Detailed Information on the
School Breakfast Program Assessment

Continue efforts to increase the participation rates of low-income children

Implement new provisions to improve the certification process for determining eligibility for meals.

Work to improve certification and non-certification processes to reduce erroneous payments.

Focusing on improviding the nutritional content of meals and reducing the level of fat and saturated fat in meals.

Maintain funding for the School Meals Initiative for Healthy Children, aimed at improving the nutritional content and reducing the level of fat and saturated fat in school meals.

Measure: Percent of children enrolled in schools participating in the SBP

Explanation:The School Breakfast Program (SBP) is designed to expand, extend, and strengthen the successful experience of the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) by reimbursing schools for providing nutrient dense breakfasts to children, with a special emphasis on ensuring that breakfasts are available to low-income children. Similar to NSLP, the SBP is designed to increase food security and improve the diet quality of all school children. This measure tracks the proportion of children enrolled in public and private schools who receive SBP meals. While a large proportion of schools now participate in the SBP, a relatively limited number of children participate in the program as compared to the number participating in the NSLP. While many students consume breakfast at home, the difference in program participation may indicate that the program is underutilized by low-income children. Because of the importance of breakfast to nutrition and education, USDA has efforts underway to promote greater participation in the program. This measure reflects change over time in these efforts. USDA has targeted increases of roughly 2 to 3 percent annually in the proportion of all school children participating in the SBP.

Measure: Percent of calories from fat & saturated fat; percent of RDA for calories, vitamins & minerals.

Explanation:Measures of improvement of nutrient content of school breakfasts. Data for this measure is collected through analysis of a nationally-representative sample of school meals data collected roughly every five years.

Measure: Proportion of SFAs in compliance with school meals counting and claiming rules.

Explanation:The Department tracks the percentage of school food authorities (SFAs) that fully comply with program counting and claiming requirements as a measure of the program's operational integrity. Data for this measure is aggregated from the Coordinated Review Effort, a Federally-mandated program of State-level reviews of school food service operations.

Measure: Dollars lost to program error

Explanation:Data represents a national estimate for SBP erroneous payments developed through the Access, Participation, Eligibility and Certification study (FNS, 2007). 2006 data is based on the 2005-2006 school year. The study methodology derived separate estimates of erroneous payments from each source of error for SBP; interaction between sources of error can affect the actual erroneous payment that results from any single transaction in SBP. Therefore, the combined estimates provided below should be considered an upper bound of an overall estimate of payment error for SBP. Targets represent steady reductions in the rates of both certification-related and non-certification-related erroneous payments in SBP. However, dollar figures increase over time as a result of overall program growth.

Measure: SMI Reviews by State Agencies Targets represent an appropriate oversight/corrective action presence based on a 5-year cycle, rather than a desired increase.

Explanation:SMI Monitoring Reviews are oversight reviews in which State agencies examine the compliance of school meals with program nutrition standards, identify problems, and instruct local authorities to make improvements. They are the primary mechanism by which States assess local efforts to meet school meals nutrition standards, and target corrective action. This ongoing monitoring and corrective action complements the periodic nationwide evaluation of school meals nutrient content conducted by USDA through its School Nutrition Dietary Assessment (SNDA) studies. The targets are set at a level to ensure that every school food authority participating in the program is reviewed at least once every five years. While they represent maintenance of an appropriate level of oversight/corrective action presence, rather than an increase over time, they are nonetheless challenging and ambitious in light of limitations on available administrative resources and competing needs. The objective of these reviews and follow-up program corrective action over time is to yield improvement in the nutritional quality of school meals, as measured through SNDA.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: Goal - expand, extend, and strengthen the successful experience of the national school lunch program, safeguard the health and well being of the Nation's children, and encourage the domestic consumption of agricultural and other foods.

Evidence: Child Nutrition Act

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest or need?

