The Seamless Summer Feeding Waiver: Survey Report/media/publications/... · sessions. Sponsors...

Contract No.: 2001-17474,2001-18416 MPR Reference No.: 8806-400

The Seamless Summer Feeding Waiver:

Survey Report Final Report March 2003 Tania Tasse James Ohls Jim Cashion

Submitted to:

The David and Lucile Packard Foundation 300 Second Street Suite 200 Los Altos, CA 94022

Attention:

Yvonne Carrasco

Submitted by:

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. P.O. Box 2393 Princeton, NJ 08543-2393 Telephone: (609) 799-3535 Facsimile: (609) 799-0005

Project Director:

James Ohls

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to express our appreciation to the many people who contributed to the Seamless Waiver Survey. Anita Singh and Linda Jupin at FNS provided us with information on school districts approved to operate the waiver as of June 2002, and we used this information to select the sample frame for the survey. FNS staff also provided useful comments on drafts of the survey instrument, as well as this report. Laura Kalb of Mathematica Policy Research (MPR) and Kenneth Hecht of the California Food Policy Advocates provided feedback and guidance during the development of the survey instrument. Nancy Kerrebrock from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation helped to plan the survey. At MPR, Lynne Beres, Tamika Love, and Rosita Turkel helped to format and produce the survey instrument.

MPR staff at the Columbia Survey Center skillfully conducted and supervised the

interviews. We would like to thank the many school district staff and administrators who participated in interviews and took the time to provide us with detailed information about their summer feeding programs. Bea Jones, Linda Gentzik, and Susan Golden from MPR contributed to the technical aspects of the survey, including the development of a data base to track the sample frame, creating an analysis file, and supervising data entry. Angela Richardson, also from MPR, provided programming support to help in analyzing the survey data.

In addition to the authors and to those mentioned above, many MPR staff contributed to the

report. We thank Anne Gordon for reviewing the report, Patricia Ciaccio and Walt Brower for editing it, and Jane Nelson for her skillful production work. We gratefully acknowledge these many contributions.

Tania Tasse James Ohls Jim Cashion

iii

CONTENTS Chapter Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................vi

I INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................1

A. BACKGROUND OF THE SEAMLESS WAIVER ................................................1

B. THE SURVEY.........................................................................................................3

II SURVEY RESULTS.......................................................................................................5

A. THE SEAMLESS WAIVER IN 2002 .....................................................................5

B. CHANGES IN PARTICIPATION DUE TO THE WAIVER...............................11

1. New Sponsors ........................................................................................................12 2. Continuing Sponsors ..............................................................................................14 3. Walk-In Students at Former NSLP Sites ...............................................................14 4. Total Impact ...........................................................................................................16 5. Plans for 2003 ........................................................................................................17 C. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION ISSUES ..........................................................19

1. Applications ...........................................................................................................19 2. Program Finances...................................................................................................19 3. Site Monitoring ......................................................................................................21

D. OUTREACH..........................................................................................................25 E. MOTIVATIONS FOR USING THE WAIVER ....................................................25

F. CHALLENGES AND BENEFITS REPORTED ..................................................30

III CONCLUSIONS...........................................................................................................32

iv

CONTENTS (continued) Chapter Page

REFERENCES..............................................................................................................34

APPENDIX A............................................................................................................A.1 APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................B.1

APPENDIX C ............................................................................................................C.1

v

TABLES

Table Page

II.1 SUMMER FEEDING AMONG SEAMLESS WAIVER SPONSORS, 2002................6

II.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF SITES OPERATED UNDER THE SEAMLESS

WAIVER, 2002............................................................................................................. 8

II.3 NEW SPONSORS.........................................................................................................13

II.4 CONTINUING SPONSORS.........................................................................................15

II.5 SPONSORS’ PLANS FOR 2003..................................................................................18

II.6 SEAMLESS WAIVER APPLICATION PROCESS....................................................20

II.7 PROGRAM FINANCES...............................................................................................22

II.8 SITE MONITORING AND MEAL DISALLOWANCES...........................................24

II.9 OUTREACH EFFORTS ...............................................................................................26

II.10 SPONSORS’ REASONS FOR CHOOSING THE SEAMLESS WAIVER ................28

II.11 BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF THE SEAMLESS WAIVER..........................31

vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 2002, the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) made a waiver—the “Seamless Waiver”—available to school districts nationwide. This waiver allows the districts to operate summer feeding programs for low-income children using rules different from those of the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), the traditional summer program. To assess the effects of this change, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR), under a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, conducted a telephone survey of districts that used the waiver in 2002. This report presents the results of that survey.

Nutrition advocates and public officials have been concerned about low levels of

participation in summer feeding programs. In 2001, the number of children the SFSP fed daily during the summer was just 13 percent of the number of children who received free and reduced-price school meals each day during the year through the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) (FNS web site 2002).

The Seamless Waiver was developed in 2001 by a group of school administrators, nutrition

advocates, and public officials. It was designed to reduce the administrative workload for school district sponsors of running a summer feeding program. The waiver allows school districts to use rules similar to those used in the NSLP, which they run during the school year. It was hoped that the waiver would increase the level of summer feeding sponsorship among school districts and that this would, in turn, increase the number of children receiving nutritious meals.

The main research questions for the current study included: (1) How many districts used the

waiver in 2002? How many feeding sites did they run, and how many children were fed at the sites? (2) What are the characteristics of the sites that were run under the waiver? (3) Did changes occur in participation levels? If so, how large were they? (4) How did the waiver’s rules affect the administrative aspects of running a summer feeding program, including paperwork and day-to-day operating procedures? (5) Why did sponsors choose the waiver, and what benefits and challenges did they find in using it? and (6) What are the sponsors’ plans for 2003? The survey is based on a randomly selected sample of 200 districts that had been approved to use the waiver by June. (By that time, more than 500 districts had received permission to use the Seamless Waiver.)

FINDINGS ON PARTICIPATION An estimated 498 school districts used the Seamless Waiver in 2002 (five percent of those

approved for the waiver did not run summer feeding programs), and they operated a total of approximately 4,230 feeding sites. Many sponsors operated just one or two sites under the waiver, but a few ran large programs with 50 sites or more. The average number of sites sponsors operated was eight and a half. School districts fed an estimated 484,000 children daily at waiver sites, and the average number of children each sponsor fed was 972.

Almost all of the Seamless feeding sites were “open”—that is, children from the entire

community could receive free meals. More than three quarters of Seamless sites were at schools,

vii

and more than half were operated in conjunction with summer school or year-round school sessions. Sponsors estimated that an average of 79 percent of the children fed at school-based waiver sites were students attending summer school classes at the site.

The Seamless Waiver could affect summer feeding participation levels in at least three

ways. First, it could entice school districts that would not otherwise sponsor summer feeding programs to start new programs. Second, it could induce existing sponsors to operate more sites than they normally would. Finally, sponsors that would otherwise use the NSLP to feed school students during the summer could use the waiver and feed children from the entire community, increasing the number of children fed at existing summer feeding sites.

The survey results show that the waiver increased participation in two of the three possible

ways in 2002. First, it persuaded approximately 105 new sponsors to start feeding programs. These new sponsors ran feeding programs that were slightly smaller than the average Seamless program. They operated an average of six feeding sites and served an estimated 531 children daily. Sixty-nine percent of the new sponsors attributed the decision to begin a summer feeding program mainly to the Seamless Waiver.

Among continuing sponsors, however, there was no change in the average number of sites

operated from 2001 to 2002. Some continuing sponsors did increase the number of sites that they operated, but others decreased their sites, thereby offsetting any potential overall increase.

Third, approximately seven percent of Seamless sponsors, or 35 sponsors, had used the

NSLP in 2001 to feed students attending school sessions during the summer. When operated under the waiver in 2002, these sites became open sites, where all children from the community could be fed. Thus, they were able to increase their participation in the number of children who received meals.

The estimated impact of these changes is that approximately 45,200 children received meals

daily from Seamless sponsors in 2002 who would not have received meals from these sponsors if the waiver had not become available. Thus, the Seamless Waiver increased the number of children receiving meals by two percent in its first year.1 Most of the growth resulted from new sponsors joining the program.

Almost 90 percent of Seamless sponsors plan to use the waiver again in 2003, and about a

quarter plan to increase the number of sites they operate. In addition, the waiver probably will attract new sponsors in 2003, as well as some that used the SFSP or NSLP in 2002.

FINDINGS ON ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES The survey also focused on administrative issues. The waiver was designed to reduce

administrative workload, both in applying for and operating the summer program. Seamless

1Technically, meals under the Waiver are counted as NSLP meals by FNS in compiling

program statistics.

viii

districts were asked to compare the ease of the application process under the waiver to that of the SFSP. The waiver application was designed to be simpler than the SFSP application. Application requirements for both programs vary from state to state, however, and some states have simplified the rules for applying to the SFSP. Almost all the Seamless districts characterized the waiver application as being very easy or somewhat easy to complete, and three-quarters felt that it was easier than the application for the regular SFSP.

Although the waiver may help districts save money on the costs involved in administering a

summer program, meals served under the Seamless Waiver are reimbursed at a lower rate than under the regular SFSP. Only 61 percent of waiver sponsors expected to cover all of the costs of their 2002 program using the waiver. However, only 52 percent predicted that they could have covered their costs using the SFSP or NSLP. It appears that, for many sponsors, the cost savings from the streamlined administration offset the effects of the lower reimbursement rates.

By the time MPR interviewed the sponsors, nearly all of them had performed at least one

monitoring visit to their waiver site(s). Only seven percent of these sponsors observed any problems at their sites. The few problems mentioned included problems with meal counts and parents or other adults eating parts of children’s meals or asking children to bring food home.

State agencies played an important role in informing school districts about the availability of

the Seamless Waiver in 2002. Nearly all sponsors reported receiving information about the waiver from their state agencies. For nearly 90 percent of sponsors, the information was a major factor in their decision to use the waiver. School districts also conducted outreach to inform their communities about the availability of free summer meals for children. They used posters, flyers, and press releases, and they sent information home with students at the end of the school year.

When asked why they had first decided to use the Seamless Waiver in 2002 (more than one

response was allowed), three-quarters of sponsors cited the reduced or simplified paperwork requirements of the waiver compared to those of the SFSP, including the application, budgeting and accounting paperwork, and the claim forms. One-third indicated that they thought daily operations—including site-monitoring requirements—would be easier under the waiver than under the SFSP. Another third said they liked the waiver’s similarity to the NSLP, which they were already running during the school year. A quarter of sponsors wanted to use the waiver simply because it allows them to provide more free meals to children during the summer. When asked to pinpoint the most important reason among those mentioned, sponsors most often cited the reduced paperwork.

