With the increasing number of obese children and adolescents, concerns have risen concerning the nutritional value of these meals. The main determinants of nutritional inadequacies will include the rising rate of undernourished children, childhood obesity and its related diseases, the level of satisfaction with the meals; the length the program has been in place and the standard nutritional requirements.
The costs of inadequate meals include significant waste of federal revenue, shorter life spans, uneven growth and a serious threat to the future generation. To improve on the quality of these meals there is need to increase food inspection and putting in place more safety measures like regulating âcompetitive foodsâ and ensuring that all participating schools adhere to nutritional rules.
A precise policy should be constituted to encourage delivery of nutritionally balanced meals. This may involve introducing better, healthier meals and snacks in school canteens.
Description of policy or problem to be analyzed
The National School Food program is a federal meal program started in 1946 to provide low cost or uncharged meals to qualified students at subsidized prices to the schools. Over 100000 public schools, childcare establishment and non profit private schools benefit from this program. Lunch is provided to up to 31 million children who come from backgrounds with incomes at poverty level or 130 below the line.
Schools that take part in the program are given monetary subsidies for the lunch meals which averagely go at $ 2.67 per student per day. In 1998, Congress extended the plan to include snacks after school and refunds. Other programs include children up to the age of 18.
The program is run at both the federal and state levels. At the state level, the program is run by state education departments in conjunction with school foods authorities. Initially, local school districts were authorized to the meals via several apparatus but it proved soon enough that the local governments and the school boards could not afford the funds to facilitate the program.
Charitable organizations and philanthropists soon joined in but still it was not enough. Federal assistance therefore became a necessity.
In 2007, the Federal Government donations to the program were $1.04 billion in commodity contributions, $7.7 billion in reimbursements (Ayres,1917). The participating schools must adhere to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. They commend the standard nutritional requirements for every individual meal which should constitute not more than 30 percent distinctive calories from fat and less than 10 percent from saturated fat.
Apart from that, school lunches should provide a third of the stipulated Dietary Allowances of protein, vitamins A and C, calcium, iron and energy. Decisions about particular or definite meals to be served and how to make them are at the discretion of the local school food authorities but the meals should nevertheless adhere to the Federal nutritional requirements.
The Food and Nutrition Service supervises the child nutrition program and repays food service departments in the schools providing meals to the children. These schools provide food for free or at fair prices to students who qualify for the program and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) refunds for the meals at an elevated level.
Children from families whose income is below 130% on he poverty line get free meals while those from 130% to 185% of the poverty index get meals at reduced costs, at most $0.04 for their lunchtime meals and $0.30 for breakfast. The rates for refunds are harmonized every year for inflation (US department of Agriculture, 2011).
The table below shows the reimbursement rates for the year starting July 1 2010 to June 30 2011:
Source: Ayres, 1917.
Schools with bigger numbers of poor students have standard rates and higher rates. Most of the times there is severe need reimbursement in low income districts. Severe repayment rates are in states with high numbers of students from low income families.
Apart from monetary reimbursement, USDA also avails âentitlementâ lunch meals at 20.25 cents for each meal provided in the 2010-2011 financial year. States choose from a wide variety of foods depending on their preference. Sometimes âbonusesâ are available through the USDAâs cost support and surpluses from agriculture.
Technical training and assistance is provided by the USDA Team Nutrition to assist schools prepare healthy meals. It also educates children on health and diet issues.
The United States has undergone evolutions in the school feeding program just like its counterparts in Europe. In the earlier times there were irregular feeding programs by private organizations and corporations which had interest in child education and their wellbeing.
The program was started by the Childrenâs Aid Society of New York in 1853. Meals were provided to students undertaking occupational studies. This did not get the required support from other organizations or local authorities.
Small localized efforts to serve meals to needy school children led to the formation of the National School Lunch Program in 1946. The federal involvement increased over time to include the School Breakfast Program, the Child and Adult Care food Program and The Summer Food Service Program.
The USDA has increased attempts to offer commodities lower in fat content during the 1990s. Efforts have also been made to use farm foods in a bid to avail more fruits and vegetables to schools.
The 2002 Farm bill gave directions for the USDA to allocate $200 million of the guaranteed funds for fruits and vegetables 2002 to 2007. The amount was increased to $406 by the 2008 Farm Bill by 2012 (US department of Agriculture, 2010).
The food program costs the federal government $ 9.8 billion during the 2009 financial year. The table below shows a comparative analysis of the costs during the previous years:
Comparative cost of National School Food Program in USA
Source: US department of Agriculture, 2010
The program enhances food security for those children from low income families since it provides them with free or reduced price meals. Apart from that the program endeavors to ameliorate the nutritional regimen and the overall health of the children who take part in it.
