also interested and the Initiative decides to focus on this type of program.
Only one of the three schools had assemblies or other events where the speaker talkedabout food or health-related topics. If few other schools have had similar events, this
could be a possible opportunity for the Initiative, given the range of experience andexpertise about food and fitness among the numerous participating organizations.
7 I did not find a specific policy about this for Highline Public Schools.
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
49/133
37 All three schools indicated they are interested in increasing parental involvement in
nutrition promotion activities at school.
Two of the three schools do not currently have programs to encourage bicycling andwalking. Both indicated they are interested to learn how to incorporate such programs
in their schools.
As noted, these initial observations are based on results of only three surveys. Whether
these are truly trends will become clearer as the community lead organizations complete
the surveys at the remaining 13 schools and review the results. Trends associated with
other issues covered in the survey may become more apparent at that time.
Survey Questions and Related Policy and Program Sources
While the survey is intended to address site-specific characteristics of schools, the survey
topics are related to policies and programs developed and administered outside schools.
Table 6 below shows the connection between survey questions and topics and related
policies, if a policy exists. The next section of this paper describes these policies and
programs in detail.
Table 5. Survey questions and related policy and program sources.
Survey Questions and Topics Source of Related Policy or Program
School food service (breakfast, lunch,summer programs, snacks, food source).(Questions 1, 3, 4)
Federal school food programs, USDAregulations, state OSPI guidelines, schooldistrict policies.
Competitive foods (a la carte items in thecafeteria, vending machines, school stores).(Questions 2, 5, 7, 8, 9).
School district policies and procedures.
Food promotions/advertising.(Question 6).
School district policies and procedures.
Drinking water.(Questions 10, 35, 36).
School district policies and procedures.
School gardens.(Questions 11, 12, 13, 14, 15).
No specific district policies.
Fundraising.(Question 16).
School district competitive food policiesand procedures.
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
50/133
38Food in the classroom.(Questions 17, 18).
School district competitive food policiesand procedures.
Nutrition education (classroom,
assemblies/events).(Questions 19, 20, 21).
State laws, OSPI health and fitness
guidelines, school district policies andprocedures.
Health and physical education.(Questions 22, 23, 24, 25).
State laws, OSPI health and fitnessguidelines, school district policies.
Active transportation (bicycling, walking,crosswalks, sidewalks, other).(Questions 26, 27, 28).
Unable to find specific policy to encourageactive transportation. Programs includeSafe Routes to School (federal, stateguidelines for grants; nonprofit resourcesfor program design). Transportationagencies responsible for streets, crossingsand sidewalks.
Recess.(Questions 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34). Unable to find state or school district recesspolicy. Seattle Public Schools encouragesrecess before lunch.
Facilities for PE and recess.(Question 35).
Unable to find specific school districtpolicies that specify which facilities aschool should/must have.
Community access to school facilities forphysical fitness and recreation.(Questions 36, 37).
School district policies and procedures forrental and joint use.
Injury prevention and safety.(Question 38).
School district policies.
Wellness policy implementation.(Question 39). Federal child nutrition law and regulations,state law and regulation, school districtwellness policies and procedures.
Employee wellness programs.(Questions 40, 41).
Unable to find specific school districtpolicy.
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
51/133
39POLICIES AND PROGRAMS THAT AFFECT SCHOOLS
The survey I described above is intended to gather information about site-specificpolicies and programs initiated inside schools that affect the food and fitness environment
in schools.
This section describes policies and programs developed outside the schools that affect
food and fitness environments in schools. Several school district, state and federal
policies and programs shape the food and fitness environments in schools. In Seattle and
Highline schools, for example, district policies related to food services, nutrition and
physical education in schools fall under the category ofwellness policies.8 In addition,
much of the funding for school food programs is from the federal government.
Understanding these and other policies and programs can help the KCFFI decide where
to focus the Initiatives time and other resources in the Community Action Plan and
throughout the implementation of the Initiative. This part of the professional project is
intended to provide the Initiative leadership with a compendium of relevant policies and
programs that affect schools. This paper is not a typical policy analysis, which would
evaluate or compare policies with the intention of providing the reader specific
recommendations for action or compare the policies to determine which is better or more
effective. The KCFFI leadership has already begun to compile potential strategies and
tactics for the Community Action Plan. This section of the paper will add to the
information available for consideration during that planning process.
Much of the information for this section is from publicly-available information on school
district and other public agency web sites, web sites of organization that develop
8 School district policies and procedures cited in this paper are available on the Seattle Public Schools andHighline Public Schools policies and procedures web pages. Highline Public Schools:http://www.hsd401.org/ourdistrict/board/policies/. Seattle Public Schools:http://www.seattleschools.org/area/policies/index.dxml.
8/14/2019 Kramer Kcffi FINAL 052909
52/133
40programs such as Safe Routes to