Sponsors reported a few challenges in using the Seamless Waiver. These included

confusion about the new program’s rules and procedures, children taking (or trying to take) food home, and district administrators’ concerns about opening their campuses to the entire community. However, nearly three-quarters of Seamless sponsors reported no major challenges in using the waiver. The benefits sponsors reported are generally the same as the reasons they wanted to use the waiver in the first place—reduced paperwork, easier day-to-day operations, and the ability to provide free meals to children.

1

I. INTRODUCTION

A. BACKGROUND OF THE SEAMLESS WAIVER

In 2001, five school districts were granted a waiver to run summer feeding programs for

children using rules different from those used in the traditional program, the Summer Food

Service Program (SFSP). The SFSP, which Congress created in 1968, provides funds for

organizations—including school districts, nonprofits, government agencies, and camps—to serve

meals to children in low-income areas during the summer and at other times when school is not

in session. Organizations that sponsor the program must comply with numerous paperwork

requirements and detailed rules concerning when, where, and how meals are served on a daily

basis.1

The waiver was developed by a group of public officials, nutrition advocates, and school

district administrators who were concerned about low levels of participation in summer feeding.

In summer 2001, the number of children that received daily meals through the SFSP was just

13 percent of the number of children that received free or reduced-price meals each day through

the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), which school districts use to feed children during

the regular school year (FNS web site 2002). Only school districts may use the NSLP (no other

type of organization may sponsor the program), and the rules and paperwork associated with the

NSLP are simpler than those of the SFSP.

1Appendix A describes the SFSP in more detail. In addition, for more information,

including data on SFSP size and participation, see A. Gordon’s forthcoming MPR report for the USDA Economic Research Service, “Feeding Low-Income Children When School Is Out: The Summer Food Service Program.”

2

The waiver allows school districts to operate summer feeding programs using a combination

of SFSP and NSLP rules. Some SFSP regulations—such as the requirement that feeding sites be

in low-income areas and that all children be fed for free—are maintained under the waiver.

However, NSLP rules replace many of the detailed operating guidelines and paperwork

requirements. In part, the logic of this was based on the fact that school districts already use the

NSLP throughout the year. In addition to streamlining the requirements of the SFSP, the waiver

was designed to facilitate a “seamless” transition between the school year and summer programs.

Therefore, the waiver is referred to as the “Seamless Waiver.”

The changes the waiver introduced are intended to reduce administrative workload

associated with running the SFSP among school district sponsors. As a result, those that

designed the waiver hoped that it would attract more school districts to sponsor summer feeding

programs and entice existing school sponsors to expand the scope of their programs, by

operating more feeding sites or by serving more children at existing sites. It was hoped that

increased participation among school district sponsors would lead to a higher number of children

receiving summer meals.

Beginning in 2001, the Seamless Waiver was run at two school districts in California and at

three in Florida. The staff in all five dis tricts worked with state office personnel and received

approval from FNS to operate their summer programs under the waiver. All five districts

continued to use the waiver in summer 2002. The waiver extends through summer 2004.

In 2002, FNS made the Seamless Waiver available to school districts nationwide. By June

2002, more than 500 districts had applied for the waiver (through the federal office) and received

permission to use it. The waiver also extends through summer 2004 in these districts. FNS

3

delegated to state agencies the authority to approve waivers beginning in fiscal year 2003 and

hopes this will encourage even more school districts to request permission to operate the waiver.2

B. THE SURVEY

Under a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, MPR conducted a telephone

survey of school districts that sponsored the Seamless Waiver in summer 2002 to assess the

effects of the waiver. The main questions guiding the development of the survey were:

• How many sponsors operated summer feeding programs under the Seamless Waiver in 2002? How many feeding sites did they operate, and how many children were fed at these sites?

• What are the characteristics of the sites run under the waiver?

• Did changes occur in participation levels among sponsors and children? If so, how large were they?

• How did the waiver’s rules affect the administrative aspects of running a summer feeding program, including paperwork and day-to-day operating procedures?

• Why did school districts decide to use the Seamless Waiver, and what benefits and challenges did they find in using it?

• What are sponsors’ plans for 2003? Do they plan to use the waiver again, and if so, do they plan to expand the number of sites sponsored?

In mid-June, the USDA gave MPR a list of 524 school districts that were approved to run

the Seamless Waiver in 2002. The districts were in 29 states, Guam, and Washington, DC.3

MPR selected a simple random sample of 200 districts; therefore, the sample is representative of

2From a memo sent by FNS headquarters to FNS regional offices, dated October 23, 2002.

3Some states had high numbers of school districts participating in the Seamless Waiver. For example, Arizona and California each had more than 90 school districts sponsoring the waiver. In other states, no districts chose the waiver. This could be due to how extensively the state office conducted outreach to inform districts about the availability of the waiver, or it could be due to other considerations. For example, in states where the “Lugar Initiative” (a pilot project that simplifies cost accounting, paperwork, and record-keeping for SFSP sponsors) is operating, few sponsors chose the Seamless Waiver.

4

the entire population of districts tha t sponsored the Seamless Waiver. MPR contacted the sample

districts between July 23 and August 30, 2002, and completed 190 telephone interviews with

waiver districts. Nine districts that had been approved for the Seamless Waiver decided not to

operate summer feeding programs, and one district declined to be interviewed.

5

II. SURVEY RESULTS

A. THE SEAMLESS WAIVER IN 2002

An estimated 498 school districts, or 95 percent of the 524 districts approved for the

Seamless Waiver by mid-June, used the waiver to feed children during summer 2002. (The

number may be higher if FNS approved additional districts after mid-June.)1 Most districts

(84 percent) that sponsored the Seamless Waiver used the waiver to run all of their feeding sites.

Some (17 percent), however, used a combination of programs—they ran the waiver at some sites

and the SFSP or NSLP at others (Table II.1). The most frequent combination was the Seamless

Waiver and the NSLP.2 The NSLP does not require summer feeding sites to meet low-income

eligibility guidelines, but the waiver and the regular SFSP both do. Therefore, a district that

wanted to operate school-based feeding sites in an area that did not qualify as low-income could

only operate them under the NSLP. Three percent of Seamless Waiver districts used the waiver

and the regular SFSP, and one percent operated the waiver, the NSLP, and the SFSP at the same

time.

Sponsors can operate one or more feeding sites. The seamless sponsors operated about

4,230 waiver sites total, and the average number of sites that sponsors ran was eight and a half.

The average is deceptive, however, because a few large sponsors operated a large proportion of

1Data compiled by USDA in February 2002, just prior to the date that this report was

printed, suggest that additional sponsors beyond those included in the sample frame may have joined the Seamless program. The USDA data place the final number of sponsors approximately 10 percent higher than the estimates given in the text of the report.

2School districts can use the NSLP to feed students during the summer, but only at school locations where summer school or year-round school classes are in session. In comparison, the SFSP and the waiver can be used at school or nonschool locations in qualifying neighborhoods to feed all children from the community.

6

TABLE II.1

SUMMER FEEDING AMONG SEAMLESS WAIVER SPONSORS, 2002 Percent of Seamless Sponsors

Program(s) Operated by Seamless Sponsors in 2002

Seamless Waiver only 84 Seamless Waiver and the NSLP 13 Seamless Waiver and the SFSP 3 Seamless Waiver, the SFSP, and the NSLP 1

Number of Seamless Sites Operated by Sponsors

1 37 2 16 3 to 5 18 6 to 10 14 11 to 25 10 26 to 50 3 51 or more 2 Mean 8.5 Median 2.0

Estimated Average Daily Attendance (ADA) at All of Sponsor’s Seamless Sitesa

Less than 100 25 100 to 250 27 251 to 500 16 501 to 1,000 16 1,001 to 5,000 14 5,001 or higher 3 Mean 972 Median 250

Sample Size 190

Source: Seamless Waiver Survey data. Note: “Don’t know” responses are excluded from the distributions presented in the tables

but are footnoted. For items in which “don’t knows” account for 10 percent or more of sponsors’ responses or were considered to be an important response category, they are included in the distribution.

aOne sponsor responded “don’t know” to this item.

7

the total sites. The largest sponsor interviewed ran 468 Seamless sites, or more than 10 percent

of the total. Three other sponsors operated between 50 and 100 waiver sites each. In

comparison, most sponsors operated small feeding programs. Just over a third of sponsors

(37 percent) ran a single feeding site, and 71 percent ran five or fewer sites. The median number

of Seamless sites that sponsors operated was two.

The sponsors fed an estimated 484,000 children daily at Seamless sites, or an average of

972 children per sponsor per day. 3 The average here is misleading, too, however, because one

sponsor served nearly 59,000 children daily. Three percent of sponsors served more than

5,000 children each day, but more than half of the sponsors (52 percent) had daily attendance

levels of 250 children or fewer.

Table II.2 describes the characteristics of sites that were run under the Seamless Waiver.

Nearly all the sites (94 percent) were “open” that is, free meals were available to all children in

the community and not only to those enrolled in programs taking place at the site. Seventy-

seven percent of Seamless sites were at schools (other common locations for summer feeding

sites include parks, recreation centers, and camps). Sixty-two percent were run in conjunction

with academic summer school or year-round school classes. Sites that were not run in

conjunction with classes may have offered recreational programs or other activities for children,

or they may have been open just for meals.

In addition to providing meals for students who are attending classes, open sites under the

waiver and the regular SFSP can be used to feed children below school age, those enrolled in

recreational programs, and those not enrolled in any summer programs. Although nearly all

3The estimate of 484,000 children fed daily at Seamless sites was formed by multiplying

498 Seamless sponsors by the average of 972 children fed per Seamless sponsor per day.

8

TABLE II.2

CHARACTERISTICS OF SITES OPERATED UNDER THE SEAMLESS WAIVER, 2002

Percent of Seamless Sponsors

Percent of Seamless Sites That Were “Open” Sites:

0 4 1 to 50 5 51 to 75 3 76 to 90 2 91 to 99 0 100 86 Mean 94a

Median 100 Percent of Seamless Sites Located at Schools:

0 6 1 to 25 4 26 to 50 8 51 to 75 9 76 to 99 5 100 67 Mean 77a

Median 100 Percent of Seamless Sites Run in Conjunction with

Academic Summer School or Year-Round Schoolingb,c 0 26 1 to 25 4 26 to 50 12 51 to 75 8 76 to 99 3 100 48 Mean 62a

Median 80 Of sponsors with feeding sites located at schools, estimated percentage of children fed at school sites who are not enrolled in classes but come just for meals (N=136)d

0 6 1 to 25 66 26 to 50 17 51 to 75 7 76 to 99 4 100 0 Mean 21

TABLE II.2 (continued)

9


Median 10 Duration (in weeks) of most Seamless Waiver sites operated by the sponsor:e

Less than 2 1 2 to 4 19 >4 to 6 31 >6 to 8 31 >8 to 10 15 >10 4 Mean 6 Median 6

Sample Size 190 Source: Seamless Waiver Survey data. aThe mean is calculated based on the total number of seamless sites, not the number of sponsors. b18 percent of sponsors are in districts that use year-round academic calendars. cTwo sponsors responded “don’t know” to this item. dSponsors operating the Seamless Waiver at school locations (145) were asked to estimate the percentage of children at their school sites who were not enrolled in summer school but attended just to receive meals. If sponsors responded that they did not know, they were given the option of specifying a range (less than 5 percent, 5 to 10 percent, 10 to 25 percent, or more than 25 percent). Out of 26 sponsors that responded Don’t Know initially, 17 specified a range and the midpoint of the range was used in our tabulations. The other nine sponsors gave “don’t know” as their final response to this item. eSponsors were asked, “Thinking about the dates of operation for the feeding sites you are running this summer under the seamless waiver, when did most of your seamless sites open (and close) this summer?” If unsure how to respond, sponsors were asked for the dates corresponding to when 90 percent of their sites opened/closed.