Cleveland, Ohio is one of the participating states in the program. The school lunch program in Cleveland, Ohio began in 1909. Association of Women Clubs started providing breakfast to children at the Eagle school. By 1915, another school had been added and over 700 children were benefiting from the service every day. Food was provided to all special classes in grade schools except the school for the deaf.
The program took a unique turn when the Education Board supplied the program with lunchrooms and paraphernalia. Provisions were made that the Womenâs Clubs provides food to the crippled and open air students on condition that each school hires a woman to prepare the meals.
The Society for Promoting the Interests of the Blind was to take charge of administering to the blind children. Menus were determined by the collective consultation of the committees, the school head, the medical inspector and the administrator of high school meals. The following table shows the minimum nutritional levels for school lunches;
Minimum nutrient and calorie levels for school lunches (school week averages)
Source: US department of Agriculture, 2011
Meals were served at different times depending with the school. Some children went home for lunch but received meals during tea break and at two. Others received two lunches. The food mainly consisted of bread, jam and a hot meal. Some students got milk in the morning following recommendations from the medical inspector. Overtime, lunchrooms were installed in seven high schools.
By 1915, the regular schools and all high schools but two were served with lunch. That was around 6,715 students. A variety of meals were served at different prices.
The prices were constant in all schools. Milk was provided to all schools by a dairy chosen by the lunchroom administrator. The purpose of the program was to reach all children by providing healthy and nutritious meals at a cost, tech them to select the food they buy wisely and train them in eating habits (Boughton, 1915).
The introduction of the National School Lunch Program in Cleveland Ohio in 1946 hailed the continuation of the program in the region as it was across the states. The task was taken up at a higher level with support from the federal government.
The Department of Education, the Office of Child Nutrition Services in association with the Federal Government administers several programs like the National School Lunch program, the School Breakfast Program, Special milk program, After School Snacks and Government Donated Food program.
The Child Nutrition Program in Ohio serves over 25 million children making it the largest food service program in USA. Over one million meals are served everyday at over 4000 locations. Any child under 21 is eligible for the program as long as their school meets the requirements for the program or if the child is in a Residential Child Care Institution.
Statement of analysis need or purpose
Proceedings from the 2007-08 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) show that approximately 17 percent of children and teenagers 2 to19 years suffer from obesity. The problem was more pronounced between 1976 and 1980 and 1999 and 2000.
The trend was however stagnant for all age groups from 1999-2000 and 2007-2008. However, obesity has increased in children aged 6 to 11 from 6.5% to 19.6% and from 5.0% to 18.1% in adolescents between the age of 12-19 between the years 1766-1980 and 2007-2008 (US department of Agriculture, 2011).
Majority of these children are school going and feed from the National School Food Lunch Program. Despite its efforts and the intention to provide free affordable healthy meals to school children, criticism of the program has emerged especially in connection with the nutritional requirements of children.
The program has been fouled for inadequately taking into consideration the nutritional requirements of the participating children, more so those from poor families most of whom the meals may be the only colorful affair. The meals are considered the major contributing factor to the escalating rate of obesity in children and adolescents and a cause for undernourishment too.
According to the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), vegetarian children live longer than their meat eating counterparts as they grow up more healthy and slender.
Animal food products are loaded with fat and cholesterol, something growing children do not require. Yet these are the foods provided by the NSLP to the children. Low fat vegetable diets are infrequent if rare as school authorities have resorted to ordering junk and fast foods.
Reports indicate that despite efforts made by the program to provide more healthy food options, school authorities do not take advantage of this arrangement (Jansen & Harper, 1978). Cleveland Food Policy Advocates took an intensive assessment of the situation and discovered that schools are ordering foods that are high in fat. This has greatly affected the nutritional value of the meals served.
Children should consume meals containing vegetable, fruit, whole grains and low fat milk. Instead their meals are high in fat content, contain sugary additives and sodium. The school meals, the âentitlementâ and âbonusâ foods seem to be meats and cheeses high in fat and this does no justice to the attempts to lower the calories content in school food. Noticeably today is the alarming scenario of obese and undernourished children.
Consequently there has been increased public apprehension on the quality of the meals offered to school children and the realization that they may be the contributing factor to the ever increasing predicament of obese children.
There is therefore need to upgrade and improve the dietary requirements for these meals and to supervise the content of the supplements has risen. Moreover, emphasis should be more on the nutritional safety for the participants.
Literature summary
Though it was at conception intended to prevent under nutrition, the National School Lunch Program has been criticized to be contributing to overeating and obesity among children in America. The fact that the food is available and cheap, children tend to overeat. At the same time since these meals contain lots of fats and calories, they are the major causes of obesity.
In a 2009 article from a U.S News and World Report, food experts believe that undesirable eating at schools has contributed to the escalating growth of obese children in America. Obesity has increased twice in small children aged between two and five years while among those aged between 6 and 1, the rate of obesity has gone fourfold. Among adolescents, obesity has more than tripled.