Explanation: The program provides nutrient dense breakfasts to children, with a special emphasis on ensuring that breakfasts are available to low-income children

Evidence: Child Nutrition Act, School Meal Initiative, Team Nutrition

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: On a daily basis, more than 4 of every 10 children who receive a free or reduced price lunch at school also receive a free or reduced price breakfast. Approximately 83% of all SBP participants received free or reduced price meals

Evidence: The SBP is available in 72% of the schools which operate the NSLP; SBP schools account for almost 80% of total enrollment in all NSLP schools. In 2003, the program served an average of nearly 7.8 million meals each school day. (Source: FNS administrative data)

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The SBP is the sole mechanism for ensuring access to free or low cost, nutritious breakfasts to a significant percentage of low income children in public and private schools. The SBP sets national meal standards consistent with Dietary Guidelines for Americans, updates these standards as necessary to keep them consistent with the Guidelines over time, and ensures that meals meet basic nutritional requirements through program evaluation and monitoring. Additional reimbursement is provided for meals served to free and reduced price eligible students in schools which have a high percentage of low-income students.

Evidence: The SBP is available in 72% of the schools which operate the NSLP; many states require that the SBP be available in schools which serve a high percentage of low-income students. (Source: FNS administrative data) The Dietary Guidelines for Americans are revised and reissued every five years (Source: Center on Nutrition Policy and Promotion); SBP nutrition standards are reviewed and updated as necessary to ensure continued consistency. The special reimbursement rates available for schools which serve a high percentage of low income students is meant to cover the cost of producing a breakfast. Information on Meal Costs in the National School Lunch Program. RCED-94-32BR December 1, 1993.

Is the program effectively targeted, so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: The program is designed to provide access to nutritious breakfasts, in particular to low income children, with minimum barriers and administrative costs. The vast majority of SBP meals are served to children certified eligible for free or reduced price meals. Some data suggest that a significant percentage of the children certified for free school meals may not be eligible for this benefit; USDA is studying program and policy alternatives to deal with the issue of overcertification in the NSLP/SBP, and a study will soon be underway that will indicate the extent to which the free/reduced price certified children who participate in the SBP are in fact eligible for the meal benefits they receive.

Evidence: Child Nutrition Act; Evaluation of the National School Lunch Program Verification/Pilot Projects, Volumes I and II, Report No. CN-04-AV1; A study on school meals erroneous payments should yield SBP payment error rate information in FY 2007.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The USDA Strategic Plan includes a single strategic goal to improve the Nation's nutrition and health that subsumes FNS's goals. The Agency's Strategic Plan has two primary stategic goals for all FNS' nutrition assistance programs. However, there are specific performance targets for SBP under these goals. These include 1) rates of eligible populations participating in SBP; 2) nutritional quality of SBP meals; 3) accuracy of school meal (NSLP and SBP) counting and claiming; and 4) rate of school meals (NSLP and SBP) certification in excess of the estimated number of eligible children. The program also contributes to progress on two crosscutting measures: the prevalence of hunger among low-income households and the Healthy Eating Index (a measure of dietary quality) for low-income individuals and children.

Evidence: See USDA Strategic Plan for FY 2002-2007, Goal 4 (pp. 18-21) for measures related to FNS programs. See FNS Strategic Plan 2000-2005 for measures related to SBP participation rates (p. 10), SBP meal quality (p. 12), school meals counting and claiming (p. 15), and school meals certification accuracy (p. 15). Note that while the FNS strategic plan characterizes this measure in terms of NSLP, the certification process approves students for both programs; this same measure is characterized more clearly in the USDA plan (p. 21) as a school meals certification accuracy measure.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The program has established ambitious targets and timeframes for increasing SBP participation rates, and improving nutritional quality of meals, and is working on establishing baseline and target measures for reducing SBP payment error.

Evidence: See USDA Strategic Plan for FY 2002-2007, Goal 4 (pp. 18-21) for measures related to FNS programs. See FNS Strategic Plan 2000-2005 for measures related to SBP participation rates (p. 10), SBP meal quality (p. 12), school meals counting and claiming (p. 15), and school meals certification accuracy (p. 15).