10

Seamless Waiver sites were open, sponsors estimated that an average of 79 percent of the

children fed at school-based Seamless sites were students attending summer school or year-round

classes. They estimated that only about a fifth (21 percent) of those fed at school locations

“walked in” just for meals (or for meals and any non-academic activities that may have been

taking place).4 Among Seamless sponsors, the median estimated level of walk- ins was

10 percent. MPR’s in-depth research of five districts that have been using the Seamless Waiver

for two years (see the recent report, “The Seamless Waiver in Five School Districts”) suggests

that this 21 percent average may be a high estimate of participation among walk-in students at

school-based sites, particularly at schools where academic courses are in session during the

summer.

The length of time over which sponsors operate summer feeding programs varies. Some

sponsors start serving meals in May; others begin in June or July. School districts often plan

their summer meal programs to coincide with summer school, which usually ends by early

August. This schedule may result in a gap of time (before the regular school year begins) when

school district sponsors serve significantly fewer, if any, SFSP meals.5 During 2002, the

4Sponsors operating the Seamless Waiver at school locations were asked to estimate the

percentage of children at their school sites who were not enrolled in summer school but attended just to receive meals. If sponsors responded that they did not know, they were given the option of specifying a range (less than 5 percent, 5 to 10 percent, 10 to 25 percent, or more than 25 percent). Out of 26 sponsors that responded Don’t Know, 17 specified a range and the midpoint of the range was used in our tabulations.

5Because school districts are the most numerous SFSP sponsors, this gap may affect the overall availability of summer meals for children. Recently, nutrition advocates have been encouraging SFSP sponsors to expand the length of their summer feeding programs (Food Research and Action Center 2002).

11

Seamless sponsors reported keeping most of their sites open for an average of six weeks.6 More

than half of all waiver sponsors kept most sites open for four to eight weeks.

B. CHANGES IN PARTICIPATION DUE TO THE WAIVER

Nutrition advocates and policymakers are concerned about the low level of participation in

summer meal programs compared to the level of participation in the NSLP during the school

year. In summer 2000, the SFSP and the NSLP combined served approximately 3.2 million

children. This number is just 21 percent of the number of children who received free or reduced-

price lunches through the NSLP during the regular school year (Food Research and Action

Center 2001).

Those who developed the Seamless Waiver hoped that it would increase summer feeding

participation. The waiver could do this in at least three ways. First, school districts that usually

do not operate summer feeding programs could start new programs. Second, districts that

already sponsor programs could increase the number of summer sites where they feed children.

Third, sponsors that generally use the NSLP in the summer to feed students attending summer

school could use the waiver to feed walk- in students as well. If the waiver’s rules simplify

program operations and paperwork for sponsors, school districts may be willing to start summer

feeding programs, expand their current operations, or feed additional children.

MPR assessed changes in participation from 2001 to 2002 on all three levels. Next, we

(1) describe changes that occurred, (2) estimate the impact of each change in the number of

children who received daily meals because of the waiver, and (3) add up the impacts to derive an

overall estimate of how the Seamless Waiver affected participation in 2002. We compare our

6When uncertain how to respond to the survey item on the duration of “most” of their sites,

sponsors were asked for the dates of operation of “at least 90 percent” of their sites.

12

total impact estimate to the average number of children receiving daily meals from SFSP

sponsors in 2001. We also describe the caveats associated with the estimation.

1. New Sponsors

Approximately 105 Seamless sponsors (21 percent of sponsors) did not operate any summer

feeding sites in 2001 (Table II.3). (Some may have operated programs before 2001, however.)

Of the remaining sponsors, 64 percent operated only the regular SFSP in 2001, 7 percent ran the

NSLP, and 6 percent ran the SFSP and NSLP at the same time. Two percent of sponsors

operated feeding sites that were not under the SFSP or the NSLP. These sponsors may have

received private or local funding to provide summer meals to children.

Some of the new sponsors may have started summer feeding programs in 2002 even without

the waiver becoming available. Therefore, we asked them whether the decision to run a program

was mainly due to the Seamless Waiver, and 69 percent said it was.

The new sponsors ran feeding programs that were, on average, slightly smaller than the

programs run by all Seamless sponsors total. New sponsors operated about six sites each and

had an estimated average daily attendance of 531 children. 7 The use of the .69 factor is based on

the percentage of sponsors responding in the survey that they entered the program primarily due

to the Seamless Waiver.

To estimate the impact of the waiver in the number of children new sponsors fed daily, we

multiplied 105 new sponsors by 531 children fed daily at new sponsors’ sites, and attributed

69 percent of this number to the Seamless Waiver: (105 * 531) * 0.69 = 38,471

7The total number of sites and the estimated average daily attendance of new sponsors

includes sites run under the Seamless Waiver, as well as any other programs the sponsor may have been operating.

13

TABLE II.3

NEW SPONSORS


Seamless Sponsors’ Experiences in 2001a

New sponsor (no feeding sites in 2001) 21 Ran the regular SFSP 64 Ran the NSLP 7 Ran both the SFSP and the NSLP 6 Operated site (s) but not under the SFSP or the

NSLPb 2

Among New Sponsors the decision to Start a Summer Feeding Program in 2002 was Mainly Due to the Seamless Waiver (N=40)c

Yes 69 No 31 Number of Sites Operated by New Sponsors in 2002 (N=40)

1 30 2 20 3 to 5 23 6 to 10 15 11 to 25 8 26 to 50 3 51 or more 3 Mean 6 Median 2.5 Estimated Average Daily Attendance at All of New Sponsors’ Sites (N=40)

Less than 100 33 100 to 250 28 250 to 500 15 501 to 1,000 15 1,001 to 5,000 8 5,001 or more 3 Mean 531 Median 225

Sample Size 190

Source: Seamless Waiver Survey data. aOne sponsor responded that the district ran feeding sites in 2001 but did not know under what program. This district is excluded from the distribution presented. bSponsors may have received private or local funding to operate summer feeding sites. cOne new sponsor responded “don’t know” to this item.

14

Under this calculation, the Seamless Waiver resulted in new sponsors feeding approximately

38,500 children in 2002.

2. Continuing Sponsors

Among Seamless sponsors that ran the NSLP, SFSP, or another program in 2001, there was

no change in the average number of sites operated from 2001 to 2002 (Table II.4). Continuing

sponsors operated an average of approximately 10.5 sites during both years. However, only

56 percent of continuing sponsors ran exactly the same number of sites—24 percent ran more

sites in 2002 than they did in 2001, and 20 percent ran fewer sites. On average, however, the

number of sites that continuing sponsors ran did not change. Therefore, we conclude that there

was no impact on participation in 2002 due to increased site sponsorship among continuing

sponsors.

3. Walk-In Students at Former NSLP Sites

In 2001, at least seven percent of Seamless sponsors (about 35 sponsors) used the NSLP to

feed only those students attending summer school or year-round classes. Because these sponsors

used the waiver in 2002, and since most (94 percent) waiver sites were open to walk-in students,

the participation of walk- ins at these former NSLP sites is an increase in participation.

Using the average eight and a half sites per Seamless sponsor in 2002, we estimate that

297 sites that were previously operated under the NSLP are now being operated under the

waiver. We multiply this by .94 to determine the number of open sites where walk- ins are

permitted. An average of 114 children were fed at each site in 2002. On average, 21 percent of

those fed at school sites were estimated to be walk- ins. Using this information, we estimate that

6,700 walk- ins were fed at Seamless sites formerly run under the NSLP:

35 * 8.5 * 0.94 * 114 * 0.21 = 6,695

15

TABLE II.4

CONTINUING SPONSORS


2001 2002

Total Sites Operated by Continuing Sponsors in:

1 32 34 2 to 5 36 33 6 to 10 13 15 11 to 25 11 12 26 or more 7 6 Don’t know <1 0 Mean 10.7 10.5 Median

3.0 3.0

Continuing Sponsors Operated:a More sites in 2002 than in 2001 24 Same number of sites both years 56 Fewer sites in 2002 than in 2001 20

Sample Size 149 Source: Seamless Waiver Survey data. aOne continuing sponsor did not know how many sites they ran in 2001 and is excluded from this item.

16

This estimate may be low because, in addition to the seven percent of Seamless sponsors

that ran the NSLP in 2001, six percent ran both the NSLP and the SFSP at the same time in 2001.

Some of these NSLP sites may have become open sites under the waiver. However, we have not

included them in the impact estimate because we do not know the ratio of sites run under each

program for all of the sponsors. Also, based on direct observations of a few sites for other parts

of our work with the Seamless Waivers, we think the 21 percent factor could be an overestimate

of the percentage that are walk- ins.

On the other hand, other factors may make the estimate high. The current estimate assumes

that all sponsors who changed NSLP sites to open Seamless ones did so because of the waiver.

However, some sponsors might have switched to running open sites under the regular SFSP even

if the waiver had not become available. Since the number of walk-in children fed by the waiver

is generally low, however, the difference that these assumptions make on the total impact

estimate that follows is small.

4. Total Impact

The sum of the estimated impacts due to new sponsors, new sites among continuing

sponsors, and walk- in children at former NSLP sites is:

38,471 + 0 + 6,695 = 45,166

Thus, approximately 45,200 children were fed daily in summer 2002 due to the Seamless

Waiver. This estimated impact is two percent of the number of children (2,089,000) fed daily in

July 2001 by regular SFSP sponsors (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition

Service Web site). Thus we can say that the Seamless Waiver increased participation in the

SFSP (in 2001 terms) by two percent. Most growth that occurred due to the Seamless Waiver

resulted from new sponsors joining the program.

17

Several factors should be considered in assessing this estimate. The estimate assumes that

the children fed at new waiver sites or former NSLP sites now run under the waiver would not

have received meals from other feeding sites without the waiver. In addition, 2002 was the first

year that the Seamless Waiver was available to school districts nationwide. The degree to which

the waiver was publicized and used varied widely from region to region and from state to state.