This growth has raised lots of concern and apprehension for the future generation. Young people are now susceptible to diseases associated with obesity such as diabetes and heart diseases like asthma, liver problems, and a variety of mental illnesses resulting from depression and anxiety (Jansen & Harper, 1978).
The inadequacy in the school meals is largely being blamed on the surplus from agricultural products. Some claim that the foods are meats and cheeses high in saturated fat and sugar.
These meals are consequently low in vegetable and fruits. Millions of dollars are hence spent on meals that the children find unappetizing and consequently the wont eat. For those who do eat the food, their health is put at risk.
Should our childrenâs heath be compromised all in the name of free or affordable meals?
Measures can be taken to combat obesity in children. The First Lady Michelle Obama suggests how this can be done. Foods served in schools should be changed to accommodate more nutritional needs and the children are encouraged to exercise their bodies more.
Obesity poses serious dangers to the future generation as children who are overweight are likely to develop abnormal growing patterns like early puberty among obese girls and late maturity among boys. A resolution was passed in 2007 by the American Medical Association.
It advised and favorably recommended hearty and nutritious varieties of vegetables to be availed in schools. However, most of the participating schools authorities chose not to act appropriately claiming that the cost would be too high to meet these requirements (Shanklin, 2003).
An analysis of the school meals shows that the typical lunch meal consists of 816 calories and almost half of these calories are from fat. This figure is more than half of the average grown womanâs everyday requirement. Ironically, the diet contains sodium at 2,133mg.
Everyone is aware of the inadequacies of the provisions of the NSLP in America. Everyone wishes for a change. While healthy options have already been made available to the schools, the government and other stakeholders should put more pressure on schools to adhere to the recommended nutritional needs of the students.
Nutritional standards in meals ought to be updated and the Dietary Guidelines be followed to the later. While this may present a challenge to the food authorities and food security, meals should nevertheless be planned according to the new dietary guidelines and in an appetizing manner so that students can partake more of the program as they also eat deserving meals. Meals should be provided at affordable rates to the school authorities.
There is need for balance between nutrition, the partakers and the cost of the food. This can be solved by schools authorities which wish to succeed. In challenging financial conditions, financial viability can be achieved by more participation in breakfast meals. Reimbursements for the meals can be increased to boost the quality of meals offered.
Capital investments into the program can be made to improve the program. Grants will go a long way in improving the quality and safety of the foods. This will in turn increase participation in the program.
Previously, schools have increased their income through selling extra meals and drinks apart from the USDA school foods. These meals are however lower in nutrients and high in additions and flavors. This is also a contributing factor in the increased instances of obese children. This has led to the need to limit the sale of these foods.
The Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act stipulates that participating schools should constitute wellness committees which would determine local courses of action concerning foods sold and their nutritional requirements. Various districts have since responded to that by there is still the need to step up to the challenges.
The Senate and the House of Representatives introduced a bill in 2009; the Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch Protection Act of 2009. The bill requires the Secretary of Agriculture to institute science-based nutritional levels for all the food provided in schools be they âcompetitive mealsâ or USDA meals.
While the program can be expanded to ensure that it reaches more needy children, caretakers and the schools should encourage children to pick healthy food items from the large variety offered for lunch (Shanklin, 2003). Alternatively, parents can also provide their children with packed lunch that is highly nutrition as this is the only sure way that they will get the needed nutrition.
It is difficult to provide a well balanced meal for over thirty million children daily considering the meager financial resources. That is why the programâs services are invaluable. However, high quality food and good eating habits are equally important hence they should be addressed.
Scientific design and methodology
This study is aimed to provide information on the school meals programs, the nature of the school environment that influence the food program, nutritional content of the meals and their supplement to the childrenâs diet. The study will also evaluate the accessibility and intake of foods sold in school that are outside the guaranteed meals.
To determine the major problem with the NSLP, a study shall be conducted with 3000 school children chosen randomly, their parents or guardians, and 50 school lunch administrators in Cleveland, Ohio.
Data will be sampled from a large cross sectional level of school children. A sample design will be developed over 50 schools to collect information on the variety of foods served over a one week period. The study will be conducted using the Mathematical software to collect nutritional data and analyze it. The nutritional composition will be analyzed using a USDA nutritional database.
The methodology will include weight comparison of children taking part in the program and the non participants. In this case, characteristics linked with the possibility of one taking part in the NSLP like income, age, gender and ethnic backgrounds will be analyzed using SNDA-III (School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study-III) evaluation (US department of Agriculture 2010).
The study will also include a survey of the menu of meals served under the NSLP and the (School Based Programs) SBP, surveys of school district staff and the inventories of the foods provided in the school canteens.