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: FNS tracks a number of annual measures related to long-term goals, and has recently integrated some of these into its budget presentation: ' The rate of SBP participation among children enrolled in US schools (public and private) ' FY 2005 (budget) target is 18%. (FNS is considering an SBP "school coverage" rate as a supplemental measure.) ' State oversight of local efforts to meet school meals nutrition standards ' FY 2004 (Annual Performance Plan ' APP) target is 4,100 reviews. This measure may be discontinued in the FY 2005 USDA plan. FNS intends to incorporate this measure, or an improved annual nutrition standards measure, in future budgets. ' The rate of SFAs meeting counting and claiming standards ' FNS has worked against the FY 2005 goal of 90% compliance for the past several years, and intends to incorporate this as an annual measure in future budgets. ' School meals certification error ' FY 2004 (APP) target was 24%. However, this measure has methodological limitations; FNS intends to develop an improved measure for use in future budgets.

Evidence: On SBP participation rate, see FNS FY 2005 Explanatory Notes, p. 26g-19. On State monitoring of local efforts to ensure that school meals meet nutrition standards, see USDA FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan, p. 42. Counting and claiming requirements reporting is part of internal Agency records of CRE reviews. On annual measure of school meals certification accuracy, see USDA FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan, p. 45, and FNS FY 2005 Explanatory Notes, p. 26g-19. See also USDA Performance and Accountability Report, p. 123, on the measure's limitations. Yes score is contingent on FNS incorporating the information in the FY 2003 budget. Please amend the text to indicate this.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: The program has established baselines for each annual measure and has set ambitious targets for each: ' SBP participation rate: Most current data (FY 2003) -- 15.5%; FY 2005 (budget) target -- 18%. ' State oversight of local efforts to meet school meals nutrition standards: Most current data (FY 2003) ' 4,113 reviews; FY 2004 (Annual Performance Plan ' APP) target -- 4,100 reviews. (Targets are set to maintain an appropriate oversight/corrective action presence, rather than incremental increase.) ' The rate of SFAs meeting counting and claiming standards: Most recent data (FY 2001) -- 86.6%; FY 2005 (strategic plan) target -- 90%. ' School meals certification error: Most recent data (FY 1999) -- 27%; FY 2004 (APP) target -- 24%. However, new measurement methodology is under development; these figures are no longer used.

Evidence: On SBP participation rate, see FNS FY 2005 Explanatory Notes, p. 26g-19. On State monitoring of local efforts to ensure that school meals meet nutrition standards, see USDA FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan, p. 42. Counting and claiming requirements reporting is part of internal Agency records of CRE reviews. On annual measure of school meals certification accuracy, see USDA FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan, p. 45, and FNS FY 2005 Explanatory Notes, p. 26g-19. See also USDA Performance and Accountability Report, p. 123, on the measure's limitations.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: Program leadership and staff continually communicate program goals to State agencies, which are held accountable for goals through required reviews and program information reports as a condition of operating the program. This data is used to assess progress in meeting program targets: ' SBP participation rates are based on State and local reports to FNS on program participation. ' School Meals Initiative Monitoring Reviews are conducted by States to ensure oversight of local efforts to meet school meals nutrition standards. FNS is exploring options to make use of review results to further improve accountability. ' SFA counting and claiming accuracy is assessed through the Coordinated Review Effort (CRE); corrective action is required for identified deficiencies. ' School meals certification error has been estimated nationally by comparing national survey data and State-reported administrative data. New program rules require SFAs to provide results of verification activities to FNS, and take corrective action to resolve certification problems.

Evidence: NSLP/SBP Program Regulations (see especially 7 CFR 210.19; 7 CFR 220.13)

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: National studies examining the nutritional quality of SBP meals are conducted about every five years by independent contractors. CRE reviews are conducted on a regular 5 year cycle; reviews are comprehensive and corrective action is required for deficiences identified in the reviews. A recent Economic Research service (ERS) study suggests benefical effects of the SBP: children with access to the SBP consume a better overall diet, obtain a lower proportion of calories from fat; are less likely to have low intakes of magnesium and low serum levels of vitamin C and folate.