The waiver was popular in some states, but there also were states where no sponsors used it. In

the 13 states where the Lugar Initiative—a pilot project that simplifies cost accounting,

paperwork, and reporting requirements—is operating, few school districts used the Seamless

Waiver. The waiver has room to grow, and the estimate should not be considered an estimate of

the total impact that the Seamless Waiver can or will have. Rather, it is an estimate of the impact

that the waiver had during its first year.

5. Plans for 2003

Most Seamless sponsors (87 percent) plan to use the waiver again in 2003 (Table II.5). A

total of 13 percent are uncertain, and less than one percent of sponsors do not plan to use the

waiver in 2003. Among those planning to continue, sixty-nine percent plan to run the same

number of sites as in 2002. Twenty-four percent have plans to increase the number of sites that

they sponsor, and two percent expect to operate fewer sites. Of the sponsors that plan to increase

their level of site participation, 45 percent said that some new or additional sites will be in school

settings, 18 percent that new sites will be in both school and nonschool settings, and 28 percent

that new sites will be in nonschool settings.

The Seamless Waiver probably also will attract some new sponsors to start summer feeding

programs, as it did in 2002. Since we do not know how many new sponsors will join the

program in 2003, and because new sponsors accounted for most of the program’s total impact in

18

TABLE II.5

SPONSORS’ PLANS FOR 2003


Sponsor Plans to Use the Seamless Waiver Again in 2003

Yes 87 No <1 It dependsa 9 Don’t know 4 Out of Sponsors That Plan to Use the Seamless Waiver in 2003, Number of Sites Sponsor Plans to Operate Under the Waiver (N=165)

About the same as in 2002 69 More sites than in 2002 24 Fewer sites than in 2002 2 Don’t know 5 Out of Those Sponsors That Plan to Operate More Waiver Sites Than in 2002, the New or Additional Sites Will be Located in…(N=40)

School settings 45 Non-school settings 28 Both school and non-school settings 18 Not sure/it depends 10

Sample Size 190

Source: Seamless Waiver Survey data. aResponse indicates that, at the time of the survey, respondents lacked sufficient information to know what they would do the following year.

19

2002, it is difficult to predict the extent to which the Seamless Waiver will affect summer

feeding participation in 2003.

C. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION ISSUES

1. Applications

The nutrition advocates, officials, and administrators who developed the Seamless Waiver

hoped that it would simplify the process of applying to become a regular SFSP sponsor. Both

the waiver and the regular program require a written application; however, applications for both

programs vary from state to state, and, sometimes, even from sponsor to sponsor. For example,

in some areas, the state office that administers the SFSP sends sponsors a form containing

information on the program they ran during the prior year, and the sponsor needs only to update

the form to reflect changes in the current year.

To get a better idea about whether the waiver applications states used in 2002 were easier

than the SFSP applications used, we asked sponsors: (1) How easy or difficult was it to complete

the Seamless Waiver application? and (2) How easy or difficult was it in comparison to the SFSP

application? Table II.6 shows the results. Nearly all sponsors (94 percent) said the waiver

application was very easy or somewhat easy to complete. Ten percent of Seamless sponsors had

never completed the regular SFSP application. Among those that had completed both the waiver

and the regular SFSP application, 75 percent felt that the waiver application was easier to

complete, 14 percent thought that the applications were about the same, and 2 percent felt that

the waiver application was more difficult than the regular SFSP application.

2. Program Finances

Those who developed the Seamless Waiver also hoped that it would help sponsors save

money on the labor costs involved in administering a summer feeding program by reducing or

20

TABLE II.6

SEAMLESS WAIVER APPLICATION PROCESS


Completing the seamless waiver application was…a

Very easy 65 Somewhat easy 29 Somewhat difficult 3 Very difficult 0 Not involved in application process 4

Compared to the application for the regular SFSP, the seamless waiver application was… (N=182)

Easier 75 About the same 14 More difficult 2 Never completed the SFSP application 10

Sample Size 190

Source: Seamless Waiver Survey data. aOne sponsor responded “don’t know” to this item.

21

relaxing the amount of paperwork (including the application) and day-to-day operating

procedures (including rules about meal times and locations, and communicating with the state

agency about changes) associated with the regular SFSP. However, the reimbursement rate for

the waiver, which uses the NSLP rate, is lower than the rate for the regular SFSP. To gauge how

these changes affected program finances overall, MPR asked Seamless sponsors whether they

expected USDA reimbursements to cover all their summer feeding program costs in 2002. We

also asked whether sponsors believed that USDA reimbursements would have covered their costs

if they had used the regular SFSP or the NSLP instead of the Seamless Waiver. Although not all

Seamless sponsors have had experience with the SFSP, they operate the NSLP during the school

year and are familiar with that program’s level of reimbursement.

Just over 60 percent of sponsors reported that they expected to cover all of the costs of their

summer program using the Seamless Waiver (Table II.7), 25 percent did not, and the rest were

not sure. The percentage of sponsors who felt that they could have covered all of their costs

using the SFSP or NSLP was lower by almost 10 percent—only 52 percent of sponsors predicted

that they would have broken even in 2002 using these programs instead of the Seamless Waiver.

3. Site Monitoring

Some of the detailed rules currently associated with the regular SFSP were introduced

because of concerns about the program’s integrity during its early history. During the mid-

1970s, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) discovered significant administrative

problems—including poor-quality food, food waste, and food consumption by adults—within the

program, particularly among non-school-district sponsors. With the simplification implicit in the

Seamless Waiver, some of the detailed rules have been removed or relaxed, such as the

requirements for site monitoring. This seems to make sense for school district sponsors, who run

22

TABLE II.7

PROGRAM FINANCES


Sponsor expects to cover all costs this summer using the seamless waiver

Yes 61 No 25 Don’t know 14

If the sponsor had operated summer sites under the regular SFSP or NSLP instead of the seamless waiver, do they think they would have broken even?

Yes 52 No 35 Don’t know 13

Sample Size 190

Source: Seamless Waiver Survey data.

23

feeding programs throughout the school year, but it raises the possibility of new problems

concerning program integrity.

Sponsors’ visits to meal sites, and the written reports that result from the visits, are one

check on program integrity built into the regular SFSP program. The waiver requires fewer

sponsor visits than the regular SFSP. Another check is monitoring visits the state office makes

to feeding sites. During these visits, meals not served in compliance with program rules may be

disallowed for reimbursement.

To learn about the prevalence and types of problems occurring at Seamless sites in 2002, we

asked sponsors whether they had conducted any site visits in 2002, and, if so, what the results

were. Since sponsors were interviewed during late July and August and were generally still

running their summer programs at the time of the interview, not having visited sites does not

necessarily indicate an infraction of program rules. We also asked about meal disallowances that

may have occurred at sites visited by state office or FNS officials.

As Table II.8 shows, 93 percent of sponsors had already completed one or more monitoring

visits to their waiver sites when MPR interviewed them. Five percent had not conducted any

visits. For two percent, the question did not apply because the sponsors have only one site, at the

same location as the sponsor.

Ninety-three percent of sponsors that had performed visits observed no problems at their

sites. Of those that had experienced difficulties, the most commonly cited problems were

(1) parents or other adults eating parts of meals or asking children to bring food home, and

(2) problems with meal counting. Six percent of Seamless sponsors interviewed had had meals

disallowed for reimbursement at waiver sites.

24

TABLE II.8

SITE MONITORING AND MEAL DISALLOWANCESa


Sponsor has completed any site monitoring visits to Seamless Waiver sites this summerb

Yes 93 No 5 Sponsor and site are the same 2

During monitoring visits, observed problems at seamless waiver sites (N=175)c

Yes 7 No 93

Some of the main problems sponsors have encountered at seamless waiver sites (N=13, multiple responses allowed)

Parents/adults eating food or asking children to take food home 46 Problems with meal counting or counting the number of

children fed 38 Problems with meal planning (district was short on food) 8 Accounting for leftover food 8 Concerns regarding opening meal sites to the entire community 8 Other 32

Sponsor has had any meals disallowed for reimbursement purposes this summerd

Yes 6e No 94

Sample Size 190 Source: Seamless Waiver Survey data. aSponsors were interviewed between July 23rd and August 30th and were at different points in their summer meals program when contacted. Therefore, their responses to questions concerning monitoring and meal disallowances reflect what they had done so far this summer.

bTwo sponsors responded “don’t know” to this item. cOne sponsor responded “don’t know” to this item. dThree sponsors responded “don’t know” to this item. eDisallowances occurred at Seamless Waiver sites.

25

D. OUTREACH

State agencies played an important role in informing school districts about the availability of

the Seamless Waiver in 2002. Nearly all sponsors reported receiving some information about the

waiver from their state agency (Table II.9). Those that received information said that the state

promoted the waiver a lot (72 percent), a little (23 percent), or not at all (5 percent). For nearly

90 percent of sponsors, the information was a major factor in their decision to use the waiver.

Only 20 percent of sponsors received information from sources other than the state that

influenced their sponsorship decision. The most commonly cited sources included school

districts and food service directors, advocacy groups, food service management companies, and

journal articles. Sources cited at least once, but not frequently enough to be included in the table,

were WIC clinics, the American School Food Service Association, and colleagues in the food

service field.

SFSP and Seamless Waiver sponsors must find ways to inform their communities about the

times and locations of free meal services. SFSP sponsors generally conduct a range of outreach

activities—many use flyers, posters, signs, advertisements in the newspaper and on TV and

radio—to help spread the word about the SFSP. Similarly, Seamless sponsors used several

outreach approaches. Three-quarters of sponsors issued press releases, hung posters or flyers,

and sent information home with school children at the end of the school year; more than half

received newspaper coverage; and many worked with other community organizations to

publicize their summer meal program.

E. MOTIVATIONS FOR USING THE WAIVER

Table II.10 shows the reasons that sponsors gave for choosing the Seamless Waiver. Nearly

three-quarters of sponsors (73 percent) cited the reduced amount of paperwork (or easier

paperwork) the waiver required as a main motivation. Specific mention was made of the

26

TABLE II.9

OUTREACH EFFORTS


The State Agency provided information about the Seamless Waiver option to the sponsora

Yes 97 No 3

According to the sponsor, the state promoted the waiver option…b

A lot 72 A little 23 Not at all 5

Out of those that received information from the state, how important was that information in the sponsor’s decision to use the seamless waiver? (N=182)c

A major factor 88 A minor factor 7 Not a factor 6

Sponsor received information from other sources that significantly influenced the decision to use the seamless waiverd

Yes 20 No 80

Of those who said yes above, these other sources of information included (N=36):

Other school districts 25 Advocacy groups 22 Food service directors 11 Food management companies 8 Food banks or food distribution organizations 6 Journal articles 6

Seamless sponsors made use of the following kinds of outreach to publicize the availability of summer meals to the community (multiple responses allowed, percentages may exceed 100)

Posters 77 Sent information home with students at the end of the school year 77 Press releases 76 Flyers 72 Newspaper coverage 63 Worked with other community organizations 59 Public service announcements 36 Advertisements 33

Sample Size 190

TABLE II.9 (continued)

27

Source: Seamless Waiver Survey data. aTwo sponsors responded “don’t know” to this item. bTen sponsors responded “don’t know” to this item. cThree sponsors responded “don’t know” to this item. dSix sponsors responded “don’t know” to this item.

