Download Free School Meal Programs Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online School Meal Programs and write the review.

Recent increases in child obesity have sparked concerns about competitive foods (CF) -- foods sold to students in school that are not part of federally reimbursable school meals. The nutritional value of these foods is unregulated, & students can purchase these foods in addition to or instead of school meals. This report provides info. from two nationally representative surveys about the prevalence of CF in schools, CF restrictions & groups involved in their sale, & the amounts & uses of revenue generated from the sale of CF. It also provides info. about strategies schools have used to limit the availability of less nutritious CF, based on visits to 6 school districts in Calif., Conn., Mississippi, Missouri, & South Carolina. Charts & tables.
Over the past few years, several food recalls, such as for beef and peanut products, have affected schools. It is especially important that recalls affecting schools be carried out efficiently and effectively because young children have a higher risk of complications from food-borne illnesses. This report determined how federal agencies: (1) notified states and schools about food recalls; (2) advised states and schools about disposal and reimbursement of recalled food; and (3) ensured that recalls were being carried out effectively. To do this, the author interviewed officials from 23 school districts that had experience with at least one of four recent cases involving the safety of food in the school lunch program. Includes recommendations. Illustrations.
Through its commodity program, the U.S. Dept. of Agr. (USDA) provides commodity foods at no cost to schools taking part in the national school meals programs. Commodities include raw ground beef, cheese, poultry, and fresh produce. The commodity program has taken steps designed to reduce microbial contamination that can result in severe illness. This report reviews: (1) the extent to which the program's purchasing specifications related to microbial contamination differ from fed. regulations; (2) the extent to which specifications for raw ground beef differ from those imposed by some other large purchasers; and (3) examples of schools' practices to help ensure that food is not contaminated. Illustrations. This is a print on demand report.
In FY 2008, 31 million children participated in the Nat. School Lunch Program and 10 million children participated in the School Breakfast Program each school day. The majority of school meals are provided for free or at a reduced price to low-income students. Some states and school districts have chosen to implement programs that eliminate the reduced-price fee (known as ERP programs) and instead provide free meals to students eligible for the reduced fee. This report provides info. on: (1) what is known about the states and districts that have eliminated the reduced-price fee for school meals; (2) the experiences of states and districts that have ERP programs; and (3) the factors that may help or hinder the estab. or continuation of ERP programs.
Senate Resolution 303 requested the Secretary of Agriculture to study and report on the feasibility of a universal-type school lunch and breakfast program. This report examines five alternative administrative structures for a universal-type program that would reimburse all meals at a single rate, regardless of household income status. The report considered seven factors in evaluating alternatives: impact on student participation; fees and local revenues; administrative feasibility; paperwork reduction; and impact on integrity. The report's major findings are as follows: universal free options either increase federal costs or cut low-income participation; almost half the cost of a universal free system would go to reimburse meals that would be served under current law; the increase in total meals served under a universal system would be very modest compared to the additional federal cost; most of the additional federal cost goes to subsidize meals served to upper-income children; administrative savings are small relative to increased federal costs; limited implementation of universal-free or no-fee programs can increase low-income participation at more modest federal costs; using the tax system to offset the cost of a universal free program increases the complexity of the meal counting and claiming process; counting school meal benefits as income for tax purposes would recover less than one-fourth of the additional federal cost of a universal lunch program.