Evidence: School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study (SNDA) I, collected data from schools during SY 1991-92. SNDA-II, collected data during SY 1998-99. SNDA-III is scheduled to collect data in SY 2004/05. A study examining erroneous payments will be awarded to an outside contractor in 2004 with data collection to occur in SY 2005/06. Results of FNS-sponsored research and evaluations are posted at www.fns.usda.gov/oane. Evaluating the Impact of School Nutrition Programs: Final Report, ERS, July 2004, available at: www.ers.usda.gov/publications

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: FNS' budget request for the program displays resources in alignment with long-term strategic goals, fully accounts for all resources by displaying administrative and overhead expenses allocated to program accounts, and links justification of budget requests and legislative initiatives to the strategic goals. However, budget does not in all cases isolate the cost of efforts to improve performance (as opposed to costs that could support or result from improved performance).

Evidence: FNS FY 2004 and 2005 budget submissions to OMB.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: FNS is working to develop a number of improved performance measures to support its long-term and annual goals, including: ' An SBP 'schools coverage' measure to complement if SBP participation rate measure ' An annual indicator of progress in improving school meals nutritional quality ' Annual targets for the rate of SFAs meeting counting and claiming standards ' A comprehensive analysis and measurement of erroneous payments in the school meals programs. We intend to incorporate these into appropriate budget and planning documents as they are available. More broadly, FNS has a flexible agency-wide annual planning process that identifies and adopts goals and actions for improvement as necessary, based on strategic objectives and targets. It has also sought adequate resources to conduct studies to fill key information gaps.

Evidence: PART review document (especially Q. 2.3); COMPASS planning system (internal to FNS); FNS FY 2004 and 2005 budget submissions to OMB.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: FNS collects key program data from States on a regular basis. These data are used, in part, to assess program performance. FNS also uses information from periodic management reviews of State activities to assess operations and improve performance. SFA operation of the NSLP is reviewed on a five year cycle in accordance with uniform standards and procedures established by the agency (Coordinated Review Effort). SBP operational procedures are the same as those of the NSLP. SFAs which are found to be in violation of program requirements may have a second review, which includes a review of SBP operations. About 5-7% of all reviewed SFAs receive a second review. States report on the results of NSLP reviews, but the report does not include separate data on the results of the SBP reviews.

Evidence: CRE Guidance; 7 CFR 218 (CRE regulations); Keydata Report; Management Evaluation Guidance

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: All FNS managers (GS-14 and above), including those responsible for the SBP, are now required to have their performance plans aligned with USDA strategic goals and FNS priorities. Agency work responsibilities related to annual and long-term program goals, emerging problems, and other factors are identified and planned prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. Performance plans explicitly tie managers' responsibilities to accomplishmnore of this designed priority work, and related strategic and annual goals. State agencies and program operators are reviewed through Management Evaluations (SAs) and the Coordinated Review Effort (SFAs). Identified program deficiencies must be addressed through corrective action and payments may be withheld if deficiencies are not corrected.

Evidence: Memoradum to Subcabinet and Agency Heads from USDA Deputy Secretary on President's Management Agenda and Performance Standads of GS-14s and 15s; Attestation of Under Secretary Bost to compliance with requirements; COMPASS planning system; Child Nutrition Management Evaluation Guidance; 7 CFR 218 (CRE regulations); CRE Guidance

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: Funds are obligated consistently with the overall program plan. School Breakfast funds are obligated appropriately and consistently for their intended purpose and within a timely manner and appropriate schedule. FMFIA reports from 2001 through 2003 and the A-133 Single-Audits have not identified any program-related deficiencies. FNS also uses information from periodic Management Evaluations to confirm that funds are being spent for their intended purposes. However, extant information indicates that some children certified for free and reduced price school meal benefits; this represents a risk of erroneous payments, though FNS does not have specific information on the level of erroneous payments that result from identified certification problems. (A study is underway to determine the level of erroneous payments in the SBP.)