28

TABLE II.10

SPONSORS’ REASONS FOR CHOOSING THE SEAMLESS WAIVER


Sponsor’s main reasons for deciding to operate summer feeding sites under the Seamless Waiver during summer 2002 (multiple responses allowed)a

Reduced/simplified paperwork 73 Daily operations easier than under the SFSP 34 Similar to the NSLP/continuation of year-round program 33 Free meals for more children (from the entire community) 26 Financial reasons (cost less to run) 9 To provide meals in conjunction with activities or summer school classes 4 Daily operations easier than under summer NSLP (no ticketing or collecting money for paid meals) 4 Other 8

Of the reasons listed above, the sponsor’s most important reason(s) for choosing the Seamless Waiver (some districts gave more than one reason)b

Reduced/simplified paperwork 49 Free meals for more children (from the entire community) 21 Daily operations easier than under the SFSP 16 Similar to the NSLP/continuation of year-round program 11 Financial reasons (cost less to run) 3 To provide meals in conjunction with activities or summer school classes 2 Daily operations easier than under summer NSLP (no ticketing or collecting money for paid meals) 1 Other 3

Sample Size 188

Source: Seamless Waiver Survey data. aTwo sponsors responded “don’t know” or “none” to this item. bEight sponsors responded “don’t know” or “none” to this item, and the responses of three more sponsors were not clear.

29

program’s simplified reimbursement forms or claim forms (the waiver uses a form similar to the

one used in the NSLP), application, and budgeting or accounting paperwork. A few sponsors

indicated that they were able to complete paperwork for the Seamless Waiver online.

One-third of sponsors (34 percent) indicated that they thought daily operations under the

waiver were easier than under the SFSP. The waiver reduces the number of procedures that

sponsors must comply with on a day-to-day basis, and many sponsors said that the waiver saved

time. In particular, sponsors liked the fact that the waiver does not place a cap, or an upper limit,

on the number of meals that can be served daily; others liked the relaxed waiver rules concerning

the locations and times at which meals can be served; and still others preferred not having to

communicate with the state office about changes in their feeding schedule as much as they had to

when using the SFSP. In addition, the waiver’s reduced requirements regarding site visits, and

the ability of sponsors to use commodities from the school year, were each mentioned several

times as attractive features.

One-third (33 percent) of sponsors cited the waiver’s similarity to the NSLP as a main

reason for participating. When using the Seamless Waiver, districts basically continue to operate

under the same rules that they use during the regular school year. However, four percent of

sponsors indicated that the waiver also simplifies some of the procedures of running the NSLP

because it allows all children to be fed for free without distributing free or reduced-price meal

tickets to income eligible students and collecting money from students who do not qualify for

free meals.

A quarter of sponsors said that they wanted to use the waiver simply because it allows them

to provide more free meals to children during the summer. Nine percent indicated that the

waiver cost less to run, and four percent wanted to provide meals in conjunction with activities

taking place in the community.

30

When asked to pinpoint the most important reason among those already listed for choosing

the Seamless Waiver, sponsors most often cited the reduced or simplified paperwork. The

second most popular response, given by 21 percent of sponsors, was providing free meals to

more children in the community. Sixteen percent specified the increased ease in daily operations

under the waiver compared to the SFSP, and 11 percent cited the waiver’s similarity to the

NSLP.

F. CHALLENGES AND BENEFITS REPORTED

Seventy-two percent of Seamless sponsors encountered no major challenges to using the

waiver in 2002 (Table II.11). About a tenth of sponsors (nine percent) reported some confusion

regarding the rules and procedures of the program. Specifically, sponsors said that their state

agencies were not sure of the rules and that lines of communication and accountability were

therefore unclear. A few sponsors indicated that the waiver’s rules regarding site monitoring

were confusing.

Challenges some sponsors listed (collapsed into the “Other” category in Table II.11) include

(1) children taking or trying to take food home; (2) concerns among district administrators about

safety, sanitation, and trash at open sites; and (3) not being able to serve more than one meal

(“seconds”) to children.

The greatest benefits that sponsors found in using the Seamless Waiver are similar to the

reasons they gave for deciding to use the waiver, which are presented in Table II.9. The most

commonly cited benefits were reduced paperwork, easier day-to-day operations than in the

SFSP, and the ability to provide free meals to more children. Additional responses listed by a

few sponsors each (grouped into the “Other” category) were (1) being able to use district staff

during the summer and not “hire out”; (2) less staff time or fewer staff needed to run the waiver

program; and (3) less training required.

31

TABLE II.11

BENEFITS AND CHALLENGES OF THE SEAMLESS WAIVER


Challenges or problems that sponsors found in using the Seamless Waiver (multiple answers allowed)a

Confusion about: rules and procedures of Seamless (confusion about: running a new program) 9

More children attending/difficult to predict how many will attend 5 Outreach/low attendance 3 Reimbursement lower than under SFSP 3 Paperwork confusing/difficult 3 Staffing/training problems 2 Other 5 None 72

Greatest benefits that sponsors found in using the Seamless Waiver (multiple answers allowed)

Reduced/simplified paperwork 44 Daily operations easier than under the SFSP 34 Free meals for more children (from the entire community) 22 Similar to the NSLP/continuation of year-round program 18 Financial reasons (cost less to run) 6 Daily operations easier than under summer NSLP (no ticketing or

collecting money for paid meals) 3 Other 7 None 3

Sample Size 188 Source: Seamless Waiver Survey data. aThe responses of two sponsors to this item were not clear.

32

III. CONCLUSIONS

The main findings from MPR’s survey of school districts that operated the Seamless Waiver

in 2002 are:

• Nearly 500 school districts used the Seamless Waiver to feed an estimated 484,000 children a day during summer 2002.

• Approximately 4,230 feeding sites were operated under the waiver. Nearly all the sites were open sites, and most were located at schools. Sponsors estimated that 79 percent of the children fed at school-based sites were students attending academic classes.

• An estimated 45,200 children received meals daily from Seamless sponsors who would not have received meals from these sponsors if the waiver had not been available. Thus, the waiver increased participation in the regular SFSP (which was 2,089,000 in 2001) by approximately two percent.

• Nearly 90 percent of Seamless sponsors plan to use the waiver again in 2003, and about a quarter of those sponsors have plans to increase the number of sites that they operate.

• Three-quarters of Seamless sponsors chose the waiver, at least in part, because of its reduced or simplified paperwork requirements. A third of the sponsors indicated that daily operations were easier under the waiver than under the regular SFSP, and one quarter of sponsors wanted to use the waiver simply to provide free meals to more children during the summer.

• Nearly three-quarters of Seamless sponsors reported no major challenges in using the waiver. The greatest benefit cited was the reduced paperwork.

In general, Seamless sponsors were very positive about program operations and

administration under the waiver. The waiver’s lower reimbursement rate did not appear to have

negative consequences on sponsors’ predictions of whether they would cover all the expenses

incurred in running a summer feeding program.

The growth that occurred in participation resulted mainly from new sponsors, who had not

operated summer feeding programs in 2001. Sixty-nine percent of new sponsors attributed the

decision to start a summer feeding program in 2002 mainly to the waiver becoming available.

33

Some growth in participation occurred because sponsors that used the NSLP to feed school

students in 2001 operated their sites as open sites under the waiver, where children from the

entire community could receive meals.

34

REFERENCES

Food and Nutrition Service Web Site. “Child Nutrition Programs, Program Data.” [www.fns.gov/pd/cnpmain.htm]. Accessed December 23, 2002.

Food Research and Action Center. “Good Choices in Hard Times: Fifteen Ideas for States to Reduce Hunger and Stimulate the Economy.” Washington, DC: RAC. [www.frac.org]. Accessed February 2002.

Food Research and Action Center. “Current News and Analyses: Summer Nutrition Programs Provide Meals and Safe Havens for 3.2 Million Needy Children.” Press release. Washington, DC: July 2000. [www.frac.org/html/news/sfsp00pr.html]. Accessed October 2001.

Jones, Jean (Congressional Research Service). Speech to state summer food service and child care food program directors. Baltimore, MD, March 14, 1994.

Ohls, J., E. Kisker, and J. Homrighausen. “An Evaluation of the Summer Food Service Program: Final Report.” Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., July 1988.

Tasse, T., and J. Ohls. “An Evaluation of the Seamless Waiver in Five School Districts: Final Report.” Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., November 2002.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Welfare Reform: Effects of Reduced Reimbursements on the Summer Food Service Program. Publication no. GAO/RCED-99-20. Washington, DC: GAO, December 1998. ̀

APPENDIX A

A.2

DESCRIPTION OF THE SFSP

The SFSP is a federal program, created by Congress in 1968, that provides nutritious meals

to low-income children during the summer and at other times when school is not in session. It

currently operates in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico.

The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

administers the program.

The SFSP operates by providing funds for organizations to serve meals to children. Meal

service is often provided in conjunction with educational or recreational programs and activities.

Organizations eligible to participate in the program are (1) public and private school food

authorities (SFAs); (2) local, municipal, county, tribal, and state government offices; (3)

residential camps; (4) private, nonprofit organizations; and (5) National Youth Sports Programs

(NYSPs).1 In 1997, school districts were the most common type of organization sponsoring the

SFSP, accounting for 45 percent of all sponsors.2 About 19 percent were camps, 17 percent were

government agencies, 16 percent were private nonprofit organizations, and 3 percent were

NYSPs (U.S. General Accounting Office 1998).

SFSP meal sites include schools, parks, recreation centers, and camps, as well as other

locations. Many sponsors serve meals at more than one site. In 1997, for example, 49 percent of

sponsors operated the SFSP at more than one site (U.S. General Accounting Office 1998).

1The NYSP is a federally funded program that provides organized instruction in athletics to

low-income children.

2School district sponsors are also known as SFAs, the organizational entities legally authorized to operate school nutrition programs.

A.3

Sponsors can serve meals at three types of locations: (1) open sites, (2) closed enrolled

sites, and (3) camps. An open site is a site in a neighborhood where at least 50 percent of the

children are from families with incomes at or below 185 percent of the federal poverty level. At

open sites, all children (age 18 and under) receive free meals. However, sponsors may restrict

participation at some open sites for safety, security, or control. A closed enrolled site is one in

which at least 50 percent of the children actually attending the program live in households with

incomes at or below 185 percent of the poverty level. At these sites, all children enrolled in

programs are eligible for free meals. Camp sites are similar to closed enrolled sites; however,

sponsors are reimbursed only for meals served to low-income children.

A. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION

FNS develops SFSP regulations and provides funds to states to administer the program. In

most states, a state government agency runs the program. If a state chooses not to administer the

SFSP directly, FNS regional offices assume responsibility. The state office distributes funds to

sponsor organizations, provides sponsors with training and technical assistance to sponsors, and

monitors compliance with SFSP rules.

Sponsors operate the SFSP at the local level. They select meal sites, hire and train staff

members, purchase or prepare meals, and monitor the safety and quality of the food. SFSP

meals may be prepared at the site where they are served or at a central kitchen facility, or they

may be purchased from a vendor. All meals must meet meal pattern guidelines set by the

USDA. Schools may use the same meal pattern guidelines that they use during the regular

school year.

In most cases, the SFSP reimburses organizations for serving up to two meals or snacks per

day. Sponsors are reimbursed for the costs of operating and administering the program.

A.4

Administrative reimbursement is for costs that include office expenses, program management,

and administrative staff salaries. The amount of administrative reimbursement a sponsor

receives is based on the number of meals served multiplied by the per-meal administrative

reimbursement rate, actual program costs, or the amount specified in the budget submitted as part

of the sponsor’s application, whichever is lowest. Operating reimbursement is for costs

associated with the purchase, preparation, and serving of meals and is the lesser of the number of

meals served multiplied by the operational reimbursement rate or actual costs.3

Sponsors must keep records of their operating and administrative expenses. At the end of

each month, they document their expenses and submit the paperwork to the state SFSP office,

which is responsible for reimbursing them.

B. SFSP HISTORY AND RESULTING REGULATIONS

Organizations that sponsor the SFSP must comply with detailed program rules concerning

where, when, and how meals are served; what paperwork and records must be kept; and how

many meals are served at a site. Some of these rules were introduced because of concerns about

the program during its early history.

During the mid-1970s, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) discovered significant

administrative problems in the SFSP: deliberate dumping of food, poor-quality food, food waste,

off-site consumption of food, and food consumption by adults. It documented these problems in

a series of reports. The GAO also found evidence of improper bidding, kickbacks, and bribes.

3A three-year pilot program (the Lugar Initiative), operating in 13 states and Puerto Rico

through 2004, allows sponsors in those areas to claim reimbursement based only on the number of meals served multiplied by the maximum per-meal reimbursement rate.

A.5

Most of the problems appeared to be among private, nonprofit SFSP sponsors, particularly those

that used food vendors and served large numbers of children at many sites.4

As a result of these problems, many rules were introduced into the program during the late

1970s and early 1980s. Sponsorship among private, nonprofit organizations was first restricted

and later prohibited; administrative reviews increased; and registration of food service

management companies became a program requirement.

Congress has been introducing more flexibility into the SFSP regulations since the 1980s.

Private, nonprofit organizations were allowed back into the program in 1989, although with

many restrictions, including limits on the number of sites they could operate and the number of

meals they could serve. Since 1989, some of the restrictions on private nonprofits have been

relaxed. In the late 1990s, the requirement for registering food service management companies

that provide SFSP meals was removed. The application process was also streamlined for

sponsors that had participated in the program and had experienced no significant problems

during the prior year.

However, some SFSP rules are still more restrictive than the requirements for other nutrition

programs. For example, to receive reimbursement, the SFSP requires sponsors to track and

report both the number of meals served (which is multiplied by the reimbursement rates) and

actual program costs. In contrast, reimbursement for the National School Lunch Program

(NSLP) is based only on the number of meals served. The SFSP requires sponsors to visit, or

“monitor,” their sites more frequently than the NSLP does. In addition, the SFSP has

prespecified limits on the number of meals that may be served at sites.

4Jean Jones, Congressional Research Service speech to state summer food service and child

care food program directors, Baltimore, Maryland, March 14, 1994.

APPENDIX B

B.2

SURVEY METHODS

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR) conducted a telephone survey of school districts

that used the Seamless Waiver to operate feeding programs for children during summer 2002.

This survey was funded by a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

A. SURVEY DEVELOPMENT AND SAMPLE SELECTION

Instrument development occurred in June 2002. Research staff defined the key questions for

the study to address, and staff from MPR’s Survey Division drafted the instrument. Research

and survey staff both revised the instrument, using, for reference, questionnaires MPR had

developed for previous studies on school feeding programs. Appendix C contains a copy of the

instrument, which was a pencil-and-paper-administered survey.

The USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) gave MPR information on all school districts

that had received permission to use the Seamless Waiver by June 14, 2002 (by this time,

524 districts had been approved). The districts were located in 29 states, Guam, and

Washington, DC. MPR compiled a list of the districts, which were grouped by state, and the

computer randomly selected a sample of 200 districts using interval sampling.

Advance letters were mailed to sample districts one week before the start of the data

collection period. The letters described the purpose, length, and content of the survey and

included a partial list of topics to be covered during the interview.

B. INTERVIEWER TRAINING AND MONITORING

Four executive- level interviewers, including a survey supervisor, conducted the interviews

from MPR’s survey center in Columbia, Maryland. Interviewers received eight hours of

training, in which they were given background information on the Seamless Waiver and became

B.3

familiar with the survey instrument and the issues that might occur while conducting the

interviews. The interviewers participated in mock interviews with research staff members who

acted as school administrators.

Monitoring for quality control, using remote monitoring equipment, was conducted at the

telephone center in Columbia and at MPR corporate offices in Princeton, NJ. A telephone

interviewer supervisor assigned to the project did most of the monitoring, and the ratio of

monitoring to interviewing time was approximately five percent. In particular, the introduction

and screening portions of the interviews were monitored closely, given their importance in

introducing the study and determining a school district’s eligibility. Throughout the data

collection period, memoranda were sent by e-mail to update the interviewers on quality issues or

problems observed during monitoring.

Approximately one week after the start of data collection, a debriefing was conducted

between senior staff and the interviewing staff. The survey questions appeared to present no

problems to the interviewers or to the sponsors who had been interviewed by this point. The

final response rate for the survey among eligible sample members was 99 percent. One sample

member refused to complete the interview, and four and a half percent of districts were ineligible

because they had ultimately decided not to run the Seamless Waiver.

C. QUALITY CONTROL, DATA ENTRY, AND ANALYSIS

After an interview was completed, the telephone supervisor at the Columbia telephone

center checked the questionnaire for quality control. The questionnaire was then shipped to the

survey director in Princeton. The survey director or other survey staff conducted final quality

control checks before submitting completed questionnaires to data entry. Cases with missing

responses, unclear open-ended responses, or inconsistent numerical data were returned to the

survey telephone supervisor for data retrieval or clarification.

B.4

The survey director and data entry supervisor reviewed all data manually to check that they

were consistent with the intended skip logic as embedded in the data entry program. The

questionnaires were then sent to data entry for processing. Verbatim and other/specify responses

were recorded in an Excel file. Upon receiving the final SAS data file, research staff conducted

additional cleaning and analyzed the data.

MPR research staff coded the responses to open-ended survey questions. All responses

were read and grouped into broad response categories. These broad categories were then broken

down further, until the sets of responses included in the tables were reached.

The public use file from the survey is available from the authors.

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

APPENDIX C: SEAMLESS SURVEY INSTRUMENT

Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

THE DAVID & LUCILE PACKARD FOUNDATION

July – August 2002

MPR ID #: | | | | | | | | | INTERVIEWER ID #: | | | | | | DATE: | | | / | | | / | | | MONTH DAY YEAR START TIME: | | |:| | | AM..................01

PM ..................02

END TIME: | | |:| | | AM..................01 PM ..................02

Conducted by: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

600 Alexander Park Princeton, NJ 08540

INTERVIEW COMPLETED:

COLUMBIA ........................... 101

PRINCETON......................... 102

#8806-600

P:\Casfsp.(jn)\CASFSP-Survey Report-Final\PDF files\AppendixC.doc 1 Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

INTRODUCTION Hi, can I speak with (NAME OF CONTACT PERSON)? My name is (INTERVIEWER NAME) and I’m calling from Mathematica Policy Research for a study funded by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. We are conducting a brief interview with sponsors from school districts that have chosen to operate feeding sites this summer using the seamless waiver. The FNS regional office gave your name and school district to us as participating in this program. The study is intended to help nutrition officials, advocates, and policymakers to understand why school districts are choosing to operate under the waiver and what their experiences have been like so far. Recently, we sent you a letter explaining the survey and included a partial list of topics the interview will cover. Did you receive the letter? NOTE: IF YES, CONTINUE TO Q.S1. IF NO, ASK: If you’d like I can fax the letter to you; however, you don’t need

it to complete the interview. S1. Are you the best person to talk with about summer food sites and using the seamless

waiver? YES.........................................................................1 Ô CONTINUE TO Q.S2 NO...........................................................................0 Ô S2. And can I just confirm that your school district is operating feeding sites this summer

using the seamless waiver? YES.........................................................................1 Ô SKIP TO SECTION A NO...........................................................................0 Ô CONTINUE TO Q.S3

ASK FOR NAME AND PHONE NUMBER FOR BEST PERSON. ENTER INFORMATION ON CONTACT SHEET.


S3. Can you tell me why the FNS regional office might have thought you were using the seamless waiver?

RECORD VERBATIM: S4. Thank you very much for your time; however, since this is a survey of sponsors using

the seamless waiver, there is no need for you to complete the survey.


SECTION A: SITE INFORMATION

A1. To begin, in total, how many feeding sites is your school district running this summer?

Please include all sites you are running under the seamless waiver, the regular Summer Food Service Program, and the National School Lunch Program?

|___|___|___| TOTAL FEEDING SITES FOR SUMMER 2002 NOTE: RECORD RESPONSE ON CHECK LIST AS WELL DON’T KNOW.......................................................d

REFUSED..............................................................r A2. Do any of the schools in your school district operate on a year round schedule? YES.........................................................................1

NO...........................................................................0

DON’T KNOW.......................................................d

REFUSED..............................................................r


A3. How many of the [FILL # OF SITES IN Q.A1] feeding sites you’re running this summer are using the seamless waiver?

A3a. How many of these seamless waiver sites are open sites, meaning any child in the

neighborhood can attend? A3b. And, how many of these seamless waiver sites are located in a school setting? A3c. How many of these seamless waiver sites are run in conjunction with an academic

summer school program [or year round schooling]? A4. How many of the [# OF SITES IN Q.A1] feeding sites are operating this summer under

the regular Summer Food Service Program? IF NONE, RECORD IN GRID AND SKIP TO Q.A5.

A4a. How many of these regular Summer Food sites are open sites? A4b. And, how many of these regular Summer Food sites are located in a school setting? A4c. How many of these regular Summer Food sites are run in conjunction with an

academic summer school program or [year round schooling]? A5. How many of the [FILL NUMBER OF SITES IN Q.A1] feeding sites are operating

under the National School Lunch Program this summer?


