1) What proportion of the districts has written policies regarding vending or a la carte foods?

Transcription

1 Rhode Island School Nutrition Environment Evaluation: Vending and a La Carte Food Policies Rhode Island Department of Education ETR Associates - Education Training Research Executive Summary Since 2001, the Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE) has focused on providing all 36 Rhode Island school districts with technical assistance in the development and promotion of policies to enhance the school nutrition environment. Districts have been encouraged to create and implement comprehensive wellness policies that include components to increase the nutritional value of vending machine and a la carte food offerings as well as promoting nutritious choices in other areas where food is used or sold. In 2005, RIDE, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and ETR Associates partnered to assess Rhode Island school districts progress in implementing policies or directives to enhance the school nutrition environment. This report summarizes results from the first phase of the evaluation: interviews with 72 district level administrators from 31 school districts across Rhode Island. The interview responses were analyzed to describe districts experiences in developing and implementing nutrition related policies and directives. Interviews addressed two primary research questions: 1) What proportion of the districts has written policies regarding vending or a la carte foods? 2) How do changes in vending and a la carte policies affect revenue from these sources? RI Phase I Executive Summary

2 Methods The first phase of the evaluation consisted of a district survey (via 20 minute telephone interviews) of up to three key representatives from each of the 36 school districts in fall Interviewees were the District Superintendent or a designee, the Food Services Director, and the Business Manager. These district representatives were interviewed regarding their district vending and a la carte food policies, as well as food items sold during school fundraisers, sporting events, school functions, etc. The resulting data were used to categorize the districts on their progression in the adoption and implementation of vending and a la carte food policies. When multiple interviews were conducted within a district, responses by each respondent were analyzed for agreement, where possible. Where respondents provided conflicting answers to the same question, it has been labeled disagreement. Certain questions were not conducive to concordance analyses, therefore these data are reported by respondent, not district. All tables and charts are labeled accordingly to identify if the responses are by district or by respondent. Sample A total of 72 district interviews representing 31 school districts were completed between October 13, 2004 and January 19, Districts represented both large and small districts across the state (see Chart 1). The sample included interviews with: 21 Superintendents 24 Food Services Directors 20 Business Managers 7 joint interviews with the Superintendent and the Food Services Director and/or Business Manager. Chart 1: District Interviews by District Enrollment Size (N=31) ,000 students 16% Over 10,001 students 6% under 1000 students 10% students 68% RI Phase I Executive Summary

3 What was learned about the existence of nutrition policies and directives? The interview asked questions about both formal written policies approved by district school committees and more informal district procedures or directives that guide operating procedures in the district (see Chart 2). Districts were asked if they had any formal written policies in place. They were also asked if they had informal procedures or directives. The majority of school districts reported that they did have either policies or directive or both. Of the 30 districts responding to the formal policy existence question, nine indicated that they had written nutrition policies; there was disagreement about the existence of written policies in five districts. In response to the question regarding the existence of informal procedures or directives, twentyone districts indicated that they had district level nutrition directives or procedures with six districts disagreeing about the existence of directives. When looking at the combined responses of districts with either a formal policy and/or informal directives, 22 districts have some form of formal or informal guidelines in place in their district; only two districts indicated they did not have any type of nutrition policy or directive. Chart 2: Existence of Nutrition Policies and/or Directives (N=30 districts) # of districts written policies directives policies and/or directives No Yes Disagreement RI Phase I Executive Summary

4 What issues were covered in nutrition policies and procedures? During the interview the respondents were asked questions about the type of nutrition issues addressed by policies as well as by procedures or directives. The two most prevalent topics addressed by policies and/or directives were the nutritional value of a la carte foods and the types of foods or beverages sold in vending machines (see Table 1). Table 1: Number of districts that identified an issue as included in either nutrition policies or directives (N=22 Districts) Nutrition Issue Total Foods or beverages sold in vending machines 13 Nutritional value of a la carte foods 12 Hours of vending machines 9 Hours of a la carte food 7 Food sold at school stores or snack bars 4 Food sold for fundraisers 3 Foods in classroom 3 Food and beverage advertising Foods at school functions Foods at sporting events Food incentives in classroom Overall, district administrators indicated that it is somewhat important to have policies or procedures to improve the nutritional value of vending and a la carte. (Importance was measured on a scale of 1 to 4, with 4 being very important. Average importance ratings for vending and a la carte were 3.47 and 3.38, respectively). RI Phase I Executive Summary

5 Written Policies or Informal procedures? The issues addressed by formal written policies and informal directives or procedures were analyzed to determine if certain issues were more likely to be governed by a written policy or an informal procedure. To be included in the analysis of issues, respondents within a district had to agree on the existence of formal nutrition policies or informal nutrition procedures or directives. Overall, more nutrition issues were governed by informal directives or procedures than by formal written district policies. Informal directives or procedures were more common for guiding vending and a la carte nutrition issues (see Chart 3). Policies were more common for the types of foods used in classrooms or sold for fundraisers (see Chart 4). Number of Districts Nutritional value of ALC foods Chart 3: Nutritional Issues Addressed by Policies and/or Directives (N=22 Districts) Hours of ALC food Foods or beverages sold in VM Note: ALC=A La Carte; VM=Vending machine Policy Only Directive Only Policy and Directive Hours of VM Food sold at school stores or snack bars Number of Districts Food sold for fundraisers Chart 4: Nutrition Issues Addressed by Policies and/or Directives (N=22 Districts) Policy Only Foods in classroom Food and beverage advertising Foods at school functions Directive Only Policy and Directive Foods at sporting events Food incentives in classroom RI Phase I Executive Summary