Evidence: Child Nutrition Act; Evaluation of the National School Lunch Program Verification/Pilot Projects, Volumes I and II, Report No. CN-04-AV1; Federal Managers' Financial Management Integrity Act (FMFMIA) Report: Fiscal Year 2001-2003.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: ' SBP regulations require the use of competitive procurement procedures in acquiring foods and other program resources. ' Cost efficiency and effective operation of by local SBP partners is assessed through the single audit process; identified deficiencies must be corrected. ' Reconcilations of program revenues and expenses are conducted annually. These reconciliations provide the means for ensuring effective utilization of program resources and for the identification of fiscal irregularities, which must be corrected. ' The ever increasing use of automated technology, including computer aggregation of data and automated edit checks has helped to improve the accuracy of reimbursement claims and program reports substantially. ' FNS has undergone an extensive input process with stakeholders, including State agencies and local program operators, to discuss potential opportunities to simplify program operations and improve effectiveness through Child Nutrition reauthorization. FNS also provides training and technical assistance to address program inefficiencies and improve effectiveness.

Evidence: SBP regulations, FNS administrative records.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The School Breakfast Program, the National School Lunch Program, and the Child and Adult Care Food Program all provide nutritious meals to children in school and/or child care settings, and so are designed to operate effectively through these institutions without compromising their core missions. These nutrition programs also coordinate and collaborate with each other in order to achieve shared program goals. State Child Nutrition directors generally oversee all three programs, making efficient use of staff for program oversight. A single grantee may administer all three programs. Household definitions and elgibility guidelines are align across all three programs, and a single application can be used to approve children for multiple programs.

Evidence: Child Nutrition Act; program regulatuions. The programs use common eligibility guidelines and reimbursement rates. Procedures are harmonized to reduce grantee administrative burden.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The Agency maintains a series of strong financial measures built on Federal directives and consistent with statutory requirements to ensure sound financial management within SBP. FNS and State financial management systems provide accurate, current and complete disclosure of the financial status of the program. FNS has consistently received clean audit opinions over the last five years. However, extant information indicates that some children certified for free and reduced price school meal benefits; this represents a risk of erroneous payments, though FNS does not have specific information on the level of erroneous payments that result from identified certification problems. (A study is underway to determine the level of erroneous payments in the SBP.) In the meantime, USDA has undertaken a number of actions, including legislative recommendations and regulatory changes, to address the problem of certification accuracy.

Evidence: The Agency received an unqualified opinion from 1998 through 2000 in its financial statements audit. The Agency has had no reportable conditions in the Department's consolidated financial statements audit in 2001 and 2003.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: A study is underway to determine the level of erroneous payments in the SBP. In the meantime, USDA has undertaken a number of actions, including to address the problem of certification accuracy. These include: 1) pilot programs in over 20 SFAs to test alternative approaches to certification and verification to determine if they would improve certification accuracy: 2) legislative recommendations to require direct certification of FSP/TANF participants, and to increase review and verification of certifications; and 3) regulatory changes to require reporting on the results of certification verification, and to take corrective action on identified problems.

Evidence: Child Nutrition Act; Evaluation of the National School Lunch Program Verification/Pilot Projects, Volumes I and II, Report No. CN-04-AV1; Testimony of Under Secretary Bost, July 16, 2003; new regulations on verification report at 68 Federal Register 53483'53490

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: Procedures are in place to assess Grantee (State Agency) activities annually or biennially in conjunction with the NSLP through a structured Management Evaluation process. Sub-grantees (SFAs) are reviewed for operations of the NSLP/SBP on a five year rotation using agency established procedures; between 5 and 7 percent of reviewed SFAs have identified program deficiencies and receive a second review, which includes the operation of the SBP. However, due to lack of Agency resources, these oversight practices don't align with established procedures.