PROGRAM NUMBER OF SITES

NUMBER OF OPEN SITES

NUMBER OF IN SCHOOL SITES

NUMBER RUNNING WITH SUMMER

SCHOOL [OR YEAR ROUND SCHOOLING]

the seamless waiver

(A3)

|___|___|___| NONE .........................0

DON’T KNOW .........................d

REFUSED...................r

(A3a)

|___|___|___| NONE ................0 DON’T KNOW .....d REFUSED..........r

(A3b)

|___|___|___| NONE ................ 0 DON’T KNOW .... d REFUSED.......... r

(A3c)*

|___|___|___| NONE ....................... 0 DON’T KNOW ............ d REFUSED................. r

the regular Summer Food Service Program

(A4) *

|___|___|___| NONE .............. 0

DON’T KNOW .............. d

REFUSED........ r

(A4a)

|___|___|___| NONE ................0 DON’T KNOW .....d REFUSED..........r

(A4b)

|___|___|___| NONE ...............0 DON’T KNOW ...d REFUSED.......... r

(A4c)

|___|___|___| NONE ....................... 0 DON’T KNOW ............ d REFUSED................. r

the National School Lunch Program

(A5) *

|___|___|___| NONE .........................0

DON’T KNOW .........................d

REFUSED...................r

*NOTE: RECORD APPROPRIATE RESPONSES TO Q.A3c, Q.A4, AND Q.A5 ON CHECK

LIST.

SKIP TO Q.A5


THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY


A6. Thinking about a typical day this summer, on average how many children do you feed daily across all of your feeding sites? Your best estimate will be fine.

|___|___|___|,|___|___|___| AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE NOTE: RECORD RESPONSE IN DESIGNATED

BOX ON PAGE 9 DON’T KNOW.......................................................d

REFUSED..............................................................r A7. INTERVIEWER CHECK: IS RESPONDENT RUNNING SEAMLESS WAIVER

SITE(S) WITH A SUMMER SCHOOL PROGRAM? CHECK Q.A3c ON CHECK LIST.

YES.........................................................................1

NO...........................................................................0 Ô SKIP TO Q.A8 A7a. At the average summer school location where you’re using the seamless waiver or the

regular Summer Food Service Program, about what percentage of those being fed are children who are not enrolled in summer school but who just come for meals?

READ, IF NECESSARY: Your best estimate will be fine. IF RESPONDENT CANNOT ESTIMATE PERCENTAGE, ASK: Would you say more than 25%, 10%-25%, 5%-10% or less than 5% |___|___|___| PERCENTAGE OF WALK-INS MORE THAN 25% ...............................................1

10 – 25%................................................................2

5% – 10% ..............................................................3

LESS THAN 5% ...................................................4

DON’T KNOW.......................................................d

REFUSED..............................................................r


A8. Thinking about the dates of operation for the feeding sites you are running this summer under the seamless waiver, when did (or will) most of your seamless waiver sites open this summer?

A9. And when will most of them close? A10. Typically, how many children do you feed each day at all of the seamless waiver sites

you are running this summer? READ, IF NECESSARY: Your best estimate will be fine. (OR, The average number

per day times the number of feeding sites) A11. INTERVIEWER CHECK: IS RESPONDENT RUNNING REGULAR SFSP FEEDING

SITES SUMMER? SEE Q.A4 ON CHECK LIST. IF NO, SKIP TO Q.A15.

A12. Thinking about the dates of operation for the feeding sites you are running this

summer under the regular Summer Food Service Program, when did (or will) most of your regular Summer Food Service Program sites open this summer?

A13. And when will most of them close? A14. Typically, how many children do you feed each day at all of the regular Summer Food

Service Program sites you are running this summer? READ, IF NECESSARY: Your best estimate will be fine. A15. INTERVIEWER CHECK: IS RESPONDENT RUNNING NATIONAL SCHOOL

LUNCH PROGRAM FEEDING SITES THIS SUMMER? SEE Q.A5 ON CHECK LIST. IF NO, SKIP TO Q.A19.

A16. Now, what about the dates of operation for the feeding sites you are running this

summer under the National School Lunch Program, when did (or will) most of these sites open this summer?

A17. And when will most of them close? A18. And, typically, how many children do you feed each day at all of the National School

Lunch Program sites you are running this summer? READ, IF NECESSARY: Your best estimate will be fine.


PROGRAM START DATE END DATE AVERAGE DAILY

ATTENDANCE OTHER

PROGRAMS

the seamless waiver

(A8) |___|___| MONTH

|___|___| DAY

|___|___| YEAR DON’T KNOW ..............d

REFUSED...................r OTHER (SPECIFY BELOW).........96

(A9) |___|___| MONTH

|___|___| DAY

|___|___| YEAR DON’T KNOW ....... d

REFUSED............ r OTHER (SPECIFY BELOW).. 96

(A10) |__|__|__|,|__|__|__| DON’T KNOW .... d

REFUSED ......... r

(A11) INTERVIEWER CHECK: IS RESPONDENT RUNNING REGULAR SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM FEEDING SITES? (SEE CHECK LIST Q.A4.) YES..................1 NO....................0 Ô SKIP TO Q.A15

the Summer Food Service Program

(A12) |___|___| MONTH

|___|___| DAY

|___|___| YEAR DON’T KNOW ..............d

REFUSED...................r

(A13) |___|___| MONTH

|___|___| DAY

|___|___| YEAR DON’T KNOW ....... d

REFUSED............ r

(A14) |__|__|__|,|__|__|__| DON’T KNOW .... d

REFUSED ......... r

(A15) INTERVIEWER CHECK: IS RESPONDENT RUNNING NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM FEEDING SITES? (SEE CHECK LIST Q.A5.) YES..................1 NO....................0 Ô SKIP TO Q.A19


(A16) |___|___| MONTH

|___|___| DAY

|___|___| YEAR DON’T KNOW ..............d

REFUSED...................r

(A17) |___|___| MONTH

|___|___| DAY

|___|___| YEAR DON’T KNOW ....... d

REFUSED............ r

(A18) |__|__|__|,|__|__|__| DON’T KNOW .... d

REFUSED ......... r

DAILY AVERAGE NUMBER

OF CHILDREN FED

A8 OTHER.

A9 OTHER.


A19. Did you operate any feeding sites last summer, that is in 2001? NOTE: RECORD APPROPRIATE RESPONSE TO Q.A19 ON CHECK LIST YES.........................................................................1

NO...........................................................................0

DON’T KNOW.......................................................d SKIP TO Q.A30

REFUSED..............................................................r A20. What was the total number of feeding sites you operated last summer? |___|___|___|,|___|___|___| TOTAL FEEDING SITES, 2001 NOTE: RECORD RESPONSE ON CHECK LIST AS WELL DON’T KNOW.......................................................d

REFUSED..............................................................r


A21. How many of the [# OF SITES IN Q.A20] feeding sites ran under the regular Summer Food Service Program last summer? RECORD RESPONSE IN GRID. IF NONE, SKIP TO Q.A22.

A21a. How many of these regular Summer Food sites were open sites? A21b. And, how many of these regular Summer Food sites were located in a school setting? A21c. How many of these regular Summer Food sites were run in conjunction with an

academic summer school program or [year round schooling] last summer? A22. How many of the [FILL NUMBER OF SITES IN Q.A20] feeding sites ran under the

National School Lunch Program last summer?

PROGRAM NUMBER OF SITES

NUMBER OF OPEN SITES

NUMBER OF IN SCHOOL SITES

NUMBER THAT RAN WITH SUMMER

SCHOOL [OR YEAR ROUND SCHOOLING]

the regular Summer Food Service Program

(A21)*

|___|___|___| NONE ................... 0

DON’T KNOW .................. d

REFUSED............. r

(A21a)

|___|___|___| NONE .................0

DON’T KNOW ................d

REFUSED ..........r

(A21b)

|___|___|___| NONE ................ 0 DON’T KNOW .... d REFUSED.......... r

(A21c)

|___|___|___| NONE ...................0 DON’T KNOW ........d REFUSED.............r


(A22) *

|___|___|___| NONE ......................... 0

DON’T KNOW ............. d

REFUSED....................r

*NOTE: RECORD APPROPRIATE RESPONSES TO Q.A21 AND QA.22 ON CHECK LIST A22a. INTERVIEWER CHECK: DID RESPONDENT RUN SFSP SITES LAST SUMMER?

SEE Q.21 ON CHECK LIST. YES.........................................................................1

NO...........................................................................0 Ô SKIP TO Q.A26

SKIP TO Q.A22


A23. Thinking about the dates of operation for the feeding sites you ran last summer under the regular Summer Food Service Program, when did most of your regular Summer Food Service Program sites open last summer?

A24. And when did most of them close? A25. Typically, how many children did you feed each day at all of the regular Summer Food

Service Program sites you ran last summer? READ, IF NECESSARY: Your best estimate will be fine. A26. INTERVIEWER CHECK: DID RESPONDENT RUN NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH

PROGRAM FEEDING SITES LAST SUMMER? SEE Q.A22 ON CHECK LIST.

A27. Now, thinking about the dates of operation for the feeding sites you ran last summer

under the National School Lunch Program, when did most of these sites open last summer?

A28. And when did most of them close? A29. And typically, how many children did you feed each day at all of the National School

Lunch Program sites you ran last summer? READ, IF NECESSARY: Your best estimate will be fine.


PROGRAM START DATE END DATE AVERAGE DAILY

ATTENDANCE OTHER

PROGRAMS

the Summer Food Service Program

(A23) |___|___| MONTH

|___|___| DAY

|___|___| YEAR DON’T KNOW ..............d

REFUSED...................r

(A24) |___|___| MONTH

|___|___| DAY

|___|___| YEAR DON’T KNOW .....d

REFUSED..........r

(A25) |__|__|__|,|__|__|__| DON’T KNOW .... d

REFUSED.......... r

(A26) INTERVIEWER CHECK: DID RESPONDENT RUN NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM FEEDING SITES LAST SUMMER? (SEE CHECK LIST Q.A22.) YES ................. 1 NO ................... 0 Ô SKIP TO Q.A30


(A27) |___|___| MONTH

|___|___| DAY

|___|___| YEAR DON’T KNOW ..............d

REFUSED...................r

(A28) |___|___| MONTH

|___|___| DAY

|___|___| YEAR DON’T KNOW .....d

REFUSED..........r

(A29) |__|__|__|,|__|__|__| DON’T KNOW .... d

REFUSED.......... r

A30. Turning back to this year’s feeding sites again, have you completed any site

monitoring visits to seamless waiver sites this summer? YES.........................................................................1

NO...........................................................................0

SPONSOR AND SITE THE SAME ...................2

DON’T KNOW.......................................................d

REFUSED..............................................................r A31. Did you observe any problems at any seamless waiver sites? YES.........................................................................1 Ô GO TO Q.A33

NO...........................................................................0


REFUSED..............................................................r

SKIP TO Q.A32


A32. Are you aware of any problems at any of your seamless waiver sites? YES.........................................................................1

NO...........................................................................0


REFUSED..............................................................r A33. What are two or three of the main problems you’ve run into at the seamless waiver

sites? RECORD VERBATIM: PROBLEM #1:

PROBLEM #2:

PROBLEM #3: DON’T KNOW.......................................................d

REFUSED..............................................................r A34. Is the nature of the problems at the seamless waiver sites the same or different from

other summer feeding sites you have run this summer or recently operated? THE SAME ............................................................1

DIFFERENT..........................................................2

DON’T KNOW.......................................................d

REFUSED..............................................................r

SKIP TO Q.A35

DRAFT P:\Casfsp.(jn)\CASFSP -Survey Report-Final\PDF files\AppendixC.doc 15 02/26

A35. INTERVIEWER CHECK: IS RESPONDENT RUNNING MORE THAN ONE TYPE OF SITE? SEE CHECK LIST. DOES Q.A4=YES OR Q.A5=YES?