Interviews will be conducted with 3000 school children randomly sampled from 400 schools. Parents and caretakers will also be interviewed to provide household and contextual information such as their socioeconomic status and their daily dietary intake. School officials will also be interviewed about the food service in their schools and environment.
Key informants shall be interviewed using an interview guide with the aim of finding out the subjectsâ feelings towards the school lunch program, their awareness of the program and the general feelings about the distribution system. Qualitative and quantitative primary data shall be collected using structured close ended and open ended questionnaires.
Questionnaires have the advantage of being cheap and easier to administer. The data from questionnaire is suitable for analysis as respondents are in apposition to consider responses and there is no interviewer bias. Already existing data from stakeholders in the program, yearly reports and federal statistics shall also be used (Boughton, 1915).
Anthropometric measurements will be carried out to determine the participating and nonparticipating children body fat. Their height, weight, skin fold thickness and the bodily circumference will be measured, recorded and analyzed. This technique will provide accurate and replicable measurements.
As a widely used method for measuring body content, this method is preferable since the equipment is portable, it does not invade the body, it is cheap and since the research involves going to the field, the method will prove most useful. Measuring height and weight is simple and quick and it requires minimum training of the research personnel.
Replications will be carried out across all the state and the final form of data combined and analyzed.
Data description and measurement
Data will be measured in terms of studentsâ energy and protein intake; nutritional status indicators; household socioeconomic characteristics. The anthropometric measurement table below shall be used in measuring and making comparisons among boys and girls;
Anthropometric measurements
Source: U.S department of Agriculture, 2010
The anthropometric measurements will be taken three times by the same person. All the variables will be measured in order and the same measurements replicated twice more. Measurements will be recorded by another person who will not have taken any part in the measurement.
The body Mass Index (BMI) will be calculated as body weight in kilograms (kgs) without shoes and with light clothing, divided by height (m) squared. Body weight will be measured to the nearest 0.05kg by use of a conventional beam balance. Height will be measured to 1mm using a Harpenden stadiometer. All the material will be marked everyday.
Skin fold thickness will be measured at the left and right side of the body to the nearest 0.1 mm using a Holtain skin fold caliper at the triceps, biceps and the sub scapular. Circumference will be measured with a non elastic tape on the left and right sides of the body.
Body density shall be calculated using the following formulas;
Boys density=1.1690-0.0788x (log sum of four skin folds)
Girls density= 1.2063-0.0999x (log sum of four skin folds) Brook (1971).
An estimated body fat will be determined by the density using Weststrate and Deurenberg’s equation:
Body fat (%) = [562- 4.2(age-2)]/d-[525 – 4.79age – 2) (Deurenberg & Weststrate, 1989).
Body fat above the normal value in both boys and girls will indicate probabilities of the subject suffering from obesity or other weight problems.
Proposed data analysis
The purpose for analysis will be to obtain meaning from the collected data or information. The data shall be analyzed using both qualitative and statistical procedures of data analysis. Preliminary analytical procedures of editing, coding and tabulation shall be used. The coded data shall be entered appropriately into Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS 8.0 windows) software for analysis.
This will be plotted with windows Microsoft Excel. This package has the advantage of being quick and flexible in survey design and it provides more accurate analysis resulting in dependable conclusions with statistics designed to fit inherent characteristics of data. More data can be analyzed this way with greater accuracy and confidence.
Data shall be presented in form of descriptive statistics mainly tables, frequencies and percentages. Measures of central tendency like mean, mode and median shall also be employed. Factor analysis shall be used to highlight the most featured factor in the findings.
The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test in both males and females will determine the distribution of quantitative variables. This is because the method is perceptive to the disparities in both site and shape of the provisional cumulative distribution.
Anthropometric measurements shall be described by median and interquartile range while the body composition indices shall be described by mean and standard deviation.
The probability of 0.005 shall be selected to judge the significance of the statistics owing to the large number of tests that will be done.
Comparisons will be made between the anthropometric measurements of the subjects participating in the lunch program and the nonparticipating children.
Reference List
Ayres, L.P., (1917) The Cleveland school survey: summary volume. New Hampshire (NH) Ayer Publishing.
Boughton, A.C. (1915). Household Arts and School Lunches. South Carolina: BiblioBazaar
Deurenberg, P. & Weststrate, J.A. (1989). Body Mass Index as a Measure of Body Fatness: Age-Sex-specific Prediction Formulas. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 50, 1104-1115
Jansen, G. R., & Harper, J. M. (1978). Consumption and Plate Waste of Menu Items Served in the National School Lunch Program. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 73 (4), 395â400.
Shanklin, C. (2003) Kids Choose Healthy Lunches, But Don’t Eat Them. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 101, 1060â1063.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (2010). National School Lunch Program. Web.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (2011). School Breakfast Program. Web.