Evidence: Child Nutrition Management Evaluation Guidance; 7 CFR 218 (CRE regulations); CRE Guidance

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: FNS collects a wide range of performance data from States and routinely publishes that data on the FNS web site. While some of the data is published on an annual basis, a wide variety of information is updated more frequently. Beginning in SY 2004-2005, the agency will collect additional data on certification and verification in the NSLP; the NSLP certification process also determines eligibility in the SBP. The agency collects annual performance data for NSLP CRE reviews, but the report does not include data on the results of SBP reviews in SFAs receiving second reviews. Results of SMI reviews examining the nutritional status of SBP meals are not reported.

Evidence: 7 CFR 245 Determining Eligibility for Free and Reduced Price School Meals and Free Milk in Schools - Verification Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements (Final Rule, Sept. 11, 2003); Program Informaiton Report (Keydata); National Data Bank; FNS Web Site for Child Nutrition Programs.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The Agency has made some progress in reducing hunger and improving diet quality since baselines were identified in 2000, and SBP contributes to this progress. The program itself is moving forward on long-term goals for improving access to the program and meal quality. Since FY 1990, program availability has risen from roughly 43,000 institutions with an enrollment of 20.8 million to over 78,000 instiutions with an enrollment of 39.3 million in FY 2003. The program is now available to 80.2 percent of students enrolled in the lunch program, as compared to 50 percent in FY 1990. Participation rates reached 15.5% in SY 2002-03, up from 13% in SY1995-96. Since the implementation of the School Meals Initiative for Healthy Children, the nutritional composition of breakfasts offered has improved, meeting program standards, with the exception of total calories.

Evidence: School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study I & II; CRE Data Report; SBP administrative data

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The program has made progress on program participation rates, exceeded its target on reviews of nutrition quality by State Agencies, and has shown some improvement in the portion of SFAs operating with effective school meals counting and claiming procedures.

Evidence: Program Information Report (KEYDATA)

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: The program has achieved substantial improvement in meal quality without changes in program reimbursement rates. However, the risk of erroneous payments in SBP remains a serious problem, potentially undermining the program's cost effectiveness.

Evidence: School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study I & II; SBP administrative data; Analysis of CPS and SIPP data

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: While a smaller proportion of low-income children are served by SBP than by NSLP, most of the SBP meals are effectively targeted to low-income children. Breakfasts served in schools are nutritionally balanced. Participation in SBP provides positive nutritional impacts over 24 hours (not just at breakfast time).

Evidence: Children's Diets in the Mid 1990's: Dietary Intake and Its Relationship with School Meal Participation - January 2001; SBP Administrative Data

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: CSFII data indicate that SBP participation is associated with higher intakes of food energy, calcium, phosphorus, and vitamin C , both at breakfast and over 24 hours. SBP participants are more likely than non-participants to consume fruits and milk. The School Meals Initiative for Healthy Children, has reduced the fat and saturated fat content of school meals without compromising the overall nutrient content. Breakfasts offered in SY 1998-99 met SBP standards for total fat and saturated fat while breakfasts in SY 1991-92 did not (SNDA-II). The SBP Pilot Project found that during SY 2000-2001, school breakfasts met program standards for key vitamins and minerals, and the dietary guidelines for fat and saturated fat. NHANES III data show that children with access to the SBP consume a better overall diet, a lower proportion of calories from fat, and are less likely to have low magnesium intake and low serum levels of vitamin C and folate.

Evidence: Children's Diets in the Mid 1990's: Dietary Intake and Its Relationship with School Meal Participation - January 2001; School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study-II - April 2001; Evaluation of the School Breakfast Program Pilot Project: Findings from the First Year of Implementation - October 2002 (FNS); Evaluating the Impact of School Nutrition Programs: Final Report -- ERS). FNS has an active research program to assess the effectiveness of program operations. Results of FNS-sponsored research and evaluations are posted at www.fns.usda.gov/oane. ERA reports are avaiable at: www.ers.usda.gov/publications.