6 What was learned about vending and a la carte food sale profits? The interview with Business Managers and Food Services Directors included questions about accounting practices as well as revenues associated with vending and a la carte food sales. The majority of districts reported that they had accounting mechanisms in place to report revenue and profits separately for vending sales (60%) and for a la carte sales (77%). In response to questions about the profitability of both vending and a la carte sales, Business Managers and Food Services Directors reported that half of the districts generated a profit on vending sales and a la carte sales. % of districts 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Chart 5:Business Managers and Food Services Directors Report Districts Making a Profits from Vending and A La Carte Sales Profit from Vending Sales (N=30 districts) Profit from A La Carte Sales (N=28 districts) No Yes Disagreement Don't Know Not Applicable Response Key: No Both said no; Yes Both said yes, Disagreement - respondents gave conflicting answers; Don t Know Both said don t know; Not Applicable Both said NA RI Phase I Executive Summary

7 What was learned about the Profits of vending sales? Business Managers and Food Services Directors were also asked about whom in the district controlled the profits from vending machine sales. This question was not asked of a la carte sales because districts indicated that a la carte sales were combined with the breakfast and lunch program revenue within the food service contract. Overall, there was disagreement between the respondents in identifying which programs benefited from the profits of vending sales. There was also a wide range of individuals and groups cited as controlling vending profits. Principals were most frequently identified as the person in control of how the profits from the vending machines are used. Responses in the Other category included: Superintendent; Business Manager or similar position; food service company; school administration; district central office; faculty; students, student activities director (see Chart 6). Chart 6: Vending Machine Revenue: Who controls profits? (N=52 responses from district Business Managers and Food Service Directors) 25 # of responses Principal Athletic Director Food Services Director Student council Other student group Vending company Other Don t know Respondents were also to identify the key stakeholders responsible for setting prices for vending machine items. Many groups and individuals were identified; the most frequent response was Food Services Directors (35%). RI Phase I Executive Summary

8 What was learned about the financial impact of vending and a la carte sales? Business Managers and Food Services Directors were also asked to estimate how vending and a la carte sales affect USDA school lunch program revenue (see Chart 7). Respondents from 48% of the districts indicated that a la carte food sales increased USDA School Lunch Program revenue; 30% of districts felt that vending sales increased USDA School Lunch Program revenue. Approximately 10% of respondents indicated that they felt vending and a la carte sales had a negative impact on USDA School Lunch Program revenue. These results are presented by respondent, not by district due to the number of response options; concordance analyses would not be meaningful. Chart 7: Vending and A La Carte Sales' Impact on USDA School Lunch Program Revenue Vending Sales (n=46 respondents) # of Districts A La Carte Sales (n=50 respondents) 0 Increase revenue Decrease revenue No impact on revenue Don t know Overall, district administrators indicated that the policies and directives had been somewhat effective in improving the nutritional value of vending and a la carte practices on school campuses. (Effectiveness was measured on a scale of 1 to 4, with 4 being very effective. Average effectiveness ratings for vending and a la carte were 3.35 and 3.28, respectively). RI Phase I Executive Summary

9 What was learned about contracts with outside vendors? Business Managers and Food Services Directors reported if their district had contracts with soft drink companies (such as Coke or Pepsi) or other branded fast food companies (such as Pizza Hut or Subway). In eleven districts, administrators indicated that they had contracts with soft drink companies; in 11 other districts, respondents within the district differed in their responses (see Chart 8). Of the 11 districts with contracts, 64% received a specific percentage of the sales; in the other 4 districts, respondents within the district differed in their responses. The majority of districts did not know or respondents disagreed within district if companies were allowed to advertise in the school building, school grounds, or school buses. Respondents indicated that all contracts were with soft drink companies; there were no contracts reported with branded fast food companies. Chart 8: Does your district have contracts with soft drink or fast food companies? (N=30 Districts) Don t Know 3% No 23% Disagreement 37% Yes 37% Response Key: No Both said no; Yes Both said yes, Disagreement - respondents gave conflicting answers; Don t Know Both said don t know RI Phase I Executive Summary

10 How can these findings be put to use? The results of the district level interviews have provided several important insights that may help the RIDE provide effective technical assistance to districts in the process of developing and implementing nutrition policies. The Rhode Island Department of Education may need to: Provide educational sessions on the rationale, financial implications, and steps to developing nutrition policies to Business Managers and Food Services Directors in addition to the programs that have been provided for Superintendents. Encourage districts to designate one central district administrator to be responsible for oversight of the school nutrition environment. Determine if policies and directives are equally acceptable to meet state guidelines of a wellness policy. Identify mechanisms and supports to assist districts in formalizing directives into policies. Develop guidelines, and sample templates, to use in setting contracts with outside vendors, including the use of advertising on campuses. Develop additional opportunities for administrators and school staff to discuss nutrition policy issues across districts. Provide guidance to school board members for nutrition policy review. Rhode Island school districts may need to: Identify key stakeholders to be involved in policy development and engage them throughout the policy development process. Define appropriate roles for Superintendents, Business Managers, and Food Services Directors in nutrition policy development and implementation. Review the benefits and challenges of including different nutrition issues in both policies and directives. Review contract requirements with food service vendors and other contractors and revise as needed. Identify mechanisms to communicate nutrition policy development and implementation to all district administrators and school level staff (e.g. listserv, websites, meetings, grade level and building level subcommittees). RI Phase I Executive Summary