YES.........................................................................1

NO...........................................................................0 Ô SKIP TO Q.A36 A35a. Would you say the number of problems at the seamless waiver sites are more,

fewer, or about the same as compared to the number of problems at other summer feeding program sites?

MORE PROBLEMS AT SEAMLESS................1

FEWER PROBLEMS AT SEAMLESS..............2 ABOUT THE SAME .............................................3

DON’T KNOW.......................................................d

REFUSED..............................................................r A36. Have you had any meals disallowed for reimbursement this summer? IF NECESSARY: That is at all feeding sites. YES.........................................................................1

NO...........................................................................0


REFUSED..............................................................r A37. Were any of these disallowed meals served at seamless waiver sites? YES.........................................................................1

NO...........................................................................0

DON’T KNOW.......................................................d REFUSED..............................................................r A38. INTERVIEWER CHECK: IS RESPONDENT RUNNING REGULAR SFSP

FEEDING SITES THIS SUMMER? SEE Q.A4 ON CHECK LIST.

YES.........................................................................1

NO...........................................................................0 Ô SKIP TO Q.A40


A39. Were any of these disallowed meals served at regular Summer Food Service Program sites?

YES.........................................................................1

NO...........................................................................0

DON’T KNOW.......................................................d

REFUSED..............................................................r A40. INTERVIEWER CHECK: DID RESPONDENT RUN FEEDING SITES LAST

SUMMER? SEE Q.A19 ON CHECK LIST. YES.........................................................................1

NO...........................................................................0 Ô SKIP TO Q.A44 A41. Would you say the number of disallowed meals for reimbursement so far for

this summer is higher, lower or about the same as the number of disallowances you had at this same time last summer?

HIGHER THIS SUMMER....................................1

LOWER THIS SUMMER.....................................2

ABOUT THE SAME .............................................3

NO MEALS DISALLOWED LAST SUMMER....................................................4

DON’T KNOW.......................................................d

REFUSED..............................................................r A42. INTERVIEWER CHECK: DID RESPONDENT RUN MORE FEEDING SITES

IN 2002 THAN IN 2001? SEE CHECK LIST: IS Q.A1 GREATER THAN Q.A20?

YES.........................................................................1

NO...........................................................................0 Ô SKIP TO Q.A44


A43. According to the information you’ve provided, you’re operating more sites this summer than last summer. Is the increase in sites this summer mainly due to the seamless waiver?

YES.........................................................................1

NO...........................................................................0

DON’T KNOW.......................................................d SKIP TO SECTION B

REFUSED..............................................................r A44. Was the decision to operate summer feeding sites in 2002 mainly due to the

seamless waiver option or would you have operated sites this summer even if the seamless waiver had not been available?

MAINLY DUE TO SEAMLESS...........................1

WOULD HAVE OPERATED SITES ANYWAY...................................................2

DON’T KNOW.......................................................d

REFUSED..............................................................r


THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY


SECTION B: PERCEPTIONS AND MOTIVATIONS

B1. Did the State Agency provide you with any information on the seamless waiver

option? YES.........................................................................1

NO...........................................................................0

DON’T KNOW.......................................................d SKIP TO Q.B4

REFUSED..............................................................r B2. How strongly did the state promote the seamless waiver option? Would you

say they promoted it a lot, a little or not at all? A LOT .....................................................................1

A LITTLE................................................................2

NOT AT ALL..........................................................3

DON’T KNOW.......................................................d

REFUSED..............................................................r B3. How important a factor was the information you received from the State Agency

in the decision to use the seamless waiver this summer? Would you say the information you received was a major factor, a minor factor or not a factor in your decision to participate in the seamless waiver?

MAJOR FACTOR .................................................1

MINOR FACTOR..................................................2

NOT A FACTOR...................................................3

DON’T KNOW.......................................................d

REFUSED..............................................................r


B4. Did you receive information from any other sources that significantly influenced the decision to use the seamless waiver option?

YES.........................................................................1

NO...........................................................................0


REFUSED..............................................................r B5. And, what were these other sources of information? CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY

ADVOCACY GROUPS........................................1

OTHER SCHOOL DISTRICTS ..........................2

FNS REGIONAL OFFICE...................................3

OTHER (SPECIFY)..............................................4

DON’T KNOW.......................................................d

REFUSED..............................................................r B6. What are two or three of the main reasons you decided to operate summer

feeding sites under the seamless waiver option this summer? PROBE: Any other reason? RECORD VERBATIM: DON’T KNOW.......................................................d

REFUSED..............................................................r INTERVIEWER NOTE: IF RESPONDENT PROVIDES ONLY ONE

RESPONSE (OR REASON), SKIP TO Q.B8.

SKIP TO Q.B8


B7. Of the reasons you’ve just given me, which was the single most important reason for choosing to operate feeding sites this summer under the seamless waiver?

RECORD VERBATIM: DON’T KNOW.......................................................d

REFUSED..............................................................r B8. How would you describe your experience in completing the seamless waiver

application? Was it . . . very easy, ..............................................................1

somewhat easy,....................................................2

somewhat difficult, or ...........................................3

very difficult? .........................................................4

NOT INVOLVED IN APPLICATION PROCESS.............................................................5


REFUSED..............................................................r B9. As compared to the application for the regular Summer Food Service Program,

would you say the seamless waiver application was easier, about the same, or more difficult?

EASIER..................................................................1

ABOUT THE SAME .............................................2

MORE DIFFICULT...............................................3

NEVER COMPLETED SFSP APPLICATION...........................................4

DON’T KNOW.......................................................d

REFUSED..............................................................r


B10. How encouraging or discouraging was the FNS Regional Office staff about your decision to use the seamless waiver option? Were they . . .

very encouraging,.................................................1

somewhat encouraging, ......................................2

somewhat discouraging, .....................................3

very discouraging? ...............................................4

NO CONTACT WITH REGIONAL STAFF .......5

SOME ENCOURAGING/ SOME DISCOURAGING ....................................6

NO COMMENT FROM REGIONAL STAFF ....0

DON’T KNOW.......................................................d

REFUSED..............................................................r B11. What kinds of outreach, if any, did your school district conduct this year in order

to publicize the availability of summer meals to the children in the community? Did you . . . (INSERT ITEMS a – h)

PROBE: Any others?

YES NO

DON’T KNOW REFUSED

a. use press releases?............................................................01 00 d r

b. receive newspaper coverage? ................................01 00 d r

c. put up posters? ................................................................01 00 d r

d. run advertisements? ...........................................................01 00 d r

e. run public service announcements?................................01 00 d r

f. hand out flyers? ................................................................01 00 d r

g. send information home with students at end of school year? ................................ 01 00 d r

h. work with other community organizations?................................................................01 00 d r

i. OTHER? (SPECIFY) ................................

01 00 d r


B12. What challenges or problems, if any, did you find in using the seamless waiver? PROBE: Any other challenges or problems? RECORD VERBATIM: NONE .....................................................................0

DON’T KNOW.......................................................d

REFUSED..............................................................r B13. What are the greatest benefits you found in using the seamless waiver? RECORD VERBATIM: NONE .....................................................................0

DON’T KNOW.......................................................d

REFUSED..............................................................r B14. Now I’d like to ask you about program finances. Do you expect to cover all of

your costs this summer using the seamless waiver? YES.........................................................................1

NO...........................................................................0

DON’T KNOW.......................................................d

REFUSED..............................................................r


B15. If you had operated your site(s) this summer under the regular Summer Food Service Program or National School Lunch Program and not participated in the seamless waiver, do you think that you would have broken even?

YES.........................................................................1

NO...........................................................................0

DON’T KNOW.......................................................d

REFUSED..............................................................r B16. Do you plan to use the seamless waiver option again next summer? YES.........................................................................1

NO...........................................................................0

IT DEPENDS.........................................................2

DON’T KNOW.......................................................d

REFUSED..............................................................r B17. And, are you planning on operating the same number of sites under the

seamless waiver option, more seamless sites or fewer seamless sites next summer?

NOTE: RECORD APPROPRIATE RESPONSE TO Q.B17 ON CHECK LIST. ABOUT SAME NUMBER OF SITES.................1

MORE SITES NEXT YEAR................................2

FEWER SITES NEXT YEAR..............................3

DON’T KNOW.......................................................d

REFUSED..............................................................r

SKIP TO CLOSING

SKIP TO CLOSING


B18. Do you have plans to change any of the site locations of your current sites? For example, switching sites currently located in schools to non-school locations, or moving non-school locations into school settings?

YES.........................................................................1

NO...........................................................................0

IT DEPENDS.........................................................2

DON’T KNOW.......................................................d

REFUSED..............................................................r B19. And will any of these changes in site location be to non-school settings such as

parks, playgrounds, or community centers? YES.........................................................................1

NO...........................................................................0

IT DEPENDS.........................................................2

DON’T KNOW.......................................................d

REFUSED..............................................................r B20. INTERVIEWER CHECK: DOES RESPONDENT PLAN TO OPERATE

ADDITIONAL SEAMLESS WAIVER SITES NEXT SUMMER? SEE Q.B17 ON CHECK LIST?

YES.........................................................................1

NO...........................................................................0 Ô SKIP TO CLOSING

SKIP TO Q.B20


B21. Since you plan to operate additional seamless wavier sites next summer, will the new or additional seamless waiver sites be located in school settings or in non-school settings such as parks, playgrounds, or community centers,

SCHOOL SETTINGS...........................................1

NON-SCHOOL SETTINGS ................................2

BOTH SCHOOL AND NON-SCHOOL..............3

NOT SURE/IT DEPENDS...................................4

DON’T KNOW.......................................................d

REFUSED..............................................................r CLOSING: Thank you for your assistance in this important study. Your responses will

help nutrition officials, and policymakers better understand the best ways to feed children during the summer months.

The Seamless Summer Feeding Waiver: Survey Report/media/publications/... · sessions. Sponsors...

Documents

Transcript of The Seamless Summer Feeding Waiver: Survey Report/media/publications/... · sessions. Sponsors...